Thinking of switching from XP to Linux...should I?

[tekkieman]

Most Linux GUIs remind me of Windows 3.1, since you asked.

Yes, I asked, and I appreciate your response (although I'm certain I can actually hear the tone of bitter hatred of all things linux resonating in your head as you typed it). Knowing your particular feelings on the subject, I really didn't even need the context. If I did, I would ask if that particular impression was of your impression when you first saw 3.1, or your impression of 3.1 today? I'm sure I know the answer, but it never hurts to ask.

First, I would ask: are you referring to the entire desktop, or the specific application GUIs?

If the desktop in general, I am aware of a couple of DEs/WMs in use today that I would tend to agree with you. Take Puppy linux for instance. I find the UI to be quite Fisher-Price. However, the people who use Puppy love their interface. It is tailored to their liking. Some are so minimalist as to not even be comparable to Win 3.1, but then, they were designed to be minimalist.

Ok, so we'll stick with the 2 most popular, KDE and GNOME. Since GNOME somewhat resembles the Mac UI, do you feel the Mac UI looks like Win 3.1? What about KDE? Let's see, there are KDE themes which resemble 95, XP, and even Vista. There are some that resemble OSX, and there are some that do not resemble anything. I'm not aware of a single one that resembles 3.1, but I may have just missed it.

Now, as I've said, my current desktop has basically a start menu, a task bar, a configurable applet dock, multiple virtual desktops, variable transparency, and the currently popular wobbly, blazing, spinning cubes of death. Certainly none of that was available in 3.1, or 95, or 98, or XP. It is possible that my recollection of the specifics of my desktop from 15 years ago may be getting fuzzy, but I don't quiet see the resemblance myself.

While a persons specific impression is entirely their own and cannot really be called wrong, perhaps you, or someone else, might point to something a little more concrete... Perhaps not. Even I find on occasion that I dislike something for no good reason. I'm just trying to determine if this is the case, or if there is something specific.

[Nelson37]

I don't think you would know a fact if it bit you on the ass. 200 Windows installs a year, huh?
You're the guy who insists you can see my monitor better than I can.

I know it is difficult for you, but READ WHAT I POSTED. Peachtree will not run. Quickbooks will not run. Sage accounting will not run. Autocad will not run. The list continues.

PCB Design software is certainly not a common app. The ones I listed are. If you had any knowledge of business, you would know this.

The MAC has some advantages for magazine publishers, so for the two businesses in my area which do that, the MAC is better. For the rest of the several hundred businesses in my area, it is not. PC and Windows is better. SFAIK, not a single printed circuit board design firm in my area.

That does, however, make a start to the list of programs used by business (just for you, ANY business, not businesses in general) which require Linux to run properly. Cadence. (also Mentor Graphics, all two of them). Never heard of it, no use for it, but if it ever comes up, and development continues for windows and Linux at the same pace, good to know the option is available just in case the Windows problems have not been fixed. If they have, guess which one the customer will prefer?

My business customers, and businesses running any of the software I mentioned, which includes a very high percentage of them, can't use Linux.

I could find you a business somewhere still using an Abacus for math, in fact saw a guy using a PC as a table for a pad of paper and a pencil for math (with a company vacation group of 14 technicians standing there, this was hilarious), does that mean that the Abacus or pencil and paper is superior to the PC, because I can find one example?

Are you out of high school yet? My guess would be somewhere between 14 and 17.

The world is what it is, not the way you want it to be. Grow up.

[disturbed1]

I don't think you would know a fact if it bit you on the ass. 200 Windows installs a year, huh?
You're the guy who insists you can see my monitor better than I can.

I know it is difficult for you, but READ WHAT I POSTED. Peachtree will not run. Quickbooks will not run. Sage accounting will not run. Autocad will not run. The list continues.

PCB Design software is certainly not a common app. The ones I listed are. If you had any knowledge of business, you would know this.

The MAC has some advantages for magazine publishers, so for the two businesses in my area which do that, the MAC is better. For the rest of the several hundred businesses in my area, it is not. PC and Windows is better. SFAIK, not a single printed circuit board design firm in my area.

That does, however, make a start to the list of programs used by business (just for you, ANY business, not businesses in general) which require Linux to run properly. Cadence. (also Mentor Graphics, all two of them). Never heard of it, no use for it, but if it ever comes up, and development continues for windows and Linux at the same pace, good to know the option is available just in case the Windows problems have not been fixed. If they have, guess which one the customer will prefer?

My business customers, and businesses running any of the software I mentioned, which includes a very high percentage of them, can't use Linux.

I could find you a business somewhere still using an Abacus for math, in fact saw a guy using a PC as a table for a pad of paper and a pencil for math (with a company vacation group of 14 technicians standing there, this was hilarious), does that mean that the Abacus or pencil and paper is superior to the PC, because I can find one example?

Are you out of high school yet? My guess would be somewhere between 14 and 17.

The world is what it is, not the way you want it to be. Grow up.

Windows won't run Gnucash, Rhythmbox, can't mount my JFS, XFS, nor reiser file systems. How come when I hit the tab key in windows, there isn't an autocomple? What is with all of these hot fixes for the security update that updated that security update for that hot fix that fixed that security hole? How come in windows, when I hit the add/remove programs it only lets me ADD 4 or 5 windows programs?

I mean you keep saying that Linux won't run this Windows software and that Windows software. But how come Windows won't run my Linux software? Look, there are flaws in Windows, Linux, MacOS, OS/2, Minux, AIX, Solaris, BSD, Unix and what ever else. Just don't turn a blind eye to Windows, because it is no where near perfect.

