Linux

[gryphon]

What are the average rates microsoft charges for companies? I cant really think of why a company would want to spend $100 per computer and enter into licensing agreements and such just to get it, other than for some specific software.

That's good for bashing. In the real world, the more you get from MS the less you pay. How does 10 Euro per workstation for WinXP, 400 for a server and about 50 / 60 Euro for the full office suite sound ?

For the licensing, do companies have to pay microsoft every year or just the one time fee?

You can pay it all at ones. Or just get a volume license. Which let's you pay a fixed amount each year and gives you rights on updates for the software. Sounds small, although one of the things it promisses is that MS will give you a new OS every 5 years. And just as above. The more licenses you need the cheaper they get.

- There is no 'standard guide-line' in Linux itself, there are too many 'shells' (Gnome, KDE, etc).

Gnome and KDE are not shells. They are user interfaces. A shell in Linux can be Bash or TSH for example.

- The commands are not user friendly. Ie, if i want to do a 'dir' command, i have to figure out its something like 'ls', or whatever it was.

That is if you have been using dir from when you where 14 years old and got a Windows computer that age. If you learned that LS give you a directory listing and LS -al -h is a sub option to it when you are 14, the notion that dir /w /a does the same is just as strange.

I hate the same things in Linux you try to point out. Although if you look at Linux in the sort of biased way [ don't get me wrong on that ] your opinion will already be formed before you get a real change using the software. Don't go into Linux from a Windows background and expect to know even the smallest thing.

Remember, Linux is not an OS. It's a kernel. Those are verry different things.

Wish I had an old (but still good enough to run linux easily) computer to play with. Maybe they are still selling old government computers for $60.

My old pentium II 233mhz is too old to run good linux.

To old to run Linux ?. . You know a 400mhz computer with 128 ram can run Windows2k3 and Exchange. System specs for Linux have not gone up much last few years. That hardware is more then needed to run a basic setup of any Linux distribution. Only down side is most require 96 or 128 MB of RAM.

On a side note. Linus doesn't only prefer KDE over Gnome like you pointed out. He also is running  his Linux distribution on a G4 Apple Powerbook.

[Andrew]

Yes, DSL runs fine on my old computer (assuming my computer wasn't broken like it seems to be), but I don't think it would run the latest distro like Ubuntu good. I tried running knoppix live cd on it, but it said insufficient ram and needed to make some room on hd, which I didn't want to do.

[Acriku]

I had a buddy installing Gentoo on my computer, but apparently during the installation there's a command you can use to partition the drive, well he did and it deleted my entire data. So, I kicked his ass and never looked back at it. I might get back into Linux if I want to tinker around a bit.

[Andrew]

Ouch, I would definitely backup everything before doing anything that dangerous.

[stefanhendriks]

the question rises, why change to another OS?

Reasons i can think of (but not always agree with):

- expand your borders of your knowledge about os's

- virus problems in Windows

  - > to me that is not a reason, its only shows how you deal with your computer and files.

- spyware

  - > see same as 'virus'

- its faster

  - > Linux requires less resources and runs faster , its a fact.

- its NOT microsoft

  - > to some, microsoft = bad, therefor everything is bad that is microsoft related.

What are the real pro's of linux?

- Its faster, so it can run on older computers (saves money)

- Its cheaper

- It has programs that are also on Windows (and thus cheaper), ie , like Open Office.

- Its customizable (hence source code included most of the time)

But:

- Linux is tough to learn

- Linux requires a lot more time to set up (but once setup it does work)

- Linux do only offer replacements of bigger tools out there, ie like Office, but has not that much support on the gaming side

- There is no plug and play

- It is not for the avarage starting computer user (ie, providing Linux with a computer for a computer beginner is asking for trouble)

So; if money is the argument go for Linux. If you have the time to spend to learn and get comfortable, sure give it a go. However, from my experience, it takes away my freedom of using all my hardware i have now running (webcam, ipaq, etc) and also takes away my support for games i buy.

Also, why not go Mac? ;) Its Unix based...

Ow btw, i know Linux itself is a kernel, but hence everybody refers to "Linux" , even when meaning "KDE" or "Gnome", etc.

