Anyone care for a new OS? I (and corp. usa) am so hyped for this!!!!!!!

[Deja Q]

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3489081

Good god. For $85 (typical) street price, this is a great deal.

ipod support, virtual machine software, a quantum jump in GUI level... vastly expanded laptop support, and tons more. Novell ROCKS!!! I've NEVER seen this much advancement in a SUSE (or any other distro) release.

And according to an anandtech.com study, SUSE is the FASTEST of Linux distros, and it cremates Windows...

I've read a LOT on Linux, IBM, Novell, and other big names lately. I'd swear that they seem to want to be rid of Macroslop too!

Want change? Let's make it or stop whining and accept the ramming we get from Microsoft's macroslop. I fully support and applaud Novell on this.


(I rarely double-up on posts, if ever. But With 9.2 being as great as it is, I feel that 9.3 is going to place the seed that revolutionizes the desktop and sets Microsoft's rusty clock toward midnight.)

[RoyGBiv]

1. In the process ...

I'm currently in the process of converting myself to Linux. I have a dual boot system at the moment and do my web browsing and e-mail via Linux. The rest is coming along more slowly.

I am currently using SuSE 9.2, although I've tried both Fedora and Mandrake, both mentioned in the article. All three are excellent distros. I've settled on SuSE for the moment because a friend is running it and is thus better able to help me with problems.

My only real issue at the moment is hardware support. A lot of it has nothing to do with any of the people/companies involved with Linux. They're trying their best. But, there's no simple method for those not familiar with the command-line syntax of Linux to do things like get a mouse with more than 3 buttons to work properly or activate 3D acceleration and video capture functions on my ATI card. That's a big issue for me, the latter one in particular. I have a higher tier video card, and my video under Linux could be easily achieved with a $20 OEM piece of junk.

I'm very excited about finally taking the plunge and ridding myself of Microsleeze. I encourage others to do the same. However, be fully conscious about what you're doing. There is a high learning curve, even for people like me who have worked on UNIX workstations and grew up with command lines. I grew accustomed to the ease with which certain things under Windoze are done, and at this point, such things are simply not that easy in Linux unless you are already intimately familiar with it. For the casual user who does nothing but web browse, e-mail, and word processing, a standard install of a Linux distro may be all you ever need. But, for anyone who uses a computer for more complex tasks, work will be involved.

Of course, nothing worthwhile is easy, so I press on. :-)

[Sgent]

2. With suse

make sure you read the administration manual. It gives step by step instructions for installing ATI and NVIDIA drivers under X (KDE).

Linux does a very good job at any network things (web browsing, email, file sharing, etc.). It also does a good job at working with MP3's, CD burning with K3B, editing digital photos...

Open office has really come into its own and is adequate unless your a power user -- even then, it can be very, very good for some things. OpenOffice certainly beats the pants off of MS Works if that's all you have.

Of course, software development, web hosting, and other network issues are traditional strong points.

There is a little bit of a learning curve, because as good as YaST/SuSE is, it still can't do all functions graphically. Some things do need the command line; however, those familiar with DOS shouldn't have too much trouble.

Finally, hardware support is hit or miss -- and based on the individual manufactorer. Often, high end business components are easily supported (RAID cards, etc). Most sound and graphics cards, USB, plug and play, etc. are all fairly well supported. Printer support is excellent as well as most other peripherals. That being said, some lower end items do have proprietary interfaces (certain modems espcially) and they haven't released linux drivers. Support isn't as good as windows, but should be close to the Mac.

[RoyGBiv]

3. The Manual ...

The instructions I got with my distro simply did not work for me. When running the program glxgears, I was getting around 350 FPS, which is abysmal for the card I'm using. (As a test, I plugged in an old PCI graphics card that shared my system memory and actually got better performance.) I browsed linuxquestions.org religiously for a couple days and finally stumbled across a step-by-step guide for installing graphics drivers for my card, and it worked. My FPS using the same program can get up to 6500 now.

For some things I've learned it is just a trial and error game, and that's fine with me. I played this game for a long time and then got stuck with Windoze when I started working jobs that used it exclusively. A DOS and UNIX background definitely helps, but it has been so long since using a command line was habitual that I forgot a lot of things.

I spent much of my weekend working out getting my mouse and graphics card to work. I'm now on to my printer, which is listed as being supported but just doesn't work properly with the standard settings.

Like I said, anything worthwhile requires effort. There's a great community out there to tap for help, and tapped I have. :-)

[banjosareunderrated]

12. could you point to where you found the solution?

I'm having the same problem with an X800 and Suse 9.1. It's hard to try and make everything work when I can barely see anything. After that, I'll tackle my nic.

thx.

