An observation | The Coffeehouse

chemstudent

What is the draw to Linux?

I have tried the newest version of Ubuntu and I guess I just don't get it. I am by no means someone who is new to computers but I do not understand.

Some of have suggested that some flavors of Linux are better than Windows or Mac because it is free and easier to use and the user is given a choice in a variety of ways (source code, customization, etc). If my parent's can not figure out something as simple as Mac OS X how can I expect them to understand Linux?

Many sites have promoted the use of Linux to compete with Windows in the desktop area once Vista arrives, but after reading through the Ubuntuguide and trying to get stuff working, personally, I am tired of having to access the terminal to get anything working and installed. Yes, they have an "Add application" program, which has simplified installations, but there are dependence errors, some of which I can not decipher.

I guess I just want my computer to work for me, not the opposite. I am not promoting Windows, Mac, anything, but I believe they have to be a lot easier to use than any current Linux offering. As a student and someone who does not devote his life to computers, sometimes I just want the easiest and quickest way to accomplish a task.

I am just curious to see the reply with this group. I know many of you are Windows users, but I also have read many of you have tried some flavor of Linux.

Steve411

It's free. It's not likely to be hacked more than Windows.

- Steve

mVPstar
I'm white because I smelt an onion.

Steve411 wrote:
It's free. It's not likely to be hacked more than Windows.

- Steve

It's not that hard to secure Windows either. If you weight the ease of use for each category between the Operating Systems, it would seem that Linux overall is harder to get started.

Though, I've never really used Linux so I wouldn't know how challenging it is to do stuff. I'd assume once you get started, it's not that bad after awhile.

dotnetjunkie

Steve411, get your facts right.

Linux is hacked a lot more than Linux. Of all the servers out there on the Internet, far more linux servers are compromised than windows servers...

There are several reasons for that:
linux is harder to secure and configure, people have a false sense of security (hey, it's linux, so it must be secure), a lot of students or wanna-be hosters use linux, etc...

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

dotnetjunkie wrote:
Steve411, get your facts right.

Linux is hacked a lot more than Linux. Of all the servers out there on the Internet, far more linux servers are compromised than windows servers...

...how about because Linux servers outnumber Windows servers almost 4-to-1?

dotnetjunkie wrote:
There are several reasons for that:
linux is harder to secure and configure

Tried Ubuntu lately?

And don't tell me Windows Server 2003 network with SQL Server, Exchange, and the rest is "easy" to secure.

Don't forget you're vulnerable between "Thursday Patch" days.

dotnetjunkie wrote:
people have a false sense of security (hey, it's linux, so it must be secure), a lot of students or wanna-be hosters use linux, etc...

Not true.

People go for Linux because its cheaper, not because its perceived to be "more secure".

Besides, if you want secure go with NetBSD.

dotnetjunkie

Also, the free thing doesn't cut it in a professional setting. If you compare the cost of paying a Windows vs Linux consultant by the hour, your license is paid instantly...

Bottom line is, to respond to the question of the topic starter, that Linux only proves to be worth it in very specific scenarios, for which Windows doesn't offer an equally attractive solution (or no solution at all, think of software BGP routing for example...)

All these specific cases are server uses BTW, you should never even try to use linux as a desktop OS!

dotnetjunkie

W3bbo, whatever you say, you can't get around the fact that nearly all student/wanna-be hosters use linux, and they actually know crap about it!
When going for Windows 2003 hosting, you have far better chance of getting a reliable, secure host, who knows his stuff!

And why do you think that the vast majority of fortune 1000 companies use windows servers and no linux? (or at least not on the Internet)

TimP

It's tough to explain, but in a lot of cases it just works, or it works better. I use an open source mainframe emulator called Hercules which runs on Windows and Hercules.

On Linux:
- Pull source code from CVS (2 commands)
- Autoconf, configure with 4 virtual CPU support, make, install (can be accomplished with one concatenated command)
- Networking support is already there (Universal TUN/TAP)
- Enable IP forwarding in a plain text file
- Run

On Windows:
- No built in CVS tools, have to find one on Sourceforge
- Can't compile it myself without VC++ toolkit or Visual Studio so I can't enable specific compile time features like support for > 2 virtual CPUs
- Have to install a 3rd party networking driver to use a second virtual IP address on my machine
- Need to hack the registry to enable a well hid IP forwarding option
- Run

I'm not saying this is true in all cases, but the above example is why I run Hercules exclusively on Linux. I've tried it both ways but would never use the Windows version. The same goes for a lot of open source projects.

