Advice Request The Year of the Linux dissatisfaction

[mazskolnieces]

I just don't like "use Linux, it's safe" comments, but i'm out now

The difference between Windows and Linux is the targeting. The incidence of major Linux system compromises is far, far below that of Windows. Sure, there are reports and studies that show Linux has its share of security weaknesses. What matters though is the actual incidence rate of compromise.

However, if you threw every hacker, malc0der and researcher at Linux, it is almost certain to have a dismal security result.

All IT security matters, of all kinds, are context-dependent. That being said, users are far more safer on average using Linux, MacOS or Chromebook than they are using Windows. To this day, the greatest security menace is the click-happy or negligent user - and not weak native or third party security.

 

[shmu26]

To this day, the greatest security menace is the click-happy or negligent user

True. The click-happy user will not be very happy on linux because just clicking won't get him very far
Maybe that's why security incidents are so uncommon.

 

[Acadia]

...To this day, the greatest security menace is the click-happy or negligent user - and not weak native or third party security.

As the saying goes: The weakest link in a computer's security chain is the piece of fleshware that sits between the chair and the keyboard.
Acadia

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

When we talk about Linux, we always end up comparing it with Windows, but I think that's a mistake.
Windows is a universal system, where there is a lot to choose from.
Linux is more limited in terms of programmes.
But there are enough, for the basics, which is what we all use in the end.
I'm not going to give up on Windows, but I feel good about Linux, so why not use both?
That's been my way of looking at things with these two systems.

This is the thing, you can and are allowed to use/live with both. There's no law saying you can only choose one.

IMHO, for the vast majority of people that only surf the web and such, Linux, Windows and MacOS will do that equally well. If you like Linux and want to use it as your daily driver, but still require some programs from Windows, or Mac, just install Linux along side it and pop back in when you need to use Windows, or MacOS. If its not something that requires max performance, than a VM will work too.

I plan to use Linux as my daily driver on all my computers. My gaming rig will be dual boot with Windows for games and such. On my other systems (or server) I may have a VM or two with Windows, for other odds and ends.

Moral of the story, Linux will do what most people need. Those that require Windows/MacOS specific programs and such can either stick with those OSes, or dual boot/VM.

To this day, the greatest security menace is the click-happy or negligent user - and not weak native or third party security.

This is very true.

The ironic part is there are so many Linux users who go about bad mouthing Windows users and saying well, you won't get infected downloading a bunch of random exes....which is true. However, Linux has the exact same security issue, but instead of exes, it comes in the form of command line strings that people are told to just copy and paste for this, or that. End of the day, exact same problem, just implemented differently.

 

[mazskolnieces]

Typing on my new Pinebook Pro 64 Manjaro. Wooh-hoo !

Let the dissatisfaction begin !!

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Most people are just casual surfers, like the only activities they do are browsing, emailing, watching videos, creating and sharing documents. They aren't really interested in security and don't even use an antivirus and if they do they will be using expired ones that came with the system. For that reason alone, LInux should be ideal for them.

Casual users would also see no reason to change if Windows already do all of that for them.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

Sure but this isn't the only way. Even the repositories contained malicious programs in past.

As opposed to Windows where you can download and run the whole plethora of software in the web via one Google search?

 

[jackuars]

Casual users would also see no reason to change if Windows already do all of that for them.

The pressing reason was expired antivirus licenses and lesser security on Windows compared to Linux for casual users. I haven't even mentioned about the other benefits for casual users

As opposed to Windows where you can download and run the whole plethora of software in the web via one Google search?

For this exact same reason why casual newbies should avoid Windows and use the software repository on Linux

 

[shmu26]

The pressing reason was expired antivirus licenses and lesser security on Windows compared to Linux for casual users.

Maybe this point is not really for casual users, but there is good-quality free software for linux that is hard to find for Windows. Today I installed on linux a tool to trim and join mp4 files, it is so easy and so fast. It just works. On Windows I couldn't find a comparable program.
I also have on linux a free tool to split and combine PDF files. There is a comparable program for Windows, it is called PDFsam Basic, but it was hard to find, and it is made by a Chinese company, and is always nagging me to buy the full program. You don't get that kind of nagging on linux.

