Thoughts on Linux migration

[Osiris]

Thoughts on Linux migration

It's been quite a while since I managed to write something here, partly because of work and study, and partly because I didn't know exactly what to write about. But the muse seems to have returned, hopefully staying that way.
So, first off, I wanna welcome our new linux guru jack, really enjoyed your posts so far.
Which brings me to writing this one. For years I've been using varying versions of Windows as a so-called power-user, starting off with Windows 3.11 and hitting every single OS Microsoft has thrown at us since then. And of course, I have some resentments of my own regarding the redmonds and their - seemingly inferior - products. But I learned it to be that way, and that's not easily cast aside.
Come as it may, some years ago I first took a peek into the world of UNIX, and some of its more popular offsprings, namely the Debian, SUSE and - much later - Ubuntu distributions. I never kept one for too long, though.
So, after reading jacks post about the differences between Windows and Linux, I started to wonder again why I didn't manage to stay on, say, Ubuntu, which is in my biased and narrow-minded opinion by far the most suitable distribution for migrators.
After giving it some thought, it came down to the fact that I wasn't able to do things on Linux the way I know them. Everything I tried ended up in me, digging the appropriate distribution's forum and Google for a how-to or the solution to a more specific problem. While this seems indeed narrow-minded, like ‘how can he expect to know everything from the start and that everything works out-of-the-box', it's the way it is. Most of us spend 6-8 hours asleep, 8-10 hours at work and maybe have a family on top of that. No coffee or a single meal included. Do the math. I for myself cannot afford to put hours after hours into my OS to make things work that never were a problem before - mounting an external USB-drive, setting up or mounting (samba) shares to interact with my necessary Windows-clients. I'm not denying it that it is my lack of in-depth knowledge of Linux or UNIX in general that causes this, and neither that it bugs me from time to time I'm unable to pull it off, but that's just how it is.
I always said cynically “I'm trying Linux again once they reach final”, and I'm still sticking to that, predicting that the one Linux distro that manages to really implement the “easy as Windows”-feeling will succeed in getting the folks to migrate. It will probably succeed in getting me migrated, but right now, I'm putting my knowledge into my Windows-OS for an extra punch of productivity denied to me by the otherness of Linux.

 

[Jayce]

I started out on Linux because I was stuck. I built a computer without realizing it needed an operating system and I was already broke from my computer purchase to buy the OS too.

I talked to my cousin, who swears by Linux up and down left and right. I picked Ubuntu. Back then, things were a little rougher. Compiz was a nightmare and doing simple things was a little more chaotic to get running. But, I just needed an OS with internet and office capabilities. Firefox and OpenOffice brought that to the table.

Three years later, I'm hooked. Granted, it's easy for me to say oh yeah Ubuntu isn't really that hard. But to be frank with you guys, it takes me all but 2... maybe 3 minutes to fully configure my samba server.

Granted, Linux has a "hard" edge to it... but if you can handle Windows, you're familiar with what the registry does and other things like basic commands at the command line (ipconfig, anyone?) you shouldn't have too much trouble adjusting.

It'll seem hard, but in reality... it's just different. The hard part is learning "what's the start button in Linux?" "What's the ipconfig in Linux?" "What's the recycle bin in Linux?"

Not "hard"
Just... different.

 

[oldskool]

Not "hard"
Just... different.

Exactly. I am using Ubuntu 8.10, my first fully-installed distro. Before I used live CD's only, but decided to take the plunge into Linux. While I will still use Microsoft products such as XP and Vista, that may not be true so much in a few months - who knows.

Windows does have a lot of cool things, and like Osiris mentioned, there are things about Windows OSes that I particularly like. What I like so much about Linux (among other things) is that with Ubuntu, as well as with other distros, there are programs that are similar in interface methodology to Windows programs, but obviously they are not Windows programs.

Supposedly Linux is designed much different than Windows, and the kernel is tight from a security standpoint. That is a very attractive feature (including the price tag - zippo), the fact that Linux is much less a target of malware and viruses. NOT impenetrable ! Just less of a target - so far.

 

[Kharn]

That is a understatement, Unix (Linux's OS family) is nearly 40 years old windows (an NT based OS's) are about 8 / 9 years old so they are bound to be different, considering that fact and the millions upon millions of man hours that have been spent on all forms of unix and the more open nature (since 1985 at least) of the modern unix OS's it's not surprising that it's more stable / powerful than any version of a NT based OS.

 

[oldskool]

I never thought about the reason why, but it makes sense to me Saxon. Many more people involved in development over more years than Microsoft. But I also wonder if it is as much Linus Torvalds just created a great OS, well-coded and overall more stable because Linus had a heck of a design scheme.

 

[KSoD]

Linux may be 40 or so. But NT is not that young. Windows NT was first released in 1993. That makes it at least 15 years old now. At first it was only used as a Server OS. It wasnt until Win2000 that they first attempted to bring it to the desktop. Win XP was the result.

Windows NT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dont mess with the NT Kernal Man!!

 

[Nick]

I think dual booting is the answer if you're not sure I'm on 8.04 now and I love it

 

[oldskool]

Dont mess with the NT Kernal Man!!

That's right ! NTFS is a great thing as well. I think Unix is 40 something, and Linux is since the early 80's. I think.

Not that it really matters, but I googled the history of Linux and found this interesting link, showing Linux as recent as 1991. Not trying to argue with anyone, just wanting to share this. Kinda neat.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/rhasan/linux/

 

[KSoD]

Linux itself has been around since 91. But UNIX which Linux is based off of was the First OS ever used. It is the bases for OS/2 which IBM first created and which was in use on some of the first PC's ever.

Linux was derived from UNIX and therefor you can argue that Linux has been around for much longer. I wouldnt say roughly 40 years. That would put Computers back to the 60's and if i am not wrong the first PC that used a OS and not punch cards was late 70's or early 80's.

 

[oldskool]

Nope, I didn't think that you was wrong, Mak. I just Googled and found that link. I do know Unix has been around for that amount of time and that Linux is a derivation of it.

I am not claiming anyone is wrong, Mak. To the contrary, my link post was pointing out that I was wrong in saying it was an '80's OS.



* Of interest (to me anyway), is the part contained within the link I posted is that a Mr. Andrew Tanenbaum (Minix author, professor) sent an e-mail to Linus saying that if he was a student of his, that he would not have gave him a passing grade for his short-sightedness of writing a "monolithic kernel. " to which Linus retorted, and I quote : "Your job is being a professor and researcher: That's one **** of a good excuse for some of the brain-damages of minix". :LOL Cocky or confident ?!