Your business customers? I'm sorry but I'm calling you out on this. It's pure bullshit.

Big busines (New York Stock exchange, ever heard of it?), telecom's, University, Hospitals, Big movie production houses (Dream Works and ILM to name the 2 largest), along with Yahoo, Google, and yes even Hotmail (for many years) all run on Linux. Yahoo now runs on BSD though. Like this site? (www.videohelp.com) you do know it's ran on linux right? And has been since ~2004.

Your business customers must be small and not that demanding of any professional level apps, or either that and, extremely small where a robust CRM solution won't work because they have under 25 employee's. Must not need the top two POS systems either? I can honestly say that I don't know of a REAL business that runs Intuit nor Peachtree software. I've done contract work for many home based business (plumbers, real estate agents, lawn care ....) where they had 1-6 employees and used programs of that level. But not anyone I'd consider a business. Wait, maybe that kid down the street that tracks how many lemons he uses a day at his local beverage stand . Even then Gnucash and a spreadsheet ended up being exactly what they needed.

For home use, Linux is somewhat of a question, for some it's not even an option (right LS ) But in business it's just ignorant to not even consider Linux. If you don't know why, or have to ask, you need to quit your so called IT job, because you are severely under qualified and doing your customers a great disservice.

[JohnnyMalaria]

@tekkieman - As an ardent proponent of MEPIS, how do you feel about Dell's decision to use Ubuntu as its Linux offering?

I had a quick look at the Ubuntu site - the most striking thing to me was the Windows-like nature. Menu-driven GUI, automatic updates, applications that seem deliberately akin to Windows staples (Outlook etc). (Based only on what's on their site.)

Is Ubuntu "selling out" to the Windows-like appearance?

How transferable are apps from one distro to another? As a developer, do I have to worry about different distros or, from a developer's perspective, is it a case of "Linux is Linux is Linux"?

[tekkieman]

@tekkieman - As an ardent proponent of MEPIS, how do you feel about Dell's decision to use Ubuntu as its Linux offering?

I had a quick look at the Ubuntu site - the most striking thing to me was the Windows-like nature. Menu-driven GUI, automatic updates, applications that seem deliberately akin to Windows staples (Outlook etc). (Based only on what's on their site.)

Is Ubuntu "selling out" to the Windows-like appearance?

How transferable are apps from one distro to another? As a developer, do I have to worry about different distros or, from a developer's perspective, is it a case of "Linux is Linux is Linux"?

Some good questions! This is really more like what I had hoped this thread would be: Ask the questions, try it if you're interested, decide what works for you.

Unfortunately, we as a people all tend to have strong opinions, and we like what we like. Perhaps if we were all more open-minded and less sure our way was the only way...nah, it still wouldn't be a perfect world.

However, I applaud your your no-nonsense questions, and I'll preface my answers with the statement that this is only my opinion.

I have actually been keeping my eye on Ubuntu since it began. I personally think it has come a long way. I find it to be a stable, polished, well rounded, new user friendly distro. As a matter of fact, I have the new Feisty release running on all my machines (but only in a VM).

As to me being an ardent proponent of MEPIS, I guess I am, but I would honestly have to say that Ubuntu is a more polished distro. The UI is cleaner, and although they use the same package management, the presentation looks better in Ubuntu. Some of the reasons I still use MEPIS is that it is more stable (since it does not use every latest version of every app), and the more-or-less single developer is very involved with the people who use it.

Ubuntu has changed their direction with linux lately, and they now look at it as more of a profitable business venture than in the beginning. This is evident in their server and service offerings. In essence, they are now trying to compete at the level of Red Hat and Novell (and now Oracle). If you weren't aware, Red Hat and Novell were also being considered by Dell, and Dell currently has business dealings with both of them. My opinion is that Dell made the right choice in distros. Red Hat is too business oriented, and steers a wide path around things that matters to users (like codecs, flash, java, PDF). Novell is tied just a little too closely to Microsoft, and are not viewed well currently by "the community". Ubuntu is currently the most popular linux distro by far, especially with new users, and whatever the reason for it, they have held that position almost since coming on the scene.

I'm not sure I've really decided that this will work for Dell. I really hope it does, but the arguments on the other side are not far off the mark. First, most linux is freely available to anyone who wants it now, and will work on almost all existing hardware. Why does someone need to buy a new computer from Dell to get it? Also, the majority of the people using linux currently don't typically buy their computers from Dell (or HP, or any other OEM). We tend to build our own, with some exceptions of course. And to be perfectly honest, since I do use Windows (being employed as a Windows developer), if I were buying a Dell (I just did - a Precision workstation), I save a significant amount of money by taking the cheap OEM Windows license and downloading all the linux I can swallow. While that may make me a hypocrite, it also makes me a financially responsible employee.

As to the applications offering of Ubuntu, I think you have hit on what many in this thread (pro and con) have been saying: If you want to attract Windows users, you need to offer something similar, and hopefully better. So, I don't think it's any wonder. Apple isn't that much different either. Almost all users want an office suite, web, email, media players, etc. Of course, things like menu-driven GUIs, etc are Windows-like in my opinion. These things were around before Windows. If you've never seen anything but Windows, I'm sure it seems that way, but the point is that computer users want GUI, and that's what the OSes are giving them. I don't single out Ubuntu, and I don't consider it "selling out" As long as my choice doesn't get removed, I'm fine with it.

