Tired of Blue Screen switching to Ubuntu

[USS KG5]

It is completely fair... and will be until the reality of using Windows changes.

It isn't fair, times a billion...

On all platforms or just Windows?

Most of the issues Adobe has with their Reader is that they have attempted to put too much into it (specially after acquiring Flash).

So their software does more than everyone elses?

Adobe reader, for better or worse, is not a lightweight PDF reader and never has been but is regularly used as such and frankly put on new PCs as such.

Adobe are a very easy target, but they do consistently put out fine creative software and support it with a rather fat flabby viewer, it is understandable.

So there have been no viruses and/or malware issues with Windows 7? Because it needs to be practically none for that statement to be valid.

I am aware of no major malware or virus outbreaks targeted specifically at unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows 7?

In all of the time that Mac OS X has existed, a Mac user's chance of getting viruses and/or malware was less than that of them getting struck by lightning. And I would venture that other non-Windows platforms have had the same experiences.

Well that is a bit like saying that you are a safer US soldier in Kentucky than Iraq isn't it?

Windows carries a legacy from when it was simply not secure AT ALL. It has taken a long time to shake this but it is hard to deny a massive amount of progress since Windows 2000, especially with XP SP2.

Is Windows now that secure?

That it took so long for security to become an issue for Microsoft is unforgivable I agree - but it is now so much better that those looking for an easy target now look elsewhere, that says a lot IMHO.

If you have to even think about viruses and/or malware on Windows 7, spend even a few seconds of your day worrying about it, how secure is it?

Thats nonsense, any Linux or Mac admin who flaps around and forgets security is a fool, the fact that Security is now first and foremost in every IT department's mind is one positive aspects of the last few years.

And let us not forget what we are talking about... which was older (unsupported) operating systems. Other than Windows, these weren't targets when they were supported, and are even less of a target (and in most cases completely unknown) in recent years.

No argument there - after all no-one shoots at the Swiss.

Besides the fact that the iPhone isn't a personal computer (so why bring it up?)

It is more akin to the personal computers of now in function if not form than very many examples raised in this thread.

, how would you define popular? I've only heard of one experimental virus which only worked on iPhones hacked by their owners. It by popular you mean it got press coverage, then Windows is the least popular platform for attacks as most attacks won't even be noted by computer related news sites.

No I mean popular as in people are out looking for ways to hit it.

There is only one kind of 100% secure computer, one that is never connected in any way to the outside world. The IPhone, Blackberrys, GPS systems, Blu Ray players and TVs are all increasingly becoming connected, sometimes 24/7.

If anything, Windows is now getting a bit too secure to be worth attacking, whereas a lot of these devices have rudimentary if any firewalls and no security software while people merrily hack at them and knock down those precautions that do exist. A very ripe target IMHO.

In my home town we had a popular mountain to go to the summit of (Mt. Helix), which many people do on a nearly daily basis. That is popular. By comparison, few people actually reach the summit of Mt. Everest. That is note worthy.

So you class hacking Windows as a nice country walk whereas hacking the IPhone is a much tougher more noteworthy task?

Without trying both I can't honestly say, but with millions of internet connected devices that don't have a "patch Tuesday" if I was the kind of amoral tosser who writes malware I know where I'd be looking.

 

[Shaw]

Adobe reader, for better or worse, is not a lightweight PDF reader and never has been but is regularly used as such and frankly put on new PCs as such.

Never?

Originally Acrobat Reader only needed to be able to display the functionality of documents created in Acrobat Exchange. By version 3 of both there was the inclusion of multimedia and forms into the documents which reader needed to handle. But it wasn't until recently when Flash elements started getting built into Adobe Reader and Flash started getting used for unwanted ads that the clash in security happened.

But the real question is if this is a problem for non-Windows platforms.

I am aware of no major malware or virus outbreaks targeted specifically at unpatched vulnerabilities in Windows 7?

Forget the unpatched vulnerabilities, the operating system as a whole is still the only real target... and has been hit since before it was out of beta.

As far as I can tell, problems haven't disappeared with the release of Windows 7.

Well that is a bit like saying that you are a safer US soldier in Kentucky than Iraq isn't it?

So Windows is a war zone of viruses/malware? As long as you know that there are safer options than Windows, and you are marching into that war zone with your eyes wide open, I wish you the best of luck.

