What can Windows do that Linux can't?

Argh! I did not even know about that tool. I had it installed but never used it. Since my Linux skill have been formed in the early days of Linux, I have the tendency to just go for the configuration files without checking if there's a tool that can help.

Once, installed, if you go into Applications -> System Tools -> NTFS Configuration Tool, it will ask for your password and then you get a nice dialog that allows you to:

- Enable write support for internal device

and

- Enable write support for external device.

I presume there's a reason to have two different settings but what that reason is is not clear to me.

 

Sorry for my rant.. i was probably too cross with myself to be writing letters on the forum.

I started off by going to add/remove programs and typed "ntfs config" in the search bar, i found the program and downloaded it, once that was completed i found the program in applications/system tools i checked the "enable write support for external drive" (is that box called a GUI), and click on "ok" that should allow me to read and write, once i have dis-mounted then re-mounted the HDD, right?

so i went to PLACES/COMPUTER at this point there is an icon in the main screen and a smaller icon in the menu to the left. If i right click on the main icon i have the option to "Eject" or the smaller one has the option "Unmount" i have tried both options and both display the following message

#CANNOT EJECT VOLUME#
then imediately it tries to re-mount and displays
#CANNOT MOUNT VOLUME, Unable to mount volume external HD#

Details>
$logfile indicates unclean shutdown (0, 0) failed to mount '/dev/sda1': Operation not supported Mount is denied because NTFS logfile is unclean. choose one action: boot windows and shutdown it cleanly, or ifyou have a removable device then click the 'safely remove Hardware' icon in the iconin the windows taskbar notification area before disconnecting it. Or Run ntfsfix version 1.13.1 on linux unless you have vista. Or mount the NTFS volume with 'ro' option in read-only mode.


http://fresh.t-systems-sfr.com/linux/src/ntfsprogs-1.13.1.tar.gz/

i downloaded the ntfsfix program. but i don't know what to do with it. I extracted it..... then what ??? there no options to run or install, i tried typing 'run ntfsfix' in the terminal just for a laugh, but i haven't learned any computer language yet.

i also downloaded ntfs-3g but also didn't know what to do with it once it was downloaded?

i also wanted to try LEMUR's suggestion but i didn't know where to begin with it.

P.s i seem to have lost 2 icons from the shut down menu, if i click the off button in the tool bar, when the screen pops up it is missing the stand-by and off icons leaving only 'hibernate' i have re-booted and they didn't come back

many thanks

 

If you hibernate, Windows doesn't unmount the drive cleanly, which gives you that error. At least, that's the only time I've seen it. Shut Windows down completely, and you should be able to mount the drive.

Downloading stuff like ntfs-3g and ntfsfix won't help on Ubuntu, at least not from their source sites. Install them from Synaptic, and then you should be able to run them. You're still thinking in Windows terms, where you go to a random site, download something and click on it. Don't do that. Use Synaptic, let it find those programs for you.

 

Hardware control. Its SOOOO easy in windows to undervolt. In linux apparently I have to do a kernel recompile ....

Also, in windows when I do standby to RAM, the entire case is cool. In linux, the bottom part of the case stays warm.
http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=156348

In my M90 I cant do standy at ALL.
I wish people would pay more attention to these basic functions than on compiz

 

I dont have windows on this computer though? would it be worth trying to unmount and re-mount the external HDD from the terminal ?
Thanks for the Synaptic tip

 

Mounting and unmounting with the terminal will yield the same results. The only thing that I can see possibly helping if you don't have a Windows installation at hand to do a chkdsk is to install ntfsprogs which contains ntfsfix.

Here's another tip. If you find instructions to use some command, you can open a terminal to see whether it is installed on your system. Once you get the command prompt, you can just type the name of the command. If it is there, it will be executed. If not, the terminal will tell you where to find it:

Code:

ldd@bodhi:~$ ntfsfix
The program 'ntfsfix' is currently not installed.  You can install it by typing:
sudo apt-get install ntfsprogs
-bash: ntfsfix: command not found

But use judgment because the command you type on the terminal will be executed right away if present. (I pity the fool who will use that tip thinking "er... let me see if "rm -rf ~" is doable..." or even worse "sudo rm -rf /".)

 

"What can Windows do that Linux can't?"

Easy. Attract more viruses.

 

External drives, you have to do the "Safely Remove" option from Windows, rather than just unplugging it. That should fix you up.

