1840 others browsing the Canadian Forums! Join us!

Windows XP or linux?

Windows XP or linux?

no1important

#31

RE: Windows XP or linux?

Sep 2nd, 2005

--

By Nick Farrell: Thursday 01 September 2005, 08:06
TWO REPORTS commissioned by penguin champions IBM claim that Linux is actually less expensive to own than Windows or Unix.

The PR move by IBM is similar to Microsoft's "Get The Facts" campaign which produced reports that said the exact opposite.

Big Blue’s research was made by the Robert Frances Group and has the catchy title "TCO For Application Servers: Comparing Linux With Windows And Solaris".

It compared the cost of acquiring, implementing, and running an application server on Linux, Windows, and Sun Solaris. It found that Linux is 40 per cent less expensive than a comparable x86-based Windows server and 54 per cent cheaper than a Sparc-based Solaris server.

The report says that Linux’s biggest saving comes about because it does not have the huge licensing fees of VoleWare and Solaris. However, there are other savings to be made, too.

The other IBM-sponsored report by research firm Pund-IT claims there are "second-stage" benefits to using Linux. The report, titled "Beyond TCO--The Unanticipated Second Stage Benefits Of Linux," staff much prefer using Linux and this has a significant role in the recruitment and retention of IT staff and managers.

Neodim

#32

RE: Windows XP or linux?

Sep 2nd, 2005

It does not really matter since any OS is evolving and thus is prone to mutations and glitches + amazingly , user interface concept has not changed for years and it is easy to get lost in thousands of possibilities that OS presents and which _simple_ user never sees.
So sadly the OS you choose has become more political (or economical, both $ and time invested in self-education) decision than practical.

Judland

#33

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Sep 3rd, 2005

Hmmm.... I question your interpretation of the word practical.

As for the research these reports bring to light

, I've stopped reading them. Like you No1, I've experienced and benefitted from Linux first hand (as well as see the problems with Microsoft every day at the office I work at). There's no report that can change my mind on the practicality of Linux and all it has to offer over other OSes.

Nothing beats first hand experience (good and bad).

cdn_bc_ca

#34

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Oct 31st, 2005

Sorry to bring up an old thread but I feel that I have some points to add to the conversation after having tried Linux for a few months.

If you want to use Linux, you must be willing to accept sacrifice.

Before all the Linux people start flaming me, here are my reasons:
1. Driver support. While driver support has improved dramatically with Linux, it is still not as perfect as with Windows. Some vendors simply do not write drivers for Linux. In cases where drivers are provided, the sheer number of distros available make it hard for the vendor to write installers for all linux environments. That is why some distros provide their own software repositories from which you can install provided that they have it, whereas others adopt a standard packaging method such as RPM. Thus, many Linux programs come in source form and the maintainers of the distro package it up for you so you can just click to install it. However, if you need a program that is not in the repository, well, then, it's back to source compiling.

2. Optimization. Linux is known for running on old hardware and that contributes to it weakness. If you look at distrowatch.com, alot of the distros are compiled for i386 or i586 for compatability reasons. Hardly any are optimized for i686 or current processors. Again, if you want to get the fastest possible speed, then you need to compile the distro yourself (read Gentoo).

3. Games. I've played Enemy Territory on Linux. Although there was a package I could install, the game itself relies on OSS sound emulation. I was using ALSA. Needless to say, sound didn't work and it wasn't intuitive to get it fixed and I have found many incidences of people having the same problem (and even playing the game without sound because they couldn't fix the problem). THen I dual booted back into Windows and downloaded the Windows version of it and everything worked when I double-clicked the icon. Fortunately, I found a person who found the solution to the linux problem and posted the results on a forum.

4. MS Office vs. OpenOffice. OpenOffice is not fully compatible with MS Office. I am writing my thesis in MS office and it contains objects from Visio. One day, I decided to open it up in OpenOffice 2 and I was amazed that it looked exactly the same. However, when I made some minor changes, saved it back to disk as a MS Office document, and reopened it at a later date, all the imported objects were gone. I mean, the space for the objects where still there, it was just blank. However, if I saved it in the native OpenOffice format, the objects were still there after I saved and resaved it. Good, but then I submitted it, and none of my professors could open the damn thing.

