Good show, I finally got to listen to it late today. A couple of great points were brought up that I have contemplated on my Linux journey:
1) Whether or not it is better to stick with a distro or cycle through them all in the never ending search for the right one. I've been using linux for a couple of years and fall into both categories. I started linux with Redhat after a friend of mine, a unix admin, kept point out how gay Windows is. Since I'm not one to knock it without knowing it, I gave it a shot and installed Redhat. I used it for awhile, trying to learn a bit and developed a reverence for tinkering apsect of the OS. I liked it enough to explore linux more and was dumbfounded to learn all the distros that were actually available. I then set out to try every distro out there and turned my laptop into an official test machine. My website has just a few of my install notes: http://www.davidjsnow.com/linuxdocproj.html After trying them all, I reverted to Slack and have been using that as my main OS for about 6 months now. Getting back to the point, I do think one needs to stick with a distro and put some time into making it work to really benefit from linux. It took my about 20 distros to find the one I like, but I'm a geek that likes to make things work even if it means hours and days and weeks or research and try and error.
2) Linux isn't mainstream because people like to be comfortable: I totally agree here. I also agree with the comments ( I can't remember who made them, I don't have everyone straight yet) about how much work it takes a Linux distro to do the same things that a Windows or a Mac has been doing for years out of the box. This is so true: I was having a conversation about this recently: for all the time I put into linux, the fact remains that I'm just trying to do on a linux box what has already been, and much better in most cases, on another OS already. So why do I (and we) do it? F*** Microsoft and Mac totin' hippies, that's why. I think it's the same reason people spend $20 on gas to save $5 on a sale in the next county. It's principal and an inert desire to be different. It may just be me; everyone has their own story I suppose.
Just my two cents. Keep up the good work with the show.
12-15-04 Show - A Flock of Installers
Moderators: snarkout, Patrick, dann
-
snowman156
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:11 am
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
- Contact:
My only comment about what you've mentioned above has to do with this part...
As for the whole Linux desktop thing.... well, the Linux GUI is relatively still young. But it's growing up fast. For me, it has been developed enough for my purposes ever since Mandrake 8.2. The real kicker is that it's just getting better month by month.
Unfortunately, I'm still being forced to use Microsoft in the office (however, our company's IT dept. still doesn't know I've been dual booting for the past year). In my opinion, Microsoft Windows hasn't advanced very much. Certainly not enough for me to want to pay the kind of prices their asking for their product.
I don't see MS-Windows coming up with anything new and innovative in the future that would take me away from my Linux desktop. In fact, I think the tables have now turned and Microsoft is starting to feel the pressure to keep up with the features found on today's Linux desktop.
If not, then why would they care enough to try and patent Virtual Desktop technology? This is something STILL not found in any MS product.
The penguin cometh.... it's just a matter of time now.
Two major things that has kept me a Linux user for the past two and a half years has to do with the stability and security of my PC now that I've gotten rid of Microsoft. These are things that other OS have NOT been able to deliver.the fact remains that I'm just trying to do on a linux box what has already been, and much better in most cases, on another OS already.
As for the whole Linux desktop thing.... well, the Linux GUI is relatively still young. But it's growing up fast. For me, it has been developed enough for my purposes ever since Mandrake 8.2. The real kicker is that it's just getting better month by month.
Unfortunately, I'm still being forced to use Microsoft in the office (however, our company's IT dept. still doesn't know I've been dual booting for the past year). In my opinion, Microsoft Windows hasn't advanced very much. Certainly not enough for me to want to pay the kind of prices their asking for their product.
I don't see MS-Windows coming up with anything new and innovative in the future that would take me away from my Linux desktop. In fact, I think the tables have now turned and Microsoft is starting to feel the pressure to keep up with the features found on today's Linux desktop.
If not, then why would they care enough to try and patent Virtual Desktop technology? This is something STILL not found in any MS product.
The penguin cometh.... it's just a matter of time now.
-
Guest
I agree and disagree. On security, there's no doubt Linux has the edge. Stability is subjective - mostly depending on distro. Example: My Slack install has remained intact for months with just a very few updates and works great. Fedora on the other hand, is the worst OS ever when it comes to updates (10 a day it seems like) which often conflict and end up crashing. I usually revert to whatever the lastest release of FC for my laptop just because it is pretty good distro and it great to show off Linux when I'm traveling. I think Slack and Fedora are at the complete opposite ends of specturm when it comes to stability, but I think it proves that it's hard to generalise any one distro on certain aspects of Linux.Two major things that has kept me a Linux user for the past two and a half years has to do with the stability and security of my PC now that I've gotten rid of Microsoft. These are things that other OS have NOT been able to deliver.
I have to disagree there. But, its a personal thing. It all depends on what you want to do. For me, I always seem to end up on XP for some reason or another usually because what I want isn't available on Linux or it's just too cumbersome to configure/use. If I was into music or design, I'd probably end up using a Mac but I avoid Mac for the same reason you avoid MS, the cost doesn't justify the benefits. For me Linux is a challenge which is why gravitate towards it and others shy away. Que sera sera I guess.I don't see MS-Windows coming up with anything new and innovative in the future that would take me away from my Linux desktop. In fact, I think the tables have now turned and Microsoft is starting to feel the pressure to keep up with the features found on today's Linux desktop.
