-
ICMag with help from Landrace Warden and The Vault is running a NEW contest in November! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
Anyone use Linux?
- Thread starter Dan42nepa
- Start date
ThaiPhoon
Active member
I also use ubuntu. I am a linux noob. I know that it is more difficult to hack than windows. I first tried ubuntu 5.04 now I am on 7.04. I do like it more than windows for sure! Its much snapier also the visual effects using beryl blow even windows vistas "aeroglass" to bits! haha. My next computer will definitely be a Mac tho!!
Peace
Peace
they have linux for macs now.. my biggest problem with fedora was trying to get windows drivers to work in linux for wireless cards and such. also it wouldnt play mp3 or wmv files. The desktop is nicer buy with ubunto it actually gives you choices for players to download. Fedora didnt do this. So far i am happy except for how it handles my old MS office 2003 files.
Jesusbuiltmygro
Member
Linux is for programmers
Linux is for programmers
Yea, man I've been waiting for Linux to make a real entry into the desktop market, but .. they haven't.
After switching to Linux yet again for well over a month I can testify that the average user SHOULD NOT switch to Linux, unless you like the idea of more or less being locked out of your OS, not being able to install net software and having a giant pile of crappy programs to pick from.. and firefox.
If you just need an OS to put on some POS computer to use as nothing but a surfing machine, Linux is a good bet, especially since OS x won't run on most Intel machines. Otherwise OS X is BY far a better choice for anyone who doesn't like universal binaries and installing things from the command line.
Ubuntu uses gnome, which I don't like and which clearly takes the user farther away from the OS more or less insulating them from the details of file transfer speeds over the network and all the cool stuff that KDE and Vista do.
Anyway I tried Ubuntu 6 and 7, Ubuntu Studio (since I record music), Mepis, OpenSUSE, and Mandriva and not one of them had anything going on. None of them have quality PDF or bit torrent apps installed or available for the platform at all. The majority of people running p2p bit torrent clients are actually running uTorrent which is written for Win32 but can be run via WINE or Cegeda transgaming.
Linux is getting better, but unless you enjoy pain and frustration or have the most minimal needs for your computer then it's a bad choice since it lacks quality software and still has significant hardware support problems. Like for instance no distro wants to have working Nvidia drivers installed just shitty open source drivers that can't even render a screen saver right. The package managers suck and are more or less a result of the unorganized nature of Linux development. One of my distros the package manager got corrupted and wouldn't repair so I just gave up on that and reinstalled. I'm not a Linux newbie either. I ran Slackware back before KDE or gnome even existed and honestly while the OS has gotten better, the software just isn't good enough. You just can't call something a full fledged Windows killer when it doesn't even have a quality PDF reader. Open Office sucks ass also unless you like slow bloated programs. I mean I'd think they could AT LEAST be faster than Word 2007 since Open Office Write or whatever has vastly fewer options.
I've also been able to crash the OS several times on three different PCs and speed wise most apps actually load slower. The only thing I really liked about Linux was the file system performance because it handed heavy file system IO well. BUT, the next Win32 OS will also have a brand new file system.
So I have an older system Athlon 2600 or else I'd probably run OS X. By no means is this old ass CPU fast even though it's 2600 it's perhaps 5 years old. So, my computer isn't really fast at all even though it's a 2600+ thats only 1.8 ghz and it's not even a 64 bit CPU. However, Vista runs just fine and after checking out all the top Linux Distros I tried Vista and it's just a lot easier to use, it's seems just as fast,
it has an awesome built in search feature, the new start menu is better than ANY of the standard gnome/KDE interfaces, and of course it can actually run games and use most any hardware on the planet.
Just download the Pantheon crack for Vista or XP and you will be 100% legal as far as MS knows. You can even download Windows Genuine Protection software.
See, what most people don't realize is that the Linux platform is poor as dirt, it's just not profitable and it's NOT drawling a lot of developers. What good developers the platforms has are working for free and in their spare time and it shows in their quality of the software.
That's why Linux just got popular again as a desktop alternative, because firefox is popular and it makes the transition reasonable easy since it's perhaps the main program that many people use. Almost all the best desktop software for Linux are ports or emulated version of Win32 software and THAT is why linux is NOT making headway as a desktop OS against Vista or OS X.