5. Printing. I have 2 inkjet printers. An HP Deskjet and a Canon S800, one for daily use and the other for photo printing. If you want to print borderless photos, Linux is not your OS. I have not found an application for any desktop (gnome, kde, etc) that can do borderless photos like the piece of software that Canon made for Windows (called Photorecord). In my opinion, this simple program that asks you how many photos you want to print, whether or not you want borderless, then goes off and arranges the photos automatically and prints is not matched by any program in Linux. If you want the same functionality, you could download GIMP, but then you'd have to import the photos one by one, rotate them manually, resize them, and then place them on the page so that they don't overlap. Then play around with the margins so you can get borderless.

6. One day, I decided I wanted some eye candy on my Gnome desktop. So I downloaded gDesklets, cool. Then I wanted transparent menus and windows. Nope. can't do it, very buggy when X is running with xcomposite extensions. Oh well. Hey! how about this thing called skippy (which is a clone of the famous Apple's Expose - where you can see a snapshot of all your windows shrunk to fit on your desktop with cool animations). Well, skippy sort of does it... except the snapshot of the window does not represent the current window - only when it was launched. Then there is skippy-xd which can do updates of the window in real time! oh, but it requires the buggy xcomposite extension and has a 2-3 second lag. Oh well. So I dual boot into Windows and see if there anything like this and viola! A free program call Synapse 0.1 beta for Windows not to mention other non-free ones called WinPlosion and TopDesk.

7. I sometimes VPN into my corporate network to do support. In Windows, it was as simple as following the wizard to setup the VPN connection. In Linux, well, hmm... wasn't obvious and I had to go through and learn every setting in the OpenVPN config file.

At this point, I sat back and thought long and hard whether Linux was worth switching to. When I mentally reviewed the things I was doing with Linux. I found that I spent more time tinkering with the OS than getting any actual work done. Every little thing in the OS needs tweaking which is too much for most people especially after an upgrade of certain packages.

If you want to use Linux, you must be willing to accept sacrifice.

Which is why I'm back to Windows. But you can be sure that I will be doing the same thing every year with Linux just to see if I can successfully switch over without making any sacrifice.

no1important

#35

RE: Windows XP or linux?

Oct 31st, 2005

Sorry you had such a bad expeirence but I have not encountered any of the problems you mention ( I do not play games though and from what I heard that is a weakness, so I will agree with you there).

To be honest I have not had any problems finding drivers for anything, when I added new printer it installed right away. Unlike when I ran windows, i never had to use installation disk.

I have no problem watching tv, burning dvd's, watching dvd's etc with my Linux (Kanotix on KDE). I do on my other hard drive have Ubuntu with gnome but I usually forget I have it so I never really use it. I just love Kanotix, so user friendly.

To be honest I love open office and have had no problems opening anything that was made on Microsoft office yet. I find it a little easier to use and I find it easier to convert files to pdf.

Synaptic package manager makes it a breeze to install and update programs and even if you download and install a program that is not in synaptic it is not that dificult.

I do not miss the spyware or virus's or computer freezing up or computer crashing as was the case with XP (although XP never crashed as bad as ME), paying through the nose for programs etc. My Kanotix never has crashed and is olid as a rock.

A lot of people think Linux is just like windows but it isn't, on the surface it may seem similar but other than that it is not. With Linux you have to sign in to root as "super user"access or change major programs like Firewalls, clock, move things from one hard drive to another,add programs, change programs but that is no big deal.

I know some people it takes a while to get used to sometimes having to use command codes or codes for when on root but it is easy to figure out.

But in the end it is up to everyone what their preference is and what they are comfortable in using, but to me I would never go back to Windows, open source is for me.

