Quote:
17 www.necsoft.com 220 1048 1092 1093 BSD/OS Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.2 mod_perl/1.26 mod_throttle/3.1.2 NEC Soft,Ltd.

It's not Linux, yet Redhat makes it and it says linux as part of the title??

Why I Like Windows and Dislike Linux

Because my computer is a tool, not a hobby. For many people Linux is like hotrodding or tuner car culture. Me, I only need customization to maximize my comfort and productivity.


Why I Think Linux is a Critical Development

I believe all proprietary software innovation trickles down to open source, where it is stored and becomes an accessible ingredient in the next generation of (proprietary) innovation and (open source) reimplementation. I do not hold that innovation only occurs in proprietary software development, but I do argue that I have no seen innovation in open source as yet.


Why I Believe Every Computer Scientist and Programmer Should Know Linux

Knowledge is power, and exposure to a wide range of codifications of alternative approaches to solving a set of problems sharpens one's own intellect. Use Windows, use Linux, use BSD, use OS X. Know them and identify the best aspects of each of them at a more than superficial layer. Understand the reasoning behind their design, and let it inform your own design decisions.


My Problem with the Windows/Linux "Debate"

It is not a binary opposition. It should not be an ideological decision. Operating systems are tools, and tools are worth paying for. If Linux meets all of your needs, including your productivity requirements, then feel free to use it exclusively. Enough with the "campaigning" and "advocacy." Stop telling us you "can't see why anyone would use anything else." Above all, stop spreading FUD to advance your position - the very tactic Microsoft is often accused of. Linux isn't "better" than Windows by any measurable metric as yet. To conduct that comparison, you need to eliminate as many external factors as possible - for starters, ensure that both machines are as similarly configured as possible, running as much of the same software as possible, etc.

Pick an OS and get some work done.



@Ivyn:
Try it out. There are a lot of wonderful design elements drawn from the rich history of Unix which will even help you understand Windows better! One of the interesting characteristics of Windows is that because the default configuration is quite usable, few people bother to truly learn how to configure, tweak and customize Windows. Linux, for generations unusable "out of the box," necessitated precisely the opposite, which ended up teaching its users quite a lot as part of the process. Try it and use it, like the AP on page 2 said. Even if you decide that Windows works better for you, you'll have gained a lot from the experience.

Quote: Original post by eedok

Quote:
17 www.necsoft.com 220 1048 1092 1093 BSD/OS Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) (Red-Hat/Linux) mod_ssl/2.8.12 OpenSSL/0.9.6b DAV/1.0.2 mod_perl/1.26 mod_throttle/3.1.2 NEC Soft,Ltd.

It's not Linux, yet Redhat makes it and it says linux as part of the title??

Many popular ports of Linux software are ported to FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and BSD/OS by running them as an emulated Linux binary instead of a native BSD binary. This, of course, requires access to the Linux libraries and in most cases the libraries used are the Red Hat libraries.

Hi!

I like Linux alot. The first time I touched it was with Corel Linux, somewhere in the late 1990's, don't remember exactly. 2000 I installed SuSE (don't remember the version), in 2003 RedHat and half a year later Mandrake, 2004 Debian and shortly after that Gentoo, which I still use. I still have Windows XP installed, but the last time I booted it was about three months ago. The only thing I need Windows for is games, and since I pretty much stopped playing them, this doesn't matter. I play a little Quake III every once in awhile, but it runs perfectly on Linux, even faster than on Windows.

There are, of course, a few things that Linux still lacks, a complete and powerful API, to name one (yes, I know Emacs; yes, I know KDevelop/Anjuta...). But still, I feel that I miss absolutely nothing about Windows. As for stability, both Windows and Linux can be administrated good or bad, but IMHO Unix is more suited for server systems. User-friendlyness: I like my GNOME desktop far more than I like Windows, although this is probably a matter of simply being used to it.

So, anyways. Get Linux, as other people suggested a Live CD to start with, try it. And when you're done, try it a little more. Get ready for problems, but don't give up too fast! :)

Good Luck!

