Linux

[ydoaPs]

....AOL...*vomits in disgust*...

[Dak]

So...

 

never used linux before, used to xp but willing to learn another OS, above-average computer skills (but by no means l33t), wants to wright documents and brows the web mainly, maybe play the odd game, low-spec computer...

 

which (free) distro of linux would be good for me to dual-boot alongside XP?

[ydoaPs]

i don't know. i am getting knoppix. google should help you some.

[Pangloss]

anyway' date=' (to get a propper handle on the fundamental differenses 'twix linux and windows), am i right in thinking that the kernel handles basic things like talking to the processer, talking to the hdd, stuff like that? does it also encompass handling the data from running prosesses (passing it to and from the ram and processsor for example)?[/quote']

 

It's funny you ask, as I just wrote a paper on this. Yes, that's basically it -- the kernel stands between user-launched programs and restricts direct access to hardware. That separation the main reason why when a program crashes it doesn't take down the whole computer with it.

 

In fact, how the kernel works is a good example of how silly it is to say that Windows or Linux is better, because they both work in basically the same way. They use the same kernel approach, which is usually referred to as "monolithic". Contrast with something like MACH (e.g. Mac OSX), which is sometimes referred to as "modular", "layered", or the "microkernel" approach. The monolithic approach is considered more efficient (faster), but they have a cost in the form of complexity (for example, if you want to update the kernel, you have to rebuild the whole thing, a process that any serious Linux user is intimately familiar with). The modular approach, on the other hand, separates various functions in the kernel, making it easier to debug and to modify, but at a performance cost.

 

In addition, the MACH/microkernel proponents feel that they have an overall advantage in that monolithic operating systems can still be "tied up". What they mean by that is that if you have a process that engages the kernel, and it freezes while doing so, it has theoretically tied up the entire kernel, as opposed to just one module in the kernel. Note that BOTH Linux AND Windows have this problem. Both of them handle it in the same way: By monitoring and disengaging threads from errant processes. (The whole issue of thread cancellation is fascinating and worth many pages of discussion, but the point is that both Linux and Windows use the same approach, based on the "one-to-one" multithreading model, in which errant threads are basically isolated and ignored, reopening access to the kernel. One cool side benefit to this is that if your application is multi-threaded, it can crash and still continue to operate, just like the OS itself can do. In fact the OS (both of 'em) doesn't even distinguish between "applications" at all. It's only interested in processes and threads.)

 

The monolithic people's counter-argument to the MACH people is that you have to do the same thing in MACH or you lose the module, and you need every module to function or you're not "fully functioning" (i.e. you gotta reboot), so is it really an advantage? Plus you have overhead in MACH when you have to share information between modules, which arguably happens most of the time. (Hence the efficiency/speed issue.) This was exemplified in the now-infamous Torvalds-Tanenbaum debate, which pitted Linux and MACH's biggest proponents/designers against one another over this very issue.

 

What did Microsoft do? It ignored the whole my-way-is-better debate and simply addressed the shortcomings of BOTH systems!

 

See, this is one of the areas I mentioned earlier where Proprietary can sometimes have an advantage over Open Source (just as the opposite is also true). Microsoft simply changed its kernel and make it more of a cross between "monolithic" and "modular". The WinXP kernel is more modular than what we had in NT4 -- it's more separated, but it's not as fully separated as MACH is. So it's almost as fast and efficient as the old monolithic approach, but it's more modular and the most common crash-worthy functions are now slightly more separated within the kernel. (This is why IE/Windows Explorer can totally wipe out, and the OS can still recover.)

 

This turns out to be a pretty damn good idea. But Torvalds and Tanenbaum refuse to give any ground. So Linux is stuck with a totally monolithic kernel, and MACH is stuck with a totally modular kernel, and never the twain shall meet. And even the distro devs can't do a damn thing about it -- when they try, Linus screams and stamps his feet. Advantage: Microsoft (for the moment). But not because Windows is "better" -- the advantage cames from having $40 billion in cash and no debt and tens of thousands of programmers sitting around looking for something to do. At other times, on other issues, Linux has the development advantage, far and away, over Microsoft.

