Hi,
These are the practical reason why I have selected Linux as my OS.
Windows :
The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that) More support for games (But with a bad graphics card that I have, I hardly play any games on windows as well).
Linux :
No Viruses. Technically correct. Non - microsoft product (so it is out of dirt cheap politics) More flexible. I hold a prestigious place in my friend circle when I say that I know linux, since everyone knows that it is not that widely used so I got to be different. No formatting whenever you are in problems. You can pinpoint the problem and solve it without formatting and starting a fresh (This is actually the same as flexibility). More efficient code which improves my networking and hardware life. Last but not the least Power (You can smell the power of your computer, sweating and making noise when you are on linux)
Selection is all yours. You pay $$$$$ for that one advantage of ease of use or the above listed points.
Bye.
Amish K. Munshi ICQ 85730949 === Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away.===
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish Munshi wrote:
Windows :
The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that)
I will deny that. If you've never used windows before, I can guarantee that you will not find it easy to use. Basically, it has to do with what you are used to using, and how much help you can get from those around you.
Most people who are used to using a mouse find it hard to use a trackpoint. My aunt - who is considered a senior citizen where she lives - used a trackpoint on the first computer that she used (two years ago). She now finds a mouse hard to use.
Double clicking is also something that isn't easy. Luckily, that can be changed.
I think what we can agree on is that there is a lot of research to be done in HCI, and Microsoft has learnt from this research. They've also had to hold on to old, bad habits, simply because long time users are used to that.
We don't have that problem. We can start off with good habits.
Philip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip S Tellis" philip@konark.ncst.ernet.in To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:04 PM Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] Linux vs Windows as my selection.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish Munshi wrote:
Windows :
The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that)
I will deny that. If you've never used windows before, I can guarantee
Convincing Philip... very much convincing indeed. Even I think research in the area of HCI is a must (in the view of all pervasive computing). Many devices will force the user to relearn... there must be an easier way.
We don't have that problem. We can start off with good habits.
true!
Warm wishes,
Amol Hatwar.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:04:17 +0530 (IST) Philip S Tellis wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish Munshi wrote:
Windows :
The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that)
I will deny that. If you've never used windows before, I can guarantee that you will not find it easy to use. Basically, it has to do with what you are used to using, and how much help you can get from those around you.
I second that. Windows *is not* easier to use.
We don't have that problem. We can start off with good habits.
Indeed. The Gnome Accessibility Architecture has been credited with the "Hellen Keller Achievement Award in Technology" this year: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-accessibility-list/2002-September/msg00...
Amish K. Munshi ICQ 85730949 === Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away.===
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Philip S Tellis wrote:
Most people who are used to using a mouse find it hard to use a trackpoint. My aunt - who is considered a senior citizen where she lives - used a trackpoint on the first computer that she used (two years ago). She now finds a mouse hard to use.
Same is the case with my MOM, she also find mouse a very difficult pet to control.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish Munshi wrote:
Hi, Windows : The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that)
It's pity that we still believe this. :-( We always mistake "familarity" with "ease of use". :-(
With regards,
Amish K. Munshi ICQ 85730949 === Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away.===
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Dinesh Shah wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish Munshi wrote:
Hi, Windows : The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that)
It's pity that we still believe this. :-( We always mistake "familarity" with "ease of use". :-(
What I actually meant with "ease of use" the ease of use with which we install softwares on Windows, and i think it is due to the fact that windows is an integrated package. Since there are very few varieties of windows, so the software developers know that the libraries that are available with each windows version and they can include the necessary stuff with their products, and save the problems of dependencies we have in installing softwares in linux. I have not yet faced problems with installing softwares on my slackware but I do not think that the .tgz packages that slackware comes with checks for any missing files that are rrequired by a package. I have not spent sufficient time it, but with rpm's it is a horror of a time searching for a package which provides the required dependencies. I would definately love to have a easier softwae installation procedure than the one exists now.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish Munshi wrote:
I have not spent sufficient time it, but with rpm's it is a horror of a time searching for a package which provides the required dependencies. I would definately love to have a easier softwae installation procedure than the one exists now.