[RoyGBiv]

15. Link

http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?s=&threadid=302954

That's the main thread I used. Read through the thread. There are a couple typos in the original instructions that can give you fits.

[banjosareunderrated]

18. thanks, i appreciate it n/t

[Deja Q]

9. ATi keeps its code propriatary and they're known for making crap drivers,

BUT they are improving.

I was able to get 3D acceleration when I had an ATi card, but then my previous generation NVidia still beat the snot out of it. (A Geforce 4600 outperforming the ATi 9800 PRO by 35%, in Linux? :wow: )

Yeah, Linux needs a way to go - but with Novell now trying big-time to get into the racket, I've got to wonder just how they've adapted 9.3 for the masses.

[SKKY]

14. I tried your method and kept coming back to Windows...

...because it was easier. Finally, I just took the plunge and reloaded my machine with Red Hat. It took some getting used to, and I had to learn a whole lot, but in about 4 months, I really didn't miss Windows at all. Anything I needed to do, I could get done with Linux. Sometimes it's not as easy, but in my mind it makes me a much smarter computer user.

[RoyGBiv]

16. Agreed ...

The one and only reason I haven't done it the way you suggest is I have a few things I *must* do on a daily basis that can't be done quickly or efficiently under Linux ... yet of course. :-)

[SKKY]

17. I know. Believe it or not, until 2001 or 2002 I think, Red Hat had to...

...maintain 2 windows 98 machines for payroll transactions with their bank. It seems their bank had compatibility problems. I'm sure that's changed now, but even still, it does highlight a point. We still live in a Windows world.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

4. I love Linux, but I doubt we'll ever see a majority of WS users with it

Don't get me wrong, I love Linux. But I'm technically savvy and enjoy working with computers. But, being a Microsoft professional, there are many reasons why Linux won't ever make up more than 20% of the Workstation OS market (and that's being incredibly optimistic).

1) Business software is created quickly and cheaply using Microsoft development tools that you simply don't have (and probably won't ever have) with Linux. The open-source movement, while a great thing, doesn't have the resources or the standardized methods to create something on the scope of the .NET Framework, for example.
2) Users want to buy a computer, take it home, then turn it on and use it. That's it. Period. Anything more complicated than that, and the user becomes frustrated and quits using the machine. Microsoft should get some of the credit for making home computing available to the masses (with a lot of credit going to Steve Jobs for the innovation he stole from PARC).
3) Linux, because of it's very nature, hasn't consolidated much. There are simply too many versions requiring slightly different knowledge to setup and operate. This leads to problems with inadequate hardware driver support, inconsistent software, and syntactical mutations in the Windowing systems. Users, especially business customers, don't like that sort of turmoil in their systems.
4) As a business software developer, it's almost impossible for me to make a living doing Linux development. Why pay me for work that can be had for free from the open source community? I don't get why developers work for free. The idea is noble, but so was Marxism.
5) Linux, with it's power and stability is better suited as a server OS, and that's the market where it will continue to grow. As the .NET Framework is ported to other OS's and VM's, connectivity between disparate server and workstation operating systems will become less of a problem (my opinion - ain't it all?).

That being said, Microsoft has TOO MUCH MONEY. They could afford to sell their home OS systems for 50 bucks a pop because most of their profit is realized from business sales. Microsoft is also a corporate monopoly that should have been dealt with years ago (and might have been had not * been elected).

[RoyGBiv]

5. A couple points ...

I'll start with point #4: Many people make very good livings doing Linux development and/or administration. You need to familiarize yourself with the OpenSource philosophy and not look at it as purely a dollars and cents game. Banging out a piece of software and offering it for free is not the whole point. The generic OpenSource business plan is based on a long-term strategy, not one of gobbling up every cent you can get as quickly as possible with no real thought given to the future.

On a related note from the opposite end, a number of people make money in development for a Windoze platform simply because the OS is so broken and full of holes. That's great for the short-term. I myself have made some decent cash doing silly things like virus and spyware removal using simple tools I developed myself. I've also been paid for fixing various problems caused by Windoze itself, something I almost feel guilty about doing. But, this is not a good business plan in any reasonable sense of the phrase. I can't (or shouldn't) base my future on it. People who did ten years ago are unemployed today. Why? The foundation of the model changed, and those people didn't. (Others did, of course.) People making livings working with, say, *nix-ish systems ten years ago are still doing it.

