How To: Windows XP Mode In...Ubuntu Linux?

[dark41]

Also @ Brainstorms,
Just out of curiosity, if Linux is so easy to install and use.. why didn't you insist that your father-in-law use Ubuntu?

Better yet, now that he's tried Vista for a bit... make an image of his HDD and have him try to install and use Ubuntu. Let him tell you which is easier and why. You can always reload the Vista image after he gets tired of fighting with Ubuntu, and I'm quite sure he will.

 

[dc_webster]

@dark41
Thanks for your spirited take on continuing to run Windows. I guess both points of view give me a balanced take on each side of the fence. For me personally, as, a bit like Brainstorms, I have some unix background, it probably wont be nearly as hard for me to understand the instructions on using Ubuntu as I understand Unix processes /filesystems and lingo (tho I am not nearly a guru as such). So, I guess my point is, that I may try learning/relearning to use a more complex version of linux/unix as I can see the potential power in them. I think you have a valid point about linux not necessarily being safer. I have used the same sort of argument on here, as it happens, to state that Macs may not be as hacker resilient as they appear for similar reasons to those you outlined. I will have to confer with my University sys admin friend, but I am pretty sure he would make the case for some unix servers that can be used on the workstation as being pretty hardened, although he may agree with your sentiment that it takes some admin work to keep them that way. (that is after all, a part of his job However, your point is taken, about the ease of use of installation etc of windows vs unbuntu - especially given the assumed knowledge of the user.

I would have admit that I havent been quite as active in the PC market of late and there are probably quite a few new products that I'm not aware of that harden Windows. I have to admit, I had not heard of Malwarebytes Pro being such an excellent product. I've certainly heard of it, but not its excellent prevention rate as you have stated. Thanks for mentioning it, I will give it a look see to see if it can help my setup. My main prefernce for an anti-virus product is Nod 32. In surveys this seems to be the hackers choice, and is used a lot by friends. If Malwarebytes Pro can help with added active protection I'd happily give it a look see.

The only question I'd have is, is this product and others really good enough to harden Windows XP/2K enough? This is a point I may differ with you on if thats a part of what you were saying. But I ceratinly take notice of your high success rate with low infection counts in your business, so it is interesting to note. At this point in time, I would be reluctant to give anyone Windows XP instead of Windows 7 because I'm not convinced that the Vista/7 architecture isn't a lot better at malware prevention than any hardening of XP. Just my opinion, and admittedly not based on huge experience like yourself. Perhaps you could enlighten me on this point - it may not even be what you were saying.

I also use an ESata unplugged drive for my RAID backup. Two enclosures, one for each of my two machines. (Tho I havent used the esata in the older PC, only USB 2 - in any case incremental backups dont take long on it at all.) I think this a good practise to have just in case your RAID becomes infected. Although I prefer to run RAID 1. Although not nearly as fast as RAID 0, I find the read speeds more than adequate and obviously the RAID 1 lets me continue on without one disc, which happened just a few weeks ago Anyway, I guess I just prefer paranoid redundancy to extra raid 0 speed.

Thanks again to you both for all the info - all very interesting. For now, Im with you @dark41 and will be staying windows, but the linux/unix option remains if I get excited! Perhaps @dark41, you could outline your best course of action to harden Windows 7 if the above hasn't illustrated that already. I will definately being looking into Malwarebytes Pro. Thanks again

 

[dc_webster]

@dark41
I just wanted to quickly say that I agree also that a properly hardened system is essential if you test a lot of software, or perform other perhaps risky activities. (or perhaps just to stop the opportunist in every users setup). One thing I run is pfsense freebsd firewall with snort prevention turned on with the intention of updating it reguarly. But I could do with more of a primer on the latest Windows "hardeners". Any further advice would be greatly appreciated. I will have to re-read your post to look into the things you've already mentioned. Thanks for taking the time to post. Cheers

 

[sonofliberty08]

if i use the linux to host winxp on virtual machine , does it had any issue about license ?

 

[Brainstorms]

@sonofliberty08
You have to have a valid XP license (product key) to install in a VM, which appears as 'just another PC' to Windows. Afterwards, you'll have to activate it, just as you do when installing on 'real hardware'.

This prevents you from effectively using the same license on the machine for both a native install and a VM. Each install will need to activate, and each will report different hardware to Microsoft -- leading Microsoft to conclude that one of the installs is pirated.

Additional licenses are easy to pick up on the cheap in the used/auction market...