Just know that you've undermined any point you were attempting to make about how safe Windows is.

That it took so long for security to become an issue for Microsoft is unforgivable I agree - but it is now so much better that those looking for an easy target now look elsewhere, that says a lot IMHO.

There is no evidence that anyone has started looking elsewhere. Where is this elsewhere?

Thats nonsense, any Linux or Mac admin who flaps around and forgets security is a fool, the fact that Security is now first and foremost in every IT department's mind is one positive aspects of the last few years.

How is it a positive? Security flaws in Windows has turned cyber crime into a business.

And Linux and Mac systems aren't targeted, and security has always been important for both (Macs were the targets of a lot of attacks in the early 1990s). But an admin is not a single user, and both admins and users are struggling in your war zone.

No I mean popular as in people are out looking for ways to hit it.

That you've heard of in the news... but people have been saying EXACTLY the same thing you are right now about Macs for at least the last 5 years. And yet the Mac environment hasn't suffered.

One or two people taking a stab at something and getting some press is not an increase in popularity. Tens of thousands of people rushing out to buy antivirus software would be evidence of increasing popularity.

There is only one kind of 100% secure computer, one that is never connected in any way to the outside world. The IPhone, Blackberrys, GPS systems, Blu Ray players and TVs are all increasingly becoming connected, sometimes 24/7.

If anything, Windows is now getting a bit too secure to be worth attacking, whereas a lot of these devices have rudimentary if any firewalls and no security software while people merrily hack at them and knock down those precautions that do exist. A very ripe target IMHO.

I love the misery loves company turn most Windows users fall back to. But there has been no noticeable increase in attacks on other platforms or noticeable decrease in attacks on Windows to back up any of that.

Most other platforms work from a no broken windows standard. That is to say (if you aren't familiar with the term) it is like a building where one window gets broken and if left unattended soon lots of windows are broken. But if a window is fixed right away, it is less likely that more windows will be broken in the near future as it looks like the building is being attended to.

But Windows as a platform is now the worse neighborhood you could live in as a computer user. And like most bad neighborhoods, rent is cheep. I'm all for you guys cleaning up your messes, but don't pretend like it is cleaned up when it obviously isn't.

So you class hacking Windows as a nice country walk whereas hacking the IPhone is a much tougher more noteworthy task?

Without trying both I can't honestly say, but with millions of internet connected devices that don't have a "patch Tuesday" if I was the kind of amoral tosser who writes malware I know where I'd be looking.

Years and years of people saying that makes it no more an issue today than at any other point.

Wishing the worst on others isn't going to solve your problems (or make the worst actually happen to anyone). And until people stop using Windows, it'll stay the primary target.

Remember, an amoral tosser isn't going to target the hard target, they are always lazy and aim at the easy one. And it is still easiest to hit Windows.

But you have my sympathies.*

* Notice how I don't have to wish the worst on you. ​

_____________​

I hope people see what all this is saying about choices of platforms. I think a move to Ubuntu is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

 

[Marc]

Hardware aside, going to Ubuntu is not guarentee that crashed won't be experienced. Slashdot carried an article that a number of users were pissed off with Karmic Koala because they found it less than stable.

The original article came from The Register and reported that an poll on UbuntuForums.org showed 20% of respondents were having problems.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/03/karmic_koala_frustration/

 

[Shaw]

The original article came from The Register and reported that an poll on UbuntuForums.org showed 20% of respondents were having problems.

That is an amazingly low number... when you consider that the main reason people usually go to computer forums is because they are having issues to begin with. I would have expected a number closer to 80%.

So what that poll is really telling us is that there is a 4 to 1 ratio of experts to users in distress over there.

Of course it is easier to make the snap assumption that that poll has something to say about Ubuntu's user base as a whole, but it wouldn't be factually accurate.

It is sort of like asking a computer help desk operator what percentage of the callers were calling with problems... if it wasn't a high percentage, then one has to wonder why there are so many non-help related calls.

 

[Amaris]

I haven't had a single issue with Windows 7. It's fast, lightweight, sprightly, and has handled everything I have thrown at it. Even though I also like Apple, they're not particularly supportive of OS9 and earlier, even though you can continue to use them. Apple treats them like Microsoft treats Windows 95. You can use it, but they're not exactly willing to up and help you.

