# What's Your Opinion of Linux?



## Hulk701 (Dec 5, 2003)

Hey Gang,

I really would like to take myself off the Microsoft treadmill. I just saw the system requirements of VISTA. I'll have to get a whole new computer just to install the new operating system. Not only that, t_here's no guarantee I'll have trouble free operation_ after I run it. If its like the past three OS's it'll be three years before they have all the bugs worked out of it.

As long as I'm going to have to get a new computer eventually and as long as I will have to re-learn a whole new operating system, I'm asking myself if I wouldn't be smarter to use that effort on an operating system that is free of charge and relatively low maintenance.

I'd like to ask you _who have actually tried Linux_, What's your opinion of it? What are its pluses and minuses..How bad are the compatibility issues? How about Tech Support?

Thanks,
HULK


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Depends how much you value your time and the amount of commitment you want to put in learning a new OS.
I started with Windows so the change would mean giving up the time I've already put in it plus the investment in some software. Not all apps for Linux are free and not all apps even offered .
Voice recognition in particular.
I have tried several installed distros and also Live CDs.
Works OK.

Going from 98se to win2k to XP has taken less relearning, imo, than jumping ship for Linux.


I do like the Linux Live CDs ......Slax in particular.


So far, I haven't seen any reason or need to upgrade to Vista for myself.

I do keep watch on the Linux crowd, however, in case a jump to it becomes advantageous for me


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

I like Linux, it's a great OS with a good community, but it isn't compatible with lots of programs I use.


----------



## Hulk701 (Dec 5, 2003)

Is it compatible with MS WORD or Notepad? How about jpg images or bitmaps?


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

You've really got the wrong idea about what linux is. Linux is just the kernel which handles input/output on the system and file level. The gui, applications, etc are just running on the kernel (linux).

There are distributions of linux, which is a preconfigured linux kernel distributed with a collection of applications. My favorite distribution is OpenSuse 10.2.

Depending on what applications you install on linux(there's thousands of them), is what determines what files you'll be able to use.



> Is it compatible with MS WORD or Notepad?


Most distributions include openoffice, kwrite, staroffice, or another office suite that's compatible/comparable to MSword and notepad, and will read/write those files.



> How about jpg images or bitmaps?


 Yes, there are plenty of graphic apps shipped with standard distributions that are compatible with bmp's, jpegs, etc.

There really isn't much that windows can do that linux can't. After a while of using linux, if you don't just give up due to the small learning curve, you'll find that you'll be able to do most of the things you can do in windows much easier, faster, and with greater power and flexibility. Except run the full version of AOL.



> I like Linux, it's a great OS with a good community, but it isn't compatible with lots of programs I use.


About the only thing I haven't been able to get running on linux is AOL. What programs are you talking about?

As far as your windows applications, there's most likely more powerful and easier to use, linux alternatives.

If you have to have your windows programs, I highly recommend you get crossover office (for standard windows apps like office and photoshop) and cedega (for compatibility with a large number of windows games). You'll be amazed as how much works with linux.

WARNING: Here's a catch you need to be aware of with most linux distributions. Even though most linux distributions ship with all kinds of applications, there's going to be a bit missing that you'll want and need to fully appreciate your PC.

The problem is that distributions normally only include open source programs. That means, no adobe pdf support, no windows media codecs, no flash player support, no encrypted (store bought) DVD support, no closed source video drivers etc. You'll have to install support for these things yourself. Luckily, there's plenty of guides and help available on the net, and it's much easier to get this stuff installed than searching down the driver disks to install windows (which you'd have to load the same things on after installing as well). Here's one for opensuse 10.2 : http://www.softwareinreview.com/cms/content/view/60/

You should look for these types of reviews and guides for any distribution your considering.

Also, take a look at youtube, and search for a few videos of xgl, beryl, and compiz in action running on some distros. They really make the GUI of windows and Mac seem very outdated. Once you decide on a distro, look for a guide on installing xgl w/ compiz and/or beryl on it.  Also, check out mythtv, and Asterisk for making free telephone calls from your linux machine.

Also, don't knock linux if you don't like the first desktop that you boot into, or the first distribution you try. There's many different desktops you can try that might suit your taste better, and I recommend you try at least both of the leading ones, KDE and Gnome. I prefer KDE, but some prefer Gnome, or one of the others. And, there's many, many distributions to try. Take some time to test a few to find the one you like.

I also recommend that when you run setup, you install all the developer packages and programming stuff, including any for Gnome and KDE. They tend to become useful later.



> How about Tech Support?


 Google works 24 hours a day, and it's much faster than waiting for someone in India to answer the phone.  You could just leave me your root password and IP though...


