PDA

View Full Version : Why do you choose Ubuntu over Windows



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

SoundMachine
September 8th, 2006, 01:50 AM
Perhaps you aren't familiar with the "pro" version which is what I've used since v.2.0. http://www.cuteftp.com/cuteftppro/


It is still crap compared to a whole heap of programs that you can find in the repos, compared to Konqueror, well, it's just ridiculous to compare them since konqueror is so much more.

silver
September 8th, 2006, 02:01 AM
LOL, no.

Well, give me one example of that ever happening and i'll consider it.

(and this goes only for apps that are not being actively developed where no new replacement for them that is not backwards compatible exists).

I'll have to do some digging ;>)


I used to travel the EU to tell them about this new app working only on the new great OS win98 , another bloke were traveling introducing a Linux system with the same apps for measuring pellets, these days win98 is no longer supported, with any distro you could use the program i was selling, the users still support it and it's still being developed.

That is anecdotal i know, but it's how things work generally.

And I have no doubt that your experience is significantly greater than mine. Particularly as you deal with the EU where Linux is far more used. But I have to wonder about the support as I know that even RH has support limits on their OS.

SoundMachine
September 8th, 2006, 02:06 AM
I'll have to do some digging ;>)



And I have no doubt that your experience is significantly greater than mine. Particularly as you deal with the EU where Linux is far more used. But I have to wonder about the support as I know that even RH has support limits on their OS.

Actually, RHEL has a 5 year support on any given system but there is also a guarantee that the next upgrade is backwards compatible, that is more than you can say about MS, is it not?

silver
September 8th, 2006, 02:08 AM
It is still crap compared to a whole heap of programs that you can find in the repos, compared to Konqueror, well, it's just ridiculous to compare them since konqueror is so much more.

Gotta admit, you have my interests. I'm continuing to look into KDE Lite as well.

silver
September 8th, 2006, 02:20 AM
Actually, RHEL has a 5 year support on any given system but there is also a guarantee that the next upgrade is backwards compatible, that is more than you can say about MS, is it not?

Agreed that MS doesn't make that assurance but then they don't write the apps. But I can open Word documents in MS Word 2003 that I wrote in Word 95. Note that I _cannot_ use some of the games that were purchase in Y2K for use on Windows 2KPro on Windows XP SP2 as MS discontinued the license for the plugin that made it work. OTOH I can still use Agent 1.x ;>)

SoundMachine
September 8th, 2006, 02:20 AM
Gotta admit, you have my interests. I'm continuing to look into KDE Lite as well.

KDE rocks, it really does, it's a tad confusing until you figure it out but once you do you get one of those "aha-moments" and after that you can find what you are looking for in your sleep.

The key word is functionality, if it can be done at all, it can be done in KDE.

Take konqueror, it's the best browser i know of, it supports gestures, a search bar, ad filtering and tabs with all the options you need to download extensions for in FF, all out of the box, but it doesn't stop there, it works the same way as an FTP client or as a file manager, you can have two windows with files, one window with files and the other one with the file tree, one window with ftp (with tabs and the search) and one with your local directory tree or local files, either one with multiple tabs, search and gestures, you can open anything anywhere and use gestures or search either locally or on the net.

That is ONE part of KDE, then you have all the others, like Amarok, if you ever saw a music player you liked, well you'll like this one better, gestures? well it's global so..

You don't like the bloat of OpenOffice, well Koffice starts in under three seconds on my old computer, Konqueror starts in under one btw.

You like Mplayer, well here is Kmplayer, use xine, mplayer or gstreamer or whatever you choose, the plugin to konqueror is native, and yes, since it's global... you guessed it. ;)

Then there are apps like Kino, if you want to edit videos, if you want to cram an AVI onto an SVCD or DVD, Kino will do that, if you want to edit them, add subtitles and whatever, Kino will do that for you.

There is not ONE aspect you cannot tweak either, you have options from this to that, options you didn't even realize were possible, want to print something out but not right now, in a couple of hours since you'd wake your girlfriend otherwise, well you can do that in KDE, that option was removed from gnome to "keep it simple".

In short, KDE roxors my boxors.

darrenm
September 8th, 2006, 08:34 AM
Hmmm CuteFTP Pro - I used this for years on WinXP as my FTP program of choice (Well there wasnt really anything else semi-decent). All I wanted to do was transfer files, have it do everything for me with minimal messing and let me chmod a few files.

I went primarily onto Ubuntu and didnt like most of the ftp programs I found. Then I searched synaptic and found gftp. What an awesome program. Simple, just works, advanced features if you need them. Now whenever I use CuteFTP on any other WinXP machine I can't stand it. Rules don't work as you have set them up, its over-complicated in a lot of respects and you have to pay for it.

Silver if you haven't tried gftp yet, give it a proper trial.

pyros
September 8th, 2006, 09:01 AM
The only things I keep windows around for are shockwave (so I can read the platinum grit comic), and getAsfStream (so I can get my friday night fix of cartoons. I can't seem to get mplayer to stream them.) That's pretty much it.

I use (and love) Linux for philosophical and utilitarian reasons. I love to experiment and learn about systems, and I very quickly ran into deadends with windows; Either the information was unavailable, or it was non gratis.

Linux can do (almost^) everything that I want it to do and everything that I need it to do. I didn't have to buy it. I didn't have to steal it. It was there, and it fit.

I'd really like to see open standards for media streaming being commercially adopted so that I won't have to use windows for anything. Either way, I will never have vista, or any later version of windows installed on my pc's.

DoctorMO
September 8th, 2006, 09:08 AM
pyros are shockwave and asf streaming why you use Linux? (see thread topic)

the shockwave plugin for Linux is a bit slow on my computer and streaming is ok I've never come accross anything vlc/mplayer/xine wouldn't play with the right things installed.

silver
September 8th, 2006, 11:34 AM
.

Silver if you haven't tried gftp yet, give it a proper trial.

Thanks. It's definitely on my list of apps to check out. Note that I'm leaning towards Xubuntu. I suppose most of the Gnome apps will work in Xubuntu though, right ?

pufuwozu
September 8th, 2006, 11:35 AM
Thanks. It's definitely on my list of apps to check out. Note that I'm leaning towards Xubuntu. I suppose most of the Gnome apps will work in Xubuntu though, right ?

Yes, they will.

silver
September 8th, 2006, 01:58 PM
Yes, they will.

Thanks again. Hopefully my next post to this forum will be on a Xubuntu box ;>) Hmmmm, KDE and Gnome apps on XFCE. What a mixup !

ago
September 8th, 2006, 02:10 PM
Xubuntu is what I use, even on relatively fast machines. Almost everything can be run on it, including kde stuff (I am more in the gtk camp myself). Note that you can start gnome services like power-manager, network-applet, volume-manager... Some of those are quite useful for laptops (there are also other non-gnome alternatives). With xfapplet it will also be possible to use gnome applets. By the way if you install the xubuntu-desktop package (or if you use xubuntu liveCD), you will get XFCE + a bundle "light" apps that are a good match for Xfce.

akak8ty
September 8th, 2006, 08:00 PM
there are a lot... really

a few practical ones:
no viruses, adware, spyware... whatever all that is called
you don't need to reinstall, just keep upgrading. at least debian based distros such as ubuntu
stability. it just _is_ more stable.

and once you know more about linux, you'll realise that you can tweak it as you want it, customize it to your needs.

plus you don't support an unethical monopolistic company.

my suggestions if you play games: dual boot with windows (games) and ubuntu (everything else)
go here: ubuntuguide.org

Thats a good start...
...its like living in america and visiting Europe, and realizing things are different there, in many respects much nicer, far more choices, better education (I love the Ubuntu educational programs) greater accesibility to more places.
The "where do you want to go today" of msn left me wanting for more...especially after XPSP2...kind of like being here, and being wire tapped, spied on- you get my point. Loss of benefit, etc yada yada.
M$N was the first to divulge public info when the illegal wire tapping/ request for individual browsing info was imposed.

I guess its preference as well. I'll take Linux and EU.

You can have windoze and US-{double negative deficit-warhappybloodforoil&noprivacy}-of A =D>

ronacc
September 9th, 2006, 12:30 AM
I can boil it down to 2 reasons linux does what I want it to, NO version of windows ever has . and most important I hate all things microsoft. The only reason I have an xp install is on my laptop because HP wont support it without xp , when the warranty is up in 3 months the xp partition gets wiped ( Ive only booted into it 3 0r 4 times in 9 mo's)

pyros
September 9th, 2006, 02:35 AM
the shockwave plugin for Linux is a bit slow on my computer and streaming is ok I've never come accross anything vlc/mplayer/xine wouldn't play with the right things installed.

I knew there was a flash plugin, but as far as I knew, the only way to get shockwave was to use wine and the windows version of firefox.

As far as streaming video, I can't get anything (mplayer, xine, gstreamer) to play the mms streaming wmv files from http://www.adultswim.com/adultswimfix/

nu2this
September 9th, 2006, 08:02 AM
I use linux because as I learn more about it I find that it is customizible and legal to do so.If I bork it, it's fixable, if I don't know,someone does. That someone can tell me without making me feel like a terrible person for messing with the code. Windows, well one can mess with the code,but it's illegal,if I bork it, its a restore or a new copy of Windows.
The only reasons I keep it for now I have a printer(Lexmark)that only does windows,the 2 pages I use that absolutely must have windows,& as a backup for when I bork my Ubuntu really bad.

.t.
September 9th, 2006, 11:03 AM
I do not have XP, but did once. I switched, and wrote about why. For me, it was mainly ethical:

Why are you selling your liberty? (http://tibsplace.co.uk/essays/Free Software Essay.xhtml)
So why shouldn't I buy an iPod? (http://tibsplace.co.uk/essays/So why shouldn't I buy an iPod.xhtml)

ReiKn
September 9th, 2006, 07:50 PM
So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

I just used my fresh windows xp installation for the first time in about a year.. The things I instantly missed from linux were mostly usability issues:

- I use virtual desktops continously (and the xp powertools implementation of them isn't really good)
- other small window manager things like option to put "always on top" to any window I like, switching from application to another just by rolling the mouse wheel while over the bottom panel
- package management way of installing programs (i'm so bored with clicking through install wizards and cluttering my desktop with installation packages and removing them)
- Already now the start menu begins to be cluttered
- I can't modify the theme well without external program to do it
- With linux i don't have to install so many drivers to get things working
- almost no reboots needed (just installing motherboard drivers needed 6 reboots today with the xp, 11 total with everything else)

My reason to switch to linux about two years ago was purely out of interest - i never had any security problems with windows. Then the usability and easy customization of linux won me over.

naes341
September 9th, 2006, 10:36 PM
My main reasons are two. First, Im tired of digging around for software that allows me to use my media as I see fit. Its a pain ripping and burning with windows, unless you pay up. Im tired of not being able to join video files without using buggy *** software. Second. My laptop runs better, and faster with ubuntu. Until brother bill gets his stuff together, ubuntu will continue to be my best buddy.

curtisf14
September 9th, 2006, 10:54 PM
I'm a college student who is interested in writing software for a living, so I know that Linux is simply a better environment for developing software (nice Unix utils, no need to install Cygwin, etc). Therefore I wanted to get used to using Linux for the future. Also, it runs faster, is more customizable, has excellent software installation tools (like apt-get), and it's free (as in beer and speech). Although driver support is not as good as it is with Windows yet, I think as Linux gains a stronger foothold in the personal computer market, companies will spend more time developing better drivers for Linux.

The more I learn about what you can do with Linux, the more I realize how little I knew what I could do with my computer while using Windows!

SoundMachine
September 10th, 2006, 01:01 AM
Silver is one of the coolest cats around, he's ready to try whatever will work without being a zealot, i like that.

Silver, take care and if you run into anything, just PM me. Stay cool big guy.

matchstich
September 10th, 2006, 11:11 AM
i had xp pro. found out about ubuntu. got the disk. wiped out xp pro. it is gone forever.
having fun. learning the os and all. still cant get my printer to work.
i'm thinking i wont go back to windows on this machine. it has never been so fast. this system is really old. i do have security stuff installed. http://www.ubuntuforums.org/images/smilies/frown.gif

xp was ok. cept with all the flaws. i got real tired of the fix's from ms breaking the os. and then having to wait for a fix to fix the broken fix.

Bafflerog Rumplewhisker
September 10th, 2006, 12:06 PM
Alright, after taking me a week of casual reading to get through ALL of this thread ( amazingly interesting, really ) I think I'm ready to contribute my bit ...

First of all, I've always considered myself as a Windows "power-user", whatever that means. I was brought up in the era of MS-DOS and I've used every single flavour of Windows starting from 3.1 and going up to XP Home/Pro. I've never used 2003 Server. I've always disliked how Windows work ( the fragile registry, the amateur filesystem, the way they handle critical files, the inability to actually INSTALL and UNINSTALL things seamlessly, the inherent instability, vulnerability etc. ... the list goes on and on ... )

I've used XP since day 1 ( official release, I stay away from beta versions in general, Windows have enough problems in final as it is ... ) and I can safely say that it was in fact the most stable and powerful Windows platform ever.

Lots of advantages over Windows 2000, some disadvantages as well ( REMOTE DESKTOP and SYSTEM RESTORE?! I mean, I'm sure they put THOSE in just to see if we can get the joke ... ).

But it suffers, like all Windows suffer.

In total, I must have invested over 6,000 hours of work on XP. I use them almost on a daily basis, I've installed and configured them over 100 times for me, for clients, for friends, I've attended seminars, conferences, I've read manuals, I've haunted tech sites ...

... and I still can't get them to work 100% like I want them to. I feel like they somehow OWN ME, instead of me OWNING THEM.

There's no reason to state again what everyone else has said on this thread. Just this one more thing:

The more I learn about the inner workings of Windows, the MORE I have to do to feel safe.

The more I learn about the inner working of Ubuntu, the LESS I have to do to feel safe. Not that I felt unsafe with Ubuntu in the first place.

The same rule of thumb goes for customization, maintenance, everything.

Windows need a baby sitter and constant care. Linux just needs a bit of love. :)

That's it for me. I'm fed up with the tweaks, the patches, the updates, having to keep up with all the latest threats and exploits, the AVs, the firewalls, the defrags, the wipes. I just CAN'T DO IT, NOT ONCE, EVER AGAIN!

Windows has clearly made me paranoid, probably caused a lot of psychological stress as well. If I lived in the U.S. I guess I could probably sue Micro$oft for this. :P

Well, it was a long rant. But I had to get it out of my system. Get it? OUT OF MY SYSTEM. HA HA ha. Ha.

glenndavy
September 10th, 2006, 02:00 PM
ive been using microsoft operating systems spanning more machines than I can ever remember since dos 2.1 - shelled over $$ time after time - for what? - I'd dont think a single one has just ran the term of its natural life without having to 'format and re-install' over and over - even as recently as last week my Xp machine at work ( not allowed linux there) just corrupted its file system, or at least some of the drivers on it (mup.sys this time - then theres the ol fav ntldr thing) - I've been using linux since 96, again on several machines - how many times have i had to re-install because the filesystem **** itself - none, never, nadah. no more bsod, rebooting because applications get unresponsive, re-installing because some driver or the file system gets corrupt, or virus issues or... or... or....

Granted XP is a vast improvement on its predecssors, but really come on - IT'S 2006!!! - you think they'd kind of have it together by now - I got my first XT 20(ish?) years ago - and when im using ms operating systems Im still dealing with essentially the same frustrations and garbage I was then

answer your question?

clapper65
September 10th, 2006, 04:44 PM
Maybe the questio:confused: :confused: n should be, if you use Linux for free, why pay hundreds of dollars for XP? I know there are dis-honest ways to acquire XP without paying for it, and MS-Office etc, etc., but I try to be an honest person. Linux, in general (Ubuntu specifically), is stable, free, runs apps. that do what I want to do. Why not use Linux?

akak8ty
September 10th, 2006, 08:28 PM
/ignore

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> LOVE that ignore and the FREEDOM to tune out pretentious people who need to get over their egomanical inferiority complexes.
Gosh, I've studied many languages and been to many countries...(So what???)

and glenndavy thanks for the blast to the past to the days of dos.
I remember them well. I think back in those days the legal genre was floating in real estate (law changes themes in popularity with the issues du jour) I left just before the downfall of corporate bankruptcy, mind you its still there...hehe BUT I AM NOT. THAT is a beautiful thing. Dos....LOL. I must have prepared a thousand deeds in dos. My how times have changed. (and quite literally at that...

I had an accident-> many spinal injuries, (just short of a full spinal fusion which won't help anyhow) then a stroke, a heart attack, a bout with cancer AND a tumor removed from my head and here I am mostly self teaching myself a new computer language.

It doesn't get any better than...no wait, I still live in the states, when I am able to leave the states then I will be able to say it doesn't get any better than this.

In being disabled, I discovered the concept of dropping the "dis" and focusing on what I can do. Ubuntu can do.

So anyone who is learning as I am, take pride in doing what your doing. Working hard for something makes the reward
that much better, accomplishing it with grace and humility is priceless. Then give it back by sharing it with others, as you would have had it shared with you (even if it didn't happen that way) moves mountains.
8)
I'll bet I haven't had more than 10 hours sleep all week- is it showing yet? :p

akak8ty
September 10th, 2006, 08:36 PM
Alright, after taking me a week of casual reading to get through ALL of this thread ( amazingly interesting, really ) I think I'm ready to contribute my bit ...

First of all, I've always considered myself as a Windows "power-user", whatever that means. I was brought up in the era of MS-DOS and I've used every single flavour of Windows starting from 3.1 and going up to XP Home/Pro. I've never used 2003 Server. I've always disliked how Windows work ( the fragile registry, the amateur filesystem, the way they handle critical files, the inability to actually INSTALL and UNINSTALL things seamlessly, the inherent instability, vulnerability etc. ... the list goes on and on ... )

I've used XP since day 1 ( official release, I stay away from beta versions in general, Windows have enough problems in final as it is ... ) and I can safely say that it was in fact the most stable and powerful Windows platform ever.

Lots of advantages over Windows 2000, some disadvantages as well ( REMOTE DESKTOP and SYSTEM RESTORE?! I mean, I'm sure they put THOSE in just to see if we can get the joke ... ).

But it suffers, like all Windows suffer.

In total, I must have invested over 6,000 hours of work on XP. I use them almost on a daily basis, I've installed and configured them over 100 times for me, for clients, for friends, I've attended seminars, conferences, I've read manuals, I've haunted tech sites ...

... and I still can't get them to work 100% like I want them to. I feel like they somehow OWN ME, instead of me OWNING THEM.

There's no reason to state again what everyone else has said on this thread. Just this one more thing:

The more I learn about the inner workings of Windows, the MORE I have to do to feel safe.

The more I learn about the inner working of Ubuntu, the LESS I have to do to feel safe. Not that I felt unsafe with Ubuntu in the first place.

The same rule of thumb goes for customization, maintenance, everything.

