About a year ago, before i knew what linux was, my friend came over to my house from maryland, he was so into linux, and iv'e never used it, my question is:

If Linux is so great, so great that it is better then Windows, why isn't it the leading OS and what is so freaking great about it anyway?

what does one have to do with the other? I mean, mainstream-os in not necessarily the best os. There's a lot to say about this but since I don't have a lot of time now and I don't wanna flame you, I'm just saying, in computing not everything is about selling best. Not the software that has most users is necessarily the best. Maybe you wanna take a look at HOW gates forced users to use his system.
Just try gnu/linux, read about it's philosophy at GNU.org
Linux is more than just software
fabs

[ This Message was edited by: fabs on 2001-06-08 05:58 ]

Yeah. You know, I have been interested in Linux for some time now but I only tried it about a month ago for the first time. First I was interested in it because it was different; I mean, every idiot could use Windows almost as well as me. But later I got to know the philosophy behind it and the actual facts - how it was a lot more reliable etc.

And during the last year I really got tired of Windows - I have used virtually every verstion except Windows 2000 -, how it hung up every now and then without any reason and how it was heavy and unefficient.

The first thing that hit me when I finally got a Linux distro installed is that it was much more powerful than Windows. There were no gimmicks or innecessary "interactive" shit (while of course tons of that was avaiable for download for those interested). In the big whole, you could choose a lot of features to be installed and you could easily make anything out of your box, from server to low-effort terminal.

Another thing was that it has never scandisked up or crashed for me - not even the X system (the graphical part, that does sometimes crash for people I know). I could finally enjoy real multitasking where I don't need to worry about a program slowing down the other and screwing up for me.

I haven't yet explored all of my possibilities within Linux, but as soon as I get the software I need for whatevever I do in windows too, I'll convert totally to Linux (except for some games). I do sometimes use windows as I am most familiar with it but i definitely like Linux more in matter of feeling, power and functionality.

Check it out for yourself - but don't let any installing fuss stop you!

yeah ,I also think that you should take a look at how gates FORCED his users to use Winblowz ....
OK , I'll tell you what I like about Linux :
I got a environment for free , and it also worx a LOT better than the hanging Winblowz . What do you like more as a developer ?
1. A totaly free and perfect developing environment (all tools are free , and also the developer community is bigger I think ....)
2. A damned expensive unstable OS that's only good for gaming , and you have to pay for almost everything you want to add to your system
So , what sounds better for you ??
[addsig]

I think Linux is good, even because of what you guys said. I'm about half way done downloading it, iv'e been downloading it for a few days with some software that i can go offline and go back on and keep downloading where i left off! (www.netants.com - free software) ....... Have any of you guys ever tried linux phat?

linux.... phat? whassat?

uuuhhhmm ... ok , let's translate if for svara :
GNU¥Linux
Better ??
But , also one thing that rox with Linux is :
Everytime you compile software with Linux , you get the feeling of being REALLY free =)
[addsig]

I haven't tried phat linux... anyway, here's a tip, get one of those Linux-magazine thingies. They always include a fresh distro =)
fabs

Phat Linux is a linuxdistro you can install INTO your dos/win install . Then you can just boot it from DOS/Win , and that's it ... it's a looser distro though
[addsig]

ah, "phat linux"... i didn't get the connection with "Linux Phat"...

Yeh, i heard of that...
It uses Umsdos, so it's very slow..

that's why I say that it is a looser distro . It's just for ppl who are affraid of partitioning
[addsig]

ummm, like me... well, i had the same question that happy had, i guess, since right now, linux can't do anything that windows can't... its sad.... but all it is is the internet connection and the Games....

Linux can do MUCH (MUCH !!!!!) more things than Windblowz , only different things . Just install Linux and use it for one year or more ... then you'll know what I'm talkin about
[addsig]

well, i have it installed, but forget linux without internet! that sux so much! my modems don't work with linux, so i stick with win until they work...

The thing about Windows is it is mainstream and geared toward people that know jack shit about computer but want to/need to use them. Also, Windows is a lot more user friendly than people think for newbies. Another reason why Windows is so mainstream is that so many products and applications are made for Windows before Linux and Unix (if they're made for them at all!) because the demand is so much higher for Windows Programs.

When I get back to Reno from Twintop though, I am going to format both of my hard drives and make it dual-boot with one drive bing a Beta-Release of Windows XP and the other being Mandrake Linux 8.0 so I can attempt to learn how to use Linux more trhan I have in the past (which isn't a whole lot). I'm kinda sick of Windows, but I've heard XP has a lot of things new and different as well as more bug fixes, so I'll try both out at once and make my choice while I actually have a live side-by-side comparison going on. [addsig]

XP or not XP , Windows will be unstable until it's day of death , because it is based on a unstable kernel . How many ppls have read through the windows kernel code and de-bugged it ?? 100 ?? or maybe even 200 .... that's it ... THAT CAN'T BE STABLE !
[addsig]

I don't really like to get into Linux vs Windows debates, but to tell the truth I like them both. I could not imagine surfing the web with Linux all the time, netscape is so slow, opera scandisks up every now and then, alot of stuff is rendered wrong, most fonts look horrible. The only sites I really look at with Linux are sites about Linux. Windows actualy runs faster on my computer than Linux running X (gnome-enlightenment). I am not just a windows lover, I am telling the truth. I like them both, I wish they were more compatible (windows reading linux partitions), and I wish the browsers were more compatible. That would make some things alot easier. Well, flame me all you want, but Windows98 is faster than Linux on my box, no lie. Even the bootup is faster.

hhhmmm ... on my PC it takes me 5 secs until I got the X login screen , and for Windows I wait about 15 secs , just because windows is too dumb to get the IP from my ISP in 0.x secs ... my fonts in X are great , everything (almost) is rendered great , programming and compiling and setting up stuff worx faster and better in my Linux . My Moz/Opera work better than my IE that crashes every 5 mins , because of a "exception error" .... I can't see what exceptions I do , but every 5 mins it crashes on me ... OK , X crashes too ... yes . But ONLY if I do some shit with OpenGL , program the stuff improperly or so . When Windows gets stabler I could re-think this whole thing , but for now ... no ... I'll stick with my Linux and use Windows only when it's necessary .
[addsig]

well, there;s also a difference between NT/2000 and the Win9Xs. Win 9X really is very unreliable but with NT/2000 it's ok.

fabs

hm, it's hard to compare Linux Win 9x...
that win9x stuff is still not 100% 32 bit (i think winME was their failed attempt to sort that out), while Linux is a cutting-edge OS.