#juan

#36

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Oct 31st, 2005

This may be a bit off the topic but have any of you tried DSL(Damn Small Linux)
--

I am definately not a computer geek but I found this little baby quite easy to use for most things. I have it on a spare computer and I try to use it at least a couple times a week. I still need to learn but I'm getting there.

no1important

#37

RE: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 1st, 2005

That Dam Small Linux looks intersting, when I have some free time I may try it out. I can put it on my other harddrive.

Judland

#38

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 1st, 2005

A few points...

First, I use pretty run of the mill hardware, so drivers are never an issue with me.

Recently I had to replace my motherboard. So I did, then booted up my system. Everything still worked as perfectly as it did before I upgraded. Now, do that with XP..... I don't think so. Even the guy at the computer store told me that if I was going to replace my motherboard, I better have my XP rescue CD handy as it's going to want to restore/reinstall itself. Talk about waisting time tinkering.

As for MS-office compatibility, MS-Office isn't even compatible with itself. You try and open up a MS-Office 2000 document under MS-Office 97. Get ready to be p*ssed off. You'd be surprised how many times I've saved other people's butts at the office by having OpenOffice on my PC for just this purpose.

Even though Linux does require you to learn some new things, when you've configured something to work on your Linux PC it stays that way (unless YOU go and change something).

I can't count how many times I had something working on my MS-Windows PC only to find the next day it wasn't working for some strange, unknown reason. I had enough of that foolishness.

With Linux I now have a lot more free time I can devote to learning new, interesting things about my PC, rather than waisting time fixing things that were already working once before.

What I find a little confusing is the point that a lot of time is spend "tinkering" with the system. I'm assuming that tinkering means getting the desktop interface to look a certain way that you want.

If that's so, then yes, there's less time spent on a MS-Windows box doing this cause MS-Windows doesn't allow you to do much "tinkering" at all. You get what they've made and that's it. You don't like it.... tough. I don't see how this feature of Linux is a bad thing.

As for hardware optimization: could you tell me how MS-XP is optimized for i386 / i586 / i686? Do you even have that capability to optimize MS-XP to your PC's hardware? From my understanding, XP is built to a benchmark... ie: if you want the best performance, you need certain hardware to match the XP benchmarks.

However, with Linux, with a little bit of "elbow grease" you can optimize it to the particular hardware you currently have running, getting the best performance possible from it. Or, if you don't want to spend so much time "building" your own brand of Linux for your particular needs, you could probably find an existing distribution already in existence, which you can download and use for FREE!

So is having a choice better than no choice at all? I would say yes.

But, with all due respect, yes, Linux is not for everyone. Linux represents choice and the ability to learn and control your own environment. Some people aren't ready for that and that's okay.

Myself, I'll never go back to the confines of proprietary software. It just made me too lazy (mentally). And let's not overlook what you sacrifice by using products like MS-Windows: privacy, security, freedom of choice, freedom of ownership, not to mention your hard earned money... to name a few.

Just some points I thought I'd share for contemplation.

Judland

#39

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 1st, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

This may be a bit off the topic but have any of you tried DSL(Damn Small Linux)
.

Yes, I've tried DSL and it's a pretty nice distro. Great for getting the most up-to-date applications running on an old P1. It even brings new life to those older 486s.

I've been playing and learning a new distro. myself.... ArchLinux.

It's a great distro. for those wanting to learn the guts of Linux and is optimized for i686s (ie: Pentium IIs and above).

I was a little intimidated at first, but actually learning how to tailor system files isn't all that hard at all. But what makes this distro so easy (at least for me) to learn is the community behind it. Very helpful people. Well, they'd have to be, being a Canadian-built OS and all.

I was amazed that after setting up the base system, my PC booted up into the KDE log-in screen in 32 seconds!

cdn_bc_ca

#40

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 3rd, 2005

What I meant by tinkering is, for example, installing wine using wine-tools and trying to get photorecord to work. For some reason, wine-tools wasn't able to install some files in the basic setup, but in the end, when I installed photorecord it kept crashing anyways. I also had a problem in Gnome 2.12 not automounting any media like my external cd-writer and internal dvd drive. So I had to tinker with the system to get it to do what I wanted. I also had to tinker with ET to get sound to work as well.

