I'm considering SuSE for my next distro. I switched to RHEL recently because I wanted a stable, supported machine that I didn't have to think too hard about keeping up to date. Today I had to mess around because makedev from up2date conflicts with something I had to add because RedHat doesn't include multimedia support. If that wasn't frustrating enough, I upgraded to their most recent XFree86 rpms. A ctrl-shift-alt-backspace locked up my machine. It's still down because I'm tired of dealing with it fo
Well, apart from license and money reasons, are there any grounds for using Linux on desktops? I know I sound trollish, but I'm writing it honestly -- I've just thrown away my Debian machine, since I had to spend too much time with it. For me -- who uses a word processor, IM, mail and web client -- Windows (in XP flavour) is just better. When properly set up, it simply works. I don't have to mess with setting up Java, I don't have any problems with unstable drivers, my system never ever hangs up, has not been reinstalled since the first installation... What do I need more? It, well, just works.
I almost agree with you. It's that little "apart from license and money reasons" thing that gets me. Of course, apart from money reasons, I'd be using a PowerBook 17".
Really, I can almost like XP, so long as I can switch the interface back to "Classic Mode" it's fairly usable. But if I don't like the way MS' designers decided that people should use computers, I'm out of luck for changing it. With Linux, I can do a lot at the command line, where I'm comfortable (if not talented), and when running KDE (which is most of the time), I can configure it to do a lot of stuff that I can't do (or it costs money to add the software for) on Windows.
And, as far as the "just works" part, so do a lot of Linux distros. Pick any one of the major distros and you've got a fully-confgured, ready to run system about twenty minutes after starting your installation. The basic software is good (Open Office, Mozilla, Evolution, etc.), and a user that just wants to get by with whatever they're handed is not left wanting for much. And, mind you, I don't say that derisively. With any modern OS (okay, the major three: Windows, MacOS, Linux), the basic distro includes enough software for most users. On Windows you should really add MS Works and on MacOS add AppleWorks and the iLife packages, but without ranging too far or spending an exhorbitant amount of money, lots of functionality is at hand.
But for me, supporting freedom in an OS is important. Microsoft would go a long way toward dowsing the fire of contempt that's burning at their door if they released their core OS (without any add-ons like Paint or Wordpad or any of the myriad extras they put into their distro) as Open Source and sold what are now XP Home, Pro and Server as commercialized add-on packages with support options.
But that's just me. I'm really looking forward to what Novell is going to do once they've integrated SUSE, Ximian and their previous software (NetWare, NDS, GroupWise, etc) into one software line.
Microsoft would go a long way toward dowsing the fire of contempt that's burning at their door if they released their core OS (without any add-ons like Paint or Wordpad or any of the myriad extras they put into their distro) as Open Source and sold what are now XP Home, Pro and Server as commercialized add-on packages with support options.
I just literally laughed out loud...BWHAHAHAHAHA! Are you kidding me? That is simply NOT a reasonable thing for a for profit company that is making oodles of money off
Oh, I didn't say that I thought they would, or even that I would in their position. I might, but I don't know for sure. As it is, how much do you think they charge Dell and Compaq (now HP, btw) for an OS license? Last I heard it's around $35. And, even if MS released the core OS for free, but continued to charge $35 to OEMs for the full package, the OEMs would continue to buy that. It's easier to do that than create a software development division and then the support agency to go with it.
When properly set up, it simply works. I don't have to mess with setting up Java, I don't have any problems with unstable drivers, my system never ever hangs up, has not been reinstalled since the first installation... What do I need more? It, well, just works.
That's funny, those are some of the same reasons I prefer Linux on the desktop (at the moment, Mandrake 9.1). But hey -- use whatever works for you, and I'll do the same.
Well, apart from license and money reasons, are there any grounds for using Linux on desktops?
1) Some people like configuring and building things from scratch, Linux gives them that power.
2) No artificially forced hardware upgrades. Linux can still run on a 486 with 32MB of Ram and make it usefull again, will XP?
3) Linux is being constantly improved on a daily basis. The next version of Windows won't be out till 2006. Maybe.
4) Linux doesn't monitor your internet activity and report back to it's creators without your knowledge as a standard practice.
5) Linux is being developed by people who love computers and programming, always eager to find new solutions to your problems. Windows is being developed by people who love your money and want to find new ways to seperate you from it.
6) Linux is packaged and sold by dozens of companies willing to cater to any market and customize their software as necessary. Windows is sold by one corporation unwilling to change except for its largest customers. Your needs are immaterial to them.
7) When you develop software for Linux the market is open to competition. When you develop software for Windows you're constantly looking over your shoulder for Microsoft to decide your enough of a threat that they need to crush you.
8) Linux gives the user unlimited options to configure their system as they wish. Microsoft grudgingly gives limited ability to customize it's software and ties many of it tools to each other in convoluted knots meant to keep the user from straying to other vendors.
9) Linux adheres to open, published standards whenever possible ensuring that your data is easily transportable to other programs or operating systems. Microsoft 'improves' published standards with proprietary unpublished changes that lock you into their software and make moving to other vendors or OSes a logistics nightmare.
