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

[jagabo]

OS/2 was my primary O/S back in those days.

[tekkieman]

I downloaded the DVD ISO of SimplyMEPIS ... the ISO is like 3.99GB.

Will this function ala a "LiveCD" ?

I haven't tried it yet ...

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Must be a pretty loaded version. The live cd is just under 700mb. It probably means it has more stuff that people who install from the livecd usually get from the repositories ater the fact.

Correct.

[Webster]

Will this function ala a "LiveCD" ?

I haven't tried it yet ...

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Yes, it will boot as a liveCD also.

As a side note. For some reason my MEPIS liveCD won't boot (as opposed to Fedora which does) using USB-CDROM bootup option. It'll boot if using ATA - CDROM drive though. Is there a way to fix this??

[blunder]

I'm a Linux user who is shortly going to switch back to Windows XP. I originally installed Linux when I started to bank online because of the good rates of interest available there and I wanted the security of an OS without all the security holes.

However, I haven't found Linux easy. I had to try many distros before I found one or two that recognised my hardware and, as I've no idea about compiling things, still have trouble. For instance, my Oki B4250 mono laser printer was never properly recognised - I have to try all the Oki choices in the printer database of the distro in question and usually find that selecting the model 600e gives me something I can use.

Another example: I was using Kanotix happily enough (a good distro!) until I bought a Belkin wireless keyboard and mouse. Kanotix boots up in German unless you select English and the keyboard isn't recognised so I can't choose. So I had to switch to Mepis which also doesn't recognise the keyboard until after I've booted - but it boots in English. But I still don't get all the facilities of the keyboard, just the ability to type this sort of thing.

I recently thought I'd try digital photography. I can get the snaps up on the screen but I can't work out how to print them out. A forum question produced no answers and there doesn't seem to be a basic guide for a Linux snapper anywhere. This is probably because there are so many distros available and no guide could cover them all, or even the better known ones.

I could go on but this is long enough. Signing out using Open Office Word, with which I also have some problems..........

Blunder

[buttzilla]

I ran linux for a while. I fooled with different version and guess what linux sucks also. It is not bug proof like the linux crowd would like you to believe. It can get virus' and the main problem is there are thousands of different version of the same operating system and everyone of them do linux differently. if they could work on making only one version and work out all the bugs make it easier to install the operating system and also programs then maybe people would take it serious. Linux runs on maybe 1% of the systems of the world so guess what it's not taking over computers of the world. Its free and they still have trouble giving it away. If windows is giving you trouble then maybe you need to learn more about using windows. Most people who have problems with it created the problem in the first place because they where messing with something they didn't understand. Most people get virus because they are careless about what they do and where they do it. Go ahead and try linux. it will make you apreciate windows all the more when you switch back. And you will switch back.

[CrayonEater]

I have not had many serious problems with the Fedora distros, which are very stable and probably the most compatible; the Fedora (Red Hat) are about as close to "the standard" as Linux comes, and have automatic updates and other Windows-like niceties.

Your concerns about a zillion different distros are justified, and, frankly, I find that the biggest enemy of Linux is the Linux community itself, whose members generally seem more interested in impressing each other with their profound knowledge of computers than actually producing a usable operating system that even an idiot can use. The reason why Windows (and even more so, Mac) is so successful is because even idiots and newbies can use them; the average Joe or Jane doesn't give a rat's ass about the intricacies of the OS or even getting optimum performance- they want something that does what they need it to do, quickly and with as little hassle as possible. They don't want to become a hacker-grade expert in order to do basic things. The Linux crowd doesn't get this concept at all, and even finding a software application among the cryptically- and unhelpfully-named packages is a major problem, let alone installing and using the junk.

And these egomaniacs have done more to suppress Linux as a viable desktop OS than Microsoft could have ever hoped to do.

[tekkieman]

Let me see if I can clarify a few things..

First, there are two sides to the linux camp: The community, and the businesses. The businesses are there to make money. They care about linux adoption, but not always in the way you think. First, there is no problem with linux market share in the server space. This is undisputed (except by Microsoft). This is where most linux based businesses make their money. The bigger companies also have an interest in the desktop. However, if you look at Red Hat and Novell, the desktops for the communities are not the desktops they are selling to their customers. The desktops for the communities are their "beta" versions of their commercial offerings. They use the community to do their testing for them, and in return, the community gets some return from the big companies.

They community side is different. They are not in business. They are only about having an operating system that lets them use their computers the way they want to use them. They are about having the choice to use what they want to use, how they want to use it. They care not about market share or "idiot-proof". Get over it!

It is true that this community is more about showing off what we can do with an OS that gives you the freedom to show off what can be done with it than how many computers it runs on. Get over it!


See if you can follow along a bit and see what linux is really about.


Linux is more secure than Windows. PERIOD! Get over it! You call pull the reasons why out of ...wherever you want to pull reason out of, but it does not change the fact. Out of the box, linux is more secure. PERIOD. There are NO viruses in the wild for linux. Nobody cares why. Get over it! Linux is a multi-user system from birth, not a single user system patch to be a multi-user system, and as such provide a level of protection of the core OS. There is no malware/spyware (other than rootkits) for linux. PERIOD. Out of the box, linux provides both a firewall and anti-virus. Since there are no linux viruses, the anti-virus (and the definitions) are there solely to protect our Windows using friends against anything that may get passes through our emails, our media files, or documents (since we can use Windows versions of all of them.