Here's an example: How many times does automatic updates pester you with the balloon? MEPIS has an icon with the number of updates on it. I'm free to browse the updates, decide what I want or don't want, and can ignore the icon completely since it's not constantly popping up in my face. It also doesn't secretly switch my default setting of "Shut Down", to "Install updates, then shut down". I can tell you I was pretty pissed the first time I noticed that.

I think Ubuntu falls in the middle of a newbie linux and a casual user linux. It's not a bad starting point, and many just stay once they get used to it.

Now, I want to be careful how I say this, but no, linux is not just linux. There is only one linux kernel. However, there is nothing preventing any distro maker from tweaking it specific to their distro. Many do. Add a module, remove a module, tweak this... You may rely on something that might not be there by default. However, everything that makes linux what it is must always be available to you. Even the distro maker cannot do anything to keep you from changing it, recompiling it, and redistributing it.

The apps themselves are a non issue. Their are apps that are so-called GNOME apps, or KDE apps, but most run under any desktop environment with just the need to add the core DE libraries. I run many GNOME apps under KDE, and they work fine. There is still some occasional argument over which widget toolkit is best, but the roars have died done some, and most people just use what they like.

Damn! I feel like I write a book every time I post in this thread, but I hope I've answered your questions. Again, these are merely my opinions, and the value of which is often highly debated.

[courtrrb]

Nelson37:
You just don't get it & have no idea what your taking about!.

Autocad is owned by Cadence. Its their low end tool. So yes I do know they sell more of them but the hi end customers demand a linux alternate & they listend. AutoCad can't do eveything that the hi-end tools can do. We looked at it & found that is was unable to do eveything we needed & we would not even looked at them if all they had were windows versions. I wasnt the one makinng the descision etheir. It was a business decision windows was not even an option just not stable enough.

[JohnnyMalaria]

@tekkieman - Thanks for your reply. Perhaps my curiosity gene will get the better of me....I tried Linux many years ago (when the installation was a considerable undertaking).

[Nelson37]

Jesus, now you all want to re-define what a business is and you know my environment better than I do. Amazing.

I live in Florida. Very few LARGE businesses, very little heavy industry. Companies like those to which you refer usually have in-house IT people, they need them to support their customized apps.

What you see and what I see are obviously different. The numbers are there for anyone who cares to actually check them. Linux does not run what my customers want, both those that do million-dollar deals every week and those that don't do $250,000 in a year. They don't want it, they don't ask for it, it won't do what they need. Believe as you wish, you are free to choose to believe that what I see and hear is just not there.

Further discussion is pointless.

[courtrrb]

Nelson37
I finally agree with you any further discussion would be pointless.

It's very clear you don't know what you talking about.
I've worked as a contractor & have worked from Mass to Cal & to Flordia. & only small companies use mid-range desktop apps on windows. They use them until they can afford to switch to the higher-end on Linux.

[CrayonEater]

I've worked as a security consultant to several medium and large businesses and am not aware of ANY that use Linux on the desktop. It's not a desktop OS, it's as simple as that. The market share of Linux bears this out, for better or for worse.

@tekkieman-
I'm going to discuss/rebut some of the points you made, some of which are valid, some not, but it's late right now. In brevity, though, I do want to say that I am aware of the fact that Fedora/Redhat has always been the beta grounds for RHEL, but it's the closest thing there is to a standard in the Linux community, which is why I pursued it up to FC5. There may be other distros that are better at some things, but the idea is not to have "specialty operating systems", the idea is to have one that suits all needs as well as practical. As others have pointed out, that is a major part of the problem Linux faces. Anyway, I'm going to bed, good night.

[courtrrb]

Security with Windows? That's like keeping water out of a sponge. If they all switched to Linux you'd be out of a job.

We'll then if you think it's not a desktop OS than we would never use your security firm. But then again I upper management can be snowed by anybody.

We have multiple Linux desktop all running our most curial software. We can't take a chance to be down for for the latest security scare or some new security flaw is found & we have to dl the patch & reboot. Yes we have windows machines around by much less crucial & all basically dumb terminals.

[tekkieman]

I've worked as a security consultant to several medium and large businesses and am not aware of ANY that use Linux on the desktop. It's not a desktop OS, it's as simple as that. The market share of Linux bears this out, for better or for worse.

...and I've worked at medium and large businesses that do. Red Hat has made a successful business selling it as a desktop OS (as well as server admittedly), so has Novell (although I think they'll screw linux with their deal with MS), and we'll have to see where it goes, but even Dell has seen the potential business advantage in it. In the past, it was primarily considered a server OS, but the tide is changing,

I would argue that market share is not the definition of a desktop OS. Apple certainly doesn't have the market share, but you cannot deny that OSX is a desktop OS <attempts clever ploy to bring the Mac fans into the fray>. No one is claiming that it is the most popular, or the widest spread, but that is not the definition.

@tekkieman-
I'm going to discuss/rebut some of the points you made, some of which are valid, some not, but it's late right now. In brevity, though, I do want to say that I am aware of the fact that Fedora/Redhat has always been the beta grounds for RHEL, but it's the closest thing there is to a standard in the Linux community, which is why I pursued it up to FC5. There may be other distros that are better at some things, but the idea is not to have "specialty operating systems", the idea is to have one that suits all needs as well as practical. As others have pointed out, that is a major part of the problem Linux faces. Anyway, I'm going to bed, good night.

