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

katiad
November 19th, 2005, 01:52 PM
I asked myself this question every few months for about 5 years. I've been struggling to jump on the linux bandwagon, but every time I did so, I found that I just had no real reason to abandon the OS that was working so well for me, without hassle. XP has been great to me. Not to most everyone else I know, but it's been a good friend.

But... I use linux for all of my everyday needs now - it's on my main computer, xp on my secondary box. I have a KVM switch I use to pop between the two until I manage to buy another monitor (saving up for a flat panel to save some room). I play a couple not-so-impressive games on XP, and use it for itunes (sure, I could use linux for music, but I purchase a lot of songs through itunes instead of buying and ripping cds, so... easiest to just use it on XP), and I use dreamweaver/photoshop occasionally. But most of my heavy computing is in word processing, instant messaging, email, and web browsing. I can do that fine on Ubuntu, without any application-dependent hysteria from switching to something new and unusual from Windows. Now that I've found a hassle-free, stable version of linux that works on my computers... I'm thrilled!

The real reason I use linux: I like being different. I like the free philosophy. I like supporting the little guy, not the megacorporation who treats even honest users as criminals in the making. I don't want to pay a fortune to upgrade XP when Vista comes out. I don't want to deal with pirating software I can't afford. :) I haven't had a spyware problem in over a year, but I don't want to worry about the latest trick up someone's sleeve. I love being able to have access to thousands of free programs, to experiment with the command line, to play with different desktop environments. I especially liked setting up SSH so I can ssh in from work and chat with friends during these long midnight hour shifts (IM sites and programs are blocked... so are most webmail clients, games, etc.). I like that it gives me more control.

Do I use it for everything? Like I said, no. I have tasks I find better suited, for MY usage, to XP, but for most of my daily computing needs, I use linux simply because I can.

LittleBlue
November 19th, 2005, 05:42 PM
For me, it is a simple matter of the MS EULA license.

First of all, even after reading the MS EULA, I don't completely understand it. I don't enjoy being bound by something I don't understand.

Second, in those parts that I do understand, there are freedoms you are giving up and restrictions inposed upon you that do not agree with me. MS is given too much power over your machine and your data. Not that they use all power granted, but the EULA gives them much power.

I still use a mixture of Windows XP and Linux . MS has done a lot of good work in their products. I try to use linux or OpenBSD (pf rocks) where possible, especially for sensitive information uses.

prizrak
November 21st, 2005, 08:09 AM
Linux is not Windows, if you want an easy to use pretty OS that runs games and works fine with your current computer you get Windows. If you want a pretty OS that just works get OS X. If you want something that will allow you to customize and tweak your computer to your liking get Linux. As nice and user friendly as Ubuntu is, it still is a professional OS. It requires a certain learning curve and a technical mindset to learn it. If you don't see the point in using Ubuntu and prefer XP then Linux is just not for you, and that's OK every OS has it's function and its target user pool.

akniss
November 30th, 2005, 04:30 PM
1) its more fun
2) security... Even when people start creating malware for linux, the nature of the beast is that as a user, I don't have administrator priveledges, and so even my dumbest employee/family member/self can't do too much damage without the root password. I've tried this same idea in XP, and things just will not work without Admin permissions. Its difficult to install, some programs will not 'run as...' correctly, adjusting permissions so things work can be a tru pain... etc. In linux I don't have to worry about it.

SteelValor
November 30th, 2005, 05:41 PM
Evolution Rapes All!

penguinman007
December 1st, 2005, 01:40 PM
I want to know where the icon for MySQL client is.

So I can click it.

prizrak
December 3rd, 2005, 10:15 AM
Why I use Ubuntu (Linux)?
- It suites my needs much better than Windows
- There is no vendor lock-in
- I don't have to pay obscene amounts of money for things
- No one MAKES me use anything

Someone mentioned ThemeXP that costs about $20, I believe it to be an obscene amount of money for something that gives me very little. It's not an IDE or a compiler it just lets me change what my GUI looks like for crying outloud! Now I have no problem paying for software but it has to do something useful. Another thing paying incredible money for things you absolutely NEED such as Office. MS Office license is like $300, yet when I was a student I was expected to use it if I wanted to submit my writing electronically (sure labs have it but there isn't an infinite amount of machines), alot of job sites will ask you to upload a .doc resume. The thing that gets me the most is the fact that I need nothing more advanced than Wordpad, but it doesn't produce or read .doc files. So yes Linux over Windows or ANYTHING proprietary.

ubunny
December 3rd, 2005, 10:51 AM
but the whole spyware/adware thing and viruses I have never had a problem with, as long as your not being dumb opening random exe's its pretty much non existent. In reality the spyware is a big problem only because of the fact that the average computer user is attracted to flashy things and clicks.


Just from past experience but I bet you have spyware on your computer right now. I was always surprised that no matter how careful I was, it wasn't just mouse clicks that put that sluge on. Try using adaware from lavasoft (and others) and it WILL find that your computer is not as clean as you think. This is on a computer with a firewall (zonealarm) and avg (antivirus) and it was just a pain to keep that all up to date everyday.

When you realize, as I have, that it's all a big waste of time you might use the linux partition more often. YMMV of course but that was my experience.

also if it helps, the www.winehq.com (Wine is not an emulator=WINE) project can run a lot of games and quite well see if your fav game is on there. If you want to pay there is cedega also which runs more games. The cedega payment goes into research to make the games playable on linux. If you put your money there (about $5? dunno) that may serve both your purposes at less cost.

For me I also have a dual boot Xp-ubuntu machine. I find that the networking rocks on linux, it uses my wireless card at far better range and no grief than does windows.

Also I use an old laptop P3, and with ubuntu I can keep up with the developments with regard to programming etc and not feel like I need a new computer. Games alone I may indeed need to upgrade, but I would give WINE a try first.

good luck

P.S.

Linux is for Servers
Mac is for Graphics
Windows is for Solitaire

P.S.S.

you KNOW apt-get just rocks. no ads no click me here, no there, no I meant here stupidness before you download. uninstalls are just as easy.

gi2k15
December 3rd, 2005, 08:36 PM
I really, really like Linux, a lot. When I first tried Ubuntu, I just loved it, the idea, the philosophy and all... but, after 4 years knowing Linux, I could't leave completely Windows.

I think the main obstacle Linux has is the lack of an easy-to-use system. That's quite understandable considering the system's past. As a UNIX-based system targeted to servers and network, there was no need to make a GUI at all. For a lot of years - and unfortunately until now - Linux is seen as a geek OS. That's NOT my opinion, and Ubuntu is here to prove it, but there is still a lot to do. That's the main difference between Linux and Windows. While the first wasn't target for home consumers, the other always was. Window's interface sux in my opinion, but the whole system is far away easier to use than Ubuntu. But things, as I said, are changing.

If we go to Automatix Forum and check the main poll, we'll see that a lot of people is using Ubuntu because it's easy to use. I believe that's the key, to make something to human beings. But we are lasy, we like confort, we like things the easiest way.

Other important thing to mention is games. This is growing fast on Linux, but's still not the ideal. I think, and I'm not an expert on this subject, ths is because games manufacturers lack to produce Linux-based games. To play most of them, we need a workaround, like Wine and Cedega. But these programs are far from the real DirectX, for example. So, we get poor performance compared to Windows, and people don't like it. And that's anothr HUGE barrier for Linux. Let's try to revert it somehow...

Malphas
December 3rd, 2005, 09:14 PM
Just from past experience but I bet you have spyware on your computer right now. I was always surprised that no matter how careful I was, it wasn't just mouse clicks that put that sluge on. Try using adaware from lavasoft (and others) and it WILL find that your computer is not as clean as you think. This is on a computer with a firewall (zonealarm) and avg (antivirus) and it was just a pain to keep that all up to date everyday.
You shouldn't assume that everyone else will have the same problem. My XP system is 100% clean - according to Spybot and Ad-Aware anyway.

syntaxerror64
December 6th, 2005, 04:45 AM
Hi everyone... thought I'd add my two cents.

I am running a dual-boot system with Windows XP Home Edition and Ubuntu Linux 5.10. I am very new to Linux but had no problems installing Ubuntu and have been using it a few weeks. I am doing most of my Internet activities on Linux now (surfing, email, instant messenger) and play my games and do other stuff in Windows XP.

I am a very experienced Windows user and know how to keep myself secured but I'm tired of constantly having to keep spyware and anti-virus software updated and worrying about new security patches from Microsoft, etc. Unless someone tells me otherwise, I believe that Ubuntu Linux is about as safe as it gets and have been using the Internet without worrying one bit about anything. Although, I have read that the more popular Linux becomes and the more broadly it becomes used, this is going to change... but I have no idea if this is true or not.

WhiteHorse
December 6th, 2005, 09:10 AM
I just got all switched over to Ubuntu and man am I impressed. I no longer need Quicken thanks to GnuCash. Firefox kicks butt, XMMS is awesome, evolution is a godsend, totem does most of what I need, Openoffice rocks, and the list goes on.

Now I don't need XP for anything except games and now I can format/reinstall and optimize for gaming. Before, it was suboptimal cause it has to run the firewall, print spooler, USB services, PnP services, and a bunch of backdoors for microsoft and services like "unknown controller". I got sick of my machine being taken over periodically too. Not to mention viruses, spyware, and that damned realplayer!

The truth of the matter is that opensource programs have now overtaken all major commercial packages and are dominating the markets. This wasn't true even a year or two ago but now it is.

badger badger badger

This is a revolution of the mind

aboe
December 6th, 2005, 09:18 AM
I have a dual-boot Ubuntu 5.10 and Windows MCE 2005, Ubuntu is for my daily needs a secure system to write email, documents and explore the linux world...

Windows is for my work, dreamweaver for the website, tmpgenc 3.0 express for movie-making and cutting... Arkaos for presentations...

if these programs were in linux I wouldn't need windows...but for now i have to dual boot...

zugvogel
December 6th, 2005, 09:22 AM
The other point is that duel-booting is a transition point between "total XP" and "total ubuntu". By duel-booting you gain experience with linux, so when it comes to the choice of buying a new computer with or without windows, or whether you should upgrade MS office or not, you're then in a good position to choose the linux options instead (and thus save yourself a lot of money, among the other advantages).

esperantisto
December 6th, 2005, 09:25 AM
I use Ubuntu Linux of two reasons:
a) I like new things
b) Windows sometimes behaves not exactly like I want, and in many cases you've got to manually edit the registry which is not very convenient. They say, Linux is better configurable — I want to know that.

furigimp
December 6th, 2005, 11:35 AM
there was no reason for me to keep winxp.

i knew going into it that ubuntu, and linux in general did all the things i absolutely needed it to do - and that i'd gotten used to windows doing.

browsing, im'ing, music, video.

why switch though? i don't know. i guess when i decided to buy only fair trade coffee and food, try investigate my clothing sources before buying, and generally be conscious of stuff like that - switching away from MS makes sense.

if i was a bigger gamer, i'd have kept winxp to game with. as it is, the only casualty so far of my full conversion (as of yesterday) is FIFA 2005. not a big loss.

furthermore, window's got stale for me. macos is boring as ****. windows was only slightly more exciting. linux provided me with something that could both easily handle what i was used to, but also allowed me some wiggle room for a kind of geeking i hadn't done for years.

and i missed that.

matthewstory
December 6th, 2005, 01:43 PM
I use linux over windows for alot of reasons but the one that got me to switch is that i can rip my DVDs down to my local hard drive and encode them using linux (handbrake 0.7.0), which you can only do with windows media center edition, and even then you have to encode to a proprietary windows codec.

Aside from that i don't enjoy having to run firewalls and virus checkers and run spybot and adaware all the time. And when openoffice 2.0 came out i think it surpassed MS office, so i don't even need that anymore.

Also things i need to do to access work files at home ftp/ssh are a pain on windows (i don't think windows even ships with ssh standard) and the ftp command line client is terrible. I don't like putty and i don't like filezilla i prefer the command line for these things so i switched.

regards,
matt

kairu0
December 6th, 2005, 01:52 PM
or whether you should upgrade MS office or not,

Thanks for reminding me of why I use Linux.

Zimmer
December 6th, 2005, 03:24 PM
Thanks for reminding me of why I use Linux.

I purchased a P75 from Gateway in 1995 complete with MS Office Professional Edition, so the price of the machine reflected the relative cost of MS office.

When I purchased a new PC in 2002 it came with XP and the shattering news that my version of Office was not compatible..and an upgrade was going to cost in the region of £400 !! (still would cost me nearly £300 at today's rates).

I felt cheated. Ripped off..

I investigated StarOffice and OpenOffice and found it fulfilled all my requirements, so when my son built me a new PC last year I began experimenting with Linux(FC2) 'cause I was too mean and disgruntled to fork out for a retail copy of XP...when Wolf ET failed on a kernel upgrade I found Ubuntu...
.and got ET back.... along with a repository of software that installs and updates easily and can usually deliver what I need from a home PC..

In writing terms it is a bit like MS selling an expensive pen, then saying you need to BUY a new one because MS have invented new paper and the pen won’t write on the new paper. The pen is not broken… (so I am only going to use free Linux pencils and paper in future.)

Zimmer :)

deNoobius
December 6th, 2005, 04:54 PM
In my case it was originally because I was only using the older computer that is now running Ubuntu only occassionally, and it was getting to be a pain to respond to all the Windows requests for updates considering how infrequently I used it. Now that I have it all set up and tweaked the way I like--mostly thanks to folks here--I really like it and am actually using that machine more! And it's an OLD machine and I'm getting very decent performance out of it with Ubuntu.

Also, there is nothing like the user community here in the PC world. Only the Apple discussion groups come close.

I now have three OSs in my house, and it seems to me they all have different characteristics. I find it very interesting.

n8dagr8
December 6th, 2005, 11:16 PM
It's supposed to be more secure and to ween myself off the Micro$oft teet.

seriously? nothing better to do! :razz:

newbie2
December 7th, 2005, 08:43 AM
"It’s a lot easier to install Ubuntu on a new Dell Optiplex GX620 than it is to install Windows onto the same machine. You don’t believe that? Read on for the first in a series of DAU (most stupid users’) reviews here on lonien.de."
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/49429/index.html
:rolleyes:

TmP
December 14th, 2005, 12:05 PM
My adventure with Linux really started when I got a free livecd of Ubuntu Hoary. It was my second try at linux. I used to try slackware in 2001, than red-hat. Slackware wouldn't use my sound devices and red hat looked ugly. And besides, I didn't have an internet connection at that time - just went to colledge and wine and spaghetti has been eating most of my funds. Than, 6 months ago during my internship I was given a Ubuntu LiveCD by our software guy. Times have changed and my old pentium 90Mhz was replaced by a shiny new Toshiba laptop with loads of hdd, ram, centrinos and Mhz. It turned out very faulty , but i really liked it, since I earned it myselfes working at a pub and a caffee in London for 3 months( thank you UK, for opening your job-market to new EU countries! ).

Anyway my beloved laptop got a disk failure. It gave out a few scratching sounds and died. Only thing that saved me was my Ubuntu LiveCD. I've worked of RAM for a good two weeks, before I got a new hdd. Than I got so used to linux that I went for a dual boot. It was a bit cranky - restaring was out of question, because the display would crush. But it worked. I gradually leadned Linux and after the first confusion I found it absolutely incredible. And DVD-RIP rocked. Nothing like that under windows.

Just open synaptics. 1700 free applications? Each is working? WoW!

Than I decided to haul another computer from home. 700Mhz. Crappy compared to my laptop, but I tweaked that. Now its noiceless. My girlfriend was verry supportive of all this meddling. She likes linux but finds windows faster. Now she's the main user of my Laptop. Uses it as a media center- we live together and still don't have a TV. But we're hauling a lot of movies form the net. And the desktop os Ubuntu native. There will be no windows on it. And why should there be? WinXP would be sluggy. Ubuntu uses my cpu and memeory more effectively. Its safer. My laptop needs to be fast and fool-proof. So its Windows (and linux for serious jobs). And thats's how I intend to keep it.

pizzach
December 14th, 2005, 04:45 PM
While in itself not a bad question, this thread represents something that irks me. I just like to use linux. It's the same as saying "I like to drink coffee in the morning." If you ask a person why they drink coffee, usually they'll lose face and have problems answering you. The reasons are there. But they are deeply root in time. Somethings just are. I don't ask you "Why do you use XP?" But most people just use it mindlessly anyway....

lleb
December 14th, 2005, 08:15 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?

ok, ill give you the benifit of the doubt that you are not a TROLL, but you sure sound like one.

The only thing windows does better then Linux is games, and that is getting closer to not being true thanks to TransGaming.org

windows takes far longer to install, configure, patch, repatch, update, patch again, then you have to do the same thing for all of the hardware that is not supported, then you have to install and patch all of the software.

in all it will take on average 3x longer to install, patch, and configure winXP vs Linux.

Windows is a walking pile of infection waiting to happen. It takes on the average less then 15min. for a windows XP system to be completely compromised once it is live and connected to the internet.

Windows is not desiged for true multi user user. Some claim that NT was built for multi user, but that just is not true. It is a basic OS built to have some connectiviity, but does nothing for base level security and proper networking as per RFC.

Windows is a hardware hog. it takes more hardware to get the same level of performance as it does out of linux.

Windows does not detect and install working drivers for as much hardware as Linux does.

Windows has close to 500,000 lines of bad code, were the Linux 2.6.0 kernel had less then 10,000 lines of bad code. just in case you do not understand the meaning of that tid bit fact it means that the Linux kernel is far more secure, stable, and reliable then the windows kernel used in winXP or any kernel based on the NT kernel like winNT, win2k, winXP, and win2k3. also note that was when the 2.6 kernel was new so there are more then not less lines of bad code in todays 2.6.12 kernel then in its first release.

winXP Pro costs $140 USD, linux costs NOTHING except time and the price of a CD if you want to burn it out to a CD. heck if you get it from here then it does not even cost you the price of the CD as Ubuntu gives them out for FREE as is free bier.

the US Federal Government has flat out said to avoid using IE when at all possible. hmm the #1 buyer of MS Software and they are telling people to AVOID using IE? that should tell you something.

MS takes between 30 - 720 days to patch known security issues, if they patch it at all. keep in mind that many of the security issues in winXP have been around since the winNT 4.0 days. hello we are talking close to a decade.

most linux software (open source) that i have used (example is FireFox) has taken between 2hrs - 72hrs to patch any security issue.

just in case you dont get that point. that means your system will be fixed FASTER under linux then it will ever be under Windows. MS is just to big and to slow to respond to security issues to keep up with the open source community when it comes to patching programs. top that off wtih the fact that instead of only a few hundred programers working on the code, there are thousands if not millions of people looking over the open source code every day. more eyes = catching things and fixing things faster.

viruses not a real problem in the linux world. that is not to say that there are not viruses in linux, just a smart linux user will have very little to fear from them.

according to the current AOL advertisment on TV right now, there are over 500 new viruses created every day to infect MS Windows... hmm...

spyware/malware/adware not a problem in linux. this is a problem that is exclusive to MS Windows.

so with all of those problems in order to use winXP live on the internet you need to invest time and money in the following types of programs:

1. Antivirus software
2. mulitple anti-spyware type tools (some popular ones include but are not limited to ad-aware, spywareblaster, spybot)
3. firewall software or hardware.
4. Office Suite (most people buy MS Office and pay between $150 - $400 depending on what level they buy)
5. 3rd party web browser (FireFox is very popular right now and with good reason)

all of those tools require system resources to run and hog up the potential power of your computer. Most of them cost money. MS Office, Norton or McAffee, ZoneAlarm all cost money. Can they be replaced with free software, well MS Office can, but that means you are not running "MS" products that you think are so good. Norton or McAffee can be replaced with AVG or AnitiVir or others. as for the Firewall software, not sure if blackice is free or not, or if there are any free firewall software for windows.

so to sum things up real fast:

winXP Pro = $140 USD
MS Office Pro = $400 USD
Norton system works (includes firewall) = $99.99 (so $100)

so to keep things legal you just spent roughly $640 USD plus tax on just the basics.

Linux OS = free, if you get ubuntu they will even ship you a FREE CD.
OpenOffice = free
no need for antivirus unless you are doing a lot of file sharing with windows users and then it is ONLY to protect them, not to protect you. if you want antivirus F-Prot = FREE
firewall = FREE it is built in and it is called iptables.

so i can take 3x as long to install, configure, and update an insecure broaken OS and spend almost $650, then i have to keep my eye on things to maintain a semblance of security and clean running of my bloated system, OR i can spend NOTHING and take 1/3 the time to install and patch my system to have it up and running and have very very little to worry about when it comes to security and stability to do everything i can do under windows.

now as for games check out Transgaming.org and BUY Cedega 5 it runs $5 a month for a subscription if you want continued support and updates along with the ability to post to their forums to ask questions. With that you can run MOST games very well in linux.

top that off with the fact that a lot of FPS type games run NATIVE in linux like doomIII, UT line, etc...

in all, i am so happy to be MS free both at my home and my office. I just got rid of my last win2k server this year and have been 100% linux at the house for almost 18 months. I can now spend less time with fixing and repairing my comptuers and more time with my wife and kids.

a trade i will make any day of the week. save money, save time, and spend those 2 things on my family. cant do that with windows.

Efwis
December 14th, 2005, 08:44 PM
all of those tools require system resources to run and hog up the potential power of your computer. Most of them cost money. MS Office, Norton or McAffee, ZoneAlarm all cost money. Can they be replaced with free software, well MS Office can, but that means you are not running "MS" products that you think are so good. Norton or McAffee can be replaced with AVG or AnitiVir or others. as for the Firewall software, not sure if blackice is free or not, or if there are any free firewall software for windows.

you have a few minor misconceptions here.

ZoneAlarm only costs money if you buy ZoneAlarm Pro. they do have a free version.

There are actually two free firewalls out there.
Kerio Firewall, which was just recently purchased by Sun Mircrosystems.
ZoneAlarm Free

symantec discontinued the Sygate Firewall on November 30th, 2005. only because they didn't like the competition so they bought it.

Note: this is not an attempt to start a flame war or say that you do not know what your talking about. This is just an FYI post to correct a minor mistake you made.

manicka
December 14th, 2005, 08:58 PM
While in itself not a bad question, this thread represents something that irks me. I just like to use linux. It's the same as saying "I like to drink coffee in the morning." If you ask a person why they drink coffee, usually they'll lose face and have problems answering you. The reasons are there. But they are deeply root in time. Somethings just are. I don't ask you "Why do you use XP?" But most people just use it mindlessly anyway....

nice reply :)

lleb
December 14th, 2005, 10:37 PM
you have a few minor misconceptions here.

ZoneAlarm only costs money if you buy ZoneAlarm Pro. they do have a free version.

There are actually two free firewalls out there.
Kerio Firewall, which was just recently purchased by Sun Mircrosystems.
ZoneAlarm Free

symantec discontinued the Sygate Firewall on November 30th, 2005. only because they didn't like the competition so they bought it.

Note: this is not an attempt to start a flame war or say that you do not know what your talking about. This is just an FYI post to correct a minor mistake you made.


even with that, you are still not saving that much money, in the example i posted you would be saving all of $30 for the price of the Norton System Works. FYI, i got that price from symantec today, so it was a current price.

and still it is a software firewall that is not effective, very system resource heavy, and does more then a "firewall" is supposed to do.
[edit to add] nice to know that zonealarm has a free vs, but it is not much better then blackice as it does a lot of the same stupid stuff that blackice does and is not a true firewall. dont know about the differances between its pro and free vs.

Blackice is spyware as it is intrusive, invasive, and hacks into ALL programs the users is trying to install or uninstall from their system. a firewall is supposed to controll the flow of internet traffic nothing more nothing less. firewalls have NOTHING, i repeat NOTHING to do with the other software that is on a computer.

even though, a $30 savings still equals a lot more money, more time, and more agrivation then i have with linux. that is time and money i am no able to spend on my family.

Efwis
December 14th, 2005, 10:47 PM
even with that, you are still not saving that much money, in the example i posted you would be saving all of $30 for the price of the Norton System Works. FYI, i got that price from symantec today, so it was a current price.

and still it is a software firewall that is not effective, very system resource heavy, and does more then a "firewall" is supposed to do.
[edit to add] nice to know that zonealarm has a free vs, but it is not much better then blackice as it does a lot of the same stupid stuff that blackice does and is not a true firewall. dont know about the differances between its pro and free vs.

Blackice is spyware as it is intrusive, invasive, and hacks into ALL programs the users is trying to install or uninstall from their system. a firewall is supposed to controll the flow of internet traffic nothing more nothing less. firewalls have NOTHING, i repeat NOTHING to do with the other software that is on a computer.

even though, a $30 savings still equals a lot more money, more time, and more agrivation then i have with linux. that is time and money i am no able to spend on my family.
I won't argue with you on that,

BTW BlackIce was brought up in your post not mine. Yes blackice is spyware, believe me I've removed it from enough systems via the spyware forums I hang out at.

Personally I use Kerio Personal firewall on my Windows HDD, but I don't use the windows HDD that often. I only use it for certain games which aren't ported to cedega, fax needs...haven't had the need to pay for the Linuxant drivers to fax from linux once a week, and I use IE to make sure my webpages I design work properly in it. otherwise then that I'm on Linux full time. my wife and kids on the other hand, well they just dont' want to give up Windows because of Shockwave support. Their games rely on that.

anil_robo
December 14th, 2005, 11:18 PM
I use XP to chat to my family 9000 miles away. I use Yahoo messenger with webcam and mike. In Ubuntu, I finally got my webcam working somehow (but dont' know how to talk to my mom using that because she uses Yahoo messenger). But sound recording/voice chatting is still not possible and I'm looking for help.

So when I see my mom online on Gaim, it's time to reboot in WinXP! So predictable!

Stormspace
December 14th, 2005, 11:25 PM
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I felt a need to comment. Hopefully this can be an intelectual discussion, so if anything I've included below is wrong, please let me know.


The only thing windows does better then Linux is games, and that is getting closer to not being true thanks to TransGaming.org

Windows is better at games and gaming represents a large percentage of computer use in the Desktop PC market. Windows gaming works out of the box for no additional charge. Cedega from transgaming.org is $5.00/month. The free alternative WINE is buggy and takes an expert in Linux to configure properly for many games. WINE is not a complete solution.


windows takes far longer to install, configure, patch, repatch, update, patch again, then you have to do the same thing for all of the hardware that is not supported, then you have to install and patch all of the software.

I agree Windows takes a long time to install, far longer than Ubuntu, especially if you consider all the patching that has to be done. As for configuration Windows can be configured far more quickly by a novice Windows user than a novice Linux user. Also Windows rarely requires a recompile of the kernel to support hardware. Also for a novice user configuration can sometimes takes weeks or months to complete even with the helpful advice of the forums.


in all it will take on average 3x longer to install, patch, and configure winXP vs Linux.

In a business environment with two highly qualified techs I agree. For the average user, not so much.


Windows is a walking pile of infection waiting to happen. It takes on the average less then 15min. for a windows XP system to be completely compromised once it is live and connected to the internet.

This is fortunately true, but if a Windows machine is properly configured or behind a firewall it is no more likely than other OS's, outside of user error. (Clicking on an exe in an e-mail for instance). Linux due to it's limited market penetration is less vulnerable, but it still has issues.


Windows is not desiged for true multi user user. Some claim that NT was built for multi user, but that just is not true. It is a basic OS built to have some connectiviity, but does nothing for base level security and proper networking as per RFC.

