which OS do you use?

[RobertMP]

Scanning through the thread i thought it was about OS's then it seemed to be about dogs

We have a cat and I have moved from XP to Vista. Initially annoyed at Vistas way of doing things the mists have now cleared and we are getting along fine together.

I tried Red Hat Linux years ago and even managed to get wireless networking going but still failed to understand the basic concepts of the OS - like if i save a file where is it on the disk. All got too complicated for me so never ventured back to linux since.

 

[MrJay]

Ubuntu flavoured Linux. Two cats. One dog.

 

[Slim]

kafkaian and Mike, Thanks for the explanations. I might consider changing in the future.

 

[kityuser]

slim:
linux distros are notorious for bad driver support. If you have a computer with a "fancy" favour of anything be warned (from a beginner perspective).

However they are getting better everyday.


As starters with linux I`d suggest one of the "livecds".
Download the image from say ubuntu, bu)rn it to a cd, jam it in the cd drive and restart your machine, it should boot from the cd and you can tryout linux with next to no risk to your computer. (it runs the entire OS from your cd drive and the ram inside your machine)

PM me if you want some more details.

Regards

Steve
[/u]

 

[kafkaian]

Slim. I echo Kityuser's advice on driver and Live-eval distros. I always have a copy of "Knoppix" to hand. It is great for looking into current partitions and takes a few moments to load up from CD/DVD for you to evaluate your hardware requirements and overall support. If you are planning to go Ubuntu (Debian based), then Knoppix is the natural alternative choice for one of these evaluations because it's also Debian based. Or you could simply put in Ubuntu's own live-eval version, but as Kityuser alludes; don't expect the CD/RAM only performance to be indicative of a properly installed system, it will be much slower. But the fact that they run at all as an OS in this temporary environment is testimony (IMO) to their greater efficiency.

Knoppix can be downloaded here but this appears to be a DVD version and thus is large

Ubuntu's "Live CD" can be downloaded here

When you're more experienced, you could go Gentoo and build a very customisable system based on Stage 1 installations which requires bootstrapping and manual compiling of the base system to suit your machine's hardware configuration. The upshot being that you have a system that is hardware optimised, containing fewer redundancies and thus faster operatively. I have played with Gentoo and it's a lot of fun if you have the time, because Stage I is time consuming. But it does get you on the road to understanding Linux very quickly.

Just one bit of advice when setting up your file system for any Linux based system. It is good practice to ensure all your data and personal home directories are kept on a separate partition to the "/root" directory. This will ensure data integrity and protect your important files from the various problems that arise with all OSs. So it might be a good idea to get to grips with:

Linux File structures
File Mounting procedures
File permissions
Partitioning

 

[kityuser]

looking back,

I wish I had gone the OSX/linux route sooner.


All those hours I sat up at uni trying to fix windows.

back onto the woodworking theme, I`ll be preping a ubuntu box to stick in the workshop for plans/web/music whilst deep in woodland....... *bliss*

Steve

 

[Anonymous]

Isn't the issue, and the reason most use Windows, down to avalaible software and it's compatibility?

I never moved to Unix/Linux for this reason - I have over 150 applicatiosn that run on Windows and do everything I want or could want from very high-end 3D CAD and software development down to calculating daily biorhythms etc.

If one wants a machine for mainly web related use, then i'm sure this is less important. I spend less than 5% of my time at a computer doing anything web related

 

[kafkaian]

Isn't the issue, and the reason most use Windows, down to avalaible software and it's compatibility?

I'm not sure that applies to many people who are prepared to run their systems legally. Windows apps can be prohibitively expensive, whilst many applications have their GNU license equivalent. I know may who run Windows with Open Office instead of MS Office - a saving of nearly a grand with all the bells and whistles included!!!

It's also about getting used to new applications and having to relearn basics that might prevent migration.

Ultimately though, the movement towards Linux use is gathering pace and whilst third party support applications might still be in their infancy, I doubt whether it will be long before companies realise they cannot ignore a very sizable minority. As soon as that happens, Windows will start to lose out unless they reduce their overpriced products.

 

[kityuser]

tony, granted

have you ever considered how much time you send worrying about viruses and malware?

my reply to your approach would be this (and its only my opinion).