I'm not saying that Linux is better than Windows. Windows is still ahead of Linux in GUI usability, stability, and features. This is why I primarily use Windows for my web surfing, word processing, and instant messaging but I use Linux for more server oriented tasks in my network like intranet web serving, running Windows file shares, DNS, and other software like Hercules. I could perform a lot of the Linux tasks on Windows Server, but Linux costs me nothing and I feel more in control with Linux.

TimP

dotnetjunkie wrote:
And why do you think that the vast majority of fortune 1000 companies use windows servers and no linux? (or at least not on the Internet)

That is so horribly inaccurate.

dotnetjunkie

TimP, no it is not, go check recent studies, you can find them easily using Google or MSN Search.

edit: just tried it myself.... very first link in Google already confirmed it...
http://www.port80software.com/surveys/top1000webservers/

It is even more now!

TimP

That's funny, I was talking to Morgan Stanley reps yesterday (hey what do you know, they're #39 on the Fortune 500), and they were discussing how heavily they're using Linux throughout the company.

So I guess IIS having a 50% marketshare and Apache having nearly 25% means no Linux servers? Yeah, sure.

dotnetjunkie

TimP wrote:

That's funny, I was talking to Morgan Stanley reps yesterday (hey what do you know, they're #39 on the Fortune 500), and they were discussing how heavily they're using Linux throughout the company.

So I guess IIS having a 50% marketshare and Apache having nearly 25% means no Linux servers? Yeah, sure.

The only thing funny (not "ha ha" funny however) is how you look at one company and then conclude that the observation that the majority uses Windows servers instead of linux is wrong...
Of course Linux servers are being used a lot, I never meant to say otherwise.

Morgan Stanley uses Apache, as you can see here:
http://www.port80software.com/tools/headercheckreport.asp?url=www.morganstanley.com&l=1

But like I said, the trend is very clear, most big corporations already use IIS, and more are switching towards .NET...

Detroit Muscle
Wii!

I use Linux at home because GNOME is easier to use then the explorer.exe interface. I also find the Linux version of Matlab to be more stable than the Windows version.

I also use Linux alot at work: Starscan

TimP

Then maybe you should reconsider posting statements like this:

dotnetjunkie wrote:
And why do you think that the vast majority of fortune 1000 companies use windows servers and no linux? (or at least not on the Internet)

Morgan Stanley, in fact, uses a mix of Windows and Linux servers. Their IT guys summed it up like this: use the right tool for problem. In some cases it's Linux, in others it's Windows.

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

W3bbo wrote:

Don't forget you're vulnerable between "Thursday Patch" days.

Tuesdays, not Thursday Wink

Stephen.

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

dotnetjunkie wrote:

Bottom line is, to respond to the question of the topic starter, that Linux only proves to be worth it in very specific scenarios, for which Windows doesn't offer an equally attractive solution (or no solution at all, think of software BGP routing for example...)

Rubbish! I really like Windows as an OS but there are times when there is no getting away from the fact that Linux and the like are a better option, take for example web host, and I mean professional, large scale hosting not some kid on the end of a DSL line. There is no way windows can compete with Linux/Apache in large server farms purely due to cost.

If you have only a couple of machines then TCO could swing in windows favour, but if you have hundreds to thousands of identical machines then linux/whaterverBSD is the way to go.

Also Linux is perfectly viable as a desktop OS depending on what you want to do, not for me as I make my living out of Windows but I know many people that are happy with it as their only desktop.

Just wish it had a decent 16bit colour RDP client.

Stephen.

PerfectPhase
"This is not war, this is pest control!" - Dalek to Cyberman

TimP wrote:
Morgan Stanley, in fact, uses a mix of Windows and Linux servers. Their IT guys summed it up like this: use the right tool for problem. In some cases it's Linux, in others it's Windows.

This is exactly the right attitude to have. It really (I need to watch my language)s me off that people, especially people making business decisions, become emotionally attached to an OS. It's a tool nothing more, evaluate what you need and what skills and tools you have and pick the best solution based on that.

Stephen.

IRenderable
Pi

Every OS sucks.

I have actually deleted my Linux partition to force me to really learn DirectX finally.

Gandalf
You cannot pass!

chemstudent wrote:
What is the draw to Linux?

Well, I am primarily a Linux user. All throughout grad school and into my current job, I have not had to touch Windows at all (except for the rare occasion I go to the general lab to do some scanning), so perhaps I'm somewhat qualified to answer this. For a lot of us Linux users, Linux just makes computers work the way we want it to. Nice powerful command shell, it's incredibly customisable, simple yet powerful programming API, very nifty network utilities (ssh!), the list goes on. The main reason however is that it comes with kernel source, and I love playing around with it. My area of research interest is operating systems, so having the free source code to the Linux kernel is a priceless feature.

chemstudent wrote:

Some of have suggested that some flavors of Linux are better than Windows or Mac because it is free and easier to use and the user is given a choice in a variety of ways (source code, customization, etc). If my parent's can not figure out something as simple as Mac OS X how can I expect them to understand Linux?