Windows can be configured to be a multi-user OS, but given it's roots I would think that Linux would be more capable in this respect. An average user likely wouldn't know the difference between how each is handled.


Windows is a hardware hog. it takes more hardware to get the same level of performance as it does out of linux.

Unless you don't know jack about Linux and install everything since you don't know what you will need. Linux is very streamlined but the number of apps it takes to make anything work is daunting.


Windows does not detect and install working drivers for as much hardware as Linux does.

I'd like to see your source on this statement. I still can't get my visioneer 6200 usb scanner working, my logitech joystick, or my palm pilot dock working correctly.


Windows has close to 500,000 lines of bad code, were the Linux 2.6.0 kernel had less then 10,000 lines of bad code. just in case you do not understand the meaning of that tid bit fact it means that the Linux kernel is far more secure, stable, and reliable then the windows kernel used in winXP or any kernel based on the NT kernel like winNT, win2k, winXP, and win2k3. also note that was when the 2.6 kernel was new so there are more then not less lines of bad code in todays 2.6.12 kernel then in its first release.


I think I remember reading that study, but I wonder if you throw in every single app you'd need to emulate a Windows PC's functionality if it would be the same.


winXP Pro costs $140 USD, linux costs NOTHING except time and the price of a CD if you want to burn it out to a CD. heck if you get it from here then it does not even cost you the price of the CD as Ubuntu gives them out for FREE as is free bier.

I love this part. For the person with free time Linux is the way to go.


the US Federal Government has flat out said to avoid using IE when at all possible. hmm the #1 buyer of MS Software and they are telling people to AVOID using IE? that should tell you something.


It would be remiss of you not to remind the user that most web sites are written specifically for IE. I still have to switch over to my Win2000 box to access certain sites. This however is getting better.


MS takes between 30 - 720 days to patch known security issues, if they patch it at all. keep in mind that many of the security issues in winXP have been around since the winNT 4.0 days. hello we are talking close to a decade.

most linux software (open source) that i have used (example is FireFox) has taken between 2hrs - 72hrs to patch any security issue.


The opposite side of this argument is that the hackers have access to the code and can determine the exploits more easily as a result. In general however security patches are released more frequently since MS only does that once per month leaving you open to vulnerabilities for up to 29 days, or more.


just in case you dont get that point. that means your system will be fixed FASTER under linux then it will ever be under Windows. MS is just to big and to slow to respond to security issues to keep up with the open source community when it comes to patching programs. top that off wtih the fact that instead of only a few hundred programers working on the code, there are thousands if not millions of people looking over the open source code every day. more eyes = catching things and fixing things faster.


This is anecdotal only. There are also hundreds of open source projects not being patched as the development schedules are very slow.


viruses not a real problem in the linux world. that is not to say that there are not viruses in linux, just a smart linux user will have very little to fear from them.

True.


according to the current AOL advertisment on TV right now, there are over 500 new viruses created every day to infect MS Windows... hmm...

spyware/malware/adware not a problem in linux. this is a problem that is exclusive to MS Windows.


True.


so with all of those problems in order to use winXP live on the internet you need to invest time and money in the following types of programs:

1. Antivirus software
2. mulitple anti-spyware type tools (some popular ones include but are not limited to ad-aware, spywareblaster, spybot)
3. firewall software or hardware.
4. Office Suite (most people buy MS Office and pay between $150 - $400 depending on what level they buy)
5. 3rd party web browser (FireFox is very popular right now and with good reason)

all of those tools require system resources to run and hog up the potential power of your computer. Most of them cost money. MS Office, Norton or McAffee, ZoneAlarm all cost money. Can they be replaced with free software, well MS Office can, but that means you are not running "MS" products that you think are so good. Norton or McAffee can be replaced with AVG or AnitiVir or others. as for the Firewall software, not sure if blackice is free or not, or if there are any free firewall software for windows.


I believe Zonealarm has a free personal version. Businesses have to pay however.


so to sum things up real fast:

winXP Pro = $140 USD
MS Office Pro = $400 USD
Norton system works (includes firewall) = $99.99 (so $100)

so to keep things legal you just spent roughly $640 USD plus tax on just the basics.

Linux OS = free, if you get ubuntu they will even ship you a FREE CD.
OpenOffice = free
no need for antivirus unless you are doing a lot of file sharing with windows users and then it is ONLY to protect them, not to protect you. if you want antivirus F-Prot = FREE
firewall = FREE it is built in and it is called iptables.

so i can take 3x as long to install, configure, and update an insecure broaken OS and spend almost $650, then i have to keep my eye on things to maintain a semblance of security and clean running of my bloated system, OR i can spend NOTHING and take 1/3 the time to install and patch my system to have it up and running and have very very little to worry about when it comes to security and stability to do everything i can do under windows.

now as for games check out Transgaming.org and BUY Cedega 5 it runs $5 a month for a subscription if you want continued support and updates along with the ability to post to their forums to ask questions. With that you can run MOST games very well in linux.

top that off with the fact that a lot of FPS type games run NATIVE in linux like doomIII, UT line, etc...

in all, i am so happy to be MS free both at my home and my office. I just got rid of my last win2k server this year and have been 100% linux at the house for almost 18 months. I can now spend less time with fixing and repairing my comptuers and more time with my wife and kids.

a trade i will make any day of the week. save money, save time, and spend those 2 things on my family. cant do that with windows.

I'd really like to say my experience has been the same. For me linux is a struggle to do just about anything with all the configuration requirements for every little app. Sure it makes these apps more powerful, but it also makes it very difficult to master the OS. After spending hours upon hours of configuration I sometimes forget the steps I took getting to the solution. It should be a requirement of all Linux development to create a gui version of the app, or at least a gui front end that gives the user access to all these little switches and settings. Linux also needs to network better with windows PC's so that users don't have to worry about installing bind, or making obscure changes to config files to get it to work. Samba should be configured to work with network shares just like windows uses them. In fact most apps should at the least allow the same functionality as their windows equvilents since that is what is going to make or break it. "I used to be able to do X now I can't." I see this every day in the forum and it's the biggest hurdle that Linux has. Fortunately the fine people behind Ubuntu are making that hurdle less daunting everyday. Ubuntu, despite my naysaying is the best Linux distro.

Efwis
December 15th, 2005, 12:20 AM
Please don't take this the wrong way, but I felt a need to comment. Hopefully this can be an intelectual discussion, so if anything I've included below is wrong, please let me know.



Windows is better at games and gaming represents a large percentage of computer use in the Desktop PC market. Windows gaming works out of the box for no additional charge. Cedega from transgaming.org is $5.00/month. The free alternative WINE is buggy and takes an expert in Linux to configure properly for many games. WINE is not a complete solution.

I must say I would like to see your source for this information. because that really isn't accurate.

According to a Nielsen Entertainment survey,

“It found that 40% of US homes own a PC, game console or handheld
gaming device. Almost a quarter of these, 23%, own all three types of
gaming gadget and the vast majority of gamers, 89%, do their playing
via a console.”







It would be remiss of you not to remind the user that most web sites are written specifically for IE. I still have to switch over to my Win2000 box to access certain sites. This however is getting better.

once again I ask for your source of information.
I guess it depends on what type of websites you visit, and thats not the fault of the browser used, thats the fault of the web designer.

Stormspace
December 15th, 2005, 01:52 AM
I must say I would like to see your source for this information. because that really isn't accurate.

According to a Nielsen Entertainment survey,

“It found that 40% of US homes own a PC, game console or handheld
gaming device. Almost a quarter of these, 23%, own all three types of
gaming gadget and the vast majority of gamers, 89%, do their playing
via a console.”

I had some numbers on this, but all of them seem to compare console users in relation to the market as a whole, none reflect the PC game. I'll check it though, but anecdotal evidence suggests that more titles exist for PC games than console games.


once again I ask for your source of information.
I guess it depends on what type of websites you visit, and thats not the fault of the browser used, thats the fault of the web designer.

You can assign blame all day, but the fact that some companies have decided not to support alternate browsers doesn't change. For windows users alone the FF browser will not work with Windows update. For many users this creates a very large security risk since they don't install the updates. Blame who you want, it happens.

aysiu
December 15th, 2005, 02:03 AM
Can't we just say each user should assess her own needs (software applications) and means (time, money, skill) and decide what fits her best?

Windows doesn't solve everyone's computing problems, nor does Ubuntu.

JoshHendo
December 15th, 2005, 02:14 AM
Meh. I only have windows ME, and it SUCKS. There is no point in buying windows XP if I can just install ubuntu :)

Stormspace
December 15th, 2005, 03:06 AM
Can't we just say each user should assess her own needs (software applications) and means (time, money, skill) and decide what fits her best?

Windows doesn't solve everyone's computing problems, nor does Ubuntu.

I agree. As much as I like Ubuntu I wish it were better.

Disorder
December 16th, 2005, 06:35 AM
I think the main reason why Windows is the prefered OS for a lot businesses is the fact that people dont trust somthing that is free. If you're using Windows and it breaks you can easily blame Microsoft and hold them resposible. If your using any open source OS's and they somhow break(or someone screws them up) who are you going to hold responsible? Your network Admin? , A comunity of open source supporters? Ok but that dosnt solve the problem. Holding microsoft responsible is mich more effective and easily understood.

Also, home users , and a fair amount of businesses simply dont need impenetrable security. Infact I believe a lot of security specialist over estimate the value of a clients data simply to perpetuate thier own self growth.

That being said I am a fairly new linux user and from what I read, and I read alot, Unix basesd OS's appear to be much much better overall.

Prog
December 16th, 2005, 08:26 AM
I personally don't see the big deal with Linux. I used Ubuntu for about 4 months as my exclusive desktop OS, and then about a week ago, I just stopped and asked..."why"? Ubuntu was only preventing me from fulling using my computer. Windows XP is a very stable OS; 99% of BSODs are caused by bad drivers, not a problem with Windows itself, and besides, Linux has BSODs too, they just go under the name "Kernel Panic." And to even justify that, for every BSOD you get on Windows, there's a device that Linux has no drivers for whatsoever.

I see that by reading some of this, people seem to think Windows isn't customizable. Well here is my XP desktop (http://www.inphiltrate.com/pictures/xp-1213.jpg). I'd say that's pretty customizable.

In conclusion, Linux is great for fun or if you can't afford Windows or whatever, but it's just not as practical.

And not to try to **** anyone here off, but one other thing about Linux bugs me: The open source community seems really elitist sometimes, and that just pisses me off. I'm not saying that about this community in particular; just as a whole.

aysiu
December 16th, 2005, 08:33 AM
I see that by reading some of this, people seem to think Windows isn't customizable. Well here is my XP desktop (http://www.inphiltrate.com/pictures/xp-1213.jpg). I'd say that's pretty customizable. And you did that just by going to http://www.windows-look.org/, downloading a theme.zip and dragging it into the theme manager, right?

I tried customizing XP, but it was a pain in the ass. I used Windowblinds and all that other third-party stuff. It had nagware and not very good integration with the OS. If you want to customize XP, you either have to seriously hack into it or pay some serious money for it.

I just changed the theme on my KDE, and it was as simple as
sudo apt-get install kwin-baghira opening up KControl and picking the Baghira theme.

Linux/Ubuntu may not be "practical" for you, but it's sure as hell practical for me. Global shortcuts for my music player is certainly "practical" enough for me, as are having keyboard shortcuts for just about everything I want to do (open a terminal, open my home folder, empty the trash, log out, open an application...).

Of course, my computing needs are meager, and everything I need (and more) is in Synaptic. If you are a serious gamer, a commercial graphic designer, and you have a special scanner and a special palm pilot and the latest video iPod... well, maybe it isn't practical. It all depends on your needs.

I'm sorry Ubuntu didn't work out for you, but it's still "practical" for many people.

Deaf_Head
December 16th, 2005, 09:40 AM
Using Windows is paranoia, common sense will keep yoursystem clean but every few hours there is something, a flicker .. something you almost didn't catch laughing at you .. telling you taht no matter how careful you are they'll watch what music you play and what websites you visit ...

Linux is like, oh **** I have no idea what's going on but that's ok.

Knyven
December 16th, 2005, 01:51 PM
Ubuntu is not yet around during XP so we have established a life in XP that is hard to replace like software, games and messenger.

But we should not worry since XP will be gone a year later when Vista is around.

The question is are you willing to upgrade your system and purchase Vista?

In my situation, Ill scrap XP and go with Ubuntu since you have to establish a new life in Vista in terms of drivers, softwares, games, i mean everything i dont think my softwares will work on Vista.

kathymacau
December 16th, 2005, 02:57 PM
But we should not worry since XP will be gone a year later when Vista is around.

The question is are you willing to upgrade your system and purchase Vista?

In my situation, Ill scrap XP and go with Ubuntu since you have to establish a new life in Vista in terms of drivers, softwares, games, i mean everything i dont think my softwares will work on Vista.

I'm pretty much of the same view, to run Vista I"d need a new system and I'm realising (slowly) that there are other things I can spend my money on. Only things I use windows for now (after only 3 days with Ubuntu) is google earth and I can use google maps instead.

Granted I'm learning a new OS, and installing apps is a whole new ballgame, but I've got a brain and I have managed to get ABC Broadband working, no sound, but I got a picture and I'll use search till I get an answer to the sound thing.

The forums here are very informative.

Best thing is I don't have a lifetime ahead of adding to the Gates treasure chest. I can contribute to the apps that I use without feeling conned.

Sorry the post so long winded but I've tried other flavours of Linux and this one feels more user friendly to me.

lleb
December 16th, 2005, 06:55 PM
yes on the vista line of thinking i dont even own a system that is "powerful" enough to run vista. i own no system with PCIe slots or a PCIe vid card. i only on 1 64bit chip, but that is an IBM for my iMAC so that will not run vista, and my game box only has 1G of ram.

IIRC sujested specs for Vista are close to as follows:

64Bit cip
1G ram min, 2G sugested
PCIe vid card required to run with 1G ram

hello, even by then that will not be a standard system. the 1G will just be becoming standard in the next 12 - 18 months and the PCIe will still not be a standard feature. the 64bit chip should be standard by then, but will MS do as they always have done and make the AMD64 NOT WORK? odds are they will have problems with the more popular AMD chip set as they always have thus making Vista again a POS (not point of sale) for at least the first 12 months until SP1 is released fixing the issues with the AMD chip and Nvidia.

my next system will meet those standards, but i plan on keeping my current rig for an other 2 and maybe even 3 more years before i upgrade and replace. i can add more ram and HD space as need be and my vid card is currently good enough to last me an other 2 years for playing games.

lleb
December 16th, 2005, 07:56 PM
sorry to have to repost this. i had it all typed out yesterday, and the kids got to the computer before i could send it off... :(


Please don't take this the wrong way, but I felt a need to comment. Hopefully this can be an intelectual discussion, so if anything I've included below is wrong, please let me know.



Windows is better at games and gaming represents a large percentage of computer use in the Desktop PC market. Windows gaming works out of the box for no additional charge. Cedega from transgaming.org is $5.00/month. The free alternative WINE is buggy and takes an expert in Linux to configure properly for many games. WINE is not a complete solution.


yup, Cedega cost you $5 per month for the first 3 months, but you never have to pay for it again if you do not want to the upgrades. IIRC i mentioned the fee for Cedega in my OP. for me to not have the instabliity of the windows kernel and all of the crashing caused by said kernel it is $5 well spent. i play WoW (world of warcraft) via cedega and get between 5-30% better FPS then i ever have under windows with the exact same system. yes i used to dual boot in order to play wow or to patch. now i just use Debian for my game boxes.




I agree Windows takes a long time to install, far longer than Ubuntu, especially if you consider all the patching that has to be done. As for configuration Windows can be configured far more quickly by a novice Windows user than a novice Linux user. Also Windows rarely requires a recompile of the kernel to support hardware. Also for a novice user configuration can sometimes takes weeks or months to complete even with the helpful advice of the forums.

In a business environment with two highly qualified techs I agree. For the average user, not so much.

well every time you install a driver and are asked to reboot, guess what just happend... the kernel was touched and thus recompiled for that small bit... so yes the NTKernel is recompiled all the time and done wrong. why do you think it starts to eat it self to death in 6 - 18 months?

as for the average EU formatting and reinstalling their OS, the only time that happens is when they have tech support on the phone and then the tech only has them put in their system restore disk and not do a true reinstall and patch of their OS. the average EU can not do a clean and correct reinstall of their OS including drivers, patches, and software with patches. that is why tere are MS IT techs out there getting paid between $90 - 250 for a format reinstall. i charge $99 for a base install and $199 for a full install patch, backup restore etc... easy money.



This is fortunately true, but if a Windows machine is properly configured or behind a firewall it is no more likely than other OS's, outside of user error. (Clicking on an exe in an e-mail for instance). Linux due to it's limited market penetration is less vulnerable, but it still has issues.

again you are assuming that the MS system is properly configured and behind a firewall. how many EUs out there have their computers properly configured, keeping in mind the default setting are 99% of the time never changed and the default settings for ALL MS OSs are set to min. security, and own a firewall? most clients i go see do not have any kind of firewall, software or hardware, and have no clue about securing their comptuer. when you start talking security to the average EU they give you that deer in the headlights look.



Windows can be configured to be a multi-user OS, but given it's roots I would think that Linux would be more capable in this respect. An average user likely wouldn't know the difference between how each is handled.

A. no it really can not as it is configured to ALWAYS broadcast. this is 100% against true network security and true multi-computer setup.

B. as for multi-user winXP is as close as it comes, but it is still miles away from a true multi-user platform. only 1 person at a time can access and use winXP be it pro or home. if you buy mulitple TS license for win2k or win2k3 server you can have as close to a true multi-user platform that MS can provide, but that is a Citrix Client, thus not a true MS solution. it is a 3rd party software that is not the OS.

C. knowing the differnace and there being a differance are 2 different things.



Unless you don't know jack about Linux and install everything since you don't know what you will need. Linux is very streamlined but the number of apps it takes to make anything work is daunting.

Even then linux will run better then a windows system with all of the same services running at the same time you will get with your average linux box. DNS server, FTP, HTTP, firewall, mail server, etc... a single windows system would and will crash if it would even run with all of those services running on the same system a linux box CAN run all of those.

bloat is bloat does not matter the OS, but bloat under linux is still stable were bloat under windows is never stable.



I'd like to see your source on this statement. I still can't get my visioneer 6200 usb scanner working, my logitech joystick, or my palm pilot dock working correctly.

i am refering to hardware that is installed directly by the OS it self. not 3rd party drivers. winXP detects considerably LESS hardware properly by default then a current linux distro will. that is not to say that 3rd party support is not better for windows then linux, just that the linux kernel has better native support for hardware then the most current windows kernel does.




I think I remember reading that study, but I wonder if you throw in every single app you'd need to emulate a Windows PC's functionality if it would be the same.

what apps are you refering to here? why would i want to emulate the windows functionality when i have linux that does everything windows does and better?



I love this part. For the person with free time Linux is the way to go.

and the willingness to learn. it is not easy to learn how to controll and manipulate ANY OS. that includes windows. it takes a long time to learn all of the techy skills needed to configure and manage any OS. if a person just wants the OS to work out of the box, the ubuntu project along with FC, SuSe have all come a very long way and are very easy to get around.



It would be remiss of you not to remind the user that most web sites are written specifically for IE. I still have to switch over to my Win2000 box to access certain sites. This however is getting better.

sites like that i just send a rather informative letter to the webmaster and do not visit again until they get their site fixed. to force customers to use a broaken, insecure browser like IE is just lazy coding and has nothing to do with the OS being used. i have even gone so far as to make phone calls and complain. this is mainly for gov. agencies that mandate the use of IE. i have seen in the past 12 months fewer and fewer sites that will not work in FF or other browsers. even a lot of gov. sites are starting to modify their code to work with FF.



The opposite side of this argument is that the hackers have access to the code and can determine the exploits more easily as a result. In general however security patches are released more frequently since MS only does that once per month leaving you open to vulnerabilities for up to 29 days, or more.

i am glad the HACKERS have access to the code as they are the ones who will FIX it. now CRACKERS on the other hand that is a differnt story, but normaly the crackers and hackers learn about security issues at about the same time, thus cleaning the code very fast. the open source community is very fast in responding to major issues with the linux kernel and other major apps like OO and FF.

yes MS is now on a "30 day" roll out for security patches, but even with that MS has flat out stated on more then one occation they can not get to every seucrity issue in that time and some have to wait until further dates for patches to happen. so we are still talking 30 - 720 days plus for security patches to happen from MS. again keep in mind there are still many issue with the ntkernel that date back to the NT4 days and a few that date back as far as NT3.



This is anecdotal only. There are also hundreds of open source projects not being patched as the development schedules are very slow.

that is 100% correct. those projects are also stated as no longer being supported or being slow to update so please use at your own risk. but again as their are open, hackers can still modify and FIX any issues they can find. unlike the complete MS world, only MS can "fix" things.



I believe Zonealarm has a free personal version. Businesses have to pay however.

yup an other posted mentioned that. there are also a few FREE software firewalls out there for the MS world. problem is zonealarm and blackice are not true firewalls. they are invasive bits of cr4p. a firewall is supposed to monitor IP Traffic. those 2 programs mess with the install and removal of all programs on your comptuer. hello, that is not the job of a firewall. can we say i HATE those types of programs.



I'd really like to say my experience has been the same. For me linux is a struggle to do just about anything with all the configuration requirements for every little app. Sure it makes these apps more powerful, but it also makes it very difficult to master the OS.

the mastering of any OS is difficult. if you came from the MS world and know how to manage, manipulate, and configure networks with MS work ADS that did not happen over night. that is something that took years to learn how to do properly. why is it any different to learn linux? it is not. it will take you years of doing the same types of learning curves in MS as it will in linux.


After spending hours upon hours of configuration I sometimes forget the steps I took getting to the solution. It should be a requirement of all Linux development to create a gui version of the app, or at least a gui front end that gives the user access to all these little switches and settings.

i personally do not like that many GUI tools. as a network person i prefer the speed and ease of the CLI. it drives me nuts when i have to work on a windows system (mainly winXP) that has only a gimped CLI and even then most of the tools that you have in linux do not exsist in MS so you really cant fix things. be it GUI or CLI. not to mention if the GUI locks up in MS, you have to hardboot the system, if the GUI locks up in linux, you just go to a terminal and fix it via CLI. all done. cant do that in windows, heck cant even do that in OSx.


Linux also needs to network better with windows PC's so that users don't have to worry about installing bind, or making obscure changes to config files to get it to work. Samba should be configured to work with network shares just like windows uses them.

see above about multi-user and security. linux networks better with MS systems then MS networks with it self. does it take some configuring yup, but once you understand the basics its really really easy. so easy in fact that that is why MS is so vulnerable to cracking by malicious users.


In fact most apps should at the least allow the same functionality as their windows equvilents since that is what is going to make or break it. "I used to be able to do X now I can't."

Linux is not Windows. Thank God. if you want MS functionality, then go back to windows and its inscure unstable modle. i personally do not want my business running on an insecure and unstable platform. i did that for 9 years. i am sick of it. i am sick and tired of spending hundreds of hours monitoring the security of my network from viruses and spyware and the like. i am sick and tired of losing data because windows decided to do something WITHOUT authorization from the administator (me). i am sick and tired of having to fight with the network drivers to stay active and not mess with the permissions., etc... thank God linux is not windows. the reason it is so easy to connect to a share in windows is that it by default BROADCASTS everything about it self. it broadcasts it location, its data, what it is, etc... this is very very very bad for a security stand point. have you ever brought a personal laptop into a ADS and started "browsing the network"? if you have then you would of seen EVERY single SHARE on that LAN. once you get an IP in a MS ADS you can see everything. you may not have the "authority" to connect to it, but you know exactly were it is and how to find it.

Linux on the other hand broadcasts NOTHING by default. what this means is unless you are part of the IT staff you do not know it is there or were it is or what it is to connect to. that is proper secure settings for a LAN. that means unless you are the administrator (root) you do not need to know about it. much safer and secure that way.


I see this every day in the forum and it's the biggest hurdle that Linux has. Fortunately the fine people behind Ubuntu are making that hurdle less daunting everyday. Ubuntu, despite my naysaying is the best Linux distro.

yes it is a hurdle, but only because most EUs are just flat out stupid when it comes to managing computers in a multi-user LAN type setting. MS is a single user setup even its ADS is not a true multi-user setup from a security stand point. it is a step in the right direction, but it is not there yet. maybe vista will get closer, but who knows. i will not be playig with vista except on customers computers that is for sure.

Ubuntu has done a great job with making user the OS easier, but so have FC and SuSe. IMHO SuSe is about as easy as it gets. Ubuntu is very good too. i have not used it enough to say what distro is easier in a LAN setting, but SuSe is awsome in a LAN especially a mixed LAN with MS and Linux.

even with all of that, windows does serve a good service, and that is to get something in the hands of the masses that has the perception of doing its job well. keeping in mind that perception is the rule not the exception. if people think it works, then guess what, it works. right or wrong, that is they way it is. the biggest hurdle that linux has to overcome is not anything in the OS, not anything in the MS OS, but 100% in the education that there are options out there, that security should be a high priority, and that MS is not secure under the best of settings.

once the education is more prevelent to combat the FUD coming from MS then, and only then, will linux have a real chance at the desktop market. it already owns in the WWW server market and is getting more and more attention in the LAN server markets. education is the key. the more people learn about the real issues of security and stablity the more linux will look like the shinning star it is.

lleb
December 17th, 2005, 01:20 AM
one more quick set of links to add about the Vista issue with hardware:

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2005/09/07/vista_hardware_reqs/

http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/09/2037207

links to the first link, but also to toms hardware and a few other places.

curuxz
December 17th, 2005, 01:29 AM
Dude for taking that long to reply to a windows noob just to prove how stupidly wrong they are you have my total respect i realy dont have the energy left in me to stand up to them for 20 odd paragraphs :D:D:D

anil_robo
December 18th, 2005, 02:05 AM
I use windows to:

1. send faxes from my laptop - because I don't want to pay $ for linux driver for conexant modem! :D
2. Play Diablo II (http://www.blizzard.com) and PlaneShift
(http://www.planeshift.it)3. Access wireless internet at school library
4. Voice/video chat to mom using Yahoo Messenger
5. Record short videos of my surroundings and email them to mom

harisund
December 18th, 2005, 05:02 AM
Ok here are a couple of reasons why I use Windows.

1. I can play streaming music from musicindiaonline.com, raaga.com and Yahoo! Music Videos.
2. I can entire the power of Linux command line through Cygwin. Bash? Cron? Gcc? X? Everything.
3. No need to "sudo" everything.
4. I can hibernate my laptop immediately after installing Windows.
5. No .conf files to edit. Dont mistake me, I love editing .conf files, since they give me an exact, clear picture of what is going on, what options are enabled, what features and so on. But sometimes, it is just a pain.
6. I use Open Source software too. Completely. Apart from the Windows itself, every other thing running on it (that I installed) is open source.
7. Better hardware support. Look, I know 3rd party support isn't good enough for Linux yet, and it is definitely true that Linux kernel supports more hardware than the Windows kernel. But hey, at the end of the day unless all my "toys" (read camera scanner printer modem - yes they are all sold by 3rd party vendors who don't provide Linux drivers. What am I supposed to do for that?) work without me having to work my way sudoing through config files and kernel recompiles and binary patches, why would I switch?