I look forward to it. You are correct (to a degree) about Red Hat/Fedora, but before I get lynched, let's not forget Debian and Gentoo. These three together form the roots of almost all other distros. As you prepare your rebuttal, I want to throw one more bit of info at you:

the idea is not to have "specialty operating systems", the idea is to have one that suits all needs as well as practical

This is one of the most common misunderstandings of people about linux. This is absolutely not the case. It is in fact, the exact opposite. Linux is built on the foundation of a completely customizable OS. Start with the kernel and toolchain, sprinkle in the add-on modules that best suit your needs, add in your window manager and/or desktop environment of choice. Top off with any number of your choice of applications. There you have it: An operating system that suits your needs almost as exactly as you define.

Now, we can argue the merits of the number and/or quality of applications. We could argue whether there have been too many people to do their own vision of it. But whether or not you agree with the implementation, can you honestly say that the premise is flawed? This is not to suggest that there is something wrong with a "one size fits all (even if it doesn't really fit) OS for the masses". This is about the choice.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[lordsmurf]

The GUI's tend to have rough edges, blocks and other aspects that are not smooth. It's hard to put into words. There is a big lack of thin-line shading as you find in modern versions of Windows or OS X.

[courtrrb]

lordsmurf:
I ask you for your humble opinion.
Which distro & which gui.

I don't seam to having these problems & I want to see what you see.
I have seen some graphics difference between some of the distros.
It just might be a difference between the one you havet & the one I'm using.
It might be just in the distro your using & your most likely right I want to see for my self.
I even see this type of problem once in my distro of choice. They recieved a lot of complaints & they fixed these problem on the next release.

This one of the reasons I agree their are to many distros out their & some of them are giving Linux a bad name.

I do have a system I test all upgrades & other distros before loading it on my main machine so I can load it on that.
I can then set the monitor next to my Windows monitor to see if I can see what you seeing.

Thanks

[tekkieman]

The GUI's tend to have rough edges, blocks and other aspects that are not smooth. It's hard to put into words. There is a big lack of thin-line shading as you find in modern versions of Windows or OS X.

This is useful. Would you object to evaluating a couple of different screenshots, and offering your opinion on if you see these problems on some but not others, none, all, any combination missed?

[courtrrb]

Any bets he wont provide the simple proof you ask for?

Ha tekkieman. I checked out MEPIS out on distrowatch and noticed it doesn't come with gnucash. How bad Is it had to install?
With it having has many dependency's & it can be a real pain to get installed. It is installed by default on my choice of Linux that would be Mandrake now Mandriva.

[SingSing]

As a longtime member of videohelp, nearly all the tools I learn and get thru this site, like TMPGenc, DVDauthor, ripit4me, DVDshrink,VOBedit,VOBblanker...etc, have no equivalent in Linux.

At work, part of the design and analysis applications started to have linux port, but it still only support about 50% of the work flow. It will require to have two computers, and constant swapping data. I rather stay with PC and SUN workstation which has true multi-processor, and server farm.

So either way, it is not pratical.

[lordsmurf]

Any bets he wont provide the simple proof you ask for?

How can you prove an opinion?

Anyway, I no longer have the distros installed. I remember Red Hat 10 looks like that. I still have a liveCD at home for something else, it was the same way. I might be able to look at it sometime, can give you the name. I may be Knoppix. I tried a couple that tekkie has suggested in the past, and the didn't look all that great either.

It's not like I'm judging the OS by it's looks.

He asked a question, I gave an answer. They lack sophisticated design. Windows XP/Vista and OS X have the high-end design (although you can pay for it in performance, depending on what's enabled). I don't necessarily think OS X is that great of an OS, but it looks good. Hell, that's probably why most Mac folks use it anyway.

Some of you people take this crap way too seriously.

It's just a damned OS. A means to an end, not an end itself.

Most folks cannot use an alternate OS like Linux because it lacks the software and other aspects we need to do our daily routines and work. It's really that easy.

Original question: Should I?
Honest answer: No, probably not. But by all means try it out if you want!

[courtrrb]

Well I tried TMPGenc & for what I needed it blows. I Use DVDshrink all the time with crossover with noproblem. I use DVDstyler again without problem. I do all my video captuer to edit to authoring & burning to DVD under Linux again with no problem as a mater of fact I have less problem doing all this (After I learned the process) then I ever did after years of using Windows. Most of the time thr the process a program whould crash. It got so frustrating it forced me to look for although harrder at first at least it wasn't crashing so I figured I was on the rigt track. Than after I learnd the apps I was able to finish more quickley & wasn't frustrated any more.

So with that said You must e use to being frustrated all the time.

so to say "So either way, it is not pratical". Isn't correct at all

[lordsmurf]

Not to be an ass, but if your computer crashes nonstop, it's user error, it's not the software or the OS.

The last time my computer "crashed" was when the network drive went out (router locked up) while I had Adobe InDesign running, accessing a file on that shared drive. XP locked up. I can't remember if that was in February or March. I don't readily recall the one before that, it was probably in 2006 sometime.

[courtrrb]

lordsmurf:

Sorry I was just trying to get a reaction out of you & it worked. In all honesty you have to admit if you asked me to try to give some simple
proof of a problem I found with windows & didn't replay what would you think.

