There is no doubt that Linux and Windows address different markets. Windows addresses the consumer desktop computer market, though they've already dominate the business desktop market, and if they have their way, they'll dominate the business server market, too.

Windows does have a compelling, easy to use interface, so it is no wonder that it is popular on the desktop. Having that ease of use on servers seems to be appealing, too.

But Windows is only one approach, it takes the single interface choice to simplify things. The idea of simplification is compelling, but it's not always the right answer. Sometimes, you absolutely need more flexibility and choice, and that's what Linux is all about.

However, we can reverse the thing, too. Linux started out with flexibility and choice as starting design points. We can use the flexibility and choice as the basis for constructing new and simpler interfaces, while maintaining the flexible infrastructure that is one of the primary advantages of Linux.

Therefore, in my opinion, you can scale Linux systems up, down, and across different environments. Linux has been a great server OS for some time. It's being constructed into a great supercomputer platform, one of the major embedded systems platforms, and it is beginning to demonstrate that it can function as a viable desktop platform, too.

I happen to be constructing this message on one Linux desktop system as I turn around in my chair and install new software on another Linux desktop system. I use these two systems almost exclusively now for every day work, even when someone asks me to send them a resume in Word format (I use the Open Office Star Writer software to do such things), and I spend most of my day using a Web browser, an Email client, and a text editor, occasionally calling up a command line terminal if I'm building or configuring software. I've found that this environment, though it contains different software that's not always perfectly compatible with Windows, offers me a stable, usable alternative to Windows, enough so that I can make the choice without necessarily having to use both.

It turns out that I still have two computers that have versions of Windows 98 Second Edition loaded on them. I have another system with Windows 2000 Professional on it. Frankly, I seldom need to call on them. When I do so, it's more to remember how they work than it is to solve some problem that I can't solve elsewhere. The reverse is not true... I couldn't run all the time on Windows systems without at least occasionally having to use another system.

No doubt about it; Windows and Linux aren't the same. No reason to get rid of either; I think they are good competition for one another, and they serve different markets. But personally, I don't want to see Windows encroaching into business enterprise computing; the platform is already more dominant than is healthy, in my opinion. What I'd like to see is an alternative that keeps Microsoft and Windows jumping and responding to innovation and even creating new innovations. I'd also like to continue to have alternatives available, and I wouldn't even mind seeing more alternatives to Linux, and maybe some day, a different way to do computing altogether! :-)

In the meantime, I'd like to see as much software as possible that will interoperate with at least the major systems that are available today. That would include, at a minimum, interoperability between IBM mainframe computers, UNIX server and desktop systems, Windows server and desktop systems, and Linux server, desktop, and embedded systems.

I don't know if anyone said this because I haven't read the whole post (9pgs!). The only way that Windows/Linux will automatically shut down your computer is if your BIOS/hardware supports Advanced Power Management (APM) and your power switch is wired to your motherboard (mobo) instead of straight into the power supply. Usually if the latter is the case, your BIOS dosen't support APM or it would've already been wired to use it. Most newer computers, like my two 1yr old DELL Dimension L800rs support APM and mobo wiring, while older systems - like my 7yr old Gateway 2000 P5-120 - don't. Hope that was helpful!

Cheers,
Joe of 4Life
http://4life.tk/

aw darn, i had a huge speech here but IE6 "could not display the page" so it's all gone. just as well for you guys & gals, i did a lot of ranting and raving and complaining... thus you are spared LOL

the only thing worth hearing is that I had better luck with DOS games and partition remapping in Linux than in XP, and yes their proprietary NTFS is a drag. I was referring to the security features of *nix filesystems, not ext3 in particular-- perhaps i meant ext2, I dunno how old they are --like the inevitable "rwxrwxrwx" they extended upon to include every imaginable file operation in its list of permissions. Ever hear of "embrace, extend, extiguish"? they've embraced FS integral security, now they extended it, get ready--- they're trying to kill MBR partition tables altogether with "dynamic drives". So, what I'm trying to say is, XP is sort of an attack on the *nix world, and the whole open source ideal, for which I also am grateful. To all the selfless authors of open source software, in addition to the original inventor of electrons 'in the beginning', see below

"You shall make an altar of earth for Me, and you shall sacrifice on it your burnt offerings and your peace offerings and your sheep and your oxen" Exodus 20:24

Aneeway.
This topic of this thread depends on whether you're a business or individual. If you're an individual, you are a hobbyist. If you're a medium sized company, you're probably too small to take responsibility for your systems enough to migrate to Linux. If you're a really big company, you're prolly already running Linux.

You can certainly customize your OS more to a degree which is simply not possible in Windows. For a while, David Shayler (an ex MI6 agent in the UK) eluded authorities because he ran a linux machine configured to publish to a website revealing the names of all his accomplices if he was not allowed to dial in once every four hours. Clever eh? Now try that with a Windows machine.

