Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

why Linux?

Last response: in Linux/Free BSD
Share
October 6, 2003 2:48:02 PM

I am currently a Mac user who loves OS X. All of my friends have been telling me to partition my hard drive on my Powerbook and install linux. My question is why? What is the true advantage of using Linux? <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by not2nasty on 10/06/03 10:49 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : linux

October 8, 2003 6:37:53 AM

depends what you do

but for me i use linux and winxp and use linux for rendering only (except i can't get openGL, openAL, blah blah blah to work so tis proving pointless) as it uses less resources than inxp hence almost 1/2 the render time er frame which is a big deal when talking about an animation

other than that i don't see the advantages for a new user it seems a huge pain in the butt


Alltaken
October 8, 2003 8:00:26 AM

If I had a mac book I'd do a dual OSX/linux install, but that's just because I'm comfortable with linux already.

Definitely do it for a reason (and learning is a good one). If you have to ask, then you probably shouldn't.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
Related resources
October 8, 2003 4:56:46 PM

honestly if you like macs, mac os x and apple, then i'd assume you like simplicity, automatization, easyness, being controlled. Linux is not something for you then.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
October 9, 2003 1:35:12 AM

Like the other guys have said, there's really no need. Being Unix-like as well, OS X can do much of what Linux can do and many things Linux can't do. The true advantage of Linux is the level of control you have over your software and operating system - both in its use and in its development. If you're happy with MacOS (and who wouldn't be?) then don't worry about Linux - just learn about running Unix and OpenSource apps on OS X.

<i>Knock Knock, Neo</i>
October 9, 2003 12:03:03 PM

Quote:
If you're happy with MacOS (and who wouldn't be?)

what do you mean there poorboy, i certainly wouldnt be. its more confined and automated than windows, something that linux users hate. macosx is great for computer newbies who dont care about learning computers and just want to do everyday basic computer chores.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
October 9, 2003 12:14:16 PM

I've done time in various print shops and while I found pre-OS X versions both constrictive and flakey, I reckon OS X is pretty nice. It's Unix on the inside so you can fire up a shell and go at it, and it still works be newbies who just like to click pretty icons.

<i>Knock Knock, Neo</i>
October 9, 2003 3:14:26 PM

its a very changed unix, one thats almost unrecognizable and nevertheless restricting. im not sure, but i remember hearing something about winxp pro and win2k that had some unix in it. not sure tho. ill check on that.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
October 9, 2003 7:08:59 PM

I believe XP and 2K used some BSD network code, and IIRC, NT also had a limited Posix compatibility layer. It's all still Windows underneath however.

<i>Knock Knock, Neo</i>
October 9, 2003 7:26:11 PM

yea somethin like that i guess. my point is not because something has some unix, it means its good.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
October 9, 2003 8:03:05 PM

Best thing about OSX: sudo.

oops, here comes an apple engineer with a very big stick.. gotta run!

<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
October 9, 2003 8:10:45 PM

apple engineers dont have big sticks, they have big vaginas with apples in it.

--------------------------------------------------
My computer is so fast it proves the theory of relativity wrong... :eek: 
October 10, 2003 1:14:44 PM

If linux sucks, you do things to it make it suck less. If windows or macos sucks, all you cand do is try to stick your dick in the box and see if it gives you a good time. Believe you me, thats not a good idea though.
October 16, 2003 9:11:30 AM

Depends on what you want to do...

If all you want to do is chat and surf the web, OSX and winxp/2000/98 will do, but if you are serious and want a career in computers, like system administrators, you better know Linux because nearly all servers around the world uses linux. Also because winblows hogs resources like crazy, and linux doesnt...
October 18, 2003 9:03:01 AM

Quote:
Also because winblows hogs resources like crazy, and linux doesnt...


