Linux: Why is linux any good ?

Huh?

Who provides drivers to get hardware to work on Windows? The hardware manufacturers, of course. So when they don't write drivers for Linux, they're responsible for every bit of kit that doesn't work. Not the OSDL or the kernel developers. Not the distro developers.

Or do you really think that Microsoft have a huge team of people reverse-engineering hardware devices?

I don't know precisely what you mean by "the lame excuse Microsoft used for Windows 95". I'm assuming you mean when Microsoft promised plug 'n' play.

It was partly Microsoft's problem, for not implementing standard drivers for standard devices (all of which are implemented in Linux and have been for a long time). But it was still mostly the manufacturer's fault, for not updating their drivers to "just work" in the new environment. When in Rome, do as the Romans do... well, in the beginning, 3rd party drivers didn't install the way the Romans did.

(NT) Can I ask why you watch the Cubs?

by R. Proffitt  - 9/9/06 9:46 AM

The Last Post I'll Make In This Discussion (Cheers!)

My posts are a little irritated/irritating.

First of all, anyone who says that installing Windows XP from scratch is as difficult as installing a Linux is deceiving others. It's simply not true.

Starting with:

downloading of three or four 600M ISOs from extremely slow academic ftp sites that reset themselves regularly and limit the user count;

to burning the ISOs to CDs;

to answering numerous mildly detailed questions about the installation (I'm thinking Debian here);

to hunting for compatible drivers for dated pieces of hardware;

to logging in as "root" in a command window to run a non-graphical editor to modify a text file for the X11 driver so it will load;

Linux distros are joy-killers that make paying for software a pleasure for most.

Windows XP takes about 45 minutes to install from a CD. It's a total no-brainer if you have the CDs that came with your hardware, because all hardware vendors who wish to exist provide what you need to optimize your hardware with Windows.

Then you go to Windows Update and let the site analyze and update your machine. Depending on your connection speed, that may take another thirty minutes to one hour to a day (on dialup). (You have to do the same thing with Linux distros as well. The process is just more cloaked with risk and uncertainty.)

Then if you want Unix-like security you can then spend another five minutes adding a non-privileged user account and turning off "simple file sharing." Any additional time spent beyond that is spent fixing stuff from ISVs who wrote their software for Windows 98. (Use Explorer to open up the "Program Files" folder or the root folder where the program is installed, and allow "Users" full control over the folder from the security tab, and then maybe open up the Windows folder and allow users full control over a couple of poorly placed "INI" files.

I am especially irritated because it seems to me that the "Linux" crowd is following the same path as the "Unix" crowd of yesteryear, before Windows swept "Unix" from the field of play in desktops and workstations because of its economy and powerful features.

To wit: the "Linux" crowd claims substantial advantages that in my experience are impossible to verify or achieve for most users, just like "Unix" backers did. For "Linux" there is "OpenSource"; for "Unix" there was "open standards." For Linux there is "cross-platform compatability" between different distros; for "Unix" there was "cross-platform compatibility" for different hardware platforms.

The "Unix" vendor support that no one could afford has been replaced by the "Linux community" support. In practice, the "community" is anything but: they continually knock each other's distributions, vitiating any real progress. They argue about license clauses, intellectual property limitations, the purity of their motives, etc. The community Web sites are also instructive -- sort of a Tower of Babel where many dialects purporting to be English are used, with the resulting "twelve blind men and the elephant" syndrome rampant.

(Please note the "Linux" vendor business model is the same as the "Unix" vendor model, with the exception of first cost: doing things in the OS is hard, so please pay for subscription support after you buy into the product. Contrast that with the Microsoft model: we make things easy to do, so once you pay we provide mainly free well-organized support in your native language for things you broke or problems with the product.)

Yes you are free when you use a Linux derivative: you are free to personally accept its numerous limitations, ranging from lack of organized support, to limitations on what applications you can load (any popular OpenSource product will have a Windows version -- is that true in reverse?), to relearning how everything works, to running old versions of software, to learning how to compile things, to provide total self-support. Some people like these terms, most people can't do it.

So, finally, back to the original title to the question we explored: why is Linux any good? My answer as a computer use advocate and businessman is that the question is moot, at least for desktops: Linux isn't good.

Exactly what kind of operating system are you using?

Firefox from the Mozilla site is a special case: They don't provide instructions. When the community figures out how to install the thing, usually someone comes up with a shell script which automatically installs Firefox for you.

Kernel version doesn't matter to 99.99% of Linux apps. Haven't you heard of people upgrading their kernel in-place?

I'm not sure how Acrobat Reader is really that difficult to set as the default. Gnome picks it up as a handler for PDF files, so all I had to do is was right-click, go to the Properties, click the Open With tab, and click on Adobe Reader.

I don't know what your whole issue with the different distributions is, so I won't answer that one.

1. Rely on the community - haven't you heard of paid support? All the commercial distributions offer it. Even some ''community'' ones do too. You don't think that businesses are choosing Red Hat because they like the logo?

2. Switch to another distro - why don't you try that? Switch to something that is more suitable to a newbie.

3. Try a compatibility program - For what purpose?

4. Wait 'til next year - Much better than waiting 5 years, like Win XP...

why is linux any good ?

Linux is better FreeBSD is better windows is better.

Not going to get involved in that circular flame war. BUT ! I began using using SuSE 8.2 personal in 2000, and have toyed and still do, with various linux distros. Especially partial to Slackware and FreeBSD. Linux is "good" because it is free, it is open source, it has a planet of extremely talented developers working on it around the clock, it is (almost) impervious to spyware\adware\malware\viruses. Whether purchaced from a vendor, or downloaded from the net it can be installed to any computer with a > or = to 80MHz processor, and chopped installs will run on less then that. There are no magic, secret numbers or "let's activate winblos" dialogue boxes. No one was murdered for code. It is undeniably much more secure then some operating systems, (yahoo and many others use "nix" derivative servers because it is a bit "tighter"). The user controls the system. The G.U.I can be separated from the rest of the operating system in case the user wants a light load system, for running a server, or what-ever reason.. There are no web browsers weaved into the system.. It is a modular system. That being said.. it does have its warts. Hardware is an issue because hardware vendors (most) are insatiable, greedy, capitalist pigs, and they lock the code (nvidia is not among the scum) though some crafty folks reverse engineer and at least we now have some support for ltwinmodems and conextant modems. (easily reolved by buying a 25 dollar real hardware modem) They don't suck resources from the system like winmodems do. ubuntu is a good distro for those who just want to point and click, SuSE used to be, until novell got involved. It is not as "user friendly" as windows. Sometimes you have to think. I do not use windows for anything anymore, though I did dual-boot with it for a while before heaving the windows disk in the trash. Don't get me wrong.. I like windows.. It keeps small shops busy, cleaning all the gremlins out of windows boxes.

buy

Ok, maybe i was a little harsh. But there are versions of linux that you buy. I see them in computer stores. Right now i'm looking at freespire as my first linux os. I've been to the boards and they say it should support my hardware. Also they now offer cnr basic for free now. I know alot of linux users look down on freespire,but it would be a good one to learn with. For me anyways.