Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:22 UTC, submitted by irbis
Window Managers "Linux has proven amazingly flexible: after nearly 10 years of use, I'm still impressed by how the Linux operating system does exactly what I want on any type of hardware. Desktop customization is no exception; from the ultra-modern KDE and GNOME window managers to with the likes of Fluxbox and AfterStep, there's a Linux desktop to suit everyone."
Order by: Score:
Not true alternatives...
by dindin on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:33 UTC
dindin
Member since:
2006-03-29

As someone who speaks an Asian Language, I really do not find these to be true alternatives. They have have not adopted to rendering proper Unicode characters in most cases they do not at all. Most of the non-Latin script world will stick to Gtk/Qt derived environments (Gnome/KDE/XFCE) simply for this. I have used these other environments but cannot get out until there is support for this.

-D

Reply Score: 15

RE: Not true alternatives...
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:35 UTC in reply to "Not true alternatives..."
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

So true. Example: my native language has only a handful of extended characters and still it bugs me that a window manager such as Blackbox has a problem updating window titles that contain such characters. It's a great little window manager and this is not enough to stop me from using it, but it sure bugs me. I can imagine the frustration for someone whose language would cause constant problems like this.

Oh, and just to address the claim in the article: Blackbox didn't "stagnate". It has come so close to what it proposed to do that further development is not needed. (Too bad it's not considered interesting to also fix whatever bugs are left in, like the one above, though.) Blackbox and Fluxbox have different goals.

Edited 2007-11-21 00:38

Reply Score: 3

"ultra-modern"?
by diegocg on Mon 19th Nov 2007 21:37 UTC
diegocg
Member since:
2005-07-08

the ultra-modern KDE and GNOME window managers

I love KDE, but I have always had the impression that KDE and Gnome were designed and built primarily to catch-up windows in the desktop world (except in the case of KDE4). It's not that they haven't succeded at it and have even beated windows in some areas, but I wouldn't call them "ultra-modern" myself. Modern, yes, but not "ultra-modern".

(i know, i know, I also could answer some things to a message like this, but it's just my opinion)

Edited 2007-11-19 21:40 UTC

Reply Score: 8

RE: "ultra-modern"?
by apoclypse on Mon 19th Nov 2007 22:35 UTC in reply to ""ultra-modern"?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

I think that is a misconception. I find that gnome in general has more in common with MaoOS_old than windows in general. Its an amalgam for sure, but it still feels less like windows than say KDE. KDE4 may change things, and then I think that the comparisons to windows would only be superficial at the most. That is not to say that gnome or KDE can't be configured to work or act very much like windows, the same can be said bout Linux in general. That is what makes Linux what it is, its ability to provide users choice and this article is just one in a long list of alternatives that users can use with their favorite OS.

A lot of people seem to accuse Linux DE's or distro's of aping windows. This may be the case in certain areas but usually windows is nto the only one being drawn on for inspiration. Take the Slab menu for example (Novell, Opensuse, etc.) At a glance it looks very similar to the windows start menu, but as you use it you start to realize that it works more like OSX, with user defined shortcuts and a separate window to access more applications (Finder->applications. Why don't people complain about having to open a separate window in OSX?) Basically the slab marries the two concepts both windows and OSX into one whole. Had hey been smart they would have found a sane way of doing system notification there too.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: "ultra-modern"?
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 20th Nov 2007 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE: "ultra-modern"?"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

(Finder->applications. Why don't people complain about having to open a separate window in OSX?)


Because there are very few conversations about the deficiencies of the Mac OS X GUI, and those who don't like it have moved on to other OSs or DEs that do what they want.

I Mac OS does dearly needs an application launcher or an application menu, and no the dock doesn't count. I consider it a pretty quick launch bar and a mediocre task bar. I haven't lived with the 10.5 dock yet, so I can't say how the new features affect it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: "ultra-modern"?
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "ultra-modern"?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Stacka can actually be a pretty decent application launcher. A little messy but cool nonetheless. Its no worse than the start menu, which isn't saying much. There is no dedicated icon but other than that stacks works pretty well in that respect. I wasn't actually complaining about having to open a new window to find apps. I happen to like it. It keeps things clean for the most part, I was just wondering why the double-standards.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: "ultra-modern"?
by evangs on Tue 20th Nov 2007 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE: "ultra-modern"?"
evangs Member since:
2005-07-07

(Finder->applications. Why don't people complain about having to open a separate window in OSX?)


Because you don't need to. You can drag the Applications folder to the Dock and that makes it behave like the start menu. Alternatively, you can create your own Application's folder, populate it with subfolders for different categories like Accessories, Office, Multimedia, etc and populate these subfolders with aliases to applications in /Applications. You then put this new folder on the Dock and you've got a nice hierarchical applications menu.

Or you could just be lazy like me and hit Cmd+Space to invoke spotlight and type in the first few letters of the application you want to launch....

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: "ultra-modern"?
by smittal on Wed 21st Nov 2007 14:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: "ultra-modern"?"
smittal Member since:
2006-02-03

I used to do that too, but I got tired of trying to click on the application I wanted among the shifting search results. I use a program I hacked up[1] instead; hit Ctrl+Space to bring it up if you want to give it a try.

Alternatively, you could hit Cmd+Enter to select the top result in the Spotlight search window, but I still prefer my hack.

[1] http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/smittal/Launcher.dmg

Reply Score: 1

RE: "ultra-modern"?
by Sophotect on Tue 20th Nov 2007 07:56 UTC in reply to ""ultra-modern"?"
Sophotect Member since:
2006-04-26

What is "windowslike" about this?
Some pictures to show off the difference to this reocurring theme, while infusing myself with some morningcoffee and feeling the urge to ramble against that :-)
General desktop, rarely seen because usually it is covered by running applications:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/2814/snapshot1kp7.png
The Browser:
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/1/snapshot2af8.png
Some older filemanagement showoff:
http://img244.imageshack.us/img244/5422/bildschirmphoto1kn3.png
And just in case...what is wrong about being like something which is known to most people having to use computers, and therefore known how to handle it almost immediately?
I have tried many of the alternatives, and been stuck in KDE-Country, because for me, overall it gives the best "bang for the buck". Whereas "buck" is not right exactly, since it is free to download in whichever distribution you are using, it is just a matter of time and taste customising it to your needs. Once you have done that it flies, depending on which hardware you are running it, and which bells and whistles you have switched on or off. But, it scales down very well to something as "lowly" as a Pentium III running at 1GHz with onboard i815 VGA and 512MB Ram. With scaling down well i mean something which is not visible by watching screenshots, imagine a opening a folder with hundreds of files in it, showing the generated file previews in fractions of a second. Imagine that while playing music with the oh so bloated Amarok, or watching a video in f.e. KMPlayer while doing that. Stuttering ? Err, no, why should it? And this "why should it" i have found in no other combination of ease of use and general usability. Now imagine how this combination flies on actual hardware ;->
/endrant

Edited 2007-11-20 08:05

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: "ultra-modern"?
by heron on Tue 20th Nov 2007 17:37 UTC in reply to ""ultra-modern"?"
heron Member since:
2005-08-07

Nah... not ultra modern, not by a long shot. But then, what is these days?

Reply Score: 1

Wish List for Microsoft
by Jon Dough on Mon 19th Nov 2007 22:22 UTC
Jon Dough
Member since:
2005-11-30

While I am sure there are 3rd party applications out there, I wish that Microsoft officially supported alternative window managers/desktop environments. True alternatives, and not just skinning.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Wish List for Microsoft
by Michael on Tue 20th Nov 2007 01:07 UTC in reply to "Wish List for Microsoft"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

An unlikely wish. They don't exactly encourage skinning, even. I don't know what it's like in Vista, but XP requires a hacked DLL, just to allow unauthorized themes (that is, all of them). I think they like to protect their corporate identity.

It's really a shame. Windows 98 was greatly improved by installing a replacement shell but, in my experience, it was just too unstable. I put that down to it not being officially supported, though it may just have been general Windows 9x crashy-ness.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wish List for Microsoft
by UltraZelda64 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 01:12 UTC in reply to "Wish List for Microsoft"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

They don't even support skins/themes... unless, of course, they were blessed [ie. released by] Microsoft themselves. Which means you're limited to the very small handful of MSstyles that comes with Windows itself, or an even smaller handful of downloadable ones (mostly crappy promotions to other MS products, like the Zune theme... bleh).

I'll take the Windows Classic theme or a hacked uxtheme.dll with BSRoyale any day. With most graphical effects off, of course.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wish List for Microsoft
by Flatland_Spider on Tue 20th Nov 2007 08:02 UTC in reply to "Wish List for Microsoft"
Flatland_Spider Member since:
2006-09-01

I was browsing around today through Wikipedia reading up on Alternative Windows shells, and was thinking pretty much the exact same thing.

It was a shame that MS didn't pick up one of the shell replacements, or crib ideas from them, to replace explorer.exe. They do have some really good ideas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desktop_shell_replacement

Reply Score: 4

RE: Wish List for Microsoft
by 1c3d0g on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:07 UTC in reply to "Wish List for Microsoft"
1c3d0g Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh yes indeed! :-D Can you imagine an Openbox-powered Vista? That would be too cool!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wish List for Microsoft
by netpython on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:10 UTC in reply to "RE: Wish List for Microsoft"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

And a lot faster:-)

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Wish List for Microsoft
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Wish List for Microsoft"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

So what's keeping you? AFAIK the likes of Openbox have been ported to Windows as BB4Win, BBLean and xoblite. One of them must have made the switch to Vista by now.