Windows need a baby sitter and constant care. Linux just needs a bit of love. :)

That's it for me. I'm fed up with the tweaks, the patches, the updates, having to keep up with all the latest threats and exploits, the AVs, the firewalls, the defrags, the wipes. I just CAN'T DO IT, NOT ONCE, EVER AGAIN!

Windows has clearly made me paranoid, probably caused a lot of psychological stress as well. If I lived in the U.S. I guess I could probably sue Micro$oft for this. :P

Well, it was a long rant. But I had to get it out of my system. Get it? OUT OF MY SYSTEM. HA HA ha. Ha.

TRES AMUSANT!!! "especially The more I learn about the inner workings of Windows, the MORE I have to do to feel safe."
do you know how many firewalls I had on windows xp...LMAO.


Thank you for contributing and making me laugh! Loved it!

ps:
I DO live in the states, but I don't want to sue microsoft.
(I've had a few setbacks in my expat. status)
I've crashed my machine on purpose quite a few times removing each little layer of the convoluted system.

I do however want those menace's to society Curious George Duh-bya and his VP Dr. Evil-votefortorture, locked up, and probably sentenced to capital punishment for war crimes.
Hey- I have a Geneva Convention card valid through 2009.
whipty friggin do.
SORRY no more politics ;)

erusan
September 10th, 2006, 10:10 PM
I find things a lot of things just plain work better in Ubuntu than in Windows.

In Windows, with my expensive sound card, audio input device, and Cubase software, I can't even get audio to run without being full of static, having hundreds of "clicks" in the background, etc. In Ubuntu, my hardware is detected without the need for any configuration on my part, and it records perfectly. The software I use for free (Rosegarden4, Audacity, Ardour, etc) is, quite frankly, inferior to Cubase, but it is free, and I miss Cubase on Windows only a little bit.

My tv card works without anything configuration. There is no lag in Ubuntu like there is in Windows, and no need for an external audio cable as there is in Windows.

There are plenty of ups and downs with both operating systems, and I'm by no means trying to say Ubuntu is necessarily better. I have more power and more freedom with Ubuntu than I ever had in Windows. It does what I need it to do, and when it doesn't, I can 1) make it work if I have time to poke around, or 2) simply boot into my Windows drive.

Summary:

Just plain works better, giving me more power and freedom than Windows.

ISPGUY_01
September 11th, 2006, 01:06 AM
I use to have Mandrake. That was a Hard OS to learn. Not user friendly at all. Then a friend of mine turned me on to Ubuntu and I love it.
Ubuntu 6.06 is nice. I bought a book on how to use the OS and I read and learn a bit each day.Once I can get You Tube and my IPOD to work on here I'll never really have to log back into windows again.

silver
September 11th, 2006, 02:08 AM
My main reasons are two. First, Im tired of digging around for software that allows me to use my media as I see fit. Its a pain ripping and burning with windows, unless you pay up. Im tired of not being able to join video files without using buggy *** software. Second. My laptop runs better, and faster with ubuntu. Until brother bill gets his stuff together, ubuntu will continue to be my best buddy.

Pay for what ? Windows Media Player (not my personal choice by any stretch, but ... !) has both CD ripping and burning capabilities. Unless something has changed recently, it's still included in the OS just as Lookout Express is. As to which is running better, one would have to ask why was your OS running poorly anyway. Usually the answer is spyware/crapware from the OEM or browsing sites that host such crap.

silver
September 11th, 2006, 02:11 AM
I use to have Mandrake. That was a Hard OS to learn. Not user friendly at all. Then a friend of mine turned me on to Ubuntu and I love it.
Ubuntu 6.06 is nice. I bought a book on how to use the OS and I read and learn a bit each day.Once I can get You Tube and my IPOD to work on here I'll never really have to log back into windows again.

Mandrake = Hard to learn ? !!! Mandrake has been called the Windows 98 of Linux for it's ease of use !

silver
September 11th, 2006, 02:14 AM
I'm a college student who is interested in writing software for a living, so I know that Linux is simply a better environment for developing software (nice Unix utils, no need to install Cygwin, etc).

Then you have better be studying C#. ???? Is that supported in Linux ?


The more I learn about what you can do with Linux, the more I realize how little I knew what I could do with my computer while using Windows!

Hmmm, why doesn't this surprise me ?

cstudent
September 11th, 2006, 02:24 AM
Then you have better be studying C#. ???? Is that supported in Linux ?

Yes it is. It's called Mono.

http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page

silver
September 11th, 2006, 02:32 AM
TRES AMUSANT!!! "especially The more I learn about the inner workings of Windows, the MORE I have to do to feel safe."
do you know how many firewalls I had on windows xp...LMAO.

Why would you have a firewall on Windows at all ? Just use a router .

silver
September 11th, 2006, 02:38 AM
Thanks again. Hopefully my next post to this forum will be on a Xubuntu box ;>) Hmmmm, KDE and Gnome apps on XFCE. What a mixup !

So it didn't work out quite like I planned but thankfully someone posted the commands needed to upgrade the ATI X600's video drive to fglrx and it's working. Very quick as well.Now I just need to contend with the dual-monitor issue and figure out which apps will work in Xubuntu.

mrgotea
September 11th, 2006, 12:15 PM
Cause all the cool kids are doing it!

Had a fine time at LinuxWorld and didn't even win anything.

DoctorMO
September 11th, 2006, 02:07 PM
Then you have better be studying C#. ???? Is that supported in Linux ?

Hell no, why would you learn a language that has dubious patents surounding it? and more fluff and guff than a rotten banana.

No thanks, I'll stick to C/C++ and the various scripting languages because at least then no one can claim to have ownership of the syntax or style my program is written in. and my programming skills arn't weakened by fluffy gui buttons which arn't always available.

djcaston
September 12th, 2006, 11:16 PM
Its
Way
More
Stable

Windows is as unstable as a 14 year old girl after a breakup

BLTicklemonster
September 13th, 2006, 12:47 AM
Mandrake = Hard to learn ? !!! Mandrake has been called the Windows 98 of Linux for it's ease of use !

lmao, by what, Linux people? You're kidding, right?

rufousfelix
September 13th, 2006, 12:49 AM
I had Windows XP on my new laptop for about 30 days (came preinstalled). I think I gave Windows XP a fair trial (I was coming from a 100% BeOS environment for 4+ years).

I found my favorite program for getting work done was OpenOffice Writer (I much prefer this to MS Word). Well, OOWriter has roots in the Open Source movement and works just as well with linux/ubuntu.

The other program I liked in Windows was AVG free edition antivirus. Every morning it automatically dialled up servers and updated and supposedly protected my PC from malware (or at least that was the illusion). What can I say about an OS when one of your best programs is an antivirus? That about sums up the mental energy and maintenance costs of keeping a Windows XP installation reasonably safe (unless one wants to forgo connecting to the Internet).

So after 30 days, with so little to give up--really--I switched 100% to unbuntu linux (both old and new laptops). I haven't thought about Windows XP since, except at work (but even there my employer is beginning to deploy 2,000+ linux-based thin clients ... ).

silver
September 13th, 2006, 01:08 AM
lmao, by what, Linux people? You're kidding, right?

Actually that was from one of the comp.os.linux group. I didn't make the statement although it relfects my opinion as well as several others apparently. While many didn't care for Windows 98 and preferred NT instead, you have to give the Devil his due, it was extremely successful for what it was.

Stew2
September 13th, 2006, 02:00 AM
I wanted to burn some data files onto a CD for a friend. Tried using XP with Nero... for some reason it would not burn the files, install is about 2 years old and is starting to get a little flaky :) , switched over to Dapper and burnt the CD with no problems whatsoever :D . Thats why I use linux even though I have XP. I think when the time comes, I will just format my XP partition to ext3 for ubuntu rather than reinstall XP :biggrin:

Regards,
Stew2

Josey
September 13th, 2006, 02:43 AM
I've been using linux for three days now and the main reason I will stay with linux is becuse now that I'm using it the anti-user policies of MS are very apparent.

ISPGUY_01
September 13th, 2006, 03:47 AM
:D I love Linux but anytime I try to go to you tube, Firefox will not play any viedos. IN addition the musci on my multi-player game "Runescape" will not play either. Very slowly I am moveing away from Windows and more to Linux. When I can use all my Apps like I do in windows I will log off windows forever. Untill then I still use it because I don't have to dig to fix problems.

silver
September 13th, 2006, 04:04 AM
I've been using linux for three days now and the main reason I will stay with linux is becuse now that I'm using it the anti-user policies of MS are very apparent.

Hmmmm, such as .... ? Anti-user ! That's pretty funny ! It reminds me of a .sig of one poster to rec.photo.darkroom that exclained that Linux is "user hostile" :D

silver
September 13th, 2006, 04:06 AM
lmao, by what, Linux people? You're kidding, right?

In comp.os.linux ? Obviously you don't know anything about the USENET !

BrokeBody
September 13th, 2006, 04:17 AM
So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

Freedom to use your computer.

silver
September 13th, 2006, 04:19 AM
Freedom to use your computer.

You mean the freedom to keep working on it to fix all of the bugs, right ?

Christopher Cook
September 13th, 2006, 05:47 AM
Main reason = NO VIRUSES

Reshin
September 13th, 2006, 12:54 PM
Freedom to use your computer.

Could you explain this one? How is XP restraining your computer usage?

BrokeBody
September 13th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Could you explain this one? How is XP restraining your computer usage?

http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=179597

Reshin
September 13th, 2006, 01:49 PM
http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=179597

Oh, right. Free(beer) stuff. Got it.

BrokeBody
September 13th, 2006, 01:51 PM
Oh, right. Free(beer) stuff. Got it.

NO YOU STUPID! YOU DON'T GET IT!:mad: ](*,) [-( :evil:

What free(beer) has to do anything with the freedom of using your computer?!?

This is so sad...:(

BLTicklemonster
September 13th, 2006, 02:47 PM
NO YOU STUPID! YOU DON'T GET IT!:mad: ](*,) [-( :evil:

What free(beer) has to do anything with the freedom of using your computer?!?

This is so sad...:(

I think that if it made any sense, it would be less sad. I'm free to use my computer. Do you mean free to get in and alter and tweak open source stuff as you see fit-free?

CupofDice
September 13th, 2006, 05:27 PM
I got tired of running all of those 'security' programs in the background. McAfee kept telling me it wasn't working (only to work after a few restarts) and finding cracks for Spyware Doctor. Not to mention once having a phantom keylogger. Also Explorer has started crashing on me when I open My Documents (when I clicked on a folder or closed MyD), and the whole thing takes too long to start up, and even longer to shut down (that is when it does shutdown). I just got comcast cable (con artist they are), so I was pretty happy when Ubuntu was already connected to the net and also gave me higher speed (over 1 mb) (instead of the top 180 KB download) I had on XP. Plus everything just looks better. :D

BrokeBody
September 13th, 2006, 05:52 PM
I think that if it made any sense, it would be less sad. I'm free to use my computer. Do you mean free to get in and alter and tweak open source stuff as you see fit-free?

Microsoft indirectly (most of the time) is telling you what you may and what you may not do (EULA) with your computer (under Windows).

I'm very uncomfortable to remind us all:

"The Ubuntu (any Linux actualy) distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world."

And why? - FSF, Community...

Something like that Microsoft will never have.

You can not remove IE from the Windows system (maybe a few people can, but it is integrated very good) and did you know that Firefox would work even better under Windows if there wold be no IE?!? And so on, and so forth...

Oh yeah, one more time. Read the EULA - "You may not to this, you may not do that, bla bla bla...

Well screw them!

Reshin
September 13th, 2006, 06:08 PM
Microsoft indirectly (most of the time) is telling you what you may and what you may not do (EULA) with your computer (under Windows).

I'm very uncomfortable to remind us all:

"The Ubuntu (any Linux actualy) distribution brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the software world."

And why? - FSF, Community...

Something like that Microsoft will never have.

You can not remove IE from the Windows system (maybe a few people can, but it is integrated very good) and did you know that Firefox would work even better under Windows if there wold be no IE?!? And so on, and so forth...

Oh yeah, one more time. Read the EULA - "You may not to this, you may not do that, bla bla bla...

Well screw them!

What? For all I know, those aren't binding in any way anywhere but in US, maybe not even there in any way.... At least in Finland, only restriction is that you gotta have a legal licence.

BrokeBody
September 13th, 2006, 06:25 PM
What? For all I know, those aren't binding in any way anywhere but in US, maybe not even there in any way.... At least in Finland, only restriction is that you gotta have a legal licence.

The IE stuff was just some stupid example and dude , you haven't read those (EULA).

Here's something more...

http://www.arcon5.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=22

And you need a legal licence everywhere, not just in Finland. lol

ivan.cukic
September 13th, 2006, 06:44 PM
First I need to reply to the question of the thread:
I use GNU/Linux because it is the easiest way to remove the (preinstalled) Windows from the computer - it works every time.

-----
As far as the EULAs are concerned, you have to obey the rules in EULA unless the EULA collides with the law of your country which is a rear occasion. You are required to accept the License (and therefore obey it), because it is the only thing that grants you the right to use the software.

Reshin
September 13th, 2006, 07:10 PM
The IE stuff was just some stupid example and dude , you haven't read those (EULA).

Here's something more...

http://www.arcon5.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=22

And you need a legal licence everywhere, not just in Finland. lol

Dude, I know... ](*,)

What I meant was under finnish law, even if you break the EULA and MS actually cares, they can't do anything about it.

Demio
September 13th, 2006, 07:18 PM
Yea, under Finnish law and in most European countries, EULAS and whatnots are not binding legal contracts and can't be enforceable by law.

God bless the EU. :D

Reshin
September 13th, 2006, 07:35 PM
Talking about legality and morality....

How many of you installed MP3-support or libdvdcss althought one of them or both are illegal in your country?

aysiu
September 13th, 2006, 07:43 PM
It seems, based on this poll (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=231508), that a good number of Ubuntu users install libdvdcss2, even if it's illegal in their respective countries.

MP3 support, as far as I know, is not illegal to install yourself. If Ubuntu wanted to distribute MP3 support, though, they would need to pay licensing fees.

bcollignon
September 14th, 2006, 03:35 AM
I'm new to Ubuntu and Linux, after having tried Fedora many years ago. Unfairly, I was trying to run it on a machine with several other OSes at the time and had very little HD space to spare. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is quite impressive, even if it doesn't have the luxury of being an OS which dominates the consumer market. It's long overdue, as far as I'm concerned. I give it high marks for ease of use for most Linux systems and great stability. To prove I'm new to all of it; I didn't even know you didn't have to defragment a Linux drive. I love it! There's an explanation as to why somewhere, but it's just an efficiency thing from what I understand. I love Ubuntu, if for no other reason, because I don't have to listen to my hard drive thrash about. I haven't abandoned Windows, by any means, but several hundred dollars for an OS which is basically beta forever is ridiculous.

christxr
September 14th, 2006, 04:01 AM
The only reason I keep Windows is for Quickbooks/Customer Manager and because my biz is Windows/hardware support for windoze noobs (including my wife who reboots my Ubuntu to winxp everytime I turn around). Otherwise there is always a better alternative in Linux (except for gaming but that's coming along as well).

Rhapsody
September 14th, 2006, 06:06 AM
I've dumped Windows XP (and Windows itself) in favour of Ubuntu. Here's my reasons:

Ubuntu is free software (in both senses).
The Linux architecture is just better than the Windows architecture.
There are very few viruses for Linux.
Ubuntu (and other Linux distros) does several things (take a bow apt-get) better than Windows does or probably ever will.

Reshin
September 14th, 2006, 07:22 AM
On a clearer afterthough, EULA indeed IS kinda limiting on non-EU countries. Sorry for unintended trolling/bashing/whatever.

Ice1532
September 14th, 2006, 11:43 PM
Im dual booting with windows xp right now but for the last month i havent used windows at all... ubuntu just "feels" better to me. im not that skilled on programing but each day i get better.
linux is an od that will teach you more about your computer. this is one of the reasons i switched. i only dual booted because at the time i couldnt conect to a wpa2 password for my internet but that was an easy fix. now im finding some games on linux and figuring out how to play windows games like half-life and some other big ones...

SoundMachine
September 15th, 2006, 02:04 AM
It seems, based on this poll (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=231508), that a good number of Ubuntu users install libdvdcss2, even if it's illegal in their respective countries.

MP3 support, as far as I know, is not illegal to install yourself. If Ubuntu wanted to distribute MP3 support, though, they would need to pay licensing fees.

Your understanding is correct. You cannot distribute it without the licence, but it is legal to have support for it. (IE, support it and the user, who may use it for his or her personal pleasuer may download support for it and install it.

Even discussion the workarounds is illegal in the US though, so let's move on.

sonicdrive
September 15th, 2006, 04:20 AM
well i cant wait till the day happens when i can play all my games in linux that is the only reason i still have windows on my main system or i would of switched perm along time ago

Wormsie
September 16th, 2006, 09:59 AM
Main reason: Linux is faster. I can use Linux for surfing the web, reading email, listening to music, updating my iPod, watching videos, chatting - anything I'd want to do on Windows, but I can do those things faster and on a desktop that looks nicer when compared to Windows.

The software is free. The tradeoff is that it isn't always as functional, but the good thing is that the software also gets fixed and improved for free - the source code is always available for someone wanting to do a quick hack in order to fix a problem - and you can participate in the development yourself (if you have the skills).

I can use Linux for gaming: as most games I play tend to be LucasArts classic adventure games, I can run them with ease using ScummVM (http://www.scummvm.org).

Linux so far hasn't done any damage to my hard drive, unlike Windows, which quickly fragments the hard drives and slows the computer down.

I have Windows installed as an emergency system and for resetting my iPod if needed. I haven't booted up Windows in ages. Windows is also handy if I ever want to play some of those old games of mine like Gabriel Knight III or Grim Fandango.

Reshin
September 16th, 2006, 10:02 AM
Your understanding is correct. You cannot distribute it without the licence, but it is legal to have support for it. (IE, support it and the user, who may use it for his or her personal pleasuer may download support for it and install it.

Even discussion the workarounds is illegal in the US though, so let's move on.

Hold on, doesn't that make automatix and easy ubuntu illegal?

Pumm4
September 16th, 2006, 08:26 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

First of all you must not judge Ubuntu as a whole "Linux world" because there are over 500+ different flavors/distributions to try - How many Operating Systems do you have available in Window$ world to choose?

If you really want to know what are the advantages of Open Source - there is a hudge list of pros wich never ends...

Don't get me wrong or anything, but this is my personal opinion on Windows users:
- simple minded
- kids
- ignorant poeple
- average users
...

I've moved to Free world because in Win everything was dying (from messenger to safe mode) and lost important data when doing important stuff for school... So why should I pay for OS that is a magnet for security issues, errors, viruses, spyware, trojans, bugs, adware, etc..

d3v1ant_0n3
September 16th, 2006, 09:09 PM
Without bothering to read 108 pages of thread, and so just answering the OP's question....

It's faster, MUCH faster on this machine than XP. Sitting here with 5 or 6 apps running, plus AIXGL/Compiz prettiness, and the machine is using less RAM than XP on it's own would.

