Response to Bill Gates
About the so-called "hype"
What Mr. Gates calls "hype" is actually a worldwide, grass-roots, fundamental change in how computing is performed. This evolution (revolution) had its modest beginnings in Finland in 1991 and continues to enjoy a phenomenal growth rate. The truth is that thousands of new users are discovering Linux each and every day and finding it a complete replacement for Microsoft Windows. Many of these new users have grown weary of relying on an operating system that is unreliable and has a tendency to crash regularly for no apparent reason. Many of these people are tired of the forced uniformity, tired of having no control and no power to fix the many bugs and shortcomings faced while performing everyday computing tasks, distrustful of waiting for answers that never arrive, exhausted from the endless cycle of paying and paying again for an operating system and applications that always seem to do what they need -- but only in the next release.
The truth, according to IDC figures, is that Linux is now the second most widely-used operating system in the world[3]. The truth is also that the most widely-used Web server in the world is Apache[4], which is Free Software. The truth tends to be quite a bit different from Mr. Gates's claim of "some single applications and Web servers".
About ease-of-use
Linux is still considered to be harder to use than MacOS and Windows. Why is this so? First of all, Linux has inherited a great deal from Unix, which is often seen as a complicated system -- not particularly because it's hard to use, but because it is VERY fully-featured and different in many ways. People discovering Linux are always surprised at the great many things that can be accomplished with Linux, especially the power that lurks behind a seemingly simple shell command line which can be used to read and write email, edit files on remote servers, talk to friends on the other side of the world, listen to MP3s, burn a CD, and compile an application -- all at the same time.
Until recently, addressing these ease-of-use issues was difficult because the issue is actually two fold, based on the presumption that security and ease-of-use are mutually exclusive. We don't ever wish for Linux to become unstable as the cost of making it easier to use, just as we never want Linux to become unsafe. People who regularly use Windows are accustomed to system crashes and viruses as a normal daily concern -- this is not the way computing has to be! With Linux, this situation largely doesn't exist because of the fundamental architecture of the system, which consists of independent layers that have specific features and strict permissions. Additionally, normal users have a strict and limited role on a Linux system; it's only the "root" user (administrator) who has the power to expose an entire system to possible danger. With DOS, Windows 95, and Windows 98, users have the ability to do anything to a system. This is a dangerous scenario in these times of widespread Internet access and extensive networking. With Windows NT and Windows 2000, Microsoft introduced some mechanisms that LOOK like Unix features such as authentication, permissions, and others, but they don't remotely come close to the same level of security that Linux provides.
Linux-Mandrake, in particular, has always focused on ease-of-use issues and has been working hard on this particular challenge of blending common sense security features while maintaining the same user friendly operating system that has become so popular with Linux users. With a Linux-Mandrake system, you can choose a level of security for the system based on its intended use, while maintaining a very friendly system at the same time.
"Ease-of-use" seems to have come to mean graphical interfaces for everything. While it's certainly not true that a nice interface instantly means something is easier to use, it is true that users have come to expect and appreciate slick-looking interfaces to do their work in. This is one area where Linux lagged until KDE[5] and GNOME[6] appeared. Now, Linux is extremely easy to use day-to-day with these great desktop environments.
One of the remaining issues we in the Linux community need to address is the refinement and polishing of the wonderful tools we already have at our disposal. For example: It's true that most applications don't use anti-aliased fonts for display purposes, which might cause a user to think, "Well... it doesn't look as good as Windows; I wonder what else it's lacking." Of course, this single point doesn't mean that the application doesn't contain all the features that would make this user extremely happy, but people's perception is their reality, so it is a valid issue to consider.
About reliability and security in the Open Source model
Reliability and stability have long been major benefits of Linux, and this is proven every day by the thousands of Linux servers that run for months and sometimes even years without as much as a hiccup. Security has also been an important feature of Linux, not only because it is one of the fundamentally most secure operating systems itself, but also because of the way security flaws are handled. When a security issue is discovered, it doesn't take very long for Linux vendors to release an update. Sometimes, a fix can take a week; often, it takes a few days or even a few minutes, depending on the bug. The Open Source model provides an extremely efficient process for handling these types of matters that can't be matched by a proprietary software maker such as Microsoft, which often takes weeks, months, or even years to fix a problem.
So how exactly does the Open Source model excel? Even if Microsoft had the best and brightest engineers in the world, we have the power of numbers. When a serious bug is discovered with Linux, hundreds (possibly thousands) of experienced users and developers can spontaneously work to fix the problem because they have access to all the sources. And we, as Linux vendors, quickly receive patches from the community or develop a solution ourselves. This patch is then validated (or not) very quickly, so an update can be released in record time. This extremely efficient process is impossible in the proprietary/closed software model; it's simply the nature of that beast.
Once upon a time, there was a young boy and a PC...
