Linux for OS of choice in 2004...

[Cuddles]

Linux should commit itself to "getting out" to the public in 2004.

I have been amazed at the ease of use, the hard, and the simple, things that Linux does, that (no other) OS has even gotten close too.

1) Updating - do one command, and all software that resides in the "outside" world is updated to a database that shows all the new versions for you.

2) Upgrading - one command, and all software on your system is brought up to current versions - instantly, and with all the dependancies included - no more DLL HELL, as with "that other" OS.

Linux does so much, that other OS's refuse to do themselves, and require YOU to run around and find on your own. Updating, or Upgrading, in that other OS requires the user to run around and locate any updates, or upgrades, on your own, and then install them, and hopefully, the installs don't "stomp" all over your already running system software that is currently running. Sure Windoze has the WindowsUpdater, but that is only for SYSTEM M$ software, what about all the other software you have, you are on your own on that one.

Windoze has a keen sense of allowing one software program the ability to change something that some other program uses, and many times, it isn't supposed to, and causes problems. Linux has the unique ability to keep track of these things for you, and when something has a problem with something else, you know about it BEFORE it happens. Hmmmmm, proactive, instead of reactive, I like that a lot better.

Sure, Linux has its issues, I did a upgrade, and one package was holding back Xine from running, but after resolving the dependency issue, it was all working again. Yes, Linux isn't as "GUI" as that "other" OS, a lot of times in Linux you have to drop to a shell and do something as a command, but, that I think is Linux's power. You don't HAVE to do everything in a GUI, and in the case of Xine's problem, the GUI wasn't giving enough information to determine why it was crashing. But, when doing the same program from within the SHELL, it gave more information on what could be causing the problem. So, in that case, the shell command run assisted in resolving the Xine problem.

Linux, as I have found out over the past week, is more powerfull than anyone can really see, more powerfull than that other OS is, and thats for sure. Over the past week, I have had more than fifteen programs running at one time, on Linux. System diagnostics, video players, audio players, web browsing, email, arcade games, and solitaire games, all running in a window on their own, and all at the same time. No hick-ups, no problems, no crashes, no frozen screens, or ever frozen system. Try that one in any version of Windoze! And when I closed down the programs, one by one, my RESOURCES came back to the available pool for the system to reuse.

Heck, best I ever had in Windoze was maybe three programs, email, web browser, and a word processor, ran slower than a dog sitting at a fire hydrant, and when I closed down a program, the RESOURCES were lost, and never came back to the system. Slowly, my system got less and less resources, till I HAD TO reboot, just to run even a notepad program.

Linux (knoppix as a HD Install) has been running on my system for more than a week now, and not once during that time, have I needed, or had to, reboot. Nor, during this week, have I had any issues with a program not being able to run due to resources, or crashing for lack of them. I've even done updates and upgrades while doing my work, playing arcade games in the foreground, email, and web browsing. All, still without having to restart the system.

Linux is power, far more power than any other OS on the market, even the ones you have to buy. So much power, that, a lot of the companies I know are changing over their "powerfull" NT Servers over to Linux. For web servers, for file servers, for network servers, you name it, and then realizing that this same power can be used as terminals on those same networks.

Linux is gaining steam, and a lot of people are jumping on the train. Yes, Linux has a little more to go before it can go up against the "big M$" conglomerate: it needs to be more GUI, it needs more assistance in the PnP area. M$ has that one pretty much socked good. You just pop in something, and poof, it works, or it just needs a loading of a driver from the disk, and it works. Linux needs a little more work on that one, not everything just "works" in Linux, all the time. But, this kind of stuff is minor compared to the failures of M$.

Gee, if I was to make an inteligent choice, and make lists of pro's and con's of both OS's, I think Linux would easily push past M$ in its pro's. Even taking into account my WinModem problems, and the fact that a lot of Linux supported hardware is last years greatest, I think Linux has surpassed the other OS in stability, a well designed GUI, supported hardware, the billions of software packages already available, and best of all, all the SUPPLIED software that already comes with Linux in the first place.

Windoze needs a lot more software that, what is given to you, you need to get, on your own, to get a working system for any one persons needs. Sure, you get Internet Explorer, but you need to get online and download a days worth of updates and security patches just to get it working. You need to get Office, etc... just to do anything, and lets not mention the games you get, shesh, Linux gives you a flood of them, versus maybe six in Windoze.

Linux, on the other hand, you get office software, editors: both text, GUI, icon, source code, image, wave, etc... to get productive immediately. Fax programs, Video players, CD Audio Players, Wave Players, etc... Games, shesh, I was impressed with just the amount of games you get just with the Live CD, and then you realize that all the games you ever wanted, are just a apt-get away. Linux has the power to know what needs to be included with a program, and can "fetch" them, on its own, and after installing, and setting it all up for you, poof, you can use it, no reboot, no gotta get something else, just works.

If Linux can make a GUI specific OS, for the poeple who migrate from M$, one that can PnP completely, can install and run packages, all from the GUI. In essence, make the GUI like M$ Windoze, without sacraficing the "power" that Linux has over M$, it would have millions of people "flooding" over to Linux. I showed Knoppix to the tech I was having make my new system for Knoppix made at, and when I got down to explaining some of the "quirks" of Linux, I lost him. He seriously was looking for a replacement, as a new system creating tech, who sells system specific hardware in his shop, to sell with this new systems, other than M$ OS. But, when I explained how I had to get my WinModem to work, and the need to "shell out" to a command line, he simply stated that some of his customers would never grasp the idea, some he wouldn't even trust to unscrew the back of the computer, let alone allow them to look inside. This is the market that Windoze has attracted for so many years. The "simps", so to speak. This is the market that, if Linux wants to rise above M$, Linux needs to look toward, as its future. Not the tech types, the geeks, or, pardon the language, the nerds, but the "down-on-the-farm" folk. The kind of people that Computer Store Salesmen salivate when they see them walk into the store, the ones, that "suckers" are made of. Sorry, but the majority of M$'s marketplace is of these kinds of people. (generally speaking)

I don't want to offend anyone here, I too was a "die-hard" M$ OS person, heck, I didn't even know their was another OS out in the market. Way back in my younger days, I tried OS/2 v1.x and v2.0, I tried XWindows way back, but nothing could compare, at the time, of what M$ had. So I went with it, and stuck, dilligently, with it, through all the years. I, in no way, consider myself a "simp" on OS's, or how to get around in one. I've had systems that required me to manually install software from the INF file, because the autoinstall never worked. So, I can do pretty well on my own. I have been called many times to fix all kinds of issues in any M$ Win OS's problems, and have resolved them.

M$ has gotten way too big, I don't even think M$ knows just how their OS code works now-a-days. Hard Drives have gotten bigger for only one reason, M$. M$ needs more disk space just to install its OS, even more for Office, even more to install VB, VC, VJ, etc... No wonder a average M$ installed OS needs at least a 30gig drive, it has to, just to install things. In essence, M$ has become "bloated" software.

People here, in these newsgroups, and in the Linux Community at large, know that Linux is better than its compatition. You have to, either feel it, believe it, or want to believe in it, or all the posts on "I can't get xxxxxx to work" wouldn't be here. Think about it. In the M$ world, you had to get something working, because you probably paid a pretty penny for it already. In Linux, hmmmm, no cost, no loss, if it doesn't work, why not just "shelf-ware" it? Because, I think you are thinking the way I am, it is WORTH it. It is WORTH getting it working. Not just to spite M$, not to just hinder the money flow of Mr. Gates, not to bash the "Ol' Mighty God Microsoft", but because you see that Linux IS better, in some way, than that "other" OS.

M$ is good, heck, they brought us out of the caveman days of the DOS prompt only, and put us into the GUI World, but, I think its time is going out the perverbial "window" now. I think Linux is the newest, the next thing that is going to be deemed "Better than sliced bread". The next OS that is going to take us into the next Century, and be, as the old saying goes, "on everyones desk" in the future.