It's prettier. Much prettier, and visually more customizable without installing 2 tns of 3rd party apps that eat up lots of memory and processor time. (Yes I'm talking to you Windowblinds 5 on a low end GPU)

It's FREE. In both senses. I don't have to worry about the $400 cost of a full flavour OS, plus the inevitable cost of upgrading all my apps when vista finally rolls out.

I don't have to feel like a pirate when running an OS that I own. I got bitten by the WGA thing, despite spending nearly $200 on a copy of WinXP. And incidentally, you don't actually OWN a copy of XP. They're letting you use it, and can remove that ability any time they see fit.

Compiz. Nuff said. Screw you, vista.

Reshin
September 16th, 2006, 09:56 PM
Don't get me wrong or anything, but this is my personal opinion on Windows users:
- simple minded
- kids
- ignorant poeple
- average users
...


Right and as a linux user you're well above all this, right....

Just god help those people who like it and have it working their way...

madcow72
September 16th, 2006, 10:08 PM
As a brand new Linux user (about 2-3 weeks old), I'd actually say that your comment for casual users is a great argument for using something like Ubuntu, not Windows. The average user only needs a box that will allow them to connect to the internet, write a document, and maybe watch a movie. With Ubuntu / Easy Ubuntu, all this is possible from a blank machine in about 20-30 minutes tops. (I used to re-install Windows every 6 months, and each install took ~3-4 hours to get the machine back up and running correctly.)

I do understand the need for Windows in the world right now, I'm not so much of an idealist that I think Linux is truly for everybody yet, but it's really getting to that point. And, in my opinion, for the average computer user, Ubuntu will do everything Windows will do, only faster and more securely.

Cope57
September 17th, 2006, 04:07 PM
First of all you must not judge Ubuntu as a whole "Linux world" because there are over 500+ different flavors/distributions to try - How many Operating Systems do you have available in Window$ world to choose?

Umm... Windows Vista to Ship in 33 Different Versions (http://cope57.wordpress.com/2006/04/08/windows-vista-to-ship-in-33-different-versions/)

seriously though a picture is worth a thousand words...
http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/7242/msvslinuxsig2sg.png

I use a small 14Gb partition from my 200Gb Hd for XP just so I can play America's Army.

d3v1ant_0n3
September 17th, 2006, 09:58 PM
Can't you play AA in Linux? I thought there was a version available?

BrokeBody
September 17th, 2006, 10:30 PM
Can't you play AA in Linux? I thought there was a version available?

There is. ;)

silver
September 18th, 2006, 02:20 PM
So for a little over a week now I've been tinkering with Xubuntu and here are a few basic conclusions.

1) Xubuntu is faster than XP but XP is faster than Ubuntu.
2) Xubuntu Linux is safer.
3) Windows XP is more stable.
4) Xubuntu costs a lot more once your time is included.
5) Windows XP is MUCH easier to configure.
6) Windows XP has much better (more capable) applications.
7) Xubuntu offers a higher level of diversity.

My system specs :

AMD64 3000+ Processor
EPoX EP-8NPASLI n-Force 4 motherboard
1GB GEIL DDR-SDRAM
160GB Seagate 7200.7 HDD
Lite-On SOHW-1633S DVD/RW drive
ATI X600 video card
Hercules Fortissimo II sound card
M-Audio Delta 2496 sound card
Dell E770s monitor
Dell 1028L monitor

So for now I'm leaving Xubuntu installed on it's own hard drive and when I have some time to kill I'll try to fix the pieces that don't work. In the meantime I have to get some work done so XP still gets the nod.

As to this thread, sorry to have upset so many applecarts. I truly understand your discontent with Microsoft but believe me, Linux is a long way from being user friendly enough and/or capable enough to be a replacement on the average workstation. At best it would be a good OS for the Ma-&-Pa types or third world countries that are using day-before yesterdays technology for mailstations. Having been around computers since 1980, I think I know a thing or two about them and one thing I know is that sometimes you have to stop working on them and start working with them. It's a tool.

elpuerco
September 18th, 2006, 03:31 PM
No sorry I must disagree here!

I was impatient at first when I installed Kubuntu and fired off comments about XP v Linux.

But I have been using it now for two weeks at home and can honestly say Kubuntu is way better than Windows XP. Yeak I know you are talking about Xubuntu, but they are all Ubuntu in the end.

One classic example is the ease of buring an ISO in Linux using K3B as opposed to the shambles I had to go through in XP.

My Kubuntu fires up in a blink of an eye and is ready to go whereas Windows results in my going off to make a cup of tea.

I have not as yet found anything I want to do for home use that I could not do on Windows. The only reason Windows is still in use is that this is a works laptop and the works corporate OS is Microsoft so I have no choice.

Where I can find an alternative program in Linux I use that. Where I can't find an alternative I use wine, so far on only 2 programs, however come tonight I believe this will be reduced to 1.

Based on the fact that you can have an entire OS complete with perfectly capable applications for home and office for absolutely fee free is F*****G fantastic in my books.

I am a full on Linux convert =D> =D> =D>

cybrid
September 18th, 2006, 05:12 PM
I totally agre with you (Elpuerco), Linux is free, windows isn't, that's enough arguing for me ;)

maniacmusician
September 18th, 2006, 05:16 PM
Yeak I know you are talking about Xubuntu, but they are all Ubuntu in the end.


Not true at all. The distros come in varying degrees of functionality...compared to Kubuntu or Ubuntu, Xubuntu is lacking in a few aspects.

Zingam
September 18th, 2006, 05:24 PM
If you are careful enough - adware, viruses etc. aren't that big deal on Windows. I have Ubuntu on my computer. I like it... but I don't use it.

There is no descent wireless support and almost nothig works out of the box.
I still have to see my that my soundcard works without any problems or when I plugin a joystick I can use it right away.

There is Soooooooo much more to wish about Linux as a normal desktop system!!! I can't see it happen in the next 5 years! And it would be nice but I belive choosing Unix as the base for a home/small business desktop system is just not that smart idea! This system is more hacker-friendly than user-friendly!

I have installed Linux for the first time in 1997 :o So I find it so funny that some people who have used Linux for 3 days praise it so enthusiastically. :biggrin:

aysiu
September 18th, 2006, 06:00 PM
Zingam, it sounds as if you're still believing the Linux desktop myth (http://www.psychocats.net/essays/linuxdesktopmyth)

elpuerco
September 18th, 2006, 06:04 PM
There is no descent wireless support and almost nothig works out of the box.
I still have to see my that my soundcard works without any problems or when I plugin a joystick I can use it right away.


Mmm my wireless adaptor worked first go with no trouble whatsoever

Mmm my install worked out of the box once I used alternate cd, I dont think the LiveCD install is that good as I have stated on other posts

I have no problem with network, sound or video. Well I had to adjust the video but I had to do that in Windows too

This is the first distro for me to work out of the box



I have installed Linux for the first time in 1997 So I find it so funny that some people who have used Linux for 3 days praise it so enthusiastically.

lol I have been trying Linux since 1989 and as stated this is the first distro that works for me for everyhing I want to do, faster than Windows.

So a little bit longer than 3 days:rolleyes:

Yes I am rusty but all the Linux ways of doing things are coming flooding back and to me personally it is worth it.

cstudent
September 18th, 2006, 06:11 PM
lol I have been trying Linux since 1989 and as stated this is the first distro that works for me for everyhing I want to do, faster than Windows.

You must have had a time machine.

http://www.linux.org/info/linux_timeline.html

elpuerco
September 18th, 2006, 06:49 PM
#-o 1998 #-o

Typo :-\"

silver
September 18th, 2006, 08:10 PM
Not true at all. The distros come in varying degrees of functionality...compared to Kubuntu or Ubuntu, Xubuntu is lacking in a few aspects.

While it might be lacking to some, I found it to be easier to use and in fact I never did get Ubuntu to work with my dual monitor setup as I did Xubuntu. Not sure why the difference given identical xorg.conf's and the same drivers. Xubuntu is close to perfect for me in terms of minimalist needs from an OS and accessibility to applications. Unfortunately it goes back to the applications themselves that simply don't have the capability. One difference was that Ubuntu did install so that I could use X and Xubuntu did not. Had to apt-get the updates and ATI drivers to get to a working desktop and even then I spent the next 3 hours trying to get xorg configured for dual monitors.
](*,)

Pumm4
September 18th, 2006, 08:26 PM
Umm... Windows Vista to Ship in 33 Different Versions (http://cope57.wordpress.com/2006/04/08/windows-vista-to-ship-in-33-different-versions/)

You should know by now that news on that site aren't serious:
Linux developer gets laid (http://bbspot.com/News/2000/9/linux_laid.html)
Linux Kernel delayed by Microsoft's army of evil monkeys (http://bbspot.com/News/2000/5/MS_Linux_delay.html)
Gates says linux best OS ever (http://bbspot.com/News/2001/06/gates.html)

:wink:

silver
September 18th, 2006, 09:08 PM
No sorry I must disagree here!

I was impatient at first when I installed Kubuntu and fired off comments about XP v Linux.

But I have been using it now for two weeks at home and can honestly say Kubuntu is way better than Windows XP. Yeak I know you are talking about Xubuntu, but they are all Ubuntu in the end.

One classic example is the ease of buring an ISO in Linux using K3B as opposed to the shambles I had to go through in XP.

My Kubuntu fires up in a blink of an eye and is ready to go whereas Windows results in my going off to make a cup of tea.

I have not as yet found anything I want to do for home use that I could not do on Windows. The only reason Windows is still in use is that this is a works laptop and the works corporate OS is Microsoft so I have no choice.

Where I can find an alternative program in Linux I use that. Where I can't find an alternative I use wine, so far on only 2 programs, however come tonight I believe this will be reduced to 1.

Based on the fact that you can have an entire OS complete with perfectly capable applications for home and office for absolutely fee free is F*****G fantastic in my books.

I am a full on Linux convert =D> =D> =D>

I'm glad it's working well for you. As I pointed out my needs aren't exactly minimal. My system is used for digital video and photo processing as well as web development. Given this criteria there are many obvious differences in our usage. Given your comments about XP, one difference would be the integration of either Roxio or Nero into Windows. I use both though I generally use Nero for the recording of CD/DVD's. FWIW I just downloaded a few ISO's from MSDN and when done I simply insert a disk and double click the icon on the desktop and up pops Nero Burning ROM already configured to burn the ISO to disk.

As to the free applications, well, I suppose I'm paying for the added functionality of the Windows apps all of which outperform the Linux counterparts. Note that I don't pay a lot of my Windows applications either and for the most part I've found there there are freeware apps like Paint.NET, XnView, Faststone Capture, Audacity, etc. , work quite well enough for my needs. I think I paid $20 US for Agent in 1996 and a $20 US upgrade fee in 2004 for their latest version. $10 US for Corel WordPerfect 12 Suite. As previously noted however, cost isn't everything. Sometimes you have to pay for the advanced development of applications like Macromedia Dreamweaver and Flash. Applications such as f4l and Cinelerra are good examples of the work-in-progress that is Linux today.

maniacmusician
September 18th, 2006, 11:49 PM
While it might be lacking to some, I found it to be easier to use and in fact I never did get Ubuntu to work with my dual monitor setup as I did Xubuntu. Not sure why the difference given identical xorg.conf's and the same drivers. Xubuntu is close to perfect for me in terms of minimalist needs from an OS and accessibility to applications. Unfortunately it goes back to the applications themselves that simply don't have the capability. One difference was that Ubuntu did install so that I could use X and Xubuntu did not. Had to apt-get the updates and ATI drivers to get to a working desktop and even then I spent the next 3 hours trying to get xorg configured for dual monitors.
](*,)
Well that's what I meant by lacking some functionality. The built-in apps that come with gnome and kde aren't as good in xfce. for instance, setting up a printer sucks. I had to do the localhost:somenumber thing in a browser to set up my printer. It should have had a good gui for this.

elpuerco
September 19th, 2006, 01:02 AM
for instance, setting up a printer sucks. I had to do the localhost:somenumber thing in a browser to set up my printer. It should have had a good gui for this.
Reply With Quote

I was suprised that how easy it was to setup my brother HP5150 on my laptop and his computer. It installed in much the same way as Windows, with no bother at all.

However the Epsom scanner was another matter! It installed first go on my laptop in a matter of minutes but took over two hours on his computer!!

However he has an AMD64 so I guess not a true comparison.

maniacmusician
September 19th, 2006, 01:29 AM
I was suprised that how easy it was to setup my brother HP5150 on my laptop and his computer. It installed in much the same way as Windows, with no bother at all.

However the Epsom scanner was another matter! It installed first go on my laptop in a matter of minutes but took over two hours on his computer!!

However he has an AMD64 so I guess not a true comparison.
I was talking specifically about xubuntu (xfce). It's definitely a piece of cake to set up a printer on kde or gnome.

d3v1ant_0n3
September 19th, 2006, 01:40 AM
From the 'Vista to ship in 33 versions' link:

"Vista One Finger On The Reset Button Edition"

Isn't that most M$ OS's?

silver
September 19th, 2006, 03:04 AM
From the 'Vista to ship in 33 versions' link:

"Vista One Finger On The Reset Button Edition"

Isn't that most M$ OS's?

Not since Windows ME. Windows NT was stable before Gnome or KDE was even generally available. Windows 2000 and XP are based on the NT kernel with changes to Plug-'N-Play, file system and enhancements to security and the GUI. To date, I haven't had a BSOD that wasn't hardware (RAM or HDD) failure related.

fokuslee
September 19th, 2006, 05:50 AM
i doubt anyone will read this but here is why
linux is all fun and a great learning exp
and the support community rocks i love u guys all
but in the end i don't want to have to do soo much tweaking just to use a simple program / play a single game.
and worst of all linux does not support my graphics card in sli mode
i have a gv-3d1 from gigabyte, sli only works in windows (i doubt it support any other dual gpu cards from gigabyte) from what i have figured this is a linux kernel problem so unless they do something about it
i can only use one gpu use half the on board video ram and run everything at 8x pci-e instead of 16x
soo with all cedega fusses my fps sucks big time in linux
so back to windows i go
but i do plan to keep the dual boot
its good to try something new
just HOPE SUPPORT FOR MY CARD COMES SOOON
and for the love of god make a FLASH palyer for 64bit pleeeeeeeeeease.

silver
September 19th, 2006, 07:06 AM
And I have a similar difficulty in that my Epson Perfection 4490 Photo scanner isn't supported by SANE. And the hits just keep on comin' !

ago
September 19th, 2006, 09:16 AM
Not since Windows ME. Windows NT was stable before Gnome or KDE was even generally available. Windows 2000 and XP are based on the NT kernel with changes to Plug-'N-Play, file system and enhancements to security and the GUI. To date, I haven't had a BSOD that wasn't hardware (RAM or HDD) failure related.
I had several NT and XP machines and they DO CRASH, far less than 98/ME (they were intended as a joke not an OS) but they still crash. Linux does not, ever. None of our business critical apps runs on MS... NONE... All on Linux/Sun. And it is false that XP is faster than Ubuntu or that it has lower requirements or that is secure or that is easy to install or that it is scalable. All crap.

As for all this software that you need for your "advanced use", what is it?

Burning? There are several options on Linux and many prefer the Linux apps...

XnView? Linux app ported to windows

Faststone Capture? Lots of capture apps

Audacity? Linux app ported to windows

Paint.NET? It is being ported to Linux, and anyway Gimp is better

Dreamweaver? There are plenty of replacements from NVU to Screem that will leave you £300+ better off. Older versions work with wine. Not to mention that if you are really a pro and deal with dynamic sites, you probably want to use an editor + RoR or TG or any other decent PhP framework.

WP? It used to be on Linux but nobody bought it and they gave up. Chances are people will be covered well with OO or the other Linux office suites. You might want excel only if you exchange lots of heavy spreadsheets with macros... But if you are really a pro you do not use spreadsheets at all because they crash a lot and are dead slow. Scipy in most cases is far more flexible and efficient than excel+vba+matlab.

Video editing? Most users will be covered by kino, avidemux, cinerella... And if you are a pro you probably want a Mac not XP...

In fact, when Maya was released on Linux (+CinePaint, +RF4...), Hollywood moved en masse to the penguin... Need I say more?

You have an epson scanner? Use VueScan and next time buy a linux compatible one. There are hundreds.

As it has been mentioned above, Linux is a polarized system. It is excellent for truly advanced users as well as for average users. The ones that should NOT use Linux are: intermediate users (those who have accumulated lots of eperience in their apps, have lots of gizmos and usually think that dragging a few boxes in VB means programming), gamers, and users that need specific professional apps for their work (accounting, CAD, video editing). You are an intermediate user.

Demio
September 19th, 2006, 10:37 AM
I had several NT and XP machines and they DO CRASH, far less than 98/ME (they were intended as a joke not an OS) but they still crash. Linux does not, ever. None of our business critical apps runs on MS... NONE... All on Linux/Sun. And it is false that XP is faster than Ubuntu or that it has lower requirements or that is secure or that is easy to install or that it is scalable. All crap.

As for all this software that you need for your "advanced use", what is it?

Burning? There are several options on Linux and many prefer the Linux apps...

XnView? Linux app ported to windows

Faststone Capture? Lots of capture apps

Audacity? Linux app ported to windows

Paint.NET? It is being ported to Linux, and anyway Gimp is better

Dreamweaver? There are plenty of replacements from NVU to Screem that will leave you £300+ better off. Older versions work with wine. Not to mention that if you are really a pro and deal with dynamic sites, you probably want to use an editor + RoR or TG or any other decent PhP framework.

WP? It used to be on Linux but nobody bought it and they gave up. Chances are people will be covered well with OO or the other Linux office suites. You might want excel only if you exchange lots of heavy spreadsheets with macros... But if you are really a pro you do not use spreadsheets at all because they crash a lot and are dead slow. Scipy in most cases is far more flexible and efficient than excel+vba+matlab.

Video editing? Most users will be covered by kino, avidemux, cinerella... And if you are a pro you probably want a Mac not XP...

In fact, when Maya was released on Linux (+CinePaint, +RF4...), Hollywood moved en masse to the penguin... Need I say more?

You have an epson scanner? Use VueScan and next time buy a linux compatible one. There are hundreds.

As it has been mentioned above, Linux is a polarized system. It is excellent for truly advanced users as well as for average users. The ones that should NOT use Linux are: intermediate users (those who have accumulated lots of eperience in their apps, have lots of gizmos and usually think that dragging a few boxes in VB means programming), gamers, and users that need specific professional apps for their work (accounting, CAD, video editing). You are an intermediate user.

Well said sir. You said what most of us were thinking, but in a more eloquent way =D>

silver
September 19th, 2006, 11:29 AM
Well said sir. You said what most of us were thinking, but in a more eloquent way =D>

Actually all he prooved is that he still lacks fiber in his diet.

silver
September 19th, 2006, 01:17 PM
I had several NT and XP machines and they DO CRASH, far less than 98/ME (they were intended as a joke not an OS) but they still crash.

