Its annoying how...

[xequence]

Its annoying how people always expect you to use windows. Its allways "What version of windows are you running?" and stuff. People just accept the fact windows can get viruses, that they need a good anti virus, and think all computers can get viruses. It annoys me.

[Zelut]

I agree. I wish people would realize there is an alternative out there that isn't susceptible to all of these flaws. I guess that is our job to educate them.. If everyone does what they can we can make a dent but, yes, it is very frustrating.

[quonsar]

no, it's annoying when you tell someone you don't use windows (so they'll quit asking you about thier windows problems) and they frown and go blank (as if you just told them there's a flat tire on your fish's bicycle) and then they say "so, you're like, no icons or desktop or anything just a black screen with letters?" and you say "no, i got all that stuff too, it's just not windows" and then they start calling you all the time with thier windows problems because they figure you are some kind of freaking computer guru. real annoying.

[Mr_Grieves]

I don't understand why this is annoying you. It's as natural as that people take for granted that you're hetrosexual, have a car, or perhaps likes football. :p

I don't approve with it.. but it's not annoying, "it's elementary my dear doctor" :)

[xequence]

I don't understand why this is annoying you. It's as natural as that people take for granted that you're hetrosexual, have a car, or perhaps likes football. :p

I don't approve with it.. but it's not annoying, "it's elementary my dear doctor" :)


Its just like this... In a dell flyer it said something like this: "To protect yourself from viruses, cover your mouth when you cough, and be sure to buy security center software from dell".

Its annoying! You dont need any anti virus anything in linux...

[DigitalDuality]

I don't understand why this is annoying you. It's as natural as that people take for granted that you're hetrosexual, have a car, or perhaps likes football. :p

I don't approve with it.. but it's not annoying, "it's elementary my dear doctor" :)
People assuming i like football is equally, if not more annoying...

[YourSurrogateGod]

I smile, nod and then tell them that I *heart* the penguin. Oh and I point out that they're morons for always running their Windows OS in admin mode... <--- #1 cause of viruses

[xequence]

I smile, nod and then tell them that I *heart* the penguin. Oh and I point out that they're morons for always running their Windows OS in admin mode... <--- #1 cause of viruses

Thats where youre wrong. Youre thinking linux. On windows, the non admin mode is useless, it cant do anything =P

[Iandefor]

Its annoying how people always expect you to use windows. Its allways "What version of windows are you running?" and stuff. People just accept the fact windows can get viruses, that they need a good anti virus, and think all computers can get viruses. It annoys me. I'm amazed at how successful Microsoft has been at getting people to believe that malware and intrusion are just par for the course when using a computer.


no, it's annoying when you tell someone you don't use windows (so they'll quit asking you about thier windows problems) and they frown and go blank (as if you just told them there's a flat tire on your fish's bicycle) and then they say "so, you're like, no icons or desktop or anything just a black screen with letters?" and you say "no, i got all that stuff too, it's just not windows" This happened to me the other day. I told a classmate I use Linux, and I just got a blank look. He asked what the hell it was. I told him it was a UNIX derivative, and he still didn't know what I meant. I gave up right there.

[curuxz]

I try not mention I use linux any more because when ever computers come up everyone says oh he loves linux sooo much. You cant explain just how much better it is without people think your preaching. I think we need to make linux unsecure and virus ridden, then maybe people would belive it exists ;)

[YourSurrogateGod]

Thats where youre wrong. Youre thinking linux. On windows, the non admin mode is useless, it cant do anything =P
Actually, I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this. I've had quite a bit of experience with both operating systems. Most people just run their Windows OS in admin mode without thinking about it, instead of logging into a regular user account when they need to do some word-processing, game playing, internet surfing, etc.

Running your machine in admin mode in Windows is the same as enabling the root account in Ubuntu, logging into it and then running it exclusively in root. You're either very brave or very foolhardy.

[BSDFreak]

I think it's more annoying that people think they have a secure box because they are running Linux/BSD when they don't even have a firewall enabled.

Or people running XFS or JFS on x86 hardware without an UPS because it's so secure and stable.

Exploits and worms exist for EVERY OS that is running anything more than the kernel, don't think that you are safe because you are running Linux.

The truth is that there is protection for any OS against anything except sloppy administrators and stupid users. (see Apache Slammer for reference, 30k+ sloppy admins and stupid users were stupid so they got hit by the worm even though ASF told users of Apache to fix the vulnerability six weeks before Slammer was released in the wild).

[YourSurrogateGod]

I think it's more annoying that people think they have a secure box because they are running Linux/BSD when they don't even have a firewall enabled.

Or people running XFS or JFS on x86 hardware without an UPS because it's so secure and stable.

Exploits and worms exist for EVERY OS that is running anything more than the kernel, don't think that you are safe because you are running Linux.

The truth is that there is protection for any OS against anything except sloppy administrators and stupid users. (see Apache Slammer for reference, 30k+ sloppy admins and stupid users were stupid so they got hit by the worm even though ASF told users of Apache to fix the vulnerability six weeks before Slammer was released in the wild).
I'd set up a firewall too if it wasn't an artform in Linux.

/tried it

[BSDFreak]

Thats where youre wrong. Youre thinking linux. On windows, the non admin mode is useless, it cant do anything =P

That's simply not true.

You can use all programs you need to use, if you need to do anything else you can run as different user (Like you use sudo).

[BSDFreak]

I'd set up a firewall too if it wasn't an artform in Linux.

/tried it

apt-get install firestarter

http://www.fs-security.com/

Install it and run the wizard and you are done.

If you run Linux without a firewall you are less secure than you would be on an XP/SP2 box, i wouldn't run ANY OS connected to the net without an active firewall.

[Zelut]

Firestarter is great & super easy to use too. If you are behind a router w/o any ports forwarded to your machine you are relatively safe as well..

