Foo - What is Linux?

I see people talk about Linux all the time on Foo, and even though I don't post often, it got me wondering why people like it so much.

From what people tell me, using auto analogies to compare operating systems, buying versions of Windows are like buying new cars with some of the cars being lemons, while Linux is like someone handing you a bunch of parts, from a cylinder head here, to an exhaust manifold there, putting everything together, and hoping you can drive out of the driveway without something blowing... a cool kit car for people who want to hack stuff, but not street legal, and not anything one would ever want to drive seriously (or run a business) on.

I am not trying to start a flamewar, but just genuinely curious of what separates Linux from say MS-DOS, or Windows for getting work done. I also wonder how hard it is to find antivirus, firewall, and anti-malware software for Linux, as I never see any anti-spyware software advertised. I assume Linux needs to have its own equivalent of Norton Antivirus so people can use it on the Net with some security.

I highly recommend using wikipedia on this one...BEFORE starting this thread. Just because of the nature of the subject.

From what people tell me, using auto analogies to compare operating systems, buying versions of Windows are like buying new cars with some of the cars being lemons, while Linux is like someone handing you a bunch of parts, from a cylinder head here, to an exhaust manifold there, putting everything together, and hoping you can drive out of the driveway without something blowing... a cool kit car for people who want to hack stuff, but not street legal, and not anything one would ever want to drive seriously (or run a business) on.This may have been true at one point (and you can still do it this way if you wish), but nowadays, Linux is just buying a different car than the Windowsmobile that everyone else is driving.


I also wonder how hard it is to find antivirus, firewall, and anti-malware software for Linux, as I never see any anti-spyware software advertised. I assume Linux needs to have its own equivalent of Norton Antivirus so people can use it on the Net with some security.Nope. No need for virus or spyware apps. There is firewall software, but it's more for making a computer into a hardcore, heavy-duty, industrial-strength firewall than the personal firewall software you see on Windows.

As for using it every day, it depends on what you require. I've used it every day for years, and it gets easier to do so all of the time. I haven't even had a Windows partition in a long, long time. No need for it.

Homer: Oh, they have the internet on Computers now!

I think he's Lucy's boyfriend on Peanuts...

http://www.whylinuxisbetter.net/
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/whatisubuntu

There are many versions of Linux out there---many are oriented
toward IT professional or computer geeks, but many have been
designed with the average desktop or laptop user in mind.

For newbies interested in trying out Linux, a good choice is
Ubuntu Linux. Installing Ubuntu on your computer is no more
difficult than, say, re-installing Windows after a crash.

You may order an Ubuntu CD free of charge at the Ubuntu
website. Incidentally, you can run Ubuntu direct from the
CD to try it out before installing it.

... Linux needs to have its own equivalent of Norton Antivirus ...

Add this to your crontab

0 0-23 * * * find / -follow -exec grep -l ^.*$ {** \; 2&1>/dev/null

Probably missing a quote or two somewhere. :p

Linux is a unix-like operating system. So, it won't run much Windows software. It doesn't run many Windows games. But as a workstation, it really works well. The firewall for Linux is called iptables, and it is extremely robust. There is antivirus software for Linux, such as clamav, but it's mostly used to scan for Windows viruses. There really aren't any spyware apps floating around for Linux. This is partially due to Linux's strong security model, and partially due to the install base for linux being so much smaller than for Windows. If you were a virus author, would you rather target a few thousand Linux boxes, or a few million Windows boxes?

I've been Windows free on the desktop for quite some time. I still keep a Windows machine on my network for playing games, though. I use Linux for everything else.

This may have been true at one point (and you can still do it this way if you wish), but nowadays, Linux is just buying a different car than the Windowsmobile that everyone else is driving.

I agree. I started playing around with linux a few years ago on an old Pentium III that I had retired. Gradually I became familiar with it and now I dual boot it on my primary laptop. Nowadays a linux distribution like Ubuntu does 99% of the "kit" work for you on a newer system. You can look at it this way, take the time you spend on researching malware solutions and put it into playing around with linux, which doesn't suffer from such things. Did I mention that some of the best linux distributions are FREE?

At any rate, read up on Linux. When you feel ready, you can burn what's called a "live" cd and take linux for a spin (with obvious limitations since it runs out of your cd drive) without actually installing it.

