Dispersing the Linux Lies

[voidmain]

Linux IS ready for a lot of desktops but unfortunately it'll be a little while longer before most large corporations will put it out on their desktops.  I think the day is definately coming though, and so does Microsoft, which is why they are getting so heavily in to other markets (gaming, phones, etc). I think they know that their days are numbered. Some people might think I'm loopy but it will happen.

[Bateluer]

Linux is not ready to take windows place on the desktop, YET. There are too many people who don't know anything about computers and would be totally lost with linux. Just the fact that you still have to do things in the command line will kill its chances.

I like linux, but I am not a command line nut. Give me a GUI anyday.

[LunchboX]

quote:Originally posted by Garden GNOME:
Um, just what are you doing to your poor computer to make it where you have to re-install Windows XP every day?  I swear for such smart Linux users some people pretend to be it seems strange that they would have so much trouble with an OS that is nearly idiot-proof.[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Garden GNOME ]

I never said I'm a "smart Linux user" but I do have to reinstall it almsot every day. And I did say that I think it's just my copy of XP, so don't start going nuts over this little post.

 

quote:Originally posted by Garden GNOME:
Um, just what are you doing to your poor computer to make it where you have to re-install Windows XP every day?

For example, one day it just decided not to get an IP from my router. After hours listening to ech support, I was told I had to reinstall Windows because the "internet settings" had to be reinstalled and the only way to do so was to reinstall Windows. Maybe there is a way, but hell, not a way I heared of.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: LunchboX ]

[Centurian]

Hey,

I really did not want to post to this thread. In fact I have been trying to avoid it. However there are things being said on both sides that I personally must disagree with based on my personal experience.

I am on an Athlon 1600 right now. I have a dual boot system with Win98SE (2 gig) and Mandrake 8.1  (28 gig). I only use Windows for a couple games nothing else.

First I want to defend a few points for Windows. (Yes I am shocked I am doing this also)

Win95 only requires 35-120 meg for an install. It will run on a 386 with 4 megs of ram. HEH but strangely it won't run on my Athlon.

My W98SE install totals 272 megs for the complete OS and programs. With the games I added the total is over 500 megs.

Windows programs are very bloated due to what is required for windows. The only exception to this is older versions of VB. In principle the runtime distribution allowed VB programs to be extremely small. Unfortunately it also caused them to be very slow.
Windows boots much faster than Linux.

Ok now why Windows sucks.
Windows is built on poor architecture.
Windows is a virus trap because of the poor architecture.
You constantly get blue screens of death causing you to reboot constantly.
Yes you do have to re-install alot. I re-installed at least once a month if not more when I was programming under windows. Hell sometimes I actually re-installed daily. Windows integration causes alot of this problem. That is a good reason to partition your Windows system with several drives.

Linux on the other hand is slow to boot up.
However on my Athlon once booted it screams although it ran slowly on the celeron (but that was a piece of shit "Made for Windows 98" Comp).

Yes Mandrake 8.1 IS ready for the desktop crowd. You can do anything you want in the GUI under Mandrake. No command line required. The only difference is you do have to get used to the way things are setup in Mandrake as compared to Windows. Basically you learn a different way of thinking. I don't know enough about the other distro's yet to say if they are ready for desktop users.

Stability....Mandrake does not lock up my comp. Rarely I have a program crash but it is only the program not the entire OS. If a program locks up I can click XKill and then click the program and boom it is fixed. No reboots required.

Everybody has the right to their choice of OS. My wife uses Win98 all the time and it works for her but she does not do anything heavy with her comp, just surfs the net, email, write web pages and work with her camera. So for her Win98 is OK. When I was using the comp she is using now (the celeron mentioned above) I ate it up constantly running windows.

Anyway I just wanted to clear up those points.

[Calum]

we've seen a bunch of dumbass posts in recent weeks, all about this exact same thing. The annoying thing about this one is that for a change, everyone is having a proper civilised discussion. This must be because of GardenGNOME's good communication skills in starting off on the right foot.
May i say my few cents' worth though?

Windows is bloated.
It really is.
i swear, my initial installation of windows took up about 500Mb of space, not too bad, but that was with no programs, well i installed MS office, and a few small apps like winzip, winrar, quicktime, etc, and HEY PRESTO! 4 gigabytes of space taken up, and a low disk space warning. Here's the rub: try uninstalling all those programs, and it will STILL take up 4 gigabytes. now that sucks.
I think my installation of redhat linux was about 600Mb and i have added a small few Mb of programs since, and... wait for it... it's STILL not got any bigger. Plus, i have hundreds of programs.
I may never use them, and i can get rid of them anytime i want, but hundreds is better than the dozen or so i have on windows, especially since they don't get any bigger on the disk...

