Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
The "Constant fiddling with Linux" myth
By Robin 'Roblimo' Miller
on
January 03, 2005 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
I hear this canard over and over: that it takes constant attention to make a Linux installation work right, which means the cost of administering a Linux system is higher than maintaining one running a proprietary operating system. While it's true that you can spend almost every waking hour tweaking a Linux server, network or desktop, most Linux users don't need to do this any more than most car owners need to adjust their tire pressure to meet the demands of every road surface they encounter in the course of a day's driving.
My computers currently run MEPIS, a Debian-based GNU/Linux distribution that I installed with a few clicks -- and have left alone since my initial installations. My only changes have been minor, primarily visual things like adding more application launch buttons to the KDE panel at the bottom of my screen and adding attractive wallpaper to my desktop. My total time to make these modifications, per machine, was perhaps two minutes. These are the sort of personal customizations almost every computer user makes on any operating system, roughly analogous to adjusting the seat position in a car.
Beyond that, I download and install a new piece of software once in a while, using the MEPIS-customized version of KPackage as a GUI front end to apt-get. Each installation takes me three mouse clicks, plus typing in my root password. My only other "customization" was setting up my bookmarks, email filters and "junk" controls in Mozilla, which I did about two years ago on one machine. Since then, all I've done is copied those files to each new computer I've tested or used for daily work.
Otherwise, my computers are as stock as stock can be, and they start and run as reliably as a diesel Mercedes. I spend no more time fiddling with them than I spend fiddling with my electric drill or circular saw. My computers and other power tools exist to serve me, not the other way around. I pick them up and use them when I need them, then put them away until the next time I have a task for which they are required.
Optimization as a hobby -- or business
My personal computing needs are simple; I'm a writer and editor, not a sysadmin in charge of a 400-node supercomputing cluster, nor am I so in love with my computers that I want to treat them as the data processing equivalent of a hot-rodder's pride and joy.
I have friends who spend endless hours extracting the last bit of performance from their racing cars -- and their computers. They tune, tweak, modify, and test far more than they either drive or compute. Naturally, because of the endlessly mutable nature of GNU/Linux and open source software in general, many of these people are attracted to the open source world more than they are attracted to proprietary software, so Linux User Group email lists are full of messages back and forth from these people about how they managed to get a one percent performance increase by changing some obscure bit of code in a file the rest of us will never need to open.
This is probably true for most commercial GNU/Linux users, too. If the Web servers work reliably, why mess with them all the time? Sure, you need to keep up with security updates, just as you need to change the oil in your car regularly, but that's no big deal if you use a well-established distribution. If server needs increase, buy another box. Or buy two. It's usually cheaper to buy and set up more servers than to pay a skilled sysadmin a week's salary to squeeze a little more performance out of existing hardware.
Naturally, there are circumstances -- like supercomputing clusters and other large-scale installations -- where performance tweaking is a better investment than simply throwing more hardware at a problem. And in these situations you want to have the most tunable, modifiable, tweakable software you can get -- which means your operating system and applications software must be open source if you are going to get maximum performance from your system.
"You can" is not the same as "You should"
The hackneyed programming maxim says, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."
In the case of GNU/Linux tweaking, you might say, "Just because you can modify your system doesn't mean you must."
To anyone who worries that if they switch to GNU/Linux they're going to have to spend all their time messing with their system, I say, "If all you knew about cars came from watching NASCAR, you wouldn't think about buying a car for everyday use."
So don't worry if it seems like half the Linux users in the world seem to have more in common with car performance freaks than with normal people. You don't need to do all that to run Linux either at work or at home. For most of us, a stock distribution is fine, even if the tweakers sneer at us the same way someone who owns a tricked-out Lexus sneers at a perfectly sensible, one hundred percent stock Honda Civic.
Comments
on The "Constant fiddling with Linux" mythNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
Great idea, until you try to put linux on a laptop or user a webcam that you bought at BestBuy.
Sounds great - and is if your using very stock hardware and software. Once you need software/hardware that isn't stock your day just went up in smoke filling dependencies, applying patches, compiling, etc.
Sounds great - and is if your using very stock hardware and software. Once you need software/hardware that isn't stock your day just went up in smoke filling dependencies, applying patches, compiling, etc.
what kind of laptop did you buy? HP/Compaq/IBM/Toshiba/Sony aside from wireless G all seem to be pretty compatible with linux. Matter in fact 95% of the laptops that come in for service, run INSERT just fine (which is a KNOPPIX derivative) without any tweaking. Always do your research, and if the store will let you, try popping a knoppix disk in a display model (and if they won't let you then they just lost a sale).
Why anyone would think constant tweaking is necessary on a Linux or BSD os is beyond me. It generally takes a lot less tweaking than a Windows box.
If I'm messing with my Linux box it's to add some software or feature that I want. Otherwise, once I get it where I want it, it'll just stay that way.
Try Xandros and you'll discover how easy and trouble free a non-MSFT os can be. And so easy to customize, once you get the hang of it.
If I'm messing with my Linux box it's to add some software or feature that I want. Otherwise, once I get it where I want it, it'll just stay that way.
Try Xandros and you'll discover how easy and trouble free a non-MSFT os can be. And so easy to customize, once you get the hang of it.
Of course, there's always the problem of incompatability (sp?). Although a Linux system may be all fine and dandy for the very low end user, most Linux distributions are limited to non specialized use.
Here's an example: recently a friend of mine asked me to switch him over to Linux. The problem? He sync'd his cell phone/pda with Windows regularly using a proprietary, non-standard application for his job. The end result? This was a deal breaker for him.
Although the number of users that can use Linux is going up, I'm not entirely sure it's ready for anyone that's either not a total beginniner or at least quasi-advanced/not affraid of the CLI.
For the record, I'm using SuSE 9.1 myself, and haven't needed to do more than add a few apps (IglooFTP, Firefox, Thunderbird). Everything else is standard, out of the box stuff, so the article certainly isn't off on that account.
Here's an example: recently a friend of mine asked me to switch him over to Linux. The problem? He sync'd his cell phone/pda with Windows regularly using a proprietary, non-standard application for his job. The end result? This was a deal breaker for him.
Although the number of users that can use Linux is going up, I'm not entirely sure it's ready for anyone that's either not a total beginniner or at least quasi-advanced/not affraid of the CLI.
For the record, I'm using SuSE 9.1 myself, and haven't needed to do more than add a few apps (IglooFTP, Firefox, Thunderbird). Everything else is standard, out of the box stuff, so the article certainly isn't off on that account.
>> The problem? He sync'd his cell phone/pda with Windows regularly using a proprietary, non-standard application for his job.
Who's fault is that though? is it the open source coders fault that only proprietary, non-standard apps only come for windows? It's like asking for 100% compatiblity with MS-Word files. You can't get it not because people don't want it, but because companies never learned that sharing in kindergarten.
Now i do feel sorry for your friend. I had to find a third party app for syncing my cell phone to my powerbok, as Apple's built in one didn't support my phone.
Who's fault is that though? is it the open source coders fault that only proprietary, non-standard apps only come for windows? It's like asking for 100% compatiblity with MS-Word files. You can't get it not because people don't want it, but because companies never learned that sharing in kindergarten.
Now i do feel sorry for your friend. I had to find a third party app for syncing my cell phone to my powerbok, as Apple's built in one didn't support my phone.
Here's an example: recently a friend of mine asked me to switch him over to Linux. The problem? He sync'd his cell phone/pda with Windows regularly using a proprietary, non-standard application for his job.
Maybe it's just me, but when a friend of mine asks me to help switch over to Linux, I suggest alternative applications that might be useful. For instance, I use jPilot to sync my Palm with my Linux box. This might be a "deal-breaker", but hey, that's life. You might as well me saying, "I want to switch to a Mac, but I'd rather use my MagicPhotoEditorForWindowsOnly application than Photoshop for OS X."
It's only natural that there will different applications for different platforms. If your friend wants to continue using all of his/her Windows applications, he/she might be better sticking with Windows.
My $0.02.
Well, to give an Example, i bought a Nokia 5100 with a propietary (didnt realise this when i was buying, so no flames please) data cable which ONLY works under windows, and only after installing the propietary Nokia drivers for this cable, because the stupid cable actually posessed an internal processing unit. Before this phone i used a Siemens ME45 - no problems there with syncing via (g)scmxx, and a friend used gnokii for his (older) nokia phone.
Sometimes, there isn't any viable alternative, now i only sync the bl**dy phone on the Win pc i have at work.
Sometimes, there isn't any viable alternative, now i only sync the bl**dy phone on the Win pc i have at work.
thank god for bluetooth standards. I started playing with my phone after getting a bluetooth adapter, and I had it up and running transferring files back and forth within a hour or so of playing (of course I was doing it the hard way on the cli, i know theres that gnome program to do it, but I like doing things the hard way) Anyways, now my cell phone is setup as a remote control for my computer, all using bluetooth. If your phone supports it, might want to look for a usb adapter on ebay or somewhere.
Lack of creative imagination on behalf of IT
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 05, 2005 03:43 AM
The "proprietary, non-standard application " should be served up on a terminal server anyway. with an
OpenVPN and a RDP client, this becomes
a non-issue.
In fact, this takes a huge burden off of IT/MIS
by removing yet another problem child (read windows
box) from the network.
Done.
OpenVPN and a RDP client, this becomes
a non-issue.
In fact, this takes a huge burden off of IT/MIS
by removing yet another problem child (read windows
box) from the network.
Done.
Your answer is most likely Multisync and/or gPilot (or something like it, it's a gnome program for syncing your palm).
I use multisync to sync contacts and my calendar between Evolution and my K700i.
I use multisync to sync contacts and my calendar between Evolution and my K700i.
What a nice article I was beginning to think that the Linux world was all zealots. It's nice to see sensible people and post for a change. I am a computer user, most of the time I use GNU/Linux but some times I use Widows it depends on what I need. I see no reason to waste time trying to configure Wine so I can say "I run Photoshop under GNU/Linux" when it runs perfectly well in Windows. I also see no need to spend 40+ dollars on an aplication to run MS programs under GNU/Linux when Windows is already installed amd I have already payed several hundred dollars on the OS and Program. Also I have tried various Distros and when you come right down to it their all the same in a sense that they all a have a desktop enviremont KDE or GNOME or whatever, and they all basically have the same programs. Open office, K3B,Evolution, a web browser, a text editor, etc. It all comes down to just your personal perference. Even if your more advanced and need a DHCP server or a Web server it's still Apache or whatever you choose. It doesn't matter what distro it sits upon.