 

Put another way, this whole argument is a bit like saying "Discovery" is a better space shuttle than "Endeavor". They're both enormously complicated machines, that do basically the same thing, and do it in basically the same way. So the argument is silly.

[Klaynos]

What type of people are running this web site? Why do they say IE version 6.x is the most recent version? THAT ISN'T EVEN A REAL VERSION NUMBER!

 

The real version number is 6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519 and that number is the version with all the security fixes and updates. The site you posted about is complaining about every security issue with any IE6 browser. The first IE6 was released a long time ago' date=' and Microsoft has made many changes. That is why the version number keeps changing. That site obviously doesn't understand that.[/quote']

 

 

Lets start with this one....

 

They are a world wide system security company.

 

Secunia is a leading provider of IT-security services. Secunia's unique corporate culture has been the driving force behind these services and the success.

 

Secunia is an IT-security company that provides IT-security related services to companies worldwide securing their IT-infrastructure and applications that enable organizations to operate seamlessly.

 

You have show your ignorance by saying 6.x isn't a valid version number as it means all versions of IE version 6. The subsiquent numbers are related to patches and later releases of the same version, they cover the security patches further down the page with a "security issue: patched/unpatched" section.

 

IE is an excellent browser. Every browser has security issues' date=' but Microsoft has WindowsUpdate.com where you can download fixes. Most companies that make browsers don't take the time to update their browsers. Netscape rarely releases any type of updates, and they are one of the worse browsers.

 

Almost all web sites work perfectly with IE. When I tried Netscape, I was unable to enter a chat room that worked fine with IE. When I tried Firefox, I was having trouble accessing StormPay's claim center. When you try these poorly designed browsers, you will always come across web sites that don't work right. Do I even need to mention all the problems AOL members have? Have you noticed that some links say, "Click Here" and then there is a separate link that says, "AOL Users Click Here"? That is because IE can load the web site, and AOL can't. The same thing happens with all other browsers. I own several web sites, and I don't even take the time to make sure my sites work with other browsers. Web site owners shouldn't have to worry about people downloading other browsers when IE comes with almost all computers.

[/quote']

 

Other os's run systems like windows update, which include browsers have a look at apt for debian...

 

Firefox regularly patches security issues.

 

Generally you will have issues with mozilla bassed browsers visiting websites that ie doesn't because you don't have the relavent plugin installed which is doen to reduce the orginal file size so it isn't bloated and so that it reduces the amount of security issues. Or because a website has been written in something like front page which produces html which is not standards complient.

 

I do know some Linux facts. The Linux kernel itself is very simple, and does not have nearly as many features as Windows XP. Unless you were talking about the companies that added on to Linux, and sell it for a profit under another name. I've heard that most of those operating systems have tons of compatibility issues. I would still recommend Windows XP.

 

The windows Kernel is about as simplistic as the linux one, if you can call it simplistitc.

 

Lots of Linux systems DO have compatibillity issues, which is why you use a managed distribution like ubuntu and you use a program such as apt which automatticaly resovels compatibility issues and dependencies, but just like windows this doesn't always work.

 

Why? You are the one that wants a crappy operating system. If Linux was so good, they would be installed on new PCs. I think that PC manufacturers would know which operating system is best for their system. Almost all of them select Windows XP. If everything I am saying is crap, it is strange that so many PC manufacturers seem to agree with me.

 

Firstly people like what is familiar to them, i.e. windows, secondly ms has untill recently and I belive still do offer significant financial advantages if you only sell windows pc's (to the OEM's this is).

 

Ok' date=' if i have a specific problem with my xp, i can usually find some documentation of it on the web, i can find replacement system files to dl of the web, i can usually find the exact problem i have (and the solution) documented on the web, and i can usually find the above in every level of technical language (from noob --> geek), so that whatever my level of understanding i can savvy the answre.