I have seen the future, and it is GOOD, it is Linux, and if you are still reading this, I think you think it may be too.

Linux Worldwide in 2004 (imho)
Cuddles

[Razor-X]

A little commentary on your (great) Linux vs. Windoze speech. I too believed that Windoze was the only way to go.... until about 10 years old. I was looking for freeware software (on 56k it was pathetic). For the first time, sourceforge graced my eyes. I was in awe/shock as I viewed myriads of free software duplicating functions of quite expensive products seemlessly. And then it dawned on me, this revelation of.... Linux! I slowly took Linux into acount, trying my best to use it. My very first Linux attempt was muLinux (no cd burner at the time). But I did not fully experience Linux until I was mid-11. When we boght a new computer, I installed Debian by floppies and I booted Debian into BASH. From there I experiemented/read guides to find out how to work it. But I never tasted X until I booted Knoppix for the first time on my new computer. Now some points i'd like to address. M$ bloated software, is not all that bloated. With the .NET framework and a base XP install it is about 2 GB. Wheras a comparable RH/Mandrake install containing all the dev tools is about 4.3 GB. ANd one last comment, Unix originally started GUI.... not M$.

[desire]

If you would like to read about the history of the GUI you can read it here at [www.sitepoint.com/article/511] The idea of a GUI actually goes back quiet a ways, but I would give Xerox the nod for making the concept popular. Heck back then they even had invented an optical mouse. Enjoy

[Cuddles]

A, RazorX, pardon my semantics, but, I never said M$ was the original of a GUI, reading more closely, I was just stating that M$ had given the PC the DOS prompt, and then brought the "pc" into the GUI World.

I would never state, emphatically, that M$ was the "original" of the GUI, when in fact, Desire is correct. Xerox had the concept, and a working "prototype" and Steve Jobs, Apple, saw it and used it to create the familiar Mac OS with it, then Bill Gates saw it within the confinds of Apple, and took it from their.

But, RazorX, you have to admit, UNIX was used in FLOOR and BUILDING sized mainframes at the time, and the "lowly" PC was in its infantcy at the time, M$ had DOS, Apple was working on it Mac OS for its first "brain-child" Plus computer (now known as "Classic"), and Mr. Gates saw the use of Apple's OS for a way to bring the "lowly" PC into the GUI world.

I am sure I, and you, can banter back and forth about this, but, I "never" said M$ was the "original" of the GUI, just the one that brought the PC into that world, through M$. NOW, Linux, and all of its flavors, are bring the PC into, what could only be run on mainframes, down to Earth for the common PC.

Thank you for noticing,
Cuddles

[Wikt]

I'm all after Linux, really.

It runs fast. No, really. Very fast.

It is great for gaming.

It has all what M$ has, at the low, low, loooooooow price of $0,00.

It's VERY stable.

And it's a piece of cake to work on normally. It's not inaccessible to newbs or something.

[Razor-X]

Meh, I know Xerox made the GUI, my dad works there. And also MS-DOS was actually not MS's at all. See IBM hired someone to make an OS for their new PC. M$ took the job. M$ asked Xerox to it. And Xerox asked another company to make it . If i am correct, think it was originally called FoS (Floppy Operating System). And then changed to PC-DOS in the hands of IBM. But M$ did mainstream DOS, so I have to give it credit for that.

[windos_no_thanks]

Meh, I know Xerox made the GUI, my dad works there. And also MS-DOS was actually not MS's at all. See IBM hired someone to make an OS for their new PC. M$ took the job. M$ asked Xerox to it. And Xerox asked another company to make it . If i am correct, think it was originally called FoS (Floppy Operating System). And then changed to PC-DOS in the hands of IBM. But M$ did mainstream DOS, so I have to give it credit for that.

Before M$ bought it it was called QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System).

[Razor-X]

O ya huh, thanks, thats more computer info I can memorize.