Testing Out Linux. Part 1
A windows users' journey into the world of Linux
Thursday, May 19, 2005 by thedon808 | Discussion: OS Wars
I've known about GNU/Linux , and the whole open source thing, for sometime now.
About a year ago I bought the 'Dummies Guide to Fedora Rore1' book. Hoping to
get more into using Linux and also as my girl friend worked on Saturdays
(the only day I could go to visit) I spent a lot of time in the town, so
this book gave me something to do. I spent a few weeks flicking through
it reading bits and pieces I then decided to try it out. I installed it on
my test PC an old PII 350Mhz 128ram 3Gb drive. The install process of
Fedora is quite easy with a nice GUI installer guiding you through what
packages you want installed etc. After it had done its business installing,
about 45-60mins install time, I was thrown into the deep end, with a
rather dated looking desktop theme, my first mission was to connect to
my main XP PC.
'Ok, how do I do that? Ah ha network tool. Oh, no card installed! Humm ok!
Well I tried, where's my XP CD?'
After getting married and moving house I thought it would be great
to have a file server for our music etc. I had already set up a network
between my PC, my wife's, and her Mac. So adding a file server should be
easy enough. Again out comes the old PII install Fedora on it again.
This time I was more careful what I installed as I needed more space
rather than toys, after the install I checked the space left on the
3Gb drive, only 400 or so Mb. Well there goes my conception that Linux
was a smaller operating system than XP.
So now I'm on the hunt for a smaller distro, so google for 'lightweight
Linux distro' all I come up with are the tiny distros eg50Mb. What I
was after was something a little more fuller but not bloated. Then I
came across
Distrowatch.com in the packages list Ubuntu had all I needed, apache,
php, samba, etc. and its on one CD (Fedora Core 3 is 4 CD's).
So set it up downloading overnight. The next night I had planned to install
it (as long it downloaded ok, which it did). The next night I burnt it to
CD and then got carried away designing a cover to print onto the CD. That
was a week ago, last night I actually did the install. Even though it
hasn't got a fancy installer like Fedora I actually found it easier than
I thought to install. The only hard bit would have been disk partitioning
but as it had Fedora on it previously I just reformatted the partitions
that were already there. The only down side to the installation was the
time, over 2 hours later I eventually had the login screen in front of me,
(my only worry was I didn't remember putting the root password in?)
anyhow login fine.
First objective, check root password, 'Great the same as my login password,
really secure!' So promptly change it and then have a little nose around,
the GUI still isn't as nice as XP or OSX it still needs some work, I then
check the network, well the internet works so looks hopeful.
Next objective set up shared folder on the network. 'Oh, samba isn't
installed'. At that point I decided to leave it for another day, as it
was an hour later than I was expecting due to the lengthy install time.
 |
|
Page 1 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #2 Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:48 PM
I use Slackware Linux and Fluxbox is my primary window manager with windowmaker being my second favorite. Linux isn't Windows. Give yourself some time to learn how to use it and you may well find yourself hooked.
Reply #3 Thursday, May 19, 2005 7:01 PM
Reply #4 Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:16 PM
Reply #5 Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:45 PM
| Linux makes me dizzy. |
Maybe you just need to set you monitor's refresh rates.
I've been using SuSE 9.2 Pro. So far it's the best Linux I've tried. Very easy to get & install apps and updates with YaST. I haven't tried Fedora Core. I'd like to set up a Linux file server at home.
Reply #6 Thursday, May 19, 2005 9:55 PM
Anyhow - everytime I try to adjust my display mode in Linux I get a blank screen. I use 800x600 in windows and Linux - everytime I try to adjust in Linux I have to re-install Linux due to the fact I get a blank screen.
So much the better - I prefer XP anyhow.
Reply #7 Thursday, May 19, 2005 10:12 PM
Reply #8 Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:16 PM
Did I mention XP is easier to skin as well?
Reply #9 Friday, May 20, 2005 4:00 AM
When it comes to set up it depends on the distro. Suse and Redhat are just as ez to set up as windows (the process is fairly automatic and itll be setting up some hardware)
When it comes to more programs, its no contest Linux wins again with its WEALTH of choices for just about every application. While you can use only the windows desktop enviornment on winxp, I have the choice of kde, gnome, xfce as full blown DE's......not to mention WMs like fluxbox, enlightenment, blackbox, iceWM which come to me off the top of my head.
When it comes to games, the default games that come with linux blow away solitare and hearts and the like. And with Cedega there isnt a commercial game that I have that cant play on linux. (in fact world of warcraft plays better on linux) However cedega can be hard to configure and use if you dont know what your doing. SO ill give you the game argument (although that argument will be null and void soon)
When it comes to skinning, windows loses again. WM's like kwin, GTK, metacity make it just as easy, if not easier to skin the millions of DEs and WMs mentioned.
There are some benefits windows have over linux (software dependencies, Office 2003 - even though i got office xp to work). The ones you listed are either weak or simply not true. You just have to be willing to learn to do some of the advanced stuff.
And take into consideration the advantages of Linux (filesystem, customizability, speed, stability, loads of choices, optimization, and of course its free) Its worth the learning experience.
Trust me I know the console might look like some type of application that you would want some deity to come in and crush for the sake of righteousness............but in reality its not bad and it pwns all.
When something is harder to use..... it must be for some reason. Linux is better you just gotta learn it.
Reply #11 Friday, May 20, 2005 4:50 AM
| the truth is XP is just plain better |
Kona, you're probably better off not using words like: "the truth is..." because in the end there is no real truth on this subject, only experiences and opinions - both very subjective. Even in the unlikely event that something was demonstrated true on a particular day, it's just as likely to be wrong the next.
