# Linux just didn't cut it.. maybe i'm missing somehting?



## Muffy7 (Apr 13, 2005)

Well after 3 successful trials of distros (slax, ubuntu, and puppy) i've come to the conclusion that i'm sticking with windows xp...

its just, the windows environment is so much more versatile as far as programs, i can't live without photoshop, or premier, or winamp, or other really great programs!

i feel like all these branches of linux are really just for people angry with microsoft as a corporate sell out company, rather then great os makers... seriously i think windows is amazing and yeah it has its flaws with security and other loopholes... but thats not entirely their fault because hackers exist... but either way.. i think i'm sticking with windows 



P.S. (if you think theres something really important i'm missing with linux, let me know!)


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

Muffy7 said:


> Well after 3 successful trials of distros (slax, ubuntu, and puppy) i've come to the conclusion that i'm sticking with windows xp...


How much time did you spend with each of these distributions? If they were successful, why would you go back to windows?



> its just, the windows environment is so much more versatile as far as programs, i can't live without photoshop, or premier, or winamp, or other really great programs!


Linux does the same things as windows without them making all the choices for you.


> i feel like all these branches of linux are really just for people angry with microsoft as a corporate sell out company, rather then great os makers...


 That does not really make a lot of sense (unless you're trolling for an argument or a flame war); Linux is a multi-billion dollar industry, if you had'nt noticed. 


> seriously i think windows is amazing and yeah it has its flaws with security and other loopholes... but thats not entirely their fault because hackers exist... but either way.. i think i'm sticking with windows


Yes it is thier fault. If they wrote better code or at least concentrated on security more than they do, then it might not be thier fault.



> P.S. (if you think theres something really important i'm missing with linux, let me know!)


 Yes; it's not windows.
HTH 
lynch


----------



## CouchMaster (May 26, 2003)

So whats wrong with a dual boot? Then you have the best of both worlds...


----------



## prunejuice (Apr 3, 2002)

Muffy7 said:


> ...and yeah it has its flaws with security and other loopholes...


Oh, is that all?


----------



## utanja (Oct 22, 2003)

both systems have their merits and pitfall....however, you have to decide on what your purpose for the computer....then you make the decision as to which is better for you.....been a linux user for years and it suit my purpose....


----------



## bigbear (Apr 27, 2004)

I must say I am in agreement with Muffy7, I have been trying different versions of linux (Puppy ,Ubuntu and Fedora Core 5) 
There are a couple of things I find annoying, the time it takes to load seems a lot longer than windows and the fact it requires a password for everything you want to change, could not seem to disable that.


----------



## Muffy7 (Apr 13, 2005)

Yeah i'll admit there's a lot more wrong with windows then security, sadly its very unstable and programs end up not responding a lot... 

I meant successful tries because i actually got to try them, nothing went wrong in the trial, out of the 3 i tried i liked slax the best, but still i feel like there aren't enough programs for linux based os... maybe i'm wrong becaues i'm a noob at this whole linux stuff but i feel really limited on all 3 of those distros...
i feel like you can only use what it has already in it...


----------



## prunejuice (Apr 3, 2002)

Muffy7 said:


> ...but still i feel like there aren't enough programs for linux based os...


I can pull down a huge list of open source programs through my package manager waaaaay
faster than I can get out my credit card and search for them on the net.

I think the gap between patching and securing a Windows box, and learning Linux has shrunk
considerable in the last 3-4 years.


----------



## Muffy7 (Apr 13, 2005)

Ok, so i just decided to give slax another try, the more and more i try it the more and more i like it... but when i try to download stuff for it, it never works! (firefox, wine)

has anyone tried wine? (www.winehq.com)

becaues it showed a screen shot of photoshop being used on a linux?
if i could use windows programs on a linux i think i'd make the switch!

i've also only used live cd's for all my attempts at a linux distro... i'm kind of scared to partition my hard drive to try a real one  does anyoen have a step by step guide on how i would go about doing the whole dual boot idea?


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

Saikee!!!!!


----------



## utanja (Oct 22, 2003)

Muffy7 said:


> Ok, so i just decided to give slax another try, the more and more i try it the more and more i like it... but when i try to download stuff for it, it never works! (firefox, wine)
> 
> has anyone tried wine? (www.winehq.com)
> 
> ...


comparing live-cd with actually an installed version is not really a valid comparison...live-cd is good with its limitations to test the water so to speak but hard disk installs can co-exist with windows...


----------



## guitarmaniac (Feb 10, 2006)

Im kinda in the same boat as you Muffy7, I desperatly want an alternative to Microsoft, but the distros I've tried (Puppy and PCLinuxOS) dont seem to stack up against XP.
The more I use PCLinuxOS the more I like it, I guess its just getting used to a new environment. I'm still looking for the right distro for me though (hopefully ubuntu will do the job I want it to).
Anyway good luck.

guitarmaniac
\m/ >_< \m/


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

guitarmaniac said:


> Im kinda in the same boat as you Muffy7, I desperatly want an alternative to Microsoft, but the distros I've tried (Puppy and PCLinuxOS) dont seem to stack up against XP.


Linux certainly DOES "stack up" but in different ways. 

Any Windows user looking to migrate to Linux expecting a "Windows" experience on Linux is in for a rude awakening.  This doesn't mean Linux is "worse" or anything, just different. One poster above complained about having to enter passwords to do various things. Well, that's one of the security measures in place to protect you and the system from damage. We all know what can happen when such measures aren't in place. 

The best advice I would give to any Windows user looking to try Linux is:

A) Don't expect things to look or behave like Windows. The Windows way of doing this is just ONE way, but not the only way and not necessarily the best way.

B) Take time to learn and adjust. Linux and open source apps provide a TON of capability and functionality, when given the chance to perform. I use Windows 2000 at work and I use OpenOffice for word processing, Gaim for chatting, Gimp for photo/image work, Mozilla Firefox for web browsing and all work flawlessly for me. I use the same apps on Linux, with the exception of OpenOffice, at home. I use AbiWord instead of OO at home.