 

is the same true for the variouse linux OSs? How easy could i learn about it and fix any specific problem?

 

and whats a distribution? is the difference between one linux distribution and another the same as, say, the difference between windows xp and windows 98?[/quote']

 

You will genrally be able to find how too's and things for problems, and as they are community supported in most cases most linux distros have very good forums with excellent support staff who will talk you through have to give them the info they need to help you and exactly what to do to fix the problem.

 

Most problems can be fixed relativly easily, to fix my wifi card when I first installed ubuntu I had to type a single command.

 

Anyone can download the linux kernal, a distribution is the linux kernal + other applications which the people running the distribution feel they should include. Most distributions also run some form of package management system, and an updates system to allow you to keep your system secure and up to date. I run ubuntu which have a list of supported programs which they have optimised to run on their distribution, I can download and install them directly from their website using a couple of little applications on my computer.

 

So you can't really draw a comparison between linux distrobutions and windows versions, because there are older versions of ubuntu...

 

have a look at:

 

http://www.distrowatch.com

 

And I agree with Pangloss completely one of the major reasons that worms/viruses etc.. are not seen as much in linux is simply because it isn't used anywhere near as much as windows for desktop's.

 

Can you please explain why that is because the AOL Browser is designed off of the IE5.x Browser

 

AOL have changed their base browser several times (they even bought out netscape but continued to use IE)

 

Compatibility issues might just be due to setup, I am unsure though...

 

So...

 

never used linux before' date=' used to xp but willing to learn another OS, above-average computer skills (but by no means l33t), wants to wright documents and brows the web mainly, maybe play the odd game, low-spec computer...

 

which (free) distro of linux would be good for me to dual-boot alongside XP?[/quote']

 

I would recommend ubuntu, I would also recomend you look at distro watch above.

 

And when you find a distro you like the look of (look at package management, how offten new releases are released how long after the next release the current release has secuirty patches released for it etc...) But be warned that alot of distros ubuntu included do not include such things as mp3 codecs (although there are easy ways to make them work and if you want a hand just ask) because they are propiatory and the distros are infear of legal action

 

And just a comment - knoppix is optimised for use from a cd, never seen it installed I hear it's supposed to be alright but would like to know what you think of it...

 

One of the seriouse problems I see with this argument is that you cannot compare windows' support sytem with "linux" because each distrobution. So the open source - not open source argument is far more relavent, and there are certainly good points for both.

 

 

Hrmm I'm sounding like a fanboy again just because I want to put accross the linux point of view

[1veedo]

Linux is not perfect. Most newbies are quick to point out the problems in any distro. Beeing new, they don't yet understand the power to fix these problems. A quick post in the forums and just like magic, the problem is fixed. Any look in a Windows help forum just prooves that you have to install programs to fix it's bugs. Most programms just uninstall others to get Windows working properly. One I saw actually disables IE's ability to read web standards. You cant uninstall IE (or MSN) because these prorams are integrated in Windows. But you can stop if from being stupid with 3rd party software.

 

As for the IE "fanboy" as Pangloss called him, install firefox and look at the "features" it has compared to IE. I remember running Windows and seeing the Screen Savors talk about how much better it was, so I installed it. I never went to Firefox because IE had security issues, I went just because Firefox is cooler. Tabed browsing is just plain awsome. You can install plugins with ease (literally, just tell it to install Java and it does it for you), and there are these things called extentions. As far as Firefox goes, just trying it is enough to use it over IE. My sister even uses it on our older computer (XP celeron) above IE, and she know nothing about spyware or security. All she looks at is eyecandy, speed, and features.

 

However, firefox isn't perfect. Yes there are security holes. Yes 1.4 had a crashing problem on x86_64, but it's problems are far less then those of IE. (as far as I'm concerned, IE has crashign problems on EVERY version....)