Out of the box, linux has better hardware support than Windows. PERIOD! Where Windows beats linux is in support for third-party drivers, not out of the box support. Here is how and why you have been locked into Microsoft, and just don't get it. If you take any modem built to spec, it will work in linux (and usually with no driver required). The modems that don't work in linux are called "winmodems", and for good reason. Hardware vendors got cheap and shuffled functionality usually performed in hardware and moved it to software (guess who's) to save money. So, you have a modem specifically made to work with Windows, and can't understand why it doesn't readily work in linux? DUH! Linux developers didn't let that stop them, and reverse engineered how most winmodems work, and now even most of those are supported out of the box. The new obstacle is wifi. Even that is working for most cards available.

Linux is vastly more configurable than Windows. PERIOD! From the applications to the desktop to the kernel, linux will twist itself to your will. Don't like the way an application works? Change it. Don't like the look of the desktop? Change it. And I'm not talking about changing themes or colors, I'm talking about changing the ENTIRE desktop. Gnome, KDE, fluxbox, no desktop, but still a window manager. Don't need wireless support, or bluetooth, or whatever? Remove it from the OS. What is you option for Window? Here is what you get. PERIOD. Don't like the new control panel? Classic View. Don't like Aero? turn it off. That will still be $400. And even if you turn off the feature, you still can't turn off the bloat. It may not be in memory, but it is still on your drive.


For all the people who have ever mentioned the command line, GET OVER IT! The command line allows you to do more, faster. Get over it. In the command line, I can type apt-get install <appname> faster than you can Google for an app, download it, unzip it, double-click the installer, next, next, next, next, finish, <reboot>. Microsoft has spent years over the last few versions of Windows doing their best to hide the command line. Now, they come back with their new shell and claim major innovation and flexibility. Give me a break!

For all those who have complained about editing config files, the next time you edit your registry to make something work and proclaim your eliteness for doing it, take a moment to reflect.

Any other complaints? What? No games? Well, first of all...BS! There most certainly are games. They may not be the ones YOU want, but they exist. Not only do we have linux games, but we can also play many windows games. However, in the end, this is not what we really care about. Linux IS the game. The game is to have an OS that does what we want, how we want. To make it work for us. Get over it.

So, in the end, we have millions of people who use linux every day, and it works for them. Then, we have the people who claim it's just too hard to use and doesn't work for them. So be it, go use something else. We really don't care. If you want to learn something new, and need it to be easier to use, we might try to make it that way for you IF it does not compromise our OS. If it does, we will not change it for you no matter how much you whine. Get over it! You can have something free that will do whatever you want if you put some effort into it, or you can pay to have something that will do what you want as long as what you want is what MS wants, otherwise, you are out of luck and out $400 dollars.

If anyone would care to give me a legitimate complaint about linux, I'll gladly listen, but this whining BS about it being too hard or not working isn't it. GET OVER IT!

[CrayonEater]

Sorry to be so brusque, but simply repeating "Get Over It" and offering obscure (and sometimes inaccurate) claims about Linux does not change the fact that Linux' fanbase is it's own worst enemy. If any of the claims of technical superiority you make are true (and most are, a few aren't), then Linux should be the dominant OS, or at least have a bigger market share than it does. But the reason why it doesn't is because it is difficult to use, has a GUI that's stuck in 1990 as far as sophistication and integration, about what Windows 3.0 had, and is thus totally unusable by the masses. For business, this is especially a problem: You are absolutely correct in noting that businesses are there to make money. They can't afford to quadruple the size of their IT staffs to deal with Linux' high maintenance, never mind the lost productivity required to train employees to use the thing. And consumers simply won't put up with a command-line interface, even though I personally think the CLI is the best thing since sliced bread.

Don't think for a second that I'm an M$ fanboy. Although Windows has some advantages, I loathe it and Microsoft. I want to see Vista go down in flames and M$ with it. Like many businesspeople, I'm looking at alternative platforms as I will not support Vista. I would love, love, LOVE to see Linux kick Microsoft to the curb in the desktop and consumer markets. The reason why I write these last two posts is because, frankly, I'm frustrated that a potentially great OS is being held back by the very people that are supposed to support it.

But the reality remains that Linux fans, as well as the lack of its friendliness and ease-of-use, are holding it back. Until the Linux fans stop making excuses and dumb things down to get the not-so-geeky masses into the Linux tent, Linux will never be more than a server OS and a toy for uber-geeks.

[tekkieman]

Talk about obscure. Have you defined a single "inaccurate" claim? No.

You agreed that "most" of the claims of superiority are true, yet fail to define the ones that aren't.

Linux does have the bigger share of the market. In the server space. Why? Because all the claims of superiority aiare true.

Sophistication? Linux is far more sophisticated. Anyone who has used it for more than a week knows this as fact. However, maybe that's why some find it difficult to use. Can't have your argument both ways. Integration? Where? First of all, linux integrates into Windows environments far better than the reverse. Second, if you have any understanding of linux, you know that the best thing that linux does is to do one thing and do it well. Damn near any function's output can be piped to the input of the next. While some may think that makes it more difficult, it is what makes it so powerful. It doesn't try to be the jack of all trades because we know where that gets you.

Let's negates your point about IT budgets. Granted, MS pointy-clicky admins are relatively cheap, but the cost of securing the gaping holes in Windows server security more than makes up the difference. I also fail to see any evidence of the high maintenance cost you associate with linux. The servres require less hardware, and very little maintenance other than applying security updates.