LOL

render in windows XP same program on the two differnet platforms

1 minute 20 seconds in windows per frame (yes very fast rendering software)

43 seconds in linux almost 1/2 the time

bear in mind they are the same program compiled from the same source code and designed for both platforms.

its entirly because of windows use of 100+Mb ram on startup and its resource hoging nature LOL

hence why i use linux for rendering, and windows for fun stuff LOL


Alltaken

<A HREF="http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz" target="_new">http://www.mud-puddle.co.nz&lt;/A> its where its ll going on
October 21, 2003 2:14:55 AM

Although I do understand the various comments about what "linux" users want vs. mac/windows users, I have to say I disagree with those written statements.

Linux will go no where if that sort of statement/attitude persists in the Linux community. If it persists then Linux is doomed to failure. Development will continue but that will become so specialized as it will destroy what I think is the ultimate hope of Linux--supplant Windows and other oses on the desktop.

Linux is an overly complex highly messy OS even in the easiest of installs. The installs are just a small part of the OS though. Once the install is done it takes real grit to hang in there and use it day in and day out.

Why? Because the application development sucks so bad that there are alot of programs that require you to compile them to get them to work. One package yesterday took longer to compile then it took to install the OS. After it did install the application was still weak and buggy.

I visit linux web sites and find them to be messy, disorganized, and completely lacking in content that the average home user would be interested in. Oft times it is difficult to even know whether you are on the right site--it is that bad.

Software is highly lacking. The OS is buggy. Linux install is slower then virtually every other to install except maybe mac osx. If you have hung through the OS X install you won't have much of a problem living with the Linux install, but if you have installed XP on a decent 1.5gig + machine Linux installation performance pales.

The Wintel platform is significantly more stable then linux. This is due mainly to the fact that modern computing hardware is being developed for the wintel platform and the Linux platform tends to hang onto the weaker lesser designs of the old wintel hardware.

Hardware is widely available. Most linux packages give pentinum 200+ as a minimum requirement. Wooohooo. This is a nothing to me. I throw away hardware that weak. Seriously, I don't even consider those to be viable these days. I work repairing hardware/software issues day in and day out. I don't even sell less then a 1.5ghz processor these days. When I get less then that in, I may work it up and see if I can get it performing well, but I rarely ever touch them for resale purposes. People just don't bring in those machines for repair much these days. My point is that those requirements are outdated to the point of absurdity and the development of linux should be updated/accelerated to account for that.

Games for Linux are far and few between. Drivers from hardware manufacturers are just not there. I guess there is now a program that is being developed that operates as a wrapper for w32 drivers (and drivers from other platforms) for linux. My only concern would be that the whole of the OS has to be recompiled just to accommodate the wrapper. In the Wintel world that would be absurd and unacceptable. It should be the same for the Linux community.

Linux is a good OS if you want to piddle around. If you want to do something serious you need to go to a different OS. The software just isn't there.

I've been in computing since the late 70s. I've followed the rise and fall of DOS, various flavors of task switchers, and onto the rise of Windows. After nearly 20 years in the industry I find myself still unique amongst my peers in the communities where I live in that I am still excited by computers every day all day.

I can say with certainty that if Linux does not change the way it is put together, if it doesn't standardize, if it doesn't become as easy to use as a mac and as powerful in the end-user software development as windows is, then it is a dead OS with no future.

Linux is still just a tinkering tool. I have been using it now for some time and I have installed it a good many times over the years. Most of those were failures and only through alot of trial and error did I get the OS just to install.

Don't get me wrong. I love Linux. Hell it is free. It is also a joke on the average home user. When the attitude about it being hard and that making it the best situates Linux as doomed to failure.

What is the simplest yet most significant thing that the Linux community can do to eliminate this? Remove the compiler and all libraries from all the distributions and start to develop the applications as if they were being designed for a mac user. Once that is done Linux will grow beyond immagination and capture the market that it has so far unsuccessfully attained.

Those saying I am wrong are living in a dreamland. I say to them to get out of your box and get into the real world, breath real (non-stale) air and that'll give life to Linux.

