Unfortunately most if not all flavors of netbook linux have pretty rough implementations of Broadcom wireless support. Especially with the numerous netbooks that use those, namely Dell for one. But not limited to them either.
While I can play with Linux all day at times, I really don;t want to "assemble my car before I drive it" type analogy.
I really liked the super fast concept of Presto Linux... But could never get my wireless to work right and certainly not with any WEP or WPA/WPA2 type encryption..
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
Linux-based OS's have made some serious strides in recent years regarding driver implementation. That being said, however, one of the *FIRST* things I still do when looking at purchasing a machine or peripheral equipment is fire up Google (or my irc client) and research the item's Linux compatibility. When it comes to netbooks I really don't even trust the manufacturers because of the half-a$$ed manner in which most of them threw Linux on their netbooks without really tailoring the OS to the machine or its peripherals (I have a serious theory about that, but that's a whole other topic of discussion).
Besides, Broadcom and Linux have a long, well-documented history of not playing nice with one another.
Besides, Broadcom and Linux have a long, well-documented history of not playing nice with one another.
So who should play nice? Broadcom or the Linux folks? Not starting a war, but a long history of issues, (as I am reading as well) isn't good for either side IMHO.
I just want my Dell mini 12 to work with Linux easily is all.
I just want my Dell mini 12 to work with Linux easily is all.
IMHO the fault lies with Broadcom and/or Linux users themselves. It shouldn't be a kernel hackers' responsibility to write drivers for someone else's chipset; that being said, no one would expect a manufacturer to write drivers for a particular OS if the perceived marketshare isn't big enough to make it worth their while (IOW Linux users should at least let Broadcom know they exist).
BTW I found something which may help you: http://www.tipsandthoughts.com/?p=4
BTW I found something which may help you: http://www.tipsandthoughts.com/?p=4
Well if broadcom would open their drivers, then this wouldn't be an issue.
Read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" for more information on why I believe that.
Besides, no point in arguing with this dude, he is obviously in the "if i have to do anything more than be an idiot, I won't use it! NANANA! I can't hear you!" group.
Read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" for more information on why I believe that.
Besides, no point in arguing with this dude, he is obviously in the "if i have to do anything more than be an idiot, I won't use it! NANANA! I can't hear you!" group.
The older cards are known to be an issue. At that time, the kernel developers (where the support is written into the OS) all but and then begged for the minimal specs to write support for the hardware. I believe Broadcom's response was; "we can't release that information due to patents". The end result is that I buy wireless cards known for good support across platforms.
In terms of distrubutions pre-installed by the hardware vendor, such issues should have already been dealt with. When you go it alone with an after-market distro install, issues are usually the hardware vendor's imposition.
In terms of distrubutions pre-installed by the hardware vendor, such issues should have already been dealt with. When you go it alone with an after-market distro install, issues are usually the hardware vendor's imposition.
I'm a big fan of netbooks and can't wait to replace my work laptop (unlikely - my employer has a Microsoft thing).
And my experience with wi-fi on netbooks so far has been excellent. Wi-fi has worked on all of the following combinations straight away either out of the box or after installation, as appropriate:
Asus 701 and Xandros
Asus 701 and Eeebuntu (on an SD Card)
Acer Aspire One and Windows XP
Acer Aspire One and Ubuntu Netbook Remix
Acer Aspire One and OpenSuse 11.? (probably 11.1)
Acer Aspire One and Ubuntu 8.10 (I think, might have been 9.04)
Using WPA at home in all cases, but also using public hotspots.
So it's disappointing to read about your experience.
I would have to disagree with the "most if not all flavors" claim though, just because my own mileage has been great.
Cheers,
And my experience with wi-fi on netbooks so far has been excellent. Wi-fi has worked on all of the following combinations straight away either out of the box or after installation, as appropriate:
Asus 701 and Xandros
Asus 701 and Eeebuntu (on an SD Card)
Acer Aspire One and Windows XP
Acer Aspire One and Ubuntu Netbook Remix
Acer Aspire One and OpenSuse 11.? (probably 11.1)
Acer Aspire One and Ubuntu 8.10 (I think, might have been 9.04)
Using WPA at home in all cases, but also using public hotspots.
So it's disappointing to read about your experience.
I would have to disagree with the "most if not all flavors" claim though, just because my own mileage has been great.
Cheers,
I bought an Acer netbook last year. Came with crippled Windows (XP Home). Hated it. I tried gOS, that was OK, changed to Ubuntu Netbook, I wholeheartedly LOVE it! I'm not a Microsoft Hater. Loved Win 2k back in the day, XP is alright, Vista is well - Vista. Windows just doesn't belong on a Netbook. As a user, to me, it just doesn't feel right. Ubuntu on the other hand is speedy, has a bunch of useful apps, and what truly surprised me was that my Sprint wireless broadband USB was recognized and worked like a champ. This closed it. I nixed XP Home, Ubuntu found a new home.
So... is it Linux or Broadcom's fault. Atheros has Linux developers working for them, so find a netbook with an Atheros chipset (Acer Aspire One, for instance).
If you don't know what you are talking about, don't post. just shows everone how ignorant you are.
If you don't know what you are talking about, don't post. just shows everone how ignorant you are.
I appreciate the constructive criticism you offer with the expert advice of "get rid of your netbook and buy a different one". Truly helpful.
