Why Linux?

Why Linux?

Post by Jack Cushm » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00



I was wondering what situations Linux is the best for. In what cases would
it be better to use some other OS?

I realize this may be in a FAQ. If so, wheren is it?

Thanks a lot,
Jack Cushman

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Florian Kuehner » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00


Jack Cushman schrieb/wrote/crivait:

Quote:>I was wondering what situations Linux is the best for. In what cases would
>it be better to use some other OS?

In case that you are unhappy with the OS you are using at the moment.

Linux is a Unix and has so all of its advantages:

- decent networking capabilites
- great flexibility
- quite wide range of software

Well, there're just some things you cannot do well with Linux:

- Using Word for Windows 98 [1]
- DTP [3]
- playing many games [2]

Well, tell us what you do with your computer - and we'll tell you why
Linux is the right choice. :-)

  Florian

[1] That's no real disadvantage.
[2] PCs are no game platform. Use a Nintendo! :-)
[3] You can use Calamus SL in a Atari Emulator -> works quite well

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Roy Stogn » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>I was wondering what situations Linux is the best for. In what cases would
>it be better to use some other OS?

The subject line, coincidentally, is the title of my little essay,
http://roystgnr.jones.rice.edu/essays/whylinux.html
which lists my perception of the pros and cons of the OS.
---
Roy Stogner
 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Kaz Kylhe » Thu, 16 Apr 1998 04:00:00




>I was wondering what situations Linux is the best for. In what cases would
>it be better to use some other OS?

It's suitable in situations that need UNIX, but don't require some
application or service that is only available for a commercial UNIX
OS.

Of course, all situations need a UNIX system of some form. :)

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Leon Brook » Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> I was wondering what situations Linux is the best for. In what cases would
> it be better to use some other OS?

1. When you hate crashing.
2. When you want high horsepower (e.g. webserver).
3. When you like useable security and fast bug-fixes.
4. When you don't want to pay for it.
5. When you like stable and reliable apps.
6. When you like to run your software from Windows, DOS, SCO,
GameBoy/NES, Commodore, ZX-80, Commodore-64 etc without rebooting or
even changing keyboards.
7. When you want to recycle old or limited PC hardware.
8. When you're a consciencious(sp?) objector to monopolies.
9. When you like having the source for things.
10. When you're learning how things work.
11. When MICROS~1 and other large suppliers stop supporting your
platform.
12. When you want to see a real 10Mb/sec through your 10Mb/sec ethernet
card.

There's a dozen. Here's the baker's:

13. When you want to be constantly on the "bleeding edge" of technology.

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by David Culbertso » Fri, 17 Apr 1998 04:00:00


I almost laughed so hard I cried when I read this...

Quote:>Linux is a Unix and has so all of its advantages:
>- decent networking capabilites

Yep

Quote:>- great flexibility

Yep (Depending on what you want to do)

Quote:>- quite wide range of software

That's relative.  Wide range compared to what?  An Amiga?

Quote:>Well, there're just some things you cannot do well with Linux:
>- Using Word for Windows 98 [1]
>- DTP [3]
>- playing many games [2]

Quoted to make sense of the next bit.

Quote:>[1] That's no real disadvantage.

Word97?  I thought Word98 was Mac only...  But that's not the point.

Hell, everyone else with a PC is using it or going to be in the near future,
but I'm sure you won't have any trouble sharing data with them.
I'm sure they can save everything to .RTF for ya.

Quote:>[2] PCs are no game platform. Use a Nintendo! :-)

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Where have YOU
been!
If you had asked me a year or two ago I would have never thought these words
would come from my fingertips, but:

Windows 95/98 is the best * platform currently available.  Soon,
hopefully, it will be NT5 (pending hardware Direct3D support).

Not only are there a never-ending stream of titles pooring in, but you can
also download hundreds of PLAYABLE demos off the web anytime you feel like
it.
(I've compared the N64 versions of popular games like Turok & Shadows of the
Empire and the PC versions SMOKE the N64!)
A 3D accelerator with a Voodoo chipset (~$130-150) on a P133+ simply ROCKS.
(And yes, there is GLIDE support for Linux.)

