Where on the horizon is Vista?

[dbarrow]

http://news.com.com/Where+on+the+horizon+is+Vista/2100-1016_3-6098922.html?tag=newsmap

REDMOND, Wash.--Just when is Windows Vista going to ship?...

..."Our estimates have already assumed a delay in the Vista launch to March or April," Goldman Sachs analyst Rick Sherlund said in a research note Friday. Market researcher Gartner said in May that the full launch of Vista could be pushed back until the second quarter of next year.

Even Chairman Bill Gates, during a recent swing through South Africa, pegged the chances of a January launch at only 80 percent. ...

[Guest117]

I keep hearing Jan '07 but I'd take odds on it being delayed more.:eyebrows:

[Tortanick]

And yet not one Linux advert on the TV. this is the best shot at Microsoft you're ever going to get!

[Terry Hanushek]

Tortanick

And yet not one Linux advert on the TV. this is the best shot at Microsoft you're ever going to get!
I hear what you are saying about Linux. However, one of the problems is that the Linux market is so fragmented. Who has the market share or resources for an ad campaign?

With the exception of the financial community concerned about the M$ revenue, I just don't see a ground swell of interest in Vista. WinXP is a relatively stable o/s which serves most users quite well. I suspect that most individuals and companies are pleased with the delay.

Terry

[Tortanick]

Actually red hat & novell should have enough money for a campaign. And the fragmented market is brilliant: it means people cn get the distro that suits their needs rather than one-size-fits-none, and of course healthy compertition.

You're right about no intrest in Vista, IMO the longer they wait to release it the longer I can avoid paying for a new OS because the games market isn't supporting XP.

[Dan18960]

Actually red hat & novell should have enough money for a campaign. And the fragmented market is brilliant: it means people cn get the distro that suits their needs rather than one-size-fits-none, and of course healthy compertition.

You're right about no intrest in Vista, IMO the longer they wait to release it the longer I can avoid paying for a new OS because the games market isn't supporting XP.

The problem with Novell is they make a product that surpasses MS by leaps and bounds BUT CAN'T MARKET !

Half the stuff that Novell 5.1 does is still NOT in Windows and Novell 6.5 / Linux are still further ahead.

But hey, people even bought YUGOs :confused:

[casey]

Let's be realistic, Linux will never catch MS until it gets to be user friendly. I have tried Linux at least 6 times probably more over the years because people tell me it's different now and you can get all the same programs as windows. It took me two days to get a linux program installed that would play DVD's and it wasn't anywhere near as nice as what windows has. Everything in linux is a project and I guess for some people that like to play with computers, thats okay. but for the normal computer user they want it easy. And there is nothing easy about Linux. The last one I tried is SUSE..

[Tortanick]

That would be DRM and propriatory codecs, Linux cannot install these out of the box for legal reasons. If you try the Ubuntu veriant then a program called EasyUbuntu should install set you up. I havn't tired it though.

And before you critsise Linux for not playing DVDs think about what problems Windows has that you've been conditioned to ignore:
Huge cost, Viruses, Spyware, Trojens, Product Activation, Frequent crashes, manual defragmenting, software you don't want but can't uninstall, the registary, software leaving unwanted traces left-right and center, etc.

[PeteF]

Let's be realistic, Linux will never catch MS until it gets to be user friendly. I have tried Linux at least 6 times probably more over the years because people tell me it's different now and you can get all the same programs as windows.

Casey,
What do you think about the concept of an expert user setting up
Linux in such a manner that it useable for a novice user. For example,
a novice user or senior citizen might only need to do Email, Web
browsing, and very simple wordprocessing. They will never need to
add new software to the system and would be better off if they had
a system that didn't require constant updates and all sorts of malware
protection. A system that remained the same from day to day.

Do you think it's feasible to setup such a system using Linux?

---pete---

[casey]

Pete sure you can set it up for someone like that. What I'm talking about is for it to get popular and the general public to want to use it. You'll understand better when you start to install some of the programs and what you have to do to get a simple program to work.

I used the DVD player as an example because it was still fresh in my memory. I couldn't believe the steps I had to take to get it installed. As long as you have that problem it will never get popular.

I remember hearing all the same things when OS2 was going to run windows out of business. Where is OS2 today.

No one is saying that Linux isn't a good operating system. All I'm saying in it's present stage (which has been for quite a while) it is to complicated for the average user. Why would you want to go to an operating system where you have to get a specialist to install a program that will work with windows in a matter of minutes.

I have tried Red Hat, Turbo linux, Big something or other linux, and a few I don't remember besides Suse,and OS2 Warp Connect and I was always told my problem was my hardware and not the operating system. Beside being restricted to the amount of programming and it being difficult to install. It was nice to learn a few new things but as I would only just do it once it was quickly forgotten.. All I can say is good luck.
There are people that think it is great...

[casey]

And before you critsise Linux for not playing DVDs think about what problems Windows has that you've been conditioned to ignore:
Huge cost, Viruses, Spyware, Trojens, Product Activation, Frequent crashes, manual defragmenting, software you don't want but can't uninstall, the registary, software leaving unwanted traces left-right and center, etc.

My God, Tortanick, if your having all those problems I wouldn't blame you for going to Linux/unix..Sorry I don't have all those problems...

[PeteF]

No one is saying that Linux isn't a good operating system. All I'm saying in it's present stage (which has been for quite a while) it is to complicated for the average user. Why would you want to go to an operating system where you have to get a specialist to install a program that will work with windows in a matter of minutes.