Desktop OS. Windows is a bit easier to configure than linux, but it gives you less options. That's not strictly true though, but if you want to make changes that windows doesn't offer you, you will have to jump through hoops big time.
Linux has more options, a whole lot more, and this of course makes it bloody hard to figure out at first. i haven't figured out a way to not use the command line yet. Actually so far (i have had linux for nearly 2 weeks) it seems a lot easier to me to use the command line for a lot of things, it will be difficult though for me to introduce this OS to my M$ assimilated girlfriend... (she hates M$' business related antics with a passion, but i am dreading how she will relate to the physical workings of 'the alternative' to windows)

Linux falls down on compatibility with newer or rarer hardware. i think linux has much better 'plug and play' (if you can call it that!) than windows for the things it does support, but for the things linux doesn't support, watch out.
I know a bunch of people who have odd soundcards, or USB devices or whatever that are a bitch to configure in linux. i understand that it is possible to get linux working with a lot of devices using redirects and bypasses (or whatever you call it in computerese!) whereas with windows, you would have to hope somebody had written a driver for whatever it was...
basically, it is possible to prove that x beats the pants off of y regardless of what x and y are, but it is all a matter of configuring and tweaking. Of course this brings up the issue of how much tweaking can be done based on time, expertise and of course luck. The answer to this will be different for each person.

My considered opinion is that the windows vs linux debate is moot, and that the real issue is M$'s political agenda. Of course my point of view may be moot to people whose priorities do not match my own.
that was maybe about ten cents worth i reckon, so sorry, but i feel okay about it because a lot of the other posts in this forum have been longies too.

[gnomez]

quote: Linux falls down on compatibility with newer or rarer hardware. i think linux has much better 'plug and play' (if you can call it that!) than windows for the things it does support, but for the things linux doesn't support, watch out.
 

This is so true.  Many recent Linux distributions such as Red Hat 7.2 and Mandrake 8.1 simply blow Win9x out of the water in terms of auto-detecting and configuring your hardware when you install the OS, and although it is a shame that many important perhipherals such as scanners, digital cameras, some printers, etc. are notautodetected or supported very well (or at all) by Linux, installing both of the Linux distributions mentioned was far easier than setting up Win 98 on the same computers.  This is just a fact.  In both Mandrake and Redhat you can set up your network and test your video card settings in 32-bit color before you have to reboot once, which is much better than having to install everything from driver-disks after several reboots and have a horrid 16 color 640x480 display until you intall your video card drivers.  It is nice to have an installer that acknowledges that you might have more than one OS on your machine and kindly does not delete or make un-bootable your other OSes like a certain OS that will go unnamed.  However, not everything with Linux is perfect in certain areas.  Like I said earlier, scanner and camera support is wanting, especially for newer models.  Furthermore, I have had some personal hurdles setting up hardware on various Linux systems around my house, the most severe case being on my main computer (an Alienware) where much tweaking was required to keep it from locking up.  So yes, Linux can crash but ifit is set up right and doesn't have "issues" with your hardware then it is just as stable as Windows 2000, perhaps more.  Maybe why for some people Windows behaves perfectly and for others it is a BSODing bitch is because unlike Linux you can't very well tweak it or recompile it for your hardware.  Windows has been very nice on all of my computers, personally. (with the exception of the Windows 95 upgrade I bought a long time ago, which was buggier than a frat-house couch) If you want to avoid BSOD's on Windows then use a version that is based on the NT kernel (2000 or XP) With one exception, (Xp locked up on my brother once while he was playing dark age of camelot, but don't tell me you've never had Linux lockup in 3d-apps on an nvidia card..) I have never had either of these operating systems lock up on me.  So some of these "Windows locks up on you every 5 minutes" claims are a little exaggerated.  Even 95 didn't crash that much.  Speaking of Windows XP, ignoring the fact that Microsoft made it, I found it to be a great operating system.  I was curious about it so I used the CD from my brother's new computer to install it on mine.  Installing it was a breeze, and it never asked me a single hardware question during the installation or anytime after, and configured all of it perfectly (amazing).  Sure, OS X doesn't ask you hardware questions either, but most Macs have standardized hardware so it was more impressive when XP did it.    The only negative thing about installing XP is when it gets to the "Product Activation" part (luckilly it never came up, thanks to my hack.)  Heheh.  Sorry, Bill, but do I look like I have that kind of money?  You 'bout broke my allowance with Visual C++ alone!  One thing Microsoft needs to learn is that kids are the future.  Most kids aren't willing or able to pay for all that expensive crap, and if all the young programmers leave Microsoft for something free then they (Microsoft) are making a big mistake.

