LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions
User Name
Password
Linux - Distributions This forum is for Distribution specific questions.
Red Hat, Slackware, Debian, Novell, LFS, Mandriva, Ubuntu, Fedora - the list goes on and on... Note: An (*) indicates there is no official participation from that distribution here at LQ.

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-17-2003, 10:05 PM   #16
masinick
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Distribution: Debian, antiX, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and many others
Posts: 597
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 70
Codeweavers runs many Windows apps


Quote:
Originally posted by kodiak
I don't really see a whole lot of difference in all of them. I took look at Red Hat 9.0, Mandrake 9.1, Slackware, Lycoris, Suse and now Lindows and I still don't see a lot of difference. Not one of them will install office 97 or hardly any games or software that I have. There is probably a way but why is it made so difficult to do anything in the Linux programs. I would love nothing more then to get away from Microsoft but can't do what I want to do in Linux.
If you really want to run real Windows apps on a Linux system, try using CodeWeavers. I know that Xandros 1.0 Deluxe includes it, I believe that the latest SuSE Professional Edition also includes it. You can also purchase Code Weavers separately as a layered product.

Code Weavers builds on the WINE project, which was created with the specific purpose of being able to run Windows binary programs on Linux systems. I should point out that Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer actually work with CW on Linux, but it's never as fast as running the apps natively on the system on which they were written.

Another comment is that there are many replacement apps, such as Open Office and Star Office, plus Web browsers, Email clients, text editors, and development tools that work very well as native applications on Linux systems. If you really want to get away from Windows, it might be a good idea to invest a bit of time and effort and look into some of these fine efforts. It will take some adjustment for an individual who's used to completely different apps, no doubt about it. But it is definitely possible to dual boot Windows and Linux while getting used to the differences between the systems and their radically different approaches. If you end up liking the Linux approach, it is also definitely possible to run completely on Linux systems. It's not for everyone, but those who do make that choice seldom regret making the change.
 
Old 04-18-2003, 05:37 PM   #17
kodiak
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Posts: 16

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Well I put Lindows on now and it still seems to be no different then Linux. Still can't put a cd in and instal an application such as word or whatever you want. I think it's time to read some books. Not sure why everyone is saying that Linux is so powerfull. Don't see the power in it however it is probably my ignorance to the program and not the program.
 
Old 04-18-2003, 08:15 PM   #18
masinick
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Distribution: Debian, antiX, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and many others
Posts: 597
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 70
The Power is in flexibility and stability

Quote:
Originally posted by kodiak
Well I put Lindows on now and it still seems to be no different then Linux. Still can't put a cd in and instal an application such as word or whatever you want. I think it's time to read some books. Not sure why everyone is saying that Linux is so powerful. Don't see the power in it however it is probably my ignorance to the program and not the program.
A couple of things to note.

First, the :LindowsOS setup installs very quickly, but it comes out of the CD with only a few applicaitons. The rest of them have to be obtained either from the Click N Run Warehouse or from various Debian GNU/Linux mirror sites.

Regardless of whether you use LindowsOs or any other Linux system, if you're expecting to see Windows-like office suites as your primary motivation for using the system, you may find yourself disappointed. There has been quite a bit of improvement in office suites. Five years ago, Linux systems didn't even offer office suites, today there are not only suites, there are choices. Some actually prefer the Linux office suites these days, others still prefer Windows versions. But there are choices.

Windows definitely has a greater variety of commercial desktop applications available at the present time. The number of Linux applications being written is growing at a rapid pace, but there is a bit of catchup work to be done. So when it comes to applications, at least the kind that desktop users use, some would argue that Windows still has an edge.

Personally, I find plenty of applications to use on desktop Linux systems, more than I can either count or use, in fact. But I can understand why a newbie might feel that the applicaitons still aren't easy enough to use. Until rather recently, the lion's share of applications being developed definitely favored the software enthusiast rather than the common desktop user. This is changing, and common desktop applications are not only appearing, they are beginning to mature.

