I will be the first to admit that I am no Linux expert but that being said I must tell you that I am trying really hard to open my mind. Recently, I decided I would run Linux and picked several distributions. My goal was to run Linux and run VMware Workstation with Windows XP for anything I needed that Linux could not provide or that I could not configure.
Let me preface that I have over 10 years experience with Microsoft products and can work with almost all Microsoft Products with ease and have a good understanding. So after I loaded up several distributions of Linux, my next step was to configure my HP printer. This is where the frustration begins. I had a hard time finding a supported driver for HP. When I finally found the driver, and was able to configure the printer for my HP Deskjet 6840, I jumped up and down for joy. This lasted 5 seconds. I printed my first document and it spit out garble for 10 pages. Total time invested was 1.5 hours of reading and researching and I still cannot print.
My next task was to configure my wireless card. I could get wired Internet access via DHCP with ease but I could not configure my wireless card. I spent hours doing research and read all I can on ndisrapper only to find out that my Linksys SRX card was not supported and that Linksys (a child company of Cisco) does not support Linux at all. I called their outsourced support line lol. Total time invested 3 hours. I wonder how many wireless network cards will not work on Linux. At this point, I was so frustrated and discouraged; I simply gave up my Linux idea and went back to what simply works with no hassles: Windows. Linux frustrates me like crazy. I have several Linux virtual machines and I play with them constantly. With Windows installed and VMware Workstation, I can configure a wireless bridged connection for my Linux virtual machines and get Internet access fast and easy. This is my preferred method of learning Linux.
The point I am trying to make is that I just cannot live without Windows (despite its downfalls); it just works. When Linux works out all the kinks and we have a commitment that third-party vendors will create drivers and support Linux, I will be interested in trying again. For now I am going to stick with my faithful friend, Mr. Windows!
I will be the first to admit that I am no Linux expert but that being said I must tell you that I am trying really hard to open my mind. Recently, I decided I would run Linux and picked several distributions. My goal was to run Linux and run VMware Workstation with Windows XP for anything I needed that Linux could not provide or that I could not configure.
You know, there are a lot of similarities between Windows and other systems, after all, many of them are "general purpose operating systems". There are differences though, too. In the case of Linux, one of the issues preventing wider adoption has been the lack of device support, the lack of clear, concise explanations of how to get around issues, and some solid documentation and training to help fill in the cracks. Each of these problem areas gets better and better each year. The ndiswrapper solution to wireless connectivity really would work, but what you would need is a clear explanation of what to do with it. For me, what I'd do if I had to use ndiswrapper is that I would locate the Windows wireless drivers for the device, then I'd download them and write them to a removable device. These days, a USB stick is perfect for that, but a CD would work as well. Then I would check around to see how to set up ndiswrapper on my particular system. Sometimes you also have to "blacklist" other potentially conflicting drivers and/or modprobe the new driver. In 2007 there were quite a few reasonably easy to use systems. But just since then, wireless support has improved. More and more wireless devices are directly supported by the latest Linux kernel, and that improves several times a year. SimplyMEPIS and PCLinuxOS are particularly good at trying VERY hard to provide consumer device support. Both include ndiswrapper as well as providing native Linux support for as many drivers as possible. Both have helpful forums and people who are willing to step you through what you need to do if you are patient and ask reasonable questions, and at least try to do your homework. I have particularly good experiences with the MEPIS Lovers Forum and I help there myself when I can. You won't just learn Linux overnight. The original writer did appear to spend some time doing some homework. Given a bit more tenacity, I think it could have paid off, but I understand - when there are other options that "work fine", why bother? Well, Linux is less subject to virus attacks (though nothing is completely free of network attacks). Linux costs less, unless you purchase a commercial copy with support, but even that is likely to save in less repeated license costs. Linux is stable; a bug in one program will not bring the entire system down. Linux can be halted by bad hardware and it can be halted by an illegal instruction, like any other OS, but it is solid. Linux is flexible, even to the point that it can be made to mimic the appearance and function of other systems, even Windows. Most Linux traditionalists sneer at the idea of looking or behaving like Windows, but the fact is that Linux has that kind of flexibility. Is it perfect? No, what is? Is it solid? Absolutely. Is it worth investigating? Yes, otherwise I would not bother commenting on this topic. Will it take an investment? Yes, and the largest investment is in learning. For those who really want to crack that nut, the reward is the taste of a great system that is extensible, reliable, flexible, and secure, one that can change to meet your needs.
