Really 'dumb' question: why does Linux have viruses? linux virus,linux malware

[FromTheRafters]

FromTheRafters stated in post [email protected] on 9/6/11 6:17 PM:


Imagine if they are in the real world as they present themselves in COLA.
They would chase people away from Linux. Lies do that.


Not sure I follow.

Well, the idea that Linux for instance is more secure because you get
your programs from a managed repository as source code files and compile
them yourself. The OS is not enforcing that behavior, so is that really
a valid point at all?

Would we really want a system where we can only run approved programs?
That seems to be the direction "Trusted Computing" wants to go - and to
me that is a turn away from general purpose computing's allowing the
freedom of users choice programs.

Many users do not really get the concept of what is the OS vs. apps or even
files and folders and the like. To many, photos are "in" their image
organizer, word documents are "in" their word processor, etc. Most OSs have
no stepping stones to help build these concepts.

That's true. That's what the GUI is supposed to do, make them think in a
more intuitive familiar physical manner rather than the actual truth of
the matter.

[...]

When I talk about Windows or Mint or OS X I *generally* mean the
environment. That is far more important in terms of thinking of usage.

Does that environment extend into the users themselves? I mean, Linux
used to be more secure because clueless users found it too difficult to
use and settled for Windows instead. IMO in this case it is not really
about Linux but about the class of users that are attracted to it. Same
goes for some practices that are associated with Linux but not actually
a part of Linux - like where you get new programs, it's user's choice
and not a function of the OS. This is one aspect of the Linux experience
but not really Linux itself.

 

[Dustin]

Shit for brains Dustin I was actually trying to make you look more
impressive than you actually are. I was pumping you up, you dump.
Lern to reed.

Sure ray...Btw, it's "Learn to read". dumbass.

 

[Dustin]

Maybe not Fort Know, but a lot safer? You bet

I doubt it.

And that same old bullshit over and over again.

Not bullshit.

Tell me, how did I ever get that Mac I use for programming OSX
stuff? How did I buy those other 7 computers I to be found here?
How did my son get his Mac? His iPhone?

I think you missed the point here.

How did I ever get to buy a sailboat?

Yep, you didn't get what I wrote at all.

Just don't tell us that you try to be dumber than Hadron Larry.
First, thats a near impossible feat. Second, it is by no means
desireable

First,

I'm a professional malware researcher with long standing credentials in
the field.

Second,
When I said linux wasn't a money maker, I was talking about that from
the malware author benefits. Theres no money in 0wning linux boxes,
yet.

 

[Dustin]

trust bears repeating about now. Whether or not malware exists on a
platform is entirely a matter of how good of a breeding ground it
is. What kind of security holes exist on the platform? How can an
infection be created and spread?

Not true these days. Malware creation is financially driven now.

"How many machines are out there?" is quite irrelevant.

Not if you want a wide target audience. it's extremely relevent.

Anyone familiar with the history of malware is aware of this.

I suspect my history with malware far exceeds that of your own, and
you're welcome to invite me to prove it if you'd like.

 

[Snit]

FromTheRafters stated in post [email protected] on 9/6/11 7:15 PM:

Well, the idea that Linux for instance is more secure because you get
your programs from a managed repository as source code files and compile
them yourself. The OS is not enforcing that behavior, so is that really
a valid point at all?

You get *some* of your programs from there. Even most. But then you are
dependant on someone else's choices.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/Ubuntu-stuff.mov>

How would the general user figure that out? How about before OpenOffice was
in the Ubuntu repository? Here was comparing Ubuntu to Windows and OS X:

Would we really want a system where we can only run approved programs?

Well, many people like their iOS devices. I have an iPod which I like.

That seems to be the direction "Trusted Computing" wants to go - and to
me that is a turn away from general purpose computing's allowing the
freedom of users choice programs.

For the desktop it would be limiting.... but on a mobile device it does not
bother me. And it keeps iOS malware free. I can see where others would
want something different, though. I have no problem with that.

That's true. That's what the GUI is supposed to do, make them think in a
more intuitive familiar physical manner rather than the actual truth of
the matter.

But they do not even get the GUI metaphors in a lot of cases.

Apple's iLife and media browswer are designed to be useful to more advanced
users but also to be a stepping stone to understanding these "advanced"
concepts (yes, I know to COLA folks they are hardly advanced!)

