Why Linux?

[Robor]

Originally posted by: ivwshane
Some one gets it...
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3822185143.html

What do you mean? I think it's great that you can buy a PC without having to pay for an OS license but at the same time he highlighted the biggest weakness of Linux - no standardization. Until there's a Linux distro that's standardized it's not going to be offered by Dell, HP, IBM, Gateway, etc. Linux has some work to do in compatibility and usability as well. Many distros don't support hardware out of the box and in most cases finding/installing drivers isn't as easy as with Windows. Here's 2 examples:

1) My Fedora Core 4 box didn't recognize my Promise IDE RAID controller. After a lot of searching and reading I managed to find a driver in a Yahoo group of all places. I installed it and got it working - until I upgraded my kernel in a regular 'yum update/upgrade'. I reverted to the previous kernel in the boot menu but this shouldn't happen.

2) My wireless card in my T42 (Intel 2200 Pro - ipw2200) is supported out of the box in Ubuntu. I had done a few kernel upgrades and no problems. After the last kernel upgrade my wireless broke. Again, booting to the previous kernel works but it shouldn't happen.

These examples are akin to running Windows Update and having something break as a result. Yeah, I know, we've all seen it happen. My point is we bash Microsoft when it does. That said, why does Linux get a free pass?

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: ivwshane
Some one gets it...
http://www.desktoplinux.com/news/NS3822185143.html

What do you mean? I think it's great that you can buy a PC without having to pay for an OS license but at the same time he highlighted the biggest weakness of Linux - no standardization. Until there's a Linux distro that's standardized it's not going to be offered by Dell, HP, IBM, Gateway, etc. Linux has some work to do in compatibility and usability as well. Many distros don't support hardware out of the box and in most cases finding/installing drivers isn't as easy as with Windows. Here's 2 examples:

1) My Fedora Core 4 box didn't recognize my Promise IDE RAID controller. After a lot of searching and reading I managed to find a driver in a Yahoo group of all places. I installed it and got it working - until I upgraded my kernel in a regular 'yum update/upgrade'. I reverted to the previous kernel in the boot menu but this shouldn't happen.

2) My wireless card in my T42 (Intel 2200 Pro - ipw2200) is supported out of the box in Ubuntu. I had done a few kernel upgrades and no problems. After the last kernel upgrade my wireless broke. Again, booting to the previous kernel works but it shouldn't happen.

These examples are akin to running Windows Update and having something break as a result. Yeah, I know, we've all seen it happen. My point is we bash Microsoft when it does. That said, why does Linux get a free pass?

It doesn't....

but then, I have seen it much less. As for your winraid controller, that's just an example of overhyped marketing speak and a crappy solution. Those onboard controllers are so far from a "raid controller" it's not even in the same zip code.

Define standardized....The all run a kernel, they can all run an X server, they can run a few different WM's, but you can do that on any distro.

Try installing a minimal GUI on an XP machine to save resources...

check the differences in Windows XP versus 98 Versus NT...no standarization!

And you can get dell, HP, IBM all with Linux. Mostly servers, but still get them with linux.

 

[Robor]

My controller isn't an overhyped crappy solution, it's a cheap solution that gives me the fault tolerance of RAID5. That's all I wanted and considering I had one of the drives fail with no data loss recently, it works. I know it's not the greatest as far as speed but how else are you going to have a 4 IDE drives in RAID5 and a DVD drive in the same system? Anyway, what about my wireless controller breaking with the kernel upgrade? That should not happen, period. There's zero chance of Linux becoming a mainstream desktop OS if things like that happen.

Standardized as in supporting *most* of the current hardware available today. A day doesn't go by where there's not a thread here or in the Ubuntu forums about this or that not being supported out of the box in Linux. And like I said, in most cases it's not a matter of going to the website of the device manf and grabbing a simple .ini or .exe driver like in Windows.
Standardized as in interface. I like the ability to choose a WM and how I'm able to customize Gnome but IMO the fact that there's no standard interface is holding Linux back.

