Ok, seeing all the minor dicsussions about linux in so many threads, i thought why not just once have a major fight with the penguin in a single thread :grin:

All the linux zealots (esp Bazik :grin: ), i basically have 2 questions-



    [*]What can linux do that windows cant do?
    [*]What can Windows do that linux cant do?


    Also my most major dislike against linux is the tough installation.
    I have been thinking of installing liunx for quite some time, but i am a bit scared.
    I dont know too much about my hardware and i dont want to get "Red Hatted" like hutch.
    Thats the point i would really like some linux zealot to clear out.


    p.s. - Is there any gui for linux like the iMac's OS X? That would be really cool and i might just risk my hard drive in installing linux. :grin:
Posted on 2003-02-22 02:20:12 by clippy
Tried linux 7 years ago and was not impressed.
Installed it again about a month ago and was still not impressed.
Only OS's I really like are NT and FreeBSD.
Posted on 2003-02-22 02:33:54 by dan238
I think interoperability is something windows can do that linux can't. I mean you can't just goto a website click on an avi and have it open up in xine and play. Each developer designs his program different from the next. So the user is left with some inconsistencies. But, by choosing linux you have a community to go along with it. And a very large one I might add.

Yes, there are many apps that are on windows that are supperior to the linux counterparts. But the question is, why seek linux? Is it to get away from MS's draconian licensing policies, or their DRM crap? Is it to try something new? For absolute control?

When people say linux is ready for the desktop for average joe schmoe for the most cases it is NOT. For reasons such as when they go into their local store to buy a tax program, bring it home and figure out it won't work... they'll get pissed. For reasons such as installations failing for unexplained reasons.

If by using windows you get the producitivity you need then by all means stick with it. The old saying goes you must use the right tool for the right job.

Using linux has been a comittment on my part. I've slowly making the transition.

But to get back to the point each OS has it's advantages over the other. For server use I would definitely NOT use windows. I would most definitely go with bsd or linux. I don't think anyone can argue the point that if a well trained windows admin went head to head with a well trained *nix admin, the *nix admin would be much more productive on the up keep of his/her servers.

Just my 2 cents.
Posted on 2003-02-22 03:15:19 by Asm_Freak



    [*]What can linux do that windows cant do?
    [*]What can Windows do that linux cant do?



Try yourself and find it out. I doubt anyone can give you a clear answer to this.
I can say from my own experience, that I can do anything with Linux, what I did with Windows before. Even more in some cases because you get Linux programms for a certain task for free where you would have to pay a lot $$$ for the Windows equivalent.
Posted on 2003-02-22 03:33:39 by bazik

p.s. - Is there any gui for linux like the iMac's OS X? That would be really cool and i might just risk my hard drive in installing linux. :grin:


There are several "Aqua" themes for KDE and Gnome.
Posted on 2003-02-22 03:58:51 by bazik

Installed it again about a month ago and was still not impressed.


This always depends on what distribution you installed.
If you show me SuSE or Mandrake, I would get sick. With Gentoo, I cant think of anything better :)
Posted on 2003-02-22 04:00:11 by bazik
Apart from an inherent coolness that linux undeniably has the only use I'll really have for it at the moment is that the Intel C++ Compiler was free (for non-commercial uses) for it.

And of course its free itself :)
Posted on 2003-02-22 10:07:05 by Eóin
here is the web page of an easy to install linux

http://www.ibiblio.org/vectorlinux/

most of the pain of installing linux has ben removed from this linux distro ( it is still best to know the hardware of your computer hard ware probing can lock up a computer under any OS even the windoze installer warrns that it may lock up the computer)

one thing that linux can do that windows can't is read and
write ANY filesysten you can think of

another thing linux dose is to make better use of hard drive space in two big ways

1) the block size of an ext2 file system is 4k insted of =>16k of a fat32 file system (and some linux file systems do better than this without the overhead of dbspace)

2) linux uses shared objects (common runtime libarays)
because of this linux programs are olny 20% to 30% the size of windoze programs

linux makes better use of memory when more one copy
of a program or runtime libaray is run olny the writeabul data segment is realocated

another thing linux has over windoze is any programming
lanuage you can think of can be used under linux

this may not be much of an argument in favor of linux but

it feels good to use a labor of love :grin:


the biggest down side of linux is a chiken and egg thing
one needs to have some idea of how to use linux to get it
working but without haveing it working how dose one get an idea of how to use it this is why vectorlinux is such a good first timers distro

and it's not a bad linux for someone who knows how to use linux I have tryed it

I guss I got lucky with redhat I got it up and working first time I tryed it

hay bazik
gentoo is the best for absolute control and speed but it is the last distro I would recomend to a linux newbe I would go so far as to say to newbes be afrade be veary afrade of gentoo
Posted on 2003-02-22 11:21:59 by rob.rice

1) the block size of an ext2 file system is 4k insted of =>16k of a fat32 file system (and some linux file systems do better than this without the overhead of dbspace)


The only area of use for ext2 I see today is on floppys or flash disks.

There are enough journaling alternatives around (reiserfs, ext3, xfs, jfs) :)
Posted on 2003-02-22 11:56:16 by bazik



The only area of use for ext2 I see today is on floppys or flash disks.

There are enough journaling alternatives around (reiserfs, ext3, xfs, jfs) :)


yes this is for the most part true and is true IF and olny IF
you have the space for a newer distro
I install everthing from source and dont have a computer with space for an up to date distro

could you tell me a way to convert older distros over to
a riserfs system glibc devl has gotten to big to fit on the older laptops I have
Posted on 2003-02-22 12:46:54 by rob.rice
>> yes this is for the most part true and is true IF and olny IF
>> you have the space for a newer distro
>> I install everthing from source and dont have a computer with space for an up to date distro

With Gentoo, I install everything from source too. And I am not low on disk space yet:



bazik@exodus bazik $ df -h
Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
rootfs 218G 93G 126G 43% /
/dev/root 218G 93G 126G 43% /
tmpfs 505M 0 505M 0% /dev/shm
bazik@exodus bazik $


:grin: :stupid:

Serious, I compressed the complete Installation, including X and my WM, to a 130MB tar.gz file (and burned it on CD for backup).

>> could you tell me a way to convert older distros over to
>> a riserfs system glibc devl has gotten to big to fit on the older laptops I have

1. Compile a Kernel with ReiserFS support
2. Boot the machine with a LiveCD like Knoppix
3. Move all data on the current partition to a new partition (temporary)
4. Format the old partition with ReiserFS
5. Move all data back
6. Edit /etc/fstab
7. Chroot into the system and install your boot manager of choice (as the disk got formatted)

Kinda easy process if you know your weapons ;)
Posted on 2003-02-22 12:53:02 by bazik
bazik's last post shows something windoze can't do
chang the file system on a running system with out reinstalling or run anything but the default file system for that matter
Posted on 2003-02-22 13:46:33 by rob.rice
don't be greedy, share the smoke :grin:
Posted on 2003-02-22 14:14:02 by Hiroshimator

don't be greedy, share the smoke :grin:


what would you have me say something like

windows is like sasuage
if you like it don't watch it being installed

see viral cockroaches at it again
bottem of page 7 for my wondoze instaltion horrer story
Posted on 2003-02-22 16:31:44 by rob.rice
I have mandrake linux 8.2 on a magazing cd and i dont have a fast connection to dl the latest version (9.0).

What do you say should i go ahead with it?
Btw, whats the worst thing that can happen if the installation goes wrong. I am gonna give it one partition out of my 4 four to install?

If all goes wrong :grin: will i be able to reformat it back from windows to fat32?