 

[Brainstorms]

[citation][nom]dark41[/nom]Also @ Brainstorms,Just out of curiosity, if Linux is so easy to install and use.. why didn't you insist that your father-in-law use Ubuntu? Better yet, now that he's tried Vista for a bit... make an image of his HDD and have him try to install and use Ubuntu. Let him tell you which is easier and why. You can always reload the Vista image after he gets tired of fighting with Ubuntu, and I'm quite sure he will. [/citation]

@dark41
I would have, except that his son bought the machine & set it up for him without me knowing about it. I found out he had it about a month later. (His son lived two blocks from him at the time.) I left it at that, until he & his son came to me for help when the screen kept blacking out and the mouse wouldn't work properly, and he could no longer access his streaming radio. I examined the system and found all kinds of traces of it being 'pwned', which is when I insisted he try Ubuntu instead.

My father-in-law is a really nice guy, but he's not computer literate and really just wants an appliance. I may take you up on your 'challenge', though, and bring over one of my machines (that's ready for an OS build) and let him do it, while I watch. That would give me good feedback on where the 'sticking points' are, enabling me to give better pointers to others in the future.

He could NOT install Windows XP -- no doubt about that. Vista, I'm not sure (because I skipped it). Windows 7 would probably be as easy for him as installing Ubuntu. I.e., boot the CD and answer a few questions, then wait. Even then, both OS installs ask technical questions at some point that newbies couldn't be expected to understand.

He's never had to 'fight' Ubuntu (although the only fighting he did with Windows was dealing with the effects of getting infected). He's asked a few times about phishing pop-ups that want to install trojans, to which we laugh and tell him to just close the dialog -- and not to worry if he clicks on 'OK' anyway, since it can't infect Linux. :^)

 

[Brainstorms]

@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!

 

[dark41]

@Brainstorms,
Must say I'm pleasantly surprised by your reply. Usually I get flamed by Linux users for my point of view. I appreciate your open mind about how things can improve, for both Windows and Linux. I don't believe the perfect OS has been invented, and probably never will.

I'm certainly not MS's biggest fan. But MS is what it is and all we, as system builders, can do is adjust to resources as they become available.

In their defense, I understand completely why MS doesn't implement anti-virus on their systems. Just look at what the EU did about Windows Media Player, and now IE. Surely they'd get sued over putting someone else's AV software on their OS, and obviously anti-malware is not their cup of tea (Defender is about worthless). I don't understand all the lawsuits as IMO they just slow innovation. Its not like users couldn't still put the media player and browser of their choice on the OS, but because the lawsuits exist and will continue MS will probably put out more basic OS's rather than go the way you and I both wish they would (more of a complete solution).

I'm actually very disappointed that I couldn't get Ubuntu to work on my system. I was really looking forward to having a good play with it, seeing how far its come, what I can do and what I can't, and testing the security for my own uses. My first attempt was to put it on the RAID 0 array as a tri-boot along with XP Pro and Win 7 Enterprise 64-bit. But my 2nd attempt (with my son) was to put it on a separate HDD. I did have the RAID array connected while installing Ubuntu to the separate drive, hoping I'd still have a tri-boot setup. For whatever reasons, it destroyed the boot manager of Windows and would only boot if I set it as the boot drive in BIOS. I'm sure if I fight with this for a while I can figure out how to get it working. I do have plenty of other systems without RAID to test on too, but hoped it was ready to be thrown into the fire (my system is pretty much as complicated as most home systems are likely to be).

In both cases, I went to the "Computer" window and didnt' see the RAID data drive at all. As I understand it, that's where I was supposed to mount the data partition? For whatever reason, it wasn't there. I even flagged the partitions as Linux/RAID to see if that would help, but no go.

Anyway, I'll probably have another go at it later as time permits as I can't stand it when technology kicks my butt.

As far as anti-malware, I totally agree that most system builders don't provide the necessary software and elementary training on how to use them. They also sold huge numbers of laptops with Vista and 512mb and 1GB of memory. All of these practices gave all system builders a bad name. We refer to these poor practices on our website, but often find that the damage is already done to our image.

