Free OS and Free software - is this the way forward

thegeekfiles

Personally I've been an advocate for many years for the Linux OS. Now, its possible that some people think that its too difficult to install or similar misconceptions but currently its a simple to install as Windows.

Why this post? Well, with todays economy and cost of OS upgrades, computer software, etc its important to highlight the benefits so that people can take advantage of this great OS and the open source market.

The OS to install is simply a matter of creating a CD/DVD from iso (you can get some on magazines) so outlay is minimum. Put in the drive, boot from the disk and click install. Answer the questions and away you go - as simple as windows.

Software is simple too. Most Linux distros have an installer program. You run, search for a type of software, select, click install and it downloads and installs for you.

This is FREE. This is costing you nothing. Dual boot Linux, infact some distro(s) now out that are installers inside of windows - just like an application.

Open source is also available on Windows and Mac.

OK, mail over :j Just wanted to put that out there for anyone shying away from Linux thinking its difficult to install or use.

bluesnake

the problem with free os, or software, is that if it is not an easy 'Duh', or common issue, then support at best is mediocre, but often non existent.

Like microsoft, if it goes wrong you could just insert the cd and reinstall again. Often linux is a bit harder and drivers for cameras, players, scanners etc. less available and can be a !!!!!! to install.

my pet MS peeve is often have one base product, then disable features and pay extra for the privileged of this enhanced product. Not counting 32/64 bits, do people need 6 different versions of windows 7? Then there are the server version of the virtually same product...

Think there is a new version of MS windows just around the corner.

nathand_2

Linux is also a pain if you want to install an application that isn't in their software center. With windows you just download the file and install.

m5rcc

All software could be 'free' should one choose to do so....

John_Gray

These threads usually turn out to be a matter of airing one person's prejudices against someone else's, which is largely a waste of time and effort. Compare Apple v. Microsoft, AntiVirus A v. AntiVirus B, and so on.

And the argument from authority / experience is just a variation on the theme!

Dave_C_2

Tried a dual boot of Linux (ubuntu) on this ageing machine (1.2 GHz Duron) and my experience was as follows

Pros
Free
Fast to boot
Applications fast
Open office just as good as MS
No virus checking

Cons
Couldn't get DVDs to play without stuttering, even with VLC media player
Couldn't get Ubuntu to recognise my Creative Zen MTP based media player

Deffo worth thinking about for the next purchase of PC.

Dave

Notmyrealname

Linux sucks. Even the advocates think so. Ubuntu is a prime example of this. 10.04 on the wife's laptop working fine. Update the kernel, wifi breaks.

Linux Sucks, a video from Linux Fest NW. It shows everything wrong with Linux - starts from the beginning where they spend 5 minutes getting external monitor support to work.

fwor

Dave_C wrote: »

Cons
Couldn't get DVDs to play without stuttering, even with VLC media player
Couldn't get Ubuntu to recognise my Creative Zen MTP based media player

I reckon Con 1 is probably that the 1.2GHz Duron + (probably) low-power graphics simply doesn't have the processing power to read, decode and play back in real time.

Con 2: If you install one of the media players such as Banshee, an MTP-based player should work just fine (my Sansa Clip+ does in MTP mode).

Notmyrealname

fwor wrote: »

I reckon Con 1 is probably that the 1.2GHz Duron + (probably) low-power graphics simply doesn't have the processing power to read, decode and play back in real time.

Yet in the 1990s we were doing that on computers with far less computing power.

fwor

Notmyrealname wrote: »

Yet in the 1990s we were doing that on computers with far less computing power.

I'd say that would probably depend on the graphics card. If it has too little memory it would probably have struggled back then.

One other thing to check would be the graphics hardware drivers - if it needs (or can use) non-open source drivers there are often several versions available and they (in my experience) do not all work equally well. This can all be done point & click through a GUI - no command line needed.

esuhl

I mainly use Arch Linux now, and I love it. It works well, it's a lot faster than my Windows OSes, and it's far easier to find the right software for a task using the package manager than searing the web and avoiding shareware, adware, etc. It's a breath of fresh air compared to Windows.

However... I can't imagine anyone who doesn't have an interest in computers/computing would find maintaining a Linux system easier than Windows.

Popular software that "everyday folk" want to run, like MS Office, games, etc. won't run on Linux. Windows is easier to configure, and fewer things break when it updates!

I could set up a Windows system for a non-techie and a year later it will be a bit unstable, with loads of useless crap installed on it, but it will (just about) work. I could install Linux and (unless it's never updated and no new software is installed) in a few weeks' time, something will require technical user-intervention to keep it working.

There's a lot of things I really don't like about Windows, but every OS has its place -- I have 4 separate installations of Windows myself, compared to 3 of Linux (although I use Linux a lot more), so it can't be that bad!