RE: FN-FORUM: 'best' linux distro for windows networks

date posted 16th January 2004 19:47

Liam Proven:
> 1st distro I ever tried, Slack. Didn't get far, in all honesty, but
> still, it's worthy of great respect and is probably the most UNIX-like
> Linux there is.

That's very true. Slack is apparently a good interim step for people looking
to move from Linux to a real UNIX; it's apparently quite like FreeBSD (which
I've never used, so can't comment).

> But personally, I think that in 2004, Unix should look like Mac OS X, and

Why?
If you mean 'Unix should look like Mac OS X if it wants to be the
predominant desktop environment', then I might agree with you.

> OS/2 was better than Win3. Win95 was better than OS/2. If you were
> serious, NT4 was better than W95. Win2K was conclusively better than any
> previous Windows or OS/2.

Agreed, bearing in mind that's a very limited list. No BeOS? Hell, even
Linux is in its 13th year.

> Now, the challenge is to equal or beat WinXP, in every significant
> respect. And of course what is "significant" depends on the individual.
> But the point is, whereas 1 user doesn't need fax, many now don't need
> printing, some people don't need networking, etc. etc., someone
> needs just about everything in XP somewhere.

True, but some users need/want things that aren't in XP - even half-decent
security, customisability, THE SOURCE CODE, *good* network filesystems, a
good command interpreter, half-decent handling of binary files, etc.

> So to beat XP, the challenging Linux has to beat XP *in every major
> respect.*
>
> Better installation, better config, better management, better tools,
> better desktop, better device support, better power management, better
> networking, etc. etc.

Your list is very telling, in that you don't mention any of the things that
Linux is clearly better at.
Better security, better control, better use of available resources, hell,
better price... ;O)

Statistic (and I can't find the source, sorry): A bog-standard install of
XP, placed on the internet, is typically compromised within 10 minutes.

When I last used Caldera OpenLinux (99?) the installation was just as good
as XP. I'd argue (convincingly ;OD) that Slack has better config, management
and tools than XP (bearing in mind I control my computer with the keyboard,
not the mouse).

You'll *never* have *better* device support for *any* OS when compared to
Windows - this would entail a hardware manufacturer writing driver(s) for
A.N.Other OS and *not* for Windows, and I can't see that happening in the
near future. The reason for limited device support in Linux is due to the
manufacturers not writing drivers...

Having said that, I've never found this to be a problem - you just have to
be prepared/informed when shopping for hardware, e.g. buy quality, branded
stuff. [*]

> That is a very tall order. Nothing does it yet.
> ...
> Nothing as a server, seriously, compared to Widnowes 2003 Server,
> which is, frankly, a blinding bit of software

I confess I've never used Windows 2003, but I frankly don't believe you.
The four most important aspects of any server: security, security,
availability and security. I don't expect to see the day where Windows
*matches* Linux, let alone beats it at any of those.

> When comparing to Windows, say on config, what I mean is that if I
> need to change the IRQ of a network card or resize my swap file, I do
> it by clicking a control in a dialog box. No file editing. None at all,
> ever. If you need to edit a file, it's failed, it's broken.

Let me get this straight - if you need to change a *number* in a *file*
somewhere, just *actually* changing the number indicates a failure in the
system? You want me to sit 10 layers of API on top of that, so that when you
click the wee arrow next to the box with the number in, your OS edits the
file for you? Do you consider this a good use of server resources?

I've think I've wandered off-topic now, so I'll shut up after this summary:
Linux has taken its excellent reputation as a server OS, and headed towards
the desktop end of the market. Windows has taken its excellent reputation as
a desktop OS, and headed towards the server end of the market. Neither of
them have yet succeeded.

- Nick Grimshaw
{ if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. }

[*] Having said that, I bought a PC World own-brand cheap network card for
someone for a tenner, and *that* came with Linux drivers...