Linux

[Zyt3x]

It has almost 3 times as many save as file types the Microsoft office, and yes you can save it to be compatible with office.

Awesome
I'll try the CD-boot first and then see if I like it
Thanks Buckely, Nava2 and Infinity001.

[Nava2]

Although I do think it would become a bigger thing for developers to worry about, consider how Firefox is doing. Although it isn't by any means at 90 % market share for browsers (and probably never will be), the open nature of the software allows for fixes to be identified incredibly quickly. Yeah, malware writers get to also see the source and figure out holes as well, but it's more rewarding in the open source community to help out.

In response to the original question, it's so much better and more comforting to know that instead of one sole company deciding what's best for you, hundreds of users are making smart decisions. If they aren't smart in their decisions, then there's such things as software forks

s/hundreds/thousands/

[Harry]

Including the fact that 99.999999% of the programs you use on Ubuntu are in the repos, and the other small percent is compiled from source (which you can either read easily, or just risk it), then there is no chance of getting viruses, even if it obtains 90% of computer users.

@Zyt3x: SCAR works very well under Wine when I tested. If you run into any sort of bugs, feel free to ask at the SRL IRC, and probably one of us users will know

[Feroc1ty]

That is simply not correct.

If linux acheived 90% market share, there would still be no problem with viruses. Linux not having viruses is nothing to do with its lower market share.


Think of it this way.

You write viruses so you can take control of more bandwidth or processing power. Would you rather control powerful servers with massive upload rates or would you want small, pathetic home computers with adsl broadbands.
I know which I'd like.

But you cant have servers, they all run linux, your only choice is home computers because they run woe.

That is simply not correct, as an asshole might say. Viruses are made to be a source of income, it has nothing to do with having more bandwidth unless it's a very specific type of virus with a very specific function in mind.

Think of it this way.

You write viruses so you can take control of more computer, which holds more personal data. Would you rather control more powerful server with information that is pretty much always encrypted using various encryption methods, or easily accessible privileged information from home computers, which might include credit cards, social security... etc. I know which one I'd like.

[Harry]

Not everyone writes viruses for personal info. I personally would only use a botnet (if I had one) to use its bandwidth and processing power, to process (and do) illegal things for me, such as torrents.

[Boreas]

That is simply not correct, as an asshole might say. Viruses are made to be a source of income, it has nothing to do with having more bandwidth unless it's a very specific type of virus with a very specific function in mind.

Think of it this way.

You write viruses so you can take control of more computer, which holds more personal data. Would you rather control more powerful server with information that is pretty much always encrypted using various encryption methods, or easily accessible privileged information from home computers, which might include credit cards, social security... etc. I know which one I'd like.

Rogueware and keyloggers work this way, but not all malware is like that, most people are just more familiar with them because they are more obvious. Zombies machines are different, and could benefit greatly from controlling a server, and most owners of zombies don't even know about it. I don't know how up to date these numbers are, but check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botnet#...ist_of_Botnets

[tarajunky]

I'm on a netbook with Ubuntu 9.04 UNR right now. It works very well off a fresh install. If you want to change anything, the learning curve seems pretty steep, though.

For example, the sound is not working. I've searched all over for a way to fix that, and there have been a few posts on forums saying run this or that or the other line of gobbledygook code, but I haven't found a good user friendly tutorial to be able to really understand what they're talking about.

It seems like most of the Linux people are snobs, but I thought the same thing about "SCAR people" years ago, lol.

[Wizzup?]

I'm on a netbook with Ubuntu 9.04 UNR right now. It works very well off a fresh install. If you want to change anything, the learning curve seems pretty steep, though.

For example, the sound is not working. I've searched all over for a way to fix that, and there have been a few posts on forums saying run this or that or the other line of gobbledygook code, but I haven't found a good user friendly tutorial to be able to really understand what they're talking about.

It seems like most of the Linux people are snobs, but I thought the same thing about "SCAR people" years ago, lol.

90% of all the sound problems are because the sound is muted by default. Did you try un-muting it?

[Harry]

Only problem with Linux is sound. It is often easy to fix, but it is the only thing that does not "work out-of-the-box" like 5% of the time.