Linux
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
From: At home
Linux
Is Linux a real alternative to WinXP or other Windows versions for the home and/or small business user?
A friend suggested I might want to look at it but he was unable to tell me whether it could really take the place of Microsoft's products. I guess I need to hear from someone that is indeed running it.
Has anyone got the experience and time to tell me if it really is an alternative, and whether one would need something like a degree in computing science to install and set it up? I would also be interested to know if it could run programs such as MS Office and Adobe Acrobat etc, etc.
STL
A friend suggested I might want to look at it but he was unable to tell me whether it could really take the place of Microsoft's products. I guess I need to hear from someone that is indeed running it.
Has anyone got the experience and time to tell me if it really is an alternative, and whether one would need something like a degree in computing science to install and set it up? I would also be interested to know if it could run programs such as MS Office and Adobe Acrobat etc, etc.
STL
Oh Shazbat!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Leeds, UK
STL,
We did this a few months ago but I can't find the thread quickly to supply a link. Suggest you do a search on Linux and you'll find it.
Couple of things you say:
Personal opinion here is that if you want something that you can load and pretty much forget about - then stick to Windows. There are versions of Linux - Ubuntu for example - that present a pretty good WinXP-alike desktop, but they still do not have the consistency that Windows has so doing some tasks will require books, forum help etc. I'm thinking especially about hooking up printers.
Here's the crunch. There are alternatives such as OpenOffice & a PDF viewer, but they are different enough to put some people off. You can also run most Windows software under a Windows emulator but it seems crazy to me to run Linux & a Windows emulator when you can just run Windows.
I guess my summary here is that Windows is still the best option for ease of use & running the common applications. If you're good with computers and don't mind getting your hands a bit dirty then Linux makes sense.
In our family my son runs specialist Geophysics software that runs only in Linux/Unix so he uses a Linux desktop. The rest of us use Word/Excel, Internet & email - and Windows makes more sense for us.
Hope this helps
We did this a few months ago but I can't find the thread quickly to supply a link. Suggest you do a search on Linux and you'll find it.
Couple of things you say:
Is Linux a real alternative to WinXP or other Windows versions for the home and/or small business user?
I would also be interested to know if it could run programs such as MS Office and Adobe Acrobat etc, etc.
I guess my summary here is that Windows is still the best option for ease of use & running the common applications. If you're good with computers and don't mind getting your hands a bit dirty then Linux makes sense.
In our family my son runs specialist Geophysics software that runs only in Linux/Unix so he uses a Linux desktop. The rest of us use Word/Excel, Internet & email - and Windows makes more sense for us.
Hope this helps
Plastic PPRuNer
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
From: Rochechouart, France
"The rest of us use Word/Excel, Internet & email.." - so one of the "easy start" Linux distros (like Ubuntu, but I'm a SuSE man myself) should do you fine 
If you buy Windows you'll also have to buy MSOffice if you want to do Word/Excel - gets pricey! If you go Linux you'll have a free OS and free OpenOffice and thousands of free applications.
Linux is....different. Even now, it can have a bit of a learning curve, but once you've done it it's done forever - and you're not Gates' serf any longer.
If you buy Windows you'll also have to buy MSOffice if you want to do Word/Excel - gets pricey! If you go Linux you'll have a free OS and free OpenOffice and thousands of free applications.
Linux is....different. Even now, it can have a bit of a learning curve, but once you've done it it's done forever - and you're not Gates' serf any longer.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
At the risk of sounding like a stuck record on this one........
About 18 months ago I had an old Compaq that was acting up, it seemed that as it was failing, memory hungry processes were causing it to do hard shut downs. Well, thats another story, but on the back of that I decided to put Linux onto that machine just for a bit of a nerdy challenge. I'm definitely in the 'user' category, my hacking skills in any OS are non-existent. But I had a crack all the same, with Suse Linux 9.3. I bought a retail box, in order to get the manuals, and bought a Linux for dummies book also.
If you like messing with PC's, I treat them a bit like tinkering with an old MG in the garage, a productive waste of time or an alternative to sudoku, you will love Linux.
