Using Linux : Where are You At?

[guyfox]

Of course, as webmasters, most of us use Linux on the server, or have at some point.

However, have you used Linux on your desktop?, or do you intend to?

I personally use Ubuntu.

You could also post questions/comments regarding why you do what you do in this thread.

[janhvizdak]

I use SUSE 10.1. It's GR8. Of course, no Win-OS is inslatted on my PC . I hate Win-OS as much as possible.

[guyfox]

Originally Posted by janhvizdak

I use SUSE 10.1. It's GR8. Of course, no Win-OS is inslatted on my PC . I hate Win-OS as much as possible.

Hate it as much as possible? that is the finest I have come across yet!

Yeah, Suse is pretty neat.

[StupidScript]

I have one home system running Fedora Core 4 dual booting with Windows98, and one system with XP Pro, plus a W98 laptop. I manage 4 Linux servers, running Fedora Core 2&4 and RH7.3 (!), and a pile of XP workstations with a couple of Windows Server 2003 boxes thrown in.

[guyfox]

Originally Posted by StupidScript

I have one home system running Fedora Core 4 dual booting with Windows98, and one system with XP Pro, plus a W98 laptop. I manage 4 Linux servers, running Fedora Core 2&4 and RH7.3 (!), and a pile of XP workstations with a couple of Windows Server 2003 boxes thrown in.

Since you seem equally spread out on both sides of the fence - which is easier to manage - the Win Boxes or the Lin boxes?

[chicgeek]

Actually... I don't have a desktop. is it safe to try out ubuntu on my toshiba laptop?

[Maikunari]

I currently have a dual boot with ubuntu and OS X on my iBook, I still haven't migrated completely because I'm still getting to know ubuntu, and I've got a lot of recording software for OS X, so I use and like both. At work I use XP which is not bad because the computer is so fast, but I prefer OS X and ubuntu.

btw chicgeek, try out a live CD on your laptop, just download ubuntu 7.04 desktop version, use the torrent file rather than the direct download from the ubuntu site as it's way faster.
I think you hold down C while booting to boot from the cd, or else it's F1, then it'll give you the option to choose where to boot from.

[Ravs]

To boot from the live cd you must first configure your BIOS To read from the CD first. Most machines now have this setting, so just burn the live cd, boot up and see how you like it. You have nothing to lose, and it will not even touch your HD, so there is nothing to worry about.

Linux is great, its stable, fast, and constantly growing.

[guyfox]

Originally Posted by chicgeek

Actually... I don't have a desktop. is it safe to try out ubuntu on my toshiba laptop?

Yes it is very safe - in fact you can try out Ubuntu without installing it - just pop in the cd, and start up your computer and you will have a fully functional Ubuntu system - you then can choose to install it if you like. Here's the download link - you can try Ubuntu 7.04

[chicgeek]

I know, someone pointed me to that, but alas all my CD-Rs are packed away in boxes two hours away. *le sigh*

I will have to wait.

[guyfox]

Originally Posted by chicgeek

I know, someone pointed me to that, but alas all my CD-Rs are packed away in boxes two hours away. *le sigh*

I will have to wait.

You can order a free Ubuntu CD (they look very professional with a cd cover, and all...) from http://shipit.ubuntu.com - I have been collecting these official cds from way back - I just like the look of them - but you might actually have some use for them!

It does take a couple of weeks for the cds to get to you, but you can just order them and forget about it to be surprised one day weeks later

[bizwiz]

I would love to try Linux in the future as soon as I get a new pc and install Linux on the old one.

[guyfox]

Originally Posted by bizwiz

I would love to try Linux in the future as soon as I get a new pc and install Linux on the old one.

To just try it, you can pop in the desktop cd and boot from it, without installing it - this might give you an idea of how good it is, or just a general idea...

[StupidScript]

Since you seem equally spread out on both sides of the fence - which is easier to manage - the Win Boxes or the Lin boxes?

Hands down: Linux is easier to manage. Here are a very few reasons why (among many):

1) Modern Linux releases are pretty darn secure, right out of the box, by shutting down nearly every service and port on a box. This means that you only need to start whichever services you WANT and open whichever ports you WANT. Compare this to Windows out-of-the-box setup, which is pretty damaging to begin with. You secure a Windows box by shutting down services you don't need and closing ports you don't need ... but I'll bet you miss a bunch of them (including services you simply cannot stop without hurting your system, like RPC.) Not to mention that Linux is designed for "headless" operation, and Windows is built around its GUI, which is in itself a security hole. Finally, there are so many free tools available for really securing a Linux box (Bastille, mod_security, et al.) and Windows simply has no counterpart for these, either in free space or in commercial space.

2) Continually and reliably updating programs in Linux is as simple as setting up YUM or another package manager. You can add as many repositories as you like to the list of program sources, including those you make yourself. In Windows, you wait for programs to be included in windowsupdate ... and no other place. If an update is delayed or corrupted, you wait some more for a working patch.

3) Management includes things like rebooting and service monitoring. First of all, I have NEVER needed to reboot a Linux machine for any reason other than to upgrade the kernel. Manymany Windows updates require that the server be rebooted. Monitoring services is simple and free on Linux using any number of excellent tools. Not so on Windows. Sure there are a few built-in monitoring tools on a Winbox ... but it's a paltry set compared to what's out there for Linux. Not to mention that writing shell scripts to manage services is an extremely simple task on Linux that requires a much greater expenditure of resources when doing the same on Windows.

4) Simply keeping the box up and running is easier and more reliable on Linux. When the web server crashes (like, never), it won't bring down the whole OS, unlike in Windows. When you find yourself fending off 35,000-50,000 attacks per hour on a Linux box, you can still go home and sleep at night, unlike with Windows.

I prefer Linux over Windows for all of those reasons, and many more, including deployment costs, application code portability, performance and flexibility. It just works better and is easier to manage, IMHO.

[guyfox]

Cool points there - stupidscript!

Interestingly no one has voted for Option #3 yet

[littleFella]

Originally Posted by guyfox

Cool points there - stupidscript!

Interestingly no one has voted for Option #3 yet

Because option #3 is unrealistic. For all I know your next fridge may be running Linux, while your cellphone, TiVo, car or router quite possibly already are Linux based.

[littleFella]

Oh and the poll assumes everybody uses just one machine, so I can't vote
At home:
1 Windows 2003 Server
3 Windows desktops
2 Linux servers (one is used as a TV/Media server)
2 Linux desktops (both Suse)
1 Dual boot

and I carry a bootable Linux based memory stick to use at various places as needed.

At various places I work for it's a mix of Win/Lin, Linux mostly used on servers.

[cpucandy]

At one time, I used Redhat Fedora Core 3 on my desktop. I was able to do just about everything that I could on my windows machine except I just had issues working with some of the graphic programs for image editing. Anyway, I ended up going back to windows and now have a Redhat Fedora Core 4 server in my house to run my database server and to test out webrelated stuff before loading them up to my live sites.