Why I'm Switching to Linux.

[MorfiusX]

One thing I figured out in life is the there is usually a happy medium to everything. To say that either Linux or Windows (or anything) is 100% better than everything else is naive.

I have known bigots of every imaginable type in the IT field. Whether it be Linux, Cisco, Windows, Unix, etc. etc. etc. But, none of them are 100% right. Every product has its good and bad, and often times what is good or bad is a matter of opinion.

Linux and Windows both have their strengths and weaknesses. But for one moment, let's try to think outside the box a little. Why not take the good from one and the good from another to make something better than the individual pieces. That's the challenge. What was the last large business you saw running just one OS? I don't think I have ever seen one run one OS exclusively. Sure they exist, but they are either ends of the spectrum, similar to the bigots.

 

[byne]

it seems that some people here are confusing xp's OS quality with its third party software and driver support. we all use windows not because its "windows" (well, maybe you do ) but because it is the only one that runs the games we want or the programs we want or the office tools we have to use. if you replaced windows with another os that still ran all of your programs, would you miss that wriggly window logo?
we can all honestly say that the reason most people will not switch away from windows is because its familiar in structure and look, even to mac which is more intuitive. for the rest of the hangers-on, however, it will be the lack of third party support.

the two biggest reasons why people don't switch to linux, and they have nothing to do with the quality of either os. sounds like the result of a billion dollar marketing campaign... ROFL

 

[Hornswoggler]

Couple things wrong with this scenario.

1: If you tryed to run ANY print server with 100 printers.......
2: If you had a need for 100 printers.....no matter the size of the network. You will certainly need to re-evaluate things considerably
3: cups can do this all by it's lonesome with just a few minutes configuration in a text file. Provided that the drivers are set up properly. And Users are configured properly

Heres what I would do....

Set up a terminal server using FreeNX. Add users. The terminal server will authenticate users locally. Set up a cups server. Add the printers to the cups server. Then configure access rights.

Yes, some places need 100+ printers. I happen to be an IT analyst for a large corporation, and we deployed over 180 printers to my business unit earlier this year. They are all on one print server, along with the print queue's of some neighboring business units on our campus.

I am starting to see your point on the thin client scenario... and now remembering all those unix servers with serial cables coming out the back is starting to make more sense.. but I'm not convinced that would be the best approach in a LARGE network. I think you are thinking very small here, where I am talking something truly scalable and enterprise ready. I'm sure Novell eDirectory could do most all that, so I kind of answered my own question earlier, but still curious your large system solutions as you think directories and domains are a waste. Sure, its a piece of cake when you only have a workgroup...

 

[svet-am]

...so I kind of answered my own question earlier, but still curious your large system solutions as you think directories and domains are a waste. Sure, its a piece of cake when you only have a workgroup...

thin clients (or even thick clients acting like thin clients) actually can be quite beneficial for a large enterprise deployment depending on the amount of variation required from workstation to workstation. if you _know_ going in that every workstation can be exactly the same (at least so far as hardware), then it's relatively easy to set up an enterprise rollout.

my alma mater (Mississippi State) did this using Novell ZEN running on Windows 2000 Pro workstations to deploy the same basic applications to all of the computer labs on campus. ZEN (and maybe other management tools, too) also allowed slight differentiation based on department. So, the labs in the Computer Science building got all of the required programming tools and debuggers while those of us in the Electrical Engineering building got all of our required simulation and analysis tools.

At the end of the day, though, none of the workstations were 'independent' -- they all relied on being connected to the mothership because all of the apps were pushed to the client on demand.

This is different from a lot of enterprise environments I've seen where every workstation operates with apps installed locally (and similar to the one you seem to be describing at your office). In these cases, the 'enterprise' deployments were simply master disk images and access controls. This, IMHO, is not true enterprise deployment.

 

[duby229]

Yes, some places need 100+ printers. I happen to be an IT analyst for a large corporation, and we deployed over 180 printers to my business unit earlier this year. They are all on one print server, along with the print queue's of some neighboring business units on our campus.

I dont even want to imagine that nightmare... It makes my head hurt just thinking about bandwidth, and memory constraints. What is it? A dedicated 10gb network for your print server? Or is it 40gb fiber? 30gigs of RAM? Whats the latency like? 20min 30min? Geez. Talk about stupid.

I work for a company that deals with medical software inthe northeast Ohio, and western PA region. I am personally one of the field technicians at said company, and am responsible for client rollout. We currently have about 4000 clients on the network. Connected using a secure VPN. The software we use is a windows application called Centricity. The clients are thin Linux workstations, and the application is served to the workstations via FreeNX as an application server. We use local print servers to serve print functions to each location., and local scanners to record personal information such as drivers liscences and medical cards and so on. We have a pretty hefty bandwidth bill, and a pretty hefty data center. But rollout is freakin cake walk. I can get a new office deployed in a day provided I'm on site, with the hardware I need.

