[CoolJavelin]

I guess I ruffled some feathers the other day when I suggested Windows was easier to use then *nix.

That was not my intent, and I apologize for any bent feelings. I have a personality flaw that makes me take the devils advocate side of conversations, even if I don't necessarily agree with my argument. Someone has to speak for those that are not present and I do apologize for that. My wife says I am getting better.

Maybe I should come out if the closet and introduce myself and perhaps you might take pity upon me and show me the error of my ways.

I have been in the computer industry since it's beginning. When I was a kid, I broke my leg and my dad bought me an SwTPC 6800 kit. It ran an OS called SmBUG. Back then, they weren't called operating systems. It used no mass storage of any kind, but came with a 300 baud modem that could be inserted between the computer and terminal. One could plug in a cassette tape drive and use it as mass storage by manually pressing record or play. That was fun

When I entered the industry, My first clients used apple IIes that ran a DOS like OS (it may have been DOS) and I wrote some dBASE applications. Still on 5 1/4" 360K floppys.

As I grew up, I went to school and used their IBM System-360 to learn languages like Cobol, ForTran, LISP, and even System-360 assembler.

Later, I got my CS degree and learned other languages like Pascal, and C.

I got a job with a company making emulators (These replaced the CPU in a target systm for development.) I was on the team writing example software for all the various u-processors on the market at that time, so I got to learn about 30 different assembly languages plus all their derivatives.

Of course, I fell into the windows trap mostly because in order to make money I had to have what my customers were using. And, at the time, there was no real competition.

Yes, I still use win98 on most of my home computers, but I do have a LOT of experience with XP and Vista as all my clients are using those. In my opinion, 98 is the best of the Msoft Window's so far. Not to mention, I own that, and have no desire to spend more $ to upgrade.
------
I want to shift over to Linux for 2 reasons. One, I want to move away from Big Brother Billy with a passion, and 2, I want a more secure OS. I understand 90% of what I do can be done directly in Linux, and the other 10% can be handled using programs like WINE, and maybe in a pinch, VirtualBox.

My main job now is programming DSP's. I am using TI's Code Composer to develop software for a unit that has 2 DSPs inside. Code Composer won't run under Linux at this time, but I have heard it may do under WINE.
--------
I have been playing with Linux now for about 3 months. I did read the blog at Linux is NOT Windows , and I do see there is a major philosophy difference between the two.

I have installed 3 distros to date, OpenSuse on an old Pentium II with 128MB and 1.2GB, but that turned out to be a little slow. I went to a 1GHz 256MB and 40GB machine and installed Debian Etch that seems to be working great. and I put Kubuntu on that Pentium II (replacing Suse.) I haven't had time to experiment with the last.

On both machines (OpenSuse, and Debian, not Kubuntu yet,) I have tried to install Samba, (I think it came with both, but it wasn't clear if I needed to install them from the repository, but I went through the motions anyway.)

I have not been able to get either of them to communicate with any of my Windows machines. I am sure the problem is I do not have any sharing of any Win machines using TCP/IP. They use NetBeui. This is because I have some sensitive stuff on some machines and NetBeui is not routable over the internet. (Just one more security layer.) I have heard rumblings about using NetBeui with Samba, but haven't found a solution so far.

Perhaps I will post more questions later, but my preference is to search for my answers first because 99% of the time, someone else has been there.

As an aside, I have installed VNC client on both Linux machines and connected them to some of my Windows machines running VNC server.
-----
Really, I don't mind doing some work to learn new things. I believe that different OS's should be, well, different.

Linux SHOULD be different then Windows, and both different again from Mac.

I think I may have been misunderstood when I said "perhaps people new to computers should start out on windows because it's easier" This is not to mean I feel Windows is better then Linux, it is not, but I do feel it's easier to setup and use and get going.
-------
I hope I can have a good working relationship with the Linux community. I feel I have a lot of experience to offer (not necessarily in Linux, but with computers in general both hardware and software,) and hope to glean more knowledge from you too.

