Linux thoughts

[Baz]

Which is no good on Linux, as Internet Explorer is a Windows program.

It can be installed, but it's a real pain and most people wouldn't want to bother.

not having used it but Linux sounds a real pain to me.

most software etc. are windies compatible so why use something else and give yourself grief.

Dangerjunkie said he could use windies if needed so if its just for a speed test why not just wait until BT pull their finger out and get it fixed.......it happens doesnt it, things go wrong now and then.

[Sebby]

I tried it and found it a pain, and I like technical things. That said, it is getting more and more user friendly. For example, when I first tried Linux about 3 years ago, getting the wireless on my notebook working was an absolute nightmare. Now, it works out the box.

[Baz]

so just like lots of things then, when more people want it and use it, it will become more user friendly and better......a bit like other operating systems

[Sebby]

Exactly.

[Danni]

not having used it but Linux sounds a real pain to me.

most software etc. are windies compatible so why use something else and give yourself grief.

Dangerjunkie said he could use windies if needed so if its just for a speed test why not just wait until BT pull their finger out and get it fixed.......it happens doesnt it, things go wrong now and then.

I am nearly completely Linux here (I am yelling at EA to make The Sims 2 work on Linux, then I'll be able to get rid of Windows altogether). Every program I was using in Windows (except The Sims 2) either works in Linux or has a decent (and sometimes better) equivilant. Internet Explorer I tried not to use even on Windows, preferring Firefox (which works great on Linux, though I normally use Konqueror). MS Office has been replaced with OpenOffice.org (again, something I did on Windows as well). Graphics is provided by the GIMP, Flash and Java work fine, the IRC programs I find are better than the Windows ones, and I have plenty of choice.

I feel that in most cases, a recent distro will be more user friendly than Windows. A couple of years ago (so this was before a lot of recent improvements) me and my ex-partner were both doing a reinstall of our operating systems- him Windows XP, me Kubuntu. As I had a live CD, I was able to use the internet while installation was taking place. All my hardware was detected out of the box, though I did have to install the Nvidia binary blob as extra (using the package manager, so was just a couple of clicks). Most of the software I wanted was already installed, so there were only a couple of programs I needed to get (again, from the package manager). It took about 40 minutes in total to get it installed and working exactly how I like it. My ex partner was still installing XP at that point, and it took him most of the day to get all the drivers, programs installed, and other things.

I wouldn't advise people who are PC Gamers to go fully Linux, as gaming support isn't great. For those who are just wanting internet access or to do basic things, I think it's worth it for not having to worry about viruses, spyware or malware (and most package managers have antivirus programs if you're worried).

[Baz]

sounds great when you mention it all Danni, will have to have a look at it someday and see what its like.

do you feel its virus free because its not as popular as windoze or is it more secure

[Danni]

Mixture of both. It is really difficult for a Linux virus to do any major damage, as it has to be run as root (equivilant to administrator) and most Linux users only use root when needed, such as when installing programs. On Ubuntu, you'll be asked to type in your password if this is needed, and so long as you don't type it in when you're not expecting it, you should be okay. On the installing programs front, most software you need will be available in the official repositories for the major distros, so it's rare you have to download software from third party source, also preventing the installation of bad software (which can contain malware).

On the other front, I was reading an old Linux magazine, and it basically said it's just not profitable for virus writers to write for Linux, partially because it's simply not as popular, but also because it's much more difficult to do so without whatever exploit being used being patched by someone in the community. The advantage of open source here means that the hackers can fix the exploits they find, which they can't do in Windows. Virus writing for Windows is a well paying passtime- it just isn't for Linux.

[LesD]

Having spent a good part of my working life "grepping" and "iostating" my way through UNIX the Grand Daddy of you Linux toys I simply cannot forgive it.  Yes it was a very powerful Operating System albeit not that quick being essentially file based and it did serve me well but the thought of going back to it makes me recoil - anyone use the Vi editor? 

