Switching From Windows To Linux - Comments Page 1

Have you actually used Linux? Funny, my Windows XP *never* crashes. I have used it on about 4-5 different machines over the course of last six years and it has never once crashed. My current machine has been running for 63 days on a stretch.

Is Linux truly so far that it can run on old computers? Yep, but without the graphical X interface. Please show some education when you write your articles. The graphical interface version with either KDE or Gnome runs MUCH SLOWER than Windows XP or a Mac OSX. That's where Linux begins to show its limitations. Neither KDE nor Gnome have the sophistication of either Windows or Mac OSX and yet consumer significantly more memory, look pathetic, and convoluted for the lay person, or even for the semi-geek.

EDITOR'S NOTE: I've written several published books on Linux, so YES, I've used it. I suppose the likability of the GUI is based on your personal tastes. But I can't see anyone making the argument that Linux requires more RAM or CPU power to run well on a given machine. As for your experience with Windows never crashing or freezing, you are definitely in a tiny minority.

Thanks Bob. You don't mention the different interface choices you have with Linux. For example, if you like Windows style, KDE would probably be your choice. Typically Linux can run 4 desktops concurrently, allowing you to easily switch sets of windows - and desktop looks - in a moment. There are also some desktop tools that have been way ahead of the Mac and Windows interfaces.

Decent Linux distros often come with hundreds of programs- the only issue is learning which ones you want, theres so many. They run all categories, like image processing, web design, cataloging, and so much more.

I recently downloaded Ubuntu and, yes, it installed easily and processed its 163 updates very efficiently. Looks great! However, some operations are far from intuitive and, despite some experimentation with menus and putting in some time to track through Help entries and user forums, I still cannot work out how to install my network printer or Adobe Acrobat, which I downloaded, or do a defrag. The same installation issues will apply to the major media players and other applications when I get there. Bob, can you suggest any shortcuts to learning in this regard?

EDITOR'S NOTE: There are some great online forums where Linux users hang out. Google will get you there!

Why does not anybody mention MINT linux?I find it much more user friendly and closer to windows than Ubuntu.

EDITOR'S NOTE: There are hundreds of Linux distros... that's why I suggest you try a few and see which one you like best.

For those concerned with intellectual freedom, there are just 3 letters symbolizing the Linux advantage: DRM! I've been a solid supporter/sufferer of MICROSOFT OS for decades, but the DRM implementation in VISTA is impossible to swallow, so I expect, over the next two years, to shift all of my computing over to Linux, and run whatever WINDOWS legacy applications I have in an XP virtualization.

Since I don't play games, I can not play them just as well on Linux as on WINDOWS, so the disadvantage of the former in that department is not much concern for me.

I used windows in one version or another for years (1996). Windows was easy to use, but not crash proof. I quit windows because I found some things were not user friendly. Trying to figure out the sequence of security updates on reloads and end of support. If you wanted to up date the OS it probably was not compatible with some of your old software or hardware. I switched to Suse about 8 moths ago and will never go back. If you have cutting edge hardware its probably not for you. Although my son bought a new HP laptop and loaded Suse 10.2 with no problems. For the average user with slightly old hardware linux is great.

What makes Linux more secure? Is it the operating system or that it is not a good target because of far fewer users than Windows? Does open source not make it more vulnerable if worked on? Help me understand.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Open source means that thousands of people can view the source code and examine it for potential security flaws. At Microsoft or Apple, there are probably only a few people who fully understand any given component of the code.

Also don't forget if there are windows apps that you can't live without, there's Wine, the Windows emulator, and Vmware (Though Vmware requires a significant amount of computing power to run reasonably).

I'd been working on Debian machines for more than 4 years (and Solaris before that) and last month was my first look at Ubuntu's desktop. Other than a few minor annoyances, it was completely painless. And Linux does run significantly faster, and more stable than Windows XP on virtually any hardware. Even if you're running Beryl and KDE (Which has way more capability than XP for graphics) its faster on an average machine.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Agreed, for further info, see http://www.askbobrankin.com/running_windows_on_linux.html

Bob, One of your better articles trying to expand OS options. I have only dabbled with Linux, but wonder why the world has not switched to a free and flexible OS from an expensive and proprietary MS.

Bob, your articles on Linux are getting better every time. One thing I would add is that there are inexpensive (and even free!) sources for getting physical CDs of Linux distributions.

Three versions of the Ubuntu distro are available for free thru http://shipit.ubuntu.com, http://shipit.kubuntu.org and http://shipit.edubuntu.org (watch those .com's and .org's). Set up a Launchpad account at one, and then you can go to each of the other sites with the same account and add the others. Takes a month or two, but if one's on dialup, it could make the difference between getting 'em or not. There are also commercial vendors like http://www.cheapbytes.org that sell pre-burned CDs for a little bit of nothing.

I have some constructive responses to others' posts, but I'll make that separate. But I'll add an AMEN! to John Howard Oxley's post here--a major reason to use Linux is FREEDOM. That distinguishes Free Software from freeware. Open source, open standards, freedom to modify the code (or have it modified), no Microsoft trickery (like WGA, activation, DRM and whatever else they have hidden in their CLOSED source code). http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html explains the philosophy of free software. I'd encourage you to include this link in a future article. Keep up the good work! And thanks!

In addition to my comments on the article, I'd like to add some constructive info to the comments posted thus far.

1) To Shanx: Yes, you can run Linux WITH a GUI on older computers. There are lighter-weight GUIs available which are being used and work well. For example, I use Puppy Linux (http://www.puppyos.com) on an AMD K6/2 300 mhz clone with 256MB of RAM. With a swap file, you can go down to 64MB of RAM if necessary. And it runs like a greyhound!

