Look guys I just had a read of all this, very interesting view pionts.

I think Linux is great myself.
The other day I just learned how to install W2KPRO. I have to say that was harder especially on a box without say MS ME on it. Because I couldn't just whack the install cd and away she went. I had to first of all format and pation the drive. Then boot from these horrible set of 4 floppy disks. It took like 3-4 mins to complete then I could put the Cd in. Then I had to go through the rest of the install which is probaly just as easy or hard as Redhat 8.0 install. The thing that makes Redhat such an easy install is that the pation of the hard drive is intergrated and you can just whack the install cd in. The other thing is once you have told it all the settings you want it just installs it. Unaddented. But windows 2k it kind of installs in bits and pieces. So unless you can be bothered writeing up a .bat or whatever to make it unaddented install you have to hang around your Pc.

I am running a little hobbie bussiness and sometimes I install MS and others Linux. I can install linux and set it up with Open Office and all the other cool stuff it comes with for a desktop PC. When I come back in about an hour it is already booted. There are rarley any driver issues. Unless its like a modem or printer or something. I just hand it over to the cleint and they like it because the dont have to $$$$$$ for MS and so I am known for my cheap prices.

Look I have moved over to Linux about 1 year ago. I have managed to set up my own DNS servers and web servers and mail servers. I am now hosting other people web sites as part of my bussiness. I have almost got a whole ISP running on Linux. All without any prior knowlege of DNS ect.

I prasie this site as i would not have come this fare without it. And of couse Google. Linux Documentation is another great site. Do you really think you could get that kind of support from Microsoft.

Linux Rules.

I wouldnt be so quick to judge Windows as being harder to install than Linux; you will have millions of people arguing against you; and they will most likely be right. Windows is almost always simpler when it comes to installation and configuration. The line between Technician and User is clearly defined in Windows.

Your experience with using floppys to install Win2K is as rare as a Linux distribution recognising new hardware and it actually working.

From what I've gathered, most problems in Linux come different versions and conflicting distributions - too many modules, too many variants on configuration, too many versions, too many problems, and too many different places to look for help.

Red Hat is getting very automated, and all the Linux Gurus are hating it. Good. I think it's a good thing - computers are about automation.

Nobody is stupid because they find Linux hard to use. It's because Linux is messy & complicated. More-so than it needs to be.

The less time one spends configuring the computer, the more time they actually spend getting work done. That is why Windows has traditionally been more productive at everything bar server stuff.

The bottom line is that automated configuration, and being able to customise things specifically for your machine are NOT opposites.

There IS such a thing as intelegent configuration which gives options to specify manual paramaters. I think the 3 choices in that poll are too shallow.

Joe Bloggs is not smart because he knows 10,000 different command line utilities. He just does it the hard way. Why would you bother.

Yes, in Linux it's called a configuration file. You open the file in a text editor and use your intelligence to specify the parameters!

I find this a rather arguable statement... Linux is not messy,
it's diverse, and rightfully so. And if you had the bad
fortune of maintaining a corporate environment with
several versions of WinDOHs you'd say the same
thing about windows. Just compare 95, ME, NT3.51,
NT3, 2000 and XP ... I've seen at least three of those
in use in companies at the same time, and it's a
nightmare.

That's the theory/slogan that MS uses ... the fact
is that the less you know about your machine, and
the less you configure yourself, the more security
upgrades (including reboots) and random crashes
you are getting, making you less productive. But
the average user is so used to rebooting, they
probably don't even notice ;)

"Damn, XP won't give my CD back ... let's reboot!"
"Uh-oh, can't access that share ... reboot!"
"Windows needs to install new upgrades, reboot"
"What happened to my desktop? Explorer is not
responding? Reboot"

My system doesn't even have that many ;)
<TAB><TAB> offers me 2756 possiblities and a good
lot of those wouldn't be command-line. In day to day
work (and administration) I'll be using about 40?

And I love to know them because they will allow me
to retrieve informatio that the graphical environment
won't provide?
If I want to know how much space on my hdd is
used for a specific type of file (or several types in
one process), I can write 5 Lines of shell script
that will give me the required info, and I'll be using
bash, find and awk.


Cheers,
Tink

Heh ... hummel hummel? Naaaah ...
Well, let's just say that my high-school
diploma is from a little town ~ 50Km east of HB,
and ~ 90Km WSW of HH

Tach auch,
Tink

<<< I wouldn't be so quick to judge Windows >>>

You quite obviously have not encountered Mandrake, Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros, Elx, Ice Pack, Asp, Alt, or Libranet Linux. All have easy installs, some are incredibly easy: 3 or 4 mouse clicks, All are easier and quicker than Windows. And don't forget, Installing Windows is only the beginning. You have to next install chipset drivers, video drivers, audio drivers, modem drivers, office software, irc software, archiving utilities, and so on. All of the above are done as part of the Linux install. Plus, usually you can connect to the Internet as part of the install process and download normal, bug-fix, and security updates. No reboots. Ever. Except for installing new hardware. Or a new kernel.