OK I know the Linux version has a look alike Windows Desktop that is very pretty - it has to having used the predecessors, CDE (Common Destop Environment or something like that) from Sun and VUE (Visual User Environment) from HP. I have seen the Unbuntu one but underneath it lurking must be a whole host of the command line instruction I just grew to love. Do you know which "Shell" your own version runs in c-shell or k-shell maybe the Bourne Shell or some new one altogether?

Anyone tried using a floppy drive in UNIX? Even CD drives needed a mount point in the root directory.
Yes I did the HP Administrator training and yes I could use the beast but wanting to use it at home that is another matter entirely. I hear a chorus saying but Linux is not UNIX but like I said above I cannot forgive it for its roots but everyone to their own devices. 

I await the expected torrent of protests!

[Rik]

You can hide behind me, Les - there's plenty of room.

[Danni]

I take it you don't use Macs either, Les?

I have used Vi editor, but for quick things Nano is easier. I use Bourne Again Shell (Bash) as that is the default, though others are available. I do like the command line (and on one of my laptops I don't use the gui) as I find for many things it is faster... though maybe not forum browsing (though I'd done it, using w3m).

Remember: Windows is based on the command line DOS

[LesD]

You can hide behind me, Les - there's plenty of room.

Never been one to hide thanks just the same Rik. You don't put up a post like that one if you can't take the flak. 

I take it you don't use Macs either, Les?

You've got the measure of me Danni. 

I have used Vi editor

Yes but did you enjoy it?

I use Bourne Again Shell

I think K pretty much = Bourne from what I remember but it is a year or four since we finally waived bye bye to UNIX and the years take there toll on my memory of the details.

I do like the command line

Good for you it certainly is all powerful. You can almost do with it what others put in shell scripts when you become accomplished (Shell script is UNIX for Batch file for anyone not acquainted with the jargon)

(and on one of my laptops I don't use the gui)

Masochist!

Remember: Windows is based on the command line DOS

Ah it's all in the eye of the beholder having found my way to DOS from UNIX it was like a breath of fresh air. Probably NRDOS before MSDOS but not a lot to choose between them. What you should be equating is CDE (or VUE) with Windows 3.1 and there simply was no contest in those days. 

Now what was that IBM OS for PC's called.................. 

[Colin Burns]

Remember: Windows is based on the command line DOS

which bill gates either got out of a skip or bought it off of someone else

[Sebby]

Whilst we're on that topic, has anyone seen the film Pirates of Silicon Valley? A lecturer told us about it at university. It makes for quite a funny hour and half of viewing.

[Dangerjunkie]

Having spent a good part of my working life "grepping" and "iostating" my way through UNIX the Grand Daddy of you Linux toys I simply cannot forgive it.  Yes it was a very powerful Operating System albeit not that quick being essentially file based and it did serve me well but the thought of going back to it makes me recoil - anyone use the Vi editor? 

Things have certainly changed in the last 3 years. Linux is nowhere near as scary as Unix used to be. Yes I do use vi for some things (particularly if I'm logging into a machine remotely over the net or if the desktop is unavailable for some reason.) For most text editing I use a program called Kate which is a very nice graphical editor that, if I click the type of the file, will lay it out correctly and colour code it automatically to make it easier to read and work on.

Modern Linux distributions have a thing called a "package manager" that takes care of installing most software and keeping it up to date. I open the manager, hit search, type some keywords to describe the software I'm looking for (from a list of literally thousands of free programs), select the one I want, click "install" then "apply." The software is downloaded and installed automatically for me. The package manager then keeps it updated as new versions come out. The great thing is the update mechanism works for all installed packages regardless of who wrote them and not just for the OS so I don't need to keep going and looking to see if there's a new version of program X out. Hardware support is great too. Most common hardware is supported out of the box: You just plug it in and it works, no need to mess about downloading drivers, getting unsigned driver warnings, having it destabilize your machine or having to look for updates (the package manager does that again.)

