XP - surviving the first day...

[TdC]

nice security focus column I read on la reg. it's sarcastic (a bit imo), but very real as to what the Joe Average winXP user will do.

the XP people here in bigcompany were denying it, but tbh they *know* what to do and how to configure (I hope) a system before connecting it to the internet, and do it more or less without thinking. mr average user knowest this not

 

[Mellow]

You UNIX people are all the same, saying how bad Windows is. Yet if it's so bad, why is everyone using it?

 

[fatbusinessman]

Because it's historically been much friendlier than Unix/Linux, and by now has such a large market share that your average user doesn't even know there are alternatives.

 

[Shovel]

True though that is - and Mac aside - your "average user" wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being able to use anything else. And then Mac's are notably more expensive than a PC and the computing market would not be what it is today (as large, mainly).

Anyway, interesting read is that guide. If it could be condensed into a double A4 spread and distributed with PCs, it might even make a difference. Roll on SP2 PCs...

 

[tRoG]

Went through Windows Update hell a couple of weeks ago when I deciding to wip0r my hd and start everything nice and new.

Not pretty on a 64k line

I think I'll create an image of the disc for the next time that little fancy takes hold.

 

[Gurnox]

True though that is - and Mac aside - your "average user" wouldn't stand a chance in hell of being able to use anything else. And then Mac's are notably more expensive than a PC and the computing market would not be what it is today (as large, mainly).

Anyway, interesting read is that guide. If it could be condensed into a double A4 spread and distributed with PCs, it might even make a difference. Roll on SP2 PCs...

People used to get along fine with computers before the GUI, so I don't think the problem is necessarly ease of use. The MS marketing machine has always played a big part in the popularity of Windows. This hasn't made the computing market larger, quite the opposite.

Performing the updates you need on a new XP install is hopeless if you do not have some kind of always-on 'broadband' connection. It used to be the case that you could go buy a PC magazine and install service packs e.t.c. from the coverdisk. Why Microsoft stopped magazines publishing patches in this way is a complete mystery.

Not saying that the patching thing is purely an XP issue either. OS X has had some pretty meaty patches in it's time too. And as for updating a Linux kernel......

 

[fatbusinessman]

People used to get along fine with computers before the GUI, so I don't think the problem is necessarly ease of use. The MS marketing machine has always played a big part in the popularity of Windows. This hasn't made the computing market larger, quite the opposite.

Wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Back in the days of the command prompt, if you used a computer it was because you either needed to for your job or you were really interested in them - either way, you had some serious time to devote to knowing what was going on. Nowadays pretty much everyone and his granny has a computer, so user-friendliness is a priority.

Not saying that the patching thing is purely an XP issue either. OS X has had some pretty meaty patches in it's time too. And as for updating a Linux kernel......

True, but the advantage with Linux (and probably OS X too, I'm not sure) is that updates can be pretty modular - if you want to upgrade a particular program or part of the operating system, you can do so without touching the rest. With Windows everything is bunched together into one piece, and so you pretty much need to update the whole thing at once - hence huge momma patches.

 

[Gurnox]

Wouldn't necessarily agree with that. Back in the days of the command prompt, if you used a computer it was because you either needed to for your job or you were really interested in them - either way, you had some serious time to devote to knowing what was going on. Nowadays pretty much everyone and his granny has a computer, so user-friendliness is a priority.

Fair point. It's far too easy to look at it from the perspective of someone who's used a computer for a depressing number of years.

True, but the advantage with Linux (and probably OS X too, I'm not sure) is that updates can be pretty modular - if you want to upgrade a particular program or part of the operating system, you can do so without touching the rest. With Windows everything is bunched together into one piece, and so you pretty much need to update the whole thing at once - hence huge momma patches.

Not so true with OS X. You do get some smaller ones for apps and 'security', but the major OS ones are huge and can run to about 60-80Mb. With Linux, yes you can be very granular about it on the application level. But only up to a point. Sooner or later, an application will demand a later version of, for example, Glib or a newer kernel. Both big downloads and both a royal pain-in-the-arse to install.

Though having said that, the automatic update tools that ship with most modern distros have made things exponentially easier.

 

[sibanac]

Glib or a newer kernel. Both big downloads and both a royal pain-in-the-arse to install.

