wipe_out
Well-Known Member
Yes, I know..
Just thought it might be useful for any others coming across the thread if they manage to read this far through it..
Why not Linux?
- Thread starter BlackPig
- Start date
Yes, I know..
Just thought it might be useful for any others coming across the thread if they manage to read this far through it..
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
Seconded. I do a lot of wok with Scribus and it's really very good now. I used to need the scribus-ng development version to get pre-press stuff like bleeds and registration marks, but the standard version now does all that, and very solidly too.
wipe_out
Well-Known Member
Honestly I personally find the case sensitivity of the system preferable.. No different to using a capital letter when starting a sentence..
chal
Well-Known Member
Me too, and it's a useful convention for those LetterToMum file names. I actually find it slightly odd that the Linux default sort (for output of ls etc) isn't case sensitive, but that's just down to familiarity I suppose.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
That's not a Linux default, that's a package default on your distribution and you'll find ls works in a different way on each one you use, and indeed on each of the different shells on the system.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
I'm not biased at all and I'm certainly not trolling, I use all of these on a regular basis for work so I thought I'd share my experience and expertise since the question was "why not Linux?".
Yes, the commands share the same names, but to say they are similar shows you don't have all that much UNIX experience. Try vi on a SunOS box for 5 minutes and tell me it's similar to the Ubintu one!
Unfortunately, the same is true of the latest versions on UNIX which has not kept up to date very well at all. Linux is taking over from UNIX because of this lack of development and security focus.
Again showing a lack of experience here on both sides. Windows had a firewall on by default in 2004 while I have used several distributions which left the firewall off on Linux quite recently because it was considered too hard for users to change it. But in addition to firewalls, *Nix generally lack fine grained security controls by default, people use the root account by default (especially on commercial UNIX), directory services are rarely used making revocation of access almost impossible when someone leaves a business. Although it's possible to secure a UNIX or Linux system to a similar level to Windows, I rarely see this in the real world and even then it's only where people have put huge effort in to do so.
Irvine_himself
Member
Changing OS or other types of "must have software" is very much like moving to live in a foreign country. Many people prefer to give the experience a miss... Others, when they first arrive are horrified by everyday things that are done in a completely different manner. As a result, some, choose to leave at the earliest opportunity.
The thing is. that those that stick the course are enriched by the experience and, once they see how things work in practice, come to realize that what at first seemed so horrific has many advantages, is often superior and at the very least, will have as much validity as the solutions they once took for granted.
chal
Well-Known Member
it's usually a symlink to vim on linux so not really comparing like with like
chal
Well-Known Member
I have used MANY different distros at one time or another and they all do it so insofar as there is an o/s called Linux I think you could reasonably call it a default. I've also used bash, ksh, csh and zsh on other *nixes and always got the opposite behaviour as the default
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Maybe you've been lucky then because in my experience Linux distros don't even standardise on long/short format, colour use, human/non human sizing let alone sorting.
chal
Well-Known Member
afaik all linux distros use gnu ls so I think you would expect a common behaviour. Solaris, *BSD and HP/UX all stick to the older default of sorting by the collating sequence (and none of them use gnu ls). gnu made a few changes like that to basic utilities, eg non-standard (ie posix compliant) behaviour for df
while on the subject of posix, natively Windows is not posix-compliant
Irvine_himself
Member
There is just so much wrong with this , it can only come from a TROLLLLLL
But here goes:
They left the firewall off on distros like Ubuntu because it just does not respond to external requests. To all practical purposes it is invisible. I have done some tests on networks containing fire walled Windows and Ubuntu and as far as I am concerned, their is no comparison, Ubuntu wins hands down. A simple Google search will point you at a plethora of tests with similar results
Apart from the sloppy English.
1) How is a typical windows installation any different?
2) Nowadays, the use of the "sudo" command, largely makes logging on as root irrelevant
It is not that hard to secure a *nix system with all the bells and whistles that you would find in a deluxe commercial security packages, the tools are available in all the repos for free and install automatically using AptGet. The real question is "Is there any need?"
For the most part Geeks, who delight in this type of thing and generally have all the facts and figures at their fingertips, don't see the need to sacrifice performance for security in the way that would be necessary in a typical windows installation.
Finally, you claim that you are not a TROLL yet you have systematically gone out of your way to hijack a thread of great interest to the community, ramming your own inflammatory views down our throat without offering any evidence other than half truths, outright misrepresentation and half baked anecdote. Reviewing this thread, I do not think their is a single person that supports your views.
So explain to us why we are all wrong or are you not a TROLL?
lustyd
Well-Known Member
The UNIX tools are on the Windows install as an option so I don't think it's much of an issue to tick the box on install if you need POSIX. You're right they all do use the same code base for the command, but differing options when compiled, and many use an alias by default to change the behaviour.
lustyd
Well-Known Member
Blimey you're getting quite worked up about this.
Windows doesn't sacrifice performance for security, it performs equally with *Nix platforms on like for like hardware. Thanks to sloppy drivers it will quite often out perform Linux on the same hardware - Emulex LP drivers for instance had poor support on Linux for a long time basically throttling storage throughput. Similar for power saving support, graphics support and other various hardware support, Linux gets "working" drivers while Windows gets full hardware support. Your assumption that Linux somehow performs better again shows a complete lack of experience and real world testing. Windows, to the untrained eye, will appear to use more memory - this is because it caches until the memory is full to improve performance. Unused memory is wasted money!