Maybe some of us haven't totally embraced the Linux religion yet.
I grew up doing VMS/MVS/AS400 even DOS.. So working with a black screen and little white/green/orange letters and numbers doesn't bother me in the least. But I choose not to deal with that if I don't want to..
Don't confuse this with not having a clue please...
Maybe some of us haven't totally embraced the Linux religion yet.
I grew up doing VMS/MVS/AS400 even DOS.. So working with a black screen and little white/green/orange letters and numbers doesn't bother me in the least. But I choose not to deal with that if I don't want to..
Don't confuse this with not having a clue please...
between the "linux religion"(as you put it) and the "anti-linux religion"?
There is none. the people for linux make stupid remarks and the people against linux make stupid remarks.
And I did not mean you are ignorant about Computers, but, by your own post, you showed you haven't a clue about Linux. Maybe before you start bashing other people's OS, you should actually, and here is a novel idea, learn about the OS.
I know. may want to take a breather after that idea sinks in.
There is none. the people for linux make stupid remarks and the people against linux make stupid remarks.
And I did not mean you are ignorant about Computers, but, by your own post, you showed you haven't a clue about Linux. Maybe before you start bashing other people's OS, you should actually, and here is a novel idea, learn about the OS.
I know. may want to take a breather after that idea sinks in.
1) If you live in the UK and get your broadband via Sky Linux is a real pain in the arse to set up with it. I rang their technical support to be told that Sky don't support it so couldn't help me. I have heard anecdotally that it is possible, personally I couldn't be bothered with the effort and just forked out the extra for Windows instead.
2) What is the deal with this (dangerous?) myth that Linux doesn't get viruses? Of course it gets viruses, it's just that hardly anyone uses it so it's much more viable to write malware for Windows machines instead.
2) What is the deal with this (dangerous?) myth that Linux doesn't get viruses? Of course it gets viruses, it's just that hardly anyone uses it so it's much more viable to write malware for Windows machines instead.
The latest data I can find is from early 2006 for 2005. Kaspersky Labs has Linux virus' doubling to 863 for all of the year and Windows with 11,000 for the last HALF of the year. Plus, as most users of Linux do not run as root/administrator, those virus' at most infect the user only and not the entire system as Windows does. Now virus' can reside on all file servers (Windows, Linux, Unix, et al) and pass them along without being infected. Of the two systems (Windows and Linux) I would never connect to the internet without virus/malware/spyware protection with windows (even with strong passwords and a firewall device), but would with a patched Linux system. Silly? Dangerous? Maybe, but far less of a risk than Windows is.
[Edit] Would I provide a virus scanner on Linux that was acting as a file server and mail server for Windows boxes? Sure, no sense in infecting a network.
[Edit] Would I provide a virus scanner on Linux that was acting as a file server and mail server for Windows boxes? Sure, no sense in infecting a network.
You're certainly less likely to get a virus running Linux or OS X than you are running Windows, I just dislike the gross simplification that other operating systems are somehow defacto "immune" from viruses and that only the great unwashed running Windows ever suffer from them.
Some handle the risks better than others but absolute immunity is gone the first time you boot the system up.
But none of them were found in the wild. And oddly enough, Linux/BSD folk have learned to ignore Kaspersky's "Linux virus" claims.
Back then, Wildlist.org listed "Linux viruses" in the category "other", and every one they identified was to be found only in a virus lab as an experimental test of concept. Since then, the "other" category has been dropped entirely.
The only successful Linux virus (ie. actually spread in the real world) hit about 100,000 systems that ran a Russian niche distro, that by default ran as root user.
There have also been a few malware (generally worms) that have successfully targeted specific applications (such as specific, generally outdated and/or unpatched) versions of the Apache server) rather than the OS itself.
All the other successful "Linux viruses" were actually Windows viruses that had "Linux" in their name.
While a Linux virus is not actually impossible, the Linux eco-system is inherently rather resistant to virus propagation, and the reality is that "Linux anti-virus suites" are used to protect Windows networks from Windows viruses.
Back then, Wildlist.org listed "Linux viruses" in the category "other", and every one they identified was to be found only in a virus lab as an experimental test of concept. Since then, the "other" category has been dropped entirely.
The only successful Linux virus (ie. actually spread in the real world) hit about 100,000 systems that ran a Russian niche distro, that by default ran as root user.
There have also been a few malware (generally worms) that have successfully targeted specific applications (such as specific, generally outdated and/or unpatched) versions of the Apache server) rather than the OS itself.
All the other successful "Linux viruses" were actually Windows viruses that had "Linux" in their name.
While a Linux virus is not actually impossible, the Linux eco-system is inherently rather resistant to virus propagation, and the reality is that "Linux anti-virus suites" are used to protect Windows networks from Windows viruses.
The myth that Linux, osX or any other platform doesn't have malware is definitely a dangerous one. The myth that it's all about popularity doesn't help it either.
The architecture is different to put it simply. Where a virus can easily run rampant on Windows and Apple has put effort into leaving osX wide open to exploitation, other platforms are naturally hostile environments. Malware has a much shorter lifespan because of the higher rate of discovery and patching. When malware does get in, it has to break out of the user account which is not easy on a well designed platform. It then has to break into higher privileged. It's effects and and time to live are severely reduced.
