That Ubuntu Ultimate Gamers Edition is cool, but it uses 6.10, which won't be supported too much longer. The fact that it is over 3Gb doesn't bother me much. I have a DVD burner on my main desktop computer.

0

Linux is never the better option, unless you have an old system. You have a pretty modern computer, so that's no problem. Watching DVD's on Linux, Ubuntu, is illegal - and doesn't really work all that well when you hack around the legalities anyways. Really, for "recreational" use Linux is no go. It's a server oriented OS based on time-sharing (read: remote computing) from the late 1960's ; things have a' changed in the computing world since then (Unix hasn't) Would you consider shelling out for Windows Server 2003 to run on your system? Probably not, you shouldn't look at Linux/Unix any differently. Unix systems are as susceptible to hostile software attacks as any other system, however, the Unix community is zealous in their believe that they are immune. This belief is in the face of reality!

0

I like Linux because it is free and, in my experiences, more stable than Windows. I also looked in to software functionality for what I do on my laptop and Linux can do everything that I want. Linux is also free (mostly), looks better than Windows, and runs faster than Windows. I am a big fan of open source software, but unfortunately I can't contribute because I have no programming skills and no extra money to donate. Linux is not ready for the average user yet, but is well on its way to getting there.

0

Oh my, aisha, how much does Microsoft pay you to spread FUD? Linux is never the better option, unless you have an old system. You have a pretty modern computer, so that's no problem. Only partially true. Bleeding edge hardware support tends to lag a bit behind Windows, because manufacturers are forced to sign non-disclosure agreements with MS if they want out-of-the-box support on the latest Windows release. Linux supporters almost always have to reverse engineer the hardware support, which can take a few months. Watching DVD's on Linux, Ubuntu, is illegal - and doesn't really work all that well when you hack around the legalities anyways. Tough. If I buy a DVD, I have every legal right to watch it anywhere I want, including on a non-Windows box. No studio or hardware builder has the legal right to keep me from doing that. Really, for "recreational" use Linux is no go. It's a server oriented OS based on time-sharing (read: remote computing) from the late 1960's ; things have a' changed in the computing world since then (Unix hasn't) Unix hasn't changed that much because it was done right in the first place. Windows, on the other hand, started out as a single-tasking, single-user, unconnected standalone box system. It's had to be hacked and patched and totally rewritten time and time again. Old != bad, New != good. There's a reason that Unix-type systems run the vast majority of servers -- it's stable, reliable, trustworthy, and free (Linux and BSD, anyway). Would you consider shelling out for Windows Server 2003 to run on your system? Probably not, you shouldn't look at Linux/Unix any differently. Eh? Unix/Linux/BSD systems were designed from the beginning for multitasking, multiusers, and network connectivity, and all that entails in the way of security and stability. While certainly not immune to viruses, trojans, and other malware, the restricted permissions of the average user tend to confine damage to limited areas. Unlike, say, Windows, where you typically run with unrestricted permissions and thus an invader can do anything! How about spreading a little less FUD and spreading a little more information?

0

Thanks Phil. I was a little afraid to say something like that, but I agree with everything you say.

0

"and runs faster than Windows" Not true, at least in your case. While it's true "Linux" uses far less resources than a new install in Windows NT 5.1, it's useless for the average user. When you add X11, and KDE, you'll find Windows NT 5.1 (XP) will be far more efficient on your hardware - very, very noticeably! My current laptop has fairly similar specs to yours (slightly quicker CPU, 256mb more RAM) and it's clear as day: * Vista: runs "ok" if all the tricky stuff is turned off --- avoid * Ubuntu: runs "pretty well", slower - alot - than WinXP, but quicker than everything else * Kubuntu: "sluggish", I'd hate to have 256mb less RAM like your system --- avoid * XP/2003: "Lightning", uses less ram, less cpu, and just feels "fast" compared to the others --- best option "I am a big fan of open source software" Not really. You want to watch DVD's, free software can't do that. Your wifi won't work, without 'restricted' drivers. I'm pretty sure you'll find Linux can't even slow down your CPU to save power, without 'dirty' drivers/modules. "Linux is not ready for the average user yet, but is well on its way to getting there" It is many, many, many years away. And by that time, god only knows where OSX/Windows will be - several years further ahead again I guess! Linux is user hostile, unstable, unreliable, subject to every single CERT security advisery I've ever seen, needs constant patching to try and fix security holes, ie... it's about where Windows was back in 1998!!!! ouch! "Oh my, aisha, how much does Microsoft pay you to spread FUD?" How much does IBM/Novell pay you to try and put me down? "Only partially true. Bleeding edge hardware support tends to lag a bit behind Windows" His system is not bleeding edge, it's a good 12/18 months old. I've NEVER seen a computer system, which didn't have Windows drivers (don't be smart, apple/sun/etc...), so I'm not sure what you mean. Infact I've never bought a peice of hardware which DIDN'T have Windows drivers. I *think* your trying to say Linux supports more hardware on a new install, which is true - but to try and scew that into saying Linux is somehow better with hardware is REALLY stretching the truth! "Tough. If I buy a DVD, I have every legal right to watch it anywhere I want, including on a non-Windows box. No studio or hardware builder has the legal right to keep me from doing that." Nope, you don't. Welcome to captalism, where corporations have far more "rights" than individual citizens! "Unix hasn't changed that much because it was done right in the first place." Unix has a long history of worms, trojan horses, and other nasty software. It's user-hostile, and stupidly stuck in the dark ages (as technology goes). If you look at the CERT security advisories, you'll find every single one of them applies to Linux, every distribution, nearly every single time - it's security through obscurity, unreliable/constant patching and the fact only a borderline computer scientist can run it, which keep it safe. "There's a reason that Unix-type systems run the vast majority of servers" Yup, free. When you look at "corporate" use, Windows has the market share wrapped up. What Microsoft doesn't "own", are the people who simply cannot afford a real server OS (be it NT, or Unix) - which are thousands of dollars. Which is far, If I was going to run a webserver at home - I wouldn't shell out thousands for NT 5.2, I'd put it on FreeBSD. "While certainly not immune to viruses, trojans, and other malware, the restricted permissions of the average user tend to confine damage to limited areas." File security on Linux is a myth. It's "all or nothing", it has no layers, or the advanced file system security of NTFS. Get on a network, NFS, and Linux has almost zilch - ouch! "Unlike, say, Windows, where you typically run with unrestricted permissions and thus an invader can do anything!" Yup, back in 1998!!!! Since 2000, ALL versions of Windows have pushed users to run as "restricted" users. The current versions, since 2003 - FORCE the users to run as "restricted", and the newest version stops you from running as "admin/root" EVEN IF YOU LOGIN AS ADMIN/ROOT; you have to go out of your way to stop that! Linux is no different, the option to add 'limited/restricted' users is an afterthought, optional, and no distribution I've seen makes it as obvious as Windows this is what you should do. I know Ubuntu "forces" a limited/restricted account - most don't. I suspect the only reason Linux users tend to do this in the past, more than Windows users, was because you needed to be a computer scientist to run Linux - Windows, anyone could use. Can someone tell me why no version of Linux has yet been able to pass the "trusted computing" test? Oh, I can tell you - because it's less secure than Windows, that's why! Windows XP, out of the box, admittedly needs a few ervices turned off to pass the test, but it does - Linux doesn't. Unix systems are as susceptible to hostile software attacks as any other system, however, the Unix community is zealous in their believe that they are immune. This belief is in the face of reality!

