Linux

I want to know if anyone uses Linux. If you do, tell me why you use it over XP (or Vista).

Mmm, not many posts about this.

It's the thing with the penguin - that should jog a few memories.

It sounds kind of cool but I wouldn't be able to use B3D on it.

I don't use Linux entirely, though I am finding myself using it more and more - even with the lesser computer.

Something about it is just more interesting to develop on. I guess it could be how close you can get to the whole Linux community; rather than reading stagnating documentation, you can easily communicate with the folks that make it happen.

Anyway, I am coming to really like Ubuntu over XP / Vista for a few reasons:

-With Ubuntu Linux (as with all Debian based distributions), there is a single program that I can use to install just about everything. The trick is that Ubuntu's servers host huge repositories that are packed with free software, so I can just look up "word processor" and be given a selection of programs like OpenOffice, Abiword, etc.
I have on a few occasions managed to download and install a program (Python Storage Device Manager) in less time than it would take to open my web browser... let alone find it and download it using the web browser.
The joy doesn't stop there: It is of course possible to host your own package repository, so no, you are not limited to relying on Canonical themselves keeping up to date.
(If you do proprietary software, for example, just set up your own repository server and get it added to sources.list). Not perfect yet (I just realized, it would be great if package repos could be added via the web browser!), but it is darn close to it.
Why set up a package repository? Automatic, centralized updates and installations. New updates are all downloaded through the same updater, instead of having dozens of programs all running their own updaters when the system starts (as with Windows).


-The standards surrounding programs installed on my system are excellent. I guess they can't really be called standards right now because of how many different kinds of packages there are bouncing around in Linux land, but the .Desktop Entry Standard is a great thing.
Instead of programs just punching themselves into different parts of the operating system by force, a program has a standardized file (a very simple file, I'll add) which has information like MIME types, ways to open the program ("Edit", "Open", "View"), name, description...

Couple that with this feature that Feisty will hopefully have more of, and the whole thing not only makes sense, but really is amazing!
With the wonders of a centralized package management system, a program suited to open a particular file type can be automatically found. In fact, this function already exists; the package managers know what MIME types a particular program can open, so for example if I ask for a program to open text/html, I will get a web browser.
The idea, then, is to integrate that with opening files. When there is no program that can handle your file, the computer tries to find one.
(I double click a .blend file, and it installs Blender automatically then opens the file).

Not only is a feature like that not in Windows: It can't be in Windows. (Obvious reason: Windows is too proprietary).


-Epiphany. It is a great web browser. Don't listen to the Firefox people; it has its well-earned place in Windows, USB drives and XFCE (and maybe KDE), but Epiphany fits in perfectly with Gnome. It is fast, intuitive, and simple. Not simple in the 'missing features', way but simple in the Linux way: Every program does one thing well, and leaves everything else to every other program. Firefox, with its dozens of creepy features, kind of forgets this. Epiphany sure doesn't!


-Fast user switching that doesn't suck. I can do fast user switching even with a "secure" (not the "Welcome!" with pictures style) login screen. Who'd have thought it possible?
(Not Microsoft, apparently. Fast user switching is only available with the Welcome screen, and for some reason turning it on causes the login process to take five times longer).


-Virtual desktops / workspaces. Great feature, supported in X (the window system) and used by every desktop system under the sun. Linux beat Mac OS to it by years.
(Not to mention Microsoft)


-Symbolic Links. I'm sure you are well acquainted with Windows' Shortcuts stuff. I'm sure you are also pretty well acquainted, then, with how useless they are!