 

[TheRapture]

Why do spammy f a n b o y s always feel the need to put down windows users? They say "xp crashes all the time" and I say "you don't know what you are doing then"

 

[TheRapture]

BEST_POST_EVER_ABOUT_WHY_LINUX_STILL_ISN'T_MAINSTREAM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

if you can _not only_ explain all of this to my 88-year-old grandmother, _but also_ get her to truly fathom it and think in this fashion, then, my friend, Linux will become (and be proven) to be a viable _consumer_ choice.

this is what it always ends up as. i'm as big of a proponent of Linux as the next penguinista. However, it's still a very niche choice -- because it's not INTUITIVE. This has nothing to do with the "it's all about what you're used to" argument. If I want to install a program, I want the program I buy to include the required files neccessary to install it. I shouldn't have to go on the Intertubes to find the answer and the files I need -- they should be in the box.

Is installing an application in Linux easy? thanks to repositories it's much easier than it was even three years ago. However, it's a far cry short of the simplicity of Windows or (even better) Mac OS. Mostly, because it's not intuitive.

Put a person who's never seen a computer before (a rogue Amish kid, let's say) in front of three PC's -- a Mac, a Windows box, and a Linux box -- and tell him to install an application from an included CD media.

First, he goes to the Mac and doesn't know what to do. He browses to the install CD and sees some files. he looks for an install program -- drat, none found. so, instead he copies the files to the hard drive. guess what, he just installed the program. he didn't know what to do, but his natural action ("take the program from the CD to my computer") was interpreted properly by the machine.

Next, he goes to the Windows box and doesn't know what to do. He again goes to the CD and looks around. he tries copying the files over like on the Mac, but that doesn't work. However, he does find a file called "setup.exe" and runs it. guess what, he just initialized the install program. Again, his natural inclination (that the CD includes some mechanism for installing the program) was correct and work intuitively.

Finally, he goes to the Linux box. He again browses to the CD and tries copying files over like on the mac. The files copy but do nothing on their own. He goes back to the CD and looks for an install program. He finds a file called "install". He double clicks on it and it opens in a text editor. He can read the programming language displayed in the text editor but has no idea what it means. At this point, he's essentially stuck.

if he'd known a little more, he'd open a console window and first try to run the program as

  $ install

but he's greeted with an "insufficient privelages" error message. again he's essentially stuck if he's on a machine where he's not the administrator (root).

he calls his "computer savvy friend" and his friend comes over. they look at it together and the friend says "oh, you've got to execute that as root". after talking to the administrator, they are able to log in as root and they try again

  # install

this time the code executes but returns an error message

  dependency check failed on packages:
  xxxYYYzzzz.tar.gz
  ppppQQQQttt.tar.gz

...... and so I digress. at this point, I hope it's obvious that installing applications under Windows and MacOS is better because it's _intuitive_. This is not the 1970's and 1980's any more. Computers are no longer reserved for the "intellectually elite". Computers are designed and intended for mass consumption by the public. If an operating system or piece of software ever wants to succeed, it MUST cater to the lowest common denominator and not only anticipate, but also handle gracefully, every possible way in which a potential user can interact with it.

and, thus, my [/rant] is over.

 

[moetop]

Couple things wrong with this scenario.

1: If you tryed to run ANY print server with 100 printers.......
2: If you had a need for 100 printers.....no matter the size of the network. You will certainly need to re-evaluate things considerably
3: cups can do this all by it's lonesome with just a few minutes configuration in a text file. Provided that the drivers are set up properly. And Users are configured properly

Heres what I would do....

Set up a terminal server using FreeNX. Add users. The terminal server will authenticate users locally. Set up a cups server. Add the printers to the cups server. Then configure access rights.
---------------------
I dont even want to imagine that nightmare... It makes my head hurt just thinking about bandwidth, and memory constraints. What is it? A dedicated 10gb network for your print server? Or is it 40gb fiber? 30gigs of RAM? Whats the latency like? 20min 30min? Geez. Talk about stupid.

We run a Windows server with nearly 700 printers on a Gig connection. Heck when we were running it on NT4 with 300-400 when they (MS) only suggested 25 per server. For the few that we do restrict. (Probably about 10 to 15) Windows works perfectly in our situation.. it's just a member of the domain and you add permissions.

And no it doesent take that much bandwidth or space, and yes we do a LOT of printing.

 

[Gambit]

Put a person who's never seen a computer before (a rogue Amish kid, let's say) in front of three PC's -- a Mac, a Windows box, and a Linux box -- and tell him to install an application from an included CD media.

First, he goes to the Mac and doesn't know what to do. He browses to the install CD and sees some files. he looks for an install program -- drat, none found. so, instead he copies the files to the hard drive. guess what, he just installed the program. he didn't know what to do, but his natural action ("take the program from the CD to my computer") was interpreted properly by the machine.

Next, he goes to the Windows box and doesn't know what to do. He again goes to the CD and looks around. he tries copying the files over like on the Mac, but that doesn't work. However, he does find a file called "setup.exe" and runs it. guess what, he just initialized the install program. Again, his natural inclination (that the CD includes some mechanism for installing the program) was correct and work intuitively.