I`d get a good stable install of linux (say fedora), create a virtual machine from your current windows install, then run all your windows stuff from a VM session.

Massive benefits are that you get all the bonuses of linux (security, speed) and you can take instant backups of your whole windows install just by making copies of the VM session.

VM sessions are brilliant! they run at near native speeds (with some tweaks) and can be backed-up in a few clicks!

you'd be really suprised how much stuff you started to do in unix rather than on the VM session.....

Imagine a windows install that you would never have to re-install again!
heaven!

Steve

 

[kafkaian]

And then there's the issue of viruses. The enforced compliance with file permissions and systemic partitioning discourages abuse and user complacency. Windows is just not built to be robust which is why it is often overlooked in serious systems

 

[Anonymous]

tony, granted

have you ever considered how much time you send worrying about viruses and malware?

No. The answer is that I never spend any time worrying about viruses etc. I built and programmed my first IBM compatible PC in 1990 (80286) and have used DOS until Win 95 came out, then most versions of Windows.

I have only ever had a virus infection in the DOS days (early 90s) and then from a floppy disk - this despite runing 8 personal computers and having a lab with 25 more in it

A decent firewall that masks ports and anti virus program and sensible precautions (I always scan a downloaded file before running it) make viruses a non-starter. Windows is not 'open to attack', it is users who don't take the most basic precautions who are vulnerable to attack. Windows is prevalent (and contains some sloppy coding and practices), so more attacks are aimed at it

 

[tnimble]

Isn't the issue, and the reason most use Windows, down to avalaible software and it's compatibility?

My view on this is that the only real down fact on uf linux the attitude of microsfot and their tie with hardware manufactures who in turn do not invest in creating good drivers them selfs or make information avaibale so other can create a good driver. Also hardware is often tied into technology advised on by microsoft which makes it hard to write a driver for another OS than the lastest Windows release.

However since Vista has been released there has been a slight change. Hardware manufcatures have a hard time on writing drivers for Vista and some have desided not to write drivers that fully suipport all the featured the hardware provides. In order to make full use of the piece of hardware you need Windows XP. Also more manufacturers are creating drivers or help in their development.


The most things I hear about OSes are:

- There are no programs avaibale on Linux therefore I need to use Windows.
Surely thats not true. There are probably more programs availbale, and those programs habit into being more interoperable giving more flexiblity and tasks that can be performed.

- Everyone uses Windows so I can't use anything else because I can't communicate or share things.
Its hard to find anything than can't be shared, opened, saved or used in anyway on Linux that was created on a box runnig Windows or vice versa. There is always a way that is not that hard to find a program for or a file format that does not have compatibility issues.

- With Linux I have no support.
With Windows you don't have 'support' either. Try sending Microsoft an email with your problem, you'll get either no reply or receive an answer that does not help you at all. When there's a problem you have to wait months and someimes years before its addressed. With Linux you have many places you can get support wither by the community or through a paid support service. Problems that are important or frastrating generally are picked up quickly or you can have it addressed. Try asking and paying Microsoft to fix a problem or add an feature for you.

- Linux is gratis / free of cost so it can't be good.
Why should something you have to pay for be any good? Often the sole purpose of the good or program you have to pay for is to get your money. The shear existence of Linux on the other hand is due to the enthusiasm of people to create and share something because what is already available does not suit all or everything.

- Linux and open source software in general are a bad thing and I refuse to have anything to do with it.
What is you gripe? Surely you have a benefit of some kind with people using what you do like instead. If not there's something very disturbing and close minded about the person that has such an opinion.



All of the above does not only apply to which OS but also which browser, which word processor, which database server, which webserver, ........

 

[Anonymous]

. Windows is just not built to be robust which is why it is often overlooked in serious systems

I don't think this is true

There were effectively twoWindows variants, one built from 3.0, 95, 98 , ME which were all bascially running on top of DOS (yes 95 onwards still had a huge DOS legacy). These were never really meant as business systems and didn't implement virtual memory allocation of HAL (hardware abstraction layer) properly etc. etc.