 

[bayasdev]

Maybe this point is not really for casual users, but there is good-quality free software for linux that is hard to find for Windows.

The same can be said for quality software that's Windows/Mac only like the Affinity suite, Filmora or Caesium GUI (it takes 5sec to compress a 50MB .png to 5MB vs around a minute with Linux CLI tools). If you dual boot you get the best things of both worlds.

 

[Handsome Recluse]

The pressing reason was expired antivirus licenses and lesser security on Windows compared to Linux for casual users. I haven't even mentioned about the other benefits for casual users

Which is too abstract a reason for the aforementioned users. Only curious users dabble outside what was already given to them by the hardware. The problem is elsewhere and thus nowhere to be found in what always lead to circular discussions of contrived points. It's not ultimately up to the casual users. It's up to the status quo of which the users aren't the common denominator and grooming them to Linux just for trivial activities like browsing risks them not being able to do other stuff they might want or need to do in the future because they don't know what they were signing up for which will just end up in their regret and bitterness. A hidden cost, if you will. Like chronic pain from bad posture for working too long or deforestation leading to floods. The pain is delayed but they'd still do it not knowing the future consequences but of course we know better as non-casual users. That's why it's important that they fully know all the concrete reasons they should use what they're consenting to and no one should change them towards Linux if they aren't asking for it instead of these tired salesman talk.

 

[mazskolnieces]

A lot of people that use Linux are very privacy focused. They are mis-guided in thinking that they somehow have much greater privacy if they use Linux. Then they are also mis-guided in thinking that they have better security on Linux. Privacy is not security. And there is no privacy in this world due a person's data being shared on platforms well beyond what they do on their own personally owned digital devices. Anyone that is born today, has a bank account, gets medical treatment, and buys stuff online has no real privacy. Their data is out there to be hacked. What people do on their local host is almost irrelevant.

Then there are those who are after anonymity. Privacy is not anonymity. The same argument applies here too about a person's data. What a person does on their local host is almost irrelevant when it comes to their data out there.

Finally, there are those Linux users who are vehemently anti-establishment. They hate Alphabet, Microsoft, Oracle, and all the other tech giants out there. They're also anti-government in the sense that they think everybody is surveilling them. These are ideological users that care more about ideology than usability.

 

[shmu26]

A lot of people that use Linux are very privacy focused. They are mis-guided in thinking that they somehow have much greater privacy if they use Linux. Then they are also mis-guided in thinking that they have better security on Linux. Privacy is not security. And there is no privacy in this world due a person's data being shared on platforms well beyond what they do on their own personally owned digital devices. Anyone that is born today, has a bank account, gets medical treatment, and buys stuff online has no real privacy. Their data is out there to be hacked. What people do on their local host is almost irrelevant.

Then there are those who are after anonymity. Privacy is not anonymity. The same argument applies here too about a person's data. What a person does on their local host is almost irrelevant when it comes to their data out there.

Finally, there are those Linux users who are vehemently anti-establishment. They hate Alphabet, Microsoft, Oracle, and all the other tech giants out there. They're also anti-government in the sense that they think everybody is surveilling them. These are ideological users that care more about ideology than usability.

All ideology and paranoia aside, I think we must admit that linux doesn't have such a commercial, consumer flavor, and it doesn't treat you like someone who only wants a brainless, painless "user experience" with instant gratification. On Windows, I feel treated like a child in second grade. The most they can hope for is that I will click in the right place. On Linux I feel treated like a college student.

 

[mazskolnieces]

All ideology and paranoia aside, I think we must admit that linux doesn't have such a commercial, consumer flavor, and it doesn't treat you like someone who only wants a brainless, painless "user experience" with instant gratification. On Windows, I feel treated like a child in second grade. The most they can hope for is that I will click in the right place. On Linux I feel treated like a college student.