[YourSurrogateGod]

If you run Linux without a firewall you are less secure than you would be on an XP/SP2 box, i wouldn't run ANY OS connected to the net without an active firewall.
From my experience, running Linux without a firewall is much more secure than having XP/SP2, I don't know where you're coming with this.

[JimmyJazz]

I kinda like it when someone ask what I use and I say Linux and BSD and there is a sudden silence (and maybe some fear) that falls on the conversation.
But lets face it using Linux just makes you better.

[xequence]

Running your machine in admin mode in Windows is the same as enabling the root account in Ubuntu, logging into it and then running it exclusively in root. You're either very brave or very foolhardy.

The difference between linux's and windows' non admin account is this: On the linux one you can do sudo or put in your password so you can do anything. In windows you cant. Who is honestly gonna log out and into an admin account just to change anything important in windows?

[DigitalDuality]

All i have to say is... Group Policy in a windows network is a beautiful thing.

[Lord Illidan]

apt-get install firestarter

http://www.fs-security.com/

Install it and run the wizard and you are done.

If you run Linux without a firewall you are less secure than you would be on an XP/SP2 box, i wouldn't run ANY OS connected to the net without an active firewall.

1. Linux without a firewall is still more secure than XP without a firewall...
2. At school, everyone regards me as some sort of nerd, geek. I now have the label of "Linux Obsessed". Everyone tells me to get a life.
At least, I always know that I can talk to healthy linux obsessed people here..
3. When people ask me what Windows I have? I give them a blank look and ask them "What is Windows?"
And it also helped me to stave off all their whining about how they got a virus, etc, etc... because I don't get any... and I dunno how to help them (actually I do, but I prefer to let them search around... will do them good)

[BSDFreak]

From my experience, running Linux without a firewall is much more secure than having XP/SP2, I don't know where you're coming with this.

With every port wide open in Linux it is hardly safe at all, especially since you have servers running by default.

XP/SP2 has a firewall enabled, the biggest problem today isn't viruses, spyware or trojans, it's worms.

It's not a matter of what i think either, it's not really something you can know from experience, it's a fact that without a firewall being connected to the net is a security risk.

[BSDFreak]

1. Linux without a firewall is still more secure than XP without a firewall...
2. At school, everyone regards me as some sort of nerd, geek. I now have the label of "Linux Obsessed". Everyone tells me to get a life.
At least, I always know that I can talk to healthy linux obsessed people here..
3. When people ask me what Windows I have? I give them a blank look and ask them "What is Windows?"
And it also helped me to stave off all their whining about how they got a virus, etc, etc... because I don't get any... and I dunno how to help them (actually I do, but I prefer to let them search around... will do them good)

I said XP/SP2 which has a firewall enabled by default. Without a firewall i'd say they are about equal since both have services/servers running by default.

Anyway, running a computer with any OS connected to the net without a firewall is just dumb.

[BSDFreak]

The difference between linux's and windows' non admin account is this: On the linux one you can do sudo or put in your password so you can do anything. In windows you cant. Who is honestly gonna log out and into an admin account just to change anything important in windows?
*run as different user*

Why would you frequently change important settings? You do your settings and install your programs as admin then you leave it be until you really need to change them, then you do that either by logging in as admin in safe mode or you *run as different user* (which is equal to sudo in Linux).

If you really need to change anything that can't be changed by running as different user then just switch user, change it and switch back, it doesn't take much time to do that.

I think the biggest problem is how it's set up by default, it's stupid.

---------------------------

This is how you run something with different credentials under XP, right click the shortcut, click the shortcut tab click the advanced button and check the box nex to "run with different credentials, next time you run it you can chose which user you would like to run it as.

[Malphas]

Almost everyone I know has some idea of what Linux is, apart from those that don't use or care about computers at all.

[DigitalDuality]

Almost everyone I know has some idea of what Linux is, apart from those that don't use or care about computers at all.
What's sad, is the two other sys admin at my job asked me a couple weeks ago "Is linux still all command line?"

[Malphas]

Idiots.

[YourSurrogateGod]

The difference between linux's and windows' non admin account is this: On the linux one you can do sudo or put in your password so you can do anything. In windows you cant. Who is honestly gonna log out and into an admin account just to change anything important in windows?
There's a service in windows that allows you to quickly log in as a different user (in this case the admin.) And yes, I'd do that since it'll give me exponentially greater security in today's virus-ridden world.

[briancurtin]

This happened to me the other day. I told a classmate I use Linux, and I just got a blank look.
i did this once and the guy said "but you arent supposed to use linux all the time, you are just supposed to use the normal XP. ive only had to use linux like 2 times in my life"

he thought "safe mode" in windows, was linux, because he knew it was generally safer than windows. he told me that when he gets viruses he removes them with linux and then gets back to windows.

[majikstreet]

i hate the "what windows do you use" thing... people are dumb.

[xequence]

*run as different user*

Why would you frequently change important settings? You do your settings and install your programs as admin then you leave it be until you really need to change them, then you do that either by logging in as admin in safe mode or you *run as different user* (which is equal to sudo in Linux).

If you really need to change anything that can't be changed by running as different user then just switch user, change it and switch back, it doesn't take much time to do that.

I think the biggest problem is how it's set up by default, it's stupid.

Why change important settings? Well, installing things. You need to be admin to install most, if not all things. And then I go into the program files folder to do things, like apply cracks, install new foobar2000 components, etc.

[DaMasta]

With every port wide open in Linux it is hardly safe at all, especially since you have servers running by default.
I don't think this is true any longer. From what I remember, after installing ubuntu, there were no ports open because there were no servers running. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[BSDFreak]

Why change important settings? Well, installing things. You need to be admin to install most, if not all things. And then I go into the program files folder to do things, like apply cracks, install new foobar2000 components, etc.

