Page 2 of 2 [ 19 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Anna
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2004
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 255

15 Jul 2006, 7:50 pm

Slapula wrote:
rearden wrote:
So, I switched to Ubuntu. For Windows-only applications, I run a copy of XP under VMWare, with all the update/download/security center/other BS disabled. I'm very happy with it so far. I've sworn by Linux on servers for 10 years now, but until recently it sucked for home use. The GUI was slow, kludged together, clunky, ugly, and something as simple as changing the screen resolution (or, God forbid, the refresh rate) was downright masochistic. That's why I stuck with Windows. However, Linux has come a very--VERY--long way over the past year or so in that regard. It's definitely worth switching now.


If any of you are serious about switching from Windows XP to Linux, I wholeheartedly suggest Ubuntu 6.06. It's very easy to install and with sites like http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Dapper you can have all the functionallity (multimedia or otherwise) of a Windows machine within a half hour. Granted there are times when you may need to use CLI, but hey that's Linux.


Just make sure your hardware is supported. This is a perennial problem with Linux. Not all hardware is supported. For example, we just got back from 4 hours at a Linux Installfest after having fought for some time on our own with a new 64bit emachines desktop computer. Ubuntu (the new one) kernel panicked repeatedly in install. After disabling pretty much everything we could disable in the BIOS, we eventually managed to get DSL (damn small linux) loaded (Ubuntu simply *would not* install on our hardware) and now we can use Synaptic to grab the other packages we want, but DSL is still a 32bit OS instead of the 64bit our hardware could theoretically support. In other words, it's been anything but easy or simple. I love Linux - but I'm a geek who doesn't mind spending hours surrounded by other geeks playing with the innards of my computer. Ubuntu and other Linux distros are a long way from being accessible to most computer users. Admittedly, on *many* standard desktop computers, ubuntu installs easily. Just not nearly as supportive of a variety of hardware as might be hoped for.

On my personal laptop, I use Windows XP - primarily because none of the sleep functions work properly in Linux, which means that my battery runs out at a typical conference or schoolday with Linux. WinXP with Firefox and the other Googlepack software isn't bad.

My engineer husband is a great fan of MacOSX, to the point that when offered a work laptop, he chose a powerbook. We actually have a variety of Mac laptop and desktop machines and our network is run off an airport express. Macs just work. I'm more fond emotionally of Linux, but I have to admit Linux is still mostly geektech. XP is M$, but, I end up running it a lot on my laptop - and I have to admit that, mostly, it's pretty smooth.



a1kemi
Raven
Raven

User avatar

Joined: 2 Jun 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 114
Location: Australia

21 Jul 2006, 10:38 pm

Fooker wrote:
So yeah, you can avoid most things in Windows breaking by being extra careful, but with Linux or Solaris or FreeBSD or any other *nix, so long as you don't run as root, you can go anywhere, do anything, and the worst thing that might happen is that your user account gets stuffed. So you delete the user, add a new one, restore the backup, and go back to work. Maybe 10 minutes total? How long does it take to reinstall Windows again?
Grecko


Makes me wonder why educational institutions even run windows on user terminals. All I can say is there's almost nothing more boring than having to learn how to install windows in every single computer course I enroll in. It must be costly for them too.

Has anyone ever heard the argument that linux is more costly to maintain than windows? I've been told that in every *nix vs MS debate. It can't be correct can it? One possibility is that if linux is used for the more important and misssion-critical applications then the statistics will show that more money has been put into linux maintenance that windows maintenance even if linux is actually cheaper to maintain.


_________________
"Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur" - Petronius


Fooker
Butterfly
Butterfly

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 16

23 Jul 2006, 11:56 pm

Thats highgly, highly screwed stats your getting :)

Windows is cheaper for one reason, and only one reason: When you buy the computer, its got Windows on it (in most cases). Linux has to be installed. So:

Windows install time, 0 hours @ 60/hour = 0$
Linux install time, 1 minute @ 60/hour = 1$

Linux in that case is infinitely more expensive!


And the reason allot of unis run Windows on the desktops is because they don't want to teach people how to use a computer in most cases (its assumed you already know), and they just want to get down to teaching the course. Theres no reason they should have to do an OS usage course if your learning HTML, so use Windows, cause everyones used it and knows it. From an admin point, Windows is just as easy to admin as Linux - On Linux, you have a problem with one of thousands of computers, your not going to fix it. Just reload the installation image. You have a problem with a Windows computer, reinstalling is fixing it, so you reload the install image. Most unis reload every machines image every night, and sometimes every reboot (so every user login).


_________________
Fooker