Re: Linux Recommendations

["Bruno Prior" <bruno@xxxxxxx>]

Tony,

You're really not keen on linux, are you? But are you sure you are
being
entirely even-handed in your arguments?

If you don't want to use linux, why don't you look for another way
round
this? If the software you need to install on linux is open-source, why
don't
you have a look at whether you can adapt it to run on Windows? Thanks
to
NDAs, we linux users often don't even have that option, and have to
reverse-engineer the solution.

> Yeah I know.  To be honest, I looked at linux many many moons ago
- back
> in the days when it fit on about 24? Floppies.  And it was all
there
> alright, but finding any docs (on what a package actually did,
never
> mind how to install it!!!) and wading thru them was a complete
> nightmare.

I looked at Windows 3.0 many moons ago, and it was a dog. You may be
pleasantly surprised with the progress that linux has made since you
last
used it.

> At least windoze installs tend to just work (software that
> is, not hardware) and are fairly intuitive.

I am happy for you that this is your experience. It is not mine. Have
you
never had incompatible DLL conflicts on Windows? As for whether the
installs
are intuitive, as I said in my previous message, it depends what you
are
used to, but I assure you, you could get used to the linux way of working
if
you wanted to.

> I find *nix commandlines
> unfriendly at the best of times,

Then avoid them, as you avoid the DOS command line. There is rarely a
need
to resort to the commandline nowadays. But most linux users still use
it
>from
with it. The only part of what I suggested that incorporated the
commandline
was reading the manpages, and there are plenty of GUI tools to read
them
instead if you prefer.

> and I really cannot be arsed wading
> thru tons of docs just to get [insert package name here] working.

You should be able to get 90% of binary packages working simply by
using
your distro's package manager (the latest package managers will even
manage
dependencies for you, so you don't need to worry about all the
associated
packages you need to get the one you want working). On the other hand,
I
tend to find reading the docs a sensible thing to do in most walks of
life,
not just when installing linux packages. In the long run, it usually
saves
you time.

> This is why I want as hassle free an install as possible.

There is a distinction between the original OS installation and
installation
of subsequent packages. You should find the original installation of
modern
linux distros at least as hassle-free as the installation of Windows
(at
least you don't have to reboot more than once). As far as installation
of
subsequent packages go, if they are compiled for the version of the
distro
you are using, they should install just fine, but if they are not
compiled
specially, you may need to put a little more work in. I think you would
find
the same with many programs if you tried to install them on the wrong
version of Windows. But at least with linux, you have the raw material to
be
able to adapt it to work even if it doesn't work right away. As for
packages
that need to be compiled from source, even this is fairly standard now
(./configure; make; make install, or variations on this theme), but if
you
have problems, ask yourself how much easier it would be to compile
programs
>from
> Initially its for caler ID, but chances are I'd add JReceiver to it
for
> example, so my Windoze machine no longer has to be pollutes with
Sun's
> java :-)

Can't help you here, I'm afraid. I don't know anything about Tivo's
caller
ID mechanisms, or about JReceiver. Happy to help with generic questions,
but
not much use with these specifics.

> Ah yes, the shells designed to make linux look like windoze.....
says
> something about windoze methinks :-D

As the windoze design says something about the Apple desktop, and the
Apple
desktop says something about the work done at Xerox PARC? A windoze
advocate
really shouldn't get drawn into debates about the merits of various
user-interfaces. ;-) The Windows shell is a nice shell; so too are KDE
and
Gnome. These aren't designed to look like Windows, they can look as much
or
little like Windows as you want. And if you want something completely
different, there are dozens of other window managers you can try. At
least
the linux designers didn't wreck the stability of the OS by building the
GUI
into the kernel. :-(

> Seriously though, when last I looked at linux, there was still a lot
of
> crap you had to do to get to the gui stage.  I really don't want
that -
> I remember pages of warning about how modifying your config file for
X
> free 86 could seriously damange your monitor (you had to manually
mod
> the file in those days - no fancy detection tool like you get
now!)

Ahh yes, those were the days ;-) Nowadays, you will have to own some
fairly
weird or cutting-edge hardware to relive those fun experiences. Honestly,
if
you go with a user-friendly OS like Mandrake or SuSE, you should be able
to
achieve pretty-well anything you can on Windows without having to edit
a
config file. Of course, they're still there if you want to....

> > By the way, most linux users would see Microsoft as the Evil
Empire,
> so
> > you
> > are now leaving, not joing the dark side. May the force be with
you.
> Ah but I'm not leaving, merely operating on the edge :-)

That's what you think now, but eventually you will see the light.

> To be honest, I can see arguments for *nix server side as there is a
lot
> of software out there, a lot of it free, it works as well as the
> commercial stuff etc,

Actually, a lot of the free server stuff works _better_ than the
commercial
stuff (classic examples being Apache and Samba). :-)

> but I don't think I could _ever_ see it as a
> desktop OS.
> There's nothing else out there apart from MS that has the
functionality
> and ease of use of Word, Excel, visual studio etc.  It's about
time
> there was, but there isn't so until that day, you gotta be using
MS
> somewhere unless you're crazy :-)

I would have agreed with you until quite recently. But the following is
my
personal experience. When I got my latest laptop for work around 9
months
ago, I set it up to be dual-bootable for linux and Windows - linux to
do
development work for the office server, and Windows to run Office,
Internet
Explorer etc. But as it was a pain to reboot, I decided to experiment to
see
how much of my day-to-day work I could get done conveniently on linux.
It
turned out quite a lot. I found I preferred checking email, for
instance,
with one of several programs available on linux, than I did putting up
with
the incompatibilities in Outlook and Outlook Express. I could read and
create basic Word and Excel documents reasonably effectively with
programs
like Abiword and Gnumeric. But yes, they were still inferior to Word
and
Excel, even as recently as that. So I decided to avoid the rebooting
route
by running Windows under linux, using Netraverse Win4Lin. I made a bad
decision at this point to leave the Windows dual-boot partition in
place,
because it turns out that Windows runs practically as well under Win4Lin
as
it does in its own partition. And when it crashes (as it inevitably
does),
or needs rebooting for one of the myriad reasons that Windows seems to
find
to require this action, the reboot is an order or magnitude quicker on
Win4Lin. Very quickly, I gave up using Windows from its own partition -
there was almost no need. Just recently, the final pieces have fallen
into
place. Codeweavers have released a product called Crossover Office,
which
will allow you to install and run MS Office direct on linux if you want.
And
Sun have released StarOffice 6 (and alongside it, OpenOffice have
released
version 1 of the free software version of StarOffice), which, apart
from
being slightly slower to startup, appears to offer all the facilities I
look
for in Office in a native linux package.

As for Visual Studio, it's kind of predictable that you would not find
an
equivalent Windows development tool outside the Windows platform, but
there
are other IDEs available on linux. However, I cannot comment on these, as
my
main (practically only) language is perl, so I tend just to use emacs
(which
you should never, I repeat never, try to use, given your dislike of
commandlines, config files and others of their ilk).

> Thanks Bruno and everyone else for your suggestions.  I think
I'll just
> have to take a flier and download either Red Hat or Mandrake and
see
> what happens.

Quite right. Best way to learn something is to get your hands dirty. But
if
you really want an easy ride, please try Mandrake or SuSE before
RedHat.
RedHat is an excellent distro in many ways (as is Debian and many
others),
and arguably more suitable for more experienced users and for
businesses,
but if all you want is a cheap and easy ride, you will honestly be
better
with one of these two.

Cheers,

Bruno

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT

For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx 
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx 
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx 
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.