General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2193485

    Windows vs Linux


    by rkuhn040172 ·

    Ok, these discussions are out of hand.

    Anytime there is a discussion of Linux vs Windows, without laying down some background, it is almost impossible to have a meaningful discussion.

    For example, there are substantial differences between rolling out Linux in a business environment vs rolling it out to a home user with minimal PC skills vs rolling it out to an experienced IT home user.

    I’ll start 3 threads to reflect this and let me hear the arguments.

    For example, for a inexperienced home user, I don’t want to hear about “cheap” printers when it comes to drivers. Let’s face it, home users buy cheap printers…that’s a fact of life.

    Conversely, in a business environment, you do have time, money, etc for a roll out whereas in a home environment, you don’t.

    Let’s agree to some variables. Corporate environments typically have time to train, get support, tweak, whatever.

    Home users typically just want things to work, buy cheaper and more generic components, etc.

    Let’s hear your opinions now…

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3098119

      not exactly a reply but more of a question …

      by ijusth1 ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I don’t want to hijack this thread but I was hoping that this would be a good forum to ask this:

      clear something up on the Linux versus Windows issue please. Can’t you buy a workstation without ANY OS at all and essentially have it with Linux and thus not need to pay for the XP license? I was told by Dell that you had to buy a license and I thought that this was what the lawsuits were all about.

      • #3098061

        yes and no..

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        The real reason that Dell requires you to buy a windows license is that if they sell a computer without one, they lose the cheap price they pay for windows.

        This is a technique that MS has been using since win95 came out, to try to create the monopoly that is illegal.

        • #3098665

          Ease of use is the key

          by roy.maines ·

          In reply to yes and no..

          The main reason that MS is on over 90% of the desktops is because it is simple to use. One could argue that Mac is better, but that is a whole nuther story. Linux is an excellent OS, reliable, fairly secure, but how many people know how to edit a file in VI? Come on! You need a freakin Masters in Comp Sci to know how to cut and paste in VI. Ever wonder why they put arrows on the blinker of a car to indicate left and right vs h and l? I have over 25 years experience in IT and know both environments fairly well – they each have their place but Linux cross to bear is that it is just to complex for average users.

        • #3098561

          Linux GUIs are easy to use

          by guitardave8077 ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          The KDE and GNOME graphical interfaces are very intuitive and easy to use, IMO. Many home users wouldn’t even need to know how to program in the shell environment.

          KNOPPIX is a great distro for Linux newbies and doesn’t require formatting of disks or installation on the user’s part. Instead it’s a ‘live’ bootable CD. If you’re interested in seeing how Linux looks and feels without making the full ‘switchover commitment’, check it out.

        • #3107755

          Without getting into a distro war

          by coffeeroyal ·

          In reply to Linux GUIs are easy to use

          I am a tech. I have been using Linux to run my business since 1998. I have introduced quite a number of people to Linux over the last 4 years or so since it became useable for the average granny.

          My preferences for a new user are Mepis and Xandros in that order. Mepis, because it installs just about everything the average person needs, with a couple of exceptions that are really not beginner software anyway.

          The one big issue I have with it is that if someone tries to print to a printer that is turned off, they need the root password to turn it back on.

          Other than that, the only things that don;t work are a few of the later Windows video codecs, and webcams on yahoo, MSN etc, the novelty of which wears off after a while for most people anyway.

          I have only been a tech/programmer for 28 years. I support all Windows versions, and a number of Linux distros. Personally I use Knoppix, SuSe and fedora on some of my own machines as well as checking others, but my day to day stuff is on Mepis.

          I almost never use command line. I had enough of that in my Unix and DOS days.

          I like the computer to just work. I don;t want to be reloading systems all the time, and I certainly don;t want to come back here and troubleshoot after doing it “out there” all day. I must admit I use apt-get at the command line because I am too lazy to open synaptic, but day to day, I use the GUI for everything.

          That said, guess where my support calls come from? Linux users phone me because the printer won;t work. We restart the printer over the phone a few times and they get the message. Other than that, I rarely hear from a Linux customer unless they are thinking of buying a new printer. I tell ALL my linux customers to call me first, and I usually suggest a HP, simply because even the cheapest HP will almost always work with any Linux system.

          Windows users call me regularly with anything from “I can;t get the modem to work again” to The computer is getting slower again” to “I think I have a virus again”.

          Do I think everyone should use Linux? No. Windows has a hell of a lot going for it:

          Its multimedia capabilities are still far ahead of Linux.

          There is still a lot more commercial software available for it. People usually prefer to spend a few thousand dollars of software for there new computer, than use free stuff.

          Mostly however, if more people used Linux, there would be far less work for people like me. Most regularly used Windows computers need to be completely wiped and reinstalled every six months. You always know when, by the frequency of the “my computer keeps crashing/my computer is slow” calls.

          Without this problem, a hell of a lot of hardware techs would be out of a job.

        • #3107678


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Without getting into a distro war

          For the input, the suggestions and the non-partisan stand.

          I’m hoping to get this discussion back under control.

          I think your comments go a long way towards this.

        • #3107665


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Without getting into a distro war

          Last I checked, MEPIS was great. Both standard MEPIS and SimplyMEPIS were among the best distros for default newbie usability, in my experience, and provided extremely complete software selections without overburdening the user with heaps of cruft.

          Because I prefer a more personalized environment for hardware installs, and for LiveCDs prefer the incredibly good hardware support of Knoppix, I haven’t touched MEPIS in some time — the last time I tried it out, ProMEPIS was just coming out. One of the problems I had with MEPIS was it’s software differences from the standard Debian archives, which rendered it effectively incompatible for many purposes. The stability and extensiveness of the software in the Debian archives are a major selling point on which MEPIS misses out because of that divergence, unfortunately, which is another reason that MEPIS will probably never be more than a very slick LiveCD distribution to me.

        • #3108198

          YESS!!! This is good!!

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to Without getting into a distro war

          I agree with you Coffeeroyal – this kind of civilized discussion is what both camps need on this board. In fact I think I will try some of your suggestions, I am still trying to ween myself off Windows; and my distros are for old slow machines – maybe this will invigorate me to get up off my duff and buy a new cheap fast unit to get back to the real world.

          I don’t feel a person is going to be convinced to switch to a superior OS by brow-beating and insults.

        • #3098521


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          1. You don’t have to use vi to edit a file. Try using one of the multitude of graphical text editors and word processors available. If you want a highly functional, reasonably unbloated text editor, I recommend SciTE.

          2. You don’t need a Master’s degree in anything to cut and paste in vi. Delete something (for instance, [b]dd[/b] will delete a complete line), then go to just before where you want to insert the pasted text (such as on the line before where you want to paste it if you cut an entire line), and hit [b]p[/b]. Pretty simple, actually, and I use it all the time. It’s a heck of a lot faster than having to switch between keyboard and mouse all the time for cut and paste procedures, trying to make sure it highlights exactly what you want (and no more), clicking and right-clicking and choosing things in menus, and so on.

          3. You can use the arrow keys to move around in vim (vi improved) if you want to.

        • #3258790

          vi for average home user IS ridiculous

          by underground_in_tn ·

          In reply to ridiculous

          Windows text editor:
          – Notepad is default, user doesn’t have to know which program to use.
          – Notepad’s keystrokes and mouse actions for copy and paste (and other functions) are identical to 99.995% of ALL other Windows programs: shift+drag mouse/arrow key, ctrl+C, ctrl+V.

          Linux text editors:
          – is there a default? which one out of the hundreds possible, should the user try?
          – how does the user find out that dd deletes a complete line, and p pastes? Use the man pages? Hah! We’re talking average users here: people who want their computer to be as easy to operate as their microwave and DVD player. And if the user switches to another editor besides vi, they have to learn a new set of keystrokes to copy and paste. Same goes for their spreadsheet program, photo editor, etc., they generally use different keystrokes for identical tasks.

          Linux is not yet user-friendly enough for the average home user.

        • #3260119

          Vi – Notepad = Apples – Oranges

          by starderup ·

          In reply to vi for average home user IS ridiculous

          First of all, Vi is so much more powerful than Notepad the only commonality is that they are both text based utilities.
          Notepad’s adherance to the Windows standard is a strong point, but Vi is command line based and always has been.
          Finally, there has never been any difficulty for me using KWrite in the KDE environment. It is on the Start menu under Utilities, where you would expect to find it.
          Supports Edit, Copy, and Edit, Paste. I think it uses the older standard of Shift-Del and -Ins for Cut and Paste, but if you have trouble figuring that out, you need to stick with Windows anyway.

        • #3260041


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to vi for average home user IS ridiculous

          Holy mother of god, man. Why would I want to go through the pain of doing any extensive text editing with Notepad? About the only way to make things worse is to use Wordpad instead.

          You can use the same keyboard shortcuts you describe with SciTE, too. So?

          Linux text editors:

          If you’re using KDE (for instance), your default would be Kate or KWrite (similarly to choosing between Notepad and Wordpad, except they don’t suck that much).

          Try using the “help” functionality for finding out how to do things in vim, just as you’d use “help” to find out how to do things in other programs. Are you aware that vim has help functionality? I rather suspect you aren’t, as you probably don’t know crap about what you’re talking about. In any case, if you want to specify average end users in particular, you should probably mosey on over to the “home user” Windows vs. Linux thread rather than trying to sound authoritative in the general purpose Windows vs. Linux thread. For an average end user, I would typically recommend against using vim. The vim editor is for people who have some ability to walk and chew gum at the same time, and want increased productivity. It’s not for people who want to be willfully ignorant. See above, re: KDE text editing.

        • #3259885


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to woah

          Apotheon once again resorts to putting people down. People in here are having a serious discussion and you start talking about chewing gum and walking.

          You get so frustrated with the “I can’t win” arguement that you so often resort to put downs, insults and the like.

        • #3258732

          Oh, come off it.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to woah

          You’re a troll. Admit it. Admitting you have a problem is the first step toward getting help. You started these threads on obviously inflammatory subects, claiming to be an unbiased observer, sat around waiting for some discussion critical mass to arise, then started attacking anyone not solidly backing the Ubermensch superiority of the Windows Empire. The very fact you’re trying to paint me as some evil ogre while ignoring some of the absurdly insulting pro-Windows posts in these threads is a pretty clear indicator of your allegiances and biases.

          Go back to sniffing the MS glue. I have little patience for people who claim neutrality just to bolster an argument for one side or the other.

        • #3086639


          by bite me_ax_moron ·

          In reply to woah

          Its probably good this forum doesn’t have the option to negative rep people like yourself.
          Your atttitude sucks and is representative of why nix is having such a hard time making inroads. YOU may love making things as hard as you can, but 99% of computer users do not wish to do so. TRY lightening up. Super geek isn’t cool.

        • #3260004

          If you’re really in love with Notepad

          by starderup ·

          In reply to vi for average home user IS ridiculous

          I think it will run under Wine without problems.
          It is a nice little applet. It has that handy F5 Insert time/date feature. It also inserts control characters that make it useless for editing conf files.
          Vi isn’t Linux, BTW. It is probably the most powerful text editor out there, and it predates Linux by about 20 years.

        • #3258357

          vi, Notepad, and the average home user

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to vi for average home user IS ridiculous

          I doubt the average home user cares about a text editor. Word processors, yes; text editors, no.

        • #3107789

          You may not be able to use Linux

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to vi for average home user IS ridiculous

          But I have a 20 year old son who could install and used word perfect on a Xenix box for all of his grade school through college papers…

          He bought a 2.8 GZ Dell, and has loaded redhat 9.0 on it…

          I guess you are IX illiterate… or prejudiced…

        • #3097825

          You don’t have to use Vi (or even Vim for that matter)

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          The GUIs provided are quite easy to use and even have GUI features to setup complex things (like BIND).

          Hell, there are GUIS that make Linux look just like Mac OS 9, Mac OS X, Win9x, and WinXP. How is that harder?

          Plus there are choices. If I don’t like Vi, I can use emacs, gedit, or pico.

        • #3097798

          the reason is

          by driv101 ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          becouse when microsoft got the deal for the os on IBM they had it in their contract to get paid for a os on any IBM computer that can run a ms os
          that means the ibm cloans also such as dell or any body else on the pc

        • #3099643

          Misconception about Linux is out of date

          by big gwil ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          The myth about Linux being difficult is as out of date as the theory that the earth is flat! Please click on this link:


        • #3109046


          by mmullinix1 ·

          In reply to Misconception about Linux is out of date

          Thank you for that link. It is very helpful for me regarding what Linux OS I want to use. I am new to the field of programming etc, as currently I know enough to be dangerous but not enough to be called an expert. And only 6 months into my degree in CIS. This is also a research assignment for my current CIS class. I was very concerned with being able to find a Linux that even my children can use at home. We have all Windows and want exposure to the Linux side as well. So as an “Average” user, So far, I like what I see in Linspire. The biggest concern I have is compatability to my MMORPG games and my many other games we play as a family on the PC. Can anyone provide a link for me to help me solve this dilemma? Thank you.

        • #3108928

          My Olive Branch to Both Sides

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Linspire

          Dual boot like I do.

          Learn and use both. Don’t limit yourself.

          I’m trying to learn Linux too. If I run across something that stumps me which is most everything right now, I simply go back to my comfort zone (Windows) until I learn more.

        • #3108891

          I’m trying to

          by mmullinix1 ·

          In reply to My Olive Branch to Both Sides

          I’m trying to do just that, I have a computer that I built myself, with SATA. I have one standard hard drive, 60GB and one SATA Hardrive, 160 GB. I tried formating it but for some reason, even after making my 60GB with windows on it, the secondary and the SATA the primary, it tells me there is no OS on it, when I try to install SuSE 9.1 on it, I get a no signal error message and cant figure out the issue, I know its operator head space, so as a temp fix, I bought a 200 GB Western Hard drive with the old standard hook up on it, and when I tried making it the primary, including removing the Windows XP hard drive, it would not let me format it, so I am assuming that as it came with no boot disk, I may need to adjust my BIOS so that it reads off the CD-ROM first or will have to create a floppy boot so I can format my Western Digital. I only have a floppy because of my kids, otherwise I prefer CD-RW for saving my data. I just havent done anything with it because of my homework load in the past 2 weeks. And any help you can give me is appreciated since Im a n00b at programming and right now the only language I know is HTML.

        • #3134635


          by eharley ·

          In reply to Linspire

          WoW runs great on Cedega. Google it for more info. Basically it fuctions as directX and windows API to run windows programs. It’s based off of wine, but is built for games. It used to be called WineX

        • #3107784

          I hear a Wine…

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Linspire

          Games are great fun. They nay be slower in wine, but I can even use Wine to emulate a C64 for a game…


        • #3107680


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to I hear a Wine…

          Out of my ignorance concerning Wine or Cedega, are they slower? Even a fraction of a second? Surely there is some overhead.

          I ask because I play alot of games on-line. In America’s Army for example, even a fraction of a second delay, whether it be the PC, the intenet connection, or whatever, and I’m dead. I now have a disadvantage that others will exploit.

          I have noticed even a 50 millisecond lag makes a world of a difference compared to a 10 millisecond lag.

          How does Wine or Cedega or whatever compare to running the application natively the way it was designed to be run?

          And actually, America’s Army is just an example and probably a bad one. They have a version out for Linux which is a good thing. But not all games will run natively on Linux.

        • #3107671

          answer (somewhat)

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I hear a Wine…

          Wine actually started as an acronym: Wine Is Not an Emulator. Believe it or not, that’s true.

          Wine is in fact a library, or set of libraries, that provide an API similar to that of Windows. It’s similar to simply having Windows DLLs and the like sitting around on your machine, ready to be used by Windows programs. It is a very nearly native Windows environment within Linux.

          Theoretically, Windows software should run every bit as quickly on Linux with Wine as it does on Windows. In practice, of course, it varies. Some things (including some games) are reported to run faster on Linux with Wine, and some (including some other games) to run more slowly. I’m afraid I cannot comment very authoritatively on which programs fall into which categories, or the whys and wherefores, as I haven’t made much use of Wine.

          Cedega is, in short, Wine with an interface that can ease the process of using it a bit and with a few licensed additions to provide additional compatibility and functionality. My understanding, though I have not used it, is that it makes some things easier, makes a few things possible that Wine alone can’t do yet, and generally doesn’t impose a noticeable performance hit for it.

          Hopefully that’s of some use in answering your question.

        • #3107968

          Rikk Wine/Cedega answer

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to I hear a Wine…

          You aren’t exactly using an emulator, you are using a series of APIs and calls to make it seem as though you are on a Windows box.

          Most games run about the same as they do in Windows, with 2 exceptions:
          1) World of Warcraft actually runs better in Linux than in Windows. I have my theories as to why, but needless to say I get about 5-10 more FPS out of WoW in Linux. Sure Ironforge/Orgrimmar are still laggy as all get out, but that is more a function of bandwidth and server load.

          2) Half-Life 2: Can sometimes drop frames. I’m not sure what the deal is, but I’ll jump on the blame steam bandwagon 😉

          Other games run about the same….However, due to some copy protection issues, some games have trouble installing or playing…You’ll have to check the wiki or gamesdb for that information.

        • #3134065

          NOW I remember what I hate about open source!

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I hear a Wine…

          WINE, GNU, etc.

          It’s all those damn negatively-defined recursive acronyms!!! 😀

        • #3134007

          Palmetto, that was the equation!!!

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to I hear a Wine…

          The Old Ones used self referencing acronyms. That is why we had to kill them!!!

          But Christine. It’s really me.

          No Roger. You are not the man that I loved.

          Christine. I can prove it’s me in this shell. Ask me to calculate any … Um. …

          (I forget the rest of it.)

        • #3135159

          Actually I tried the cheap way to emulate this

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I hear a Wine…

          For loops of less than 400,000 Wine is 17% faster on Wine than Windows.

          For Malloc of 200 MB it is 35% faster

          For Disk write it is apparently slower by .3 seconds for a 2GB file. For reading the 2 GB file it is 43% faster. (FILESYSTEM difference)

          That is just barebones difference with 8GB RAM
          3.2 GZ P4 800 MZ FSB.

          My hard drives are SCSI RAID 1 (Adaptec) with 200 GB mirrored drives.

          I did all this on my local drives because I know the windows Powerpath is poor compared to Linux/Unix Powerpath.

          As far as I can tell where there are lag is when other than console activity is happening. If you want true RT use QNX.

          Linux isn’t a RTOS. It is fast, but QNX is faster.


        • #3135046

          Performance Comparison

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to I hear a Wine…

          I’ll take your word for the comparison since I wasn’t there to see it, however, I’d like the same test done on “regular old equipment”.

          That is, your PC seems to be on steriods compared to the average, everyday PC. The “normal” PC is more like a Pentium IV 2.8 Ghz, 256-512MB RAM, no SCSI, no RAID, maybe a 500mhz front side bus, and run the test using software people are more likely to use such as Office, a few video games like Doom or such, etc.

          Not sure if it will change the results or not, but it would be not only interesting to compare but also more “real”.

          Lastly, many Linux users lovely to claim its performance on older PC’s like 400-600Mhz. Try that.

          Grant it, I seriously doubt you have the equipment, time or software, but all of this would be a truer test.

        • #3100903

          The commodore 64 emulator is slower in Wine

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to I hear a Wine…

          However that being said

          Polack’s home machine 2.4 GZ- 1 GB ram
          deflowered to 512 MB RAM.

          The performance of a Malloc of 240 MB in ram.

          is 2% faster in Linux when I had 1 GB in it.

          I have to reload windows in between the tests. When I malloc-ed the Ram XP $&#$ing blue screened I hate Microsoft C++…

          So several days later, I am ready to try again…

          The funny thing is I am playing with a client’s servers to do my performance testing There was just a disk swap to reboot. This is taking time.

          Do I count reload time in the malloc for MS XP
          PRO ?

          Even with 1 GB and 1 GB it took much time..
          DB server XP isn’t…

          Apparently Internet traffic slows memory management…

        • #3109369

          Edlin – Master of the unusable

          by fredvoit ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          Don’t like vi? Open your WindowsXP command prompt and type in:


          Yes, this dos program is still there. And as user friendly as ever! I remember using it with DOS 3.31 and hating it then, yet it still lives! Had to use it a couple of months ago to fix a XP machine by remote login over the internet.

        • #3109330

          good point

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Edlin – Master of the unusable

          I never had occasion to find out that WinXP comes with edlin, and for that I’m grateful. When I need to recover from something that catastrophic in a WinXP machine, I use a Knoppix LiveCD so I’ve got a full toolset that puts the fully-working WinXP available tools to shame, let alone the chintzy crap available at Windows command line interfaces.

        • #3133300

          One more relic

          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to Edlin – Master of the unusable

          Ok now we have

          WMF which is a 1980’s imageformat that executes code – relic

          Edlin which might be from before 1980. Relic

          Notepad – 1980’s, changes files just by opening them and then closing the program. Relic

          Any other obsolete and probably attack prone stuff in ‘the most advanced OS the world has seen’?

        • #3133312


          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          OK, read this, ’cause I’m not going to waste any more time on you.
          You clearly have absolutely no knowledge about what you are talking about. I wonder if you even know something about Windows, even if you have 25 experience in IT. Don’t know how that can happen, I have 35 years in IT, and I have firsthand experience Windows from 1987 and up, all IBM from s/34 to z-Series, Linux, Unix OS/2 and a few I don’t care to mention.

          Windows is not on 90% of desktops because it is good. Windows is on 90% of desktops because Microsoft used harsh tactics and draconian measures on PC suppliers, going to the point of refusing to deliver Windows at all, if they sold the HW without Windows, with another OS alongside Windows, or even distributing th PC with no OS at all. I have paid Microsoft for the OS I stripped off the machine the moment it was switched on, with a bootable Linux install CD mounted. This practise is not paying for a product, it is tax – or in another trade named ‘protection’.

          Notepad and Vi and a host of other text editors – f.instance Windows Registry Editor, are utilities for people needing quick text entry – like on a Notepad.

          Windows has a string of proprietary applications written by Microsoft, and some from companies they haven’t bought and closed down yet.

          Linux has an endless string af applications from a multitude of suppliers. Some you pay for, some are free. Some are very good, some are not – exactly as it is in any other market where competition exists.

          Most people install Windows from a preloaded PC with all relevant drivers and settings already loaded. It takes about an hour if it recognises your HW, days if it doesn’t.

          Linux is installed from a CD or the net, and no preinstalled exists – see above chapter. Nevertheless Linux install is _easier_ and takes less time, as the normal install time of about an hour – same as Windows, includes several browsers, several MM programs, a complete Office Suite, an email client/calendering program that sends Outlook into the canvas for counting out immediately, firewall, and tons of other stuff. Things you have to add after installing Windows. And after install you have to go to MS update and download about 64MB of fixes. An unfixed XP survivies unharmed on the net about 5 minutes, much shorter time than it takes to download the fixes. I can prove it, it happened to my daughters PC.

          If you had tried Linux – and not stopped saying that it doesn’t work the moment you discovered there was no C: drive, you would have realised that everything you say is wrong.

        • #3107795

          Not too hard for my 81 year old mother

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          My mother uses firefox and IRC chat and she also
          may be the exception to the rule…

          I have been doing UNIX since 1977. She cut her teeth on a SCO Xenix on a 386/25…

          It isn’t completely difficult if you set up menu’s for the ignorant. (My six year old plays hangman, Urogue, etc on the previously mentioned Xenix box. Everex Step/25.. )

          It takes people being willing to read…


        • #3272394

          Open Office

          by kudincendol ·

          In reply to Ease of use is the key

          Never heard of this software ? Try downloaded it. They have “Save as…. M$ Win/97”

        • #3098941

          Marketing Marketing

          by richards_unsubcribe ·

          In reply to yes and no..