Finally, he goes to the Linux box. He again browses to the CD and tries copying files over like on the mac. The files copy but do nothing on their own. He goes back to the CD and looks for an install program. He finds a file called "install". He double clicks on it and it opens in a text editor. He can read the programming language displayed in the text editor but has no idea what it means. At this point, he's essentially stuck.

Sooo... what you're telling me is that someone who's never even seen someone *ELSE* use a computer, let alone any computer at all will even know how to turn any of them on and use any of the OS's *at all*, let alone how to install a program from a CD drive to a HD? Personally, I consider myself an educated and intelligent PC user; though I know I'm lacking in the Mac area. *I* wouldn't have even though to just copy the files from the CD to the Mac would work. Granted I have a biased outlook in that I'm used to being *required* to install programs but still... you have no basis for knowing that's how things would go. I realise it's a simplified example and linux *does* need help in the install area... but saying that someone who's never even seen a computer will know how to do something as simple as copy files... they have no concept of files. Mouse? No clue how to use it. Just a bad example overall.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

same thing at my student job here on campus

here at NYU's College of Nursing, we have about 200 users using around 15 printers. These ppl print thousands of pages every hour, but I remember once I actually used my laptop as a stand in print server when the main one went down.

Laptop pulled it off without a hitch too ....

 

[svet-am]

Sooo... what you're telling me is that someone who's never even seen someone *ELSE* use a computer, let alone any computer at all will even know how to turn any of them on and use any of the OS's *at all*, let alone how to install a program from a CD drive to a HD? Personally, I consider myself an educated and intelligent PC user; though I know I'm lacking in the Mac area. *I* wouldn't have even though to just copy the files from the CD to the Mac would work. Granted I have a biased outlook in that I'm used to being *required* to install programs but still... you have no basis for knowing that's how things would go. I realise it's a simplified example and linux *does* need help in the install area... but saying that someone who's never even seen a computer will know how to do something as simple as copy files... they have no concept of files. Mouse? No clue how to use it. Just a bad example overall.

re-read my post. i go out of my way to denote that the user fumbles around trying different things (even on the Mac and Windows PC), but the OS's are designed so that the user's natural intuition proves correct. Think about it from the perspective of a naive user -- i have a program I want on a CD and I need to "get it to" my computer. what's easier than just copying all of the files? that "got it to" my computer. and, Mac OS is designed to handle this intuitive (arguably naive) approach gracefully.

the fundamental design issue is that a non-savvy user only knows that he has something he wants on a CDROM he just purchased and he needs to "download" it to his computer. he doesn't care about the mechanics of it. he doesn't give a shit about dependencies, API's, runtime libraries, statically linked libraries, or any of that. All he knows is that he wants to run Adobe UltraExpensive Media Editor and he wants to run it now.

And (this is where Linux _zealots_ fail) HIS ATTITUDE IS VALID. The user doesn't care about the mechanics and shouldn't have to -- they paid good money and their product should behave as they reasonably expect it to.

Use this as an example. I buy a Norelco electric shaver. I see a power switch and a release switch for the blade cartridge. I expect that the power switch will turn the device on an off and that the release switch will somehow release the cartridge so that I can change it. I don't care about the type of switch used, the NPN transistors, the gain control circuitry or any of that. All I care is that when I press the power switch, it turns on. Likewise, I don't care about how the cartridge release switch operates. All I care is that when I press it, the cartridge comes out.

This is likewise true on a computer. I, as a user, shouldn't have to worry about what my kernel version is or which static libraries I have installed, or whether GCC is available. Further, I shouldn't be required to known some arbitrary lingo for a package installation tool. This is further complication by being required to know _WHICH_ package installation tool is installed on my machine (yum, apt-get, emerge, etc).

Ever since computers stopped being relegated to the realm of the uber-geeks (somewhere around the release of Windows95/Windows 98), computers stopped being _appliances_ and started being _consumer electronics_ akin to a Nintendo console or digital clock. They need to be designed and behave accordingly.

 

[Hornswoggler]

I dont even want to imagine that nightmare... It makes my head hurt just thinking about bandwidth, and memory constraints. What is it? A dedicated 10gb network for your print server? Or is it 40gb fiber? 30gigs of RAM? Whats the latency like? 20min 30min? Geez. Talk about stupid.

It's really not too bad, not sure why you would call it stupid as it makes perfectly good sense in our client/server environment. Print jobs come right out, assuming the printer is warmed up. Connection is probably gigabit, but I have seen them run on 100 mbit ethernet just fine.

For the satellite facilities that you have, your solution makes sense (WAN independance, no directory replication traffic/issues). For the site that I am at, and our requirements for enterprise authentication and resource access/searching, our setup makes good sense.

One advantage to the Windows/Domain scenario I present, is those same accounts and groups can be used to assign permissions to any resources within the enterprise. I do not have to create "workgroup-like" accounts on every server with every resource. If you had 10,000 users and they need to access multiple servers, wouldnt they each need an account on every server? This is where there would be duplication of effort.

 

[Gambit]

re-read my post. i go out of my way to denote that the user fumbles around trying different things (even on the Mac and Windows PC), but the OS's are designed so that the user's natural intuition proves correct.

