Free Your PC, Learn Linux, Embrace The Future

[techswede]

You can play all your games and run Linux natively on your machine.

I am currently dual booting. And i have been for a while.

But i want complete AAA games support before i delete my windows partition

[smjpl]

Point 1: Windows does install updates automatically (optional), not all of them require a reboot.

 

I think they are referring to the fact that Linux updates the OS and installed applications automatically without requiring a reboot. The only time Linux does require a reboot is if the kernel gets updated.

 

This means you will never start some very long operation (4-10 hours) only to come back and find Windows required an update during that time and so performed an automatic reboot (so that very long operation you expected to be finshed never actually got to).

 

This can technically be broken into two points.

1. Automatic updates include installed software.
2. Much less frequent reboot requirement and therefore much less frequent loss of work/time (or subsequently, this needs to be properly managed to get same effect in Windows).

I would also say point 7 is also still vaild but at the same time there are counter points to this that make a strong case for Windows.

 

[WolfDeville]

smjpl, on 08 Mar 2015 - 12:54 AM, said:

I think they are referring to the fact that Linux updates the OS and installed applications automatically without requiring a reboot. The only time Linux does require a reboot is if the kernel gets updated.

 

This means you will never start some very long operation (4-10 hours) only to come back and find Windows required an update during that time and so performed an automatic reboot (so that very long operation you expected to be finshed never actually got to).

 

This can technically be broken into two points.

1. Automatic updates include installed software.
2. Much less frequent reboot requirement and therefore much less frequent loss of work/time (or subsequently, this needs to be properly managed to get same effect in Windows).

I would also say point 7 is also still vaild but at the same time there are counter points to this that make a strong case for Windows.

Hmm I suppose that could be beneficial for some people (Personally, this isn't an issue I've experienced). But in Windows you can stop it from doing automatic reboots and it's not like you absolutely have to reboot the computer once you install the update (unless its a driver or something). Anyway, I'm drunk at the moment and I am in no shape to have a debate or whatever you wanna call this (although I agree with what you said) I dunno lel

[Midnight]

• Linux not only automatically updates the system but also the software installed plus without frequent reboots.
• Linux has robust hardware support baked into the kernel so whatever you plug in tends to work right away.
• You can partition certain aspects of the operating system such as your root directory that can be retained for an unlimited amount of re-installs while preserving your data.
• You can't boot a fully operational Windows 8.1 system from a USB drive (you can with enterprise but still the flexibility is not there).
• Linux doesn't need reboots, defragmentation or other daily/weekly tasks to keep the machine running at peak performance.
• Linux has a synaptic package manager which really speaks for itself.
• Almost every software you install on Linux you can obtain the source code for.
• You can choose from different window managers and desktop environments.
• You can run a secure machine without the need for annoying and resource intensive antivirus engines.
• You can run a full operating system and obtain software without breaking the law.
• You can customize nearly every aspect of the operating system to your liking.

Now bask in the glory that is my Linux desktop.

 

A solid list. However, I disagree with point 9 and I don't quite understand point 10.

[Midnight]

Point 1: Windows does install updates automatically (optional), not all of them require a reboot.

Point 2: Windows 8.1 works with any hardware without manually installing drivers

Point 5: Neither does Windows? I've never had to defragment a hard drive since Windows XP.

Point 7: Well that really depends on the developer choosing to share the code, is it not?

Point 9: Windows Defender has a very small footprint and comes preinstalled with Windows 8.1 and that, bundled with common sense is all you need.

Point 10: Uhm.... Do I really have to point it out?

 

That leaves you with 5 reasons which I'm sure someone that is more educated on this topic than me could answer to.

 

Point 1: Most of them do (until Windows 8), which is pretty annoying.

Point 2: Fair.

Point 5: It makes a bit of a difference as the boot drive for Windows, especially XP. Not for Linux though.

Point 7: There's a reason he or she said "almost", right?

Point 9: MSE is not very good. It has a terrible detection rate.

Point 10: Yeah, I don't get that either.

 

Another point: Linux is more secure than Windows in how it is designed and developed.

[madcow]

Can someone please list 10 things that Linux can do that Window's 8.1 can't.

Adding a few more:

 

1. Copy files being accessed. Delete files being accessed. Copy (backup) a running OS using common tools.

2. Containers (e.g. LXC, Docker).

3. Many more file system choices including ZFS and BtrFS.

4. Choose kernel components. Run low latency or real time kernel.

5. chroot

6. initrd/grub allows you to do things like copy OS to RAM disk and boot from it, or preload kernel modules and boot from software raid.