Wth regard to PhotoShop vs Gimp, most of the major functional differences are in areas most casual (ie non-professionals) users don't even use. Yes, Gimp looks different than PhotoShop but there is a plugin available to give Gimp a more PhotoShop "feel" (meaning there's one window with all the other windows in it). Even GimpShop can be viewed as proof of Gimp's capabilities since GimpShop basically changes menu item names and other minor things to closer mimic PhotoShop.

C) Don't expect to like Linux. We all have our tastes and preferences and some might find it harder to break away from the Windows mindset than others. It's kinda like food. Some like sushi and others don't. That doesn't mean sushi is a "bad" food or anything, just not for everyone. 

Peace...


----------



## coderitr (Oct 12, 2003)

After spending three hours on Friday downloading 58 patches for a Windows 2000 machine that was already running service pack 4, I decided that I had had quite enough. I've installed Linux at home before in a dual-boot environment or on a separate PC and always found an excuse to go running back to it. At one point I even modified the GRUB loader script so that Windows would come up by default when I booted the machine. This time, I got out my USB hard drive, copied all the documents and pictures and movies I wanted to keep to it and wiped Windows away for the last time. I installed SuSE 10.0 and after a few hours had learned enough to install the latest versions of Firefox and Thunderbird. I found and installed a movie player that supports all the formats that I have (including WMV and DVD's.) I found (but had to pay for) Moneydance to manage my personal finances. At this point I am doing everything with Linux that I was doing before with Windows XP. Linux is not difficult to learn if you're motivated but you have to stop and think about how things *should* work and why they do. I sign on with a user name and password under which there is no way for me to damage the system to the point of destruction. If you sign on under the root account, the operating system can be completely destroyed with ten keystrokes. So don't do that.  Microsoft has spent years (perhaps decades) making an environment in which the user doesn't have to think. They don't have to worry about how to open an email attachment because outlook does it for them. Is there anyone now who thinks that's a good idea? The system is wide open to damage by both accident and malfeasance. Each new release of Winblows steepens the hardware curve -- forcing users to upgrade hardware to run at an acceptable performance level. Remember Lotus 1-2-3? Remember Quattro Pro? Microsoft stole the technology and integrated Excel into the operating system so tightly that no one could do likewise. Therefore, they cornered the market and the others that might have been superior fell away. Isn't it interesting that in its entire corporate history Microsoft has never had an original idea? Even the GUI interface the premiered in Winblows 1.0 was stolen from Xerox. Even MS-DOS was stolen from a contractual arrangement that Gates made with IBM.

I have had enough of Microsoft. Anyone want to buy a copy of XP Home?


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

For me, linux has come to the rescue in being able to customize the OS for specific functions. I can embed it on a flash card or key drive and have it perform just the tasks I need. It's functional, extremely stable, and without the DRM and bloat of windows.

If I need a PVR, my first try is with myth. If I need a media player, mplayer on a mini distro can be shrunk to less than 6mb. If I need a pbx, astlinux or asterisk on a distro just works. If I need a NAS, linux can't be beat, and no worries of a crashed server. If I need CRM, I turn to SugarCRM with Apache on linux. If I need a POS, Banana POS among others will work on a thin client. If I need a office machine, I use Open Office and Thinkfree office on linux. 

As far as entering a password for everything, and a lot of people not knowing how to install software, that just means that I don't have to worry about someone messing up the machine, or installing a bunch of spyware and malware.

I run windows at home as well, but mainly just for gaming.


----------



## coderitr (Oct 12, 2003)

Just for you, root.


----------



## moozer (Jul 3, 2005)

coderitr said:


> I have had enough of Microsoft. Anyone want to buy a copy of XP Home?


I'll open the bdding at £0.01 (or $0.0056)


----------



## prunejuice (Apr 3, 2002)

coderitr said:


> I have had enough of Microsoft. Anyone want to buy a copy of XP Home?


Hey! What did we ever do to you?


----------



## Cappi (Apr 17, 2006)

I use both. I have rescued Windows using Knoppix a Linux distro. I doubt you could rescue Linux using Windows. Linux is quite versatile and I have found that I can do everything in Linux that I can do in Windows. Which do I like best? For stability my choice would be linux. For ease of use my choice would be Windows although Windows constantly has to be rebooted. A friend of mine told me about Linux running on an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico and had not been rebooted in over seven years. This should tell you something about the stability of Linux.


----------



## Headrush (Feb 9, 2005)

Muffy7, I use Codeweavers version of Wine and run Photoshop great. I also run Adobe Pagemaker 7, Macromedia Flash and Dreamweaver without any issue.

In addition I run several Windows 3D games and have Flash and Shockwave support in my native Linux browsers.

Linux can be a little daunting to setup exactly how you want, but once it is, it runs great.

As someone who makes a his living repairing Windows based systems and networks, I can tell you a properly setup Linux is more reliable than Windows XP and if problems do occur, their much easier to diagnose and fix.


----------



## jarchack (Apr 1, 2004)

"the fact it requires a password for everything you want to change, could not seem to disable that."

Why do you think windows has so many security issues? (other than spaghetti code). See how far you get logged on as a limited user.

I use gentoo and debian and I'd be the first to admit that linux isn't for everyone but it's come a long way. If you want to learn how computers and networking really work, run a linux distro for a while.


----------



## subgeniusd (Jun 1, 2006)

Only been using XP for a year but started at that point with a firewalled dsl router/modem and have added the OneCare security package. Triple check with Spybot, Adaware, Spyware Doctor every few weeks=ZERO malware. I know....the fact that I even need to do that is a questionable endorsement. I added the new(ish) search toolbar to IE 6 and it works fine, nearly as good as FireFox which I am using at this moment. The few freezeups only required simple restart and I think they were caused by the OneCare beta. 

