antivirus

[majpooper]

I am curious how you run Windows software on Windows without a license . . . legally? If you are replacing Windows you shoud already have a Windows license.

Who said I don't have a license? I have paid licenses of several dozens of programs I've bought over the years (using a PC since the original IBM PC).
As for the Windows OS, the problem is that OEM licenses are non-transferable (tied to the hardware), so good luck re-activating them in a VM. You need to buy a new one if you want to be legal.

This rig came with Win7 ~8 years ago - When I setup my Windows VM just to run two Windows apps (Garmin and a genealogy app for my wife, can't think of the name off hand) I did have to convince MS to give me a new product code as the old one would not work on the VM (I did not not have to buy it however) - but they did give it to me. The first MS tech seemed clueless but the supervisor understood what I was talking about. It is hard for me to believe that MS can verify the hardware, i.e. the host, that the VM is running on albeit is the original hardware on which Win7 ran on eons ago.

My wife does a lot of research and produces/receives lots of docs. She can read and edit .doc documents with Libre Office as well send Libre Office doc as .doc with no problems what so ever. However I do understand that there are some MS Word macros that do not render quite right in Libre Office but my wife does not use or need them so I am not sure to what extent that is an issue.

[lsemmens]

Way back when I started out with computers I shortlisted a Commodore 64, an Apple IIE, an Atari (can't recall the model now) an OSBORNE (running CPM) and a DOS machine. Way back then it appeared that DOS was the way to go, though the Apple and Osborne came in close. Apple lost out because it was a closed system and, to an extent, so was the Osborne. Given the (then) open source nature (my words, NOT theirs) of DOS and the fact that they were prepared to allow third party devs and produce hardware and software for their operating system (licensing et al). DOS seemed the logical choice. (And the fact that the missus said, how much? We'll buy it! Because she was sick of looking in computer shops and I was in the DOS box store at the time ). I'm just glad that Linux (as it is now) hadn't been invented back then or there would have been another one on my short list. Of course, back then Viruses were a lot harder to a) get and b) propagate.

[Kurt3162]

Untrue. You can try to prove your statement, but you won't succeed.

I can't prove it, indeed. It's just a feeling I got wandering the distant shores of Linus since, well, check my inscription date.

(I've been in contact with, and used Linux professionally since the start of the century though, so I wasn't a complete beginner.)

About writing a book: you don't need Microsoft Office for that.

I fully agree. I don't assume or suggest that using MS Word is a requisite for being published.
That been said, her publisher insisted on MS Word files, and since you have written a book, you know you don't argue with the guy who is willing to publish you...

[Kurt3162]

1) The issues on the Linux desktop won't be solved overnight because people suddenly in the last couple of yrs,
realized the hard way that Win7 reaches end-of-life. Hopefully a newer blood will bring some good ideas alongside,
but i'd expect such to be a quite a bit time-consuming process.

Never implied that the Windows defectors will solve any of Linux's problems. If anything, they will dumb it down. A massive arrival of the great unwashed will definitely not pass unnoticed, but as I said, I think it will just mean a greater separation between "IT savvy" distros and the "popular" ones.

2) It's not just a 'technical' problem - it's a social issue that MS Word was a strict request from her publisher.

Definitely. I guess that was what he's comfortable with, and he doesn't want to make any efforts.

You say...
"My aunt doesn't care about the healthy ecosystem, all she needs is a tool to work on her books.
She doesn't really care about the label of that tool, much like she doesn't care about the brand of her car tires."
Then why would she need...Linux & even more with Wine on top of it?

Well observed. Cue the resident computer maintainer of the family (I'm the designated volunteer): After a couple years she was comfortable with WinXP, meaning she only called me once a month for help. When WinXP went the way of the Dodo, I had the choice of migrating her to (back then) Win8 and its fancy tiles (and spend hours on the phone every day reminding her where to find stuff), or to go for something which resembled the Windows XP paradigm, and that was the Linux distro I had already chosen for myself, Mint. Now, there was the MS Word problem, she needed to keep using that. Fortunately Wine made it possible to keep using her Office 2007 in Mint, and she lived happily ever after and published two more books. Just don't ask her what OS her computer is running: "Something strange" will be the answer...

Because there's no question that from a purely 'technical' aspect, Win10 is just fine as a 'tool'

Let's agree to disagree on that.
A computer which can decide on its own when to start a (long!) update + reboot isn't fit for professional work. You have all heard and seen the pictures of Win10 computers quitting at the most inappropriate times, and that's just the tip of the iceberg. But let's not get into Win10-bashing, I could fill a page, complete with Wikipedia-level quotes and links.

2) Linux receives the complaints for not being 'technically' identical / equally familiar with Win10...

Nah, what Windows defectors don't like about Linux in the first place is a) that it isn't Windows compatible (might sound strange, but their reasons are obvious), and b) that it is too elitist, very hard to use for somebody who hasn't at least some knowledge of computers.

That last part has gotten a lot better in the last decade. You now can install and run a Linux distribution without having to sift through cryptic man pages looking for the secret command line which will turn your heap of metal into a working computer.
Mint is a very good example of making Linux accessible to non-IT people. It's always easier to have a GUI with nice labels, than to just know there must be some witty command name which allows to do whatever you need to do, but you won't guess it if nobody tells you.

[Kurt3162]

I did have to convince MS to give me a new product code as the old one would not work on the VM (I did not not have to buy it however) - but they did give it to me.

You got lucky...
But the biggest issue remains the availability of Wine-using software vs. software installed in a VM. You start Wine-using software like any other native program, while you'd need to start Virtualbox, start the VM, wait for it to start (Windows doesn't start very fast) then only start the program itself. It is acceptable for programs you only use once in a while, but will become tedious if you need to start it often on a moment's notice.
Or you leave the VM running all the time, and accept that it eats a lot of your computer's resources, which can be a problem with older hardware (remember, we're not talking power users here).

[ricardogroetaers]

New settlers in the land of Linux are very welcome;

False. It may be true in the land of Linux Mint but not in the land of Linux.

... but greenhorns can learn a lot from the old hands. And if they're wise, they do exactly that.

I fully agree, but the old hands must also update and adapt to new needs and functionalities.
If this is not observed, they risk immersing themselves in the depths of obsolescence.