What's the difference? Ubuntu Server Edition vs Desktop Edition

[ET/IT]

A lot of "features" that users discovered in Windows 7 had already existed in Linux land for a few years. But hey, if somebody wants to take open source functionality and try to pass off calling it their own, fine - but they're not fooling everyone out there. It seems to be a common trend that Linux is hard to use, and while Linux may have a vast array of advanced utilities that may send basic users through a loop, it's actually very easy to learn. A lot of people tend to look at unfamiliar territory as being hard. I personally had this issue when I tried out OSX, as simple as OSX strives to be I just felt weird using it and felt frustrated when trying to do certain tasks. Ultimately when I tried Ubuntu, things just kind of flowed for me.

The LiveCD thing for Linux (and this is not exclusive to Ubuntu) is a huge help. When I have a hardware failure or a corrupt Windows install at work, I have a large flash drive that is partitioned off. I have one partition of 1.5GB which is the OS, and the remaining space is NTFS for storage. This makes it an excellent 1-2-combo because I can boot to it via USB, load the live OS, recover some data and toss it to the storage section of the same flash drive. Mighty handy.

Just a fun video regarding the topic we're on - YouTube - Is it Windows 7 or KDE 4?

Very strong points. That's the same reason why the U.S. military swears by Linux OSs. (Fire Direction Centers, the PCs are operated by Ubuntu, you go into a Tactical Operations Center on an Aircraft Carrier, it'll all be ubuntu, etc.)

Looking at Ubuntu, and feeling it out earlier today. I'm actually thinking of getting rid of VISTA all together in place for Ubuntu. and PCLos. I've been checking all the programs and data I already have, and quite frankly, all my software either has install versions for Linux, or an Open Source version of them. And all my files, can be easily transfered as well.

Personally, I have to wait until I have Windows 7 on. (going to the dark side, simply because my brother can load it onto 5 computers total, already done 3, so he can download to 2 more, and I'm next in line)

Doubt I'll use 7 once I got dual boot going on with Ubuntu.

and yes, I actually have heard quite extensively (mainly from the military community) on how windows 7 seems to have taken a LOT of features from Linux OSs.

YouTube - vistar7: Kubuntu like Windows 7

Do you like OSX?

YouTube - Ubuntu OS X

Ubuntu Leopard

YouTube - Ubuntu/Leopard Anyone?

 

[NoNameNY]

Personally I love my Mepis box (like Ubuntu-both are Debian based) and use it for everything excluding gaming. Its fast, requires less resources, and is by far more stable. My gui has compiz installed with heavy effects (my son loves the cube effect) and the slickness theme. As far as programs, there are such a wide range of apps avail from synaptic its incredible. I have everything from pen testing/forensics software to auto cad type stuff and its all free which is great. Honestly I am glad I discovered linux, although I am known as quite the linux fan boy but I am proud of that. I only wish that more people would discover it. I think the problem with that is due to there being 2 distinct versions, fedora and debian, and no single unified force supporting it. I was hoping when Oracle started pushing its own version of fedora that they would start to invest heavily in advertising for it but it never happened

 

[ET/IT]

Personally I love my Mepis box (like Ubuntu-both are Debian based) and use it for everything excluding gaming. Its fast, requires less resources, and is by far more stable. My gui has compiz installed with heavy effects (my son loves the cube effect) and the slickness theme. As far as programs, there are such a wide range of apps avail from synaptic its incredible. I have everything from pen testing/forensics software to auto cad type stuff and its all free which is great. Honestly I am glad I discovered linux, although I am known as quite the linux fan boy but I am proud of that. I only wish that more people would discover it. I think the problem with that is due to there being 2 distinct versions, fedora and debian, and no single unified force supporting it. I was hoping when Oracle started pushing its own version of fedora that they would start to invest heavily in advertising for it but it never happened

I've been hearing so much about Synaptic. And in the military community, Linux is huge. Even computers used by Cryptologists are LINUX OSs. especially with MythUbuntu an add-on so to speak to Ubuntu, you can turn your entire platform into a full-on media center. With MythTV you can also create a DVR feature for your PC.

