dunno much about linux

[sushi]

Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?

[deadly7]

Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?

:blink:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

[Towelie]

Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?

that is all that you have seen of linux . The only time you have seen linux run is on my cs:s server which runs in "command prompt", but there are desktop environments.

[Ergot]

LIES LIES LIES
Linux is just a kernel.

[MyndFyre]

Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?

LOL

And *now* you know why the world uses Windows.

[Towelie]

Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?

LOL

And *now* you know why the world uses Windows.

ROFL!!!!

[Kaleeko]

Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?

LOL

And *now* you know why the world uses Windows.

QFT.

[nslay]

Linux is pretty much commanding stuff using a command prompt instead of using a mouse right?

LOL

And *now* you know why the world uses Windows.

Myndfyre makes a good point.  No matter how much X does for us is respect to graphical environments, it is still separated from system over a matter of "policy vs mechanism."  That is to say, X does not provide any means to do simple tasks such as shutting down the system or configuring a network interface.  Unix users insist on pure mechanism forgetting that extremism on either side of the issue is bad.
Here is an example where pure mechanism fails:
Say you're a color blind user.  X, for all practical purposes, does not implement a standard toolkit (ok it does, but it sucks major assage, try xcalc out for size).  Hence, we have GTK, Qt, Wings and Motif.  Okay...and how does X let you control the color scheme used by GTK Firefox, as opposed to Motif Opera?  Simple...it doesn't.
But, the authors of X and the toolkits don't want to impose "policy"..."policy" is a bad word in Unix world. 

The above is just an example of the lameness of the Unix world.  That's why you have to open a term to do system specific tasks.  I don't care what window manager or DE you use, you still have to open terms to do things ... we're in a modern age, people expect to press buttons and get results, terminals have long died and gone.  That's why people use Windows and OS X.  I don't care who you are, if you don't see that people want to press buttons, you're a complete moron.

That said, Apple is an inspiration demonstrating how one can integrate a fully functional graphical environment into Unix ... not a partial one like X.

Although, these are sour points of Unix.  Let's not forget Unix has many good points to it too.

[Rule]

Although, these are sour points of Unix.  Let's not forget Unix has many good points to it too.

That disclaimer seems to be going with several of your posts these days .

[nslay]

Although, these are sour points of Unix.  Let's not forget Unix has many good points to it too.

That disclaimer seems to be going with several of your posts these days .

Haha...well yes, trying to show that Unix isn't the be-all-do-all that its made out to be.  Most of the mystical nature about Unix is hype.

[Newby]

This is why the corporate world uses Windows. They have no time to dick around and use Google to find out the answer to their problems. They have no time to recompile their kernel to add in support for a new NIC. They have no time to configure apache via command line. They have no time to learn the command line; they'd just rather click a button and be done with it. They don't want to install a completely foreign operating system and edit a file to set up a software firewall. Why not just go out and buy a hardware one that comes with good quality tech support? emacs? Hah. Notepad. It's simple, effective, and in a corporate environment, it wins.

They don't want to hire someone to maintain a Linux system when they can just purchase Windows and get tech support (which comes with the price tag) and pay someone to follow instructions over the phone. It's a lot cheaper than hiring someone experienced in Linux who would charge a lot more, since his job could be a bitch.

Linux and Unix may be cheaper to install, but in the long run Windows wins in both maintenance, tech support, and cost of upkeep.

Note: I do love Unix and Linux. I find both to be extremely powerful, moreso over Windows if you know what you are doing. I just came to terms with these and really can't argue it. Maintaining a Windows system any moron can do, and in the corporate world any moron has a much smaller paycheck than someone who has a degree and specializes in system maintenance. Why hire someone that smart if the job is extremely simple?

Windows also has the Windows API, which is so extensive and amazing that programs work across the Windows platforms with ease, and any binary you produce will probably work without the need for "updated" libraries. Windows is also compatible with 95% of the hardware out there, which makes it a winner too.

nslay is right. Unix isn't as great as everyone makes it out to be. Especially for the average person.

[nslay]

This is why the corporate world uses Windows. They have no time to dick around and use Google to find out the answer to their problems. They have no time to recompile their kernel to add in support for a new NIC. They have no time to configure apache via command line. They have no time to learn the command line; they'd just rather click a button and be done with it. They don't want to install a completely foreign operating system and edit a file to set up a software firewall. Why not just go out and buy a hardware one that comes with good quality tech support? emacs? Hah. Notepad. It's simple, effective, and in a corporate environment, it wins.

They don't want to hire someone to maintain a Linux system when they can just purchase Windows and get tech support (which comes with the price tag) and pay someone to follow instructions over the phone. It's a lot cheaper than hiring someone experienced in Linux who would charge a lot more, since his job could be a bitch.

Linux and Unix may be cheaper to install, but in the long run Windows wins in both maintenance, tech support, and cost of upkeep.

Note: I do love Unix and Linux. I find both to be extremely powerful, moreso over Windows if you know what you are doing. I just came to terms with these and really can't argue it. Maintaining a Windows system any moron can do, and in the corporate world any moron has a much smaller paycheck than someone who has a degree and specializes in system maintenance. Why hire someone that smart if the job is extremely simple?

Windows also has the Windows API, which is so extensive and amazing that programs work across the Windows platforms with ease, and any binary you produce will probably work without the need for "updated" libraries. Windows is also compatible with 95% of the hardware out there, which makes it a winner too.

nslay is right. Unix isn't as great as everyone makes it out to be. Especially for the average person.

Yeah.  You have to want to use Unix.  Windows is more transparent to the user.  Most people want to press buttons and get results without an ounce of effort.  But then again, nobody reads the instructions for anything anymore.  Although, Unix is far more powerful and interesting than Windows.