[Kiyouta]

Damn straight, if you're too stupid to prevent your computer being infected with spyware and viruses, you're certainly not going to be able to handle Linux. Accept the fact that for every-day home users Windows is the best, so learn to use it properly and get on with your life.

[gryphon]

the question rises, why change to another OS?

Considering the fact you have to pick one. You don't have the starting point of Windows. So no "other" OS is needed just the best one to fit your needs.

Most commercial Linux Distributions are just as easy as Windows to setup, work out of the box and require minimal skills to configure for day to day tasks. And living in the same country as you do I understand your need of MSN and a webcam. If you live in the US for example and use other IM clients you will find Linux has a verry good cam support for those.

Strangely, you must have had a Linux distribution not PnP compatible. Both SuSe and RedHat have PnP support for external harddrives, network cards, modems and palmtops. But don't expect your Compaq with Microsoft Active Sync to work on it. Symbian on the other hand does.

- virus problems in Windows

  - > to me that is not a reason, its only shows how you deal with your computer and files.

Believe it or not, 80% of the internet users is *smart* enough to click every email with the topic *I love you*. . if only they where using Linux at that time. ...

The reason for using a *NIX based OS or Windows (a little history lesson, half the Windows source is based upon BSD, every one familliar with network protocol design knows that) should not be an argument for which is better. It should be about which OS *can* be used for the task. Which has advantages over the others. And next to that. The level of support and contracts you get from the publisher. Those al depend on your personal situation and use for it.

Microsoft can get a lot of credit for a verry wrong act. Taking the best out of other projects and making them a success. Windows networking is based on Samba, the user interface is Apple (which is Next/AfterStep for UNIX), the network stack is BSD. User / directory management is Novell.. .and the list is endless. But credit where credit is due. They intergrated it into a easy to use working system.

Now, the argument on which to use can last forever. Although will never be clear if you in advance set a few rules. Or guidlines of stuff you need in the OS. At that point you can choose which more suites your needs.

For example.

- Single user multi tasking, multi tasking multi user, single user single tasking

- configuration freedom (I can do with IIS what I can with Apache, although the EULA prohibits me from doing so)

- Security. (if that's a requirement, consider Windows doesn't ship with 128 bit encryption abroad)

- Function of the computer. (what does it do, and can that easy be done with that OS)

And yes. I knwow Windows scores good in almost all those things you whould setup for a home computer. But then. The question which to use is not for the home user. It's for the tech loving geek and corporations which can support and implement anything they want.

Just for fun, make a list of suff you do on a day to day bases, as a home user. Then consider the platform behind it. *NIX or Windows.. . . You will realise it's just the best of both worlds. Wasn't it one of MS big kept secrets their own servers where Microsoft UNIX untill they found Win2k3 ? ;)

note, for me. . seeing code that let's any website view the contents of your memory is just a no-go to use that OS. If MS then claims the *bug* is not serious enough to patch. ... It should have been disabled by default. Not by skilled people or patches. Next to that. If I need a kernel upgrade to use a new device it's to frusttrating to use.

[Andrew]

And living in the same country as you do I understand your need of MSN and a webcam.

aMSN supports msn webcam. So you don't need windows for that. aMSN works on windows, mac, linux, etc.

Recently, slashdot posted an article asking what software to use for linux.

Linux WebCam Software?

:)

Yes I know its most likely that your not going to be able to plug in your webcam and expect it to work immediately on Linux.

[erjin999]

Windows networking is based on Samba, ...

Are you shure this is the right way around ? Shurely Samba is a reversal or the windows netwoking implementation ?

[gryphon]

Shurely Samba is a reversal or the windows netwoking implementation ?

Well, Samba is a combination of Common Internet File System and the Server Message Block protocol. The first is created by MS. Although that's an addition/modification on the origional SMB protocol which was created by IBM to share files.

[number6]

I have used Linux over the years and I must say that it is in no way a replacement for Windows. Linux is very good for running network services for free. You can get decent internet access through it. Games? Not much there. You need Windows for that. Applications? No where near what you will find on the Windows platform.

Bottom line is this. If you want to learn a bit about how OS's work Linux is a great learning tool. If you want to run a network with multiple services very cheaply (assuming you know what you are doing) Linux is the way to go. On the other hand, if you want to do most anything with little to no problems, then you should stick with Windows.

