I know its cool to bash MS and all. But what can linux do that windows cant.

[Acanthus]

it seems you are just paralyzing any computer that switches to linux. You cant play games, and there isnt much support driver/software wise.

I want a serious answer, not just Linux rules! I'm looking at this with an open mind and i would like to know the advantages other than "its something else that works".

 

[xcript]

You can't play games, eh?

That's strange. I could've sworn I was playing UT2003, Counter-Strike & ArmyOps earlier.

Oh well, later.. :beer:

P.S.. Linux rules!

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: xcript
You can't play games, eh?

That's strange. I could've sworn I was playing UT2003, Counter-Strike & ArmyOps earlier.

Oh well, later.. :beer:

P.S.. Linux rules!

Ahh, what about Planetside, Everquest, Star Wars Galaxies, Baldurs Gate II, Soldier of Fortune II, Theif Gold, Hitman II, No one lives forever, Simcity 4, or GTA III, GTA III VC, or Warcraft III?

Edit: Dark Age of Camelot, Sacrifice, Black and White, Mechwarrior 4, Age of Empires: Anything, RTCW?, i really dont know what runs and what doesnt, im just naming off the games i like. I didnt list Neverwinter Nights because i know there is a Linux version of the game out now.

 

[xcript]

RTCW / ET are supported natively.

Games which work under Wine[X]:

Everquest, Baldurs Gate II, SoF II, SimCity 4, GTA III, Vice City, Warcraft III, Sacrifice, & Black and White.

Games which currently do not work under Wine[X]:

Planetside, Star Wars Galaxies, Theif Gold, Hitman II, NOLF, Dark Age of Camelot, Mechwarrior 4, & Age of Empires.

As far as I know Doom III & Half-Life 2 are to be released with native linux support.

Originally posted by: Acanthus
i would like to know the advantages other than "its something else that works".

Egads. This subject has been beaten.to.death. Just use the search function in any OS related forum and you'll encounter innumerable threads pertaining to this very topic.

But if you really need us to start offering specific examples, I'm sure there are many here who will be only too happy to oblige (especially those debian-heads, they're crazy :Q).

Later.. :beer:

 

[pitupepito2000]

I used to be a Windows user, but the first time I tried Linux I wasn't really convinced by it because of the steep learning curve. Now after a almost a year of using Linux I am almost ready to do away with Windows. There are many things that Linux has and Windows doesn't:

1. Bash, The linux bash shell is something which I love and it allows me to do tasks very fast and once you learn the tips and tricks of it you can do scripts that will automate a lot of your tasks.

2. With Linux you can actually say I know how to use a computer vs. Windows you can say I know how to call the tech support guy.

3. Linux gets bugs repaired a lot faster than Windows.

4. Great community and developer support.

5. Linux users groups which help you out whenever you have a problem.

6. I use Debian and let me tell you that windows has nothing that compares to apt-get. The ".deb" is the system package used by debian and it allows me to install programs without any dependencies problems like you would normally have with rpms. With Debian you can install a program and have it running just by typing "apt-get install tuxracer" where tuxracer is the name of the program. Apt-get checks a database in your computer and makes sure you have everything needed in order to run a file.

7. Did I mention apt-get

8. Linux is built under a very good security Schema and there are other open source operating systems such as OpenBSD which is the most secure operating system by default out of the box.

9. You can update your system and apply patches a lot faster than windows because you just have to type "apt-get update" and "apt-get upgrade" and woola you have upgraded all the programs in your computer system and applications compared to windows which only updates the system files.

10. The web browsers such as konqueror is the best and has a lot of functionalities which are a whole lot better than IE.

11. It's Free

12. You can have a very cheap http server, file server, email server, dns, printer server, you mention any type of server and linux probably can do it.

13. You have a lot of choices for programs to use.



Really you should try Linux if you haven't tried it yet I would say burn a copy of "Knoppix" do a google search for it and you know why a lot of us love linux.

 

[notfred]

Linux is immune to gator, klez, nimda, bonzai buddy, etc...

