Jump to content

Operating Systems


Mcdilly-Willy
 Share

Which operating do you use either Professionally or Personally  

51 members have voted

  1. 1. Which operating do you use either Professionally or Personally

    • Windows 98/xp/vista etc.
      30
    • Mac OS
      9
    • Linux (any distrobution)
      3
    • A Mixture
      10


Recommended Posts

Carlos thats whats happening now.

 

do you not need to bite the bullet, give up putting the majority of the work into what the "nerds" want

 

No because it would be a rubbish OS behind it all. Its now becoming more User friendly and attractive to the cosumer, there is a long way to go, but as I said before I don't know if its possible with the way things are at the moment with Micro$ etc.

 

slogging away on the same areas that Apple pushes?

 

What the design of the box it all comes in, making it over priced in some cases? or the fact that they are a personal media centre, wrapped up in a really nice box? I am not slagging Apple off for a second, I would love a Power Mac, but Linux has all the capability and is in practice doing the same things.

 

Do you mean that for the future of linux to be bright it would need a company to come up with a nice sleek design for the box it comes in?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 149
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'd rather spend my tinkering time making the PC do what I want it to - rather than just trying to make the darn the work in the first place.

 

Firstly my Linux boxes did work in the first instance (as it would for anybody if they choose the correct Distro i.e. not Gentoo). Secondly I spent my tinkering time making the LINUX box do what I wanted it to do.

 

Nice one. But I'd reckon part of the reason for it working out of the box is down to your knowledge of distros and what drivers are out there for your assorted hardware. From all that I've read driver support for Linux can be problematic - as in there may not be a driver for a certain piece of kit or you need to hunt it down, compile it and install it.

 

That's not my cup of tea given the number of PCs and peripherals I already have tripping me up at home. Sure, if you're already running Linux then you take your time making sure a bit of kit is supported before you splash the cash. But, for someone looking to switch, it's got to be a major hurdle.

 

By keeping the underlying OS and bolting things on top you don't have to go through getting up to speed with a new OS and its inner workings. Bonus!

 

This can also be done with Linux: SUSE linux like may others you dont have to see the OS at all if you don't want. The only thing you might have to look at is the structure of the Filing system, to see where your files are, but some might argue its more intuative than Windows.

 

In theory it could be done with any OS if you've got the source code (and the gumption). My original point (I think... brain is on a go-slow today) was that, with the volume of 3rd party support for Windows, you wouldn't have to pick and choose your OS for different tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For Linux to overpower Microsoft and dominate the Windows desktop market it's going to have to fight Windows on it's own terms.

 

It can only work if the hardware manufacturers open their eyes and realise that they MUST create drivers for the Linux community.

 

PC retailers must gear up and offer cost effective PC's preinstalled with Linux and support them on a larger scale as they are currently.

 

Distro vendors need to stop battling, converge, and create an all singing all dancing super distro where users can just get on with what they do.

 

KDE and Gnome need to converge and create one all singing all dancing Window manager.

 

^^ The above scenario is shocking. There is no choice left. It's stripped Linux to what it's battled not to be.

 

However, the average user is confused by the state of the Linux community .. or rather that should be communities ... The "Windows model" works as it's simple and it's what folk are "used to".

 

To break that comfort zone and make inroads into the Windows market "fast" Linux will have to unfortunately be more like Windows. Some distros are getting there such as the *buntu range, as in they are running after the "Windows model". Though without the rest of it it's a slow road.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlos your obviously over-simplifying the argument.

 

"Why do more people not use Linux?"

People don't use Linux because either: they are fine with windows, because it looks ok, and its pretty simply to use, and thats about it.... or, they don't know of its existence due to the fact that windows is sold on the majority of computers around the world.

 

"Why should Linux dumb down to what the average user wants?"

The point I'm making is that it doesn't need to dumb down, it can be used in the same way as windows by the avarage user, but it can also give you total control over your system should you wish to do so. Windows can't do this. Therefore from a "value for money" point of view, isn't linux in theory the best option?

 

I realise that a lot of Industry standard applications are for windows only, but for the avarage person linux has everything and more that windows offers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Carlos your obviously over-simplifying the argument.

 

"Why do more people not use Linux?"

People don't use Linux because either: they are fine with windows, because it looks ok, and its pretty simply to use, and thats about it.... or, they don't know of its existence due to the fact that windows is sold on the majority of computers around the world.

 

I'll be pedantic and stick my oar in here. Windows also runs on many different types of consumer device: phones, PDAs, UMPCs etc. This is nothing ground breaking. However, the integration between all these different bits of kit and your desktop / server / whatever is very good indeed. But you are right Mcdilly-Willy in the general scheme of things. Folk rarely make informed choices and follow the herd.

 

"Why should Linux dumb down to what the average user wants?"

The point I'm making is that it doesn't need to dumb down, it can be used in the same way as windows by the avarage user, but it can also give you total control over your system should you wish to do so. Windows can't do this. Therefore from a "value for money" point of view, isn't linux in theory the best option?

 

I'm curious about what you mean by "it can also give you total control over your system". What level of control can be achieved that cannot with another OS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Why should Linux dumb down to what the average user wants?"

