# yet another Linux question



## jefferson (Nov 11, 2004)

I have followed other threads here on Linux. Even tried a few versions; but still not using it...... Why?....'cause I am dumb"!!! I can barely muddle through using my XP, but the pretty pictures help. Is there a version of Linux that I can slip in a cd, install, and run, looking like windows? I have scanners, printers, external usb drives, cameras, etc. I would really like to keep using them, but am to dumb go through the process of learning a whole new way to work the computer. Most of all, I want to surf the net using the equipment I now have, ie modem. Come on experts, I know there are lots of versions that are good, but which is the easiest for dummies?


----------



## pixelphotograph (Apr 8, 2007)

look for "LIVE" distros or LIVE versions.
These run off of a cd and dont install anything on your hard drive. This is good for testing out versions to play with and if you decide you like one of these versions then you can install it on the harddrive many times.
check out distrowatch.com


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

First thing is do a google on your hardware and see if its supported under linux. A lot of it is, but a lot of it isnt. Printer support is pretty good with modern CUPS system, but some printers work better. Combination printer,scanner,etc can be real headache. Scanners are hit and miss. Many usb and scsi scanners are supported. Old parallel port scanners generally arent. I have an old Visioneer scanner that only works under win95 and win98, and nothing else!!!!! it isnt even supported by XP let alone linux. Dialup modems are mostly software modems. Many are now supported by linux if you track down the drivers. Many arent. USB card readers, external hardrives, etc can usually be made to work with linux. They may or may not work out of box. There is some camera software, but I just use a usb card reader. Pop card out of my camera, pop it into cardreader, mount the cardreader and voila there are my pictures. I'd do this even if I used windows as much of camera software is bloated and pain in rear. There are some old cameras without removable card but they are the old and cheapo ones. I'd be surprised if there were XP software for them either.

Probably Ubuntu is most newbie friendly or maybe PClinuxOS or ??? Puppy is pretty friendly but since it can be installed or run in so many different ways, the install part of it confuses many newbies. Maybe a case of too many choices when people arent expecting any choices. It can be run from cd/dvd or flash or zip or compressed or uncompressed on hardrive. It can have its own partition or share a windows partition. But there are lots of explanations on Puppy forum website or Puppy Wikki. I personally still prefer a full uncompressed hardrive install on separate partition with a swap partition also. But thats just me, it works fine the other ways also. Puppy is also intentionally small and doesnt come with every possible driver and linux software out there. For example if you did want to use a scanner, after making sure your scanner is supported under linux, you would install the SANE and XSANE Puppy dotpet packages. Then some have suggested a third program literally called "INSANE". Its not absolutely necessary, but some have suggested it helps a lot. And some have said these have to be installed in correct order. Now Ubuntu and PClinux may have these programs already installed (I dont know), but you would then maybe have to tweak things a bit to get it all working. You see manufacturers tend not to provide linux drivers for their products (some do), mostly LINUX hardware drivers get written by interested individuals reverse engineering some piece of hardware and writing a driver for it. This is slowly changing. HP for instance tends to be very good about offering providing linux drivers for their printers. Epson for both their printers and scanners. When I buy any hardware anymore I dont trust anything written on the box, I do the google process of finding out if others have gotten it to work and work well on linux system before buying it. Do I have to track down and compile some esoteric driver somewhere or is it supported already in the linux kernel and thus most distributions. You get the idea. Just remember M$ doesnt write most of drivers that come with its operating system, they are written by the manufactures of the hardware. They want to sell their hardware they have to provide windows drivers since M$ has lions share of the market. Linux is only a major force in the server market and gaining in the buisiness desktop/workstation market. Thus manufacturers aiming at home computer user just ignore linux.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

jefferson said:


> I have followed other threads here on Linux. Even tried a few versions; but still not using it...... Why?....'cause I am dumb"!!! I can barely muddle through using my XP, but the pretty pictures help. Is there a version of Linux that I can slip in a cd, install, and run, looking like windows? I have scanners, printers, external usb drives, cameras, etc. I would really like to keep using them, but am to dumb go through the process of learning a whole new way to work the computer. Most of all, I want to surf the net using the equipment I now have, ie modem. Come on experts, I know there are lots of versions that are good, but which is the easiest for dummies?


