[Klaatu]

Installed Wubi on a Win98 box to make it dual-boot to extend its utility. Found Linux desktop spartan but rather interesting.

Don't see a real use for Linux, though. That is, what role can the OS play in everyday computing?

Thanks.

[piyushsingh]

If i ask you the question - What is the real use of windows ?

[crazy4laptops]

The main reason I like linux is that it is immune to windows related viruses

[rgreen4]

The usefulness of any OS is to enable programs to operater on the machine thus permitting you do do work. The programs will for the most part be different, but some will be very similar. For example, you can run a version of Firefox browser on Linux, Open Office has a version for Linux as well as Windows. While touted as a replacement for MS Office, as a long term MS Office user, I find several areas that are more difficult and inconsistent with MS Office.But, it's free.

[AuroraDizon]

They are different operating systems. A lot of people install Linux hoping to see and use an alternative form of Windows. Its like ordering caviar and expecting sushi or being fluent in spanish cutlure and language and trying to talk to a chinese person. You have to start basically from the beginning all over again when learning how to use any form of Linux. I've seen so many people just pop it on their hard drive and expect everything to be a snap treating it like Windows then getting mad that its not. Linux is a different operating system but good for a great many things. What someone said here before "I have been able to do some things only in Windows, and other things I can only do in Linux."



Anyway to answer your question:

gereally free (not just the operating system but a lot of the programs, if it wasn't for Linux we wouldn't have such a good selection of free programs for windows ie: Open Office)
much more secure
better for programmers
http://cityblogger.c...er-than-windows < a list of 51 reasons why Linux is better then Windows.

[piyushsingh]

crazy4laptops said:

The main reason I like linux is that it is immune to windows related viruses

btw - windows OSes are also immune to unix based viruses.

The only reason i use linux is because of the desire to learn new things. Linux safer than windows or vice versa are things that i dont believe.

[AuroraDizon]

Even though no os is immune as some in Linux and Mac users would want you to believe they are much safer. Read up on it sometime, Ubuntu comes with all their ports closed by default. etc
ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=510812

quote from the link
"The fact of the matter is: viruses/worms take advantage of flaws or
holes in the code. At this time of this writing, there are no
significant Linux viruses "in the wild". Linux boxes are no less
targets than any other OS, many of the large (ie valuable) Internet
sites run on nix so there is no lack of motivation to crack into nix.
Do not believe the suggestion that the Linux community is complacent or
"behind the times" in terms of viruses, or any other security issue.
Linux developers have not "ignored" viruses, rather the OS is built to
be highly resistant to them and since the code is "Open" there are
literally thousands of eyes watching"

[Klaatu]

Guess I meant that there doesn't appear to be any outstanding capabilities or functions that Linux offers for every day computing that Windows doesn't already offer. Not to mention the seeming lack of programs compared with those available for Windows.
Granted, I'm a Linux neophyte so I'll be the first to admit that I don't know what I'm talking about regarding the OS. But generally seems more for programmers or those fed-up with Windows vulnerabilities which I can relate to. As an alternative OS, it's also obviously cheaper to simply install Linux on a winbox than buying a Mac.
Overall, it presents another learning opportunity and I became intrigued with it because a network appliance I installed on my network, the Linksys NSLU2, is supposedly Linux-based. Wondered what all the hubbub was about.
Thanks for all of the <i>useful</i> feedback.

[piyushsingh]

How many firewalls are you currently being protected by ? Atleast 2 . Everyone has one software firewall plus all routers come with a hardware firewall that effectively blocks all ports.

Well, I m not anti-linux. I use it as much as i use vista but A chain is only as strong as the weakest link . The 3rd party installs in linux also make it as vulnerable as windows. There was a time (XP days) when linux systems were well ahead from windows in terms of security. Today, there is not much difference. The secureness quotient is much more attributed to popularity. Security wasn't the reason i installed linux , i just wanted to see a new world.

[BAMT]

Almost every router is Linux based, even if it doesn't say it is. If I type SSH to one of my routers, it will probably work and I'll eventually get to a Linux BusyBox terminal.

[George1979]

Yeah well I do not see the real use of re-installing Vista every other day! Linux is nuch more stable and I can do almost everything in Linux then I did in Windows! I can print, use my web cam, ditgital camra, email and web. I have used Debian/ Linux only for just over three minths now. So I ask you why do I need Windows?