If the interface is "stuck in the 90's", why does Microsoft work so hard at mimicking our eye candy? Why is that copy worth $400 when linux can provide it for free?

You claim that consumers won't put up with a command-line interface, yet fail to point out where it is required for the consumer to use.

Again, all the claims of lack of friendliness and ease of use with absolutely no concrete examples. Mind you, I am not saying you are wrong, but if some say it is, and some say it isn't, then neither your truth, nor my truth is absolute. The only thing that has been determined is that it is that way for you.

I challenge your claim that linux users are holding linux back. I counter that linux users are fighting to keep a wonderful OS from being corrupted into a Windows clone. If you want a better OS, linux can be proven to be it. If you want a better Windows, talk to Microsoft.

Finally, if I may be equally blunt, if linux does not live up to your expectations, what have you done to improve it? Hear me out for a second...

Have you fixed any code? Written any documentation? Opened a graphics program and created new wallpapers or icon sets? Submitted any bug reports?

Or perhaps you downloaded a free OS, ran the live cd or even installed it, played with it for a short time, then did nothing but complain how it is not Windows?

Again, if you want a flexible OS, linux will become whatever you want to make of it. Effort in = benefit out. If you want a cookie-cutter OS that is what MS wants it to be (and don't BS me, I'm sure no USERS asked for embedded DRM), stay with Windows. It may hurt your feelings, but the linux communities (not the businesses) really don't care.

Aw, come on, one last time....

GET OVER IT!

[buttzilla]

The thing that get's me with linux was it was released to be a free altenative to windows or mac and it seems to be the only ones benefiting from it are corporations. It is imbeded in everything from cell phones to tivo and lynksys routers and other electronic devices. Large corporations run it on their servers. So how has it realy benefited the average person. linus torvalds released it with the hopes that it would be used by the average user so they wouldn't be held hostage by companys like microsoft or mac and the oposite has happened. Corporations are making billions off of it and how has it's creator benifited? Not much in my opinion. Red hat enterprise license is not much cheaper then a windows server license. So where is the big savings. Finding adminastrators who are very capable with linux is harder then finding one who are quallified for windows. Let me add you ask what have you done to make linux better. have you writen any code or documentation or the likes. Let me tell you this the average computer user is not capable of programming and he is not interested in becoming one. he just wants to use it as a tool to word process, browse the web watch movies or chat in forums. When i buy a car I expect it to run fine right off the lot, I expect the same with my OS. Windows and mac are the only ones delivering that right now.

[blunder]

Hello All,

I've enjoyed the last few posts. And I think that you are all correct in your own way. It is wonderful that a host of clever people will spend their time and expertise in creating a free OS for anybody who wants to use it and, if it isn't in direct competition with Microsoft, that's so much the better. I know there are a lot of whingers who criticize unjustly but it could be that their comments and findings act as a catalyst to those who would like to make Linux easier for more people. It seems that distros are slowly getting more user-friendly.

My regret is that I personally am not clever enough to take full advantage of what these good-hearted people have created. I just don't know enough for a start. And, perhaps even more importantly, I don't know where to go or where to look to get a basic, simple grounding that would let me grow into a happy user. Maybe I'm whinging now. But from what I read on the Web, there are a lot of people out there in the same position as I am.

Do you think it will ever be possible that all distros could somehow start from a common base which, once understood, would be the foundation that people like me are seeking?

Best wishes,

[tekkieman]

Let me add you ask what have you done to make linux better. have you writen any code or documentation or the likes.

Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I get paid to write code during the day, and so in my free time, I work on free software projects. It's not just for those who can write code to help. If you use a free software app, you can help just as much by filing bugs or contributing to documentation, or like VideoHelp, contribute in the forums.

he just wants to use it as a tool to word process, browse the web watch movies or chat in forums. When i buy a car I expect it to run fine right off the lot, I expect the same with my OS. Windows and mac are the only ones delivering that right now.

Ok, so the complaint without the clarification... Since I just read a work related PDF, have an AVI full-length movie playing on the second monitor, invoiced a client in OpenOffice, and am obviously browsing the web and chatting in forums, how is it that you can only do that in Windows or OSX? Linux works just fine for me to do those things.

I also have a better julkbox for my MP3s than Media Player, backed up 2 of my daughter's DVDs, converted one of my DVDs to AVI, and if I really chose to, I could sit here and stare at my cool wobbly burning spinning cubes of multiple virtual desktops. (by the way, I can also do all of that in 512M of RAM, with half of that just idling as cache until needed, not 1-2G, plus a thumb drive to help cache)

Please enlighten those of us that actually use linux on a daily basis for all these things exactly what distro of linux you couldn't do that with...

[FulciLives]

Again, if you want a flexible OS, linux will become whatever you want to make of it. Effort in = benefit out. If you want a cookie-cutter OS that is what MS wants it to be (and don't BS me, I'm sure no USERS asked for embedded DRM), stay with Windows. It may hurt your feelings, but the linux communities (not the businesses) really don't care.

That is the main reason why Linux will not ever become more popular. It just is not friendly user at all. The fact that Linux users could care less about this is a BIG reason why Linux will not become more popular.

I'd love to switch. I would. I've tried a distro or two. However trying to figure out how to do anything is overly problematic and getting help is extremely difficult. I was in a chat room and only one person offered to help and even this person couldn't get what I needed to work (i.e., mount my NTFS drive so I could view it).

