Newbie questions (was hijacked thread!)

[Ian Astley]

On 21 Feb 2008, at 01:35, Bill and Jan Klemme wrote:

> [...]
> It sounds like I may want to go with that "ubuntu" as someone  
> suggested? I love the bits and bytes stuff, but I just do not have  
> the time now to get into that.  I want a replacement for Windows,  
> but want to be able to run my Windows apps (like Quicken and  
> Photoshop, etc). I am tired of firewalls and virus programs and  
> having to buy new ones every year that haven't been debugged yet.

I got sick and fed up of Windows slowly and surely over a period of a  
couple of years. In the end I just wiped the whole lot and decided I  
would live with the excitement of the bleeding edge which is Fedora.  
I used SuSE for a while and that is a very good choice, too, for a  
beginner. It is slightly more user-friendly than Fedora and has good  
support, especially if you buy the commercial version (their Home  
version is not expensive). Whatever you choose will give you gip,  
these are computers after all, but Open Source Software (OSS) is  
generally better on one's blood pressure. This is partly because the  
community is not trying to stuff you at every turn; errors are made  
but they are made honestly and people are determined to get them  
corrected as quickly as possible (Microsoft is generally much slower  
at getting things patched and corrected than the OSS community!).

As to your software requirements: GNU Cash is an excellent, high-end  
accounting programme; there is also a perfectly good spreadsheet  
programme in the Open Office suite, which is installed pretty much as  
standard on most Linux distributions. For image manipulation, the  
GIMP is excellent, although it works differently from Photoshop  
(different menus, etc.). It is not really up to full professional use  
but you will find that once you get used to its quirks (in the way  
that you presumably got used to Photoshop's quirks!), it is fine for  
most amateur and semi-professional purposes.

> I was led to understand that some version of Linux would be much  
> less vulnerable to hacking and viruses so thought I'd go that route  
> with Fedora.  I would like an OS that would be able to run Windows  
> underneath, but would be very user-friendly...maybe even look like  
> Windows. (My wife uses the computer sometimes too. I don't want to  
> have a lot of explaining to do.) Is a Mac a good solution, albeit  
> an expensive one?

The KDE desktop, available with all the major distributions of Linux,  
is highly configurable -- it will even allow you up to twenty  
desktops (what OS X Leopard calls "Spaces"!), if you need them. The  
desktops can even be made to look like Windows, there is a sub-set of  
Windows themes. However, if you are like me, you will soon find  
yourself looking at a Windows screen and thinking how crummy and  
amateurish it all looks. (Yes, the people in Open Source have much  
better aesthetic taste and know how to implement it technically.)

Another thing which has notbeen mentioned yet is that Linux-based  
operating systems are much kinder to your hardware. My girlfriend had  
all sorts of problems with a mini-ATX machine under Windows XP. Even  
on good days it made a hell of a noise as the hard disk thrashed  
around, trying to find traces of Mr Gates' brains, no doubt. I wiped  
the lot, installed Fedora Core 6 and all of a sudden she had a  
problem-free machine which purred along like a cat on a cushion.

As for the Mac, it is an excellent solution: apart from two Linux  
boxes (both of which happily run heavy-duty software on hardware  
which would crack under the strain of running Windows XP, let alone  
Vista) I have a Mac iBook G4 (laptop) which has been pottering along  
happily for three years now, and I had my work Windows machine thrown  
out in favour of an Intel iMac about six months ago. Macs are not  
expensive, either. They cost more initially but you do not have to  
keep on shelling out for virus software and various other bits and  
bobs. Also, since the introduction of OS X they run on a UNIX kernel,  
which means that the bloated neuroses of Redmond do not force you to  
upgrade your memory, storage, etc., constantly. And it keeps running  
-- there are costs associated with having to go without a computer  
for days while someone works out how to recover your computer from  
its latest crash.

Anyway, whatever your final choice of system, welcome to the community!

Best wishes,

Ian