Humm... Brand new HP laptop, Hp is not Linux friendly. Did not burn recovery DVD's because the intent from the moment of purchase was to put Linux on it, virtualize XP, Vista, and OS X as well. The first distro, OpenSuSE 10.3 did not work out because I did not want to spend weeks hunting down misconfigurations of the extended keys. A few live CD's later I settled on Ubunto 7.10. Out of the box (humm.. install CD) Ubunto found and installed the webcam which no other distro could and also configured all but the quickplay button on the extended keypad. Right now I am posting from Safari and have XP running well. My only complaint is the poor quality of graphics when watching a DVD in either real or virttttualized environments. So, I think you may have given up a little to easy. I will not say that everything was easy. Wireless is simple with either ndiswrapper or bcm43xx-fwcutter. My printer, a Brother HL-4070CDW, was a hassle that took several hours to make work. It all depends on your time, tempurment and disposition. However, Linux is not prime-time ready if you want a plug and play OS, but then again niether is Vista.
It's far easier to use then Linux, it's got click & install software, it's a lot more secure and stable, it's a cinch to install, it does everything linux does, and it's just as free :) I'm a windows man myself, and I gave Slackware, Debian, Fedora, Suse, k/x/ubuntu, and even Xandor (supposedly the easiest) a fair try, and I found all of them distasteful. I've loved PC BSD since the second I installed it on an older desktop. Give it a shot, you might like it :) I know I did.
Hey the best distribution of linux designed for desktop use is Ubuntu. It is so easy to use and more stable. Best of all, virus free. Try that before complaining. I am new to linux, but managed to get every thing running in Ubuntu. For the firts time users Automatix is a must use utility to install cool apps.
A few years ago, I bought a lapptop with Mac OSX. For weeks I could not search for anything because I was looking for a search button. Then I realised there was a magnifying glass on the top right hand corner of every finder window. The reason I had difficulty was because I was still thinking like a wondows user. Its the same problem you get when switching to Linux, because it does require a change in thinking. I use windows, linux and OS X all the time, and I find that, while linux is the most flexible, each demands a subtle and different mindset. Linux is by far the most frustrating one initially. I won't defend or apologise for that, because when things finally work, the machine is almost like an appliance, it just works. Flexibility has a price, and many times that price is more complexity. Learning linux takes time and initially you will wonder if you will ever become as productive as the OS you are more familiar with. But just remember, its not a war where you have to take sides. Change is a process that takes time. I have found that in time I started using Windows less and linux and mac more. However, I am now happily comfortable with all three, and am just as eager as everyone else to see what new offerings Vista has. I have my preferences but thats my personal taste. With more variety everyone wins.
OK...so...I read this article...and these are my conclusions about Steven Warren's attempt at Linux: 1) 10 years a Windows user? So, he can't remember Windows 3.0 or 3.1, and some of the difficulties getting a driver for it to work...especially SCSI...or even getting a driver at all. 2) 10 years a Windows user? If he has been a Windows user that long and not had an issue that he was on the phone with Microsoft for at least 1 hour, he should get on his hands and knees and thank whatever higher being he worships. I've spent complete workdays on the phone with Microsoft, and evenings after work on with them as well for hours. Microsoft is not immune. 3) 10 years a Windows user? I think it has spoiled him to the point that he doesn't want to put that extra effort to get a result, because he can always lax back to Microsoft and have it easier. If his worst issue is 5 hours of support call time/working on a driver issue, he should count himself lucky. I can't count the number of times and countless hours that I had issues with trying to get drivers and batches to work with Windows 3.1x, Windows NT 4.0, or ME. Linux is starting to really come into being as a mainstream OS. It has already proven itself as a reliable, low-cost, low-maintenance server product. Now with the advent of desktops like Gnome and KDE, it really has the potential to put a wrench in Microsoft's machine in the home consumer market. Trust me. I've been working on an issue with getting my new Dell dual-core Inspiron laptop to boot Linux from an external USB drive. I've worked on that nights and weekends for over a week. 5 hours of effort? Dear Lord...he needs grow some patience. I spent more reading forums on ndiswrapper and WPA than that, let alone trying to resolve the issue. My advice to Steven S. Warren: Keep your chin up and don't be afraid to confront hardship with your technical savvy when you run into issues. Learn to learn. Learn not to give up until you know it's fruitless. Knowledge is your friend. It is going to take some effort. But once you learn how to make things work, it is a good feeling you can't get from anything else...especially Microsoft. "This is what I say." -Riley Martin, self-proclaimed alien abductee
A discussion about OS'es and not even one mentions Ubuntu linux? First of all, I've always used windows, until a year or so. I personally feel more attracted by the Open Source perspective. Somehow I ran across Ubuntu linux and I could just order a CD through a program called ShipIt! Few days later, CD's came in, no costs at all, now that's cool.. Admitting the fact that every company needs to make money, the way microsoft does (IMHO) is bad bad bad for my business. If you want to keep your windows fast, you certainly need to reinstall it every once in a while. For every device/driver you install you need to reboot it once, if you're setting up a network, you might need to reboot it a few times. Why is that? In ubuntu i need to reboot only if i'm installing some kernel-updates..., runs out of the box, the live cd was IMPRESSIVE, put it in, start it up and you can even browse the web with firefox... It contains almost everyting you need out of the box, including an office suite. I must say it isn't as good as MS Office 2007, but it works.
