[Tim D]

I'm really really liking the Ubunto Linux distro so far. It actually gets my laptop sound and touchpoint and stick thing right. It also looks pretty gorgeous.

 

[electic]

i really dont know anything about linux, so can someone please tell me what is so good about it?

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by electic i really dont know anything about linux, so can someone please tell me what is so good about it?

Windows XP EULA vs. GPL. The freedom to do whatever you want with the code, even resell it. Stability. A huge userbase that's eager to help you with any problem you may encounter. Legacy hardware support. Lower overall footprint. Customization.

Need I go on?

 

[saturnine]

Mandrake 10.1
Windows XP Pro (Only cause there are no linux drivers available for my EMU 0404...)

Solaris 7 on my SMP SS20. It used to be a webserver back in the day till I retired it.

 

[GokieKS]

What, nobody's running OS/2 Warp?!?!

......

OK... not like I really expected anybody to... I don't even myself. I really liked that OS though.

WinXP Pro SP2 on primary workstation (I need to run Photoshop, dammit!)
WinXP Pro SP2/WinXP Pro x64 Eval on gaming machine (might install Ubuntu AMD64 for the hell of it)
Fedora Core 2 on server

And there *WILL* be a MacOS X system owned by me in the next year... likely either a PowerBook or a PowerMac Dual G5.

~KS

 

[Hase]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Windows XP EULA vs. GPL. The freedom to do whatever you want with the code, even resell it. Stability. A huge userbase that's eager to help you with any problem you may encounter. Legacy hardware support. Lower overall footprint. Customization. Need I go on?

No one ever mentions the challenge of learning Linux as a reason to do it. Why do people screw around with their cars engines? The average guy on the street can't get much more out of their engine (relatively speaking, effort to results ratio), even though they devote hundreds of hours to tweaking it anyway. I don't really get that much more out of Gentoo than I do my XP box and the average end user doesn't either. But, I spend lots of time using (read: tweaking) linux anyway, just to chase that ever elusive perfection.

I use FC3, Gentoo, Slack, Win98, WinXPSP2, and Windows Server (though not much anymore).

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hase No one ever mentions the challenge of learning Linux as a reason to do it. Why do people screw around with their cars engines? The average guy on the street can't get much more out of their engine (relatively speaking, effort to results ratio), even though they devote hundreds of hours to tweaking it anyway. I don't really get that much more out of Gentoo than I do my XP box and the average end user doesn't either. But, I spend lots of time using (read: tweaking) linux anyway, just to chase that ever elusive perfection.

That's the impression I get for why most people use Linux: just to have fun dicking around with configuring things. I mean, look at Stephonovich's other thread... he must have spent tons of time trying a dozen or more Linux distributions. It doesn't make sense unless the ultimate goal is fun rather than getting real work done. Every distribution is basically the same, just with the same files moved around to different places, different default settings, and different package managers.

It's like a band releasing five different versions of their Greatest Hits CD, all with identical songs, just in a different order on each CD. Gotta buy them all and listen just to figure out what the optimal song order is

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy That's the impression I get for why most people use Linux: just to have fun dicking around with configuring things. I mean, look at Stephonovich's other thread... he must have spent tons of time trying a dozen or more Linux distributions. It doesn't make sense unless the ultimate goal is fun rather than getting real work done. Every distribution is basically the same, just with the same files moved around to different places, different default settings, and different package managers. It's like a band releasing five different versions of their Greatest Hits CD, all with identical songs, just in a different order on each CD. Gotta buy them all and listen just to figure out what the optimal song order is

Heh. Yeah, I suppose I love trying them out. In my defense, I do want a distro for actually accomplishing things. Basically, to replace Windows for everything except gaming and Photoshop. And so far, anyway, I think Debian's accomplished that.

As for distros all being the same, not quite, methinks. If had to name the biggest difference, I'd say package selection. Some have little to none (SLAX, but as I mentioned, it works for it), while others have more than anyone could ever need (SUSE, anyone?). Next main difference would be intended userbase, which also spills over into package selection a great deal. Finally, performance/reliability tradeoff, which, again, spills over into the previous two. So really, it all boils down into package selection. IMO.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich As for distros all being the same, not quite, methinks. If had to name the biggest difference, I'd say package selection. Some have little to none (SLAX, but as I mentioned, it works for it), while others have more than anyone could ever need (SUSE, anyone?).

Why does this matter? I don't understand it. If you want an application and it's not packaged for you, just go and download it from wherever it originally comes from. Just like you'd do for an app meant for Windows or Mac OS. (If you can't do this on a consistent basis because binaries won't run on different distributions or things won't easily compile on different distributions, then, well, it just proves my point that the whole package system -- and to a large extent the whole distro system -- is a huge ugly kludge.)

Quote:

Next main difference would be intended userbase, which also spills over into package selection a great deal.