If anyone out there runs Windows95 with a 3D accellerator and is interested
in an EXCELLENT title, pick up BattleZone.  But don't take my word for it,
check out the buzz on the web.  It's been reviewed everywhere.  Excellent
First Person 3D control and strategy combined!
(I play the occassional game to unwind after a hard day.)

To it's defense, Linux has Quake.  And what else do you need? <G>

Quote:>[3] You can use Calamus SL in a Atari Emulator -> works quite well

ST/TT emulator?  I've used an ST and I can't imagine why anyone would WANT
to emulate it.  It's horrible graphic interface and lame resolution/color
depth can't compare to today's PC's.  (Spoiled by 1280x1024 and 1600x1200)

I would suggest a Mac for DTP, but since Adobe is moving to the Wintel
plaform as its reference for future development, that might not be a good
investment.

My recommendation is... have the best of both worlds.  Buy a little larger
hard drive and dual boot. (Or better yet, a boot manager of some sort.)

Just my $.02

DC

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by jed » Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:00:00



[deletia]

Quote:

>>[2] PCs are no game platform. Use a Nintendo! :-)

>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Where have YOU
>been!
>If you had asked me a year or two ago I would have never thought these words
>would come from my fingertips, but:

>Windows 95/98 is the best * platform currently available.  Soon,
>hopefully, it will be NT5 (pending hardware Direct3D support).

        This might have been the case back when you could
        still get a decent * computer for $500. However,
        these days throwing a PC at * is absurdly cost
        ineffective. The consoles do well at concentrating on
        the necessary minimalist solution at a superiour price-
        point while providing a standard hardware platform that
        doesn't have to suffer from 'direct3d tweaking'.

Quote:

>Not only are there a never-ending stream of titles pooring in, but you can
>also download hundreds of PLAYABLE demos off the web anytime you feel like
>it.
>(I've compared the N64 versions of popular games like Turok & Shadows of the
>Empire and the PC versions SMOKE the N64!)
>A 3D accelerator with a Voodoo chipset (~$130-150) on a P133+ simply ROCKS.
>(And yes, there is GLIDE support for Linux.)

>If anyone out there runs Windows95 with a 3D accellerator and is interested
>in an EXCELLENT title, pick up BattleZone.  But don't take my word for it,
>check out the buzz on the web.  It's been reviewed everywhere.  Excellent
>First Person 3D control and strategy combined!
>(I play the occassional game to unwind after a hard day.)

>To it's defense, Linux has Quake.  And what else do you need? <G>

>>[3] You can use Calamus SL in a Atari Emulator -> works quite well

>ST/TT emulator?  I've used an ST and I can't imagine why anyone would WANT
>to emulate it.  It's horrible graphic interface and lame resolution/color
>depth can't compare to today's PC's.  (Spoiled by 1280x1024 and 1600x1200)

        We're not talking Blender 3D here, we're talking about
        word manipulation with a few pictures thrown in for
        fluff. Calamus will certainly do. HELL, Calamus would
        definitely do. A linux port of Calamus would
        <cartman>Kickass!</cartman>.

        Oh, btw, GEM itself is quite capable of doing
        4096x4096 in 24bit color. The 16/256 color constraint
        was purely a matter of hardware.

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Florian Kuehner » Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:00:00


David Culbertson schrieb/wrote/crivait:

Quote:>>- great flexibility
>Yep (Depending on what you want to do)

When is Linux *not* flexible?

Quote:>>- quite wide range of software
>That's relative.  Wide range compared to what?  An Amiga?

Not compared at all. You have appropriate software for nearly
everything. Who cares if Windos or MacOS has more software?

Quote:>>[2] PCs are no game platform. Use a Nintendo! :-)
>HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Where have YOU
>been!

Hmm, do you really want a list?

Quote:>Not only are there a never-ending stream of titles pooring in, but you can
>also download hundreds of PLAYABLE demos off the web anytime you feel like
>it.

Who cares for *demos*?

Look, how much do you pay for a standard PC nowadays? At least about
$1500.

What do you pay for a Nintendo?

Quote:>To it's defense, Linux has Quake.  And what else do you need? <G>

doom

<eg>

Quote:>>[3] You can use Calamus SL , so what a Atari Emulator -> works quite well
>ST/TT emulator?  I've used an ST and I can't imagine why anyone would WANT
>to emulate it.  It's horrible graphic interface and lame resolution/color
>depth can't compare to today's PC's.  (Spoiled by 1280x1024 and 1600x1200)

I know a TT who has 24bit colour depth and 1600x1200 resolution.

