Do you run Linux - if not why?

thescouselander

Cant be bothered with Linux (even though I work in IT). I actually like Windows 10 and I've got Windows specific software I want to run - windows is well supported too and doesn't take much maintenance on my part.

iltisman

I havn't got a beard.

Stoke

arciere wrote: »

It's not wrong. It's my opinion.
I have used Linux in the past and I didn't like it. Not saying that it's worse than Windows, I'm just saying why I don't use it.
I have been in IT for the past 20 years, Linux has never managed to make me change my mind. No prejudice, just my experience.
Windows installations have pretty much always been "Next - Next - Next - End". Has Linux always been this simple and I never realised?

It's wrong to say that installing generic software is significantly easier on Windows, because it simply isn't. Say you want to install Skype on Windows. You navigate to the website, download the exe, double click, press Next Next etc. Done. Say you want to install Skype on Ubuntu. You navigate to the website, you download the .deb package, double click on it, the Debian Installer comes up. Press Install, agree to any policy. Done.

I'd say they're about the same. If you're talking about obscure software, then you could say the same about some obscure software on Windows too. I'm not saying that Windows isn't more user friendly overall, but that particular example is a bad one in my opinion.

arciere wrote: »

That's hardly a mainstream problem, is it? I appreciate that Linux is probably better in specific cases, but for everyday uses I have found it to be more complicated and time-wasting than Windows (again, my opinion).

You're correct, it's not a mainstream problem and if you read back up the thread I openly state "if all you want to do is eBay, Facebook, Word etc and you've never used Linux, stick to Windows". I'm speaking from the position of someone who works in software/hardware development. It might be aberrant, but someone has to do it.

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

I use PuTTY every day at work, and a fair bit at home. I find it eminently usable. For connecting to remote servers on an IP address : port combination, not establishing a serial connection, admittedly, but it does exactly whatI need.

Eminently usable..... talk about selling it to me. Imagine a Bentley dealer telling you their car is eminently driveable. Yes, PuTTY works.... it does work and I can't knock it for that. It does, roughly, what it sets out to do. It's just not a good example in my opinionc. It's what I like to refer to as the software equivalent of a shoe horn. Can you get by on it? Yes. Would you want to every day? I personally don't, hence I use PuTTY only when absolutely necessary. To be honest, I'd run Linux inside a VM before having to use PuTTY everyday.

Retrogamer wrote: »

I tried Ubuntu, DSL, XDSL and some others quite a while back but wasn't a fan. I use my PC mostly for gaming and although i'm well aware you can game on Linux i find there is often more compatibility issues or it can be annoying getting the latest drivers and the likes.
Windows is easier for me.

Nah, you can't really game on Linux at all. The games available are all terrible and running games in WINE is a minefield. If games are important to you, then stick to Windows 100%. There's nothing wrong with a dual boot anyway. If you find yourself more productive on Linux but want to retain gaming capabilities, the dual boot is your answer.

prowla wrote: »

I find PuTTY pretty hard work.
Don't you get SSH in Windows these days?

Same. As I described above, it's a shoe horn. I find myself very aware that I'm using PuTTY. It's kind of a clunky mess. I recently tried KiTTY which is basically a fork of PuTTY with a few extra features and again, a similar experience.

I've recently installed Git for Windows which comes with MINGW64. It's absolutely awful.... an abomination, but..... granted, it does indeed come with Git Bash and a load of busybox binaries that you can run from something resembling an old fashioned Terminal Emulator and with some semblance of usability..... one of those happens to be SSH. This is by far the be the best option for Windows in my opinion. Don't be fooled though, it's not a proper busybox and there's plenty you can't do with it..... and there's nothing answering the Windows question to picocom.

arciere

Stoke wrote: »

It's wrong to say that installing generic software is significantly easier on Windows, because it simply isn't. Say you want to install Skype on Windows. You navigate to the website, download the exe, double click, press Next Next etc. Done. Say you want to install Skype on Ubuntu. You navigate to the website, you download the .deb package, double click on it, the Debian Installer comes up. Press Install, agree to any policy. Done.

So no more sudo commands, apt-get this, install that?
About time that changed in a more user-friendly way.

Stoke

arciere wrote: »

So no more sudo commands, apt-get this, install that?
About time that changed in a more user-friendly way.

I personally use apt-get still, because I like it, and I am comfortable with it, but yes, if you want to just install a generic piece of software like Skype, you download the .deb, double click and press install. No different to an exe really.

A lot of software is distributed this way, and I'm pretty sure the package also updates and repopulates your repo list so updates are delivered nice and correctly.

esuhl

Installing and updating software in Linux is generally much easier than Windows.

With Windows, you'd need to open a web browser, go to the Spotify website, find a suitable download link for your OS, download the file, locate and execute the file, and click through an installation program.

On my Linux machine, installing software is generally as easy as:

$ yay -S spotify

All software on my system can be updated with:

$ yay -Syu

Again, that's much quicker/easier than Windows, where you have to manually open all your apps one-by-one, search for a "check for update" option or search for the developer's website and manually check for another version, then download and execute the file manually, then repeat for every other application you have installed... And then use Windows Update in addition... And then update all the virus and malware definitions that aren't necessary in Linux.

Stoke

esuhl wrote: »

Installing and updating software in Linux is generally much easier than Windows.

With Windows, you'd need to open a web browser, go to the Spotify website, find a suitable download link for your OS, download the file, locate and execute the file, and click through an installation program.

On my Linux machine, installing software is generally as easy as:

$ yay -S spotify

All software on my system can be updated with:

$ yay -Syu

Again, that's much quicker/easier than Windows, where you have to manually open all your apps one-by-one, search for a "check for update" option or search for the developer's website and manually check for another version, then download and execute the file manually, then repeat for every other application you have installed... And then use Windows Update in addition... And then update all the virus and malware definitions that aren't necessary in Linux.

If your repo list is accurate and up-to-date, you don't even have to do that. Most distros now periodically remind you to update and give you a surprising amount of control, just in case there's a couple of packages you'd rather not update.

And if your repo list isn't up-to-date, you're in the same camp as Windows So.... no worse off.

At the end of the day, it's subjective and most of it comes down to personal preference.... but there are very good reasons to pick Linux over Windows. If the only reason to use Windows is a "my printer doesn't work with Linux", that to me isn't a good reason.

debitcardmayhem

If you run W10 just use ubuntu,or one of the other distros, and use Ssh etc , no need for putty

Stoke

debitcardmayhem wrote: »

If you run W10 just use ubuntu,or one of the other distros, and use Ssh etc , no need for putty

I assume that allows you to SSH into a Linux box..... have they built the ability to SSH into a Windows machine yet? I heard a few months ago that W10 now has Bourne Shell which I think is a huge step in the right direction.

debitcardmayhem

Stoke wrote: »

I assume that allows you to SSH into a Linux box..... have they built the ability to SSH into a Windows machine yet? I heard a few months ago that W10 now has Bourne Shell which I think is a huge step in the right direction.

It allows you to log into any box running SSHD. I would assume that you should/could run a SSHD daemon on W10 but why? teamviewer et al are for accessing WinXX, plus “Bourne shell”? You must be talking about bash..not the original Bourne shell. When if/I have time I will try see if you can run X remote programs on W10 using ssh, I remember doing that using putty about 12 years ago to Solaris/Unix servers, but the hows and what with is lost in the depths of my mind