Why not Linux

syklops

Adyx wrote: »

Play all the games I want. I also use Reaper and Ableton Live a lot. As for using another distro, I'd only be dual booting anyway so why bother? Windows does everything I want, performance is great and I can count on one hand the number of issues I've encountered with this version. Don't get me wrong, Windows is far from perfect and I think Linux is fantastic but it's not suitable for my needs.

Next time a family member fcuks up the PC I put together for them, they're getting Linux though.

If you want I can send you a Fedora Live DVD. You will be able to boot from it so you don't need to set up dual boot. I don't know what Ableton or Reaper are. As for games, there are some open games, e.g. Open Arena, plus you can use wine for some older games, though I accept that wine is not suitable for top of the line games.

A friend of mine recently bought a new gaming machine. Its a whopper. Like, 8 gigs of ram and installed a stable Fedora release on it. If he wants to play a game he starts a windows VM with 4 Gigs of ram. He has a dual monitor setup so can keep on eye on his social media while playing WoW.

EDIT: By the way, if anyone else wants to try Fedora let me know and I'll drop a DVD in the post to you.

syklops

Tree wrote: »

There are some windows programmes that have no real comparably easy/detailed/any equivalent on linux

Such as?

Seriously, I am genuinely interested to hear, because, I am on the other end of the spectrum. There are so many countless applications that either do not work on windows, or there is no windows equivalent, or it works on windows but not as seamlessly.

Groinshot

syklops wrote: »

Such as?

Seriously, I am genuinely interested to hear, because, I am on the other end of the spectrum. There are so many countless applications that either do not work on windows, or there is no windows equivalent, or it works on windows but not as seamlessly.

Plenty of video games for a start. From looking through my list of programs, Visual Studio(Eclipse isn't an option unfortunately), Keil uVision, ModelSim are a few that come to mind.
And Wine isn't a real contender, why would I change from my current OS, to a different one, to emulate the OS i already have, when it already has pretty much everything I need!

Tree

syklops wrote: »

Such as?

Seriously, I am genuinely interested to hear, because, I am on the other end of the spectrum. There are so many countless applications that either do not work on windows, or there is no windows equivalent, or it works on windows but not as seamlessly.

Solidworks, autocad, flowjo for a start.

I havent been able to find an equivalent that's as good or easy to use. So I use the lab computers instead of my laptop for these things. For the basics like LaTeX, I couldnt use anything other than linux really.

PrzemoF

Tree wrote: »

Solidworks, autocad, flowjo for a start.

I havent been able to find an equivalent that's as good or easy to use. So I use the lab computers instead of my laptop for these things. For the basics like LaTeX, I couldnt use anything other than linux really.

Hey, we're talking about an average Joe!
Solidworks/AutoCAD are not in that category

Tried BRLCad? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRL-CAD

[OFFTOPIC] I'm just trying to install DWGTrueView on windows xp PC (at work). It requires .NET 4.0, so I installed it, but DWGTrueView installator still complains it's not there. What now?

jma

I bought a very expensive Acer laptop with Windows XP Pro a few years ago. 13 months later, it started giving me a lot of trouble, and I got a new Asus laptop. I left the Acer there for my girlfriend and her brother to use, but it got worse and worse all the time, until it got to the stage where it would take literally 20 minutes to boot up. It was extremely slow, and eventually, it was impossible to log in.

I decided to install Ubuntu Linux, mainly because I wanted to see if this would make a difference, but also because it made it easier to check the hardware - e.g. hard drive performance, SMART status etc.

Anyway, now that Ubuntu is running on it, even I started using the Acer again. It boots now in a matter of seconds, and everything else is also very responsive again. I now realize I should have done this ages ago. The two others, who have never used Linux before, seem very happy with it too, and are using the laptop regularly.

Installation was very fast, and didn't have to waste an additional hour looking for and installing drivers. Everything just works right out of the box.

So, top marks from me for Ubuntu as a desktop OS.

murphaph

PrzemoF wrote: »

Yes, and LibreOffice is 1:1 replacement for MS Office. I meant that even people using very standard applications are using that silly argument about "essential application"

I'm a Linux user (not hardcore, just an everyday user). We get handed preinstalled W7 pro laptops at our company and most promptly get wiped and have some variant of Linux installed. LibreOffice is good, amazingly good for something that costs the end user nothing, but according to my GF (who is an office power user at work who uses Libre Office at home) it's not quite as good as MS Office, for power users anyway.

My biggest problems with Linux have always centred around wireless networking tbh. There are still big problems wih Railink chipsets IMO and no current distribution works out of the box with either my or my mate's (ca. 2007) Acer laptops. 2007 is 5 years ago, and wireless support is still not there OOTB (it is possible with some black magic to get it going, but normal Windows users haven't got a hope here).