XP is just a tinkerable as Gnome or KDE. There are ways to overcome the trusted themes so that you can apply user created themes that look just like, for example, OS X. Plus, I love sinapse which is a free little app that mimicks Apple Expose... there is no acceptable equivilent in Linux.

The problems your experiencing with XP when you update your hardware is more likely to do with their attempts at overcoming piracy than hardware compatability. But, still, you are finding this minor problem annoying as am I with the problems I have with Linux.

I'm glad that you are finding Linux a good replacement for Windows. For the average user like myself, I just think that Linux is not really a good replacement just yet. Although I've learned enough about Linux to get all the functionality that I had with Windows, I'm just getting tired of spending 10 or so minutes configuring scripts and parameters when I can do the same thing in Windows in less than 1 minute. An example is VPN into corporate network and remote desktop into my work computer.

Plus add to the fact that all my friends, coworkers, professors are still using Windows and Windows only programs makes it harder for me to justify when documents don't covert correctly.

Quote: Originally Posted by Judland

A few points...

First, I use pretty run of the mill hardware, so drivers are never an issue with me.

Recently I had to replace my motherboard. So I did, then booted up my system. Everything still worked as perfectly as it did before I upgraded. Now, do that with XP..... I don't think so. Even the guy at the computer store told me that if I was going to replace my motherboard, I better have my XP rescue CD handy as it's going to want to restore/reinstall itself. Talk about waisting time tinkering.

As for MS-office compatibility, MS-Office isn't even compatible with itself. You try and open up a MS-Office 2000 document under MS-Office 97. Get ready to be p*ssed off. You'd be surprised how many times I've saved other people's butts at the office by having OpenOffice on my PC for just this purpose.

Even though Linux does require you to learn some new things, when you've configured something to work on your Linux PC it stays that way (unless YOU go and change something).

I can't count how many times I had something working on my MS-Windows PC only to find the next day it wasn't working for some strange, unknown reason. I had enough of that foolishness.

With Linux I now have a lot more free time I can devote to learning new, interesting things about my PC, rather than waisting time fixing things that were already working once before.

What I find a little confusing is the point that a lot of time is spend "tinkering" with the system. I'm assuming that tinkering means getting the desktop interface to look a certain way that you want.

If that's so, then yes, there's less time spent on a MS-Windows box doing this cause MS-Windows doesn't allow you to do much "tinkering" at all. You get what they've made and that's it. You don't like it.... tough. I don't see how this feature of Linux is a bad thing.

As for hardware optimization: could you tell me how MS-XP is optimized for i386 / i586 / i686? Do you even have that capability to optimize MS-XP to your PC's hardware? From my understanding, XP is built to a benchmark... ie: if you want the best performance, you need certain hardware to match the XP benchmarks.

However, with Linux, with a little bit of "elbow grease" you can optimize it to the particular hardware you currently have running, getting the best performance possible from it. Or, if you don't want to spend so much time "building" your own brand of Linux for your particular needs, you could probably find an existing distribution already in existence, which you can download and use for FREE!

So is having a choice better than no choice at all? I would say yes.

But, with all due respect, yes, Linux is not for everyone. Linux represents choice and the ability to learn and control your own environment. Some people aren't ready for that and that's okay.

Myself, I'll never go back to the confines of proprietary software. It just made me too lazy (mentally). And let's not overlook what you sacrifice by using products like MS-Windows: privacy, security, freedom of choice, freedom of ownership, not to mention your hard earned money... to name a few.

Just some points I thought I'd share for contemplation.

cdn_bc_ca

#41

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 3rd, 2005

Hey, a fellow Arch user! I still have my archlinux partition on my computer and I won't be deleting it anytime soon.
I run Gnome and my computer from boot to desktop takes 20 secs.