10) Linux doesn't make bold advertising campaigns about the new features that will be in it's next release, force VARs and developers to start training and preparing for those new features so that they can be ready to market and then slowly whittle down or outright dump those features because they have become unfeasable/obsolete/unprofitable as the release date gets pushed farther and farther back.
Linux doesn't monitor your internet activity and report back to it's creators without your knowledge as a standard practice.
That really depends on what software you install and run. If you run non-free software, you can't be sure what it is doing. It doesn't matter if this is non-free kernal modules or userspace applications like RealPlayer, Netscape, and Opera. An entirely free software [gnu.org] system gives you the freedom to inspect your system (in addition to other freedoms which are also valuable) and
That's a very good point, running Closed software is an unknown, whether it's on an Open or a Closed platform. At least with an Open OS, you know (or can verify) that the base is trustworthy. Personally, once I recognized the true value of Free software, there was no way I could accept a Closed OS again, be it Windoze, Amiga, Be, or any other.
1) Some people like configuring and building things from scratch, Linux gives them that power.
On the "news for geeks" site that's not a surprising answer, but, get real, how many people like to do it in an everyday life? 1%? 0,5%? Moreover, how many of you uses build-from-scratch distro, like Gentoo?
2) No artificially forced hardware upgrades. Linux can still run on a 486 with 32MB of Ram and make it usefull again, will XP?
No, it won't, naturally. But will you be able to do on this Linux all the things
2) No artificially forced hardware upgrades. Linux can still run on a 486 with 32MB of Ram and make it usefull again, will XP?
If all you're interested in running on that 486 is an operating system they're equally useful. If you're interested in actually running some modern applications that make the computer more than an electronic means of creating heat and noise, you're equally screwed, since the 486 is an ancient underpowered piece of trash.
(as a purely practical matter, XP will probably refuse to run
Well other than that one bit of unpleasantness, how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln.
> I've just thrown away my Debian machine
Think I have located your problem. Debian is not for you. Debian is for extreme power users and developers, plus the fanboys in dorms. You would have had much better luck with a desktop distro like Mandrake, Suse or RedHat/Fedora.
> For me -- who uses a word processor, IM, mail and web client -- Windows > (in XP flavour)
Well, apart from license and money reasons, are there any grounds for using Linux on desktops?
There are plenty of reasons -
Linux is more secure, more reliable, performs excellently, and grants me much more flexibility than microsoft windows. Several of the available desktop environments are quite appealing, and I find them much less boring than expee.
I'll gladly pay for a linux distro to install over the microsoft windows that comes with most new systems these days.
Hey, if it "just works" for you, fine. Your experience doesn't match that of a couple of friends who recently acquired an XP machine (spontaneously locks up after a few minutes, but only on every other boot) but that could be different hardware issues.
But what you said -- "When properly set up, it simply works. I don't have to mess with setting up Java, I don't have any problems with unstable drivers, my system never ever hangs up, has not been reinstalled since the first installation..." -- equally appl
on a KVM switch. And if you're doing anything with networked services, anything BESIDES windows is what you want. Not that I think Windows is inheritely less secure if properly set up, but that because they want you to pay for and license anything that can get you to... ICS, IIS, SQL, mail, file sharing with more than 10 people, etc. That's bullshit.
Man must shape his tools lest they shape him.
-- Arthur R. Miller
Contempt (Score:2, Interesting)
I'd switch to SuSE if they still produced SPARC binaries in modern kernels. They stopped updating that arch at about 7.1.
Re:Contempt (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Contempt (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Contempt (Score:5, Insightful)
Really, I can almost like XP, so long as I can switch the interface back to "Classic Mode" it's fairly usable. But if I don't like the way MS' designers decided that people should use computers, I'm out of luck for changing it. With Linux, I can do a lot at the command line, where I'm comfortable (if not talented), and when running KDE (which is most of the time), I can configure it to do a lot of stuff that I can't do (or it costs money to add the software for) on Windows.
And, as far as the "just works" part, so do a lot of Linux distros. Pick any one of the major distros and you've got a fully-confgured, ready to run system about twenty minutes after starting your installation. The basic software is good (Open Office, Mozilla, Evolution, etc.), and a user that just wants to get by with whatever they're handed is not left wanting for much. And, mind you, I don't say that derisively. With any modern OS (okay, the major three: Windows, MacOS, Linux), the basic distro includes enough software for most users. On Windows you should really add MS Works and on MacOS add AppleWorks and the iLife packages, but without ranging too far or spending an exhorbitant amount of money, lots of functionality is at hand.
But for me, supporting freedom in an OS is important. Microsoft would go a long way toward dowsing the fire of contempt that's burning at their door if they released their core OS (without any add-ons like Paint or Wordpad or any of the myriad extras they put into their distro) as Open Source and sold what are now XP Home, Pro and Server as commercialized add-on packages with support options.
But that's just me. I'm really looking forward to what Novell is going to do once they've integrated SUSE, Ximian and their previous software (NetWare, NDS, GroupWise, etc) into one software line.
