what's so great about linux?

[joohang]

<< 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. >>


I can't agree any more with you on that one, Noriaki.

For some reason, having a GUI interface gives the impression that admin work is so much easier. Humm... Whether it's Windows or Linux, you gotta know what you're doing.

I know a lot of hypocrities (or ignorant idiots) who just fool around with Windows and blame Microsoft when it goes down. Then they take Linux and Solaris servers very seriously and brag about their high up-time. WTF... Their NT servers are deployed just about against all the recommended industry best practices.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

<< 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. >>


i agree, especially with the first argument about command line flexibility and power. windows' CLI is a JOKE. but as far as normal desktop use, its not a mind boggling difference, it's just different.

i, myself, plan on working w/ computers as a career (only 18 so i've got a ways to go), windows=boring, linux=LEARNING. all of the fools here who brag about oc'ing their athlon xp's and playing rtcw are a bunch of poseur idiots, trying to pass off as computer geeks. any computer geek, IMO, wants to learn anything and everything about computers that they can. that's ME . i want to learn, and linux lets me do that. i can learn just about anything in linux. the kernel, the filesystem and directory layout, networking, and then other things which are cross platform like programming. i can learn to code in just about any language and do it for FREE unlike with windows.

plus, i hate MS. all of you windows lovers, well, you can keep on loving it, but i have news for you: MS could give a rat's ass about you. you are another 99 dollars to them, nothing more. and as long as they make an OS that's "good enough" then you'll keep buying it, or warezing it or whatever (keep in mind warezing windows is still furthering MS's market share and thus helping them). With linux, the distrobution system makes it really flexible. i can get a distro thats 99MB like peanut linux. i can get debian (i do), where i can just install the core components of the OS, and then only add things that i want. (via apt, a great package management tool). i wanna install gimp, i do 'apt-get install gimp".

The GUI IMO is a million times better than windows, because you can make it whatever you want. with windows you are stuck with MS' interface and if you dont like it you have to use windowblinds which is buggy and slow. personally, i hate the start button. it is totally useless to me. so is the taskbar in general. the only thing of use there is the clock which you can implement a million other ways. with linux, i can use a minimal gui like blackbox or a big bloated interface like Gnome or KDE, and have it function like windows or nothing like windows.

if you are proficient, you can make the OS do tedious tasks for you with scripts, and by making your own programs.

you almost never have to worry about viruses, and to a lesser extent, hackers.

you almost never have to worry about programs with spyware. a good portion of the programs you use are under the GPL which means they are FREE in every sense. you can look at the source code and edit it yourself. you can edit the program and then compile it to get a version customized to your needs.

it works on MANY more platforms than windows, which is almost exclusively on x86.

if you dont understand why linux is great, then great, dont use it. stay with windows. if you really love computers (and computING, not playing CS and rtcw and surfing AT), then check out linux. it is a great deal of fun, and if you're willing to learn, it will give you MUCH more enjoyment than windows EVER will.

edits:



<< superuser-friendlyness (when I tell a process to die, it shouldn't be allowed to refuse) >>


great point, i HATE that.

also, more rants....

the registry is a horrible way to implement system settings. one file gets corrupted and your whole installation is FUBARed.

it IS more stable, any way you slice it. many people (like ME) get bsod's and freeze ups in win2k (and xp). that is totally lame. i have yet to have linux freeze on me.

rebooting after installing things is lame. USB is (supposed to be) PLUG AND PLAY, not plug, reboot and play. other things should not require a reboot either.

 

[SuperTool]

Windows is OK for play and basic work. But if you do serious engineering work, can't beat Linux or Unix.

 

[chibchakan]

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



So true.

 

[Nemesis77]

What's so great in Linux? Here's my list:

1. Price. I have a Linux-server in my home, serving files. How much did it cost me? nothing. I got the hardware for free (old PC), and I downloaded Linux (Debian) from the net. Had I used Windows NT/W2K/XP or something, it would have cost me alot of money. First of all, Windows's wouldn't run well on that machine (120MHz/64MB), so I would need better hardware. And Windows itself costs money.

2. Stability. When Windows-user talk about how their OS is stable, they are talking about month or two of uptime. When Linux/UNIX-user talks about how their OS is stable, they could be talking about several YEARS of uptime! W2K and XP are a step in the right direction, but they are still not as stable as Linux/UNIX is.

3. Freedom. You can do whatever you want with Linux. Want to install that same Linux on all your 200 PC's? Go right ahead, you don't need any additional licenses (in fact, you don't necessarily need any licenses at all!). Want to modify Linux so you could use it in your strange project? Sure, go right ahead. Can't do that with Windows.

