linux

[daniel49]

well if I am going to play with linux figured I better get a book(since I know less then nothing about it)..bought the linux bible 2005 edition.

My ubantu cd still hasn't come yet but the book came with about 10 other distros on cd/dvd.
2 were live cd
knoppix and DSL.
booted from them and ran from cd so I could take a peek so to speak.
The dsl loaded fine to desktop but nothing seems to be config. couldn't find modem, cd player didn't seem to function, games and apps were about as exciting as watching grass grow.
I felt like George Jetson who had warped back into time and became fred flintstone.

well I figured it is bare bones linux after all so I reset and tried knoppix.
Interface was a little smoother more apps but still felt like I had traded in my caddy for a moped. lots of things didn't seem to work or needed massive configation.

So far I am not getting it as far as why linux users think its the greatest thing since sliced bread....my mind is open but so far is processing pain in the neck...so all you linux enthusiasts enlighten me

also on the cd are distros of Debian,gentoo,feather,insert,coyote,fedora,suse,slackware but since they are full installs have not tried them yet.
thx Dan

 

[drag]

Different strokes for different folks. Although if your saying that Windows is like a caddy... well then I have to realy dissagree.

Also you should realise that your playing the default games that come along with the default install. What does Windows have? Minesweeper, pinball, and some card games... not exactly Unreal Tournament, there.


I like Linux because of:
1. Respects my freedom. I can copy it, hack it, give it to my friends. All of that is encouraged, rather then illegal as with Windows.

2. Robust command line. I like the command line. I like typing crap out and doing little scripts for automating things, it's much more difficult to do that with a GUI-centric OS like Windows. It may look like MSDOS, but thats like comparing a GUI on a Apple II vs the gui for OS X.

3. Lots of choices in software, lots of customization. If I don't like the default browser or media player I can exchange it out for another one, there are a lot more choices then generally what you get with Windows. I can change the behavoir of the windows to suite me. I can change out the file mananger. I can use minimalist window manager, I can use a full desktop enviroment. Whatever I want. You have a very wide range of customization you can do.

The default setups can be rather dull, but I am not restricted to a one-size-fits all setup. (think sweat pants vs tailored clothing)

Also I like having access to 'deep down' inside the OS.

4. Not a crippled version of a more expensive OS. (like WinXP home vs WinXP Pro vs Windows 2003) With most Linux distros (My favorite being Debian, next being Ubuntu and then Fedora Core). I have the full capabilities of any OS being used on any enterprise enviroment. I don't have limits on the services I can run. I don't have limits on the software I can install, or use. I dont' have licenses to worry about. My favority Office productivity software doesn't cost extra. I don't have to pay extra for programming tools, or the ability to run a full-fledged web server. I don't have limitations on the amount of CPUs I can use, or the amount of connections I can have.

Plus the networking capabilties of Linux is much more featurefull and have better performance then what you can get from Windows.

5. The OS's capabilities increase with your knowledge. The more you know, the better it gets. It's the same thing with Windows to a certain extent, but the effect seems to be magnified by the openness and customizability of the OS.


6. At least with Debian/Ubuntu (and to a lesser extent Fedora) I have a whole host of free software aviable to me. All of it easily installed and easily maintainable.

When I update my OS, I do not just get my core system updated as with Windows, but I get the entire wealth of software I installed using apt-get/yum updated automaticly. Media players, browsers, window managers, services, Free software games, word proccessors, graphic tools, etc etc. All of it, if it is free and installable (around 15,000 software packages are aviable to the Debian 'unstable' users + third party repositories for legally questionable material like dvd encryption decoders, and restricted media formats such as wmv or mp3s and such).

Every update these things just get a tiny bit better, and increase very slightly in capabilities. I update once or twice a month and since I track Debian 'Sid' I can do this indefinately without ever having to worry about having it go obsolete. I've had OSes that have outlasted the computers they were installed on. I've copied them from disk to disk and stuff like that rather then reinstalling. No slowdowns or decrease in stability (although during updates things do break, usually in small ways and then only rarely, but it's easily repairable.)

7. Inexpensive. I only pay for what I feel like paying for. I pay 5 bucks a month for Cedega updates so I can play the odd Windows game, although I much prefer Linux native games for obvious reasons.