 

[boran]

Originally posted by: pitupepito2000
[...]2. With Linux you can actually say I know how to use a computer vs. Windows you can say I know how to call the tech support guy.
[...]

ehm, I dont want to say I know win2K inside out, but I'm close to that knowledge, linux ppls always compare windows users to ppls that cannot solve problems (which you have to do a lot in linux) compared to linux win2K might be a lot easier to learn completely, and that knowledge might not be a requirement for using the OS it is always handey to prevent "tech support calls" (which I never ever had to make by the way, it costed me a 100 format's over the past years, but learning by trial and error is still teh best way imho) with linux however, you need to have a decent knowledge of your OS before even being able to do simple things as install a program (apt get made this somewhat easier)

imho linux as it is today will never become a desktop OS, unless you hand every household a systems engeneer to maintain that OS, I just dont see my mom being able to work with a command line, or any linux text editors, which have the strangest arsenal of keyboard shortcuts I've ever seen in my life (well they're not really shortcuts, scince there is no other way to do it, you need to know those shortcuts or it's a no go)

that's just my toughts tho, dont flame me for em

 

[Sunner]

While I agree Linux isn't ready for the avarge Joe right now, the old argument of CLI and crappy editors is old and no longer relevant.
Take RedHat 9 for example:
Entirely graphical installer, unlike just about any other OS.
You don't have to touch the CLI once if you don't want to, but if you want it, it's there.
You have gedit, which is lightweight, but far better than Notepad.

That's not to say RedHat would work for your mom, Im just saying CLI/vi aren't good reasons why anymore.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: boran
imho linux as it is today will never become a desktop OS, unless you hand every household a systems engeneer to maintain that OS, I just dont see my mom being able to work with a command line, or any linux text editors, which have the strangest arsenal of keyboard shortcuts I've ever seen in my life (well they're not really shortcuts, scince there is no other way to do it, you need to know those shortcuts or it's a no go)

Sheesh man! :Q What century are you from. After the initial set up of most linux distros you can forget the existence of the CLI and vim. There is a great number of notepad-like editors with a GUI, so unless your mouse is broken, that shouldn't be a problem. And in most "consume-friendly" distros, you can completely ignore the existence of a CLI.

Originally posted by: Acanthus
it seems you are just paralyzing any computer that switches to linux. You cant play games, and there isnt much support driver/software wise.

I want a serious answer, not just Linux rules! I'm looking at this with an open mind and i would like to know the advantages other than "its something else that works".

Unless you have unusual hardware or something like that, you won't really be worried too much about drivers, and for support with Linux apps just post somewhere, politely, and you should get an answer

And now to establish a ground floor, Linux can do everything windows can (when realplayer works.....). The only thing that isn't quite up to par is the games support, but xcript has already addressed that.

 

[thedan]

Linux has a steep learning curve, but I like the way you can customise your GUI quite alot.

Its pretty daunting for new users. I'm a seasoned Windows person, but with linux, you try to install a driver/software/update and it just doesn't work most of the time, and for a new user, it doesn't offer much help to your problem.

 

[Agamar]

I manage both Linux and Win2k machines. I really like linux but I like it only for certain things. As far as servers go, Linux does Web, DNS and DHCP better than Win2k (IMHO). Win2k does domain login / printing / user folders better / easier than Linux. If a linux solution would come out that could totally replace my domain system (including automatically installing printer drivers on install), then I would probably switch.

 

[Nothinman]

Fully function OS that runs from CD, network, ramdisk, etc.
You can change motherboards without breaking anything (provided you prepare first).
You can change storage systems (i.e. IDE->SCSI) without breaking things.
You can talk directly with the developers of a lot of software and drivers, for free, when you have problems or requests.
You never need to reboot to update software.

including automatically installing printer drivers on install)

That can be done with Samba.

As far as I know Doom III & Half-Life 2 are to be released with native linux support

Doom III I'm sure of because all other id games have had native Linux ports, but HL 2 I'm not so sure about, I'll buy it if there is a Linux port though.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: thedan
Linux has a steep learning curve, but I like the way you can customise your GUI quite alot.

Its pretty daunting for new users. I'm a seasoned Windows person, but with linux, you try to install a driver/software/update and it just doesn't work most of the time, and for a new user, it doesn't offer much help to your problem.

Drivers I can understand, but most of the time those included with the OS work fine. The only times that you need to worry about drivers is if you have *unusual hardware*. And generally if you read the README files, you're good to go.