All I wanted to know was what distro? I've tried most of the distros tekkieman tried. I have found that many not all show some problems you speak of.
I had an idea of the one you were talking about but I wanted to make sure. RedHat has a release date that has a long time between releases. So their
graphics is behind those graphics of some of the others. The last time I looked at Redhat it did look blockier to me too. It was stable than most but didn't have the default
programs that I needed & found loading them was a nightmare so I quickly dismissed it for one that better meet my needs.

The high end cad package we use require Redhat because of the slow release cycle & stability but it didn't have any of the required Office apps that we needed.
So we use a different Linux distro that meets our needs. So if you have a bad experience with a distro try a different one.
See http://distrowatch.com to get an idea of what they include.

So please please if you have a bad experiences with a pickticklier distro don't lump all the problem your seeing into Linux in general.
That would be like saying I bought a PC from Gateway and the graphics look crap or they don't have anything I need & now I have to find it & load it
so windows must sucks. But the Dells has everything I need and the graphics are great. Its just a different way of setting up the install.

My Linux distro of choice is is a full install of Mandriva. I would be the first to say their live cd sucks.

This is the choice were talking about.

[tekkieman]

He asked a question, I gave an answer.

It's just a damned OS. A means to an end, not an end itself.



Original question: Should I?
Honest answer: No, probably not. But by all means try it out if you want!

Smurf -

I have no problem with that. As stated :Should you? You've said that you don't like the interfaces, and the apps you use, you don't like the equivalents. I would agree with your assessment. You probably shouldn't. At least not today anyway. Down the road, who knows?

Should others? Nobody can say but them. There is nothing saying they shouldn't try it for themselves, and decide.

As a longtime member of videohelp, nearly all the tools I learn and get thru this site, like TMPGenc, DVDauthor, ripit4me, DVDshrink,VOBedit,VOBblanker...etc, have no equivalent in Linux.

I can't speak for all of them, but I have certainly found equivalents in linux. So, I need to ask, is it that you didn't find them, or did you not like them? I am asking seriously, because I have equivalents for at least:

DVDAuthor
DVDShrink
RipIt4Me
TMPGenc

I don't (haven't) used VOBedit and VOBblanker, so I can't speak to those. Although most of those I know run in WINE, and can be used in linux, I am talking about native linux applications.

[RLT69]

The biggest problem with comparisons of any sort is your TARGET AUDIENCE. What I mean is, what exactly are people going to be using the computer for?

I like to break it down to home users and business users, then further categorize based on the tasks that a user would need it to do. Using my parents (home users) as an example, they could use ANY OS on the market. Their needs (word processing, email, web browsing) are are quite small that any one OS would do. Not one provides a functional advantage over they other; they are computer illiterate. Windows is not easier for them. If anything the Mac has shown to be something they can grasp but they still have issues.

The advantage Linux brings is cost - it's cheaper and provides the software they need. Windows, you would have to purchase software unless you go with open source products such as Open Office.

So in the end it comes down to the task(s) you want your computer to perform and how well the user can perform those task(s) on that computer.

[JohnnyMalaria]

@tekkieman - I'm finding myself reading a lot of stuff about Linux from a developer's perspective - particular a long-in-the-tooth Windows developer.

One of the very powerful technologies that Microsoft have developed is COM (Component Object Model, often - and mistakenly - equated to ActiveX). Much of the software I develop makes very extensive use of COM - it really is wonderfully powerful. I assumed that it would be a different world in a Linux environment but, much to my relief, I have learned that there is a Linux port called EntireX by Software AG.

Have you any experience with this? What about software development in general on Linux for those experienced with Microsoft's development environment (Visual Studio etc)? What about GUI programming etc? I found a couple of sites but they were quite old (ca. 2000) and rather difficult to read since the authors seemed to like reminding the reader why Windows was so poor and Linux so great - a bit like the current Mac commercials (telling potential customers why they are so stupid!)

One of our apps relies heavily on Windows kernel drivers for FireWire communication and, unfortunately, there are some esoteric bugs that I have stumbled across (quite normal for me!) or other "features" that prevent me from getting the most out of the hardware. e.g., the driver responsible for sending DV data out via FireWire has a hard-coded data buffer that introduces a delay of about 0.5 seconds. I want to be able to change that (because I want to be able to do live chroma keying and some other things).

With the equivalent drivers in Linux being open-source, I presume I can....To me, that's a big advantage. Almost big enough to justify developing a Linux version of the software.

Which leads me to one more question: Do Linux users actually buy software? Or is the expectation in the Linux community that all software is open source/free etc? How do small developers for Linux make a living?

[tekkieman]

@tekkieman - I'm finding myself reading a lot of stuff about Linux from a developer's perspective - particular a long-in-the-tooth Windows developer.

By profession, I am also a Windows developer (and also a little long in the tooth). That is, I get paid by my employer to write software which only functions in Windows. We do, however, have a group of developers paid to write exclusively for the Mac.

One of the very powerful technologies that Microsoft have developed is COM (Component Object Model, often - and mistakenly - equated to ActiveX). Much of the software I develop makes very extensive use of COM - it really is wonderfully powerful. I assumed that it would be a different world in a Linux environment but, much to my relief, I have learned that there is a Linux port called EntireX by Software AG.

Our products also make extensive use of COM as we deal primarily with out of process services. I have never disputed the value of COM. Being relatively new to linux (about 3 years now), any development I do is in the user space. Obviously, there is something similar for linux, although I have not looked into how it works.