 

YEEEEEEHAAAAR !!
got it working
strangest thing though. i remembered getting an error message of some sort when i first installed the ubuntu, and again from the auto updates, and again when i tried to install some other programs. I didn't think much of ot at the time because it would disappear and the computer would would carry on as normal...... or so i thought. Then then was the weird disppearing icons in the shutdown menu.? so i just came to the conclusion that something had gone fundamentally wrong with my initial installation of ubuntu.
I have re-installed it from scratch and downloaded the "ntfs configure" program, checked the box to enable read and write and it works fine with no niggles...

Thanks to all for your guidance

I can now go back to my original posting here, and say that i havn't yet found anything that my windows can do, that i can't do on my linux Ubuntu.

 

I would like to discuss viruses for a mo, are most viruses designed to attack windows? or are the linux based OS's just harder to attack?

if linux becomes more popular with distributions like ubuntu, Kubuntu and puppy attracting people like me in the thousands. that surely means that people who design malicious software are going to want to start having a go at linux too?

 

Linux is safer than Windows for a number of reasons:

- First, Linux has a much smaller user base and so is less of a priority for malicious attacks. I have heard of people disagreeing with this point, but I've never seen any logic in their responses.

- Second, because Windows was never initially designed to be a multi-user system, it has a really dumb user management system; the single user on a Windows system is an administrator (read: admin = root), and so the OS will make system wide changes without questioning the user. This means that, since many computer users are not so tech-savvy, it is very easy for them to run malicious software. Not only that, but Windows can have more than one root user, which makes little sense. This makes Windows systems very hospitable hosts for a hacker's porn collection on someone else's computer.

On the other hand, Linux creates a limited-privilege user and a single root user account right off the bat, so in order for a virus or any such software to run it first needs authorization, a concept that Windows is completely ignorant of.

- Third, Linux has a modular design in terms of how the system is structured, whereas Windows uses a central design. This means that it is much easier for the latter operating system to be compromised or destroyed altogether.

Take the registry for example, where program settings and critical system information is kept by Windows. If the registry is deleted or corrupted by malware, the system is destroyed; not so with Linux. In Linux, each user has a "home" folder, which is the equivalent to the "My DoCuMents" folder for Windows. Here, the settings for each system program are kept in individual hidden folders (.gimp, .gaim, .firefox, etc); in this way, only pieces of the Linux "registry" can be ruined, not the whole system.

Well, there's a brief explanation for you. Pitabred or Lemur can probably offer better information as they are more experienced and knowledgeable Linux users, but that's what I know.

 

Security through obscurity may not be real protection, but it works. If the malware writer does it for attention, there's not enough Linux users. If it's for money, there's not enough Linux users.

Vista's UAC is suppose to address this, but it's just annoying. I disabled it almost immediately. I'll take my chances of getting infected with something sneaky if it means I no longer have to authorize myself to complete a task I just ordered the system to do.

The registry bit is a bad idea. Windows used to be like that: endless .ini config files for every little program. 3rd party apps' info would clog the system .ini files so eventually 3rd party developers just left a link to their own .ini files. Bad, bad idea.

 

I'm sure there's a lot of hackers out there who'd love to be able to say "I was the first person to bring down ten million Ubuntu computers!"

 

I'm talking mainstream news level attention. Even if a virus brought down 95% of Linux machines, no one would care. I could see the producer trying to learn what Linux is, realizing how many people use it, and then just binning the story.

 

What about all the servers running Linux? There are a LOT of those, and well, if 95% of them went down due to viruses, then, well, most of the internet would be broken.

 

Dave certainly wouldn't be using the internet.

 

As I've said before, you may not need a computer science degree to run Linux, but you definitely will need a lot of free time (and is time ever really "free"?). I have to laugh at the people who have been running things like Ubuntu for a day or two and who come on forums raving about it. Come back and post a few months from now - that is, if you're still running it.

Installing Linux on a computer is a piece of cake compared to maintaining it. Every time you need to install some new hardware, or upgrade some aspect of the software, you better have access to the internet and plenty of time, because something is bound to go wrong. In my experience, Linux gets reinstalled from scratch to resolve insurmountable problems on desktop and laptop computers a lot more often than Windows does. It's just that people don't bother to mention that on forums. It's a sign of weakness

I prefer to spend my extra computer time dabbling in programming rather than fiddling with an operating system. The OS is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned. Just something for software to operate on. Almost everything I would run on Linux is also available for Windows these days anyway.