He couldn't do much because he only had DOS/Windows installed on his computer. He was very saddened to realize that he had to buy additional software to actually do anything with his new pride and joy. But since he had already spent most of his money on the PC, he unfortunately had to copy some proprietary software. This wasn't an ideal solution, because then he couldn't get the documentation for the software. This was extremely unfortunate, because he was very interested in learning programming but couldn't find any information about the libraries that were shipped with the C compiler that a friend had copied for him. Furthermore, the operating system calls that he used were apparently undocumented and there wasn't even an assembler provided with the system. He really couldn't understand why he didn't have the opportunity to create his own software for this computer and operating system that he already paid for.
That was 1990. Five years later, this young boy discovered he could run Linux on that 386 -- and it was free! Well... he just had to buy 50 diskettes, and he was with his new OS. This operating system provided several full-featured compilers and all the documentation he needed to enable him to program anything for his computer. It was then that he realized how limiting Windows had been for him all that previous time and how it stifled his personal desire to create. He realized that Linux couldn't even be compared to that other operating system.
Linux provided the freedom this young man needed -- the freedom to control the technology at hand and also his own future. Linux provides the opportunity to express one's self through creating code, and empowers the individual, which is where power best belongs.
The Future will be Open... or it won't be
People know about icebergs. They know that unless they're swimming underwater in that sea, they're seeing just a little bit of the iceberg. That's similar to how it is with Linux companies and the Open Source model. Linux companies won't ever be as rich as traditional software companies because they offer much more than proprietary software does, and nearly for free. But this doesn't mean we can't all make a living with Open Source software and live well. Mandrakesoft, Red Hat, SuSE, Turbo Linux... all these companies will tell you that they grew a great deal this year, they also grew the previous year, and they will grow again the next because there are ever increasing numbers of people having their own personal discovery with Linux. These people will buy a Linux pack, then their friends will purchase a pack, as will more and more enterprises, who will also require services and support. These Linux companies and this wonderful community we're all a part of are helping change the way people use software and directly affecting people's lives and how we all work.
So, when talking to potential new Linux users, just tell them they can have a full operating system for their PC that contains an office suite, a Web browser, just about everything they could want... for free. This is the first step to entering the Linux world. This will put them on the road to discover for themselves what the "Free" really means in Free Software. With time, they'll also come to know what we already do, the same way your mind evolved between the first day you decided to get Internet access -- no matter whether it was because it was a "fashionable" thing to do or you really wanted to know what it was -- and the day when you first browsed those personal Web pages, to the day of posting your first words in a forum.
All readers who switched definitely from Windows to Linux are welcomed to give their feedback about their experience in the Mandrake Forum on http://www.mandrakeforum.com/article.php3?sid=20000918042153.
Notes:
- "Empower the people: Gates' vision" -- read the article on http://www.australianit.com.au/common/storyPage/0,3811,1184200%5E501,00.html
- FUD -- see http://nofud.linuxtoday.com/MainTOC.html
- Linux second server OS (1999) -- see http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1549312.html?tag=st.ne.ni.rnbot.rn.ni
- Apache first Web server (2000) -- see http://www.netcraft.net/survey/
- KDE -- see http://www.kde.org/
- GNOME -- see http://www.gnome.org/
Gaël Duval, Co-Founder of Mandrakesoft, and Phil Lavigna offer this essay to be freely improved and redistributed under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.
Stability: Linux vs. Windows
I just like to add some example of differences in stability and security between Linux and Windows.
November 1999 I build a small network of 5 computers at a school to be used by everyone to surf the Internet, write letters and so on.
OS was Linux, some standard distribution.
I could not administer for about 10 month cause I had no time.
A friend of mine did the same with Windows NT as OS.
He had to rebuild every computer for about 7 times during that periode. His network had been cracked several times. He had to spend a lot of money and time.
When I saw the my network for the first time since 1999 last week, it still was stable, no crack reached root-level, everything worked fine. Although this net had more than 7 times as much usertime than my friend's net.
So my expirience is a realworld-thing. I will never ever even think about using Windows. And my friend decided to dump his Windows and to use Linux when he heard my story.
Thats all I as small sysadm can say about Bill's words.
Ease of use
It's actually a quantifiable term. However, Mr. Gates was probably not using it in that sense, because he certainly didn't follow up with numbers or statistics. The funny thing about Linux is that its ease of use depends on your skill level and the distribution you use. For instance, Linux-Mandrake rocks for newbies; I recommend it to them regularly. I am much more comfortable in Debian, however, even though it requires greater skill to use effectively.
The thing about Windows is that it dumbs the system down to the lowest common denominator, Joe User, so even sysadmins are forced to deal with things at that level (at least with Win2k and ME). While it may make entry into the business world easier for admins of MS systems, it doesn't teach them anything about the systems themselves...
billy boy why dont you just fuck off
i think that mr. gates just comes to a point where he has
to realize that he product simply suxx :)
4-5 years ago i didnt know that there was sth like linux.
i thought i was happy with my winnt box. then a friend told me to try linux. at the beginning it was a hard time for a windoze lamer but after a few weeks i got into it and now years later i even can't imagin to work with that shitty OS called windows. all my 4 pc's at home run on linux,perfectly.there is everything you need to do daily office work, development and it's for free and much better than windoze software. i love it, and i love it to see how the communite grows every day, even among my friends and so on.
