Why Choose Linux?

taurizs

taurizs

New Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
247
Reaction score
0
1. Stability
2. Affordable
3. Performance
5. Security
6. No Viruses
7. Free Softwares
 
Are you sure about #5 and #6?

Your claim is MYTH!

No such thing as fool proof security and none of computer is immune to virus. The only machine that I know of never got hacked was AS400. If somebody proves that security on AS400 has been breached let me know. :)

taurizs said:
1. Stability
2. Affordable
3. Performance
5. Security
6. No Viruses
7. Free Softwares
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Are you sure about #5 and #6?

Your claim is MYTH!

No such thing as fool proof security and none of computer is immune to virus. The only machine that I know of never got hacked was AS400. If somebody proves that security on AS400 has been breached let me know. :)
Click to expand...

Yes, it been hacked except I don't know if anyone every tried to do SQL injection into DB2.
 
I've got nothing against Linux, but it is not true that it is any better or worse than any other OS. It's just not attacked as much as Microsoft is, however, that will change as it gains more market share.

From the Matrix: "Try not to think of it as right and wrong"
 
It's probably a better OS architecture than MS Windows, but it isn't invulnerable. That said, there is much to admire about Linux, and I do often recommend it to many people.

I am using Mac OS 10, which is based on BSD UNIX. Linux is modeled after and inspired by UNIX.
 
taurizs said:
1. Stability
2. Affordable
3. Performance
5. Security
6. No Viruses
7. Free Softwares
Click to expand...

:laugh2:

ClamTK3.08.jpg


Don't be silly.
 
oops! I forgot to add #4.

#4. Freedom :D

thanks for correct my mistake :ty:
 
Linux is better at some things, security is one of them. Windows is more familiar and has always been "good enough" for the corporate desktop. As long as they are happy with it, Linux will not stand a chance.
 
I used it from the turn of the century to 2008, for eight years. It was okay, except I could never get video or DVDs playing. There was never an OS for the PC architecture that that I tried that was capable of playing ALL multimedia straight out of the box. Error messages always popped up, or the video playing just didn't happen with no message. I gave up on having to have two computers, the linux box for critical desktop stuff, and the windows box for multimedia ONLY. Finally, I had enough and went back to Macs. I never looked back. Glad to say that I have NEVER had a personal email account established on a windows mail client in my life. NEVER.

I suppose it's possible today for maybe one of the linux distros out there to be capable of playing DVDs after the fresh installation of the OS. The one thing that irked the hell out of me was the lack of codecs for video playback in the RPM packages. And THEN Red Hat stopped including MP3 playability and that was that for Red Hat. My last distro before giving up was SuSE. It was good, but still couldn't play videos of any kind unless you really, really knew what you were doing. Hell, I wasn't even a programmer!

It was my opinion that linux is good primarily as a server-side OS. I recall that I had boxes running for over a year and a half at a time, and the only reason they went down was because of power outages. It sucked for desktop environments though, as the geeks wouldn't and refused to realize that if they wanted linux to be the end-all of computing like Windows, they were going to have to get over themselves and MAKE a distro that actually did multimedia out of the box. But no! They lost me to the Apple. Apple perfected Unix commercially before anybody else.
 
deafdrummer said:
I used it from the turn of the century to 2008, for eight years. It was okay, except I could never get video or DVDs playing. There was never an OS for the PC architecture that that I tried that was capable of playing ALL multimedia straight out of the box. Error messages always popped up, or the video playing just didn't happen with no message. I gave up on having to have two computers, the linux box for critical desktop stuff, and the windows box for multimedia ONLY. Finally, I had enough and went back to Macs. I never looked back. Glad to say that I have NEVER had a personal email account established on a windows mail client in my life. NEVER.

I suppose it's possible today for maybe one of the linux distros out there to be capable of playing DVDs after the fresh installation of the OS. The one thing that irked the hell out of me was the lack of codecs for video playback in the RPM packages. And THEN Red Hat stopped including MP3 playability and that was that for Red Hat. My last distro before giving up was SuSE. It was good, but still couldn't play videos of any kind unless you really, really knew what you were doing. Hell, I wasn't even a programmer!

It was my opinion that linux is good primarily as a server-side OS. I recall that I had boxes running for over a year and a half at a time, and the only reason they went down was because of power outages. It sucked for desktop environments though, as the geeks wouldn't and refused to realize that if they wanted linux to be the end-all of computing like Windows, they were going to have to get over themselves and MAKE a distro that actually did multimedia out of the box. But no! They lost me to the Apple. Apple perfected Unix commercially before anybody else.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but you do realise that all the codec problems and DVD problems are because they have to be paid for. Why would expect something that is free to include things that are not?

What you should really be asking is how we got to the stage that the world only used mp3's and a DVD bought in one country can't be watched in another.
 
SimonJ said:
I understand what you are saying but you do realise that all the codec problems and DVD problems are because they have to be paid for. Why would expect something that is free to include things that are not?

What you should really be asking is how we got to the stage that the world only used mp3's and a DVD bought in one country can't be watched in another.
Click to expand...

And it begs the question as to why the companies wouldn't pay for the codecs and charge the software packages a little more to cover that cost. You could buy some of the distros at a store back then. Apple includes the codecs because they paid for the right to use them ever since the first computer was capable of playing a DVD movie.

The DVD distribution is limited to reduce piracy, though there are ways around it. It would be like the Chinese copying not only a computer, but the entire store that they are sold in! How would you like that if it happened to you?
 
deafdrummer said:
I used it from the turn of the century to 2008, for eight years. It was okay, except I could never get video or DVDs playing. There was never an OS for the PC architecture that that I tried that was capable of playing ALL multimedia straight out of the box. Error messages always popped up, or the video playing just didn't happen with no message. I gave up on having to have two computers, the linux box for critical desktop stuff, and the windows box for multimedia ONLY. Finally, I had enough and went back to Macs. I never looked back. Glad to say that I have NEVER had a personal email account established on a windows mail client in my life. NEVER.

I suppose it's possible today for maybe one of the linux distros out there to be capable of playing DVDs after the fresh installation of the OS. The one thing that irked the hell out of me was the lack of codecs for video playback in the RPM packages. And THEN Red Hat stopped including MP3 playability and that was that for Red Hat. My last distro before giving up was SuSE. It was good, but still couldn't play videos of any kind unless you really, really knew what you were doing. Hell, I wasn't even a programmer!

It was my opinion that linux is good primarily as a server-side OS. I recall that I had boxes running for over a year and a half at a time, and the only reason they went down was because of power outages. It sucked for desktop environments though, as the geeks wouldn't and refused to realize that if they wanted linux to be the end-all of computing like Windows, they were going to have to get over themselves and MAKE a distro that actually did multimedia out of the box. But no! They lost me to the Apple. Apple perfected Unix commercially before anybody else.
Click to expand...


I've gone thru Mac, Windows and now I have Linux Mint 12 (Linux Mint is based on ubuntu) 64 bit dual booted with Windows 7 32 bit. All have their pros and cons. Macs are popular with creative people who are into graphic design, music and multimedia. Windows is quite popular with gamers.

I think Linux is fine for web design but I don't recommend GIMP for commercial printing as it's CMYK support is quite weak compared to commercial apps like Photoshop. GIMP is fine for Web Design though. I just heard about CMYKtool but I've not tried this with GIMP.

Inkscape is reported to work quite well with true cymk. I've heard similar reports about scribus but I haven't tried it yet.

Linux seems to be a coder's dream OS but for creative folks, many won't be wild about troubleshooting apps when they could spend time creating!
 
Back
Top