About three years ago I decided to learn how to use Linux and after a lot of posts on a forum I tried Ubuntu Linux as it was recommended as a good first Linux distro. Ubuntu is not the easiest Linux distro to use but with its unmatched forum community support it is one of the easiest to learn to use. One of the problems with learning Linux is that a lot of users have an attitude that Linux should be a free Windows knock off which it is not. Ubuntu is build on a Linix core or kernel and is a different Open Source and free as in to use operating system. This brings us to the complex realization that you must learn how to use this new operating system that is a lot different from Windows.

One of the problems with Linux is that like stated above that the distro's are build on the Linux kernal. The problem with this is all the distro's are like different operating systems using the Linux kernel which would require a install.executable for each different group of distro's such as the Debian like which Ubuntu is based on. Unlike Fedora that uses a yum package manager and rpm packages Ubuntu used synaptic and the deb format for packages. The good note is that the Ubuntu synaptic package manager allows you to install programs from the manager. The deb system makes installing programs and packages with this package manager very easy. The problem is packages that have to be build from tarballs which is not all that complicated once you learn how to and install a few.

Now the interesting part is that with compiz you can have desktop affects at par with Vista but that will run on systems that would not run vista. Ubuntu and Xubuntu can make a good OS for computers that used to run windows 98 or Me.

One down side that I found to hold very true is that Linux is free as in beer but not free as in time and you might find your self hacking away at it for long periods of time.

The strength I like is that using it can be a personal choice and with Ubuntu Linux I have that choice.

My computer is a toy again which I find very enjoyable.

Any questions? Post them!

I agree, as a moderate Linux User, I have tried the Live CD of Ubuntu and Kubuntu and I must say both are a smooth running operating systems. Although Kubutnu would be my choice because of the less system requirements, both offer a great experience. I still have my doubts though, I had to try out all of my Graphic Cards I had until I had one that was compatibile, and as much as I hate to say it, Linux is not ready for everyday use, there are a lot of system incompatibilities, you can't run most of your programs,games, and other applications that you are used to and is unpractical except as a tool to back up your files in case of virus outbreak or other windows errors and also manage a PC that has no OS on the hard drive, thats all I use it for.

Whats worse is that some distros only offer genuine support of only 6 months or so

Maybe 10 or so years from now, it may be good enough for a permanent installation on my PC, look in the bright side, DELL had announced to sell Computers with Ubuntu Pre Installed, how Cool is that!

I think the Ubuntu family are among the easiest distros to use, especially for those just starting out in the Linux world. The installation is fairly easy and installing software using the relevant package manager is far easier than most distros, and miles ahead of installing software on Windows.


I agree that installing software from source is not exactly the nicest experience, and is probably one of the hardest things to get to grips with when you first encounter Linux. However, after a few goes, ./configure, make, make install becomes imprinted on your brain. I never understood why, if all software meets the same set of standards for a command-line install, a GUI couldn't be applied to those steps. Users like buttons, and a large button labelled INSTALL would help most users.


I have found this to be the main reason people are swayed to use Linux, and the *buntus especially. The effects available with Compiz and Beryl are stunning, especially when you consider that they cost nothing at all. Then when you reveal the relatively low spec you need to get it to work, most people are blown away. Being able to "revive" a PC that Windows deems is too low-spec with Ubuntu is also great.


I think the single thing which took the most time for me with Kubuntu (aside from the actual install) was getting the look right. Choosing a widget style, window style, colours, backgrounds and everything else took me around an hour. I have never had to spend longer than that on any task to get the operating system, or any software, working. Even massive OpenOffice download-and-installs and the like didn't take as long.


This is one of the unfortunate truths with most Linux distros, and not a myth people hold that can easily be swept away. However, hardware manufacturers are gradually realising it might be worth their time appealing to the Linux market. Also, certain distros have done a far better job than Ubuntu. Linux Mint for example has a much better install procedure, hardware support and automatic hardware detection.