So what?

Quote:>I would suggest a Mac for DTP, but since Adobe is moving to the Wintel
>plaform as its reference for future development, that might not be a good
>investment.

Well, with Calamus you can do quite much. You student's magazine is
quickly made with it, so what?

  Florian
--
Programming trees are written with the root at the top and the leaves at
the bottom. Common sense tells you that this is upside-down. In case you
haven't noticed, common sense has very little to do with programming.
  -- Steve Oualline

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Rolf Magnu » Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> >Windows 95/98 is the best * platform currently available.  Soon,
> >hopefully, it will be NT5 (pending hardware Direct3D support).

>         This might have been the case back when you could
>         still get a decent * computer for $500. However,
>         these days throwing a PC at * is absurdly cost
>         ineffective. The consoles do well at concentrating on
>         the necessary minimalist solution at a superiour price-
>         point while providing a standard hardware platform that
>         doesn't have to suffer from 'direct3d tweaking'.

If you don't want to do anything than games you're right. But a PC can
not only be used for *, but for many other things. If you
already have a PC or want to buy one, it's MUCH better to get a
voodoo/voodoo2 and have real fun. You get keyboard/mouse/any joystick
(with ff) or joypad for input, you get amazing realtime 3d graphics that
is better than any console, you get pre-rendered or filmed movie
sequences
(as opposed to N64), you get the possibility to play games via
lan/internet,
a flicker-free monitor, ... the list is endless. Sounds a bit
enthusiastic,
but it's right.
What do you mean by 'direct3d tweaking'?

Quote:

> >Not only are there a never-ending stream of titles pooring in, but you can
> >also download hundreds of PLAYABLE demos off the web anytime you feel like
> >it.

And not to forget the never-ending stream of mods and levels for many
games
(like Quake I/II)

(getting a little off topic now)

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by jed » Sat, 18 Apr 1998 04:00:00





>> >Windows 95/98 is the best * platform currently available.  Soon,
>> >hopefully, it will be NT5 (pending hardware Direct3D support).

>>         This might have been the case back when you could
>>         still get a decent * computer for $500. However,
>>         these days throwing a PC at * is absurdly cost
>>         ineffective. The consoles do well at concentrating on
>>         the necessary minimalist solution at a superiour price-
>>         point while providing a standard hardware platform that
>>         doesn't have to suffer from 'direct3d tweaking'.

>If you don't want to do anything than games you're right. But a PC can
>not only be used for *, but for many other things. If you
>already have a PC or want to buy one, it's MUCH better to get a
>voodoo/voodoo2 and have real fun. You get keyboard/mouse/any joystick

        However, if the rest of your hardware is not up to snuf,
        you will have to make it that way and also expand main
        storage to accomdate those games as well. 200M installs
        are not at all uncommon.

Quote:>(with ff) or joypad for input, you get amazing realtime 3d graphics that
>is better than any console, you get pre-rendered or filmed movie
>sequences

        Once you've pre-rendered the animations, you can
        play it on just about any hardware with similar
        quality. That's the whole point of pre-rendering.

Quote:>(as opposed to N64), you get the possibility to play games via
>lan/internet,
>a flicker-free monitor, ... the list is endless. Sounds a bit
>enthusiastic,
>but it's right.
>What do you mean by 'direct3d tweaking'?

        Direct3d isn't a properly hardware abstracted rendering
        api like opengl is. YOu have to tweak game code for low
        level hardware compatibility and it gives inconsistent
        output across various hardware.
 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Rolf Magnu » Tue, 21 Apr 1998 04:00:00



>         However, if the rest of your hardware is not up to snuf,
>         you will have to make it that way and also expand main
>         storage to accomdate those games as well. 200M installs
>         are not at all uncommon.

Right.

Quote:>         Once you've pre-rendered the animations, you can
>         play it on just about any hardware with similar
>         quality. That's the whole point of pre-rendering.

