Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX

Dispersing the Linux Lies

<< < (4/8) > >>

voidmain:
Linux IS ready for a lot of desktops but unfortunately it'll be a little while longer before most large corporations will put it out on their desktops.  I think the day is definately coming though, and so does Microsoft, which is why they are getting so heavily in to other markets (gaming, phones, etc). I think they know that their days are numbered. Some people might think I'm loopy but it will happen.

Bateluer:
Linux is not ready to take windows place on the desktop, YET. There are too many people who don't know anything about computers and would be totally lost with linux. Just the fact that you still have to do things in the command line will kill its chances.

I like linux, but I am not a command line nut. Give me a GUI anyday.

LunchboX:

quote:Originally posted by Garden GNOME:
Um, just what are you doing to your poor computer to make it where you have to re-install Windows XP every day?  I swear for such smart Linux users some people pretend to be it seems strange that they would have so much trouble with an OS that is nearly idiot-proof.[ March 09, 2002: Message edited by: Garden GNOME ]
--- End quote ---


I never said I'm a "smart Linux user" but I do have to reinstall it almsot every day. And I did say that I think it's just my copy of XP, so don't start going nuts over this little post.

 
quote:Originally posted by Garden GNOME:
Um, just what are you doing to your poor computer to make it where you have to re-install Windows XP every day?
--- End quote ---
For example, one day it just decided not to get an IP from my router. After hours listening to ech support, I was told I had to reinstall Windows because the "internet settings" had to be reinstalled and the only way to do so was to reinstall Windows. Maybe there is a way, but hell, not a way I heared of.

[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: LunchboX ]

Centurian:
Hey,

I really did not want to post to this thread. In fact I have been trying to avoid it. However there are things being said on both sides that I personally must disagree with based on my personal experience.

I am on an Athlon 1600 right now. I have a dual boot system with Win98SE (2 gig) and Mandrake 8.1  (28 gig). I only use Windows for a couple games nothing else.

First I want to defend a few points for Windows. (Yes I am shocked I am doing this also)

Win95 only requires 35-120 meg for an install. It will run on a 386 with 4 megs of ram. HEH but strangely it won't run on my Athlon.

My W98SE install totals 272 megs for the complete OS and programs. With the games I added the total is over 500 megs.

Windows programs are very bloated due to what is required for windows. The only exception to this is older versions of VB. In principle the runtime distribution allowed VB programs to be extremely small. Unfortunately it also caused them to be very slow.
Windows boots much faster than Linux.

Ok now why Windows sucks.
Windows is built on poor architecture.
Windows is a virus trap because of the poor architecture.
You constantly get blue screens of death causing you to reboot constantly.
Yes you do have to re-install alot. I re-installed at least once a month if not more when I was programming under windows. Hell sometimes I actually re-installed daily. Windows integration causes alot of this problem. That is a good reason to partition your Windows system with several drives.

Linux on the other hand is slow to boot up.
However on my Athlon once booted it screams although it ran slowly on the celeron (but that was a piece of shit "Made for Windows 98" Comp).

Yes Mandrake 8.1 IS ready for the desktop crowd. You can do anything you want in the GUI under Mandrake. No command line required. The only difference is you do have to get used to the way things are setup in Mandrake as compared to Windows. Basically you learn a different way of thinking. I don't know enough about the other distro's yet to say if they are ready for desktop users.

Stability....Mandrake does not lock up my comp. Rarely I have a program crash but it is only the program not the entire OS. If a program locks up I can click XKill and then click the program and boom it is fixed. No reboots required.

Everybody has the right to their choice of OS. My wife uses Win98 all the time and it works for her but she does not do anything heavy with her comp, just surfs the net, email, write web pages and work with her camera. So for her Win98 is OK. When I was using the comp she is using now (the celeron mentioned above) I ate it up constantly running windows.

Anyway I just wanted to clear up those points.

Calum:
we've seen a bunch of dumbass posts in recent weeks, all about this exact same thing. The annoying thing about this one is that for a change, everyone is having a proper civilised discussion. This must be because of GardenGNOME's good communication skills in starting off on the right foot.
May i say my few cents' worth though?

Windows is bloated.
It really is.
i swear, my initial installation of windows took up about 500Mb of space, not too bad, but that was with no programs, well i installed MS office, and a few small apps like winzip, winrar, quicktime, etc, and HEY PRESTO! 4 gigabytes of space taken up, and a low disk space warning. Here's the rub: try uninstalling all those programs, and it will STILL take up 4 gigabytes. now that sucks.
I think my installation of redhat linux was about 600Mb and i have added a small few Mb of programs since, and... wait for it... it's STILL not got any bigger. Plus, i have hundreds of programs.
I may never use them, and i can get rid of them anytime i want, but hundreds is better than the dozen or so i have on windows, especially since they don't get any bigger on the disk...

Desktop OS. Windows is a bit easier to configure than linux, but it gives you less options. That's not strictly true though, but if you want to make changes that windows doesn't offer you, you will have to jump through hoops big time.
Linux has more options, a whole lot more, and this of course makes it bloody hard to figure out at first. i haven't figured out a way to not use the command line yet. Actually so far (i have had linux for nearly 2 weeks) it seems a lot easier to me to use the command line for a lot of things, it will be difficult though for me to introduce this OS to my M$ assimilated girlfriend... (she hates M$' business related antics with a passion, but i am dreading how she will relate to the physical workings of 'the alternative' to windows)

Linux falls down on compatibility with newer or rarer hardware. i think linux has much better 'plug and play' (if you can call it that!) than windows for the things it does support, but for the things linux doesn't support, watch out.
I know a bunch of people who have odd soundcards, or USB devices or whatever that are a bitch to configure in linux. i understand that it is possible to get linux working with a lot of devices using redirects and bypasses (or whatever you call it in computerese!) whereas with windows, you would have to hope somebody had written a driver for whatever it was...
basically, it is possible to prove that x beats the pants off of y regardless of what x and y are, but it is all a matter of configuring and tweaking. Of course this brings up the issue of how much tweaking can be done based on time, expertise and of course luck. The answer to this will be different for each person.

My considered opinion is that the windows vs linux debate is moot, and that the real issue is M$'s political agenda. Of course my point of view may be moot to people whose priorities do not match my own.
that was maybe about ten cents worth i reckon, so sorry, but i feel okay about it because a lot of the other posts in this forum have been longies too.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version