[...]

When I talk about Windows or Mint or OS X I *generally* mean the
environment. That is far more important in terms of thinking of usage.

Does that environment extend into the users themselves?

No. It is the environment the users use!

I mean, Linux used to be more secure because clueless users found it too
difficult to use and settled for Windows instead. IMO in this case it is not
really about Linux but about the class of users that are attracted to it. Same
goes for some practices that are associated with Linux but not actually a part
of Linux - like where you get new programs, it's user's choice and not a
function of the OS. This is one aspect of the Linux experience but not really
Linux itself.

Well, different environments are better suited for different things and
different people. No argument here.

 

[Peter Köhlmann]

I doubt it.


Not bullshit.


I think you missed the point here.


Yep, you didn't get what I wrote at all.


First,

I'm a professional malware researcher with long standing credentials in
the field.

And I am Santa Claus
When you are lying, please don't do it so obviously. You are insulting
people with such low-IQ lies

Second,
When I said linux wasn't a money maker, I was talking about that from
the malware author benefits. Theres no money in 0wning linux boxes,
yet.

You did not need to confirm that you are a blithering idiot. That fact was
already established

 

[Snit]

Wolf K stated in post [email protected] on
9/7/11 6:36 AM:

On 07/09/2011 7:01 AM, David Brown wrote:
Snit wrote:
[...]

I agree that you should only be entitled to actual cost that the OEM
paid for the Windows license.

[...]

In other words, he should eat the overhead: the cost associated with
purchasing, tracking inventory, installation, etc. Which is probably at
least as much as what he paid MS.

I don't think so.

Wolf K.

Exactly... it makes no sense.

 

[Snit]

David Brown stated in post (e-mail address removed) on
9/7/11 4:01 AM:

In an effort to keep my sanity, I don't follow COLA. I just bump into
occasional cross-posted threads.

Has that worked for you?

So I don't know what was said in COLA about OOXML, but that wikipedia
article discusses the "standard" itself, and not the /standardisation/
process. Here is just a single example link, as I don't want to bogged
down in yet another sidetrack!

<http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/desktop-os/2007/08/30/microsoft-accused-of-riggin
g-ooxml-votes-39288959/>

If you do not like the standard you do not have to use it. It is merely a
choice.

I agree that you should only be entitled to actual cost that the OEM
paid for the Windows license.

Minus all the associated costs, right? And if you then wanted to return the
memory, say, you should be able to do that? And the mouse. And... well,
whatever components you want?

I like Macs but I do not like the Apple mice. They were designed by
engineers with non-human hands I think. I would not even consider telling
Apple I must be able to return the mouse and get a refund. That would be
silly.

The click-wrap license for windows specifically allows you to get a
refund, even though you bought it as part of a complete system - it is
not like buying a car and asking for a refund for the steering wheel you
don't want.

I would have to read the license to see this - but if the license says you
can get a refund then you have a point. Even if it is a loss for the
company.

From MS's viewpoint, the refund system is legally clear - it is okay
that Windows is bundled with the system whether you want it or not,
because you can get your money back if you don't want it. But (based on
everything I've read - I haven't tried it myself) OEMs mostly fight to
stop you getting the refund. This may be pure conspiracy theory, but
one reason for this is perhaps that they would have to reveal their
actual pricing deals with MS - certainly in most cases when people have
got refunds the refund was much higher than OEMs pay for licenses, and
often up to the shelf price (of OEM windows).

OEMs sell complete systems. Unless the license says you can get a refund on
some part, it is sorta silly to think you should be able to get one.

Yes, I know that.

So why complain about the closed door deal of one part?

MS has a monopoly position - they are virtually immune to bad publicity
(they certainly have plenty of practice at handling it). They also have
a standard practice of delaying or appealing court cases for long enough
for the fines to be irrelevant (again, this is not something special to
MS - many big companies do the same, and you could argue that for the
sake of their shareholders, they are obliged to do it). So when they
are fined for anti-competitive behaviour damaging a competing product,
then by the time the fine is paid the competitor is long dead, and the
fine is a tiny fraction of the profit made in that sector.

These tactics have been getting harder for MS in recent years, as their
growth has stagnated (having a monopoly in a sector leaves little room
for growth) and they have more markets in which they must compete on
technical and economic factors.

So I try not to "blindly assume", but I do "assume" for the moment.

As long as you do not pretend you are doing something other than assuming.
I do not share that assumption - I prefer to look at evidence of wrong-doing
before saying it is there or making accusations.

This is esp. true when there are other factors which explain the data. As
discussed before, it makes no sense for Dell to push an OS they would lose
money on.

OK, I'll go with that correction.

Fair enough.

Agreed.

And that is a money loser for them.

I am not in full agreement with Shuttleworth, but I do see his point.

Where do you disagree? [not saying you are wrong to do so... just
curious... this is an opinion after all]

Ironically, in his attempt to make Ubuntu and Unity more "newbie
friendly", turning your PC into a giant mobile telephone, he has
alienated many existing users. It is not easy to keep everyone happy.

Agreed. Now consider Dell's position. Say they had stuck with Ubuntu. Now
they are "stuck" with a disto many are not liking, or they have to switch
distros (this is a bit of a marketing mess as well as adds to their costs in
training, etc.) or they have to offer multiple distros - which again costs
them money.

By supporting Ubuntu they would be pretty much screwed. It is a wonder they
support it as much as they do! No assumption of Microsoft doing anything
wrong needed.

....

Try googling "linux warranty" - here's the first hit:
<http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/69073.html>

Warranties may not explicitly say "no Linux", but if you can't take your
PC back to the shop to get hardware problems fixed without a court
battle, then it might as well say it.

One idiotic Best Buy manager does not prove that it goes against the
warranty. But, sure, the manager was an idiot.

....

It would not be easy for Wal-Mart to establish themselves in Norway.
For one thing, our minimum wage laws would bankrupt them - we insist
that people be able to live on their earnings from full-time jobs.

While I can see acceptations in some cases, I wish the US would get such
laws. But that is a topic for another day.

....

As you said before, you can't expect a supplier to provide support for
software they don't sell. If they pre-installed Linux, they would have
to support it - and I agree that means extra costs (especially since
Linux users are less likely to accept "did you try ctrl-alt-delete?" as
a "solution"...). No OS means no support for the OS.

They will get lots of calls with people running into problems with such
systems. Then you have a PR nightmare of turning them all away.

Yes, which for many users means there is currently no /real/ support for
Windows from OEM's.

Often correct.

I don't get that - I would not expect them to try to provide support for
an OS they didn't provide. It would be nice for the OEM to provide a
website - FAQs, knowledge base, howtos, etc., - that would help them
stand out, for a relatively low cost since it is not personal telephone
or email support. And the usual trick - set up some forums and let
users support each other - would work well here.

Still: when the bloggers start writing about how they bought a Dell XYX and
tried to install Distro X on it only to find it did not work and Dell did
not tell them up front, this is a risk to Dell.

For this to work Dell would need to make it clear you buy the system at your
own risk. That is a very different message than their current one (replace
Dell with HP or whatever other large seller you wish).

....

As far as I know, OS X's print-to-pdf is the same as Linux (after all,
Apple are the current maintainers of CUPS).

Yes. Though with PDF Services, you also have all sorts of options when you
"print" to PDF. Here is the menu from my system (though I have added and
removed some items):

It's possible that it has some sort of automation, such as identifying
headings by their larger font and making bookmarks from them, or turning
strings that look like URL's into links (a pdf reader might also do that).
But it is still a case of throwing out the semantic and structural
information, then re-creating it - but with the direct route (such as
OpenOffice export to pdf, pdfLaTeX, FrameMaker to pdf, etc.) you keep all the
information and get a better result.

I would have to test the effectiveness of the Windows solutions. This may
be an advantage of OpenOffice over Word (on Windows). I can accept that.

....

I'll look at that link later, but shift-resize has always worked for me.

Odd. Wonder why it does not work on my Mint system?

I don't disagree with you here. But it has never been a problem for me
- perhaps because I prefer a simpler way of doing things (for Windows, I
prefer XP with the "classic" theme, rather than the teletubbies look).
Still, you are not alone in feeling that OpenOffice could do with a
makeover and progress in the interface and user experience - a major
motivation behind LibreOffice (and previous groups such as GoOO) has
been the feeling that development progress was too slow.

If you are looking for a more simple way, I think it is hard to argue that
LibreOffice "wins" in the example in the video.

I don't know much about Pages, but I gather it has more DTP
functionality than most word processors.