If we focus on browsers alone, Windows actually takes a step up above osX. MS has been forced through public embarrassment to put sandboxing around the browser where Apple has only recently demonstrated an interest in a secure OS (beyond marketing spin). We'll see how the next osX version shakes out but so far, they've been detracting from the inherent security of Posix like platforms. On the other hand, Linux folks get upset over the reduced security in Ubuntu let alone larger decisions. BSD folks even more so as platforms like FreeBSD and OpenBSD take it very seriously.
In the end, it's not the number of attempts which does rely on market share to some degree. The real measurement is the success rate of those attacks and how fast discovered vulnerabilities are addressed by the platform provider.
The architecture is different to put it simply. Where a virus can easily run rampant on Windows and Apple has put effort into leaving osX wide open to exploitation, other platforms are naturally hostile environments. Malware has a much shorter lifespan because of the higher rate of discovery and patching. When malware does get in, it has to break out of the user account which is not easy on a well designed platform. It then has to break into higher privileged. It's effects and and time to live are severely reduced.
If we focus on browsers alone, Windows actually takes a step up above osX. MS has been forced through public embarrassment to put sandboxing around the browser where Apple has only recently demonstrated an interest in a secure OS (beyond marketing spin). We'll see how the next osX version shakes out but so far, they've been detracting from the inherent security of Posix like platforms. On the other hand, Linux folks get upset over the reduced security in Ubuntu let alone larger decisions. BSD folks even more so as platforms like FreeBSD and OpenBSD take it very seriously.
In the end, it's not the number of attempts which does rely on market share to some degree. The real measurement is the success rate of those attacks and how fast discovered vulnerabilities are addressed by the platform provider.
okay, with one, I don't know anything about that deal, so I can't help.
about two:
Okay, you are right. Linux (nor OSX) is immune to virus's (viri?). the biiiiiig difference comes from the fact that Linux is by far more secure than Windows and stuff that the Windows OS takes for granted (everything runs as admin at all times (pre-Vista)) is a no-no in the *nix world. Virus's are very few and far between and, if you are using the OS right, are nigh on impossible to actually crash your whole system. And stuff like keyloggers and the like are next to non-existent. While I disagree with the security through obscurity ideal (i mean come on, 64% of internet facing servers are Linux), i do think that the *nix structure is more secure.
Now. I can see Ubuntu having problems. Have a program in GNOME just ask for the sudo password and the keys to the kingdom have been handed over, but noone has seen to do anything as far as I know. What is great is that on *nix, it takes a user being stupid to actually cause problems. Using Windows (albeit without protection) is all it takes to get a virus.
about two:
Okay, you are right. Linux (nor OSX) is immune to virus's (viri?). the biiiiiig difference comes from the fact that Linux is by far more secure than Windows and stuff that the Windows OS takes for granted (everything runs as admin at all times (pre-Vista)) is a no-no in the *nix world. Virus's are very few and far between and, if you are using the OS right, are nigh on impossible to actually crash your whole system. And stuff like keyloggers and the like are next to non-existent. While I disagree with the security through obscurity ideal (i mean come on, 64% of internet facing servers are Linux), i do think that the *nix structure is more secure.
Now. I can see Ubuntu having problems. Have a program in GNOME just ask for the sudo password and the keys to the kingdom have been handed over, but noone has seen to do anything as far as I know. What is great is that on *nix, it takes a user being stupid to actually cause problems. Using Windows (albeit without protection) is all it takes to get a virus.
With Debian Lenny, I had to grab two or three packages then run a command which automated the rest of the setup. With Debian Squeeze, I had to grab firmware-iwlwifi and it was done. The delay was actually me going looking for a howto on what the next steps where.. turns out the next stap was "now connect to your wireless network"; WPA2, AES painlessly. Mandriva was as easy as this in 2008 already; easier as it detected the wireless and carried on.
I can't speak for the netbook distributions specifically but I can't see why a vendor provided distro would have issues with the vendor provided hardware let alone a full distro like Ubuntu having issues these days. Netbook hardware is already old enough for the delay in support where hardware vendors refuse to recognize non-MS OS.
I can't speak for the netbook distributions specifically but I can't see why a vendor provided distro would have issues with the vendor provided hardware let alone a full distro like Ubuntu having issues these days. Netbook hardware is already old enough for the delay in support where hardware vendors refuse to recognize non-MS OS.
I have a laptop with a Broadcom wireless chipset. To get wireless working in Ubuntu, I plugged it in to my router and the Restricted Drivers Manager popped up. I clicked on Broadcom B43, and clicked Activate. It downloaded the drivers and I was done.
Not really that hard, and no command line necessary. It works fine with my WPA2-encrypted network, and I get download speeds over 1MB/s. (megabyte, not megabit)
Not sure when the last time you tried Linux was, but maybe you should give it another shot.
Not really that hard, and no command line necessary. It works fine with my WPA2-encrypted network, and I get download speeds over 1MB/s. (megabyte, not megabit)
Not sure when the last time you tried Linux was, but maybe you should give it another shot.
1. Windows networks perfectly with ~93% of computers as ~93% of computers are running Windows, and many computers running Linux that expect to share files via a network use Samba which is the default Windows file sharing protocol. My netbook has a 80GB hard drive so OS size isn't an issue.
