installing/using Linux

I've heard about Linux for years but have never personally seen it in use or used it myself. However I've always heard people say how they thought it is better than Windows and have wanted to try it. I already used the distribution chooser to get a recommendation on which would be the best one for me and am considering getting a copy, partitioning my hard drive and installing the Linux on the partition.

However, I'm curious, is there any danger is using Linux instead of Windows? Is it more vulnerable to collecting any viruses or spyware when surfing the web? Does it come with or is it compatible with anti-virus software that commonly runs  in Windows OS? Is it compatible with programs that would have run in Windows? My laptop has Windows Vista 32-bit. Could I expect any clashes or issues with the hardware since the laptop was intended for Windows OS? Thank you

Linux is not better than Windows.

Windows is a huge SUV with automatic trany.
Linux is a 4 wheel drive pickup with a stick shift.
Linux is free. Windows is not free.

IMHO, you really should start with Puppy Linux. It is a quick download and is easy for a Windows user to get the hang of it. It is a bard bones OS that gives you the very basic things and is a good way to get the 'feel' of Linux. Works with Ethernet, but not so great on Wi-Fi.
Puppy Linux Download.

There is no need to install anti virus in Linux computer because windows viruses will not work in Linux.Linux is the safest OS in the world.There are plenty of free soft wares for Linux.you can install Linux along with windows by partitioning and it is also possible to install Linux(UBUNTU) in the windows OS.Once you use Linux after using windows for several years It will be difficult for you.with time and patience you can use it very well.Ubuntu is the best Linux Variant out there.You can download it here. http://www.ubuntu.com/

thank you. I might try it but I have to resolve some other issues first atm...

There is no need to install anti virus in Linux computer because windows viruses will not work in Linux.

Very true. But viruses written for Linux will work on it.

Linux is the safest OS in the world.

No it's not. What about Haiku? Or FreeBSD? or OpenBSD? And remember, safest != secure; any semblance of "safety" that Linux has from viruses isn't because it's inherently more secure, but because it's not targeted. Nobody is going to waste their time writing malware for an OS that is around a single percent of all desktop users because they can invest the same amount of work into a virus that can work on 90% of them.

Ubuntu is the best Linux Variant out there.

And this is just plain laughable. First of all, the term "Linux Variant"- even as noted on this forum's profile information page- makes no sense. Linux doesn't have "variants" it has distros.

My point being that they are all the same tree, just with different junebugs stuck in their sap.

On another note, distro choosers are sort of pointless. You'll need to try distributions for yourself to see if they fit. My personal recommendation would be Linux Mint, which I've found to be far better than Ubuntu in nearly every way. It's "Mint Menu" also somewhat mimics the behaviour of the start menu.

Its true that Viruses written for Linux will work on it.but I am using Ubuntu for 5 years.my computer is online 12 hrs a day.I didn't got a single virus infection in my computer.I agree that Mac OS X and Open source BSD are the safest Operating Systems in the world.
But when it comes to using it as a server, Linux is still one of the safest operating systems out there. You can make a Linux server very hard to crack into. You just have to be willing to learn about it and make sure that you know what you are doing....

The OP has used Windows and he wants to learn about Linux. It is alright to be passionate, but let's not scare him with too much information.
Linux Mint is good, But load a short version that fits on a CD. A n novice does not need all the stuff.

For a broad yet short review of most everything out there, the link below is a good read.
Free and non-free Operating Systems

I still believe newcomers should start with a minimal Linux that can run "Live" with very low overhead. Puppy Linux. Or one of the early Knoppix distros.

But I am using Ubuntu for 5 years.my computer is online 12 hrs a day.I didn't got a single virus infection in my computer.

Anecdotal. I've been running windows 7 since it was released, and this machine is usually on nearly 24 hours a day and it's yet to get infected, but I don't fool myself into thinking I am inherently secure.

But when it comes to using it as a server, Linux is still one of the safest operating systems out there. You can make a Linux server very hard to crack into. You just have to be willing to learn about it and make sure that you know what you are doing....