I forgot to add that it all sits upon the 2.4 or the 2.6 kernel. which is actually the only Linux part.
Here is one thing that has gotten me accused of "constant fiddeling". Under Linux, each process is seperated from the others completely enough that it is reasonable to run many services on the same machine. That means that each time I configure a new service the way I want it I am going back to that same machine. A lot of people have a hard time realizing that I am not going back to the same thing and adjusting it again. The windows mentality of one machine-one job is easier for observers to comprehend, even if it costs more time to maintain.
``The windows mentality of one machine-one job is easier for observers to comprehend, even if it costs more time to maintain.''
And it'll cost more to operate and will eventually wind up being a roadblock to future system rollouts. We have several data centers at work that are maxed out on space and power because of the proliferation of Windows systems that are unable to walk and chew gum at the same time. There are large databases that are going to be unable to grow because these damned Windows systems have consumed all the available power and we cannot install another storage array. Oddly it's only now that the data centers are completely full that the Windows admins start noticing a problem when application architects specify configurations that need a half dozen web servers (IIS, of course) with each running on its own system.
... but to my knowledge MEPIS includes some non-free code and should therefore not be called "GNU/Linux based"(My computers currently run MEPIS, a Debian-based GNU/Linux distribution). Please correct me if I am wrong.
GNU/Linux based means that it has a linux kernel in there some where and any changes to opensource modules will be published.
This does not stop commerical code being mixed with it. Just a miss understanding of the terms.
Basicly all based on means is that sections from that distro/system are included. If windows was opensource I could package it with other software and say that it was based on windows.
This does not stop commerical code being mixed with it. Just a miss understanding of the terms.
Basicly all based on means is that sections from that distro/system are included. If windows was opensource I could package it with other software and say that it was based on windows.
GNU/Linux does not mean it has the Linux kernel and any changes will be published. What it means is that much of the environment was originally built for the GNU OS and that it uses the Linux kernel. Yes, the Linux kernel and all the GNU utilities are released under the GPL and any changes made will be published, but that is not why we call it GNU/Linux.
Technically, because those components are released under the GPL, any changes to them have to be published... it's enforced by the GPL. If you don't publish your changes, you can't redistribute them.
To quote myself:
Yes, the Linux kernel and all the GNU utilities are released under the GPL and any changes made will be published, but that is not why we call it GNU/Linux.
Yes, the Linux kernel and all the GNU utilities are released under the GPL and any changes made will be published, but that is not why we call it GNU/Linux.
This is true but not verbose enough for my liking it makes more sense if you put it this way
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system (18k characters) every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is more often known as ``Linux'', and many users are not aware of the extent of its connection with the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is not the operating system. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as its kernel.
Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call ``Linux''. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't promote understanding. These users often think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in 1991, with a bit of help.
Programmers generally know that Linux is a kernel. But since they have generally heard the whole system called ``Linux'' as well, they often envisage a history that would justify naming the whole system after the kernel. For example, many believe that once Linus Torvalds finished writing Linux, the kernel, its users looked around for other free software to go with it, and found that (for no particular reason) most everything necessary to make a Unix-like system was already available.
What they found was no accident--it was the GNU system. The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. The GNU Manifesto (31k characters) had set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system, called GNU. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also outlines some of the original plans for the GNU system. By the time Linux was written, the system was almost finished.
Most free software projects have the goal of developing a particular program for a particular job. For example, Linus Torvalds set out to write a Unix-like kernel (Linux); Donald Knuth set out to write a text formatter (TeX); Bob Scheifler set out to develop a window system (the X Window system). It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.
If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ``GNU''.
But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.
Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting (1) components because you can't have a system without them. Some of our system components, the programming tools, became popular on their own among programmers, but we wrote many components that are not tools (2). We even developed a chess game, GNU Chess, because a complete system needs good games too.
By the early 90s we had put together the whole system aside from the kernel (and we were also working on a kernel, the GNU Hurd, which runs on top of Mach). Developing this kernel has been a lot harder than we expected; the GNU Hurd started working reliably in 2001. We're now starting to prepare the actual release of the GNU system, with the GNU Hurd.
Fortunately, you didn't have to wait for the Hurd, because Linux was available. When Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, he filled the last major gap. People could then put Linux together with the GNU system to make a complete free system: a Linux-based version of the GNU system; the GNU/Linux system, for short. The earliest Linux release notes recognized that Linux was a kernel, used with parts of GNU: "Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info."
Putting them together sounds simple, but it was not a trivial job. Some GNU components(3) needed substantial change to work with Linux. Integrating a complete system as a distribution that would work ``out of the box'' was a big job, too. It required addressing the issue of how to install and boot the system--a problem we had not tackled, because we hadn't yet reached that point. The people who developed the various system distributions made a substantial contribution.
The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as the GNU system--even with funds. We funded the rewriting of the Linux-related extensions to the GNU C library, so that now they are well integrated, and the newest GNU/Linux systems use the current library release with no changes. We also funded an early stage of the development of Debian GNU/Linux.
We use Linux-based GNU systems today for most of our work, and we hope you use them too. But please don't confuse the public by using the name ``Linux'' ambiguously. Linux is the kernel, one of the essential major components of the system. The system as a whole is more or less the GNU system, with Linux added. When you're talking about this combination, please call it ``GNU/Linux''.
If you want to make a link on ``GNU/Linux'' for further reference, this page and http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html are good choices. If you mention Linux, the kernel, and want to add a link for further reference, http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?Linu<nobr>x<wbr></nobr> is a good URL to use.
Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.
[If you would like to learn more about this issue, you can also read our GNU/Linux FAQ.]
Notes:
1. These unexciting but essential components include the GNU assembler, GAS and the linker, GLD, both are now part of the GNU Binutils package, GNU tar, and more.
2. For instance, The Bourne Again SHell (BASH), the PostScript interpreter Ghostscript, and the GNU C library are not programming tools. Neither are GNUCash, GNOME, and GNU Chess.
3. For instance, the GNU C library.
Translations of this page:
[ Català | 简体中文 | 繁體中文 | Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Polski | Português | Românã | Русский | Srpsko-Hrvatski | Slovensko ]
Return to the GNU Project home page.
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to gnu@gnu.org. There are also other ways to contact the FSF.
Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to webmasters@gnu.org.
Please see the Translations README for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.
Copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Richard M. Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Updated: $Date: 2004/07/12 11:25:13 $ $Author: leugimap $
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system (18k characters) every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is more often known as ``Linux'', and many users are not aware of the extent of its connection with the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is not the operating system. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in a combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU, with Linux functioning as its kernel.
Many users are not fully aware of the distinction between the kernel, which is Linux, and the whole system, which they also call ``Linux''. The ambiguous use of the name doesn't promote understanding. These users often think that Linus Torvalds developed the whole operating system in 1991, with a bit of help.
Programmers generally know that Linux is a kernel. But since they have generally heard the whole system called ``Linux'' as well, they often envisage a history that would justify naming the whole system after the kernel. For example, many believe that once Linus Torvalds finished writing Linux, the kernel, its users looked around for other free software to go with it, and found that (for no particular reason) most everything necessary to make a Unix-like system was already available.
What they found was no accident--it was the GNU system. The available free software added up to a complete system because the GNU Project had been working since 1984 to make one. The GNU Manifesto (31k characters) had set forth the goal of developing a free Unix-like system, called GNU. The Initial Announcement of the GNU Project also outlines some of the original plans for the GNU system. By the time Linux was written, the system was almost finished.
Most free software projects have the goal of developing a particular program for a particular job. For example, Linus Torvalds set out to write a Unix-like kernel (Linux); Donald Knuth set out to write a text formatter (TeX); Bob Scheifler set out to develop a window system (the X Window system). It's natural to measure the contribution of this kind of project by specific programs that came from the project.
If we tried to measure the GNU Project's contribution in this way, what would we conclude? One CD-ROM vendor found that in their ``Linux distribution'', GNU software was the largest single contingent, around 28% of the total source code, and this included some of the essential major components without which there could be no system. Linux itself was about 3%. So if you were going to pick a name for the system based on who wrote the programs in the system, the most appropriate single choice would be ``GNU''.
But we don't think that is the right way to consider the question. The GNU Project was not, is not, a project to develop specific software packages. It was not a project to develop a C compiler, although we did. It was not a project to develop a text editor, although we developed one. The GNU Project's aim was to develop a complete free Unix-like system: GNU.
Many people have made major contributions to the free software in the system, and they all deserve credit. But the reason it is an integrated system--and not just a collection of useful programs--is because the GNU Project set out to make it one. We made a list of the programs needed to make a complete free system, and we systematically found, wrote, or found people to write everything on the list. We wrote essential but unexciting (1) components because you can't have a system without them. Some of our system components, the programming tools, became popular on their own among programmers, but we wrote many components that are not tools (2). We even developed a chess game, GNU Chess, because a complete system needs good games too.
By the early 90s we had put together the whole system aside from the kernel (and we were also working on a kernel, the GNU Hurd, which runs on top of Mach). Developing this kernel has been a lot harder than we expected; the GNU Hurd started working reliably in 2001. We're now starting to prepare the actual release of the GNU system, with the GNU Hurd.
Fortunately, you didn't have to wait for the Hurd, because Linux was available. When Linus Torvalds wrote Linux, he filled the last major gap. People could then put Linux together with the GNU system to make a complete free system: a Linux-based version of the GNU system; the GNU/Linux system, for short. The earliest Linux release notes recognized that Linux was a kernel, used with parts of GNU: "Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info."
Putting them together sounds simple, but it was not a trivial job. Some GNU components(3) needed substantial change to work with Linux. Integrating a complete system as a distribution that would work ``out of the box'' was a big job, too. It required addressing the issue of how to install and boot the system--a problem we had not tackled, because we hadn't yet reached that point. The people who developed the various system distributions made a substantial contribution.