I've been through a couple of new releases of Linux, each upgrade brings its own new challenges. For me the repetitive bugaboos are WiFi and .wmv file handling. Both are easily sorted once you get the hang of it, but the learning process does take a little time. So now I have a full hand of operating systems at home to compare: XP desktop (kids), IMac OSX (Mrs C) and my own Thinkpad with Suse 10.1. After 18 months of Linux, it is easily my favourite OS. I would recommend trying it. Just do accept that there will be times when you need to scratch you head and go looking for solutions to things that might come easily to XP. Often its not the fault of Linux, but the fact that hardware is not supported to the extent it is in Windows. It can be an enjoyable challenge, and I have not yet been beaten. Not bad for a user, and one in the eye for Bill.
For Suse, I found this website invaluable: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/254
And if you are trying it for the first time, do spend the small amount of cash on a retail box, as the manuals are very useful for learning the basics. Once you have the basics, there will be no stopping you, and you will be evangelising like the rest of us MS - free outlaws! To answer your original question, yes it is a credible alternative to Windows. You can read and write in word, excel, powerpoint, acrobat formats, manage your MP3 files, watch DVDs, surf anything you can do with Firefox or Opera, network other machines and printers, run a WiFi ADSL router, download movies all the usual stuff - and all for free. The only thing you may miss is access to all those games. Give it a go.
About 18 months ago I had an old Compaq that was acting up, it seemed that as it was failing, memory hungry processes were causing it to do hard shut downs. Well, thats another story, but on the back of that I decided to put Linux onto that machine just for a bit of a nerdy challenge. I'm definitely in the 'user' category, my hacking skills in any OS are non-existent. But I had a crack all the same, with Suse Linux 9.3. I bought a retail box, in order to get the manuals, and bought a Linux for dummies book also.
If you like messing with PC's, I treat them a bit like tinkering with an old MG in the garage, a productive waste of time or an alternative to sudoku, you will love Linux.
I've been through a couple of new releases of Linux, each upgrade brings its own new challenges. For me the repetitive bugaboos are WiFi and .wmv file handling. Both are easily sorted once you get the hang of it, but the learning process does take a little time. So now I have a full hand of operating systems at home to compare: XP desktop (kids), IMac OSX (Mrs C) and my own Thinkpad with Suse 10.1. After 18 months of Linux, it is easily my favourite OS. I would recommend trying it. Just do accept that there will be times when you need to scratch you head and go looking for solutions to things that might come easily to XP. Often its not the fault of Linux, but the fact that hardware is not supported to the extent it is in Windows. It can be an enjoyable challenge, and I have not yet been beaten. Not bad for a user, and one in the eye for Bill.
For Suse, I found this website invaluable: http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/254
And if you are trying it for the first time, do spend the small amount of cash on a retail box, as the manuals are very useful for learning the basics. Once you have the basics, there will be no stopping you, and you will be evangelising like the rest of us MS - free outlaws! To answer your original question, yes it is a credible alternative to Windows. You can read and write in word, excel, powerpoint, acrobat formats, manage your MP3 files, watch DVDs, surf anything you can do with Firefox or Opera, network other machines and printers, run a WiFi ADSL router, download movies all the usual stuff - and all for free. The only thing you may miss is access to all those games. Give it a go.
Last edited by Cheerio; 8th July 2006 at 21:34.
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2001
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 8,121
Likes: 686
From: Twickenham, home of rugby
A slight diversion, but as there have been rumblings over the years about MS either deciding - or being forced - to seperate the OS from the application divisions, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that MS Office might be developed to run natively on Linux, in much the same way as it has done on the Mac for years.
Viewed as an independent business, MS applications division would be interested in selling as many licences of their product as possible - irrespective of which OS it is running on.
Some of the often-quoted reasons for companies and individuals choosing (validly) not to move to Linux on the desktop is the required investment in training in a different office suite, and the conversion and compatibility issues between open-source and MS versions of databases, WP, presentation and spreadsheet apps, with huge investments having being made in the MS file formats.
Well if MS were to release a native version that ensured document portability between Win / office and Linux / office it would very likely kill off the open source competitors just as it did with Novell and WordPerfect (OK, they aren't actually dead, just 99.99% dead!).
In the long run I bet it would actually outweigh the loss of OS revenue.
Just a thought.
SD
ps - I'm not saying that this would be a good thing
Viewed as an independent business, MS applications division would be interested in selling as many licences of their product as possible - irrespective of which OS it is running on.
Some of the often-quoted reasons for companies and individuals choosing (validly) not to move to Linux on the desktop is the required investment in training in a different office suite, and the conversion and compatibility issues between open-source and MS versions of databases, WP, presentation and spreadsheet apps, with huge investments having being made in the MS file formats.