Ever heard about Debian's "apt" tools and Gentoos "portage"?
Go figure, after all u r a slack user. :-) (I use Slack on my production servers for its simplicity and build required packages from sources. :-) Only basic stuff from a1, ap1 and n1 goes at install time.)
With regards,
Amish K. Munshi ICQ 85730949 === Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away.===
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Dinesh Shah wrote:
Ever heard about Debian's "apt" tools and Gentoos "portage"?
Not actually, are they the installers? Which one is better? I am planning to get a full distro of one of them. Thanks.
Amish Munshi wrote:
Ever heard about Debian's "apt" tools and Gentoos "portage"?
Not actually, are they the installers? Which one is better? I am planning to get a full distro of one of them.
they aren't really installers (In the "windows" sense) but more like command line tools which simplify installation of packages with auto-dependency managemnet, eg. "apt-get kde" or "emerge kde" will get the whole kde chain. gentoo downloads and compiles, while apt-get downloads teh binaries.
get Debian, Gentoo requires you to download and compile everything that you need. that sure makes for a lean and mean system, but most of us here don't have permanent internet connections...unless you're one of the lucky people who have cable/DSL/whatever. From what I've heard, Gentoo is very responsive coz it directly optimizes for your architecture, instead of most distros which optimize for i386 or i586. However, Debian also has a lot of stable but somehat outdated ports...you require to download the unstable ports. compare and decide on your own :-)
On Wednesday 13 Nov 2002 4:46 pm, Ashish Kulkarni wrote:
get Debian, Gentoo requires you to download and compile everything that you need. that sure makes for a lean and mean system, but most of us here don't have permanent internet connections...unless you're one of the lucky people who have cable/DSL/whatever. From what I've heard,
I am indeed blessed with a permenant connection, however it is a slow one. Does gentoo take a lot of time to install since it probably will compile everything? I would like to have the KDE 3.1 (beta will do) which comes with gentoo. Also hows is the installation of debian, I had tried an old one and lost a lot of data, all my mistake though. :-)
Gentoo is very responsive coz it directly optimizes for your
Get in touch with me at ICQ 85730949
Gentoo install takes a huge number of hours if not days. I have installed gentoo on a high end machine with KDE and GNOME and it took me 1.5 days. It takes a lot of time to compile the packages. As someone else pointed out, Gentoo installs are not for the "faint hearted". It takes some courage/perseverance to be actually able to sit through all those long hours of downloading and compiling. But the result is a highly optimised system. You will actually feel an increase in the power of the system. Installing from the stage 1 tarball is just like a pretty version of LFS(Linux From Scratch). But on the upside, once u have installed Gentoo, u probably wont need to change the OS ever. just a simple "emerge world" every night would make ur system bleeding edge everyday.
If u do plan to install Gentoo, then goodluck, and please, PLEASE, take a printout of the install instructions from the Gentoo site before u actually begin doing anything. And remember to set ur USE flags in /etc/make.conf
Debian installs, on the other hand are less painful. Dont expect to see anything like the pretty installers of RedHat, Mandrake though. Once installed, Debian is very easy to maintain and and software to. Just use "apt" to do pretty much whatever u want. The apt tool is actually also available for rpms now in the form of "apt-rpm".