The GNU Project supports GNU/Linux systems as well as the GNU system--even with funds. We funded the rewriting of the Linux-related extensions to the GNU C library, so that now they are well integrated, and the newest GNU/Linux systems use the current library release with no changes. We also funded an early stage of the development of Debian GNU/Linux.
We use Linux-based GNU systems today for most of our work, and we hope you use them too. But please don't confuse the public by using the name ``Linux'' ambiguously. Linux is the kernel, one of the essential major components of the system. The system as a whole is more or less the GNU system, with Linux added. When you're talking about this combination, please call it ``GNU/Linux''.
If you want to make a link on ``GNU/Linux'' for further reference, this page and http://www.gnu.org/gnu/the-gnu-project.html are good choices. If you mention Linux, the kernel, and want to add a link for further reference, http://foldoc.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?Linu<nobr>x<wbr></nobr> is a good URL to use.
Addendum: Aside from GNU, one other project has independently produced a free Unix-like operating system. This system is known as BSD, and it was developed at UC Berkeley. It was non-free in the 80s, but became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a version of GNU, like GNU/Linux. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped persuade them, but the code had little overlap with GNU. BSD systems today use some GNU programs, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, and a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.
[If you would like to learn more about this issue, you can also read our GNU/Linux FAQ.]
Notes:
1. These unexciting but essential components include the GNU assembler, GAS and the linker, GLD, both are now part of the GNU Binutils package, GNU tar, and more.
2. For instance, The Bourne Again SHell (BASH), the PostScript interpreter Ghostscript, and the GNU C library are not programming tools. Neither are GNUCash, GNOME, and GNU Chess.
3. For instance, the GNU C library.
Translations of this page:
[ Català | 简体中文 | 繁體中文 | Česky | Deutsch | English | Español | Français | עברית | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Polski | Português | Românã | Русский | Srpsko-Hrvatski | Slovensko ]
Return to the GNU Project home page.
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to gnu@gnu.org. There are also other ways to contact the FSF.
Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to webmasters@gnu.org.
Please see the Translations README for information on coordinating and submitting translations of this article.
Copyright (C) 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 Richard M. Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Updated: $Date: 2004/07/12 11:25:13 $ $Author: leugimap $
Yes, but if you put it that way nobody reads it because its too long for them. Mine was the condensed version.
Thanks for the explanation, but I still am confused. GNU implies free software, correct? MEPIS includes non-free software. Then, why should it be called a GNU/Linux distribution? Is this not one situation in which the distro should be called with only "Linux" (because of the kernel) or simply "MEPIS distro"? I find this important because when I first heared of MEPIS I ordered a copy from CheapBytes only to discover that the thing was non-free and it really bothered me. MEPIS is not free, but it hides this fact well and even an email to the creator/maintainer resulted in a very ambiguous answer with comments about the fact that "MEPIS was not for GPL zealots". It seems to me that by calling MEPIS a "GNU/Linux distro" we are giving it an essential quality it does not have: being free software (which is really a sad irony considering that the MEPIS, really West Virginia's, motto is Montani Semper Liberi roughly: mountain people are always free)
Calling it GNU/Linux, just means that there are GNU tools such as ls, cd, gcc, bash, and what not.
If you really want something free, then go get Debian or the download edition of Mandrake-Linux.
If you really want something free, then go get Debian or the download edition of Mandrake-Linux.
Sorry but I tryed to keep my responce simple
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 06, 2005 07:11 AM
GNU/Linux normally means the Kernel Plus Gnu OS parts what do you call a GNU parts? Could be just the libc ie GNU libc or the rm command.
GNU/Linux based means that it has a linux kernel in there some where and any changes to opensource modules will be published somewhere.
This is the problem history is right but todays usage does not match.
Now sometimes just the Kernel will be called GNU/Linux. I have seen this on embed devices.
So they only thing you can Expect from the Term GNU/Linux is that there is a Linux Kernel there and any changes to the opensource modules in the kernel will be published. There could be a closed source module being used with the kernel and you will not see that source code.
So I give how it is used now not the history. The history is pointless if the term is not being used that way. Bit like using the word fagot to mean a bundle of sticks yep people don't use it that way theses days.
GNU/Linux based means that it has a linux kernel in there some where and any changes to opensource modules will be published somewhere.
Please note the Opensource modules of the linux kernel ie they will be GPL or some other licence requiring Source code I said this a verry partical way.
This is the problem history is right but todays usage does not match.
Now sometimes just the Kernel will be called GNU/Linux. I have seen this on embed devices.
So they only thing you can Expect from the Term GNU/Linux is that there is a Linux Kernel there and any changes to the opensource modules in the kernel will be published. There could be a closed source module being used with the kernel and you will not see that source code.
So I give how it is used now not the history. The history is pointless if the term is not being used that way. Bit like using the word fagot to mean a bundle of sticks yep people don't use it that way theses days.
I never heard of this ned for constant tweaking of the Linux machines until Roblimo mentioned it. I tweak, but that's because I am a security guy. Frankly, Linux is less demanding in terms of CPU cycles and RAM than Windows, so having to tweak for performance is not a huge issue. If people are not tweking for performace, and they are generally not tweaking for security, then what are they tweaking for? Is it a compulsion, a nervous disorder, a mental issue, a tic?
A compulsion, perhaps. Certainly not a disorder, any sort of negative mental issue, or a "tic" as you put it. Its called learning. When you fool with things and have to fix them, you learn.
It's Gentoo users who tweak (no pun intended)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 04, 2005 07:26 PM
Gentoo users tweak everything for performance and stability. Everything must be built from source with compilation options made for the processor architecture. ( Of course they also have prebuilt tuned binaries as well to reduce the endless days of compiling )
Here's an interesting site, dedicated to Gentoo users:
http://funroll-loops.org/
Gentoo users just compile code. They are not constructive by rewriting the code for performance and contributing it back to the community.
Only a few things that make your system slow: lack of ram, poor video drivers, and hard disk access.
I don't use Gentoo. I can admit I have tweaked for speed. I recompiled Fedora source RPMS for the frequently used programs I run: Firefox, Linux kernel, Xorg, and GNOME. (Fedora is already optimized for P4 processors) That is as far as I will go. Performance difference is ok.
I also rewrote the boot process to boot from power on to GNOME in under 20 seconds (P4 1.8Ghz Laptop) and no services turned off, using IBM's paralellism recommendation.
Tunning is for Geeks. Tunning everything is for the obsessive.
Here's an interesting site, dedicated to Gentoo users:
http://funroll-loops.org/
Gentoo users just compile code. They are not constructive by rewriting the code for performance and contributing it back to the community.
Only a few things that make your system slow: lack of ram, poor video drivers, and hard disk access.
I don't use Gentoo. I can admit I have tweaked for speed. I recompiled Fedora source RPMS for the frequently used programs I run: Firefox, Linux kernel, Xorg, and GNOME. (Fedora is already optimized for P4 processors) That is as far as I will go. Performance difference is ok.
I also rewrote the boot process to boot from power on to GNOME in under 20 seconds (P4 1.8Ghz Laptop) and no services turned off, using IBM's paralellism recommendation.
Tunning is for Geeks. Tunning everything is for the obsessive.
Re:It's Gentoo users who tweak (no pun intended)
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 05, 2005 08:42 AMGentoo users just compile code. They are not constructive by rewriting the code for performance and contributing it back to the community.
That's crap. A lot of gentoo users give back to the community. There are actually some very good tools for gentoo that users have written. Gentoo users also run into more bugs because of their diverse setups and that helps the community to correct mistakes. Hell, I even rewrote a patch for Window Maker when I couldn't find one that worked with the new version, so don't give me any crap about not giving back to the community.
Good article, points well made.
However, it's worth considering if some users fiddle with Linux in order to overcome some of its shortcomings.
For example, I use Gentoo, because it was the first distribution I found that overcame dependency hell and was generally good, not because I care about my compiler settings (which are all set to defaults).
However, getting the required usability takes fiddling. Take USB storage devices. On Windows, you just plug them in and go to My Computer. On Gentoo, I had to install hotplug and coldplug and fiddle with some scripts and mount points. Every time the memory stick reader is plugged in, it becomes a different device (/dev/sda1,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdb1 etc). It's basically tricky, and took "tweaking" to solve.
Knoppix is better, but the device names shown on the desktop are not user friendly (/dev/sda1 used instead of the USB device name, which IS available), and if the memory stick reader is not present at boot time, no desktop icon appears - so again I have to tweak.
To summarise this example:
Gentoo - works only after much tweaking
Knoppix - sort of works, but needs tweaking
Windows - just works
Maybe other distributions work better out of the box, and maybe they don't have perverse problems with Windows file sharing, printing, mounting CDs, burning DVDs or sound device permissions when 2 users are logged in (user switching).
But the fact is, even though I like Linux, you have to tweak it to get the same level of usability as Windows.
I don't like to tweak the OS, I prefer to vent my technical enthusiasm creating websites or databases. On Windows, I change a few simple desktop settings but on Linux I need to tweak like mad before it's comfortable.
However, it's worth considering if some users fiddle with Linux in order to overcome some of its shortcomings.
For example, I use Gentoo, because it was the first distribution I found that overcame dependency hell and was generally good, not because I care about my compiler settings (which are all set to defaults).
However, getting the required usability takes fiddling. Take USB storage devices. On Windows, you just plug them in and go to My Computer. On Gentoo, I had to install hotplug and coldplug and fiddle with some scripts and mount points. Every time the memory stick reader is plugged in, it becomes a different device (/dev/sda1,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdb1 etc). It's basically tricky, and took "tweaking" to solve.
Knoppix is better, but the device names shown on the desktop are not user friendly (/dev/sda1 used instead of the USB device name, which IS available), and if the memory stick reader is not present at boot time, no desktop icon appears - so again I have to tweak.
To summarise this example:
Gentoo - works only after much tweaking
Knoppix - sort of works, but needs tweaking
Windows - just works
Maybe other distributions work better out of the box, and maybe they don't have perverse problems with Windows file sharing, printing, mounting CDs, burning DVDs or sound device permissions when 2 users are logged in (user switching).