[Dak]

Tabed browsing is just plain awsome.

 

i dont know how i did without it. tabs should be compulsary in every program. even notepad benifits from it (editpad lite is a simple text editer like notepad, with tabs -- very useful).

 

even people who are carnally attracted to internet explorer, id reccomend looking into something like slimbrowser -- its an IE 'wraparound', so its very similar to IE (it uses IE as the core of its program), but ads a few features.

 

as well as better security, it has tabs.

 

tabs are amazing. i openly admit to being a tabs fanboy. anyone who doesnt like tabs is stoopid

[Klaynos]

I remember the days when IE was by far the best browser around and I feel it is a great shame it has lost it's way and from what I hear from people who have used ie 7's current release (beta or alpha I cannot remember) it is not going to be much better

[Klaynos]

i dont know how i did without it. tabs should be compulsary in every program. even notepad benifits from it (editpad lite is a simple text editer like notepad' date=' with tabs -- very useful).

 

even people who are carnally attracted to internet explorer, id reccomend looking into something like slimbrowser -- its an IE 'wraparound', so its very similar to IE (it uses IE as the core of its program), but ads a few features.

 

as well as better security, it has tabs.

 

tabs are amazing. i openly admit to being a tabs fanboy. anyone who doesnt like tabs is stoopid [/quote']

 

tabed programs and multiple workspaces/desktops have change the way I use computers and when I use a computer with a text editor with tabs or multiple desktops I REALLY miss them

[Pangloss]

FWIW, I'm using Mozilla 1.7. I've downloaded Firefox but I've been reluctant to install it, just because I love Mozzie so much. (sniff)

[H2SO4]

I use firefox. great browser.

[herme3]

IE 7 is coming soon, and it will have tabbed browsing with many other things.

 

You have show your ignorance by saying 6.x isn't a valid version number as it means all versions of IE version 6. The subsiquent numbers are related to patches and later releases of the same version, they cover the security patches further down the page with a "security issue: patched/unpatched" section.

 

I was aware of what they meant when they said "6.x". My point was they shouldn't have referred to the version "6.x" because there have been so many changes since the first IE 6 and the newest IE 6. It doesn't make sense to group every IE 6 problem together, because most of those problems have been fixed in the newer versions.

 

Linux is not perfect. Most newbies are quick to point out the problems in any distro. Beeing new, they don't yet understand the power to fix these problems. A quick post in the forums and just like magic, the problem is fixed. Any look in a Windows help forum just prooves that you have to install programs to fix it's bugs. Most programms just uninstall others to get Windows working properly. One I saw actually disables IE's ability to read web standards. You cant uninstall IE (or MSN) because these prorams are integrated in Windows. But you can stop if from being stupid with 3rd party software.

 

I am not a newbie, I am a computer specialist. There are many ways to customize Windows components without installing or uninstalling programs. Just make some edits in the system registry. You can edit almost anything in Windows. If you know what you are doing, you can change the GUI and give Windows XP a completely new look. I'm not talking about just changing the themes in the Control Panel, but you can actually replace the entire Luna GUI.

 

If you aren't a very advanced Windows user, you can download free tweak programs from Microsoft's web site. However, if you are a very advanced user you can modify almost anything. You can even change some of the error messages to say funny things.

 

Just to warn everyone, make sure you backup your registry before attempting anything major. If you mess up your registry, you will have a lot of trouble fixing the operating system.

[ydoaPs]

*cough* fanboy *cough*

[herme3]

*cough* fanboy *cough*

 

I'm not a Microsoft fanboy. In fact, I think the Xbox is junk. I just think Windows XP is the best operating system. Not only is the kernel stable, but it includes many extras that most operating systems don't have. I think the GUI looks better, and it is easier to repair with system restore. Also, the Windows Media Player is nice. The best part is that Windows XP actually works with most programs. Do you really want to go to the store, and look on the system requirements of each program until you finally find one that works with Linux?