"Better" is quite subjective. For me personally, Linux offers a better computing environment than Windows where I can work comfortably. I can't live without gcc, ssh, LaTeX, vim, apache, grep, python... yeah I know you can install those on other operating systems too, but I like my OS to have Unix-like behaviour, plus have all my favourite programs available by default.

However, it's not everyone's cup of tea. Graphics professionals may find the tools available rather lacking in features compared to the programs they can run on Windows or Mac OS X. There's also that incredibly steep learning curve before it becomes "comfortable".

chemstudent wrote:
I guess I just want my computer to work for me, not the opposite. I am not promoting Windows, Mac, anything, but I believe they have to be a lot easier to use than any current Linux offering. As a student and someone who does not devote his life to computers, sometimes I just want the easiest and quickest way to accomplish a task.

I use Linux for the very same reason you mention : I want my computer to work for me, not the opposite. I guess I just connect with Linux better than other OSs. But at the end of the day, just use what works for you. I'm not a fan of making someone use an OS they are not comfortable with, just as I myself do not want to use an OS which I find uncomfortable.

oloce

Well, linux, depending on the distro, is more secure and stable than Windows, despite MS-backed studies, and despite the fact this gap has closed quite a bit in the last few years. I DO, however tend to agree with MS fans when they point out that this is just because the target audience isn't out there. When most people are using Windows on the desktop, that's what crooked hackers are going to target.

So, if that's not why, then why? Myself, I was a big Mac guy for years before switching, basically for that reason. But, though I still love MacOS, the hardware is just too expensive. I can build an Intel or AMD box to run with Apple's latest for half the price. It wasn't a hard decision to go with linux over windows, given what I use on a regular basis:

Windows setup:

Server 2003 10 CAL's: $1139.45
Acrobat 7.0 Standard: $269.77
Photoshop: $589.00
Office 2003 Pro: $469.00
Visual Basic 2003: $99.25
Visual C++: $100.70
Total: $2667.17

Linux setup:

Suse 9.3 Pro (mostly just to have to printed reference manuals): $99.99
With OpenOffice, Gimp, built-in PDF support, compilers, 8 or 9 powerful editors...and a lot of stuff I haven't even started playing with.

This doesn't even count running into fun surprises with Windows...like not being able to burn an .iso image without downloading third-party software. Sure, things like Amarok (audio), Kaffeine (video), and K3b (burning) can be considered 3rd party to SUSE, but at least it's on the darn disk.

I don't believe for a second that Windows is easier to use than, say, KDE or Gnome (linux desktops). Easier to set up for your average user, yes, but not necessarily easier to use. And I have certainly had tons more trouble recently with our Windows network at work lately than my home network run by linux.

Is linux ready for your average desktop user? Probably not. But the average desktop user had a friend willing to set it up for him, that user probably wouldn't notice any but the most arbitrary differences. Yes, people who have problems with Mac are likely to have problems with linux, but they'll have problems with Windows too. Computers require a giant shift in thinking the same way that the printing press and the writen word itself did before them. (Still can't get my mom to figure out she doesn't have to press enter after every line in a text document, she still think's it's a carriage return.)

Beyond all that, there's the nice thought of open source. No matter what you think about different (and sometimes spacey and disorganized) developers working on the software, at least it means you're not locked into a specific vendor. The vendor of our ERP software at work wouldn't share with us what database their application is built on. Why? Because they knew that if we found out the database, the data would relatively portable and we could find someone else with whom to do business. I'm not sure their product isn't the best on the market, but if I have to pay a ton of money to have the data moved to a new application, they can charge a heck of a lot more for their product.

This is basically the same reason Microsoft changes their Office documents' format every few years, or why Intuit stopped supporting .qif files in Quicken. If you can't move your data easily, they can charge a lot more. Maybe Quicken or Office isn't the best or most cost-effective application out there. I still can't really switch if they're the only applications that can read my last five years worth of finances or documents, unless I can find or pay for a conversion application or feel the need to re-enter the data by hand. I'd much prefer that my vendors are forced by the market to offer the highest-value product out there, whether they're the manufacturers of the products I sell or the manufacturers of my software.

Is linux going to take over the world? Is MS going down? Probably not, for both of those. But at least it's putting pressure on MS to change the way they do business and offer higher value for their products. That alone is enough reason to want to at least experiment with linux. And let's not forget what happened to Netscape browsers. A competing company broke into the market, offered a comparable product for free, and pretty much drove them out of the browser business.

Ain't it funny how that big wheel keeps turning?

