Has *nix reached the stage where i can pop a CD in my computer, setup as easily as XP, and then use it with equal ease?

[Nothinman]

Still, to each his own. Flexibility or simplicity

But it's not. For general usage the unix method is more simplistic because there's only one tree to work with so all you need to do is remember which directory you're looking for, with the Windows method you have to remember which drive and directory.

 

[nweaver]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Still, to each his own. Flexibility or simplicity

But it's not. For general usage the unix method is more simplistic because there's only one tree to work with so all you need to do is remember which directory you're looking for, with the Windows method you have to remember which drive and directory.

exaclty, wth is "C:"...it makes no sense. Tying the filesystem to partitions/volumes makes NO sense whatsover. It's inflexible and irritating once you figure it out.

For instance, why mount a network drive as "Q:" and expect users to remember that's where they should put their documents, when you can just put /home/user on that share? Windows won't allow you to mount a network share anywhere but a command line, and it's been a pain in the butt before. Users don't care/should have to care about what drives/partitions they have, they should just worry about where to put stuff. I feel ripped off using windows method for so long. Linux took a little time to learn about, but once I figured out how it worked, I realized how superior it is.

 

[themisfit610]

For general usage the unix method is more simplistic because there's only one tree to work with so all you need to do is remember which directory you're looking for, with the Windows method you have to remember which drive and directory.

Well, I always remember these things, so I can't say I've ever had this problem. But then again, I'm very organized like that. Never understood these silly people who cant maintain a directory hierarchy, and have to use all these fancy new search applications for their data. Spotlight psh... Google desktop, please... iTunes?? Give me a break... Lightroom - not bad, but only really because of the metadata and tagging. But I'm off topic now.

why mount a network drive as "Q:" and expect users to remember that's where they should put their documents, when you can just put /home/user on that share?

You can very easily just mount a network drive to something arbitrary, maybe P: for personal, and then point the user's "my documents" at that network drive.. Same outcome, even easier for users who don't even understand directory structure at any level, and just know what "my documents" and "my pictures" is That's how we do it where I work, and it's pretty smooth..

What do you mean Windows won't let you mount a network share anywhere but a command line? Right click on my computer, and go to map network drive... very easy. If you mean actually mounting a network share to a folder on the local filesystem, Unix style, then maybe you can do that, I've never tried.

Why shouldn't tying the filesystem to partitions or volumes make sense? The partitions are laid out in a specific fashion, usually for a very logical reason. Why abstract something on top of that? Besides, if you ever need to pull a drive for data recovery or shipping or something, you need to know precisely what's on there before you do! I'm more comfortable knowing exactly what's what, without looking at my fstab etc

I feel ripped off using windows method for so long

Well, that's your feeling. I don't know how you would feel that way - you still got access to your network drives one way or another Nobody stole your data or charged you money for it!

Linux took a little time to learn about, but once I figured out how it worked, I realized how superior it is.

I'm glad it's superior for you! For me, as I said, many aspects of Linux are very much lacking (to me).

I come back to the conclusion that Windows is easier for me because I'm more efficient with it, mainly because I'm used to it. I don't feel like any of the organizational concepts are particularly lacking or that any aspect of the Windows paradigm is holding my productivity back. I'm always limited by available horsepower and storage well, ok.. maybe creativity once in awhile!

 

[Nothinman]

You can very easily just mount a network drive to something arbitrary, maybe P: for personal, and then point the user's "my documents" at that network drive.. Same outcome, even easier for users who don't even understand directory structure at any level, and just know what "my documents" and "my pictures" is That's how we do it where I work, and it's pretty smooth..

It's not the same outcome because that's backwards, on Linux you would mount the user's directory directly to %USERPROFILE%\My Documents so the P: and extra indirection is unnecessary. And then you still have people asking "What happened to my P drive" which gives you no clue as to what might actually have been mapped there.

The partitions are laid out in a specific fashion, usually for a very logical reason. Why abstract something on top of that?

Because partitions and filesystems shouldn't be used for organization, that's what directories are for.

 

[themisfit610]

Because partitions and filesystems shouldn't be used for organization, that's what directories are for.