But you're configuring it the way YOU want, right? So why let someone else make the decisions? Select the packages you want and install those. The distribution shouldn't matter at all.

Quote:

Finally, performance/reliability tradeoff, which, again, spills over into the previous two.

I don't think Linux is less reliable depending on which set of packages you install. (If it is, something is seriously wrong with the operating system.)

Continuing my band analogy, sure you could buy all five Greatest Hits CDs, each identical just with the songs in a different order, then pick which order you like best, but why? You'd save time and effort by just buying one, listening to the songs, deciding what order you'd like them to be in, and then making a playlist with the songs in that exact order. As a bonus, you could even pick an order totally different from any of the CDs the band put together.

There are way too many distributions, and the whole distro concept by in large makes no more real sense than my band analogy.

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wodgy Why does this matter? I don't understand it. If you want an application and it's not packaged for you, just go and download it from wherever it originally comes from. Just like you'd do for an app meant for Windows or Mac OS. (If you can't do this on a consistent basis because binaries won't run on different distributions or things won't easily compile on different distributions, then, well, it just proves my point that the whole package system -- and to a large extent the whole distro system -- is a huge ugly kludge.)

Granted, but it's also conveinent to have things you know you'll be wanting (favorite browser, word processor, media player...) available without having to wait for the install. Then, that's why net installs were invented. You can usually get everything you want installed from the start.

Quote:

But you're configuring it the way YOU want, right? So why let someone else make the decisions? Select the packages you want and install those. The distribution shouldn't matter at all.

This is true. If all you want is a base system to tweak, it really doesn't matter. Truth be told, I'd be just as happy with SUSE or Red Hat if I wanted to spend the time making it how I want. However, Debian offers quite a bit of what I want preinstalled, so I'm going with that, for now.

Quote:

I don't think Linux is less reliable depending on which set of packages you install. (If it is, something is seriously wrong with the operating system.)

I meant versions rather than packages. Some distros don't have repositories of the bleeding edge stuff, choosing instead for reliability. There is always the option to manually install what you want, of course.

 

[Tim D]

Ubuntu Linux does A LOT right off the starting block with one CD that would require about 10 reboots under windows and 10 application installs. I'd have to say it is incredibly appealing when you consider performance, ease of use, and price. I'd say I even had to configure Windows XP + Apps more and definitely have to run through a myriad of both OS and application patching. Tweaking for the purpose of getting things working perfectly for you is fine by me, but tweaking to get a monitor or mouse working when it works fine on another distro or OS all-together? Laptop installs are particularly a good test of hardware compatibility IMO.

 

[Wodgy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephonovich Granted, but it's also conveinent to have things you know you'll be wanting (favorite browser, word processor, media player...) available without having to wait for the install. Then, that's why net installs were invented. You can usually get everything you want installed from the start.

This argument makes sense on the surface, but if you need to install and configure a half dozen or more distributions (never a trivial project, especially getting the hardware right) before you can decide which one has everything you want, well, you've just wasted more time than had you just started with nothing and gotten and installed everything you needed, just like you would when doing a clean install of Windows or MacOS. How many apps do you need anyway? Probably no more than a dozen, or at most two dozen. It would be easier just to go and get all that stuff yourself rather than wait forever for some distro maintainer to come along and assemble the exact right combination of programs and default configurations that suits your needs.

Does it bother you when you do a clean install of Windows that the Windows CD doesn't include every third party application you could conceivably want?

 

[Stephonovich]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tim D Ubuntu Linux does A LOT right off the starting block with one CD that would require about 10 reboots under windows and 10 application installs. I'd have to say it is incredibly appealing when you consider performance, ease of use, and price. I'd say I even had to configure Windows XP + Apps more and definitely have to run through a myriad of both OS and application patching. Tweaking for the purpose of getting things working perfectly for you is fine by me, but tweaking to get a monitor or mouse working when it works fine on another distro or OS all-together? Laptop installs are particularly a good test of hardware compatibility IMO.

Ubuntu is a great OS if you want instant access, but it's just not for me. I ended up removing half the packages it put in. I'd rather just use something that lets me pick and choose to begin with.

And as for it's hardware detection, IIRC, I had to specify my monitor with Ubuntu as well. The EV500 is apparently an oddball.

 

[plainsong]

I'm going to research more of ubuntu's supposed mac compatibility and see about making the imac dual boot. Why? Just to see if it works.

edit - Note this is for a linux class. Otherwise I see no point, as this is bsd with an NeXt type window manager anyway.

 

[rauer]

Unfortunately all M$:

Windows 98 (home)
Windows 2000 Pro (home)
Windows NT (work)
Windows XP Pro (laptop)

I've tried different Linux versions over the years but not being enough of a propeller-head, I have never ever had a 100% running Linux with X Windows. A pity as I'd really want to like Linux.

Mac has been tempting me for a long time but co-operation with PC systems at work and existing software have always taken me to Windows again.