Been using Xandros 3.0 standard for 6 months. Right now in fact and since I use it 75% of the time with 2 XPs sitting right here on better computers I guess I prefer Linux to Windows. So i am not a Linux cultist trying to convert the ignorant "Windoze" victim. XP is fine if you are very careful but Linux is better if you don't mind another hobby you don't have time for. 

There is nothing in the graphic arts or anything else that can't be managed in the KDE/Debian world......right?


----------



## fenderfreek (Mar 14, 2006)

I've been using Linux boxes for years as servers and whatnot, but I've always used Windows for my desktop OS. I can't afford a copy of Win2000 server, nor will it run on my old P2 and P3 boxes. Linux is free and I've run servers on 486's. For versatility, Linux wins hands down.

If you're looking for ease of use and a fancy interface, Windows is the obvious choice.
If you want something highly functional and extremely secure, at the expense of a simplistic user interface, Linux is the obvious choice.

Windows - easy to use, few specialized features or use options
Linux - Slightly more complicated, many more features and options available


----------



## subgeniusd (Jun 1, 2006)

"Slightly more complicated"??????? The average new user finds XP very complicated and Linux....incomprehensible. I prefer Linux and have a Libertarian attachment to the whole Open Source world view. But the way the entire Open Source community intentionally neglects shaping user applications for the new user is disgusting and self-defeating.....unless that is the intent. BGFG now and forever!!! (by geeks for geeks)


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

But M$ has their marketing department write all the code.
Linux does'nt even really have one.


----------



## fenderfreek (Mar 14, 2006)

All of us Linux users don't neccesarily cater to the "BGFG" mentality you keep pushing. Some do, but for the most part we just explain things and provide info in the most technical and exhaustive way we can, to assist those who understand that kind of techy stuff. If you aren't so "geekily inclined", then anyone here will be glad to explain it in more common terms or in a step by step method.

Linux users aren't all snobs. The ones who are just give the rest of us a bad rap.


----------



## subgeniusd (Jun 1, 2006)

Great links lynch. I just signed up at the USA LUG. 

I'm just shouting at the mountain, fendergeek. The monitors and advisers in all of these Linux forums are the good guys. Helping the seekers to find their way through the maze. My issue is with the maze itself and not with those trying to guide novices through it. Sorry if I gave the wrong impression. 

This is not String Theory equations. If you want to develop a product that is useable by a large market segment then you design it with that large market segment in mind. If not then fine...it will remain a specialized product for the few. I have the latest copy of the Linux Cookbook and it is not that complicated. But most Windows users would consider it pointless gibberish. 

If I did not care I would not shout. Be that as it may, I'll chill and just stick to the issues while visiting this forum.


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

Don't forget to post there so your account doesnt get deleted; they need at least one post to be sure you're not some bot. 
Be looking for you there.
lynch


----------



## Anchoret (Jan 19, 2006)

I'm not a Linux fanboy by any stretch if the imagination and -- considering the astronomical differential in resources available between Windows and its Third-Party software compared to what's there for development of desktop Linux -- am pretty amazed that desktop Linux works at all.

That said, I am very impressed with the newly-released Ubuntu 6.06 -- as desktop Linux goes, it's a remarkably nice distribution.

There's still the nosebleed of trying to get wireless to work with advanced functions like WPA2, and some hardware simply won't work (plus there is some that requires after-installation driver acquisition because of legal issues attendant to free distributions), but if 6.06 is going to work for your system and you run Automatix to set up the codecs and drivers, you'll probably be surprised at how well it works.

I think that when more experienced computer users see what a nasty bump Vista is going to be in terms of hardware obsolescence, cost and soforth, they'll be much more likely to consider alternative operating systems. I think by that time Ubuntu and a few other top Linuxii will be pretty attractive.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

fenderfreek said:


> If you're looking for ease of use and a fancy interface, Windows is the obvious choice.


I agree with this, especially when you factor in familiarity. One thing people tend to forget, Windows popularity is _not_ necessarily by choice, meaning most Windows users didn't make a conscious choice to actually switch TO Windows. People use Windows because it came on the new PC they bought (remember not much else is an option to people these days when buying new PCs), or their company switched to Windows as a standard platform (to make it easier to support users by basically taking a "cookie cutter" configuration approach), or Windows already came on a PC purchased used or given as a gift. It's not like to bulk of Windows users tried Mac OS, OS/2, Solaris x86, and _then_ switched to Windows.

The reason I mention this is familiarity goes a VERY long way, when talking about these kinds of issues. People get familiar with the "Windows way" and think it's the "only" or "best" way, when they have no experience with anything else, so they have no objective frame of reference. I do agree Windows is pretty easy to use (even though I give Mac OS X an edge here) and has a decent interface. I don't find the Windows UI "fancy" at all.



> If you want something highly functional and extremely secure, at the expense of a simplistic user interface, Linux is the obvious choice.


Now this is something I'm not sure I agree with. GUIs for Linux/Unix tend not to look or behave like Windows but that's not to say they are "simplistic" at all. I don't think that's a valid "compromise", as you describe.

Peace...


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

subgeniusd said:


> But the way the entire Open Source community intentionally neglects shaping user applications for the new user is disgusting and self-defeating.....unless that is the intent.


What are you talking about? It's true that some open source apps are lacking in the UI and doc dept and it's true that some open source developers get defensive or has an attitude when legitimate questions are asked or suggestions made. It's also try a number of folks using open source apps don't understand what's at work and view the apps from a commercial app standpoint. It just doesn't work that way.

To say the "entire" community is intentionally doing what you describe is a bit of an overstatement, to put it mildly, don't you think? 

Peace...


