Thread: XP or Linux?

Originally Posted by BobTheSane

Oh, Bacon, my father runs Kubuntu 7.04 currently. Likes it better than windows, and hardly ever asks me for help.

People have been talking up Kubuntu for some time. I might have to set up a box this weekend and take a toke of that stuff.

What I really have been meaning to do is build a mirror of the TTP web site. The mirror could be used for people to practice skinning it. That way we don't risk mucking up the real web site if and when we decide to reskin/recolor.

BigDog, not sure why you think that Linux leaks memory more than windows, or that you cannot run game servers on it, but... *shrug* I used to run a Tribes server long ago that had far better performance than the windows NT box I'd originally set it up on.

Likewise, my old CS server performed better with the penguin than Billware, With greatly reduced downtime.

The trick is the admin *must* have a clue. Linux doesn't protect you from yourself if you go delving into the Realm of Forbidden Mysteries. Likewise, as you said, it takes time. But if you have an experienced sysadmin, decent hardware, and a good connection, there is no reason it cannot outperform a stock windows install (granted, I have not run a Source server on it so I cannot speak for that, nor have I tried any BF series server-side).

The security nightmare that is a Windows gaming box is more of a concern to me, frankly. I remember I spent more time trying to lock down the windows game servers (between the OS and external firewalls) than I did for the entire Linux setups. I'm willing to take a performance hit for a higher level of assurance that some 12 year old script kiddie isn't going to violate my server's electronic brown eye.

As for the actual gaming performance, I get higher FPS running windows games on my Kubuntu desktop than I do under XP, for *certain* games. Source games kick ass, particularly, with an average 15% more FPS than compared to XP. I have yet to try BF2 or BF2142, because last I heard Cedega hadn't gotten all the kinks worked out.

I think it's all in hardware and operator experience. I could argue for or against either Windows or Linux till the cows come home, and be absolutely right in any of those cases. I personally believe in using what gets the job done, reliably, with as little monetary impact as possible. So, at work, my email and web servers are Linux. My domain controllers are W2K3 (which of course handle DNS). My company desktops are XP. Most people use IE6, with some slowly converting to firefox. *shrug* The job gets done, I get paid

Bacon,
K/X/Ed/Ubuntu are fantastic desktops for people who are not afraid of a *little* tinkering. Not much required to have a fully functional desktop, but it still allows those of a technical mindset to *feel* like they're actually computing. I think that's why my dad likes it so much. He gets to feel like a movie hacker. Dear god, he even asked me the other day about recompiling his kernel! (I talked him down out of that tree, at least).

Further Addendum:

I am in no way meaning to imply that I have a problem with the way TTP runs the servers, or that I think I could do better. Far from it.

There is a reason I happily pay for my reserve slot. I put my money where my mouth is, and TTP runs a tight ship.

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

I'm talking from experience. I've been using Linux since 1997.

not getting into this pissing contest. was about 1999 for me.

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

Prove me wrong by getting any novice here up and running - to the point where he can successfully install software, patches, and version updates by himself.

trust me. i have about 100-120 software engineers here that know just above jack shit about linux, and networking, and we 2 of our 3 products we make here are linux based that talk to each other over the network. it starts by giving them guidance, usually in the form of documented steps, then continues with repetition. again, how was it that you learned so much about linux until you actually tried it? which is where i come in, and say, if you're interested, try it.

Originally Posted by ebaconjr

Also, I'm sure the unannointed are riveted with the fact that CentOS is a rebuild of all of RHEL's SRPMs.

what? i'm being punked because i gave too much info?

Originally Posted by Inja

I suppose it's just my history. I've been hanging out with people since '92 that have their name all over the slakware kernel for updates and modifications.

*yawns*

Originally Posted by Inja

It's gotten a lot easier to work with, yeah, but I'd pay good money to see anybody teach someone else to read sendmail.cf with anything resembling comprehension in two weeks.

sendmail has always been a bitch. which is why people made the m4 macro files to help ease that pain. currently, i'm running 2 mail relay servers that do all of my spam/virus filtering. because of it's flexibility, and ease to add new features and rules, i've swapped to postfix. it's cut about 98% of the spam that i used to get with sendmail.