J.

 

[Shaw]

Even though I also like Apple, they're not particularly supportive of OS9 and earlier, even though you can continue to use them. Apple treats them like Microsoft treats Windows 95. You can use it, but they're not exactly willing to up and help you.

Granted, I've never actually asked Apple for software support before... but then again, supporting Apple systems (from the very first Macintosh to the latest releases) is what I do to make a living.

So I'm actually glad they don't support systems forever as it means that independents like myself have something to offer. It isn't like there is a ton of work for older systems (in the last year the oldest I've worked on was a Power Macintosh G3 MiniTower), but I'm also one of the only people I know of who still does (and I have done work on older systems for friends who are also in the business). And I still see a handful of Mac OS 9 systems on a regular basis.

If you want to work with Mac OS 8/9, go to your local Mac User Group and start asking around if you need the name of someone who can offer support. I've given talks to Mac User Groups on the history of the Mac OS (covering both it's classic roots and it's evolution from NEXTSTEP). There is nothing wrong with that operating system or the software that runs on it, and there are still people who can support it.

 

[JonathonWally]

Even though I also like Apple, they're not particularly supportive of OS9 and earlier, even though you can continue to use them. Apple treats them like Microsoft treats Windows 95. You can use it, but they're not exactly willing to up and help you.

J.

Are you really faulting Apple for not supporting an OS that was released over 10 years ago, with the final update version coming out almost exactly 8 years ago?

I liked OS9 well enough back in it's day, but by the time Panther was released, I no longer had any reason to keep it installed underneath.

 

[Amaris]

Even though I also like Apple, they're not particularly supportive of OS9 and earlier, even though you can continue to use them. Apple treats them like Microsoft treats Windows 95. You can use it, but they're not exactly willing to up and help you.

Granted, I've never actually asked Apple for software support before... but then again, supporting Apple systems (from the very first Macintosh to the latest releases) is what I do to make a living.

So I'm actually glad they don't support systems forever as it means that independents like myself have something to offer. It isn't like there is a ton of work for older systems (in the last year the oldest I've worked on was a Power Macintosh G3 MiniTower), but I'm also one of the only people I know of who still does (and I have done work on older systems for friends who are also in the business). And I still see a handful of Mac OS 9 systems on a regular basis.

If you want to work with Mac OS 8/9, go to your local Mac User Group and start asking around if you need the name of someone who can offer support. I've given talks to Mac User Groups on the history of the Mac OS (covering both it's classic roots and it's evolution from NEXTSTEP). There is nothing wrong with that operating system or the software that runs on it, and there are still people who can support it.

Even though I also like Apple, they're not particularly supportive of OS9 and earlier, even though you can continue to use them. Apple treats them like Microsoft treats Windows 95. You can use it, but they're not exactly willing to up and help you.

J.

Are you really faulting Apple for not supporting an OS that was released over 10 years ago, with the final update version coming out almost exactly 8 years ago?

I liked OS9 well enough back in it's day, but by the time Panther was released, I no longer had any reason to keep it installed underneath.

No, my point is that software can "wear out", and that even Apple drops support for it's OSes after a while.

J.

 

[Shaw]

No, my point is that software can "wear out", and that even Apple drops support for it's OSes after a while.

How does dropping support count as wearing out?

Once a version of any software is stable, what additional support does the maker need to provide?

And for this specific case, what does Mac OS 9 need in the way of support from Apple at this point?

 

[Amaris]

No, my point is that software can "wear out", and that even Apple drops support for it's OSes after a while.

How does dropping support count as wearing out?

Once a version of any software is stable, what additional support does the maker need to provide?

And for this specific case, what does Mac OS 9 need in the way of support from Apple at this point?

Eventually the software can no longer support the hardware, and becomes obsolete.

J.

 

[Shaw]

Eventually the software can no longer support the hardware, and becomes obsolete.

So my computers, which are running just fine with the operating systems I have installed on them, are going to stop running at some point because the operating systems will (for some reason) stop working?

I can see the hardware giving out (it is, after all, hardware), but never in my experience has software just magically stopped supporting hardware it was previously working just fine on. I've got some pretty old systems (the oldest being a Macintosh IIcx) which still run perfectly... including their operating systems. Are you telling me that you think that that software will just stop supporting those systems?


