I have a quesion ( general question )

[AirBlad3]

what "things" linux have and windows dont ?

things i mean - why ppl think that linux is better ? what linux's adventages that make it so good ?

[Zetter]

My opinion:

Linux is considered much more secure than windows because the way it is designed and most virus writers/hackers try to concentrate on windows instead because it it more widley used. Linux it also is more versitle (servers, desktops, bootcds) as there are so many distros and is open souce so is more favourable for some devolpers. And it's (mostly) free of course which is why it is so easy to try out.

[kongit]

Probably my favorite part of linux is the fact that 98% of software for it is free. You can find software that will do almost anything that software for windows will do (with the exception of games) for free. i have found professional grade software (like cad design) for linux that would have costed me a bundle for windows.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

what "things" linux have and windows dont ?

things i mean - why ppl think that linux is better ? what linux's adventages that make it so good ?

#1 It's free

#2 If you are interested in IT you can learn a number of server-oriented skills

Windows is secure enough if you take a few precautions (a NAT router, a good AV app., judicious opening of dubious emails or websites).

I would say that Linux is generally more secure but I can't be bothered to login as anything but root (Even still, it's probably more secure...)

[akaladis Veteran]

one of the reasons is because most of the software for linux is completely free exactly like the operating system itself... then its more secure when it comes to corporate use... there are also dozens of different flavors of Linux... some are targeting new linux users, other target the corporate environment etc... and of course a penguin is much more acceptable as a symbol than a window :p

/Raptor

[AirBlad3]

tnx everybody and one more last thing ?

wich kind of linux is the best ?

RedHat

Fedora

mandrake

i know every version is diffrent from each other

but plz give me your opinion and explain plz

tnx

[Fred Derf Veteran]

tnx everybody and one more last thing ?

wich kind of linux is the best ?

RedHat

Fedora

mandrake

i know every version is diffrent from each other

but plz give me your opinion and explain plz

tnx

Debian is the best. It's completely free and owned by no one.

Knoppix takes Debian (the testing version) and put it on a Live CD but it can also be installed to your hard drive.

Gentoo is also pretty cool because, like Debian, it has good package management.

With Gentoo you have the option to compile every part of it yourself which is a big undertaking but it promises to offer more speed since it is compiled for your hardware. I believe you can also perform quicker installations that use precompiled binaries. On the assumption that you can get Gentoo up and running in less than 24 hours by using precompiled binaries, I will be installing that later in the day.

I would personally avoid all of the RPM-based distributions that you mentioned. The entire concept of companies producing Linux for profit is somehow un-Linux.

[devilotX]

ITs the licensing that I like The ability to install freely on all my computers,

and I'd got with debian, Xandros or Knoppix HD install are great

[markwolfe Veteran]

Which Linux is best?

The one that does what you want it to. All of them can be managed. Some are easier to set up than others, and require more knowledge of the command line than you may currently have.

Start with a 'beginner' distro, like Fedora, Mandrake, SuSE and learn a bit about the OS and what it can do.

Then you can 'graduate' up to other distros when you figure out what you want out of Linux.

Whatever it is you want, chances are good that Linux can provide it! :yes:

[PseudoRandomDragon]

Personally, I think KDE looks 10x better than Windows. I also like the volume of useful software that comes with Mandrake. That ability to graph functions is really useful at times.

[d10p]

I'm running Gentoo...I like it cuz it's so easy to install things.

[kemical]

please lord make the pain stop

[Hardice]

lol

[htmc]

Does this sound like fun?

Does the idea of fighting your computer instead of working with it sound appealing?

Do you like performing the recompile-kernel dance?

Do you hate yourself?

Linux is great for learning how computers work, kind of like having to perform open heart surgery is a great way to learn how the circulatory system works. The end result may not be pretty, or even desirable, but you'll pick up a few things along the way.

