Why Linux?

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I can't understand why, they use and support the same software that Gentoo uses and they're actually getting corporate relationships built. Do you honestly believe Oracle would be supporting Linux at all if it weren't for RedHat?

If redhat is so great, why don't you use it instead of debian? There you go.

Sure support doesn't matter for your desktop, but it does when it's running on a $30K server.

If they can afford a $30k machine, why do they care about having an open source OS?

 

[NaughtyusMaximus]

RPM is not bloated at all, infact the only thing RPM adds to the source of a program is a several K text .spec file

I don't think he was saying that RPMs are bloated, I think what he was alluding to is that RedHat is bloated, and that RPMs are generally a bad way to manage packages, as they don't work out dependancies very well.

Maybe 'lack of an installer' is a better term, but wait LFS has been doing that for years. And portage is a copy of the BSD ports system, nothing new there either.

Compared to LFS, Gentoo has a wonderfull installer. Also, portage is an improvment upon ports, not an exact copy. The system itself is much easier to use as well.

 

[Nothinman]

If they can afford a $30k machine, why do they care about having an open source OS?

Because we develop a piece of software that runs atleast twice as fast on Linux as it does on HP-UX, and because we have clients asking to run some of our software on Linux.

I think what he was alluding to is that RedHat is bloated, and that RPMs are generally a bad way to manage packages, as they don't work out dependancies very well.

RedHat is only as bloated as you make it, you can remove all the packages you want. And hell removing all those 'default' packages would probably still take less time than it takes to setup Gentoo =)
And RPM isn't supposed to sort out dependencies, that's done a layer up in apt or up2date. dpkg on Debian doesn't sort out dependencies either, but apt has been with Debian so long people forget that apt isn't a package manager.

If redhat is so great, why don't you use it instead of debian? There you go.

Because RH doesn't support Alpha and Sparc64 anymore? Did you miss my edit?

RedHat overall isn't a bad system, but Debian does a lot of little things that make it easier to use. The main thing that pisses me off about RedHat is the lack of commented, default config files.

 

[darktubbly]

Probably slightly off topic here, but APT is available for RHat systems...I've used it before on both RH8 and RH9 systems.

Gentoo's great (and *fast*), but like others have posted, if you're going to get it just for the extra 2 second oomph in Gnome load times because of -O5 -crazy_ass_optimization -no_donkeys, don't. Get it instead for the phenomenal support forums and dedicated portage ... er ... porters.

As far as newbie Linux distro's I'd say it's a toss-up between Mandrake (which I currently use) and RedHat. I'd love to have a stable Debian/Slackware system, but Mandrake does the same job and has a host of other features such as Windows font conversion (it scans your Windows directory and grabs the fonts for use on the Linux side), a no-brainer installation, and a great support community. Once you trim the fat from the basic install, update the kernel, and get rid of the godawful Galaxy theme, it works just like an OS should...it doesn't get in the way.

 

[Nothinman]

Probably slightly off topic here, but APT is available for RHat systems...I've used it before on both RH8 and RH9 systems.

Yes, and it's a great addition and replacement for up2date. But how many packages are available so far?

Below is, obviously, for Sarge on Alpha. I don't have a sarge x86 box, but Sid has just over 12000 packages now IIRC.
Reading Package Lists... Done
Building Dependency Tree... Done
Merging Available information
Replacing available packages info, using /var/cache/apt/available.
Information about 10992 package(s) was updated.
hostname:~# uname -a
Linux hostname 2.4.20-newisp #5 Sat Jun 7 15:11:18 EDT 2003 alpha GNU/Linux


For fonts, you don't need Mandrake:


apt-cache search "Microsoft TrueType"
msttcorefonts - Installer for Microsoft TrueType core fonts


Debian package that downloads the basic MS fonts from MS' own website then extracts and installs them for you. They can't package them because of licensing issues, but they can write an automation script.

 

[pcassell]

Ok to be honest and give my opinion on the different linux distributions...

