is Linux really free ?

[ultimatebob]

Anandtech linux section... regurgitating outdated-year-2000 anti-linux arguments since, well, 2000 (maybe before that).

It's sad, isn't it? You would think after 10 years at least some of the Linux distributions would have progressed to the point where you don't have to vi configuration files and compile kernel modules to fix driver issues. I was expecting it to be more like Mac OS X at this point, where configuration is automatic and any changes can be done through installing a downloadable package or making changes on a GUI control panel.

Don't get me wrong, I still love using it for building servers. But, seriously, how do we expect desktop Linux to gain market-share when it still takes an IT background to configure it properly?

 

[lxskllr]

It's sad, isn't it? You would think after 10 years at least some of the Linux distributions would have progressed to the point where you don't have to vi configuration files and compile kernel modules to fix driver issues. I was expecting it to be more like Mac OS X at this point, where configuration is automatic and any changes can be done through installing a downloadable package or making changes on a GUI control panel.

Don't get me wrong, I still love using it for building servers. But, seriously, how do we expect desktop Linux to gain market-share when it still takes an IT background to configure it properly?

Maybe you should have chosen a modern distro instead of Gentoo, or LFS. All the ones I've used have easily installed, and provided updates and software at the desktop, with minimal clicking. The only way it would get any easier is if Torvalds himself came over to push my buttons for me.

 

[Nothinman]

It's sad, isn't it? You would think after 10 years at least some of the Linux distributions would have progressed to the point where you don't have to vi configuration files and compile kernel modules to fix driver issues. I was expecting it to be more like Mac OS X at this point, where configuration is automatic and any changes can be done through installing a downloadable package or making changes on a GUI control panel.

Don't get me wrong, I still love using it for building servers. But, seriously, how do we expect desktop Linux to gain market-share when it still takes an IT background to configure it properly?

OS X is only as simple as it is because of the extremely limit hardware support and options that Apple gives you. You either do it Apple's way or not at all.

Hell, Windows requires an IT background to be configured properly as well. It's just that most people can get by with it very misconfigured.

 

[sourceninja]

It's sad, isn't it? You would think after 10 years at least some of the Linux distributions would have progressed to the point where you don't have to vi configuration files and compile kernel modules to fix driver issues. I was expecting it to be more like Mac OS X at this point, where configuration is automatic and any changes can be done through installing a downloadable package or making changes on a GUI control panel.

Don't get me wrong, I still love using it for building servers. But, seriously, how do we expect desktop Linux to gain market-share when it still takes an IT background to configure it properly?

In almost every desktop case I've had in the last 5 years, I've been able to fix it without a terminal (although it was faster to fix with a terminal). I have never recompiled a kernel for any reason except for when I ran LFS and gentoo.

Finally, on the server side, I'm glad all configuration can be done via text files. It makes writing scripts and headless administration much easier. No need to wait for someone to expose an api to configure some product, I just write my own tool.

 

[Kalessian]

Desktop Ubuntu guide for installing nvidia binary drivers: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BinaryDriverHowto/Nvidia

So a bubble pops up reminding you that video card drivers are available, you click that and them install them with a click. Package manager will keep you up to date automatically.

Windows method? Launch browser, navigate to site, download, open file, hit next a bunch of times, etc. nvidia app will remind you to update (very recently added).

Video codecs: Ubuntu, dl video file, double click. Popup will inform you that you do not have the required codecs, and asks if you would like to install them. You click yes a couple times and it will work. All codecs are automatically kept up to date.

Windows method: Launch browser, Download VLC, mpc-hc, ffdshow etc., launch, install (hit next a bunch of times), keep up to date yourself.

*side note* Windows 7 has built in codec overrides for lots of stuff, so actually getting the codec you want to use for certain players is a nightmare. It tooks me literally months of trial and error to finally figure out how to get everything working correctly, for this I ended up using sharky codec pack with extensive customization.


