Soldato
I use Linux as it is faster and less bloated than XP, I also do not need a firewall anti virus or spyware removal programs updating and running in the background. 
Why use Linux?
- Thread starter Rhys
- Start date
Associate
I find that the logical, simplistic and intelligently evolving design of Linux makes many jobs a breeze compared to their equivalent solutions in the Windows world - mainly due to the decade of baggage, bad design decisions due to catering for the mass market and of marketing departments influencing OS design and implementation to cater the for latest buzzwords and fashion-terms.
Recent Linux vs Windows issues I've had to deal with :
* Rollout of company-wide instant-messaging software
Windows: Windows Live Messenger (Live - oh look, buzzword/fashion-term ...)
discover that the .msi package does not deploy at all via active directory group policy deployment, have to use a 3rd-party tool to split the .msi into multiple other packages, and manually patch them and install in a specific order, which works on most machines and fails dismally on others, several hours of watching progress bars later, mission complete.
Linux: "for i in box1 box2 box8 guestbox42;do ssh $i sudo *yourpackagetoolhere* gaim;done" - walk away to make cup of tea, come back, and its done.
* RAID-0 of USB flash sticks : I want a small ammount of very fast non-volative storage, as cheaply as possible - so I gather some usb flash sticks and RAID-0 them
Linux: one command : mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=0 /dev/sd{a,b,c,d,e,f} - and I'm enoying 10GB of storage at 160MB/sec. Oh, on second thoughts, I'll partition one with a boot partition so that I can boot Linux from it, too - a quick run of cfdisk/rsync/grub and 10 mins later, its booted from USB flash.
Windows: 2 hours of searching forums, and it seems the verdict is that converting USB flash sticks to Windows 'Dynamic Disks' for software RAID is *impossible*! Indeed, I had to download a driver for a IBM CF microdrive and hack the .inf file, replacing the usbstor device names, JUST to to be able to partition a USB flash stick. (heaven forbid why anyone would want to partition a flash stick like any other storage device - the catering for the mass-market I was talking about earlier...)
On the flip side, I do think that there are some very ugly sides to Linux; whilst the package management systems provided by distros serve their purpose admirably (automatic dependancies, security updates, upgrades/downgrades, etc - everything Windows is missing), the implementation is somewhat of a dirty hack in conforming to Linux/UNIX 'standards' such as the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (the /usr/bin and /usr/lib mess) - having multiple versions of a package installed which share common naming conventions is like playing with fire.
But on the whole, Windows is just too restricive, too much effort and too much watching progress bars for my liking
Recent Linux vs Windows issues I've had to deal with :
* Rollout of company-wide instant-messaging software
Windows: Windows Live Messenger (Live - oh look, buzzword/fashion-term ...)
discover that the .msi package does not deploy at all via active directory group policy deployment, have to use a 3rd-party tool to split the .msi into multiple other packages, and manually patch them and install in a specific order, which works on most machines and fails dismally on others, several hours of watching progress bars later, mission complete.
Linux: "for i in box1 box2 box8 guestbox42;do ssh $i sudo *yourpackagetoolhere* gaim;done" - walk away to make cup of tea, come back, and its done.
* RAID-0 of USB flash sticks : I want a small ammount of very fast non-volative storage, as cheaply as possible - so I gather some usb flash sticks and RAID-0 them
Linux: one command : mdadm --create /dev/md0 --level=0 /dev/sd{a,b,c,d,e,f} - and I'm enoying 10GB of storage at 160MB/sec. Oh, on second thoughts, I'll partition one with a boot partition so that I can boot Linux from it, too - a quick run of cfdisk/rsync/grub and 10 mins later, its booted from USB flash.
Windows: 2 hours of searching forums, and it seems the verdict is that converting USB flash sticks to Windows 'Dynamic Disks' for software RAID is *impossible*! Indeed, I had to download a driver for a IBM CF microdrive and hack the .inf file, replacing the usbstor device names, JUST to to be able to partition a USB flash stick. (heaven forbid why anyone would want to partition a flash stick like any other storage device - the catering for the mass-market I was talking about earlier...)
