Why I'm Switching to Linux.

No, the reason MS makes money is because of vendor lock in and by eliminating competition in as many markets as they can. Microsoft took control of the operating system market with MS-DOS, (a product they didn't even create), it has little to nothing to do with "intuitive to the user"

acidic said:
The reason Microsoft makes money is because their product is more intuitive to the average end user.
Click to expand...
 
No, the reason nobody has challenged MS for the desktop market OS is because they have not made anything easier to use that is even remotely close to stable. Even the people suing MS for that crap are actually USING the MS software to work on the computers they are using to file the paperwork...how's that for irony.

I have said and will say it again, if you have decent hardware and you can't make Windows XP stable as a rock, then you don't know what you are doing.


Whatsisname said:
No, the reason MS makes money is because of vendor lock in and by eliminating competition in as many markets as they can. Microsoft took control of the operating system market with MS-DOS, (a product they didn't even create), it has little to nothing to do with "intuitive to the user"
Click to expand...
 
TheRapture said:
I have said and will say it again, if you have decent hardware and you can't make Windows XP stable as a rock, then you don't know what you are doing.
Click to expand...
i've got to back him up on this point. if you had hardware that is supported by Windows XP's native drivers (arguably an old machine, but still), then I'd wager you'd have a pretty rock solid machine that would very rarely, if ever, crash. XP crashes and burns most often because of faulty or unsupported third-party device drivers not behaving properly.
 
svet-am said:
i've got to back him up on this point. if you had hardware that is supported by Windows XP's native drivers (arguably an old machine, but still), then I'd wager you'd have a pretty rock solid machine that would very rarely, if ever, crash. XP crashes and burns most often because of faulty or unsupported third-party device drivers not behaving properly.
Click to expand...

QFT... except you should have said:

"XP crashes and burns most often because of faulty or unsupported third-party device drivers and faulty or improperly supported and updated software not behaving properly."

But you're still right, even so...
 
I agree that XP is pretty stable.

On the other hand, a properly designed OS won't let a device driver crash it. Vista should actually make a fair improvement with respect to that, but XP is pretty vulnerable to bad driver code.
 
hate to be the one to point this out, but you guys are grasping at little itty bitty microscopic tiny straws....

A crash is crash...Period. You install a fresh clean copy of Windows XP and more then half the hardware doesnt have a driver. Using manufacturer drivers are the only option if you want a working sytem.

As I said a crash is a crash. Which is inevitable. It cant be avoided. Those of you who claim you dont have crashes are full of shit. All of us that actually use our computers know it. If you can convince a noob otherwise, then so be it, But most of us are smarter then you.
 
duby229 said:
As I said a crash is a crash. Which is inevitable. It cant be avoided. Those of you who claim you dont have crashes are full of shit. All of us that actually use our computers know it. If you can convince a noob otherwise, then so be it, But most of us are smarter then you.
Click to expand...


It has been months since I had a crash, literally. Every once in a blue moon it happens, usually when I was trying out some new overclock settings, or some silly game freezes....I also reboot the machine once a week or so. My mother's home machine I built for her runs for 4-5 weeks at a time without a reboot. If I have a piece of hardware that has crappy software support/drivers, I get rid of it and get something else.


Linux is fine, for what it is intended for....but a gaming rig/daily use machine it is not really a good choice.
 
I've had two BSODs under Vista's RTM code so far with 100% hardware support on this brand spankin' new Core 2 Duo laptop I just bought 3 days ago.

Under XP Pro, it's been... well... honestly I can't remember the last time I did have a BSOD, on any machine that I've owned in the past 5 years, most notably the Dell Inspiron 4150 laptop I've had since Oct of 2001. It just doesn't happen to me, and I've been doing this a long time - but then again, as duby229 said, most of us are smarter... but then again, a small percentage of us are even smarter than someone that makes such a statement. :)

Anyway, I'm burning off Ubuntu 6.10 32 and 64 bit CDs at this moment to do some testing in a bit. It's been a long time since I messed with Linux distros (since we all know that Linux is a kernel and not an OS), and I'm curious to see how well the most current iteration of Ubuntu holds up on this Core 2 Duo machine.

