What can Linux do that Windows cannot?!?!?

[timzak]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: timzak
...
Usually in Windows, the good software is almost always shareware (sure, there are lots of freeware gems out there too),

I will have to disagree. I find that the best software on Windows is often open source software. For instance, best pdf printer: pdfcreator, best ftp client: filezilla, best web browser: firefox, best web server: Apache, best ftp server: filezilla server, best extraction tool: 7-zip, best media player: vlc. I could go on and on. If I need to find a new program to meet a need, I look to open source before proprietary, irregardless of cost.

Fair enough...you make a good point. I guess I've forgotten how many good freeware apps there are for Windows. I guess the point I was trying to make is that you don't have to worry about shareware in Linux.

Would you agree with my summary?:

he one thing that Linux can do that Windows cannot is supply me with a satisfying computing experience at no cost.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: falacy
2. CUSTOMIZATION!!
Sure, I use a custom uxtheme.dll, but hands down KDE is much more customizable than XP - and way nicer to look than Vista....

I find KDE cluttered and even more fisher price looking than XP. Some customization is fine but KDE takes it to a level of distraction. Vista, to me is much simpler and elegant looking than KDE. Just look at the mess that is the KDE menu. All the customization options become confusing since they are located all over the place. I would much prefer if they located most of it in one spot and left the rest of the DE much less cluttered.

I will admit that Gnome sometimes takes the lack of GUI customization too far. Slowly it is improving this. But overall it has a much saner policy and they try to locate all those options in one area of the menu. I find it much more appealing to the eyes and it does not distract me from using my computer.

Hopefully KDE 4 will eventually change this. (Dolphin seems to be pointing in that direction.)

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Use all 4G of your memory with a 32-bit kernel.

That's not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. When people can only use 3200mb of their 4gb, it will say that right in the bios when the computer is starting. Refer to This forum post as to why my P5LD2 motherboard can't use 4gb of ram (it's not my thread, but it found when googling around to fix my 'broken' motherboard). Windows actually can use full 32-bit, and you can see this when you set the size of the swap file. Set it to 999999 and it will say "the maximum size is 4096mb"; that's the 32-bit restriction size.

I think the main feature I like about Linux is how it supports Remote Desktop on a level that you just can't get on Windows without paying thousands of dollars.

Each computer in a Linux network can natively run programs hosted on another computer. This works exactly like Citrix in Windows, but it doesn't require Windows Server (expensive) or Citrix (crazy expensive). This is not like running a program located on a network drive since doing that still uses local resources. When you remotely run a program in Linux, it's actually running on the server computer and the window is being shown on the client computer. It's like Remote Desktop or VNC but only for 1 window rather than the whole desktop. This is very beneficial if you have a network where 1 computer is super fast and all the other computers are slow as hell and 10 years old. When you run a remote program on the old computer, it will still be very fast since it's powered by the fast computer.
I worked at a lab that used Citrix for Windows, and it broke my spirit just a little bit when I found out Linux/Unix was the only OS that could realistically do this in my own home. Lookup the cost of Citrix, then lookup the cost of Windows Server 2003. Linux can do the same thing as both of those, but for free.

I don't actually use Linux since it's too much of a hassle, but I still wish Windows could natively support Remote Desktop on the same level Linux does.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Use all 4G of your memory with a 32-bit kernel.

That's not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. When people can only use 3200mb of their 4gb, it will say that right in the bios when the computer is starting. Refer to This forum post as to why my P5LD2 motherboard can't use 4gb of ram (it's not my thread, but it found when googling around to fix my 'broken' motherboard). Windows actually can use full 32-bit, and you can see this when you set the size of the swap file. Set it to 999999 and it will say "the maximum size is 4096mb"; that's the 32-bit restriction size.

I think the main feature I like about Linux is how it supports Remote Desktop on a level that you just can't get on Windows without paying thousands of dollars.

Each computer in a Linux network can natively run programs hosted on another computer. This works exactly like Citrix in Windows, but it doesn't require Windows Server (expensive) or Citrix (crazy expensive). This is not like running a program located on a network drive since doing that still uses local resources. When you remotely run a program in Linux, it's actually running on the server computer and the window is being shown on the client computer. It's like Remote Desktop or VNC but only for 1 window rather than the whole desktop. This is very beneficial if you have a network where 1 computer is super fast and all the other computers are slow as hell and 10 years old. When you run a remote program on the old computer, it will still be very fast since it's powered by the fast computer.
I worked at a lab that used Citrix for Windows, and it broke my spirit just a little bit when I found out Linux/Unix was the only OS that could realistically do this in my own home. Lookup the cost of Citrix, then lookup the cost of Windows Server 2003. Linux can do the same thing as both of those, but for free.

I don't actually use Linux since it's too much of a hassle, but I still wish Windows could natively support Remote Desktop on the same level Linux does.

Actually, he's right about this, don't bring WS2k3 with its PAE enabled kernel into the argument though because it doesn't have the same limitation.

It's HW adress mapping that it has to do with and Linux will just map them above the 4G mark while regular XP or Vista won't so you end up with a lot less memory, how much less depends on your installed hardware. If you got a PAE kernel as in the server versions this isn't a problem which is why WS2k3 has been installed on a lot of machines that are not servers and has provided performance improvement in games over XP on a number of machines.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: falacy

1. MULTIPLE DESKTOPS!!
Man, is it ever so much more organised to have multiple desktops. This is especially true in how KDE allows people to customize each desktop.

ACK! Of course! How did I forget multiple desktops?! If there is one thing I curse Windows for lacking, it's multiple desktops. There is actually a powertoy addin for this, but made a rather fast and modern computer turn slow as heck, and just wasn't nearly as smooth; whereas this works just fine on linux with the oldest junkyard computers.

 

[kamper]

The single source for all software, as has been mentioned, is one of the things that I really miss when using windows (or os x). Some apps like firefox will tell you when there are security updates and will even apply them nicely themselves, but nothing beats having your os maintainer organize *everything* in one spot so you don't have to hunt around for all the different apps that might be out of date.

Another thing, which nobody has mentioned specifically yet, is having an ssh server either out of the box or within a few commands. And all for free.

It's nice to be able to install an operating system as many times as you want on as many machines as you want. Some people argue that paying a few hundred dollars for windows is well worth it because of all the value you get out of it over the 5 years between releases P) and that's all fine and good. But you don't want to be worrying about that licensing when you want to throw another installation on a different hard drive or machine for testing purposes or, more commonly, a vmware image. I have a copy of vista but I'm afraid to use it anywhere other than in my one original install. Now there's probably more flexibility than I've bothered to figure out, but a free operating system is always going to be way more practical in this sense.

 

[Nothinman]

That's not a software problem, it's a hardware problem. When people can only use 3200mb of their 4gb, it will say that right in the bios when the computer is starting. Refer to This forum post as to why my P5LD2 motherboard can't use 4gb of ram (it's not my thread, but it found when googling around to fix my 'broken' motherboard). Windows actually can use full 32-bit, and you can see this when you set the size of the swap file. Set it to 999999 and it will say "the maximum size is 4096mb"; that's the 32-bit restriction size.

Those are two completely different things. The pagefile is limited to 4G likely because MS used an unsigned int to index the thing, but you can create multiple pagefiles if you'd like. So while it's technically a 32-bit thing since an int is 32-bits long, it has absolutely nothing to do with the amount of memory that the OS can see and use.

If it's not a software problem explain why 32-bit Linux and 32-bit Windows Server can both use all 4G or more of memory.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
If it's not a software problem explain why 32-bit Linux and 32-bit Windows Server can both use all 4G or more of memory.

Not on this computer they can't. Kubuntu and Mandriva both can still only see 3200mb, since that's what the bios sees. You can't just install another operating system and expect the bios to change. Do a google search for "896MB LOWMEM" and you'll see lots of other people who can't get Linux to use all 4gb either.

Here is a thread on the Gentoo forum about trying to make Linux use 4gb, and everybody is pointing the same direction:

PaulBredbury> do you have the remap memory option on in your bios on the P5W ?

Yes, use whatever option that makes your BIOS show 4gb. I wouldn't trust grub to show the right amount. It's between the BIOS and the Linux kernel - grub doesn't matter.

If you have a P5B board and it has an AMI bios like in the P5W DH that I own
go to "Advanced->Memory-Remap-Feature" and set it to Enabled.

Second, because this address space is used, you may need to set something in your BIOS - Look for something mentioning Memory Holes (Not 15-16 MB, but 4GB one if you can find!). Almost everyone I know has had to mess about with this setting to access more than 4GB RAM properly, even on 64-bits.

Look over to the Windows camp and see what they're doing about the problem.

Check your BIOS - my guess is it will read something like this:
Total: 4096
Appropriated: 896
Available: 3200

What you can do in this case is go to Advanced > Chipset.
Here you will find a setting called something like "Memory Remap <something>" (don't recall the exact phrase). It is most likely disabled.
Enable it, the save settings and re-enter BIOS. Now you should have the total amount available.
At least this was the case for me when I had similar problem on an Asus P5W DH Deluxe board recently...

Win32 is perfectly capable of using all 4gb, and the 3200mb limit is due to the motherboard. Any more than 4gb is beyond what Win32 can do. Lin32 can use more than 4gb.

 

[Nothinman]

Not on this computer they can't. Kubuntu and Mandriva both can still only see 3200mb, since that's what the bios sees. You can't just install another operating system and expect the bios to change. Do a google search for "896MB LOWMEM" and you'll see lots of other people who can't get Linux to use all 4gb either.

Then that specific hardware or BIOS is broken and should be returned. Pretty much every motherboard made in the last year or so supports remapping the memory lost to MMIO above the 4G mark so there's no excuse for it not to work. I know how Linux HIGHMEM and LOWMEM work and in order to get access to all of the memory you need a kernel with HIGHMEM64G enabled. HIGHMEM4G isn't enough because it doesn't enable PAE.

If you read through your own link you'll see a lot of "Recompiling with 64GB mode has revealed the missing Ram. We'll see how it goes after some testing, but otherwise, my problem is solved." similar posts.

Win32 is perfectly capable of using all 4gb, and the 3200mb limit is due to the motherboard. Any more than 4gb is beyond what Win32 can do. Lin32 can use more than 4gb.

Win32 can, but only the server editions because MS explicitly made the client editions ignore any memory above the 4G address mark and if you enable the memory remapping then the rest of your memory is above that address.

 

[Nothinman]

ACK! Of course! How did I forget multiple desktops?! If there is one thing I curse Windows for lacking, it's multiple desktops. There is actually a powertoy addin for this, but made a rather fast and modern computer turn slow as heck, and just wasn't nearly as smooth; whereas this works just fine on linux with the oldest junkyard computers.

Windows does multiple desktops, the nVidia drivers even have their own multiple desktop software which works half decently, but no it doesn't work as well as on X. So this isn't something that Linux does that Windows can't, but it's one of the things that Linux (well X on any form of unix, in this case) does better.

Another thing, which nobody has mentioned specifically yet, is having an ssh server either out of the box or within a few commands. And all for free.

That's just a default installation issue, it's very possible to install a ssh server on Windows.

But you don't want to be worrying about that licensing when you want to throw another installation on a different hard drive or machine for testing purposes or, more commonly, a vmware image. I have a copy of vista but I'm afraid to use it anywhere other than in my one original install. Now there's probably more flexibility than I've bothered to figure out, but a free operating system is always going to be way more practical in this sense.

Licensing definitely sucks, especially when it comes to MS' software. But there are some provisions for virtualization in at least the Ultimate release of Vista but I'm not sure what they allow you to do.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: kamper
But you don't want to be worrying about that licensing when you want to throw another installation on a different hard drive or machine for testing purposes or, more commonly, a vmware image. I have a copy of vista but I'm afraid to use it anywhere other than in my one original install.

Good point, although licensing usually isn't a big worry for the home user, businesses have to worry about the Microsoft Gestapo at the Software Business Alliance.

 

[Nothinman]

Good point, although licensing usually isn't a big worry for the home user, businesses have to worry about the Microsoft Gestapo at the Software Business Alliance.

I'd say that the opposite is true because businesses should have little problem affording licenses while home users are usually unwilling to shell out any amount of money for an OS and as activation gets better and better it'll be just that much harder to find working hacks to get around it.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Another thing, which nobody has mentioned specifically yet, is having an ssh server either out of the box or within a few commands. And all for free.

That's just a default installation issue, it's very possible to install a ssh server on Windows.

Anything free-ish that you'd recommend? I've seen various efforts to port openssh but I'm not aware of anything really working out. Haven't looked much though. I know there's ssh.com and such.

What would you get for a shell when you log in, cmd.exe? I guess now you could get the powershell or whatever it's called...

 

[Nothinman]

I've used cygwin+openssh in the past but cygwin is annoyingly slow so I try to avoid it whenever possible.

 

[Modelworks]

I'm going to be moving everything for work over to linux.
The main reason is that we don't like the way MS is going and want an environment that we have more control over.
Luckily the main app, Maya runs well on linux and is fully supported.
Choice for a distro has to be suse or redhat otherwise autodesk will not support the install.
Can't decide which one to go with.

Only other app that we can't use in linux will be photoshop and while gimp is nice, its not as nice as photoshop.

 

[imported_falacy]

Originally posted by: Modelworks
I'm going to be moving everything for work over to linux.
The main reason is that we don't like the way MS is going and want an environment that we have more control over.
Luckily the main app, Maya runs well on linux and is fully supported.
Choice for a distro has to be suse or redhat otherwise autodesk will not support the install.
Can't decide which one to go with.

Only other app that we can't use in linux will be photoshop and while gimp is nice, its not as nice as photoshop.

SuSe is very simple to install and configure. However, it is still linux with x.org, so you may need to manually edit a few files depending on your hardware configuration. Also, keep in mind than many of the bells and whistles on printers/scanners aren't available for linux as they are for Mac and Windows. So, if you're printing cheques or other mission-critical things right now, it may be best to keep one computer setup just the way it is now to ensure that you're not shooting yourself in the foot or letting anyone down.