On the flip side, I do think that there are some very ugly sides to Linux; whilst the package management systems provided by distros serve their purpose admirably (automatic dependancies, security updates, upgrades/downgrades, etc - everything Windows is missing), the implementation is somewhat of a dirty hack in conforming to Linux/UNIX 'standards' such as the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (the /usr/bin and /usr/lib mess) - having multiple versions of a package installed which share common naming conventions is like playing with fire.
But on the whole, Windows is just too restricive, too much effort and too much watching progress bars for my liking
Rhys said:
Agreed, I still use Linux, but well the install thing is a little old. It is 2007 & no cllick then it installs package yet. That is why I tried PC-BSD for the .pbi system, but I never even got into the actual OS. So I thought about trying PCLinuxOS that worked fine acept the internet woulldn't stay setup, reboot -> setup the net every time but 1. Last time it never started working, so I got my OpenSuSE 10 CDs & put that on again. Now the sound won't work, it is always something!!
The reason iis that MS thinks all windows users are a bunch of braindead morons, but then there is the other side of the coin most of the linuxx geeks think we should all beable too wright & compule our own drivers....
Last edited:
I recently tried Ubuntu Linux.
The thing that gets me about Linux is that it takes 1000% more effort than Windows to do anything and yet in the end you can't even do half as much.
I always thought the whole idea of GUI operating system was to simplify things and do away with the old CLI environments.
The thing that gets me about Linux is that it takes 1000% more effort than Windows to do anything and yet in the end you can't even do half as much.
I always thought the whole idea of GUI operating system was to simplify things and do away with the old CLI environments.
Rhys said:
The mistake you made was expecting Linux to be just like Windows.
Having said that, you don't have to use any commands to install most software these days.
The only way Linux will replace Windows for the majority is if MS goes under. Most people have gotten used to being spoon fed and have either forgotten or missed out on the MS-DOS days, when you had to use the command prompt.
mmj_uk said:
In my experience the effort is a little higher but not dramatically so once you've got the hang of it. But I completely disagree with your point regarding "you can't even do half as much". I've found that I can do far, far, far more with Linux than I could ever do with Windows, partly because I don't have to buy anything to do it.
I am a big fan of Linux these days, and frequently use (dare I say it) Ubuntu Feisty Fawn.
I find it relatively easy to install, adapt and use the applications that are available. However, when I first started using it I did get very frustrated at the 'effort' as some of you have put it. I fortunately driven by some linux-gubbin friends and can now solve most problems I encounter on it. If not I can use the countless support sites/forums/IRC channels and some nice person will tell you how to do it.
If you're saying that you cannot understand why you have to put in commands to install applications and drivers then linux isn't for you. Keep using Windows.
Saying all this, there are still a few games I boot Windows to play
I find it relatively easy to install, adapt and use the applications that are available. However, when I first started using it I did get very frustrated at the 'effort' as some of you have put it. I fortunately driven by some linux-gubbin friends and can now solve most problems I encounter on it. If not I can use the countless support sites/forums/IRC channels and some nice person will tell you how to do it.
If you're saying that you cannot understand why you have to put in commands to install applications and drivers then linux isn't for you. Keep using Windows.
Saying all this, there are still a few games I boot Windows to play
That is part of the prob. the attitude of most linux users, does Mac OS X need CLI to do stuff, I am sure the answer is, no. So since most of the linux community thinks windows users are dumb. What do you think about Mac users? Just because we want no part of CLI, doesn't mean we are dumb.
Last edited:
Edward78 said:
Who has said you are dumb?
The CLI is a huge part of Linux, simply because it is so powerful. You can write a 10 line script that can do a huge amount of work. If you wanted to make a GUI version of it, you would have to know GUI programming and it would take a whole lot more than 10 lines to do the same thing.
Soldato
Edward78 said:
I agree lots of Linux users have somewhat of an elitist attitude but you just have to ignore that. The same way we all ignore the i'm-so-hip-i'm-superior-to-you mac idiots you sometimes come across.
Most Linux developers [ie, people who do this for nothing] want to make Linux an easier experience. A lot of linux users no doubt create small scripts for doing tasks. Eventually, if a script is useful and popular, lots of people will have it and hey presto a new program/feature.
I admit a few years ago I hated linux. I thought it was just a bunch of geeks writing an OS only their crazed minds could comprehend. But after using several distros and general experimenting I have come to absolutely love it and Ubuntu is now my primary OS on my main rig.