Don't mistake me. I am definitely a Linux advocate, active member of my university's Linux User's Group, code regularly in my dual booted Linux and know quiet a bit about Linux too. I am also (atleast trying to be) an active member in these forums and have both learnt a lot and helped out a lot.

I am not your average user. I have a Linux machine running as a server at home complete with SSH, Samba, FTP, Apache, MySQL and all the rest. Secured. Encrypted. And I have edited versions of all the config files, customized for my computers, open ports only when I need them, a working firewall. I have scripts that automate backups. I am not afraid to try out new things, whether they break my system or not. I chroot into a different environment to work too.

But at the end of the day, it is convenience. While Ubuntu gets a lot of things right, ultimately it comes down to what it doesn't. I installed Ubuntu for my mom and customized everything, and she didn't find a single difference till they day she bought a scanner, and the technician comes and says "Ma'am I don't know why the setup.exe isn't working. What version of Windows are you running?". It is definitely true that he knows nothing, but what option does my mom have to get the scanner running?

However, the way things stand today, I don't really care what OS I am running. After all, everything is being moved to a web platform. But as far as os are concerned, I will stick to the one that works with all hardware, and will continue dual booting if I want to.

And another thing. The Windows users I meet don't know another OS even exists. Even if they do, all they do is praise their own operating system. However, the Linux people most of the time say "windows sucks". I think there is a slight difference between advocates who praise their product and advocates who curse the other's inspite of the fact that both are advocates.

FloSynergy
January 11th, 2006, 08:58 AM
i perceive windoze as monopolistic, patronizing and disempowering.
they treat private customers with the arrogance of a company that feels that privates' interests are too insignificant to consider. they cannot provide anything like the kind of support that the linux online community does, and their standard policy is to dodge responsibility first, and avoid providing the support they promise unless it's unavoidable. support is what you supposedly pay for when you buy windoze, so this is actually completely in breach of contract.

it's just a matter of time before more and more users cotton on to this. the only real virus worth worrying about is windows.

boom shiva!

DeadEnd
January 11th, 2006, 11:30 AM
Good question.
A. its free
B. has more geekier software
C.and its all mainly free
so basically its free and Geeky
dont get me wrong I like Geeky :)

Now why would I use windows xp, if I have linux.?
A. its free :!:
B. secure (wait for laughter to subside)
c. productive out the box


I would feel far more safer if a tresspasser stole my XP box which had NTFS EFS syskey and stegnography to name a few to protect my sensative data than if it were a linux box that was stolen.
Ok its a big bad world out there on the internet and physical attacks are not everything but with a SPI hardware firewall and Yes zonealarm which is an excelent free software for home user and a little knowledge in their use and your pretty much secure, as for viruses and exploits they are not just aimed at MS all OS have thier own faults in this regard admittedly more people target MS for whatever reason, but could any other OS tackle that kind of attention,?,as long as your virus definitions are upto date with free AVG again your pretty much covered, free ccleaner takes care of mess and free spybot addware takes care of the rest.
And in the event of a dissaster I think linux and windows chant the same mantra.
Backup, Bakup and Backup again ( and not on a partition but a removable drive which is placed in bomb/fire proof safe) and a secondry backup of that drive stored at trusted location such as parents house. and obviously encrytped.

And MS has kinda reversed the linux attitude to GUI V CLI in so much as they are includig CLI functions now for every GUI couterpart its MS way forward, where it seems Linux way forward is to create a GUI for all the CLI functions .
I am sure eventually they both will end up in the middle someday soon .
Bill and the penguin will walk off into the sunset together holding hands while jobs whistles the tune to john lennons imagine .

odin
January 11th, 2006, 12:18 PM
I am sure eventually they both will end up in the middle someday soon .
Bill and the penguin will walk off into the sunset together holding hands while jobs whistles the tune to john lennons imagine .


I agree with you in this but that day linux would still be free in both meanings of the word, would any MS software be? I dont think so....

Miguel
January 11th, 2006, 12:20 PM
I use WinXP for:
Gaming
Gaming
TV-Out (I haven't worked it out how to do it with fglrx)
Configuring my parents' ADSL router

I use Linux for everything else. Including work. But I am a physicist that doesn't need MS Office (except for some f***ng grants), Photoshop, or anything like that. Instead, i need a CLI (not joking), ssh (and a linux terminal is the best for this), compilers, powerful editors and LaTeX. Sometimes also Mathematica or Maple, but these work OK on Linux. I know LaTeX is on WinXP... but for all the rest, I feel much better on linux.

I started using linux on July 2004 just to get rid of M$, then to browse safer, but now I am pretty confident with linux. I could say mi attitude towards linux and windows has matured. However, I will advocate free software, although in a calmed-down manner.

BTW: I am also a tinkerer, I have fallen in love with the CLI, and, as a physicist, I love that I can "touch" everything.

Thirsteh
January 11th, 2006, 12:24 PM
So much more flexibility, and it's more "hardcore"...

and it's different. It's not what everyone else uses. That's pretty cool to me too.

DeadEnd
January 11th, 2006, 12:41 PM
I agree with you in this but that day linux would still be free in both meanings of the word, would any MS software be? I dont think so....

Well my favourite p2p store is bloated with free MS products,
ethics aside you can run every MS product going without paying a dime,same goes for most third party software,
of course MS could stop all that but then its dominance would also diminish, but they also have to keep the fee payers happy by creating MS advantage which incidently at time of writing is simply a case of turning off the function in add ons to bypass.
I dont think price is really a factor personally when it comes to choice overall, most PC come shipped with windows anyhow and if your savvy enough to build your own box then generally your savvy enough to get what you want free anyway.

So my overall answer to the Question posed I guess would be
[
I]"If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?"[/I]

So I can sleep at night without worring about all that food I am taking out of Bill and the developers mouths :rolleyes:

FloSynergy
January 11th, 2006, 02:36 PM
in any third-world country (like my home sa), there is a huge divide between those who can afford pc's and those who cannot. the latter accounts for about 90% of the pop. Open Source software and os' that are stable, powerful, and widely compatible will make it less necessary for off-the-shelf retailers to factor microslop/windoze into the costs of the boxes they offer. this may make pc's widely accessible to a much larger segment of the pop, which in turn creates immense possibilities for education via the internet.

not to speak of the opportunities this creates for entrepreneurs and small businesses to fulfil their it needs without having to "keep up with the gates's" and pay hefty subscriptions.

linux is still geeky, sometimes difficult to configure, and not quite as accessible as we would like it to be, but it's moving fast.

i ditched windoze when the service pack 2 wiped my hard drive because i had to interrupt a download during a thunderstorm. the windozers refused to offer any help, so i gave ms the finger - since then, i have been running linux (first xandros and now ubuntu), and although i don't understand much yet, i still feel safer with linux. openoffice serves most of my needs, and things like crossover office make most ms-based apps accessible.

boom shiva

cjm5229
January 14th, 2006, 01:32 PM
Let's see, I'm a truck driver not a computer geek. When I have a problem with my truck I get out my toolbox and fix it. My tool box contains 2 of every kind of tool I own, because sometimes you just have to use 2 of them to fix a problem. At home my wife and I homeschool our 3 boys, computers are pretty much a requirement for that job. We have 4 computers in the house. Like my truck, I have found that if I want something fixed, and fixed right, I better do it myself. The only thing worse than trying to deal with a mechanic is trying to deal with tech support. My computer is just like my toolbox, I have at least 2 tools that do the same thing, WinXP and Ubuntu. Like my toolbox I have one tool I like better, (Ubuntu) and use that most of the time. However sometimes I need to use another one just because it works better for that particular job. I find that when I need to learn something about how to fix a problem, it is much easier to find with Ubuntu than Windows. "Shop Manuals" and "Friends" to ask Make working on my truck much easier. "How to's" and "Forums" make working on Ubuntu much easier. I may not always understand everything that is being talked about in these forums, but I find if I keep looking I will find somewhere that explains it. With Windows, you usually end up having to deal with Tech support that you have to pay for. Most of the time when your done and spent a bundle, it still doesn't work. My wife and kids are still stuck in Windows land and I still need it when I have to figure out how to unscrew something they messed up. But like having a spare hammer, I might not need it very often, but when I do I have it. Of course it's like having a hammer with a bad handle when I do use it, it hurts my hand.;)

'If everybody liked Peterbilts, They would'nt build Kenworths"
This is why we have free will. so we can make a choice.

M3lted
January 14th, 2006, 02:49 PM
what i like in xp
--------------
There great sound system , no prob to run 20 programs that use sounds :D
without probs :)
And a fresh install lol makes it run fast :P

what i like in linux
-----------------------------------
well im learning stuff
there support in forums
free software that i need to pay for if i would use it in windows.!
the option tho configure EVERYthing to your needs :)
No spy,ad ,malware viruses
No reboot after installing a simple prg :)

and yes im still dual booting if i want to play a games and talk and listen to music :) at once :D otherwise im in Ubuntu :)

odin
January 16th, 2006, 09:23 AM
Well my favourite p2p store is bloated with free MS products,
ethics aside you can run every MS product going without paying a dime,same goes for most third party software,
of course MS could stop all that but then its dominance would also diminish, but they also have to keep the fee payers happy by creating MS advantage which incidently at time of writing is simply a case of turning off the function in add ons to bypass.
I dont think price is really a factor personally when it comes to choice overall, most PC come shipped with windows anyhow and if your savvy enough to build your own box then generally your savvy enough to get what you want free anyway.

So my overall answer to the Question posed I guess would be
[
I]"If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?"[/I]

So I can sleep at night without worring about all that food I am taking out of Bill and the developers mouths :rolleyes:

yep, I've all my life sleeping in a very nice way and only using ubuntu for less thatn a year but in my "p2p store" I just need this: apt, apt and apt for getting all I need that,most of the cases, works much better than all you can get in yours.

I agree that right now most of us still need winxp or whatever microsoft OS because there's still a lack in some kind of applications for Linux and supporting some hardware but I'd rather buy a special network card only so I'm sure it will work in Ubuntu even if it was more expensive instead of moving completely to XP.I like chocolate cake and other people likes carrots.That's fine for me but the whole "Linux is very dificult and I cannot do anything with it" is not true anymore and it's getting better and better. I've installed it in two machines,desktop at work and my laptop.They are pretty new (some months) and not a single problem with hardware.I could do what most of the people does with their computers,browse the net, use a suit like openoffice, listen to my music, watch some movies and download anything I wanted with Ubuntu tools or the p2p program I used in Windows.

Why do I use linux? since I do it I dont remember worrying about any danger of screwing my system,only my stupidity about something, no reboots after installing and no re-installations.To get this in windows I need spend a lot of time checking the sytem with antivirus or anti spyware software and seeing all the time those irritating windows poping all the time cause I dont have the automatic windows update on and therefore my system is under the risk of a nuclear attack.

But the good thing about all this is that everyone can choose what fits better with him...

Titan1958
January 16th, 2006, 04:26 PM
Well.....Keep your XP and have fun....:)
I know that I switch from Microsoft after 12-15 years of use and now I will never go back. I have learn that!

I'M IN CONTROL with Linux. Thanks to Linus Torvalds

Linux fan.

sbasak
January 16th, 2006, 04:35 PM
You should always keep a bootable Linux CD with you - just in case if Windows refuses to start in one fine morning...
With linux, at least you can retrieve your files (if hard disk is physically ok)

mscman
January 16th, 2006, 11:56 PM
Just thought I'd put in my two cents...

I use both and love both. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Windows has its flaws, but then again so does Linux. In some cases, I have to use windows, because of school and the computers I work on. In other cases I choose to use Windows, like when I'm playing games and such. Windows just has better support for some things.

That being said, studying computers and whatnot, I like using Linux because it gives me more flexibility in programming and experimentation, I can control what I want. I also like the security and stability of the OS.

If you can't find a reason why you would want to use Linux, don't, it's not worth your effort, you'll just end up hating it. However, if you like playing around with stuff and having limitless configuration at your fingertips, Linux is the way to go :D

bored2k
January 17th, 2006, 12:10 AM
Just thought I'd put in my two cents...

I use both and love both. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Windows has its flaws, but then again so does Linux. In some cases, I have to use windows, because of school and the computers I work on. In other cases I choose to use Windows, like when I'm playing games and such. Windows just has better support for some things.

That being said, studying computers and whatnot, I like using Linux because it gives me more flexibility in programming and experimentation, I can control what I want. I also like the security and stability of the OS.

If you can't find a reason why you would want to use Linux, don't, it's not worth your effort, you'll just end up hating it. However, if you like playing around with stuff and having limitless configuration at your fingertips, Linux is the way to go :D
Not so sure on the "limitless" thing, but mostly, agreed.

mscman
January 17th, 2006, 06:14 AM
Not so sure on the "limitless" thing, but mostly, agreed.

I mean "limitless" to a degree... You have to know what you're doing to customize it to any extent...

Mr_Grieves
January 25th, 2006, 09:15 AM
I use Windows XP because of the games.

Sure there are games for Linux, but the number of games available in one or another way for Linux is just a fraction of the number of games you can play in Windows. And no, I don't want a game console.

mohapi
January 25th, 2006, 09:32 AM
In part just because I think Ubuntu runs cleaner and faster. I can set it up quicker. It doesn't seem as vulnerable as Windows.

Booting into Windows takes me at least a minute or two longer, just waiting for malware and virus scanners to come to life, check in with their respective mother ships, and look over my shoulder while I work. Ubuntu doesn't have that problem.

So in short, speed and cleanliness. Fewer watchdogs. Transparent windows!

public_void
January 25th, 2006, 10:02 AM
I found myself boot less and less into windows, because I don't need to most of the time. Games and programming (VS is very good compared to MonoDevelop IMO) yes, but listerning to music going on the internet no. Infact I wonder why programs do/don't do like there Linux counter parts. aMSN vs MSN Messenager for example, I don't what all those tabs on the side or all thoses windows for each person to chat to. Like may people have said, speed, security and custimization are the things I like. True, I have had my problems, but with a friendly community and many sources of information, almost all things are easy to fix.

skull_leader
January 25th, 2006, 11:17 AM
Here's two reasons why I use Linux when I have Windows:

1) The second day I installed Ubuntu, I changed a system file.
2) And then my computer behaved more to my liking.

HenryTheGreat
January 25th, 2006, 01:09 PM
I use both and love both. But I tend to use XP more because the sound in Ubuntu is bad, and I prefer MS Office for school over OO.o. And sometimes, I like to just sit there and do no work to do things like installing programs and such.

new2linux
January 25th, 2006, 04:47 PM
I use it for 3 major reasons,

stability
community
synaptic

I have used all windows distros from 95 to xp (with the exception of ME). And they all crashed on most computers within a year (or got painfully slow). I haven't had a major problem with ubuntu yet (except when I forgot my password... :D.
Second, Ubuntu has an incredible community. If I have a problem, there is normally an answer posted within an hour.
Finally, there is synaptic, and that has to be experienced. When you open it up and see several thousand programs that you can get just by clicking on them, you start thinking very happy thoughts.

ace2005
January 25th, 2006, 05:29 PM
KDE and juK...

I can get around it a lot faster thanks to alt+F2, multiple desktops and a few nice kde bits

Kerberos
January 25th, 2006, 05:39 PM
My laptop has a broken CD-RW and no feasible way of installing anything on it without swapping the hard drive into another laptop, installing on that, then putting it back in my own laptop. As a result I only can have Linux on it*.

* I'm sure I could get Windows running but I cant be bothered trying to figure it out.

plexi50
January 25th, 2006, 06:40 PM
I have read this thread with great interest. I have started working with Ubuntu after trying it and several other distros, in anticipation of the next Windows update which I hope not to have to deal with. However, I have not switched completely for 3 reasons: 1: I love Quicken for my finances/online banking have not found a suitable Linux replacement 2: As a songwriter/musician I am locked into my software/plugins for recording 3: have not found anything that works like DVD Shrink/DVDdecrypter both in speed and ease of use (have tried running under wine, etc and Linux alt they don't cut it). Otherwise I love Ubuntu, have learned tons about Linux, having a great time with getting back to the command line (started in DOS so it is a lot of fun to get back to that stuff).
I feel that once the computer is setup (intitial config could be hard for a very novice user) it would be very stable and even easy to use to the average person, even my 73 yo dad could surf and check email which is basically all he does in an envoirnment that I would not have to worry about constant maintenence, crashes etc.
Really, for a very novice user Windows is just as scary. They are afraid to even click on icons! Most people in this forum and others are advanced users compared to most and even we still need some hand holding with Linux from time to time.
I doubt if a can completely forget about Windows for the forseable future, but all my daily work will be in Ubuntu and I think my Dad my be going Linux on my next visit.....
Thanks for all of your help....

zkissane
January 25th, 2006, 07:49 PM
On my "main" machine, I use Windows. I like to play games, and I don't see a point in adding an extra layer of potential problems in trying to game on a Windows emulator.

I don't believe Microsoft is a monopoly. The fact that I have Ubuntu installed on another one of my machine proves this. The fact that thousands (millions?) of people operate their computers without Windows proves this. So the whole "sticking it to the man" pro-Linux argument is lost on me. I believe it is Microsoft's right to charge for Windows, and I believe it is Microsoft's right to choose whether or not to release the source code for their software. Despite what the European courts said today, even if you believe Microsoft is a monopoly (which, again, I don't), I don't see how forcing it to disclose its source code remedies that monopoly.

I don't have problems with spyware or viruses. I use Opera's web browser and Outlook Express (in plaintext read mode). I haven't run an anti-virus program in years, and have not had any indication that anything nefarious is running on my computer. The only BSODs I get with Windows are when I overclock improperly or hardware is dead, dying, or misconfigured (which is either my fault or the manufacturer's fault, not Microsoft's). I can't remember the last time a program in Windows crashed on me. On the other hand, I "sudo kate"ed last night, with predictable results.

As I said, I have Ubuntu installed on another machine. This was mostly out of necessity. He originally had an 80 GB PATA hard drive and a 250GB SATA drive. I do like Windows but one of my major gripes with it is that you cannot install it on anything but a PATA drive unless you have a floppy disk with the appropriate drivers on it. The PATA drive died about 3 weeks ago (there must be an anti-PATA aura in my room; 3 PATA drives have died there in the past month) and the floppy drive on it is too flaky to read a driver disk. So my choices were either buy another PATA drive, install something else or let it gather dust.

The other reason I installed Linux was to learn about it. While my job today is maintaining a US Army wargame that runs on Windows, who knows what it will be tomorrow and you can't be too competitive in the job market.

One thing that really worries me is Microsoft's Trusted Computing Platform. If Wikipedia's article on it turns out to be accurate, that may end my desire for any future versions of Windows.

gooner
January 27th, 2006, 12:23 AM
Because it's utter balls! The few things that windows offers that i cant get to work on linux i can either find an alternative or live without. The only thing stopping linux from taking over imo is microsofts office suite and perhaps gaming(the prior being the most important).

As for dual booting, I dont consider it worth the disk space.

era86
January 27th, 2006, 01:42 AM
The other reason I installed Linux was to learn about it.

I am a student right now and I was introduced to linux by one of my professors. Ever since I've been using it, for about 5 months now, I have learned so much about how it works. It also taught me how certain operating systems work in general and has given me a great appreciation for the history of computing and those who further develop other linux distros.

I keep windows around for my other classes and for my friends who want to use my computer. But linux is my main OS right now, I use it for everything.

-ERA

Efwis
January 27th, 2006, 02:01 AM
Because it's utter balls! The few things that windows offers that i cant get to work on linux i can either find an alternative or live without. The only thing stopping linux from taking over imo is microsofts office suite and perhaps gaming(the prior being the most important).

As for dual booting, I dont consider it worth the disk space.
you know you can convert M$ office suites files to OOo files and OOo files to M$ office right?

Sparkalo
January 27th, 2006, 02:51 AM
Personally, I use Ubuntu over XP due to the fact that I didn't want to have to deal with M$ tech support to activate a copy of windows, it's sometimes err...difficult to understand them : P

Seriously though, I'm using Ubuntu because Linux is more lightweight, less vulnerable, and more reliable. I LOVE starting up my computer every day and not having to be greeted with popups nor corrupt registry notifications nor flashing security warnings that I knew about two weeks ago and thought I had installed, etc.

Not to mention the fact that working with something alternative is fun and exciting! However, it's exciting in a "Oh boy, I wonder what I'll discover today" kind of way rather than a "Oh ****, I wonder what BSOD I'll get today" kind of way : P

Stay Frosty!

DigitalDuality
January 27th, 2006, 03:10 AM
Umm activating XP by phone means interaction with a machine.... not a person.

littlewood
January 27th, 2006, 03:23 AM
1: I love Quicken for my finances/online banking have not found a suitable Linux replacement

Crossover works beautifully for that.

mstlyevil
January 27th, 2006, 04:02 AM
As I said, I have Ubuntu installed on another machine. This was mostly out of necessity. He originally had an 80 GB PATA hard drive and a 250GB SATA drive. I do like Windows but one of my major gripes with it is that you cannot install it on anything but a PATA drive unless you have a floppy disk with the appropriate drivers on it.

Not neccesarily true. I have a AMD64 3200 on a DFI Infinity Nforce4 motherboard with a 250 GB SATA II WD hard drive. I installed Windows XP with SP2 without using a floppy or installing RAID drivers. Some chipsets and motherboards do not support installing WinXP without SATA drivers but a lot of the new ones do. I also had a Gigabyte Nforce 3 motherboard that would install Windows without installing drivers from a floppy. One solution to your problem is you can go to the MOBO manufactuer website and download the drivers and put them on a floppy disk before installing your SATA drive. If you do not have a floppy drive, you can buy one brand new for less than $10 USD. Floppy's are also pretty cheap.

Ultimo Aliento
January 27th, 2006, 05:20 AM
I repair computers for living, i need to know about the new virus, spyware, windows patches, new programs... i almost use windows xp just to experiment with possible solutions and to play games.

And maybe to use windows messenger sometimes, microsoft still got the edge in the instant messenger programs.

And, when i want to open my safe emails acounts, or just watch movies, or write letters, i use Linux, i feel safe, and almost all my desktop is configured for my personal taste...it feels like home.

mettallicat
January 27th, 2006, 05:26 AM
in march this gentoo instalation makes an year ... and what my firefox take the same time to start and everithing works fine ... the desktop is a bit diferent i've ubuntu instaled since december ( it toke a new hard drive ... ) .. so off course you play games in linux ... if my girlfriend is able to install games by her hand in ubuntu you should be too ...

If you like to have an OPERATING SYSTEM user ubuntu or olther linux distro if you want to play Wintendo go ahed and please .. do not touch more in linux. is your choice .. i don't see any reason to say "i can't play in linux " " ubuntu only works to mp3 and internet " ... take a shot and be a nice guy :D

Ultimo Aliento
January 27th, 2006, 05:40 AM
in march this gentoo instalation makes an year ... and what my firefox take the same time to start and everithing works fine ... the desktop is a bit diferent i've ubuntu instaled since december ( it toke a new hard drive ... ) .. so off course you play games in linux ... if my girlfriend is able to install games by her hand in ubuntu you should be too ...

If you like to have an OPERATING SYSTEM user ubuntu or olther linux distro if you want to play Wintendo go ahed and please .. do not touch more in linux. is your choice .. i don't see any reason to say "i can't play in linux " " ubuntu only works to mp3 and internet " ... take a shot and be a nice guy :D

Well... ask the guys in the ubuntu gaming forum about WOW , or Guild wars :P , i like Enemy territory , battle of wesnoth and other games, but i want to play another games... a LOT more games, i have always used my computers for gaming :P and sadly , the games devs almost never makes games for Linux.

I dont see why you cannot use every tool that do what you want, if i want to play games, i use windows, if i want to feel safe, learn a few new things, and have a 100% configured desktop for my taste, i log in linux.

Windows and linux are operating systems, if you do a hard work, windows can be safe and fast... but linux has so many little details that i like, that for me windows is like a working but ugly car... and the car i want, is free, so why bothering ?

vat0r
January 27th, 2006, 06:08 AM
I switched to a dual boot because I was/am to the point of boredom with windows and wanted to see what all this linux fuss was about. I'm not into PC gaming at all so I may fully convert in the future. The only thing stopping me so far is Photoshop.

Sp@z
January 27th, 2006, 06:31 AM
This post has confused me to the point where I can't remember what I am using and why I am using it, if I am really using it at all........

I use Linux more and more and more everyday, and everyday I learn just a little bit more. My games are native, I use XP because sometimes I just want something to work without using a terminal......I like to tinker too, but if I tinker with Linux too much, I break it.(my fault not Linux) When I break it I get mad because I have prolly already loaded a buttload of music an pix and installed my games.......When I use Linux I walk on eggshells any more...

mikexgough
January 27th, 2006, 09:36 AM
Well guys I have used various distro's of Linux over the last 6 years and I am now hooked on Ubuntu for its usablilty, I recently purchased a Laptop........mm with XP on it.....I have tried Ubuntu live and it all works including the WiFi centrino stuff , so after the 1 year RTB its off with the XP. The rest here have XP on 2 laptops but they use the Ubuntu through samba to store files on and even use it to play games on!!!
All in all Windows sucks and the Virus and software issuses as well as filesystem structure all cause problems to PC users, Its a shame the large PC stores such as PC world in the UK dont give Ubuntu away as freely as internet connection disks, but then their "trained" staff would have to know about it

PC.....Self Build.....Amd XP 2200, Ati Radeon,DVDRW/DVDrom,.....Ubuntu 5.10

networked through Linksys router.......wireless connection from that to 3 x Win XP laptops and Palm TX handheld

Mike

Tibor60
January 28th, 2006, 02:18 AM
Why to use Linux? Linux is a feeling, a play, a hobby. But if you want really do your work, you need windows, too. Linux is free only for people for whom the time has no value. I was installing in ubuntu the nvidia driver for 3 days, and now I work with my scanner, which can not be detected in ubuntu, second day... In windows install the software, plug-in the hardware, and all is working immediately.

jon_gunnar
January 28th, 2006, 11:14 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?
Its easier to use.More stable and generally much more pleasent to use.I use xp when I have to,like video editing mostly.
For everything else I use linux simply cause its easier.No more complicated than that.

gatorbrit
January 29th, 2006, 03:38 AM
I switched to linux because I need an OS that lets me access all the RAM on my PC (4GB). Windows 2K only allows you to access 2.1 GB, then it loads library files into that space and you are down to <1.4GB. I run large statistical models where memory matters. Linux lets me run these apps and manage the memory in the way I want to - its more transparent. I use linux for all my data analysis.
I would use linux 100% of the time at work, except I run two PCs and I might as well leave on as a win box.

handy
January 29th, 2006, 05:50 AM
I've been enjoying this thread, thanks!

Having my own business as a computer technical service provider, I must continue to use windoze. :(

The need to store & cast Ghost images is my primary (only?) need for M$ Dos, these days. In xp, I still need to use Partition Magic, occasionally, & once or twice a year Dreamweaver.

I have been playing Guild Wars (awsome!) through xp, only untill I put the time in on Ubuntu.

[EDIT:] I put the time in on Guild Wars, see here for what for me is a great result:

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=123715

I can't think of any other use that I have for xp, there is bound to be something crop up from time to time.

I don't like the cludgy way that M$ usually build it's software, it can be quite irritating when you are fixing M$ boxes all the time - tedious. The windoze registry should never have come into existance!

