Are there advantages of Linux over XP Pro.?

[Leythos]

Thank you, I am not a troll and have been a user of the 98 general newsgroup
with Gary S. Terhune, MVP for a long time. I am much more wary of this group
because overall I find that some people are just plain mean in this group
unlike the 98 general newsgroup where courtesy rules.

Great to have you here then. I'm more than willing to discuss my
migration and experimentation with Linux. I've been a windows user,
programmer, and systems/network designer for a LONG TIME. As the world
turns I've started testing the latest Linux distro's and trying to pick
one for two environments - 1 = Home User that doesn't need Windows based
games or a managed office computer, also not needing games, and 2 = a
small file server with RAID and Backup storage with the easy addition of
email and web services if needed.

I'm not exactly liked in the Mandrake group, since I'm not a Windows
hater and am actually only a noob when it comes to Linux, but here's
what I've experienced in learning/testing Linux:

SUSE 9.1 Personal - Test systems are as follows:
1 unit - Laptop, p3/600, D-Link NIC, 512MB RAM
3 units - Compaq ML350 Dual P3/1ghz, SCSI, IDE, 2GB RAM

Mandrake 10.1 Official - Test systems are as follows:
1 unit - Laptop, p3/600, D-Link NIC, 512MB RAM
3 units - Compaq ML350 Dual P3/1ghz, SCSI, IDE, 2GB RAM
1 unit - Asus PC-DL Dual Xeon, IDE, 2GB

Red Hat Fedora Core 3 - Test systems are as follows:
1 unit - Laptop, p3/600, D-Link NIC, 512MB RAM
3 units - Compaq ML350 Dual P3/1ghz, SCSI, IDE, 2GB RAM
1 unit - Asus PC-DL Dual Xeon, IDE, 2GB

The Suse install was painless, it worked out of the ISO and didn't have
any issues on any machine. The KDE interface "felt" slower than I
expected. I was unable to access shares on my 2003 servers in R/W mode
and eventually gave up. I hear that this may be less problematic in 9.2.

The Mandrake 10.1 install was also painless, but the GUI would not run.
I found that the KDE configuration was setup for some really strange
resolutions that were not anything I've ever seen anywhere else. I
learned enough about the config settings to change them using VI and was
able to get the GUI started and running fine. KDE was much faster than
the SUSE install, and the services and apps responded quickly. I found
that many of the GUI tools for management did not come fully configured,
they require editing of config files - something I'm not able to handle
at that level right now. I was able to access the 2000/2003 shares in
R/W mode after much effort/config.

Fedora Core 3 - Install was painless, GUI is perfect, runs fast, even
does the Update Checks (like XP) and lets me know when there are updates
to install. Installation of updates is painless. All GUI based tools
work as best I can tell - I was able to create 2 websites and have them
online in about 20 minutes. FC3 was the only version that included
Evolution, and it worked perfectly with our Exchange 2000 server and
even the 2003 server without resorting to POP. I can't find any problems
with FC3, and on a Dual CPU box it screams. I was able to access the
2000/2003 shares in R/W mode from what I learned in MDK.

Once I learn enough I plan on using Linux for small offices that need a
shared storage location, but, can't afford 2003 Server and don't have
the IT staff to manage their systems. I think that a small file server
running on FC3 would be a great solution in comparison to the same
environment running 2003 server. It's not that 2003 has any problems,
it's very stable in all of our installs, but the $650 for 5 CAL, and
then the ever increasing threats (not that I would ignore them on any
server), makes something like BSD or FC3 look great - the real
difference will be the initial startup costs (same effort, just lower
cost to purchase) and expected maintenance costs.

 

[Dan]

Thanks for your reply. Excuse my ignorance but what does KDE mean? The Red
Hat Fedora Core 3 system looks especially interesting. Can you order a cd
with it? I would be interesting in creating a seperate partition on my
dual-boot 98SE/XP PRO machine for a copy of Linux. As I grow more
comfortable with technology and customizing it; I have found that I would
like to experiment more and move onto different operating systems so I can
get a feel for them. This also allows me to learn more about Microsoft
alternatives since although Microsoft products are usually great, they can be
very expensive. I really appreciate your reply and look forward to creating
a seperate partition on my D:\ drive for Linux. Please keep in touch via
this newsgroup and on this thread. Have a wonderful day!