Also, linux is loading a lot of stuff the home user doesn't need, unless you disable it. That's just like win2k, win2k takes a lot longer to load than linux, for the same stuff.

Then, what jrgrant mentioned are things that are not nice, but there are workarounds. Are you by any chance running rh 7.1? that one has messed up fonts. a well-working browser is Mozilla, finally getting somewheer with the 0.9.x series. It renders just as well as IE. and if you enable anti aliased fonts and true type fonts, there's not font problem, either.
and linux works not really faster on my machine than win98, but i can really feel a difference to win when runnning a lot of stuff at the same time. right now i'm running mysqld, apache, proftpd as servers, mozilla, xchat, gicu, icewm, X, xmms as apps, and it still wokrs smoothly.

the ONE AND ONLY problem with linux can be described with one word:
games.
there are sooo many people saying 'the only reason i still have a win partition is becasue i want to play game xxxx'

So, let's support loki and buy some games
i will, when i get a better graphics card.

that's why I'm here for --> fsvara
I wanna code some games for Linux , but that's off-topic now ...
sorry to say this again , but Windows REALLY takes about 3 times as long to boot up than Linux on my PC . Don't flame me for that , I dunno why this is so !! It just is ...
And , I realize the same thing like fsvara . When I got Windows running i hit the border line of performance VERY early . I normaly got 1 Winamp (playing 1 MP3 at a time , with a OpenGL spectrum) , 1 IRC , I Explored file window , 1 IE window , and I can't open much more with Win98 , or it crashes (also Win2k) , or get's hell slow . And , that isn7t the fault of my machine .... could be only hard ... Athlon 1GHz , 256MB RAM , GF2MX etc. , so it isn7t the fault of my PC ....
In linux I got things like this opened at once :
X , GDM , apache , samba , swat , GNOME , Nautilus , IRC , Mozilla (2 windows most likely) , Evolution , X-Chat, 1 X-Term, and 1 ViM I use to code . And still it runs fast , stable and I could run still more (MUCH MORE !!) on it .
Here is the difference between the power of the OSs .... flame me if you like , I'll stick to this theory until you proove me wrong
[addsig]

I do not get why everyone says IE crashes so much. To tell the truth IE has only crashed on me once, and I think it was because my computer had been on for 2 days. Windows has never crashed for me, things have got all messed up and slow, but that is only when I leave it on too long. Sometimes opening files takes more time than it should, then I defrag and it gets alot faster. Think of computers without Window, there would be alot less users, alot less people to see advertisements, therefore alot less great websites.

I wish BeOS was still being worked on. It is truly faster than Windows & Linux. I could boot BeOS twice in the time it takes to boot either of those. All my hardware is supported by it, the only reason I don't use it all the time is there are not enough programs.

Linux also doesn't get slow if I let my PC on for a long while ....
And , one more thing :
Wouldn't it be better if there were less computer users than now ?? I think it would be better than now . Every idiot uses a PC , even if he/she doesn't need to .
*click* check mail , chat with the neighbour , shop in the web *click*
do you really need a PC for that ?? NO ! you could do that also in the real world . And windows is not useful for MUCH more than these . ok , watchin some movies and play with your digital camera . that's it . but you can do that in Linux too ....
[addsig]

Why use Linux for those tasks if they are easier with Windows?

easier ?? Windows easier ?? I think I can work much more faster and easier with linux .... load kernel module , connect hardware and that's it . [addsig]

yes...
it's easy in microsoft's sense of the word.
Microsoft tries to tell us "see, everything is nicely coloured and bright, the buttons are blinking and when you move your mouse over it, it makes a funny noise! that's oo easy!"

But that's not what it's all about. if there was no windoze, and no graphical windowing systems, only the cli.. that would NOT be harder. because the cli is NOT hard for somebody who has gone to school for a year. (yeh, that perosns need to know how to read and write).

of course, there's very advanced stuff with the cli in unix systems, but that's because of the so-called 'shell scripting', and that's programming, not regular use of a computer.
WHAT is so hard about that:
-->cd /home/me
-->ls
-->blah
no, it's not hard at all. if a person can't understand directory structure and can't remember two-charcater long commands, then that perosn also won't be able to use windows.

Cause that's a lot more complicated.
Move the mouse (that's very hard for the beginner) to the button reading 'start' (huh, what 'button'? i only see little pictures...
well, to the lower left. click. (what's that?) press the left mouse button. go to PROGRAMS? (huh? go there? whatcha talking about?, well, move your mouse over the sign reading 'PORGRAMS'). (AHH! what was that? something popped up on the screen! did i break it?) no, it's ok. now, move your mouse to the sign reading 'BLAH'. Now, in the popped up menu, move your mouse over the sign reading 'blah.exe'. click.

now really, that was NOT easier than in the command line, everybody agrees, right?

wow , that was hard now .
In general , I also only use X because it is colorful and I also need it for my OpenGL programming . But I could also live without X . Everything that I need is also available in console version , and it is much more easier and you can work a lot faster with the console that with this damned mouse !
[addsig]

Lie to yourself all you want, you know deep down inside that windows is easier to use for the newcomer than xwindows (with any window manager).

no .... no
This is what I think ... what isthe ControlPanel , How do I set up my internet connection etc. a newbie will have real problems with this in win ... linux does it automatically , and you don't have that confusing control panel , just because you don't need it ... HardWare detection also works as good (maybe even better) than in windows , so if you would let a newbie start with Windows or Linux , I think the one with linux will get around faster ....
[addsig]

it is just a matter of habits.
A newbie starting with Unix-likes will have problems getting around in win, and vice versa.

