Sorry for the extensive list of questions, but I’m curious.
I’ve always used Windows, but I am curious about Linux. My initial interest was that it’s free (through D/L only, of course), and that its open source code. I’m currently a senior in MIS (business computers, basically), so I consider myself above average in computing ability, but how user friendly is the Linux OS (I don’t know anything about the different versions, all questions are Linux in general)? Are the commands like UNIX since it was built on it, and can you customize things such as keyboard shortcuts by editing the source code? What is the extent that you can customize it to your needs, is it limitless as long as you can write the code? What language do most use to customize the OS, if there is a preference. Is it stable (compared to Windows ME, lol…I would hope so)? How is overall security? What about software, will Windows compatible software run on it? Mac? How much memory does it use? What’s the installation size? How difficult is it to dual-boot Linux w/ Windows? I’ve looked at a few websites on it, but just want to hear from any individual users. Any other advantages you can think of let me know, I would really like to try it out.
There is no “Linux OS”… there are several OSes based on the Linux kernel, however. For a new user, I would suggest purchasing a cheap Linux distribution, such as RedHat. They are dirt cheap compared to Windows, and for a new user, documentation == good.
The interfaces of the individual UIs tend to me Windows/Mac clones (ironic, since they constantly flame MS for copying Apple, and Apple for copying Xerox), with a “start” button and menu, Explorer-type windows, task bar, etc, but they have several additions to the desktop area. They tend to be fairly intuitive for users.
I wouldn’t count on jumping in and editing the source code right away. But you can do whatever the hell you want, as long as you are capable of writing the code and recompiling the kernel without breaking it.
The command configs are UNIX-based, so file permissions etc will be familiar… but if you are using a UI distribution like KDE, it shouldn’t matter.
Stability is an extension of the software you are running. A tin can balanced on a toothpick is more stable than WinME, so that is a loaded question. In general, Linux is more stable than Windows, but it isn’t invincible. For one, Linux dists have been known to have hardware conflicts (RedHat 6 still doesn’t like my Athlon, and couldn’t make heads or tails of my GeForce3 without a bit of user intervention), and yes, even crashes and lockups, though that is rare. On the other hand, I’ve been running WinXP on my laptop for a month straight without a single crash (other than Mozilla). The fabled Windows instability came largely from 3rd party programs conflicting or crashing, and the OS not handling the memory allocation correctly, leading to a system crash. The introduction of Windows2000 and WindowsXP largely solved this with better memory allocation. The real boost in Linux is for server performance and stability over time.
Like stability, security depends on the user. Linux is more secure than Windows in the sense that you don’t have the IE and Outlook vulnerabilities, but contrary to popular belief, a Linux system is pretty much as open to other forms of attacks as a Windows system, unless configured properly to fend off such attacks (same is true with Windows). Once again, in general though, Linux is a far better bet than Windows.
You can use emulators to run Windows software, but at a performance hit.
7.5) Compatability is often an issue in Linux, with things just not working together, or the hardware not having Linux drivers.
Memory is generally smaller than Windows, but it depends how much shiat you’re running.
Installation size also depends what you’re doing with it. IIRC, RedHat 6 took around 800 mb per GUI install (I used Gnome and KDE2, just because), plus a swap partition. I’ve no clue what they use now… but Linux itself is friggin’ tiny.
Linux dists generally come with a dual-boot solution, namely LILO.
Personal experience… I’ve never felt the need for Linux as a OS. I use Linux as a server for Apache/MySQL/PHP, but WindowsXP is better for me as a OS (namely because of the software available for it… largely gaming, but also small 3rd party tools etc). Most people I know who use Linux reguarly use Linux to check their mail, browse, chat, and otherwise conduct their business and run servers, but boot into Windows for gaming and usually leave Windows up all day anyway.
I encourage you to give it a shot, though. Grab a cruddy old Intel box and a KDE3 dist, take it for a spin, and see what you think. Just don’t dismantle your Windows box entirely.