Dare I say it; I'm a Microsoft man, Wohoooo!!! I feel much better now hehehehe. On a serious note The reason why I would never promote Linux over Microsoft and I know I?m going to get crucified here... It?s simple I don?t believe in proprietary systems. And I know MS has it too but it?s on a different level as there is a standard, 80% of every MS server are configured about the same and some Linux people will say that MS for you, all the same. They are computers not individuals!!! I just finished removing 2 Linux boxes for that reason. We just bought a company and the I.T guy had these application servers set up (completely FREE) when I asked him how much time do you spend on them a week, he piped up and said about 5 hours give or take. He even mentions that I have lots of Documentation. Wow there was binders full of ever kernel upgrade from 1999 and I really have to commend him on his documents but I asked him so if you got killed tomorrow how fast could I take over? He laughed at me, we moved over to Server 2K3 the following month. I?m a guy who spends tons of time trying to save money for companies and I would never recommend a Linux box even know it can be Free. The software is free but the time spend on it over the years cost far too much money than a HQL MS server or PC. I think Linux people put them selves in a position of power because there the only one who understands what they have built even another Linux guys would take a long time trying to figure out what the hell that last guy did. Why a company would put themselves in that position is beyond me. Everyone will quit sooner than later and at the point if you don?t have good Documents you business is at jeopardy. Everyone laughs at MS because it?s all the same and any old IT guy could work on it. I love that fact that there is a website called TechNet.com and Event codes that are very easy to look up. I have always said between TechRepublic and TechNet are all any MS IT guys ever need to solve any MS problems. I have base my entire career on MS I will never say they are perfect by any means and they have pissed me off with Licensing fees over the years but they have a good standard that meets everyone needs today. I would never say I wish Linux would just disappear, I believe that fact that MS has progressed is because of Linux and other competition. Competition is health but I really don?t believe Linux will be Mainstream any time soon. And if they become Mainstream server and Desktops it would be a sell out because I guarantee you there will large fees just for the support alone!!!!!! Linux is quit powerful and it has it place in small tiny companies just trying to get on there feet. Just remember Mr. Small company in your 3rd year of business and your first year of profit start budgeting to switch completely over to MS and get rid of little Timmy who help you put that server up.
I am wondering what you do in Windows that you cannot do in LINUX. The only thing I can think of is paying for software. Unless you are a serious gamer, LINUX offers a great deal more stability and functionality than Windows. LINUX is so easy to install and maintain, just follow the prompts and you are done.
Nobody become an expert or comfortable using any computer system (whatever the O/S) just by trying a few things. How can one compare 10 years using Windows products with several hours (even months) trying an 'alien' O/S? It's not fair. I've been using computer since Apple II, and I think every O/S deserve their place. No O/S is perfect, even MacOS X is, IMHO, not a perfect one as Apple's claim. It's slow and cumbersome to someone used to work using MS Windows.
windows gets drivers written for it. linux has to reverse engineer the drivers for almost everything. to bad you didn't have the printer connected and turned on during install, every distro out there would have found it, installed the HP supplied drivers package and configured your system to print. the drawback to linux and hardware is that the drivers are kernel modules, not user space software, so you really need to have the hardware connected during install to have the easiest time to get it working right. wireless, you have to use the windows drivers. even though your wireless router runs linux, the wireless cards don't get the driver ssoftware for linux.. the drivers that are on the router.
"[i]Hey the best distribution of linux designed for desktop use is Ubuntu. It is so easy to use and more stable.[/i]" How do you know it's the best if it's (almost) all you've used?
