Windows vs Linux

"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.

"[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.

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.

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.

"[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.

the average user does not know how to configure linux

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.

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.

Rosegarden

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

at http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/

"[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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 OpenOffice.org and TuxKart?

explain the inconsistency...

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

and

"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..

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

by rkuhn040172 Jan 20, 2006

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.

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.

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.

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. :D

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

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.

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:
aptitude
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

type:
startx
you will be in the gui.

by starderup Jan 20, 2006

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.

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.

by starderup Jan 20, 2006

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.

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.

by starderup Jan 20, 2006

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.

by rkuhn040172 Jan 20, 2006

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.

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.

will do

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

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.

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.

by rkuhn040172 Jan 20, 2006

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.

by jcitizen Jan 20, 2006

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!

by deadly ernest Jan 20, 2006

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.

by jmgarvin Jan 20, 2006

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?

by jmgarvin Jan 20, 2006

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.

by jmgarvin Jan 20, 2006

Uh...why bother when you can use powerful scripting languages? ;-)

by richards_unsubcribe Jan 21, 2006

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.

by jmgarvin Jan 21, 2006

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.

by apotheon Jan 21, 2006

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

by deadly ernest Jan 21, 2006

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.

by fcometa Jan 21, 2006

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.

by rkuhn040172 Jan 24, 2006

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.

by jlemaire Jan 21, 2006

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.

by rkuhn040172 Jan 22, 2006

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.

by deadly ernest Jan 22, 2006

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.

by rkuhn040172 Jan 22, 2006

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.

check your hardware.

you're being tested. maintain composure and persistence.

otherwise, i just think you're cursed. it's not the OS.

by rkuhn040172 Jan 22, 2006

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.

by apotheon Jan 22, 2006

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]"
Liar.

by apotheon Jan 22, 2006

Cutting and pasting vitriol doesn't help much.

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.

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.

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.

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.

by avid Jan 23, 2006

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?????

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
(snip)
This APT has Super Cow Powers.

$ apt-get moo
(__)
(oo)
/------\/
/ | ||
* /\---/\
~~ ~~
...."Have you mooed today?"...

try the latest ubuntu or kubuntu distro. they're debian based and from what i understand use a different Xwindow system (X.org 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.

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?

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 cdrom.com 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.

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.

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.

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.

by underground_in_tn Jan 23, 2006

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

by deadly ernest Jan 23, 2006

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.

by avid Jan 23, 2006

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.

What exactly is the situation? Maybe we can help.

by avid Jan 23, 2006

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.

by rkuhn040172 Jan 23, 2006

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.

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.

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.

by jmgarvin Jan 23, 2006

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.

by rkuhn040172 Jan 24, 2006

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.

by fcometa Jan 24, 2006

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.

by avid Jan 24, 2006

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.

by apotheon Jan 24, 2006

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

by rkuhn040172 Jan 25, 2006

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.

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.

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.

by apotheon Jan 26, 2006

Debian Etch uses X.org -- 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 X.org if you really want to.

by Former member Jan 26, 2006

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

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).

by apotheon Jan 26, 2006

You skipped higher education altogether and went into business as a legally questionable public entertainment interface services engineering entrepreneur -- Windows XP, Vista, et cetera. In common parlance, you became a streetwalker and started prostituting yourself. Good thing you use condoms and get tested for STDs regularly, to protect you from viruses and other infections, with that sort of promiscuous operating systems. Me, I'm in a steady relationship with a responsible, safe, and sexy significant other, and don't have to pay to see her naked: free unix.

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.

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!

:-)

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.

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.

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.

by jmgarvin Jan 26, 2006

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 (www.transgaming.com) and their games db (www.transgaming.org/gamesdb)

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....

And your sexy significant other is hard to understand, has hundreds of near clone like brothers and sisters, hangs out in all kinds of public places just waiting to give herself away for free, and performs great on old, crusty equipment...maybe that's why you like her so much!