What about software development in general on Linux for those experienced with Microsoft's development environment (Visual Studio etc)? What about GUI programming etc? I found a couple of sites but they were quite old (ca. 2000) and rather difficult to read since the authors seemed to like reminding the reader why Windows was so poor and Linux so great - a bit like the current Mac commercials (telling potential customers why they are so stupid!)

Let me say for the record, I have not found any development IDE (in linux or Windows) as easy and as polished as Visual Studio, and that even goes back to when I used VS 2.0! That said, there are some excellent IDEs for linux. Some (such as CodeBlocks) are available for Windows as well. If you are interested, you might want to Google Eclipse, anjuta, kdevelop or monodevelop. Mono is the open source port of the .NET environment. It is not feature complete yet, and they are currently porting .NET 2.0 framework functionality into it, but there have already been several GNOME applications built on it (See beagle, and f-spot)

For UI development, there are a few different toolkits and applications. The two most popular toolkits being gtk and qt. For UI development, I like Glade, but there is also qtbuilder, and I'm sure others.

In linux development, the UI development is a separate process from the code development. Essentially, you write your code, you write your interface, then you connect them through signals and slots. Conceptually, not really any different from callbacks and delegates.

One of our apps relies heavily on Windows kernel drivers for FireWire communication and, unfortunately, there are some esoteric bugs that I have stumbled across (quite normal for me!) or other "features" that prevent me from getting the most out of the hardware. e.g., the driver responsible for sending DV data out via FireWire has a hard-coded data buffer that introduces a delay of about 0.5 seconds. I want to be able to change that (because I want to be able to do live chroma keying and some other things).

With the equivalent drivers in Linux being open-source, I presume I can....To me, that's a big advantage. Almost big enough to justify developing a Linux version of the software.

Well, you can, but you need to watch the licensing. Although Ballmer used the phrase negatively, linux applications usually have a GPL license, which is a viral license. What that basically means is that you have the right to the source code, to alter the source code to suit your needs, and the right to redistribute those changes. However, it also means that everyone you distribute to is entitled to those same rights. So, unless you plan to distribute the source code for your drivers with the drivers, using the linux source code would not meet your needs. If the same driver exists in BSD, BSD allows you to use their source code and lock it up into proprietary offerings. They don't care. That might be a good place for you to look.

Which leads me to one more question: Do Linux users actually buy software? Or is the expectation in the Linux community that all software is open source/free etc?

Well, some do buy software. Some refuse. I don't think as an individual it would be fair for me to speak for the community. I just paid the developer of my distro $50 for a 1 year subscription that entitles me to download any offering from their FTP site, whether released or not. Now, I don't need to do this as they usually hit the public mirrors within a day. Did I need to do this? Well, only if you believe in karma. There is no legal responsibility for me to do this. However, I run that distro on 4 computers in my house, so it made me feel better. What happens at the end of the year? Nothing. I can still download from the public mirrors (or bit torrent) for free. If there were a commercially available software that I needed that had a significant value over the free (as in beer) offering, I would pay for it, but that's just me.

How do small developers for Linux make a living?

Many don't. Any development skills I offer to open source software I consider exchange payment for what I have been given in return. Many linux developers develop software for linux because they enjoy developing software. Some do it to scratch a personal itch, then don't mind making improvements others ask for. Some do it, then ask for donations or charge for support. My distro maker asks for donations, and sells download subscriptions and merchandise. However, it is still free to those who want it. He does have a license agreement which suggests that if you use it for commercial use that you should pay for it, but does nothing to enforce that. I don't think there is a stock answer to that question.

[RLT69]

One of the very powerful technologies that Microsoft have developed is COM (Component Object Model, often - and mistakenly - equated to ActiveX).

COM is an umbrella term that includes Active X as well as, OLE, OLE Automation,COM+ and DCOM.
COM is being replaced by .NET and let's not forget about the problems with DLL hell; one of the reasons for .NET.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Component_Object_Model

So COM might have been powerful but it's being phased out and for good reason.

[JohnnyMalaria]

I think COM will survive for a long time - it certainly isn't being phased out or no longer supported by Microsoft. Not every Windows application benefits from .NET, managed code and CLR. All of the programming principles for DirectShow are COM, likewise for Direct3D.

[burnman99]

If you still think Linux GUI is still out of date check out this link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ&mode=related&search=

Later
Rog

[CrayonEater]

Ok, here's the long-winded reply I promised, though I've kept it a bit brief in part because I don't really have the time to address everything...and, well, because I forgot some things!

Given the time and effort to learn something new can yield the potential rewards. So, if linux sucks because the applications suck, then fine, use Windows. If linux sucks because it doesn't run Windows software (which it does), then use Windows. If linux sucks because you don't want to expend any effort to learn something new, then nothing we do to improve will make you happy, and you should use Windows.

There's a delicate balance here though. For major applications, people will be understandably unwilling to relearn applications, especially if they're not as computer-savvy as your or I. And, let's be honest, the vast, vast majority of people out there are NOT computer-savvy, and will only switch to a new app if it's very much like the old app they were using. Also, workers and companies alike will not readily or willingly switch major productivity apps if they've invested a considerable amount of training in them, e.g. Microsoft Word, Excel, Offfice, etc.

At this point in time, it really doesn't matter why.

Linux virii do exist e.g. Linux.Bliss, diesel, Klez, Slapper, Linux.Lion, etc.