Well if MS were to release a native version that ensured document portability between Win / office and Linux / office it would very likely kill off the open source competitors just as it did with Novell and WordPerfect (OK, they aren't actually dead, just 99.99% dead!).
In the long run I bet it would actually outweigh the loss of OS revenue.
Just a thought.
SD
ps - I'm not saying that this would be a good thing
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 526
Likes: 0
From: BRISTOL!
The main question can be answered in a few lines, Can Linux replace Windows?
// That all depends on what you do. If you use mainly office and graphics applications and the net then Linux is a dead winner. If you want to play the latest games then Linux is no good as even Wine (Windows Emulator) doesnt work all that well (Fast).
What i have done is used a dual boot, Linix for business and most other tasks, Windows for Games (FS2004). I browse the net on both but find Windows easyer when using those P2P applications and Wi-Fi.
Mandrake Linux or Suse i have found to be the most switch friendly and then i have moved on to RedHat. Lindows or Linspire is supposed to be the closest Linix to Windows and claims to run most Windows applications, i have not a copy so i cant vouch for that...
// That all depends on what you do. If you use mainly office and graphics applications and the net then Linux is a dead winner. If you want to play the latest games then Linux is no good as even Wine (Windows Emulator) doesnt work all that well (Fast).
What i have done is used a dual boot, Linix for business and most other tasks, Windows for Games (FS2004). I browse the net on both but find Windows easyer when using those P2P applications and Wi-Fi.
Mandrake Linux or Suse i have found to be the most switch friendly and then i have moved on to RedHat. Lindows or Linspire is supposed to be the closest Linix to Windows and claims to run most Windows applications, i have not a copy so i cant vouch for that...
Plastic PPRuNer
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
From: Rochechouart, France
Originally Posted by Saab Dastard
Well if MS were to release a native version that ensured document portability between Win / office and Linux / office it would very likely kill off the open source competitors just as it did with Novell and WordPerfect
Originally Posted by Saab Dastard
I'm not saying that this would be a good thing
MS wants to be not just the boss, but the ONLY boss and history has shown that this is not good for anyone. Monopolies are bad for society for a whole host of reasons, which is why most countries have evolved laws to limit this.
For reasons that are somewhat obscure, Gates believes that the world should have only one OS (his), only one set of standards (his) and only one Office suite (his) and on the desktop at least, has come very close to achieving this. Not by merit much of the time, but by illegal anticompetitive behaviour, dirty tricks. and just paying the fines that an increasingly helpless community tries to use to control the company.
Imagine a world where the only place that you could buy commercial airliners was Boeing. What if Boeing controlled most of the patents on aircraft construction, most of the copyrights on design and all the international standards (secret, BTW and you had to buy a very expensive licence from them even to see the standards).
The battle now is not about operating systems, but standards. He who controls the standards controls the world. Having failed to get W3C to use MS's proprietary standards for the Web (which would have effectively allowed MS to control the internet), MS tried to subvert the Java language (used extensively on the Net). MS licenced Java (an open standard), added it's own proprietary extensions and tried to replace the open Sun implementation of Java with it's own closed and proprietary implementation. And so on.
The "recipe" for the .doc, .ppt and .xls file formats is secret MS stuff. No-one else can make easily applications that read and write these formats. The only way is reverse engineering (not illegal) and MS have deliberately made these formats hard to reverse engineer. The fact that many developers HAVE succeeded is phenomenal - it's amazing that compatibility is now around 98%.
And the MS formats change subtly with each iteration of MS Office - how many of you have found incompatibilities opening old documents? Of course MS wants you to drop Office 97 and move on & buy the next one.
The World is getting a bit fed up with this and the .odf Open Document XML standard has been developed - the standard is open, non-binary and free for anyone to implement. There is considerable impetus and adoption of this now, since governments and institutions are increasingly reluctant to entrust data to a closed proprietary format owned by a convicted American monopolist. MS's response has been similar to the Java debacle - they've developed their own MS-XML standard which is MOSTLY open, but contains proprietary closed binary extensions. They maintain it is "better" (for whom?), but the result is that documents created in the new MS Office format may not open or display correctly in non-MS implementations. MS is now trying hard to force MS-XML upon the world at the expense of open XML.
