Migrating from Windows to Linux

[sim085]

Hi,

I was wondering how easy it is to migrate from Windows to Linux. Basically I have been a Windows users for many years now. I did install Linux (mostly Ubuntu) on some machines but really never stuck in using it much. I would like to now move all my home system to Linux in order to learn more about this operating system.

However I have some problems. At home my brother will never accept installing a Linux on his laptop. At the same time we have a central computer where we share files such as family photos and music. I was wondering if I could change this server to use a Linux distro while still allow my brother to have access to the files on it (preferrably using his windows username and password).

Is this above possible. Also are there any suggested books for a newb who would like to learn more on how to set up different environments with Linux?

Regards,
Sim085

[GNU-Fan]

Hi,

yes, this is possible.
Samba (software) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[psic]

Start by installing a distro on your computer and just using it. There will be things you'll have to setup, but you'll learn as you go along. There are plenty of good books and articles all over the net for pretty much everything you'd want. Most distros and important programs (like Samba) have excellent documentation on their websites.

Update: Here's a nice manual for Ubuntu to get you started

[Rubberman]

As mentioned, Samba is the Linux version of the Windows SMB/CIFS servers that allow sharing of directory trees that live on Linux systems with Windows or other Linux systems. I use it all the time to access my server files from my laptop when it is running either Windows or Linux, as well as with my Windows virtual machines that run on the server. I only have one application that has to run on Windows any longer and that I run on a virtual machine, so pretty much everything I do now is Linux-based. I run a business on it, and do software development for many platforms, including Solaris, enterprise and embedded Linux systems, and Windows entirely in the Linux environment, or in the Windows virtual machine.

[Philstix]

I wish I could switch to linux, but years of trying with various distros (I'm a 30-year IT veteran so I know a few things about computers and operating systems) has convinced me that linux is not ready for mainstream desktop use.

If you can use it on your system, and you don't mind playing around with obscure config commands buried in odd places within the file system, fine, but for most Windows users linux just does not work.

And as for ease of use - such as using a gui for configuration changes - forget it. I still can't get Ubuntu to work with my old Wacom graphics tablet without having to tweak parameters in the conf file when I do a system update - and even then the functionality is much less than I get from a default install of Windows.

I want to spend my time doing productive work, not playing at system administration all day, so why should I bother?

Yes Microsoft sucks, but people still use Windows because the competition hasn't come up with a better alternative for the majority of users.

I wish it were otherwise, but until linux developers submit to rules for centralising and standardising the operating system configuration - to take just one example - and recognise that users' desire for gui-based user-friendliness is not an excuse to treat them as contemptible intellectual inferiors, it will remain geekware.

It would be nice to think this post would be part of a rational acknowledgement of linux's shortcomings as a desktop operating system, but past experience has led me to cringe in expectation of vicious rants from linux fanboys.

[jayd512]

Well, if Windows is what works better for you, keep on rolling with it
For some of us, though, Linux is it... for me, it's the only OS I need.

...but until Linux developers submit to rules for centralising and standardising the operating system configuration...

There was a thread here a while back that discussed that thought... I think it got locked because it almost got down to flaming and ranting. But the short of it had this to say: If Linux where standardized across all distros, then it wouldn't be the banquet of different flavors that we've all come to know and love.

[Rubberman]

I wish I could switch to linux, but years of trying with various distros (I'm a 30-year IT veteran so I know a few things about computers and operating systems) has convinced me that linux is not ready for mainstream desktop use.

Just plain wrong! A person comfortable with Windows for a desktop would be right at home with my workstation.

If you can use it on your system, and you don't mind playing around with obscure config commands buried in odd places within the file system, fine, but for most Windows users linux just does not work.

Tell me, just how much do you use Linux? Unless you are setting up your system to be a server, there isn't much to do to configure it. On my Ubuntu laptop, all of the wireless, bluetooth, and external USB devices such as webcam, broadband wireless modem, etc worked out-of-the-box with zero configuration or driver installation required - a far cry from using the same hardware on the same laptop when running Windows!

And as for ease of use - such as using a gui for configuration changes - forget it. I still can't get Ubuntu to work with my old Wacom graphics tablet without having to tweak parameters in the conf file when I do a system update - and even then the functionality is much less than I get from a default install of Windows.

Some hardware, especially older stuff, is more difficult to use, agreed. However, in my not inconsiderable experience, this is the exception rather than the rule.

I want to spend my time doing productive work, not playing at system administration all day, so why should I bother?

I use Linux systems almost 16 hours a day and I do very little administrative work. Probably less than I had to do with Windows.

Yes Microsoft sucks, but people still use Windows because the competition hasn't come up with a better alternative for the majority of users.

Again, I disagree. Linux as it is today is perfectly suited for most users. Sure, there is a learning curve, but most of the processes they have gotten comfortable with using Windows translates easily to Linux. Yes, there is more to be done, but overall, I think that your average computer schlub would "get with the program" quite easily, given the chance. One example is my grandson. I gave him my old Dell D600 laptop with 2 drives - one with XP and one with Ubuntu. He used the Windows drive happily until one day he spilled a soda on the keyboard and "let the smoke out" of the drive. After disassembling, cleaning, and drying the system, the drive was toast, so he plugged in the Linux drive. His comment to me - "Gee Granddad - Linux is GREAT!". 16 years old and now a kernel hacker...

I wish it were otherwise, but until linux developers submit to rules for centralising and standardising the operating system configuration - to take just one example - and recognise that users' desire for gui-based user-friendliness is not an excuse to treat them as contemptible intellectual inferiors, it will remain geekware.

IMO, SMSG. All mainstream systems have GUI configuration and management tools. Yes, I agree there could be better standardization on those tools, but all things considered, the situation isn't as dire as you make it out to be.

It would be nice to think this post would be part of a rational acknowledgement of linux's shortcomings as a desktop operating system, but past experience has led me to cringe in expectation of vicious rants from linux fanboys.

We try to be respectful here, unlike some forums. We will express our opinions, but that's to be expected. In any case, no one is making you use Linux. If you have problems with it, then fine, use Windows. I quit using Windows 2 1/2 years ago completely except for my Fidelity stock/option trading software that only runs on Windows, and that I run in a virtual machine under CentOS on my 8-core 64-bit workstation. I run a business on it, do software design and development, recover clients Windows systems with it when they get munged by some nastyware or other, and use it for audio/video playback, audio mixing/processing, video processing/transcoding, web server, database server, samba/nfs server, embedded system development with ARM/PPC/MIPS cross compilers and emulators, Solaris kernel development (using a VM again), etc. I wouldn't even TRY to do all of this on a Windows system! So, right now I have an NPR radio station streaming in VLC, have Windows running in a VM, am downloading usenet newsgroups/messages in another application, have a chat with my grandson going with Pidgin, and am responding to this posting in Firefox. This is a light load for my system...

[theNbomr]

I wish it were otherwise, but until linux developers submit to rules for centralising and standardising the operating system configuration - to take just one example - and recognise that users' desire for gui-based user-friendliness is not an excuse to treat them as contemptible intellectual inferiors, it will remain geekware.

You are absolutely right on. The geek crowd deserves something better than what the intellectual inferiors settle for. Couldn't have put it better myself.
As soon as Linux gets dumbed down too much, I'll just go back to Windows.
--- rod.