Quote: Originally Posted by Judland

Quote: Originally Posted by #juan
This may be a bit off the topic but have any of you tried DSL(Damn Small Linux)
.
Yes, I've tried DSL and it's a pretty nice distro. Great for getting the most up-to-date applications running on an old P1. It even brings new life to those older 486s.

I've been playing and learning a new distro. myself.... ArchLinux.

It's a great distro. for those wanting to learn the guts of Linux and is optimized for i686s (ie: Pentium IIs and above).

I was a little intimidated at first, but actually learning how to tailor system files isn't all that hard at all. But what makes this distro so easy (at least for me) to learn is the community behind it. Very helpful people. Well, they'd have to be, being a Canadian-built OS and all.

I was amazed that after setting up the base system, my PC booted up into the KDE log-in screen in 32 seconds!

Judland

#42

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 4th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_ca

Hey, a fellow Arch user! I still have my archlinux partition on my computer and I won't be deleting it anytime soon.
I run Gnome and my computer from boot to desktop takes 20 secs.

I'm really enjoying Arch. As with a Linux, Microsoft, or Mac OS, it isn't for everyone, but it's certainly empowering. Well worth my time to learn... and I've learnt a lot.

The "Pacman" package manager is really slick. No more having to install new releases of the OS. Pacman handles it all with one simple command.

Learning about the power of the command line and manually configuring scripts hasn't been anywhere as near as difficult as I thought.

Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_ca

XP is just a tinkerable as Gnome or KDE. There are ways to overcome the trusted themes so that you can apply user created themes that look just like, for example, OS X. Plus, I love sinapse which is a free little app that mimicks Apple Expose... there is no acceptable equivilent in Linux.

Just wondering, as my interest in exploring XP has gone the way of the Dodo.... has Microsoft finally allowed for "hot-key" assignment to applications and documents? (example: I've taught KDE to launch some of my favourite apps and frequently opened documents when I press the keys CTRL-ALT-S or CTRL-ALT-W, etc.)

Have you tried SuperKaramba at all? Might be an option for you. You can use it to completely replace KDE's standard toolbars and menus.

As for the "average user", well, my wife uses Linux and KDE. She's not all that compuer-savvy, but she has no problems and loves the fact that I can make my KDE desktop do all sorts of wonderful and crazy things... while her KDE destkop stays just the way she left it.

Also helpful for the kids, too. My son can completely muck up his log-in account, while my daughter's stays perfectly stable and secure.

cdn_bc_ca

#43

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 4th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Judland

Just wondering, as my interest in exploring XP has gone the way of the Dodo.... has Microsoft finally allowed for "hot-key" assignment to applications and documents? (example: I've taught KDE to launch some of my favourite apps and frequently opened documents when I press the keys CTRL-ALT-S or CTRL-ALT-W, etc.)

Don't know. But I found this free little app that does this and more:
--

The windows-key on the keyboard does a bunch of stuff also, but I don't really use it that much.

Quote: Originally Posted by Judland

Also helpful for the kids, too. My son can completely muck up his log-in account, while my daughter's stays perfectly stable and secure.

The problem with XP is that alot of people log in as the administrator (or root). As you probably know, one of the biggest "no no's" for Linux is to use the computer this way. If all XP users followed the same practices as you and I (working as a non-root non-administrator user), there probably wouldn't be so many problems. But Microsoft doesn't really promote these practices to their users.

I just got a new monitor for my computer, a Dell 2001FP (21" widescreen baby!

), Windows detected it and put it to the highest resolution the monitor supports (1600X1200), however, when booted Linux and got into Gnome, there was no option for 1600x1200 when I wanted to change the resolution... I had to go into the xorg config file and add the entries for 1600x1200 (because my old monitor couldn't support this resolution and so it wasn't there). Would an average user be able to do this? This is what I'm getting at... the little things. I wonder what would happen if I went from a Radeon X800 to a GeForce 7800GT? Can you think of the things you need to do in Linux to get this card working at fullest potential? I can think of a couple.