OpenOffice is excellent (and getting better all the time), but again, thanks to MS machinations compatibility is not assured 100%. Thanks to the State of Massachusetts (and other governments around the world), adoption of the .odf Open Document XML format is proceeding apace and very recently MS have finally agreed to produce an add-on to MSOffice that will allow opening and saving documents in the .odf format. MS have made this as difficult and clumsy as possible (you can't use .odf as the default format), but it's there!
The problem of drivers is still with us, but remember that Linux now includes support for a vast number of devices internally - you don't have to put in a CD or go off and download a driver from somewhere much of the time. As the momentum of Linux builds, more and more manufacturers are including or releasing Linux drivers. Some of these are closed binary drivers that are incompatible with the GPL, and purists shun them, but the more practical among is accept that there are sound reasons for this and install them anyway. I have drivers for all my gear on Linux and it all works - Vista, on the other hand does not have drivers for many of my devices (especially older stuff) and realistically these will never be developed - all the more so because Vista will not accept drivers that have not been signed by MS (and getting an MS signature for a driver is very expensive).
Yes, Linux still has some rough edges - it just isn't as slick as, say, XP (which I confess, I find a very stable and usable OS) - but these rough edges are quickly disappearing.
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2001
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 8,121
Likes: 686
From: Twickenham, home of rugby
Mac,
Thanks for the build on my thoughts - I was postulating that the advantages would be all Microsoft's in the long term, though there would be short term benfits for those who had invested heavily in producing output with MS office.
Cheers
SD
Thanks for the build on my thoughts - I was postulating that the advantages would be all Microsoft's in the long term, though there would be short term benfits for those who had invested heavily in producing output with MS office.
Cheers
SD
Plastic PPRuNer
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
From: Rochechouart, France
Yo Saab! I quite agree that "the advantages would be all Microsoft's in the long term". OTOH this would mean admitting that Linux was a threat (I suppose they've already done that with all their anti-Linux advertising) and might have the effect of momentarily increasing the adoption of Linux. As Linux matures, I think this is inevitable, but I dunno if MS can bring themselves to admit it.
We'll just have to hope that MS doesn't release a closed binary pay-for-it version of MSOffice for Linux! I have a hunch that they might find it difficult to port since their internal code documentation seems very poor (the code IS the documentation)!
As Linux spreads, more and more of the people adopting it are no longer geeks or purists, just ordinary Joes and Janes trying to get their work done. So long as MSOffice-for-Linux was relatively cheap and works, they'd buy it and use it - if only for the better compatibility with MSOffice-for-Windows that only MS can offer.
MS would then be free to insist on MS-XML and, on balance, a lot of Joes and Janes wouldn't care that much.
On the other hand, more and more countries and businesses are becoming wary of having their data held potentially hostage in a closed secret format owned by one company with it's own agenda (hence the rise of ODF) and it might not work.
To have any chance MS would probably HAVE to offer some kind of OpenXML compatibility, but they'd likely make it as poor and as difficult to find as possible.
I can't for the life of me figure out why MS can't bring themselves to realise that their dreams of hegemony in the IT world just ain't going to happen and start to play nicely, but I doubt whether they are capable of getting out of their old mindset. A pity - potentially giving up 95% of the desktop in exchange for a lower figure would still leave them unbelievably wealthy and, who knows, people might slowly start to trust them again (which has it's own benefits).
What MS has is a much greater degree of consistency and coherence across it's user interface - MS can insist on this internally and doesn't have to cope with, say, KDE vs Gnome and all the rest. MS also has hundreds of people watching thousands of people actually using Windows - seeing what they struggle with and fixing it. So far Linux hasn't had anything like that, though Novell/SuSE are working hard on this. Eventually the LSB will mandate more coherence at a systems level and I look forward to this. But outside the popular desktops, Linux, because of it's open nature, will always be somewhere coders can go to "scratch an itch" and explore new and different ways of doing things.
MS have some of the smartest people in the world working for them (though an uncomfortable number seem to have jumped ship recently) and the good that a moral Microsoft (sounds like an oxymoron) could do in the world far eclipses that which can be done by Gates chucking his money around.
But I won't hold my breath....
We'll just have to hope that MS doesn't release a closed binary pay-for-it version of MSOffice for Linux! I have a hunch that they might find it difficult to port since their internal code documentation seems very poor (the code IS the documentation)!
As Linux spreads, more and more of the people adopting it are no longer geeks or purists, just ordinary Joes and Janes trying to get their work done. So long as MSOffice-for-Linux was relatively cheap and works, they'd buy it and use it - if only for the better compatibility with MSOffice-for-Windows that only MS can offer.
