Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Linux vs Longhorn

0 helpful
3 replies

by mcs-1

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

"...the question of whether or not people would shell out another $150.00+ for Longhorn (or XPv2 or whatever they call it) when and if it makes its debut, seeing how easy Linux is to run and use?"

First, if you haven't tried Linux, and you know how to burn an ISO, point to http://www.linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=44 , grab the ISO and try it.

I recently showed a friend of mine how easy it is to run Linux, this distro (above) is a boot CD. When booted up and waiting, you have everything available to you from Internet applications, IM, games, Office apps, ....

We were then discussing the question of whether or not people would shell out another $150.00+ for Longhorn when it makes its debut, seeing how easy Linux is to run and use?

The main points that came to mind were:
- a fair number of people using a computer have only been doing so since Windows XP, and they have gone through painstaking measures to get their O/S where it is now. Do they really want to go through the entire process again when Longhorn hits the shelves? (Install, Update, SP, wait, SP2, wait, more updates, tweak, ...)
- those of us that have been around long enough to buy Win 3.1 and then screwed enough to pay (yet again) for Win 3.11 have certainly seen the pattern.

Install New O/S
Install patches
wait 6 months
Install Service Pack
install more and more patches
wait some more
install another SP
...

and this process never seems to end. Now I realize that no Operating System (Linux, OS?, Windows, ...) is bulletproof, and updates are always going to be there. It almost seems though Microsoft strips away any non-obvious security to make the O/S run at warp speed, then introduce patches when holes are found - which in turn slows down the O/S in the end.

Bottom line - when Longhorn is introduced, will you switch, stay with your currnt OS, or run one of the brands of Linux?

3 replies

by jaqui

but live cd distros aren't installing.

http://www.xandros.com/

is a install distro, with a winders like installation.
( as easy as windows, if not easier, no product key to enter )

I would say go for linux, but I ain't used windows in years.
( wasn't even impressed with 3.11 )

always preferred to have more control than microshaft wants you to have, and far more affordable software. ( free is affordable for all )

by mcs-1

Right, this CD won't install. I only used Knoppix to show my friend that there is nothing to fear from the ominous word 'Linux'. He did ask me if an 'install' version would work just as easy, and I told him of course it would.
Based on what he saw he has decided that WinXP will be the last O/S he buys from Microsoft. He wants to switch to Linux the next time Windows dies on him.

by jaqui

for your friend.
now to help him pick a distro that is easy to install and will supply the toold he wants and needs.

( knoppinx, when you actually use install version, is debian, not simple to install. )

one of the two major problems with debian is the installer.
the other is a failure in apt-get.
( it doesn't always get dependancies, so will fail on an install )

I watched a friend fight to get alsa installed on his debian system, he had to go after every dependancy manually to install it.

one of the nicer for that is mandrake.
install minimal, with urpmi. type urpmi kde in konsole as root.
i will ask if you want to install with these dependancies.
pick yes, it installes everything.
only thing left afterwards is to configure xfree

This discussion is closed to new replies.