2) To mel: http://distrowatch.com has more info on the different distros than anyone will ever be able to use. (Bob: consider this link, too)

3) To Kevin: Linux' security largely comes from its UNIX heritage. Like UNIX, Linux was designed with security in mind from the beginning, whereas MS Windows' security was "bolted on" as an afterthought. Bob's mention of the "many eyes make all bugs shallow" effect is also important. Bugs and security holes generally are fixed VERY quickly compared to Microsoft's track record. Hope this helps.

I'm happy to see a positive article on using desktop Linux. Linux is my primary operating system, though I also have XP partitions on each of my three computers.

It's a little misleading to imply a graphical Linux can run on a 486 with 256 megs and fit on 500 megs of hard drive space. The most popular and polished Linux desktop environments require a fair amount of computer power to run well, and with 256 megs you'll probably be hitting the swap file pretty often. It's hard to fit the Linux distros you mention on 500 megs of hard drive. Most require at least 2 gigs of space, and that's for a cut-down installation. Linux works tolerably on older hardware and offers the advantage of a current, aupported operating system, whereas the same hardware can't run XP, and the versions of Windows that will run well on it are no longer supported.

RedHat is a business distro. Home users would use Fedora, but Fedora is something of a test bed for features that will make their way into RedHat. Because Fedora tends to be cutting edge, I don't think it's a wise choice for beginners. You didn't mention Freespire, the free version of Linspire. I don't use Freespire, but it's entire focus is on ease of use and should be considered by people who want something familiar to Windows users.

I use VectorLinux 5.8 Standard, which is designed for speed, lack of bloat, and stability, as well as ease of use. Support is provided through a very friendly and responsive forum. Most Linux distros have user support forums, but not all of them are friendly to newbies.

You wrote that "While there is no version of Microsoft Office for Linux, you can download Open Office, a free suite of programs that includes a spreadsheet, word processor, slide show creator and database". Open Office is included on most of the popular distros.

You might also mention the live distribution Knoppix which comes on CD or DVD. The DVD has 10 GB of stuff on it, including Open Office.

The more full blown live distros run better w/250MB RAM minimum. Try Puppy, Damm Small Linux, Feather, for machines w/less RAM. These distros are about 50MB in size. If one does not work on your computer, try another.

Bob, you've got a great newsletter, but I disagree on your opinion on Linux. Microsoft is behind Ubuntu, so (a) Ubuntu gets press (because Microsoft promotes the coverage), (b) Ubuntu is designed to give would-be Linux users a terrible experience with Linux -- installation failures, slow operation, lack of really good applications, difficulty uninstalling. Indeed, Windows IS better than Ubuntu Linux -- by design.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Microsoft controls Ubuntu, and makes it bad on purpose? Quit your day job, you could make it big as a comedian!

I made the switch to Linux over three years ago and have never looked back. Not only the savings in money and time on using a secure and stable system, but also the great satisfaction in being an *active* computer user, capable of controlling my own computer environment; rather than a *passive* user, dependent upon the whims of Microsoft and their partners in crime, Symantec, for the latest patches (botches).

Linux is based on the Unix filesystem and security model (root password protection). From the outset it was designed as a multiuser system so was well-equipped to deal with the problems of Internet security.

DOS and Windows were originally conceived for standalone single-user PCs - hence Internet security was always a bolt-on rather than a built-in.

You mention installing the various products - one thing I found impressive is the suite that comes installed, and the inate ability of the OS to know about and be able to install so many other tools. For example, I thought OpenOffice was installed by default. And the Mozilla browser was just a click away in the installation interface. And through this same interface, all types of applications (both free and purchased) can be managed. A very well thought out environment.

Thanks Bob for excellent resources that you provide us all. The best thing to happen to Internet is your TourBus and making resources understood to all its riders over past several years.

i use suse 10.2 Bob, and is it safe not to have antivirus on a linux machine? i have seen free real time scanners offered by bitdefender.com for example, but do i really need to run a scan once in awhile? i mean, i do get fearful with all these viruses being created daily and it make me feel unsecure on a linux box sometimes. let me know what you think! thanks for any guidance. Mark

EDITOR'S NOTE: Anti-virus software is not common on Linux machines, but as they grow in popularity, virus writers will target them more. (Same applies to Macs) I'd run an occasional scan...

Sir, Is it possible to obtain a list of software that can be installed on Linux? For instance "Nero" which we use now has a version that is Linux compatible. Is "Sound Forge" compatible? We use "Firefox" as our browser and we know that also is OK, what about others.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Gordon, there are thousands of Linux software packages. Here's one starting point: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_open_source_software_packages

Very interested in scrapping windows and starting over w/ linux. I am, however, not the best w/ computers. What do I do to keep the stuff I want to keep - music, programs, etc. Can I run i-tunes and other basic programs thru linux? (vlc, etc.) What do I do - just download the distributor I want and then delete windows? Kind of a scary thought to the uninitiated...Thanks for any info - is there a big online tutorial on what exactly to do?

EDITOR'S NOTE: I would recommend that you install Linux (Ubuntu will probably be a good choice for you) in a separate partition, with dual boot, so you can boot up either WIndows or Linux. You can access your Windows partition (and thereby all your files) from Linux. You'll find there are decent replacements for most/all of your Windows programs supplied with Ubuntu. If/when you decide to stick with Linux, you can delete the Windows files.