I understand the arguement completely, I even said that in my post. I agree that some things should be a bit better handled in Linux, namely installs. What I *am* saying is the example you gave is flawed. The user fumbles around trying different things?!? Put a computer in front of someone that has never seen one before and they won't fumble around... they're going to have no *CLUE* what they're doing. They'll have no concept of files or folders, much less copying them. The only mouse they'll know about are the little furry kind. CD? They won't know which way to insert it.

Again, I know what you're saying (and why you're saying it), but the example you gave assumes things that just aren't feasible. Hence, why I said it's a terrible example.

 

[FlatLine84]

I remember 2nd grade, and using the Macs, only thing kids were allowed to touch. I had a 386 at home, had been making boot disks and crap. I still didn't get the concept of dragging my 3.5" to the trash to eject it. I always thought it would erase it. That wasn't intuative for me

 

[PopeKevinI]

Linux lost me when I hit dependency hell. It's hard to jump in and use an OS when the package manager won't install something it lists as available, and compiling the same app drags you through four levels of dependency before you hit a dead end and can't find what you need. I had to switch back to Windows because I couldn't find a decent free PHP editor with the features I wanted for Linux.

It still runs my two servers, though.

 

[PopeKevinI]

I remember 2nd grade, and using the Macs, only thing kids were allowed to touch. I had a 386 at home, had been making boot disks and crap. I still didn't get the concept of dragging my 3.5" to the trash to eject it. I always thought it would erase it. That wasn't intuative for me

Or drag-and-drop meaning drag-and-drop-aliases. I want to copy something, not make shortcuts. And with one mouse button it's not intuitive at all to figure out what to do to actually copy a file.

 

[Whatsisname]

If you build a machine that a monkey can use, then you will only get results good enough for a monkey. Computers have always been tools. The more control you have, the more controls you'll have. I personally do not want a computer that is a glorified toaster, and if that means my operating system of choice does not become mainstream, then so be it. I would rather have a tool I can have work for me than something I can only look at.

re-read my post. i go out of my way to denote that the user fumbles around trying different things (even on the Mac and Windows PC), but the OS's are designed so that the user's natural intuition proves correct. Think about it from the perspective of a naive user -- i have a program I want on a CD and I need to "get it to" my computer. what's easier than just copying all of the files? that "got it to" my computer. and, Mac OS is designed to handle this intuitive (arguably naive) approach gracefully.

the fundamental design issue is that a non-savvy user only knows that he has something he wants on a CDROM he just purchased and he needs to "download" it to his computer. he doesn't care about the mechanics of it. he doesn't give a shit about dependencies, API's, runtime libraries, statically linked libraries, or any of that. All he knows is that he wants to run Adobe UltraExpensive Media Editor and he wants to run it now.

And (this is where Linux _zealots_ fail) HIS ATTITUDE IS VALID. The user doesn't care about the mechanics and shouldn't have to -- they paid good money and their product should behave as they reasonably expect it to.

Use this as an example. I buy a Norelco electric shaver. I see a power switch and a release switch for the blade cartridge. I expect that the power switch will turn the device on an off and that the release switch will somehow release the cartridge so that I can change it. I don't care about the type of switch used, the NPN transistors, the gain control circuitry or any of that. All I care is that when I press the power switch, it turns on. Likewise, I don't care about how the cartridge release switch operates. All I care is that when I press it, the cartridge comes out.

This is likewise true on a computer. I, as a user, shouldn't have to worry about what my kernel version is or which static libraries I have installed, or whether GCC is available. Further, I shouldn't be required to known some arbitrary lingo for a package installation tool. This is further complication by being required to know _WHICH_ package installation tool is installed on my machine (yum, apt-get, emerge, etc).

Ever since computers stopped being relegated to the realm of the uber-geeks (somewhere around the release of Windows95/Windows 98), computers stopped being _appliances_ and started being _consumer electronics_ akin to a Nintendo console or digital clock. They need to be designed and behave accordingly.

 

[Whatsisname]

You are always bitching and moaning about dependency hell. In case you haven't noticed, thats a thing of the past.

Linux lost me when I hit dependency hell. It's hard to jump in and use an OS when the package manager won't install something it lists as available, and compiling the same app drags you through four levels of dependency before you hit a dead end and can't find what you need. I had to switch back to Windows because I couldn't find a decent free PHP editor with the features I wanted for Linux.

It still runs my two servers, though.

 

[FlatLine84]

Hornswoggler brought up some very good points. I have to agree. I didn't think too much about it before, because it seems very simple on a small network, but I would definately be ripping my hair out if my boss from when I was in college told me to impliment Linux on the whole campus. My knowledge of Linux has grown from those 4 years ago, but I can't say I would still try to tackle something that large. Open Office is great, but teachers would still be using office on their computers, making power points and such, and who knows what version they're using. I just see too many problems right there. Then I can only imagine the learning curve of the rest of the staff. Once we get to servers, it would be so much fun to switch from IIS and Exchange to Apache and Postfix. Plus, taking care of 500 users would be awesome without AD.

