A word on Linux...

Magic · Post by **Magic** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 5:13 pm

In comparison to Windows, Linux has several times more potential and power, and is capable of doing more things. It just takes a bit of time to learn. Sure the learning curve is a bit longer than Windows, but it's well worth it. Personally, I've only begun to get things under control, and realize the true potential. Tasks that seemed impossible to do before are coming with more and more ease. There are countless tasks that are much easier and take less work to do in Linux actually, for those of you who say you'd rather just click and install.

So those of you who have had bad experiences, it's only because you haven't dedicated enough time to learn it. If you do, the power you will possess with the OS will slowly emerge and manifest.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5484

fragged one · Post by **fragged one** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:06 pm

awesome advice, magic, so very true.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5510

Cisco_Kid · Post by **Cisco_Kid** » Thu Jul 22, 2004 10:47 pm

for those of you who say you'd rather just click and install.

'click and install' is actually something I prefer to avoid usually if possible over just uncompressing to the directory of choice and running without ever touching an install.exe file.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5526

wldkos · Post by **wldkos** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:17 am

Ofcourse this is true magic. I stuck with it and i feel that i had a pretty good handle on linux when i was still using it. It's weird how people are just so used to Windows or even Mac OS, and they can't imagine anything different.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5538

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:50 am

True. It's a PIA to get to a certain point (ex: installing/configurating) but once you're there, you don't have to look back and there's hardly any maintenence required compared to windows. But to be honest my win2k has been more reliable then red hat... but thing is I'm always trying new things on the red hat server, too.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5541

wldkos · Post by **wldkos** » Fri Jul 23, 2004 5:04 am

Red Squirrel wrote: True. It's a PIA to get to a certain point (ex: installing/configurating) but once you're there, you don't have to look back and there's hardly any maintenence required compared to windows. But to be honest my win2k has been more reliable then red hat... but thing is I'm always trying new things on the red hat server, too.

red, to say that your linux bos isn't that stable isn't a big surprise to me at all.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5548

megaspaz · Post by **megaspaz** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 4:34 am

wldkos wrote:
Red Squirrel wrote: True. It's a PIA to get to a certain point (ex: installing/configurating) but once you're there, you don't have to look back and there's hardly any maintenence required compared to windows. But to be honest my win2k has been more reliable then red hat... but thing is I'm always trying new things on the red hat server, too.

red, to say that your linux bos isn't that stable isn't a big surprise to me at all.

hahaha

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5659

Bruce · Post by **Bruce** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 8:46 pm

Red Squirrel wrote: True. It's a PIA to get to a certain point (ex: installing/configurating) but once you're there, you don't have to look back and there's hardly any maintenence required compared to windows. But to be honest my win2k has been more reliable then red hat... but thing is I'm always trying new things on the red hat server, too.

If you did 1/10th of the things to a windows OS the way you wreak havoc on a linux computer, you would never get past the pretty blue picture Microsoft lovers have learned to be so found of.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5727

Chris Vogel · Post by **Chris Vogel** » Sat Jul 24, 2004 9:27 pm

That does seem quite true.

That’s the reason I’ve been dying to try out FreeBSD, which I guess I can substitute for Linux in this thread.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:5730

The Gheyness · Post by **The Gheyness** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:20 am

Using Linux is like having a hot chick for a girlfriend. It takes a lot of work, you're constantly having to give it attention, it likes to act up for no apparent reason. You NEVER really completely know it, no matter how much of an expert you *think* you are with it.

But once you become rather skilled at dealing with it, you like to show it off to all your friends and admire how pretty it is.

And they're all like "Whoaaa!" because they know that they could never do it.

Windows XP is like the skanky chick you dated back in high school, but never told anybody about. Always reliable (YES ALWAYS YOU WINDOWS HATERS), will do anything you ask WHEN you ask it to no questions asked, and real easy. Even your friends can have a turn on it if you want to let them, it's just THAT easy.

Linux = heartbreaker.

Win XP =

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8420

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:12 pm

Windows xp is a worm, no? I would never let that go on my computer. If it would go on, I'd burn the hard drive. Just formatting it may still leave it on, and it would be blasphemy to put a good OS such as win2k on it, as it would be an act of uncleaness, from putting something clean on something unclean. If I'd touch the hard drive I'd also have to sacrifice a lamb in the tabernacle and lay the ashes of the hard drive and the lamb on a ram's head and set it off a cliff to make sure the evil sins never come back.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8454

The Gheyness · Post by **The Gheyness** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:46 pm

HEATHEN. </3

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8460

MrSelf · Post by **MrSelf** » Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:49 pm

You convinced me Magic, I have now moved Linux onto my "must do" category. Unfortunately, there is about a year and a half waiting list...

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8463

Cisco_Kid · Post by **Cisco_Kid** » Tue Aug 17, 2004 12:18 am

Windows xp is a worm, no? I would never let that go on my computer.

SEE:
Microsoft BOB, Windows Millenium, Anything with 'Norton' in the title.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8502

megaspaz · Post by **megaspaz** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 3:52 am

bah! windows me works fine provided you tweak it to stabilize. i've didn't have any problems with it (other than the usual ms security fiascos) when i was running it as my main os.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8756

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:29 pm

I tweaked win98 to that extent once, it worked flawlessly. I forget what it was I had to do. format C: | Y or something like that.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8773

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 1:46 pm

Cisco_Kid wrote: SEE:
Microsoft BOB, Windows Millenium, Anything with 'Norton' in the title.

Microsoft bob was teh r0x0rs! It was the only thing they ever let us kids use on the computers back in elementary school!

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8783

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 2:48 pm

Was MS bob for real or just some joke around the net? Since I've heard of it before and if it's real... man what an embarasment for microsoft. LOL

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8803

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 4:42 pm

It's for real. It wasn't a shell replacement exactly, more of a shell cover-up.
Was released for Win 3.11 but Win 95 rendered it's simplicity to the status of redundant

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:8819

closet geek · Post by **closet geek** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 10:53 pm

Linux the kernel = sex.

Linux the complete OS = aids.

Most of you only use it to be cool/different/1337. The supposed performance increases Red sees are probably only in his head (no offence) it kinda pisses me off seeing everyone talking about how great Linux (the OS) is when it quite clearly isn't yet.

Windows all the way, rock solid, functional, simple, intuitive.

[/rant]

cg

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:9123

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:01 pm

True.. well linux DOES perform better for servers specificly, but then again I have not tried anything newer then win98 as a windows server. What makes linux better in terms of servers is there's less overhead because of the way servers are written. (no GUI at all... for all the ones I tried anyway)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:9126

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:17 pm

Red Squirrel wrote: (no GUI at all... for all the ones I tried anyway)

This is as close as you're going to get:
1)Install Litestep Shell (lower memory footprint than explorer.exe right off the bat)
2)Install this then http://www.litestep.net/index.php?section=...=details&id=742
3)Remove background

There you go, a swirling back abyss of emptiness and a menu when you right click

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:9130

sintekk · Post by **sintekk** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:37 pm

Here's a screenshot (seriously)

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:9133

Red Squirrel · Post by **Red Squirrel** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:39 pm

haha that could be good for a server I suppose.

I'm not sure if the desktop GUI impacts performance as much as a server GUI (in the server program itself) would, but I suppose it would impact performance still. I usually keep mine on the login screen so it's not as bad.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:9134

closet geek · Post by **closet geek** » Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:59 am

Red Squirrel wrote: True.. well linux DOES perform better for servers specificly. What makes linux better in terms of servers is there's less overhead because of the way servers are written.

The way servers are written?

Red, a server is ANY computer that has certain types of software installed on it that allows it to serve content.

A typical server (in my line of business) is single P4 3.0HT or Dual Xeon 2.4+ with 1/2GB of RAM and SCSI drives. A GUI would have zero impact on system of these specs so doesn't really come into the Windows vs Linux equation.

Linux is probably a better server kernel due to the way (especially 2.6.*) handles memory and scheduling compared to NT 5.2 but I (and not many people) actually know how the Windows kernels work in any great detail so it's hard to make a fair comparison.

Linux being more secure is basically true, but in real world situations it's all academic. I read of Linux boxes being comprimised all the time - one bad CGI script is all that's needed. I believe in security through obscurity. Run OpenBSD.

cg

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:637, old post ID:9149