Live & let live.
Reply #12 Friday, May 20, 2005 6:00 AM
The less you know, the least you are in a position to say whats true. I aint gonna sit there and say windows and linux is better (ok ill say i like linux better). But i will tell you that the advantages u put under windows are just plain false. There are advantages to each OS since an OS is a very complex piece of software with many different approaches.
But i will tell you some truths
linux file system = better
linux choices (applications/distros/hardware) = more
linux skinning options = more
linux stability = better
linux speed = faster
linux bloat = less
I wont tell you linux is better though. Its just my conclusion.
Reply #14 Friday, May 20, 2005 7:42 PM
| The less you know, the least you are in a position to say whats true. |
Sorry, but unless you know everything you're in no position to say what's true or false either.
Even on such a narrow topic such as x86 operating systems there's no-one I'd believe if they said they knew everything about the subject.
| But i will tell you that the advantages u put under windows are just plain false. |
Only as far as you think you know....
Your arguments would be better supported by more specific facts eg benchmarks for filesystem comparison. Note also that 'more choices' is not always better...
Reply #15 Friday, May 20, 2005 10:35 PM
To each his own: Kona, at least you've tried Linux and decided it wasn't for you, for which I believe you should be commended.
There are so many who write off things without even trying them. I used to tear into both Linux and Mac's vehemently, but have become rather fond of both. Again, just personal preference. Perhaps you'll give Linux another shot in the future and enjoy it when it's easier to manage; perhaps not.Stick with what suits you the best, with what you're most productive and comfortable under
Reply #16 Friday, May 20, 2005 10:43 PM
Reply #17 Saturday, May 21, 2005 5:00 AM
And as for
| Linux choices (applications/distros/hardware) = more.... Linux bloat = less |
and less bloat one quote i found says 'Fedora Core3 can use 7Gb on a clean install'. Now lets check requirements for Microsoft 1.5Gb space required and now add office just for fun, 1.9Gb with another 390Mb optional, totaling 2.29Gb. i know its not small but what else do normal users require?
Like I said before personal opinion what suits you best? You can't say someone’s opinion is wrong!
So share opinions and love and not arguments and unhappiness 
ok enough of the cheesy 70's stuff but please respect each others opinions 
Reply #18 Saturday, May 21, 2005 6:30 AM
But.....
I gotta respond
I may not have created the x86 architecture nor the OS's that run off of it (heck I dont even run x86 on my linux box). But I do know my software and I have used a wide variety of it. As I said, the less you know the least you are in a position to say whats true.
| Only as far as you think you know.... |
No this is as far as I know I know
Every thing I listed was based not only on my usage and experience but off of expert opinion and benchmarks.
file system --- ive tried ext2 ext3 reifser and they all have lead to less fragmentation/ faster file transfers etc then nfts, fat, and fat3
linux stability ---- this is basically a fact to everyone except those researchers microsoft pay off to say otherwise. Servers run for much longer and with least problems when put side by side.
linux speed ---- ive timed both OSes on startup time, application loading, and staight up numbers crunching and yes linux wins all of them.
with the other facts, of course more choices doesnt = better. I tend to think it usually does..... but never did I say that it was better, just that there are more choices. As skinner said:
| the truth is XP is just plain better. XP supports more hardware, generally is easier to set up to use, has more programs written for it |
I simply assumed that he thought more choices = better. But hey I will never say linux is better than windows. I will say that I think linux is better than windows. Because until i can actually sit there and look at the source code side by side (wont happen with windows) then i cant come up with a definitive answer.
Which OS you like is your opinion and I will never win against someones opinion. But I have listed bare bone facts in my comparison between the two OSes. And there are barebone facts when it comes to windows advantages (just look at wifi).
Oh and id find it much harder to find my favorite windows applications compared to linux. I mean since I used slackware gentoo, debian and its many variants, the OS gets the application for me =P. just type in "emerge firefox" in a gentoo console and bam I got firefox.
Yeah when it comes to fedora and any other rpm based distro.... bloat becomes
But you have to remeber what your getting rpm linux clean installs. Your getting everything. From things like xorg to things like 5 different astrology programs. But wow 7 gigs on Fedora is VERY impressive (in a bad way). I got to try it one day and see what the hell they are putting in there. My gentoo system is about 1.5 gigs and i got everything I need (Office XP, firefox, thunderbird, programming tools, skinning applications, media player, gnutella clients, chatting application, you name it ). My windows system has the same types of applications and nothing more and takes up 9.2 gigs 
Yeah Id prolly say windows is better than some of the distros out there (fedora, red hat, suse, mabey mandrake) because they kinda of take away from linux actually is by changing it and stuffing it full of crap.
Aww crap my post is prolly 2 long for anyone to read =P. I dual boot and enjoy windows (and all of these great stardock apps) and linux. Ill tell you nothing on linux comes close to objectdock and windowsFX (though the rest of the apps are matched)
Reply #19 Saturday, May 21, 2005 6:38 AM
Reply #20 Saturday, May 21, 2005 7:35 AM
. I would say windows because i have used it more, Linux is more complex and so requires learning and mac osx is simple to use for average user but as its bsd(unix) based requires learning like Linux. Another point macs can have stability problems too 
. My wifes as about as unstable if not more so then mine or her pc. So im not trying to change anyones mind i reckon windows is 'plain better' (at the moment untill our mac becomes more stable or i learn more about linux) just stirring
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 4 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:07 PM