Desktop
In ten words or less, complete the following sentence: "I don't use Linux because..."
I'll start with "...I'm required to use Windows for work."
by stargazerr
But I am saving to buy a computer I can install Knoppix on.
]:)
by alangeek
Stargazerr, you don't need to install Knoppix, it's a live CD (or DVD). In fact, they strongly recommend that you NOT install it to a hard drive as it's a specially thrown-together mashup of a lot of stuff that doesn't necessarily belong together (bits and pieces from different distributions, etc.) and it would be virtually impossible to maintain as there will be version conflicts, missing dependencies, or whatever.
Instead, run it directly from the CD or DVD and find out some of the stuff that's available and how you can use it, find out how much hardware is compatible, and just get an idea of what you can do with it.
Then, if you like what you see, you can get a normal distribution like OpenSuSE 10 or Fedora Core, or even Ubuntu (or Kubuntu, if you like the KDE interface better than Gnome), though I consider it to be a bit watered-down. You can get live CDs for many distributions so you can try them out without having to go through the hassle of installing them, trying them out, then reloading another flavor.
In fact, if you have plenty of space left on your drive (several gig worth of free space is recommended), you can back up your important stuff, run scandisk at least once thoroughly, then install Linux on the same box. Many distributions can install themselves on your Windows machine and set up a dual-boot arrangement so you can go back and forth between Windows and Linux. If you get VMWare or VirtualPC, you can even run a Windows virtual machine inside Linux.
Anyway, try out some live CDs and don't wait until you can buy another box. You might discover that you don't need another machine at all.
by nighthawk808
by cuteelf
Alan,
That's more than 10 words.
:P
CuteElf
We don't use it at work.
At home it takes some time to make sure my various anti-malware utilities are kept up to date. That's nothing compared to the time than it would take me to backup my HD, install Linux, find and install drivers (the continued discussions of Linux / on-board modem conflicts are discouraging), learn how to use it, locate the OSS counterparts of my Windows-based apps, install them, learn how to use them, install an Windows emulator for those apps that don't have OSS counterparts, teach my wife how to use it, etc.
Why bother? Free software? I don't spend $50 a year on software now. Security? Never been a problem. I keep all my data backed up. Even if I have to rebuild the system from scratch, Ghost will be faster than learning Linux. Anti-MS feelings? I don't bear any ill-will towards Redmond; I've never had a problem with their products that I can't solve quicker than learning an alternative.
No, that's not 10 words, at least not in Base 10.
by firstpeter
Personally:
"Oblivion."
"World of Warcraft."
Professionally:
"My clients use Windows."
"My clients don't want to invest in the Linux learningcurve." (okay, I took a liberty there)
"I can do what I need to now..."
by nighthawk808
Cedega. You'd be pleasantly surprised about the ability of Linux to run your favorite games.
As for "I can do what I need to now", there are things I can't do on Windows (or can't do easily) that I can do on Linux. Except for getting the latest spyware to run, I can't think of anything I can't do in Linux that I could do with Windoesn't.
As for a Linux learning curve, I'd bet that if I snuck in one night and installed Linux with KDE on all the desktops of some company, most people wouldn't even notice. And most of the ones who did would probably wonder, "Hey, why does my desktop look so much cooler this morning than it did when I left last night?" They'd probably just assume that you downgraded them to Vista overnight. Basically, if you know how to use a computer, you know how to use a Linux GUI.
Post edited to correct typographical errur.
"Cedega. You'd be pleasantly surprised about the ability of Linux to run your favorite games."
Yeah, but why bother?
"As for 'I can do what I need to now', there are things I can't do on Windows (or can't do easily) that I can do on Linux."
Linux fits your needs and the way you use a computer. That's not a reason to change if someone is happy with Windows.
" ...if I snuck in one night and installed Linux ... most people wouldn't even notice. And most of the ones who did would probably wonder, 'Hey, why does my desktop look so much cooler this morning"' Basically, if you know how to use a computer, you know how to use a Linux GUI.