@Oluseyi: I definitely agree with you, except for that I use Linux, of course! ;) I'm just sick and tired of those worthless Windows<-->Linux, Proprietory<-->Free, Gates<-->Stallman, Capitalism<-->Communism, Packers<-->Vikings, Foo<-->Bar flamewars. Windows always worked fine for me, and Linux does, too.

Cheers,
dra

I'm interested in Linux. In fact, I tried to install 'Red Hat' 5 years ago, but there was simple not enough documentation, or support to understand. Linux is just more technical than Windows.
But I think Linux will have its fair place besides Bill's Windows. I hope it will not become commercial and stuff.
Anyone has tried 'Zen Linux'? http://www.zenlinux.org

Quote: Original post by Oluseyi
Why I Think Linux is a Critical Development

I believe all proprietary software innovation trickles down to open source, where it is stored and becomes an accessible ingredient in the next generation of (proprietary) innovation and (open source) reimplementation. I do not hold that innovation only occurs in proprietary software development, but I do argue that I have no seen innovation in open source as yet.

I find BitTorrent a pretty innovative way of distributing large files. Granted it wasn't the first P2P program but it's totally different from other P2P apps. Another example of innovation is firefox's search functionality (no dialog which blocks the text you're searching). It's just plain untrue to say that there is no innovation in open source.

Quote: Original post by George2
It's just plain untrue to say that there is no innovation in open source.

And he did not say that, Oluysei said he did not see any. He just hasn't looked hard enough as you mention the bittorrent protocol (i think it's quite innovative compared to others), but I'm inclined to think that there have been many more proprietary innovations than open source ones.

About Linux in general: I had been trying out linux distros for some time but i just couldn't find something to make me happy (be as good as windows at least) until i tried MEPIS (Debian based, with KDE). I tell you KDE is one great piece of software and I've managed to customize it to feel very close to what i was used to on windows (in addition i get a whole bunch of features and nice looks). Provided Windows takes me around the same amount of time to customize (get rid of the search puppy some other things like that) I think I have a very useful, productive OS installed. I haven't used Windows in a week and I dont' feel the need to.

Sice it's a Debian distro you get "apt". Simply saying it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside [smile]. It installs software packages and dependencies very nicely and easily.

As for software you'll want:

KDE - the K desktop environment is user friendly and is very customizable. Plus, Konqueror is a nice file manager. I've previously used Gnome but I don't like it, it feels bulky and sluggish. KDE provides nice rendering of Gnome apps through the "GTK-QT theme engine". Konsole is a nice console app too.

OpenOffice is a pretty good office suite, imports word rather nicely (not perfect with complex documents) but is a little slow to load (i can live with it - 12 seconds).

XMMS - Winamp clone, skin support

aMSN - msn client, quite configurable to look nice

Firefox and thunderbird - of course.

Kate - a quite powerful editor, multiple files, integrated command shell. You can use it to make quick programs.

Synaptic or KPackage - installing / removing software has never been easier. Myself i use the command line "apt-get" half the time.

Armed with these applications, having configured the looks (i'm using ".NET" for buttons and plastik for window decorations , icons (i have a yellowish windows style theme) and with the last kernel installed, Linux is easy to work with.

However, i haven't done any hard-core wordprocessing in OpenOffice, just some quick tests of the features i'm looking for: interoperability with Draw (vector graphics), formula editing, table formatting, column formatting, in which Writer has performed well.

Also I haven't done any large scale programming in KDevelop the KDE IDE. in the past i've used Borland BuilderX which was quite slow on my computer. About KDevelop i dislike the fact it uses autotools :(.

From windows i miss: Automounting USB drives - this i need to configure to work, i haven't been successful yet, but i've done it to some limited extent in the past. Webcam support - usually the webcam companies are being asses and won't give any info on the protocols, but some webcams and scanners do work.



[Edited by - Ilici on April 3, 2005 11:32:59 AM]

I think that there are some places in with Linux is better than windows. A big one for me is startup time. I am running Windows XP with AIM and Apache Start-up programms, for my windows system and Mandrake 10.1 with Apache, ProFTP(I think), CVS, Kaffine, a animated backgroun( I forget what its called) and about 5 other eye candy programs as star-ups. Linux still boots alot faster that windows. Both systems boot to a user select/login then that users desktop. This drives me made when using windows.

