Linux OS vs. Windows XP OS? Need reviews and advice...

[Robeson]

I've always used Windows operting systems, but am thinking about going to Linux. I no nothing about Linux, so I'm looking for some good advice. Are Linux, Red Hat, Mandrake the same? Different? What are the pros and cons of each. As I said, I no nothing about these operating systems. I just feel I've given enough time and money to Bill Gates, so I'm looking for a change. Any help would be appreciated!

[qnr]

1. Your best bet is to visit

http://www.distrowatch.org

Look around at the various distributions, and then feel free to ask questions about the ones that intrigue you.

[Robeson]

2. Thanks, I'll check it out.

[short bus president]

3. Libranet 2.8.1 currently available for free download

This is the ONLY linux distro that's worked for me, switching from Windows 2000.

http://www.libranet.com/

Mandrake was OK, but flaky. Libranet is a rock. And if you don't mind paying for some software, you can get Crossover Office, which is a specialized WINE implementation that lets you run MS Office and a bunch of other windows apps smoothly under linux. I run Quicken and MS Office with it, and they work flawlessly.

My $.02. Everyone's got their favorite linux, but Libranet's mine.

[Robeson]

5. Thanks I'll go there.

[eataTREE]

4. The basic story:

"Linux" is only part of an operating system. Specifically, it's an operating system kernel; the part that sits in between the computer hardware and all the software that you use to get stuff done.

In order to be useful, the Linux kernel needs a bunch of software and programs around it that together form a complete operating system. Linux plus the rest of the software that makes Linux useful is usually called a Linux "distribution".

There are a whole lot of different Linux distributions. Some are completely free, some cost money. Some are designed to be easy to use, some are only for hardcore geeks.

Xandros and Linspire are two Linux distributions that are designed for new users and the less-than-technically savvy. I've never used either (being firmly in the "hardcore geek" category), but I've heard good things about both of them. Both of them cost money, but not nearly as much as Windows XP.

Hope that helps.

[Robeson]

6. Appreciate the advice!

[gottaB]

7. Linux is fun

Redhat and Mandrake are "distros" or "distributions" of Linux. Linux is the kernel of the OS. A distro has all the software that makes up an operating system, and then some.

Learn about distros here:

http://distrowatch.com

I would recommend a distro for newbies, one that doesn't require a lot of knowledge to install and operate. Mandrake is good. SuSE is great. If you buy the pro version of either one of these, you will get everything you need, decent support, and excellent documentation. If you go the free route, you will probably want some kind of reference book. After a while you won't need a deadtree reference, but it will probably come in handy at first.

For a Debian-based system geared towards newbies, I would recommend Libranet.

p.s. Check your hardware to make sure it's all supported. Most major distros have hardware compatability lists (as does Libranet). Many smaller ones do not. It will save you a lot of hassles if you check that out first.

[tk2kewl]

8. Depends...

If you want to write an easily hackable electronic voting system go with Windows.

If you want an OS whose source is in the public domain and therefore subject to constant peer review, criticism and improvement and is thus much more secure, go with Linux.

[Rooktoven]

9. To learn quickly, check out knoppix

www.knoppix.org-- you can download and burn a bootable cd w/out doing anything to your hard drive. Later you can move it to your HD if you want. Knowppix is based off debian, as is libranet ( www.debian.org )

Easy to use= Mandrake and Suse
(I prefer Suse)

Best to run when you know what you are doing=Slackware

(but then I am very biased...)

[cheezus]

10. depends what you want to do

linux is fine for mail and web (and it's very stable and virusproof), but it hasn't caught up to the full media desktop that xp (and to a MUCH greater extent OS X) is

[qnr]

11. Misinformation actually.

First, no operating system is "virus proof" - Including GNU/Linux

And while it is true that you might have to work a little harder sometimes, there is nothing that Windows can do that can't be done with an appropriate GNU/Linux setup (in a general sense - naturally there will be games that aren't available - but as far as "full media desktop," I heartily disagree).

[eataTREE]

13. Fight! Fight! Come on, you gonna take that??

I haven't seen a good old-fashioned Linux Vs. Windows flamewar since... since I stopped hanging out at Slashdot, actually. Now why did I do that again? Oh yeah. The neverending Linux Vs. Windows flamewar.

[qnr]

14. Don't look at me for a flamewar. I could care less if someone

prefers Windows. It's their life.... I still use my Atari 8-bit machines daily.

However, claiming that something is virusproof does no one any good, and I stand by my other assertion too.

[cheezus]

15. ...if you're a nitpicker

of course no os is "virus proof", but for all practical intents and purposes, especially compared to windows, viruses are a non-issue, no-worry for the end user

and in most cases, it's more than a "little harder". Let's say you want to scan in some photos and use them along with DV footage you shot to make a family-movie DVD.

This was a newbie asking the question, and I'm trying to be honest. I hate windows and I'm a big unix fan, but linux just gets a worse name when the newbies try it and find that they can't make it do what they want under a commercial os

[qnr]

16. That's fine, but it is till misinformation, no matter how much of

a unix fan you are. Just because they are newbies, you "lie" to them? Don't think so. Spend an additional sixty seconds typing and clarifying what you mean.

[cheezus]

17. you're right, I'll never make a generalization again!

I'll be sure to go into unnecessary depth not so nobody gets confused, but so that you will personally be satisified with me!

[qnr]

18. You don't have to worry about satisfying me

You also don't have to worry about going to unnecessary depths.

Come on now, is saying something is "much less susceptible" rather than "proof" going to unnecessary depths? Not in my book.

If you can't see that, then it is not worth arguing the point. Therefore, this will be my last post on the matter. Note however, you may, of course, continue as long as you like.

Edit: typo buster

[Robeson]

12. Thanks to everyone. This is all very helpful!