I'm no power user, but I find Linux just better for what we do (built in SSH, no need for puTTy etc.) but I can see why many Windows or Mac users avoid still...it's mostly down to manufacturers not providing software for Linux. Software is only provided for MS/Mac. Skype is rubbish on Linux, and not likely to improve now that MS owns it, but it's not possible to do without it anymore-it's become the defacto chat client for many businesses! I suppose the dilemna faced by many is that there's no "standard installer" to distribute. Installing tarballed software is tricky for those used to clicking an installer wizard (and compiling from source is out of the question for 99% of computer users), and package managers are different depending on distribution...perhaps the availability of so many flavours of Linux is a bad thing in this regard.

syklops

^^ And dont get me started on (k)NetworkManager :sad:

kiwipower

I recently started using Ubuntu, after a friend introduced me to it, as a free replacement for Vista

Had never heard of Lynx before.

My GF is sticking to Vista as she believes that Lynix is what the hackers use and not a safe, acceptable or legal OP system.

syklops

kiwipower wrote: »

I recently started using Ubuntu, after a friend introduced me to it, as a free replacement for Vista

Had never heard of Lynx before.

My GF is sticking to Vista as she believes that Lynix is what the hackers use and not a safe, acceptable or legal OP system.

Your GF is right about Linux being what hackers use, but to borrow a well known phrase "The cobbler always has the best shoes". Hackers know how to look for security flaws and problems in systems. So they find security flaws in Linux and fix them. When Windows XP was released in 2001 one of the big improvements was the inclusion of a firewall. Linux has had a firewall included since 1994.

Also, maybe get your girlfriend to google for how much malware(viruses) there is for Windows and how much there is for Linux.

Johnboy1951

murphaph wrote: »

I'm a Linux user (not hardcore, just an everyday user). We get handed preinstalled W7 pro laptops at our company and most promptly get wiped and have some variant of Linux installed. LibreOffice is good, amazingly good for something that costs the end user nothing, but according to my GF (who is an office power user at work who uses Libre Office at home) it's not quite as good as MS Office, for power users anyway.

I am not in a position to comment on what a power user does that makes one better than the other, but there is no doubt that if one piece of software has a function that one uses and a second software does not, then that would be a reason to continue to use the first.

My biggest problems with Linux have always centred around wireless networking tbh. There are still big problems wih Railink chipsets IMO and no current distribution works out of the box with either my or my mate's (ca. 2007) Acer laptops. 2007 is 5 years ago, and wireless support is still not there OOTB (it is possible with some black magic to get it going, but normal Windows users haven't got a hope here).

I have no idea what hardware is concerned here, but that statement is rather blanket .......
Not all distros are equal

What is the problematic chipset?

I'm no power user, but I find Linux just better for what we do (built in SSH, no need for puTTy etc.) but I can see why many Windows or Mac users avoid still...it's mostly down to manufacturers not providing software for Linux. Software is only provided for MS/Mac. Skype is rubbish on Linux, and not likely to improve now that MS owns it, but it's not possible to do without it anymore-it's become the defacto chat client for many businesses! I suppose the dilemna faced by many is that there's no "standard installer" to distribute. Installing tarballed software is tricky for those used to clicking an installer wizard (and compiling from source is out of the question for 99% of computer users), and package managers are different depending on distribution...perhaps the availability of so many flavours of Linux is a bad thing in this regard.

Well as OO & LO, for instance, manage to distribute their software that is installable on all distros, I guess there must be a universal installer ....... maybe you mean 'with a nice GUI', which would be true.
On the other hand, the mere existence of an accepted GUI universal installer would likely encourage many to install packages that have not been tested and vetted, which would allow for the distribution of malware in rogue files.
Seems it is a balance ..... install from your distros repositories and be reasonably safe, or have a system like MS where all sorts of stuff will be installed from unknown sources with the consequent security risks.

I haven't had a problem using Skype in the past couple of years ...... but do not like its 'closed community' only connections.
It artificially prevents users of other VOIP systems (such as SIP) from making connection to any of its users .... or they to a SIP user.
It is akin to O2 refusing to allow Vodafone users to speak to O2 users.

On that subject ...... I notice that there are apps for such as Android, using SIP, which take a similar stance. They limit the connections that can be easily made.
Thankfully we have the choice to use an open source app for SIP which can overcome the limitations of the provider's application.

Communications across platforms and SIP/Skype/whatever should be freely allowed. Those preventing this should be blacklisted IMO ..... and maybe even forced to open their protocols so it can be achieved.

murphaph

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

I have no idea what hardware is concerned here, but that statement is rather blanket .......
Not all distros are equal

What is the problematic chipset?