The other, NT, 2000, Xp were all built as 32-bit windows for the ground up and had no connection with DOS. These were stable and reliable platforms for servers etc. which had reliable and secure virtual memory and a strong HAL etc. which forces developers to write proper device drivers

I think one of the main reasons that Windows is not used in so many servers is that microsoft is succesful, and so the devil incarnate, and of course, price - and IT guys tend to be geeks who like to be able to play, which Unix etc. and open source stuff lets them do :lol: :wink:


I am no Microsoft fanatic, but get annoyed when people slag them off and say that the world would be a better place without them. Without them, most of us would not own or use a computer as they (with hardware manufacturers) instigated the 'revolution' that gave us cheap and powerful desktop computing.

I remember DOS, and Vista is much nicer (I through my rose tinted spectacles away a long time ago). And for the record, i think XP/vista are easier to use than OS X

 

[tnimble]

No. The answer is that I never spend any time worrying about viruses etc. I built and programmed my first IBM compatible PC in 1990 (80286) and have used DOS until Win 95 came out, then most versions of Windows.

I have only ever had a virus infection in the DOS days (early 90s) and then from a floppy disk - this despite runing 8 personal computers and having a lab with 25 more in it

A decent firewall that masks ports and anti virus program and sensible precautions (I always scan a downloaded file before running it) make viruses a non-starter. Windows is not 'open to attack', it is users who don't take the most basic precautions who are vulnerable to attack. Windows is prevalent (and contains some sloppy coding and practices), so more attacks are aimed at it

All of the above except for the pasrt about OS experience. The first time I came along Windows was at apprenticeship where I had to use Windows 98. I had no clue how it worked and to use it (quickly leanred though with some help) which was found very odd by others. Before Windows I had worked with computer running VAX/VMS, BSD, Risc whatwasitsname (Acorn Archimedes) Novell, and DOS. The latter I always hated to use, no network support, awkward dailin modems and software, almost no programs that came with it, lack of a good compiler, only suited for games.

 

[kityuser]

A decent firewall that masks ports and anti virus program and sensible precautions (I always scan a downloaded file before running it) make viruses a non-starter. Windows is not 'open to attack', it is users who don't take the most basic precautions who are vulnerable to attack. Windows is prevalent (and contains some sloppy coding and practices), so more attacks are aimed at it.

This is just not true, agreed a proper firewall and antivirus is needed on a windows box but this is a very poor approach at stopping malicious code from websites.
I too have had an xp box for many years now (best install of windows ever), but it pains me to pay a virus protection subscritpion every year.

anyhow, antivirus software is NOTORIOUSLY processor hungry, thats why linux runs nice and quickly on older hardware, no bloatware.

I personally thiink OSX is the perfect bridge of all these issues.
Looks nice, works and good apps.
and VM support for all your windows nightmares

shame its pricey......

Steve

 

[tnimble]

. Windows is just not built to be robust which is why it is often overlooked in serious systems

I don't think this is true

It is true, a few key functions are missing or incomplete or adhoc for it to be considered robust. A few of those are a lack of structure, full resource management, lack of full support for protected areas. It is not that Microsoft has not tried, but it has been proven that every attempt was either a half done job or could not be done because of compatibility issues.

There were effectively twoWindows variants, one built from 3.0, 95, 98 , ME which were all bascially running on top of DOS (yes 95 onwards still had a huge DOS legacy). These were never really meant as business systems and didn't implement virtual memory allocation of HAL (hardware abstraction layer) properly etc. etc.

The other, NT, 2000, Xp were all built as 32-bit windows for the ground up and had no connection with DOS. These were stable and reliable platforms for servers etc. which had reliable and secure virtual memory and a strong HAL etc. which forces developers to write proper device drivers

The latter is not true, although the kernel is very different in designed the interfaces and structures are still compatible and or based on the DOS principles and available functions in DOS and in windows 3.1, 9x and ME. Even the so called reliable and secure virtual memory up to today is known to have unexpected behaviour and resource management has various known leaks. The HAL is not strong but loosely and full of undocumented features to enable programs to behave 'out of the box'.

With which I do not say all other OSes have none of those. Every OS including Windows has or had its place and use.

The only thing that can be sad that if the same thing of 'popularity' had happened to say BSD or a few other OSes the world could be better off. But it happened with Windows which has given us good but also some bad things.

 

[tnimble]

This is just not true, agreed a proper firewall and antivirus is needed on a windows box but this is a very poor approach at stopping malicious code from websites.

