Originally posted by: RobertAlvarez
Originally posted by: sourceninja
Originally posted by: Rifterut
Its true that you cant play new games in linux, this is why you dual boot.
As a long time linux user I am against dual booting. If you need windows, just use windows. Dual booting means wasting time to reboot when you are done gaming. Most users are just going to stay in windows and eventually they are just wasting a few dozen gigs of hard drive space on a OS they do not use.
Either quit playing windows games (and only play games with native linux or wine support) or just stay on windows.
I couldn't disagree more. I have been dual booting a while now and although there are certain things I have to do on XP that keep me dual booting, I find myself increasingly drawn to Linux.
If you partition your HD like I do, with data and docs on a separate partition from XP/Program installation (if you are not, I recommend it whether you go Linux or not for data safety), You can access all your files from Linux or Windows by setting up NTFS partitions. Linux reads/writes NTFS. You can even mount these partitions in your Home folder (similar to documents folder in XP), so that when it comes to sharing data, there is seamless integration between XP/Linux in a dual boot setup. It is easy and effective to dual boot. Linux takes 10 - 12 gigs for a full installation including a boatload of free software. Most of us are running HD's with at least 500 gigs these days, so to say you can't spare 10 - 12 gigs to dual boot, is a joke. Go for it. If you don't like Mint you can delete the partition, with no harm done.
Here is a nice thread on setting up your HD. There is an automatic partitioner that will safely grab some empty space from your HD and create a partition to install Mint/Ubuntu, which is great to start out. If you are a more advanced user, or just want to have a more custom setup check this thread out. It has good tips that can help almost anyone out in setting up their HD:
Considerations before you install
To try Mint Gloria (related to Ubuntu, but different, better and easier), go here:
Linux Mint 7: Gloria
Nice thing about keeping data separate from install is, it makes upgrading or installing Linux or XP substantially less of a hassle, plus if in the case of XP the installation partition becomes compromised you can just format and re-install, and then point My Docs to the partitions where your data is and your back in business.
I've tried the dual boot thing, and I've used linux from back before there was a ubuntu. It's not about not having enough space, it's about wasting space for no reason. Dual booting was the primary reason for why it took me 3 years to finally learn how to use linux operating systems. Every time I would get frustrated and boot into windows without solving my problem or learning something. It wasn't until I decided that I was not going to use windows without a valid license that I was finally forced to learn how to really use Debian (which was my distro of choice at the time). When I finally got a legal windows license and decided to build a gaming rig, I found that I was constantly playing the file shuffle. I didn't want to reboot into linux to check my email so I'd end up with two copies, one in outlook and one in evolution. If I wanted to find a sent message I had to remember if I sent it from windows or from linux. I ended up not really playing any games and just wasting a hundred gig of my 320 gig drive. I blew it away and sold that computer with the windows license on it.
This is my problem with virtualizing linux inside windows as well. It's fine if you are a well seasoned linux user and just want linux inside windows for task windows handles poorly. But for learning linux you will find nothing better then complete and total immersion. I still play games, only those that run native, in wine, or on my ps3/360/wii.
Originally posted by: soonerproud
That doesn't make any sense. Gamers tend to go with the latest and the greatest when it comes to hardware. Go hang out on any Linux forum and there are tons of people that complain when a distro requires more than 128 MB of memory and think thier circa 1995 hardware should still be supported by the major distros.
Looks to me like Linux is the OS any doorstop works on.
Linux can be anything to anyone. I think it's great if you can make a distro that runs on a 1995 computer. I have a version of gentoo running on a p3 with 128 megs of ram that used to function as a router. I don't use it anymore, but it is still running and getting updates (carefully chosen). I do feel that modern distros are doing the right thing by upping the requirements. But windows keeps tons of backwards compatibility and only with vista/7 are they really starting to break that trend. Look at how many users bitched they couldn't run directX 10 on windows XP.
Originally posted by: soonerproud
Except for the fact that the real world uses Windows in most cases to get real work done. While some enterprises and governments have moved to nix, the vast majority have to stick with Windows because that is the platform the apps they need to run to get work done is developed on.
Another thing, it is in most cases Linux that is the toy operating system since it is people that love to tinker with PC's that mainly use it on the desktop.
:evil:
I'd challenge the statement that most real world business apps are windows only. I've worked for very large corporations and we had very few software applications that were windows only. And I'd say 9 out of 10 of those applications had linux alternatives that met those features. Today more and more is becoming web applications with more and more targeting firefox as a browser of choice or using java on the backend. This is allowing platform neutrality. Big business sees the benifits of being neutral.
At my current job my tasks has been helping move us in a direction where we are not dependent on a single hardware vendor, nor a single software provider. This has helped me implement many large changes in our environment. For example, we are making sure all of our server software runs on more than just solaris. This means our current testing environment is all Redhat right now. We also have a few smaller virtual servers running ubuntu 8.04. Our major business logic runs on very large Sun servers and solaris, but we can easily move to windows servers, or linux servers from any hardware vendor.
On the desktop front end, this has brought a focus of changing our migration path for office. Previously we were moving from office 2003 to office 2007. Now we are moving to open office. This has brought almost 0 challenges because we made previous steps to help prevent those challenges. First we put a end to the macro farm excel use. We simply got a list of all core business logic that required excel, and made real applications instead. This helped streamline our backups, improve our workflow, and reduce our support. Second, we are in the process of converting all access databases into applications that use our database backend. This is a larger project, but it should be cleaned up fairly quickly. Finally, we have made the requirement that all media sent to the outside is in PDF or open document format. We have never used office for any important outside communications anyway, the marketing firm has always used adobe tools on macs.
Our final problem lies with crystal reports. We are implementing a trial in the next week of jasper reports. It appears that the free jasper tools can replace the functionality we are currently spending 10's of thousands a year on with crystal enterprise.
Once these changes have been made, we could move to linux or mac without much trouble. All that would be required is a retraining of the users on the new desktop interface. Tests in the field (giving users who are going on trips netbooks with ubuntu for example) have proven that most of our users have no problem after a quick 3 minute tutorial.
Beyond this we are constantly moving more of our employee's tools to online systems. Our employees do most of their work now in web portals and wikis. A good 50 or 60 % of our staff could work with only a web browser. Our core business logic uses oracle forms, which runs anywhere java runs for the most part. This means we have to do nothing for the most important thing our staff uses day to day to get it to run on linux.
Could we go windows free? Not likely. Some things we use will require windows. For example, we get contracts from companies to teach their employees skills. It's hard to teach those skills without windows computers. Our marketing department loves macs, so we won't be forcing a move to linux on them. In fact, we are not looking to move to linux so much as be positioned for any kind of change that may come about. Money is tight in education, so saving a few thousand here and there can really help.
So we will start with open source software on windows, then replace windows in areas that are easy and save us lots of money, or example our kiosk computers around campus. When all you need is a web browser, linux provides a much more secure and manageable environment at a very nice cost. We can keep the hardware low by using a very light window manager. We are leveraging heavy on virtualization, any area that windows is still a bit heavy in. I have virtual linux servers that use an average of 80 mhz and 50 megs of ram when idle. The windows machines are always using hundreds of mhz and ram. I can put at least 3 linux servers on our virtual servers for the space a single windows server typically takes. I also don't need to buy a license for each one of those.
But why does it have to be pure? Monocultures in my opinion are a bad idea. One machine got conflicker? Well then they probably all got it, because they were all on the same patch level, with the same OS, and the same security policies. So I say use windows where it makes sense, use linux where it makes sense, and use mac's where they make sense. If all your secretary does is write letters, use a web browser, and answer the phone, does she really need a license of windows and a copy of office?
Facebook
Twitter