Had to say that last part to show some Linux familiarity... :D
 
So far I'm enjoying fedora core 6 and Linux mint (which is based on Ubuntu). I got RT running on fedora core 6, which was my whole goal. Linux mint, I'm just gonna play around with.
 
Linux certainly isn't for everyone....

However if it already has all the drivers you need, which will include 80% of people, and you don't game.... Then it will make a perfect desktop.

If on the other hand you need drivers that don't come included with the default kernel, then it can be a pain to configure, and build a new kernel. Or again if you game, then Linux will not work well for you.

If on the third hand you use your computer for anything like Video encoding or graphics editing or anything of that ilk, then Mac OS may suite your needs the best....

I'd say that Linux could easily fill at least 60% of the market demand right now, possibly even more. THAT is what Balmer is afraid of. Not the fact that it doesn't right now, but that it --could-- right now. This instant, IF MS was to suddenly die, Linux could easily fill 60% of the demand that would follow.

I realize that is hypothetical, and wont actually happen... And I say were better off for i too. I rather like that Linux has stayed a small operation. We still have ten times the development resources MS has, and we still have FAR greater capability. Linux does everything better then windows. Windows just has more games. Thats about it.
 
TheRapture said:
Linux is fine, for what it is intended for....but a gaming rig/daily use machine it is not really a good choice.
Click to expand...
It's an excellent choice for daily use for myself and many other people (like me I guess).
I agree with the rest of your post though.


duby229 said:
Linux does everything better then windows.
Click to expand...
People aren't going to take you seriously if you insist on making these sorts of sweeping statements that are obviously untrue. And this is coming from someone who uses a unix 95% of time they are on a computer.
 
jimmyb said:
People aren't going to take you seriously if you insist on making these sorts of sweeping statements that are obviously untrue. And this is coming from someone who uses a unix 95% of time they are on a computer.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier. It is all a matter of opinion. Yours is the only one that matters to you, and nobody is going to be able to change it. So be it. I have my opinions that have been hard earned. I have the right to them, same as you have the right to yours. What your really saying is everyone else's opinion is like an ass crack. Every one has one and nobody wants to see yours. Which is unfair and derogatory. It's the chewbacca defense :D
 
oh I was about to post that I agreed with duby, seeing how most regular stuff, has worked better in linux then winwows, and then I remembered, flash, and depending, photo or graphic editing.....well, I just cant gimp as good as I photoshop.........
 
Hornswoggler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late response I think I missed this earlier. So I just wanted to respond to this now, before the thread gets too much further along :D

What we do in our situation is we actually have 12 FreeNX terminal servers that are automatically mirrored AND load balanced.

What this means is that if a change is made on one server, it will then automatically propagate out to the other 11 servers. And because it is load balanced the client doesn't know or care which of the servers it logs into. ALL of the users, and printers and scanners are configured on the terminal server, and access rights are granted there. When a user logs in, they have permission to use the printers and scanners that are at that location. In some cases where the user works at more then one location, the user account can be configured accordingly.

We also have 4 application servers running Windows 2000 Server, that serve out the centricity client. We use FreeNX in this case to redirect, and compress RDP traffic, which is then served directly to the terminal servers. We also have 4 DB servers running Linux where all of the information is stored. Which application server a user is connected to doesn't matter because the Centricity client is getting it's data from the same DB server anyhow. The 4 DB servers are running MySQL, using it's built in load balancer.

So as far as my job is concerned, the only thing I need to do is make sure that all the users are configured properly for the location they need access to on the terminal server. The DB admin then creates a DB for that company, and the "Centricity Guy" (inside joke) makes sure that Centricity is configured properly. Really as far as deployment goes the only thing I have to do is make sure that users are configured properly, and make sure that printers are configured properly, and make sure that scanners are configured properly, and make sure that the local networks are working properly.

Sounds like a lot, but I actually don't have to mess with the servers that often. 90% of my job is replacing messed up hardware. Power supply dies, or MB has leaky cap, or Monitor goes bad... It's always something. But the server side is really more or less self maintained. Plus most of the guys that have "Admin" in there label take care of that stuff anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top