I have eliminated all reasons for having to warez for software, which makes me feel much better. I use stuff people WANT me to use rather then having to rip off somebody. Occasionally I donate to good projects, and that's about it.

8. Learning experiance. I like learning about how things work, weither it's mechanical or electrical or to do with software and networking. With Linux I can learn how things work, how clusters work, how programs and programming works. I can change things and play with things and have a direct impact on the OS and software I am using. Sometimes for better, other times for worse. Then there are always knowledgable people that are whiling to help you out (as long as you do your homework and put forth the effort and show it).

*shrug*

Many people would considure stuff like that a complete waste of time, and I suppose that's OK. Different strokes for different folks. Linux distros are definately not for everyone and if your life revolves around games, or at least the sole reason you use computers much is about games, then Linux is not very hot compared to windows. But I have more then enough nice games on Linux to waste more time then I should on games...

 

[Bozo]

I'm with you Dan. I've tried a few distros and it's like going back to DOS, only worse. I spent 2 hours trying to get Red Hat to connect to our network. Never did get it to work. Matter of fact, I never got much of anything to work. The local Linux wizard stopped by and opened a window and started pounding out all sorts of commands and finally got Linux to connect to our network. A fresh install of XP on the same box and double click on the Network icon and it's connected!
Linux is fine if you want to spend all your time in the command box and memorizing commands. Or trying to get the hardware to work. Or trying to get on a network. Or trying to install a program. Or trying to install drivers. Linux is very trying.

Linux is not ready for prime time.

I don't get it either.

Bozo

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: Bozo
I'm with you Dan. I've tried a few distros and it's like going back to DOS, only worse. I spent 2 hours trying to get Red Hat to connect to our network. Never did get it to work. Matter of fact, I never got much of anything to work. The local Linux wizard stopped by and opened a window and started pounding out all sorts of commands and finally got Linux to connect to our network. A fresh install of XP on the same box and double click on the Network icon and it's connected!
Linux is fine if you want to spend all your time in the command box and memorizing commands. Or trying to get the hardware to work. Or trying to get on a network. Or trying to install a program. Or trying to install drivers. Linux is very trying.

Linux is not ready for prime time.

I don't get it either.

Bozo

When was this, what hardware was this, and what kind of network setup is this?

 

[timswim78]

Just a thought about the modem,

"Modems: To save money, many internal modems do not include their own processor, instead they rely on the main cpu in the computer for their processing needs. These cheap modems are referred to as "winmodems" because they typically include low level calls to the Windows operating system that can not be replicated in Linux. For the most part, winmodems will not work under Linux. If you need to run a winmodem under Linux see Linmodems.org and www.linuxant.com/drivers." from http://www.michaelhorowitz.com/Linux.vs.Windows.html

 

[n0cmonkey]

I can setup a useful BSD or Linux system in about half an hour. That includes downloading the entire OS on my POS DSL. I can't get all of the post sp2 patches for XP installed in that amount of time. You want trying? Try sharing files on XP.

 

[Nothinman]

I'm with you Dan. I've tried a few distros and it's like going back to DOS, only worse. I spent 2 hours trying to get Red Hat to connect to our network. Never did get it to work. Matter of fact, I never got much of anything to work. The local Linux wizard stopped by and opened a window and started pounding out all sorts of commands and finally got Linux to connect to our network. A fresh install of XP on the same box and double click on the Network icon and it's connected!
Linux is fine if you want to spend all your time in the command box and memorizing commands. Or trying to get the hardware to work. Or trying to get on a network. Or trying to install a program. Or trying to install drivers. Linux is very trying.

Most likely you had odd hardware, I've never seen Linux have problems with networking as long as the card is supported and isn't ass (i.e. broadcom).

The dsl loaded fine to desktop but nothing seems to be config. couldn't find modem, cd player didn't seem to function, games and apps were about as exciting as watching grass grow.
I felt like George Jetson who had warped back into time and became fred flintstone.

well I figured it is bare bones linux after all so I reset and tried knoppix.
Interface was a little smoother more apps but still felt like I had traded in my caddy for a moped. lots of things didn't seem to work or needed massive configation.