I'll start with why Windows' shortcuts are useless. Shortcut files are actually complete files; .lnk files, at that. Go ahead and create a shortcut to a text document on your desktop. Now, tell a program to open the file using the Shortcut (not by double clicking the shortcut, but by telling Notepad to open the shortcut). Of course, that attempt has probably failed! You've just opened the .lnk file, which contains a pile of information about linking to your text file - not the text file itself.
The problem here is that the only program that really understands a .lnk file is Explorer. Only Explorer will do the right thing if you open a shortcut. That's fine and dandy if the program uses Explorer's file open dialog, in which case the .lnk file is replaced with what it is linked to, but that method is not really intuitive from a design standpoint. Also, with that in mind, what if said program does not use Explorer to open the file? In that case, it will open the .lnk file itself. (This is evident, for example, if you click and drag the file onto the program to quickly open it instead of using the Open dialog).
In other words... Useless, no? It's not really much of a shortcut when the only thing it accelerates is basic file browsing.
"Well, duh!" says the uninitiated.
Actually, it's quite appalling when you think about how a Symlink would have done the job better.
A symbolic link, instead of being a file that only the file explorer understands, actually points to another location on the disk. In other words, that symlink actually looks like the real file. Programs are sort of 'tricked' into treating the symlink like the real file, so that no matter what program you try to open the symlink with, it will open.
The possibilities for Symlinks are amazing. Instead of moving files from place to place in order to catalog them (for example, if you are enabling a plugin for something), you can just create a symlink to it; It acts just like the real thing.



Yep, I am very fond of Linux. It has its flaws (which I took care not to mention :P), but I think it is certainly worth a try. Distros are getting faster by the day (for example, I updated my horribly slow computer yesterday and was ecstatic to find that, all of a sudden, Ubuntu was loading applications at practically twice the speed).
As I said, there are flaws. Things are picky, there is a big learning curve, and most of the programs are different. There is also a ton of new vocabulary, and you should acquaint yourself with knowing devices like hard drives as "hda1", "hdb", "hda2", etc. if you haven't already. Linux doesn't give you a "Drive D", "Drive H", or any of that. (And that is actually a good thing; I have a flash card which mounts itself as a user's home, and my own home directory existing seamlessly on another hard drive. It's possible with Windows, but the difference is Windows does not make it easy by default).
There are lots of idiots out there. I've noticed an increasing number of Ubuntu users, for example, who are complete "Everything should be free, proprietary drivers should burn!!!!!!!" zealots, and they really get on my nerves.
The good news is that the people who are actually in control are generally the smart ones.


I probably will not replace Windows with Linux for a long time, but it is great to play with and I am liking it more and more as I get better acquainted with it. It has its highs and its lows, just like with any other operating system. I find that Linux's lows tend to be very low and very ugly, though they are often surprisingly possible to fix without a reinstall.

At any rate, developing software with the thing is a joy :)

Thanks for all your thoughts on Linux, Picklesworth! I might be getting an older computer with 98 on it, and I plan to try out Linux on it.
Thanks again for everything you said.

I use it because it costs nothing, its secure and I don't have to download heaps of crap for security. XP wasted my time and I found myself spending all day keeping it secure. With Linux everything just works and it comes with great generic drivers.

I spend all day on the computer, but I only really use it for the internet. That's why I'm using Linux. If you have XP exclusive software like blitz3d, its a different story. Maybe you could dualboot?

But in my case, its saved me from Micro$ucks two-pronged attack: Do I buy a $3000nzd computer to run Vista or get pwned by hackers if I stick with XP? NO! I kick Microsoft in the balls, escape and stop using their software! Don't just sit on your ass asking us what its like, download the cd image and try it out yourself on an old/spare computer :P

Pros:
- secure
- works on old computers
- saves money
- does all the basics, good for every day use
- less fuss

Cons:
- doesn't have that great support from software writers
- slightly limited when it comes to advanced stuff

... personally I think its worth it! =)

If you want to just play with it without risking installing anything, you can always use a Live CD.
Most popular distros offer one (for example, Ubuntu and I believe Suse use a live CD as the actual installer for the operating system).

A live CD is a neat thing where the entire operating system is running off of a CD (using RAM to store data). It is, naturally, a lot slower than running off the hard drive, but it is generally quite usable and a great way to demo stuff -- particularly to see if your hardware is supported out of the box.
A Live CD is especially cool when the operating system installs itself :)

Actually -- Windows can handle symobilic links just fine, it's just that Microsoft neglected to include a tool that allows you to create them... But the NTFS file system does support them... If you wish to use symbolic links under Windows 2000/XP, you can do so using the free tool 'Junction' from sysinternals (now owned by Microsoft)
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/FileAndDisk/Junction.mspx

Okay. Sounds like a good idea.