HTH,
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish K. Munshi wrote:
On Wednesday 13 Nov 2002 4:46 pm, Ashish Kulkarni wrote:
get Debian, Gentoo requires you to download and compile everything that you need. that sure makes for a lean and mean system, but most of us here don't have permanent internet connections...unless you're one of the lucky people who have cable/DSL/whatever. From what I've heard,
I am indeed blessed with a permenant connection, however it is a slow one. Does gentoo take a lot of time to install since it probably will compile everything? I would like to have the KDE 3.1 (beta will do) which comes with gentoo. Also hows is the installation of debian, I had tried an old one and lost a lot of data, all my mistake though. :-)
Gentoo is very responsive coz it directly optimizes for your
Get in touch with me at ICQ 85730949
Bhargav Bhatt Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 07:18:02PM +0530, Amish K. Munshi wrote:
I am indeed blessed with a permenant connection, however it is a slow one. Does gentoo take a lot of time to install since it probably will compile everything? I would like to have the KDE 3.1 (beta will do) which comes with gentoo. Also hows is the installation of debian, I had tried an old one and lost a lot of data, all my mistake though. :-)
I use Debian experimental ... yay that include's packages that are too unstable for "Debian unstable" :-D
Installation is a breeze, but you have to know everything about your computer ... its not as simple as Redhat, and things DO go wrong. But there's enough scope to save yourself.
We have a Debian mirror in IIT, from where one can do network installs. For you, I would recommend getting a set of Debian Woody (the current "stable") and then use the mirror for further upgrades.
Sameer.
Amish K. Munshi wrote:
On Wednesday 13 Nov 2002 4:46 pm, Ashish Kulkarni wrote:
get Debian, Gentoo requires you to download and compile everything that you need. that sure makes for a lean and mean system, but most of us here don't have permanent internet connections...unless you're one of the lucky people who have cable/DSL/whatever. From what I've heard,
I am indeed blessed with a permenant connection, however it is a slow one. Does gentoo take a lot of time to install since it probably will compile everything? I would like to have the KDE 3.1 (beta will do) which comes with gentoo.
gentoo will take a lot of time to install,approx 6-8hrs or so, I guess. but most of it is non-interactive--you just sit back and watch. but I think it'll be worth it, cause you get a very optimized system and bugfixes for apps mean that only the patches need to be downloaded...in all, I like a system where I have actually compiled the stuff myself. But the major part will be the source code itself...it'll take a lot of time to download it (Gentoo is ~200M and the rest depends on what you install) so just be prepared for it. If you're going to install it, get Gentoo 1.4rc1 and a stage 3 tarball for your system. Warning, though: the installation is not for the faint hearted ;-) take a look at http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-x86-install.xml
Also hows is the installation of debian, I had tried an old one and lost a lot of data, all my mistake though. :-)
I had the same experience too, but not lost any data. Debian's installation is terrible, but once you get it up, it's very stable. But it's not so good as a desktop system...the ports lag behind significantly, and the -unstable releases are, well, unstable :-)
If you really DO download Gentoo and the rest, I'd be seriously intrested in getting it for myself, if possible ;-)
At 09:03 even 11/13/02 +0530, Ashish Kulkarni wrote:
I had the same experience too, but not lost any data. Debian's installation is terrible, but once you get it up, it's very stable. But it's not so good as a desktop system...the ports lag behind significantly, and the -unstable releases are, well, unstable :-)
Both the above are Personal experiences. I had absolutely no trouble setting Debian up. Also there is an intermediate category between Stable - Unstable called Testing which is pretty much up to date.
For a few pointers at Debian installation one may refer to http://abhijit-rao.tripod.com/digital/inst_linux_db.html
As for optimisation, one can always download the sources with apt and compile them. I also think there is a commandline option that will do this automagicaly.
quasi
My choice is Debian GNU/Linux.
I am also working on an article that compares major Linux Distros... and I think you already know who the winner is ;).
Regards,
Amol Hatwar.
On Nov 13, 2002 at 15:44, Amol Hatwar wrote:
My choice is Debian GNU/Linux.
Okay, how would I install Linux (let's say Debian) on a PC with just a network connection? There is another version of Linux sitting there and I intend to dual-boot.
get a CD from LinuxPlaza, it's faster and cheaper.... ;-)
http://www.debian.org/CD/netinst/
that said, I've known the *BSD installs to be great for installing over the net...it makes no diff where you install from, just 1 or 2 steps to configure network before install.
Satya wrote:
On Nov 13, 2002 at 15:44, Amol Hatwar wrote:
My choice is Debian GNU/Linux.
