New Linux Community + Why Windows article

[peekj]

Hi everyone,

I realize I'm new on these forums but I've spent some time at << spam >> and recently opened my own site with a similar focus as neowin but exclusively for Linux. The site is Tuxme.com, check it out if you like.

I've also written a new article entitle "Windows: Who needs it?". I've submitted it to neowin, so hopefully it will be posted on the main page. For now, here's an excerpt and the link to it:

Here?s the basic question: If you had the choice (and you do!), why would you choose Windows over Linux?

I don?t need it. I have every bit of functionality in Linux as I did in XP. This article includes a list of my typical setup in XP and Linux and the difference between them based on functionality (hint: There isn?t any).

Check it out here.

Thanks. I plan to be a:)und :)

[Zerosleep]

Man *nix is getting so trendy. I need to find a new OS.

[Shadrack]

get rid of all your advertisements and pop-up windows, and you'd have a cool site :). (at least the pop-ups, i mean come on.)

I need windows for lots of reasons, and they are all due to software titles and the need for hardware support. So I'm one who needs it. I also need linux for lots of reasons. Can do a lot of things with linux that I can't do with windows, and vise versa.

Why are so many people pushing articles that try to convince me otherwise?

[markwolfe Veteran]

Why are so many people pushing articles that try to convince me otherwise?

584866303[/snapback]

DISCLAIMER: This poster has not visited the above site, nor read the article in question. That said, in Neowin tradition, I am going to spout off at the mouth and give my opinion anyway.]

:p

I think articles of this type are more-or-less out there to promote awareness of the alternatives to what most people assume is the "only" OS you can get on your x86 PC. Believe it or not, there are still people who have not heard of "Linux" :o :shifty:

I don't mind these sorts of articles, as long as they are unbiased (not everyone should switch to Linux and Windows is not the haven for viruses and worms that some people claim it is).

Personally, on the other hand, I have made my choice after dual-booting for nearly 2 years, and now use 100% Linux on my boxes. And I haven't regretted it one bit. (Y)

[kyro]

i just moved my eyes over to ur site

1) pop ups shud go.

2) too many articles on frontpage or they look crowded.

3) good site. pop-ups go i will be frequenting ur site.

and ya... like mark said.. there are many ppl who havnt even heard of linux. so this is good as far as sites like this dont go bais.

:yes: keep up the good work.

[peekj]

Hey guys, popups where??

I'm using firefox, haven't noticed them, and I haven't added them.....

[peekj]

Seriously, I never put any popup ads on that page... what's going on? I haven't noticed any yet. Can you post some code or a screenshot or something?

[vbagaria]

you my dear have compared the applications available for both windows and linux to do certain tasks. but you havent compared the quality or the ease of use of applications, one example would be Ahead Nero and k3b.

[kyro]

wierd .. now its not popping them.... but i sure did get alarmed from my avantbrowser.

[nexx]

"As far as I?m concerned, Linux on the desktop is ready for two types of groups that currently use Windows:

People who are afraid of their computer and don?t dare start anything other than their email client and webbrowser.

People who know enough about their computer to get themselves in trouble, but also know enough to get out or be prepared (backups). In other words, Windows powerusers."

I could not agree more.

But a few questions/issues

1) Why compare PhotoshopCS with Photoshop6? I run PS7 fine under crossover office. (have not tried CS)

2) You say there is no need for a daemon tools alternative, that may be for .iso file swhere you can mount them natively, but you still need tools to handle .bin/.cue and the various other image formats, unless I'm mistaken?

3) I think MPLayer and Xine are better replacement for Real/Quicktime players.

[peekj]

I compared photoshop 6 with photoshop cs because they both do enough for my needs and I actually prefer 6. There's some changes in the menus and functionalities that I couldn't get used to in CS. Photoshop CS doesn't work under crossover office I believe and I didn't have version 7 available to me.

I didn't compare these apps to every little bit of functionality they have, just as far as I use them. In my personal use, I see no difference in ease of use between k3b and nero. Nothing noteable anyways.

Most people never use all of the functionality provided by a software package. That's why linux apps usually have less features... just the ones you'll actually use.

[markwolfe Veteran]

That's why linux apps usually have less features... just the ones you'll actually use.