Reply Score: 3

I know this is not a poll
by Nephelim on Mon 19th Nov 2007 22:37 UTC
Nephelim
Member since:
2006-07-26

But I cannot resist telling you that one of my favourites windowmagers of all times is iceWM. I do like taskbars, and I find this is a ultra fast, flexible and very useful windowmanager. In fact, it is the one I use on a daily basus on an old PII/233MHz and it flies.

Reply Score: 6

RE: I know this is not a poll
by Doc Pain on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:19 UTC in reply to "I know this is not a poll"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"But I cannot resist telling you that one of my favourites windowmagers of all times is iceWM. I do like taskbars, and I find this is a ultra fast, flexible and very useful windowmanager. In fact, it is the one I use on a daily basus on an old PII/233MHz and it flies."

I can confirm this. IceWM is a great window manager and can be customized using themes and text based configuration files. I've used IceWM on a P1/150MHz with 64 MB RAM (later 128) and it made up a usable system.

Later on, I switched to XFCE 3 (on a P2/300MHz) and XFCE 4 on slower hardware. XFCE 3 was a good window manager for those users who were familiar with Solaris/CDE on their Sun boxes. XFCE 4 added lots of useful features without increasing the system to a pile of bloat.

For my daily use, I prefer WindowMaker. Until today, I didn't found any window manager that is as fast, as customizable (especially in regards of keyboard bindings) and as pleasant in look and feel as this relict from better times. :-)

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: I know this is not a poll
by xzgv on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:23 UTC in reply to "RE: I know this is not a poll"
xzgv Member since:
2005-11-15

"For my daily use, I prefer WindowMaker. Until today, I didn't found any window manager that is as fast, as customizable (especially in regards of keyboard bindings)... "

For a moment i thought you were taking about my primary window manager, Ratpoison; my secondary one is IceWM ;)

Edited 2007-11-20 00:25

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I know this is not a poll
by isaba on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:09 UTC in reply to "RE: I know this is not a poll"
isaba Member since:
2006-12-30

Amen!

I find windowmaker as the fastest of all...just amazing. Maybe it is not for everyone out there, but believe me, once you try it you will never leave it aside. In terms of appearance it is stylish, in memory usage surely the lowest!

Reply Score: 1

RE: I know this is not a poll
by KenJackson on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:23 UTC in reply to "I know this is not a poll"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

IceWM is also my favorite. It is my first choice even though I have plenty of power to KDE or Gnome. I like the speed and simplicity, but the detail I actually like the best is that I can modify the menu by editing a text file.

Reply Score: 2

wm for a server?
by rockwell on Mon 19th Nov 2007 22:49 UTC
rockwell
Member since:
2005-09-13

Linux rocks on servers ... but why use it on the desktop?

I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$, but seriously. I maintain Linux servers and they are pretty much rock-solid (mostly Tomcat5 and Java webapps).

What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?

Reply Score: 1

RE: wm for a server?
by shykid on Mon 19th Nov 2007 22:53 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
shykid Member since:
2007-02-22

What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?

Cost less and not treat you as a pirate by default, for starters.

Reply Score: 21

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by ml2mst on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE: wm for a server?"
ml2mst Member since:
2005-08-27

Cost less and not treat you as a pirate by default, for starters.


Agreed, beside that, you can get rid of the resource hungry antivirus and antispyware scanners and think of working with multiple visual desktops. Once your used tho that, you'll miss it on a DE that doesn't support it.

Reply Score: 10

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by rockwell on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
rockwell Member since:
2005-09-13

Thanks to all who modded down my honest question to a -3. Perhaps what I've heard about most desktop linux users is true (blind hatred for MS, elitist bigots, etc.)?

At lm2mst and diogob attempted to answer my question.

lm2mst and diogo, which 'distrobutions' do you suggest i try.

Those who modded me down can ... do whatever continues to make you feel powerful, while sitting behind your computer screens.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: wm for a server?
by Michael on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wm for a server?"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

While, I didn't mod you down, I imagine the reason for others to do so was that your post was off-topic.

The article was about desktop environments for Linux. If you had talked about how the Windows XP desktop is really good, that would have been on-topic, albeit unpopular.

To just pick a very well-worn fight on a flimsy basis in a loosely related article is not going to win you many friends. This is generally considered trolling, to which the best response is, of course, no response.

Reply Score: 6

v RE[5]: wm for a server?
by rockwell on Tue 20th Nov 2007 01:22 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
RE[5]: wm for a server?
by bryanv on Tue 20th Nov 2007 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
bryanv Member since:
2005-08-26

And yet here you are, responding.

Nice.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I think I've touched the mod button once in my short time here and it was +.. I have noticed that these forums are pretty sensative to tone though so anything that is missread as being critical is going to get a reaction.

That's beside the point though.. if your intersted.. the real hot tip os liveCDs.. grab any distribution that catches your eye and offers a liveCD.. boot.. play with.. if you don't like it.. eject and push the power button.. nothing touches your hard drive and everything is there on the disk to give you a pretty good start.

Check out Ubuntu or Kubuntu.. the later is KDE which feels more like windows these days (Gnome/KDE have flopped back and forth between osX and Windows feels over the years)

Check out Mandriva 2008 One. this is the liveCD version of the newest release. I'm a Mandriva fan though so that's always the first thing I consider.

Check out Knoppix.. it usually only comes in a liveCD

Check out Mint.. it's a nice liveCD distro which uses Enlightenment window manager if I remember correctly.

Fedora liveCD is probably worth looking at.

What distro do you use on the server boxes.. that would be the first thing I'd look at to test on a desktop unless it's CentOS.

Basically.. grab any liveCD for a distro that sounds interesting and have a look. That's really the best way to start these days.

Reply Score: 3

trinitrotolueen Member since:
2006-10-03

Basically.. grab any liveCD for a distro that sounds interesting and have a look. That's really the best way to start these days.

Couldn't agree more.

By the way I installed Pardus2007.3 today and think it is highly under-rated.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: wm for a server?
by ml2mst on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 14:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wm for a server?"
ml2mst Member since:
2005-08-27

lm2mst and diogo, which 'distrobutions' do you suggest i try.

Depends on your current or target hardware and what the purpose of the OS is.

Give some specs and I'll help you to pick the right distribution.

As many confirm, *BSD and GNU/Linux have a lot to offer over Windows XP.

On let's say a Pentium IV CPU with 512 MiB RAM, the Desktop Environment isn't an issue. I for example run KDE with Compiz-Fusion on a Dell Optiplex GX240 (P4 1,70 Ghz), 384 MIB RAM and old school nVIDIA Geoforce 2 MX/400... And that's a general purpose desktop on which I love to play FPS like Alien Arena and the likes. A typical server system, requires less.

And for the modding down part: I HAVE NEVER MODDED DOWN EVEN ONE COMMENT on OSNEWS, in all those years and never will!

++ BTW, it's ML2MST, the callsign of my old school MS-DOS based CB Packet Radio station ;-)

Cheers!

Reply Score: 1

RE: wm for a server?
by KenJackson on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:12 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?

When I learn about a software package (let's assume it's named NAME) that sounds like it might be helpful for me, I fetch it from who-knows-where and install it in one step like this:

sudo urpmi NAME

Other distros use equivalent apt-get or yum commands.

If I decide to uninstall it, I use this command:

sudo urpme NAME

What is the equivalent Windows command?

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by netean on Tue 20th Nov 2007 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE: wm for a server?"
netean Member since:
2006-01-08

the equivelent on windows means you don't have to learn a set of command (that are different on pretty much every linux distribution).

You download the program, click the installer and it puts an icon on your taskbar, on your desktop (if you like). - unlike apt-get that might install things anywhere it please and is often hard to find when installed.

The other beauty of the windows system is. if you get a computer magazine it comes with software that you can install straight from the disk. not have to compile from source - which means having all your header libraries installed.

Another benefit, is that you can then copy the install program on a disk or usb file and give it to a friend (if it's freeware or shareware of course) or install it on a machine that isn't connected to the internet or doesn't have broadband.

Try using sudo urpmi openoffice 2.2 on a 56k dialup connection..

Try doing the same on a non-internet connected computer.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

the equivelent on windows means you don't have to learn a set of command (that are different on pretty much every linux distribution).


Sigh!

Au contraire, the commands of the linux command line are the same across all distributions.

See the GNU Project.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project
http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/

You download the program, click the installer and it puts an icon on your taskbar, on your desktop (if you like). - unlike apt-get that might install things anywhere it please and is often hard to find when installed.


You forgot the hardest bit for Windows ... finding a trustworthy program to download.

apt-get does not install things just anywhere, and apt-get installs icons on the system menu. You don't have to find anything.

If you don't like the command line, use Synaptic. That is a GUI program that takes care of everything from finding the program, downloading it and any dependencies, and installing it all automatically with a few clicks. Even a Windows user would find Synaptic easy.

http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/action.html
http://www.nongnu.org/synaptic/gallery.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synaptic_Package_Manager
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SynapticHowto

The other beauty of the windows system is. if you get a computer magazine it comes with software that you can install straight from the disk. not have to compile from source - which means having all your header libraries installed.


You do not have to compile from source. There are such things as Linux computer magazines.
http://www.linuxformat.co.uk/
http://www.linux-mag.com/

Another benefit, is that you can then copy the install program on a disk or usb file and give it to a friend (if it's freeware or shareware of course) or install it on a machine that isn't connected to the internet or doesn't have broadband.


Why do you imagine this is not possible also for Linux?
http://autopackage.org/

Try using sudo urpmi openoffice 2.2 on a 56k dialup connection..


Do you somehow imagine that a 56k dialup is faster for Windows?

Try doing the same on a non-internet connected computer.


Use the postal service:
http://www.linuxcd.org/
http://www.osdisc.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi/products/linux?ad=google
http://www.osdisc.com/cgi-bin/view.cgi/products/dvd
http://www.edmunds-enterprises.com/linux/index.php
http://www.linuxcollections.com/

It isn't hard.