Okay, how would I install Linux (let's say Debian) on a PC with just a network connection? There is another version of Linux sitting there and I intend to dual-boot.
On Nov 14, 2002 at 03:05, Ashish Kulkarni wrote:
get a CD from LinuxPlaza, it's faster and cheaper.... ;-)
Shipping, costs, and so on. I have free 24/7 net connectionm :-D Well not 'free', but it's on anyway.
Which usually asks for floppies. This box has nothing but hard drives and a NIC.
that said, I've known the *BSD installs to be great for installing over the net...it makes no diff where you install from, just 1 or 2 steps to configure network before install.
... Thanks, but right now I want Linux.
Satya wrote:
On Nov 13, 2002 at 15:44, Amol Hatwar wrote:
My choice is Debian GNU/Linux.
Okay, how would I install Linux (let's say Debian) on a PC with just a network connection? There is another version of Linux sitting there and I intend to dual-boot.
You could use rock linux to install just over the net. All u need is an existing network connection and a linux system, and u have both :). try www.rocklinux.org for more details.
Bhargav Bhatt, Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University.
"If English was commutative, all of us could speak like Yoda" - Anonymous ----- Original Message ----- From: "Satya" satyap@satya.virtualave.net To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 5:20 PM Subject: Re: Linux install network-only [Re: [ILUG-BOM] Linux vs Windows as my ]selection.
On Nov 14, 2002 at 03:05, Ashish Kulkarni wrote:
get a CD from LinuxPlaza, it's faster and cheaper.... ;-)
Shipping, costs, and so on. I have free 24/7 net connectionm :-D Well not 'free', but it's on anyway.
Which usually asks for floppies. This box has nothing but hard drives and a NIC.
that said, I've known the *BSD installs to be great for installing over the net...it makes no diff where you install from, just 1 or 2 steps to configure network before install.
... Thanks, but right now I want Linux.
Satya wrote:
On Nov 13, 2002 at 15:44, Amol Hatwar wrote:
My choice is Debian GNU/Linux.
Okay, how would I install Linux (let's say Debian) on a PC with just a network connection? There is another version of Linux sitting there and I intend to dual-boot.
-- Satya. URL:http://satya.virtualave.net/ I need a job! Perl, Apache, Linux, C. http://www-scf.usc.edu/~phanse/resume.pdf Press every key to continue.
On Nov 13, 2002 at 17:20, Satya wrote:
On Nov 14, 2002 at 03:05, Ashish Kulkarni wrote:
Which usually asks for floppies. This box has nothing but hard drives and a NIC.
Hmm, I didn't see this before, but there's a link on that page to instructions on getting the images and booting them from the HDD using LILO (or equivalent).
Cool! I'll try it after 3 weeks, I guess.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 05:20:56PM -0800, Satya wrote:
Which usually asks for floppies. This box has nothing but hard drives and a NIC.
There are Debian installer CD's too. And get real, man! Nothing but hard drives? How did you install the existing system??
Maybe you can transfer the installer image onto one of the hard drives and boot from it, and then install Debian on the other hard drive ...
Sameer.
On Nov 14, 2002 at 13:22, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
There are Debian installer CD's too. And get real, man! Nothing but hard drives? How did you install the existing system??
I had a dual-boot system. No, wait, it goes even further back.
I had a dual boot system. I cloned the Linux partitions onto another hard disk in that system and brought it to US with me.
Then I used that as the 2nd hard drive on a windows system, again dual-booting.
Then I bought enough parts for a new box and put the hard drive in there, making separate windows and Linux boxen. Then I bought another hard drive (hdb) for the Linux box (the infamous gort). I planned to clone the Linux installation and try to upgrade glibc, but now I'm thinking I might as well upgrade.
So, the Linux installation has been on that drive from the Bing Bang, effectively. Spontaneous creation as opposed to evolution.
Maybe you can transfer the installer image onto one of the hard drives and boot from it, and then install Debian on the other hard drive ...