[ydoaPs]

i don't really buy a lot of software. you can download a lot of programs that are better than their MS counterparts: ex. xpdf, openoffice, wordperfect...

[Pangloss]

Better? There you go using that word again. To quote one of my favorite movies, I do not think it means what you think it does.

[herme3]

i don't really buy a lot of software. you can download a lot of programs that are better than their MS counterparts: ex. xpdf, openoffice, wordperfect...

 

I like to play games on the computer, and many of my favorite games aren't available on Linux. 3-D games like Need For Speed, SimCity, and many others only work with Windows XP.

 

When I see a good program that I can download from the Internet, I wouldn't want to worry about whether or not it will work with Linux. I would rather use Windows XP, because it will probably be compatible with any program I want.

 

I have been on many forums that are about computers. There are always people asking, "Where can I get a Linux patch for this program?" Normally the answer is, "There isn't one." I just don't understand why people would want to worry about this when Windows XP seems to work fine.

 

I think that Pangloss did an excellent job explaining why Windows XP is so stable:

 

What did Microsoft do? It ignored the whole my-way-is-better debate and simply addressed the shortcomings of BOTH systems!

 

See' date=' this is one of the areas I mentioned earlier where Proprietary can sometimes have an advantage over Open Source (just as the opposite is also true). Microsoft simply changed its kernel and make it more of a cross between "monolithic" and "modular". The WinXP kernel is more modular than what we had in NT4 -- it's more separated, but it's not as fully separated as MACH is. So it's almost as fast and efficient as the old monolithic approach, but it's more modular and the most common crash-worthy functions are now slightly more separated within the kernel. (This is why IE/Windows Explorer can totally wipe out, and the OS can still recover.)[/quote']

 

When I used Windows 98, I had to restart my computer all the time. When a program crashed, the whole system would freeze and the task manager usually didn't work. I suppose that Linux had the same problem.

 

As Pangloss explained, Microsoft has corrected this issue in Windows XP. The Linux issue hasn't been corrected. When one of my programs crashes, I am always happy to see the Windows XP task manager. It ends the crashed process and I don't lose my work in other programs.

[Aeternus]

Ok, not getting involved in the flame war but just to clarify hermes3, I havent once had a program crash the entire system, that wasnt in some way recoverable in Linux. This can not be said for my experiences with Windows XP, there have been numerous times when killing a process in the Task Manager simply doesnt work and only serves to crash the task manager as well. There have been very few times when a simple kill command in linux wouldnt do the job and even then there is simply kill -9 which hasnt failed me so far. Despite what Pangloss has said, there are modules for the Linux Kernel, almost everything can be used as a module rather than compiled directly into the Kernel (I am not sure if this is exactly what he meant but figured i'd mention it). I agree, Windows XP has been an improvement over Windows 98 in terms of stability but saying "I suppose Linux had the same problem" isnt really fair as you havent tested that assumption. I'm not saying Linux in general is better than Windows XP, they each have their advantages but you saying that Windows XP is the clear winner and is obviously the most stable OS around and that Linux obviously has a host of problems and that it doesn't include half the functionality available in Windows XP are just empty arguments, you havent backed them up with any proof, you havent offered any form of evidence other than your own words.

 

You mention that Windows is just as easily customisable as Linux operating systems, this is true to a certain degree, but the fact is Linux is completely and utterly customisable for the advanced user, there is no aspect of it you cant change because all of the core code is open source (this isnt an open source rant as I dont hate proprietary software, simply stating a point). The fact that you can change things within the kernel and remove unnecessary components that arent needed for your system is one aspect (the windows kernel does include alot of added components for compatibility) that is advantageous, the fact that you can not only change the underlying look and feel but also the inner workings of the system is part of the high degree of customisation available. You dont like that Desktop Manager, change it, you dont like that X server, change it, write your own, get someone else to start the project, whatever. You don't like the file system, change it, you dont like the numerous sections of various aspects of the file system. Change it. I'm not saying alot of this can't be done with Windows XP but I am saying that I believe you can do it to a much higher degree in Linux and Unix systems.

