PDA

View Full Version : Linux Presentation (why use it for desktop?)



mattmns
19th February 2005, 12:47 AM
First, no I do not want you to do my presentation for me. I am just curious about some of the main reasons why you use linux, or some of the reasons why your friend or co-worker was sold on linux.

So, I was thinking about the main reasons for using linux, for an average desktop user.

So far I have:

No cost (very little if any) [main point]
No viruses, spyware, all that internet stuff (very little if any) [main point]
Not supporting m$
You have fewer restrictions on what you are allowed to do. (mainly windows blocking one from doing things)

Are there any other big ones?

Security?
Full customization, I guess.

I think I can probably just rattle on and on about lack of viruses, spyware, ads, throw a few m$ bashes in there, talk about cost, and then be done lol, but I want to have a few more options just in case :)

Also, I do not plan on using any graphics, but if there is something that is absolutely amazing, then I might. I may even throw in a bit about firefox and thunderbird. Still have yet to decide.

Mainly, I am just curious if any of you have convinced people to switch to linux, and what your big motivators were, and also why you use it. I am mainly talking about desktop users, not server wise, if I was unclear.

Thanks.

sailor
19th February 2005, 02:11 AM
Its different, I like to see people look twice.
You have control of all aspects of your OS.
It is faster while browsing the web, I use FIrefox and Thunderbird which I can customize with all kinds of extensions.
I believe it is more secure than windows.
I believe linux will begin to take a large percentage of the OS market away from MS.

macemoneta
19th February 2005, 02:15 AM
With all due respect, your presentation is backwards. The question is not "why use Linux," but rather "why use Windows." The reason? Because the single compelling answer (at the moment) to use Windows is to play games. In every other respect, Linux is a better desktop platform.

So your presentation should be: Are games a priority? If not, Linux wins. If so, check back next year; I expect all new titles to be available on Linux (as Doom3 was this year, assuming you don't like the existing large Linux-specific games selection).

sailor
19th February 2005, 02:43 AM
good point....that seems to be my biggest reason to have it around....

mattmns
19th February 2005, 03:06 AM
Yes, very good point indeed. One that I would have probably never thought it. Seeing as how the only game I play is minesweeper. Thanks, both of you :)

s10237
19th February 2005, 03:34 AM
I dont think Linux is for everyone some people dont like the installing packages and getting on root. I have Xp pro and it is easier to use but I have never liked going the easy way. Also it is a hacker and I guess crakers OS.

crackers
19th February 2005, 04:30 AM
Here's some other thoughts:

1) Microsoft is promoting a "mono-culture" (where, they of course, control the culture). Contrary to Microsoft's belief, this actually creates more problems than it solves. Such as a single vulnerability can (and will) take your entire infrastructure down and leave you with nothing but ashes.

2) XP comes on a single CD, with a few basic "programs" built into the OS (see next item). Most distributions (and even the single LiveCD's) come with full office suites, ready to go.

3) Because the "built-in programs" (like IE) are extremely tightly bound to the OS, this allows multiple entry points into protected core OS areas, increasing the number of vulnerable points. Because of the protection mechanisms built into modern-day Unix-like systems, it is much harder for a standard user to take the system out (less vulnerable). Very few programs (the root-protected programs and such) have direct access to the actual OS areas.

4) Unix-like systems were designed from the very beginning to be multi-user and networkable. Windows was not. Now, the "core" may have been re-designed to be so, but in order to provide the backwards compatibility for the older programs, many areas of the core are by-passed in order to run these programs - which means the multi-user and networking components may as well not exist. Also, because of the infamous "user friendliness" of Windows, they almost had to allow user access to somewhat sensitive parts of the OS (like enabling networking components), which is actually a much broader permissions grant (able to re-write configurations, for example) than is allowed on Unix-like systems.

Please note that I used Unix-like and not Linux specifically. Also note that the above assumes that the user(s) of the Unix-like systems are administered or at least sufficient aware of the Things One Must Only Do As Root and the Thou Shall Not Login As Root "rules."

mattmns
19th February 2005, 08:36 PM
Thanks everyone. You all gave me some good points that I would have probably never though of. I think this should work well, thanks again.

kosmosik
19th February 2005, 08:59 PM
what makes Linux and GNOME a better choice over Windows (IMHO):

* better computing resources (CPU power etc.) management. when you have f.e. 8 Linux desktops you can use them also as computing claster distributing computing stuff (like analyzing lots of data and so on) between these machines when they are idle (probably desktop machine sits idle 70% of time)... I do so in my company, but usually it is for compilations (distcc) and encoding my DVDs ;] but this is a point where Linux is better on desktop.