Not saying that Linux is the be all end all. It is not. I have been immersed in both operating systems for 5 years now, and would much rather install Linux than Windows because of the reasons stated above.

I think this is an acceptable statement. The most common distros usually have quite a few loose ends untied, that make linux less intuitive than windows. Linux doesnt have to be like windows, but a home users desktop should be intuitive.

And even with all these considered, I can stillget your work done quicker in windows.


Big Brad,
are you sure that version of W2k pro is legal? The non booting CD is usually sold to buisnesses, who have a serial number and a per machine licence. If you bought W2K pro in the shops, you wouldn't have needed the four boot disks ( I admit that four boot disks is torture),

<<< The most common distros usually have quite a few loose ends untied, that make linux less intuitive than windows. Linux doesn't have to be like windows, but a home users desktop should be intuitive. >>>

OK, unholy, I'll play. Specifically what loose ends are we talking about and how do they negatively impact your ability to get your daily work done?

1. The ability of an installer to locate resources / libraries.
If I can do this myself, why cant the installer use the same tools I do to find them (ie find, rpm query etc), and spare my an hours work of downloading - installing - resolving dependencies (loop).

2. Mounting devices as well as inserting media.
Try explaining this to someone who has never even heard of linux that they also need to mount. When you 'mv importantFile /mnt/floppy', is it on the disk? or just in the folder /mnt/floppy which hasn't been mounted for this session.

3. General lack of standardization.
Some apps do not even implement the --help switch. So when you type:
It actually runs. Aaaagghh!

I find that the little things take a lot of your time up. Time which isn't wasted as much in windows.

Now before replying to this, I am 100% pro linux. I prefer it to windows, I enjoy it (which I no longer do with windows), and I like the community and I am learning to do all the important things I did in windows, in linux. I cannot play 3D games under linux, so I have all sorts of (expensive and enjoyable) games from half-life, roller ball to GTA 3D lying dormant on a shelf.

I could boot into windows and play these, but I don't. I put up with it out of principle, or I find a way with linux. In this case I play BlackBox But you do have to admit that windows is more efficient from the users end, because it was not designed or intended to be administered, as linux is/was.

Yes the copy of 2K is legal and yes it is one for my Bussiness.

For my needs I say Linux Rules.

Brad

Wow, lots to read there, I skipped everything after about page 4ish, so forgive me if this was stated.

However I have to wonder if linux will ever have a truly simple and easy application install/setup process. Now I'm fairly new when it comes to the whole linux world, but my impression is that the business model around linux is that the real income comes from selling setup and support, followed by a value added version(distro) of linux.

IMO the day that the CEO's of all the distro's create a version of linux that makes installing apps and configuring devices as easy as windows makes it, is the day people will stop paying for the support of the free software they just D/L'd.

Will we ever see it happen? maybe. maybe not.

All that means is that you probably still
can't utilise Linux properly ;)

I (and several others I know) use Linux as their
desktop because of efficiency, not because of
political/ethical/... reasons.



Cheers,
Tink

Script it :P

I'd rather look at anything that's dragged from
the net before I commit it.

Explain to someone who took a floppy
out of a windows machine, and half an
hour later his Word-processor brings the
system down why this has to happen...

If you don't like it, write a patch to that app, and
submit it to its maintainer.


I still believe that you're falling for media hype
here ... it wasn't designed transparently, and MS
was quite successful in making people think that
being stupid is an advantage.

/me suddenly has this vision of hundreds of millions of ostriches in a desert, heads in the sand


Cheers,
Tink

as far as installation goes linux has been the easiest rather than the time I have spent wrestling with windows drivers. I installed over a ftp from a boot floppy that I made and it took about 8hrs, I slept the whole time got up in the morning and I had linux, It found all my hardware and ran great. I still have to learn alot more, ... but how hard is it really to read instructions first, Excellent Technical support is here on these pages. I hardly have to ask a question that hasn't already been asked and that means that all my time is spent learning, I have to bite my tounge most the time when I try to find answers on to windows quesstions.

I think reading is harder for some people.

Has anyone done technical support for windows users? Then you know for a fact windows isn't easy. I wish I had a buck for every person I've talked to who couldn't get the crap running at startup out of their system tray. And most would never attempt to install it themselves.

From my experience, adding a piece of hardware and trying to get it to work in windows is a nightmare compared to linux.

I tried my first linux distro (redhat 5) back in '99 when I was running win98. I thought Red Hat was much easier than windows.