The most important reasons that I don't want to support M$, are the multiple issues of freedoms that are being strategically eroded by M$ & it's cohorts. The whole world will suffer at the hands of these powerfull corporations as they continue down the path of their business plans. VERY scary stuff. The M$ EULA is only the tip of the iceberg.:confused:

Read the Trusted Computing FAQ by Ross Anderson, professor of computer security engineering @ Cambridge University, England.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

I have been keeping my eye on various Linux distro's for many years, waiting for the inevitable right time to adopt, which Debian provided 3 or 4 months ago, & then 2 weeks later I found & fell in love with Ubuntu! :KS

Most of the good & bad, easy & hard of Ubuntu, has been stated in this thread allready.

Using Ubuntu makes me somehow feel more free, & cleaner?

I must have ethics after all!

TechSonic
January 29th, 2006, 07:51 AM
I think I still have XP Pro on my 3rd hard drive?? LOL It's at least mounted so I can get files off it... Still, I haven't booted into XP or at least accessed files on it for a month now... Hmmmm. I'm not worried about space.. Yeah I think I'll just pull the drive out and store it some place now that I think of it.

Bandit
January 29th, 2006, 08:32 AM
Well I use linux because I cant stand windows.
Yes WinXP is more stable then the previous versions, but the trouble of cleaning of Spyware and Adware is s total headache, Viruses are not much of a problem. A goot AV program can take care of the virus head ache, but the spyware and adware! Also I hate the winblows regestry crud. I hate having to defrag the dang hard drive everytime you move a bunch of files around.
Linux to me offers me a chance to take my computer back.
I am not spending my weekends play spy hunter (no not the arcade game)..
I am not spending hours defraging.

I am getting to use my computer. Thats why I use Linux...

Cheers,
Bandit...

handy
January 29th, 2006, 09:05 AM
I forgot to include this link in my previous post, great for understanding the fundamental differences re: security between windoze & most of the linux distro's:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

BLTicklemonster
January 29th, 2006, 04:22 PM
Ubuntu/linux: free office apps, free imaging programs, free sound apps, free *...


Windows XP: well, gee, think about it.


\\:D/

jmills
January 29th, 2006, 05:08 PM
Each currently has advantages that have been discussed somewhat in this thread.

Learning each is like learning a new language. So, if you are currently conversant with XP, learning linux is work.

It's worth the work because Linux is the language of the future. Here's why I think that's true.

In the '70s (when I was messing with Wang Wordprocessors) Apple was a million miles ahead of everyone in desktop computing. IBM was convinced that big mainframes were the ticket to success. Big, big mistake.

Still, in less than a decade after focusing on desktops, IBM had nearly driven Apple to bankruptcy. It did that by basically giving away its hardware architecture and allowing anyone to build an IBM-compatible "PC." Essentially, it "open-sourced" its hardware architecture, allowing all the world to do R&D for its computers.

The biggest problem in the world is figuring out whether the product you are spending millions to develop is a DVD or an 8-track; that is, a big success, or a dismal failure no one really wants. By "open sourcing" its hardware architecture, IBM could rely on people it didn't even know to develop all kinds of products.

For example, when the IBM 286 AT came out, it had 5 1/2" floppy disks. Who - at that time - could have imagines ZIP drives, or CD-ROM drives, wireless LAN an optical mouse or thumbdrive? Certainly, IBM didn't have all the ideas for these things.

IBM allowed everyone all over the world to do the development, and then - if consumers wanted something like a DVD drive - it simply incorporated that technology into its machines. It was thus content to take a small part of a fast-growing big pie, rather than do what Apple did - try to keep 100% of the pie.

Those competing business models resulted in IBM-compatible PC's becoming "cutting edge" and running all sorts of new stuff. Apple, on the other hand, became basically a niche market product.

Apple lovers claim that their computers run smoothly and are easy to set up, run and have few bugs. True enough. That's a result of developing everything in-house. It's true that PC's have glitches sometimes because people can buy wireless LAN cards from India and might not be able to find fully compatible drivers. (Not a problem with Apple where you get one LAN card - built by Apple only.)

On the other hand, the odds of Apple being able to develop all the cutting-edge technology in-house, without spending all its R&D resources on developing 8-track tapes and BetaMax, is slim. It's the open-source architecture that remains cutting-edge, and Apple is almost always trying to catch up.

This EXACT process is playing out in the software industry. Linux following the IBM open-source model, and allowing everyone all over the world to tinker with its programing. Microsoft insisting - just like Apple - that you get one product and that it all comes through Microsoft.

Just as there were many people building "IBM" computers - Dell, Compaq, HP, etc., there are now dozens of "flavors" of Linux, all competing to produce something with the look and feel, and with the component parts that work best. This competitive process will, over the long haul, produce something that in the future will be vastly superior to continued iterations of the Windows product.

I have been following Linux development for years. It used to be little more than a curiosity - basically, a DOS-like command line product suitable only for techno-geeks.

In the last five years, however, it has arrived almost on a par with Windows XP, and in some respects is superior.

What you have to ask is this: Where will these two products be in the next ten years?

My bet is that there are things being developed right now for Linux that we cannot imagine by people who we do not even know exist.

SOME new product development will come from Microsoft. That's obvious because of all the money they have. But, it's very unlikely that most or even a large part will come from Microsoft, who is now competing against the whole world.

As Linux becomes more popular and more pervasive, even fewer people will write applications for Windows and even fewer will want to deal with Microsoft because its business motto ("We're Microsoft so we don't have to care") and its business model ("We control the horizontal; we control the vertical") isn't as conducive to innovation as is the Linux model.

And, just as IBM drove Apple into a mere niche player, Linux will do the same to Windows. Those who are in on the ground floor, and understand Linux will be as advantaged as those, who in the '70s, were willing to move from Apple to the relatively difficult and new IBM/MS-DOS world.

It's a "vision" thing.

BLTicklemonster
January 29th, 2006, 05:26 PM
So Microsoft ought to make XP free, and release it's source code to compete with linux. Release Vista for office use where security is an issue. Hmmmm. My sideways thinking cap just went into overtime. Also, ufos ought to quit hiding from us and share their technology, Bigfoot needs to tell us how the heck he stays hidden (I'm sure DB Cooper found one and got it out of him), and Santa needs to ... no wait, I'm coming off as sarcastic here, and I don't mean to.


Yes, good points. Very good. I dual boot Ubuntu and XP and have XP on vmware. Once linux gets total support for all things windowy, I'll be happy.

qferret
January 29th, 2006, 11:02 PM
but the fact of the matter is that if you have an ATI videocard you'll suffer from the limitations I've mentioned, and pointing out that it's ATI's fault won't fix anything.


Oh, I don't know...my ATI 9600 runs UT2004 quite well...in native mode and wine. I do agree that generally, gaming support is sorely lacking in Linux, but I don't care since I do 99% of my gaming on my PS2 (which also runs linux btw) :))

Kimm
January 29th, 2006, 11:11 PM
As a reply to the original question of this post.

because I dont like windows. A while back I installed windows since I was going to a lan. I felt extremely uncomftarble, I had a hard time finding applications that did what I wanted. Yes belive it or not but I have easier time finding Linux apps then Windows apps, I supose the amount is about the same.
It was so uggly, and nothing was where I wanted it to be. I had to have a firewall that complained about everything and an AntiVirus program that slowed my computer down. Which probably contributed to the grave performance loss when compared to Linux.

CameronCalver
January 30th, 2006, 12:05 AM
well i have a windows which im building and i i need a monitor then im getting 160gb hd and then switching to linux

andrija1989
January 30th, 2006, 12:09 AM
hey
i just started usung ubuntu linux and i am just wondering why is this OP better then windows.. besides the whole addware/spyware...thing.. i dont see the why linux is so much better then windows since 99% of all programs are made for windows not linux...:confused:

IYY
January 30th, 2006, 01:48 AM
Well, most reasons were mentioned already, here are some others:

- The command line. A tool I just can't live without now.

- SSH and FTP are very easy to set up and allow me to do a lot. For example, I can be sitting in university and tell my home computer to download the latest episode of the daily show. With the speed of Bittorrent, it will be waiting for me when I come home.

- If something breaks, I can fix it using logic and skill, not randomly rebooting and poking my computer with a stick.

- A community.

- As I use Linux more, I become better at it and learn new things. After the first few days of using XP, I haven't discovered anything new.

- I like it. Love it, even. Whenever using a Linux computer, I feel good.

qferret
January 30th, 2006, 04:25 AM
Aaah :eek: ... I hate that thing. It's one of the first things I change in XP


#1 change is the teletubby default background... yucky! LOL

qferret
January 30th, 2006, 04:29 AM
i dont see the why linux is so much better then windows since 99% of all programs are made for windows not linux...:confused:


99% of all programs that you're forced to PAY for at Wal-Mart maybe....

The only genre Windows still has an overwhelming share in is 3D games...

TechSonic
January 30th, 2006, 04:36 AM
Just wait, Linux will take over the world and nobody (not even microsoft) will be able to stop it. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Miguel
January 30th, 2006, 11:08 AM
These guys that say that Linux has no advantage over windows should try the following:

-Open firefox and thunderbird. Browse and write at will
-Open your favourite music app. Be it Rhythmbox, Amarok or WinAmp.
-Open the GIMP (this is not required)
-Run a very exhaustign DFT calculation (absolutely required).

I mean, I can decode MP3's (stutter free, mind you), browse the net, read my e-mail and even touch the GIMP... while I'm doing a VERY CPU hungry calculation. And the computer doesn't crawl like a molass. And this is on a Centrino 1.7 laptop with 512Mb RAM.

I have vague memories of a WinXP system response while running the AV.

zAo
January 30th, 2006, 11:22 AM
Why Ubuntu:
- Powerfull
- Looks great, can ajust everything
- Free, free of virusses and so on.

Why still win32:
- Photoshop (can use Gimp)
- BreezeBrowser (anything that can do that with CRW files!?)
- CCE (...)

xequence
January 31st, 2006, 02:09 AM
Also, no ActiveX or registry, which is enough for me.

Registry sucks, but isnt ActiveX only in IE?

andrija1989
January 31st, 2006, 07:08 AM
hi all..
how do you make a partition with Linux for windows its so easy.. i currently have 80 gigs on my hard drive which has windows xp installed.. n that 80 gig hd is divided in to 2 partition on the 1st partition c: drive i have all my music and on my d: drive i have my windows installed i want to install Linux on my d: drive but how do i do that...?

Bandit
January 31st, 2006, 07:38 AM
hi all..
how do you make a partition with Linux for windows its so easy.. i currently have 80 gigs on my hard drive which has windows xp installed.. n that 80 gig hd is divided in to 2 partition on the 1st partition c: drive i have all my music and on my d: drive i have my windows installed i want to install Linux on my d: drive but how do i do that...?
You start your own thread. Its not nice to hi-jack others threads ;)

nikosft
February 1st, 2006, 06:46 PM
The advanatages of Windows over Linux for me are the following
- Greater support for devices (Do you remember when was the first Linux distribution supporting USB?)
-Greate variety of programs, especially programs concerinig enterprise support and businees solutions, such as CRMs
-I am still using Windows 98 in one of my machines with full functionality and I am getting free updates . Is anybody using a 7 years old linux distribution?
-Linux 64bit is hell! Nothing is running there
-Greek fonts!English are nice but what about other languages....
-To install a prgramme simple download,double click and it is ready! The same from installation way for every program.
-Adobe Elements and for professionals Photoshop.(Have you ever tried to draw a circle in Gimp?)
-Is really linux safer? Do you thing that if everybody starts usng linux there will be any viruses for windows and still no virus for windows
-Is really linux needs to be restarted less time than windows?The last 3 days Ubuntu asked me 2 times to restart them, my windows mahine is running continusly, without restrart the last 10 days.
-Microsoft Office. Much better than Openoffice. Openoffice needs a lot of cpu and memory and there is no support for collaborating work
-Microsoft Frontpage.
-The same programs look nicer in windows. Take as example Mozilla, Opera, Real player (espaecially the last one...)

Nevertheless I am sendin tha post from Ubuntu. Why am I using Ubuntu? To develop web services and for networking.

jon_gunnar
February 1st, 2006, 07:21 PM
Nevertheless I am sendin tha post from Ubuntu. Why am I using Ubuntu? To develop web services and for networking.

Since I already gave my reasons,this may be a little to much.But this sums it quite nice up for me personally.
Im really not so conserned about the names of things,I use the tool that fits the task and Im comfortable with,call it linux or xp.
But this may be a little OT so dont shoot me please.:)

shelbydz
February 1st, 2006, 08:19 PM
I was using Mandrake until it switched to mandriva. At that time I had a dual boot with XP. I was using mandrake for 99% of my games, work, etc. I would only boot into Windows to play certian games that weren't supported w/ Cedega.

I did some reasearch and found that Ubuntu was a much better OS over Mandrake. At that point, I was so sick of windows, even the 2 days a month I was using it. I decided to format the ol' hard drive and make the system a dedicated Ubuntu machine. Now, all my games work (thanks to the lates v of Cedega), they actually run FASTER in Ubuntu than they did in Windows. I'm 100% ms free.

The only thing I couldn't get to work was Kino for video editing. It just wasn't stable enough for the higher end projects I do. We actually went and bought a Mac G5 dual core. Nice machine! It reminds me SO much of Ubuntu, that any time I ever buy a new machine, it's gonna be a mac. I still use Linux 99% of the time for EVERYTHING except video editing and DVD authoring.

LOVE it!

batty505
February 1st, 2006, 09:46 PM
Hey

I am a new ubuntu user as well, my biggest peeve about xp is security.
Oh sure M$ has 95% of the market share, but more viruses are written about the os and it's apps, how about going through the web with IE and get tagged with another wmf virus file from some w2k3 server hosting viruses and not having their SP2 installed, or updated their av defs?

how about local c shares enabled from default and anyone with power user rights can peek your hard drive on the network. Worse for people on home Cable internet stuff. I found some dr's local desktop being shared, wirelessly!

google the web and see how many users were informed that their personal data has been compromised because some laptop with all their data was stolen?

those of you who are network savvy, with a broadband wifi connection check your ip routing tables, see how many ua wifi connections are on your lan.

bottom line, the more I networking engine stuff I do in xp/2003, the more I like linux for home.

just my 02 cents.
Mike

OneSeventeen
February 1st, 2006, 11:50 PM
I have spent a collective 10 hours on the phone with microsoft this past year due to forced reinstalls, and an activation system that is easier to circumvent illegally than it is to follow through with.

I'm a business owner striving for integrity, and part of that includes obeying the law, and since ignorance isn't an excuse for breaking the law, I simply switched to linux, where I don't have to worry about license agreements. That's one less way my business can fail. Inability to get viruses is another one, and lack of a need for reinstalling every few months yet another.

I kept my system clean, and it worked fairly well, but when it messed up, it severely messed up.

Also, Ubuntu's repositories are very reliable, and the ability to click "Add Application" from the application menu sold me.

Windows isn't bad, but it isn't good either. I keep it on one machine for powering my vinyl cutter and ATI AIW, but everything else is powered by linux in my house. (except my X-box, but that's because I'm lazy :p )

galgoz
February 2nd, 2006, 08:40 AM
Why I use Ubuntu.

1. I prefer the gnome desktop
2. My dual monitor setup has better functionality than in windows
3. virtual desktop is better than offered by Windows Powertoys
4. better open source software selection, in other words Money
5. microsoft makes me feel dirty
6. don't want to upgrade to vista
7. hate defraggin, virus scanning, spyware removing

Why is XP still my OS of choice?

1. ease of use (filesharing and print serving only, other than that they are equally easy to use if ubuntu doesn't have a slight edge, although I should have used Fedora to try to make a server however)
2. games (yeah, I know about the linux options)
3. media center (snapstream.com) I use their tv software on several pc's and they are the best, however couldn't get it to install even in linux
4. macromedia products ( I did get dreamweaver and flash to install and work but not fireworks and gimp doesn't cut it for me)

Gandalf
February 2nd, 2006, 09:08 AM
Hey,

This topic sounds like asking me, If you have a Porche then Why do you drive your childish motor bike? :lol:

Well my only answear is I LOVE LINUX, and i hate all microsoft products, not because i want to hate them, but honestly i do not like to be controlled, i dont like the way windows has been made, I highly dislike IE and you know that windows and IE cannot be seperated and even if u succeded to seperate them, u have to live a buggy system..

i didn't mention how much slowness an anti-virus can cause :)

Cupido
February 2nd, 2006, 01:53 PM
Antivirus for windows is just a matter of the right choice. Just don't use norton or mcaffee. I use AVG and is good and doesn't slow down my workstation.

I just use linux for my (ftp, mail, web, file) server.
And I use it to download.

Metz
February 2nd, 2006, 04:20 PM
Why am I using Linux ? When my laptop crashed and wiped itself out, I discovered my XP disks had gone missing. Shortly after, I bought a mag, and on the front was the Ubuntu 5.04 DVD. I had nothing to lose....so tried it out....out of sheer curiousity.

Within less than an hour, I was hooked. And have been ever since. I've spent so many years using MS stuff (still do on a daily basis at work), that the only new things left for me to discover were bugs.

Windows is like your wife of 50 years. You know her really well, she has lots of niggles, and she has an inate ability to annoy you. But, you still love her, coz you're so used to each other.

Linux, however, is like a mistress. She fresh and exciting. Slightly dangerous, full of suprises, and can do things for you that your wife never could. ;):):)

CospeFogo
February 5th, 2006, 02:38 AM
Simple. Linux offers more flexibility for desktop power users. Period.
Now if your priority is about games, go back to Windows for sure.

FM1
February 5th, 2006, 05:55 AM
I bought Windows XP, I used it and I got bored with it. I couldn't make it look the way I wanted it to look without third party software, and I couldn't tweak anything unless MS said I could. Even as a power user, I had to make sure I had the latest patches (assuming they didn't break the system), use a third party browser and email client, make sure my virus signatures were up to date and get a real firewall. It took forever to turn off unecessary services, change settings and install the software to get a new XP install reasonably secure. Enough. I bought the hardware, I built the computer and it belongs to me; I want to use it, not babysit it. I used Mandrake (and then Mandriva) because it held my hand until I was Geek Girl enough to do things on my own and not fear the CLI. Ubuntu does enough that I'm not forced to tweak much, but the option is always there if I want it. It looks the way I want it to look because I have options--free options. Choice and freedom are why I use Linux. Spit and polish are why I use Ubuntu. \\:D/

spector
February 5th, 2006, 02:04 PM
So tells me,

If you whant to installnew hardware in your PC on win, and it do not function what can you do? Reinstall it again and agian untill it function...

With linux (if you know how ) you can always find and fix the problem...

If you whant to play you can follow this http://www.transgaming.com/ (you must pay but we all know where you can get it free...)

If you whant to program you will find that Linux is much better than windows...

Windows always doi what he whant, he must make the work that the useres do not whant to do...

Linux just make what you tells him to do.

Have you ever tried to share a connection between 3 PC usinc one network cable and two wirless card? With windows it wille get you 3 days of incomprehensible problem, with linux (aways if you know how) it will take you jusgt 15 min.

Linux is much better than win, as the other person say, because it is stable, faster, more beautiful and more secure.

If you do not use it it means that you do not whant to learn how to really use a computer, that is not a problem, just do not say wrong thing.

louis_nichols
February 8th, 2006, 04:29 AM
I've written this before in another thread, but I want to share it here too.

For me it was personal: XP let me down bigtime. I bought my machine with an XP OEM and wasn't much interested in other stuff, since the OS itself wasn't the purpose of a PC for me. I installed Fedora out of curiosity, but wasn't using it. Then... the time came when I was really stressed with several projects for school. And, as luck would have it... bsod... just like that, out of the blue. I was so stressed and mad and upset you wouldn't believe! Imagine being a couple of days away from a deadline and staying in front of your PC with fear in your heart that all the changes you've made lately could be lost in the blink of an eye. To this day I haven't found the reason why that would happen. I formatted the system partition and re-installed the OS several times (hell, I even formatted the whole hard-drive at one point, going around asking friends to borrow me one for a backup). But in the end it was still there. It dissapeared at one point, out of the blue as it had appeared. But not soon enough.

In those days, Fedora and Open Office were my salvation. And I never went back to XP. I still boot it for some apps I don't have in Ubuntu, but that's all. Furthermore, the OS is now one of the purposes of a PC for me, as there's a lot to learn, and I also try to be an advocate of Linux to the best of my abilities.

GreySim
February 8th, 2006, 11:39 PM
Having started reading this thread from the beginning today, I came across this:



from someones sig- if we each have one apple, and we trade them, we still only have one apple. if we each have an idea and we trade them, we each have two ideas.


I shared that with some friends, and got an interesting response, which I had to share:



( 2:33pm) Peter`: the best deal is
( 2:33pm) Peter`: of course
( 2:33pm) Peter`: when you have one idea and someone else has one apple


:twisted:

nihilocrat
February 9th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Well, if you're running a server, Windows is always either a piece of crap, or costs too much. Sometimes, it's both. I also really hate learning the Windows way of doing everything, which is pretty much never standards-compliant. The GUI also really gets in the way of things, I feel that system administration is easier from a command prompt, and if I need some sort of GUI interface, I usually just install a web app (like phpmyadmin for mysql admin).

One question I have, though, is if there's any desktop app in the Linux world that's like MMC (the thing you get when you right-click on "My computer" and click "Manage). Although I don't really need such an app, it seems like one of the more clever and useful things Microsoft has made.

louis_nichols
February 9th, 2006, 11:03 PM
Well, if you're running a server, Windows is always either a piece of crap, or costs too much. Sometimes, it's both. I also really hate learning the Windows way of doing everything, which is pretty much never standards-compliant. The GUI also really gets in the way of things, I feel that system administration is easier from a command prompt, and if I need some sort of GUI interface, I usually just install a web app (like phpmyadmin for mysql admin).

One question I have, though, is if there's any desktop app in the Linux world that's like MMC (the thing you get when you right-click on "My computer" and click "Manage). Although I don't really need such an app, it seems like one of the more clever and useful things Microsoft has made.


well, gnome also has a device manager app. It's under system/administration. as for the rest of the stuff under "manage" (I think it has services, defragmenter) ... I'm pretty sure there's an equivalent for all (I just can't remember al the modules under there right now), except things yu don't actually need because it's linux, like defragmenter. :D

linuxnovice
February 11th, 2006, 05:14 AM
Hello,
I was always curious about Linux and was infact going to install one this summer. But as it turned out I needed to linux on my machine for my project. Most of what I do is open source which needs gcc to run. So I saw the perfect oppurtunity to install linux and Ubuntu is right now sitting on my PC. True, I do have some problems. My biggest problem would be my screen res set at 640*480. I have tried everything possible including reinstalling Ubuntu again to set this right, but with no success. However, I find all the other aspects of Linux interesting and it is overall a new experience for me. A full migration to Linux, would, however take some time for me. I need to get to know linux better only then I could be sure of handling most of the problems that I might encounter. But, nonetheless, a full migration to linux is what I am looking at.
Linuxnovice.

SuTuRa
February 14th, 2006, 05:16 AM
I am just loving using linux.
It's a feeling of freedom that doesn't exist in Windows... And I'm not talking
freedom becuase it's free:D

Bandit
February 14th, 2006, 05:28 AM
If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?
I just don't understand why the hell anyone would want to use Windows.. :-|

StueyB
February 14th, 2006, 05:07 PM
I am in the process of moving from XP to Ubuntu on a Dell Dimension P4/1 GB/etc etc

Lets be honest here, Windows XP doesnt crash anywhere as badly as previous versions of Windows. In my experience from a month after it came out to today, in both a sysadmin capacity and a home user capacity, I cant have seen any more than half a dozen crashes. If it crashes, its usually flakey/cheap n nasty hardware.

HOWEVER

Whilst I do think XP is solid, I dont like the MS way of doing things and their greed. For example my old Tosh laptop got stolen, I had to buy another licence. Sucks but hey. Even thats not the big issue. The big issue for me is freedom of choice. The new slogan should be "The source, freedom and compiler included" ;)

Also I hate the fact that although I run 4 machines at home, each and every one required a new licence. And each one needs M$' approval if I re install!

Ok I wouldnt meddle with source code, but its nice to have the option and also if you wanted a server with windows, theres not much change out of a few thousand dollars. Money that could be spent on better hardware!

Also using linux forces you to re-evaluate why you use a pc. At the end of the day, its a tool to do a job.

Stuart

LordBug
February 14th, 2006, 05:24 PM
I currently have an XP system and an Ubuntu system (2 computers). I've been tinkering with the Linux system (various distros over the years) for some time now. I've only recently given serious thought to ditching Windows for Linux. I've been spending time doing testing on the Ubuntu system to see if it can handle everything I need. So far, I'm doing very well on that front. I'll probably start toying with Live CDs on the XP system to make sure all of that hardware works, then I'll likely ditch XP completely. Probably in the next few months.

tendo
February 14th, 2006, 05:49 PM
I dont think I'll ever completely give up on Windows because I really like playing CS:S and I make music (Cubase is so sweet!). But for day to day use, I think Kubuntu is a lot better. I also just really want to learn all the command line stuff because I do webdesign and most webservers use *nix.

Do you guys think that because of MAC switching to a *nix based system with OSX that there will be more Game support for Linux based systems in the near future? Doesn't that make it easier to port the games? I don't really know much about programming but that seems to make sense. :KS

Bandit
February 14th, 2006, 05:53 PM
Lets be honest here, Windows XP doesnt crash anywhere as badly as previous versions of Windows.This is a fair statement. Being that every version of windows has been unstable for me since the first release.
IMHO, Win2K was the best version of windows. But thats just my opinion.
Now please let me explain a few pains with WinXP just in the past few months.
-Three months back I was dual booting so I could play GuildWars. For some reason windows stopped booting. Dont know why, all I do know was I was not messing with anything.
-Two months back we installed a new mobo into my wifes HP. Windows frequently locked up during boot up. After making it to the desktop it seems fine.
-Last month, my wifes HP box stopped booting. For no reason that I can find. Hardware and RAM tested fine.
-Installed WinXP again, same problems before with system locking up on boot up. Have to manualy restart sometimes up to 3 times to make it to the desktop. Its running again. We will see how long it last....
*BTW.. I have installed Ubuntu and Kubuntu on her system and let her play with it for about a week. -Never locks up. -Never has any problems. -Runs hell of alot faster.. Only downfall is her damn Quickcam Messenger doesnt work and she doesnt want to get a new one.

Cheers,
Joey

PapaWiskas
February 14th, 2006, 06:37 PM
I have one PC that has XP on it. The only reason why I have it....it amuses me.

Seriously...what is more funny than a cute little green button labled "START"

I have always wondered what that meant....."START"...

Start what? A path to the nether reaches of the despondent region known as hell. From which there is no escape and purgatory is not an option. Where the very confines smothers my soul, help, I can't breathe, you MUST do it this way or else you will get the BSOD!

XP makes me laugh, and is my constant reminder of how things were once in my life. XP had me believing that this was the way my life was going to be. It had me afraid, very afraid, it made sure that I would never forsake my green "START".

Then one day the ceilings of hell cracked, the light, it was so bright, I had basked in the darkness, this never ending torment, long arduous days, nights of sleeplessness. This light hurt my eyes so very much, I was terrified, so terrified I almost pee'd myself. Then a calmness overtook me, for 35 minutes, I was paralyzed with fear from this light, but the calm, it was so quick, so true, it was then I knew that the light was going to get me out of the wasteland I had delved into since 1995. 10 freakin years I rotted in that hole, 10 years is a lifetime. But now, this light, set me free. On the screen the light shined bright....in white letters framed in hues of brown....UBUNTU....

