I am new to LINUX an I need some materials that will guide me through to understand and be able to use the operating system well. Most importantly I need the software and tutorial that will help me to know the pros of the operating system. Thanks
Anthony

tldp.org, gentoo-wiki.com, The answer and questions sections here at LQ. Google.com/linux will turn up almost any answer you ask it. It would help if we knew which distrobution of linux you planned on using. Another good reference is our wiki
http://wiki.linuxquestions.org/wiki/Main_Page

Pros
Free, stable, powerful, less attacks, lighter on hardware requirements.

Cons
It isn't Windows (oh wait, that is a PRO too.)

----- EDIT ----
I'll clarify my statements
Free - You don't have to pay for the distrobution if they have it available for download. I still buy my Slack releases. Feed a Developer
Stable - You have to try to crash it, hardly ever reboots. Pick a distro with a good trackrecord.
Powerful - You have more control and users that you give have more power over system functions
Less attacks - It is measurable. There were actually more vulnerablilty reported for OpenSource software in the last few years, however fixes are created within hours or days unlike MS who can take weeks to fix an issue. With fixes in place, you have less surface for attacks. Now if you choose never to patch your system, thats your fault. And no, We can't measure 0days that haven't happened yet.
Lighter on HW - I can have a LAMP running on 800MHz/256MB that will keep up with IIS on around a 1.5GHz with a GB of ram. Again, you can bloat the heck out of your distro if you choose.

Just thinking the other way around (it's always a good practice)

- Free: well, most of it is, but not everything; in addition there are a whole lot of unclear licences
- Stable: some versions of some distributions ore, others are not; I wouldn't say it's overall more stable than other OSes, only if you choose it to be
- Powerful: by what meter? an OS is not powerful, the hardware is. If you consider an OS powerful if it "gets more out of the hardware than something else", then you could think Linux is slightly more "powerful" than others (if you think about the super computers of the time, at least)
- Less attacks: you really surely don't have anything to prove that. If you mean the overall security, it's a neverending fight and in my opinion it has nothing to do with the operating system, since all the security measurements are built by humans and thus breakable by humans. But that, again, has nothing to do with the amount of attacks, since an operating system does not affect the number of attacks made. Maybe it's just that Linux isn't really used anywhere, if it's attacked less than some other system?
- Lighter on hardware requirements: this, again, depends completely about which version of which distribution you choose. And if you get to choose freely, there's no rule that says Linux is the lightest you can get (since there's nobody preventing you to create your own operating system that's lighter).

I agree to most of them, but thinking against the claims is a good practise since it often reveals some common misconceptions people might have. It's not a good idea to make anybody believe Linux is the ultimately best operating system, since that's a lie and makes people sad, which is against the original idea

My own list of "pros" consists of only one thing: the ability to choose. It's the second widest choice around at the moment, right after building your own operating system. And it enables anyone to do virtually anything "the other way", unlike most of the competitive operating systems.

Btw. what's that poll?

@b0uncer yes ... Its like are I am nice ? YES or YES?

- http://www.linux-on-laptops.com
- http://tuxmobile.com
- http://linux.dell.com
- http://www.brennan.id.au/
.
.
.

search through the ultra-mega which distro thread at the top of the forum for pros and cons and why people choose the distro they do: http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...d.php?t=473458

don't know, but I voted for tony: I liked the name...

edit: reordered content

Its a 50/50 split. Come on, I bet the top Tony can beat the bottom one.

Contributed too the top one on your behalf

Well if "thinking the other way around" is good practice, then so must be the practice of logical rebuttal...



Well it was painfully difficult to find hard numbers, but I found various sites claiming various estimates. One such article dated back in 2003 estimated "There are about 60,000 viruses known for Windows..." "...and perhaps 40 for Linux" (see: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/188). Now if we assume the 60,000:40 ratio still holds true in 2006 then it would be very apparent that a linux system is less prone to get a virus when compared to Windows. Why that is the case is irrelevant for this argument.


You're argument regarding "nobody preventing you to create your own operating system that's lighter" is a poor one for several reasons:

1. The statement that linux is "Lighter on hardware requirements" is true (or false) regardless of whether or not there is yet a third OS that is even lighter. The only question is, when described as "lighter" what OS is being compared against linux.
2. While it is not impossible for someone to create their own operating system, it is VERY unlikely that the average individual can whip up an OS with the capabilities of the big three. To make this argument takes us far enough away from a "perceived likelihood" that it should be consider a false argument based up poor pretext. (No OS can hold water when compared to a "possible" OS)

All in all, when compared to Windows I think it's fair to say that Linux is indeed safer from virii. In addition if the correct distrubution & setup is chosen it can operate on much lower end systems when compared to any version Windows XP.

Hope no offense taken though, it's all in good fun.