7. LVM and snapshots

[madcow]

Containerization is chrooting on steroids. Storage Spaces would be the Windows equivalent of LVM and both ZFS and BtrFS have a more versatile implementation of snapshotting than LVM. 

chroot has other less permanent uses such as setting up or troubleshooting a system without booting it.

 

I wasn't aware that storage spaces works like LVM.

[d3sl91]

Heres a question for you guys. 

 

Maybe I am just using the wrong distros, but, whenever I load up a distro on these "old slow machines" I find that my general usability is much faster and stable when I throw Win7+ on it, versus Linux. 

 

If so, what are some good distros for Dual-core Atom based systems with 1-2GB ram?

[alicskysareblue]

It's the user base that constantly shove it in other people's face because they think they are somehow better for using it....

 

And rightfully so.

 

 

Can someone please list 10 things that Linux can do that Window's 8.1 can't.

• Linux is not chipset based which means it requires no motherboard drivers it also means that you can freely copy an install to another computer
• linux distros in general require a lot less space then windows does, a 500 gb drive is WAY more then enough to hold most data required.
• do to most things being partitioned you  cant very easily shrink and increase  partition sizes without having to convert into a dynamic disc like windows.
• has anyone mentioned multiple workspaces ? because seriously the fact that it has taken microsoft to  implement multiple workspaces in windows 10 is really sad.

       also linux was the first to implement the idea of a repository where you can install applications with just a single click,  Ubuntu has a very well built repository where you can get most things needed.

 

it is actually easy to get updates for programs (at least in ubuntu)  simply by running 

SUdo apt-get updatesudo apt-get dist-update

you can update most updates dist-upgrade is preferred though as it handles updates more intelligently

 

• you can install different desktop environment (don't like unity ? install cinnamon or kde or gnome etc) 
• different distros: some distros have specific use scenario, centos is for enterprise use and is VERY solid, lubuntu, Puppy linux and DSL are excellent on netbooks or really old computers. (I installed lubuntu on my crappy netbook)

 

 

Personally I am perfectly at home with windows and linux but linux is just way more flexible, and the fact that I can have a full install of it and it takes up only 256gb with space STILL free is just awesome.  in contrast I have three drives for windows which is just silly.

[Dabombinable]

 

• Linux is not chipset based which means it requires no motherboard drivers it also means that you can freely copy an install to another computer
• linux distros in general require a lot less space then windows does, a 500 gb drive is WAY more then enough to hold most data required.
• do to most things being partitioned you  cant very easily shrink and increase  partition sizes without having to convert into a dynamic disc like windows.
• has anyone mentioned multiple workspaces ? because seriously the fact that it has taken microsoft to  implement multiple workspaces in windows 10 is really sad.

       also linux was the first to implement the idea of a repository where you can install applications with just a single click,  Ubuntu has a very well built repository where you can get most things needed.

 

it is actually easy to get updates for programs (at least in ubuntu)  simply by running 

SUdo apt-get updatesudo apt-get dist-update

you can update most updates dist-upgrade is preferred though as it handles updates more intelligently

 

• you can install different desktop environment (don't like unity ? install cinnamon or kde or gnome etc) 
• different distros: some distros have specific use scenario, centos is for enterprise use and is VERY solid, lubuntu, Puppy linux and DSL are excellent on netbooks or really old computers. (I installed lubuntu on my crappy netbook)

 

 

Personally I am perfectly at home with windows and linux but linux is just way more flexible, and the fact that I can have a full install of it and it takes up only 256gb with space STILL free is just awesome.  in contrast I have three drives for windows which is just silly.

 

Linux might not take up much space, but I was never able to find a fully fledged distro that would install on my 420MB HDD properly. Macpup 550 seemed to work but it didn't have the driver or program support I needed, so I made a custom XP installation, which was able to fit with 7MB to spare.

[alicskysareblue]

Linux might not take up much space, but I was never able to find a fully fledged distro that would install on my 420MB HDD properly. Macpup 550 seemed to work but it didn't have the driver or program support I needed, so I made a custom XP installation, which was able to fit with 7MB to spare.

MB ? I really hope you mean GB because of course they would not install correctly.

 

it depends what were you going for remember  you need a /root and dont make it small.

[Dabombinable]

MB ? I really hope you mean GB because of course they would not install correctly.