Keep in mind, though, that from a system standpoint, Linux is quite mature.
From an applications standpoint, and also from a hardware support standpoint, Linux systems are young teenagers, just beginning to mature. There's a bright future ahead and there's already some maturity in place, but it needs to grow and be further cultivated.
 
Old 04-18-2003, 08:50 PM   #19
iceman47
Senior Member
 
Registered: Oct 2002
Location: Belgium
Distribution: Debian, Free/OpenBSD
Posts: 1,123

Rep: Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally posted by kodiak
Don't see the power in it however it is probably my ignorance to the program and not the program.
You could consider stability as a major power factor, even a newbie can see that their GNU/Linux system doesn't crash every 30 minutes
 
Old 04-19-2003, 03:04 PM   #20
lnxconvrt
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Houston
Distribution: FC3, Manrake 10.x, various others at times
Posts: 113

Rep: Reputation: 18
I agree with iceman47...plus

howabout not having to run virus scans all the time. Also, no need to constantly defrag the hard drive.

Then there's the loss of the problems with Windows where you try to uninstall something and it won't. All the spyware that gets put on a Windows box. Getting your registry hosed, rendering the box unbootable.

Etc, etc.

There is a lot of software available for Linux; I use Open Office to read and write Word and Excel files all the time. Games are a little tougher; winex is the best bet for running Windows games. Basically, I can do with Linux all that I can with Windows and more, with games being the only area where I'd like to see Linux support progress faster.

Though I sure do miss the excitement of never knowing when a virus might delete everything on my hard drive or send pornographic emails from my computer to everyone in my address book .
 
Old 04-19-2003, 10:24 PM   #21
prophet621
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2003
Posts: 130

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
even a newbie can see that their GNU/Linux system doesn't crash every 30 minutes
You have seriously fubared your system if this happens. I rarely have system crashes let alone every 30 minutes. I have more crashes with Linux than I do Windows 2K, now I'm not saying it's Linuxs fault, I have no doubt that the crashes are caused by my lack of knowledge considering they always happen after I install something, however, they are more frequent with Linux than Windows.

Damn MS bashers can have some serious rationalizations

I'm not a huge fan of Windows though I do hate Microsoft and their methods. I'm not going to start bashing all their products simply because I don't like them. There are some things I like about Windows, there are lots of things I don't like about it. The same is true for Linux. Neither OS is perfect, for some Windows may be perfect for them or for their needs, the same is true for Linux. However, there are quite a few Linux users who in their hatred of MS and it's products seem to try to convince themselves by trying to convince others that Linux is flawless..it's not. Though in many ways it is a better product, though in my opinion it still falls short in other areas but it's catching up fast. (except in the games department, Linux needs the support of the manufacturers, then it won't have to rely on the WINE and wineX crap).

Viruses are no where near as promenent in Linux though I have heard about a few and I have no doubts that as Linux grows in popularity, so will the frequency of viruses and security exploits. Here's a news flash for some, Linux is not totally immune, no OS is. One reason MS gets hit so hard and often is they are the most widely used OS, they are the target, if Linux were in it's position we would hear more about them getting attacked.

I'm not trying to put down Linux, I use it and I believe it's a great OS though their are things I really don't like about it but that's just a personal opinion. I'm just trying to point out that it's not flawless and some of these irrational justifications by some of the cult like Linux users are rediculous. (Most Linux users are not like this, though we have all run into a few of them.. they are as bad as the MS group and I have to say, there seem to be fewer of them on this board than some of the others I've visited)