Perhaps your systems do crash but I can assure you that I have not personally observed a BSOD under a Windows NT-based OS except for those cause by hardware failures. When we ran NT SP4, it was rock solid. Slow but it simply never crashed. We migrated to Windows 2000 Pro and we had a crash about 3 months afterwards. Odd. It turned out to be a memory failure. And then we had another crash on another system about 6 months later. Doggone keyboard clock chip had failed ! Ya know that can take a little while to figure out !


Linux does not, ever.

You are just sooooo wrong ! Heck I saw RH crash at the Revolution Tour in NYC when the RH rep was demonstrating how great their OS was. And I just crashed Xubuntu on my system and had to manually reboot. Guess how I did it ? I switched the wallpaper and then logged out !


None of our business critical apps runs on MS... NONE... All on Linux/Sun.

And this means ..... oh yes. It means that you don't know how to setup Server which of course parallels your skill level with desktops.


And it is false that XP is faster than Ubuntu or that it has lower requirements or that is secure or that is easy to install or that it is scalable. All crap.

Can you disprove what I just prooved to myself ? As stated previously I installed Xubuntu onto a clean drive and spent a significant amount of time just in getting it up to basic functionality that I can achieve with Windows NT, Windows 2000 Pro or Windows XP in far less time. This is ALL part-and-parcel of installing the OS with a working GUIS ! Until you can actually state that a system has all of the functionality you need, you are not done tweaking.

Also, I believe I stated that I give Linux its full due for security. I note that perhaps Windows has learned from this and that security under Vista is going to be a lot tighter.


As for all this software that you need for your "advanced use", what is it?

Macromedia Dreamweaver, Macromedia Flash, Sony Vegas Movie Studio+DVD are the three significant apps that have no comparable equivalent ported to Linux.


Burning? There are several options on Linux and many prefer the Linux apps...

Many ? I think the term "some" would be more applicable. And please don't cite K3B as it's just a Linux version of Roxio. Hardly compares with Nero Burning Rom.


XnView? Linux app ported to windows

Hmmm, so you're stating that it was orginally written for Linux and then ported to Windows ? That's really odd because back in 2004 it listed "System Requirements: Windows 98/Me/NT/2000/XP" and was being sold by Xzeos Software as XnView DeLuxe. Evidently they "got relegion" and GPL'ed it but it was most definitely a Windows applicaiton.


Faststone Capture? Lots of capture apps

Yep and none as good either.


Audacity? Linux app ported to windows

Again, show how this is a "Linux app" !!


Paint.NET? It is being ported to Linux, and anyway Gimp is better

Nope. Paint.NET is faster and more capable. It will be interesting to see an application written in C# ported to Linux though.


Dreamweaver? There are plenty of replacements from NVU to Screem that will leave you £300+ better off.

You've got to be joking ! Comparing NVU or Screem to any decent freeware Windows app might be appropriate however comparing them to Dreamweaver is about the most ludicrous tidbit you presented to date !


Older versions work with wine. Not to mention that if you are really a pro and deal with dynamic sites, you probably want to use an editor + RoR or TG or any other decent PhP framework.

Yeah and while I'm at it I might as well set up another Linux server and host my own sites. No thanks.


WP? It used to be on Linux but nobody bought it and they gave up. Chances are people will be covered well with OO or the other Linux office suites. You might want excel only if you exchange lots of heavy spreadsheets with macros... But if you are really a pro you do not use spreadsheets at all because they crash a lot and are dead slow. Scipy in most cases is far more flexible and efficient than excel+vba+matlab.

I suppose I should explain this to my wife who is an accountant. "Dear you shouldn't be using speadsheet toold on Linux as they crash a lot." We that explains why she doesn't get any crashes ! She runs Windows XP ! And dual 17" monitors when she can really spread out those spreadsheets.


Video editing? Most users will be covered by kino, avidemux, cinerella... And if you are a pro you probably want a Mac not XP...

Why in the world would anyone want a Mac ? Prior to the current Intel-based systems they were slower than Linux and had about the same stability. I can't tell you how many times I crashed OS7 on my Power Mac. Jeez ! I was quite glad to switch to Windows 98 at that time !


In fact, when Maya was released on Linux (+CinePaint, +RF4...), Hollywood moved en masse to the penguin... Need I say more?

Yes Linux is being used as is Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Pro, Windows XP x64, Mac OSX, AIX, HP-UX on and I think SGI still has the lions share with IRIX.

I do wonder how they manage to get their video cards working well given the pathetic state of Linux video drivers today. Perhaps this is why all of the workstations I see with ATI cards use Windows XP Professional ? It appears that only the nVidia Quadro FX has good support in Linux workstations.


You have an epson scanner? Use VueScan and next time buy a linux compatible one. There are hundreds.

And none of them are as good of a value as the 4490. Also note that VueScan does not work with the 4490 and also SANE doesn't support it.


As it has been mentioned above, Linux is a polarized system. It is excellent for truly advanced users as well as for average users.

Oh I can see this already ! That's why MS is on the run and the Linux servers are having throusands of people downloading distros every minute.

NOT !

The fact is that Linux is still in its infancy and while an excellent choice for servers, it's not a valid workstation OS for the individuals looking to get work done in a creative environment. I'd like to think otherwise but one would have to literally spend weeks to get a system that works nearly as good as Windows 2000/XP Pro. This is distraction that is completely unnecessary and counter-productive.


The ones that should NOT use Linux are: intermediate users (those who have accumulated lots of eperience in their apps, have lots of gizmos and usually think that dragging a few boxes in VB means programming), gamers, and users that need specific professional apps for their work (accounting, CAD, video editing). You are an intermediate user.

This is accurate in that there are many people who actually work with the applications. Most of use don't care to design the applications nor do we play games. I personally upload and download files via FTP (CuteFTP) and I create webpages using Dreamweaver, Flash and other applicatins. I occassionally create video CD's and DVD's for friends, family and businesses. I am also something of a machinist and mechanic so therefore have also dabbled with CAD software such as Inventor.

As I've previously stated, I want to work with a computer and not on it. I would balance time spent learning to tweak a system to functionality with the value of the software and the returns expected. That is the nature of a good business model. Perhaps you don't use a computer to earn your income ?

freddy metz
September 19th, 2006, 02:09 PM
The ones that should NOT use Linux are: intermediate users (those who have accumulated lots of eperience in their apps, have lots of gizmos and usually think that dragging a few boxes in VB means programming). You are an intermediate user.
i seem to fit into that category. tell me, why should i NOT use linux?

Brunellus
September 19th, 2006, 02:23 PM
i seem to fit into that category. tell me, why should i NOT use linux?
"intermediate user" usually means someone who can do a lot of things in Windows, and assumes that that means they can do a lot of things with computers in general. Upon discovering that their Windows knowledge is irrelevant to any other operating environment, they become irate and insist that things work exactly like Windows.

If you're not willing to acknowledge, in yourself, that you may need to learn a few new tricks, change, never mind Ubuntu, is not for you.

silver
September 19th, 2006, 02:28 PM
If you're not willing to acknowledge, in yourself, that you may need to learn a few new tricks, change, never mind Ubuntu, is not for you.

"a few" ? Yeah, things like complete application development, driver development and how to completely overhaul the GUI.

And Heavens forbid that anything work like it does in Windows. Yeah why would anyone want to emmulate the most successful OS in the history of computing ?

Brunellus
September 19th, 2006, 02:29 PM
"a few" ? Yeah, things like complete application development, driver development and how to completely overhaul the GUI.
The Crown rests, m'lud.

If you are willing to learn how things are done in a new environment, and accept the alternatives offered to you, then Linux Is Ready For The Desktop (TM).

But if you want Windows, you know where to find it.

ago
September 19th, 2006, 02:53 PM
I have not personally observed a BSOD under a Windows NT-based OS
I did. More than once. + several memory leaks. And we got rid of NT.


Heck I saw RH crash at the Revolution Tour in NYC when the RH rep was demonstrating how great their OS was. And I just crashed Xubuntu on my system and had to manually reboot. Guess how I did it ? I switched the wallpaper and then logged out !
Do not confuse X crashing with Linux crashing, there is no difference in windows, because the GDI is built-in and if it crashes it will take down the whole OS.

But if you have DB or webservers or file servers or calculation engines running in Linux and X crashes, those will continue to work as nothing happened... It is not a small difference... And even if X crashes you can recover using sysrq...


And this means ..... oh yes. It means that you don't know how to setup Server which of course parallels your skil level with desktops.
In fact we had a MS certified consultant company which set-up our NT servers. They did not manage to fix the problems. Sure the servers were under some firepower, I am not talking about a few users browsing and using notepads, but that is what servers are for. We decided to try Linux (by ourselves) and never had a crash again or memory leaks. Never needed a consultant again. So much for competence and ease of use...


Macromedia Dreamweaver, Macromedia Flash, Sony Vegas Movie Studio+DVD are the three significant apps that have no comparable equivalent ported to Linux.
Then use them, no big deal. Average users do not need any of those. And advanced users do not need any of those. You do. Use them.


Many ? I think the term "some" would be more applicable. And please don't cite K3B as it's just a Linux version of Roxio. Hardly compares with Nero Burning Rom.
If that is your problem you have also Nero for Linux... In Linux I mostly do not need those programs at all. Nautilus for instance will let me burn an iso out of the box, explorer will not, but I would not dare to compare such an inferior product... And yes there are MANY programs for burning... This is only a partial list http://www.gnomefiles.org/subcategory.php?sub_cat_id=103 Tick it off...


Evidently they "got relegion" and GPL'ed it but it was most definitely a Windows applicaiton.
It is just another of your "advanced" apps which is available on Linux...


Again, show how this is a "Linux app" !!
And another one...


Nope. Paint.NET is faster and more capable.
More capable? What exactly can you do in Paint.net you cannot do in Gimp? And again, paint.net will soon be available on Linux... Tick that off as well...


Comparing NVU or Screem to any decent freeware Windows app might be appropriate however comparing them to Dreamweaver is about the most ludicrous tidbit you presented to date !
Again NVU and Scream will be more than enough for most users, you will be able to create any website you want. Advanced users are often more comfortable with emacs, vi and similar, plus some serious framework. You are in between.


I suppose I should explain this to my wife who is an accountant. "Dear you shouldn't be using speadsheet toold on Linux as they crash a lot."
Accounting spreadsheets are not exactly "heavy use"... And what she does, can most likely be done in OO... If you do serious accounting (e.g. for big companies) you need far more complex systems than a spreadsheet, and that is my point. There is so much you can do with spreadsheets... And when you reach that point, you will often find the tools you need in Linux... We used to have lots of really heavy spreadsheets with tons of VBA code, linked to matlab, to various dbs and to C routines. We moved everything to python/scipy, it was like day and night...


Why in the world would anyone want a Mac ? Prior to the current Intel-based systems they were slower than Linux and had about the same stability.
No linux is more stable than a mac which in turn is more stable than XP... As for movies and images, I have half the family working in those sectors and know several of their colleagues. I still have to see any of them use an XP machine...


I can't tell you how many times I crashed OS7 on my Power Mac. Jeez ! I was quite glad to switch to Windows 98 at that time !
Win98 as an example of OS stability??? :biggrin:


Yes Linux is being used as is Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Pro, Windows XP x64, Mac OSX, AIX, HP-UX on and I think SGI still has the lions share with IRIX.
Nope. Hollywood is in honeymoon with LINUX... Almost all major blockbusters in the past few years were produced on Linux machines... Windows in not even on the radar screen... Again, Linux is the choice of really advanced users...


I do wonder how they manage to get their video cards working well
Obviously they work far better than you imagine


And none of them are as good of a value as the 4490. Also note that VueScan does not work with the 4490 and also SANE doesn't support it.
4490 seems to be working under Linux, try again...
http://berrange.com/personal/diary/2006/04/film-negative-slide-scanners-on-linux


Oh I can see this already ! That's why MS is on the run and the Linux servers are having throusands of people downloading distros every minute.
The vast majority of people do not download an OS, and do not install an OS. They do not even choose an OS. They simply buy PCs with whatever OS it comes with...


The fact is that Linux is still in its infancy and while an excellent choice for servers, it's not a valid workstation OS for the individuals looking to get work done in a creative environment.
I agree, for "creative" users it is not a valid choice. Mac is better.


I personally upload and download files via FTP (CuteFTP)
Another "advanced" applications to tick off... Your list of "advanced" apps is becoming quite short...


and I create webpages using Dreamweaver, Flash and other applicatins. I occassionally create video CD's and DVD's for friends, family and businesses. I am also something of a machinist and mechanic so therefore have also dabbled with CAD software such as Inventor.
All things that can be done on Linux. Will most user want to spend $300+ a piece to have some advanced features? Nope. Some will, but the vast majority will be well covered out of the box. Can you do better than those in Linux? Yes, but differently, you will be using RoR or scipy or other advanced tools. An OS that does so much out of the box, is certainly ready for the desktop.


As I've previously stated, I want to work with a computer and not on it.
That is exactly why I do not use Windows anymore.

silver
September 19th, 2006, 05:23 PM
So what you're saying is that there are two kinds of users.

1) Extremely advanced users capable of coding their own apps and adjusting system settings to their needs.

2) Those that accept the default Out-Of-Box installation who essentially have hardware that is already completely supported.

I guess you're right. I don't fall into either category.

ago
September 19th, 2006, 06:36 PM
Quite so...

It is true that the default installation is very good (far more complete and secure than a barebone windows install) and will cover the needs of the average user (the vast majority who mostly want to browse the internet, access emails, manage their pictures and music collection, chat, work with office documents and so forth). But it is false that you need to accept default Out-of-the-box apps even if you are a novice. There are 20,000+ additional applications in the repositories that can be easily accessed (for free). And many more in unofficial packages. So you do not need to accept anything. You can perform almost any task under the sun with those apps.

Really advanced users, on the other hand, will be happy with the arsenal of tools (mostly scriptable), powerful CLI, access to ALL of the code (to take inspiration from and/or tweak to their needs), tons of libraries, excellent frameworks, state of the art servers (DBs, file servers, webservers...), performance, stability, predictability, and almost unlimited flexibility.

Intermediate users are those that need "more features" than the average users, but refuse to leave their target-and-click world, where they were raised and that they are so familiar with. Let's consider the examples above. After going through your list of "advanced apps" we ended up with 3 "critical" pieces of software which really provide "extra" functionality: Dreamweaver, Flash Pro, and Vegas. Let's add PhotoShop as well, and maybe a good CAD.

Are those apps "essential" in the sense that the majority of users need them? Not at all.

Are those apps "essential" in the sense that you cannot replicate their functionality? Mostly not. You can still design almost any website on earth with available tools, you can still do video editing with available tools, you can perform sophisticated image manipulations with available tools. You must pay (quite a lot) for some "extra" functionality, that most users will never need. Intermediate users are happy to do so and there is no reason why they should not. That is why they should probably use Mac or Windows. If you need those apps for work you are also better off with a Mac or Windows. If you are a gamer, by all means, use Windows.

So, if an OS falls short only in terms of some "intermediate" feature (non-essential for the vast majority of users at both ends of the spectrum), does it mean that it is not ready for the desktop?

I would argue that if you need to shed $300+ every time you want some "extras" it means that the OS is doing very well indeed.

As for hardware compatibility, you need to use supported hardware. So what? That is true for any OS. You can easily find Linux compatible hardware. And again, most users will be covered out of the box and if unsure they can check it with the live CD without installing anything. If you need to change the wifi card, it is not such a big deal.

newbie2
September 19th, 2006, 06:50 PM
So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

its like asking on a drug-addict why he/she is using dope instead of stopping with it :razz: :tongue:


Aphrodisiac and crackdown On July 20, 1998, Fortune magazine published a dialogue between Bill Gates and another billionaire, Warren Buffet, in its cover article. The two commented on the issues of the world. Naturally, the two commented on China, the largest market for the future. Buffet believes that Coca-Cola played the role of a market "aphrodisiac," and in the future nobody in China can do without it. Gates on the other hand talked about software: "Though China sells around 3 million computers per year, people don't pay for software. But there will be one day, when they will have to pay. So long as they want to steal, I hope they will steal ours. They will become addicted. Therefore, we can plan how to retrieve our money some day in the next ten years." Gates' vision is broad, and he is confident. Just as the article was published, Microsoft had already taken action. It doesn't take ten years for Chinese users to get "addicted." What Microsoft came up with is a well-planned major action. According to sources, just the fees for investigation services reaches over •100m.


2. Locking in the users. Using pirated software, in Gates words, is to get "addicted." Because once users use one software program, he will have to pay a very high transfer cost to switch to other products. This is the unique "locking-in" ability of software products. Once users are locked in, one can take legal means to upgrade products, and the user is like "a fish in a net." This is why Microsoft is spending so much effort on combating piracy. Currently Windows and Office have already taken 90% of the market, users are basically locked in, and it is time to pull the net in. This method of first allowing piracy and then suing has been tried repeatedly by Microsoft with success, it never fails.
http://www.sinopolis.com/Archives/TOPSTORY/ts_990602.htm

aysiu
September 19th, 2006, 07:01 PM
As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. That's classic.

Here it is on news.com:
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-212942.html?legacy=cnet

ttry72
September 21st, 2006, 10:40 AM
Why I use Linux?
- The development does not depend on the terms of commercial needs. My needs are in the first class priority.

akak8ty
September 21st, 2006, 11:21 AM
I've found far more wireless support on Ubuntu/Kubuntu than on xp/xp pro
I haven't even used the software from my isp in ions.
I had no problem configuring my machine with another running xp with a wireless adapter. Now with windows completely off my machine, the wireless config was little trouble.
I only get hung up on file permissions -> as one person put it last night they are very "important" files.
I don't care how important they are if I need to used them, I don't want a hassle getting permissions.
That's my only gripe, otherwise my machine is converted over to the- ubuntu's. There is far more to configure, which I don't mind- I just don't like the hassle of permissions to accomplish something that once took 10 minutes to config- in dos, I spent 6 hours on last night and am still not there..I'm not giving up because I know it can be done, this time its not a matter of OS languages, but cultural linguistics that is the holding pattern.
Its written in German, and since I haven't been in 3 years I'm a little rusty on translating.
I liked to actually see my security as well, not just "its more secure because we say so" I want to see my portscans, and who and what are trying to get into my machine.
On xp it was obnoxious how many port scans I'd get from all over the world in a short period of time...now, I really can't say, except my in my firewall/hub/router.
...and being in a huge corporate arena I saw bou-coup viruses wreak havoc on huge servers between 4 offices in different parts of this country, and I can assure you- it was a big deal. HUGE.
I had sound when I first installed Ubuntu, my little 4 yrs old niece was playing games and the sound effects were great- then suddenly poof- no sound.
I can hear a beep when I have new mail, but nothing beyond that- and yes I checked all my wires and connections, its always the first thing I do. My hardware was initially recognized, but once I dropped windozzzzeee the sound went as well. Some programs tell me what my devices are, others are not recognizing. When booting up I have noted PCMCIA is not loading, but then I am aware I am working with an unstable version that sometimes appears to trip over its proverbial feet. ie: random acts of error messages, incongruency in programs working from one day to the next, but its no more aggravation than working with windows xp- or any other version.
At least I don't curse out my machine and grumble about micro$oft anymore;-)
Technology can be a tricky task, so I am mindful of that.
M$n was a monopoly and tried to lock you into doing things they way they wanted you too- HELP was not helpful. I refused to auto update because I knew it was going to be a real drag ending up in system restore- then the forced "Authentic MSN software" was imposed and suddenlt I couldn't update my share amongst friends Windows Professional, and programs stopped working. I had more than one choice word for that type of control...:rolleyes:
I have never in my life gotten the dumbest responses to issues than with msn.
I am glad its off my machine, and I am happily tinkering my way around here, occasionally grumbling about permissions...and little things
but its not bad enough to take me back to msn. No, no, no.
I am profoundly grateful for the switch....once I got over the first few days hump...
This edgy eft work in progress is looking pretty cool, so I am looking forward to that coming to fruition as a stable release. I like the color scheme as well, and with a name like Kate in it, it can't be all bad \\:D/

I have found that aysiu's psychocats.net is a fabulous source of information, and the cats are a perk too (having been a diligent rescuer of furry creatures all my life- cats being my favorite- you'll note my cat spends a bit of time on the machine as well)
Anyone can learn linux if they want to! :tongue:



If you are careful enough - adware, viruses etc. aren't that big deal on Windows. I have Ubuntu on my computer. I like it... but I don't use it.

