The [i]LEAVING WINDOWS[/i] Project

.
[b][i]"...The deactivation isn't intentional, there was a bug in the initial release of Vista that caused some users to have to re-activate their previously activated installation of Vista..."[/i][/b]

It does not change anything for me if it was a bug or not. There is still logic in the operating system that deactivates itself based on hardware and software changes (proofs follow). In Ed Bott's case (4), he merely installed a game. When he ran the game, Vista immediately de-activated and gave him 3 days to re-activate or "Windows would stop working".

Even if this bug is really fixed now, how do we know there are not other bugs? How do we know there will not be new bugs introduced later? I guarantee there will be others.

Furthermore, step back and think about this for a moment. The purpose of WGA is to stop pirates from stealing Windows. The XP version was unsufficient and pirates got around it. So, the Vista version is more aggressive. In order for this to be effective, there must be triggers all over the place inside the millions of lines of Vista code. If there were not, the pirates could easily find the code that checks for WGA violations and simply remove it. With lots and lots of triggers for the "bomb", how can it be trusted to be safe?

I say it cannot be trusted to be safe. And, the 972,000 Google hits supports that (2). Microsoft even has a special forum just for this in Vista (7) and in Windows XP (9).

[b]The Microsoft Knowledge Base article[/b]

I was aware of the Microsoft Knowledge Base article you referenced (1). The article says certain software events can trigger a demand for immediate activation when "activation was not previously required". That is not very clear language. Presumably this means after install but before you choose to activate for the first time (the 30-day grace period).

If WGA is 100% bug-free, and this statement is 100% correct, and I've correctly interpreted the odd language, then this is limited to before you activate for the first time. The bottom line though is that there is SOMETHING in Vista's WGA that reacts to software events. I don't trust that it is 100% bug-free (Ed Bott's case).

Quoting from the KB article:

[i]"...You may be prompted to activate Windows Vista on a computer on which Windows Vista activation was not previously required. Although this problem rarely occurs, [u]it may occur during typical use of a Windows Vista-based computer[/u]. For example, this problem may occur under one or more of the following conditions: (1) [u]You install a device driver[/u]. (2) [u]You install a program[/u]. (3) [u]You run a new program[/u]. (4) [u]You remove a program[/u]..."[/i]

Vista's WGA is reacting to software changes you make. Software changes can trigger a demand for activation.

[b]A lot of people are having problems with Vista WGA[/b]

Vista's WGA hasn't given you any problems. It did not give me any problems during the Vista beta either. But, a lot of people are having problems with Vista's more aggressive WGA (2), and with Windows XP's WGA (3).

[b][i]"...I can't find anything about Microsoft intentionally putting code in Vista that monitors what software and hardware you have installed, and if doesn't like something, it deactivates itself..."[/i][/b]

From (6):

[i]"...Windows Vista may enter reduced functionality mode if one of the following conditions is true: ... You modify the computer hardware so that Windows Vista determines that it is running on a different computer..."[/i]

In Ed Bott's case (4), he merely installed and ran a game and received the message [i]"...Activate Windows now. Windows was deactivated due to a hardware change. You must activate Windows within 3 days or Windows will stop working. Click to start activation..."[/i]

In this KB article (5), it says that de-activation can occur when

[i]"...A program that is incompatible with Windows Vista is installed on the computer. For example, one of the following programs is installed on the computer: (1) A computer game that uses "nProtect GameGuard" protection from INCA Internet Co., LTD. (2) TuneUp Utilities..."[/i]

That is two examples too many for me.

Conclusion: There is code inside Vista that is affected by software you install or run that can trigger de-activation. It is not clear what "incompatible with Windows Vista" means.

[b]Vista's activation has been cracked[/b]

According to this article (8), Vista's activation scheme has been cracked. This means pirates can get a valid activation code that belongs to, or will belong to, someone else. When the pirate activates it, the real customer will later be denied.

Hopefully Microsoft will believe you are the legitimate customer and the already registered guy is really the pirate. Will they?

[b]In closing[/b]

I think it is fine if you or anyone else wants to run Vista even given this WGA nonsense. It's not "stupid" to choose to run Vista in spite of this. You just have to sign up for the potential of hassles and wasted time including capricious de-activation, re-activation via the Internet (if it lets you), or re-activation by phone (if they let you). There is no guarantee this nonsense will happen to you only when you are not using your computer for something really important. Will it happen to your laptop when you are traveling on business and without easy access to the Internet?

I like Vista. I would like to run Vista. But, the mere presence of aggressive de-activation code inside Vista is unacceptable to me. I'm going to switch to another operating system that doesn't do that.

