Best operative system?

[Epyon9283]

Originally Posted by Wordplay

Would you believe it that Unix/Linux know-how isn't exactly at the top when they interview people for IT jobs?

What? Who is they? My last job had me supporting a Linux based VPN appliance. Linux experience/know-how was pretty important. My current job of QAing Linux based Firewall/VPN appliances also requires a level of Linux knowledge. I deal with Windows infrequently.

[martino]

Originally Posted by Wordplay

Vista is a whole different can of worms. Personally, I hate it.

No. It's exactly the same with XP. Only that Vista works much worse after you're (finally) done with the install issues.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Wordplay

Would you believe it that Unix/Linux know-how isn't exactly at the top when they interview people for IT jobs?

No, I wouldn't believe it because that really depends on where you're applying. Most of the industries and job sectors I've worked with or consulted for -- Unix systems are the heart of the network and not infrequently on the desktop. Almost any large company will have a variety of unix systems deployed and require expertise. The people with the most bang are the ones who can work on both sides of the Unix/MS fence.

Insurance companies can be even more byzantine because more than a few of them still use mainframes which often have their own OS.

[grey_moon]

@cats - Personally I find Ubuntu really un-xp like. The nice thing about it is it can be as simple or as complicated as the user wishes it to be. Also with it's forks like gOS, it is easy enough for even the most teletubby of users... Ubuntu has the advantage of debian with its huge repos, but also has its own advantage of the huge community with it.

@my job - is to manage and develop nix based high performance clusters. The one I am building right now is 256 nodes

[felix]

@ grey_moon

Sounds to me like you are talking more of the philosophy behind minimalistic distros such as Arch. Ubuntu in my opinion is just made to be "one size fit all" operating system. Just that the stock never really "fits all". I do not really know about that gOS, although it does not look like it is free or anything.

@ <crowd>

Wordplay rhetorical question on jobs, which is obviously flawed: both linux and windows are not a particularly high job requirement (I guess they must have been at some point) but today I am going to guess it is presumed anyone can understand any old user interface without any particularly sophisticated prior training on how to use it. Also, talking about linux servers as a comparison to windows is besides the point. Or are we are comparing to Windows Server now?

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Ubuntu, Fedora and Suse do the exact same thing, and with a full-fledged graphical interface to boot.

Are you suggesting the Widows installers do not have a graphical interface?... There is also a subtle difference you are omitting, Windows's installer just asks you where you want to place it, and partitioning is like creating folders. On a linux distro it's somewhat more complicated.

First of all, if you click "next next next" on windows you'll just end up with a new operating system on c: where your old one was. If you do the same on linux (Suse, Ubuntu and so on) you will find they decide the best course of action is to completely delete any data on all of your partitions in favor of installing linux on the biggest fattest partition possible. I wanna go and smack the linux moron -who started this way of thinking- face in the wall. I usually have partitions with lots of documents and they sometimes end up to 40GB of un-backed-up data (the are documents not raw pictures or some other easy piesy fill my hdd type of file). How is "If you see 40GB of data, delete it" fucking OK?

Now, presuming you switch to manual, the average newbi user is faced with sorting though the duzon or so types of linux partitions, guessing how much to allocate for a swap partition (when the setup recommends values for swap it is always over bloated bull; I am surprised they do not recommend half the damn hdd as swap) and the blessing of setting the magical mount points. Also, telling the user to "set the root" ("/") presumes they are already familiar with the standard linux directory structure (eg. the user knows things like the difference between "/usr/bin" and "/usr/sbin"). There are other issues to nit pick at, such as the boot loader (presuming it is not fully automatic; and it is not in some cases) or more on the terminology used in your average linux installation compared to the windows one (things like how it identifies each partition and so on).

[grey_moon]

Originally Posted by Cats

@ grey_moon

Sounds to me like you are talking more of the philosophy behind minimalistic distros such as Arch. Ubuntu in my opinion is just made to be "one size fit all" operating system. Just that the stock never really "fits all". I do not really know about that gOS, although it does not look like it is free or anything.