I've not had many problems with XP, but I'm not looking forward to having to run Vista so I figure now is the perfect time to figure out how to free myself from microsoft. Btw, you can now order dells and hps with linux pre-installed.

You may order an Ubuntu CD free of charge at the Ubuntu
website. Incidentally, you can run Ubuntu direct from the
CD to try it out before installing it.

Or just go their website, download the file and follow their instructions for burning your own cd

I see people talk about Linux all the time on Foo, and even though I don't post often, it got me wondering why people like it so much.

From what people tell me, using auto analogies to compare operating systems, buying versions of Windows are like buying new cars with some of the cars being lemons,while Linux is like someone handing you a bunch of parts, from a cylinder head here, to an exhaust manifold there, putting everything together, and hoping you can drive out of the driveway without something blowing... a cool kit car for people who want to hack stuff, but not street legal, and not anything one would ever want to drive seriously (or run a business) on.

I am not trying to start a flamewar, but just genuinely curious of what separates Linux from say MS-DOS, or Windows for getting work done. I also wonder how hard it is to find antivirus, firewall, and anti-malware software for Linux, as I never see any anti-spyware software advertised. I assume Linux needs to have its own equivalent of Norton Antivirus so people can use it on the Net with some security.

Using the same analogy...Windows is like a Hot Rodded 1966 MG Sports car...when it works it works very well,but to get it to do that you are spending hours and days of frustration and agravation.And then its still a cranky PITA!! Plus a bunch of bucks protecting it.Linux is much more like a Small Block Chevy Nova...Lotsa little peices that once you get it set up the way you want you can forget about it!! And Linux is Free!! I use Ubuntu Linux,No Firewall,No Anti-virus,No anti spywear,Nothing!!

Micros**t free since '97!! Scandisk/Defrag does not exist in my vocabulary.

0p 15 n07 1337.

I haven't even had a Windows partition in a long, long time. No need for it.
Most of my pc's don't have a Windows partition, but one does. I still use it to make flash movies and to use Microsoft's Streets and Trips. I know of one mapping program for linux, but it is still in beta, most likely alpha and not ready to use. Once it is useful, bye to Windows. I will use something else than flash. As it is now, I only boot into Windows about once every three or four months.

Linux is about choice and freedom. I can do whatever I wish on my pc without any overly restrictive EULA's. I think most people that use Windows think of Windows as the desktop, which it part of Windows. Linux has options. Linux is really the kernel. The "engine" in your analogy. Then on top of the engine, you decide what you want. You could just have a command line interface, a window manager or a full desktop environment. As for me, I like to run Debian Lenny with Xfce. While my servers are commandline headless enviroments that I SSH into.

I also don't use anti-whatever. I am not that afraid of malware. But I do use my pc's daily and there are many businesses that use Linux. Some businesses run entirely on Linux while others might just use Linux for servers. I don't know where BF is hosted, but since it is running php, I will assume (not necessarily true ) that the server is Linux running apache. I would never want to run Windows as a server. Linux can run for years and not need to be rebooted. I wouldn't want to stop the functionality of the company to come to a halt becuase Windows needs to be rebooted again.

I also don't use anti-whatever. I am not that afraid of malware. But I do use my pc's daily and there are many businesses that use Linux. Some businesses run entirely on Linux while others might just use Linux for servers. I don't know where BF is hosted, but since it is running php, I will assume (not necessarily true ) that the server is Linux running apache. I would never want to run Windows as a server. Linux can run for years and not need to be rebooted. I wouldn't want to stop the functionality of the company to come to a halt becuase Windows needs to be rebooted again.

Fairly narrow view. Windows can run for years as well, with a well designed program. Any program designed poorly will crash windows. I can take 3 applications I run on the enterprise level and 1 of them is written like crap, which does in fact require a reboot every 3 weeks or so....take the two other programs and they have run for almost 700 days straight barring the odd update of either the software or windows.

Windows is good for what it is good for, *nix is good for what it is good for. To think any other way really limits the scalability and usability of whatever network an admin would be in charge of.

As for what *nix is, it is an OS that can do anything you want within the confines of the users and/or application and/or device you are designing it for. There is not and never will be the perfect single OS....

