Linux - which ISP

[Dorsetmike]

Hi, I'm currently running Win2K, with 2Mb AOL over NTL cable. I'm looking to switch to Linux but AOhell say they don't support Linux; so I need to find out which ISP(s) have Linux versions and can use the NTL cable.

I emailed NTL to ask if they have a Linux version, got an automated reply saying in effect "we don't do emails, try phone" and a string of numbers none of which had answered by 2 minutes after dialling, not even a ring tone!!, so they obviously don't want the business

Tried Googling for Linux and ISP, nothing relevant to what I want, so why all the secrecy? Magazines with Linux articles or ISP reviews also avoid the question.

I have been in electronics since 1952, hands on and teaching, owned a PC since the Amstrad 1512 appeared so consider I do know a bit about the subject.

Cheers MIKE

[Druchii]

Well, any ISP that you can figure out a way of connecting to using ethernet would be supported by Linux. Why would you need AOHELL's software anyway? Unless you're connecting by USB or something?

Anything that can be connected to by Ethernet should be fine. Hell, even some of the people here use Linux on NTL and TW.

[Cobbydaler]

Just drop AOL & use ntl: as your ISP. You don't need any ntl: software to get online through cable with Linux.

I'm sure plenty of people in these forums use Linux. I do, & the only times it gets a bit frustrating is with wireless, but even that's solvable!

[Aragorn]

Mike,

to CF.

If you are currently using an NTL line (via AOHell) then just switch direct to NTL. If you are using ethernet, you don't need to load any NTL software and NTL don't care what DHCP client is connecting to the Cable Modem.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Dorsetmike

Hi, I'm currently running Win2K, with 2Mb AOL over NTL cable. I'm looking to switch to Linux but AOhell say they don't support Linux; so I need to find out which ISP(s) have Linux versions and can use the NTL cable.

I emailed NTL to ask if they have a Linux version, got an automated reply saying in effect "we don't do emails, try phone" and a string of numbers none of which had answered by 2 minutes after dialling, not even a ring tone!!, so they obviously don't want the business

Tried Googling for Linux and ISP, nothing relevant to what I want, so why all the secrecy? Magazines with Linux articles or ISP reviews also avoid the question.

I have been in electronics since 1952, hands on and teaching, owned a PC since the Amstrad 1512 appeared so consider I do know a bit about the subject.

Cheers MIKE

As stated above, you will be able to use Linux with any ISP that offers a connection via Ethernet. If you use a USB modem, you may not be so lucky as someone would need to have written drivers for Linux for your modem.

However, with a lot of ISPs (particularly those in the consumer market), if you dare mention Linux, or any non-windows OS when calling, they may well just say that they don't support it. This is purely because they don't necessarily train their support people in non-windows operating systems.

[Druchii]

http://yolinux.com/TUTORIALS/LinuxTutorialAOL.html

Aol on Linux...

EDIT: Wait, it's for dial-up... Sorry.

[Gareth]

NTL works fine with Linux... been playing around with Sabayon Linux today, and it's worked 100% for me

[skynet777]

Originally Posted by Gareth

NTL works fine with Linux... been playing around with Sabayon Linux today, and it's worked 100% for me

Speaking from experience with AOHell, drop them. I am however interested how good linux actually is though compared to xp, is it better and more reliable? i have used it a little bit but only from the disk, i didn't install though just incase i regreted it.

[Skatoony]

100% Linux user here on NTL - no problems, even have a Linux server acting as a router & firewall.

[Gareth]

Originally Posted by skynet777

Speaking from experience with AOHell, drop them. I am however interested how good linux actually is though compared to xp, is it better and more reliable? i have used it a little bit but only from the disk, i didn't install though just incase i regreted it.

Blimey, mate, you've opened up a can of worms with this... if you ask 100 different people, you'll get 100 different answers. Here's my take on it.

Is it better than XP..? It depends mostly on what you're looking for in an operating system, and also how willing you are to learn stuff the non-Microsoft way.

If you're a gamer, then I'd say that you'll be better off running Windows as your primary operating system - at least for the gaming sessions. There's simply not enough support from the developers for Linux versions of PC games. Although some games can be played under emulation, using products such as Cedega, it's nowhere near as simple as it is getting a PC game to work under Windows.