Regarding point #2: Microsoft should get credit for nothing other than having the audacity to develop a business plan based around charging for broken products that created this entire sub-industry of helping people fix those problems. I've personally benefited from that, but thankfully I never gave into the temptation to base my life around it. Further, any number of platforms could have brought computers to the masses. That Microsoft was the company that did this only highlights the illegal and immoral ways in which it was done.

And, as an aside, the manner in which computers have been brought to the masses encourages ignorance, which is never beneficial, particularly in the long term. I don't think it necessarily better that someone with no concept of what secure communication across a network is has access to a computer. I don't mean technical expertise. I mean not even understanding the bare fact that Internet voting is inherently insecure or that networked voting machines are ripe for fraud. This sort of thing has put a tremendous and unnecessary burden on the network itself that is in turn encouraging the creation of private networks, which will eventually lead to Shrub's "internets" flub being a reality we have to deal with. The chain of causation in this is long and complicated and has many actors, but the Microsoft company is embedded in every link of that chain.

Re: Point #3: This is stated incorrectly. Linux itself is not the problem. That is, there is nothing inherent to Linux that prevents hardware support. Different packaging version can exacerbate the issues but are not themselves the problem either. The hardware support issue specifically is due proprietary architectures and the software used to communicate with it. There is no reason, for example, that an ATI video card has trouble working with Linux, and the different distributions of the OS play absolutely no part in this little drama. The problem is that ATI itself has been slow to support Linux and that it won't allow those outside its company access to certain necessary information. You could argue, as ATI does, that it risks its bottom line and letting too many of its secrets that make it money out in the open by more support, but you'd then have to explain how nVidia does not have this problem at all and regularly exceeds ATI in overall quality of its products.

Oh, and .NET is evil. :-)

Welcome to DU, btw! :hi:

[EvolveOrConvolve]

6. Those are good points

I know a lot of people who make money on a Linux platform. Nearly all make a living doing network administration or web development. I don't know a single developer of business software in my fairly extensive group of contacts that makes a living primarily doing Linux application or database development.

I will admit that my viewpoint is skewed. I do business application and database development in general and accounting application integrations specifically. While there are accounting packages built for the Linux platform, my experience shows that companies who purchase the less expensive (or free/open source) Linux software don't want to pay for the custom work later on that might provide some sort of return for their business. The mindset of many business people seems to be that open source should be free, support should be cheap, and they have no understanding of the amount of work involved in doing application customizations. (caveat: I do live in a city and state populated almost entirely by cheap labor conservatives - my view might be a bit biased)

As for long term business planning, I'm not sure that the Linux community is any better at that than Microsoft. I do know that I spend zero hours a week "fixing" Windows, and 60+ on building applications that allow small businesses to run more efficiently and less expensively. Many of my clients are on the 3rd or 4th version of their Windows Based custom applications. Some have gone to .NET applications that will work as-is for 6 or 7 years into the future.

When I say that Linux is a problem when it comes to hardware/software/etc., I wasn't clear about what I was saying. I have a machine in my office that runs Red Hat 8.2, and I have no problem with the hardware now. But, it wasn't easy to setup even though I have far more knowledge than your average user. What I was trying to point out is that the hardware support, software implementation, and other aspects of the OS are spotty between different flavors of Linux, especially since each flavor can have many different versions and variations. That becomes a problem for the average John Q. Public who owns a computer to type letters, save pictures from the digital camera, and send emails to the kids. It's not that Linux can't do those things - it can very well. The problem occurs when Mr. Public attempts to setup a printer or mount a drive or setup an email account (if he makes it past the install). Newer versions have made it easier to do those things, but it's not even close to the ease of use that comes with Windows.

Linux itself isn't inherently more secure than any other OS. Since it's natively a multi-user, networked OS, setup incorrectly it can be less secure. Admittedly, Windows has a lot of security holes, and they've done a poor job of educating the public about those. But, I think the security implications are magnified by the fact that hackers, virus authors, and spyware developers specifically single out Windows (as some perceived evil). If those malicious coders turned all their attention to Linux or Mac, I'm sure we'd have months and months of paranoid news story on how insecure those operating systems are. Setup and managed correctly, any OS can be operated and maintained at a high level of security.

My opinion of Microsoft's marketing and business prowess is mixed. Without Microsoft, we might very well still be living in the days when there was no standardization. In the 80's, I owned a Commodore 64 or Amiga, my buddy down the street had an Apple, another friend owned a build-your-own system that his dad made. Yet another bought one of those giant Compaq "suitcase" computers that was the first IBM-PC Compatible machines. Hardware was proprietary for each system. Software was proprietary for each system. Each computer had it's own programming language, disk formats, etc. It was a mess. Without Microsoft, another company would have filled that role. I credit Microsoft for creating a standardized system and marketing that concept to the masses (using admittedly questionable tactics).