Gates sucked again
Hey mr Gates stop sucking with your windows !
Just get a power of BSD!
Ease of use
What I really like in Linux, is that even if it will become much easier to use in the future, for instance, GUI 'wizards' which will help people to install new hardware,
We will always be able to switch to the old-good-console, and do it in the old-good-way.
Countrary to this, Windows' GUIs are blocking the user from seeing what REALLY happens in his comp. that really sucks.
Anyway, what I said here is more related to Unix vs. Windows than to Linux vs. Windows, tough..
Linux Passes "The Wife Test"!
I use linux almost exclusively on my home PC -- there's no linux version of Elmo's Pre-School. (At work I do use it 100%). My wife also uses the machine quite a bit.
Apart from the frequest Netscape crashes and freeze-ups (always the latest version), she likes linux more than Windows. "I really like this interface better than Windows," she told me one night while surfing the web. When asked why, she said, "It's more intuitive. It's easier to get around, I guess." (We use KDE, by the way). She really finds the virtual desktop to be a cool feature.
I was totally floored. I used to think she just tolerated linux for the sake of her computer geek husband, but it turns out she really likes linux a lot.
And it's soooo much easier to secure than Windows. I'm not proud of the fact, but I got my MCSE certification 3 years ago (don't laugh - my employer paid the entire $4500 bill!) And while security is not a focus in the class, learning the guts of NT enlightens one as to how complex a system NT really is. If you lock down the registry or filesystem to the point where it's really secure, you can easily break a lot of things. Any OS which allows applications to dump files in the OS's main system tree is a joke! And while you can secure the host and the network side of things, it takes a lot of meticulous effort. Linux (well, UNIX in general) is so well designed that securing it is a snap for those who know what to do.
ease of use - windows vs. linux
i've been using linux for a couple years now and i love it and hate it (sometimes). i have an hp scanner i can't use cause it's a parallel port scanner. i have an hp printer which i can't print photo quality on. i have a logitech trackball that i can't use the lock button on. but everything else works just fine. of course all this stuff works on windows so whenever i want to do something i can't do under linux i have to switch to windows. now of course i know it's the manufacturers falt for not releasing specs, etc. but here i am. oh yah! let's not forget my sblive! it might work someday as good or better than it does under windows. but i've benn waiting patiently for a year now and some progress is being made, but...
not everything bill says is a lie.
2nd most used SERVER OS
Your statement, "the truth, according to IDC figures, is that Linux is now the second most widely-used operating system in the world[3]" completely mis-states what your referenced article said. This is server operating systems, not business or consumer operating systems. There's a big difference.
I'm as big a Linux fan as anybody (RedHat/Gnome/HelixCode is my flavor), but our community doesn't get any farther by overstating the truth.
Steve Hall
Security
Well I don't know about security... most Unices are very vulnerable to buffer overflows and stack smashing. Every week more vulnerabilities are discovered. I know that NT can have the same problems but hell, who wants to crack an NT box... no shells, where's the fun in that?
It's a pity no one has ever used the facilities provided in the x86 to seperate code pages from data and prevent arbitrary data being run as code in the event of a smashed stack...
Hard to Use? Not.
Okay, if you're incapable of following some basic instructions and learning a new thing, then it's hard to use. Guess what, Windows is NO DIFFERENT. I recently had to migrate an office from DOS to Windows (don't ask why - it was a requirement for their software package) and teaching them to use Windows was just a bear. They were used to DOS and had the hardest time learning a new thing. But then , it's clear that Bill has a very low view of his customers - he's called them all thieves and treats them like they're idiots.
My first Linux install years ago was off some Debian diskettes I downloaded. I printed out the instruction sheet and followed everything step by step. First bootup worked perfectly, and by following some instructions on usage I was whizzing through the filesystem in no time trying this or that. It was like being let out of a tiny fishbowl into the grand ocean. My second experiment, and first with X, was a Slackware install off a couple of Zip disks. Breathing and drinking was harder than that. And I got X configured and up and running in no time, just by following some basic simple instructions. Now I use the latest RedHat distro (I had to pick one and stick with it though there may be better choices out there). It all but installs itself while I have a ham on rye and watch the Three Stooges. I yawn, reboot and startx and I'm off and running in less than 45 minutes. It takes that long or longer just to Install a bare-bones Windows without all the apps - Linux installs with a host of apps and it's ready to go with minimal effort from the get-go.
Moral of this Story? Ease of use is purely relative. If you have the intellect of a marble and think instructions are something to pack away in a shoebox, then you deserve to be punished with MS Windows. If you are a half-wit or above, can follow some basic instructions and know the difference between a floppy and a CDRom, then Linux is a breaze to install _and_ use. Heck, it was easy before GNOME and KDE.