With the power of todays hardware and the low cost of it there's really no point in saving resources. Even budget PC's today are overkill for most end users. Older hardware may not run XP well but who wants to deal with older systems anymore? The truth is my T42 is faster in XP than Ubuntu.

Linux may be available as a server OS but I'm talking strictly Linux as a desktop OS option.

NT, 98, and XP all have the same basic interface. Each version got more user friendly and supported more hardware. Linux has as well but comparing NT to 98 to XP is a far cry from say Ubuntu to Xandros to Fedora Core 4 (I'm using them as examples because that's the 3 I've used). Those Linux examples all have different interfaces, different software out of the box, and different package managers.

 

[nweaver]

Take your T42, and install XPSP2, and Ubuntu...which has better hardware support "out of box"?

My laptop is faster in ubuntu then XP...

The user interface has changed drasticly from NT to XP, and Vista make more major changes to the way users do things. (the control panal stuff sucks, imho)

Linux supports more Hardware out of box then XP does. One or two craptastic vendors aside, hardware is a non issue.

 

[ivwshane]

Originally posted by: nweaver


Linux supports more Hardware out of box then XP does. One or two craptastic vendors aside, hardware is a non issue.

Do you have any studies that prove your point?

I doubt anyone can say without a doubt that either windows or linux has more support out of the box.

 

[sigs3gv]

Originally posted by: ivwshane

Originally posted by: nweaver


Linux supports more Hardware out of box then XP does. One or two craptastic vendors aside, hardware is a non issue.

Do you have any studies that prove your point?

I doubt anyone can say without a doubt that either windows or linux has more support out of the box.

With some hardware, Windows has less support out of the box than that of Linux.

 

[ivwshane]

Originally posted by: sigs3gv

Originally posted by: ivwshane

Originally posted by: nweaver


Linux supports more Hardware out of box then XP does. One or two craptastic vendors aside, hardware is a non issue.

Do you have any studies that prove your point?

I doubt anyone can say without a doubt that either windows or linux has more support out of the box.

With some hardware, Windows has less support out of the box than that of Linux.

And the same can be said for linux so the argument is meaningless.

 

[nweaver]

brand new Dell Latitude D810 laptop

Ubuntu 5.10
WindowsXPSP2 VL

Ubuntu had full rez, wireless, lan, no 3d support
Windows needed drivers for native res support, modem, lan, wireless, sound


so, Ubuntu, with native res but no 3d, or windows, with no Lan, Wlan, Modem, sound, native video res


edit: took me about 30-45 mins to get the ATI driver installed for 3d..that was still less then to find/download/burn/install all the drivers for windows.

 

[ivwshane]

lol

You are basing your statement on your experience and that some how qualifies you to make such a statement?

 

[nweaver]

You asked for an example, I gave you one. How many new PC's can install linux out of the box, full support, but XPSP2 cannot? I feel much more comfortable with my mom loading Ubuntu on her machine then WindowsXP, because then she has to go find drivers. Unknown device...wonder what driver goes there. I can figure it out, but she won't be able to, and if that happens to be her NIC, she is screwed, as she now has no internet. But you are right, Windows, out of box, supports much more hardware.

 

[ivwshane]

I didn't ask for an example, anyone can provide one for either operating system, I ask for a study or for conclusive evidence that linux does indeed have more support out of the box than windows.

But you are right, Windows, out of box, supports much more hardware.

I never said that and I or anyone eles can't make such a statement about windows.

If linux works right out of the box for you then great but that doesn't mean it will for every other person out there.

 

[Robor]

Out of the box my T42 has much better hardware support in Ubuntu than WinXP. In fact, I don't think there was any hardware that wasn't supported. It's pretty impressive to be able to install an OS and not have to search for drivers when the install finishes. However, to install the drivers and such on a T42 is pretty simple. All you need to do is install a single IBM Software Installer and it goes out and gathers the latest IBM versions. From there you can select which you want to install/update. On top of that there's a bunch of IBM features/programs that aren't available under Ubuntu or any Linux that I know of. Even were it not for the IBM installer I could install my chipset, video, audio, and LAN drivers pretty quickly.