----------



## SweetLou (Oct 15, 2004)

Muffy7 said:


> Well after 3 successful trials of distros (slax, ubuntu, and puppy) i've come to the conclusion that i'm sticking with windows xp...
> 
> its just, the windows environment is so much more versatile as far as programs, i can't live without photoshop, or premier, or winamp, or other really great programs!


Ok, don't use it. Thanks for telling us you don't like Linux.

Now, for the rest of you that don't think there are a lot of programs for Linux, have you looked? Debian alone comes with over 15,000 packages. And Debian only allows free software. That is software that you can do whatever you like with it. You can use it how you like, modify the code as you like, redistribute it as you like, etc. From there, you can also install other software, for example, I have Opera running. Opera is not free software. I have also used EditPadPro, which is not free software.

If you don't like Linux, that is fine, but is there a reason to tell us this fact? I don't care for IE so much, but I don't think I have ever thought about going to the Windows sections of this forum or any other one and telling people I don't like it. I just don't use it.

For those that don't think there are many apps for Linux, please look around, there are tons of them. If you can't find something that you want or need, ask, maybe someone will know of an app that you could use.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

SweetLou said:


> Now, for the rest of you that don't think there are a lot of programs for Linux, have you looked? Debian alone comes with over 15,000 packages. And Debian only allows free software.


This is true, but a little misleading. When people talk about the lack of apps, they mean the lack of applications or utilities people would use that are not necessarily integral to the system, itself. Productvity apps, Desktop publishing, MultiMedia apps, and so on. Of the 15,000 packages Debian comes with, how many are things that would be considered part of the "system"? I know Linux distros tend to break things up into "packages", development oriented packages and "user" packages. Any given app or program might be split up into two or more "packages", thus contributing to that 15,000+ count.

I guess the better way to give meaning to what Linux distros come with would be to look at "unique" apps being distributed. For example, if Apache on Debian comes in 2 or more packages, ALL of the Apache packages would be counted as one, "Apache". You get the idea.

It's hard to get away from the fact that there is simply more software available for Windows than for Linux, and there's nothing wrong with that. Additionally, we can't lose track of software people don't want to let go of or simply can't (due to close-mindedness). How many people think they "need" DreamWeaver or PhotoShop to do web development when they really don't "need" those apps (even though they are frequently used)? Hell, I used Gimp on Linux to create a PhotoShop PSD that I e-mailed to a friend who read that PSD into PhotoShop on Windows to make some edits to an image I sent her.

Something else we can't lose sight of is the sheer numbers don't paint a complete picture. There might be 100x the amount of software available for Windows than is available for Linux but are all of these apps of practical use and are all of these apps not available, in any form, on Linux, natively?

At this point, I think a lot of the "major" kinds of software (not specialized apps) people would tend to want or need is available for both Windows and Linux. Here's a brief rundown:

OpenOffice.org = MS Office
Gimp = PhotoShop
Gaim = Trillian
mplayer = Windows Media Player
??? = QuickTime player (don't know what app this would be)
N|vu = FrontPage or DreamWeaver
Mozilla Thunderbird = Outlook/Outlook Express
Mozilla Firefox = Internet Explorer
Adobe Acrobat Reader 7 (now native on Linux)
??? = iTunes (I forget the app name)
Azureus (BitTorrent client)
LimeWire (P2P client)
Java 1.5.0_07 JRE and JSDK (Java development and browser plugins)
Macromedia Flash 7 (Flash 8 is not out yet)

Of course, this list isn't complete but covers the kinds of apps any "typical" Windows user would want/need that are readily available for Linux and without emulation or other "special" software. The "equals" used above is referring to general functional equivalency, not a feature-by-feature equivalency comparison. 



> I have Opera running. Opera is not free software.


It is now. 

Peace...


----------



## SweetLou (Oct 15, 2004)

Opera is not free. You can use it without paying for it, but it is not free software.
Well, I have never done a study on how many WIndows apps there are compared to Linux apps, so I am unsure of the 100x the amount or if there is even more WIndows apps than Linux apps. But, you could be correct that there are more Windows apps. But that isn't to say that there aren't a lot of Linux apps to choose from.
I see your point about the packages, but it is kind of rare that an app will be in more than one package. Sure, apache is one of these, since you can either use version 1 or 2, same with php 4 or 5.
But most of the packages there is only one version. So, I wouldn't say this was misleading, but I can see your point.
Still, this is not the point. There are tons of apps for Linux, all you have to do is look for them. You tell me an app for Windows, I am almost certain to be able to find an app that will do the same in Linux.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

SweetLou said:


> Opera is not free. You can use it without paying for it, but it is not free software.


Maybe I'm reading THIS wrong:


Opera website said:


> Opera has removed the banners, found within our browser, and the licensing fee. Opera's growth, due to tremendous worldwide customer support, has made today's milestone an achievable goal. Premium support is available.


But that looks like free software to me. At one point, the ad laden version was available for free (with the "price" being the ads) but that changed. On the Opera website, "Opera for mobile" is the browser you can buy.



> Well, I have never done a study on how many WIndows apps there are compared to Linux apps, so I am unsure of the 100x the amount or if there is even more WIndows apps than Linux apps.


Well, the "100x" was used solely for dramatic effect and wasn't meant to be taken literally. 



> But, you could be correct that there are more Windows apps. But that isn't to say that there aren't a lot of Linux apps to choose from.


Precisely. 



> I see your point about the packages, but it is kind of rare that an app will be in more than one package. Sure, apache is one of these, since you can either use version 1 or 2, same with php 4 or 5.


With Apache, you've got the development and non-development packages available for versions 1 and 2.x as well as individual modules you can intsall, for MySQL support and other things. Those modules are distributed as "packages", thereby contributing to the overall package count, when these modules are useless without Apache. Inter-package dependencies are another way to see how the "package count" can be misleading.

Here's another example, look at the Perl package list for Debian 3.1 stable. Look at all of the Perl modules available for Apache. Without Apache, those modules are of no use but they are distributed as "packages" and contribute to the overall package count.