-----------------------

(1) Microsoft KB - You may be prompted to activate Windows Vista on a computer on which Windows Vista was already activated by a Volume License or OEM installation
http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=931573

(2) 972,000 Google hits on 4 words: windows vista wga problem
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=windows+vista+wga+problem&btnG=Search

(3) 1,060,000 Google hits on 4 words: windows xp wga problem
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=windows+xp+wga+problem&btnG=Google+Search

(4) Ed Bott's message reports hardware change triggered de-activation
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=221

(5) Microsoft KB - Error message when you use Windows Vista: "An unauthorized change was made to your license"
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx/kb/931699/en-us

(6) Microsoft KB - The behavior of reduced functionality mode in Windows Vista
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/925582

(7) Microsoft's Windows Vista Validation Issues Forum
http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=1004&SiteID=25

(8) Vista activation cracked
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/networking/?p=218

(9) Microsoft's Windows XP Validation Issues Forum
http://forums.microsoft.com/Genuine/ShowForum.aspx?ForumID=442&SiteID=25

.
[b][i]"...Either way, you've got 30 days to give MS a call and clear it up..."[/i][/b]

If it works as they say, yes. It didn't work that way for Ed Bott.

I think of it this way:

Vista ships with a bomb in it. Microsoft says the bomb is only supposed to go off when Vista is stolen. But, Microsoft acknowledges the timer on the bomb can start sometimes even when Vista has not been stolen. Microsoft says you've always got 30 days to defuse the bomb so you don't need to worry about it.

I don't trust that it will always be 30 days. Proof: Ed Bott. I don't trust that it will always be at least 3 days. I don't trust it. I won't use it on my primary computer (maybe a secondary one I don't care that much about). I am going to use an operating system that I will never ever have this problem with, not even once.

[b][i]"...One more thing, I love when people say MS is greedy, as if Macintosh is non profit or something, or not out to make any money..."[/i][/b]

I don't care about how much money Microsoft makes, you understand. They sold $44 BILLION in software last year and cleared $18 BILLION in profit. That doesn't sound like a very serious piracy problem to me. I think it must take incredible greed to want more than that so badly that they must put legitimate customers through this WGA activation and re-activation nonsense in an attempt to get it. That is the only reason I mentioned greed and profits.

Of course Apple wants and makes big profits. But, Apple did not choose to hurt their customers like Microsoft has. That's the difference.

This sounds like a great plan but I wanted to let you know about my recent experiences with the Apple iMac (the new one that uses the Intel Duo Core 2 processor).

It seems the software that translates the old PowerPC instruction set to the Intel doesn't work like it is supposed to. Let me explain why I think that is.

First of all, let me say upfront that I am a PC user (Zeos, then Micron, now Dell). I would love to move everything to an Apple PowerPC and I do NOT plan to buy Vista. I love the Apple design and admire the loyalty Apple users have towards Apple Computer, Inc.

About two months ago my father, aged 81, purchased a new Apple iMac (17" screen) to replace his old iMac that got fried from a lightning strike. He asked me to help him move his Quicken back up files to his new machine.

I got him a SanDisk USB memory stick and we transferred the export files from the old machine (still workable, only the Ethernet card was "fried"). When we attempted to import these files into the new iMac it would not work. The Apple could not "see" these files on the USB stick or any other file. Not only wouldn't it work, it would not boot properly. It seems that it found another wireless router in the building (he lives in a multi-family condominium), and wanted to know what name he should associate with this connection. :-(

After turning off the built-in Apple Airport and connecting to his DSL connection via Ethernet (about 2 days later), we were back to the task of getting his backed up Quicken files to his new Quicken software installed on his new iMac. Well, it still didn't work. We wasted about two weeks trying all kinds of things the Apple "Genius bar" suggested and trying various things Quicken technical support told us to do. None of these things worked.

Six months later Quicken still does not work on his new iMac. He has the old iMac to play games on and uses the new one to connect to the Internet and send/receive emails.

So, I no longer want an Apple. My "experience" was not a happy one. They are not "intuitive" and they do not "simply work". I may change my mind in the future but not now.

My home network has been a Micro$oft free zone since early last year. I haven't looked back! It's great, no sxcambling to get enough hardware to run Vista, no licencing issues, no Malware and Spyware problems. Everything just works!
My advise to anyone thinking of doing it.. Go for it! Linux or Mac, just do it!

.
I blame Microsoft for putting the "bomb" in there in the first place.

The software that triggers the "bomb" is not to blame.

Users that use Windows and trigger the "bomb" are not to blame.

If there were no "bomb", there would be no problem at all.

[b][i]"...Do some research and see exactly what caused their WGA issues. This issue is so over blown. And real research, not hearsay and rumors..."[/i][/b]

The results of my research are plain to see. I've listed lots of information supporting my view of this WGA nonsense.