Mandrake and Redhat are great for beginners because they come with tools and installer applications that help walk you through the setup and configuration. They are still great distributions and are stable and have great support. They also have solid teams behind them keeping packages and stuff working together. You can get mandrake and redhat running stable and fast, and you can keep control of your system by cutting down on everything that is installed by default

Slackware and my favorite, gentoo, are good for someone who has worked with linux before (not saying you cant do it your first time, but it will be more difficult). They involve you more in the setup and configuration process. You actually edit the config files, create the filesystems, blah blah. You get to find out how linux works a little better. Gentoo is my favorite becuase you can compile everything from scratch (even though it takes forever) and optimize it to your system setup. This makes a big difference if done right. Plus, gentoo's protage system is great and cuts down on the time it takes to setup packages and automatically makes sure you have all the dependencies.

I play some games and so I dual boot between XP and Linux. Wine is good, but games dont run as good (if they run) under wine as they do in windows. So basically if it wasnt for that damn counter-strike game I would be pure Linux. Oohh and as soon as microsoft and other software companies decide to check weather there programs have been pirated by using an online key verifying system of some sort, ill go full linux.

 

[darktubbly]

Chill Nothinman, I'm well aware you can have TTF fonts on a non-Mandrake system; I'm just saying for a neophyte, Mandrake makes it all very intuitive with their control center. As for the number of packages, I'm sure a well-established distro like Debian has tons of packages, but it's not always the size that counts Either way, apt and rpm are really temporary fixes...at some point or another, all Linux users should learn to compile and install packages the usual way.

pcassell, I completely agree with you on Gentoo. I still feel dirty when using Mandrake because Gentoo has taught me so much.

 

[Nothinman]

I'm just saying for a neophyte, Mandrake makes it all very intuitive with their control center

What if you don't dual-boot?

Either way, apt and rpm are really temporary fixes...at some point or another, all Linux users should learn to compile and install packages the usual way.

Why? That's like saying everyone who owns a car should know how to build a transmission incase they ever need a new one, if it ever comes to that it's much better to let more knowledgable people do it for you, in this case it's the package maintainers who deal with this sh!t all the time and usually have relations with the upstream authors. And compiling things means you have to have tons of -dev packages installed, which is a waste of space IMO.

As for the number of packages, I'm sure a well-established distro like Debian has tons of packages, but it's not always the size that counts

But when it comes to picking what software you run the amount of readily configured apps definately counts. I can install postfix by typing 'apt-get install postfix' answer a few questions and it's 99% read for use, if postfix isn't in your distribution you end up using something else or fighting with getting postfix compiled and working with things like procmail that the maintainer would normally deal with.

Using something like slackware, LFS or Gentoo is good for learning, but when it comes to day to day maintenance and usage it's just too much of a hassle.

 

[darktubbly]

Nothinman, I think we're having a little misunderstanding here; I'm advocating the use of Mandrake for first-time users, and not necessarily for seasoned pros or even intermediate users. I agree with you, it shouldn't take a string of animal sacrifices to install software, but the fact is, if a user is so inclined, he/she is eventually going to have to. Whether it's a no-name developer hosting a .tar.gz file on his/her web page, or simply a release of some brand spankin' new {insert hot app here} which others haven't ported to rpm or deb format, it's going to turn up. To use your car analogy, the user shouldn't need to know the intricacies of how to build a transmission, but if he/she does, it's nice not to have to wait for other people to do it for you.

Most distros come with just about everything a new user would need, whether it's Mandrake, RedHat, or even Debian. And for most new user's, they're coming from a Win32 environment, and it's nice if there's a segue between the two environments instead of a cold, hard, bash prompt (heavy exaggeration there).

Lastly, a new user is probably not going to go ahead and install bind, postfix, or ... say even the kernel source. He/she's probably going to be pretty content with the initial distro. Redhat and Mandrake have done this. They provide a simple GUI installation saying, "Hi, we're not Microsoft Windows, but hey, here's some frosting." Later on, as the user rises from newbie status, it's going to be because he/she takes the initiative to learn a bit more about the system on his/her own.

Please don't misunderstand me, I'm all for worry free upgrades and the death of dependency-runaround, but the fact of the matter is, it's not perfect yet. Eventually you're going to have to fix it yourself. That right there IMHO is probably the essence of Linux.