In all reality the only one doing well is OS X which is about to release their latest and greatest Vista killer. Vista isn't bad like most people seem to say from their reviews of Vista beta. Vista actually runs games and many other apps faster than XP now in final version, but in beta it was slower so it gained a bad rep from that. The slowness of crackers to fully defeat the anti piracy in Vista has also made it slow to be adopted, but there are quality cracks out now so the flood gates are open once again with full pirated Windows OS and all the updates you can download.
In the end it will be a million times easier to download the Pantheon crack for Vista than it will be to re-learn how to use more or less the entire computer app by app. It's really a lot of work if you do much with your PC beyond surfing.
I'm a certified computer tech and I'd love Linux to be a real alternative, but it's not and I'd not being doing a good job to pretend like the average user would really be happy on Linux.
They might get used to it, but they would do so by limiting what they could do on the OS based on their knowledge of Linux. It many cases that means less chances to DL malwave, but I can't agree with a strategy that increases the users safety by vastly limiting their software selection such as the package manager and the inability to have universal binaries install like setup.exe install shields.
There is just no excuse to not have those modern ideas if you are truly making an attempt to be a desktop OS. Perhaps as a server OS controlling app versions via a package manager is ideal, but no in the desktop world where people want to roam the internet and install anything they want. With Linux, you simply can't do that. You have to sort through great collections of software, which is commonly outdated, to find the properly pacakged version of the software to run on your Linux distro. So people have to package the software for you and host it.. and that is somehow supposed to be secure.. HA yea only because people are even trying to exploit the crap Linux software infrastructure.
I've been running Vista for a couple weeks now with no spyware or virus problems. The OS is certainly more secure and the new network stack holds up to Linux's network speeds. The limiting factor is if you have too many streams or threads to the hard drive, in which case Linux will outperform.
So also look at the numbers. It pays to run the OS that is most widely supported. Vista is outselling XP which more or less means in 3 months MS sold more copies of Vista than all the other OS makers combined. Shit they probably sold more desktops OS's than everyone combined over the course of a year or two. That's where the developers are and whatever platform has the developers wins everytime.
Hence OS X and Linux have made no major dents in the MS market share.
Most people switching to Linux are doing it for all the wrong reasons and they are downgrading their PC in the process. Of course, less features means less problems, but also reduced function and productivity.
XP performance edition is also a nice choice and easily outperforms Linux for common tasks as it's extremely lightweight. Most Linux Distros are actually quite bloated especially since Linux is traditionally loaded to DO EVERYTHING right out of the box.
So, it was fun, but ultimately I wasted a lot of time learning Linux just to realize it has little to offer me. I mean, cmon, no quality PDF reader and no bit torrent client that isn't banned or doesn't suck. Most clients can't even load freaking torrent through Firefox. It's as if no one tested the majority of software on the platform just the core stuff and added some stupid deskbar widget crap to try to make the desktop look a bit more flashy.
Well I say Linux needs to drop this idea of flashy desktops, especially since they want to bundle ultra low performance drivers into the OS and go BACK to finishing these key programs. That is exactly how Mac has gotten where it is today. They just took much of the existing open source platform and built off it, but they actively realized which programs needed to be replaced and upgraded to provider the user with a superior experience. In Linux they tend to work on an app until it just good enough and then development slows drastically instead of working to make a really awesome app, they are more likley to make a minimalistic app which lacks key features.
Looking at open source, this is not a problem of Linux, but rather a problem with the model of non-profit open source developers. They simply don't have as much time and money to dump into smoothing out every app. Plus Linux does has many technical based projects that have no use on the desktop market, but still draw a considerable amount of Linux developers therefore leaving less to finish key apps such as PDF reader, web browsers, universal binary installers, Office Suites, and well pretty much every app in Linux that's not a server app is slack compared to Mac or Win32. KDE is pretty cool and a lot like vista, but not really as nice looking compared to Vista.
XP performance edition (a hacked version of XP) with google desktop is the best Vista replacement really. Linux is great if your poor and fear using pirated software and have either a couple years to learn Linux or very minimal application needs. Linux would be a good choice for a business or school where you want to limit most applications anyway and provide mostly web surfing and that's all. Multmedia wise and gaming wise and office wise Linux is undeniably slack compared to OS X or Win32.
The OS is the most important part of the PC so I can't see a reasonable argument for why it's not worth paying the extra 50 bucks for Vista because that's all the difference in money between a Linux and Windows PC. Very VERY few people are going to want to take the hit of being forced to a much smaller platform with a crap application selection just to save 50 bucks.
