free os

why linux free

Because Linus Torvalds, the guy who wrote the linux kernel, intended it to be free from the very beginning. Nowadays, companies focused on linux usually make money off enterprise/server solutions and/or donations.

Why do you lie? [quote=gregorydearth] Most of the linux distros lack a higly efficient support system. That is the tradeoff for a free operating system. You can get it working most of the time.[/quote] Almost every distro has a mailing list with knowledgeable people that answer quickly and politely. Plus you can pretty much Google anything. You can get more support for Linux online that Windows. And when was the last time anyone called MS up and asked them how to do anything? [quote=gregorydearth] And the problems are numerous, depending on your hardware. Unlike Windows 2000 which works on anything with a P2 or better and recognizes your hardware almost all of the time, Linux has many limitations.[/quote] More lies. Unless it's something very very old or very very new or very very strange, Linux doesn't really have a problem with any hardware any more. In fact compared to Vista and XP, it has less issues. Just need to propitiatory video cards, that usually come w/ the distro any way. [quote=gregorydearth] I have used Windows 2000 Pro on everything from a P2 Thinkpad Laptop to a Dell Server with twin P3's and a 4 hard disk raid. It works on small desktop computers or brand new computers. I downgrade any new computers I find to Windows 2000 Pro first to test the hardware out. It is ALWAYS faster than XP or Vista. But when I get horribly bored with the lackluster Windows 2000 Pro, I dig out the linux cd's and start playing around. That is because I am a computer geek and know what I am doing most of the time.[/quote] Oooooooo I see. You're a MS fan boy. Okay now I understand the FUD. [quote=gregorydearth] Linux is free because it is experimental. The people who design Windows versions are paid well to do a good job which is why it works (though linux users hate it). Linux designers are usually not paid at all or are paid very little by donations. That is why linux is tricky, has a hard time recognizing hardware, and generally is not nearly as popular among the common users who don't have degrees in computer science.[/quote] Wow what a troll. Linux is free because of GPL. If Linux is so experimental then why is it being used so much in the commercial world? Any software released under the GPL license requires the source code to be distributed with it too. It's open source, where developers collaborate. And some developers do get paid. And you can sell GPL software, as long as you also distribute the code. [quote=gregorydearth] And anyone who tells you that linux is NOT experimental is a even geekier geek. Truth is, if you have never played with linux before you are likely to be dismayed upon trying to install it except for on the most simple and common of computer systems.[/quote] LIES! I guess all the systems in the world using Linux as servers just have geeks working for them? Where the hell did you get your load of bull from? Right from Microsoft's PR firm? Installations are simple any more. Tons of documentation out there and everything. [quote=gregorydearth] With that said, Linux is one heck of an adventure and what you will learn about computers along the way is actually priceless for no good reason.[/quote] Well, gee, something positive about Linux. So nice of you. Now some truths. Yes, Linux is different from Windows in many many many ways. But once you install Linux and start getting to know it, you'll like it. Unless you're a gamer you could probably easily move to Linux as a personal desktop. Open Office can replace Microsoft Office. There are tons of media players out there. Just have to activate the non-oss repositories to download codecs for mp3's and video. Linux is more secure from viruses and trojans. You don't run everything as Administrator in Linux, so what program you install/run will effect your user only unless you install/run as root where you can do system wide damage. The Linux distros that are NOT free come with service agreement contracts and are tailored for businesses and may have different packages included or not included.

Most of gregorydearth's ridiculous post is full of errors, so mamadou please ignore it. [quote=gregorydearth]There really is no logical reason that some linux distros are free. [/quote]Being as they are usually released under the General Public License means they do not have to be charged for, so that is as logical as it gets. [quote] Most of the linux distros lack a higly efficient support system. [/quote] I don't really know if you could describe the Microsoft support system as "highly efficient" either, so I really don't know that your point is valid. [quote] No manuals on paper. [/quote] Neither does Microsoft offer free manuals on paper, but the Linux ones can be printed if you wish, that gives you a manual on paper. [quote] And the problems are numerous, depending on your hardware. Unlike Windows 2000 which works on anything with a P2 or better and recognizes your hardware almost all of the time, Linux has many limitations. [/quote] Nonsense. I install numerous MS Windows 2000 and XP licenses on computers for a charity, as well as Linux. Linux presents many fewer install problems compared to Windows 2000 or WinXP, especially on newer machines. [quote] Linux is free because it is experimental. [/quote] Wrong! Linux is free because it is released under licenses which do not require one to charge money for them.

