-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rixta Francis wrote:
> I am so new to Linux that I don't even have it as my OS, though I do
> have Ubuntu, which I have tried a few times. But I can't really figure
> out what it is, as it seems to have only a few options. Anyway, my
> computer is more than seven years old, gets very slow and it's really
> time to get a new one. As I'm sick and tired of Microsoft I seriously
> consider Linux, but I don't know much about it. Which is the reason why
> I joined this group, hoping I would get more information, so that I can
> make an informed choice about whether or not to change to Linux.
>
Describe your computer... brand name if it is branded, how much RAM,
hard drive(s) size, video card, if it has a CD or DVD drive or burner,
etc.
The computer I am typing this on is running Red Hat Enterprise 3
Linux. I built it in 2004 but the mainboard was new in 1999. It's been
running all day, every day (12-16 hrs/day 7 days/wk) since it first
booted up, and is still my main workhorse, and problem free.
> This group is called Linux Newbies, but so far I have felt overwhelmed
> by the amount of technical talk. Directories, extensions and loads of
> words I have never even heard of. I had been told that nowadays Linux is
> actually very user friendly and a good alternative to Windows for the
> experienced computer user. I am experienced and good with computers, but
> not an expert.
>
I started working with computers in the mid 1980's with DOS and
progressed through every Windows and OS/2 version ever released with
the single exception of Windows ME. I am still running Windows 2000
(nice to have for legacy apps) and Windows Vista.
I came to Linux and BSD UNIX around Y2K with a good deal of experience
under my belt in programming and admin, but it was still a major leap,
from Microsoft to *nix. It was Open Source that was my primary motivator.
This computer was initially running just Windows 2000. I went ahead
and installed Red Hat in dual boot mode, with all of my data placed on
hard drives/partitions that were completely separate from the
operating system. This way, I was able to work on exactly the same
data, with either Windows 2000 or Linux Red Hat.
When I had to 'just get the job done', I could boot into Windows, and
when I had time to learn, I could boot into Red Hat. This strategy
came in very handy in the beginning.
> So one of my questions is: is Linux indeed quite easy to learn, or
> should I get discouraged by all the technical talk and forget about it?
> I understood that Linux is in a way a bit a simpler version of Windows,
> which I have noticed with the e-mail program and browser from Ubuntu.
> Easy to use, but with fewer options than the Windows versions.
>
1) It is easy to learn those things that are easy, and more difficult
to learn those things that are difficult, regardless of what operating
system you are running. General Desktop and Office applications are
much easier to learn than things like C/C++ programming, system
administration and writing firewall rulesets. To get started, learn
the easy stuff, and then work on the more challenging stuff, as
necessary. It would probably be a good idea to buy a 'Linux Basics'
book, to learn the more common command line commands, and how the OS
is organised, etc.
> I have also looked around for programs that are important to me, but
> most of them don't seem to run under Linux: firewall, anti-spam,
> anti-adware, pop-up blocker, photo-programs etc. Are there acceptable
> alternatives for all these programs that do run under Linux? I don't
> need to know the names yet, but I really can't do without any of these
> programs, as I use them a lot.
>
Most modern Linux distros have firewalls of some sort built in and
running by default, on install. Anti-spam is a function of you MUA
(mail user agent, like Thunderbird)
browser, a function of your email domain (like yahoo.com, etc.).
Pop-up blockers are built into your browsers, all you have to do is
configure them. Anti-adware is not an issue, and neither are computer
viruses. They are nearly non-existent on *nix OS's.
> Well, these are my questions so far. I hope that you can help me figure
> out what would be the best option for me. I hate the idea of paying
> Microsoft again, but if Linux is still mainly for techies, then I better
> stay away from it.
> Thanks for the help!
>
Look... you are going to have to do your homework. That is a plain,
simple fact. If you think back, you will realise that you already did
your homework on Microsoft platforms, learning as you went along.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, either on the Microsoft
operating systems, or the Mac OS, or on any of the *nix OS's.
The nice thing about *nix, is that in time, with study, you can more
easily 'own' you machine, and really, really, really come to
understand how all the parts fit together, and run, under the hood.
In my opinion, Microsoft OS's are significantly harder than *nix,
because 1) the code is all 'closed source', and 2) Microsoft designs
a lot of 'obscurity' into both its software, and its documentation.
Now, with 25+ years running DOS/Windows, and 10 years running *nix, I
find that I know more about *nix than I do about Windows.
- --
- -wittig http://www.robertwi
http://robertwittig
http://robertwittig
.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE---
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.
iD8DBQFLHCIp4790tgv
K0IQiQAIuqHPuwSjlOm
=1YjG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE---
No comments:
Post a Comment