As much as I like playing with Linux it's far from perfect or easy to work with, especially as a desktop OS. In my experience XP is much quicker in opening and using apps and more stable as well. In a basic WinXP Pro and Outlook 2003 setup I've never had a hang/crash. With Ubuntu and Evolution I have crashes all the time - especially moving Email from the Inbox to a sub-storage folder. I find WinXP to be snappier on the desktop as far as flipping from one program to another and minimizing/expanding too. Under Ubuntu I get skippy video/audio in some video clips I play and while I'm sure there's a fix I don't feel like it. Of course I've had plenty of videos not play under XP but either they play or they don't - not skippy in audio/sound. And that's a codec issue rather than a sound driver or config problem. And I'll admit it could be a PICNIC (Problem In Chair Not In Computer) issue with me not knowing how to use/configure the player but in Windows I don't have to do it.

Also, Linux is absolutely worthless in gaming. Sorry, but that's a fact. Most games don't have native support, those that do usually run slower under Linux than Windows, and using WINE or Cedega are just weak workarounds. Game makers code their games for Windows so that's not a surprise and it's not the fault of Linux but it's still a weakness when compared to Windows.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: ivwshane
I didn't ask for an example, anyone can provide one for either operating system, I ask for a study or for conclusive evidence that linux does indeed have more support out of the box than windows.

But you are right, Windows, out of box, supports much more hardware.

I never said that and I or anyone eles can't make such a statement about windows.

If linux works right out of the box for you then great but that doesn't mean it will for every other person out there.

I don't know of any study, but it's pretty obvious that Linux kernel is going to have much more support for more hardware then any other operating system.

As in 'pretty obvious' I mean 'blindingly obvious'. Ever try to install Windows XP on a computer with a EISA bus? Do you know what a EISA bus is? Well.. Linux supports hardware on that. Every singl e peice of hardware that has had support in the vanilla kernel is still supported in the latest version (with one or two exceptions). And not only does it support it, it supports it on all platforms.

Try to install Windows XP on a ia64 machine. x86-64 machine. You will find that while it is possible to install Windows on those types of machines, the hardware support is much less then what it is on x86. But as far as the vanilla kernel goes it supports the same hardware on x86 as it does x86-64 or PowerPC or on a SunSparcstation 64bit.

Linux's support for hardware is on a magnatude greater then Windows XP. And it's not only obsolete stuff either. There are a whole crapload of SATA and SCSI cards that are supported out of the box on latest Linux kernels that require special drivers to work in XP, if at all.

The trouble is 'does that hardware count'. You run into problems with full 3d support for video cards and certain wifi cards which are commonly used. If it's not supported out of the box in Linux then it's often difficult to get it working. ATI video cards and Nvidia cards require propriatory drivers that are sometimes painfull. Wifi cards like the Apple Extreme 802.11g and other broadcom-based wifi cards (commonly found on cheaper laptops everywere) are only properly supported with currently experimental drivers and most people run ndiswrapper (code to make windows drivers work for wireless cards).

Typical modern consumer hardware that is sold is specificly configured to work with Windows XP. This is because the vast majority of customers are going to use Windows XP so vendors go through great lengths and spend lots of money to produce drivers that work properly with it. With Linux you only see this with enterprise and server style hardware, since Linux is as common as Windows in those enviroments. Also with higher-end clustering stuff you only see Linux supporting the hardware properly.

But it doesn't matter since consumer-grade items are what people are using and installing drivers on XP is only difficult when something goes wrong.

 

[stash]

Ever try to install Windows XP on a computer with a EISA bus? Do you know what a EISA bus is?

XP supports EISA

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/c09621675.mspx (Other Bus Support).

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: stash

Ever try to install Windows XP on a computer with a EISA bus? Do you know what a EISA bus is?

XP supports EISA

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/reskit/c09621675.mspx (Other Bus Support).