It is very mandetory to shield against intrutions on any system. It is impossible (more so for complex systems like a desktop or server than for a simple system like say an MP3 player or a phone) to write software that is flawless. The key difference between certain OSes is the amount of dammage that can be done to the system. With Windows once access has been gained to some part of the system its likely that there is a open path to most if not all other part of the system. Having a firewall and virus scanner on a windows box is therefore more important. If something happens the potential damage is extensive. With for instance Linux or BSD mostly only the weak point is compromised but the rest of the system remains unaffected and secure.

 

[kityuser]

This is just not true, agreed a proper firewall and antivirus is needed on a windows box but this is a very poor approach at stopping malicious code from websites.

It is very mandetory to shield against intrutions on any system. It is impossible (more so for complex systems like a desktop or server than for a simple system like say an MP3 player or a phone) to write software that is flawless. The key difference between certain OSes is the amount of dammage that can be done to the system. With Windows once access has been gained to some part of the system its likely that there is a open path to most if not all other part of the system. Having a firewall and virus scanner on a windows box is therefore more important. If something happens the potential damage is extensive. With for instance Linux or BSD mostly only the weak point is compromised but the rest of the system remains unaffected and secure.

a considered and completly valid post, agreed.

steve

 

[kafkaian]

There were effectively twoWindows variants, one built from 3.0, 95, 98 , ME which were all bascially running on top of DOS (yes 95 onwards still had a huge DOS legacy). These were never really meant as business systems and didn't implement virtual memory allocation of HAL (hardware abstraction layer) properly etc. etc.

The other, NT, 2000, Xp were all built as 32-bit windows for the ground up and had no connection with DOS. These were stable and reliable platforms for servers etc. which had reliable and secure virtual memory and a strong HAL etc. which forces developers to write proper device drivers.

I don't understand, or agree, the argument that a non-dependency on DOS legacy system obviates security risk. At a practical level and 8 years on, Windows 2000 is still providing security patches on a monthly basis. On a theoretical level the bloated Windows approach to system calls allows greater opportunities to address memory thus making it more vulnerable by design. Windows traditionally has been 'monolithic' in that is doesn't separate user privileges and distribute application builds in order to minimise attack. Vista has recognised and approached this somewhat but it still remains to be seen whether their in-house/closed approach will not just uncover more monolithic approaches to design.

I think one of the main reasons that Windows is not used in so many servers is that microsoft is succesful, and so the devil incarnate, and of course, price - and IT guys tend to be geeks who like to be able to play, which Unix etc. and open source stuff lets them do

No I think being of the industry, it's Linux's approach to security in server systems that makes it the natural choice. Whilst I don't take offence at your 'geek' charge and whilst I do like playing around with servers and systems, and yes, I agree MS's closed-shop approach to source code inhibits its development, it still has a long way to go in proving itself, not least reliability in porting currently established applications.

I am no Microsoft fanatic, but get annoyed when people slag them off and say that the world would be a better place without them.
I remember DOS, and Vista is much nicer (I through my rose tinted spectacles away a long time ago). And for the record, i think XP/vista are easier to use than OS X

I have always conceded that Gates has prevented the marginalisation of PC ownership making it affordable to most people above the poverty belt. However, Linux now goes much further than that, with developers giving their time to enable systems that are becoming affordable to all that can get their hands on some hardware - Linux allows for reuse of second hand machines in the third world via a) GNU license, b) Better productivity from slower machines. Whilst MS have set the scene and should be accorded applause, it has tried to control the market and enslave people down a route to propriety products and their associated costs whilst making consumers product dependents. I find that insulting! What we must also remember, is the historical backdrop to Gates' deal with Intel in the early years of DOS/Windows 3.1 in forcing a market flooded with machines that HAD to have restricted MS installed.

This was great for homogenising affordable PCs but set some technical development back years.

 

[Fecn]

It seems I'm split 50/50 between *nix and Windows variants. I just did a quick count-up of running OSes for my company+home and came up with...

3 x W2003 Server x64
13 x W2003 Server x86
4 x Windows XP x86
5 x Windows2000 Server
3 x Ubuntu Server
20 x Debian
1 x Gentoo
1 x OSX

25 windows based and 25 based around unix - How very balanced of me.