what do people have against linux...?

"There is a word processor built in to windows, not the best admitedly but it is there. Graphics cards do work but like most things they work better with the latest drivers installed. Wifi is an iffy one, some work some dont.
Really (depending on which version of Windows you install) you can type, surf the net, listen to music, watch DVDs, use instant messaging including webcam (if you have one), play a limited selection of card games, chess & mahjong, look at photos, edit photos (to a very limited degree but it is possible to get fair results with perseverance)... so as a result of being able to type, edit photos, surf the net you can build yourself a website! This is all from a fresh installation of Windows."

Between my Toshiba and HP laptop, none of my graphics cards or wireless cards worked. My webcam, speakers, and microphone didn't work. My multimedia buttons didn't work. I was stuck with an eye-straining 800x600 standard VGA resolution... the laptops were basically useless without their drivers or 3rd party software... not to mention that I can't write up technical survey reports on Notepad. I really don't see your point.

 

Yes, Write can read most .doc files and handle basic word processing just fine. My video card of course work out of the box, on the contrary, I still have problem making it work under linux. Same goes for wireless.

I can do most of the thing I have to under Windows and as I said, even if there is something that is not there, it is a standard "start IE, google, click and install". Under standard linux, I need to "start Firefox, google then apt-cache search and apt-get".

With broadband and google, what is installed out of the box doesn't matter as I don't like to have a kitchen sink distro. My linux are all done through basic installation(debootstrap). The advantage of linux I see is how much LESS it can have, not MORE. I need to spend time trimming down standard Windows installation to make it lighter.

 

A fresh Windows install is about as light as XP gets.

Btw, you are omitting some of my points in your quotes. Yes my nVidia or ATI card works, but at 800x600 resolution. Do you call that "working"? Additionally, none of my hardware has been recognized by Windows because MS relies on the hardware manufacturers to post drivers up for downloading or on CDs; have you ever had to hunt around for all of your device drivers? If you did, then you would actually appreciate that with a Linux distro, your devices are recognized with a collection of pre-assembled drivers so that you don't have to waste time with drivers.

Now, even Linux sometimes won't have your wireless or whatever working but granted, the idea of having the OS to get everything working is much more appealing. The MS approach to compatibility is lazy and it leaves all the work to the user.

 

Seems that what you need to complain to is whoever sold you the machine, not Windows. Whenever I bought a machine with Windows(or linux) pre-installed, I expect every hardware comes with it works out of the box and this is true during the past 10-15 years. For additional hardware purchased, I expect they come with driver CD(that is the norm most user expect but in general not true for linux).

As for write up technical survey, that is not some typical needs for average people though I am not sure if Write would fit the bill. BTW, given that notepad can handle HTML, it is possible to write up almost anything with it, if you dare to.

I don't see you point.

 

And even that have things I don't want.

 

In all of my points above, I was comparing an XP installation without 3rd party drivers to a Linux distro; my point was that in terms of hardware compatibility, the Linux distro would be better. Windows itself isn't a very compatible OS, it's just that the hardware manufacturers write drivers for Windows. Just imagine the situation that Windows would be in if manufacturers stopped writing drivers. Linux would keep chugging along.

 

That's hardly solid evidence to base a Windows installation on. Just like installing any OS, the bulk of the heartaches in installing Windows comes from installing all the most updated drivers for all your devices.

Honestly, how many Linux users use their machine WITHOUT updating their drivers.

The default drivers that come with an XP installation DO allow up to 1280x1024 resolution.



This conversation has boiled down to some very suspect viewpoints. In reality, Windows XP gets ALOT more flak than it really deserves. XP is, IMO, the most successful version of Windows to date. It is not unheard of for XP installations to go weeks without a reboot. Heck, I don't even remember the last time I rebooted THIS computer.

At the same time, underneath, Linux is the SUPERIOR operating system. It's architecture is far more stable than Windows XP. Any programmer that has programmed significiantly on both operating systems will tell you the same thing. Also considering that around the industry, Linux is also used as a capable SERVER operating system speaks immense volumes about its stability and capabilities.

IMHO, it just boils down to the fact that while Linux is a GREAT operating system; I feel it's a solution in search of a problem. XP has made long long strides since it first came out. Service Pack 2 has made the operating system so stable that people see NO reason to move to another operating system.

Another hiccup against Linux is the fact that it is opensource. One of it's greatest advantages just doesn't translate well to the corporate environment. There are countless distros of Linux and they don't always play well with each other. It makes writing industry wide software for it confusing. The Corporate enviroment are willing to trade compatability for cost. In fact, they see it as one and the same. Why pay to switch to something that potentially doesn't play well with the rest of the market?

Look at OpenOffice. While it is a very very capable office suite, there are a few times where it does not always convert 100% ofMS 2003 documents (you can thank Microsoft for it's lack of documentation). This is a dealbreaker among IT professionals. The consequences of XP being less stable than Linux PALES in comparison to not being able to always read Office 2003 documents every time. For an IT professional, it just means the Linux users need access to MS office when OpenOffice does have issues with a certain document. In this case, it makes more sense to just equip everyone with MS office and just reboot computers when they have issues. That becomes a more cost effective solution than having computers that don't need reboots as opposed to potentially equipping all Linux users with a dual boot installation with Office 2003. In that case, the rebooting advantage disappears.

