Anyone basing his experience of Linux on old RH 7.2/9.0 is like a windows user talking about Windows 95. Fedora kicks a**!! It recognises my hardware and has something called a wpa_supplicant(google for meaning) for my wireless card.
I use samba for file sharing and a proxy server to manage bandwidth effectively. You can tell me the cost of Windows 2003 to provide File Sharing/Web Serving or ISA Server to provide a proxy/firewall.
Originally posted by z00tIn my view, what Red Hat have done to Linux is almost criminal.
Anyone basing his experience of Linux on old RH 7.2/9.0 is like a windows user talking about Windows 95. Fedora kicks a**!! It recognises my hardware and has something called a wpa_supplicant(google for meaning) for my wireless card.
I use samba for file sharing and a proxy server to manage bandwidth effectively. You can tell me the cost of Windows 2003 to provide File Sharing/Web Serving or ISA Server to provide a proxy/firewall.
Originally posted by WheelyWell, the three big companies (100+ users) I've worked / contracted at had all-windows networks and had no problems, but I'm no expert.
This one I completely disagree with. With Windows servers, you not only need skilled admins you need millions of them to keep a few servers running. I've lost count of the number of companies I have been into that have loads of Windows admins running about all over the place, insisting on monthly downtimes and generally looking like they are keeping everyth ...[text shortened]... s.
On the desktop though, how are you supposed to compete against the powerpoint culture 🙂
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see Linux totally taking over the server market, as it would mean more moolah for me, but the bigger corporates don't do change well.
I've never seen it in practice - how well do networks run with windows workstations and all-Linux servers?
Originally posted by WheelyWell with all this advice about debian slackware fedora redhat etc, I really don't know which one is best. I am slightly tempted to delve into the world of LINUX again, but last time i couldn't even manage to install aMSN. I ran the set up program, a message box menu followed and it said hat the installation was complete. Then the aMSN icon appeared on the desktop but it would not work. I tried running itfrom GUI and CLI and it wouldn't have it. All I managed to do was to set it up a two PC home network and get up and running on the Internet. But as for installing applications, Ijust ended up pulling my hair out.
Fedora is the version of Red Hat that you don't have to pay a stupid amount of money for.
For me, they are both evil 🙂
As someone said before, If it works, why fix it? Windows does what I want it to, so I don't see the point in learning to drive to get to work, when I can simply walk.
Originally posted by CrowleyWell, one of the problems I find in many companies is they tend to use Linux as if it were Windows. That is, they use it as file servers, print servers, application servers etc. Often you'll find the Windows admins looking after the Linux box too (while the unix admins look on in horror) so the mindset of one application per server and constant re-booting "for performance" are often continued. This isn't their fault as such it's just that they are not used to working the Unix "way".
I've never seen it in practice - how well do networks run with windows workstations and all-Linux servers?
This doesn't play to strengths of a real multi-user system that is designed as such from the ground up. You often find that many of the real benefits of the OS are not used.
Having said that, even if you do just use it as drop in replacements for Windows servers, users certainly won't notice the difference. I also firmly believe that for the very best support, performance and price you need to be brave and hire a Unix admin and use Slackware.
Originally posted by jimslyp69My question to anyone who says they want to try Linux is always "why?"
Well with all this advice about debian slackware fedora redhat etc, I really don't know which one is best. I am slightly tempted to delve into the world of LINUX again, but last time i couldn't even manage to install aMSN. I ran the set up program, a message box menu followed and it said hat the installation was complete. Then the aMSN icon appeared on t ...[text shortened]... it to, so I don't see the point in learning to drive to get to work, when I can simply walk.
Originally posted by WheelyThe security aspects are the only thing that attract me to it. If I could get my head round installing a mail client, a program that equals cubase sx and a decent media player, I would change over tomorrow.
My question to anyone who says they want to try Linux is always "why?"
I haven't tried the newer variants as Linux as I long agao migrated to BSD based systems - far cleaner in my opinion.
However, I still don't think Linux if for the avaerage 'lazy' user and I can well understand why most Windows users just can't be bothered.
Also taking that first jump into something new requires a degree of trust (or plain stupidity). If you get it wrong on Linux, you could well end up doing more damage than with a Windows system just down to the number of services a Linux machine can offer.
My advise. Stick with Windows, get a good firewall and virus protection. If you feel adventurous put Linux on a separate partition and start from there, bit by bit.
Originally posted by jimslyp69You can do it! Here are the Fedora Core 5 installation instructions, start to finish:
...I am slightly tempted to delve into the world of LINUX again, but last time i couldn't even manage to install aMSN...
http://www.stanton-finley.net/fedora_core_5_installation_notes.html
1 edit
Originally posted by jimslyp69Xine is a very good media player though mplayer is probably the best anywhere though you probably won't like it because it doesn't default to having a GUI.
The security aspects are the only thing that attract me to it. If I could get my head round installing a mail client, a program that equals cubase sx and a decent media player, I would change over tomorrow.
For Cubase I would definately suggest "Rosegarden" as a pretty good sequencer and adequate analogue recorder and only is really deficient because it doesn't allow convenient post-recording editing of midi controller events. Rosegarden misses a few Cubase features and needs a new version but given that it is "Jack" aware, it probalby scores ahead of Cubase anyway for me.
For a professional quality analogue recorder/mixer look at "Ardour". I would venture to suggest it is better than anything on any platform except possibly the extreme high end stuff. It doesn't do sequencing but given that it is also "Jack" aware, it doesn't need to anyway. Given that there are about a million effects/synth plugins that can be sent to and returned from directly within Ardour you can pretty much build a professional recording studio with $0.00 software costs. You want "cut to glass" quality mastering? Look at "Jamin".
I'm not sure where you have a problem with e-mail though there seem to be about a billion clients that come with all distributions.