A lot of people like to claim that Linux is ready for the desktop. It isn't. Anyone who thinks it is has defined "the desktop" so narrowly that even my pencil sharpener is "ready for the desktop".

So sure, repartition and play around with Linux, or install it in a virtual machine and give it a whirl. Then, when you've satisfied your inner nerd and want to go back to being humanistic, reboot back into Windows. It isn't sexy, it isn't cool, but then again neither is my pencil sharpener, but it certainly gets the job done very effectively.

If you're going to install, stay away from things like Gentoo and Debian. They're good for hardcore nerds who are experienced with linux and know what they're doing. For normal people, Fedora and SuSE are good starting-points. They make Linux easy to use and install, but the crufty, unpleasant bits are right beneath the surface for you to muck around with. Knoppix or SuSE LiveCD are both also good ideas, since they provide cd-based Linux distributions that allow you to get a feel for the OS without making any permanent changes to your harddisk.

PS. Don't let politics guide your choice of software. Mouth-breathing Linux ideologues are one of the biggest reasons why Linux is in the awful state it's currently in.

PPS. They're both equally insecure. There is nothing in the philosophy, architecture or design of either that makes it inherently more or less secure than the other. Don't make your choices based on this either.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

If you're going to install, stay away from things like Gentoo and Debian. They're good for hardcore nerds who are experienced with linux and know what they're doing... Knoppix or SuSE LiveCD are both also good ideas, since they provide cd-based Linux distributions that allow you to get a feel for the OS without making any permanent changes to your harddisk.

Debian is hardcore and should be stayed away from.

Knoppix is a good idea for a new user.

Yet Knoppix IS Debian. This doesn't seem very consistent to me.

[kongit]

I don't know what your deal with linux is, but in the course of 2 weeks I learned how to use linux to a usable extent. By then I had all the programs I wanted and got them working. Not only do they work better/ more stable then their window counterpart, they often look better too. Linux is ready for the desktop if you are prepared to use it. It is not as simple as windows, but instead involves you. By doing this you have much more control over programs and how they run. I have no problems recompiling kernels, and am doing so as I type this...on the same machine! Linux is more secure because of the way it is made and functions. With the user being a user and not the root, as long as you aren't logged in as the root people can't hack into your kernel unless they know your roots password (which in my case is 12 symbols...heve fun trying to break it). Also linux is far more stable. Linux has only crashed on me once and that is because I recompiled the kernel without my filesystem support.

While windows is nice, I feel it limits you. additionally linux runs faster, smoother and looks better than my xp on the same computer.

It is all a matter of preference: try it for a while and there is a good chance you will like it if you are willing to put in a little time to it. In my experience the only people that debase linux are those that are too lazy to learn how to use, to stubborn to learn how to use it, or to stupid to learn how to use it. Problems with linux, like windows, results from the user 95% of time. Windows has a better interface for the computer illiterate/ ignorant and so initial problems are far less. Linux isn't easy to install in many cases and learn how to use, however once you figure it out it is far easier to use.

That article you posted deals with an individual who was not willing to put the time into learning linux. Linux is not point and click to install. Some programs are harder to install than others. the individual instead of figuring out what was wrong went into a rant. crybaby. I have only found 2 programs I couldn't install and that was the programmers fault because of specific dependencies on libraries, and the order they had to be installed. I could most likely install them but I don't have the urge to reinstall libraries.

Please if you don't have something constructive to say in a help thread, say nothing at all.

[htmc]

I will now prepare a short list of things I did today in Windows that I couldn't have done in Linux. I've been up for 3 hours.

1. Webcam chat

2. Photoshop

3. Use iTunes music stoer

4. Use the sdcard slot on my computer

5. Sync with my PPC

6. Use bluetooth

7. Outlook

8. Watch a movie

Last I checked (yesterday), you can't do any of these things in Linux without a fight, if at all. You can't, as jwz pointed out, even watch movies without fighting. Linux may have alternatives, but nobody in their right mind would argue that Gimp is equivalent to Photoshop CS, or that your CAD program is equivalent to a real, commercially-available CAD system.