Yes. Though Word is not bad their, either.

So I would expect better features for manipulating images and image layout.
However, I can honestly say that I have never once felt the need to rotate an
image inserted into a word-processing document - some scaling, and a choice of
anchoring to the page or paragraph is enough for me.

It is not that uncommon to want to rotate an image.

However, the big problem with Pages (correct me here if I am wrong) is
that is for the Mac only, and it doesn't even do a good job of importing
and exporting other formats. If it ran native on Linux and Windows as
well, it might be a contender as a serious office use. As it is, it is
only for people who can live in a Mac world - and perhaps as a showcase
for how a word processor /could/ function.

It is Mac only... though it does import and export to Word about as well as
LibreOffice (perhaps better - it gives a list of things it cannot handle).

I found a comparison here:

<http://pagesfaq.blogspot.com/2008/11/openoffice-30-and-pages-30-comparison.ht
ml>

Some of those are wrong or at best outdated. Many, really. It is trivial
to export to PDF, Word, RTF, PlainText or ePub with Pages, for example. And
Pages has had AppleScript support for some time - though older versions did
not. But, yes, Pages is not as "full-featured" as is Word.

Coming from a background of LaTeX for documents, I find OpenOffice's
lack of typographic features a shame - no ligatures, no decent spacing
rules, etc. It seems that Pages does that better.

Yes. OS X has a lot of that built in... so almost all programs support
ligatures and the like.

Yes, I can write LaTeX with any OS - and the generated pdf's can be read
anywhere (actually, I discovered that while evince on Linux was quite
happy with unicode in bookmarks, foxit reader on windows couldn't
display the characters properly). It's not compatibility with OS's
that's the problem - it's compatibility with colleagues. The learning
curve for LaTeX is a little longer and harder than for OO or other word
processors.

And it is not a word processor.

 

[Snit]

chrisv stated in post (e-mail address removed) on 9/7/11
5:53 AM:

Are you really that stupid, or are you just a bald-faced liar?

After all, we all have a rough idea of the "huge" percentage of the
populace which reads forums such as this. And many who would read
them would agree with those that you call "crazies".

Imagine, though, if most Linux users spread the false "advocate" FUD you and
others in COLA spread.

It would kill desktop Linux. Bring it down to 1%.

Oh.

 

[RayLopez99]

Dustin wrote:

And I am Santa Claus
When you are lying, please don't do it so obviously. You are insulting
people with such low-IQ lies


You did not need to confirm that you are a blithering idiot. That fact was
already established

U stupid kraut. Do you know who you are talking too? This is the
famous Dustin who has written malware for testing purposes. He could
wreck your PC remotely if he wanted to!

DumbKrauf is your name. Fitting. Now get back to your factory
workstation and make some money for the Greeks.

VAMOS!

RL

 

[RayLopez99]

On 07/09/2011 00:12, Snit wrote:

read more »

Post less. Your verbal diarrhea coupled with your evasive answers is
pretty noticeable even by a casual reader of your slop.

RL

 

[Snit]

RayLopez99 stated in post
(e-mail address removed) on 9/7/11
10:27 AM:

Post less. Your verbal diarrhea coupled with your evasive answers is
pretty noticeable even by a casual reader of your slop.

RL

He makes more sense than the COLA "advocates". By far.

 

[Dustin]

And I am Santa Claus
When you are lying, please don't do it so obviously. You are
insulting people with such low-IQ lies

You know what I personally find most amusing? When you tell people the
truth, they really don't believe you. It's easier to convince a person
of a lie. Alright then,

Are you familiar with a product known as malwarebytes?

 

[none of your buisiness]

FromTheRafters wrote:

yet, Another "Snit Circus" enabler...time to plonk


PLONK!

 

[Snit]

David Brown stated in post (e-mail address removed) on
9/7/11 1:52 PM:

....

Yes, it's that license that makes it different, and means that you do
have the right to a refund even though it was bundled with the system.

Can you provide the relevant quote from the license? If the license says
you can get a refund then you should be able to. Of course.

Well, the click-through license on windows says you can.

I would like to see the quote. And then see if it says the refund comes
from MS or the OEM.

It wasn't a complaint - merely a statement of fact. It just looked like
a complaint.

LOL! OK.

....