Actually I'm on more about implementation. For example nearly all the main dists now have super easy installation processes, OpenSuSE created their one click installation thingy and Dell bless their cotton socks came up with the dkms which allows for drivers to be recompiled automatically once a kernel has been (semi) automatically updated.

So what I mean is that the basic install and usage is designed for the point and clicker, but there is nothing to stop you from ripping off your shirt and exposing that cli t-shirt and going all power user and customising (breaking) it to your hearts content.

Ubuntu does this very very well and gOS (it is free) is even more aimed at the point and clicker by really dumbing down the interface and deploying google widgets out of the box.

I think in a way you make a very good point about partitions, but just to clarify, by default the installers I have used recently normally resize the existing parts unless you tell it to use the whole disk. But you are totally right about how scary partitions can be (in any os setup), and I really like the idea of live disks or wubi for people to try out before blowing up their machines.

*EDIT*
Here is an example of SuSE trying to make their distro more easier to access by dropping the nasty eulas

http://zonker.opensuse.org/2008/11/2...he-eulas-dead/

[WanderingKnight]

First of all, if you click "next next next" on windows you'll just end up with a new operating system on c: where your old one was. If you do the same on linux (Suse, Ubuntu and so on) you will find they decide the best course of action is to completely delete any data on all of your partitions in favor of installing linux on the biggest fattest partition possible. I wanna go and smack the linux moron -who started this way of thinking- face in the wall. I usually have partitions with lots of documents and they sometimes end up to 40GB of un-backed-up data (the are documents not raw pictures or some other easy piesy fill my hdd type of file). How is "If you see 40GB of data, delete it" fucking OK?

What the hell? If you click "next next next" on Windows, you'll get a formatted C: drive and lose all data on the partition you choose. The same happens with Linux and with any operating system--all of them require you to format the partition you'll be installing your OS on.

But anyways, newbies should at least be expected to know something about partitions and hard drives in order to install any operating system. Newsflash: newbies don't install operating systems (and this is how Microsoft maintains its grip on the market: Windows comes on any PC you buy and newbies don't need to deal with the installation). Newbies call their local geek in order to deal with things like these.

And manual partitioning has another advantage (besides the obvious customizability of your filetree layout, which is almost completely missing in Windows' installers): you don't deal with the stupid swapfile Windows has by default and you're free to set up a separate swap partition.

At any rate, the new Ubuntu installer in 8.10 has a nice graphical app that provides you with a slider to resize the partition in case you don't want to deal with a manual installation.

both linux and windows are not a particularly high job requirement (I guess they must have been at some point)

Linux/Windows not a high job requirement? In IT? What the hell?

Also, telling the user to "set the root" ("/") presumes they are already familiar with the standard linux directory structure

OK, so now you're going to tell me that Linux needs to change its whole POSIX structure and set up a C:/D:/etc Windows-like filetree?

What's next? NTFS as the default filesystem and .exe as the default binary extension?

Also, talking about linux servers as a comparison to windows is besides the point. Or are we are comparing to Windows Server now?

You *do* know that a huge part of IT-related jobs require you to deal with servers, right?

[Epyon9283]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

What the hell? If you click "next next next" on Windows, you'll get a formatted C: drive and lose all data on the partition you choose. The same happens with Linux and with any operating system--all of them require you to format the partition you'll be installing your OS on.

You can install Windows on an already formatted NTFS (or possibly FAT32) drive. That's the default behavior IIRC. Before you even get to click next though you have to get past the non-graphical portion of the install that involves you selecting/creating/deleting a partition and/or formatting one. That is unless you're installing Vista or Server 2008. IIRC the whole process there is graphical.

Writing over a previous windows install is asking for trouble IMO.

[WanderingKnight]

You can install Windows on an already formatted NTFS (or possibly FAT32) drive. That's the default behavior IIRC.

That certainly sounds like a recipe for disaster.

[felix]

Being able to install a operating system without altering or deleting any files on the system is never a bad thing. It is just not the g33k way, god forbid you keep it simple.

