Why are you afraid of Big Bad Linux

I forgot to say, our webserver is a virtual host, running Caos, which I have shell access to - though it so reliable, I dont have to touch it unless Im adding a new website (and then only to restart apache to read the new http.conf) or changing settings.

 

Obviously not all of us have the same amount of idle time as you

 

Hello,
OOOOOOH, that was a low blow, Notok.
Mrk

 

Hehe, agreed on the low blow comment. But I see where it's coming from. Windows has proven itself time and time again to just be more productive for me. I can't even count the amount of Linux distros I've sampled over the years, and while it has made enormous strides, it's just not there yet. Heck, last Ubuntu distro I tried required me to manually type in my SSID and enter my WPA key in hex if I remember correctly. If it even supported WPA without custom compiling.

The issue above all issues to me is the linking between applications and distributions. There desperately needs to be a unification that makes it possible to choose between a very short list of Linux links, just like you can pick between "Windows 2000/XP" and "Windows 9x". There just can't be a handful of links for a few popular distros, and the rest are out of luck. There must be a short list, one of which is applicable for you regardless of which distribution you are using. The same goes for drivers.

 

Hello,
You can claim the same issue the other way around - there are tools for Linux that you can't find for Windows. As to replacing the software that you use and it won't run on Windows ... well, three answers:
There are many alternatives - and yes, they are good.
There are more tools for Linux that Windows.
Functionality, recoverability and control and immensely larger for Linux.
Mrk

 

Why don't I use Linux?

- I need to edit files to get my monitor past 1024/768 resolution.
- Had a very hard time to get my Wireless connection to work.
- My games won't run.

For me, Windows is the easiest option. I do keep an eye on were Linux is heading, and maybe in the future I will switch.

 

it seems people have more success using the alternate version, so it's probably best to use it no matter what you want to do. in the past (i haven't used it recently) the alternate cd was a text based install (even though it's texted based it's just as easy to use as the GUI version) with a few more installation options.

i'm not too sure how things will run with 160MB of RAM. xubuntu will be a better option - Fluxbuntu would be even better, however i wouldn't be much help with Fluxbuntu, it uses the fluxbox window manager (ubuntu uses gnome, xubuntu uses xfce), i haven't used fluxbox much. here's some screenshots
http://shots.osdir.com/slideshows/slideshow.php?release=732&slide=3

well, if something isn't broken, then link i gave before will fix the problem

the Poor Mans Install looks fairly complicated it looks like a complete install will be abit quicker, other than that i don't think there's much difference to a normal install. does it run from the cd and save some settings to a partition?

there's this too with ubuntu, i haven't tried it though so i'm not sure how well it works -
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/LiveCDPersistence

 

I agree whole-heartedly with Mrk - Where there's a will/desire there's a way.

 

Hello Mrkvonic, you're beating your head against the wall

Most of the points against Linux in this thread are individual, they don't represent the masses. Things said against Linux also apply to windows. There's plenty examples of "it doesn't work" "it's broken" "my drivers don't work" "I don't understand please explain" in windows. Read the tech forums......

I find it funny that people can't spend $20 on a dial-up modem for Linux, yet they spend $100's on security app's for windows.

"I don't have the time to learn Linux" Hmm but you have the time for 3000+ post in security, time to install and learn all the latest security fads, is it you don't have time or is it you can't give up your hobby ?

For the average PC user Linux is ready for the desktop. The average PC user doesn't need to compile code, use the command line or spend a bunch of time configuring hardware. Everything is GUI and push button easy as it is in windows. The hardest thing for these average people to learn is the new names of Linux applications and where things are located. This is if the average user chooses the right distro.

In Linux the average PC user can rip and burn CD/DVD, watch DVD or any video format, rip/convert/listen to any audio format, email, chat, webcam, surf the web without virus/spyware, upload digital photo's from their camera, work on digital photo's, print, office, P2P or any other little thing the average PC user might do. And they can do this all for FREE, in GUI, pushing buttons.

For gamers Linux isn't very good.

Is Linux perfect ? no it isn't, does everything work in Linux ? no it doesn't, but the same can be said about windows.

IMO, those who truly know how to survive, truly know how to reap all the benefits their PC has to offer, are those who learn Dualboot. The combination of Windows & Linux is as good as it gets.

 

i was just pointing out linux is far, far ahead when it comes to supporting hardware, many people don't realise that, mainly because some hardware manufacturers don't make drivers for linux

i agree, i gave up trying to get my printer working with windows after about 5 hours, whereas it took under one minute to get it working with linux. if it was the other way around and my printer didn't work with linux i'd do the same - not bother.
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=118808

that's one of the big differences between linux and windows - windows is all about market share and making money, whereas only a small minority of linux devs are looking to make money and increase market share. linux is more about 'free' software and making an OS linux users want to use.

 

Hey, I take offense to that. As a linux only user.

 

On the top two, i can see where you're getting at. Point taken, i can only reply if i try it. Well, actually how did you not print with Windows? A case is a case, i accept that. But i never had a problem like that with windows.

On the third, i wasn't talking about Microsoft, but the Hardware manufacturers. You see, if it is a business, it ain't about charity. Of course it's about profit!

I will rush my Linux trial, i can see where you're getting at. I'll look for a secondary test machine as soon as i can.

 

i think the printer did work with windows, but the scanner didn't, i've stopped using windows now so i can't remember.

i don't buy hardware which doesn't work with linux obviously, other linux users probably do the same if a business wants to make money, they are losing business. however, some linux users won't use something if it's closed source because they think all software should be free, as in the freedom to read through the code, change the code...

another thing i like about linux is it's so stable (i know my first post in this thread i posted a picture showing most things being text based because i'd broken alot of program GUIs lol, but that was my fault for adding libs which aren't compatible with most programs i use, it's 90% fixed now anyway ) i've only ever had to do one reinstall with linux, and again that was my fault. linux does crash, but i can't remember seeing anyone with that problem. some people who are new to linux have some instablity problems when they are setting things up, but IMHO i think that's probably something they're done wrong.

i've never had any problems at all - linux runs as well after a couple of years as it did on day one. i think i've said it before, the hardest part is setting up and configuring linux, when you get past the 2/3 week mark you might start to see why people like linux so much, maybe you won't, but i don't think someone can have a serious opinion about linux until they have used it for at least 6 months with hardware that works with linux. i don't care which OS people use, but i do care when i see people who are very new to linux, or haven't used it very much, perhaps with incompatible hardware, talking nonsense - i recently saw someone write a very detailed review of a linux server. he wasn't impressed because he couldn't find a GUI and thought the only software available was an email server with limited functionality. he explained how linux wasn't ready for the mainstream market and doesn't think he'll be using linux any time soon it really made me cringe, and i was embarrassed for him.

 

Hello,

FastGame, nicely said. Dual boot plus virtualization every which way is a great way of reaping the best of both worlds.conf.

dog, take no offense, mine son! Windows has its merits when it comes to gaming. For us that are anal and remain locked in childhood, that is.

Mrk

 

I am not afraid of Linux, but I am tired of Linux.

When I purchased my new laptop, I really wanted to give Linux a try. I tried Suse, Fedora, Mandriva, Debian. None of them worked well. I tried to google and troubleshoot drivers or configurations of my graphic card, modem, wireless, etc. 10 minutes is enough? You must be kidding. For most cases, I spent half a day or more and just found out from other Linux user's experience that the particular Linux driver was not available yet, or the downloaded driver just would not work on my laptop for some mysterious reason! I am too dumb for that? I do not believe that. I can program with C/C++ proficiently, and I even programmed a simple kernel with C for demonstrating how kernel works. Later, I figured that even I could make all my current hardware work with Linux, I would have trouble with any 'bleeding-edge' hardware in the future with Linux. For such a case, one can drop Linux or drop the hardware. My choice is to drop Linux, and it's my choice.

Among the distros I tried, SUSE had the best hardware support. Although still lack the support for one or two hardware on my laptop, it detected most of them and at least worked out-of-box on my laptop. Yes, it never crashed on me. However, it locked the screen several times and I had to reboot my laptop at the end. What the hell is that, is it due to the stability of Linux? I had to give up.

Is Linux really free? I do not think so. I just checked out the price of SLED (business desktop version of SUSE), it has a subscription fee of $50/year per device. If one wants to download the security patches year after year, one has to pay the subscription year after year! Two or three years later, one would have paid even more than that of Windows. Yes, there are free versions of Linux there. However, while using the Linux for FREE, one also has to work as a beta tester for FREE!

If it were ten years ago, I would be happy to sit in front of the computer, spend hours and days, and just to make it to work properly. At this time, I would rather give my brain a break, or do some other real things in life.

I do not like Windows. I believe that Linux is great, and I love it. However, I just do not have so much time to babysit Linux for daily use.

 

The thing is, like i said, nothing is free. If you don't pay, it's not "hassle free".
I find your remarks funny as hell, the way you put things, lol.
You pay for Windows, but everything gets simpler due to the supported apps/hardware.
Because it's widely used, it's only natural that solutions are far more easy with windows.
Things can change. And i will try it

 

linux is 99% free, but it has nothing to do with money. it's free as in freedom. you can download a 'free' distro and put it on a cd then go to ebay and sell it for £100 if you want. it would still be free because it's licenced under the GPL.

 

I haven't put in my thoughts about this yet so lets go

First, Linux is a kernel, and that's it. It is not an OS, not meant to be user friendly, not meant to be really anything except a kernel.

Using this information, each distrobution ("distro") is something that is added onto the kernel to make as complete or incomplete an OS as that distro wants it to be. Take me for example, I use Arch Linux. Minimal distro that focuses on K.I.S.S. It is a very minimal install, with only the essentials needed to boot and connect to an ethernet network included in addition to a very sweet package manager(pacman). It is meant for the power user who wants to tweak stuff and ensure that what they want is included. Gentoo is another example of a system like this, except it has crazy compiling times

Now, let's look at the other end of the spectrum: Ubuntu and other distros similar to this. They want to create an experience fairly similar to Windows or MAC with most things being able to be done some way or another through the GUI, with pretty pictures, icons, etc. However, underneath all of the prettiness is still the command line, which you can use in lieu of things like Nautilius (file browser), Synaptic(gui version of apt-get which is similar to pacman), etc. This is what the majority of users in the world want. They don't want to learn commands, they just want to read some text, click it, and have this black-box run it for them. Respectable, and I don't hold a grudge, they are just missing out .