Question:
-----
What do you see as the main obstacles holding back the
success of the Linux desktop?
-----
Shuttleworth:
-----
I think we don't yet deliver a good enough user experience. I
think we deliver a user experience for people that have a
reason to want to be on the Linux platform, either because of
price or because of freedom. If that was your primary reason,
Linux is the right answer.

But if you are somebody who is not too concerned about price,
who is not too concerned about freedom, I don't think we can
say the Linux desktop offers the very best experience. And
that's something we have to change, that's something I'm
committed to work on, focusing increasing amounts of
resources of Canonical on figuring out on how we actually
move the desktop experience forward to compete with Mac OS X.

Where do you disagree? [not saying you are wrong to do so... just
curious... this is an opinion after all]

Mostly I disagree on the direction Shuttleworth is going in trying to
make the Linux desktop more popular, rather than the aim in itself. I
just don't see all this "big friendly icons" style of interface as a
good thing. People are quite used to the desktop idea now, and this
trend towards telephone-style interfaces does not work well for a
desktop. On a desktop, people want to be able to have their email
program /and/ a word processor window /and/ a music program /and/
several browser windows. They (or at least, some users) have big
screens, and don't want to be stuck with one maximized application at a
time. I also think this nonsense of one icon that is both a launcher
for a program and an indication that it is running is confusing at best.

Most of the above I can agree with... but the launcher/indicator combo is
what OS X has had for 10 years and what Windows gained with Windows 7.
Makes a *lot* of sense. I cannot tell you how many times I see people open
a program with an icon and then try to "re-open' it (get back to it) with
the same icon. I ended up writing a script for XP to stop people from
opening a kazillion instances of each program. This problem is solved with
the combining of the two.

I'm sure that sort of interface is nice for some people, but it is a big
step backwards for more experienced users - and the last thing desktop
Linux proponents need is to annoy existing users.

Again: for much of Unity I agree... but I do like the "dock" idea. It was a
huge benefit for Windows when it came there.

I also disagree that about the Linux desktop not offering the best
experience - for some types of users, it /does/ offer the best
experience.

Well, yes. Just not most. For those who are command line junkies, however,
it is likely the best for them.

The key point is applications - if you don't need Windows-specific
applications, or you are experienced enough to run them in Wine or a virtual
machine, then Linux can definitely be a better choice. And if you have simple
needs - email, browser, some office programs, photo collections, music player
- then Linux also offers the best choice - /if/ you have someone who can help
you with any problems or administration.

For some, maybe. As a general statement I disagree. Let's look at each of
the things you list and stuff that, say, OS X offers that Mint does not:

* email: OS X has a built in attachment viewer - great for looking at images
or PowerPoint stuff without having to save it and open it elsewhere and then
clean things up later.

* browser: any OS does this OK... though I do like being able to move up
directories real easily.

* Office programs: depends on needs... but I compared Pages to LibreOffice
and working with images here: <

>
Hard to argue LibreOffice does it as well. Or even close.

* Photo collections: Ok, Picassa does a fine job of this. But it does not
tie into the OS services as well as does iPhoto (say the Media Browser)

* Music Player: like it or not, the iTunes store and iPods / iPhones are
pretty darn popular. Only Windows and Mac deal with those well. Other
players do have things such as lyrics which iTunes lacks.

With most of those Linux is not offering the best choice.

Thus my mother-in-law has Linux Mint on her laptop - it does all that she
needs, without viruses or other malware risks, smoothly and reliably.

That is not to say that Linux is the best choice of desktop for all people, or
even the majority of users - there is a long way to go before that.

Agreed. For command line junkies and some low-need situations, though, it
can be excellent.

....

It is not a unique story by any means. Linux installations confuses
many shops, repair services, and manufacturers. You would think they
would use a Live CD (a Windows live CD if they insist) to let them check
the hardware independently of any software issues, but apparently not.

But I do not think this is Dell or Best Buy policy. If it is, well, it is
stupid.

....

Plenty of bloggers have written horror stories about Dell, and they are
still going

Sure... but why feed them?

Absolutely - they have to make it clear that if you are buying a system
without an OS, then they don't support the software.

Which is a very different model than most OEMs want to give.
....

As far as I understand it (and again I could be wrong), Pages exports
rtf format, thus "flattening" much of the structure and style
information. You get a document that looks quite similar, but doesn't
work the same way if you want to do more work on it. Again, this may be
because I work more with structured documents with careful attention to
styles, rather than the traditional manual formatting encouraged by some
word processors.