I do think, and that is what i wanted to say with my above post, that the learning curve for unix-likes might be steeper, but once you are familiar with it, you'll be able to work way more effectively than with windows.

Heck, if I wanted something easy I'd get myself a mac. No hardware problems over there, as there are only a few different pre-built configurations.

And talking about installing hardware or something in Linux Windows, it's hard. For both OSes. There's no such thing as an easy installation of new hardware, except when you are very lucky.

And when talking about people to whom the linux windows debate about easyness actually makes sense, that is, to newbies, these people won't install new drivers, and they won't install any operating system.


If easyness was so important, why aren't the macs everywhere? They are very powerful computers.

But in general, there is no such thing as an easy computer. To us, everything seems so easy because we know so much about computers. But that is not the case for 95% of the worlds propulation, and for them, any computer, Linux or Win will stay a mysterium, unless somebody shows them how to use it.

And moving a mouse straight and clicking the left mouse key is not any easier than typing ls on a keyboard.

depends :
If the user used a typewriter befor , he won't have any problems with the Keyboard
but , I see that many newbies have big problems with the mouse ... I use it almost as my own finger , but if I see for e.g. my mother ... It looks like ... like ... she is VERY uncomfortable with the mouse ... yeah .. it looks so .... so , everything depends on what you have done before etc.
but , HEY WAIT ! why does everybody in here say that linux (unix) is text based ?? that's only stupid . Just looks at X . Any comments ?? Windows (9x) also is "text-based" ....
and , I also think that we think that everything on the PC is easy (or at least solvable) , because we know MUCH MUCH more than newbies about our PC .
[addsig]

I think you guys give linux too much credity and windows not enough... Its not necessarily that windows is a shitty OS, its just the nature of the two.. Linux is an on going project, distros are updated yearly, software is ALWAYS being updated... In the Windows world Microsoft releases and new version of whatever windows, what every 2-3 years? ( yah, you could use update, but how many people REALLY do that )... A lot of windows instability is caused by faulty drivers for one. The developers don't have the ability to look at the code and write be compitent in writing their drivers. IMHO Windows 2000 is a farely solid OS. The only real thing that say, whatever distro has against Windows 2000 is the network part of Windows... Which is ALWAYS lacking and the fact the I.E. is intergrated so much so that entails even more back doors and bugs... Don't get me wrong guys, i am a avid linux just as you all are, but i think we just need to step back and look at the differences here. And yes i think microsoft should go burn in hell ( all of em, i dun care if you are just an IT manager, you still work there!!! ). IMO Microsofts business practices are what are keeping Windows from becoming a stable more robust OS, things are closed ( as far as source code... ) so the windows developement community doesn't have the same advantage as he GNU\Linux developement community... By the way, if you guys loahe windows so much, go look into Litestep. Its a replacement shell for Windows 9x and 2k ( NT as well ). Much more stable and A LOT better looking... And as fsvara said, there are big differences between the Windows 9x/ME series and the Windows NT/2k/XP series.. XP is a cross between 2k and 9x... Its basically just 2k... ( since it does use the NT 5.0 kernel.. ).. anyways, i just wanted pipe in my 2 cents...

haha, i should get an editor to revise my postings!!

You know, for me, it's really not just about an os that one can work with, both are good enough to work with but it's also about pride. People who use Linux know they are using Linux and they do it because they believe in Gnu/Linux and all those developers who code to make a better os, NOT for money. I have stopped using microsoft products because I rerally feel ripped of by their company and I want to support the Free Software Foundation because I believe they are doing something right.
fabs

that's also a way to think about it ....
Toad:
That's a good point , WHY MS products are actually not that good , but I think there you already said "MS sux" , or something in that direction , only indirect ... but anyways , I like my Linux , I hate my windows cuz it sux (in my opinion) . That's enough reason for me to use Linux .
[addsig]

yah, look at the linux tag (i'll upload pictures next week, i made a lot!)..

all these people were having a hell of a lot of fun. ever seen something similar in the windoze world?

and the updates all the time on linux syses... i update everyday, debina makes it possible. BUT that is NOT because Linux is a work in progress, no, it's because Linux is trasnparent!

Of course, Microsoft could make updates every day, but that's not the point of their buisness model. Their 'updates' are only to create further incompatibilities so that people HAVE to upgrade and buy a product again, and NOT to fix bugs or introduce new features.

You might say 'but hey, all these new office releases have tons of new features'. Yes, that's right, but you'll never use 99% of them.
They are merely there to say 'hey, look at what's new in office 278247.244: It now features recipe autocompletion by calculationg the mol-mass of sugar and multiplying it by the current stock price of palladium! You NEED to have that!'

And hey, Linux NEVER EVER crashed on me. No. It has NEVER crashed. I have NEVER seen a linux box crash, except when it has no / partition, that is, if it has no HD.

Back when I ran windoze, I had around 2-3 crashes a day.

And people who think they are very smart often say something like "Linux for the server? Of course! BUt for every day use by normal people? No, Linux is just a server OS."

Now that's plain wrong. Linux was never meant to be a server OS. Linus wrote it to use it everyday. That it performs so well on the server only outlines the outstanding perfomrance and stability of this OS.
The fact that Linux is more popular on the server nowadays only shows that there still is the need for more.... games. and drivers
Linux has everything we need. Installation is getting easier and easier everyday. There are office suits, Image programs, Sound programs, Multimedia players.

The only thing it lacks are
1) Full support for current modern hardware
2) Games

There are not many Games working on Linux. You can only really count the Loki ones, as you can't really tell any newbie to use Wine for Halflife or similar.

Full support for modern hardware is also important.