[quote=Rubberman] 1. There are more Linux systems running enterprise-level applications than Windows. 2. The most demanding applications run on Linux (or Unix), such as stock trading software. 3. Most research systems that must analyze petabytes of data run Linux (such as particle physics labs like CERN and FermiLab). 4. High-reliability systems that must be up 24x365 (6-sigma +), such as the systems that build the chips that run our computing infrastructure run Linux and/or Unix systems. 5. No system that requires hard real-time capabilities will run any Microsoft operating system. Indeed, Linux out-of-the box cannot do that, but there are real-time versions and extensions that do provide deterministic system behavior, which NO Windows distribution (including CE and ME) will provide. People want WIndows because of its nice UI. Professionals want Linux or Unix because of their robust and reliable operation.[/quote] At my school we want to switch over to Linux servers and can if out tech admin gets certified (this is a small public high school of under 200 students). Currently anytime our servers have crashed other than power failure it has been Server 2003 crashing, but our Linux server that runs DansGuardian never crashes sadly (especially considering it isn't required to use the internet). We have actually been experimenting and have set up a small scale PBX and file server on a network of 6 computers (4 Windows PC's, 2 Linux servers) and haven't had any issues and actually left the PBX up for a month, something none of the other servers have ever done very well. Also, about the UI, I find that Linux is better since there are so many options for your main GUI, file explorers, network tools, and generally good software for network admins that's all free, something important to me since I'm in a networking class and I push Linux for admin use. I have actually spent a couple class periods finding Linux software that we need to make a transition to Linux more viable.

By the way. People do not want windows for its nice GUI. I hate the windows GUI. Fluxbox rules! People want windows because it comes preinstalled when they buy a compter at normal stores, and because if they get lost and need help, their friends can tell them what to do because they use windows too. Just another point wolfgangmob got wrong. I like fluxbox best so far. Though KDE is getting he hooked. I just can't figure out how to fix my internet woes in my KDE machines. I can at least sort of make it work in fluxbox. Just so you know, heres the OS I use. KUBUNTU, Damn Small Linux, and XP. I have tried Vector (which ruled until my old IBM laptop screen died of old age), knoppix 3.6, knoppix 6, gentoo, ele, milax, dls-n, symphony one, puppy linux, goblinx, and watt os. Is that enough to call it experimenting? Is that enough to give linux a fair shot at working for me and is that enough to give me the right to give a negative opinion if I want to? How many more cd's do I need to burn ISO's to before I will not be called a Microsoft Fan Boy? You all are tools. Admit it.

Besides, most serious Linux developers ARE paid. A lot of companies use FOSS software for their mission-critical infrastructure, and the smart ones will assign some of their engineers to work on these projects. Just like on Windows, there are a lot of individual developers and small companies that develop software for the platform, and in sell it to make a living. There is nothing in the GPL that forbids that. In Windows, many sell their software as shareware with little or no limitations on its use when unpaid for. As most people do, when they find themselves using a tool or applicatoin on a regular basis, they will pay for it. In many FOSS cases, this is basically a donation, vs a license for Windows software. And the source is available... I have donated $$ to a number of FOSS application groups because of just this - I am using the software regularly and it helps me be more productive in whatever it is I am using it for (work, play), just as I have paid the license fees for Windows shareware/freeware applications that meet the same criteria.

Sometimes real fast is almost as good as real time. Remember, Google is your friend!