Not sure what makes you think they plan to use it in a server environment. Way to move the goalposts, though.

I didn't say Linux is fully secure.Every OS has a loophole.but when compared to windows,Linux is better and secure.If you don't know that why do u call yourself as a programmer??LOL. I think you are addicted to windows.I have a doubt.are you here for arguing or helping??..May be you have more knowledge than others.use your knowledge to help others.don't use it for unnecessary arguing.

Best Wishes

are you here for arguing or helping??..May be you have more knowledge than others.use your knowledge to help others.don't use it for unnecessary arguing.

Good advice. You should follow it yourself.

YES BOSS

I didn't say Linux is fully secure.

You said "Linux is the safest OS in the world" Which is dead wrong. It's not "safer" than any other OS, and you are misguiding others if you tell them so.

Every OS has a loophole.

Sigh. No, everyOS needs to be properly secured by the user or whomever installed it. You can't just go with the default options and assume your safe, this goes for any OS, and on the case of Linux especially for servers, since there is plenty of written malware for them, not to mention sendmail, that constant source of exploits. My point is, it doesn't matter what the OS is that you are using, none of them are "safer" than any other. That just doesn't make sense. It's like saying that a Trailer truck is "safer" than a Mazda Miata. The entire point isn't to be "safer" when in a car crash, the point is to prevent them entirely.

but when compared to windows,Linux is better and secure.

Yep, Linux is so secure, even kernel.org got hacked via a root privilege escalation. As for servers, sure, Linux servers really aren't that hard to use/run. Until they are. Then it takes two weeks of web searching, forum-hopping, reading blog posts that explain how to fix your exact issue on a version from eight years ago and so it isn't even slightly applicable anymore so why the *censored* is it the top search result on every major search engine, getting called stupid by various elitist Linux communities when you ask for help, pissing off an entire Linux community when you try to prevent the name-calling by starting with "I don't know much Linux so please walk me through this" and getting called stupid instead of getting answers to something that "everyone should already know", getting told to just use Google (which of course gives me old blog posts and forum topics from eight years ago and isn't the least bit helpful) by elitists who "don't have the time to answer every newb's questions" but apparently have plenty of time to sit on forums and call them names all day, getting sick of said elitist communities and reformatting and reinstalling Linux to see if that helps (which it doesn't), finally having someone who is willing to help give you some big long list of commands to type in and then calling you stupid and leaving when you ask what it means, and eventually you just say "Screw this, I'm buying a Windows license."

If you don't know that why do u call yourself as a programmer??LOL.

What does operating system security or OS choice have to do with programming? Absolutely nothing. This is a argument to irrelevance.

I think you are addicted to windows.

my laptop runs Mint 10.(Which brings up another point I will get to) I don't think it's a case of me being "addicted to windows" (what a silly concept) But rather me actually being realistic and not a Linux zealot. Not everybody who sees it thinks it's some sort of cure for cancer. In fact if anything, on the desktop, it's still a solution in search of a problem. At the moment it's primary selling point is "It's not Windows!" Which only goes so far. It's come far but it still hardly compares UI wise to even windows 95, and on the server somehow despite it being there from nearly the beginning windows server is making huge inroads in it's markets.

are you here for arguing or helping??

Both. I see far too many people paint this happy jolly picture of Linux where the person doesn't have to do anything and everything works. And then when that person has issues suddenly the people painting those jolly pictures dissappear, leaving the people who are realistic and actually know what they are doing to clean up the mess. Did I say they shouldn't try Linux? NO! I didn't say that. I was arguing against your FUD that Linux is "safer" which implies that it is inherently more secure, which it isn't. They are merely different Operating Systems. There is no reason Not to diversify and learn them all, but to fool oneself into thinking they are somehow "safer" is just plain foolish, and to spread the FUD that it is is doing Linux a disservice.

As to my running of Mint 10, after the release of Mint 11, I realized something.