But the fact is, even though I like Linux, you have to tweak it to get the same level of usability as Windows.
I don't like to tweak the OS, I prefer to vent my technical enthusiasm creating websites or databases. On Windows, I change a few simple desktop settings but on Linux I need to tweak like mad before it's comfortable.
loved the article, and i have a workstation running linux
but i definately agree with the post above... linux isn't quite desktop ready yet (sorry)
but i definately agree with the post above... linux isn't quite desktop ready yet (sorry)
Windows doesn't just work, especially not with removable drives. In fact, I've had many bizzare things happen under windows over the years with removable drives that lost data and cost me hours of work time. The fun thing is when windows just fails to see a drive at all. Plug and pray in full effect. And there is no way to fix it other than formatting the drive and reinstalling windows. A technique that I was told to do 1000 times by microsoft support.
I'm sure if Windows failed to see a drive I could fix it without having to reinstall the OS. Most likely if you removed the Drivers for the USB cards do a reboot let windows find the new hardware it would fix the problem. I'm not saying this is a definate fix but I would give a try. Telling clients to do a full reinstall is a standared practice of MS. Thats when I usually hang up and find a solution on my own.
I agree in order to get Linux to work it does take some tweaking of the system. I feel this is one reason Linux has still not caught on. You still need a bit of computer literacy to get a Linux system to do a lot of the stuff Windows does out of the box. Multi media for instance. Using a system like Fedora even compounds the problem as no propriatary software is included. Some distros like Mandrake will play DVD's and MP3 out of the box others won't. Back to the USB issue, Project utopia ia a wonderful addition to Linux it is included in Ubuntu and picks up usb drives as quickly as any windows box that I ever used.
Great article.
I dont think your quite right as to using the term 'tweaking' here, with the USB devices, and hotplug/coldplug with Gentoo. Seeing as Gentoo is a 'do it yourself' type distro, your USB issue could be construed as a setup/'new hardware' issue, especially since Gentoo doesnt 'ship in a box' you build it yourself. I personally use Slackware, and have a server with a current uptime of 430+ days, that does USB, and whatever else I need/want it to, because I configured it from the start to do those things, the only tweaking I do with it is the firewall rules, and patch/upgrade apache/php/ssh to keep the box secure, all done without taking down anything.
To make a long story short, if its setup like you want it from the start, there is no need to tweak it afterwards, other than security upgrades. I almost want to say its the same for MS based OSes too, but in my lifetime of using computers, I've had MS based OSes loose more data, and cause more headaches then GNU Linux OSes(I've used MS based OSes for close to 6 years, and GNU Linux OSes for almost 8)
The thing about 'tweaking' is most MS OS tweaks, require a machine reboot, not a start|stop|restart of a process.
Enough of my ramblings.
inv|s|ble
I dont think your quite right as to using the term 'tweaking' here, with the USB devices, and hotplug/coldplug with Gentoo. Seeing as Gentoo is a 'do it yourself' type distro, your USB issue could be construed as a setup/'new hardware' issue, especially since Gentoo doesnt 'ship in a box' you build it yourself. I personally use Slackware, and have a server with a current uptime of 430+ days, that does USB, and whatever else I need/want it to, because I configured it from the start to do those things, the only tweaking I do with it is the firewall rules, and patch/upgrade apache/php/ssh to keep the box secure, all done without taking down anything.
To make a long story short, if its setup like you want it from the start, there is no need to tweak it afterwards, other than security upgrades. I almost want to say its the same for MS based OSes too, but in my lifetime of using computers, I've had MS based OSes loose more data, and cause more headaches then GNU Linux OSes(I've used MS based OSes for close to 6 years, and GNU Linux OSes for almost 8)
The thing about 'tweaking' is most MS OS tweaks, require a machine reboot, not a start|stop|restart of a process.
Enough of my ramblings.
inv|s|ble
After a install find my Nvidia drivers install them get all the god dam updates then I might have a working system. That is right from time to time Windows updates take out software that was working.
Most linux stuff is tweak once and away you go. Windows can be tweak once dam Windows let the tweak stick tweak again and again until it decides to get along.
Gentoo - works only after much tweaking
Knoppix - sort of works, but needs tweaking
Hmm most time Knoppix just works.
Gentoo is ment to be tweakers heven.(ie if was as good as window you would be suprised.)
Suse and Mandrake come in the windows level I would choose Suse if I had to ie it is better.
Debian is developing this way.
Fedora forget it unless you expect in download and install extra packages to give back media options.
Choose the correct distro picking Tweakers OS to compare to windows is like comparing Kit to build Viper to a Doge Viper(I have miss spelt the company name) They are both Viper class cars but you will take a lot more time to drive off in the Kit to Build a Viper.
Most linux stuff is tweak once and away you go. Windows can be tweak once dam Windows let the tweak stick tweak again and again until it decides to get along.
Gentoo - works only after much tweaking
Knoppix - sort of works, but needs tweaking
Hmm most time Knoppix just works.
Gentoo is ment to be tweakers heven.(ie if was as good as window you would be suprised.)
Suse and Mandrake come in the windows level I would choose Suse if I had to ie it is better.
Debian is developing this way.
Fedora forget it unless you expect in download and install extra packages to give back media options.
Choose the correct distro picking Tweakers OS to compare to windows is like comparing Kit to build Viper to a Doge Viper(I have miss spelt the company name) They are both Viper class cars but you will take a lot more time to drive off in the Kit to Build a Viper.
For example, I use Gentoo, because it was the first distribution I found that overcame dependency hell and was generally good, not because I care about my compiler settings (which are all set to defaults).
Well, the problem is that to overcome one problem, you went to a do-it-yourself distro. Gentoo is only a few steps away from Linux From Scratch.
You might also have checked out apt for the RedHat-based distros (especially Fedora Core). It solves "dependency hell", but requires one rpm download to install (as of FC1, this may have changed since they've moved on to FC2 and FC3). Debian-based distros (e.g. Ubuntu) come with apt already installed, which also gets around dependency hell quite nicely, as many debian users will attest (iirc, apt debuted in Debian). Additionally, yum is available if you don't like apt.
However, getting the required usability takes fiddling. Take USB storage devices. On Windows, you just plug them in and go to My Computer. On Gentoo, I had to install hotplug and coldplug and fiddle with some scripts and mount points. Every time the memory stick reader is plugged in, it becomes a different device (/dev/sda1,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/sdb1 etc). It's basically tricky, and took "tweaking" to solve.
End-user distros take care of all this for you. Since you're using a do-it-yourself distro, you're expected to, well, do it yourself. With modern casual-user distros, it's very much plug-n-play. Even better than under Windows, if the device is standards-compliant or has supported the linux developers.
Since you're using gentoo, you're expected to take care of all this yourself. I'd recommend googling for writing udev rules for solving the device naming problem--you'll be able to assign classes of hardware to certain device names, and you will be able to assign certain specific pieces of hardware to other names. It's a highly flexible system (you can even assign network devices names!) The rest of the problem is a matter of coldplug/hotplug + hald (the hal package) + magicdev (if you're a gnome user).
I'd say the biggest tweaking problem for Linux are the following:
- Software patents or onerous licensing conditions blocking packages from being installed by default and hence limiting out-of-the-box functionality (e.g. MP3, MPEG, WindowsMedia, QuickTime, CSS)
- The stupid ATI & NVidia drivers
- Oh, and stupid distros that don't include a full dependency-checking package installation meta-system (examples of these systems being yum and apt).
While the nvidia drivers work well and aren't that hard to install, it'd be nice if they were in the box and worked with the packaging system 100%. The ATI drivers, well, are pure crap no matter how you slice it.
Good points there, although I believe Gentoo does aim to make life easy and not *require* tweaking. Perhaps I'm wrong.
When it comes to the commercial distributions, I moved from Mandrake to Gentoo a couple of years back because the latter was such a let-down. Their setup tools were buggy as hell and the 6-month release cycle effectively needed a full system install to keep up-to-date (yes, this is important, as I learned when my old Red Hat got hacked).
Debian is ok, but not much easier to set up than Gentoo, and hopelessly out-of-date (though maybe unstable would be usable for me).
Perhaps some of the newer distros like Xandros are worth trying, but the upgrade path worries me. I don't want to upgrade more than once per 18 months, and I suspect going it alone with apt will result in a system that ultimately needs as much tweaking as Debian to keep things working through various KDE, X releases etc.
So back to my original point, a lot tweaking is needed in a lot of situations with Linux, and to avoid that might involve trading off other advantages (cost, release cycle etc.)
Not saying Windows is perfect, but the comparison is there nevertheless.
When it comes to the commercial distributions, I moved from Mandrake to Gentoo a couple of years back because the latter was such a let-down. Their setup tools were buggy as hell and the 6-month release cycle effectively needed a full system install to keep up-to-date (yes, this is important, as I learned when my old Red Hat got hacked).
Debian is ok, but not much easier to set up than Gentoo, and hopelessly out-of-date (though maybe unstable would be usable for me).
Perhaps some of the newer distros like Xandros are worth trying, but the upgrade path worries me. I don't want to upgrade more than once per 18 months, and I suspect going it alone with apt will result in a system that ultimately needs as much tweaking as Debian to keep things working through various KDE, X releases etc.
So back to my original point, a lot tweaking is needed in a lot of situations with Linux, and to avoid that might involve trading off other advantages (cost, release cycle etc.)
Not saying Windows is perfect, but the comparison is there nevertheless.
I won't comment on Mandrake, since I've not used it.
yeah, most people who want to use it for a workstation end up using testing or even unstable, for that reason.
You don't have to upgrade if you don't want to. You will need to keep checking for security updates, but you won't need to dink with X and KDE and such, as they won't release new major versions without releasing a new distro (they may not release even new minor releases, and simply backport bugfixes). If you don't upgrade, you will have a stable system as long as you want--I know of people who still use Red Hat 7!
Debian is ok, but not much easier to set up than Gentoo, and hopelessly out-of-date (though maybe unstable would be usable for me).
yeah, most people who want to use it for a workstation end up using testing or even unstable, for that reason.
