So what exactly is linux good for?

Not to sound mean or anything. But I hear all this ranting and raving about Linux and Ubuntu but I have yet to meet anyone, in person, who actually uses it on their system and those who apparently use it on their system (people online) just have it there to fix errors that might have taken place in windows (like myself, I use the liveCD to run it quickly)

But in a productive sense, a business office sense, how can linux benefit the average office environment?

Also another question, in the circumstance of content creation, how does Linux compare to say, the professional list of Apple or Adobe content creation software?

Like I said, I'm not trying to be mean, I just want a better understanding of the PRACTICAL or PRODUCTIVE use of linux based operating systems.

 

I use it for its great programming environment. Its command line is very powerful and has many tools that simply aren't available in windows.

Plus its free .

As for office type applications, I only use office (open office), when I have to; I prefer using notepad over word (simpler, cleaner). I do use Open Office's spreadsheets quite a bit though.

 

Another plus factor is that Linux OS doesn't get infected by virus. A computer virus is computer program that can copy itself and infect a computer without the permission or knowledge of the owner. Since anyone can copy files in Windows and MAC OS without the need of permission, Windows and MAC OS are prone to virus. In Linux case, only few people, those that are in Linux team, have the permission and license to touch, manipulate, or configure Linux OS (i.e. Ubuntu, Kubuntu, and other Linux distros) file systems. Due to this, all Linux OS are invulnerable to virus. Hence, using Ubuntu/Kubuntu or any Linux distros will free up your load in buying expensive anti-virus or purchasing licenses from the net just to cure your anxiety in securing your OS from virus and other online threats.

A plus advantage of Linux, Ubuntu, and OpenOffice is the low requirements it uses to run its OS compared to Windows and MAC. Ubuntu only barely requires a low system requirements, namely: # 300 MHz x86 processor
# 64 MB of system memory (RAM)
# At least 4 GB of disk space (for full installation and swap space)
# VGA graphics card capable of 640x480 resolution
# CD-ROM drive or network card.

And for the recommended minimum requirements:
# 700 MHz x86 processor
# 384 MB of system memory (RAM)
# 8 GB of disk space
# Graphics card capable of 1024x768 resolution
#Sound card
#A network or Internet connection
(All 64-bit (x86-64) PCs should be able to run Ubuntu. Use the 64-bit installation CD for a 64-bit-optimised installation.)

And the recommended specs for visual effects barely require the following:
# 1.2 GHz x86 processor
# 384 MB of system memory (RAM)
#Supported graphics card (see DesktopEffects)

Moreover, Ubuntu has many flavours depending on the budget capacity of the user, it has Xubuntu which only runs on a barely minimum requirement of
# 333 MHz processor
# 192 MB of system memory (RAM)
# At least 1.5 GB of disk space
# VGA graphics card

and a recommended for above-average visual effects:
# 800 MHz processor
# 256 MB of system memory (RAM)
# 6 GB of disk space
# Graphics card capable of 800x600 resolution

Nevertheless, Ubuntu has also the Netbook alternative (Ubuntu Netbook Remix) for netbook-afficionados with a twist of a lucrative interface. On the extreme side of the spectrum, a Ubuntu OS called LTSP thin-client computers that operates on an absolute minimum installation; thereby, catering those who're below the tight budget line but still can operate basic computer usages. The below requirements for LTSP thin-client is as follows:

Absolute minimum requirements

* Intel 486 processor
* 32 MB of system memory (RAM)
* 300 MB of disk space

Absolute minimum graphical installation

* Intel Pentium 66 MHz processor
* 48 MB of system memory (RAM)
* 468 MB of disk space
* VGA graphics card
__________________________
For the flexible user or client (i.e. from i386 processor to x86; from lower class, middle class to upper class; from non-high graphics gamer, general office use, tight budget to luxurious use), Ubuntu and other Linux distros actually have a CLEAR-CUT adaptable competitive advantage compared to MAC and Windows; thereby, also having a distinct and unique segment in the computer OS market.

 

I moved all my work over to Linux...I run my business programs in an XP virtual machine, and run all my documents and other things directly in linux. I feel it's safer there, that I'm less likely to lose data....backing up the entire /home directory is very easy.

I keep Vista on the machine solely to run games.

In the 'net world, linux pretty much owns the server world.

