General discussion


Why the Constant Arguing

By rkuhn ·
Ok, I have my favorite OS...Windows.

Others have theirs...Linux, MAC, Unix, etc.

Why the constant bickering?

If you don't like my OS, Windows, there are plenty of other choices for you. I don't discount your choice of OS, so why discount my choice?

I've picked my OS that fits my wants and needs the most among other reasons and you've picked yours.

It should stop there. I don't try to "convert" anyone. To each his own.

But the Linux crowd are like a bunch of religious zealots. I'm stupid, uninformed, lazy, dumb, etc if I choose Windows? Why?

If you don't like Windows, don't use it. It's that simple. If you don't like Microsoft, don't buy their products. It's that simple.

But we all have our wants and needs, we all have our strengths and weaknesses. We all make our decisions based on our own situation. Don't prejudge.

What works for me may or may not work for you. That's the beauty one is putting a gun to your head.

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

Re: Reboots

by nighthawk808 In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

You are so full of s--t that your eyes are brown. If you can send me an unedited video of you installing Windows XP from scratch and bringing it up to a full patch level and rebooting only once, I will personally send you $20. Considering I just installed Windows XP on a new machine less than a month ago, I know you are outright lying.

What, you think that because I use Linux to get things done that I've never installed Windows? My God, man, don't insult my intelligence by thinking I would buy that "I didn't have to reboot" crap. Did you miss the part in my profile about me being a Microsoft Certified Professional?

Collapse -

I Didn't Say That

by rkuhn In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

I didn't say I only had to reboot one time to have it fully patched.

I said I installed 27 patches and it required one reboot.

Including SP2 on XP, and I could be wrong, I think only 3-4 reboots are required if you select them in the proper order.

Collapse -

By The Way

by rkuhn In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

You might has well send me the $20.

At work and at home, I do slipstream updates and patches in as well as image.

Ok, so that might be cheating but you said it couldn't be done.

Also, I did check out your profile Mr MCP. Your certs are all the easy ones: A+, Network+, i-Net+, Security+, Server+ and MCP.

Let's see, all the CompTia's take maybe one day of review for anyone in our field to pass and the A+ and Network+ combined, or the A+ and Security+ combined, or the A+ and Server+ combined equals one Microsoft elective which I think(?) qualifies one as a MCP (passing only one Microsoft test).

Your resume is as bloated as Windows and Linux are. Lots of pretty abbreviations but no real meat and potatoes.

Your only hope is good though. Your real world experience does seem to be impressive.

Collapse -

Yes, you are cheating, rickk

by nighthawk808 In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

Can your grandmother slipstream? But wait, don't you Microdroids always talk about how Linux is so hard that the average user can't possibly fathom it? Then why would you use a technique that would take a level of technical competence that you or I already have? If you have to resort to tricks or changing the rules of victory midstream, you've already lost.

Go to newegg, CompUSA, Best Buy--wherever doesn't matter--and buy 1 copy of Windows XP and 1 copy of SuSE 10.0. Install Windows. Format the HDD. Install Linux. Then tell me with a straight face just how much easier Windows is.

If Microsoft took the same approach to their "Get the FUD" campaign as you did, they'd sponsor (IOW, pay for) a study where they set up a RedHat box, do no updating, no tweaking, and no optimizing it and then they'd set up a Windows 2003 server, fully update it, tweak it, and optimize it to run certain (naturally Microsoft) applications. Then they'd run benchmarks on the two and find that the Windows 2003 server was slightly faster than the RedHat one.

Hold off on emailing Bill about my idea. Microsoft has already done exactly this. Apparently they took my joke a little too seriously.

Wow, another person without certs talking about how they're so easy to get. I've seen plenty of people talk trash about how easy the CompTIA's are and then walk into the testing center and fail them. If they're so easy, then either shut up and get them or shut up about how easy they are. Pick one. Put your money where your mouth is. I did.

Collapse -

Installed Win XP Last Night

by rkuhn In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

Win XP - SP2 (reboot) - 3 Patches (reboot) - 38 Patches (reboot)

Total time - 1 1/2 hours including formatting

So, going from base install to fully patched took 1 1/2 hours and only 3 reboots.

The rest of the patches at that point were optional.

On a PIV 2.7GHZ with 1GB RAM and 533Mhz motherboard...nice system but not out of the normal.

Collapse -

You're halfway there.

by nighthawk808 In reply to You can't argue with Linu ... or

Pick one. But for a fair comparison, remove the free programs like, The GIMP, etc., whose commercial counterparts cost hundreds of dollars extra and don't come on your Windows CD, since Windows only comes with the Windows part. After all, you wouldn't want Linux to install faster than Windows even though you installed a bunch of free extra stuff, would you?

Kubuntu took me 40 minutes to install on a computer that's slower than what you're using. And that included OpenOffice and 1170 other free programs.

Collapse -

install speed

by apotheon In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

Debian Etch/Testing install (lots of updates, because it's an up-to-date release of Debian, rather than Sarge/Stable, which is a "locked" release equivalent to a Windows version):

37 minutes total
83 patches
zero reboots

total interaction:
63 keystrokes (including hostname, username, account passwords, et cetera)

system specs:
350MHz Pentium II

Mostly, a Debian install for an English-speaker consists of hitting Enter. The core system install itself, including most of the keystrokes involved and the hard drive partitioning, took 13 minutes. Thirteen. Wow. Yeah. Compare how long it takes to get to your first reboot of XP from a retail CD installer.

Wow, is Linux "hard". Maybe I should go back to Windows. That 90 minute install plus reboots sounds much easier. Or not.