Then run with different credentials, seriously, if you install things so often that it's annoying to have to do a "switch user" then you are not a normal user by any means.

To switch user would be like doing a sudo su or su - to run with different credentials would be like doing a sudo.

[Stormy Eyes]

Its annoying how people always expect you to use windows. Its allways "What version of windows are you running?" and stuff.

I just say "X Window System 11, release 7", and laugh at the WTF?! faces they make.

[Mr_Grieves]

I don't think this is true any longer. From what I remember, after installing ubuntu, there were no ports open because there were no servers running. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
That was true with my desktop installation.
No servers running, not even sshd.

Side note.. if one wanna check open ports use:


lsof
netstat -a | grep LISTEN

[DaMasta]

I just run lsof on nmap 127.0.01

[xequence]

Then run with different credentials, seriously, if you install things so often that it's annoying to have to do a "switch user" then you are not a normal user by any means.

Different credentials? Last time I checked it was black and white: Admin, or you cant do anything. And yes, I install things alot.

I just say "X Window System 11, release 7", and laugh at the WTF?! faces they make.

XD

[mstlyevil]

i hate the "what windows do you use" thing... people are dumb.

They are not dumb. They are either uneducated or uninformed about the alternatives to Windows. Most of the people who now own computers are not "geeks" so they only know what has come on their computers and that is some form of Windows. Insulting peoples intelligence is not the best way to educate them on the different operating system options out there.

[DigitalDuality]

Different credentials? Last time I checked it was black and white: Admin, or you cant do anything. And yes, I install things alot.
Nope.

You can run under these modes in Windows (or have users that are in these groups:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/usercpl_change_group.mspx

[BSDFreak]

Different credentials? Last time I checked it was black and white: Admin, or you cant do anything. And yes, I install things alot.

Oh for the love of god, i even wrote an howto in a post you quoted.

Here it is again "This is how you run something with different credentials under XP, right click the shortcut, click the shortcut tab click the advanced button and check the box nex to "run with different credentials, next time you run it you can chose which user you would like to run it as. "

The above would be equal to Linux's sudo command.

Of course, you can also create policies if you need permanent capabilities beyond what the restricted user account offers.


The above is equal to adding your Linux users to groups to increase the users capabilities.

[Malphas]

Nope.

You can run under these modes in Windows (or have users that are in these groups:

http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windows/xp/all/proddocs/en-us/usercpl_change_group.mspx
That's not the same thing at all. That's dealing with user groups on a local network. xequence is actually correct in that there's either the limited account type or the administrator one, there's no in-between, although as BSDFreak says you can edit a shortcut to run a program with different credentials.

[BSDFreak]

That's not the same thing at all. That's dealing with user groups on a local network. xequence is actually correct in that there's either the limited account type or the administrator one, there's no in-between, although as BSDFreak says you can edit a shortcut to run a program with different credentials.

You didn't read the link, did you?

From the link:

2. On the Users tab, under Users for this computer, click the user account name, and then click Properties.

Notice the bolded parts (they were bolded in the link too).

And i did what i wrote as i was doing it so i know it works just fine on XP Pro.

[adriantry]

You can use all programs you need to use, if you need to do anything else you can run as different user (Like you use sudo).

I do tech support for a Microsoft .NET program. It only works in Administrator accounts. And it's certainly not the only program like that. Many Windows programs only work in Administrator accounts.

One day I received a phone call from a lady who got smart and spent the whole weekend changing her kids windows accounts to limited accounts. She called to find out that all of her effort was wasted, and that she couldn't make the machine as secure as she wanted. She wasn't happy!

And that's the trouble. As good as it would be to change all accounts to limited accounts in Windows, eventually many users will discover programs that no longer work. Historically, Windows programs enjoyed having full rights for many years, and many of them still expect that.

Windows' initial design (historically) of being a single-user operating system is the problem. And Microsoft are understandably concerned with backwards compatibility.

On the other hand, Linux was designed from day 1 to be a multi-user operating system, and excels at it.

[BSDFreak]

I do tech support for a Microsoft .NET program. It only works in Administrator accounts. And it's certainly not the only program like that. Many Windows programs only work in Administrator accounts.

I'd say it's because you need admin rights for something else than that running program, have you tried to edit the policies and adding the user to a group that has the permissions to run all involved components?

One day I received a phone call from a lady who got smart and spent the whole weekend changing her kids windows accounts to limited accounts. She called to find out that all of her effort was wasted, and that she couldn't make the machine as secure as she wanted. She wasn't happy!

And that's the trouble. As good as it would be to change all accounts to limited accounts in Windows, eventually many users will discover programs that no longer work. Historically, Windows programs enjoyed having full rights for many years, and many of them still expect that.

Windows' initial design (historically) of being a single-user operating system is the problem. And Microsoft are understandably concerned with backwards compatibility.

On the other hand, Linux was designed from day 1 to be a multi-user operating system, and excels at it.

If you are willing to spend the time to set up sane policies from the get go you have done a lot of the work from scratch, this is my point really.

Run with different credentials doesn't always work because you'll still be in your limited user environment, just like with sudo, you'll need to set group permissions to access what the user needs to access, you'll have to do the same thing in a lot of *nix flavors too.

[Derek Djons]

Actually here in The Netherlands I never heared that question, even not when I was still working in a computer shop. People always ask eachother "What do you use?" Though they actually think about Windows they don't mention that specific.

In The Netherlands people are aware that Microsoft Windows isn't the only Operating System and they become more aware of people using other Operating Systems such as Mac OS X and Linux. But this does not include that these cattle people change or even intend to obtain some more info about it.

[commodore]

A LOT of people I know know what's Linux. All of them think it's not usable.

[adriantry]

I'd say it's because you need admin rights for something else than that running program, have you tried to edit the policies and adding the user to a group that has the permissions to run all involved components?

