Path: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.co
!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfe
d.freenet.de!news.albasani.net!newsfeed.datemas.de!news.datemas.de!not-for-mail
From: Joe LaVigne
Newsgroups: alt.os.linux.ubuntu
Subject: Re: Problems after installing Ubuntu (fairly long)
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:14:10 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: Datemas.de http://www.datemas.de
Lines: 117
Message-ID:
References:
<54c1pvF1vmfk0U1@mid.individual.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: news.datemas.de RR+gCJndxI24+SYuvTz6LECrD8ql2RJS8TBDX/f
/unTONPqWKr3YC4huuzUkfe8L25fmg6Fdw8624GxhJQjt5XRO9CZcFVa1UZdYU0Y
oQU6SBtyhgoeBe+oR6O+O72Z7LdO/Z6pB/qT7T7PRAvEa7x0kWdnczT2rhcuy9lqD54S1uda02MtQ==
X-Complaints-To: abuse@datemas.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 06:14:10 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: pan 0.123 (El Nuevo Barretto)
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.os.linux.ubuntu:11021
On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 23:58:55 +0000, elaich wrote:
> dgk wrote in
> news:sf51u2t5rtvsjdqfec6csocdvdoshuko93@4ax.com:
>
>> So now I have a few comments and problems. Just about everything I
>> tried didn't work very well.
>
> I've been fighting with Ubuntu for about a month now, and am ready to
> give up. It's great for a) a novice user who only wants to use Firefox
> and a few other things, or b) an experienced Linux/Unix user who
> understands what it's up to. For someone like me, who likes to go beyond
> a) but not as far as b), it's hopeless.
In reality (IMO), there is no in-between. You are either willing to
stay at a, or striving for b.
>
> The problem is not Ubuntu. Ubuntu is the most user friendly distro i've
> tried. It's Linux. The file structure is incomprehensible. I was told
> that most apps install into usr/bin, but some don't. Why not? Google
> Earth installed into opt. And then refused to work. Naturally, no
> launcher was made for it, nor a link in the Applications menu, so I had
> to go looking for it. As usual, not only was I not told where it had
> installed, but was not given the option to choose where to install it.
> Why is this basic function (creating a link or launcher for a newly
> installed program) so inconsistent in Linux? In Windows, everything
> installs in /Program Files. Why is Linux different?
It isn't. For one, not everything in Windows installs in /Program Files.
Though most apps do, I just had a look at the C: drive of my Windows
partition, and found 5 apps that installed in their own sub-directories
off of the root.
Linux has various standards, and different vendors adhere to different
standards. /opt or /usr/bin are the two most common places to find an app.
>
> I spent most of the day today trying to edit slrn.rc, a simple
> configuration file. I am not allowed access, because I don't "own" the
> file. Bullshit. I followed a complicated ritual to create a script that
> would allow any file to be edited as root if simply dragged and dropped
> into it. It didn't work. I tried another ritual to get logged in as
> root, and still was not allowed to edit the file. All I wanted to do was
> insert my personal info so slrn could work.
sudo. Learn it, love it, use it. Another option is to change your
Applications menu, and turn on the item for Applications - System Tools -
Root Terminal. It will open a terminal logged on as root.
>
> The problem is that Linux is based on Unix, which expects a huge number
> of users who should be denied access to all but basic functions, and a
> handful of administrators who should be allowed access. Thus, access is
> difficult. Why should my computer, which I own, and of which I am the
> only user, refuse to allow me to edit a simple config file? Why should I
> jump through hoops for 6 hours and still fail? I looked up every
> resource I could find on the subject, and still failed. Unix is a fine
> solution for the corporate world, which expects not only tampering from
> within, but also from without. This level of security is simply overkill
> for the home user. There needs to be a happy medium between this and
> Windows, which allows anybody to do anything.
It is not overkill at all. These restrictions are exactly why Windows
machines are the targets for virtually all viruses and spyware. In linux,
logged on as a non-privileged user, you cannot destroy your system by
downloading a harmful file. Worst-case, you can delete the things in your
home directory.
>
> I have spent more time in Terminal lately than I have since MS-DOS 3.3.
> At my age, I don't want to have to learn another programming language. I
> learned CP/M and MS-DOS. I learned BASIC, and wrote a football game in
> it. I'm too old and tired for that any more.
There is not much you will have to do in a terminal shell once you have
your system set up. You then simply run your apps, and they work. You
know they'll work because no virus will have had a chance to infect them.
And no TSR's will be eating up all of your memory.
>
> Linux needs to allow the user more freedom. Things should be more
> automated. A lot of things that one has to do inside Terminal could be
> automated, but still have a nice level of security.
Not really. When you allow the freedom, you have to remove the security.
The best method is to trust nothing, and allow an easy way to bypass
security (sudo).
>
> I like the idea of Linux and open source software, and I like Ubuntu.
> But, to get anything done inside Linux, unless you know the programming
> language, is very hard. I worked for 2 days trying to compile the Sexy
> PSF plugin for XMMS. All I ended up with was a bunch of error messages.
> There is a .deb for every kind of video game music except the Play
> Station. Why hasn't someone created a .deb for PSF? Even Puppy Linux has
> a .pup for it.
>
> It's just very frustrating. I have no security problems in Windows,
> never have. All it takes is a little common sense and knowledge. You use
> a firewall, you don't use Internet Explorer or Outlook Express, and you
> don't trust anything or anybody unless proven trustworthy. Good practice
> for any computer user. But, I don't like Microsoft, and I don't like the
> storm clouds that are gathering over Vista and rumors of Microsoft's
> intent. I'd like to see Linux reach a point where almost anybody can use
> it, and still be secure. But it's not there yet.
>
Sure it is. It isn't to the point that a novice can easily set it up but
that's what computer geeks are there for. A complete novice can hire
their neighbor's 17 year old son to install Linux, set up the apps they
need, and then leave. The 17 year old will never have to come back to fix
the system because the person accidentally deleted an important config
file, or contracted a trojan while surfing a porn site.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Omicron Theta BBS (1:261/20)
|