Opensource is fantastic. Nothing bad I can say about it. The management of opensource needs work and the direction has to start at the top with Linus. Otherwise a dead Linux.
October 21, 2003 8:32:26 AM

Your experience is definitely not typical. I did a full 1.3 gig install of linux mandrake + a whole slew of programs in under 15 minutes on a P3 450 with 128 MB ram and a 48x CDROM. Everything worked right from first boot. I booted from the cd and was running linux on my very next boot, unlike all windows installs where you have to reboot many times before everything works.

Most software is available via rpm. rpm -Uvh your.program.i386.rpm is all you need.

Of course, you can do a gentoo stage 1 install, which will take many many hours as you compile everything from source and config files, but once it's up and running, then getting a new program is as simple as typing

emerge <your program>

and portage will download, configure, compile, and install the program for you. It usually takes less time than firing up IE, going to downloads.com, downloading, unzipping, installing, and rebooting.

How is linux more complex? You can do a full out 30 MB install of linux if you wanted. That's about as simple as it gets really. No "wizards", no "automatic update", no "messenger service", heck, you could even go no gui.

Installed mandrake lately? It's so easy it's stupid. <next> <next> <okay> <i agree> <yes> <next> <finish>

Done.

Try <A HREF="http://www.redhat.com" target="_new">redhat</A>, <A HREF="http://www.linux-mandrake.com" target="_new">mandrake</A>, or <A HREF="http://www.gentoo.org" target="_new">gentoo</A> to see some neat sites.

The os is buggy? How so? The linux kernel is probably the most stable kernel you can get.

Wintel more stable than linux??? What are you smoking dude? Granted, XP and 2k are stable OS, but there are many linux systems that go down because of ram failure after 7 years of constant running without a reboot. I know a few people who admin and have just shut down some old Pentium Pro linux servers for the very first time since being started up in order to make way for new systems.

Hardware issues. I have an old P200 MMX sitting around here. You'd throw it away, I installed a minimal, non-gui version of linux, packed it with network cards, and used it as a firewall/router. If I had the desire, I could put a 200 GB drive or two in it and use it to serve up files over the network.

Those requirements being outdated? Dude, you really have to learn what that means. You CAN run a linux install on a P200, but you could also optimize/compile the same distro with 64 bit extensions for use on an 8 cpu system. You can't do that with any version of windows.

Keeping on that, 64 bit versions of linux have been available for years, and at least 3 distros now have optimized kernels for A64/Opteron. Windows has had a 64 bit version of XP out only for Itanium (ie, won't work on A64/Opteron), and that's it. XP 64 will come out next year some time. Sounds like microsoft is the ones who have to be updated.

Granted, games for linux aren't really there, although there definitely are some. Drivers not there? What are you talking about? Every company now has linux drivers for their hardware. The program you are thinking about is called wine. It does NOT require an OS recompile, but the program isn't really all that great. It works most of the time, but a native solution is really what is needed.

If you want to do something serious you need to go to a different os??? What is serious? Webserving? Apache for linux is about the best way to go for that hands down. Supercomputer beowulf clustering? Yeah, that's linux too. Software development? Soooo much nicer/easier in linux. Are you talking about gaming? Cause I don't really consider that "serious".

As for your solution, you suggest removing the compiler and libraries, yet go on to say that opensource is great... Just how, pray tell, are people supposed to work on the code? Go to downloads.com, get MS VC++, install it, reboot, then start working on the *BSOD*

oops.

I will grant you that standardization is key if linux is to become popular in the home. However, I don't believe that a rush to standardize should be made. Linux is evolving on it's own. If it had standardized 2 years ago, everyone would be using rpms. Sure, they're pretty good, but gentoo and it's BSD-esque portage system is much much better. Once the best solutions have come out of linux, then it will standardize.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
October 22, 2003 2:03:12 AM

"SGI aims high with Altix machine

NASA is using a Linux machine from Silicon Graphics with 256 Itanium 2 processors and plans to double that soon, the company said Monday after posting financial results that moved it closer toward profitability. "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has long been a customer of SGI's high-end computers using its Irix operating system and MIPS processors. Now it's following suit with the company's Linux-Itanium line, called Altix." "

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
October 22, 2003 7:16:04 PM

20 years in the industry? doing what?