Though I disagreed with the tone and rhetoric of your previous posts, it was very much not my intention to crucify you. I have no problem with constructive criticism, which is incredibly important. There are flaws in linux or any operating system, of course. I previously disagreed with your reasoning regarding why these flaws exist, and what seemed to be an implication, at least, that these flaws are absent in certain other, cough Windows, operating systems. Though now you grant that Windows can't claim perfect hardware support, you grant that no operating system is perfect (though it that case I'm at a loss why you would even divide the cost-free and commercial, since it has no bearing on quality), and you also grant that if we all learned on linux, we wouldn't have the same difficulties with it as we do coming to it later in life. So now I'm confused as to what your critcisms actually are, except that it doesn't hold your hand enough. Which again seems more a matter of preference. Even as a non-power user, I prefer Arch Linux precisely because it doesn't hold my hand. As for the experimental debate, you're right, by definition experimental means having the characteristics of an experiment, which is a bit of a useless tautology. But the fact that you are experimenting with linux doesn't mean linux is experimental. Which apparently is just as difficult to understand on your part as it is on ours to understand why you think linux is experimental.

[quote=gregorydearth]Wow. I guess I should have expected that. It seems that if you have a negative opinion about linux you get called a liar and accused of working for microsoft. It is really ridiculous. I have 3 computers. A dell latitiude d810 laptop with a 1.31 Ghz processor, a dell poweredge server with twin PIII processors and a raid setup for hd, and an old digital hinote pentium 1 laptop. Linux does not work perfectly on any of these machines. That is a fact. I have no access to internet on the dell computers. On the ancient digital hinote laptop I can get to the internet, but I have to press a prism2 button in the control panel every time I boot before it will work. Let me address your replies. I have not needed to call microsoft to address any problems because my xp computer WORKS FINE. Internet works. I know how to change any thing I need to and can install and uninstall without needing to open a command prompt in windows. Linux requires me to keep my xp machine running so I can use sites like this one to get my linux machines working properly. Mike wrote "Linux doesn't really have a problem with any hardware any more." Are you kidding me? I have tried three different brand wireless lan cards in my server and KUBUNTU, which is a pretty new linux with an awesome interface and installer, recognized NONE of them and the poweredge server still sits in my office unusable on the internet due to linux not supporting hardware. Again, this was my opinion based on my experience. And did I ever say I did not like linux? I love it. But linux is a hobby. Linux is GPL. What the heck does that mean to a normal person? Linux is experimental. If I did not have 3 test rigs and did not spend a year trying different distros on them just to get two or three that will install and only two that will boot the machines, I would not call it experimental. If I did not have to try different LAN cards to see which one linux will allow me to use, I would not call it experimental. Oh. by the way... windows can access the internet upon install on all three of these machines. Another thing Mike said "You don't run everything as Administrator in Linux". Wow. That is high tech stuff. By the way, you don't run everything as Administrator in WINDOWS either. Or at least you shouldn't. You can create accounts with limited access to the computer and NOT run as an administrator when doing normal day to day stuff. Windows 2000 and XP both do multiple users and definable control. And by the way proopnarine. Maybe I havent been "conducting very technical work with it [linux] for over ten years". Are you saying you NEED to not be a novice to use linux? Is that why I can't get it to just install and work? Because I am a computer novice? I think you made my point. And should the opinion of an average joe like me be less valid than some computer expert? What about other average joes? They would relate to my situation! As for the rest of you. Laganon: I don't need microsoft manuals. My microsoft machines work fine. And "on paper" does not mean literally you dolt. It means an actual publication that was clearly put together and is not the ramblings of some blogger page. A pdf of a distro that clearly goes from install to how to use would be nice. On paper hasn't meant a book since 1998 shmuck. And you said "linux presents many fewe install problems compared to windows 2000 or WinXP". Are you kidding me? With the exception of the KUBUNTU or UBUNTU installers, most linux installs require dealing with a comand-prompt-like interface. Linux requires you to know how to format your hard drive. And not just format, create 3 partitions, type them correctly, and set up file systems on each. Remeber debian you dolt? Lemme see. How does xp install. Oh yeah. I put in cd, answer yes about 5 times, enter my software serial number and it does the rest. As for you, rubberman, my company employs over 80,000 employees most of whom have a computer terminal. They all run xp pro. My servers run solaris. It works out well. I had a mess of compliments in my initial post about linux. And wolfgangmob, whatever that means, you are saying research systems and stock trading software runs on linux. Wow. So scientists can use it and mathematics experts can create software for it. Wow. And you admit that Linux can't even do realtime out of the box anyway. What the heck is your point? And you have had good experience running linux on a server. Wow. Surprise there. But your linux server is not required to access the internet? Hmmm. Sounds like my linux server that CAN'T access the internet. Hard to get bugs if you aren't online. IN FACT all my linux computers that do not have internet access work GREAT otherwise. What a stupid point to make. And thank you wolfgangmob for helping prove my point that linux is experimental. You said "DansGuardian never crashes sadly (especially considering it isn't required to use the internet). We have actually been experimenting and have set up a small scale PBX and file server on a network of 6 computers (4 Windows PC's, 2 Linux servers) and ...". So you admit to being an expert on computers and experimenting with linux and WINDOWS computers. Still need windows boxes too I see. WHAT ABOUT US NORMAL GEEKS THAT DON'T KNOW WHAT A PBX IS OR HOW TO EDIT CONFIG FILES? That is my freaking point you tools. I love linux. I love it. But it would not be a hobby of mine if it worked well enough. I would just USE it for my computing needs. Instead, I am typing this on an XP machine because my linux experince has been thus far a challenging one and the only linux computer that I have that can access the internet is a p1mmx. Screw that. I'll use xp on my dell before I will go back to 166mhz processing. And the sheer amount of tinkering involved makes it a hobby, not a viable operating system that I can replace XP or 2000 with yet. Not a single thing I said was a lie. Opinions cannot be lies. I do not work for microsoft. I just use their products. I guess that makes me a bad person in the eyes of the linux communitiy. But there is a reason even the best linux distros can install themselves as dual boot. And you all know what that reason is. [/quote] I don't like to quote, so I won't... have you tried ndiswrapper? or b43-fwcutter? If you had, and you have the experiance you do, I would imagine that you could figure out the driver situation... I have an HP, a Dell 1501, and I have installed fedora, centos, mandriva, linuxmint...and have had the wireless working in each.. I will agree that Linux, it isnt for the faint of heart...you have to want to learn it,,,its not a take and bake pizza..it can be complicated, but that is the best part....the more you put into it, the more satisfaction you get from it when it works..