I found out what little I know about anti-malware from google, lists of top tens, etc.. Then I began testing... everything. Over the years I've found a few good and affordable options that we've stuck with. All of these programs have strengths and weaknesses, so you have to pick your poison to some extent. I won't list products that I don't like for whatever reason, as they may be sufficient for some people's uses, but here's a brief summary of our weapons of choice:

AVG: Has free and paid versions. Considering price, ease of use, effectiveness, and customer support, simply the best we've ever used. We've been AVG resellers for many years. Some versions are better than others, and as with any free version, you get what you pay for (no scheduling support or customer service). I wasn't very happy with version 8, but from what I've seen on the 9 Beta they've made serious steps in the right direction again. Runs very well in the backround without effecting the system, updates are the fastest in the industry, and mostly problem free.
Comodo: The interface seems kind of childish to me and they incorporate many tools that I'd never use, but their IP protection and AV just work. The price is very affordable.
Nod32: Free and paid versions. Conflicts with some software, but just works.
SuperAntiSpyware: Free and paid versions. A few years ago was the best anti-spyware tool available, and still pretty darned good. Be careful as there are malware copy-cats. Very good price for paid version and decent support. No false positives that I've seen.
Malwarebytes: Free and paid versions. No active protection or scheduling with free version. Some problems on Pro version automatically updating. But simply the best I've used for identifying and eliminating malware. The price is very good for what it does. No false positives that I've seen.
CounterSpy/Vipre: Doesn't play well with other AV software. Can lag even the best machines during scans. Does the job and has very few false positives. Customer support is excellent.

Its also worth mentioning that most people don't understand the difference between anti-virus and anti-spyware protection. Both are anti-malware, but very few programs do it all well. I recommend a single AV product and a couple different anti-spyware products all be run on the same system, but setting these up can demand some research (as with CounterSpy/Vipre not playing well with other anti-malware installed; it can be done but the active protection must be disabled). IMO, the best option is a security suite similar to AVG's (both anti-virus and anti-spyware, firewall, and anti-spam, etc.) along with 2 separate anti-malware programs of your choice. Every product has different definitions and reaction time to new threats, so you'll find that some things identify what others don't regularly. Anyway, enough rambling about malware.

We're not Dell or Gateway. We're a family owned and operated custom business. It took a while for us to get started as advertising is expensive. For the last 5 years we've done no paid advertising at all, we rely upon word of mouth advertising. Most of our current customers are now repeat customers upgrading their 7-9 year old systems. The remainder is family and friends of existing customers, and that's really all we want anymore. So yes, I strongly believe that treating your customers right pays dividends in the end, and keeps repairs to a minimum. We'd much rather be building systems.

Anyway, best to you and yours and I hope your father-in-law enjoys his cumputing experience as much as my father-in-law seems to be enjoying his.

 

[Brainstorms]

@dark41,
I'm not the average Linux user, but then I was never the average Windows (or Mac) user, either. Flaming someone to defend an entrenched position is not my style... I'd much rather learn something new & potentially useful (including changing what I do) than to take a stand to defend prior investments or some 'religious' position. Alienating people is a counter-productive waste of bandwidth. We all benefit from bringing minds together to exchange what we've learned. If someone feels passionately about what they're involved in, there's something of value there. I can always decide later it's not for me and still 'live and let live'. No one needs to validate me by suddenly following my lead. If I want to sell someone on what I've experienced, I'm certainly not going to succeed by putting them down to do it.

In this case I don't find anything to flame about you & what you've said. Your earlier tone in some of your posts may strike some as confrontational, but for me it triggers memories of the same kinds of frustrations (and at times outrage) I've felt dealing with similar technologies and situations. I identify with the values and commitment to 'making things right' that leads to that. I'm an engineer because of my drive to create & improve. You're doing much better than most system builders to make what you have work the best it can. Linux may not fit into that (in its current incarnation), but that could change -- if Linux keeps moving along its path of improvement. I'm encouraged to see Windows moving along, too. It's healthy to have alternatives in the marketplace, so I hope to eventually see more equal market penetration -- Mac, Linux, and Windows.

I agree with you about why MS does what it does, EU & all. Good for Linux that those EU issues won't torpedo its development -- no one to sue, since no corporation controls it, so innovation continues and approaches completeness, if along a different route. But again, both need to win that race, or everyone loses one way or another. Monopolies bring complacency, and complacency kills quality, and soon after, usefulness.

I think the sum total of your problems getting Ubuntu going has to do with the RAIDed Windows partitions. I think it was destined to fail: Ubuntu doesn't (by default) support Windows RAID arrays any more than Windows and Linux software RAID arrays. (I'll guess it's viewed as being too unusual, especially to be a default capability squeezed into a CD with everything else.) If you look on help.ubuntu.com/community/FakeRaidHowto, you'll see an unusual number of highlighted warnings -- along with procedures on how to tackle it anyway. (Never give up!! :^)

When Linux installs, and there are other OSes it detects, it will modify the MBR of the boot drive in BIOS to install grub. It will then add a 'chain loader' command to its boot menu to allow chaining to these other OSes. Linux boots first, and its menu lets you 'go anywhere you please'. But if Linux can't read the WinRAID partitions, you're sunk -- especially if they're the BIOS boot drive(s). That seems to be what happened to you. Those drives don't show up on Places under Computer because Linux can't figure out how to mount them; it can't 'see' a file system it recognizes. And the same thing will happen if you have drives with Linux software RAID formatting and you don't run 'mdadm' -- Linux won't recognize them either! You have to run an app that can assemble the array before it can be mounted as a logical drive.