I'm using Linux every day perfectly well, and if anything its far better than my Windows PCs. I run Kubuntu on a Pentium M 2GHz processor, with 1GB of RAM. That runs much faster than Windows on my desktop, which has a much higher spec. There are perfect free replacements for all the software I commonly use on Windows, and often software to complete tasks that you simply can't find a good equivalent for.

OK, games is another area where Linux falls down. Why? If enough people contact games studios and ask why they don't develop for Linux I'm sure they'd at least consider it. Yes there is the issue of free software - a game you buy would probably be closed source. However, I am sure a lot of people would put up with that to have decent games on a Linux system. Wine is making headway by allowing Windows programs to run on Linux without an emulator. I installed it, and have only needed to run one app through it - everything else I have found a replacement for.


At least you can get a large amount of free support. Microsoft make you call premium rate lines and pay for support. With Ubuntu you can pay one price and get unlimited support. They also release LTS (Long Term Support) distributions, that are supported for at least 18 months.

One could use Kompile or Kinstall (i think it was) for this, but i prefer terminal. I've also found myself having to use extra options for ./configure a few times for certain programs. But for programs that i know that don't really need me to have these extra options i just run:
The && make things easier, not having to wait for one process to finish in order to type in the other command to continue. I usually install from source when the repository doesn't have the version i want, but *ubuntu 7.10's repository has everything up-to-date.

I find make errors the most annoying—especially on programs that take hours to compile. ./configure errors are easier to fix, though, it's usually a problem with the PKG_CONFIG_PATHs or LD_LIBRARY_PATHs. Installing *-dev(el) packages fixes this problem. However, in source-based distros you would have to manually modify these variables.

I've tried Linux Ubuntu myself, I find it a GOOD Open Source / Free Operating System.

Still the fact that I never manage to "put myself in" to the system, learning commands in Terminal, etc is just what I don't need.

So I'll stick with Windows! Windows XP for those who started to wonder

Ubuntu is the perfect OS for those people that do nothing more than surf the web, use email, talk on messengers, and type up papers. Anybody will be able to do the things I just listen because they're very simple, and the fact is that most people with computers do little more than that.

Yes, but as a college bound student, most of the real world depends on Windows compatible Software like Photoshop, and Dreamweaver, as a Student Intern for a computer programmer, he told me that most of his work is done in windows, because its much more easier to handle, and there is no learning curve to get over, windows is an established OS for the buiessness world and will not change in the near future.

Linux systems are oriented for more Family Freindly Usability

Don't businesses also use Macs when dealing with image manipulation and video editing? I'm always hearing about Macs in the office where my friends work. Also, i hear that several businesses have been switching over to Linux (again, where a friend of mine works; they use Debian). So i am expecting things to change in the near future. But as with any (well-trained) computer programmer, a simple ascii editor is all they really need. If they move onto more advanced editors, it would be for convenience and time-efficient purposes and probably because their boss says to use it.

Look, all I'm saying is that its not practical, Mac's are good for quicktime 3d movies and editing and thats the only reason they use it, besides, MAC is a lot better contender than Linux, not just for the excessive advertising but for home use, Linux well, it doesn't belong in an office desk. As soon as Linux becomes popular hackers will make customized viruses for Linux only.

And I don't know much about GNU Agreement but if you give out your source code of an operating system to the public, aren't you pretty much asking to be hacked into?

Soon Linux would become like Microsoft, releasing a package and fix for every little vulnerabilities....

You Tell Me, wouldn't THAT happen, its happening to Firefox

thanx alot for the info

At the moment there are around 100 viruses that can affect Linux, compared to over 100,000 viruses that attack Windows PCs. Yes, as Linux becomes more popular it is likely that more viruses will be written for it. However, there is a large difference between Windows and Linux. On Windows, whatever sort of account you are using you have access to Windows files and settings. On Linux, your standard account has access to your own documents and user settings, and thats about it. If a virus did get onto a Linux system, it could not destroy the heart of the operating system. Regular backups make sure that your files are always safe.