          Without a doubt the single largest reason for Microsoft’s dominance of the marketplace is there near 100 percent control of the so-called IBM PC market. You cannot do into a retail store and purchase a new PC without some form of Microsoft operating system…bottom-line. Unless they are selling Apple, retailers will not sell computers without a Microsoft operating system nor will they sell one with Linux in any form. Unless special order, retailers will also refuse to sell computers without an operating system. Without a operating system they cannot market their product effectively. The average consumer still knows Linux as that difficult to understand, oddball, techy operating system that’s full of DOS like scripting and strange terminology. That’s not completely true anymore but I think the average consumer still perceives Linux as such. in this part of the world, we have a long long way to go before we can convince the average mom-and-pop consumer to demand Linux as their primary operating system. I really think the problem is at the retail level and is what is showed down our throats by the marketing people.

        • #3098843


          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Marketing Marketing

          Plus there are no price breaks if you can find a shop that will sell a Linux PC*. The Linux PC should cost the PC cost – OEM (or retail) MS OS.

          I’d also like to point out that there are excellent choices for mom and pop like Linspire.

        • #3098767

          Mostly right there on perceptions and marketing

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Marketing Marketing

          Especially about the retail stores and the marketing. Here in Australia many savvy individuals buy computers from small stores or on-line without any operating system and put their existing system on it. However the majority buy from retails shops or in response to advertising by Dell, HP, IBM etc – all these come pre-loaded with Windows and the few retail stores that will put Linux on for you charge you extra for the Linux and the installation but do NOT cut back the price by the cost of the Windows OS that they are removing.

          The statement re the general public perceptions is also spot on. What is interesting is the number of government agencies that are looking seriously at Linux as a way of reducing their IT replacement costs – few have yet got around to doing it but I expect to see it happening in the future.

        • #3258839

          He shoots, he scores!

          by starderup ·

          In reply to Marketing Marketing

          Marketing was everything. Texas Instruments had a much better machine at the time (I know, I had both).
          16 colors instead of 4. Built in speech. 16 registers.
          They bailed because they couldn’t match IBM’s marketing clout.

          There are still users at my engineering firm that never heard of Linux. They think Apple is the only alternative.
          Money talks; everybody else walks.

        • #3109042


          by mmullinix1 ·

          In reply to Marketing Marketing

          I agree. I want a computer with a Linux OS, and went to buy one from Dell or Alienware and it added cost to my purchase in order to get the Linux OS instead of the Microsoft OS.

        • #3134860


          by bspeaker ·

          In reply to Marketing

          I know that it is very hard to find a computer out there that does not have Windows on it. However in doing some research for a project of my own I found out that Walmart was selling a Linux box with Xandros pre-installed on it for about $100 less than a comparable Windows box. They may be hard to find but they are starting to be more prominent in the marketplace. Let’s all hope that the trend continues.

      • #3098027

        Reply To: Windows vs Linux

        by fritz_monroe ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        Dell sells the n-Series that comes with FreeDOS installed. I don’t know if there’s a MicroSoft charge in there somewhere. You can see these models here:

        I’ve seen several times when Dell has started selling computers without Windows only to stop again a couple months later. This is a bit different in that those other times, it was a Linux distro that was loaded, this time it’s a non-windowing OS that’s on there.

        • #3098685

          One time Dell gave you a choice

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          Some years back Dell gave buyers here in Australia a choice of having your computer supplied with Windows or Linux installed – the price was exactly the same regardless of which you chose. All that was different was which system was up and running at the time of purchase and the package included two Recovery discs – one Windows and one Linux and the Windows one had a MS licence number on it. Investigations showed that you were still paying for and getting a Windows licence with the system, they just added the Linux one for free and loaded the Linux system if that was what you requested.

          If they had been offering a true option you clients should have been able to buy the Linux options for about A$500 less.

        • #3098566

          Dell still provides a few desktops that come without windows…

          by unclerob ·

          In reply to One time Dell gave you a choice

          The link above will bring you to Dell’s website page offering their “N” series desktops which don’t have any OS installed whatsoever, and don’t come with a Windows license which would lead me to believe that you’re not buying a windows pc and not paying extra for windows. It does come with a FreeDOS disc which you can install (it is not pre-installed) if you choose to use it.

          Note, Dell will not support any OS problems you have if you install the OS yourself, Windows, Linux or otherwise.

          So in conclusion, Dell does offer you a choice.

          Here are the specs on one of their N Series desktops:

          “Are you looking for a desktop on which you can run Linux? or other open-source operating systems? Look no further!

          Dell’s new open-source n Series desktop solution provides customers with a DimensionTM E510 desktop without an installed or included Microsoft? operating system. With the n Series desktop, customers have the flexibility to install an alternative operating system (such as a version of Linux? ), and help reduce the price of this system. In addition, the n Series desktop comes with a non-formatted hard drive ready for your custom installation. Dell’s n Series desktop ships with a copy of FreeDosTM , an open-source operating system that is ready to install. ”

          Dimension n Series E510
          Intel? Pentium? Processor 521 with HT Technology
          FreeDOS included in the box, ready to install
          512MB DDR SDRAM at 400MHz
          80GB1 Ultra ATA/100 7200RPM Hard Drive

          $619 before taxes & shipping

          And NO, I don’t work for Dell, I don’t even own one but a few users here at work recently bought from Dell and I helped them setup their pc’s at home and I noticed that Dell was offering some of their units sans Windows installed.

          There is always a choice, you just have to look for it.

          …. just my 0.02 cents cdn, feel free to agree or disagree 😉

        • #3093936

          Which is which

          by ken_shin ·

          In reply to Dell still provides a few desktops that come without windows…

          Each of us has it’s own preferences. Let us respect each other’s opinions and go for what gives us comfort in our life: Linux or Windows. The decision is ours.

        • #3098497

          Yes, but there is no price difference

          by qtozz-org ·

          In reply to Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          You can choose a Dell n-Series (E510) with FreeDos for $ 749,oo and same model E510 with Windows XP Media Center Edition for $ 739,oo. Only $ 20 difference. Remember FreeDos is not installed and there is no support from Dell while Windows is installed and have Dell support.

      • #3098661

        HP Sells Linux workstations

        by cgbullock ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        We are an HP exclusive shop and HP does sell workstations with Linux (Mandriva.) The problem is that most larger computer companies have deals with Microsoft that they pay Microsoft per processor sold, meaning that the same computer with Linux, which by the way was not installed just the CD was sent, is the same price as the Windows pc. So what we do is put linux on a MS licensed machine, that way if we ever recycle the machine we already have a legal license for Windows.

      • #3098621

        buying machines without an OS

        by ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        I have purchased several machines from a local vendor without an OS. I think the big companies like Dell/Gateway/Compaq have binding contracts that require they sell machines with the Windows XP OS.

        • #3098537

          Barebones hardware easy to find

          by guitardave8077 ·

          In reply to buying machines without an OS

          You can find all kinds of new and refurb hardware for cheap on the internet ….. amazingly a good machine without an os is only a couple hundred bucks….

          Dell and Gateway are obligated by way of contract to sell their systems complete with WIndows OS … otherwise they wouldn’t be able to sell them at as low of a price as they do (which is still to high in a lot of cases)….have you tried to buy a new machine with XP Pro vs XP Home? the price difference is astounding!

          I have bought several new boxes sans OS and installed Red Hat Fedora on them… the OS is compatible with every piece of hardware I have ever run on it….

      • #3098514

        no dell

        by lalala ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        that’s probably dell’s policy, but you don’t have to buy a dell or the MS license. you can build your own PC and load linux yourself. lots of vendors who will sell you a “barebones” pc that you can customize to your budget and HW needs.

        • #3098478

          Dell Financial Services

          by quaziphoto ·

          In reply to no dell

          I have bought two systems via ebay from DFS and both were great P4’s with no OS. The link for their store is
          Both systems were nearly 2 GHz and one had a burner, the other I added burner for $39 US. One runs SUSE and I am setting up Ubuntu and a wireless for card in a spare room for my wife. Just trying to learn Linux and related software.

      • #3099729

        Difficult Installation

        by chinmoy1955 ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        In our country (India), we have a lot of options for buying pc’s. Most people prefer assemblers, who are a dime a dozen, who would gladly assemble a system for you for peanuts, and later it is up to you what OS you want to load in your system! It is always a problem with branded PC’s, for obvious reasons.
        By the way, I have been a follower of Linux for the last six-seven years, subscribing to Linux magazines, visiting forums and what not, but I still use Windows !! Funny? The only, and most important, hitch I have faced in Linux is the installation. Before I embark on an installation, I have the hidden fear of facing failure, and unfortunately, my fears do come true. I have tried fresh installation of various distributions, including Ubuntu, but always something goes wrong during the installation, and I am left with a truncated installation which may or may not work. Windows installations almost always work on first shot. I am fed up, but still a Linux fan!!

        • #3099692

          Linux Anarchy

          by chief makota ·

          In reply to Difficult Installation

          If Linux was a country it would be called Iraq! There is so much anarchy in the country of Linux. There is a lot of disorder and confusion!No change control. No version control. No recognised certification. No formal institutional training. Nothing! Linux enthusiastic geeks are like the US Army trying to bring sanity to Baghdad! And there efforts are as usual, futile! No offence to all the linux fans out there! I have used Ubuntu and I think the graphics are cool, but still it falls short on many aspects. Can someone out there sort out the governance of linux at least. Right now its like a ‘free for all brawl in a karaoke bar’ – no winners all losers!

        • #3099630

          And Windows is Soviet Russia of 1920s

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Linux Anarchy

          You do as you are told; everything is fine because that is what you are told and the problems are capitalist lies; none of yesterday’s things are allowed to work with today’s.

          Lets look at software compatibility – each and every version of Windows is so different (except the security holes) that you need a new driver for every item of hardware for each version of Windows; the third party software bought for Win 9x or Win NT or Win 2K will not run in Win XP unless you go and buy a new copy that has been rewritten for it, even some of the MS software will not run inlater versions.

          Want disorder and confusion – try keeping up with the service packs and security patches – most of which are for holes found in earlier versions of Windows but never permanently fixed.

          MS training is so good that you can buy the exams off the Internet and even get other people to sit them for you.

          Linux is so bad that MS have hired some top Linux coders to use Linux methods in trying to clean up the Windows code for Vista.

          As I have said before which you use is mostly personal choice and prior experience both have their places. Yes you can have some issues with a Linux installation, but the same is said for Windows – just different issues and you don’t notice the ones that you are familiar with.

          The last time I had a simple clean installation of Windows was over 10 years ago with DOS 6.2 and Win 3.1 – ever since I have had problems with every Windows installation re video drivers, printer drivers, modem and scanner drivers. Since I Win 9x never had a Windows installation that got all of these right by itself (especially the modems) and always requires a lot of work by me to get them going right. Modems are a big problems as Win 2K and Win XP have a habit of removing the manufacturer’s modem drivers and replacing them with generic USA drivers – it appears that Windows does not like the different commands required to operate in Australia.

          Each Linux Kernel is very carefully coordinated and tested – wish we could say the same for Windows. Sure there are a number of Linux versions but the same is true for Windows – W2K server, W2K advanced server, XP Home, XP Pro, XP Pro 64, CE, W3K server and that is just the very latest options.

        • #3099536


          by issinho ·

          In reply to Linux Anarchy

          Really, we all need to understand the larger picture here. You’re making an attack without knowing 100% of what you’re talking about. Let’s take the “no recognised certification” for starters. There are at least 2 Certifications that I know of that are specifically for Linux: Linux+ (offered by CompTIA who also offers the A+ exam) and the Red Hat Certified Technician and Engineer Certifications (offered by, you guessed it, Red Hat, one of the largest and most popular Distrobutions out there).

          I think where you’re getting confused is in the Distros. See, when you look at it that way, your plight does make sense, there are so many to choose from. Isn’t that the beauty of Linux? The freedom of choice? Every Distro has it’s own support and version control. What’s even better is that it is peer-governed society. Programmers, technicians, and users colaborate to better the program and distrobution. Really, it’s a Utopia, not an Anarchy.

          No change control? Go with the larger distros: SuSE, Fedora (Red Hat), or Mandriva (Mandrake). They all have an update software similar to the M$ update.

          Really, the most confusing thing about Linux is choosing the right Distro for you and your needs.
          Just like Windows. I knew a couple of guys who didn’t want 2000 or XP because everything they did could be done in 98 and they had no problems with it before. Sure, that works until it totally dies and you cannot find support for it. They point is that Linux is so diverse that there is a distro for everybody, you just have to find it.

        • #3099477

          just a thought

          by avid ·

          In reply to Anarchy?

          i am learning linux and i like using it as a server for 2 reasons.
          1. it just works.. after what can sometimes be a lengthy configuration, it does do the job you asked it to without to much baby sitting.
          2. the local admins are so confused by linux servers that, in most cases, they are afraid to touch it. it keeps them from swimming in my pond, so to speak.

          having said that, as a desktop, it is not ready for corporate America. Reasons ?
          Not the industry standard. Not enough training available. not enough compatible software (due to microsoft’s foothold) hardware IS still hard to configure. installing software IS still hard to do. would any of you admins out there actually want to replace your clients desktops with linux boxes. if you did you would have to move in and do there work for them, no matter how many classes you give them. windows has the market cornered right now. bill is a hell of a business man. if the linux desktop is to succeed, it is going to have to be more user friendly and have the available training and support that microsoft offers. it will also need to be MUCH more intuitive.

        • #3099421

          yes and no

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to just a thought

          “[i]installing software IS still hard to do.[/i]”
          By what yardstick? How are you comparing software installation on Linux with that on Windows? On the very rare occasion when I have to install something on a Windows machine, I’m always surprised again at how much more annoying the process is than I remember. Installing and removing software on my Debian systems is so dead easy I almost forget I’m doing it, and these installs and removals [b]don’t break things[/b], nor do they require keeping track of CDs, driving to the store, or wasting precious time staring at a wizard.

          “[i]would any of you admins out there actually want to replace your clients desktops with linux boxes.[/i]”
          Of course I would. I moved out here for a job that involves about 85% Linux and 15% Windows. The network’s servers are about 4% Windows (there’s one Windows server) and the desktops/laptops are about 25% Windows. When that adds up to about 70% of my support time being spent on the Windows systems, you bet I’d rather deal with users on Linux desktops. There’s no contest. Add to that the fact that when I do have to deal with something Linux-related, it’s far less aggravating than the sorts of issues I run into with Windows, and it gets an even more absurdly weighted answer in favor of Linux.

          “[i]it will also need to be MUCH more intuitive.[/i]”
          Ridiculous. You can set up a Linux system to basically do the same stuff as a Windows system, except there’s less crap to deal with, and you can even make it look enough like Windows that most users would never know the difference.

          Other than that, I tend to agree with what you’ve said.

        • #3100052

          your users

          by avid ·

          In reply to yes and no

          are apperently much smarter than mine. i have never worked with debian. where can i get a free distro ? i would like to try it.

        • #3100038

          get debian

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to yes and no

        • #3099989

          re: get debian

          by avid ·

          In reply to yes and no

          thank you, Jaqui. i am currently downloading the image and will try it this afternoon.

        • #3099932


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to yes and no

          how long does it take to download 2 floppy disk files? 😉

          that’s all that is needed to install debian over the internet.
          if you want to install from cdrom, I would recommend getting more than one of the 14 cd image files. 😀

        • #3099916


          by avid ·

          In reply to yes and no

          tried it. must have screwed up somewhere.. no gui. help please. thank you

        • #3099912


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to yes and no

          as apotheon often posts, once you are logged into the console:
          [as root to actually install or su to root ]

          apt-get install [gui of choice here]
          I would recommend either kde or gnome

          or, for a browse the repository:
          then select the gui tools you want installed and hit install

          not quite as simple as the apt-get install

          once you have gotten a gui installed, then install a web browser [ like firefox, mozilla suite, netscape or opera ]
          after that is done

          you will be in the gui.

        • #3099832


          by avid ·

          In reply to yes and no

          got it.. am working on it now. i think. download keeps saying stalled. ok.. never mind it is working. i am linuxally challenged.

        • #3087637

          A Long Way To Go…

          by chinmoy1955 ·

          In reply to just a thought

          You have said it in a nutshell. Linux is far behind Windows as far as user friendlyness is concerned. No matter how many distros they develop, at the end we still have problems in installation and configuration. As far as choice is concerned, too many choices is also not a very good idea! It only adds to the confusion. Suppose you are invited to a dinner party, and given a choice of a hundred dishes to choose from. Now how do you choose which is the best dish for you? Either you go about asking people about the advantages and disadvantages of each dish so that you can make a choice, or you randomely pick up a dish and eat it. You may like it or may not like it. If you like it, fine, otherwise you start from scratch. What a waste of time and energy!!

        • #3087510


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to A Long Way To Go…

          You must be the guy that takes twenty friggin’ minutes to make up his mind in the drive through, making everybody behind him late to get back to work. Learn to make informed guesses and get the hell out of the way.

        • #3090325


          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to A Long Way To Go…

          So you want all people to eat the same bland Soylent Green just because you like to eat it?

          You don’t like choice? Fine, but don’t force your lack of choice on me.

          As for the distros being “hard” to install, you are full of it. While some distros might be “harder” than others…for the most part it is click next a few times and wait.

          Configuration is usually automatic and if the proper driver can’t be found, a generic is used in its place. Thus, even if you don’t have the proper video driver, you won’t have a problem.

          Not only is what you are saying wrong, but also you are trying to force a lack of choice on the consumer!

        • #3090225

          News Flash Jmgarvin

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to A Long Way To Go…

          The consumer at this point in time is not interested in that many choices.

          The consumer whats simplicity. The consumer, unfortunately, isn’t as intimately involved with their PC as you are.

          A PC anymore is an entertainment device and or a convenience or education device.

          The average consumer is a PC moron. Linux confuses them not only because of the too many choices of distros, but numerous other things (some Linux’s fault and others not).

          Lastly, a generic driver is never as good as the real thing…if you have a good device that is. I would never go out and buy a $150 video card just to use a generic driver.

          No one is forcing a lack of choice on anyone. However, let the consumer decide…right now, the consumer isn’t interested in that many choices.

          For christ sakes, people are already bitching that there will be 6-8 different versions of Vista coming soon.

          Does anyone in Europe even buy the Windows XP -N?

        • #3090155

          Complaining about free food and OSes?

          by absolutely ·

          In reply to A Long Way To Go…


          Take all the free versions you want, throw away after one bite, or one byte, as the case may be, eventually buy one if you like it enough, and PLEASE, quitcher bicthin’.

        • #3090073

          rickk, re: drivers

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to A Long Way To Go…

          You seem to misunderstand.

          If a specific driver isn’t available, Linux installs a generic driver, yes. If a specific driver isn’t available on Windows, you’re lucky if you get a generic driver. In either case, you then have to install a device-specific driver yourself.

          Get it?

        • #3087576


          by graham.powell4 ·

          In reply to just a thought

          I can’t begin to understand why you feel that way. I have been using Suse 9.3 for under a year – following a switch from Windows XP Pro. I haven’t had anything even resembling an intractable problem with it. The GUI can be used almost entirely with a mouse – as much as Windows can. I save a huge amount of time which was wasted on security issues with XP, I no longer have to defrag my machines, Suse doesn’t crash a tenth of the times that XP does. Installation with Yast is easier than installing new programs with Windows. Most things that you are likely to need are installed by default anyway. It saves a lot of cash. As for training, if you can read a book . . . All I can see are advantages.
          The only possible disadvantages are perhaps with some of the Multimedia programs, because they lack some of the refinements in comparable Windows programs. However, most of them are perfectly capable and many of the Windows programs (e.g. Photoshop 7) can be installed under Wine.
          As for the vast majority of compatability problems, these can
          easily be solved with a minimum of thought.
          Hardware all configured itself during installation – no probs.
          Your comments (which I have seen so many times before from Windows propagandists) seem to suggest that you need to be a lucky genius to use Linux. I have certainly proven that to be a load of non-sense.

        • #3094177

          Install Related Indeed

          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to Anarchy?

          Firstly, let me say, I am completly Pro-linux when all the programs that you rely upon can be found in a linux flavour.

          Here is the main problem that most users have when trying to move to Linux and the installs, etc. You must understand that the linux install barrier that Windows users face, is largely because the bulk of computers that are purchased in the retail world completely avoid someone seeing the install. They just turn the machine on, and its already running windows. So most start out handicapped about installing an OS in general.

          I must say, that recently, I have found most distros I have used, to have quite nice install gui’s, to the point that I cannot fault them at all. I am still in favor of Suse over Redhat by leaps and bounds, but all of them have a fairly easy install system. But that IS the problem. Many people that are resistant to move to linux, are not even exposed to installing windows, much less Linux.

          But I must agree that Linux distro choice is good, just it slightly disunifies common elements that would be nice to keep common among distros. That is an impossility, but I still would hold out for something along that line.

          I must also agree on another point, I have seen people that are still using windows 3.1, and it is working perfectly fine for them. Their proprietary system designed to run on Win3.1 was so complete and well done at the time, that they have yet to need to move up. And you should see how Win3.1 runs on some of todays hardware. No kludgy OS to gum up the CPU power. I mean, its a dinosaur, but its a 200mph dino.

          So yeah, use what works, and enjoy. For the masses, let em have their Windows. Most will not change, even if installing Linux just requires a moment of silence, a word of prayer, and poof, your HD in loaded to the brim with opensource productivity!


        • #3099476

          this is asinine

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Linux Anarchy

          “No change control.”

          That’s a lie.

          “No version control.”

          That’s a lie.

          “No recognised certification.”

          That’s a lie.

          “No formal institutional training.”

          That’s a lie.

          You haven’t said anything substantive that isn’t wildly inaccurate.

          “No offence to all the linux fans out there!”

          The people who should be offended are the Windows users you seem to think are going to buy your line of BS. I know I’d be inclined toward offense if I was treated like a mushroom — kept in the dark and fed sh*t like this.

        • #3099021

          Blatant FUD and not true

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Linux Anarchy

          There ARE standards and there are things that Linux must conform to.

          Also remember that many distributions mean CHOICE and not lock in as with MS.

          As far as certifications go I can think of RHCE, LCPI, and Linux+ (IBM also offers a certification, but I think it is linked with LCPI).

          Thanks, drive through.

        • #3094193

          Anarchy Indeed

          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to Linux Anarchy

          Insanity rules in the world of Linux. Jefe is totally correct. The Linux world has no unifying direction. Each company trying to dive in to get their peice of the pie from Torvalds work. Its worse than a tank of hungry sharks, or the crowd outside OJ’s trial shortly before the verdict.

          I mean, really, you don’t have people in the MS boat bantering back and forth fighting about “Windows XP…No, 95 rulez”. Likewise, in the Mac world, people accept the next version as the logical upgrade. No split decisions there. And we all know what is at the base of MacOS now don’t we. A BSD-esque OS with a pimped out GUI and a single company driving the bus. I am sadly quite biased against Mac just because of the mid-80’s war. Yet walking by the Mac machines everywhere, I think “Damn, that is one fine piece of equipment”. Yet I don’t buy it, cause I hate mac on principle. Superior technology, but I still resist.

          So why is Linux having such a hard time? For obvious reasons…Too many back seat drivers. The core kernel is still making good headway because one person/entity is guiding the ship, but the distros are like Jefe said, Iraq. Personally I have loved playing with Linux for years, and seeing it mature and grow. Right now, I would choose Suse hands down, but am pissed off that they could not combine to get better package management like apt or something.

          Again, too many balls on the field, and nobody knows which one to kick into the net. Apple managed to take what is essentially Unix/Linux(not really, but for arguments sake we use the name). They took that, dumped their old school stank OS, and gave it some balls. Apple is hands down the most visually impressive. I just wish they would box up the OS and sell it to run on IBM clone hardware and start chipping away at MS market share.

          To get back on topic, Linux needs one distro head. I guess on a small scale, the distros each are like their own OS, but still lack the widescale effort to make them simple. Ultimately, really, the only two OS’s as far as the end user is concerned are KDE and Gnome. Isn’t that really what makes the OS? I mean you get Lightstep for windows right, so in Linux case, the OS ease of use, is largely reliant on the wm you choose? I think so.