Can you be a little more specific? I use Knoppix/Gnoppix for repair work fairly regularly and I can't think of much that didn't work out of the box, let alone 'massive configuration'.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
I can setup a useful BSD or Linux system in about half an hour. That includes downloading the entire OS on my POS DSL. I can't get all of the post sp2 patches for XP installed in that amount of time. You want trying? Try sharing files on XP.

I'm assuming that your learning to do that in a half hour required several months of learning archaic commands, familerizing yourself with interface,apps, termanology,having proper hardware.

post sp2 patches?? go to winupdate start em and go have lunch

I have my xp comps on a network and I share files all the time?? perhaps you mean running an app on machine a from machine b? Not sure what you meant there?

Seriously I am trying to be open minded here Noc...I know your very competant at linux I am not ,what will make the new user like me feel its worth the pain to learn in linux what I can do in 5 minutes in windows .

try and see through the spectacles of someone who has only used windows and now convince me. I want to be convinced go for it.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I'm with you Dan. I've tried a few distros and it's like going back to DOS, only worse. I spent 2 hours trying to get Red Hat to connect to our network. Never did get it to work. Matter of fact, I never got much of anything to work. The local Linux wizard stopped by and opened a window and started pounding out all sorts of commands and finally got Linux to connect to our network. A fresh install of XP on the same box and double click on the Network icon and it's connected!
Linux is fine if you want to spend all your time in the command box and memorizing commands. Or trying to get the hardware to work. Or trying to get on a network. Or trying to install a program. Or trying to install drivers. Linux is very trying.

Most likely you had odd hardware, I've never seen Linux have problems with networking as long as the card is supported and isn't ass (i.e. broadcom).

The dsl loaded fine to desktop but nothing seems to be config. couldn't find modem, cd player didn't seem to function, games and apps were about as exciting as watching grass grow.
I felt like George Jetson who had warped back into time and became fred flintstone.

well I figured it is bare bones linux after all so I reset and tried knoppix.
Interface was a little smoother more apps but still felt like I had traded in my caddy for a moped. lots of things didn't seem to work or needed massive configation.

Can you be a little more specific? I use Knoppix/Gnoppix for repair work fairly regularly and I can't think of much that didn't work out of the box, let alone 'massive configuration'.

well the media player appeared to support mp3's but wouldn't play them.
I tried to use wizard for setting up modem. first thing it asked me was to select country..US wan't on the list so wizard was no longer an option. so had to try to manually configure it. best I could get out of a modem query on manual config was that the modem was busy, which it wasn't. It may be that my Isp which uses its own propriatary browser could be part of the problem?? I dunno yet (I use MSN) Although as timswim mentioned above many modems simply do not work out of the box with linux evidently?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49
I'm assuming that your learning to do that in a half hour required several months of learning archaic commands, familerizing yourself with interface,apps, termanology,having proper hardware.

I don't know many archaic commands. Having the proper hardware generally means: Don't buy crappy hardware.

I spent a lot of time reading about unix before trying out linux. It helped. I had a desire to learn it though.

post sp2 patches?? go to winupdate start em and go have lunch

No, I'd rather have a system I can put on the network immediately.

I have my xp comps on a network and I share files all the time?? perhaps you mean running an app on machine a from machine b? Not sure what you meant there?

I can't get XP to share files. Period. Simple file sharing is ass. It doesn't work.

Seriously I am trying to be open minded here Noc...I know your very competant at linux I am not ,what will make the new user like me feel its worth the pain to learn in linux what I can do in 5 minutes in windows .

Nothing will make it worth it. You have to want to understand. Until then, blah.

try and see through the spectacles of someone who has only used windows and now convince me. I want to be convinced go for it.

No. If you don't want to learn, I'm not going to try and convince you that you should.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Get an external modem.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49
I'm assuming that your learning to do that in a half hour required several months of learning archaic commands, familerizing yourself with interface,apps, termanology,having proper hardware.

I don't know many archaic commands. Having the proper hardware generally means: Don't buy crappy hardware.