I perceive I get a lot less "grief" from Linux than Windows. I install stuff, it works and keeps on working, letting me get on with being productive rather than spending hours on maintenance. I can't remember the last time I had a machine fail so badly I needed to reinstall the whole thing. There are no viable viruses or malware for it so I don't have to waste money and system performance on antivirus applications and time on cleaning up infections. I'm responsible for about a dozen Windows boxes at my customer's site (all with fully patched XP Pro and name-you-know antivirus, behind a corporate firewall.) They're used to do research on some quite unpleasant sites for the media. These machines are forever getting infected when some piece of scumware manages to elevate an ordinary user into an administrator and pillage the box. On average I spend one day a week cleaning them. I just don't need that hassle on my own network.

As Danni stated the other reason there is no malware is that Linux is written to be secure by default rather than every user being an administrator. If I run something that needs management access to the machine I get asked for my password to confirm I approve. If I ever get something like an ecard in my email that asks for administrator access I'm sure as heck not going to say yes!

For my business software being "open source" is key. It's a bit like a restaurant: I may not be a chef but if I can look in the kitchen I feel better about it. With open source software I can make changes or fix problems if I am able (or ask or pay someone to do so if I can't.) I know will still be able to get things fixed even if the person that wrote it stops developing it. I also get access to many developers which there is no way I could do with a commercial product, being a small business. One of my customers has tens of thousands of Windows licenses and they can't get access to the programmers that write Windows. I wouldn't buy a car which had the bonnet locked down with a key that only a dealer could open. Why would I do the same thing with software?

For me the Windows registry is a source of angst. I don't like the design concept of wrapping most of the configuration data for most of my software up into a binary blob with the OS configuration. If it gets corrupt the result is unpredictable and may lead to mass breakages. Most Linux programs have their settings stored in text files that can be fixed with the Linux equivalent of notepad if they get broken. If one file gets trashed only that program (and anything that depends on it) are likely to break.

The argument about Windows getting attacked because it is popular and "it would be that bad on Linux if more people used it" doesn't hold water completely. Let's take Apache, the world's most popular web server, as an example. It runs on Linux/BSB/Unix and I would be amazed if you haven't used a website running on Apache today. Far more copies of Apache are in use than Microsoft IIS but Apache's security record is exemplary, far better than IIS.

OK I know the Linux version has a look alike Windows Desktop that is very pretty - it has to having used the predecessors, CDE (Common Destop Environment or something like that) from Sun and VUE (Visual User Environment) from HP. I have seen the Unbuntu one but underneath it lurking must be a whole host of the command line instruction I just grew to love. Do you know which "Shell" your own version runs in c-shell or k-shell maybe the Bourne Shell or some new one altogether?

That's one of the greatest strengths of it. Modern distributions have graphical tools for almost everything and the average user needs the command line about as much as the average Windows user needs the command prompt. The command line tools are there if you  are comfortable with them and feel the need for them. There's rarely any compulsion to use the command line. It's up to you to decide whether you are comfortable with it and want to use it for any particular task or whether you prefer the graphical tools. I don't use the command line for most things but I feel better knowing the system hasn't taken it away from me if I need it.

Anyone tried using a floppy drive in UNIX? Even CD drives needed a mount point in the root directory.
Yes I did the HP Administrator training and yes I could use the beast but wanting to use it at home that is another matter entirely. I hear a chorus saying but Linux is not UNIX but like I said above I cannot forgive it for its roots but everyone to their own devices. 

Ermm... yes... I plugged a USB floppy drive in, and put a disc in the slot. The automounter took care of it and about 4 seconds later a little icon of a floppy disc with the correct name appeared on my desktop. I clicked on it and there were my files. Did what I needed to do then closed the window and hit "safely remove." It was easy; I nether knew or cared where the directory had been created to mount it. Things have moved on.

I await the expected torrent of protests!

I hope you don't take what I've written here as a protest.

When people talk about Linux being harder to get working than Windows I think these comments are often not quite fair. They neglect the fact that the person has used Windows for some time. The also often don't compare like with like: They compare a special Windows restore disc from the machine maker that has all the right drivers and tweaks for that hardware with a general Linux install disc. If you gave someone that had never seen Windows or Linux a generic, shop-bought Windows disc without the tweaks and a generic Linux disc I think they would find both of similar difficulty. With either OS I would always recommend having someone with some experience over for a few beers to sit next to you when you did your first machine. If someone wants to give it a go I'm always happy to be that person

I'm not saying Windows is bad or that people shouldn't use it. Neither am I saying that Linux is perfect for everyone. I believe it is, however, the right choice for me and for my business.

Cheers,
Paul.

[madasahatter]

Very interesting post Paul 

[LesD]

Things have certainly changed in the last 3 years.

I hope you don't take what I've written here as a protest.

No problem its very interesting Paul and great to hear how things have moved on even if they have been a long time coming. 

Remember the thrust of what I said was about the "Grand Daddy" UNIX and that I did say it had served me well. My mischief was aimed at provoking a debate and maybe it has succeeded because what I did not say was that despite the unfriendliness of the command line interface to the uninitiated, once a decent application was up and running with a good graphical user interface (the GUI if you like) all the warts and blisters went a way. I was an advocate of the ability UNIX had in a "time sharing" business environment to support multiple users in away that very often they were unaware of each others activities and demands on system resources.

Ten or more years ago each HP UNIX box cost the Company in the order of £17K and we had half a dozen of them so we are not comparing like with like when talking about home use or even the small business user.

Now the "Packager Manager" you mention does sound the business but it is making a of you! 

Now tell me just what is wrong with installing a patch (update) with a command like this one:

swinstall -x autoreboot=true x match_target=true -s /home/PATCHING/PHSS_23025.depot
cp -p PHSS_23025.text /var/adm/sw/patch

Bread and butter when I did a bit of root administration.  8)

Just for a nostalgic look back here are one or two more gems from my archives:

End Task:

ps -ef | grep process

The result gives the process ID N. e.g. 537

kill 537 or more often than not if it refused to die  kill -9 537

Open a CD:

Put your CD in the drawer.
Login as root (System Administrator)
Determine the device file, typically /dev/dsk/c1t3d0
Create the mount point with, mkdir /cdrom
Mount the CD drive with, mount -r /dev/dsk/c1t3d0 /cdrom
Access the content with, cd /cdrom and use ls to list and see the directory/file structure.

When done in order to get you CD out of the drawer (otherwise you could not have it, short of a reboot) use umount /cdrom (strictly umount /dev/dsk/c1t3d0 /cdrom)

OK shell scripts could be created with administrator privileges on the crucial bits so that mere users could do this but the administrator had to make it all available, great fun. 


System backup:

fbackup -f /dev/rmt/c3t5d0BEST -i~/dirname
scheduled with cron but we won't go there!

Zip up a file or directory:

tar cvf filename.tar
compress filename.tar
uuencode filename.Z filename.Z > filename.Z.encode

Unzip a file or directory:

uudecode filename.Z.encode
uncompress filename.Z
tar xvf filename.tar

Anyone reminiscing with me might also recall the joys of chmod and chown and oh yes before I forget there was a CDE alternative to Vi called dtpad that was very much like DOS edit or even Notepad for that matter but not in the early days I hasten to add.

I am pleased to hear that things have moved on and as I said everyone to his own devices and of course Linux is free! 

I must keep this in mind for when I retire. With the Economy going the way it is my pension may not be up to much! 

[Danni]

I have to chmod and chown still. Oh, and on one of the servers I pretend to manage for some reason using chown resets all the permissions to 640, so I have chmod everything once that's done. Still haven't tracked down why, since it works fine on the other server (running the same version of CentOS...).

Some of those commands are familiar still, as I use them as it's faster than pointing and clicking. I don't understand all of them though

[Ted]

I remember having to install Ndiswrapper to use the windows drivers for a PCMCIA wireless card on an old laptop.
You have to edit the Makefile in the Kernel-source directory.
Once edited you action that change, with.....