You are no more independent with Linux than you are with Windows. You depend on the distro's maker to keep making it. You depend on the original base distro maker to keep making that, and you depend on Linus Torvalds and his team to keep pressing on with the basic kernel. And as far as obsolescence goes, you get as obsolescent with Linux as you do with Windows. If you don't believe that, try running a current Linux distro on an older computer.

 

I've never heard of Linux being reinstalled as a solution to it's problems. I think this attitude is actually more commonly found in the Windows area of the forum. Just do some Google searches and see for yourself; Windows is not a reparable OS.

As to your second paragraph, I think you are looking at this whole thing incorrectly. Customers don't depend on Microsoft; Microsoft depends on it's customers. This statement is becoming more and more obvious to the company as increasing numbers of their OS users switch to alternative operating systems. As far as I'm concerned, I don't need Microsoft. Microsoft needs me; more specifically, Microsoft needs my money. Linus Torvalds doesn't want my money; he just wants me to use his software.

You are also omitting certain facts. Sure, I want Torvalds to turn out improved kernels. But at least I don't depend on Gates to run my OS at all. Also, to use a MS product, I have to give them money, whereas with Linux I don't owe anything. And you say Linux users are just as dependent as MS users?

 

I'm running Arch Linux on a Pentium II 200MHz. It does alright. The Vista installation refused to start.

 

Well, I'd say cautious skepticism is the sane attitude to most reviews posted online. Be it a review of Linux, Vista, a laptop, accessories, etc. A lot of reviews are produced very early after the reviewer has acquired the product and thus cannot reflect the opinion of somebody who has to deal day in and day out with the product. Another thing that annoys me to no end is reviewers foaming at the mouth that product X is perfect. First of all, I find it difficult to believe that there's not anything about X that the reviewer would not want to change. But more importantly products serve to meet specific needs and those needs vary from user to user. Hence, perfection for user A is probably going to be different than perfection for user B. Perfection in the absolute is illusory.

I just bought a wireless mouse this morning. Something did go wrong: I put in the battery the wrong way at first. Linux however, was able to recognize it immediately. I did not have to fiddle with any configuration parameters.

That's a strange experience. I usually need to reinstall Linux only if I want to do something that legitimately requires reinstallation... like moving from distribution A to distribution B or because a hard disk has crashed beyond recovery. Windows on the other hand... You just need to look at it funny and it will pull out some system error straight from the 11th circle of hell and leave you in an unrecoverable state despite the fact that the hardware is 100% fine.

So you don't want Linux. Good for you.

It depends what you mean by "dependent". I recently compiled a version of the Linux kernel that was not shipped by Ubuntu. Version 2.6.22.3. It is *now* integrated in Gutsy (linux-image-2.6.22-10) but when I complied it, that version was not obtainable from Ubuntu in any way, shape or form. I can't do anything equivalent with Windows. The only kernel I can get for Windows is what Microsoft allows to escape in the wild. I can't get anything newer, nothing experimental, no way. I am 100% percent dependent on what Microsoft considers correct for the average user. No so with Linux.

Linux does not make you absolutely free because, just like absolute perfection, absolute freedom is illusory. Does it make you freer than Windows? You bet it does!

I run Linux on old hardware at home and on an old machine I gave to my mother who has very little need for the latest and greatest. Works fine.

 

I use both Win XP and Ubuntu. My XP box does the following better/easier. I have found there is a Linux equivalent to almost any task, I just hate breaking into the terminal to do things.

1. Play the latest and greatest games (and play them well).
2. Properly encode video to iPod format
3. Log into my company VPN

That's about it. The rest I can do on my Ubuntu laptop.

 

I didn't say i don't want to run linux. I do run it, in fact, but not exclusively. I think the world needs linux, if only to help keep MS and others on their toes and honest. That doesn't mean I have to be a fanatic about it. If you do use it, it should be for better reasons than just hating Microsoft.

 

You didn't have to install the new mouse, did you? If you did, I'd just pull this card: "You actually have to install a mouse for it to work in Linux " Alas, you didn't have to install the mouse, so your counter argument is null .

It's the other way around, more or less. Apart from irrelevent featuresets like Beryl, Windows has everything Linux has (feature-set wise) and more.

Interestingly enough, for a guy claiming that absolute perfection is illusionary, you didn't find what you just said ironic in the least?

Freedom is relativistic. I'd prefer not having to recompile my kernel just to update this and that, add a few features, kernel based NTSF write support, for example. I'd rather much keep my "free" time by using Windows and not having to bother with that. So, you see, I am in fact "freer" with Windows than I am with Linux. It just so happens that "freer" is also relativistic.