But Microsoft as a company has become too powerful. They aren't required to respond to problems, because there are no viable alternatives for most people. That means that Microsoft as an organization is non-responsive to their customer base (at least outside the huge business clients). Rather than giving people what they want, they tell us what we want. The new version of Office is a perfect example. It's bloated with new features that no one will ever use or care about. Most people would do just fine with the free version of Microsoft Works that was given away for awhile with Windows 98.

I do think that Microsoft is beginning to become more responsive, though. The .NET platform was created as a free and easily obtainable development platform that can execute on any operating system, much like Java. The next version of SQL Server will be partially open-source (the db engine core will still be proprietary). The next generation OS will be run almost entirely using XML and managed code applications. Part of the reason I think that MS is doing this is the fear of another democratic presidency with a powerful AG who isn't afraid to kick Steve Ballmer in the nuts and tear apart their monopoly. I could be wrong though...

BTW, thanks for the welcome. Have a :beer: on me!

I love DU. The people here are at least 20 IQ points better than the population and 40 points higher than your average freeper. :D

[RoyGBiv]

7. Freepers have IQs?

I didn't even know they registered on the scale. :-)

That's an excellent response. Thanks for your insights. I should note that I am not in any sense a computer professional and that my thoughts are generated more from the user's perspective -- someone low on food chain in the corporate world who has to deal with the decisions of those who make the deals and sign the checks -- and as one who is for some reason consulted by superiors about these sorts of things, which inspires me to educate myself further so that I give decent answers. (I seem to be the only person in my immediate circle of co-workers who knows more about a computer than how to flip the power switch.) I also look at it from a socio-political perspective, which often has little relationship to the specifics of the technology. This is all a long way of saying you know more about the details than I do, and I will defer to that knowledge.

I do have a couple comments to make, however, that I hope you'll consider in that context.

. . .my experience shows that companies who purchase the less expensive (or free/open source) Linux software don't want to pay for the custom work later on that might provide some sort of return for their business.

I agree that this is the case. However, I see this more as a failing of business professionals' insight, an extension of the bottom line mentality that prevents many executives from seeking and establishing a long-term, sustainable business model. It's a failure of imagination, an inability to think outside the box. In short, I think this has less to do with the capabilities and requirements of an operating system than with the perceptions of those who use them.

As for long term business planning, I'm not sure that the Linux community is any better at that than Microsoft.

I don't mean Linux specifically. I meant OpenSource generally. Some OpenSource projects have developed an excellent business plan; the problem, at present, is that the plan is geared toward long-term, slow growth, which in the modern age many people simply can't acknowledge due to the thirst for immediate profit.

As for Linux itself, I think some groups are doing it better than others, and at this stage of the game, it is yet to be determined whether they will be successful. There is a lot of work to do and the need of some serious business professionalism being allowed into the setting, that is people other than code hackers. Many in the Linux community dislike SuSE now because of its association with Novell. These are people with the more radical view of what OpenSource is all about, people who tend to distrust any attempt at true organization. Those people will be "enthusiasts" the rest of their lives and probably never do anything more interesting than be Linux fanboys. The problem is that some in the community see organization and professionalism as a bad thing. They're techno-anarchists. I think they must serve a function, but I have yet to determine what it is other than as a form of entertainment. :-)

I do know that I spend zero hours a week "fixing" Windows, and 60+ on building applications. . .

Here is where our perceptions differ substantially. I spend a lot of time "fixing" Windows, and it's not even in my job description. And, when I say fixing, I mean tracking down a network or software issue that wasn't there yesterday but is today on a system that has been up and running for months or years and is supposedly stable. Or, I spend a lot of time battening down open hatches so that problems don't show up was easily in the future. This is almost always related to some sort of user error, but it is a problem that the OS allows and should not. It's hard to know the true source of the problem, given the disparities in numbers, thus giving credence to your point about exploits (virus attacks, spyware, etc.) being a function of popularity. Whether that is entirely true has yet to be truly tested.

On that note, I also disagree mildly about whether Linux is inherently more secure, the mild part being due to the use of the word "inherently." Proper administration, as you say, is the key. But, my view is that a plain vanilla installation of Windows is easier to crack, break, or exploit than a plain vanilla installation of Linux. This may be due to my own biases and perceptions. I actually know more about Windows than Linux and thus know better how to break it or exploit it than I do Linux. So, YMMV. I do know that the many of the most popular kinds of exploits in Windows -- things I know how to do -- won't work the same way in a Linux environment, if they work at all. Of course, imagination among crackers and hackers is boundless, so I do not discount the possibilities for the future.