Collapse -

Now you've got me thinking, apotheon,

by nighthawk808 In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

about comparing the installs of different distros. I've installed about a dozen different flavors, and their processes were all pretty much the same. Two stand out, though: Debian, because it lacks all the pretty pictures of the others, and Xandros, because it tries so hard to be Windows XP that it even mimics some of Windows's irritating installation procedures. Maybe sometime over the summer, I'll spend a week or two installing some popular distros and take notes, then compile them into a "How to install 10 different Linux distros" article. In fact, here's the first entry now:

How to install Knoppix:
1. Insert CD.
2. Press power button.
3. Make coffee.

I think most people think Linux is hard to install because it used to be a real pain as recently as, oh, 6-8 years ago when Linux's hardware support was still, shall we say, Mesozoic. This "fact" keeps echoing forth from people who have never used Linux, but they heard it from someone who tried to install Red Hat 5.0 back in 1999 and couldn't get X to work correctly so it must still be true.

In fact, probably the hardest Linux thing I've had to deal with since I made the switch is continually hearing people who have never used Linux, or who tried it once for about an hour a few years ago but gave up when they couldn't find the blue 'e' icon to surf the web, state that Linux is too hard for the average user. Yet when we, who almost without exception have extensive experience with Windows, say something negative about M$, we're called zealots who don't know what we're talking about. It's something I've grown used to, but something I'll probably never grow to accept.

Collapse -

Except Linux IS Difficult to Install

by rkuhn In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

Place the blame wherever you want, but spending several weeks this winter I was never able to get any distro is see my printer and only about half of them to see my video card.

Similar experience with a wireless NIC...thank god I have a wireless and wired connection. I was forced to use my wired connection.

Sure, they all worked with my video card...up to 800X600. But I didn't spend $150 on my video card to see only 800X600.

And my printer, a cheaper model but nonetheless, is a Lexmark and I like it. I don't print much but with Linux, apparently I'm not supposed to print at all, ever.

In other posts, all I ever heard from the Linux supporters was a few things.

1) I shouldn't buy cheap or generic products
2) I could write my own driver
3) Did I search the web for a driver
4) I could switch to a different distro

With Windows, I can buy cheap/generic parts. With Windows, I don't have to write my own drivers (nor do I know how). With Windows, I don't have to search the web for drivers (hard to do if it won't recognize my wireless connection (if that's all I had). With Windows, I don't have to pick a different version/distro to get my equipment working.

With Windows, everything is recognized and the only reason I use my manufacturer CD's is I assume that their drivers is better than the Microsoft one.

Collapse -

Linux troubles

by apotheon In reply to You can't argue with Linu ...

You had problems with two things that are still sometimes problematic for Linux, rickk. Wireless access issues can be kind of hit-and-miss in terms of how easy it is to set up. Often, you have to know what you're doing to a nontrivial degree to get wireless adapters working with Linux -- I'll certainly admit that. In fact, just yesterday I started having issues with getting my Broadcom chipset wireless card to interact with my wireless router. For most purposes, Linux is incredibly easy about 98% of the time (and with Windows, I'd say that for most purposes it's acceptably easy about 85% of the time). There are exceptions, however, and wireless networking can be one of them.

Of course, some wireless adapter chipsets are natively supported by Linux, and there are open source drivers that tend to be distributed with the OS for some other chipsets, so that it can be even easier to set up wireless networking with Linux than it is with Windows. That's the exception rather than the rule, unfortunately. I still prefer the greater flexibility and capability of the wireless networking tools for Linux over those of Windows, so that I'm willing to take the reduced ease of use, but that doesn't mean it's easier on average with Linux than Windows.

So, yeah, you have a point -- for wireless networking.

For postscript printers, Linux is generally far easier than Windows will ever be. For cheapie under-$100 consumer printers, the story is a bit different. It's kind of a crap shoot. Windows and Linux average out overall for ease of use with printers, in my estimation. People using quality printers for professional purposes tend to find Linux easier to work with than Windows. People using crap printers for personal purposes tend to find Windows easier to work with than Linux. Such is life.

Your single-example anecdotal experience doesn't make Linux the stone-age OS you seem to think it is. Yes, there are some issues. No, I don't think they're as numerous and difficult as the issues Windows has. You're just more used to the Windows issues, so you don't notice them as much: you work around them without even noticing them. Having been on both sides of the Windows/Linux fence, to rather extensive degrees in both cases, I probably have a bit more ability to make useful comparisons than you, though. For instance, I buy postscript-capable printers, both because good quality printers support postscript, and because I know they work with Linux, with great ease. I check the chipset in a given wireless adapter before buying it because I know that some chipsets aren't as well supported by Linux.

By the same token, I (and probably you) know better than to get an ATI Rage chipset graphics adapter for Windows. The reason they suck is largely related to the crappy ATI drivers for its Rage card series. The drivers just Really Suck. Linux doesn't really have this problem for most purposes, because the open source ATI drivers are pretty good quality (as long as you don't need hardware acceleration). Windows doesn't scale well with hardware, so you always have to check hardware specs against the Windows version to see if the hardware will support the version of Windows you want to run: with Linux that's not really a problem. Windows is notoriously bad with USB Bluetooth dongles: Linux is not.

There are ways to work around the Windows hardware issues. Anyone who buys computers as complete, sealed boxes from Dell, Gateway, and so on, doesn't have to use those workarounds because the hardware vendors have done it for him or her. Those of us who have been working with computers for a long time know the Windows workarounds, and use them pretty much instinctively after long experience: as such, we tend to not notice them.

It's the same with Linux. The only reason these problems seem so huge to you is, simply, that they're new to you. If you either got someone else to do it for you (like the Dell of the Linux world -- try buying your next laptop from EmperorLinux if you want an example) or were as familiar with Linux as I am, you'd tend to not notice problems with Linux either (except that I'm just as familiar with Windows as Linux, and as such tend to notice the problems with both).

Related Discussions

Related Forums