Well, I may have to eat some of my words. I am posting from a linux computerr finally. I got fed up with DSL and took another look at Vector. I simultaneously pulled up the installation instructions using my XP machine. THERE IS A LOT OF HIGH QUALITY DOCUMENTATION FOR VECTOR. Following the instuctions perrfectly, I installed it on my 166mhz digital hinote laptop! IT not only rebooted but was instantly able t access the internet!! Of course my sound does not work, and the background resets to default upon reboot, but that does not bother me that much. Actually, the background image does not change upoon reboot as long as I use KDE for the WM. I luv KDE, but it is a little sluggish on this laptop. Still far better looking than win 2000. Anyhow, AFTER MUCH EXPERIMENTING I am happy with linux. Vector even gives me the choice of WM's when I boot or even log out. Fluxbox is the fastest without going too far back in time. But I cannot change the background image. I am working on the sound. Actually, the comuter just beeped at me due to a java error (using Konqueror). Hmmmm. Thing I have noticed: the quicker a distro installs, the more likely it will have issues...The longer it takes to install the better. Vector was comparable to installing windows in time, though it wass a LOT more involved. I did like that it let me deselect what packages I did not want to install. Awesome hardware detection, save my laptop sound. Oh, and when it shuts down, it gets to halt and won't turn off automagically. No biggie, win 2000 did that too.

<a href="http://al-wlaah.com/vb/">منتديات الوله</a><br> <a href="http://www.al-wlaah.com/">دردشة صوتية</a><br> <a href="http://www.al-wlaah.com/web/uorlaw.html">الولة</a><br> <a href="http://www.al-wlaah.com/">شات صوتي</a><br> <a href="http://www.al-wlaah.com/">شات</a></p>

شات صوتي  دردشة صوتية  الولة  دليل شاتات صوتيه  منتديات الوله نودي  منتديات  بنت ابوي  دردشة صوتيه  شات الولة

دليل دردشات

دردشة صوتية

الولة