Well, that's your opinion. I like to have a very high level scheme on top of my directories... as I said one drive for OS, one drive for generic data, images, software archives etc, another drive (or 10) for video!

t's not the same outcome because that's backwards

Well, it is the same outcome. The user data storage folder(s) gets mapped to a network drive, transparent to the user. Backwards from your perspective, maybe.

And then you still have people asking "What happened to my P drive" which gives you no clue as to what might actually have been mapped there.

Not sure I quite understand this.. If the drive isn't mapped for whatever reason (this could happen on Linux too), you can easily look up the user's real network share path by referencing their account information, and re-map the drive. Not sure where this would be (from the user's perspective) any different on Linux or Windows... But again maybe I'm not seeing what you're talking about

~MiSfit

 

[Nothinman]

Well, that's your opinion. I like to have a very high level scheme on top of my directories... as I said one drive for OS, one drive for generic data, images, software archives etc, another drive (or 10) for video!

It's more than that, it's using the right tool for the right job. Partitions are way too inflexible and using them like that will eventually bit you in the ass. Then you'll be left deciding whether to take your chances with a filesystem resize tool like GParted or PQMagic and just putting some "generic data" on your video volume and thus negating the organizational aspect of your partitions.

Well, it is the same outcome. The user data storage folder(s) gets mapped to a network drive, transparent to the user. Backwards from your perspective, maybe.

Um backwards from the perspective of logic. Your way achieves the goal via one method and mweaver's achieves it via a method that works in the opposite manner. To me that's the definition of backwards.

Not sure I quite understand this.. If the drive isn't mapped for whatever reason (this could happen on Linux too), you can easily look up the user's real network share path by referencing their account information, and re-map the drive. Not sure where this would be (from the user's perspective) any different on Linux or Windows... But again maybe I'm not seeing what you're talking about

That only works for their home directory. In a business environment it's not likely to be their personal share, it's more likely a shared area that dozens of people have access to and not something that can easily be discerned from account information.

 

[themisfit610]

Well, I think we're getting pretty off topic here, but I just want to do one final response.

Again, I'm just stating what works well for me. I've never had any real issues with the organizational system I've described.. I never resize volumes, precisely because I know that's risky I just use the full capacity of each drive.

Um backwards from the perspective of logic. Your way achieves the goal via one method and mweaver's achieves it via a method that works in the opposite manner. To me that's the definition of backwards.

Well, that's assuming that mweaver's method is logical. To me, it's not logical, so to me it's backwards. For him (and you), the opposite is true.

Who cares? It's the same end result! Backwards is sort of a loaded word, since it implies inferiority.

That only works for their home directory. In a business environment it's not likely to be their personal share, it's more likely a shared area that dozens of people have access to and not something that can easily be discerned from account information.

Well, not necessarily. The way we do it, each user has a specific network share that as I mentioned is where their "my documents" points. There are also department specific shares that member of that department all have r/w access to. If that drive doesn't mount, I can see what groups they're a part of from their account information, and again remap the drive.

Again we're getting OT and are sort of nitpicking at each other, this isn't a linux is better, windows is better thread... They're both good operating systems. I like Windows. Nuff said!

~MiSfit

 

[Nothinman]

Again, I'm just stating what works well for me. I've never had any real issues with the organizational system I've described.. I never resize volumes, precisely because I know that's risky I just use the full capacity of each drive.

And what happens when one drive fills up? You just throw it out and buy a bigger one?

Who cares? It's the same end result! Backwards is sort of a loaded word, since it implies inferiority.

Technically it's not the same result, in his scenario he's got a network volume mapped directly to a directory on his system, something like /home/username/My Documents. And in your scenario you've got the network volume mapped to P: and %USERPROFILE%\My Documents redirected to point to P:.

Well, not necessarily. The way we do it, each user has a specific network share that as I mentioned is where their "my documents" points. There are also department specific shares that member of that department all have r/w access to. If that drive doesn't mount, I can see what groups they're a part of from their account information, and again remap the drive.

And you never have areas that people from more than one department would need access?

 

[themisfit610]

And you never have areas that people from more than one department would need access?

I can't say, I've never run into that before. Though I will admit I'm pretty low level.

Technically it's not the same result,

Sure, but why would the end user care?