If you are willing to spend the time to set up sane policies from the get go you have done a lot of the work from scratch, this is my point really.

I'm not one of the programmers, and I'm not willing to individually set up thousands of clients computers to get this working, assuming you are right.

But my point is that this program, and many others, don't run under a limited account.

Could the programmers do things differently? I'm sure they could. But they didn't. (Ideally, they'd be writing Linux software instead of Windows software in the first place! ;-)

Please don't underestimate the number of Windows programs with this problem. There are a lot.

Wherever possible, I agree that running a limited account is a safer option for Windows users. But (depending on their software requirements), it may not be an option. I'm quite hesitant about recommending people use a limited account.

[Malphas]

You didn't read the link, did you?

From the link:

2. On the Users tab, under Users for this computer, click the user account name, and then click Properties.

Notice the bolded parts (they were bolded in the link too).

And i did what i wrote as i was doing it so i know it works just fine on XP Pro.
You don't seem to understand, yes you can do that but you're still limited to the options of administrator or limited, that's the only groups there are. Other parts of that article are dealing with groups on a network which is where I assumed the confusion had arisen. Seriously, go get access to a Windows XP Pro machine and try it out, I'm afraid you're totally incorrect.

[BSDFreak]

I'm not one of the programmers, and I'm not willing to individually set up thousands of clients computers to get this working, assuming you are right.

But my point is that this program, and many others, don't run under a limited account.

Could the programmers do things differently? I'm sure they could. But they didn't. (Ideally, they'd be writing Linux software instead of Windows software in the first place! ;-)

Please don't underestimate the number of Windows programs with this problem. There are a lot.

Wherever possible, I agree that running a limited account is a safer option for Windows users. But (depending on their software requirements), it may not be an option. I'm quite hesitant about recommending people use a limited account.

There is a problem, that much is certain, i don't think it's being fixed by simply ignoring the security risk of running a full admin account but i realize that not everyone is willing to spend the time it takes to secure every box.

It's a flaw by inherited design, it's unfortuanate but i don't really know what to do about it.

[Malphas]

edit

[BSDFreak]

You don't seem to understand, yes you can do that but you're still limited to the options of administrator or limited, that's the only groups there are. Other parts of that article are dealing with groups on a network which is where I assumed the confusion had arisen. Seriously, go get access to a Windows XP Pro machine and try it out, I'm afraid you're totally incorrect.

You're right, you have to be part of a domain to use the groups policies, if you are not you'll have to edit the policies through Local security policy under administrative tools.

I AM sitting on an XP machine right now, i'm part of a domain which is why i can join groups and set my user rights there.

[qalimas]

I used to preach Linux, I still do to new people. But after a while, when people see you as nothing but someone in love with nothing more than an OS, it's really annoying. I'm not some super geek, I'm a mere high school technician who happens to rather Linux. Nothing special about that, except for the fact my machine is running a better operating system.

About secuirty, I run no applications for it. I realize I need a firewall no matter what OS I run, but that's what my router is for ;)

[blastus]

I do tech support for a Microsoft .NET program. It only works in Administrator accounts. And it's certainly not the only program like that. Many Windows programs only work in Administrator accounts...Historically, Windows programs enjoyed having full rights for many years, and many of them still expect that.

I'd like to add to adriantry's and xequence's comments of the administrator account in Windows XP. I don't care how many people say how glorious and wonderful user permissions and rights are in Windows XP, I find using XP with a non-admin account too much of an inconvenience and hassle.

For example, I spent 5 minutes trying to administrate ZoneAlarm in XP Home with a non-admin account. I installed it using an admin account, then logged in using a non-admin account and got absolutely nowhere. Double-clicking on the ZoneAlarm icon in the System Tray did NOT prompt me for an administrator password. A lot of games that are still designed for Windows 98, require admin access on Windows 2000/XP because they use the C:\Program Files directory for storing scenarios, save games, etc... For example, I can't run Civilization III Conquests with a non-admin account.

At the local library where my folks live, they use Windows XP and the machines have CD/DVD burners. That's nice except for the fact that you can't burn squat because Nero requires users to download a tool called NeroBurnRights to allow non-admin users to burn CD/DVDs. Nero explains that "Windows 2000 and Windows XP do not grant access to low level drivers for users without administrative rights it's not possible for them to burn CDs with Nero." Another inconvenience.

[poofyhairguy]

But lets face it using Linux just makes you better.

HAHA Funny joke.










I hope thats a joke.

[poofyhairguy]

It's a flaw by inherited design, it's unfortuanate but i don't really know what to do about it.


Move everyone you love off the Windows platform as soon as possible if their needs can fit- even if it takes buying Crossover Office.

Well....thats what I did with many of my family members over the Xmas holidays.

[poofyhairguy]

They are not dumb. They are either uneducated or uninformed about the alternatives to Windows. Most of the people who now own computers are not "geeks" so they only know what has come on their computers and that is some form of Windows. Insulting peoples intelligence is not the best way to educate them on the different operating system options out there.

Thanks for saying that so I don't have to.

[BSDFreak]

Move everyone you love off the Windows platform as soon as possible if their needs can fit- even if it takes buying Crossover Office.

Well....thats what I did with many of my family members over the Xmas holidays.

Everyone is already running Linux/*BSD with OO.

The problem is gaming (i don't really care about it but my son does).

Personally i don't really like supporting any company that does doesn't offer FOSS or at least supports the FOSS community in some way but EA just isn't going that route anytime soon so i'll be running XP on four computers for the forseeable future (with dualboot into *BSD or tripleboot into XP/*BSD/*Linux because i can't stand XP personally).

[BSDFreak]

I'd like to add to adriantry's and xequence's comments of the administrator account in Windows XP. I don't care how many people say how glorious and wonderful user permissions and rights are in Windows XP, I find using XP with a non-admin account too much of an inconvenience and hassle.

