GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
There is less than 24 hours left to vote in the 2015 LinuxQuestions.org Members Choice Awards. Click here to go to the polls. Vote now and make sure your voice is heard!
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
Originally posted by x-32b how things have changed look who’s the real innovator now and linux and mac Os are still stuck with fat32.
Well, you've showed your ignorance. Truth is, neither Mac nor Linux natively use FAT32...
I don't know what Mac uses as I don't use Macs, but Linux uses (primarily)
Also - the title of this thread is flawed, as you make no mention of Linux except from this single statement which is flawed. There is no comparison being done in this thread, it is simply a poor review.
Also, WinFS is not being released with Longhorn. End of story. They're sticking with NTFS right now.
One more thing: Linux is a kernel. A K-E-R-N-E-L. A kernel cannot be compared to an entire operating system.
Good point, BSD is ffs, ufs, or ufs2... or any number of other formats (so I assume Mac uses that as well). No FAT32... didn't even notice that point in the main article... since the big error (in my eyes) was that Microsoft couldn't even get WinFS stable enough to release so it was diked out in a big press release weeks ago.
Just a few more things to point out as they just entered my mind.
1) WinFS grouping seems very much like the way Mac does it, in that all programs are in an Applications folder, etc.
2) I can organize Linux very easily this way through the use of symlinks.
3) VB/VBS is very dangerous. Fully incorporating .NET into the OS was potentially the dumbest thing Microsoft has ever done.
4) Do you know what Palladium actually is?
And one of the most important new features is what I call auto reload
Say your typing in wor...Open office
A 5-page essay you haven’t saved yet and it crashes........
In xp or any windows os
Your essay is kaput gone and you get an error message with some number and Sorry
The screen freezes for approx 1 sec and recovers, you get a ! Icon in the
Classic tray, which has your error message hidden away, your 5-page essay Is fine
Or in media player your music restores from where it was pre crash all youHear is a 1 sec stall
Or in any other .exe file
crash,stall,recover with settings/work.
So does this look like xp with a new skin if you think so stop skipping
It certainly is a massive change from all other oses
so, does this mean they cannot make the os stable enought to run programs properly? or does it mean that everything you do gets logged all over your system in case someone wants to take a peek at it? maybe both.
Oh, for the days when they taught spelling in schools....
I have used Longhorn 4074 as well, and it is a great step forward (at least for Microsoft), however it is continuing along the typical Microsoft line of user friendliness and pretty GUIs.
The installation for the RTM of LH will be much different from the alpha.
This whole argument just boils down to the question asked almost every day here: "Is Windows Better Than Linux?"
After using both LH and FC3 extensively, I have to say that even if LH is vastly improved by RTM, I won't buy it. It's just not worth it. Linux IS user friendly enough to compete with LH, especially FC/MDK/SuSE etc.
The thing I personally like most about LH is the new references to drives. It's no longer C:\, D:\, A:\, but rather Longhorn, DVD Drive, Floppy Drive. It certainly makes the FS easier to navigate.
The whole Documents, Games, Music etc. all relies upon WinFS, so it won't be in RTM. It's just grouping WinFS meta tags. When WinFS is off (like I have it) the links serve no use, and are easily removed in the registry (still the stupidist part of Windows).
Hey, at least it looks like they've finally separated apps from the kernel so crashing an app doesn't mean crashing the whole OS - give them credit for THAT much, at least!
The WinFS thing sounds like how I already divide my files up: I have a Docs folder, an MP3 folder, a Games folder. . . it's a bit of a "blinding flash of the obvious", IMHO. (Isn't this also how Rox works?)
If it's well implemented, maybe it'll finally mean uninstalling software will actually remove all the files it installed. Somehow, I suspect it just means it'll be harder to look at the hard drive to see them, tho. Maybe I'm a cynic. . .
If this little list is all that's changed from XP, I'm sadly disappointed. It's pitifully similar to what they've already got, without even a few simple additions like the multiple desktops that Linux users take for granted.
Originally posted by oneandoneis2 If this little list is all that's changed from XP, I'm sadly disappointed. It's pitifully similar to what they've already got, without even a few simple additions like the multiple desktops that Linux users take for granted.