          For all in one usability for the lower braincelled types, Linux has long ways to go, but for anyone with even the least savvy computer literate home user could make sense of most of today’s flavors linux distro installs. The only thing almost any user needs is an install that gives the easy to choose options in a gui, and that the computer does not boot to a prompt and require some obscure commands to start the windowing enviroment (a’la Windows 3.1).

          Personally in my case, the only thing tying me to windows is the Web Developement software, and the fact that it is by FAR the easiest platform to program RAD style for, and make a powerful solution for in a week, not months or years. In fact, that I would venture to say is what pushes alot of a platform’s adoption. In Windows, I can write a serious program, without farting around in C++, which I can do, but I have tried using qt stuff and all that on linux, and it is just not as fast as say opening up C++ builder, Delphi, or any flavour of MS .NET crud, and churning out an app.

          In the end, there are many factors that must work together to make an OS really take top billing, and it is certainly the case that Microsoft has covered most of the areas. Most people that hate MS hate it for no other reason than one little inconsequential reason or another. Those people are free thinkers, and should not use Windows. Go to Linux, you’ll be happier. But unfortunately, the 98% of users are not free thinkers, and need someone to tell them what to do, say, and think. These people don’t go a day without TV, Radio, or internet, and are addicts to editorials to know what to think.

          Bill Gates should rephrase the MS slogan to…”This is where you’ll go today”, cause its true, and people like to be told where to go. You just have to say it in such a way that they think they made the decision. Thats all.

        • #3134025

          Another 2 Cents

          by issinho ·

          In reply to Anarchy Indeed

          I like what you wrote. Not that I’d agree with it, but I like it.

          What you said about too many distros out there. What you failed to recognize is THAT is one of the things that makes LINUX so…special (for lack of a better term). I mean, you state that “free thinkers…should not use Windows” and I agree, however, not everyone wants to drive a Chrysler Minivan all the time. Sure, nice when it is needed, but what about when you want a Mustang or PT Cruiser? You really can look at this from a similar standpoint. What makes LINUX so facinating is the fact that you really CAN make it to be whatever you want or need. There is a few people that keep the actual kernel up to date (that is why there are updates and such). Those people are upgrading the engine, so to speak. Your anxiety is over the body: the paint job, the stereo, the seats and such.

          Another thing: about the 98% out there. Where MS was really smart was making their deal with IBM. Once Windows was on nearly every desktop, they had it made. Their indoctrinization was complete and they had us all where they wanted us. I can almost garuntee that, if you take someone with NO experience (I know, good luck today, right?) and sit them in front of a LINUX BOX or MAC, they will learn to use it just like we all did several years ago with Windows.

          I still stand by my claim when I say that the real problem with LINUX is the Software Developers. You cannot tell me that if they were to spend more time, and a little more effort, they could not develop more software to sell on other systems. Games, your Web Development software, all those daily programs we all use could have been written to work on MAC, they could have been written to work on LINUX/UNIX. My biggest example? Take Unreal Tournament 2004. What were the OS requirements? Windows or LINUX. There was even one written specifically for MAC! A little more effort on the part of Programmers and they could sell more copies and the war for the desktop could be a little more even. MS’s hold on the desktop is just that: they have the Software developers on their side and on their payroll. Personally, I beleive MS would loose this debate in a heart beat if all the software companies would include the same option that the makers of Unreal did.

          “That’s [my] opinion, [I]’d like to hear yours.”

        • #3133905


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Another 2 Cents

          Why spend more time and $ on something that is used by less people? It is purely a business decision. I’m sure they’ve done a cost analysis and decided that the economies just aren’t there.

          Besides, what about Wine and Cedega that everyone says is so good. The software developers don’t have to spend the time and $ so why would they?

        • #3134339

          Chief You haven’t seen Anarchy!

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Linux Anarchy

          Try getting Microsoft to fix a very real problem. Even if they promise a delivery date. Can someone say Longhorn and filesystem in the same sentance
          without using the words slip and delayed or rescheduled?

          The real issue has become one that people will not be sneering at. The complexity of UNIX that people complain about hasn’t stopped Apple from becoming UNIXfied. In fact people tend to use GUIs, Word Processors, and lastly editors. If you have that functionality, then there is no great difference for what you need to do.

          The fact is with MS you have only one possible solution at the new OS level. You can be run around long enough that your company can be destroyed by their responsiveness.

        • #3099022

          What goes wrong?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Difficult Installation

          Linux is good about providing “generic” drivers and creating a usable system out of the box. Does X not work? Not big deal just download the video card driver from ATI or NVidia.

          Wireless failing? Ndiswrapper to the rescue….

          What fails?

        • #3094169


          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to What goes wrong?

          What kinda language is that? You should have your post censored for swearing. I know my ears were offended at hearing the N-word. Anybody and his brother named Linus could download the sources to the drivers and custom build the drivers for his/her particular card. OK maybe not, but that was what I did, and it worked.

          I think Linux users should take a different position. Instead of being the trampled evangelists, just be the snobs that look down on the poor windows users.

          “Oh shame for those people, it must be hard…oh…excuse me Ms. Bill, just try rebooting again, that might help…yes, as I was saying….”.

          Personally for me, so many people being hooked on windows is a good thing. I write custom apps for windows, and there is no end to the needy users. Stop converting people over to Linux. I cannot make nearly the same money on Linux, cause most of what I write there is already a free open-source equivalent on Linux. Shhhh…lets keep riding this train for a while to come.

        • #3094089

          What’s Stopping You?

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to NDISWrapper

          First of all, there is plenty of free software out there for Windows. Second, if you are so dedicated to open and free, write software for Windows and give it away…plenty of people already do.

        • #3093996


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What’s Stopping You?

          Of course! Because that would make Windows into free software!

          Wait, no, that’s not right. . . .

        • #3258397

          A guys gotta…

          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to Right!

          make a living. Hey if it were not for Windows, we’de be chewing on apples, which as of OSx would be less irritating than Windows IMO.

          I kinda understand both camps and with Gates coming in during that early era and charging for software. Twas kinda against the main stream geekdom, but for crying out loud, if I make an accounting/POS/backoffice/inventory/CRM/ecommerce system for some company, why should I give it away for free? We don’t live in a Utopia. Heck at that rate why don’t all IT workers just work for free since its so much fun, and find other means of gainful employment. It really can’t be had both ways. Just because Torvalds did what he did, does that lend reason to the notion that all software must be open source and free! Thats rediculous.

          Linux is far more viable than Windows in a server env. anyday IMO, for many reasons including stability. But I think its far fetched to explain everything away by saying that people and companies are passing up Linux to lay down hard earned shekels on windows boxes simpy because they are uninformed. That is nonsensical! Windows does add value, usability, headaches, lockups, and hair loss, but at the end of the day, people are still buying it. It all doesn’t just boil down to loving or hating Bill Gates or his philosophies.

          With that said, until Windows’ market share decreases to the point where its not profitable to write $oftware for it, I will still be there writing and supporting software and creating just plain cool integrated/converged/hybrid/[insert buzz word here] systems.

          I think I heard a very accurate quote once…

          “Milionaires work to build businesses, and billionaires work to build monopolies.”

          I’m just working on the Millions thing right now. I started too late to go for the Billion mark.

          Software is not meant to be free. I do think its WAAAAY overpriced at times. But as a systems integrator myself, people are not paying for the software, as much as they are paying for the use of the whole system (hardware and software) and the results that system brings (happy customers, more efficient business, less employees, more automation, higher profitability, security). So if I can build software that isn’t affected by the platform’s stability, then the customer doesn’t care if they have to reboot every once in a while, nor would they care if it ran on top of DRDOS.

          I have found the best way to curb stability issues is to build a scaled down install of Windows, with all services clamped down and minimal services running. I get the OS into as clean/stable of a state as possible, install my proprietary software, then image the disk, and just load that image onto the client’s machine, use a key changer script to put the new computer’s new & valid (read legit) key in place, and install my software.

          Then with MY stable configuration on the box, software and all, I MD5 all of the files on the entire disk, and sign up a service level agreement on that particular machine, that is valid only while no unauthorized software is installed, and no system files or settings are tampered with. Also, the computer hardware and software are not the property of the client, but rather remain under my companies ownership. That is how we can gaurantee uptime on those units via an SLA.

          If something goes wrong, most data is held on a master DB server that gets incrementally backed up minute by minute to a tape array and a duplicate backup server.

          If the main server fails, the second server immediately jumps in place, and we are notified that a server is down. We can very quickly image a new server, and have it in place in less than an hour. A little automatic replication and 5 minutes later…badabing! If a client machine goes down, again, peers and any servers on the network notice it, report to a server alert queue, and we in turn get a warning to come check up on things, and re-image another box and swap out the affected unit, with nearly no down time at all.

          All on Windows boxes. So Windows is not necessarily unstable, just depends on who is using it, and who configures it. Also, cheap a$$ hardware can cause even Linux to bite the dust, no matter how good and stable it is.

          I will say though, without even a hesitation, that nearly all flavous of Linux are 1000x more stable out of the box than windows will ever be. Rather let me put it this way, Linux out of the box is stable, Windows is *NOT*…

          You just have to know what you’re doing. Of course it is pathetic that the following statement is true:

          “The best way to keep windows stable is to not install too much software on it”

          Can you imagine how windows would die if all the apps in the GNU FSF and opensource included with most distros we’re installed on windows. Kaplutz-city. Windows is good in a controlled environment. Note I said good, not outstanding…

          I am wholeheartedly a Linux evangelist, but not to the detriment of my windows market/clients. With the exception of Java and a few other interpreted deals, it is by far, much more rapid a process developing a multi-tier GUI business app on Windows than on any other platform I have used, and YES I have tried others. I just don’t like Java, its slow and ugly, and well, I am just not proficient in it. Bad excuse I know!

          Anyways, yes, Linux Good, Windows Bad….Oooga oooga! {beating chest}

          But I still use Windows too 🙁

        • #3110004

          your main point

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Right!

          It looks like your main point is that free software isn’t particularly useful for building a viable business model.

          You’re both right and wrong. It’s not good for building a viable profit model if your aim is to treat software as a product. Free software returns software to its rightful place: a means to an end, and not the end in itself. Free software developers make money by developing functionality that someone wants, and for which that person is willing to pay. Free software experts make money by supporting deployed free software (and by deploying it). Commercial software vendors make money by having the government come around and strongarm you if you happen to use the same install CD twice.

          Even if it’s more difficult to make money on free software (which, in my experience, it’s not), I’d rather do so at great effort than make money with little effort by becoming the software analog to John Gotti.

        • #3108432

          That IS my point.

          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to Right!

          Funny, I must completely agree with your points. I am not saying that you must mercilessly hunt down and prosecute license violations. I am not in that software design camp. My main thrust is putting together a whole business model in the form of software. I use the software to reach performance and functionality goals, and not for a cut and dry saleable product that I enforce licensing restrictions on.

          In my position, yes, it would be much easier to use free software and make alot of money from the support issues that arise when you combine multiple systems written by different people, in an attempt to create a unified system. That is where opensource always loses it for me. I don’t follow a standard software design model, I document and flowchart like all good programmers, but it is the wisdom that I use in designing a solution that requires me to engineer everything to fit in my picture.

          I can’t play paint by numbers and use cookie cutter generic GNU software to get the job done. In most cases, there is just nothing out there that does the task in a way that will combine with other areas to create as little need for employees as possible. That is unless you know where I can get some really good robotic control software for Linux or BSD that is open source. Even if there is, I would spend more time in trying to make the many programs play nicely, than I would just by designing something from the ground up, to work together.

          The exception to this rule that I have employed a couple of times is shopping cart software. I have used a couple of different shopping cart softs at times to give the web front end to a e-commerce package, since many are generally extensible from APIs or by directly accessing the cart system’s DBs.

          At no point in time do I turn ownership of the software over to the person who is using it, rather, they are paying for a service that manages thier entire business for them, and allows them to do most tasks and get any information with 1-3 clicks, as well as real-time stats. Real-time db push apps and all forms of real-time alerts and monitoring are very hard to come by in open source software. We’re talking:

          Shipping & Receiving
          Video & Audio Streaming
          Biometric Access
          Process Controls (pressure/temp/weight/speed)
          Human Resources (employee attenadance, job site management)
          RFID Personel Tracking
          RFID Product Inventorying
          Server Monitoring
          Software Stability Monitoring & Reporting

          They also get SLAs on uptime, and performance gaurantees, etc.

          So yes, I am firmly against the schlepping software model of doing things. I would rather concentrate on a service revenue model, but I make a great distinction between “Rental Revenue” and “Service Revenue”. For me the Service Revenue is all rolled up in the cost of the software lease. That also keeps the customers out of your hair on the technical side. They are relegated to a zone that allows them to request features but they are not in a position to start directing the inner workings of the system, which leaves me free to enjoy what I do and work my mojo on the keyboard without some clueless middle manager telling me how to comment my code.

          I think there is also a good business model in being a software architect where someone contracts you to build a piece of software, and they retain ownership. Its no different to building a house. You would rarely find a man doing it on his own, and buying the parts at Home Depot. You get an expert in to do it. That type of work is fun for a while, but I have found that by finding some niche and doing it better than anyone else, you spend almost all of your work time improving the one product, rather than going out on service calls and reacquainting yourself with some code you wrote 2 yeras earlier.

          I think I must work on getting proficient in GUI apps for KDE. That could make my products a whole lot more appealing to the open source OS crowds. I have had requests of that nature, but couldn’t justify the learning curve time. Apotheon, you know any good beginner tutorials for doing GUI apps in KDE? Without venturing to Java for it. S’pose Java may be a good way to go for that, I just don’t like Sun. I used Kylix for a while, and made some good apps, but it has not worked since like Redhat 7.2 or so without a whole lot of pains in the arse getting a compatibility environment setup for an older version of GLIBC.

          Ok, enough time wasting here now, let me get to sleep. Let me end by saying that I agree with most of what apotheon says except I would likely not be so belligerant in it, and I am not yet entirely sold out to the notion that the only useable OS is Linux (not that you directly said that anywhere), just broad-brushing. There is plenty of ROI to be had anywhere you have experience and expertise.

        • #3134351

          Look before you install

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Difficult Installation

          If you look for supported hardware and configure your machine accordingly you shouldn’t have a problem. Most recently ther problems I ran into were SATA drives and new video cards that weren’t in the primary distribution.

          The basic stuff you get on servers tends to be much better supported. (You don’t need a high end graphics card to be a console.)

          The newest hardware is often three-six months behind getting working drivers for the UNIX environment. Many of us who write the drivers are doing it in our copious free time. My wife and 4 kids lay claim to much of that. The good old SCSI hard drives,EIDE or ESDI seem to work fine. Use a 16 MB video card and they are basically all supported. Buy a 256MB G-Force that was released last friday, and it may not be supported for a while…

          For a while SATA nada… Now I hava a SATA raid.

      • #3099876

        At one time you could return Windows

        by starderup ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        They used to have a clause in the license agreement that if you didn’t open it and didn’t accept the license agreement that you could return it for a refund.
        I think they quit doing that because so many people took them up on it.
        Really, I can’t understand how their practices are not unfair and don’t violate US laws.
        My first day on the job supporting Windows 3.1 we had a special meeting announcing that we no longer offered Doublespace. It was now Drivespace. Turns out Doublespace was reverse engineered from Stacker. They didn’t even steal the right one. Stacker got much better compression than Doublespace.
        Learn about Microsoft, if you don’t anger easily, and then lose it. Linux rocks.

        • #3099031

          Your Comments

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to At one time you could return Windows

          And your comments are just so professional, offering zero evidence, facts, statistics, etc.

          Hey, thanks for contributing absolutely zero to this debate.

          While I may disagree with apotheon or jaqui, at least I value their input.

          Opinions are like rear ends, apparently.

        • #3258920

          Fact is, Microsoft pled guilty.

          by starderup ·

          In reply to Your Comments

          If you don’t like the facts, I can’t help it.
          MS did admit they reverse engineered Stacker. Then they bought the company. These are facts.
          If you want to try to find stats that prove that MS is better than the operating systems it is copied from, go ahead. It will keep you busy and out of trouble.
          The only stat I pay attention to is that I have never seen a Linux or Unix box crash. Ever. Not once.
          If I had a dollar for every Windoz crash I have endured, I’d literally be able to retire today.
          Those that have hitched their wagons to the Microsoft star often have a grudge, and I am not going to be able to help them.
          I can say that as a former support person that took Microsoft calls, I saw enough of this organization that I decided I wanted no part of it.

      • #3134872

        Linux V Windows

        by wbarrett ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        good Question,
        You are right, you don’t need a license for linux since you can download it for free from most providers except for Novell and some newer Version of Redhat,,,but debian and Slackware are free….support is on your own unless you buy a licecnsed copy….So the anwser your looking for is YES you can…Dell needs to get a clue. Just buy the system and tell them you dont want OS…they tried that when we asked for a quote for new servers

        • #3134701

          buy a licensed copy?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Linux V Windows

          When you purchase a “Boxed Set” linux, you are actually buying some commercial applications, and support, as well as printed, distro centric, install book(s) not a license for linux.

      • #3101424

        Linux box

        by speleoalan ·

        In reply to not exactly a reply but more of a question …

        Walmart was selling a Linux computer at one time for $199 Also you can buy linux system from Hewlett Packard. Probably are hundreds of OEM builders that will sell without an OS on the hard drive.

    • #3098102

      One more variable

      by sudhindrashamanna ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I think there is one more clarification required here. Are we talking about desktop OS or a server OS. Most of the discussions I have read on this topic always assume that we are talking about desktop OS. Looking at the options here it appears you are also talking about desktops. Am I right?

      • #3099529

        Desktop vs Server

        by issinho ·

        In reply to One more variable

        I have been reading some articles on Linux for a school project. They all seem to agree that Linux has won the Server wars. I’m not saying that one is better than the other, just that my research points to Linux over Windows in the server arena.

        However, the Desktop is another story. Windows has held the monopoly on Desktops for a long time. So, that is where most of the arguments and issues reside today.

    • #3098101

      I’m sure you’ll get hundreds of replies

      by crake ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I, for one, am tired of the Windows vs Linux argument.

      • #3098084

        I’m sick of it

        by netgenner ·

        In reply to I’m sure you’ll get hundreds of replies

        If I have to read one more windows vs. linux debate I think I’ll take up knitting instead of computers. To me, you may as well ask, “Which is better, apples or oranges?”.

        • #3098033

          usually . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m sick of it

          It’s more like asking “Which is better for making orange juice, apples or oranges?”

        • #3098564

          OY VAY!

          by unclerob ·

          In reply to usually . . .

          – nuff said 😉

        • #3098029

          Agreed, but good idea

          by bill ·

          In reply to I’m sick of it

          to generate categories – helps users to identify where and when they will use either OS. Both have merit.

        • #3098689

          Me too

          by norfolk_tyke ·

          In reply to I’m sick of it

          Here Here

        • #3098618

          If you’re sick of it, why bother replying?

          by ·

          In reply to I’m sick of it

          What’s the point of replying if you are sick of it?

          If I have to read one more windows vs. linux debate I think I’ll take up knitting instead of computers. To me, you may as well ask, “Which is better, apples or oranges?”.

        • #3098591

          Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          by shorne ·

          In reply to If you’re sick of it, why bother replying?

          Because the quoted post is a valid point to make in the context of the thread.

        • #3098500

          But they seem to forget

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          no one MADE them come in and read yet another win v lin discussion.

          Why cry in your milk if you didn’t want milk in the first place?

          And as a side note, SOME of these are actually worth reading when you can get people to provide valid arguments to support or disprove a point. It is the nutcases that have a religious fanatisism for an OS, be it win/lin/mac, it is JUST a friggen tool, not a way of life.

          get over yourseves! (and use linux! 😀 )

        • #3098460

          Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          by shorne ·

          In reply to But they seem to forget

          ya I get ya but I was just saying that his comment about being bored about it all is actually valid input. To use your example if people are arguing Milk vs. Juice it’s valid to say I’m sick and tired of all this fighting just drink whatever the heck you want. You’re right in the broader sense..if it’s boring you move on and the rest will continue on.

        • #3098463


          by lalala ·

          In reply to I’m sick of it

          they’re preloaded with lots of vitamins, they grow everywhere, there’s no rind to peel before you get to the fruit, and you can make them do cool stuff like turn into pies and cider. i think they’re cheaper by the pound, too.

      • #3098696


        by fritz_monroe ·

        In reply to I’m sure you’ll get hundreds of replies

        I agree fully. I’m tired of the discussion as well, but not because anything is ever straightened out, but more for the people doing the arguing won’t admit there is anything wrong with their OS of choice.

        There seem to be less die hard Windows people, but the ones that are here need to admit that Linux is the right OS for some people and the 2 can coexist on the same network. Linux does have it’s uses.

        The die hard Linux folks need to admit that Linux is not the answer to every problem. It is not perfect and there are parts that need to be worked on.

        If each side could get over themselves and their preconceived notions, a meaningful discussion could occur.

        • #3098690

          the problems with Linux

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Agreed

          “[i]The die hard Linux folks need to admit that Linux is not the answer to every problem. It is not perfect and there are parts that need to be worked on.[/i]”

          I agree with this statement about Linux (not necessarily Linux users — most aren’t as bad as you seem to think). The problem that often arises is that MS FUD indoctrinated Microsofties have a tendency to attack Linux on fronts where Linux actually does [b]not[/b] really have any problems. The sad fact is that they simply don’t know enough about Linux to know where its weaknesses actually lie. As a result, Linux users have a tendency to appear to be unable to admit to any faults to Linux because, simply put, what is being touted as areas where Linux falls short of Windows is usually entirely inaccurate.

        • #3098672

          Nice tap dance

          by chuckish ·

          In reply to the problems with Linux

          You never did answer the question: where is Linux not perfect? And I’ll offer a challenge: you can’t use the word ‘depends’ in your response.

        • #3098513

          Read much?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Nice tap dance

          Fritz_Monroe didn’t ask that question, so of course I didn’t answer it. There’s no tap dancing involved in not answering a question that wasn’t asked.

          I’ve actually addressed Linux shortcomings several times this morning already. I’ve run out of motivation to repeat myself. Perhaps I’ll come back to this later.

        • #3097797

          Linux is slower

          by don_the_newbie ·

          In reply to the problems with Linux

          I have a friend who bought an Acer laptop with 2.0Ghz Celeron processor and Linux OS. After not using it for two weeks because he does not know how to use linux (ordinary user), he called me up to FIX it. I opn the unit, then booted up. To my surprise, it took 2 minutes for linux to load. The simply solution is to unistall linux, install Windows XP and Office 2003. After which, he can use the computer less than 40 seconds after power on. Now how can linux sell to ordinary user when it actually its interface less attractive that Windows plus the unfamiliar applications. Even the Open Office 10 installed has no match to the feature of Office XP, much less Office 2003.

          Our office also have three linux useless machines whose only reason of being there is because the Central Office required such to be there. I can make programs in Java, C, Visual Basic, Visual Foxpro, also batch file (I have been using computers since 1990) – but why should I spend hours or days for thing that can be done in minutes.

        • #3097770

          What are you talking about

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Linux is slower

          Not only is this pure FUD, but pure ignorance as well.

          On a side note:
          A) You don’t need to turn off or reboot a *nix box very often.
          B) You DO need to reboot and turn off a Windows box constantly (every update, patch, change, install, et al)
          C) Linux, slow? HA! The resource usage footprint is FAR smaller than Windows.
          D) Linux provides choice, unlike MS who provides a monopolistic OS that provides NO choice

          As far as coding goes…I don’t care what platform I’m on…I can code quickly in any platform…If you can’t “get” that coding is just using a text editor and a compiler/interpreter, I don’t believe you can code.