 

Back in the day, I used to work here:

http://www.eriksbikeshop.com/ride/

Well anyway, Erik and one of his former managers recently built their own custom Linux OS and point of sale software from FOSS stuffs and ditched their old apple system. All of the stores are linked and the system keeps track of inventory moving back and forth between them.

 

I have to agree with Dire_NTropy here. As a programming and development environment, Windows just does not compare. The linux library system is easy to understand, and the filesystem is cleaner (compared to C:/Program Files/ and %APPDATA%). Also, the linux window managers have native workspacing support, which is really nice for doing writing and research at the same time. The particular window manager I use, Openbox, is very configurable and lets you map any command to any keypress or mouse action.

Not least, there's just the sheer customizability of linux. You can shape your system to whatever you want, and there are dozens of flavors for you to find what suits you.

 

I also use Linux primarly for the programming environment.

Then I end up using Linux 90%+ of my time, because it is just safer and less bloated.

Windows hides the system from me and imposes me the "Windows way" much more than I would like to. Also, it doesn't provide me a command line shell, choice to customize things the way I want from scratch. That cuts me down productivity to half.

 

Linux is safer for web-browsing, it has GIMP for photo editing and it has a very powerful office suite, which I use even on my Windows computers (OpenOffice). Furthermore it is easier to install programs with aptitude than anything on Windows. Lets say you need to install SVN, in Windows you have to download and extract or install. In Ubuntu you just type 'apt-get install svn' and the deed is done. Furthermore, if you need a small script to automate something, shell scripts are easier and safer than Batch. All in all, if you're not a heavy gamer, linux is a very capable business OS and is a great programming environment. So for business work, web-browsing, messaging, programming, and video/media it is just as capable as Mac OS X or Windows. Its only drawbacks is the lack of viruses which many Windows users (and even some Mac users) enjoy.

 

Thanks for the openbox mention, will try out ASAP

 

I think that many of the advantages listed by users where applicable to competing OSes, not just Linux. My own list would be the following:

- redundancy and modular design
- low system requirements
- modest demands for the best desktop compositing graphics
- by FAR the best program management systems (APT, YUM, etc)
- decent UAC and multi-user design since it's creation, unlike some OSes out there
- as others said, it's free and can compete with costly competitors!

Of course, Linux is not without it's problems.

 

Oh yeah, and it's free.

And it has tons of programs you can choose from, a massive developing community, and amazing flexibility. I use it just as productively as Windows for school work, image editing, web browsing, etc.

The customization factor also just blows Windows out of the water, let alone Mac.

 

I want to add that i agree with what everybody else has already said. I have used Linux for many years myself. Linux is really great for security, web surfing and many programming languages etc but I would stick to windows if your work primarily involves .NET programming and languages like C# or VB6/VB.NET. There is the mono project but I don't think it is mature enough(definitely not for VB.NET programming) and why would you want to use another system if the environment/compiler you want is made by Microsoft.

 

How the bleeping bleep did i miss this thread. After working extensively with both systems i can say:

Windows is good for
- general purpose, surfing the web
- specific purposes such as sound and video editing, making music, and so on
- gaming

Linux is good for
- SERVERS. Most of the internet runs on Linux
- specific purposes such as servers (but wait, i said that above already)
- Media Center / HTPC - Linux makes a GREAT Home Theater PC because it allows GPU acceleration of most types of video including HD, which makes it lighter on the CPU, thus lower processor requirements, less power consumption and less heat

That's in short what i think of both systems. For the average user Windows is still the better choice. Although there is a lot of amazing (and free) software for Linux, it still lacks that something that allows it to be a versatile operating system and still user-friendly enough.

Then again, i've just arrived from a party and i'm drunk, but i hope this post is informative enough.

 

I just arrived from a cricket and soccer game and I am drunk as well. But I appreciate the posts and based on this and more research I would recommend linux as a safe OS to some of my business clients.

 

Just to clear up a couple of things...

- You can get a virus in Linux, but no one really writes them. And if they do, the holes are easy to close up.

- GIMP is available for Windows as well.

- CYGWIN gives you Linux functionality in a Windows environment, if you really, really hate GUIs

I would download Virtual Box and try out multiple flavors. Use Ubuntu if you want eveything done for you. Get Fedora if you want to dig deeper into it. Don't get too caught up in dual-booting and making fancy partition schemes for a home computer either. Stick with the basics, then gradually learn how you can make Linux work for you.