I speak from great experience on the security side. My most recent Linux engagement was connecting it to a directory and configuring least privilege access with role based access control in an environment with 250 Linux servers. I had to reconfigure sudo to specifically define custom access controls as well as configuring PAM and implementing ACLs (which are not on by default on these platforms, unlike Windows). I have done the same thing on Windows in an afternoon through group policy.
There may not be a single person on this thread supporting my views, that is to be expected on an internet forum where people are defending Linux because they chose it rather than on real tested merits. I'm OK with that but you seem to be getting very miffed with the examples I'm giving for some reason.
Irvine_himself
Member
Am I miffed? Yes, of course I am. This thread started with a forumite commenting on how he had breathed new life into an old windows laptop by installing linux. (giving a definite performance improvement)
The forumite goes on to admit to having little technical expertise yet how pleasantly surprised he was at the simplicity of using linux as oppose to windows.
You have now dragged us through 6 pages of c%%%p and bull$$$$, about how linux is bad and windows is good. You have done this by making a succession of inflammatory claims that bear little or no relationship to the original post and when challenged, you squirm around trying to change the subject in a way more to your liking.
Examples:
ON performance:
So you make a wild claim with no evidence, that is in direct opposition to the observations of the OP..... While at the same time, you change the performance debate to a question of drivers.
Security:
Of what possible interest could this be to someone thinking of installing linux on an old laptop.
"Tested merits?" By whom, where, when?
Most of the recent news articles and reports that I have read in papers like the "New York Times" have been raving about how IT professionals are finally succeeding in getting purchasing departments to seriously look at both linux and other open-source solutions.
So, do you now understand why I am getting miffed by your examples?
The forumite goes on to admit to having little technical expertise yet how pleasantly surprised he was at the simplicity of using linux as oppose to windows.
You have now dragged us through 6 pages of c%%%p and bull$$$$, about how linux is bad and windows is good. You have done this by making a succession of inflammatory claims that bear little or no relationship to the original post and when challenged, you squirm around trying to change the subject in a way more to your liking.
Examples:
ON performance:
So you make a wild claim with no evidence, that is in direct opposition to the observations of the OP..... While at the same time, you change the performance debate to a question of drivers.
Security:
Of what possible interest could this be to someone thinking of installing linux on an old laptop.
"Tested merits?" By whom, where, when?
Most of the recent news articles and reports that I have read in papers like the "New York Times" have been raving about how IT professionals are finally succeeding in getting purchasing departments to seriously look at both linux and other open-source solutions.
So, do you now understand why I am getting miffed by your examples?
chal
Well-Known Member
Just for the record, I'm not a Linux user except occasionally at work, but I have set it up alongside Windows for a variety of users and I think it has a lot of good qualities.
And just a comment:
- most spambots are infected Windows machines and there are estimated to be millions of them worldwide
- google is now probably the biggest single computing infrastructure company in the known universe and things like their search engine and cloud services really have to be secure, and they run Linux
Irvine_himself
Member
For the record, I am a windows user myself.
JumbleDuck
Well-Known Member
gregcope
Well-Known Member
in interest of disclosure...
I work for a company that has in excess of 2000+ Linux hosts (I lose count...), and I have been using many OSs' in a professional, "it is on the internet taking money" sort of way since 1995.
Some of the hosts I deal with are MS Windows, some Mac OSX, some Solaris, some Linux. About a ratio of 1:50 in favour of Linux and growing.
I am sure someone will be on the way soon that they have 20K Windows hosts, but to be honest they are in the minority.
Would I have my Mum use Linux. No. I told her to buy a Mac. I use a Mac as desktop OS. I suggested to everyone who is non-techy to get a Mac. It just works (tm).
To those that ask what server OS, they should use it depends on those who are going to support it. It you are Win shop, then it makes sense, other answers might be different.
I see anecodatel evidence that people who have large Amazon AWS installs are moving to Linux PDQ as it they save money with a lean OS and can scale down, saving $$$.
Do not feed the trolls, they are like seagulls, leave a mess.
I work for a company that has in excess of 2000+ Linux hosts (I lose count...), and I have been using many OSs' in a professional, "it is on the internet taking money" sort of way since 1995.
Some of the hosts I deal with are MS Windows, some Mac OSX, some Solaris, some Linux. About a ratio of 1:50 in favour of Linux and growing.
I am sure someone will be on the way soon that they have 20K Windows hosts, but to be honest they are in the minority.
Would I have my Mum use Linux. No. I told her to buy a Mac. I use a Mac as desktop OS. I suggested to everyone who is non-techy to get a Mac. It just works (tm).
To those that ask what server OS, they should use it depends on those who are going to support it. It you are Win shop, then it makes sense, other answers might be different.
I see anecodatel evidence that people who have large Amazon AWS installs are moving to Linux PDQ as it they save money with a lean OS and can scale down, saving $$$.
Do not feed the trolls, they are like seagulls, leave a mess.
gregcope
Well-Known Member
Oh.
To the OP.
If you want to breed life into an old laptop install Ubuntu as long as you understand that you might have to give OS support.... but then again breeding life into an old laptop implies that you are trading new/seamless for saving money but maybe giving up time.
If you value time get a Mac.
Most of my hosts run Ubuntu, but I know what trade offs I am making ...
To the OP.
If you want to breed life into an old laptop install Ubuntu as long as you understand that you might have to give OS support.... but then again breeding life into an old laptop implies that you are trading new/seamless for saving money but maybe giving up time.
If you value time get a Mac.
Most of my hosts run Ubuntu, but I know what trade offs I am making ...