--RANT
Additionally, no one with half a sense about them would take Bill Gate's remarks seriously. The entire world knows he's a scammer and has been legally declared untrustworthy. Additionally, listening to him bashing Linux is like listening to the Ford dealership bashing Chevy. It's stupid to take that seriously. I'm in business and I'm not about to tell my customers that my competition is a bunch of really nice and competent guys. Of course he's going to say bad stuff about Linux. We're the enemy in his eyes. We're the Democracy by offering a Choice and Community Participation - He's the Communist Dictator by removing Choice through leverage, oppression and slander. After all, I don't know any Linux user who feels he/she's trapped. Microsoft tends to have a few in power with the masses trapped into their OS whether they like it or not - kinda like Communism. Long Live the Linux Revolution!
--/RANT
Okay, I feel better. Just another expression of how easy Linux truly is and how Twisted and Evil Microsoft is...
BeOS... the true solution!
If any of you have ever used BeOS, you will know what I mean when I say "It beats the living shit out of Windows!"
I recently set up a small network of three computers useing beos and it's the fastest network i've ever seen before! Sure it's not Open Source, but it's freely downloadble over the internet, and it's file manager "Tracker" is open source and freely avaible. Go and download it at free.be.com
Linux Zealots
These linux zealots are starting to really irk me. Can it compete with windows in ease of use? NO. Should it even try? NO. Ease of use wasn't a goal of linux until recently, and since then I've seen things go downhill (ex: Redhat & Debian). There is always a tradeoff. If you make it easy to use for the average person, then us guru's will start having problems(example: ever try to manualy install sendmail in debian?).
I for one don't care if it's easy to use. In fact I wish people would stop trying to make it easy to use. I run linux because it is a powerful, open operating system, no more. If you want ease of use, use windows.
FUD as an answer to FUD
This "editorial" is worthless and commits the same crime it's trying to criticise: using FUD and lying with a straight face. Anything to prove the point. It comes nowhere near a balanced opinion which simply proves that a zealot will reamain a zealot no matter what.
GNU/Linux easy to use? I use it daily for more than 5 years and somehow haven't noticed that. I run arguably the most popular distribution out there (Redhat 6.2) and I try not to mess ("customize") with it too much in fear that a great punishement will be inflicted upon me. I tried to install Aspell once, supposedly stable version. There's no rpm but I've invested countless hours in reading man pages and administration self-help books so compiling from sources is not that big of a deal (and I'm looking forward to teaching my mother to do it, after all she's much brighter that my wimpy colleagues at the University were when I tried and failed to make them understand make, compiler and link errors or at least make them use Emacs instead of Sun's horrible text editor). So I compiled. And then executed. And got a core dump. Oh well, I'm a professional programmer, I thought, I've spent five years in CS graduate studies and conviced some people to pay me for programming. I'll just fix it. But what gdb is telling me? "executable format not recognized". That's the ease-of-use for ya, I don't have another day to spend installing newer tools from sources to debug one program. Installed Enlightenment 0.16 once. Boy, my machine started crashing like there is no tommorow. I was happy I was able to replace it with sawfish without re-formating everything. And what a programmer has to do when he forgets, say, the syntax of socket() call? He uses man pages, a random collection of randomly useful information that goes a long way in order to not be of any help. After using man I'm having wet dreams about MSDN. I can already picture myself explaining to my mother that she should become root in order to install a new program. That is after I can convince her that "rpm -ihv very-long-name" is something that she should be able to use/understand. The list goes on and on. If you go back to what you have written: Linux is still considered to be harder to use, Unix is often seen as a complicated system etc. you'll see that you're either in a deep denial or desperately trying to cover the ugly truth: GNU/Linux is far from being useful for an average consumer. Please, save your blatant Linux is extremely easy to use lie to your like-minded zealots but do not embarass yourself by expressing such opinions in public.
Linux secure? I'm sure you dilligently skip all bugtraq reports, after all one remote exploit a week is not that big of a security risk. Linux can be made reasonably secure, something I hope I did with my machine after some script kiddie got root and installed back door because I was naive enough to left DNS server that came with RedHat 6.2 running.
Linux is easy if you have an infinite amount of time to spend learning it and secure if you have lots of money to spend on people who can make it secure.
It borders on irony that out of 4 statements that Gates made that you're trying to categorize as FUD and lies, 3 are actually true and one is non-verifiable. Here they go:
GNU/Linux is hype - we'll see
GNU/Linux cannot compete with Windows on ease-of-use - true
Open Source doesn't offer any great benefit in terms of reliability - true. There are as many unreliable open source products aa close source ones out there. At the end of the day it comes down to the quality of programmers. Commercial companies can attract good programmers with money and can put a lot of resources behind QA and reliability testing. Open source projects can potentially attract more developers, some of them extremely good, some of them not so good. Exposure of the source code (in theory) promotes higher standards and wider testing but it's not a silver bullet. Both camps can produce shitty software and very good software.
same goes for security. Good and evil on both sides
And who's the big, bad, FUD spreading lier: a representative of Microsoft that points real weakneses in GNU/Linux to protect his commercial interests or representative of Mandrake that makes absurd statements to protect his commercial interests?
