Cycling UK Forum

2Tubs wrote:It's also it's greatest strength.

Having many distro's gives the user some choice. Some of the distro's have very specific purposes which are designed for a particular users tasks.

But it shouldn't matter. And if you chose one you don't like, have a look at another. It's not like it cost you a penny.

Without question Linux is more stable, more secure and more scalable than Windows. It is simply a better OS.

I do understand that some people will find that some (propriatry) applications are not available for Linux.

And In notice that Windows is looking more like a KDE or GNOME GUI with each new version.

You may not like it, but someone at Microsoft certainly does.

Gazza

Well - yes...

But.

If you know what you're doing then choice is great. Most people don't so choice is confusing. Some distros are just awful, with little knowledge you could easily just end up annoyed and frustrated.

Like Si my problem is almost non of the software I use either works or has a usable version available. I download the latest 'fad' and play occasionally, but once I've browsed the web for a bit and checked the list of hardware that doesn't work (admittedly pretty small these days) and the current state of any software that may be of use to me I inevitably stick my old HD back and do some work.
One day perhaps...


[edit] I should have added, hence my belief that the wide range of distros combined with the majority of people not having or wanting 'the knowledge' is one of the things that slows down Linux's uptake. If there was only a single distro I think uptake would have been much faster.

I'm in two minds. As an old-school linux curmudgeon, I do think the current crop of "user-friendly" distributions have diluted what made it special - the setup I have on my personal machines has changed only incrementally in 15 years and is still command-line orientated (it's faster when you know what you're doing). The strength of Unix is not in its ability to emulate Windows: it's a different approach and for some (not all) people a better one.

On the other hand, I am the IT department for my employer, and I've saved an enormous amount of time there on network admin/spyware/viruses/etc by installing an Ubuntu LTSP thin client network there instead of a Windows workgroup. So for at least some uses (mostly web and standard office tools) I have to concede it is an adequate Windows replacement, and am actually am quite grateful for this, if only because it gives me more time to do my real job.

As for the explosion of Linux distros: as far as I'm concerned for general-purpose computing if you don't know which one you want, you want Ubuntu. If you know enough that you would prefer something else, you know enough to research for yourself what that other thing is. Personally I use Debian, but I would no more recommend that to the my friends and relatives than I would recommend them a track fixie if they asked for the best bike to commute to work

Graham wrote:

matt_twam_asi wrote:I thought I'd give it a go. I didn't even have to sign up as I had an old hotmail account. I fell at the last hurdle though, as the 'Download Now' button requires activeX to work.

That is everything wrong with Microsoft, right there.

I finally managed to find a direct link to the .iso, but it didn't work on Virtualbox. I gave up after that; my curiosity cat was well and truly killed.

If you are talking about Ubuntu . . . .
The easy way to do it is to just order a FREE Ubuntu CD here
It arrived in a couple of weeks for me.
WIth this CD you can run Ubuntu from the CD drive ( i.e. no changes to the hard disk ).
If you like it, you can partition and install to your hard disk ( alongside the Microsoft O/S : dual boot ).

Nah, I was talking about Windows 7. I've been happily using Ubuntu since Gutsy Gibbon.