The 'full support for modern hardware' part will resolve automatically over time, with comapnies starting to use linux on their desks, and hardware companies realizing that Linux users won't buy their hardware, if it is not 100% supported in Linux.

If we get better drivers, again more users will be attracted, and the wish for more games will become even bigger. Linux is growing exponentially.

In the beginning, most newcomers will probably dual boot, but when they have realized that working with Linux is just cheaper and mroe effective, they'll start thinking "I only need windows for my . If only they could make a linux version!'.

Game makers will eventually realize that, and that is how Linux will automatically become the no1 OS.

You see, people don't like microsoft! there are m$ jokes everywhere, about win98 ctashing and such, and still these people keep using it. That CANNOT continue, and MUST eventually end in 'revolution'.

History has proven us that freedom always wins. (yeah, that's from a SUN commerical, but it's a cool saying =) )

That's what I hate most in Windoze and M$ itself ! They don't make new OSs/Office Suits for ease of use or new functions . They just make it incompatible with the older products . Look :
Everybody uses M$ office 95 . Office 98 came out . only 1 (!!!) person bought Office 98 , but all the other people can't work with that person , because the Office 98 documants are incompatible with the 95 ones , so ppls with the o95 can't read his docs , so they are FORCED to buy o98 .
I ask everybody :
Have you even used any of those "advanced" functions of M$ office ?? I don't have , and I think I will never do so .... I totaly agree with fsvara .

And yes , when I use Linux I'm happy workin on my PC . Same as fsvara said :
Linux NEVER crashed on me , NEVER !! OK , X maybe crashes sometimes on me if I overload it with OpenGL , but that's also VERY rare , maybe some times a month . But windows crashes 3-4 times a day on me . Now I'm in windows , because I need to do some stuff in japanese , but I will fix this in Linux too ... anyways , it already crashed 3 times (in 2 hours) , so I dun wanna continue that japanese stuff now , and probably I will boot up Linux and try to get my japanese stuff running .
[addsig]

Not only Linux is great. The whole Unix-world is great. Think of all this Windows-shit. Nothing but uncontrolled commerce applications, blue screens, graphical exploits, *HARD* development area.



Linux is not just an OS.
Linux is a damned LIFESTYLE.

Bandi

[quote]
On 2001-07-07 19:05, fsvara wrote:
And hey, Linux NEVER EVER crashed on me. No. It has NEVER crashed. I have NEVER seen a linux box crash, except when it has no / partition, that is, if it has no HD.
[/quote]
fsvara, that's really *NOT* right. You can crash Linux as I drink milk every day (say every week). Not as easy as Window$ but you _can_ crash it!! Have heard of the /proc-fs-bug lately??? Do you know what this one means, if you can modify a process' memory as you want?? You can not only hang the system but trash the box completly too.
(with local access) You should think about it.
No OS is completly stable.
I saw my system crashing sometimes because I have 32MB ram only. So you know what happens if there is too much paging? (X+Netscape+Gnome+various services)
Well if you don't consider waiting days for
the system to get stable again worth a cold reboot? OK. If you think so-- Linux does not crash.

Have a nice time!
Bandi

at least Linux (UXIN) is a DieHard OS . It won't die from some playin around (as windows always does to me ) .
And , now I've got a reason more to not-like Windows :
The WinAPI is the biggest shit that I've seen on earth . It may provide some GREAT features (btw, I'm just kiddin with this one) , but truth is , it slows the application down like hell . it just sux , is hard to use , "unfunny" to program , adn MUCH to code ... actually , 300 lines or more for only 1 damned window is too much .... and that window is empty , with no menus , no contents ... only a border and a title ... that's it ! sux =)
[addsig]

Not only Linux is hard to crash. (It may be very easy. Think of my paging example.)
A well configured Window$ box can be hard to crash too.

Have a nice time.
Bandi

Tell me one thing:
What is a good configured Windows Box ?? In Windows you can't configure much except the GUI stuff , and that's also VERY restricted ... [addsig]

that's kind of true but we have to make a difference between Windows9X/ME and WindowsNT/2000. WindowsNT/2000 can be very stable if you haven't installed much extra software. Really the problem in win are software installations because they substitue dlls, fill the registry etc.
fabs

damn, ya'll are still writing messages under this subj.It's over, i have linux now.

hehehe, that's a way to look at it But I guess we're just still replying to this post because the question "Why Linux" is one that is just fun answering because evryone has his/her different reasons for choosing this os... or not choosing it.
fabs

Yeah, it's a lot of fun to read & reply...

Microsoft is another mentality, a mainstream, commercial mentality that no young programmer with at least a little pride and dreams would want to suite when he/she sees how it REALLY is. I won't support the assholes.

I have only bought Windows once (used, 95-OSR2), all the other copies are pirated (so come get me, scandiskers)... It's so damn expensive! And what am I doing now? Downloading a thousand times better and cooler operating system in twenty flavors for FREE! I can even give my friends copies and still no-one can start bitchin behind my back about piracy. [addsig]

yum yum.
And yes, you can crash Linux, of course you can.

I forgot to mention that I also managed to crash it when setting my harddisk to udma-66 mode though it doesn't support it. I would accept windoze crashing for such stuff, it's just logical that when you b0rk your hd, the os will crash unless you got RAID.

But windoze doesn't crash for such stuff. No. It just crashes because it's raining, or because of that book lying on your table. or because you are in a bad mood. Or because it's fun.

Well, everywhere you are there are windoze boxes crashing. At school, our teacher shows us a nice powerpoint presentation, the screensaver comes, and whoop, crashed.

I start up my box, log in to windows cuz i wanna play some civilization... suddenly the screen turns black.. crashed.

Now sorry, but that is NOT acceptable.

I accept X crashing on my lin box every 2 weeks. It doesn't do any harm, i don't have to restart, and, most importantly: It would not happen if the drivers were 100% supported by the graphics card company.

Come on, face it, GNU/Linux is way superior.

Now, if you want to engage in a LinuxBSD or LinuxSolaris discussion or whatever, I woudln't have any problems with that, because these OSes are also very good.

