Magazines, EVERYBODY, shut up about Linux please

[Rigoletto]

......well at least I can say the problem here isn't as bad as it used to be (or maybe I subconsciously screen out Linux pages).
OK I admit I DID try to install SUSE linux but couldn't get Xwindowing going because the installation wouldn't accept my monitor settings.
But unless you want a cheap and secure web server, WHAT IS THE POINT of linux anyway??!
Yep, you've guessed it I know nothing about linux's workings and I don't see a motivation to either.
1) I don't see an application I want and don't have on it.
2) It's ANORAKY (this means people who write down train registration numbers and have dandruff, etc)

A lot of the writing around linux seems to be based on that
a) it's free so they can put it onto coverdisks
b) it's a fashionable backlash against MICROSOFT
c) they think their readers want anoraks

As a windows user who likes to do lots of different things on the PC, linux looks too messy and incomplete. I am actually grateful that every windows program doesn't actually NEED me to read a manual for it and I think windows has done well.
OK rant over.

 

[Shuxclams]

Yeah and a lot of AOL users get confused by a strait internet connection........................................













SHUX

 

[nateholtrop]

I have both windows and linux on my machine and tru linux doesnt have a lot of great software it is cool to wander down the unbeaten path and not be like the mindless fools in redmond, wa every day.

 

[Rigoletto]

Huh I'm sure a lot of AOL users know how to spell though.

 

[Leo V]

If we should start splitting hairs, Rigoletto, your punctuation isn't exactly perfect :Q

 

[io331]

<< WHAT IS THE POINT of linux anyway??! >>



Choice!!!

it provides an alternative to the Windows monoply on the desktop... It also allows people who use Unix at work/school to use it at home for a change... I know Free BSD has been around for awhile, but Linux offers a quicker learning path, IMHO....

I like Linux (and other version of Unix)... but I will admint I run Win2K at home... too much of my work requires MS products...

 

[Enigma]

I have Rehat 5.2 installed and W2K. Linux is not an serious alternative to Windows.

 

[rahvin]

<<I have Rehat 5.2 installed and W2K. Linux is not an serious alternative to Windows.>>

You should clarify that with: &quot;Linux is not an serious alternative to Windows on the Desktop right now.&quot; Linux is a killer server and give it a year or three and it will leapfrog windows in the desktop space.

 

[Enigma]

Rahvin,

Why clarify the known? Windows is not a serious server OS, its primarily used for desktop computing.
Also, I have been hearing for years now &quot;just give Linux a year or three and it will surpass Windows&quot; Hasn't happened yet. But I can tell you when it will, when Microsoft ports everything to Linux and that's not going to happen. The herd loves Microsoft's tit because everything is the same, little or no learning curve, easy to find.

<<I have Rehat 5.2 installed and W2K. Linux is not an serious alternative to Windows.>>

You should clarify that with: &quot;Linux is not an serious alternative to Windows on the Desktop right now.&quot; Linux is a killer server and give it a year or three and it will leapfrog windows in the desktop space.

 

[kevpete]

ok, linux is used by hackers and is written by hackers, i dont think any UNIX-like OS was ever ment to be used other by the mainstream. linux is purely for people who like a stable OS and dont mind fooling around with it a little. but i would have to agree that LINUX SUCKS -- FreeBSD is better

 

[AfterBurn]

Linux will never be the mainstream OS for desktop. Why? Cause no matter what the zealots say, its slow as hell. I have a Celeron 300A i use as a server. It has 96MB SDRAM and a TNT graphics card. Its not the fastest thing in the world, but its not that bad. It has Mandrake 7.1 installed on it. As its use is server, it doesnt run X, but i have X installed when i want to play with it once in a while and experiment with it. When using X with KDE and the works, its slower than Windows ever was on the same hardware. Stability isnt an argument here either, as X is just as or even more unstable than Windows and though i yet have to see Linux crash while being in runlevel 3 (CLI), the amount of times X goes down doesnt make it an alternative, let alone a serious one. Sure, its fast at the commandline, but then again, did you ever see how DOS flies on today's hardware?

Dont get me wrong, i like linux and i like it a lot. I love using it as a server and the way i can tweak it to my needs. I love being able to log on from anywhere in the world and administer it like i was sitting at the console. As a server OS it does what its supposed to do, and it does it good, and it keeps doing it w/o crashing or rebooting. I dont see why a server should drag a GUI along to hog resources, when its only accessed from remote. As a desktop OS though, the only alternative to Windows is another version of Windows.

 

[rahvin]

Afterburn,

I have no doubt that within 5 years linux will outpace windows and formally take it's place on almost every desktop in the world. It's progress amazes me, on the kernel level it's equal to win2k in every situation where it isn't faster. The kernel is what matters the most and linux has a much more stable and reliable kernel than windows can probably ever have. The GUI that will kill windows should happen in the next 5 years, I don't know if it will be KDE, GNOME or a dozen of the other non-X clones on the way. Unix is the past and the future, Apple's next operating system is based on FreeBSD and you never know, the windows after whistler might include the linux kernel. You never really know....

 

[AfterBurn]

True, 5 years is a long time in the computer world, and anything can happen. But you dont think them people in Redmond are sleepng do you? If you're talking progress, then think that Windows 3.0 was in something like '93-'94? Look at W2K now, 6 years later. When i was playing with Linux in that time, X lacked any form of userfriendlyness, as basically the only windowmanagers available were fvwm, mwm and ovm. To be honest, if i see where they were and are now, and i look at M$, than M$ has progressed more the last 5-6 years. M$ has gone from unstable and almost unusable to something thats fast and hardly ever crashes, while X (or better, the window managers) has gone from lightning fast and stable to sluggish and unstable. And thats not even including software support in the equation. And even though the Linux kernel hardly ever crashes, just as the Window GUI can bring W2K on its knees, X can make Linux crash to a point only a reset will help and even if the kernel doesnt lock, but you have to reboot cause X crashes so hard it wont start w/o rebooting the machine, whats the difference? And it happens just as much as witn Windows.

But you are right, anything can happen in 5 years, but personally i dont see it happen. And i dont see why it should happen. It all depends on what you want out of an OS. Do you want it to be a server OS, or do you want it to be a ws OS? The example of M$ shows all too well, you cant have it both. Choices have to be made. Once that choice is clear, maybe then you can create enough momentum to go on.

 

[johnlog]

Natholt,

>>>I have both windows and linux on my machine and tru linux doesnt have a lot of great software it is cool to wander down the unbeaten path and not be like the mindless fools in redmond, wa every day. <<<

The mindless ones are those playing around with Linux. Like oh, lookee!!! I just got linux to install half way then it crashed. Wowee!!! Suckcess is within my reach!!!!! (200 hours later: Well almost suck cess ful now.)

Yeah, right.

JohnL

 

[Sunner]

Some people dont realize that you can do other things than play games on a computer.
The only reason why I dont run Linux fulltime is cause I happen to like playing lotsa games, and there arent too many that I care for available for Linux.



<< Like oh, lookee!!! I just got linux to install half way then it crashed. Wowee!!! Suckcess is within my reach!!!!! (200 hours later: >>



I dont quite understand what you're trying to say here, but I guess some people just never make sense.

 

[rahvin]

<<then think that Windows 3.0 was in something like '93-'94?>>

Unless I'm mistaken I used win 3.0 back in 90, it's taken MS a decade to get to Win2k. Linux has accomplished the same since 94 and the GUI has only been under serious work that past 4 years. Think about that, the difference between say KDE 1.0 and KDE 2.0 is amazing to say the least. And I'm guessing that you have never tried one of the lightweight window managers for X, like blackbox. Time to development is what is matters and MS is on a slower track than linux. Take a look at the Berlin GUI for linux someday, if it ever fully materializes it will be a fully OGL compliant 3D windowing system. GUI development on Linux has really begun it's acceleration recently but the progress I've noticed that last couple years it appears to be advancing at twice the rate of windows.

<<X can make Linux crash to a point only a reset will help and even if the kernel doesnt lock, but you have to reboot cause X crashes so hard it wont start w/o rebooting the machine, whats the difference?>>

The difference is that with a little knowledge about the operating system I can, 99% of the time, kill any process that isn't responding in linux. I've never experienced a hard lock due to X, and any soft locks that occur a simple alt-cntl-backspace usually solves it.

<<And thats not even including software support in the equation.>>

Funny, I can find replacement applications (exluding games) for everything I use in windows and 99% of them are completely free.

The most interesting thing about this is that we now have a dozen of very large companies backing the GNOME windows manager, names like IBM, SUN et al. (yes SUN, they announced they dropped CDE and are adopting GNOME as their window manager). We will finally have a unified desktop on all unix machines and with all that effort focused behind that one desktop I expect it to move rather quickly. See I think MS's big problem is that huge size of the code base of windows, I think it has become almost unmanageable.

But as I said, I don't see linux as a desktop replacement yet, but I think I see the light at the end of the tunnel....

 

[Sunner]

I agree with Rhavin(that makes 3 time sin the last year, wow) 100%.
Cept that only the &quot;S&quot; is capital in Sun

 

[AfterBurn]

<< And I'm guessing that you have never tried one of the lightweight window managers for X, like blackbox. >>


You've guessed wrong. There are a lot of different windowmanagers. Some are more stable than others, some are quicker than others, but none other than KDE and Gnome are anywhere close to providing the ease of use and overview Windows gives me. And those two are definately not the quickest, nor the most stable ones out there.



<< The difference is that with a little knowledge about the operating system I can, 99% of the time, kill any process that isn't responding in linux. I've never experienced a hard lock due to X, and any soft locks that occur a simple alt-cntl-backspace usually solves it. >>


ctrl-alt-backspace basically is the same as ctrl-alt-del. Unless of course you get off on typing uptime. The 30 extra to reboot doesnt matter to anyone, however, as soon as i have to do a ctrl-alt-backspace, my work is gone and unless i saved just befor, there is gonna be a hell of a job to get it all back.



