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: RodMcKay on 13 Nov 2009 21:33 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:51:54 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user(a)example.net> wrote: >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. True but the difficulty is sharing. I understand about converting to everything to OO, I've in fact done that. The problem is converting back. I may have to run MS Word off WINE for my resume which I must give a copy of to my employment agencies whenever I'm looking for work. There may not be any way around this issue. I've converted docts to OO files but then they just don't convert back properly. And PDF is no go so far in this case. Well, at least there's WINE for these few cases. <g>
From: RodMcKay on 13 Nov 2009 21:46 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:42:51 +0100, Aragorn <aragorn(a)chatfactory.invalid> wrote: >On Friday 13 November 2009 00:38 in alt.os.linux, somebody identifying >as RodMcKay wrote... > [snip] >Next to OpenOffice, there is also the KDE application suite KOffice. >Perhaps you can check that out. Will definitely do so. <g> >> 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. Wow, sounds interesting. Definitely something to look for. It's not just how Outlook looks and its structure, it's the power it has which I've enhanced with VB scripts. >> 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. So, as I hoped, it's like a MAC in that way! Excellent! >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". Very good. That's what I've always envied for MAC users. But MACs are an impossible situation since there's nothing like WINE for those apps we absolutely cannot find a native replacement for. Linux seems to be the best of both worlds! >> - 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. You know, it's been said by others but I remember thinking early on how clever a plot Micro$oft had in keeping all the Windows vulnerabilities it has! And time has proven this sentiment correct! The anti-malware industry earns big bucks for so many companies! I want out of that!! It's things like have my computer slow down each night while it takes several hours to run through my 200gig hdd that feels so unnecessary! So glad that it's been confirmed that Linux won't need that. What a relief! >UNIX systems are secure, stable, portable, flexible, scalable, >versatile, powerful multi-user platforms and always have been. It's >the core design of UNIX, which was developed on a multi-user >minicomputer. UNIX is designed for 24/7 uptime - one does not just go >and reboot a mission-critical minicomputer, supercomputer or mainframe, >and an operating system crash on such a system is intolerable as well, >given the responsibilities towards the paying customers and the >financial implications of failing to live up to those responsibilities. Wow, thanks for the education. Makes infinite sense to me. But, then, I've never equated Micro$oft with sense ... at any moment! >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. ;-) I hear you. I've had other obstacles, too. But I've taught myself everything I know. From DOS to Windows 3.1/3.11 to Win95, Win98SE to WinXP ... and I was running Win3.x at the end with a Win95 GUI called Calmira so with all these experiences, have had to deal with steep learning curves before. As long as I can eventually run at the same speed on my end with none of the Windows hassles, that's all I care about. One of the two biggest obstacles seemed the file system one. But I should have known that Linux wouldn't have a FAT32 size limitation problem and that there was a way around that. Anyway, thanks again everyone. It's my hope that other newbie Windows-to-Linux users will find some/any/all of this as helpful as I have. There's so much info on the net that this thread and this ng have been of enormous help even with just this initial foray. Thanks and cheers. :oD
From: RodMcKay on 13 Nov 2009 21:50 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:39:38 -0500, TJ <TJ(a)noneofyour.business> wrote: >RodMcKay wrote: > >> 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 >As Aragorn said, "never" is more correct than "so often." Linux is >completely immune to Windows malware. There are Linux anti-virus >programs in existence, but their function is to trap viruses to keep >them from being innocently spread to OSes with less-able immune systems. >Be aware though, that you will still be as susceptible to "phishing" >attempts as you are with Windows. That sort of thing is OS-independent. > >> - no need to repeatedly wipe the drive and reinstall!!! That I've >> always loved the idea of. >Nothing's perfect. Any OS worth working with will have periodic bugfixes >and security upgrades, but these are usually much harder to exploit and >much more quickly found and patched with Linux than with Windows. The >process varies with the distro, but they all have it. > >Also, most distros have new releases on a periodic basis, for version >updates and the like. Mandriva, the one I use, makes a new release twice >a year. But unlike Windows, a complete install takes a couple of hours, >at worst. That's with an old, slow machine - something else Linux >handles much better than the new Windows versions. And the install >doesn't stop with just the OS. Most distros include all the most popular >apps in their installs - no need to spend hours re-installing and >updating things. > >TJ Oh, lord, yes! I've cut down a lot on my Windows time by either making apps "portable" and storing them on a partition and just updating shortcuts after a new install but it still takes me a couple of hours to get up to about 75% functionality, with a couple of weeks to get 100%, working several sessions on installing the stuff that doesn't work as a standalone. But it's still labour-intensive! Looking forward to this. Thanks for the heads-up re phishing.
From: RodMcKay on 13 Nov 2009 21:53 On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:50:48 GMT, Stefan Patric <not(a)thisaddress.com> wrote: >On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:29:48 -0500, RodMcKay wrote: > >> On Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:13:29 -0500, RodMcKay <NoJunkMail(a)No.com> wrote: >> >>>I've been fed up with Windows ever since I switched from a Win98SE box >>>to WinXP a couple of years ago. But I haven't made the switch for >>>[snip] >> >> Thanks for everyone's input. I am just so darned tired of Windoze that >> I've been ready to give it up forever. The trouble is how I must keep >> up with Windows and apps for work and the fact that there are some >> windows apps that I absolutely need to be able to keep using. But I've >> narrowed the list of the latter right down and with regards to work, >> well, I think I'll try to figure out how to struggle to keep up with >> everything even though I might not ever use Windoze again at home. >> >> Now what remains, I guess, is to take the plunge again. I was started >> down this path when a colleague gifted me with a Linux CD a couple of > >I suggest doing a little reading before installing. The best reference >for the Linux beginner I've found is RUNNING LINUX by O'Reilly >Publishers. It's pricey. Around $50 US, but worth it. Explains Linux >in detail with lots of examples. I think the latest edition is five. I >have the 3rd Edition which is 10 years old, and still use it. > >> levels. I was also concerned about the FAT32 / NTFS issues. These are >> [snip] > >Linux can read and write a multitude of filesystems including FAT32 and >NTFS, but for the Linux system itself use one of the many native Linux >filesystems. Any are better than anything Microsoft has ever come up >with. For general user stuff, ext3 is the default. Although, the new >and improved ext4 is available, too, but I've yet to try it. > >> So my next concern will be starting and then figuring out how to switch >> all my files and systems over. Whatever I can't switch over I'll have >> to find alternatives for. But this thread has made me decide to try it, >> to begin afresh with Linux. For those special apps that might not exist >> in Linux because of their obscurity/uniqueness, I'll try them in Wine >> till I figure out a Linux equivalent. > >Also, take a look at Crossover (http://www.codeweavers.com/) by the same >people who developed WINE. You have to pay for it, but if you need to >run some Windows apps on a regular basis without running Windows, it's >worth it. Or . . . > >You could run a virtual machine like VirtualBox (http:// >www.virtualbox.org/) under Linux, and run Windows simultaneously with >Linux. This is what I do. > >Also, for your first distro, take a look at PCLinuxOS 2009 (http:// >www.pclinuxos.com/). Designed for the Windows user. Very low learning >curve. And it pretty much comes pre-configured with all the stuff you'll >need for general computing. No tweaks required. > > >Stef And that's another Windows gripe I have (I'll try to keep it short!!!l) ... install Windows and what do you have????? Practically nothing! I was seriously impressed with the distro my colleague gave me. Much beyond basic stuff and you're up and running so quickly! Way to go .... <g>
From: J.O. Aho on 14 Nov 2009 04:16
RodMcKay wrote: > On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 06:51:54 +0100, "J.O. Aho" <user(a)example.net> > wrote: >> TJ wrote: >>> RodMcKay wrote: >>> 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. > > True but the difficulty is sharing. I understand about converting to > everything to OO, I've in fact done that. The problem is converting > back. OO do convert odt to doc nicely, those new docx is another matter, but all MSO manages to read some doc format and you have quite many to pick from in OO, the main difference is that OO don't save which font to use for every row in your document, it tells only which font to use when you change font in your document, this is what makes the OO saved doc to be smaller than the MSO saved doc. > I may have to run MS Word off WINE for my resume which I must > give a copy of to my employment agencies whenever I'm looking for > work. Thats just nonsense, just select to save as MSO doc when you save the document in OO. Remember that OO is the only of the two which uses a document standard format. > And PDF is no go so far in this case. PDF is a great thing, for you will know it will look exactly the same on the other machine as on yours, no matter if they have the font installed or not which you used. -- //Aho |