Honestly, while threads like this are great, it helps to find knowledgeable people who can present clear and logical viewpoints from each side. The potential for these threads to become flamewars are likely, otherwise.

 

That means nothing to most end users though. A user is not an OS critic doing controlled experiment about linux vs Windows. So for them, hardware compability means if a piece of hardware works(whether the driver is done by the vendor or Microsoft doesn't matter) and 99.5% of the case, Windows comes out as the winner. And most of the machine sold nowadays have Windows preinstalled with all the necessary drivers.

Same goes for applications, in this network era. Need an application that is not in Windows ? go to google or ask in some forums and most likely than not, you get a link to a MSI for Windows.

For linux, you may also get some link but that would be distro specific(RPM vs DEB vs tarball source) and you need to figure out how to do it for your distro.

For those who knows what I am talking about, it is a moot point of comparing them. Yet for those who don't(90%+), Windows no matter how lousy it may sound is still much better than linux.

My open source side sticks with debian and it still needs some work to install the 3 pieces of applications that I think is a must for today's desktop machine : PDF reader, flash plugin and java. They are not in standard Windows either but much easier to install.

 

You are comparing usage scenario and not generic pattern. What I see is that you have a bare machine(no OS) and you try to install something on it. 95% of the time, this is not the case.

I need to hunt around for device drivers(both under linux and windows) but even that happens, it is 10x easier under Windows, a reality because of the Windows monopoly.

800x600 is still a working solution, comparing with my linux installation which cannot even start X on my ATI/AMD i1250. I need to go over to AMD for the driver and editing x86.conf which is eye opening of how complex it can be. A case in point, when is the last time one needs to reboot Windows in order to use an USB keyboard/mouse ? That still seems to be the case in Xorg.

 

the word processor I was referring to wasn't notepad.. it was wordpad.

my ATI graphics card works up to 32bit colour 1280x1024 without any driver cd.

my post was based on my experience in booting up a home built machine with no OS with a Windows OEM disk and installing the OS with no 3rd party driver CDs inserted in the machine at any point or with the machine connected to the internet/network.

 

Bah... windows just works. I know enough to use Linux and have performed system admin tasks from a console version of Solaris, I even set up a partition on my hard drive to dual boot, and wrote an article on dual booting, but never installed Linux. Windows isn't expensive with a new PC and that is usually the one time you need an OS. So why bother getting accustomed to a new OS.

I just don't think its worth the effort, and the game choice is a let down... maybe they need fence sitters like me to use Linux to give it enough market share that developers will start to focus more on Linux and make something half decent instead of crap like GIMP (nice fitting name though).

Actually, this thread kind of reminded me to finally get Linux and install it. I'm going to download Linux now and install it soon hopefully. 11GB of 3 DVD images though, there better be something worthwhile in there. I'm download it through my ISP's file library and their system is cruddy so I don't even know if I'm downloading the right thing. Does this look right?
Debian Linux v4.0r1 DVD ISO i386

BTW, I had enough trouble getting my anal retentive wireless network between two XP Home computers, so I'm already regretting downloading this.

One question, this was another thing that put me off, how do upgrades work? Linux distros seem to churn through versions and with my download caps here in Australia of 10GB/month, I don't want to have to use up too much of that just to be up to date. Is there incremental updates? And yes, I have searched Google.

Is there a knowledge base anywhere on Linux? Kind of like what this site/forum is to notebooks?

 

How do upgrade work ? That depends.

The debian camp said you only need to install once then "apt-get dist-upgrade" when the new version is out(about 18-24 months interval). Which my experience confirmed so far(woody->sarge->etch).

However, if you go over to the ubuntu forum(which is closely related to debian), the impression I get is people like to recommend fresh reinstallation, though on linux, that should not be too much of a problem with proper planning like having a seperate /home mount.

Probably because I use linux mainly as a server/headless VM whereas ubuntu is more targetting towards desktop users.

You don't need to download any DVD image though, so long you have broadband. I just use the netinstall image which is about 200M (can be burnt to a business CD) or the one that can be put on a USB thumb drive.

 

If I use the netinst stuff, it means it will still download what I need, just it will do so during the install, correct me if I'm wrong. Again, the download cap on my broadband plan is a limiting factor here otherwise I would definitely have used netinst to only download what I need.

I guess this won't be as big an issue when upgrading as the sources needed for the upgrade won't be near as big.

 

Yes. It would only download what you would install which is compressed. At most would be around 500M or so for a typical installation. Each distro upgrade need about similar size download(in individual chunks so it can be done bit by bit so even you shut your machine in the middle, it would pick up later).

 

If I use the netinst stuff, it means it will still download what I need, just it will do so during the install, correct me if I'm wrong. Again, the download cap on my broadband plan is a limiting factor here otherwise I would definitely have used netinst to only download what I need.

I guess this won't be as big an issue when upgrading as the sources needed for the upgrade won't be near as big.