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

> Not all apps for Linux are free and not all apps even offered .
> Voice recognition in particular.


How to: Dragon Naturally Speaking with wine
http://appdb.winehq.org/appview.php?versionId=3227&iTestingId=54

Probably work great with crossover if it works with wine.

ViaVoice is available. http://www.icewalkers.com/Linux/Software/522370/IBM's-Java-Embedded-ViaVoice-speech-SDK.html

Not to much open source stuff though. A few on sourceforge your might try: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...cd=1&q=sourceforge+speech+recognition&spell=1

Never thought about it before, but it should be pretty easy to use the speech recognition in my trixbox install to capture speech into apps.


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

I knew that Linux is a kernel, I was just inferring that they meant Linux distros.


----------



## Hulk701 (Dec 5, 2003)

Okay, I'll admit my ignorance. What is a kernel and why is it important to this discussion?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

The kernel is a basic, core part of your system that interacts with the hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernel_(computer_science)


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

http://www.bellevuelinux.org/kernel.html

Windows has one too: The Windows kernel is the core of the operating system. It provides system level services such as device and memory management, allocates processor time to processes, and manages error handling.


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

Thanks for the info on Dragon, gotrootdude 
Not enough development to make the conversion to a Linux distro, but worth keeping an eye on.
Already own L&H, however.


----------



## Stephen47 (Oct 4, 2002)

don't use it if you want wireless.


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

Yeah. Wireless can be a pain to get working unless you plan ahead when purchasing a wifi adaptor, and choose one that's linux friendly. Otherwise, your stuck installing and trying to configure ndiswrapper, which generally doesn't work as well as native linux drivers.


----------



## Stephen47 (Oct 4, 2002)

I have an Intel PRO Wireless 3945 whic I read several places worked "out of the box" on several distros. It never worked for me and the various Linux forums were no help.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

gotrootdude said:


> You've really got the wrong idea about what linux is. Linux is just the kernel which handles input/output on the system and file level. The gui, applications, etc are just running on the kernel (linux).
> 
> There are distributions of linux, which is a preconfigured linux kernel distributed with a collection of applications. My favorite distribution is OpenSuse 10.2.
> 
> ...


The reality in my opinion is that Linux is not generally suited to the average user. I have tried both installed and Bootable varieties and many problems exist that simply don't with Windows that make it a real turn off for many.

Many applications aren't supported through Linux, that's widely known but there are many types of programs that don't have viable Linux alternatives. Mainly games. I've tried using Wine and it didn't work, I've heard it only works for some programs and since it's using emulation the performance of the program is affected. This isn't much of an issue for non gamers but for those like me it is a big one!:down:

From what I've found there's generally 2 types of installation packages for Linux, rpm and another one I can't remember. Both are generally more different to install than Windows programs and trying to figure out its file management system can make you dizzy.:down:

Basically I think Linux is best suited for more tech minded users and those that aren't gamers. This applies even to the more user friendly versions. Why change to Linux and go through all that hassle when Windows does it easier? I agree Linux generally gives a user more control over their computer and the OS and the programs are in many cases free but it all depends on what you prefer.

The other alternative is to have a dual boot system and I've been there and done that. While it'll generally be fine I'll never go there again. After deleting the Linux partition since I could find no other way I getting rid it it left a boot loader behind that since I don't know enough about Linux had trouble getting past. I realise I should have gotten rid of Linux a different way but it's likely a lot of average users would use the same method and possibly end up in the same mess but that's another story.

Until Linux makes a OS that can realistically run most programs(including games) regardless of what type of emulation they use and makes the installation of programs and file system easier to understand I doubt it'll be a realistic contender for Windows on the Desktop market.


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

> The reality in my opinion is that Linux is not generally suited to the average user. I have tried both installed and Bootable varieties and many problems exist that simply don't with Windows that make it a real turn off for many.


IMO, windows is similarly dis-suited for the average user. Try searching down old driver disks, making sure antivirus works, making sure it doesn't get spyware infested, making sure it doesn't muck up your USB drives, etc. Many problems exist in windows that simply don't exist in Linux.  Try writing to your flash drive in windows and pulling it out immediately after the animation disappears and hope you can recover the files. Or, let your kids surf the net looking for song lyrics and try using it the next day spyware free. Or install a non-stable driver. Or install one of those many Microsoft patches that have gone wrong. Or, maybe Norton crashes your drive. 
Even defragmentation is broke.



> Many applications aren't supported through Linux, that's widely known but there are many types of programs that don't have viable Linux alternatives. Mainly games. I've tried using Wine and it didn't work, I've heard it only works for some programs and since it's using emulation the performance of the program is affected. This isn't much of an issue for non gamers but for those like me it is a big one!


