/me is off to find the corpse of another thread and make a zombie, too.... :yawn:


Cheers,
Tink


P.S.: Mandrake and RedHat both suck...

Hehe....

Linux is becoming mainstream. Deal with it

I'm out...

Not sure if you'll get my post, but I'm sure a lot fo people agree with you.

I had Mandrake 8.1 running on my PC for about a year, pretty much all of 2002.

I remember the struggle it was to get my PC working and connected to the net after installing...I wouldn't wish that on anybody!

I stopped using Linux on my desktop as I was sick of spending so much time getting things done.

Also I was unable to view video articles at CNet because the linux Real player was so old and never really worked.

Being relunctant to switch back to Windows and knowing the new Mac OS (OS X) was built on Unix I bought a Mac...and have never looked back!

The Mac offers the best desktop computing experience available today!

I still have Linux on my PC and have recently installed Oracle on it to learn.

I believe Linux has a place, though probably only as a server, at least for the time being.

Anyone can see Linux has it's good and bad points. I have been running mysql and apache on several boxes, and haven't had to reboot them yet. Linux is more secure. I would never run a firewall on Windows. I'd prefer Linux or BSD for that.

However, It angers me to hear many people complain Windows is insecure. If one were to go through the proper procedures to lock down the system, and apply patches when they are realeased, problems do not occur. The problem isn't Windows as much as it is lazy and ignorant admins. With that said, I support both Windows, and Linux, and enjoy working with both. I can't say this for everyone, but those who have worked with Active Directory on an exstensive scale ( I mean everyday, not futzing around at home) can say AD is a fantastic admin tool, and not only makes adminstering a network easier, but fun as well. AD is so expandable and configurable, no one has unlocked it's full potential yet. Until Linux can come up with something comparable, I'd never use it for core services, however I prefer it for database, web, proxie and firewall duties. I leave things such as DNS, E-mail, most file and print sharing services, and of course AD to Windows. I know some Unix gurus (you know the type...disgruntled, long beards, dirty) that were forced into AD classes because their employer put them there. Needless to say, even the most anti-Micrsoft of them admits AD is a good thing, and even impressed by it.

I am probably going to recieve heat for my post, but I understand the confusion and anger new linux users have. I myself am still learning a lot. I consider myself and advanced Windows user ( I have been adminstering large LAN's and WAN's for about 5 years) and little bit more experienced then novice Linux user. I have a litlle Unix background so it helps.

The main thing I like about Linux is the open source thing. I hate the Microsoft licensing Nazis, and they are to expensive for what they offer (MS SQL sucks) However Linux, Unix, whatever...can't compete with programs like Exchange no matter what anyone says. I personally would like to see Linux give Microsoft a run for thier money, and produce something similiar to Exchange (I know Suse, Samsung and others are trying), and sell it for cheaper and take cusotmers. maybe then some real competition will start.

I seem to remember a time when they said M$ Windoze "would never be mainstream."

LINUX has the upside that its a much better OS than windows but uh.. I dont think theyll be putting it into the dells soon as its wayy to complex for normal prebuilt computer buyers.(Used to work for tech support)

I mean at tech support they get people saying "why is my computer saying its windows when I ordered a dell!". We had one woman call and say "You guys dont know when theres illeagle music and child porn on peoples computer right?"
took around 30 minuties to calm her down apprently the problem was her computer said it had performed an illeagle operation... She had spread the computer parts around her house and was calling from a payphone.

imagine how confused they would be if they saw a command line or that bootupscreen that looks really complex.

Ok, I apogize for my absence. Hopefully we can get this thread going agian.

Most of you seem to be forgetting the origonal topic. "Why linux will never become mainstream" Mainstream means your mother and your grandmother. I'm not saying Windows is better, I know windows sucks. I think linux is the coolest idea and I REALLY want to get into it. But what I'm trying to say is that, the way it is now, Linux will never be mainstream. There have to be some major changes here. And anyone SHOULD want Linux to be mainstream. How many proffessional graphic designers do you know that work on Linux? none? thats because gimp doesn't come close to photoshop. Why? Well why would Adobe spend the time developing photoshop for linux with 90% of the people who buy it would be on Windows? As long as Linux remains the underdog, we're going to wait for quality drivers, standardized programs, and everything else that makes windows popular.

I could go on, but I have other things to do. I look forward to continuing the discussions.

Well just last week I set my Grandmother up with her very first computer so she could do email write letters and surf the web I set her up with Suse 8.1 and she is as happy as a clam, She has never used anything different so it is just as easy for her as windows is for most ppl. It is all in what you are used to. there has yet to be anything she could not do with it that she wanted to do. Now to the point were she is showing me some things and I am like thats cool how did you do that.