I don't want to upgrade more than once per 18 months, and I suspect going it alone with apt will result in a system that ultimately needs as much tweaking as Debian to keep things working through various KDE, X releases etc.
You don't have to upgrade if you don't want to. You will need to keep checking for security updates, but you won't need to dink with X and KDE and such, as they won't release new major versions without releasing a new distro (they may not release even new minor releases, and simply backport bugfixes). If you don't upgrade, you will have a stable system as long as you want--I know of people who still use Red Hat 7!
"If you don't upgrade, you will have a stable system as long as you want--I know of people who still use Red Hat 7!"
What if I want to upgrade? This is not the same as tweaking.
I did not have a DVD writer or memory stick reader when RH7 was out. Nor did I have a flat panel monitor (even this upgrade took a bit of X tweaking). I don't have to get the very latest KDE release but I would not still want to be with KDE 2.x or 3.0 because they are not as good as KDE 3.3 or (IMHO) Windows XP.
Another example: media players. These have improved greatly in the past couple of years, and new formats come out. It would not be nice to get left behind.
How about remote desktop connections? KDE doesn't come with something as easy to use and fast as Windows Remote Desktop (as implemented on Win XP & above). I would really want the improved functionality if KDE had something better built in. Not the very second it comes out, but not wanting to wait for the next reinstall either.
No, I realise that upgrading too quickly is best left to users who enjoy tweaking, but not upgrading much at all is still a compromise that I would be making to avoid tweaking.
In many ways Linux has an advantage over Windows, because the upgrade path for Windows is quite limited. However, without ease of use (non-tweaking), that advantage is lost to most people.
What if I want to upgrade? This is not the same as tweaking.
I did not have a DVD writer or memory stick reader when RH7 was out. Nor did I have a flat panel monitor (even this upgrade took a bit of X tweaking). I don't have to get the very latest KDE release but I would not still want to be with KDE 2.x or 3.0 because they are not as good as KDE 3.3 or (IMHO) Windows XP.
Another example: media players. These have improved greatly in the past couple of years, and new formats come out. It would not be nice to get left behind.
How about remote desktop connections? KDE doesn't come with something as easy to use and fast as Windows Remote Desktop (as implemented on Win XP & above). I would really want the improved functionality if KDE had something better built in. Not the very second it comes out, but not wanting to wait for the next reinstall either.
No, I realise that upgrading too quickly is best left to users who enjoy tweaking, but not upgrading much at all is still a compromise that I would be making to avoid tweaking.
In many ways Linux has an advantage over Windows, because the upgrade path for Windows is quite limited. However, without ease of use (non-tweaking), that advantage is lost to most people.
I understand what your saying. I personally use Slackware. I use it as a desktop and as a server. I am majorly one of those "tweakers". Its not really me trying to bleed performance from my OS, just more of trying out different settings to make things easier or more comfortable. But I can tell you that once I have a box setup I don't really mess with it too much after that.
I keep a copy of all my most important conf files and all my self compiled slackware binary packages along with a copy of my home directory backed up on a DVD and only the conf files and home dir backed up on my servers. I like messing with stuff as much as the next person but sometimes I do want things to "just work". But One thing I have found from using linux over the years is that once things do work, they ALWAYS work. I wish I could say the same for windows. One day your printing, next day nothing. Same with video drivers, usb, scanners, wireless drivers are especially horrible. Windows is so sporadic in it's decisions to become unstable that it just gets plain annoying. For me a once a month reinstall of Windows XP is a must if you want the system to act the same and run at the same performance. I can install a linux distro and keep it updated and not have to reinstall it every other week because it's decided all of a sudden it wants to take a crap on me. And if it does, it was usually always something abnormal I did to it. Which I accept. But when an OS just up and starts running like it's a 486 with 8 megs ram, thats just retarded. Especially when I have an AMD 64 3200+ and 1 gig ram. I mean how much of a system do I have to have before windows says, "OK, this is good, I'll run right.". Windows isn't even close to a multi-tasking OS. I mean really come on. On my slackware box I usually have a kernel compiling, another app or two compiling, email, aim, a konsole with probably 5-6 tabs, konqueror with usually 10+ tabs open, xmms playing, or I'm watching a DVD on my TV that is hooked up through tv-out completely without skipping a single frame. Sometimes I don't even realize that I have so much stuff open. I just get busy working and everything adapts to me as I work. Which is what an OS *should* do. I shouldn't have to wait for it to decide if it wants to open up an app or just flake out and take a dump. But maybe that's just me. I do/did spend alot of time making sure that my hardware works with linux and that it's stable. And yes, like I said at the beginning I do tweak, but it didn't take barely any to get my system to where it is. In fact I could use it out of the box and it would act the exact same way.
Oh well, I'm just rambling now.
Oh and I hope the parent does take this as me attacking them. I'm just making a point. I forgot what it was at about paragraph 3 but oh well.
Oh and plz don't take this as some anti-MS linux zealot's crazy ranting. I am just giving my personal thoughts and experiences from dealing with both OS's for many many years.
I keep a copy of all my most important conf files and all my self compiled slackware binary packages along with a copy of my home directory backed up on a DVD and only the conf files and home dir backed up on my servers. I like messing with stuff as much as the next person but sometimes I do want things to "just work". But One thing I have found from using linux over the years is that once things do work, they ALWAYS work. I wish I could say the same for windows. One day your printing, next day nothing. Same with video drivers, usb, scanners, wireless drivers are especially horrible. Windows is so sporadic in it's decisions to become unstable that it just gets plain annoying. For me a once a month reinstall of Windows XP is a must if you want the system to act the same and run at the same performance. I can install a linux distro and keep it updated and not have to reinstall it every other week because it's decided all of a sudden it wants to take a crap on me. And if it does, it was usually always something abnormal I did to it. Which I accept. But when an OS just up and starts running like it's a 486 with 8 megs ram, thats just retarded. Especially when I have an AMD 64 3200+ and 1 gig ram. I mean how much of a system do I have to have before windows says, "OK, this is good, I'll run right.". Windows isn't even close to a multi-tasking OS. I mean really come on. On my slackware box I usually have a kernel compiling, another app or two compiling, email, aim, a konsole with probably 5-6 tabs, konqueror with usually 10+ tabs open, xmms playing, or I'm watching a DVD on my TV that is hooked up through tv-out completely without skipping a single frame. Sometimes I don't even realize that I have so much stuff open. I just get busy working and everything adapts to me as I work. Which is what an OS *should* do. I shouldn't have to wait for it to decide if it wants to open up an app or just flake out and take a dump. But maybe that's just me. I do/did spend alot of time making sure that my hardware works with linux and that it's stable. And yes, like I said at the beginning I do tweak, but it didn't take barely any to get my system to where it is. In fact I could use it out of the box and it would act the exact same way.
Oh well, I'm just rambling now.
Oh and I hope the parent does take this as me attacking them. I'm just making a point. I forgot what it was at about paragraph 3 but oh well.
Oh and plz don't take this as some anti-MS linux zealot's crazy ranting. I am just giving my personal thoughts and experiences from dealing with both OS's for many many years.
Oh on the above post that was really really really long, I meant "doesn't" instead of "does" at the end there. sorry.
Yeah, Windows "just works" - NOT!
I just spent TWO HOURS screwing around with my NORMAL user account courtesy of a Windows dialog that decided to somehow f*** the account up so that every reboot treated it as a NEW account - with newly loaded settings. After screwing around trying to figure out why it was doing this, I deleted the damn account and recreated it. Now it remembers my Profile correctly again.
When was the last time anybody had to do this on Linux?
Read my lips! Windows is unmitigated, insecure, unreliable, incompetently-designed-and-programmed, bloated, brain-dead EXPENSIVE CRAP!
If Bill Gates ever stands in front of me, I'm going to throw him a beating he'll never forget!
Linux may be crap as well, but at least it's FREE crap!
I just spent TWO HOURS screwing around with my NORMAL user account courtesy of a Windows dialog that decided to somehow f*** the account up so that every reboot treated it as a NEW account - with newly loaded settings. After screwing around trying to figure out why it was doing this, I deleted the damn account and recreated it. Now it remembers my Profile correctly again.
When was the last time anybody had to do this on Linux?
Read my lips! Windows is unmitigated, insecure, unreliable, incompetently-designed-and-programmed, bloated, brain-dead EXPENSIVE CRAP!
If Bill Gates ever stands in front of me, I'm going to throw him a beating he'll never forget!
Linux may be crap as well, but at least it's FREE crap!
I'm a desktop GNU/Linux user. That is to say, when I settle down long enough to produce some work. I have found most of the popular distros are good to go right out of the box, for me, but tweaking is well, fun! I like being able to see the sources to all these programs, and modify things and see how they break or improve. I'm not a tech or a programmer; I save my work on another machine regularly and just have fun seeing what I can do with the OS Of The Week. Excellent article, by the way. - Sean J
It was pretty easy for me to setup in Gentoo. I just installed hotplug and udev. Then I made a file called 10-local.rules in the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/udev/rules.d/ directory and made a rule for my key drive. That's the trickiest part. It was in the forums though so I found it in a minute. Then all I did was make a symlink to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/usbkey so now my usb key drive shows up in the same place everytime. I have a mount point (in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc/fstab) for it in my home directory and ROX will automatically mount the drive when I click on the directory.
Windows on the other hand, will throw drives all over the place and I haven't had a single bit of luck with a storage device that has been removed without shutting the device down. Windows will do all sorts of things from corrupted the data on the disk to crashing Windows so badly that it needed to be reinstalled (I saw this happen last week). I have accidentely removed my key drive without unmounting it first and nothing bad happened. I just reinserted it and unmounted and it was fine.
Windows on the other hand, will throw drives all over the place and I haven't had a single bit of luck with a storage device that has been removed without shutting the device down. Windows will do all sorts of things from corrupted the data on the disk to crashing Windows so badly that it needed to be reinstalled (I saw this happen last week). I have accidentely removed my key drive without unmounting it first and nothing bad happened. I just reinserted it and unmounted and it was fine.
Useful info, thanks.