Linux is for programmers
Yea, man I've been waiting for Linux to make a real entry into the desktop market, but .. they haven't.
After switching to Linux yet again for well over a month I can testify that the average user SHOULD NOT switch to Linux, unless you like the idea of more or less being locked out of your OS, not being able to install net software and having a giant pile of crappy programs to pick from.. and firefox.
If you just need an OS to put on some POS computer to use as nothing but a surfing machine, Linux is a good bet, especially since OS x won't run on most Intel machines. Otherwise OS X is BY far a better choice for anyone who doesn't like universal binaries and installing things from the command line.
Ubuntu uses gnome, which I don't like and which clearly takes the user farther away from the OS more or less insulating them from the details of file transfer speeds over the network and all the cool stuff that KDE and Vista do.
Anyway I tried Ubuntu 6 and 7, Ubuntu Studio (since I record music), Mepis, OpenSUSE, and Mandriva and not one of them had anything going on. None of them have quality PDF or bit torrent apps installed or available for the platform at all. The majority of people running p2p bit torrent clients are actually running uTorrent which is written for Win32 but can be run via WINE or Cegeda transgaming.
Linux is getting better, but unless you enjoy pain and frustration or have the most minimal needs for your computer then it's a bad choice since it lacks quality software and still has significant hardware support problems. Like for instance no distro wants to have working Nvidia drivers installed just shitty open source drivers that can't even render a screen saver right. The package managers suck and are more or less a result of the unorganized nature of Linux development. One of my distros the package manager got corrupted and wouldn't repair so I just gave up on that and reinstalled. I'm not a Linux newbie either. I ran Slackware back before KDE or gnome even existed and honestly while the OS has gotten better, the software just isn't good enough. You just can't call something a full fledged Windows killer when it doesn't even have a quality PDF reader. Open Office sucks ass also unless you like slow bloated programs. I mean I'd think they could AT LEAST be faster than Word 2007 since Open Office Write or whatever has vastly fewer options.
I've also been able to crash the OS several times on three different PCs and speed wise most apps actually load slower. The only thing I really liked about Linux was the file system performance because it handed heavy file system IO well. BUT, the next Win32 OS will also have a brand new file system.
So I have an older system Athlon 2600 or else I'd probably run OS X. By no means is this old ass CPU fast even though it's 2600 it's perhaps 5 years old. So, my computer isn't really fast at all even though it's a 2600+ thats only 1.8 ghz and it's not even a 64 bit CPU. However, Vista runs just fine and after checking out all the top Linux Distros I tried Vista and it's just a lot easier to use, it's seems just as fast,
it has an awesome built in search feature, the new start menu is better than ANY of the standard gnome/KDE interfaces, and of course it can actually run games and use most any hardware on the planet.
Just download the Pantheon crack for Vista or XP and you will be 100% legal as far as MS knows. You can even download Windows Genuine Protection software.
See, what most people don't realize is that the Linux platform is poor as dirt, it's just not profitable and it's NOT drawling a lot of developers. What good developers the platforms has are working for free and in their spare time and it shows in their quality of the software.
That's why Linux just got popular again as a desktop alternative, because firefox is popular and it makes the transition reasonable easy since it's perhaps the main program that many people use. Almost all the best desktop software for Linux are ports or emulated version of Win32 software and THAT is why linux is NOT making headway as a desktop OS against Vista or OS X.
In all reality the only one doing well is OS X which is about to release their latest and greatest Vista killer. Vista isn't bad like most people seem to say from their reviews of Vista beta. Vista actually runs games and many other apps faster than XP now in final version, but in beta it was slower so it gained a bad rep from that. The slowness of crackers to fully defeat the anti piracy in Vista has also made it slow to be adopted, but there are quality cracks out now so the flood gates are open once again with full pirated Windows OS and all the updates you can download.
In the end it will be a million times easier to download the Pantheon crack for Vista than it will be to re-learn how to use more or less the entire computer app by app. It's really a lot of work if you do much with your PC beyond surfing.
I'm a certified computer tech and I'd love Linux to be a real alternative, but it's not and I'd not being doing a good job to pretend like the average user would really be happy on Linux.
They might get used to it, but they would do so by limiting what they could do on the OS based on their knowledge of Linux. It many cases that means less chances to DL malwave, but I can't agree with a strategy that increases the users safety by vastly limiting their software selection such as the package manager and the inability to have universal binaries install like setup.exe install shields.