MS would then be free to insist on MS-XML and, on balance, a lot of Joes and Janes wouldn't care that much.
On the other hand, more and more countries and businesses are becoming wary of having their data held potentially hostage in a closed secret format owned by one company with it's own agenda (hence the rise of ODF) and it might not work.
To have any chance MS would probably HAVE to offer some kind of OpenXML compatibility, but they'd likely make it as poor and as difficult to find as possible.
I can't for the life of me figure out why MS can't bring themselves to realise that their dreams of hegemony in the IT world just ain't going to happen and start to play nicely, but I doubt whether they are capable of getting out of their old mindset. A pity - potentially giving up 95% of the desktop in exchange for a lower figure would still leave them unbelievably wealthy and, who knows, people might slowly start to trust them again (which has it's own benefits).
What MS has is a much greater degree of consistency and coherence across it's user interface - MS can insist on this internally and doesn't have to cope with, say, KDE vs Gnome and all the rest. MS also has hundreds of people watching thousands of people actually using Windows - seeing what they struggle with and fixing it. So far Linux hasn't had anything like that, though Novell/SuSE are working hard on this. Eventually the LSB will mandate more coherence at a systems level and I look forward to this. But outside the popular desktops, Linux, because of it's open nature, will always be somewhere coders can go to "scratch an itch" and explore new and different ways of doing things.
MS have some of the smartest people in the world working for them (though an uncomfortable number seem to have jumped ship recently) and the good that a moral Microsoft (sounds like an oxymoron) could do in the world far eclipses that which can be done by Gates chucking his money around.
But I won't hold my breath....
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
Originally Posted by SawThe Light
Is Linux a real alternative to WinXP or other Windows versions for the home and/or small business user?
(I have to say that this sounds unlikely to me, but I was told this by a real Linux weenie, and if there was a usable accounting package I suspect they'd have found it.)
Plastic PPRuNer
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
From: Rochechouart, France
Oh dear Gertrude, you're SO predictable!
The quickest Google in the world yields (among others)
Jalia Linux Accounting - http://jalia.sourceforge.net/
"5. Financials – V.A.T :
The financials module provides you with VAT features. All your transactions recorded in the Jalia application automatically update the VAT related information. Using VAT, you can draw out your VAT Liability for a given period and arrange for payment/receipts to/from the statutory authority. Once you make or receive a payment, those transactions can be flagged off as having being reconciled thus avoiding future duplicity."
Also the Kalculate Financial Accounting Package for Linux - http://www.kalculate.com/ - "VAT ready"
Banana Accounting - http://www.banana.ch/base/eng/welcome.shtml supports VAT
I'm too bored to go on.
The quickest Google in the world yields (among others)
Jalia Linux Accounting - http://jalia.sourceforge.net/
"5. Financials – V.A.T :
The financials module provides you with VAT features. All your transactions recorded in the Jalia application automatically update the VAT related information. Using VAT, you can draw out your VAT Liability for a given period and arrange for payment/receipts to/from the statutory authority. Once you make or receive a payment, those transactions can be flagged off as having being reconciled thus avoiding future duplicity."
Also the Kalculate Financial Accounting Package for Linux - http://www.kalculate.com/ - "VAT ready"
Banana Accounting - http://www.banana.ch/base/eng/welcome.shtml supports VAT
I'm too bored to go on.
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 1
From: Cambridge, England, EU
I can only assume that my Linux weenie friend tried those and found them unacceptable for some reason. I can assure you that they wouldn't keep one box running Windows if they didn't think they had to.
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
I keep my old machine for playing with Linux. After 18 months of that, and with it booting into three different flavours of Linux or into Windows, my take is:
1. Linux is very capable, but a lot more "nerdy" than Windows, and it takes a lot of time to get everything working. By comparison, Windows is a walk in the park.
There are lots of different flavours of Linux - called "distros" by the aficionados - some are a bit like MSDOS 3.11 and require a PhD in geekery, some are nearly as user-friendly as Windows. I get on well with Debian, fairly well with Fedora, and after a fashion with SuSe. I've not tried Ubuntu, which I'm told is also nice.
Knoppix is interesting - it will run from CD or DVD: I've used it several times to recover stuff from friends' computers that have crashed or refused to boot from their hard drive.