Big issue I've had in the past month with windows: Uncle tried to install a lame kodak printer with only win2000 drivers on an XP install. He's usually ok with this stuff on his own, sadly he forced the installation and somehow XP now won't even boot in safemode now. Entire thing had to be done over from scratch. Will the printer work in the new install? Remains to be seen.

 

[ultimatebob]

Desktop Ubuntu guide for installing nvidia binary drivers: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BinaryDriverHowto/Nvidia

Heh... funny you mention that, since I hosed my Dell XPS 15 by installing those drivers. The NVidia drivers at the time didn't support Optimus hybrid graphics, and installing them totally screwed up my video settings.

Other than that misstep, I kinda like Ubuntu.

 

[Kalessian]

See comment about having to reinstall windows due to printer drivers.

 

[Nothinman]

Heh... funny you mention that, since I hosed my Dell XPS 15 by installing those drivers. The NVidia drivers at the time didn't support Optimus hybrid graphics, and installing them totally screwed up my video settings.

Other than that misstep, I kinda like Ubuntu.

You can't hose a Linux install by installing video drivers. You can break X so it won't start, but the install is salvageable from the command-line. And that's something that is absolutely not true with Windows since there is no graphical cli.

 

[ultimatebob]

And that's something that is absolutely not true with Windows since there is no graphical cli.

Well, that's really not true either. You can almost always boot Windows into safe mode (or even a safe mode command line) to uninstall bad drivers, just like you can boot Linux into a lower runlevel to fix problems with XOrg.

 

[Nothinman]

Well, that's really not true either. You can almost always boot Windows into safe mode (or even a safe mode command line) to uninstall bad drivers, just like you can boot Linux into a lower runlevel to fix problems with XOrg.

The key words are "almost always". It's not guaranteed, where as with Linux it is guaranteed when you boot into single user mode because X doesn't even try to load. And worst case, I can boot up a Linux Live CD, mount the broken system and chroot into it and fix it that way. That's not possible with Windows.

 

[Kalessian]

Has windows safe mode command prompt actually ever helped anyone do real recovery work? I'm not talking about fixing the boot sector/partition tables, I mean as in finding a corrupt system file or config and replacing it?

I'm not even sure where I would begin with that kind of job. However I have done this in *nixes countless times when I was teaching myself arch/gentoo.

 

[Fallen Kell]

Heh... funny you mention that, since I hosed my Dell XPS 15 by installing those drivers. The NVidia drivers at the time didn't support Optimus hybrid graphics, and installing them totally screwed up my video settings.

Other than that misstep, I kinda like Ubuntu.

Why would you think you can install the generic drivers from Nvidia on a laptop when you can not even use them in Windows on laptops? Laptops are custom animals with the manufacturers tweaking everything including amount of memory for video cards from standards, and thus requiring custom drivers for the laptop for it to work.

 

[Nothinman]

Why would you think you can install the generic drivers from Nvidia on a laptop when you can not even use them in Windows on laptops? Laptops are custom animals with the manufacturers tweaking everything including amount of memory for video cards from standards, and thus requiring custom drivers for the laptop for it to work.

That's just not really true. The nVidia drivers for Linux are the exact same drivers for every desktop and mobile chip they've produced.

 

[hasu]

We paying this (sort of) "tax" is very common. It is not a tax per se but a part of the cost a business incurs while providing the product or service to the customer. That's the same reason why Windows is not free either. In the same line you can instead say we pay a tax of $700 to buy Windows Server 2008 standard. Like already said, the actual cost incurred is from administering the server and that administration over-head exists for all OSes. If there is a difference in cost of maintenance, that difference will reduce as more and more people start using it. Most enterprise level open source software(s) are not freely written by individual developers because they don't have any other work. They are employed by various companies so that the development costs are shared by different companies who want to use that software or sell support for that software. It is given out for "free" hoping that they can attract more people (read businesses) to use them so that they can share the cost among a larger group. This cost sharing can happen by way of shared development costs. In fact Microsoft did that too, by not enforcing anti-piracy especially in developing countries -- so that people will use their product as de facto standard and that will bring down the cost of expertise to maintain them (around the world). That was a kind of free marketing promotion or advertisement. In an open conference Steve Ballmer himself said something like, "If you are adamant that you want to pirate the operating system then pirate windows" - apparently because he did not want the cost of Administration to go up for windows.