I intend to put the Debian boot images on a partition, point LILO at it, and have Debian install on hdb.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Amish Munshi" mails@munshi.dyndns.org To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] Linux vs Windows as my selection.
Amish K. Munshi ICQ 85730949 === Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away.===
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Dinesh Shah wrote:
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish Munshi wrote:
Hi, Windows : The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny
that)
It's pity that we still believe this. :-( We always mistake "familarity" with "ease of use". :-(
*snip*
Very much valid Amish... and whats more different distros have different methodologies... The LSB (Linux Standards Base) holds a promise... but well lets wait and watch what happens.
-ah
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Amish Munshi wrote:
Since there are very few varieties of windows, so the software developers know that the libraries that are available with each windows version and they can include the necessary stuff with their products, and save the problems of dependencies we have in installing softwares in linux.
This is not true. When you install a software in windows, it will install *all* required libraries as well. This is why windows installables are so huge. If they don't install everything, you will always have some document mentioning what you need to install first, and sometimes you will get a prompt while installing. This already happens in linux.
I have not yet faced problems with installing softwares on my slackware but I do not think that the .tgz packages that slackware comes with checks for any missing files that are rrequired by a package.
if it has been autoconfiscated, then it will.
I have not spent sufficient time it, but with rpm's it is a horror of a time searching for a package which provides the required dependencies. I would definately love to have a easier softwae installation procedure than the one exists now.
apt.
if you use redcarpet or some other tool like that, it will handle automatic dependency installation.
you can also use rpmfind.net
Philip
----- Original Message ----- From: "Philip S Tellis" philip@konark.ncst.ernet.in To: linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:19 PM Subject: Re: [ILUG-BOM] Linux vs Windows as my selection.
install *all* required libraries as well. This is why windows installables are so huge. If they don't install everything, you will always have some document mentioning what you need to install first, and sometimes you will get a prompt while installing. This already happens in linux.
The windows installables have "all possible libraries" that may possibly be required in any version of windows that the software supports. But the windows installer is designed to check out the libraries existing on your windows system and install only those that are not there or where the existing library is of an older version.
By having more libraries in the installer, they face fewer situations (at least in theory) where the software will fail to work The scenario of the documentation providing for you to install other libraries first would either be where it works with a completely differnet software (like a backend database support) or where the developer has been careless or too lazy to modify his installation package to do it for the user.
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 02:39:53PM +0530, Amish Munshi wrote:
It's pity that we still believe this. :-( We always mistake "familarity" with "ease of use". :-(
What I actually meant with "ease of use" the ease of use with which we install softwares on Windows, and i think it is due to the fact that windows is an integrated package.
Redhat Linux comes on three CD's. The installation requires a single reboot. After a few mouseclicks, you can have everything from publishing, development to games and entertainment within a total span of max three hours!
Installing MSN Messenger requires you to reboot the operating system ... easy to install???
Since there are very few varieties of windows, so the software developers know that the libraries that are available with each windows version and they can include the necessary stuff with their products, and save the problems of dependencies we have in installing softwares in linux.
That is NOT how the dependencies are solved. In Windows, software developers package *all* the libraries they need into the installer. This means multiple copies of every dll are present on the system in various folder. Every wonder why GNU/Linux apps are so small in size?
Shared libraries are meant to be shared ...
I have not spent sufficient time it, but with rpm's it is a horror of a time searching for a package which provides the required dependencies. I would definately love to have a easier softwae installation procedure than the one exists now.
APT was recently ported to RedHat ... that should be a big help.
Sameer.
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 13:42:52 +0530 (IST) Amish Munshi wrote:
Last but not the least Power (You can smell the power of your computer, sweating and making noise when you are on linux)
Heheh, interesting. AFA the noise part is concerned, maybe there's some problem with the cooling fan ;-) Most of my colleagues' workstations keep rumbling as Win2k thrashes the HDD royally. On my workstation and our division's Linux server HDD noise is an occasional exception!