There is just no excuse to not have those modern ideas if you are truly making an attempt to be a desktop OS. Perhaps as a server OS controlling app versions via a package manager is ideal, but no in the desktop world where people want to roam the internet and install anything they want. With Linux, you simply can't do that. You have to sort through great collections of software, which is commonly outdated, to find the properly pacakged version of the software to run on your Linux distro. So people have to package the software for you and host it.. and that is somehow supposed to be secure.. HA yea only because people are even trying to exploit the crap Linux software infrastructure.
I've been running Vista for a couple weeks now with no spyware or virus problems. The OS is certainly more secure and the new network stack holds up to Linux's network speeds. The limiting factor is if you have too many streams or threads to the hard drive, in which case Linux will outperform.
So also look at the numbers. It pays to run the OS that is most widely supported. Vista is outselling XP which more or less means in 3 months MS sold more copies of Vista than all the other OS makers combined. Shit they probably sold more desktops OS's than everyone combined over the course of a year or two. That's where the developers are and whatever platform has the developers wins everytime.
Hence OS X and Linux have made no major dents in the MS market share.
Most people switching to Linux are doing it for all the wrong reasons and they are downgrading their PC in the process. Of course, less features means less problems, but also reduced function and productivity.
XP performance edition is also a nice choice and easily outperforms Linux for common tasks as it's extremely lightweight. Most Linux Distros are actually quite bloated especially since Linux is traditionally loaded to DO EVERYTHING right out of the box.
So, it was fun, but ultimately I wasted a lot of time learning Linux just to realize it has little to offer me. I mean, cmon, no quality PDF reader and no bit torrent client that isn't banned or doesn't suck. Most clients can't even load freaking torrent through Firefox. It's as if no one tested the majority of software on the platform just the core stuff and added some stupid deskbar widget crap to try to make the desktop look a bit more flashy.
Well I say Linux needs to drop this idea of flashy desktops, especially since they want to bundle ultra low performance drivers into the OS and go BACK to finishing these key programs. That is exactly how Mac has gotten where it is today. They just took much of the existing open source platform and built off it, but they actively realized which programs needed to be replaced and upgraded to provider the user with a superior experience. In Linux they tend to work on an app until it just good enough and then development slows drastically instead of working to make a really awesome app, they are more likley to make a minimalistic app which lacks key features.
Looking at open source, this is not a problem of Linux, but rather a problem with the model of non-profit open source developers. They simply don't have as much time and money to dump into smoothing out every app. Plus Linux does has many technical based projects that have no use on the desktop market, but still draw a considerable amount of Linux developers therefore leaving less to finish key apps such as PDF reader, web browsers, universal binary installers, Office Suites, and well pretty much every app in Linux that's not a server app is slack compared to Mac or Win32. KDE is pretty cool and a lot like vista, but not really as nice looking compared to Vista.
XP performance edition (a hacked version of XP) with google desktop is the best Vista replacement really. Linux is great if your poor and fear using pirated software and have either a couple years to learn Linux or very minimal application needs. Linux would be a good choice for a business or school where you want to limit most applications anyway and provide mostly web surfing and that's all. Multmedia wise and gaming wise and office wise Linux is undeniably slack compared to OS X or Win32.
The OS is the most important part of the PC so I can't see a reasonable argument for why it's not worth paying the extra 50 bucks for Vista because that's all the difference in money between a Linux and Windows PC. Very VERY few people are going to want to take the hit of being forced to a much smaller platform with a crap application selection just to save 50 bucks.
Jesusbuiltmygro
Member
Linux is less hackable, but not a degree that would make the home user much safer since they don't even password their admin accounts most of the time.
For now malware isn't being written for Os X and Linux because they represent such an insignificant portion of the market but both platforms have security vulnerabilities and need constant updates. Vista actually has the most security of all the OS's but they need it a lot more because like 99% of malware is written for win32. That's the problem with being the dominate platform and attracting the most developers, you also attract malware developers. It wouldn't matter if it was Mac or Linux the majority of security vulnerabilities are created by the user, not the OS. Most people download and install malware and they would do the same in Mac or Linux with admin rights.
The myth that Linux is so secure is based on the idea that it's usually run by people with system administration experience, not the average home user. Linux is more secure as a desktop, but mostly because it is currently being ignorance by the spyware and virus communities. If Ubuntu breaks through MS market share they will simply open themselves up to malware, which they aren't prepared for at all unlike Vista.