There is no descent wireless support and almost nothig works out of the box.
I still have to see my that my soundcard works without any problems or when I plugin a joystick I can use it right away.

There is Soooooooo much more to wish about Linux as a normal desktop system!!! I can't see it happen in the next 5 years! And it would be nice but I belive choosing Unix as the base for a home/small business desktop system is just not that smart idea! This system is more hacker-friendly than user-friendly!

I have installed Linux for the first time in 1997 :o So I find it so funny that some people who have used Linux for 3 days praise it so enthusiastically. :biggrin:

Perkins
September 21st, 2006, 05:29 PM
This has probably been said, but I don't have time to read all 200 some pages. lol.

Windows is basically a do everything for everyone operating system. Jack of all trades, master of none. Jack of all trades can be nice when you're trying to find drivers for bleeding edge hardware, or if you have no idea what you want to do with your computer, but other than that...

Linux... Let's just say that for some tasks, ok, a lot of tasks, an 80486 running Linux will outperform a Pentium II running Windows. It's easy to optimize it to do what you want it to, and not waste processor cycles on features you never use.

Secondly, I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but Linux programs are smaller. I have seen 15 or 20 MB windows programs where the Linux equivalent is less than a tenth of the size.

BoneKracker
September 21st, 2006, 05:40 PM
I avoid Windows at all costs for one simple reason: security.

19% of the security vulnerabilities pertaining to Windows XP Professional in the period 2003 - 2006 remain un-patched.


See an interesting analysis at:

http://www.sanduskycomputers.com/editorials/ossecurity.php

akak8ty
September 21st, 2006, 06:27 PM
This has probably been said, but I don't have time to read all 200 some pages. lol.

Windows is basically a do everything for everyone operating system. Jack of all trades, master of none. Jack of all trades can be nice when you're trying to find drivers for bleeding edge hardware, or if you have no idea what you want to do with your computer, but other than that...

Linux... Let's just say that for some tasks, ok, a lot of tasks, an 80486 running Linux will outperform a Pentium II running Windows. It's easy to optimize it to do what you want it to, and not waste processor cycles on features you never use.

Secondly, I don't know if anyone else has mentioned this, but Linux programs are smaller. I have seen 15 or 20 MB windows programs where the Linux equivalent is less than a tenth of the size.

I have no doubt, considering my machine idles considerably higher than it ever did before. Attempting to adjust the cpu was an exercise in futility. I have noted the files are smaller, and when opening them found a few empty ones. :tongue:
weeeee. I'll still take it over windows. I just told a bunch of people about it, but since some used to work for me, I doubt they have the patience or interest to work a little harder, to make things a lot better..
seems to me I may have put that on a review or two ;)
I believe over all it is a better product, just a little more work to get from point a to point b, but living in america, many don't have a work ethic anymore, so I am basically speaking greek to them. Hmm. maybe I should. :p Those who have the work ethic are immigrants. Go figure.
I appreciate the international aspect of the distro's.

garrye
September 21st, 2006, 08:56 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

Simple really. I would consider it a great honour to have my picture taken while standing beside certain people. Some of them are involved in the development of Linux. NONE are involved in the development of micro$oft windows. The Linux community develops products that best suit the user. Can we say the same of the micro$oft community? And finally, I get along much better with people who prefer Linux than I do with those that prefer MS windows. I find them generally more trustworthy, compassionate, encouraging, helpful, and by far and away more intellectually stimulating than MS windows users.

chudder
September 22nd, 2006, 01:31 AM
I used to have a duel boot and for a while I didn't even touch windows and I got along fine, then I used windows for a little bit and it just had tons of problems and I didn't do anything different, then I just decided with my new computer I was going completely to Linux and I've been all the happier. I'm not saying anything new, it's more stable, it's less vulnerable, support is actually better as far as customer support because you have so many people around the world who know about it, it's actually more intuitive once you get the hang of it and then when you go back to windows, it angers you to see the freedom that's taken away and the bureacracy within the OS. I personally think windows is poorly engineered and designed. That's why I use it.

dolphinsonar
September 23rd, 2006, 07:09 AM
I am definitely on the ethical side of it. Everyone pretty much agrees that monopolies (or duopolies) are bad for consumers. Microsoft and Macintosh are just that. People don't realize that a lot of what they are paying for when they buy a new computer is liscensing fees for an operating system and all of the proprietary software that comes loaded onto it. It is built into the cost of the box that you buy from the store, so people just figure, "Oh yeah, Windows is free," but it is not. You can save a couple hundred bucks buying a laptop without windows, but not many people go through that effort.

I think of myself as a pioneer. I am willing to live in the Ubuntu world for all of my computing needs, and work with the community to develop the software further so that it keeps getting better. Hopefully this will help free software spread so that other people might be able to afford computers who maybe cannot do so now. Free is about freedom, but freedom from want is part of that.

Reshin
September 23rd, 2006, 08:13 AM
Simple really. I would consider it a great honour to have my picture taken while standing beside certain people. Some of them are involved in the development of Linux. NONE are involved in the development of micro$oft windows. The Linux community develops products that best suit the user. Can we say the same of the micro$oft community? And finally, I get along much better with people who prefer Linux than I do with those that prefer MS windows. I find them generally more trustworthy, compassionate, encouraging, helpful, and by far and away more intellectually stimulating than MS windows users.

I can't help but think of this as a new form of racism...

ago
September 23rd, 2006, 09:01 AM
I can't help but think of this as a new form of racism...

of reshism you mean... godwin coming...

bluesphere
September 23rd, 2006, 09:56 PM
I'll jump on the ubuntu wagon for help getting RealPlayer10GOLD installed. Keep getting execution errors and none of the threads on this issue have worked for me. DEAL?

.t.
September 23rd, 2006, 11:15 PM
Why do you want RealPlayer? There are plenty free alternatives that are much better, or if not, just as good.

Cylon
September 24th, 2006, 01:03 AM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

No advantages? How 'bout the financial advantage of not spending $100+ on an operating system that requires you to spend more money on software if you want to do anything useful. You also have the added security of not needing to spend money on an antivirus program, which is an absolute must with Windoze. Oh, and the spyware software as well which is another Windows issue. Then there's the company itself who ignores bugs and security flaws in its OS until it becomes an absolute necessity to offer a fix. If it's more affordable to ignore the problem, rest assured that's what M$ will do!

Then there's that part about music, movies, and games. Music isn't an issue at all on a Linux box, which has the ability of playing MP3s, FLAC, ogg, and many other file types a M$ system wouldn't even recognize. If you're unable to play something like Windows Media then you're only a download away if you know where to go and Google makes that easy. Even in Windoze, DVDs do not play by default without the proper software installed and you need the right codecs to playback avi files. As for games... well, that's a whole other issue. I have an Xbox that takes care of my gaming needs and a computer that takes care of my computing needs. Linux games are getting better all the time -just like Linux itself. The same cannot be said for Windoze.

If you'd made a statement like you don't see any advantage over a Mac, then I probably could have let it go. [-X

Reshin
September 24th, 2006, 07:23 AM
of reshism you mean... godwin coming...

excuse me?

garrye
September 25th, 2006, 01:36 AM
I can't help but think of this as a new form of racism...

Huh :confused:

Explain please.

Colly
September 25th, 2006, 07:54 AM
Re: If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?

Money. I've bought every OS from DOS, thru Win3.1, 95, 98, 98SE, ME, and XP Pro. I am NOT going to buy Vista - ever.
When I get Ubuntu up and running all the hardware I have and find it working, I'll donate some money. I'm just tired of paying for OS's that the vendor has to ship fixes for their mistakes every week AFTER I paid for it. Plus, by the time my XP PC has loaded up the Norton Antivirus, Webroot Desktop Firewall, Spy Sweeper, Process Guard, Windows Washer, LogViewer, etc. it's ten minutes after I powered up the PC and I need a second cup of coffee already. I have over 980,000 files on my XP PC and it takes Norton over 13 hours to run a full antivirus scan.

I tried Open Office and compared it to Office 2003 and was impressed and decided to try Ubuntu next, so here I am.

If I find out I can run both older Windows 95/98 games plus newer DirectX based games with Wine, I'll be tickled pink. I can't even do that with XP. The Win95 games mostly all screw up when DirectX intercepts them. I only finished installing Ubuntu a little while ago and rebooted that PC. Right now, it's sitting there saying "GRUB loading, please wait...". Now I'm off to search and find out "how long" should I wait. On second thought, I guess I'll just go to bed and check on it in the morning.

Reshin
September 25th, 2006, 08:08 AM
Huh :confused:

Explain please.

I can't. Cuz I have no idea :D

insane_alien
September 25th, 2006, 11:34 AM
"GRUB loading, please wait...". Now I'm off to search and find out "how long" should I wait. On second thought, I guess I'll just go to bed and check on it in the morning.

ummm, that should go by so fast you don't even see it.

on the origional topic, why use chewed up paper and a straw when you have an arsenal of ICBMs

garrye
September 26th, 2006, 08:11 PM
I can't. Cuz I have no idea :D

Kay :-?

kopilo
September 27th, 2006, 05:10 AM
Ext3/2 doesn't need defragmenting, Fat and NTFS does.

Reshin
September 27th, 2006, 10:41 AM
Ext3/2 doesn't need defragmenting

Got proof?

edit. nah, never mind. googled it already

Zieher
September 27th, 2006, 06:14 PM
User management. you log in as a lowly user and can easily perform limited tasks as root -> a real rocker. some apps only work as admin in XP others are badly programmed so they screw up with multiuser installs - this was one of my main reasons for switching. (and the stupid call-in after a clean reinstall - "your windows version is installed on one PC only?")
XP is not as bad as many ppl say, I have it on my CAD machine (offline!), and it is really fast (XP home SP1 vanilla, no updates, no extras, regular defrag, two partitions - 1 for win+programs and 1 for data). the family PC has a dual boot, because my phone system (via USB) can't be configured via Linux. my laptops are pure (x)ubuntu.

firefox started it all :D

frego
September 28th, 2006, 01:45 AM
Let's assume a person has a legitimate version of Windows and can therefore take the latest greatest updates without much pain. Even with that nice painless feature of windows (which Ubuntu also has), a big upgrade under windows, like SP2, puts additional programs on your computer that pop up annoying balloons all the time. Anyone remember how annoying MS Messenger was in the first release of XP? I get the feeling running MS software that I am fighting for my own computer. With Ubuntu, I feel empowered. Under windows if you want to do a simple task like mass rename files or convert audio files, there is a plethora of software available. But they are all either crippled versions or trial software. So unless you like getting nickled and dimed to death, or searching for warez all the time, it's just so much easier under Linux. The only programs that I haven't found comparables to be as good on Linux as Windows is Quickbooks, Quicken and of course games. For that reason only, I still dual boot. But I will use the Ubuntu partition daily and the Windows partition maybe weekly.

I personally am a huge fan and user of both MythTV and Amarok. I've run MCE and I find Myth to be much better in all the aspects that are most important to me. And I've not seen an audio player as good as Amarok on any OS. It has truly made me rediscover my music.

Kulgan
September 28th, 2006, 09:08 PM
"If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?", eh?

let me tell you.... or rather, for your own mental health, don't.

I a SICK of paying for this, paying for that, and more. For windows it was money or release betas (nobody try vista rc1, btw!!). No longer.

Really, I have absolutely no reason to keep windows - which, by the way, is why I haven't). I don't do serious games (supertux is good for me!). I browse, do homework, and occasionally listen to music. What can I say? Why do I need something as bloated as windows with all the "extra functionalit" it comes with, when there is ubuntu?

Ubuntu is about as easy to use as windows, once you get used to it, but the migration is no harder this way that it would be for a linux user going to windows (I pity the fool!)

Seriously, I don't need a pop-up every two minutes saying that the network card is connected (and it didn't even say anything useful, like what IP I had been assigned), or that so and so has logged on. I can see that myself, thanks!

But I agree with the original post in some respects. Most computer lusers don't need "more" than windows. They can support M$ for all I care. Just don't make me.

I think that this should work both ways, though. Let's not interfere with each other. Let the windows users pay every new version of winbloz (though it will have been quite a while since XP was released when Vista makes it), and let the linux users remain a minority. We are happy, now, arn't we!

cunawarit
September 28th, 2006, 09:14 PM
Several reasons for me:

* It is fun to learn new things.
* It is free and costs me nothing to try.
* Linux experience looks good on my CV.
* Microsoft server OSs are so expensive that I see Linux as really the obvious choice for servers.
* Linux is actually easier to maintain than Windows.

Kulgan
September 28th, 2006, 09:30 PM
* Linux is actually easier to maintain than Windows.

HELL, YEAH!

billT
September 28th, 2006, 09:42 PM
No advantages? How 'bout the financial advantage of not spending $100+ on an operating system that requires you to spend more money on software if you want to do anything useful.

Most Windows users are using it because it came pre-installed on their PCs. As for paying for software ... there is an awful lot of open source and otherwise free software out there for Windows that I would describe as 'useful.' Let's see, on Ubuntu, I spend most of my time on the web using Firefox (same as on Windows), chatting via gaim (same as on Windows), and doing development using Eclipse, SNV, Ruby, etc.. (shockingly, all available for free on Windows).


You also have the added security of not needing to spend money on an antivirus program, which is an absolute must with Windoze.

Well that's just not correct, in either clause. There are free anti-virus programs out there (AVG is excellent), but anyone who is remotely technically inclined can run a secure Windows system without much trouble.


Oh, and the spyware software as well which is another Windows issue.

Same as above, but different software if you need it (Spybot, Adaware). Again, if you take care of your computer, you won't have a problem. Spyware, adware, and viruses are largely the fault of the user, not the OS.


Then there's the company itself who ignores bugs and security flaws in its OS until it becomes an absolute necessity to offer a fix. If it's more affordable to ignore the problem, rest assured that's what M$ will do!

Agreed, and that's an unfortunate biproduct of a capitalist system. That said, I doubt you really know the motives behind which bugs get looked at/fixed first. And once again, as long as you're knowedgeable about computers, this shouldn't be a problem. For the most part, anyone who's running linux could run just as secure of a Windows system. They just choose not to. I'll never understand, though, why some choose to continually talk about problems that they would never have with a windows system that they were in charge of.


Then there's that part about music, movies, and games. Music isn't an issue at all on a Linux box, which has the ability of playing MP3s, FLAC, ogg, and many other file types a M$ system wouldn't even recognize. If you're unable to play something like Windows Media then you're only a download away if you know where to go and Google makes that easy.

And this is different than Windows how? I guess you might have to run an installer, which I know, I know ... it's a huge inconvenience.


Even in Windoze, DVDs do not play by default without the proper software installed and you need the right codecs to playback avi files.

I bought a DVD player, installed it into my system, and then installed the drivers and everything worked fine. I'd imagine (as I don't have any actual experience with this since it was already installed when I installed Ubuntu) that I'd have to do something similar (or at least load a module) to get it to work in linux.


As for games... well, that's a whole other issue. I have an Xbox that takes care of my gaming needs and a computer that takes care of my computing needs. Linux games are getting better all the time -just like Linux itself. The same cannot be said for Windoze.

Windows games are not getting better or Windows is not getting better? You start the paragraph talking about games but end up saying that Linux is always getting better but Windows isn't (despite your earlier assertion that MS fixes bugs slowly - which would imply that they do fix them and thus Windows is actually getting better). Games on consoles are just now starting to compete with games on a CPU. Gaming is a legitamite reason to keep a Windows partition around.


If you'd made a statement like you don't see any advantage over a Mac, then I probably could have let it go. [-X

All three have advantages and disadvantages. I could list a bunch of things I hate about all of them. All that said, there are reasons to use each of them. To answer the original question, I use linux because I love XGL and the speed with which improvements are made to it, many other programs, and the general OS. It's also the most customizable of the three and I tend to really enjoy setting up different DE's and just playing around with the system in general.

Oh, and I know that the English language is pretty tough, what with all of the rules and such. But seriously, "windows" is not a hard word to spell.

Kulgan
September 28th, 2006, 09:50 PM
I wil agree that to some people there is no benefit of having linux over windows. If you are one of these people, then excuse me, no offence meant, but why are you using linux?

The themes for windows are also pretty crappy, and you can't legally do anything about that. Legally.

I see you think that Windows is improving. Can you give a good improvement in Vista?

aysiu
September 28th, 2006, 09:52 PM
Actually, you can legally pay for Windowblinds or legally try to figure out LiteStep.

I didn't want to pay for Windowblinds, and LiteStep's inner workings still baffle me. Maybe I'm stupid, but I just can't figure it out.

In Ubuntu, I can just drag and drop a theme .tar.gz to the theme manager window, and I have a new theme.

billT
September 28th, 2006, 10:05 PM
I wil agree that to some people there is no benefit of having linux over windows. If you are one of these people, then excuse me, no offence meant, but why are you using linux?

The themes for windows are also pretty crappy, and you can't legally do anything about that. Legally.

I see you think that Windows is improving. Can you give a good improvement in Vista?

Nope, I haven't used it and haven't really read anything about it either. That's not what my post said anyways. The person I quoted mentioned fixing bugs (albeit very slowly). By any definition that I know of, fixing bugs would qualify as improvement.

I was just trying to point out that the oft-repeated crap like 'you have to pay for anything useful' and 'everyone who uses windows gets viruses and spyware' is just that, crap. It's just as easy to run a stable, virus free WinXP installation as it is to do in Linux. And I can use almost all of the same tools under both OS's.

Kulgan
September 29th, 2006, 03:43 PM
I was just trying to point out that the oft-repeated crap like 'you have to pay for anything useful' and 'everyone who uses windows gets viruses and spyware' is just that, crap. It's just as easy to run a stable, virus free WinXP installation as it is to do in Linux. And I can use almost all of the same tools under both OS's.

