Linux On Desktop

janipewter · 13-07-2005, 23:42

Just curious, does anyone here run Linux on their desktop PC? This one and three others in the house are running WinXP Pro, but I got bored and slapped Mandrake on my other PC. It's quite a challenge since I've not really used Linux before (except for running a gameserver on a friends dedi (Debian3.1)).

So, comments?

nibbles · 13-07-2005, 23:46

been thru several linux distros mandrake,redhat,ferdora most of em..

wut u want comments on?

iron25 · 14-07-2005, 00:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by janipewter

I got bored and slapped Mandrake on my other PC....

It won't take long for you to realise that compared to Windows, Linux does not make for a good desktop PC. As a file/print server, firewall/router or web server then Linux is in its element but as an all round desktop PC it is light years behind Windows.

Tristan · 14-07-2005, 02:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron25

It won't take long for you to realise that compared to Windows, Linux does not make for a good desktop PC. As a file/print server, firewall/router or web server then Linux is in its element but as an all round desktop PC it is light years behind Windows.

In what way?

grandmaster · 14-07-2005, 08:01

Its a nightmare to get a wireless card running on Linux.

If anyone wants to give me a hand then they are welcome.

I have only ever got it running once (and that was without WPA)

Ooooopps sorry did'nt mean to hijack your thread

BBKing · 14-07-2005, 08:30

Quote:

Just curious, does anyone here run Linux on their desktop PC?

Yes, on both my laptops and office workstation. Debian and Ubuntu on the laptops and Ubuntu AMD64 at work. Ubuntu is very nice, Deb is fine too, except that RAM restrictions on that laptop means I have to use a pared down window manager. Does the job.

Both laptops have wireless, which wasn't a problem to set up - the key is to do your research and pick a card that works with Linux - a lot do, but some have extreme problems due to the chip manufacturer not co-operating. One laptop has an elderly Lucent Orinoco, which has kernel support (comes up as eth1 on bootup), the other uses an Atheros chipset based D-Link 802.11g card which is autodetected under Ubuntu as ath0. I was staggered how easy that was (to get the Orinoco working I had to recompile the kernel). I've had far more problems getting wireless working under Windows than under Ubuntu.

Going from Debian/Windowmaker to Windows is an improvement.
Going from Windows to Ubuntu is an improvement.

So a lot depends on the distro you pick - the rate of improvement in the last two years has been phenomenal, but you still have a learning curve (mainly because people don't realise how automatic actions are in Windows, which you have to unlearn in order to use Linux).

grandmaster · 14-07-2005, 08:39

Learning curve and then some lol

I'm using a live cd version of slax at the moment.

my wireless card manu is Ralink (rt2500 drivers)

i'll just have to persevere i think...

philip.j.fry · 14-07-2005, 09:29

I do.

I used to run Slackware, which is supposed to be the most Unix like distro. Though IMO it is the best distro out there, I switched when I got my new PC as there wasn't a stable 64-bit version at the time. Slackware can also be quite time-consuming as it's good for tinkering, after I finished Uni and got a job I just didn't have enough time to play around with it anymore (fully intend to re-install it for experimentation and gaming when I get the chance).

I now run Fedora Core 3 (amd64), which I find very easy to use and maintain. My g/f who isn't that au-fait with computers also likes it, in fact she complains about having to use Windows at work. There is nothing in the Windows world that could currently cause me to switch back (I don't have a copy of Windows at home since my installation of Win98 self-destructed a few weeks ago). All the games I've played recently have run well on Linux (Medal of Honour, Doom3, Wolfenstein:Enemy Territory, Half-Life 2, Unreal Tournament) and for most other things like Word etc there are more than adequate replacements on Linux. Whereas if I switched to Windows I would be missing a number of vital tools like Bash, GCC etc (though I do concede that most of these can be added).

