This post is partly a response to a question in this forum located
here, but I'm actually commenting writ REALLY REALLY LARGE on a broader topic. I'm going to approach this differently than I normally do and attempt to address specific issues that interest many people in a non-specific way, in direct response to the questions asked in that post and some that derive from it. This is not intended to be comprehensive nor a guide to using a Linux. It is, however, my general thoughts on the subject of switching and comparing Linux and Windows. I will make four points.
This is longer than I initially intended, and I got a bit playful, so I'm putting the (*) notes up front to convey the specific information requested:
(*) ClamAv is adequate for a virus scanner under Linux. It comes standard with most distributions (distros), but you'll probably have to install and activate it yourself since the default for most distros is not to bother. Doing so is no different than installing any other software. In Ubuntu, with the command line, it's simply:
sudo apt-get install clamav
It runs silently, in the background. You'll never notice it unless something bad happens. You *can* install a GUI for it that allows you to do scans and such in a graphical, user-controlled environment, but I have found little utility in doing this.
You'll also want to run the command line application chkrootkit or rkhunter (or have them run automatically in a cronjob as part of the daily system maintenance) to check for rootkits every so often.
(**) Open Office can open pretty much anything its Microsoft Office counterparts can produce, particularly the older (pre-2007) versions, although the current incarnation of Open Office can open standard 2007 Word and Excel documents without a problem. In a Linux environment, one may have some trouble with exotic formatting, colors, tables, and various functions of spreadsheets. The fonts may be off because of proprietary MS fonts only available from Microsoft. All of that can be overcome.
Where problems start to arise is when switching back and forth with some regularity. Open Office allows you to save in MS format, but it warns you. MS Office does not allow you to save in Open Office (.ODF) format at all. So, if you want to switch between them, you generally will end up using the .DOC or .XLS formats for their respective types of programs. I've personally experienced this on multiple levels, some of which I've related in this forum.
For example, because Excel 2003 limits IF() nesting to a certain level (6, I think), I can create a function in an Open Office document that will *open* fine in Excel 2003, but when I save it in the .XLS format, if the function has greater than 7 levels of nesting, it will screw it up such than when I then open it again in either Excel or Calc (Open Office's spreadsheet), my equation will be screwed.
As another example, in Word, I may create lovely tables and colors and shading and save it in .DOCX format. Open Office will open it, but it may not look the same, and if I then save it again, it definitely won't look the same when I open it again in Word 2007.
Do note that these problems don't generally arise with basic stuff, rather the more advanced features.
Now, on to my lengthy opus ...
Be Prepared to ChangeWhen considering a switch to Linux, or even using Linux side-by-side with Windows, the first thing anyone needs to understand is that
Linux is NOT Windows. Neither is it OSX or AmigaDOS or whatever. It's it's own thing, and it will be different. This may seem a self-evident point, but it's important to understand because many people approach using an operating system as though Windows is The Way Things Should Be. Moreover, Windows is The Way Things Are for many people, and switching to any other operating system can be traumatic, a bit like going from driving a gasoline powered automobile with the steering wheel on the left in the US to flying a whirlymagig that runs on blue cheese dressing and can fly through mountains on Europa. Both will get you where you want to go, but the experience of getting there is entirely different. As the linked article states, the more of a Windows expert you are, the more difficult using Linux on the desktop can be. You must be prepared to change your way of thinking about doing things with a computer.
Point #1: If you are accustomed to Windows,
like the way things are done on Windows, and have few complaints about the software you use under Windows that cannot clearly be answered by using another operating system, switching to Linux may not be the best idea in the world.
System Philosophy and SecurityLinux is based on Unix. Unix was designed as a multi-user system. A multi-user system is then based on the idea that The System has its own space, and the users have their own space. Users do not directly interact with The System, so if a user screws up, the system doesn't care. It goes merrily along even though the user is dead. In part because of this, Linux is less susceptible to the
common modes of infection from malware seen today, today being February 19th, 2010. What is common today may change tomorrow. What becomes more possible may change two weeks from Tuesday at 2:27pm, EST. Furthermore, Linux is not as popular on the desktop as is Windows. That fact combined with the more difficult-to-infiltrate structure of a Linux system makes it less viable a target for script kiddies and other random purveyors of malicious software.
For a committed hacker, no system is secure. Believe it.
What this means in practical terms for our purposes here is that the malware (viruses, trojans, spyware, adware, rootkits, crippleware, javascript shenanigans, and just plain bad software that doesn't do anything but try to get you to give up your wallet) commonly experienced in the wild are less common and/or do not function well, or at all, in a Linux environment.
You *can* run Linux on a desktop all day long, every day, for years, regularly visiting sites known to be cesspools of malicious code just waiting to rob Grandma's life savings and have nothing happen to you. You might also visit a site that just has pictures of bunnies sleeping and end up causing NORAD to declare DEFCON 1 and end all life on the planet.
Point #2: The question is often asked, "Do I need virus protection if I use Linux?" The answer: Yes, you do ... probably not need it, but you should have it anyway(*). There are two basic reasons.