I think it would be interesting for a game company to write an OS that motivates people to maintain it and keep it secure, after all...why should there be a difference between a game and a tool?

[Ender]

The software development corporation I'm interning at right now uses linux for their servers and Windows for most of the computers on the network. One of the reasons they run Windows is because most of their target customers run Windows and they want to develop applications for Windows users on Windows.

Nevertheless, linux is taking the corporate software development world by storm (I'm talking about the $$ guys not just apache and company). In linux it's easier to customize things (you're building from the source and can manually do the ./configure and make options) and it's easier to develop -- languages like perl, python, and ruby grew up in the 'nix neighborhood and are naturally are easier to work with in a 'nix environment. Linux software is also quicker to advance itself than windows software, as is the case with open-source software.

With the growing popularity of open-source, interpreted technologies (perl, python, ruby, java) and linux's proven ability to outperform windows servers, it only makes sense that linux is going to keep on growing in the software development world.

[Newby]

Nevertheless, linux is taking the corporate software development world by storm (I'm talking about the $$ guys not just apache and company).

It's taking the corporate software development world by storm? Hahahaha. The only market it is taking is the market from Unix and possibly Solaris. Windows it has yet to steal any marketshare from.

In linux it's easier to customize things (you're building from the source and can manually do the ./configure and make options) and it's easier to develop -- languages like perl, python, and ruby grew up in the 'nix neighborhood and are naturally are easier to work with in a 'nix environment.

You actually think that they're going to pay someone in a corporation to hack together a source for them?

I don't. Know why? They're going to have to pay that person for support for that product.

They'd rather purchase a product to their specifications, and get the tech support that comes with purchasing the product.

What is the difference, you ask? The difference being that the person who wrote the software from the ground up knows how it works, knows what does what, and can fix 95% of the problems instantly. The person hacking the source has little to no clue of the structure of the program and can't fix it as quickly.

Linux software is also quicker to advance itself than windows software, as is the case with open-source software.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Open source software is written as a hobby, whereas products written for money are driven to be written by the sound of the dollar. One of the two will last as long as they need it. It isn't the open source software.

linux's proven ability to outperform windows servers

Really? If it's so much more powerful, why isn't it taking marketshare from Windows?

As far as I know, it's not.

You may want to read this:

Stick to facts. If someone says something wrong about Linux, reply with the correct facts. Make sure they're facts, though, not just something you heard about. Don't spread lies or rumors. Check your facts. If you don't know how to do that, then perhaps you shouldn't take part in the discussion, except perhaps by making questions. Even better, give references so that other people can also check the facts.

Also, if Linux were taking the corporate world by storm, SuSE and Red Hat would be doing fantastically. They aren't.

[Ender]

Nevertheless, linux is taking the corporate software development world by storm (I'm talking about the $$ guys not just apache and company).

It's taking the corporate software development world by storm? Hahahaha. The only market it is taking is the market from Unix and possibly Solaris. Windows it has yet to steal any marketshare from.

By storm I don't mean it's dominating. I mean that it's breaking through as a reasonable alternative and the executive guys at software companies are realizing the benefits to running linux. It's also growing ~_~.

In linux it's easier to customize things (you're building from the source and can manually do the ./configure and make options) and it's easier to develop -- languages like perl, python, and ruby grew up in the 'nix neighborhood and are naturally are easier to work with in a 'nix environment.

You actually think that they're going to pay someone in a corporation to hack together a source for them?

I don't. Know why? They're going to have to pay that person for support for that product.

They'd rather purchase a product to their specifications, and get the tech support that comes with purchasing the product.

What is the difference, you ask? The difference being that the person who wrote the software from the ground up knows how it works, knows what does what, and can fix 95% of the problems instantly. The person hacking the source has little to no clue of the structure of the program and can't fix it as quickly.

How much more does paying a sysadmin or two cost over buying a license for a whole corporate-network-full of Windows? Corporations and countries have already made the move (e.g., Thailand).

Also, if you're going to run Windows you probably do want to hire a security expert, because Windows security by default S.U.C.K.S (e.g., LM hashes). So I don't know if Windows is really that much cheaper than Linux, even in the very long run.

Linux software is also quicker to advance itself than windows software, as is the case with open-source software.

Wrong. Dead wrong. Open source software is written as a hobby, whereas products written for money are driven to be written by the sound of the dollar. One of the two will last as long as they need it. It isn't the open source software.

No, you're dead wrong. Look at the rate of linux distros and upgrades vs. that of Windows. Look at all the GNU software. Look at all the great open-source software and technologies that are predominant in the software development world. Apache webserver. Putty. Perl, python, and ruby. Do I need to continue? One of the founding philosophies of OSI is that software can evolve faster when it's open source.

Taken from OSI's site:
"The basic idea behind open source is very simple: When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it, people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing."

Proprietary software may be driven by money, but open-source software is driven by the whole world.

linux's proven ability to outperform windows servers

Really? If it's so much more powerful, why isn't it taking marketshare from Windows?

As far as I know, it's not.

You may want to read this:

Stick to facts. If someone says something wrong about Linux, reply with the correct facts. Make sure they're facts, though, not just something you heard about. Don't spread lies or rumors. Check your facts. If you don't know how to do that, then perhaps you shouldn't take part in the discussion, except perhaps by making questions. Even better, give references so that other people can also check the facts.

Also, if Linux were taking the corporate world by storm, SuSE and Red Hat would be doing fantastically. They aren't.

I didn't think I needed to provide facts for this statement. Linux allows you to go GUI-less with servers. Windows doesn't. Kapeesh. (Vista is excluded from this statement.)