Amish K. Munshi ICQ 85730949 === Never ask a geek why, just nod your head and slowly back away.===
On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Tahir Hashmi wrote:
Heheh, interesting. AFA the noise part is concerned, maybe there's some problem with the cooling fan ;-) Most of my colleagues' workstations keep rumbling as Win2k thrashes the HDD royally. On my workstation and our division's Linux server HDD noise is an occasional exception!
It was just an metaphor. A word that was used to create a atmosphere of something gigantic and big, so noise had to exist :-)
Amish Munshi writes:
Hi,
These are the practical reason why I have selected Linux as my OS.
Windows :
The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that)
Windows is definitely not easy to use. Unless u like BSODs. Familiarity is another matter though.
Linux :
No Viruses.
A few viruses do exist but they work only on default configs. The damage that they do is severely crippled due to Linux's security architecture.
Technically correct.
Not always. A few bugs do exist in linux/OSS softwares.It is only that they are fixed very very soon. and may I add they are generally not as threatening as wide open holes u find in non-OSS softwares.
Non - microsoft product (so it is out of dirt cheap politics) More flexible. I hold a prestigious place in my friend circle when I say that I know linux, since everyone knows that it is not that widely used so I got to be different.
you will soon outgrow linux (probably though i hope not :)) ) if that is the primary reason if you moved to linux. linux is cool. but the "in-things" change frequently.
[snip]
************** Vinayak Hegde APGDST Student NCST-Juhu **************
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 03:56:27AM -0700, vinayak_hegde@softhome.net wrote:
Technically correct.
Not always. A few bugs do exist in linux/OSS softwares.It is only that they are fixed very very soon. and may I add they are generally not as threatening as wide open holes u find in non-OSS softwares.
What he meant by "technically correct" is that FSS developers choose to do the right thing. Now implementation may result in a few bugs, but the decisions are always technically sound, in order to allow properties like modularity, extensibility, scalability.
Sameer.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Amish Munshi" mails@munshi.dyndns.org To: akshaymunshi@hotmail.com; linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in; hemachaurasia@hotmail.com Cc: yashacharya@hotmail.com; vikrant142@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:42 PM Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Linux vs Windows as my selection.
Non - microsoft product (so it is out of dirt cheap politics)
What does this statement mean ?
No formatting whenever you are in problems. You can pinpoint the problem and solve it without formatting and starting a fresh (This is actually the same as flexibility).
This is one of the myths on windows (like there are myths on linux). The current versions of windows do not need reinstallation. In fact, they are quiet stable unless you fiddle around with everything. But that will happen with linux too. If there is a problem in windows, you can actually correct it, sometimes by having to make modifications in the "registry". There are also tools like "system mechanic" that help you solve problems in windows. This story of having to format the HDD if you have a problem has originated from inefficient hardware engineers who did not want to know how to solve the problem or want to spend time trying to find out what is the problem.
It is simpler to say, "reinstall".......and since the public accepts it, why not ?
On Thursday 14 Nov 2002 8:17 am, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Amish Munshi" mails@munshi.dyndns.org
the problem or want to spend time trying to find out what is the problem.
It is simpler to say, "reinstall".......and since the public accepts it, why not ?
I do keep making changes to my system, and found that linux is much more stable and easy to deal with in this case. Also what about the performance issue, after using windows for more than a month I used to find it very slow. Linux performs the same.
While it may be true that Windows products have improved substantially, they dont come quite as close in stability when compared to *NIX systems. I work as computer consultant on campus, and i cant even remember the number of times i have had to format / image hard drives for users with Window's based machines. On the contrary, there are some professor's who use Linux/Solaris and i can tell u that we have never had complaints from them. Most windows' problems originate from the fact that 90% of Windows' users are always working with admin priviledges, which enables malicious scripts to take over the machine. Most of such scripts, that i have seen, are usually related to IRC/Warez sites. They either setup FTP servers on the machine or IRC servers. Once there are setup, its very difficult to completely rid the system of them, Hence, format/image.