Speed tests for cable at least reveal that TCP/IP is quicker through a linux machine. BTW when we had cable installed, the cable guy said "Linux? No, no, Motorola cable modems won't work with linux!" Hang on. The physical OSI layer isn't compatible with the application layer? Duh!

There should be good technical reasons why you can use linux instead of windows (notice I didn't say should) - it's just that
those reasons are different for every user.

Bert

umm... yea. sacrifice. good thing He doesn't want that from us anymore... animal rights groups ehhh <shudders>

TCP is quicker?!?! why didn't I think of that? probably because I didn't know that. Cool! but the cable guy must have thought you had some kind of bad Linux, one that wasn't made to have anything to do with a network, ever. Maybe the modem has the sticker, "Designed for Windows Millenium Edition", I will never buy a computer with one of those. BOYCOTT THE M$ STICKERS!!

use linux, become a better user! exercise your brain and find out how trivial (and how easy to fix) some WinOS problems become! Use windows--get soft. Or as a proportion: Windows/Diapers : Linux/Men's room

It's been real, now going to fix my buddy's broken X server. Stupid i810e AGP... yea that's the CA810e that everything's on.

Bye

Well, personally, I will sacrifice my attitudes and actions instead, and humbly allow my spirit to be molded and shaped, but I'd sacrifice anything for Him, including this computer! :-)

Do you have any published studies where this information can be examined? It would be interesting to see why that's the case... I thought the TCP/IP stacks for most implementations (even Windows) were lifted from completely unencumbered code - typically from the BSD UNIX code base.

Can you share what you know about this, or is this just what you've "heard"? I'm genuinely interested in this, and if the studies can be shown to be unbiased, trustworthy, etc. this information is well worth sharing and promoting virorously! :-)

xcon, I'm afraid it's not just animals, it's women and gay people too. Have a look at the Sundry Laws, and Laws on Morality in Deuteronomy 22.

Try the speed test for yourself. I typically get better results on this test using linux over ahem, Windows Me OEM.

If you don't, then well, I'm a liar. I read something about the SACK request being dealt with more efficiently on Unix systems but for sure it could have been based more on opinion than fact.

Hmm, somebody said that programming was easier in Windows and that he liked "Programming for Dummies". Infact - I belive Linuxprogramming is a lot simpler than windows programming.
(When talking about C for example
- GTK+ is a lot more simple than VC++, plus VC++ almost requires using the mouse all the time when creating an application. In GTK+ you can choose. (sorry, I don't know of any Qt, yet).
- In linux you still use the main() function, no need to change the standard. Windows use WinMain().

You may correct if you think I'm wrong. But VC++ for example is a pain in the ass in my opinion.

I choose linux.

This is lengthy but.......
I obtained Linux Col about 18 months ago. Last Christmas, my friend's computer picked up a virus that
completely wiped out the HD. "THATS IT!!!", I said - Linux from now on.
Well, needless to say, I've been learning about Linux for the last 8 months, slowly too.
I'm a DOS user with many programs which run under DOS that will not run under Win95/98 and I'm loath
to spend money for the updates which can run into 100's of $.
I bought PQs Partition Magic and installed Win98/Linux on all computers. I use Linux for e-mail
and Win9x for all the glitzy stuff and I have a DOS box to run all my old programs.\
My advice is to use the best AND safest O/S to run the application you wish to use.
The only gripe I have about Linux is it's state of flux and the lack of archival
documentation. I think someone, somewhere, sometime should compile a complete
archive of all versions of all Linux distros so that late arrivals to the Linux
O/S have someplace to go to obtain information......just my opinion.

Guvvy

I find the two reasons for me to use windows is games and work. Lets face it the games industry isnt going to develop for linux any time soon...
Work, i need access to security hacks that run on windows as well as the reskits....

I think that for every bad thing you say about linux you can point to an equal one for windows... that being said i dont think linux is for everyone, it for people who know what they are doing or smart enought o figure it out themselves, or it is for people who know if they click this button it willt ake them to the internet/mail/scanner/burner/ etc. Unfortunately the vast majority of new linux users, who come here and post are the third kind, the people who think they know enough about os's because someone told them they "knew" windoze to go out and install/configure linux of any distro.


ps just because your "insert data format here" doesnt work with linux but does with windows doesnt mean anything, just means the proprietor of that data format is not living up to standards, or is not sharing those standards, dont blame linux, blame your data standard vendor.

Good comments... have you ever taken a look at Distro Watch? You can find it on the Web at http://www.distrowatch.com/ It points links to TONS of Linux distros and also to many articles that have been written from a wide variety of places, including reviews and commentaries.