Just curious, but if Linux is giving you this kind of grief why not just stay with XP?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

The real way to transition to linux is to have both operating systems on your computer. Have XP AND LINUX. And I suggest starting with one of the live cds so you dont even have to think about repartitioning. Knoppix and Puppy will definitely let you create a file to save setting, etc. Some of other live cds do, some dont. You can save to file on hardrive or to flash key or to a cdrw or even to a floppy. 

Get used to linux over time. Or you can take classes I suppose. But unless there is some urgent reason to become proficient in linux overnight, simply playing with it over time and gradually replacing any hardware not supported under linux is best way to go. 

As I mentioned, I still have an ancient scanner that isnt even supported under XP. I only use scanner once a year around tax time (its my cheap copy machine....) so for me it was just easier to keep a small partition with win98 used for nothing else but the scanner. There are couple free 3rd party programs to let windows see and mount and write to a linux partition, so win98 can write to my linux partition thus vastly reducing size of partition dedicated to win98. Now price of individual usb scanner (not combined with printer, etc) is dropping fast so I may eventually pay $15 for used scanner on ebay that will work with Puppy and I can just delete the win98 partition. Not a high priority though as the old Visioneer still works fine for what I need it to do.


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

If you have XP, stick with that - Linux will not offer any advantages over XP for the novice to intermediate home computer user, especially someone who already has XP. 




jefferson said:


> I have followed other threads here on Linux. Even tried a few versions; but still not using it...... Why?....'cause I am dumb"!!! I can barely muddle through using my XP, but the pretty pictures help. Is there a version of Linux that I can slip in a cd, install, and run, looking like windows? I have scanners, printers, external usb drives, cameras, etc. I would really like to keep using them, but am to dumb go through the process of learning a whole new way to work the computer. Most of all, I want to surf the net using the equipment I now have, ie modem. Come on experts, I know there are lots of versions that are good, but which is the easiest for dummies?


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

OntarioMan said:


> If you have XP, stick with that - Linux will not offer any advantages over XP for the novice to intermediate home computer user.


Try not having to download endless windows updates.

Try not having to run a virus protection program regularly and updating that virus program frequently. 

Try not having to run spyware detection programs and updating those spyware detection programs frequently.

Try not being forced into planned obsolesence of your operating system and being forced to either pay through nose for latest, greatest even more restrictive and expensive operating system. Or more likely it will require purchasing a new computer when you dont need a new computer. Face it, most people at home still mostly do some word processing, email, and surfing the web. Not much more unless maybe they watch dvds on their computer. You dont really need anything close to the computing power of modern computer and operating system to do these things. 

Try not having to beg M$ for permission to reinstall your operating system cause you replaced some piece of hardware or if your hardrive went out.

Yes except for these 'minor' little things certainly no reason in the world to change over to linux.


----------



## CJ (May 10, 2002)

Well, maybe the rest of that Hermit John, but Linux has as many darn patches as Windows does.


----------



## backwoodsman7 (Mar 22, 2007)

jefferson said:


> Is there a version of Linux that I can slip in a cd, install, and run, looking like windows? I have scanners, printers, external usb drives, cameras, etc. ... Most of all, I want to surf the net using the equipment I now have, ie modem. Come on experts, I know there are lots of versions that are good, but which is the easiest for dummies?


The one you want is PCLinuxOS ( http://www.pclinuxos.com ). Of the Linuxes I've looked at, it's by far the best at problem-free installation and correctly configuring your hardware by itself. (In fairness, I haven't looked at the last couple versions of Ubuntu.) PCLinuxOS is both a live CD, and installable from the same CD, so you can see how well it's going to work with your hardware before you install it.