2. Networked printers are a nightmare: they will work under Linux, but you'll spend many hours getting them to. It's a lot better for your nerves to buy a printer for each Linux machine.
3. Wireless connection is awful. I can get a Windows wireless network up and running in minutes. I've not yet managed to get even a hint of success with Linux. I can't connect any of my machines to the wireless network if I boot them in Linux. I've downloaded gigabytes of stuff that's supposed to make it all happen, but you need a D.Sc to understand the instructions.
4. Open Office is free, and competent. The Word Processor and Spreadsheet bits are fine. I've not managed to get anything that'll do what MS Publisher does. They may be "out there", but they are hiding well.
5. Debian has a wonderful feature: Kpackage - which allows you to look at a list of just about all the software available for Debian Linux, and to install or update whatever you want via a graphical interface. I love that! Much of it is super-geek, but some is excellent and very useful.
6. Linux will drive you crazy typing in the "Super User" password. If you're trying to set anything up, you'll be typing the pesky password several times a minute. You can't tell it to shut up and get on with the job - it just keeps demanding the password for each different operation you try to carry out.
7. Once you get it all working, Linux is many times faster and more efficient than Windows. It just took me about 15 months to reach that happy point - but I didn't have a local guru (I do now).
8. Asking for help on Linux forums is not for the faint hearted. Most of my requests for help resulted in me being flamed for being stupid (everyone knows how to to a ../config.-grunt-/kipper -t +R -x +z:1 or they shouldn't be allowed out alone), or for wanting to do such a silly thing as to print something, or for not asking in the approved format etc etc. In 12 months of trying, I never once got an answer that was any help on any of the forums (although I gave a few). Google helped a lot; now I have a "Linux guru" who is brilliant and either answers immediately, or finds the answer within a day or so. No, his name is NOT available - sorry!
IN SUMMARY ... would I switch to Linux for key functions? No way, without a resident and proven expert to fix it.
Would I recommend it? If you have plenty of spare time to learn a whole new way to operate your computer, and like a challenge - yes.
1. Linux is very capable, but a lot more "nerdy" than Windows, and it takes a lot of time to get everything working. By comparison, Windows is a walk in the park.
There are lots of different flavours of Linux - called "distros" by the aficionados - some are a bit like MSDOS 3.11 and require a PhD in geekery, some are nearly as user-friendly as Windows. I get on well with Debian, fairly well with Fedora, and after a fashion with SuSe. I've not tried Ubuntu, which I'm told is also nice.
Knoppix is interesting - it will run from CD or DVD: I've used it several times to recover stuff from friends' computers that have crashed or refused to boot from their hard drive.
2. Networked printers are a nightmare: they will work under Linux, but you'll spend many hours getting them to. It's a lot better for your nerves to buy a printer for each Linux machine.
3. Wireless connection is awful. I can get a Windows wireless network up and running in minutes. I've not yet managed to get even a hint of success with Linux. I can't connect any of my machines to the wireless network if I boot them in Linux. I've downloaded gigabytes of stuff that's supposed to make it all happen, but you need a D.Sc to understand the instructions.
4. Open Office is free, and competent. The Word Processor and Spreadsheet bits are fine. I've not managed to get anything that'll do what MS Publisher does. They may be "out there", but they are hiding well.
5. Debian has a wonderful feature: Kpackage - which allows you to look at a list of just about all the software available for Debian Linux, and to install or update whatever you want via a graphical interface. I love that! Much of it is super-geek, but some is excellent and very useful.
6. Linux will drive you crazy typing in the "Super User" password. If you're trying to set anything up, you'll be typing the pesky password several times a minute. You can't tell it to shut up and get on with the job - it just keeps demanding the password for each different operation you try to carry out.
7. Once you get it all working, Linux is many times faster and more efficient than Windows. It just took me about 15 months to reach that happy point - but I didn't have a local guru (I do now).
8. Asking for help on Linux forums is not for the faint hearted. Most of my requests for help resulted in me being flamed for being stupid (everyone knows how to to a ../config.-grunt-/kipper -t +R -x +z:1 or they shouldn't be allowed out alone), or for wanting to do such a silly thing as to print something, or for not asking in the approved format etc etc. In 12 months of trying, I never once got an answer that was any help on any of the forums (although I gave a few). Google helped a lot; now I have a "Linux guru" who is brilliant and either answers immediately, or finds the answer within a day or so. No, his name is NOT available - sorry!