Well, I guess until that day, the fact that I have examples of many of these older operating systems and compatible software up and running (an still being quite useful) will act as proof that they haven't reached the point of being obsolete yet.

 

[Geckothan]

So my computers, which are running just fine with the operating systems I have installed on them, are going to stop running at some point because the operating systems will (for some reason) stop working?

I can see the hardware giving out (it is, after all, hardware), but never in my experience has software just magically stopped supporting hardware it was previously working just fine on. I've got some pretty old systems (the oldest being a Macintosh IIcx) which still run perfectly... including their operating systems. Are you telling me that you think that that software will just stop supporting those systems?


Well, I guess until that day, the fact that I have examples of many of these older operating systems and compatible software up and running (an still being quite useful) will act as proof that they haven't reached the point of being obsolete yet.

Well if you're unfortunate enough to be an ATi + Linux user, then that's already happened! If you use the closed source, official drivers and you don't have an r6xx card, you're stuck with a year old kernel (or you have to use the open source drivers, which are useless for most games, I can get Quake, UT99, Enemy Territory and Warcraft III playable on radeon and radeonhd but they're too slow to play anything newer).

That said, I've been using Linux daily with no "emergency Windows installation" at hand for a long time and I see no reason to go back. It's much easier to work with as long as you've got a basic understanding of what you're doing, you aren't stupid, and you aren't afraid of doing things for yourself or breaking out the Google when things go horribly wrong.

I'm not under the delusion that it's bulletproof like most Linux fanboys, but for desktop users it's significantly safer than Windows simply because it's rarely targeted. However, it's entirely possible to write *nix malware capable of stealing user data and phoning home with it, even without root access (it's not like you really need to hide it if the user is too stupid to check lsof for anything suspicious and run rkhunter/chkrootkit every so often), but in many cases it's necessary to get the user to run such malware manually, what with there being less known remote vulnerabilities in Linux, GNU and common applications used with them put together than in Windows, and due to the fact that Linux users are more likely to know not to trust unknown binaries, infection isn't that common.

Just use the same browsing precautions you would in Windows (turn off JS and plug-ins by default and only enable them for sites that need them, don't click every dodgy looking link you see, etc), don't run any web/ftp/ssh/etc servers (a house with no doors or windows is significantly harder to break into) and don't compile, install and run code from untrusted sources (as a rule, I don't run anything that's not from the software repository of my distribution of choice, with 1-2 exceptions) and you should be reasonably safe.

To the OP, I'd say give Ubuntu a try (not my favourite distribution, but it's not the worst place to start), learn the ropes (yes you will have to learn things if you want to troubleshoot any issues you may have, which you probably will eventually, but the only difference is they will be significantly simpler to fix than in Windows provided you know your way around the system) and see if it works for you. That said, if you're having BSODs, make sure that they're not being caused by hardware. Swap memory out, try a different graphics card/PSU/blah/everything and rule them out.

 

[Amaris]

Eventually the software can no longer support the hardware, and becomes obsolete.

So my computers, which are running just fine with the operating systems I have installed on them, are going to stop running at some point because the operating systems will (for some reason) stop working?

No, don't be silly.

I can see the hardware giving out (it is, after all, hardware), but never in my experience has software just magically stopped supporting hardware it was previously working just fine on. I've got some pretty old systems (the oldest being a Macintosh IIcx) which still run perfectly... including their operating systems. Are you telling me that you think that that software will just stop supporting those systems?


Well, I guess until that day, the fact that I have examples of many of these older operating systems and compatible software up and running (an still being quite useful) will act as proof that they haven't reached the point of being obsolete yet.

Not at all. In fact, most people would easily understand that I am referring to advanced hardware not being supported by an older software unable to work with the new configurations.

J.

 

[Shaw]

No, don't be silly.

... No, you don't be silly.

Not at all. In fact, most people would easily understand that I am referring to advanced hardware not being supported by an older software unable to work with the new configurations.

Well, now I'm really confused as every Mac comes with the minimum operating system it was design to run with. And that is how it has been for more than 20 years.

In fact if you are someone like me who services Macs, you would know that if you don't have the original media for a piece of hardware, then you have to go to the next higher generic version of the OS if you end up with a system with no software (which is what I would install if someone brought me such a system to get up and running but had no media with it).