 You mean, many windows applications aren't supported by linux. In contrast, how many linux apps are supported in windows? Crossover, Wine, and Cedega support quite a few windows apps. There's really not many I haven't been able to get running under one or the other. 



> From what I've found there's generally 2 types of installation packages for Linux, rpm and another one I can't remember. Both are generally more different to install than Windows programs and trying to figure out its file management system can make you dizzy.


 Maybe you haven't tried a recent distro. Yast grabs software and installs it automatically when desired. Portage grabs source, builds, and installs it when asked. Klick and Automatrix allow click download and run applications. Even installing from source is as simple as reading the install or readme file following instructions and/or, moving it to etc/src/ ungzip and runnning ./configure, make, make clean, make install. It's not hard, just different. 
With portage, you just "emerge application-name" and it gets installed if it's available. To uninstall the app, you unermerge it using the command emerge -C packagename. To make things even simpler, you can write or use other's shell scripts to preform mass installations of assorted software. 
By the way, many drivers can be installed the same way, without searching for disks. :up:

Yast, Portage, Apt-get, Smart, and other package management applications even warn me when a program installation may cause problems with my system and what steps I can take to fix (resolve) it. Windows just lets you crash your system with no warnings.

The only time I install a rpm manually, using rpm -i package-name, is if I can't find it on a repository set up in my sources. Almost any other time, I build from source. It may be a bit slower due to compiling time, but the application is optimized by build flags for my system.

As far as the filing system, I find it easier than windows. I don't keep all those un-neccesary duplicates, and store source in src, keep user files in usr/username/home, binaries in /bin, links to drives (mountpoints) in /mnt/. What can be simpler? 
I also fully enjoy hard and soft links that work in correct manner, not broken like in windows where you remove the shortcut without removing the file, or try to watch a shortcut using media player and have no idea why it doesn't play.



> Basically I think Linux is best suited for more tech minded users and those that aren't gamers.


 I find it funny that my children have demanded Linux be installed due to the amount of games available on it that aren't available on windows.  
Keep buying your windows games, we'll keep playing AlienArena, Wesnoth, etc. Check www.happypenguin.org/ if you don't believe me. (Note: the site seems to be having a problem loading today 3/7/07)

In truth, I think windows is great, simply because it's the one sold preconfigured down at the mass-merchants, and there's not enough linux guru's around to meet the demand of those wishing to convert. I convert around three people a week, and each set of differing hardware/software brings it's own bit of difficulty (same with windows). The only reason us Linux guru's are in such demand is because the vendors don't sell preconfigured linux systems with proprietary format support that has been pushed on consumers due to thier continued dependence on Microsoft and the like.


----------



## dondersjoris (Feb 11, 2007)

I agree with the moderator; I'm running a few computers with Linux (2 / open suse). It is as easy to use as installing a microsoft OS ! The downside is that not all drivers (printer/modems/etc) are available or are in 'experimental' stage. 
Once it's running u have a very nice OS (and incl. other software), but as for gaming etc it is too soon to migrate I suppose... 

****just loving GRUB ****


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

dondersjoris said:


> I agree with the moderator; I'm running a few computers with Linux (2 / open suse). It is as easy to use as installing a microsoft OS ! The downside is that not all drivers (printer/modems/etc) are available or are in 'experimental' stage.
> Once it's running u have a very nice OS (and incl. other software), but as for gaming etc it is too soon to migrate I suppose...
> 
> ****just loving GRUB ****


No don't gotta love GRUB, that's the boot loader that was left over after I deleted my Linux partition and drove me crazy.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

gotrootdude said:


> IMO, windows is similarly dis-suited for the average user. Try searching down old driver disks, making sure antivirus works, making sure it doesn't get spyware infested, making sure it doesn't muck up your USB drives, etc. Many problems exist in windows that simply don't exist in Linux.
> 
> You mean, many windows applications aren't supported by linux. In contrast, how many linux apps are supported in windows? Crossover, Wine, and Cedega support quite a few windows apps. There's really not many I haven't been able to get running under one or the other.
> 
> ...


I'll check out the list but this is clearly a Windows user vs Linux user argument we're playing here. How many times have I seen it in those PC Magazines?

Before you get too excited check the amount of people using Linux on a desktop compared to Windows. I'm not the only one with the opinion I stated before, it's been echoed by many but the linux lovers always seem to have a counter argument for it.


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

I guess the counter arguements are mainly due to linux not coming pre-installed/configured on mass merchant machines, while windows does. Therefore many reviewers and new-users don't get the benefit of experiencing a properly installed/configured system, with bugs particular to their hardware worked out.