It does matter, at any rate. While I understand your point about the paradox, realize that just because there aren't many "routine" viruses means that Linux boxes are really any more secure than Windows. Let me take a step back for a second. The reason for the lack of common viruses has more to do with three things:
1. Most Windows "viruses" as we know them do not rely on exploits, they rely on social-engineering i.e. end-user, client behavior (or stupidity, if you want to call it that). They are programs usually written by people who don't know how to take advantage of exploits allowing remote code execution. But the reason why they're effective is because such a large volume of users (i.e. Windows users) combine with inexperience. It's the "shotgun approach"; you may not hit the bird with every pellet of buckshot, but if you throw enough out there and create a wide-enough pattern, you're bound to hit something. Even those that do rely on exploits e.g. browser hijackers target popular software i.e. Internet Explorer. Firefox has had it's share of RCE flaws.
2. Linux has a drastically different dynamic due to it's role in the world. As you pointed out, it's the predominant server OS. However, it comprises a negligible share of the desktop market. Therefore, it's not much of a vector for traditional viruses as we know them. People don't generally use servers to browse the web, read email, or run Limewire, and most well-developed security policies strictly forbid servers from being used for desktop-like activity.
3. A third reason, but somewhat paradoxical in itself, is that Linux users tend to be more immune to social-engineering attacks, and use generally more secure common apps e.g. Firefox rather than Internet Explorer. Of course, this may also lure them into a false sense of security as well.

Some Linux virii like Slapper and Lion exploit vulnerable server-side software. Otherwise, Linux sploits generally rely on shellcode injection/RCE to work. In this sense, there is really no difference between the two, but virii traditionally are defined by using common, recognizable bits of code, whereas shellcode is generally custom or semi-custom. And yet other malware is cross-platform e.g. Redsheriff spyware, which uses Java. But Linux is really no less vulnerable, except that, because there are fewer Linux users sitting in front of a Linux box, they are less likely to be socially-engineered.

Top will show me that the majority of it is reserved for cache. When an application is exited, it remains in the cache for faster retrieval the next time it is used.

I have not had that experience, Linux needs to reload from scratch. Here's another common problem I had: Say I have to copy a large file to several directories. In Windows, the file will be read once (within reason) and written as many times as I needed. Linux, OTOH, seems to re-read the file each time and then write it elsewhere on the disk.
I've also observed quite a bit of stuttering in apps like MPlayer. I have not tried KMediaPlayer, but have had no problems with Windows' Media Player Classic (though I hate the interface) or Zoomplayer. VLC ain't what it's cracked up to be as far as I'm concerned.

Ok, this is where I would like some honest feedback. I'm looking at the GUI as I type this.

1. I don't like that Mac-like icons at the bottom. I am not overly concerned about this, but I prefer a traditional task manager, combined with some quick-launchers. This is not a major gripe though.

2. I don't like the classification of programs. I know what my Internet programs are, I know what my word-processing apps are, etc. Although I can see this as possibly being useful for newbs, I'd like to be able to change it.

3. I don't like the way CDs, DVDs and other removable media don't automount or dismount in K. I don't know about FC6 or other distros, but this was really irritating about FC5 and earlier. The mount/unmount commands didn't work reliably, and I think hitting the Eject button on my drive should be enough.

4. A big thing for me is simple desktop integration; if I double-click on a DOC file, I'd like Linux to open Openoffice Writer or whatever app is assign as the handler for that file or object type. But on every Linux distro I've tried (FC5 and earlier, briefly Mandrake) file associations are unreliable; sometimes the app will open the file, sometimes it won't. Without changing settings. And I've even tried to fix the association handler manually, and it's just as spotty and unreliable.

5. There are a couple of other annoyances that I can't think of right now...;(

You mention incompatibilities again. I think I have covered that.

Linux software is incompatible with Linux, depending on the distro. I've mentioned before that lots of Linux software has problems installing in various distros and versions of Linux. Mplayer was one, Ethereal/Wireshark and even Snort aren't smooth. My experience is more with security and pen-test tools, but this seems to be a larger problem.

FYI, I am going to begin tinkering with Ubuntu 7.04 in the next week or two.

[tekkieman]

@CrayonEater - Excellent summary! I would like to (hopefully) briefly comment on a couple of your points, and some I really won't be able to comment on (for either lack of knowledge or because you are completely correct).

Given the time and effort to learn something new can yield the potential rewards. So, if linux sucks because the applications suck, then fine, use Windows. If linux sucks because it doesn't run Windows software (which it does), then use Windows. If linux sucks because you don't want to expend any effort to learn something new, then nothing we do to improve will make you happy, and you should use Windows.

There's a delicate balance here though. For major applications, people will be understandably unwilling to relearn applications, especially if they're not as computer-savvy as your or I. And, let's be honest, the vast, vast majority of people out there are NOT computer-savvy, and will only switch to a new app if it's very much like the old app they were using. Also, workers and companies alike will not readily or willingly switch major productivity apps if they've invested a considerable amount of training in them, e.g. Microsoft Word, Excel, Offfice, etc.

Quite true. However, there have been people in this very thread who claim to be computer-savvy, yet claim the difficulty in using new apps, most certainly due to the lack of effort to learn them. Regarding businesses, again, you are quite correct, but having just been forced to move from Office/Outlook 2003 to 2007, I can honestly say that the amount of retraining will be greater than Office 2003 - OpenOffice/Thunderbird. While businesses generally should not be updating without sufficient reason, when they will eventually be forced to, I don't believe the retraining would be any worse either way.

At this point in time, it really doesn't matter why.

Linux virii do exist e.g. Linux.Bliss, diesel, Klez, Slapper, Linux.Lion, etc.

