cloudy

Linux GUIs are not nearly as internally consistant, far reaching, easy to use, or as well thought out as Windows or Mac. There are many different Linux GUI's. Windows GUI's all look and feel pretty much the same. Linux distributions do not have many good GUI's to do lower level tasks like installing drivers and changing startup settings (registries and the like). Also, Linux desktop programs do not interact with each other as easily from a point-and-click user's point of view. I fear this is not because the Distro makers arn't trying. They are trying very hard. It is because the loosley coupled architecture of a complete Linux system makes it difficult to make such tools that work consistantly and be easy to use. To some extent, a tightly coopled, closed system is the best for usablity. Notice that what was until recently the most closed architecture of all (the Mac) is also reputed to be the easiest to use. Because Apple controlled everything from the hardware to the Web Browser, the user experience was noticibly better. Tight coopling leads to less security and performance because more programs or services are installed by default. It also has less of the kind of flexibility and compatibility that application programmers and administrators like. That is why it is usually considered inferior by those in the know. What those in the know forget is that tight coopling usually leads to a more usable system for those NOT in the know. Another thing Linux proponents forget.... most users are not like Grandma who has never seen a computer. On the other hand, most are not admins or programmers. Linux puts very high demands on those who want to know enough to easily change startup settings, write simple shell scripts, and install drivers. To get to that level of Linux knowledge is hard for a Windows person (I know, I have tried) and you can do less once you get there(at least that's what I suspect). Linux gives you a choice - just buy a premade system with it installed and work with the many less then fully compatible and complete GUIs available, or spend many weekends becoming a guru. The middle road is tough, or at least much tougher than it is with Windows. IN SHORT... Try using a Linux system for any but the most basic things, for any length of time, and you will be forced to use the command line. At least, that is my experience. Linux makes many things that should be simple more difficult because of its loosley coopled architecture. Linux gives less return than windows for your effort if you want to learn "enough to be dangerous" - and many people want that level of knowledge. That is why I fear that Linux will never be a true competitor on the desktop. When there is a serious competitor for Windows, my bet is it will be an X86 version of OS X, openSolaris or something more or less unknown at the present like Sylable.

I like opensource. I use OpenOffice and Firefox, and have tried migrating to Linux twice. The advantages are well known and I am sure others will point them out. However, there are some limitations to opensource, particularily from a user point of view....1. If you need a really specialized piece of software, proprietary options are usually better. I mean specialized from the user's point of view. Opensource developers do not often want to work on something that will not be used by that many people.2. Software that tends to have a short life span does not attract developers either. That is one reason why there are not that many good open source games. 3. No open source project (with the possible exception of Mozilla Firefox) pressures its developers to please ordinary users like a commercial project's management does. That is one reason desktop Linux has not gotten as much headway. Something is wrong when you tell Grandma to recompile her kernal. Recently, I read a debate about whether Linux should maintain binary driver compatibility or not. Such a feature would be of immense value to ordinary users - the reason my migration attempts have failed is becuase some drivers don't work, are to difficult to install, or don't work(or at least work easily) with a particular version of Linux. Even Sun feels the need to commit to binary driver compatibilty for Solaris, even though its clients are much more knowledgable than the average windows user. Yet the Linux zealots refuse to commit to binary driver compatibility becuase they would have to support old APIs. If Linux was a commercial project, I'm sure management would demand this in order to please their customers. 4.Forks, Forks, Forks, Forks and more Forks. Even when the code inself isn't actually forked, each "distribution" or version of an Open Source product differ a lot more in what is included than is the case with most closed source products. Many Java developers do not want Java fully open-sourced because of concerns about forks. Sun is very open with java, but is also zealos to protect its unity and integrity. The Java API's will work as advertized in any given implimentation or that implimentation cannot be called Java (Microsoft got sued for violating this.....). One of the reasons that Linux has gotten as far as it has is it has a benevolant dictator - Linus is the final arbiter. 5. Not enough GUI's. Lets face it, there will be very few rank and file users who started using computers after Windows 95 who will willingly use any sort of command line. At least, when they do, they do it kicking and screaming. Yet a great many OpenSource products still require the user to use a command line. Fortunatly, this trend is reversing - most current, widely used open source products include a GUI - albeit not always with the same functionality and flare that one could expect from a commercial product.