Where is your research?

The security of Kubuntu is as good as the security of any other distro - if used correctly. In fact - it is more difficult to 'mess up' because the root is locked down by default. I think your warning came from an expert who didn't like to see anything unfamiliar - and never looked further!

Try a live CD - or ask - it is based on Debian, owner of pretty good reputation...

I wish I'd phrased things a little differently. It's still clear to me though -- as it was in the beginning -- that even if jck didn't mean ill, he didn't think through what he was doing enough to consider that he was blowing off an entire discussion. At best, he's guilty of negligence. I don't think he meant to hurt anything, but it's possible to cause harm or problems without meaning to when you aren't careful to pay attention to what's already in progress.

My error is in harsh phrasing. His is at least in willful ignorance.

(edit: . . . and if he'd ever admitted that he made more of an error than omitting a word or two -- that the entire approach was problematic -- I wouldn't be saying this now. I'm more than willing to say I should have phrased things differently, but his error was clearly more than one of phrasing.)

"[i]If the time ever does come that I have to deal with re-activating my installation, it'll be ant hills compared to the aggravation I'd end up going through for years to come with software compatibility issues if I were to move to Linux.[/i]"
Funny . . . a lot of us don't have that problem at all with Linux.

"[i]I'm totally willing to live with the few inconveniences I run into with Windows, to have the convenience of being able to run whatever software I want, and not have to check the box for OS compatibility.[/i]"
That's easy to say, if you constrain your preferences in software to "what works on my OS". It's not so easy if you're talking about all software.

Perhaps you're just not aware that there are [b]thousands[/b] of applications that run on Linux (or even on MacOS X) and not on Windows. One wonders whether you've heard of something like Camino (a web browser for MacOS X that doesn't run on Windows), or iptables (a stateful firewall system for network packet inspection security, only on Linux), or any of several excellent dependency-managing port and package management systems available to a wide range of operating systems that [b]are not MS Windows[/b] -- but would definitely make it a much more stable and convenient OS.

I'm always amused when some MS Windows-phile crows about the ease of going to the store, buying packaged software, coming home, and installing it, or buying it online and waiting for it to arrive three weeks later by mail before installing it. I'm amused because, in contrast, users of Linux- and BSD-based OSes think nothing of installing a critical productivity-enhancing software by typing something like "apt-get install program" at the command line, waiting forty-five seconds or so, then using it. Period.

Yeah, it must be [url=http://sob.apotheon.org/?p=212]much more difficult to install software on Linux[/url].

"[i]I know you're not trying to convince people to get rid of Windows, I just think in every conversation there should two sides.[/i]"
It would be nice if your side used a valid argument. There are a few, but I don't feel any particular need to feed them to you -- especially since the purpose of this thread isn't to discuss whether people [b]should[/b] leave MS Windows, but to discuss how to help people that [b]already are[/b] leaving MS Windows.

I've come to expect these types of replies from you too.

More than poking fun at him, I was correcting him.

He made some statements that were flat out false.

First off, yes most people would be happier with a new $500 PC than some old, clunky 4 year model. Just like a car, at some point, just maintaining and updating a 4 year old PC becomes more expensive than replacing it.

Second, like I said earlier, I just rebuilt my PC. Added a new hard drive, swapped out the audio card and repartitioned everything. Funny, WGA didn't say anything.

Third, securing Windows is alot easier than most think. The vast majority of Windows vulnerabilities nowadays can be avoided with just some common, everyday basic sense.

Hell, I had a Windows 98 laptop I ran for at least 4 years virus free.

You can stretch the facts as much as you want but the bottom line is it isn't hard to secure Windows...it is hard to secure the end user (which is a problem with Linux too).

For someone who expressed to me that you wanted me to stop making ill references toward you...you have a funny way of perpetuating that more amiable level of interfacing.

As I explained to you in the email (and I will now explain to the people in this discussion since my explanation to you was evidently not enough), I have been buried in work and family issues of late. I didn't have time to read every one of the dozens of posts in this thread or any other thread since I've hardly had time to come on and read anything on TR at all. I work on half-a-dozen projects at once and quite often have 2-3 sessions of Visual Studio .NET 2003 running at one time.

I'm sorry I didn't sit and read the whole thread through before I did anything. I'm sorry I only have about 15-30 minutes once per month or two to come in and look around. In fact, I've been neglecting my work to come here and make sure I get the URL sold at cost so I don't lose my money and you all get your URL, and respond to posts on this topic.

If anything, I simply made the mistake of noticing that none of [b]YOU[/b] had taken the step of securing the website name that you all were considering using and got it. I spent my own money trying to help. I'm sure you all would have been fine with it though if some moron had secured it and tried to sell it to you for $25, instead of me who asked for nothing.