So all media from Music to movies, even recordings of TV shows in your own personally managed DVR (so you can use a basic box instead of TiVo, save money on the monthly bill). And still work Itunes etc.

Looking into it, the only thing Windows 7 is able to do, that Ubuntu, with a few add-ons can't do, is play video games.

 

[Jayce]

While I'm a huge fan of Linux, I think I'll in some way shape or form always dual boot. I'm a gamer at heart, and until all of my favorite games are ported and future games expected to release via Linux titles as well, I'll probably rely on dual booting. Plus, love it or hate it, Windows is out there and it's handy to have both platforms just in case. However, I can count on 1 hand with 0 fingers how many times I *needed* to go to Vista for a Windows app to accomplish a task in the five years I've ran XP/Ubuntu and Vista/Ubuntu in dual boot on my rig (excluding gaming of course). But like I said, I'd even be up for triple booting OSX if they would let me. Grr...

There's also XBMC, which originated on the Linux platform but eventually floated to Mac and Windows too. I ran a box for a while with Ubuntu set up with auto login and XBMC set up with auto launch, so when you fired up the box you were greeted with XBMC, which from what I understand is similar to MythTV - tho I have not used MythTV so I can't comment, but it sounds similar.

The software center/synaptic is what's really cool about Linux. It's a little hard to understand at first despite its simplicity. I just had a hard time understanding I could install 26,000 packages by saying "Ubuntu. Go!" versus having to go to Google and search around and ah okay this site has it download it, k run it now, etc. So much easier and more logical once you get the hang of it, if you ask me.

It's kind of interesting because at work when I started, we didn't touch open source software or anything Linux related. Now we have two Ubuntu servers and two tech's (me being one) who runs Ubuntu full time, with a third tech who dabbles in Ubuntu as well. We use FOG for imaging our entire fleet of computers (well above 1500 systems, lost track of the exact number) which is open source/linux based. We also utilize Open Office and it's beginning to kick out the need for MS Office. There's also another program we use that does all of the library catalogging of books, which by far has been the biggest savings the district has seen.

I'm a true believer of the saying you get what you pay for. Take another hobby of mine for example - mountain biking. If you get a bike at kmart, I would probably break it within 10 minutes on the trail. However that 1,300 dollar bike at the bike shop is a totally different story. I can say this from a factual standpoint because it actually happened, and that 1,300 bike is still kicking today with no issues. But I cannot put into words how untrue that is when it comes to open source software. I find a lot of the time the OSS I come across, despite being free, is actually better than paid rival software. Everybody is entitled to their opinion and your mileage may vary, but that's my 2 cents on the subject.

However, I will definitely say a serious downside to Linux is how many forks of *everything* there is. RPM vs Deb. Really? Do we need two? And what's difficult is you have RPM by Red Hat who is the top dog right now for enterprise Linux. Yet every serious Linux user I talk to who's into compiling and whatever else swears that RPM is a major headache versus Deb. Likewise, Debian (if I recall) has tons more packages in their repos than RPM distros do. So it makes you wonder... But anyway, while individuality breeds progression and innovation, it can work against you when it comes to those out there who want to see Linux as the top dog OS. It's hard enough to explain to some computer users the difference between a .zip and .exe. Can you just imagine explaining RPM vs Deb? I guess at the very least I could just say okay Uncle Marty, any time you want to download something that isn't in the software center/synaptic's repository, just download the .deb of skype (or whatever) you're trying to download. K Uncle Marty?

 

[ET/IT]

I totally understand. Windows 7 doesn't even come close to the potential Linux has. I think it's actually better than Linux is open source vs Windows 7, because Linux software from what I'm hearing, the engineers cover as much ground as humanly possible on it. Personally, I would like to figure out if it would be possible to triple boot, with Ubuntu, RPM, and VISTA. That would be pretty cool to know. <br><br>

Windows 7, what it coems with, is what it comes with. VS Ubuntu, and other Linux OSs, where everything it doesn't have, you can just download. Youd on't have to waste memory for completely useless programs you'll never use for the rest of your life. Vs Ubuntu, if you need it, download it. If you don't need it, youd on't have to waste memory on your computer. <br><br>