4. Security. Windows has several thousands of viruses. Linux has about dozen or so. Security-holes in IIS and/or Windows are common news, not so with Linux/Apache.

5. Flexibility. Don't like the GUI of Linux? Change it! You have several to choose from. KDE, Gnome, Windowmaker, Blackbox, IceWM, Enlightenment...

6. It looks good! I honestly think that Linux GUI's look better than Windows GUI does. It might be unfamiliar for new users, but it's just as easy to use. Learing-curve isn't steep.

7. It's more powerful. You can do things with Linux that you can't do easily with Windows. Diskless, soundless, low-power thinclient-terminals? Easy and free with Linux, not so with Windows. Put that Linux to mainframe or PDA? Already done. Windows can't do that (for mainframes you need Windows Datacenter server, for PDA's it's PocketPC, two ENTIRELY different beasts!). Linux is Linux, no matter if it's in PDA or mainframe.

8. Privacy. You can't be sure that Windows doesn't "call home" or collect data about it's user. Product Activation is a step towards that direction. There are no things like that to worry with Linux.

 

[her209]

2 Words: Code Red
2 More Words: Remote Desktop
2 Last Words: Service Packs

 

[Kerouactivist]

Where can I get linux(free)?

I'm think about putting this on my old P2 350 just for fun and to learn the OS

 

[Derango]

If you've got a CD burner, head over to www.linuxiso.org and grab an ISO image. Then burn it to a CD (don't burn the image file to the cd! Burn a CD from the image! )

 

[Kerouactivist]

which version should I download?

 

[Nemesis77]

<< Where can I get linux(free)?

I'm think about putting this on my old P2 350 just for fun and to learn the OS >>



Well, you could download it from Linuxiso, as was already suggested. Or (if you have broadband) and you are not intimidated by a bit more difficult installation, you could do what I did: head over to www.debian.org, get a boot-floppy, boot from the floppy and install the OS over the internet . Of course, other distros support ftp-install too.

 

[Kerouactivist]

Thanks guys, I am going to try the iso burn, I have never done it before but, it is something I need to learn how to do so I might as well learn it now!!

Again, which version of linux do you guys recomend

 

[tm37]

I am going to set up a home server that will Run 2 comps off, I will be running it mainly for shared files although I would also like to run it as my router and Firewall. Where would I find info on how to do this AND is it woirth it to learn a new OS. What books Are availble for me to use as refernce. I have A copy of NT server 4 availible or I could get an Academic Version of Server 2000. I have Very limited exposure to linux am interested in learning.

 

[tm37]

ON more question,

If I go linux after learning and using it, Is Win 2000 easier to learn or would it be easier to learn 2000 Then Linux?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

If you are a newbie to Linux try RedHat or Mandrake (or SuSe), those are quite userfriendly. RedHat would be my choice in this case, as Mandrake starts to suck once you get past the newbie stage.
FreeBSD gets nice at that point btw

If you start from scratch the Windows 2000 user part would probably be as easy or maybe a bit easier to learn than for example RedHat. However if you want to learn more advanced stuff than 'What is that strange thingie with those buttons doing next to my keyboard?' I'd say Linux quickly becomes easier. You have to search a lot for some of the advanced features in Windows, while Linux tends to be better documented and more easily organized. Sh!tloads of HOWTO's available and stuff, all nicely organized. BUT.... you probably already have basic knowledge of Windows, and not of Linux, so at the start it will be a bit slower to master Linux.

 

[Nemesis77]

First, for books and help, go check out www.linuxdoc.org and www.linuxnewbie.org.

As for learning things.... Of course, prior knowledge of computers and OS'es is always helpful, even when learing Linux. But I have seen that many people who learn Linux and then try out Windows are frustrated when Windows doesn't let them do things the way they want to. And people moving from Windows to Linux are often intimidated by the power and flexibiluty of the OS. They have teached themselves that there is a certain way of doing things, and now they see that they could do that thing in several different ways and with more power and features.

The actual GUI's are more or less similar. There are icons you point and click. GUI's in Linux are more flexible and customizable (you can choose from several different GUI's if you want to, but most seem to use Gnome or KDE. KDE is said to be easier on former Windows-users). And if you want to, you don't have to use GUI at all. You can do everything (and more!) you can do in GUI in the CLI as well. That would save you system resources, when you wouldn't have GUI eating up memory and CPU-cycles (my server has no GUI. It doesn't have monitor either, I use SSH to administrate it).

 

[Nefrodite]

so how much does win2k advanced server cost? hehe

 

[manly]

<< ON more question,

If I go linux after learning and using it, Is Win 2000 easier to learn or would it be easier to learn 2000 Then Linux? >>



Good question that isn't asked too often.