I'm sorry I tried to help you.

So I didn't clearly state what I meant. Wow...like no one else has ever done that on TR. Thanks for choosing me to snap at.

So I didn't read the whole thread.
Wow...sorry I don't have time to read all the posts I don't have time to read daily. Sorry I don't have the free time that you expect me to have before I can choose to participate in some limited fashion.

Fact is, I never...[b]never[/b] said...implied...expressed motive...or gave you any reason to believe my purpose was to take over this thread, concept, or ideal.

If anyone wants to buy the URL "www.theleavingwindowsproject.com" from me, I will consider selling it to you at my cost. Contact me via peer mail. I do reserve the right of refusal to sell it to anyone I so deem not eligible or worthy, with or without reason.

Otherwise, I am done here. I have to get back to optimizing code and re-writing an INFORMIX driver for Windows and modifying a Crystal Reports report generation tool I wrote, plus having a schedule meeting with my boss.

That pays the bills...trying to help you all doesn't.

Have a nice day

.
You make an excellent point. In order to fully protect your computer from a lightning strike, you must protect it from all wires that enter the building and connect to your computer. That includes AC, cable/satellite coaxial cable, and telephone (for DSL and analog modem).

The one I use does that (1). Great point! I'm glad you pointed this out.

--------------------------

(1) Tripp-lite SmartPro Digital UPS SMART1000LCD
You can find this model discounted at about $100.
http://www.tripplite.com/products/product.cfm?productID=3071

We are a world leading space research organisation.

We use desktop linux extensively along with windows desktops. While there have been a few users (less than 1%) who don't like Linux and insist on running Windows, there is a steady migration of research groups from Windows to Linux - because Linux "Just Works" if done properly.

"No Viruses"
"Less downtime"
"greater mobility"
"higher speeds"

There is still some software which is windows-only - we have one win2k server for this and linux users use rdesktop to get access to it. It gets used about 2-3 times/month.

Supporting windows users (10% of the desktops) accounts for 90% of our time...

Not everyone will abandon Windows altogether. Those with feet in both camps should also be included in the audience of these discussions and the web site under consideration.

I've converted my family to FF, T-Bird, and OpenOffice. However, the kids run various games and edutainment titles which will require WINE (or similar) at the least and likely dual booting or a virtual machine approach, so I don't think I can get them off Windows altogether.

I've tried coLinux, but I haven't gotten it to start correctly on my system. I've used CygWin, but it's painful. A live CD won't work nicely since you can't save state on the host and it's a pain to boot from a CD all of the time anyway. I could run Xming or some other X server on the Windows machines to connect to a remote Linux server. That even permits a full screen window with a Linux desktop like KDE or Gnome, but the clients would still be running Windows all of the time.

To dual boot, I'd need to repartition disks on each machine. Obviously, there are Windows apps for that, but I wonder whether there is a good tool that could be run from a live CD or some other means to repartition a hard disk with Windows already installed.

Dual booting will work, but it is a hassle to need to stop what one is doing, reboot into the other OS, and then reverse the process however often needed. Using virtual machine technology seems like a nice way to go as it allows both OSes to coexist simultaneously on the system (what coLinux promises, too). If that's viable, would it be better to use xen or something else on a Linux box to host Windows or to use VMWare or similar to host Linux from Windows?

I get a daily dose of information from newsforge.com (agregating linux.com, it managers journal and a few others). You may find it worth checking in on with your daily news.

There are a number of "switching to Linux" articles including one on the gitar string company. I particularily like the part where they had a huge jump in productivity because workstations with no need to browse the internet didn't have an internet browser installed.

With full access sudo, you only need one password to own the system.

Without full access sudo, you can ensure that remote login as root is disabled, thus forcing anyone cracking the system to bypass two passwords to own the system -- the primary user password, and the root password when using su to gain root access.

That means sudo loses. So sorry.

edit: In fact, all Ubuntu has done is [i]effectively[/i] change the name of the root account, and encourage people to use the new administrative account as the primary user account. What's the point? You can change the name of the root account directly, if that's what you want to do. The sudo "solution" employed by Ubuntu default installs doesn't do anything useful.

"[i]I'm sorry I didn't sit and read the whole thread through before I did anything. I'm sorry I only have about 15-30 minutes once per month or two to come in and look around.[/i]"
You apparently had enough time to start reading the idea I floated of creating a website, and maybe some of the ensuing discussion, and to decide to start creating a website -- but not enough time to respond in that subthread rather than starting your own, or to find out what other people had in mind for creating a website. Your protestation is pretty thin.