Edited 2007-11-20 12:39

Reply Score: 9

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Um the same can be said if you use a Linux magazine. Not everything has to be compiled from source. You can usually find packages straight from the devs in whatever popular format your distro uses. There are only really three formats with varying degrees of compatibility. There is RPM, DEB, and TGZ as the major ones. One of them is just a plain old archive format, the others are a little more complex but there are many distros that use them as their basis. Windows has the luxury of only coming form one source and so MS controls how things are packaged across the OS.

There is no reason whatsoever that full compiled app can't be distributed in a tgz file. In fact most games on Linux are packaged this way, with very little to no dependencies at all to deal with. The reason Linux uses package managers is two-fold, due to the way most apps in Linux share libraries. Library files are usually packaged separately.

1. This reduces memory usage and footprint since many apps can use the same lib without having to install their own version like most installers do in Windows.

2. Security, because each lib is its own entity and package. updating errors in a lib or a security flaw is trivial. You usually don't have to reinstall the apps that use the libs at all, only the libs are affected.

Now, memory footprint isn't really an issue with the amount of ram most people have to spare nowadays. But the security issue is important, as well as having to download 80MB-100MB packages just to update a lib, like you have to do with Windows and OSX. Most Linux packages are usually only 20MB at the most in size, and thats monsters like OO.o. But for the most part installing apps, many apps, in most Linux distro would surprise you at how little the download sizes are.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by KenJackson on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

the equivalent on windows means you don't have to learn a set of command (that are different on pretty much every linux distribution).

This comment hearkens back to the 80's argument about which is better, the command line or the GUI. I referenced the commands instead of the GUI tools because that's my preference. Even though this article is about GUIs, the terminal window running a Bash shell is ever present, and is the primary application I run under any WM. But you don't have too--you can click on the menus until you find synaptic or rpmdrake or pup.

Yes, there are different management tools on different distros, but I hardly see choice as a disadvantage. Lack of choice and therefore lack competition are contributors to the problems with Windows.

lemur2's answer hit many excellent points also.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

the equivelent on windows means you don't have to learn a set of command (that are different on pretty much every linux distribution).


Linux distro's have easy to use package managers. There nothing remotely like it under Windows.

You download the program, click the installer and it puts an icon on your taskbar, on your desktop (if you like). - unlike apt-get that might install things anywhere it please and is often hard to find when installed.


You're trolling. The freedesktop.org standards have been out for a while now and any package comes with standard ways of making it into the menu. Not only that, but it appears in the right category too. And wait, there's more: it will show up in the menu of every window manager or desktop environment you have installed, ie. both in the Gnome menu on my gnome-panel and the Blackbox menu.

Should I even mention that when you get that .exe installer on Windows it sometimes comes with spyware?

The other beauty of the windows system is. if you get a computer magazine it comes with software that you can install straight from the disk. not have to compile from source - which means having all your header libraries installed.


Oh, more trolling. You don't have to install anything from source on a Linux system. But the possibility is there if you need it.

Another benefit, is that you can then copy the install program on a disk or usb file and give it to a friend (if it's freeware or shareware of course) or install it on a machine that isn't connected to the internet or doesn't have broadband.


As opposed to putting rpm or deb files on that disk?

Try using sudo urpmi openoffice 2.2 on a 56k dialup connection..
Try doing the same on a non-internet connected computer.


Try doing anything with a Windows machine without a network connection, right after installation. Oh, that's right, it only comes with a handful of applications: Explorer, Solitaire, Media Player and Calculator. Whoo-peee, what a feast.

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by mk@tuco.de on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:26 UTC in reply to "RE: wm for a server?"
mk@tuco.de Member since:
2007-01-23

Thatīs not the answer.

There is a german saying, if you canīt describe (the advantages of) something within 1-2 sentences, it means you donīt know it (them, the advantages).

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by mk@tuco.de on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE: wm for a server?"
mk@tuco.de Member since:
2007-01-23

I should have quoted it.

Thatīs not the answer.

There is a german saying, if you canīt describe (the advantages of) something within 1-2 sentences, it means you donīt know it (them, the advantages).


was a reply to
What is the equivalent Windows command?

Reply Score: 1

RE: wm for a server?
by chemical_scum on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:18 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
chemical_scum Member since:
2005-11-02

What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?

Just Work.

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by atezun on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:17 UTC in reply to "RE: wm for a server?"
atezun Member since:
2005-07-06

While this statement is a bit untrue, as I've seen plenty of xp installs just work. Some of us just don't like dealing with some of the nuances of windows. As a student developer setting up a gcc is a royal pain in windows, while it's nearly idiot proof on most linux distros. Plus as a science major there's all sorts of useful software just sitting in my repositories.

Also, on my laptop I need to do a total of 11 driver installs on a fresh copy of XP. If you ask me that's absolutely nuts. Vista thankfully brought this down to a total of 2, but Vista has it's own problem. A linux install meanwhile takes me half the time and all I need is two clicks of a mouse to enable my wireless and accelerated video drivers. My trackpad in particular is a sticking point. It stinks in windows as its scroll no matter its sensitivity is jumpy and horribly unresponsive, not to mention on some websites it plain refuses to function. Yet in linux it is smooth as can be.

In general my biggest beef with windows is its software maintenance scheme(installs, upgrades, finding new programs) as it's nothing short of a PITA. I'll admit I'm an exception though as windows has never been my primary OS.

For me though I guess it's the reverse, what can windows do for ME that a properly configured linux install can't?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by l3v1 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

as I've seen plenty of xp installs just work


Not a Really Good Argument (tm) since people just might drop on you saying the opposite (myself included). I won't do that, just told so you know, and I almost agree with the rest you said.

what can windows do for ME that a properly configured linux install can't?


Well, there are some things, strictly windows related, but I wouldn't really care about that. Thing is, if one is able enough to know what one needs, one could sometimes find out that both of them could do the job. If this is the case, subjective preference will decide. But most of the time it's some external influence, e.g. at work we have to do only windows development since I'm about the only one who knows Linux and teamwork dictates.

Reply Score: 3

RE: wm for a server?
by diogob on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:46 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
diogob Member since:
2005-07-06

If you are a *nix server developer is very handy to have apt-get and lots of libraries out of the box. And you have a environment closer to the server for testing purposes.

Xfce is great also, altought is not mentioned in the article.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by Oliver on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:55 UTC in reply to "RE: wm for a server?"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Xfce isn't a WM, it's a small desktop environment.

Reply Score: 1

RE: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 01:20 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?


Freedom from the "upgrade treadmill".

Protect you from viruses & malware.

Give you a one-stop, easily searchable, guaranteed no malware GUI application installer.

Choice and customisability of the desktop. (Themes, "windowblinds" etc by default).

Cross-platform compatibility & interoperability.

Choice of well-documented filesystems.

Pervasive use of open formats, not tied to any platform.

A browser compliant with W3C standards, including SVG, and which can pass the acid2 test.

"Future-proofing".

Choice of underlying computer architecture (not tied to x86 platforms alone).

Larger range of compatible hardware.

Hardware recognised immediately, no need to search for the right "driver CD".

Full range of desktop applications in addition to the bare OS.

A working 64-bit desktop with all drivers.

Virtualisation support built-in to the kernel.

Freedom to copy the exact same desktop software to as many machines as you would want, without additional costs.

Ability to run all applications as a normal user, no need to run desktop applications as root.

Attachments are not simply dumped by mail clients.

No subscriptions required (even to virus databases & the like).

An update service that will not "push" unwanted software on you.

Lack of spying on you ... no information sent back to big brother.

Lack of ongoing registration & activation requirements.

No killswitch (no genuine disadvantage), even if you replace a hard drive or a video card.

A 3D desktop with visual bling if you want it.

...

...

... apart from that, not much.

Edited 2007-11-20 01:40

Reply Score: 21

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by pixel8r on Tue 20th Nov 2007 02:09 UTC in reply to "RE: wm for a server?"
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

This is an awesome list!

I think I've been using linux for so many years that I take all of these things for granted. Some features haven't been around so long but I use windows so rarely that I wasn't aware windows didn't have these features...or maybe I just hadn't given it any thought.

In actual fact, my windows XP install is currently corrupted due to being hit with spyware that every anti-spyware tool has been unsuccessful at removing.
It needs a reinstall, and I just dont have the patience and time to even bother with it. Its the first time I've been hit with spyware and I've always used a good firewall and run anti-spyware every now and then. I didn't like to have anti-virus or anti-spyware tools running all the time since it drains resources and I use windows mainly for games. I'd agree with all the people that say Windows XP is stable, except that it can be killed by spyware...so use it at your own risk. My data is safer with Linux.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 03:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

This is an awesome list!


Thankyou. IMO it bears just pointing out every now & then.

Here is an analysis that compares Windows vs Linux just from the EULA vs GPL point of view:

http://www.cyber.com.au/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf

I guess then that there is a great many more points I could add to this list, but unfortunately my time on this earth is finite.

Edited 2007-11-20 03:02

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Tue 20th Nov 2007 06:10 UTC in reply to "RE: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

Freedom from the "upgrade treadmill".


Can I understand it right ? I can install and use OpenOffice 2.x on Red Hat 7.0 installation, as I can on Windows 98 ?

Protect you from viruses & malware.


It's a myth.

Give you a one-stop, easily searchable, guaranteed no malware GUI application installer.


I am sure you never tried Ubuntu's Synaptics with offline DVDs as repositories ;-)

Cross-platform compatibility & interoperability.


But not between applications - compare win's clipboard and GNOME equivalent of it.

Hardware recognised immediately, no need to search for the right "driver CD".