I have remembered a lot of MS DOS commands and they come in handy at times but the bigger issues that used to come with getting sound card drivers and configuring internet settings have been automated for the most part. There still are issues in every OS out there which forces everyone to work towards the ever elusive, yet to be seen, perfect OS that runs any software from anywhere at anytime by anyone regardless of how much they don't know. Ironically, I see all the OS's make some kind of contribution in the way things get developed from code to graphical and audio speech recognition. I plan to buy and support all OS's at some point as I think they all have something to offer. Now when the hell is that Leopard going to make it's debut as I want to try a Mac just as soon as I get bored with this Linux thing.
a new Dell Latitude 820 laptop. I was able to install puppy linux to a flash drive in about 5 minutes, and reboot off of that flash drive ina nother minute. I will admit puppy is not as full featured as many distros, but It will comfortably fit (with room for data) on a 512 thumb drive.
So people didn't mention Ubuntu (yet). So what? Nobody mentioned Zen Linux, FreeBSD, or Plan 9, either. Ubuntu is mentioned all over the place these days, all the time. It's a refreshing change to see a discussion of some Microsoft fanboy giving up on Linux where it doesn't turn into an Ubuntu love-in. It'd also be a refreshing change to see that, for a change, people didn't equate "open source" with Linux, as if Linux is the be-all and end-all of open source software. Of course, I'm perfectly willing to discuss Linux, or even Ubuntu, on their own merits, where appropriate. I just don't understand why you feel that Ubuntu's name has to be mentioned every time someone mentions operating systems.
I agree with the poster above. I'm a bit of a skeptic when it comes to Linux OS's as a desktop, but Ubuntu changed my mind. The hardware and driver support in Ubuntu is unrivaled by any other Linux OS with the possible exception of Debian (which Ubuntu is built on). For instance, I plugged in an external hard drive and it appeared immediately on my desktop. The same for a webcam and my cordless keyboard/mouse. The software support is incredible. The GUI is easy to use and flexible. Ubuntu is the first OS I've seen that is perfect for both an elderly grandmother who has never touched a computer and an IT professional that uses a computer daily to it's fullest extent. It's the first Operating System that I'd be willing to put my mother (a retired nurse) in front of without worrying that she'd freak. If you need an application that you don't have, you click Add/Remove Programs. An online repository is available for hands-off installation of literally thousands of applications. You click install, it does it. No compiling. No recompiling the kernel. It even creates a shortcut in the menu system for the new application, and tells you where it put the shortcut. Brilliant. If you need support for something, finding instructions on installing it is simple. Go to google and type "Ubuntu HowTo". The HowTo Documents are (for the most part) concise and simple to follow. For instance, I wanted an SSH server running on my workstation. I went to Google and typed "Ubuntu SSH HowTo". Voila. Simple instructions. Ubuntu is the best Linux Desktop implementation I've ever seen. If you have doubts, install it and use the Live CD. You'll understand.
A lot of people who are veterans of Windows servers of one type or another think that they cannot tackle a Linux desktop or server. I challenge this thinking. On one hand, I agree that it will take quite a bit of initial learning, some experimentation, perhaps even one or two failures. Didn't learning Windows involve similar things? Today, installing a basic Linux system is no more difficult than installing a Windows system, and at times it can be even easier. What is difficult is understanding the terminology; that is a training issue. It is also difficult to understand different techniques, but no more so than moving from a IBM mainframe system to a Sun Solaris system, an OpenVMS system, or any other change. Red Hat offers excellent Linux training. New Windows server employees would get Windows training; you can do the same thing with Linux. Red Hat is just one of the best, but there are others as well. Just jumping from Windows to Linux is NOT an automatic thing, but neither is it amn impossible thing. Like anything else, it takes work, learning, studying, training, experimentation, then experience. Those are the costs. The benefits are that the software is much less expensive to purchase, in some ways less expensive to maintain - less chasing viruses, for instance, but there is admitedly less expertise in Linux than in Windows, but let's not undersell too much. Linux expertise is growing strongly and there is a market for Linux training and services. So is it worth it? Well, it does cost something, but I claim that it is worth it, and the worth is in stable software that is extensible, secure, reliable, and reputable.
thats probably the best level headed argument for windows ive seen on here. I myself think linux is great but when hired to build a network ground up for a small company, I had no choice but windows. MOstly for the same reasons, I want to go on vacation every now and then!! If I set up a nice complex free linux system, my boss would use the saved money to make me sleep in my office for fear that the inevitable 'something' that always happens when we go somewhere WOULD happen. Linux definitely has its place, its always nice to know I can grab that old parts tower under my table, slap a distro on there and have an up and running file server or even a backup DC!. Or throw that bootable cd in and watch peoples eyes glisten at the site of magic as I reset there lost windows admin password or pull their files off a corrupt windows partition. Your main point is right on though, the biggest problem is the fact that when you boot up someone elses linux. You have no idea whats what and it could take you hours to days to weeks to get your bearings, depending on the complexity of the system. Boot up windows and id say in an hour tops you know the system up and down.