 

Again I'm not saying that Windows XP is worse than Linux, I'm not saying Linux is worse than Windows XP, I'm simply saying that both have their feature sets, and both have advantages, and to be honest I think you are seriously overexagerating alot of the faults and even percieved faults in Linux operating systems.

[Klaynos]

When I used Windows 98' date=' I had to restart my computer all the time. When a program crashed, the whole system would freeze and the task manager usually didn't work. I suppose that Linux had the same problem.

[/quote']

 

 

I propose you try using linux before saying such things, if a program manages to kill the windows manager in linux you simply change to a differnt tty and tell it to restart it. Or kill the process, and if that doesn't work terminate the process, something which CANNOT be done in windows. But the windows NT ctrl-alt-del drop to a task manager is a good way of dealing with issues.

 

IE 7 is coming soon' date=' and it will have tabbed browsing with many other things.

[/quote']

 

Having used it and knowing people who have seen the code I have to say I'm not that impressed the tab's seemed to be some what of an after thought to me, it just didn't feel right. Which is a shame I'd like to see a nice new good recoded version of IE I really would

[herme3]

Ok' date=' not getting involved in the flame war but just to clarify hermes3, I havent once had a program crash the entire system, that wasnt in some way recoverable in Linux. This can not be said for my experiences with Windows XP, there have been numerous times when killing a process in the Task Manager simply doesnt work and only serves to crash the task manager as well. There have been very few times when a simple kill command in linux wouldnt do the job and even then there is simply kill -9 which hasnt failed me so far. Despite what Pangloss has said, there are modules for the Linux Kernel, almost everything can be used as a module rather than compiled directly into the Kernel (I am not sure if this is exactly what he meant but figured i'd mention it). I agree, Windows XP has been an improvement over Windows 98 in terms of stability but saying "I suppose Linux had the same problem" isnt really fair as you havent tested that assumption. I'm not saying Linux in general is better than Windows XP, they each have their advantages but you saying that Windows XP is the clear winner and is obviously the most stable OS around and that Linux obviously has a host of problems and that it doesn't include half the functionality available in Windows XP are just empty arguments, you havent backed them up with any proof, you havent offered any form of evidence other than your own words.

 

You mention that Windows is just as easily customisable as Linux operating systems, this is true to a certain degree, but the fact is Linux is completely and utterly customisable for the advanced user, there is no aspect of it you cant change because all of the core code is open source (this isnt an open source rant as I dont hate proprietary software, simply stating a point). The fact that you can change things within the kernel and remove unnecessary components that arent needed for your system is one aspect (the windows kernel does include alot of added components for compatibility) that is advantageous, the fact that you can not only change the underlying look and feel but also the inner workings of the system is part of the high degree of customisation available. You dont like that Desktop Manager, change it, you dont like that X server, change it, write your own, get someone else to start the project, whatever. You don't like the file system, change it, you dont like the numerous sections of various aspects of the file system. Change it. I'm not saying alot of this can't be done with Windows XP but I am saying that I believe you can do it to a much higher degree in Linux and Unix systems.

 

Again I'm not saying that Windows XP is worse than Linux, I'm not saying Linux is worse than Windows XP, I'm simply saying that both have their feature sets, and both have advantages, and to be honest I think you are seriously overexagerating alot of the faults and even percieved faults in Linux operating systems.[/quote']

 

I don't think this is a flame war. We are simply debating which operating system is best.

 

There probably are some advantages to Linux because you can modify the source code. The question is why would you want an operating system that disables your computer's ability to run most programs? I am getting tired of people complaining in other forums about computers. Many people are blaming program designers for not making their programs compatible with Linux. The real problem is that Linux made their computers not compatible with the programs.

