Ubuntu 13.10 Is Released..Consider using it if ...

For people having trouble booting

try Grub

Rebuilding the MBR for the Grub Boot Loader on Linux - 001
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0s26m1SFddw
www.youtube.com...


Grub Rescue - Complete Re-install of GRUB 2 from Live USB
www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lod8sRb_6I
www.youtube.com...


When I create hard drive partitions, In high end systems, I use a hard drive specific for booting. so if booting drive fails or is corrupted, the main OS and Data disks are fine.

I also plan unformatted partitions or easily formatted partitions for that reason.

I use all my drive letters...

note: hard drive boot is much faster!



For people that want to try linux installs without actually installing it to a hard drive.

Try:
How to create a bootable USB stick on Windows
www.ubuntu.com/download/desktop/create-a-usb-stick-on-windows
www.ubuntu.com...

Different strokes for different folks and everyone here is an expert in their own mind.

We all have different applications, work requirements , career experience , whatever.

If people want to dual boot great. If they want to vbox great.
If they want to from Linux on their old machine and run Windows on a beast machine more power to them.
What I know is their isn't a right solution to what everyone wants/needs/has a requirement so why not take advantage of both.

reply to post by rigel4


Does Linux have the same security vulnerabilities as Windows? It's one of the reasons I switched to OS X. Can someone shed some light on this issue for all operating systems? Windows always seemed to bog down, no matter what hardware I used. It sucked up memory and never worked as fast as it should have. I've played with Windows 8 and well that seems even worse. It was supposed to streamline things, but all they did was put more lipstick on the pig. It's still the same windows underneath and more complicated to figure out issues.

opethPA
Different strokes for different folks and everyone here is an expert in their own mind.

We all have different applications, work requirements , career experience , whatever.

If people want to dual boot great. If they want to vbox great.
If they want to from Linux on their old machine and run Windows on a beast machine more power to them.
What I know is their isn't a right solution to what everyone wants/needs/has a requirement so why not take advantage of both.

I am by no means a Linux "expert", I'm a little experienced in using a few different distro's, and I know what I like and dislike about them.

That being said, I agree that both OS's have their uses. I would love to be able to have only one machine that runs Windows (7, since I hate 8), and the rest to be Linux boxes, and if people like Gabe Newell have their way, that will be a possibility soon.

The only OS that I have little to no desire to use is that of Mac. I may have to get one for submitting my writing to the iBookstore (since having a Mac is required for the software), as I currently have to give up a small percentage of my royalties to smashwords since I am forced to use them as an aggregate due to not owning a Mac. Other than that however, the Mac that I DO end up getting will collect dust, or be used for watching movies. Luckily as a distributor, I am able to get a nice discount when I manage to have the money, though Mac's are still WAY over priced in my estimation.

Ultimately, there is a use for all of these operating systems, and the user is the person that determines which best suits their needs.

Bilk22
reply to post by rigel4

 

Does Linux have the same security vulnerabilities as Windows? It's one of the reasons I switched to OS X. Can someone shed some light on this issue for all operating systems? Windows always seemed to bog down, no matter what hardware I used. It sucked up memory and never worked as fast as it should have. I've played with Windows 8 and well that seems even worse. It was supposed to streamline things, but all they did was put more lipstick on the pig. It's still the same windows underneath and more complicated to figure out issues.

Techspot - Mac's DO get viruses

HuffPo - Mac's DO get viruses

Busting the myth: Mac's DO get viruses

Linux boxes can get viruses as well, however, it is virtually unheard of because the market share is so minuscule that hackers don't bother.

There is no such thing as an operating system that is immune to viruses, which is a fact that Apple has misled it's customers about.

Bilk22
reply to post by rigel4

 

Does Linux have the same security vulnerabilities as Windows? It's one of the reasons I switched to OS X. Can someone shed some light on this issue for all operating systems? Windows always seemed to bog down, no matter what hardware I used. It sucked up memory and never worked as fast as it should have. I've played with Windows 8 and well that seems even worse. It was supposed to streamline things, but all they did was put more lipstick on the pig. It's still the same windows underneath and more complicated to figure out issues.

Eh..I have run Windows all my life and never had performance issues. Either home built or otherwise including work exp with large scale enterprise deployments. The point is a lot more goes into building a PC which unlike a MAC has an almost unlimited number of choices when it comes to hardware components and in some cases drivers for that hardware.

