Ubuntu Linux As Free Operating System Alternative linux operating system

[technobot 0]

About three years ago I decided to learn how to use Linux and after a lot of posts on a forum I tried Ubuntu Linux as it was recommended as a good first Linux distro. Ubuntu is not the easiest Linux distro to use but with its unmatched forum community support it is one of the easiest to learn to use. One of the problems with learning Linux is that a lot of users have an attitude that Linux should be a free Windows knock off which it is not. Ubuntu is build on a Linix core or kernel and is a different Open Source and free as in to use operating system. This brings us to the complex realization that you must learn how to use this new operating system that is a lot different from Windows. One of the problems with Linux is that like stated above that the distro's are build on the Linux kernal. The problem with this is all the distro's are like different operating systems using the Linux kernel which would require a install.executable for each different group of distro's such as the Debian like which Ubuntu is based on. Unlike Fedora that uses a yum package manager and rpm packages Ubuntu used synaptic and the deb format for packages. The good note is that the Ubuntu synaptic package manager allows you to install programs from the manager. The deb system makes installing programs and packages with this package manager very easy. The problem is packages that have to be build from tarballs which is not all that complicated once you learn how to and install a few. Now the interesting part is that with compiz you can have desktop affects at par with Vista but that will run on systems that would not run vista. Ubuntu and Xubuntu can make a good OS for computers that used to run windows 98 or Me. One down side that I found to hold very true is that Linux is free as in beer but not free as in time and you might find your self hacking away at it for long periods of time. The strength I like is that using it can be a personal choice and with Ubuntu Linux I have that choice. My computer is a toy again which I find very enjoyable. Any questions? Post them!

[birudagmawi 0]

I agree, as a moderate Linux User, I have tried the Live CD of Ubuntu and Kubuntu and I must say both are a smooth running operating systems. Although Kubutnu would be my choice because of the less system requirements, both offer a great experience. I still have my doubts though, I had to try out all of my Graphic Cards I had until I had one that was compatibile, and as much as I hate to say it, Linux is not ready for everyday use, there are a lot of system incompatibilities, you can't run most of your programs,games, and other applications that you are used to and is unpractical except as a tool to back up your files in case of virus outbreak or other windows errors and also manage a PC that has no OS on the hard drive, thats all I use it for.Whats worse is that some distros only offer genuine support of only 6 months or soMaybe 10 or so years from now, it may be good enough for a permanent installation on my PC, look in the bright side, DELL had announced to sell Computers with Ubuntu Pre Installed, how Cool is that!

Edited August 22, 2007 by birudagmawi (see edit history)

[rvalkass 5]

Ubuntu is not the easiest Linux distro to use but with its unmatched forum community support it is one of the easiest to learn to use.

I think the Ubuntu family are among the easiest distros to use, especially for those just starting out in the Linux world. The installation is fairly easy and installing software using the relevant package manager is far easier than most distros, and miles ahead of installing software on Windows.

 

The deb system makes installing programs and packages with this package manager very easy. The problem is packages that have to be build from tarballs which is not all that complicated once you learn how to and install a few.

I agree that installing software from source is not exactly the nicest experience, and is probably one of the hardest things to get to grips with when you first encounter Linux. However, after a few goes, ./configure, make, make install becomes imprinted on your brain. I never understood why, if all software meets the same set of standards for a command-line install, a GUI couldn't be applied to those steps. Users like buttons, and a large button labelled INSTALL would help most users.

 

Now the interesting part is that with compiz you can have desktop affects at par with Vista but that will run on systems that would not run vista. Ubuntu and Xubuntu can make a good OS for computers that used to run windows 98 or Me.

I have found this to be the main reason people are swayed to use Linux, and the *buntus especially. The effects available with Compiz and Beryl are stunning, especially when you consider that they cost nothing at all. Then when you reveal the relatively low spec you need to get it to work, most people are blown away. Being able to "revive" a PC that Windows deems is too low-spec with Ubuntu is also great.

 

One down side that I found to hold very true is that Linux is free as in beer but not free as in time and you might find your self hacking away at it for long periods of time.

I think the single thing which took the most time for me with Kubuntu (aside from the actual install) was getting the look right. Choosing a widget style, window style, colours, backgrounds and everything else took me around an hour. I have never had to spend longer than that on any task to get the operating system, or any software, working. Even massive OpenOffice download-and-installs and the like didn't take as long.

 

I still have my doubts though, I had to try out all of my Graphic Cards I had until I had one that was compatibile[...]

This is one of the unfortunate truths with most Linux distros, and not a myth people hold that can easily be swept away. However, hardware manufacturers are gradually realising it might be worth their time appealing to the Linux market. Also, certain distros have done a far better job than Ubuntu. Linux Mint for example has a much better install procedure, hardware support and automatic hardware detection.