If, however, you're just looking for an operating system that has applications that will allow you to do some office work, e.g. word processing, using spreadsheets, Powerpoint-type presentations, etc... followed by some browsing of t'internet for reading emails and accessing web sites, and for multimedia stuff, i.e. listening to your MP3s and watching DVDs, etc... then Linux can handle this just as well (if not better) than Windows.

There are very few instances of applications that I can think of (with the exception of games) that don't have a Linux equivalent that is just as good or better than the Windows version.

I do think, personally, that the way the kernel of the operating system is designed in Linux (and all Unix variants) is better than the way Microsoft chose to build Windows. I like the way that, for example, the GUI is completely seperated from the kernel. You're not limited to the one look 'n' feel of the OS that you get with Windows because you can run different window managers (KDE, Gnome, IceWM, fluxbox, etc...) to suit your needs. Windows tries to get around this by offering applications such as Windows Blinds, but they sit on top of the Microsoft GUI which is explicitly built into the
OS.

Talking of the GUI, I am really blown away by the look 'n' feel of the latest versions of KDE and using XGL/compiz. I keep on reading about people saying the new Aero look of Windows Vista is stunning, but it's nothing compared to XGL - which has been available for a while now, can run easily on older hardware, and actually serves a purpose rather than being just eye candy.

Also, I like the way that Unix/Linux was designed from scratch as being a multi-user OS. Windows doesn't handle multiple users as efficiently... try having different users with different screen resolutions under Windows and see if it works as it should

Additionally, the security model used by Unix/Linux is much more reliable than the Windows equivalent. Windows has copied numerous aspects from the Unix world - the latest being the implementation of non-Administrator accounts for everyday usage in Vista (although they've messed it up unfortunately, from what I've seen ). That's not to say that Microsoft haven't done some things right... they have extensively used Access Control Lists for files/directories from NT 3.51 onwards, which differs from and is an improvement to the group/owner level permissions used exclusively by Unix/Linux until fairly recently.

Lastly, you don't have to reboot a Linux/Unix box anywhere near as much as a Windows box, which is sooo nice

Is Linux more reliable than XP...? This is a difficult one that some people seem to get annoyed about, but I'd say that a default Linux installation is more hardened than a default Windows XP installation. Admittedly, both can be locked down to be extremely secure and reliable (that's what I get paid to do ), but for the average home user, I think that XP is less reliable. As well as Linux shipping in a more locked-down configuration, maybe this has something to do with the average Linux user being more aware of security and reliability issues than your average Windows user...? Needless to say, there are vastly more viruses, spyware, malware, etc... released for Windows than for Linux (watch the Windows fanboys state that this is only because of a bigger userbase of Windows)

Overall, Windows has some advantages over Linux, and Linux has it's fair share of reasons why you should use it instead of Windows. You've already taken the first steps by giving a LiveCD a whirl, so I'd suggest you try installing a Linux distro, either by creating new partitions on your hard drive, or alternatively by installing - for free - VMWare or Microsoft's Virtual PC and creating a Linux host environment to run within that (if your hardware is up to running both OSes at the same time).

Hope that helps answer your questions I'm more than happy to share my experiences... although it may be worth creating a new thread over in the Computers/IT section so we don't drag this thread too much off topic

[Cobbydaler]

Great post!

[Skatoony]

Superb post Gareth. Rep coming your way.

[punky]

Great summary Gareth, thanx for taking the time to post it

Not much else i'd like to add. One important thing I should say is that the way Linux apps are installed forces many users from using Linux.

For XP, its easy. You just double click, follow the wizard and its done. With Linux, if your software supports RPM packages, you are in luck. However, a lot aren't. Because there are so many flavours of Linux, you normally have to compile the source. You are given step by step instructions, but it doesn't always go smoothly. A lot of times you need to download extra libraries etc to get it to compile. Installing programs therefore is a normally an arduous process with lots of googling needed.

[skynet777]

Originally Posted by Gareth

Blimey, mate, you've opened up a can of worms with this... if you ask 100 different people, you'll get 100 different answers. Here's my take on it.

Is it better than XP..? It depends mostly on what you're looking for in an operating system, and also how willing you are to learn stuff the non-Microsoft way.

If you're a gamer, then I'd say that you'll be better off running Windows as your primary operating system - at least for the gaming sessions. There's simply not enough support from the developers for Linux versions of PC games. Although some games can be played under emulation, using products such as Cedega, it's nowhere near as simple as it is getting a PC game to work under Windows.

