I like Ubuntu’s Unity interface, but I wouldn’t use it all the time, and I know many of you don’t like it at all. Like me, you like getting your hands dirty with the operating system and Unity is meant for new Linux users. That’s why for day-in, day-out use I’m now using the Ubuntu Linux-based Mint 11.

Instead of Unity, Mint 11, which is now at the release candidate stage, uses the old Linux Mint desktop layout, mintMenu system, and the same desktop elements featured in previous releases. It also doesn’t use GNOME 3.0. That’s fine by me since I don’t care for GNOME 3 at all, but my reasons for that are a story for another day. Today, I want to tell you why I think Mint 11 is a great desktop Linux for experienced Linux users.

To put Mint 11, Katya, which is based on Ubuntu 11.04, through its paces, I first installed it on one of my main Linux workstations. This is a Dell Inspiron 530S powered by a 2.2-GHz Intel Pentium E2200 dual-core processor with an 800-MHz front-side bus. This box has 4GBs of RAM, a 500GB SATA (Serial ATA) drive, and an Integrated Intel 3100 GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) chip set.

How well did it work? Well, after a week on it, I also installed the Mint 11 release candidate on my main work laptop. This is a Lenovo ThinkPad R61 with its 2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor T7500 and 2GBs of RAM. In other words, it not only worked well, it had already proved trustworthy enough that I’d switched to using it on a production machine.

I was willing to make this shift so fast for several reasons. First, Mint 11 is fast. Before this, I was running Ubuntu 11.04, openSUSE 11.4, and Mint 10 on these machines, or in the case of the PC, its twin brother. I don’t know what special sauce the Mint team added to Mint 11, all I know is that it’s faster and more responsive than the other Linux distributions I’ve recently used on these machines. As for Windows 7 SP1, please, these machines are barely adequate for today’s version of Windows.

With the GNOME 2.32 interface, Mint looks as good as ever. This desktop, unlike Unity, also makes it easy for me to tinker with the operating system to get it working just the way I want. GNOME 2.32 has some GNOME 3.0 features though that I didn’t like. For example, some GNOME compatible applications have, instead of a permanently displayed right-hand slider for moving up and down a page, they have a slider that only appears when your mouse hovers over a windows right-side interface. I find this more annoying than useful.

There have also been some desktop application changes. One, which I really approve of, is the switch to LibreOffice in place of OpenOffice for the office suite. Again, the new model office suite was faster than OpenOffice. In addition, LibreOffice does much better with Microsoft Office document compatibility. Most, if not all, of the Linux desktop distributions are switching to LibreOffice. It’s a smart move.

I also like the use of Banshee, which has long been one of my favorite media-players over Rhythmbox. I’m neutral about Mint switching out gThumb for F-Spot as the default photo application.

Since this is Linux, if you don’t like the default applications, you can always replace it. Like the Ubuntu Software Manager it’s based on Mint’s Software Manager makes it mindlessly simple to add new programs. This program does have one default I don’t care for though. When you install a new program, it doesn’t give you a message letting you know when the installation is complete. Instead it simply gives you a momentary 100% installed on the bottom “ongoing action” bar and the application installation page still shows the program as not being installed. You’ll only see that the program has indeed been installed after you refresh the page.

Update May 24, 4:30PM PDT: Apple has now posted a support article on its website: How to avoid or remove Mac Defender malware. A note at the top of the article says:

In the coming days, Apple will deliver a Mac OS X software update that will automatically find and remove Mac Defender malware and its known variants. The update will also help protect users by providing an explicit warning if they download this malware.

How is Apple responding to the flood of customer calls about installations of the Mac Defender malware?

According to multiple tech support insiders, the company has doubled down on its policy of denying any help to affected customers. Meanwhile, despite evidence that a large number of customers have been affected by this issue, Apple has made no public statement and did not respond to two requests for comment.

My sources tell me call volume for Mac Defender-related issues continues to be high. One AppleCare support agent told me last week that 50% of calls in the previous week were related to this issue. A rep in a different location confirmed that number but said volume had dropped this week:

In the first days after Intego identified the issue I would say 50-60% of calls were driven by Mac Defender.

Now still within the 20-25% range….I think Google may be getting a handle on the gamed SEO placements and poisoned links that started the whole fiasco.