However, in the context of this debate, how could all those steps not be considered 'tweaking'?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Don't get me wrong, I agree a bit of tweaking is often better than certain other situations (e.g. your Windows problems), but tweaking it still is!
However, in the context of this debate, how could all those steps not be considered 'tweaking'?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)
Don't get me wrong, I agree a bit of tweaking is often better than certain other situations (e.g. your Windows problems), but tweaking it still is!
most commercial linux distros I use work out of the box. Yes, sometimes there are problems, but the advantage of linux is when you run into a problem, you can see whats going on and tweak to make it work. With windows, it's a guess and check game. When one runs into a problem on windows with a device, first thing most people do is remove device and reboot, if that doesn't work, the next step is usually to try a different driver, and if that doesn't work the next step is to start over, and that doesn't always fix it. With linux at least I can go to a forum, download patch, patch kernel, recompile, and see if the device works, without wiping out the entire installation. Even though it's not as graphical of a solution, I like it better than reinstall the os.
I haven't gotten a new Windows machine at work for two or three years now.
Thank goodness!
I got my previous two Windows machines about a year apart. It takes me about a day to set things up the way I like them, and then a week to figure out what I missed. I'm not as productive if I don't change so many of those stupid defaults, and they're hidden in gooeys all over the place.
Give me a new box first thing in the morning, and I'll have Linux installed on it with all my personal customizations by lunch. (Biggest delay there has been getting sound to work.)
When I was responsible for a couple dozen Linux boxes, it would take me 15-30 minutes to download a patch and push it out to all those boxes. Or in other words, about as long as it takes me to get Windows XP patches to download and install on one box.
Indeed. Look at all the time people spend twirling the settings on their desktops or "productivity" software over on That Other OS.
I think this is less a function of OS than of a widespread tendency to think that "look what I can do!" means we are accomplishing something.
I think this is less a function of OS than of a widespread tendency to think that "look what I can do!" means we are accomplishing something.
I think Microsoft got too greedy. However, application providers are not yet on board with adequate installation routines for Liinux versions of their applications.
Some very serious person at Macromedia tried to help me get FlashPlayer installed and running on Linux. As soon as I read the 'tar' command, my eyes glazed over. As an every day user of both Windows and Linux, it is easy to provide a comparison between those functions I use on both machines.
For example, Linux is more stable than Windows 98 or Windows ME ever hoped to be. However, far too many Linux packages must still be installed from the command line. Microsoft hasn't killed MSDOS yet (and probably never will), but Linux still celebrates the command line. I can assure you that until Macromedia makes installation changes that support GUI installation under Linux that I'll view startrek.com and other sites that require FlashPlayer only from Windows computers.
Yes, I do use the command line every day. I develop software using PHP every day. But, that does not mean I'm willing to accept having to work harder than Windows users to see startrek.com on my Linux box.
Another aspect in the Windows / Linux debate is the Samba product. I think that the Linux world is missing the boat in not featuring Samba. I've read all the documentation in the Fedora Core book. I've even gotten automatic samba updates via 'up2date' updates from RedHat. But, I haven't taken the time to figure out how to make it work. I've looked at every link on every GUI item from Accessories to Logout and I can't find any Samba information. Someone would have to pay me before I would figure out how to install, configure and use Samba from the command line.
However, if Samba played well in home networks and business networks with Windows boxes, I believe Microsoft would have to pull out the big guns. The bald guy and Gates are already concerned about Linux. If Samba made it easy - that means it would even be easier to migrate. I owned a software migration and conversion business for 20 years so I know a little bit about the issues involved.
Yes configuring samba from the config files is a pain in the ass However tools such as Webmin and Swat are making it easier.
mandrake comes with wizards to mount and export samba shares and wizards to configure samba printing servers and clients all quite easy to use.
both KDE and Gnome can browse samba/windows shares without any configuration required.
so obviously a major part of the difficulty in GNU/Linux is your wrong choice of a distro.
only thing missing is universal virtual file system support, at the moment if the app is not KDE or Gnome it will not understand samba URIs (openoffice for instance).
both KDE and Gnome can browse samba/windows shares without any configuration required.
so obviously a major part of the difficulty in GNU/Linux is your wrong choice of a distro.
only thing missing is universal virtual file system support, at the moment if the app is not KDE or Gnome it will not understand samba URIs (openoffice for instance).
What? I just installed a SuSE 9.1 box a few days ago. On the first login I was able to browse all my WindowsXP shared drives without configuring or installing anything.
I haven't exported any Samba shares from my SuSE box yet, but I already know how to do that (I did it under Red Hat 7.3). I don't know where you're looking, but I was able to find lots of Samba documentation no problem when I set up Samba on my Red Hat 7.3 box several years ago. For that I went directly to Red Hat's support site. There's a whole How-To available with everything you need to know. I had Windows looking at shared drives on my Red Hat box in about 20 minutes.
I haven't exported any Samba shares from my SuSE box yet, but I already know how to do that (I did it under Red Hat 7.3). I don't know where you're looking, but I was able to find lots of Samba documentation no problem when I set up Samba on my Red Hat 7.3 box several years ago. For that I went directly to Red Hat's support site. There's a whole How-To available with everything you need to know. I had Windows looking at shared drives on my Red Hat box in about 20 minutes.
for one, there are graphical tar utils, if i remember right, i though kpackage did that. two, i think flash is easier in linux than it is in windows. you put the flash so file in your plugins dir for your browser, and voila, you have flash. If you use the right utilities, tar can work just like zip files from a user perspective. For samba, the guy above is absolutely right, if you don't understand smb.conf use swat (i like smb.conf I think the syntax is very simple to understand. And to get a working one, it takes less than ten lines for a workstation) Also, try xandros. If your a gui person, xandros is just what you want. Yes, it costs money (I havent tried the free one not sure what the differences are minux crossover), but xandros comes with flash, and in xfm for samba, you can right click on any folder, click sharing, then give it a windows share name, and voila, it works.
The set of popular distros changes from year to year. For example, I hadn't even heard of Ubunto or Mepis until I read this article (I am a casual user of Linux and spend most of my time in Windows). This matters because companies like to standardize on a desktop environment with common install/upgrade and backup procedures, config scripts or admin dialogs, applications, etc. Makes tech support and administration much easier.
Red Hat still has the largest chunk of market share and Suse/Novell still is the #2 distro. However, that is all on its way to pointlessness as the linux standard base becomes a more widely accepted reference point. As version 2 of the LSB spec is being released, lsb.org is also releasing a distro that is exactly the reference -- nothing more and nothing less. This is a developers testbed linux, if the software he/she is developing will run on that, then it will run on any LSB 2.0 compliant distro.
All of your specific examples are actually admin issues and not desktop issues, so an awareness of the LSB spec by those admins should let them develop scripts that would run flawlessly on most of the distros you mentioned.
where the LSB is truly weak, there is a linux desktop consortium that is filling in many holes. Again, many of the distros you listed as "new" are derived from distros that are compliant -- or nearly so -- with the linux desktop consortium recomendations.
you will probably continue to see many distros with specific enhancements, but you should also see an increased commitment to follow the basics set out by the reference committies. So the variations should be less devestating than the changes that occured between windows 95 and windows XP.
All of your specific examples are actually admin issues and not desktop issues, so an awareness of the LSB spec by those admins should let them develop scripts that would run flawlessly on most of the distros you mentioned.
where the LSB is truly weak, there is a linux desktop consortium that is filling in many holes. Again, many of the distros you listed as "new" are derived from distros that are compliant -- or nearly so -- with the linux desktop consortium recomendations.
you will probably continue to see many distros with specific enhancements, but you should also see an increased commitment to follow the basics set out by the reference committies. So the variations should be less devestating than the changes that occured between windows 95 and windows XP.
mepis is close but no scsi support is a killer
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 04, 2005 01:02 PM
Mepis is all well and good but until it supports scsi boot I consider it a amature tool. All the best and fastest professional workstations are scsi based and unfortunately I cannot load mepis on them...darn shame since it is the best distro that unfortunately does not support a scsi root file system.
Re:mepis is close but no scsi support is a killer
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 05, 2005 08:53 PM
And that is probably why I could not install MEPIS on my Sony Vaio that uses a docking station. Apparently the built-in CD/DVD is a SCSI device.
...and it does no damn good. The point of diminishing returns is about 20 sec after you finally get the (deleted) working. Continuing to tinker is as likely to break it as to improve it. This outcome is independant of the skill or knowledge level of the tinkerer.
All the Linux distros I've tried (Debian, RedHat, Fedora, Mandrake, Suse) take less tweaking than the MS-Windows distros (98, NT4, 2000, XP) I've tried, especially the last two years. This goes doubly for maintenance. Linux is basically install and forget -- patching ( not upgrading) is a no brainer. On the workstations and servers I've maintained, the ones no longer under development have needed less than 15 minutes preventive maintenance a piece per half year and no corrective maintenance... unlike MS junk.
Upgrading (as opposed to patching) requires only a little testing and can be rolled back to the original version.
I've never heard the weirdness that Rob mentions in the article. It would be interesting to chase the origin down. Once I heard a meme from managment about 'Novel dropping Netware' and traced it throug the organization all the way to an external MS consultant. MS had recently got busted for spreading that slander, but unfortunately continued to spread it even after getting punished in court...
As anyone who has had to install Windows on
a machine with a 200Gig drive (>128Gig) knows
just installing XP requires you to burn
at least two other CD's just to get the
bloody thing installed.
Of course, FC3 installed first time
but XP took *days* to install in dual boot
and because of the "oversized" drive, some
rather messy boot options were required.
Having recently bought a USD PVR I spent three
days solid effort trying to hgte the bloody thing
working. Evidently you have to plug the
two USB connectors in (in the right order)
and execute a clean install.
The installation procedure required execution
of bat files and some manual regedits.
Give me a linux command line and plain text
config files any day.
a machine with a 200Gig drive (>128Gig) knows
just installing XP requires you to burn
at least two other CD's just to get the
bloody thing installed.
Of course, FC3 installed first time
but XP took *days* to install in dual boot
and because of the "oversized" drive, some
rather messy boot options were required.
Having recently bought a USD PVR I spent three
days solid effort trying to hgte the bloody thing
working. Evidently you have to plug the
two USB connectors in (in the right order)
and execute a clean install.