 

[kitejumping]

i mainly use linux on my xbox running linux (debian - it hosts my website) and it is very ram efficent. i have tried mandrake, red hat, debian, and some other distros on my computer (mandrake 9 had the easiest setup) and they are all ok, but linux doesnt have very many games on it yet (ive played enough tux racer) and winex was ok.. will probably reinstall mandrake or something, once they get the ntfs drivers working good.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: kitejumping
i mainly use linux on my xbox running linux (debian - it hosts my website) and it is very ram efficent. i have tried mandrake, red hat, debian, and some other distros on my computer (mandrake 9 had the easiest setup) and they are all ok, but linux doesnt have very many games on it yet (ive played enough tux racer) and winex was ok.. will probably reinstall mandrake or something, once they get the ntfs drivers working good.

The NTFS drivers work fine for reading, and writing support isn't really going anywhere, so you can reinstall right now

 

[dblevitan]

I don't understand why everyone is saying experienced users can't run mandrake. I personally have 5 years linux experience. I've installed Red Hat, Mandrake, Debian, and LFS. Right now I have Two Mandrake desktops/laptops, a Debian server, and an LFS router (and those are only my own computers). There is no one good distribution out there.
Red Hat used to be good for servers, but I've only heard bad reviews of 8 and 9 regarding stability. I have not used 8 or 9, but I can say the 7.x line was extremely stable.
Mandrake is amazing at what its designed to use. I wouldn't even think of installing it on a server. But I run it on my own systems (posting on one right now) because it just works. I can plug in a USB drive and two seconds later an icon pops up on my desktop when I'm running as non-root. Likewise, there's an icon on my desktop for a scanner and one for my TV card. I didn't have to set up anything while I was installing it, it was able to figure everything out. I do have it customized the way I like it, but I don't want to have to mess with the command line just to be able to read something off a camera. Yes, I know how to do it, but personally, I'd much rather everything be done automatically for me. I can live with crashes once in a while (though its rarely happened to me unless I was messing around with the system first), because I save enough time with everything else in mandrake that one crash a year doesn't make a dent in the time I saved configuring stuff. Plus urpmi works very well.
Debian is also quite good. I do have to say the GUI is set up relatively well, and the system is very stable. I think the big plus for debian is the quality of the packages. There are packages for almost every piece of software I've needed, and recompiling packages works quite well and in my opinion is easier than with RPMs. Plus the packages are built very nicely and it seems the maintainers actually try to package the software well, rather than just throwing together a package quickly. I'm reccomending Debian as a server linux distribution now (I just recently repalced Red Hat 7.1 on my server with debian, and I really like it for servers).
LFS also has its strong points. It is unbelievably stable - the only time I've had a problem with my router is when the PCI card got dislodged while I was moving the case around. And even then the system did not go down. On the other hand, LFS is hard and time-consuming to install. I only did it because I didn't want to have to deal with a package manager since I wasn't planning on changing the software on that computer (no user accounts, and only bind and dhcp running).
I considered Gentoo for my server, but decided against it. Why? Because I didn't want to spend days compiling everything. True, my server is rather powerful (dual athlon 1600), but I wanted to test this system out first, and my fastest desktop is a p3 900 (I don't play games, so the speed doesn't matter to me that much). I would've had to wait a week while everything was being compiled (and my desktop was unusable), just to test a OS I wasn't sure I'd like. Plus upgrading a package would mean recompiling it. I'm sure all you gentoo users are happy with your 5% performance gain, but I'd rather spend the time you guys spend compiling doing useful things.

Oh, and the reason I switchted over to linux is stability, configurability, and ease of development. I do a lot of UNIX development, so its easier to have everything UNIX. Crossover Office lets me run the windows applications I need (office, quicken), so I'm happy.

Just my two cents.

 

[Nothinman]

Red Hat used to be good for servers, but I've only heard bad reviews of 8 and 9 regarding stability.

Both of those aren't targetted at servers, RedHat makes and promotes RedHat Enterprise Server (or whatever it's called) for that. It's got a longer release and support cycle and uses older, more stable software.

 

[civad]

Why do I use Linux?

Because my bo$$ asked me to ...

Do I want to use it?

YES!!!

 

[drag]

I think the real plus that SuSE and Redhat have going for them is how the enterprise editions are set up to simply plug into a existing domain. With all the authintification and such being network-wide it is important to be able to install a OS that is able to work well in that enviroment with as little work as possible. I believe that is the major reason they have the Enterprise editions. As far as a standalone server I doubt that the Enterprise stuff has any advantages over numbered versions in terms of performance or stability.