 

it depends what were you going for remember  you need a /root and dont make it small.

No, MB. As I said it was a custom install, so I removed as much unnecessary crap as possible, only had the relevant drivers in the installation, with all others removed. I got XP to the point where it was small, and would work flawlessly on such a small amount of system resources. It was the only time as well where I've seen XP using less than 64MB of RAM.

[alicskysareblue]

No, MB. As I said it was a custom install, so I removed as much unnecessary crap as possible, only had the relevant drivers in the installation, with all others removed. I got XP to the point where it was small, and would work flawlessly on such a small amount of system resources. It was the only time as well where I've seen XP using less than 64MB of RAM.

interesting....that's all I can say  

[Mushious]

Why learn Linux? Because, quite simply, it is the future.  

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TBRTLsCNXs

 

I truly believe that Linus and Slick, being sources of knowledge for many in the tech/PC community, should feel not only obligated but that they owe it to them selves and to their audience to start learning Linux. Ignorance will only hold back what is to come. I know LMG is a busy crew and I don't think they're being intentionally ignorant, but rather I don't think they realize the scope and potential of what they're ignoring.

 

Regardless, the more of us (the members of the community) delve into the world of Linux, the better it will get.

 

Thus, I'll keep on advocating for Linux. Check out the video from Wendell from TekSyndicate. This is just the beginning of a whole video series (they've devoted a YT channel specifically for it) on Linux. He'll be exploring the ins and outs, how to install, what you can do with it, how to diagnose and fix problems, and much more. 

 

You're more than welcome to keep preaching the ways of Linux but you should really ease off on the idea that everyone should jump on the bandwagon. Not everyone has a use for Linux and many don't have the time nor paitence to get a distro up and running. Linux isn't the future, it'll continue well into the future but it's not going to be a final destination, thinking otherwise is, as you put it, ignorance.

 

Just like Linux, operating systems such as Windows and OSX (maybe not in the same form as they are now) will continue.

 

_{I feel like I just fed a troll ._.}

[Dabombinable]

interesting....that's all I can say  

It wasn't that practical as a proper OS, but for overclocking and benchmarking it did the job.

[alicskysareblue]

It wasn't that practical as a proper OS, but for overclocking and benchmarking it did the job.

that pretty cool

[Tarzan]

I wanted to dualboot with Linux Mint but the screen resolution is lower than the native 1920*1080 of my screen. I have a NVidia card (Asus GTX 970), I tried to look for information but nothing worked...

[Dabombinable]

I wanted to dualboot with Linux Mint but the screen resolution is lower than the native 1920*1080 of my screen. I have a NVidia card (Asus GTX 970), I tried to look for information but nothing worked...

Ikr? The GTX 970 does not seem to have any support for Linux. My GTX 650 TI on the other hand works just fine.

[Tarzan]

Ikr? The GTX 970 does not seem to have any support for Linux. My GTX 650 TI on the other hand works just fine.

 

Actually I just found out this: http://www.yourownlinux.com/2014/09/how-to-install-nvidia-343-22-stable-graphics-drivers-in-linux.html

 

 

Fixes

• Added support for the following GPUs:
  • GeForce GTX 970

    GeForce GTX 980

[Dabombinable]

Actually I just found out this: http://www.yourownlinux.com/2014/09/how-to-install-nvidia-343-22-stable-graphics-drivers-in-linux.html

Thanks, I'd completely missed that.

[MEC-777]

There may be just as much malware for Linux as Windows.

 

No, there isn't. Please stop saying that. It's not even remotely true. 

 

You can't even trust the windows anti-virus software companies these days as the majority of them now install PUPs which is a form a malware. Windows is SO vulnerable, susceptible, targeted and can be so easily infected where as with Linux, it's practically the complete opposite. 

 

That's where Linux is actually quite superior to Windows is in memory management. Linux doesn't necessarily like to use swap unless it needs to which means everything stays in physical memory which is multiple times faster than storage. Once ram gets low the operating system starts pushing software into swap. Which means most of your software should run at the peak of its performance from the hardware capabilities until you simply run out of ram. Tho I wouldn't use a heavy distribution like Mint on older machines. I would instead try their Mint XFCE edition.

 

I'm actually running Lubuntu on it instead now. Runs great.

 

I am currently dual booting. And i have been for a while.

But i want complete AAA games support before i delete my windows partition

 

Install and run windows in KVM in Linux with PCIe passthrough to your main graphics card. Better than dual-booting, IMO. Will be trying this out very soon. 

