Why you chose linux

D

DeathCloud

Gawd
Joined
Jul 21, 2005
Messages
1,004
So I just installed Linux and was curious why all of you have installed Linux. I am looking for ideas of what to do with my new Linux box :)
 
i installed linux on my desktop simply to use it for everyday tasks in lieu of windows (although i still split my desktop usage time between vista and my linux install). it isn't as polished as windows/os x on the desktop, not by a long shot, but it is an infinitely fascinating project, and as a technology geek, I am infinitely fascinated with it...

on top of that, every server I run (2, both personal use) are linux based, because as a server, linux is excellent, and has always performed excellently for me on the hardware I use it on

i actually *do* run linux as the primary desktop environment for my grandparents.... bit-rot, and security exploits are things I just dont have to worry about with it, and 3 and a half years later, the intial ubuntu install i put on their computer is still working as well as the day i first put it on their computer
 
DeathCloud said:
what type of servers are you running?
Click to expand...

1 server is my media center/TV, i watch/record TV on it, and store *all* of my files on it. the media center/TV is also my file server because of that.....

the 2nd server is one that I keep at my parents' house.... all it does is mirror my primary media center/file server (both are rsync'ing with each other). So in case my place burns down or something, all my (and girlfriend/fiance)'s documents are safe and secure

all drives/partitions/information packets are encrypted of course :)



I have a personal website that I dont host, but i guess it is worth mentioning that the webhost runs slackware for it, and I administer the site by ssh'ing into the server and operating from the command line.
 
I've used Linux as my main desktop since...oh...2003, I think. It was mainly because Microsoft had suddenly decided that my fully-paid copy of XP was no longer valid due to me having the temerity to reinstall it more often than they thought it should be, and their activation phone line wasn't working. I needed to do some work in a hurry, so I burned an ISO (I think it was OpenSUSE) and went from there. After that weekend was over, I did a cost-benefit analysis and came to the conclusion that it was probably easier just to stick with it.

I'll admit it was a struggle at first, but when Ubuntu 6.06 came out it was a breath of fresh air. I'm now running 9.10 Alpha 5, and it's brilliant. Easy to install (took about 25 minutes to download the ISO, make a USB flash drive into a startup disk, install it and get it set up to mount everything in the right place), and it's super smooth - all the problems I had with Compiz are gone, and they've sorted out the performance issues with the Docky theme for Gnome Do. Oh, and very fast boot :D The only thing I don't like about it now is that they've gone for Empathy as the default IM client, but that's easily solved.
 
I make my living as a Linux Admin. I think that should explain it :) Lots of tools I end up having to use to connect/work with exist on linux but do not (or are 3rd party designed/not completely compatible) exist on windows.

I also am tired of Microsoft licensing & activation, but that is another rant entirely.....
 
I use it because I enjoy tinkering and programming. I'm a physicist but I enjoy computing as a hobby. Windows is good from an ease standpoint and when I want to play games but for getting down and dirty and really learning stuff Linux is much more fun.
 
A variety of different reasons;

1) Makes a better print server than windows
2) Cheap file serving
3) MythTV
4) Asterisk

Plus it's an excellent environment for scripting automated tasks
 
its been a little difficult since I am so use to dos commands. Its like learning to speak another language :)
 
DeathCloud said:
its been a little difficult since I am so use to dos commands. Its like learning to speak another language :)
Click to expand...

You don't find it similar? I do. I think of it as Spanish and Portuguese - the same, but different.
 
Not to bash Linux, but I find it funny how a lot of users like the OP go into Linux saying (and I paraphrase here) "Hey, I just set up Linux. Now what should I do with it?"

Seriously, do you need to ask that kind of question? If you have something to do, then do it. If you don't, then don't. I am extremely sympathetic to those that choose their operating system because another one doesn't fit their needs for an application or purpose, but I find it kind of retarded that you would try different operating systems with no vision or purpose.

If you browse the web now, then browse the web on Linux. If you write documents now, then write documents on Linux. What do you want to do? Compile code? Link libraries? Why not be a software developer then? You'll do plenty of that.
 