Unix is a proven stable OS, and I would say a correctly configured NT or later MS server environment would be as well. Notice I said correctly.... Truely, that goes for both OSes, the thing *nix has over MS, is the fact you can't really set it up poorly, and have it function. I like to "play" with *nix, I like to have fun with it, right now, I think that is it's true use. You can run servers, develope software, play around with different concepts, and if you know what you're doing, you can run a network.

 

[brucedeluxe169]

If you build a machine that a monkey can use, then you will only get results good enough for a monkey. Computers have always been tools. The more control you have, the more controls you'll have. I personally do not want a computer that is a glorified toaster, and if that means my operating system of choice does not become mainstream, then so be it. I would rather have a tool I can have work for me than something I can only look at.

problem with that logic is that windows on the desktop does pretty much everything linux can....

seems like if it were up to most of the hardcore linux ppl, we'd still be hand cranking our cars to start them and still chopping wood to warm our houses up in the winter just because you do things at the most basic level, and somehow that makes things better... and yea, one thing that alot of you guys give away is that you really just like linux because it isn't mainstream, and that makes you more 1337 (and .... upon thinking about this a little more, I actually agree.... being able to use Linux well *does* make you 1337.... and in fact, that is a major reason why I am pushing myself to use it so much these days)

once again, this, coming from someone who now spends 95% of his desktop computing time using xUbuntu

 

[Oswald_]

Wow is this 1995? .... people still do the whole linux vs windows thing?

 

[Whatsisname]

I do not use linux because I want to be "1337". An operating system, just like a computer, is a tool. I use the best tool for the job and that means I use Unix's. And your analogy to hand cranking cars and chopping wood is far from correct. Unix machines are thousands of times more automatable than a windows machine. While a windows user is in the cold clicking away to put wood in the stove, a Unix user can have the machine take care of that and sit back and enjoy the warmth.

problem with that logic is that windows on the desktop does pretty much everything linux can....

seems like if it were up to most of the hardcore linux ppl, we'd still be hand cranking our cars to start them and still chopping wood to warm our houses up in the winter just because you do things at the most basic level, and somehow that makes things better... and yea, one thing that alot of you guys give away is that you really just like linux because it isn't mainstream, and that makes you more 1337 (and .... upon thinking about this a little more, I actually agree.... being able to use Linux well *does* make you 1337.... and in fact, that is a major reason why I am pushing myself to use it so much these days)

once again, this, coming from someone who now spends 95% of his desktop computing time using xUbuntu

 

[FlatLine84]

I do not use linux because I want to be "1337". An operating system, just like a computer, is a tool. I use the best tool for the job and that means I use Unix's. And your analogy to hand cranking cars and chopping wood is far from correct. Unix machines are thousands of times more automatable than a windows machine. While a windows user is in the cold clicking away to put wood in the stove, a Unix user can have the machine take care of that and sit back and enjoy the warmth.

Can you please give an example of how it's more automatable than windows? I mean, I'm assuming you're talking server environment.

 

[Whatsisname]

Not only server environment.

Most Unix software is text-mode / commandline. The majority of graphical applications are simply graphical front ends to command line programs. Most programs also operate on plain text files and so you can chain together programs to accomplish new tasks. Virtually anything you can think through logically, you can write a script to do within a few minutes.

In the case of windows, very few mechanisms are available for automation without writing entirely new softwares. The shell is horrible, and the scripting host is terrible and poorly documented.

Can you please give an example of how it's more automatable than windows? I mean, I'm assuming you're talking server environment.

 

[PopeKevinI]

You are always bitching and moaning about dependency hell. In case you haven't noticed, thats a thing of the past.

Ubuntu 5.10 is fairly recent (middle of last year) and its replacement (6.06) wouldn't even install on my laptop thanks to them switching to a live cd that just wants to lock up.

No, it's not a thing of the past. It's just that you think it is because things have worked right for you in what you're doing. It's alive and well and still annoying people like me who can't get Linux to do what they want, and so go back to Windows and wait for another version.

edit: I keep bringing it up because I want to see Linux succeed and become a viable alternative to Windows in the mainstream desktop environment. Things like dependency problems (and the real reason I got stuck there in the first place, poorly-built packages and package managers) keep Linux from being accessible.

The best way to learn an OS is by first accomplishing the tasks you need to accomplish. Most of us learned DOS and Windows by playing games and using applications, and then learning to tweak for those specific tasks first. If a user finds it hard to get Linux to start doing what they want to do, they're going to go elsewhere. They're not going to shop distros hoping to find the one magic bullet that does what they need. They're going to go straight back to what they know works: Windows. And we all know that a Windows-only world is sorely lacking in innovation.

 

[FlatLine84]

In the case of windows, very few mechanisms are available for automation without writing entirely new softwares. The shell is horrible, and the scripting host is terrible and poorly documented.

That's true, didn't even think about that before I posted. It's especially easier if you have to do it to multiple systems, create a script, voala!

 

[PopeKevinI]

Not only server environment.