 

Just to sort of reply to this... I've found Linux just as good for general purpose and surfing the web, maybe even better in some ways. It's definitely a more customizable experience, and even though I've barely scratched the surface, I love the functionality I have with launching applications, terminals, multiple desktops, shortcut keys, media plugins, integral productivity apps, and excellent programs.

Sure, after using Windows for many years I've been able to create a desirable desktop environment, but Linux has all the same functionality with comparable effort involved, and then goes much beyond that.

Furthermore, Linux is great for image editing. GIMP of course is great (runs better than in Windows), and then there are so many other specific programs available through the repos. And then the workspace switching is so easy and useful. As far as video editing, I've usually ended up using Movie Maker, but there are many Linux alternatives, some of which I'm sure are superior. And there is all the information out there you need, like here or here. So really, I imagine Ubuntu easily surpasses Windows on the free video editing front.

Gaming. Yes... well, that's what dual-booting is for.

 

Yes, but they don't spread like wildfire and they are able to be counted on one hand. Yes, most Linux programs are available in Windows. It is their grand scheme to get Windows user hooked on their applications and then decide "Hey, all my apps are from this GNU project, which is standard with Linux...I'll try that." Also it encourages projects to be able to compete with commercial Windows programs.

 

Simply put, in my case, if I have an OS problem in linux, I can reinstall in in 15 minutes, pull back over my /home from my external, and I'm back in business. Because I run my Business vertical market programs in a virual machine, there is no reinstalling program after program...I just copy back over my VM files, install VB, and and I'm right back in business quickly.

I sync my Blackberry in my XP virtual machine and use all my scanners, printers, and other USB devices in the VM. I use 2 HP deskjet printers and the HP linux software tell me ink levels, the whole shebang. Outport now converts quickly outllook .pst files to evolution and I can bring my native Evoluton in sync with Outlook in less the 5 minutes. It's all there now....we just need some work on more gaming. I bet my Strat games will run in VM, but haven't tried yet. Many games will run directly in linux via Wine and derivative like Cedaga and Crossover Office. Vista (and Soon Win 7, will be basically a gaming partition. 2 years ago I couldn't do all of this, or most of what I need, so I see significant improvements in Linux as a whole. I much prefer managing my Music Collection in linux and iPod in linx also.

My dedicated volume keys work in Linux also. The only thing I haven't tried to get working is my backlit keyboard.

on a side note, it just plain more enjoyable, and theming out a nice desktop makes the eviro ever-changing and easy on the eyes. PS, I've meet several people in the 'wild' who use linux...but it's not something you go out and try to impress chicks with, unless they're nerdy as hell...like my brothers wife

So I say...give it a try and see what it can do for you. I can say once you realize the full potential, you may be glad you did. My girlfriend has to use Autocad, and I haven't tried (nor do I use it) in a VM. I'm used VM's long enough now to have full confidence in their reliability and integrity.

 

Surfing the web... It works? Yes. It looks good? No. The disproportions between fonts are killing me. Sure, hacking away in a terminal is cool, but you can't get any real work done in one (real work = things that bring you $$$). Also many people seem to underestimate the Windows Command Prompt. There's a ton of stuff it can do as well.

Multiple desktops, i can do without. Shortcut keys, what, are those new??? I think i got enough shortcut keys in Windows, and AutoHotkey lets me create any others i may wish for. As for excellent programs... Just check out www.softpedia.com, and btw, it's got Linux stuff too.

As far as image editing goes, GIMP is okay, but it's no match for the likes of Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. Sure, Photoshop is pricey, but Paint Shop Pro is 60 bucks, and your laptop cost 10 times that. And as for viruses, i haven't had one in three years. It's all about safe browsing practices.

VMs are stable, yes. But they are also slow, have horrible latency and they have no 3D acceleration. I'm glad you never asked your gf to try AutoCad in a VM... I have tried running FL Studio in a VM, and i wish i never did.

And why dual-boot when i can have one single OS that does everything i need it to.