Some antivirus and other security software will block any program other than Internet Explorer from accessing the Internet. This is sometimes a default setting. Check the documentation on your security software to find out how to change this. You also need to be sure you have downloaded the right version and followed the instructions for installation. One question, I am using CSS with XML and Firefox does not seem to render it correctly, while IE does. How is Firefox's support for stylesheets different from IE? As for download managers, Firefox's own download manager is pretty darn good.

Go to the MySQL AB website and use their tutorials. MySQL is a database management system, as the last posters have said. Download one of their GUI clients, read their tutorials, and it is fairly easy to use. It is almost as easy as MS Access, albeit there are not any of Access's extra handholding features like QBE or screen builders. MySQL is pretty much a database only. Check out any basic database management text (get a recent one) and you will get the idea. SQL is not like other programming languages, nor is it a markup language like HTML or XML. Its function is to access databases, and it uses a totaly different syntax to do so. SQL code looks more like COBOL or a human language than like a programming language such as C++ or markup language like XML. Your web application or other program can access MySQL databases through Java, C++, Perl, Python and many other languages. Just follow the instructions on MySQL AB's website. MySQL is free unless you intend to embed it in a proprietary (or closed-source) application.

Don't count server side Java out. It is way bigger than it appears......JSP and Servlets are a very common choice for serving dynamic web content. Just look at how often your browser calls a page with the JSP extension. Servlets (JSP is compiled into servlets) are faster than CGI in most situations, or so I have heard. Java web apps are very well supported by the likes of IBM and ORACLE and so are very popular at big corporate websites. A lot of smaller organizations' websites (often created by outsourcing/consulting firms) use them as well. As for personal sites, CGI languages have been more popular. Methinks this is because Java is not nearly as popular in the "hacker" community as Python, Perl and the like. Java is not fully "free" as in "free speech" - it does not come with a fully open source licence. People who build websites with dynamic content for personal use tend to support open-source, and so tend to favor the more open CGI languages. This is probably the main reason not as many personal websites and free servers use server side Java as use other options, even though JAVA is superior to CGI in many respects. ASP is a bit easier to use (or so I have heard, I havn't tried it) than Servlets or even JSP, and is compatible with Microsoft technologies. Companies whose inhouse expertise primarily in Microsoft tech (and that is a LOT of companies) like to use ASP to the exclusion of Java in most instances when they do their own websites. This is the main reason that Java has not taken over the corporate word. IN SHORT.... CGI still dominates the hacker/personal world. Java and ASP fight for the business market. ASP tends to have an edge in smaller and/or Microsoft centric shops. JSP/Servlets has an edge in larger shops and in places where alternatives to Microsoft are used - especially alternatives provided by large Microsoft competitors like IBM and Oracle. But this is just a gross generalization. There are many, many exceptions.

Some of my bookmarks -http://www.jguru.com/ - a good site for all things java http://jars.developer.com/ - there are many basic swing apps listed here http://www.onjava.com/ - Oreilly's Java page. This is the place to go for good advise on many specific situations - sometimes Sun's explanations on java.sun.com are a bit to convoluted for my taste. However, make sure you download the api docs at http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/index.html. It is a large download, but it is worth it to have the api docs right there. They are the "bible" of JAVA. Yes, Swing is included with the basic J2SDK offered free by Sun. Yes, you do want JDK1.5 if you don't have it already, if for no other reason than the rotten default "look and feel" of pre-JDK1.5 Swing applications.

I am also considering a JAVA/Mysql site hosted on this server. A couple questions.... I do have tomcat running on my own machine (though I can't get a static IP and so can't serve pages directly from it to the web.). I have succesfully developed JSP's and servlets on this setup, however. Is it possible to compile JSP's into servlets, and then just upload the resulting files to the Xisto server (and redo this every time the JSP changes)? Compiling JSP's does impose a load and I might end up doing it pretty often..... As to the debate between manually entering servlets and using JSP's - I am kind of new to this so I'm not really an expert. But I have found it easiest to use beans (not Enterprise beans) or non-bean utilitiy classes for the "hidden" or business logic. I call these classes directly from the JSP's and from custom tags. I did use a combination of scriptlet-laden JSP's and servlets for my first web-app. It worked, but as it got bigger it became an unmaintainable, complex and hard-to-understand mess. In my current project, seperating the business logic and presentation seems to be working much better.