Btw, whats the difff with all these distros?
And whats so great about gentoo linux?
Posted on 2003-02-24 05:06:17 by clippy
I have 4.3G hard disk and make 5 partitions. My first partition (c:) is 512M and I install there win95 osr2 with IE4 (this gives me all the features of Win98). The swap file is on c: too. All soft I put in d: (1G). And I am happy with Win95. It's fast and stabble ( strange but true) and when it crashes the boot process is 30s long. What Linux may reboot for 30s? I am worked under Linux on my previous job, and I am with very bad opinion for Linux as workstation. (I think it's a perfect for servers) Slow and unstabble. X-windows hangs all the time and it's incopatible with almost every hardware. (I am tolking about RedHat and Mandrake distributions. The only advantage I saw in Linux is its gaily-colored desktops and skins but actually I don't like my desktop to be too party-colored. The simple is better.
Posted on 2003-02-24 06:23:04 by JohnFound
linux needs a swap partion at least half the size of your ram lunux should not run fron just one partion (it can be done BUT it's not a good idea)

yes you will be able to reformat the hard drive

gentoo is a source code distro and is built to fit your computer like a glove ( get good with linux BEFOR you even think about this distro )

HAY BAZIK

you use it will you do a better job of telling hem what gentoo is
Posted on 2003-02-24 11:59:02 by rob.rice

I have 4.3G hard disk and make 5 partitions. My first partition (c:) is 512M and I install there win95 osr2 with IE4 (this gives me all the features of Win98). The swap file is on c: too. All soft I put in d: (1G). And I am happy with Win95. It's fast and stabble ( strange but true) and when it crashes the boot process is 30s long. What Linux may reboot for 30s? I am worked under Linux on my previous job, and I am with very bad opinion for Linux as workstation. (I think it's a perfect for servers) Slow and unstabble. X-windows hangs all the time and it's incopatible with almost every hardware. (I am tolking about RedHat and Mandrake distributions. The only advantage I saw in Linux is its gaily-colored desktops and skins but actually I don't like my desktop to be too party-colored. The simple is better.


Mandrake IS redhat with some stuff throwen in

RedHat 7.0 was shipped with buggie libarays and IS unstable and incompatable (with other than RH 7.0 RPMs) because of this ( the update manager can fix this update the libarays first)

the olny fix for hardware incompatables is to know the hardware (windoze device manager can help with this and a linux program called script can show the error messager from XFree86 when the X setup is wrong the XFree86 error messages most of the time tell what needs to be done to fix things )

RedHat dosen't have the font paths set right as a result the X server has to hunt around to find it's fonts ( this slows down X every time it has to change fonts ) to fix this look at the xinit script to find out what XF86Config file (redhat has 4 of them) is being used and set the font paths by hand then run mkfontdir in every font dir the rpm scripts do not always do this ( this will cause X to hang when looking for those fonts)

RedHat is the best marketed linux distro it is not the best linux distro

IF you don't like the desk top find one you do like and change it you have that option

OR if you have a good handle on linux try slackware because there are some gotches in slack it isen't for the new linux user

or try vectorlinux it may change your mind about linux

about speed I have had win95b and a fixed redhat 7.0 on the same computer stopping the clock for login 150sec win95 (untill I can run a program )
90sec RH 7.0 (untill I can run a program)

even a messed up linux installiton will run (run slowly but run none the less)
Posted on 2003-02-24 13:04:41 by rob.rice
when picking a linux distro rember that

a stone ax can still kill

try to pick one that came out when your computer was
3 to 7 years old the newer distros were ment for newer computers and may not fit or may need newer hard ware than the computer on hand has
Posted on 2003-02-24 14:39:04 by rob.rice

I have mandrake linux 8.2 on a magazing cd and i dont have a fast connection to dl the latest version (9.0).

What do you say should i go ahead with it?


Then, you want to ditch linux and go for *BSD. :grin:

Seriously, *BSD has the ability to rebuild itself from the source. This is due to its real Unix heritage. Gentoo linux tries to immitate this, but it is still klunky. In my case, I installed FreeBSD 3.1 long time ago (well, that was one break because a.out in 2.2.x to ELF in 3.x was not so easy to build and upgrade). Since then, I never installed it again. I always sync'ed the source tree and rebuilt the system to upgrade. At this time I use FreeBSD 4.8-PRERELEASE. Using CVSup, it doesn't take long to sync the whole source tree over 56K modem line. The worst case I remember was between 3.5 and 4.2, in which case it took about 2 hours. Anyhow, synchronizing the source tree is a lot faster than downloading a big fat bloated set of ISO's.
Posted on 2003-02-24 18:48:43 by Starless