IT Employment

General discussion


Join the Linux discussion

By debate ·
This is the third discussion thread of our ongoing Linux discussion, where you can post your Linux questions, enter comments about our weekly Linux e-newsletter, and offer suggestions for future tips.

Paste the following URLs into a browser to check out our previous discussions. (Please remove any superfluous spaces when you copy and paste these links.)

If you haven't subscribed to our free weekly Linux e-newsletter, sign up today!

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Linux is best for corp

by Here2serveu In reply to easy for joe blow corp us ...

Right on! I got my first computer in 1999 and now have a home network with linux and windoz. I only still have a windoz box because my ati card that is used like tvio and linux don't play nice yet.

Collapse -

easy for joe **** corp user

by sonicwallroc In reply to easy for joe blow corp us ...

I guess I don't understand why Linux wouldn't
want to be make inroads and take share from MS.
I do understand that there's the issue of making
a good product, but after that what is there?

If Linux was to be made into a viable, easier to
use desktop OS people it would also make MS make
a better OS. In the end, the end result would
hopefully be better products all around.


Collapse -

Linux isn't for the average user

by dteam25 In reply to I'm an avid user of linux

I really agree with this. Linux was developed for programmers and others IT pro's... Making Linux a Windows Clone for desktop users is a terrible idea.

I think is better to improve the knowledge of the user to get along with Linux

Collapse -

I think it is now

by al00880075 In reply to Linux isn't for the avera ...

It's true, Linux was developed at first, by and for hackers, but it has been improved and now there are several tools that will save you time configuring a system. I don't think it's becoming a windows clone, actually, gui was there (in other systems) before windows.

Installing and setting up a complete running linux system is very easy with distributions like lindows, mandrake, suse and others. Maybe it is (much) harder with some other distros like debian or slackware for the average user, but even these have their own tools to install packages and satisfy dependencies (and keep the system up to date).

I think now it's easier for the average user to to use and even install a linux system and it's getting better every new release.

Collapse -

100 % True

by kenny In reply to I'm an avid user of linux

I have been using Linux since the early days of slackware. I have seem many versions come and go.
Linux as much as i think its great it is not for everyone. I often read the bashing linux takes. What a lot of people fail to take into consideration the average windows users cannot cope with linux. You need more than common knowledge to use Linux or any flavor of nix for that matter.

Collapse -

Oh Really

by mechanicalmen In reply to 100 % True

What ever happened to the concept of user friendly? The Idea is to make life easier. That's the reason to create any tool.
This concept of making the user fit the machine is, in my opinion, elitist crap.

Collapse -

Define bloat

by bteam In reply to I'm an avid user of linux

There is some truth and accuracy, but also some innaccuracy,
in what you say.

The innaccurate part is the pronouncement that X == bloat.

You *can* make X, or more precisely, the two most popular
desktop environments (KDE and Gnome) fairly bloated if you
wish. However, you can also make even those two relatively
lean and mean by turning off eye candy.

Now, if you want to see fast X, use something other than KDE
or Gnome. I'd suggest taking a look at IceWM, Fluxbox,
Blackbox, or XFCE. If you like Macs, you'll feel right at home
with the look and feel of XFCE. It borrows heavily from the old
CDE interface, as does OS X. Both of them are much prettier
and faster than anything written with the Motif toolit,
though :-)

If you want to see faster still, try out a fairly new distro called
Yoper. It not only comes compiled for 686 architecture, but
Yoper makes extensive use of prelinking. It doesn't boot quite
as fast a Gentoo system (in my experience) but once up and
running, I found KDE to be faster and snappier on Yoper than
on KDE. However, being a Debian guy myself, I didn't stick to
the RPM-based Yoper. It was quite impressed with the speed,

Also, consider this: on my workstation (a Dell with XP Pro and
512 meg) I would have to reboot once a week (or every two
weeks, if I was really lucky) because there are so many things
that leak memory that after a while the machine would 1.5 gig
into swap and be doing nothing but paging. I finally got
around to installing Linux on it (a Debian-based distro called
Ubuntu; much easier to install than pure Debian) and haven't
had to reboot since, and it's faster, too. Well, I did have to
reboot once: the extra 512 meg of memory I'd had the MIS
department order for me a month ago finally arrived. I didn't
really need it anymore, since 512 was quite enough for KDE
with all the eye candy turned on, but since it was already there,
I took it. So I had to turn the machine off for a minute to
install it. Now I can go as long as feel like without rebooting

Microsoft didn't succeed because they dumbed things down.
They succeeded because way back when they were tiny, they
were in the right place at the right time, and followed that good
fortune up with some good business decisions and some good
software back in the day. Is Windows dumbed down now,
though? Yeah, kind of. I prefer Windows 2000, and even NT
4, over XP in most respects. W2K is a lot faster than XP, too.
In my experience, it's also more stable. Windows 2000 was
really the high water mark for Microsoft OSes, in my opinion.