For example, I spent 5 minutes trying to administrate ZoneAlarm in XP Home with a non-admin account. I installed it using an admin account, then logged in using a non-admin account and got absolutely nowhere. Double-clicking on the ZoneAlarm icon in the System Tray did NOT prompt me for an administrator password. A lot of games that are still designed for Windows 98, require admin access on Windows 2000/XP because they use the C:\Program Files directory for storing scenarios, save games, etc... For example, I can't run Civilization III Conquests with a non-admin account.

At the local library where my folks live, they use Windows XP and the machines have CD/DVD burners. That's nice except for the fact that you can't burn squat because Nero requires users to download a tool called NeroBurnRights to allow non-admin users to burn CD/DVDs. Nero explains that "Windows 2000 and Windows XP do not grant access to low level drivers for users without administrative rights it's not possible for them to burn CDs with Nero." Another inconvenience.

Try to configure a firewall in ANY OS without admin permissions and you'll realize that it's impossible, it's not Windows exclusive. You configure your firewall as an admin and then you don't touch it, a fast switch to a user that has admin rights doesn't take many seconds and you'll just switch back and continue right where you were.

Yeah, you have to download a tool for that, in FreeBSD you can't even mount a unit without being the owner of the mount point, having group access rights to the device file and being part of the group that owns the device file, yet i haven't heard anyone complaining about that, i mean, you have a problem and you solve it, either by downloading a file as in Windows (how hard is that?) or by having per user mount point and changing permissions for the device file and then adding all users to the operator group.

But this is your personal opinion and i won't argue with you on that, if people want to run XP as admins then by all means, go ahead, i REALLY couldn't care less, just don't complain about it.

[kaamos]

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/13/213613.php


It astounds me how few consumers seem to realize that Microsoft is not the only game in town. Moreover, it astounds me that it is, for all practical purposes, impossible to tell most consumers that there is another game. As a sports discussion, it would go something like this:

"Did you watch the Raiders game?"

"No, I don't follow football ------"

"What do you think of the new quarterback?"

"Really, football's not my thing. I don't know."

"I thought that you said that you're a sports fan?"

"No, I said that I watched tennis."

"Right, so what did you think of the penalty called in the Raiders game?"

"I watch tennis."

"Why would they call a penalty like that?"

Um.

[dcraven]

I agree with the original poster. Not only that, but worse is when you tell people that you don't use Windows, and they still assume that you use Windows. I get phone call all of the time from people that have b0rked machines for one reason or another. They try to (poorly) describe what they see. When they stop talking, I humm and haww a bit, then say "It's hard for me to troubleshoot your problem or imagine what you are looking at because I haven't used Windows in over five years.". That's typically followed by about ten seconds of silence, then they continue with "Really? Well when I click on the icon that says... blah...".

It seems to go right over their head. Then they get even more frustrated because I can't fix their printer over the phone even though I have six years of "computer school"... Whatever that is.

Cheers,
~djc

[blastus]

But this is your personal opinion and i won't argue with you on that, if people want to run XP as admins then by all means, go ahead, i REALLY couldn't care less, just don't complain about it.

If you have a problem with people stating personal opinions ("complaining") on the forums then please take it up with the mods.

[BSDFreak]

If you have a problem with people stating personal opinions ("complaining") on the forums then please take it up with the mods.

It's not about this forum, it's everywhere, it's easier to run as Admin in Win or as root in *nix all the time, i am of the firm belief that it shouldn't be done but people will still do it, i'm ok with that, but when the system breaks because of it, don't complain about it, realize you are stupid to do it and don't do it again.

I prefer to to bring it up with the person i believe is wrong instead of PM'ing the mods, i find it much more productive to leave the kindergarten rules at the kindergarten and let the mods decide what they find ok and not.

[BSDFreak]

You're right, you have to be part of a domain to use the groups policies, if you are not you'll have to edit the policies through Local security policy under administrative tools.

I AM sitting on an XP machine right now, i'm part of a domain which is why i can join groups and set my user rights there.

Correction, you don't have to be part of a domain to use group policies, it's under computer management, you can use predefined groups or make your own.

Looks like this:

[NiceGuy]

Correction, you don't have to be part of a domain to use group policies, it's under computer management, you can use predefined groups or make your own.

I fully appreciate the fact that it is POSSIBLE to setup group policies etc. But the point is unless your really into computers and/or have a lot of time on your hands its not really a feasible option.

Personally I've not had a virus (or any serious ad/spyware) on my windows box for longer than I can remember and the inconvenience of running as a limited user myself doesn't make it worth it.

However my little brothers account is in limited user mode and that's ok because if something doesn't work I can fix it (eg. by installing his new game in somewhere other than Program Files - I haven't gotten around to setting up group policies properly yet). But the point is that your everyday computer user just won't do this. Mainly because most don't even know about 'limited user' accounts (no really!) and the rest may have tried it (mainly for their kids accounts), found that it doesn't work (ie. it won't let them play their games) and gone back to administrator mode and the VERY FEW who have heard about group policies will open up computer management, take one look at it and run for the hills (in much the same way they do if they see a command prompt). The major flaw in this is as I said 'I' haven't had a virus or like on my computer for longer than I can remember so 'I' wouldn't really benefit but for those who would benefit (ie. the masses ;) ) can't. Now I haven't looked so there may be something like this, but what someone should make is a nice pretty and SIMPLE group policy editor and then maybe windows users wouldn't have so many problems - but then I'd be out of a job :D

But getting back to the post, Isn't it annoying... well no not really. Its FUN showing them the joys of linux.