Most Unix software is text-mode / commandline. The majority of graphical applications are simply graphical front ends to command line programs. Most programs also operate on plain text files and so you can chain together programs to accomplish new tasks. Virtually anything you can think through logically, you can write a script to do within a few minutes.

In the case of windows, very few mechanisms are available for automation without writing entirely new softwares. The shell is horrible, and the scripting host is terrible and poorly documented.

Someone on here used to have a sig that said something like "How do I <Linux command line including grep and a pipe> in a GUI>?" I haven't seen it in ages, but I thought it spoke volumes of what makes Linux such an appealing and promising OS.

For more than a decade now MS has focused so much on making the GUI work for every user that they've neglected the flexibility of the command line, resulting in their OS becoming more difficult to use in certain ways.

I had high hopes for a serious return of the command line in Vista, but it looks like that's not going to happen. I haven't had opportunity to play with it much, but friends tell me it's no much more than XP's shell. Ugh.

 

[Hornswoggler]

In the case of windows, very few mechanisms are available for automation without writing entirely new softwares. The shell is horrible, and the scripting host is terrible and poorly documented.

Windows supports Scripting, which was much improved with Windows Server 2003. What I learned in the w2k -> 2003 server training was that now most everything can be scripted. This is one area where *nix was well ahead, and windows is improving to catch up. This is the beauty of competiton and having alternative choices.

 

[Hornswoggler]

Wow is this 1995? .... people still do the whole linux vs windows thing?

As products evolve (and both have...), an open mind always take the opportunity to re-evaluate. I have learned from this discussion and hope others have as well. With smart (read: open minded) ppl, debates can be beneficial.

 

[FlatLine84]

Speaking of windows command line, I was playing with cygwin. I wish command line for windows was better, but how often do you actually need it. If it can't be accomplished through windows GUI, it really can't be done. I know there are times I would like to force commands, but if you know what you're doing, you don't need to.

 

[svet-am]

I had high hopes for a serious return of the command line in Vista, but it looks like that's not going to happen. I haven't had opportunity to play with it much, but friends tell me it's no much more than XP's shell. Ugh.

With all of the DRM, no WinFS, etc, Monad was _still_ THE REASON I was going to buy Vista. When it got pulled, my plans to purchase Vista got shelved. If I ever happen to get it as a freebie for being a member of MSDN or the like, then fine -- but, I'm not going to shell out money for it since the good features are gone.

As an aside, I have the WinXP backport of Monad running on my WinXP workstation here in my office and it's a LOT more flexible than the default Windows XP command shell. Those who say differently simply don't know how to use it. Object-oriented programming and scripting on the command line in the form of shell scripts -- very nice. To my knowledge, even BASH and CSH don't support objects.

 

[Ghettobox]

re-read my post. i go out of my way to denote that the user fumbles around trying different things (even on the Mac and Windows PC), but the OS's are designed so that the user's natural intuition proves correct. Think about it from the perspective of a naive user -- i have a program I want on a CD and I need to "get it to" my computer. what's easier than just copying all of the files? that "got it to" my computer. and, Mac OS is designed to handle this intuitive (arguably naive) approach gracefully.

the fundamental design issue is that a non-savvy user only knows that he has something he wants on a CDROM he just purchased and he needs to "download" it to his computer. he doesn't care about the mechanics of it. he doesn't give a shit about dependencies, API's, runtime libraries, statically linked libraries, or any of that. All he knows is that he wants to run Adobe UltraExpensive Media Editor and he wants to run it now.

And (this is where Linux _zealots_ fail) HIS ATTITUDE IS VALID. The user doesn't care about the mechanics and shouldn't have to -- they paid good money and their product should behave as they reasonably expect it to.

Use this as an example. I buy a Norelco electric shaver. I see a power switch and a release switch for the blade cartridge. I expect that the power switch will turn the device on an off and that the release switch will somehow release the cartridge so that I can change it. I don't care about the type of switch used, the NPN transistors, the gain control circuitry or any of that. All I care is that when I press the power switch, it turns on. Likewise, I don't care about how the cartridge release switch operates. All I care is that when I press it, the cartridge comes out.

This is likewise true on a computer. I, as a user, shouldn't have to worry about what my kernel version is or which static libraries I have installed, or whether GCC is available. Further, I shouldn't be required to known some arbitrary lingo for a package installation tool. This is further complication by being required to know _WHICH_ package installation tool is installed on my machine (yum, apt-get, emerge, etc).

Ever since computers stopped being relegated to the realm of the uber-geeks (somewhere around the release of Windows95/Windows 98), computers stopped being _appliances_ and started being _consumer electronics_ akin to a Nintendo console or digital clock. They need to be designed and behave accordingly.

That my friend is quite possibly one of the best points I have ever seen made on a forum. While I use a combination of OS's (Linux, BSD, Windows) for my own home computers at work we run win2k boxes...exclusively for users. Managing them isn't the problem..getting someone to use it is. Even in this day and age you'd be surprised how computer illiterate many people are. The idea of a thin client that just flat out works seems like a best of both worlds scenario to me. Call me crazy...but as much choice you can remove from the average user..the better. The PC is an appliance these days...make it work like one.