And it isn't like I haven't run into this... heck, back in 2000 I needed a newer generation of Mac for running the developer previews of Mac OS X, but was running short on funds and had to wait a couple months. That couple months cost me the ability to run my favorite classic Mac OS, 8.6, as the system I ended up with came with 9.0.4 preinstalled. That system wouldn't run 8.6 no matter what I did, but as it was intended for running Mac OS X DP4 for me, it wasn't a major loss... mostly just an annoyance.

But this isn't anything new, and is why I (for my needs) configure the best combination of hardware and OS and freeze the systems I need to run the software I want. And I've set up similar systems for clients who wanted access to certain pieces of software. And in my case, hardware too (as my Power Macintosh 8600 comes with all the AV ports I need for video capture).

But Apple has never sold a Mac without an OS. More to the point, your Mac is your license key for the OS. So this situation of an older operating system not supporting new hardware being the mark of obsolescence means that it happens every few months at Apple.

That is quite different than Apple not supporting their operating systems... which they continue to do for quite a few years after their release.

 

[Amaris]

No, don't be silly.

... No, you don't be silly.

Not at all. In fact, most people would easily understand that I am referring to advanced hardware not being supported by an older software unable to work with the new configurations.

Well, now I'm really confused as every Mac comes with the minimum operating system it was design to run with. And that is how it has been for more than 20 years.

In fact if you are someone like me who services Macs, you would know that if you don't have the original media for a piece of hardware, then you have to go to the next higher generic version of the OS if you end up with a system with no software (which is what I would install if someone brought me such a system to get up and running but had no media with it).

And it isn't like I haven't run into this... heck, back in 2000 I needed a newer generation of Mac for running the developer previews of Mac OS X, but was running short on funds and had to wait a couple months. That couple months cost me the ability to run my favorite classic Mac OS, 8.6, as the system I ended up with came with 9.0.4 preinstalled. That system wouldn't run 8.6 no matter what I did, but as it was intended for running Mac OS X DP4 for me, it wasn't a major loss... mostly just an annoyance.

But this isn't anything new, and is why I (for my needs) configure the best combination of hardware and OS and freeze the systems I need to run the software I want. And I've set up similar systems for clients who wanted access to certain pieces of software. And in my case, hardware too (as my Power Macintosh 8600 comes with all the AV ports I need for video capture).

But Apple has never sold a Mac without an OS. More to the point, your Mac is your license key for the OS. So this situation of an older operating system not supporting new hardware being the mark of obsolescence means that it happens every few months at Apple.

That is quite different than Apple not supporting their operating systems... which they continue to do for quite a few years after their release.

Please don't do this. You know full well you can buy a Mac OS separately and install it on your Mac. I think you are being willfully obtuse, because all I made was a simple statement and you are dragging it out into pedantry.

J.

 

[Shaw]

don't do this. You know full well you can buy a Mac OS separately and install it on your Mac. I think you are being willfully obtuse, because all I made was a simple statement and you are dragging it out into pedantry.

Actually, Apple doesn't sell an operating system by itself. You can only buy upgrades by themselves.

That is not being obtuse, those are the facts. Facts which you may not be aware of (or want to know), but they are the facts none the less.

You can only buy the Mac OS with a Mac. Your Mac is your license key for the Mac OS.

Maybe you are too young to recall, but there were lots of expensive pieces of software that used to be locked to a hardware dongle for them to work. The Mac OS is the same way, which is why attempting to circumvented this to install the Mac OS on non-Apple hardware is considered a violation of the DMCA (which include specific language for hardware dongle keys for software).

So to be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR... you can only buy the Mac OS with a Mac!!!!!

What is sold on it's own is an upgrade for Macs (which are your license keys for running the upgrade). No Mac, no Mac OS (unless you are doing something that violates the DMCA).

That is why Apple hadn't included license codes with the Mac OS in the past (other than Mac OS X Server, which is a little different).

These are the facts! I'm not joking around... this is as clear as I can make it. Having a Mac is your license to run the Mac OS, and it has been this way since the beginning.

Even back in the days of the clones, those manufacturers had to buy the Mac ROMs from Apple needed for those systems to run the Mac OS. And when Apple decided not to sell them those ROMs anymore, the clone makers died off.