 

Software designers should not have to worry about making their programs compatible with Linux. Also, web site owners should not have to worry about other browsers than IE. There is a good chance that the computer came with Windows and IE. If somebody decided to install an operating system that won't work with most programs, that is their own fault. If they really want the program to work, they should go find their Windows restore disc. Stop complaining to the software designers.

 

This would be like buying a good car. Now, let's say that you take out the engine and install the engine for a lawnmower. Sure, it will be easier to fix if something goes wrong. However, I don't think you would be able to drive the car on the road.

 

Or kill the process, and if that doesn't work terminate the process, something which CANNOT be done in windows.

 

What are you talking about? Press ctrl+alt+del in Windows XP and click on the processes tab. You can terminate any process.

[Klaynos]

What are you talking about? Press ctrl+alt+del in Windows XP and click on the processes tab. You can terminate any process.

 

 

No you can send the KILL signal for any process NOT the TERM signal.

[Klaynos]

Software designers should not have to worry about making their programs compatible with Linux. Also' date=' web site owners should not have to worry about other browsers than IE. There is a good chance that the computer came with Windows and IE. If somebody decided to install an operating system that won't work with most programs, that is their own fault. If they really want the program to work, they should go find their Windows restore disc. Stop complaining to the software designers.

[/quote']

 

 

By this same argument WHY should web designers bother to do websites for anything other than FF.

 

Why should developers bother to develope anything for windows?

 

X-Chat for example dev for both linux and windows, and they say that the windows build/dev takes far longer than the linux one so why bother with it?

[Lyssia]

I think that I'd agree wholeheartedly with Aeternus' recent post. I'm not an advanced user of either Windows or *nix; I'm not a hacker who isn't happy with her machine unless she's just broken it; on the whole I use my comp for my work, irc, and messing about with other *nix boxes trying to break them

 

The last Windows machine I used seriously ran (wait for it...) 98. It wasn't a pleasant experience but then it was a rubbish laptop and I had a dial-up connection, so let's not blame the entire sorry tale purely on the OS.

 

WinXP was a huge improvement on 98 (which was the jump I made); I never used ME or 2k so I'm not about to comment. But whilst I was using XP I was also playing about with Red Hat, and whilst I don't pretend to be able to read assembly or all that sort of hip-hop, I was hooked into this non-Windows way of doing things.

 

Perhaps the biggest difference between Windows and *nix that I notice and appreciate is that in the former (even in XP, although here especially it's not as bad as it was in 98), if a program crashes then it takes the box down with it and I have to restart. In all the *nix incarnations I've run on my laptop this hasn't been the case - I can kill a process without it affecting anything else I'm running (which is of course terribly important when you're having uptime battles with people ). Running XP, frequent reboots were a fact of life; now it's a rarity.

 

(Oh, random book rec - Rebel Code. Charts the history of the open source movement. There are bits in it that make me want to shout "OMG YOU'RE SO BIASED!!!" but that's all part of the fun)

 

As for the difference in philosophy between prop and open source, then I prefer the latter. I think that there are enough businesses out there marketing and supporting open source software (not just operating systems) that show that it doesn't need to be prop to be profitable and viable. As a concept, I like the idea that a geek closeted in his room several thousand miles away from anywhere can contribute to the code and get satisfaction and experience from that, rather than be restricted in his "career" by where he lives, how well he does academically, and whose arm he can twist at Redmond. In many ways the idea of closed software seems to me to be taking copyright too far, beyond it's originally intended boundaries.

 

There is an attitude about Microsoft that rubs me up the wrong way. Take for example when they announced plans to introduce a "successor" to the .pdf format - it's not like such a thing is needed, as .pdf works fine and has the advantage that almost any computer on the planet can deal with it. It smacked of Microsoft not liking the fact that here was something that was tremendously popular which they didn't own and thus weren't getting any money out of.