So many poor PC users are just misinformed to think that Windows is so horrible. If you knew the history of the industry you'd realize in the PC's time of need the only company that was interested in opening the market was MS. Apple and IBM were firmly embracing closed markets and proprietary hardware and software. MS tricked IBM into open the PC market and stole it from them under the premise that IBM would more or less control the market through hardware and MS would simply provide the software. In the end, the software transcended the hardware and allowed MS to open up to the IBM clone market, while Apple sat behind their proprietary hardware and refused to port to the IBM clone hardware. Hence why Apple almost went out of business and had even turned to MS for investment capital before OS X came out.
OS X more or less is stealing Linux's market share since all these non MS OS's are NIX based or Unix based operating system (yet none of them can agree on binary executables).
Ubuntu's desktop is nothing special and is certainly minimalistic compared to Vista. Anyone saying Ubuntu is flashy perhaps has only seen Vista from a distance. I've used both and Ubuntu doesn't not have the slick interface or overall multimedia experience that Vista has.
Other Linux distros which are vastly more focuses on desktop such as Mandriva would be better contrasts to Vista rather minimal aero interface. I like aero however as it's slick, but no intrusive like most 3d desktop CRAP. Get a clue, we don't need flashy desktops to sell us on an OS, we need support, useability, stability, security and linux can only provide two of those and for most people the least important of those two which is stability and security, at least in the desktop market.
How can you people pretend that Ubuntu is so good. Are you THAT desperate to hate on MS just because they make you PAY for your OS. awww.. that so sad.
Or maybe you think that MS make a bad product because you get spyware when you surf your celebrity porn sites. I argue that in most cases it's YOU the user, not the OS thats screwing up and that whatever OS dominate the market share WILL be exploited because this basic premise is true. It's easier to break things than it is to fix them. It's easier to exploit security than it is to secure things. It's easy to reverse engineer patches and launch exploits on any platform. It's just not highly profitable on platforms that have 10 times fewer users.
As soon as Mac or Linux gained MS level market share, they would realize how much of a mistake they made.
Having MS there to take the full brunt of the malware industry IS what makes Linux and Mac secure desktops. There is NO such thing as an exploit free desktop in todays world. The best way to not get exploited is to no have a PC and a few steps above that is getting Linux and here at the top of fully experiencing what you PC can do is Windows.
You don't have to like it, but that is the reality of Linux as a desktop. Flashy desktop, crappy programs. OS X is the alternative and that's about it.
Yea and for people installing Ubuntu and comparing it to their 2 year old install of Windows and saying oh yea that's a lot faster.. cmon. You are just providing bad information to the public by over hyping ubuntu. That's why a lot of the Linux community hates Ubuntu, because it's overly simple and annoying popular for no reason. It's just hyped and when it fails to sell under Dell's new sell Linux plan it's just going to be yet another embarrassing moment for Linux just as Lindows at walmart was. I fixed a couple of those system and I mean, the best thing most people could find to do with them is install an old copy of Windows on it and actually start using it for something.
Now Linux has firefox, which make it a lot better, but is firefox really enough to say Linux is ready to be a desktop OS, because that's about all that has changed. At least firefox is starting to work right on Linux as far as some of the plug ins go. You can't be telling me Ubuntu is Linux for the people when you install it and then have to go the command line to install flash... mmkay that's Linux for the people huh. Well the people just ain't gonna buy that you know and without a lot of people on an OS it can't really be a viable desktop OS because it won't draw enough developers to support it's user base. The more users you draw the more developers you need, yet Linux's business model remains mostly profitless. In the end Linux and the open source community will do all this work and large wealth companies can still just buy them up and either shelve their ideas for the sake of less comp or buy their ideas port them to another platform and use them there.. and most of the time they can do that FOR FREE since most projects are still on the old license.
Before they realize that companies would just steal their ideas if they were open source and market them for themselves, which in many cases jeopardizes the original project which started it all.
It's neat getting free software, but their is no plan here, there is no profitability and eventually that takes it's toll on a company and it's workers. Redhat isn't looking to good these days and they were one of the key leaders in mainstreaming Linux and building the RPM package manager. They are feeling just what I'm talking about. Extended peroids of low profit make them a pawn to larger companies like Novell or MS since money can do so much and a good product can only do a few things. You have to profit somewhere or you get eaten up one way or another.