Both Debian and Gentoo can be made easily to operate in that enviroment, but only a insane person would be willing to spend the time nessicarry to wait for that Gentoo installer to finish. SLackware unfortuanatly is almost impossible to get working without extensive reworking of it. (re-compiling most every program to support PAM), but it makes a great desktop for a Linux user that doesn't want to spend a lot of time struggling against the pre-sets of more complex distros. As far as Mandrake goes, I have no idea.

Most of what Redhat, like stated before is the support factor. That is mostly what you buy when you get pay 400 dollars or whatever for it. Then you pay for contracts ontop of that. And it seems to work pretty well too. Customers are happy and Redhat is now operating back into the black for the first time since the stock market took a crap. The only thing now is that they got to work out is big business cheapness.... "Oh, this is the broken server. It's the one we bought that liscence and service contract for. Those 15 working servers are just running copies, but we don't have contracts for those. But this broken one is the one we paid for originally" Redhat: "uhuh. Umm. ok, well fix it. But for some reason it doesn't look like the server you had our tech look at last month." them: "Oh it is. It is. we just... wanted all the servers to match so we painted it black...."

 

[Nothinman]

As far as a standalone server I doubt that the Enterprise stuff has any advantages over numbered versions in terms of performance or stability.

For stability it will help because it gives software vendors (like oracle) a stationary target, the Enterprise distribution is a much slower progressing distribution as opposed to the numbered versions which they like to cram the latest of everything into.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Redhat, mandrake, etc are crap. Use them for a few days to learn what makes an OS suck.

If you really think that, your'e an idiot. They're all Linux, the only thing that's really different is the installer and the fact that Gentoo makes you wait for hours while you compile everything for no good reason.

I'm somewhat of a RedHat and Mac OS X zealot. I never have time to edit source code. When I do take the time, all my other obligations in life go down the tubes. (Example: I failed out of my second semester of college because I spent all my time learning Linux and BSD.)

Redhat is great if you're new to Linux. (Everybody has to be new at one time. Nobody was born with this knowledge.) If you want a great desktop for word processing, do a default install with OpenOffice, etc. If you want a server, do a custom install with Apache, etc. It's no less customizable than any other version of Linux.

It's just that I'd rather start with default functionality than default security. What good is an infinitely secure box that does nothing for you?

My reasons:

1. Linux is free and legal. I frankly don't have $100 to shell out for a CD of intangible data that only represents a copyright license anyway. My best computer is a Celeron 433 with a 15GB hard drive; I'd much rather use my computer budget for hardware upgrades.

2. I call myself a geek. I first started programming in BASIC on a Commodore CBM that my parents bought from a closing school for twenty-five bucks. It used cassette tapes for data storage. I was quite young. From there, I moved on to GWBASIC in DOS 3.3, and later to QBASIC in DOS 5.0. Then, I went to Visual BASIC 1.0 for Win 3.1 (in eighth grade). I started doing HTML, C++, JavaScript, and VBScript in high school. I started using PHP, SQL, VB6, and other languages in college. I like Linux because it allows me to get deeper into the hardware than Windows will let me, and programming is much simpler with languages usually built-in.

3. I think it's easier than your average Windows computer for setting up a server because the filesystem actually has real ownership and permissions, not some NTFS hack. I'm a fan of command-line utilities and commands; I get tendonitis from too much mouse clicking. (I get enough of that in Diablo II on my Win98 machine.) I truly missed the days of DOS commands and line-based text-editing when Windows 95 came out. Linux's console was, for me, almost nostalgic. It's much more capable in text-mode, however, than any version of DOS or Windows could hope to be.

