# Why Should i change to linux



## r_o_c_k (Nov 26, 2005)

what is good about linux ?
i dont know if i should change and could i run windows and linux side by side???
if so how ?


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

If you have to ask that question, you probably should just stick to Windows.


----------



## r_o_c_k (Nov 26, 2005)

Oh how very helpful you are (if you dont have anything useful to say dont say it !!
if anybody else will actually tell me i would be thankfull for the help


----------



## almightybob7 (Apr 7, 2005)

well, what's good about linux is it's security, and how it's usually free (including everything installed into it) another thing is that linux comes in tons of different types, and can be used for tons of different things. linux is also very customizable, but it takes some technological/linux know-how to change things. 

Linux has a rather steep learning curve, but there are some distros that aim to make linux easy to use. 

And yes, Windows and Linux can be run side by side, but if you're planning on just using linux to learn it, then I suggest you check out LiveCDs, which allow you to run the linux operating system from a CD, without installing it on your hard drive. 

That said, I think that you should probably stay with Windows, unless you just want to learn how to use Linux.


----------



## CouchMaster (May 26, 2003)

Just run a few Linux live CDs - (they are all free) And if you like one install it.


----------



## Tapeuup (Apr 6, 2005)

r_o_c_k said:


> what is good about linux ?


no virus or spyware software required. For complete newbies it can be quite frustration, language is "similar" to DOS commands, in other words you can't just click on "setup" to install programs but you have to enter codes. It took me when I was a complete newbie about 6 hours to update Firefox... no joke, once you get the hang of it things run a little smoother.


----------



## tdi_veedub (Jan 29, 2004)

For servers, Linux is awesome. I have a slackware 9 box running for 2 years now problem free.

If by good you mean using it as a desktop, forget about it. While certain distro's like Ubuntu have made great strides in the ease of use area, it is still not good enough for your everyday user. ... Linux does alot of things better, for cheaper. However it takes alot of work To get it there. For example, I do alot of video/capture and editing with Linux because I am not prepared to spend $1000's on software to capture my home movies. However, in order to get everything working the way I wanted, I spent 1 full day downloading, compiling, linking and installing various source, binaries, and libraries.


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

Were you were using Slackware or Ubuntu to do all that? 
The desktop in Linux is no harder to learn than the windows desktop. I use it every day and have been using it for many years.


----------



## saikee (Jun 11, 2004)

If one use Windows he/she can get 2 to 3 MS operatings systems in the box using Windows own boot loader.

In Linux he/she can pile all the MS systems together plus another 100 operating systems from Linux, BSd, Solaris... and boot it with one Linux boot loader.

NT Windows of Windows can't be copied and there is no facility to clone a bootable backup. Linux can clone XP and Win2k. It can do it with a LIveCD that doesn't even need to be installed in a hard disk.

XP requires activation if there is a substantial change to the hardware. The OEM verion of XP, according to the purchase agreement, is for one machine only and supposed to die with it. Linux can be moved from partition to partition, hard disk to hard disk and PC to PC.

Just three of the many powerful features Linux can offer.

If a Windows user bothers to check out Linux then he/she must get wind of there is a free but better system around. I know it is too good to be true but that is what open source have done to the world. Linux is a people's system and jointly developed by many nations. There are simply more people working on Linux and they do it for the love of it.

I got in because a 4x4 forum user casually commented that he hadn't seen anything Windows can do that Linux can't. That was two years ago..


----------



## tdi_veedub (Jan 29, 2004)

Lynch,

My server is slackware. My desktop is Ubuntu. The dekstop interface itself is not inherently the problem. Getting it to a point where doing customized tasks everyday (like video capturing/editing) on a nice GUI interface(ie: Kino) as opposed to the CLI is another story. When I am doing end user type tasks on a system, I want point and click. I want a nice GUI. I'm willing to work at it to get it there. Joe Sixpack is not.

Out of the box, for everyday stuff like internet browsing, email, office, music etc. Ubuntu is great, it makes things nice and easy. Getting DVD and MP3 playback is easy enough by reading the wiki so that's not an issue, even for a normal user. But for anything else, you have to start messing with the CLI, something a normal user can't do. A normal user may be able to install a package, then install the necessary dependancies, but what happens when there is a problem with the dependancy, or there is no nice package for it, or the repositories are down?