 

[...]and as much as I hate to say it, Linux is not ready for everyday use, there are a lot of system incompatibilities, you can't run most of your programs,games, and other applications that you are used to and is unpractical except as a tool to back up your files in case of virus outbreak or other windows errors and also manage a PC that has no OS on the hard drive, thats all I use it for.

I'm using Linux every day perfectly well, and if anything its far better than my Windows PCs. I run Kubuntu on a Pentium M 2GHz processor, with 1GB of RAM. That runs much faster than Windows on my desktop, which has a much higher spec. There are perfect free replacements for all the software I commonly use on Windows, and often software to complete tasks that you simply can't find a good equivalent for.

 

OK, games is another area where Linux falls down. Why? If enough people contact games studios and ask why they don't develop for Linux I'm sure they'd at least consider it. Yes there is the issue of free software - a game you buy would probably be closed source. However, I am sure a lot of people would put up with that to have decent games on a Linux system. Wine is making headway by allowing Windows programs to run on Linux without an emulator. I installed it, and have only needed to run one app through it - everything else I have found a replacement for.

 

Whats worse is that some distros only offer genuine support of only 6 months or so

At least you can get a large amount of free support. Microsoft make you call premium rate lines and pay for support. With Ubuntu you can pay one price and get unlimited support. They also release LTS (Long Term Support) distributions, that are supported for at least 18 months.

[truefusion 3]

I agree that installing software from source is not exactly the nicest experience, and is probably one of the hardest things to get to grips with when you first encounter Linux. However, after a few goes, ./configure, make, make install becomes imprinted on your brain. I never understood why, if all software meets the same set of standards for a command-line install, a GUI couldn't be applied to those steps. Users like buttons, and a large button labelled INSTALL would help most users.

One could use Kompile or Kinstall (i think it was) for this, but i prefer terminal. I've also found myself having to use extra options for ./configure a few times for certain programs. But for programs that i know that don't really need me to have these extra options i just run:

./configure && make && sudo make install

The && make things easier, not having to wait for one process to finish in order to type in the other command to continue. I usually install from source when the repository doesn't have the version i want, but *ubuntu 7.10's repository has everything up-to-date.

 

I find make errors the most annoying—especially on programs that take hours to compile. :XD: ./configure errors are easier to fix, though, it's usually a problem with the PKG_CONFIG_PATHs or LD_LIBRARY_PATHs. Installing *-dev(el) packages fixes this problem. However, in source-based distros you would have to manually modify these variables.

[Atthack 0]

I've tried Linux Ubuntu myself, I find it a GOOD Open Source / Free Operating System.Still the fact that I never manage to "put myself in" to the system, learning commands in Terminal, etc is just what I don't need.So I'll stick with Windows! Windows XP for those who started to wonder :XD:

[dre 0]

Ubuntu is the perfect OS for those people that do nothing more than surf the web, use email, talk on messengers, and type up papers. Anybody will be able to do the things I just listen because they're very simple, and the fact is that most people with computers do little more than that.

[birudagmawi 0]

There are perfect free replacements for all the software I commonly use on Windows, and often software to complete tasks that you simply can't find a good equivalent for.

Yes, but as a college bound student, most of the real world depends on Windows compatible Software like Photoshop, and Dreamweaver, as a Student Intern for a computer programmer, he told me that most of his work is done in windows, because its much more easier to handle, and there is no learning curve to get over, windows is an established OS for the buiessness world and will not change in the near future.

Linux systems are oriented for more Family Freindly Usability
Edited August 23, 2007 by birudagmawi (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Yes, but as a college bound student, most of the real world depends on Windows compatible Software like Photoshop, and Dreamweaver, as a Student Intern for a computer programmer, he told me that most of his work is done in windows, because its much more easier to handle, and there is no learning curve to get over, windows is an established OS for the buiessness world and will not change in the near future.

Don't businesses also use Macs when dealing with image manipulation and video editing? I'm always hearing about Macs in the office where my friends work. Also, i hear that several businesses have been switching over to Linux (again, where a friend of mine works; they use Debian). So i am expecting things to change in the near future. But as with any (well-trained) computer programmer, a simple ascii editor is all they really need. If they move onto more advanced editors, it would be for convenience and time-efficient purposes and probably because their boss says to use it. :XD:

[birudagmawi 0]

Look, all I'm saying is that its not practical, Mac's are good for quicktime 3d movies and editing and thats the only reason they use it, besides, MAC is a lot better contender than Linux, not just for the excessive advertising but for home use, Linux well, it doesn't belong in an office desk. As soon as Linux becomes popular hackers will make customized viruses for Linux only.And I don't know much about GNU Agreement but if you give out your source code of an operating system to the public, aren't you pretty much asking to be hacked into?Soon Linux would become like Microsoft, releasing a package and fix for every little vulnerabilities....You Tell Me, wouldn't THAT happen, its happening to Firefox

Edited August 23, 2007 by birudagmawi (see edit history)

[NYbadboy911 0]

thanx alot for the info

[rvalkass 5]

As soon as Linux becomes popular hackers will make customized viruses for Linux only.