The last commercial distribution of linux I installed was SuSe 8.1. And that installs as quick as WinXP. Granted you can go into selecting exactly which packages you want, but the average user doesn't need to do that.

And you know what, that installation was usable from start. It had OpenOffice and Gimp. Try installing Windows and then Office, and then Photoshop. Tell me how long that took. A typical user wouldn't need to build anything else.

Also Windows XP complained more about the partition selection than SuSe. Thats the ease of installation.

If you got hardware that aint gonna fail anytime soon, then this installation will last years before it forces you to reboot. Having windows run for months is a record. Sorry mate. Stability is something Windows never had. I don't know where you got the Idea that The hardware is designed around windows and linux is designed around ancient hardware.

I got my gigabit lan working fine on my Linux distro. no probs. Hardware isn't much of an issue nowadays. My old TV card as well. WinXP has no drivers for it. Linux works it fine on the Chipset drivers. Firewire and USB2 work fine now.

Linux can be messy, but it doesn't need to be. If you want ease, I would add SuSe alongside the distros already mentioned. That would give you a system about as easy to use as windows.

I have to say your post was one of the most uninformed posts I've seen. I don't think its about us getting some non-stale air, but you cutting down on your recreational greens. I'm afraid thats the only way I can explain some of your totally wrong assertions.

<b><font color=red>They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.</font color=red></b>
October 25, 2003 6:14:27 PM

linux id the best operating system. its free in charge, modif, distribute, etc. linux in nowadays is very nice in getting the help (becoz so many people out there was using/ conquering linux), patch/fix (becoz linux is opensource, so many hacker can help you to fix the problem). i was heard about true story. if someday ago, one of linux user (newbie) have a problem and he post the problem to the net. and surprise!!! the problem was fixed in less than 24 hours.
not same as windows (microsoft have). microsoft can update/ respond someone problem in more than 3 days.

sorry about bad in English!

CMC (my abbr.)
October 30, 2003 8:03:11 PM

I think this thread is reflects the status of Linux in general. Linux is NOT an OS for grandma, it is an operating sytem that aims to be the best. Is it the best for grandma? No. Is it the best for many services needed by businesses, computer geeks and does it have the best performance? Yes.
UNIX (yeah yeah, linux is not etc.) is not aimed at installing easily. It's aimed at installing optimally for the intended system. Yes, it may take longer but at least you can choose how the install is to be done. It can be slower or faster depending on what you install, because *nix expects you to know your requirements.
I would guess that your 30 years experience in computers are not at the enterprise level. Your belief that linux software is lacking and that you need a different OS to do "serious work" is not wrong, but you are trying to compare a server OS with a client OS. With linux I can get several email server programs, with windows i can get 2. With linux I can get effecive clustering in a variety of ways. The tools that are available often rival commercial offerings, like Snort, Ethereal and OpenOffice.org.
While I am unemployed now, in my previous work we had 100+ servers in our department and the administration overhead in our particular environment was nearly four times as high for W2KAS than the Red Hat and Solaris servers. In our Cisco department they ran 16 Windows servers that had to have scheduled reboots every week, but any of our production *nix servers went down for upgrades only during the 2+ years I worked there. The truth is that if you want serious WORK done, linux is fast becoming, or already is, the best alternative. What is "overly complex" and "highly messy" to you is a godsend for many administrators.
However the main reason I love linux is that I don't have to work long weekends clearing up welchia, blaster etc as Linux is not designed to "just do it for me".