That's true. But you must admit that a little while after Vista comes out, software will mainly be available for that, and you will have to upgrade to vista to use the 'latest and greatest'

ago
September 29th, 2006, 03:56 PM
I was just trying to point out that the oft-repeated crap like 'you have to pay for anything useful'

If you do not have to pay for something in Windows, in most cases it is FOSS software that has been ported to Windows from Linux, or FOSS software that has been coded in a platform neutral way. Almost all of those applications are available to Linux, in fact they are a small subset of the ones available to Linux, and often they are an older version... Then there are a few windows-only FOSS applications. All the rest of the "free" windows software, is crappy freeware, which is dangerous to install and often badly crippled unless you pay. As for the built-in apps that come built-in with with Windows, they are far inferior to the Linux counterparts.


and 'everyone who uses windows gets viruses and spyware' is just that, crap. It's just as easy to run a stable, virus free WinXP installation as it is to do in Linux.
How so? I do not have to do absolutely anything AT ALL to have a "stable, virus free installation" out of Ubuntu, I can connect to the web straight after installation without external firewall, I can browse on ANY website and open ANY email without much concern. Just take Windows as it comes out of the box (without external firewall or additional software), connect it to the web for a couple of days and try to browse on some rogue website with the built-in browser, try to open all the emails with the built-in email client, and let's see how secure it is...


And I can use almost all of the same tools under both OS's.
Certainly NOT thanks to windows tools... Unless you use Cygwin (which ports some of the Linux tools), you have no chance in hell to have tools half as powerful as the Linux ones...

Kulgan
September 29th, 2006, 04:07 PM
who cares who uses what, so long as THEY don't mess things up for US?

if you want to use windows, have fun. In your world of blue. Just don't start b*tching about linux users! I know that there are enough posts out there that I don't have to point them out, and perhaps you just want to have fun getting your own back, but I can personally say that I try not to diss people too bad about their choice of O/S. Unless, of course, they are too damn ignorant to know about anything else :evil:

Ashrael
September 30th, 2006, 12:10 PM
Well...I am an ICT professional and i'm tweaking my hardware all the time, my copy of XPPro has been installed a zillion times, and I have to call with M$ for a new install ID every week...that's enough for me...added to that all that everybody before said...that's enough...:D

Soon my house will be M$ free...

Ashrael


(If we're not in it for the fun, then for what?)

Kulgan
September 30th, 2006, 12:16 PM
Soon my house will be M$ free...

hear, hear!!

alecjw
September 30th, 2006, 03:20 PM
Anyway i miss in linux something like flash player 8 or skype 2.5

You can get skype for linux.

mdsmedia
October 1st, 2006, 06:31 AM
You can get skype for linux.I'm not sure if you can get version 2.5 though. I use Skype all the time in Ubuntu, but haven't looked for the latest version.

aysiu
October 1st, 2006, 08:20 AM
I think Skype might do different version numbers for different operating systems.

Windows is at 2.5 right now.
Linux is at 1.2 (with 1.3 beta also available).
Mac is at 1.5.

I don't know that necessarily means Linux is behind. If you look at the changelogs, the features are very specific to the OS:
improvement: improved full screen video experience (enabled Exposť, Dashboard and switching to other applications during full screen video)
feature: Ctrl-U in the main list now shows/hides offline users
feature: Improved Outlook Contact Number Formatting

laosboyme
October 1st, 2006, 08:37 AM
Faster Safer Stable free from virus, spyware...if you are a gamer use windows :KS

Bagboy23
October 1st, 2006, 01:31 PM
I don't understand why people keep talking about Spyware, adware etc, in Windows when in reality it's just as easy to stay away from spyware. Using firefox, takes care of all the junk, and sorting out your security settings gets rid of the ActiveX problem. True that you don't need to "sort out" linux security out of the box, but you have to do a hell lot more to get things to look and feel the way you want.

As for receiving updates in Windows, they are cost free providing you paid for the OS in the first place. Also, with Windows everytime I did an update, I clearly knew what I was updating as it was clearly described in the updates pane and also heavily documented by websites all over. Linux on the other hand - I've killed my Ubuntu for the upteenth time by accidentally updating file just because it showed up on the updates. In fact I have a broken Ubuntu right now.

As for installing drivers and such, it is hassle free, a simple windows update takes care of the basics, and then all thats left is to update GFX, Sound with the latest drivers to get the best out of these.

And you can forget about trying to install drivers if you are a beginner and pressed for time. Right now, there are several apps in the default repository that have missing dependencies, and it takes a good 2 - 3 hours just to get that sorted.

Don't be naive in thinking that Linux is the be all and end all of the OS domain, it has a LONG way to go before it's picked up by the mainstream.You only need to look through this forum to see what problems people are faced with.

Kulgan
October 1st, 2006, 03:29 PM
Don't be naive in thinking that Linux is the be all and end all of the OS domain, it has a LONG way to go before it's picked up by the mainstream.You only need to look through this forum to see what problems people are faced with.

No, linux is not for the general John Doe user. Linux was never meant to surpass anything. It's meant to be a damn good operating system that does what it needs to do and does it WELL. Unlike some :-k

I am sure that everybody knows people who would never even dream of using linux. My grandparents, for instance. They have heard of it, because both their grand-children (me and my cousin) use it, but they have no idea what it does. For that kind of person Windows is just great! People can use computers without knowing too much about what goes on inside them. And even very knowlegable people use windows.

But I say don't say that Linux is crappy without having tried it properly. I'm sure that all migrants only liked linux because they were supposed to at the beginning, but most, including myself, found that they really liked it after a while. It's all about choice in the end, and saying "use linux" or "windows sucks" is like saying "like yellow, yellow is your favourite colour".

After all, it doesn't affect Linux whether you use it or not. Windows wants you, windows needs you to survive. Linux lives on. Have a little look at one of these (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm) two. (http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW1.htm) That's it for me :D

K

maniacmusician
October 1st, 2006, 04:44 PM
I don't understand why people keep talking about Spyware, adware etc, in Windows when in reality it's just as easy to stay away from spyware. Using firefox, takes care of all the junk, and sorting out your security settings gets rid of the ActiveX problem. True that you don't need to "sort out" linux security out of the box, but you have to do a hell lot more to get things to look and feel the way you want.

As for receiving updates in Windows, they are cost free providing you paid for the OS in the first place. Also, with Windows everytime I did an update, I clearly knew what I was updating as it was clearly described in the updates pane and also heavily documented by websites all over. Linux on the other hand - I've killed my Ubuntu for the upteenth time by accidentally updating file just because it showed up on the updates. In fact I have a broken Ubuntu right now.

As for installing drivers and such, it is hassle free, a simple windows update takes care of the basics, and then all thats left is to update GFX, Sound with the latest drivers to get the best out of these.

And you can forget about trying to install drivers if you are a beginner and pressed for time. Right now, there are several apps in the default repository that have missing dependencies, and it takes a good 2 - 3 hours just to get that sorted.

Don't be naive in thinking that Linux is the be all and end all of the OS domain, it has a LONG way to go before it's picked up by the mainstream.You only need to look through this forum to see what problems people are faced with.
the updates are not supposed to break your system that easily. I remember one case where the X server broke, that was pretty bad. but that's it in recent times.

you probably have the backports repos enabled. that can mess up your system real fast.

ago
October 1st, 2006, 06:54 PM
but you have to do a hell lot more to get things to look and feel the way you want.
Quite the opposite.

If you have compatible hardware (which is quite common), the Ubuntu setup is immediately usable out of the box, all drivers are loaded and preconfigured, it is extremely secure, and most useful software is already preloaded. At most you might want of invest 5 extra minutes for easyubuntu/automatix if you care about closed formats (not even required in Edgy).

On the other hand, Windows is absolutely useless out of the box, in terms of security, drivers (most hardware is NOT detected), software, default configuration. After a windows installation I need to spend hours (and several reboots) to make it usable.

As for the "make it look the way you want", you simply cannot make windows look "the way you want". If you like its default look all is good, otherwise tough luck... It is almost impossible to configure unless you install external software, and even so you are quite limited in your options...


Don't be naive in thinking that Linux is the be all and end all of the OS domain
You are right, Linux is not for everybody, it is excellent only for 80% of the people.


it has a LONG way to go before it's picked up by the mainstream.
That has to do only with availability in retail chains as a pre-installed OS. As for technical capabilities, it is Windows that has a LONG way to go before it can catch up with Linux...


You only need to look through this forum to see what problems people are faced with.
Just look at windows forums and have a laugh, and, you seem to forget that people do not have to install Windows, that alone, would make the support calls shoot through the roof...

Kulgan
October 1st, 2006, 07:04 PM
well said

Bagboy23
October 1st, 2006, 08:11 PM
I don't know who you are trying to convince yourself or prospective adopters, because the basic fact is as a beginner I am having a tremendous problem with Ubuntu to get it to work the way I am use to.

I don't care for the novelty of it all, because all I want is a new system and it is not running well "out of the box". Windows on the otherhand, is quite easy to install...a few clicks and thats it.

Also I don't care for tweaking the colours and windows borders, it just has to look good out of the box...

I would much rather, get some documents written up, turn of the comp and return to my life than working out yapt-install and fglrx comands to get anything done.

Kulgan
October 1st, 2006, 08:41 PM
I don't know who you are trying to convince yourself or prospective adopters, because the basic fact is as a beginner I am having a tremendous problem with Ubuntu to get it to work the way I am use to.

the way you are used to??

the simple explanation for this is that this is not what you are used to. If you want what you are used to, by all means use windows. linux has no problem with that (in theory). If you want linux, you want something different than windows. If you want something that works exactly like windows, why are you not using windows?

ILIJA
October 1st, 2006, 08:43 PM
I have also been using a dual boot and i can tell the difference! I am planning on switching to ubuntu for good but i still have some things on windows that dont work as perfect. i.e. ventrilo. I am just waiting to a few programs to be fully avaible to linux and windows is history :P

ago
October 1st, 2006, 09:02 PM
I am having a tremendous problem with Ubuntu to get it to work the way I am use to.
If you have compatible hardware Ubuntu installer simply smokes Windows one. I do not need to convince anybody. It is a fact. It is also a fact that not everybody has compatible hardware, but you can easily test that with the live CD, BEFORE installing anything. If you insist installing Ubuntu on unsupported hardware, do not expect much.


Windows on the other hand, is quite easy to install...a few clicks and thats it.
You have forgotten the other few hours required to make windows anywhere near useful, unless you work with notepad and don't use the internet... This will refresh your memory: http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/08/04/xp

That will give you the same functionality I get with ubuntu in 30 minutes flat starting from bare metal...


it just has to look good out of the box...
Yeah, windows interface is like a car that you can have in any color you want as long as it is blue. If you like blue I guess there is no problem... You like windows interface as it is, it's fine, but do not claim that other people can make windows look like they want, because they simply can't.


working out yapt-install
You have a list of software which you have to select/unselect and press "apply". Full stop.

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/9033/screenshotaddremoveapplicationszx5.png

So...

How tough a work out was that? Do you need a written manual for it?


and fglrx comands
You do not need fglrx. Unless you are a gamer. You can certainly work without fglrx. And if you want fglrx, with easyubuntu or automatix it is one click away. Do you need another manual for it too?

Talking of video cards, on ALL my machine, windows came out with 800X600 res with crap color depth and no driver, an absolutely useless OS... Ubuntu got it right at first shot EVERY TIME, it did not install fglrx or proprietary nvidia drivers by default, but it always got me a good enough driver, (far better than the default windows ones), and Ubuntu even guessed the right resolution EVERY TIME....

linuxnomad
October 1st, 2006, 11:05 PM
I just upgraded my wife's computer and bought a new copy of Windows XP Pro to install. Her computer before this only had an image of XP Home. I am use to install Windows, but this was the first time installing XP. I also desided to reinstall Ubuntu on my machine since I only run Ubuntu, no Windows for me.
It took about an hour just to format my wife's new hard drive(sata 160G), then another 20 minutes for the Windows installer to copy everything to the hard drive. After the reboot and the nifty Windows install screen poped up, and another 30-35 minute wait while Windows did the actual install. After the reboot again Windows did not recognize my wife's motherboard, onboard sound, onboard video, USB , or ethernet card. It also failed to recognize her X600 video card , or correctly recognize the amount of memory that was in the computer. I believe Windows missed all these things because I had not install the motherboard drives yet, just so you know it was a Gigabyte motherboard the same one I use for Ubuntu. After loading all the motherboard drivers I was able to get sound, video, and internet, it also correctly recognized the memory. Still it did not find my wife's X600 video card, printer, or scanner. I manually installed the drivers for the printer and scanner and they then were recognized. I had to earch the web for the ATI drivers for the X600 card before it was recognized. Then I had the headaches that come with updating Windows. After about 15 restarts and a lot of frustration the updates were finished, updates took about one and half hours. Windows runs well after you spend more than 3 hours just to get it installed. I then had to add a good paid for spyware detector because the free ones are worthless. Added an anti-virus program,and a registery cleaner program. My wifes computer runs very well with one annoying exception I can't figure out how to turn off her auto update without getting a warning every 10 minutes telling me its turned off. I know its turned off I turned it off.

On the other hand on my computer I partitioned and formated my hard drive in 5 minutes, the same size and type as my wife's(sata 160G). I made a boot, root, home, usr, opt, var, tmp, and swap parition, just messing around a little with the partition scheme. After the formate Ubuntu started the install which took about 20-25 minutes. Then I updated which took about 10 minutes. Customized Ubuntu to my liking in about another 15 minutes. Oh, I forgot to mention Ubuntu recognized my motherboard, video card, onboard sound, USB, and onboard ethernet with no help from me.

I should mention I learned that Windows doesn't do everything right out of the box. Most people don't relizes this because Windows is preloaded by most computer builders. There is a little searching on the internet to get everyting working, like streaming video, audio, and PDF files.

I'm not bashing Windows just saying if you build a computer you have the same headaches with Windows as you do with Linux when it comes to loading the OSes. I find linux much easier to load, but thats because I am use to loading linux and not Windows XP. When I have problems and errors in Windows I find its much harder to fix them than with linux. Most of the time if I have registery trouble or missing DLL files in Windows that prevent it from starting I end up reloading Windows. Linux I have several options to get into it and fix it when things go wrong, from booting into safe mode, to using a live CD to look at and fix the problem. I can more than likely use a live systems repair disk on Windows but I wouldn't know what I am doing.

I also like not having to worry about viruses and adware. My wife even with good software to protect her computer sometimes gets a malicious file on her computer. I have been trying Desk Top Secure from Panda in Ubuntu and its a really nice suite of security software if I ever need protection from virus and adware in linux I know there is a professional suite I can use.

Well I am done rambling. This really comes down to what people like. Asking why someone prefers Linux to Windows or Windows to Linux. Is like asking why someone likes Ford over Chevy or BMW to Mercedes. There is no right answer its really silly. I prefer Linux and my wife Prefers Windows simple enough.

Matt

Bagboy23
October 2nd, 2006, 12:23 AM
That five hour guide resembles how it was done almost six yars ago, now most or if not all OEM installations come with a recovery DVD that you throw in and go out to get on with your business... Unless you want to sort out paritions, then you do that then goout to continue with normal life...

My experience with Ubuntu was:

1. Boot from Live CD to receive Blank screen, then I find out after a day of research that I have to throwsome boot parameters to get Ubuntu to understand my GFX card, Something to do with vga.

2. Finally, a screen, so install and sit by the live CD and go through all the steps, six in total...

3. Update the out-of-box installation with the listed updates -> Ubuntu broke, and Xserver did not start.

4. Re-install, sit by the computer and finish all the steps.

5. While it takes the 30 minutes to install, come on this forum to see why it's dying after updates on another computer.

6. Spend hours trying to work it out, eventually giving up and not bothering with updates.

7. Installing ATI drivers, this in it self requires you to be average skilled at CLI, I mean before allthis I didn't know wat run level,init 3 was.

8. Try to find software which is as good as if not better than Office. I work in a law firm so we don't care about the technical tidbits, we just need collaboration, file sharing, VOIP, consistent template docs. Open office does not do that, it turns out that there is 100 other progs which do that, but who in the right mind wants to sit and rummage through 100 progs to find one that works.

9. Gave up on the ATI drivers, running default drivers.

10. Can't find a good project planning tool similar to MS Project...

The list just goes on and on...

While it may be true that my transistion phase may not be smooth, I am actually willing to give Ubuntu a try before i fork out the £150 for MS software. If it works then that's fine.

Windows on the other hand -> Popin recovery CD, come back an hour and its already loged in ready for usage. Hooray.

I rather get on with life than sit on a comp working out what apt, fglr, uname blah, blah.. is...

linuxnomad
October 2nd, 2006, 04:04 AM
The five hour guide resembles what you did six years ago because nothing really has changed with the install method of Windows in over six years. Yes if you have Windows preinstalled from a manufactor you get a nifty recovery DVD. If you build your own system you don't. You can always ghost your system after that first install and make your own DVD recovery disk but the same can be done with any OS after its been installed. If its the first install on a new clean build you can't really avoid 3-5 hours of install time for Windows. If you can someone needs to explain it to me. I do agree Linux is hit or miss on computer hardware. Its why I research my hardware and make sure it works with Linux I always use Nvidia because it simply works. My wife ended up with my ATI in her Windows machine.

Matthew

aysiu
October 2nd, 2006, 04:11 AM
If you buy a computer with Ubuntu preloaded from System 76 (http://www.system76.com), you'll also get a restore DVD (http://knowledge76.com/index.php/System76_Restore_DVD).

ago
October 2nd, 2006, 10:34 AM
3. Update the out-of-box installation with the listed updates -> Ubuntu broke, and Xserver did not start.
Well that happened once in 2.5 years and lasted 1 day.

Maybe you where unlucky enought to install that very day, maybe you are simply making it up. Any windows user I am hearing these days is claiming the same thing, boy you seem to have decided to install all on the same day...

In fact if you can extrapolate anything at all from that 1 bug, it is that in Ubuntu, bugs are corrected within HOURS, there were extremely serious bugs in Windows that were not fixed after WEEKS... ...instead you managed to make half of the your list from this one-off bug, which makes half of your list a one-off...

ATI proprietary drivers are not required at all, unless you play 3D games (and even so radeon driver is quite capable), si you can easily work without them. And as mentioned you could have used EasyUbuntu or Automatix without CLI. You made 2 bogus points out of it...

You do not need to find office software, it is preinstalled, and it is good enough for most people, it can easily read and write office document. But if you want EXACTLY MS Office, then do not even bother to look for a replacement, none will do. Install xover office + MS office.

You then need to explain what VOIP has to do with office, there are very good VOIP offerings available... As for file sharing, you can access windows shares without any problem, and even set up your own shared folders accessible from other windows machines. And there are quite a few planning applications, for a partial list see http://www.gnomefiles.org/subcategory.php?sub_cat_id=122


Windows on the other hand -> Popin recovery CD, come back an hour and its already loged in ready for usage. Hooray.

If you want to compare apples with apples, buy a system76 pc... Or compare a windows retail CD to the Ubuntu CD... Comparing a recovery CD (specifically designed for your hardware) or a ghost image to an installation CD does not make much sense, does it?

