skinink, despite what fanboys say, Knoppix is not a good starter. It is way too bloated and slow. I like the live-cd trial concept, but have yet to see it done well. I'd have to say that as a teaser for a permanent migration, the Suse and Mandrake ones would be better, as both those companies develop their distro to be installed. The live-cd images they offer should be close in functionality to what you would get from actually installing them. Personally, I've been a fan of Red Hat, and now Fedora as a desktop, but I can see why people discourage it for a newbie. You have to use some thrid party application packagers to get stuff like MP3 playback and stuff. Suse has a pretty good distribution that should handle a lot of what you want to do (it has Flash, Real, Java, and maybe acrobat installed out-of-box). What I don't like about Suse and Mandrake are the behemoth system administration apps (yast and drakconf) that handle everything. Red Hat has a bunch of one-off apps that configure a specific task, run in GUI or command line, and are more tolerant of hand-tweaking the underlying config files.

So I guess if you are a total newcomer, and want a live-cd trial, I would recommend looking at Suse's 9.1 live-cd, and if you like that, install it on a spare machine, or go for dual-boot if you don't have a spare.

Microsoft also claimed that Linux means biatch in Spanish.

There are way too many stupid people to be running Linux. And Linux doesn't run anything so why bother installing it?

farkdog

Windows is a good OS. It get's the lion's share of security attacks because it has the lion's share of desktops. If Linux had the samer, er, penetration, you'd hear more about Linux security issues.

Other than stating that Windows is a good OS, and that it has the lions-share, the rest of the statement is not true.

Linux does not suffer from the systemic buffer overflow and underrun issues that have STILL plagued every MS OS since WFW (Windows for Workgroups).

From a less technical view, the reason that most viruses are on windows machines is not that they are the most prevalent in ALL aspects. Apache web servers FAR outnumber the MS web servers on the internet. Why are there more web server viruses and exploits for MS products, then? Because they are easier to write. Really.

There may be more MS running machines, and therefore offer a larger target, but in the end, that is just one consideration. The other one, which is much more indicative of why there is this disparity, is the ease in finding and exploiting the issues.

Fedora Core 2 - Runnin smooth

re: I get paid to develop software, not configure hardware. That's someone else's job and a waste of my time.

haha. *any* developer who can't handle basic PC config tasks isn't much of a developer.

fudgefactor7

For instance, SAMBA is a POS that just doesn't work right. Printing over IP is a bit fubar
Well, I feel sorry for you. Out of the box RPM installation and samba manager from inside X created a nice domain for 25 XP Pro clients in about 15 minutes.

Independent studies show, same hardware, etc, an approximately 3x performance increase.

Oh yeah. As far as CD Burning, I have no idea. I imagine it has more to do with the software used to create it, as your INDUSTRIAL cd burners use Linux with commercial software. FYI

And Linux doesn't run anything so why bother installing it?

Wow, I must be posting this to Fark from some alternate dimension or something, then.

If you say, "Linux doesn't run any games," you have a point. That's why I don't use it at home.

MS is expense, but the people are cheaper.... thats the bottom line (This is coming from a MCSE thats learning UNIX)

Exactly where are these 'facts' that microsoft wants you to 'get'?
Also, Ive got no doubt that their 'costs' included time involved in migration. Important if youre putting open standards into a proprietry system environment.
Thats been the idea from the very start, release a word processing format which is incompatible with any other, and encourage new versions to enforce everyone needing your proprietry systems and formats.
Then again, it doesnt take a genius to work out that migration costs for a new license for windows are probably as much or more than an entire migation to linux systems.
/Sorry for the rant

Just switched to Firefox today myself :)

Great Browser! I downloaded 15 or so extensions. Some really cool stuff...

There really is no need for anyone to be using IE anymore

fudgefactor7: "Additionally, Linux is not more secure than Windows. Just ask the NSA, CIA, the DoD and others for their ratings of the various OSes...see which one is on top of the chart (hint: it isn't linux or unix.)"

Ahh, I'd like to see some sources for that. Mainframe systems like OpenVMS and zOS (MVS) used to be the most secure until UNIX started copying them (where UNIX got most of its other good stuff) and since then, UNIX system have been the most often hardened OS's for government work.

The last time I looked, Microsoft hadn't even reached the same certified level as some UNIX systems, let alone the same actual measured level of security by the government.

Feel free to update what I know.

fudgefactor7

Linux tries despirately to be all things to everyone: jack of all trades = master of none.