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

What the hell? If you click "next next next" on Windows, you'll get a formatted C: drive and lose all data on the partition you choose. The same happens with Linux and with any operating system--all of them require you to format the partition you'll be installing your OS on.

Say I have 3 partitions. On the first I have some files I do not care about and on the next some important files.

Windows: you have the options format-and-install/upgrade/install (the last 2 are not destructive) Provided you go with the fist option you will end up with windows on the first partition, in my case with the data I did not care about. I am required to give some input but I do not really need to know anything more then that my hdd is split in 3 and I need to select one to install windows on it. You do not really need to delete/L create it back process since it will do it anyway if you just select the partition and confirm how you are aware it's data will be lost (if you're a g33k I'm sure you'll take the long way round).

Linux: you can go either normal or custom. In the normal install linux either takes every possible free space (I've seen it try to shrink partitions) or deletes all partitions on the hdd to create the largest possible ext3 partition. If you go with custom you are expected the know the filesystem and the various linux variants (ext2, ext3, JFS, XFS and so on) inside out.

[Epyon9283]

You don't need to know the filesystems inside and out. If you don't know enough about the file system layout and default mount points, you don't need to mess with it. Look at the options you're given with Fedora:

Spoiler for fedora installer:

You don't have to know anything about Linux filesystems to be able to use the 4 options there. You do need some knowledge for the last option but if you're going to customize it you should probably already know what you're doing.

[WanderingKnight]

Being able to install a operating system without altering or deleting any files on the system is never a bad thing. It is just not the g33k way, god forbid you keep it simple.

No, it's not about keeping it simple, it's about doing it right. Installing an operating system on a non-blank partition can make a lot of things go haywire.

[Epyon9283]

If you go with the custom partitioning option in some distros you can just mark already existing partitions with mount points and install to them. Thats always a pretty terrible idea though. The only partition you'd want to keep around normally is /home.

[Ending]

Wordplay rhetorical question on jobs, which is obviously flawed: both linux and windows are not a particularly high job requirement

Flawed, eh? I suppose I must have misheard the question about "How well do you use Windows?" in my previous job interview. You know: the one that landed me a place as a tech.support in the IT department of our local university.

Anyway, I see several Linux oriented peeps here, so arguing about this is as useful as taking a one-legged man to a kicking contest.

[WanderingKnight]

Flawed, eh? I suppose I must have misheard the question about "How well do you use Windows?" in my previous job interview. You know: the one that landed me a place as a tech.support in the IT department of our local university.

I guess I also must have misheard the question on how comfortable I felt with UNIX in the job interview that landed me the first IT-related job in my life, which is a mixture of systems administration, C++ development, and enterprise-level application support (of both UNIX and Windows). My experience with UNIX being one of the main reasons why they hired me (I had zero development experience when they hired me).

Also, prove me how most servers running some form of UNIX doesn't qualify as making it a strong topic in IT-related jobs. My boss turned down a lot of applicants for our internal IT department because of nil UNIX experience, and we're a very small shop (~30 employees)--but we still have about 4 or 5 internal UNIX servers (most of them are terminal servers running Windows, though).

Anyway, I see several Linux oriented peeps here, so arguing about this is as useful as taking a one-legged man to a kicking contest.

Look, I understand your disliking of Linux (it comes down to personal preference anyways), but believing that UNIX doesn't play a huge role in IT jobs is just being ignorant.

[IRJustman]

Originally Posted by Wordplay

Flawed, eh? I suppose I must have misheard the question about "How well do you use Windows?" in my previous job interview. You know: the one that landed me a place as a tech.support in the IT department of our local university. :rolleyes:

"Tech support" and "IT" are not necessarily the same thing. More often than not, the former is a microcosm of the latter.

As an IT professional myself, I'm a lot happier in a Unix environment, though given the fragile nature of that piece of canine feces known as Windows, I will more or less keep busy no matter HOW much I fricking HATE this piece of crap.