I sit here now, looking over at that box now, the one sole place where I know hell resides, and I laugh. That green "START" button will no longer be "STARTING" my days off bad. I have reached a place better than Nirvana, Paradise, Utopia, Atlantis, I have reached UBUNTU....

qyot27
February 14th, 2006, 06:37 PM
My main reason for dualbooting Linux was to get to know the OS I would invariably use to run my (future) personal webservers. I don't trust Windows enough for that, even if I rarely have problems with XP (and most of those are memory-related anyway - it's never crashed once, even though I did need to format the HDD and reinstall Windows in late 2003). My reasons for staying with/continuing to use XP have more to do with the fact that I do a lot of video work and I find Premiere and Photoshop much easier to deal with at the moment (especially since I can't intensively use Cinelerra until I get that USB 2.0 card in so my external HDD can work at full speed, and I find Photoshop's interface is more intuitive for me than the GIMP's is). VirtualDubMod has no proper replacement, the Linux port of Avisynth is still in the extreme alpha stage last time I checked, and MeGUI doesn't compile under Mono yet (if I remember that thread on doom9 correctly) which further cuts into it. If MeGUI could compile correctly, then I probably would stop using Windows to do my AVC encoding - I'd very much like to get .NET off of my computer as quickly as possible.

For everything else, Linux is great, and I like how customizable it is. apt-get and wget are just plain addicting (to the point that I actually went and got the Win32 version of wget for when I'm under XP). When the time comes that XP finally can't support the hardware anymore, I'll move to Linux primarily so I can make the most out of the current hardware, since I'm not touching Vista with a hundred-foot pole ('trusted computing', my foot; even if that's not true for Vista, I'm sick of the bloat). By that time, the other things might very well have evaporated, or at the very least I'll have finally figured out how to set up and use Wine correctly.

Klaidas
February 14th, 2006, 07:40 PM
I dual boot with WinXP. I'm simply curious over linux. I like learning it, it's very cool.
Besides, I'm interested in programming, web development. I really do have to know linux if I, let's say, wanna have a server :)

amisi
February 15th, 2006, 06:07 AM
Hi to All!

I'm using dual boot Ubuntu with WinXP.
Windows for Flight Simulator 2004, Ubuntu for everything else.



"...So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?"
Have you ever seen a great forum like this in Windows world? (windowsforums.org? :D )

jcaceres
February 17th, 2006, 03:51 PM
People,
I think that Linux an alternative, not a replacement for Window XP. If you like XP, then don't switch to linux.

Please read this article,

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

Regards,
JCY
:mrgreen:

Bragador
February 17th, 2006, 04:19 PM
http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e200/Spoon3000/MSvsLinuxsig.png

Harry_Sack
February 18th, 2006, 10:13 PM
In linux, I don't have to use pirated software. That's one reason. And in windows you have to struggle with all the proprietary software that wants to rule your computer. Besides linux is new to me. 1000 times more fun. I tried ubuntu in vmware (pirated of course) for ten minutes, and I just decided to get rid of windows. I had never seen any linux before that. So here I am. And I feel better than I did. Not because I'm not pirating *THAT* much, but because the whole thing is a really good, really clean, good thing. I think Microsoft is kind of SATAN, while linux is CHRIST. And I'm not christian. Lik ethe people you can listen to on streamtuner, they're WAY OUT!

Tibor60
February 19th, 2006, 01:28 AM
I work in XP, but play with linux. I would like to understand more deeply the PC and OS. And I like problem solving... I even can not understand how people can do work with linux, it is a pemanent problem-solving, and when in serious work, one have no time to look in google and forums for days to find the solution for the next linux problem. But for a fun, it is acceptable...

Morrica
February 19th, 2006, 07:47 AM
I play an unhealthy amount amount of Dark Age of Camelot and with the latest expansions and patches ..blah blah..i get some quite severe lag and connectivity problems at times under WindozeXP..playing DAoC in Linux with Cedega 5.0.3 the graphics is absolute crap but i rarely if ever go linkdead...

Transgaming "Officially" support DAoC..but 2 of the expansions are unplayable and the only way I can play is to disable pixel shaders and throttle my cpu..not what I would call "Official" support. If they gave my game better support I would blow my XP partition totally

BobSongs
February 19th, 2006, 10:17 AM
Linux is fun.

casualprogrammer
February 19th, 2006, 12:14 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?

Hi Slicebread,

this is really an interesting question.

The answers are either realistic ( We want to try something new, but can't do without Windows ) or plainly wishful thinking ( You never have to reinstall, everything is for free, etc. etc. )

I am using Windows from day one, have been using CPM and various DOS's before, but I feel nowhere near giving up Windows for good.

My personal experience after trying various flavours of Linux ( Red Hat, Fedora, Suse, Mandrake, Knoppix, Gnoppix, Ubuntu 5.10, Ubuntu 6.04, Mandriva ) is, that Linux is caught between CPM ( You need a driver ? OK write one !) and Windows 3.1 ( Yes we have a GUI, but we refuse to use it. )

Apart from that with every "Distribution" you have more "Updates" per week than with Windows per Quarter.

My Ubuntu crashes more regularly ( especially after a Kernel update ) than does Windows ( OK I am doing things with it, I wouldn't do with Windows, but plainly not because I like it, but just because of necessity. )

Apart from that, most people don't realize, that Linux has gone GUI, be it Gnome or KDE. If you try to follow any HowTo here or elsewhere you are confronted with cryptic command-line issues. Most of them work only after massive research anyway, as most HowTo' ers seem to believe that every system on earth consists of exactly their Hard- and Software setup.

I find it amusing, some sort of mutual craze. I will surely stick with it, but I don't see any good reason to move from a Villa to a Shack just because its free.

Casual

djross95
February 19th, 2006, 02:35 PM
Basically it comes down to who owns your computer, you or Bill Gates? Using Linux (and Ubuntu in particular) reminds me of the early days of computing when getting in front of your computer was actually FUN. With Windows, between the spyware, adware, viruses. dll conflicts, and pop-ups from MS that I just have to sign up for Passport and .Net NOW, NOW, NOW, computing had become a chore.

With Linux, I'm learning again and the feeling of freedom is liberating!

Sorry if I sound demented, but it's true............ :-) DR

bonzodog
February 19th, 2006, 03:36 PM
heh..it's worth noting that the OP has left us. Last activity was in december.

kvorion
February 19th, 2006, 04:11 PM
I use Ubuntu for fun. Basically for programming and learning new stuff. I like the feel of the free OS where I can fiddle around with config files, and change it the way I want, read source code etc.

I have used Fedora Core-2 and 3 before Ubuntu, but I am nowhere close to quitting Windows XP for good. I have had connectivity problems to the internet from Ubuntu which I have not been able to permanently resolve, and I dont have those problems on XP. Well, that is a very minor issue. I guess I am sort of used to Win XP, and linux cant replace it, atleast in my case, because I use both for different purposes.

I play MMORPG's sometimes, which I have to do on Win XP, and cant do that on Linux. It will be fun to see when the gaming content in Linux comes up to the mark.

phen
February 19th, 2006, 04:41 PM
tibor: I work better under linux than under win.

i run octave, qcad, intel's free fortran compiler and lots more on my laptop. i create presentations and write documents with oo.org or latex. all these tools were free (i am still student) and are very powerful. i don't want to think how many GBs would be packed with bloated visual blah blah packages by now, if i used windows :-)

at work, i never use my windows desktop, but use a unix-terminal-client. its simply more stable :-) Try to open a 800MB text file with windows... linux doesnt care. that is what i need...

just recently, i learned how to view the source code of used programs very easily. that helps if you need to really understand what the computer is calculating there...

PhoenixP3K
February 19th, 2006, 05:38 PM
I'll have to agree about anti-piracy. But a lot of free software also moved to XP like OpenOffice or GIMP. In my case I have a hard time switching to Linux, every time a new version of Ubuntu comes out I install it try it for a month or two then uninstall it because I hate switching back and forth. In my opinion the only thing keeping me attached to Windows are my games, I know some of them can play on Linux (UT2004) but I still end up switching back to windows on a daily basis. I have an advanced corrector for whenever I write a school paper, I can't use it on Linux... or perhaps I could... aren't there emulators that could do that ?

Bottom line I think Linux is reaching a state where it stands a chance to be recognize and perhaps in a few years I won't have to explain to some of my friends what Linux is (I mean, everyone know what's Mac OS) perhaps if there was some massive Linux coalition that would promote it to desktops and laptops. Then, game developpers would consider adding a linux installer and have full support for their games. (Day dreaming :o )

anil_robo
February 27th, 2006, 07:25 AM
I dual boot with WinXP. I'm simply curious over linux. I like learning it, it's very cool.
Besides, I'm interested in programming, web development. I really do have to know linux if I, let's say, wanna have a server :)

By the way nice website of yours (your signature). Few photos but excellent quality. Why don't you make them wallpaper size so that we can decorate our Ubuntu desktop with them as wallpapers?

Thanks :)

sitara
February 27th, 2006, 07:49 AM
There seems to be a lot of talk about gaming and Linux. Has anybody tried Cedega from www.transgaming.com? I'm not a gamer myself but my kids seem to manage to play most of their PC games with Cedega.

The real beauty of Linux for me is this: I use quite a lot of different software on my machine. If I had to buy it all it would cost me a fortune. Whenever I need to do something new I just go to Synaptic and usually find what I need there. There are still a few hassles now and then but overall I'm glad I dumped MS a couple of years ago.

handy
February 27th, 2006, 01:31 PM
The advanatages of Windows over Linux for me are the following
- Greater support for devices (Do you remember when was the first Linux distribution supporting USB?)
-Greate variety of programs, especially programs concerinig enterprise support and businees solutions, such as CRMs
-I am still using Windows 98 in one of my machines with full functionality and I am getting free updates . Is anybody using a 7 years old linux distribution?
-Linux 64bit is hell! Nothing is running there
-Greek fonts!English are nice but what about other languages....
-To install a prgramme simple download,double click and it is ready! The same from installation way for every program.
-Adobe Elements and for professionals Photoshop.(Have you ever tried to draw a circle in Gimp?)
-Is really linux safer? Do you thing that if everybody starts usng linux there will be any viruses for windows and still no virus for windows
-Is really linux needs to be restarted less time than windows?The last 3 days Ubuntu asked me 2 times to restart them, my windows mahine is running continusly, without restrart the last 10 days.
-Microsoft Office. Much better than Openoffice. Openoffice needs a lot of cpu and memory and there is no support for collaborating work
-Microsoft Frontpage.
-The same programs look nicer in windows. Take as example Mozilla, Opera, Real player (espaecially the last one...)

Nevertheless I am sendin tha post from Ubuntu. Why am I using Ubuntu? To develop web services and for networking.

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/tcpa-faq.html

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/06/linux_vs_windows_viruses/

StageMgr2Stars
February 27th, 2006, 03:32 PM
I just found this thread and I must say that what draws me to linux over xp (I am dual partitioned too) is that I haven't used ubuntu. I installed linux so that I could learn a new operating system and therefore, i spend a majority of me time on linux and messing with things. The one major downfall is that I can't use my printer, its just not supported at all. That would be the only time I could jump back onto XP. If I am in the mood to photoshop, I will go on there for that too.

mostwanted
February 27th, 2006, 03:48 PM
I just found this thread and I must say that what draws me to linux over xp (I am dual partitioned too) is that I haven't used ubuntu. I installed linux so that I could learn a new operating system and therefore, i spend a majority of me time on linux and messing with things. The one major downfall is that I can't use my printer, its just not supported at all. That would be the only time I could jump back onto XP. If I am in the mood to photoshop, I will go on there for that too.

Are you sure your printer isn't supported? I use a Canon s750 which hasn't got a Linux driver, but the driver for the Canon s630 that comes with Ubuntu is good enough for most printing jobs.

Try again, it might work.

louis_nichols
February 28th, 2006, 12:47 PM
I just found this thread and I must say that what draws me to linux over xp (I am dual partitioned too) is that I haven't used ubuntu. I installed linux so that I could learn a new operating system and therefore, i spend a majority of me time on linux and messing with things. The one major downfall is that I can't use my printer, its just not supported at all. That would be the only time I could jump back onto XP. If I am in the mood to photoshop, I will go on there for that too.


Well... it may not seem supported, but the beauty of Linux is that a solution can most of the times be found. I suggest you start a thread here asking for info. Or go to http://linuxprinting.org/ and search the mail archives or just post a new thread (it's a little difficult to browse and/or search).

I had this problem with my printer, a Canon pixma ip1500. But in the end it was solved, quite ellegantly, I might say. :)

Danni
February 28th, 2006, 01:06 PM
Why do I use Linux when I have XP? Well, first of all, my partner wanted Professional (that I have) when he was on Home. Legally, I had to remove XP from my machine, which I've done. Also, after having to reformat for the 4th time in a month due to a virus that my AV didn't pick up in time, I got very frustrated. I dual booted for a few days, then realised that I didn't use Windows anymore, deleted the partition and gave my partner the XP Pro disc.

For games- I just use his computer if I want to play the Sims 2 (the only game I really play apart from SuperTux). It's such a relief being able to connect to the net without worrying about any malware, and I'm learning all the time.

Synaptic is really cool too!

daredevil
March 1st, 2006, 05:18 PM
Its free

frodon
March 1st, 2006, 05:27 PM
Because i saw a penguin through the windows !

someusernoob
March 2nd, 2006, 01:23 AM
I installed Dapper Drake last friday just to see what it looked like and how it worked. The only time I've worked with linux was when I had suse 9.2 installed, a year ago or something. But I had some problems with software that i couldnt find/wasnt available (like usenet stuff) so i went back to Win XP.

And since that last friday, I kept on using Ubuntu. I allready changed my partition lay-out etc. cant wait for the final release. I know its still in the "testing" fase, but I got that same feeling with Win XP :P That could break down any minute too. (And I know how to back-up things etc. so actually there is no problem at all 4 me.)

And I have to mention that the people on linux forums are much nicer!! then the people on windows forums. Just like: when you ask/say something there they go n00bing you, only post sigh-a-like and use-google-fcs posts. On the linux forums its: ah, you're new, we will try to do our best to help you out. Great community.

baysteve
March 6th, 2006, 05:57 AM
I personally was bored with Windows..I set up dual booting, was amazed at how much like windows ubuntu is and now im running strictly Ubuntu on my laptop. I wardrive sometimes and the programs in Linux are so much more detailed than those in Windows.

pbransford
March 6th, 2006, 06:56 AM
Have you seen the retail price for a full version of WinXP Pro? ... $415 at the store I work at.

Pardon my language, but SCREW that. That's over half of the cost of a new low-cost computer.

mgchan
March 6th, 2006, 09:37 AM
Reasons I like Linux:
* Stability: usually don't have to restart unless I want to
* Customizability: running scripts, tweaking, servers
* Fun: I enjoy seeing what I can get my computer to do

Reasons I still have Windows:
* Games: yes you can run many games in Linux but it is just not worth my time to get it to work
* Other Windows-specific programs: mainly Office, but also others such as EndNote, ActiveSync, iTunes. Maybe there are programs in Linux that work but they either aren't as nice or I just don't have the time to learn something new
* Devices: USB, my laptop's SD slot, Webcam, all work with minimal intervention on Windows but take some work with Linux. My dual monitors don't work as well in Linux as they do in Windows.
* General ease of use: yes it was easy to install Ubuntu and Linux is making great strides. This forum is great with its How-To's and such. But still, having to re-build the kernel, edit config files and such is still a pain. If for whatever reason I had to reinstall Ubuntu, it would take me weeks to get all the tweaks back the way I had it.

darkmatter
March 6th, 2006, 09:50 AM
The reason I still have an XP Pro cd??? It makes a great coaster and keeps my desk free of coffee rings :mrgreen:

Ubunted
March 6th, 2006, 10:18 AM
Have you seen the retail price for a full version of WinXP Pro? ... $415 at the store I work at.

Pardon my language, but SCREW that. That's over half of the cost of a new low-cost computer.

Actually that's significantly MORE than a low-end eMachine up here in Canuckistan. And that eMachine will come with an AMD64 and 512MB.

darkmatter
March 6th, 2006, 10:59 AM
Actually that's significantly MORE than a low-end eMachine up here in Canuckistan. And that eMachine will come with an AMD64 and 512MB.

Yeah... but our Canadian dollar investment in said hardware is balanced by the fact the eMachines are pure garbage ;)

coreyrandom
March 8th, 2006, 11:44 PM
I am not a long time ubuntu user, but I use linux for 2+ years. My answer to the question "I prefer to be free" (practically in both means; free as in free speech and free as in free beer, probably much more like free speech ;) ).Besides I don't need to use windows most of the time, even for the gaming stuff (many people complain) cedega does great job.

darkmaze
March 10th, 2006, 07:35 PM
i like to think i can do what i want & not be told by the computer i cant becouse some developer desided it was a mistake not me

Jeremy'sCoding
March 11th, 2006, 06:39 AM
I prefer it because it's free and flexible. I like that the applications are free too. There are a whole set of tools by OpenOffice.org that are very similar to the Microsoft Office tools, except for price. How much do you pay for Microsoft Office? A lot of money. How much for OpenOffice tools, free. The only cost is the time it takes to install the software.

adam.mech09
March 11th, 2006, 08:46 AM
Linux to me is like moving out for the first time.

You're finally in control, not being told what to do, or what you can or can't do. Yes, there are bumps, and yes, not everything works the first time around, but it's a learning expierience, and the more you learn about how things work and how you can personalise every aspect, it becomes more and more you, instead of someone else's idea of what is best for you.

Personally, i dual boot xp and ubuntu, because as many people have pointed out, there are just some things people insist you use windows for. I dont see windows as a bad thing for 50% of the population, but for those of us who want more, who want to move out from under the arms of microsoft, there's a whole other world out there.

Linux isn't just an operating system. To me, it's a philosophy.

I havent found a single thing in windows that i could not do with linux. It may not be the polished work of paid deveolpers, but the "blood sweat and tears" that went into the programs I use every day is appreciated, and makes up for the difference.

batty505
March 11th, 2006, 07:43 PM
Hey folks

I dont know how much all of you have to use windows @ work, but I do.
Its quite unpleasant always having to update your skills because M$ rolls out new products, a new app, OS whatever comes out.

For awhile It seems almost coincidental that everytime M$ came out with a new OS, Intel came out with a new chipset. can you say "wintel"?

this hasnt happened in quite a while, but now that Intel is chummying up with Mac, I am curious as to what will happen next.

for me, I like that ubuntu has a really nice gui tied into the install. I hope the product continues to develop and a real competition begins between Mac, Ubuntu /fedora linux, and M$.

Sure people will complain, and say you get what you pay for, and it was free, but..
I dont have to buy a new pc everytime a new OS rolls out, or add more memory because of a new app comes in.

I guess its by choice. there are always people asking why.. I would respond with a "why not"?

just my .02 cents

Mike

blackbeastofaarrgh
March 11th, 2006, 10:40 PM
I've been using Linux ever since Summer of 2K5.
I still dual-boot with XP, probably because I just don't think I'm ready to leave XP just yet.
I find myself using Linux a lot more than Windows.
To me, Linux is like a game. It's fun to learn, a challenge, and just an overall great experience. And this "game" never gets old. I really don't know what I like so much about Linux... maybe it's the customizability, or maybe it's just because you have so much control over your system... really, I don't know.

Things I like about Linux:

Complete Control: Linux gives me the control I want to have. I can control basically every aspect of my hardware. I love it.

Internet is Faster!: On Windows my wireless connection gets download speeds of about 50-160 kbps, on Linux I see speeds of 100-500 kbps. I know that Windows has that bandwidth reservation or whatever it's called, so that's probably the reason, but I don't care.

Stability: Probably one of the main reasons why everyone loves Linux is because of stability. Not once have I seen an OS that is so stable. If I had Windows running for over a week without a restart, not only would it desperatley be needing updates, but it would be running extremely slow. Usually I would be able to fix this by killing a few processes in the Task Manager, but sometimes a restart is the only thing that'll do the trick. Linux is just stable. I could have this machine running for a year straight and I would see no difference in preformance from when I first booted it up.

Freedom: There are no restrictions in Linux. I seriously love that. I hate authority as much as the next person, so this is a great thing for me. There's no ten-thousand page EULA I have to read (and even if there was, I wouldn't read it), there's no company that is saying "anything you create on this OS is property of us", there's none of that crap.

Customizability: I am a customization nut. If it weren't for WindowBlinds and all of them Windows customization apps, I would've shot myself by now. My feeling is, it's my computer, let me do what I want with it! From the bootsplash, to window decorations, to the size of your panels, there's basically nothing you can't customize.

Community: I don't think I've ever seen a better community for a piece of software. If it weren't for these forums, I think I would be dead by now.

Now that I got that out of the way, let's list the things I like about Windows:

Out-of-the-box everything support: Windows has incredible hardware support. It's usually just a matter of plugging it in, waiting for the "hardware connected" sound, and using the device.

Graphics Support: Let's face it, Linux has acceptable graphics support, but it's not good enough. nVidia users are fine, but just about everyone else is out of luck. I know, this isn't really Linux's fault, it's the graphics card developers' fault for not writing some good Linux drivers. Fortunately I'm a part of the nVidia "religion", so I have no real problems here.

Games: Of course, Windows is the OS of choice for the computer gaming industry. I know that there's Cedega and Wine and them, but it would be a lot easier if games would just work on Linux. Again, this is mostly the game developers' fault for not porting their games to Linux (or at least open-sourcing them so someone else can!).

Anything else? Hmm, I don't think so.

septus
March 11th, 2006, 11:58 PM
Hi "slicedbread",
I agree with the previous responses and am enthusiastic about Ubuntu. Since your question was wider than Ubuntu alone, I wish to examplify one more reason. One of my machines has developed a serious IDE controller problem. Solutions:
1. Disconnect the two hard drives and run Puppy Linux "multisession" (boot/read from/write to DVD). No hard drives necessary.
2. Order (and wait for) new MoBo.
This additional point illustrates one of the previous responses (GreyFox 503) - amazing freedom and versatility with Linux.
Cheers
"septus"

harisund
March 12th, 2006, 12:46 AM
For a minute, when I read the question, I couldn't believe whether the question was indeed "have Windows XP, why do you use linux?"

Then, after a little thinking, I realized, we are moving into an exceedingly platform independant, os independant world. At home I have Ubuntu and Fedora Core, I have Windows XP on my laptop simply because the configuration files take too much tweaking to work with any Linux, a G5 at work, a Solaris at my university workstations, AIX to test out my code at work (my university's super computer.)

Everything is moving to the web these days. I use an online calendar, web email clients, online to do list, online word processors, online news reader. I find it immaterial which machine I work on irrespective of the platform.

Does anybody agree with me on this?

That said, I like Unix / Linux / Mac simply because of the power of the command line. If you have ever written a grep with a regular expression, piped it and tunneled through SSH you will know what I am talking about. And that is the reason I simply can't do without cygwin on Windows.

glowplug
March 12th, 2006, 06:55 AM
I originally installed ubuntu 2 months ago for web development - win32xp even with apache2 was being a pig with php.

I just played my first online ut2004 on linux after joining my server (also on linux)...
...I only use gimp on linux...
why??

I have a razor diamondback mouse for gaming, a wacom tablet for drawing.
Since upgrading to amd64 dual core the mouse runs like a shopping trolley on a corrugated dirt road for both win32 and win64 - it runs silk smooth and pixel precise on ubuntu.

In win32 and 64 the tablet is like the shopping trolley back in a supermarket - goes everywhere other than required - drawing is 'stress MAX'
In ubuntu hand drawing is smooth and meditative :)
(need to create lots of pics for sites).

File management in ubuntu leaves windows for dead - searching (especially text in file), copying and moving are all very much faster and precise - win32 and 64 miss things on searches.

User/permissions make sense in unix/linux - win32/64/2003 etc user management makes no sense to me.

btw ut2004 game was considerably better than has been in windows - especially mouse. Video/sound stuttered a few times but I had everything on full - I don't need that and probably won't notice the difference once I optimise the settings.

I want to say 'Thank You very much' to all the people that have been working on ubuntu and to those posting solutions on the forums.

I haven't had much to do with linux since college a decade ago so the help is greatly appreciated.

One of my battles was to get 3d acceleration working on my nvidia 6800 - the good people at ubuntu beat me to it this time and it was a dream.

A few weeks ago I was still recompiling the kernel with nvidia modules and breaking xserver - each time I'd strike a new problem meant a new search on web, more downloads and/or install (kept /home of course). Learnt heaps tho and good for exercising my patience :p

Last but not least I have been developing software for nearly 10 years on windows and I'm sick of the brick walls, control being stolen away to make it 'Easy' (not) and the expense!

robinl
March 12th, 2006, 07:05 AM
Actually I find XP is comparable to Ubuntu in security AND stability IF you keep it clean. My ex-XP had been running for half a year since last reinstallation, ran flyakite (which has like 50/50 chance of messing up system) and WAMP, played an assortment of games and running Folding@home 24/7 and yet I can keep on going for weeks without reboot (and something I still can't do with ubuntu).

However, I just thought I've owe Microsoft long enough (for those of you that know what I mean) and just switch to open-source system since I mostly use open-source software anyways (Blender, Firefox, Inkscape, Thunderbird, etc.) and I'm pretty happy with Ubuntu since it took a lot of the hassels (forced reboot for updates, unresponsive when rendering etc.) but also put in a lot of other hassels (eg. Tablet not working most of the time, no good solution for games etc.). But you just feel different when you know that you are using something open-source and not supporting an unethical company.

RedeyesUK
March 12th, 2006, 01:05 PM
The reason I still have an XP Pro cd??? It makes a great coaster and keeps my desk free of coffee rings :mrgreen:

I thought that was what AOL CDs were for? :???: :p


Anyway, linux:

I've tried to convert to linux several times over the last few years, with little success (usually video incompatibility problems - 640*480 gets annoying after a while!), but have now finally cracked it - I have ubuntu up and running on my AMD64 system, no problems. Well, no problems that a few forum searches couldn't sort, anyway!

Now I'm using it properly, it's like a breath of fresh air! Being a linux newbie, I do of course have the de rigeur windows partition, but to be honest, the only time I've booted into it since the install has been to play games. If I can get cedega/wine/etc working acceptably, I'll be quite happy to ditch my W2K install (I've never liked XP - the whole thing looks and feels like a kids toy!).

Reasons for liking linux:

1. customisability - In just two weeks, I've figured out enough to get my system behaving exactly the way I want it - it's not just about the power to make the changes, but there's also the sheer breadth of apps available to do this. If you don't like a particular program, no problem, just use a different one! For example, I've tried about 6 different media players before settling on amarok. In comparison, the only players worth mentioning in windows are WMP and winamp.

2. smoothness - Sorry, I can't find a good word for this, but I'm sure you know what I mean. Going back to W2K feels a little, well, clunky in comparison.

3. Native hardware support - everything on my system worked fine right from the start, with the exception of my nvidia card - and even that managed to work reasonably well with the default driver. Even my digicam was picked up without fuss. This makes a lovely change from the 'Dance of the Driver Discs' that accompany a windows install!

4. Fun! - For me, using linux is like going back to my old DOS days, when everything was an adventure. There's a certain sense of accomplishment to be had when you get something working for the first time. Setting up windows these days has become a slow drudge of swapping CDs, rebooting, and clicking buttons. There's no skill to that.