Cyrilix said:
Not to bash Linux, but I find it funny how a lot of users like the OP go into Linux saying (and I paraphrase here) "Hey, I just set up Linux. Now what should I do with it?"

Seriously, do you need to ask that kind of question? If you have something to do, then do it. If you don't, then don't. I am extremely sympathetic to those that choose their operating system because another one doesn't fit their needs for an application or purpose, but I find it kind of retarded that you would try different operating systems with no vision or purpose.

If you browse the web now, then browse the web on Linux. If you write documents now, then write documents on Linux. What do you want to do? Compile code? Link libraries? Why not be a software developer then? You'll do plenty of that.
Click to expand...

It's not always about finding something new to do because it's a different OS. It also has to do with finding different ways of doing things. Different software can do the some of the same things but in a different way or do something better or do something worse.

I enjoy tinkering. I used to do this a good bit with MS OSes but as time has gone on, I've found less and less I can tinker with. With Linux, there's much more I can tinker with even if it's something as small as messing around with how the GUI looks.

I can open up the package manager doing random searches for software and find something interesting I've never messed with before. Is that software going to make me more productive or make the machine run better? No. But that may not be the point of the exercise. I like to learn even if the knowledge is basically pointless in my day to day life. I would guess there are a lot of other people just like me.

Those are reasons why people ask that question. It's different, it's new to them and they want to find out what they can.

 
Cyrilix said:
Not to bash Linux, but I find it funny how a lot of users like the OP go into Linux saying (and I paraphrase here) "Hey, I just set up Linux. Now what should I do with it?"

Seriously, do you need to ask that kind of question? If you have something to do, then do it. If you don't, then don't. I am extremely sympathetic to those that choose their operating system because another one doesn't fit their needs for an application or purpose, but I find it kind of retarded that you would try different operating systems with no vision or purpose.

If you browse the web now, then browse the web on Linux. If you write documents now, then write documents on Linux. What do you want to do? Compile code? Link libraries? Why not be a software developer then? You'll do plenty of that.
Click to expand...

Testy, testy....
 
First started using it a few years ago for work, to run biophysics software in a neuroscience lab. Discovered I really liked command line. Somewhere along the line I decided it was just more convenient to run it as my primary OS, because so much of the rest of the scientific community is in a UNIX or UNIX-like environment. It's not too surprising seeing as how so much of scientific computing is steeped in the UNIX tradition, even to this day (especially looking at HPC). Linux acts as a popular bridge to this wealth of scientific software and development tools, and being free, was the natural path of least resistance for me.

It also doesn't hurt that Linux is also extremely configurable, with the lone limitation being the technical ability of the user. Setting up a computer cluster may require me to read documentation, but once I have learned how to do it I can set up subsequent clusters relatively cheaply. In Windows or OSX, it becomes a financial question - do I have enough to pay for the extra functionality? I suppose if I had the money I could spend it on a Microsoft or Apple solution. But why do it? The software technologies that emerge and evolve in the HPC realm are on supercomputers that are already running Linux anyway (looking at OMPI, MAGMA, etc). The money is better spent on hardware.
 
deathstar550 said:
First started using it a few years ago for work, to run biophysics software in a neuroscience lab. Discovered I really liked command line. Somewhere along the line I decided it was just more convenient to run it as my primary OS, because so much of the rest of the scientific community is in a UNIX or UNIX-like environment. It's not too surprising seeing as how so much of scientific computing is steeped in the UNIX tradition, even to this day (especially looking at HPC). Linux acts as a popular bridge to this wealth of scientific software and development tools, and being free, was the natural path of least resistance for me.

It also doesn't hurt that Linux is also extremely configurable, with the lone limitation being the technical ability of the user. Setting up a computer cluster may require me to read documentation, but once I have learned how to do it I can set up subsequent clusters relatively cheaply. In Windows or OSX, it becomes a financial question - do I have enough to pay for the extra functionality? I suppose if I had the money I could spend it on a Microsoft or Apple solution. But why do it? The software technologies that emerge and evolve in the HPC realm are on supercomputers that are already running Linux anyway (looking at OMPI, MAGMA, etc). The money is better spent on hardware.
Click to expand...