One geek's "looking cooler" is another end user's call to tech support because, "Something's wrong with my computer!" Unfortunately, many corporate end users don't actually know to use a computer. This is especially true in environments where computers are used by laborers to retrieve information. They know how to perform only the particular tasks they've been shown. Their "training" consisted of, "Click this icon, then click 'Okay' three times, then click here." They don't read prompt boxes or windows, they follow a routine. They don't have skills, they have habits. Change any one step in that task and they're lost. I see it several times a day.
by nighthawk808
by jerrypm
by jmgarvin
Microsoft tells me it's bad*...
* Ok, I'm caught...I use Linux, but I'm just waiting for that comment...
by twistabister
by ds4211a
by ramor
It's not a pain in the butt. It's great fun:
http://www.dumbentia.com/pdflib/moregeeky.pdf
Now who wouldn't want an OS like that???
by hal 9000
I'll send it to the guy from the Real Estate congloromate who quoted 6 hoours to install a new 2003 server for 150 users and spent 10 days getting it to work part way right. :^0
Eventually the in house guy who spent most of his time redoing pictures of houses finished off that install and then 2 weeks latter pulled the entire thing out threw it in the trash and replaced it with a machine that actually worked. I'm sure that He'll fully agree with the sedeminents in that link. :D
Col ]:)
by nighthawk808
In 1998 (when this thing was copyrighted) this was true. However, in the computer world, eight years is approximately four generations. While you're at it, why don't you post an ad from the Douglas Aircraft Corporation telling us about how the DC-3 is the most comfortable way to fly? Here, I'll save you the trouble:
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Aerospace/DC-3/Aero29.htm
I know that you posted that link as a joke, so don't take this as a flame, but people still believe that what was in there is true. Do you know how many times I've heard those things said about Linux today? It's one of the dead giveaways that the person talking about Linux has never actually used it. But they heard it from a friend who likes computers and once tried to install Red Hat 5.0 back in 1999, so it must be true in 2006. There are people who think that there is no GUI for Linux, but that doesn't keep them from giving their opinion of it.
I have no problems with people who have used Linux for more than a day or two voicing their concerns with it. Yet even though only about 5% of the computing population has used Linux, it somehow doesn't keep 100% of people from sharing their wisdom about it. Probably 99.9% of Linux users have used Windows, so the uninformed opinion-spouting isn't coming from our camp. The reason you don't hear people who have used Linux enough to become knowledgeable about it complaining about how bad it is is because once you start to get spoiled by how much better it is than Windows, you never want to go back. That's one of the reasons Cedega is so popular.
BTW, no person on this planet has ever uttered the sentence "Yeah, I installed this new SCSI adapter in my system last night and Windows 95 just recognized it and it worked the first time." Trust me; I've been through that before.
If this makes me a militant Penguinista, then so be it. Viva la revolucion!
by jmgarvin
A) Linux is PnP...as a matter of fact is support hardware better and more often than Windows. Rarely will I need to dig up that driver disk because Linux just "knows" what my devices are. If it doesn't know it has a good generic that will make my device work WELL out of the box.
B) I can install an "everything" install of Fedora Core 5 (~7 gig) in about 1 hour. It is just clicking next and choosing things like timezone and root password. WAY harder than Winders...jeez
C) I'd rather have a choice of window managers than be forced to use a kludgy, ugly, and HEAVY one. Hell I can use everything from TWM (the old unixish GUI) to KDE or Gnome.
What it boils down to is this: Why wouldn't you want choice?
by nighthawk808
about opening up a package manager, typing in the name of what you want to install, checking the box next to it, and clicking OK.
Or, if it's something you downloaded in source form, unzipping it and typing
./configure
make
[and possibly, as root] make install
Or, if it's an RPM, right-clicking on it and selecting "Install with Foo", with Foo being the name of your distro's package manager.
Come back when you've actually used a distro that's come out in the last two or three years. The 2.6 kernel and improvements in ALSA solved a large percentage of sound problems quite a while ago. Thursday is the release date for openSuSE 10.1. May I suggest you play around with it over the weekend? I know for a fact that SuSE 10.0 handles sound cards (and all my other hardware, including my Treo 650, for that matter) effortlessly.