I can maybe see running Linux on a 2nd computer ... say one I only use for internet type stuff etc. but for my main use I can't imagine sticking with Linux and just Linux. And why dual boot with Linux/Windows on one computer when I find that I do NEED Windows for some stuff whereas nothing I do on Linux cannot be done on Windows.

Oh wait ... did I just say that? Yes I did ... NOTHING I DO ON LINUX CANNOT BE DONE ON WINDOWS YET I NEED WINDOWS FOR STUFF THAT LINUX CAN'T DO WELL (i.e., Photoshop and various video tools such as AviSynth and CCE etc.)!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[tekkieman]

I was in a chat room and only one person offered to help and even this person couldn't get what I needed to work (i.e., mount my NTFS drive so I could view it).

No offense, but this is a linux subforum, did you ask here? I didn't see it. Did you try LinuxQuestions? I visit there daily, and although it is possible you would have a different user name, I really haven't seen so easy a question that wasn't answered immediately by 10 people.

And for ease of use, mounting my NTFS drives is as simple as right-clicking an icon and selecting it. It opens in Konqueror ready to read and write.

Oh wait ... did I just say that? Yes I did ... NOTHING I DO ON LINUX CANNOT BE DONE ON WINDOWS YET I NEED WINDOWS FOR STUFF THAT LINUX CAN'T DO WELL (i.e., Photoshop and various video tools such as AviSynth and CCE etc.)!

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Ok, that is a valid point. On the other hand, nothing I do in Windows can't be done in Windows, and that includes writing programs for Windows. I have a slew of video tools that meet my needs, and I use either GIMP or krita for my PS related needs. Now, but LS (or some other purists) comes screaming that GIMP and others is not PS, neither is Paintshop, and yet that also served every PS related need I had within Windows. Now, I know what video tools are generally available in linux, and I know you are pretty proficient with Avisynth scripting. I ask one question: What tools did you use in linux that did not provide the same functionality you have in Windows? (Since I said only one question, I won't bother to ask the same question about PS).

Note, I never claimed Windows couldn't do everything I do in linux, but I do have some advantages you do not have. Again, because I am capable of doing so, I can change anything in linux to do exactly what I want it to do. If I don't, any one of millions of others could. None of us (or even you if you needed it) are at the mercy of the holder of the sacred source. In 2 years or 5 years or 10 years when ever MS decides to obsolete your OS, you need to pay for it again. And again. And again.

I also have 7 computers currently in my home. My OS is legal on every one of them. When I write code for my employer, I expect to be paid. My employer expects to be paid for the product we make. MS shouldn't be any different. They are a business after all. Upgrading all my systems every time a vendor decides they need a new version to maintain their profits just doesn't fit in with my business plan.

[lpn1160]

#!/bin/bash

if [ $# -windows sucks ] ; then
echo "thank g-d for linux"
exit 0
fi

[fritzi93]

I confess there's one thing I dread about moving to Linux: Re-learning video apps. :P What modest proficiency I have now took several years to gain. And again, my wife's eyes glaze over when I try to explain something about Windows. Convert her to Linux? That's gunna be a tough one.

Nevertheless, SOMEONE is making the effort to make various distros more user-friendly. They're getting easier, e.g. Ubuntu 7.04 or PCLinuxOS. Call them dumbed-down if you wish. I don't really understand that criticism, however. In what way does a pre-configured distro that anybody can use straightaway, well, how does that spoil Linux?

Wouldn't it be nice to break Microsoft's defacto monopoly? Must we have DRM crammed down our throats and pay $400 bucks for the privilege?

[buttzilla]

Let me add you ask what have you done to make linux better. have you writen any code or documentation or the likes.

Yes, as a matter of fact I have. I get paid to write code during the day, and so in my free time, I work on free software projects. It's not just for those who can write code to help. If you use a free software app, you can help just as much by filing bugs or contributing to documentation, or like VideoHelp, contribute in the forums.

he just wants to use it as a tool to word process, browse the web watch movies or chat in forums. When i buy a car I expect it to run fine right off the lot, I expect the same with my OS. Windows and mac are the only ones delivering that right now.

Ok, so the complaint without the clarification... Since I just read a work related PDF, have an AVI full-length movie playing on the second monitor, invoiced a client in OpenOffice, and am obviously browsing the web and chatting in forums, how is it that you can only do that in Windows or OSX? Linux works just fine for me to do those things.

I also have a better julkbox for my MP3s than Media Player, backed up 2 of my daughter's DVDs, converted one of my DVDs to AVI, and if I really chose to, I could sit here and stare at my cool wobbly burning spinning cubes of multiple virtual desktops. (by the way, I can also do all of that in 512M of RAM, with half of that just idling as cache until needed, not 1-2G, plus a thumb drive to help cache)

Please enlighten those of us that actually use linux on a daily basis for all these things exactly what distro of linux you couldn't do that with...

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. When I wrote did you write any code I was repeating a line that you asked. If you reread it it clearly says that. You being a programmer makes using linux easier for you but the average person is not a programmer so using linux will seem like learning chinese to them. Anyone can use windows out of the box and that all a lot of people want is something that is simple to use.

[buttzilla]

I confess there's one thing I dread about moving to Linux: Re-learning video apps. :P What modest proficiency I have now took several years to gain. And again, my wife's eyes glaze over when I try to explain something about Windows. Convert her to Linux? That's gunna a tough one.

