yep, 'nother beginner here. im building my first comp and i want linux to be my new OS. i have very basic needs, and i'm aware there are TONS of linux versions out there. i need some help/advice/suggestions on the best version based on my needs/use.
Something:
- somewhat minimalistic, yet with room for expansion. i dont need a shitload of bells and wistles.
- networking capabilities
- music - storage, manipulation, playing
- Office-type functions - i have a lot of work to do. i will be mostly using this thing for work, document, presentation creation, and music playing.
- customizable appearance - themes, etc
- customizable organization/folders/layout/locaiton of files/items, etc
- secure - from viruses/worms, etc
- STABLITY - nuff said
- images - handle LARGE files, manipulation/editing
- video/movies - viewing, manipulation, very basic needs here.
- communication - need for chat
- graphic interface - not skilled w/ the code lingo stuff... ya know.
- relatively low maintenance/ stress free. one thing i hate about windows is having to CONSTANTLY get new security patches and shit.
- im not looking to develop or program in the near future. maybe eventually, but not a top priority right now. very back burner.
I am not a PC gamer. thus, i am not concerned with anything i could play games on. this will be a work/storage/music machine. very basic. that, and my dreams of owning a new mac powerbook have been shot. :[ otherwise i'd just do that. i will be doing primarity research related stuff with my comp. most research labs run ONLY macs. thats the primary reason i wanted one...
what are my best options? I am willing to do my homework and learn new skills to use a new and different OS, if it means i can no longer have to deal w/ MS stuff. however, i dont want something that i have to constantly adjust everyday. the only thing that should be high maintenance in my life is ME. and maybe a few other NON-computer related... ANYWAY
seriously, there is nothing i do everyday that is an exclusive capability of any MS product, so, i seriously think going linux will make me happier in the long run.
just need some direction on this. thank you so much!
heh, yes, another Linux question
Moderator: EG Members
-
Kelsaurian
- imanewbie
- Posts: 1
- Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:00 pm
- Location: Williamsburg
- Contact:
servers have to run OSes too. To be less subtle, if it is just a server and I don't trust Windows enough to serve up the content, doesn't that say something to the effect of the quality of Windows as an OS to run any machine? Speaking of which, I got to see an X-Box crash the other day. I'll stick to my gamecube, it offers more ammusement.halfnhalf wrote:psi29a wrote:What is wrong with Windows? I wouldn't trust their software to serve up these forums that is for sure.
but isnt that just a server...?
Computing infrastructure within a business is made up all sorts of operating systems. I'm not a biggot, but you use the right tool for the right job. If it means running Windows because the client is familiar with it, then by all means. Use what you are comfortable with. Turns out Kelsarian has had the last straw when it comes to running Windows and wants to know her options.
Truth to tell, nothing of mine runs windows. My parents are happy Debian and MacOSX users and will never go back to using Microsoft's products unless they were forced to at gun point. Put it this way, Windows is like the yugo of cars, sure it runs and gets you to point A from point B (sometimes), but if given the choice to switch to different car, would you? If it was free, considered to be a modern car (2000), allowed you to look under the hood, provided all the tools necessary to make modifications to it, and made sure it was legal to do all of this.
Food for thought:
http://www.biznix.org/whylinux/microsoft.htm
MORE FUN:
If OSes were air-planes.
Windows Airline: The airport terminal is nice and colorful,
with friendly stewards and stewardesses, easy access to the
plane, an uneventful takeoff...then the plane blows up without
any warning whatsoever.
NT Airline (old): Everyone marches out on the runway, says the
password in unison, and forms the outline of an airplane. Then
they all sit down and make a whooshing sound like they're
flying.
NT Airline (new): Just like Windows Air, but costs more, uses
much bigger planes, and takes out all the other aircraft within
a 40-mile radius when it explodes.
Linux Air: Disgruntled employees of all the other OS airlines
decide to start their own airline. They build the planes, ticket
counters, and pave the runways themselves. They charge a small
fee to cover the cost of printing the ticket, but you can also
download and print the ticket yourself. When you board the plane,
you are given a seat, four bolts, a wrench and a copy of the
seat-HOWTO.html. Once settled, the fully adjustable seat is very
comfortable, the plan leaves and arrives on time without a single
problem, the in-flight meal is wonderful. You try to tell customers
of the other airlines about the great trip, but all they can say is,
"You had to do what with the seat?"