Reshin
October 2nd, 2006, 10:48 AM
In fact if you can extrapolate anything at all from that 1 bug, it is that in Ubuntu, bugs are corrected with HOURS, there were extremely serious bugs in Windows that were not fixed after WEEKS...


Um... (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=268148)

ago
October 2nd, 2006, 10:59 AM
Um... (http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=268148)

Well xine or ipp, may annoy a few people but thy are certainly NOT major bugs (xine is not even the default player, the cupsys bug has LOW priority), major bugs are things like X breaking, or crackers being able to easily gain access to your machine. Those are fixed within hours in Ubuntu. When Windows SP2 came out it broke a lot of systems and many IT departments decided to delay for MONTHS. The Windows bug MS06-42 (undoubtedly a serious one) has been released the 8 of Aug, but it introduced 2 new vulnerabilities, the 24th they released another pacth, which fixed only one of them, only by mid september they managed to get it right...

Sushi
October 2nd, 2006, 11:03 AM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

I wont push you to read my blog. So I'll just quote it here (just replace OS X with Windows XP):


I like to try out new things. And that's especially true when it comes to computers and software. I'm typing this message on a Mac Mini running OS X. A while ago I ran both Linux, on a tower-PC and OS X. But then my tower-PC broke down, so I have been OS X-exclusive for several months now. I absolutely love the hardware, and OS X is a very easy operating system to like. It looks good, things (usually) just works, and everything is very smooth. Different apps are nicely integrated with each other (like slideshows in Mail, with option of adding those photos to iPhoto, sharing of content between different iLife-apps etc. etc.). I can easily see why so many people love this thing. Hell, I like it as well! Of course, no system is perfect, and there are things in OS X that annoy me. But I'm not going to list them here.

That said, I have decided to abandon OS X. I will be moving back to Linux. In many ways, Linux is just as good, if not better than OS X. But that's not the reason for the switch. The reason is security and control. Now, to most computer-users those two are not that important reason for choosing their OS, but they are to me.

What is "security and control" in this context? No, "security" does not refer to safety from viruses this time (although, you do get that with both OS X and Linux). What it refers to is simple, really. OS X is made by Apple Computer. They made it, and they are calling the shots. They tell you what you can and can't do with it. They can change the terms of the license if they want to (they have done that with iTunes for example). They set the rules, and the user either accepts the rules, or uses something else.

In a way, it's like living in a total dictatorship, but that dictatorship gives you entertainment and safety from crime. Does that mean that such dictatorship is actually a good idea?

For me, the choice of my OS boils down to simple question really: "Do I sacrifice my long-term security for short-term comfort?". Well, do I? In the absolute short-term, things might be easier with OS X. But even that might change. But what doesn't seem to be changing is the fact that OS X (and any other proprietary software for that matter) has been designed to give it's creator (Apple, Microsoft, you name it) maximum benefits. Everything has been designed so that the creator-company benefits. With Linux and other Free software, the license of the software has been designed so that the USER gets the maximum benefits. With Linux, the user can be absolutely sure that no-one can march in and say "We changed the rules, you need to give us money, and you must stop doing this thing here". And the user can be sure, that no company will march in and prevent the user from doing something with the system. Want to change it? Want to share it with your friends? Go ahead.

That is what "Security and control" means.

So my question to you is simple: Do you sacrifice your long-term security and control for short-term comfort? Do you?

Bagboy23
October 2nd, 2006, 01:14 PM
ATI proprietary drivers are not required at all, unless you play 3D games.

That statement right there is enough to put anyone off. If you purchase an ATI GFX card, you most likely want to maximise on that, settling for less than average performance out of these for a high-end GFX card seems silly to me.

Hey donít shoot the messenger, Iím only stating what I see.

Bugs are NOT corrected within the hour, since some users are still having problems with the install and WORKAROUNDS are posted on the forum in an effort to sort out the problems out which eventually get lost in the piles of posts. We are then promised that this will be fixed in newer releases.

As far as I can tell, with every new Ubuntu release come a newer set of problems. To me it feels as though Ubuntu is always in beta stage.

Sushi
October 2nd, 2006, 01:22 PM
That statement right there is enough to put anyone off. If you purchase an ATI GFX card, you most likely want to maximise on that

Not necessarily. Maybe the laptop you bought came with Ati graphics, yet you have no interest in gaming?


Bugs are NOT corrected within the hour

I have seen bugs corrected within the hour. True, usually it takes longer, but it DOES happen.

ago
October 2nd, 2006, 01:34 PM
As far as I can tell, with every new Ubuntu release come a newer set of problems. To me it feels as though Ubuntu is always in beta stage.

You are making waaaaay to much out of the X bug... And yes, lots of serious Ubuntu bugs are corrected within hours. Not all bugs are serious and not all serious bugs are corrected in short time frame, but many are.

Like many others, I did not even notice the X bug because my PC was off when it happened and by the time I turned it on (a few hours later), the bug had already been fixed and the new package was in the repository. I only learnt about it on the forum. You must have been really, really unlucky to install in those few hours... But be careful to extrapolate from that.

PS in software there are always newer set of problems, almost by definition (humans write new code + humans make mistakes =...) . But each Ubuntu release is clearly far better than the previous one and they still are one of the most stable and secure OS on earth, far, far ahead of windows. Expecting a bugless release (or any bugless piece of code) is a complete joke. If you then play with Edgy or XGL, yes that is beta software at the moment and it is clearly labelled as such. But Ubuntu Dapper is not Beta, and if you think that is Beta software because of a bug that lasted a few hours, then what letter shall we pick for Windows? A shame you have only one letter before beta, because to account for the gap we would need a whole new alphabet...

akshaysrinivasan
October 2nd, 2006, 02:40 PM
Honestly linux has been simply superb.I have been seeing better support over the years.With breezy i had 2 fps on tuxracer now 22!And hardly use windows anymore,and once everything is set up even my parents think it linux is as easy to learn as windows.
Windows has some serious problems,once it is connected to internet it starts depleting with time even after installing loads of security software and updates.
In Linux i have a piece of mind ,not worrying if the computer will crash,loss of data.I can relax even without installing security updates.
Thanks for all the open source programmers who have given me and all the linux users a great piece of software.

the.dark.lord
October 2nd, 2006, 03:05 PM
So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

Cos its free, and you don't have to pay a tyranically company.

Kulgan
October 2nd, 2006, 03:26 PM
It would be interesting to see what a microsoft employee has to say about microsoft employment. I know one guy who really likes it - my best friend's uncle was quite high (at one time Billie's little helper), but they didn't like his personality, so he got fired (I think he's a real nice guy, even if he has some distorted views on the greatness of certain software :/

darrenm
October 2nd, 2006, 03:48 PM
Heres what Mark had to say about the X bug

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/54

Don't remember anyone from Microsoft ever apologising when they broke things.

OldGaf
October 2nd, 2006, 07:16 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

I also duel boot with XP. I only use XP to play games..... I think of it as my X-box.

I like having something to play with..... I am bored of windows.

I find I am blowing systems away fairly often as my teenagers make such a mess of the Win boxes its just easier. Switching to Kubuntu cut down the time to re-istall the OS, patches and required applications to about a quarter of the time. Now, we are not the average household as we have over 10 PC's, but still....

Another big one, even for houses with a few PC's is the cost and BS involved with Windows. I am free to install all the above mentiond software for free and as many times as I like. I never got over having my XP come up and tell me I have installed it too many times! I did not change any hardware, I just wanted a nice fresh install..... and here I thought I paid for it!!! :-k

klinux89
October 3rd, 2006, 12:11 AM
If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?
--------------------------------------------------------------

you **** me off really bad, linux crushes windows

Linux isn't stolen, Bill Gates steals programs to add in his windows distro

linux has a nice gui

no adware

no viruses and stuff

runs like many times faster

no crashes

we the linux users love opensource, you the people like windows, you guys like wasting money on **** made by bill gates that he don't know what he is doing

i don't give a **** what ppl say bout windows that its all good and stuff but windows sux

MicroSuck Windows sux

linux runs better is more stable, it can run all windows apps, AND THATS GUARANTEED (PROVE ME WRONG THEN, I LAY DOWN 2GRAND THAT U CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG), it has every utilitie ull ever need

Linux is the best os ever made.

After using linux, my thinking and speaking, and orginization, has gotten so much better

I give windows an opportunity, every time i try using it, it pisses me off even more, and shows and reminds me how UNRELIABLE WINDOWS IS!!! It crashes, it fails installation, PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE!!! <----- uh no, u mean reboot the machine BILL GATES!!!, <-- you have no clue on what an OS consists of these days, we aren't greedy people that take ppls money,

WE ARE OPENSOURCE

Nonetheless, Tux always watches out for us, he sees all of the windows problems

mmmmm

smoothwall is linux, and that is our proxy server at skool

RUN BY LINUX!!!

Linux rules

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS STILL? ON WHY LINUX IS BETTER THAN WINDOWS?

TRY IM 'ING ME, KLINUX89 I USE AIM

Kingsley
October 3rd, 2006, 12:41 PM
If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?
--------------------------------------------------------------

you **** me off really bad, linux crushes windows

Linux isn't stolen, Bill Gates steals programs to add in his windows distro

linux has a nice gui

no adware

no viruses and stuff

runs like many times faster

no crashes

we the linux users love opensource, you the people like windows, you guys like wasting money on **** made by bill gates that he don't know what he is doing

i don't give a **** what ppl say bout windows that its all good and stuff but windows sux

MicroSuck Windows sux

linux runs better is more stable, it can run all windows apps, AND THATS GUARANTEED (PROVE ME WRONG THEN, I LAY DOWN 2GRAND THAT U CAN'T PROVE ME WRONG), it has every utilitie ull ever need

Linux is the best os ever made.

After using linux, my thinking and speaking, and orginization, has gotten so much better

I give windows an opportunity, every time i try using it, it pisses me off even more, and shows and reminds me how UNRELIABLE WINDOWS IS!!! It crashes, it fails installation, PRESS ANY KEY TO CONTINUE!!! <----- uh no, u mean reboot the machine BILL GATES!!!, <-- you have no clue on what an OS consists of these days, we aren't greedy people that take ppls money,

WE ARE OPENSOURCE

Nonetheless, Tux always watches out for us, he sees all of the windows problems

mmmmm

smoothwall is linux, and that is our proxy server at skool

RUN BY LINUX!!!

Linux rules

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS STILL? ON WHY LINUX IS BETTER THAN WINDOWS?

TRY IM 'ING ME, KLINUX89 I USE AIM
lol... camtasia. i want my 2 grand.

akak8ty
October 3rd, 2006, 02:57 PM
Have you considered trying spell check? :roll:

pufuwozu
October 3rd, 2006, 03:02 PM
I'm not one that likes Bill Gates that much (although I do like his support for charities) but blaming Bill for what goes into Windows is pretty dumb. Bill makes little decisions right now and has been for a while. Although he is technically at the top of the ladder, he doesn't use his power anymore.

I'm against with what he has done in the past but right now he is being generous with his money and that's a good thing.

Kulgan
October 3rd, 2006, 03:35 PM
@klinux89: two things.
1) notice the title of the forum:

Windows Discussions Discuss the Windows operating system here. Please do not use this as a bashing area.
That usually doesn't mean "use capitals as much as possible, and insult the hell out of things."

2) Everybody has a right to choose what they want. And if they don't know about linux because windows comes with their computer, then they are not what we call computer literate, and shouldn't be using linux anyways.

You all have to admit that microsoft has given a lot to the computing world, even if not all of it is what you call good.

sonicdrive
October 7th, 2006, 01:55 AM
it is a personal thing i got bit by the linux bug and have been a druggy for it ever since i got the choice on how i want to install set up change and move things around like i want it with windows i kept ](*,) all the time because it wont do what i wanted it to do

Kulgan
October 7th, 2006, 02:44 PM
it wont do what i wanted it to do

often that's cause the user is not accustomed to the correct way of informing linux on how he/she wants things :P

MedivhX
October 7th, 2006, 03:25 PM
I must say that the only reason I have Windows on my machine is VIDEO GAMES. It's the only thing that Linux lacks. For everything else (except programming in Delphi) I use Linux, and for me it's the best OS I ever had! :D

BLTicklemonster
October 8th, 2006, 03:13 PM
Once again, Windows stays in Grub as my failsafe drop back os in case I stupid out and kill X again to such an extent that I can't us Ubuntu, and I use it to readily rip dvds with no surprises. I have yet to test ripit4me in wine since I have learned to use winetools for a more proper wine setup, so there's a small chance that I may be able to rip a dvd without even leaving linux. I know that some of you can magically get the dvd ripping and burning stuff to work, but even with files ripped in windows, then tried burning in linux, the dvds come out totally wierd.

I can game fine in linux because the only game I care for is UTGOTY.

Kulgan
October 8th, 2006, 03:46 PM
for DVDs, have you tried GnomeBaker? It's in the Synaptic repos.

BLTicklemonster
October 8th, 2006, 11:03 PM
I've tried them all, but none seem to like me.

But I have finally gotten dvd decryptor and dvd shrink to work in wine. And for newer encrypted dvds, there's a program called ripit4me that works in wine, also. So I am now down to just needing the windows drive as a fall back. And a great fallback it is, too. What a great operating system to have sitting around not being used except in cases where you just have to have something to use. (bearing in mind that we don't bash windows here, I decided to say something nice)

onioneater36
October 8th, 2006, 11:57 PM
I will soon have my 4th PC in my house. I could not afford 4 copies of Windows XP, thus here is where linux shines. 4 x $139 = $556. It would be nice if Micro$oft had a multiple user home license that an average family could afford, but that is not too likely.

_lynX
October 9th, 2006, 12:08 AM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

The only thing I have found that Windows does better over Linux is gaming. I've had a heck of a lot of trouble trying to get Steam and Counter-Strike to work on Linux, and as an avid CS player, I just can't afford the hassles or any bugs when I'm trying to game on a daily basis.

The only other reason I use Windows XP is that some of my courses require me to use Office 2k3, and I am not willing to pay money for software to run it in Linux. Windows and Office affordability are not an issue for me as I am a student; therefore, I only pay $7 per copy of Windows XP or Office.

F3nr1L
October 9th, 2006, 01:00 AM
The reasons I like Ubuntu over Windows is the multiple worspaces. How often I have had an extremely cluttered desktop and had no way to keep everything up and manage to have more space to do more things. Now I just click on another workspace. :D
Also, Ubuntu appeals to me with the nonexistance of a start menu. If I want to use an app, I can go to applications, rather than start>all programs. Saves a bit of time, at least. Right off the bat Ubuntu also starts with Firefox(I adore tabbed browsing.) and even light computer users can acknowledge Ubuntu having much better stock games. I don't know what i would do without my mahjongg to pass the time.

mainalisuyog
October 9th, 2006, 05:43 AM
I really don't know why i use ubuntu. Guess it's an addiction.

elpuerco
October 10th, 2006, 12:11 AM
I actually prefer Kubuntu. I got Ubuntu loaded and didn't really click with it so reverted back to Kubuntu.

Since loading it some weeks ago now I have not loaded XP at home once.

I would say at present I am 98% satisfied with this distro, my only gripe would be the niggles I have with loading apps through adept and selected all other require modules etc but still find myself having to hunt the documentation cos the inbuilt app menus wont load or cant find it?

Apart from that everything is kool

Kulgan
October 10th, 2006, 11:43 AM
Personally, KDE reminds me a little too much of windows, with the K menu and all that. I also don't like having to dig four menus deep to start a simple app. But it's great that other people do :D

I think the whole question of this topic can be turned completely around - What would make you want windows over linux?

-K

elpuerco
October 10th, 2006, 11:58 AM
LOl, well my KDE setup looks way better than XP ;)

After using Kubuntu for about 3 weeks and having it all configured to my liking I found Ubuntu somewhat confusing.

I seemed lost in trying to change setting etc, guess I was nicely settled into K :D

I only use WindowsXP now for work as it is dual boot on my firms laptop.

I only use Linux at home now which is a treat as there is no waiting ages for Windoze to finish loading before I can do anything.

SkyNet2029
October 10th, 2006, 12:05 PM
Personally, I have XPPro & Windows Server2K3 loaded into vmware server running on top of Kubuntu. Yes, until GTA2 gets ported over to Linux, (Age of Empires also) I will leave the XP on the box. As for the windows server, I have no real use for it now (wrote a paper on its crappy but better than before memory management issues) though. I still don't understand the need for wine when vmware can run windows apps how they were intended- in windows..
As for why I use Linux.. I am still new to the BSD so like to pop back into something I totally understand once in awhile.
(No, I don't mean windows ;-) )

aysiu
October 10th, 2006, 04:14 PM
Personally, KDE reminds me a little too much of windows, with the K menu and all that. I also don't like having to dig four menus deep to start a simple app. But it's great that other people do :D\ You can change the placement of the KMenu--that's the beauty of any Linux desktop environment or window manager--easy customization.

P.S. If you don't like digging through menus, then you actually should like Windows, as it just has All Programs and then all the programs.

Both KDE and Gnome pop their applications into submenus based on categories. They're far more like each other than either one is like Windows.

kopilo
October 11th, 2006, 05:28 AM
Programming and development, as well as watching videos and encoding them differently. I still can't believe that a flv file can be converted to a mpg file in commandline in Ubuntu 64. 8)

Kateikyoushi
October 11th, 2006, 10:57 AM
I am used to command line, by using vms, bsd before had my windows.
I had to use XP because my VAIO TR5 notebook's webcam had only win driver.

I disliked the gui, easy to learn and use but found it uncomfortable and slow to dig in start menu, windows explorer is cumbersome compared to 2 pane commanders.
Not mentioning how much resources XP requires, my gentoo takes 38MB with X.

So I replaced the explorer process by a hotkey software.
This way could start programs by keyboard shortcuts and the whole bloat explorer did not start up. No taskbar, and useless start menu.
I thought it is going to be fine, but I was wrong some apps in control panel depend on explorer so pulled the whole thing in whenever i started them, one of them was wireless config which I had to use often unfortunately.
As soon my intern was over and webcam was not neceserry got myself a new laptop which has no driver issues.

Windows is bearable if I use it only a little to start games at LAN or to edit transcode videos.

cunawarit
October 11th, 2006, 01:17 PM
So I replaced the explorer process by a hotkey software.
This way could start programs by keyboard shortcuts and the whole bloat explorer did not start up. No taskbar, and useless start menu.

Neat idea! Have you tried to run fluxbox with Cygwin?

Kateikyoushi
October 11th, 2006, 05:47 PM
I am using ratpoison with Xbindkeys in linux and I tried to create something similar in windows. Even without explorer alt tabbing works so all I needed was a way to start apps and I was set.

Kulgan
October 12th, 2006, 08:41 PM
You can change the placement of the KMenu--that's the beauty of any Linux desktop environment or window manager--easy customization.

P.S. If you don't like digging through menus, then you actually should like Windows, as it just has All Programs and then all the programs.