 

Heres a question for you guys. 

 

Maybe I am just using the wrong distros, but, whenever I load up a distro on these "old slow machines" I find that my general usability is much faster and stable when I throw Win7+ on it, versus Linux. 

 

If so, what are some good distros for Dual-core Atom based systems with 1-2GB ram?

 

What distros have you been trying?

 

I would recommend Lubuntu. I'm currently running it on an old core 2 duo 1.86ghz with 1GB ram and it only uses about 170mb ram for the OS alone.

 

You're more than welcome to keep preaching the ways of Linux but you should really ease off on the idea that everyone should jump on the bandwagon. Not everyone has a use for Linux and many don't have the time nor paitence to get a distro up and running. Linux isn't the future, it'll continue well into the future but it's not going to be a final destination, thinking otherwise is, as you put it, ignorance.

 

Just like Linux, operating systems such as Windows and OSX (maybe not in the same form as they are now) will continue.

 

_{I feel like I just fed a troll ._.}

 

I want to make this clear to everyone: 

 

I'm not trying to force Linux on anyone. All I'm trying to do is educate and spread the word. If you really don't like Linux, ignore the thread? If you're dead-set on windows and nothing will every change your mind, that's fine with me. It's your choice. But there are a lot of myths and misconceptions about Linux that I believe is preventing some people from actually taking a good solid look at it, who otherwise might actually want to use it and could benefit from using it. You don't know if you can benefit from something if you never bother to try it or learn more about it in the first place.  

[techswede]

 

Install and run windows in KVM in Linux with PCIe passthrough to your main graphics card. Better than dual-booting, IMO. Will be trying this out very soon. 

I'd love to hear about how it works when you'very tried it^^ until then I'm going to use windows for gaming.

[Midnight]

No, there isn't. Please stop saying that. It's not even remotely true. 

 

You can't even trust the windows anti-virus software companies these days as the majority of them now install PUPs which is a form a malware. Windows is SO vulnerable, susceptible, targeted and can be so easily infected where as with Linux, it's practically the complete opposite. 

 

I don't think you understood my point. I said that there MAY be just as much for Linux as Windows. It can be true or false.

 

With malware, you can't know that something exists until it has been discovered. Think about it, if you made malware and spread it, do you want other people to be aware of its existence? Of course not.

 

Hence, it is impossible to know the true amount of malware out on the Internet at any given point in time.

[Dabombinable]

I don't think you understood my point. I said that there MAY be just as much for Linux as Windows. It can be true or false.

 

With malware, you can't know that something exists until it has been discovered. Think about it, if you made malware and spread it, do you want other people to be aware of its existence? Of course not.

 

Hence, it is impossible to know the true amount of malware out on the Internet at any given point in time.

I think people should just be glad that the days of Windows 95-XP are over, because that's when the worst ran rampant.

[MEC-777]

I don't think you understood my point. I said that there MAY be just as much for Linux as Windows. It can be true or false.

 

With malware, you can't know that something exists until it has been discovered. Think about it, if you made malware and spread it, do you want other people to be aware of its existence? Of course not.

 

Hence, it is impossible to know the true amount of malware out on the Internet at any given point in time.

 

First off, I thought I had quoted someone else who said that earlier, so please forgive my harshness.  :unsure:

 

Second, because of the way windows is structured vs. the way Linux is structured, it's far more difficult to get malware on Linux in the first place. It far easier to gain admin access on a windows machine and have programs running, downloading, installing under the user (admin) even without their knowledge, but with Linux the only way a program can run is by gaining root access which can only be allowed by the user. Because of the manner in which programs are acquired and installed within the Linux eco system (from repositories), it's FAR more secure and guarded against malware. 

 

I would say, with a high degree of certainty, that the mount of malware in existence targeted at windows is vastly greater than that targeted at Linux.

 

Here's one case scenario; The unsuspecting user accidentally clicks on a wrong link or ad link which triggers and automatic download which then automatically runs the .exe that installs some kind of trojan or worm or toolbar adware/spyware that roots itself deep within the windows system files. On a Linux system, the worst that could happen is the program is downloaded and that's it. It can't run because the program was designed to run on and infect windows systems and it also doesn't have root access.

 

 

I think people should just be glad that the days of Windows 95-XP are over, because that's when the worst ran rampant.

 

It seems like viruses are less of an issue these days, but malware and PUPs have gotten worse I think.