Plus going to Linux doesn't escape MS. The power of MS is it's developers, not it's OS. The reason you don't like MS is it's developers, not it os. Yet, if MS were to lose OS market share they have positioned themselves to port their entire Win32 platform to Linux and Mac.. meaning that all the crappy software for Windows will be easily ported to every other OS via the CLR .net which is built to be a crossplatform development suite and easily the most complex of it's kind.
So, you're not going to escape this empire MS has built for the last 20 years. Using Ubuntu really hurts the user more than anything since in a fast paced market like computer waiting your software or hardware to eventually be supported is a complete waste of money. Your computer is literally depreciating as we speak and waiting for Cedega to support your favorite software or debian to support your favorite hardware or some guy to write a PDF reader that works right or a bit torrent client that's native to Linux and doesn't suck.. OR... the list goes on endlessly.
Why settle for a half finished product and then lie to yourself about how cool it is ? I see it happen all the time, but I have yet to understand it. There is no way Ubuntu is even a reasonable replacement for XP not less Vista. You'd have more performance and app support with Win98. Why obsess about running a server OS for a desktop with the vague impression of security. Unless your an admin your OS is not secure and that's life.
For now malware isn't being written for Os X and Linux because they represent such an insignificant portion of the market but both platforms have security vulnerabilities and need constant updates. Vista actually has the most security of all the OS's but they need it a lot more because like 99% of malware is written for win32. That's the problem with being the dominate platform and attracting the most developers, you also attract malware developers. It wouldn't matter if it was Mac or Linux the majority of security vulnerabilities are created by the user, not the OS. Most people download and install malware and they would do the same in Mac or Linux with admin rights.
The myth that Linux is so secure is based on the idea that it's usually run by people with system administration experience, not the average home user. Linux is more secure as a desktop, but mostly because it is currently being ignorance by the spyware and virus communities. If Ubuntu breaks through MS market share they will simply open themselves up to malware, which they aren't prepared for at all unlike Vista.
So many poor PC users are just misinformed to think that Windows is so horrible. If you knew the history of the industry you'd realize in the PC's time of need the only company that was interested in opening the market was MS. Apple and IBM were firmly embracing closed markets and proprietary hardware and software. MS tricked IBM into open the PC market and stole it from them under the premise that IBM would more or less control the market through hardware and MS would simply provide the software. In the end, the software transcended the hardware and allowed MS to open up to the IBM clone market, while Apple sat behind their proprietary hardware and refused to port to the IBM clone hardware. Hence why Apple almost went out of business and had even turned to MS for investment capital before OS X came out.
OS X more or less is stealing Linux's market share since all these non MS OS's are NIX based or Unix based operating system (yet none of them can agree on binary executables).
Ubuntu's desktop is nothing special and is certainly minimalistic compared to Vista. Anyone saying Ubuntu is flashy perhaps has only seen Vista from a distance. I've used both and Ubuntu doesn't not have the slick interface or overall multimedia experience that Vista has.
Other Linux distros which are vastly more focuses on desktop such as Mandriva would be better contrasts to Vista rather minimal aero interface. I like aero however as it's slick, but no intrusive like most 3d desktop CRAP. Get a clue, we don't need flashy desktops to sell us on an OS, we need support, useability, stability, security and linux can only provide two of those and for most people the least important of those two which is stability and security, at least in the desktop market.
How can you people pretend that Ubuntu is so good. Are you THAT desperate to hate on MS just because they make you PAY for your OS. awww.. that so sad.
Or maybe you think that MS make a bad product because you get spyware when you surf your celebrity porn sites. I argue that in most cases it's YOU the user, not the OS thats screwing up and that whatever OS dominate the market share WILL be exploited because this basic premise is true. It's easier to break things than it is to fix them. It's easier to exploit security than it is to secure things. It's easy to reverse engineer patches and launch exploits on any platform. It's just not highly profitable on platforms that have 10 times fewer users.
As soon as Mac or Linux gained MS level market share, they would realize how much of a mistake they made.
Having MS there to take the full brunt of the malware industry IS what makes Linux and Mac secure desktops. There is NO such thing as an exploit free desktop in todays world. The best way to not get exploited is to no have a PC and a few steps above that is getting Linux and here at the top of fully experiencing what you PC can do is Windows.
You don't have to like it, but that is the reality of Linux as a desktop. Flashy desktop, crappy programs. OS X is the alternative and that's about it.