Nevertheless, SOMEONE is making the effort to make various distros more user-friendly. They're getting easier, e.g. Ubuntu 7.04 or PCLinuxOS. Call them dumbed-down if you wish. I don't really understand that criticism, however. In what way does a pre-configured distro that anybody can use straightaway, well, how does that spoil Linux?

Wouldn't it be nice to break Microsoft's defacto monopoly? Must we have DRM crammed down our throats and pay $400 bucks for the privilege?

No one is forcing you to update to vista. I feel xp works great and the bugs have been long worked out so why switch. It does a great job with what I do so why take a chance with having problems in vista. I don't need the eyecandy to do what I do. And i can use the $400 for something else i want.

[FulciLives]

I ask one question: What tools did you use in linux that did not provide the same functionality you have in Windows? (Since I said only one question, I won't bother to ask the same question about PS).

Truth be told I probably could live without PhotoShop as long as I had something decent to replace it with and my guess is that Gimp is probably good enough ... but of course it means another learning curve learning a new program.

But the killer app for me is AVISYNTH. It is essential. Linux + No AviSynth = No Linux use for me when it comes to video encoding/re-encoding etc.

It's just that simple.

Also I am used to using various other programs like VirtualDubMod and TMPGEnc DVD Author and GoldWave and SoundForge and my AC-3 encoder of choice: Soft Encode. None of these exist in Linux. Sure there may be Linux alternatives but it isn't exactly the same thing now is it?

I guess my point is this ... if I *must* use Windows so I can use the Video tools I like then why even bother using Linux for the times when I'm not doing Video stuff?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[tekkieman]

I ask one question: What tools did you use in linux that did not provide the same functionality you have in Windows? (Since I said only one question, I won't bother to ask the same question about PS).

Truth be told I probably could live without PhotoShop as long as I had something decent to replace it with and my guess is that Gimp is probably good enough ... but of course it means another learning curve learning a new program.

But the killer app for me is AVISYNTH. It is essential. Linux + No AviSynth = No Linux use for me when it comes to video encoding/re-encoding etc.

It's just that simple.

Also I am used to using various other programs like VirtualDubMod and TMPGEnc DVD Author and GoldWave and SoundForge and my AC-3 encoder of choice: Soft Encode. None of these exist in Linux. Sure there may be Linux alternatives but it isn't exactly the same thing now is it?

I guess my point is this ... if I *must* use Windows so I can use the Video tools I like then why even bother using Linux for the times when I'm not doing Video stuff?

And my point is exactly this! Not just you, but most people who either try linux for a week or less, or have "looked at it" often give the same answer. They can't use their favorite Windows applications. Why on earth would you expect to find Windows applications in linux? Linux is not Windows!!! As you said, there linux alternatives to every program you mention, and no, it is not the same thing, but again, why would it be? First, some of them are actually there. Second, some of your favorites probably could be run via WINE. Why? Because you *must* have them! Third, programs with duplicate functionality exist.

You probably spent a fair amount of time when first learning Windows (whether you started with XP or 3.1), as well as the Windows applications you use. Why do people not put the same effort into a different OS or apps? It is almost always the same excuse, and it is flat down to the lack of effort of the user. This is the problem linux users have with those who spout off about what linux is/isn't. You yourself have just stated that you didn't put any effort into learning what apps are available and how they work for you, you just could not use your Windows apps and gave up. That sir, is not a fair/valid test, and that is what I am saying is needed before I will take someone's opinion seriously.

I am aware of two people here who have accepted that challenge (GMaq and gll99). I believe they have both been giving linux a fair trial for close to a month. Has it been without problem, absolutely not, but they are giving it a fair trial and expending the effort to do so.

Then, there are those who are probably not good candidates for that type of test. As an example, I serve up (yet again) lordsmurf. You will find his opinion on linux spread throughout this loooong thread. You will also find a post by him in this subforum asking if a list of almost 20 different Windows apps will work in WINE. Many of those apps are the *MUST HAVE* apps you list. The answer to his question is: Some will, some won't. I would challenge you to find an equivalent number of linux apps that work in Windows, but that's beside the point. If you *MUST HAVE* Windows apps, my suggestion is that you use Windows. If you need an app that provides "x" functionality, similar to <feel free to name a Windows app>, then the OS doesn't really matter, as long as the app exists.

The only thing I am saying is that the majority of the "linux sucks" crowd around here is pulling that opinion out of....wherever, as they obviously haven't even given it a real trial. Your Windows applications not working on it or any lack of commitment to learning something new is not a valid test.

[fritzi93]

No one is forcing you to update to vista.

You got that that right. It ain't happening. But don't you think MS is abusing its dominant market position in regard to pricing, DRM, etc.?

Fulci has it right as to the value of Avisynth. What could possibly compare to its power and flexibility?

[AlanHK]

But the killer app for me is AVISYNTH

http://avisynth.org/AviSynth30

AviSynth v3.0 will also work on Linux.

Speed of development is glacially slow unfortunately.

[buttzilla]

No one is forcing you to update to vista.

You got that that right. It ain't happening. But don't you think MS is abusing its dominant market position in regard to pricing, DRM, etc.?

Fulci has it right as to the value of Avisynth. What could possibly compare to its power and flexibility?

Yes I do. Thats why you need to show them where it will hurt by not upgrading. The release of vista has not been as great as they would like you to believe. It is not flying of the shelf. In xp you have a fully functional os that works great. It will be supported for years with upgrades so why make the switch. On various forums i have been reading people saying they are dreading upgrading, then why do it. It is definitely not necessary.