The one problem you'll probably have with any Linux, is your modem. Most modems in recent years are winmodems, which aren't really a whole modem -- they offload part of their job to Windows. Many can be made to work with Linux, some more easily than others. If you're lucky, you have either a hardware modem, or a Lucent winmodem, which is easy to make work with Linux. Otherwise, the easy solution is to buy an external modem that's a real hardware modem (most serial modems are; most USB modems aren't). Good used serial modems can be had on Ebay for $10 or so.

If you want the easiest transition from Windows, you want to stay with the KDE graphical interface, and avoid Gnome. PCLinuxOS uses KDE.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

CJ said:


> Well, maybe the rest of that Hermit John, but Linux has as many darn patches as Windows does.


Funny, but my linux isnt continually downloading mandatory emergency updates to protect from the latest security leake de jour, maybe yours is? You didnt mention the distribution you are using??? Matter of fact I imagine you can procrastinate about downloading and installing new version of linux for considerable length of time if you are so inclined and not risk much of anything. Like it or not , but the malware, spyware, and nasty stuff is aimed at windows not linux. If you are on broadband you do really need to install or activate a firewall whatever operating system you use. Doesnt hurt anything to do so with dialup. There are like 5 linux worms out there and occasional tracking cookie. How many windows virus, worms, trojans, spyware, and who knows what else?? I've never experienced any of the worms and think they are mostly aimed at linux servers. And I set Opera to accept all new cookies and to dump them on shut down. If I was really paranoid about going online, I could run completely from cd and not let anything be saved. Even most ingenius writen malware cant write to a closed cdr. When rebooted it would be just as clean as it was without doing anything else.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

backwoodsman7 said:


> If you want the easiest transition from Windows, you want to stay with the KDE graphical interface, and avoid Gnome. PCLinuxOS uses KDE.


KDE and Gnome are big bloated desktops intended to have all bells and whistles and bloat that windows desktop does. The nice thing about linux is you have choice. Even if you install a KDE/Gnome distribution, you dont have to use KDE/Gnome, there are many, many windows managers and file managers out there that work just fine and tend to be much smaller and faster. Puppy comes with JWM (Joe's Window Manager) as default and ROX as file manager. JWM will appear much like win95 and win98 did so not going to look strange to windows users at all. It is very small and very fast. ROX simply is the best file manager ever far as I am concerned. Even when I occasionally install another linux distribution, I tend to immediately add ROX and make it the default file manager. Konqueror which is the default KDE file manager is slow and clumsy in comparison to ROX. Konqueror does make a decent web browser though if KDE is already installed. Otherwise adding all the KDE bloat just to get Konqueror isnt worth it. Course bloat matters much less if you have the latest greatest fastest computer out there. It does matter a lot if you are wanting to put linux on an older slower computer as many people seem to.


----------



## comfortablynumb (Nov 18, 2003)

PClinuxOS runs off a CD rom and loks alot like xp.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Try not having to download endless windows updates.


You forgot to mention that there are security patches for Linux that need to be applied regularly, just like with Windows. 



HermitJohn said:


> Try not having to run a virus protection program regularly and updating that virus program frequently.
> 
> Try not having to run spyware detection programs and updating those spyware detection programs frequently.


When as many people are using Linux as are using Windows today you will see the same virus and spyware problems as with Windows. The reason that there are less of those problems with Linux right now is that the installed base for Windows is much larger so vandals get more effect from targeting Windows, not because Linux is necessarily any more secure.



HermitJohn said:


> Try not being forced into planned obsolesence of your operating system


Maybe and maybe not. Upgrade compatibility will depend on the distribution. Linux is only the core of the operating system.



HermitJohn said:


> Try not having to beg M$ for permission to reinstall your operating system cause you replaced some piece of hardware or if your hardrive went out.


If the hardware problem you mention occurs with XP, boot the machine with the installation CD and select "Repair". It'll fix itself.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> KDE and Gnome are big bloated desktops intended to have all bells and whistles and bloat that windows desktop does.


That's for sure! I only use Linux for servers and always install with command-line. KDE & GNOME introduce a dimension of instability that is unacceptable for a commercial server environment. 