2. Installing Avira Personal is free and has a negligible performance decrease. Linux can get virus/spyware, an attitude that it is invincible is the attitude of someone who is vulnerable. Safe habits are just as important as OS security.
3. The netbook remix interface discourages users from multitasking. It is an easy and intuitive interface to use, but due to the way it cripples productivity it isn't for everyone.
4. Xandros might be a limited OS compared to Eeebuntu, but that has nothing to do with Windows. Neither XP is not a limited OS. You can even install a full-blown WAMP (Windows, Apache, MySQL, PHP) server on your netbook if you like.
5. Choosing Linux over Windows to keep the cost down when buying a netbook is a valid point. Stating that users must pay for any software that they install other than the OS is not. Although hard to believe, there is a lot more freeware available for Windows than there is for Linux. Many people run a completely legal Windows install with the OS being the only software needing to be purchased.
6. Windows has a large degree of extendibility. Be it themes or fancy cube desktop gimmicks, Windows can become unrecognizable with a bit of customization. Many of the "flavors of Linux" you speak of are merely an extended Debian/Ubuntu.
7. A comparison of speed between Windows XP and Eeebuntu when running the same programs will have Windows in the lead. It is a fact that Firefox support on Windows is much better than Firefox on Linux. If you do not agree with this, try installing both Eeebuntu and Windows XP on a P233 with 64MB of RAM. Neither will run well, but XP will run better.
8. Microsoft release security updates as frequently as required and in small "chunks". A Service Pack is merely a collection of already released security updates packaged with new OS features.
9. Windows 7 RC runs very well on all netbooks I have tried. Windows XP is supported for another 5 years, no one needs to switch from XP to 7 until then. Also, have a look at the Ubuntu support forums for people suffering from upgrading to 9.10. Or the Fedora support forums for more people upset with the fact that they cannot do 3D on their ATI card with F11. Many Linux distributions suffer serious user incompatibility issues when they release a new version.
10. Support is better in the sense that usually you just have to look at the support forum for your distribution of choice to find solutions to your answers. But it is worse in the sense that there are so few people using your distribution. If someone has a problem with Windows, there is such a large user base that it is a safe bet that many others will have had this issue and found a fix. Simply because the user base is larger, the chance of someone else having a similar problem is larger.
Linux is not the solution for everyone. It is the solution for me, but I would not put it on my fathers laptop because there is nothing for him to gain by using it. And that is the real issue.
Cheers,
Avid Linux User with a MSI Wind u100.
2. Installing Avira Personal is free and has a negligible performance decrease. Linux can get virus/spyware, an attitude that it is invincible is the attitude of someone who is vulnerable. Safe habits are just as important as OS security.
3. The netbook remix interface discourages users from multitasking. It is an easy and intuitive interface to use, but due to the way it cripples productivity it isn't for everyone.
4. Xandros might be a limited OS compared to Eeebuntu, but that has nothing to do with Windows. Neither XP is not a limited OS. You can even install a full-blown WAMP (Windows, Apache, MySQL, PHP) server on your netbook if you like.
5. Choosing Linux over Windows to keep the cost down when buying a netbook is a valid point. Stating that users must pay for any software that they install other than the OS is not. Although hard to believe, there is a lot more freeware available for Windows than there is for Linux. Many people run a completely legal Windows install with the OS being the only software needing to be purchased.
6. Windows has a large degree of extendibility. Be it themes or fancy cube desktop gimmicks, Windows can become unrecognizable with a bit of customization. Many of the "flavors of Linux" you speak of are merely an extended Debian/Ubuntu.
7. A comparison of speed between Windows XP and Eeebuntu when running the same programs will have Windows in the lead. It is a fact that Firefox support on Windows is much better than Firefox on Linux. If you do not agree with this, try installing both Eeebuntu and Windows XP on a P233 with 64MB of RAM. Neither will run well, but XP will run better.
8. Microsoft release security updates as frequently as required and in small "chunks". A Service Pack is merely a collection of already released security updates packaged with new OS features.
9. Windows 7 RC runs very well on all netbooks I have tried. Windows XP is supported for another 5 years, no one needs to switch from XP to 7 until then. Also, have a look at the Ubuntu support forums for people suffering from upgrading to 9.10. Or the Fedora support forums for more people upset with the fact that they cannot do 3D on their ATI card with F11. Many Linux distributions suffer serious user incompatibility issues when they release a new version.
10. Support is better in the sense that usually you just have to look at the support forum for your distribution of choice to find solutions to your answers. But it is worse in the sense that there are so few people using your distribution. If someone has a problem with Windows, there is such a large user base that it is a safe bet that many others will have had this issue and found a fix. Simply because the user base is larger, the chance of someone else having a similar problem is larger.
Linux is not the solution for everyone. It is the solution for me, but I would not put it on my fathers laptop because there is nothing for him to gain by using it. And that is the real issue.
Cheers,
Avid Linux User with a MSI Wind u100.
I gotta ask: Why would you want to run a database or web server on a netbook, regardless of OS? The processor can't handle any sort of transaction load, the wireless connection is going to be a huge bottleneck to the throughput, and you've completely sacrificed the mobility.
I could stick 15 clowns in Volkswagen, but nobody's going to enjoy the ride.