For your reading pleasures:
http://www.cryptonomicon.com/beginning.html
If you ever wanted to know about computers, it's history, background, and implications, I suggest this read. "In the Beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson
Imagine a crossroads where four competing auto dealerships are situated. One of them (Microsoft) is much, much bigger than the others. It started out years ago selling three-speed bicycles (MS-DOS); these were not perfect, but they worked, and when they broke you could easily fix them.
There was a competing bicycle dealership next door (Apple) that one day began selling motorized vehicles--expensive but attractively styled cars with their innards hermetically sealed, so that how they worked was something of a mystery.
The big dealership responded by rushing a moped upgrade kit (the original Windows) onto the market. This was a Rube Goldberg contraption that, when bolted onto a three-speed bicycle, enabled it to keep up, just barely, with Apple-cars. The users had to wear goggles and were always picking bugs out of their teeth while Apple owners sped along in hermetically sealed comfort, sneering out the windows. But the Micro-mopeds were cheap, and easy to fix compared with the Apple-cars, and their market share waxed.
Eventually the big dealership came out with a full-fledged car: a colossal station wagon (Windows 95). It had all the aesthetic appeal of a Soviet worker housing block, it leaked oil and blew gaskets, and it was an enormous success. A little later, they also came out with a hulking off-road vehicle intended for industrial users (Windows NT) which was no more beautiful than the station wagon, and only a little more reliable.
Since then there has been a lot of noise and shouting, but little has changed. The smaller dealership continues to sell sleek Euro-styled sedans and to spend a lot of money on advertising campaigns. They have had GOING OUT OF BUSINESS! signs taped up in their windows for so long that they have gotten all yellow and curly. The big one keeps making bigger and bigger station wagons and ORVs.
On the other side of the road are two competitors that have come along more recently.
One of them (Be, Inc.) is selling fully operational Batmobiles (the BeOS). They are more beautiful and stylish even than the Euro-sedans, better designed, more technologically advanced, and at least as reliable as anything else on the market--and yet cheaper than the others.
With one exception, that is: Linux, which is right next door, and which is not a business at all. It's a bunch of RVs, yurts, tepees, and geodesic domes set up in a field and organized by consensus. The people who live there are making tanks. These are not old-fashioned, cast-iron Soviet tanks; these are more like the M1 tanks of the U.S. Army, made of space-age materials and jammed with sophisticated technology from one end to the other. But they are better than Army tanks. They've been modified in such a way that they never, ever break down, are light and maneuverable enough to use on ordinary streets, and use no more fuel than a subcompact car. These tanks are being cranked out, on the spot, at a terrific pace, and a vast number of them are lined up along the edge of the road with keys in the ignition. Anyone who wants can simply climb into one and drive it away for free.
Customers come to this crossroads in throngs, day and night. Ninety percent of them go straight to the biggest dealership and buy station wagons or off-road vehicles. They do not even look at the other dealerships.
Of the remaining ten percent, most go and buy a sleek Euro-sedan, pausing only to turn up their noses at the philistines going to buy the station wagons and ORVs. If they even notice the people on the opposite side of the road, selling the cheaper, technically superior vehicles, these customers deride them cranks and half-wits.
The Batmobile outlet sells a few vehicles to the occasional car nut who wants a second vehicle to go with his station wagon, but seems to accept, at least for now, that it's a fringe player.
The group giving away the free tanks only stays alive because it is staffed by volunteers, who are lined up at the edge of the street with bullhorns, trying to draw customers' attention to this incredible situation. A typical conversation goes something like this:
Hacker with bullhorn: "Save your money! Accept one of our free tanks! It is invulnerable, and can drive across rocks and swamps at ninety miles an hour while getting a hundred miles to the gallon!"
Prospective station wagon buyer: "I know what you say is true...but...er...I don't know how to maintain a tank!"
Bullhorn: "You don't know how to maintain a station wagon either!"
Buyer: "But this dealership has mechanics on staff. If something goes wrong with my station wagon, I can take a day off work, bring it here, and pay them to work on it while I sit in the waiting room for hours, listening to elevator music."
Bullhorn: "But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!"
Buyer: "Stay away from my house, you freak!"
Bullhorn: "But..."
Buyer: "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
Bullhorn: "But if you accept one of our free tanks we will send volunteers to your house to fix it for free while you sleep!"
Buyer: "Stay away from my house, you freak!"
Bullhorn: "But..."
Buyer: "Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?"
But I'm curious now. Linux vs Windows, I've heard the arguments for a while. Reliability, flexibility, and security versus um.... damn it I forgot the word. Something like easy format. Stick shift against automatic sorta thing.
"Don't you get it yet?! If she's beautiful, you'll die instantly!!" Chopper
Warning: Long diatribe about Windows and Linux, no need to read unless you want (or care) to know the differences between them.