Ease of use
My Father is a farmer in Namibia. He is at least 20 miles away from the nearest internet connection and even further away from the nearest Linux expert. Yet he run's Linux and the Windows partition that is still on the box is just going to waste. He now tells everyone about Linux :) I guess this says something about your average Joe in Computer terms...
Let's be real here - okay?
/Climb up on soap box
Okay - let's be real every one. Each and every user of Linux, Unix, Windows, Mac OS, Amiga OS and every other operating system, is going to have a different experience. People who use GUI's, to a degree, can float between the different GUI's and remain fairly productive. The same is also true of command-prompt systems. But we're talking about two different things here - the OS and the application(s).
As Bill said/implied in the original article, Linux has deficiencies and difficult areas. As the Mandrake rep. and many here have said, the base Linux OS is VERY solid. Is KDE/GNOME better than Windows? Let's face it folks, this is a religious question and one that has NO perfect answer.
In fact, how well you do with either Linux or Windows, or any other operating system or application for that matter, depends on how much time and energy you put forth. I know from personal experience ( I've been a programmer/developer/analyst/DBA for over 20 years ) that Linux is no harder nor easier than Windows, MAC OS, BeOS, etc. I know because it's taken me just as much time to learn the pieces of Linux I've learned as it's taken me to learn the Windows equivalents.
Someone said in an earlier comment that Man pages are a random spattering of information. I think I also saw someone comment on the various documents and instructions available for Linux ( How-to's, etc. ). The quantity of these is HUGE! The quality of everyone I've read has been outstanding! But a simple trip to the local book store reveals 20 times as many books for Windows apps ( and Windows itself ) as there are for Linux apps. and Linux distributions. Plus, so much of the information for Linux is written for techies by techies. This is, and will continue to be, a problem for the average user.
But, we have to face the fact that Microsoft has had a lead on this community. A lead in both calendar time, dollars spent, people time invested, documents produced. Are all of the programs produced by Microsoft and it's partners good? Like has already been said - there is as much crap as there is good stuff. Microsoft has had the benefit of being able to focus a great deal of attention on it's products over the past 15 years. And it's not just Microsoft here. Everyone who writes code for Windows has tried to get attention paid to them.
How long has Linux been in the minds and on the pages of the IT press? Atleast 5 years, based upon my own research. But, we still don't get the same share of eye-balls that Windows tools/products do ( and we may never - but that's not important right now ).
The community needs to keep going forward as we are today! We need to keep evolving the OS parts of Linux. We need to keep creating and expanding the applications available for Linux. We need to continue expanding our user base and mind-share. Someone said they don't want the ease of use the Windows user community requires because it introduces bugs and problems. Of all of the things I've read about this community, the ease-of-use paradigm might be the one thing that causes distribution fracturing.
/Climbing down off of soap box
Bills a Doubletalking Freak
First let me state that I am an experiences Software Engineer with over 20 years in the industry. I dumped Windows at home in December of last year, wiping NT and Win2000 off all my partitions {Boy did that feel good}. I installed Mandrake Distro and was quite impressed. I found it easier to install than Win2000, and many times more stable than Win2000 on my AMD K6II Motherboard.
Windows suffers from many problems, the least of which is Microsofts really shitty history of repairing bugs in its software. I have had to deal with Microsoft support, and in my humble opinion... IT STINKS... I have found so much information about Linux on the web that I feel that support for Linux is basically free. I have had problems {trying to get the Ethernet card to work, my graphics card wasn't fully supported, etc.} but eventually I would figure out what I needed. I like being able to 'BUILD' the software which runs on my machine. RPMs are very easy to install and many commercial apps have their own installers {look at StarOffice from Sun}. EASE-OF-USE is in the eyes of the beholder. I find LINUX easier to use than Windows because in windows I need to mouse all over the place to get things done, in LINUX I can use a command, pipe the output to something else, and produce a very professional looking document.
Bill Gates in a liar... I knew he was lying to the people way back in 1993 and I knew he wanted Microsoft Everywhere. Microsoft has many serious problems, and they are trying to claim they invent things... The problem is, they haven't really invented anything... They have stolen much of what they claim they invented. My wife thinks he should be sent to jail.
I'm very, very happy with Linux and know that it has a bright future.
PEACE,
Michael Uman
Sr. Software Engineer
Sonic Solutions
Oh really?
Regarding security...
I recall an incedent when some guy at Microsoft forgot to strip linker symbols out of Service Pack 5 for NT4. Shortly after that, one curious guy used them to tinker with MS CryptoAPI and discovered an undocumented function which had one of parameters named NSA_KEY.
Microsoft had hard time convincing public that it has nothing common with National Security Agency; it's up to you to believe them or not. But with Open Source, be it free or not, such a situation is simply impossible.
Oh really?
Regarding security...
