Microsoft XP.... I think its time to start looking towards Linux...

[emjem]

Pat, thanx for the help on Linux. I'm glad to hear about the ease of installation, formatting, etc. Sounds good.

But what are you saying about USB support? Is that in Mandrake 7.2 or not. I need USB support.

And are you saying that none of my Dos based Win applications are going to run on Linux? If so, that's a big bummer. I remember that leading to the demise of IBM OS. It DID run DOS apps for Windows. But I used it for a week and had nothing but a headache at the end of it.

Chit, I make heavy use of PaintShopPro and Ulead PhotoImpact, as well as Ulead Animator. These two apps alone add up to a couple of hundred bucks. I didn't notice any Linux compatible references in what I own.

And I use Ulead Cool 3D, another $100 app. What about MS FrontPage 2000? What would I use for Web Site Development?

Sorry,I shouldn't be asking you to unravel my potential software problems with Linux. I just realized that I have a whole bunch of software to worry about if Linux can't run them. Wav editor, midi editor, virus protection, ZoneAlarm, Streets and Trips, CD Copy Protection ID -- on and on. Then I'm wondering if anybody is using Linux with their GPS software/interface. I paid $300 for the mapping CD that downloads maps into my GPS.

Guess I have to make a list of everything I need and then find an equivalent Linux version. But man, that looks like about a grand worth of software unless I find it for free. And maybe a lot of hours searching/researching. I don't want to step backwards in funtionality.

I just checked for Linux support for MPlayer and Playsite. No support offered. So that sucks. Called myTrack and they said they didn't support Linux, and had no immediate plans to do so. I use that 5 days a week, so that sort of screws up my Linux plans. I think these greedy people are going for the mass market.

Maybe I'm still missing something, but it now seems like maybe I should install Linux on a seperate hdd and play with it from time to time. Otherwise it sounds like a lot of hours and some serious dollars to convert.

 

[seewhy]

Why does everyone look at OS market as one big pie. You have to understand that OS market is made up of many different segments and each segments has its own requirements.

Linux has done very well in the server OS market, it is perfectly suitable for running things like websever, transaction sever...so on. It is more efficient than big old MS Windows whatever. It is stable and it has the software/hardware support for the server market. Actually when people say Linux is gonna over take MS, they are referring to this market.

As for the consumer market which most of you guys are talking about, Linux is still not there. Linux is NOT hard to setup, it just doesn't include everything that everybody need in a distro, you just have to find information and customize to your need. Hey if the distros include everything everyone needs, it might as well be another MS Windows. But most average consumer user isn't gonna have the guts or ability to mess with the OS. Example, multi-monitor support, I can find websites telling me how to do it, and I do have to change some stuff in the kernel...unlike windows which has build in multi-mon support. Well, that is just a trade off to have a non-bloated OS vs. everything included OS.

So for consumer market, there are things Linux doesn't do well, and will be hard for them to do well because of their inherent structure, well off course there is also the software support, and it is always the chicken and egg thing. Should Linux have a big bloated distros like MS so that more people can use it? should they support every hardware build in?.....that's just hard to do. I hope Linux think about market segments and not come out with something that is suck in every segment because they want to make everyone happy.

That being said, Linux is definitly suited for specific fields, but not for general consumers. I do hope it keeps up with MS and keep the competition going, that's gonna benefit even people who doesn't use it.

 

[afropick]

ToBeMe,

I'm not trying to get into a "flame war" either, but I have to agree with Pat that Mandrake 7.2 is easier to install than any version of Windows. I have an on-board raid controller, usb mouse, network card, etc. Mandrake found them all and I was up and running. With Windows... driver after driver had to be installed. Win2K almost choked on the raid setup.

I've installed Linux on several systems with different setups and this has, even with older distros, always been the case. Widows makes you fdisk, set up partitions, format, boot disk, install, seperately. With Linux, even older distros, just pop in the cd and its all done in one process. That ladies and gentlemen is ease of use.

While reading emjems post, I was waiting to see if someone would respond, because while it was kind of written sarcastially, the majority of the things he listed can be done with Linux. Not only that, with many a distro, alot of that stuff comes out the box. So less hassle with installing stuff, just install linux and blam, playtime. BTW, you can even install Quake3 from the Windows version of the CD. All you need is the .pak files and the Q3 linux point release.

Furthermore, this attitude of "this piece of software, specifically written for Windows, does't work in Linux therefore linux is garbage", what kind of stuff is that? That's not fair to say. Now I'll be the first to admit, Linux doesn't have an equivalent for every piece of software. But there are tons of software written for linux tho', and its all friggin' free.

Microsoft - Paint
Linux - The Gimp (and many others)

Microsoft - WordPad
Linux - Star Office (and many others)

and so on and so forth...

Don't get upset guys, I'm not trying to come down on anyone, but Linux is a pretty viable alternative to the Microsoft stuff, just give it a chance, jeez.

Now Pat, sometimes you do make it sound a little bit too easy to operate Linux, but OMG, could it be that you are familliar with Linux and how it operates. Linux, unlike Windows, would never be easy to manage if you use it a lot would it?

I must rethink my attitude toward Linux... not!

Linux rocks!

 

[PCResources]

<< But what are you saying about USB support? Is that in Mandrake 7.2 or not. I need USB support >>



Nope, but it is included with Mandrake 8.0 which uses the 2.4 kernel, and the hardware support has also improved...

Your windows programs will not run under Linux, maybe some of them will run with special software, but that is no good solution...



<< But man, that looks like about a grand worth of software unless I find it for free. >>



This is a nice thing about Linux, the best apps are free, you can use the Gimp instead of Pain Shop PRO for example, it is free, most of the other software you mentioned is already included in the Mandrake distro...

Maybe you are just not ready to do the switch yet....

About the IBM O/S 2... The big difference is that Linux is free, applications for Linux are also free.. AND you can just dual boot until the time comes when Linux has improved enough to make the switch...

Linux offers more scalability, you have much more control over the OS and there are ways of tuning it if you like to try that out... That is basically why Linux is so great...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[PCResources]

<< Now Pat, sometimes you do make it sound a little bit too easy to operate Linux, but OMG, could it be that you are familliar with Linux and how it operates. Linux, unlike Windows, would never be easy to manage if you use it a lot would it? >>



Point taken, but the real questionis, is it any harder to operate a user friendly OS like Mandrake than it is to operate windows if you have never used a computer before?

If i were to recommend what i am using, it would be Slackware that is certainly not user friendly if you are not used to Unix systems...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[emjem]

Thanx seewhy. You seem to know wha's up.

afropick, sorry, I tried not to be sarcastic. I have absolutely nothing against Linux. Sounds like a great OS. What I was hoping to do is cut through the generalized &quot;Linux rocks&quot; bll chit and get down to some facts relative to using computers for desktop WORK. I can't afford to cut my windows nuts off only to find myself sinking with a new OS.

I need applications to do my daily thing on my desktop, and the greatest OS in the world is of no use to me if it is not adequately supported by the applications that I need, and/or am accustomed to using.

I use my computer as a work tool, and I don't want to spend hours on end finding and analyzing Linux application software that will do my work. And after my initial probe, it seems that's exactly what I would have to do to use Linux effectively.

Further, I did some research on available Linux applications that I need and they are, for the most part, rudimentary compared to those I use with Windows. And I have yet to find Linux apps to replace a good many currently on my system.

So why should I spend 200 hours fkg around finding and researching Linux applications to save an hour a year avoiding reactivation of WXP? And then maybe end up with some applications that are inferior to my existing Windows apps, or a system that is missing many applications that I enjoy (MPlayer and Playsite to name two). Linux simply cannot, at this time, meet my needs.

Pat may successfully build computers and load them with excellent Linux software that meets his specific customer needs. And I hope he scares hll out of Microsoft. Great! But that doesn't work for me.

I just wish that some of the Linux fanatics would stop with the generalized &quot;Linux Rocks and windows is suck&quot; bll chit already. That dog don't hunt.

 

[ku]

You know what I say? STICK WITH WIN 98

or go to linux... linux is good but it can be VERY VERY hard sometimes...

 

[emjem]

Yeah? You think Linux is harder than DOS?

 

[zephyrprime]

I'm interested in the economics of this all. Microsoft if a fool to think it can rent out software to people on an ongoing basis. It's not economically possible to get people to buy anything unless there's a positive value proposition for the buyer. Back when windows was first coming out, there were all sorts of new valuable things that microsoft was good at delivering. Everything that we take for granted now was new back then - computers, word processor (no more type writers?!?!), &quot;software&quot;, graphics. Whoah man, that was some revolutionary stuff. And every new version of software was way better than the last.

Now everything getting mature. The internet the only new thing in town. Word processing, spreadsheets, and databases are still the biggest of the productivity enhances at work but these products are getting mature. These products have a marginal cost of production of $0.00. (that is, their manufacturing costs are zero because software can be copied.) Inevitibly, these products will have very low selling prices. The same thing goes for OS's. Microsoft has to wake up and smell the coffee. The ceo of Sony recently critisized microsoft on this regard and they he was right.

It's only a matter of time before one of the Linux companies figures out that the key to selling is usability and is willing to modify unix (sacrilage!) so that it's simpler and is more intuitive.

 

[zephyrprime]

Also, another thing. It's been more than 17 years since anything new has happened in the world of os's. That was the GUI. No modern os, not Mac, Linux, or Win is fundamentally so different from each other. They're all simply multitasking graphical os's. I know it's a difficult to master all the apis (which I certainly haven't done!) but the os's are more alike than not. It's not like any of the os's are AI, visual, talking os's like that seen on star trek.

 

[Chad]

We have Mandrake 7.2 at the office and I think it sucks. I'm forced to deal with it because our IT manager is one of those MS haters.

Anyways, to make a long story short, W2k blows Linux out of the water in every way shape and form.

At home, I'm a gamer, so Linux will never enter my home. Just look at the retail shelves at your local software store and you'll be lucky to find a game or two on Linux.

Bah, all this &quot;free&quot; nonsense is balloney, I'll pay for quality, compatibility, functionality and ease of use and leave Linux for the &quot;freebie&quot; geeks.

I have to have something professional on my stuff, and don't have time to chase down all the crap and headaches that come with Linux.

 

[hans007]

i really think that this free software crap is non-sense. I am a computer science major, and someday i may or may not become a programmer. I'd like to think that i am pretty good at programming as i have managed to do every program ever assigned at school. Now I wouldn't program for free. Thats INSANE! The government made the patent system to encourage people to invent, because they'd get paid. I wouldn't give my inventions (my algorithms, and such) away. I like programming, but i dont like giving work away. People wouldn't do as much inventing without incentive, which is why i think open source sucks.

 

[PCResources]

One last note here...

Everyone here seems to think that just because Linux is free it is not intended for professional use....

Nothing could be more wrong, Linux is far more advanced than W2K, Linux was intended for professional use from the start, nowdays we see more and more desktop features that will eventually increase the desktop popularity of Linux...

I have been through all of this before, back then it was DOS vs Windows 3.x and 95... many users who were used to dealing with DOS thought that Windows was just for kiddies, it was not professional enough, it offered no features and there were more programs for DOS, sure you could still run them under windows, but they would run sooo slow that it was near impossible if you didn't want to spend thousands of dollars on new HW...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[Chad]

But Windows was better than DOS.

Linux cannot even begin to compare to Windows 2000, not by a longshot.

 

[PCResources]

<< But Windows was better than DOS. >>



That is your opinion, many people didn't think so back then...



<< Linux cannot even begin to compare to Windows 2000, not by a longshot. >>



As a desktop OS you mean? well that is just your opinion, not a fact... As a server OS, Linux is way better...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[rahvin]

<<Chit, I make heavy use of PaintShopPro and Ulead PhotoImpact, as well as Ulead Animator. These two apps alone add up to a couple of hundred bucks. I didn't notice any Linux compatible references in what I own.>>

You are kidding right? Ever head of the Gimp? Go lord, in my opinion it's more powerfull than Adobe Photoshop.

 

[PCResources]

I agree, and the Gimp is included in every distro that i know of... For free of course...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[MGMorden]

hans007: I'm a Computer Science major too, and I can definately see myself coding for free. It's fun. Not full time; I'd still have a programming job, but the software on the side I write can be free. There's still money to be made. Video games require a level of work so that can't really won't go free or open source, so development of those could be a day job. Large companies also virtually always have a programming staff simply for when they need custom implementations of something. Imagine this: instead of you working for Microsoft writing Windows (closed source), you would work for oh say General Motors modifying Linux (open source) to the way they wanted it. It's still programming and it's still profitable, just not in the same way. The people who write Linux all have jobs and code Linux in their spare time. Since it's being produced by so many people it's not a burden. If I spend an hour or two every few days developing a program that is useful I have no problem releasing it to the public for free. There's also MUCH free software for Windows as well (can we say moochers.com?), and it's never caused a problem.

 

[ToBeMe]

• Thanks for proving my above-described points, Pat, and for the most part, with the classic &quot;chip-on-the-shoulder&quot; style of most fanatic Linux lovers.
  
  Linux fanatics spend about 19.99% of their time praising their OS, and the other 80% howling about Microsoft/Windows/Bill Gates. The other .01% is actually spent discussing what Linux can do that Windows can't in an intelligent fashion, and even then that only occurs in the more socially adjusted members of their cadre.
  
  The incessant tantrums from the penguinophiles grow tiresome. As I've pointed out, they cannot and will not accept the fact someone has a different perspective and set of technological values. It must come from being so painfully insecure that a person who has a different outlook than they is deemed &quot;a threat&quot; upon their personalities. Don't worry, guys - nobody is coming to take away your Linux machines.
  
  The &quot;Windows crashes constantly&quot; line is another trademark of the Linux fanatic. I don't know what they're doing wrong when they fumble around with Windows, but my system very rarely if ever crashes, probably because I'm able to configure it properly rather than giving up, crying about Microsoft, and stomping out of the room to run back to my Linux box.
  
  &quot;Also any util. I want is free, opensource for Linux (as mentioned lastly).&quot;
  
  Open source is really only significant if you're a programmer, which most people aren't. And yes, Linux software is generally free (unless you're buying a prepackaged distro like most people now do) but then again I haven't paid for a Windows program in a very long time, thanks to shareware/freeware (yes, it exists for our OS, too!) out on the web. And good luck training a beginning Linux user to even find, much less configure, the &quot;free&quot; software out there.
  
  &quot;Linux runs on any chip&quot;
  
  Of course it does! A command line interface (or a bulky, slow GUI) works marvelously on an archaic system!

Your distortion, hyperbole, and misinterpretation of basic facts is typical of the pro-Linux obfuscation I've seen lately.

 

[PCResources]

Hans007:

Many people program OpenSource just to learn, they share what they know and usually get much feedback from it... So maybe if you know everything you would have no use for it, but until you do many people like to contribute to the different OpenSource projects to learn what others know...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[PCResources]

<< Thanks for proving my above-described points, Pat, and for the most part, with the classic &quot;chip-on-the-shoulder&quot; style of most fanatic Linux lovers. >>



Oh man... You are a strong advocate of Windows, and there is nothing wrong with that, but to state that the Linux users are all ignorant people who refuse to see the truth, and that is (in your opinion) that Linux is just for fanatics and Windows is for regular people, weel that my friend is just a bit too much... But you do not stop there, noooo, the Linux users are just cry babies in your opinion, you insult them and state that they cannot discuss anything, they just try to tell everyone how great Linux is when in fact (in your opinion) Linux is some kind of unprofessional, nonsense OS...

OK, and then if i disagree with what you say, i am arrogant????

Get real...

Patrick Palm

PC Resources

 

[ToBeMe]

No need for further comment...... Have A Nice Day!

 

[Chad]

Well said ToBeMe, that pretty much sums up how I feel about it also. I'm tired of Linux lovers telling me what's best for me. I have to use Mandrake at work and I hate it.

Yes, I know what I'm doing and I can perform my job ok on it, but in my opinion it is vastly inferior to Windows 2000 Server (which I run at the house).

It just kind of hits me the wrong way when someone tries to tell me what is better. Hell, I KNOW what is better, and I'm running it at home.

And yes, I'm a Java programmer and Database administrator for a rather large company and I know what the hell I'm talking about.

Sheesh.

 

[seewhy]

Why are you guys arguing?? You are not even talking about the same thing.

Linux is not there for everyday application/general users. Yes everyone agrees.

Linux is good for Server Application, and environment where only specific applications is used. It is lean, stable and free.

In one market, Linux sucks, in the other, Linux rocks, it all depends where you come from. Isn't that simple enough???

 

[johnlog]

The only good use for Linux is as a server. For a desktop machine that can run all your 32-bit applications Linux sucks big time and is a loser.

All Linux has going for it is Windows emulation. Without that you have nothing but a pile of junk code.

Linux is definitely NOT free. If you want a version that even barely works you had better buy one of the complete versions from the various companies like RedHat.

JL