Bear in mind that it's perfectly feasible to have Windows on the desktop (where it belongs) and to have Unix and Linux as servers, though it's equally feasible to have it on a desktop nowadays. A lot more than you give it credit for. That and a good many other reasons are why a lot of governments throughout the world are telling Microsoft which finger to sit and swivel on.

Anyway, I see several Linux oriented peeps here, so arguing about this is as useful as taking a one-legged man to a kicking contest.

Please, have some understanding about the subject matter you're about to argue against before actually doing so. That's all I ask.

--Ian.

[Epyon9283]

In many situations it is perfectly reasonable to have Windows on the Server side too. The thing that bothers me the most with Windows Server is the licensing. Dealing with terminal server licensing is a pain in the ass. A huge pain in the ass. Why the hell do I need a whole freakin terminal server licensing server for the terminal servers to connect to? CALs are prohibitively expensive.

Something else that annoys the hell out of me in Windows is the logging, or the lack thereof. One of my coworkers was screwing around on one of my terminal servers. Now on boot I get a message on the console stating that a service has failed to start. Doesn't tell me which service. No, that'd make too much sense. Then I have to go into the event viewer. This is on a 2003 machine so the event viewer still sucks. I manage to find the error in the system log regarding this failed service. All it gives me is the service name. I look for an error message from the service. No luck. I go to start the service manually and it comes up fine. I reboot the server and the service fails to start on boot again. This service BTW comes with windows. So now I have a service that fails to start on boot and will start fine after booting but I have no error messages from the service to explain why it might be failing on boot.

Then, if you use IAS on 2003 and you need to check the logs for that, you'll find that they're in a completely different format than any of the other logs generated by Windows. They don't go into the event viewer. The logs are spit out into a file in the windows directory. The log file entries have number codes in them that you have to go look up to see what the log entry actually means. This sucks.

Other than that though I haven't had too many issues with Windows Server that weren't caused by less than skilled coworkers. My Windows boxes have uptimes comparable to my Linux boxes.

[Ending]

@ WanderingKnight

We have different experiences from different places. What might be considered a huge role where you work isn't that where I live (which is Finland, by the way, a completely different country and culture). I don't even dislike Linux, but I don't think it's quite yet there for becoming a serious player in the desktop markets.

Same for you, IRJustman. Don't try to belittle me just because you think Unix is the end of everything.

[WanderingKnight]

I don't even dislike Linux, but I don't think it's quite yet there for becoming a serious player in the desktop markets.

How do IT professionals have anything to do with the desktop market?

[Irenicus]

Given that I'm what they generally call "n00b" around here, I won't jump into the fight. I'd just give my 2 cents and go on whistling on my merry way...

I'm personally a very, very big PC game player, so Windows XP is a must. It's just a hassle to go through Wine or whatever and get only patchy performance playing PC games in other operating systems. Naturally, considering the state of the PC game market (it's practically dying, despite some blockbusters -- when was the last time you see a decent RPG not produced by Bioware, who themselves are moving towards console? Yeah), I'm not surprised there's not much effort to accommodate this.

I could see Linux as more useful to certain specific uses and types of users however given than UNIX is a far better groundwork for an operating system than the messy Microsoft juggling works that runs Windows.

But as for Vista...

I suppose I'm prejudiced, given that I hardly spent time on it compare to my XP, but still...

Fuck. Pardon the curse, call me an utter n00b, and I did google the hell out of it, but having problems editing a fucking simple text file and having to scour the internet for solutions, before finally being pissed off enough to shut down the whole "protective" system that prevents me from editing my own text file ("file ownership" issues, ha!), I'm thoroughly scared of the day I'll have to move on to Vista someday to come. I don't call that user-friendly, no matter how pretty it looks. I admit I'm not the master tinkerer-of-codes-and-settings in computer environments, but I do feel like I know a thing or two about troubleshooting my way out of a rabbit hole, yet Vista seems to insist that I do things its way or not at all and even then refuses to work the way I want it. It's my philosophy, you see, that one of the criteria of a decent operating system is that if I want to do something simple, then it lets me do something simple, in a simple way. Vista did not let me do the simple.