"[i]I'm sorry I tried to help you.[/i]"
You demonstrate a continued lack of understanding of what happened. If you had apologized for negligence and leaping before looking, rather than sarcastically apologizing for your great magnanimity, I'm sure this little debate never would have happened. In fact, it's really the sarcasm more than anything else that pisses me off in this case.

"[i]So I didn't read the whole thread.[/i]"
Read enough to understand what's going on, or don't throw wrenches into the works thinking that we must need more tools.

There's no way in hell I'm going to just stand here and let you paint me as some kind of evil ogre without saying something about it, just because I pointed out that you were inconsiderate in your approach to "helping".

Note that term: inconsiderate. I'm not, and have never been, saying that you set out to destroy anything or take over anything -- I may not have ruled it out entirely, but I never said that's what you were doing. You were just being inconsiderate. At first, it was only a little inconsiderate -- you didn't bother to [b]consider[/b] whether running off on your own, overenthusiastically, might actually create difficulties. Then, you justified, excused, and generally played the victim when I tried to point out where you'd gone off the rails a little, with zero consideration for the fact that maybe you should think more before just [b]doing sh*t[/b] in an attempt to build a community project.

I'm sorry you spent your money. I guess that's fitting payment for the error of leaping before looking. Maybe someone who still has a stake in making this happen, who meets your exacting standards of worthiness, will offer to buy the domain name off you.

You're assuming I read anything about you starting anything dealing with the web.

If you'd take the time to notice...the thread I'm in...is a sub-thread I started...not yours dealing with starting a site...but a direct sublet of the original post by TechExec. So, you assumed wrong about me reading about you or anyone else starting a site at the time I registered the URL.

You assume I'd have been "throwing wrenches" into the plan. Thanks for your faith in me being a decent guy or any kind of technical addition to the effort. Guess I have to work at Wiki before you respect me, eh?

You assume I was going to do it on my own. All I said was I was gonna setup a site. I never said I was not accepting input from others.

As I said...someone can buy the site from me for cost. I'm not out to make a buck or corrupt this project.

I tried to be proactive and acquire the site name to keep it from being bought up, whether you believe it was for positive intentions or not.

I tried to do what I could and got sarcastically snapped at by you for the effort in an assumption by you that I was trying to take over...which...no matter what you want to say about me or assume...was totally [b]wrong[/b].

How inconsiderate was I? I spent my own money. I took the time to see if the name was free. I took the time to register it. I took the time to tell you [b]IN PUBLIC[/b] that I had acquired it. Hell...if I'd have been a sneak and out to control it, I'd have hid behind the anonymous registration and got one of you to pay me for it.

So again..can you answer?

How much of an ass am I again, when you started with the smart-ass comment when I told everyone I registered the name??

How was I trying to be sneaky when I publically informed all of you??

How was I trying to take over when I made no statement saying I was doing so?

You can talk about me being inconsiderate not having read all your posts and made sure I was not bowing to your requirements to contribute.

But if you want to talk about inconsiderate or rude behaviour, you've done nothing but assume from the outset I was trying to take things over, control who contributed, and what not. And, you have [b]NEVER[/b] apologized for any assumption of my character as a person that you have made.

Again...I'm done with it. I'll be working with the one person who's interfaced with me from TR to help me with my issues, and I will continue to help those I can through other avenues such as other discussion forums.

You might think whatever is a rude reply, but I tried to explain to you what I'd done and what my motives were...and all you've done is insisted that I'm the one who started this whole argument...when you were, in fact, the one who started the rude, snapping comments.

TechExec really made the start to this whole thing...and, he didn't say anything like what you did. I appreciate his not assuming I was trying to take this over.

As for you, apotheon, I really don't care what you think. You can try and give this thing direction and guide it how you will.
Whether you think much of me or not (as a person or a technical individual), you have lost a possible resource in alienating me with your comments.

So I didn't read all the posts.

So I didn't go and get everyone's permission to register the site name.

So I didn't ask your permission to contribute.

Big deal. It meant nothing to anyone but you. No one else snapped at me for it. So, I guess that makes you in the minority.

Again. I'm done with it. I'm leaving the office now and going home to a beer and calling my girlfriend to see how she's doing while visiting her sister in NC.

Have a nice day.

jck's continuous protestations of innocence, humility, and victimization are astounding considering how little time jck claims to not have for reading TR, much less this forum.

apotheon directly, plainly, and clearly apologized for overreacting in the initial response to jck's website post. jck won't accept that apology but continues to rant.

apotheon, please don't respond anymore; you have amply justified yourself and made your apologies.

jck, please spend your precious, limited time elsewhere so we can move on here.

Their server products run as Linux-based operating systems with the client OSs running under it.