I'm going to assume ds4211 is speaking from a Windows background. If not, I'm sure he'll correct me.
Some of these tasks look difficult simply because they aren't done the same way as in Windows. Windows users expect to perform a task by applying their existing skills may experience frustration.
"...what's so difficult about opening up a package manager, ...
Or, if it's something you downloaded in source form, ...
Or, if it's an RPM, ..."
You specified three different ways to install a program, including at least one that requires the command line. Can you see how this would seem difficult to someone used to inserting the CD and having the installation process start by itself? (I sincerely hope I'm not incorrectly interpreting ds4211's skill level. If I am, I apologise.)
Even if everything in your last paragraph is true, you haven't provided a reason to spend time learning an alternative to an already operational system. Why play with SuSE 10.1? His Windows setup already works.
by dawgit
by tony k
by rknrlkid
by onbliss
by neil higgins
by onbliss
by hal 9000
You mean people like Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, and Beacrucratsin general right? As you've just done a perfect description on how most of these people use computersin thier work. :^0
Col ]:)
I originally meant factory assembly line workers, storeroom restockers, and others required to interact with computerized inventory systems, blueprint and drawing libraries, etc.
However, I do now recall my brother-in-law, who's a help desk super. in a Florida hospital. He wishes more doctors and nurses would practice a little cyberhygiene to match their physical efforts.
by hal 9000
Jay told me it was to hard to install and get working. :p
I'm also terrified of Penguins. :D
Col ]:)
OH do URL's count in the ten words?
http://tinyurl.com/fz854
by beilstwh
I don't know if they still do it, but at one time all of the machines that duplicated the CD's for software distributions at Microsoft were running Linux. Windows was just to slow and buggy.
I have used windows and I have used linux and the only reason that I use windows is because the application that I need to run does not run on Linux.
by alangeek
... aren't ready to switch overnight yet.
13 ... WHoopsie
I don't use linux because...
For fun:
"I drank the magic Microsoft Kool-aid and I really like the jumpsuits."
For real:
"My office and customers/clients are all wintel based."
and Oh wait...I do use Linux!
by georgeou
"I don't use Linux because Dad will disown me" :)
Actually Steve does tell his kids not to use Google or iPods, so I'm just improvising here :)
by mjwx
by the_fixer
fixing Windows keeps me in a job!
If everyone used Linux I'd have more time to fish!
by oz_media
It seems everyone uses Linux for a similar reason, mainly because it's NOT Microsoft (and why would a loner with no social skills follow the pack, they need to be estranged to feel secure)?
I don't use it, anymore, for many reasons. I dn't have anything on my computer that you are not 100% welcome to view, steal etc. This isn't MY computer anyway.
MY computers have Win2KPro, I ditched my MAC and Linux boxes when I moved back to Vancouver, I couldn't care less if they are unstable, I just don't transmit anything that I wouldnt share anyway.
My boxes run well, are patched as much as possible, have Python guarding the front door and that's about it.
Bottom line, I am not paranoid that someone woul dwant MY info for anything, have it, if it is useful in anyway all the power to you.
I think most people that are so paranoid about their personal info are actually just flatterng themselves. Why the hell would I waste time hacking some JOE BLOW computer when there are corporate networks and REAL money scams to target. Dont flatter yourselves, nobody wants at your crap.
by oz_media
by beilstwh
Do you do banking from your computer? Do you have tax or accounting software? Do you write private messages to your wife/husband/or significant other. Do you have any documents that contain your SSN or credit cards on your computer? .....
Most people have information on their computer that could cost them financialy or emotionally if it became common knowledge.
Very
by oz_media
I love people who use the title WRONG, and then don't provide anything to suport it.
[i]Do you do banking from your computer?[/i] No, my accountant pays all bills from his Novell Linux system.
[i]Do you have tax or accounting software?[/i] No (my accountant does that too
[i]Do you write private messages to your wife/husband/or significant other.[/i] No, wello nothing I wouldn't share or mind others reading, that's just stupid. You know how many lawsuits I've seen lost due to people saving email?
[i]Do you have any documents that contain your SSN or credit cards on your computer?[/i] No.
So your witless retort now is......?
[i]Most people have information on their computer that could cost them financialy or emotionally if it became common knowledge.[/i]
That's my whole point, people put too much trust in what is merely an appliance. Don't put anything on your PC you wouldn't freely share or are not willing to lose. PC's crash too, hard drives die, people lose information. I always tell them, back it up, secure it or be prepared to lose it.
by nighthawk808
long enough to know that I tend to inject a bit of levity into most of my posts. I don't take myself too seriously, and I treat my posts the same way. There was a bit of humor in that one. I've been at a help desk long enough to see stories like this one: We upgraded to the latest version of one of our main applications. The new version's icon had a different picture, but the same name. Naturally, I received several calls about that application being "missing".
But anyway:
Antivirus.
Antispyware (preferably more than one).
Defragging.
Reinstalling anually to fix a corrupted registry.
Rebooting just to install a simple patch.
Application crashes.
Hoping the vendor will fix the problem that caused that crash (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't), since you don't have the source available to do it yourself.
DRM "inserted rectally" whether you like it or not. Bought a Sony CD lately?
The BSOD.
To use your words, "Why bother?"
AV and antispyware - they're already installed and self-updating at both work and the house. So I'm not gaining or losing anything by switching. Some would quibble about lost processor speed and unnecessary services, but we're not taxing the processor, so I just don't care.
Defragging - I haven't defragged a box since I replaced my last NT 4 box. With the size of drives these days, why bother? When I did defrag, it ran in the background. Again, some would criticize the loss of resources, but I never felt it was enough of a drain to worry about it.
Reinstalling annually - you must have a bad ghost. On 180 supported computers, I probably see two or three registry corruptions annually. I'm often able to fix these booting from the XP CD and running the repair tool. When I can't, I ghost them with a turn around of less than 60 minutes. Most of the boxes at work run years without any attention at the OS or Office level.
Patches - Okay, you got me there. But I shut my computer at work down weekly, and my home machine nightly. We push patches out at work in the middle of the night, so the users don't see the reboots. Sorry, rebooting isn't an issue for me.
App crashes - Yeah, these happen too; are you going to tell me they don't happen in OSS? But they don't happen at the house, and they aren't happening often enough at work to make converting worth the trouble. Even if I had the source, I wouldn't know where to start. I haven't done any programming other than Office macros in ten years, and back then it was Fortran and COBOL. I don't have a clue what languages or techniques are used to write Linux-compatible applications. Having access to the code is not a selling point to me, and lack of it isn't a deal-breaker.
DRM? We don't do anything at work and I don't do anything at home with digital media. I've never put a Sony (or any other) CD (or DVD) in my computer. I've got a great component CD and DVD players connected to the TV, and a CD player in the car. I'm happy listening to an entire album from start to finish and don't know how to download music (Way the hell off-topic: all of today's music is crap :-) End of old fogey diatribe.) So DRM is just a philosophical topic to me.
BSOD? Of the last three I saw, two were due to bad RAM. The third was a failing hard drive. All were under warranty.
Sure, Windows has it's flaws, and a lot of them don't exist in Linux. Some of your points may apply to other Windows users. If that motivates those people to switch to Linux, great. Most of your points don't apply to me personally. The few that do don't motivate me to start over learning software skills from scratch. Inertia, baby, inertia.
by nighthawk808
by onbliss
by justin james
The Linux community is too dependent upon Linus Torvalds. If he got hit by a bus, I fear that the community would spend a lot of time and fork too much scambling to fill the void. The zillions of distros are another problem. The popular, well supported distro of today is the has-been of tomorrow.
It is for these reasons that I choose BSD for my OSS UNIX needs. I feel that the community is more mature (not in the "does not pull each other's hair" sense, but in the "less fluid, more stable" sense) and that development is more about stability and security and less about the "cool" features. My needs for a UNIX are stability and security. Any box I put UNIX on is a server, so where Linux shines (cutting edge userland apps) simply does not matter to me.
J.Ja
by sleepin'dawg
I'll get around to it one day, when I have no idea but I am fooling around with it.