you could just dual boot, or do virtualization... and there's greatness in both ways... I've not got the time to get everything hooked up in Linux yet, so, I'm primarily using windows... but if there's ever any pain with Linux, it all occurs at 2 times: initial install/config, or at the first reboot. more effort to get it set up to begin with, but no pain what-so-ever afterwards... Ubuntu and its derivatives are actually devoted to making it easier, too...
I successfully installed Suse 10 on a couple different computers without any driver problems. After the initial install I even added a Netgear wireless card, USB Hard drive and a USB mouse. Suse found and installed all the drivers without any user interaction on my part.
I won't say that Ubuntu is the best Linux distro; in my book that is either Slackware or OpenSuSE, depending on need and time. What I will say is that no other distro could fully configure, with the exception of one extended key, my keyboard. Ubuntu was a hassle and I find their repository sorely lacking, as well as Debians repository. For those must have programs such as Netbeans 6.0.1 and Eclipse Europa (3.3.1) I had to go to the website and dl the tarball and compile or install them. I still dont have a splash screen when I boot. I had a major hassle figuring out out what flags I had to use to overcome HP's quirky BIOS. But all in all, Ubuntu did a nice job of configuring the laptop without my having to do a lot. It did very well on troublesome issues like the webcam and sound. The wireless I had to, for the time being, use ndiswrapper; that is, until I get the time to use bcm43xx-fwcutter which may not work because this machine has the Broadcom 5700 series wireless in it.
Agreed one cannot say that in absolute and accurate sense. I just meant it in a general way. And also from what I have heard other Linux gurus say. I have been giving a shot to other distros: RH, FC, Knoppix, Mandrake/rave, etc (I was mostly into live CDs and caught up with Ubuntu that way..) Mostly they were too complex for me (a windows user). I am a computer grad but not much of a programmer or Linux geek. But Ubuntu is user-friendly beyond words. And it allows me to really enjoy computing. Lost of apps that allow you to achieve all that you do on Windows (almost! ;) ) Anyways it worth giving a shot.
Well, while I agree with your base point of view -- that Ubuntu is mentioned all over the place these days, and probably gets more press than it deserves; Ubuntu wouldn't get mentioned as much as it does if it didn't do something that others didn't do. In this case, Ubuntu is easy to try out, easy to install, easy to support, and easy to expand. And in my 15+ years of experience in the IT industry (of which 10 has been spent working with POSIX systems like Linux/Unix/BSD), no one else has been able to do that to the extent that Ubuntu does. Now, is that to say that in a year Ubuntu will still be the choice Linux OS? Nope. Something better *could* come along. And you're right, no one mentioned Zen Linux, FreeBSD, or Plan 9. For that matter, no one mentioned OpenSUSE, Fedora Core, or any other number of distros that are out there and do something neat. They all have their place. In fact, a year ago I would have told you that Fedora Core was one of the best implementations of desktop-based Linux I'd seen. Until I saw Ubuntu, that was the case. My point is this: You're complaining that Ubuntu is mentioned every time someone mentions operating systems. But why is this a problem? Every time I say Email server to a client, the first thing they say is Exchange. Does it matter that there are some perfectly good groupware solutions (like Lotus Notes, Groupwise, or Kolab) that people don't mention? Does it matter that Exchange is a bloated groupware solution with some serious flaws and little expandability? Nope. It just is. I feel it necessary to mention Ubuntu when it comes to operating systems because with all it has going for it in terms of expandability , support, and regular new major releases, it strikes me as a great alternative to running Microsoft XP or Vista along with all of the add-on packages. Especially for people that don't want to recompile their kernel so their webcam or sound drivers work. Here's a "for instance": I attempted to play an MP3 on Fedora Core recently. Remember, FC was my favorite choice prior to Ubuntu. I got an error. I researched what it would take to get MP3 support added to FC. Eventually after I tried a few of them and the program in question failed to find support (even after following the correct installation procedure), I gave up. Same test in Ubuntu. Tried to play an MP3. Got an error from the same program I tried in FC indicating that MP3 support wasn't available. It asked me if I wanted to install MP3 support. I said yes, and it downloaded and installed the appropriate packages. It told me to restart the application, and I did. Done. MP3's playing. Same thing for MythTV. Same thing for a LAMP server (Apache-PHP-MySQL). Same thing for DNS. I could keep going... on and on and on. Show me a distro that does all of that, and I'll sing it's praises, too.
