Why convert to LINUX

[EdfromCocoa]

Interested in obtaining experiences with LINUX (Red Hat) installation as why to convert.
Using XP Pro (Toshiba Laptop) and Win 2K Pro on desktop. I was thinking about buying a $400-$500 PC, loading LINUX, and using it as a server as an option. However, I need to find out what other applications I can use LINUX for.

Reason: IBM has invested millions in pushing the open sourced LINUX, especially with a slick TV comemcrial with a 9 year old boy (LINUX is 9 years old) who gets experience with LINUX across the world. The implication is that closed source systems like Microdoft are going the way of the 8-Tack and Beta. IBM seems to be on to something. Even the White House (www.whitehouse.gov) uses Linux as its Web server.

Thanks,

Ed
guardfish@cox.net

 

[Nothinman]

The only thing really lacking in Linux is games, but since it's free what's stopping you from installing it and finding out first hand?

 

[Fuzznuts]

what reasons do you need?

for server applications it does everything microsoft does only it does it faster, more secure, more stable and above all free!!!.

Just get stuck in

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: EdfromDC
Reason: IBM has invested millions in pushing the open sourced LINUX, especially with a slick TV comemcrial with a 9 year old boy (LINUX is 9 years old) who gets experience with LINUX across the world. The implication is that closed source systems like Microdoft are going the way of the 8-Tack and Beta. IBM seems to be on to something. Even the White House (www.whitehouse.gov) uses Linux as its Web server.

Although a bit more difficult to use, Linux makes an oustanding server. But PLEASE don't fall for that crap from IBM. They are still bitter about Microsoft selling an OS to their competitors and would like nothing more than to get back to the 70's when they owned the computer world. Keep in mind that everything IBM touches turns to crap whether it is good technology or not...Microchannel, Tokenring, PCDOS, OS/2 etc. Trust me, somehow IBM will manage to make something totally free into something expensive. Use Linux and enjoy, but don't write off Microsoft or you'll end up serving me fries at the drive through.

 

[Wik]

It is hard to not want to run linux when you can get all the software you need for free.

 

[EdfromCocoa]

Guys,

Thanks for your responses. You have convinced me. I will let you know when I do the install and what problems I encountered.

Again, thanks for all of your rapid responses.

Ed

 

[boran]

expect lots of problems, but all have a solution (in the extrame case u rewrite the Os, hey it's open source )

right now I'm struggeling trough a redhat install on VMware, it's very difficult, because nothing has the tendency to work as it's documented, so be prepared to find a good forum with lotsa ppls that can help u (guess what you're on one )

anyways, good luck with it.

 

[stephbu]

Try out a couple of different flavours too - some installations go better than others. VMWare or Virtual PC is a great way to experiment without trashing anything.

IBM are as commited to open source as they are about making the DB2 source open. Don't make the mistake of assuming open source == free for all. Most commercial-grade distros/applications carry commercial-use licence constraints. IBM, Oracle, Sun et. al. smell a gimick that will help lure some marketshare away from Microsoft. They all want a share of the action - doesn't matter whose meal ticket they ride on to get it either.

As far as Linux can do anything that windows can - are you surprised by this? As a developer I can do pretty much anything I'd like to do given a basic PC, and infinite time, money, and patience on any damn OS I please. However I generally have none of those and nor do my employers

Coming from a quite cossetted MS development environment when many many base services work together making building enterprise applications really easy - moving back to Linux development feels like a step backwards. MS made doing this stuff a snip because so many of the services I depend on came in the box. e.g. the same security token generated by client auth is equally valid and usable in DB code.

There is no doubt in my mind that having such great integration is Windows single greatest strength and a weakness between Linux vendors.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: stephbu
Don't make the mistake of assuming open source == free for all. Most commercial-grade distros/applications carry commercial-use licence constraints. IBM are as commited to open source as they are about making the DB2 source open.

IBM, Oracle, Sun et. al. smell a gimick that will help lure some marketshare away from Microsoft. They all want a share of the action - doesn't matter whose meal ticket they ride on to get it either.

Like it or note - someone has to pay for expensive research and investment in Intellectual Property.

It's not as all bad as it seems with IP. IBM has been one of the most generous contributers to open source and GPL software. Stuff like helping to develope 2.6 code and adding stuff like jfs file system support are 2 things that stick out in my mind.

Oracle may not be that much help, I don't know, but I don't think IBM would give a damn one way or another if it released it's DB2 code for instance, the main reason that it probably won't ever do that is that mirade of developement time and copy right issues with dozens of companies that put time and effort to help developing it. It's nearly impossible to release big closed source projects to open source since you have to track down each and every copywright holder and get his permission to release it in GPL, and that's just not going to happen in the majority of cases.

IBM makes it's money off of selling hardware, developing overall solutions, and providing big support for it's customers. It tried making money off of software and that died with OS/2.

Anyways it's in those companies best intrest to release open source code, beleive it or not Linux has become a money maker.

 

[spyordie007]

The only annoying thing I've had problems with is the multiple interfaces on my laptop and configuring wireless to work right as I bounce between differant wireless networks (especially WEP ones).

I also dont like that the only way you can connect to a windows file share is by sending your authentication in clear-text over the network.

As was mentioned before 3D support isnt quite as good either, plus there are much less applications that make use of it (games or whatnot). Fortunetly I dont do that much 3D.

 

[cleverhandle]

Originally posted by: stephbu
Coming from a quite cossetted MS development environment when many many base services work together making building enterprise applications really easy - moving back to Linux development feels like a step backwards. MS made doing this stuff a snip because so many of the services I depend on came in the box. e.g. the same security token generated by client auth is equally valid and usable in DB code.

There is no doubt in my mind that having such great integration is Windows single greatest strength and a weakness between Linux vendors.

But that integration is a double-edged sword if ever there was one. While it makes many things easy, and some impossible things possible (to rip off Larry Wall), it also ties you down. Take Exchange, for example. There's no Open Source alternative (that I've seen, at least) that makes so many collaboration components work so well together. But if all you need is a simple IMAP mailbox or basic webmail, you end up with something bulky, expensive, and harder to administer than it needs to be. And, of course, there are loads of security issues with all that integration besides.

I'm not bashing MS or their integration here in any way. Sometimes they're great. But you need to pick the right tools for the job.

 

[Nothinman]

IBM has poured a ton of man hours into GPL'd code and once it's GPL'd you can't impose additional restrictions, so you can't say "this GPL'd code is only good for non-commercial activity". Once DB2 is released under the GPL it stays there unless they release another version that has a different license, but then the old one is still around and if it's any good it'll be maintained by someone probably not affiliated with IBM.

Oracle has committed patches dealing with things they care about, like LBD and raw device access support.

Same with Intel (PCI-X patches are already on lkml from Intel employees), Dell (I hate them but they do release drivers for certain things under the GPL), Compaq/DEC/HP and even Sun to a lesser extent.

 

[Nothinman]

I also dont like that the only way you can connect to a windows file share is by sending your authentication in clear-text over the network.

That's not true, Samba supports NTLMv2 and I believe kerberos with 3.0.

 

[spyordie007]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I also dont like that the only way you can connect to a windows file share is by sending your authentication in clear-text over the network.

That's not true, Samba supports NTLMv2 and I believe kerberos with 3.0.

Really? I wasnt aware of this.

Can you give me a reccomended path and/or some decent links to read for connecting to windows file shares?

EDIT: the way I'm familer with accessing windows file shares from a linux computer is to mount the share the same way that the FAQs suggest:
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/viewfaq.html?i=125

As far as I know this sends the credentials over the network in clear text.

 

[Nothinman]

smbclient respects relevant entries in smb.conf, so if you tell it not to use anything lower than NTLMv2 it shouldn't. And samba 3.x also supports "Secure Channel" for encrypting the entire session.

man smb.conf and/or install swat and read the help entries for all variables in swat.

 

[hasu]

Can a company write software for Linux and sell it without its source code?

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, unless you include GPL'd source code in your program. You'll get a much better reception if you do release the source code, especially if it's a driver a lot of people really hate binary-only drivers, but it's not a necessity.

Companies do this all the time, nVidia, VMWare, Oracle, my company, id, etc..

 

[hasu]

I have been following the Linux, esp for a good GUI for quite some time. Even though KDE would be good for basic purposes its font rendering was not really impressive out of the box. Now a days look and feel has started getting attention in the Linux world too. e.g., KDE 3.2 - the best GUI I have ever seen on a linux box. If any one wants to try out this nifty gui, try the live cd from
http://slax.linux-live.org/. You can boot directly into linux and it does not require installation of any software on your hard disk (same as knoppix). This CD includes KDE 3.2 Beta 2.