: In article <uND5j#[email protected]>, (e-mail address removed)
: says...
: > Thank you, I am not a troll and have been a user of the 98 general
newsgroup
: > with Gary S. Terhune, MVP for a long time. I am much more wary of this
group
: > because overall I find that some people are just plain mean in this group
: > unlike the 98 general newsgroup where courtesy rules.
:
: Great to have you here then. I'm more than willing to discuss my
: migration and experimentation with Linux. I've been a windows user,
: programmer, and systems/network designer for a LONG TIME. As the world
: turns I've started testing the latest Linux distro's and trying to pick
: one for two environments - 1 = Home User that doesn't need Windows based
: games or a managed office computer, also not needing games, and 2 = a
: small file server with RAID and Backup storage with the easy addition of
: email and web services if needed.
:
: I'm not exactly liked in the Mandrake group, since I'm not a Windows
: hater and am actually only a noob when it comes to Linux, but here's
: what I've experienced in learning/testing Linux:
:
: SUSE 9.1 Personal - Test systems are as follows:
: 1 unit - Laptop, p3/600, D-Link NIC, 512MB RAM
: 3 units - Compaq ML350 Dual P3/1ghz, SCSI, IDE, 2GB RAM
:
: Mandrake 10.1 Official - Test systems are as follows:
: 1 unit - Laptop, p3/600, D-Link NIC, 512MB RAM
: 3 units - Compaq ML350 Dual P3/1ghz, SCSI, IDE, 2GB RAM
: 1 unit - Asus PC-DL Dual Xeon, IDE, 2GB
:
: Red Hat Fedora Core 3 - Test systems are as follows:
: 1 unit - Laptop, p3/600, D-Link NIC, 512MB RAM
: 3 units - Compaq ML350 Dual P3/1ghz, SCSI, IDE, 2GB RAM
: 1 unit - Asus PC-DL Dual Xeon, IDE, 2GB
:
: The Suse install was painless, it worked out of the ISO and didn't have
: any issues on any machine. The KDE interface "felt" slower than I
: expected. I was unable to access shares on my 2003 servers in R/W mode
: and eventually gave up. I hear that this may be less problematic in 9.2.
:
: The Mandrake 10.1 install was also painless, but the GUI would not run.
: I found that the KDE configuration was setup for some really strange
: resolutions that were not anything I've ever seen anywhere else. I
: learned enough about the config settings to change them using VI and was
: able to get the GUI started and running fine. KDE was much faster than
: the SUSE install, and the services and apps responded quickly. I found
: that many of the GUI tools for management did not come fully configured,
: they require editing of config files - something I'm not able to handle
: at that level right now. I was able to access the 2000/2003 shares in
: R/W mode after much effort/config.
:
: Fedora Core 3 - Install was painless, GUI is perfect, runs fast, even
: does the Update Checks (like XP) and lets me know when there are updates
: to install. Installation of updates is painless. All GUI based tools
: work as best I can tell - I was able to create 2 websites and have them
: online in about 20 minutes. FC3 was the only version that included
: Evolution, and it worked perfectly with our Exchange 2000 server and
: even the 2003 server without resorting to POP. I can't find any problems
: with FC3, and on a Dual CPU box it screams. I was able to access the
: 2000/2003 shares in R/W mode from what I learned in MDK.
:
: Once I learn enough I plan on using Linux for small offices that need a
: shared storage location, but, can't afford 2003 Server and don't have
: the IT staff to manage their systems. I think that a small file server
: running on FC3 would be a great solution in comparison to the same
: environment running 2003 server. It's not that 2003 has any problems,
: it's very stable in all of our installs, but the $650 for 5 CAL, and
: then the ever increasing threats (not that I would ignore them on any
: server), makes something like BSD or FC3 look great - the real
: difference will be the initial startup costs (same effort, just lower
: cost to purchase) and expected maintenance costs.
:
: --
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
: (Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[B Smith]

I tend to agree with you Dan. XP seems to bring out the worst in people...
a few in here seem to be trying to show how loyal and supportive they are
to Microsoft by childish attacks on anyone who expresses displeasure with
their "experience". It's as if they think the Bill is reading this group and
looking for new hires...yeah, right!

 

[Dan]

Thanks for the words of encouragement, B Smith.