So unlucky me. Using Ubuntu for one and half year, and still cannot make Realtek RT 2500 WiFi PCI Cards on two desktop to run on Ubuntu. Latest driver included in 7.10 repos failed to detect my card, saying "card not installed". IT IS installed, damn it! ;-)

A working 64-bit desktop with all drivers.


Drivers - maybe. But not all applications.

An update service that will not "push" unwanted software on you.


Unless you're unlucky one, equipped with Radeon 8250 and updated to brand new X-server version 7.3 ...

A browser compliant with W3C standards, including SVG, and which can pass the acid2 test.


There are no Opera for Windows ?

Lack of ongoing registration & activation requirements.


Registration IS required on Windows ? No!

Attachments are not simply dumped by mail clients.


I don't see how it is related to OS ?

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Can I understand it right ? I can install and use OpenOffice 2.x on Red Hat 7.0 installation, as I can on Windows 98 ?


Not quite right. You can install OpenOffice 2.3 right now on Fedora 8. The cost of upgrade from earlier versions? $0. Hence, you are not on a treadmill. You can in fact still be running RedHat 7.0 if that is what you want to do ... there is no imperative need to update. And if you want to update, you can do it at no cost and no disruption.

It's a myth.


How so? Do you perhaps mean that it is a myth that there are Linux viruses in the wild?

All of the malware & virsues out there are actually for for Windows, not for Linux or Mac.

I am sure you never tried Ubuntu's Synaptics with offline DVDs as repositories


Shouldn't be a problem. Or you could put your repositories on a local lan server, and serve all your desktops indirectly from there, so that they all didn't have to download all updates from the wider internet.

Drivers - maybe. But not all applications.


My current system is 64-bit Kubuntu. It has had every application I have wanted so far, including flash player for the browser, and java, and 64-bit multimedia codecs. Exactly what "missing applications" did you have in mind?

Unless you're unlucky one, equipped with Radeon 8250 and updated to brand new X-server version 7.3 ...


One swallow does not make a summer. Speak to these guys about hardware that doesn't have drivers for Vista:
http://vistaincompatible.com/forums/YaBB.pl?board=hardware

The state of ATI drivers is fluid right now, but rapidly improving.
There are no Opera for Windows ?


Not on the Windows install CD, there isn't. Not from Microsoft, even after install. Oh, and you cannot get rid of the insecure, non-standard browser that IS installed, either.

Registration IS required on Windows ? No!


Registration is required on Windows YES! And often re-registration also, if you change a hard drive or motherboard or something. Please remember the original question, which was: "What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?". Only on Windows would you be asked to re-register after a hardware change, and only on Windows is there a chance that you will have to pay again for a new license.

I don't see how it is related to OS ?


Outlook express comes with a Windows install.

Edited 2007-11-20 08:11

Reply Score: 8

RE[4]: wm for a server?
by gavin.mccord on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wm for a server?"
gavin.mccord Member since:
2005-09-07

Registration IS required on Windows ? No!


Registration is required on Windows YES! And often re-registration also, if you change a hard drive or motherboard or something.


Activation is a requirement. At least registration is optional

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

How so? Do you perhaps mean that it is a myth that there are Linux viruses in the wild? All of the malware & virsues out there are actually for for Windows, not for Linux or Mac.


No. There ARE viruses and online threats on Linux (and even more of them for Mac, which is UNIX-based system after all). You wrote that using Linux alone protects me from viruses, which I consider a myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_computer_viruses_and_wor...

If Linux itself is a virus- and threat-free environment, then why there are so many security patches and updates for any supported distribution ?

Exactly what "missing applications" did you have in mind?


Last time I tried - to use Flash I have to install 32bit browser in 64bit environment:

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=6b3af6c9&...

Other programs I have in mind: Adobe Acrobat, Avast Antivirus, ClamAV

Not on the Windows install CD, there isn't. Not from Microsoft, even after install. Oh, and you cannot get rid of the insecure, non-standard browser that IS installed, either.


Even when I create complete set of Ubuntu repos (4 DVDs and 1 CD) there still will be no Opera'a .deb on those. So situation is exactly the same as in Windows.

And for "usecure, non-standard browser" - there is no obligation to use it for browsing, even to leave it unblocked on firewall.

Registration is required on Windows YES!


You confused registration and activation. I can be anonymous user of properly licensed Windows, just like any non-commercial Linux distribution.

Outlook express comes with a Windows install.


Same as IE - there is no obligation to use it, and to leave it unblocked on firewall.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: wm for a server?
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

The security updates are done by the developers as a stopgap. These updates are usually before anyone even knows there are security issues. That doesn't mean that these flaws are being exploited or even attacked. That just means that unlike some other developers the Linux community actually cares about security and actively searches for issues pertaining to security. They don't wait until the shit hits the fan like MS did with Xp. Like I wrote before the larger number of security patches that get sent out on Linux usually has to do with the large number of libs that get installed separately, and also the larger number of third party software that gets installed by default in a common linux distro. Each lib that gets patched is added to the list of patched updates. So if say libffmpeg gets updated it gets added to the list, but there are many such instances. Windows can put out patches that say they updated Mediaplayer and say nothing of the underlying libs that might have gotten updated along with it. So on paper it looks like Linux it looks like Windows has less security patches, but we all know that in reality that is not the case, regardless of the FUD that MS tries to feed users.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: wm for a server?
by Soulbender on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

You wrote that using Linux alone protects me from viruses, which I consider a myth


It's not a myth. In practice using Linux considerably lowers the changes of your computer becoming infected with a virus. The chances aren't zero but pretty close.
Now, whether this is due to Linux being inherently more secure or due it not having as many users is a different issue.

If Linux itself is a virus- and threat-free environment, then why there are so many security patches and updates for any supported distribution ?


You are confusing security patches with the actual presence of virus. The fact that software has bugs does not lead to the automatic existence of virus exploiting said bugs.
Not that there arent any virus for Linux but the amount of virus for Windows is massively larger.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: wm for a server?
by netpython on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Even when I create complete set of Ubuntu repos (4 DVDs and 1 CD) there still will be no Opera'a .deb on those. So situation is exactly the same as in Windows.

Not quite. There is no monthly patch cycle. Updates come as quicly as possible.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 22:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Last time I tried - to use Flash I have to install 32bit browser in 64bit environment:


Gnash. Works natively in 64-bit.
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

Other programs I have in mind: Adobe Acrobat, Avast Antivirus, ClamAV


Use evince or kpdf for a native 64-bit PDF viewer. The other two programs are not required on a Linux system (especially a 64-bit one) to search for Windows viruses. Having said that, ClamAV is available as a .deb for 64-bit architectures:
http://www.clamav.org/download/packages/packages-linux

Even when I create complete set of Ubuntu repos (4 DVDs and 1 CD) there still will be no Opera'a .deb on those. So situation is exactly the same as in Windows.


On Linux, unlike Windows, out-of-the-box I get a W3C standards compliant browser, including SVG, that can pass the acid2 test (exactly as per the original claim). That browser is called Konqueror, not Opera.

The situation is not at all the same as in Windows.

And for "usecure, non-standard browser" - there is no obligation to use it for browsing, even to leave it unblocked on firewall.


It is embedded into the OS. You can't remove it entirely, and you can't stop it from running under some circumstances, even when it is not selected as the default browser. It presents its security holes despite what you might do by trying to use an alternative.

You confused registration and activation. I can be anonymous user of properly licensed Windows, just like any non-commercial Linux distribution.


You are correct. Sorry about that. I should have typed: "Activation is required, YES!".

Edited 2007-11-20 22:35

Reply Score: 3

RE[]: wm for a server?
by 6c1452 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:02 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wm for a server?"
6c1452 Member since:
2007-08-29

Last time I tried - to use Flash I have to install 32bit browser in 64bit environment:

Ubuntu 7.10 uses non-free flash with 64-bit firefox with a wrapper; I believe the package name is flash-nonfree (and it works great, by the way). My only 64-bit complaint is that I have to use mplayer32 for the wmv9dmo codec.

Other programs I have in mind: Adobe Acrobat, Avast Antivirus, ClamAV

I thought Clam AV was for *nix. At least, that's what it says on their site. Well, whatever; I don't need it myself. And I don't know about Acrobat, but I was using a Linux version of Adobe Reader a few releases back. Linux has good PDF readers, and a number of PDF makers (which I haven't tried).

As for Linux viruses, I have never heard of anybody encountering one in the wild, ever. Tell me when the last time was that you did, and I'll admit that there is any possibility of getting one.

Edited 2007-11-21 01:03

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Wed 21st Nov 2007 03:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

Use evince (...) for a native 64-bit PDF viewer.


I found it unstable and producing garbage when scrolling some PDF-s. Adobe Acrobat displays such files just fine.

Gnash. Works natively in 64-bit.


Great. But it is not Flash.

It is embedded into the OS. You can't remove it entirely,


But still it can be blocked on firewall, and since its blocked I do not worry about IE being insecure.

"Activation is required, YES!"


If you got at least five XP boxes in your organisation, it isn't ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 04:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I found it unstable and producing garbage when scrolling some PDF-s. Adobe Acrobat displays such files just fine.


Shrug. I haven't had a case of evince or kpdf having any problem with any pdf file to date.

Great. But it is not Flash.


... but nevertheless it displays flash material. It can handle even youtube videos now.

in any event, Ubuntu at least has a "wrapper" mechanism for 32-bit browser plugins, if you find that you really must run a proprietary 32-bit binary blob plugin.

But still it can be blocked on firewall, and since its blocked I do not worry about IE being insecure.