Linux is a unix-like operating system. So, it won't run much Windows software. It doesn't run many Windows games. But as a workstation, it really works well. The firewall for Linux is called iptables, and it is extremely robust.

...iptables is one firewall solution, and it could be argued it is not the most robust. It is one of many options, thank god.

...what separates Linux from...Windows for getting work done.
There are 2 aspects in comparing the two: mechanical, and philosophical. So far, no replies have really touched on the latter. You're probably pretty familiar with the Microsoft's philosophy of software: proprietary source code (only MS s-w engineers ever get to see/futz with the nuts & bolts foundation of Windows), license the use of it very restrictively (e.g. users may install their authorized copy of it on only one machine at a time; have to activate it after installing; have to pass the "Windows Genuine Advantage" sniff test online before you're allowed to download updates), and sell those licenses at a hefty - and ever-increasing - premium.

OTOH, anyone can install a given copy of Linux onto as many different computers as they want: 1, 10, 1000. No prob. And you don't even necessarily have to pay for it. There are dozens of different Linux distributions (aka 'distro': the base Linux OS itself bundled with a boatload of other optional add-on software...soft of like if Windows came with Office plus more) available FREE. Just go to a given maker's website, download the installation media as ISO images (if you don't have broadband, optionally you can order discs thru the mail for a nominal fee - just a few bucks), burn 'em to CD or DVD, load the setup disc & reboot. The installation routine is *just* as slick and professional as anything MS ever put out.

Linux - and generally most of whatever other software bundled in the distro - is what's called open source software (OSS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_software), and licensed under GPL (GNU Public License) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL). In simple terms, the license requirements are: you can take and use the software however you want, even use it for for-profit pursuits. And you can tinker with the underlying source code to modify the kernel however you want, BUT (there's always a but, right?) you must make publicly available your modifications to the source code. You just can't keep it to yourself (aka PROPRIETARY)


I also wonder how hard it is to find antivirus, firewall, and anti-malware software for Linux, as I never see any anti-spyware software advertised.

Comes with an excellent firewall. Don't need anti- stuff. Virii and malware written for the platform just haven't appeared yet. Not saying it'll never happen or can't. By sheer numbers alone, Windows remains the attractive low-hanging fruit in that regard. But consider that over half of public websites are served up by the Apache webserver (an OSS application) running on Linux or a Unix-like OS (e.g. one of the BSDs). I'd say that's a pretty strong affirmation as to Linux' internet security.

Using the same analogy...Windows is like a Hot Rodded 1966 MG Sports car...when it works it works very well,but to get it to do that you are spending hours and days of frustration and agravation.And then its still a cranky PITA!! Plus a bunch of bucks protecting it.Linux is much more like a Small Block Chevy Nova...Lotsa little peices that once you get it set up the way you want you can forget about it!! And Linux is Free!! I use Ubuntu Linux,No Firewall,No Anti-virus,No anti spywear,Nothing!!

Micros**t free since '97!! Scandisk/Defrag does not exist in my vocabulary.I have no direct experience with Linux...I've just read stuff posted by enthusiasts...but from my experiences with Windows and what I've read about Linux, you've got your analogy backwards. Windows is like an American sedan of that era, bloated, ill handling, full of useless gimmicks...but it works, starts every time and gets you where you want to go. Linux is like the English sports car...great fun while it's working, but in need of constant attention and tweaking and adjusting and repair. The enthusiasts enjoy doing that, though.

P.S. -- Scandisk went away with WinXP (there is something kinda like it, but it seems never to get used), and every time I've brought up the subject of defrag with my computer, it tells me it doesn't want or need it.

chkdsk is the equivalent to ScanDisk in the NT-based OSes, such as XP (also in older versions of DOS, for that matter.) And, it only runs on boot when it detects that something Seriously Bad(tm) (and not a power failure, either) has happened, as NTFS is much more robust than FAT.

To use a bike (just noticed that... I could do a car one, too, though...) analogy... Windows is a Roadmaster Mt. Fury. It looks flashy, it's somewhat popular (although that's because it's cheap, unlike Windows,) but it's not a great commuter. The average Linux distribution is somewhat like an old 10-speed, but in great condition, and with a rack, fenders, lights, and panniers fitted. Oh, and someone's handing them out for free, and giving you the blueprints to make any part on the bike.