Installing software doesn't work most of the time?!? I'm sorry dude but you're quite wrong, and I'm going to assume that you didn't mean to say that because it actually sounds like you have no idea what you're talking about. So if *most* of the programs that you're trying to install don't work, then what's the use of the OS

Updating is only hard if you use a distro without packaging system, in which case you're simply getting what you asked for

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

including automatically installing printer drivers on install

That can be done with Samba.

Yup. I have this setup with CUPS and Samba - works very nicely.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

What can windows do that linux can't?

It seems you are just paralyzing any computer that runs windows. You don't have access to a useful command line, and everything tries to limit what you can do.

I want a serious answer, not just Windows rules! I'm looking at this with an open mind and i would like to know the advantages other than "its something else that works".

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
What can windows do that linux can't?

It seems you are just paralyzing any computer that runs windows. You don't have access to a useful command line, and everything tries to limit what you can do.

I want a serious answer, not just Windows rules! I'm looking at this with an open mind and i would like to know the advantages other than "its something else that works".

Uhhhhh....... Duhhhhh......... Wellll............. Windows has this really cool looking blue screen that pops up when you get an error and Billl Gates is filthy rich! Ha! I bet Linux can't top that!







j/k

 

[Rainsford]

A better question would be, what can windows do that linux can't? That's really the question today. Linux is becoming more and more capable. The only thing right now keeping me on windows is games. Everything else I want to do can be accomplished with a Linux solution that is often better than the windows one.

Now of course this doesn't really answer your question, so here goes. In the broad sense, Linux (and the BSDs as well, which are actually my server OSs of choice) allow you to have true control over what your system does and how it works. Windows does not. For example, on my FreeBSD server I recently compiled a custom kernel for the first time. It was a relativly simple process that worked the first time. I cut out many things I didn't use (example, SCSI support since I have no SCSI devices) and got the kernel down to half the size. This helps performance and keeps out parts of the kernel that I don't use so they can't cause any problems or just simple system bloat. In Windows, if you don't want a part of the kernel. Tough. In Windows Server 2003 for example, IIS components are built into the kernel. Now even if you aren't running a webserver, you are stuck with them. What if a security flaw or a bug is present in those components that you are forced to have in your kernel, even though you don't use them? As an IT guy I can tell you that really frosts my shorts.

That is just one obvious example of course. I would suggest actually reading up on the topic simply because as I learned more and more about Linux and the BSDs, more and more things came up that I wished I could do in Windows. And you'll also find out it's not just for computer guys and girls either. The lack of problems not of my own doing because I was "playing" would encourage me to set up a Linux system for someone who just wants to check their email and listen to music.

 

[Spyro]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
A better question would be, what can windows do that linux can't? That's really the question today. Linux is becoming more and more capable. The only thing right now keeping me on windows is games. Everything else I want to do can be accomplished with a Linux solution that is often better than the windows one.

Now of course this doesn't really answer your question, so here goes. In the broad sense, Linux (and the BSDs as well, which are actually my server OSs of choice) allow you to have true control over what your system does and how it works. Windows does not. For example, on my FreeBSD server I recently compiled a custom kernel for the first time. It was a relativly simple process that worked the first time. I cut out many things I didn't use (example, SCSI support since I have no SCSI devices) and got the kernel down to half the size. This helps performance and keeps out parts of the kernel that I don't use so they can't cause any problems or just simple system bloat. In Windows, if you don't want a part of the kernel. Tough. In Windows Server 2003 for example, IIS components are built into the kernel. Now even if you aren't running a webserver, you are stuck with them. What if a security flaw or a bug is present in those components that you are forced to have in your kernel, even though you don't use them? As an IT guy I can tell you that really frosts my shorts.

That is just one obvious example of course. I would suggest actually reading up on the topic simply because as I learned more and more about Linux and the BSDs, more and more things came up that I wished I could do in Windows. And you'll also find out it's not just for computer guys and girls either. The lack of problems not of my own doing because I was "playing" would encourage me to set up a Linux system for someone who just wants to check their email and listen to music.

Nicely put, dude! All must bow before Rainsford, the cognitive cow!

Considering tha most people say that Linux isn't for a desktop OS, its amazing that you can listen to music, type office documents, browse the net, and check your email with such ease. Considering that those are the things that the great bulk of people use their PCs for, I don't quite see what's the problem. On old pcs with windows 98 installed on them, they will greatly benefit from the extra functionality and stability of the os. On those pcs installing linux is an upgrade, no matter what angle you look at it from. For those who use XP and 2000, though. They will gain the massive flexibility, freedom, and freeness of the Linux OS.