I think that you're falling into the trap that software and time are free. No they aren't. There is a cost associated with time. Now most people probably have more time than money, so using time to pay for what you don't have in cash makes sense. Then there are those more fortunate than most that have the oposite problem. More money than time. If they want something its most cost effective for them to simply buy is as there time is at a premium.
 
heatlesssun said:
I think that you're falling into the trap that software and time are free. No they aren't. There is a cost associated with time. Now most people probably have more time than money, so using time to pay for what you don't have in cash makes sense. Then there are those more fortunate than most that have the oposite problem. More money than time. If they want something its most cost effective for them to simply buy is as there time is at a premium.
Click to expand...

given the fact that linux excels in the HPC realm, and is well supported; and given his history, its a damn good thing he's maximizing his return on his time *and* money by going linux....

smart guy...
 
brucedeluxe169 said:
given the fact that linux excels in the HPC realm, and is well supported; and given his history, its a damn good thing he's maximizing his return on his time *and* money by going linux....

smart guy...
Click to expand...

Which is the right thing for his needs which is cool and only reinforces my point.
 
When I first installed linux, I was trying to battle the corporate monster that is M$.

Now I just play with it because I can. It's "free". Its something to learn on, and I love the endless possibilities for tinkering.

I wish they would polish the desktop a little better, they're working on it, but it isn't as fine tuned as OSX or 7 so it feels old.

long story short, its fun to play with.
 
heatlesssun said:
I think that you're falling into the trap that software and time are free. No they aren't. There is a cost associated with time. Now most people probably have more time than money, so using time to pay for what you don't have in cash makes sense. Then there are those more fortunate than most that have the oposite problem. More money than time. If they want something its most cost effective for them to simply buy is as there time is at a premium.
Click to expand...

So, Windows or OSX based solutions don't require any type of time to learn how to use or configure? You're falling into the trap that what you're familiar with didn't take time to learn. I doubt people who know Windows really well were born that way. What I know about Windows is based upon years of use and building up knowledge.

Even then, having years of "practice" with something such as Windows doesn't mean another OS can't be learned as quick or quicker.

Another problem with your argument is that the point you are making is that learning something else is nothing but trouble and a waste compared to what you could be learning. That may be the case with you or some others but it's definitely not the case with everyone. Also, if learning new tools which end up decreasing the amount of time you spend working later on, then you haven't really wasted time or money. It's like an investment. Sure, it may be a lot of time, trouble or money right at the start but it can easily be profitable later on.
 
heatlesssun said:
I think that you're falling into the trap that software and time are free. No they aren't. There is a cost associated with time. Now most people probably have more time than money, so using time to pay for what you don't have in cash makes sense. Then there are those more fortunate than most that have the oposite problem. More money than time. If they want something its most cost effective for them to simply buy is as there time is at a premium.
Click to expand...

Whether one has more time than money or more money than time is ancillary. I could well have more money than time, and yet still not see any benefit to paying for the proprietary solution, especially if I believe the widely-used free standards are of superior quality. We may not see eye-to-eye there (which is fine), but make no mistake, I fully realize the costs associated with time.
 
SmokeRngs said:
So, Windows or OSX based solutions don't require any type of time to learn how to use or configure? You're falling into the trap that what you're familiar with didn't take time to learn. I doubt people who know Windows really well were born that way. What I know about Windows is based upon years of use and building up knowledge.

Even then, having years of "practice" with something such as Windows doesn't mean another OS can't be learned as quick or quicker.

Another problem with your argument is that the point you are making is that learning something else is nothing but trouble and a waste compared to what you could be learning. That may be the case with you or some others but it's definitely not the case with everyone. Also, if learning new tools which end up decreasing the amount of time you spend working later on, then you haven't really wasted time or money. It's like an investment. Sure, it may be a lot of time, trouble or money right at the start but it can easily be profitable later on.
Click to expand...

You have some valid points but my point still stands. Time has a value just like money and depending on your circustances one may be of more value than the other. If your an executive you pay people to do all of your chores, you don't do them yourself because you have the money and its just not worth your time.