Very foolish. You could get an ActiveX control downloaded by your non-IE browser or IM client or e-mail client or somesuch mecahnism, and having got past your firewally suddenly IE gets invoked, picks up the ActiveX control and your machine is compromised.

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;959081077;fp;4194304;f...

You would also need to unblock IE in order to get access to Windows Update.

Finally, blocking IE from the web seems to be a particularly topsy-turvy thing, since it begs the very question "well why do I have to have this useless thing in the OS in the first place"?

If you got at least five XP boxes in your organisation, it isn't ;-)


WGA can still get you, even if you have a thousand XP boxes in your organisation.

Edited 2007-11-21 04:24

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Wed 21st Nov 2007 13:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

On Linux, unlike Windows, out-of-the-box I get a W3C standards compliant browser, including SVG, that can pass the acid2 test (exactly as per the original claim). That browser is called Konqueror, not Opera. The situation is not at all the same as in Windows.


Ahhh... Konqueror - you mean that thing, which pass acid2 test, but also fail on other 99,5% of websites, and is forcefully inserted into KDE without any means of uninstallation, just like IE into Windows ?

;-))

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: wm for a server?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

If Linux itself is a virus- and threat-free environment, then why there are so many security patches and updates for any supported distribution ?


Were you dropped on your head as a baby? I would think the answer to be obvious. Linux is secure because there are constant patches and updates for it. Security is an ongoing struggle, in case you didn't know.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Wed 21st Nov 2007 03:43 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

Were you dropped on your head as a baby?


Bullying when ran out of arguments ?

I would think the answer to be obvious.


I have mine too - Linux is secure (or unsecure) as every other OS. Its lack of desktop userbase gives false sense of security to overconfident people like you. See the steadily growing number of exploits in OS X and compare it with steadily growing number of OS X boxes being connected to the Internet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 04:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I have mine too - Linux is secure (or unsecure) as every other OS. Its lack of desktop userbase gives false sense of security to overconfident people like you. See the steadily growing number of exploits in OS X and compare it with steadily growing number of OS X boxes being connected to the Internet.


There are a few things wrong with this thinking, IMO.

Firstly, OSX and Windows both have a large layer of "inscrutable" software. Because it is not able to be seen by large numbers of programmers, it necessarily has limited testing and limited code review. This alone would place OSX and Microsoft both in a different case to Linux, where the whole of the codebase is visible to, and testable by, a huge number of people.

The other aspect of this stems from the same fact: "the whole of the Linux codebase is visible to a huge number of people" ... this includes being visible to blackhats. The other factor to consider in conjunction with this is the kudos that would be associated with writing the first successful mass virus to infect Linux systems. You would think that if there are any exploitable vulnerabilities in Linux, then blackhats seeking kudos would have a go at it, despite the low numbers of Linux desktops.

Another point, Linux has low numbers on the desktops ... but Linux has a significant share of the server market. The servers are where many of the goodies are actually stored, so the "low numbers of Linux machines" is not really a valid arguement at all. Linux still represents a tempting and sizeable target despite low numbers of Linux desktops.

Finally, Linux is not a monoculture. This is especially true when you look at Linux compared with Windows or even with OSX. What might work on one Linux machine won't necessarily work on another. This would put a serious dent into any virus propogation vector on Linux.

So, taking these points into account, and considering the "coolnes factor" that would be gained by any blackhat making a successful attack on Linux, not to mention the fact that a lot of people would like to see Linux fail, one would think that if Linux were indeed as insecure as Windows then by now it would be just as buried in malware as Windows is.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: wm for a server?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 17:18 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wm for a server?"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Oh? I haven't seen any "growing number of OS X" exploits. Not successful ones, anyway.

There is no relation between the popularity of a piece of software and its security status. Even if it is targeted more, it does not mean it will be vulnerable. Some software products are more secure than others. Constant improvements and sane design are what makes it so.

You seem to be under the false impression that computer security has anything to do with the amount of attacks or how much of a target a computer or software is. That only goes to prove that you don't know much about security and shouldn't speak.

Popularity and attack amounts are completely irrelevant. They are just equivalents of brute force. If the target was well designed and has no vulnerabilities, it makes no difference if it is attacked 10 times or a billion times. It may suffer denial of service, but it will not be compromised.

Windows has fundamental design flaws, security wise. Any amount of fixes will just be patchwork. To make it worse, the fixes come slowly and innovation takes years and years to make its way to radically improved Windows versions.

Compare with Linux and UNIX which are based on much saner design choices and where fixes often come within 24 hours.

Which do you think is more secure?

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: wm for a server?
by Soulbender on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:59 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Adobe Acrobat, Avast Antivirus, ClamAV


I seriously dont know why you put clamav here. It's a) designed for *nix and b) available in 64bit versions.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Wed 21st Nov 2007 03:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

b) available in 64bit versions


Well, I do not see it there:

http://www.clamav.org/download/packages/packages-linux

Check yourself

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: wm for a server?
by Soulbender on Wed 21st Nov 2007 06:29 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: wm for a server?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Well, I do not see it there:


You're not looking hard enough then.
The SUSE repository has a 64bit version.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Can I understand it right ? I can install and use OpenOffice 2.x on Red Hat 7.0 installation, as I can on Windows 98 ?


Yes. You can also install it on Red Hat 5.2 or older, if you compile it from source. Can you do install it on Windows 3.1?

> Protect you from viruses & malware.
It's a myth.


Tell that to my desktop Linux box, sitting on the Internet without a firewall, and never getting ANY virus or malware in all the years I've been using it.

So unlucky me. Using Ubuntu for one and half year, and still cannot make Realtek RT 2500 WiFi PCI Cards on two desktop to run on Ubuntu. Latest driver included in 7.10 repos failed to detect my card, saying "card not installed". IT IS installed, damn it! ;-)


Tell it to Realtek. Reverse engineering will only take you so far. It's amazing what drivers you find in the Linux kernel, but the devs are not miracle workers. If Realtek doesn't want you to use their cards on Linux, that's between them and you, don't blame Linux for this.

> A working 64-bit desktop with all drivers.
Drivers - maybe. But not all applications.


Again, tell it to Adobe and the rest of the vendors who push binary blobs that only work on 32bit.

Unless you're unlucky one, equipped with Radeon 8250 and updated to brand new X-server version 7.3 ...


ATI's the one you want here.

Say, you should start a Christmas card list or something. I can see that the list of vendors you should have a talk with is growing.

> A browser compliant with W3C standards,
> including SVG, and which can pass the acid2 test.

There are no Opera for Windows ?


He was talking about Konqueror.

Registration IS required on Windows ? No!


It's not? Then why do I have to enter my unique serial number if I want Windows to be fully functional and access to updates? Can't that serial be traced back to me? And why do I have to give my personal data to the Microsoft reps when I change my motherboard or CPU and Microsoft invalidates my copy?

Edited 2007-11-21 01:37

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: wm for a server?
by autumnlover on Wed 21st Nov 2007 04:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wm for a server?"
autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

It's not? Then why do I have to enter my unique serial number if I want Windows to be fully functional and access to updates?


Its not "your serial number". Its a Windows serial number and I do not see how you can be identified by that number alone. When you buy a copy (no matter OEM or retail) serial number is hidden inside box. It is not present on receipt and in store's accounting database.

And if you're paranoid enough ;-) you can activate by phone, by never used before cellphone and by using not registered pre-paid SIM card. Big Brother from Redmond will have a very hard time to track you then ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by Soulbender on Wed 21st Nov 2007 02:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: wm for a server?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

compare win's clipboard and GNOME equivalent of it.


Hogwash. The clipboard works perfectly between different apps in X, be it Xlib, GTK or QT apps.

and still cannot make Realtek RT 2500 WiFi PCI


Ralink RT2500 based PCI cards work in Linux and has done so for quite some time. Maybe the problem isn't with Linux but with Realtek or the user.

But not all applications.


As long as the application works why dos it matter? It's not like all Windows apps are avilable in 64bit versions.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: wm for a server?
by draethus on Wed 21st Nov 2007 05:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: wm for a server?"
draethus Member since:
2006-08-02

Hogwash. The clipboard works perfectly between different apps in X, be it Xlib, GTK or QT apps.

Hogwash. Just recently (this year IIRC) the X developers were discussing why the clipboard is so broken and what they can do to improve compatibility between applications.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 05:55 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Hogwash. Just recently (this year IIRC) the X developers were discussing why the clipboard is so broken and what they can do to improve compatibility between applications.


http://refspecs.linux-foundation.org/LSB_3.1.0/LSB-Desktop-generic/...

There are a number of references on the topic of the clipboard.

http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/Products
http://www.linux-foundation.org/en/LSB_Distribution_Status

There shouldn't be any issues with the clipboard on any of those desktop distributions. I'm not sure why X developers would be discussing the desktop's clipboard, in any event.

Edited 2007-11-21 05:59

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: wm for a server?
by raver31 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 09:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: wm for a server?"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

hmmm, clearly you have been reading the wrong discussions.

The clipboards in Gnome and KDE are not the same as an X clipboard.

Gnome and KDE are the desktop environments, if you were to using one of these desktops and tried to copy and paste between applications, you would be using the Gnome or KDE clipboard.

X on the otherhand is the underlying "Window Manager" and as such, should not have a clipboard service made available to applications already inside a desktop environment.

Reply Score: 2

-OT- RE: wm for a server?
by gilboa on Tue 20th Nov 2007 04:05 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

"I'm not trying to be a smart-a$$, but seriously. I maintain Linux servers and they are pretty much rock-solid (mostly Tomcat5 and Java webapps). "

I won't mod you down (others will), but your post is completely OT.

"What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?"

The same question can be asked in reverse: What can Windows on a desktop do for me, that a properly-configured Linux install won't *.

