people say-

"you don't understand the power of linux until you get on the net through it."


but what actually is the myth all about. i mean what is so powerful in linux and how is it different from other OS(like windows) with respect to networking(especially internet).

links for further reading is very much accepted........

Hmmm. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that. I guess they might be referring to linux being far less susceptible to viruses and malware-resistant than Windows???
cheers,
jdk

try the document at
http://catb.org/~esr/faqs/hacker-howto.html

there under the topic "Get one of the open-source Unixes and learn to use and run it." you will find it written that unix is the os of internet. you can find related comments on almost any linux tutorials dealing with the internet.

Yes, I know that unix is the os of the internet but that's not really what you mentioned. So I guess you answered your own question in any event.
jdk

What do you mean by-

i know that linux is less susceptible to virus,malware or such.....

but is it the only reason why it linux is called the os of internet..

The server software from linux is very stable and secure.
Many servers (web, ftp..) use linux

No, the earliest implementations of the internet (usenet, etc.) were done connecting computers using Unix. Unix boxes figured most prominently in the historical development of the internet.
jdk

One of the reasons Linux is called the internet OS is because it was built from the ground up with networking in mind. I do not know of a commercial software that can say the same.

Another reason is that the development of Linux has been and is directly tied to the internet. People from a lot of countries have their hand in the code of Linux, without the internet this would be virtually impossible.

When I have heard something like this (which hasn't been often) I've thought that what was meant was that, combined with the repository system, if you have a reasonable bandwidth connection to the internet, the system becomes more powerful. That is that you can click a button, wait what you would hope was a trivial amount of time, and your computer magically has new powers.

That may well show the danger of using phrases which have multiple possible meanings. I'm not actually sure whether I have interpreted correctly.

I haven't heard this phrase before, but it is true that:

1. The early days (ARPANet) a lot of the systems were Unix and a lot of the people involved hacked on Unix & C and the internet protcols. See Jon Postel et al.
This is way before Linux...

2. *nix is highly resistant to viruses etc, although it does help that the majority are written for MS and will simply not run on *nix.
Still have to worry about rootkits/trojans somewhat. There are apparently a few Linux viruses about. See the Security forum.

3. a lot of the current internet uses *nix based systems, both at the router/switch level and also as endpoints (servers).

get hold of this book...

Linux® Bible
2007 Edition
Boot Up Ubuntu®, Fedora™, KNOPPIX,
Debian®, SUSE™, and 11 Other Distributions


go to page no. 171 (i.e getting on the internet)
you will find such comments in the very first line.



[NOTE: copying a part of the book is something to do with the copyright problem and i don't want to run the risk of doing such acts that would otherwise violate the law. so the text is not included here.]

Is this the quote you're talking about?
I believe this would be considered "fair use" which is perfectly legal with copyrighted material. In any event, I'm not terribly worried. Since these days linux relies heavily on the internet for updating and upgrading its packages, the sentence makes sense. It could have other meanings as well, but short of consulting the author, Christopher Negus in this case, your guess is as good as mine as to his intentions.

To test Negus's claim you could to the following: use linux for one day without connecting to the internet. Then use it for one more day while connected to the internet. Do you feel more power on the 2nd day than the 1st? If so, Negus is correct; if not, he's not.

Is there any particular reason for your interest in this quote?
Cheers,
jdk