Re:Contempt (Score:1)
I just literally laughed out loud...BWHAHAHAHAHA!
Are you kidding me? That is simply NOT a reasonable thing for a for profit company that is making oodles of money off
Re:Contempt (Score:2)
Re:Contempt (Score:2)
When properly set up, it simply works. I don't have to mess with setting up Java, I don't have any problems with unstable drivers, my system never ever hangs up, has not been reinstalled since the first installation... What do I need more? It, well, just works.
That's funny, those are some of the same reasons I prefer Linux on the desktop (at the moment, Mandrake 9.1). But hey -- use whatever works for you, and I'll do the same.
Re:Contempt (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Some people like configuring and building things from scratch, Linux gives them that power.
2) No artificially forced hardware upgrades. Linux can still run on a 486 with 32MB of Ram and make it usefull again, will XP?
3) Linux is being constantly improved on a daily basis. The next version of Windows won't be out till 2006. Maybe.
4) Linux doesn't monitor your internet activity and report back to it's creators without your knowledge as a standard practice.
5) Linux is being developed by people who love computers and programming, always eager to find new solutions to your problems. Windows is being developed by people who love your money and want to find new ways to seperate you from it.
6) Linux is packaged and sold by dozens of companies willing to cater to any market and customize their software as necessary. Windows is sold by one corporation unwilling to change except for its largest customers. Your needs are immaterial to them.
7) When you develop software for Linux the market is open to competition. When you develop software for Windows you're constantly looking over your shoulder for Microsoft to decide your enough of a threat that they need to crush you.
8) Linux gives the user unlimited options to configure their system as they wish. Microsoft grudgingly gives limited ability to customize it's software and ties many of it tools to each other in convoluted knots meant to keep the user from straying to other vendors.
9) Linux adheres to open, published standards whenever possible ensuring that your data is easily transportable to other programs or operating systems. Microsoft 'improves' published standards with proprietary unpublished changes that lock you into their software and make moving to other vendors or OSes a logistics nightmare.
10) Linux doesn't make bold advertising campaigns about the new features that will be in it's next release, force VARs and developers to start training and preparing for those new features so that they can be ready to market and then slowly whittle down or outright dump those features because they have become unfeasable/obsolete/unprofitable as the release date gets pushed farther and farther back.
Re:Contempt (Score:2)
Software freedom is worth supporting. (Score:2)
That really depends on what software you install and run. If you run non-free software, you can't be sure what it is doing. It doesn't matter if this is non-free kernal modules or userspace applications like RealPlayer, Netscape, and Opera. An entirely free software [gnu.org] system gives you the freedom to inspect your system (in addition to other freedoms which are also valuable) and
Re:Software freedom is worth supporting. (Score:1)
That's a very good point, running Closed software is an unknown, whether it's on an Open or a Closed platform. At least with an Open OS, you know (or can verify) that the base is trustworthy. Personally, once I recognized the true value of Free software, there was no way I could accept a Closed OS again, be it Windoze, Amiga, Be, or any other.
Re:Contempt (Score:1)
On the "news for geeks" site that's not a surprising answer, but, get real, how many people like to do it in an everyday life? 1%? 0,5%? Moreover, how many of you uses build-from-scratch distro, like Gentoo?
2) No artificially forced hardware upgrades. Linux can still run on a 486 with 32MB of Ram and make it usefull again, will XP?
No, it won't, naturally. But will you be able to do on this Linux all the things
Re:Contempt (Score:2)
If all you're interested in running on that 486 is an operating system they're equally useful. If you're interested in actually running some modern applications that make the computer more than an electronic means of creating heat and noise, you're equally screwed, since the 486 is an ancient underpowered piece of trash.
(as a purely practical matter, XP will probably refuse to run
Re:Contempt (Score:2)
Well other than that one bit of unpleasantness, how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln.
> I've just thrown away my Debian machine
Think I have located your problem. Debian is not for you. Debian is for extreme power users and developers, plus the fanboys in dorms. You would have had much better luck with a desktop distro like Mandrake, Suse or RedHat/Fedora.
> For me -- who uses a word processor, IM, mail and web client -- Windows
> (in XP flavour)
Re:Contempt (Score:1)
Hilarious!!! Got to remember that one...
Re:Contempt (Score:2)
There are plenty of reasons -
Linux is more secure, more reliable, performs excellently, and grants me much more flexibility than microsoft windows. Several of the available desktop environments are quite appealing, and I find them much less boring than expee.
I'll gladly pay for a linux distro to install over the microsoft windows that comes with most new systems these days.
The fact that I can download most d
Re:Contempt (Score:2)
But what you said -- "When properly set up, it simply works. I don't have to mess with setting up Java, I don't have any problems with unstable drivers, my system never ever hangs up, has not been reinstalled since the first installation..." -- equally appl
You really need one of each... (Score:1)
And if you're doing anything with networked services, anything BESIDES windows is what you want. Not that I think Windows is inheritely less secure if properly set up, but that because they want you to pay for and license anything that can get you to... ICS, IIS, SQL, mail, file sharing with more than 10 people, etc.
That's bullshit.