 

[kursplat]

so whats the best FREE version for a noob to start with ?

 

[hasu]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Yes, unless you include GPL'd source code in your program. You'll get a much better reception if you do release the source code, especially if it's a driver a lot of people really hate binary-only drivers, but it's not a necessity.

Companies do this all the time, nVidia, VMWare, Oracle, my company, id, etc..

GPL licensing is a bit confusing. Even though Cygwin is also released under GPL, the license say that you have to release the source code if you want to distribute binaries. http://cygwin.com/licensing.html. Red Hat sells a special Cygwin License for customers who are unable to provide their application in open source code form.

Is GNU trying to make software for free in a world where there is no free beer, free song or anything else for free?

 

[Nothinman]

The GPL says that if you distribute binaries the source must be available to the recepients of the binaries in one form or another, the kicker is you can't apply restrictions on redistributions that I'm aware of so I can redistribute your source and binaries (or at the very least I can make a derivative of them and redistribute it myself) to anyone I want. But if you don't use GPL'd source code or link against GPL'd libraries it doesn't matter, most system libraries on Linux are LGPL which allows for binary-only distribution without the need for source availability.

GNU is trying to make software that is free for anyone to use and if you decide to improve on that software all of your improvements must be available too. A sort of barter, if you take from us you must also give back.

Since RedHat own's Cygwin they can sell the product under multiple licenses, so you can pay them for a license that allows you to use the code in cygwin without the GPL and it's need for you to redistribute your code. As long as you own the copyright to the software you can change the license (but you can't recall or relicense old releases) all you want. The problem with doing that with the Linux kernel is the copyrights are spread so thin you'd have to contact every single developer and company around the world that has code in the kernel to get a binary-only license and I doubt all of them would sell you one anyway.

Be aware that I'm not a lawyer and I could be completely wrong, so if you're unsure about anything related to licensing you should consult with a real laywer.

 

[chorner]

Theres a good one .. consult a lawyer

Don't need to consult a lawyer when it comes to Windows and supported software ... if you can read while installing software you already know all you need to know. Most people know all you need to know before even getting that far in Windows Don't modify the source, don't redistribute, and don't steal what is not yours. Big guessing game with GPL I guess hahaha what a joke.

I'll go consult my lawyer right now .. I'm not sure if I can give out these Nvidia drivers I have here to my buddy without getting in trouble

On a lighter note ... why convert to Linux? I wouldn't CONVERT to Linux unless you don't care for multimedia/games compatibility. I however would dual-boot Linux or use it for server duties anytime, as it is quite a fun change from Windows. Its a good alternate, but not a replacement. For now atleast ... perhaps in 10 years that may change; but who knows .. thats a while away

 

[drag]

This is my understanding:

The only free part of the GPL as in "free beer" part is concerning the distrubution of the source code.

No cost = no cost to you and the people your giving it too.

You can actually charge money for the source code if you want, but only to make up for the cost of distributing the source code.

For instance it would be legal to do micro-payment sceme were you can get the costs the bandwidth of downloading the code from FTP. Or if you distribute the code on cdroms, you can charge the cost of the cdrom medium. But it has to be not-for-profit.

One good example is the Redhat enterprise distros. You CAN'T get the binary free from Redhat. But you can get the source code, you can go to their ftp sit and download all the GPL'd software code for free right now if you want.

So people have done that and release their own versions based off of the GPL parts of the the enterprise versions from Redhat.

Then once you recieve the code it's yours to do with what you will. You can modify it, change it, use it in other programs. Anything you want with one exeption: You have to honor the copyright of the original author. There are plenty of little distros like CentOS that use Redhat sources.(I have no clue to the quality of CentOS or anything, I just found it on a quick search thru google as a example, there are probably more popular ones out their)

The original author(s) still has the rights to the copyright. Once the author releases the code in GPL, it can remain GPL as long as their are copies of it floating around. However the author of the code can turn around and re-release the code under a different liscence, even a propriatory closed source one, but he has to honor the contribution of other authors because their patches would still be under their copyright.