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|
November 4, 2003 8:50:48 PM

Ew. If they run after you....apple sauce. :tongue:

----------
<b>Got any of that beer that has candy floating in it? You know, Skittlebrau? </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>

TKS
November 4, 2003 8:56:33 PM

Silverpig, I'm with you 100% on that post. Easy as pie for anyone who can friggen read. I've got Slackware 4.0 running non-gui on a friggen Pentium...that's right..a 75Mhz pentium with EDO RAM and four 120 GB Hard disks in that puppy. Think I have any problem serving up my multimedia machine, my ftp server, my webpage, my email server, and my mail server as well as supporting my windows machine? Hell no. Try that with any Windows server and it won't work. I'm with ya dude...that guy had no idea what the hell he was talking about.

----------
<b>Got any of that beer that has candy floating in it? You know, Skittlebrau? </b> <i>Homer Simpson</i>

TKS
November 6, 2003 1:48:30 AM

Nice. That's impressive for sure. All of that out of a 75 MHz computer.

Honestly though, when you think about it, 75 MHz is still a lot of computing power. It pales in comparison to todays systems, but 75 million cycles per second is still mind blowing.

I have an old P200 MMX with 80 MB EDO sitting around that I've just been too lazy to get working again. It was routing for me, but it got replaced and is now collecting dust. That'll be a "day off" project I guess :) 

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
November 11, 2003 3:33:29 AM

There's not need to try redhat as I have red hat installed. I've also looked at most of the other distros.

I'm not doing anything wrong. My experiences are on parr with everyone else. Linux is essentially a dead OS.

The Red Hat install is nice and it does a good job putting the software onto the hard drive. It is even great at configuring most of the hardware properly but the drivers are by no means optimized like you would see in the other OSes.

I am not having problems running Linux. I had no problems installing Linux. I didn't because I know what I'm doing. But I'm not supposed to be the yardstick by which we measure its success. It is the average guy you buys the distro at the store and takes it home and attempts to install it.

With SuSE and with RH they'll succeed. Probably even be thrilled. After a while though, well, they'll realize it just falls apart.

And it does. It fails miserably after the install is completed. How?

The apps aren't there. The installers aren't there. The OS is buggy and unstable. I'm an excellent judge of this as I have maintained a large nationwide network for several years, for some years I have managed a tech support department (as a subsidiary of Thompson Professional Publishing and Westlaw), and for several years I have run a company that produces computers for resale and provides service/support.

Linux is basically not going to happen. It is one of those looser OSes that spark, hit a zenith, and then fall away. I don't want this to happen but it will. There's nothing that will dredge it out of of this destiny except complete cross-distro installers for all application.

From reading thes responses that tells me that the vast majority of Linux users, at least here, are zealots that are willing to attack a person's views without really attempting to understand them.

Bottom line is, Linux won't succeed because it can't succeed because the zealots are killing it. 10 years of linux development and software installation is still worse then that found in the old DOS days.

Come on guys, get with reality.

I'm using Linux now. I've been using it for a long time. I've had time to gauge it and watch what is happening. It is just now that I have decided to speak up. Why do you think RH is now going all enterprise? Yeah yeah, Fedora, yeah yeah. Oh well, sorry for all those that feel they were just abandoned. SuSE is now or soon to be owned by Novell. Another distro gone enterprise.

I am NOT new to linux. I am not having trouble installing the OS. The OS is only a tiny tiny part of the whole picture. When I have to spend more time compiling a program that should have been released via an installer then something is wrong.

RPM is not it and never will be. The OS is just too unstable. The applications are too buggy. The apps are weak in content. The programs run significantly slower then the Windows eqivalents. Just accept that and do something about it and stop shooting the messenger. Yeah a hard message to swallow but you gotta take the message and do the best with it that you can. Otherwise, go back to making rivets for playground equipment.
November 11, 2003 7:06:58 AM

I admit that I am biased towards Linux and that you certainly have valid points, but Linux is a dead OS??? Them are fightin' words :) . I am not putting on the asbestos quite yet so please allow me to ask:

Which apps aren't there?
I see two main ones missing, but on the way. An Exchange equivalent (A long way to go, but getting there) and a professional level office suite (that ties in with everthing nicely like MS Office/Back Office). Games I really don't care about.