There is no supported way to actually upgrade a existing system to a new version without wiping it. The only way I found would be to direct aptitude to the repos for Mint 11, but that was unsupported and probably not a good idea (And it's important to note that it is considered a bad idea by the same people that still thing vi is a good configuration UI). This is probably the biggest shortfall I've encountered so far, aside from having to edit config files for nearly any change I make (really takes me back to windows 3.1, that). But I do digress. to Answer the OP's questions:

is there any danger is using Linux instead of Windows?

No.

Is it more vulnerable to collecting any viruses or spyware when surfing the web?

No.

Does it come with or is it compatible with anti-virus software that commonly runs  in Windows OS?

No, and No, however there are some AV programs you can find that run on Linux, like ClamAV. Typically the Linux approach is to not run an AV at all and assume everything is safe, which has worked out in a Rube-Goldberg fashion since nobody has been bothered to write any high-saturation Linux viruses that attack desktop machines. Most of them target servers, and those that do target desktops aren't "distributed" in a way that the typical desktop user will encounter them.

Is it compatible with programs that would have run in Windows?

No, but there are almost always alternatives. If there is a Windows Program you absolutely need to use, you shouldn't be running Linux at all! WINE is not quite mature in it's support of a lot of the Windows APIs. Usually if the program is complicated enough not to have a Linux equivalent, the windows version isn't going to run on WINE. Very seldom will there be a Windows program you absolutely must have that doesn't have a windows equivalent, unless you are into some professional level stuff. (and even then, LMMS is pretty on par with FLStudio, and even (IMO) somewhat easier to navigate). Anyway, to summarize- No, it's not compatible with programs that run on Windows. But you won't need them, since there are Linux equivalents.

My laptop has Windows Vista 32-bit. Could I expect any clashes or issues with the hardware since the laptop was intended for Windows OS?

I wouldn't say so. But it depends on the distro you choose, as well. I would suggest trying several, and seeing which works best for you. Ideally via the method geek-9pm noted, via a LiveCD of the distribution. This way you can see how well it works for you, bearing in mind that it will of course run much faster of your HD than from the disc.

BC_Programmer, This is one of those times I agree with you. 
Put simply
Linux is not Windows. And vice versa.

Personally, I have been using Linux long before many others. I I got deeply involved in it. As I recall, I used Red Hat version 5 or 6. Don't remember.  At the moment, I can  use Windows XP on a Dell laptop because it came with Windows XP. It also have Vista and Linux Mint on it.

At the moment, I know longer have the Linux on the hard drive. There are some issues doing a triple boot selection for XP, Vista and Linux. But I can always boot the "Live" version whenever I want.  I have one version on a USB flash drive.

There are a number of reasons for a preference of one OS over another. And they go beyond the technical details, The concerns becomes more conflicts of perception and objective.

OP, don't this all the ranting discourage you. Learning something new to you can be a happy experience.  Give Linux  a try. From your own perspective.

There are a number of reasons for a preference of one OS over another. And they go beyond the technical details, The concerns becomes more conflicts of perception and objective.

Personally I find people who are zealots for any OS (whatever it is) an utter bore. I know that computers, cars, planes, weapons, etc can have a kind of "toys for boys" fascination for a certain type of (generally male) personality. I like railway engines myself. But the people who get obsessed with, and zealous over, software such as operating systems or text editors or programming and scripting languages really get my goat. The most severe cases probably have some kind of medical condition or other, get-a-life-itis or maybe something else that they take Adderall for.

Personally I find people who are zealots for any OS (whatever it is) an utter bore. I know that computers, cars, planes, weapons, etc can have a kind of "toys for boys" fascination for a certain type of (generally male) personality. I like railway engines myself. But the people who get obsessed with, and zealous over, software such as operating systems or text editors or programming and scripting languages really get my goat. The most severe cases probably have some kind of medical condition or other, get-a-life-itis or maybe something else that they take Adderall for.

So very true.