          Why would it take you HOURS OR DAYS to code the same thing on a different platform? Especially, C, Java, and “batch files.” (I assume you are eluding to scripting of some sort).

        • #3097731


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What are you talking about

          Batch files are the DOS equivalent of shell scripts — minus most of the power and flexibility of a unix shell.

        • #3099014

          Ah yes…those things

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to batch

          Uh…why bother when you can use powerful scripting languages? 😉

        • #3098799

          Why bother?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to batch

          I guess . . . because Microsoft said so. People use Visual Basic, after all.

        • #3259041

          Here We Go Again

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to What are you talking about

          Here we go again.

          For those of us who prefer Windows, GUI’s, and programs that do alot of the work for us, we’re stupid and less competent than our elitist Linux brothers. Of course!

          I think they feel threatened.

          Threatened by the fact that armed with the right tools, people like myself can accomplish as much as “them” and don’t have to command the larger salaries, time and energy they do nor have to read cryptic manuals.

          Hey, I’d love to make more money, but I make a fair wage for what I do and my type is growing faster everyday.

          It shouldn’t take a techno geek with silicon running thru his veins, CAT5 arteries, and LCD bifocals do run a business.

          IT is just one more tool in the arsenal of business. We like to control costs, manage processes, and seek competitive advantages and not geek out, drool over CES, and hack X-Boxes.

          Don’t knock what works for us and I won’t knock what works for you.

        • #3259010

          true colors

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Here We Go Again

          If your mind is open, as you say it is, it’s simply so open that everything fell out. I think it’s more likely that you just have a chip on your shoulder about something.

          “[i]I won’t knock what works for you.[/i]”

        • #3258805

          Where are the facts and statistics?

          by starderup ·

          In reply to Here We Go Again

          Here is what you said about one of my previous posts:
          “And your comments are just so professional, offering zero evidence, facts, statistics, etc.

          Hey, thanks for contributing absolutely zero to this debate.

          While I may disagree with apotheon or jaqui, at least I value their input.

          Opinions are like rear ends, apparently.”

          I thought you were interested in a real discussion, but I see you are just another Linux basher. It would hold more water if you were able to figure out how to install it from a bootable CD.
          I am not a ‘techno geek with silicon running thru his veins, CAT5 arteries’, etc. but I could at least follow prompts to install an OS and see that it also has a GUI – one much nicer and powerful than the copy you are so in love with.

        • #3258918

          Agreed. Linux flies.

          by starderup ·

          In reply to What are you talking about

          Try loading XP on an original Pentium. It’ll take you hours.
          That same old obsolete hardware will run FreeBSD pretty well.
          There’s just no comparison, but those that love Microsoft will insist Windows is faster.
          Just the time saved on constant reboots will add days of productivity over the course of a year.
          You have to reboot Windows machines every time you sneeze.

        • #3097734


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Linux is slower

          Something drastically wrong was done. I’m typing this on a 366MHz Pentium 2 with 128MB of RAM, and it doesn’t take anywhere near two minutes for this thing to boot up. I can’t imagine what had been done to that thing to make it take that friggin’ long.

          That’s not Linux being slow. It’s something else. There’s no way in the world it should have been taking that long on a 2GHz processor.

        • #3099595

          tell me about it..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to egad

          I’m going to play mean to myself.. I bought an old 386 laptop for 5 bucks the other day.
          as soon as I get the time, I’ll create an install system on zip disk ( no cdrom, no network, no pcmcia, no usb ) and see how much fun I can have building linux on this antiquated piece of crap.

          step one: find a power supply.
          step two: see if it even boots to dos.
          [ most likely has dos on it, only a 40 mb hard drive ]

        • #3099526

          I’m thinking about using CF-1 cards on a 486

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to tell me about it..

          I have an 80486 DX/100 that I’m going to put into service. I hate the idea of having it’s old disks spinning all of the time since I’m going to use it as a network security appliance. The old disks would probably use too much electricity and make too much noise. Anyway, I’ve been looking into putting a Linux distro onto a 1GB or 2GB compact flash card. There are some adapters that connect a CF reader/writer to a computer IDE interface and they are bootable. These CF cards come in a wide range of speeds now with an equally wide range of prices. It looks to me that the prices for a slow CF card and an adapter would be about $40(US) for the bootable CF reader/writer and about $100(US) for the 1GB CF card.

          Just thought you might be interested in what I’ve found. 😀

        • #3099408

          re pc based firewall

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to tell me about it..

          got a floppy disk?
          got a functioning floppy drive?
          got a functioning motherboard with ram?
          the only three things you need to have a working firewall box. 🙂
          do a tftp boot loading iptables, routed and ssh into the ram, pull the floppy out and walk away.
          you’ll be able to ssh in to fix anything.
          and the routed and iptables are doing the work you want.

        • #3099513

          Are you kidding? 2 minutes is too long?

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to Linux is slower

          When I’m working in a client’s office I simply use the boot time of my workstation to remove my coat and hang it up. BTW I’ve seen many Windows computers take several minutes to start. What’s the big deal? How many times a day do you restart a computer? If you have to complain at least try to make it about something that really matters. And, different Linux distributions take different amounts of time to boot.

        • #3258796

          XP boot up and shutdown – smoke and mirrors

          by starderup ·

          In reply to Are you kidding? 2 minutes is too long?

          One of the results of customer feedback from W2K users was the rearranging of items in the load sequence of XP. It still takes as long to boot up, but they present the desktop sooner than in prior versions to give the illusion you are up quicker.
          It more than likely is actually slower, because every version of Windows has megabytes more code than the previous one, but it is important to MS to maintain the pretext they are listening and answering.
          Watch your hard drive light after you get to the desktop and notice that you can’t really get the system to respond for a couple minutes until all the services are started, etc.
          This is their idea of quicker starts. As for shutdown, the previous version would verify network connections before terminating them, and XP just terminates them. It speeds it up somewhat, but still takes as long or longer on this 1.8GHz machine to shut down as SuSe 9.0 takes on my 1.1 GHz Tbird.

        • #3260118

          I found a very quick way to close XP

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to XP boot up and shutdown – smoke and mirrors

          If I use the normal shutdown sequence on my Windows XP PC I have to wait about 5 minutes to confirm that everything closed out properly and the system turned off – on numerous occassions I have come back to the machine to find an error message ‘Unable to close xxxxx – please end program’. But I find if I just turn the poer off at the PSU it shuts down in 10 seconds – just have to watch for the ‘Did not close down properly’ message at start up and abort the scan.

        • #3098614

          Be careful in a business environment

          by bank_it_guy ·

          In reply to Agreed

          I thought I owed it to my employer to at least do some due diligence and check out the potential savings of not having to send shovels full of money to Redmond every 2 or 3 years. If the business could save money, I would be the hero, right? Well it didn’t work out that way.

          First, I knew very little about Linux so I looked at the training alternatives and I felt that a 1 week Linux boot camp was the fastest way to get up to speed. I had to make a decision fast because we needed to upgrade. (hindsight 20/20, fast decisions don’t usually work out)

          In building a test environment, everything looked pretty good, but I found out quickly that a vendor that wrote their application on Microsoft SQL would not support a Linux SQL application.

          The proverbial brick wall. The bank would not change software that would allow for a Linux OS because they would have to abondon money spent for the MS application and then buy another application that would work. I could see that the long term effect could be one that saved the bank a lot of money.

          In the end, they thought I wasted money trying to move to another OS. They could not see that the only money spent in the trial was the training because we still had to buy the MS licenses.

        • #3099519

          Using existing assets (software licenses)

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to Be careful in a business environment

          I absolutely agree that expensive assets should not be prematurely abandoned in any environment. My idea is that new functions such as the need for an additional DNS server could be well served by putting old hardware into use to perform that function with Linux. A new file server or a new print server could also be a good way to use old equipment with Linux. This approach doesn’t cause the panic in management if the trial doesn’t work out. The only cost is the time that you spend exploring this possibility. That could easily be no more than the time you would spend researching the latest Microsoft solution for the same function. I expect that most business managers will be more willing to accept a small trial in a server role than to accept the idea of making big changes to the existing configuration and abandoning those expensive software licenses and I agree with that thinking. I would always try to keep existing assets in service for as long as possible.

        • #3099398

          slipping it by the PHBs

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Using existing assets (software licenses)

          Many IT departments install Linux on servers that the pointy-haired bosses never see without telling management about it. The reason is simple: they don’t want to spend all the time necessary to manage an unstable Windows system for something like a file server, and they don’t want to have to try to convince the pointy-haired bosses that the lack of a multicolored window logo isn’t going to cause their networks to blow up (everybody knows that the type of sticker on your server’s system case has an effect on its reliability, after all).

          Linux is sneaking into the enterprise through the back door because IT admins want stuff that works, works well, and works without complaint — and unfortunately “without complaint” requires sneaking it in the back door where the PHBs won’t notice.

      • #3098627

        abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment

        by shorne ·

        In reply to I’m sure you’ll get hundreds of replies

        People argue these things too and in the end nobody on either side changes their opinion so yes it’s all an exercise in futility.

        • #3098558

          I wouldn’t say futile…

          by unclerob ·

          In reply to abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment

          You need these topics to be discussed so that politicians have a job ( or so that certain politicians keep their jobs – vote for Martin’s Liberals! – just kidding)

          It’s good to hear about this stuff constantly, at least it gives you a reason to complain about something just in case you’re life is perfect.

          I’m impressed actually,
          I never thought I would see anyone use any of these buzzwords, let alone all 3 of them in an IT forum discussing Windoze vs. Linux,

          good job you got me to read your post,
          you could have a future in advertising!

        • #3098457

          FREE BEER!

          by shorne ·

          In reply to I wouldn’t say futile…

          I got you to read this one too.
          You’re right, I should go into advertising. LMAO

    • #3098085

      Windows vs Linux

      by swlchris ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      First I am a home user. Second, I have made my own home network out of three pc’s. Third , I have experience more with hardware than I do with software as two of my three pc’s are rebuilt out of scrap parts .
      My setup as follows, there is a reason for this as you will see.

      One Dell Dimension V333c rebuilt:
      Dell MB Intel 440 variant of some sort.
      Celeron Slot One 333 MHz CPU
      192mb ram
      One Seagate 3.4 gb HDD
      One Maxtor 20 gb HDD
      Intel NIC
      32x cdrom
      OS: Windows 2000 Professional

      One No Name Rebuild pc:
      Intel Ca810E MB w onboard a/v
      Intel P3 700 Mhz CPU
      256 MB ram
      One Western Digital 10 GB HDD
      One Seagate 20 GB HDD
      52x52x32 LG CD R\W
      32x4x2 LG CD R\W
      OS: Windows 98 SE, Windows 2000 Pro, Windows XP Pro, Slackware Linux with 2.6 kernel

      One Emachines 366i2
      TG Florida MB
      366 Mhz Celeron FPGA CPU
      192 MB Ram
      One Tri-gem 4.3 gb HDD
      One Maxtor 20 gb HDD
      One Quantum 2.5 gb HDD
      32x8x4 LG CD R\W
      OS: Windows XP Pro

      Now I have experience with Linux as a home user for over five years going back to Red Hat?s 7.1 release as well as using Windows back from WFW 3.11.
      First, most hardware vendors from the get go forget about Linux or do not want to release their proprietary source drivers to anyone. So it?s not so much a question of hardware being compatible with Linux as it is finding the RIGHT hardware.
      Unless someone runs out and buys the very latest video graphics card or a right off the shelf system with all sorts of manufacturers only based card readers , most Linux distributions will find and configure the hardware today. Some may require tweaking or a recompile to add the needed modules. Some, as in Fedora Core, will probably have a driver show up during the install process.
      In my opinion, it all comes down to two things. How much experience one has with pc?s and how much one is willing to learn. If you get Joe Smith out of CompUSA, chances are unless it?s written on the box, he won?t know a thing about the hardware or even the OS.
      If you get someone who has been around pc?s awhile and used them on a more consistent basis, then the issue is one of just finding the right configuration.
      For the home user, I find a lot who might know a little about the pc they use, but if it comes to starting from scratch, if there is not a restore cd handy, then they are lost. They don?t get paid to fix their own pc, they have to call tech support if it?s a major manufacturer ( as well as hope the tech speaks passable English), or hope the shop they went to is still in business so they can have it looked it.
      For the corporate user it?s vastly different.
      In my case, I learned from scratch as I went, and sure, I fried a few things here and there, but it all was experience worth learning.
      I will say this, if and when one of my machines goes down and I can?t get it to boot into whatever OS I?m using , out comes my trusty , dinged up Knoppix live cdrom and into the machine it goes?
      From a home user?s perspective that what I can say.

    • #3098082

      the debate has cooled over time and growing experience

      by sangraal ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      Really most of the linux side of the debate I suspect was mostly based on price and avoidance of licensing issues monopolists, and development potential for the person with a lot of time on their hands to be able to get things to work correctly without bugs on the workstation. But, practicality has actually surpassed the enthusiasm. At least in my experiences, I have found that there are more things to do in life than to have to manually re-edit .conf files, seach for workarounds, and re-recompile, just to do minimal tasks plug and play os’s can work with.
      I’ll bring up an even more critical issue on the efficacy of operating systems not many will give consideration to. efficiency! You know the difference there is when when bloated os memory eating services that are not needed for the most part spin there wheels on the architecture? Well, that should be the real debate because Linux has, and is continuing to follow suite in this area. We should have learned something from Bill Gates if anything and it should not be how to build an O.S. But, Linux continues to try and emualate and not very often surpass!!

      • #3098075

        Ladies and Gentlemen, your first FUD…

        by crake ·

        In reply to the debate has cooled over time and growing experience

        Congratulations. I was wondering how long it would take one of you zealots to regale us with your FUD and slanted opinions.

        I’m sure the Linux zealots are tapping out a fierce rebuttal at this very moment.

      • #3098024

        the other foot

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to the debate has cooled over time and growing experience

        [i]Really most of the[/i] [b]Windows[/b] [i]side of the debate I suspect was mostly based on[/i] [b]ignorance[/b] [i]and avoidance of[/i] [b]actually trying Linux out before condemning it[/b][i], and development potential for the person with a lot of time on their hands to be able to get things to work correctly without bugs on the workstation. But, practicality has actually surpassed the enthusiasm. At least in my experiences, I have found that there are more things to do in life than to have to manually re-edit[/i] [b]the registry[/b][i], seach for workarounds, and re[/i][b]install and restart[/b][i], just to do minimal tasks[/i] [b]stable[/b] [i]os’s can work with.
        I’ll bring up an even more critical issue on the efficacy of operating systems not many will give consideration to. efficiency! You know the difference there is when when bloated os memory eating services that are not needed for the most part spin there wheels on the architecture? Well, that should be the real debate because[/i] [b]Windows[/b] [i]has, and is continuing to be[/i] [b]a really egregious offender[/b] [i]in this area. We should have learned something from[/i] [b]Stallman, Torvalds, Kernighan, Ritchie, McIlroy, and Thompson[/b] [i]if anything and it should be how to build an O.S. But,[/i] [b]Windows[/b] [i]continues to try and emualate[/i] [b]Unix[/b] [i]and not very often surpass[/i] [b]or even match it[/b][i]!![/i]

        note: Other than conceptual errors, no errors in sangraal’s text were corrected in this edit.

      • #3098694

        Suggest you try some of the new Linux flavours

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to the debate has cooled over time and growing experience

        I recently bought a new motherboard and chip with the latest version of Win XP pro to match the new board and chip, the system has a 128 MB video card that is about 12 months old.

        To install XP Pro with the latest SP and drivers. I load the OS, then the motherboard driver disc that includes special drivers for the on board NIC, and sound cards, then I load the special drivers for the video card and the TFT monitor. Elapsed time about 3 hours and four discs and 15 minutes of tweaking registry settings to turn off Messenger, Telnet, MS Messenger and a few other basic security holes that the default setting opens. No office apps etc installed.

        To load Fedora Core 4 I loaded the DVD disc, auto booted and let it find all the hardware and load drivers for everything. Elapsed time 45 minutes and one disc to have everything loaded and looking better than in Windows; all basic security settings closed. And this included Open Office installed ready to run.

        Both systems required inof re language, location and machine name and password.

        Using Windows I often open the Task Manager and manually end programs that I have closed yet Windows leaves running in the background, I also sepnd a lot of time closing automatic services that I dont use but Windows keeps opening for me.

        I think that tends to clarify which is the easier system and which is the more effective and efficient.

        • #3098529

          …. how about chocolate or vanilla?

          by unclerob ·

          In reply to Suggest you try some of the new Linux flavours

          Seriously, I’m not a linux user but I’ve messed around with it a bit.

          You’re post is probably the first one I’ve read in a long time which demonstrates an advantage of one certain Linux dist over Windows XP. Alot of the arguments posted in these discussions don’t have alot of “meat on the bone” as it were, your post actually included some valid points.

          I’ll agree with you on the memory leaks & running programs that have to be force ended in task manager, that can be a pain. XP SP2 does however cure alot of the security issues that you mentioned but it’s still not a total cure.

          I will ask a question though, your linux dist is on DVD which leads me to believe you have a decent sized installation on this dvd including an office suite and whole bunch of other software, security updates, drivers, etc. I’m assuming your windows xp install media is a cd, probably doesn’t have SP2 slipstreamed with it and since it’s a cd, obviously has no space for an office suite, extra drivers, security updates, other software, etc.

          If so that difference alone accounts for quite a bit of your install time difference. Just thought I would mention it. Good post though, at least someone’s making the differences known instead of just saying “mine is better than yours” or “apples vs. oranges”

          just my 0.02 cents cdn….

        • #3098423


          by lucifer_sam_siam_cat ·

          In reply to …. how about chocolate or vanilla?

          I use windoze for my audio recording stuff because Adobe Audition hasn’t put out a linux version yet. AFAIK, they also haven’t implemented the update(s) I’m looking for, so Audition will eventually be partly or fully replaced by something else that *does* have the ability to set markers where the tempo and time signature change in mid-tune. Cakewalk has had this feature for at least a decade….

          I can’t wait to try ardour. If it works out, I may be able to almost completely de-micro$oft my life.

          I also use windoze for devolopment in vb6, because micro$oft has been a tad slow in developing a linux version of visual studio…. :^)

          C ya,

        • #3100039


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Both!


          a sound forge tool for creating and editing audio, in ogg format only.

        • #3094148

          Linux Stinks for Audio Rec

          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to Both!

          Though I thoroughly endorse Linux for nearly every task that windows does, I cannot yet even give a nod to Linux for the recording arena. Yes, you can use Ardour (Ardjuous in my book) if you just using a sound card to karaoke our favorite CD, but getting into any mainstream hardware, Linux is a waste of time. Personally I use Sonar64 on XP64, but use Linux for most everything else.

          The drivers for most mainstream studio hardware is totally below even an infancy level on Linux. Don’t even go there if you are even moderately professional, it will only end with a reformat and installation of Windows. You will have endless headaches with plugins, midi, multi-track hardware, and more. Oh please, don’t do it. I already went this road for a good two months of my life.

          Sorry, Linux loses hands down on Pro-Audio, Non-linear Video Editing, and Games. Sorry, I love linux but it bites severe crank in those fields. Anything text related, scripting, servers, automation, embedded, and more, all good! Audio, video, or games, -5 points out of 10.

        • #3094032

          Why won’t the vendors make drivers?

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Linux Stinks for Audio Rec

          I refuse to support a vendor that won’t at least make an attempt at a driver for Linux.

          It has gotten to the point of insanity. We complain that the community doesn’t work fast enough, but the VENDOR will NOT create the proper driver.

          Further, gaming in Linux has come a long way. Check out Cedega ( and their games db (

          I think the problem here isn’t Linux, but the lack of support from vendors. Fight back and tell the vendors you want drivers for Linux. NVidia and ATI got the hint….

        • #3110253

          Protest the companies for drivers…

          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to Why won’t the vendors make drivers?

          I am right there with you. In my studio I use alot of Motu and Alesis gear, and they are lame in driver updates for Windows and Mac, much less delving into new areas. I kicked and screamed on it, and the top Dev there told me this:

          “We will only explore those options once we receive enough user interest in them.”

          He proceeded to tell me that if I was wanting to see that come about (Linux drivers for Motu 896HD’s) then I had better get as many people as I know to start complaining. The devs in these companies are not unaware of it, but the execs who control the direction are.

          And unfortunately, most of the pro-audio market is almost completely sold out to Apple anyways. They only make Windows drivers because there is such a huge m=population of people out there (in there minds) that are not converted over to Mac. It is rediculous though, because from what the Dev told me, the driver’s main codebase is the exact same, with some module tweaks for each platform. So the port to a linux driver wouldn’teven be that hard, they just aren’t ok’d by team leaders and management to go that way.

          So my best guess at this one is to tell you and anyone that reads this, that you need to write or call the software companies to let them know you exist and what you want/need. That is the only way they will get moving in that direction. They cannot sense the irate brainwaves of all of us that want this to happen. I can dream of a Linux box stripped down to bare essentials, with modules for your specific hardware compiled right intothe kernel, and nothing else loaded at all, but your audio drivers and the apps needed. Oh what a pleasure that would be. Nice and streamlined.

          I must say, that is one thing that I love linux for. I can strip the machine down to bare essentials to perform a specific task much faster. Currently I use Windows XP x64 edition with 8GB of RAM and a SuperSpeed software’s RAMDiskXP64 to record all incoming audio data from Sonar64 to a RAM DISK. It makes applying effects and any mods to the wave, REAL fast, by a few orders of magnitude, no drive bottleneck. Its all moving in RAM and CPU without disk involvement at all.

          So at that, does anyone know of any good RamDisk software for Linux? I mean aside from the one that comes with it. I mean a good ramdisk software that is stable with 4+GB Ram Disks?

        • #3110159

          I email my displeasure

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Why won’t the vendors make drivers?

          I tend to explain that making a Linux driver (if their drivers are created correctly) will cost them nothing. It is a simple as modifing one little chunk.

          What really makes me mad is when I was a sys admin, companies would provide very little support for Linux systems. We had an issue with a RAID driver (from a vendor that shall not be named, dude…you get it?) that was NEVER resolved. Why sell the hardware if you aren’t going to support it?

          Oh, I have the answer…to make your money than leave the customer hanging.

        • #3098016


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to …. how about chocolate or vanilla?

          Who do you think you are, NOLA Mayor Ray Nagin? He’s America’s flavorite racist, you know.

        • #3097850

          Both came on a DVD

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to …. how about chocolate or vanilla?

          The Windows version I got included SP2 and came on a DVD, the Fedore Core 4 came on a DVD and was the back side of a magazine supplied DVD with a lot of other stuff on the front.

          The biggest differences in the discs is that the Linux being open source and with most stuff free included a lot of extras that the default load options load – like Open Office; whilst MS want to make you pay more for it a get a second disc – an understandable marketing ploy.

          I saw the biggest difference as being that the FC4 disc came with a lot of hardware drivers that the Windows disc did not and I had to load a lot of extra hardware specific drivers post Windows installation to make them work properly whilst FC4 did it in the installation. This approach by FC4 of giving extra to make it easier is greatly appreciated and shows a more customer care attitude.

          I currently use both Windows and Linux mainly because I need to keep skills current in Windows for work reasons. Also having been around since the days of micro-computers and seen the changes that were made possible by the early work by Bill Gates I have an attitude of “What is best for this client’.

          I recently rebuilt a crashed machine for a client – best option would have been to instal FC4 – she tried it but could not work it, tried XP Pro, she could not work that either as it was too different – ended up reinstalling DOS 6, Win 3.1 and an old Win 32 bit upgrade program to improve performance, client was happy as that was what she knew how to use. Horses for courses.

          Sadly much of the argument on this topic is based on personal preference and old knowledge – both systems have their place – my experiences have been that Linux is a better technical product that was poorly marketted and not properly set for anti-tech users.