However, they have a free "Player" product that runs as an application for either Windows or Linux. You can download pre-built virtual machines that can be run with the Player app. They have lots more pre-built Linux virtual machines, in a variety of distributions, than pre-built virtual Windows machines.

Go to VMware's web site, look for the Products tab, then scroll down until you see the "Free" section. Check out the Player link. It includes a link to four pages of downloadable pre-built virtual machines.

They actually have another product that runs as an app under a previously installed OS. Designed for testing and labs, it isn't free, but it does include a lot of vm management features you won't need to test Linux at home.

I tried to even explain to him in a peer mail reply that it wasn't done with any ill motive.

He still tried to lay blame on starting it to me. He wasn't willing to assume I was trying to help. He just assumed I was trying to hurt. He assumed wrong.

I'd also like to correct you:

2 replies by apotheon posted after I said I'd registered the name:
#1 -
[i]"Maybe we should just sit back and watch you do it, then, and not contribute much at all.

Did you happen to notice there was already discussion above about a community effort?

I think it's time for bed. G'night. [/i]

and #2-
[i]...These two statements, coupled with a complete lack of participation in the already in-progress discussion of the idea of a separate website, strike me as the statements of someone who decided to completely ignore the discussion already in progress and go off on his own to make something -- and to hell with the rest of us. You're welcome to it. Have fun.

I guess I already have enough on my plate, anyway. Who needs another project, and thus less free time? Not me, I guess. "[/i]

I see no apologies in either of those. Where do you see them?

Anyways...you all can have the effort. I never wanted it. I wanted to help. Guess that will teach me to try and be nice.

As for the URL...perhaps I'll make apotheon right and go put it up for sale to the highest bidder instead of trying to make good and sell it for no profit to someone here to try and quell the argument.

That way he'd finally be right about something in concern to my character.

Time for my beer...and to call my girl.

Have a nice day...

[b]stew[/b]: Thanks.

[b]jck[/b]:
"[i]I tried to even explain to him in a peer mail reply that it wasn't done with any ill motive.

He still tried to lay blame on starting it to me. He wasn't willing to assume I was trying to help. He just assumed I was trying to hurt. He assumed wrong.[/i]"

You obviously haven't understood a word I said.

Of course, you can SSH into a remote Linux or *BSD machine using any of a number of SSH clients on Windows. I'm not entirely sure PuTTY can do anything with X forwarding to run Thunderbird, but with CygWin and an X client installed on the local system, you'd have full access to X applications on the server (as I'm sure you're already aware).

I tend to find that it's easier to get rdesktop working on Linux than any X forwarding solution on MS Windows, but yeah, if you need direct hardware access on a local system with Windows to play a game, then you might want to go to the trouble anyway. As I said, just throwing alternatives out there for consideration.

I don't understand you or what your intent is other than to try and get me to admit I was wrong for trying to help.

If so, then here you are:

I apologize for trying to help things move forward.

I apologize for trying to keep this effort from hitting a stumbling block in trying to get the URL that matches its name.

I apologize for spending my money to try and forward the progress of Linux in the computer world.

There you go. I'm so guilty for trying to make things progress and help prevent issues. Wow...I'm such a bad guy.

I tried to explain to you. Yet you kept on about how I was wrong for doing something however naively I did it, when from the start you purposefully antagonized me based on inaccurate assumptions of my character and intent.

If TechExec wants to buy the URL for the price on my invoice, it's his/hers (sorry in the past I've assumed you're male if you are not, TechExec). If not, I may or may not do something in the future and redirect the URL to a different URL of my naming.

I don't have time for this discussion anymore. I have to go troubleshoot an ODBC interface and go work on a webserver configuration and billing system interface as well as review about 15 projects the boss has lined up for me in the next 6 months including working to convert our SCO box to Redhat Enterprise.

Have fun with this project, apotheon. I'm sure your input will be valued.

I just hope, for the sake of the others here, that you won't make the same negative assumptions of others, as you have of me, that try to help things move forward.

Again...have a nice day...or at least try to.

Arrivederci

.
Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had an article talking about desktop Linux showing signs of life (1). Some quotes:

"...The Linux operating system, having made inroads into corporations' backroom server computers, is showing hints of inching into a much broader market: employees' personal computers..."

"...The much-hyped notion that Linux would be viable software to run desktop and notebook PCs seemed dead on arrival a few years ago. But the idea is showing some new vital signs..."

"...New licenses for Linux on PCs are growing in emerging markets and financial institutions, markets important for Microsoft...."

"...market researcher IDC said licenses of both free and purchased versions of Linux software going into PCs world-wide rose 20.8% in 2006 over the previous year and forecast that licenses will increase 30% this year over last. That compares with 10.5% growth in 2004, according to IDC..."

