Sarcastic_Name wrote:
I know it's open source, but I have loose grasp as to what that means.
Open Source means, literally, that the source code used to generate the binary (executable) files is available for free, public viewing without non-disclosure agreements or patents.
There are several benefits to open source:
1: Many thousands of people submit bug reports, patches and suggest ways to improve the code.
2: Non-programmers have the ability to submit suggestions for features and have those suggestions actually considered by the programmers.
3: Because the code is non-commercial, there is less incentive to "do the wrong thing" in order to improve profit. Conversely, open-source programmers gain respect for turning out good code, and so they will usually "do the right thing" even if it's harder.
4: There is almost always more than one way to do something so programs live or die on their merits, as opposed to the commercial industry where bad software can survive if the marketing and/or lobbying campaigns are strong enough.
5: If a product starts to deteriorate because of neglect or because a special interest has hijacked the agenda then someone else can take a working copy of the code and "fork" it into a different product and take development in another direction.
6: If some code works well in one product, programmers can cut-and-paste it into another product without getting sued.
There are two main down-sides to open source:
1: There's no free support. You get what you pay for.
2: Some software vendors are waging a war against open source, and one of the tactics they use is to convince hardware vendors to ignore Linux. This means that while most products come with a Windows Driver CD-Rom in the box, support for Linux is usually delayed and/or incomplete.
Those are all arguments based purely on the method by which the code is created and delivered. The other consideration (particularly with Linux) is the educational aspect. Any dummy can install Windows and still end up knowing nothing about computers, just like anyone can drive a car without knowing how an engine works. That's great until something breaks, leaving you stranded and desperate and completely dependent on someone else to save you. Learning to install and use Linux is like building a kit-car. All the major components are prefabricated, but you have to put them together. For some people this is just too much effort, but for others it's an opportunity to learn a skill, acquire generalized knowledge and have some fun.
jeremy wrote:
Nothing like apt-get in Debian. I don't believe anything could provide a more seamless upgrade path. I've got some Debian systems that would be getting onto five years since the initial install, yet they're still 100% up-to-date and very clean.
No kidding. Yesterday I upgraded my Debian box to RAID-5 without having to reinstall anything. I had to shuffle the files around a bit to create the partitions and it took a few reboots. At one point I borked my LILO (changed the /boot partition without updating lilo.conf) and had to borrow a CD-Rom drive from another box long enough to use Knoppix to rescue it. Other than that it was quite painless.
Prometheus wrote:
Someone (i'm too lazy to look back and see who) said that linuix has a "bash" or a command line. Is this like the DOS command line?
Actually, it's like the *new* command line that Microsoft will be adding to Windows "Longhorn" (the WinXP replacement due in 2006 or 2007 or...).
_________________
What would Flying Spaghetti Monster do?