It's come far but it still hardly compares UI wise to even windows 95

Not true at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QokOwvPxrE

Other than that

BC_Programmer, This is one of those times I agree with you.

IMHO, you really should start with Puppy Linux.

Puppy Linux is good, but I would try something more up to date like Ubuntu or Kubuntu (the KDE version of ubuntu (just look it up)).

I think the two most major differences (or things you may not like) when switching to Linux is the structure of the filesystem and the inability to play 3D windows games on it. I mean it is possible to play games on it with some emulators, but you won't get the level of performance you would with windows. So if you are a gamer, probably best to stick with windows. If you're just someone who likes to check e-mail, surf, youtube, etc. then yes, I think you should try it out.

Not true at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QokOwvPxrE

This is a joke right?

I meant usability wise, not crazy fancy useless crap-wise.

everyOS needs to be properly secured by the user or whomever installed it

This is true but crackers will find loopholes in everything no OS is entirely secure.If not what is the need of updating

I was arguing against your FUD that Linux is "safer" which implies that it is inherently more secure, which it isn't.

LINUX IS SECURE THAN WINDOWS http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/202452/why_linux_is_more_secure_than_windows.html

This is true but crackers will find loopholes in everything no OS is entirely secure.If not what is the need of updating

Your use of the term "hacker" is not well received by many. Those e who make it their objective to spread malicious software are vandals and criminals.
Their is a lot of evil gain made by compromising the security of personal computers. It is easier than stealing automobiles and  greater profits can be realized. Windows is a popular target because so many people use it.

This information is old, but the problem has not become lessor.

Cost of Malicious Software Attacks Tops $11 Billion — Interhack
http://web.interhack.com/news/n2001/malcost
Cost of Malicious Software Attacks Tops $11 Billion .....

Your use of the term "hacker" is not well received by many

I think I used the term crackers...not hacker.There is a big difference between the terms hacker and a cracker.http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html#what_is

LINUX IS SECURE THAN WINDOWS http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/202452/why_linux_is_more_secure_than_windows.html

This is a joke right?

This is true but crackers will find loopholes in everything no OS is entirely secure.If not what is the need of updating

they are called "exploits" and oddly enough Linux's track record is worse than Windows in that regard; a quick check of Secunia makes this abundantly clear.  For exploits, security and securing a system is really only a tertiary concern- to reduce the surface area (eg: if you don't run a httpd, you won't be vulnerable to exploits in the httpd). Which is applicable across all platforms. not running a httpd (or similar services) also means that those services don't need to be properly locked down, since they aren't running (thus less chance for human error during configuration).

Your use of the term "hacker" is not well received by many.

he said "cracker".... you even quoted it that way.

This is a joke right?

Why are you always saying this?? really do you think its a joke?If you cannot accept the truth, then you start to say "This is a joke right?" and "This is a joke right"?

they are called "exploits"

so what? exploits are used in vulnerabilities and loopholes.

he said "cracker"

he said "hacker". I said "cracker"

Linux's track record is worse than Windows in that regard

I don't agree.It may be true in the case of servers.but when it compare with the usage of an average person,It is not correct.

Yes, he said cracker. 

As to why one OS is more better than another, a lot depends on the implementation.

For example; Compare a spots car to a leopard. Which is faster?
Well, the sports car must have a good surface for to run on.
What wail the leopard be given to even up the advantage?
The fast leopard

Next, a more serious consideration.
Why Linux Is More Secure Than Windows -PCWorld
The reasons he gives are not what you may have thought.

Why are you always saying this?? really do you think its a joke?If you cannot accept the truth, then you start to say "This is a joke right?" and "This is a joke right"?

Because it isn't the truth. I actually had a long diatribe on how utterly ridiculous the effects showcased in the youtube video Linux711 linked, how they don't add actual usability and in fact just add pointless graphical effects that have absolutely no positive impact on usability (which is fine in moderation, but the video is loaded with them) I mean, really- what intrinsic value does having a dock show as cubes provide? Nothing. It's a pointless effect. Same can be said with the window close animation where it dissapears in a puff if smoke. again, useless for usability purposes.

so what? exploits are used in vulnerabilities and loopholes.

Yes. very good. That's exactly what I said. My point is that properly securing a system is not done with exploits in mind; only potential exploits; and the thing is potential exploits exist in all Operating systems (as you implied) and the OS chosen has absolutely no bearing. But, when you look at the histories and still unpatched exploits in each OS (again, source being Secunia) it paints a picture that ought to alarm any Linux zealot who things that the "thousand eyes" approach actually finds and fixed exploits and bugs faster (it doesn't).

he said "hacker". I said "cracker"

That's what I was pointing out.

I don't agree.It may be true in the case of servers.

You just said that Linux was more secure than windows. You didn't say anything about "except on the server". You've moved the goalposts twice now.

but when it compare with the usage of an average person,It is not correct.

No. Again, Linux is not safer. It only provides a visage of safety, because it's not a target. If it ever becomes a target, those same people who are supposedly "safer" because they use Linux will be in just as much danger, and the fact is it doesn't matter what OS you use, one should learn some safe computing habits. You can't just hope to abstract those away behind either UAC or a Graphical sudo prompt. And if you know some basic safe computing habits- the 'security' of an operating system becomes irrelevant. It's not operating systems that make or break security, it's users.

"According to Forrester Research, Microsoft fixes its security problems faster than the Linux vendors. That's a good thing, since Windows tends to have more severe security problems than Linux."

It only provides a visage of safety, because it's not a target

It is a myth that Windows only gets attacked most because it's such a big target, and if Linux use grew then so would the number of attacks. Attacks are of course aimed at Windows because of the numbers of users, but its design makes it a much easier target, and much easier for an attack to wreak havoc.Windows' widespread (and often unnecessary) use of features such as RPC meanwhile adds vulnerabilities that really need not be there. Linux's design is not vulnerable in the same ways, and no matter how successful it eventually becomes it simply cannot experience attacks to similar levels, inflicting similar levels of damage, to Windows.Windows is harder to secure than Linux. It is the simple truth. Many IT professionals including RHCEs and MCSEs believe that Linux is more secure than Windows.I am not saying Linux is fully secure.As you see both Windows and Linux administrators requires same levels of skills. Linux is secure by design i.e. Linux is inherently more secure than Windows. Linux designed as a multi-use, network operating system from day one. For example IE / FF bug can take down entire windows computer. However, if there were the same bug in FF it won't take down entire Linux computer. Under windows almost any app level bug can be used to take down the entire system and turn into a zombie computer. No operating system is secure Both Linux / Windows admin requires same level of skills. By default Linux is more secure than Windows, but it is also open to attack.You can just make attackers job hard.Remember, security is an on going process and nothing is secure once connected to network, period.I’ve almost always been of the crowd that has thought that Linux was far more secure than Windows. This is because as an end user you only see desktops being compromised.

It is a myth that Windows only gets attacked most because it's such a big target, and if Linux use grew then so would the number of attacks.

False dilemma. How can both be true?

but its design makes it a much easier target and much easier for an attack to wreak havoc.

Of course it does. See if you were writing a virus for Linux, it would only work for a few months before most distros stop using the libs you statically linked. The same things that make Windows an 'easier target' are the exact same reasons that it's so much better as a development platform- a well documented public API that covers everything, Side By Side DLL installations that actually work- generally with many other platforms you are better off to just statically link the library files, rather then just cross your fingers and hope the end user has the lib file. Or, more likely, you just throw the source on the net and let others figure it out.

Windows' widespread (and often unnecessary) use of features such as RPC meanwhile adds vulnerabilities that really need not be there.

No worse t han having world-readable /home directory's, a program preinstalled in some later distros with the express purpose of tracking everything you do. Or how bash keeps the systems root password in plaintext in /root/.bash_history The last one might have been fixed, but the fact that it was ever in production ought to worry anybody.

Linux's design is not vulnerable in the same ways, and no matter how successful it eventually becomes it simply cannot experience attacks to similar levels, inflicting similar levels of damage, to Windows.Windows is harder to secure than Linux. It is the simple truth.

A false truth.

Many IT professionals including RHCEs and MCSEs believe that Linux is more secure than Windows.

Which in no way changes the fact that it's not. I'm sure plenty of otherwise smart people believe all sorts of stupid crap, that doesn't give creedence to it, it just means that they believe some stupid crap. When you have to resort to an appeal to authority to try to prove something, you've already lost. Arguments are made by facts, not by declarations of who said what and what level of education they happened to have.

Linux is secure by design i.e. Linux is inherently more secure than Windows.

There is no such thing as "inherently secure" software. the term is meaningless. They are just weasel words spouted by FOSS advocates who understand little to nothing about the NT security architecture. Then you have ridiculous defaults like 15 minute sudo Sessions, and that fiasco with OpenSSL. The only systems that are 'inherently secure' are capability-based systems, such as EROS.

Linux designed as a multi-use, network operating system from day one.

No. Linux was designed for absolutely none of those! It was designed because Torvalds wanted a Unix-like operating system on his 386. That's it. There was no inherent goal for security or networkability. Claims to the contrary are pure fabrications. Linux was not designed to be secure, it just inherited security from UNIX, which itself was not inherently secure since it wasn't designed to be secure from get-go either, it was designed simply to work; all other concerns were secondary, and when you have trade-offs like treating everything like a stream of bytes it's no surprise that secunia's listing for it's derivatives are so high. The thousand-eyes approach doesn't work when the thousand eyes are all fixated on some stupid window chrome.

For example IE / FF bug can take down entire windows computer. However, if there were the same bug in FF it won't take down entire Linux computer.

This is false.

Under windows almost any app level bug can be used to take down the entire system and turn into a zombie computer.

Also false. Again, ignorance of the NT security system does not mean you can make stuff up.

No operating system is secure Both Linux / Windows admin requires same level of skills.

you JUST SAID it was inherently secure! Now it's pretty clear you don't know what that means. Either that- or far more likely- you simply copy-pasted a bunch of search results. The results of which contradict themselves more than I ever could, really.

I cannot change your mind.stick with your beliefs.that is good.

[Web moderator]

This thread is actually hilarious.

This thread is actually hilarious.

Yes It is

This thread is actually hilarious.

I thought so. Reminds me of the good times with ol' Azzaboi.

Except there is a small chance mrmohan might have actually used Linux.

[Web moderator]

I thought so. Reminds me of the good times with ol' Azzaboi.

Yeah, also except this guy has decided to keep his account open despite asking how to delete it.

http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,122373.msg813480.html#msg813480

Yeah, also except this guy has decided to keep his account open despite asking how to delete it.

http://www.computerhope.com/forum/index.php/topic,122373.msg813480.html#msg813480

haha... that's awesome. over the top melodrama FTW!

[Web moderator]

I personally liked my post.

I personally liked my post.

Indeed

What was the original question? 

What was the original question? 

The original poster has moved on and asked follow-up questions relating to the installation of a dual-boot system.

Also, relevant to the off-topic sidebar, just landed in my inbox:

http://www.csis.dk/en/csis/news/3321

Worth quoting. It is not guess work. That have some data that indicates a clear trend. The trend is to attack non-Microsoft items that have not been updated by the user.

When a Microsoft Windows machine gets infected by viruses/malware it does so mainly because users forget to update the Java JRE, Adobe Reader/Acrobat and Adobe Flash. This is revealed by a survey conducted by CSIS Security Group A/S.

So there you have it. Little to do with the OS. Much ado of users who  have not been educated.

Anybody reading this, please look at the link given by BC above. It is based on collected data, not pipe dreams. It is not the OS at this point in time. Maybe it was always the user.