          I recently started a thread on the 64 bit hardware and problems I have had with that – I find it interesting that MS is doing very little in this area at present whilst the Open Source Community is getting on with making it very usable.

        • #3100040

          not really,

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to …. how about chocolate or vanilla?

          Xandros, a single CDROM at 650 mb is a linux distro, with office suite [ open office ], 6 web browsers [ you choose ] a gui, full software development tools, all on one cdrom.

          I have an older version of mandrake linux here, one 650 mb cdrom to install everything.

          newer versions of Mandrive / Mandrake, 3 700MB cdroms… but that is 6 gui options, 9 browser options, 3 office suite options, 15 irc applications, 5 icq application options, 5 video players, full set of server software times 2, 3 complete I.D.E.s 5 programming editors, 6 debuggers……

          the single cd distributions have drastically reduced the options, but they do include all basic productivity tools.

          install time on a 2.2 GHz amd athlon xp system [ 256 mb ddr ram ] for Xandros.. 30 minutes
          For Mandriva, 1 hour.
          total reboots to be running with everything installed.. one, the one after installing.

        • #3100055


          by avid ·

          In reply to Suggest you try some of the new Linux flavours

          the average user does not know how to configure linux

        • #3100024

          with the

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to rebuttal

          newer releases, add a regular user and password, add root password and go the defaults are fine.

        • #3100022


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to rebuttal

          The average user doesn’t know how to configure Windows, either. He or she just uses defaults. Gee, I hope the defaults do everything he or she wants.

        • #3099995

          yes but

          by avid ·

          In reply to riposte

          the average user can go to office depot and buy software and hardware that will work with windows without having to do research on the drivers or look for drivers that did not come on a cd. it is not linux’s fault. there just is not enough support by manufacturers yet. and there will not be until it is more mainstream.

        • #3099963


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to yes but

          The average user doesn’t open up a computer and install parts, so the hardware issue is sort of a non-starter here.

          The average user doesn’t need to go to office depot and buy software because kitchen-sink installs of Linux tend to come with all the productivity and time-wasting software you need. Who needs MS Office and Solitaire when you’ve got and TuxKart?

        • #3099914

          my average users

          by avid ·

          In reply to err

          do install hardware. i am new to linux as a desktop. could you point me to one of these kitchen-sink installs. i am honestly trying learn linux, but i have been MS saturated for most of my career. if you can give me a link to the easiest and most capable free linux desktop, i would like to install it. i have tried suse 9.3, debian, and a few others. the only one that i use regularly is knoppix.

        • #3099871

          my favorite kitchen sink

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to err

          If you have a Knoppix CD, you’re halfway there.

          Boot the Knoppix CD. Open a root terminal emulator (the command line window thingie for administrative access). Type [b]knoppix-installer[/b] and hit Enter. You should just be able to pretty much accept defaults if you don’t want to do anything “special” with it.

          Knoppix has the benefit of being one of the best distros out there for hardware detection during an install, and last I checked the default Knoppix install is actually just a Knoppix-like standard Debian install with a couple extra apt repositories added.

          I’m not much of a fan of the kitchen sink approach, myself, but when it’s appropriate I have a tendency to want to reach for the Knoppix CD.

        • #3099834


          by avid ·

          In reply to err

          will do

        • #3099032

          Latest versions dont require configuring

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to rebuttal

          they test the hardware and do it themselves. Since mid November I have loaded Mandrake 10, Fedora Core 4 and Win XP onto the same machine with the same hardware installed and attached. Windows XP require a lot more effort to get working than Mandrake and FC4 required less than Mandrake.

          With FC4 I needed to tell it user name and passwords it did the rest, oh and I told it to auto assign partitions. With Mandrake I could go with generic video drivers or could identify the video card during installation and it did the rest. With XP I had to laod a lot of post install drivers if I wanted decent operation of the hardware.

        • #3258867

          The average user does not need to know…

          by starderup ·

          In reply to rebuttal

          If the average user can put a CD in and boot the system and follow the prompts, he can install and use Linux.
          If he can’t do that simple task, he doesn’t need to be around technology.

        • #3260120

          “average user”

          by avid ·

          In reply to The average user does not need to know…

          granted, i am new to linux. i have been trying to install a gui on debian for 3 days now. every time i try it say “error : http://debain.crosslink.blahblahblah…… not found.” if an “average user” came across this error, do you think they would know what to do? yes, i know this is not a cd install. and the attitude of “If he can’t do that simple task, he doesn’t need to be around technology.” is the attitude that will keep linux behind the 8ball, so to speak. there is a definate learning curve with linux. all versions of linux are not straight forward. i, for one would appreciate some common sense names instead of “apt-install is super cow” what the hell does that mean?????

        • #3260031

          It’s called a “joke”.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to “average user”

          If you don’t get it, I recommend you download and install [b]Sense of Humor v1.4[/b] (or later version) for compatibility.

          I love the apt easter eggs.

          $ apt-get help
          This APT has Super Cow Powers.

          $ apt-get moo
          / | ||
          * /\—/\
          ~~ ~~
          ….”Have you mooed today?”…

        • #3260018

          i suppose i would be funny if…

          by avid ·

          In reply to It’s called a “joke”.

          I weren’t pulling my f!@#ing hair out trying to get a f!@#ing gui installed. I think I would rather detangle christmas lights or work nude in a barbed wire factory than deal with installing this gui. then again maybe i am the only one who has ever experienced this problem. either way need a beer. going to lunch.

        • #3259987

          Install a GUI?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to It’s called a “joke”.

          What exactly is the situation? Maybe we can help.

        • #3259970

          re : apotheon

          by avid ·

          In reply to It’s called a “joke”.

          installed debian.. tried to install gnome and kde because gnome only got 85% downloaded. now when i do “apt-get -install gnome or kde” i get http errors “unable to fetch some archives”. i have internet so i don’t know if the server that i am trying to install from is down or what. would appreciate any help.

        • #3258727


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to It’s called a “joke”.

          Is there any chance I could get you to copy and paste the text from the command line?

          If you want to get in touch about this outside of TR, by email and/or IMs, send me a private message by way of my TR profile, and I’ll see what I can do to help out.

        • #3259369

          re : interesting

          by avid ·

          In reply to It’s called a “joke”.

          i finally got it. it seems i was using a bad mirror. i just did not know how to interpret the error messages. i am using debian on a windows network and so far i love it. thank you for all your help.

        • #3259230

          glad to be of service

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to It’s called a “joke”.

          Seriously, if you run into problems, you know where to find me. Ah aimz ta pleeze.

        • #3109855

          other distros

          by lalala ·

          In reply to “average user”

          try the latest ubuntu or kubuntu distro. they’re debian based and from what i understand use a different Xwindow system ( vs xfree86) from what the base debian distro uses. i was in the same situation with an old laptop and loading Ubuntu worked better with my hardware by default. then, once used to the ubuntu system, using debian will seem much easier. it did for me. i’m relatively new to linux too, and many recognize that debian is more for an advanced user, but once familiar with it, it’s great, has lots of apps in repository, etc.

          linux is getting easier all the time.

        • #3109674

          Debian and X

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to other distros

          Debian Etch uses — it’s just Debian Sarge (the Stable branch) that still uses XFree86. At the time of moving Sarge into Stable, XFree86 wasn’t judged to have been thoroughly enough tested to include it in Stable. Of course, you could always retrofit a Sarge system with if you really want to.

        • #3134406


          by pkr9 ·

          In reply to “average user”

          I once installed Win/XP pro on a bare machine, a pain simple IBM desktop. Not the preinstalled stuff some highly trained specialist made for you, and where you just say Yes to the EULA (without reading that by doing so you give Microsoft full control over the box, and that they may install or uninstall anything they want- read it!).

          Some time into the installation I got the pop-up that it was unable to find the driver for my netcard, and suggested that I got an updated driver from – guess where ? The internet……

          We accepted the errors, and in the end we had an IBM desktop running VGA 16 colors 640 by 480 resolution, with no network. Just out of curiosity we cleared the disks (low level format) and tried to install SUSE 9.1 on it, and I am sorry to say that it went without a hitch.

          Forget about this FUD about Linux not being mature. I know firsthand of people stating that their Linux installation didn’t work, because there was no C: drive, and the programsfolder was missing. Just like stating that you Diesel engine won’t run because the ingnition system is missing.


        • #3260024


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to The average user does not need to know…

          I’m quoting you in an email signature.

          [i]Jeff Henager: “If the average user can put a CD in and boot the system and follow the prompts, he can install and use Linux. If he can’t do that simple task, he doesn’t need to be around technology.”[/i]

          Does that work for you?

        • #3258868

          My experience is similar

          by starderup ·

          In reply to Suggest you try some of the new Linux flavours

          Bought SuSE 9.0 Pro for $35 including shipping. Came with a real manual and everything.
          Install was a breeze, even though I was keeping the existing “OS” on it. Automatically detected all hardware except an extremely old parallel scanner. Configured itself to dual boot.
          This was one shortcoming of older LINUX distros, but the setup now is as easy or easier than Win.

        • #3094088

          Point, Counter Point

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Suggest you try some of the new Linux flavours

          Linux users love to blame manufacturers, drivers, users, etc. Basically anything and everything other than their beloved OS.

          Since that’s the case, I will say this. Perhaps if your Win XP system doesn’t close a program you told it to close, maybe just like your beloved OS, it isn’t Windows, it’s the crappy software you installed.

        • #3093995

          here’s a thought

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Point, Counter Point

          Why don’t you try providing some actual technically valid arguments for why something is indeed the fault of Linux, or is not in fact the fault of Windows, rather than simply bitching at great length about how Windows seems to have a fuller dance card in the realm of ways it’s at fault? Truth doesn’t care if things seem unequal; it only cares if there’s some kind of evidence to support the analysis.

        • #3093980

          You missed a few points

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Point, Counter Point

          1. the two real crappy software applications that I installed that causes the most problems with MS Windows are memory hogging pieces of shit called MS Word and MS Excel. Pity windows does not properly flush the RAM when a program closes like most other OSs

          2. MS do NOT release their full code to hardware manufactures to enable them to write perfect drivers for Windows, thus many drivers do not work well and often require new ones after every patch is released, and always require a new driver for the next version of windows.

          3. yes faulty drivers are ALWAYS the fault of the hardware manufacturer and not the OS regardless of which OS it is.

          4. The one driver I currently have the biggest headache with in windows is the one for my 5 button MS Intellimouse – funnily some nerd has written a Linux one that works perfectly.

          yes I prefer Linux and still use windows, why you aske because I need to have a machine with it handy and open to answer all those questions I get from friends, family and paying customers – How the F*** do you do this in this F***** windows xx shit again, it aint the same as the windows yy that I am used to.

        • #3258332

          I can’t believe you’re that bored. Gods, get a life.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Suggest you try some of the new Linux flavours

          Do you actually have nothing better to do than time multiple OS installs? Seriously, what’s your motivation? Why not install your intended OS and start using the box?

          This isn’t aimed at you alone, DE. I don’t understood why anyone would want to spend their time repeatedly loading different OSs or different versions of the same OS, or capturing screen shots of same like Hot Button. Maybe I’m just not geek enough. That must be why I don’t like the oft-used Penguinista response, “If you don’t like DistroA, try DistroB, or DistroC, …”, ad infinitum.

        • #3108864

          “Gods, get a life”

          by mmullinix1 ·

          In reply to I can’t believe you’re that bored. Gods, get a life.

          I dont think that is the point of the multiple OS installs. A lot of us that are learning to write programs have to learn in multiple languages and OS systems. The only way to do so, is to understand the current programs and systems as well as the legend programs. For certain certifications this is a requirement as well, or your not going to understand the first thing about that program your currently using or trying to write. Developers and Programmers need to know all of the OS systems available because they need to be able to give educated recommendations, and what better way to do so, then by using your own experiences as a learning tool? Also, if you dont use it, you lose it. And if you work in an environment that you have to support different systems or learn to improve on them, you need all the resources you can get your hands on. If you run a home based business as say a consultant or a tech support for any given company, you will need the software to walk the “Average” user thru the process of fixing it. And please, give me someone who speaks english. I spent 20 mins on the phone with a windows tech support specialist who didnt speak english very well and I wound up hanging up and calling over and over again till I got someone who I could understand over the phone.

        • #3134809

          Tech Support English

          by fredvoit ·

          In reply to “Gods, get a life”

          Unfortunatly you will be seeing much more of this because it is cheaper to outsource to India etc. Many large companies are doing this. Many more will be…

        • #3108883

          Windows vs LInux

          by mmullinix1 ·

          In reply to Suggest you try some of the new Linux flavours

          While I admit, I have YET to use Linux, which I am endeavoring to try, I have 2.7 GHZ Processor on PC that I built, and I have 1.5 GB of SDRAM that I installed. I only have one working hard drive of 60GB, But every time I restart my PC, with the Windows XP Pro installed, I have to turn off a LOT of programs I have no need of or use for that Windows automatically starts. I tried turning a majority of them off, from the startup, but not all of them were able to be turned off. They automatically start everytime I turn on my PC, and that is so annoying.

        • #3108782

          Try MSCONFIG

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Windows vs LInux

          Start, Run, msconfig.exe. Go to the last tab and check the list of executables that are launched at startup. If the program isn’t immediately obvious, search for the executable; usually the directory it’s in will give you a pretty good idea what it is. Turn things off ONE AT A TIME and then reboot. You’ll get a warning after rebooting that you’re using a modified startup. Keep trying items until you find the unwanted ones. Once they’re all turned off, tell the warning to go away.

        • #3134790

          unfortunately . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Try MSCONFIG

          There are processes that don’t show up in msconfig. You can get around this often enough by getting a third-party startup manager application, but I find that these things tend to start out free, become expensive once they build enough of a user base that they think they can make money off them, and disappear once they go out of business because they discover they were wrong about the market’s demand for what they’re offering.

          Ultimately, some things simply need to be hacked out of the registry, or otherwise pried out of the messy guts of Windows the “hard” way, and other things simply can’t be removed that should be (it still boggles my mind that turning off remote procedure calls prevents you from logging in).

          Still, msconfig is something of which everyone supporting Windows should be aware. Good call, bringing that up.

        • #3134741


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to unfortunately . . .

          “Services.msc” is another great places to shut down unneeded things.

          Yes, not technically programs running at startup, but yes, turning off unneeded services helps considerably.

        • #3134634


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to More

          The same sort of caveats apply here as with msconfig, of course: it’s not a panacea, just something that helps.

        • #3134280

          I apologize I thought it was misconfig

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to unfortunately . . .

          Thanks for clearing this up…

        • #3108153

          It’s “mis” alright!

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to I apologize I thought it was misconfig

          Not that I am a M$ basher but your sarcasm is dead on!

      • #3097820

        Wow…excellent FUD and troll bait!

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to the debate has cooled over time and growing experience

        I give you kudos. No content and plenty of broad stokes!

        I love your “Linux continues to try and emualate and not very often surpass!!”

        Excellent! Just a FYI, Linux tries to emulate Unix, if anything….

    • #3098080


      by johanv ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      In an effor to potentially safe the Group I work for, I’ve done some research on implementing Open Source and unfortunatly in our environment we’d have to settle for either a pure MS based environment or a mixed environment as some of our back-end systems (ERP & MRP) are based on MS SQL with .Net clients. From a cost point of view it would be almost impossible to move the Board to approve the adoption of Open Source based ERP Systems (massive cost implication as we would still have to pay for the implementation and the clients would still run on MS Windows as there are not Open Source variant). As for our MRP – system, the vendor only provides a wholy MS based solution and since this is a very high level bespoke solution, we won’t find a replacement for at least 10 years (unless the open source community develops a similar system). Also, we’d have to employ additional staff to support such a complex mixed system. So it’s not from lack of trying to adopt open source in the business, but a case of comparing whats out there and using the best solution for your business.

      • #3258319

        ERP / MRP System

        by charliespencer ·

        In reply to Research

        Would you care to name that ERP / MRP system? Just wondering.

        • #3273103

          Apologies for the late reply.

          by johanv ·

          In reply to ERP / MRP System

          .We’re using Sage Line 500 based on SQL 2000 DB / Windowmaker Enterprise on SQL 2000. We have just integrated the Sales Order Entry-process between the two applications.
          While Sage does come with the option to run on a Linux platform, the GUI-client is still Windows-based (although great inroads are being made to provide a web-client [even though this only runs on IIS]).
          The Windowmaker application only runs on a Windows-platform.
          Thus in our environment it is not possible to derive maximum financial benefit in moving to a pure opensource infrastructure.
          On that note I would also like to add that we are in the middle of implementing SugarCRM using the Windows-stack and integrating it with our Sage system.
          I think the bottom line is that your business type dicates what systems you put in place.

        • #3272924

          erm . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Apologies for the late reply.

          Correct me if I’m wrong, but . . .

          Sage doesn’t provide open source software, so if you ran it on Linux you wouldn’t be running a “pure opensource infrastructure” (your words). Since there are open source alternatives to the software Sage sells, I don’t see how your objection makes any sense.

        • #3272569


          by johanv ·

          In reply to erm . . .

          Please read the post in it’s entire context. It serves as an explination that in our environment it is NOT possible to run a pure open source environment. I am trying to make the point that as a business we would not derive the benefits that say an ISP would derive from running everything on some form of *nix. In my opinion you are also missing the point that businesses have varying requirements and a decision was made that Sage was the correct solution for our business based on what we required. In my position I have to take everything that is out there (software/hardware wise) and ensure that it fits with the business needs. If you look at this whole thread, you will notice hardliners from both camps – and then there are the ones who look at what would suit a business.

        • #3272559

          no . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Context

          I’m not missing any point you made. You didn’t [b]make[/b] a point about Sage being the correct solution for your business needs. You just said you couldn’t run a pure open source system because you were using Sage. It’s fine if you chose, and continue to use, Sage because that’s what fits your needs. If that’s something you meant to convey, you should have said so.

        • #3088455


          by johanv ·

          In reply to no . . .

          My apologies for YOUR inability to understand. My apologies for YOUR need & desire to prove that YOU know it all.
          Thankfully there are a lot of professionals on these forums who can see the wood from the trees unlike you.

        • #3088269

          don’t be asinine

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to no . . .

          If you don’t say what you mean, blaming others for not magically divining your meaning isn’t particularly justifiable.

        • #3089525

          Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          by johanv ·

          In reply to no . . .

          It’s indeed a sad time if you want to resort to discussions outside of the topic. So please carry on as I have neither the time nor the inclination to enter into a debate with you on commucation abilities & understanding what is being communicated instead of (as in your case) looking at what it typed.

      • #3272422

        mixing made it complex

        by kudincendol ·

        In reply to Research

        Actually if you mix Open Source Software (OSS) with proprietary software product where no such OSS equivalent to the proprietary software exist, it would be very complex in many areas; support, coding, integrations, preventive measures, standard procedures, etc.

        Don’t mix. Or you will get older sooner than you think.

        • #3272301

          What’s wrong with you?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to mixing made it complex

          A lot of organizations are doing just fine mixing the two, with Firefox, Thunderbird, and running on Windows. There are even webservers out there running Apache and MySQL on Windows.

        • #3273505

          You don’t understand

          by kudincendol ·

          In reply to What’s wrong with you?

          Probably I did not clear out my statement.

          I’m not talking about mixing open source Software (OSS) with Windows. I’m talking about mixing Linux with some other proprietary software.

          A real-life example, running a proprietary Link-Balancer/DNS Server (LBDS) under Linux. The link-balancer DNS service does not support wildcard virtual hostname (* Another application required that the wildcard virtual hostname must be supported. I asked the LBDS vendor to support wildcard. They said it is a major patch.

          Another real-life example, proprietary PHP webpage running under Linux. A few problem happened but still it happened again and again. No preventive measure taken by the vendor who developed the webpage.

          Probably Richard Stallman already saw that this kind of problem will occured when he wrote GPL.

          That is why don’t mix Linux with proprietary software. If you want to use proprietary software, run it under Windows!

        • #3272125

          I still don’t entirely agree.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to You don’t understand

          It’s true that proprietary closed source software doesn’t typically run as well with Linux as free open source software. In many cases, however, it still runs better with Linux than with Windows. For instance, Alias currently only supports certain versions of RHEL, Fedora Core, and SuSE for its Maya software and can be a pain in the arse to troubleshoot if something goes wrong, but it’s far better than the Windows version.

          The problem is often not so much that it doesn’t run well with Linux as that it doesn’t run as well as an open source counterpart might [b]at all[/b], and it can be quite difficult to fix any problems because it tends to use proprietary format binary configuration data and the like.

          Some proprietary closed source software does run better on a Windows machine than a Linux machine, but there’s even some Windows-only software that runs better using Wine than on Windows. It’s a crapshoot, really.

          In my experience, the more popular a given open source application is, the more developers it gets, so the better it works on any platform — thus, the real open source competitors to proprietary closed source applications tend to be much more stable than those proprietary counterparts.

        • #3271898

          re maya

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I still don’t entirely agree.

          Alias actually states in the read me / release notes that the linux port is limited compared to the windows or mac versions.
          [ maya 4.01 sitting here on cd has that statement in the documentation ]

        • #3271762


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to re maya

          Tell that to Industrial Light and Magic.

        • #3273201


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to re maya

          I was just reporting what maya 4.01 says about it’s features.

          Page 2 of the PDF Linux User Notes from it has the following paragraph to end the page.

          Unsupported Maya Features

          Some of the features in our IRIX and NT versions are not currently supported. These include AliasToMaya, MayaToAlias, DXF, the IGES converters, and output to AVI or SGI movie formats.

          for more information about operational Differences in Maya for Linux see “Known Limitations.”

          I’m pretty sure Alias knows what they didn’t implement in the Linux version of their software.

        • #3272922

          woah nellie

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to re maya

          I don’t know how I missed this earlier. 4.01? That’s ancient!

          Alias is selling version 7 now. Things have changed a bit.

        • #3271774

          I don’t think platform is the issue

          by kudincendol ·

          In reply to I still don’t entirely agree.

          I think it is because it a closed-proprietary software. Because not much you can do. An if the problem is complicated or if the closed-software itself is complicated, it would probably take longer time to solve.

          So, I still think that in terms of support, it is better of an OSS running in Windows or Linux than a close-source running in any of the platform.

        • #3271761


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I don’t think platform is the issue

          I have no issues with that statement.

        • #3272115

          I disagree

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to You don’t understand

          While some closed source/proprietary software doesn’t run well under Linux (I’m looking at your ATI), some runs quite well (NVidia, WoW via WINE, etc)

          As a matter of fact Neverwinter Nights (closed sources) runs like a champ in Linux (and Windows for that matter) using SDL. That is a good mix of closed source and open source right there.

          Now that isn’t to say all closed source “stuff” runs better in Linux/Windows. I’m just pointing out that poorly made software runs poorly, no matter the platform (ATI).

        • #3271775

          we control developer, not the other way

          by kudincendol ·

          In reply to I disagree

          It is not really the matter of platform, but it is more because with closed-source, the customer have to rely with developer.

          It is the flexibility that is most important. You don’t put your job under the developers control, you control the developers, you tell them how to mix with your internal system.

          Although some closed-source runs well, but for some organization such as where I worked, the mgmt always wanted something different, something special. They have assumption that open source can do anything. Unfortunately, if you mix Redhat with a closed-source application, that would depend largely on the application developer. If the application developer is somewhat thousands of miles away, am I going to ask the developers to come over with their own money or my own money ? My employer wanted to cut cost as much as they can.

          If you worked with my kind of environment what would you do ? Called the developers who are thousands of miles away, persuading them to patches the software for free or better yet, download an equivalent OSS an implement it ?

          If I am the boss, I would choose the latter, unfortunately we are not living in an idealistic world: bosses made the decision, anything happend find ways to improve it or else.

        • #3272126

          There’s a Difference

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to What’s wrong with you?

          There’s a difference (a big one) in mixing and matching applications vs mixing and matching OS’es.

          Most ERP type software is written for Windows, period.