I guess the underlying point is "package <> app" when talking Linux distros since some apps are spread out of multiple packages.



> Still, this is not the point. There are tons of apps for Linux, all you have to do is look for them. You tell me an app for Windows, I am almost certain to be able to find an app that will do the same in Linux.


Can you fill in the QuickTime player app I couldn't identify above? What about Flash player 8? PhotoShop has a functional equivalent in Gimp but what about the PhotoShop plugins and extensions available? Some can be loaded in Gimp but I'm not sure about all of them.

I agree with you that you can pretty much do whatever you can with Linux that you can do with Windows as long as your mind is open to it. 

Peace...


----------



## lynch (Aug 3, 2002)

Opera source code isnt free to change, which is what sweetlou (welcome to TSG  )means, I think.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

lynch said:


> Opera source code isnt free to change, which is what sweetlou (welcome to TSG  )means, I think.


Gotcha. Cost vs open source. 

I agree, Opera is *not* open source. Sorry for the confusion, on my part. 

Peace...


----------



## SweetLou (Oct 15, 2004)

Right, I knew the 100x was just there and not meant to be taken literally. 
No, I don't know the name of the software to replace quicktime. I don't get into things like that so much, so I don't know the names off hand. Flash 8 is possible with Firefox and WINE. Shockwave can also be had this way. I have read another way to get Shockwave without WINE, but please don't ask how because I forgot the info and all that needs to be done to get it to work. Photoshop is a little better than GIMP, though there are extensions for GIMP also. For me, GIMP is enough, but for a professional or artist, Photoshop might be better. Again, Photoshop works in WINE.

Oh, and something can be open source and still not be free software. For example, there is a .asp forum it is open source and you can modify the code as you like. But, there are limitations also. You can not remove the little ad at the bottom unless you pay. You cannot distribute your modified code.

These types of things will leave the software out of Debian's repositories. Except for maybe the contrib repository. You can look at http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines to see what is needed by Debian to include it in their distro, Opera does not meet these requirements.

But we are getting off topic. Back to all the software that can be used. So, even with a lot of apps provided by Debian, there are tons more that can be used in Linux, not just the free ones. Usually all it takes is some looking around or asking on a forum. If there isn't a native Linux app, you still might be able to use a Windows app in WINE, Cedega or Crossover Office or some emulator, but I would stay away from emulators and try WINE first.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

SweetLou said:


> No, I don't know the name of the software to replace quicktime. I don't get into things like that so much, so I don't know the names off hand. Flash 8 is possible with Firefox and WINE. Shockwave can also be had this way. I have read another way to get Shockwave without WINE, but please don't ask how because I forgot the info and all that needs to be done to get it to work. Photoshop is a little better than GIMP, though there are extensions for GIMP also. For me, GIMP is enough, but for a professional or artist, Photoshop might be better. Again, Photoshop works in WINE.


I've used both wine and CrossOver Office so I'm familiar with both. The thing is, running Windows apps on wine doesn't make them "Linux" apps as they're still Windows apps.

[quuote]Oh, and something can be open source and still not be free software. For example, there is a .asp forum it is open source and you can modify the code as you like. But, there are limitations also. You can not remove the little ad at the bottom unless you pay. You cannot distribute your modified code.[/quote]Yep, open source doesn't automagically mean "free".



> So, even with a lot of apps provided by Debian, there are tons more that can be used in Linux, not just the free ones. Usually all it takes is some looking around or asking on a forum.


Yep, I agree. There are plenty of apps readily available that run natively on Linux even though the software selection for apps that run natively on Linux isn't as large as the selection of Windows apps. The thing is, I don't think that really matters even though it's part of some arguments against Linux being "viable" or "useful". 



> If there isn't a native Linux app, you still might be able to use a Windows app in WINE, Cedega or Crossover Office or some emulator, but I would stay away from emulators and try WINE first.


CrossOver Office will be a better solution for those wanting an "easy" solution. I can get IE to run via CrossOver Office much easier than using straight wine, for example. One point that gets overlooked is how well Linux native apps are structured and designed to interoperate well with Windows equivalent apps. OpenOffice provides support for Word and WordPerfect documents (as well as other formats), making it easy for Linux users to exchange information with MS Office or Corel Office users. Of course, this isn't absolute but something I've found to be fairly common.

I'm seriously considering switching my mom from XP Home Edition to Linux. Just not sure when that switch will happen. 

Peace...


----------



## SweetLou (Oct 15, 2004)

I didn't say that an app had to be written just for Linux. I just said that there are plenty of apps that you can use in Linux. Now, I won't use an emulator to get a program to work, but I will use WINE. The only program I have not been able to find a replacement and can't get to work in WINE is Microsoft's Streets and Trips, I think in Europe it is called AutoRoute, but I might be wrong there.

Us Linux users do this often, luckily for me, I don't need to use ndiswrapper to get my wireless to work, but many people need to use it so they can use their Window's wireless drivers.

In general, you can use OpenOffice for MS Office, but as you mentioned, somethings still don't work. I have never run into this problem but I have read where others have had problems. Luckily, the people I know don't use the functions that don't work.

Oh, there is one more thing, I can't use ASP. So, I have another pc running IIS so that I can use ASP. I don't use this pc for anything else except that. I guess I could buy Chilisoft, but it isn't worth it for me.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

SweetLou said:


> I didn't say that an app had to be written just for Linux. I just said that there are plenty of apps that you can use in Linux.


I understand but mentioning solutions like wine aren't really relevant since that doesn't address the Linux application availability question. If running Windows apps on Linux is viewed as a way to increase the number of apps available for Linux, people will question why bother with Linux in the first place? I do agree with you that there are plenty of Linux apps available for people to use and these are mainstream kinds of applications, not just utilities, etc.



> Us Linux users do this often, luckily for me, I don't need to use ndiswrapper to get my wireless to work, but many people need to use it so they can use their Window's wireless drivers.


