Secure and safe.... I think the popular Linux distros have no major differences there.....one aspect might be which one phones home most... What IMHO matters most..... Can I maintain it? Do I know somebody personally who uses the same distro? Do I know what is needed to be installed/where do I get programs/tools? Can I configure the OS to my needs? Can I use all my devices? Is it served with updates in time... Friends use Linux mint. I have used Ubuntu, but will also use mint. It's good to have friends using the same distro....the learning effect is far better and info can be exchanged how to's also...my plan is to go for Mint after summertime .
Mint is basically a better version of Ubuntu, and Ubuntu is not known for their privacy, but the most annoying aspects of Ubuntu seem to be removed in Mint, like Amazon integration with the search results. Of course, you can turn that off in Ubuntu, in fact you can do anything you want. Linux doesn't hide any code from you and doesn't restrict you from removing anything you might not like. Both are light years ahead of any Windows though, including 7.
Linux Mint is way overrated. All it is is a distribution based off Ubuntu that has proprietary codecs included so you can play DRM-protected content. The whole idea of switching to Linux is to be free from DRM, therefore giving the user more freedom over their own hardware. If people continue to accept DRM and/or install proprietary drivers and codecs, then nothing ever changes. One other note: Google searches for technical information relating to a particular Linux problem rarely and almost never yields results pointing to Linux Mint's forum or mailing list archives. Because of this, I would rather use a distro where there are a lot of developers and gurus who are supporting it. For the record, Ubuntu has that backing -- many times I'm reading how to do something on the Ubuntu forum yet I don't really like Ubuntu.
Linux mint works out of the box on most PCs. And most devices work without to make extra efforts (for instance MTP for phones)..dunno if it's overrated, but it's most used distro for some reasons. Ermm, could you elaborate what DRM has to do with proprietary drivers and codecs? The prob is that proprietary codecs (AC3 for instance) are licensed, but still common.
@pirithous: I thanked you for your post, but I must qualify my thank you. I take issue with a few of the points that Stallman makes in His ted talk. 1 ) When I started to develop software (many years ago) I did it with the expectation of being paid for my hard work. And it is hard work. A programmer spends many hours creating a piece of intellectual property. To say that He / She should give their hard work away for free makes no sense to me. I believe that most young people who go to college do it with the expectation of finding gainful employment after the schooling is completed. It's no different than becoming a doctor, lawyer, or one of countless other professional career choices made. 2 ) Stallman talks about "control" being exercised by big companies. Yes, they do lock the user out of certain areas of their programs and OS, but many times, for good reason. How many times have you seen a user completely wreck their machine because they tinkered where they shouldn't have? And how many of us have profited from that? And how many members at MDL make a living using their IT knowledge to protect users from themselves? Another question: Would you do volunteer work for a corporation or for an entity and not be able to feed your family? What comes first? -EVERY- parent motivates their children to become gainfully employed, and to become productive members of society. If they don't, how can they be expected to raise families of their own? Stallman seems to be against that, and His statements are a little too altruistic for my tastes. Now I'm not saying that You shouldn't post this here; Open source software is directly related to privacy. I am just espousing my opinions about the validity of what He (Stallman) is saying. :MJ
I edited my post above which I think confused you; my mistake for not being clear. I hope it makes more sense now.
Once all the bits and pieces which make Linux work are in binary form, it locks the user out like Windows does (or doesn't!) so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Editing and changing source code requires the source, which then somebody can compile into an executable form. If anything, Linux distros are harder to mess with out of the box compared to Windows, because they usually will ask for privilege escalation when accessing sensitive areas of the file system (just for the record on W7 I can still delete vital system files without even a prompt) or when accessing options that can seriously screw up a system. As far as making money with open source or free software, whichever one you want to verbally say, take a look at Google. Sure, the Google Play store isn't "free", but the source code to Android is all up for review. So, making money from open source is entirely possible. There are many companies now doing it. One (and not the only) issue I take with Stallman, is that he complains that the word "free" is a bad word in the English language -- bad as in the sense that it has multiple meanings and therefore it's ineffective to use the word. The problem with saying "free software" is that people think that "free" means that it's free as in price, which it usually is. Since Linux almost always is gratis, that makes people even more confused because both definitions apply to most Linux distributions. But when he says "free", he's talking about freedom. Can you understand how the press would get confused over this? He's the one who chose a bad term, not the English dictionary. That's why the tech industry started using the term "open source". It actually means something to ordinary consumers and journalists whom may only be technical up to a certain level, and personally I think it sounds better as just those two words describe a very accurate portrayal of what "open source" is. Stallman propagates this erroneous message that companies that have embraced the term "open source" don't use "free" because they are concerned with the technical advantages of doing open source development, as opposed to gaining freedom. Yes, Stallman is black or white, and it doesn't help anything. Some companies who are using the term "open source" may still be concerned with software freedom up to a certain point, yet they may not be as concerned as Stallman is. In the end, all it does it confuse the hell out of people. Do we really need more confusion when I think many of us here want to see Linux get more popular on the desktop? When there are 30,000 different distros to choose from, there are ridiculous forks such as Devuan, LibreSSL, and so forth, it's time to start pooling resources and make more progress. That is what systemd was all about, and it was definitely a positive move for Linux. A thing to consider, is that there are always going to be things people disagree with. If you listen to any speech, this will happen. I've never met anyone who I agreed 100% with on everything, nor have I ever listened to a speaker I agreed 100% with. It's when those percentages start getting really low, that you press the off button. That's when you know you're now being a fool for wasting your time even listening/watching. Even though Stallman has his black or white views and is about as stubborn as they make 'em, I would sure as hell watch Stallman speak for an hour than watch Satya Nadella read his teleprompter for an hour.
Yes, it does. I never needed DRM, I have a simple view. Buying the media means I can use it on any device I own. I can convert it to any format I like. I can make private copies. No encryption needed, no device tied mechanisms, no proprietary crap like iTunes. Own conversions by using free codecs (high quality, though) Edit: I still prefer to buy the DVD/CD/Blu-ray, no paid downloads, except NON-DRM
I was reading about this within the last couple days over at torrenfreak.com. A paragraph in the article linked caught my eye:
MarkMonitor is a very bad company who treats privacy and foreign laws with contempt..they claimed all the windows 7 related takedowns @MDL. They have the power to shut down sites. They also spy through w10! They are partners of M$ and IMHO they are criminals.
@pirithous: Now here's where I beg to differ with you. Crackers / Hackers do -not- need the source code of a program to make changes to it; just an intimate knowledge of the programming language in which the program is written, and the underlying machine code. I think we've both seen enough keygens to know that this statement is not true. @pirithous: Some files can be deleted, some can't. Try deleting the page file or the registry hives and you'll be given an "access denied" message. Not only are they're locked, they're also in use pretty much for every second that the OS is running. And I'm sure that, in the case of a single user scenario (one user / one machine) as opposed to a multi-user scenario, the restrictions are more relaxed. You can make yourself a super-user and do pretty much whatever you want. @pirithous: I understand the symantic point that he's making with regards to "free" and "Open Source". I also understand the difference between "free" and "Gratis". And I also understand His point about being forced to "reverse engineer" for the sake of understanding closed source technology. The law has made provisions for this. I also understand that making money with "Open Source" is possible, But, in all honesty, most small businesses avoid open software (free software) like the plague, simply because they do not wish to be sued and forced to pay royalties at a later time. And they don't want to be compelled to hire a lawyer to analyze the GNU license agreement. Ask yourself this question: How many people will be paid to work on the Android OS? And can a young person fresh out of college get paid to do this? Maybe, but the odds are pretty slim. In a Capitalist society, The lines between "free" and "gratis" are blurred. IMHO, companies like Apple and Google have hired teams of lawyers for the sole purpose of twisting the meaning of the GNU license agreement so that they could pay as little royalties to as few people as possible. And their products are not free (gratis). They are not selling software. They are selling services. Google sells advertising services. Apple sells boutique hardware, and makes it appear that they are giving the user an OS that is both "free" and "gratis". But the NRE costs of the OS, and the cost of the changes that had to be made to force users to use only apple hardware are front loaded into the cost of their overpriced hardware. On top of that, the Android OS exists on a hardware platform that is locked to the user, and, for the most part, is functionally useless without cellular data service. Unless, of course, you purposely spent upwards of $600 for a smartphone for the sole purpose of playing Candy Crush or Angry birds during you commute to / from work. I stand by what I said. Some of His statements are a little too altruistic for my tastes. :MJ
The fact that a myriad of businesses are using Linux on their internal servers and LibreOffice on the desktop (amongst other open source desktop titles) proves that the possibility of getting sued over a baseless legal argument is out of the question. The case would be thrown out and then you could counter sue. Isn't that what SCO v. IBM was about? Linux is running the majority of web servers. Are companies hosting their site on a Linux server (such as MDL) going to switch to a Windows-based web server because they're worried about getting sued? Also, people that are in small business do not not run Linux on the desktop because of software licensing. They don't run it because it's unfamiliar to them and many times software they have running on their networked machines is Windows-only proprietary legacy software. Another reason they don't use Linux is explained by Torvalds in the video I posted above.
@ALL About GNU/Linux. Not all GNU/Linux distros are the same, several including only free software, and removing nonfree software And that is what is most important for privacy. To have non-nonfree software distro Distribution must not have nonfree applications, nonfree programming platforms, nonfree drivers, nonfree firmware “blobs”, nonfree games, and any other nonfree software in any segment or part of the binary code . That is freedom and privacy as in freedom.. 100% libre free list: http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.en.html Richard Stallman use Trisquel GNU/Linux (He is a paranoid fanatic like me ) Look: https://www.stallman.org/stallman-computing.html Trisquel is derived from Ubuntu. Of course nonfree binary blobs removed. https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/how-trisquel-made
@pirithous: neither IBM nor SCO are small companies. They are huge corporations who pay a retainer to a team of lawyers who fight these kinds of battle. Most Mom and pop business would be driven into bankruptcy by a long, protracted legal battle. And they know this. They don't take those kinds of risks. And they are advised not to take those kinds of risks. I'm not talking about products that have been designed to be given away gratis. In the computing world, companies exist for the sole purpose of going after small companies or websites who even give an inkling of using "restricted" rights technology. And make no mistakes about it You will be forced to fight for the sake of proving your innocence. That's a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset. And that's illegal in the USA, according to our Constitution. So, the battle becomes a battle of how much money you have, not whether you are right or wrong. And I take issue with that. :MJ
nothing new under the sun, there.. donald timp kissing babies, and using money.. and yelling you`re fired.. just i must respectfully suggest it is no way to run a country. it is plutarchy.. http://nl.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=plutarchy