Code:
cp /boot/config-[yourkernelversion] /usr/src/linux/.config && cd /usr/src/linux && make mrproper && make oldconfig && make

Takes about half an hour to run.

Sometimes use chmod, never used chown, they're my files and i'm keeping them
Wouldn't be without my tar -zxvf command, package managers are good but not always the latest versions.

[LesD]

for some reason using chown resets all the permissions to 640, so I have chmod everything once that's done. Still haven't tracked down why

I am rusty so I don't know if this will be of any help or not but nothing ventured as they say so: 

chmod changes persissions & execute rights and chown changes ownership as I am sure you know but why altering ownership changes permissions on one of you servers and not the other I am not sure.
Are your group permissions the same on both servers?

chmod takes the form, owner group other as read (r) write (w) execute (x) for each and the precedence is important but I am struggling to recall the priority. Maybe under permissions you have a group setting that over-rides the owner you set on the one machine necessitating the permissions to be reset each time you change ownership.

chmod 640 filename

is the same as
          own  grp  other
chmod -rw-  r--   ---    filename
So the owner can read and write, the group that owner is in can only read and others cannot even see the object.

Where for example:
chmod  777 filename   -rwx rwx rwx
chmod  666 filename   -rw-  rw-  rw-
chmod  555 filename   -r-x  r-x  r-x
chmod  444 filename   -r--  r--   r--

Something in my memory is stirring that says that it can be better to take ownership if you can rather than being given it but I cannot justify such ramblings at this time and this may be version specific. 

[LesD]

Sometimes use chmod, never used chown, they're my files and i'm keeping them

Do you always run as the Root Administrator then Ted?

You have to edit the Makefile in the Kernel-source directory.
Once edited you action that change, with.....

Code:
cp /boot/config-[yourkernelversion] /usr/src/linux/.config && cd /usr/src/linux && make mrproper && make oldconfig && make

Takes about half an hour to run.

Ah yes now you remind me I too remember the joys of rebuilding the Kernel. This is one more reason that I am pleased our Real Time Digital Simulator application at work has been ported to the Windows environment, still server based I hasten to add and accomplished using Java by the provider.

How long does it take to install Linux typically that is? I have recollections of getting on for a morning to install HPUX 10.20 then another half a day "patching" it into a workable state for our purposes before the applications were added that is. I guess this time scale is a thing of the past too. Does the file system still have to be subdivided into "Volumes"? This was always fun when a bit of resizing your first best guess was required! Then there were the UPS's to configure and get working because since the OS was so file orientated a mains failure crash simply could not be tolerated. I would be surprised if this is much different if the essence of UNIX has been maintained through into Linux but I am open to being corrected.

[Ted]

Only ever run as root when absolutely required.
I only use chmod to change permissions of a file to make it executable i.e. chmod a+x jre-6u<version>-linux-i586.bin
As far as i understand chown is used to change ownership of a file.
Can't see why that means i run as root 24/7?

i can only say from my experience its around 30-45 mins to install a Linux distro. This would obviously depend on the amount of software chosen to install and the speed of your system.
On the other hand you can run a Linux live Disk with no installation at all and save any data to removable media, a memory stick for instance, you don't even need a hard disk installed in the machine.

The typical Linux install uses three partitions, swap. /(root) and home. you can do this manually or let the installer do it for you.

I personally don't use ups but can also say from experience that if after lets say a power failure, when the system is restarted an abnormal shutdown is detected and any problems sorted out during the boot sequence. This has happened more than a few times for me and i've never had a problem.

[LesD]

Only ever run as root when absolutely required.

I am sure that's the best way.

As far as i understand chown is used to change ownership of a file.
Can't see why that means i run as root 24/7?

Do you give everyone rwx permissions then so that when you are logged in as a User you can do everything?
I guess on a home machine this is OK, much as I do for the couple of us who use our two XP machines on my home net. I was still wrapped up in the work environment where 20 to 30 users of varying abilities were let loose on the workstations!

i can only say from my experience its around 30-45 mins to install a Linux distro. This would obviously depend on the amount of software chosen to install and the speed of your system.