As far as safety and apps, with some care, you can make both systems relatively safe, but no online OS is ever completely safe. It is more difficult to infect a Linux system with a virus, but it's actually possible if you do not exercise due diligence.

I've gotten to the point, personally, where I can run Linux for extended periods of time without even running Windows, though I do set up all my systems to do multiple boots (as many as NINE Linux distros to one Windows, and always at least one Linux distro anywhere I have Windows.

Hope your hunt for info is fruitful. Feel free to comment or ask questions any time; that's what this forum is all about! :-)

yea good words, I like that about blaming the data standard vendor

sorry I almost turned this into a crazy combination of Bill-bashing and theology... there's many other forums for that but i have to say yes, those things in Deuteronomy are pretty intense, good thing for us we're not ancient Hebrews... i could barely read the whole thing last time i tried, much less live by it! and masinick, glad to hear someone's got the right idea. that's all no more theology now ok?

it's true we all have needs from our OS's.. my buddy and i just finished reviving a P1 133 to run DOS 6.22 and Win3.11 on it, and I was extremely fortunate to find drivers for everything. yes, win3.11 I use it, it does simple things well, like it turns off without shutting down first, uses very very little RAM, and generally behaves. It also starts up in about 5 seconds.

So, even an old WinOS gives you freedom. But since then, Windows kind of corrals its users... and what was that in WinME, tearing real-mode DOS out of the old DOS core? Do they enjoy trapping their users in a GUI? All that has to happen is the GUI core files get damaged, then there's no way to start the graphical mode to run ScanDisk. If you've never seen it, that's what happens in WME. Say you crash and burn, then at the next boot, instead of running Scandisk in text-mode before launching the GUI, it launches the GUI and then runs graphical Scandisk before bringing up the user login dialog. Nice, huh?

And while they expand, WinOS's seem to only stretch into a narrower thread. Linux stretches in every direction, take for example the project at

3Dwm.org

someone's doing away with the flat screen approach that's been with us since the beginning... I had the idea myself, but they've actually begun and continued whereas I haven't even learned C yet. And could this be done on a WinOS? Yea, I suppose, but one's best hope would be to use it as a shell, like Lighttek's Talisman.

As for Linux, someone could actually take this project and totally fix it up, since it's open source, then fix it up with a bunch of drivers, prescribe a hardware requirement list, and ship it as the main UI part of a complete Linux distro. It would use VR goggles, gloves, and headtracker devices; one might or might not use surround headphones; it would run on an ordinary box without a monitor, and if it even needed a keyboard that could be virtualized -- i.e. type in thin air with the gloves. They would have a complete KDE-like (or Gnome-like environment that had its own window element library, to completely surpass the typical buttons and sliders and titlebars. Since it's all open source, people can start porting any app they wish and writing new apps for the dektop environment-- immediately.

Then a year after, M$ would take it, make it stupid (fill it with smiley faces, clouds, balloons, hearts, and exclamation points), and sell it to the masses for $300 a pop and make more deals for it to ship on Compaqs or Dells etc. that come with hand- and head-gear instead of monitors and mice. They'll also make it 5 GB bigger than it has to be.

so the question is more like "how much do you want your OS to do?" because I've seen MANY more choices in Linux installers than in WinOS installers... it takes me longer to go thru the list and choose packages than the computer takes to extract them. how about that? just look thru the list, there's bound to be things there that nobody cared to put on Win32.

there's a single GIMP filter, "Add Glow", that I don't see in the Win32 port... there that's one more thing

You're right. "how much do you want your OS to do?" is the question you should ask yourself.

Well, you certainly have some interesting ideas, and I hope there are those who implement at least some of them! But as far as Microsoft taking some idea from Linux, the best they could do is steal the idea, but not the code --- if the interface looked and smelled too familiar, the Free Software Foundation (FSF) would likely be all over them unless they released the source code to their work.. in which case, the FSF would feel that their almost 20 years of fighting the battle for software freedom had a major victory, and people would embrace that day! :-)

ah yes the FSF... another blessing

M$ would have to make a new (proprietary?) extended 3D-XML and power their UI on that. but I remember them as being accused of stealing MANY elements of an old MacOS and slanting them ever so slightly, in order to narrowly avoid copyright troubles... take the menu bar on top, put it on the bottom and call it a taskbar. take the apple icon menu and make it the Start button. move the icons to the left side of the screen, and replace the Trashcan with the "politically correct Recycle Bin"... that's about the same pattern I'd expect M$ to follow if a brand new OS/UI gained popularity. Counterfeit outside for the most part, with "faster, more reliable", buggy, non-FSF code underneath

has anyone installed Win95 lately? it tells us about "faster, more reliable" just like every other WinOS installer since!! the marketing guys can't think of anything new to say...