I could stick 15 clowns in Volkswagen, but nobody's going to enjoy the ride.
I know a few programs require sqllite or bsddb (the things you learn from LFS) and something like lighttpd. So technically, on Linux, minus PHP, you have a LAM.
I can think of a few reasons:
- development on the go without network connectivity
- demonstration without asking "oh, can I pop on your companies network for a moment"
- portable pentesting like a rogue webserver and little bit of arp poisoning (sure, a professional has access to more powerful hardware but sometimes it's about small and nonthreatening)
As for the Volkswagen, there's a joke about 15 laywers and a cliff.. hehe..
- development on the go without network connectivity
- demonstration without asking "oh, can I pop on your companies network for a moment"
- portable pentesting like a rogue webserver and little bit of arp poisoning (sure, a professional has access to more powerful hardware but sometimes it's about small and nonthreatening)
As for the Volkswagen, there's a joke about 15 laywers and a cliff.. hehe..
but if I was doing those things on a regular basis, I'd rather have a machine with some screen space and a more powerful processor. Just me, I guess.
For heavy dev work I'd want a nice big screen also. If a netbook where my development platform, I'd at least have a nice big screen and keyboard at home for stationary work. I can see some site geeks wanting to muck about in transit though. Also, if your doing a lamp on netbook you can hit that from any local machine. Your webserver can literally be carried too and from work if it's not ready for a public IP or preferable to keep it off public networks.
I wouldn't say it's the optimum way to work though either. I can run apache on my PDA but I'm not going to do any site work in Maemo through the button pad. Sadly, I haven't found a reason to justify installing it even; no content that needs hosted on such a mobile platform yet. Good to have the option though if I find a use.
I wouldn't say it's the optimum way to work though either. I can run apache on my PDA but I'm not going to do any site work in Maemo through the button pad. Sadly, I haven't found a reason to justify installing it even; no content that needs hosted on such a mobile platform yet. Good to have the option though if I find a use.
1a. CIFS/SMB is still a cleartext protocol.
If you transfer files too and from network shares; I get that data easily. If you protect the shares with a password; I get your username and password then break it without a great deal of work. If you use a third party authentication to avoid the LM/NTLM Windows native hashing; I get your username then take a little more effort to break your password hash. It's all there in the open being sprayed all over the network.
1b. Windows is a one way relationship with all other major platforms.
I can SSH into an osX, BSD or Linux based platform to change settings or run wonderfully powerful software through a terminal. I can scp or sftp data back and forth between these platforms. I want to push a document up to my wife's osX machine; scp and there it is in her documents folder. I want to mount a directory tree on any of these other machines (ie. network share); sshfs does that. Heck, I can do all this too and from my PDA. A GUI app is the desired need? SSH does that also, I regularily run Firefox (installed on my desktop) from my notebook sitting on my couch in another room. I can open Mandriva's GUI admin tools through SSH and have the graphic goodness on my local desktop.
With Windows, WinSCP and Putty help but you have to be working from the Windows box. If you want a graphic app from the Windows machine, you'll be needing the full weight of Remote Desktop or similar when all you really needed was the program display.
Sure, Samba helps since Windows won't become compatible the other way. CIFS/SMB is nothing to be proud of though.
2. True, all platforms can be effected by malware though too different extents. I run AV on my Linux based machines more for the purpose of not passing problems on to the Windows machines I have to interact with. When I do have to deal with an infected Windows machine, the first thing I do is cut the power and boot a more malware hostile OS. Avira liveCD incidentally; Avira does good AV within the freely available options.
3. I can't comment as I haven't used the remix desktop. If it's like the maemo desktop, it's more about one app on screen at a time though many running. With a machine that size this isn't unreasonable. Crippling would be only allowing three or less programs open at once.
6. "Debian/ubuntu" - Ubuntu is a fork of Debian so it's more like many distributions are extended Debian. Mandriva has netbook installs which makes one an extended Red Hat. I'm not sure how close Mandriva is too the Red Hat roots though other than being an RPM based system. The different flavors are what it's all about though unless one can config there own platform out of the fork parent.
7. getting a safe WinXP install in under 64MB of ram is an amazing thin in itself. I'd be interested to hear more about how one does that as I have a few RAM limited challenges on the go at the moment. I've got WinXP SP3 down to around 300 MB ram but can't seem to get it lower without killing required processes. With an OS meant to be mobile and networked, less than SP3 is not a possibility.
(I really would be interested to hear more about how one does WinXP SP3 in under 64MB of ram.)
8. Patches, yes. Version, not so much.
Upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista to Windows 7; It's always a complete whipe and reinstall to the newer version "upgrade" installs don't work unless the latest ones have greatly improved.
Upgrade from Debian 4 Etch to Debian 5 Lenny to Debian 6 Squeeze; use the normal package updater, change references of "etch" to "lenny" in repository list, use the normal package updater. I bumped my notebook from Lenny to Squeeze in an afternoon; no required drivers or isntall CD.. just the repository list change and "aptitude update && aptitude upgrade".
I'd love to see Windows upgrade to the newer major version through Windows Update as a rolling distribution. Now that would be providing benefit to the end user.
9. Win7 is what Vista should have been though both don't yet live up to the Longhorn promises. We'll see how Win7 does later this month and over the next quarter though it's already got a few "features" MS chooses not to address. Still, it may be the best Windows since 2k (if the love of 2k over XP is any indication of it's quality).