What is unstable about linux? I really don't understand...

Linux is not going to happen? IBM, HP, Intel, Novell and Oracle seem to disagree. IBM and HP scrapped their Unixes for Linux, and I doubt you are saying that Unix is dead.

I just want to say that I do not necessarily agree with you, but you have valid points. However, I feel that your argumentation is not coherent. Attacking Linux' stability is pretty weird (unless you are running unstable). Please give us an example of _Linux_ being unstable (not some beta app crashing). Windows has a problem with memory allocation and management and forces the kernel space to be used where it should not be used, can you name specific problems with Linux.

As for speed, which is faster? Apache or IIS (or even Apache on Windows vs. Linux)? SQL on Windows or Linux? Rendering, file manipulation, etc?

The point is that most Linux users readily admit the problems you point out, and I agree that zealots and holy wars hurts Linux' image. However it's not any different than any other holy war on the net such as Amd vs. Intel, ATI vs. nVidia, etc. Lastly you are making claims that are outright rediculous (namely about speed, stability and viability) and that lessens the value of your argument. You may pretend to be the messenger, but you look and sound an awful lot like a warrior.

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|
November 11, 2003 7:17:33 AM

I think you're trolling in the wrong forum, mate. And if you honestly think Linux is a dead OS, you're a fool. Linux has its problems like every other OS, but the issues you raise are simply uninformed bollocks - any kiddy with Google and 10 minutes could refute them.



<i>Knock Knock, Neo</i>
November 11, 2003 11:04:26 PM

Talk about wolf in sheeps clothing...

Linux, unstable? slow? and you expect people to believe the rest of your post? Even the Linux GUI, X isn't slow. Its when you add full GNOME, or KDE, it can be a little slow at times, but definitely now slower than XP. In both OSs you have the option to turn off the ey candy to speed up the system, but linux lets you do more.

The last desktop windows out... XP. NEEDS windows updates regularly. NEEDS reboots after most of these patches. NEEDS rebooting regularly with normal use. Definitely daily if you do development work.

Linux just doesn't need these.

Linux maintenance issues are also becoming less of an issue. With Linux, once it is installed, just make sure the user doesn't have root access and your fine for a long time to come.

When it comes to apps, I'll tell you some of the apps aren't as good, such as Office... but the rest is bullshit. A lot of apps nowadays are coming with scripted installers. You don't have to get source and build. OpenOffice installed very easily, no fuss. Java as well.

Linux also has holds some of the industry standard apps now. Like Cinepaint which is becoming the most popular graphics editor in the movie industry. For general tools there is OpenOffice. Though it needs a little readjustment for regular MS Office users, it has the same learning curve as MSOffice. I can see you giving up, saying This is too hard. I don't have a paperclip to guide me.

Other commercial stuff for linux that would appeal to professionals in various industry would be framemaker and of course can't go without mentioning Maya. Discreet is also putting out a lot of 3D and Video industry oriented software for linux.

See the thing about people such as those in the entertainment industry is they just use the OS to get to their app. And linux is providing them with these apps as far as the movie industry is concerned.

There are tons of software out there more than adequate to do the job, whatever the area. Its just that people want to see their recognised brands on these products. Thats why there are loads of linux maya users. I don't know about the music industry, but people at steinberg have praised linux for its preformance in the past.

Openoffice is having problems with their takeup. Not a known brand. Even staroffice is having problems because to most, office has become synonymous with Microsoft Office. I've been hearing things about about staroffice being installed in schools. So hopefully that will change.

Amongst general desktop usage, linux uptake isn't so good. That much of what you say is true. But there is nothing technical about it. The installation is easy. Even you admitted that. Now the rest of the software isn't too hard either. All of the commercial software I mentioned have the same procedure as in windows.