IMHO, I'd say you're better off learning Linux first. Some things won't be obvious, and you'll have to be dedicated to read and learn, and discover some of the powerful tools available.

Learning Winblows first might well make you more complacent, and use the GUIs available. If you then try Linux, you may initially feel daunted and wonder why things are different.

As far as overall ease-of-use, I'll have to admit that for most users, Linux is not as friendly. You have to remember how many millions M$ has poored into usability in the last decade. Of course, the old joke is that it took them all those millions and ten years to release W95, which brought them up to Mac OS circa 1985.


If you're a dial-up user and can't download an ISO, private message me and I'll try and send you CDRs. Of course, I can't legally make that offer for Winblows OS, so there's one benefit of Linux.

I think for ease of use, SuSE and Mandrake are in the leadership position. Red Hat is the de facto standard though, so if you need 3rd party software compatibility, Red Hat is still a good overall choice.

tm37, it's desirable to learn Linux for various reasons, but those don't apply to everyone. For example, Unix is still a strong server OS, so it's a valuable skill to possess. Secondly, if you're planning on using an old PC as a router/firewall, Linux will be a much better choice price/performance wise. IMHO, Linux has been better than NT4 for a very long time now. If it weren't for Linux's threat, Microsoft wouldn't have executed so well in W2K/XP development. Third, some people (like myself), are just software enthusiasts interested in learning new/better tools. The list can go on and on.

For sharing files/printers, you'll use a software package called samba. For firewalling/routing, you'll use ipchains (or the newer iptables) with IP masquerading (NAT). Honestly though, hardware routers are so cheap these days, you're better off using a dedicated device. It's still worth _learning_ how to accomplish those tasks with Linux, and making your own determination.

As far as ipchains goes, there was a time when you had to have a good understanding of TCP/IP to cook up the recipes for a solid firewall implementation (i.e. the rules to instruct the Linux kernel how/what to firewall). However, today, most Linux OS distros have configurable firewall scripts. From what I've seen of W2K/XP firewalling, these scripts are much better/flexible but you will have to understand TCP/IP networking. In Windows, you simply check an option to enable the firewall. In that case, I'd recommend ZoneAlarm as a much better consumer software firewall.

 

[tm37]

<< so how much does win2k advanced server cost? hehe >>



Academic is about $200

If I use 2000 I will be paying for it!

 

[Nefrodite]

so whats so great about not having drive letters?

<----asking from complete linux ignorance

 

[Elledan]

<< so whats so great about not having drive letters?

<----asking from complete linux ignorance >>

Hmm... you'll have to use an OS which doesn't use drive letters to really understand why it's better to have everything mounted under one root folder.

Well, in short, drive letters make no sense at all. Who cares whether a folder is on hda or hdb, or fd0, or a HD at the other side of the world? Mount everything under one root folder and you're done. Much more convenient.

 

[Elledan]

BTW, I want to challenge those who think that Linux is inferior to Windows to set up a cluster which must then perform better than a (Linux-based) Beowulf cluster

 

[burnedout]

what's so great about linux?

Price - saved my company $thousands.
Stability
Scalability

 

[hans007]

its free. very robust in servers. you can modify the kernel source on your own.


its not very good as a well personal OS relative to xp. if you wanna do what most average people do , i.e. word process, net surf, chat etc, xp is still better, because its easier to install stuff, more intiutive gui, and they are for the most part just as stable as each other.


its good if you are a programmer though, like doing java , etc. though windows isnt a bad programming environment. linux comes with dev tools and stuff, so mostly this just gets back to the its free idea . it also runs on many systems, but XP can run on a small memory footprint also if it is stripped down to its core. Xbox runs XP basically and it only uses around 4 to 8mb of its 64mb ddr ram for the OS kernel that is stripped to nothing, just as the linux kernel would be stripped to bare on a embedded device like an xbox as well.


the special compaq modded version of win2k data center is pretty robust from what i've read but well thats a specially modded very expensive piece of software that only comes with a 100000 dollar computer.

 

[Red Dawn]

It's free

 

[UnixFreak]

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



Stay running, for one

and keep 13 year olds out of your system.

I dont want to start a flame war, so I will just say, Linux runs spectacular for me in comparison to any Windows product. I have more power over my hardware, and settings, and its faster, plus I have only had linux lock up maybe twice in the past few years. Its better for me, but then again, I really know my way around it. I am getting to the point where I know more about linux than Windows, because I havent gotten into XP much, since I am almost always in Linux, and I am not at all impressed with XP so far. Just my opinion.