I'm running Xandros and it repartitioned, formatted and installed a raid driver to manage 3 diamondmax 250 gb sata 11 drives, installed Xandros Pro 4 OS, saw all my hardware and installed the drivers to make everything work. The only exception was my old Epson printer but everything else was very new and custum configured based on Asus M2N board AMD dual 4400 cpu, 4gb ram, 2 bfg 7900 GT boards, Logitech VX Revolution mouse, Auzentech sound card, Belkin wireless router and Sony HS95 monitor. Got me online and installed all updates automatically. I then chose what software I wanted installed, no tarballs, no compiling or whatever else some say you have to do. It just downloaded and installed everything. Came with 2 full readable manuals which I haven't gotten around to read much of.
The original poster is long gone, and the responses are based on the state of Linux over two years ago. Very little in this out-of-date discussion relates to current Linux distribution releases. Consider posting your positions to a more recent Linux discussion.
I can imagine the same comments being made in the early to mid 1980's when everyone was using DOS and the new kid on the block was Windows. In other words, yours is not a real strong argument to stay away from Linux.
You have both described why MS is the dominant market leader in Server and Desktop OS. Question is what will the Linux community do about this to even the playing field? Standardize more and the fan boys will be up in arms with the lack of tweaking allowed or the ability for everybody to suddenly use the OS. Stay on the current course and nothing will change in the long run. Will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years. For me I see Linux as the core OS for virtual computing with the MS or others sitting as Virtual Machines. This gives the security of the underlying structure with the ease of use from the other. Time will tell.
I use XP when I have to, Xandros as a main OS and I keep a Ubuntu Live CD just in case my system crashes and I have to get on line fast without any hard drive, OS or system support. There are a lot of alternatives to Windows and I'm getting a real buzz trying them out, so much so, I've decided to give one of the new Mac's a go when they show up with the new leopard OSx that's coming down the pike later this year.
I helped someone get World of Warcraft running on Debian GNU/Linux via Wine, without even having to use Cedega. On the same machine, which dual-boots MS Windows XP SP2, performance is immediately noticeably better on the Linux side of things playing WoW. It's no myth -- games designed for MS Windows really do sometimes perform far better on Linux than on MS Windows.
It seems like all the commercial versions of Linux are not only becoming more like Windows in their appearance and operation. They see all the hardware and install drivers that work. I'm really impressed with Linux, it's too bad it just doesn't have the same amount of hardware and software support as it would really put a serious spin on the overall PC picture.
But here is something interesting. In SUSE 10.0 my notebook Wireless card was detected and worked. I upgraded to 10.1 and it still worked. I blew it away and upgraded to 10.2, and now SUSE cannot detect the wi-fi card. PCLinuxOS does Kubuntu and PC BSD do not find it.
"[i]I won't say that Ubuntu is the best Linux distro; in my book that is either Slackware or OpenSuSE, depending on need and time.[/i]" I'd go with either Debian or Slackware -- again, depending on one's needs. Even better would be FreeBSD, with PC-BSD or DesktopBSD being my choice for the best option for user-obsequious Unix-like OS (better than PCLinuxOS or Ubuntu). Anyway . . . there are times when one Linux distribution will work more easily with specific hardware than another. Nothing wrong with acknowledging that, of course. My comment was in response to "webmaster". "[i]Ubuntu was a hassle and I find their repository sorely lacking, as well as Debians repository.[/i]" Are you kidding me? Debian has more extensive official repositories for its native software management system than any other operating system in the world. Have you had all of the "main", "contrib", and "non-free" specified in your sources.list when you've used Debian repositories, or were you just using the minimal "main"?