I think BBKing makes the best point, many people don't really know how to use Windows, they just know where to click on the screen to make it do things but they don't understand why. People who have had little exposure to Windows will probably find using Linux a bit easier (like my g/f). Really the only way is to try it, with a little perseverance you may find that you prefer it.

p.s. Grandmaster, I'm using the Ralink drivers at home, I've got no problems using mine with a WEP key but I did need to use the command line to get the card configured properly. If you're having trouble I can give you a hand (when I get home, stuck on XP at the moment

grandmaster · 14-07-2005, 09:56

good man, i may take you up on that offer!!!!

Strzelecki · 14-07-2005, 11:12

I use Suse 9.2 on my desktop, does everything I require it to do apart from playing Battlefield2 and Farcry. I prefer to have control over my PC and like to know what is going on, with Windows you don't tend to get that. You ask a majority of XP users what a set of DOS commands do and they probably wouldn't know, ask linux users what a set of unix commands do and they probably would know! Why does this matter? Well when things go wrong it is a lot easier to diagnose if you know what commands were given instead of just clicking and everything being done automatically. Each OS has it's benefits, does no harm to try both, just don't give up straight away!

Tristan · 14-07-2005, 11:49

I tried Red Hat Linux 9 way back when and found it really quite rubbish, as it didn't have support for either my wired or wireless network cards, sound cards, etc etc.

However, desktop Linux has moved on massively since then. I'm now running Fedora Core 4. It has out-of-the-box support for my wireless card (Prism 2.5 chipset), my wired network card, both sound cards, my printer, my bluetooth adaptor and my SATA controller. All the configuration I had to do for them amounted to specifying the SSID of my wireless network (because I have it hidden on my router), and whether or not I wanted to use DHCP. Not one of these drivers exists in Windows (except for the printer, but with quality massively inferior to the proper HP drivers). The Red Hat installation programme, Anaconda, is also about a million times easier to use than the Windows installation routine.

It's undeniable that the learning curve for *administering* a Linux box is steeper than that for Windows. Even with the latest distros, it's necessary to dip into the command line occasionally to perform maintenance tasks. However, crucially, a *user* can these days sit down at a Linux desktop and do everything just as easily as on Windows.

In environments where it's either undesirable or unnecessary for users to have admin privaleges, Linux is a perfectly usable desktop. My girlfriend is almost* perfectly happy using Linux, because she doesn't care what it does underneath, as long as she can click the right box and have it work. Similarly, in office situations where administration is handled by the IT department, Linux is a great solution.

Obviously, Linux is also great for the very tech-savvy geeks out there. It's almost infinitely configurable, and much easier and much more fun to play with "under the hood" than Windows.

Where Linux isn't ready yet is for the intermediate mass-market. People who aren't knowledgable about computers, but still need to set up and look after their home boxes. For example, RPM and Deb make it very easy to install software, but the user still has to know what version they're running, and in some cases even which kernel version they have. This is far from ideal.

As a home OS, Linux will remain as a niche for some time to come. However, as more firms and governement bodies switch over (as is happening all over the world), the number of people using it on a day-to-day basis will grow, which will in turn increase the numbers wanting to give it a go on their own PCs. This in turn will lead to better config tools, more games being ported, etc, which will lead to more people using it....

* Her only gripe is that Gaim doesn't have webcam support (yet).

Gareth · 14-07-2005, 12:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by iron25

It won't take long for you to realise that compared to Windows, Linux does not make for a good desktop PC. As a file/print server, firewall/router or web server then Linux is in its element but as an all round desktop PC it is light years behind Windows.

Shame on you! Go wash your mouth out now!

I think that as others have said, Linux can be a perfect desktop OS under many situations. Those that just use a PC for web browsing, emails, etc... would be much better suited with a Linux-based PC than a Windows machine. Less patching and securing required on the Linux box once it has been set up. As the slogan goes... 'it just works' and it will continue to work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

I think BBKing makes the best point, many people don't really know how to use Windows, they just know where to click on the screen to make it do things but they don't understand why. People who have had little exposure to Windows will probably find using Linux a bit easier (like my g/f). Really the only way is to try it, with a little perseverance you may find that you prefer it.