[Nelson37]

Hmm. Up and running with the Mepis live CD, here and posting in less than 5 minutes.

Got an extra HD laying around, think I may download that DVD version Fulci got.

[Nelson37]

Hd installed, up and running again.

Video seems slow on the built-in game, though that doesn't matter. Response and boot good so far. Network pre-configured automatically. No sound.

Have already spent more time with this than OS/2, easier install, more built-in apps. haven't done anything really functional but for the price compared to MS this may be useful.

New toys, new toys.

[CrayonEater]

Talk about obscure. Have you defined a single "inaccurate" claim? No.

Here are some:

Out of the box, linux has better hardware support than Windows. PERIOD!

Guess that's why my Laserjet 2200 works so well, right? Or my Xerox 8550? Or my capture card? Or my scanner, or...

Linux is more secure than Windows. PERIOD!

Dubious claim at best. The Windows OS itself is very secure, possibly more so than Linux. It's the high-level apps that suck (Interet Explorer, Outlook, WMP, etc.) According to Secunia, Windows XP Pro 183 vulns of varying criticality, with 16% unpatched. Linux kernel 2.6 has 116 known vulns, with 15% unpatched. So they are about equal and patching a Linux box is typically harder than using Windowsupdate or Windizupdate. If my Snort boxes would run as efficiently on Windows as they do Linux, I'd use Windows in a heartbeat. More importantly, Windows is EASIER TO SECURE! No need to recompile the kernel, identify and patch various core libraries, etc. For average desktop use, though, Linux' relative obscurity to Windows and even OS X do not make it a target for sploits such as browser hijackers.

For all the people who have ever mentioned the command line, GET OVER IT! The command line allows you to do more, faster.

For some things. For others, such as picking and choosing files, the GUI better. Making a blanket statement that the CLI is better is beyond ludicrous, and this is coming from a diehard CLI fanatic.

Any other complaints? What? No games? Well, first of all...BS! There most certainly are games. They may not be the ones YOU want, but they exist.

So I guess the logic is, "settle for what we have, not what you want". Kind of hypocritical when one of the complaints about Windows is that you're stuck with the interface they supply, as you pointed out. Please pick a line of reasoning and send me a memo when you've settled on one.

Oh, here's another complaint: Installing and uninstalling apps. As I mentioned before, even identifying apps can be a trick, but installing and using them can be a nightmare. Installations on Windows rarely fail, but they frequently do on Linux, especially when compiling. And then you have to debug the reasons why. Most non-technical people wouldn't put up with that, and for good reason - the computer's not a toy, but a means of conducting commercial or personal business.

And here's another, how about that bloated hog of an interface, X? XP is showing explorer and the core interface using 27mb on my current rig; X on this same machine running Gnome will use 128 mb and the app integration is unreliable.

Again, they don't come much more anti-M$ than me, especially in light of Vista and the DRM crap they've foisted on us. But you're kidding yourself if you think Linux is "better" in its present form. It certainly can be tightened up and improved, with the help of a knowledgeable admin, but where Windows beats Linux' ass is because you don't have to be a power user to do the basic things.

[tekkieman]

Here are some:

Out of the box, linux has better hardware support than Windows. PERIOD!

Guess that's why my Laserjet 2200 works so well, right? Or my Xerox 8550? Or my capture card? Or my scanner, or...

The HPLib in linux is far superior to the drivers in Windows. I have never has a single HP printer issue in linux right from out of the box Same with the scanner. My capture card? Nothing in Windows without loading drivers. Recognized instantly in linux during boot, configure and capturing with pre-existing software in linux. Not to spoil the rest of the post, but I have to wonder what kind of linux you've been running. Are you sure you weren't using BSD? <ducks and runs from the BSD fans>

Linux is more secure than Windows. PERIOD!

Dubious claim at best. The Windows OS itself is very secure, possibly more so than Linux. It's the high-level apps that suck (Interet Explorer, Outlook, WMP, etc.) According to Secunia, Windows XP Pro 183 vulns of varying criticality, with 16% unpatched. Linux kernel 2.6 has 116 known vulns, with 15% unpatched. So they are about equal

And if you read that list, they are including vulnerabilities from back in the 2.4 kernel as well. Should we see where Window's number goes to when you add in the numbers from Win2K and ME? Yes, Windows higher level apps suck for security, and the very fact that Microsoft gives them admin level access proves the point that Windows is less secure right from the install.

and patching a Linux box is typically harder than using Windowsupdate or Windizupdate.

Complete nonsense. Security updates work no different in linux than in Windows. The alert icon shows up, you click it, supply administrator password, done. Ok, so Windows doesn't care about an administrator password, they'll just let any Tom, Dick, or Harry administer the box.

More importantly, Windows is EASIER TO SECURE! No need to recompile the kernel, identify and patch various core libraries, etc.

Again, absolute rubbish! Any desktop linux (except perhaps Gentoo) requires absolutely no compiling of anything to secure it. This is the same old tired BS that people without a clue spout when trying to defend an indefensible position. I have been running full-time desktop linux for three years and haven't compiled anything to do with my linux OS (this of course does not include applications I am personally writing).

For average desktop use, though, Linux' relative obscurity to Windows and even OS X do not make it a target for sploits such as browser hijackers.