[RedRat]

Well having been a confirmed Windows user, I switched over to Linux about a year ago when my old Dell Dimension 4100 (256 Mb memory) hard drive crapped out. I put a new drive in and thought what the hell, let's give it a try. Well, the machine ran faster under Ubuntu 7.04 compared to XP on that machine. What the heck, let me play. So I did and haven't looked back.

About 9 months ago, I got a Dell 530n with ubuntu 8.04 and now it rund 8.10. It is great, runs much faster than two machines that I have in my household running Vista. Have concluded that Vista is a POS.

What can you do? Just about anything. I have found Linux equivalents for every Windows program I had. Now unless you are doing complex word processing, Open Office seems to be able to do everything that I ask of it. I can watch DVDs, mp3s, and other multi-media stuff. Is it perfect??? Is Windows??? Is the Mac (true believers notwithstanding)??? Of course not. But it works, and works, and keeps on working.

[crazy4laptops]

Vista is crap when it isn't given enough system resources. The minimum amounts for smooth running are- ram, 4 gigs, a 2ghz dual core processor, 256mb video card, 160gb hdd.

When vista has plenty (see above), it runs just about as fast as xp. (the only difference is that battery life is shorter in vista)

mac is based on unix (closed source) which linux was derived from. You can get more functionality than a mac when you switch to linux at the price of free. The only sacrifice for mobile users is that wifi is still very iffy with ubuntu.

if it wasn't for windows, i'd still know very little about computers

I still have windows dependent programs, so i'm in a dual boot setup.

[CharlesB]

Ahh. Here we go again -- comparing Windows, Mac, & Linux. People, it's like comparing the horse, the driver, & the wagon -- You need all three to really accomplish the big tasks. One makes a mistake, and they all learn from it. One makes an awesome feature that everybody likes, and they all build on the idea. So one of them has been making complete blunders lately, it has helped all of them to figure out what NOT to do. It will NOT be a great day in computing when Microsoft bites the big one. There will be one less platform that adds to the community of operating system software, whether that would be to make more and more mistakes, or make actual improvements -- it really doesn't matter. Linux cannot appear so awesome with nothing else standing next to it to compare it with.

What would be swell is if Microsoft Windows and Apple's Mac would become open-source software. That would be something very sweet to computer users all over. Windows and Mac should still maintain their ability to charge users to use their software, but making their source code open to the public would radically fix their bug issues. It might go so far that the speed at which bugs are fixed in these operating systems actually bring in more business to these already known software giants. That would make using a computer really fun, indeed.

[Evildave]

If you use it, you'll discover that it has all the stuff you PAY EXTRA to make a Windows or MAC machine do. Install a fresh version of Windows, and you'll discover a pretty plain desktop with nothing to do, as well.

Just use that 'Add/Remove...' item in the Applications drop-down. Type a few keywords into the search box and wait a moment.

Go to System->Administration->Synaptic Package Manager, then Settings->Repositories, then check all the checkboxes for software sources, first. That'll get you a few more toys, including additional video CO/DECs encumbered by copyrights that don't normally ship with Ubuntu.

Google Earth installs on Linux just fine. How useless is that?

OpenOffice.org comes with it. Quite the opposite of useless.

Need Desktop Publishing because M$Word/OOoWriter aren't easy to use for that? Install Scribus.

Install VirtualBox. Now you can run Windows under Linux, other Linux distros under Linux, even OLD versions of Windows under Linux. Super handy for making virtual 'kits' of certain development and testing tasks. Really useful if you KNOW HOW to use it.

3D animation, audio/video editing, etc.? Pick through the hordes of of available software to do it. You'll find one or two you like.

Need alternatives to paying $1000 for Photoshop and Illustator? GIMP and Inkscape.

Want to run some WIndows program you don't have a replacement for (unlikely)? Load up WINE.

Want music? I like Amarock, but there are probably a hundred MP3 programs to choose from.

Want to create a web page? Try SeaMonkey Composer.

Want to work on the back-end to that Web page? The 'L' in LAMP is for LINUX (Linux/Apache/MySQL/[PERL|PHP|Python|etc.]).

ANYTHING you can do with a Windows machine, even run some of the latest Windows games, you can do in Linux.

