Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kevin Wood]

Is anyone talking about production use, though? My home PCs certainly don't fall into that category.

[TheBoy]

Is anyone talking about production use, though? My home PCs certainly don't fall into that category.

Good point.

Kind of ironic when Windows is more stable than these beta Linux distros .  Only the likes of Redhat Enterprise Linux and Oracle Unbreakable can get close to properly configured Windows for stability.

Debian is my 'home use' distro of choice, as tends to be reasonably stable, and open enough to do what you want to do (unlike modern Ubuntu). Free, but no support, no certification etc...   ...but runs OOF .  Actually, I think the images server might be Debian as well, not checked since they moved us to a new server a few months ago

[Kevin Wood]

Kind of ironic when Windows is more stable than these beta Linux distros .  Only the likes of Redhat Enterprise Linux and Oracle Unbreakable can get close to properly configured Windows for stability.

A bit of a sweeping statement. Define stable, and in what application?

Windows as a desktop for someone like myself who perhaps goes beyond regular surfing, email, word processing, etc. is, in my experience, most definitely not stable. The machine will be trashed within a year and need a rebuild. Linux machines (yes, free "unstable" ones) just work, again, in my experience. I tend never to rebuild mine until I get fed up with it or change hardware, so, more often than not, an install will last 5+ years with me hacking it about and never give a moment's bother.

In a slightly different application, my media server runs Linux  (Debian, as it happens). Rarely gets any interactive use other than maintenance, and when my UPS needed to be swapped out a couple of weeks back it had well over a year of uptime. It's running on cheap and nasty hardware and has been doing this job for about 6 or 7 years with only a precautionary hard disk swap since.

In the light of these couple of examples, better stability isn't actually important to me. It's down in the noise, so why would I care, let alone spend money to achieve it?

Now, maybe there are other applications for which the tables are turned. That's outside my field of experience, so I won't comment, and irrelevant to the OP's question, anyway, IMHO. He's asking about a desktop machine for home use, after all.

[Rods2]

Kevin my experience exactly, my server at home is used for all my web development work. It runs from one year to the next, does the job in the background I need it to do, with just the occasional restart of Apache when I change the configuration file.

All my published websites are on a dedicated server in a major data centre with multiple data pipes run through different physical routes, UPS and diesel generator backup with high security around and within the centre and fire suppression systems and a maximum of 4 hours hardware repair time. A daily backup is done to an offsite backup centre and I run a mirrored raid system on the server. I do use Red Hat Enterprise on this.

I leave my windows desktop running 24/7 for reliability and find I have to reboot it every few days, where it gets slower and slower, when it comes up with the message, "running low on virtual memory space, creating a bigger swap file" I know it is time for a reboot.

To me the more transparent an operating system is the better as it is just an interface to do a job. Previous to Windows XP, to me, Windows was not fit for the purpose due to the DLL overwriting problems which crashed the OS and mean't a complete rebuild. XP is much better, but I hate the way Vista and Windows 7 hide everything, so you have to go around turning everything on, to actually get the job done you are trying to do. I have found the deliberate limitations build into the "Home" versions of windows means you have to find work arounds and the Business versions are not a cheap OS, even at OEM pricing.

On the security front where windows desktop is an open system it is inherently insecure, where Unix / Linux are inherently secure. Windows has always been a memory and resource hungry operating system although I do acknowledge that Vista and 7 are faster where the use hardware display rendering.

In any monopoly situation, development is slow due to a lack of competition, which is why I welcome the competition in the phone OS market, which is driving improvements and innovation at a fast pace. If Ford had been a monopoly supplier of cars with over 90% of the market I'm sure the Model A would still be in production, as this is the problem with the Microsoft monopoly, you put up with what you are given as there is no realistic alternative in the desktop market, thank goodness we have the Windows / Linux competition in the server and web applications market.

[ninjapirate]

its just to use on my laptop! i only use it for surfing, emails, holding media and playing the odd game. havnt made the swap yet as im away, its nice to have a choice for someone that doesnt know the ins and outs of programming and such fancy stuff like that. I simply dont need to. the idea of a much more secure system has to be worth the look alone!
So once im home with a while to play i will try it out along side windows before making the jump or not. 
will my games still work with ubuntu?