I have no problem with Linux itself. I think it's an interesting idea and it provides much-needed alternatives to Windows and MacOS. I don't, however, think it's the Holy Grail of computing and I don't think it benefits anyone to only sing its praises. He asked a simple question and I gave him a simple and truthful answer. You may prefer that I paint a rosy picture of Linux's usability state but it would be false and I don't think it's what he wanted.

I personally don't measure the utility of an operating system in terms of how easy it is to recompile a kernel (because I shouldn't have to) or some subjective measurement of "faster" or "smoother" or "looks better". I measure it in terms of how much work I have to put in to make the computer do what I want so I can get on with my life. Windows wins out and I will point that out to anyone who asks. If you don't like that, you're part of the problem.

I don't deny that you can learn to use Linux quickly. Linux developers have made great strides towards smoothing out the learning curve, but they haven't finished the job yet. What you don't understand is that I'm not writing Linux off as useless, I'm saying it's not ready yet. When it is, I'll be the first to switch over.

[htmc]

Debian is hardcore and should be stayed away from.

Knoppix is a good idea for a new user.

Yet Knoppix IS Debian. This doesn't seem very consistent to me.

This is because you are a typical linux user. Knoppix is debian without the unusable installer. It has all the advantages (apt) coupled with none of the disadvantages (it's already set up for you, you don't have to mess around with configuration).

I like the way you totally ignored the main points of my post in order to focus on something trivial and irrelevant. Fighting over distributions is just plain sad.

[kongit]

I do understand that you aren't writing linux off as useless, but your attitude about linux comes off as that it is useless. While I do nothing in linux that I can't do in xp, I do enjoy my linux experience more. I also believe that linux is ready. There is nothing for me that I can't do in linux but I can in windows. It isn't a struggle to install things if 1)you know what you are doing and 2) the developer wrote the program right. I had no problem getting mplayer to work. I downloaded it and had it installed and running in less then 10 minutes. additionally most of the major distributions include a video player, and much software which would have to be bought for windows. This saves on the struggle and time of installing it on windows. Mandrake comes with a very large variety of software which can be installed on the install of mandrake. You will have a perfectly functional desktop without installing any extra programs.

[htmc]

Yeah, that jwz. What a n00b.

Could you explain to me how you would do each of those 8 things in linux? In fact, just show me how to do a webcam chat in Linux and I'll be satisfied.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

I like the way you totally ignored the main points of my post in order to focus on something trivial and irrelevant. Fighting over distributions is just plain sad.

That was intentional. I happen to think that Linux needs a lot of work on the desktop. It's a heck of a long way away from me installing it on my mother-in-law's computer.

The major flaws are thus:

a) Too many window managers / desktop user interfaces. It's very inconsistent having all of these interfaces. Some applications work on GNOME some require KDE.

b) To many libraries. QT, GTK, others?

c) Too many binary packages. rpm tgz deb, others?

d) Too many scripting languages. python, php, others?

e) Too many fighting developers. XFree86.org, X.org, FreeDesktop.org, others?

f) Too many distrubutions. (too many to mention here)

g) Too many shells. Do we need to have five shells installed?

Competition is good to a point unless it's just three or more groups reinventing the wheel.

Linux needs an overall authority that picks one interface, picks one browser, etc... We need one distrubution that has the best of.

There have been some attempts to do this (unitedlinux) but they made the mistake of inviting SCO to the party (actually it was probably Caldera, pre-SCO but you get the point).

[htmc]

That was intentional.  I happen to think that Linux needs a lot of work on the desktop.  It's a heck of a long way away from me installing it on my mother-in-law's computer.