My experiences with Linux are that once something's working, it just works, but if you need to change something... it could be easy, it could take hours if you don't know what you're doing, and/or you're doing something that deviates from what the developer of your distro intended. And, the accuracy of the HOWTOs out there can be a crapshoot. (Although, I've noticed good hardware support and technical support with Ubuntu.)

I run Ubuntu on my server and my old laptop (dual booting with XP on my old laptop,) and XP Tablet on my tablet (I will eventually dual boot with Ubuntu, though.)

As for Windows apps on Linux... some apps will run in WINE (http://www.winehq.org/), which is a... Windows API compatibility layer for non-Windows OSes. (I can't say it's an emulator, because WINE stands for WINE Is Not an Emulator. :lol:)

Windoze = Having a car that you can drive anywhere and do anything with. It will take you to work, it will take you to the movies, it will take you shopping. Sometimes it has an accident and you have to start the journey all over again. Sometimes it breaks down and needs repaired

Mac = Having a car that you can drive anywhere and do anything with but it really likes to go to the recording studio. Sometimes it has an accident too.

Linux = Having a car that doesn't go anywhere but to visit other linux cars where the drivers all congratulate each other on how safe they drive.

I highly recommend reading the Neil Stephenson essay "In The Beginning Was the Command Line..." on the subject for some analogy, as well as some background. It's a bit outdated, but is still an incredible and relevant read for a general overview of OSes. Text file is attached, and an easier to read PDF can be found by searching Google.

I got fed up with the registrations, activations, "genuine advantage" checks and constantly having to pay for or crack programs just to get the little work I do with my computer done. So i installed linux, took me about a week to find my way around installing and configuring stuff for it(it seems unnecessarily complicated at first) and now I wouldn't go back to windows for anything.

Most of the stuff I needed to learn was easy to find via google or the excellent manuals provided with applications and the rest was done by a friend who logged onto my computer and did some stuff I'll need a few years to learn I think ;-) but it's been running without problems for the last 4 months. More than I can say for any windows install I've had.

Linux is a toy-clone of a 1960's operating system (Unix) originally intended for primitive computers with minuscule memory and storage that were programmed in assembly language and which relied on a teletype terminal for input and output. That it is still even considered as a modern OS is a mystery. It has nice windowing desktop managers that are very much like Windows used to be and was criticized for until Win XP: a graphics shell used above DOS.

I'm all for open source and free software though. Keep Windows as the OS and just put some of the great open source software on it. If you don't like Microsoft, just don't use any of their application software. Use OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird (or SeaMonkey if you prefer an integrated browser suite), FreeCommander as a great 2-panel file manager, 7zip for compression, Notepad++ as a text editor (and install aspell to have spellchecking). You can also ignore the other commercial players by installing SumatraPDF to read PDF files, Real Alternative with Media Player Classic instead of the real Realplayer, QT Lite instead of Apple Quicktime, VLC Player as a great all-purpose video player, Kompozer for editing web pages and websites, WAMP5 to have a local development Apache server with PHP4/5, InfraRecorder to burn ISO's on CD or DVD, Filezilla for FTP, etc. You can even have a Unix-like command shell on Windows by installing Cygwin. Works great.

Linux shouldn't be promoted. It's woefully obsolete. What we need is for open source people to start working on a modern OS from the ground up, one that takes into account things learned and developed since the 1960's.

Longfemur: First off, there were some pretty major changes in Unix during the early years, and second, Windows has actually become LESS advanced as the years go by, if you're going by the academic model - they had something that was very close to a microkernel back in the NT4 days, and they're migrating towards a monolithic kernel. Oh, wait, what does Linux use?

Linux uses modern memory management techniques and hot-pluggable kernel modules (the best of both monolithic and microkernel design.)

As for the GUI, Microsoft made the decision to tie the GDI to the kernel back in the days of OS/2 1.2. This had a minor performance boost, yes... at the expense of stability. Something happens in the GUI, the whole OS goes down.

Also, this means that you ARE stuck with the bloat of a GUI.

And, X is hardly a Windows 3.1-like environment. For one, X apps run natively on their host OS (in this case, they're using the POSIX API,) and just connect to the X server to display their screen, whereas Windows 3.1 ran applications within the Windows memory space.