Additionally good edge security and common sense can often negate just about everything but 0 day type exploits regardless of the OS. What people seem to not think about is the fact that in a corporate environment where many , if not most , attacks take place will have a Windows desktop so obviously because they are a larger deployed number their is more of a chance they will get hit with something. Additionally their really isn't much value in attacking a MAC , what infrastructure is that exploit going to get you other than annoying artists.

I'm currently using a MBP late 2011 model running OSX 10.8 and Windows 8.1. I've used Ubuntu 12 on it before, then with a third party dualboot option. I don't want to trippleboot, so I'm looking at a Live USB option.. How much space deos Ubuntu 13.10 use on a USB stick and can I save apps etc on it? Or are apps, documents, picture, music etc saved on the HDD in a specific folder?

reply to post by NorwegianDarkness


You will need at least 2gb on the USB stick. Other files that you add can be saved to the HDD.

Ubuntu - How to create a bootable USB stick

Windows - How to create a bootable USB stick

OS X - How to create a bootable USB stick

opethPA

Eh..I have run Windows all my life and never had performance issues. Either home built or otherwise including work exp with large scale enterprise deployments. The point is a lot more goes into building a PC which unlike a MAC has an almost unlimited number of choices when it comes to hardware components and in some cases drivers for that hardware.

edit on 19-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

I'm pretty certain you have that wrong. I'm by no means an IT expert, but I did manage to build a Hackentosh to run OS X. It was very particular about the hardware it would run on. However that said, both PCs and Intel Macs pretty much have the same hardware requirements. MB, memory, video card, etc. Nothing special there, but the OS looks for specific hardware or it just doesn't run.

As for the links to the malware examples, well I'm not claiming there aren't any security vulnerabilities, but there are much less from what I understand because of the lack of Java and Flash included in the OS. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Bilk22

opethPA

Eh..I have run Windows all my life and never had performance issues. Either home built or otherwise including work exp with large scale enterprise deployments. The point is a lot more goes into building a PC which unlike a MAC has an almost unlimited number of choices when it comes to hardware components and in some cases drivers for that hardware.

edit on 19-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

I'm pretty certain you have that wrong. I'm by no means an IT expert, but I did manage to build a Hackentosh to run OS X. It was very particular about the hardware it would run on. However that said, both PCs and Intel Macs pretty much have the same hardware requirements. MB, memory, video card, etc. Nothing special there, but the OS looks for specific hardware or it just doesn't run.

As for the links to the malware examples, well I'm not claiming there aren't any security vulnerabilities, but there are much less from what I understand because of the lack of Java and Flash included in the OS. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am pretty certain I don't have that wrong. =)
I could give my qualifications but it doesn't mean anything because like you I am just a person on the web.

Their are absolutely more hardware choices, in some cases including firmware, and drivers for a PC. You mention hardware requirements being similar, no not really. If I was building a machine for someone to browse the web it would be configured one way. If I was building one to game on it would be another. If I was building for photo\video work it would be yet a third way.

If you like or feel MACs are more secure then great. The reality of it is , they simply aren't a major target so their is less targeted at them.

Bilk22

opethPA

Eh..I have run Windows all my life and never had performance issues. Either home built or otherwise including work exp with large scale enterprise deployments. The point is a lot more goes into building a PC which unlike a MAC has an almost unlimited number of choices when it comes to hardware components and in some cases drivers for that hardware.

edit on 19-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

As for the links to the malware examples, well I'm not claiming there aren't any security vulnerabilities, but there are much less from what I understand because of the lack of Java and Flash included in the OS. Correct me if I'm wrong.

You're correct. What seems to dictate the prevalence of viruses for a particular OS is market share.

A hacker is going to hit far more targets with a Windows-based virus than with an OS X-based virus, and far more targets with an OS X-based virus than with a Linux-based virus.

It simply doesn't make sense to bother making viruses for OS X and Linux compared to making one for Windows if widespread chaos is your goal.

As OS X becomes more affordable and thus, prevalent, viruses will become far more common. The same can be said of Linux, but over a longer period of time due to the small size of its market share, and the fact that it's already affordable (in most cases free).

reply to post by rigel4


What I did was to install VMware Player and then run Ubuntu within the Emulator/Shell environment. The advantage of doing this is twofold, 1) you don't need to restart your computer and 2) you have no issues with persistence that often occurs when booting from the USB drive. Plus I can can run other versions of Ubuntu (or even Tails).