IRenderable
Pi

oloce wrote:

Windows setup:

Server 2003 10 CAL's: $1139.45
Acrobat 7.0 Standard: $269.77
Photoshop: $589.00
Office 2003 Pro: $469.00
Visual Basic 2003: $99.25
Visual C++: $100.70
Total: $2667.17

Linux setup:

Suse 9.3 Pro (mostly just to have to printed reference manuals): $99.99
With OpenOffice, Gimp, built-in PDF support, compilers, 8 or 9 powerful editors...and a lot of stuff I haven't even started playing with.

You know you can get OpenOffice, Gimp, PDF support for free (What you thought you had to pay Adobe for it?), almost all of the compilers they have on Linux on Windows to for free, most of those text editors you speak of also have ports to windows (Emacs, Vim, and lots of others).

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

oloce wrote:
Well, linux, depending on the distro, is more secure and stable than Windows, despite MS-backed studies

Ya....ok...someone has to pay for the test.

oloce wrote:

given what I use on a regular basis:

Windows setup:

Server 2003 10 CAL's: $1139.45
Acrobat 7.0 Standard: $269.77
Photoshop: $589.00
Office 2003 Pro: $469.00
Visual Basic 2003: $99.25
Visual C++: $100.70
Total: $2667.17

Linux setup:

Suse 9.3 Pro (mostly just to have to printed reference manuals): $99.99
With OpenOffice, Gimp, built-in PDF support, compilers, 8 or 9 powerful editors...and a lot of stuff I haven't even started playing with.

Let one of those apps fail or quit working for some reason or another. I hope your business can survive while waiting for someone to reply on the message board or a bug tracker. I for one will call tech support for help

oloce wrote:
Easier to set up for your average user, yes, but not necessarily easier to use. And I have certainly had tons more trouble recently with our Windows network at work lately than my home network run by linux.

On Windows if my wife needs to move something from her user account over to a folder on mine I can drag and drop if I'm an administrator. Being the fact I trust myself I run as admin on my Windows box. When I was on Linux before I had to "su" up and move the files then go back to my regular account (Because I didn't trust myself to run as su on Linux).

Also reference my thread about my day with Linux. Fix all of that and I might consider going back. Fix all of that and someone should probably hire you.

oloce wrote:
But the average desktop user had a friend willing to set it up for him, that user probably wouldn't notice any but the most arbitrary differences.

Till they go to double click on something Wink

"Hey Steve how do I run this program?"

oloce wrote:
Beyond all that, there's the nice thought of open source. No matter what you think about different (and sometimes spacey and disorganized) developers working on the software, at least it means you're not locked into a specific vendor.

With least user privilage comes least user support - Spidermans next door neighbor

Try to compile a program that isn't for a "mainstream" distro...LOL Yeah right...

oloce wrote:
I'd much prefer that my vendors are forced by the market to offer the highest-value product out there, whether they're the manufacturers of the products I sell or the manufacturers of my software.

They are...hence why the GPL doesn't really work. Closed format means they can charge what it takes to keep developing to improve it. Open source means I take what you have...edit it to make it better and put you out of business...with your own product.

oloce wrote:
But at least it's putting pressure on MS to change the way they do business and offer higher value for their products. That alone is enough reason to want to at least experiment with linux. And let's not forget what happened to Netscape browsers. A competing company broke into the market, offered a comparable product for free, and pretty much drove them out of the browser business.

Are you talking about Firefox? If so the whole entire Organization is almost exactlly from Netscape. Also alot of the documentation that they have is taken straight from Netscape (Trust me I know). Plus

Netscape 8

oloce wrote:

Ain't it funny how that big wheel keeps turning?

Isn't it funny how many Linux users keep spitting out the same FUD toward Microsoft?

yman

oloce wrote:

Windows setup:

Server 2003 10 CAL's: $1139.45
Acrobat 7.0 Standard: $269.77
Photoshop: $589.00
Office 2003 Pro: $469.00
Visual Basic 2003: $99.25
Visual C++: $100.70
Total: $2667.17

If you are using Suse (thats mainly consumer linux right?) then why would you be buying a server OS with Cals. If you chose Suse wouldn't a £100 XP home do you?

TimP

Cybermagellan wrote:
Try to compile a program that isn't for a "mainstream" distro...LOL Yeah right...

./configure
make
make install

Sabot
My name is Dave Oliver. I'm a Technical Architect.

In the Red corner we have Linux fan-boys!

In the Blue corner we have Windows fan-boys!

Does anyone else get really sick of these pointless debates?

Peoples requirements are different from one another.

Not one type of OS will cater for everyones requirements.

Are you all so stupid that you haven't figured that out yet?

Fan boys! Grow some brains! ... or please, please, put a sock in it!