[Kevin Wood]

All my published websites are on a dedicated server in a major data centre with multiple data pipes run through different physical routes, UPS and diesel generator backup with high security around and within the centre and fire suppression systems and a maximum of 4 hours hardware repair time. A daily backup is done to an offsite backup centre and I run a mirrored raid system on the server. I do use Red Hat Enterprise on this.

.. and so you should, in this application. An internet-facing server that will get hammered 24/7 by both legitimate users and chancers trying to root it is where you start to get into "production use".

To me the more transparent an operating system is the better as it is just an interface to do a job.

Indeed. It does a pretty trivial job of supporting a multi tasking kernel, device driver framework, memory manager, some file systems, a network stack and, perhaps, a GUI. It's there to load and run applications and otherwise get out of the user's way, IMHO.

Previous to Windows XP, to me, Windows was not fit for the purpose due to the DLL overwriting problems which crashed the OS and mean't a complete rebuild. XP is much better, but I hate the way Vista and Windows 7 hide everything, so you have to go around turning everything on, to actually get the job done you are trying to do. I have found the deliberate limitations build into the "Home" versions of windows means you have to find work arounds and the Business versions are not a cheap OS, even at OEM pricing.

Windows works on the assumption that it "knows better" than its' users, so it hides everything (probably reasonable, for the majority of Windows users). Unfortunately, when it gets this wrong and misconfigures itself you have the choice of muddling through a load of undocumented (to the end user) registry settings or reaching for the CD and re-installing.

On the security front where windows desktop is an open system it is inherently insecure, where Unix / Linux are inherently secure. Windows has always been a memory and resource hungry operating system although I do acknowledge that Vista and 7 are faster where the use hardware display rendering.

Security for any system is only as good as the easiest route that a hacker takes to break it. I have seen gaping holes in both Windows and Linux systems in that respect, often not in the core OS but in the little packages and utilities that you install without a second thought.

I think Linux has a couple of advantages, though. Being open source, the code is open to review and scrutiny by a much wider audience of experts who will reveal and, most times, fix, security issues in the source. Yes, attackers can see the source, too, but I think the overall result is a positive one over a closed-source system open to minimal peer review. Secondly, the same source is compiled into a much wider range of binaries with varying options, patches and code versions, meaning that an attack that relies on compromising a binary is less likely to succeed than a system where everyone runs an identical build.

In any monopoly situation, development is slow due to a lack of competition, which is why I welcome the competition in the phone OS market, which is driving improvements and innovation at a fast pace. If Ford had been a monopoly supplier of cars with over 90% of the market I'm sure the Model A would still be in production, as this is the problem with the Microsoft monopoly, you put up with what you are given as there is no realistic alternative in the desktop market, thank goodness we have the Windows / Linux competition in the server and web applications market.

Indeed. And thank goodness I can use Linux to get away from the windows desktop when I'm not at work.

[Kevin Wood]

its just to use on my laptop! i only use it for surfing, emails, holding media and playing the odd game. havnt made the swap yet as im away, its nice to have a choice for someone that doesnt know the ins and outs of programming and such fancy stuff like that. I simply dont need to. the idea of a much more secure system has to be worth the look alone!
So once im home with a while to play i will try it out along side windows before making the jump or not. 
will my games still work with ubuntu?

They will still work under windows, assuming you keep that bootable, but whilst there is software that attempts to try to run windows stuff under Linux, I doubt you'd get anywhere with most games.

If you want to make a dual booting system you will need to repartition your had drive, however. This is going to be a problem if the Windows partition already takes up the whole drive, as is likely. You can get around this, but it's not to be tackled lightly, IMHO.

[ninjapirate]

ah, its still partitioned? C drive has windows on, and i was saving everything to that drive, which ive been told is naughty so had to move as much i could to D drive. i think thats what happend anyway!
will just keep windows bootable then?

[Kevin Wood]

ah, its still partitioned? C drive has windows on, and i was saving everything to that drive, which ive been told is naughty so had to move as much i could to D drive. i think thats what happend anyway!
will just keep windows bootable then?

For a proper installation, you will need to dedicate a partition to Linux solely. There are ways to install it on your windows partition, but I wouldn't advise going down that route.