"...So far, the clearest shift toward desktop Linux is happening in Asia, which "may turn out over time to be a pivotal market for Linux on the [PC] desktop," Mr. Gillen says. Shipments of Linux for PCs in Asia in 2005 caused a surge in overall Linux licenses that year, he says..."

There were also a few quotes from Windows stalwarts that did not speak well of Linux. No news there, so I won't quote those.

--------------------

(1) Linux Starts to Find Home on Desktops
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117374336173334742-0t8WLwdFNFNhmcynmJ8dS7hIX1g_20070320.html?mod=blogs

I did not think that the root account could be disabled without losing root access when needed.
hmmm. Maybe I should start looking up securing Linux articles.

Thanks all for the inspiration. I, too am about to embark upon migrating to Linux, and for pretty much the same reasons posted in this thread. Getting pretty sick and tired of Uncle Billy telling me what I can and can't do with my PC. I will be migrating a laptop that I was simply intending to retire. However, now I will use it to get something resembling comfy with Fedora Core 5.
Laptop is an HP Pavillion n5470, purchased in 2000. I have begun the process by booting it from the Knoppix LiveCD for purposes of checking to see whether or not all my hardware is recognized. Voila! No probs, so Fedora will be coming on soon.
I have read in several places (sorry, no URL's to post) that usually if the hardware is identified with Knoppix, most versions of Linux will do the same. I will keep up with this thread, and post as the process continues!
Oh - total Linux newbie here - don't even speak Penguinista so this should be interesting.
Have fun all!

OK - it is possible to lock down further without sudo than with it. However, I still maintain it is not inherently 'insecure'. The point I was trying to make however were that
1. The default (with sudo) configuration is more secure and more workable than Vista to begin with
2. If you wish to implement 'max security', it is easily done by anyone wishing to do so - especially someone knowledgable enough to WANT to do so. Delete sudo, activate root, lock it down, use su for admin tasks as usual... Not a reason to skip a distro, over some minor config issue. As I mentioned before there can be innumerable OTHER reasons (not as configurable as Gentoo for instance) for skipping the Ubuntu family - but sudo or no sudo should not be one of them.

The decision to go the sudo route was to encourage ex-Win people to use SOME security, as opposed to running AS 'root' - with all its attendant hazards. At this, it succeeds.

http://www.techsupportalert.com/review-linux-for-windows-users.htm

Very interesting reading about another Windows user looking at Linux as an alternative to Vista.

I didn't say it was inherently "unsecure", either.

What I did say is that it's not as secure against external threats as the administrative authorization model employed by default on other Linux distributions. Please don't confuse relative security with absolute security.

"[i]1. The default (with sudo) configuration is more secure and more workable than Vista to begin with[/i]"
I definitely won't argue with that, at this time.

"[i]2. If you wish to implement 'max security', it is easily done by anyone wishing to do so - especially someone knowledgable enough to WANT to do so. Delete sudo, activate root, lock it down, use su for admin tasks as usual... Not a reason to skip a distro, over some minor config issue. As I mentioned before there can be innumerable OTHER reasons (not as configurable as Gentoo for instance) for skipping the Ubuntu family - but sudo or no sudo should not be one of them.[/i]"
If all else was equal, I'd choose Debian over Ubuntu for reasons of its default administrative authorization configuration. If there's a slight difference in security, easily rectified but still worse for choice A than choice B by default, that will make me more likely to go with choice B. After all, there's no need to saddle myself with the extra work, even if it's less than five minutes' worth of work.

"[i]The decision to go the sudo route was to encourage ex-Win people to use SOME security, as opposed to running AS 'root' - with all its attendant hazards. At this, it succeeds.[/i]"
This is why I'm willing to recommend Ubuntu as an enticement and introduction to migrating from MS Windows to a unixlike OS.

Actually, Apotheon, I didn't think you were the 'target' of my original comment :) What I was trying to do was point out that a (very knowledgeable) user had dismissed the entire Ubuntu family as unusable and not worth a look for severe 'security flaws'.

I attempted to show that security is a relative thing, and more affected by the quality of the password(s) chosen and user actions than by its default configuration.
I have managed over the years to run on Windows ME and XP without major problems (beyond running spyware cleanups, a hardware router to hide behind, and an AV suite. These systems, of course were WITHOUT any built in security of admin account, because it is too much work to enable it on a home system.

I just didn't want the 'warned off' to spread any further without a comment, because not everyone is as 'lean, mean, and hard-line oriented as Jaqui!