Ubuntu is often seen as more secure because you can't log in as root. You can only run one command at a time as root, and that requires you to retype your user password. You can even remove that ability from your everyday account, and just keep another account for performing system changes.


As far as I'm aware, both the Linux source code and most of the distributions based on it regularly release security patches and updates. Having the source code available makes the operating system more secure, as thousands of people are looking at it and checking for bugs and security vulnerabilities. Security issues have been known to be fixed within minutes of them appearing. Compare this to Windows, where only a select few developers in Redmond have access to the source code. Yes, you can report an issue, but you can't actively do anything to fix it.

I STRONGLY disagree with that. The same freedom that lets people modify a program to upgrade can also be used to maliciously and eailsy find holes in the system, and anyone who ignores that problem is making a big mistake.



While I agree that the more people contribute to secure a OS makes it a lot better than a few private developers doing a 300-man job,thousands more are figuring out a way to get in to the OS, this is one of the main disadvantages if Open source applications. Since their code is open to the public, there will always be someone, somewhere on earth that will do anything to compromise the integrity of the system, developers of Open source application would be forced to play a never ending cat and mouse game with hackers. One finds a hole in the security and plugs it up, while one opens a new hole, you close the door and they open a window. You create a solution while they create problems. Get what I mean? How would you stop that problem?

You reply me a real useful and reasonable solution to that predicament and I will format my PC right now and install my Kubuntu.

If i'm not mistaken (and i know i'm not ), though being closed-source, Microsoft Windows has the problem you have stated above with its OS. Microsoft also has a problem with their OS being pirated. One of Microsft's attempt in stopping this was trying to limit one's copy of Windows to one computer, if not, you would have to (re-)register your copy of Windows. Also, you yourself have mentioned:
But, of course, nothing is 100% secure. As it stands, open source and closed source can be equally insecure, but open source has become a community, where there appears to be more programmer's helping each other than destroying each other.


You don't have to fully format your PC to use Linux. You can just create a new partition and install it there. Unlike Windows, Linux "allows" other operating systems to be accessible on the same system. Windows overwrites the MBR without any care for other operating systems on the system. And since you mention Kubuntu, you can try out the distro before installing it on your system, being a LiveCD.

Look its not that I HATE Linux, I love it, heck I use Damn Small Linux almost everyday but its just not practical as a primary Operating System.




Simply not true.

There are thousands of forums,sites,blogs, and wiki's out there that offer the same level of support, my favorite being the MSFN(Microsoft Software Forum Network) which has no affiliation with Microsoft but still create OPEN Source programs like Revolutions Pack, Unofficial Service Pack for 9x/2000/XP as well as other programs.

Just because MS is CLOSED source doesn't mean there isn't the same level, if not better support for the Operating System

No, linux just installs a program to try and handle multi-os booting.

I don't understand how it isn't. My Linux OS can do everything i can do in Windows (and more), and some of this stuff Windows doesn't even come with pre-installed. Linux may not be the best for gamers, and i'm not much of a PC gamer, but gaming isn't what makes an operating system practical. Practical would fall into media and internet: music, e-mail, graphics or images, video, IM, documents, etc.—all of this Linux can do. Plus, even some governments in the east are switching to Linux and Dell allows you to choose whether to have Ubuntu or Windows pre-installed into the system.


May i ask what's not true about it besides what it can imply? I feel that you've just simply added to what i had to say, which i won't disagree with.


I know, but it's the same thing, right? I mean, i don't think i've seen a distro that doesn't install either GRUB or LILO.

Lets just put this to rest. The following are my final thoughts on this topicL

1)While Open source Ubuntu Offers a better community and developer support it still gives away its source code to hackers who can easily reverse engineer it

2)Ubuntu and its cousin Os's are all great operating system for beginners and moderate computer users, otherwise, you will be having a lot of trouble when installing Microsoft Friendly softwares, unless you are willing to compromise for Linux Friendly Open source software.