Ghettobox

 

[duby229]

That my friend is quite possibly one of the best points I have ever seen made on a forum. While I use a combination of OS's (Linux, BSD, Windows) for my own home computers at work we run win2k boxes...exclusively for users. Managing them isn't the problem..getting someone to use it is. Even in this day and age you'd be surprised how computer illiterate many people are. The idea of a thin client that just flat out works seems like a best of both worlds scenario to me. Call me crazy...but as much choice you can remove from the average user..the better. The PC is an appliance these days...make it work like one.


Ghettobox

How's this for a wet future?

Load balanced, clustered, P2P thin clients with firmware to provide basic hardware functionality, and OS drivers to provide high level API's, running in a platform independant interpreted environment.

Ahh the wet dream of a true geek. Too bad it'll never happen, even though we had the technology to do it 20 years ago

 

[brucedeluxe169]

How's this for a wet future?

Load balanced, clustered, P2P thin clients with firmware to provide basic hardware functionality, and OS drivers to provide high level API's, running in a platform independant interpreted environment.

Ahh the wet dream of a true geek. Too bad it'll never happen, even though we had the technology to do it 20 years ago

well that *does* sound pretty cool

BUT, it is NOT every true geek's wet dream.... at least not the ones that work in IT

so many of them would be put out of a job it isn't even funny

 

[ShadowVlican]

re-read my post. i go out of my way to denote that the user fumbles around trying different things (even on the Mac and Windows PC), but the OS's are designed so that the user's natural intuition proves correct. Think about it from the perspective of a naive user -- i have a program I want on a CD and I need to "get it to" my computer. what's easier than just copying all of the files? that "got it to" my computer. and, Mac OS is designed to handle this intuitive (arguably naive) approach gracefully.

the fundamental design issue is that a non-savvy user only knows that he has something he wants on a CDROM he just purchased and he needs to "download" it to his computer. he doesn't care about the mechanics of it. he doesn't give a shit about dependencies, API's, runtime libraries, statically linked libraries, or any of that. All he knows is that he wants to run Adobe UltraExpensive Media Editor and he wants to run it now.

And (this is where Linux _zealots_ fail) HIS ATTITUDE IS VALID. The user doesn't care about the mechanics and shouldn't have to -- they paid good money and their product should behave as they reasonably expect it to.

Use this as an example. I buy a Norelco electric shaver. I see a power switch and a release switch for the blade cartridge. I expect that the power switch will turn the device on an off and that the release switch will somehow release the cartridge so that I can change it. I don't care about the type of switch used, the NPN transistors, the gain control circuitry or any of that. All I care is that when I press the power switch, it turns on. Likewise, I don't care about how the cartridge release switch operates. All I care is that when I press it, the cartridge comes out.

This is likewise true on a computer. I, as a user, shouldn't have to worry about what my kernel version is or which static libraries I have installed, or whether GCC is available. Further, I shouldn't be required to known some arbitrary lingo for a package installation tool. This is further complication by being required to know _WHICH_ package installation tool is installed on my machine (yum, apt-get, emerge, etc).

Ever since computers stopped being relegated to the realm of the uber-geeks (somewhere around the release of Windows95/Windows 98), computers stopped being _appliances_ and started being _consumer electronics_ akin to a Nintendo console or digital clock. They need to be designed and behave accordingly.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y. i need that emote where i bow to you

though i maybe spoiled with the ease of installing stuff on windows.... setup.exe.... next next next next next next finish. i love how there's GUI for everything, i don't have to read guides or help files for command line switches.... so you see i'm the majority of users (of course there's people that love the command line and find it does what they want)

also... there's always counter arguments from linux advocates

-you're getting it free, so don't complain
-no one's forcing you to use it
-repositories have have fixed the dependency problem

blahbalhablh.. i'm sure you've heard it all

 

[duby229]

There is only one problem with his scenario....

Somebody has to know how OS's work. Somebody has to know how to do things the right way.

I remember watching a Star Trek TNG episode where they met a alien species that had an incredibly advanced cloaking technology, as well as an incredibly advanced computer system that controlled everything right down to the minutest details of everyday life. The system had worked for thousands of years, and so nobody touched it.

And nobody knew how it worked, or even why. It just did. Then the species started dieing off, becouse they couldnt give birth to babies. Nobody could figure out why. So they decided to steal the children from the enterprize. Soon afterwards the crew of the enterprize figured out that it was the cloaking technology that was controlled by the computer....

and nobody knew how to fix it.... It always "just worked" When the time came it stagnated technology, and actually hurt them in the end.

The truth is "it just works" doesnt actually work. It's a fallacy. It's a dillusion. It's simply not true.

 

[Ghettobox]

There is only one problem with his scenario....

Somebody has to know how OS's work. Somebody has to know how to do things the right way.

I remember watching a Star Trek TNG episode where they met a alien species that had an incredibly advanced cloaking technology, as well as an incredibly advanced computer system that controlled everything right down to the minutest details of everyday life. The system had worked for thousands of years, and so nobody touched it.