I recall an incedent when some guy at Microsoft forgot to strip linker symbols out of Service Pack 5 for NT4. Shortly after that, one curious guy used them to tinker with MS CryptoAPI and discovered an undocumented function which had one of parameters named NSA_KEY.
Microsoft had hard time convincing public that it has nothing common with National Security Agency; it's up to you to believe them or not. But with Open Source, be it free or not, such a situation is simply impossible.
nt investmen cost billions dolars?
Did you read the original article?, i can believe it...
Mr gates, go at hell... and take windows with you...
You know Linux is better, faster and all the users love it...
Everybody hate winbugs...
It was the only choice some years ago.. but now linux rules...
Ease of Use
Gates has no clue what he's talking about. I'd never used linux in my life until maybe March or April of this year on a Linux server. I got it up and running on my home PC piece of cake. I re-installed Apache (Mandrake 7.0 ships with version 1.3.9), and it was pretty easy, because it gives detailed information on how to install it.
When Gates claims the latest version of WinBlows adds new features, he doesn't tell anyone his definition of 'features' is stupid error messages. When a new feature for a linux program is introduced, it really adds new features!!
It's sssooooo easy to configure. This is what it takes to really manage how the OS and it's programs behave:
Windows
To update file associations and menus, etc., you often have to edit the registry, which means backing up the files, browsing through the tree structure, changing the value, rebooting and hoping to god it works. This can take a lot of time and patience.
Linux
Use the su command and enter the root password.
Using pico or vi or something like that, or even a graphical editor, open up the config file in /etc, change the setting, then save the file. Linux config files are easy to figure out.
That's it, you're done! Or if it's a daemon, send it the SIGHUP signal, and it's fine, and it took what, 30 seconds?
And not a single reboot was required.
The lack of "ease of use" is for people who don't want to learn something new. When I first started using a computer, it took me months to figure out how to control everything. With linux, it took me days.
Just thought I'd like to share that little bit with all you people who are thinking about linux, but are worried that you'll have problems and won't figure anything out. Remember, it comes with almost everything you need.
- Brandon
Is NT really that insecure?
You said:
With Windows NT and Windows 2000, Microsoft introduced some mechanisms that LOOK like Unix features such as authentication, permissions, and others, but they don't remotely come close to the same level of security that Linux provides.
I've had a fair bit of NT programming experience and the ACL mechanism NT supports is exceptionally sophisticated. It's way more flexible and powerful than the traditional unix permissions system (this might change with the introduction of posix-ACLs). Of course, NT may not use its own system in the appropriate way, and I did not do enough research into it to determine this one way or the other.
However, I would like you know what you have that can back your statement up. IMHO, its one area that Linux really needs work on.
Simple, really
Look, it's really simple: different users have different
requirements. If you're the type that wants to write programs,
explore how things work, and don't mind learning how to use
tools that are as complex as they are powerful, then Linux
is for you. In other words, if you're like the guy who's
been running Linux for 5 years and can't even fucking compile
Ispell, Linux probably isn't for you. If you want something
that will work just well enough to be functional without a
required investment of time in installing and configuring tools that will do the job right,
shell out the money for Win2K/ME and just pretend you aren't running a shoddily-implemented piece of shit.
ease of use, security
I'm linux lover, i really only use windows because games, like starcraft (this because my machine isn't to powerful to run starcraft with wine, it is too slow), but i can look all the world... windows is more ease of use because everybody has used it, you can tell the same about MacOS, a user that learn Mac, then will consider it easy than windows, that is, if you teach to a newbie in computers to use Linux with a nice graphical interface, it will tell that it is easy... it is different to teach he administer the system, programming, or another thing. I'm ready to say that Mandrake is the easiest of the distros, not the better but it is running to get the nice basic administration software that windows XXXX have.
The main problem is about drivers, sound drivers are only using the basic features of the cards, video drivers are TOO slow comparing it with windows, also scanners, webcams, printers and other things... BUT always a "alpha" driver on linux works better than windows in they common features (like BUZ drivers)
Security, on NT (windows 9x has not security hehehe), what you can do on it is:
- crash it
- delete all the data, and crash it
nearly it is all, on a terminal based system, like unix, you can do nearly anything on a remote terminal, that is more attractive; but on other hand, repair a linux system from damage of hackers is a lot easy that repair a windows. In 10 years, 20 or 30 years, linux will have and advance of security higher than windows because the lot of people who want to crack it, when it comes invulnerable, then other systems will be the focus of the attaks.
For the people interested on using linux as desktop: Mandrake
For the people who is interested on using linux as server on a corporative network: Redhat
For the others who want to use linux on a self server: Redhat, Debian or Slackware
For all the other people who want to learn linux, from the lower levels of configuration, then: slackware or debian
Ease of use... Let's do a reality check here!
I'm a unix network admin... I cut my internet teeth on SunOS and now cover most flavors (Solaris, AIX, HPUX, BSD, Linux, Etc...). And yes I do Windows as well... Let me tell you about "Ease of use"! Anybody that does this stuff for a living will tell you that setting up a unix box regardless of the flavor is a bitch! All have their glitches and all have their pains! But the same can be said for Windows as well... Securing a Windows box can be daunting! Not to mention that 99% of the viruses floating around in email are aimed right at Windows!