Also my windows system will not boot if a USB drive is plugged in( Is this just me). The bootloader will come up but if I select windows I get the windows boot screen then a black screen and have to reboot. Linux happily boots and adds a USB drive icon to my desktop( It's not there if no drive plugged in) for me.

A Third point my Linux system seems to be more stable than my windows, that might be HP's fualt thought as they have made the worst windows install (on this system) that I have ever seen( All defualt software was installed for a single user and had to be reinstalled to work with multiple users).

Windows is better in some ways. It is more user friendly. Microsoft Office is better than Open Office, Not by much though especialy with 2.0. I use windows for games, much better than linux games. I also use for surffing the web. I would use witchever I was currently if not for ;( WinModem ;(. VIsual Studio 6.0 is the best IDE I have ever seen, I don't liike .NET. I wish VS6 would run on linux with GCC.

I think for casual or office work, or game programming, use windows. For OpenGL game programming and all other programming as well as servers use linux.

Quote: Original post by CyberSlag5k
EDIT: Disclaimer: I am only a beginner myself, so take the following with a grain of GNU-brand salt.

Quote: Original post by Ivyn
I'm thinking of trying it out. I'm using Windows XP now. I don't have any real problems with it, except it is a little memory intensive. At 256mb of ram I probably need a bit more anyhow. So I just want to give Linux a test drive out of curiosity basically. I just want a few opinions on the pros and cons of Windows vs Linux from those of you who use it. How stable is it and how memory intensive vs Windows?

In a word: awsome. If you're a serious tech guy (or girl) and have the patience to learn, you can do soooo much with Linux. And not only is it all entirely free, but it is supported by people like you and I. Since everything is open source, you can rebuild parts of programs with the features/functionality you want. Then, you can send in your changes and, if they're good, they'll most likely find their way into the next version of the software. Keep an XP box up for a few months for those situations where you absolutely must get something done and you know you can do it in windows, but in no time at all you'll be wondering why anyone would ever use anything else ever again.

Quote:
Also, what's the best version of Linux to start with? I had no idea there were so many and I have no idea where to start. What's the big difference between them? If I decide to go for it I'll be using it for all the usual: word processing, browing the web, graphics, programming, and a bit of gaming.

To start you should probably do as smart_idiot said and try KNOPPIX or one of the other CD bootable distros, just to play around in. If you like it, move on to Red Hat, Mandrake, or Slackware. I haven't used the first two (but they're awfully mainstream and I hear pretty easy to learn on), but I started off with slackwhere. It's a distro that comes with tons of apps for you to paly around with, so you don't need to worry about finding new software (at least for a little while).

When you become a little more familiar, I'd suggest moving to Debian. Debian comes with a only few apps, but comes with an incredibly useful tool called apt-get. With apt-get, you do a simple search (apt-get search <keywords for the package you're trying to find>) and then type apt-get install <package name> and let apt-get do the rest. It will find the requested software, download it, and install it automatically. It is truly awsome. Some stuff, of course, you won't be able to apt-get (nVidia drivers, for example), but you can just grab those the old fashion way.

Welcome to the dark side!

seconded.

Gentoo custom compile from stage 1

AirSnort - is my love

Linux is great, in theory
but its a developer's nightmare!
Yes,yes, linux has standards and variety, but too much of a good thing makes a bad thing. You have too many things to worry about.
In W2K (better than XP) the system is split into several parts: Kernel, GDI/DirectX/OpenGL, Winsock, ..., but all in all 3 major components.
In Linux it becomes way too complicated: Kernel, X11, KDE, OpenGL, Alsa, Sockets, ..., I count 6 components

The way M$oft has been making its old good products obsolete, they'll soon dump w2k and force everone to upgrade to their shitty ass longhorn, I would love to begin programming for Linux. But it runs shivers through my body. Linux already has plenty of variety, what it needs now is a major cleanup, removing all those obsolete components and providing a grand unified lower level interface

"By dividing, you conquer", take some note from that, Linux is split up into thousands of small projects, each competing for their own standards: thats why Windows is so popular now.

My suggestion: computers have become more powerful, so dont be sad to bid farewell to the console, instead, replace it with a powerful and easy to use GUI