Linux OS; Why?

[Black wallnut]

Okay I'm sitting on the fence. I'm considering buying a new desktop and passing down my current on to the kids. I really do not wish to buy MS Vista but I'm not looking to spend much money.

Currently I use XP Home at home and XP Pro at work. At home I tried Openoffice.org and did not like it. I tried sm office 2007 first free and after less than an hour decided that I would buy the full version. I also have and use CutList Plus. Will I still be able to use both of these programs if I were to go Free?

[Mr__Bill]

Mark, there are emulators that allow almost any windows application to run under Linux.

I agree about Open Office, but the current version is much different from the release of a few years ago, you may want to give it a try again.

You can get a version of Linux that runs off of a CD, sort of a try before you commit. It's slow that way but does give you a feel for it. You can also dual boot between Linux and Windows on your current home computer and then try out emulators to see just how your programs that you have to have or like to use work under Linux

Bill,

[crokett]

Mark, some folks use Linux because it is free. Others use it because they don't like Microsoft as a company. That said, even though it doesn't cost money, it does cost time - there is a learning curve and it is not quite as user-friendly as Windows (ignore the MS jokes for the moment) although distros like Ubuntu are getting there for the casual user. There are also restrictions on hardware you can use. Windows obviously has a much broader range of HW that is usable for it, especially for peripherals like printers. I used Ubuntu at home for a while and liked it, but finally what killed the deal was software. I couldn't find a video editor that worked with the hardware I had and I had no printer support for my printer. I was unwilling to dual boot to Windows to either edit video or print stuff.

[Alex Franke]

I think mostly because it's free and frequently updated.

Try the Ubuntu Live CD first, as Bill suggested -- it won't touch your hard drive or system configuration at all.

You might install XP on the new machine (make sure it's compatible if you want to do this) and give Linus the kids. One of the great things about kids (I guess depending on how old they are) is that they often don't have any preconceived notions about Linux versus Windows, and they're perfectly capable of learning either -- and you'll probably be doing them a favor by exposing them to both.... like teaching a second language around the house. I think it would open up their techno-world a little bit.

[jziegler]

Just a little note, if you build yourself, you can probably still get XP. I picked up a "system buliders pack" XP home copy for a future computer for my wife recently from newegg (still listed for $90 plus shipping, must buy hardware with it).

I'm guessing you had a typo and menat ms office? If so, then yes, that will run on Linux, anthough you might need to buy software to do so. Codeweavers crossover office is designed just for that (although it will run other programs as well). It is based on the free Wine emulator, but has been enhanced and comes with support. I haven't used it, but have heard good things. I personally hate MS office and like openoffice.org (or StarOffice, sun's commercial version available from the google pack for free), but I guess I'm weird.

Jim

[sd]

Codeweavers has a site that lists the compatibility of various Windows applications when run under their version of the WINE windows emulator under Linux. Microsoft Word 2007 and Excel 2007 get a Bronze rating, meaning that they are at least partially functional. Older versions of these programs are rated Gold, meaning they work just about as well as they would under Windows. Cutlist Pro has no rating, but in the forum someone posted that it mostly worked except for printing.

[url=http://www.codeweavers.com/compatibility/browse/name/?app_id=2652;forum=1;msg=27290]

[BadeMillsap]

My 2cents

I usually don't get into the "computer" threads on various message boards but thought I'd throw in my 2 cents here due to recent experience.

My qualifications --- 34 years as a computer professional with a very large 'BLUE' computer manufacturer ... Ity Bity Machines ... over that time I've been the 'systems engineer' on computer software installations for the government, scientific industry, banking, oil and gas exploration, school districts, grocery chains and blah blah blah ... basically the gamut from monster mainframes to micro processors ... that being said, I've dealt with essentially every mainstream and many not so mainstream operating systems and platforms on the planet ...

Regarding the Linux vs MS Windows debate ... for 'the general public typical computer user' it is my opinion that MS wins hands down ... I'm not a fan of 'Vista' per se but I wasn't a fan of XP when it came out either ... these things mature over time and except in some notable cases (OS/2 which was technically superior but failed due to poor interface, some of the experimental MS Windows versions ...) are generally the best choice for the 'general user' due to overwhelming availability of software applications and outstanding online support of user groups etc.

The APPLE product line is an excellent choice if you are willing to pay the entry price and accept some limitation on application choice although with the Windows emulators/platforms available it's pretty much a wash as far as function availability goes. Price is another matter altogether ...

Linux/AIX/Unix ... the "free" Open System platform ... a wonderful system for us geeks ... lets us satisfy the need to tinker with the innards and still have a very complete and useful not to mention portable across multiple hardware platforms, operating system. The native application base is in my opinion only 'moderate' compared to Windows (or Apple) but again for people that want to add their own 'style' to the system's operation it's a good alternative. There is a robust Windows emulator (WINE) mentioned earlier in the thread and while it does indeed work as advertised there are many many cases that simply do not work and can be a disappointment to a user if expecting to run all his/her old (and new) Windows applications under the Linux platform.