The major flaws are thus:

a) Too many window managers / desktop user interfaces.  It's very inconsistent having all of these interfaces. Some applications work on GNOME some require KDE.

b) To many libraries. QT, GTK, others?

c) Too many binary packages.  rpm tgz deb, others?

d) Too many scripting languages.  python, php, others?

e) Too many fighting developers.  XFree86.org, X.org, FreeDesktop.org, others?

f) Too many distrubutions.  (too many to mention here)

g) Too many shells.  Do we need to have five shells installed?

Competition is good to a point unless it's just three or more groups reinventing the wheel.

Linux needs an overall authority that picks one interface, picks one browser, etc...  We need one distrubution that has the best of.

There have been some attempts to do this (unitedlinux) but they made the mistake of inviting SCO to the party (actually it was probably Caldera, pre-SCO but you get the point).

Wait I'm confused.

What you're saying is actually making sense. That can't be right. Who are you and what did you do to the normal neowin readers?

I have a few more to add to your list:

h) Too many programs installed by default. kongit claims this is a 'feature'. I think it's ridiculous. I don't want 7 different text editors, each more flawed than the last. I don't want 4 different movie players, I just want 1 that actually plays the movie.

i) No installshield-analogue. Linux desperately needs a standardized package installation mechanism. This goes back to what you were saying about having too many binary package formats, but it goes beyond that. I want to double-click on an icon and have the software install without my having to fight dependencies or remember some unholy string of command-line arguments.

These considerations have led me to come up with a new slogan for Linux: JUST WORK, DAMN YOU!

[the evn show]

Could you explain to me how you would do each of those 8 things in linux? In fact, just show me how to do a webcam chat in Linux and I'll be satisfied.

It's been a while, but try "emerge gnomemeeting", then (i used a pinacle pctv card) in the settings window - under device settings for video device make sure it says /dev/video0 and audio device says /dev/dsp0 (i'm not sure if those are the default or not so just make sure).

Assuming you have drivers for your hardware installed (just like you would in os x or windows) you should be good to go. It worked for me with a window user on net meeting just fine.

If you're not using gentoo, then you'll have to install software however your distribution wants you too. Mandrake's documentation makes the process look pretty darn painless (much like the windows requirements for setting up webcams):

http://www.mandrakeuser.org/docs/mdoc/user/video-apps.html

EDIT: broken URL.

It's no iChat AV, but it's not terribly difficult either.

---

For video I find VLC does an excellent job. "emerge VLC" will get it installed, and you're good to watch DVDs, WMV, RA, etc videos. The OS X version now has OpenGL acceleration so it's only a matter of time before that shows up in the rest of the *nix and windows versions too.

[kongit]

Too many programs installed by default. kongit claims this is a 'feature'. I think it's ridiculous. I don't want 7 different text editors, each more flawed than the last. I don't want 4 different movie players, I just want 1 that actually plays the movie.

i) No installshield-analogue. Linux desperately needs a standardized package installation mechanism. This goes back to what you were saying about having too many binary package formats, but it goes beyond that. I want to double-click on an icon and have the software install without my having to fight dependencies or remember some unholy string of command-line arguments.

h) I was not calling it a feature, and in fact I dislike it. However I was responding to your post about struggling to install software. you don't struggle if it is already there.

i) I agree with you, this should be done.

And While I would never want to install linux on my parents computer, it is perfectly desktop ready for me, and for me that is all that matters. I also didn't say that I could do all 8 of the things you posted on linux, I said I could do everything I did in windows on linux. This is where I think we are getting confused. you are relating the linux enviroment to the majority of computer users. I am saying that it is perfect for me. It is all a matter of opinion.

[nuka_t]

2. Photoshop

4. Use the sdcard slot on my computer

7. Outlook

8. Watch a movie

when i ran lindows live i was able to watch a movie, a divx movie and a DVD. there is a mail manager in mozilla and yo ucan always download thunderbird. i was able to access my sdcard and i know GIMP offers ps functionality. i couldnt install anything or change any settings and i was able to do all that. but when i tried fedora i couldtn get it installed. BTW mandrake 10 was released today.