: I tend to agree with you Dan. XP seems to bring out the worst in
people...
: a few in here seem to be trying to show how loyal and supportive they are
: to Microsoft by childish attacks on anyone who expresses displeasure with
: their "experience". It's as if they think the Bill is reading this group
and
: looking for new hires...yeah, right!
:
:
: : > Thank you, I am not a troll and have been a user of the 98 general
newsgroup
: > with Gary S. Terhune, MVP for a long time. I am much more wary of this
group
: > because overall I find that some people are just plain mean in this group
: > unlike the 98 general newsgroup where courtesy rules.
: >
: > : > : In article <O#[email protected]>, (e-mail address removed)
: > : says...
: > : > Finally a MVP responds who is at least polite unlike Richard.
: > :
: > : How long have you been using Usenet?
: > :
: > : Have you never seen a troll?
: > :
: > : When I posted it was to determine, in a polite manner, if the OP was a
: > : troll or not - many trolls hide their identity so that they can
continue
: > : a thread and/or post under different names. Trolls almost never provide
: > : any means to contact them via email. Now, I'm not suggesting that the
OP
: > : was a troll, but, when you walk into a windows group asking about
Linux,
: > : without any valid identity, it makes the long-time Usenet users
wonder -
: > : the same would be true if asking about Windows in a Linux group.
: > :
: > : I agree that here is no reason to be rule to the initial trolling post
: > : in case it's not really a trolling, and in fact, even if they are
: > : trolling there is no reason to be rude, it can be handled in a mature
: > : manner at all times.
: > :
: > : --
: > : --
: > : (e-mail address removed)
: > : (Remove 999 to reply to me)
: >
: >
:
:

 

[Leythos]

Thanks for your reply. Excuse my ignorance but what does KDE mean? The Red
Hat Fedora Core 3 system looks especially interesting. Can you order a cd
with it?

KDE is the desktop engine that I wanted to run - it's the most windows
like of them all. There are various desktop engines you can run - it's
the visual interface to the system.

As for CD's, you just download the ISO images for free and burn them to
CD's and you can install at will.

I would be interesting in creating a seperate partition on my
dual-boot 98SE/XP PRO machine for a copy of Linux. As I grow more
comfortable with technology and customizing it; I have found that I would
like to experiment more and move onto different operating systems so I can
get a feel for them. This also allows me to learn more about Microsoft
alternatives since although Microsoft products are usually great, they can be
very expensive. I really appreciate your reply and look forward to creating
a seperate partition on my D:\ drive for Linux. Please keep in touch via
this newsgroup and on this thread. Have a wonderful day!

I'm not one for dual-booting anything, I would rather do without than
have to deal with all the issues of dual booting. As it is, a cheap P2
with 128MB of RAM will make a nice Linux station to learn on. A P3 with
256 is even better - you can get cheap systems like that for $100 in
many second-hand computer stores.

I, and I suspect many other long time Usenet users, would appreciate it
if you could bottom reply as is the norm on Usenet. Posting at the top
is nice for email, but it puts the comments in reverse order in this
medium.

You can start your FC3 experience at this site:
http://fedora.redhat.com/download/

 

[David Candy]

I've never been to a Mac group or a clone unix group. Yet these scum insist on coming here.

 

[Rock]

<snip>

Take this discussion somewhere else. It's way off topic for this newsgroup.

 

[Dan]

Puzzling in 98 general newsgroup, everyone posts on the top so it is easy for
everyone to read. There are definately many differences in this newsgroup.

: In article <[email protected]>, (e-mail address removed)
: says...
: > Thanks for your reply. Excuse my ignorance but what does KDE mean? The
Red
: > Hat Fedora Core 3 system looks especially interesting. Can you order a
cd
: > with it?
:
: KDE is the desktop engine that I wanted to run - it's the most windows
: like of them all. There are various desktop engines you can run - it's
: the visual interface to the system.
:
: As for CD's, you just download the ISO images for free and burn them to
: CD's and you can install at will.
:
: > I would be interesting in creating a seperate partition on my
: > dual-boot 98SE/XP PRO machine for a copy of Linux. As I grow more
: > comfortable with technology and customizing it; I have found that I would
: > like to experiment more and move onto different operating systems so I
can
: > get a feel for them. This also allows me to learn more about Microsoft
: > alternatives since although Microsoft products are usually great, they
can be
: > very expensive. I really appreciate your reply and look forward to
creating
: > a seperate partition on my D:\ drive for Linux. Please keep in touch via
: > this newsgroup and on this thread. Have a wonderful day!
:
: I'm not one for dual-booting anything, I would rather do without than
: have to deal with all the issues of dual booting. As it is, a cheap P2
: with 128MB of RAM will make a nice Linux station to learn on. A P3 with
: 256 is even better - you can get cheap systems like that for $100 in
: many second-hand computer stores.
:
: I, and I suspect many other long time Usenet users, would appreciate it
: if you could bottom reply as is the norm on Usenet. Posting at the top
: is nice for email, but it puts the comments in reverse order in this
: medium.
:
: You can start your FC3 experience at this site:
: http://fedora.redhat.com/download/
:
:
: --
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
: (Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Al Smith]

Thank you, I am not a troll and have been a user of the 98 general newsgroup

with Gary S. Terhune, MVP for a long time. I am much more wary of this group
because overall I find that some people are just plain mean in this group
unlike the 98 general newsgroup where courtesy rules.