I don't disagree that there have been some useful improvements. Altogether, I would certainly prefer to run a real Unix as opposed to Linux. Unfortunately, all possible flavours of it don't support much beyond the most basic, plain jane hardware. Linux is much more suited for typical desktop computing, but it's still limited in many small annoying ways that one might not think of right away.

But the point I'm trying to make is that other than sticking it to MS by not using the Windows OS you have already paid for when you bought the computer (isn't that more sticking it to yourself?), almost all the software one would currently use for productive work on Linux is also available for easy installation on Windows, and it all works the same and very well (in fact, some of it is actually more functional on Windows).

As such, remaining cross-platform is a lot more important than what OS you use. If you're like me, a person who thinks it's more about applications than OS, then the OS is pretty much irrelevant anyway. If you organize your computing life in a cross-platform way, you can forget the obsession with what OS you are forced to use or what OS religion you have to belong to. I kind of tie it in with cycling in this way:

I'm uneasy about bicycles which rely on complete system groups like we have today (as in indexed derailleur systems with integrated shift and brake levers). I prefer a bicycle that can use any combination of components from any manufacturer, such that you can mix and match whatever way you want or have to.

But I don't think any Unix or Unix clone is the way of the future. We need something more modern for that, and nobody has developed it yet.

Linux is a toy-clone of a 1960's operating system (Unix) originally intended for primitive computers...That it is still even considered as a modern OS is a mystery...It's woefully obsolete.

Not unlike a certain self-powered, 2-wheeled mechanical conveyance invented in the 1800s. Why does anyone still use such obsolete technology? ;)

Unless you're into OSes like SkyOS or Syllable or something like that... but nobody uses those.

Also, there's YellowTab ZETA, but that's hardly stable.

Fairly narrow view. Windows can run for years as well, with a well designed program. Any program designed poorly will crash windows. I can take 3 applications I run on the enterprise level and 1 of them is written like crap, which does in fact require a reboot every 3 weeks or so....take the two other programs and they have run for almost 700 days straight barring the odd update of either the software or windows.

I wasn't talking about the crashing, I meant the updates. You are barring them from the reboot calculations. It was my intent to describe how often Windows needs to be rebooted because of updates, not a boot because of a crash. In my experience with Windows, almost after every update I will need to reboot the system. With Linux it is very rare.

I wasn't talking about the crashing, I meant the updates. You are barring them from the reboot calculations. It was my intent to describe how often Windows needs to be rebooted because of updates, not a boot because of a crash. In my experience with Windows, almost after every update I will need to reboot the system. With Linux it is very rare.

This isn't true anymore. At least on the server end. With hot updates I doubt I restart more than a couple of times a year. And seriously, if thats a big complaint (which I know some people claim is a massive problem) then I still fail to see the point. Whoopie ****, you need to reboot once and a while. boo hoo. Besides on a non internet facing computer I would wager most admins don't install updates that often as once the server is running, you don't want to install updates until every other person has broken theirs with updates. And please don't claim linux doesn't break on updates. I have seen many apps (nagios and cacti come to mind) break because suddenly the new update doesn't use the previous updates templates.

Both os's have update "issues" whether it is with the OS or the apps.

Why is the need for an occasional reboot considered a problem? It's not a big deal, and doesn't really take all that much time. If it were a frequent need, I could see it being a problem, but it's not...so why the fuss about it, other than just looking for an excuse to bash Microsoft?

For the original poster, a good way to get into Linux if you want to see what it's about is to install cygwin on your Windows. The whole thing installs into one Windows folder, and you end up with a Unix/Linux command line with a bash shell. You can pretty much do with it what you can do with any Unix command line, except you never have to leave Windows. You can also install X Windows to run applications that need it. I've found that the common applications run pretty well. You don't need a desktop manager like Gnome or KDE, because Windows itself already fulfills that function. Easy to install Cygwin. Just go to its website, download and install setup.exe, and just go with the default installation for now.

I use Cygwin myself, and I have the Debian Lenny distribution of Linux on another partition. As I said before, I don't really care what OS I use... whatever does the job. But I do believe in the value of keeping as much as possible open source and cross-platform.