Without Microsoft, we might very well still be living in the days when there was no standardization.

That comment could get you shot in certain places. :-)

I see what you're saying. (I had a TRS-80 COCO I and then II, so I really see what you're saying.) I don't agree entirely because, again, I think this was due more to the ways in which Microsoft exploited weaknesses in the emerging market. That is, standardization was a function of the building of a monopoly, diminishing the alternatives available. Maybe that was part good and part bad. It's good that we have standard rail gages, but how that achievement came into being was bad in many ways.

I strongly support standards, but Microsoft's history has been one of adherening only to standards it sets itself, an attempt to drive others out of the marketplace. Maybe, as you say, that's changing.

And, I will also say that I continue to run a dual-boot system, even though I use Linux for pretty much everything I do on a day to day basis at home. But, at present, there are things that, for my purposes, Windows simply does better at present. Some of that is due to the previously mentioned hardware problems. In other cases, I simply do not want to take the hours of time necessary to make Linux understand how to do something I could get done in ten seconds in Windows. Until (and if) the "time and effort" thing changes substantially, Windows will still be the more popular solution and better for many people.

But Microsoft as a company has become too powerful.

I agree entirely with this paragraph and with most of the next. I will, as I said, defer to your knowledge of the .NET framework.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

8. Freepers have just enough intelligense to be dangerous

"...I also look at it from a socio-political perspective, which often has little relationship to the specifics of the technology. This is all a long way of saying you know more about the details than I do, and I will defer to that knowledge."

My greater knowledge of the details doesn't mean that your view isn't equally or more valid than mine. One of my problems is that I'm often shortsighted when my business is involved. I rarely think about the socio-political implications of my relationship with Microsoft. I'll be pondering that in the near future. However, change will be most effectively made by the people on the inside (such as myself), and in the long run businesses make decisions based on the financial health of their business. Microsoft does that and I do that; it's inevitable for any business to survive.


"I agree that this is the case. However, I see this more as a failing of business professionals' insight, an extension of the bottom line mentality that prevents many executives from seeking and establishing a long-term, sustainable business model. It's a failure of imagination, an inability to think outside the box. In short, I think this has less to do with the capabilities and requirements of an operating system than with the perceptions of those who use them."

That's exactly right. Big business in the US has devolved into these mindless entities that are focused on short term profit for their shareholders rather than any long term fiscal, social, or moral goals. Enron is a perfect example of this. There was no way they could get away with it forever, but they (they=executives such as asshole Kenny Boy Lay) got their $100 Million before the whole shithouse came crashing down. Any time I take on a new client, I ask them to explain what their ROI is expected to be. If they can't explain what they get out of contracting with me, to my satisfaction, I wish them well and move on.


"That comment could get you shot in certain places."

Tell me about it! :-)

Microsoft probably wasn't the optimal company to move the computer age into another era. But we're stuck with it, and it won't be going away any time soon. I think strong competition from Linux is a positive for the consumer because it will force Microsoft to react to consumer feedback rather than steering the industry by itself. Before that can happen, the Linux community will need to consolidate, and that may not be possible under current market conditions. Lindows was the right idea, but was implemented before it should have. Until a consolidated version of Linux is supported by a majority of the Linux community, the disparate versions are like gnats to Microsoft. In fact, I've always wondered why MS hasn't made a serious attempt to kill the Linux movement.


"I strongly support standards, but Microsoft's history has been one of adherening only to standards it sets itself, an attempt to drive others out of the marketplace. Maybe, as you say, that's changing."

I agree completely. But, those standards are created by organizations supported by the industry, so you'll need to lump Intel, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Sun, etc. into that group. The government needs to take the reins of technology standards because there are serious conflicts of interest.

I've enjoyed this conversation. I wish every computer user was as intelligent and informed as yourself.:-)

[Deja Q]

10. Precisely. Especially point #1, but most manager types seem to think of

solely "here and now". Which is also one of the reasons why America is about to collapse...

[Deja Q]

11. Mostly good points. But you know me, I'll always find something!

But Marxism was as much of a good idea as Capitalism.

Both were hijacked by the immoral and unethical and, let's face it, all human societies I know of have used money. They've ALL failed. Flocks of birds don't use money and they band together in flocks! Not line up in neat orderly rows to play out a systematic attempt to kill another group of people, also lined up in neat rows...

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

13. I have Novell Suse Linux Pro 9.2 x64

It screams. It's even very good at automatically picking up new hardware-- up to now somewhat of a Linux shortcoming. Can't wait to get my hands on 9.3.