Honestly, I have nothing else to say. You've just proved yourself to be another one of those net-Windows haters.

I've been running the same Win 2K Server Family installation since it was released (well, a few months afterwards) and it's still kicking butt just fine. It just so happens that the a great number of the people using Windows is technologically illiterate and suck at maintenance--Hell, I'm sure you even know a few people who doesn't know what Adware/Spywre are! Put the same populous of people in a room with Linux only PC's and see how fast their Linux distro F's up on them.

Well put . I run both, I even use Mac's at my school's lab to do 3D Modelling, animating as well as video editing. I'm no hater, fanboy, or fanatic about any of the OS.

I use whatever OS that allows me to do the work I want, in the time frame I have. If by installing a new IEEE 1394 adapter requires me to spend an extra 30 to 40 minutes tinkering with the config files under Linux, I'd much rather do the same wok under Mac where IEEE 1394 is standardized. Likewise, if I have to run a Windows exclusive app that would run horribly under Wine or Virtual PC on the Mac, I'd use a Windows machine. If I want to tinker around with Beryl, well Linux, here I come. If I want to fix a crashed hard drive, corrupt boot.ini file, I'll boot up my SLAX distro with recompiled NTFS kernel write support and fix it up.

Okay, that was way over the top--but you should get the point.

Don't be a sucker or fanboy of any one proprietary platform (You may argue that Linux isn't a proprietary platform--you'd be right in any legal dispute. But honestly, ask yourself: When all the OS's are so separate form each other that without using any hacks or tweaks it becomes impossible to use the app of another OS, wouldn't you pretty much consider that proprietary? I would and I do). Use whatever is the most convenient and efficient for the task at hand.

----
That said, to answer the original topic at hand:
Personally, playing DX based games and using a myriad of video editing suites (Vegas Video, for one). Also for running 3D Modelling apps with the latest driver support for my GPU.

 

I had to physically plug in a wireless dongle. That's "installation" as far as I'm concerned. You're free to define "installation" to prove whatever you want, including that white is black.

First, you don't know what irony is. Secondly, I've shown one way in which Linux makes you freer than Windows. Astoundingly, you took that as a claim of absolute freedom. By your logic, someone who accepts that there is no such thing as absolute freedom should consider the freedom of a man who is locked in prison to be incommensurable with the freedom of the average US citizen.

If you feel freer with Windows, good for you.

Ok, so I guess I won't expect a reply to my post. I hate any piece of software badly designed or people who want me to pay for their shoddy work. Windows fits in those categories.

Feel free to define any word any way you feel will legitimate your choices.

 

"I've been running the same Win 2K Server Family installation since it was released (well, a few months afterwards) and it's still kicking butt just fine. It just so happens that the a great number of the people using Windows is technologically illiterate and suck at maintenance--Hell, I'm sure you even know a few people who doesn't know what Adware/Spywre are! Put the same populous of people in a room with Linux only PC's and see how fast their Linux distro F's up on them."

Although I agree with some of your points, this argument demonstrates that your knowledge about Linux is very scarce. In fact it is much harder to kill a Linux system. Set up is difficult, yes, but that is another argument; you can't screw up the system without the root password. That is, you need to authorize malware to run on your computer. In Windows there is no such protection system.

 

The thing I've found is that most people take the amount of "free time" they've dedicated to Windows for granted. You have to learn how to use Linux, just like you did with Windows. I don't spend any more time in administrating Linux than I do with administrating Windows, and I actually spend a lot LESS time upgrading Linux (I just went from Feisty to Gutsy on my laptop here... took a grand total of an hour, including download time. Let's see you upgrade XP to Vista in that time, and have everything still work, all applications, stored settings, everything. Linux is NOT Windows. It will take time to learn. But it's not more difficult than Windows, if you know it.

 

I've tried Knoppix and Damn Small Linux. Both look like crap because the linux driver for my desktop's video card is limited to 640x480.

 

dave, what vid card do you have?

 

Nvidia's GeForce4 MX 440 (AGP 8x capable, but the Intel 8XX motherboard is 4x). Besides the AGP card, the motherboard also has an Intel Extreme 2 chip.

I found this resolution changing app in DSL, but when I click on the highest avalaible resolution, 1024x768, the screen blacks out and comes back 10 seconds later with 640x480 again. I've tried using the Knoppix cheat code "screen=1280x1024" but I get some weird 1154x760 resolution. There doesn't seems to be an option for 75Hz.