I do, however, use webmin to simplify server administration. Webmin provides an acceptable graphical interface to Linux servers with a low resource overhead.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> You forgot to mention that there are security patches for Linux that need to be applied regularly, just like with Windows.


Redhat commercial server software? I've yet to see any of smaller linux distributions set up to auto update kernel patches. And I dont use larger distributions so really dont know what exactly they are doing. And for what it matters, I could probably still use the linux 2.4 or even 2.2 kernel without slightest problem with security. There just arent lot people out there looking for some tiny percentage of linux desktop users that have an old distribution. Most linux desktop users just grab new version of their favorite distribution when it has something new they want. Or they need newer kernel to run latest version of some software. And as I mentioned if I was really paranoid over security, I would boot and run off live cd version of linux. There isnt much a virus or a hacker could do to that. You cant write to a closed fixated cdr. You cant, no virus can, and no hacker can. If you know better, then please enlighten me.





Nevada said:


> When as many people are using Linux as are using Windows today you will see the same virus and spyware problems as with Windows. The reason that there are less of those problems with Linux right now is that the installed base for Windows is much larger so vandals get more effect from targeting Windows, not because Linux is necessarily any more secure.


But there is the rub, Linux isnt anywhere close to being used as much for desktop as Windoze so the advantage is to Linux. So Linux is more secure BECAUSE it is less used and thus less of a target. When linux gets super popular and bored people with a grudge towards the world write huge number of viri for it, I'll just move to some other less used operating system. But right now lets see there are like 5 worms and no viri for linux. Sounds like a deal compared to windows. And there is indeed "virus protection" for linux available. Yep you guess it, it checks for those 5 worms that exist for linux.





Nevada said:


> Maybe and maybe not. Upgrade compatibility will depend on the distribution. Linux is only the core of the operating system.


The Linux kernel is the core of the operating system, just like the nt windows kernel is its core. So? Linux, unless you are using a commercial distribution, is free. Upgrade, just download the latest iso of your favorite distribution and burn to cd/dvd or pay somebody else couple bucks to do it. Upgrade windows and what is a new retail VISTA install, couple hundred dollars or more depending on what version???? Or alternatively several hundred dollars for a new computer with VISTA included? And its only usable on one computer and once installed cant be moved to another computer. The free linux distributions, well feel free to install it on as many computers as you want, knock yourself out.




Nevada said:


> If the hardware problem you mention occurs with XP, boot the machine with the installation CD and select "Repair". It'll fix itself.


And then if you say put in a new hardrive or motherboard, it will ask that you call M$ and plead your case! M$ will be glad to sell you a new license at a slight discount (how nice of them). Also most pcs dont come with a windows install cd. How exactly does the person boot into repair mode to fix anything if the installed partition isnt capable of booting? Anymore the only people with true install windows cds/dvds are those that paid through the nose for a retail copy. Of course you could download a pirated version off the internet but that isnt a legitamate method to aquire such is it?


----------



## backwoodsman7 (Mar 22, 2007)

Nevada said:


> That's for sure! I only use Linux for servers and always install with command-line. KDE & GNOME introduce a dimension of instability that is unacceptable for a commercial server environment.


For the benefit of those who may not know any different, it bears noting that most all the negative comments about Linux that I've seen on this forum, come from folks who aren't familiar with the current state of Linux, particularly as it relates to single users doing ordinary desktop tasks.

I don't run commercial servers; if I did, I expect I might tend toward doing it from a command line, for a number of reasons.

But I make my living using computers. I've run KDE for years, and found both it and Linux to be rock solid stable, much more so than any version of Windows I've ever run. I'm sure there was a time in KDE's early days when it was less stable than it is now, but that time predates my experience with it.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

backwoodsman7 said:


> For the benefit of those who may not know any different, it bears noting that most all the negative comments about Linux that I've seen on this forum, come from folks who aren't familiar with the current state of Linux, particularly as it relates to single users doing ordinary desktop tasks.
> 
> I don't run commercial servers; if I did, I expect I might tend toward doing it from a command line, for a number of reasons.
> 
> But I make my living using computers. I've run KDE for years, and found both it and Linux to be rock solid stable, much more so than any version of Windows I've ever run. I'm sure there was a time in KDE's early days when it was less stable than it is now, but that time predates my experience with it.