3)Dell giving put Ubuntu as a Pre-Installed option is great for us, but to them its just a big PR stunt to put them on the headlines, but who cares, Linux is on a Major PC Manufacturer Cool!

And I am done....

hey i have loads of UBUNTU cds to distribute here in india. open source rulz.. but i hardly use linux becoz i m addicted to windows. but i like mac and ubuntu for virus free.

Well,I started using linux to years back,when windows slacked like anything on my comp,started with mandriva then to fedora and now to ubuntu.Just installed gutsy gibson edition of ubuntu,It's great.Thanx to all the coders out there working for the people to get open softwares.

I just like the way it works from installation to features.I usually do a lot of programming and the tools provided in linux destros help with that without extra softwares which I have to download in windows.

To birudagmawi :

Well you see linux was made by programmers around
the world who thought that it's inappropriate to spend money on an operating system when they can build one of their own.Linux was never made for normal user it was made by people who have the zeal to learn for those who want to learn .But due to the growing popularity of linux it became a buzz word among common Pc users also.

Thats why it's becoming as simpler as it could be to the common user with each realese(you should see the installation feature of the ubuntu,windows cant be compared with it).It takes time to bring a change.

And regarding the viruses,Ya I surely agree that viruses are going to increase in linux,but it will not increase at rate with which it increases it increases in windows because linux kernel is much better built than windows.

And as far as your concern for hacking linux is concerned I should give you example of APACHE web server which is an open source web server and is much more popular then windows counter part in terms of security, Open source doesn't make software vunerable to hackers it is the software design which matters more.

Well I see my friends who once were addicted to windows have started using linux they like the idea of having the orignal copy without paying a single penny and too less configuration needed,Although they had problems in the beginning.

And dell policy is not a public stunt it's a demand of the people which has made them to bring out a laptop with ubuntu so that they can capture linux users also and decrease the price of laptop to remain competitive.

-AcumenWorks

i also think that Ubuntu is among the easiest distros to use

but i dont like it i use debian inested

and i think that debian is mutch moor stable and safe for me

The easiest distro i found was Sabayon, but this one requires a lil'more use of ram.
What i personaly don't like about linux:
- The GUI of programs (aMule i.e.)
- Permissions: why can't i be admin of my computer? (security reasons? i'm an home user, no one else touch my pc)
- File explorer
- Loading is too slow
- Incompabilities
- No autocad
- No photoshop (gimp is far from photoshop. Where are the personalized palletes?)
- Command line

What i like:
- Python (runs on win 2)
- live experiment
- Free
=)

Unlike on Windows, Linux allows you to totally change the GUI. Gnome, KDE and XFCE are all popular window managers that control what everything looks like, You can then completely customise those further, to make everything look exactly as you want it. Surely all this control is better than Windows' choice of blue, silver or green?



There is nothing stopping you granting yourself root privileges. However, if you give yourself root access then you have full power to screw everything up. Every file that controls the fundamentals of the operating system is suddenly open to you. Believe me, you will at some point do something wrong, and having root access at the time will make that cataclysmic. The other main reason you don't get root access from the start is to protect you from yourself. It sets boundaries (all your stuff goes in home - don't litter the rest of the drive with it ) and makes you think about what you are doing when you have to switch to root to run a command.



Like everything in Linux - if you don't like it, download a different one. There are loads of different file managers out there, usually tied to a certain window manager. I have KDE and currently have two file explorers installed - Konqueror and Dolphin.



Of what - applications or the whole system? The system boot is certainly much faster with Linux than Windows. My laptop takes 30 seconds from me pushing the power button to me seeing my desktop, and 10 seconds of that is GRUB giving me the option of booting to a different OS. If I boot into Windows, I can be sat here for 5 minutes. Applications load just as fast, if not faster, with Linux in my experience. Even running applications under WINE I don't notice a performance drop.