Good points. And yes, I can understand your point of view in regards to the Linux configure thing. It does take some effort sometimes to get everything just right. I think that has to do with manufacturer's decision not to make their products Linux compatible. In which case, it's up to the software writers/coders to do all of the work, with some effort expected from the users.
However, some companies (like HP) are beginning to make their products Linux compatible, which will help the situation in the future.
The extra effort to configure Linux was a concern of mine when I started using Linux too. But, I think that was due to the fact that after using Microsoft 95 and 98 for several years, I became lazy. Back in the days of DOS and Win 3.1, I took much more interest in how the packages worked. Yes, being a Linux user today you are forced to learn a few things if you want to use it successfully, but is that really a bad thing?
What the point I was trying to make about innovation was the question: what has Microsoft done recently in regards to innovation? Perhaps its simply a fact that I'm not using MS-Windows at the office in a way that demonstrates its advancements, but XP really doesn't seem different to me than W 98 or 2000. I honestly don't see anything innovative about it.
On the other hand, when I started to use Linux, I found it much more useful than W 98 (which was the last version of Windows I ever ''owned'') ever was to me.
Example: I find virtual desktops very useful. Being able to use a package manager (like Mandrake's RPM handler and Debian's APT-GET and Synaptic) to install new software and system upgrades is quite appealing ot me. I mean, open up Synaptic, search for an application I'd like to use, click the Install checkbox and bam... there you have it. No fuss, no muss, no cost.
Niether me nor my wife have missed anything MS-Windows had to offer us. In fact, the lack of system freezes and crashes more than makes up for any extra time it takes me to install and configure a driver for a new printer or something.
A good Linux slogan: Set it up once and let it run forever.
Yes, I have to agree that, at the moment, configuring hardware and adding plug-and-play gadgets are easier (in general) under MS-Windows. But who's responsible for that, Microsoft or the hardware manufacturers?
Does this easy plug-and-play technology really make things easier or just more unstable? Why will a peripheral work one day under XP and not the next? Why can I log out and shut down XP okay one day, then hang up the darned thing the next time? Why does my laptop get slower (response time that is) as the work week goes on if I only log out and NOT actually shutdown and reboot the system every day?
As mentioned previously, I guess it comes down to the individual's experiences. I just haven't seen anything really innovative done to MS-Windows since the change from 3.1 to 95.... unless you count some features they've ripped off from other OS and rival software developers.
But, hey, as an individual we have to decide what is best for our own particular situation.
However, some companies (like HP) are beginning to make their products Linux compatible, which will help the situation in the future.
The extra effort to configure Linux was a concern of mine when I started using Linux too. But, I think that was due to the fact that after using Microsoft 95 and 98 for several years, I became lazy. Back in the days of DOS and Win 3.1, I took much more interest in how the packages worked. Yes, being a Linux user today you are forced to learn a few things if you want to use it successfully, but is that really a bad thing?
What the point I was trying to make about innovation was the question: what has Microsoft done recently in regards to innovation? Perhaps its simply a fact that I'm not using MS-Windows at the office in a way that demonstrates its advancements, but XP really doesn't seem different to me than W 98 or 2000. I honestly don't see anything innovative about it.
On the other hand, when I started to use Linux, I found it much more useful than W 98 (which was the last version of Windows I ever ''owned'') ever was to me.
Example: I find virtual desktops very useful. Being able to use a package manager (like Mandrake's RPM handler and Debian's APT-GET and Synaptic) to install new software and system upgrades is quite appealing ot me. I mean, open up Synaptic, search for an application I'd like to use, click the Install checkbox and bam... there you have it. No fuss, no muss, no cost.
Niether me nor my wife have missed anything MS-Windows had to offer us. In fact, the lack of system freezes and crashes more than makes up for any extra time it takes me to install and configure a driver for a new printer or something.
A good Linux slogan: Set it up once and let it run forever.
Yes, I have to agree that, at the moment, configuring hardware and adding plug-and-play gadgets are easier (in general) under MS-Windows. But who's responsible for that, Microsoft or the hardware manufacturers?
Does this easy plug-and-play technology really make things easier or just more unstable? Why will a peripheral work one day under XP and not the next? Why can I log out and shut down XP okay one day, then hang up the darned thing the next time? Why does my laptop get slower (response time that is) as the work week goes on if I only log out and NOT actually shutdown and reboot the system every day?
As mentioned previously, I guess it comes down to the individual's experiences. I just haven't seen anything really innovative done to MS-Windows since the change from 3.1 to 95.... unless you count some features they've ripped off from other OS and rival software developers.
But, hey, as an individual we have to decide what is best for our own particular situation.
-
snowman156
- Posts: 8
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 3:11 am
- Location: Brooklyn, NY
- Contact:
I think I'm a bit more protective of XP because of my experiences. Over the past few years I've have to develope from a user to a network admin at work and in that time have learned everything that XP and Server 2000/2003 have to offer. If your experiences are mainly in 95, 98, and 2000, then yes, you will be jaded because they suck, big time. Having studied, administered and kept up a Server 2000/2003 environment for about a year while at the same time delving into Linux for my personal pleasure, I've learned that 2000/2003 sucks compared to Linux. XP, has developed signifcantly although I know I will get flamed for saying that.
I will agree on your point about a properly configured Linux system. Once you get it up and tweaked to what you need, it just works, no questions asked.
I will agree on your point about a properly configured Linux system. Once you get it up and tweaked to what you need, it just works, no questions asked.
So your perspective on Microsoft advancements is different than mine.