Yea and for people installing Ubuntu and comparing it to their 2 year old install of Windows and saying oh yea that's a lot faster.. cmon. You are just providing bad information to the public by over hyping ubuntu. That's why a lot of the Linux community hates Ubuntu, because it's overly simple and annoying popular for no reason. It's just hyped and when it fails to sell under Dell's new sell Linux plan it's just going to be yet another embarrassing moment for Linux just as Lindows at walmart was. I fixed a couple of those system and I mean, the best thing most people could find to do with them is install an old copy of Windows on it and actually start using it for something.
Now Linux has firefox, which make it a lot better, but is firefox really enough to say Linux is ready to be a desktop OS, because that's about all that has changed. At least firefox is starting to work right on Linux as far as some of the plug ins go. You can't be telling me Ubuntu is Linux for the people when you install it and then have to go the command line to install flash... mmkay that's Linux for the people huh. Well the people just ain't gonna buy that you know and without a lot of people on an OS it can't really be a viable desktop OS because it won't draw enough developers to support it's user base. The more users you draw the more developers you need, yet Linux's business model remains mostly profitless. In the end Linux and the open source community will do all this work and large wealth companies can still just buy them up and either shelve their ideas for the sake of less comp or buy their ideas port them to another platform and use them there.. and most of the time they can do that FOR FREE since most projects are still on the old license.
Before they realize that companies would just steal their ideas if they were open source and market them for themselves, which in many cases jeopardizes the original project which started it all.
It's neat getting free software, but their is no plan here, there is no profitability and eventually that takes it's toll on a company and it's workers. Redhat isn't looking to good these days and they were one of the key leaders in mainstreaming Linux and building the RPM package manager. They are feeling just what I'm talking about. Extended peroids of low profit make them a pawn to larger companies like Novell or MS since money can do so much and a good product can only do a few things. You have to profit somewhere or you get eaten up one way or another.
Plus going to Linux doesn't escape MS. The power of MS is it's developers, not it's OS. The reason you don't like MS is it's developers, not it os. Yet, if MS were to lose OS market share they have positioned themselves to port their entire Win32 platform to Linux and Mac.. meaning that all the crappy software for Windows will be easily ported to every other OS via the CLR .net which is built to be a crossplatform development suite and easily the most complex of it's kind.
So, you're not going to escape this empire MS has built for the last 20 years. Using Ubuntu really hurts the user more than anything since in a fast paced market like computer waiting your software or hardware to eventually be supported is a complete waste of money. Your computer is literally depreciating as we speak and waiting for Cedega to support your favorite software or debian to support your favorite hardware or some guy to write a PDF reader that works right or a bit torrent client that's native to Linux and doesn't suck.. OR... the list goes on endlessly.
Why settle for a half finished product and then lie to yourself about how cool it is ? I see it happen all the time, but I have yet to understand it. There is no way Ubuntu is even a reasonable replacement for XP not less Vista. You'd have more performance and app support with Win98. Why obsess about running a server OS for a desktop with the vague impression of security. Unless your an admin your OS is not secure and that's life.
I have 4 laptops and a desktop. 3 laptops have wireless cards but there are older machines... In fact, all of my computers are older having been rescued and repaired by me but they were free. In my little office I run xp and 2000 and the 3 laptops run Ubunto and are basically used by my g/f and myself as stationary machines( they are left in their locations) and really are only used for internet, email and chatting. I am on one now. Basically i am too lazy to even lug my laptop around. We leave two on our back porch where my g/f and i lay on our lounge chairs and have internet access. The other one is in the bedroom and the w2k and xp machines are in my office. You are right, there isnt a pdf reader available and other things as i am discovering. I am also a newsgroup person and no newsreaders that i can locate for linux. I leave those tasks for my MS machines..
wickyd
Member
I have used linux off and on for about 10 years now. I've administered servers for LAMP purposes (Linux Apache Mysql Php ) as well as shell's and IRC related stuff. I currently use windows for the SOLE reason that a few websites I have to access require Internet Explorer and Windows. Everything on the linux side is just as good as windows in performance, and most applications that do require windows work within wine or cedega. The problem with switching Operating systems is that its like moving to a new a place. You know where you are, but you're lost as hell.