Yes, spot on. Windows users have a tendency to learn that to achieve a certain task, you click a certain icon or run a certain GUI, without really understanding what's happening at the OS level. Windows does make computing nice and easy, which is why it became so popular so quickly, and why home computing took off as it did. I question whether so many would be interested in computing if we were all using DOS. MS should be commended for that, at least.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Strzelecki

I prefer to have control over my PC and like to know what is going on, with Windows you don't tend to get that. You ask a majority of XP users what a set of DOS commands do and they probably wouldn't know, ask linux users what a set of unix commands do and they probably would know!

...and if they don't know the command, then they'll know how to use the man command

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tristan

In environments where it's either undesirable or unnecessary for users to have admin privaleges, Linux is a perfectly usable desktop.

This is a good point. El Reg recently reported that

Quote:

Mike Nash, Microsoft's security business and technology unit corporate vice president, has said Longhorn would accord end-users certain rights and privileges apparently ending the concept that everyone using their PC is also the PC's administrator.

Speaking at Microsoft's Worldwide partner conference on Sunday, Nash indicated the architectural change is part of a move to improve security of desktop systems by limiting the ability for end-users to install applications or for malware to take control of a machine, turning it into a zombie.

The move mirrors techniques used in versions of Unix and Linux to create more limited variations of "the God user" or root account. This account provides a single user with total control of, and access to, an entire system's resources.

..."In October 2003 someone asked: 'How come, when I go to a Windows machine, everyone has to be an administrator?'," Nash told conference delegates, referring to an incident at Microsoft's partner conference two years ago.

Nash said a key Longhorn feature would be increased "granularity" in administration capabilities "so people need a lower level of privilege to install applications and printers. When a higher level of privilege is required, we can elevate that. You can use Longhorn in a very effective way without being an admin."

Unix and Linux users have understood the importance of this for years! How many Windows users browsing the site now are signed-in as an Administrator user? Compare this with how many Linux/*nix users browsing the site as root? If your box gets compromised and code gets executed as the current user, which would you rather have the malicious code running as, an administrator or not? It's a no brainer, innit

cyclone · 16-07-2005, 12:30

I've just installed Suse Linux 9.3 on my spare PC and compared with any version of Windows(yes,I include WinME) it's been a nightmare!
After about 90 minutes of watching an installer which is about as imformative as a tax form,I was greeted with an interface which was about as reassuring as the screen on a Fisher Price toy TV.
I've given up trying to connect to the internet,the process is as clear as mud.
Bill Gates...all is forgiven ,theres no competition in my books. All I want is an OS that does what I need without me having to consult some well meaning enthusiasts on a second PC with an OS that REALLY works.
Me,I'm sticking with XP,it just works

MadGamer · 16-07-2005, 12:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyclone

I've just installed Suse Linux 9.3 on my spare PC and compared with any version of Windows(yes,I include WinME) it's been a nightmare!
After about 90 minutes of watching an installer which is about as imformative as a tax form,I was greeted with an interface which was about as reassuring as the screen on a Fisher Price toy TV.
I've given up trying to connect to the internet,the process is as clear as mud.
Bill Gates...all is forgiven ,theres no competition in my books. All I want is an OS that does what I need without me having to consult some well meaning enthusiasts on a second PC with an OS that REALLY works.
Me,I'm sticking with XP.

Good on you. though Windows XP has so many vulnerabilities i stick with it as ive used Windows since i was very young. Started using 3.1 in fact and moved up through the ranks.

cyclone · 16-07-2005, 12:41

I certainly think,since SP2 that WinXP is the best OS I've used,although I'm still pining for the Workbench screen on my now scrapped Amiga 1200!