This same limitation also screws up attempts to install Linux to a Linux RAID set. You *must* have the /boot partition non-RAIDed (or at least in RAID 1). If your OS is to be RAIDed, then you have to do your homework and modify your 'initrd-img-' (RAM disk boot image) file to include 'mdadm' & RAID assembly so that the kernel can make sense of the drives involved, make a readable file system, and find your root. Not for the faint of heart, but it's do-able (and a challenge for weirdos like us who think it's fun to conquer such things). Also, there's a second Ubuntu installer CD that contains 'mdadm' and RAID creation/installation support; you would have needed that CD...

If I were you, I would give it another try, but on a simpler system -- one without Windows RAID. Technology didn't kick your butt as much as your far-reaching ambition did! :^) Do it both to satisfy that "I'll be damned if I can't make it work" thing as well as taking a successful look through that door to see what it's about. (You'll be in a better position to find an install solution for your configurations after you reach that point.) Also, if Shuttleworth's vision comes to fruition you'll be ahead by having at least some familiarity with Linux. (Heck, you might like playing with it, too.)

I'd be very interested in knowing what you find out about its security, too...

Oh, and as far as installing software goes, use System / Administration / Synaptic Package Manager rather than downloading tar files and trying to manually install things, as your son did. The biggest frustration about installing (most) Linux software is knowing what's in the repositories and what things are called; I usually do an internet search to learn what to use, then install it with Synaptic. I think I've only ever needed to get software elsewhere for Picasa, Skype, VMware, and an HP-15C calculator simulator. And all the but the last had a GUI installer.

Returning to Windows, I've always looked at MS's OS product offerings using the 'tick-tock' model, and avoided the ticks. Vista was a tick, and Win7 its tock. And I've liked the tocks. I can see how a system builder wouldn't have that same luxury -- and would end up getting tarred with the same blame brush. But how could they do things differently?

What I like about your approach is the part where you mention "testing... everything". Kudos to you -- that's a lot of hard, time-consuming work. (I'm a professional test engineer, so I know...) Thanks again for sharing what you've learned about dealing with malware. I think I can re-enable internet access for my Windows installs. ;^)

Keep up the good work, and I hope to hear that you vanquish your gremlins. Here's to keeping the in-laws and customers happy by showing them that things can be made to work properly!

 

[dark41]

The inclination to test everything comes from 17 years in injection molding, running DOE's on all new tools and materials. I was a middle manager but worked closely with engineering. It has paid carrying those habits over to computers too, but does tend to make me overly opiniated based upon my own results. Not always a good thing because computers don't always act logically, or give reproduceable results, but keeps it all interesting to me.

I appreciate the heads up on installation, both programs and the OS. I've got a spare 1TB drive, so will probably physically disconnect my Windows RAID array and install to that. Then I should be able to connect the array drives again and boot to either/or from BIOS, I think. Hopefully I'll figure out how to see the RAID 0 data partition eventually, and saves me walking across the room to another system.

Not sure when I'll get to it though as we just picked up a few copies of the newly released OEM Win 7 which need to be installed on our systems. If they're as good as the RTM versions I'll be very happy with Win 7 as a primary OS for the time being.

 

[Carson]

Let me get this straight, because I'm pretty slow:

The "clincher that holdouts needed in order to finally upgrade" is to be able to continue to use what they already have? So, for XP users who were too poor, too reactionary, or too intelligent to go for Vista, there is now this option that, if they pay the highest price available, they can buy into this new OS and keep using their XP?

Um—this is. . .NOT a joke, right?

 

[yyrkoon]

@Dark41

First I would agree with you that Windows is much easier at doing several things including a one double click to install applications( if they do not autoplay; which then technically requires no other interaction other than inserting the media). I also agree that security( e.g. viruses) in XP are a non issue for me as well.

However . . .

1) Once you learn how to use Linux, especially an intuitive distribution, installing most applications becomes just as easy, although a few more steps are necessary sure.