10. support depends on the distribution.
If it's a fork of Ubuntu or Debian than there is a lot of support to be had. Xandros, not so much. At least support solutions for one distribution can often work or lead one to the solution in another distribution. Heck, ubuntu and Debian solutions are pretty interchangeable. I've even found solutions for Ubuntu that where easily modified to fix a Mandriva issue.
If you transfer files too and from network shares; I get that data easily. If you protect the shares with a password; I get your username and password then break it without a great deal of work. If you use a third party authentication to avoid the LM/NTLM Windows native hashing; I get your username then take a little more effort to break your password hash. It's all there in the open being sprayed all over the network.
1b. Windows is a one way relationship with all other major platforms.
I can SSH into an osX, BSD or Linux based platform to change settings or run wonderfully powerful software through a terminal. I can scp or sftp data back and forth between these platforms. I want to push a document up to my wife's osX machine; scp and there it is in her documents folder. I want to mount a directory tree on any of these other machines (ie. network share); sshfs does that. Heck, I can do all this too and from my PDA. A GUI app is the desired need? SSH does that also, I regularily run Firefox (installed on my desktop) from my notebook sitting on my couch in another room. I can open Mandriva's GUI admin tools through SSH and have the graphic goodness on my local desktop.
With Windows, WinSCP and Putty help but you have to be working from the Windows box. If you want a graphic app from the Windows machine, you'll be needing the full weight of Remote Desktop or similar when all you really needed was the program display.
Sure, Samba helps since Windows won't become compatible the other way. CIFS/SMB is nothing to be proud of though.
2. True, all platforms can be effected by malware though too different extents. I run AV on my Linux based machines more for the purpose of not passing problems on to the Windows machines I have to interact with. When I do have to deal with an infected Windows machine, the first thing I do is cut the power and boot a more malware hostile OS. Avira liveCD incidentally; Avira does good AV within the freely available options.
3. I can't comment as I haven't used the remix desktop. If it's like the maemo desktop, it's more about one app on screen at a time though many running. With a machine that size this isn't unreasonable. Crippling would be only allowing three or less programs open at once.
6. "Debian/ubuntu" - Ubuntu is a fork of Debian so it's more like many distributions are extended Debian. Mandriva has netbook installs which makes one an extended Red Hat. I'm not sure how close Mandriva is too the Red Hat roots though other than being an RPM based system. The different flavors are what it's all about though unless one can config there own platform out of the fork parent.
7. getting a safe WinXP install in under 64MB of ram is an amazing thin in itself. I'd be interested to hear more about how one does that as I have a few RAM limited challenges on the go at the moment. I've got WinXP SP3 down to around 300 MB ram but can't seem to get it lower without killing required processes. With an OS meant to be mobile and networked, less than SP3 is not a possibility.
(I really would be interested to hear more about how one does WinXP SP3 in under 64MB of ram.)
8. Patches, yes. Version, not so much.
Upgrade from Windows XP to Windows Vista to Windows 7; It's always a complete whipe and reinstall to the newer version "upgrade" installs don't work unless the latest ones have greatly improved.
Upgrade from Debian 4 Etch to Debian 5 Lenny to Debian 6 Squeeze; use the normal package updater, change references of "etch" to "lenny" in repository list, use the normal package updater. I bumped my notebook from Lenny to Squeeze in an afternoon; no required drivers or isntall CD.. just the repository list change and "aptitude update && aptitude upgrade".
I'd love to see Windows upgrade to the newer major version through Windows Update as a rolling distribution. Now that would be providing benefit to the end user.
9. Win7 is what Vista should have been though both don't yet live up to the Longhorn promises. We'll see how Win7 does later this month and over the next quarter though it's already got a few "features" MS chooses not to address. Still, it may be the best Windows since 2k (if the love of 2k over XP is any indication of it's quality).
10. support depends on the distribution.
If it's a fork of Ubuntu or Debian than there is a lot of support to be had. Xandros, not so much. At least support solutions for one distribution can often work or lead one to the solution in another distribution. Heck, ubuntu and Debian solutions are pretty interchangeable. I've even found solutions for Ubuntu that where easily modified to fix a Mandriva issue.
Dude, where did you get the 93% number from? Neverland?
Performance wise- are you for real? I mean you can really choke LINUX if you load everything you can think of, but in my experience it takes 50-70% of what XP needs in terms of RAM.
The only hog on LINUX is not FF (it runs just fine), but Flash. Install Flashblock and you are fine.
Yeah, freeware on Windoze? It is most of the time malware. Exceptions are things like gimp, vlc, ff.
"If someone has a problem with Windows, there is such a large user base that it is a safe bet that many others will have had this issue and found a fix. Simply because the user base is larger, the chance of someone else having a similar problem is larger."
Given the non-technical nature of the user base I strongly doubt this is a valid argument.
Performance wise- are you for real? I mean you can really choke LINUX if you load everything you can think of, but in my experience it takes 50-70% of what XP needs in terms of RAM.
The only hog on LINUX is not FF (it runs just fine), but Flash. Install Flashblock and you are fine.
Yeah, freeware on Windoze? It is most of the time malware. Exceptions are things like gimp, vlc, ff.