Hi Casey, I hear you. :)
I don't doubt what you are saying and I expect Linux to be a real pain to
get working. I'm just hoping that it is not plagued by all the problems
that Windows has for a novice user from a usability standpoint. I have
some novice users in mind that get so confused with all the constant
updating required of Windows and complications due to all the malware
issues. If I can act as "expert" to initially setup the system and hand it
over to a novice user who will just use it without changing things too
much then it might be feasible for what I have in mind.

Thanks for the warning on Linux.
I'm already seeing what you mean as I read the various FAQs
and info on the Linux websites. It's very technically oriented
and reminds me of the old DOS days. Wish me luck.

---pete---

[rVidia]

They will never need to
add new software to the system and would be better off if they had
a system that didn't require constant updates and all sorts of malware
protection.
I have
some novice users in mind that get so confused with all the constant
updating required of Windows and complications due to all the malware
issues.

Pete:

Believing you're safe from malware just because you're using Linux is a big misconception...

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946

In people's minds, if it's non-Windows, it's secure, and that's not the case. They think nobody writes malware for Linux or OS X. But that's not necessarily true, as that report showed.

http://www.securityfocus.com/infocus/1695

The evangelical Linux view of Unix as being immune to malware because of its intrinsic security is based more on wishful thinking than on fact. A well-secured and properly patched Windows installation (I'm thinking NT and its derivatives here, of course) is more secure than the average out-of-the-box Linux machine, especially a desktop machine used by a single individual who always runs as root. Unix is not and never has been automatically secure. Looking at vulnerabilities lists and vendor advisories, we see a constant stream of security patch releases. This is not a tilt at open source or Unix (I've been a Unix administrator myself!): simply a reminder that the rarity of Unix viruses should not be seen as indicating an automatically secure platform.

http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/40556.html

Stay focused on the bad guys, the people who want to steal your stuff, your identity and your piece of mind. Do your own research and think through the process. Don't think just of the exposures that exist today -- think ahead to the exposures you will need to address next week, next month and next year. ... meaning, even though things may look good for Linux now, by looking at reports like this (http://www.viruslist.com/en/analysis?pubid=184625030), you have to think ahead.

[PeteF]

Pete:

Believing you're safe from malware just because you're using Linux is a big misconception...

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946



Thanks for the heads up!

I figured it won't be totally safe and judging by the figures stated in
the article of the link above, Linux has only 8% of the malware
problem compared to Windows. I see now, the bad news is that
I'm going to need some kind of security software for Linux too.

---pete---

[rVidia]

I realize there is much less of a security risk with Linux when compared to Windows, but I just wanted to make you aware that you're still not completely safe. As Linux and any other OS become increasingly popular, there's sure to be an increase in malware as well.

[Tortanick]

My God, Tortanick, if your having all those problems I wouldn't blame you for going to Linux/unix..Sorry I don't have all those problems...

No I'm not having any of those problems, but it took me more than two days after getting my new gameing windows box to set up anti-viruses, firewalls, remove junk etc.



Believing you're safe from malware just because you're using Linux is a big misconception...


That article is an over simplification, the way you get infected on windows and *nix is a big factor in security. There is a long thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=131616) over at the Ubuntu forums about do you need a firewall and anti-virus. Although its worth noteing that like all Linux Distro's netfilter is built into the kernal, so the question is do I need to customise a firewall and install anti-virus.

Or in the words of RMS
We don't build E-mail clients that automatically exicute attachments

[rVidia]

Over at PC World, some additional security info:

...your Linux system is probably safe from attack: Recent versions of Linux (kernels 2.4 and 2.6) include a built-in firewall called "iptables" that simply drops all uninvited incoming connections by default. If a worm or a person tries to break into your Linux box from afar, or not so afar, iptables simply turns away and ignores the incoming connection--the attacker won't know whether a system even exists at the attacked address.

If you don't run mail, Web, FTP, or other servers on your Linux system, you'll probably never need to modify iptables' default settings. However, if you use the Samba server suite to enable file and printer sharing with other local systems, you will have to enable incoming connections to the Samba server in iptables.

* netfilter/iptables

By default, most Linux distributions wisely set you up as a lower-privilege user, with a type of account that generally can't allow malicious code to take over the system. Were you to somehow permit a Linux virus or worm to run on your computer, the fact that you are not logged in on the all-powerful root account prevents the malware from attacking the system's (and other users') files. That's why you typically have to log in as root (with the root password) to change Linux system configurations...

So simply by not disabling the existing firewall, and by not logging in as root for your day-to-day Web browsing and e-mail, you'll avoid the vast majority of threats. Keep yourself even safer by updating your software regularly to close the inevitable security holes that expose your machine to worms, rootkits, and other exploits.

However, should someone you know lose their head and log in as root, and then run a program that happens to be infected with one of the few Linux viruses known to exist in the wild, that virus could definitely destroy or steal user data. And even if you think you're smart enough to avoid infection, the files moving through your mailbox, Samba file shares (shared files mounted as drives), and other storage mechanisms could still contain viruses destined to infect other systems. These are valid reasons why you might want to use antivirus software on your Linux computer.

Linux is obviously more secure than Windows; just look at software design. As Tortanick quoted, "We [Linux] don't build E-mail clients that automatically execute attachments" - a Linux user has to save the attachment, give it executable permissions, and then run the executable.

I'm not a paranoid computer user, whether I'm running Windows or a Linux box. I just want to make myself aware of the fact that I'm never completely safe.

[casey]

No I'm not having any of those problems, but it took me more than two days after getting my new gameing windows box to set up anti-viruses, firewalls, remove junk etc.


Why not just use a Linux box and then you wouldn't have this problem?

[Tortanick]

"gameing windows box"

Thats the one area that linux can't do