In contrast, try running a small PC shop, and building/configuring three or so windows boxes a week, and do the same with linux boxes. You'd quickly gain a respect for linux when it tells you what went wrong while windows didn't. Deal with window's hardware abstraction layer, delayed write disk corruption problems, etc.
Quick note: I can't plug my 4GB USB drive into this windows machine because it crashes and I have to reboot with windows giving no reason why.. Sigh.. 

I still build/sell/support windows boxes, but my preference now is for building/selling/supporting linux boxes.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

gotrootdude said:


> I guess the counter arguements are mainly due to linux not coming pre-installed/configured on mass merchant machines, while windows does. Therefore many reviewers and new-users don't get the benefit of experiencing a properly installed/configured system, with bugs particular to their hardware worked out.
> 
> In contrast, try running a small PC shop, and building/configuring three or so windows boxes a week, and do the same with linux boxes. You'd quickly gain a respect for linux when it tells you what went wrong while windows didn't. Deal with window's hardware abstraction layer, delayed write disk corruption problems, etc.
> Quick note: I can't plug my 4GB USB drive into this windows machine because it crashes and I have to reboot with windows giving no reason why.. Sigh..
> ...


Actually from a lot of the PC Mags I've read it seems in the past few years many more people have tried it and some have turned away and others have stayed, it's unfair to put it all down to ignorance.

I understand your point from a tech/sale point of view but I'm coming from the user point of view.


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

> I'm waiting for a average computer that can't be infected with malware unless it's intentionally ........ 5 years later: I am still waiting.


Pick a member of my family.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

gotrootdude said:


> Pick a member of my family.


Hey as a spyware fighter in training I gotta have a cool motto to work with.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

gotrootdude said:


> Pick a member of my family.


Ok well I could change it to a Windows user but I can't be stuffed.


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

> I understand your point from a tech/sale point of view but I'm coming from the user point of view.


From a user perspective, they are best off finding a guru to preconfigure the machine and add support for all the DRM'ed and proprietary format junk. It's the same with windows, as you still need a mpeg2 codec in order to play DVD's, etc, which is normally vendor preinstalled. It's not a ignorance problem, it's a mass-merchant not providing the linux option problem.

Part of the problem is also to be placed on corporate greed, and resulting DRM and copyright laws, which makes DVD decoding a DMCA problem for open-source or anyone selling a preconfigured solution for this. If people refused to pay money for DRM'd media, and refuse to allow legistlation that restricted fair-use, that part of the problem would quickly resolve itself.


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

> No don't gotta love GRUB, that's the boot loader that was left over after I deleted my Linux partition and drove me crazy.


Did you try booting your windows disk, going to the repair console, and typing/running
"fixboot"
"fixmbr"
"bootcfg /rebuild"


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

gotrootdude said:


> Did you try booting your windows disk, going to the repair console, and typing/running
> "fixboot"
> "fixmbr"
> "bootcfg /rebuild"


That was a long time ago and I didn't, I'm not that familiar with the console but my is point was neither are a lot of average users.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

gotrootdude said:


> Pick a member of my family.


Actually please take a look at this link.
http://forum.malwareremoval.com/viewtopic.php?p=160330#160330


----------



## gotrootdude (Feb 19, 2003)

> That was a long time ago and I didn't, I'm not that familiar with the console but my is point was neither are a lot of average users.


 Not familier with the console in windows eh? Can't fix things in the console? And yet people still try to complain about using Terminal in linux.



> Actually please take a look at this link.
> http://forum.malwareremoval.com/view...=160330#160330


The linked site is kinda misleading.

Linux is inherently more secure than windows due to it's nature of disallowing software to run or make changes to the core system files unless specifically permitted by the super-user.

It's true that the linux servers the responder in the link was talking about may be harboring, spreading, malware/spyware and virus', but the real question should be: "are they actually running the spyware/malware and virus', or simply storing them?"

I can read an infected e-mail on my linux box, and my box will have the virus on it, but since the virus is not given root privilege, my box doesn't run the virus thus the virus really isn't a concern of mine, and I admit I forward mail to windows users. Now, if I feel nice about it, I might use my antivirus on linux to scan the emails I receive before sending them to my Windows using friends. Unfortunately, I tend to disregard or not notice the attached virus since it doesn't affect my OS. I'm not infected though, it's the windows users who receive and open the mail who get infected.

See what I mean. 

Now, with that out of the way. I will not deny that there are undoubtedly vuneralbilities in linux, but any modern linux distro, such as Ubuntu or the like, does offer automatic and/or manual updating.

Now I do have Internet Explorer running on Crossover Office, and it's conceivable that it could get infected, but I can just delete the holding bottle, and unlike windows the spyware would only affect the user, not the root of the system, and only if that user decided (for some reason) to continue to use IE. If your running windows programs, you adopt the problems of those programs.


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

gotrootdude said:


> Not familier with the console in windows eh? Can't fix things in the console? And yet people still try to complain about using Terminal in linux.
> 
> The linked site is kinda misleading.
> 
> ...


You should know now I'm going to be looking for any malware specifically designed to infect Linux computers, not to use against them of course but to try and prove they exist. Although I will admit my search probably wont be fruitful. It's nothing against you, it's just something that's got me going. If I come up with nothing feel free to laugh.


----------



## linskyjack (Aug 28, 2004)

gotrootdude said:


> You've really got the wrong idea about what linux is. Linux is just the kernel which handles input/output on the system and file level. The gui, applications, etc are just running on the kernel (linux).
> 
> There are distributions of linux, which is a preconfigured linux kernel distributed with a collection of applications. My favorite distribution is OpenSuse 10.2.
> 
> ...


Hold on---there are plenty of programs that won't run on Linux and although there are Linux alternatives, many fall way short of the originals.

Here is a list.

Photoshop---Linux has the Gimp---not a bad program but certainly not as professional as Photoshop

NLE's I know of no Linux program that is as powerful as Vegas, Avid, etc.

Beyond that, although Linux has Scribus for Desktop Publishing----it isn't as powerful as the Adobe products.

I could go on and on---


----------



## hi_itsme (Feb 17, 2007)

I've been gearing up to try Linux on one of my machines. Haven't decided which one yet (which distro or which machine!)
One of the things that concerns me is the apparent lack of documentation. While I've found plenty of Open Source software (I'm running more and more open source stuff, even on windows) for Linux to do what I want to do, I'm concerned that much of it is documented poorly.
So far, my experience has led me to believe that poorly documented programs also tend to be coded poorly. After all, meticulous code is able to document itself. And a coder ought (IMHO) to keep the end user in mind...
So I haven't taken the plunge and installed anything yet. I'm still looking for the right distro. I can do without a lot of things, but I can't work with a machine that I can't figure out how to use. I may end up going with a less feature-rich distro, in favour of something with a strong support community and clear, concise, and thorough documentation!


----------



## person (Dec 23, 2006)

hi_itsme said:


> I've been gearing up to try Linux on one of my machines. Haven't decided which one yet (which distro or which machine!)
> One of the things that concerns me is the apparent lack of documentation. While I've found plenty of Open Source software (I'm running more and more open source stuff, even on windows) for Linux to do what I want to do, I'm concerned that much of it is documented poorly.
> So far, my experience has led me to believe that poorly documented programs also tend to be coded poorly. After all, meticulous code is able to document itself. And a coder ought (IMHO) to keep the end user in mind...
> So I haven't taken the plunge and installed anything yet. I'm still looking for the right distro. I can do without a lot of things, but I can't work with a machine that I can't figure out how to use. I may end up going with a less feature-rich distro, in favour of something with a strong support community and clear, concise, and thorough documentation!


I might be able to head you in the right direction here I hope. I have never used this distro but apparently is the most popular one at the moment. Maybe you should try Ubuntu 6.10(sorry don't have a link to it but it's free and there's probably somewhere on the net you can download it from and I mean legally because after all it's free). It's known as Linux For Humans, basically in a nutshell is one of the most user friendly distros yet. As for documentation with, I've never used it so I can't say but for a beginner it seems a good option and comes with lots of applications!:up:


----------



## Stoner (Oct 26, 2002)

hi_itsme said:


> I've been gearing up to try Linux on one of my machines. Haven't decided which one yet (which distro or which machine!)....................
> .....................


Rather than jumping in completely blind and making a commitment, try one of the several Live CD distros to see if if Linux is for you.

Slax is my favorite, Knoppix is well known and Ubuntu also has a Live CD version.

The advantage is you can boot from a CD with out having to install to the hard drive.
The disadvantage is they are slower.
But, like Slax and a few others, there is the option to boot everything into memory (if you have enough) and the speed is comparable to an install.

Here's a link to the many different Live CD versions:
Link

enjoy


----------



## Hulk701 (Dec 5, 2003)

Wow Stoner, there must be 50-100 listing there. Is each one a separate OS?


----------



## ferrija1 (Apr 11, 2006)

Hulk701 said:


> Wow Stoner, there must be 50-100 listing there. Is each one a separate OS?


Yes, each one is a different distro, or at least a different version of a distro.


----------