> I got in because a 4x4 forum user casually commented that he hadn't seen anything Windows can do that Linux can't. That was two years ago..


While that may be true (except for gaming), that is not the point. The point is that unless it is as easy to use, AND manage as Windows, normal useres won't bother.


----------



## prunejuice (Apr 3, 2002)

tdi_veedub said:


> However, in order to get everything working the way I wanted, I spent 1 full day downloading, compiling, linking and installing various source, binaries, and libraries.


Do you want to know how much time people spend cleaning/disinfecting their Windows machines?
Spend a little time in the XP Forum and read the sad and frustrating posts of people struggling through HJT logs.

CCleaner
Spybot
HJT
Ewido....

....yeah, whatever.


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

tdi_veedub said:


> Lynch,
> 
> My server is slackware. My desktop is Ubuntu. The dekstop interface itself is not inherently the problem. Getting it to a point where doing customized tasks everyday (like video capturing/editing) on a nice GUI interface(ie: Kino) as opposed to the CLI is another story. When I am doing end user type tasks on a system, I want point and click. I want a nice GUI. I'm willing to work at it to get it there. Joe Sixpack is not.


 But, you did say that only took you a day. That's pretty good, I think. It takes time to do anything well, right?
You and I are _not_ Joe Sixpack. Is'nt there is a lot of stuff you have to do via CLI in XP, also, when you have to get down and dirty with that OS? I started out with the old Mac GUI, then Win98; when I first start using Linux I was'nt too crazy about having to use a terminal for some tasks, and I probably could have avoided it had I stuck to the mainstream distributions. They have a lot of GUI configuration utilities in Suse/Yast, Mandriva/MCC and the various individual Redhat/Fedora GUI apps. I have just grown into using the CLI for a lot of things because I find some tasks are just easier that way. But if a user wants to take the extra time to point-n-click thier way through a task, that's fine too. For example, I think the best package management systems are CLI-based.



> Out of the box, for everyday stuff like internet browsing, email, office, music etc. Ubuntu is great, it makes things nice and easy. Getting DVD and MP3 playback is easy enough by reading the wiki so that's not an issue, even for a normal user. But for anything else, you have to start messing with the CLI, something a normal user can't do. A normal user may be able to install a package, then install the necessary dependancies, but what happens when there is a problem with the dependancy, or there is no nice package for it, or the repositories are down?


I think the dependency hell thing ( for the most part) comes from:
1. Not installing all the development packages during OS installation.
2. People going outside thier distribution's repositories to find programs without taking the time to do a little research, ie. tracking down a lib you may need to run the program. 
This happens in windows when people install freeware that is'nt well packaged and you get those missing dll messages.
There are times when servers are down. No matter if it's a Debian repository mirror or the Windows Update server(s).
I'm not really disagreeing with you, ; I just thought I would expand on my take on it.
I hope this isnt going to scare that guy off.
lynch


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

Tapeuup said:


> no virus or spyware software required..


Definitely NOT true

there are numerous worms & trojans that only target Linux, mainly aimed at servers but if you have a Linux box at home you get the fall out so an AV is essential and that means more expense as the windows av don't work on linux

There are several new malwares that are designed to attack both windows & linux in their attempts to spread and they are becoming more prevalent

The days of relying on a non windows op system to avoid spyware & viruses have long gone I'm afraid

At this time Linux is not really suitable for a home user as a main or primary system

It's fine to play around with and learn from and it is a steep learning curve, but every day & mission critical stuff is still far simpler to do with windows


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

Care to back that up with some facts?
BTW. There are several excellent free AV utilities for Linux/UNIX. Mainly to clean the crud out of emails sent from windows machines. I've never had a virus/worm/trojan/rootkit in the all the years I've been running Linux.
FUD.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

lynch said:


> Care to back that up with some facts?
> BTW. There are several excellent free AV utilities for Linux/UNIX. Mainly to clean the crud out of emails sent from windows machines. I've never had a virus/worm/trojan/rootkit in the all the years I've been running Linux.
> FUD.


http://www.informationweek.com/hardware/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=186700032

The current trend we are seeing over the last couple of months are deliberate attacks on webservers ( the majority of which run linux) because they can infect linux & spread the worms faster & use the servers as botnets & get more coverage using less infected machines so making it harder for av companies to prevent as the numbers are lower so less reports to the companies


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

Every computer that is connected to the net, Regardless of what operating system it uses needs antivirus and it's strongly recommended to use a firewall 