<< Funny, I can find replacement applications (exluding games) for everything I use in windows and 99% of them are completely free. >>


I can too, if you like half-baked solutions. Everything is there, but nothing is really gonna make you say 'this is it'. THe majority of the software out there is in some sort of alpha stage, or beta if you are lucky and it behaves accordingly. To give an example, there isnt even a half decent browser available! Netscape crashes under linux/UNIX even more than under Windows. Mozilla is a memory hog like ive never seen in my life. Opera, besides that its not free doesnt display half the pages right.



<< The most interesting thing about this is that we now have a dozen of very large companies backing the GNOME windows manager, names like IBM, SUN et al. (yes SUN, they announced they dropped CDE and are adopting GNOME as their window manager). >>


There is a unified desktop for UNIX, and its CDE. If CDE were to be pushed, then they'd have a quick shot. CDE is stable, crossplatform and it looks good. I use it almost daily for my work and i wish there was a cheap way of getting it for my linuxbox. Sun adopting Gnome and replacing CDE with it, is to me a decision based on emotion and not clear thinking. They have dismissed the one thing that bonded all the different UNIX's together and what made them strong. Giving it up for something like Gnome, while Linux is only an itty bitty slice of the UNIX pie is a mistake i hope they wont have to pay a too high a price for in the future.

Again, dont get me wrong. I like Linux, i like UNIX, its even my job. Ive been working with it since '94 when i had my ole 386/40 and im still using it today and i know how to operate it. But my primary workstation is and will be Windows, unless something VERY VERY drastic changes. Just as my server is and will be Linux, unless something VERY VERY drastic changes. Personally, i dont think that will be in the next 5 years. Time will tell.

 

[Rigoletto]

I think the progress of Windows has possible been overestimated here. I think the big breakthrough for users was Windows 95. And now I have WinME, and I don't find many differences, and even less FUNDAMENTAL differences... Win2000 was like WinNT but with the 9x compatibility and fun. The presentation to the user is very much the same. So although MS has done good work, it's not breaking a lot of new ground- and that's because Win95 actually works pretty well.
rahvin, I think you overestimate Linux's cheapness compared to Windows. When you buy new hardware or magazines, you get a LOT of software for FREE. I don't remember buying an expensive application in the last 18 months. Oh yeah- there was one- MS Visual Studio 6 on the student license for £70. But that's the kind of deal I for one ain't gonna complain about. One up to Microsoft.

 

[rahvin]

Linux's inexpensiveness on the upfront cost is compensated by the support expenses. Linux has a very steep learning curve and is very non-intutitive at times. I do expect this to improve, but the flexibility of the OS will always result in higher support costs. The best way to lower support costs is to take away usability (something MS has been very keen on lately).

 

[Rigoletto]

It's funny you should say that about usability because WinME told me yesterday &quot;please don't install this program it contains a driver older than the one you are currently using&quot; for my MS DSS80 speakers. But the thing was, I COULDN'T install that program!!! It just wouldn't let me!! I suppose there is a workaround but I never met that attitude before...

 

[pen^2]

did you mean to say altitude or aptitude? attitude doesnt seem to fit well

 

[Rigoletto]

No I meant attitude. I know several languages and I know that word, honest! I thought it odd that windows wouldn't let me run a program even though it was capable of doing so. I should be free to ah heck up the system the way I like.

 

[extra]

i'm replying to this post right now from debian linux. i don't dual boot. just linux.
kde2.0 (which i use) is superior to windows explorer, imho. licq is superior to icq in windows. xmms is as good as winamp. i don't see what the problem is. only thing missing is games.

 

[kylef]

<< on the kernel level it's equal to win2k in every situation where it isn't faster. The kernel is what matters the most and linux has a much more stable and reliable kernel than windows can probably ever have. >>



I disagree fervently with this remark. First of all, Linux is (and always will be) a Unix clone. The technology used for the majority of features in such kernels is OLD. All you have to do is look into any Unix system's poor threading support to see that.

Win2k (and any other NT-based system) has a very forward-looking kernel, which was built from the ground up to include some very new and interesting ideas. These include object-handles and object-level authentication (as opposed to the ancient file-handle approach that Unix people refuse to let die), serious message passing primitives which make the Sockets interface look like an Edsel, and as I already mentioned, awesome support for multithreading, which (for backwards compatibility and interface reasons) Unix-clones will probably NEVER fully implement.

Don't get me wrong: I have a machine running Linux, one running Win2k, and another running FreeBSD. I really LIKE the two Unix machines, if only because I learned to program in a Unix environment. I have a warm spot in my heart for them; that's all they teach in college to this day. But honestly, Unix is starting to look like a relic of the late 70s and early 80s. We need to start moving forward rather than patching old technology to make it work today.

But that's just my opinion...