The point I'm making is that it doesn't need to dumb down, it can be used in the same way as windows by the avarage user, but it can also give you total control over your system should you wish to do so.

 

I'd not go for dumbing down the OS, but is there not a case for a minimalistic GUI which takes everything the avergae user needs to do into default presets or one click opperations? OSX but more so?

 

While the power and customability of Linux is what you are after, Apple seems to be making ground on the basis of not having to touch any technical settings at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem with getting Linux more widely used is that the main computer sellers in the UK offer their products with XP or Vista pre installed. There was one serious attempt to market a home pc pre-loaded with Lindows. Evesham computers I think. Perhaps that failed due to the fuss Microsoft kicked up about the name. Recently I saw an e-machines computer for sale with "Linux" but no description of what distro.

 

There are some distros that more or less work straight out of the box. Lindows which has changed into Linspire (paid version) or Freespire (free) and Xandros come to mind. I think any of those would be suitable for the home user who wants to surf the internet, use e-mail and play with photos which is more or less all that many people do with their computers. But of course computers come with windows so why would most users want to change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArabiaTerra said:

 

XP gets slagged because of it's supposedly lax security but I think this is unfair. Windows runs on 90% of computers so it gets 90% of the hackers.

 

Not true, windows XP gets 90% of the Hackers because its far easier to Hack.

 

I'm sure that the alternatives would be just as leaky if they were subjected to the same barrage of attacks.

 

Again, untrue: The Design of the Windows OS itself means there is a "lax" in security, and why it is so "Leaky":

 

More hackers target Windows boxes as Microsoft has a larger share of the market; there are more kiddie scripts designed for Windows; there are lots of insecure "applications" run on windows boxes.

 

Admitedly Linux does have tighter security protocols in many areas. However, If you don't have additional security setup on your Linux box and someone knows what they are doing it's quite quite easy to gain root and open a port. There are as many insecure applications run on Linux boxes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had a nightmare trying to secure a Linux server. It was installed by a company who were supposed to know about this stuff but, before I reached it, it was a wobbly, leaky mess being used by spammers and ne'er-do-wells for all kinds of unsavoury activities.

 

It took bloody days to tighten up and, even now, I'm still not convinced that it's truly secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If someone's gained root the only sure fire way to know they aren't there anymore is to re-install the operating system. Rolling back to a previous backup is no use as who knows when you were compromised?!?

 

Pretty galling I know!

 

[EDIT]

Having said that, setting up some form of IDS and or locking the box completely up and watching your firewall for any incoming port calls, you can pretty much deduce any threat. Some hackers though may not come back to your box for months on end though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing is truely "secure", no, but to say Linux is better than Windows for security I would have to say is a popular misnomer you often read in the news / magazines.

 

Connect a standard base install of either operating system onto the net with no protection and wait. Both will be attacked and rooted.

 

Security lies in the competance of the administrator, not the underlying operating system. Security is a process to be adhered to and is not something you purchase in a box or download from the net. You could have a system secured to what you consider to be up to the hilt. It will most likely be attacked and may potentially be rooted due to the weakest link in the chain. The administrator!

 

Besides, to be an absolute pedant. There are many distros that have security flaws built into them. Just look at the rushed patches from RedHat last year to cover their Enterprise 4.0 Edition. This was a major! security flaw that was "built" directly into their system at the lowest level - the kernel. This also had the knock on effect to lay wide open other distros like CentOS and others too as they were based on RHEL 4.0!!

 

Anyway, BSD is inherently more secure than Linux by it's very nature from the base install. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd rather spend my tinkering time making the PC do what I want it to - rather than just trying to make the darn the work in the first place.

 

Firstly my Linux boxes did work in the first instance (as it would for anybody if they choose the correct Distro i.e. not Gentoo). Secondly I spent my tinkering time making the LINUX box do what I wanted it to do.

 

Carlos your obviously over-simplifying the argument.

 

"Why do more people not use Linux?"

People don't use Linux because either: they are fine with windows, because it looks ok, and its pretty simply to use, and thats about it.... or, they don't know of its existence due to the fact that windows is sold on the majority of computers around the world.

 

"Why should Linux dumb down to what the average user wants?"

The point I'm making is that it doesn't need to dumb down, it can be used in the same way as windows by the avarage user, but it can also give you total control over your system should you wish to do so. Windows can't do this. Therefore from a "value for money" point of view, isn't linux in theory the best option?

 

I realise that a lot of Industry standard applications are for windows only, but for the avarage person linux has everything and more that windows offers.

 

Quid Pro Quo. You have come full circle on your own questions and answered them yourself.

 

Do you see now why Windows has such a large desktop market share? It's because Microsoft saw that the majority of consumers wanted, no, needed, an operating system that does everything for them so they could be more productive!

 

That is the main argument of Microsofts very successful marketing. Why have to find one of many distros and then tinker and play around with it to work for you when an operating system that does work comes pre-installed on your computer anyhow?

 

Now of course not everyone needs the operating system to do everything for them and hence people harked back to the DOS days and Linux was born out of Unix.

 

Here we are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...