Hardware or software? Software is easy - pretty much every Linux app lets you import and export proprietary formats like Microsoft Office. Problem solved. Hardware is a little more tricky. However, it is really down to the hardware manufacturers to come up with the drivers. They provide them for Windows, occasionally for Mac and pretty much never for Linux. There are community drivers out there and most things now are plug and play (my mouse, camera and scanner all requested drivers in Windows, but in Linux they are plug and play). If people keep pressurising the hardware vendors then maybe they will see sense and write Linux and Mac drivers.



Specific software is always a problem for people. There are free alternatives though, that will usually read and write the same formats. Run a search and take a look - someone else will have had the same problem and come up with the software to solve it. The GIMP, I must admit, is rubbish, but it is improving. I also heard they are doing a complete UI overhaul. Finally!



Last time I checked there was one of those on Windows - but very few people ever use it. I use the command line on Linux quite a bit, but only because it is usually faster for repetitive tasks than clicking around a GUI. Everything you want to do with the command line is well documented and is easy after a while.

True, but windows has a template system too, KDE, Gnome, xFCE are all tools, they will not work side by side. This happens in windows too. (kde,gnome and xfce can work side by side, but you need tricks.)


Did you ever tried to loggin as root?
Sometimes you have to be root to solve some problems, the solution of windows is easy, log in as admin.
Solution of linux is: Get on the command line, logg as root, give urself the priviledges, log out, log in with your account and make the changes.



I wasn't talking about the aspect of the explorer, but all those folders that are needed to run a simple program


For me linux loading is very slow, it keeps finding for objects (kde environment is loading,mouse driver is loading...) . With windows i'm sure that i enter my desktop in 30 seconds maximum.
Loading of linux reminds me the loading of that game "The Sims".



Hardware incompability is hard to solve on linux, is not hard if you have drivers for it, but still it's harder to install on linux than at windows.
Yes, you don't have problems with mouse and camera and all that stuff, but what about a sound card incompability? Or a graphic card incompability?
Yes, for windows you the drivers also, but they are faster to appear.



Specific software is what most of people use.
There are no alternatives for Auto-cad, try to find it yourself, see what you get.



My father can easily use cmd (command line on windows), can you tell me if he would find difficults using the linux command line? You know what? Don't answer, of course not...
Tell me, any other person at your family uses your laptop?
Or you are the owner of it so only you use it?
Just wondering.

Greetz
~
Joćo Lopes

No real tricks are needed - clicking a menu item at login lets you switch between window managers. Windows gives me a choice of 9x style or XP style, or to buy an extra piece of random software to get my PC to look how I want it to. Why should I pay extra?



To run a command as root I type sudo command or su command. My parents, who are not exactly tech-savvy, can do that. With Windows I have to stop what I'm doing, save, quit, log out, turn the PC off, reboot while holding F2, select "Safe Mode with Networking" from a text menu, and wait to be logged in. And even after all that I still don't have full true control!



Installing a driver on Linux is 4 clicks of a mouse button (sometimes even less now). Installing a driver on Windows requires CDs, manuals and all sorts of stuff.
For the record, across 4 PCs I have installed Linux on (that I use) I have never had a problem with sound or graphics. The most I had to do was install a package to get widescreen resolutions on my laptop - but that is well documented and supported. Windows requires a myriad of CDs for both sound and graphics.



I found this, along with the usual Sourceforge stuff and free design apps.



I am the only person that uses my laptop. However there is a desktop in my house running Linux that is used by the entire family. They all say it is easier to use than Windows, looks better and is faster, along with a load of other positive comments.

Although the GIMP is far from Photoshop, you can do most of the things you can do in Photoshop in the GIMP. Sure it may require more manual work, but this adds to the experience. Plus, a lot of Photoshop users are into brush work, of which the GIMP can provide a lot of experience in, or at least to me it has.


Have you tried Mandriva (perferrably 2007; 2008 isn't all that great) or other Mandriva-based distros? Through experience, Mandriva has been the fastest performing distro i've used. It may not have a good of a repository as Ubuntu, but the performance was nice. Of course, you may not notice a difference in performance in computers faster than the one i'm using, or i should say, on computers with more RAM than the one i'm using. 'Cause i've seen Kubuntu perform quite fast on my friend's laptop. My friend allowed me to switch the operating system to Linux when Windows "somehow" failed him and after re-installing Windows, Windows wouldn't let me get passed the Windows verification (you know, that thing that says different hardware has been detected). Although their computer experience has changed, there has been no complaint from them, and their daily computer life hasn't changed.