That sort of statement belies a misconception as to what Linux is. Linux proper is just a kernel that people can write drivers and userland apps for. There are many distributors of linux, and each one tailors it to a certain market. The people who maintain the Linux kernel don't make it everything to everyone, they make a good kernel that everyone can adapt. If you tried it for a particular function and found it lacking, it's quite possible that you tried the wrong distribution.

fudgefactor7

Other than that, Linux still has issues that need to be resolved that makes Windows a superior solution. For instance, SAMBA is a POS that just doesn't work right.

It's the foundation of all remote mounting here on campus and it works seamlessly with my computer at home. Never a problem except one version of TextPad that was quickly updated. I call BS.

Printing over IP is a bit fubar,

Funny, it works perfectly with Debian in the office and OS X at home. I call BS.

CD Buringin under Linux produces far more coasters than under Windows (on the same hardware, no less.)

Ah. You compare software and drivers written by the manufacturer to third-party reverse engineering efforts and conclude the OS is to blame. Brilliant.

I could go on, but won't.

Please do, you amuse us.

Linux tries despirately to be all things to everyone: jack of all trades = master of none.

Enlighten us as to what specific purpose Windows is designed for.

Additionally, Linux is not more secure than Windows. Just ask the NSA, CIA, the DoD and others for their ratings of the various OSes...see which one is on top of the chart (hint: it isn't linux or unix.)

An answer and links supporting your contention would be nice.

rpm

beat me to it! The whole "It's more popular, that's why it's attacked more" is garbage.

fudgefactor7
One more thing. The "most secure OS" you are talking about is a NT Box (not XP or 2000) disconnected from everything. It is not allowed to be touched or communicated with. Microsoft paid for that "test" to be done so they could get that certification.
Among security people, it is a joke. I thought it was a joke for you too. As far as "connected and interfaceable" OS's, the certification process is VERY expensive. Which is why, unless some person wants to donate the money, it doesn't get done.

But one small thing. The NSA. The MOST secure and secretive organization in the US. The modified Linux and that is their default installation and software. Google SECLinux.

TOWB

There is an easier way to say it:

int main {
while(true) {fork();}
}

If you count the training and overtime pay you have to give your developer after he spends 2 weeks trying to configure ip settings, then windows is probably cheaper than linux in the long run

Is this assuming you're trying to get your Windows admin to configure a Linux server? Because that would take a knowledged Linux administrator all of 30 seconds.

So if your point is that Windows is dominant because it's dominant.. I'll have to concede.

2004-08-25 04:25:14 PM fudgefactor7

Let me help you all out: Linux is indeed less expensive to install, deploy, maintain, and update IF your time to do so is worthless.

Other than that, Linux still has issues that need to be resolved that makes Windows a superior solution. For instance, SAMBA is a POS that just doesn't work right. Printing over IP is a bit fubar, CD Buringin under Linux produces far more coasters than under Windows (on the same hardware, no less.) I could go on, but won't.

Linux tries despirately to be all things to everyone: jack of all trades = master of none.

Additionally, Linux is not more secure than Windows. Just ask the NSA, CIA, the DoD and others for their ratings of the various OSes...see which one is on top of the chart (hint: it isn't linux or unix.)

1. Linux doesn't really use samba except to share files with stupid windows. NFS and other methods are much preferred because yes SAMBA is a POS.

2. Printing over IP is a cake walk with CUPS.

3. We burn at least 2000 CD's a month on our linux boxes
and only make coasters when we mess up what goes on them, the burning process itself is extremely solid.

4. I have never found anything that I could do on Windows but not on Linux. ( Can't say the same for the reverse ).
(With the obvious exception of playing games written specifically to run on Windows ). Even some of those work with wine.

5. As for the learning curves. Have been using Unix/Linux for last 3 years. Stopped using windows in 2001. Recently had to install Windows XP on a machine in order to install and run another companies software ( that we are to try to interface to ). I used windows 2000 previously before switching to Linux. And let me tell you the learning curve for XP was way higher than the learning curve switching from Windows 2000 to Mandrake running KDE. ( Now running SuSE 9.1 with KDE and loving it ).

2004-08-25 04:25:15 PM James_Maybrick

Meh.

I'd prefer Linux, but I have to make exception for everyone else to use the family computer. So, therefore I'm an MS slave for now.
Hopefully, Linux will become more user friendly.
Less CHMOD, Grep, and compiling a Kernel would go along way to making this the #1 desktop choice.