Could be great to triple boot, if given a big enough hard drive, and some extra know how to make three equal partitions. Windows Vista on the primary, Windows XP on the second partition, and Red Hat on the third. Why Red Hat? Well, even tho it's open source, it, however, seems to be the most supported distro by the commercial community as well, most companies, hardware vendors, and some software companies seem to support Red Hat and/or Novell over anyone else. I mean, Ubuntu is great, don't get me wrong, but most commercial-based software companies just don't fit into Ubuntu's model, unlike Red Hat, Xandros, Linspire, or Novell at this point.

It's a more productive environment.

Linux is obsolete. For Desktop computers use Windows XP (or even Vista) or Mac OS. For servers use BSD or Solaris.

Since Sun Microsystems is now alkso pushing Linux, that statement seems to be particularly ignorant.

Very true, Ubuntu is still very much supported, and Red Hat's really aggressive with their Fedora Core campaign, so it's a looong way from being obsolete, as a matter of fact, it's Apple and MS that are playing Mr. Catch ups now, Linux was far beyond any of those.

You got something wrong. Sun now wants to support open source. Linux is an open source OS. But Open Source doesn't automatically mean "Linux". And even if the would push Linux: Solaris and BSD are still better server OS.

Oh, yeah, Sun, nearly forgot about them. How very mainstream... Makes all the difference in the world having them involved, at a distance they consider to be "probably safe". They been talking about it all for decades now.

Can't remember the last time i got "pwned" (wish people wouldn't use elite speak...) by hackers. And i certainly don't spend all day trying to make my computer secure. I don't even have any service packs installed on this machine. Stop lookin at porn and you will be much safer :op

Until they get proper commercial backing and support for industry standard applications I don't see the point in Linux except for hobbyists and network admin stuff.

Are you talking about the late 1990's when they Open Sourced StarOffice (now OpenOffice) or their recent plans to Open Source Java?

I'm talking about Sun actively participating in the development of Linux, and offering Linux products (along with Solaris obviously) to their customers.

Better at what?

Which industry? A lot of industries run on Linux.

That's interesting. All my customers are moving to Linux... I guess I should tell them not to be so silly :-)

I can't talk about Solaris as I haven't that much experience with it (my Prof uses it for almost everything on the interna uni servers and won't stop telling me how great it is as a server OS, however I prefer BSD) but BSD is just more secure than Linux. There is a BSD distro named monowall which has not been hacked yet as far as I know. BSD is also much more consistent in terms of development. There are a few different distros but not nearly as much as Linux (and therefore not nearly as much rubbish as Linux). BSD is also free but imho has a better license.

Here is a list of user types that just love Linux and are happy with it:

Geeks
Software Developers

Here is a list of user types that cannot move to Linux because there is no professional software for them available on that OS:

Gamers ;-)
Photographers (ask your local print shop or photographer why The GIMP won't do)
Graphic Designers
Web Designers
Musicians
Physicians (as in "Medical Doctor")
The regular office lady (no, OpenOffice alone just won't do - ever heard the terms "makros" and "templates" and "workflow"?)
Almost any other profession in need of specialized software.

The reason why there is no software available for that type of user is also a very simple one: The big companies don't think that Linux users are willing to pay money for their software, which is why they won't port to Linux.

If you want the perfect combination of the strengths of Unix and a commercially accepted desktop, go for Mac OS X. It has a Mach kernel with a FreeBSD userland, an X11 server and most Linux apps can be compiled and run on it -- in case there is no OS X port available. Yep, even things like MonoDevelop and The GIMP run on OS X. If you need a Windows app, run it in Parallels - with latest version even seamlessly on the OS X desktop.

Whoever does not need any specialized application might be able to live just fine with Linux. But none of the toys that I use on a daily basis exists for it, so using Linux for me is basically like going on a Safari in Adventureland. It's nice for a trip, but I just cannot live there.

By the way, I prefer FreeBSD over Linux anytime, I even have a FreeBSD server in our production environment here -- but that's just because I like the Beastie character mor than the penguins. ;-)

Because they've already bought Photoshop and have too much money invested in it.