0

I don't necessarily care if the software I use isn't Open Source, as long as it works. Linux has always run faster than Windows in my experiences, and I am comparing fully customized installations of Linux to Windows, and don't go saying that it must be because I was running so many programs that it bogged down my system because I was running relatively few, and had all unnecessary services turned off, as well as special visual effects disabled, and the "classic" theme applied. It is my opinion that you do not have the ability to adjust to the differences that Linux has to Windows, once you adjust, then it proves to be a much better OS. The patches you speak of for Linux are usually newer versions of the installed software that is in your repositories. With Windows, it only updates your Microsoft programs (and then, not always all of them) With The updates for Windows they are not newer versions of the program just because a newer version was release (like an added feature), they are security updates for security holes. Also Microsoft sometimes bundles patches together, with Linux each individual update is listed, and updates are available for Linux as they come out, vs. the once a month updates from Microsoft.

0

That's some killer weed you're smoking there, aisha -- can I have some? Almost everything you say for Windows and against Unix/Linux is patently false, and I could easily turn your statements around (and speak more truthfully). Why do you persist in repeating decades-old MS propaganda? Why do you persist in calling Linux "user hostile"? Is your image of it still stuck in TeleType days? No one uses character-based terminals any more -- it's all X windows + a nice desktop. It even supports a mouse! No file security? Three levels of control (owner, group, world) PLUS, if you wish, additional attribute controls such as AFS. No user security? The default is to run everyone with very limited privileges, and some distributions make it damned difficult to run as the superuser, so you're not tempted to run all day with unlimited permissions. Funny you should hold up OS X as a shining example of good design. What's OS X under the hood? BSD! What's BSD? Unix! Real Unix. By the way, there's nothing to prevent users from installing properly licensed (and paid for) drivers for particular hardware. There are plenty of legal proprietary drivers for DVD players and such that you can install, if you care to line the pockets of certain parties. Windows has the market "sewn up" simply because of their illegal monopoly marketing practices, not because they're superior in any way. They're getting better -- who can forget how bad Win 98 was -- and Win XP (NT 5.1) is almost tolerably stable. But Linux is moving ahead, too. Microsoft is sort of like Detroit's improving its quality of its cars over the past decade or so -- but the Japanese have improved even more in the same time. In the Bad Old Days, the saying was "No one ever got fired for buying IBM." Today, it's "No one ever got fired for buying Microsoft." Tomorrow, when people are better educated about their choices...? Most people buy Windows because they're forced to -- it comes pre-installed and they have no choice. If PCs by law came without an OS, and people had to buy and install one themselves, you wouldn't see anywhere near as many Windows boxes. The rest of your drivel I won't waste any time on. I would merely suggest that you preach to the choir over on the Windows forums -- you're not going to convert anyone here. Bye!

0

Thanks, Phil. Nice come back. aisha's free to think the way he does. And it encourages Linux users to respond clearly, concisely and correctly as you have done. I chuckle over his statements for two reasons. 1. I was once in that mindset too. But a taste of Linux has helped me finally give Windows the heave ho. 2. I'm posting this from an XP laptop that's currently so messed up by viruses, malware, scumware, zombiware, and whatnot that it's "lightning" speed is little better than that of molasses. I've had to boot this thing using a PCLinuxOS LiveCD to get it working enough to copy out its files in order to wipe the thing and re-install. Sadly its owners are going to want a fresh copy of XP on it instead of Ubuntu Linux. Not my choice. I just repair them. If I can't convince the owner to try Ubuntu then XP is restored to the hard drive and I simply wait until it comes back for yet another wipe and re-install. You've gotta ask yourself why aisha spends his time reading through Linux threads. Food for thought, I'd say. BobSongs What is Ubuntu?

0