Okay, I’m gonna give somebody out there the opportunity to convert me to his reli–uh, his operating system.
What’s the big deal about Linux? What advantage does Linux offer me that Windows and/or the MacOS doesn’t?
I understand the geek factor is very high. Isn’t Linux supposed to be pretty hard to install and get it running right? Isn’t it a real pain to get Linux to work with your printer, monitor, scanner, etc?
In short, why should I want to run Linux on one of my computers? I have an old Mac Quadra 800 I’m not doing anything with, and I understand there’s a version of Linux available for the old 680x0 processors. I suppose I could experiment with that instead of the Powermac I use for my workhouse. If it doesn’t work out, I won’t have lost anything.
First, about your Quadra, alas I don’t know of any linux version that will run on it. However, there are NetBSD will run on 68k processors. http://www.netbsd.org/Ports/mac68k/
The main reason you’d want to run Linux, in your specific case, is that you can give life to an old processor that is seriously underpowered for other modern OSes. Even an ancient processor can give decent performance for non-GUI OS like BSD, and can make fine (although not speedy) web servers and file servers. Of course, file servers won’t do you much good without a network, and a web server won’t do you much good without a broadband net connection.
Of course, the geek factor is primary. There’s an old saying, “unix isn’t user friendly, it requires users to be computer-friendly.” By using Unix, you learn a different philosophy about computing. Unix/Linux is a large collection of modular applications. Like for example, you can write database-driven websites using PHP/SQL/Apache, like our own venerable SDMB. And the software is free, unlike kludgey expensive solutions like Cold Fusion, SQL Server, etc. But most of all, since you’re a Mac user, you’ll be preparing yourself for MacOS X. And there is no doubt about it, Unix is the future of the Mac. I’ve had an old PowerMac 8100 running Linux for 4 or 5 years and it was the best preparation I could have had for MacOS X.
Hope that helps, let me know if you have further questions.
There’s two main advantages to Linux. First, it’s free. This isn’t as significant as it might be, of course, since computers are almost always sold with an operating system (usually Windows, on PCs) pre-installed. It is possible, though, to uninstall Windows and return it to Microsoft for a refund, or to buy a blank computer (especially if it’s not factory assembled).
The second main advantage is that it’s completely customizable. If you don’t like the way something works, you can dig into the source code and change it yourself. Of course, there’s no guarantee that your change will be any better, and there’s always the opportunity to screw things up royally this way.
There’s also folks who refuse to use any Microsoft product as a matter of principle, but if you’re not already in this group, then you’re not likely to change your mind.
For one thing, the operating system (various versions of it) can be found for free. That alone is kinda neat.
Not only that, the source code for the OS is available for free, unlike, say, Windows. This means that you can really get under the hood of the OS and have a good idea of what it does and how. Admittedly, most people don’t give a damn one way or another about that sort of thing, but geeks love having that information.
I’m not well-versed in the technical aspects, but from what I’ve heard Linux is far more crash-resistant than Windows. Being primarily a Windows user, I find this easy to believe. I have a friend who says he keeps his Linux machine running 24/7, except for the occassional upgrade. I have to reboot Windows at least every day or two, usually more often than that.
Also, the OS usually comes with lots of neat tools for developers, such as numerous compilers and interpreters for popular programming languages. Many of the standard Unix command line tools are powerful and usefull, and although they can be found for Windows, it’s nice to have an OS that’s designed with them in mind!
Linux is still on the “geek” end of the scale, so I wouldn’t recommend it for everyone. However, it has come a long ways in a relatively short amount of time, and I don’t think it will be long until it is giving Windows some serious competition.
[I’ve just previewed and noticed that others have already given great answers, but I’m going to submit this anyway because I spent a while typing it, darnit.]
The reason most people use Linux is because it’s extremely flexible. Every aspect of the OS and user space can be tweaked. Since 99% of the stuff you find in a typical Linux distribution is open source, any extra features you want or that you think should be changed can be done, assuming you know how to program them. That translates into having a high learning curve. If you already have experience with Unix type operating systems, you’ll feel right at home.
Installation depends on about a million factors. Red Hat has a reputation of being easy to install, but it helps if you’re using fairly common hardware that’s known to work well under Linux. Anything a little odd and you may have to get down and dirty with it.
If you have everything you need already, then you shouldn’t. It would just be a pain in the ass. If you want to do it for the learning experience, have fun. There’s no significant advantage in using Linux unless it has soemthing that you really need (or want to learn about).
I encourage people to try out Linux to see what it’s all about if they’re curios, though. Linux for m68k machines informaiton is available here. Supported machine database is here.