With the latest version, Feisty Fawn, I managed to install ATI drivers with zero problems, sound drivers with zero problems and everything else besides.
The whole "this doesn't work, it's linux's fault" crap annoys me. People don't realise the sheer amount of time, money and effort that software and hardware vendors put in to make their product work with Windows. Linux devs are lucky to get to see a tech sheet.
Soldato
One thing i really liked about installing ubuntu on this system was the live cd!
I have a vista install on this system too, but i also wanted ubuntu installed, que going on the forums, while running the installation, to ask questions, specific to the installation that i was running
I have a vista install on this system too, but i also wanted ubuntu installed, que going on the forums, while running the installation, to ask questions, specific to the installation that i was running
SiriusB said:
Im curious to know why you love it.
Permabanned
Yep. Just as I have always said. Linux is built for geeks by geeks. Linux people don't actually want all these windows people coming in and maiking things simpler. Very insular crowd yer linux bods
M0KUJ1N said:Why, he seemed to explain why he likes it pretty well in his original post. Or are you just trolling now
Im not trolling (if i understand the term correctly).
He didnt say specifically why he loved Linux. Everything he mentioned Windows can do.
I started this thread to try and see if I was missing something when I was thinking Linux is hard to use and offers nothing extra than Windows. I am genuinely curious to see why people use Linux over Windows other than the fact that a)they can b)the kudos.
edit - I now have Mandriva 2007 Spring installed on a VM machine and am testing it out that way. Im sure Ill get to a point where Im happy on using it.
Soldato
I shant go into detail but some of the reasons I love Linux, in no particular order, are:
Better security model - ie Users and groups and "normal" users can do things without the OS having a fit.
*Yes XP has Admin and Limited. But Limited just doesn't work.
Much less of a resource hog
Free - I can install it on as many computers as I want, I can reinstall as many times as I want etc etc
Hugely customizable [and usually without the need for any extra software]
Much more powerful than XP [Command Line for instance]
Most software is free and does a bloody good job too
There are other reasons, and yes some of the above can probably be applied to XP if you know how, but the fact is Linux does it all out of the box.
I still use XP all the time on my Laptop, so I haven't shunned Windows. But from my own experiences I believe Linux to be better. Whether you agree or not is of no concern.
Better security model - ie Users and groups and "normal" users can do things without the OS having a fit.
*Yes XP has Admin and Limited. But Limited just doesn't work.
Much less of a resource hog
Free - I can install it on as many computers as I want, I can reinstall as many times as I want etc etc
Hugely customizable [and usually without the need for any extra software]
Much more powerful than XP [Command Line for instance]
Most software is free and does a bloody good job too
There are other reasons, and yes some of the above can probably be applied to XP if you know how, but the fact is Linux does it all out of the box.
I still use XP all the time on my Laptop, so I haven't shunned Windows. But from my own experiences I believe Linux to be better. Whether you agree or not is of no concern.
Rhys said:
Well to answer your question, the reasons I use Linux is a) I have to (because of work)! b) it's free c) It has a wide array of programming and scripting languages available almost out the box with an equally wide range of editors/ development environments d) it's extremely customisable e) It offers a wide range of services such as file serving, print serving, running a mail server which you would generally only be able to do on Windows without expensive software.
Associate
SiriusB said:
Like how you can't even open the calendar in XP as a restricted user because explorer assumes you're going to change the time. Brilliant UI design!
I personally use linux because of the configurability of it.Rhys said:
The pleasure I get from it is mainly due to the fact that I *can* tinker with the software - I *can* modify the kernel if I choose - I *can* shape it to the way *I* want it to be - and all without breaking any laws or EULAs.
As has been said before, the reason you're finding it difficult is because you're used to the windows way of doing things. Everyone who comes from a windows background goes through exactly the same things - you're a power user on windows, so why aren't you a power user on linux already? It doesn't work like that because the OSes *are* different.
I have friends who started off on *nix boxes. One of which (a bsd developer) has serious troubles using windows because he can't work out how to get things done - so it works both ways!
Windows certainly has it's place. At work, I use almost exclusively Windows boxes and at home, I have 2 linux boxes and 2 windows boxes (well technically 3 windows boxes, if you count the work laptop).