[gnomez]

A few things, first, I still stand by my saying that Windows isn't bloated for desktop use. For me, anyway.  Windows 95 can run decently on a 486, try running a Linux gui of comparable functionality on a 486 (I dare you to run KDE or Gnome on anything below a Pentium II!)  Hard drive space really isn't a sign of how bloated something is, what is a sign is how responsive it is.  Although, my default installation of Win 98 took up just a little over 300 megs, which ain't bloated in my opinion.  And that came with an email program, browser, media player, file manager, a (measly) paint program, several text editors and a bunch of themes and wallpapers. You can't say that Linux with Xfree86, QT, and KDE would take any less than that.  Both Linux and Windows take up a lot of hard drive space.  So what.  Hard drive space is cheap-o these days, and what is truly a lightweight OS that puts both to shame is QNX.  The whole OS, including a gui and a small web browser are able to fit on a floppy disk. (don't ask me what use this is, but it is surely a world record) So neither comes close to that!  And until konqueror/galeon/mozilla stops taking 5 seconds to start, and Open Office/Star Office stops taking literally 10 seconds or more to start, I will have to say window

[voidmain]

Hey Gnome, you sound like a pretty bright kid.. Too bad you spent all your money on VC++. Is there any way we could twist your arm to do some Linux development in your spare time? You've pointed out some areas that need work and the rest of us would sure appreciate it if you could help make our favorite OS better.  I'm getting too old and crusty, my brain doesn't function as well as it used to so you are right, I am dependent on you smart kids.  I'll even buy the compiler for you.  

[gnomez]

I still have a lot, lot, lot to learn about programming, but I guarantee you that I will be contributing to Linux simply because it is a great environment to learn programming in.  After all, there are a lot of things in Linux that I think "gee, it would be so much better if they made it like this."  So instead of writing another post I'm going over and reading a few chapters of C++ in Plain English!    

[dovyman]

You may have some decent arguments, but "the good name of microsoft" ?!?! what would that be? they make horrible software and OS's unless your a technology illiterate. (the idea of which they originally stole from other companies anyways)  Linux is undesputably more stable, albeit slightly slower.

[10striker01]

ok win98se on a 1994 nec 66mhz 8 meg edo ram generic vga video sb soundcard 4.3 gig hd
avg load time 3.5 mins
incredibally bad graphics from lack of available memory bad sound frequent crashes

redhat linux 7.1 same machine
avg load time 1 min inferior video and sound (but better than win98se) was better able to use the ammount of available ram but was still crawling
never crashed

win xp on a custom built machine
2x amd thunderbird 750
1536 meg ram
nvida geforce3 128 meg ddr ram
sb audigy pro soundcard
4x 160gig maxor 7200 rpm hds
usb and firewire
24/16/8/4 cd/dvd rw
52x cd
frequent crashes and virus problems with win xp
inferior sound and video even with superior hardware(sound pops when video runs)

with mandrake linux 8.1 same machine same hardware
havent had a problem yet

new machine fic sd11 mainboard
slot a athlon 750
326 meg ram
maxor 20 gig 5400 rpm hd
riva tnt 16 meg video
aztech washington soundcard
win 98 se frequent virus and blue screen failures
mandrake linux 8.1 no problems(becides unable to setup soundcard)

as you can see from the above windoze has a history of failure on any system old or new fast or slow it dosent matter
linux has never had a problem on any of my systems becides the old ass soundcards i use(im too cheap to buy new ones)

[Master of Reality]

according to the windows crash theory windows98 cannot go more than 49.7 days without crashing.

[iancom]

Fascinating thread, I missed it while it was really active.

Garden GNOME - respect... intelligent argument from someone who obviously has experience with both sides.

I actually agree with a lot of what you say. Not all, but a lot. I have had to really, *really* work at getting a truly working Linux system on my various computers (in fact FreeBSD/KDE was a much easier install on one of them, but I prefer Linux for desktop use).

The hard work has paid off, though, and I now have completely functional Linux systems on all my home PC's (one dual-booting Win2000 for work purposes). I was surprised when I found that my Linux Celeron/400 actually plays MPG/DivX video far better than my Win2000 AMD/550 (both with ATI 8MB cards).