 

I think nearly all graphics cards will get you a regular VESA VGA screen by default, with maybe a few exceptions.

USB keyboards/mice absolutely do work in xorg without having to reboot. I've plugged/unplugged them several times when running Feisty.

 

I've never had to restart for anything but a kernel upgrade. I love Arch.

 

That is what I thought too but my X just cannot start(choosing vesa). Could be related to the mode= line on boot up as my display is 1280x800.

As for the mouse/keyboard, my limited experience is that it may need to restart X and the hotplug support is still an on going thing though I haven't been using native X for a while so may be there is progress that Xorg can use newly plugged device after it has started without restart.

If that is the case, would the input section in Xorg.conf completely obsoleted ?

This is what I was referring to : http://wiki.x.org/wiki/XInputHotplug

 

xorg.conf is soon to be obseleted anyways.

 

That is good news. Just hope that by the time I need to run linux on my machine as host(could well be 5 years down the road), I would no longer see this kind of problem.

 

Your choice. I hate having to "authenticate" my software, prove that I'm a paying customer AFTER I've bought the product. I don't have to prove that I own a microwave dinner to my microwave before it'll let me heat up my food.

May I ask what exactly your problem with the GIMP is? Because almost invariably, it's someone who thinks that Photoshop is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and since the GIMP doesn't have the same interface, it is "crap". Tell ya what, the GIMP is easier for me to use, especially with multiple monitors. Photoshop doesn't work at all with multiple monitors, what with their pseudo-MDI interface and all. Not to mention that filters and so on always cost money, and each new version is really expensive. Between Inkscape and the GIMP, you can create some pretty neat things. The ONLY thing Photoshop truly has over the GIMP is that it'll support CMYK.

Why are you downloading that gigantic thing? Do you think you need a local copy of every single program available for Debian? For that matter, why are you going with Debian? Did someone recommend it to you? Because Ubuntu is basically Debian, except made for new users.

Yes, there are definitely incremental updates. If you go with a stable version of Linux, you won't have more than maybe a few hundred megs at most, and that's if OpenOffice is updated. If you go with a bleeding edge one, you may hit a gig or two. But seriously, stop downloading all those Debian images, and go to www.ubuntu.com and get the install disc. As for a knowledge base, Ubuntu's forums are a great resource. But almost all resources are community based, you won't get a nice MSKB type site.

 

Photoshop CS3 does work with multiple monitors, you can set it up just like the older versions. Other features which are well worth the money are interoperability with all other Adobe products, Pantone pallets, ability to create entire websites and other mobile content, healing brush, 32bit HDR, RAW compatibility which is a must for anyone with digital SLRs, asset management, batch processing/automation, full pdf support (not surprisingly), new vanishing point features to help mock up packaging visuals, nested layers.... the list is pretty exhaustive in my opinion.

I'm not saying Gimp is rubbish or that it can't do this that or the other, I think it's great for what it is. I just find it a bit cumbersome for my liking. After using Photoshop since version 3, I'm pretty much sold on it and it's well worth the cost. I have earned a very large amount of money over the years from this product and I have no qualms about paying for it.

 

So, on the very latest version Photoshop finally works with multiple monitors, whereas the GIMP has done so very cleanly from inception? You're a very special use-case with Photoshop, being a professional image editor and all. For the vast majority of people doing graphics work, it's not needed. Even website stuff, I'd say 99% of graphics work can easily be handled by the GIMP. There are things that it doesn't do. But then again, there are things I use my Linux machine for that a Windows machine just won't do very easily if at all, like system update checking and email notification from my server, and the ability to use a simple console interface to do EVERYTHING on the machine, no need to waste resources on unused GUI processes, drivers, etc. I got the email notification working in about 15 minutes... I don't think even many pro Windows admins would know where to start with that. It's not something 99% of the users need, though. I contend that the GIMP is a great application for most people, and Photoshop is really only needed and utilized by a very small number of people.

Edit: It also seems that at least CS2 works on Ubuntu. But you need the bleeding edge stuff, so you probably should stick with Windows for that.

 

Yes, it's true that xorg.conf is set to be obsoleted. Already, Red Hat has done a great deal of work on making this easier. In RHEL 5, you can already literally start X without an xorg.conf at all. You can run system-config-display to make an xorg.conf fairly easily (that may work better than with no file at all).

The really big xorg improvements will come with 7.3 and 7.4 -- should be in Ubuntu Hardy Heron next spring. They're supposed to be doing a lot of work to improve auto-detection and monitor hotplugging. I suspect in a couple years virtually no one will need an xorg.conf. In addition, KDE 4's "Solid" is supposed to allow ease of use of hotplugged monitors and other hardware.

To krt: I think you may be missing the point if you don't see how Linux is worthwhile. It is worthwhile because it gives you FREEDOM! You have a lot of experience and should be able to understand this. Open source software is the key to avoid a future computing industry that is highly proprietary with any one vendor being a gatekeeper/toll collector. It gives you freedom to tinker with your operating system and learn how it works. Freedom to duplicate it without paying anyone. Freedom to know that it can be supported as long as someone wants it to be supported.

THAT is a future worth fighting for -- and dumping Windows for!