Again with years old FUD. Please try to find a decent argument that even applies. Linux desktop runs the same kernel as linux servers. Since there are far more linux servers serving the net, if you subscribe to the biggest player getting the most attention, the internet would be on its knees from all the linux servers being taken down. If the servers were at risk, the desktops would be at risk. Hell, how much easier could it be than saying "here's the source code to tell you exactly how we work". and it is still more secure, and not through obscurity.

For all the people who have ever mentioned the command line, GET OVER IT! The command line allows you to do more, faster.

For some things. For others, such as picking and choosing files, the GUI better. Making a blanket statement that the CLI is better is beyond ludicrous, and this is coming from a diehard CLI fanatic.

Yes, cutting the quote to suit your argument would make it seem that I made such a generalized statement, but if you actually read what I said, I gave a specific example. The example was specifically to prove the point that there are times when it is simpler and faster to to use the command line than the GUI. Nothing is requiring you to do it, but it can be faster and easier. Again, I also point out how MS tried to bury it for so many years, and now tout their new shell as "innovative and powerful". So why is it linux users are constantly bashed for using it?

Any other complaints? What? No games? Well, first of all...BS! There most certainly are games. They may not be the ones YOU want, but they exist.

So I guess the logic is, "settle for what we have, not what you want". Kind of hypocritical when one of the complaints about Windows is that you're stuck with the interface they supply, as you pointed out. Please pick a line of reasoning and send me a memo when you've settled on one.

Ok, here's your memo:

To all Windows fanatics. Have you ever stopped to think that the reason we never developed games for linux is because we don't care about games? Ok, so there are a few, but we were more interested in writing the games engines so you could develop your own games if you want them. Commercial games? Not for us, we understand using the correct tool for the job. If we want games, we go to the console or the arcade.

No, you are not required to settle for what we have, we give you the OS, the tools, the gaming engines, the (multiple) interfaces and all the applications for free with the source code to make it whatever you want, not what we want. If you don't want to change it, you can only complain to yourself. This is the simple logic that is continually missed. We see all the complaints about the various distros that are slightly different. Guess what? These are all the people who wanted it "a little bit different" to suit them, made it that way, and are sharing the results with whoever wants it. Let's see you argue that into a negative! Let's also see you try that with Windows (or Mac OSX before I get accused of only bashing Windows).

Oh, here's another complaint: Installing and uninstalling apps. As I mentioned before, even identifying apps can be a trick, but installing and using them can be a nightmare. Installations on Windows rarely fail, but they frequently do on Linux, especially when compiling. And then you have to debug the reasons why. Most non-technical people wouldn't put up with that, and for good reason - the computer's not a toy, but a means of conducting commercial or personal business.

You are still arguing linux circa 1995. When you have a argument with proof of linux today, I'll listen. I click the package manager, have the lists of applications with descriptions, sorted by application type, and they all install with a single click of "Mark for installation". Again, I have never had to compile a single line of code to install any application in the last three years of daily use. I would also be happy to post screen shots (or screen video captures to prove these points if it makes it easier for anyone to comprehend.

And here's another, how about that bloated hog of an interface, X? XP is showing explorer and the core interface using 27mb on my current rig; X on this same machine running Gnome will use 128 mb and the app integration is unreliable.

As far as the app integration, I would not presume to call you a liar. I am not sitting there watching you. As to the rest (while not denying that any graphical desktop is a memory hog), I would call BS and ask for the screenshots. I know from experience that about the smallest you can get a functional XP (with embedded XP) is about 16M if you strip out everything so it does pretty much nothing but boot. Want to take bets as to how small a functional linux with GUI can be made? Hell, even Puppy can load into 32M of RAM with GUI (and servers, AV, firewall, etc.

Again, they don't come much more anti-M$ than me, especially in light of Vista and the DRM crap they've foisted on us. But you're kidding yourself if you think Linux is "better" in its present form.

Nope, not kidding myself, because I use it every day, and see the difference every day. However, just so we stay on the same page, understand that I tend to argue XP versus linux, because at least then, Windows has a (admittedly marginal) fighting chance. Linux versus Vista is so ridiculous it isn't even funny. You know it's bad when even the Windows fanatics don't want it! Dell, who has been Microsoft's bitch since the beginning of time, spit in their face and re-offered XP because nobody was buying Vista. They're not the only ones either. My local Staples pulled everything XP off the shelves the week before the Vista lunch. Care to guess what I saw in there yesterday? Shelves full of Vista (because they sure weren't leaving the shelves). And right beside them? XP Home and XP Pro.

but where Windows beats Linux' ass is because you don't have to be a power user to do the basic things.

No, Windows let's you be admin to do the basic things!

Seriously, you really need to find an argument with current merits. Anyone who uses the word compile is instantly revealed as a shill because nothing in linux requires compiling. Anyone who complains about application installation is also revealed as someone who hasn't installed a linux app in over two years. Anyone who claims Windows is as secure as linux, then claims linux is only more secure due to obscurity has already contradicted themselves, so further argument isn't even necessary.

So, your biggest arguments are applying patches, application installation, and what else?

Is it really necessary to post the screenshots and video captures to prove to everyone here that the statements are all absolute rubbish? I don't really have the time, but it would be worth losing some sleep for the satisfaction to prove absolute BULLSHIT!

* Don't take any of this personally, but someone has to dispel the myths. I will argue the points as long as I can prove them, no matter who you are. None of it will make linux any more right for you if you don't feel it is, but there are others here who are interested in it, and fact must be sorted from fiction if they are to be allowed to make an informed decision.