* utilization of old PCs via XTerminals - you can use f.e. ten old computers (Pentium 100Mhz, 32MB RAM will be fine) with network cards and turn them into terminals which connect to desktops server (this machine must me faster, dual P3 machine with 1GB ram will do just fine for 10 clients)...

* you can use one computer for two people ;) just plug in two video cards, two monitors, two mices and keyboards (use USB) and configure it an you have one machine for two people instantly :)

* inheretly more secure than Windows (when properly configured) - Linux has strong security by default, all is well separated (you need root access to actually break something), lack of viruses, total control over what gets installed, what users can do etc.

* Linux can be well customized to fit needs of different people, it can be trimmed down so it is more productive for people.

* Linux (GNOME) has some great accessibility features for disabled people.

* no license costs (mind that this does not mean Linux costs nothing to operate, you will need to have well trained staff, equipment etc.) so it (can be) is in general over two times cheaper to buy and mintain... have you considered how much time you spend on auditing machines, checking if they have valid licenses for everything, cleaning them from unwanted software etc.? with Linux you don't have to worry about licenses - need to add two more computers? fine. just pop in a CD and install...

* superb patch management. with Linux patching of machines can be done completely automagical, just shedule updates over night, no reboots, no manual patching, no hassle. with Linux you can set a central proxy server for updates, from this server all other machines will pick up updates (to minimise internet connection usage) and apply them, you can also perform fresh instalations from this server, and properly configured it will work with no user input/unattended.

* broad choice of various software for free, and ready to use...

* Linux can easly blend into existing Windows network, use Windows servers and so on.

but Linux has also its flaws (you should mention them when doing such presentation to give complete picture of the issue):

* lack of software - you f.e. can't get DTP software, CAD/CAM and also lots of specialised applications are missing. so if you are dependent upon some apps you will need to rewrite them for Linux or distribute it over Cytrix or Windows Terminal Servers to clients - this costs.

* poor hardware support - some hardware is not well or completely not supported - it won't work with Linux, you have check prior. this can be an issue but keep in mind that hardware compared to human labour and license costs is smaller part - you can change the hardware...

* difficult/users are unfamiliar with Linux as desktop - Linux in fact is not hard to operate for worker, but it is different, user need to get familiar with it before working at full productivity - this requires training, time, costs.

* lack of good user/resuorce management tools like Microsoft Active Directory - you can brew something similar with NIS/LDAP/NFS but it is much harder to do than running Active Directory which comes as finished product out-of-the-box...

mattmns
20th February 2005, 05:36 AM
Thanks again. I have one more question. Can spyware, or a virus, screw up your comp without root permission? One of my main points is that there are very few linux viruses, and very little spyware, and that if you do happen to download one of these things that they will not be able to install without root permission. Is what I am saying mostly true?

crackers
20th February 2005, 06:15 AM
There are occassionally exploitable flaws in the kernel and other pieces, but

1) To really "work" a Unix-based system, you have to have root access. SELinux is another layer of protection on top of that. Root vulnerabilities do require direct access to the system to implement them.

2) These are usually fixed in a much faster time-frame than Windows (some "studies" show otherwise, but there are doubts about previous bias).

No system is totally secure. Some are just "more secure" (harder to compromise) than others.

mattmns
21st February 2005, 04:15 AM
Thanks for the clarification.

nephila
21st February 2005, 08:35 AM
Thanks again. I have one more question. Can spyware, or a virus, screw up your comp without root permission? One of my main points is that there are very few linux viruses, and very little spyware, and that if you do happen to download one of these things that they will not be able to install without root permission. Is what I am saying mostly true?

Some people believe that there are so many windows viruses and spyware because there are so many windows users. I think this argument is fundamentally flawed. I believe the reason to be that windows is a predictable environment. When you come across a linux box its unpredictable, is gnome installed or kde or is it some other window manager? Is a gui even installed? This makes it difficult for virus writers. Of course linux does have its exploits but they are few and far between.