 

[dblevitan]

I understand what Red Hat is doing. But the reason I'm using Linux for a server is because I can get a powerful OS and all the tools I need for free. I want something stable, so RH 8 and 9 don't work for me, and advanced server is nice, but I'd rather go with something that doesn't cost me anything. I support my own computers - when something doesn't work, I fix it myself. I understand why companies would want to buy support contracts, but I don't need them nor do I have the money for them. Debian has been working nicely for me, and will be my reccommended server distro to everyone who doesn't want to spend $400 for a stable server.
And adv. server probably is more stable, simply because its more mature and RH has had time to test it and make sure its stable. The beauty of the x.0, x.1, x.2 release cycle was that by x.2 the system was polished and stable. Then the next major release would roll out and there would be problems, but it would gradually get better and more stable. 8 and 9 have broken that pattern.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I can't understand why, they use and support the same software that Gentoo uses and they're actually getting corporate relationships built. Do you honestly believe Oracle would be supporting Linux at all if it weren't for RedHat?

If redhat is so great, why don't you use it instead of debian? There you go.

Sure support doesn't matter for your desktop, but it does when it's running on a $30K server.

If they can afford a $30k machine, why do they care about having an open source OS?

in a word: performance

Would you want to spend $30k on a system and get the performance of a $20k system?

 

[Flatline]

I have to say that I am consistently amused by the "RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSE are too bloated" arguments...I'm not sure about SuSE, but RedHat and Mandrake both have "custom" installation options that allow you to make a decision on every individual package and whether to install it. The minimal install option for RedHat is friggin' tiny, and the "server" install is also pretty small.

That said, I use Debian quite a bit and absolutely adore it. Slackware is also quite nice.

As for reasons for Linux use, I think that there have been many good ones raised already in this thread; my primary reason is that I agree with the philosophy behind the Open Source movement.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: Nothinman
I can't understand why, they use and support the same software that Gentoo uses and they're actually getting corporate relationships built. Do you honestly believe Oracle would be supporting Linux at all if it weren't for RedHat?

If redhat is so great, why don't you use it instead of debian? There you go.

Sure support doesn't matter for your desktop, but it does when it's running on a $30K server.

If they can afford a $30k machine, why do they care about having an open source OS?

in a word: performance

Would you want to spend $30k on a system and get the performance of a $20k system?

Sometimes, using linux vs. something else would give you $20k performance on a $30k system. Linux doesn't always == best performance.

 

[Cogman]

Originally posted by: Flatline
I have to say that I am consistently amused by the "RedHat, Mandrake, and SuSE are too bloated" arguments...I'm not sure about SuSE, but RedHat and Mandrake both have "custom" installation options that allow you to make a decision on every individual package and whether to install it. The minimal install option for RedHat is friggin' tiny, and the "server" install is also pretty small.

That said, I use Debian quite a bit and absolutely adore it. Slackware is also quite nice.

As for reasons for Linux use, I think that there have been many good ones raised already in this thread; my primary reason is that I agree with the philosophy behind the Open Source movement.

The Resion they say it is bloated is not because of the packages you have to install, But the kernel that is installed. If you get the source for the kernel in those systems, and do a make menuconfig, you will see that every option imagionable is selected in the kernel and built right into the kernel. This is why they are bloated, they do this so that more and more people will be able to use the OS without running into hardware problems (because it is all built in). Oh, and a good here is why you should use linux (this is a flash File)

 

[Xenon14]

I myself had some pecimistic outlook on Linux. But then I tried Knoppix, and it amazed me how much stuff it had for free, and it ran from a CD!

I run WinXP now and I'm happy with it, but I see myself becoming more of a Linux user in the near future. The only real disadvantage in just running Linux is not being able to play all of the great games. Other than the gaming issue, Linux is rather impressive.

 

[Flatline]

Gaming isn't really a 'nix issue; its more of a software company issue. I don't buy games anymore unless they have a 'nix port.

 

[Nothinman]

The Resion they say it is bloated is not because of the packages you have to install, But the kernel that is installed. If you get the source for the kernel in those systems, and do a make menuconfig, you will see that every option imagionable is selected in the kernel and built right into the kernel.

That is completely wrong, by default RedHat builds everything as a module, meaning the only thing it's bloating is diskspace by a few Megs. the installer auto-detects your hardware and loads the necessary modules then uses an initrd to load them after the install is done, the only things built statically into the kernel aren't able to be built as a module.

The only real disadvantage in just running Linux is not being able to play all of the great games. Other than the gaming issue, Linux is rather impressive.

Exactly. The only thing really lacking is commercial games, if you can get by using your computer as a computer intead of a PS2 replacement you'll be fine running Linux.