Should I bother with Linux?

esuhl

John_Gray wrote: »

Are there any Linux distros where you don't have to do a complete reinstall every time a new version comes out? Something like Windows Service Packs?

Arch Linux uses a "rolling release" model (where things are upgraded incrementally and you never have to install a "new version" of the OS).

andydiysaver

EchoLocation wrote: »

Having recently emptied and formatted my secondary HDD I've been thinking about trying Linux as a dual-boot alongside Windows 7, but the sheer amount of choice is a bit overwhelming.

Any advice or recommendations would be welcome; however, before I even start asking the many questions I have... should I even bother with Linux? Is curiosity a good enough reason? I won't be ditching Windows, so is it really worth bothering with a second OS?

I like the idea that there is substantially less malware targeted at Linux, and being open-source it's likely to offer better privacy(?). But can it really offer a worthwhile alternative experience to Windows 7?

I do both


my advice


- don't run dual boot on the same physical HDD, Linux doesn't like windows and vice versa. If you must then get at third party bootstrapper


- or do as I do and run a virtual machine within windows - you need decent chip for this I5, I7, something like that. and a decent amount of RAM. if you go this route enable virtualisation in the BIOS or it won't do it. you can get free stuff like oracle virtualbox, run it from there, some support is there, figure the rest out by trial and error which in my opinion is the fun bit anyway


- plus with VM's you can run multiple Linux distros, sky is the limit (or HD space to be precise)


- don't get a crap or dedicated Linux,unless you want a dedicated function or are a geek doing testing. get something like Ubuntu, that's fairly high level, has XP like features


- I find 16 gig ram is great for multiple OS's on one PC. you can go supergeek and put an XP on a bit of ram, load it into a VM, see how fast fast is...


- be careful - esp if you want to do dual boot on one HD, one wrong move and your primary OS is done in


it's a lot of fun, and often at a lot lower level- makes it faster, and far more customisable if you know what you're doing. Hackers love it too, for that reason.

ThemeOne

I always dual boot on the same drive, but I configure the Windows boot loader to boot both systems.

esuhl

ThemeOne wrote: »

I always dual boot on the same drive, but I configure the Windows boot loader to boot both systems.

The Windows 7 (and prior) bootloader can't boot Linux... Is that a new feature in the Windows 8 bootloader?

On my PC, I run the GRUB bootloader which either boots Linux or chainlinks to the Windows 7 bootloader. That then either boots Windows 7 or chainlinks to the Windows XP bootloader.

As far as I know, the Linux bootloaders (GRUB, GRUB2, LILO) can't boot Windows themselves, and the Windows bootloaders can't boot Linux; hence the need to chainlink between boot managers.

esuhl

Uxb wrote: »

Moaning at me for objecting to the command line usage in Linux is rather amusing as I was brought up on stuff like the Commodore PET and ICL1900 mainframes, along with the Digital PDP series and Data General's offerings and having to remember the sodding command line syntax for each and all of them at various times ... and on occasions multiple ones at the same time.
Doing all programming/compiling/binding at the command prompt, setting up batch files for data input/output and not a GUI in sight. -in fact at one stage it was punched cards only on the ICL so not only no GUI but no VDU terminal either.

Never ever again thank goodness!

But yes, I'm all for curiosity so as I've previously said go and try out a few Linux distro's.

Glad you had a chuckle! But the point of Linux is that it's open source and modular. When someone designs, say, a video transcoding program, they will want it to work alongside other Linux programs. Unlike in Windows, all programs in Linux should be like modular Lego blocks that can be plugged together however you like.

A computer program can't use a GUI to control another application; it needs to pass parameters in a command line. So the command line will always be the "default" way of controlling the execution of a program.

Once the command line API has been set up, then you can go on to create a GUI to pass command line parameters, or write a script to link together (say) a DVD-ripping program with the transcoding program and an ISO-image creating program.

But if you want the ultimate control over the programs, or you find that scripts and/or GUIs haven't been written yet, then you'll need to use the command line.

The use of the command line isn't a weakness of Linux; it's a strength, by design.

prowla

esuhl wrote: »

A computer program can't use a GUI to control another application; it needs to pass parameters in a command line. So the command line will always be the "default" way of controlling the execution of a program.

Hmmm - I would say that a GUI can control another application and frond-end/hide its command line; that's what web-based apps do, and also GUI builders like TCL/Tk are there for.

But Windows Server is going all command-line based, since Microsoft appears to have given up on GUI design, so being familiar with the prompt is a pretty essential skill in modern computing.

(The great thing about the Linux shell is that it's a traceable evolution of what the blokes at AT&T wrote some 40 years ago when they developed UNIX, so there is definite continuity there.)

ThemeOne

esuhl wrote: »

As far as I know, the Linux bootloaders (GRUB, GRUB2, LILO) can't boot Windows themselves, and the Windows bootloaders can't boot Linux; hence the need to chainlink between boot managers.

That's what I meant - I just wanted to float the idea for the OP (who is new to Linux) rather than go into detail.

esuhl

prowla wrote: »

Hmmm - I would say that a GUI can control another application and frond-end/hide its command line; that's what web-based apps do, and also GUI builders like TCL/Tk are there for.

Well... that's exactly the point of a GUI! A GUI exists purely to control another application!!!

But you try writing software that interacts with another program via its GUI instead of using a command line API! You'll find a command-based interface far, far easier to interact with than in trying to detect the location of buttons and menus on-screen and moving the mouse pointer to simulate user behaviour.

One tiny change in the GUI and your program might not be able to identify the function of new buttons and menus as the code underlying the GUI is hidden.

The whole point of a GUI is to make it easier for humans to interact with software; programmatically command lines will always be easier.

prowla

esuhl wrote: »

Well... that's exactly the point of a GUI! A GUI exists purely to control another application!!!

But you try writing software that interacts with another program via its GUI instead of using a command line API! You'll find a command-based interface far, far easier to interact with than in trying to detect the location of buttons and menus on-screen and moving the mouse pointer to simulate user behaviour.

One tiny change in the GUI and your program might not be able to identify the function of new buttons and menus as the code underlying the GUI is hidden.

The whole point of a GUI is to make it easier for humans to interact with software; programmatically command lines will always be easier.

Sure - I have written programs to interact with GUIs; they're sometimes called screenscrapers.

The point I was making is that it's easier for the end user to have a GUI, so therefore you can put a GUI front-end onto command-line actions.

Whereas I thought you were saying command line for all...

esuhl

Yeah, I've written software that interacts with GUIs and they're a right pain compared to using a proper API!

And yes - GUIs are generally easier for end-users. But many GUIs hide things from users, and if you want to automate things with scripts it will be easier to use text commands.

I certainly wouldn't want to do most things via the command line, but understanding shell commands helps you configure your system and some things are just a lot easier. I always update my system using the command line -- one quick command does it all. If I used a GUI it would probably take longer!

Anyway, part of the amazing way that Linux differs from Windows is that the programs are completely modular and can be put together in novel ways (with scripts or pipes or whatever) to do so much more than you can in Windows. If the commands exist and you can think it, then you can do it in one unattended script. No need to spend hours manually running a file through various different programs' GUIs -- just whack it in a script and come back later.

Don't like one tiny component of the script you've written? Well, there are probably several alternatives to every program you used in your script -- try another one and you've just built a program that does exactly what you want in a single script without having to do any real programming. As I say, it's like playing with Lego!

I'm really no expert in Linux or shell commands, but I do "get" why nerdy Linux gurus love it so much. It's so free and easy, if only you can learn to love the command line just a little bit!