The guide in my Dell guide recommended installing Ubuntu.
I Googled it and cannot figure out why this company made this recommendetion.
Is it advisable(contain advantages not found elsewhere) to do so for the lower level pc user?
Thank you
I can't answer why it's there, but I can tell you there is a large call for alternates to m$ operating systems, Linux has a cult following, it is free, it is open source, so anyone can write stuff to be included, it has little fear (maybe no fear) of infection(s), as most infection makers target m$ systems as it's the larger target audience, there are numerous pluses for this OS, unfortunately I don't know enough about it to list them, my only experience of "using" Linux is limited to recovering files off of m$ systems gone wrong with Puppy Linux.
I did try to use Linux properly once for a few days, but gave up as the learning curve required was greater than the time I had available, even if you did have the time, there are lots of versions about, so the first battle is deciding which one you would use, Ubuntu is possibly one of the more common choices, but again know too little to say much more.
But you will have a serious learning curve if going this route, I don't say that to put you off, just to make you aware that if you expect to fire it up and start using it instantly, it ain't going to happen lol, there are many willing to help users new to Linux install, set up and use it etc, but it is very overwhelming to begin with, it was for me anyway, the best option IMHO for those wanting to play with Linux, is to set up a dual boot system, at least this way you can still use what you're used to, but can switch to Linux and play and learn as time allows, in time you may totally replace m$, many do, but this way keeps you with something usable, while allowing you to learn something new at you're own pace, hope this helps a but anyway.
It was only a matter of time lol, same as with Mac's, but the risks are still lower i imagine as the amount and types of infection are not as vast as for m$ systems, but one should never forget caution no matter what you use, Thanks for the info.
but the risks are still lower i imagine as the amount and types of infection are not as vast as for m$ systems
No doubt is Linux is tougher to infect because permissions are much more tightly controlled. But Linux based servers can be and often are used to distribute malware to Windows based machines. And if you have a mixed network, the Windows systems can be targeted and infected by a networked Linux system used as a carrier. So responsible computing involves running a good anti-malware solution regardless the OS in use.
it has little fear (maybe no fear) of infection(s)
This is a little off topic but when the "ant" studies were first reported, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/…90927130032.htm I found it a bit intriguing that to the best of my knowledge, they were working exclusively with linux systems. Obviously the researchers had no trouble infecting the linux machines in order to get their "ants" to work.
Thanx to all who shed light on this issue.
All I can say is, "Dell will be the death of me."
If you can't build your own pc are are low level with pc knowledge, Dell seems to be the company with the parts that may last a while.
I looked everywhere for a brand whose propaganda read better than the stuff Michael is spewing.
His company is so much of a maverick that this in itself leads to problems.
My definittion of integrity is that it says what it does and does what it says.
I had an appliance tech offer to sell me a waranty on top of an extended waranty etc ad naseu………………..
I told him that if the company made things like they did in the 40's and 50's you wouldn't even need a warranty..
After looking at his smart phone about 15 times in the last minute or two he decided not to stay for coffee.
it has little fear (maybe no fear) of infection(s)
This is a little off topic but when the "ant" studies were first reported, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/…90927130032.htm I found it a bit intriguing that to the best of my knowledge, they were working exclusively with linux systems. Obviously the researchers had no trouble infecting the linux machines in order to get their "ants" to work.
Interesting read, all I've had to go on was what the Linux users kept saying about it being more secure and the like, all I know for sure is common sense and up to date protection is the only way to minimise risk, otherwise the only 100% solution is to pull the plug lol.
I had always heard that Linux was "virus proof" so when I heard about these "ants" on Paul Harvey news, I did a little research to see what it was all about. I thought the idea of the "ants" was pretty cool… but was shocked to learn they were testing on Linux systems. Obviously the article in the link I provided doesn't mention Linux, but longer articles I read at the time did.
linux is virus proof..
well for all real use/intent and purposes i would say.
we can surf the web with impunity without worrying about any virus getting installed and escalating it's privileges to take over our machines just by clicking a link or visiting an infected web page.
You want to be a very good tech. to run linux and have to love the tech aspect or it will drive you mad
And god help you if you want to run games …just forget it. Like everything in life, you get what you pay for. With Linux (for most PC owners), you get a headache. Delicious for some, but a killer for everyone else.
Cheers,
Lee
no i don't think you need to be a good tech to use linux,
just look at me.. mr average, if ever there was one.
you'd be surprised just how easy it is to use linux today, just point and click, same as windows.
and it plays games just fine, better than windows i'd say when it comes to game speed.
of course it doesn't play windows games… well not without some effort on your part anyway and even then not all of them.
i don't play games usually tho, except flash games.
i do run a full multi media tv/video/ music server setup, that can be accessed from any pc in the house, but that's nothing that an average person couldn't setup for themselves in my opinion.
yes there are times where you might need to edit/add some drivers/files manually and set the correct permissions etc before things will work, but that's not very often in my experience and worth the slight hassle in my opinion for linux's extra security and peace of mind.
Huh? I already showed above with examples where that is not true at all! Not only is Linux not malware proof, but Linux boxes are frequently used to distribute malware - perhaps the more heinous crime!
This is Deja vu all over again. Mac users used to claim Macs were virus proof. And Firefox users claimed Firefox would make them safe and IE would make users unsafe. They were all living in dream worlds too.
Just because you are not walking around with a big target on your back does not mean you cannot be shot down. Just as with Macs and Firefox, when targeting Linux becomes more lucrative (i.e., when Linux becomes more popular), it too will be targeted more frequently.
well for all real use/intent and purposes i would say.
we can surf the web with impunity without worrying about any virus getting installed and escalating it's privileges to take over our machines just by clicking a link or visiting an infected web page. 
And god help you if you want to run games …just forget it. Like everything in life, you get what you pay for. With Linux (for most PC owners), you get a headache. Delicious for some, but a killer for everyone else.
Cheers,
Lee
I already showed above with examples where that is not true at all! Not only is Linux not malware proof, but Linux boxes are frequently used to distribute malware - perhaps the more heinous crime! 