Office is the killer app for Microsoft, and thats where they have to be beaten. You may not agree, but on a technical level they've already been beaten by Linux. People in many industries are using linux because their apps are available there. For the general population to adopt linux, there would have to be a msoffice beater. When that happens Linux coverage will grow rapidly.

This is despite openoffice being more than enough for the vast majority of msoffice users. Everyone knows Mozilla is a better browser than explorer. And Thunderbird now, is better than outlook express. I mean there is no problem of your email folders getting corrupt when they get a bit large and outlook crashes.

I'm not a linux zealot. I know good stuff when I see it. I've told many times that I use Windows most of the time because I do windows development. I've said many times that Visual Studio has been the best dev environement. Thats always got my praise. It just bothers me when poeple spread FUD over something for no reason.

If you come out and say a lot of the opensource software can be a bit difficult to install, I'd agree with you. But the way you go about trying to break down linux from within is just vulgar.

<b><font color=red>"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."</font color=red><font color=blue> - Benjamin Franklin</font color=blue></b>
November 12, 2003 3:36:57 AM

man, it jus seems to me that everyone that argues for windows is jus too lazy to figure out 3 simple commands and they dont know how to type :) 

For the love of God, and all thats holy...
November 25, 2003 5:00:28 AM

This guy Jimbo, should just stay out of the Linux forums. What an aggraviting windows kiddo.

"I'm not doing anything wrong. My experiences are on parr with everyone else."

Then why does Linux work for me? Why does it work for Google? Why does it work for IBM and IBM's cusotmers? there is something you're not able to figure out, otherwise you'd have a working Linux system.

Why does it work for all the companies listed here:
http://mtechit.com/linux-biz/

Including Sony, Mercedes, Chrysler, SallieMae, and the list goes on and on and on, with no mention of the many governmental bodies that use Linux, including the NSA!

"Linux is essentially a dead OS."

Poor NASA, just put together a Linux supercomputer. Little did those morons at NASA know the truth that the great Jimbo knows: That Linux is a dead OS. Poor IBM, all that money into a dead OS. And google? What will become of them? Poor google, 8000 Linux boxes providing the best search engine known to man, if only they know how pathetic and dead the OS they chose is. Jimbo, you should do your part for your fellow man and email google, IBM, NASA, and many of the top Fortune 1000 firms to let them know the error they made. Make sure you explain it as clearly as you explained it here.


"And it does. It fails miserably after the install is completed. How?"

yes, how?

"The apps aren't there."

What apps? What apps is Linux lacking? Games? You can't answer that question because you're just fudding.


" I'm an excellent judge of this as I have maintained a large nationwide network for several years"

Of what? Windows machines? Did you enjoy nimbda? Red Alert? Howabout Iloveyou? I could go on and on and on...

"Linux is basically not going to happen."

Linux has already happened boy. What planet are you on?


" It is one of those looser OSes that spark, hit a zenith, and then fall away."

<yawn> Yeah, I told the guy who introduced me to Linux that back in 1994. By the end of 1995, I couldn't imagine what I'd do without Linux. I couldn't go back if I wanted to, know matter how pretty Microsoft makes Windows. Unless they plan on providing the wealth of development and systems/network troubleshooting tools that comes with most distro's, this isn't going to change anytime soon. Not to mention STABILITY.


"I don't want this to happen but it will. There's nothing that will dredge it out of of this destiny except complete cross-distro installers for all application."

<yawn> This will come eventually. Instead of complaining about RPM, why don't you learn about 'apt get', that would be a good starting point. All you apprently know is RPM, which is a rather old standard at this point.

I remember back in 98, my windoze zealot friends used to tell me that without a decent gui, Linux will fade away. Here we are 5 years later, VERY DECENT gui's exist, and now the windoze zealots pick another weak point and prophecy of Linux' demise. Ad nauseum. This, despite the fact of Linuxs exponential growth since then.