Sure and quite different to what I was used to.

On the other hand you can run a Linux live Disk with no installation at all and save any data to removable media, a memory stick for instance, you don't even need a hard disk installed in the machine.

I didn't know that, intriguing!

The typical Linux install uses three partitions, swap. /(root) and home. you can do this manually or let the installer do it for you.

Those three sound familiar where I guess Partitions equate to Volumes.

I personally don't use ups but can also say from experience that if after lets say a power failure, when the system is restarted an abnormal shutdown is detected and any problems sorted out during the boot sequence. This has happened more than a few times for me and i've never had a problem.

I am pleased to hear that you have not fallen foul of mains failure crashes damaging your system. Despite the UPS's we used I have known crashes to require automatic "Repairs" on reboot. What you quickly find out is that such a "Repair" means retrieving what bits of a file it can and then sticking an end of file (EOF) marker on the end whether its found it all or not! After the worst of these events that I recall it was a give up, recreate the volumes and reinstall the lot from scratch but certainly not every time!

Thanks for the information, it's interesting for me know how things have progressed.

[Ted]

Les
I hear you say, Rusty and behind the times but you have probably forgotten more than i will ever know. I'm only a humble self taught Linux enthusiast Still learning and happy to do so.

What i would find fascinating is for you to install and run a modern Linux distro and tell us what you think, "Old school Unix" compared to "Modern Linux Distribution"

If you do, post back and let us know your thoughts, hopefully you'd be impressed with the advances. If you weren't, that would still be of interest (at least to me).

[Dangerjunkie]

Aside: Can I point out to anyone tempted to try Linux that these things are things you can do not things you need to be able to do and almost everything you will need to do can be done with your mouse instead of having to delve deep into the innards.

I'd second the motion from Ted for a comparison of then and now.

As someone said, if you visit http://www.ubuntu.com and download the latest version of the desktop CD (Gutsy) you can put the disc in and start the machine to run it from the disc without installing it or making any changes to your hard drive. It will be really slow as everything is running off the CD but you will at least get to see what it's like before deciding whether you want to install it or not. No money changes hands so all you will have invested in it is 700MB of your quota to download the CD, a blank disc and some time. If you're short on download quota I can even make the CD for you and mail it to you or you can order a free disc from the website.

Installing won't take Windows away (unless you tell it to.)If you do decide to install the standard behaviour is to shrink your Windows drive and install in the space created. A menu will then be installed so you can decide every time you turn the machine on whether you want Linux or Windows.

A thing that often needs explaining is what people mean by "free software." Free software refers to freedom (to legally be able use the sofware for any purpose you please, to be able to modify it and to be able to pass on copies under the same terms as you received it.) This is often referred to as "free as in speech." Many free programs are distributed for no money ("free as in beer".) A number of commercial software companies seem happy to expoloit this confusion to perpetrate the myth that a business can't make a profit or a living out of free software. Canonical (the company behind Ubuntu) and Red Hat (the company behind Fedora) for example both have releases of their software that are free (as in beer) but make a decent living offering paid-for support to companies and individuals that want to buy it. You don't need to buy support though unless you want the confidence of having a big company behind you. I've never had a problem getting help on the net for nothing.

Have fun,
Paul.

[LesD]

What i would find fascinating is for you to install and run a modern Linux distro and tell us what you think, "Old school Unix" compared to "Modern Linux Distribution"

Ah the gauntlet is down, now there's a challenge. 

It will have to be when I have more free time, roll on retirement and on another machine - no dual boots for me. I do have one, a 1.4 GHz AMD Athlon Thunderbird machine with about a Gig of RAM in it that was semi-retired when it started consuming CMOS batteries at an unacceptable rate. That sort of spec. should be adequate I guess what do you reckon? I used to refer to it as my tinkering machine so maybe I could solder a couple of U2's to the CMOS rails and give it a go but it won't be this week my current project is more RFI filters for wall-wart PSU noisy beast that they are!