I personally bought a tiny subnotebook (Asus 701 for those that follow that sort of thing) specifically for travel and it uses one of the Linux distributions. I found it fairly easy to adapt to for the few applications I wanted while traveling (email, web browsing, photo management and modification, a few games, watching videos, listening to MP3s ...) but that being said it was not as capable as my work Windows laptop when it comes to more exotic applications. The 'Open System' suite of applications works fine and provides all of the function I require while traveling. My caution is ... "it ain't Windows" and if that is your comfort zone and you aren't comfortable with file management at a fairly low level, maintenance installation using less than 'dumb user' tools and comfortable with a finiky emulator environment you are better off sticking with Windows and making MS coffers continue to bulge.

Just my 2 cents on the topic ... back to your normal programming ...

[jonmulzer]

I prefer to think of Linux as "free" in a liberty sense. It is free from archaic and domineering laws. You are free to do with it as you wish. You are free to make copies, free to install it on as many computers as you wish. You are free to tinker and free to learn ALL about it.

Linux is free only if the time you use to learn it is worth nothing. But it is free in every other sense of the word and that is what I like about it. Do you want to see the source code for the current Linux kernel? You are free to do so. If you wanted to see any iteration of the Windows kernel, you would have an easier time accessing nuclear launch codes or a complete NSA employee list. Not going to happen. Windows source code is probably the most closely guarded secret it all the world and that secrecy is what makes it so vulnerable.

OS developers for Windows are only allowed to work on small sections of code at a time. Then they have other groups that get a number of sections to work together, and so on and so forth. It takes a LONG time to develop software with that model. That is why they start working on the next OS release BEFORE the current one is out. NO ONE is allowed complete access to the entire source code. It takes a long time to sort out bugs, have everything play nice and just plain get things to work like that. With Linux, if a bug or worm or glitch shows up it is sometimes only a few hours before it is fixed and a patch is issued because every person in the entire world has access to the entire source code and anyone who wishes can work on it.

Linux is amazingly secure and stable. I had a desktop that was on continuously for almost a year with no degradation in performance or errors and the only reason I shut it off was for hardware upgrades that were not really needed, but I had spare parts and wanted to use them somewhere. I also had a headless home server that was on at a previous home for 2+ years with zero downtime and was finally shutdown when I moved. With my current XP box I may get a month and if I do, by then everything slows down and I start to get "ghosts in the machine".

Is Linux for everyone? Nope. You have to want to learn. As was said above, Windows is more plug-n-play. Everything works well enough without tinkering, most hardware works, and most people are happy with the status quo. I personally prefer Linux for most things, but in the interest of honesty I am writing this from Windows XP.

[RAFlorida]

The wine factor is great for window programs,

and such. There's may business's that use Linux, IBM being one of them.
Another plus for Linux is the fact you don't have to defrag. That's because the way it was built.

edit: yes there's a learning curve. But that holds true with m$ os also. Each os had a learning curve from the previous os.

[sparkeyjames]

Mark, some folks use Linux because it is free. Others use it because they don't like Microsoft as a company. That said, even though it doesn't cost money, it does cost time - there is a learning curve and it is not quite as user-friendly as Windows (ignore the MS jokes for the moment) although distros like Ubuntu are getting there for the casual user. There are also restrictions on hardware you can use. Windows obviously has a much broader range of HW that is usable for it, especially for peripherals like printers. I used Ubuntu at home for a while and liked it, but finally what killed the deal was software. I couldn't find a video editor that worked with the hardware I had and I had no printer support for my printer. I was unwilling to dual boot to Windows to either edit video or print stuff.

I must disagree that there are restrictions on hardware for Linux. Those restrictions are hardware vendor created. Windows XP has it's share of hardware problems as well. Linux will run well on anything from a cell phone to an x486 to the latest PC multicore processors and even some of the fastest super computers on the planet. I don't think Windows XP can do that. Windows XP cannot run some sound cards that Linux has no problem with. Why? the vendors never made drivers for Windows XP in order to sell newer sound cards. On the other hand Linux does have problems with some peripherals. ONLY BECAUSE THE VENDORS USE PROPRIETARY ONLY DRIVERS. They write them for Windows only and lock out anything else. The solution is to buy hardware known to work with both systems. I use only networked Postscript printers with my systems. This assures me that my printer will work with just about any PC (Windows and Linux) as well as Apples OSX.
If you want to do graphics and video editing get an Apple.
If you want to run a small business, do office tasks or play games get a Windows PC.
If all you want to do is do email and surf the web use Linux or Apple OSX and you will have no virus' or malware.
If you want to run a web server, email server, a file server or stream your MP3's on your network get Linux.
Want to watch DVD movies on your PC. All 3 will work for that.

The old adage still applies... decide on your software applications first then get the operating system that runs it.

I run Linux for my day to day stuff ie email, web surfing, office work (yes open office is much better as of ver 2.), watching the occasional DVD movie and listening to CD's/MP3's.
For games, music applications linked to proprietary hardware (PodXT) and doing my taxes I use Windows XP but only because the software forces me too.