Judland

#44

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 4th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_ca

I just got a new monitor for my computer, a Dell 2001FP (21" widescreen baby! ), Windows detected it and put it to the highest resolution the monitor supports (1600X1200), however, when booted Linux and got into Gnome, there was no option for 1600x1200 when I wanted to change the resolution... I had to go into the xorg config file and add the entries for 1600x1200 (because my old monitor couldn't support this resolution and so it wasn't there). Would an average user be able to do this?

But, if you were to have bought a "Linux compliant" monitor, auto-detection probably would have worked for you. I think punishing Linux for the short-comings of the manufacturers isn't all that fair. But I do see your point.

Thankfully, because of those people who don't buy hardware not easily usable under Linux, those un-cooperative manufactures are starting to take notice and are beginning to support Linux natively. It's getting better all of the time. But, if nobody took a stand, then nothing would have changed, I'm sure.

Heck, the Linux community has helped the Microsoft user immensely, by simply forcing them to offer some of their products at more affordable prices.... but now I'm really getting off topic here.

I've upgraded monitors myself, and I haven't had to do anything to reconfigure for them. Of course, I use Kanotix, which has the best hardware detection I've seen for a Linux OS. I also don't use Gnome, but rather KDE, which has better support all-around, in my opinion.

Anyway... to each his own. I still feel there's big changes a-comin' in the world of computers and their operating systems. Thankfully, Linux is continuing to grow and improve month by month.... and I'm glad to own my PC again on my own terms.

Judland

#45

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 4th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_ca

The problem with XP is that alot of people log in as the administrator (or root). As you probably know, one of the biggest "no no's" for Linux is to use the computer this way. If all XP users followed the same practices as you and I (working as a non-root non-administrator user), there probably wouldn't be so many problems. But Microsoft doesn't really promote these practices to their users.

Well, since I'm at the office, I decided to take a little tour of my XP laptop.

Now, we're forced to log in to our PCs with user accounts, too. However, I just navigated to my C:\Windows directory and attempted to delete a .dll file. Seems as though XP is not going to stop me from doing this. It has only asked me if I'm sure I want to do that.

I've let my MS-Windows knowledge fall by the way-side, I'll admit that, but I'm sure I remember .dll files been pretty key to the whole MS-Windows operation thing. Letting me, a simple user, delete such a file ain't good.

cdn_bc_ca

#46

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 4th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Judland

I've let my MS-Windows knowledge fall by the way-side, I'll admit that, but I'm sure I remember .dll files been pretty key to the whole MS-Windows operation thing. Letting me, a simple user, delete such a file ain't good.

[quote="Judland
I've let my MS-Windows knowledge fall by the way-side, I'll admit that, but I'm sure I remember .dll files been pretty key to the whole MS-Windows operation thing. Letting me, a simple user, delete such a file ain't good.

[/quote]

yes. DLL files are key.
I just tried this on my XP machine. I created a new user called "Restricted" and assigned it to the "Users" group. This is the group that has the description like:
"Users are prevented from making accidental or intentional system-wide changes. "
I believe you can even create your own group with specific access rights etc. but I used XP's default limited user group.

Then I logged off and logged back in as Restricted. Then I went directly to the windows folder and tried to delete twain.dll. It said "access denied"

If you don't believe me, here are some screenshots. I hope you can see them at full size (1600X1200).

Attached Images

cannot_delete_921.jpg (168.0 KB, 1204 views)

delete_299.jpg (166.0 KB, 1203 views)

desktop_103.jpg (116.6 KB, 1203 views)

Judland

#47

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 4th, 2005

Interesting. Thanks! I wonder how many "average users" know how to something as simple as you've made this out to be? If it is such a simple thing to do, why are XP users having such issues with virus and spyware vulnerabilities?

If you can restrict access (as effectively as you can do under Linux) then why all the virus and spyware software on the market for Microsoft?

cdn_bc_ca

#48

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 6th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Judland

Interesting. Thanks! I wonder how many "average users" know how to something as simple as you've made this out to be? If it is such a simple thing to do, why are XP users having such issues with virus and spyware vulnerabilities?

