Did you switch from Windows to Linux? How did you find the process?
in [Linux Help]
|
Prev: FAT32 vs NTFS, can Linux be used under NTFS?
Next: Did you switch from Windows to Linux? How did you find theprocess?
From: TJ on 12 Nov 2009 23:35 RodMcKay wrote: > On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:18:16 -0500, TJ <TJ(a)noneofyour.business> wrote: > >> You don't have to "switch" all at once. With most distros, you don't >> even have to get rid of your Windows installation if you don't want to. >> (assuming you have enough free hard drive space) >> >> I first tried Linux in 2002, with a Mandrake (now known as Mandriva) >> distro. I was using Windows 98SE at the time, and put both on the same >> computer in a dual-boot situation. I used both for a while, but quickly >> became more and more comfortable with Linux. I had never cared for >> Windows, having come there from the Atari ST - a much friendlier OS - so >> it didn't take much to convert me. While I still have one machine that >> dual-boots with Windows 98SE for the few Windows-only programs I still >> use, nearly 99% of my computing time is spent with Linux. >> >> If you've been a Windows user for a long time, the biggest thing you'll >> probably have to get used to will not needing to update your >> anti-malware programs on a daily basis. >> >> TJ > > That sounds ideal to me. I'd very _very_ happy to have Win98SE > available for whatever situation happens to come up where I need to > absolutely do something in Windows. Fortunately, no matter what > system upgrades they do, usually old versions of documents like Word > 2000, still accepted. In those cases where my resume absolutely _has_ > to be sent in Word, I could do that. Doubtful I could get them to > accept PDF so there may be no choice there, but knowing that I can > dual-boot to Win98SE might make this all easier. I've always looked > for apps that generally can be used in older OS and not need any of > that stupid .NET stuff, so maybe that practice will pay off even more > now! > OpenOffice will output in both new and old Word formats, though it's a bit better at the older ones. For most functions, OO is just as powerful as Word. Some of the automated stuff won't work the same, but unless you're a MS Office power user, you probably won't miss them. And in some cases, OO is better than Word. A friend of mine was once working on a very long Word document, using OpenOffice. He happened to save intermediate copies using OO's native format, and the resulting file was nearly half the size of the equivalent MS Office file. > So my resume and some obscure puzzle-building apps may be only thing > holding me back. That and Outlook. I'm a huge fan because of how > much I use the power of MS Outlook for mail. I've tried, literally, > about 40-50 other email programs and none come close. Does Linux have > anything as powerful as Outlook, by any chance? Probably a stupid > question but I do love the ease of use, rules, calendar, tasks, notes > power and even look of Outlook 2000. I do also prefer Excel. I have > used the OO one but it doesn't do all that Excel does. But I can live > with the limitations, I believe. But Outlook no. It handles my > rather large email needs like no other. However, wouldn't like to run > it under Wine, I definitely would prefer to find a Linux "equivalent" > to. > Well, I hate to give you too good of a crutch, because it would be better for you to eventually throw them all away - but for what it's worth there IS a program called Crossover that facilitates the use of certain Windows programs with WINE. It's not free - what you pay for is the work they do at getting these programs to work, not the program itself. And it doesn't work with a *lot* of Windows programs - though Office programs have received particular attention from them. It may help you, if you simply must have Outlook. (And Word. And Excel.) Find more information at http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxlinux/ > Well, looks like I have my work cut out for me. > > And, YES, I definitely like all those things that Linux provides: > - no need to update virus/malware definitions so often > - no need to repeatedly wipe the drive and reinstall!!! That I've > always loved the idea of. > - no need to worry about keeping the registry as clean as one can! > etc. etc. etc. <g> > > Thanks. > You're welcome. TJ
From: Aragorn on 12 Nov 2009 23:42 On Friday 13 November 2009 00:38 in alt.os.linux, somebody identifying as RodMcKay wrote... > [...] I'd very _very_ happy to have Win98SE available for whatever > situation happens to come up where I need to absolutely do something > in Windows. Fortunately, no matter what system upgrades they do, > usually old versions of documents like Word 2000, still accepted. In > those cases where my resume absolutely _has_ to be sent in Word, I > could do that. Doubtful I could get them to accept PDF so there may > be no choice there, but knowing that I can dual-boot to Win98SE might > make this all easier. OpenOffice can import from and save to MICROS~1 formats. (And to PDF as well.) > [...] > So my resume and some obscure puzzle-building apps may be only thing > holding me back. That and Outlook. I'm a huge fan because of how > much I use the power of MS Outlook for mail. I've tried, literally, > about 40-50 other email programs and none come close. Does Linux have > anything as powerful as Outlook, by any chance? I have no experience with Outlook because I don't do Windows, but KDE has KMail, which can be used as a standalone application or integrated with Kontact - which also has a calendar, an integrated newsreader which can also be used separately (as I am doing right now), an RSS reader, and much more. Gnome users will most likely be most familiar with Evolution, which as I am told would be very similar to Outlook. I also know that an Outlook clone has been written in Java, and as such it works on any GNU/Linux system with a Java Runtime Environment installed. > Probably a stupid question but I do love the ease of use, rules, > calendar, tasks, notes power and even look of Outlook 2000. I do also > prefer Excel. I have used the OO one but it doesn't do all that Excel > does. Next