But LinuxWindows is just a stupid dicussion, as it's clear Linux is by far superior.

I guess there's really no Better OS. I love Linux, but I wouldn't make my mom use it - she's a manager, so she needs to work with Microsoft Office and all sorts of other things. She complains all the time about crashes, but until we either convince everyone to use some platform-independent standard (Microsoft's shift to XML looks very promising), Linux isn't going to be feasible for her.

Same goes for my dad. As cool as GIMP is, it's still not quite the same as Photoshop on a Macintosh. =)

I like Linux because it supports the way I work and the way I think. I'm not really into games, so I don't mind that most of the games are released only on Windows - nethack takes up enough of my time! =) I like having lots of free tools. I like being able to take apart a program, look at the source code, and maybe write something based on that. I like the culture that's grown around open source software - or made it possible. I like Linux not only because it's neat, fast, powerful, and waay fun, but also because I believe in its principles. <laugh>

Quote:
On 2001-07-10 18:28, bandij wrote:
Quote:

On 2001-07-07 19:05, fsvara wrote:

And hey, Linux NEVER EVER crashed on me. No. It has NEVER crashed. I have NEVER seen a linux box crash, except when it has no / partition, that is, if it has no HD.



fsvara, that's really *NOT* right. You can crash Linux as I drink milk every day (say every week). Not as easy as Window$ but you _can_ crash it!! Have heard of the /proc-fs-bug lately??? Do you know what this one means, if you can modify a process' memory as you want?? You can not only hang the system but trash the box completly too.

(with local access) You should think about it.

No OS is completly stable.

I saw my system crashing sometimes because I have 32MB ram only. So you know what happens if there is too much paging? (X+Netscape+Gnome+various services)

Well if you don't consider waiting days for

the system to get stable again worth a cold reboot? OK. If you think so-- Linux does not crash.



Have a nice time!

Bandi


If there is too much paging on windows, what happens? Usually, it will start blacking out windows. Sometimes, it will simply BSOD you. Now what happens when linux uses up its swap space? It simply closes programs to make room. Don't like the fact that it closed the wrong programs and you think you need to reboot? /sbin/telinit Q. Instant back-to-where-you-were. Now where's the problem?
There isn't one.
--CoolQ

Linux VS. Microsoft is an ongoing end endless discussion. You have stubborn people that support Microsoft, and you have stubborn people who support Linux. If we look at things logical and do a Pro's VS. Con's table, we will see that Linux is superior to Microsoft. And one day will rule the home users desktop.

Linux:
------

Pro's:
Stability, Multithreaded tasking, Speed, Reliablity, dos like terminal , Open source, Security, FREE!, Allows for better meetings between people, Integrated Development Enviroment, uses raw and true TCP/IP power.

Cons:
Alot of hardware is not supported, games are not supported, drag and drop not supported.

Windows:
--------

Pro's:
Ease of use, newbie friendly, supports most modern hardware, great for gaming.

Con's:
(Oh boy) Insecure, unstable, crashes every minute, lollipops for internet, easily crackable, leaves open ports, leaks out personal information, badly programmed, FULL OF BUGS, very slow, very unreliable, tons of security holes, hardware conflicts, etc.. etc.. etc..

Now alot of the Pros for Linux were not inclduded here. This is to demonstrate mainly what the two operating systems are better at doing then the other. I think that with the advancements in the Gnome and KDE desktops, soon, we (The Linux world) will have a GUI that is as easy as windows for the newbie. Also I think an uninstall for each RPM or file installed would help alot. Maybe a disk clean up tool also. Where as Winblowz will never be able to fix all the problems it has because It would go completely out of business.


Human knowledge belongs to the world.

johny-5

Just wanted to say that we won't come to an end in this discussion ... this can (and will) go on endlessly ... anyways , one more things to johny :
Dran'n-Drop is supported by KDE as well as by GNOME , so we have one "Contra" less
[addsig]

yeah, and drag'n'drop is not at all a linux thing, the different windowmanagers and desktop environemnts do it their own way, not at all, or very well... there are big differences between them.

What concerns such stuff, kde is generally way more advanced that gnome.

Actually I have found that ximian gnome available at www.ximian.com is the most advanced desktop system for linux. Its easier then the windows desktop. If only distros would include it, but see the thing is with that one that Nautilus slows things down a little bit. Maybe in the next version this will be fixed.

it's the best looking one, not the most advanced.

The most advanced is KDE, there's no denying it.

I have used KDE, KDE is nice, but I found that it took an extremely long time to load all of the needed files and settings. Maybe thats just because I had to much turned on. Now from my point of view I like Ximian Gnome better, but thats just my opinion.

KDE is slow and ugly (even with themes, excluding the aa fonts).
It uses a non-GPL base, is too uncofigurable try to make such cool panels as in GNOME), hard to get non-ASCII characters displayed,
un-original. It has just copied the effects from Window, espacially 2k (just look at those CPU cycles killing alpha stuff).
Everywhere you have those popping things like in Windows that kills your CPU (again).

Yes, it may be advanced. But, I can shit on advanced stuff if it has nearly 0 originality.
I will stay on the "primitive" GNOME platform. It's completely free (almost everything, including the base, is GPLd),
it let's my desktop look like I want it - EVERYTHING ! - and it loads in about 1/2 the time KDE takes to load. If I really want AA fonts I'll install libgtkxft, and use Nautilus for my desktop. If GNOME isn't the better choice, why are all the good apps made for GNOME? e.g Glade, gIDE, Evolution, Nautilus, Abiword, GIMP, X-Chat, Galeon and muchmuch more ...
I won't switch to KDE unless they make it more compatible to GNOME and more configurable!


--Ooops, sorry about the "message edited by fsvara", I clicked on edit instead of 'reply with quote' by accident... i changed nothing.--

[ This Message was edited by: fsvara on 2001-11-10 23:13 ]

Now, initially I didn't want to reply to this post because I just had enough of the endless GNOME vs. KDE debate, but the false statements KaGez makes here just can't stay here unquestioned...
Yeah, and I'm going to try and stay calm and everything and look at it from an objective point of view...