And for those of you with only one computer - just split the harddrive. I have Linux in one partition and Windows in another, so if I mess something up royaly, I can just go back to Windows and wait for the boyfriend to come home and fix it for me
I actually enjoy using linux just cuz its different. Even though I am totally limited to the GUI and know NOTHING about the rest of it (including installation, etc) I still find it fun to use different programs. And there’s this great little googly-eyes applet that can go in your taskbar…
We also have a home network with currently 4 computers, likely more in the coming months. When the server crashed (WinME) about a week ago, we subbed in a linux box and we seemed to have a faster cable connection, as well as no crashes or errors for the week. Then the guy who owns the computer came back, plopped in his password, and put the ME computer back as server. It crashes about once a day.
Unix geek checking in. If you do a lot of programming, data analysis or file manipulation (which I do), Unix is the best thing in the whole wide world. It’s just incredibly powerful, and it all works together really well. Output from one program can be fed directly into another, there are many tools for manipulating large numbers of files, etc. Windows just wasn’t designed with that amount of power and flexibility.
That said, I have a Windows box on my desk at home. Why? Because all I use my computer for at home is games, Microsoft Office and surfing the web. I’ll probably put a Linux partition on there some day, but for now, I don’t need it. You probably don’t either. But, learning Unix/Linux can’t be anything but useful, so if you have the time, do it.
Linux has full security and networking (LAN) features, something that Win95/98/? does not have. If you needed them, there they are. If not, then you don’t care. Much of the Linux community surrounds concerns with running network servers.
Linux can’t run most PC hardware/peripherals, because there are no drivers. This is its worst disadvantage as a regular desktop OS. If you were buying new stuff anyway that may not matter, but don’t expect Linux to run the stuff you already have just like Windows does. It probably won’t, particularly ubiquitous USB devices. It has some neat features to play with, but as a single-boot general use system, this just kills it.
On my machine, Linux starts up and shuts down slower than Win98. If I disabled all the GUI stuff and all the services that don’t work anyway it would be faster, but that’s hardly what I would call an improvement.
The elitist geek factor is paramount: somehow the thought that cruder computers are better escapes me, but other justifications are rare. There is a heavy emphasis in the Linux enthusiast community on two points: “learning the machine, because it’s not easy to use”. and “it’s not Microsoft”. The open-source blather is just that; very few users actually tweak their source code, they seem to just want you to think they could. - MC
There are many high quality open-source programs available, and one of the reasons they work well is that people do tweak the source code. The designer of TeX, for example, has offered a long-standing monetary reward for anyone who finds a bug in it. Bugs are rarely found anymore, and though the program was originally written in the eighties, it is still widely used. Granted, not all open-source software has that sort of reward, but open-source is probably the best way of getting quality software distributed for free.
Yeah, most people don’t care that they could rewrite pieces of the Linux kernel themselves. The advantage is that some people actually do write useful changes to it, making it a better OS when those changes get incorporated into the next version, or otherwise released.
As for not starting up or shutting down as quickly, that’s due to the different aims of each. Linux (and Unix) is designed to be kept running, which it is very good at. It seems that startup time and uptime are related. Even among Microsoft products, their more stable OS’s take longer to start up.
I’ve been wanting to switch to Redhat since Dec. of 2000 and haven’t yet due to the fact that it’s a bitch to install. I can’t get the GUI install to work and I can’t tell the installation progi. which harddrive to auto-partition. I went out to buy a new $200 HD just for Redhat and I don’t know WTF to do because I don’t want to autopartition my first drive. So I try and manually do it and it’s real bitch and I end up aborting after I get to mount points or something. Very confusing shit. And if you want to have someone else do it, it costs WAY too much money.
I guess I’ll be a Linux lover if I go out and buy Mandrake and get that working. In the mean time, I’ll be a wanna-be.
Checking in. I bought SuSE Linux Personal Edition maybe three or four months ago, installed it after some large hassles, and it has since sat on my drive next to Windows 98, doing NOTHING - why? I’ll tell you why. Because 90% of what I do on this thing is net-driven, and my PC doesn’t have the modem I was assured was internal to it - it has what is known to the savvy as a WINMODEM, that is, not a modem at all, a ***** Windows-dependent ****** telephone **** interface. I would puke but I need the calories.
I nearly have enough spare cash now to buy an external modem (a PROPER one) and then I’ll (hopefully) be posting from within Linux.
My reasons? Honestly and embarrassingly…
I want to be part of a community. Windows hasn’t got a community, which is part of the problem with incorporating a product into the establishment.
Better buzz.
I just favour the underdog. As long as it has an easy GUI and I don’t have to put too much EFFORT into favouring the underdog. I’ll wear your t-shirt, I’ll even pay for it, just don’t ask me to understand what it means… hey, I think I found a new sig…
The state of Linux on the desktop is such that it will work very well for a technical person. I’m typing this on linux right now as a matter of fact. However, if you’re not unhappy with windows, and you’re not a technical person, Linux is not your best option. For servers, however, nothing beats it. It’s faster, less resource-hungry, and more stable that windows.