Hey thanks Zagadka, you answered alot of my questions. I was concerned about the game compatibility, since I do a fair amount of it, and software emulators just don’t sound too appealing. The hardware driver problems too, just sounds like more than I want to deal with. I think I’ll just find a old PC and run Linux on it to try it out with school work, etc. Thanks again.
I would suggest the old PC thing, yes… easiest way, and you don’t risk destroying your PC. Even hardcore Linux users I know (who also are usually gamers) dual-boot every day. Makes very little sense to me.
Linux use is better today than the versions I have from a few years back, but it still isn’t quite as, well, “all there” as Windows. If you try Linux on a cheaper box and like it, good stuff. If not, you gave it a shot, and you can use it as a media center.
Another sidenote… even with all the talk about Linux being more popular than ever, there aren’t many companies turning profits on Linux, which means that software and hardware drivers will spread to it at the mercy of open-source coders. For instance, the much-touted Loki Games, a company that ported the code from a number of popular PC games and was probably one of the largest Linux consumer software companies, died last year from poor sales. Linux people don’t tend to be the type who spend money willingly, and that is having a negative effect on the platform, in all irony.
The other bonus to the additional box is that you can still use the Windows box to read the online manual, forums, etc if you run into problems on a downloaded dist.
If you’re familiar with Unix, Linux is very user-friendly. You can customize absolutely everything if you know what you’re doing. There’s no limits to what you can do. For many, this is a big part of the appeal of Linux.
I have to disagree with Zagadka about the security. A Linux system installed from scratch is much more secure than a Windows system installed from scratch. He’s right that security (and stability) depends on the user, though. The difference is that with Linux, you have a fighting chance.
Windows/Mac software will not run on Linux without Windows/Mac emulators. Try finding win4lin, I’m told it’s a good Windows emulator for Linux.
My advice is to get a RedHat distribution. If you’re familiar with either Windows OR Unix, you shouldn’t have too many problems. Also, www.linuxnewbie.org can be a goldmine. Don’t be afraid to ask questions.
That should be “GUIs”, not “UIs”. The default Linux UI is not a GUI, and is so much closer to Unix than Windows/Mac that it cannot even se the latter with a telescope on a clear day.
Nitpick: LILO is not actually a dual-boot solution but an OS loader. Like all sensible OS loaders it can be used for dual-booting. Getting it to dual-boot is dirt easy.
Thanks again for all of the help from everyone. One question I really didn’t get any clear answer on is the language used to edit/customize Linux. From assumptions I suppose it’s UNIX, can any other language be used? I assume it supports C, but does it support languages such as Java?
Semantics. All commercial Linux distributions are compatible, provided they use the same library versions installed. The GNU vs. Linux political debate is really irrelevant to somebody interested in trying something new. IMO, of course.
I pretty much agree. If you want something different, look into OEone.
I wouldn’t count on jumping in and editing the source code right away. But you can do whatever the hell you want, as long as you are capable of writing the code and recompiling the kernel without breaking it.**
[/quote]
Agreed entirely. It’s written almost entirely in C, with a lot of utilities being written in PERL.
Nearly identical to standard UNIX commands. All commercial distributions that I’ve heard of are based on either Sys V.4 or 4.4 BSD layout.
I agree here, with the exception that anything can be made to work. Some things are more difficult. The difference is that you don’t have 100% of major hardware manufacturers writing drivers specifically for your OS and driver model, as with Windows.
Agree to a point. A linux computer is as secure or as vulnerable as the administrator makes it. In a way, it can be less secure, since it’s not generally configured for security for joe user, but as a configurable system for experienced computer buffs. Just like an Indy race car would fall apart for a normal every day driver, without the expertise of a qualified pit crew. That doesn’t make it a worse car, but you can’t expect to get off the interstate and drive like a professional race driver. BUT, an out-of-the-box installation is still better than an OOTB Windows installation, and it can be made nearly bulletproof, if you know what you’re doing. Same thing goes for stability.