First, nothing inherently prevents malware from running on Linux. What prevents most malware that is
common today from doing anything with a Linux system is that a) it is written to work on a Windows machine and b) the security structure of a Linux machine makes writing malware that works on it more difficult, which is also a reason why most malware is written to work on a Windows machine. The malware may kill the user, or it may turn the user into a zombie, but you can kill the user, and The System survives. Of course, in the process, the user may have his bank account emptied. The System, which is free and doesn't understand money, still doesn't care. Second, even if malware cannot run on your machine, that does not prevent said malware from being passed on to others. Every time you connect to a computer, you are connecting to every other computer that computer has connected to. Use standard STD prevention advice. Protecting yourself protects everyone. Run a virus scanner. Occasionally run a rootkit scanner. Avoid HackersRUs.com.org.net.info unless you know what the hell you are doing, and avoid hubris at all costs.
SoftwareDeep down in the basement of the fundamentals, there's nothing really different about software for Linux and software for Windows. All software is a bunch of codes that tells different bits of electronic equipment how to function, and whether you're running Linux or Windows or AmigaDOS, the hardware is, for all intents and purposes, just one more collection of silicon and copper. Using a different operating system is just using a different language. People who speak Spanish and people who speak English both get along just fine in the world.
However, because Windows is so ubiquitous, concepts such as word processor have become synonymous with individual software packages such as Word. In a different universe in a different time or maybe in the same time and the same universe at a different lunch counter, EMACS is Word Processor. Excel is Spreadsheet. LOTUS 123 is Spreadsheet. Media Player is Media Player or MPlayer is Media Player. It's all just different ways of doing the same thing. Whether one is better depends largely on your priorities.
The differences between software under Linux and Windows very often boils down to problems that arise because certain software packages only run on Windows due to the Single Commandment of the God of Proprietary Oneness: Thou shalt pay Bill Gates and his minions and not complain. By contrast, most major software packages that run under Linux also run under Windows. The Penguin is cool like that, or more specifically, the OpenSource philosophy, of which Linux is a function not a cause, is cool like that. MPlayer, OpenOffice, VLC, Firefox, GNU tools, etc. all run perfectly fine under Windows because the electrons are freeeeee, man, meaning the source is freely available and has been constructed so that it can. Word and Windows Media Player, however, can't do the same trick. They're slaves and don't get out much.
The question is asked, "How does OpenOffice compare with Microsoft Office?" The answer is that it compares well(**), but there are differences and potential problems if one intends to switch back and forth, just the same as there would be if one intended to use Microsoft Movie Maker and Cinerella at the same time to try to render a movie. They both do the same thing, but they do it differently, and they don't talk to each other much at breakfast.
That said, some software that works under Linux only works under Linux, not because it cannot work under Windows but because, most often, legalities or profit motive make it less likely a candidate for being ported to Windows. That is, the source is available and there to be used, but the people that wrote it did so for Linux, and no one bothered to make a version that works with Windows or didn't do so because they didn't want to be hunted down by a Scandinavian police department and forced to lick the toes of INTERPOL's new recruits. There are, then, some cases where you'll find Linux software you really, really like that you can't find for Windows, and in those cases, you'll have to try Linux to try that software.
Point #3: If one wants to compare how well they can function with the software that is available to them in a Linux environment while contemplating a switch from Windows, just download and install that very same software while still using Windows if it's available. It's the same. It works the same. If you like it, great. If not, stick with what you do like. If what you do like only works with Windows, stay with Windows. If what you like works only with Linux, read on ...
Either/OrThe era of the Operating System Wars has left us with a false dichotomy. The common perception is that one must choose to use Linux, or they must choose to use Windows. That philosophy only works in the Apple universe. The Mac is a closed system for which hardware and software have been joined in an arranged marriage from birth. They work well together, but choice is not a word in the language. In the so-called PC world (which is a misnomer, but one I will not delve into right now), one can use either, or both, or neither.
I have personally installed Linux on dozens of people's systems, and I have helped hundreds of others install Linux themselves. In the vast majority of these cases, Linux was installed at the same time as Windows. The system then was granted the Holy Boot Loader, from which the user could choose which operating system to use when they turned on (a shiny new HD empowered graphics card works nicely for this, much better than roses or chocolate) or rebooted their machine. I myself have five different operating systems on my machine at home: Linux Mint KDE CE, Linux Mint Fluxbox CE, Slackware, Windows XP, Windows Vista. At one time I had seven. At another I had two. I change occasionally, in other words.
Point #4: In the most fanciful terms possible, open source software is about the freedom to choose, and Linux is open source. Sounds nice, eh? Well, it is. Linux doesn't care if you use Windows. Windows may care if you use Linux, but just tell it to shut up or ignore it entirely and learn to deal with the temper tantrum it throws occasionally. It's not much different than dealing with a toddler, actually. The best option, in my experience, for anyone who wants to get the most out of their system is to configure their system to use as many different operating systems as they might want to. And, that odd combination of words is chosen intentionally. If you think you might want to use Linux, try it. If you like it, keep it. If you still like Windows, keep it also. If you don't, get rid of it. If you don't like either of them, buy a Mac.
It's just software, not a religion ... or Republican.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