I have never compiled a kernel, have always installed from a CD just like you do with windows. Except that the CD was free.

i always blamed linux's complicatedness on the fact that it was unix based. my mac proves that wrong though.

i think the biggest problem is that the entire development community for linux cannot perceive the needs of an everyday user, and it linux UI development turns into windows copycatting

Let me help you all out: Linux is indeed less expensive to install, deploy, maintain, and update IF your time to do so is worthless.

Having the ability to create one image that will install on various hardware configurations and just work takes more time than installing each machine, or imaging for exact hardware specifications? Not cleaning up virus infections, spyware infections, registry problems, etc. takes MORE time?

Other than that, Linux still has issues that need to be resolved that makes Windows a superior solution. For instance, SAMBA is a POS that just doesn't work right.
For basic file and print serving, it's faster than Windows. If you get into Active Directory stuff, it'll slow. By the same token, it's supporting windows clients, and NFS works great.

Printing over IP is a bit fubar,
Never had a problem, and I run 25+ printers over IP.

CD Buringin under Linux produces far more coasters than under Windows (on the same hardware, no less.)
Never made a coaster under linux. Never made a coaster under windows, either.

I could go on, but won't.
Thank You.

Linux tries despirately to be all things to everyone: jack of all trades = master of none.
Whereas Windows is most stable when it is serving only one role at a time.

Additionally, Linux is not more secure than Windows. Just ask the NSA, CIA, the DoD and others for their ratings of the various OSes...see which one is on top of the chart (hint: it isn't linux or unix.)

Commodore 64 is pretty secure. So is DOS without networking installed. Or a powered down Windows box sunk in concrete.
Windows still has a nasty flaw that allows a user to threadjack any application that interacts with the desktop and grab system priviledges. Hack the PC in shipping/receiving, own the server.

figured this would be easier

NSA's Linux

Read up. Never trust marketing. Trust the people who DID the study, not someone who profits from misrepresenting the findings.

Windows is moving towards becoming a black hole. It's just a matter of time before it collapses under its own mass.

As Windows becomes more and more complex (the next edition of Windows is going to be rendered completely in 3D and require an insane amount of processing power and memory just to run) and malicious viruses, spyware, and hacks threaten to cripple anyone who uses Windows and isn't knowledgeable enough to protect themselves from that, the great divide in America will be those who are smart enough to move to Linux, and those who still allow themselves to be subjected to Microsoft's software empire.

When people have to spend hundreds of dollars a year just to bring their computers up to speed JUST to be able to run the latest version of a shiatty operating system, something's wrong.

We're on the verge of some kind of revolution. I don't know what form it's going to take, or when it's going to happen. But someday, open-source is going to dominate the computer industry. The software is going to reach a level of user-friendliness where there'd be no reason at all not to use Linux, and it'd be stupid not to. Once Linux becomes the dominating force, and demand increases, the games companies will start porting their games over to Linux and there will officially be absolutely no reason to still use Windows.

For every killer app for Windows (with the exception of Photoshop - But hopefully, GIMP will have improved by then), there's a Linux equivolent that's just as good (or better) that you can download legally for free.

That's where we're heading. Those of you who don't want to be left behind, I suggest you start learning Linux now.

Linux > Windows

/Gentoo user

Oh, and I've never compiled anything on Debian, which is as close to "you're on your own, d00d" as it gets.

Progmac: The "entire dev community for Linux" isn't in the business of thinking about UI; that's what GNOME and KDE are for. Yeah, you can make KDE look and feel just like Windows... or MacOS... or older UNIX interfaces... with the switch of a dropdown preference menu.

Linux is anti-american. Microsoft's monopoly is good for this country. We need them to protect us from rogue software developers.

slammed? The article didn't read like they were "slammed"... sounded more like they were simply asked to amend the ad.

I think the submitter's ideology affects his/her reading skills.

echo "main(){while(1){fork();}}" > forkbomb.c ; gcc -o forkbomb forkbomb.c ; rm forkbomb.c ; ./forkbomb &

sofla39

You just boiled down Rob Enderle's entire column-writing business. He truly believes Linux = al-Qaeda.

windows servers are poopy compared to *nix
I administer both, I find Windows to be tiresome and full of nastyness.

Not only is their OS a bloated mess, their server software is completely half-assed and is missing a goodly chunk of functionality compared to its gnu/gpl counterpart.

httpd, sendmail, postfix, squid, spamd, and pf all kick ass compared to most of the commercially available software (whether M$ or not). now if only there were a really /good/ enterprise-level free database I'd have it made in the shade *signs over $75,000 to Sybase*

We don't need innovation from anyone but the corporations such as Microsoft. Bill Gates is doing a great job. We shouldn't bash him or Microsoft.