From a ease of use standpoint, Linux is by far the easiest unix flavor to setup. Printer setup, network setup, security, and so forth... But the idea that it can take the place of the Windows desktop when the person at the wheel is a 40 something secretary doing word processing all day is nuts at this stage of the game...
For the folks that need a "REAL" operating system with all the great power of unix... Linux is a good choice...
Stu
Server OS
I just thought it was worth noting here that contrary to popular belief, Mandrake makes one darn good server.
I just replaced Slackware 7.0 with Mandrake 7.1 and now there are several major differences I noticed.
1) Getting a firewall at last, damn easy.
2) Faster IP masquerading especially when recompiling the kernel as a router and as a Pentium instead of K5.
3) My HP DeskJet prints properly - for some reason Slackware just couldnt get the data flowing right and it stalled a lot.
4) Apache a LOT LOT faster, wow very cool.
5) PHP, SQL, Perl Modules, etc etc - all the stuff I had to painfully search out and PRAY would compile
on Slackware is sat on the Mandrake CD-ROM waiting for me.
And so on regarding tons of packages that previously I had a hell of a time finding and compiling.
So again its down to personal preference.
When it comes to a Desktop OS im afraid im still with Windows - its easier for me.
Theres something about KDE thats a little bulky and awkward and I havent seen any other Windows Managers I like even slightly. Windows wasnt even the first OS I used, I have been from GEM (Atari ST), AmigaOS, DOS, Win3.1, Win95/98 and a little of MacOS in there. Generally im more comfortable Win98 now though I admit I have used it the most.
I do however agree that if I had missed Windows and used Linux first I probably would be whizzing around like a nutball.
And for anyone who thinks getting X-Windows running a couple of years ago is easy - FORGET IT.
Maybe on a brand new PC yes but I was working for a company recycling computers and putting Linux on them and until we found Red Hat it was real hell getting X running on those old graphics cards.
Recently I was shocked at Mandrake as it happily ran on an old ISA Trident card that I couldnt get Slackware running on before.
Linux is getting easier to use and I dont think thats a bad thing - with all the GUI madness of Mandrake I still dropped into the configs to see what it was doing. I compiled a newer version of Squid for it completely knocking LinuxConf configurating for it out of the question, I felt more comfortable leaving it out for that - seemed harder with it than manually.
So again, dont feel that just because it CAN do things itself that you cant get in there and dig - you can learn a lot that way to a point that you might not need as much help for as long.
I have struggled many times with Linux and im considered computer literate, a lot of people I know just cant be bothered with the complexity of Linux and then others who just believe Microsoft too much.
I think its up to us to clarify the situation for these people not confuse them - the Linux community sometimes leaves me gasping as how many assumtions are made. Right now im stuck on postgresql because the docs ASSUME its setup for my user - would be working by now if the docs just EXPLAINED this simple step.
The programmers think Linux is easy (mostly) and then you average user is stuck with their docs.
I think one major problem is still that many Linux users dont write docs for you average user - I dont even consider myself your average user but still some HOWTOs are nuts in their explanations and assumptions.
Windows is easy to pickup even without docs but Linux is IMPOSSIBLE without docs. Plain and simple.
But I think the reason people think Linux is so complex ISNT the OS itself, its all the software in there that under Windows you would be installing AFTERWARDS and paying lots and lots of money for.
Such as Mandrake installs way too much software by default and THAT I think gets people stuck, too much = confusing. Just a little more flexibility in the installer could avoid a lot of that.
A hype?
Actually, I think Bill Gates is not all wrong.. Parts of Linux popularity is because of a hype. I daily see companies bragging about using Linux, but they rarely know anything about what Linux is. The fact is, some companies use Linux simply because "its in", "its the future" and "its what the modern company need to use". I never said this is true for all companies, but companies thinking like this is too many to be ignored as "a small detail". Bill Gates isnt all wrong when he claims there is a hype around Linux.
A comment concerning Operating Systems
To those that are biased towards Linux or Windows. Relax. Hardly anyone cares. Linux is not easier to use for the nonpower user. Windows does not do serious computing well. The philosophies are different, Linux is derived from a large system, multiuser model. Windows from the PC. Remember, PC is an acronym for Personal Computer, an individual machine that is meant to be used by one person at a time.
A computer is a tool that uses an Operating System. VMS, UNIX, MPE, LINUX, NT, BSD, WINDOWS, or any of a myriad of other past and future operating systems make no difference, as long as the user has very little irritation with it.
Linux is NOT easy to use
I have been using Linux for about two years now, and had some failed attempts at trying it earlier as a WinNT addict... ^_^
Actually, what I see in Linux is a powerful and free UN*X operating system, with supreme desktop support in comparison to many other UN*ces.