Sorry if I'm waffling, I'll be quiet now.:-D

oh, and:

5. Frozen-Bubble! :cool:

stevken
March 12th, 2006, 10:16 PM
I am big Windows fan and dont for the "I hate Bill" routine. he has given us a lot over the years and yes I accept that his prices are often over the top and could be reduced.

However - I decided to try Linux to see what its about and if its any better. I like it considering its free but most things are proving a hassle probably because I am new to it and need to learn a bit before complaining:)

But my main point is why dual boot? why not run VMWare and see what all the fuss is about? I am running xp and linux at the same time and its cool.

I have mail working, internet, games that came with Ubuntu and doing fine apart from I cant get the hang of installing. Its a bit clumsy is it not.

I have vmware tools to install and its a .pl file. It says I need to install as root so used sudu filename.pl but it says it cant find the file.

Baffled!

knaveman
March 13th, 2006, 08:09 AM
I had to install Ubuntu on my desktop after my "old" one crashed. All I have is this boring PII and it won't run xp, I will never use win98 ever again, so linux was the obvious choice. It will probably be some time before I dump xp entirely since my laptop is a tablet and I haven't seen anything from linux that comes even remotely close to xp tablet pc edition. Also read some bad things about trying to set up linux on a Gateway. Besides, can't ditch xp until I can share my media files with Xbox360.

I like Ubuntu so far. I will probably like it more once I figure out how to get it to do everything I want. And hopefully someday it can approach the cd ripping speeds of xp. And someday get my printer/scanner/copier to work. And teach myself command line. etc.

All in all I am having fun with this. It's like a new toy that I haven't managed to break any of the wheels off of yet.

leon-1
March 14th, 2006, 03:58 PM
Well I am a total newbie to Ubuntu, I am experimenting currently:D

I own a number of versions of windows (win95, NT4, win98, ME, 2000Pro, XP and server 2003), the reason being that I am qualified in installation and mainteneance of micro computer systems. As you can imagine with the list above it hasn't been cheap.

A few years ago I did a course at Exeter university on the installation and maintanence of a Netware server, it was an eye opener to say the least and I had done it to broaden my horizons. I weighed the pro's and con's of MS server to Netware, but was still very MS bound.

Last year I noticed that SuSE had been eaten by Novell so I thought that I would have a look at what they had come up with, I bought a copy of SuSE from Novell becuase I thought that it was worth the money I paid.

At the same time it tweaked my curiosity about other versions of linux, where they as easy to use and set up, did the communities always support Linux (whatever distro) with quite the same amount of care and I found that on the whole (all the versions that I currently have running) they do.

I am not a great one for playing games, but a freind of mine is, he is tired of the hassle that he has had with microsoft (install, change a peice of hardware, have to re-register everytime) and when something goes wrong normally very little help.

He has seen me messing around with my machine for the last 9 months adding bits, removing bits downloading software (that doesn't cost a penny unless you feel you wish to donate, I have) and all the time I have answers to problems in short space of time. So he has asked me to look into what version of Linux is best for playing games.

I ceased to use XP about 5 months ago and the only problems that I have had with the machine have either been through lack of knowledge or through my own mistakes.

Ubuntu has taken me close to three weeks to get loaded onto this system, the multi boot under grub working for all the other operating systems, working for all bar Ubuntu itself and then yesterday I cracked it (an issue to do with the controller cards for my hard drives and being a newbie I had no idea what I was doing, trial and error in the end).

I have learnt more in the last 9 months about operating systems than I have in the last 5 years as a computer engineer, I am by no means an expert, but I like Ubuntu it is quite a clean and easy to use system, but if something goes wrong I always have another OS to fall back on, currently I have Debian, SuSE 10.0, SuSE9.3, Mandriva and FC4 running apart from Ubuntu on this machine.

If you were to be loading an operating system onto machines for a small business nearly any version of Linux would suffice for a desktop operating system (SuSE has been the easiest to install so far, but that means nothing). For businesses I can see no benefit to running Windows unless you require a specific program and even then there are a lot of programs which are equal to ones designed for MS systems. If you are in a manufacturing test enviroment then a lot of the software is written in house anyway so that is no excuse either.

Linux appears to be very stable, I have run multiple programs at the same time that would of made a MS system crash with the inevitable loss of data and time.

Linux also appears to be very secure from both malicious attack and from tinkering by people who shouldn't be, so in some ways if it's a machine that is at home and you work on it, great because the chances are the kids can't wreck anything and you should have no problems with bits on the internet:p

All in all I am an impressed newbie, who has become drastically addicted to Mahjong :D

AndyCooll
March 16th, 2006, 04:13 PM
Excellent thread this.

I switched over to Linux in in the Summer of 2005. And now have 4 pc's running Linux. One is a file server, my main one is dual boot, the other two are LInux only.

I came across Linux almost by chance. I'd been using pirated versions of XP and various pirated software for years. I simply wouldn't have been able to afford to buy it. When I did buy a new pc (my main machine) my conscience got the better of me so I bought a licence. I then tried Firefox and liked it. And from there I caught the bug for open source software. The only software on my XP drive now that I've needed to pay for is the OS itself and one game (which I'll come back to later). Obviously from there it is a small step from open source stuff for XP to an open-source OS itself!

I have to say that the bug caught me so much that I began to despise M$. Then I got a grip of myself! I realised that I was being totally unreasonable and I was justifyingmy reasons for change based upon unfounded reason. . For me my XP has been fine. I configured it ok and it has been stable. I've installed ClamAV for Windows, firewall etc and they work fine. And everything is generally ok; it has done what it says on the tin, I personally cannot say otherwise. However, though I haven't had any problems with XP...I realised I DID have genuine reasons for change!

So, why do I use Linux when I have XP?
1. I like the fact that Linux and all the associated software is absolutely free (it's what attracted me first of all!). No restrictions, no licences limiting use etc.
2. As I've learnt more about Linux and its philosophy it has helped me to become more aware of certain issues, and they have become important to me.
3. I value my freedom and I am a keen supporter of the Free Software foundation, FOSS, open-source philosophy.
4. I also don't like the restrictive practices that are more and more eating into my freedoms, justifying them under the cloak of "protecting legality". EULA's, DRM, trusted computing, software patents etc are all restrictive practices. I've always considered that my human rights include being innocent until proved guilty. M$, BPI, RSAA and others seem to think otherwise and that they can trample all over my freedom.
5. I have nothing against M$ per se, but I am not keen on there being a single dominant force in any market. Especially if that one then tends to try and bully any rival out of existence. I like choice.
6. I like the fact that Linux gives the control of your computer back to you and you can configure just about everything if you wish, right down to your own kernel and even your own Linux OS!
7. Most of my computers are quite old. There is a version of Linux that can run on even the oldest architectures.
8. When choosing software I realised that I really didn't need the latest and best known versions. OOO.org does everything I need it to do for instance. Why buy Nero when K3b does everything I need it to do? Too often I was attracted by the packaging and the bloat when all I really need are the basics.
9. I wouldn't consider myself to be a computer expert, but I suspect I know more than the average person. So I've enjoyed the tinkering. It's been an excellent learning experience. With Linux I've learnt far more about the way an OS works, the command line and the ability to sort things out for myself than I ever did with XP. Virtualisation, SSH, the intricacies of remote desktop protocols, servers etc. These were all pie in the sky to me before Linux. It's because of Linux that I've become a computer geek!
10. Thanks to Linux my computers are far more flexible and do far more than they ever did with XP. It is very unlikely my file server for instance would have been possible with M$ the cost would have been too prohibitive.
11. The open-source community. These forums for instance are wonderful.
12. And as time has gone on, I've simply found that I'm more comfortable and happier using Linux (even though I still use W2K everyday at work)! It's my OS of choice.

Why do I keep XP?
i. I've bought it.
ii. For one game. I simply haven't been able to get Football Manager to work properly using Wine, so I've always kept a dual boot for that. Last week I got VMWare player to work and run a virtual XP. Since FM isn't graphics intensive this runs fine too. So my last reason for keeping XP as anything other than a virtual drive has gone.

It's not always been easy, and though distros like Ubuntu make Linux almost ready for the desktop I'm still not sure my wife would have been able to switch over without my help. However, for my household Linux, FSF and everything associated with it is the direction our computing will take.

And my final reason for using Linux? ...It's fun!
:cool:

catlett
March 20th, 2006, 04:23 AM
The bigger picture is keeping an option for untouched information. If you believe Microsoft and Apple are doing everythig they can for you, you probably believed that ABC,CBS and NBC were giving you the best programming and truth on television. It is very dangerous to have a few people controlling your information. Also Microsoft knows everything about you through you using there OS. All your Internet explorer logs are kept in hidden files. They say these folders were hidden to deal with an early bug. Were they? What does the error report send? You should be concerned with peoples apathy at the fact that even the expansive internet is becoming controlled by a few. All your movements are recorded. If not by Microsoft then by Google or Amazon etc. I'm sure you notice the auto fill feature. For that info to come up means that info is stored and has the ability to be retrieved. You my have an infection you don't know about. These days they want your info and to be able to track your movements more than to change your computer's settings. I.E. has a security issue dealing with buffer overflow and scripting that microsoft still doesn't feel a need to fix. This does not need any downloading to attack you. You might have seen it in action. The script prompt window opens and, if you have virus protection ,you'll realise 4 or 5 apps have been downloaded.If you don't have protection these programs are downloaded and activated without you even knowing. That is another issue. How about $60 a year for Virus protection. How about $40 for a spyware scanner. I'm sick of all the prompts I have to answer from my own "protection"software. If all things considered equal. I would hope people would choose freedom and individuality over complacity and apathy.Sorry for rambling. The post just made me realise that I've been putting up with alot of crap and aggravation with windows for no reason. (Last comment. All my friends with windows eventually need me to come over because their systems basically don't work any more. By they time I come they have 5 minute boot times,freezing screens and regular blue screens. Someone somewhere has a count for there signature of 600 something days running Linux without reboot. In that time I've re-installed windows 6 times because my system crashed and some of my friends have decided to just go out and by another computer because they think their computer is just to old and they'll get financing from Dell.)

SilvioTO
March 20th, 2006, 09:39 AM
Simply Linux mean freedom!!! And, technically, is much better than windows!!! :D

stuartho
March 20th, 2006, 01:48 PM
Hmmm... I'm starting to ask myself this very question :)

I've happily had Ubuntu 5.10 humming along on my Dell sc430 (Pentium D 2.8 ) for months (the only other OS I own is Win98SE which is now on the kids machine).

This is the longest I've stuck with a linux distro. I'm wrapt & so is my wife with how easy it is to use.

But I would like to do some video editting....

Now my Brother-in-law has offered me a copy of XP Home for free because he has it sitting in a cupboard. I could go dual-boot... but in the past that has meant a bit of a flirt with linux occassionally, the wife & kids love all the quirky games :), but I always seem to go back to the evil empire cos, as much as it's fun to learn how to do new things, I eventually tire of having to find out how to do every new thing in Linux.

These forums are an excellent resource & Ubuntu has been the best linux experience yet... but with free XP on offer & Vid editting the goal & already owning a few commercial Win apps I'm seriously thinking of making the switch back... at least until linux picks up this part of its game.

chazaq
March 20th, 2006, 07:30 PM
cuz there are nice toys in Ubuntu. Really, Several people prefer the awesome screen savers and games when they can be EQUALLY productive as they are on WinXP.

As the administrator, I get fewer incidents of people trashing their OS due to "free-downloads" etc.

... If only I could in my Win2K Server network print though... The Linux would be King in my office

Brunellus
March 20th, 2006, 07:57 PM
Hmmm... I'm starting to ask myself this very question :)

I've happily had Ubuntu 5.10 humming along on my Dell sc430 (Pentium D 2.8 ) for months (the only other OS I own is Win98SE which is now on the kids machine).

This is the longest I've stuck with a linux distro. I'm wrapt & so is my wife with how easy it is to use.

But I would like to do some video editting....

Now my Brother-in-law has offered me a copy of XP Home for free because he has it sitting in a cupboard. I could go dual-boot... but in the past that has meant a bit of a flirt with linux occassionally, the wife & kids love all the quirky games :), but I always seem to go back to the evil empire cos, as much as it's fun to learn how to do new things, I eventually tire of having to find out how to do every new thing in Linux.

These forums are an excellent resource & Ubuntu has been the best linux experience yet... but with free XP on offer & Vid editting the goal & already owning a few commercial Win apps I'm seriously thinking of making the switch back... at least until linux picks up this part of its game.
have you considered kino or cinerella yet? (granted, cinerella is probably overkill, but)

Alpha_Maverick
March 21st, 2006, 03:01 AM
well, I had my windows laptop in my car when I wrecked it, damaging the hard drive. I didn't have the money to buy a new drive, nor could I wait for it to arrive. I had two old servers w/o OS on them, and figured that Linux couldn't be that hard to learn, and the rest is history.

P.S. The windows laptop was still bootable, but very buggy. I still haven't gotten a new drive for it. I don't see the need right now. Linux does everything I need it to. except the occasional embedded WMP in webpages.

nikosft
March 28th, 2006, 10:41 PM
Nothing compares to Frontage and Dreamweaver (please don't tell me Nvu)

On other hand nowhere can Java run faster!

So I need both of them!

kumbakara
March 28th, 2006, 11:31 PM
it is not just linux or xp...
freedom..community...good citizenship.
What if there was no linux or other free alternative for the desktop? Hate to think of a world dominated by multinational global corporations..intimately working with governments to make their choices in what we can and cannot consume and how we want our privacy invaded.:evil:
We need this counter movement. Some games run perfectly on linux (UT2004!!). Some hardware manufacturers do publish their specs so Linux hardware support can be built.
What if you are now living in a third world country? Use Linux and Open Source FREE software!

stuartho
March 30th, 2006, 12:27 AM
have you considered kino or cinerella yet? (granted, cinerella is probably overkill, but)

Yep, I discovered Kino after posting & have captured some footage. Editting seems very basic & it keeps crashing & hanging the whole system so a hard reset is needed. :(

GazaM
March 30th, 2006, 01:00 AM
Nothing compares to Frontage and Dreamweaver (please don't tell me Nvu)

You are joking right? Frontpage is, without doubt, any self-respecting web developers worst nightmare. It's basically a piece of crap. Granted you may be right about Dreamweaver (I use gedit personally, nothing like hand-coding a page for most control).

Anyway, back to the subject... I have a dual-boot between Dapper and XP, and I very rarely boot into XP. In fact the only time I do is to play the odd game (I have an ATI X700Pro, great with Windows, crap on linux... gonna go nVidia soon) or to help a friend out with some Windows only software if they ask me to.

Linux has everything I need and so much more... I feel as though it's opened up so many doors, and legally too! :D In the year I've been using linux I've learned Python, xHTML, CSS and am looking into C# as well... It's strange, but the environment within the linux community seems to spur creativity and learning a LOT more for me than Windows ever did. Plus, the rate that people are churning out amazing new features is amazing, at this rate by the time Vista comes out, we'll be far ahead feature wise!

polo_step
March 30th, 2006, 01:24 AM
Interesting responses.

I'm somewhat surprised that so many people admit to using Linux from non-technical motives.

I'm not saying that I'm surprised that they do it, but that they recognize and admit it.

Marketing researchers have pretty well (and expensively!) established that most Linux users do not use the OS for primarily rational reasons, and that's long been my observation as well.

I use Linux in a limited capacity mainly to monitor its progress as an OS. I don't think that desktop Linux has come much closer to surmounting the basic difficulties that face it, such as spotty hardware support and retarded application development -- all of which are directly attributable to virtually nonexistent funding -- but at some point I am hoping it will work adequately for my general needs on at least one of the trailing-edge machines here. Ubuntu's getting close!

My initial serious reinvolvement with Linux after nearly ten years of fiddling with it came around a year ago when I was really hammered with malware on the XP box on which I was doing most of my online work. I put up an additional box with Ubuntu 5.04 with which to do my online stuff, knowing that when available XP malware countermeasures became more advanced, I would probably drop Linux for the convenience of XP. Malware was the only reason I was seriously using Ubuntu. 5.04 had lots of problems for me and most of them were never resolved, even after months of discussions here, so I had to be content with just using it for browsing and e-mail. 5.10 eliminated a BIG proportion of these headaches, but I never got around to doing a permanent install of it as I went to using a notebook for 95%+ of my online stuff (which I can do lying down in bed!) last September and Ubuntu 5.10 didn't adequately support its wireless function with its native security features without doing a lot more kludging than I feel a user should be required to put up with in 2006.

I'm really looking forward to Ubuntu 6.06 (or whatever the version number will be) to see if it will have advanced sufficiently to meet my requirements for more general use.

rfruth
March 30th, 2006, 01:31 AM
Is this a joke, XP vs Ubuntu is the difference between night and day ...

pablo180
March 30th, 2006, 01:49 AM
Is this a joke, XP vs Ubuntu is the difference between night and day ...

I agree, Ubuntu isn't really made for your average computer user, or even really an advanced computer user, more for geeks and hobbyists, people who are willing to spend a lot of time tinkering and willing to put up with a lot of problems.

XP on the other hand is a serious commercial application that you can just switch on and use.

elamericano
March 30th, 2006, 12:20 PM
Because MS is going to pull the rug out from XP eventually. Gotta force people to upgrade. As for Vista, they're just going to lock me out of more and more of my own computer, I'd have to be an idiot not to look for a way out.

Mac might've had a shot, but I don't need to pay double for hardware and apps - plus I wouldn't want anyone to think I was a typical Mac fanboy.

Ok, now the positives. Linux is:

Free (as in beer)
customizable (I love to automate)
powerful
secure
virus free
I use mostly OSS anyway (cool stuff)
Freedom (stick it to the man :-P )

-EA

shdwsclan
March 30th, 2006, 04:04 PM
Windows is a truely seasoned os.
Windows was born out of dos and dos was born out of the unix console.
Back then, you had to pay AT&T for liscensing.....

Changing to another operating system just because there is spyware, viruses...etc is a really stupid solution.

Windows has the greatest market share, and therefor....people will hack it, crack it, slap it around, destroy it, and reverse engineer it.
What do you think this is called.....
Market testing. Microsoft, sadly, has the most secure os on the market codewise. Because there product has been battered....the can apply updates regularly and apply those updates to their next product in line making their next OS, WIN2003, and soon, WINVISTA even more secure.
Same thing with viruses and software.
Windows is actually the fastest evolving os on the market.
You may not see it because of ADT, but its true.

Im only a freshman in CS and I can already hack Fedora Core....why....
Just some hopping around in GDB.....

Unix based oses are riddled with security holes, more than windows, because these security holes are undocumented. Some of which, no one has yet found.......with so many, and so many different ones....spanning across differnt flavours....some patched....some not......
Only a few people use linux....compared to WIN and MAC.....and it would be pointless to develope viruses, and spyware that may never be used....especially if it was designed for a specific version of linux.....on a specific architecture......

Because apple has recently gained a foothold in the market.......I am starting to see mac viruses, mac spyware, and mac security updates regularly. Its just too bad that microsoft had two major platform for a long time....and only eliminated 9x now.....
9x was truely garbage....and a lot of, now useless, patches came out for it....
All stability of XP are related to stack management. Unfortunately, people write crummy software that causes windows to be unstable when you close out the program or when it crashes..

Basically, there starts to accumulate garbage data on the stack and heap from bad stack management. All oses suffer from this in one way or another. Its not even the os's fault, but the software thats running on it...

So think, before you start bashing...and I dont mean spawning a new shell.
Yeah, I know...bad joke...

Well anyway....why do you want to use linux......
Only 3 reasons.
Its mostly free.
Its open source.
It contains the unix command line.

Any true programmer has to know the unix commnand line. It is a useful tool.....I guess you could use cygwin....but cygwin misses a lot of thing...and then you have to get Xcygwin....

Console skills are key.
You can hack windows apps from the unix console.
Decompile them, inject code, try to truncate a return address on a call frame with some erroneous data.......you can also program on it....gcc....and you have console editors like emacs, vim, joe.........you can also have console aliases to open apps for you....
A lot is amiss from the dos console.
Any good programmer knows the console well and even might have started his programming in unix.
From flavor to flavor....the unix console always stays the same....for the most part...
GCC will compile the same way as it does in Unbuntu and Gentoo.
Also, linux is a nice change once in a while if your sick of windows.....
Its like eating the same food for a long time....eventually you get sick of it...

Edward The Bonobo
March 30th, 2006, 04:33 PM
From Pablo180:

I agree, Ubuntu isn't really made for your average computer user, or even really an advanced computer user,

And yet...

http://www.ubuntu.com/

Ubuntu...Linux for Human Beings


In my first few weeks of Ubuntu, I ranted and raved about its poor usability. But then...that's my job. I'm a Human Factors professional. I'm not a geek hobbyist...but by definition I must be in the >95th percentile as regards computer literacy...for a start I've heard of Linux. In fact...I must have moved up several percentiles since installing it, because I'm just about at the stage of getting the f***er to do what I want. Now...I'm very grateful for Linux. I like it. I'm learning a lot (slowly!), but...


All humans? Or is the aspiration to keep it at <5%?
What has to happen to make it better?


I think the answer to 2 maybe a combination of Automatix-like setup gizmos and more, better, user-centred documentation based around a better understanding of real-life user issues.

Give me a few more months and I may be able to help with the last bit.:)

naelurec
March 30th, 2006, 04:47 PM
I haven't read all the pages of this thread, but figured I'd chime in.. :)

I have been using computers for about 20 years. I started using DOS/Win 16 years ago and Unix/Linux systems about 6 years ago (3 years as a desktop).

Unix systems (in general) I feel are much easier to understand. User data is stored in user home folders, config files in /etc, package management is centralized, it is possible to clearly understand the entire process of the machine (why things happen when they do) and for the entire system, it is possible to "dig down" as far as I want (could be source code modifications, changing out sections with other code, etc..).

Windows is not like that. There is a clear barrier when it comes to understanding the system and understanding exactly how it works. Needless to say, this is perhaps the reason why full system reinstalls are so common on Windows where-as on Unix systems, I've only had to reinstall in the event of major hardware failure (usually hard drives).

In addition to this, the available tools on *nix are far superior to whats available on Windows. While many of the "power tools" are run from the shell and as a result, might require some learning -- once learned, they are extreme productivity boosters. The ability to pipe commands together to achieve functionality I want is extremely gratifying.

While I could go on and on about the power *nix affords administrators and power users, I think it is a bit of a tangent.. so what does it afford the switcher?

1. Malware/Virus issues. It seems like the most popular software available for Windows is software to protect against malware and viruses. I can't remember the last time I saw an advertisement that didn't contain _several_ of these products. Generally computers I troubleshoot for people tend to have several of these products loaded and continously running in the background. Yikes! Even "tech saavy" Windows users who claim to "know better" end up spending an inordinate amount of time keeping their system up-to-date (windows update, running virus scanners, spyware scanners, checking for updates of other apps, etc..). Compare this to the centralized update method on a typical Linux desktop. It manages _all_ the software. No need for spyware/virus scanners or invasive firewall tools or "security suites". Bottom line: Linux is much easier to maintain than Windows.

2. Applications. What good is an OS without apps? Apps like K3b, Amarok, Kontact/Evolution, OpenOffice.org, Konqueror/Firefox, Kate/gEdit are arguably the best apps in their respective categories irregardless of operating system. With Wine/CrossOver Office providing adequate inline compatbility with Windows software (or the use of VMWare or other emulators for full access to legacy Windows software) -- there ends up being less and less application categories that are not supported. Granted, I am not saying all apps are the "best" but for most people, the apps available meet their computing needs. Must I forget -- both gnome and kde are much better than Windows XP (interface). Granted WinXP is circa 2001 versus recent 2005 updates of Gnome/KDE but alas, thats the latest available.

3. Stability/Reliability/Responsiveness -- My *nix desktops are always on and ready to go. My primary desktop has been online since early November without reboot and still runs great. My *nix servers run even longer (as in: I can look at system uptime to let you know when I installed the operating system). Even though application start-up times seem to lag behind Windows, I find I can run many more applications simultaneously on lower-end hardware compared to Windows. Needless to say, I tend not to start/stop applications frequently (as I would on Windows). I might have apps loaded for *weeks* at a time (browsers, office suites, email, music players, etc..) which actually makes *access* to these apps faster than on a Windows machine.

4. Cost -- what can I say? Its much cheaper and more functional than Windows. While not an ultimate driving factor for my decision, it is nice to have easy access to thousands of fully funcitonal, ready to use applications. Compare this to searching the internet, finding tons of trial software and having to pay $30-$40 for some dinky utility (ie Outlook Express mailbox corruption fixer) where on Unix (Thunderbird, Kmail, etc..) that same data is not stored in some propietary format, but in standardized, textual formats (mbox/maildir) that can be viewed/edited/searched via *nix tools that have been around for over 25 years. So not only is the acquisition cost cheaper but the cost to troubleshoot is also cheaper.

5. Installation -- while not a frequent event, compare installing Windows XP and one of the latest Linux desktops. I can get a fully functional desktop with Linux in about 30 minutes. Windows XP not only requires the initial install, but searching for drivers, doing massive security patch updates and installing additional applications/software to meet the same functionality as the default Linux install. Generally I'll set aside atleast 2-3 hours for an XP install which, unfortunately, requires my active presense (else it tends to sit at a prompt all too frequently). Interesting side note: Ubuntu requires 1 reboot (perhaps 2 if a kernel update is required). Windows XP on average requires atleast 8 reboots (sometimes more).

6. Community support. The community is awesome. I find the people who frequent many of the open-source forums are very knowledgable and willing to share their knowledge. I've even had more success with Windows issues in open source forums than in Windows forums (I'm guessing the knowledgable Windows guys are too busy reading up on security issues or jumping from one computer to the next installing patches).

Stewart
March 30th, 2006, 05:33 PM
I started using linux with Mandrake 8.1. Not full time but I almost always had it installed on another old hard drive. It was very confusing then.

I used windows about 99.8% of the time until last April. I was running XP and I was switching some hardware around trying different things. Mostly video and network cards. So, on a Sunday morning I swap out another video card and windows will not boot!! It said I have to call Microsoft to get a code to reactivate windows! ARGH!!! The woman on the other end gave me a lot of hassle.

She said "you should not install windows on more that one computer".
I said "I only have one computer".
She said "Our records show it is installed on 3 systems at your location".
I said "your records!, what else do your records show?".

She never said and I have always wondered. Anyhoo, an hour later I had XP booted up and was downloading Ubuntu 5.04. I backed up a few files, booted off the Ubuntu CD, formated the entire hard drive and took the XP disk and dropped it in the CD shredder. Done.

There was a few rough days at the start and a few reinstalls, but at least my computer keep running. Now, 1 year later there is no way I'll ever switch back. I'll stop using a computer first.

Stewart

easyease
March 30th, 2006, 07:55 PM
the only reason i use a ms os (windows 2000) is to watch shoutcast tv and use my usb pvr......ubuntu does everything else i need.

polo_step
March 30th, 2006, 09:40 PM
Changing to another operating system just because there is spyware, viruses...etc is a really stupid solution.
"If it's stupid and it works, it isn't stupid." ;)

In any case, at the time there was no (0) other practical solution aside from going offline. Anti-malware programs for XP were totally, hopelessly inadequate. They've improved greatly in the past eighteen months.

da5id
March 31st, 2006, 07:30 PM
I am not technically savvy enough to to say which is better -- variety is the spice, etc. I love computers, even Windows...I am really looking forward to Vista. I've been using Ubuntu for less than 24 hours. Why are you asking me. ;-)

sticky keys for Ubuntu p-l-e-a-s-e.

rcmiv
March 31st, 2006, 08:12 PM
Freedom.