I think the world is so big with 6 billion plus people in it. It can easily accommodate more number of operating systems than we regularly use.

 

[Vad3r]

Well, that's really not true either. You can almost always boot Windows into safe mode (or even a safe mode command line) to uninstall bad drivers, just like you can boot Linux into a lower runlevel to fix problems with XOrg.

well, for me this doesn't seem true. I un-installed Adobe Acrobat reader Version 4 (that I never really used) in September using Control panel add/remove. Windows hasn't booted since.
No "Last Working" no safe mode, no nothing, boots partially and restarts. I've tried it all. Command line using Windows CD to use system restore, repair xp with cd. All fails. Yes, even repair xp from cd failed. Totally hosed.
When i get round to it, guess i'll have to install fresh again. But you can, or at least it seems i can, totally destroy a windows install :/

 

[ArisVer]

How about Unix? Is it free? After all Linux started because of it.

 

[Nothinman]

How about Unix? Is it free? After all Linux started because of it.

Unix is a generic term and no, most of them aren't free. Linux started largely because it wasn't free and even though Minix didn't cost anything the license was too restrictive for Linus.

 

[JKoltner]

anyone remember that story of the kid who got expelled or whatever for handing out copies of Linux to his HS class mates? He was accused of pirating. lol

I hadn't heard that one, so I Googled it. Here's the result, for anyone who cares: http://austinist.com/2008/12/10/aisd_teacher_throws_fit_over_studen.php

Absolutely amazing. One of the teacher's quotes is exactly the same as what "friend #2" in this thread believes: "No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful."

It's really amazing how some people seem to have been brought up in some sort of hyper-Randian culture where everything has a price tag and you can never expect anyone to give you something out of the goodness of their heart or simpler for the betterment of society as a whole.

 

[JKoltner]

. And worst case, I can boot up a Linux Live CD, mount the broken system and chroot into it and fix it that way. That's not possible with Windows.

Actually you can just boot the Windows install DVD and boot into a recovery console. I'd grant you that it might not be as useful as a Linux Live CD -- precisely because so much of Windows' configuration tends to be stored in the registry, and often the only tools available to manipulate application-specific parts of it are GUI-based -- but the feature is there.

Windows-based recovery tends to rely more of having a working backup set than Linux does, I guess -- every time you do something "slightly risky" like installing a new drive, Windows automatically (with the default settings) creates a "system restore point," which is just a backup copy of the registry and various other important files. Not that it always works, mind you...

 

[JKoltner]

That's just not really true. The nVidia drivers for Linux are the exact same drivers for every desktop and mobile chip they've produced.

Agreed -- AMD and nVidia have pretty robust drivers these days that do a lot of chipset probing and figure out the exact features and memory you have. This makes their lives much, much easier whenever they bring out a new graphics chip...

Certain manufacturers -- Sony comes to mind -- like to change the chipset's ID so that you can't install the "generic" versions, unfortunately. Ostensibly this is so that their support team doesn't have to deal with as many different variations of drivers, but in practice there are dedicated web sites out there where people publish the generic drivers with the appropriate changed INF files so it doesn't really matter.

About the only time a laptop manufacturer might have an actual technical need to build some custom drivers is with "hybrid" systems that have, e.g., both chipset-based (Intel) graphics as well as a discrete GPU (nVidia) -- this combination often requires some custom hardware modifications/BIOS APIs that generic drives would have no knowledge of.

 

[Nothinman]

Actually you can just boot the Windows install DVD and boot into a recovery console. I'd grant you that it might not be as useful as a Linux Live CD -- precisely because so much of Windows' configuration tends to be stored in the registry, and often the only tools available to manipulate application-specific parts of it are GUI-based -- but the feature is there.

