To PlainName's question, the Windows version I was using before fleeing the Microsoft disaster-zone as a refugee to Linux was 8.1. 8.1 wasn't particularly good, but I got it to do what was needed. 8/8.1 had a dreadful idea with the tablet-style interface as well as the regular one, but it still gave you a lot more levers of control over your own system than 10 did. Then Microsoft started mucking around with GWX.exe and I realised they couldn't be trusted, I blocked it from actually harming my systems but trust was gone. Then seeing that Win 10 would forcibly update you with whatever Microsoft wanted, whenever they wanted it, I knew I had to escape. Started trying live Linux distros then (circa 2015-2016). Made the full migration of my personal systems in 2017-2018, haven't operated a Windows machine of my own (I've used Windows accounts on shared systems and can tell from those that the Windows OS continues to get messier and more confusing from an actually-getting-it-set-up-as-you-want perspective even as its split-personality 8/8.1 UI has been faded out) since then, and very glad of it.
I wouldn't say I've simply been simply "lucky" in terms of Linux (Mint in my case) being so crash-proof and reliable, I've put very similar installs on multiple different hardware and they've all worked nearly flawlessly. Maybe people who try more bleeding-edge distros have a tougher time. But I use Linux as a working system, I use the terminal but I don't spend my time tinkering there for the sake of it. I like an OS which works, I need it to be under my control, I need to be able to debug common easy things, and for serious things have the option to debug by the last resort of rolling back a system to an earleir saved state (have thankfully never had to do this on Linux, did have to several times with Win 8/8.1) is essential. Linux (Mint) fulfils all of these, when I evangelise about it I'm doing so from the perspective of a user, not a kernel developer.
When I talked about helping elderly relatives get away from "crash-prone" Windows, I guess "crash" was the wrong work. Some of the Windows troubles he was having would have been PEBCAK errors, the kinds which Windows really exacerbated by constantly switching things around. Perhaps "crashes" are the wrong way to think of most Windows errors, but "It was able to do what I wanted, yet it changed something and now it won't" is common with an OS where the user's level of control is less than the level of control which a remote corporation can exert. I cannot regard an operating system which you can't keep set up in just the way you like it as being "stable", even if the faults aren't crashes in the classical sense.
As for Linux being "more secure", for desktop purposes it probably is. Most examples of Linux machines being hacked are servers running Linux. Securing a server which is operated specifically so it can be remotely connected to (or serve webpages, run web services...) is a much harder prospect than simply securing a local machine. I'd say that for local desktop machine Linux does manage better security than Windows, but perhaps mostly because targeting Linux desktop machines isn't what malware-writers are interested in, they want to go after high-value webservers (which often are Linux) or the most widely used desktop machines (which are still Windows).
On the topic of:
"Again, in context Infraviolet had implied that Windows is always changing as a significant down side to using Windows. So I guess that's "what"."
I would say would anyone want a hammer where the length of the handle and shape of the head varied from day to day? Would anyone want a power drill where the direction they have to turn the chuck to tighten it swaps every week? A computer is a tool, does anyone want to regularly need to relearn how to use a tool they already have? Historically Windows was quite like a stable tool, not much changed all that drastically for the normal-to-somewhat-power level of user between the start of XP and the later days of 7. 8 and onwards though has been constant, and usually unwelcome from most users, change. That's why I'd saying maintaining long-term consistency is a good thing, Mint at any rate has certainly excelled in this regard.
On the topic of:
"In my experience Windows users tend to be "Single boxed" users"
I certainly find that true from experience, but its about the worst way to be. When a computer goes wrong you need another computer to be able to fix it, if for no other reason than to online to look up how. I have multiple boxes (one for daily use, one to pack quickly for travel...), but they're all running almost identical Linux systems (some even truly identical, dd copies of one another's HDD). The only time, since running Linux, I've ever had to hurriedly switch over from my main one to a spare was when the main one's HDD started dying, a hardware fault that any OS can succumb to, and I needed another PC to go online, order a new HDD/SSD, and then use the backup one until the new drive arrived and I'd completed all the reinstall and copying back across of files. Atleast with Linux the going-online-to-lookup-the-fix part is easy with a live USB for some types of fault, I know Windows live USBs can be made, but they're not as widely known to the Windows user community as live USBs are to the Linux community. Being single-boxed seems actively dangerous for anyone, but even worse so for Windows... that said if it's a forced Windows update that takes the main box out of service then the others might be affected at the same time too, with Linux if an update messes up a system you simply choose not to run updates on any other boxes until you've worked out how to mitigate or a new patch-for-the-problem-patch has been released.
Regarding Windows 7 security updates, the MS Security Essentials tool is an antivirus, it isn't a substitute for patches to vulnerabilities in the OS. If you're using a non-microsoft browser then keeping this up-to-date (for as long as they won't refuse to update themselves on an old Windows version) mitigates a lot of the risks. But in general, simply because Windows does seem to suffer a lot more vulnerabilities (of the really important kind related to remote code execution) in the desktop OS than Linux does, I'd be a lot happier going online with a seriously obsolete Linux distro than with a Windows OS that was even just a little out-of-date. Offline usage ofcourse, Win 7 , or Win XP can be perfect for some people.
"Your osciliscope running Windows 7 did WHAT EXACTLY to our company?"
The question isn't why was it running 7, the question is why it was connected to the internet and/or company internal networks.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