Yeah, I've read this as well. I guess there just aren't a lot of native Linux wireless drivers out there for various wireless adapters, unfortunately.



> In general, you can use OpenOffice for MS Office, but as you mentioned, somethings still don't work. I have never run into this problem but I have read where others have had problems. Luckily, the people I know don't use the functions that don't work.


Yep. The biggest issue I've come across is lack of support for Excel macros, due to the scripting language used for Excel macros. I guess I'm as lucky as you in that the OpenOffice installations I've done have been for users not using any MS Office specific functionality which prevents them from exchanging data with MS Office users. 

Maybe some Windows users thinking about giving Linux a whirl will see this thread and open their minds a bit before booting their live CD. 

One thing I've noticed about Linux distros is they tend to come with an almost insane amount of software, where Windows really doesn't. Especially the live CDs that come with OpenOffice, Gimp, mplayer, xine, KDE or GNOME (if not both) and who knows what else installed... all on a 650-700MB CD. Simply amazing. 

Peace...


----------



## SweetLou (Oct 15, 2004)

Well, I can see your point about WINE, but not really. It is just another way to get a program. Just like ndiswrapper is just a way to use a driver. The mouse I use, Microsoft's Intellimouse didn't say anything about it being Linux compatible, but I still use it.
Maybe I am just a little more open to using WINE since it is one of the first things I install after a new installation, so that I can get IE running. I really only use it for IE, but every once and awhile, I will add a program, like FileZilla. Really the only thing I can't use is IIS, wish I could.


----------



## tomdkat (May 6, 2006)

SweetLou said:


> Well, I can see your point about WINE, but not really. It is just another way to get a program. Just like ndiswrapper is just a way to use a driver.


Yep, wine certainly is a means to an end but apps running on wine can't be counted in the "Linux apps" tally since they're still Windows apps, not Linux apps. ndiswrapper provides a way to use Windows drivers, since the native Linux driver equivalents don't (yet) exist. Once they do, the need for the Windows NDIS driver goes away.



> The mouse I use, Microsoft's Intellimouse didn't say anything about it being Linux compatible, but I still use it.


That's because there are native Linux drivers for supporting various mice and other input devices.



> Maybe I am just a little more open to using WINE since it is one of the first things I install after a new installation, so that I can get IE running. I really only use it for IE, but every once and awhile, I will add a program, like FileZilla. Really the only thing I can't use is IIS, wish I could.


I'm not opposed to wine at all and have been using it for years. In fact, I used the CrossOver Plugin for a long time, until they changed their pricing structure. One thing I could never figure out is how I could run Windows Media Player 6.4 via CrossOver just fine while I couldn't using straight wine on the same machine. Wouldn't running IIS on Linux via wine be a trip. 

One of my future projects is to get Windows XP running via bochs and Mac OS X running via PearPC in their own separate windows on my Linux box and then take screenshots. 

Peace...


----------



## Mithrilhall (Mar 28, 2001)

Did he say 'winamp'?

Amarok > Winamp (hands down)


----------



## Mikrondel (Jun 21, 2005)

subgeniusd said:


> The average new user finds XP very complicated and Linux....incomprehensible.


"The average user" is forcing Microsoft to make each successive operating system more oriented towards people who don't know the difference between a file and a directory (even after a few years of using XP). If I start using Linux as my primary desktop OS, it'll be because Windows no longer just _assumes_ I'm an idiot, but also tries to convince me of it.

I hold a degree of disgust for people who don't bother trying to learn anything about computers because they swallow all the "easy-to-use" marketing. Maybe they deserve a system that treats them like babies. Really I've nothing against them using one if it suits their purposes.

Frankly I don't _want_ Linux *preventing* me from launching a program I downloaded because it might be a trojan (as Windows XP SP2 does). If you're not willing to show a bit of curiosity and willingness to understand, then Linux is not for you. Nor should it be made to accommodate you.

Personally I found learning about Linux a mysterious and difficult, but extremely fulfilling and enjoyable journey. Not just in it being new and rich, but also in how it all came together and made sense, how the theories worked well in practice. And I understand some people aren't like that - fine with me too.

But in my opinion, *LINUX MAKES SENSE* and there's no need to change it for the benefit of those who don't bother digging deeper even in Windows. I don't think it needs to be just "for geeks", rather I think it should be "Not For Potatoes".



subgeniusd said:


> But the way the entire Open Source community intentionally neglects shaping user applications for the new user is disgusting and self-defeating.....unless that is the intent.


I have nothing against genuine user-friendliness and simple interface. However, this should not sacrifice flexibility and certainly should not disadvantage those who are at a more advanced level. If Linux falls to the level of the "average user", where will we turn?

Also let us not forget that open-source software is basically created by volunteers. User interface is generally tedious to program. And we're getting it free, so what right have we to complain? If it sucks, we should put our money where our mouth is - helping projects that seek to improve such software (either financially or through contribution of code).


----------



## subgeniusd (Jun 1, 2006)

[ I just placed this forum in my address list since apparently EarthLink has been spam-filtering the auto-emails.]

*tomdkat wrote * (very long ago in forum time)


> To say the "entire" community is intentionally doing what you describe is a bit of an overstatement, to put it mildly, don't you think?
> 
> Peace...


Yes an overstatement and I apologize. I guess I was bringing a Digg mentality to the discussion here. This subject is constantly debated there esp in the Linux/Unix zone---if you call verbal fist fights "debates" . Hilarious exchanges like: "Why don't you LinYucks idiots move out of mommy's basement and get a real OS-Mac Rules!!" and I can't print the typical response here but would run along the lines of "erotic male attachment" to Steve Jobs and on and on the Digg-fun never ends. But also lots of highly technical discussion without the juvenile snap contests. But the primary issue remains.