Windows-based recovery tends to rely more of having a working backup set than Linux does, I guess -- every time you do something "slightly risky" like installing a new drive, Windows automatically (with the default settings) creates a "system restore point," which is just a backup copy of the registry and various other important files. Not that it always works, mind you...

The recovery console isn't even close to the same thing as chrooting into another installation in order to fix it. You get some basic functionality like moving files around, enabling/disabling services/drivers and running chkdsk but that's about it. A chroot on Linux gives me a full shell within the other environment and I can do everything that I could do within it originally.

 

[imagoon]

The key words are "almost always". It's not guaranteed, where as with Linux it is guaranteed when you boot into single user mode because X doesn't even try to load. And worst case, I can boot up a Linux Live CD, mount the broken system and chroot into it and fix it that way. That's not possible with Windows.

If the Windows users that delete the 100MB "system" partition in Win7/2008r2 would get their panties untwisted, they would have the same thing. The 100MB partition is a recovery partition that works quite a bit like the "XXX-Kernel version (safe mode)" thing that quite a few distros pop in GRUB. It fully gives you access to repair the Windows installs.

--edit--

I see your point on the chroot post. However chroot can open its own can of worms but in recovery it is a lot rarer to see issues I have found.

 

[Nothinman]

If the Windows users that delete the 100MB "system" partition in Win7/2008r2 would get their panties untwisted, they would have the same thing. The 100MB partition is a recovery partition that works quite a bit like the "XXX-Kernel version (safe mode)" thing that quite a few distros pop in GRUB. It fully gives you access to repair the Windows installs.

--edit--

I see your point on the chroot post. However chroot can open its own can of worms but in recovery it is a lot rarer to see issues I have found.

Oddly, I don't think I've used the "(safe mode)" GRUB entries. Are they just normal single user? I always just hit e and add single or 1 to the command line if I need to fix something gets that broken.

Yes, chroot has it's own idiosyncrasies like the virtual mount points (e.g. /proc, /sys, etc) and /dev since that's dynamically managed by udev now. But it's still a lot more usable and functional than the practically worthless Windows Recovery Console.

 

[benbadge72]

Windows-based recovery tends to rely more of having a working backup set than Linux does, I guess -- every time you do something "slightly risky" like installing a new drive, Windows automatically (with the default settings) creates a "system restore point," which is just a backup copy of the registry and various other important files. Not that it always works, mind you...

Users can have a bin directory in their home directories. Within these can lie scripts which preform back ups. A user can also have a crontab which does hourly,daily,weekly,monthly,annual backups.

These scripts could direct the backups be stored off site via use of rsync, or maybe even removable media such as cds, dvds, flash drives. Windows doesn't own backing up data.

Usually, a good Linux system administrator will set up back ups for users. For example on a home network the server administrator can set up back up scripts to back up each user's data on the other computers.

Rough example illustration / explanation:

______ User A
Server { ______ User B
______ User C

And so on diagramming out a vast home network. (NB: Most home networks really are not terribly vast.)

The administrator would pull data to be backed up from each user's system, do the back ups from the server. NTFS is good for doing this, Samba could also be used. You could set up a policy similar to a Public directory for each user. Anything in ~/Backup would then be pulled accordingly to the server's cron job listings for backups.

I know Windows may also be capable of doing this. My point is backing up data is a concept, an idea. Nobody can really own ideas and thinking someone can is pretty backwards thinking in my opinion. This also leads me to see any argument of Windows or any operating system as better because it does back ups.

*chuckle*

Most of them can and do. Backing up data is a human idea and concept. Computers do what humans tell them, for the most part. Excuse me, think bash in Fedora has aliased rm -Rf / to ls, must go reset it.

 

[Blades]

Unity in Ubuntu isn't free..

It costs TIME. Lots and lots of time. On a slower ARM based system with crap for disk I/O, seppuku seems like a much better option.