If you want to talk about OS'es then sure I'm a Windows expert, have used it 20 years. But 90% of the time things in Windows aren't that complicated. And 90% of the time if something goes wrong it takes usually 10 minutes to find an answer but I do understand that has a lot to do with my experience level.

Linux is a great tool and if serves your needs then rock on! Windows goes a fine job for me as it’s a single platform that serves all of my needs as I use my computers for everything from gaming to home theater use to work. I really don’t care about the platform, I just care about what it supports.
 
deathstar550 said:
Whether one has more time than money or more money than time is ancillary. I could well have more money than time, and yet still not see any benefit to paying for the proprietary solution, especially if I believe the widely-used free standards are of superior quality. We may not see eye-to-eye there (which is fine), but make no mistake, I fully realize the costs associated with time.
Click to expand...

If the free solution is the easiest then it’s a win win in this case. But a look at the real world seems to indicate that proprietary stuff has certain advantages, even if they are artificial sometimes.

But the beauty of it all is that I can ALWAYS get the free stuff any time I want to augment or replace the proprietary stuff whenever I want and the only cost is time right?

Also, a lot of FOSS stuff is available for Windows; it’s not like Windows ecosystem doesn’t include FOSS as well. It’s not just all about the OS. Remember we are approaching the area of the cloud in the minds of many, the desktop OS at least my become irrelevant.
 
I chose Linux because i just got tired of Windows. At first it was cause all my friends were using it. Back during ubuntu 6.06 (i think that's what it was).

I ran it just as a side thing for fun... then i got really pissed at windows one day and didn't even bother to back up my documents, i was just like "screw thing *format and install ubuntu*."

So, I've been using ubuntu for 3ish years, i think. Tried different distros (slackware, arch, Mint 6, 7, Ubuntu, FreeBSD) and i seem to comeback to Ubuntu in the end.

Now, the reason I like it: FOSS is amazing. So many of the applications are better, or equal IMO.
Certain applications like Transmission and MPD i *totally* prefer. I've just stopped using my desktop for torrents cause i'm so sick of utorrent and stuff like that. While the Ubuntu desktop environment isn't the best, it's still good. In a few years, i think it will be able to compete with M$ and Apple.

Also, the best thing for me is: The Terminal. O.M.G: i would die without it. I run everything i can through the terminal.MPD + NCMPC, irssi, sometimes Finch. I love it. I feel so lost in Windows cause i don't have it.

Now, as much as I want to run my laptop and Desktop under Linux, i can't. I'm a photoshop person, and i wasn't to major in Graphics Design... so I need photoshop. While GIMP will work sometimes, it's just not as good as PS.
Also, i do some *minor* PC gaming that prevent me from using Linux all the time (CS:S and Fear 2)
So, because of that, my Desktop runs Vista and Windows 7 (transitioning over to 7) and my laptop runs Mint 7.

So, that is why I use Linux. Yes, quite random through there. I didnt really think while i was writing, so it'svery random.
 
SmokeRngs said:
It's not always about finding something new to do because it's a different OS. It also has to do with finding different ways of doing things. Different software can do the some of the same things but in a different way or do something better or do something worse.

I enjoy tinkering. I used to do this a good bit with MS OSes but as time has gone on, I've found less and less I can tinker with. With Linux, there's much more I can tinker with even if it's something as small as messing around with how the GUI looks.

I can open up the package manager doing random searches for software and find something interesting I've never messed with before. Is that software going to make me more productive or make the machine run better? No. But that may not be the point of the exercise. I like to learn even if the knowledge is basically pointless in my day to day life. I would guess there are a lot of other people just like me.

Those are reasons why people ask that question. It's different, it's new to them and they want to find out what they can.
Click to expand...

Part of my WTF attitude is that I don't really understand why people think that using any operating system such as Linux (Windows and OSX included as well), would make them "learn about operating systems". In my experience it teaches you NOTHING about operating systems. It teaches you how to apply operating system x to do stuff. You will learn a lot more in an equivalent 3rd year CS course by the name of "Operating Systems", as well as 2nd-4th year courses in computer architecture, that tell you how the machine actually works, the memory management systems behind it, the hardware communication behind it. All Linux teaches you, really, is memorizing command lines. Rote memorization falls under a different class of learning (and you can see, how much I value that type of learning).