Though having said that, the automatic update tools that ship with most modern distros have made things exponentially easier.

tbh I never upgrade Glib, I just upgrade my distro, because well glib is a pain to install and you always end up breaking things.

as for the kernel, aslong as you got the settings from your current running kernel and there isnt a major version number change it is pretty straight forward to download a .patch aply it and recompile


edit : and never manualy upgrade perl either thats hell aswell

 

[Gurnox]

tbh I never upgrade Glib, I just upgrade my distro, because well glib is a pain to install and you always end up breaking things.

as for the kernel, aslong as you got the settings from your current running kernel and there isnt a major version number change it is pretty straight forward to download a .patch aply it and recompile


edit : and never manualy upgrade perl either thats hell aswell

A rebuild is a pretty severe patch

 

[sibanac]

A rebuild is a pretty severe patch

well i guess you could download a precompiled kernel from your distro, but in the days of my 28kbs conn it was faster to download patch and rebuild


anyway I just had to reinstall an w2k laptop and damn windows patching is a pain. you upgrade dx and reboot, guess what there is a patch for the just upgraded dx9. cant they bundle that.
But its the bloody 5 reboots that realy piss me off.

 

[TdC]

You UNIX people are all the same, saying how bad Windows is. Yet if it's so bad, why is everyone using it?

flawed argument, but I believe it's already been said in posts above

I use both windows and different unixes. every OS has it's strengths, weaknesses and limitations. the trick is to exploit the good, and patch the bad. the patching system in general, while imo flawed in itself, seems to work, but as with the differnt operating systems sometimes you need to know what you're doing.

I once had an argument with Luap, wherein the gist was that imo Microsoft is killing functionality and user-knowlege with ease-of-use. "ease-of-use" is not the holy grail, and it's important that end-users have a general idea what they're doing, because then simple misconfigurations and errors and stuff like viruses and spam will start to dissapear. still, as stated above, it's hard for someone (like me) who uses pcs and servers every day to place themselves in the shoes of Joe Average computer user.

My uncle installs everything he gets on his computer with all things default. He doesn't read error messages, doesn't run a firewall and has managed to somehow break/turn off his virus scanner "because it makes the computer slow". He is the kind of user who isn't able to grasp the fact that if you move an icon from one side of the desktop to the other it will still work (bit like my mum tbh). He knows exactly nothing about his computer and never will. He causes me no end of grief, but I refuse to help him with it. I do not know how to turn him from clueless into reasonably aware, and my guess is that he doesn't want to be. In the world where I am king I would have him disconnected from the internet, due to his spyware riddled, spam spewing worm farm of a pc befouling MY lovely interweb bandwidth. Guh.

 

[Custodian]

You UNIX people are all the same, saying how bad Windows is. Yet if it's so bad, why is everyone using it?

People do not use Windows because it is good. They use it because it comes on the PC they buy. Microsoft is dominant for that simple reason. If IBM had been as aggressive/clever back in the 80's we might all be using their OS now.

The "which OS" question was around before the Windows/Linux debate. Before Windows we argued over which DOS was better (MS, DR, etc.). I thought DR was better as it always seemed one step ahead with features, but MS won as again it got everywhere first.

Before Windows I spent most of my time writing menu systems for PCs so that normal users could actually use them. They had enough trouble remembering the controls for the applications (Wordstar had no GUI, don't think SuperCalc did either, but keyboard driven menu's did come along before the mouse driven GUI). So they learnt how to use their application, and I presented them witha menu when the PC started that allowed them to get into the application without needing to remember DOS command line stuff (no "multi tasking" before Windows came along - 1 application running at a time back then).

So the problem we have now is that Windows has succeeded in making computing accessible to the masses. Instead of just techie people having them, and mostly knowing how to look after them, they are now available to anyone and so vulnerable to so much going wrong.

I look after a couple of PCs for "normal" users.
I helped my parents buy and setup their PC, and as they do absolutely nothing adventurous with it at - office apps, email, web surfing (no pr0n), play games - they have had no problems at all. They don't have "always on" internet yet, which probably helps keep them safe as they work mostly offline. For them Windows is great (and IE and Outlook).
Some friends have a PC used by the whole family, including all the teenage kids. The PC is constantly being fiddled with, having software downloaded or installed, or constantly attacked due to the variety of web sites the kids visit and bad email habbits they have. These are the people that need protecting by the OS and other software, and the ISPs I think. If every PC came with AntiVirus installed, or every ISP made sure their customers had and can use AV, and if Windows could better handle the unknowledgable user fiddling (XP does this better than previous ones), then perhaps their PC could last more than 6 months without me having to visit and "tidy up".