"[i]Ubuntu wouldn't get mentioned as much as it does if it didn't do something that others didn't do. In this case, Ubuntu is easy to try out, easy to install, easy to support, and easy to expand.[/i]" Many other open source operating systems fit that description. The major difference is that Canonical mails out free CDs to people who for some reason don't have access to a broadband connection or cannot (or will not) burn an ISO to CD. "[i]My point is this: You're complaining that Ubuntu is mentioned every time someone mentions operating systems.[/i]" No, I'm not complaining about that. I'm pointing out that a lot of other OSes get ignored, and that nobody should be complaining that Ubuntu isn't mentioned for a change. That's it. "[i]Every time I say Email server to a client, the first thing they say is Exchange. Does it matter that there are some perfectly good groupware solutions (like Lotus Notes, Groupwise, or Kolab) that people don't mention? Does it matter that Exchange is a bloated groupware solution with some serious flaws and little expandability? Nope. It just is.[/i]" Would you have such a bad reaction to what I said if I someone complained that Exchange wasn't mentioned in a discussion of mail servers, and I pointed out that complaining about it not being mentioned for a change wasn't productive and didn't seem to have a point? I tend to guess you wouldn't. Why, then, are you reacting that way when I point out that complaining about Ubuntu not being mentioned isn't very productive and doesn't seem to have a worthwhile point? "[i]I feel it necessary to mention Ubuntu when it comes to operating systems because with all it has going for it in terms of expandability , support, and regular new major releases, it strikes me as a great alternative to running Microsoft XP or Vista along with all of the add-on packages.[/i]" Hey, mention it if you want to. Just don't complain that someone else didn't mention it first, the way saturisation complained about that. "[i]Show me a distro that does all of that, and I'll sing it's praises, too.[/i]" With FreeBSD, all I really had to do is install a media player, and I was covered. It didn't even complain about missing codecs.
but each has different HW that it detects. I have tried several distros and had varying HW detection results. Usually with my wireless card. None had issues (except mandriva would not install on my systems)with sound/video or most functions. All used SD cards and flash drives easily.
I set up eight linux/mysql boxes, each of the pcs came with windows installed. So that's eight sales and zero implementations. So what price MS's statistics now?
1. That's a Microsoft quote. Hardly objective. 2. MS may have [b]sold[/b] more than Unix, but Microsoft [b]never[/b] includes Linux and Unix in the same category, and ignores *BSD completely. Furthermore, [b]most Linux and FreeBSD systems are not sold[/b]. 3. Most of the difference in vendor market share that put MS Windows ahead of proprietary Unix was people leaving proprietary Unix for Linux and FreeBSD. Do you have any actually [b]relevant[/b] statistics?
Officials for the Redmond, Wash., company contend that Microsoft is more than holding its own against proprietary Unix flavors such as Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Solaris, IBM's AIX and Hewlett-Packard Co.'s HP-UX. Part of that confidence stems from the numbers. "Microsoft sold more units of Windows [Server] than all flavors of Unix combined for the first time," said Bob Muglia, Microsoft's senior vice president for Windows Server, in an interview.
Provide us with some evidence that Microsoft's presence in the server market is "dominant". Give us hard numbers, indications that it dictates core server operational architecture, something. I'm sure that, if you find anything at all, it'll be a bit of fatuous nonsense at best.
If you want a good example of a great success with Linux on a large and growing company, think about Google. Yes Linux can be deployed successfully as the standard on a large organization. And yes, it can generate big revenues with it, and save lots of problems. Think also about almost all ISPs that have adopted Linux or Unix as part of most of their infrastructure, deployed it in the access appliances they sell to their customers, and now it's not far from having them selling integrated solution with Linux for home users. The computing landscape is dramatically changing: desktop sales are now falling in favor of laptops and mobility devices (which are outnumbering the old desktop "solutions" like Windows, that are really not manageable and too costly for most users). Today and tomorrow's computing is meant to be service-based, with ever smaller appliances that are easy to use just out of the box. Windows can't play in that field, this monster will have to be killed because such monster generates more problems than it solves (and is really too complicate and lengthy to administer). And thanks, Linux is gaining every place where Windows is not workable: embedded computing with simpler administration, easier interfaces, much better and reproductible security models, and easier scalability and replacement in case of failure.
They don't even control majority share and they don't guide the server pratices. They don't dominate the server market. They don't dominate the embedded market. They don't dominate the middleware market...etc etc etc.... The only place MS dominates is the desktop market and even there their dominance is slipping fast.
You see....Dominant Means.... dom?i?nant /ˈdɒmənənt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dom-uh-nuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Sho w IPA Pronunciation ?adjective 1. ruling, governing, or controlling; having or exerting authority or influence: dominant in the chain of command. 2. occupying or being in a commanding or elevated position. 3. predominant; main; major; chief: Corn is the dominant crop of Iowa. Dominant - yes they are!