Originally Posted by ...bigdog...

But if you want to run something like TTP....no downtime.....no "oh we're waiting for the patch....yes we know the windows one was released...but we are linux, sorry" excuses....with full mod/plugin/admin support (example: INS wasn't linux-able when it was released, and when it was patched, the linux patch was WEEKS behind the windows release).......linux is not an option.

of course it's not an option. it would be foolish on your part to run a game server with games that were originally developed, tested, and shipped on windows, only to be later ported to linux for the small demand of linux gamers to play. EA has a hard enough time pulling their head out of their ass to create quality products for windows, much less linux

Originally Posted by Braddoc

Originally Posted by Inja

I suppose it's just my history. I've been hanging out with people since '92 that have their name all over the slakware kernel for updates and modifications.

*yawns*

Wasn't at all a "check out how big my datacock is" comment. I'm saying I've been knee deep in that community forever, and I've seen on a fundamental level what is required to make that OS really run the way it's supposed to, which is what most people are referring to when they say "(insert Unix/Linux flavor) is better than Windows". Saying "Linux is way better than Windows" then immediately following it with a relative claim that any Tom, Dick, or Harry can do it simply isn't true. I don't care if we're talking RedHat, Fedora, Slakware, Ubuntu, Edubuntu, Kubuntu, PAIPIX, Vector, rPath, yadda yadda yadda etc.

The main thing I was going for, regardless, was exactly what bigdog was saying on support. Have you ever tried walking someone through a drag and drop copy on a Windows box? That alone can take 10 minutes, depending on who you're talking to. Now imagine trying to explain to someone the syntax of using secure copy to copy a file to a system/machine vs the syntax of using it to copy from a system/machine, then possibly considering using the sudo command and having to explain what that is, then showing them how to log in as root, how to edit the sudoers file...again, this can go on.

Yeah, there are GUIs for Linux, and yeah, and the average John Doe can put in the CD and *probably* be able to install it and get it working so they can browse the interweb. The second something breaks on that thing, though (and Linux *does* break, sorry fellas), are they going to call HP, Dell, or Compaq to get some tech support? Unlikely.

I think most of the people here could probably handle learning Linux, but we're maybe 5-10% tops of the US computer user population at large. As long as that's the case, the software that's written is going to be for Windows, and as long as that is the case, there isn't any reason for the 90-95% of computer users that compromise the rest to use Linux.

I still have to wonder how much of that is really true any more, Inja. I have done experiments with Linux boxen and inexperienced users. My own very unscientific results, for a variety of users and different tasks:

They prefer KDE to Gnome, Enlightenment, etc.
They prefer Debian based APT systems to RPMs for ease of installation of new software (if stuck using the CLI, which you aren't anymore)
Most have seen absolutely no difference in basic usability between Open Office and MS Office, in terms of things like banging out a letter to grandma or making a spreadsheet.
Most prefer Firefox to IE, Opera, Galleon, Konqueror, etc.
Most *loathed* trying to use GIMP compared to Photoshop
Most found Linux with KDE to be far more intuitive and easy to use than a new Windows system (stuff was in places that made sense)
Most did not experience any more system crashes than they did under Windows, under *normal* usage conditions. Playing with raw alpha software? Well, that'll crash on anything
Most thoroughly loved the fact that all these goodies were available free of charge.
For two users, the utter lack of a decent web design package like Dreamweaver was a serious show stopper. Can't say I blame them.

I really, honestly think that Linux on the desktop IS ready. Hell, it's more ready that Win95 was by a long shot when that monstrosity was foisted on the world so we could finish beta testing it for Microsoft. The question, then, is how much time and effort people are willing to throw into a new thing. Look at the abysmal adoption rate of Vista. Leaving aside technical issues with it, people just don't like change all that much. They are comfortable and used to Windows now. And, people are still mystified by computers. They seem to think that if they look at them crosseyed, somehow the PC on their desk will grow fangs, eat all their files, eat their physical filing cabinets, trash their credit rating, and rape the family cat.

Demystifying computers would go a long way towards people giving new software, OSes, etc. a shot.