It exports to RTF, Word and more. Here:

That's life on the internet!

Very true. I do suggest that people who advocate for one system or another
at least know the basics of the other. Without this they end up just
showing off what they do not know. This is very common in COLA (heck, I
have made that mistake before).

....

 

[Snit]

Sneaky Weasel stated in post [email protected] on 9/7/11 5:41 PM:

Why do you respond to the shit troll?

The herd has not beat him down yet. You were beaten down easily.

 

[Snit]

David Brown stated in post (e-mail address removed) on
9/8/11 1:16 AM:

....

Wikipedia explains it better (and more accurately) than me:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund#License_refund_policy>

It would also seem that the legality and enforceability of the license
terms vary according to country.

But, as worded with Windows 7, you might need to return the whole system.

It does sorta open up a can of worms... I can somewhat see where you are
coming from when you say you should be able to return Windows itself.

....

I know Mac's have had this for years - but while there is no doubt that
Mac's have pioneered a lot of nice things in their interface (and made
good choices about what to copy from others), I don't like this one.

I think it is excellent... and with modern OSs it does not really matter as
much what is running (though I do not go so far as to like Lion's default
behavior of having *no* indication as to what is running).

It again comes down to the user. I can see this combined icon being a
good thing for the lowest end users - but it is a bad thing for the high
end user, and unnecessary in the middle.

How is it a bad thing? I do not see it.

I don't like dumbing down a system for the benefit of impatient and ignorant
users.

What is taken away from higher end users?

I see no problem making this sort of thing an option - a simplified interface
for undemanding users would be a great idea. But it is wrong to put the
effort into that at the expense of usability for more experienced users.

How is it less usable? I do not get that. If you do not like it with
Windows 7, though, you can go back to the "old" way. So Windows 7 seems to
give you what you want (in that area!).

I hope you are not trying to say that you need to be fond of the command
line to use Linux!

No: but that is one group where desktop Linux serves people very well.

Of course, the far better command-line is one of the benefits of Linux
for users like me (I /am/ a command line junkie) - but you can get
/reasonable/ command-line usage with msys/mingw and a selection of ports
of Linux/gnu utilities to Windows.

But the tiled window managers of Linux are great with command lines.
Nothing I know of works as well with Windows or OS X.

(First off, let me say that for such users with "simple" desktop needs
that could be better supplied by Linux than Windows, then OS X would
also be a sensible choice and better than Windows. The choice of Linux
Mint or a Mac will depend on things like price, style, and where you can
get the support you will need.)

And, of course, if cost is a big factor then OS X, even if they better
technical choice, it might not be the best *practical* choice.

That has never been a problem for me, or for my mother-in-law.

No - it is not a "problem" elsewhere, but OS X's Mail offers a better
solution. In other words, all three systems solve the "problem" of being
able to read email... but they solutions are not all equal. Did not make a
video for this one, but found this that covers Quick View in general:

<

>

Does not show Mail, nor slideshows... but perhaps it gives you the idea...

OS X also has a universal place to set up Email, contacts and calendars:

<http://www.amitiae.com/?p=5130>

Pretty cool... no need to set these things up over and over in each program.

It's hard to argue that Pages has features that LibreOffice does not for
this type of user. And LibreOffice is better for import and export of
MS document types - a far more relevant issue for most people than being
able to rotate images.

What makes you think LibreOffice handles importing from MS Office better?
They both are... so-so.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp/>
<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/OfficeComp2/>

That is OpenOffice 3... but I do not think LibreOffice is much different.
And then using Pages to open each:

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PagesImport.mov>

To be clear: Pages does not exactly handle the files perfectly, but it does
a better job *plus* it tells you what it is not handling (at least mostly -
that list is not perfect).

Of course, LibreOffice is also available for Macs.
Yes.


Nautilus and gThumb are well integrated with the Mint desktop. Again,
my mother-in-law has no issues there.

There are many good solutions for this... but with OS X you get the Media
Browser... which means if you are using other software and want to attach
files from your photo organizer you can easily do so *without* even having
to understand where they are saved or get the concept of files and folders.
You can use the same organization system you use in iPhoto. This is a
benefit to novice and experienced users (though, in all fairness, if you are
pulling in a lot of images the Media Browser does not have a way to mark
which are used - the Finder has this and the Media Browser would benefit
from this addition).