I've never noticed KDE or Gnome being unstable, but they are just as slow as modern M$windows to boot to actual desktop. Compare any distribution you care to name booted with KDE or Gnome against same distribution booted with any other light weight window manager. 

Some live cd distributions can be booted with choice of windows manager all from same cd by using the appropriate cheat key when first booting. Knoppix for instance. Try it with KDE and try it with Black Box window manager. Then tell me there is no difference. Puppy can boot to desktop in less than 30seconds on an old computer and as I mentioned it uses the very light JWM window manager. I have tried it with other light weight window managers such FVWM95 and ICE, really not much difference. You are going to have to have a very fast and powerful computer to come anywhere close to that with any distribution running KDE or GNome. There is a KDE package for Puppy but I've never bothered as its huge, just the KDE package is far bigger than the complete standard release of Puppy in its entirety. I recently booted Ubuntu "Feisty Fawn" as live cd. It uses Gnome. I thought it was never going to finish booting. Must have taken 5+ minutes (seemed like half hour as it hid what it was doing and just showed this little blob going back and forth across the screen) and my computer isnt horribly old. To be fair its always going to take longer to boot a live cd than booting from a hardrive install, but still that kind of long boot time would drive me crazy.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> Redhat commercial server software? I've yet to see any of smaller linux distributions set up to auto update kernel patches.


Redhat Fedora uses the update utility "yum", which not only updates the Linux kernel but also any packages that have updates available. It also locates, downloads, and installs packages while maintaining the proper dependencies on other installed components (Google for the 'yum install' operation to learn more).

If your Linux distro doesn't have security updates I think you're taking a chance. Security updates for Fedora come at least as often as Windows updates. 



HermitJohn said:


> And then if you say put in a new hardrive or motherboard, it will ask that you call M$ and plead your case! M$ will be glad to sell you a new license at a slight discount (how nice of them). Also most pcs dont come with a windows install cd. How exactly does the person boot into repair mode to fix anything if the installed partition isnt capable of booting? Anymore the only people with true install windows cds/dvds are those that paid through the nose for a retail copy. Of course you could download a pirated version off the internet but that isnt a legitamate method to aquire such is it?


Yes, they ask you to contact them, but the Repair operation works fine. If you don't have the install media I don't believe that using a friend's CD, or even a pirated CD for that matter, would violate their license agreement as long as you're a licensed Windows user. After all, you aren't reinstalling, you're only doing a repair.

As for booting, you can boot directly from the install CD regardless of the state of the Windows installation on your hard drive.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Nevada said:


> Redhat Fedora uses the update utility "yum", which not only updates the Linux kernel but also any packages that have updates available. It also locates, downloads, and installs packages while maintaining the proper dependencies on other installed components (Google for the 'yum install' operation to learn more).
> 
> If your Linux distro doesn't have security updates I think you're taking a chance. Security updates for Fedora come at least as often as Windows updates.


First exactly how many desktop linux computers have been compromised to hackers? There is always a risk to everything in life, I just think the risk of a linux desktop seriously getting attacked by some hacker is near nil at least at present. Lot more linux servers so more danger there, but how often are even linux servers seriously compromised? Seriously, I've never run a server so I have no idea.

Gosh I havent used an rpm based distribution since old Mandrake several years ago. I didnt know YUM does auto updates. And yes the debian based distributions usually come with some automated package manager update using apt-get. I am sure they can be set to auto check for package updates. I've done it manually.

The trouble with these auto updates of installed packages and probably kernel patches too though dont think apt-get doest that, is they can get you into autoupdate hell as they tend to break things or else they can require huge updates of library files to support the new versions of various packages. Which in turn can break other packages.