 

[Bulldog13]

If I remeber correctly Debian is a relatively "advanced" distro. Is there a n00bler friendly distro that supports apt-get? I kind of like the concept of apt-get.

 

[Nothinman]

Apt can be installed on any RPM based distro (RedHat, Mandrake, etc) but there's significatnly less packages available and IMO the Debian packages are much higher quality. If you can read the docs on Debian's site you shouldn't have too much trouble getting through the install.

 

[Bulldog13]

Word. Thx.

 

[TerryMathews]

Most of what Linux can do that Windows can't lies in the realm of services and network protocols. Linux still supports AppleTalk, where Microsoft depreciated it. As a matter of fact, you can use a Linux box to translate PostScript to a printer's native language, making a print server for Macs. Doesn't require a whole lot, CUPS, ghostscript, and netatalk is all you really need.

Also, the "Windows supports more hardware than Linux does is BS". Name some things. I can rattle off a bunch of hardware that Linux still actively supports that Microsoft depreciated a long time ago. Perfect example is MJPEG video capture cards like the Iomega Buz. Hasn't worked in Windows since Win98. Yet you can find a working driver for Linux kernel 2.6.0-test. There's a lot more, and granted it's older hardware but that doesn't make it any less useful.

Linux supports most new hardware. All nVidia graphics cards + the nForce chipsets are supported. As are SoundBlaster Live and Audigy cards. And every LAN chipset I've seen. And most 802.11b cards. And the list goes on and on and on...

 

[Acanthus]

I was going to give Red Hat 9 a shot last week on one of my servers that wasnt in use at the time. It doesnt seem like Asus has any drivers at all for the Intel I850E based P4T533-C. Being a pretty common mobo i immediatly decided if i was going to go linux, i would have to go Nforce or something else simple for my 1st try.

Ive read every post and thank you for the honest/non-flaming replies.

So for my 1st shot at linux which version does everyone reccomend? Debian? Red Hat? Free BSD? Mandrake? Id like to build a Proxy server around it if that wont be too too hard. Do any of these OS's support bridging multiple connections? I'm having a 2nd DSL line installed soon and im gonna need to bridge the 2 1500k/768k lines.

Thanks again for the help!

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
So for my 1st shot at linux which version does everyone reccomend? Debian? Red Hat? Free BSD? Mandrake?

Yes.

Id like to build a Proxy server around it if that wont be too too hard. Do any of these OS's support bridging multiple connections? I'm having a 2nd DSL line installed soon and im gonna need to bridge the 2 1500k/768k lines.

I'm not a plumber, but my understanding is that this mostly depends on your ISP and what kind of arrangement you have with them. If it's OK on the network side, then Linux can handle the OS part for you.

 

[chsh1ca]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I want a serious answer, not just Linux rules! I'm looking at this with an open mind and i would like to know the advantages other than "its something else that works".

- Run all of the following software on a Pentium II 300 with 128MB of ram and a 1.2GB HDD at speed without crashing or being vulnerable to a load of bugs:
Web Server
FTP Server
DNS Server
DHCP Server
SMTP Server
IMAP3 Server

- Currently, no Windows Operating System (that I am aware of anyways) supports ANY advanced networking or firewalling capabilities like DNAT/SNAT, Port forwarding, Stateful packet inspection, configurable port blocking, alternate response methods, etc..

- Run it on other than Intel's x86 Architecture (Granted, XP Embedded runs on ARM procs, and there WAS that Alpha version of NT, but generally, the consumer-available OS can't do it).

- Driver/software support is better in Linux than it is in Windows XP.

- The very nature of unixes allows some pretty cool things to be done, because every i/o device is seen as a file. I can detail these things if you like, but they are all things that cannot be done on Windows by the OS itself.

- Support for things like ramdisks is built into the kernel, and that lets you do things like create a 640MB bootable distribution on which you can get everything you could with a default Win2K install at ~1.2GB and more. I've seen bootable CD distributions that run X that come in at under 50MB.

- Finally, FreeBSD is a BSD, not Linux, so don't confuse the two, they are very separate.