Now when she on trips and has to use windows she has the same complaints you guys have on how confusing it is and she does not see how they can get anything accomplished. BTW while reading the thread I am at a friends house on a Spawn Of Satan Bill Gates OS and froze on me, so this is the 2nd time I am writing this ---Linux never freezes while scrolling just ask my Grandmother

I have yet to see a practical reason for Linux not becoming mainstream.
Here is my personal reason why: POLITICAL REASON!

There is simply NOBODY POLITICALLY STRONG to push for the use of Linux however good it may be!

The most concrete example of this is the demise of the betamax format in favor of the vhs cassette,which in my opinion is inferior to the betamax format. Why? The reason was that the ones pushing for vhs are politically stronger!

I don't have to explain here who is propagating windows!
In my country, they are already teaching windows in primary school. Even the computer textbooks are windows oriented. Ask any child about pc and they will surely associate it with windows.

Almost nobody here ever heared about Linux and Unix is only mentioned in computer schools!

So who is strong enough to push for Linux? I really don't know!

Ho hum... this issue again...

Well to tell you the truth, yes... most of the time Linux sucks! RedHat 5 sucks because it wiped my hard disk. And I have yet to use any Red Hat release from then, and most likely ever.

Then I found Mandrake 8. It was OK at first, but then I find out that it sucks as well because the updating was really troublesome... But I liked Mandrake enough to warrant upgrading to 9 and then 9.1. It still sucked because not everything can be compiled cleanly and with no problems.

Then I found Lycoris. It was pretty and easy, but it sucks too because it's more like Windows than Linux!

I wanted to go more hardcore, so I grabbed Trustix... it too sucks because I wanted a workstation, not a server dammit!

Then I found Slackware... I really hated her at first... So many steps to do, so many things to configure. But once it was working, I started to see her inner beauty. It was the easiest distro I've ever used to get updates on what I've installed! But I can't say it doesn't suck... it might suck at a few areas, but tolerable enough to keep me Windows free since May.

So the moral of the story is... Linux doesn't suck nor does Windows. It depends on what you expect out of an OS. If you expect click,click,click... then by all means get Windows or MacOS (if you got cash to spare for some semi-obsolete hardware, last I heard you can't just get the OS)... or to a certain extent Mandrake and Lycoris for the Linux folks.

If you want to know and control to the nth what your OS is doing, get the BSDs and or the more advanced Linux distros.

No OS sucks... if it does, it wasn't meant for your demographic type anyway. Broaden your horizon and explore... there is bound to be one that you like.... If there isn't...

Then write one yourself goddammit!

AD has its bennefits, and I agree that it is a great admin tool. I would not call it 'fun', but if you're into point and click admin, it doesn't get much easier. As for linux using something similar to AD, RedHat (from what I understand) is working on a more granular system of permissions to allow for something like this. I don't want to see AD in linux, but using a giant x500 database to help administer (or at least record and consolidate) user/groups/permissions would be welcome. I would like to keep the file/folder permission simplicity that *nix has currently, as I think that AD and NTFS does nothing but complicate permissions. Multiple groups/users given different permissions to the same file/folder, permission inheretence, Share permissions (I know, just keep the share permissions to full-everyone, but not everybody does this) group policy at different levels with nested OUs, overrides, default groups....etc...etc.. Do we really need all of this? There is such a thing as overkill, and I think M$ and AD crossed that line about 5 years ago. Once set up correctly, I think a true homogenious Linux network is much easier to administer, and not just because of the inherent stability/security advantages that linux has over other OS's, but because of the lack of component integration. I believe that too much integration is a very bad thing, and results in a an overly complicated, heavily burdoned network. No one would ever think of running small/medium sized M$ network (1 forest, 1 domain, 1 site) with any less than 2 DNS servers and 2 AD servers or possibly more, but I have known a number of people who have run small Linux networks with one server for everything and have never had a problem. One of our local schools has a homogenious Linux network, and run it continuously with a single DNS, DHCP, router, firewall on the same box (running a minimal slackware install). I don't think the box has every been shut off. The school discussed changing over to a Win2k AD network, but it would require so much additional administration and hardware that it simply became more hassle (and cost) than the school wanted to deal with.

OK, I'm rambling... I'll stop now.

slight

How about the majority of eastern governments? have you not heard abuot the begging / bribery missions that Gates and Balmer have been on, trying to plead with the Japanese governments to not ditch M$ in favour of linux. They failed, and are failing in mroe and more places around the world.

Mainstream consumer/home user? Could happen if Linux is packaged like OSX. Of course the familiar apps would have to be there, along with the GUI. Except that the familiar apps aren't available in Linux. Unless you run wine, which is far from perfect.

As to whether this would be a good thing, I guess it all depends on your point of view.

It's becoming mainstream. Look at European governments, they're making the switch.

<<Want to make it easier to install RPM's ???
Well, if you think that "rpm -i app.rpm" is so hard then you should't use a pc at all !!

Go back to your cave or something :-)>>

Well, that was certainly helpful.