With regard to installation, certainly some distros are easier
than others. Red Hat is less easy than, say, Xandros, but it
certainly isn't hard. In fact, distros such as Red Hat, Xandros,
and Mandrake are, in my opinion, easier to install than
Windows. Yes. They are easier to install than Windows. You
read that right.

But even if it's not quite as easy to install, who cares?
Installing Linux, especially if it's a Debian-based distro, is
something that you will only have to do to your computer
once, unless you have a catastrophic hardware failure. For
that one time, you should do what I also recommend that
most users (being that most are thoroughly unknowledgeable
about computers) do: get someone who knows what he/she is
doing to install the OS and make sure everything is configured
correctly and locked down for security. Once that's done, all
you have to do is point and click to update your system with
security patches regularly, something which is a good bit
easier on a number of Linux distros than it is via Windows
update. Not to mention faster. On Debian, for example, you
can either update the system using the excellent Synaptic
package manager, or you can open a command prompt (my
preferred approach) and type apt-get update, then when it's
done, apt-get -f dist-upgrade. All dependencies will be handled
for you. New software is installed the same way, and again, all
dependencies are handled for you.

That's pretty easy, really.

There is one fly in the ointment, though: Linux is still not
terribly good at multimedia compared to XP or (even moreso)
to OS X. That doesn't mean it's useless, and things have
gotten fairly good on many fronts in the past year or so, but
there is still a lot of catching up to do. It's good enough for
people who like computers and have some idea what they are
doing, but for people who neither know nor want to know,
they just want it to work, you're 100% right: Mac OS X is by far
the best choice for them. I love Linux, but I recommend Macs
to people quite often. For quite a few people, it's the platform
that would best meet their needs.

My answer, then, to the question "Is Linux ready for the
desktop?" is "What desktop"? If we're talking about the
corporate desktop, then the answer is yes, in most cases.
The corporate desktop, whether Windows or Linux, is looked
after by professional administrators (well, usually), so the
users don't need to worry about software installation and
system management. A large number of Linux boxes is far
easier to manage than a large number of Windows boxes and
far less prone to viruses, so that's a win for the
administrators. Capability-wise, in a typical office Linux has
everything you need to do your work. Most businesses could
convert to Linux and they'd never miss Windows. Whether
there is always a business case for the expense of an OS
conversion is another question (the answer may often be yes,
but sometimes may be no), but there is no technical reason
why most companies could not make the switch.

For the home desktop, Linux is ready if you're a power user.
I've been using it as my home desktop OS for about 6 years,
and believe me, back than it was a lot farther from being
ready . I wouldn't put up with today, the things I went through
back then. That's a good sign of how far it's come.

Finally, I fully agree with you that Linux is not dumbed down,
nor should it be. I'll go one step farther, though, and say "Nor
can it be." No matter what kind of GUI you put on top of it
(and in many respects, Gnome and KDE are both better than
Microsoft's GUI today), a nice, friendly shell will still be just a
mouse click away. I do a lot of my work from the command
line out of choice, even though there are good graphical
programs that I could use if I wanted to.

Linux is not for everyone, that's certainly true. But with the
Mac available for people who want "Just Works" and peerless
multimedia and Linux available for people who want a more
UNIX-like powerful workstation (although Mac OS X also fills
this role quite well), I see little reason to buy a Windows
computer anymore. I wouldn't recommend it to anyone,
except as a game platform.

Collapse -


by apotheon In reply to Define bloat

That was very well phrased, and I tend to agree with your opinions in the matter, in addition to having comparable experiences. I, too, am a Debian user by choice, and I too will fall back to MacOS X for the rare individual for whom Linux isn't the optimal choice.

The only reason, generally speaking, to choose Windows over another OS is the popularity of computer games designed for that platform alone.

Collapse -

package managment

by philux In reply to Why can't Linux come up w ...

Hi Micheal,

Give a try to Debian. For me it has the best package managment tool. I've tried many distributions from Slackware (3.1), RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, to Debian.


Collapse -

More Package Management

by comptech3 In reply to package managment

The Portage tool in Gentoo Linux is pretty nice. I have a Gentoo box at home and one at work. It's nice to ssh my way in to update.

Related Discussions

Related Forums