So how big is the problem? Apple’s silence makes it impossible to know for sure. However, I’m told that the division that handles Mac support calls receives between 10,000 and 20,000 calls a day. If 25% of those calls are related to this issue, which has been going on for 25 days, the total number of customers affected could be between 60,000 and 125,000, and growing.

One contractor who works for a third party that handles support calls for Apple in North America sent me a confidential document that had been distributed to all personnel at his location. The document contains detailed instructions from “the client” (Apple) that the firm’s employees must follow when dealing with calls from customers asking for help with Mac Defender issues. (I’ve posted a copy of the document at the end of this post.)

The document, which is labeled “Valid as of May 20th 2011 subject to further revisions,” instructs support reps to “Start with an upbeat tone and stay positive.” That’s followed by two blocks that outline the script the agents are expected to follow:

“I am glad that you decided to call in about this issue today. Based on the symptoms you describe it sounds like you may have malware on your computer. I would be more than happy to send you an article about what malware is and is not. Lets [sic] make sure you have all your software up to date.”

“Apple’s [sic] doesn’t recommend or guarantee any specific third part [sic] anti-virus protection over another. However I can suggest several third party virus protection programs that you may want to consider researching to find the best one for your needs.”

At that point the rep is ordered to suggest “at least three or four different programs from anywhere” and direct the customer to the App Store or the Apple Online Store.

In a particularly Orwellian turn of phrase, the anonymous author of the document then notes dryly, “According to the client the point of this is to empower the customers to become more internet and security savvy.”

The end of the document includes a list of “Things you must never do according to the client.” The list of prohibited actions includes all of the steps required to clean a Mac Defender infection:

– You cannot show the customer how to force quit Safari on a Mac Defender call

– You cannot show the customer how to remove from the Login items.

– You cannot show the customer how to stop the process of Mac Defender in their Activity Monitor.

– You cannot refer the customer to ANY forums or discussions [sic] boards for resolution (this includes the Apple.com forums)

The final item on the list contains instructions that prevent support personnel from indirectly helping clients:

– Once you know that the call is about Mac Defender, and then the customer decides to try and ask you general questions to find a loophole (IE: “OK, then how would you uninstall a third party program in general” or “How do I stop programs from starting upon launch”) The point of this is, things that would be considered “general product usage” questions are not allowed to be answered if the customer has already informed you that he potentially has MacDefender and is now asking obvious questions to skirt our policy.

The upshot of this policy is to explicitly prohibit any action that could help customers. For tech support personnel, that’s a bitter pill to swallow.

One rep who contacted me via e-mail describes the current mood among fellow support reps as “horrid,” adding, “We are now under strict orders, of course without distinctly saying it, to help NO ONE with Mac Defender under threat of our jobs … All I heard all day today from other advisors was how Apple doesn’t want to take care of its customers and how this new policy constrained our ability to do our job and directly affects our pay.”

A second rep told me, “The shit has hit the fan.”

You can see a copy of the entire document here:

It should come as no surprise by now that I am not a huge fan of Apple, the company. I do think they make excellent hardware, and my laptop is a MacBook Air running Windows 7. Their business practices, however, are pretty shady, and it’s my opinion that they hold nothing but contempt for their customers.

A perfect example is the new malware attack against OSX, MACDefender. For years, OSX users have crowed about how they didn’t have to worry about viruses or malware, because mommy Apple kept them safe with an operating system that was immune to such things.

No, it was never immune. It was simply never on the radar of malware authors because it wasn’t financially attactive enough to attack. With the hundreds of millions of unprotected Windows installations, it didn’t make sense to bother. Well, there’s enough OSX users out there now to make it worthwhile, and the attacks are starting.

Apple’s response? Sticking its fingers in its ears and shouting “LALALALA! I can’t hear you!”

ZDnet’s Ed Bott interviewed an AppleCare representative, and was told that Apple’s official stance is that they not assist their customers in removing the malware. In fact, in a follow-up article, Ed shows an internal memo that tells Apple support reps to not even acknowledge the existence of the malware on their computer, nor provide them with further help or escalate to a higher support level.

This is atrocious. Even Microsoft, which has a long history of operating system exploits and malware issues, has acknowledged the problems and even provides anti-malware protection for free, as well as providing online and phone support for security issues.

Don’t expect Apple to change their stance until they are shamed into doing it. Because they already have your money. And they know that their diehard fans will swallow anything they tell them, even if it’s against their own best interests.

Burying your head in the sand is NOT a viable form of customer support.