Linux has come a long way but it still has a long way to go. I believe if it is to become more prominent on the average home users desktop it does need to become a bit easier for the average user. It's come a LONG way in this area since my forst Linux install 4 years ago but there's more that has to be done without sacrificing any of the features and option that make Linux great. For years I've heards people talk about stability, power and then tell the newbies how they'll learn the intricate working of their computer, to spend hours reading man pages that are giberish to the average user, and in many cases insult and flame someone when they rant about not understanding it. Telling them to go back to Windows. Finally we have distros like Lindows, Lycoris, Xandros that are geared for the average user. Distros that don't force those who don't care to learn the intricate workings of their computer. Something that just works out of the box and is set up easily enough for them to grasp. Then if they want, they can move on, if not..good for them. Why do they need to suffer insult, headaches, countless wasted hours just to have something more stable? I for one applaud the newest crop of newbie distros, they are finally bringing Linux to a market that was previously unrealistic for others distros to tap into. What's wrong with a distro being easy to use? I don't understand the problem so many seem to have with it. I remeber when Mandrake was bashed for it's ease of use and autoconfig.

Sorry about going on a bit of a rant there. If I offended anyone I apologize, I didn't intend to, I just get a bit tired of the mud slinging, it's like watching a political debate, only a few hard facts, lots of embelishment and 'fuzzy numbers' with some 'instead of showing how I'm better I'll point out how your worse' rhetoric.

By the way, could someone explain something to me? I'm curious about the fragmentation or lack thereof in Linux. Lets say I have a 5 gig partition Linux sits on and I fill 4 gigs of it up, then decide to do a little spring cleaning, where I removed/deleted files/folders will be empty space that Linux will begin to fill. So lets say I have a 2 mb empty area right in the middle of the drive, a 3 meg area a little further up. I put a file on thats 9 mb, does it fill the 2 and 3 and the rest where theres more room? That would be the beginning of fragmentation. I apologize for my ignorance in this area, I just can't get a grasp on this. How does it work in Linux so there's little to no fragmentation?
 
Old 04-19-2003, 11:24 PM   #22
masinick
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Distribution: Debian, antiX, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and many others
Posts: 597
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 70
I think your "rant" was justified; too many people make comments that can be considered exaggerations. Concerning disk fragmentation, the various Linux file systems have greatly benefited from advances in fragmentation studies and disk organization. Let's be fair; the FAT file system, in all of its variations, really makes no careful provision at all with respect to file system organization. Originally, it was only intended to be a really simple file system (when it was part of QDOS). The newer NTFS is much more like the Linux ext2, ext3, ReiserFS, jfs, xfs, and other file systems in being able to reorganize pointer nodes and file allocation pointers rather than the relative ignorance of the FAT file system.
 
Old 04-21-2003, 12:03 AM   #23
lnxconvrt
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Houston
Distribution: FC3, Manrake 10.x, various others at times
Posts: 113

Rep: Reputation: 18
I took the "every 30 minutes" as hyperbole...

but I do think that Linux is generally more stable than Windows. Most of prophet 621's post I agree with, but thought it worth responding to in re to specific points.

I find Linux to be lots more stable than Win 9x, significantly more stable than Windows NT/2000 as a server O/S, and moderately more stable than Windows 2000 as a desktop O/S.

I ran RedHat 7.2/7.3 as a desktop O/S and found it probably only a little more stable than Win 9x. I suspect that it was the older KDE/Gnome versions, gcc 2.x and older libraries that it used. I've had to reboot my RH 8.0 workstation only once in about 4-5 months of use. As a server O/S, RH 7.3 is find; uptime is over 6 months on mine--the amount of time since I had a power failure longer than my UPS could hang on.

As for the MS virus vulnerability being due to its popularity, I suspect that there is *some* truth to this. However, consider that *nix servers running Apache serve about 2/3 of all web pages on the Internet. Then recall that while all OS's have security vulnerabilities most or all of the ones that bring the 'net to a crawl involve MS servers. I strongly suspect that even if the desktop OS market share was split 50-50, we'd find a similar result in terms of vulnerability. That is, most of the problems would still be on MS boxes.

As for the fragmentation question, there are several recent threads with responses by some who seem to know more about this than me. You might start at the Does Linux have defrag... thread and follow the links that "wapcaplet" provided. I know that I've had to defrag and defrag often on Win 2k workstations--not sure if all were ntfs or FAT, but I consider it a real advantage of Linux.