Linux has always been an operating system for geeks, while Microsoft has always been a business. That will never change. I'd love to hack at a Linux box all day, but unfortunately i have to do a little something or the other to get my money. I think the GNU project should consider making a free laptop. :laugh:

 

Speak for yourself. My linux fonts are cleartype-filtered and 96 DPI system-wide.

 

You mean that blur they dare to call anti-aliasing? I guess that's why they set default font size to 12.. As for the system-wide thing... Firefox renders fonts two sizes larger than it's supposed to, Opera renders them two sizes smaller. Monospaced fonts are always two sizes smaller than anything else. And there goes the system-wide thing. Seriously, i wouldn't have bothered to elaborate such a long post here if i was talking out of my rear.

 

So what exactly did you do? First of all, you're not using my computer, so anything you claim as to what my apps look like is bull. I say system-wide because, when the X server starts, a -dpi 96 flag is passed to it, and that sends a directive to the freetype and cairo rendering engines to only render in 96 DPI. I'm just saying there's nothing font-wise in Vista or Windows 7 that I miss.

P.S. I don't go around telling people that Photoshop sucks just because I don't know how to ing use it. For the same reason I don't go and blow on the Windows forum because an application crashes or the indexer is out of control. I fix it. Then, if someone happens to have the same problem, I help them.

 

Yeah it most definitely does, but a flag is of no use if applications ignore it. Besides, what does 96 DPI mean for you? What does 96 DPI mean for your fonts? They still come in "size 8" or "size 12" or "size 16". In units of WHAT??? This notion isn't clear on Windows either, but at least all "size 8" fonts are "size 8" here.

I tried to do a lot of things to the fonts, but i couldn't get them to look like anything that didn't hurt my eyes. I don't necessarily want them to look like on Windows, but in a normal paragraph of text, i want the regular, italic and monospace fonts to have the same proportions. Seems like i want too much don't i?

I've spent two weeks trying to fix it. Most of the Ubuntu people decided that they don't care since the default fonts look just fine to them. The ones that did care a bit pointed me to a few places where i can get nice fonts, but changing the fonts didn't stop them from looking disproportionate. Now go look for the paragraph where i said that Linux sucks, coz i sure don't remember saying it.

 

Thank you for betraying utter and complete ignorance. The DPI determines how big a point-size of the font is. Hence, a "12-point" font would take up more space in a 126-DPI system than in a 96-DPI. 96 is the default for people with normal eyesight, and 126 for those with poor eyesights.

Thus, an "8-point" size is subjective to the DPI. As for the -dpi flag, I can assure you with all certainty, sir, that it is not being ignored by any of my applications. In addition, I apologize for the fact that you are unaware of any processes that occur beneath the graphical layer.

 

It's 125 dpi not 126, ah, those typos. And i apologize for the fact that you are unaware of what i am aware of, haha. And with that you're missing the point too - most people don't need to care what's beyond the GUI. If the GUI works fine for them then why break it?

Now you go and edit an image in the terminal. Maybe you'll make some cool ASCII art.

 

You can't get real work done in terminal? I wonder how businesses that used computers operated before modern GUIs came about. Furthermore, half the time I find myself running to command prompt even in Windows to do simple, but repetitive, actions. Windows is hardly better, but I guess I don't do "business" work, just school at the moment. I have no qualms with the font, it seems normal to me.

 

Before modern GUIs there was DOS, and there were quite a few primitive, but usable GUIs for it. Most business apps used a GUI. Sure it wasn't shiny and transparent, but it still had OK buttons, checkboxes, tables and charts.

 

And before DOS there was Unix. Unix has evolved, and it is still useful in many scenarios because text can be more concise than navigating through multiple menus, or using an entire set of shortcuts. But what kind of argument is this when wonderful environments like KDE/Gnome are available. I use KDE and I prefer its interface to Windows Vista, but yes some if its programs need work here and there.

 

Hmm, I could get by with only a linux OS without Windows. (And yes, I bring in a salary)

I do all my work in a terminal. If you're developing code you will generally be using a terminal (GUI environments are for n00bs ).

The only reason I ever boot up Windows is for gaming and its happening less and less now with the advances in Wine.

 

Yeah, because linux 3D content creation and matrix manipulation tools are soooo inferior, right?

 

Linux? pfffft. SGI Irix on an Indy... Oh wait...