          And if though “a lot” of companies are using Firefox (10% market share), what about Thunderbird (single digit percentage), and OpenOffice (single digit again probably).

          Yes, MySQL and Apache are quite successful but again, that is most attributable to the Linux world’s success in the server market and failure in the desktop market.

          Firefox is starting to attract the hackers, OpenOffice just isn’t compatible enough with MS Office yet, and Thunderbird is a mess.

          If I use Thunderbird, what about SharePoint Services, what about mobile messenging, what about intregretion advantages with Exchange.

          You’re asking me to give up too much.

        • #3272121

          can’t see the forest for the Microsoft billboards

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to There’s a Difference

          I’ll deal with ERP last.

          “[i]Thunderbird (single digit percentage), and OpenOffice (single digit again probably).[/i]”
          Can you give me sources for those numbers? I’m curious. I am, in fact, suspicious of the “single digit again probably” claim, mostly because you sound like you’re making wild-ass guesses. In any case, when I say that in general there are “a lot” or “many” of something, I’m talking about there being “a lot” or “many” of that thing, not market share. Market share is, in fact, irrelevant to everything except keeping shareholders happy, tweaking the tiny little brains of pointy haired bosses, and fuelling ignorant arguments of people who think something is better if it’s used by more people. All it takes to indicate that something works well on a majority of systems is a large enough number (number, not percentage) of implementations that work just fine. Your market share argument is irrelevant, thanks.

          Furthermore, your entirely unsupported statement that Linux is a “failure in the desktop market”, aside from being quite premature (among other problems), is utterly irrelevant to the successes of Apache and MySQL. It seems you just can’t avoid trying to come up with any excuse you can imagine for taking a potshot at Linux, even when it’s not only inappropriate and/or inaccurate, but also irrelevant. What happened to all those protestations of neutrality?

          Firefox has always had the attention of hackers, but I think you’re probably actually referring to security crackers. Maybe you should get your terminology straight. In any case, “attention” isn’t the same as providing an actual comparative security issue, so have fun with that. In any case, it has nothing to do with how well Firefox runs on Windows. You sure do go off-topic a lot when responding to something.

 isn’t perfectly compatible with MS Office, but that’s not the core purpose of, so it doesn’t really bear on how well runs on Windows. I might also point out that whatever compatibility issues OO.o has with MS Office, MS Office has far, far greater compatibility issues with OO.o, and even has compatibility issues with other versions of MS Office. That’s not a very auspicious record for MS Office against which to compare OO.o, so perhaps you’d better stick with MS Office’s fabled increased functionality rather than compatibility as an argument.

          Thunderbird is a mess? Excuse me? Have you ever tried out Outlook Express? Thunderbird is beautiful, slick, smooth, stable, secure, highly functional, and generally just wonderful in comparison. I suspect you dislike Thunderbird only because you dislike anything that makes Microsoft look stupid. Thunderbird isn’t a competitor with Outlook, you nitwit.

          Now, for ERP. First of all, Enterprise Resource Planning software is a friggin’ disaster zone. Have a look at a run-down on ERP systems by Cisco to see what I mean so I don’t have to reconstruct the entire situation myself:

          Plus, y’know, you’re so caught up in your arguments from authority (with very strange ideas of what constitutes an “authority”) and other logical fallacies that you’d surely never accept an argument on the subject from me if there wasn’t some kind of “authoritative” backup, even if what I’m saying is logically unassailable.

          As for the claim that ERP is mostly only written for Windows, “period”:

          CK-ERP –

          TinyERP –

          OFBiz –

          ERP5 –

          Compiere –

          . . . and for an IBM-provided list of ERP solutions for Linux –

          Furthermore, there’s significant uptake of open source ERP systems on Linux. As stated in this article:

          “[i]25 per cent of the installed base [of ERP software] will be replaced this year – approximately 200,000 server units and OS licenses. Peerstone believes both Microsoft and Unix vendors, especially Sun, will suffer in future.[/i]”

          You should really know what you’re talking about before you open your mouth like that.

        • #3271959

          OK, Here’s the Facts

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to can’t see the forest for the Microsoft billboards

          According to a recent Radicati Group Inc report posted on, Outlook comprises 60% of the market. The vast majority of the rest are IMB/Lotus and Novell.

          The entire study was that Thunderbird is no Firefox primarily due to a lack of an integrated calendar and such.

          Market share (aka number of users) is important. But only when you want to tell us how many people are using Apache and MySQL. When I am talking about Outlook, you all of a sudden you think market share is nothing.

          My point about Linux’s failure to reach the desktop in meaningful numbers is not irrelevant. Apache and MySQL have been major successes. Linux on the desktop, in meaningful numbers, has been a failure.

          So have flying cars. But according to your argument, I guess I just haven’t waited long enough yet.

          Firefox runs like crap on Windows. It is a memory hog, hangs, and overall only performs well if I don’t open and close it often and repeatedly. Otherwise, once open and running, it performs well…except all my third party extensions crapping out and trashing my browser.

          MS Office has very few issues with itself (old vs new versions) and opens and closes so much faster in addition to not hogging memory that there is no comparison. For that matter, OpenOffice on Linux is still a memory hog and takes 3 times long to open than MS Office on Windows.

          Outlook Express is crap. I would never use it. So, if Thunderbird is trying to compete with a piece of crap, well then, I guess they haven’t set their goals too high.

          How about setting their sights on Outlook…a real product with real capabilities. Where’s the calendaring in Thunderbird?

          That’s cool, send me a bunch of open source links and I’ll send you a bunch of Microsoft links. At the end of the day, if we look at yours and we look at mine, we’re just looking at a pile of horse shit.

        • #3271905


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OK, Here’s the Facts

          Nice how you take things out of context. I think you’ll find that any time I bring up Apache/MySQL market share, the only purpose of it is to refute some asinine commentary about Microsoft market share “proving” some point, such as the ubiquitous shrill cries in defense of MS technical quality that claim MS is just picked on because it’s bigger. Aside from making a mockery of market share arguments, I don’t tend to use market share statistics.

          Linux on the desktop is only a failure if you measure success by market share, and as I said your judgment is premature: Linux on the desktop is growing steadily. Why don’t you go tell the city of Munich that its municipality-wide migration to Linux is a failure?

          Your complaints about Firefox are funny, considering A) few, if any, other people suffer such indignities at the hands of Firefox, and B) IE is a worse disaster than you’re describing for Firefox.

          MS Office doesn’t open and close quickly in its entirety: only the interface opens and closes quickly. When you start your computer, the core process(es) of MS Office get(s) started automatically, so that almost the whole damned thing is in RAM, reducing the perceived start time of the application when you double-click an icon.

          Calendaring is being developed as an application called Sunbird by the Mozilla Foundation. Furthermore, there’s an integrated mail client and calendaring application being created by the Mozilla Foundation that combines Thunderbird and Sunbird to form Voltron (or whatever they’re calling it — the name escapes me at the moment).

          The links prove a point: you said that basically all ERP software is Windows-only. I pointed out that there’s a huge heap of quality ERP software out there that runs on Linux. Your point has been shot to hell. Have a nice day.

        • #3273091

          I would like to point out..

          by johanv ·

          In reply to can’t see the forest for the Microsoft billboards

          1. The article is dated 2004.
          2. It would be indeed a very brave company to embrace a pure opensource ERP system. You have to bear in mind that Finance Directors want a rock solid financial environment (not 100% possible), and frankly, taking out a ?200,000 ERP system and replacing it with something untested (in their minds) and exceptionally cheap would make the Board of Directors very uncomfortable. Are you brave enough to implement an open source ERP system in favor of an established system?

        • #3272963


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to I would like to point out..

          Our ERP system is called FAST.

          It is Windows only.

          Given the points above, can anyone name an open source program that offers everything that FAST does for the construction industry?

          It handles everything from estimating to purchasing to HR to accounting to scheduling to marketing to sales to etc etc etc. Even a dashboard.

          And don’t go naming some generic ERP piece of software. I mean one specifically built for the residential construction industry.

          Our entire business for the most part is built around it. We’re been using it over 10 years.

          We even have all sales functions now on-line as well as handhelds out in the field for supervisors.

          It isn’t realistic to think our management team would easily switch to anything else.

          In addition, they charge us not a flat licensing fee but rather on a per house built fee. Nice!

          It is in areas like this and situations like this that Linux just isn’t a real possibility.

        • #3272921

          hell yes

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I would like to point out..

          If, after examining the options, the open source solution looked even vaguely comparable in needed capability and reliability, I’d take it over a proprietary offering that cost thousands in an instant. Of course, I’m not a pointy-haired boss who makes technical decisions based on how well a marketing department lies.

        • #3272098

          Once again Rickk fails to make a point

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to There’s a Difference

          As Apo noted ERP is NOT just for Windows, period.

          As for the failure at the desktop market, it has been noted before (and I’ll say it again) that there is no real gauge to the number of Linux desktops. It is guestimated that there are 25-50 million, but who really knows?

          Also, you negated the city of Munich in your statement. Not only are they using Linux servers, but Linux desktops. Their progress and further information can be found online.

          OO isn’t comptible because MS doesn’t like ODF. As a matter of fact, ODF is what MS fears will take the market. If ODF is sucessful, then you’ll see less focus on MS Office specific “stuff.”

          Thunderbird is a mess? Please elaborate. I’m not sure I completely follow your statement about SharePoint Services, mobiles messenging, and integration “advantages” with Exchange.

    • #3098076

      Mixed Bag

      by danmcl ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I am a net/sysadmin for a web application development company and I find that some problems can only be solved with windows whereas many others are better suited to Linux.
      I think it is more of a right tool for the job, but as the saying goes

      “If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail”

      Seriously, some people are really anti one OS or the other and I find it a pain, I just say whatever suits you and does the job suits me fine, just dont involve me!

      Im a totally mixed bag when it comes to OS’, I’m running a mac mini with OSX 10.4.4 on it at home, a debian Laptop that I use for both home and work, a Windows 2000 DEsktop that I use at work only and I administer about 30 Windows servers, with a mix of different applications running on them.

      There are also several Linux servers, most of them are invisible to the end user and they dont even realise that they are there. Backup servers, mail servers, File shares (samba tied in to Active Directory for permissions see for more details, its a colleagues Blog, check out my blog at too!)

      I prefer the “sexiness” of the mac and OSX and would gladly replace my windows desktop with one if it supported multiple monitors (or if my em ployer would pony up for a widescreen TFT) I like the power of Debian but appreciate fully that it isnt for everyone (even tech heads can find it a bit of a kerfuffle if they have been breastfed on Windows all their life!)

      But people need to get a grip and realise that not everyone likes everything, and that they need to accept that sometimes their favorite bit of software isnt the right tool for the job at hand (see my quote above)

      Seriously though, chill the flock out!

    • #3098070

      From the Corporate perspective.

      by gprinsloo ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      Both certainly have their merits.

      The problems I have seen stem from two principal aspects which have nothing to do with the OS’s but rather the persons responsible FINANCE AND IT.

      The financial implications have led most to make at least some of their systems rely on the cheaper solution. This is gr8. However without sufficiently trained personel and research such implimentations have cost a damn sight more than double normal installations and implimentations of “Monopolized” systems.

      IT staff must realize the powers and limitations of both systems and implement what is needed where needed and not chase this I am the king, lord and master of your domain and will make it work.

      Windows & Linux have

      1. Bugs.
      2. Vulnerabilities
      3. High costs (Windows Lic.) (Linux tweaking)

      Reliabilitiy is dependant on hardware thus the mainstream server manufactures will always provide compatability for both.

      Mixed environments are commonplace now and needs to be accepted and integrated. Just educate the IT division so that they all know and accept the strengths and weakness of both Windows and Linux. Neither one has a claim to perfection and both are thraught with LOOOONG solutions to sometimes critical problems.

      • #3098674

        So true

        by lrbassoc ·

        In reply to From the Corporate perspective.

        Mixed systems are here and there is a great reason for them. It departments do not want to give up the stability of older systems ( AIX, VMS etc..) and must decide how to bridge the gap between the system and the user. There is a lot of job security in implementing a linux solution, there are not as many qualified engineers out there and when you find a good one a lot of your savings go out the window trying to keep them. I have several clients that have faced this situation, some sincere hobbiest talked them into the free solution, then they found out the users were unable to function and needed retrained, the hobgbiest was in over thier head and leaves and they have know way of running the system themselves. Yes Linux does need to be maintained.
        Application development faces the same problems even though they seem to be done mostly with MS tools. This is all good for me since I can charge a premium for supporting these systems or convert them back to Microsoft so the users can actually function again. It’s not that it’s bad software, people like what they get from Microsoft and have used it since they started. It is what they are trained on, have used for years and are comfortable and productive with.

      • #3098631

        Agree with it! let’s talk about corporate

        by yoan.simard ·

        In reply to From the Corporate perspective.

        I’m working in an IT dept of an organization that count about 2500 users.

        Let’s talk about the users side :

        First, it is actually impossible to put Linux on users PC because users, mines, have a lot of difficulties to effectively work with windows which is much more easy to operate. Secondly, the variety of users applications that only work on windows is to much bigger. Do you think we should lot time (and time is money) to try to configure wine for each apps ? I don’t think so…

        From the server perspective :

        There is a place for both world… Forget the pricing argument in favour to Linux. When you pay supports and “enterprise certified linux license” there is no money to save with it.

        When you need to manage 2500+ users accounts, you must use an integrated directory such as eDirectory (novell) or Active Directory from microsoft.. Linux offer an LDAP server but it is not as powerful as the others… So you don’t have the choice for that ?

        Let’s talk about networks services and databases… Oracle for example is currently developping on Unix and then porting the code to windows… The management of Oracle in Linux is much powerful and the DB is a lot more scalable and stable (I experienced both) So Linux is the solution for that kind of service.

        If I want to do a DNS, DHCP, FTP, WEB, Firewall (stateful), and many others, I’ll go with linux which is much more flexible and configurable. And there is a chance that I use a totally free Linux version instead of a certified one for those services…

        So, to resume, You’ll agree with me that both OS have their place and It is not which one si the better but which one is the better to do some specific things? And Better means fast and easy to configure and operate, flexible, stable etc…

        • #3100906

          Corporate services call for Unix on HP or Sun

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Agree with it! let’s talk about corporate

          LDAP and HPUX and or Sun.

          No more locked up fileservers…
          Use SFU and Windows becomes useable. Dang, then it is almost a UNIX…

          When you won’t have users direcly logged into the servers, (using it via NFS/CIFS) It provides even greater reliability and even C2 security…

      • #3134207

        Small Corporate Perspective

        by x-marcap ·

        In reply to From the Corporate perspective.

        Most larger Corps Use A UNIX, or a Mainframe Whether it be HPUX 11i or Solaris for their ERP systems, Or other. The issue becomes that a Windows Model for older Legacy systems didn’t make any sense. Until fairly recently, Windows systems were limited to 2 GB per drive letter for many applications. Larger Unix/Oracle systems have multi-TB databases that SQLSERVER Couldn’t hack, and it’s Parent Product SYBASE couldn’t recover from a network interruption without DB reload.

        The Big Cost in Linux systems is the Hardware. If you use the MS logic and put it on an Irish Business Mainframe with 100 CPUs that cost a Mill and a half, Of course you see a lower acquisition cost for a non-clustered environment.

        If you use identical hardware, the pay back time only exists if you have a staff that can’t help but choke over the letters IX. The training for seven years of staff training, I saw in one study compared to 0 dollars of additional cost for Windows. They assume you will get training on their products anyway.

      • #3272408

        You know nothing about Linux

        by kudincendol ·

        In reply to From the Corporate perspective.

        I worked in a corporate sector administering Linux server for not less than 24,000 active users (students). I also recently studied thesis on GPL in Open Source and the war between GPL and M$ for my course-work.

        You are not talking from the corporate perspective. There are already thesis and research that shows TCO and ROI is what commercial organization looking for.

        And your fact is all wrong. I have read a few research on Open Source Software Development model.

        1. Bugs & Vulnerabilities
        You see, that applied to MS Windows only. I admin not less than 14 production Linux servers, from Slackware to Redhat to RHEL. 4 of which are database server. From the installation day until now, I never update any of the Linux servers. :-). Crazy do you think ?

        2. Linux tweaking & reliability
        About 14 months ago, I documented a Standard Linux Installation Procedure (SLIP) for my IT department. It usually took 3 hours to install Redhat following SLIP excluding application installation. Until today, 5 Linux servers are running with zero (0) unplanned Operating System downtime. What this mean is that the Linux server Operating system has never failed. The only thing that have unplanned downtime were the application running inside the Linux servers which are mostly proprietary software.

        In fact, we managed to have less planned downtime. And since the last 12 months, I don’t know what else I can do during my working hours. Why ? Because my main job description is to maintain and admin Linux servers and there is nothing to maintain except backup and installation.

        So, don’t talk as if you know about Linux.

        I have more time surfing IT forums, reading other peoples thesis or research, doing my assignment for my study, all in office hours. Can anyone here have so much time doing that during their office hours ?

    • #3098060

      Experience has taught me….

      by will ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      Some years ago I invested heavily in an Amiga system – on the basis that this was a Gateway owned company and had been assured of continued support. Six months (and several thousand pounds,)later I discovered that Amiga`s rebirth was a myth maintained by a load of obsessive geeks and some shrewed businessmen who needed to offload a collection of outdated junk.

      So, nowadays if it is not Microsoft I don`t want to know. I don`t care if it is open source, has better spec or even (like Amiga o.s. was,) going to take over the world – I had my fingers burned badly and will not risk it again.

      With Microsoft my systems work – it is as simple as that, if I want support it comes from qualified engineers not entheusiastic geeks.

      • #3098680

        So you got burnt

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Experience has taught me….

        That explains your angst, however, Amiga was a hardware seller and what is under discussion at the moment is the software that you put on the hardware that you buy. Simply Windows and Linux both go on the very same hardware.

        Your previous experience was like which brand of car to buy whereas we are no talking about which brand of petrol to put in it.

        A key point you should learn about this discussion is that the majority of qualified engineers (not IT geeks) recommend the use of, and do use, Linux in critical server situations and nearly every corporate Internet gateway has Linux servers as the core of their secure operations.

        The real big question now is specialised software server operations and desktop usage – and that is what is being dealt with by most people in this discussion area nowdays.

        • #3097914

          Being burnt.

          by will ·

          In reply to So you got burnt

          What a patronising post.

          I am aware that Linux and Windows go on the same hardware. When I (and a business partner,) invested heavily in Amiga we were assured that software would be supported and we spent out heavily in that area – we were lied to.

          Linux is a cut down Unix and I am also aware that many engineers use it – the black boxes at MTV use Linux to control the telephone calls that pick videos and tunes. A “closed environment” in which the only people with access to the software are specific engineering staff with specialist knowledge is not what I am talking about.

          For me the same problem exists with people who promote Linux as did with the Amiga and with a lot of Mac users. Many are part of the “We hate Microsoft brigade” and that is not a reason for using anything.

          As an electronics engineer I have little time for bright spark companies who produce non-standard equipment that requires special interfaces, I have lived too long for all that and want things to fit and to work. I do not have the time for endless tweaking for things to be reliable.

        • #3097843


          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Being burnt.

          The fact that some people lied to you about the Amiga does not mean that everyone will lie about everything – but does mean that you should check up on what they tell you. I agree that hating one thing is not enough reason to promote anything against it by itself. I also dislike closed shops.

          I have had more experience with Windows than with Linux and have been working with computers since 1980 – mainframes, then microcomputers, now PCs – so I have had a some experience.

          Yes Linux can be more readily used to specialise software for hardware than Windows can – many consumer electronic goods with computer controls have restricted specialised versions of linux as their control system, VCRs, TIVOs, even some cars and trucks.

          What we have been discussing is the various general use versions where you just load it out of the box and then use as is – mostly with an aim towards the end user ease of use and general business use.

          I still use both Windows and Linux, and over the years the biggest problem I have had with Linux was finding a suitable driver for some hardware that did not sell well – I have had many problems with Windows due to it replaces drivers, security issues and tweaking for normal daily use.

          In the end it comes down to examining what you want the software to do and then choosing the best for your situation.

        • #3097828


          by will ·

          In reply to Understandable

          My son is an IT graduate and is currently on contract to a government dept working on a database. The system has to be 100% secure and compatible with several 100 hand held units. It also has to be a a system that another engineer can work with at a later date. So, it has to be Microsoft the risk with sensitive and confidential information is too great.

          He too went through the Linux phase and has become tired of it and has reverted back to W2K for his personal use. I have found w2k to be rock solid reliable and worth every penny.

          The fact is that if people had to pay for Linux the system would not ever be considered.

        • #3097809

          *sigh* not this AGAIN

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Compatibity

          So because of some apocryphal event and a blantant appeal to authority, we are take it as LAW that MS must be better because:

          A) The government may or may not use if for sensative data
          B) 100% secure (blech) and compatible (blech) with PDAs of some kind can only happen in the MS realm
          C) Programmers don’t “know” Linux
          D) W2k is more robust and more “solid” than Linux could ever hope to be
          E) Linux is free and therefor inferior

          Excellent posting! Kudos! You took all the cliches and put them in ONE post! My hat is off to you sir…

        • #3097780

          Often the compatibility is a personal preference

          by deadly ernest ·

          In reply to Compatibity

          of the person in charge. I have seen military projects where the operating system to be used has changed with each change of senior officer in command as they wanted the project to be in a system that they already knew ans understood. I have also seen a military project where the product was done in Unix and a Windows compatible overlay provided; another unit did the same project as a wholely Windows project. The Unix based project went into use as it proved more reliable.

          But speaking of Windows and reliability – some years back I saw a USA Dept of Defence article about why some of the Patriot Missile systems used in the Gulf War in the early 1990s failled to hit their targets (resulting is some loss of life) – the investigation found the cause to be a very small error in time management within the Windows operating system that was not noticible if the system was live for several hours but became critical when the system was live for a few days – result was a major change to the missile tracking software.

          I know of govt databases where the database is on a Unix system and is accessed by a range of mainframe and PC systems without troubles – they do so using tcp/ip and html – marvelous how using a general access industry standard systems allows easy compatibility.

        • #3134249

          If MS worked as their Documentation said it did

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Often the compatibility is a personal preference

          Then the top word processor would still be Word Perfect. We would use Dan Bricklin’s spreadsheet, and Brief or multi-edit would still be the editor of choice for PC developers.

          Microsoft did give deliberately wrong information to companies who were their competitors. (FRAUD)
          They were fined 6 million dollars by a judge in their own state.

          They basically defrauded and destroyed companies who competed against their Excel and Word products illegally.

          However, they gave correct information to their own staffs (Create unfair advantage).

          A fair Judge would have fined them the value of their profits (At the time billions) and filed an injunction from selling the products. MS themselves at the same timeframe filed injunctions against SCO for a spreadsheet that was better than Excel at the time because SCO was the only vendor with a solution in that envioronment. Unfortunately SCO caved…

        • #3097724


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Compatibity

          “[i]it has to be Microsoft the risk with sensitive and confidential information is too great.[/i]”

          Okay, now you’re just making crap up. That’s the most absurd thing I’ve heard in a very, very long time.

        • #3134258

          Wrong Again

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Compatibity

          I have been doing UNIX since 1977. I’d be happy to pay for it, as well as use it.

          I have been using UNIX/XENIX/LINUX and have bought it when it was $7995.00 to run it on a 386
          25 MZ with the number of users to connect to it.

          Why? because It needed to work. MS at the time wasn’t a viable Business system. Xenix was a better solution. PCs were 3,000 and a dumb terminal was $400.00. Serial lines to 32 terminals was relatively cheap. 32 copys of Word Perfect (long before MS WORD) would have been 16,000.00 itself. I was able to automate Law firms for 1/4 the cost of PC only solutions. The Word Perfect was better too! (Not just my opinion the early win 3.1 WP wasn’t great.)