The installation procedure required execution
of bat files and some manual regedits.
Give me a linux command line and plain text
config files any day.
Not exactly true, yes you do have to tweak Linux!
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 05, 2005 05:38 AM
If you want Linux to play quicktime, real, open PDFs, do Java, support flash, double click to open Excel, Word and Powerpoint documents and a million other little things that Microsoft Windows does out of the box, then it requires a HUGE amount of configuration.
Unless you are using Linspire because these guys configure their OS so that it supports all common filetypes right out of the box so you don't have to be a Linux genius. No other Linux does that and so yes, ALL the others require a massive amount of configuration, downloading, untaring, command line work, etc.
Of course the geek writers at Newsforge act like nobody wants to view inline windows media videos which are all over the web. Only Linspire does this. Here's a chart:
<A HREF="http://www.tryoutlinux.com/best.html" title="tryoutlinux.com">http://www.tryoutlinux.com/best.html</a tryoutlinux.com> which shows all of this for the different Linux version.
I wish Newsforge did real news instead of just random people's opinions. Like with actual RESEARCH and stuff, not just silly analogies. If anyone actually installed any of the Linux versions and tried all the common tasks (there's a nice list at <A HREF="http://linspire.com/filetypes" title="linspire.com">http://linspire.com/filetypes</a linspire.com> that would be much more informative. God forbid they do real news reporting...
Unless you are using Linspire because these guys configure their OS so that it supports all common filetypes right out of the box so you don't have to be a Linux genius. No other Linux does that and so yes, ALL the others require a massive amount of configuration, downloading, untaring, command line work, etc.
Of course the geek writers at Newsforge act like nobody wants to view inline windows media videos which are all over the web. Only Linspire does this. Here's a chart:
<A HREF="http://www.tryoutlinux.com/best.html" title="tryoutlinux.com">http://www.tryoutlinux.com/best.html</a tryoutlinux.com> which shows all of this for the different Linux version.
I wish Newsforge did real news instead of just random people's opinions. Like with actual RESEARCH and stuff, not just silly analogies. If anyone actually installed any of the Linux versions and tried all the common tasks (there's a nice list at <A HREF="http://linspire.com/filetypes" title="linspire.com">http://linspire.com/filetypes</a linspire.com> that would be much more informative. God forbid they do real news reporting...
Re:Not exactly true, yes you do have to tweak Linu
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 05, 2005 06:59 AM
If you want Linux to play quicktime, real, open PDFs, do Java, support flash, double click to open Excel, Word and Powerpoint documents and a million other little things that Microsoft Windows does out of the box, then it requires a HUGE amount of configuration.
Funny, I didn't know Windows did those things out of the box. None of the versions I've installed over the years, including my current installation of Windows XP, could "play quicktime, real, open PDFs" out of the box - in fact, I still can't play QuickTime or Real files! (OK, that's because I don't want a million different media players, so I refuse to install QuickTime and Real Player, but that's not the point.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)
I agree that Linux requires some initial configuration/tweaking, but so does Windows. For example, I prefer Winamp for playing mp3 files. If I were to install another media player, such as Real Player, I would have to configure it NOT to make itself the default player for mp3 files.
Which OS is more difficult to configure, or requires more tweaking? That's debatable. Being a Windows geek (no flames, please<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P), configuring Windows would probably be easier for me, but others may find Linux easier to configure.
I wish Newsforge did real news instead of just random people's opinions. Like with actual RESEARCH and stuff, not just silly analogies. If anyone actually installed any of the Linux versions and tried all the common tasks (there's a nice list at http://linspire.com/filetypes that would be much more informative. God forbid they do real news reporting...
I wish people would read more carefully.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P The title of this article is The "Constant fiddling with Linux" myth and that is what the article is about - constant tweaking of the system, not the initial configuration.
Funny, I didn't know Windows did those things out of the box. None of the versions I've installed over the years, including my current installation of Windows XP, could "play quicktime, real, open PDFs" out of the box - in fact, I still can't play QuickTime or Real files! (OK, that's because I don't want a million different media players, so I refuse to install QuickTime and Real Player, but that's not the point.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P)
I agree that Linux requires some initial configuration/tweaking, but so does Windows. For example, I prefer Winamp for playing mp3 files. If I were to install another media player, such as Real Player, I would have to configure it NOT to make itself the default player for mp3 files.
Which OS is more difficult to configure, or requires more tweaking? That's debatable. Being a Windows geek (no flames, please<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P), configuring Windows would probably be easier for me, but others may find Linux easier to configure.
I wish Newsforge did real news instead of just random people's opinions. Like with actual RESEARCH and stuff, not just silly analogies. If anyone actually installed any of the Linux versions and tried all the common tasks (there's a nice list at http://linspire.com/filetypes that would be much more informative. God forbid they do real news reporting...
I wish people would read more carefully.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:P The title of this article is The "Constant fiddling with Linux" myth and that is what the article is about - constant tweaking of the system, not the initial configuration.
Re:Not exactly true, yes you do have to tweak Linu
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 05, 2005 12:03 PM<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...a million other little things that Microsoft Windows does out of the box...
Ummm - out of the box? Are you refering to a box that is pre-loaded with a Windows image that has already been integrated by the hardware vendor, or about loading Windows on a vanilla machine? This is a comparison of apples to oranges.
From my experience loading many Linux distributions (among them Redhat, Slackware, Debian, Turbolinux, Suse, Gentoo) and loading Microsoft Windows (3.0, 3.1, Workgroup, 95, 2000, XP) from scratch onto various machines I have come to the conclusion that each one has gotchas that require tweaking on par with each other.
In particular, for Linux distros I have been able to get all of my hardware interfaces working, mostly through reconfiguring some startup parameters - rarely (back in the day before kernel modules) by rebuilding the kernel. Most distros today are smart about enabling the most common kernel module hooks.
For Windows the issues are more related to tweaking the interface for the individual user preferences as it supports hardware, for the most part. In contrast to Linux, where you can backup and restore a few flat files to configure your environment (desktop, environment variables, etc.), you have to manually click through menus to do the same thing - and is far more time consuming under Windows. The Windows machines in my network run Mozilla Firefox for WWW client, Thunderbird for Email, Open Office for MS Office compatibility, - so the configuration issues for the main productivity applications is nearly identical between my Linux machines and these.
Most day-to-day activities seem faster under Linux (I am an ex-system admin, now a system developer/integrator) as I am used to and like the CLI for most configuration issues (most configuration files on a Linux machine are located in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc - cd<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc (goto the directory), find the file you are looking to edit, vi it (open file in editor), make the change,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:w! (save) it) than clicking through a bunch of screens that change, it seems, everytime a new Windows version comes out (I can always be sure the 'hosts' file, for example, is in<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/etc regardless of the Linux or Unix version for that matter, that I encounter; not so with Windows, where the location of 'hosts' differs depending on the version of the OS - this was painful to discover when I was in a crunch to get the damn thing working for the user. Before you say, you should have had the same OS version on all your machines - I don't have the cash to upgrade every machine in my arsenal at the drop of a hat - and some older hardware was not upgradable anyway - again buying new machines not an option).
After you add up the time taken to load the systems and set them up for full use, it works out to about the same time. For Windows XP it is much worse (for some reason the installation process took longer under XP than under Linux). The straw that broke the camel's back was the 'phone home' feature of XP that locked up one of the machines after I forgot to register; I rolled back to 2000 on all of them, and am looking for any reason to load Linux on the three remaining Windows machines on my network - mostly its a user acceptance issue at this point; I just have to prove to them that they can do everything on a Linux box that they do now on their Windows machine (I have one user, in particular, that uses Adobe Photoshop software - who I tried to get to switch to Gimp who would not switch. I will have to tweak out a Wine installation on my machine and get it working there to illustrate that they won't lose any functionality).
If you are a developer (such as I am) as well as a sysadmin, then the ability to remotely automate your system administration tasks via perl/expect or cfengine (there are other tools but I like these best) is cheap and a snap.
Different strokes for different folks. I wouldn't make definitive statements for everyone without experience or apples-to-apples data to back it up (on that I agree with the sentiment if the not full gist of your message).
When was the last time you install other distros
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 06, 2005 07:41 AM
Fedora Core 3 one of the worse for support of media.
Supports Opening of Excel, Word, Pdf documents out of the box.
No fully working media system yep its Fedora Core 3. And java has to be added.
Even ubuntu supports Opening for Excel, Word and Pdf documents out of the box.
When it comes to mucking around there is some but windows still does not ship setup as well ie you still have to install office and java after install.
Problem is that gnome and kde configure all that now. The site is horiblly out of date. Mandrake is 10.1 they only have 9.2. Hmm 10.1 is around for download for free larger licence ie install on as many machines as you like but you have to buy support licences.
All depends on the disto linspire is not the only distro to include media and other extendions the big one is a legal dvd player? Why is a opensource dvd player not legal? Hmm just the way the it breaks down.
Newer the distro the more media it supports out the box. Fedora Core 3 has real support out the box because of Helix. And Helix will download on access Quicktime and Mp3 support ie most distros now have Mp3 and Qucktime out the box.
So Adding Java and Flash and DVD player and you have linspire. Note I don't recommend Fedora Core 3 just picked it because it is the worst I know of regarding support for media.
89 dollars compared to 0 there has to be a minor price but the install is still done quicker than setup of windows.
Supports Opening of Excel, Word, Pdf documents out of the box.
No fully working media system yep its Fedora Core 3. And java has to be added.
Even ubuntu supports Opening for Excel, Word and Pdf documents out of the box.
When it comes to mucking around there is some but windows still does not ship setup as well ie you still have to install office and java after install.
Problem is that gnome and kde configure all that now. The site is horiblly out of date. Mandrake is 10.1 they only have 9.2. Hmm 10.1 is around for download for free larger licence ie install on as many machines as you like but you have to buy support licences.
All depends on the disto linspire is not the only distro to include media and other extendions the big one is a legal dvd player? Why is a opensource dvd player not legal? Hmm just the way the it breaks down.