One may argue that similar problems would follow if a person worked regularly wth admin priviledges on a *NIX box. However, most *NIX systems make it point to tell the user to make a USER account different from Admin account as soon as the install is done (or during the install). Compared to this, Windows XP does give an option to make extra user accounts during install. However, the default boot screen always has the admin name selected, which IMO, defeats the purpose. IMO, WIndows should make it a point to convince the users, during the splash screens while the install is going on, that it is *imperative* that the user use a normal account for day-to-day work and an admin account only when necessary. However, MIcrosoft would then lose all the money it makes from Tech Support ;-). So they are not going to do that, which takes us back to square 1.
I might also add that its a pain in the rear to find out stuff in Registry. While its quite easy, for me, to locate a setting in /etc, i dont find it quite as easy to find something in the registry.. But thats only me.!
Add to the above, all the security vulnerabilities discovered in Windows on a daily(sometimes hourly) basis, and u get higly insecure, but very user friendly(because users have known only Windows all their lives) OS. The only half decent function about Windows XP is system restore. But that takes up a lot of valuable HD space.
Thus, i feel its wrong to claim that reinstalling/formatting are myths on Windiws. These are hardcore realities and one has to live with them :(.
Just my two paise,
On Wednesday 13 November 2002 21:47, Saswata Banerjee & Associates wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Amish Munshi" mails@munshi.dyndns.org To: akshaymunshi@hotmail.com; linuxers@mm.ilug-bom.org.in; hemachaurasia@hotmail.com Cc: yashacharya@hotmail.com; vikrant142@yahoo.com Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 1:42 PM Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Linux vs Windows as my selection.
Non - microsoft product (so it is out of dirt cheap politics)
What does this statement mean ?
No formatting whenever you are in problems. You can pinpoint the problem and solve it without formatting and starting a fresh (This is actually the same as flexibility).
This is one of the myths on windows (like there are myths on linux). The current versions of windows do not need reinstallation. In fact, they are quiet stable unless you fiddle around with everything. But that will happen with linux too. If there is a problem in windows, you can actually correct it, sometimes by having to make modifications in the "registry". There are also tools like "system mechanic" that help you solve problems in windows. This story of having to format the HDD if you have a problem has originated from inefficient hardware engineers who did not want to know how to solve the problem or want to spend time trying to find out what is the problem.
It is simpler to say, "reinstall".......and since the public accepts it, why not ?
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 07:55:10 -0500 Bhargav Bhatt wrote:
during the install). Compared to this, Windows XP does give an option to make extra user accounts during install. However, the default boot screen always has the admin name selected, which IMO,
Besides, while creating user accounts on WinXP, the default type is Administrator and I don't remember seeing anything informing me that I'm creating the new account with admin privileges. I stumbled upon the fact when I realized that I was able to configure services even while logging in as me (supposedly a normal/power user)!
Maybe its the SP1 integrated WindowsXP. But it gives a green screen and asks u to make atleast 1 user account not having the same name as the administrator account or the computer. But now that i think about it, you might be right. Even the account it asks us to create is given admin priviledges, IIRC. However, i am not too sure of that.
On Thursday 14 November 2002 08:33, Tahir Hashmi wrote:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 07:55:10 -0500
Bhargav Bhatt wrote:
during the install). Compared to this, Windows XP does give an option to make extra user accounts during install. However, the default boot screen always has the admin name selected, which IMO,
Besides, while creating user accounts on WinXP, the default type is Administrator and I don't remember seeing anything informing me that I'm creating the new account with admin privileges. I stumbled upon the fact when I realized that I was able to configure services even while logging in as me (supposedly a normal/power user)!
On Nov 14, 2002 at 07:55, Bhargav Bhatt wrote:
machines. On the contrary, there are some professor's who use Linux/Solaris
^*BLAM*
One may argue that similar problems would follow if a person worked regularly wth admin priviledges on a *NIX box. However, most *NIX systems make it point
Which is why it is said that being root all the time is not good. When people ask me why, the security reason is what I give. They say they don't care. *shrug*, they won't get user accounts on my system, then.