Ya, but I doubt if most of the hardware designed to work with a EISA bus will work with Windows XP.
Will it support my 53c710 SCSI controller out of the box?

I suppose EISA isn't obscure enough. I should of said 'MCA' instead. Which the latest Linux kernel still supports.
(and it's not just old PS/2 machines that use that crufty old stuff. You'll see them on crusty old AS/400 and RS/6000 machines.. which Linux supports. As well as the token ring networks and network adapters that they'd probably use also)

 

[ivwshane]

So again, no one can clearly claim one OS has better hardware support than the other.

You named some pretty obscure hardware that is supported by linux and not supported by XP but then you also said there is a ton of hardware that isn't obscure that linux wont work with right out of the box (winmodems, wifi cards).

If your argument is that linux has better support for enterprise level hardware then fine I'll give you that but we are specifically talking about the desktop and every day components that the average joe will be using.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: ivwshane
lol

You are basing your statement on your experience and that some how qualifies you to make such a statement?

lol

Isn't personal experience exactly what makes you qualified to make such statements? Maybe you are a little confused, since all you have is hearsay.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: ivwshane
So again, no one can clearly claim one OS has better hardware support than the other.

You named some pretty obscure hardware that is supported by linux and not supported by XP but then you also said there is a ton of hardware that isn't obscure that linux wont work with right out of the box (winmodems, wifi cards).

If your argument is that linux has better support for enterprise level hardware then fine I'll give you that but we are specifically talking about the desktop and every day components that the average joe will be using.

How do suppose something is 'better'? Personally I don't care, I only buy stuff that works for stuff I want to use it for. With Linux I can find all the parts I need to build a nice computer and install and run it properly without ANY work from myself, except for video.

For you to considure 'better' maybe that items are easier to get working. For other people it's what the OS is able to support out of the box with no effort.

For Linux it definately supports much much more hardware out of the box then Windows. Even with consumer PC stuff it supports more. The numerical advantage is definately on Linux's side. If you want to install Windows on anything other then PC-based hardware your pretty much screwed. Not going to happen generally speaking.

But if you count 3rd party drivers Windows looks much better on PC-class hardware. Hardware makers make sure that everything they sell works with windows otherwise it's not ever going to make any money. The only exception I know of for pc-class hardware is going to be the pchdtv high-def tv capture card.

edit:
And it's not just 'obscure' hardware. Linux supports ALL sata controllers out of the box, windows only works with pata compatability mode on specific models unless you are using a driver disk. The only reason why you don't see these 'raid' features supported by default is because using those feature degrade performance compared to MD 'software' raid. And those features are gaining support anyways through dmraid.

The vast majority of scsi controllers old and new are supported out of the box. Most Apple hardware is also supported.

 

[ivwshane]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: ivwshane
lol

You are basing your statement on your experience and that some how qualifies you to make such a statement?

lol

Isn't personal experience exactly what makes you qualified to make such statements? Maybe you are a little confused, since all you have is hearsay.

No it doesn't make you qualified to make such statements.

I have 10 systems and windows recognizes all the hardware out of the box and linux doesn't. If I told you that because of my experience then that means windows supports more hardware out of the box than linux, do you think that would be an accurate statement and must be true?

I don't think so.

 

[ivwshane]

Originally posted by: drag


How do suppose something is 'better'? Personally I don't care, I only buy stuff that works for stuff I want to use it for. With Linux I can find all the parts I need to build a nice computer and install and run it properly without ANY work from myself, except for video.

So you purposely buy linux compatible hardware and because that's what you use that automatically means linux supports more hardware out of the box?....

For you to considure 'better' maybe that items are easier to get working. For other people it's what the OS is able to support out of the box with no effort.

In this case "better support" as in automatically recognizing the hardware with no user intervention as we had been talking about in the previous posts.

For Linux it definately supports much much more hardware out of the box then Windows. Even with consumer PC stuff it supports more. The numerical advantage is definately on Linux's side. If you want to install Windows on anything other then PC-based hardware your pretty much screwed. Not going to happen generally speaking.