Both KDE and Gnome pop their applications into submenus based on categories. They're far more like each other than either one is like Windows.

easy customisation is not necessary when it looks good as is :P

I would still say that gnome has less menu depths than KDE - never more than two. And you should have seen my Windows setup... it had so many things in the "All Programs" list...

aysiu
October 12th, 2006, 08:52 PM
People will differ, of course, on what "looks good as is."

I would say the bulk of Ubuntu users at the very least change the wallpaper, if not the icons and themes.

KDE can have pretty deep menus--depending on how it's set up. I believe Kubuntu (unlike Mandriva) defaults to just one level deep, though.

Windows has all programs in All Programs, though. They don't have subsections for Audio/Video, Internet, etc., no matter how long your list gets.

Kulgan
October 12th, 2006, 09:07 PM
it's all to his/her own, anyways... I'm just glad I have found something I like :D

aysiu
October 12th, 2006, 09:10 PM
it's all to his/her own, anyways... I'm just glad I have found something I like :D
I can definitely agree with that sentiment.

In any case, I'm using IceWM now...

jclmusic
October 13th, 2006, 11:29 PM
linux is far more secure. i use it 4 the net. i would use it 4 far more if i wasn't so much into making music. i still use xp for music, but i have 2 computers, so windows never goes online (it can't be trusted!) i'd prefer a mac 4 my music, but i can't afford 1, and the programs r harder 2 crack.

kopilo
October 14th, 2006, 07:24 AM
I don't know about other people but I use Damn Small Linux as a backup if the computers at uni/work go down, fine I can't access the internet but at least I can get some work/study done.

egd
October 15th, 2006, 01:57 PM
This list could go on forever, but I'll try to keep it brief:

Stability: every flavour of windoze I've ever worked on from 3.1 through 2k3 has been inherently unstable and insecure. I grew tired of the relentless patching, rebooting, rebuilding cycle. Windows corrupts itself over time and short of blowing it away with an SOE periodically there is nothing you can do to stop it. Of course, then the damned SOE needs updating too, so over time it too becomes crapola.

Security: Linux is inherently more secure than windoze in any flavour could ever hope to be. As long as microsoft builds future windoze flavours off the same codebase it will always remain inherently insecure.

My computer, my way: I'm tired of windoze and many windoze based apps calling home when I've not instructed/configured it to. Just because I happen to be online does not mean that when I hit f3 to search for files on my local drives I want to search the damned net or ms.com. In addition, micosoft makes many decisions for you, stores crapola all over your drives and unnecessarily locks you into proprietary file formats. Who said that my Word processor had to be a browser anyhow?

In short Linux gives me stability, security and freedom of choice - three things microsoft isn't capable of, and in the case of the latter, something microsoft also has no intention of providing.

Linus Torvalds will go down in history as the man who revolutionised an industry and put choice back in the public domain. For that I thank him and the broader Linux community sincerely.

BLTicklemonster
October 15th, 2006, 02:30 PM
Ever since I started playing with computers back in 96 and found out about freeware, I have been an advocate of cheapness. Runs in my blood. You may get what you pay for, but I seriously doubt people shell out bucks for an unstable virus magnet on purpose, now, do they? I made my first website in notepad, line by line, tag by tag, page with links and pictures after page with links and pictures... I showed it to my nephew, and he asked me what html editor I used. Being self taught, I was like "editor? They make editors for this stuff?" ](*,) Needless to say, I began using easyhtml soon thereafter. One page I was proud of was my Freeware links page. I would always share a link to it with everyone I knew, so they could take advantage of the cool freebies, too. This was way before all the embedded garbage was as prevalent as it is today, too.

So anyway, now I have Synaptic sitting there already in my operating system... my own freeware link so to say. I have a treasure trove of just about anything I can imagine. Last night we were out in the country riding along, and my kids were amazed at all the stars. Gee, I ought to load up some astronomy software so we can see where something ought to be, then step outside and find it! No problem!

Then there's this really cool app that has no purpose whatsoever except that it is cool as hell: Beryl. I just got it going last night. I sat jiggling windows and spinning workspaces for quite a while last night. How freaking cool.

Windows is cool and all, but to me, Linux is just way cooler from a cheap tinkerer's perspective.

Chayak
October 15th, 2006, 05:16 PM
Well I still have to use windows, at work for my desktop and the servers I support (OMG... I hate NT... is it bad when Win2003 server is seen as a luxury?)

I like all the cool stuff that can be done with linux. I have an entire system on a usb micro drive. It'll run on damn near anything. Gumstix is a perfect example.

The biggest thing I hate about windows is after I pay for a server I then have to pay for every user that's going to use it... Well to be honest Redhat isn't much better in that area either

Crooksey
October 15th, 2006, 05:25 PM
Redhat are a compnay that offer support, hence the price.

If you want unsoppreted, use CentOS and Fedora.

Kulgan
October 15th, 2006, 06:26 PM
Redhat are a compnay that offer support, hence the price.

If you want unsoppreted, use CentOS and Fedora.

one could also just use ubuntu :D

italiano40
October 16th, 2006, 01:10 AM
I Dual boot because my company is using linux as the default desktop OS and i want to use windows at home

ago
October 16th, 2006, 09:09 AM
Redhat are a compnay that offer support, hence the price.
Canoniocal are a compnay that offer support (for Ubuntu), hence the price... ...IF YOU WANT SUPPORT. If you do not need 24/7 support and are happy with fora, mailing list, wiki and chat, you do not pay anything at all and still get the very same OS... Unlike RH...

Naralas
October 16th, 2006, 11:58 AM
I Dual boot because my company is using linux as the default desktop OS and i want to use windows at home

So your not a Linux user per se, you just found yourself in a company that is more enlightened than you in there OS choice ;)

ojasvi rajpal
October 16th, 2006, 12:19 PM
Its the power Linux gives you , that is why I use Linux . And moreover once u get a hang of it its so much fun .

Kulgan
October 16th, 2006, 05:03 PM
In the beginning I just wanted to try linux cause it wasn't Windows... I guess I'm addicted now :D

denad
October 19th, 2006, 12:57 PM
Wanted to find alternatives for windows (Vista) I guess Im addicted now too :D

ShadowVlican
October 20th, 2006, 01:53 AM
haven't read this insanely long thread ;)

but to answer the question: If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?

i try linux (ubuntu) periodically to see how their are progressing.

i'm happy with Windows XP, works exactly how i want it to.

BLTicklemonster
October 20th, 2006, 02:38 AM
My computer hasn't booted anything but Ubuntu since Oct 2. woot woot.

bdb
October 20th, 2006, 05:03 AM
I use ubuntu because I like learning new stuff... for me a working system is boring. I like a challenge of putting together something. With windows everything works. hmmm... Ubuntu has its problems -- mostly because of licensing restrictions. It's not their fault multimedia codecs aren't free.

Kulgan
October 20th, 2006, 04:22 PM
haven't read this insanely long thread

but to answer the question: If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?

i try linux (ubuntu) periodically to see how their are progressing.

i'm happy with Windows XP, works exactly how i want it to.

I'm glad you're happy with what you've got!

hrp2171
October 23rd, 2006, 04:15 PM
I'm using Kubuntu because:

1. I don't have time to tinker Linux any more. Used to be a Slackware user

2. Was using a Corporate Edition of XP which was not my own. Now I'm legal

3. Kubuntu has been by far the easiest Linux distribution to setup and start using.

:mrgreen:

jdunn
October 23rd, 2006, 07:01 PM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

A more appropriate title for this thread would be "If you have linux, why do you still use Windows XP?". I still have a few reasons but they are disappearing.

1.) I already paid for Windows XP so I might as well use it.
2.) Windows always has (and probably always will) supported many games that won't run natively (or at all) on linux
3.) Windows has better support for proprietary media formats (???) This is no longer entirely accurate. Flash 9.0 beta for linux is finally available. I can play Quicktime, MS (wave, wmv, etc), realplayer, commercial DVDs and other formats on linux and support keeps getting better.
4.) Windows XP has better hardware support. Ex: wireless and USB devices. This is hardly the fault of linux. Its the fault of the hardware developers who release drivers and info only for M$.

Now if you really want to know why I use linux if I have Windows Xp, its because:
1.) Little or no viruses, spyware mallware to deal with in Linux. I have to run Nav, Spybot and AdAware frequently on Windows just to keep it clean. The maintanance and upkeep for Windows is much more than Linux.
2.) Linux is much more customizeable and controllable than WinXP, yet distros like Kubuntu are easy to install and get nearly everything running out-of-the-box.
3.) Linux has great opensource applications that are nearly as good or better than commercial WinXP applications. examples: Amarok, OpenOffice, Gimp, gcc and build-essentials.
4.) Security. Microsoft is slowly catching up but Linux is just more secure, hands down. Why do you think most corporate servers run *nix instead of M$ Windows?
5.) Linux is newer and more up-to-date. Most linux distros have frequent online software updates and completely new (and free) distro versions every 6 months. Then there's M$...which has been promissing Vista (aka Longhorn) for 3-4 years.

Kulgan
October 23rd, 2006, 07:28 PM
The topic title should perhaps be "If you can get Linux for free, why the f**k are you buying XP??". Or, even worse, why will you buy vista?

Reshin
October 23rd, 2006, 08:05 PM
The topic title should perhaps be "If you can get Linux for free, why the f**k are you buying XP??". Or, even worse, why will you buy vista?

Cuz, ubuntu/linux doesn't work his/her way?

aysiu
October 23rd, 2006, 08:11 PM
The topic title should perhaps be "If you can get Linux for free, why the f**k are you buying XP??". Or, even worse, why will you buy vista?
Because XP came preloaded on her computer when she bought it?

Because when she buys a new computer, Vista will come preloaded on it?

Kulgan
October 23rd, 2006, 08:18 PM
Case rested

aysiu
October 23rd, 2006, 08:26 PM
The truth of the matter is that there's no should be no assumption that because you have X operating system that you would have no need to use Y operating system.

No operating system is superior in every way to all other operating systems for all purposes for all people.

It doesn't make sense to say, "If you have XP, why do you use Linux?" any more than it makes sense to say "If you have Linux, why do you use XP?" It can go either way depending on the users needs and means.

hrp2171
October 23rd, 2006, 08:52 PM
Well, after seeing what the *ubuntu distributions are like, I'm ready to unload Windows from all my home computers. I'm not going to upgrade my hardware, much less buy Windows Vista. I will finally leave Windows back at the office after I clock out.

bg1256
October 24th, 2006, 05:54 AM
More stable, free apps, more fun, infinite custamizability, FREE!!!:D

YourFriendlyGopher
October 24th, 2006, 06:24 AM
Because it's a hell of a lot more interesting than Windows! It's like a massive geeky playground where you can change anything to how you want it to be (and to an even greater extent if you can code). Now, I'm not a not a full-on Linux nerd by any stretch, I've been a Windows user since I was around 6, and it's an ok OS, but I've grown up doing things the 'Windows way'. As a result, when I first tried ubuntu around 9 months ago it was frustrating as hell, I couldn't figure out how to do anything.

However, now that I've learned the new way of doing things, I've found out just how constricting Windows is. Instead of having to deal with spyware/viruses and commercial software that's usually riddled with lots of useless gimmicky 'features', I now have lots of truely useful programs that just get their jobs done. What I'm trying to say is, getting through the transition from doing things the Windows way to the Linux way is well worth it. :)

Jesta
October 24th, 2006, 06:30 AM
i didnt read all of this thread, but my answer to the question is I use linux because I like learning new things and I love all the open source software available for linux

steven8
October 24th, 2006, 08:06 AM
Why do people who have a tub install a showerhead? Because sometimes they like to stand up. Sometimes a change is nice.

mahy
October 24th, 2006, 11:08 AM
The only thing that keeps me still using windows is the fonts. I have to work in windows whenever i'm typing large documents and stuff like that. I tried everything and still the fonts look nowhere near as good as those in windows. :(

EDIT: Yesterday i finally achieved font rendering that's on par with the one in windows. No need to use win for me anymore (except occasional gaming)! :mrgreen:

Kulgan
October 24th, 2006, 01:15 PM
Perhaps a good response would be to tell people who are new to linux and don't see the point to use some distro or other for as long as they have used Windows, and THEN make a judgement?

Shin_Gouki2501
October 24th, 2006, 01:29 PM
well i like Linux, basically because i got /get the feeeling , especially with ubuntu, that i can really influence the OS.
Thats a nice thing. sadly user wishes cann't come to reality as fast as they appear , still its amazing!
wbr Shin Gouki

indigoshift
October 25th, 2006, 06:55 AM
I have XP. So why am I using Linux as my primary OS?

Because, with Linux, my computer is mine again. I get to say what gets installed on it. I get to say what music and video files I'm allowed to play on it. I get to have the final say in how everything's configured. And, if I want to remove something, I can remove it with no problems or orphaned registry hooks frakking up my computer's performance.

Because I've never been comfortable in Windows. I can put the Amiga OS4 Theme on this machine (and I have!), and it's like I'm on the Amiga again...back when computing was fun for me.

Because I don't have to worry about spyware, adware, trojans, viruses, or any of that. I can read the F-Secure blog or the Secunia labs site and think to myself, "man, that sounds terrible! Glad I don't have to worry about it!" And I don't have to take up valuable CPU cycles by having AV, anti-spyware, and registry-watching programs running constantly in the background just because I want to visit some websites.

Because I don't have to make a wishlist, save my pennies, and convince my wife that I need to spend money on software every time I want to install a new program. I can just load Synaptic, and go window-shopping, then download whatever I like absolutely free. I'm no longer a slave to the modern software market, and its often-unnatural licensing fees--which is something I didn't realize was wrong (at least for me) until I didn't have to deal with it anymore.

Because I don't have to constantly trickle money into my machine to upgrade the hardware because it's six months old now, and completely outdated for the things that used to run on it without any problems.

Mostly, though, because it's fun. :D

bdb
October 25th, 2006, 01:16 PM
Because I don't have to worry about spyware, adware, trojans, viruses, or any of that. I can read the F-Secure blog or the Secunia labs site and think to myself, "man, that sounds terrible! Glad I don't have to worry about it!" And I don't have to take up valuable CPU cycles by having AV, anti-spyware, and registry-watching programs running constantly in the background just because I want to visit some websites.

Do not get too confident. :) Linux is not immune to viruses/trojans/adware. It's just not as common because crackers do not target this OS and (my own personal theory) people that use linux are more knowledgable and won't click ****** and kiddy pron links. :)

Kulgan
October 25th, 2006, 04:03 PM
Mostly, though, because it's fun.

Amen

Coelocanth
October 25th, 2006, 08:27 PM
I agree with indigoshift in pretty much every point made in the post. One other thing though:

shouldn't the question be "If you have Linux, why are you using Windows XP?" ;)

Kulgan
October 25th, 2006, 08:30 PM
that's been said a couple times... I think I said it twice myself...

the answer for that is generally the same for both questions: because we have a freedom of OS, just like we are supposed to have a freedom of speech... What works well for me - linux - does not really work all that great with my granddad, who only plays solitaire on his computer, and does not really care if he has to pay a little now and then. But I can't see myself going back to windows...

darrenm
October 25th, 2006, 08:40 PM
Do not get too confident. :) Linux is not immune to viruses/trojans/adware. It's just not as common because crackers do not target this OS and (my own personal theory) people that use linux are more knowledgable and won't click ****** and kiddy pron links. :)

I read this a lot everywhere so I'm taking the opportunity to drop in my 2c worth now :)

The whole security model of *nix means that it can never be as weak and insecure as Windows. When something malicious enters the system on Windows it runs with the privileges that the user currently executing it has which is mostly full unrestricted administrative privileges.

When something gets executed on Linux it has the user rights of the user running it which is usually very little. The most something malicious can do is mess up your user account or your files owned by yourself. Everything else on the system is secure and unless someone is running as root while opening something dodgy nothing can really be done.

If set up incorrectly Linux is a far bigger security target than windows. I've always run with port 22 SSH open. Fine as long as you know what you're doing. I enabled password logins one day and forgot I had set up an account with the same password as the username.

Next thing I know I noticed lots of mail being sent from Postfix. A SSH dictionary attack gave someone a shell where they used my box for a few weeks. Won't make that mistake again.

But I still maintain that as default Linux will always be more secure and less vulnerable than Windows with its current security model.

Kulgan
October 25th, 2006, 09:23 PM
very nice explaination, and a good comeback for those "what's up with that 'root' crap" attacks...

phersotty
October 25th, 2006, 09:30 PM
Soon you might want to upgrade to Vista and then you will have to pay $$.

Kulgan
October 25th, 2006, 09:34 PM
that never stopped all that many people before

darrenm
October 25th, 2006, 09:37 PM
very nice explaination, and a good comeback for those "what's up with that 'root' crap" attacks...

And also a good reason why the Ubuntu devs were correct to implement disabling the root account by default and allowing normal users sudo. People need root access every now and again and sudo is a nice way of making sure they don't use it for anything they don't have to.

Kulgan
October 25th, 2006, 10:13 PM
I like that in the terminal you can sudo one command or stay root for a small amount of time - which is nice when you don't want to up "sudo" in front of every single command.

ShadowVlican
October 25th, 2006, 11:18 PM
A more appropriate title for this thread would be "If you have linux, why do you still use Windows XP?". I still have a few reasons but they are disappearing.

1.) I already paid for Windows XP so I might as well use it.
2.) Windows always has (and probably always will) supported many games that won't run natively (or at all) on linux
3.) Windows has better support for proprietary media formats (???) This is no longer entirely accurate. Flash 9.0 beta for linux is finally available. I can play Quicktime, MS (wave, wmv, etc), realplayer, commercial DVDs and other formats on linux and support keeps getting better.
4.) Windows XP has better hardware support. Ex: wireless and USB devices. This is hardly the fault of linux. Its the fault of the hardware developers who release drivers and info only for M$.
#2 and #4 is the fault of the developers, because ubuntu is free, i would certainly love to use it as my main OS, but because of #2 and #4 i'm unable to

i blame the developers who don't release drivers for linux

however you can also blame linux, it's hard to release drivers compatible with SO MANY DISTROS ;)

#3, i like windows applications like foobar2000 (bit perfect audio to my receiver is great) and CCCP (directshow acceleration is great), unfortunately there's no equivalent in linux

that's why i always check back with ubuntu... see how far they are progressing.... i'd love to help but i have trouble programming even in qbasic ](*,)

Reshin
October 26th, 2006, 07:03 AM
Found this gem on bash.org :D


andrewy: linux exploits are like IF THE MOON IS IN FRONT OF VENUS AND YOU ARE LEFT HANDED AND SOMEONE ALREADY HAS LOCAL ACCESS AND YOU HAVE YAEWS (YET ANOTHER EMACS WEB SERVER) INSTALLED IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS TO BECOME ROOT

Ocxic
October 26th, 2006, 09:16 PM
however you can also blame linux, it's hard to release drivers compatible with SO MANY DISTROS ;)


why can't they just give basic hardware spec sheet for the devolpers to develop there own code, that way no source code is released but the open source drivers can be just as good as the propertary drivers. it's not like they would loose any profits...