If you have some unpartitioned space on the drive that will be fine, but it's unlikely that you do. If you've got say half your drive partitioned as c: under windows and half as d: then you could forfeit the d: drive and repartition that as a Linux volume. If you're already using the d: drive for storage that situation won't be ideal either. As I said earlier in the thread, it's possible to resize partitions to make space but that's not without its' risks.

To be perfectly honest, if you just want to give it a try, I would download a bootable "live" cd image, burn it on a CD and then boot from it and have a play. This will give you a working linux without disturbing anything on your hard disk. If you decide it's something that you want to pursue further than you can plan how to repartition your drive and incorporate it. If you are still going to need to run Windows a significant amount of the time it's going to be a pain booting from one operating system to the other, though. Best to pick one and stick to it - or install Linux on another machine.

[Rods2]

"Security for any system is only as good as the easiest route that a hacker takes to break it. I have seen gaping holes in both Windows and Linux systems in that respect, often not in the core OS but in the little packages and utilities that you install without a second thought."

I agree which is why everything is turned off that I don't use on the commercial server, to reduce the number of potential packages with possible exploits.

My local network at home sits behind a fire wall with no access to the server from the outside world. That way I don't have to worry about how secure it is.

[ninjapirate]

ah, its still partitioned? C drive has windows on, and i was saving everything to that drive, which ive been told is naughty so had to move as much i could to D drive. i think thats what happend anyway!
will just keep windows bootable then?

For a proper installation, you will need to dedicate a partition to Linux solely. There are ways to install it on your windows partition, but I wouldn't advise going down that route.

If you have some unpartitioned space on the drive that will be fine, but it's unlikely that you do. If you've got say half your drive partitioned as c: under windows and half as d: then you could forfeit the d: drive and repartition that as a Linux volume. If you're already using the d: drive for storage that situation won't be ideal either. As I said earlier in the thread, it's possible to resize partitions to make space but that's not without its' risks.

To be perfectly honest, if you just want to give it a try, I would download a bootable "live" cd image, burn it on a CD and then boot from it and have a play. This will give you a working linux without disturbing anything on your hard disk. If you decide it's something that you want to pursue further than you can plan how to repartition your drive and incorporate it. If you are still going to need to run Windows a significant amount of the time it's going to be a pain booting from one operating system to the other, though. Best to pick one and stick to it - or install Linux on another machine.

thanks Kevin, i think i will just run it aswell as, just to see how i get on. i do have a desktop i keep meaning to rebuild which i could then solely use for the few games and use to store or back up to. then i could maybe swap laptop to ubuntu full time.   

[TheBoy]

A bit of a sweeping statement. Define stable, and in what application?

As we were talking about OS, I assumed we were talking of the kernels (big monolithics in both cases of Windows and Linux).

Both suffer from kernel mode drivers causing kernel panics - Windows tries to get round this with driver signing, commercial Linux with certification, freebie Linux makes no attempt, so good luck

The Linux kernel is inherently poor at resource management, which is why Linux uptimes tend to be relatively poor.  At work, we are now flagging those Linux servers that have been up for more than 500 days, so we can scedule controlled reboots.  Why resources get low, though, is usually due to 3rd party software, and not really the fault of the kernel, be that kernel Windows, Linux, Unix etc.


As said, Linux has a place (many niches actually), but that is not most people's desktops.


Do I run Linux at home? Beyond OOF and its supporting servers, no. I see enough of it at work . Do I run Windows Server at home? Yup, because the services it runs are critical to me (and, as it happens, OOF ), and its cheaper than a supported Linux.


I do think that MS have concentrated too much on Apple over the last 2 years, and got distracted though.

[Kevin Wood]

I do think that MS have concentrated too much on Apple over the last 2 years, and got distracted though.

Hasn't everyone?

I'm sure there's a niche that enjoy that sort of dumbed-down computing experience, but is that really where everything has to head?

[TheBoy]

I do think that MS have concentrated too much on Apple over the last 2 years, and got distracted though.

Hasn't everyone?

I'm sure there's a niche that enjoy that sort of dumbed-down computing experience, but is that really where everything has to head?

TB agrees with Kevin Wood, posting via his Apple-esque Touchpad