the road to salvation isn't a yellow brick road

really trying 2 use linux now, already know tat its not ez, its a all new OS . need some time 2 get used 2. its just tat compatibility is 1 thngy, i admit i'm a lazy n impatient person, so if my first impression is like here error there error, will get me a pail of cold water on head..
so.. i thnk i will giv it some time 2 try out..maybe try diff distro.. now downloading linux mint.. ..as long as got my multimeida going.. its fine with me...n a virtualbox 2 get some of my irreplacable windows application running...

**maybe will write a blog abt "journey to the Linux".. wonder how long can it stays..

This post has been edited by ben_ang: Apr 29 2008, 12:10 PM

correction,
linux is more than 10 years old already, it started in 91

sounds cool!



it surpassed windows instantly

Happy installing, dude. Just don't give up too easily when certain things don't work like you want it to. Try to get some help first. I still have some networking issues (sharing with another pc). I was successful at sharing with another Windows pc with smbk but couldn't get it working with another Linux pc.

Good luck.

oh yeah.. d networking thngy.. need 2 do networking also since all my files on d main deskstop PC..

less virus attack compared to m$?

thats Y i use em'..

but if linux got popular in d future, i thnk d virus will come in2 d linux anyway..wat i thnk la..

attacking Micro$ost and Apple looks more interesting

it really depends, basically the user access control on linux, make it hard for virus to spread.
and chances is, bug are discovered and fixed, before someone can use it for malicious purpose.

well, it is true that there are many great softwares like photoshop which only runs in windows

but hey, windows is most vulnerable and has most viruses on the planet, which makes me don't comprehend why soooo many people would actually SPEND money to a blank OS that is almost insecure even with antivirus installed.

for me, having linux as main machine and windows in a VM is the best choice, if you're a gamer and use applications like photoshop.

i use linux because of the awesome-ness factor i get to brag about it to my friends and look down on windows, i've used it last time to learn more about it but half way through the journey i forgot how to use windows

if i need DTP i'd get a mac.
if i need to play games i'd get a console.
if i need a computer for everything else i'd use linux.

really? I can run photoshop natively on me notebook, and I'm not even using windows on it

really?

are you using a VM or wine or crossover?

Adobe (master collection cs3) is the only value for windows, if i could ever find a solution to run all adobe stuffs (without paying for like crossover), windows will worth completely nothing to be (hurray!!! )

How is Windows exactly blank when you have WMP, IE and the likes preinstalled? and people pay for convenience and compatibility? I know nothing beats double click for the majority of the average populace. Regarding security, there are ways to secure a Windows box contrary to popular beliefs. Antiviruses aren't the only way, they are only ONE way to deal with problems. Windows can be set to run in a limited user account (LUA) with software restriction policies in place, essentially carbon copying Linux's secure environment. I know setting up a LUA takes less than time learning Linux. It feels like you're having two cars - one to drive at gear 1, and the other to drive at gear 2. Don't you think its a surplus when one car does the job well enough? I have no idea but why do you pay for Windows when you don't intend to be completely Windows literate?

Anyway after reading this - The Great Ubuntu-Girlfriend Experiment, I have to admit I went through much of the same problems. I know I faced an even worse experience - Ubuntu not booting up on my first try due to incompatibility problems with my 7800GT. As much as people rave about Linux being secure and complete in the sense it works much like an ecosystem where programs are integrated centrally and that they communicate with each other, it just isn't user friendly enough.

I may sound like a Microsoft fanboy but I took nearly 2-4 weeks to get myself familiarized with Linux, whereas I spent roughly a week to get myself acquainted with the first Windows version I used - Windows 98. And at the end of the Linux learning curve, I noticed I would be forced to educate my family if I were to make the switch. When someone who has that much time on his hands took roughly 4 weeks to adapt, how long would the average person take? Let's leave out the dual booting option since the majority of the average populace knows nothing about dual booting.

What Linux can do, Windows does it better, at least to me. I find a lot of Linux worshippers biased, and ironically I find myself biased too haha. I find the idea of having 2 OSes redundant - refer to the car analogy. Any thoughts?

from personal experience, most of the time,

using a platform really depends on skill level and thinking, one might be more comfortable in one platform than the other.
i.e
For me, it don't take me more than a week to master linux, by then I also have friends that take a lot more time to do so. They actually a better windows user than me, and me facing a windows problem, I kinda stuck. Where as, I can solve most linux problem.
Or
Someone might ask, why we need to shutdown using a start button, for example(those who don't use windows might ask that)

Sometime, it is requirement, I know someone who use linux, just because windows server is expensive, and they cannot afford it. Or they want to reduce the IT cost, by using linux desktop.

saying that one platform is superior that the other is rather silly. There is place for everyone. For the same reason why mainframe still exist. Or people still use unix.

The point is, it is really depends.

This post has been edited by sweemeng: May 5 2008, 12:58 PM

Sweemeng,

If you read through the thread, you would've seen people claiming that more superior features such as ease of setup (reformat and whatever else relevant), speed, bundled softwares and the likes are only offered by Linux. Being ill informed/rigid is one thing, but proclaiming superiority is at another level altogether.

I'll demonstrate a bit.
Ease of Setup - Any disk cloning/imaging softwares in the market are able to bring the "setup" time of Windows down to a mere 5-10 mins.
Speed and Bundled softwares - slipstreaming and/or nLite.

How exactly is Linux more superior than Windows with respect to the points I've stated? I can go on but you see, fault doesn't lie on Windows when users are ill informed/rigid. The point is I respect personal preferences and needs but going to the extent of distorting facts just to put Linux higher up on the ladder is just... well you get the idea.

Back on topic, I tested Linux because I was curious.

edit : fixed coherency.

This post has been edited by FollowN: May 5 2008, 03:23 PM

ooh ooh me first, let's try with Linux Live CD, and it's free

This post has been edited by Avex: May 5 2008, 05:05 PM

FollowN
People is entitled to opinion, remember that.

Point one,
true, you basically can do that, often, provided with enough hard disk space to store image, I do that on linux too.

Modern day linux installer is one livecd based, so it is a full desktop environment, so you can try first. The installer program is in the livecd, most of the time, the default work well, so it will detect a windows partition, and resize it automatically, or if you want manually, using GUI. And after everything done, reboot once, it is done.

Point two,
true as well, but really here we linux geek are talking about, downloading needed software that is available, like installing openoffice from one repository. So we can download software other than fixes. So I can download vlc from the repository using package manager, install it using the same software

nLite/slipstreaming, didn't really try it yet. been google it, look like more for updates, critical fix, and some of the software. Please enlighten me on this..........

again true, one is ill informed.
But really, it is not all lies, for example,
1) how one setup windows in a old machine, and with support(assuming you get the original copy of windows). You can run linux with supported software on old machine.

2) On windows most hunt for software using google or download.com etc. One linux we don't do that anymore, we have package manager which have databases of supported software(which is ridiculously huge), where one just search, select and apply，then wait. It is configured automatically. As the configuration of the package is tuned to the distribution.
What else, enlighten me on this too please..........
not really sure what else

3) Faster booting, lets be fair, I found it as fast on windows xp. But faster than 98, but as one use windows long, the boot up time, is a bit longer, personal experience, Blame my ignorance, on configuring windows. It just that, what ever I install on linux, the bootup time is pretty consistent so no slowdown

4) What else, enlighten me please?

last note, not too long ago, we have a post on what linux can do, windows can't. (Can someone provide the links?) The conclusion seems to be, what linux can do, windows can also, and vice versa. Really it is equal, using one depends on the skill level, and knowledge.

This post has been edited by sweemeng: May 5 2008, 07:51 PM