Non windows systems are becoming popular enough now for malware writers to target them and make their efforts worthwhile


----------



## Tapeuup (Apr 6, 2005)

dvk01 said:


> Definitely NOT true


If so, sorry about the statement & thanks dvk for clearing that up! this is only what I've heard and have not experienced with. I thought Linux was completely safe, maybe so a few years ago... another assumption Even from surfing the web I found that Linux is virus/spyware proof.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

Many people using Linux have been lucky enough until now to avoid the misery of worms/viruses & trojans but unfortunately those days are at an end as the MAC users have started to find out 

Almost all the modern viruses/worms/trojans and other malwares are designed to either steal information/identities or get you to part with your cash in some way, whether by pop up ads or by conning you in some way 

Until now they have concentrated on windows as the easiest targets and teh most numerous

As the alternative op systems like MAC & *nix have become more popular and widespread it is now worth their time to attack those as well & gain a benefit from the attacks

Thankfully the day of the virus writer making avirus to cause damage for damage sake seems to have gone and it's all about making money now


----------



## r_o_c_k (Nov 26, 2005)

Thanks for all the help. i really and very pleased


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

Kapersky Labs does'nt report facts, they fail to report facts:http://software.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=06/04/10/2218210&tid=78


> Have you heard the "news"? There's a new virus that attacks both Linux and Windows machines. Thus, once and for all, there is an end to the notion that Linux is somehow immune to the viral infections that plague the Windows world. Or at least so one anti-virus software vendor would have the world believe.
> 
> Of course, there are a few caveats behind the headlines. One minor thing is that the alleged virus -- called Virus.Linux.Bi.a -- being trumpeted far and wide by Kaspersky Lab is not really a virus, but rather "proof of concept" code, designed to show that such a virus could be written.
> 
> A second caveat is that for it to work on Linux, a user has to download the program and then execute it, and even then, it can only "infect" files in the same directory the program is in. Exactly how the program gets write permissions even in that directory is not explained.


----------



## dpak (Jul 14, 2005)

Linux is definately not completely safe from viruses/malware, but it is about 10,000 times safer than a Windows system. I don't know the exact numbers, but I'd estimate there are about 10000 to 1 viruses/malware for Window vs. Linux. Linux doesn't have the popularity that Windows does and therefore something like an email based or web-based virus targeted at Linux just wouldn't spread. Like one of you said, the malware people are out to make money, and targeting Linux desktop systems is just not worth the time and effort. Linux servers providing internet services, yes, are just as vulnerable as Windows servers, but on the desktop side, Linux is vastly more secure.

That being said, as Linux gains more market share, it will start to get targeted more often.


----------



## FF103 (Jul 11, 2003)

I'm afraid I'm with lynch on this one. I have been running a linux desktop for about 5 years now and have never had a virus on my machine. Also a comment on linux not being ready for the daily desktop user, that's a little misleading. I have installed a linux OS on two laptop computers in the past 2 weeks and they both love it and are having no more difficulties than someone learning to use winXP for the first time. As to the ease of use linux OS, have a look at PCLinuxOS, it's a live CD and programs do install by a nice "point and click" gui.And the dependency problems are a non issue because the programs are installed from it's on repo that are written just for PCLinuxOS.:up:


----------



## prunejuice (Apr 3, 2002)

What's easier? Learning Linux, or learning all the spyware/virus cleaning
procedures on a Windows machine?

I'm betting you'll have an Ubuntu setup all configured before you figure out
how to interpret a HijackThis log.


----------



## cartesian1984 (Apr 30, 2006)

The issue lies in one of the most basic concepts in computing, file permissions. At least in my interpretation. Since UNIX based operating systems disallow the access of non-root run applications to system configuration and binaries, it is doubtful that an up to date Linux machine will be infected. Even so, it would have to be manually run by root, since there is such variety in applications on open source platforms. 

Trojans would be difficult to do, since most users don't use apps from the web, and just retrieve them from their distro's repositories, the content of which is generally compiled by the distro's maintainer. Aside from a generally vulnerable design most Windows XP users run as administrator, effective equivalent of root, with near infinite permissions. Very few Linux users run as root, and in Ubuntu, the root account is disabled by default. The way one accesses root privileges is via the 'sudo' command, which asks for your password. In this way, one can prevent anything from running. 