[MilDoc]

Regarding the Linux vs MS Windows debate ... for 'the general public typical computer user' it is my opinion that MS wins hands down ...

I gotta agree with this. I've had a home computer since I built my first one from parts and a homemade circuit board in 1974. I've used Windows since Version 3 (CPM before that), but have also had a Linux machine for 5 years now.

Linux is nice if you want to spend a lot of time learning it's ins and outs. It is not user friendly, despite the "load it from CD" versions. Adding new programs, etc., can still be a hassle. Once you master it, it is a great system.

So, the simple question is, how much time do you want to spend?

[MilDoc]

you don't have to defrag.

You really don't need to defrag as often under Windows anymore either. With faster and larger hard drives testing has shown that defragging doesn't add much to speed at all. Not like it did in the past.

[Alex Franke]

Linux is nice if you want to spend a lot of time learning it's ins and outs. It is not user friendly, despite the "load it from CD" versions. Adding new programs, etc., can still be a hassle. Once you master it, it is a great system.

It's really not even that bad -- in fact to your example, you could argue that it's even easier (on recent Linux flavors) to install applications than on Windows machines.

Here's an example of how I would explore and install some new music software, such as a new music player...

1) (From the desktop) Click "Applications", then "Add/Remove"
2) Type "Music" and browse the dozens of available applications (see screenshot)
3) Select the one I want and click "Apply Changes."



I don't have to pay for anything. I don't have to go out and find an application and verify its suitability, compatibility, and safety. I don't have to worry about dependencies -- Linux takes care of all that. It even keeps everything up to date for me. BTW, removing them is just as easy -- you just uncheck the ones you don't want anymore.

And there are soooo many apps out there. It's sometimes just a lot of fun to browse around and try new stuff out.... like virtual stargazing...

[leehljp]

One issue that is overlooked in the Linux/Windows comparison is the maintenance. The number of managers to keep X number of Windows units "running" in a specific environment is usually as great as the number needed to install the system. Linux, once going seems far more stable, and requires much less managed maintenance time - as far as the information I get from my Linux using friends on this side of the ocean.

This one fact as much as the user friendly UI is why the Mac OS has had its 'raucous' adherents.

Dang I hate Windows and Vista calls from co-workers for what ought to be simple processes, and that often is followed by digging through help notes and dialog boxes; - where did that dang file go; why can't we find it?!!!! Why do people have to be taught that they MUST tell the WinOS where to save docs - seemingly every time on some computers?!! This is just the beginning. Why do we have to have managers for this? A poorly written OS that only managers and tech minded people can figure out.

Our organization's in country IT guy, a strong anti-mac fellow switched from XP to Linux 2 years ago on his personal machines and loves it. He says repeatedly that it is more stable, more consistent, and requires much less maintenance time than the MS systems that he still maintains. He has helped several switch to Linux, taught the basics to those, and had much less maintenance time from them. For the hardware running Linux, he said he has had what seems to him - less hardware malfunction problems too.

[LinuxRandal]

Back in my XT days, my father almost bought a cga card and moniter, as well as another 10mb hard drive (you read that right) for Minux. However, the furnace and a/c won out.

I started playing/studying Linux, with Red Hat 5.2. I Finally said the heck with it, and made the switch completely, as a test, when XP came out. About a year or two after that, I helped a friend find some open source based software, for his company to use to Ghost images over a network, rather then the out of budget program they wanted. I ended up with a copy of XP out of it. I installed that on a spare machine, for Guild Wars, and played with it for three months until the motherboard died.
I never understood the big thing about Word. It and Office felt bloated to me, as I remember back to Word Perfect 1.0, on the XT. I have and have used Lotus Smart Suite, Word Perfect, and tried Office, yet I really only use most basic functions. So Star/Open Office works for me just fine.
Older hardware can normally be used with Linux, when drivers are no longer available for the new Windows. There are also Windows items (WinPrinters) that don't have the brains of a hardware based printer, and rely on the written Windows drivers for their brains. Then you have the issue of companies who can't, contractually, release specs, due to contracts, and have to make Binary only drivers (not open source).
Now while Linux is free as in the code (if you want to look or modify), it doesn't have to be free as in cost. There are distros, that you can buy, and you can distribute the open source components, but they come down on people for using their trademark/names (see the Teacher thread). It is more virus and trojan prone, due to the numbers of Windows pc's and the amount of people writing to it, as well as some design issues. But they both can/do have memory leaks (If I keep Firefox up and running for days, it starts leaking memory).
Windows is fairly easy to buy stuff for (give new versions about a year), and has a wide user/knowledge base. But it can/normally requires much more maintenence.
Linux, while harder to learn, is kind of one of those things, where you set something up, you use it and tend to not mess with it for a long time then. You have been seeing Linux and Windows expand. Windows is trying/going into the subcompact class, that Linux has been in for a bit. A Linux hybrid, is in my new pc, as well as your choice of Vista business, or XP Pro.
Play with a bootable distro (cd/dvd/USB key), then try an old pc. Then choose.