- Gilboa
* Assuming that you're not gamer. (Though there's enough native/wine-working/OSS games to keep casual gamers happy)

Reply Score: 6

RE: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by dagw on Tue 20th Nov 2007 11:17 UTC in reply to "-OT- RE: wm for a server?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

The same question can be asked in reverse: What can Windows on a desktop do for me, that a properly-configured Linux install won't *.

Apps. There are still plently of great apps which don't have an equal equivalent on Linux. It really is that simple.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Apps. There are still plently of great apps which don't have an equal equivalent on Linux. It really is that simple.


Myth. An element of truth some time ago, but now largely a myth serving someone's agenda.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by TLZ_ on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

Linux has really come a long way in recent years and in some areas it might even be ahead of windows, but it's still lagging behind in some places.

For instance, Photoshop is superiour to GIMP. Both in terms of functionality, and usability. (but GIMPShop might fix this, haven't tried that yet. And I hear rumors of better GUI on the next version of GIMP as well...)

Also, numerous people run less known Windows app that are so small that nobody takes time to create a linux-equal.

However, Linux has come a long way and it's definetly getting there. Esp. Ubuntu have impressed me. In 2-3 years I might even switch. So to conclude: not there today... but really closing in.

For the record: I'm running XP... and I'll prob. never going to run Vista. I've never felt Windows as evil as people complain about, except this one. When I used it i felt like I lost control and ownership of my computer. Program files where hidden away in cryptic directories. Plus, my own program(Yup, another Notepad clone!) didn't work on it. Luckily I'm writing it to be completely .net 2.0 compliant with no unmananged code, so when Mono gets full 2.0 compability it'll be easy to get it over to Linux. ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by netpython on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

In 2-3 years I might even switch. So to conclude: not there today... but really closing in.

Why should you switch?
You can configure a dual-boot and perhaps disable networking for windows.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by TLZ_ on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

In the switching-period I'd probably dual-boot(actually I'm dualbooting now, I just never boot into Ubuntu).

I mean by switch to actually change what OS I use, to constantly boot to another OS is really cumbersome IMO. Then it's better to use a emulator, or a somehting like WINE or Cygwin.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by dagw on Wed 21st Nov 2007 11:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

No it isn't a myth. I know this because I experience it, and get annoyed by it. I've tried all the Linux alternatives, and despite the fact that I prefer the Linux OS, I still find myself booting into windows XP (so that I can use many apps. I honestly wish it wasn't so, since I really like using Linux.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 22:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No it isn't a myth. I know this because I experience it, and get annoyed by it. I've tried all the Linux alternatives, and despite the fact that I prefer the Linux OS, I still find myself booting into windows XP (so that I can use many apps. I honestly wish it wasn't so, since I really like using Linux.


If you name the applications and the type of lock-in data that causes you to go back to windows XP, perhaps someone can offer you a suggestion that you were not aware of that would save you that hassle, and allow you to continue using Linux, which you say you like.

I find myself that there is not that much that cannot be worked around, and the amount of stuff that has to processed "windows-only" grows less and less all the time. I find that I have roughly about the same amount of trouble dealing with foreign-format "difficult" data using an up-to-date Linux desktop as I do in Windows XP when it comes to dealing with "legacy-format-data".

For example, my wife is a teacher and her school uses a proprietary Windows-only prgram for grades and reports. Fortunately, that program runs just fine under Wine.

Where there is a will, very often there is a way.

Edited 2007-11-21 22:57

Reply Score: 2

autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

Myth. An element of truth some time ago, but now largely a myth serving someone's agenda.


Imagine yourself stuck on a desert island with notebook loaded with latest Inkscape and a pile of CDs loaded with *.CDR files...

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Wed 21st Nov 2007 22:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Imagine yourself stuck on a desert island with notebook loaded with latest Inkscape and a pile of CDs loaded with *.CDR files...


http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#What_can_I_do_with_.2A.....
(scroll down the the answer to FAQ question 6.8)

Now imagine yourself on the same desert island with notebook loaded with default Windows XP install and the same pile of CDs loaded with *.CDR files...

What, you are going to try to open those files in Paint? Or perhaps Notepad?

Good luck with that.

Edited 2007-11-21 22:23

Reply Score: 2

autumnlover Member since:
2007-04-12

(scroll down the the answer to FAQ question 6.8)


You said that there is a "myth" about certain software being unavailable for Linux, and hinted about some clandestine agenda behind such "myths" being spread. But it still seems to be truth. Inkscape and Sodipodi CANNOT access *.CDR files, and "Uniconvertor" mentioned in FAQ is available as SOURCE ONLY.

You know ? I do not like Linux. Instead of clicking "next", "ok" , "next" as on normal OSes, those "uni*geeks" always told you to compile something called "colonel" from "shources" or something. (sarcasm)

Now imagine yourself on the same desert island with notebook loaded with default Windows XP install and the same pile of CDs loaded with *.CDR files...


So you say that there is Inkscape installed in Ubuntu's "default install" along with "Uniconvertor" installed and ready to process that pile of CDs ? ;-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Fri 23rd Nov 2007 05:42 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

So you say that there is Inkscape installed in Ubuntu's "default install" along with "Uniconvertor" installed and ready to process that pile of CDs ? ;-)


No, I didn't say that.

I just pointed out that a Windows install fails the same test of useability that you proposed for Linux.

You know ? I do not like Linux. Instead of clicking "next", "ok" , "next" as on normal OSes, those "uni*geeks" always told you to compile something called "colonel" from "shources" or something. (sarcasm)


Honestly, would I put you through all of that? Oh dear, the mind boggles!

No, what I would do is point you to easy-to-install packages:
http://sk1project.org/modules.php?name=Products&product=uniconverto...

There you go. Easy peasy.

Or, if you didn't want to have to convert the files, then just use a graphics editor that can handle them:
http://sk1project.org/modules.php?name=Products&product=sk1

This one is not quite ready yet, so you might have to build that. It is up to you.

Still easier (and AFAIK cheaper) to get this for, say, Ubuntu than a program for Windows XP that can do CDR files.

I am still going to wait a while before I would claim this capability for Visio files, though:
http://sk1project.org/modules.php?name=Products&product=vsdviewer

VDSviewer is still only alpha quality.

Edited 2007-11-23 05:49

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by Soulbender on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

There are still plently of great apps which don't have an equal equivalent on Linux.


The opposite is also true. It all depends on exactly what apps you need.
There's also an ocean of bottom-of-the-barrel apps for Windows, something *nix thankfully does not have. (Seriously, how many crappy Notepad clones do we need?)

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by gilboa on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:51 UTC in reply to "RE: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

I can name a number of Linux only features that doesn't have a direct Windows equivalent.

- True multi-user. (No, fast desktop switch doesn't allow you to have two concurrent users; I use it daily)

- True virtual desktops. (Even object desktop's Virtual desktop is far from being sufficient)

- Customizable shell, composing window manager, etc. (You have it partially in Vista and in XP w/object desktop - but both cannot really compete with KDE/GNOME/E17/etc when it comes to customization.)

- Support for low end machines without sacrificing security or stability. I still use my 10 y/o PII/366/256MB laptop.

- Seamless network integration. (Nope, remote desktop is anything but seamless!)

- Cleaner security module; I don't need an on-line anti-virus/work/adware/etc tools that eat up my resources.

- Package managers keep my system up-to-date and secure. I needn't worry about multiple msvcrt DLL or, a favorite pet peeve of mine - the dbghelp.dll! *Spit*

- Free. As in beer and in speech. Nobody is forcing an expensive upgrade down my throat. (My CentOS5 machine will most likely be upgraded when the machine will die...)
... and I can continue.

To each its own. The term "desktop" means different things to different people. For -me-, gimp is just as good as Photoshop; vim+ctags+cgdb+gcc+valgrind+man is better then VS2Kx; OO 2.3 is just as good as OfficeXP/2K3; Evolution can rival Outlook; I have enough native (and wine supported) games to keep me happy and wine/IE6 works just fine on the odd site that doesn't support firefox.

But that's me.

- Gilboa

Edited 2007-11-20 15:56 UTC

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by jabbotts on Tue 20th Nov 2007 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

are you actually using 100% of the available features in Photoshop? Where prefession requires a specific application then sure thing.. that decides your desktop but most people don't know 100% of Photoshop or Lightwave or AutoCAD.. For the rest of us that only use part of what those powerhouses can do, there are alternatives.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?
by dagw on Wed 21st Nov 2007 12:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: -OT- RE: wm for a server?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

are you actually using 100% of the available features in Photoshop?

Nope, but if the features I do use aren't available anywhere else, it doesn't really matter. There are also cases of technically being able to duplicate a feature in another app (or collection of apps), but it being such a pain in the ass it just isn't worth it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: wm for a server?
by Soulbender on Tue 20th Nov 2007 09:19 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

This is almost like asking "I already like Britney Spears, what can Bob Dylan do for me that Britney can't?".

Reply Score: 3

RE: wm for a server?
by trenchsol on Tue 20th Nov 2007 11:29 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

I have been using Linux and FreeBSD as desktop last couple of yeas. Currently I am using SUSE.

It is the combination of GUI applications and usual UNIX command line programs that makes my life easier. I am a developer and many things in UNIX based systems are meant for developers. Even basic FreeBSD and Linux installation offers much to developer.


Everything in UNIX can be scripted. Daily tasks can be automatized with scripting. Even GUI applications can be scripted and integrated with command line programs. Microsoft is working on that too.

Another important thing are upgrades. With Windows one has to run with a pack, in a manner of speaking. If you don't follow the upgrade dynamics, you find yourself incompatible very soon. UNIX based are much more tolerant, and you can keep older system much longer. I need to have stable and predictable environment, and upgrades cost me time and money.