IN SUMMARY ... would I switch to Linux for key functions? No way, without a resident and proven expert to fix it.
Would I recommend it? If you have plenty of spare time to learn a whole new way to operate your computer, and like a challenge - yes.
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
From: At home
Keef,
That is exactly the info I was expecting, but hoping not to get, if you know what I mean. God knows MS programs can be trying enough but the notion of trying to figure out the ../config.-grunt-/kipper -t +R -x +z:1 etc. comands is not what I need. I think I'm getting too old for "geekery" like that.
I might try it on a spare box as an experiment, but it looks like I am locked into MS for the time being.
Thanks again PPRuNers.
STL
That is exactly the info I was expecting, but hoping not to get, if you know what I mean. God knows MS programs can be trying enough but the notion of trying to figure out the ../config.-grunt-/kipper -t +R -x +z:1 etc. comands is not what I need. I think I'm getting too old for "geekery" like that.
I might try it on a spare box as an experiment, but it looks like I am locked into MS for the time being.
Thanks again PPRuNers.
STL
Plastic PPRuNer
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
From: Rochechouart, France
Originally Posted by Keef
2. Networked printers are a nightmare: they will work under Linux, but you'll spend many hours getting them to. It's a lot better for your nerves to buy a printer for each Linux machine.
Originally Posted by Keef
3. Wireless connection is awful.
STL, don't dismiss the thought of Linux QUITE so quickly. The first couple of weks CAN be a bit mysterious for some things (Wordprocessors, Spreadsheets, Internet and email almost always work out-of-the-box), but buying a copy of "Linux for Dummies" (or some such) makes it easier - after all, look how many copies of books teaching Windows are sold! It's not as though people don't struggle with Windows at times!
Once you're a bit familiar with how Linux "thinks" (and you DON'T need a Ph.D. or to spend months mastering stuff like ../config.-grunt-/kipper -t +R -x +z:1 ) then Linux is MUCH easier to "fix" than Windows (I don't recall ever having to type stuff like that, though you certainly will have if you want to explore the outer limits, but Windows is the same actually). Unlike Windows, there's no single impenetrable Registry, which if mysteriously corrupted spells reinstall, but ordinary text configuration files that are much simpler to change if things don't behave as you'd like. But most of the time nowadays you can work from the GUI and there's no need to type arcane commands.
While we're on the subject of the command line, in ages past many people managed to work with DOS and the vagaries of CONFIG.SYS and AUTOEXEC.BAT and survive.....were they all supermen?
How about DOS's print command?
print /d:device /b:size /u:ticks1 /m:ticks2 /s:ticks3 /q:size /t drive
path\ filename /c /pNot that I recall ever having to tinker with it, mind you.
Yup, SOMETIMES Linux can be harder, but it's mostly unfamiliarity with something that looks a bit different and behaves a bit differently. It doesn't take ages to get "working familar", though it takes just as much time to be come a Linux guru (I'm not one) as to become a Windows guru.
The rewards for a bit of work are great - freedom from viruses, freedom from trojans, freedom from MS's dictates and a vast raft of software (including accounting software that does VAT
), most of which is free too.Yup, I'm a Linux evangelist, but I'm not a fanatic - some things like games and photoediting just work better in Windows for the moment - so have two machines that double-boot, one mostly runs Windows (it's essentially a games and experiments box) and the other one runs mostly SuSE for serious work.
Unlike Bill G. I reckon that the world is big enough for both systems to co-exist in and there will always be strengths and weaknesses on each side. The competition is good for both and even better for us users for neither can then sit back on their laurels, knowing that folks will just have to accept what they dish up 'cos there's no alternative.
Viva a Windows that learns to behave like a responsible citizen rather than a greedy sneak, and Viva a Linux that climbs down of it's elitist perch and does some more work on the user experience.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
I can empathise with a lot of what you say Keef, but I think it is a little overstated. It needs quite a bit of motiviation to make the switch - for me I just like being different, and I'm getting increasingly irritated by MS end user licencing. It does take time to get comfortable with it, and it does take time to tweak the system into your ideal configuration, but once its done, it is superb, and not at all what many would imagine, with a blinking monochrome cursor etc... I prefer the Suse KDE GUI to XP.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
From: Northampton UK
Yep MS starting to annoy me too.
Just installed my first Ubuntu test installation on an old Dell with a 3.2Gb HDD!
