Re: FN-FORUM: 'best' linux distro for windows networks

date posted 16th January 2004 21:58

If this post goes a bit pear-shaped, bear with me. I've just spent some
hours moving an email archive going back to 1994 from a proprierary
mailer into Mozilla Thunderbird. Just shy of 110,000 messages. This is
my first mail sent from it since! :¬)

Nick Grimshaw wrote:

>Liam Proven:
>
>
>>1st distro I ever tried, Slack. Didn't get far, in all honesty, but
>>still, it's worthy of great respect and is probably the most UNIX-like
>>Linux there is.
>>
>>
>
>That's very true. Slack is apparently a good interim step for people looking
>to move from Linux to a real UNIX; it's apparently quite like FreeBSD (which
>I've never used, so can't comment).
>
>
Me either, to be honest. Copy sitting here waiting...

>>But personally, I think that in 2004, Unix should look like Mac OS X, and
>>
>>
>
>Why?
>
>
Because it's *the* most polished, easy-to-use Unix there hasd ever been.
But it's still Unix: the joy of it being that you can still boot to
console mode and run it from the shell if you really want. Being smooth
and integrated and user friendly does not mean that it mysteriously
stops being Unix and thus can't be run the traditional way.

Apple has shown the way. It can be done and it can be done by a
relatively small company with limited resources.

Is there any reason you'd NOT want your OS to be easy if it doesn't
compromise it in any other way?

>If you mean 'Unix should look like Mac OS X if it wants to be the
>predominant desktop environment', then I might agree with you.
>
>

Hey, there's a Mac OS X Server as well, remember...

>>OS/2 was better than Win3. Win95 was better than OS/2. If you were
>>serious, NT4 was better than W95. Win2K was conclusively better than any
>>previous Windows or OS/2.
>>
>>
>
>Agreed, bearing in mind that's a very limited list. No BeOS? Hell, even
>Linux is in its 13th year.
>
>
BeOS, well, yes, very deserving of mention. I reviewed it for PCW a few
years ago when the Personal Edition came out and I absolutely loved it
to bits. Wonderful OS, in almost every respect THE best desktop OS I
have ever used. But not enough apps and not easy enough to port things
across from the GNU side. With some work, BeOS could, I think, have got
to the stage where GNU apps could simply have been recompiled. Then it'd
have suddenly had a great software library and would have stood a chance.

It's not 100% dead. Firstly, most of the team are now at PalmSource. It
was a stealth takeover, like NeXT did at Apple. NeXT people run the show
now and Apple's folks work for them. PalmSource is run by the core team
of Be and the existing Palm coders report to the Be people.

They shipped PalmOS 6 at the end of December and it's complete,
multitasking, ground-up rewrite for the ARM, *by the guys who wrote
BeOS,* but which retains compatibility with existing Palm apps, both
MC68K and ARM. Palm might be the new thin client OS.

Alternatively, BeOS 6 is still in development as Zeta from YellowTab.

But yes, absolutely, Linux has come a hell of a long way. It still has
a lot further to go on the usability front, though.

>>Now, the challenge is to equal or beat WinXP, in every significant
>>respect. And of course what is "significant" depends on the individual.
>>But the point is, whereas 1 user doesn't need fax, many now don't need
>>printing, some people don't need networking, etc. etc., someone
>>needs just about everything in XP somewhere.
>>
>>
>
>True, but some users need/want things that aren't in XP - even half-decent
>security, customisability, THE SOURCE CODE, *good* network filesystems, a
>good command interpreter, half-decent handling of binary files, etc
>
Security is crap but improving. So is customisability. Source? I don't
need it and none of my clients would know what source IS. Network FSs?
Have you looked at DFS and so on? CLI? Conceded, but SFU is now free.
Use BASH if you want. Binary handling? Explain?

>>So to beat XP, the challenging Linux has to beat XP *in every major
>>respect.*
>>
>>Better installation, better config, better management, better tools,
>>better desktop, better device support, better power management, better
>>networking, etc. etc.
>>
>>
>
>Your list is very telling, in that you don't mention any of the things that
>Linux is clearly better at.
>Better security, better control, better use of available resources, hell,
>better price... ;O)
>
>

Security I'll give you. Control? Explain? Resources: [wiggles head
doubtfully] In text mode, it's thrifty. In GUI mode, Linux is every bit
as demanding as XP.

Price is unbeatable. :¬)

>Statistic (and I can't find the source, sorry): A bog-standard install of
>XP, placed on the internet, is typically compromised within 10 minutes.
>
>
W2003 is better. NOTHING is installed by default. But then, stick a
wide-open default install of SuSE or another big distro on there and wait...
Everyone needs firewalls.

>When I last used Caldera OpenLinux (99?) the installation was just as good
>as XP. I'd argue (convincingly ;OD) that Slack has better config, management
>and tools than XP (bearing in mind I control my computer with the keyboard,
>not the mouse).
>
>
Caldera's install was best of breed. Survives in Lycoris, which is based
on Caldera.
Control? Management? I can only say, not IME.

>You'll *never* have *better* device support for *any* OS when compared to
>Windows - this would entail a hardware manufacturer writing driver(s) for
>A.N.Other OS and *not* for Windows, and I can't see that happening in the
>near future. The reason for limited device support in Linux is due to the
>manufacturers not writing drivers...
>
>
True, but open-source drivers are catching up...

>Having said that, I've never found this to be a problem - you just have to
>be prepared/informed when shopping for hardware, e.g. buy quality, branded
>stuff. [*]
>
>
Agreed.

>>That is a very tall order. Nothing does it yet.
>>...
>>Nothing as a server, seriously, compared to Widnowes 2003 Server,
>>which is, frankly, a blinding bit of software
>>
>>
>
>I confess I've never used Windows 2003, but I frankly don't believe you.
>The four most important aspects of any server: security, security,
>availability and security. I don't expect to see the day where Windows
>*matches* Linux, let alone beats it at any of those.
>
>

Oh, you should. It's blinding. *Free* 6mth eval from MS. Much more
complex to use than NT4, but then, it IS much more complex than NT4. The
functionality is excellent, the security is getting there, the
integration and management is impressive.

>>When comparing to Windows, say on config, what I mean is that if I
>>need to change the IRQ of a network card or resize my swap file, I do
>>it by clicking a control in a dialog box. No file editing. None at all,
>>ever. If you need to edit a file, it's failed, it's broken.
>>
>>
>
>Let me get this straight - if you need to change a *number* in a *file*
>somewhere, just *actually* changing the number indicates a failure in the
>system? You want me to sit 10 layers of API on top of that, so that when you
>click the wee arrow next to the box with the number in, your OS edits the
>file for you? Do you consider this a good use of server resources?
>
>

You're missing the point entirely.

GUIs are discoverable. You can wander around exploring and find the
setting you need eventually. Unix systems tend to be a maze of
undocumented little text files all over the shop and if you don't know
what to edit you're stuffed.
I'm not saying get rid of ASCII config files, I'm saying I want a
consistent, discoverable GUI to find them with over the top.

>I've think I've wandered off-topic now, so I'll shut up after this summary:
>Linux has taken its excellent reputation as a server OS, and headed towards
>the desktop end of the market. Windows has taken its excellent reputation as
>a desktop OS, and headed towards the server end of the market. Neither of
>them have yet succeeded.
>
>
Agreed.

--
Liam P.