          I can still put 100 users on a Linux box for so much less than a comparable Windows server it isn’t the same. If they don’t mind following written directions my job is easier. But it only takes me sconds to export a filesystem or part of it and mount it somewhere else. (eliminates the file server issue)

          I can crossmount drives using automount, or rsh
          to mount a drive across a network faster than you can bring up a network neighborhood window and drill down one level on a 300 MS SERVER 300 UNIX server hybrid network. BTW CIFS works fine…

          I understand what adduser means…

          If you want security Go home to C2 servers and that means UNIX or LINUX.

        • #3100009

          uh, then please

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Being burnt.

          explain the inconsistency…

          “As an electronics engineer I have little time for bright spark companies who produce non-standard equipment that requires special interfaces”


          “So, nowadays if it is not Microsoft I don`t want to know.”

          Microsoft is the “Bright Spark” Company.

          Linux is not driven by profits, outside of Novell’s suse, Red Hat, Linspire and Mandriva, it is actually 100% driven by systems Engineers who have dedicated thier lives to creating a reliable, secure, free clone of unix.

          Microsft is 100% driven by Pofits, and requires special interfaces, not internationally set standard interfaces.

          both the comments contradict each other, you only want microsoft, but you do not want bright spark companies..

        • #3134246

          Why did you say Microsoft is bright

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to uh, then please

          Cunning and Criminal maybe.

      • #3098507

        I see.

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Experience has taught me….

        Did you decide to be gay the last time a woman dumped you?

        • #3097908

          How do you know

          by will ·

          In reply to I see.

          How do you know I am not already.

        • #3097723

          I don’t.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to How do you know

          That was called wit.

        • #3097683

          No you don`t

          by will ·

          In reply to I don’t.

          Wit I am familiar with – your comment was only half way there.

    • #3098668

      War and Profits

      by noller1 ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      No doubt Linux takes experience to set up and configure to ones likes, and vender support is slow moving. However the vender support is gaining stride and the ease of configuration and management is improving as Linux moves toward the desktop.SuSe OSS 10 is a strong contender now with a lot of support right ot of the box and GUI configuration and management tools. At the core Linux still remains more stable and more secure than it’s Microsoft counterpart.
      Microsoft boust its ease of use and managment and in the fore ground it looks good, but in the application and thread level it fails just as much as it ever did, we just don’t see it fail anymore.The vender support is quite good for the most part.The ease of management on the other hand is just as taxing as any Linux machine.The cost differance between the two makes Linux a strong competitor. ( There is a good reason why it is Linux Apache Servers powering the WWW.)

    • #3098635

      Linux vs Microsoft

      by evansra ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I work at a software development company. My first four years here, I was in Operations, providing PC and Network support.
      I received a copy of Linux, nearly 4 years before installing it on a Home PC, with a SCSI drive.
      Although I was a certified Cisco Network Instructor, I was still apprehensive when it came to installing this new O/S.
      I guessed at the things I had to enter an answer, and I selected the defaults, where available.
      WOW! I was impressed with how well the system works! The speed is incredible, vs what happened with Windows 98 or Windows ME installed on the same drive!
      I read, and echo a statement I saw yesterday, Linux is not competing with Microsoft…It is an alternative to it. If it will work in your world, whether personal or corporate, it is a very valuable option to have!
      Thank you,
      Randy Evans
      Omaha, NE

      • #3097886

        I like Linux too, BUT….

        by vectra-v6 ·

        In reply to Linux vs Microsoft

        By far the biggest problem with achieving a mass uptake of Linux is the that it can be a nightmare to install. I recently migrated a PC that had reliably run MS Server / Exchange 2003 to Linux. I tried 4 versions from 3 developers, both download and retail boxes, each time it hit a vague error message and aborted the install. Persistance eventually won through and I got SuSE successfully installed. But I am an IT Pro, therefore stupid enough the MAKE it work, ‘Joe Public’ would have given up long before.
        Whether you like Microsoft or not, if you drop a Windows CD near the PC come back 40 minutes later and it would have climbed into the drive and installed the OS, network connection, Interneted updates, found the printer and sent you a welcome message – well not quite but you know what I am saying.
        Until this is resolved, the better Linux GUI, performance, services etc etc etc it will remain the domain of IT Pro with enthusiasm for the harder option.

    • #3098605

      Look at the needs and make your decision

      by jcampbel ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I need linux as a server because I don’t have time to watch a Windows box and reboot it when it starts misbehaving. I use both windows and linux on my desktop. They both have their strong points and week points. Mostly, the problem with linux on the desktop is that people want the apps they are familiar with. If that problem were solved, then it would be a much easier decision.

    • #3098592

      Enough Already!

      by andeanderson ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      How many of the exact same discussions are we going to be hit with? Just do a quick search if you are really interested in all of the different opinions and you will find enough material to keep you busy for years.

      Linux vs Microsoft vs OS2 vs etc…

      Who cares? Why not argue about which car is better: Motorcraft vs GM vs Toyota vs etc…?

      We will use what we feel comfortable with or are required to use in our jobs. Why this desire to start another round of battles? Is it just to get your name out for others to see? Or, are you really that new to computer operating systems?

      • #3098565

        Tired of this? Think again….

        by maverrick ·

        In reply to Enough Already!

        Well you may say that this topic has been dead and gone but in todays mixed environment, its interesting to have this discussion to explore the possibilites of Linux and Windows co-existing in the same environment.
        I work as a sys/net admin for a company that provides managed IT services. From my limited experience I have found that Active Directory is great to have. It is very scalable, powerful and easy to manage; MS Exchange 2003 is excellent and it supports PDAs and manages contacts and calendars well. I have tried integrating Linux into the Windows domain and I have found that it works brilliantly. I have configured a FC4 laptop to authenticate users against AD and got Evolution to work with MS Exchange 2003 with a ximian exchange connector. This gives the average user who needs the basic functionalities of corporate mail and a corporate login account access to a PC.
        I agree that IIS isnt really the way to go. Having an apache server would be my preferred way to take things moving forward and a Linux based FTP server would be the best choice for security. Also, nothing can beat a sun solaris machine when it comes to running developer builds and simulations.
        The secret to having an efficient network is to stop flogging the other OS with a few preconceived ideas and start understanding the benefits of each OS and using the best that they can offer to tailor it for your operating environment.

    • #3098559

      20 years of both not a problem

      by jdh9 ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      As a veteran from CPM, DOS, to the latest Win also my job stayed with UNIX, Siemens Linux, SuSe Linux. It all depends what you want to do. Windows has its GUI modules less expensive, Linux has its user access levels and better process mng. If you have the staff and the budget both systems serve its purpose. Bill Gates was the Karl Marx of software freeing us from the bondage of IBM, SUN, HP, DEC and now Linux frees us from him but breaks up in many fashions where global business demands unity.
      So it is the usual “Razzall Dazzall”

    • #3098511

      Reply To: Windows vs Linux

      by ibanezoo ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I’m not sure I get the main point of your discussion…. At our company I have rolled out 20 or 30 Linux servers and a couple workstations and a few Windows servers few hundred Windows workstations. For us it all revolves around the applications to be run on them. If we need a system to be running Adobe CS or Quark its a Windows box. If I can find a cheaper/better/faster/more stable version of a program we need a certain functionality for, and not necessarily compatibility I will use a Linux box, more for being more comfortable in a *nix environment than anything. We have quite a few home users interested in Linux that I’ve burned some live Linux distros for and they say once they used them for a little bit they only use Linux at home. The depth of their use I don’t know, but they seem to be happy and thank me alot. For myself at home I have 2 Xp boxes, 1 Linux box, and a dual boot xp/linux notebook. I’m not sure about corporate money/time/etc …. our company uses what is appropriate for a given problem. I “learned Linux” at home by myself. I’ve sat my grandmothing in front of a Linux box and she had no trouble getting on the internet or finding email… I dunno, I think thats why I don’t get your point, I don’t really differentiate between OSs as much as other people I guess…

    • #3098491

      you had to ask.

      by lalala ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      it’s a balancing act. in this day and age the most important features for home users are usability and security. the easier *nix becomes to use for the new/avg user the more widespread it will be used..and each distro gets better with ea release. if Mac OSX would run on generic x86 hardware it would outsell Win hands down.

      • #3098015

        “user friendly” and security

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to you had to ask.

        MacOS X is proof that it’s easier to make unix pretty than to make Windows stable and secure.

        • #3109890


          by lalala ·

          In reply to “user friendly” and security

          well said. and then there’s cost… if you throw hardware and software costs in the equation, Linux wins everytime. if the open-source linux distros would become more “pretty”, it would be more appealing to the personal/home user to use linux. my bet (hope) is they will in time.

    • #3097947

      Whats this thread all about then. Winux

      by nz_justice ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      Why is there a choice between only linux and windows, A lot of Corporate environments have hybrid networks. using UNIX and Windows, and becuase linux apps are free, a lot of people use the windows version of them. What about MAC’s. MAC’s are also used in the Corporate environment and at home. Linux is different from windows, and feeds the open source environment. Microsoft are looking at cashing in on linux methodolgy and have resently employed one of the top linux guru’s,1759,1813703,00.asp

      You don’t be number one in the market place by ignoring your competion (you buy them out or employ them).

      Windows vs Linux is dead.

    • #3097891

      Is Apple’s Mac the real choice

      by malcolm davis ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      Now that Mac OS is available on Intel, Unix based, much easier to use and configure than either Linux or Windows, is it possible that Mac is really the best choice for corporate and home users?

      • #3097703

        Reply To: Windows vs Linux

        by davep89 ·

        In reply to Is Apple’s Mac the real choice

        If Mac is the answer, it was a silly question!!

        • #3258786

          It is the answer for 4% of the world’s computers

          by starderup ·

          In reply to Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          Which is not really much, but I gotta hand it to them for sticking in there. Their H/W is pretty nice, and now that they finally have caved in and admitted that even Intel is better than the PPC, they might do better.
          The things that always irritated me about Mac users were that 1)Most were unaware that their OS was a UNIX hack, and 2)The smugness.
          For example, when I was supporting Virex for the Mac, the Triangle Park engineers would sneer at what they called the ‘Bill Gates Virus’ (which was a bit funny) for having obscure error messages, yet I recall seeing the cute little bomb screen on the Mighty Macintosh with this below it and nothing else:
          Error -128
          Yeah, that’s much better!
          Is the MacOS better than Windows? When it comes to stability, yeah. But saying something is more stable than Windows is like saying something tastes better than mud. If it truly was head and shoulders above PCs, they could have overcome the hardware issues (being stingy with the licensing of the architecture, etc.) and be more than a footnote in the personal computer business.

    • #3097881

      The Home Users I know have bought cheap distros…

      by jcitizen ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      At least the responders to this thread have gotten down to the point(so far). I know a few people who bought cheap computers from WalMart with what I think was some version of Mandriva installed.

      But they all ended up switching to MS because either the support was poor or they got tired of trying to figure out the huge maze of addons that are freely available.

      • #3097768

        Linspire not Mandriva

        by jmgarvin ·

        In reply to The Home Users I know have bought cheap distros…

        The Wally World Linux boxes come installed with Linspire, and I have to say that they have EXCELLENT support.

        Are you sure they weren’t calling Wal-Mart?

        • #3097698

          actually, both of you are right.

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Linspire not Mandriva

          Mandrake 8 series was sold at Wal-Mart on systems.
          You can still buy a system with Mandriva on it, from Mandriva.

          Currently the only os options at Wal-mart are linspire and windows.

        • #3099782

          Thank you! Also Caveat emptor

          by jcitizen ·

          In reply to actually, both of you are right.

          I also notice that the statis of these OSs keeps changing – They get bought out and change hands so much I would be wary of trusting how long the buyer’s contract would be any good! Also Jaqui I like your new icon. Seems very civilized!

    • #3097836

      General Public

      by mist271 ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I may be wrong, But I believe there are more people with computers than businesses.And after speaking to only say 200 young and old, my conclusion is this.A computer is like a fridge we all need one in this day and age, regarding the operating system, It really does not matter as long as it is compatible to other systems and the programs used,i.e. email,network,messaging,
      word processing,file transfer,webcam. these are the things that need to work by just clicking the mouse etc.Windows has little problem in this area, minor glitches yes, but every system as them.Linux i have tried a few versions, all had
      Big problems, but they are getting less and it appears that within the next 5 years maybe less
      that linux distros will be as user friendly as windows are at this time.

    • #3097706

      Reply To: Windows vs Linux

      by davep89 ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I am yet to hear a good reason for using Linux on a desktop for general office automation tasks.

      My organisation has a purchasing agreement with Microsoft that delivers reasonable prices for Windows and compatible products. Skilled Windows technical staff are widely available as is certified training. Users are familiar with Windows and compatible products and get the same look and feel across products.

      Microsoft provides reasonable service regarding patch delivery and in a network of 500 PCs and 20 servers we don’t have problems with viruses.

      I can’t see how I would justify rejigging our entire operation to take advantage of whatever opportunities are presented by Linux.

      The same is not true for home use where the cost of Microsoft products is a much bigger factor. Its is still true though that expertise is more widely available for Microsoft products, installation and setup of Microsoft products is more straight forward, there are likely to be less compatibility issues with Microsoft products, and Microsoft products tend to be generally more user friendly, feature rich and better finished.

      And none of this means I wouldn’t use Linux anywhere it made sense which I currently believe is back end server functions.

      • #3099638

        Something I have noticed for years

        by pocketken ·

        In reply to Reply To: Windows vs Linux

        The responses from industry technicians, programmers, business owners and the like… who have used Microsoft in thier production environment and who have generally also extensively used Mac and linux (as I have) USUALLY have valid and eloquent arguments presenting the case for windows.

        Those responders on the side of linux USUALLY slander, post nonsense and mean-spirited derrogatory rebuttal, use ever-so-clever phrases like “M$” and do not generally ever answer the honest questions over whether it is worthwhile to retool your environment, retrain your users etc. etc. etc. in order to switch to a new operating system.

        It’s ludicrous. Even my own post is ludicrous but only because it (like so many I’ve read here) has NOTHING to do with the topic.

        So – to correct that:
        Linux is great. It’s a reliable server operating system which has not yet become popular enough to be affected by the mainstream spyware, virii and related internet trash. I personally use an athlon64 suse machine as my vpn/web/email server.
        At work however, I use a windows 2003 server for this same function. There are many advantages to VPN on the 2003 server for that environment of XP clients. Hardware firewalls provide the security I need in my low risk environment and the 2003 server is a solid reliable machine which has not been rebooted in probably a year.

        Both definately have thier place, and I’m not somehow afraid to say that (as linux worshippers seem to be.)

        Stop falling back on your policy differences with Microsoft as an organization, they have nothing to do with the technical merit of the software and that’s the issue at hand.

        Finally…. I can’t let this go. There’s an unbelievable amount of feedback from linux users on this issue (though not in this thread, thankfully) that hardcore windows technicians are simply not as skilled (or what have you) as unix / linux technicians.
        Now how can the same people who say that windows is this easy-mac “luser” OS, when they obviously can’t keep their windows machines from crashing?
        But I thought it was so “easy”…?
        Those of us who work in this field professionally do not have this problem. I’m not saying a windows machine has NEVER crashed on my network… but to be absolutely honest the 2003 server has easily matched the uptime of my suse box here. Microsoft has made huge strides and until someone admits that, I don’t take their argument seriously.

        I don’t understand Apple. I worked there for a few years… don’t really want to talk about it. I’ll let it suffice that I don’t respect the company or their products, but they aren’t part of this conversation.

        • #3100057


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Something I have noticed for years

          “[i]Those responders on the side of linux USUALLY slander[/i]”
          From what I’ve seen, there’s far more egregious lying, disinformation, and snowjobs on the anti-Linux side than the anti-Microsoft side.

          Who cares if someone says M$ instead of MS? I don’t, but if someone feels clever by doing so, more power to ’em. If you’re seeing that as “slander”, you’re probably identifying too closely with the vendor and the operating system, rather than looking at it objectively. Pay attention to the technical message, and not what passes for “wit” in a posting, unless it amuses you to do otherwise.

          From ignoring the “clever” phrasing (after a suitable chuckle where necessary) and paying attention instead to the technically relevant information in a post on one side or the other, what I have seen is that the Microsoft-defenders tend to spout repackaged MS marketing copy, and the Linux-defenders tend to refer to privilege separation, software management, free as in speech and free as in beer, the advanced Linux desktop, server uptimes, stateful firewall capabilities, the ineffectiveness of viruses due to system architecture, resource overhead, rock-solid industry standard server applications, and so on. Perhaps you’re just judging books by their covers.

          “[i]do not generally ever answer the honest questions over whether it is worthwhile to retool your environment, retrain your users etc.[/i]”
          Maybe that’s because every situation is different.

          If you think the Microsoft side is answering such questions, you’re too gullible. MS-funded TCO studies that compare the cost of operation of an x86 Windows 2k server vs. an old-school Unix mainframe (yes, that was a real study, including the cost of the power draw of the mainframe in the TCO for Unix/Linux) are far from unbiased. I’d rather have someone say “In general, Linux would be a better solution, but in your case you have to judge for yourself,” than base my decisions on Microsoft advertising slogans.

          “[i]not yet become popular enough to be affected by the mainstream spyware, virii and related internet trash[/i]”
          I’m getting sick and tired of this kind of spurious nonsense. Seriously. Here’s some slander for you: get a clue. If popularity was the cause of exploitability, things would be much different in the world. Compare the exploit rate of the 60% Apache majority with that of the 20% Microsoft IIS minority for web servers, and stop spreading this FUD. It’s getting very, very old.

          “[i]the 2003 server is a solid reliable machine which has not been rebooted in probably a year.[/i]”
          Wait . . . you haven’t been patching your WS2k3 system?! You’re either stupid or lying — and in the case of lying, you think [b]we’re[/b] stupid.

          “[i]Stop falling back on your policy differences with Microsoft as an organization[/i]”
          I, for one, don’t “fall back” on my “policy differences” with MS at all in these discussions. I address relevant technical issues at great length. I do this despite the fact that I believe that MS “policy” is perhaps the single most important problem that must be addressed in the long run, because I know 98% of you aren’t thinking past the next fiscal quarter.

          “[i]There’s an unbelievable amount of feedback from linux users on this issue (though not in this thread, thankfully) that hardcore windows technicians are simply not as skilled (or what have you) as unix / linux technicians.[/i]”
          Consider this: Most Linux sysadmins were Windows admins first, and/or are Windows admins as well. I’m Microsoft certified, personally. Many of the reasons for my high(er) regard for Linux are tied to my extensive knowledge of Windows system architecture and administration. Wouldn’t you say that someone who knows both Windows and Linux is more knowledgeable than someone who knows Windows and is so ignorant of Linux that he thinks popularity is the main reason for Linux security as contrasted with Windows lack of security rather than issues of privilege separation, extensive and ongoing code review, and better patch management? Wouldn’t you say that person knowledgeable in both has more expertise than the typical Windows admin who, for the most part, thinks the command line is a relic from the past rather than a powerful and flexible tool for system management? Wouldn’t you attribute more knowledge and expertise to the person who knows many options exceedingly well rather than only the vertical stack solutions provided by Microsoft partners, complete with marketing brochures? Until you know Linux as well as I do, I will consider you less knowledgeable a techie, considering I almost certainly know as much Windows as you do.

          “[i]I’m not saying a windows machine has NEVER crashed on my network[/i]”
          Good. I’d think you were lying. On the other hand, I’ve never had a Linux machine pull the equivalent of a BSOD in any production implementation.

          “[i]to be absolutely honest the 2003 server has easily matched the uptime of my suse box here.[/i]”
          You need to patch and reboot that sonofabitch post-haste. Seriously. Not doing so is like standing on an open hilltop in a thunderstorm wearing a full suit of armor and shaking a golf club at the sky, shouting imprecations and insults and taunts at the gods, daring them to strike you down.

          “[i]Microsoft has made huge strides[/i]”
          Yes, it has — in both directions. Sadly, even where it has moved forward, it’s generally just not up to par. It boggles my mind that Microsoft has been promising a nonfragmenting filesystem since NT 4.0 and still hasn’t delivered. That’s not just incompetence; it’s very nearly criminal.

        • #3099941

          File Fragmentation

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Really?

          Grant it, I probably don’t know as much about this topic as I should so please explain.

          How can a non-fragmenting file system possibly be as fast or faster than a fragmenting file system?

          The inherent “weakness” in a fragmenting file system is precisely its strength. Its faster read and write speeds are what’s causing the fragmenting to begin with.

          Again, I’m more of a software junkie than a hardware junkie. Please explain to me how a properly maintained fragmenting file system is any better or worse than a non-fragmenting file system.

        • #3099925

          not quite..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to File Fragmentation

          the same disk spins at the same speed for either os.
          the fragmented filesystem requires ore passes to read the entire file, as it’s not contiguous.

          a non fragmenting filesystem has faster access as the drive does not have to move the arm once it starts reading the file, it’s all passing under the head where it is [ if not a huge file that takes up more space than one ring of cylinders ] this means the drive can spin at full speed of read capacity and the file gets loaded into memory at the maximum rate.

          with a fragmented filesystem the drive has to find each fragment slowing performance down noticably.
          this is why you should defragment your windows filesystems regularly. [ windows being the only os that has a default filesystem that fragments ]

          a real world example of this in action:
          take two identicle binders with a document in them.
          open the rings on one, scatter the papers all over the office.

          that is your “fragmented filesystem, and the paapers are the file you need to access.

          the other binder, with document inside it, same file on a non fragmenting filesystem.

        • #3099844

          extended analogy

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to not quite..

          Writing operations are [b]sometimes[/b] faster for fragmenting filesystems. This depends on two things.

          1. It depends on whether you’re writting wholly new data to the drive and have contiguous free space on the drive into which to write the data. If you do, you’re golden: it writes slightly faster than if it has to rearrange bits during writes to keep from fragmenting files. Of course, when you edit already-written data, your write speeds drop considerably because the read/write heads have to move all over the damned place to find the various bits of data it has to change, or it has to delist the entire file in the file allocation table and rewrite the whole thing in the free space at the end of the full space. Either way, you lose performance.

          2. It also depends on how well designed your nonfragmenting filesystem is. For instance, some do temporary writes to the end of the partition where there’s free space right away so that you don’t lose any write speed performance, then shuffle bits in “downtime” when the drive and controller aren’t otherwise occupied. This approach is a little like having gnomes come defragment your drives while you sleep, except that it happens in real-time without chewing up hard drive access times.

          To extend the binder analogy:

          Sometimes, fragmenting filesystems are faster to write to because you can just take new pages you want to add to your fragmented binder and throw them in the general direction of your office. Much faster than putting them in a binder in a neat, orderly manner. Of course, write times can also become slower if you’re throwing edits in there, because you have to find the old version and remove it from the mess of scattered papers.

          With a nonfragmenting filesystem, your write times might actually be comparable to the fastest a fragmenting filesystem can achieve because all you have to do is add new pages in a stack, tucked into the back of the binder, and while you’re not actively looking at the binder’s contents the binder organizes itself, magically.

        • #3099817

          That’s Understandable

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to extended analogy

          The previous reply was horse brown smelly stuff.

          Both file systems have advantages and disadvantages depending on read or write operations and the condition of the file system.

          Apotheon seems to have not only a clearer explanation but also less personal opinion and more fact.

          Jaqui just seems to have issues with facts.

        • #3258843

          Huge strides

          by starderup ·

          In reply to Something I have noticed for years

          Microsoft has become better, but there was so much room for improvement.
          Don’t talk about uptime with Windows servers. That is measured in months. Uptime with nix machines is measured in years. The server for is a 486 and it was serving terabytes of files per month for years. It may still be in service.
          The company I worked at had a Free BSD server that was up continiously for three+ years, and the only reason it went down was that power lines were knocked down by an ice storm, and the UPS eventually ran out.
          Windows could only dream of being that stable.