Solaris, BSD etc have no delusions of grandeur. They are niche efforts and I respect and admire that. The Linux community is divided....one faction insists that catering to dummies dilutes the "purity" and the other is trying to seriously challenge MS dominion.

*Mikrondel wrote*


> If Linux falls to the level of the "average user", where will we turn?


The average user wants to turn the key and drive down the damn road without pulling a tool kit out of the trunk and tweaking the carburetor. Time is money and asking 90% of the market to "waste" 20 or 30 hours (or more) learning and configuring a new OS = more expensive then Windows. Markets gravitate toward percieved value. Numbers don't lie and our market share - 5% - is "unacceptable" (suppressing his urge to erupt into another diatribe).

You can't have it both ways. If you wish to penetrate and capture market share you survey and LISTEN to the market and adapt your product/service to the consumer needs. There is no further discussion. If you do not wish to penetrate and capture market share then you dismiss consumer needs and lecture them as to why they do not deserve the product/service anyway. And guess what? You will not gain market share. 


> And we're getting it free, so what right have we to complain?


I have U 6.06/Su 10.1/Man/Knop/Pup/DSL/Arch and others but PAY for, use and promote Xandros exclusively. Great OS but also because they GET the desktop user "situation" and if any distro has a shot at challenging Goliath they are one of the front runners and I want to support them. I'm serious about challenging MS. If you are not then that is your choice. Have a nice day D.


----------



## subgeniusd (Jun 1, 2006)

For a good argument/response to my own post check out this cool link I just got off Digg:
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=software&articleId=266341&taxonomyId=18&intsrc=kc_feat
I hope hope hope that by this time next year we see stories like this all over the media.:up: :up: D


----------



## matt_aj (Jan 23, 2006)

I am totally here with you... I've tried multiple distros and they don't stack up.

You give me something that works like media center and is "as easy" to use, give me drivers that actually work, give me the robustness of XP and I'll gladly switch. Linux touts being "more stable", but yet in the first 5 minutes of using Fedora for the first time it locked up. (and no it wasn't hardware related). I couldn't get my video card to work with my tv with Fedora either. Nor my wireless card. Same goes for Ubuntu. I have yet to find a distro that does work with my wireless card. It might be that its some no name brand... I think Linksys is the name? Anyone heard of that!? 

I would love to switch, but it is just not there yet. Unless you are a super-advanced user, linux would be a nightmare to setup and use. Go ahead and whine about XP and how horrible it is, I'll take my MCE box over anything Linux.


----------



## Bartender (Apr 27, 2006)

matt_aj said:


> Unless you are a super-advanced user, linux would be a nightmare to setup and use.


Sheesh, I've set up 3 PC's to run on Ubuntu. One of them dual-boot even. And I thought I was just an average computer user!!


----------



## saikee (Jun 11, 2004)

Linux is easy.

1.5 years and I am booting 100+ systems. I rounded up all the MS systems I have got, all the BSD and a couple of Solaris too.



> I've tried multiple distros and they don't stack up


That is of course the voice from a MS system user. A MS system user counts the partitions by the alphabets. I have 60 partitions in just my first disk and every partition houses an OS. Only Linux can reach parts XP can't. Say like booting all the MS systems (Dos, Win98, Win2k and xp) together. Never mind more than 10 systems which is the ceiling limit of NTLDR.

If a xp got damaged and cannot boot the standard technique is to use a Linux Live CD to salavge its content.


----------



## matt_aj (Jan 23, 2006)

Ya it's easy to setup.... But what if your hardware doesn't install right? Good luck finding drivers for it.... Any advanced driver setup sucks to setup also.


----------



## Mikrondel (Jun 21, 2005)

Don't blame the Linux people for the lack of drivers!

Manufacturers always make drivers for Windows because the vast majority of the people buying will be using Windows. And that's fair enough.

But many BSODs occur because of buggy drivers... is there much difference between manufacturers not bother to make decent drivers for Windows, and no drivers for Linux?

In any case, I'm not advocating switching home media desktop PCs to Linux - if you want to, great, but Linux isn't all that advantageous over Windows in such a scene. That doesn't make Linux bad. But it's definitely not the "answer to everything".

And is Windows really all that "easy to use", anyway? I think that it's easier to use for someone without a clue (although the scope of what they can do remains small), but learning how to _really_ use Windows is similar to learning how really to use Linux.


----------



## Bartender (Apr 27, 2006)

matt_aj said:


> Ya it's easy to setup.... But what if your hardware doesn't install right? Good luck finding drivers for it.... Any advanced driver setup sucks to setup also.


MS sits fat on its throne while all the device makers fawn and grovel at its feet. 
"Please, Mr. Bill, can we spend all of our time and money writing software specifically tailored to your OS?" 
"Yes, you may, here's a little bit of our secret code, do with it what you will." 
They scurry back to their chambers and sweat out all the details so that their products will work with the King's latest OS. Who gets the credit for all their work? MS does!!

The GNU/Linux developers get little or no help from the device makers. They have to do it all. And look at what they've accomplished so far even though the playing field is tilted horribly against them. Imagine a world where the device makers spent any effort writing code for Linux.


----------



## subgeniusd (Jun 1, 2006)

*saikee link*



> #1 12-25-2005, 09:09 PM
> saikee
> Registered User Join Date: Jun 2004
> Location: Newcastle
> ...


Excellent tutorial dude, answered BSD questions I got little help with on the PC-BSD forums. That article would probably be a hit on Digg. I see "saikee" is not a member...(sad emoticon)

A new user with average intelligence, good study habits and a willingness to devote the time may find that *"Linux is easy". *And I think attitude toward the subject is the main variable that determines the length of the learning curve. Not everyone (myself included) is as gifted as you are. But we can plug along and eventually get to a level of acceptable functionality with any of the top 10 "user friendly" distros.