1) You are wrong: http://asay.blogspot.com/2005/09/analyst-if-i-were-betting-manlinux-vs.html MS does NOT dominate the server market, no matter what way you slice it. At best they have a very small majority market share and the reality is they probably have less than that as we can only count servers shipped. 2) Level the playing field? How about MS not purposely breaking Samba functionality? How about MS actually playing well with others? 3) Linux is seeing growth in estabished companies. Why CIOs and CFOs are moving to Linux is simply because it makes more sense. The market is changing and MS is losing ground because they aren't listening to the market. 4) MS isn't moving ahead at all. Look at the mess of Vista. Not only are they behind the power curve, but there are already better products that more more established. Sure MS makes a good product with the X-Box. Sure MS does well with Office. However, their OS market share is starting to shrink because of the total nighmares that it has created for companies.
MS dos not dominate the server market, certainly not the serious one, I mean they use nix boxes themselves. What did someone do count all the free copies of SBS they handed out? Personally I would have expected more small companies on windows and that linux would be quite rare at that level, where the resources to employ someone with the requisite skills are less available.
"MS does dominate the server world for companies over 50 employees" Would you provide links to sources for this information? The last statistics I saw were from 2004, showing a Linux servers with a slight edge over Windows in the total number of deployed servers (52% or so).
First off yes MS does dominate the server world for companies over 50 employees, I will omit that Linux may be more popular with smaller companies but the reports that come out still say you?re wrong. Separate your self for a second, you like Linux because of the custom ability of it all, ( I don?t believe anyone has knock that feature of Linux) but as the business person; you the employee now have this leverage because you?re the only person in the world that understands what you did. Linux would have to standardize to become mainstream, but you the Linux guy will hate it because it would just be a MS knock off. You say ?what will the Linux guys do to even the playing field?, well it?s simple start watching how MS does business, first thing is you need to make money (basic economic). You will get a CD or two with your prebuilt install. Well at that point you just became MS with another name. I hope this argument never stops I truly believe that market percentages will change over the years but it will be pulled roughly the same in each direction. The only market gain that Linux will see, is the start up companies and then will see the start up companies grow and migrate over the MS. Microsoft is moving ahead and getting into bed with Nortel, ATI (NOW AMD ): )RIM and so on. How you see MS today is going to change enormously over the next 2 years with cell phones that turn off and move to your Lan lines that again is built into your MS computer new built house with a MS server. I never ever said they won?t borrow or buy the technology I am saying there grown faster than Linux can even comprehend. And let?s be real here, can anyone name a company with more than say 700 users that use Linux as their standard PC running open office for there Mail client. I can?t think of one off the top of my head. I?m sure there be one in the Middle East or china and I mean that with no disrespect what so ever because our Asian counter parts believe in working in teams and have a more open way of doing there processes but that?s a separate conversion for anther day. But the standards of world will be MS outlook. I do miss word perfect!!! I saw an article a while a ago, I think it was on Red hat (don?t quote me on that) or something and some Linux guy says there just a MS wanna be. With that mentality you just stated you never want to become big. I love this epic struggle between proprietary and standardization because at least in my life time, it will never end!!! And both parties need to keep up the good work because it is all of us Linux, MS, Apple, ect that drive the cool new Technology that will continue to come out tomorrow!!!!!!!!!
I have tried out 12 distros. And it takes little time to do basic tasks from 1 to another. But getting to know them better takes a bit of time.
I've never even laid eyes on a working copy of Crossover Office. I did it with nothing but the free/libre/open source software available through the APT software management system. Wine and World of Warcraft. Well, there's the proprietary closed source video driver, but that's kind of assumed.
I'm stunned, never heard of such a thing, you do this using Crossover software ? This has long been a serious issue with Linux having so little 3rd party software support. Same thing with hardware support, limited, very limited which leaves many commercial vendors of linux left to develop hardware drivers that support their individual Linux OS's. Some can work when interchanged with another OS providing it's based on Debian or whatever platform. This really is great to read
yeh Ive seen this also. I was taking a MS Server class in school. I usually finished my lab assignments in 1/4 of the time of everyone else until they learned my secret: I was running an entire microsoft domain inside vmware running on linux. Complete with PDC, BDC, a win server acting as a router and three hosts (on a single processor desktop, not a server mind you). Much easier than setting up and going back and forth between several pc's. not only do games designed for windows run better, but windows itself seems to run better.
I've used SimplyMEPIS Linux for a couple of years now, and I don't know a lot about Linux or computers. It works. Hardware detection is excellent, very good WiFi usage (although I don't use wireless, that's what I've heard), SimplyMEPIS 6.5 supports Beryl for a 3D look...that is what I recommend, anyway. The choice is (as always) yours...