DVous Means - it depends on what you’d use it for - I have linux running on my 486, acting as a firewall/NAT server for my 5 mbit internet connection. It never breaks a sweat, and has never needed a reboot. The only time it’s gone down in the past few years was when the damned power company shut off power to my house to install a new meter without telling me. If you’re going to use it for something like that, try slackware linux at http://www.slackware.com. You could use redhat, too - just make sure you use the text-based installer. The graphical one will run like a dead turtle on a 486. Using a 486 for any kind of esktop work is nuts, but you could if you wanted to.
Linux is free. It’s free like speech, and free like beer. Check out some of the GNU Project philosophy pages for a better explanation of that than I could give. The philosophy of Free Software in general is why I run Linux.
Linux is much, much, much more stable than any Windows with the 9x kernel, because of two main things: a different and more intelligent memory model, and the absence of DLLs. For any mission-critical system that must stay up and not crash, you will be well served by Linux. That’s why it’s among the OSs of choice for servers.
Anything that you can do in Windows or the Mac operating systems can be done in Linux, as a general rule. There are exceptions, like 3-D gaming – there are fewer 3-D games for Linux than for Windows (though there are some). If you are primarily a gamer, switching probably would not be the best option. A dual-boot, however, might serve you quite well. Part of the whole *nix philosophy is that if there’s something that can’t be done, either you or someone else should write some code that will let you do it. With Linux, this is perfectly possible. The community contributes and makes it better all the time. With a closed source OS, you are trapped with whatever the original maker wanted you to have.
There is also the community factor. There really is a community of of Linux users, and it is a neat thing to be a part of, especially if you try to contribute to it with programming.
Speaking of programming, Linux is an incredible programming environment. From editors to utilities to compilers, with everything in between, Linux is a programmer’s heaven.
Linux is currently a sort of “geek operating system,” I guess. You don’t find too many average Joes running it. I personally think the RedHat 7.x install is very easy. It will autodetect most everything, just like Windows. If it doesn’t, then your installation will be harder – but the same goes for Windows. I’ve never had any troubles with my monitor not working. Printers are less easy than Windows to set up, but RedHat’s printtool is graphical and fairly easy. No experience with scanners.
The cold hard truth of it is that getting Linux running correctly is harder than powering up your computer with pre-installed Windows. It is not, however, prohibitively difficult.
Why should you use Linux? Any number of the reasons that I’ve given, that have been given in this thread, or that can be found on the internet. As much as I would like to evangelize, however, if you are completely content with what you have now, switching would probably only be a pain. If you can swing a dual-boot or find a cheap computer to play around with, then give it a go, and if you like it and learn it, you can eventually become a full convert.
Just while we’re talking about being anti-Microsoft may i suggest sanding off your winkeys.
I did,a dn tip-exed over the ‘windows’ of ‘windows power keyboard’. It felt good, still does.
Anyone got li’lle penguin transfers i could put on my extra function keys?
You don’t have to go spend a hundred bucks on a new serial modem: your PC can run more than one modem, if there’s a slot to install it. Independent PC service places often have older used stuff for sale. 56K’s are pretty rare these days, but there are still lots of 33K’s around, usually for $20-$25. Both Windows 95/98 and Linux can run multiple modems (though maybe not at the same time, especially with only one phone line, but you know what I mean).
To run two modems on one line, you daisy-chain the modem lines together: the “line out” of one goes into the “line in” of the other, and the “line out” of the second one goes to the phone. You can’t use both at once, but you can use either separately. They even make little 4-inch-long phone cords just for doing this.
Windows 95/98 supports multiple modems, and should work with both. With Linux, you simply try to establish connections with both modems; one won’t work and one will (should).
Make sure you’re buying a hardware modem! Upon installation, hardware modems have no drivers to load at all. (After installation, in the modem’s properties->driver file info, hardware models only have one driver file, a system-standard file [vcomm.vxd]. Winmodems have at least two driver files, the system-standard file [vcomm.vxd] and another brand-specific file.) Make them test it for you: ask them to install into in a PC right in front of you and get online with it. If they won’t test it in front of you, don’t buy it. - MC
I know that Debian Linux has some Winmodem drivers - it depends on which one you have, I suppose.
Ross, my boyfriend advises that you recompile the kernel with a 2.4 version, making sure to check http://www.linuxdoc.org for winmodem instructions.
–mnemosyne, who has no clue what shes talking about, but believes in her boyfriend’s ability to occasionally make sense.
I have a friend who says he keeps his Linux machine running 24/7, except for the occassional upgrade. I have to reboot Windows at least every day or two, usually more often than that.