-->KDE is slow and ugly (even with themes,
-->excluding the aa fonts).

Well, finding KDE "ugly" is a matter of personal preference... KDE 1 did look ugly, but the improvements in 2 make it visually quite appealing, especially with themes.
(If you don't believe me, take a look at http://svara.dyndns.org/screenshots/screenshot7.png, for a extensively themed look.)

As for KDE being slow, that might be true to some extent, as the g++ compiler just gets worse benchmark results than gcc. With the new objprelink hack, the startup times of kde apps can be improved by up to 50% (at least for konqueror).

-->It uses a non-GPL base,

That's just plain wrong. QT (the widget lib KDE uses is) dually licensed QPL/GPL. That means, the developer can pick what version he wants to use. The GPL version is free, while the QPL version must be bought. This has a simple reason: Apps made with the GPL version have to be GPL, too, while QPL allows the app to use another licensing scheme.

Actually, it's GNOME that uses a non-GPL base. All of its libs are LGPL - a license similar to the QPL.

-->is too uncofigurable (try to make such cool
-->panels as in GNOME),

With "cool panels", I guess you mean translucent panels.. Well, if you've ever looked into KDE's control center, you'll notice it has extensive customization option under the "Look & Feel" menu item.


-->hard to get non-ASCII characters displayed,

yeah, that's a problem with the debian packages. Japanese chars don't work right in the debs, ciryllic, chinese, arabic work, though.

-->un-original. It has just copied the effects
-->from Window, espacially 2k (just look at
-->those CPU cycles killing alpha stuff).

Yeah, it looks somewhat more like Windows, true. But come on - there's almost _no_ desktop nowadays that doesn't borrow from windows. For two simple reasons: 1) Most users are more familiar with windows and will find getting into something that *looks* familiar easier, 2) Microsoft hasn't done everything wrong in GUI design. The "start" button introduced in Win95 certainly is a good feature.
The effects you are referring to are translucent tooltips and menus - I don't find anything unoriginal in that. If you can have translucent windows, then why not tooltips or menus?

-->Everywhere you have those popping things
-->like in Windows that kills your CPU (again).

Honestly, I don't know what you mean...

-->Yes, it may be advanced. But, I can shit on
-->advanced stuff if it has nearly 0
-->originality.

So all that is better in gnome is originality (ie. look)? That sounds like a very hollow argument to me, when people go install Aqua themes (sooo unoriginal, it's stolen from Mac!)...
If you want originality in a desktop, use something like LarsWM or 3dWM...


-->I will stay on the "primitive" GNOME
-->platform. It's completely free (almost
-->everything, including the base, is GPLd),

well all the libs are LGPL'ed, see above
comments...

-->it let's my desktop look like I want it -
-->EVERYTHING ! - and it loads in about 1/2 the
-->time KDE takes to load. If I really want AA
-->fonts I'll install libgtkxft, and use
-->Nautilus for my desktop. If GNOME isn't the
-->better choice, why are all the good apps
-->made for GNOME? e.g Glade, gIDE, Evolution,
-->Nautilus, Abiword, GIMP, X-Chat, Galeon and
-->muchmuch more ...

That sounds very much like you have never looked at apps.kde.org. Tons of kickass apps for KDE. And btw, most of the apps you mentioned are not gnome apps. They are GTK apps, not gnome ones. The G in GTK doesn't stand for "GIMP" not "GNOME" for no reason...

The actual GNOME apps you mentioned (Nautilus, Evolution) have counterparts on KDE. Konqueror has at least the same functionality as Nautilus and it's faster (yeah, it is). KMail supports a lot of advanced groupware-like functions now, too, but Evolution certainly is the better email client ATM. That's a special example, tho, there are KDE apps that have no equal GNOME counterpart, too, like for example Kdevelop or KOffice (GNOME office really isn't there, yet).

-->I won't switch to KDE
Sure, you can keep, gnome, lol
-->unless they make it more compatible to GNOME
-->and more configurable!

I personally have no issues with the configurability of GNOME.. I don't really know what you mean with comaptible to gnome... You can already use sawfish as windowmanager in KDE...

Disclaimer: This really isn't meant as a personal criticism of you (Kagez), I just think that all the kde (and gnome) bashing/supporting just has deproportionized the whole matter somewhat... As one can see by such pretty unenlightened posts about kde.. :/

Now nothing against svara, but:


-->(If you don't believe me, take a
-->look at -->http://svara.dyndns.org/screenshots/screenshot7.png,
-->for a extensively themed look.)

If you call these ... these, how should I describe them ... ugly ... icons visually appealing, what is with those on this shots ? (http://gnapsterj.hypermart.net/tuts/pics/toybox.tar.gz (svara, you already have these))


-->Actually, it's GNOME that uses
-->a non-GPL base. All of its libs
-->are LGPL - a license similar to
-->the QPL.

It's way more like GPL than QPL ....


-->With "cool panels", I guess you
-->mean translucent panels.. Well,
-->if you've ever looked into
-->KDE's control center, you'll
-->notice it has extensive
-->customization option under the
-->"Look & Feel" menu item.

That's exactly _NOT_ what I mean. In GNOME you can place the panel exactly where you want, and you can set the size, width and really EVERYTHING for it, also have many of them at the same time (just look @ the screenshots posted above).


-->hard to get non-ASCII
-->characters displayed,
-->yeah, that's a problem with the
-->debian packages. Japanese chars
-->don't work right in the debs,
-->ciryllic, chinese, arabic work,
-->though.

Don't balme it on debian! It's true that some things don't really work with the debian pkgs, but those japanese chars didn't want to work when I compiled KDE2 before, also in the Mdk and RH pkgs it was impossible to get them to run. In GNOME you just change your locale stuff in ~/.bashrc and that's it. Everything works, even without setting up stuff for hours and hours, only less than 1 min of work and a X restart.