So, like I said, I'm glad some of you guys really like to learn, but ask yourselves, what do you really want to learn, and why does doing what you do make you learn such a thing? Are you sure you're actually learning something, or is it just an illusion?

On the other hand, some people just want to tinker with the high-level operating system stuff (memorizing command lines, system administration). If that's what you really wanted to learn, then great. You're working towards your goal by doing what you do.
 
I used it as a email server (pop3/smtp), mostly because I couldn't find any easy solution for windows at the time (~2002).
 
heatlesssun said:
If you want to talk about OS'es then sure I'm a Windows expert, have used it 20 years. But 90% of the time things in Windows aren't that complicated. And 90% of the time if something goes wrong it takes usually 10 minutes to find an answer but I do understand that has a lot to do with my experience level.
Click to expand...

I wasn't really going to weigh in on this thread, but this rubbed my experience the wrong way. I've used Windows fairly extensively since 3.1, and have been employed as both a Windows (past) and Linux (current) administrator. I've worked with both OS's fairly extensively, and in my experience if something breaks in Windows and there isn't a hit on Google or MSKB you're basically screwed. The logs are absolutely terrible for the most part, the registry and its ilk are almost entirely undocumented, and pretty much the whole system is very opaque. If you run into problems that are uncommon or puzzling in any way, it's very difficult and takes a lot of effort to figure out what's going on, nevermind how to fix them. Trying to figure out why DFS isn't replicating all files properly or why a service isn't starting leaving a log entry like 'Service XXX failed to start' is a headache, and often one where even an advanced user doesn't have much recourse aside from pulling out a debugger or changing some undocumented registry entry and watching a still-too-concise log hidden somewhere in the bowels of c:\windows. I can't count the number of times I've spent a day pulling my hair out of some weird Windows problem, only to come up with some workaround that doesn't actually address the issue as a bandaid solution to what appears to be an unfixable problem without major surgery.

In contrast, on the Linux side it's usually fairly easy to figure out what's going on, with tools that are already installed in most distributions, and in a relatively painless way. The default logging is almost universally much more useful, and often can be made significantly more verbose with a couple of keystrokes. This isn't always true, but things are much more transparent, and whenever you're troubleshooting an obscure problem that hasn't been seen by 2000 bloggers on Google, it's a huge asset to have good windows into the system internals available to you if you need them. Further, since everything, for the most part, uses text configuration files and even lots of the system scaffolding (startup scripts and the like) are visible and editable, you can often work around minor issues easily, or correct corruption of files by hand (or with scripts), whereas with undocumented binary formats you'd be forced to start from scratch or an old backup.
 
keenan said:
I wasn't really going to weigh in on this thread, but this rubbed my experience the wrong way. I've used Windows fairly extensively since 3.1, and have been employed as both a Windows (past) and Linux (current) administrator. I've worked with both OS's fairly extensively, and in my experience if something breaks in Windows and there isn't a hit on Google or MSKB you're basically screwed. The logs are absolutely terrible for the most part, the registry and its ilk are almost entirely undocumented, and pretty much the whole system is very opaque. If you run into problems that are uncommon or puzzling in any way, it's very difficult and takes a lot of effort to figure out what's going on, nevermind how to fix them. Trying to figure out why DFS isn't replicating all files properly or why a service isn't starting leaving a log entry like 'Service XXX failed to start' is a headache, and often one where even an advanced user doesn't have much recourse aside from pulling out a debugger or changing some undocumented registry entry and watching a still-too-concise log hidden somewhere in the bowels of c:\windows. I can't count the number of times I've spent a day pulling my hair out of some weird Windows problem, only to come up with some workaround that doesn't actually address the issue as a bandaid solution to what appears to be an unfixable problem without major surgery.