Now - what relative security scores should we give to the different methods discussed here? Are they levels up to 5? ie:

Win up to ME 0
Win XP 1 (if set up)
Win Vista 2 ( if UAC run 'properly')
Ubuntu 3 ( by default - no file can be executed without admin action)
Most distros 3.5 (assuming a good root password)
Locked down 4 (pretty tough to crack)
Custom 5 (requires biometrics to activate the keyboard!)

Just an idea of relative levels. Pretty hard to secure a machine at the console though.

Thanks again, Apotheon, for a reasoned response - not some thing that can be counted on here it seems!

"[i]Actually, Apotheon, I didn't think you were the 'target' of my original comment[/i]"
I've made comments in the past, in other discussions, to the effect that Ubuntu's security model troubles me. There's more wrong, security-wise, than simply the way administrative authorization is handled in Ubuntu -- such as the way some package dependencies are defined and the fact that, last I checked, iptables isn't even configured in Ubuntu by default.

I've seen others make louder, harsher complaints about Ubuntu's security model than I have -- such as Jaqui -- but it's always possible that my statements in the past were at least part of what prompted the remarks that started this subthread about Ubuntu security.

"[i]I attempted to show that security is a relative thing, and more affected by the quality of the password(s) chosen and user actions than by its default configuration.[/i]"
That's often, but not always, true. I understand your point, in any case.

I'm not entirely sure Ubuntu rates a whole point above Vista. Time will tell. Vista hasn't been put through its paces yet, security-wise. I suppose your 1-5 security level rating system is probably close enough to accurate, though. I'd probably give FreeBSD about half a step better than most Linux distributions for default configuration, and OpenBSD a 5 by default.

"[i]Thanks again, Apotheon, for a reasoned response - not some thing that can be counted on here it seems![/i]"
It takes all kinds. You're welcome -- I do try to contribute positively to these discussions.

I haven't verified this myself, as yet, but my understanding of Ubuntu's default is that iptables is 'locked down'. If you want to open anything up, then install Firestarter (or other interface) to configure it. Presumably this does NOT apply to the server version :)

edit:
Forgot to mention that I haven't (yet) tried all the distros out there, and I am sure that my 5 levels are very open to 'discussion'!

I bow to your greater expertise on that subject. Actually I had a few years of just drifting, basically uninterested in the way things worked - because of being 'forced' to work in Windows. The difference between building a window in AmigaDOS (Intuition) and the clunky, top-heavy hoop-jumping required on Windows was just too much for me (not to mention the byte-order and segmentation issues of going to Intel!) Thank heavens that Linux has progressed to true usability without committing to a 100hr week to set it up right anymore.

The problem was getting yum to see the DVDs as repositories. See https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=90&threadID=200979&messageID=2094621

for the gory details.

There are a number of technical inaccuracies that make me think the person who wrote this article A) thinks he knows much more than he does, and as a result comes off as an idiot to someone paying attention, or B) is lying. For instance, he mentions a 300MHz Pentium Thinkpad. As late in the Thinkpad line as the P2 Thinkpad 600E (I have one in the other room, in fact), while the graphics adapter would support it, the screen could not handle resolutions above 1024x768. Since he didn't specify a model number, it's difficult to check on whether his Thinkpad's graphics adapter would support greater resolutions, but the two Pentium Thinkpads I've encountered in my life both would not support greater than 800x600 -- and they were limited by both graphics adapter and screen to that maximum resolution.

In other parts of the article, he makes other statements that cause me to think he's not actually using a 300MHz Pentium Thinkpad. For instance, references to a 3D desktop environment seem out of place.

Someone should have fact-checked this article. It reads like a comedy of (user and/or writer) errors to one who actually knows the subject matter. This is more like Keystone End-Users than a fair and realistic assessment of the state of Linux-based OSes on the desktop.

That is the amazing thing about the *buntus - the speed with which things change. They are on a 6-month release schedule, so a 'couple of years' is a long time.

The biggest surprise for me was how well its GUI install auto-detected everything I had (although auto-configure is another story) and that the partitioning program could handle copy, move and resizing of partitions so well. It even managed to copy an XP partition from one drive to another and left it bootable which Partition Magic failed to do. I never expected the FIRST try to set it up to be successful (went against everything I 'knew' about Linux from years ago).

Well - enough about Ubuntu I guess - back to how to get that XP partition out of my life :)

VM Server for linux is a free download from VMware.com (I think it may be free for Windows, too). Just remember to register and get a license for it.

--
ohair

.
Here's how it can be done...

When the time comes, this (1) is the kind of MacBook I will likely use (sticking with a ThinkPad running XP for now). Notice how fast it is. The new x86 MacBooks with 2.0+ GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processors are very fast.

Vista? Who needs Vista?

-----------------------------

(1) Fast OS Switching on MacBook
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gE1XQyT_IbA&mode=related&search=