[elija]

Good post, but there are a couple of points I disagree with.

Windows 2000 Pro was the best version of Windows. It was far more stable than 98 although it couldn't play all the games that 98 could. So depending on your priorities, you could argue that 98 was better. (it wasn't )

Windows is not easier. It only seems that way when you are used to it. I too suffered that delusion when I first started looking at Linux and trying it out. Distros like Ubuntu are very easy. I mean you don't even have to find and download software to install, you just search and click in a package manager.

Superficially, Windows and Linux (or more specifically the desktop environments such as Gnome and KDE) are very similiar. They are all simple point and click GUIs. Windows and most of the "friendlier" distributions will easily update with patches, although the Linux distros will never do so without asking, which is a definate plus. If you have installed from the repositories using the package manager you will even get ALL of your software updated at the same time.

Viruses and other threats are still virually unheard of in the *nix world. Most threats of that nature are still at proof of concept in labs and require something incredibly silly to be done by the user. Again using the Repositories will mostly protect you from them. Granted there are virus scanners for Linux, but that is mainly because it can act as as a carrier for Windows viruses. It is only polite to innoculate the files we share with windows users after all.

Hardware support in Linux is far greater than it is in Windows. It has to be. Hardware manufacturers often don't release drivers for their hardware so the OS community create them and they often get build as kernel module.

Windows easier? Here's a challenge for you. Using only drivers that come with Windows 98, get your computer up and running completely. Now do the same with *buntu. If you had a live CD, you didn't even have to install it!

Phew!

Anyhoo, with a Pentium II computer you may find that XUbuntu will run better than KUbuntu as the XFCE desktop environment is a lot lighter. And if you really want to make it fly and are prepared to put quite a bit more effort into getting it going, try Puppy Linux. That little beastie will run on a pentium 166 with 128 mb ram!

With your pedigree I'm sure you will come to love Linux. It can take a while as change is by its' very nature scary.

[fingal]

Originally Posted by CoolJavelin

I guess I ruffled some feathers the other day when I suggested Windows was easier to use then *nix.

I wouldn't worry about it because it's a moveable feast. At first it can seem harder to use, but with continued use - and with a little problem solving along the way - you stop noticing that you're even using a *nix system.

Welcome to LFO btw.

[Roxoff]

You know, I bought a new kettle a couple of weeks ago. At first it was harder to use than the old one - sure the plug was in the same place, but I couldn't find the switch to turn it on without looking, and the little glow-light inside was a different colour and not as bright...

But now I've got used to it, I prefer this new one - it's got a more powerful element and that on switch is easier to use, it's not as heavy and doesn't turn off with a clunk.

At first, my new kettle was harder to use because I was used to the old one...

[carlosponti]

your flaw in your argument was that linux isnt like windows. we all know that and its great that its not. you made some comments about folder naming conventions but since linux is based on *nix just naming those folders anything takes away from the *nix classification. Linux's goal was never to replace windows or be a desktop however there are several distros that have pigeon holed themselves into being just that.


here is a rant on windows 98;
it was a horrible operating system but atleast it was better than 95. XP so far is way better in the professional version than anything offered before it. XP home sucks in that its locked down all the features you might want as a more than average user. 98 had serious networking flaws. It was difficult to get two 98 machines working on the same network in the same workgroup and for no reason. I have one XP home machine on my network at home and its able to see my shares on a linux machine and print on a linux ubuntu machine that I have the printer shared. If you dig around i think you will find examples of how to set all that up.


In summary;
come here if you have a problem and dont assume that because you have been using computers since they invented the abbicus that it means that linux should fit your taste only. And if you have a problem post it and get help for IT. it does you no good to come here and rant about how bad linux is to us linux nerds. IT will fall on deaf ears. Windows and Linux are not alike and should be taken as such when starting to learn linux. how about you start with ubuntu and upgrade any windows systems you wish to keep past 98. i think you will find it easy in the ubuntu documentation to network ubuntu to XP without issues.