I'm not being obtuse... this is the nature of the Mac platform and has been for as long as I've been using Macs.


Let try an experiment... go buy a boxed copy of Snow Leopard and a new Mac. Erase the hard drive of the Mac and try to install the generic version of Snow Leopard. Tell us what happens.

My guess... it'll say that it can't be run on that Mac.


But the up side of all this is that I can legally install a fresh copy of the Mac OS on any Mac even if the owner doesn't have any media (as long as I attempt to get as close to the original version that came with that Mac as I can).

For example, a Power Macintosh 9600/350 came with a version of Mac OS 7.6... but the generic version of 7.6 won't install on that system. So I can install Mac OS 8.0, but the update to 8.1 was free, so I can actually install 8.1 on that system. Mac OS 8.5/8.6 would be better, but I can't put that on that system unless the owner of that system has that media.

The policy also holds try for NeXT computers... I can install NEXTSTEP 3.3 on any NeXT hardware. I can upgrade any NeXT hardware to at least 3.3 (because of Y2K issues). I can upgrade OPENSTEP 4.0 and 4.1 to 4.2 for the same reasons (though owners of NeXT hardware are not entitled to move from NEXTSTEP 3.3 and earlier to OPENSTEP 4.2 for free).

I don't actually expect people from the PC side of the world to understand this... but I've spent the last 20 years working with Apple, NeXT, Sun and Silicon Graphics. All of those platforms had their operating systems linked to the hardware (though NeXT and Sun started selling their OS for other hardware later on). But this is how this stuff has worked.

People who think that Apple sells the Mac OS like Microsoft sells Windows are mistaken. Apple doesn't sell the Mac OS, they sell Macs. But they are more than happy to sell you an upgrade OS for your Mac.

 

[Amaris]

I think it best for me to drop this line of conversation. You've decided to be pedantic and condescending. I am not a child and I will not be spoken to like a child. Certainly, you are intelligent and have a great deal of knowledge regarding operating systems, however I am not an idiot, and I think you know exactly what I am saying and have chosen to take a less than mature route of deflection and disdain in order to be as obstinate as possible, disrupting a flow of conversation in favor of niggling details that have no purpose other than to inundate others who choose to stop debating because they find discussing against a wall of text and tangential minutiae an exercise in futility.

Regards,

J.

 

[Shaw]

I think it best for me to drop this line of conversation...

Funny... I respected you enough to take the time to write complete and articulate responses on the subject of computing. In contrast you responded with derogatory personal characterizations of me.

Yeah, I think it is best that you exit the discussion if you are unable to direct your response to the subject of the post rather than attacking the writer of the post.

 

[USS KG5]

I love the misery loves company turn most Windows users fall back to.

Well I'm not going to argue the toss on a silly Windows vs Linux basis, suffice it to say I think Windows has improved drastically in terms of security since XP SP2 and that the supposed superiority of linux and macs in this regard is over-emphasised by their "supporters".

I also think the concept of supporting one over the other in an industry where the only good option is choosing the right tool for the needs of your business or market regardless of its source is counter-productive.

I hope people see what all this is saying about choices of platforms. I think a move to Ubuntu is a perfectly reasonable thing to do.

I think it is a decent option for someone with significant computer smarts, though if you search my old posts you will find that I think that while it is an enthusiasts club desktop linux will never take off.

The average computer user however is the market that is worth pursuing. The technical curiousity of Linux on the desktop (it is an excellent web server and back office platform, no question) is useless while it provides such a steep complexity curve so quickly. Hell most people don't even distinguish between a browser and the OS, let alone different OS's.

 

[Amaris]

I think it is a decent option for someone with significant computer smarts, though if you search my old posts you will find that I think that while it is an enthusiasts club desktop linux will never take off.

I love Linux, myself, it's a lot of fun and worth looking at. I agree, however, that it is unlikely to take off as a major player in the desktop game.

The average computer user however is the market that is worth pursuing. The technical curiousity of Linux on the desktop (it is an excellent web server and back office platform, no question) is useless while it provides such a steep complexity curve so quickly. Hell most people don't even distinguish between a browser and the OS, let alone different OS's.

One of my favorite questions from my customers back when I was still building was "Does this computer come with the internet?

J.