Newer the distro the more media it supports out the box. Fedora Core 3 has real support out the box because of Helix. And Helix will download on access Quicktime and Mp3 support ie most distros now have Mp3 and Qucktime out the box.
So Adding Java and Flash and DVD player and you have linspire. Note I don't recommend Fedora Core 3 just picked it because it is the worst I know of regarding support for media.
89 dollars compared to 0 there has to be a minor price but the install is still done quicker than setup of windows.
Every distribution does some things well, out of the box, and every distribution does a different set of things well. If you pick a distribution that does what you want, then of course you will not need to do much. Another poster mentioned PDFs - I've never had problems getting Fedora or Gentoo to display PDFs out of the box, no tweaking required. So long as you've installed either Ghostscript or one of the other PDF-reading libraries, and a suitable viewer, it should be automagic.
Now, if you pick a distribution that is NOT designed to do what you want (to use the car analogy, picking a Ferrari F1 car to distribute goods to a store) then you won't be able to do what you want without tweaking. Oh, what a surprise that is! And I wouldn't use Cisco's IOS to play Civilization, either, but it's a damn good system for a router.
I tweak Linux a lot, but that's because I like to stay on the bleeding-edge of what's out there. If I've a choice of using stable releases, or some possibly superior alpha-quality test release, I'll use the test release. Sure, it's harder to keep the machine running, but it serves my purposes well.
I don't expect others to have the same requirements, so I don't expect others to put in the same effort. I'll still tell them that Linux will do what they want, because it will. The general user doesn't care if they are using the Linux 2.6.8.1 kernel or Linux 2.6.10, because it is highly improbable they're doing anything for which that kind of update would make any difference.
I know people who are still using Red Hat 6 for production servers at work. It works for them, so why should they update it? There are very likely some Linux boxes out there still running SLS or MCC distributions, because there's never been any need to upgrade or update a single component.
Many home DSL and cable routers use Linux. (If you're using such a system, check it with NMap with OS detection enabled.) Now, ask yourself how often you've had to upgrade your router. My guess is not very, if at all. Alone, that should put such tales firmly in the Myth category.
Now, how often does a person tweak Windows? Actually, probably more than they realise. Every time they run the updater (or the updater runs for them), the box is being modified. A tweak doesn't have to be "visible" - updating to the latest DirectX, or adding the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.Net framework is every bit as much a modification.
For that matter, not all "visible" updates are considered "tweaks", even though that's exactly what they are. I doubt many people think installing a new font or a new theme is the same as installing a new driver or updating a configuration, but what is the difference? You're adding a file, then telling something where it is. In terms of what you have actually done, how is what the file does of any relevence?
The problem is, people tend to disregard what they do as "just making it right", but blow what other people do out of all proportion as "major mods". The truth is, as always, somewhere completely different and possibly on another planet altogether.
I'll take no defaults over horribley bad defaults
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 05, 2005 09:15 AM
I guess the big difference between tweaking Linux and tweaking Windows is that Windows gives you horrible, and often insecure defaults that must be fixed immediately. Linux on the other hand, sometimes has no default settings, or unusable settings, like commented config files, that must be tweaked. So basically with Windows you have to roll back all the crap that Microsoft thinks are "sane" defaults while in Linux you have to set it up from scratch.
If everything works, there is no need to fiddle....
it ususally starts when you find an error:
- PowerApp 3.4.567-345 doesn't work
- You find that the problem is solved in 3.5
- 3.5 is not available as RPM for your distro
- You get the sources
- You need GTK-x.y.z-idontknow header file (which are
not installed, you are a user - at least normally)
- There is only a RPM for GTK-a.b.c, so you have to install the sources....
This normally ends with a new kernel, a new libc and a new gcc version.
I really hate it.
it ususally starts when you find an error:
- PowerApp 3.4.567-345 doesn't work
- You find that the problem is solved in 3.5
- 3.5 is not available as RPM for your distro
- You get the sources
- You need GTK-x.y.z-idontknow header file (which are
not installed, you are a user - at least normally)
- There is only a RPM for GTK-a.b.c, so you have to install the sources....
This normally ends with a new kernel, a new libc and a new gcc version.
I really hate it.
It's fairly easy to spot the Microsoft shills who get paid to spread FUD on this site. Get a real job!!! Anyway, on to my comments...
I have been responsible for several Linux servers at work, and here's what I've observed. Linux may be slightly more difficult to configure for some services than Windows. But as long as you mind your security issues, once the Linux box is set up, you leave it alone for LONG periods of time.
We have Windows 2000 file servers and a Linux file server. The Linux file server houses the home directories for our most demanding users, and it's been up without a reboot for nearly 2 years. Our Windows file servers have to be rebooted every couple of months. In fact, the only reason we got the Linux server was because the MCSE's couldn't figure out why two of the Windows servers were crashing every couple of days! Moved to Linux, and the results speak for themselves.
Same with our web server - it had a record uptime of 400 days. The only reason it had to reboot was because we moved it to a new machine. Our servers running IIS are lucky if they make it to 90 days of uptime.
And on Linux, I've never had something just stop working without some sort of hardware failure (unless you count the times that Windows machines that my machine relied upon for things like authentication went down). But on Windows, my experience has been that things will just stop working for no apparent reason after several months.
I have been responsible for several Linux servers at work, and here's what I've observed. Linux may be slightly more difficult to configure for some services than Windows. But as long as you mind your security issues, once the Linux box is set up, you leave it alone for LONG periods of time.
We have Windows 2000 file servers and a Linux file server. The Linux file server houses the home directories for our most demanding users, and it's been up without a reboot for nearly 2 years. Our Windows file servers have to be rebooted every couple of months. In fact, the only reason we got the Linux server was because the MCSE's couldn't figure out why two of the Windows servers were crashing every couple of days! Moved to Linux, and the results speak for themselves.
Same with our web server - it had a record uptime of 400 days. The only reason it had to reboot was because we moved it to a new machine. Our servers running IIS are lucky if they make it to 90 days of uptime.
And on Linux, I've never had something just stop working without some sort of hardware failure (unless you count the times that Windows machines that my machine relied upon for things like authentication went down). But on Windows, my experience has been that things will just stop working for no apparent reason after several months.
Re:The difference between Windows and Linux
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on January 06, 2005 06:32 AM
Did you even read the article? Thats basically what he said. There is no need to fool with GNU/Linux unless you want to. When its going, It Just Works(tm).
You can spend even a whole week, if you're enough of a geek or if it worths it, but in the end, you got a custom os, and you get to know it quite well. Now try this on some "popular os"... Try getting on that windoze machine every bit of software you need working as you like it; and not a useless bit of software more. Try having then the full control of what's happening in toyr box, that has become increasingly difficult as windoze has grown "more secure", "more faster" and "easier than ever".
On the other side, a fresh installation in thought to work "from the fisrt one", "as is", "with the defaults" if it's a windoze. And it does, it it's own parameters of "stability" and "security"; does Redmond even know the meaning of those ?
On the other side, a fresh installation in thought to work "from the fisrt one", "as is", "with the defaults" if it's a windoze. And it does, it it's own parameters of "stability" and "security"; does Redmond even know the meaning of those ?
What I like about GNU based Linux systems is that you CAN fiddle with them. The same is true of BSD and UNIX systems. However, to think that you HAVE to fiddle with them is no longer true.
MEPIS, especially SimplyMEPIS, is an excellent example of this. You CAN fiddle with it if you WANT to, but frankly it works really nicely right out of the box (or right out of the download or right out of the BOOK - depending on how you acquire it).
There are several other Linux systems now on the market that require little fiddling. Most UNIX and BSD systems really do require fiddling because the defaults they use are specifically designed for certain audiences. Unless you happen to be in that audience, (which usually ISN'T the desktop audience), you end up HAVING to tweak them.
MEPIS is specifically designed for the desktop. Other Linux systems are SPECIFICALLY designed for a particular purpose. Some are Web servers, some are firewalls, some are Email servers, some are general purpose systems.
People often question why there are so many variations of Linux. Well that's why, to meet specific needs. Yet nearly all of them, if you do tweak with them, can meet needs other than what they were originally intended to do. You cannot always say that as easily about other systems. They are good at one or two things, but tend to be inflexible about anything else.
To tweak or not to tweak, that is the question. With Linux, you have the opportunity to make that choice.
MEPIS, especially SimplyMEPIS, is an excellent example of this. You CAN fiddle with it if you WANT to, but frankly it works really nicely right out of the box (or right out of the download or right out of the BOOK - depending on how you acquire it).
There are several other Linux systems now on the market that require little fiddling. Most UNIX and BSD systems really do require fiddling because the defaults they use are specifically designed for certain audiences. Unless you happen to be in that audience, (which usually ISN'T the desktop audience), you end up HAVING to tweak them.
MEPIS is specifically designed for the desktop. Other Linux systems are SPECIFICALLY designed for a particular purpose. Some are Web servers, some are firewalls, some are Email servers, some are general purpose systems.
People often question why there are so many variations of Linux. Well that's why, to meet specific needs. Yet nearly all of them, if you do tweak with them, can meet needs other than what they were originally intended to do. You cannot always say that as easily about other systems. They are good at one or two things, but tend to be inflexible about anything else.
To tweak or not to tweak, that is the question. With Linux, you have the opportunity to make that choice.
A misconfigured OS will certainly require a lot of tweaking to do the simplest things.
I've built most of my OS from scratch on top of a minimal slackware 10 install. there was a lot of tweaking while settings things up and getting my peripherals to work but now it works like a charm.
also, using a constantly updated distro like gentoo or some overly complex distro with many layers of abstraction and complex, half-baked scripts will probably lead to a lot of maintenance.
I've built most of my OS from scratch on top of a minimal slackware 10 install. there was a lot of tweaking while settings things up and getting my peripherals to work but now it works like a charm.
also, using a constantly updated distro like gentoo or some overly complex distro with many layers of abstraction and complex, half-baked scripts will probably lead to a lot of maintenance.
what is new in ubunto?
I wanted to know what it's new before intalling,thank you
I wanted to know what it's new before intalling,thank you
Excellent article...
Posted by: dbindel on January 04, 2005 02:46 AMGreat jorb!
#