If like you, one is using a paid for commercial distribution, then I am sure all this is better coordinated for that particular distribution to avoid such problems. Few people running a linux desktop use a paid for commercial distribution. Few want the super bloat that the big distributions come with. The fact that linux distributions are not standardized means they are even that harder to attack. Look how windows is generally attacked, its through IE and OE and other very standardized and used parts of windoze. Just changing to different browser/emailclient and turning off directX will cut vulnerability of windows significantly. Dont surf as administrator and add a firewall and its cut even more. So with linux what is going to get attacked, KDE and Firefox with Konqueror as file manager?? So what about the linux user with Opera and using Blackbox or ICE or one of the other several dozen window managers and ROX or UXplor file manager. Gotta love lotsa choice. Just there is no standard linux, suppose KDE comes closest to being a standard desktop and Firefox comes closest as being the standard browser of choice in linux.

You also keep ignoring my statement that if one runs from a live cd, its impossible for anything to modify that cd. Lets see, the evil hacker has to get by the firewall, then has to get access and make any changes through a limited user account, then somehow has to make changes to a fixated cd, maybe on a computer with just a plain cdrom drive and no burner capability. Seems quite a task. I am still waiting for you to tell me how this could be accomplished. You have to remember running desktop linux is different than running server as I can run a linux desktop from a computer with no hardrive at all. And there are lots of unique options in the smaller distributions not available to Redhat and the biggies.





Nevada said:


> Yes, they ask you to contact them, but the Repair operation works fine. If you don't have the install media I don't believe that using a friend's CD, or even a pirated CD for that matter, would violate their license agreement as long as you're a licensed Windows user. After all, you aren't reinstalling, you're only doing a repair.
> 
> As for booting, you can boot directly from the install CD regardless of the state of the Windows installation on your hard drive.


OOOoooo, show me in M$ support where it suggests using a pirated "install cd" to get access to the repair console! And since there are very few actual install cds out there (only officially available retail), going to be rare for friends to have one either since most people seem to buy computers with windows installed and no install cd. Where is Kung and his M$ friend, this would be a great question to get an official M$ answer to. How do you run repair console without an install cd? If M$ officially says to download a pirate iso or to borrow a cd from a friend then I would be totally amazed. I suspect they would suggest sending your computer back to the manufacturer for repair or at least to buy an exact duplicate of original hardrive or motherboard and using an official restore cd purchased from the manufacturer. 

Oh by the way M$ doesnt just suggest you contact them, they demand it or the install of XP disables itself in like 30 days? (Know its something like that but too long ago for me to remember) There are of course workarounds but thats against the M$ terms of use. Must'nt steal food out of the mouths of Bill Gates's children...... Must be a compliant little consumer and not try to think for yourself. Just open your wallet and be happy. Dont worry, be happy.....


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Hmm, didnt know this, but you still need to have an XP install cd: 

Installing the Recovery Console

You can install the Recovery Console on your computer to make it available in case you are unable to restart Windows. You can then select the Recovery Console option from the list of available operating systems on startup. It is wise to install the Recovery Console on important servers, and on the workstations of IT personnel. This article describes how you can install the Recovery Console to your Windows XP computer. To install the Recovery Console, you must have administrative rights on the computer.

Although you can run the Recovery console by booting directly from the Windows XP CD, it's much more convenient to set it up as a startup option on your boot menu. To run directly by booting from the CD see the "Using the Recovery Console" section later in this article.

To install the Recovery Console, perform the following steps: 

Insert the Windows XP CD into the CD-ROM drive.

Click Start, and then click Run.

In the Open box, type 

d:\i386\winnt32.exe /cmdcons 

where d is the drive letter for the CD-ROM drive.

A Windows Setup Dialog Box appears, which describes the Recovery Console option.

The system prompts you to confirm installation. Click Yes to start the installation procedure.

Restart the computer. The next time you start your computer, you will see a "Microsoft Windows Recovery Console" entry on the boot menu.

Note: Alternatively, you can use a UNC to install the Recovery Console from a network share point.