"If someone has a problem with Windows, there is such a large user base that it is a safe bet that many others will have had this issue and found a fix. Simply because the user base is larger, the chance of someone else having a similar problem is larger."
Given the non-technical nature of the user base I strongly doubt this is a valid argument.
Those are the worst kind of arguments to give. It's like a highschool grade paper kind of reasoning.
How is it:
cleaner?
faster?
more user-friendly?
How is it:
cleaner?
faster?
more user-friendly?
I mean really. most people arguments for windows is "its easier!" sounds like a two year olds argument to me.
Cruft doesn't build up in the same ways and to the same degree through constant use. Generally the buildup is lingering config files in one's home directory after an uninstall and easily cleaned out if needed.
Installs are much cleaner through a repository package manager given a full distro like Ubuntu that offers software selections.
Uninstall is much cleaner through a repository package manager. uncheck the box and hit "apply" or hit your command line (Win+R if you will) and type "aptitude purge programname"; whammo.. done.
Both install/uninstall is much more flexible. I've purged and reinstalled the system logger while the machine was running causing no effect to ongoing website visitors. I'd be down for a half day reinstalling the full Windows platform or last good recovery image given the same task.
Heck, given a tarball source package, one can even have it installed as a .deb for an clean uninstall later.
With Windows, installer apps are anything but standard and installation tends to leave crap behind.
On the other hand, osX install is even easier; download .zip file equivalent then drag the program icon from it too your applications directory. Uninstall leaves much to be desired but it has to be the easiest install process currently out there.
cleaner process and management. faster since it's all provided in the repository (what any average user would want anyhow). more user friendly given "Add/Remove Programs" adds more than a short list of OS options off the install media.
Installs are much cleaner through a repository package manager given a full distro like Ubuntu that offers software selections.
Uninstall is much cleaner through a repository package manager. uncheck the box and hit "apply" or hit your command line (Win+R if you will) and type "aptitude purge programname"; whammo.. done.
Both install/uninstall is much more flexible. I've purged and reinstalled the system logger while the machine was running causing no effect to ongoing website visitors. I'd be down for a half day reinstalling the full Windows platform or last good recovery image given the same task.
Heck, given a tarball source package, one can even have it installed as a .deb for an clean uninstall later.
With Windows, installer apps are anything but standard and installation tends to leave crap behind.
On the other hand, osX install is even easier; download .zip file equivalent then drag the program icon from it too your applications directory. Uninstall leaves much to be desired but it has to be the easiest install process currently out there.
cleaner process and management. faster since it's all provided in the repository (what any average user would want anyhow). more user friendly given "Add/Remove Programs" adds more than a short list of OS options off the install media.
I LOVE OSX installs (as long as it is a dmg and not an installer).
I wish a Linux distro had something like that as well as the package manager system.
If i had to pick between a package manager or OSX style, I would pick OSX for an "after the system" installs, but since I use Arch and not a apt/yum distro, I wouldn't give up my pacman/aur combo for anything.
(you should check out arch, once you learn the AUR, you will wonder how you got by installing from source without it)
Windows isn't even in the same century as Linux or OSX in this regard.
I wish a Linux distro had something like that as well as the package manager system.
If i had to pick between a package manager or OSX style, I would pick OSX for an "after the system" installs, but since I use Arch and not a apt/yum distro, I wouldn't give up my pacman/aur combo for anything.
(you should check out arch, once you learn the AUR, you will wonder how you got by installing from source without it)
Windows isn't even in the same century as Linux or OSX in this regard.
download .img, double click, drag icon to apps
download .rpm, double click, click "yes, please install"
I've not needed to double click a .deb through X yet nor do I even have a graphic manager installed beyond aptitude so I can answer specifically about that. I'm told it's the same though; double click the downloaded .deb (ie. .img) and in it goes.
It isn't as graphically slick as the drag and drop method in osX though due to showing a bit of a progress bar while the package is expanded.
download .rpm, double click, click "yes, please install"
I've not needed to double click a .deb through X yet nor do I even have a graphic manager installed beyond aptitude so I can answer specifically about that. I'm told it's the same though; double click the downloaded .deb (ie. .img) and in it goes.
It isn't as graphically slick as the drag and drop method in osX though due to showing a bit of a progress bar while the package is expanded.
"Linux is open source, so any software you are installing will be free." - That's totally incorrect and wrong: opensource doesn't mean it doesn't cost, it just means you have access to the source code, and well, it doesn't mean you must not pay for it.
There are a lot of paid quality distributions: RHEL, for example is very useful for servers. Ubuntu doesn't cost but it's also a quality distribution for desktops. I prefer the moblin project for netbooks.
So, if it is opensource it doesn't mean you won't pay a penny.
There are a lot of paid quality distributions: RHEL, for example is very useful for servers. Ubuntu doesn't cost but it's also a quality distribution for desktops. I prefer the moblin project for netbooks.
So, if it is opensource it doesn't mean you won't pay a penny.
I'll be honest, I only skimmed the article, but most of the time when a Linux fan says "free" just replace it with "libre". forget costs. It may cost, it may not.
I read that and thought; "wait, there is some very good quality retail software for open source platforms."
Granted, what an average user is going to want on a netbook is probably not going to get into type of software that is at retail costs. I can't see an average user needing Nessus3 or someone who can afford that not simply using a Lenovo X series sized machine.