-->But come on - there's almost
-->_no_ desktop nowadays that
-->doesn't borrow from windows.For
-->two simple reasons: 1) Most
-->users are more familiar with
-->windows and will find getting
-->into something that *looks*
-->familiar easier, 2) Microsoft
-->hasn't done everything wrong in
-->GUI design. The "start" button
-->introduced in Win95 certainly
-->is a good feature.

1.) afaik only KDE "borrows" (actually copies) those ugly alpha effects from window.
2.) Actualy that start button doesn't come from M$. They also just rpiied it from MacOS (the little neat apple button in the top-right).
And actualy, if you look at those KDE menus, they are absolutely the same (!STRUCTURE!) as in GNOME, so both will be on the same familiarity on the menu level, except for those alpha effects in KDE again (you know what alpha and alpha effects are, right?).


-->So all that is better in gnome
-->is originality (ie. look)? That
-->sounds like a very hollow
-->argument to me, when people go
-->install Aqua themes (sooo
-->unoriginal, it's stolen from
-->Mac!)...
-->If you want originality in a
-->desktop, use something like
-->LarsWM or 3dWM...

hm ... you know what original means? I wasn't talking about themes or such. With originality I meant something more like the idea. Tell me anothe ekstop system that is this configureable like GNOME, visually and also on the systems base. It has many original ideas that other Desktop systems NEVER had, and most probaly will never have. (a little example is the controallability of the panel)


-->The G in GTK doesn't stand for
-->"GIMP" not "GNOME" for no
-->reason...

oooo ... there are ppls on this world that actualy know such "difficult" stuff ....

They have counter parts, yes. But way superior counter parts. You have a IRC client like X-Chat for KDE? You have such a ass kickin browser like Galeon for KDE? There also isn't such a good and complete Groupware suit (there isn't one at all) for KDE like Evolution for GNOME. I admit that KDevelop isn't bad, but there ARE equivalents to KDevelop in GNOME. Ever heard of gIDE/Anjuta? This solution looks superior to me ... ok, you have no "all-in-one" office suit for GNOME, but I don' care for that. I don't use Office stuff except Abiword and Gnumeric, so I don't want to waste HDD space with all the other office apps I never need anyways.


-->I personally have no issues
-->with the configurability of
-->GNOME.. I don't really know
-->what you mean with comaptible -->to gnome... You can already use
-->sawfish as windowmanager in
-->KDE...

I don't mean windomanager and stuff .... WindowManagers have nearly 0 to do with GNOME... GNOME is only the desktop, and you are free to use a WindowManager. Anyways, what I've meant is stuff like using the same desktop objects ( .desktop files), a clipboard which both can access (look like they will include this into G2...) I think the KDE developers are just fixed too much on theirselves. "Advance KDE, copy effects!! leave everything other behind and make it look 'evil'" .... The GNOME developers actualy try to get nearer to KDE, but those stupid KDE developers are so fixed on theirselves that they don't even see that.... don't tell me this is wrong ... just seek through the GNOME news archive and the KDE news archive. For e.g. The GNOME developers congratulated KDE for it's xth birthday some weeks ago. But I've NEVER read stuff like the KDE developers congratulate GNOME. They are just too egoistic imo.

-->-->I won't switch to KDE
-->Sure, you can keep, gnome, lol

Yes, you laugh ... I don't care if ppls use slow desktops I just hate it when those "slow guys" try to convince others to use the slow stuff against their will.


and, btw, include fsvara's disclamer into here too ... it isn't anything meant to anybody in personal, it's just what I think, and I force nobody to be the same opinion.

anyways, cheers


_________________
--=========================================--
there's always somebody watchin at you from the dark side , the side of the shadows

-=KaGez=-


[ This Message was edited by: KaGez on 2001-11-11 02:35 ]

I just read through the first half of this thread, and it is all bullshit. You are scandisking lying to yourself if you believe Linux is easier for the newcomer than Windows.

Here is a quote from KaGez:
"Every idiot uses a PC , even if he/she doesn't need to .
*click* check mail , chat with the neighbour , shop in the web *click*
do you really need a PC for that ?? NO ! you could do that also in the real world "

What do you need to use a PC for? That you could not do in the real world? Computers are just convenient. Dumbass.

fsvara:

"Move the mouse (that's very hard for the beginner) to the button reading 'start' (huh, what 'button'? i only see little pictures...
well, to the lower left. click. (what's that?) press the left mouse button. go to PROGRAMS? (huh? go there? whatcha talking about?, well, move your mouse over the sign reading 'PORGRAMS'). (AHH! what was that? something popped up on the screen! did i break it?) no, it's ok. now, move your mouse to the sign reading 'BLAH'. Now, in the popped up menu, move your mouse over the sign reading 'blah.exe'. click. "

Maybe you are like that with Windows, but the average person is not that scandisking stupid. Make fun on Windows users all you want, but think about how much your internet connections, and your hardware would cost if there was not as many computer users as there are now. And think about how there would not be as many computer users if there was not Windows.

Kagez:
"How do I set up my internet connection etc. a newbie will have real problems with this in win ... linux does it automatically , and you don't have that confusing control panel"

Setting up an internet connection is so scandisking easy. When I first got my computer it is as simple as: My Computer / Dial Up Networking / Make New Connection. You people really make me sick. You are so cool, using linux, rebelling against 'the man'. You guys are so scandisking stupid, I am going to quit coming here. Have fun with the cl.

Bitches

so, first:
scandisk yourself and calm down =) (to jgrant) you act like a little baby ...

so, and if you think that you are sooooooooo intelligent, what do you use your PC for? watch porns? you just simply sit there and chat, check mail and do nothing.
What I use my PC for? Programming. How should I do that irl? if you're so smart, tell me boy =)


actualy I know tons of ppls who act almost like svara described. Maybe "smart" guys like you don't act like that, no, they can't even get windows installed, or even switch theyr PC on. Anyways, it maybe isn't THAT extreme as svara said, but tons of ppls in this world sit like that in front of their PC, check mail and that's it. Thay could do the same thing by sitting in front of the TV, and go outside and look into their "real" mailbox.


yes, you are too smart for us .... you can set up a inet connection in windows ... revolutionary ... and if you think that you are sooooooooo great server with windows, just use it ... you will see how superior Linux is some day! That's what I hate about windows users. They want others to use windows (in other words: "Spend hell much money") and let the think that open-source is evil.
Maybe you should think about how you act, and not only citisize all the other that are not on your side.

So, if you wanna leave that much, I won't stop you ... I'm happy if I don't have to meet one stupid windows anymore.

ok, let's just end this discussion here, because we're terribly getting out of the actual topic.

I also want to apilogize to svara and all the others for this flamewar (see above) in here.
Sorry everybody!

and one final work do jgrant:
scandisk you own "smart" self

cheers
[addsig]

Jgrant:
Don't be such a user for crying out loud. Any programmer who has just a little bit of pride and has experienced the great community of programmers online who share their knowledge without telling you "No! Go away! I spent 6 hours learning this and I nly had shitty documentation and now you're learning from my code and it only takes you 3 hours because mine is documented well! Go away! Write your own code!"
Programmers of the world have formed a community which is generous. And out of this social behaviour, as the fruit of the passion of sharing knowledge, this community has created an operating system to escape the way programming is done by so many corps. today, to step up to the big software companies and tell them: "Stop ripping us off! Stop hiding the knowledge you have gained just to make more money you selfish fools!"

That's Linux and even if Linux was still a text-based system only, I'd rather use it than some proprietary bullshit.

fabs

Delete my post, prooves your the bullshit. So much for FOS, asshole. Delete this one too. Like the YPN realy helps anyone. This is so scandisking lame, scandisk you.

jgrant:
hm, just because a couple of people act offensively that doesn't mean the entire organization lollipops - and especially not that you must behave offensively too.

The YPN isn't some kind of a hospital or children's fund, it's a community for those who want to learn programming or advance as a programmer, in a community, with people at least approximately the same age.

I advocate a somewhat nicer approach to non-linux, non-c/c++ programmers than some of our members represent and I don't hide this. I think a programmer community should create opportunity for all levels and interests - including Basic, VB or whatever. That's why we have such sections.

However, saying we're all lamers and idiots doesn't help us a bit. But as that's your kind of feedback, I can't do else but just say thank you and accept it. Who says you can't think like that? But I don't think that's a community spirit.

What' that supposed to mean?
-->Delete my post, prooves your the bullshit.

First of all, we didn't kill your post, so we are not -->the bullshit. If you in your windoze-brain were able to click on the little link at the top of the page saying "4", you would be able to read your post.
Second, it's "you're", not "your".

Third, we can all swear but it's not really concidered a very powerful style of expressing your opinion. If you're gonna go around calling people "bitches" because they don't like windows, you're gonna get flamed.

fabs

[ This Message was edited by: fabs on 2001-11-13 09:45 ]

wow ... looks like fabs is kinda angry

to Peter:
I don't hate non-linux programmers, not even window programmers. I don't matter is ppls use shitty OSs to develop on, I only want to be able to "communicate" with the in a reasonable way, but that's impossible with most windows users (programmers) as you've seen above No FreeBSD/BeOS or whatever developer will react in such a aggressive way like the windows-developers. That's what I've experienced till now, and it just got prooved to me once again. (btw, this is no attack on you)

If you don't think like this, try to convince me with the opposite.
[addsig]

Well, I've just read some of your messages and I mostly share your opinion (Linux is good for coding, Win better for the Net). Have you heard of Lindows? (www.lindows.com) Hope it'll come out soon, it would be a great solution for some nice progs I store on my drive.
Greetings,
semiramis [addsig]

yeah, I've read quite a lot about Lindows, but it doesn't really make me heppy, don't ask me why :/
maybe it's because I'm happy with Linux and WINE. Most of my apps also run on Linux with WINE, so I don't have to spend money to get a OS that runs both ... but I think that is not the main reason
One question:
Why is Windows better for the net? I've heard that Linux is the OS best supporting net protocols etc. (I mean internet, did you mean LAN or something?) Also in networking it appears to be the best, afaik. Tell me what you guys think about WindowsNet. Maybe there is something I've missed

cheers
[addsig]

Hi, semiramis!
I don't really get what you mean with "Windows is better for the net"... Linux is splendid for the net . Including flash and all that.

What windows is better for is games and some multimedia (as for dvd players, xine is a little laggy).

What I read about Lindows makes me sorta souspicious... I don't really believe what they are claiming, and a company offersing so few information always makes a bad impression on me. Actually they sound like nothing more than a Linux distro with Wine preinstalled.

I am more interested in Transgaming's Winex, which is a comapny extending wine with DirectX support so that it can run modern games. WineX is already successful to a certain extent, considering how young the company is. Perhaps in a year or two, we'll have a working compatibility layer for most of all Windows games on Linux. That would of course rock, and would be an excellent opportunity to get all windows users i know over to linux.

Also interresting is Transgaming's business model - I suggest you check out their site, they have some interesting stuff.

I'm thinking about subscribing to transgaming, so they release their code under the wine license very soon.

Quote:
On 2001-07-01 03:42, KaGez wrote:
XP or not XP , Windows will be unstable until it's day of death , because it is based on a unstable kernel . How many ppls have read through the windows kernel code and de-bugged it ?? 100 ?? or maybe even 200 .... that's it ... THAT CAN'T BE STABLE !

Even Fare has agreed that MS-Windows XP is quite stable. All your cash are belong to us.

Yet GNU/Linux is still more stable IMHO.

who or what is Fare?

1) I wanted to ask the same Q as svara did
2) I'm happy with Linux, it's stable, fast, free, and I get my updates for free too Games are also staring to come out for linux, so I don't have a problem anymore
[addsig]