2) Now concerning security, Linux is much more secure "out of the box". Default settings tend to lean toward the secure end of the spectrum, and the Linux architecture is plain and simply more robust where undesirable code execution is concerned. However, with the default settings being so strict in some cases, it *could* take a novice user hours, if not days to figure out how to set something as simple as local file shares up within Linux. Whether this is a good or bad thing is purely debatable.

Now if you would not mind me elaborating on the subject of your woes . . .

Wait until the next time you upgrade an existing copy of Ubuntu to a future version. Ubuntu from my ( and many, many others ) experiences falls flat on its face concerning this. Often times, the upgrade will brake one, or many things you had previously working great. And *this* is why any serious IT person ( at the very least all of those I know ) would never use it as a production OS. Well not the *only* reason, but a very good reason why.

Before you give up on Linux though, perhaps you should give various other distributions a chance. Debian, my favored distribution is very robust, and operates very similar to Ubuntu ( as Ubuntu is based off of Debian ). There is even at least one Gentoo based distribution named "Sabayon" that is also supposed to be very intuitive. Just bare in mind, that "Linux from scratch" would be a good way to describe Gentoo. Linux from scratch would appeal to those who would like to have the best possible security, and performance from their application at the cost of having to compile everything themselves on the target machine ( typically).

There are also the different versions of BSD, and even openSolaris. Although the latter here is probably more suited for server related tasks, but could surely be used on any workstation as well.

My personal tastes lean towards Windows, and you described some reasons I have experienced in the past, and present why. Windows just seems cleaner, hardware issues ( relating to drivers, or driver modules ) are much less of an issue, Windows has a very large user base, and as such has many well written applications such as AutoCAD, Photoshop, OrCAD ( for those of you who are Electronics Engineers ), just to name a few. Then, if you're a gamer . . . it is just icing on the cake.

On the other end of things; I really REALLY do want Linux to succeed. Often however I am disappointed, especially with distributions like Ubuntu. Mainly, this is because Ubuntu is just like Debian ( again, my favored distro ) with better current hardware support. But if a distro supports current hardware at the expense of stability / reliability / flexibility, then in my mind is ceases to be Linux. This has been my experience with Ubuntu. It comes close, but fall flat in many respects. At one point, I had a "working" Samba + XFS Ubuntu system setup for streaming video to my XP systems, and it kept crashing every 15 minutes. No, this had nothing to do with user error either. Meanwhile the XP system sitting next to it serving the same purpose ( I was testing setups ) had an uptime of 3 months . . . very disconcerting. Debian on the other hand I have had very good dealings with, but Debian does not support cutting edge hardware in the "stable" variants. There are however "testing", and "unstable" variants of Debian which may, or may not support current hardware, or various "experimental" technologies. So, in the long run, unless you're a kernel / module coder, there always seems to be a trade off. That is, to get Linux to do the things you want, and how you want them done.

Still, if you want a highly customized operating system for specific task(s); you really can not beat Linux. While there is embedded Windows (based on several versions of Windows) it still can not compete with Linux, let alone embedded Linux for many reasons.

 

[yyrkoon]

@Brainstorms

I would agree with many of the points you have made. Having said that however, it has been my personal experiences that Ubuntu as an OS is not well suited for server related activities.

Let me explain;

I have tested numerous technologies under Ubuntu that many could view as server technologies. These technologies include ( but are not limited to ) iSCSI, AoE, RAID, openMosix ( parallel computing ), Virtual machines ( mostly Xen) and Ethernet channel bonding. The development of these separate technologies does not seem to advance as quickly as Ubuntu does.

As an example, when I was working on getting a good Xen setup running under Ubuntu, it seemed that every time I ran into troubles, it was related to udev. Udev at the time was new "technology", and a lot of the older, slower maintained technologies would simply not function, refuse to install, or would be very unstable.

As far as Soft RAID is concerned, it has not been long since Soft RAID was not even possible on a boot able partition without "hacking" your way around the problem( and this was only possible with RAID1). Well relatively at any rate. I seem to recall around the time that Debian Sarge went "Stable", this issue was addressed, at least for Debian. I would also point out that this is not even possible on your standard desktop varieties of Windows. BIOS RAID ( or fake RAID if you like; depending on your hardware ) in this respect should be similar to hardware RAID. At least where Windows is concerned. I would also like to add ( only because you mentioned it ) that all forms of software RAID under Windows works very well ( yes even the RAID5 hack presented by toms years ago under Windows XP Pro).