"The benefit of computers is that it's easier to copy and manipulate information. Corporations are using two kinds of imposed monopolies to deny you this benefit.

Software patents restrict how you use your computer. They restrict developing software. A big program combines dozens or hundreds of ideas. When each idea can be patented, only IBMs and Microsofts can safely write software. Bye bye to any independent local software industry. Software patents must be rejected.

Copyrights restrict using and sharing information--exactly what your computer is for. It was fine to trade away the freedom to copy when only publishers could copy; the public lost nothing. Today peer-to-peer sharing must be legal. WSIS should not teach people that sharing is wrong."

-Richard Stallman

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html

"Free software is a matter of freedom: people should be free to use software in all the ways that are socially useful. Software differs from material objects--such as chairs, sandwiches, and gasoline--in that it can be copied and changed much more easily. These possibilities make software as useful as it is; we believe software users should be able to make use of them.

``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free'' as in ``free speech,'' not as in ``free beer.''

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission." -FSF

-rcmiv

mangz74
March 31st, 2006, 10:39 PM
I used to dual boot XP and Linux but have been windows free for almost 2 years now. The reason why i ditched XP is basically I am fed up with all the spyware and viruses that I have to deal with. Another thing is that in windows, I have to pay almost every software I need and I have to upgrade my hardware just to be compatible with the new version. If you are rich guy, then that wouldn't matter, but for a working dad with limited budget, linux is God sent. I get the best of everything, free software, free from virus, free from Bill Gates plan of world domination :). Aside from that, I am learning something new everyday, and that by itself is worth shifting to linux.

localzuk
April 1st, 2006, 12:08 AM
I do like the customization of linux but the whole spyware/adware thing and viruses I have never had a problem with, as long as your not being dumb opening random exe's its pretty much non existent. In reality the spyware is a big problem only because of the fact that the average computer user is attracted to flashy things and clicks.

Having worked having to deal with the removal of malware of all sorts at my University I can say that is a complete untruth.

One of the main culprits of malware was Outlook express auto opening various attachments and various other exploits (wmf exploit for instance). Even the network lab machines were riddled and they are supposed to be hardened builds.

The only way to have a safe copy of windows is by not installing it, or by having a copy installed in a virtual machine and restoring to a 'perfect moment' each time you want to use it.

Malware and viruses by their very nature are not just installed by shiny things. For example, a recent virus has been using BBC news articles in order to seduce people into viewing a site - which then exploits a security issue in Internet Explorer and installs a rootkit on the machine. Linux does not suffer from this due to the speed at which major security holes are patched and the fact it is open source.

K.Mandla
April 1st, 2006, 12:23 AM
I use Linux because I like it.

My mom uses Linux because she likes it.

My father uses Windows because he likes it.

I think if you find you like one operating system over another, you should go with it. Pointing out the shortcomings of one, or how quickly you can hack another one doesn't erase my belief that people should use what they enjoy.

Mikieboyblue
April 1st, 2006, 01:27 AM
I use Linux because I like it.

My mom uses Linux because she likes it.

My father uses Windows because he likes it.

I think if you find you like one operating system over another, you should go with it. Pointing out the shortcomings of one, or how quickly you can hack another one doesn't erase my belief that people should use what they enjoy.

So true....

polo_step
April 1st, 2006, 05:58 AM
Having worked having to deal with the removal of malware of all sorts at my University I can say that is a complete untruth.

Malware and viruses by their very nature are not just installed by shiny things.
Yeah, I think you could safely say that. :rolleyes:

His ignorance of how malware gets on your computer doesn't surprise me; I hear this sort of nonsense all the time from naive users who tell me they couldn't have malware and spyware on their computers because they didn't do this or that. The last one to do so had nine hundred and fifty-six (956) known instances of spyware, trojans, malware and viruses on his box -- and that's just what I could find.

LanceM
April 1st, 2006, 06:28 AM
I had XP Pro at home. Cable internet with Windows firewall. Spyware/malware made the system unusable. I was unable to remove the problem and had to rebuild. About 3 months later, the same thing happened an I did another rebuild. Less than 2 months after that it happened again. This time instead of rebuilding with XP, I installed Fedora. That was about 18 months ago.I have done one rebuild since then, by choice, to switch to Ubuntu.

polo_step
April 1st, 2006, 09:22 AM
I had XP Pro at home. Cable internet with Windows firewall. Spyware/malware made the system unusable...That was about 18 months ago.I have done one rebuild since then, by choice, to switch to Ubuntu.
That was very close to my experience.

It should be pointed out that countermeasures against malware have hugely improved since then. It was mainly a matter of Microsoft and the third-party companies waking up to the problem and taking it seriously, however belatedly. It took far too long, and in the meantime a lot of people had big, BIG problems. The problem is far from over, but it's once again manageable and largely avoidable, with care...but Linux (for now) is still safer. If Linux wireless support wasn't so pathetic, I'd certainly be using Linux for all my online stuff in a dual-boot or thumbdrive system on my notebook. Unfortunately, it is, so I can't. :-k As far as I'm personally concerned, there is no other rational reason to use Linux than this online security advantage. Not one.

While some aspects of Linux as an OS make it inherently safer from malware than XP, the real reason that no major malware seems to come up for it is that it has such a small market share compared to XP that's it's not considered worth the programming effort to exploit -- go with the numbers. ;)

naelurec
April 1st, 2006, 04:13 PM
His ignorance of how malware gets on your computer doesn't surprise me; I hear this sort of nonsense all the time.Indeed. check this out (http://www.silentrunners.org/sr_launchpoints.html) - Windows has over 126 *built in* points where a malware application can attach itself to execute on your system. This is in addition to the possibility of attaching itself to an appliation (I've had spyware attach itself to media player so every time it was launched, the computer was reinfected).
As far as I'm personally concerned, there is no other rational reason to use Linux than this online security advantage. Not one.This is a pretty big advantage. Given that many people use their computer primarily for online activities (web/email/chat/banking/shopping/etc..) its reason enough to have a Linux box for Internet access and relegate the Windows machines to non-online activities.
the real reason that no major malware seems to come up for it is that it has such a small market share compared to XP that's it's not considered worth the programming effort to exploit -- go with the numbers.Depends. By default *most* people run WindowsXP as administrator because running as a regular user account is a pain-in-the-*** (there are lots of apps that are slightly broken when run as regular users on Windows, not to mention lame limitations such as no access to the pop-up calendar). As a result, spyware/malware has the ability to attach itself to any part of the system. Linux on-the-otherhand limits users to their home folder for writing files. Its possible to disallow *ANY* executable content inside that home folder and effectively destroy any points where malware could attach itself to the system. This would require a user to download malware, sudo and then run and install the app. While not fool-proof is definitely less likely then viewing an infected email or web page.

LanceM
April 1st, 2006, 04:36 PM
As far as I'm personally concerned, there is no other rational reason to use Linux than this online security advantage. Not one.



Fortunately for me, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, I don't use wireless and I am not a gamer. Ubuntu does everything I need it to do, and it does it quite well. However, there is one shortfall that I have to deal with every day: support for my Canon printer. I can not print documents with images or images by themselves for that matter. I fault the manufacturer, not Linux for this.

Alpha_toxic
April 1st, 2006, 04:39 PM
A horror story:
Last year I went to install XP on a friends new box (she wanted XP, not me). So I installed it and configured the network and in a moment of idiotism I pluged in the internet cable before setting up a firewall... I then went on to install some programs and after 5 (five) minutes I got a system message saying that it will restart in 30 seconds........ Simple as that, 5 minutes to get a virus. Try doing this with Linux.

This is not the actual reason I switched to linux, casue by that time I've already done so, but is one good reason anyway.

Super King
April 1st, 2006, 06:35 PM
I dual-boot XP and Ubuntu, and here is why I end up using Ubuntu 80% of the time.

Well, first off, I really don't have any problems with Windows XP. I cannot recall the last system crash that required a restart, the last virus I got was years ago, and the only things Adaware picks up are trackers from using IE. It's easy enough to use and troubleshoot. Combine that with the fact that nearly any piece of (good) software that exists runs on it, and I've got an OS that frankly, does everything I want it to. So why use Ubuntu?

Well, 'cause XP has gotten kind of boring. I wanted to try something different. The best part of Linux IMO is the customization. Using GNOME and messing with the Panels to create exactly what I want in an interface isn't just fun; it makes things easier and faster for me. Many of the XP interface tweakers either don't work on build of XP or cost money.

There have been problems of course getting everything to work the way I want, but it's almost refreshing. Learning how to troubleshoot via the GUI and command line is interesting and useful, and definitely far different than troubleshooting issues in Windows. It's great to learn a new thing or two everyday, something I can't say I accomplish while using Windows.

So, yeah, there's a perspective from somehow who enjoys Linux not because of irrational and pointless MS hate or OSS love.

polo_step
April 2nd, 2006, 05:56 AM
Let me reemphasize, I do recognize that Linux is currently very much more secure for online tasks than XP (though by less of a margin than a couple of years ago). If wireless support was more developed there is no question that I would be using Linux to post this right now.

That said, Linux wireless security support is, as of this date, so poor that it trades one form of vulnerability for another, the absence of easily-accessed WPA2/AES encryption native to the so-called "supported" devices, despite the fact that the manufacturers have had Linux drivers out for one or two years.

WEP is as obsolete as asbestos, and about as dangerous from a security standpoint -- yet developing Linux wireless utilities that would make safer mobile and local wireless use conveniently possible seems to be of no priority.

This is a HUGE issue that gets bigger every day.

ulissesroc
April 2nd, 2006, 12:30 PM
I use xp because my f***** lappie won't abilitate wireless lan until windows xp is running..then i restart and all works..but if i shut down, i have to run xp again..acer..i hate you..

dhalgren
April 2nd, 2006, 01:29 PM
I haven't read all of this thread, but aboput half of it. It has been fasinating! Unfortunately there are so many things I wuld like to reply to that I am just going to rattle off a few points about my experience.

The first computer I actually owned (rather than looked at) ran windows 3.1, (customised for an IBM desktop machine) and it ranbeautifully with nary a problem until wife left with it. (!) The next machine I owned came with windows 98, which ran beautifully for a few months and provided me with continual troubles. And then came the decision to upgrade to windows ME. It was soon after that I developed an absolute loathing for windows: I had paid for these things and they did not work well at all. I would have gone back to windows 3.a if I could have.

This started a search for another OS, and eventually I turned up a copy of an Australian publication which came with Mandrake 7 and Red Hat. I set out to try these on the basis that windows wasn't working well for me.

I had no preconceptions about Linux. I barely knew what Linux was, but I was determined to find out if it worked better than the then current incarnation of Windows. Having no preconceptions was a blessing because I didn't expect it to be like anything in particular, so I wasn't surprised when I had to set out and learn lots of new skills.

And this is the reason why I changed to and stuck with Linux (mandrake at first, but then SuSe up until changing to breezy when it came out):

1] The more I learnt about Linux, the more I learnt about my computer/s, and this has been wonderful.
2] The more I learnt about Linux, the easier it became to do nearly everything Iwanted, which often was fixing some problem without having to hit the reset switch.
3] The more I learnt about Linux the more reliable my computers became simply because I could mess about and fix the problems I encountered with the OS.

Now, I didn't abandon windows. I have three children who simply will not tolerate the idea of going without games, although the two little ones (5 and 6) both love the linux games such as chromium...) and eventually I purchased XP. Yes, it is much better than 98 and ME, and runs much more smoothly than other windows incarnations, but...

I recently purchased a laptop, with XP. Not wanting to go without linux, i installed ubuntu and have been dual booting for the first time in years. I have nero, and other programmes which came with the laptop, why not use them? I even vaguely thought that I might return to using windows full time because it was running smoothly. But within weeks of purchase, Windows was playing up. Noy big huge problems, but little, irritating issues which I simply don't encounter in ubuntu, or which I can fix easily without having to know all about everything.

I am now running dual boot setup with dapper, and have encountered no issues like a particular function key randomly not working, which is one of the irritating issues with XP. Other issues, which wouldn't affect a non-linux user, is that I keep wanting to do simple easy things (most of which have been mentioned already in this thread!) which I am now used to and don't want to live without, which I can't do in windows, or which are too difficult to do.

This is the long answer to the question why use linux? and I have put it in terms of my own experience because, ultimately, it is our own experiences which have led us to use linux.

At least one person who has commented in this thread has said that there is a lot of anti-windows sentiment in the linux community. Yes, there probably is. In my case, at least, it came about because the windows OS simply didn't work adequately for me, an ordinary user who nly wnated to do some writing and cruisiing around the internet. Even with all of its troubles at the time, most of which have been overcome, SuSe 7.0 was much more stable, and if I had to do some study t use it, then it was worth it, and I wil keep studying and using linux for that reason. Knowledge and the ability to do what I want, including fixing the problems I have with the OS.

cheers, and I hope this has been interesting for someone out there!

polo_step
April 2nd, 2006, 02:28 PM
Ubuntu does everything I need it to do, and it does it quite well.
Ubuntu -- and even some mini-Linux distros -- will do much of what I need, but purely out of curiosity, does it do anything better or easier than XP for you? I can't say that it does for me. To the contrary, I can't think of anything that wasn't much harder to get set up and typically has some level of poorer functionality (5.10 appears to be much better than 5.04 in this regard, however). There may be something I'm overlooking, but I can't think of anything offhand.

Again, though, I can't really say because the wireless device in my notebook, despite being Linux-supported and installed on boot, is so poorly integrated into Ubuntu compared to XP that I simply refuse to install Ubuntu if it means that I have to screw around with it trying to kludge fixes...and now that I do almost all my work on the notebook, that leaves Ubuntu on one of the office desktops that never even gets turned on any more. :(

helpme
April 2nd, 2006, 02:48 PM
Ubuntu -- and even some mini-Linux distros -- will do much of what I need, but purely out of curiosity, does it do anything better or easier than XP for you? I can't say that it does for me. To the contrary, I can't think of anything that wasn't much harder to get set up and typically has some level of poorer functionality (5.10 appears to be much better than 5.04 in this regard, however). There may be something I'm overlooking, but I can't think of anything offhand.

For one, I prefer Gnome and also KDE over Windows. They are easier to use for me, while I think Windows is a gui nightmare.
Installing programs and keeping them uptodate is also vastly supperior on Ubuntu compared to Windows.
The same goes for having a command line available that deserves the name. Windows is terrible in this regard and one can only hope that monad will fix this in the future.
Also, I always found it easier, faster and a lot more convenient to set up Ubuntu. Simply pop in the CD, install it and you'll end up with a useable system in practically no time.



Again, though, I can't really say because the wireless device in my notebook, despite being Linux-supported and installed on boot, is so poorly integrated into Ubuntu compared to XP that I simply refuse to install Ubuntu if it means that I have to screw around with it trying to kludge fixes...and now that I do almost all my work on the notebook, that leaves Ubuntu on one of the office desktops that never even gets turned on any more. :(
First off, the situation is now much better with the addition of network manager in dapper.
Second, don't equate Ubuntu with Linux, especially when it comes to integrated config tools. Every other popular distro that aims for the desktop beats Ubuntu in this regard easily.

mrgnash
April 2nd, 2006, 03:05 PM
While some aspects of Linux as an OS make it inherently safer from malware than XP, the real reason that no major malware seems to come up for it is that it has such a small market share compared to XP that's it's not considered worth the programming effort to exploit -- go with the numbers.

Could it also be that most Linux software is a result of community driven development without the same financial incentives as commercial software? And it's not just 'some aspects of Linux as an OS [that] make it inherently safer' but the fundamental nature of the permissions system itself.

Besides, it's been repeated before, but apparently no-one gets the message:- Windows may be the most popular desktop OS, but the real prize for hackers and the like are either large servers or systems with sensitive/restricted information. Chances are, these systems will be running Linux/Unix. Therefore this 'go with the numbers' nonsense while containing a 'kernel' of truth in some sense, is built on a false premise.

polo_step
April 2nd, 2006, 03:42 PM
For one, I prefer Gnome and also KDE over Windows. They are easier to use for me, while I think Windows is a gui nightmare.
This is just a preference issue. I see no compelling practical advantage of any one of these over the others for a regular human. I have a slight preference for my configuration of XP over Gnome and both over KDE, but I could probably get any one of the three to work fine for me and simply never give it another thought.


Installing programs and keeping them uptodate is also vastly supperior on Ubuntu compared to Windows.
This is only true if they are integrated into the Ubuntu repositories and you can do it with Synaptic, and that's a gigantic "if." Otherwise, you are SOL. There were a lot of Linux programs (or updates) I wanted to install but couldn't because they were too new to have been picked up. Synaptic worked fine for me, but I wouldn't say it was "vastly" better than the typical download-and-go XP installation, which is usually pretty easy. Other people were having trouble with Synaptic, so I assumed I was just lucky.


The same goes for having a command line available that deserves the name. Windows is terrible in this regard and one can only hope that monad will fix this in the future.

Command line is certainly better, but I don't use command lines if I can avoid it because of my poor vision and inabiity to touch-type, aside from the fact that most stuff is quicker and easier to do in GUI, or should be in 2006.


Also, I always found it easier, faster and a lot more convenient to set up Ubuntu. Simply pop in the CD, install it and you'll end up with a useable system in practically no time.
I think the crucial phrase here is "useable system." 5.04 was just awful for me in this regard, though 5.10 is a whole lot better. I was using it "live" to test new computers I was building here last week and was impressed, although there are a lot faster options, such as that super-quick Japanese Knoppix CD that came out a few weeks back. That thing's just incredible, if you're compatible. As I mentioned in another thread, though, having your hardware "working" on install is not the same thing as it being properly configured. Because of the historic difficulties in installing Linux, people are too excited by merely a smooth installation that doesn't crash. Only later do they discover that they must download proper video card drivers and multimedia codecs, edit config files, etc., etc., etc.


First off, the [wireless] situation is now much better with the addition of network manager in dapper.
I am really hoping that this is the case, come the release in June.

Footissimo
April 2nd, 2006, 03:52 PM
I have a small XP partition for Activesync, Paint Shop Pro and a few older games. If I could get a linux replacement for Activesync for Windows Mobile 5 then I'd drop the XP partition totally - I did without it for a year before getting my Vario Smartphone thingy.

I prefer Ubuntu as:

1) Once it's installed, it's done (for me!), XP has major problems with some of my hardware..including AC97 drivers (*sigh*) and I can't stand the way software seems to constantly want to co-opt other settings and services and whatnot. By the time I've finished getting the basics done on XP, I've configured everything I want in Ubuntu.

2) GNOME (for me!) feels nicer than XP - things feel less flappy and are in the right place. Ubuntu also looks nicer by default and doesn't require some dodgy 3rd party hacks to make it look better. Fonts look better in Ubuntu by default and after tweaking in both OS's.

3) Basic security is easier (i.e. Synaptic -> Firestarter) than XP (i.e. ZA, AVG, Spybot), is more sensible (i.e. keep the user parts away from the root parts), works better and doesn't hog.

4) Ubuntu doesn't patronise me with annoying notifications ("Take a tour!", "You need to switch on updates!", "Register!" etc etc etc etc), allows me to tweak nearly whatever I want and doesn't try to sell me stuff from the base OS ("Shop for this picture online!").

5) When I pay for stuff for Ubuntu - it's more likely to be for something that I want rather than what I need and if I don't like something, it goes, rather than getting hidden.

6) Ubuntu doesn't seem to get bogged down like Windows does. For me, it just keep on running and running..I used to get bothered by leaving my computer on for days, but these days it makes little difference.

7) Ubuntu / Linux encourages me to learn - I've learnt more about how OSs work in a year than I learnt in over a decade of using Windows. Windows is more 'Fisher Price' in the sense of installing one program in the hope of getting around a problem, whilst Linux is more about solving the problem.

8) Ubuntu / FOSS makes me appreciate software rather than resent it. When you can see and talk to the people who have gone out of their way to make a piece of software you're much more interested in using it and seeing how it works. Windows is much more about jamming things onto your computer in the hope that it (a) works properly, (b) doesn't have any nasty (intended or unintended) consequences

9) The most recent and best version of XP from one of the cheaper places is £80. Ubuntu will send me a copy for free.

10) Ethical reasons - kinda obvious

That's all I can think of off the top of my head - there are reasons for liking XP as an OS, but as that wasn't the question, I won't bore anymore :)

polo_step
April 2nd, 2006, 03:59 PM
Besides, it's been repeated before, but apparently no-one gets the message:- Windows may be the most popular desktop OS, but the real prize for hackers and the like are either large servers or systems with sensitive/restricted information. Chances are, these systems will be running Linux/Unix. Therefore this 'go with the numbers' nonsense while containing a 'kernel' of truth in some sense, is built on a false premise.
Obviously you haven't read many of my posts. I'm a strong advocate of Linux for running crucial servers and networks, embedded industrial uses and the other sorts of applications where the core Linux OS really shines.

That said, we were talking about Internet-distributed malware for personal desktops, not network hacking. Considering the insignificance of the Linux market share for personal desktop use, it's not surprising that it is ignored by those writing malware. If Linux was, say, half the desktop market, I'm pretty certain that a lot of workarounds and exploits would have been discovered by clever malware programmers for these "invulnerable" Linux home granny boxes.

Currently, however, writing malware for Linux is a "why bother?" proposition, irrespective of any innate difficulties.

helpme
April 2nd, 2006, 04:02 PM
This is just a preference issue. I see no compelling practical advantage of any one of these over the others for a regular human. I have a slight preference for my configuration of XP over Gnome and both over KDE, but I could probably get any one of the three to work fine for me and simply never give it another thought.

Of course this is also preference. But one look at xp should convince anyone with an open mind that it has sever usability issue. Take the menu for example. Terrible. Or the fact that many options are burried 10feet deep in some right click menu you only get to if you click on something else beforhand that doesn't seem to have anything to do with what you are actually looking for. Just terrible.



This is only true if they are integrated into the Ubuntu repositories and you can do it with Synaptic, and that's a gigantic "if."

Not really. I'm pretty sure I do more with my computer than the average joe, yet I don't have a problem staying with the repos.



Otherwise, you are SOL. There were a lot of Linux programs (or updates) I wanted to install but couldn't because they were too new to have been picked up.

If you can't wait for 6 months till the next release arrives, then don't use Ubuntu, which has this very conservative philosophy when it comes to getting new stuff into stable. I actually like that, but for people with different preferences, there are all these othere distributions out there, that will make the new stuff available for you much more frequent than ubuntu.



Synaptic worked fine for me, but I wouldn't say it was "vastly" better than the typical download-and-go XP installation, which is usually pretty easy. Other people were having trouble with Synaptic, so I assumed I was just lucky.

I wasn't talking about synaptic specifically, after all it's just a frontend. However, when compare to the bitch that is installing and maintaining software on windows, vastly superior doesn't even begin to cover it.
And your last sentence doesn't make much sense, btw. I get the impression you are really grasping at straws to find fault. Why this might be the case, I don't know.



Command line is certainly better, but I don't use command lines if I can avoid it because of my poor vision and inabiity to touch-type, aside from the fact that most stuff is quicker and easier to do in GUI, or should be in 2006.
That's simply wrong. There are many things where the command line is simply more powerful and a lot quicker. Even MS realized this, hence monad.



I think the crucial phrase here is "useable system." 5.04 was just awful for me in this regard, though 5.10 is a whole lot better. I was using it "live" to test new computers I was building here last week and was impressed, although there are a lot faster options, such as that super-quick Japanese Knoppix CD that came out a few weeks back. That thing's just incredible, if you're compatible.

Yes, usable, in the sense that everything works and I can get my work done.



As I mentioned in another thread, though, having your hardware "working" on install is not the same thing as it being properly configured. Because of the historic difficulties in installing Linux, people are too excited by merely a smooth installation that doesn't crash. Only later do they discover that they must download proper video card drivers and multimedia codecs, edit config files, etc., etc., etc.

Well, if it isn't properly confiqured, it isn't working, at least in my book. So reast assured, I was talking about working as in properly configured. Though yes, I had to install the nvidia-driver, as I would have to in windows and guess what, it took me about 2 minutes and I didn't have to edit any config file.
Anyway, as I already mentioned but as you seem to ignore for some reason that is beyond me, if you don't want to ever edit a config file, use an other distro like Suse. You won't have to touch a single config file there, I promise.

Also, the historic difficulties in installing Linux are really more pre-historic. Look at something like Anaconda, even several years back and compare it to the XP installer. The comparison isn't even funny anymore.

ADAtech
April 2nd, 2006, 05:13 PM
Hi -

I would assume that one would implement Ubuntu over XP because of its
initial and long term cost effectiveness. For example, no license fees and software can be designed to a specific individual.

I plan on implementing Ubuntu in an elementary school for seerely disabled children. Please, view, http://www.adatech.org/web-presentation/ for a better understanding. I'd like to implement this via thin-client technology in an Intranet environment (to assure parent safety of their children )

I am learning this as i move forward. If anyone out their knows of an educational Forum I should be directed to be advise.

helpme
April 2nd, 2006, 05:40 PM
Hi -

I would assume that one would implement Ubuntu over XP because of its
initial and long term cost effectiveness. For example, no license fees and software can be designed to a specific individual.

I plan on implementing Ubuntu in an elementary school for seerely disabled children. Please, view, http://www.adatech.org/web-presentation/ for a better understanding. I'd like to implement this via thin-client technology in an Intranet environment (to assure parent safety of their children )

I am learning this as i move forward. If anyone out their knows of an educational Forum I should be directed to be advise.

Sounds like a great project.
I'm by no means an expert when it comes to setting up something like this, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
From what I read though, edubuntu is specifically developed for what you want to do.
http://edubuntu.org/

I just browsed around their sites and they at least offer some nice documentation that should help you get started.
For example:
https://wiki.edubuntu.org/EdubuntuDocumentation/EdubuntuCookbook

You should also probably ask your questions on the edubuntu mailing list:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/edubuntu-devel/

Also, take a look at the skolelinux site. You should also find some information there:
http://www.skolelinux.org/portal

Hope this helps and let us know how it's working out.

polo_step
April 2nd, 2006, 06:34 PM
I'm pretty sure I do more with my computer than the average joe, yet I don't have a problem staying with the repos.
No, what I meant was that it takes a while for new programs to make it into the repositories, and it's cumbersome to add them otherwise.


I wasn't talking about synaptic specifically, after all it's just a frontend.
Don't say, "just a frontend." Frontends are crucially important. Frontends increase accessibility and decrease ramp-up time for orientation, therefore they are vital in the real world.

Good, clear, intuitive frontends are progress.

However, when compare to the bitch that is installing and maintaining software on windows, vastly superior doesn't even begin to cover it.

That's never been my experience with new programs. Online Synaptic worked OK, downloading Windows software worked OK. For me, any difference one over the other was negligible, assuming the respective programs were functional to begin with.

And your last sentence doesn't make much sense, btw. I get the impression you are really grasping at straws to find fault. Why this might be the case, I don't know.
Misapprehension on your part. I'm among a relative handful of users here who have zero emotional investment in operating systems or software. They work for me or they don't. Beyond that, I don't care. The market goes for them or it doesn't. I'm not going to lie, delude myself or spin about them. A really startling percentage of the users here will. Why is another thread. :-k

>> I don't use command lines if I can avoid it because of my poor
>> vision and inabiity to touch-type, aside from the fact that most
>> stuff is quicker and easier to do in GUI, or should be in 2006.