 

a vm on this notebook runs very fast...still faster than vista...if you set it up right. there is 3d acceleration now.

my linux desktop fonts look way better than windows...you have to set it up right with ttf and 96 dpi, AA, etc or it won't look that way out of the box.

 

Well, i would sure appreciate a font setup guide, coz i spent two weeks and still i couldn't get the bloody things to work well. And i'd like some comparison shots vs. Windows Vista. There is no "real" 3D acceleration yet, and please show me how you can get <15ms audio latency in a VM. I'm a music producer so i need that. Because FL Studio does not run in Wine since Wine does not support its copy protection scheme.

Another issue was that most 3D apps crashed the machine. Compiz + movie playback crashed as well. Now you're going to blame ATi?

 

note: windows beats linux in gaming, which may or may not be a biggie for some people

 

Yes, actually. If ATi wrote a bad driver for Windows (they have, several times in the past), Windows users would be mad at them as well.

 

for sure....that's why I keep a windows partition...because I stay there hours literally, I don't mind dual booting for that...or even booting up the 360 or PS3....

 

latency in VM....never checked that out...the linux kernel can be adjusted, but a VM?...well, you know, even Mac users need to boot windows sometime. if you're a music producer, I think you may be stuck in windows....my business programs are only tax and accounting and will run on a clock radio....

 

What is Linux good for?

Well it's free.

In reality other than that it doesn't offer much benefits from Windows other than being free. Given that Windows cost about 250€ for each licence and most of us has at least 2 computers. The cost of buying a licence other than OEM is quite alot of money for several compuers. For a company it will be a dent in the budget as well depending how many computer you have.

From a user perspective it's not really good. Linux suffers from heavy fragmentation and not much unity among the countless distros available. Not much user friendlyness when it comes to configuration and so on but it has been big improvements lately. Maybe a big company like Google can change this and give Linux (which actually is just a OS kernel) a modern look and feel.

My suggestion in order to make a Linux based OS successful is to hide Linux. The users shall not even be able to know what kernel is under hood. Hide the offspring from the 70s and make the administration of the computer user friendly using the GUI and/or a shell that doesn't really touch the Linux kernel.

Many programmers like UNIX like OSes and still Linux remain a programmers OS.

 

Linux vs. Windows may be simply summed up with this article

IMO, Ubuntu is very user friendly, it was easy to get started. If you take two people completely new to computers, there would not be a significant time difference between someone getting used to Ubuntu and Windows. However, if you take someone used to Windows and introduce them to Ubuntu, the differences between the two OS's will make it seem like Linux is inherently difficult to use. And given the disparity of OS use within the population, this is most often the case leading to a biased view of Linux.

OSX is essentially a modified Unix OS, and its considered very user friendly.

Honestly, making Linux like Windows would defeat the purpose of having a Unix environment, because Linux is not Windows.

I prefer the Linux environment and I find it much easier to use, not only for the powerful command line, but because I can customize my experience so much easier.

Also, the multitude of distros is a very important part of Linux. Users may choose the distro most suited for them. If Linux suffers from a problem, its that of too much choice.

In one case you get to look at a menu and decide what you want. In the other your mom orders your meal for you. I don't know about you, but I'm informed enough to order my own food (I know, I went to far with the analogy, but I wanted to finish it)

 

I find that windows is the most user friendly, ubuntu is a second, and mac os x is a very far distant last! I can never get it to do what I want right in a reasonable amount of time....

 

Everyone is different. Linux is cool, but it's just not for me. I despise the command line with a passion.

I also wish they had a different mascot. A penguin? It's still better then an apple though.

 

Does Linux consumes less power than windows ?
If so, how much ?

 

Mac OS X consumes much less, so I'm guessing Linux would consume less too.

 

The short answer is, it depends. What Linux distribution you're using, the hardware you're running it on (are there drivers for power saving features?), how you have it configured, etc. etc.

As an example, on my Dell Latitude D600, with Ubuntu 8.04 compared to Windows XP Pro, my battery life went down significantly, from 2 hours to a little over an hour. This is doing the same thing on both, surfing the internet with wireless while listening to MP3s. It was obvious Ubuntu was doing a lot more stuff in the background, since the CPU fan was noticeably louder than with Windows.

This is not to say I couldn't have tweaked Ubuntu but in both cases I used a totally vanilla, stock install.