JadeWolf324 Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 linux is not mainstream because companies will not support linux. for the only reason of fear. if there were more essential hardware / software support for linux, it would blast microsoft away quite fast. I use it as my full desktop and almost never use XP. Linux is quite functional and on mine, i have a unified package manager (rpm) that also updates, installs, and removes software. and when it comes to installing software, I just type in the name and it locates and installs, how great is that? not only that its tested and it works no problems ! at least in my experience...oddly enough, linux has been a MUCH BETTER desktop OS for me than a server OS by far! i know that seems odd but its the truth in my case. Linux would be alot better if people would stop treating linux as non-existant, if it had more support via 3rd Party, it would be alot better, i think the Tux penguin and a little "Linux Supported" sticker on Printers and Digital Cameras would be a nice thing to see. someday i hope this is a reality... People will always say that linux is not as good as windows becuase either A: close minded or B: dont spend enough time to try and expand their minds with a better OS. my approach to Linux has always been to treat it in the manner of thinking like "thats how you do it", not "Well windows did it this way". doing so results in an unsatisfactory experience. Mandrake 9.2 has been a great OS for me, and it was the ONLY Desktop OS i have been TRULY and FULLY Productive, even more so than XP. ============== just got kinda writy and felt like sharin with u guys cuz I feel like alot of people dont give linux a chance because of those reasons and probably more. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortis Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 so lets say something goes wrong with ur system... has anyone done a backup/restore comparision between the "best" *cough* *nix distro and xp..? if you had to blank and reinstall from scratch... how efficient is your process on linux, compared to your restore process on xp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1kstanc3 Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 my main box runs windows 2000 and my laptop runs linux. i use both side by side for different tasks. linux handles my xchat client, mp3s, instant messaging, and ftp. windows handles my project studio home recording, web surfing, email, and web development. for the tasks i use on my mainbox windows is superior to linux. there are no professional audio applications for linux that can rival Cubase SX or Reason unless they port it to linux. i know they have Mac clients which are fully featured. in fact Apple recently bought the exclusive rights to Digital Performer and eMagic's Logic so in a way you can say the Mac is superior to windows for pro-audio production. but everyone uses Pro Tools anyways so that is a moot point. what the hell am i talking about. anyways... it really depends on what you do with the operating system. saying linux is better than windows is like saying the color red is better than the color yellow. i personally like blue. give us specific applications and details in which you can justify this statement before you get everyone in the windows forum bashing you here. im all for linux to succeed but it already has to me, and thats what matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MG-Cloud Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 so lets say something goes wrong with ur system...has anyone done a backup/restore comparision between the "best" *cough* *nix distro and xp..? if you had to blank and reinstall from scratch... how efficient is your process on linux, compared to your restore process on xp. If the speed of a backup/restore operation is very important to you, I'd suggest using drive imaging software. There are free versions for both Windows and Linux, and while I can't vouch for their quality/effectiveness, I do know that the procedure is generally fast (I restore drive images at school all the time using a few commercial products, and it takes like 12 minutes over the network). If you install binary versions of linux distros, and restore documents/music/etc from a cd, the process should be comparable/faster than windows xp, largely for the reason that binary linux install cds come with many software suites fully compiled and ready to copy, whereas with windows you need to download and install everything manually (I speak only of vanilla linux install cds and vanilla windows xp install cds ... modified ones with scripts don't count atm :p). With source distros, if you don't backup the binaries, it can take up to 24-36 hours longer than windows to get everything compiled and installed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted January 14, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 14, 2004 so lets say something goes wrong with ur system...has anyone done a backup/restore comparision between the "best" *cough* *nix distro and xp..? if you had to blank and reinstall from scratch... how efficient is your process on linux, compared to your restore process on xp. Funny you ask that question, as the Microsoft Backup & Restore is the last straw that made me ditch Windows for good (last year). When you use Microsoft's Backup utility, it doesn't back up important pieces of data that are needed to make the system run the way it used to. Sure, I had my documents and all, but getting my programs to work again proved too much for me. Just let me tar them any day! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redestium Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I agree, the one reason why I never wanted to use Linux is that I couldn't get my PCI Wi-Fi card working in any distro I tried. Not having net access to the information I needed to learn the OS while in the OS was a BIG problem for me. Sad too since I liked what I was seeing so far. :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JadeWolf324 Posted January 14, 2004 Author Share Posted January 14, 2004 ya that seems like a large problem...but i thought MDK had support for WiFi now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markwolfe Veteran Posted January 14, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 14, 2004 ya that seems like a large problem...but i thought MDK had support for WiFi now. WiFi support is pretty good, but there are some duds out there.. :no: Linksys comes to mind. Their PCMCIA WiFi up to one version worked, then v3 or v4 they used a different chipset... :angry: Same part number, but suddenly no workie... :crazy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fortis Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 tru drive imaging is the way to go i konw this i only gave that as an example (that you touched upon with the source/binary distro comparison) so that others could get an idea as to what happens when disaster strikes on a linux system. i myself use xp and fedora but for the last month or so have been unable to use fedora due to the wifi problem,that *thank god* i am not the only person who suffers from having a broadcom based wifi pcmcia card. i prefere gentoo to fedora i had the driverloader/linuxant version for the month trial and u cant compile that in gentoo, without getting the gcc and other stuff, but u need to go online to get to get the source ... so fedora it was and fedora it will stay i am happy that linux is based on text :) i just copy certain config files i have to a backup partition and whenver i reinstall - with kickstart - i just copy the files back - in a handy sh script - its manual automation :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts