what's so great about linux?

[Foundation]

i mean, what can you do with it that windows XP cant'?

 

[gopunk]

i dunno about linux, but in unix, it's much more customizable, configurable, etc. in general, i find unix to be quicker for certain tasks, because it is text based. windows xp looks nice, but in terms of functionality, for things like checking email, i really like unix.

 

[Jerboy]

<< i mean, what can you do with it that windows XP cant'? >>




Education within limited fund. 2,500 copies of Windows XP= $:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q:Q for the district. 2,500 copies of Linux is free.

 

[777php]

true nerdity at its finest.....

 

[Elledan]

Linux can run on a PDA and in embedded applications without serious modifications. It also works on servers with 8 CPU's without any patches and stuff (or buying an expensive version of XP).

BTW, drive-letters and a registry suck.

 

[Ih8canada]

stability

 

[Foundation]

<< stability >>



winxp has not crashed on me one time.....i dont think it can get any more stable than that

 

[Noriaki]

They have their strengths and weaknesses.

If you mean for Desktop usage, Linux really isn't that great. If you are comfortable with Windows and it does everything you need/want it to, then keep it and be happy.

Linux/Unix have many benefits, but most of them don't really show themselves in a desktop environment, unless you find the cost of windows prohibitive.

Also, I would like to comment, that unless you have some reason to don't waste the time learning Linux, you really won't improve your life significantly by it.


Edit: Oh yeah, and it makes people feel like l33t h4x0rz when they use Linux because most people can't use it.

 

[poopaskoopa]

You can put Linux on your PC without paying for it. I also like it for the themes . KDE and GNOME are nifty looking UI. I don't buy the stability argument for a desktop OS choice though. Win2k has been every bit as crash-free as MDK8.1/RH7.2 on my machine(I know some of you are going to say those aren't real Linux and blah blah blah, but I'm a Linux newb ).

I believe I'd never used 4 emoticons in my post until now.

 

[Thegonagle]

The price! Free or very cheap.

And it's a very stable, customizable platform for server apps.

I've got little use for it personally at this point, but I've had some fun playing with it.

 

[Keego]

you can uhh... be l33t and all that. In all seriousness, I found that it did not fit my server requirements whatsoever.

 

[broadwayblue]

<<

<< stability >>



winxp has not crashed on me one time.....i dont think it can get any more stable than that >>



yeah, haven't installed my copy of xp yet...mostly because i've had win 2k pro for a year and only had one crash. seems like the real versions of windows (non ME) are pretty stable these days.

 

[777php]

linux is a very versatile and stable os when acting as a webserver.....

 

[Noriaki]

<<

<<

<< stability >>



winxp has not crashed on me one time.....i dont think it can get any more stable than that >>



yeah, haven't installed my copy of xp yet...mostly because i've had win 2k pro for a year and only had one crash. seems like the real versions of windows (non ME) are pretty stable these days. >>

Yes, WinNT is quite stable. But when people talk about the stability of Unix, they are talking about months and months of time without rebooting, and under heavier usage than you'll put your Desktop machine through. However all that notwithstanding, the good versions of Windows are certainly stable enough for desktop use. I really don't think that should come into your decisions for your desktop.

 

[silverpig]

I just put linux on my dad's old P200 MMX (just built him a new duron system), and I set it up as a router for our house. I have this machine (Tbird 900@1037) running an XP/mandrake dual boot, and have ssh configured on all os and systems. The router has no monitor anymore (just used it for the install, and config), and now, if I want to make any changes to the net settings, I log in via ssh. I can do it in XP, so no loss there, but when I use linux, I can have Xwindows run over the LAN and see whatever I want on the router, without having to disconnect/reconnect my monitor.

It's cool cause when I'm in linux, I usually have gkrellm (neat little monitoring program for all the hardware) running on both boxes, with both on my screen. It's sorta like having two computers running on one monitor, and I can switch back and forth between computers like they were just programs...

 

[linuxboy]

what's so great about linux?

Hell if I know

Cheers !

 

[breathe]

<<

<<

<<

<< stability >>



winxp has not crashed on me one time.....i dont think it can get any more stable than that >>



yeah, haven't installed my copy of xp yet...mostly because i've had win 2k pro for a year and only had one crash. seems like the real versions of windows (non ME) are pretty stable these days. >>

Yes, WinNT is quite stable. But when people talk about the stability of Unix, they are talking about months and months of time without rebooting, and under heavier usage than you'll put your Desktop machine through. However all that notwithstanding, the good versions of Windows are certainly stable enough for desktop use. I really don't think that should come into your decisions for your desktop. >>


Ive had XP Pro running for a month straight with no reboots, and the only reason I rebooted was I installed some program that said to reboot. XP was running just as good as a fresh reboot when i did reboot

 

[zeon]

first and foremost imo is it's not owned by M$... the benefits it provides to the user are greater when someone really knows how to use it... it's a hackers os plain and simple... something about it you don't like.. you hack it and make it better... something buggy... you fix it... plus theres a great deal of free aplications available... although not really above and beyond what's out there for windows...it's mostly for those who want a greater deal of control over their system... wich it provides...

