Pizentios

So does ubuntu. They have liveCD's as well. I used the ubuntu 64 bit version liveCD to install gentoo onto our new 64 bit system cause the gentoo liveCD that is 64 bit wouldn't see my RAID controller.

__________________
Profanity is the one language that all programmers understand.

Check out my Blog <---updated Nov 30 2007!

Hockeyman

Colour me informed

I told you I was a Linux-Newb

__________________

Rory

I would hold a Redmond CD burning parade if it wasn't for the fact that the rest of the world still use windows (well except for China, India, Bangladesh... and don't forget Poland!)

Dizzutch

eh, don't play those on the PC

__________________
naked pictures of you | PFO F@H stats

Mad_guy

Linux is a bit more intense from Windows, but it shouldn't be so extrodinarily difficult you'd cause brain explosion.

Anything you can do on Windows you can do on Linux, some things might be harder, and some thigns might be easier and vice versa. Thanks to emulators like WINE and Crossover, you can pretty much emulate any Windows program you can ever need.

I'm using a WinME system and am about to get a new computer in which I'll install Slackware on it, and get a new computer for my family. I might dual boot Gentoo if I feel bold, but for the most part I'm 100% sure I'm going to install Slackware. (I have been fortunate enough to find people who know quite a bit about dual booting Slack and Gentoo.)


Different distros have their own pros and cons. Ones like Fedora core and SuSE are far more user friendly than most, but are excellent for beginners. Ones like Mandrake and Redhat are both too userfriendly and therefore suck horrendously bad.
Distros like Debian, Slackware, Gentoo, and Ubunta are more 'nerdy' distros in which case the pretty GUI you'd see in something like Fedora Core is more overthrown by power.


It all depends on what you're going to use. But I am 100% sure I'm getting Slackware and a new WinXP system. Because there are some things I CAN ONLY do on Windows, they include but are not limited to .NET development, learning to use DirectX, and Win32 API coding (and maybe touching the MFC.)

G.I.Josh

I can full heartedly recomend switching completely over to Ubuntu. The installation is very easy if you don't dual boot, it has a great GNOME setup by default, the perfect balance of applications and speed, best package management around (and you can use a gui or a command line front end), and I think it's easier then Windows.

If you just use the Use Entire Hard Drive option, you shouldn't run into any installation problems since it has some of the best hardware support around. And once you're past that, there's nothing tricky about it. My niece hopped on my Ubuntu, fired up gaim and firefox, and was using it without even realising what was going on.

Another great aspect is that, unlike Mandrake and similar 'easy' distros, it doesn't hide anything from you. You're free to tinker.

Oh, and there isn't realy a risk either. Just put your data on a fat32 partition elsewhere, and if you don't like Ubuntu, just reinstall Windows.

__________________
http://exponentialab.blogspot.com/ - w00t, I've started a blog!

Benoit

If you want to try out Linux, I suggest downloadign Knoppix so you don't have to install anything

As a distro I reccoment VidaLinux...A fully functional Gentoo installation without the tedious installation

__________________
Johnny was a chemist's son but Johnny is no more, for what Johnny thought was H2O was H2SO4

chepfaust

about mandrake-

it's both a blessing and a curse. when i first started i heard it was userfriendly and knew it had a graphical interface so it's the first one i decided to tinker with. it is very userfriendly and it comes with 4 or 5 different graphical interfaces one can choose from, but i think starting with mandrake was a big mistake.

there are so many software packages that come with mandrake that it has got to be the single biggest piece of bloated software i've ever encountered in my life. while you can install only the bare minimum, there's really no point to downloading 3 cds of mandrake if you're not going to use any of the packages you spent time and media downloading mandrake for. on the other hand, it means you can decide between installing eight different audio players, six different FTP clients, five different GUIs, and all sorts of other stuff.

then i downloaded slackware (i have yet to install it) but i've been hearing nothing but good things about ubuntu recently so i might give it a try.

i'm somewhat of a noob to this myself, so i ask:
is linux actually more -secure- than windows or is it just that nobody's interested in writing viruses that would only affect a small minority of computer users?

Mad_guy

They're both secure. Window's isn't that bad if you're not an idiot.
And Linux users aren't a minority at any rate.

Linux is becoming increasingly popular. A while back, Linux had Microsoft pinned down, so I suggest you believe it when there -are- shit out there. But not spyware, because spyware's main purpose is to attach to a computers' registery of which, Linux has none. As for trojans, they'd have to find something to manipulate out of Linux. Which'd be hard.

Most viruses these days use Windows.h (since a lot are written in C/C++) and also use system(); calls to do certain things. Of which, Linux won't respond to that, because linux isn't a Win32 based system.

So you're safe from a lot of stuff out there, but not all of it. That's for sure.


Linux users are not a minority, Linux and Microsoft have been at it for ages, one of their most noticable battles, was when Lindows came out as a Linux distro.

A Window's box can be eight million times as secure as a Linux box, and vice versa.

Ooble

Remember, most web servers are Linux-based, so a virus writer would have more of a profound impact by writing a Linux virus. There's two reasons they don't: Linux is inherently more secure by default (though obviously, the way you set up your system plays a big part in this), and most virus writers have respect for the open-source community, being part of it themselves.

__________________
Me :: You :: Them