Agree.
More often, it’s a fault in configuration by the administrator. Also see my comment on point 5.
You can install linux on a 386 at minimum, and even a heavy install will run happily on a 486 provided there’s enough mem for the services you want running and enough hard drive for what you install. You can get a functional system running nothing but firewall and NAT to fit on a bootable floppy disk.
Any quality boot manager will work fine. I’ve never had a problem with either LILO or GRUB.
This is totally subjective. I am one of the people that uses windows only for games and such. My wife prefers it, just because she’s not familiar with Linux. It’s all you. Use the right tool for the job, but most importantly, use the tool you’re comfortable with (or are willing to spend the time to become comfortable with).
And yea, it is totally subjective, which is why I headed it “personal” and suggested cw get a box and try it him/herself. I agree with you completely - you should use what makes you more comfortable, and keep an open mind. Computing is all about exploring and doing, so staying with one thing “just because” is kidna silly, in my book.
For the record, cw, you may as well check out BeOS, which didn’t impress me much in the short time I spent poking it with a stick, but some people love it, so…
The whole OSS thing works on a different business model than traditional propietary software. It’s not about selling software, it is about selling services. Which, ironically, is what MS is trying to copy with the whole .Net whohoola. That’s why Loki didn’t survive.
Linux runs on platforms other than Intel. I’m running RedHat 7.2 on an old DEC Alphastation that I got on eBay for 150 bucks. I had a few problems like having to find Java Runtime, disk partitions, sound card and mixer to name a few. I’d have to say that the system was pretty secure at installation since everything is locked down until you enable it depending on the security level you choose. I should say here that before I started, I knew nothing about Unix. All I use it for is just to have another browser for when the other machines in the house are in use and AOL has a Java version of AIM that’s crude but workable. IMHO Linux is just too complex to work with for the average person and Bill Gates is in no danger, yet. If you want a cheap Apache server and know Unix, Linux is great, but stick with Intel hardware.
If you’re an above average Windows user, you should have no problem installing and running Linux. By no problem, I don’t mean to imply that you won’t get stuck a couple of times and have to post questions to this board, of course.
IMHO, Redhat 8 at least is 95% ready for the desktop; all it needs is a handful more graphical configuration tools. As it stands, it passes the Grandma test: I don’t think I’d have a problem setting up my grandmother as a user so that she can send emails, surf the web, or type recipes.
Background: I’m a brand new Linux user… I installed RH8 on my notebook a couple of months ago. Now I’m booting into it 99% of the time. I do mostly web administration, graphics, and php stuff, and it’s actually a better environment than windows for that sort of thing (there’s an SSH client right there in the terminal!). Installation went without a problem, once I actually read the instructions, and I haven’t had a single hardware problem, except for my modem, which was to be expected.
Your first two sentences don’t make sense. You can customize your Linux environment using various tools. At the low end you can generally edit most settings using any old text editor (like vi or emacs) up to the high GUI end where you point and click to make changes. Different aspects require different systems. Changing your shell preferences is done with a text editor. Changing many systems settings can be done with a “linuxconfig” type GUI program.
Unix isn’t a language it’s an operating system. (I know, /. had an article on this just yesterday, but let’s be traditional here.)
As for programming lanuages, Linux distros come with any language you would realistically want and then some. C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, and more. And then there are a huge number of others you can get elsewhere. (Try Icon, the SNOBOL successor some time.)
An alternative to Linux is Cygwin which gives you all the standard GNU/Unix programs running under MS OSes. I run my favorite X-Windows programs under MS-Win98. Don’t have to worry about partitions, dual booting, etc. Then once you get used to the various programs, you can go full tilt Linux/GNU.
But you can do whatever the hell you want, as long as you are capable of writing the code and recompiling the kernel without breaking it.