In contrast, on the Linux side it's usually fairly easy to figure out what's going on, with tools that are already installed in most distributions, and in a relatively painless way. The default logging is almost universally much more useful, and often can be made significantly more verbose with a couple of keystrokes. This isn't always true, but things are much more transparent, and whenever you're troubleshooting an obscure problem that hasn't been seen by 2000 bloggers on Google, it's a huge asset to have good windows into the system internals available to you if you need them. Further, since everything, for the most part, uses text configuration files and even lots of the system scaffolding (startup scripts and the like) are visible and editable, you can often work around minor issues easily, or correct corruption of files by hand (or with scripts), whereas with undocumented binary formats you'd be forced to start from scratch or an old backup.
Click to expand...
I can't agree with you about windows. While I agree it's not nearly as simple as linux, there are a plethora of debuging tools to figure out what's going on. Anymore I can diagnose windows problems almost as quick as linux.

That said, I do prefer the linux environment. It's far easier to use for the tasks I use it for.
 
I chose Linux because I love the philosophy behind it. I like being able to break so many things and still always having some way to fix it (With Windows that is usually not true because of it's closed source nature). I also am studying for my RHCE and hope to one day become a UNIX/Linux administrator :)
 
I chose linux because I wanted to get away from Windows and expand my OS knowledge away from solely MS O/S's. Also I use unix for c++ compiling and it's nice to not have to use SSH to compile my programs on my computer science servers at school, as I HAVE to do through windows (although I still SSH from the terminal in linux). Overall I am very impressed with Linux, I have yet to run into something I can't run or find a replacement of.
 
I "attempt" linux once a month or so and never stick to it. Mainly because I am lazy and never get everything up and running.
 
Shambler said:
I "attempt" linux once a month or so and never stick to it. Mainly because I am lazy and never get everything up and running.
Click to expand...

lol, that was true for me early on.....

the tipping point for me was when my main computer died during my final months of college, and i had no means to buy a new one....

so I ended up having to hack together a usable desktop out of a pentium 2 with 128mb of RAM.....

gentoo + openbox saved the day :)
 
I got tired of Windows shitting out on me for no reason.

Happy Linux Mint user for 6 months now! wuwu
 
Loving it!! It's so smooth and clean, easiest OS I have ever used.

I installed it, and well, it just worked?
 
I run linux because it is the only full blown desktop that will even let my poor old PIII be a glorified mp3 player.

It got to where win2k would stutter the audio every few seconds (drive access light would flash at the same time...no idea) about 3 days into a fresh install.

Ubuntu worked pretty good with the audio player cranked to maximum un-nice, but it would hit the audio if you tried to scroll really fast in a browser or something.

Now I got UbuntuStudio going on with the realtime kernal...it will play audio flawlessly while surfing the web and folding with anything it has left...awesome.

They got it really easy to install now, load CD, click through a few options and half an hour later the damn thing puts itself on the internet and wants updates...awesome
 
Last edited:
(All this happened two years ago, around Christmas 2007)

One of my suitemates at Uni and I had a bet that we'd try Linux (Ubuntu 7.10) for a month, since we were both in CompSci and needed it for our second-year courses anyways, and also (for me) because it was interesting. Well, about a week later, we had both pretty much given up (I was having a lot of problems with my sound drivers, no pulseaudio back in the 7.10 days!) and I was back to using Windows Vista which I was dual booting. However, something borked in Windows and I ended up with a corrupted install that wouldn't boot. I was really lazy, and wanted to browse the internet that night, so I booted into my Ubuntu install instead of reinstalling Windows, got my sound issues fixed that night, and I've never looked back.
 
I was experienced with Linux and used it for different tasks, between setting up Sendmail servers or just playing Quake3 (it ran faster on RedHat 7 than Win2K!). Later I got heavily into MythTV and had set up maybe 10-20 Myth boxes under Fedora.

I got a position as a Nix Admin and used it on my desktop at work for quite some time before finally making the jump at home. The jump at home was about 6 months in.
I haven't looked back since. The first year, I used VirtualBox to run an XP VM for TurboTax, the next year I just used TurboTax online.

The hardest thing to do was just forget how you used to do things.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top