The problem is trying to convince a user base with low expectations and ingrained resistance to change that there are better alternatives. Most of them would not even read that excellent tutorial much less attempt any of it. Linux needs to work for them if we want the numbers = market influence = FULL vendor/ISP support = the evaporation of 90% of the barriers to widespread Linux adoption. Vendors will follow the $ whether MS likes it or not.

Sounds like a classic Catch-22 to me. Best wishes D.


----------



## saikee (Jun 11, 2004)

The little bit of Linux exposure has taught me that this free system is being used all over the world. Some countries are introducing it at school level to free themselves being held at ransom by MS.

Once the new generation is exposed to something simpler, better and more powerful they will be less sympathetic to a paid system that can perform less.

The current MS Windows population finding a need to look into Linux is sign of things to come. They obviously think Linux could be a threat to them. 

Linux is the people's system. All the knowledge is in the public domain. It would not last or survive if it isn't good enough. 

One thing for sure users in Linux has no worry about their knowledge going to be replaced by a new operating system periodically brought out for the financial gain of the system vendor. If I spend time to learn something I want it to be useful, not just the rules the system provider laid down to protect its product. I see Linux provide the most direct route between myself and the computer. 

If I want to move an operating system from partition to partition, hard disk to hard disk or PC to PC so that my data and effort are preserved I can do it with Linux. I just don't see a need to waste time and money with something that can't or has been designed to stop me from changing a CPU, a motherboard or a network card.


----------



## purple_cloud (Jun 19, 2004)

The rumor I have heard about having Linux hardware drivers is not simply that manufacturers only write drivers for Windows. The manufacturers claim the interface information needed to write drivers is copyrighted and Propertary. There are geeks out there who would write the drivers if they could legally get the information which the hardware manufacturers refuse to provide. It almost sounds like a M$ conspiracy to stop Linux.

From another perspective. What about using a Live CD of Linux as a Web surfing machine. Easily resolves a lot of security issues which M$ has not been able to stop. I like Puppy Linux as a means to accomplish that. 

Personally I feel the security issue still has some big hurdles. Right now there is pressure to allow any web site we go to to be allowed to install and run software on our computer. Selling things. Like commercials in public TV is annoying. Secondly. In order to stop some of the fraud we would have to allow the government to regulate, monitor, to quickly identify scammers to stop the problems on the internet. I feel that many people do not want the government to be able to do that. I think M$ made in the beginning some very good decisions. The first computers did not have the processor power to do security things. M$ wanted to make the first easy to use software. I am guessing they knew it would be very hard to implement security. Just look at how annoying it is to track down and keep downloaded all the known security patches, and antivirus updates. Spyware software. Now we have rootkits. 

Another part of the problem is that we have on one hand a group of companies building the hardware and M$ (usually) for writing the OS. They point the fingers at each other as to who is responsible for the security problems. It is well known that we can add more chips to computers to do security things and end this security problem. It would mean that each computer would cost more. We would be constantly blocking advertising from running on our computers. Which might end the advertising model of the internet. How much are we willing to pay for an advertising free internet? How much more money are we willing to pay to have security on our home computer?


----------



## fenderfreek (Mar 14, 2006)

Very well put and sad, but true. It really does all come down to the money. If driver manufacturers aren't going to see a huge spike in hardware sales by releasing their code to Linux developers, then what reason do they have to do so? on the other hand, if they don't bow and grovel to M$ and give them everything they want, then they only stand to lose. It's just no good for anyone but M$.

The state of Linux hardware support isn't perfect, but it's improving every day due to the efforts and determination of developers and programmers around the world - an effort which M$ could only dream of having itself. I find that most people's hangup with Linux is simply that things don't 'just work' like they usually do with M$'s software. 
However, in a market where all odds are against open-source hardware support, we continue to have support for almost all common hardware, and anymore, with minimal tweaking required. That tells me something - that Linux has promise as a mainstream OS. If Linux had the kind of hardware support that M$ has, Bill Gates would no longer be king, but a mere pauper in the software world, because his broken OS would soon have nothing more than a small cult following.

Simply put, Linux has extreme potential to explode far beyond where it is now, we simply must tilt the tables a bit more in our favor - and I'm doing everything I can to see that that happens.


----------



## ssmith34 (Mar 9, 2005)

matt_aj said:


> I am totally here with you... I've tried multiple distros and they don't stack up.
> 
> You give me something that works like media center and is "as easy" to use, give me drivers that actually work, give me the robustness of XP and I'll gladly switch. Linux touts being "more stable", but yet in the first 5 minutes of using Fedora for the first time it locked up. (and no it wasn't hardware related). I couldn't get my video card to work with my tv with Fedora either. Nor my wireless card. Same goes for Ubuntu. I have yet to find a distro that does work with my wireless card. It might be that its some no name brand... I think Linksys is the name? Anyone heard of that!?
> 
> I would love to switch, but it is just not there yet. Unless you are a super-advanced user, linux would be a nightmare to setup and use. Go ahead and whine about XP and how horrible it is, I'll take my MCE box over anything Linux.


I use the puppy live CD and it works on my wireless laptop (intel pro 200 adapter).


----------



## attempt1 (Oct 3, 2007)

Muffy7 said:


> Well after 3 successful trials of distros (slax, ubuntu, and puppy) i've come to the conclusion that i'm sticking with windows xp...
> 
> its just, the windows environment is so much more versatile as far as programs, i can't live without photoshop, or premier, or winamp, or other really great programs!
> 
> ...


Linux has its alternatives: GIMP, in Ubuntu--UbuntuStudio, and XMMS. These are Linux programs that, in my opinion, out perform the MS offerings. Due to the fact you don't need high-end equipment to develop material on them.


----------



## williamrobinsonb (Oct 21, 2007)

*What do you do if you are a hardware manufacturer that microsoft has made obsolete*t?
you help *linux* make your hardware compatible.

The more that microsoft abandons perfectly good hardware the more linux gets the specs for that hardware to make it compatible.


----------