I'm strongly familiar with XP, VISTA, and 7, I even have MS Certifications for the Command Lines and User Interfaces. I'm strongly aware of what 7 has, what VISTA has, and what XP has. It's virtually a joke, considering the only real upgrades they do, is throw in software no one will use, and play with the GUI, of which, Windows 7 GUI, can be put into XP. (if you know what you're doing, of course). That's how people think 7 is "better" because of the advertisements, and the "futuristic look" which anyone proficient in Micromedia, Dream Weaver, etc. can reproduce in less than 30 mins to an hour.<br><br>

And, best of all, Linux, it's all free, it's stable. (from what I'm hearing from my neighbor, he's had issues with Windows 7 off the walls, because of his line of work, he pushes the OSs to their very limits, even has had to set parameters and input new coding to expand the capbilities of his 64 Bit 7. And it's still not enough, Once he switched ot Ubuntu in March, he's never had one issue at all. Just had to learn the differences between the command lines, and not a single issue. He still has a LAPTOP with Windows 7, but as far as his job goes, he can't touch it without crashing it. Because Windows 7 isn't designed to handle the work load on a minute to minute basis he has to work with. between three external hard drives (1TB each), 4 additional external Optical Drives, five routers, fourteen switches, (all CISCO) multiple HUBs, and overseeing 58 different computers at his work, Windows 7 can't handle it. Not at all. He plugs his actual desktop in at work with Ubuntu, with everything else connected and running, not a single flaw. He can process, download, and distribute different programs, movies, tutorials etc. across his work, and not a single issue comes of it. Only because he has Ubuntu instead of Windows 7. To expand his busineeses network abilities, he got the ok from his Boss to reconfig all of the computers into Ubuntu, same set up etc. as his tower he uses, minus the external hard drives, 12 GBs out of 16 of DDR3, and all of the routers/hubs etc. going through it as the administrator)

<br><br> And thinking of it, I'll probably keep the Dual Boot, just for the video games. But Ubuntu, coming the end of this quarter, I'm running it. I'm so tired of windows, the BS errors, the lack of device detection (this is common in 7 as well) inability to recognize Command Prompt (having to rephrase the same commands even if the last rephrase worked ten seconds ago) As a "look pretty" OS, Windows OSs have it, but as an actual working machine, Windows sucks. (as a user of Windows OSs for the past 12 years, I have the right to say that)

 

[Jayce]

Hahahah, yeah. I mean, there's something for everybody I suppose. I know people who swear by Macs and nothing else. Then you have me who downright hates Apple and everything they stand for. Likewise I know people who run Microsoft software exclusively. If that works for you, hey.. who's stopping ya. But there are a good chunk of users who are discovering Linux and switching to it for XYZ reasons that Microsoft cannot fill. I jumped ship. That doesn't mean Microsoft is bad. It just means I did better elsewhere. But at the end of the day, an OS is a tool... just gotta pick the right tool. For me it just so happens I picked the swiss army knife of tools that seems to handle anything I need.

 

[ET/IT]

Hahahah, yeah. I mean, there's something for everybody I suppose. I know people who swear by Macs and nothing else. Then you have me who downright hates Apple and everything they stand for. Likewise I know people who run Microsoft software exclusively. If that works for you, hey.. who's stopping ya. But there are a good chunk of users who are discovering Linux and switching to it for XYZ reasons that Microsoft cannot fill. I jumped ship. That doesn't mean Microsoft is bad. It just means I did better elsewhere. But at the end of the day, an OS is a tool... just gotta pick the right tool. For me it just so happens I picked the swiss army knife of tools that seems to handle anything I need.

I absolutely agree.

Quite frankly, Microsoft software (ultimate edition of Microsoft Office is running for $500, are you friggen kidding me? vs Open Office which is FREE) charges out the backside. And typically, there is ALWAYS issues with it.

Even Microsoft OSs can't recognize half the programs.