    • #3097686

      Simple Requirements

      by dogknees ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I am a Unix user from way back, so I would be happy to run Linux, if it met my requirements for a home PC. It doesn’t at the moment.

      I have very simple requirements for my home PC. I expect to be able to buy pretty much any software written for a PC platform off the shelf, take it home, load it, and run it immediately.

      That includes the latest game, a development platform, music creation software, high-end graphics, whatever I feel like buying today.

      I don’t run an internet connection at home because that lets me keep my PC running fast with no virus checking/etc clogging things up. So, having to download something to get my new game running is not acceptable.

      I also require it to work correctly with any standard hardware I might buy. Again, without requiring me to run around and download patches or whatever. This would include wireless mouse and keyboards, graphics tablets, midi keyboards, LEGO Mindstorms system, whatever.

      If I’m wrong, please explain how to setup in the same environment (no internet connection) and get the same results (buy any off the shelf software/hardware, take it home, load it and play it).

      Until then, Linux just doesn’t meet my requirements.

      • #3099621

        Wish your post was true

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Simple Requirements

        “I expect to be able to buy pretty much any software written for a PC platform off the shelf, take it home, load it, and run it immediately.”

        “I also require it to work correctly with any standard hardware I might buy. Again, without requiring me to run around and download patches or whatever. This would include wireless mouse and keyboards, graphics tablets, midi keyboards, LEGO Mindstorms system, whatever.”

        I have boxes of software written for Windows that I can no longer use on a Windows box because they do not support the older operating systems in anyway and the current systems are NOT compatible with the older systems or most of the software written for it, also getting older OS drivers for the latest hardware is problem to. Yet I still use the software by running it within WINE on a Linux box, I run the games within Cedega as it is a bit better for the games – even most of the latest Windows games.

        I have not yet been able to buy any graphics cards, scanners, modems, or printers that did not require some fancy footwork to get the specially written device drivers to work within the Windows version that they were written for and none will work with the generic Windows drivers at all.

        My current PC and the previous one require several extra drivers to be loaded to work properly in Windows – yet both work well in Linux without any extra drivers to get the hardware working. In each case I just placed the disc with the operating system in the machine and rebooted – both Mandrake 10 and Fedora Core 4 loaded and worked perfectly with built in drivers for the graphics card, modem, printer and both scanners (one of which I can not get Windows drivers for anything later than Win 98SE).

        I have seen this issue from both sides and I still think that choosing here is a matter of personal preference for most people and that comes down to what they are used to – both have their own way of doing things that are different and people going from one to the other notice the differences not the similarities etc.

        • #3134223

          Drivers and Wireless

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Wish your post was true

          Wireless ethernet was so much easier on my notebook in windows. I actually had to load a CD, reboot, power off, put the hardware in a mini PCI slot, restart, and then work to configure it and the security for it to work on a wireless network.

          For the Linux Disktop, I loaded the system. Oh crap the wireless card was identified and it worked as soon as i put in the string for security. Poor comparison. The OpenOfice doesn’t crap out like my Office 2003 Outlook does.

          I guess there are comparisons. I didn’t pay $499.00 for open office. and OpenOffice doesn’t lock up, or hang while communicating with the outlook server.

          The real difference is that many people won’t, or can’t read. They can only work with a pretty picture to go with an application(icon). Oh you can get that also on Linux KDE, Gnome, etc. For me Linux is cheaper and more stable. But, I run a network of 300 Unix servers.

        • #3100910

          Even Microsoft Games

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Wish your post was true

          Some won’t run in XP and they were written for 98se

          That includes MS games.

          Worst of all My Tex Murphy games don’t work (sob).

        • #3100804


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Even Microsoft Games

          Linux users do it all the time, similar to Wine and Cedega.

          Use a virtual PC to run all your outdated, crappy games. The VM machine is now free.

        • #3271602

          Rickk– I gave up games that long ago.

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Virtualization

          The point is that for Games owned by MS, MS hasn’t bothered to keep backwards/forward compatablility.

          That is one hting that they have done several time over. That is why “Harry it still sucks.” (Harry Chapin’s 30,000 lbs of bananas)

      • #3100032

        simple indeed

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Simple Requirements

        “[i]I am a Unix user from way back, so I would be happy to run Linux, if it met my requirements for a home PC. It doesn’t at the moment.[/i]”
        I am a DOS user from way back, so I would be happy to run Windows if it met my requirements for a home PC. It doesn’t at the moment.

        “[i]I have very simple requirements for my home PC. I expect to be able to buy pretty much any software written for a PC platform off the shelf, take it home, load it, and run it immediately.[/i]”
        I have very simple requirements for my home PC. I expect to be able to download and install pretty much any kind of software I could want with the clicks of a few keys or, without a broadband connection, to be able to get it from a comprehensive CD installation set like the thousands of software packages in the archive on the full Debian set. I expect to be able to do this without having to go to the store and shell out dozens or hundreds of dollars every time I want to install one more piece of software on one more computer, and I expect to be able to keep up with the latest version of the software without having to do that all over again, including spending hundreds of dollars again.

        That includes games, a development platform more advanced and flexible than some straightjacket one-option IDE like Visual Studio that costs thousands of dollars, industrial-strength webserver software, stateful firewall capability, multimedia that puts TiVo to shame, fully functional office suites, enterprise class database management systems, high-end graphics production software, et cetera, et alii, ad infinitum, ad nauseam — whatever I feel like installing today, without even having to buy it.

        “[i]I don’t run an internet connection at home because that lets me keep my PC running fast with no virus checking/etc clogging things up. So, having to download something to get my new game running is not acceptable.[/i]”
        I don’t want to have to pull my network cable to keep my PC running fast with no virus checking, et cetera, clogging things up. I’m also pleased with the ability to install any of thousands of software packages from either the Internet or local CDs, at my own option.

        “[i]I also require it to work correctly with any standard hardware I might buy.[/i]”
        Perhaps you’re not aware of this, but that’s not an argument in Windows’ favor.

        • #3100001

          why not

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to simple indeed

          actually post how many cdroms are in that full set?
          13 @ 650 mb 1 at 430 mb.

          that really does push the “no software options” arguement down the drain, far better than even Fedora cores 5 cdrom set version.

      • #3098727

        In the Matrix?

        by fcometa ·

        In reply to Simple Requirements

        I don’t think there is such thing as ‘better’ in a case like this, speaking in absolute terms. Better for what may I ask? Everybody will give a different definition of ‘better’, depending on, yes, their personal requirements. There are some things, though, that I would like to point out.

        First of all, for a meaningful discussion some investigation may be due, because more than once have I read people still thinking that Linux is no more than a command prompt, to give an example. Of course, these debates are useful to find out things you didn’t know… it isn’t easy to be on top of the latest in both worlds, and everybody can probably hand out something to learn about.

        Second, there are a few phrases that stand out for me in the previous post. The one that specially gets me is the ‘no internet connection to keep my pc running fast with no virus checking etc’. The thing with Windows (or maybe even Microsoft in general) is you get to believe that all software is or should be ‘Microsofty’, ‘Windowy’. It makes you forget that other OS’es work differently and have different strengths. But we get so used to, let’s say, blue screens, so to believe that all OS’es get ’em. All OS’es don’t catch the viruses that are now in the wild. All software doesn’t have to be bought (and in a third world country like the Dominican Republic that IS a VERY noticeable difference). Internet browsing doesn’t HAVE to be in the big blue ‘e’. But we are too used to it. So used to it, that anything different is a bother, too weird. (I joke about it, telling people “you’re still in the Matrix”). Paradigms…

        At home I’ve had quite a few versions of Windows, and Linux distributions, too. My two younger children have been exposed to all equally, and use them both regularly. This is to avoid building on them a one-side’s-story image of what an OS is like. They know that internet browsing isn’t only the big blue e, it’s also the red fox.

        Last, there is the ‘standard hardware’ issue. Manufacturers don’t care about our religious wars, zealotry, bashing, idealism, call it anything. They only care about how to get me to buy their merchandise. If the numbers say ‘the majority of users have Windows in their boxes’, they will make their hardware work with Windows. Logical. Of course, other OS’es may be supported, but the main concern is with the most used. Software is the same. So then you see hardware ‘designed for Microsoft Windows’ (like winmodems). Web pages that don’t display or work right without IE. They are very probably not meant to be standard, but to follow where the market points to.

        That said, and admitting that in the personal sense I am a Linux buff, I would say that a Linux vs. Windows discussion of who is ‘better’ depends on what ‘better’ means to you. What could the strengths of each one give YOU in return for it’s weaknesses.

        • #3258003

          Nicely Put

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to In the Matrix?

          I apreciate the comments. More of what I was looking for when I started this discussion and before it broke out into a holy war.

          For some people Windows probably is their best bet. For others Linux is probably their best bet.

          And still yet, for others, using both might be the answer.

          Still not clear where I stand. I was hoping to one day be seriously using Linux, perhaps even up to a 50/50 split with Windows, but I just keep having issues and problems.

          I’ll keep trying contrary to some people’s beliefs on here.

    • #3097681

      can’t we all just get along

      by relaxdiego ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      huh? huh?!!

    • #3099911

      Here’s my reply

      by starderup ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I have never seen a UNIX or a Linux box crash. Ever. That goes back to 1997.

      I would be interested in how many Windows users can say the same thing.

      • #3099908

        I saw a crash on linux

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Here’s my reply

        using a bleeding edge tool and running it at the wrong time I completely froze a linux box up,,, hard power off to get it running again.

        not quite a windows crash but still a crash.

        • #3099880

          Not to say you can’t bring one down, but…

          by starderup ·

          In reply to I saw a crash on linux

          I know you can put them in a loop, and certainly a program could be made to cause the system to stop responding, but what I am talking about is sitting there and watching the screen, and the system reboots. Or launching Outlook or Word, and the pointer freezes, and CTRL+ALT+DEL doesn’t work, and in fact, the keyboard is no longer talking to the operating system. Actually, calling Windows an operating system is giving it way too much credit. It is a cheap, hacked up, f’ed up, messed up copy of UNIX, and I can’t understand how it hangs onto its monopoly.
          So, do I sound like a Bill Gates admirer? :^)

          BTW, my first tech job was supporting Windows 3.1 for Corporate Software, back when Microsoft didn’t want anybody to know they were outsourcing support. They did, and I took their calls.

        • #3099877

          yup exactly

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Not to say you can’t bring one down, but…

          running harddrake on linux mandrake 6.1 completely froze the system no keyboard response, no option but to pull the plug on the power to force a reboot.

          harddrake was designed to be run early in the boot sequence, not after the system is up and running.

          but running it after the system had booted completely, from within kde actually, it killed the system.

        • #3099831

          Close, but no cigarillo.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Not to say you can’t bring one down, but…

          Windows isn’t a hacked up, effed up, messed up copy of unix: it’s a hacked up, effed up, messed up copy of early MacOS GUI environments pasted over a hacked up, effed up, messed up copy of CPM to hide the blemishes.

        • #3258860

          Yep, but Mac is a UNIX hack, too.

          by starderup ·

          In reply to Close, but no cigarillo.

          Most of what you say is true. There was a middleman, though, and his name is Jobs.
          Too bad PC Dos wasn’t closer to CPM. It had a better way of handling the boot sector. The way it was implemented in PC Dos, there are two copies, and the bad one is mirrored in the backup.
          CPM did a much better job of keeping a good backup.

    • #3098726

      What about iSeries?

      by jlemaire ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I know iSeries wasn’t included in the title of this discussion, but I just gotta say…

      As a server, the iSeries has superior function, stability, security, version compatibility, and support than either Windows or Linux. It’s the most reliable platform out there, except for a sysplex S/390 (now “zSeries”). It benefits from the fact that the hardware and the OS are developed together, just like Mac.

      The system has a native database that’s integrated with the OS; everything in the system is a database object. It’s set up such that you can’t get a virus. It has a native file system (Library / File / Member), a file system that is compatible with 8.3 naming, a file system that works just like Win2K and XP, and a file system that is compatible with *nix (capitalization matters). Microsoft got tired of stealing from Mac and others and turned its attention the iSeries. With Longhorn, Microsoft tried to implement about 2/3 of the iSeries underlying file structure. After quite a bit of trying, they gave up and just decided to release Vista. Part of the reason they failed: the database in iSeries is implemented in firmware, and you can’t match that for speed or stability.

      System logging is very useful and readable. Every problem can be determined if you know how; no voodoo or uninspecatble processes. If you don’t know how, there’s a nice person in Rochester, Minnesota who will show you how.

      It has a very nice native text interface, if that’s your bag. Any commands that worked in 1984 still work exactly the same way, although there is continually lots more function.

      For the GUI fanatics, there’s a nice GUI tool to manage every aspect of the system. It comes with a nice suite of programs for development of local applications or client-server.

      For the *nix types, you can invoke a Qshell environment that makes you feel quite at home. You can also get a copy of your favorite 64-bit Linux and install it on virtual partition in your iSeries.

      It comes with software you’d expect on a ready-to-go server; database, mail, web, and file serving, and lots more. And the databse makes SQuirreL server look like a toy. If you want groupware, you can get Lotus Notes that runs natively, and anything that will run on the Linux partition. It can even look to a PC just like a domain server, although I don’t know why you’d want to do that. It will do everything except run Exchange and SQL server. To anyone who likes those products, you’re late for your daily flogging.

      The system has no limits on use, so no fussing about “seats”. It costs a zillion bucks, right? Well, you can get entry-level (but high quality) hardware with all the features mentioned above (except for Notes) for $10K, including the first year of some very nice tech support. It scales up to the enterprise level, and all it costs is money, not technical fussing and headaches.

      Into the 90’s, Microsoft ran their business on about 200 iSeries computers (they were AS/400’s back then). Because of the bad PR that could generate for Microsoft servers, they spent a billion or two and a couple years trying to convert those 200 boxes to about 10,000 Windows servers, and failed. I’m sure they’ve since succeeded, but I doubt the net result is better.

      iSeries has solid representation in enterprises, and in such areas as banking, government, and casinos, but the SMB market hardly knows anything about them. I think that’s mostly because IBM does a crappy job getting the word out.

      To weigh in on what most everybody else is talking about, for web browsing I prefer Firefox on Windows for web browsing because the Windows interface is a little smoother. If it crashes I haven’t lost anything and if it bluescreens, I just scratch and reload; all the data and programs I care about are on an iSeries. As a tool for getting tech work done, I prefer the rich toolset and stability of Linux.

      OK, go ahead and flame me for bringing a third platform into the discussion.

    • #3259471

      Giving Linux Another Try…Problems Again!

      by rkuhn040172 ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      Ok, now into my third or fourth try with Linux. Red Hat was terrible and Fedora 4 wouldn’t recognize my wireless NIC or printer.

      So, everyone says Ubantu is easy, simple and whatever. So Ubantu it is.

      Upon install I get the following, please help or I will once again go back to Windows (I haven’t had an install issue in Windows in a long, long time):

      “Unable to install the selected kernel. An error ws returned while trying to install the kernel into the target system.

      Kernel package: ‘linux-386’.

      Check /target/var/log/bootstrap.log for details.”

      Now, in another related post, someone said their grandma could instll Linux. Don’t know about your grandma, but mine would be stumped by this…me too for that matter.

      • #3259102

        I have not tried Ubantu

        by deadly ernest ·

        In reply to Giving Linux Another Try…Problems Again!

        However when I trialled Mandrake 10 I noticed that I could choice to instal a specific kernel type with some software packages – the options were processor based as the processor commands differed between processors. The Intel options were 386 for 386/486 cpus; 586 for P1/P2 cpus; 686 for P3/P4 cpus; and a range for AMD. Check the kernel options for Linux-686 or Linux-586 and try them; I suspect P4 64 bit would different again to.

        • #3259066

          Typical Responce

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to I have not tried Ubantu

          Pretty typical response.

          When it comes to pointing out all the choices Linux users have, Linux users rant and rave that choice is good.

          When it comes to a problem, I have a difficult time getting help.

          One more coaster made and one more failed Linux distro.

          I will keep trying, but everytime I do, it just keeps making my point.

          I don’t doubt that Linux is a better performer, more stable, more secure.

          Too bad I can’t ever find a distro that works with all my equipment, installs nicely, and man it would be nice if I had programs with more descriptive adjectives for what they are/do.

        • #3259009

          broken record

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Typical Responce

          Cutting and pasting vitriol doesn’t help much.

        • #3258664

          Ok…Post your bug

          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Typical Responce

          When did you get the error? What happened during install to make this error occur? Did the install fail?

          You bring up an error, but you don’t explain when or where this error occured. Not very helpful.

          Also, your generic cut and paste responces are pretty silly.

        • #3259116


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Ok…Post your bug

          Apparently, the first time I downloaded the .iso something went wrong.

          Downloaded the .iso from a different source today and all went well.

          Except not impressed yet. Installed Ubantu and ran 50 updates. Nothing more.

          16 seconds to open OpenOffice programs vs 2-3 Microsoft Office on XP. Identical system configs only differnet OSes.

          7 seconds to open Firefox vs 2 seconds to open IE.

          Ok, Ok, before you start slandering me again, I’m a Linux newbie…just describing my first impressions.

        • #3257777

          Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          by fcometa ·

          In reply to Fixed

          Good for you!!!

          It will take a while for you to get used to not living with Windows. But you’ll get the hang of it, you’ll see.

        • #3107393


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          So why are these programs, like OpenOffice and such, taking so long to open?

          Installed Ubantu on a HP Pentium IV 2.53Ghz with 256 RAM. Ok, it’s not the greatest PC in the world but it should be fairly zippy.

        • #3109822

          new start

          by lalala ·

          In reply to Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          just as when you were a windows newbie, you didn’t know how to do everything, you can’t expect to know everything about linux now. they’re different. time, patience, joy.

        • #3108265

          Kernel Tuning

          by x-marcap ·

          In reply to Reply To: Windows vs Linux

          You may find that by adjusting the kernel parameters you may be able to speed up the box considerably…


        • #3258266

          Descriptive program names and quick responses.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Typical Responce

          What Windows apps do you think have descriptive program names?

          Excel? I think that’s a verb indicating a performance level; nothing to do with numbers.

          Powerpoint? A made-up name; maybe the “point” part relates to presentations.

          Access? The privilege or ability to gain entry; nothing to do with databases.

          FrontPage? Sounds like it should be used for newspaper publishing.

          Okay, I grant you Word and Money.

          I can agree with you 100% on the “choice is confusing” issue. And I do find sometimes the first answer provided doesn’t address my question. But responding negatively to the first answer discourages subsequent readers from attempting to help you. If you don’t like the first answer, ignore it and wait for someone else to respond.

        • #3110299

          Use CD-RWs, no more coasters, no more tears

          by stress junkie ·

          In reply to Typical Responce

          When it comes to Linux distros or any software that you want to try out I always use rewritable media. That way I don’t throw dozens of disks in the trash. I just reuse them. 😀

        • #3133074

          My Point exactly.

          by terryru045 ·

          In reply to Typical Responce

          People mention that one of Linux’s great strengths is the options you have ( Same goes for Java). For example, several readers have mentioned different version implying they are better then the others etc, etc. For skilled enthusiasts like ourselves that is a good thing, but is it really a plus in the real, working world(where companies our trying to make money somehow)?

          I’d be the first too admit that Windows cost more up front, and Linux on the low end, with PHP, MySql, Apache, ect is very appealing, but Windows starts to make more sense with larger corporations, where its integration of Sharepoint, Office, and .NET can be extremely powerful.

        • #3133030

          oh really

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to My Point exactly.

          “[i]its integration of Sharepoint, Office, and .NET can be extremely powerful[/i]”
          So you say.

          Such vague, largely meaningless uses of the word “powerful” always get on my nerves. It means nothing except, possibly, that you’ve read some advertising literature and don’t recall the more euphonous terms used by advertisers, replacing them with “powerful”. Do me a favor, please: tell me exactly what you mean by “powerful” in this context.

          While you’re at it, perhaps you can tell me what “integration of Sharepoint, Office, and .NET” provides that cannot be had with Linux, and how that overrides all the myriad benefits of using a more secure, more stable, more universally compatible, more standardized, more flexible, and much cheaper platform can provide in the enterprise. Please. I beg you. Give some kind of meaningful argument.

        • #3102441


          by nz_justice ·

          In reply to oh really

          TerryRu045’s argument has as much meaning as yours, they are of equal meaningfulness. Have you ever used, WSS? Office? or .net? If you have and are using these in business, than you can understand the benefits. Are you under the illusion that because you don’t use them they aren’t good, or is it you just hate M$ no matter what. If you don’t understand what the word “powerful” means go to this should inform you.

          And you have not supported the alternative’s available in Linux, just bitched about the poster reply, now how good an argument are you presenting?

        • #3103006

          spurious garbage

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to really

          That’s not any kind of good argument. “Oh, I assume you don’t use it, so you can’t possibly know what I mean, which means I can safely make my point by saying if you used it you’d understand.” Great. Lovely. Wonderful. Now give me some kind of technical argument.

          You imply that my argument has no meaning, but I didn’t make an argument. I asked for someone to say something meaningful rather than parroting advertising literature. Vacuous statements like “This vertically integrated vendor lock-in stack is powerful!” don’t mean squat where the rubber meets the road (so to speak).

          I have indeed used Office and .NET, and while I have not used SharePoint Services, I have researched it to some extent. Guess what: these things don’t really do anything special.

          I have a fair amount of distaste for corporations like Microsoft that engage in anticompetitive business practices, but I don’t let that affect my opinion of the technical merits of what they sell. Unlike some people who seem unable to separate the technical characteristics of something from personal or ethical issues with its vendor, I am fully capable of realizing that Microsoft being an organization worth boycotting doesn’t make the .NET framework any less useful for developers. Of course, you can get the same thing with Mono, the open source implementation of the .NET framework develpment tools, which runs on other platforms than Windows.

          I know what “powerful” means. I don’t see how it particularly applies here. For something to be “powerful”, it must compare favorably with something else that is not “powerful”, and there has to be some definable characteristic that grants it this “power” of which it is “full”. I could say that the GPL is “powerful”, but without explaining that I mean it is socially influential, that doesn’t mean jack to someone that doesn’t already know what I mean. I could say that Vim is “powerful”, but without explaining that I’m talking about its ability to enable increased productivity as opposed to, for instance, the ability to display italics, you probably wouldn’t agree with me (since you seem to be a fan of MS Office). Can it get any clearer than that? Don’t be a condescending jackass about something just because you want to disagree and have some kind of emotional investment in believing that vertically integrated Microsoft stacks are somehow intrinsically wonderful.

          I wasn’t looking to argue that Linux is better with that: I just wanted some clarification about what the hell the previous poster could have meant. Don’t put arguments in my mouth. Get a clue.

        • #3102991

          re. spurious garbage

          by nz_justice ·

          In reply to really

          fair enough.

      • #3109829

        bad hardware?

        by lalala ·

        In reply to Giving Linux Another Try…Problems Again!

        check your hardware.

        you’re being tested. maintain composure and persistence.

        otherwise, i just think you’re cursed. it’s not the OS.

    • #3094239

      RE: Windows vs Linux

      by Anonymous ·

      In reply to Windows vs Linux

      I read on this debate someone saying that windows is the best OS mainly because it got PC’s in the hands of the public or something like that. Anyway i have somewhat a unique idea of that statement. Doing the windows vs linux argument is like going to school. You start off in kindergarden then you move up. Thats the way this one goes. You start off in wondows then once you graduate you go to Linux. The same goes for AOL and going to an independent ISP. That should satisfy at least a few people, Bill

      • #3094228

        Stated Another Way

        by rkuhn040172 ·

        In reply to RE: Windows vs Linux

        I started off in kindergarden (DOS), went onto grade school (Windows 3.1), middle school (Windows 95-98), high school (Windows 2000-XP), and then went away for college.

        While at college, I experimented with drugs and alcohol (Linux) and then grew up and went on to graduate (Vista).

        • #3094134

          and another way

          by apotheon ·