I too encountered strange problems to start with on one of the machines - at one point crashing every time KDE loaded. I think it may have been the same problem that you had with the NVidia card (which incidentally I couldn't get to work at all on Windows 98!). Fixed by installing KDE 2.2.2 and hasn't crashed since.

Linux does have a fair way to go on the desktop, it's true... but the useability gap is quickly closing. I believe the major obstacles for widespread adoption among the "non-geek" community are:

- availabilty of familiar, trusted applications
 although equivalents for all the major players are already available, this just adds more levels of doubt to people thinking of switching. The GIMP is pretty good, but not up to the standards of Photoshop, and so many people are so familiar with MS Office they will be more reluctant to move away from that than moving away from Windows itself.

- proper compatibility of major websites with browsers other than IE.
  very sadly, a large number of websites seem to be developed exclusively for IE... even to the point that a couple that I've come across actually redirect any other browsers to a page saying "please open this site with Internet Explorer". Many others fail to display correctly.

- integration of popular plugins in the default install of Linux browsers
  It is a nightmare to gather together all the plugins you need and get them working with any/all of Mozilla/Konqueror/Nautilus/Galeon etc. And RealMedia really need to give us updated ports of their most recent versions!

- availability of complete systems preloaded with Linux.
  How many normal home users have ever installed any operating system, even Windows? We know it's not difficult, but I remember the first time I ever installed an OS about 8 years ago (OS/2 bizarrely enough) and it was intimidating. It wasn't actually difficult, but it's the unknown factor that causes the problems...
  A well put-together Linux preloaded system has the potential to be at least as easy to use as Windows. Sell it with the printer, scanner, modem all chosen for Linux compatibility and preconfigure the drivers. Preload OpenOffice and freely available DVD/AVI playing software, CD Writer etc. Bundle in Doom, Quake etc and whatever other games are cheaply/freely available at the time, and I reckon you've got a winning system.

Of course the major obstacle to achieving any of these goals is Microsoft themselves.

On another note, can't wait for the final stable release of KDE 3.0, should be any time now and if the hype on the KDE website is to be believed, it should be something special. Not risking installing dev releases at the moment, since I've got my systems the way I want them!

As for the recent posts...

Druaga: unbelieveble, but true - I once had a Windows 95 box up continuously for over six months running a PBX monitoring system.

striker: is your shift key broken/

Just my thoughts....
Ian

[binskipy2u]

I really hate to say this.. but you guys talking bout having to reinstall windows xp over and over again..is just purely a problem on the user end as in YOU...
i dual boot with rh8/xp pro.. since red hat8 came out, and before that it was rh7.3...
ive NEVER had a problem with xp.. for many reasons..for one.. i checked the hardware compatability on the MS website, i also checked the compatability of all my programs..and got the ones that were xp ready.. hell i even did the computer compat test on the windows xp cd.
and i tweaked my MTU, my menus, my start up, my services, even my harddrives in the bios and/or registry..
ive done as much tweaking as linux users do comparatively on their boxes..
and ive had NO issues at all.. so i think, while NOT trying to start a flame in here.. since i use linux too..and when i get my scanner and dig/web cam working in linux, i may never again boot into windows... (since i got my cdrw 48/24/48 working even nicer in linux then windows..
so in closing i wanna say.. if you made all those comments bout crashing and reinstalling.. on 9x/me systems, even NT id believe it was totally the OS's fault..but in 2k/xp in my 3 1/2 years experience..ive had ONLY 2 bluescreens, and both were hardware related..
so dont go bitching bout xp/2k..cause in regards to stability..and tweakability... 2k/xp come closer to linux in those regards then ANY former MS product..
and as for open office..i use it, like it..but there is ONLY one flaw to it.. its ONE HUGE program..instead of many ones like office xp.. which take up lots of ram just to open.. in linux, but it still performs like a champ..
so like i said above , i'm not starting a flame war here..but most xp problems are "PBKnC" related..thats (Problem Between Keyboard n Chair)
well have fun.. i'm recompiling my kernel.. if i screw it up, i can just go into my MS repair console, fix the MBR, aNd start all over again installing linux..its FUN DAMNIT
 

[ November 25, 2002: Message edited by: BRaD_in_FLoRiDa ]

[binskipy2u]

ok everyone repeat after me..

"windows 9x/ME sucks"
and YES i'm a windows user..

to make any comparison of 9x/me to linux is futile...
NOW if you wanna compare 2k/xp to linux, now theres a real fair comparison..
i think if some of you put as much effort into learning hot to install windows properly as some of you say you put into linux, you proberly would have a stable , clean, effeciet dual boot system..

**********************
ignorance is bliss, thanks for the orgasm