I haven't the laptop to hand, but it was a Railink Wireless chipset that caused all the bother. You have a fair point-there are probably some more obscure distros out there that would allow my (2007) laptop to work wirelessly out of the box, but when the major ones (and we're talking "consumer type distros") don't, then it's a huge stumbling block to wider Linux acceptance unfortunately.

If a potential windows convert installs Ubuntu etc. on a basic (and popular) 5 year old laptop and it doesn't work out of the box and can't be configured without resorting to the command line, then Linux has a huge problem if the goal is to attract more average users. If that's not the goal (and I believe it is for many, certainly for Ubuntu and Mint-two of the most popular distros) then ok.

Johnboy1951

murphaph wrote: »

I haven't the laptop to hand, but it was a Railink Wireless chipset that caused all the bother. You have a fair point-there are probably some more obscure distros out there that would allow my (2007) laptop to work wirelessly out of the box, but when the major ones (and we're talking "consumer type distros") don't, then it's a huge stumbling block to wider Linux acceptance unfortunately.

If a potential windows convert installs Ubuntu etc. on a basic (and popular) 5 year old laptop and it doesn't work out of the box and can't be configured without resorting to the command line, then Linux has a huge problem if the goal is to attract more average users. If that's not the goal (and I believe it is for many, certainly for Ubuntu and Mint-two of the most popular distros) then ok.

Maybe not so 'obscure' distros would work OOB ..... as we have no idea what distros were tested we don't know.

I have to say this because it irks me .....

it is not obvious that Linux has a problem, although it seems that the Ubuntu (and maybe its derivatives) have a problem.
If the problem is solvable by use of the command line then it is not a Linux problem, but a problem with the distro in use.

I can well understand the perception that the likes of Ubuntu IS Linux, after all that is what they set out to do, but it seems this has the effect of giving people the impression that a problem with Ubuntu is a Linux problem, when maybe it is not, but is a disto problem.

In many ways the promotion of Ubuntu has been detrimental to the perception of what Linux really is, although it has no doubt popularised Linux to a certain extent. Nonetheless, it has popularised its own version of Linux and not necessarily Linux per se.

I realise I am not saying this very clearly .... but IMO a problem with Ubuntu and/or its derivatives is not a Linux problem, particularly if that problem can be overcome by resorting to the command line. It is up to the distro concerned to provide an easy means for the user, of achieving a result ..... particularly true for a distro that claims to be 'for the people'.

... time to shut up .....

FSL

I use both Windows and Linux. Windows because most of my clients use Windows and Linux because I like it.

There are things I like and dislike about both. I also know that some things I dislike others rave about and vice versa.

I've tried a variety of Linux Distros and Windows OS's. As with most users some I like more than others.

For my ten cents worth Ubuntu and Windows post XP are my least favourites.

Friel

I use Linux mostly. I admit I really had to convince myself to give it a go, I always thought 'Windows does everything, why change', but I was completely wrong. Linux is just all around better. People bring up the lack of mainstream software, but nowadays there's plenty of alternatives.

I do still use Windows for web development though.

Khannie

Friel wrote: »

I do still use Windows for web development though.

How come, if you don't mind me asking? I would hate to develop on windows again (I started out developing on windows).

pickarooney

syklops wrote: »

Your GF is right about Linux being what hackers use, but to borrow a well known phrase "The cobbler always has the best shoes".

The expression is actually the opposite!

jma

Khannie wrote: »

How come, if you don't mind me asking? I would hate to develop on windows again (I started out developing on windows).

Khannie, if it's Linux you use, could you suggest any good development tools? All I really need is a good text editor with colour schemes, integrated file manager and FTP client, so that when I make changes to any files and save them, they're uploaded directly to a development server. Dreamweaver lets me do this, and the colour schemes help me to visualise my code. DW CS5 also has a couple of other handy features, such as syntax warnings for JavaScript and PHP.

I haven't yet been able to find anything similar for Linux.

PrzemoF

My combination: ssh + vim and work on the remote server. My wife prefers bluefish [1] + server integrated into desktop (nautilus + ftp, webdisk).
I think that bluefish also have an automatic upload function.

Tux is a web animal - use it

[1] http://bluefish.openoffice.nl/index.html

Cork24

Linux isn't a install friendly os as like mac or win..

Their are many types of Linux OS out their

When it comes to networking a Linux system to a server it's a different story as when some goes wrong oh it will go wrong

jma

Gonna try Bluefish. Cheers for the suggestion!

Johnboy1951

Cork24 wrote: »

Linux isn't a install friendly os as like mac or win..