[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)
by jaqui
"I am fooling around with it"
that's just to twisted for colour tv ]:)
by jaqui
be a tightwad if the minor cost of 24 a month is to much for broadband.
or is that tightassed tightwad? ;)
I can't get it here for under $45, and that's just an introductory price for three months. I'm paying $16 for dial-up. I'm on the box at the house less than 10 hours a week. Why bother?
Also, there's a phone jack beside my computer. There is no cable connection on that side of the room. I refuse to look a piece of coax snaking around the corners of the room; I'm not going to let the Bubba from Time-Warner knock a hole in the floor; and if I'm too cheap to pay $45 a month, you can also assume I'm too cheap to pony up $150 for a wireless card and access point.
by nz_justice
by apotheon
LFS doesn't stand for "Linux file system", it stands for Linux From Scratch. Linux filesystems are called things like ext3, XFS, and ReiserFS. Actually, they're not even specifically Linux filesystems. Only MacOS and Windows tend to have OS-specific filesystems, for the most part. Other OSes and filesystems tend to mix and match quite well.
You must be kidding. Your entire post is full of bizarrities.
by jaqui
he meant the linux native filesystem e2fs.
though that's going the way of the dodo, since it's not a journalised filesystem.
by nz_justice
by apotheon
You're absolutely right: people who are just in a rut in terms of rote memorization of computing habits think anything outside that rut is "difficult". As a result, many people find some of the easiest computing tasks "difficult" due to unfamiliarity with them. Of course, there's the famous "Linux != Windows" essay to help people grasp that their difficulty is unfamiliarity, not actual comparative difficulty of the system.
http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm
Even that is getting a bit dated these days, as Linux developers are going out of their way to ease transitions for Linux newbies from the Windows way of doing things.
Of course, I've learned how to do pretty much everything in both Windows and Linux, and in my experience it's a lot easier to get almost anything done with Linux than with Windows. I'm not typical, though: I am not wedded to a particular set of habits. I'm judging not by level of familiarity, but by ease of use when equally familiar with each option.
by nz_justice
by jaqui
by nz_justice
by apotheon
by dawgit
by stargazerr
Not a He :p
And No, I was Serious. Thanks for the Info Alangeek. I have an Ubuntu distro that I would like to try too. Trouble is I cant start using Linux on my work laptop. something in the stupid contract.
]:)
by apotheon
There's nothing wrong with installing from a Knoppix CD. I'd prefer a Knoppix install over an Ubuntu install.
There are some dependency conflicts once you get the Debian-style install from a Knoppix CD done, but for a temporary desktop setup Knoppix is pretty darned good. Just don't figure on it being "permanent", as you'll probably want to try a "serious" installed distro like Debian once you've gotten used to Linux by playing around with Knoppix.
by hal 9000
The latest one is 5.1 and comes in both Live Linux and the installable variety.
If you where to drop in a Live Linux and boot from the CD/DVD drive you wouldn't actually be loading Linux onto your Company Supplied NB and unless you did something very interesting like remiove all admin passwords no one would be any the wiser unless of course if you in a fit of [b]Hormonal[/b] Brain Fade forgot to remove the CD. :^0
Even then you could insist that you are still recovering from That Time of the Month [b]MS Patch Time[/b] and someone is attempting to set you up and throw a Fit that will drive everyone away. :D
Anyway a copy of Knoppix should be in every Techs tool box as it's just plain and simple necessary. It allows you to get around so many WIndows Problems. You know the undocumented ones. :0
Col ]:)
"... a copy of Knoppix should be in every Techs tool box ..."
I'll bite. Why? What would I do with in a strictly Windows shop?
by jardinier
the first time I installed it, it could not find audio and modem drivers for that particular computer.
Now I can't be bothered, because I am so used to Windows.
Additionally I have HUGE library of Windows software (I am a software junkie) which presumably wouldn't run on Linux.
by apotheon
by hal 9000
A lot of his stuff goes back to the DOS days and will not even run on some forms of Windows so that one a bit of a misleading statement.
He also has a Mac with OSX installed so I'm preety sure he knows why he's using Windows on that machine and why he isn't using XP as well. :p
Col ]:)
http://tinyurl.com/fz854
by apotheon
by apotheon
I guess there must not be (m)any militant Penguinistas here at TR, since nobody seems to be catching hell for that humorous PDF. Someone (rightly) pointed out that its satirical criticism is about seven years out of date, but still credited its amusement value.
On the other hand, your comment about "militant Penguinistas" might be (mis?)read as insultingly similar to the often abused term "zealot". Try a semester of Tact 101, third door on the left. Thanks.
-- your friendly neighborhood Debianista
by apotheon
by jaqui
24 a month for lightspeed from the cable company.
4 gigs of data transfer and only bout 1 mbit/s speed.
for 40 a month it's 50 gigs of data transfer and 5 mb/s for speed.
dialup starts at about 10 a month.
It runs about $40. J.Ja. will tell you the property taxes in central SC took huge jump this year (over $200 on my house) and the difference between $16 and $40 looms large, especially for a luxury.
Up early in the Mountain Time Zone morning, are we?
by bfilmfan
by apotheon
Let's put it this way:
If AD isn't difficult to understand, I'd like you to explain, in your own words, how the technologies actually work -- and without putting it in terms of equivalent tools. Tell me what it's doing behind that pretty GUI that obscures the underlying technology.
by jaqui
it's nfs shares. :p
built right into the core of the os, if you turn the service on you have full netork shares..but the actual shares are controlled by user by default.
ldap is a server based option rather than os based means to do the same thing.
by apotheon
Actually, if you use SMBFS instead of NFS, you're using exactly the same technologies on which AD is built. Thus, if you use SMBFS + LDAP + Kerberos + DNS, you essentially [b]are using AD[/b], just without the intentionally compatibility-breaking "extensions" added to the system.
There are, in fact, other technologies usable on Linux that aren't strictly equivalent to AD because they're more advanced, more flexible, and more capable.
by jaqui
by jaqui
by jaqui
naw, I'm on pacific time zone.
the same as california. :p
and nope, I'm always up most of the night, I sleep in the mornings, like any same human being would do.
I didn't realize you had snuck in between his post and mine. Had I, I surely would have cracked on you instead.
What's the exchange rate on hours? One U.S. hour must swap for about two Canadian ones :-)
by jaqui
by smorty71
I know this will ruffle some feathers; but, to me, the most vocal Linux advocates are just the same as Apple zealots. They love to tell you why your technology choice is wrong and why their choice is right (and that you might even be stupid for not siding with them). I've avoided using both Linux and Apple 'cause I don't want to be lumped into that group.
Time to reboot my Windows machine... again.
by hal 9000
You've stuck to the Zombie System from MS right? ;\
[b]Bad News Mate[/b] they are just as bad as the Apple and Nix crowds but unfortantly they don't generally speaking actually know what it is that they are talking about as they gather all their Data from MS which is hardly a ballanced way to find the truth is it? :p
Don't get me wrong it's sort of [b]Easy Money[/b] if you can put up with knowing that you'll be back in a few days time fixing exactly the same problem again. Now that will be $500.00 [b]Thank You[/b] very much. :D
Col ]:)
http://tinyurl.com/fz854
by apotheon
Linux zealot (n.): a Linux user who is not afraid to tell you why he stopped using Windows, knows what he's talking about, and doesn't back down just because he's outnumbered -- and gets a bad rap for it
Windows bigot (n.): a compulsive avoider of anything that isn't endorsed by Microsoft who appears reasonable simply because he's in the majority
Mac-head (n.): the real zealot
Penguinista (n): a Linux user who insists everyone will be happier if they install his or her favorite distro of the week (but without a GUI), yet responds to all questions with "RTFM, you puking n00b!", and anyone who can't follow MAN pages is just too stupid to have a computer.
Edited to remove content based on apotheon's suggestion.
by ramor
...however, sadly, parts that joke are still true today, 8 years later. I wish it was not so, or I would switch. We run MKS Toolkit just to get access to all the great command line tools (grep, vi, which, etc) that Windows didn't provide before 2003 Server R2. I've installed Red Hat 5, 6, 7.2, Fedora Core, and Enterprise 3 over the years, and they've all been a huge time suck with no major benefit to me.
Out of the 50 servers in this office, 5 of them run Red Hat Enterprise 3 or Solaris 9. We used to run AIX as well. I'm not saying I'm any kind of Unix expert, but we do run it, and have for years.
I'm sure it has a lot to do with familiarity, but the *nix boxes are simply much harder to administer. Even with Enterprise 3 and a hardcore Linux guy (one of the most technical guys I've met in 14 years of IT work, and he only did Unix admin before he started working for me last year), we recently spent about an hour mucking about in various config files to get VNC set up correctly, and another two hours on top of that to get Samba working. And even with all that time there are still issues - Samba can't deal with Windows DFS shares, and the security doesn't integrate well with our 2003 domain (maybe it could if we spent a few more hours on it). It took so long that we didn't even bother to do it on the next two Enterprise 3 boxes we built - we just walk in to the server room if we need GUI access, and other than that we use ssh for terminal access and FTP for file transfers. Like most IT departments, we are highly understaffed and simply don't have the time to waste on this stuff.
Even simple things like getting the Sybase Server to start when the machine boots still requires knowing the correct rc.local file to put the startup script in. You just can't argue that remembering which file it goes in (and knowing how to use vi to get it in there) is as easy as having it show up in Services automatically, already set to start. And that's not any knock on vi - the MKS Toolkit version of vi is about the only text editor I ever use. :)
So, yes - it was a joke, and yes - it is dated, and DEFINITELY yes - no one has ever uttered the phrase, "Yeah, I installed this new SCSI adapter in my system last night and Windows 95 just recognized it and it worked the first time." But speaking as someone who supports both environments, Linux still has a ways to go before I'll start using it on my desktop. And if it doesn't work for me, think how much farther away it is for my parents, or less-technical friends, or (since we're pulling statistics out of the air) 99% of everyone I know. :)
by apotheon
Last I checked, I think DSL rates were under $30 per month here. Paying $40 for DSL has to be painful.
I'm using cable Internet service for $45/mo., but part of the reason I'm using that instead of DSL is simply that I don't want to pay the extra money for landline telephone service that I'd never use except to convey my DSL carrier signal to my home. Since it's worth having cable TV just to get the Cartoon Network and Sci Fi Channel, and $45/mo. is cheaper than about $28/mo. plus the cost of telephone service, I went with cable.
By the way, yes, my sleep schedule is hellaciously screwed up these days.
by tommy higbee
But I DO use Linux.
I guess I'll try anyway, with some reasons NOT to use Linux.
I don't use Linux because...
1) I'm too busy reinstalling Windows to learn anything new
2) Rob Enderle said I shouldn't
3) I hear they're a bunch of Commies
4) It can't be good if Bill Gates isn't selling it
5) I hear you have to recompile the kernel all the time
6) I hear it doesn't support any hardware
7) Rebooting servers gives me a warm glow
8) I must spend all my IT budget, or I lose it
9) I've already spent too much on Windows software
10) Don't need it. My home mainframe works great.
11) I love my AS400 too much
12) I'm using xxx Unix instead (where xxx is one of FreeBSD, OpenBSD, AIX, HP-UX, Solaris, etc)
13) Might lose my Microsoft paycheck for writing "grassroots" anti-Linux letters
by jmgarvin
Samba can be a real bear for two reasons:
1) It has a HUGE number of options to choose from
2) It is working with something it MS doesn't want it to work it
Let me point you to a link for some DFS (which can be a PITA depending on your authentication scheme) help:
http://www.faqs.org/docs/samba/appa.html
As for the rest of it:
I HIGHLY recommend a tool called webmin (www.webmin.com). It is a great centralized, web based sys admin tool for Linux. You can setup a ton of stuff in there and do typical admin tasks.
As for getting services to start at boot time(I've forgotten what you mentioned) there is a tool that Red Hat uses called ntsysv. Try that out.
From your post I have to say a major problem is simply that you aren't familiar with the way Linux works. Once you get over the hump (the MS stupid way), you'll see that administering *nix is WAY easier...
by jmgarvin
Sort by Trending