So many prejudices in this group. That's where the meanness comes
from. One of them is a prejudice against Linux.

I tried Linux as a desktop upgrade from Windows 98. I really
wanted to use it. I tried several distros, including two versions
of Mandrake, Linspire, and Susie.

My experience was that it installed easily and ran great. The
reasons I chose not to upgrade to Linux are as follows:

1) No support for Winmodems. I use a modem, and almost all the
modems available are Winmodems, which are much cheater than
hardware modems. Linux runs fine with a hardware modem, but it's
very difficult to get it to work with a Winmodem, in spite of many
Web pages and posts that state the opposite. I never could get a
Winmodem to run under Linux.

2) Awkward installation of software. I found installing new
software a hit or miss proposition. Sometimes it worked, sometimes
it didn't.

3) Popular PC games don't run under Linux. Only a handful of good
games are made to run using Linux. I'm not a serious gamer, but I
do play once and a while, and I didn't want to give up that
capability.

4) Linux does not run Word 2000, which I use for my business (I'm
a freelance writer). I could use Open Office, but it is not as
good as Word. Nothing is as good as Word for word processing. So I
would have had to degrade my word processing abilities to switch
to Linux.

These are the main reasons I decided to go with Windows XP. Don't
get me wrong, Linux is very good at what it does. It just doesn't
do everything it needs to do if it is going to replace Windows on
the desktop.

 

[Leythos]

Puzzling in 98 general newsgroup, everyone posts on the top so it is easy for
everyone to read. There are definately many differences in this newsgroup.

No, it's just that MS like's to do everything different. In the days
after Usenet started it was respectful to bottom reply and most everyone
did it. As the net became common and when home users started getting
generic access top posting because epidemic - with people using Outlook
Express instead of a proper news reader both Top Posting and screwed up
quoting happened.

Bottom posting has always been the norm/proper way, but in MS groups,
where most of the users are using Outlook Express, it's hard to flow
against the tide

 

[Leythos]

<snip>

Take this discussion somewhere else. It's way off topic for this newsgroup.

And you own this group? Your moderate this group?

Asking questions about other OS's and their impact on Windows is as
valid here as it is in those groups. next time try and add something
useful to the thread.

 

[Leythos]

4) Linux does not run Word 2000, which I use for my business (I'm
a freelance writer). I could use Open Office, but it is not as
good as Word. Nothing is as good as Word for word processing. So I
would have had to degrade my word processing abilities to switch
to Linux.

Actually, if you use Cross-Over you can install Office 2000 or XP and
use everything except Outlook with Exchange, Outlook with POP works
fine.

 

[Dan]

That makes sense. Thanks for the information.

: In article <[email protected]>, (e-mail address removed)
: says...
: > Puzzling in 98 general newsgroup, everyone posts on the top so it is easy
for
: > everyone to read. There are definately many differences in this
newsgroup.
:
: No, it's just that MS like's to do everything different. In the days
: after Usenet started it was respectful to bottom reply and most everyone
: did it. As the net became common and when home users started getting
: generic access top posting because epidemic - with people using Outlook
: Express instead of a proper news reader both Top Posting and screwed up
: quoting happened.
:
: Bottom posting has always been the norm/proper way, but in MS groups,
: where most of the users are using Outlook Express, it's hard to flow
: against the tide
:
: --
: --
: (e-mail address removed)
: (Remove 999 to reply to me)

 

[Dan]