And what happens when one drive fills up? You just throw it out and buy a bigger one?

No, I add another one

 

[nweaver]

I did not mean command line, I meant to a drive letter. You cannot mount a network share to anywhere but a drive letter.

Can you do redirection as easy as mounting? no, it's a pain in the butt to do.

Can you do that redirection during the install (like you can with mounting stuff in Linux by adding the data to fstab)? Not really, not easily.

I had an instance where an app stored data in C:\Programfiles\company\program\images directory. I wanted to use our large file server for this task, but didn't want to install this software on the file server. The problem was I couldn't mount \\server\share\directory into the tree. It was a pain in the butt, and I had to run in circles to work around this limitation in the OS. If I can mount a partition to an empty NTFS folder, then I should be able to mount a network share there too....it's just annoying.



so you add another drive, and another drive letter. Drive letters don't make sense. There are 2 distinct things, the directory structure, and the partition structure. Admins and geeks care about the partition structure, average joes don't give a damn, they just want their computer to work. They add a drive, and get frustrated that they still have to move stuff, and if they forget (or an app doesn't ask) and install stuff to the C:\ drive, filling it up again. On linux, I could mount /usr/bin or /bin to a partition, and if it fills up, pop a disk in, copy the files over, change fstab and remount the new drive, all while someone else is using the computer without interruption (well, except adding a disk, unless it's a hotpluggable system.


Where is the logic in tying your directory structure to physical devices? There IS NONE.

 

[Ken g6]

Back on topic...

I agree with shadowofthesun: Get a LiveCD. But if you want a Linux system that will have the fewest configuration issues, get a LiveCD that was designed to be a LiveCD, like Knoppix. A true LiveCD has to be able to configure itself each time it boots, so it will generally have better hardware support.

If nothing else, get it for the included copy of MemTest (type "memtest" at the boot: prompt).

 

[themisfit610]

Those are some very good points nweaver. I guess I didn't quite see it that way. Indeed, if Windows allows you to mount a partition to an empty NTFS folder, it should let you mount a network share to an empty NTFS folder. That is pretty stupid

Live CDs are a tremendous asset to the Linux community. Having one handy is a great way to isoloate strange issues, and differentiate between hardware and software problems. Gotta love Memtest!

DSL (Damn Small Linux) is a great piece of code that runs well on old P2's

~MiSfit

~MiSfit

 

[mscdex0]

Originally posted by: Kaido

Originally posted by: trexpesto

Exactly what do you want to do with Linux?

- hmm.. "To NOT spend 10% of the cost of a new machine on the OS?" Edit: (every few years)

Seriously - and this is an idea I am trying to spread - only games keep me on windows.

Firefox, Yahoo mail, OpenOffice (much better now). Boo-yah.

That's everything else I need, except some overclocking utilities which I'm not positive would run too well in an emulator.

Same, Windows is for gaming now. I use OS X & Parallels for everything else now. And now Parallels can even run slightly older games!

Almost similar situation here, there is one game I do play in Windows. However it's not just that game that keeps me from switching to linux (*ubuntu specifically), I do .Net development and after doing multiple project analysis with mono it seems like I'm going to have wait a little longer.

But with regards to the topic at hand, I personally have come to love Xubuntu. I even use it on much more capable machines just because I've gotten use to and enjoy using xfce (and at the same time it uses less resources than KDE or Gnome). The normal Xubuntu cd also duals as a live cd, so as mentioned before you can use this to get a feel for what you can expect to see and things once you do an install to your hard drive.

 

[Boztech]

*ahem*

You can add volumes to systems without adding separate drive letters for each new volume, similar to the way Distributed file system (Dfs) links together remote network shares. Volume mount points are robust against system changes that occur when devices are added or removed from a computer.

http://www.microsoft.com/techn...fls_ogex.mspx?mfr=true

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Boztech
*ahem*

You can add volumes to systems without adding separate drive letters for each new volume, similar to the way Distributed file system (Dfs) links together remote network shares. Volume mount points are robust against system changes that occur when devices are added or removed from a computer.

http://www.microsoft.com/techn...fls_ogex.mspx?mfr=true

It's been like that since NT-days. (as far as being able to mount stuff to directories rather then lettered drives)

But still there are going to be major limitations and application compatability issues that you can run into.