As for the people with problems with hardware: A lot of hardware is proprietary to Microsoft, because the instructions built on the chip reference Windows files only. The modems are called winmodems, and the network cards are really cheap. You have to tailor your hardware to your operating system. Get routers that use opensource software, and get true hardware, not software based hardware. The true hardware will do its job more efficiently, and is better anyway. In my experience, linux utilizes the internet at a better rate as well.
Let me know if you guys need any help setting stuff up
-wickyd
As for the people with problems with hardware: A lot of hardware is proprietary to Microsoft, because the instructions built on the chip reference Windows files only. The modems are called winmodems, and the network cards are really cheap. You have to tailor your hardware to your operating system. Get routers that use opensource software, and get true hardware, not software based hardware. The true hardware will do its job more efficiently, and is better anyway. In my experience, linux utilizes the internet at a better rate as well.
Let me know if you guys need any help setting stuff up
-wickyd
EpheDrone25
Member
Kubuntu with the new beryl installed Beats MS Pissta anyday!
Microsoft doesnt stand a chance the future brings change..
Microsoft doesnt stand a chance the future brings change..
G
Guest
I to have been using linux now for several years on and off ... always have a machine around. Right now I dual boot my laptop with WinXP and Ubuntu Edgy. I personally think that Novell screwed the Linux community with their deal with Microsoft. Now Microsoft has pending lawsuits with all versions of Linux.
wickyd said:
I used to run Fedora 4... but had problems with wireless cards. I was trying to use ndiswrapper to use the windows drivers for the cards but could never really get it to work. I tried various wireless cards. I just got another free desktop last night.. not sure what i will do with it yet.
G
Guest
I have never had a problem with ndiswrapper on SuSE and Ubuntu.
Verite said:
LOL actually i was at a party last night and this couple gave me a dell dimension 8200 with a new 80 gig hd in it.. has a cdrw built in.. loading it as we speak. Putting xp on it this time and will use it for dreamweaver the net and basic stuff.. not sure where i will put it yet.
G
Guest
I'm well experienced dealing with linux, over 10 years worth. My personal desktop computers have not run windows outside a vm since 1999.
In response to OP's question as to whether it was more 'hackable', I'd answer it is 100% hackable in the sense that anyone can modify it. By ease of compromise, I'd say each has the ability to be configured in such a way as to make illicit ownership very easy. Those are mistakes.
Precautions are required either way, and I'd argue windows is easier to keep up to date, however a simple linksys firewall in both cases on a broadband, and antivirus on the windows box should suit your typical home user running no services just fine.
Also like wikyd I spend lots of time doing LAMP.
I spent the better part of 8 years personally running slackware on the desktop, I just recently switched to novel enterprise desktop due to lack of time to putz on the desktop / personal side of my use, and I'm finding it quite nice. Professionally, linux is linux and I've seen lots of it. Some is set up by default crappier than others, but I'll bust it down just the same.
So lets get started and switch some of you off this microsoft hell-fest. Start by just jotting down what you expect to be doing, and maybe we can get some of you started. I'm glad the thread was started.
In response to OP's question as to whether it was more 'hackable', I'd answer it is 100% hackable in the sense that anyone can modify it. By ease of compromise, I'd say each has the ability to be configured in such a way as to make illicit ownership very easy. Those are mistakes.
Precautions are required either way, and I'd argue windows is easier to keep up to date, however a simple linksys firewall in both cases on a broadband, and antivirus on the windows box should suit your typical home user running no services just fine.
Also like wikyd I spend lots of time doing LAMP.
I spent the better part of 8 years personally running slackware on the desktop, I just recently switched to novel enterprise desktop due to lack of time to putz on the desktop / personal side of my use, and I'm finding it quite nice. Professionally, linux is linux and I've seen lots of it. Some is set up by default crappier than others, but I'll bust it down just the same.
So lets get started and switch some of you off this microsoft hell-fest. Start by just jotting down what you expect to be doing, and maybe we can get some of you started. I'm glad the thread was started.
G
Guest
Any issue you have may be solved.
jesus you have a lot of things backwards there buddy, too many things for me to spend time arguing about, but tehre are lots of great appz available to the linux crowd, there are windows emulators so you can run a good number of windows appz and games and things on linux too...... not to mention the GREAT selection of bit torrent appz , and othe r FREE OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.
i'm not saying that one is better than the other, but get your facts straight man.
THC
i'm not saying that one is better than the other, but get your facts straight man.
THC
G
Guest
HA I couldn't even address that without going NUTS!
thanks thczr
thanks thczr