[Andrew]

Except you have to pay for windows ;)

For basic things like web browsing, email, IM, word processing, etc, there is nothing wrong with Linux. And once you figure it out, you can do other things with it.

Only reason I can see people not considering Linux is because some software people are required to use do not work on Linux.

Examples of two pieces of software on my computer that I'm required to use, but AFIAK, don't work on Linux are:

AGExpert Analyst

SST Summit Plus

Both are farm software. And boy are they expensive ($400 and $900 CAD respectively).

[erjin999]

Farm as in...mooooo, oink oink, cluck cluck farm ?  :)

[Andrew]

Yes. :)

We have cattle, grain, and potatoes.

[number6]

Except you have to pay for windows ;)

For basic things like web browsing, email, IM, word processing, etc, there is nothing wrong with Linux. And once you figure it out, you can do other things with it.

Only reason I can see people not considering Linux is because some software people are required to use do not work on Linux.

Examples of two pieces of software on my computer that I'm required to use, but AFIAK, don't work on Linux are:

AGExpert Analyst

SST Summit Plus

Both are farm software. And boy are they expensive ($400 and $900 CAD respectively).

Time is money to some people. The majority of the people in the world, ie the general consumer, would prefer something to work out of the box rather than figure it out. Until Linux becomes as easy to install/setup as Windows I don't see anything changing anytime soon. Also, there are a lot more programs available on Windows than Linux that is a plain fact. You may not be aware of everything that is out there, but rest assured there is a tremendous amount of special purpose software out there that only runs on Windows.

I for one use Windows more than Linux because it is more convenient to use. I could probably get Linux to do everything I need it to do, but it would be a lot more time to setup and I value my free time more than ever. I do use Linux, but only as a secondary OS and I don't see that changing in the future.

[erjin999]

Cant linux run all those Unix programs ? In which case it has a lot moe then you realise, software wise.  :-X

[gryphon]

Cant linux run all those Unix programs ? In which case it has a lot moe then you realise, software wise.  :-X

Tecnically, or according to the support guys ;) they are not compatible. In real life though I never found anything from UNIX which doesn't have either a Linux port or counterpart.

Only real thing I lack in Linux is enterprise class financing software.

[stefanhendriks]

Personally i would stick with windows; as i use MSVC 6.x which works so fine to code. (better then any alternative i tried). It does its job. I can play the newest games (though i'd rather code) and don't have to worry about new hardware to be installed.

I understand Linux has pretty good alternatives, though for the common home-end user it is not worth the trouble. Thinking about its social environment, its not handy to have a linux system when you are with fellow-students distributing your power-point presentation. I know, you would probably say "there is a compatible Open Office or <insert alternative> out there", but you will always see at the moment of truth it fails. And when it fails, you have no clue what to do (in Linux).

I also think, its just because Windows is always distributed with computers; people will think "What the heck, it does its job, why switch".

For the computer-geeks, yes, they  will probably have a multi-os system :) I'd like to do one day a : Linux / Win 98 / Win XP system, so i can test my programs on all the os's. But for now, its not the time yet, i'd need to backup everything in case i mess up ;) (which i am good at ).

[erjin999]

Thinking about its social environment, its not handy to have a linux system when you are with fellow-students distributing your power-point presentation. I know, you would probably say "there is a compatible Open Office or <insert alternative> out there", but you will always see at the moment of truth it fails. And when it fails, you have no clue what to do (in Linux).

Which is exactly why there should be an open document format, funnily enough, something that is being done. With such a format, files can be moved between competitors apps, so no one is tied in to a particular vendor. Consumer choice, buy what you want, not what you have to (my friends hand out powerpoint presentations which work only on powerpoint).

Might happen one day.

[Andrew]

Xgl en Ubuntu Dapper

Cool video of what I assume XGL can do on Ubuntu Dapper (which is being final released first of June!). Very cool on last 1/2 of video. Only a couple min long.

I'd want to try that out :P. Good idea for multi desktops (I know linux already has multi desktops, but the way this shows them is awesome)

[gryphon]

If you like that you might wan'na check out the 3D desktop environment for Linux.

Both released last year just not for Ubunto at that time unless you could compile them yourselfs ;)

personally I prefer the "old-fashioned" virtual desktops. Which Windows also has if you download the powertoys for it.