What are your thoughts on Linux?

lech

comforteagle, at the moment, I don't really run either. But I guess you could say I'm technically running both since XFCE takes advantage of both camps :) However, I can mostly only run gnome-centric applications.

aloicious

oh yeah, cygwin is teh cool

corwin

Anyone seen Novell's Xgl yet?
I think it looks bloody awesome.
Let's face it: running X server with a window manager on top and rich graphics on the screen in *software* is slow as hell.

But now the hardware accelerated desktop is here, I might as well give Novell
a big hug for this.

check: http://www.novell.com/linux/xglrelease/
And there are some really nice movies to be found on the internet too.
If you haven't seen it: GO SEE IT.
It's very nice.

Anyway I use Novell Suse.

Kosmo

Very Mac OS X like.

Kosmo

On the KDE 4 Win matter, some KDE developers are just straight out asses, in my eyes, not true Open Source developers. They bitch and whine that if they port KDE to Winnie, that it would lessen the need for people to go from Winnie to Linux. Open Source developers shouldn't have so narrow views, they are program developers and should not be platform dependant, they develop programs that people love, poop the OS war, programs is the key, and if they have a supreme program they should provide it to as many people as possible, by porting it to other platforms. Personally I'm just discusted by some of their comments. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/0,39020330,39187111,00.htm

lech

I bet what they don't realize is, that while KDE under windows is a nice idea, most of those windows users have absolutely no idea how to even pull up a command prompt. Let alone be able to install and manage any linux box on their own. This is where the line is heavily blurred on the linux vx windows debate. Given the fact that there are a number of damn simple nix distro's out there that install/update/manage themselves, they're not always the easiest to figure out as they really pile on the frosting to a point where you're burried in apps. And half the time, some of those applications shipped with the distro are either impossible to set up after 'installed' or just don't work as expected. Personally, while I'm not a huge fan of KDE, some of their applications are quite worth having and I would rather have those alone without the need for the actual desktop software. Not that it would be easy to do let alone possible, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Kosmo

And to worry that some desktop application is going to keep people from swithing to Linux, quite arrogant way of thinking, I mean, don't they understand how big part of it is the fact that 90% professional software is just for Winnie/Mac. One KDE isn't going to change anything.

DigitaLink

The way I see it, porting KDE to Windows isn't a Windows vs Linux thing. Let's face it, Joe Schmoe isn't going to pull his explorer shell and replace the Windows GUI with KDE's. What makes this worthwhile is the ability for those of us who use and love KDE on linux to take it with us when we have to use a Windows machine. I know I'd quickly drop KDE on my XP machine at work if I could. This is going to MOSTLY cater to the folks who are running something like Blackbox or any of the dozen other alternate Windows shells ... and maybe to those who like to use things like WindowBlinds and WindowsFX to heavily alter the way Windows looks and works. More than giving people a reason NOT to switch to linux, I think KDE on windows will show more people just how GOOD the linux world is.

lech

Or how rediculously confusing it can be... :)

Kosmo

I would like to ask a question about Linux distros. I use Fedora Core 3 at work, and that is because I heard it's good for server purposes. BUT, since I'm no Linux man, I know nothing about distros and what they offer, so I need to get a new distro that is easy to use (Ubuntu and Kubuntu comes to mind first) but it's going to be a development platform for my RoR poop and a test platform for new features that should be accessible from over LAN. It would rock if it had MySQL and LightHTTPd/Apache in the distro so that I don't have to use a day to configure the box. FastCGI shouldn't be so hard to conf. Also some Shell access and such should be nice too. So what distro is good for meow?

Minisweeper

I'm no linux expert but i think you'd struggle to find a linux distro which included a web server setup by default. That said, i've run a debian server in the past and for a very basic apache setup (w/ mysql and php) it's really nothing more than a couple of commands. You'll become great friends with 'apt-get' very quickly, especially if security isnt a massive issue (if it's *just* on the LAN). Even making it reasonably secure is hardly a day job. I'm also under the impression that ubuntu is very strongly based on debian (or the same thing? i'm not sure, i'm still waiting for my live cd) in which case it sounds like the best shot. Then again anyone else who's run a different flavour of linux will probably argue their field considerably better. I'm sure it all really comes down to what you're familiar with.

lech

The only distro which I've encountered so far which offers apache as an option is redhat. Altho, even if it comes standard with the setup, there's still some configurations to do so having it "easy" is never as implied. Personally, I'd ditch it all for a core setup like gentoo or anything similar where you're forced to instance each and every service yourself, it gives you a better idea of what you have and what you're running. That and it kills the need to have rediculously useless gui's that come standard but never work because they can't write to whatever file they need to.

Kosmo

Funny Fedora came with Apache /w PHP and MySQL, It even had LightHTTPd as an option :P So I guess that it IS true, FC is the best distro for a web server runner.

giginger

When I have Ubuntu a whirl it came with the option to have Apache etc all setup for you.

I'm still on XP though so read what you want from that

lech

Well, Kosmo, Fedora is technically Redhat...

Kosmo

I know that, but Fedora Core 3 has had alot of development after the Fedora project started, so I don't think it as a Red Hat anymore.

DigitaLink

I have Apache/PHP/mySQL/Ruby/insert a server tech here running fine on PCLinuxOS. Worked fine on Mepis too - which is Debian based with a user-friendly installer and much configured out of the box. PCLOS is RPM-based (a Mandrake/Mandriva fork), Mepis is currently based on the Debian core, but Warren is talking about moving to the Ubuntu core for sanity sake. Too much instabiliity in Etch or some such nonsense. Never tried FC, but I believe they're at FC5 now ... 3's pretty old. Truth is, ANY linux distro will put together a web server environment in a few clicks these days. It comes down to what kind of install/setup process you want to live with. Mepis and PCLOS both use Synaptic to handle software installs/upgrades/removals. The difference is apt vs apt-rpm on the backend, and different repos of course. There is no BEST distro for a web server, but most would agree for STRICTLY a server (not a dual-purpose desktop/server system), Debian pure is probably the way to go.

jsanders

kosmo: regarding the shell... it's not perfect or complete, but makes me a lot happer:
unxutils, native w32 releases of common unix utilities.

Kosmo

I tried the Ubuntu yesterday and I was bit confused by it, I have only once tried Debian like 10years ago, so I didn't know what to do so I'm back to the Red Hat environment with Fedora Core 4 (didn't want to use the FC5 test3). I bet installing programs from rpm packets make more sense to me than the Debian apt-get :|

Gerard McGarry

I've been playing with Kubuntu lately. It seems like a great end-user OS, particularly with built in Konqueror and OpenOffice. I had to hack the installation to allow root logins and configure the network gateway (one of the bugs), but stable, fast and usable. I'm more of a fan of KDE than Gnome and not totally comfortable with a pure command-line interface.....yet!