Granted, what an average user is going to want on a netbook is probably not going to get into type of software that is at retail costs. I can't see an average user needing Nessus3 or someone who can afford that not simply using a Lenovo X series sized machine.
I'm dual-booting Windows XP and the Ubuntu Netbook Remix on an ASUS EEE PC 1000H right now, and I have to say the only thing holding me back from using UNR all of the time is the battery life. With Windows XP I can get about 5 hr 45 min with WiFi disabled and screen brightness all the way down. The same settings barely net me 3.5 hours on UNR. I'm not sure if I have missed a setting or something, but I need as much battery life as I can get when at school for 8-10 hours a day.
I run Backtrack and Win 7 on my EEE PC 1005HA.
I tried EEEBuntu but was dissappointed with the lack of driver support for the ethernet interface. Windows 7 had full driver support out of the box and even the ACPI drivers from Asus worked.
Its laughable to say there is a "right" or "best" OS for netbooks. Its all about the user and how they plan on using their netbook.
I tried EEEBuntu but was dissappointed with the lack of driver support for the ethernet interface. Windows 7 had full driver support out of the box and even the ACPI drivers from Asus worked.
Its laughable to say there is a "right" or "best" OS for netbooks. Its all about the user and how they plan on using their netbook.
I have a 1005ha and had a problem with the wireless drivers. I installed Ubuntu 9.10 Alpha4 and it worked fine.
Im currently running Windows 7 on my EEE PC 1000h netbook. Everything supported, aspect ratio looks good. I even played Might of Magic 4 on my Windows 7 netbook and use it to work from home.
I have tried Linux on my netbook twice only to find it didnt meet cover all my requirements. So for me Linux was not the best OS at all
I have tried Linux on my netbook twice only to find it didnt meet cover all my requirements. So for me Linux was not the best OS at all
I have 3 acer aspire ONes netbooks. ONe with XP, one with Windows 7 and one with Linux.
I can use our ZTEC 3G broadband cards only with XP and 7... not linux...
BTW the windows xp acer hasve 1.5GB and runs netobjects, photoshop, paint shop pro, swish, media studio, xara3d, etc... everything smooth....
I can use our ZTEC 3G broadband cards only with XP and 7... not linux...
BTW the windows xp acer hasve 1.5GB and runs netobjects, photoshop, paint shop pro, swish, media studio, xara3d, etc... everything smooth....
Might be worth asking them for support help with the 3G hardware on the machine they sell with a Linux based platform if it's not an after market addon.
Acer says they do not support any ZTEC 3G cards in LInux and they cannot provide support...
Providers (Telcel, Iusacell - cell providers) are unable to provide support for linux as well. If you say you have linux, they hang up the phone. zero support.
Providers (Telcel, Iusacell - cell providers) are unable to provide support for linux as well. If you say you have linux, they hang up the phone. zero support.
Mind you, cross platform support is high on my priority list when buying and only really outweighed by there being no other option.
It's an addon card though so I can see why Asus does not support it. Maybe one day the hardware vendors wills top treating alternative platforms like third class citizens.
(Right now it's Creative's lack of support for the XFI line of audio cards. Boo Creative.. support your damn'd hardware! (there was no other choice for stable gaming audio))
It's an addon card though so I can see why Asus does not support it. Maybe one day the hardware vendors wills top treating alternative platforms like third class citizens.
(Right now it's Creative's lack of support for the XFI line of audio cards. Boo Creative.. support your damn'd hardware! (there was no other choice for stable gaming audio))
I just installed the latest alsa sound with Creative XFI support. It took less than five minutes and works perfectly so far. Creative is also going about it the right way. From the Alsa folks:
" [Testing] [PCI] Card delivered to developers. Completely new architecture. Creative have supplied a data sheet to developers. Development work has started.Preliminary support need testers.The patch is now merged into sound-unstable GIT tree topic/ctxfi"
http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Vendor-Creative_Labs
Good on you Creative. You should have a link to this from your support site where your old driver source is linked for download.
" [Testing] [PCI] Card delivered to developers. Completely new architecture. Creative have supplied a data sheet to developers. Development work has started.Preliminary support need testers.The patch is now merged into sound-unstable GIT tree topic/ctxfi"
http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Vendor-Creative_Labs
Good on you Creative. You should have a link to this from your support site where your old driver source is linked for download.
I agree with you 10 reasons. Linux is the fast mammal and Windows is a dinosaur... who do you think will win in the end? 
Personally, I think Linux should be on ALL computers!
RT
www.anon-web-tools.net.tc
RT
www.anon-web-tools.net.tc
After installing ununtu netbook remix on Acer Aspire One 110, I've opened Firefox and two tabs in it. When I opened Pidgin later, CPU usage in idle was about 50%, switching my 2 tabs in FF took about 10 seconds. Speed? Hehe.
Well for starters the "average" computer user wouldn't feel toastie warm with Linux as with a Windows based OS. But I do agree that in terms of security and stability, that Linux blows Windows way out of the water, I think we can ALL agree on that. In terms of viruses, I always say that the level of protection needed on a desktop/laptop is proportionate to the user. If you have a user that clicks on EVERY email and then some, then it doesn't matter what you run, OS wise, you're screwed.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