I spent a lot of time reading about unix before trying out linux. It helped. I had a desire to learn it though.

post sp2 patches?? go to winupdate start em and go have lunch

No, I'd rather have a system I can put on the network immediately.

I have my xp comps on a network and I share files all the time?? perhaps you mean running an app on machine a from machine b? Not sure what you meant there?

I can't get XP to share files. Period. Simple file sharing is ass. It doesn't work.

Seriously I am trying to be open minded here Noc...I know your very competant at linux I am not ,what will make the new user like me feel its worth the pain to learn in linux what I can do in 5 minutes in windows .

Nothing will make it worth it. You have to want to understand. Until then, blah.

try and see through the spectacles of someone who has only used windows and now convince me. I want to be convinced go for it.

No. If you don't want to learn, I'm not going to try and convince you that you should.

lol, ok noc was counting on you because I know your hardcore linux but a few years ago bought some programming books on C and learned enough about it to be fun and challenging so I don't think its the learning part, I guess after listning to linux lovers for years rave on about it was expecting a lil more out of the box.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49
lol, ok noc was counting on you because I know your hardcore linux but a few years ago bought some programming books on C and learned enough about it to be fun and challenging so I don't think its the learning part, I guess after listning to linux lovers for years rave on about it was expecting a lil more out of the box.

I hate Linux actually. It's ass. But you get everything you need, out of the box. It's just up to you to put it to good use.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49
lol, ok noc was counting on you because I know your hardcore linux but a few years ago bought some programming books on C and learned enough about it to be fun and challenging so I don't think its the learning part, I guess after listning to linux lovers for years rave on about it was expecting a lil more out of the box.

I hate Linux actually. It's ass. But you get everything you need, out of the box. It's just up to you to put it to good use.

:Qwow first time i ever heard a hardcore linux user say that (I hate Linux actually. It's ass)

 

[stash]

I always though n0c was hardcore Mac, not Linux... *shrug*

I've never understood these petty OS debates. You use what works for you. If that means Windows, that's fine. If you like Linux, more power to you. If you want to use all three (meaning Windows, Linux and Mac), rock on.

Really, who gives a shit?

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: STaSh
I always though n0c was hardcore Mac, not Linux... *shrug*

I've never understood these petty OS debates. You use what works for you. If that means Windows, that's fine. If you like Linux, more power to you. If you want to use all three (meaning Windows, Linux and Mac), rock on.

Really, who gives a shit?

Actually...he's hardore openbsd. He doesn't like linux, he likes unix. there is a difference.

 

[Hyperblaze]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49
lol, ok noc was counting on you because I know your hardcore linux but a few years ago bought some programming books on C and learned enough about it to be fun and challenging so I don't think its the learning part, I guess after listning to linux lovers for years rave on about it was expecting a lil more out of the box.

I hate Linux actually. It's ass. But you get everything you need, out of the box. It's just up to you to put it to good use.

:Qwow first time i ever heard a hardcore linux user say that (I hate Linux actually. It's ass)

where did he ever claim he likes linux?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: STaSh
I always though n0c was hardcore Mac, not Linux... *shrug*

I've never understood these petty OS debates. You use what works for you. If that means Windows, that's fine. If you like Linux, more power to you. If you want to use all three (meaning Windows, Linux and Mac), rock on.

Really, who gives a shit?

******************************
really Mac? never heard him mention it....shrug. always see him post on linux and he seems quite knowledgeable about it...double shrug*

Windows works real well for me but have been listening to linux enthusiasts rave for years so taking a look to see what all the fuss is about so I guess I care???

plz stay on topic this is not about nocmonkey I have the utmost respect for his knowledge and advice. If I inadvertently got off subject I apolagize.

 

[stash]

He doesn't like linux, he likes unix. there is a difference

I know the difference, thanks.

 

[stash]

plz stay on topic this is not about nocmonkey I have the utmost respect for his knowledge and advice. If I inadvertently got off subject I apolagize.

What exactly is the topic?

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: STaSh

plz stay on topic this is not about nocmonkey I have the utmost respect for his knowledge and advice. If I inadvertently got off subject I apolagize.

What exactly is the topic?

see the header at the top of the page??

linux
took my first look am I missing something???
that would be the topic.