<trying to bottom post>
: > Thank you, I am not a troll and have been a user of the 98 general
newsgroup
: > with Gary S. Terhune, MVP for a long time. I am much more wary of this
group
: > because overall I find that some people are just plain mean in this group
: > unlike the 98 general newsgroup where courtesy rules.
:
: So many prejudices in this group. That's where the meanness comes
: from. One of them is a prejudice against Linux.
:
: I tried Linux as a desktop upgrade from Windows 98. I really
: wanted to use it. I tried several distros, including two versions
: of Mandrake, Linspire, and Susie.
:
: My experience was that it installed easily and ran great. The
: reasons I chose not to upgrade to Linux are as follows:
:
: 1) No support for Winmodems. I use a modem, and almost all the
: modems available are Winmodems, which are much cheater than
: hardware modems. Linux runs fine with a hardware modem, but it's
: very difficult to get it to work with a Winmodem, in spite of many
: Web pages and posts that state the opposite. I never could get a
: Winmodem to run under Linux.
:
: 2) Awkward installation of software. I found installing new
: software a hit or miss proposition. Sometimes it worked, sometimes
: it didn't.
:
: 3) Popular PC games don't run under Linux. Only a handful of good
: games are made to run using Linux. I'm not a serious gamer, but I
: do play once and a while, and I didn't want to give up that
: capability.
:
: 4) Linux does not run Word 2000, which I use for my business (I'm
: a freelance writer). I could use Open Office, but it is not as
: good as Word. Nothing is as good as Word for word processing. So I
: would have had to degrade my word processing abilities to switch
: to Linux.
:
: These are the main reasons I decided to go with Windows XP. Don't
: get me wrong, Linux is very good at what it does. It just doesn't
: do everything it needs to do if it is going to replace Windows on
: the desktop.

Thank you for your comments. It was most informative.

 

[Rock]

And you own this group? Your moderate this group?

Asking questions about other OS's and their impact on Windows is as
valid here as it is in those groups. next time try and add something
useful to the thread.

No it isn't. It's off topic. Take it private or to a Linux newgroups.
This newsgroup is about XP and XP issues, not alternate operating
systems.

 

[XS11E]

And you own this group? Your moderate this group?

Asking questions about other OS's and their impact on Windows is
as valid here as it is in those groups. next time try and add
something useful to the thread.

No, it's not valid here. This newsgroup is for discussion and help
related to MS Windows XP as the name of the group implies.

 

[Al Smith]

Asking questions about other OS's and their impact on Windows is

No, it's not valid here. This newsgroup is for discussion and help
related to MS Windows XP as the name of the group implies.

Uh-oh, the newsgroup police have spoken. We've been rousted.

 

[XS11E]

Uh-oh, the newsgroup police have spoken. We've been rousted.

You've been asked to exhibit the common courtesy of posting on topic.

You're the ones who are being rude to the group and you have the nerve
to protest when someone points it out to you?

 

[Guest]

Listen you friggin moron. Take this discussion elsewhere. It has NOTHING -
NOTHING - NOTHING to do with anything Microsoft, let alone Windows XP!

And all the people feeding you (troll) can take a hike also!

 

[lbrty4us]

Strange post. I'm running 9.1 Personal on a Compaq laptop in tripple
boot with XP & another OS. I have no problem accessing such shares
with r/w - they simply have to be correctly mounted. My KDE gui runs
like a raped ape, very fast, as does most everything else in the
install. It even does better datawise with wlan, though I had to
install an aftermarket driver wrapper. Whatever bitches I have about
about Suse &/or 9.1 are other unrelated things. Ex: I can't play midi
files on my soundcard & have no clue why.

But IMHO&E the real issue implied in the thread is one of utility of an
OS, and contrary to others I assert that while Linux HAS totally
arrived as a desktop OS that will do everything as well or better than
XP for almost nothing, and with far better feel in most distros, it has
NOT arrived as a practical *laptop* OS comparable *utility-wise* to XP.
Regardless of XP's endless annoyances & shortcomings, dumb filesystem,
huge registry to screw with and unbelieveable vulnerability to all
kinds of problems, XP gives typically twice the battery life and 3x the
ease of portable connectivity that all the present distros do on most
all laptops. The former is due to the increasing variations of hdwr vs
present practical development of APCI, and the latter relates to a
bunch of things. Further, refined & trouble-free hotplug & pnp for all
kinds of devices is a big issues with laptops. All these things are
still iffy or only beyond the joking stage with current distros on most
machines.

But I get a laugh out of the notion that one often has to frig around a
great deal with a new Linux install. Because it is usually TRUE - but
WINDOWS has to take the prize for continual & assiduous, unending
frigging around just to be maintained, updated, used, debugged, and/or
fixed (which is often for most who really use it for anything beyond
dubbing around). And all this with none of the hardware issues Linux
distros face to overcome! And at least you can learn about the OS &
still get under the hood - unlike what's happened to XP with all its
arcane & mysterious ways, half of which aren't worth trying to learn
about for most users because by then they will all have changed again.

The only way to know how any OS is going to do on your box, is to try
it. This is also a lot faster than poking around online to see what
others may or may not have posted, and it is a lot more reliable too.