I know at least a dozen web designers using Linux.

Used OpenOffice in the last decade or so? I know hundreds of office-type workplaces that use OpenOffice (although granted many do so on Windows).

I think you meant any profession in need of generic software. Every field I know someone working in which requires specialized software (Robotics and Industrial Automation for instance) swear by Open Source software in general, and Linux in particular.

Rubbish. The real reason is that "Nobodies ever gotten fired for buying IBM/Microsoft". When making purchasing decisions there is saftey in numbers. You buy what everyone else is buying.

I agree with wini, Linux has it's place, but its still not that useful foe non programmers and people that arent interested in the techie side of things.

As far as commercial software goes, linux tends to be good for render farms with little desktop use by developers. The commercial software avaliable for it is usualy only avaliable for Redhat with limited or no support.

Biggest reason not to use most non standard software if you want a job in graphics is that employers want people with specific skills and cant afford to put the time and energy into retraining people that use non standard software.

The one place I worked at it took 6 months to train a 3D artist in new software and actualy produce something used in the production. And a lot of their time was spent requiring training from other key team members who had to take time out of their own work. This made the whole thing much more expensive.

So most of the time if you don't use industry standard tools you will be ignored.

When you go for a job and asked if you're computer literate, they're not talking about Linux. ;)

Depends what job you're going for.... Linux is on the up and Redhat/Fedora seem the strongest contenders.

To the original question, no. I use the operating system that runs the software I'm interested in using, for the foreseable future that OS would be some flavor of windows.

the original question.... I use linux within VMWare on an XP machine at home to enhance my 'C' compilation knowledge.....

I have SO much installed on my XP machine that is incompatible with Linux that it's mad to go the whole hog and 'just' run linux. {;-)

well hello from ubuntu running in virtualbox on windows xp.
im testing ubuntu to see if its any good. so far im not really impressed. i have only grazed the surface so its not much that i can really say.

well after playing around with ubuntu, i must say that im really disappointed. a lot of people are saying that ubuntu is good and im trying to find out what is it about it that makes it good. well whatever it is, and if it does exist, im still searching. not a good overall impression so far.

What are you finding missing? (Or finding at all thus far?)
First things first, try Add/Remove Applications; it's bliss :P

I do agree that Ubuntu Edgy lost a lot compared to the older releases.
It's all GNOME's fault, though; they killed disks admin and the screensaver dialog. Their new Theme Engine screensaver thing sounds like a neat idea, but I think at the same time it is idiotic that they would put that kind of complex design into screensavers (which really serve no purpose) when they should be focusing on useful stuff like Epiphany, Nautilus, Shared folders, the configuration tools and disks admin... and then there's how the theme engine thing has hardly caught on, thus making it look entirely as though GNOME simply does not have configurable screensavers, which at the moment is an entirely justified belief.

On the other hand, there has been a speed boost and it looks like lost features are making a comeback in Feisty. But that's not my point (WOW I ramble!)... what are you finding missing?

I actually prefer Kubuntu.

Pingu Lovers always tell me that they share the same base but this seems actually not to be true for 6.10.
Thats something I had to learn the hard way, because I've Dual Core notebook and due to its WiFi chip (intel 3945), I found out that Kubuntu has the needed drivers percompiled into the kernel modules, while Ubuntu does not have.

There are a few other things that caused issues on the Ubuntu as well, so for the moment I suggest using Kubuntu for current gen stuff.

For bloddy beginners thought, I would suggest looking at Mandriva 2007 Free, as it is a quite good distribution for office usage as well :-)

The last time i've used it, it crashed a NTFS partition. I stay away from it till i need it for a job. In my opinion it's still true: As a server Yes, as a client No. The linux versions i've tried out still felt like unfinished hacks.

I can see where this is comming from, but don't understand how this is any different from for instance Windows?

Quite simple: I'm experiencing less trouble with windows and due to different reasons get my work done faster. To be fair i guess it depends on your work and how good or bad linux fits to this but for what i do it's a nogo at the moment.