But on a N64 that is not the case, because it doesn't have a cd- or
any other disk drive. So everything has to be on the memory of the
module. No one uses a 200M rom module for a pre-rendered animation.
(I don't know if this ammount is even possible)

Quote:>         Direct3d isn't a properly hardware abstracted rendering
>         api like opengl is. YOu have to tweak game code for low
>         level hardware compatibility and it gives inconsistent
>         output across various hardware.

That's not a problem of Direct3d, but of the hardware. Many game
accelerators simply don't have opengl support because they would
give inconsistent output (either too slow or bad visual results).
 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Tim Smi » Thu, 23 Apr 1998 04:00:00



>Word97?  I thought Word98 was Mac only...  But that's not the point.

>Hell, everyone else with a PC is using it or going to be in the near future,
>but I'm sure you won't have any trouble sharing data with them.
>I'm sure they can save everything to .RTF for ya.

The Word97 (and Excel97 and the other Office97) file format is documented
on the MSDN Library CD-ROM and at www.microsoft.com.  The formats were made
publicly available several months ago.

--Tim Smith

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by nath.. » Sun, 26 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> >[2] PCs are no game platform. Use a Nintendo! :-)

> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Where have YOU
> been!

> If you had asked me a year or two ago I would have never thought these words
> would come from my fingertips, but:

> Windows 95/98 is the best * platform currently available.  Soon,
> hopefully, it will be NT5 (pending hardware Direct3D support).

So you pay

   - $2500 for the PII 300 (can't have a skipped frame!)
   - $500 for the latest 3d gfx card (need that smooooth framerate)
   - $400 for the soundcard and some decent 20W RMS speakers
   - $200 for a good joystick (Wing Commander Pro)
   - $1200 for the 17" flatscreen monitor (need the detail!)

These are aussie dollars, btw. At this point you've paid $4,800 for a
half decent PC * platform (nothing really impressive though) and
you still have to pay $90-$140 per game.

Oh, and you better hope you don't have any problems (like mice lockup
in Dark Reign, or networking timeouts in Red Alert, or colour munging
with Raiden Ultra, and god forbid if you have a DOS game).

Alternatively you can purchase a $200 N64 and pay $5 to rent the game
for a weekend, play yourself sick, and repeat this process with a new
game next weekend. There are hundreds of titles: years of play.

The frame rate is better. The game is usually better. The integration
of game into the console is unsurpassed. And you play it on your 80cm
TV screen with 200W RMS thumping surround with 100W floor thumpers.

I'm afraid the PC platform is quite pathetic by comparison.

But if you're into jerky movement and lackluster sound and the rather
disappointing quality of games available on PCs (most of them are not
much more than choose-your-own-adventure movies) then enjoy!

Quote:> If anyone out there runs Windows95 with a 3D accellerator and is interested
> in an EXCELLENT title, pick up BattleZone.  But don't take my word for it,
> check out the buzz on the web.  It's been reviewed everywhere.  Excellent
> First Person 3D control and strategy combined!

Yawn. I preferred the original. At least it had charm.

--
Modern computers have advanced to the point where they are extremely
intuitive, though obviously you have to spend a lot of time learning
how to use them first.

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by Christopher Smit » Mon, 27 Apr 1998 04:00:00



>> >[2] PCs are no game platform. Use a Nintendo! :-)

>> HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Where have
YOU
>> been!

>> If you had asked me a year or two ago I would have never thought these
words
>> would come from my fingertips, but:

>> Windows 95/98 is the best * platform currently available.  Soon,
>> hopefully, it will be NT5 (pending hardware Direct3D support).

>So you pay

>   - $2500 for the PII 300 (can't have a skipped frame!)
>   - $500 for the latest 3d gfx card (need that smooooth framerate)
>   - $400 for the soundcard and some decent 20W RMS speakers
>   - $200 for a good joystick (Wing Commander Pro)
>   - $1200 for the 17" flatscreen monitor (need the detail!)

WTF are you on about, you can play any game on the market today quite
acceptably on a P200MMX with a Voodoo2 card - one of those kitted out with
the standard stuff (64Mb RAM, AWE64, 17" Monitor) shouldn't cost you much
over $3000, if that - even from a name brand vendor like Gateway

Quote:

>These are aussie dollars, btw. At this point you've paid $4,800 for a
>half decent PC * platform (nothing really impressive though) and
>you still have to pay $90-$140 per game.

