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."
Thread beginning with comment 285296
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by netean on Tue 20th Nov 2007 11:43 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 Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by lemur2 on Tue 20th Nov 2007 12:37 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 Parent Score: 9

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by apoclypse on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:24 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 Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by KenJackson on Tue 20th Nov 2007 14:27 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by wirespot on Wed 21st Nov 2007 01:17 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 Parent Score: 6

RE[2]: wm for a server?
by mk@tuco.de on Tue 20th Nov 2007 15:26 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 Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: wm for a server?
by mk@tuco.de on Tue 20th Nov 2007 16:09 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 Parent Score: 1