[RedRat]

EvilDave

I certainly agee with your reply if the only criteria is cost and cost alone. There certainly are a large number of programs out there that are close to being an equivilant of Windows programs. Note that I say "close". The problem that I have run into with many of the open software programs is that they are being written and maintained on a voluntary basis by their creators or people who just want to make them better--more power to them. However this improvement is a slow process and many of these programs have quirks in them that make them comeup second best to the commercial programs in Windows. For exampe, I use gedit for writing simple long winded text message on various blog post that I do. I found it odd that you could not set in "Preferences" the "Autocheck spelling" evertime that you opened a new document, even though all the previous tabs had autocheck running. I thought that ought to be simple fix really. I wrote to the author and a week or two later got a reply that said thanks, we'll look into that. Well that was 6 months ago, no fix yet. Is it a devestating problem, well no, but it is annoying.

Another example: I use DigiKam and found that when I use the "Find Duplicates" on pictures in a folder, it does not show a thumbnail of the image if the size of the picture is over about 1.1 Mb. Wrote the author and he did reply a bit quicker and said they were aware of the problem but that was several months ago and still no fix. Devestating--No! But damn annoying. I also found that DigiKam "Find Duplicates" sometimes claims two pictures that are clearly very, very differnt are called a duplicate. No so good. Now combine that with a box that presents two pictures as duplicates and one has a thumbnail and the other does not, what to do? See the problem?

The problem here is that most program creators and maintainers have real day jobs that have the first priority and these open source programs have only a second priority status at best. I understand that. If you are playing around trying to create a useful program you are more than likely doing it in your spare time. For some, once the create the program, even as a proof of concept, they are intellectually finished. Their work is done, now let the community maintain it. Well OK, considering that it is free I guess we have to be thankful for what we get. But it is the small little annoying bugs (or features if that is the way you wish to sping it) that tend to drive people away from many of these open source programs.

[Evildave]

All of these complaints about the people who voluntarily create and maintain code...

So what's Microsoft's excuse?

They took your money, and they have billions in the bank, and yet they ship BUGGY, INSECURE CRAP!

I mean, sure, we're looking at SP2 for Vista now, and MAYBE they'll get the kinks out 'this time'?

Windows software that you pay for is CHOCK FULL OF BUGS, and you're complaining about minor issues in specific instances of open source software for which there are MANY alternatives? Don't like 'DigiKam'? Did you try Google Picasa? Maybe KPhotoAlbum, Album Shaper, Plagiat, etc. before you WROTE OFF THE WHOLE OPEN SOURCE CONCEPT because something didn't work right in one program?

Hell, it boils down to PAY FOR your buggy crap or get your crap for FREE.

Given the choice, I'll take the FREE crap.

In the case of the Ubuntu repositories, they filter pretty thoroughly for 'live' projects with ongoing support. There's always some stuff that's old 'n dead. Of course, Windows software companies go out of business and/or discontinue products all the time. Especially the ones where Microsoft decides that THEY own that piece of the market. Lot of Windows software I liked 'went away' over time. Some really good stuff was 'bought out' and simply discontinued by the clueless clods who bought it. Underwear's Brief and PowerQuest Partition Magic are two that I remember bitterly. Of course, Linux has GParted to mollify the latter, and I started using VIM & JEdit some years back, and don't miss the former.

There certainly ARE other criteria, such as dumb momentum and unwillingness or inability to adapt to new things. That keeps a lot of people using Windows for sure. Single companies blow millions of dollars on Microsoft 'upgrades' pretty much every year, then lay off a stack of people that they 'can't afford'. So the HARM of 'for pay' software is there, and very evident. Of course, Open Source people don't have a ten billion dollar marketing budget to sow FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) in the minds of clueless people who are too intellectually lazy to find anything out for themselves, and when that doesn't work, simple corruption works as well (i.e. give an I.T. director a 'gift').

[RedRat]

EvilDave

You are falling into the trap that you must be anti-cobra and pro-mongoose, or anti-mongoose and pro-cobra argument (sorry if you don't get the paradigm here, it goes back to an old story). I am not defending Microsoft or the other products that are commercially developed and maintained for windows or Mac. I merely saying that the open source community does have one weak point, and the two examples I gave, if you read carefully, were annoyances. But they do point to a real problem with open source.

Now many Linux programs, Open Office and Gimp and others work fine. But when you are in a business to make money on selling programs, you tend to make sure that any bugs are fixed. What if I were a commercial photographer and shoot all kinds of photos, and all of a sudden I need to look for duplicates in my collection. Could I trust Digikam? Don't think so. Even a simple Windows program ThumbsPlus can do what DigiKam cannot do, but it does cost around $100-200.