<edited for brevity, but please read it above. An excellent read!>

3. A third reason, but somewhat paradoxical in itself, is that Linux users tend to be more immune to social-engineering attacks, and use generally more secure common apps e.g. Firefox rather than Internet Explorer. Of course, this may also lure them into a false sense of security as well.

<additional snipping: see above> But Linux is really no less vulnerable, except that, because there are fewer Linux users sitting in front of a Linux box, they are less likely to be socially-engineered.

Touche! Although, I was sure I specified in my statement "in the wild" The number of linux viruses either in the lab or in the wild can still be counted on your fingertips. Of those, most have not been seen since 2003. Of the ones you listed, as well as ones you didn't, I was not able to find one that had a threat assessment other than "Low". Now, in addition to the (valid) reasons you have mentioned, let's not neglect one of the features of *nix that also account for this. Because all of the viruses you mention work by infecting writable files, and no system files are writable under user accounts, propagation of viruses in linux is extremely difficult. One the rare chance that one is able to infect your system, it is incapable of destroying anything more than your home directory (not that this is not more than enough damage).

I secretly enjoyed your statement that linux users tend to use more secure apps (in a roundabout way indicating that linux apps in general are more secure), but I don't intent to make much out of that as I think we both know there are instances where this is not the case.

In conclusion, I stand by my assertion that linux is less vunerable to viruses, whether for the reasons I state or the reasons that you state, or something somewhere in the middle. I also agree with you that many linux users have a false sense of security on this issue, and while they are currently safe doing so, when that is no longer true, it will already be too late for them. Oh, and I bow to your superior (and well presented) knowledge of viruses (seriously).

Top will show me that the majority of it is reserved for cache. When an application is exited, it remains in the cache for faster retrieval the next time it is used.

I have not had that experience, Linux needs to reload from scratch. Here's another common problem I had: Say I have to copy a large file to several directories. In Windows, the file will be read once (within reason) and written as many times as I needed. Linux, OTOH, seems to re-read the file each time and then write it elsewhere on the disk.

Given your explanation, I will run some experiments before further comment.

I've also observed quite a bit of stuttering in apps like MPlayer. I have not tried KMediaPlayer, but have had no problems with Windows' Media Player Classic (though I hate the interface) or Zoomplayer. VLC ain't what it's cracked up to be as far as I'm concerned.

While I agree with your assessment of VLC, the benefit it provides specifically to linux users is the inclusion of pretty much any needed codec. It's export functions are also somewhat useful.

Ok, this is where I would like some honest feedback. I'm looking at the GUI as I type this.

1. I don't like that Mac-like icons at the bottom. I am not overly concerned about this, but I prefer a traditional task manager, combined with some quick-launchers. This is not a major gripe though.

2. I don't like the classification of programs. I know what my Internet programs are, I know what my word-processing apps are, etc. Although I can see this as possibly being useful for newbs, I'd like to be able to change it.

3. I don't like the way CDs, DVDs and other removable media don't automount or dismount in K. I don't know about FC6 or other distros, but this was really irritating about FC5 and earlier. The mount/unmount commands didn't work reliably, and I think hitting the Eject button on my drive should be enough.

4. A big thing for me is simple desktop integration; if I double-click on a DOC file, I'd like Linux to open Openoffice Writer or whatever app is assign as the handler for that file or object type. But on every Linux distro I've tried (FC5 and earlier, briefly Mandrake) file associations are unreliable; sometimes the app will open the file, sometimes it won't. Without changing settings. And I've even tried to fix the association handler manually, and it's just as spotty and unreliable.

5. There are a couple of other annoyances that I can't think of right now...;(

While "to each his own", just by your descriptions, I can tell you tend to look at GNOME based distros. Have you looked at KDE based distros? Individual points (number relates to your numbers quoted):

1. Both KDE and GNOME have both quick launchers, and a system monitor that equates to task manager.

2. That is somewhat GNOME specific. Many KDE based distros give you a fully editable menu. You may select program name, program description, or both. You may also segment your menu to group as you feel is appropriate. (Although I think GNOME based menus are"cleaner" looking)

3. Lack of attention by distro makers. My distro maker automounts pretty much everything. Also, anything that is listed as media will automount (if not already) immediately when selected. I agree about ejecting and unmounting, but then I also get annoyed with "Safely remove devices". However, there is a reason for that (flushing).

4. I have never seen this happen, so I can't speculate on why it happened to you. Oh, double-click is also GNOME (as a default), KDE is single-click (as a default).

You mention incompatibilities again. I think I have covered that.

Linux software is incompatible with Linux, depending on the distro. I've mentioned before that lots of Linux software has problems installing in various distros and versions of Linux. Mplayer was one, Ethereal/Wireshark and even Snort aren't smooth. My experience is more with security and pen-test tools, but this seems to be a larger problem.

Damn, and you had me until now. Although you did make a clarification, "linux software in not compatible with linux" begs some type of rebuttal, I just don't know what that would be without saying something that might be interpreted wrong. I guess I'll just stick with WTF!?! Since you made the effort to point out some specific issues, I will look at those specifics when I have the chance, but in general, MPlayer is a standard repository item, and should be a one-click install. There are some distros that may not compile in specific options you may want, and if you are trying to compile in options, I could see cases where less seasoned users (this includes myself) could experience issues.

FYI, I am going to begin tinkering with Ubuntu 7.04 in the next week or two.

I look forward to your evaluation.