I don't use these things myself, but my son has no trouble with using
his iAudio player and Linux Mint.

If you are not using an iOS device then there are many good solutions...
though if you want access to the biggest online music store, that pushes you
back to iTunes. Not an issue for me... but it is for many. And, as noted, if
you want lyrics then iTunes is *not* a good solution, though there is
freeware to add that too iTunes.

I was only thinking of Linux vs. Windows here, as that is the choice for
many people - especially if you already have the machine. But I agree
that the Mac is as good - and in some ways better - a choice. It is,
however, a lot more expensive - and though it might sound like heresy,
some of us think they look horrible.

Both points are valid: If you are doing just the above things, while I think
the Mac might handle it better it comes at a price. You can get a new PC
that handles those things well at 1/2 or even 1/3 the cost of what you can
get a Mac for. And that matters. And OS X has a set look - if you do not
like it you cannot skin it without using kludgey third party solutions.
Heck, I have not even checked to see if those work with Lion.

So with the above Mac-is-better comments, let me share a bit about where I
would like to see desktop Linux get to (and where I think it is moving):

Imagine a system with the same type of benefits as OS X: consistent save and
print dialogs, excellent system services (media browser, PDF Services, proxy
icons, view path from window, universal color selector, etc.) *but* also
gives you freedom to select the look of these things *and*, more
importantly, lets you select what dialogs and the like you want.

Maybe Ubuntu, as a general user distro, has simple print and save dialogs...
but another distro has more full featured ones. And those can be "branded"
with the distro logo or whatever. More differentiation for distros, better
usability for all users, more choice for advanced users.

And this can happen *only* on desktop Linux. Neither Apple nor MS would
want users to be able to do this - it reduces *their* branding. For a long
time people in COLA have told me that making such a coordinated UI for a
desktop Linux distro is not possible - and right now it is not. But look at
the difference just a couple years make.

<http://tmp.gallopinginsanity.com/PCLOS-OSX-comparison.pdf>

This was tied to another conversation... and the comparison was with OS X.
And, yes, OS X "wins" - but look at the links at the bottom of the PDF - the
links to an older version of PCLOS. Look at the difference. Night and day.
PCLOS has come a *long* way in a fairly short time - and that is only
possible because the ecosystem is improving. What I have been advocating
for *is* happening, at least largely.

Now there is still a long way to go. The Pages / LibreOffice video makes it
clear how "primitive" some key things on desktop Linux can still be. But
desktop Linux *is* getting closer and closer. Really good to see and
exciting to watch.

But desktop Linux will not get there unless people are honest about where it
needs to grow. The false "advocates" of COLA work against that (though, to
be fair, it is not as if they have any real influence).

I'd add "custimisation junkies", "hardware junkies", "network junkies",
"programming junkies", "virtualisation junkies", etc., to the list.
There are a lot more things you can do better with Linux than Windows
(or Macs) than just the command line - but it is probably only the best
choice overall if you are fairly familiar with computers, willing to
experiment, and happy to use forums, Usegroups, how-tos, etc., for
finding information and help.

I am happy to do those things - but I also modify and personalize the way I
use my Mac.

I am a "usability junkie"... so whatever pushes usability features the most
gets my "vote". This is not to say OS X always is best... the fact that you
could not resize windows from any edge until Lion is just absurd... and
while the single menu concept worked great with smaller single screens, with
larger and dual screens I suspect the data would be quite different from
relevant studies.

....

Yes. I am not trying to say that this is the way OEMs /should/ go -
just that this is a possible direction.

Ok, fair enough. In COLA there is a common myth that MS somehow is forcing
OEMs to not go this direction, as if they have some obligation to do so.

....

My mother's version may be outdated. When you export to "MS Word .doc"
format, you get a file called "x.doc" which is in rtf format. Of
course, both Word and OpenOffice will happily open the file - just like
any rtf document - but you lose structure and style information compared
to the original document.

I would have to see that... I thought it handles Word and RTF separately for
a while.

The trick is to find a forum where mistakes are corrected rather than
just flamed

What fun is that?

I try... hence the videos and the like that I make. I think it makes it
very clear what each OS is doing.

Of course, those who want to deny just claim I am forging the videos and
images... and then never show what is "wrong" with my videos. So be it...