And nobody knew how it worked, or even why. It just did. Then the species started dieing off, becouse they couldnt give birth to babies. Nobody could figure out why. So they decided to steal the children from the enterprize. Soon afterwards the crew of the enterprize figured out that it was the cloaking technology that was controlled by the computer....

and nobody knew how to fix it.... It always "just worked" When the time came it stagnated technology, and actually hurt them in the end.

The truth is "it just works" doesnt actually work. It's a fallacy. It's a dillusion. It's simply not true.

Your clearly missing the point. Someone needs to know how an OS works..yes. My grandmother doesn't though. Or my 9 year old looking up dinosaurs. They just need it to work. While I enjoy...as recreation...hacking BSD boxes, and tweaking Linux kernels...my Dad couldnt give two shits. Nor should he have to, he should be able to get the email I sent him with pics of my kids in it and enjoy them without wondering if his kernel has been optimized, or havinig to use a CLI. Is he a Power user..hell no. But he has no less right to use the net than anyone else. I find it funny on most other consumer goods the less you have to work on it, and the easier it is to use is a good thing. Wanting the same thing for 90% of PC users though is somehow inherently bad.

As for being put out of work..lol. I hate to say it..but unless the world goes back to typewriters and such..i have faith in mankind to find a way to completely ass fuck any thin client setup we can come up with. Plus...someone's got to clear the paper jams..

Ghettobox

 

[duby229]

Linux and Windows both have their good points. Linux is much more of a hassle to set up, while Windows will accumulate much more "crudware" over time, and has many more virii to deal with.

However, I can definitely say I'm switching to Linux.

Why?

Vista is not going to run very well on my 1ghz Pentium-M. Linux, however, should run on my x40 quite quickly, even with distros released three years from now. Windows XP works surprisingly well (I usually have it crashing constantly), but I doubt it's going to get much more support.

Furthermore, Linux can be made to run on old systems. I can make quite a bit of cash AND help the community by building and selling low-powered machines running DSL, which I'm learning how to use. 10$ in parts can be turned into a 50$ computer that will allow a family to use Gmail and browse the NY Times website, and let their kids do homework.

Will vista do that?

Who cares?

At 150$ a liscense, it's not worth it anyway.

OK let's just refer back to the ops original post..... Trust me I get the point. And clearly so does he.

 

[svet-am]

OK let's just refer back to the ops original post..... Trust me I get the point. And clearly so does he.

{Referring back to the OP} Why does it really have to be "either Vista or Linux" ? If all the OP wants to do is set up a box for a family to check GMail and the NYTimes, then why does Vista enter the equation? Why is Windows XP (or Windows 2000) insufficient? It's out now and has (to quote Mr Rumsfeld) "known knowns and known unknowns". that is, we know a lot more about the security ups-and-downs of XP (and what to look out for) than we currently do about Vista.

I want to harken back to remind people that I'm a big advocate of Linux where it's appropriate (check my previous posts here and in other threads). There is not now, nor will there ever be, a one-size-fits-all solution. When I have a server than needs five-nines up-time, then I'm going to go with a Linux box or a BSD box depending on the specific application. depending on usage, I'd even say that Linux is a good all-around solution for media servers like my MythTV box that I've discussed elsewhere. however, when I need an easy-to-use consumer level operating system, then i'm going to go with a Mac or a Windows box.

plus, the OP mentions that "Linux can be made to run on old systems" --

Vista is not going to run very well on my 1ghz Pentium-M. Linux, however, should run on my x40 quite quickly, even with distros released three years from now. Windows XP works surprisingly well (I usually have it crashing constantly), but I doubt it's going to get much more support.

Well, yes it can, if you totally omit GNOME or KDE and go with a lightweight windowmanager like RatPoison or XFCE. but, then, you don't get the eye candy and goodies that you'd get with GNOME or KDE or Mac OS or Windows Vista.

I've got a ThinkPad T21 (P-III 1.0GHz w/ 512MB RAM) that I absolutely adore. If I lost my nice AMD64 computer tomorrow, I'd still be happy as long as I had my ThinkPad. However, that ThinkPad absolutely struggles to run the latest builds of KDE and GNOME. Plus, with most recent Linux distros coming out-of-the-box with every service under the sun running, it's hard to ge a handle on memory usage.

There seems to be a false myth that you can get all of the eye candy of Mac OS X or Windows Vista running on a Linux box sporting a P-III 800MHz w/ 256MB RAM _just because it's Linux_. This is nowhere near reality.

Running Linux does not equal getting the golden ticket to wonka's factory. there's a lot of intellectual overhead that comes with running a linux box and keeping it _properly_ maintained. Ubuntu has made great strides in this arena, but even it falls short.

 

[acidic]

The reason Microsoft makes money is because their product is more intuitive to the average end user. The 1337 linux crowd is small compared to where the money is at, of course MS is going to cater to better GUI's. And the post above is true, you wouldn't have 40x the performance if you still want the nice looking desktop of KDE or Gnome, but on the other hand you wouldn't need a fancy card to support the Aero effects