If you can restrict access (as effectively as you can do under Linux) then why all the virus and spyware software on the market for Microsoft?

The short answer is that MS, on a default installation, does not have the same security setup as Linux does. A simple thing like I've described in my previous post is not as simple a task for, say, my wife.

She doesn't know the first thing about security.

There is a lot of debate on the virus and spyware issues with MS vs. other OS'es. Some say that the reason that MS has so many spyware and virus issues is because they are the most dominant OS in the world (say like 90% marketshare) which leads to greater damage (and hence, popularity) if one writes viruses/spyware for it. Others say that the OS and Internet Explorer is not very secure. While both of these may be true, the fact is that any installation of the MS OS leaves your computer wide open to attack on the Internet (if it was connected to it). That is, all ports were open and services (like file and printer sharing) were all enabled and susceptable to attack. I believe the reason behind this philosophy is to allow users like my wife to connect to printers etc. on a LAN without any hassle. This philosophy existed before the Internet became such a huge phenomenon. Nowadays, their philosophy is starting to change. For example, installations of Windows Server 2003 are, by default, locked down solid. That is, no ports are open by default. Administrators need to enable each service they want manually. In the early days, many administrators were frustrated because they didn't realize this and couldn't get their application servers running.

I believe that all OS'es are susceptable to attacks from the Internet, including Linux. If you don't believe me, you can directly connect your Linux machine to the internet (bypass your router if you got one) and log in as root, shutdown your firewall, wait a few days without shutting your computer down and see what happens. Check your logs and you will see.

Some also say that Internet Explorer is full of security vulnerabilities. While this may be true, Firefox, last month, had more discovered vulnerabilities than IE. It is also not immune.

Lastly, last time I checked, Firefox has 11% marketshare and IE has 80. If you were a spyware writer, what browser would you target?

Judland

#49

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 6th, 2005

I don't think it's a question of "popularity". If it were, Linux would be the biggest target for system crackers, not MS, as Linux is growing to be the most popular OS for network servers (ie: the computers managing today's Internet).

There's got to be good reason for this. Especially since there's really no significant marketing being done on the part of Linux... at least, not from what I've seen.

And yes, any system can be made to be insecure. Yet, from an "out of the box" perspective, most Linux distributions are secure by default... yet do not punish it's user for this by restricting them to what they can and cannot do with their PC. It still remains completely configurable with a little bit of tweaking.

cdn_bc_ca

#50

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Judland

I don't think it's a question of "popularity". If it were, Linux would be the biggest target for system crackers, not MS, as Linux is growing to be the most popular OS for network servers (ie: the computers managing today's Internet).

Well, if one were to do DOS attacks, one would probably use a couple hundred thousand PC's... probably the more the better... and they could be a combination of any OS.

Judland

#51

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_ca

Well, if one were to do DOS attacks, one would probably use a couple hundred thousand PC's... probably the more the better... and they could be a combination of any OS.

I think you're comparing apples to oranges, there.

Is a DOS attack not something different than trying to crack into a system? In fact, most likely, a DOS attack would be launched on a Linux server by thousands of compromised Windows PCs.

And a DOS attack only works because these thousands of PCs are all trying to connect to the server at once, therefore denying anyone else from making a legitimate connection; At least, from what I understand of the process.

In any case, this only strengthens my point on the problems Microsoft systems cause for others in the industry. If it weren't for Microsoft's flaws, we'd have a safer Internet... at least in my opinion. But, hey, that's just me.

meitme

#52

RE: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

one i'm sure that if linux was in microsofts postion it would befound to be riddled with flaws because there would be so many people trying to get through. also what microsoft offers is the comlete monopoly of most prgrams and the highest possible simplicity so that everyone can learn to use windows fast. you should see the learn to books people need. these people would never survive on linux.

no1important

#53

RE: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

I thought Linux would be harder to use but I was very surprised how easy it was to use. I also like having more control of computer as well.

You can basically get the same programs for linux as you can for XP at no cost. Hell with the two distro's (Kanotix and Ubuntu)I have I do not even need to install them on my hard drive to use them.

With Kaffeine or Xine I can watch my music videos, DVD's, play cd's, play my music no matter what format including quicktime with no problem and same with Real Player works just as well as it did with windows. All my old word documents and PDF work under Open Office and the two Linux PDF programs I have. My HP fax,printer was hooked up and running in under 30 seconds no install disk needed.

The one thing I noticed with Linux unlike XP the more programs I put on, it does not "bog" or "weigh down" my computer like windows.

Judland

#54

Re: RE: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by meitme

one i'm sure that if linux was in microsofts postion it would befound to be riddled with flaws because there would be so many people trying to get through. also what microsoft offers is the comlete monopoly of most prgrams and the highest possible simplicity so that everyone can learn to use windows fast. you should see the learn to books people need. these people would never survive on linux.

In my opinion, Microsoft is riddled with flaws because of their proprietary standing. So, I agree. If Linux was proprietary it probably would have more flaws that it does now.

As of ease of use advantage Windows has over Linux.... that's a myth. I'm sorry, but it's true.

cdn_bc_ca

#55

Re: RE: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by Judland

As of ease of use advantage Windows has over Linux.... that's a myth. I'm sorry, but it's true.

Really? Then maybe you can tell me how to place 4 photos on a 8.5X11 page and print them out borderless on my ink jet printer? In Windows, it's just a matter of a few mouse clicks... no need to rotate, no need to scale, no need to manually place photos on the page...pretty easy. Just select your layout, import photos, press print.

Oh, and while you're at it, can you tell me how to check my ink levels on my Canon printer in Linux?

no1important

#56

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

--

scroll down a bit.
On my system, once everything was working, the Canon printer monitor gave me a printer status readout, including ink levels in each of the four ink tanks while a print job was underway, as shown below:

cdn_bc_ca

#57

RE: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

Nice, what about the S820 and how do you go about installing it?

Judland

#58

Re: RE: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by cdn_bc_ca

Really? Then maybe you can tell me how to place 4 photos on a 8.5X11 page and print them out borderless on my ink jet printer? In Windows, it's just a matter of a few mouse clicks... no need to rotate, no need to scale, no need to manually place photos on the page...pretty easy. Just select your layout, import photos, press print.

Oh, and while you're at it, can you tell me how to check my ink levels on my Canon printer in Linux?

Right after you tell me how I can turn off HTML and RTF formatting in Outlook. I'm really getting tired of the e-mails at the office I get with the HR person's pink and green striped backgrounds.

All I want is the message.

In K-mail, I've got my e-mails automatically coming in as plain text, and if I really want to see the HTML formatting, I just have to click on the button at the top of the message itself.

Judland

#59

Re: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 7th, 2005

Quote: Originally Posted by no1important

--

scroll down a bit.
On my system, once everything was working, the Canon printer monitor gave me a printer status readout, including ink levels in each of the four ink tanks while a print job was underway, as shown below:

Good one, no1! Seems as though you're grasping the Linux world quite well. It's not all that much work, is it?

no1important

#60

RE: Windows XP or linux?

Nov 8th, 2005

Linux is easy to use and once you switch it takes a while to stop thinking of doing things the "windows way".

I would bet if you gave people who never usesd a computer ever in their lives, two computers one with XP and one with Linux I would say the majority would find linux easier to use. It is not any harder to figure out than any other OS but there is a myth out there that says it is. Hopefully that will change.

Similar Threads

Is Linux Like Windows?
by scratch | Jun 2nd, 2008

Converting to LInux
by johai | May 22nd, 2008

Linux
by hariharan | Mar 29th, 2008

Install and use Linux for yourself
by Judland | Jan 4th, 2005

Want to try linux?
by Technology Bot | Jun 2nd, 2004