to OpenOffice, there is also the KDE application suite KOffice. Perhaps you can check that out. > But I can live with the limitations, I believe. But Outlook no. It > handles my rather large email needs like no other. However, wouldn't > like to run it under Wine, I definitely would prefer to find a > Linux "equivalent" to. You could try that Java Outlook clone - unfortunately I do not know what it's called, but Google should be able to provide for some clues. > Well, looks like I have my work cut out for me. > > And, YES, I definitely like all those things that Linux provides: > - no need to update virus/malware definitions so often "So often"? How about "never"? ;-) There are no viruses for GNU/Linux in the wild. Attempts have been made in controlled environments as a "proof of concept" that an ELF executable could be appended with virus code, but this in itself proves nothing, really. In order for a virus to work in a UNIX operating system, the virus has to be downloaded, it has to be given ownership by the root user, it has to be given execute permission in the filesystem layer and it then has to be manually started. All of those require conscious actions from the root user. In Windows, "open" equals "execute", and files are considered executable depending on the last three characters of the filename - as was the case in DOS and OS/2 - while in UNIX, a file is executable only if it has execute permission for your user account - either directly, as in "you own the file and it has execute permission for you", or indirectly, as in "you are a member of a group of users who have execute permission", or "you are not a member of the group of users the owner belongs to, but the file has execute permission for everyone else". > - no need to repeatedly wipe the drive and reinstall!!! That I've > always loved the idea of. Actually, that is how a computer should be used. All of the quirks of regualarly rebooting, running antivirus software and a tight firewall, periodically defragmenting the filesystem, periodically reinstalling the operating system, periodic crashes et al, are all MICROS~1'isms. Real computers don't do that. MICROS~1 has built its entire career around turning a computer into a kitchen sink appliane with a perverse sense of humor. That's an awful waste of a perfectly good computer. UNIX systems are secure, stable, portable, flexible, scalable, versatile, powerful multi-user platforms and always have been. It's the core design of UNIX, which was developed on a multi-user minicomputer. UNIX is designed for 24/7 uptime - one does not just go and reboot a mission-critical minicomputer, supercomputer or mainframe, and an operating system crash on such a system is intolerable as well, given the responsibilities towards the paying customers and the financial implications of failing to live up to those responsibilities. As for the learning curve, *everything* has one, but many people hide behind that term "learning curve" simply because they can't let go of a Windows addiction and habituation. This is not a flaw in GNU/Linux but a flaw in the biological unit between the keyboard and the chair. ;-) -- *Aragorn* (registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
From: J.O. Aho on 13 Nov 2009 00:47 Rikishi42 wrote: > On the other hand: you use Autocad. Is there a program that reads DWG > drawings? Not likely. There are to few users that use CAD, so you'll need > some luck there. There are drawing softs, but wether you can exchage designs > with someone else ? LinuxCAD can import DXF, so you can export your AutoCAD projects. For GPL versions you have QCad which also supports impot from DXF. -- //Aho
From: J.O. Aho on 13 Nov 2009 00:51 TJ wrote: > RodMcKay wrote: >> That sounds ideal to me. I'd very _very_ happy to have Win98SE >> available for whatever situation happens to come up where I need to >> absolutely do something in Windows. Fortunately, no matter what >> system upgrades they do, usually old versions of documents like Word >> 2000, still accepted. In those cases where my resume absolutely _has_ >> to be sent in Word, I could do that. Doubtful I could get them to >> accept PDF so there may be no choice there, but knowing that I can >> dual-boot to Win98SE might make this all easier. I've always looked >> for apps that generally can be used in older OS and not need any of >> that stupid .NET stuff, so maybe that practice will pay off even more >> now! >> > OpenOffice will output in both new and old Word formats, though it's a > bit better at the older ones. For most functions, OO is just as powerful > as Word. Some of the automated stuff won't work the same, but unless > you're a MS Office power user, you probably won't miss them. And in some > cases, OO is better than Word. A friend of mine was once working on a > very long Word document, using OpenOffice. He happened to save > intermediate copies using OO's native format, and the resulting file was > nearly half the size of the equivalent MS Office file. Load a ms-office document into OO and store it with the same format as it had before, but with a different name, you will see files up to 50% smaller. Don't forget that OO can save PDF files and has the ability to edit PDF files natively. -- //Aho
From: Rikishi42 on 13 Nov 2009 05:41
On 2009-11-12, John Hasler <jhasler(a)newsguy.com> wrote: > > > Rikishi42 writes: >> On the other hand: you use Autocad. Is there a program that reads DWG >> drawings? Not likely. There are to few users that use CAD, so you'll need >> some luck there. > > There are plenty of users. The problem is Autodesk. Yes, but that is true for all vendors. Bentley actually had a Linux version of their MicroStation, back in the days of SuSE 6.x or early 7.x. But they dropped it, as they did the releases for MacOS. Trouble is, they won't be going back to being multi-platform. Once they only had to deal with Windows, they could use things like VB, .Net and such, to replace their own porgramming languages. Saves them development/maintenance time. Going back to supporting their own Basic and their MKL language for each platform, is simply not going to happen. Sadly. -- Any time things appear to be going better, you have overlooked something. |