At this point you've paid maybe $3500 tops for a PC * platform that'll
play anything on the market *fast*.

Quote:

>Alternatively you can purchase a $200 N64 and pay $5 to rent the game
>for a weekend, play yourself sick, and repeat this process with a new
>game next weekend. There are hundreds of titles: years of play.

Or maybe you want to buy your N64 games - hmm seems they cost about the same
as PC games (often more).  You can rent PC games as well.

Quote:

>The frame rate is better. The game is usually better. The integration
>of game into the console is unsurpassed. And you play it on your 80cm
>TV screen with 200W RMS thumping surround with 100W floor thumpers.

Yeah right, I can see an N64 pumping out Quake2 in 800x600x16bit colour at
50fps, or hooking up 32 N64s together to play GLQuake deathmatch (once
again, 800x600x16bit colour).  Lets not forget that while your average TV is
bigger than your average monitor, it has less than half the resolution.
Games like TA, and Dark Reign just aren't going to happen on an N64.  And I
suppose you can give a good reason you can't hookup you 200W stereo to your
PC as well.

Quote:

>I'm afraid the PC platform is quite pathetic by comparison.

The day I see a console getting even remotely close to the graphical quality
abilities of an average PC I'll agree with you.

Quote:

>But if you're into jerky movement and lackluster sound and the rather
>disappointing quality of games available on PCs (most of them are not
>much more than choose-your-own-adventure movies) then enjoy!

Yeah, 50fps is *real* jerky.

Sorry, but as the previous poster said - 3-odd years ago it was a tough
decision, but now no console can even get within shooting distance of an
average PC for the quality of games, graphical capabilites, and sound
capabilies - oh, not to mention the variety of games available.

 
 
 

Why Linux?

Post by David Culbertso » Tue, 28 Apr 1998 04:00:00



> However, if the rest of your hardware is not up to snuf,
> you will have to make it that way and also expand main
> storage to accomdate those games as well. 200M installs
> are not at all uncommon.

Valid point.  But when I can buy an 11.5GB drive for around $400...
(2GB is SIGNIFICANTLY less)

And it only takes a 133/166 to play most games.  (I used a 133 for quite
awhile with a Voodoo card with more than acceptable performance.)

Quote:> Once you've pre-rendered the animations, you can
> play it on just about any hardware with similar
> quality. That's the whole point of pre-rendering.

While these "cut animations" are nice, they aren't the gameplay.

Quote:> Direct3d isn't a properly hardware abstracted rendering
> api like opengl is. YOu have to tweak game code for low
> level hardware compatibility and it gives inconsistent
> output across various hardware.

For the PC * platform, unfortunately that's not true.  While the OpenGL
is more efficient in many respects, many developers use Direct3D to gain a
broader market.  OpenGL video drivers are also some of the hardest to
develop and aren't usually complete.  Things like stereo-scopic support,
etc. are often neglected by the video card manufacturers.

Hell, if it wasn't for ID and their use of OpenGL, it would probably all be
Direct3D or glide.

DC

 
 
 

1. Why linux sucks and why linux is best

Ordinary people, that doesn't use hours on learing operating
systems, use windows and they are happy with it. Office is
better than star office etc. I think windows98 and NT is better
for 1) ordinary use with office, photoshop, games etc. I think
Linux is better for companies that need more secure on their
servers. Theese comanies only hire some geeks to setup and
run their servers properly. I think many "Linux people" not
only uses Linux as a operating system but also as a religion.

It doesn't matter for ordinary people that the security isn't on top
because without many windowsprogs many doesn't
need a PC. OK Linux is good, i have tried it several times,
but it's best for servers and it isn't good for personal useage.

Why doesn't Linux support USB and plug and play?

2. backpack cdrw

3. Why UNIX? (And, after all, why Linux?)

4. CGI Can't Find Files

5. Why Linux, Why not 386BSD ?

6. Help---"Cant create modem lock file"...???

7. Why me, why linux ?

8. allow directory browsing

9. Why Linux is Not for You: The Lengthy Rebuttal of a Linux User

10. Yet another Linux geek...Here is why Linux sucks..........

11. Why Linux should remain Linux

12. Why Linux is a winner. (Was: Why Linux will Lose to Windows)

13. Non-technical reasons why Linux is superior