584869188[/snapback]

I find the opposite is true for most of my apps. Linux apps have a multitude of features & options. xcdroast comes to mind, and it is feature-packed. vsftpd is another example. It is an ftp server with so many configuration options, you can get exactly what you want out of it.

Go to downloads.com and see what features you get for Windows apps from there (even the 'demo-ware' you have to pay for to get the features)

There are also examples that go the other way. OpenOffice.org adds a nice built-in PDF writer, but lacks some other advanced Microsoft-specific features. GIMP is very powerful, but lags (very) slightly behind the highest-end Photoshop offering (from what I am told).

I just think it is unfair to say that Linux apps have less features when I have found myself so amazed at what Linux offers.

[vhane]

I think most server applications have more features on *nix, but you can't say the same thing regarding the client applications. Of course, this is a gross generalization.

The stuff that I miss the most on *nix are good design applications. I'm always trying out whatever *nix design apps I can find, but unfortunately, they don't compare favourably to those available on the windows or mac platforms.

[peekj]

OK, you're right :)

Many have more features, but some do have less, it just depends. The point is that there's really nothing that I am lacking in linux.

A comment to Markjensen's link (linux users are spoiled) and someone's comment that there are too many distributions and it's confusing...

Isn't it sad that we've become so brainwashed by Microsoft with the ONE operating system, ONE windows, NO choice, that now when we have the choice, we get confused?!

Sad :no:

[MrA]

That's why linux apps usually have less features... just the ones you'll actually use.

584869188[/snapback]

I'm not sure about the graphical side, but on the command line side, there's a reason why 'linux apps' have less features. Infact, you'll find that any unix command line app has less features than the windows equivalent. Why? because it's the unix way. Have a few programs that do one thing (and do it well) and you can combine those together using piping to do great things. Usually better than the full-featured windows equivalent.

EDIT: I just looked at your site and the one big problem I have with it (and most other sites) is that it's not standards compliant. I ran the min page through the w3c's validator and it came up with 145 errors. Not good. One of the things open source people advocate is standards. You use firefox. Why not code a site that will properly be rendered in firefox (in compliance mode, not in quirks mode).

EDIT2: Add Linux From Scratch to your distro's page. It's a very different choice from the other ones you have (yes, it's very different from gentoo).

Edited November 5, 2004 by MrA

[peekj]

ah standards compliance... so much work that is... name an easy way to do that and I might...

[MrA]

ah standards compliance... so much work that is... name an easy way to do that and I might...

584870561[/snapback]

How is it so much work? If you had started the site with proper coding in mind, then this would be a non-issue.

[neatofx]

I like the site, I may have to read through it. Dont mind the Google ads considering Im using Firefox I dont see any popups (if they still are popping) So its all good to me. :)

[Shadrack]

peekj: getting your page standards compliant isn't hard, even if it is an all server side scripted page. Add a DTD at the top of your code, goto the w3c validator page and point your page to it. Have a copy of the HTML output of your page handy when it starts giving your line numbers that contain errors. Since it is scripted, if you have some code that is looping and it is writting some invalid HTML code you fix it in one place and like 50 errors go away.

It really isn't that hard, and it makes a big differenct (P.S. try to get everything working with the strict DTD)

-nic

[peekj]

DTD?

[Shadrack]

http://www.google.com/search?&q=DTD

First one on the list.

[peekj]

I don't think I have the time to learn how to create a DTD before I fix any "non-standard errors" on my pages... isn't there a standard line of code that I can add? or can't i just go to the w3c validator without one?

[MrA]

I don't think I have the time to learn how to create a DTD before I fix any "non-standard errors" on my pages... isn't there a standard line of code that I can add? or can't i just go to the w3c validator without one?

584871075[/snapback]

You don't need to create a DTD. All you need to do is to add a DOCTYPE tag as the first line of a page and have it point to the w3c's provided DTD. Lemme look it, It's a simple copy-paste action.

EDIT: Found it. Here's the one for strict (should go for this one):

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Here's the one for transitional:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">

If you use frames, use this one for the frames page:

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.dtd">

EDIT2: This is assuming you want to go for HTML 4.01 compliance. If you want XHTML, that's a different tag.

[peekj]

I can't put that as the very first line in my documents because the very first line has to be a php require line.

[peekj]

ok, so if this is incorrect: <td background="images/logo_filler.jpg">

How do you propose I fix that without losing what it does?