People are used to the Windows way; I think the person I was talking to actually said that. Windows allows the user to be root all the time.
does give an option to make extra user accounts during install. However, the default boot screen always has the admin name selected, which IMO, defeats
You can turn that off. But you need to figure out that you should turn that off, and where.
the purpose. IMO, WIndows should make it a point to convince the users, during the splash screens while the install is going on, that it is
Nobody watches those, including me.
I might also add that its a pain in the rear to find out stuff in Registry. While its quite easy, for me, to locate a setting in /etc, i dont find it quite as easy to find something in the registry.. But thats only me.!
I guess it's because of the key-value nested nature.
Add to the above, all the security vulnerabilities discovered in Windows on a daily(sometimes hourly) basis, and u get higly insecure, but very user
BTW, bind has been 0wned again. And there are trojans of tcpdump and libpcap floating around.
(Professor here, who no one would suspect of being that savvy, actually used that word in class. I'm not sure if he realised what he was doing, either he just used it out of habit or he was actually trying to connect with the true hackers. I'm not saying he does not know what it means. I'm sure he does. But I don't know if he knew he was using it.)
Quoting Bhargav Bhatt bhargav.bhatt@columbia.edu:
Thus, i feel its wrong to claim that reinstalling/formatting are myths on Windiws. These are hardcore realities and one has to live with them :(.
Just my two paise,
[snip]
cewwwll...;)
Way to go dude.
Have a nice day.
Trevor
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:42:52PM +0530, Amish Munshi wrote:
Windows :
The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that)
I do ... ease of use for Windows is a complete myth. It just happens to be the first operating system you are initiated to, and so wins in terms of familiarity.
Initiate a new user to GNOME/KDE and try to show him Windows ... he will feel extremely suffocated with the restricted, unintuitive UI.
More support for games (But with a bad graphics card that I have, I hardly play any games on windows as well).
True, but not for long ... there's this new library someone had mentioned some time ago. At leaste one game that I know Quake III with OpenGL has been ported to Linux!
Linux :
No Viruses. Technically correct. Non - microsoft product (so it is out of dirt cheap politics)
Bad thing to say ... It's not just Microsoft ... they just happen to be the current monopoly. SUN or Apple would have been no different
Sameer.
On Nov 14, 2002 at 12:14, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
True, but not for long ... there's this new library someone had mentioned some time ago. At leaste one game that I know Quake III with OpenGL has been ported to Linux!
Wow, yay, big whoop.
The Redhat road tour showed up at this campus a couple days ago. We were all sitting around talking, and this guy booted up his laptop running RH8, got gnome/bluecurve on the big screen, started a console session, ran something like winex warcraft, and up popped Warcraft III in glorious color.
Adding to what Sameer said about games, I would just like to point out the Unreal Tournament 2003 is actually available in Linux.!! If games like Unreal can be port to Linux, its certainly not long before we see a deluge of good games supporting Linux.
On Thursday 14 November 2002 01:44, Sameer D. Sahasrabuddhe wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2002 at 01:42:52PM +0530, Amish Munshi wrote:
Windows :
The only plus being is that it is easier to use. (no one will deny that)
I do ... ease of use for Windows is a complete myth. It just happens to be the first operating system you are initiated to, and so wins in terms of familiarity.
Initiate a new user to GNOME/KDE and try to show him Windows ... he will feel extremely suffocated with the restricted, unintuitive UI.
More support for games (But with a bad graphics card that I have, I hardly play any games on windows as well).
True, but not for long ... there's this new library someone had mentioned some time ago. At leaste one game that I know Quake III with OpenGL has been ported to Linux!
Linux :
No Viruses. Technically correct. Non - microsoft product (so it is out of dirt cheap politics)
Bad thing to say ... It's not just Microsoft ... they just happen to be the current monopoly. SUN or Apple would have been no different
Sameer.