@dark41,
This is in reply to your earlier, longer post. Yes, my father-in-law is a example of PEBCAC, because he's not computer-savvy. I wasn't blaming Windows, but I *can* blame the vendor who sold him the machine. It was delivered to him in a state that made it easy for someone doing such innocuous things with it as he did to end up getting 'botted'.
Windows, as an OS, is 'incomplete', in that it lacks a number of useful (or even 'necessary') elements to make it what I consider a 'whole OS'. One of the most significant, as you pointed out, is anti-malware software. This 'leave to it the industry to fill in the blanks' has long been Microsoft's business plan for their OS, which is fine, provided everyone knows and understands this, and system builders do the responsible thing as you obviously do and add the missing elements before delivery. Many (most?) don't, and people like my father-in-law have troubles as a result. I don't like that state of affairs...
To be fair to Windows, even Ubuntu does not install 'out of the box' with everything that the typical user needs. (And does a VERY POOR job of telling them what they need to do about it.) This is mainly MM stuff, though, as the OS is regarded as being somewhat 'immune' to (non-social engineering at least) malware -- which could change in the future. There are anti-virus packages for Linux, but they're not highly regarded, and most experts that I've read make good cases as to why they're unnecessary (a good part of which has to do with not being a PEBCAC).
Does this make one better than the other? No. I think it's a matter of personal preference, not a 'religious issue', so I don't pan one OS for another. Nor am I a purist, as some are. I use both OSes regularly. As one friend puts it, "It's amazing what you can do with the right tools." Linux is a very useful tool for me for most things I want to do. Works great for my father-in-law, too, for his rather narrow needs, and so I don't get phone calls.
My niece discovered LimeWire, too... My sister's household is 100% Windows, and she runs a business out of her house. I was tickled when her 'computer consultant' told her that she'd better get Linux for her daughter's surfing. But not surprised, either. (She didn't, by the way.)
You've obviously done the serious research that I find to be a drag (you had to, it's your business after all), so everyone on this blog should join me in thanking you for your recommendations on good Windows anti-malware apps. Your track record is a very strong endorsement of the products you've listed -- enough to sell me on them. :^)
What you know should be common knowledge, but obviously it's not. Windows fault? No. Still, things shouldn't be as they are; there's too much successful malware out there. I make that statement only because there are at least two significant Windows OS alternatives that don't suffer anywhere near the infection rates of Windows (reasons vary). So the real problem lies somewhere in this industry in that it's not addressing this issue well enough that everyone with a Windows machine has (and maintains!) sufficient anti-malware apps to make malware a novelty rather than a given.
I'm not sure that simply throwing technology at the problem will be a solution. Many have warned that it's a matter of time (and popularity) before malware writers target Mac & Linux to the point where it becomes a problem for them, too. I think you're correct that it's mainly a 'human element' issue. But most people who use computers treat them like an appliance and get sloppy with how they use and maintain them.
Dependence on users being pro-active in finding, evaluating, properly installing, and keeping up-to-date with anti-malware is, I believe, asking too much for the majority. Vendors can do a LOT more than they do (and you'll probably agree with that), but I think we need more solutions that are passive and automatic. But that's not 'The Windows Way', so perhaps that needs to change.
Again, I'm grateful to have finally found someone who's done the research, evaluation, and has resources to *prove* the effectiveness of good Windows anti-malware. How do we institute your practices and evangelize your recommend products to the masses so that everyone practices 'safe sex' on their computers? We all benefit if the malware issue abates (or goes away entirely from lack of success), myself included. I'm all for it.
But the implicit need to change human behavior to succeed bothers me. My solution for my father-in-law works in his case because regardless of what he does or *does not do*, he can no longer get infected -- and his computing experience isn't diminished. But I also realize that it's not a solution for the general public, because of the size of the Windows market and its widespread familiarity. YOUR solution is needed. The 'Linux solution' will remain an alternative solution, but a relatively small one (unless something really unforeseen happens, which would then lead to your other point, that more Linux anti-malware defenses would be needed).
I wonder if the problems you had before were due (at least in part) because you started with a Windows install on a RAID array. Linux's boot partition doesn't like to be RAIDed, and it doesn't come 'out of the box' being friendly with RAID arrays. (RAIDed data partitions are assembled & mounted after the kernel has booted & configured non-RAID partitions.) I've never heard someone have the kinds of problems you've described. Nor can I blame your attitude towards Linux; I felt the same way about XP (RTM, until SP1), as did many who struggled with Vista when it first came out. Two sides of the same coin, perhaps. Technology can be a royal pain, especially when new...
"Why its easy for you to search for a how to for Linux yet hard to find how to's for installing XP after Vista is unrealistic." Only because I never looked for it! And that's because I never got myself into the position of needing to install XP after Vista/Win7. If I had, I'd have picked that up, too. ::shrug::
"I find Windows easy because I know it well, and Linux more difficult because I'm less experienced with it and have less time to devote to it." Which is a very valid reason to stick with Windows! I have no problem with that. In fact, I *endorse* you promoting Windows because you're one of the few informed and responsible system builders who's building them right and keeping them protected. I wish you could be cloned... So, if you haven't a need for Linux (and/or are not curious), then stick with what you know & like. But by all means, keep producing and promoting properly protected and maintained Windows systems.
Windows & Linux can co-exist peacefully, and Windows will continue to be the choice for the average home user. There's no place for all-or-nothing evangelists. I'm very careful about who I recommend Linux to, because I know it's not for the average person (malware notwithstanding). And I, too, put Linux on the shelf until it matured to the point where I was no longer frustrated with it (May, 2008). Now, I'm glad it's an option for someone like me. And I'm glad it's improving -- I'm glad Windows is, too. Maybe that's competition benefiting us...
I quite agree with you & your son... You hit the nail on the head! Some basic parts of Linux are not intuitive, not explained well enough, and that makes it not easy. This is why I only suggest tinkering with it to select people, and I provide needed guidance. It's still at the point where a person needs someone more knowledgeable to help get started -- and THAT alone makes it 'not ready for prime time'. I'm hoping that that aspect of Linux will start getting high-priority attention from the distributors (esp. Canonical) lest they remain a niche product. (I've written manuals before; it's not fun, but it can and should be done.) Until then, I'm the sysadmin for my parents & in-laws and a few friends...
"There's also several good reasons for running the OS on the edge of a large multi-HDD with RAID 0 partition." I've actually started doing that, as I'm upgrading the drives in a few systems with bigger disks that have the room. I put 10-20 GB at the outer edge of both drives, then RAID0 the remainder for data and split the OSes across the smaller edge partitions. As for the longevity issues, I'm a big believer in good airflow across all hard drives, since heat is their biggest enemy. Case designs have finally caught up to that. :^)
"An 80GB HDD is worthless to me." That's why I can get them dirt cheap. They're good for an OS in a small desktop (non-performance) system, either Linux or Windows systems that don't need lots of apps (both being my situations). If I were mainly a Windows user, I'd be doing what you're doing, but I find that Linux OS+apps just don't need that much room. My Windows exists in a VM, which goes on my large, fast drives. (The native installs only need to run games.)
I understand where you're coming from, dark41, and I endorse what you're doing -- because you're doing it right, for the right reasons, and it's your business. I'm sorry to hear you've struggled with Linux, though, but not because I'd like to see you 'change to it' or anything like that. It's something to play with for the adventurous, a serious tool for the corporate world, and a viable alternative for the tech-savvy. Mark Shuttleworth has a vision to morph Linux into a 'desktop for the masses' alternative, but he's still on the road to getting there.
Nothing's perfect in this world, but I salute those committed to making it work better!
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram