Boot and run Linux from a USB flash memory stick

scourge99 · 03-09-08, 12:43 PM

I program in a Linux environment almost exclusively. I hate Linux. Mainly because I've used Windows all my life and I'm used to its structure and functionality. Unix distributions aren't bad but they definitely aren't the godsend people claim them to be. I find just as many annoying bugs and software issues with Linux as I do with Windows.

I have yet to give Ubuntu a try. I've heard a lot of good things about it.

Hatuey · 03-09-08, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Not that many need or use the "industry standard" programs. Most people who use photoshop to edit their family pictures would be perfectly satisfied with GIMP. Linux doesn't run certain high-end programs, but the average user doesn't need them in the first place. Linux can run nearly anything that the average computer user will need or use.

Thats the problem with Linux though. Your average person around the world doesn't have a clue about what goes wrong with windows when they encounter an error. Now imagine hundreds of millions of novice users using an OS for which support is mainly online. That's why Linux is pretty much useless to not only the large majority of people who use computers but also for people who use them for work and such.

Quote:

If you are willing to put in a little effort, you can almost always solve problems using the free support newgroups or forums. Even if you are lazy, you can buy support contracts separately i.e. Canonical Global Support Services.

Linux has reached the point where it wins out in most applications. Areas where it is weak include the use of must-have high-end professional programs or high end gaming. However, the average company or home user would be better off using Linux.

Which is why Linux is pretty much useless. When my laptop has errors I don't want to spend time browsing around for what might and might not be the problem. I want to get the error code and have people who's job it is to help me fix it, fix it. There are really no worthwhile uses for Linux. We've determined it's great eye candy, we've determined that support to it is mostly online and that other then being completely useless to people who use high end programs then there's nothing really noticeable in Linux. If it can it do stuff that other OS already do then what's it good for?

rathi · 03-09-08, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Thats the problem with Linux though. Your average person around the world doesn't have a clue about what goes wrong with windows when they encounter an error. Now imagine hundreds of millions of novice users using an OS for which support is mainly online. That's why Linux is pretty much useless to not only the large majority of people who use computers but also for people who use them for work and such.

Linux is significantly more stable than windows and the chance of needing such support is much lower, provided that they are using standards apps with normal configurations. Second, its pretty ******* trivial to fix most problems. Typing the error into google and following some spoon-fed step by step instructions is something that even idiot computer users are capable of. All you need is a little prompt on the screen thats says "you have an error, google it, look for results that offer fix, follow the instructions they give you." Also, you can buy dell computers with linux preloaded with the option of purchasing support contracts. Corporate users can buy canonical support, which is significantly better than comparable Microsoft support.

Quote:

Which is why Linux is pretty much useless. When my laptop has errors I don't want to spend time browsing around for what might and might not be the problem. I want to get the error code and have people who's job it is to help me fix it, fix it.

Most tech support sucks, especially if it mandatory support you get from buying the product. Its mostly faster to look up solutions online than call up some idiot who may or may not have the skill to help. I use online solutions for windows, even though I could get actual tech support. I can say with confidence that the average newsgroup is much more informed than the average tech support moron.

Quote:

There are really no worthwhile uses for Linux. We've determined it's great eye candy, we've determined that support to it is mostly online and that other then being completely useless to people who use high end programs then there's nothing really noticeable in Linux. If it can it do stuff that other OS already do then what's it good for?[

Its free and is actually better in terms of stability and security. Linux is perfect for the average user. They can either learn to do incredibly basic things like looking for fixes themselves, or they can pay for support if they are too lazy to do that.
Linux is even better for people who actually know what they are doing and can take advantage of its open design.

Hatuey · 03-09-08, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rathi

Linux is significantly more stable than windows and the chance of needing such support is much lower, provided that they are using standards apps with normal configurations. Second, its pretty ******* trivial to fix most problems. Typing the error into google and following some spoon-fed step by step instructions is something that even idiot computer users are capable of. All you need is a little prompt on the screen thats says "you have an error, google it, look for results that offer fix, follow the instructions they give you." Also, you can buy dell computers with linux preloaded with the option of purchasing support contracts. Corporate users can buy canonical support, which is significantly better than comparable Microsoft support.

The old "Linux is more stable then Windows" myth that is so common with Linux users. You'll find that the stability of Linux vs. that of Windows is up for debate :

Mythbusting Linux: Linux is more stable than Windows | BitBurners.com (BETA) | We Burn a Bit!

Quote:

Modern desktop Linux distributions have a furious development cycles releasing new versions once or twice a year. This means that the beta and release candidate testing periods are very short, usually only matters of weeks. Unfortunately a fresh Linux distribution on release date tends to contain a lot of bugs. Linux distros, like Windows, have on-line updating features and patches and updates are usually released a lot right after the release. Download and install Ubuntu 7.10 (from October 2007) today, and a huge load of fixes are available via the updater right after install. So Microsoft is not the only one pushing out service packs to improve their product quality. And the bugs of Linux distros can be very visible ones too: My Ubuntu suddenly lost all theme and icon settings, the Start button equilavent of Mandriva was visually broken, and openSUSE opens unnecessary Xconsole window if I enable clock synchronization via NTP Internet server.

Drivers and hardware support is a whole another story under Linux. Unfortunately hardware vendors are not keen on the idea of releasing their drivers open sourced, which has lead to the fact that Linux driver support is far worse than on Windows. I cannot use a native ATI driver on my Thinkpad T41, since none is available, so I have to use a 3rd party developed open source equivalent. And speaking of my ATI card, all Linux distros except Mandriva incorrectly configure this laptop for 3D desktop usage, so I have to manually edit the settings to make it work. Even with everything configured properly, 3D games seem to be a bit unstable on this computer and tend to crash or jam occasionally - I am not yet 100% sure what the issue is, but based on what I have learned from the net is that the problems are in the drivers.

Quote:

Anyone who tracks security vulnerability reports knows of the ridiculous amount that reference holes in Linux. For whatever reason this is never talked about and Linux gets this magic aura of invulnerability. Part of the confusion lies with the complexity of the open source Linux model that separates Linux "Distributions" from Linux "Kernel" vulnerabilities. Now if you start looking into and adding up Linux "Distribution" vulnerabilities that can take you into the hundreds upon hundreds of security holes that are never talked about. To simplify things I took the latest Linux Kernel v2.6.x and compared it to Windows XP. This is more than a fair comparison for the shocking results to follow.

As with Firefox, Linux vulnerabilities are frequently lumped together in single advisories misleading the true vulnerability count:

Windows XP -170 Advisories = 213 Vulnerabilities.
Linux Kernel v2.6.x - 108 Advisories = 231 Vulnerabilities.

Even with open source advocates finally admitting that Linux is insecure they still try to claim it is more secure than Windows. Too bad this is now proven to be another myth.

Quote:

Most tech support sucks, especially if it mandatory support you get from buying the product. Its mostly faster to look up solutions online than call up some idiot who may or may not have the skill to help. I use online solutions for windows, even though I could get actual tech support. I can say with confidence that the average newsgroup is much more informed than the average tech support moron.

Once again this argument is useless. Windows is succesful because support is a phone call away if you can't fix it yourself. Furthermore, the average PC user won't waste his time looking around for answers and you know it. They'll try to fix it themselves for a few minutes to an hour and if it doesn't work then they'll go find somebody who can fix it for them. If this wasn't the truth then there wouldn't be a market for companies like Geek Squad. People aren't going to waste their time looking around forums for answers.

Quote:

Its free and is actually better in terms of stability and security. Linux is perfect for the average user. They can either learn to do incredibly basic things like looking for fixes themselves, or they can pay for support if they are too lazy to do that.
Linux is even better for people who actually know what they are doing and can take advantage of its open design.

Ah yes the Linux is free argument. While to some extent this is true, to another it's not.

Linux Is Not So Free

Quote:

The main issue is that Red Hat and other Linux vendors need to make money somehow. And the main way they can do it is through support, patches and updates. This has led Red Hat to charge its customers a yearly fee to receive support and, most important, regular patches and updates for each of their Red Hat Linux-based enterprise systems.

And for some Red Hat Linux customers, this has become too much to swallow. You can find customers on many Linux newsgroups and user boards complaining about the six-figure fees they owe Red Hat and vowing to move to another Linux distribution. The story by Anne Chen, "Linux for the Long Haul," part of our big Linux package this week, profiles just such a dissatisfied customer: the city of Steamboat Springs, Colo., which is considering a move from Red Hat Linux.

Quote:

Even with these support and licensing costs, deploying Red Hat Linux systems will still cost much less than deploying a similar number of Solaris systems. And if its a deployment where client licenses are required, it will probably cost much less than a similar deployment of Windows servers, although a Windows-server-only configuration would be comparable in price.

Linux vendors such as Red Hat should be able to get paid for the services and support they provide. But dont expect an enterprise deployment of Linux to be completely free unless you have the expertise and capability to patch and support your Linux systems yourself.

Discuss this in the eWeek forum.

1. I don't pay for support on ANY of my PCs/Laptops and I run Windows Vista and XP - I fix my PCs myself and my laptop is under a 3 year free 24/7 support from Microsoft.
2. Your argument about "looking for support" is useless. Unless Linux can provide 24/7 on demand support then there is really nothing to discuss. The average PC user doesn't care about fixing his computer when it brakes down. He wants easy and quick solutions a phone call away. If Linux can't provide this then your entire argument is useless.

rathi · 03-09-08, 07:28 PM

Quote:

The old "Linux is more stable then Windows" myth that is so common with Linux users. You'll find that the stability of Linux vs. that of Windows is up for debate

You are not required to upgrade a Linux distro, so if you want stability just stick with the older version until the kinks get worked out. I use Feisty Fawn instead of Gusty Gibbon, because I want to wait for gibbon to mature a bit. Also, the nature of bugs is different. Most linux bugs will mess up a specific program, while windows bug crash the whole OS and require a restart.

Quote:

Drivers and hardware support is a whole another story under Linux. Unfortunately hardware vendors are not keen on the idea of releasing their drivers open sourced, which has lead to the fact that Linux driver support is far worse than on Windows.

That certainly is true. However, thats only a problem for the person building the computer or installing the OS, not the person using it. Average users won't give a damn.

Quote:

Anyone who tracks security vulnerability reports knows of the ridiculous amount that reference holes in Linux. For whatever reason this is never talked about and Linux gets this magic aura of invulnerability. Part of the confusion lies with the complexity of the open source Linux model that separates Linux "Distributions" from Linux "Kernel" vulnerabilities. Now if you start looking into and adding up Linux "Distribution" vulnerabilities that can take you into the hundreds upon hundreds of security holes that are never talked about. To simplify things I took the latest Linux Kernel v2.6.x and compared it to Windows XP. This is more than a fair comparison for the shocking results to follow.

Considering this guy knocks firefox as being insecure, that throw his entire credibility in doubt. Firefox isn't perfect, but its miles ahead of IE. Second he counts number of exploits, not severity, which is highly dishonest. Most windows exploits let you control the system, linux exploits are mostly denied root access, limiting the damage they can do. Please source the article you quoted

Quote:

Once again this argument is useless. Windows is succesful because support is a phone call away if you can't fix it yourself. Furthermore, the average PC user won't waste his time looking around for answers and you know it. They'll try to fix it themselves for a few minutes to an hour and if it doesn't work then they'll go find somebody who can fix it for them. If this wasn't the truth then there wouldn't be a market for companies like Geek Squad. People aren't going to waste their time looking around forums for answers.

Considering the time spent on hold or getting useless answers from tech support, its often faster to do a google search of problems. Most people don't do it today, because they don't think its possible. Tech support is mostly used for trivial nonsense, not serious problems.

Quote:

The main issue is that Red Hat and other Linux vendors need to make money somehow.

Most distros are made people who aren't interest in making money. Ubuntu, the primary desktop replacement, is free in every sense of the word.

Quote:

And the main way they can do it is through support, patches and updates. This has led Red Hat to charge its customers a yearly fee to receive support and, most important, regular patches and updates for each of their Red Hat Linux-based enterprise systems.

Redhat is not a standard OS for the everyday user. They make systems for powerful specialized use. They deliver a much better product that windows for the server market, and charge similar prices. Not to mention you can get other server OS's for free.

Quote:

1. I don't pay for support on ANY of my PCs/Laptops and I run Windows Vista and XP - I fix my PCs myself and my laptop is under a 3 year free 24/7 support from Microsoft.

You do pay for support when you buy the operating system. Its just a bundled product.

Quote:

Your argument about "looking for support" is useless. Unless Linux can provide 24/7 on demand support then there is really nothing to discuss. The average PC user doesn't care about fixing his computer when it brakes down. He wants easy and quick solutions a phone call away. If Linux can't provide this then your entire argument is useless.

It can provide 24/7 support. Canonical is support for business users. Dell provides support contracts for their hardware with pre-installed linux.

DivineComedy · 03-11-08, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatuey

Now imagine hundreds of millions of novice users using an OS for which support is mainly online. That's why Linux is pretty much useless to not only the large majority of people who use computers but also for people who use them for work and such.

Which is why Linux is pretty much useless.

This topic isn't about high end, it's about little stuff, but I do think it looks like you won the argument on the high end stuff. Rich...

If you are living in a grass hut in Africa or you are a poor beach bum like me, and find an old computer not worth more than 5 bucks at a thrift store, like a coke bottle dropped from the gods, running windows 98, the newest version of PcLinuxOS would seem to run better than Windows 98.

You made a good point about not having the Internet. With no online help what comes on some liveCD's may not contain enough information to be a super user, to even install a new program should the gods also drop some tar balls...
Windows is easy when it comes to installing a program, just click on the setup.exe file, it is self explanatory, Linux is super hard. Installing Software on Linux

One thing I have discovered is Abiword (PcLinuxOs) crashes frequently. I suspect it has to do with website links, but just plain text seems fine as I dumped several pages into it. I haven't had a word processor crash so often since the 8086 with the monochrome monitor running Wordstar, and typing too fast is no longer a problem with me. Scrolling several pages is a problem, too Herky Jerky, so I will just have to stick with the text editors.

Trying out another program now, that keeps trying to finish words for me like the old shareware mindreader program from the DOS days (mindreader popped up some asci windows). I do not need that irritation without asking for it.

I can't hotsync or use IrDA pod to sync my Alphasmart Dana. Someone I think is working on the latter, and hopefully it will get done for the distribution I am using.

Even with the problems I feel Linux is not useless for a poor man. Unless the gods drop the restore disks with the junk computer, Linux is NOT USELESS!

stevenb · 03-12-08, 03:47 AM

I'm a Unix Admin, and I still run Windows XP Pro at home. It does everything I want, requires no configuration, and requires no tinkering. If I wanted to play a game, I buy it, slap the cd in and go... Or any other application for that matter.

I used to run linux on the desktop.. I started out with Slackware, Moved to Debian, then Gentoo. I decided to eventually run FreeBSD-R on my desktop at home.. I did that for about 5 years before I came back to Windows. *Nix is a great server platform, but unfortunately no matter how pretty you make it.. it's still not a great desktop platform. It's not stupid simple like windows. It's not userfriendly out of the box like windows. Therefore it will never conquer the Windows desktop market.

Sorry, just not going to happen.

rathi · 03-13-08, 10:18 PM

Quote:

*Nix is a great server platform, but unfortunately no matter how pretty you make it.. it's still not a great desktop platform. It's not stupid simple like windows. It's not userfriendly out of the box like windows.

Even run ubuntu? What exactly does windows have that linux couldn't emulate?

03-09-08, 12:43 PM	#31
scourge99 Defender of the Faith Join Date: Aug 2007 Last Online: Today 03:34 PM Location: The Wild West Posts: 2,996 Thanks: 726 Thanked 640 Times in 453 Posts Lean: Moderate	Re: Boot and run Linux from a USB flash memory stick I program in a Linux environment almost exclusively. I hate Linux. Mainly because I've used Windows all my life and I'm used to its structure and functionality. Unix distributions aren't bad but they definitely aren't the godsend people claim them to be. I find just as many annoying bugs and software issues with Linux as I do with Windows. I have yet to give Ubuntu a try. I've heard a lot of good things about it.

03-12-08, 03:47 AM	#37
stevenb ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ! Join Date: Dec 2007 Last Online: Today 07:42 AM Location: Gilbert, Az Posts: 1,179 Thanks: 455 Thanked 356 Times in 199 Posts Lean: Libertarian Gender:	Re: Boot and run Linux from a USB flash memory stick I'm a Unix Admin, and I still run Windows XP Pro at home. It does everything I want, requires no configuration, and requires no tinkering. If I wanted to play a game, I buy it, slap the cd in and go... Or any other application for that matter. I used to run linux on the desktop.. I started out with Slackware, Moved to Debian, then Gentoo. I decided to eventually run FreeBSD-R on my desktop at home.. I did that for about 5 years before I came back to Windows. *Nix is a great server platform, but unfortunately no matter how pretty you make it.. it's still not a great desktop platform. It's not stupid simple like windows. It's not userfriendly out of the box like windows. Therefore it will never conquer the Windows desktop market. Sorry, just not going to happen.
	__________________ The three rules of interacting with modern society: Be Polite, Be Professional, and always have a plan to kill everyone you meet.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

LinkBacks (?) LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/28675-boot-run-linux-usb-flash-memory-stick.html
Posted By	For	Type	Date
HC Encoder \| BitBurners.com (BETA) \| We Burn a Bit!	Post #34	Refback	03-11-08 07:20 PM
How to Play .MKV Matroska Files \| BitBurners.com (BETA) \| We Burn a Bit!	This thread	Refback	03-11-08 10:38 AM