Thing is, the “is it better than” and “VS.” game shouldn't be played unless you are evaluating what you want to do with your time.
IMHO, I can do things with Linux that I can in Windows. This can't be said of everyone though, for example games. I'm that big of a computer gamer; however I love the fact that some companies release Linux binaries so I can play Doom3 and the like.
How ever, I like programming and tinkering with technology. In order to do this in Windows, I have to pay LOTS of money to get a Windows based developing environment.
This excuse is getting out dated because there are ports of Open Source software like Eclipse and GCC for Windows.
When it comes down to it, the reason why I don't use Microsoft Products is because of politics. I don't want to pay for software; I view it as Free Speech and is in need of being protected. Using Microsoft's products re-enforces that software should be classified as Intellectual Property.
For more information about this point of view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
However, I'm also in a unique position to develop software applications based on open source. My company contributes to open source, however the applications we make are for our company and we don't release or license them to others. We use the right tool for the right job. Everyone that works here just prefers LAMP (Linux, Apache, Mysql, and PHP) and our investors all agree as well.
This can't be said for most companies in the USA where the saying goes "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft". That is just the culture, if you build software, you should get the benefits of ownership and make money off of it.
They are two different doctrines, both of which have an end result of making money. It totally depends on what you want or what your employers or investors want. They use what is familiar and Free Software and Open Source isn't that familiar... yet.
I believe it is good practice to learn about as many OSes and software packages as possible and trust your gut. If you have problems with something, voice it. It also helps to know what you are using as well, if you are serious about working with computers or technology, and then try EVERYTHING out. Form your own opinion, and perhaps contribute back to the community which helped you.
Sorry if this didn't help with a comparison between Windows and Linux in terms of "Reliability, flexibility, and security". All OSes can be cracked, there is no denying that. However, the philosophy that I talked about above creates unique environments that breed differing approaches to security, reliability and flexibility. Linux market-share (if you can call it that) is much lower than Windows in terms of how many computers it is installed in. Thus more viruses are created with Windows in mind because it is dominant.
Spyware and Viruses are a perfect case and point, you just don't get as many using a Linux based OS, and same can be said of ANY platform not made by Microsoft. The reason for this is mostly user related in that Microsoft made everyone an admin. From the Unix (30+ years old technology) that Linux has similarity with, uses root (admin if you will) only for doing system functions but NEVER used as a user account to do things like checking email and browsing a web-site. Most end-users of Microsoft products are not trained in that mentality and even MacOSX fails in that regard by giving default users to have admin access as well. Of course, you can create user accounts that have limited restrictions in Windows; however it isn’t the default and thus creates a wider target for Spyware and Viruses. With Linux with the use of none-root users, the target is smaller. Yes the user account can be infected with a Virus is possible, however unlikely due to the fact that you have to run the Virus first before it can infect. Microsoft runs the virus for you by default on many applications, including Outlook. Spyware for Linux is also possible, however is much more difficult to exploit due to the decentralization of OS and applications. If a user account is infected with a virus or spyware, then only that user is infected... the OS itself is unaffected and will stay chugging. This makes Linux more suited for server environments while Windows if for desktops. However, Linux makes a viable desktop IMHO because anything I can do Windows I can do in Linux. You just may have to retrain yourself to use different applications to get the same work done.
Thing is, the “is it better than” and “VS.” game shouldn't be played unless you are evaluating what you want to do with your time.
IMHO, I can do things with Linux that I can in Windows. This can't be said of everyone though, for example games. I'm that big of a computer gamer; however I love the fact that some companies release Linux binaries so I can play Doom3 and the like.
How ever, I like programming and tinkering with technology. In order to do this in Windows, I have to pay LOTS of money to get a Windows based developing environment.
This excuse is getting out dated because there are ports of Open Source software like Eclipse and GCC for Windows.
When it comes down to it, the reason why I don't use Microsoft Products is because of politics. I don't want to pay for software; I view it as Free Speech and is in need of being protected. Using Microsoft's products re-enforces that software should be classified as Intellectual Property.
For more information about this point of view:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software_movement
However, I'm also in a unique position to develop software applications based on open source. My company contributes to open source, however the applications we make are for our company and we don't release or license them to others. We use the right tool for the right job. Everyone that works here just prefers LAMP (Linux, Apache, Mysql, and PHP) and our investors all agree as well.
This can't be said for most companies in the USA where the saying goes "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft". That is just the culture, if you build software, you should get the benefits of ownership and make money off of it.