BUT and here is the thing (and this is getting back to the old debate) most people just aren't ready for linux. This is for 2 reasons. Firstly most people will run for the hills when they see a command prompt and in linux if you want to do anything interesting (eg. play a game, install a non 'your-distro' piece of software, install codecs etc, etc.) you will need to use the command prompt. It's a sad thing because its really not that hard and if you've grown up on linux or as I do, remember the good old DOS days, you will know it can be a LOT easier and more efficient than using a GUI. The second and more common reason is that most people have been brought up using windows and the change would just be too great. They complain that is 'more difficult' because they are not used to it and they HATE not knowing things (they are all too used to putting 'advanced user' in those online forms :D ). The best way is to start'em young, but for that you need games... sigh.

Anyway I think thats me done for this evening, night all!

[DigitalDuality]

You don't seem to understand, yes you can do that but you're still limited to the options of administrator or limited, that's the only groups there are. Other parts of that article are dealing with groups on a network which is where I assumed the confusion had arisen. Seriously, go get access to a Windows XP Pro machine and try it out, I'm afraid you're totally incorrect.

Umm.. I've been a network admin for quite over a year at the company i'm at, and one at my last job for another year and have spent a signifigant amount of time on XP. There's alot more user groups than User and Administrator. There's Power User, Debugger, and others .. each with a different level of permissions.

[BSDFreak]

I fully appreciate the fact that it is POSSIBLE to setup group policies etc. But the point is unless your really into computers and/or have a lot of time on your hands its not really a feasible option.

And when you have installed Linux you don't have an active firewall.

It's not hard to setup group policies, right click the group, click add, enter username, click add and you are done. that is about 30 seconds of work, is that not feasible?

Or on Linux, apt-get install firestarter, sudo firestarter, follow the gui wizard and you have a configured IP Tables firewall. perhaps five minutes of work.

My problem with it is that people say that it's not possible, or that Windows sucks because it's not possible or that you need something special to do it. It's not hard, it's fully doable and it doesn't take long. Same with the Linux firewall.

People don't take the time and then they complain about the problems that arise when they have been stupid, if they used the time they use to whine and complain to set up a decent security policy they'd have nothing to whine about.

[micjustmic]

I'd say it's because you need admin rights for something else than that running program, have you tried to edit the policies and adding the user to a group that has the permissions to run all involved components?



If you are willing to spend the time to set up sane policies from the get go you have done a lot of the work from scratch, this is my point really.

Run with different credentials doesn't always work because you'll still be in your limited user environment, just like with sudo, you'll need to set group permissions to access what the user needs to access, you'll have to do the same thing in a lot of *nix flavors too.


Okay, here's the rub on setting permissions . . . the easiest way to do this is with the Policy Editor application, and this is only available with WindowsXP Pro . . .

Last time I checked, most, if not almost all, consumer level PC's that ship with Windows ship with WindowsXP Home, no policy editor included . . . so tell me, how does one change these permissions in XP Home without digging through the registry and manually editing/adding these permissions?

This is not a blanket "fix" for security in Windows anyway. It would be good policy, but it just doesn't work as well as you're suggesting.

HOWEVER, Microsoft has seen the light and Vista will default to users having limited rights, with a provision for "legacy" software to 'think' it has full access, allowing them to run in the limited user space.

This isn't something easily added to XP, so don't expect a patch for it, if you want to use Windows, and you want Linux-like security you'll have to PAY to upgrade to Vista.

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually expect it to be fully secure, Microsoft has proven they don't do security nearly as well as they should, but they are making improvements at least.

Of course, if you want a full version of Vista you'll have to pay $200+ (USD), and that will be for the "Home" version, or whatever they are going to call it.

On to the actual topic of the thread now . . .

On the large, most of the people I work/play with know what Linux is, have seen my machine and some are amazed at the fact that I've not had to reboot (except for kernel and/or driver updates) since I first installed Ubuntu.

However, since most of them have been using Windows for the past 20 years or so, they are reluctant to put the time in to learn the new operating system, even though they know I'll talk them through it and will be here to help, and two of them actually belive that Linux is the way of the future and that someday it will over take Windows on the desktop (even I don't belive that).

Those that do ask me what version of Windows I'm runnning, I usually reply, "X-Windows on the Ubuntu distribution of Linux, but when I need to do something I can't do in Linux, I run WindowsXP Pro."

The initial look is confusion, then when they hear something familiar they are happy.

I had an Outlook Live account for email a long time. The main attraction was the subscription to MS Outlook, and how well integrated everything was with the online database, appointments, important dates, having my contacts available wherever there was Internet access and always updated/synced with my Outlook software . . . well, when I made the switch to Linux all that went away and I felt it was no longer worth the money to keep the account.

When I was on the phone with Microsoft to cancel the account, I explained to him why and he said, "Well, I don't understand why you would want to use Linux when Windows is so much better."

Think he's a little biased?

I then explained to him all the things I can do in Linux that I can't do in Windows, plus the fact that I don't have to worry nearly as much about worms or malware. When I started going into the many choices for user interfaces and how you can pretty much make them look and act exactly how you want them to he said, "But don't you have to pay for an extra program to allow that?"

"You pay for nothing, it's all built in, you're still thinking Windows, where you have to BUY themes, and the software to run them, and even with that, all you're doing is changing the colors and the buttons, you can't add task bars at will, have multiple desktops with totally different functions on the task bar(s) . . ." and so on.

All in all I spent at least 20 minutes talking to a Microsoft employee about the benifits of Linux and he said he thought he should try it and asked me what distro I was using.

Ironic, huh?

Anyway, I think the next time someone asks you what version of Windows you're running, you should tell them you can't run Windows because your computer is an abacus.

See how many people even know what that is. ;)
Mic

[BSDFreak]

Okay, here's the rub on setting permissions . . . the easiest way to do this is with the Policy Editor application, and this is only available with WindowsXP Pro . . .

Last time I checked, most, if not almost all, consumer level PC's that ship with Windows ship with WindowsXP Home, no policy editor included . . . so tell me, how does one change these permissions in XP Home without digging through the registry and manually editing/adding these permissions?