Anyways, to get back on track, each of the above technologies I have tested under Ubuntu failed. At one point I was working with an Ubuntu kernel developer ( whom I had known from IRC for years ) when we both came to the same conclusion. Ubuntu being developed so rapidly, was out pacing most if not all of these technologies in development. They support newer hardware / technologies, while maintaining very poor support for the things that I suppose that they deem low priority for them. That is compared to other distro development teams who develop things in a specific way to assure compatibility for these same specific technologies. Granted, at a much slower pace.

So I will say that while the idea of Linux as a desktop could be appealing to me, that is not why / how I wish to use Linux. Windows fills that "void" for me perfectly. A lot of this has to do with gaming, but there are many other applications / uses that I still prefer to use Windows for. Also, while this post is being written from a Vista machine, I personally prefer Windows XP. Ever since service pack 2, Windows XP for me has simply been a joy to use to various different reasons. Vista on the other hand while not terrible in comparison ( I actually do like UAC now since RTM ), still does not stack up to its predecessor. For me, this mostly has to do with "trusted computing", and a degradation concerning performance(I did software RAID testing between these as well as gaming, networking, etc).

In the end, I think that each individual user must make their own choices. Things that work for me, may / may not work for another. Getting some things done in Linux simply makes me wince at the idea though, when I can simply do them the way I want under Windows. With a great deal less hassle I might add. I do know Windows XP very well though. However, being a novice embedded device developer, and tinkerer at heart, I still have plenty use for Linux. Maybe even Ubuntu if the development team comes around to my way of thinking ( someday ).

 

[dark41]

I installed mdadm through synaptic package manager. It was supposed to already be installed (via the download script) but wasn't showing as a service. Now it is, although it still doesn't see my RAID 0 data partition to mount it. Bummer.

I'm not entirely new to Linux. I used Slackware 7.1 for a couple years back in the day. I was hoping the newer interface was more user friendly and compatible with more hardware and software, and it is. However Ubuntu 9.04 still leaves me wishing for more. At least it is installed now and left my Windows partitions alone so I can play with it as time permits.

I may download Debian at some point and have a play with that too, but was drawn to Ubuntu after seeing several reviews that spoke highly of it, and this author seems to like it too. I guess my expectations are just higher than some other people's. I'm also probably too old and set in my ways to learn anything quickly anymore.

 

[dark41]

I always get a kick out of these:

Let me get this straight, because I'm pretty slow:

The "clincher that holdouts needed in order to finally upgrade" is to be able to continue to use what they already have? So, for XP users who were too poor, too reactionary, or too intelligent to go for Vista, there is now this option that, if they pay the highest price available, they can buy into this new OS and keep using their XP?

Um—this is. . .NOT a joke, right?

XP mode runs in Windows 7 Pro and Windows 7 Ultimate. Windows 7 Pro OEM versions are selling for $160AUD (incl GST), and Windows 7 Ultimate are selling for $220AUD (incl GST). Anyone who can't afford $160 is out of luck. Anyone who doesn't think that's a decent price to have all the new features of Windows 7 (- bitlocker and the ability to change between 35 languages), and still be able to use all of their XP programs is wanting something for nothing. Good luck with that.

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-AU/windows7/products/compare


After looking at Debian again (5 DVDs, almost 20GB??) I think I'll go without. That would play havoc with my 40GB download/upload cap per month. Gotta love Australia. :-(

 

[yyrkoon]

@Dark41

If you're wanting a cutting edge distribution, you may want to consider Sabayon. Google "Sabayon Linux" and it *should* be the first hit. Like I stated above, it is a Gentoo based distro, so if you want to one day roll your own, it is possible ( but not a requirement ). What I found really cool about it is that it was the first full blown live DvD distro that I had ever used, and *everything* worked great. Even including the fancy graphics in X. At the time I was beta testing Vista, and found the live DVD desktop to look just as good as AERO. If time is a premium for you, like it is for me, you could even just read about it to see if it is something that you like. *shrug*

Debian is great, and it is solid, but like I also said above, their development moves at a slower pace compared to some of the more cutting edge distros. What this means is that your semi current hardware ( assuming that is what you have ) may not be supported. As an example, when I was toying around with dapper, perhaps breezy, I was trying to get some of the technologies I mentioned above working with my most current system. This system I was wanting to use had an Intel P35 / ICH9R chipset which was not supported by the current stable variant of Debian( more correctly the southbridge was not supported ). This meant my SATA drives were not working, and the work around I got from freenode's ##debian IRC channel did not work. Anyways, Ubuntu *did* support these chipsets, but was not stable / able for my purposes. *This* was the cause of much frustration for me, and is the main reason why I dislike Ubuntu. However, if you want a rock solid distro, that usually offers a painless / reasonable upgrade path, then Debian may very well be for you. That is at the expense of not being able to use the most cutting edge hardware available (in many cases).