Seems to work fine and have been surfing on it this evening ... will play with more software tomorrow and source a bigger HDD to make it a bit more credible / usable!
RC
Just installed my first Ubuntu test installation on an old Dell with a 3.2Gb HDD!
Seems to work fine and have been surfing on it this evening ... will play with more software tomorrow and source a bigger HDD to make it a bit more credible / usable!
RC
Official PPRuNe Chaplain
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 3,498
Likes: 0
From: Witnesham, Suffolk
Mac / Cheerio
I take your point, but I have three shorthand notebooks full of the records of what I did and what I tried to make things work under Linux. If you search the various Linux forums for "Keef" you will find me asking simple (maybe even "idiot") questions that had me baffled, and being told I'm a blithering idiot (which I knew already). But the flamers seemed not to know the answer either - which is a trend I've come to recognise.
The "master" machine in my study is a 3.2GHz Win XP Pro box. There are a B&W laser printer and a colour inkjet printer attached. Both are shared on the network (Netgear wireless modem router), and my laptop running Win XP Pro can print on either printer just by checking which one to use. I can do that from down in the lounge, via the wireless link, "just like that." Debian on the Linux machine, hard-wired to the network, can now see the Laser printer but not the inkjet. It took me several months to get that far. Fedora can't see a printer at all, and SuSe...
Setting up Samba to allow the machines to see each other and swap files around needed some geek-code to be entered into various files in the root directory (smb.conf, bootmisc.sh, /etc/udev/rules.d/local.rules). I won't tell you how long it took to find out that those were the ones to edit, or exactly what geekery to put in. I've got it all written down now, so next time it'll be easy.
The SCSI CDROM drive was a bundle of laughs. Sound and video were both nightmares - trying to recompile the "core" with the right "soundcore", for example. Then it would only display 640 x 480, and I had to find out that the place to edit is /etc/X11/XF86Config to add the instructions to use 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768. Nothing difficult - just a case of finding out where the geek-code goes.
Yes, I could use the Linux box now as the office machine, provided I didn't want to print anything in colour, or scan anything on the SCSI scanner. Yes, Linux now is far easier and more user-friendly than it was a couple of years ago. It's a steep learning curve, that's all.
When I bought the new Windows box in January, it took me about four hours (from start) to have it all up and running, doing everything. I didn't have to edit any config files. OK, I know Windows better than I know Linux. But for me, Linux did NOT work "out of the box". Far from it. Maybe I'm just unlucky.
I take your point, but I have three shorthand notebooks full of the records of what I did and what I tried to make things work under Linux. If you search the various Linux forums for "Keef" you will find me asking simple (maybe even "idiot") questions that had me baffled, and being told I'm a blithering idiot (which I knew already). But the flamers seemed not to know the answer either - which is a trend I've come to recognise.
The "master" machine in my study is a 3.2GHz Win XP Pro box. There are a B&W laser printer and a colour inkjet printer attached. Both are shared on the network (Netgear wireless modem router), and my laptop running Win XP Pro can print on either printer just by checking which one to use. I can do that from down in the lounge, via the wireless link, "just like that." Debian on the Linux machine, hard-wired to the network, can now see the Laser printer but not the inkjet. It took me several months to get that far. Fedora can't see a printer at all, and SuSe...
Setting up Samba to allow the machines to see each other and swap files around needed some geek-code to be entered into various files in the root directory (smb.conf, bootmisc.sh, /etc/udev/rules.d/local.rules). I won't tell you how long it took to find out that those were the ones to edit, or exactly what geekery to put in. I've got it all written down now, so next time it'll be easy.
The SCSI CDROM drive was a bundle of laughs. Sound and video were both nightmares - trying to recompile the "core" with the right "soundcore", for example. Then it would only display 640 x 480, and I had to find out that the place to edit is /etc/X11/XF86Config to add the instructions to use 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768. Nothing difficult - just a case of finding out where the geek-code goes.
Yes, I could use the Linux box now as the office machine, provided I didn't want to print anything in colour, or scan anything on the SCSI scanner. Yes, Linux now is far easier and more user-friendly than it was a couple of years ago. It's a steep learning curve, that's all.
When I bought the new Windows box in January, it took me about four hours (from start) to have it all up and running, doing everything. I didn't have to edit any config files. OK, I know Windows better than I know Linux. But for me, Linux did NOT work "out of the box". Far from it. Maybe I'm just unlucky.