 

[nweaver]

If you felt lost in linux, think about how the old Unix gurus feel when you plop them in front of 2003 server....

I have been a windows user for years, and an admin for about 100 PC's 25 servers. I found something that windows couldn't do, try linux, and have moved as much as will run to it. I find it easier to manage/mantain. Still, I am posting on my windows laptop...

imho, what is better, an end wrench, or a rachet? Neither, it depends on what you want to do, and what you prefer. Please don't say that rachets suck because you cannot put the socket on it.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: STaSh
I always though n0c was hardcore Mac, not Linux... *shrug*

I've never understood these petty OS debates. You use what works for you. If that means Windows, that's fine. If you like Linux, more power to you. If you want to use all three (meaning Windows, Linux and Mac), rock on.

Really, who gives a shit?

Well, this is where the OS debates plug into the larger debate over ideology. How can you say, on the one hand, that everybody should use what works for them, when on the other hand, you have a very large sector of software and hardware producers who have to be badgered endlessly to say anything other than, "We won't port our software to sell it to you, we won't tell you the interfaces, and we won't tell you how we did it"; in other words, no port, no documentation, and no source.

It is very inconsistent to hold both of these principles equally (though it looks possible to support). Now add to that, "If you reverse-engineer our software, there's no guarantee we won't sue you." In other words, even though it's seems possible to support this position, the number of hoops one is required to jump through to get there is laughable at best, and typically rage-inducing.

The only recourse we have is, again, to pester enough people to use our OS so that it does become economically fesable for these capabilities to be ported And it is only once this requisite of parity is met before the OS wars will diffuse.

 

[Nothinman]

well the media player appeared to support mp3's but wouldn't play them.

Probably a sound card problem then, I play mp3s all the time and there was no setup required.

I tried to use wizard for setting up modem. first thing it asked me was to select country..US wan't on the list so wizard was no longer an option. so had to try to manually configure it. best I could

I haven't used a modem for dialup in like 10 years, but I can't believe the US wasn't in the list.

I dunno yet (I use MSN) Although as timswim mentioned above many modems simply do not work out of the box with linux evidently?

Most new modems don't have hardware DSPs, they rely on the driver to do the conversion so you have to use a special driver. Some WinModems work fine in linux, but I haven't had any experience with them.

I'm assuming that your learning to do that in a half hour required several months of learning archaic commands, familerizing yourself with interface,apps, termanology,having proper hardware.

Besides the misuse of the word 'archaic', that process sounds like what would need to be done with any new OS.

post sp2 patches?? go to winupdate start em and go have lunch

You can't do that, if you've install plain XP you'll have to reboot about a dozen times to install everything off of WindowsUpdate.

 

[fishbits]

I tried a popular linux distro a couple of years back, and my initial excitement quickly faded to being frustrated and underwhelmed. Surely (well, hopefully) things have improved since then. Getting the urge to try again, may give it a whirl this summer. While installation was easier than anticipated in some regards, there were plenty of things that were unclear, unsupported, confusing, etc. And that was just with initial hardware/desktop configuration.

What every linux developer should do is utilize one friend they respect who hasn't used linux before, a pencil, a notebook and a roll of duct tape. Start off by tightly sealing off the linux developer's mouth with the duct tape, then have him watch the friend install linux, taking notes along the way of any obstacles. Can the new user set up/navigate the desktop fine? Connect to the Internet through their ISP? Read/write to hard drives, floppy, CD and DVD and organize files to their liking? Send and receive e-mail? Print a web page? Play .mp3s? View/edit photos in popular image formats? Patch any known security holes through the Web (ideally with an "Update Me" button)?

Any shortcomings at this point should be viewed as very high up on the to-do list. That is IF a primary goal is to broaden the number of people who use linux. Make it a quick-start installation option so that those who don't want this can bypass it. Get their foot in the door, then let them ease into all the power, customization, etc at their own pace... but don't have a massive hurdle right at the starting point. Or choose otherwise, and leave things as they are with a low adoption rate of a free(!) OS and keep it a geek/Old Boys' Club niche product... but then don't complain that not enough people are using/supporting it.

Like I said, maybe things are much improved by now, but we'll see.