----------



## OntarioMan (Feb 11, 2007)

Slice it, dice it, spin it anyway you like - Linux is not the desktop operating system for a novice computer user - which is what the original poster is. A novice would be far better served by Windows - and even a Mac would be a far better choice than Linux

I use linux and have for many years - I like linux, and although it certainly has some advantages in certain situations - it has some severe disadvantages as a desktop - mainly that it is not Windows - which is what 95% of the desktop software out there is for.

Of all the folks that use Linux, I'd bet that the majority of them use it as a server and not as a desktop - as it has far more advantages as a server than it does as a desktop.

If Linux was such a great desktop - it would be used by far more people as such.


----------



## Mechanic Intern (Jun 10, 2007)

Now see here, you roudy youngster, :nono: LINUX is a perfectly fine OS for a beginner. I myself am new to LINUX, and that don't stop me from using it to it's fullest potential. (which is quite high) As long as this kid uses a serial modem and a lightweight LINUX distro using KDE, he'll be fine. I prefer GNOME, as apps launch faster on it.



OntarioMan said:


> Slice it, dice it, spin it anyway you like - Linux is not the desktop operating system for a novice computer user - which is what the original poster is. A novice would be far better served by Windows - and even a Mac would be a far better choice than Linux
> 
> I use linux and have for many years - I like linux, and although it certainly has some advantages in certain situations - it has some severe disadvantages as a desktop - mainly that it is not Windows - which is what 95% of the desktop software out there is for.
> 
> ...


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Mechanic Intern said:


> Now see here, you roudy youngster, :nono: LINUX is a perfectly fine OS for a beginner. I myself am new to LINUX, and that don't stop me from using it to it's fullest potential. (which is quite high) As long as this kid uses a serial modem and a lightweight LINUX distro using KDE, he'll be fine. I prefer GNOME, as apps launch faster on it.



Yep, linux is fine for a beginner, probably better that way as they havent been corrupted by getting used to windoze way of doing things. 

For most things there are equivalent linux software to windows software. Open Office vs M$ Office, Gimp vs Photoshop, etc. Latest commercial games are the exception. Some can be used via WINE or couple commercial emulators built upon WINE. Big headache is windows programs are starting to heavily use directX which is proprietary M$. 

KDE and Gnome are both slow. The only reason to have either installed is some software developed for them that is difficult to run independently. Case in point, K3B is burner front end for KDE desktop. It was designed to require lot of KDE specific libraries and be integrated into KDE desktop environment. But it is the BEST linux burner software by far. One of Puppy Linux users managed to make it work independently without installing full KDE desktop, but it still requires many KDE libraries be installed. Being very unhappy with other linux cd/dvd burner guis, I installed it. Starts quickly and works great. Still way bloated cause it was designed around lot large KDE libraries that it actually didnt need. Being open source, it could be rewritten using smaller nonKDE libraries. But it takes somebody who knows how and who wants to do so as a hobbie since no financial reward.

For somebody who wants a direct comparison, get 

Ubuntu live cd = Gnome desktop
Kubuntu live cd = KDE desktop
Xubuntu live cd = Xfce desktop environment

Unless you have very fast computer, you will find Xubuntu boots to desktop much faster of the three though otherwise very simular. Then boot standard Puppy with JWM window manager and ROX file manager. Its even faster....


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

HermitJohn said:


> First exactly how many desktop linux computers have been compromised to hackers?


I wouldn't know about a desktop, but a Linux server installation without updates is likely to last no more than a few days without being rooted. Hackers are knocking at your door 24/7.



HermitJohn said:


> If like you, one is using a paid for commercial distribution, then I am sure all this is better coordinated for that particular distribution to avoid such problems.


Redhat Fedora isn't a paid commercial distro, it's free. I find Fedora to be totally satisfactory for a commercial server environment.



HermitJohn said:


> OOOoooo, show me in M$ support where it suggests using a pirated "install cd" to get access to the repair console!


That will never happen.



HermitJohn said:


> Just open your wallet and be happy.


That will never happen either.


----------



## HermitJohn (May 10, 2002)

Unless its changed again, Fedora is the free version of Redhat. Redhat is a commercial product. They are very picky about the use of the name Redhat.


----------