This is not a blanket "fix" for security in Windows anyway. It would be good policy, but it just doesn't work as well as you're suggesting.

HOWEVER, Microsoft has seen the light and Vista will default to users having limited rights, with a provision for "legacy" software to 'think' it has full access, allowing them to run in the limited user space.

This isn't something easily added to XP, so don't expect a patch for it, if you want to use Windows, and you want Linux-like security you'll have to PAY to upgrade to Vista.

Don't get me wrong, I don't actually expect it to be fully secure, Microsoft has proven they don't do security nearly as well as they should, but they are making improvements at least.

Of course, if you want a full version of Vista you'll have to pay $200+ (USD), and that will be for the "Home" version, or whatever they are going to call it.

On to the actual topic of the thread now . . .

On the large, most of the people I work/play with know what Linux is, have seen my machine and some are amazed at the fact that I've not had to reboot (except for kernel and/or driver updates) since I first installed Ubuntu.

However, since most of them have been using Windows for the past 20 years or so, they are reluctant to put the time in to learn the new operating system, even though they know I'll talk them through it and will be here to help, and two of them actually belive that Linux is the way of the future and that someday it will over take Windows on the desktop (even I don't belive that).

Those that do ask me what version of Windows I'm runnning, I usually reply, "X-Windows on the Ubuntu distribution of Linux, but when I need to do something I can't do in Linux, I run WindowsXP Pro."

The initial look is confusion, then when they hear something familiar they are happy.

I had an Outlook Live account for email a long time. The main attraction was the subscription to MS Outlook, and how well integrated everything was with the online database, appointments, important dates, having my contacts available wherever there was Internet access and always updated/synced with my Outlook software . . . well, when I made the switch to Linux all that went away and I felt it was no longer worth the money to keep the account.

When I was on the phone with Microsoft to cancel the account, I explained to him why and he said, "Well, I don't understand why you would want to use Linux when Windows is so much better."

Think he's a little biased?

I then explained to him all the things I can do in Linux that I can't do in Windows, plus the fact that I don't have to worry nearly as much about worms or malware. When I started going into the many choices for user interfaces and how you can pretty much make them look and act exactly how you want them to he said, "But don't you have to pay for an extra program to allow that?"

"You pay for nothing, it's all built in, you're still thinking Windows, where you have to BUY themes, and the software to run them, and even with that, all you're doing is changing the colors and the buttons, you can't add task bars at will, have multiple desktops with totally different functions on the task bar(s) . . ." and so on.

All in all I spent at least 20 minutes talking to a Microsoft employee about the benifits of Linux and he said he thought he should try it and asked me what distro I was using.

Ironic, huh?

Anyway, I think the next time someone asks you what version of Windows you're running, you should tell them you can't run Windows because your computer is an abacus.

See how many people even know what that is. ;)
Mic

1. True, in Home you'll have to rely on fast user switching, that Windows is inherently less secure than Linux is BS though, in fact, XP/SP2 has a firewall enabled by default, something a default installation of Ubuntu (and most other distros) lacks. It's all about choice, it IS easier to be logged in as admin all the time, otoh it IS easer to be logged in as root all the time too. Users set themselves up for their troubles when they don't follow a sane security policy.

2. You are preaching to the choir, i prefer BSD but Linux is ok too, XP is on my computers for the sake of my son, he'll run any of the systems just fine, including installing apps and so on but Linux/BSD gaming is still lightyears behind Windows.

[wargames]

XP/SP2 has a firewall enabled by default, something a default installation of Ubuntu (and most other distros) lacks.

I'm still learning Linux, but I thought that Ubuntu installed IP Tables by default and it was already configured by default and that Firestarter is just a GUI frontend to change the already installed and configured IP Tables. Just like you could install Guarddog, which is just a different GUI frontend for IP Tables. Is this not correct?

[americanLoki]

I smile, nod and then tell them that I *heart* the penguin. Oh and I point out that they're morons for always running their Windows OS in admin mode... <--- #1 cause of viruses

Just to add to the dialog over Windows accounts/group policies/and overall user permissions. With the above statement it's mentioned that most people get viri in Windows because they are running in admin mode. What I haven't seen mentioned here (unless I missed it in which case please forgive the double post of info) is that certain programs will run in admin mode regardless of whether the actual user's account is an admin account. One of the big changes from XP to Vista is that IE will FINALLY! run by default in a super limited user account mode. Before IE had all kinds of access to change all kinds of system settings, this is one reason why viri and spyware can get so deep into the system, all of those programs basically have free, unfettered (man have I been waiting to work that one into a conversation :razz:), administrative access to the system. I agree that in the way Windows and it's user's accounts work it should be more brought in line with other OS'es. I remember when I first got Windows 2000 I setup the admin account and then left mine as a normal user account, I was young then but had it drilled into me by my Dad that "You don't login as Root!". Well it turns I just ended up using an admin account anyways, you really can't do most normal work in Windows unless you are an admin.

To add to the "It's annoying how..." dialog when people ask me the Windows question I tell them I run XP, but it's not my main machine. I have an XP machine for my Wife and my games (guess which one wins out when push comes to shove ;)) , an OS X machine for my everyday use, and an Ubuntu machine as my server and "Oooh I want to try that" system.

I hope the info above was helpful, and again if I double posted the same info please forgive me.

[BSDFreak]

I'm still learning Linux, but I thought that Ubuntu installed IP Tables by default and it was already configured by default and that Firestarter is just a GUI frontend to change the already installed and configured IP Tables. Just like you could install Guarddog, which is just a different GUI frontend for IP Tables. Is this not correct?

No, it comes with IP Tables but it's not configured nor started by default.