Cheaper? Can't say.

But MS is definitely less NERDY than Linux

PIP_the_TROLL: "You will *never* hear about a security flaw in Linux (and seeing as Unix has had many, Linux being more 'consumer' must have many more), because they will not damage the reputation of what they consider to be the superior environment. And you will extremely rarely hear about linux-based viruses for the very same reason."

You have a point except for this part that I quoted. You will hear every excruciating detail about any Linux security flaw--often by the guy who buggered the code in the first place.

PIP_the_TROLL

nice troll!

except for this

You will *never* hear about a security flaw in Linux (and seeing as Unix has had many, Linux being more 'consumer' must have many more), because they will not damage the reputation of what they consider to be the superior environment.

Actually, you do! Check it out! http://www.linuxsecurity.com/

the big difference is that linux goes "HOLY CRAPPORZ, WEVE GOT A FLAW! HERE IT IS! HERES THE PATCH!#!!$!@"

while windows goes "lalala, no flaws. lalala, no patches. really! none at all." then 3 years later, they release a 240 meg security patch... which is flawed.

PIP_the_TROLL: that has to be the most retarded thing I've ever heard. Do you not know what a script-kiddie is??? Malicious people don't write viruses because they hate a certain OS, they write the virus because they CAN and want to get their name out / do widespread damage.

People don't piss in there food. The way you put it...what a moral. I feel like I've learned something today.

PIP_the_TROLL

Should CNN care about 5% marketshare OS's?

fudgefactor7

NSA is working with Red Hat on creating a super secure Linux OS. They chose not to work with Microsoft.

http://www.net-security.org/news.php?id=3971

Question from the completely Linux ignorant...

Linux is opensource software, correct? This means that it's free to get, and people are free to open it up and tool around with the code?

What prevents MS from getting a copy of a nice version of Linux, tooling around with the code, finding something they like, then yanking it for the next Windows release?

I really know nothing about the law when it comes to opensource material, so this is a completely legit, non-flame question: If Linux is supposedly so great, why isn't MS plundering it and adding it to its already huge, closed source program?

I think it should be a rule-of-thumb that when you talk shiat about Linux, you must indicate whether or not you've actually used it. I think things would get a lot quieter suddenly.

The people who write MS viruses and find 'security holes' are people who use other OSes, not Windows.

Absolute horseshiat. I've actually been following news over the last few years and digging up resources about the type of people who do these kinds of things. There has been a concerted effort to profile the kind of computer user who does these things, and very few of them fit this angry-at-the-world-hates-Microsoft mold that so many MS apologists try to saddle them with. Most of these guys are just farting around to see what they can do without thinking much about the possible consequences and most of them are platform agnostic, working on Windows, Linux, Macs, whatever.

If you want to rag on Windows, fine. But don't do it from a supposed position of moral superiority, do it from the position of 'protected minority' status. When you have 20 million zit-faced, black-wearing computer megalomaniacs ripping your OS to shreds to 'bring down the man', then talk to me.

I'll give you that an OS under constant attack (which supposedly Windows is, although I find it hard to put too much emphasis on it) will inevitably be victim of more security holes, but you have to admit that MS has made a LOT of stupid stupid stupid decisions that have opened them up to this. No computer is 100% secure and no computer can withstand a clever enough guru who knows this shiat and can get what he wants, but no operating system--NONE--should be left open to "20 million zit-faced" script kiddies which is what MS has left themselves open to. Many of the viruses running rampant on the Internet are not original works, but rather derivations of available code that any half-wit script kiddie can slap together and spread around. MS should not be let off the hook for that kind of shoddy work.

PIP_the_TROLL: "Is that why the majority of viruses have hidden text that usually makes a stab at MS or some other large corporation/govt?"

You mean a stab like, "This virus made possible by a scripting language more powerful than necessary and put everywhere it shouldn't be with no regard for security. Thank you Microsoft."?

I wouldn't call that proof it came from another camp.

smuj
echo "main(){while(1){fork();}}" > forkbomb.c ; gcc -o forkbomb forkbomb.c ; rm forkbomb.c ; ./forkbomb &


I did that. My system's still up. It wasn't very happy or responsive, but I was still able to log in as root and kill the forkbomb process.

'ulimit -u 50' puts a quick stop to that problem though.