 

[NoNameNY]

I also have a hate for Apple, and its not because they have bad products, quite the contrary actually. My dislike for Apple comes from its user base. Granted all technology has its "fan boy" segment and I am one of linux but Apple's fans are just something else--elitist, etc. But I digress

Linux runs rings around Windows, its awesome how much better it runs on less resources. Yes, it doesnt play games well but other than that it is solid and better in every way. Unfortunately I have to dual boot for gaming seeing that I do not like consoles, but thats the only time I run Windows (well aside form work).

Open Office is excellent, I do hope now that Oracle owns it that they will invest a little more and create a nicer GUI for it and more in line with M$ Office. Also if you like Outlook check out SpiceBird for a mail client

 

[Jayce]

I absolutely agree.

Quite frankly, Microsoft software (ultimate edition of Microsoft Office is running for $500, are you friggen kidding me? vs Open Office which is FREE) charges out the backside. And typically, there is ALWAYS issues with it.

Even Microsoft OSs can't recognize half the programs.

Microsoft Office has been losing ground for a long time, and it will continue to lose ground as people are realizing they can A - use Google Docs, or B - use Open Office. And while Microsoft is so incredibly rich that it won't matter that much, the reality is Office is one of their two big money makers, so it's still a downer for them. Those two alternative choices are perfect because you have one that is completely web-based which is convenient, but not the answer to all situations - then you have Open Office which can accommodate those other users nicely. I for one use Google Docs as a means of sharing docs to people, but not as my main source of office processing - Open Office handles all of those tasks quite nicely. I'm also hearing that Microsoft is pushing out a web based Office, similar to Google Docs, but I really think it's a bit too late to make a big impression on the market. Every single school district I know already had Google Docs heavily integrated into their network. We rely on it heavily, and also have Open Office installed on the systems at work, which the district loves since we save money, yet we're still productive and the students still have easy to use ways to get their work done.

I really think the unfortunate reality of the bad economy helped open the eyes to a lot of people about the alternative software that is existent and around us. Even with severe educational discounts we get, things stack up VERY quickly when you're dealing with 100 computers, 500 computers, 1,000 computers, etc. And yeah I tip the hat to Microsoft for the discounts we're offered, but that doesn't disconnect us from the reality of overall cost.

 

[ET/IT]

Microsoft Office has been losing ground for a long time, and it will continue to lose ground as people are realizing they can A - use Google Docs, or B - use Open Office. And while Microsoft is so incredibly rich that it won't matter that much, the reality is Office is one of their two big money makers, so it's still a downer for them. Those two alternative choices are perfect because you have one that is completely web-based which is convenient, but not the answer to all situations - then you have Open Office which can accommodate those other users nicely. I for one use Google Docs as a means of sharing docs to people, but not as my main source of office processing - Open Office handles all of those tasks quite nicely. I'm also hearing that Microsoft is pushing out a web based Office, similar to Google Docs, but I really think it's a bit too late to make a big impression on the market. Every single school district I know already had Google Docs heavily integrated into their network. We rely on it heavily, and also have Open Office installed on the systems at work, which the district loves since we save money, yet we're still productive and the students still have easy to use ways to get their work done.

I really think the unfortunate reality of the bad economy helped open the eyes to a lot of people about the alternative software that is existent and around us. Even with severe educational discounts we get, things stack up VERY quickly when you're dealing with 100 computers, 500 computers, 1,000 computers, etc. And yeah I tip the hat to Microsoft for the discounts we're offered, but that doesn't disconnect us from the reality of overall cost.

Honestly, you two are probably the most sound of mind individuals aside from Mak I've seen on this board.

Microsoft, overtime, my family alone has put in hundreds, if not thousands of dollars in Microsofts pocket. All for software that really, has better equivalents at cheaper prices.

I wish my school during my time in HS would have converted to Linux, and the Open Source Software they can have.

Aside from the IPod, Apple products so far from what I've seen, aren't that all reliable.

MAC, at school, I had a couple MAC "elitists" but I found it funny, when they told me the specs of their "Brand new MACs" their father bought for $1700. All because it had the latest Apple OS. and the logo on the case.

Internal hardware, when I ran up how much it would cost to by the EXACT hardware from a computer store, I came out at $650. I laughed, hard.