If, however, you're just looking for an operating system that has applications that will allow you to do some office work, e.g. word processing, using spreadsheets, Powerpoint-type presentations, etc... followed by some browsing of t'internet for reading emails and accessing web sites, and for multimedia stuff, i.e. listening to your MP3s and watching DVDs, etc... then Linux can handle this just as well (if not better) than Windows.

There are very few instances of applications that I can think of (with the exception of games) that don't have a Linux equivalent that is just as good or better than the Windows version.

I do think, personally, that the way the kernel of the operating system is designed in Linux (and all Unix variants) is better than the way Microsoft chose to build Windows. I like the way that, for example, the GUI is completely seperated from the kernel. You're not limited to the one look 'n' feel of the OS that you get with Windows because you can run different window managers (KDE, Gnome, IceWM, fluxbox, etc...) to suit your needs. Windows tries to get around this by offering applications such as Windows Blinds, but they sit on top of the Microsoft GUI which is explicitly built into the
OS.

Talking of the GUI, I am really blown away by the look 'n' feel of the latest versions of KDE and using XGL/compiz. I keep on reading about people saying the new Aero look of Windows Vista is stunning, but it's nothing compared to XGL - which has been available for a while now, can run easily on older hardware, and actually serves a purpose rather than being just eye candy.

Also, I like the way that Unix/Linux was designed from scratch as being a multi-user OS. Windows doesn't handle multiple users as efficiently... try having different users with different screen resolutions under Windows and see if it works as it should

Additionally, the security model used by Unix/Linux is much more reliable than the Windows equivalent. Windows has copied numerous aspects from the Unix world - the latest being the implementation of non-Administrator accounts for everyday usage in Vista (although they've messed it up unfortunately, from what I've seen ). That's not to say that Microsoft haven't done some things right... they have extensively used Access Control Lists for files/directories from NT 3.51 onwards, which differs from and is an improvement to the group/owner level permissions used exclusively by Unix/Linux until fairly recently.

Lastly, you don't have to reboot a Linux/Unix box anywhere near as much as a Windows box, which is sooo nice

Is Linux more reliable than XP...? This is a difficult one that some people seem to get annoyed about, but I'd say that a default Linux installation is more hardened than a default Windows XP installation. Admittedly, both can be locked down to be extremely secure and reliable (that's what I get paid to do ), but for the average home user, I think that XP is less reliable. As well as Linux shipping in a more locked-down configuration, maybe this has something to do with the average Linux user being more aware of security and reliability issues than your average Windows user...? Needless to say, there are vastly more viruses, spyware, malware, etc... released for Windows than for Linux (watch the Windows fanboys state that this is only because of a bigger userbase of Windows)

Overall, Windows has some advantages over Linux, and Linux has it's fair share of reasons why you should use it instead of Windows. You've already taken the first steps by giving a LiveCD a whirl, so I'd suggest you try installing a Linux distro, either by creating new partitions on your hard drive, or alternatively by installing - for free - VMWare or Microsoft's Virtual PC and creating a Linux host environment to run within that (if your hardware is up to running both OSes at the same time).

Hope that helps answer your questions I'm more than happy to share my experiences... although it may be worth creating a new thread over in the Computers/IT section so we don't drag this thread too much off topic

What a great response, you have put a lot of time into this post ty. I did realise that i was drifting off the subject a little bit but you have shed a lot more light on this now

[Robster]

Originally Posted by punky

One important thing I should say is that the way Linux apps are installed forces many users from using Linux.

For XP, its easy. You just double click, follow the wizard and its done. With Linux, if your software supports RPM packages, you are in luck. However, a lot aren't. Because there are so many flavours of Linux, you normally have to compile the source. You are given step by step instructions, but it doesn't always go smoothly. A lot of times you need to download extra libraries etc to get it to compile. Installing programs therefore is a normally an arduous process with lots of googling needed.

Unfortunately this is the reputation that Linux has, and berfore I made the jump I thought this was the case. I have been using Ubuntu Linux for 2 weeks and it hasn't been like that at all. There is an applications manager which has a list of hundreds of programs that are available, and it really is a case of point..click and its done. The problem is that a lot of websites for open source programs aren't user friendly, and contain instructions on compiling etc rather than having a click-to-install download. And this is the method that anyone coming from windows is used to.....go to the website, download...install.

Wether its better than windows, I would say its just different.