The command-line is definately the more powerful, and it is not very difficult to learn at all. However, it is very intimidating, especially if you are unaware of things and need help. However, install from source isn't hard, just /.configure, make, make install. Navigating isn't very hard, just cd(change directory) ls (list contents) rm (remove) cp (copy) mv (move aka cut and paste), etc.

For users migrating to linux, once it is setup, it is a breeze. However, that is what a distro like ubuntu is in charge of doing for the user. A few things need tweaking (wireless for example), but the basic system is pretty easy to install.

The best way to learn it is to completely remove windows off your drive. Otherwise, you will always use it as a crutch when the going gets tough and decide to just put off linux for another time. I finally completely formatted my drive and installed arch linux on it. I got rid of the crutch, and used a laptop to help me configure it and get wireless working, which only took one night (a lot quicker than installing windows xp, updating it, installing security software, configuring that software, etc.)

In the end however, I am a BSD fan the BSD's, like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD are the complete packages with kernel and utilities. They are simple, more concise, more organized(instead of a billion distros each doing their own customizations, each BSD variant does only one thing), good package managers and the port system is excellent, easy to configure your own kernel(i halved my boot time), EXCELLENT documentation (look at the FreeBSD handbook, and you will see what I mean), great user base, better security, more stable, better SMP support, and the list goes on. For those intimidated by the command line, PCBSD is becoming the pioneer of GUI based BSD's, and is FreeBSD preconfigured with KDE as the desktop and some apps pre-installed for you, so whatever you see in the freebsd manual will work exactly the same.

Now, if only NDISulator would work for USB devices, I would be set to go for my other pc and migrate from arch to freebsd, oh well

Hope my ramblings add something to the discussion

Cheers,

Alphalutra1

 

It wasn't that bad. When the Knoppix CD starts booting, type knoppix tohd=(drive of your choice). I used tohd=/dev/hdb5, the extended partition of my 2nd internal drive, which was basically empty. Didn't need to reformat it. FAT32 is fine for this. That copied the contents of the CD to the drive and booted it from there. After that, you can remove the CD and use it for something else if needed. For just a poor mans install, that's all you actually have to do. I still use the CD to boot Knoppix, but that's all it does.
You do have more options available to you with a poor mans install. I set up a permanent home folder and swap file, plus saved a configuration file. All it takes to make use of them is to boot from the CD, then type

Code:

knoppix fromhd=/dev/hdb5 home=/dev/hdb5 myconfig=/dev/hdb5

What really nice is that I can access (read and write) both internal drives and all the partitions on the external drive. From what I've read, this is easier with FAT32 than it is with NTFS.The floppy and CD work normally. My browser prefs and GAIM settings all load automatically. I can even update and install software. It's so much easier to learn how Linux works when you don't have to start with learning to make it work. The whole thing is using 1.4GB of space, and that space is still accessible from windows.
With a poor mans install, all the user needs is the free space. It doesn't need to be an empty drive or partition. No formatting or altering the MBR is necessary. There's no risk of damaging windows. While this is still quite new to me, I haven't found any real disadvantages to this setup.
Rick

 

That's been exactly my experience with Linux.

And that's the beauty of live CDs, for checking hardware compatibility, and minimising any work required after installation.

 

I've installed multiple distros, and just never found a reason to stick with it. Windows works for what I need, and I get extreamly cheap, legal, licenses of MS software from my University. That being said, I am in the process of building a Linux print server for a new laser printer that I just bought. As far as I can tell, it's going to work great (the printer is arrriving Thursday). It's a Ubuntu Sever install.

C

 

right, well really it sounds no differnet from trying out a livecd, then installing it to your hard drive. what you have done to enable what you are doing doesn't sound too differnet (more difficult) then a normal install.

what you could try is kubuntu, it looks and feels very similar to knoppix, i was going to say mepis which is like kubuntu's brother lol, but has a few extra things in the base install, like some media playback i think, but the support for mepis is no where near that of kubuntu, and getting those extra things working in kubuntu is very easy to do.

you can use this little program to install almost all the extra things you need to get most things working -
http://easyubuntu.freecontrib.org/
http://easyubuntu.freecontrib.org/get.html

there's Automatix too which installs even more things, you just select what you want and let the program install it all for you, but i'm not sure if it works with kubuntu, i think it does actually.
http://www.getautomatix.com/
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=177646

 

You don't have to run the beta linux kernals or distributions and even then, a linux beta is far better than a MS final release, ive lost count of how many patches have been released for XP.

 

Very sensible point, somethings linux is better for, others windows, some people get stuck on the whole MS vs Linux thing, they forget that you should pick which is best for your individual needs rather than trying to make a sweeping decision on which is better - you might decide windows is 99% better, but your own personal need is that 1% that linux does better.