I can't tell you about Redhat, as I haven't used it since that weekend back in the winter of 1998/99...

 

[Modelworks]

Its mainly computer graphics oriented stuff.
Were also going to finally make the move to 100% 64 bit on all the applications and tools.
We have someone working in house on a replacement for photoshop that will do what we need as thats the last hold out for the switch.
The maya install notes say the following:

Maya 2008 adds the required libXm.so.3 library to the Maya lib directory as part of its standard install, so installing the openMotif runtime rpm is not required.
7 Verify that OpenGL is installed. Look for a file named libGL.so in the /usr/lib or /usr/X11R6/lib directory.
8 install the documentation package, type the following where # is the specific package number:
rpm -ivh Maya2008_0_64-docs_en_US-2008.0-#.x86_64.rpm
9 If you have a hardware lock, you?ll need to install the hardware lock drivers. You can install them by typing one of the following, depending on your Linux distribution:
rpm -ivh aksusbd-redhat-1.8.1-3.i386.rpm
rpm -ivh aksusbd-suse-1.8.1-3.i386.rpm

We will probably go with suse.
I used it once before and it worked well as a desktop.
I just have never used linux for anything as hardware demanding as what we are going to be doing, only as a home desktop.
I'm sure its more than up to the task .

 

[Nothinman]

I'd be leery of going with SuSe since Novell bought them and made that deal with MS. I'm probably spouting FUD but IMO RH is a better choice if that's all Maya will support, personally I'd shoot for Ubuntu or Debian (not necessarily in that order) if it were me.

 

[hasu]

I can install/re-install my OS any number of times. Upgrade my machines as I wish.. all these without re-activating the OS. Have you seen LinuxMCE? I am installing LinuxMCE in a separate media network at home. Do you have that kind of features in Windows MCE? LinuxMCE is sweet even at 1.0. Windows is trying to follow with their media extenders.

When someone says Linux doesn't look good, mostly they refer to the look and feel of the desktop and I always suggest the LinuxMint. If you are going up to Linux from Windows world then certainly try LinuxMint (or its KDE version) you will never look back!

From my experience, the issue with Linux is its diversity and flexibility. Configuration itself is so flexible that it can screw things on its own (of course depending on the user). In my experience Linux installation succeeded only 4 out of 5 hardware configurations (mainly because of GRUB, I guess).

 

[Seeruk]

Regarding KDE... I have had no time (for a very long time) to do anything and thus aint played much with KDE4 (even a quick boot of the live CD).

But GOD i hope they have consolidated it somewhat for v4. A linux expert at work here (who admittedly spends most his time in the console or Gnome at a push) concisely summed up my feelings about KDE 3.x in one sentence:

"I spent 45 minutes looking at 45 different seemingly logical places for one setting... then I realised it was quicker to uninstall it (Kubuntu) and install another OS"

 

[stash]

LinuxMCE is sweet even at 1.0. Windows is trying to follow with their media extenders.

Er, trying to follow what? Extenders have been around for quite awhile now (I believe they worked starting with MCE2004, definitely MCE2005).

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I'd be leery of going with SuSe since Novell bought them and made that deal with MS. I'm probably spouting FUD but IMO RH is a better choice if that's all Maya will support, personally I'd shoot for Ubuntu or Debian (not necessarily in that order) if it were me.

I agree, I tried out various versions of SuSe over the years and always run away screaming. You might as well throw out everything you know about every other linux distro and get used to relying on Yast for everything and get used to buggy behavior.

I would suggest Ubuntu, but my guess is Maya doesn't support deb-based distros. I've learned with proprietary software that you will be much happier sticking with a distro that is officially supported.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: hasu

...LinuxMCE...

WOW! I watched the demo video from beginning to end. And I am IMPRESSED. Wow. Here's the video for anyone who wants to see it; it's 24 minutes long though: http://video.google.com/videop...6025602905109829&hl=en

 

[BladeVenom]

Nice video.

 

[hasu]

Originally posted by: stash

LinuxMCE is sweet even at 1.0. Windows is trying to follow with their media extenders.

Er, trying to follow what? Extenders have been around for quite awhile now (I believe they worked starting with MCE2004, definitely MCE2005).

I heard of Media Extenders for XBOX. Never saw one before. But I came across some news recently talking about beta version of Media Extenders.

See this news http://www.washingtonpost.com/...7/AR2007092700412.html

BTW, Linux MCE uses disk less network boot machines as Media Directors. Every machine in your home can potentially be a Media Director.

Let's see how much Microsoft will copy these features (from LinuxMCE). In fact when Microsoft copy features from other products they do it very well. Of course there are exceptions right from DOS days (e.g, Borland C++3.0 and Programmer's Work Bench).