Even though I do use Linux for some things, I don't really think there is much advantage for an existing Windows user to convert. But it's nice to be able to have it and dual-boot. It never hurts to learn and experience new things for oneself. But have to say I don't think it's the nirvana of OS's that some enthusiasts say it is.

Cygwin is certainly a way to go, but I would recommend a live CD distribution for just "what does Linux look/feel like". Something like Ubuntu's Live CD or Knoppix would be a good starting point. The advantage is, they give you more than just the GNU tools, they give you a full blown Linux, and they don't touch your hard drive. Nothing needs to be installed.

I really like having Cygwin on my windows box, though. Having access to a bash shell and all the GNU tools (sed, awk, grep, etc) is very handy. Also the X server is very nice to have. Start the X server, make an SSH connection to a Unix box with X forwarding enabled, and it's almost like being there.

Windoze = Having a car that you can drive anywhere and do anything with. It will take you to work, it will take you to the movies, it will take you shopping. Sometimes it has an accident and you have to start the journey all over again. Sometimes it breaks down and needs repaired

Mac = Having a car that you can drive anywhere and do anything with but it really likes to go to the recording studio. Sometimes it has an accident too.

Linux = Having a car that doesn't go anywhere but to visit other linux cars where the drivers all congratulate each other on how safe they drive.


Nicely done. Witty and spot on.

Linux is, strictly, a kernal. The operating systems built around the Linux kernal are distributions. If you have no idea what you're doing, get Ubuntu. Even so, you're going to have to do some terminal work

Also, if you don't want to reboot, you can install MS Virtual PC, and boot the live CD in that environment, although performance SUCKS, then.

Linux is, strictly, a kernal. The operating systems built around the Linux kernal are distributions. If you have no idea what you're doing, get Ubuntu. Even so, you're going to have to do some terminal work

A year ago I had to mess around with terminal stuff. But I just installed Ubuntu a few weeks ago w/out working in the terminal. The only thing that didn't work was my wireless card and I was able to resolve that by easily downloading ndiswrapper via synaptic.

Why is the need for an occasional reboot considered a problem? It's not a big deal, and doesn't really take all that much time. If it were a frequent need, I could see it being a problem, but it's not...so why the fuss about it, other than just looking for an excuse to bash Microsoft?I don't know if that was aimed at me or not, but I do not bash Microsoft. I have no problem with them.

As for not a problem with booting, well that would depend on how the computer is used. When I ran Windows, I usually didn't mind the reboots too much. But if the computer was used at your bank and you tried to get into your account, your website trying to sell something it could be a real pain or a loss of money. Most likely, these things would have a backup system to use while the other one is being rebooted. These were extreme situations. But the same thing could be said for a smaller company that isn't using redundant systems. A few minutes could cost a company a lot of money in lost opportunities.

As for the updates, I really never had any problems updating Windows or Debian. I use Debian Lenny now, the testing version, even using that one, I don't have problems.

Use whatever OS you like to use, but I do know that one of my websites is ran under Windows and once a month I get a message telling me that the system will be down for sometime while the updates are installed. The host does tell me about 2 weeks in advanced and they do them in the wee early morning hours, so most likely not a big deal, since that site is not a money generating site.

I see people talk about Linux all the time on Foo, and even though I don't post often, it got me wondering why people like it so much.

From what people tell me, using auto analogies to compare operating systems, buying versions of Windows are like buying new cars with some of the cars being lemons, while Linux is like someone handing you a bunch of parts, from a cylinder head here, to an exhaust manifold there, putting everything together, and hoping you can drive out of the driveway without something blowing... a cool kit car for people who want to hack stuff, but not street legal, and not anything one would ever want to drive seriously (or run a business) on.

I am not trying to start a flamewar, but just genuinely curious of what separates Linux from say MS-DOS, or Windows for getting work done. I also wonder how hard it is to find antivirus, firewall, and anti-malware software for Linux, as I never see any anti-spyware software advertised. I assume Linux needs to have its own equivalent of Norton Antivirus so people can use it on the Net with some security.

If you don't know why you need to use it, you don't need to use it. Close thread now.

Linux can be classified as a religion as well as a philosophy. Kinda like Buddhism. Except many of the followers are hardly pacifists.

Ubuntu is my dogma? Gnome is my savior? The world truly is stranger than it appears.