Even if you upgrade, or migrate to another machine, you can keep old configuration files. Everything is in the configuration files.

I have never tried Windows with SFU (services for UNIX). I wonder if I would find that combination usable and useful. I hope someone will share Windows/SFU experiences with us.

Reply Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

For me, I get a few benefits from Linux on the desktop:

- more efficient use of system for running VM (I use VM to host my OS collection and to develop/test custom installs before I buld a physical machine)

- Linux based OS on the desktop supports all my needed functions outside of video games. My video card is too old to push modern games so that's not really an issue even.

- Linux based OS are highly modular so I can reconfigure my system to specific needs. My desktop has a specific configuration.. my localy use VM have specialized configurations (ispconfig specialized server, eGroupware specialized server).

- Software to perform 99% of my needs is ready and waiting at my finger tips in the repositories. There is literally two programs that I can't or don't install through the distribution repositories.

- I have multiple machines at home and can throw a distribution on them legally as needed or at my whim. To build the same systems on a Windows platform, I'm looking at five to ten thousand in license fees.. that prohibitive limitation simply does not exist for me with FOSS.

- I get a native connection to my servers. ssh/X beats VNC or any other remote desktop I've tried.. hands down.. there is just no contest in that area. This is after years of Remotely Possible, Remote Desktop, Reach Out, VNC and any other windows platform solution plus limited success with VNC on *nix machines. even the X servers (clients?) that run over windows with ssh and X forwarding can't compare.

- I have lost all trust and faith in Mirosoft. After growing up using every OS they've released since Dos 5 I just can't help but recognize the coporate culture and behavior in the market place. I've no trust of what there binary blobs are doing besides what I want them to do and I have no interest in premoting there hostile business practices further by not voting with my wallet.

- Bash.. Windows is getting better at command line with every new branding

At this point, the only reason I hav a Windows native partition is to boot over for gaming and support some legacy locked-in data (PalmOS software and Motorolas windows only backup/sync software). I can't currently imagine using it as my primary OS for day to day work. I keep windows VMs installed since I already have the lincenses and need to keep current with IT for professional reasons or testing. Vista will also get installed eventually once I find a legal license for Ultimate (it's a learning tool, I need the full tool present to learn). After learning, it's eventual end will be only a DX10 gameing platform.

Yup, Linux and other platforms are great on the server side. If Windows does everything you need on the desktop side then stick with it (you've already invested a lot in licenses after all). If your reason for not trying a Linux or BSD OS as your desktop is because of brand recognition.. well.. it's time to setup a test machine and give it a try.

Reply Score: 7

cycoj Member since:
2007-11-04

Sorry OT.


At this point, the only reason I hav a Windows native partition is to boot over for gaming and support some legacy locked-in data (PalmOS software and Motorolas windows only backup/sync software).


AFAIK there's gammu and moto4lin which support Motorola mobiles, I also think kmobiletools and startalk does it as well. I've used it with my L6. All these are in the debian sid repos. One less reason to boot into windows ;)

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

Cheers Cycoj,

I'll be checking those apps out tonight. My old Outlook/PalmOS/Motorola may become Evolution/N800/Motorola if I can get all the bits talking. Just being able to work with my phone will be a big step forward though.

The PalmOS issues will go way (too ebay) the moment I can fully replace all it's functions with the N800.

Reply Score: 1

RE: wm for a server?
by Oliver on Tue 20th Nov 2007 19:53 UTC in reply to "wm for a server?"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

>What can Linux on the desktop do for me, that a properly-configured XP install won't?

Windows Vs Linux is like faith Vs reality. I choose the latter =)

Reply Score: 1

AfterStep
by zizban on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:20 UTC
zizban
Member since:
2005-07-06

The author only touched on the nastiness that is AfterStep. I tried to love this WM but it way, way too complicated to configure. The documentation is cryptic and there hundreds of elements you can configure. Look on the AfterStep website and look at the documentation. It is probably the worst documentation I ever seen.

Second, the default look is busy, with wharfs and docks and taskbars all over the screen. My biggest pet peeve besides all the busyness is the titlebars. The author either turned it off or didn't show it but the default look is a shadow text that looks freaky blurry.

In other words, its complication and buffet of features have resulted in a mess.

Reply Score: 2

windowmaker vs. afterstep
by broken_symlink on Mon 19th Nov 2007 23:34 UTC
broken_symlink
Member since:
2005-07-06

how similar is windowmaker to afterstep? i know windowmaker is really meant to be used with gnustep, but if you don't how is it?

Reply Score: 1

RE: windowmaker vs. afterstep
by zizban on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:03 UTC in reply to "windowmaker vs. afterstep"
zizban Member since:
2005-07-06

Afterstep has a lot of WindowMaker-ism a dock (wharf) and the way it minimizes apps like WindowMaker.

Reply Score: 2

RE: windowmaker vs. afterstep
by bnolsen on Tue 20th Nov 2007 00:44 UTC in reply to "windowmaker vs. afterstep"
bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

Similar in look and feel and share some compatiblity in function.

However, the code bases for Afterstep and Windowmaker are vastly different. I believe Windowmaker came about because some people were dissatisfied with Afterstep.

Reply Score: 2

"there's a Linux desktop to suit everyone"
by puggle on Tue 20th Nov 2007 02:30 UTC
puggle
Member since:
2007-03-14

..... whereas Windows satisfies only 90% of desktop computer users? ;) ;) ;)

Reply Score: 3

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

..... whereas Windows satisfies only 90% of desktop computer users?


..... whereas 90% of desktop computer users either are obliged to use Windows, or simply didn't know that they have a choice to use something other than and better than Windows.

There, I fixed it for you.

Reply Score: 7

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

The fact that you are using it does not necessarily mean that you are satisfied.

Reply Score: 1

Snifflez Member since:
2005-11-15

Hmm, that's just like saying "popularity = quality". In other words, not necessarily true or correct.

Reply Score: 2

Choice
by waynej on Tue 20th Nov 2007 09:04 UTC
waynej
Member since:
2007-07-04

When all's said and done the main point of this article was surely that when using Linux there exists a far higher degree of choice than when using other OS's. I mainly use KDE, but enjoy trying alternative DE's from time to time (mainly Fluxbox, the tab feature is a great feature - trust me).

When using Linux, not only can one choose almost any DE one wishes, it can also be configured (admittedly with some difficulty in a (very) few cases) to do exactly what you want it to do.

The choice to use an interface that looks, feels and does what you want it to do and not what someone else decides is the best way is very liberating when working.

As to using Linux on your PC (to Rockwell) the way I look at it is this, I've used Linux for 3 years now and I have found no need to revert to windows other than at work (we use modelling software for which there is no Linux alternative). I have no difficulties at all - I have never, ever had to revert to Windows to do anything - seriously.

With Linux I have choice in terms of how I work and use the computer.

To windows users - rather than look for a reason to use Linux, try the approach of trying Linux for a while (try PCLinuxOS live CD), try the different DE's and try to find reasons to use windows. Give Linux a good, serious try - you may find a pleasant surprise

Choice is good, choice is necessary, it drives the technology forward.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Choice
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 09:30 UTC in reply to "Choice"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

To windows users - rather than look for a reason to use Linux, try the approach of trying Linux for a while (try PCLinuxOS live CD), try the different DE's and try to find reasons to use windows. Give Linux a good, serious try - you may find a pleasant surprise


I remain quite mystified about the apparent attitude of Windows supporters towards Linux.

Linux has a longish list of important advantages and cost savings and "lack of hassle" time savings for the users over Windows ... yet Windows users seem to be in denial about that, and seem desperate to try to put down Linux and bolster Windows ... and one has to ask to what end?

Do they actually want to hand over their hard-earned money to Redmond year after year for no good reason? Do they really want to yield control over their own hardware and their own IT spending to a large American corporation of known untrustworthiness? Do they really want to spend considerable time, effort and money constantly trying to keep their systems secure? Do they really want to be dependent on the whims of one foreign firm to continue to have access to their own digital data? Do they like being spied upon and dictated to? Do they want to be inundated with obnoxious advertising and spam?

Exactly what gives with all that anyway?

One suspects there is some mis-representation here of what genuine computer users actually think.

Can we mention the word "astroturfing" perhaps?

Edited 2007-11-20 09:35

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Choice
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:35 UTC in reply to "RE: Choice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Linux has a longish list of important advantages and cost savings and "lack of hassle" time savings for the users over Windows ... yet Windows users seem to be in denial about that, and seem desperate to try to put down Linux and bolster Windows ... and one has to ask to what end?


Maybe because they simply LIKE Windows? Not everyone shares an interest in openness and more of that stuff - for them, Windows is what they know, and despite its shortcomings, it's what they like. Can you please LEAVE it at that, instead of trying to make it seem as if Windows users are complete idiots? Stop generalising, lemur, it's REALLY starting to work on my nerves.

And I even find it offensive. I had my parents try Linux for a few weeks, and they simply DID NOT LIKE IT. Can't you just accept that?

Do they actually want to hand over their hard-earned money to Redmond year after year for no good reason?


Year over year? My parents bought Windows XP 5 years ago, and Windows 2000 8 years ago, and they're still using them. What is this "year over year"?

Do they really want to yield control over their own hardware and their own IT spending to a large American corporation of known untrustworthiness?


Oh, cut the nonsense already. Microsoft is no worse than any of the other big companies of the world - what car do you drive? Do you really think Toyota or GM is any better than Microsoft, or any other company? Yet you easily trust those, and step into their cars every day.

Do they really want to spend considerable time, effort and money constantly trying to keep their systems secure?


No they don't, and so they don't do it. The machines are set up YEARS ago, once every year or so I do some maintenance, and that's it. No virus, no spyware, nothing.