They are two different doctrines, both of which have an end result of making money. It totally depends on what you want or what your employers or investors want. They use what is familiar and Free Software and Open Source isn't that familiar... yet.
I believe it is good practice to learn about as many OSes and software packages as possible and trust your gut. If you have problems with something, voice it. It also helps to know what you are using as well, if you are serious about working with computers or technology, and then try EVERYTHING out. Form your own opinion, and perhaps contribute back to the community which helped you.
Sorry if this didn't help with a comparison between Windows and Linux in terms of "Reliability, flexibility, and security". All OSes can be cracked, there is no denying that. However, the philosophy that I talked about above creates unique environments that breed differing approaches to security, reliability and flexibility. Linux market-share (if you can call it that) is much lower than Windows in terms of how many computers it is installed in. Thus more viruses are created with Windows in mind because it is dominant.
Spyware and Viruses are a perfect case and point, you just don't get as many using a Linux based OS, and same can be said of ANY platform not made by Microsoft. The reason for this is mostly user related in that Microsoft made everyone an admin. From the Unix (30+ years old technology) that Linux has similarity with, uses root (admin if you will) only for doing system functions but NEVER used as a user account to do things like checking email and browsing a web-site. Most end-users of Microsoft products are not trained in that mentality and even MacOSX fails in that regard by giving default users to have admin access as well. Of course, you can create user accounts that have limited restrictions in Windows; however it isn’t the default and thus creates a wider target for Spyware and Viruses. With Linux with the use of none-root users, the target is smaller. Yes the user account can be infected with a Virus is possible, however unlikely due to the fact that you have to run the Virus first before it can infect. Microsoft runs the virus for you by default on many applications, including Outlook. Spyware for Linux is also possible, however is much more difficult to exploit due to the decentralization of OS and applications. If a user account is infected with a virus or spyware, then only that user is infected... the OS itself is unaffected and will stay chugging. This makes Linux more suited for server environments while Windows if for desktops. However, Linux makes a viable desktop IMHO because anything I can do Windows I can do in Linux. You just may have to retrain yourself to use different applications to get the same work done.
Nice. Thank you for the read; I still haven't looked into the link you posted, but I'll get to it later.
At the moment, I'm curious about the other operating systems. I've suffered through the Windows lineup, so I wonder the difference of a Mac / Linux, etc.
For the moment, I might be considering dual-booting so I can keep my windows but try Linux as well.
A question, do you require a semi-deep knowledge on programming to be able to use Linux efficiently?
Primary uses for computer are: Heavily on gaming, word processing, web browsing, media (video and audio).
At the moment, I'm curious about the other operating systems. I've suffered through the Windows lineup, so I wonder the difference of a Mac / Linux, etc.
For the moment, I might be considering dual-booting so I can keep my windows but try Linux as well.
A question, do you require a semi-deep knowledge on programming to be able to use Linux efficiently?
Primary uses for computer are: Heavily on gaming, word processing, web browsing, media (video and audio).
"Don't you get it yet?! If she's beautiful, you'll die instantly!!" Chopper
You can do all of that, however gaming might be a problem. Not that many studios support anything other than Windows. I was lucky enough to grab Doom3 which included linux support. Same for UT and UT2004 and NWN. However, I had to do a fare amount of trickery to get windows only games to run under Linux via WINE.Artezul wrote:Nice. Thank you for the read; I still haven't looked into the link you posted, but I'll get to it later.
At the moment, I'm curious about the other operating systems. I've suffered through the Windows lineup, so I wonder the difference of a Mac / Linux, etc.
For the moment, I might be considering dual-booting so I can keep my windows but try Linux as well.
A question, do you require a semi-deep knowledge on programming to be able to use Linux efficiently?
Primary uses for computer are: Heavily on gaming, word processing, web browsing, media (video and audio).
You do NOT have to be a programmer or know a lick about computers to use Linux. However, if you plan on dual-booting, you need to research it because it can go horribly wrong if you don't understand the procedure and how to use the tools available.
I would suggest using a LiveCD in which you pop in a CD and it lets you try out the OS before you decide to stick it on your harddrive. I have some of my family members running Debian and let apt-get run every night checking for updates and automate the process. They check email via Thunderbird and use Firefox for the WWW. They use the KDE environment, which includes a fleet of software like you would find in windows, everything from IM software to CD burning software.
Think of it this way, installing Windows2000 and WindowsXP on the same hard-drive is possible, however very difficult. It will be the same difficulty in doing it with WinXP and Linux. I suggest reading a lot of HOWTOs, hopefully specific to what you want to do with detailed instructions.