Tails is a complete operating system designed to be used a USB stick independently of the computer's original operating system. It is Free Software and based on Debian GNU/Linux that aims to preserve your privacy and anonymity. It helps you to use the Internet anonymously and circumvent censorship almost anywhere you go and on any computer but leaving no trace unless you ask it to explicitly. Running Tails within VMware Player may be considered a security risk to some people, but I personally prefer to do it this way.

You can download VMware Player for free at:
my.vmware.com.../vmware_player/6_0

wasaka
reply to post by rigel4

 

What I did was to install VMware Player and then run Ubuntu within the Emulator/Shell environment.

I am a big fan of virtualized anything specifically around Vbox.. Oracle VBox. Currently I am engineering/supporting a virtualized enterprise PBX solution for around 35000 phones and 10000 VMBs. It is really pretty damn amazing compared to traditional carrier grade TDM switches. Anyway..

opethPA

Bilk22

opethPA

Eh..I have run Windows all my life and never had performance issues. Either home built or otherwise including work exp with large scale enterprise deployments. The point is a lot more goes into building a PC which unlike a MAC has an almost unlimited number of choices when it comes to hardware components and in some cases drivers for that hardware.

edit on 19-10-2013 by opethPA because: (no reason given)

I'm pretty certain you have that wrong. I'm by no means an IT expert, but I did manage to build a Hackentosh to run OS X. It was very particular about the hardware it would run on. However that said, both PCs and Intel Macs pretty much have the same hardware requirements. MB, memory, video card, etc. Nothing special there, but the OS looks for specific hardware or it just doesn't run.

As for the links to the malware examples, well I'm not claiming there aren't any security vulnerabilities, but there are much less from what I understand because of the lack of Java and Flash included in the OS. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I am pretty certain I don't have that wrong. =)
I could give my qualifications but it doesn't mean anything because like you I am just a person on the web.

Their are absolutely more hardware choices, in some cases including firmware, and drivers for a PC. You mention hardware requirements being similar, no not really. If I was building a machine for someone to browse the web it would be configured one way. If I was building one to game on it would be another. If I was building for photo\video work it would be yet a third way.

If you like or feel MACs are more secure then great. The reality of it is , they simply aren't a major target so their is less targeted at them.

Yes I did have that wrong because I read your first response incorrectly. My bad. (Do people still say that? LOL) Yes Windows isn't as picky as OS X in terms of hardware configurations from my limited experience in building my own computers.

I was Macless for a while while I tried Windows7. I would never go back to Windows again. The machine I have OS X running on is almost identical to the one I had 7 running on, save the video card. It didn't like the one I was using. The machine runs so much faster, boots almost instantaneously and doesn't bog down no matter how many apps and/or windows are open. Heck, I can pretty much load all the apps I have on the machine at once.

Not here to bash Windows, though I know it looks that way. I was just curious about the vulnerabilities of Linux and how close the design was to Windows. I went to the Ubuntu site and read thru some of the security updates. They do, to the untrained eye, look like Windows security vulnerabilities.

Odd thing about Windows and OS X. It runs so much better in a virtual machine on a Mac than it does natively in it's own box. I think, and again not an expert here, but it is also more secure.

Bilk22
Odd thing about Windows and OS X. It runs so much better in a virtual machine on a Mac than it does natively in it's own box. I think, and again not an expert here, but it is also more secure.

PC's/Linux/MAC all have their places in the world. Compared to the overall PC distribution Linux and MAC are still niche markets but that could change , although that talk has been going on forever, in the future.

I could put you in front of my machine , WIndows 7 , and you wouldn't feel any hardware/performance/stability issues but as they say perception is reality.

Additionally the OS is one component of online/network security. If your edge is open, if your core/distro/access layers aren't locked down, if your users are dumb (no their isn't a guy in Zimbabwe giving you 100 million dollars) then it doesn't matter how secure you think something it is.

Again though as I said...In the current computer world we as users have multiple choices and depending on the user one is no better than the other.

reply to post by Bilk22

Fedora > Buntu

4eva

Ive been using Linux for a few months now after being hacked REPEATEDLY by someone stalking me on anohter site, who has access to some really high tech googies! At any route I am a microsoft guy learning Linux, Ive tried Ubuntu but found it hacked within a month, Mint - Good still, I am trying TAILS now, and others is Ubuntu really secure after adding in "sele" or something like that?

How can I harden it?

Im using Firewall, clamav, which version is pretty secure, Ive got some idiots messing with me because I say everyone has to follow laws including Police Officers, NSA, DHS, etc. they dont like you calling them out!

reply to post by GodsLawsWork


What symptoms are you having??