So I could release "foo 1.0" program under GPL. Other people can get "foo 1.0" and modify it to make "foo 2.0". Now I can sell "foo 1.0" to MS and have it closed source, but if I tried to sell "foo 2.0" to MS that would be illegal because it's only partly my work, I would have to get agreements from the other authors and I couldn't stop people from releasing their own versions of "foo 1.0" if they obtained it under the legitimate GPL ways (from me orignially or from any other person)

That's what would make the GPL powerfull in court, because it is only a extension of the traditional 1000's of years old idea of copyright. Because it is only used to allow the author the right to let his work be shared among lots of people.

For instance I run "Evil Bastard inc.". I take "foo 1.0" you made and released under GPL and sneak it into "foobar 2000". You find out, we talk, I blow you off and you decide to sue me or get a injunction against me profitting from your work.

Now I at "EB Inc." have very good and very evil lawyers and we convince the court that GPL is invalid. Well I would still be screwed because then I would still be violating your copyright, and would have to pay you damages or honor the injunction or whatever.

A person caught violating the GPL is stuck in a no-win situation.

RMS is one of those guys who are VERY good at playing games like chess.

This sort of thing is a bit confusing at first, but easy once you understand the basic concepts.

The one major wrinkle in this is that if you obtain GPL software and modify for your or your company's private use, then you are under no obligation to release or give away that code for free. The free release stuff is only triggered once you try to release binaries/code or try to sell it.

 

[Nothinman]

Don't need to consult a lawyer when it comes to Windows and supported software

You might if you decide to redistribute code included with that software. The difference is with GPL'd software you have the source code so there are extra rules to follow, if you can't see that please don't comment.

if you can read while installing software you already know all you need to know

You've demonstrated many times that being able to read doesn't mean you actually comprehend the meaning of the words.

Don't modify the source, don't redistribute, and don't steal what is not yours.

But with the GPL those rights are yours (minus the stealing of course, that's the BSD license), as long as you follow the rules in the GPL that you agreed to use the source code under.

Big guessing game with GPL I guess hahaha what a joke.

It's not a guessing game, but for a company to release software that uses any 3rd party tools or code there should be a review by a lawer to make sure everything is in order. Even if you're only using binary-only VB controls or something you have to be 100% sure you're following the rules in the license. And in the world of Windows there's a lot more licenses to learn.

I'll go consult my lawyer right now .. I'm not sure if I can give out these Nvidia drivers I have here to my buddy without getting in trouble

If you're distributing a Linux distribution you legally can't otherwise don't you think people Mandrake would, are you sure you read the license? You don't seem to understand it much.

 

[drag]

It's not a guessing game, but for a company to release software that uses any 3rd party tools or code there should be a review by a lawer to make sure everything is in order. Even if you're only using binary-only VB controls or something you have to be 100% sure you're following the rules in the license. And in the world of Windows there's a lot more licenses to learn.

For instance MS bought out a database software company Fox Software, and used it's software to create Visual FoxPro.

Well a lot of traditional foxpro database programmers didn't like using windows so much. So they figured out how to use wine to run the programming software on Linux.

MS found out when they started telling other people how to do this and then sued (or threatened them or told them that was illegal or whatever) them saying that the results or outputs of MS-based developement tools could only be used on MS-based operating systems and it was a violation of the user agreements. Or something like that.

So legally you could run Visual FoxPro developements tools on linux provided that you have a seperate liscence for them. The advantage of FoxPro over other stuff is that you didn't have to pay liscencing fees for applications you deployed using the developement tools. So it didn't matter if your using Macs or PC's or whatnot. It didn't change the price of the software either which way.

Basicly MS didn't care if you used Visual FoxPro to create software, they just didn't want you to use Linux to run the software on it.

Here is the story

So even if your using software that seems to have a straightfoward traditional liscence it is always good to consult legal experts to find out any underlyning snags in the contracts or liscences. 95% of the time most people could realy care less about all that legalities. As long as you do business in good faith then there rarely is a issue, however when something goes wrong in the agreement you definately want to know what is going on and what obligations you and the other parties have under the law.


(My father's company use FoxPro database system. They then later bought or made contracts with all third-party company's that provide support for the database, making it illegal for them to support the older non-MS versions. So they esentially forced my dad's company (and many other companies) to "upgrade" to all MS-run databases unless they wanted to run the entire company infrastructure on a completely unsupported database software. If they did the contract change over in 90 days then they would get a 2000 (something like that) dollar "discount" on MS software liscences for stuff they pretty much already own and run. Then they can get support back from the company that traditionally served them. But that's another story.)