 

[smack Down]

Where is the logic in tying your directory structure to physical devices? There IS NONE.

So the user knows which physical device data is being stored at? And don't pretend that a user doesn't care where data is saved.

Technically it's not the same result, in his scenario he's got a network volume mapped directly to a directory on his system, something like /home/username/My Documents. And in your scenario you've got the network volume mapped to P: and %USERPROFILE%\My Documents redirected to point to P:.

Sorry but on linux you have the same. You have a network drive mounted at /home and then $home redirecting the user to his home directory just like windows.

Edit:
I don't know why people seem to make such a big deal about drive letters, when there are so many other reason linux file system is better. Soft links are much more important, with links you can put files from different directories on any drive all in the same folder.

 

[Nothinman]

You can add volumes to systems without adding separate drive letters for each new volume, similar to the way Distributed file system (Dfs) links together remote network shares. Volume mount points are robust against system changes that occur when devices are added or removed from a computer.

But you're limited to mounting on NTFS filesystem, no networks filesystems and even local FAT filesystems can't hold a mount point for another filesystem.

Sorry but on linux you have the same. You have a network drive mounted at /home and then $home redirecting the user to his home directory just like windows.

No it's not the same, /home is the network mounted directory on Linux but on Windows Q: is the network mounted directory and %USERPROFILE%\My Documents is redirected there. I don't think you can even put Windows profile directories directly on a network share. Whenever you tell Windows to host someone's profile on a server all it does is sync the directory at login/logout time.

I don't know why people seem to make such a big deal about drive letters, when there are so many other reason linux file system is better. Soft links are much more important, with links you can put files from different directories on any drive all in the same folder.

NTFS supports symlinks.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Sorry but on linux you have the same. You have a network drive mounted at /home and then $home redirecting the user to his home directory just like windows.

No it's not the same, /home is the network mounted directory on Linux but on Windows Q: is the network mounted directory and %USERPROFILE%\My Documents is redirected there. I don't think you can even put Windows profile directories directly on a network share. Whenever you tell Windows to host someone's profile on a server all it does is sync the directory at login/logout time.

No it is the same thing both use redirection. On linux /home is the networked mounted directory but the directory /home is meaningless just like Q: is meaningless on windows. $HOME is the same as %USERPROFILE% on windows.

 

[Nothinman]

No it is the same thing both use redirection. On linux /home is the networked mounted directory but the directory /home is meaningless just like Q: is meaningless on windows. $HOME is the same as %USERPROFILE% on windows.

Still wrong, on Linux there is no redirection. The directory /home is network mounted and it looks and behaves just as if it was a directory on a local filesystem.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

No it is the same thing both use redirection. On linux /home is the networked mounted directory but the directory /home is meaningless just like Q: is meaningless on windows. $HOME is the same as %USERPROFILE% on windows.

Still wrong, on Linux there is no redirection. The directory /home is network mounted and it looks and behaves just as if it was a directory on a local filesystem.

And once Q is mapped it behaves just as if it was a local drive. There is no difference.

 

[Nothinman]

And once Q is mapped it behaves just as if it was a local drive. There is no difference.

But you can't put your home directory on Q: so it's not the same thing.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And once Q is mapped it behaves just as if it was a local drive. There is no difference.

But you can't put your home directory on Q: so it's not the same thing.

Sure you can you just point the variable for the home directory there. Just like you do in linux with $HOME.

 

[Nothinman]

Have you even tried it?

 

[themisfit610]

That's EXACTLY how we do it where I work. Right click on my documents -> properties, and change the target to a network drive.

You can automate this on login, though I don't know how to.. We have a special managed workstation image... I would imagine it all happens through AD or GP...

~MiSfit

 

[Nothinman]

That's EXACTLY how we do it where I work. Right click on my documents -> properties, and change the target to a network drive.

You can automate this on login, though I don't know how to.. We have a special managed workstation image... I would imagine it all happens through AD or GP...

~MiSfit

No, I know you can do that pretty easily. But smack Down said that you can do the entire profile just like mounting /home via the network.