This is an important thing, one should not see Linux as something it isn't! It isn't a user friendy system. It can't and shouldn't become one. Probably a user friendly system can be _based_ on Linux, as a shell drawn over the eye of the lamer, blinding him from the truth... ;)))))))
The hype around Linux is about trying to make it a user friendly system.
Any Linux which states it is user-friendly is LYING. They are very friendly until you try to USE them.
A friend of my father once got caught up in the hype, and though he is a total lamer (the worst type, who thinks he IS a computer genius), installed Linux. Caldera Linux.
In the first days he displayed the typical syptoms of Linux-hype contamination, like deleting his Windows partition, calling Windows a piece of shit, and saying nonsense thing like "Linux is easier than Windows"... Of course, since that piece of crap Caldera installs without asking a single question of the user, speaks many native languages, and so on... And starts up with KDE.
But of course, after he got on from playing with the various KDE games, and fiddling with the GUI settings, and tried to USE the system... Ugh... (You can imagine... He didn't even understand the difference between Linux and KDE...)
Nowadays all I hear from him is that Linux is a piece of shit, and it can't compete with Windows, and even complete nonsense like it is a dead thing and even I will soon realize that... But he liked the KDE games so much, he installed a RedHat again to play. -_-
All this hype is good for is making people believe Linux is something which it is not, and not something what it is. Like this guy, people will think that Linux is a dead attempt at dethroning Windows. This is the worst thing they can believe. Linux is not an attempt at dethroning windows, and is NOT GOOD at dethroning Windows. If we emphasize on this aspect to the masses, they will think Linux is NOT GOOD.
linux vs microsoft windows
i'm a new linux user, and the thing i think people should know about is the deal that when an application has a problem or crashes, it's only that application that you have to concern yourself with, in linux. i got really tired of windows having some kind of page fault or stack dump and negatively affecting the whole system.
Marathon+
My mother was seeing a hardware technician two years ago. He used Windows out of FUD of anything else, and to get some sense of security since he wasn't very experienced with software modification in general (mostly hardware). He had to reformat our computer's hard drive several times during his stay with us to solve minor windows software/conflict problems, but that's another point. After a reformat, because of the Dell-specific devices attached to our computer, he'd have to put in a marathon 12-36 hour reinstalling session trying to get Windows to recognize and use our hardware correctly. I have formatted the thing once or twice myself, and even with the fresh perspective and learning from his mistakes, I put in 13 hours installing simple things like our modem and sound card as a general rule.
Then, I bought Linux. I picked up a Mandrake 7.2 distro at Wal Mart for about $26 after tax (Windows ME is $80), took it home, repartitioned my hard drive (which had already been divided into 3 partitions by the hardware guy and Dell themselves), and installed. I'm in day 3 of using Linux and, although I'm still figuring out how to compile the kernel to use my LT Winmodem and OPL3-SA3 sound board, everything has gone more or less much more smoothly than with windows.
I couldn't compile with Windows; their c++ environment costs over $200. Mandrake comes with several. They also gave me MP3 software, CD burners, every IM system I can think of (and some I can't), a full office suite (Office 2000=$300), and about the breeziest hardware support I've seen, for $25. Not $2000, hours of install, and months of tracking down and downloading programs; $25--and about 2 hours.
I'm not a hacker. I'm not a sysadmin. I'm not skilled; I type fast, but so does everyone. I can code-a little-in VBasic, thanks to a college course. My expertise is limited to what I've been able to glean from a couple years of windows application exploration-no in-depth OS exploration, even. And Linux is installed and runs and I know the exact location of a webpage (www.linuxnewbie.org/nh... target=_new) that can tell me how to recompile my kernel(to fix my winmodem) in simple newbie-glish with my new free programming environment.
Easy ... the new problem in linux
Linux is not easy to ue as someone pointed out, becuse its so complex and powerful.
I'm not sure howto put this, but the effort to make Linux easier to use, easier for newbies, make Linux look more like wind0ws is actually bringing up new problems.
One good example is my n00b experience while configuring a network with my Mandrake distro. The GUI is so simple to use, that I donno what changes were made, or not made, were activated or not activated. Some changes require u to restart X, some this some that blah blah blah. In the end I just reboot the pc.
Linux used to be good for these things, reconfigure whatever you need without rebooting. This is really frustrating. I have lots more encounters with these "GUI that look good and easy to use" problem that I can list here. Now I'm just sticking to console like my good old MSDOS days.
Wizards are to aid users, not to hide and simplify everything to nothing like M$ ppl are doing. Some users might be stattisfy when the stuffs that they want to do are working, but some still want to know what's happening in the background and have some control over it.
The point is, stick back to linux roots. Learn Linux the correct way, or you'll learn nothing at all .... Try asking the new linux desktop newbies to use consol for a day, I'm sure they'll switch back to windows.
Being lazy and being a complete idiot is not the same thing, so make sure the ease of use are targetted at lazy people, not idiots who know nothing about computer, but want to use Linux just because everyone says its better than wind0ws.
I'm not sure if I made my point here, hope you guys can see it, ;p