Their are many types of Linux OS out their

Dunno what this is supposed to mean ..... but .... a 'linux' OS distro is like Leggo ..... you can get many different colours, but they are all essentially the same, and how they are put together is the work of the distro devs.

Great to have the choice ..... sure beats the model T mantra ...... 'you can have any colour so long as its black!'

When it comes to networking a Linux system to a server it's a different story as when some goes wrong oh it will go wrong

I guess that is why such a large percentage prefer Linux for server use :rolleyes:

syklops

pickarooney wrote: »

The expression is actually the opposite!

I borrowed the expression, and modified it. Something common in the Linux/Open Source world.

syklops

Cork24 wrote: »

Linux isn't a install friendly os as like mac or win..

My friends who work on Anaconda would disagree with it not being install friendly.

Cork24 wrote: »

Their are many types of Linux OS out their

When it comes to networking a Linux system to a server it's a different story as when some goes wrong oh it will go wrong

Not sure I understand. Every linux box is basically a server in itself. Care to elaborate?

Stuxnet

dont feed the trolls !
obvious this guy hasnt a clue what he's on about :rolleyes:

Cormic

Stuxnet wrote: »

dont feed the trolls !
obvious this guy hasnt a clue what he's on about :rolleyes:

I actually think he knows exactly what he is talking about. He is just trolling... and badly at that :rolleyes:

sink

I use windows in work because my company uses windows domain, Microsoft Dynamics CRM/RMS. I use windows on my home desktop because I mainly use it for gaming and I use windows on my HTPC because I like to share files with my desktop and xbox 360 and homegroup makes that incredibly easy.

I have installed many different linux distros down through the years for a bit of experimentation, but I could never move to a linux environment given how grounded I am in windows. Plus the major criticism on windows here is to my mind completely unfounded. My HTPC and work PC running windows 7 stay on all the time, they apply updates and restart themselves at night when I'm not using them. I've had windows 7 installed on both of them for over 2 years and I've not noticed any significant slowdown. I can't remember the last time I got a BSOD or freeze. That said my Games PC which is overclocked and running a modified GPU bios occasionally crashes about once a month, but I don't think you can blame that on the OS.

PrzemoF

Sink, it's Ok that you're perfectly happy with windows. May I ask you a few questions? Surfing on the net - do you avoid pages that are half-safe? Let's say you have 70 applications on you PC. How do you know that they are up to date? Let's say I don't like the way windows look/behave - can I change it (icons/menus/cursor)? I'm using virtual desktops to avoid minimising/maximising apps all the time - can you do that with windows?

Those are serious questions as I no longer use windows unless I'm forced to do so (like now...). I'm on windows xp now and the lack of some simple features is annoying.

Edit:
Where is "Stay on top" - an option to keep a window always on top?? That one is a _must have_

BostonB

Because I don't have any problems with Windows. And almost every interaction I have with a computers outside of my own and work is also a windows one. So I don't really have good reason for having a different OS other than entertainment. I have had Mac's in the past. Also Linux installed a few times, did a few projects on it in college, but the computer would end up unused and would always end up going back to Windows.

PrzemoF I can't think of any of those things as a problem on Windows, you can install apps for all of that, if the app doesn't do it natively which many do. Some of what you do like min/max windows is your personal preference in how you use the OS. I simply switch between apps, or have multiple monitors, or remote desktops. Have no need to min/max things.

That said I don't prefer windows, in fact theres lots of things I don't like about it, but I just don't have any problems with it. In my experience most people are the same. Windows is probably the weakest mainstream OS, no argument. But I don't think most people have much problems with it.

sink

PrzemoF wrote: »

Surfing on the net - do you avoid pages that are half-safe?

No.

PrzemoF wrote: »

Let's say you have 70 applications on you PC. How do you know that they are up to date?

Of the applications that I use regularly almost all of them have their own updater.

PrzemoF wrote: »

Let's say I don't like the way windows look/behave - can I change it (icons/menus/cursor)?

I like the way the windows look and behave as i'm accustomed to it.

PrzemoF wrote: »

I'm using virtual desktops to avoid minimising/maximising apps all the time - can you do that with windows?

I really don't see how that's much of an advantage over alt-tab and dual monitors, which is what I currently use.

PrzemoF wrote: »

Those are serious questions as I no longer use windows unless I'm forced to do so (like now...). I'm on windows xp now and the lack of some simple features is annoying.

Windows XP is 10 years old why don't you compare it to 10 year old linux distros. I've been using windows 7 for several years and I could not go back to XP

PrzemoF wrote: »

Edit:
Where is "Stay on top" - an option to keep a window always on top?? That one is a _must have_

It's not something that I've ever felt I required, I can snap windows to the side of the screen and with two widescreen monitors, I can have 4 windows open and displayed side by side.