Unless an application that has to be ran as root is trojanized, which is very rare, since Ubuntu's Universe repository contains over 15000 applications, which can be individually installed via commands, instantly, the source of which was reviewed by people thankfully more paranoid than I am. 

Granted, sudo has an equivalent in windows, 'Run as'. but this requires giving the limited user the administrative password, whereas sudo allows for accountable use of administrative privleges in a manner

Lack of effective and widespread has nothing to do with Linux's lack of presence in the desktop world, in fact, since most servers run some sort of UNIX, with open source applications, one might wonder why there aren't more. The reason Windows is targeted is not only because of its widespread usage, but because it has an inferior design. The RPC model, the method of interprocess communication, the metafile implementation (which is more than likely an intentional backdoor) are just a few of many flaws that have existed since the early days of Windows, and will be carried on into Vista and Blackcomb.

Mac OS X users, who are mostly on the client side, with few servers, have seen a few worms recently. They were proof-of-concept viruses, which didn't spread beyond their initial testing subjects. I seriously doubt a great number of OS X viruses will appear in the near future. OS X is one platform where obscurity, and a solid open source (though not entirely) base, makes it next to impossible to get a virus. Unless you ran as root on a network full of PoC virus writers.

Not to say that you should absolutely switch to Linux or OS X. I didn't play many games on Windows (Linux's main weak point due to lack of people writing games for it) but am an obsessive compulsive modder and tweaker, and am very paranoid. So I didn't stick with Windows for very long. If Windows satisfies all your needs, and you don't want to learn a little bit to use another OS, then by all means, get a firewall, get an antivirus, and start turning off unneeded services.

I don't know where you want your computing experience to end up, but in the world of open source, the only thing you have to fear is fear itself.


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

Hi, cartesian1984. That's quite an interesting and well-written first post.


----------



## cartesian1984 (Apr 30, 2006)

Thanks much, lynch.


----------



## rob.rice (Apr 18, 2006)

disk space and speed 
a full linux install will use around 3Gig and half of that can be removed a rescue system that can be installed to fix the main system needs only about 200 Megs with a minmal GUI (roughly equal to windows out of the box )
most linux apps need only 20% of the space of a windows program 
speed I have a 1.1Ghz machine sitting next to a 450Mhz machine 
and the 450Mhz machine runs just as fast as the 1.1Ghz machine
this is with a stock kernel it could do better if I build another kernel for it 
If linux was installed by the OEM as a desktop machine the only thing you would miss is the games 

linux can be fixed I have a linux install that hasn't ben reinstalled for 4 years 

stable I had a computer that wasn't rebooted for 6 months 


If you whant to start learning linux call your local computer repair shops and find a $50.00 computer without an O/S at least a 250Mhz get the display,mouse and keyboard from a local junk shop another $10.00 to $20.00 to install linux on you will be much bolder on this computer than your windows machine if you don't like linux then you can set up this machine as a hardware firewall keep the mouse.keyboard and display as spairs


----------



## cartesian1984 (Apr 30, 2006)

dvk01 said:


> Every computer that is connected to the net, Regardless of what operating system it uses needs antivirus and it's strongly recommended to use a firewall


I personally wouldn't spend the memory to run an antivirus on a Linux or BSD system, unless maybe it was a mailserver catering to Windows users. Its a waste, really. No virus can hurt my root filesystem without root privileges. My documents won't be affected unless I run a virus manually. I have had a directory with 48 linux viruses in it, mostly proof of concept, for about two months now. I run chkrootkit and rkhunter occasionally, and do auditing with nmap and nessus.

Firewalls, too, are unnecesarry. They have their uses, but as Sander Plomp writes in RootPrompt.org's Amateur Fortess Building in Linux, the firewall frequently becomes "becomes the ultimate single point of failure". He explains much better than I do.
http://rootprompt.org/article.php3?article=931#firewalls


----------



## jflan (Jun 27, 2005)

rock,
I am Joe Sixpack. I am also on SUSE 10.0 / Konqueror as I type this.
It is a free Live CD / Install CD that I found in Linux Pro magazine.
Glad that they didn't ask for credentials prior to purchase  
Using the Live function at the moment for my initial test-drive. I will be installing SUSE 10.0...very, very happy with it.
It detected my wireless network (D-Link, Linksys and Actiontec components) and bingo! I'm out in the world without having to kiss Bill's ring  
JF


----------

