Timelessblur wrote:does linux still uses arrows and the point and click stuff???? what is it gui like
Does it use arrows and point-and-click? It can.
What is the gui like? It depends.
You can opt to use a gui or just use a console. Using the gui you get point-and-click type stuff similar to Windows. As people have already said, it
can look like Windows (or Mac, for that matter), it can also look very, very different. With Linux, you have the option of using multiple and various guis. The most popular are KDE and Gnome, which are Windows-like. I could go on about this some more, but that's the basics.
Michael wrote:Well, for one thing, on Linux, a lot of software comes only as source code and you need to compile it, which is a pain in the ass. (On Mac OS X, most code comes as the app and the source code, so you still get the source code without having to compile anything.) You also have weird issues with permissions, especially when using floppy disks. I've found on some Linux systems you have to be logged in as root to copy anything to a floppy drive. Also, at least on Red Hat, applications can be stored in some places, and you get a lot of redundant apps. I've also had trouble emailing from Linux systems, in that I send an email and it is not delivered for another 12-24 hours. I've also had numerous issues connecting to FTP servers, which I don't have in Mac OS X. I used Linux for a while and I still do a bit, but I like OS X a lot more because it looks better, is organized better, and is a robust Unix OS without all the compatibility issues and "quirky" problems of Linux.
Really? I was unaware that any apps for OS X came with source unless they were ported from Linux apps.
Compiling from source really isn't that much of a pain unless it's a huge application (such as KDE) or you're on a slow computer. Most *nix users prefer it because then the application is optimized for your computer and will run faster than a precompiled binary.
Personally, at least 80% of the Linux apps I've seen (and that's a conservative estimate) offer a binary download as well as a source download. The RPM and DEB files you'll frequently see are auto-installing binaries. Furthermore, I'm pretty sure Linux distributions such as Red Hat, Mandrake, and Lindows all offer package managers that allow you to go through a software repository and select any packages you'd like to install. I also happen to feel that Debian's apt system (which has been spread to other systems) is one of the best installation systems there is. I've had more problems with Windows programs missing DLL files after an install than I ever have with an apt-get installed program. Then again, that's just personal preference. I mainly want to inform, not evangalize.
The permissions problem is not "weird" at all. It's a system that's actually quite simple and is, I'm pretty sure, also used in OS X. The system in the NT-based Windows OSes is very similar if not identical. The difference is that it's hidden from the user. Some Linux distributions do this also.
I can't think of why e-mailing from a Linux system could possibly slow things down unless you were running your own mail server, in which case it's probably misconfigured. Otherwise the problem would almost have to be due to either network troubles or a problem with either your mail server (e.g., the hotmail or yahoo mail computer that stores your inbox and processes your sent-mail), or the receiving mail server (the computer that processes whatever mail you just sent).
There's also no reason Linux would be the problem with connecting to FTP servers. Actually pretty much any networking and/or client-server type tasks are what Linux excels at. Chances are most of the FTP and web servers you connect to are running Linux.
The 'looks better' and 'is organized better' arguments are very subjective. There are a number of geeky people who like the way Linux is organized. Although personally I'll agree with you on both counts normally (I disagree with the looks better once you start getting into Linux desktop themes, but I agree if we're speaking defaults).
Keep in mind a great number of Windows people would be quick to use all the same arguments you just gave why Windows is better than Mac. Especially compatibility issues. 90% of all software runs on Windows and Windows alone. I think I even remember hearing that Microsoft was going to drop Mac versions of Office after this release, which will increase peoples' compatibility complaints a million percent. And if you want an example of Mac's 'quirky' behavior, hit the Enter key.
x Wasted Mind x wrote:::snip::
Also..that's another thing, with Mandrake there are no permissions of the sort. Well, it could be that I'm set up as a Workstation Client, and not on the Server side of things....
Lastly.. it's kind of a contradiction?(not sure if that's the right word) to say that Mac OS X is a Robust Unix OS...and not say the same thing about other Linux Distros. They've all been around a long time, they're all damn powerful, and full of features. Granted Mac has been around probably a tad bit longer than most Linux distros.. so it's got a bit more experience.
And their all built on UNIX. Hence the *nix name in all the names. (with the exception of Mac OS X ..it's name wanted to be different, without the *nix.)
I assure you Mandrake does have permissions in the exact same way every other Linux distribution as well as Mac OS X do. Similar to OS X, this is probably being hidden from you as a user to simplify things, although it's still there if you'd like to modify it yourself. Just open up a console window and type
and you'll see the permissions in the leftmost column.
On to some technicalities. Arguably, none of them are built on Unix. Linux definitely isn't--it's been built to be Unix-like, but it is not the same as Unix. OS X runs on a modified a version of BSD-Unix (specifically FreeBSD), which is an actual type of Unix although it's not System V Unix which is what makes something able to be called Unix according to the trademark terms.
Also, while the original Mac came out a few years before Linux did, OS X is a complete rewrite of the Mac system. Before that Mac was entirely different and not based on Unix. I personally don't think Macs before OS X qualified as computers.
Michael wrote:Well, you're probably right. But I didn't like the way the file system is organized, and I still contend that the meta-data features of the HFS+ file system are so much superior to UFS and FAT32/NTFS. My biggest problem with Linux is the compatibility issue; it's hard to make it work with a lot of hardware and software, which can be a problem. (Or, at least in America it is; if you go to Germany, for instance, Linux has a much bigger user base.)
File system organization is a personal preference, but that is one of the most common and understandable arguments against Linux today. As far as the file system abilities go, HFS+ is good, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to argue that it's superior to UFS. NTFS I'm not certain about, but I've heard from people I trust that it's crap. FAT32 is beyond crap, and anyone who's used Windows 95/98/Me should know that. Also, just FYI, Linux doesn't run on UFS. The BSD-Unices and some commercial Unix systems (Solaris) do. Linux can have different file systems, but the common ones are ext2, ext3, and reiserfs, with ext2 being by far the most common.
Software compatibility I've covered. As far as hardware compatibility, you're insane. Linux supports a vast amount more hardware than OS X does. The hardware for OS X is proprietary, and thus you only get what Apple is willing to make for you. As far as peripherals, I think about as many that support Apple support Linux. And really these days Red Hat and Mandrake support around 90% of the hardware Windows supports, which is impressive considering they usually don't get the de-facto standard treatment Windows does.
Sorry this was excessively long, but I had a lot to say.