In reply to: "What are you finding missing? (Or finding at all thus far?)"

the filesystem: bin,sbin,lib,include and some other some stuff. i think its quite unique how files are separated based on these categories. but it feels like something is missing. its like if its poorly implemented. i maybe just need to get used to it. im so used to windows and i know it plays a role. but sometimes searching through the filesystem can get pretty annoying when searching for files.
it has to be probably because of the linux file system standards.

i tried opening some files to view them as plain text, and i kept getting a whole bunch of annoying messages that the file cant be opened because of some sort of utf or uft encoding.

the development environment:
i still searching for a development environment for ubuntu. if it has one, i cant find it. and if it has one, it should be very easily accessible.

the add/remove feature:
so far it seems good. i merely grazed the surface of it though.

the packages:
that thing has a wealth of packages. its a nice feature. you know what version you have installed and if theres another version.

the file type icons:
some of the file type icons are pretty annoying. especially when an executable and a non executable have the same icon.

since ubuntu is built for the desktop as it said ubuntu desktop, what i was expecting was an easy to use os for the desktop. i must say that with some of the software available for ubuntu, it can definitely be useful for doing task in. however, i really want to have a different experience from ubuntu, in order to dust off the windows feeling. i like the themes that ubuntu offer, unlike windows. i admit that there are positive parts to it, but i feel that its not enough.

ad ive said ive only gravzed the surface, im still digging deeper into ubuntu, and im researching kubuntu. maybe as i dig deeper ill uncover something interesting. until then ill just keep digging.

Don't worry, the file system is a decently designed standard used in many places. It's very well lasted so far :)
Wikipedia has an article on it, which helps to explain those weird directories. Unfortunately you will probably have to know about /etc, /usr and /var, because when programs screw up or want you to play with config files... their stuff is probably in there.

Dev environment... Yah, Linux seems to lack that one great IDE that makes everything simple. It's surprising, considering how development in Linux is generally great for everything that isn't the IDE.
Eclipse is good, and I believe I remember being recommended Anjuta IDE. It depends on your specs; Eclipse is a horrible waste of resources, while Anjuta is small and simple.

Oooh, file type icons! Now you mention it, that is very true; I've never seen it mentioned before, though.
Videos, text files and stuff have good preview icons (by the way, there are audio file previews if you hover the pointer over their icons... but you may have to install mpg123 for them for some dumb reason), but executable files have horrible looking icons that I don't think have even been themed yet.
They should change based on whether they are allowed to be executed, at least!
I have been intending to pester the art people, so there's a good thing to get them to think about.

Anyway, it feels a lot like Windows at first, but a bit of adventurous clicking unveils how very different it actually is. (And if it still feels exactly like an OS that costs $100 for a license, they've done pretty well :b)
Some of those simple things I've found:
-Tomboy (a desktop Wiki)
-Nautilus' Emblems and Notes. Emblems are extra little icons that appear on top of the big icons for files, while Notes are just whatever kind of information you want to add to a directory. Unfortunately, Notes are not very obvious so they are quickly forgotten (thus not much point having them), but it's a neat idea.
-Glipper. It's a clipboard manager (Ubuntu for some reason does not have one by default!). The nice extra bit is that it remembers items you have previously copied into the clipboard.

Regarding feeling like a giant hack... I agree with that, too. I bet half of that feeling erupts from how the text console is always running in the background there... It's a nice thing (Ctrl+Alt+F# gives me a whole new session - without any windowing system bother - extremely easily), but that console should really never show up at any point during the GUI experience -- including during shutdown / startup.

Anyway, no pressure. It will be a long time until I use Ubuntu - or any Linux, for that matter - as my primary OS.

Linux is getting very useable thanks to te likes of gnome and KDE but its still not for the faint hearted (hardware compatibility issues mainly)

I use linux(Ubuntu) for my main PC:

Web stuff(development),
Skype,
MSN/ICQ/IRC,
office stuff,
email,
3D modelling,
CAD,
DTP,
2D stuff,
Video capture/edit,
watching media (dvds, divx, avis etc),
playing mp3s¨,
backups, BlitzMax, As a central file/print server for my windows machines,
(Everything else)

I use windows for my laptops:

Blitz 3d/max & other 3d stuff,
IMing, and unsecure web use
Paintshop for one tool,
games,
as a 'dumb terminal' using a remote desktop to gnome desktop.