 

There are, of course, more superficial reasons for me choosing *nix over Windows. I like KDE (especially the games bundled with it which you don't find on a Win box); I like the fact that I can choose from at least two different types of "office" program suites (OOo annoys me these days; KOffice is fast becoming my favourite; never used Star Office).

 

What don't I like about *nix? The file system. Well, it's not that I don't like it per se, it's just that it takes some practise to get to grips with it, and I haven't had the time to do that yet.

 

My solution would be to encourage more people to use *nix systems (I started with RH/Fedora, then switched to FreeBSD), as too many just use Windows because it's there. Manufacturers should give home users a real choice in the OS that their computer comes pre-installed with (this kind of issue makes me quite supportive of the EU's rapping of M$'s knuckles over it's monopoly abuse). If the market share is more evenly spread between different ways of organising the hard disk, then this will surely lead to more mainstream programs (yes, games too, for the gaming freaks amongst us ) being portable, hopefully a reduction in Windows prices (we can dream, can't we!) and quality being kept up and increased. However much Mr. Gates and his empire may annoy me, I think there's going to be a place for his type of computing. I'd just like to see a fair crack of the whip being given to those who dare to think differently.

 

Lyssia

[Aeternus]

Hermes3,Ok, first of all, you are REALLY exageratting the number of WINDOWS programs that won't run of Linux. Wine and WineX will run a large number of them, the main problems being games (alot of which WILL run using WineX/Cedega). You seem to think that Windows programs and Windows based games are the only pieces of software that matter. A huge amount of software runs on Linux and Unix systems, including alot of Windows written software and due to the increasing use of .net software along with the development of Mono, you will be seeing alot more of these types of programs.

 

The fact is the majority of Linux operating systems followed the standards set out by the makers, the problems are that Windows decides to implement things either slightly differently, or adds non standard features that certain games decide to use. This then means that the games wont work on other standardised operating systems as they have utilised the extended or just different functionality in Windows. The point is you are using the fact that Microsoft has become a majority to argue that it should determine the course of the entire software industry and that anything it comes out with is obviously "the standard" which isnt true and certainly shouldnt be as it simply allows them to chop and change "the standard" whenever they like to cripple competition.

 

You argue that people shouldnt have to code websites in addition to IE. This is complete rubbish from my experiences, I have had to add additional functionality BECAUSE of IE. IE often does things in a completely different way to the standards set out and to other browsers. This causes numerous problems developing interesting sites. Take for example XMLHttpRequest(), IE implements this in an ActiveX Object, which completely cripples the functionality in alot of systems because people turn ActiveX off for security reasons (sometimes advised by microsoft due to a recent bug or exploit). This means not only do I have to add additional checks for IE over other browsers but I also have to implement a fall back setup JUST to be compatible with current modern browsers.

 

You state that "every problem with IE 6 will be sorted out in IE 7". This MAY be true, although it is certainly not for definite (given the original promises for things such as Longhorn etc and the actual outcome), however that is completely irrelevant. It is like me saying "ok my new ferrari will run just as fast as your 'car x' once I get it upgraded", not only do you have the problem that you are only getting "as good as" the other browsers mentioned in terms of features, you also have the problem that this is a future upgrade, it isnt even here yet so using it as an arguement for the here and now is preposterous.

 

Lastly I think Klaynos was referring to the fact that there are often processes that simply wont terminate. You can tell a process to stop but whether or not it will die nicely is another thing. There isnt an actual command to KILL a process, only to try and shutdown that process which doesnt always work.

 

Again, I like Windows, I like Linux, but seriously actually try out both for a reasonable amount of time and get into it a bit. If you give Linux a chance, it has some serious advantages. You probably wouldnt change over to it, and thats fine, but at least you might give it some semblence of respect.

[Klaynos]

Have a play with knoppix, it's a live cd quite slow but a good demo of linux.

 

or as just suggested to me:

 

http://www.freesbie.org/?section=home-en