Linux is here to stay. It isn't going anywhere. Even if Microsoft managed to stabilze windows tomorrow, fixed all the security problems tomorrow, and gave the OS away free, Linux will still have a following. People like you just don't get it. Linux isn't about how much bloatware crap is available for it, it's about being the best possible tool for power users. I don't know for certain if it is the best possible tool for power users, BSD is a very respectable OS, but it is ALOT better in this regard than Windows, exponentially better.

How? Complete full featured development tools with most major releases. Windows? nope. Complete full featured system debug and network troubleshooting tools with most major distros. Windows? nope. There are more advantages, but these 2 alone are the real reason why Linux continues to grow in the IT world. And did I mention stability? Far more stable. You may have a process lock up under Linux, you could even have X lockup, but it's not the end, you just switch to a virtual terminal and restart it. Boom, you're back up and running, and the server never missed a beat. Most of us running servers though, don't bother to use the GUI, there's no point. If you're playing with devel things that could potentially lock keyboard access on a system that is running something important, just hook up a cheap terminal to the serial port and you can login there, and restart processes if things get hairy. Though seriously, you have to make an apointment for this to happen.

"RPM is not it and never will be. The OS is just too unstable."

RPM isn't the only package manager and in fact, is quite dated at this point. Try apt.

The OS isn't unstable. Explain this.


"The applications are too buggy."

what applications are buggy? You mean the beta apps you download? Duh.


"The apps are weak in content."

What apps?


"The programs run significantly slower then the Windows eqivalents."

these are all vaporous comments. If you know what you're talking about, cite examples.


"Just accept that and do something about it and stop shooting the messenger."

Why don't you do something about it? We're not the ones having problems with it. See, this just proves you don't get what Linux is about. The power of Open Source is you can do something about it. You don't like it, and you supposedly love Linux, then do something about it yourself, quit whining that it isn't as easy as point and click. Neither is driving a car, do you suppose cars are going away soon?

" Otherwise, go back to making rivets for playground equipment."

Windows is a playground, where widdle kiddies don't have to worry about readin manuals and other hard stuff. So here's my avice to ya kiddo, if you can't play with the big kids toys, go back to the playground and swing on your easy to use swingset. RTFMP.

SCO is to Linux what a flea is to a dog.
November 27, 2003 5:26:38 AM

Well.. i can say i'm sick of windows bullshit. The government just let's them monopolize. The new XP registration [-peep-] has got to end.
My company i work for has a small network of 50ish computers and they went to linux.
It's been a good 6 months of absolutely not one problem.
The reason they decided this change is due to the crashes from windows. It took one determined kid to get them to change.. just imagine what 10,000 determined people can do?

After all the people spread the word.. eventually the software will follow. Never give up on something that has good potential.. or we will be stuck in a windows/intel revolution forever. Paying monthly to be alloud to use Windows and 3,000 dollars for a 3ghz Intel processor.


p4 2.8 533fsb
intel mobo
1gb rdram pc 800
radeon9800 pro
120gb seagate s-ata
November 27, 2003 11:48:13 PM

I have noticed this trend a lot lately. This is especially true for many of the SMB's who really care about their products (Ernie Ball, I believe, is running linux only, and a host of small production companies here in SoCal as well). Many of our smaller clients ask if Linux is an alternative for them even before we pitch it, and that is a recent development. It's good to hear that it's happening elsewhere as well.

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|
November 28, 2003 1:14:38 AM

I'm certain it's XP. I have home users asking me about Linux after my 3rd and 4th trip to fix yet more problems that keep popping up. It seems like XP is fine, so long as you don't install anything other than Microsoft or their partners apps.

A Good OS does not destablize because of poorly written apps. XP does. After managing 300 win2k desktops for 2 years, I was truly impressed, I truly thought Microsoft had figured stability out(relative to the past releases). Then they go and release XPOS.

<i>SCO is to Linux what a flea is to a dog.</i>
!