Ever since i've heard about AutoCAD and have seen pictures of it, i tried searching for free alternatives. Note, i heard about AutoCAD years ago. On my personal search for an open-source AutoCAD program, i found a few alternatives. However, i didn't bookmark the sites, nor did i download the programs. I guess Blender (the open-source 3D modeling program) caught my eye and made me lose interest in these AutoCAD alternatives.

But as a quicky search, you may want to check out QCad

Well i had never heard about QCad, i need to try, autocad is a very must need to engineering. My parents can use linux, my sister hates it. the reason? amsn isn't good enough for her lol.
At my pc i have: FreeBSD, Win Xp, Win vista x64 (don't ask me why) and Kubunto.
free bsd for tryouts, win xp for autocad and kubunto for personal use. But think about the gamers. where are they on linux? (i'm talking about popular games)

I looked into this a while ago and found that there are some Linux games out there that are worth playing! OpenArena is one of my favourites at the moment, Warzone 2100 is also quite good. If you look hard enough you will find a few good games out there.

Now, for running Windows games (I assume thats what you mean by "popular") you can use WINE. It certainly doesn't work for all games and applications, but quite a few will work well. I was quite surprised by the number of new games that worked when I first looked through their database.

I have tried Ubuntu myself but I never ended up keeping it installed on my computer. I would never think of only using a unix based OS on my computer, only in dual boot (with some Windows OS) because, basically, Windows is soo popular, and besides all the comments on it for being not secure, not stable, ... if you install it and don't play around with it, don't test its limits, they're good OSs. They have a very intuitive interface, very easy to use. Unlike the unix-based OSs I've seen. I already had problems installing the drivers of my graphics card, last time I tried I spent at least an hour searching forums reading comments, instructions, copying commands... none worked! so I went back to XP for now. I'm sure I will try Ubuntu again later on (or another distro, if someone can recommend me a nice one)

another option I considered is installing Mac OS X on my pc (yes I know it sound like "incompatible" but I can install it, I know that ) it has some very nice graphical effects that I like, BUT I've read it isn't half as safe as it claims to be. the only reason it's safe is because only a very small part of the computer using people use it. it was something like when you opened "explorer" seven other programs where partially opened which could be used to get into your computer, and I don't like the sound of that

the security for Unix-based OSs is the same imo. they don't get attacked because the gain for the people that make the virusses is too small. atm it's the same for Vista, there are hardly Vista - only virusses because the amount of people using it is too small. I read somewhere there will be a Vista-virus boom in about half a year, because then the market share of it will be big enough...

the price of popularity?

good thing about the complexity of Unix-OSs is that it will take a LONG time before they get popular enough to get virus programming attention!

I myself just started using Xubuntu. It's actually pretty cool so far. It's so pretty compared to windows that it hurt my head for the first couple of days. XD The only real disappointment I have is the lack of product support for it, but I knew that when I installed it ahead of time. That's why I do a dual boot and put windows on it too

linux is the best os for a server
and the worst os for a home computer

Wow and I thought this one website was joking around that Microsoft plans to do one more Windows Operating. I don't know if Windows 7 will be the last one or not but the project goes by the code name Midori and it is based on the Cloud computing concept, which by the way Dell is trying to copyr ...more

Hi all, It is going to be long post, so please be patient and stay with me. When I boot my linux I get the following error : QUOTEDecompressing Linux ... crc error -- system halted What can be the cause ? I have tested my RAM w ...more

In today's world every one is quite familiar about the operating system Linux, windows. Every little kid will be able to tell at least one or two words about windows or linux. People are familiar about these 2 operating system because they use one of them in their personal PC's. Now i just w ...more