Linux is my uncle, he spells it "Lenox", and he doesn't know jack **** about computers.

Using the same analogy...Windows is like a Hot Rodded 1966 MG Sports car...when it works it works very well,but to get it to do that you are spending hours and days of frustration and agravation.And then its still a cranky PITA!! Plus a bunch of bucks protecting it.Linux is much more like a Small Block Chevy Nova...Lotsa little peices that once you get it set up the way you want you can forget about it!! And Linux is Free!! I use Ubuntu Linux,No Firewall,No Anti-virus,No anti spywear,Nothing!!

Micros**t free since '97!! Scandisk/Defrag does not exist in my vocabulary.

Hey I had a '67 MGB, it was vastly superior to Windows. When it died it didn't bring the whole world down with it. And there was never a blue screen of death, blue smoke--well yeah, but no screens of death.

I think Windows is more like Lucas electronics... ;)

Catching fire is a normal operating occurrence with both, I can see the analogy there.

Catching fire is a symptom oversympathized with. Oh, you're burning? Big woop, wanna fight?

I remember using linux on my pc years ago(I think it was redhat or something), couldn't get the damn 28.8 modem to work. later found out I had a "WINmodem" that was only compatible with windows os. wtf man?

I've stuck with windoze ever since.



and thats my short linux story.

My friend's dad had a similar experience 'years ago' with a Linux distro. He's a firm believer that it is too slow compared to Windows and will not let it go, despite the fact that he's been hit with all kinds of viruses, spyware, and credit card fraud due to a keylogger I found on his system. Oh well.

So many cool analogies! I even have one of my own:

Windows is like a house - designed to be livable, with security is an added afterthought.

Linux is like Fort Knox - designed for security with livability as an added afterthought.

I use Linux for most things, mainly because I'm trying to get away from Windows at home. Of course, I still have a Windows partition because I need it to build ColdFusion apps for work. So I'm still stick with Windows after all.

Linux is a toy-clone of a 1960's operating system (Unix) originally intended for primitive computers with minuscule memory and storage that were programmed in assembly language and which relied on a teletype terminal for input and output. That it is still even considered as a modern OS is a mystery.
There's nothing toy about it. When I visited the Microsoft campus a few years back, I learned that even they were using UNIX for some things --anyone from MS can correct me if I'm wrong. Some versions of Vista contain UNIX support, and it ain't because it's antiquated. Rather, it's because it's powerful.

Linux is used by huge public and private institutions for serious work. You can create massive computer clusters and tasks that are difficult to accomplish in Windows can be very easy with Linux. I've administered Windows, OpenVMS, Linux (and other UNIX variants), and Macintosh servers. Linux is by far my favorite because it is the easiest to administrate and optimize. Also, it runs many of the best applications such as Apache, PHP, and MySQL (which make BF possible). I'd be very surprised if BF is on a Windows box even though you can get versions of these programs for Windows.

I've worked in a number of IT shops, and I can't say I've ever heard anyone suggest than Linux is a toy. I do not think it is the best desktop operating system for most people. There are GUI tools and applications for linux, but frankly, they're not as polished as most people expect. The backend functionality for server stuff is top rate.

Nilrim, to get back to your question, you basically seem to understand what Linux is. Generally speaking, for security, you perform tasks only with the minimum permissions necessary to get the job done. For example, if you browse the web, you don't do so as administrator, but rather as a user with practically no permissions. That way, even if your session is completely compromised, it does not affect other users and programs on the machine.

Unless you like screwing around with your computer, I wouldn't recommend replacing Windows with linux on your desktop. At work, I use linux for almost everything of consequence. At home, I use Windows because all I want to do is browse the web, plug my printer in, and not have to be a sysadmin.

In the enterprise, most of what Linux can do, enterprise UNIX (like Solaris or AIX) can do better out of the box. On the desktop or in the small/medium business, Linux makes sense, but it will have a difficult time eradicating the current big-dogs in the enterprise UNIX market for a lot of things.

Linux is just a kernel, which probably less than 1% of computer users even know what that is.
Everything else is software that runs atop the base (a series of other programs) and these programs (with the exception of a small few) are available for almost every unix port and unix like OS.
What is Linux is a very very hard question to answer to someone who is forced to ask the question in the first place. Then it gets really confusing. ;)