[disturbed1]

I ask one question: What tools did you use in linux that did not provide the same functionality you have in Windows? (Since I said only one question, I won't bother to ask the same question about PS).

Truth be told I probably could live without PhotoShop as long as I had something decent to replace it with and my guess is that Gimp is probably good enough ... but of course it means another learning curve learning a new program.

But the killer app for me is AVISYNTH. It is essential. Linux + No AviSynth = No Linux use for me when it comes to video encoding/re-encoding etc.

It's just that simple.

Also I am used to using various other programs like VirtualDubMod and TMPGEnc DVD Author and GoldWave and SoundForge and my AC-3 encoder of choice: Soft Encode. None of these exist in Linux. Sure there may be Linux alternatives but it isn't exactly the same thing now is it?

I guess my point is this ... if I *must* use Windows so I can use the Video tools I like then why even bother using Linux for the times when I'm not doing Video stuff?

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Ok, well I didn't read too much of the Linux sucks, no wait Windows sucks Not my cup of tea

But, I use avisynth with wine, along with DGIndex, and HCEnc. Also CCE does work in wine. Soundforge, nope, just like photoshop also, if you actually use the programs for what they are intended for, and not Office 2007 when all you need is notepad , there is absolutely nothing even close in linux. There a couple of programs that could compete with goldwave though. For AC3 encoding I usually use Avidemux, or Kino, depending which program I'm editing with at the time. And just author with DVDStyler (not Maestro but it works 100% and takes care of more than I could need), then burn with NeroLinux, which has a much better UI now in version 3!!

About the command line, I can honestly say that I have HAD to use start, run, cmd more times in my life than I have in linux. I used to be tier 2 tech support for an ISP. If you've never had to rebuild winsock, or a TCP/IP stack in windows, then you're missing some good times . In Linux the CLI is just a faster way for some people to do things. Since I can type 50-60 WPM, it's easier for me to type 5 or 6 words, than it is to click, click, click, click ....

Now, Linux is no where near perfect, but does it work better for me than Windows did? HELL yes it does for me, is it for you? That's up for you to decide, and to be honest I could give 2 cents less if you decide to use Linux or not. I'm of the opinion that 98% of the Windows users out there should pack up their PC's and either ship them back to Emachines or Gateway. Just like you need to take a test to drive a car, and go through drivers ed, the same should be done for a PC. It's these same below average people that give computing and Linux in general a bad name. Look Corky, there are somethings that YOU (in general, not you John ) just can't do

About the avisynth and wine setup, if you do forgo the Linux route, shoot off a thread here, or at the Ubuntu forums. For the most part you should get an answer pretty quickly at the Ubuntu forums. I will not promise to hold your hand and guarantee 100% success because Linux R0xerS and Windoze SUX. But what the hell, give it a try, the worse that will happen is that you find out that Windows works better for you

The learning curve, I look at it like this, I learned how to create a VCD with Philips VCD authoring toolkit, a SVCD with Philips SVCD authoring kit, and I-Author, and figured out how to write half-way decent scripts in Avisynth, learned about Pre-Commands, Post-Commands, and machine language with DVD Maestro, Linux was a walk in the park compared to those . But I'm also not afraid to RTFM

[Nelson37]

Sound auto recognized once enabled on motherboard (forgot I had removed a sound card), USB thumbdrive, network shares functional.

No network browse?, or can't find it yet. Printer install routine (CUPS) is now broken, several others same issue, finding and using alternate install procedure probably faster than Windows install from CD. BUT no tools, no CD cover software.

Basically functional, basic tools included, free download.

However -

Took a look at the GATO project for using my ATI AIW card. Read all through the installation procedure. 99% of PC users would be dead in the water right there. But then, a fair number would not be able to do a removal and upgrade to new version on XP, either. Though this number is not nearly as high.

Video files play OK so far, no thumbnail views on directory view, editor converts to DV and only the first scene.

So far it's a lot like trying to find the Grocery Store and Gas Station in a strange town.

Will have to try some different software DL's and installs. I am already seeing a disturbing number of posters who have had to wipe out their OS and install a different version of Linux in order to get some software and/or hardware to work.

Linux does not seem to utilize hi-performance video cards? Built-in games and screensaver both exceptionally slow. Driver upgrade and availability unclear.

[courtrrb]

I've been reading the past few post and the only thing I've got to say is that if ANYONE thinks windows hardware support is is better than linux out of the box hasn't done very many Windows installs. MS doesn't write drivers for any hardware other than their own PERIOD. They are supplied from the manufacture. If that manufacture decides not to support Linux than the Linux community writes the drivers.

have reloaded at least 200 system in the last year of all different type of hardware. In most case I have had more problem trying to get windows installed out of the box than Linux. Windows just doesn't have the drivers needed & take longer to backup and then setup. It get worse when most of the drivers for the hardware are not included. Including the network card and the company that built the card is long gone and the customer doesn't want to replace any hardware because it was working before they visited some site with IE and their up to date virus scanner didn't catch the virus.

As part of my service I rebuild all system as a dual boot with Windows & Linux & let them know if after 6 months if they have a choice to have Windows or Linux remove permanently at no cost. If they decide they want to keep windows I remove the Linux partition & let them know I wont service their windows installs again. Its been running about 80% removal of the windows partition. The 20% left is 5% continue dual boot & the last 15% is due to they just could get use to it.