You know though, everyone has their own opinions, so the only real way you're going to know if one variant or another will work for you is to try it. Best not to use a production machine however until you're sure. For me personally with Debian, it is just something that I almost immediately felt right at home with using, and the basic package manager ( APT ) is a no nonsense way of installing applications. Once you use it, and fully understand it that is. Completely different from Redhat based distributions when I first started with it years ago. I also had experimented with Slackware years ago, and it never really impressed me much despite several people I talked to on IRC being very excited about it.

A lot of people I know from IRC also seem to be excited about Fedora. I tend to be standoff-ish about such "recommendations" however because of my Slackware, and similar experiences from the past. Your millage may very well vary

 

[yyrkoon]

Oh, and dark41, I just reread the last bit of your last post and saw what you wrote.

Debian has an ISO that is called a minimal install. Look into that. The last I looked ( which was a while back ) the minimal install media was only 140 ish Megabytes. After downloading, and installing that, you can install packages one at a time as you see fit, and bandwidth becomes available to you. This can be daunting for a novice, but can also serve as a method to familiarize yourself with the given distribution. Learn as you go if you will.

Also, that 20 Gigabytes is unnecessary. Most likely the first CD is all that is required to complete a basic install. Then you could later issues one, or several apt-get install for those packages you require. With that said, it would probably be better to use aptitude ( yet another extension of APT ), and it would download, and install all dependencies for you so things do not end up broken. It can and will happen. Even to those who are more experienced some times.

 

[dark41]

My hardware is similar in age to yours yyrkoon. I have a EX38 chipset, SATA II drives, and the mighty E8400 on this system... overclocked of course.

Thanks for all the info, I'll definitely take a look around. At one time I had most installations of Linux downloaded, but they're all obsolete now. I even gave Lindows (before it became Linspire) a workout, so I'm always open to something different. It'll keep me busy for quite a while checking out all the latest distros.

 

[dirgon]

This seems like an awful lot of work for nothing, when one can easily just install Linux, install Grub on the MBR and then install Windows XP on a secondary partition or hard drive, then choose which OS to boot into at each restart. This also allows whatever operating system you have booted into access to all your resources, instead of running on a virtual machine that can cause a world of lag.

 

[Brainstorms]

I disagree. Suppose you're doing your work with Linux booted, and you need to visit a "defective web site" that loses its cookies [pun intended] if it sees a browser other than IE.

Do you really want to 1) stop what you're doing, 2) write down the URL of the defective web site, 3) save & close all your docs, 4) reboot your PC into Windows, 5) run IE and re-enter the URL, 6) get your results (say) & save on a thumb drive, 7) reboot your PC back into Linux, 8) open all your docs again, 9) recover what you downloaded from your thumb drive, 9) do what you need to do. Does anyone think that this is acceptable?

Alternative: You're doing your work with Linux booted, and you need to visit a "defective web site" in IE. You have Windows running in a virtual machine on another desktop workspace. You click over to the other workspace, into the Windows VM. You open IE and download the file to a shared folder. You return to where you started and fetch the download from the shared folder and continue working.

To me, this is one big no-brainer. I'll gladly spend 15 minutes installing a virtualization app to avoid rebooting from then on just to run something in Windows occasionally.

That said, I still dual-boot with Windows. Why? To run games that need 3d video acceleration, of course...

 

[Guest]

lol I just dual boot

 

[Guest]

@yyrkoon: "1) Once you learn how to use Linux, especially an intuitive distribution, installing most applications becomes just as easy, although a few more steps are necessary sure."

To my mind opening up ubuntu's equivalent of "Add/remove programs" (In the first tier of the 'start' menu) and typing in a couple of words related to what you're after then clicking install probably involves a few fewer steps than googling, trying to work out what covers what you want without requiring you to hand over your credit card info, downloading and running the install file by hand - although fiddling with the commandline frontends instead like I'm used to probably narrows the gap some sure.

"Wait until the next time you upgrade an existing copy of Ubuntu to a future version. Ubuntu from my ( and many, many others ) experiences falls flat on its face concerning this."

My experience with the update-manager has also been kinda hit and miss. 8.10 to 9.04 was smooth, but all in place upgrades I tried before that (I've been using ubuntu on and off since 4.10) ended up with me doing a fresh install. Haven't tried 9.04 to 9.10 yet.

"Just bare in mind, that "Linux from scratch" would be a good way to describe Gentoo."