 

[mithrandir2001]

It's not Microsoft.

That's basically the only thing I can gather for most users.

 

[Kadarin]

My personal favorite has to be the fact that Linux does not come with Product Activation, which requires you to contact Microsoft and beg for another authorization code whenever you upgrade enough components of your PC..

One of the coolest overlooked things about Linux is the X server/client architecture. Many programs on Linux are X clients (the X server provides the framework for the various Unix-based GUIs), which means that they can output their display to any X server, even if it's on a different machine. Even if that different machine is running a different operating system.

Huh?

I can have a programs running on different Linux boxes on my network (or even out on the internet somewhere), and have their graphical ouput shunted to the X server running on the machine where I'm currently at. If I have an X server running on Windows, that means that I'm running Windows programs on my machine and also simultaneously seeing the windowed output of the Linux program on my monitor as well.

 

[Noriaki]

A month is nothing. And it's your desktop right?

Come back to me when you have multiple webservers and a 3000 user NFS server running off your box. Then when 500 calls / half hour of downtime come across your desk.

You probably don't put your desktop box through this, so probalby don't care whether your system would perform well in this or not, which is what I said.

Seriously, I've worked in big industry. The industry defenition of stable and the power user definition are rather different.

I would claim that Windows XP/2000 (and probalby NT4 though I've never ran it on my PC) easily match the stability needs of the power user. But I wouldn't want to run our Oracle servers or NFS servers on a Win2000 box. No offense to microsoft, after all Unix has been around 3x as long as Windows, I have full confidence that by the time Windows NT has the maturity and install base of Unix it will be right up there in quality.

Also one problem that people like to overlook is the quality of Admins. Unix System Admins tend to be very competent people, and while I have in my life met many excellent Windows System Admins, the sad fact is that there are tons of incompetant oafs out there calling themselves Windows Sys Admins. And in many ways I personally think that some of Microsoft's reliability image comes from the fact that alot of their stuff is just "too easy" to set up, and you end up with idiots that have no business running a big shop doing just that.

Don't get me wrong, Windows admins are not all incompetant fools, I've met some good ones, and they can set up some nice windows systems. But there are lot that are fools, and through their ineptness they can give the apperance that Windows is flaky.

This is just a theory by the way.

But seriously, whether or not Windows will run fine on your desktop for a month is not what I mean when I say stability. But the kind of stability I'm talking about probably isn't very relavant to you.

Honestly, I'm quite comfortable with Unix and Linux, I use them as much if not more than Windows. But I don't think that there is a lot to be gained by switching your desktop to Linux. I haven't, though I could if I needed to.

 

[joohang]

<< i mean, what can you do with it that windows XP cant'? >>


I found no good reasons to switch to Linux for my needs.

Many Linux users I know told me that they like Linux because it's more stable and it's not from Microsoft. And it apparently offers everything that Windows offers and beyond (an argument that I don't buy unless it's more specific; each OS got its strength and weakneess). Another popular one is that "Microsoft screwed [them] over." Well.. They haven't even really done anything or looked at Microsoft's latest products seriously to make such comments. Apprarently hearing bad stories from fellow coworkers and friends qualify as Microsoft screwing them over.

So unless you got personal feelings against Microsoft, I see no good reason why you'd use Linux.

About scalability and stability and Microsoft-based servers, just look at Dell. What was their reliability rating? Something like 99.999%. I don't know how many people around here do something so mission-critical that requires a higher reliability than that, but I find that high enough. Just gotta know what you're doing and have a proper formalized business process to successfully deploy stuff, in my opinion.

 

[EmperorRob]

My work is mostly UNIX server based. While working with large files I've realized the power of languages and tools such as sed, awk, and perl. Also the bash shell is a great tool all on its own. By running Linux I get the ability to do all that plus have a beautiful desktop via KDE/BBOX/WMAKER. Not only do I have a good desktop but I have the choice of many. Got a program you wish it had a feature? E-mail the developer and it might get put in the next release.

There are mainly 2 reasons I didn't buy XP, proprietary bundling/hidden code, and price. I dual-boot Win2k for compatibility/games and RedHat 7.2 on my T-bird machine.

Can XP packet filter and firewall? The Linux kernel can. Also, it's very hard once you've used UNIX for some time to not be interested in Linux.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Stability, security, superuser-friendlyness (when I tell a process to die, it shouldn't be allowed to refuse), highly adaptable, non-Micro$oft ( ), freedom, price, cute little daemons and blowfishes, etc.

 

[gopunk]

So unless you got personal feelings against Microsoft, I see no good reason why you'd use Linux.

or if you're cheap...