Do they really want to be dependent on the whims of one foreign firm to continue to have access to their own digital data?


Cry me a river. We're not all paranoid.

Do they like being spied upon and dictated to?


Spied upon? Dictated to? In what world do you live?

Do they want to be inundated with obnoxious advertising and spam?


You mean like your comments on OSNews?

One suspects there is some mis-representation here of what genuine computer users actually think.


Sure, everybody else is wrong, and you are right. Maybe, just maybe, it's YOU who is wrong? No, that couldn't be, could it? I mean, you use Linux!

Can we mention the word "astroturfing" perhaps?


Yes. That's that thing you are doing.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Choice
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:56 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

And I even find it offensive. I had my parents try Linux for a few weeks, and they simply DID NOT LIKE IT. Can't you just accept that?


Sure I can. The question is, can you accept that many people DO NOT LIKE Windows, especially Windows Vista, and they are looking for a way out?

Many, many people feel more than a little "trapped" by Windows, and Windows file formats and other lock-in mechanisms built in to Windows, and they are looking for an alternative but fearful of the unknown.

Year over year? My parents bought Windows XP 5 years ago, and Windows 2000 8 years ago, and they're still using them. What is this "year over year"?


They do not want to have to pay someone every six months or so, over and over again, to "clean" or "re-install" their broken Windows systems for them, but they feel they must if they want to keep operating.

I myself have "cleaned" many a Windows system (for free) just in order to help people I know out. Many people do not have access to a friend who can do this for them.

These people typically do not know there is a perfectly viable, usable, functional, free system available to them, that will work on their systems.

It is a dis-service to pretend to such people that they do not have a way out, and that this thing called "Linux" is no good, and cannot help them, when in reality it can.

So, despite the fact that it may annoy you, Thom, (and I am sorry if it does but one just has to respond to disinformation) it is my hope that by posting here I might be able to get this message through to people, despite the naysayers, and help some of them out.

Edited 2007-11-20 13:01

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Choice
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Choice"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Sure I can. The question is, can you accept that many people DO NOT LIKE Windows, especially Windows Vista, and they are looking for a way out?


Sure I can. Why do you think I use Linux and Mac OS X and BeOS?

"Year over year? My parents bought Windows XP 5 years ago, and Windows 2000 8 years ago, and they're still using them. What is this "year over year"?


They do not want to have to pay someone every six months or so, over and over again, to "clean" or "re-install" their broken Windows systems for them, but they feel they must if they want to keep operating.
"

Can you read? As I explained in the post you were replying to, the machines at my parents' house have been running merrily for years now, and I do maintenance maybe once a year or so - if even. That maintenance is not even needed.

It is a dis-service to pretend to such people that they do not have a way out, and that this thing called "Linux" is no good, and cannot help them, when in reality it can.


It is a dis-service to pretend that Windows is nothing but bad, and Linux is nothing but good - because THAT is what you are doing, lemur.

What annoys me is your attitude towards Windows users: they are dumb, unaware, and must be force-fed "awareness" of alternatives - whether they want to or not. This attitude is hurting Linux much more than anything else, and it is one of the prime reasons why my enthusiasm for Linux has lessened greatly ever since I started using it eons ago. The arrogance is just dripping out of every one of your pores.

Edited 2007-11-20 13:31 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Choice
by Sophotect on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:31 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Choice"
Sophotect Member since:
2006-04-26

Hey, you BOSS! Now i'm having to mediate a little here. What you are saying about arrogance may be right, but only seen superficial. Sure other services and goods may not be that different from the central business model of a certain company. So what?
Is it natural that for certain uses the applications just don't exist for alternative platforms? Has it to be this way? This company has been caught again and again breaking the laws since its inception. Let us never forget that, and that this company is influencing a very central part of modern life either. Should it be this way? You are comparing it to cars. Should cars use only one sort of fuel from one vendor and are usable on the main streets only, while having all sorts of trouble when the wish to stray from the well trotten paths arises? Let us do another comparison which i see more fitting: Take a fridge. Any model, there IS choice, in size, deep freeze compartments, integrated ice-maker, energy efficiency, antibacterial coating, brand, price, whatnot. You can pack the food of your very own choice into it. Just plug it in without further hassle. What we have now is not hasslefree, on neither side. There is the golden middle which is lacking somehow, it is just not there, and no the other alternative wit the big X in it doesn't count either. To see windows as the universal tool for me equals owning a swiss officers knife as the solitary tool in ones life. And said company tries everything to establish its few models of these knife-equivalents as mandatory and the only alternative. And this is just not right.
By the way, nothing is certain, in comparison to the wallsockets the fridge is getting its power from, ICT is only in it's infancy.

Edited 2007-11-20 14:42

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Choice
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 23:05 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Choice"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What annoys me is your attitude towards Windows users: they are dumb, unaware, and must be force-fed "awareness" of alternatives - whether they want to or not. This attitude is hurting Linux much more than anything else, and it is one of the prime reasons why my enthusiasm for Linux has lessened greatly ever since I started using it eons ago. The arrogance is just dripping out of every one of your pores.


Au contraire, there are very smart Windows users. I have to use it every day myself ;) (joke).

I do not initiate ad hominem attacks on anyone, despite often getting exactly that treatment from other of your posters.

I merely correct disinformation. It is intended to help people, and for many people it can be a great help.

Clearly we see this very differently. From my point of view, for example, it is you drip arrogance out of every sentence.

How does it help anybody to leave disinformation unanswered, and to leave a potential helpful solution to people lying in disuse through badmouthing, disinformation and lack of awareness?

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Choice
by netpython on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Windows is a necessity if you develop windows applications. Windows is a necessity if that's what you know. Windows is a necessity if you like it. Windows is a necessity if you reverse engineer windows applications, for whatever reason. Windows is not a necessity if you want to play the latest game titles.

OpenSource is a necessity if you rather prefer updates as soon as possible instead of monthly patch cycles.

0day exposure:

http://research.eeye.com/html/alerts/zeroday/index.html

Anyway i think you should address the thread highjackers as well Thom. Who started the: "My d&ck is larger then yours ." provocations.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Choice
by BluenoseJake on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:58 UTC in reply to "RE: Choice"
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

"Linux has a longish list of important advantages and cost savings and "lack of hassle" time savings for the users over Windows ... yet Windows users seem to be in denial about that, and seem desperate to try to put down Linux and bolster Windows ... and one has to ask to what end? "

I got a couple of problems with this statement:

1. I don't think there is any "lack of hassle" with Linux. The hassles are different, but they are there. I use both, and have never really noticed a big difference in tinkering time between Windows XP and Linux. Luckily, problems with either are the exception, not the norm.

2. Most Windows users couldn't care less about Linux or about bolstering Windows, they just want their stuff to work, so they can get back to downloading porn.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Choice
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:07 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Most Windows users couldn't care less about Linux or about bolstering Windows, they just want their stuff to work


Yep. Many of them will pay for subscription to an anti-virus vendor, to keep their systems working. Some of them will call Windows help to try to get their system back to working, and spend hours frustrated because they can't get it sorted that way.

Some people are savvy and smart, and can keep a Windows system clean and going well indefinitely. Good luck to them.

Most people are lumbered with having to take their machines back to the shop every so often in order to keep them working.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Choice
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Choice"
apoclypse Member since:
2007-02-17

Yeah, but downloading p0rn is so much safer and easier on linux. Don't they understand that? Someone has to show these sticky hand fools what's up.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Choice
by netpython on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Choice"
netpython Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, but downloading p0rn is so much safer and easier on linux.

Not only that, but with all the scripting languages, aka perl,python,bash to name a few you can pretty much leech any pr0n site.

Reply Score: 3

A matter of changing tastes.
by Howie S on Tue 20th Nov 2007 09:17 UTC
Howie S
Member since:
2005-07-14

"Alternative" window managers certainly have their place. Linux is about choice. On the first computer I installed linux on (back in 1999), I found KDE and GNOME too heavy and sluggish, so I used XFCE and was quite satisfied. I even tried WindowMaker from time to time, just for variety. Today I'm a KDE fanboy (thanks to such things as Amarok and Katapult), but who knows where my tastes will be four months from now. With linux, I'll have the choice to decide what best suits me, and I like that.

Reply Score: 3

RE: A matter of changing tastes.
by spikeb on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:38 UTC in reply to "A matter of changing tastes."
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

i still use windowmaker part time ;)

Reply Score: 2

These Are Not Desktops
by segedunum on Tue 20th Nov 2007 10:21 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

They are window managers. There's a big difference, and trying to claim that they are somehow doing all the same things Gnome and especially KDE are doing but in a more lightweight way is laughable.

Reply Score: 5

init and keys
by netpython on Tue 20th Nov 2007 10:28 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

Both fluxbox and afterstep are a good choice for memory challenged systems ( < 128/256MB RAM).

Nice effort from the author to give away a reference to the mentioned dektop enviroments.

Though as a side note he could have mentioned ~/.fluxbox/init #for example to set "fbsetbg -l" as rootcommand so any last loaded wallpaper with "fbsetbg" is automatically loaded the next time you login, and ~/.fluxbox/keys #for assigning hotkeys to your favorite applications.

Reply Score: 3

quarkwm
by klm2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:33 UTC
klm2
Member since:
2007-10-10

The best balance between the simplicity and usability I could find. Compare the source code with other window managers and you'll see the difference. Visually it's not number 1, but it is amazingly lite+fast+usable. Fluxbox is a fat cow in compare with it.

Reply Score: 1

RE: quarkwm
by spikeb on Tue 20th Nov 2007 13:40 UTC in reply to "quarkwm"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

I'm actually terrified of a window manager that can call fluxbox a fat cow

Reply Score: 5