Check it by running

sudo iptables -L

Firestarter is a GUI frontend, it's also the fastest and easiest way to get the firewall upp and running after completing the wizard, after that the IP Tables script will run during bootup every time you boot. (I'm not familiar with Guarddog but i assume it does the same thing, i've got my own set of scripts because i have special needs, or rather, i like having full control.)

[BSDFreak]

Just to add to the dialog over Windows accounts/group policies/and overall user permissions. With the above statement it's mentioned that most people get viri in Windows because they are running in admin mode. What I haven't seen mentioned here (unless I missed it in which case please forgive the double post of info) is that certain programs will run in admin mode regardless of whether the actual user's account is an admin account. One of the big changes from XP to Vista is that IE will FINALLY! run by default in a super limited user account mode.

Can you link me to something about that, i find that very strange since IE is a system process started by the system itself, it simply can't be possible that it is so. If you are talking about the user executed process IE (as in starting the browser as a user) then it is already run as the user who starts it. (see attatchment)

It's the same on all other systems, some programs will be running under SYSTEM, operator, root, admin, backup etc depending on what program it is and what system it is running on.

[jeremy]

...and then they start calling you all the time with thier windows problems because they figure you are some kind of freaking computer guru. real annoying.
Make them pay for your help, that's what I do for all except for a few close friends/family plus a couple of charities.

[Lanrond]

Its annoying how people always expect you to use windows.

Well, you just made me realize I spent most of my "informatic life" annoyed.
I started with Amiga, then Mac and now Ubuntu... :???:

Fact is that the average Joe is induced to think that PC is Windows;anything else is considered an extravaganza... ;)

[mcduck]

Make them pay for your help, that's what I do for all except for a few close friends/family plus a couple of charities.
That's the way. I usually request a bottle of rum for my help if it takes longer than 10 minutes. It's nicer than asking for money, and at some level also makes people appreciate the help they get much more.

Anyway, I'd feel stupid wasting 8 hours fixing somebody's WindowsXP for free.

[SectionThree]

Yeah, I agree with the lot of you, there are quite a few people I know where I live (and this is a COLLEGE town we're talking about here) who are really quite ignorant of the fact that there are OSses out there other than Windows©™®. One conversation at work went like this (names were changed to protect the iggnint, and "Sally" is no novice on computers either):

Sally: Don't you hate how you have to pay for a renewal on Norton Antivirus every year?

Me: Yeah, but I gave up on that. I've got a Mac.

Sally: Aren't you afraid that some virus will come along and destroy everything?

Me: Nah, Mac's way more secure than Windows, and most viruses are written for Windows.

Sally: You mean there isn't any Windows on a Mac?

Me: Nope.

Sally: Well, what DOES it run?

Me: Mac OS...

Sally: So... When you run into trouble, do you just go into DOS and fix it?

Me: There's no DOS on a Mac.

Sally: So how do you fix stuff then?

Me: I just pop in the install disk and take it from there!

Postscript: She's going to let me pick her next computer.

Anyway, folks around here know me as someone who knows computers (I can even do Windows a little bit, even though I've never owned one) and so they ask me questions, you know, newbie questions like I think I just deleted the Internet, what do I do?!?!?

My reply: What version of Windows™®© are you running?:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[DirtDawg]

I probably shouldn't admit this, but when I installed our Windows box, I wasn't aware there was an administrator mode. I just made a couple accounts and ran the thing. I suppose that's why "My Documents" is referred to under "Owner" in explorer.

Oh well. It probably doesn't make a difference. I've yet to get any viruses and we take plenty of precautions so our Windows machine is fairly secure (for Windows anyway). Regardless, I'm not changing it now. What a hassle.,

Still, if I made the mistake, I can only imagine how many millions of Windows boxes out there are also running under "admin" mode.

As far as the original post, it doesn't particularly bother me as I use Windows too, I just happen to also use Linux. Way I see it, if they aren't interested in Linux, that gives me the high-ground advantage.

When I tell people I have a Linux box, their reaction is often something along the lines of "you must know something about computers then". Well, compared to many people on these boards, I don't know computers from Shinola. But compaired to the casual surfer, I'm positively (sub)genius!

EDIT: Removed a couple curses. I was pissed when I read this thread and realized my mistake.

[fig_jam_uk]

Well i had to call BT tech support the other day for a password reset, The woman on the other end said "what version of windows i was using" (like it mattered for a password reset) when i said Linux she nearly had a heart attack and she then said "i dont think BT broardband is compatable" :confused: :confused: :confused: oh well to cut a long story short my password was reset and internet again :KS but i work in 1st line for another UK based ISP and unfortunatley the only Os`s supported are windows and MAC to a certain degree, I think its more peoples ignorance that has made windows what it is today, even if it does have major flaws. The only thing i cant work out is that if these people had a car that broke down every 6 hours, was stealable by any chav who wanted to take it (unsecure) and spied on every move they made while driving they wouldnt accept it, so why do people accept windows??? IMHO :rolleyes:

[wargames]

No, it comes with IP Tables but it's not configured nor started by default.

Check it by running

sudo iptables -L

Firestarter is a GUI frontend, it's also the fastest and easiest way to get the firewall upp and running after completing the wizard, after that the IP Tables script will run during bootup every time you boot. (I'm not familiar with Guarddog but i assume it does the same thing, i've got my own set of scripts because i have special needs, or rather, i like having full control.)


Yes, but on a default Ubuntu installation there are 0 ports open. So it's not like the system is sitting wide open. With all ports closed on default this will give you enough time to install Firestarter or whatever firewall GUI to configure your system properly such as stealthing your ports.

[beercz]

I don't understand why this is annoying you. It's as natural as that people take for granted that you're hetrosexual, have a car, or perhaps likes football. :p

I don't approve with it.. but it's not annoying, "it's elementary my dear doctor" :)

Well, I'm hetrosexual, have a car, like football, but hate windows. Am I a stereotypical linux user?

(I can feed a new thread coming on here :-))