My windows harddisk is empty as everything is on network drives, save for temp files, mp3s, a few games and windows itself. I like linux because 'although pain to set up, but once set up it stays set up'. No viruses to speak of, no spyware. If a system crashes, just restore the whole system from a mirror disk/Tape or RAR file exactly how you left it! also you can periodically sync the rar file for anything thats changed :)
Imagine your horror if you tried to do that with the windows directorys. The only thing that springs to mind for windows is something like ghost, but its no good if your system configuration has changed (ie new PC).


While i agree that linux can be limiting in some areas, the above statement is pure bull.s.

-I use it for my efforts at photography and video editing and there is absolutely nothing wrong with the gimp at all and is as powerful as prev. versions of PSP, unless your local photo shop can only take photoshop or psp files (not a very good one then is he)) I know of at least one professional photographer using it and she uses gimp on OSX.

-Web design!!! (considering most of the web is powered by linux or unix), I have a 'mock' apache server running on my pc with perl sql etc available as //localhost/. or //UBlinux/. on my intranet. I can do my development on that offline.

-What do you mean by musician? I play the guitar and have loads of recording, sampling FX and tuning tools on it. If you mean something like cubase then the closest thing is prob this: http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/Feb03/articles/linuxaudio.asp

-For graphic design, i seem to have most of the tools i need.I do graphics for people and get paid, so i guess im a 'graphic designer' but wouldnt class myself as one.

-Medical doctors?!? WTF last time i went to the doctor my notes were stored on a VAX and he was using a greenscreen VMS terminal. Plus most supercomputers in medical research probably use unix (which inspired linux in the first place).

-Templates and macros i have heard of and use them in open office all the time. And i can export in XP DOC format, PDF and others. I know an office where the 'office ladies' use it and it runs like clockwork. They dont see much difference in the KDE environment from windows. AND they cant do anything to break it like downloading an infected office joke, an because of strict file permissions.

-If youre gonna have Specialized software' written then its designed areound your needs regardless of OS.

-Games, Touche'!! ok not its strong point :) which is one of the few reasons i have a windows pc

Hrmm, locate and grep are your friends. Why would you want to manually search for files anyway?

I'm using Eclipse. Although you might get different results depending on which language you develop in.

well i installed xubuntu and for some reason it seems a little bit friendlier. i dont know what it is but for some reason i feel more comfortable in it that ubuntu. well see what happens.

Hmm, I read in some sort of book for Fedora Core 6, and it seems like that you can actually have those run games like Doom 3, Quake 4, and so on, so forth. I believe that it was in one of those chapters. However, you need to make sure your Linux kernels are well configured with graphics and sound before you can do anything like that, which can be a bigtime pain in the butt if you don't know the exact way to configure things.

Less processing, faster in the cases were you have of an idea where things are, the feeling that anything still is were it should be. :O)

i agree, which is faster?:

Ctrl-T (my personal setup for term)
>locate partfilename (takes milliseconds)
>appname (pasted found filename) to load


OR

winkey-F
(move)
cick
(move)
(type)
click
(damn dog snifs around for AGES probably pausing to lick his balls:)
clickclick to load
(you can use something similar in windows terminal, but isnt as fast, and you need to include all your program directories to the system path (nightmare))

I dunno... given that WoW (amongst many others) runs on Linux via a program called Cedega.

Works for me...

Cool, didnt know that!

Does wow not use directX then?

I would go Linux when I can run me old windows games on it without trouble :)

Cedega or WINE (Cedega being the commercial/game-focussed version of the open-source WINE).

Which both (sort of) emulate DirectX and Windows. Although technically not really...

It's not exactly a task for the faint-of-heart though.

WoW uses DirectX as standard rendering API on Windows. You can use the OpenGL renderer by calling WoW.exe -opengl.
On Mac OS X WoW obviously uses OpenGL only ^^