Not sure if you have ran into this yet, but there actually is a linux from scratch project, literally building a linux system up from just about nothing but source (using an existing minimal image to compile the initial system, of course). I'm studying comp sci at uni, and have been a computer nut for years before that (which, looking at some of the people in my course, probably says a lot more about my technological competency than the former), but even I don't have the patience to follow this through. Having said that, if you want to understand the absolute nuts and bolts of how operating systems work there would be few better ways that following that guide.

@Dark41: "After looking at Debian again (5 DVDs, almost 20GB??) I think I'll go without. That would play havoc with my 40GB download/upload cap per month. Gotta love Australia. :-("

I do (Sydney). My cap isn't quite as bad as yours, but like yyrkoon says getting the full 20GB would take overkill to an entirely new level. Having said that, I once built up a debian system from a single CD image, and that kinda sucked too (working out how to get a dialup connection running without X and nice apps like kppp is not an experience I really want to repeat - especially given that it was a cheap and nasty winmodem with dodgy linux drivers and all kinds of quirks). There would presumably have to be a middle ground install image with X, KDE/Gnome and some more commonly used apps around the size of ubuntu's single CD image.

@yyrkoon: "But if a distro supports current hardware at the expense of stability / reliability / flexibility, then in my mind is ceases to be Linux. This has been my experience with Ubuntu. It comes close, but fall flat in many respects. At one point, I had a "working" Samba + XFS Ubuntu system setup for streaming video to my XP systems, and it kept crashing every 15 minutes. No, this had nothing to do with user error either."

Ouch. The closest I've ran into was random screen blanking and hard locks when playing warcraft (the only game I still play) under wine. Replacing the power supply ended up fixing that though (you don't want to know how long it took me to try that). Stability otherwise here is pretty good, although I my samba use is pretty much limited to occasional streaming and I don't use anything as exotic as XFS (just bog standard ext3).

@Dark41: "I found out what little I know about anti-malware from google, lists of top tens, etc.. Then I began testing... everything. Over the years I've found a few good and affordable options that we've stuck with. All of these programs have strengths and weaknesses, so you have to pick your poison to some extent. I won't list products that I don't like for whatever reason, as they may be sufficient for some people's uses, but here's a brief summary of our weapons of choice:"

Got the free version of AVG on my XP laptop at the moment, and it's spamming me with notices about how in a few weeks virus definition updates aren't going to be made available to it, so yeah not going to on the free list much longer. But you did skip over avira antivir, which I've used in the past and has seemed alright.

@Brainstorms: "I disagree. Suppose you're doing your work with Linux booted, and you need to visit a "defective web site" that loses its cookies [pun intended] if it sees a browser other than IE."

Most of the time these sites are just poorly designed (if browser = ie { display stuff } else { freak the hell out } ) rather than actually containing javascript that specifically requires the nonstandard parts of MS's implementation to function, and you can just tweak the user agent string to make it play ball. For the rest of the time, I'd probably look at installing ie6 or 7 under wine (googling ie wine shows how install either). I did this some time ago, used it for a couple of days to convince myself it worked well/stably enough, thought "cool, I've got a fallback if I ever hit an IE specific site" and then...never needed to actually use it. But it does work, and spending the time and disk space setting up a Virtualbox/VMWare VM just for that purpose (and the time firing it up each time you need it) is pretty solid overkill. Not that there aren't plenty of situations where a pocket copy of XP could come in handy.


As for myself, I moved to mandrake linux not long before XP came out - I never got my hands on a copy of 2000, and was sick of the

 

[pearl298]

[citation][nom]noob2222[/nom]Seems to me this could be quite a hassle for external hdd useage.Maybe I will try vbox to virtualize a linux install. Last linux install I tried didn't work so well, crashed my hdd, and was generally a pain to use.My experience with Linux, you have to know exactly what your doing and where to find the proper information, or know people who are well informed on linux.Also, talking about the taskbar dissappearing, that happened to me a few times when I was trying linux.[/citation]

Paraphrase: I made as feeble attempt to try Linux many years ago and fount that LINUX IS NOT WINDOWS (GASP!)

Get a life!

 

[jowunger]

FINALY! I can hide my WINDOWS in Linux! LOL!

 

[einheriar]

Just a question to all of you that have tried it. I have tried several times to install winXP SP2 under virtual box in Ubuntu. But every-time it starts to install "reboot" after the first install I get a BSOD in the virtualbox stating that the machine has stopped to protect my system.. Now i think it might have something to do with drivers on my winXP install disk.. anyone have ecperience with this, or more importantly have a solution?