The answer is not software design to make things easier. The answer lies in the human's willingness to put forth the effort. That is not acceptable if you want success beyond a very tiny niche. Any software that caters to a tiny minority of all users is considered a dismal failure, and rightly so in terms of dollars and cents. But it is an alternate solution that will appeal to just enough people to keep it alive with a single heartbeat per minute.

Mindless zero-cost ease-of-use shall always prevail. Linux's problem is that it is not mindless and it is not easy to use. My notion about this is that the more humans that you keep from using something, the better that something is. People are always the problem. Always. You cannot design anything that will eliminate the problem of the user sitting in front of the computer. it is better to require the human to put forth effort to gain the knowledge that they need instead of making them utterly brain-dead dependent upon a software that will not keep pace with change - and ultimately fail the user at the moment of truth.

I don't mean something that attracts zero users because it is so difficult to use. I mean soemthing with a superior design that appeals to the user who is going to put forth the effort. Users that are willing to put forth the effort in the consumer space are a tiny minority. That makes Linux desktop an utter failure.

 

[shmu26]

Users that are willing to put forth the effort in the consumer space are a tiny minority. That makes Linux desktop an utter failure.

Products that cater to minority groups are not necessarily failures.

 

[mazskolnieces]

Products that cater to minority groups are not necessarily failures.

Linux desktop is a failure in the commercial sense. And for the world, everything is measured in dollars and cents.

People will use freewares. Sure they will. Whether or not they're a success or failure depends upon the measuring stick used. Anyone can use a different measuring stick to make something seem better than it actually is.

Most freewares are destined to become failures because eventually, most of them die a slow death. They're on life support for many years.

If it were not for Linux server, then Linux would have died long, long ago. Over the decades there have been many discussions within FOSS to just kill Linux desktop and put it out of its misery. But there are these small bands of people that keep the distro wars alive.

 

[shmu26]

Linux desktop is a failure in the commercial sense. And for the world, everything is measured in dollars and cents.

People will use freewares. Sure they will. Whether or not they're a success or failure depends upon the measuring stick used. Anyone can use a different measuring stick to make something seem better than it actually is.

Most freewares are destined to become failures because eventually, most of them die a slow death. They're on life support for many years.

If it were not for Linux server, then Linux would have died long, long ago. Over the decades there have been many discussions within FOSS to just kill Linux desktop and put it out of its misery. But there are these small bands of people that keep the distro wars alive.

Those who measure success in terms of dollars and cents are not seeing the whole picture.

 

[mazskolnieces]

Those who measure success in terms of dollars and cents are not seeing the whole picture.

Most people are not willing to work forever for free. Just look at the huge ocean of abandoned freewares out there.

Because of the time and effort, there is huge turnover amongst FOSS developers and testers. Money is what keeps software viable as most of the most die-hard Linux core are just passionate about their Linux involvement.

Linux is backed by money though. RedHat, Canonical and the Linux Foundation keep Linux alive due to their revenue streams and donations. Without that money, Linux would be an even smaller market share.

 

[jackuars]

Most people are not willing to work forever for free. Just look at the huge ocean of abandoned freewares out there.

Because of the time and effort, there is huge turnover amongst FOSS developers and testers. Money is what keeps software viable as most of the most die-hard Linux core are just passionate about their Linux involvement.

Linux is backed by money though. RedHat, Canonical and the Linux Foundation keep Linux alive due to their revenue streams and donations. Without that money, Linux would be an even smaller market share.

For every dead freeware, there's a new one out there. There's no dearth of alternatives in the freeware world. As a freeware connoisseur, it's a simple fact. Freeware in plural sense is here to stay for the long run.

 

[shmu26]

Most people are not willing to work forever for free. Just look at the huge ocean of abandoned freewares out there.

Because of the time and effort, there is huge turnover amongst FOSS developers and testers. Money is what keeps software viable as most of the most die-hard Linux core are just passionate about their Linux involvement.

Linux is backed by money though. RedHat, Canonical and the Linux Foundation keep Linux alive due to their revenue streams and donations. Without that money, Linux would be an even smaller market share.

There is big, expensive software, such as Microsoft Office and Adobe products ,that need bigger money than linux can provide. A virtual machine helps for that.