Again where are you getting your information? I'm not saying it's not true I'm just not going to automatically believe what you say just because that's been your experience. And again we are specifically talking about consumer level pc's not server's or enterprise level systems so I'm not sure why you keep bringing those type of components into the discussion.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: ivwshane
And again we are specifically talking about consumer level pc's not server's or enterprise level systems so I'm not sure why you keep bringing those type of components into the discussion.

Maybe because not everyone's life revolves around playing computer games?

 

[ivwshane]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: ivwshane
And again we are specifically talking about consumer level pc's not server's or enterprise level systems so I'm not sure why you keep bringing those type of components into the discussion.

Maybe because not everyone's life revolves around playing computer games?

I don't play computer games so what's your point?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: ivwshane

Originally posted by: drag


How do suppose something is 'better'? Personally I don't care, I only buy stuff that works for stuff I want to use it for. With Linux I can find all the parts I need to build a nice computer and install and run it properly without ANY work from myself, except for video.

So you purposely buy linux compatible hardware and because that's what you use that automatically means linux supports more hardware out of the box?....

I didn't say anything remotely like that

For Linux it definately supports much much more hardware out of the box then Windows. Even with consumer PC stuff it supports more. The numerical advantage is definately on Linux's side. If you want to install Windows on anything other then PC-based hardware your pretty much screwed. Not going to happen generally speaking.

Again where are you getting your information? I'm not saying it's not true I'm just not going to automatically believe what you say just because that's been your experience. And again we are specifically talking about consumer level pc's not server's or enterprise level systems so I'm not sure why you keep bringing those type of components into the discussion.

download the kernel sources. Run 'make menuconfig'. Look at what is supported. That's all I can give you as 'proof'.

The other proof is go to as many computers as possible and try using them under Knoppix versus installing Windows with no support cdroms or anything like that.

That and I thought that Xboxes, Playstation 2's, various handhelds and Apple PowerPC computers were consumer hardware.

Edit:

Look, it's a bit of a trick. Easy to understand.
Linux supports older hardware. Most stuff that was never sold when Windows XP was around isn't going to be supported by Windows XP. Linux supports that and will pretty much alwasy support that stuff. You can get it to run well (relatively) on a 486 proccessor, and it will do a decent job since Linux is also often used in embedded computing were resources are expensive.

Also Linux is much newer then XP. The last released version was released on 03/05/2006. XP was released on 10/25/2001. SP2 was released on 08/06/2004. Linux has gained hardware support since those times that XP is going to lack. Also x86-64 support from Windows is very lacking were with the vanilla Linux everything that is supported under x86 is pretty much automaticly supported under x86-64.

Once Vista comes out it will have very good support for new hardware, much better then Linux. For a year or two.

 

[ivwshane]

The other proof is go to as many computers as possible and try using them under Knoppix versus installing Windows with no support cdroms or anything like that.

That proves nothing, I can do the same thing in windows.

That and I thought that Xboxes, Playstation 2's, various handhelds and Apple PowerPC computers were consumer hardware.

What part of "consumer level pc's" does the xbox, playstation and other consoles besides the powerpc fit into?
So now you want to bring in all the hardware that runs embedded linux into the argument? Well you got me there. I guess I can throw out windows now since I can run my word processor on my coffee machine since you consider that a personal computer too:roll:

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: Presence

Linux is not Microsoft. Linux is not Microsoft. You don't need to listen to the Microsoft start up theme music, watch the Microsoft logo as Windows loads, or use the Internet Explorer to view your files, or have microft software bundled with your OS. Or believe that everything Microsoft has handed you in the PC world is the way it should be. You can used tabbed folder view instead of pressing "back back back" to navigate through your folders. You can customize your splash screen to replace you Windows loading logo. You can make your OS look like a Mac if you like.

This is by far the best reason to switch to Linux. Pressing "back back back" just plain sucks. lol

Use a mouse with a "back" and "forward" button