That's simply wrong. There are many things where the command line is simply more powerful and a lot quicker. Even MS realized this, hence monad.
I understand command lines. I've been using computers personally and professionally nearly every day since the era of Z80 computers running CP/M. I was probably the last guy in the country to convert, kicking and screaming, from DOS to Windows. I've done command lines. I don't want to do them any more.

At this point, in the era of fast boxes and screens, I can go through seven levels of GUI menus in the amount of time it takes me to accurately enter some unfamiliar thirty-character command line. I just can't see it that well, never mind trying to memorize all the abstruse switches and commands. Command line operation is a last resort for me these days. Command line operation is efficient, but efficient only on the backend.

The one thing for which Linux command lines are wonderful, however, is compressing the assistance process: "Open terminal, paste the following line in, press enter and shut up." :mrgreen:

I love that part!

Well, assuming it's the right command line.


Anyway, as I already mentioned but as you seem to ignore for some reason that is beyond me, if you don't want to ever edit a config file, use an other distro like Suse. You won't have to touch a single config file there, I promise.
Some other people have been discouraging me from that OS, moaning and groaning about their bad experiences with it, but I feel sure that I'll try it soon, thanks. Linux distros tend to be a crapshoot [see below]. I'm looking for a basic layout of SuSE that will get me running with no more than two CDs. The giant bloat distros turn me off. I'd rather start small and add what I need.


Also, the historic difficulties in installing Linux are really more pre-historic. Look at something like Anaconda, even several years back and compare it to the XP installer. The comparison isn't even funny anymore.
The difficulties are still there in the sense that today there's still a high probability that a given distro X simply won't install on a given box Y. I have numerous computers here and a bunch of current distros. What will go and what won't seems utterly unpredictable, though Ubuntu seems to do pretty well on most of them.

helpme
April 2nd, 2006, 07:04 PM
No, what I meant was that it takes a while for new programs to make it into the repositories, and it's cumbersome to add them otherwise.

Depends on the programs. If the offer debs or repos, it isn't. If they don't, klik to the rescue.



Don't say, "just a frontend." Frontends are crucially important. Frontends increase accessibility and decrease ramp-up time for orientation, therefore they are vital in the real world.

Good, clear, intuitive frontends are progress.

Don't twist my words, young man. ;-D
I was talking about software management in general and as you seemed to equate this with synaptic, I simply pointed out that synaptic is just a frontend for apt. I never said frontends weren't important.



That's never been my experience with new programs. Online Synaptic worked OK, downloading Windows software worked OK. For me, any difference one over the other was negligible, assuming the respective programs were functional to begin with.
But to download windows software you have to know where to find the software that you are looking for. You don't have a central, searchable repository and a nice frontend like gnome-app-install. After you found it, you'll have to blindly trust the website from which you downloaded the program and start an installation which is different for every program you install, will in many cases clutter your desktop and on top of that may need other programs to be installed before the installation can even start.
And then begins the fun of keeping all this stuff you installed from random places on the net uptodate...
Really, I find it hard to understand how someone can't see the clear advantages of the way this stuff works on Ubuntu and other distros.



Misapprehension on your part. I'm among a relative handful of users here who have zero emotional investment in operating systems or software. They work for me or they don't. Beyond that, I don't care. The market goes for them or it doesn't. I'm not going to lie, delude myself or spin about them. A really startling percentage of the users here will. Why is another thread. :-k
You seem to put a lot of time and effort into telling everyone how great XP is compared to ubuntu for someone who is not caring about this stuff...
Also, accusing other people of lying just because they hold a different oppinion, have different preferences, or simply different experiences isn't really nice and on top of this shows how emotionally engaged you are in this kind of debate.
Chill mate, it's just an online discussion.



I understand command lines. I've been using computers personally and professionally nearly every day since the era of Z80 computers running CP/M. I was probably the last guy in the country to convert, kicking and screaming, from DOS to Windows. I've done command lines. I don't want to do them any more.
Then don't. Nobody forces you to use them.



At this point, in the era of fast boxes and screens, I can go through seven levels on GUI menus in the amount of time it takes me to accurately enter some unfamiliar thirty-character command line. I just can't see it that well, never mind trying to memorize all the abstruse switches and commands. Command line operation is a last resort for me these days. Command line operation is efficient, but efficient only on the backend.

Again, feel free not to use them. Your point however was initially that the command line isn't useful and that everything can be done quicker in a gui and that's just plain wrong, to put it mildly. And I'll repeat myself here, even MS is disagreeing with you on this one.



Some other people have been discouraging me from that OS, moaning and groaning about their bad experiences with it, but I feel sure that I'll try it soon, thanks. Linux distros tend to be a crapshoot [see below]. I'm looking for a basic layout of SuSE that will get me running with no more than two CDs. The giant bloat distros turn me off. I'd rather start small and add what I need.
Oh, there's even a one CD install, or simply do a net install, or if you don't want to download it, simply by a boxed set. It will even come with great documentation.




The difficulties are still there in the sense that today there's still a high probability that a given distro X simply won't install on a given box Y. I have numerous computers here and a bunch of current distros. What will go and what won't seems utterly unpredictable, though Ubuntu seems to do pretty well on most of them.
Not my experience. I really never, ever was unable to install the linux distro I wanted on the computers I tried to install it on.

polo_step
April 2nd, 2006, 10:18 PM
I simply pointed out that synaptic is just a frontend for apt. I never said frontends weren't important.
OK, then you're not one of the many people I've encountered in Linux discussions who disparage GUI frontends, even (maybe especially) when they are a quicker and easier way of accomplishing a task? :rolleyes:


But to download windows software you have to know where to find the software that you are looking for. You don't have a central, searchable repository and a nice frontend like gnome-app-install. After you found it, you'll have to blindly trust the website from which you downloaded the program and start an installation which is different for every program you install, will in many cases clutter your desktop and on top of that may need other programs to be installed before the installation can even start.
That's true, if a little overstated. :-k The problem is still that you have to wait until new software you want gets incorporated into the repository "system" if you seek that transparency of installation. I don't know which advantage/disadvantage set is more desirable. I do know that some stuff I wanted wasn't there when I went looking for it, though it may have showed up eventually after I lost interest, I don't know. If it's in the repository and everything works, it's slick and I liked it. I still don't see one system being that much better than the other in my experience. There seems to be a lot of waiting involved with Linux -- waiting for device support, waiting for new software to be added to repositories and so forth.


You seem to put a lot of time and effort into telling everyone how great XP is compared to ubuntu for someone who is not caring about this stuff...
Only by the standards of the forum!;)

Also, accusing other people of lying just because they hold a different oppinion, have different preferences, or simply different experiences isn't really nice and on top of this shows how emotionally engaged you are in this kind of debate.
Aside from pervasive delusive thinking such as rationalizing a more labor-intensive OS on the basis of it being more educational (like, "I'm grateful for that horrible divorce because it was a learning experience for me..."), which is the sort of thing that drives me crazy to listen to any any context, there's a lot of what I call "The Investment Club Syndrome."

You can probably recall during any of the last few frenzied market bubbles how TV viewers and readers of the business pages were always treated to little spots about how some provincial investment club had outperformed the big houses by some significant figure, usually with pictures of the cute little old ladies having tea and comparing prospectuses. After enough of these pieces, someone at WSJ or Forbes (I forget which) had enough and decided to do a serious investigation of some of these clubs. After thorough audits, every one of these claims turned out to be false. These amateur investors did not factor various normal fees, commissions and expenses into their results, frequently excluded their bad investments entirely, etc. Most had actually lost money.

I can't tell you how many times in Linux discussions I've seen Linux partisans, when responding to an exasperated ex-user who's had nothing but grief with the distro in question, assert that they've had no problems, that everything worked fine for them, huff, puff and so on. In later discussions in other threads it leaks out bit by bit that they've had about the same hassles in their setups as anyone else. "Oh, I fixed that by changing the config file, but I could never get 3D working..." or whatever.

They're just like these little old ladies in their investment clubs who are so emotionally wrapped up in it that they can no longer keep their facts straight, even to themselves. That's lying.



Again, feel free not to use [command lines]. Your point however was initially that the command line isn't useful and that everything can be done quicker in a gui and that's just plain wrong, to put it mildly. And I'll repeat myself here, even MS is disagreeing with you on this one.
While that's a bit of a misrepresentation of my point, it's certainly not true that Microsoft has suddenly decided to drag typical end users back to the command line after leading them in the GUI wilderness for a quarter century in error! Nobody is trying to get typical users back to the command line except a few Linux diehards. Microsoft's merely realizing that their command line interface needs improvement. Command line definitely has a place in some specialized pro contexts, but to make typical end users shell out to terminal to do work is anathema to Microsoft's (or Apple's) entire OS philosophy, which hinges on the fact that one can perform a lot wider range of tasks with less specialized knowledge and do it sooner by following intuitive and descriptive GUI interfaces.


I really never, ever was unable to install the linux distro I wanted on the computers I tried to install it on.
Wait. Are you saying you've never had Linux installations crash or fail?

bernardo
April 2nd, 2006, 11:05 PM
Good Thread. polo_step made some good points. (another ubuntu user who kept xp on double-boot)

mrgnash
April 3rd, 2006, 02:21 AM
Command line definitely has a place in some specialized pro contexts, but to make typical end users shell out to terminal to do work is anathema to Microsoft's (or Apple's) entire OS philosophy, which hinges on the fact that one can perform a lot wider range of tasks with less specialized knowledge and do it sooner by following intuitive and descriptive GUI interfaces.

And in a perfect world, Apple and MS would actually have 'intuitive and descriptive GUI interfaces.' If a menu which hides the majority of it contents for no good reason (and seemingly arbitrarily) is 'intuitive', then my brain must be wired in reverse.


But to download windows software you have to know where to find the software that you are looking for. You don't have a central, searchable repository and a nice frontend like gnome-app-install. After you found it, you'll have to blindly trust the website from which you downloaded the program and start an installation which is different for every program you install, will in many cases clutter your desktop and on top of that may need other programs to be installed before the installation can even start.
And then begins the fun of keeping all this stuff you installed from random places on the net uptodate...
Really, I find it hard to understand how someone can't see the clear advantages of the way this stuff works on Ubuntu and other distros.

Right on. Aside from all that though, there's the other huge burden of often having to fill out registration forms and all the other malarkey in order to download it. I know an awful lot of Windows users who weep and nash their teeth everytime they find out they need to install a new program becuase they know that they're going to have to jump through hoops to get it. Just look at DirectX for instance, you have to install a plugin just to download the bloody thing and go through all sorts of verification hoopla -- much like the notorious 'Windows Update' system in general, which isn't nearly as streamlined or painless as something like 'Update Manager.' Add to this fact that Synaptic also takes care of the installation and setup process, and rarely (if ever?) requires a reboot.

I will say though, that the increasing availability of open-source software that runs under XP does provide some sort of alleviation, but woe betide if you happen to install a 'trial' version of some piece of commercial software. Even it doesn't automatically expire after a certain period, you're likely to be hit by ye olde sales pitch and petitioned to register at every juncture. Thanks, but no thanks.

helpme
April 3rd, 2006, 07:45 AM
That's true, if a little overstated. :-k The problem is still that you have to wait until new software you want gets incorporated into the repository "system" if you seek that transparency of installation. I don't know which advantage/disadvantage set is more desirable. I do know that some stuff I wanted wasn't there when I went looking for it, though it may have showed up eventually after I lost interest, I don't know. If it's in the repository and everything works, it's slick and I liked it. I still don't see one system being that much better than the other in my experience. There seems to be a lot of waiting involved with Linux -- waiting for device support, waiting for new software to be added to repositories and so forth.
As I already said, then use some other distro, where new stuff gets incorporated faster. And though you probably won't believe me, I don't feel like my computing experience with linux exists of waiting, not at all.



Only by the standards of the forum!;)
No, in fact by every standard. Just look at your post history. ;-D



Aside from pervasive delusive thinking such as rationalizing a more labor-intensive OS on the basis of it being more educational (like, "I'm grateful for that horrible divorce because it was a learning experience for me..."), which is the sort of thing that drives me crazy to listen to any any context, there's a lot of what I call "The Investment Club Syndrome."

First off, your implicit assertion that linux is more labor-intensive is simply wrong in my experience. On the contrary, I use it precisely because it is less labor-intensive for me. I set it up, which is faster than settinug up windows and from then on that's it. Just look at out little discussion about software management.

Second, if people really make an argument like the one you quote, it's really stupid, however this doesn't say anything about linux, but about stupid arguments, so it seems pretty irrelevant to me.



They're just like these little old ladies in their investment clubs who are so emotionally wrapped up in it that they can no longer keep their facts straight, even to themselves. That's lying.

The problem is, these are your opinions, not facts. I do get the strong impression that you live in the delusion that everyone who disagrees with you or has other experiences is lying, which in turn reminds me of some old ladies in a church club, to stay with your analogy.



While that's a bit of a misrepresentation of my point, it's certainly not true that Microsoft has suddenly decided to drag typical end users back to the command line after leading them in the GUI wilderness for a quarter century in error! Nobody is trying to get typical users back to the command line except a few Linux diehards.

You really keep changing your point, don't you?
Nobody, least of all me, argued that we should get "normal users" (whoever that may be) back to the command line. You argued that the gui is quicker in every instance, I simply pointed out that this is wrong and that even MS realize that.


Microsoft's merely realizing that their command line interface needs improvement. Command line definitely has a place in some specialized pro contexts, but to make typical end users shell out to terminal to do work is anathema to Microsoft's (or Apple's) entire OS philosophy, which hinges on the fact that one can perform a lot wider range of tasks with less specialized knowledge and do it sooner by following intuitive and descriptive GUI interfaces.
See above, you are arguing against something nobody said.



Wait. Are you saying you've never had Linux installations crash or fail?
Yep. I really can't recall one failing for me in the last years.

_simon_
April 6th, 2006, 04:22 PM
My motivation for ditching XP in favour of Linux is the cost of the OS. With the impending arrival of Vista with it's large price tag and rumours that MS will only support XP in the way of major security updates and that certain software/games will be Vista only, I thought it was time to jump ship and see what else was available.

I've been using Ubuntu for 5 months now. The last time i used XP was a week ago to play FEAR but I now have Doom 3 which runs natively in linux so I'm a happy bunny :)

placide
April 7th, 2006, 08:50 AM
All the the people I know that use Windows XP, don't really own Windows XP, at least what goes with it. They probably payed for the OS that came with the PC (where is the freedom of choice?!?), but not for the rest...
I probably agree that for gaming, at the moment, windows is better.
I must say there is a lot of nice software for windows (that i tried), but quite expensive (like macromedia flash or dreamweaver). But if you want to do some serious stuff like programming, learning a lot, linux is nice.
Linux is nice too because you can use it the easyway or the harder way (harder, but as it is open you can learn a lot about computers).
For me linux resumes to this:
Linux it is free, I like freedom, I like Linux ;)

bigken
April 7th, 2006, 09:30 AM
For me its the freedom of the tweeking and its alot more fun than windows
windows is too easy and very boring linux is a chalenge which makes it more interesting 8)

FedeXX
April 7th, 2006, 10:20 AM
@bigken: ;) "put the fun back into computing"

I think that Windows is a very powerful OS. It is "the standard" because it had the qualities to be. But, when it returns an error message like "Sorry, you can't do that. Please contact the system administrator."... I'm not the system administrator? :| So, who is it? I pay for windows, i PRETEND to be the system administrator of MY operating system installed on MY machine! :P

What about Linux?...

fedexx@fedexxlaptop# su
Password: **********
-Welcome back, system administrator-
root@fedexxlaptop#

;)

Ocxic
April 8th, 2006, 04:54 AM
I'm gonna drop a little know fact.
If you perchase a computer with an OEM copy of windows (any computer that has windows pre-installed) and you decide to upgrade the motherboard and or the proccessor you must go out and buy a new license for your machine. scince the MS has decided that it's your motherboard and proccessor that constitutes the computer it comes with. I forget where i saw the link for this info, but it's also there in your OEM licence aggrement.

l0c0dantes
April 8th, 2006, 05:22 AM
Cos I tend to completely annhialte my windows install every few months or so. I 'm hoping it wont happen that hard with linux

louis_nichols
April 8th, 2006, 03:55 PM
I have to say I agree with locodantes' post and I believe it's pretty general. One of the great differences between Linux flavours and Windows is that, boot after boot, Linux behaves the same, whereas windows needs to be re-installed sooner or later, cuz it becomes... well, slower, buggier etc.

Everyone I know does this. Most of them don't dual boot, but still partition their hard disk for the main reason that storing should be done on a separate partition from the system one, which will sooner or later be formated.

Ocxic
April 8th, 2006, 04:01 PM
to add to your post louis, I love the evention of the home folder.. putting it on a seperat partion saves everything form personal data, to e-mails, themes, and even menu bar, and icon locations, everything was saved after i was finished re-installing. I'll admit i was skeptical of this, but after a recent crash (my fault, i fiddle too much for my own good) i discoverd what a wonderous thing my /home partition was.

louis_nichols
April 8th, 2006, 04:09 PM
you are right, Ocxic. It is a good thing, although not perfect. I just recentlly tried FC5 and remounted my home artition. Things were pretty difficult in some areas. In the end, I gave up and restored my backup of Breezy. Settings are many times stored differently from distro to distro and/or from one version of an app to the next.

On the other hand, I must say mounting a partition in a folder (as My Documents for example) is possible under Win XP too. Many of you didn't know that, did ya? :p

Sbarton
April 8th, 2006, 06:50 PM
End user experience to put it in short!! Experience in windows 9 years, 4 months in linux (not a lot I know). Vulnerabilities in windows. WOW! lots, all fixed , YES! (maybe not quick enough). Linux, end user experience, not as good as windows, thats for sure. Linux still has a lot of ground to cover to equal the end user experience.. Has windows crashed? Not in 4 years since XP the most stable of MS OS.Why does windows have so many vulnerabilities? Maybe poor code! Maybe because it is used by 70 + of global use and, maybe to many script kiddies do'nt like paying up. What has my experience been in linux? Mixed!Too much command line for me to get things done, (reminds me of Dos).What linux have I had , Ubuntu & Mepis. What about support? Let me say now, the Ubuntu forum has been the most remarkable and gratifying experience of linux so far!! I may not have succeeded in what I have tried to do with their help, but the response and help has been nothing short of remarkable!! Very few flames! However, I will not be ditching MS YET!
regards

MenZa
April 8th, 2006, 09:15 PM
Basically freedom. You have freedom to do whatever you want with Linux. When a new version of Ubuntu comes out, you won't have to pay for the upgrade. There is no professional version with more feature that costs.

Also, no ActiveX or registry, which is enough for me.

That and tonnes of other things; most mentioned in this thread earlier. For instance, the applications are free - and in many cases a lot better than the commercial applications.
It boots quicker, runs faster - and looks a lot better.

mrbaz
April 9th, 2006, 04:22 AM
I have a killer desktop that runs Windows XP (AMD X2, 2G ram, 250G Sata 3Gb, nVidia 7800GT, etc). I've never really had any problems with it. I use it as my gaming station, and as a desktop for my wife to use for school/teaching (they will always have classese that require you to use some proprietary MS software). I've never had any malware or virus infections, and I don't run any anti-malware or antivirus software on it. I just use common sense and do some housekeeping every-so-often to keep things up to snuff.

I'm a network administrator and I carry around a Dell 600m with me everywhere I go. I recently switched over to Ubuntu completely on my laptop.

I can do everything in Ubuntu (and more) than I can in Windows.
I don't play games on my laptop, so I don't have to worry about that.

I diagnose network systems and fix windows boxes that end users succeeded in dragging down to the pits with malware and viruses.

I can diagnose network traffic(ethereal), terminal in to any windows server box (or XP box), or VNC into any other system I need access to. I can SSH into any 'nix boxes without using putty(windows ssh client). I can also browse the entire network for shared folders/devices regardless of my 'workgroup' or 'domain.' Having to change my workgroup and reboot everytime is a PITA.

I can create/edit word docs, excel, powerpoint, access.
I can create/edit html and PHP documents with free editing software.
I can play my MP3's and stream live audio through the net.
I can chat with people on AIM, Yahoo Messenger, MSN, ICQ, IRC, etc. with free, full-featured software.
I can use Evolution to connect to virtually ANY type of mail server (including Exchange). I also have a nice organization of my tasks, calendar items, and contacts. (blantant rip from Outlook, I know).
I can customize the way my OS looks WAY easier and with way more options than any 3rd party software could do for windows without taking up extra CPU cycles and without paying a single cent.
I did the neowin uxtheme multi patcher for my windows box, and yes I have a cool new theme for free.....but if you want anyting from themexp.org, you have to install their stupid malware/spyware crap to do so. And, I don't really get any useful organization. It just looks nicer.

In Ubuntu I can customize my logon screen, my icon theme, my 'windows' theme, my panels (I can have more than one), my custom launcher on one of my panels.

As for server-side, I can setup a FREE linux/apache/mySQL/PHP server that runs more efficient and is WAY more secure.
I've done the same on Windows 2003 standard in IIS6. Yes, you can download the Microsoft Security Baseline Analyzer tool, and YES you can download the IIS lockdown tool. However, why should I have to do all this extra work to make sure that this expensive operating system stays safe and secure. I would have thought they would have put all this in it since I'm paying so much for it. And why should I have to buy this expensive, bloated server OS (Windows Server 2003 Web Ed) to simply run some web applications and maybe a few databases? Yeah, it runs pretty good, but going the linux variant is cheaper (no expensive OS) and more reliable. Now, if only cpanel wasn't so expensive....

But what about Active Directory you say? Well, if you already have AD on one of your servers, you can (albeit after much hard labor) get Ubuntu to integrate with LDAP. A new environment install....what about OpenLDAP?

Besides gaming, there isn't one thing you can name that can be done in a Windows environment that can't be done under a Linux environment.

eshehi
April 9th, 2006, 08:26 PM
This is kinda funny but when I turned to Linux one of the things that I appreciated most was when some program crashes and you cannot close it you just killall it or use that pannel applet and the program shuts down immediately. With Windows it's a pain in the butt with the Ctrl-Alt-Del and then don't send report, and you have to do that like 10 times for the program to close and meanwhile it would freeze all your system. Not to mention that in Windows this thing happens a lot. So this is my main reason to like Linux (it gives you power) :)

bobap1950
April 9th, 2006, 09:47 PM
I have tried Linux off and on for a number of years. Recently I really became really tired of all the Windows problems, virus', spyware, worms and malware of all types. I found myself spending more on security programs than programs I really need for production. I started out trying Xandros, then Fedora, Suse, Debian and now Ubuntu. Ubuntu by far is the best I have tried for my needs. I think Ubuntu is great, my problem is not with Ubuntu, but with the Linux programs out there to replace my Windows programs. They may be free, but they are lacking and with many of them there are too many installation problems. Maybe I am just too used to using my Windows programs, but none of the individual Linux programs I have tried come anywhere near the Windows programs. For example, nothing I have tried has come close to NoteTab Pro, Quicken, Paint Shop Pro, Family Tree Maker and so on. I tried Gramps in place of FTM, but I lost a lot of the information when converting it to a file Gramps can read and I have too much information to re-do it all. I even tried the non-free financial program, Moneydance. Moneydance was a big disappointment and in my opinion the free Grisbi is much better. Quanta Plus is not on the same level as NoteTab Pro and some of my programs don't have any Linux option. I am going to keep using Ubuntu and hopefully I can wing myself from my Windows programs sooner or later.

Thanks for letting me express my opinion and do a little venting.

Bob 8)

louis_nichols
April 9th, 2006, 10:40 PM
I have tried Linux off and on for a number of years. Recently I really became really tired of all the Windows problems, virus', spyware, worms and malware of all types. I found myself spending more on security programs than programs I really need for production. I started out trying Xandros, then Fedora, Suse, Debian and now Ubuntu. Ubuntu by far is the best I have tried for my needs. I think Ubuntu is great, my problem is not with Ubuntu, but with the Linux programs out there to replace my Windows programs. They may be free, but they are lacking and with many of them there are too many installation problems. Maybe I am just too used to using my Windows programs, but none of the individual Linux programs I have tried come anywhere near the Windows programs. For example, nothing I have tried has come close to NoteTab Pro, Quicken, Paint Shop Pro, Family Tree Maker and so on. I tried Gramps in place of FTM, but I lost a lot of the information when converting it to a file Gramps can read and I have too much information to re-do it all. I even tried the non-free financial program, Moneydance. Moneydance was a big disappointment and in my opinion the free Grisbi is much better. Quanta Plus is not on the same level as NoteTab Pro and some of my programs don't have any Linux option. I am going to keep using Ubuntu and hopefully I can wing myself from my Windows programs sooner or later.

Thanks for letting me express my opinion and do a little venting.

Bob 8)

Well... for source code editing, they say eclipse is the best. It is java based and works both in win and Linux. It's in the repos. I'm not a coder, so I haven't used it, but I hear great things about it. You might wanna give it a try.

sargek
April 9th, 2006, 11:16 PM
Because XP is s**t. It is an unsecure, unstable pile of dung. I use it for gaming only, because I don't trust any mission critical data with it. Linux (and BSD) just work, period.

hoarythehedgehog2009
April 9th, 2006, 11:55 PM
The only advantage I see in linux is learning more about your computer...:) I think for some of use it is mainly for fun:) :-D ;)

stairwayoflight
April 10th, 2006, 05:54 AM
why linux?

it definitely is a chick magnet, chicks dig geeks, even moderate geeks.

heres one example of a serious time waster in windoze:

i did some googling to find a free cd ripper for xp that looked up track infos. after experimenting with several apps, realplayer seemed to do the best, so i used it, just using M$ media player to play files.

it didn't rip the files correctly for some reason. they all played fine, but other prog's (such as the monkey's audio converter) couldn't convert some of the ripped wav's. these are tracks from good cd's i'm sure, real player just wasn't consistent in the file generation.

other free rippers didn't name files properly, etc.

admittedly i had the same prob using free sw installed using portage in gentoo. but this was largely becos gentoo was new to me, and linux in general-- i didn't know which apps to download. (also the kde app--kripper? i forget--was malfunctioning, when i selected "replace ' ' with '_' in the dialog it never did the replace operation on generated files.)

so now i have gigabytes of files to rip over again because much googling and experimentation by a fairly experienced windows user didn't yield a good free ripping app.

ubuntu comes with sound juicer config'd properly, i just put in the cd and its named correctly and everything.

LoclynGrey
April 10th, 2006, 06:40 AM
I'm gonna drop a little know fact.
If you perchase a computer with an OEM copy of windows (any computer that has windows pre-installed) and you decide to upgrade the motherboard and or the proccessor you must go out and buy a new license for your machine. scince the MS has decided that it's your motherboard and proccessor that constitutes the computer it comes with. I forget where i saw the link for this info, but it's also there in your OEM licence aggrement.


Thats 100% correct, MS seem to think that their software is married to the motherboard. I used to be around the oem system builder side of a pc business and this is the news we had to break to clients. One way round it was for the client to install their own OS.

garethppls
April 10th, 2006, 09:19 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 use it because it is much easier to set up servers for my PHP and MYSQL development and I like GNOME better than the windows environment. Ubuntu Dapper is a great OS for me anyway and it runs faster than windows does normally on this Northwood 1.7Ghz P4. Linux gives a lease of life to outdated PC's.