Review: Acer Aspire One with Moblin 2, Ubuntu 8.10, Windows
Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 4th Mar 2009 23:34 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems To add to the amounting anecdotes of late, another Acer Aspire One review appears. Not to be confused with Thom's or Eugenia's, which were different models, this review concentrates on the ZG5 version of the Acer Aspire One and how well Windows XP, Windows 7, Ubuntu 8.10, and Moblin 2 run on it, particularly in the everyday-netbooker's sense of functionality with word processing and Internet applications. Read on to get the full scoop on the One and these selected systems.
E-mail Print r 1   · Read More · 48 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/g9a
Thread beginning with comment 351930
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

The exe file was an example, I wouldn't run, say, "Download TotallyAwesomeMusic.sh" in Linux either. That's where common sense comes into play.
Obviously you're not going to get malware from official software repositories, or at the very least it's unlikely to happen. That's like saying you'd get a piece of malware from the iPhone app store or similar distribution scheme. Although, I must say, if there ever was a bit of malware for Linux that did infect the software repositories... well, the results would make some of the individual malware on Windows look like nothing at all by comparison.
Of course the other problem with most of the major distributions is their release cycle schemes. Ubuntu 8.10, I'm looking at you here, released just a few weeks before OO 3.0. I've since moved to the Jaunty alpha, so not sure if 8.10 has OO 3.0 in backports yet, but the point is I had to go outside the repositories to get OO 3.0. Yes, I did need 3.0. That's where the software repository concept breaks down when used on a traditional release cycle, inevitably you will have to look elseware for up-to-date packages until the next official version of that distro comes out. If you need OO 3.0, for example, right now, waiting six months is not an acceptable solution. Now, a rolling revision repository, such as Arch, is a different matter. In general, rolling release is, imho, better for the desktop, while a strict release cycle is better for the server world.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The exe file was an example, I wouldn't run, say, "Download TotallyAwesomeMusic.sh" in Linux either.


It still wouldn't run. You would have to make it executable first.

That's where common sense comes into play.
Obviously you're not going to get malware from official software repositories, or at the very least it's unlikely to happen. That's like saying you'd get a piece of malware from the iPhone app store or similar distribution scheme.


Similar in some ways, but there is an important difference. I can have a self-imposed policy of "only install from repositories" using Linux, and I wouldn't miss out on much. If I had a self-imposed policy of "only run stuff from the iPhone app store" I'd be pretty restricted.

My anti-malware policy on Linux is far easier to live with and abide by.

Although, I must say, if there ever was a bit of malware for Linux that did infect the software repositories... well, the results would make some of the individual malware on Windows look like nothing at all by comparison.


It hasn't happened yet in many years, for many distributions, for millions of users. As I said, it has an "impeccable record". There are reasons for this, I could claim that it cannot happen ... but you aren't likely to accept that (even though it could well actually be so).

Of course the other problem with most of the major distributions is their release cycle schemes. Ubuntu 8.10, I'm looking at you here, released just a few weeks before OO 3.0. I've since moved to the Jaunty alpha, so not sure if 8.10 has OO 3.0 in backports yet, but the point is I had to go outside the repositories to get OO 3.0. Yes, I did need 3.0. That's where the software repository concept breaks down when used on a traditional release cycle, inevitably you will have to look elseware for up-to-date packages until the next official version of that distro comes out. If you need OO 3.0, for example, right now, waiting six months is not an acceptable solution.


http://www.howtoforge.com/how-to-install-openoffice-3.0.0-on-ubuntu...

http://news.softpedia.com/news/How-To-Install-OpenOffice-org-3-0-in...

Now, a rolling revision repository, such as Arch, is a different matter. In general, rolling release is, imho, better for the desktop, while a strict release cycle is better for the server world.


For a desktop, for those users who want the odd "latest version" (released after their OS was), for those distributions on release cycles rather than rolling releases, backport repositories are your friend.

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBackports

Reply Parent Score: 2

darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Lemur 2, I now what a backports repo is. In fact, I mentioned that in my previous comment, and I know how to make scripts executable. In fact, that's just standard procedure, you want to run something, you make it executable.
Backports repositories aren't always the best, since often it takes a while for new software to get put in there. Understand, sometimes one needs to stay on top of the latest versions, and in this case, the official repositories will often let you down. There's just nothing you can say about that to make this untrue--if you need the latest versions, most official distro reposs are not your friend and you will have to look elseware.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >