Linux is free, right?

[Heisenberg]

<< Mandrake is based on RedHat, uses the same package format, but is optimized for multimedia and gaming.

It is your best bet.



<< theres so many linuxes! which one do i get? i know my brother uses redhat linux, but i dont know a thing. im a windows freak >>

>>



Not exactly. All distro's of linux use the same kernel. Each company then just builds around the kernel what they want to in terms of applications, GUI's, etc.

 

[LongCoolMother]

okay, im downloading mandrake linux ISO right now then. ah gad, its gonna take half n hour...only 300kb/sec...

 

[silveronsilver]

From the original story:

"without to inform, Windows XP transmits the data of your computer at Microsoft. Particularly disturbingly is that this data communication in the background runs off and can be determined only with difficulty, what everything is spied. Which happens with the secretly explored data, anyhow one does not betray."

The spyware activity appears to be associated with the automatic update service that runs in the background.

 

[ultimatebob]

<< okay, im downloading mandrake linux ISO right now then. ah gad, its gonna take half n hour...only 300kb/sec... >>




Just ONE? I thought that Mandrake Linux 8.1 came on 3 CD's, just like RedHat.

 

[silveronsilver]

<< Just ONE? I thought that Mandrake Linux 8.1 came on 3 CD's, just like RedHat. >>



Disc 1 is mandatory. Discs 2 and 3 are optional.

 

[LiQiCE]

ultimatebob,

I believe, like RedHat, that the first CD is the actual OS, the 2nd and 3rd CDs contain source code, and bonus applications. I think in the latest RedHats there is even a 4th CD which contains even more applications.

 

[Heisenberg]

<< ultimatebob,

I believe, like RedHat, that the first CD is the actual OS, the 2nd and 3rd CDs contain source code, and bonus applications. I think in the latest RedHats there is even a 4th CD which contains even more applications. >>



Redhat 7.2 is three discs. The first two you need, the third is a powertools disc that is optional.

Edit: 7.2 only has two discs (you need them both) and two optional source discs. 7.1 had the third powertools disc.

 

[LongCoolMother]

ooh! so i have to download the EXTRAS cd too! and the SUPPLEMENTAL cd! thnx for tellin me!

 

[silveronsilver]

<< ooh! so i have to download the EXTRAS cd too! and the SUPPLEMENTAL cd! thnx for tellin me! >>



Windows sells you ONE CD for $300.

Mandrake gives you THREE CDs for FREE.

There is no comparison!

 

[LiQiCE]

Heisenberg,

Oh you need 2 CDs now? I haven't downloaded RH in a long time, it was only 1 disc required when I got it ... The version you buy (the one for $50 in the stores or whatever it is) though comes with 4 discs doesn't it? I thought the fourth disc contains extra apps that are either shareware or more commercialized? Could be wrong I just remember they purchased it at my old office and I think there were 4 discs.

 

[ultimatebob]

<<

<< Just ONE? I thought that Mandrake Linux 8.1 came on 3 CD's, just like RedHat. >>



Disc 1 is mandatory. Discs 2 and 3 are optional. >>



Yeah, you're right... but he'll probably want to download the disk 2 ISO as well. There is a lot optional apps and utilities on that CD that he'll want to try out.

 

[Heisenberg]

<< Heisenberg,

Oh you need 2 CDs now? I haven't downloaded RH in a long time, it was only 1 disc required when I got it ... The version you buy (the one for $50 in the stores or whatever it is) though comes with 4 discs doesn't it? I thought the fourth disc contains extra apps that are either shareware or more commercialized? Could be wrong I just remember they purchased it at my old office and I think there were 4 discs. >>



Yeah, you need 2 discs. The other two discs contain the source RPMs for a bunch of stuff if you want to compile them yourself, but I never bother downloading them. Redhat sells different versions of their OS (workstation,server,etc.) so it may be what your office bought is different from what you download.

 

[Hyperblaze]

This is so friggin hilarious how some of you actually say that Linux isn't ready for home use. Maybe it's because I grew up in slackware linux but Linux (especially the Mandrake Distrubition) is definately ready for desktop use. It's more advance then Windows XP in many areas. Yes there is a learning curse, I'll agree to that. but wasn't there also a learning curve (almost wrote curse) in learning Windows? I remember back when I was using Windows 3.1 and decided to learn Windows 95, I so wanted to go back to Windows 3.1 because i didn't know Windows 95! Linux is a different environment then Windows, I know (and thank god for that too!), but if you decide to learn it with the same dedicated to learned Windows with, then you won't have a problem. Also, if you decide to learn linux, the chances of getting your machine infected with a virus are minimal at best. There are I think 7 known viruses in linux, while there are over 1000s in windows. Some people say that it's only a matter of time before people start writing viruses for linux. Yeah right, it's because windows is INSECURE and INFERIOR that so many viruses are written for it.

As for the guy who said "linux is free only if your time is worthless"

well, guess what, "windows isn't free and it STILL takes time to learn it".

Don't wish to to start a flame OS war either, but some of the things you guys said against linux is so one-sided. Thought i'd bring up a few points you missed.

 

[Croton]

what a heated discussion

so what is the difference between buying linux in astore and d/l'ing it?

also, i have d/l'ing at 30kbit/s. sucks!

 

[Hyperblaze]

<<

<< Heisenberg,

Oh you need 2 CDs now? I haven't downloaded RH in a long time, it was only 1 disc required when I got it ... The version you buy (the one for $50 in the stores or whatever it is) though comes with 4 discs doesn't it? I thought the fourth disc contains extra apps that are either shareware or more commercialized? Could be wrong I just remember they purchased it at my old office and I think there were 4 discs. >>



Yeah, you need 2 discs. The other two discs contain the source RPMs for a bunch of stuff if you want to compile them yourself, but I never bother downloading them. Redhat sells different versions of their OS (workstation,server,etc.) so it may be what your office bought is different from what you download. >>



Actually...if you want to go full out...there are 5 cds for Red hat, 3 of them being optional.

Have fun! But please beware that redhat is concentrating more on the server market while mandrake is concentrating on more the desktop market (although technically, they cover both, but they have different strengths).

 

[im2smrt4u]

Just keep in mind that any Linux is going to take some trial and error to get working right. I personally have screwed over my machine many times over! I probably installed a dozen times before I got something useful! :Q

im2smrt4u

 

[Hyperblaze]

<< what a heated discussion

so what is the difference between buying linux in astore and d/l'ing it?

also, i have d/l'ing at 30kbit/s. sucks! >>




Buying provides you with tech support from redhat.

downloading it, your on your own at finding support. But not to worry, there are mailing lists and newsgroups for just about everything in linux

 

[LiQiCE]

Jero,

I beg to differ with you in terms of the learning curve that is associated with Linux and Windows. Yes, Windows has a learning curve, but its a lot less than Linux is. With Linux you have the problem that you need to sortof hunt for everything. You wanna find the way to change something? You have to figure out what directory the config file is stored in. Its not as easy as going to the control panel. I had a lot of problems when I installed Linux, simply because I knew what I wanted to do but I couldn't find where I needed to go to change it! I ended up spending tons of time online looking for the web page to tell me what I needed to do. With Windows, I can usually just sortof blindly go around and click here or there and eventually find what I want ... it makes more sense when you're looking for the properties of a certain component, to goto the Control Panel and look up Network Options, instead of having to know that you need to goto /etc/hosts to change your hostname (I know this is a bad example because linuxconf will let you change this option, but there are a lot of options that linuxconf will not let you change, and you would have to go through the same searching to find it). Again, I'm not saying Linux is bad, it just isn't made for someone who knows next to nothing about computers. I'm sure within a few years it will get to that point, but it just isn't there yet.

IMHO and this is ONLY *my opinion*, Linux and Unix are better off on servers right now rather than being the OS you get when you buy a computer from Dell. (Again, not counting Mac OS X).

 

[Rahminator]

Linux is great for servers. On the desktop, it sucks. Can you run Photoshop on it? What about Agent Newsreader? Ahead nero, CloneCD, PowerDVD, Morpheus, Counter-Strike, Max Payne, RTCW, pick-any-game? I'll admit there are some games that work on Linux, but you can count those of the fingers of one hand (if you're normal and have 5 fingers that is). Oh and don't forget that Linux community doesn't really want Linux on the deskop of Soccer Mom and Joe Sixpack. Is there a better office suite than MS Office XP? Linux may have alternatives that may get the job done on the desktop, but those apps aren't nearly as polished as Windows equivalents nor are they nearly as easy to operate and installation of programs is a pain b/c in most cases you have to access the console and type in some instructions. I have a friend who thought that to install a patch all you have to do is download a file to your deskop and leave it there. If doubleclicking is too hard to figure out for that average person, do you think he would know what commands to use in a console to install something or even know what a console is?
What about support for the newest hardware? I want to walk in to CompUSA, pick any piece of hardware and make it work on my Linux PC. Not gonna happen. Until that happens, Linux will never be a true desktop system alternative for the average guy. Cmon guys, don't fool yourselves. Most people on computer-related forums are hardcore enthusiasts and may indeed have a use for Linux, but to say that Linux is great for EVERYBODY in the whole damn world is ludicrous.
Leave Linux in the server world 'cause it doesn't stand a chance on the desktop.

 

[Pepsi90919]

<< Linux, which has never and will never have spyware. >>

i will remember to quote you on that.

 

[Croton]

does seti@home come w/a linux version? heheh

 

[Hyperblaze]

<< Jero,

I beg to differ with you in terms of the learning curve that is associated with Linux and Windows. Yes, Windows has a learning curve, but its a lot less than Linux is. With Linux you have the problem that you need to sortof hunt for everything. You wanna find the way to change something? You have to figure out what directory the config file is stored in. Its not as easy as going to the control panel. I had a lot of problems when I installed Linux, simply because I knew what I wanted to do but I couldn't find where I needed to go to change it! I ended up spending tons of time online looking for the web page to tell me what I needed to do. With Windows, I can usually just sortof blindly go around and click here or there and eventually find what I want ... it makes more sense when you're looking for the properties of a certain component, to goto the Control Panel and look up Network Options, instead of having to know that you need to goto /etc/hosts to change your hostname (I know this is a bad example because linuxconf will let you change this option, but there are a lot of options that linuxconf will not let you change, and you would have to go through the same searching to find it). Again, I'm not saying Linux is bad, it just isn't made for someone who knows next to nothing about computers. I'm sure within a few years it will get to that point, but it just isn't there yet.

IMHO and this is ONLY *my opinion*, Linux and Unix are better off on servers right now rather than being the OS you get when you buy a computer from Dell. (Again, not counting Mac OS X). >>



Have you by any chance tried out Mandrake Linux 8.1? It's control panel and configuration menu are quite extensive. And I do know that, in the past, to be comfortable in linux, you pretty much had to have the hacker kind of attitude. Exporing till you find the answers. But it's much easier to fix errors now then it used to be.

Again, like I said in my previous post, I grew up in slackware, so, even installing redhat 5.2 was too much like windows for me. I wasn't ready for the gui way. But now, since Mandrake Linux is the one which I find detects my hardware with the least trouble (yes I know, I'm getting lazy), I use that.

My perception of where linux is at might be a bit different then some other people but I honestly, believe that someone would have a easier time in linux then in windows. But they need to be willing to learn how to do whatever they need to do (and that can just go as far as click click click in KDE or GNOME).

No I wouldn't trust a full newbie to computers in front of a linux machine, but I would trust them even less on a windows machine. Do you realize just how much more damage they could cause on a windows machine?

 

[Michael]

Yes, there are SETI@Home versions for linux (a few different versions, actually).

I run both Windows and Linux at home. For many things, Windows works better. For others, Linux is better. I have a couple of machines on my home network that basically just run SETI. Linux was a much better choice for them as it was free.

Well over a year ago Russ posted messages wondering why Linux was useful. He uses it all the time now for specific uses.

Michael

 

[LiQiCE]

Jero,

I haven't had the chance to try Mandrake out except for a VERY old version which was somewhere around when RedHat 5 or 6 was out ... So I suppose I'll have to give it a shot again to see what I've been missing out on (although with a 56k modem I dont think I'll be downloading it anytime soon)

 

[Hyperblaze]

<< Linux is great for servers. On the desktop, it sucks. Can you run Photoshop on it? What about Agent Newsreader? Ahead nero, CloneCD, PowerDVD, Morpheus, Counter-Strike, Max Payne, RTCW, pick-any-game? I'll admit there are some games that work on Linux, but you can count those of the fingers of one hand (if you're normal and have 5 fingers that is). Oh and don't forget that Linux community doesn't really want Linux on the deskop of Soccer Mom and Joe Sixpack. Is there a better office suite than MS Office XP? Linux may have alternatives that may get the job done on the desktop, but those apps aren't nearly as polished as Windows equivalents nor are they nearly as easy to operate and installation of programs is a pain b/c in most cases you have to access the console and type in some instructions. I have a friend who thought that to install a patch all you have to do is download a file to your deskop and leave it there. If doubleclicking is too hard to figure out for that average person, do you think he would know what commands to use in a console to install something or even know what a console is?
What about support for the newest hardware? I want to walk in to CompUSA, pick any piece of hardware and make it work on my Linux PC. Not gonna happen. Until that happens, Linux will never be a true desktop system alternative for the average guy. Cmon guys, don't fool yourselves. Most people on computer-related forums are hardcore enthusiasts and may indeed have a use for Linux, but to say that Linux is great for EVERYBODY in the whole damn world is ludicrous.
Leave Linux in the server world 'cause it doesn't stand a chance on the desktop. >>



Okay...a few comments on what you said here. alteast you have the decency of saying there are alternatives to apps that you use in windows. As for a better suite then MS OFfice XP? Star Office (or open office) is one of the best damn suites I've seen. The only problem I find with it is that it sometimes doesn't convert word files 100%. No fault to star office though, it's because of close file formats (I think that's how you say it, need to go take another visit at www.linuxtoday.com). And that is Microsoft's fault. If a judge ever decides to force Microsoft to release the file formats, then programmers will be able to fully import and word doc in staroffice.

Okay...so your friend wanted to use a patch, was this file a rpm? There is a very nice rpm program while, when you run it and click on a rpm file, the files installs itself. Although personnally, I prefer doing it manually, more control over my actions.

As for support for newest hardware, more and more hardware companies are releasing linux versions of the drivers. The rest are being developed by programmers. The only people linux isn't great for is people with a closed mind to Microsoft. You need to WANT to learn a different environment. Again, learning curve, but don't forget you also had a learning curve when learning Windows.


"Leave Linux in the server world 'cause it doesn't stand a chance on the desktop"

I regret to inform you that to me that's just FUD.