The point I am making here is that the quality of the open source programs can be good but they can also be fairly poor. Since developers aren't being paid to create or maintain them, they feel no obligation to put more effort into their creations (some do, some don't), they feel they have proved their point and let their baby fly. Money does provide incentive. Sure I walk away muttering about DigiKam, but then I remind myself that "ya gets what ya pay fer".

[rgreen4]

You are absolutely correct. Take Open Office for example - it hypes that it is a full replacement for MS Office Excel, but it is not 100% compatible. I tried OO 2.3 when I was using Excel 2000, and opened a password protected file, made a few changes and went to save it. It would not let me save it with the password. Now, some may call that an inconvience, but if you can't do what you expect it to do, then it's not ready for prime time.

Try opening an Excel 2007 .xlsx file in Open Office 3.0 (2.3 won't open it at all), and try the same thing. It won't save the file back as an .xlsx file, just their file version. You either save it as an .xls file and loose the new features, or save it to an OO file version and lose the ability to interchage the file with someone who has only Excel 2007.

Try to do a Mail Merge in OO 2.3 and you will find it will not. This is something I use a lot, and many coporate locations use it heavily as well. Then one must ask the final question about Sun and Open Office. If it is so great, why does Sun offer a paid office suite? What does it have that Open Office does not? Why would they offer both a paid commercial office suite and an open source one as well?

I have Open Office 3.0 on one machine. I had a Word Document that I had sent a friend who could not open it, as they had Open Office (must be 2.3 as it was a .docx) so I converted the file to a OO file format in OO 3.0, which they still could not open. I opened the original file in Word 2007, saved it as a PDF and then they could open it. At least MS offers extensions to Office 2003 so you can read and write .docx files and readers that will allow you to open .docx file as a read only, but I have seen nothing about this in OO to where you can open the newer OO file fomats in the older version. I guess that they take the position that since it's free, you just upgrade the version, which may or may not be an option for everyone.

[Evildave]

Every example you both cite about 'old and new' and software that 'does and doesn't' has comparable Windows examples.
If you send an Office 2007 document to someone with Office 2000, GUESS WHAT? They won't be able to open it.
Of course, your friend with OpenOffice can UPGRADE to OpenOffice 3.x after a 15 minute download and open your document for FREE.
What's it cost your Office 2000 buddy with the same problem to do that? Order the DVD online, take up another few gigs on the hard drive over the Office 2000 setup, possibly it will demand they upgrade their Windows 2000 to install the new Office....
So you believe that FREE Open Source software should have absolute feature-for-feature parity with Microsoft's trash, down to the dancing paperclip?
Super, I can say with certainty that Open Source software will never satisfy you. It will always be different, even though packages like OpenOffice have features that M$ Office will never have. If you approached this from OpenOffice versus M$ Office, it's exactly the same 'M$ Office Sucks' because of missing features arguments, as well as PAYING MONEY for M$ Office.
There will FOREVER be something that works the way you want it to in one package, and not another. Whether it's Open Source versus Microsoft, or even Microsoft vs. Microsoft. You can't claim that everything Microsoft has ever changed between two versions of a piece of software have been to your liking. After all, XP versus Vista and 2000 versus XP. I bet some borderline-retarded people even missed that stupid paperclip animation when they removed it from Office.
And once again, if you don't like ONE version of gee-whiz Photo Album software, take your pick of the MANY. Picassa has WIndows AND Linux versions. You can as well compare Photoshop and Paint Shop Pro. I liked PSP far better than Photoshop. As a matter of fact, the newest PSP suck. They peaked somewhere around PSP 8. At this point you couldn't PAY ME to use a new PSP. It's completely mangled. And that's nothing but Windows versus Windows comparisons. I loved Powerquest Drive Image, and Norton Ghost SUCKS. Same product, different owners again.
One very nice thing about Open Source software, the old versions tend to get picked up and maintained. For instance, Mozilla took off with Firefox, but you can still use SeaMonkey if you liked the old Mozilla UI (especially the WYSIWYG web page 'Composer').
So absolutely nothing that either of you has cited has any particular merit as points against Linux/Open Source. The exact same problems exist between different for-pay software on the same Windows platform. You can always cherry-pick weak projects and compare them to very strong products, and find your 'strong product' wins. Duh. Failing that, you can always whine about 'differences', as if being different from a MICROSOFT product is a crime.