BTW, I speak from first hand knowledge about the *nix servers vs Windows servers stability issue, as I work at a datacenter with several hundred servers about equally split in numbers between the two.

As for ease of use, I couldn't agree more. I see nothing wrong in making things easier for the newbie while retaining the option for the power user to tweak things and use the command line.

Granted, there is a lot of "religious" zeal, sometimes regrettably so. I think that a lot of it comes from frustration with the level of MS dominance. Fortunately, I think that this is slowly changing, which can IMHO only benefit us all.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth.
 
Old 04-21-2003, 05:37 PM   #24
1_8_7
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2003
Distribution: slackware 9.0
Posts: 44

Rep: Reputation: 15
I'm a genuine Microsoft user and i love windows. I want to learn Linux so i loaded slackware for my first linux distro and so far i love it. Lindows i was kinda hesitant to try because like someone has already said in this thread...if you want to learn linux don't use lindows because it is too simple.

BTW, the only windows OS's that crash often are Win9x...wind 2k and XP i have yet to crash and ive been using both since each has come out. Very stable, if you know what you are doing.
 
Old 04-21-2003, 07:53 PM   #25
masinick
Member
 
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Clinton Township, MI
Distribution: Debian, antiX, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, and many others
Posts: 597
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 70
I agree with your assessment

Quote:
Originally posted by 1_8_7
I'm a genuine Microsoft user and i love windows. I want to learn Linux so i loaded slackware for my first linux distro and so far i love it. Lindows i was kinda hesitant to try because like someone has already said in this thread...if you want to learn linux don't use lindows because it is too simple.

BTW, the only windows OS's that crash often are Win9x...wind 2k and XP i have yet to crash and ive been using both since each has come out. Very stable, if you know what you are doing.
I'm not as big a fan of Windows as you are, but I agree that the Windows NT family - NT, 2000, and XP, are quite a bit more stable than the family with the QDOS/MSDOS lineage, Windows 3.X, Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows ME.

I found that a well tuned Windows 98 2nd Edition system is not prone to continual crashing, but they're not immune to failure, either. NT Workstation makes for a solid desktop platform, a little less so for servers, but compared to 9X, quite stable. I've not experienced a failure with either 2000 or XP, either, nor have I ever experienced a Linux kernel crash. Neither Windows nor Linux are completely immune to errors or failures, but I find that most errors uncovered have more to do with poor configurations than fundamental instabilities.

As far as using LindowsOS, it is a good, solid software foundation. It is easy enough to install, configure, and use that you wouldn't necessarily have to get deep into it to effectively use it. That can be either a benefit or a distraction, depending on your perspective. On one hand, not having to twiddle with the basics just to get the system up will give you more time to use it, but place the burden of experimenting and learning upon you. LindowsOS does have a great packaging system underneath, the Debian GNU/Linux Deb/apt packaging, which helps you easily manage program and library dependencies.

Slackware is a really good, solid, stable, and conservative distribution foundation. The file organization is designed to closely resemble BSD UNIX systems, and packages can be easily built from sources using Slackware, but you're not given much, if any, help in resolving packaging issues unless you install either Deb or RPM packaging into Slackware, which you can do (but then it's not really the purest form of Slackware). I got my start in testing Linux with Slackware 2.3 in 1995, though, so it's a good distro to start with.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
How to use C++ in Lindows OS thuongkiet82 Programming 3 04-17-2004 01:26 PM
Lindows laptop Edition or Lindows 4.5? BlackEcho Linspire/Freespire 8 03-06-2004 02:09 PM
Lindows anybody? LinuxMilitia Linux - General 3 09-24-2003 05:16 PM
Anyone tried Lindows ? - what do you think of it ? kkempter Linux - Distributions 3 03-01-2003 04:19 PM
Lindows!!! smurf2k Linux - Newbie 18 12-09-2002 04:28 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:25 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration