Re: FN-FORUM: Best Linux Distribution?

date posted 18th August 2004 20:05

carmel andrews wrote:

>Please don't take this as if i'm putting down linux,
>i'm not,
>
it doesn't read like it ;-)

>linux is a well put together o/s replacement
>for windoze, i suppose the current flavours and
>versions of linux are comparable with windoze me/and
>2000 (non pro version)
>
>
how? linux kicks windows ass at what linux was developed for. It's not
a toy town os just to spoon feed computing to a new market like windows
ME etc.

>However the big sticking point with linux is simply,
>in 9 out of 10 cases it still relies on CLI (command
>line Instr.) which is a bit like having to put up with
>a ms/pcdos m/c today instead of windows
>
>
cli allows you to perform common commands quicker and more efficently
than a windowed interface in most cases. I won't go into details on
this google is your friend here. But I see your point that most people
don't want to use the CLI. fortunatly most people won't have to use the
cli very often as gui tools make it easy to set up stuff that used to
use cli.

>No. 2, When it comes to installing drivers, after
>you've put up with the rigours of CLI, it takes a song
>and dance to install even the simplest of drivers
>
>
it depends on what you think drivers are ;-) In most cases the kernel
will have the correct code to run even the strangest hardware.
Hardware support in linux is far better than in windows for enterprise
hardware. plus you can be sure the drivers are around for the live of
your hardware try getting cutting edge NT4 vintage hardware to work in
XP and you will see what I mean. Businesses like to repurpose hardware
rather than just writing it off whenever they can.

>Drivers. cont... Even once youv'e installed the
>drivers (by then according to einsteins relativity
>theory, the world would have agewd 20 years) in my
>experience the drivers are incomplete, in that you
>need other files or you need 'root' access so that you
>can mess around with the kernal's config. install file
>
>
you shouldn't need to do this very often. How often do you change a driver?

>(why, if linux want's to take on windows, doesn't the
>linux platform(s) instigate a simplar, easier
>standardised
>
because linux is about freedom and not about making things easy for
newbies. Some distributions are targeted at the same people as windows
/home/ versions but that is not the same as saying linux is targeting
windows desktop users. Linux is about creating a free unix-a-like
system that runs on 386 machines. It's just that it does a lot more
than that now.

>way of installing drivers and devices,
>this is why windoze... all versions is a clear leaders
>here, as installing drivers and devices in windoze is
>as easy as falling of a log,
>
not as easy as on a Mac ;-) There is also a problem with the falling
off a log analagy. Falling off a log can get you sore and wet and
that's how you feel when windows bites ;-)

>not only that, m/s makes
>sure that all drivers come supplied which all the
>relevant neccessary files, unlike linux,
>
again you are using the word drivers to mean lots of different
things. you will be surprised at the amount of drivers including in a
the linux kernel source. It's certainly a lot more than you get on the
windows cd.

>fourther
>more, you don't have to mess arround with important
>o/s config/ini files, as when windoze installs the
>drivers, it does that for you)
>
>
>
but where does it put them all and what happens when you have a problem.
This is one of the reasons why windows is unstable.

In windows bits of software that are commonly called drivers are really
applications that have far too much access to the hardware than they
should have. That's one of the reasons windows is unstable.

>Lastly, and the biggest sticking point (and the point
>that eventually lead me to ditching my linux
>installation(s) both Mandrake and redhat (v9.x), is
>simply that linux doesn't have the hardware support
>
>
yes it does. Linux supports a lot more hardware than windows does.
You might have a problem with the latest gaming 3d hardware but that's
the hardware developers fault for not supporting all it's customers not
linux's.

>And without the H/w support, you're not going to
>attract many users to your o/s, I guess a comparable
>scenario would be like asking h/w and s/w companies
>w/w to supporting the Atari/Amiga platforms again
>
>
linux supports both of these plateforms (MS never did) ;-)

>(even though potentially these user bases are
>considerably bigger the all linux flavours put
>together)
>
where did you pluck that state from? Most ex atari and amiga users are
using linux now and most of them started with the 68000 ports.

>getting 3rd party h/w and o/s support for
>Atari/Amiga today, just isn't going to happen, as h/w
>has come a long way since Atari went under (1996)
>
>
atari hardware still supported under linux (look in the source code
68000 sections) ;-)

>Unless the Linux platform's get the h/w co's onside,
>
>
not needed. Hardware companies with any sense for real business sales
either hire linux developers, fund open source projects or donate
hardware so it is supported. This is why the latest 64bit processors
from intel and amd where supported in linux long before they where
supported in windows (are they supported?) these processors where not
even in production when (and wouldn't be for years) when linux
development started as both companies supplied emulators to the kernel
(and that's all linux is) team.

>and also simplify and make it easier to install
>drivers/devices etc,
>
device drivers by the thousands are already supported. It's really only
consumer stuff that's not supported and that's the fault of the hardware
developer not the linux kernel team. They don't have any interest in
doom 3 framerate when there are millions are far cooler projects to
spend time with.

>and drop the crappy CLI
>
>
cli more effecient.

>(otherwise what the point of having a windoze/mac type
>gui f/e)the only way that linux will survive is if it
>supports/converts over to the Atari/CBM/Amiga
>platforms,
>

already supported along with dozens of others the list below is cut from
a document about 2.5 development. There are also ports in progress to
dozens of other plateforms.

* Alpha (64 bits)
* ARM (32 bits)
* i386 (32 bits)
* IA-64 (64 bits) (Trillium )
* M68K (32 bits)
* M68K (32 bits) without Memory Management Unit
* MIPS (32 bits)
* MIPS-64 (64 bits)
* PA-RISC (32 bits) (puffin group )
* PowerPC (32 bits)
* PowerPC-64 (64 bits)
* IBM S/390 (32 bits) (Linux for s390 web
)

* IBM S/390X (32 bits)
* SH (a.k.a Hitachi H8) (32 bits)
* SPARC (32 bits versions)
* SPARC64 (64 bits versions)
* UM (-) UserModeLinux kernel

* NEC V850
* AMD X86_64 (64 bits)

that's a few more than windows as it has only ever supported 2 (i32 and
alpha (not supported since nt4, I use linux on my alpha) with 2 more in
progress) and MacOS with only 68000 and powerpc (AFAIK)

>i just can't see a future for linux on the
>pc or mac platform (without the h/w support)
>
>
doing pretty well on those platforms as well ;-) it started on i386 and
will stay there for as long as people use that platform ;-)

>Like I said, I don't wish to bitch about, linux is
>good, if you have a bare bones system, with little
>need for decent h/w, i'm just extending you the
>benefit of my experience
>
>
it's not a bare bones system. Linux itself is a kernel that runs on
many different architectures GNU Linux distributions are full operating
systems including pretty much all the software you could want (or
replacements for them)

I am not sure what you call decent hardware. I have a alpha server with
a full ultra scsi raid system running debian GNU Linux. Alpha systems
are now not supported by windows (since NT4) so this system would be
useless in a windows only world (it runs Tru64 out of the box another
full 64bit operating system (when are MS going to release one of those?
)) That's a pretty cool bit of hardware.

I also have a Sun Ultra SPARC based system. It's also running debian
GNU Linux. MS have never supported this plateform. It's also a 64bit
system (still think windows has better support for hardware?) and has a
kick ass 18.4" lcd screen (and has had since I bought it in 2001) I am
pretty sure that counts as hardware support. and I am 100% sure that MS
windows has not supported that at all.

I also have a G3 powerbook dual booting MacOS 10.3 and (you guessed it)
Debian GNU Linux. More hardware not supported by windows, never
supported, never will be supported. It works on linux ;-)

It might be we have very different ideas on what hardware support is.
It is more important to me that real enterprise hardware works than the
latest gaming hardware (although nvidia do update there linux drivers at
the same time as the windows ones if you want gaming stuff)

>regards as allways
>
>CA
>_____________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sorry for the long post I had a lot to get off my chest ;-)

sparkes