At the moment there are around 100 viruses that can affect Linux, compared to over 100,000 viruses that attack Windows PCs. Yes, as Linux becomes more popular it is likely that more viruses will be written for it. However, there is a large difference between Windows and Linux. On Windows, whatever sort of account you are using you have access to Windows files and settings. On Linux, your standard account has access to your own documents and user settings, and thats about it. If a virus did get onto a Linux system, it could not destroy the heart of the operating system. Regular backups make sure that your files are always safe.

 

Ubuntu is often seen as more secure because you can't log in as root. You can only run one command at a time as root, and that requires you to retype your user password. You can even remove that ability from your everyday account, and just keep another account for performing system changes.

 

And I don't know much about GNU Agreement but if you give out your source code of an operating system to the public, aren't you pretty much asking to be hacked into?

 

Soon Linux would become like Microsoft, releasing a package and fix for every little vulnerabilities....

As far as I'm aware, both the Linux source code and most of the distributions based on it regularly release security patches and updates. Having the source code available makes the operating system more secure, as thousands of people are looking at it and checking for bugs and security vulnerabilities. Security issues have been known to be fixed within minutes of them appearing. Compare this to Windows, where only a select few developers in Redmond have access to the source code. Yes, you can report an issue, but you can't actively do anything to fix it.

[birudagmawi 0]

having the source code available makes the operating system more secure

I STRONGLY disagree with that. The same freedom that lets people modify a program to upgrade can also be used to maliciously and eailsy find holes in the system, and anyone who ignores that problem is making a big mistake.

 

thousands of people are looking at it and checking for bugs and security vulnerabilities.

While I agree that the more people contribute to secure a OS makes it a lot better than a few private developers doing a 300-man job,thousands more are figuring out a way to get in to the OS, this is one of the main disadvantages if Open source applications. Since their code is open to the public, there will always be someone, somewhere on earth that will do anything to compromise the integrity of the system, developers of Open source application would be forced to play a never ending cat and mouse game with hackers. One finds a hole in the security and plugs it up, while one opens a new hole, you close the door and they open a window. You create a solution while they create problems. Get what I mean? How would you stop that problem?

 

You reply me a real useful and reasonable solution to that predicament and I will format my PC right now and install my Kubuntu.

Edited August 24, 2007 by birudagmawi (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

Since their code is open to the public, there will always be someone, somewhere on earth that will do anything to compromise the integrity of the system, developers of Open source application would be forced to play a never ending cat and mouse game with hackers. One finds a hole in the security and plugs it up, while one opens a new hole, you close the door and they open a window. You create a solution while they create problems. Get what I mean? How would you stop that problem?

If i'm not mistaken (and i know i'm not :XD:), though being closed-source, Microsoft Windows has the problem you have stated above with its OS. Microsoft also has a problem with their OS being pirated. One of Microsft's attempt in stopping this was trying to limit one's copy of Windows to one computer, if not, you would have to (re-)register your copy of Windows. Also, you yourself have mentioned:

As soon as Linux becomes popular hackers will make customized viruses for Linux only.[...]Soon Linux would become like Microsoft, releasing a package and fix for every little vulnerabilities...

But, of course, nothing is 100% secure. As it stands, open source and closed source can be equally insecure, but open source has become a community, where there appears to be more programmer's helping each other than destroying each other.

You reply me a real useful and reasonable solution to that predicament and I will format my PC right now and install my Kubuntu.

You don't have to fully format your PC to use Linux. You can just create a new partition and install it there. Unlike Windows, Linux "allows" other operating systems to be accessible on the same system. Windows overwrites the MBR without any care for other operating systems on the system. And since you mention Kubuntu, you can try out the distro before installing it on your system, being a LiveCD.

[birudagmawi 0]

Look its not that I HATE Linux, I love it, heck I use Damn Small Linux almost everyday but its just not practical as a primary Operating System.

 

 

but open source has become a community, where there appears to be more programmer's helping each other than destroying each other.

Simply not true.

 

There are thousands of forums,sites,blogs, and wiki's out there that offer the same level of support, my favorite being the MSFN(Microsoft Software Forum Network) which has no affiliation with Microsoft but still create OPEN Source programs like Revolutions Pack, Unofficial Service Pack for 9x/2000/XP as well as other programs.

 

Just because MS is CLOSED source doesn't mean there isn't the same level, if not better support for the Operating System

[dre 0]

Unlike Windows, Linux "allows" other operating systems to be accessible on the same system. Windows overwrites the MBR without any care for other operating systems on the system.

No, linux just installs a program to try and handle multi-os booting.