Trying The Linux Switch Again

[dedanna1029]

Actually, Firefox is a Mozilla browser too, and what you're using for Seamonkey are Firefox addons anyway, but, so be it.
Re: Iron. I've never had to have an addon for Bookmarks, and I have some 2000 in Chrome and Iron both (well, they both use the same ones). I can manage the bookmarks just fine, and can do all kinds of things with them; to include with sheer drag and drop in the manager.
Look again, I said Adblock Plus, not Adblock. Plain Adblock will suck whatever way you go, in whatever browser. I'm able to block elements, all kinds of things with it, as you mentioned.
I haven't seen where one has to have an addon for clearing cookies, etc. when exiting the browser. I have all those things right in Settings.
I've also been able to choose to save tabs in Settings.
Question, have you cruised Advanced Settings in Iron? That's where I find the majority of that.
The rest, yes I cop to as well.

[Snorkasaurus]

Hey dedanna1029,

Actually, Firefox is a Mozilla browser too, and what you're using for Seamonkey are Firefox addons anyway, but, so be it.

Oh I totally get the relationship between Mozilla, SeaMonkey and FireFox and understand how their addon systems work and have modified .RDF files for FireFox addons to work with SeaMonkey before... but SeaMonkey and FireFox are definitely not the same browser by any means.

Re: Iron. I've never had to have an addon for Bookmarks, and I have some 2000 in Chrome and Iron both (well, they both use the same ones). I can manage the bookmarks just fine, and can do all kinds of things with them; to include with sheer drag and drop in the manager.

As mentioned, the notes I took on SRWare Iron were almost two years ago and it is entirely possible that some features [including bookmarking] have been fixed up in that time... but there were some other things that kept me away from it.

Look again, I said Adblock Plus, not Adblock. Plain Adblock will suck whatever way you go, in whatever browser. I'm able to block elements, all kinds of things with it, as you mentioned.

My bad, I have been using AdBlock Plus (and Element Hiding Helper For AdBlock Plus) for as long as I know, and do not even know when or if it forked from straight AdBlock. Actually I was under the impression that straight AdBlock doesn't even exist anymore. I guess I just wrote "AdBlock" since the "Plus" portion of the name seems somewhat superfluous.

I haven't seen where one has to have an addon for clearing cookies, etc. when exiting the browser. I have all those things right in Settings.
I've also been able to choose to save tabs in Settings.
Question, have you cruised Advanced Settings in Iron? That's where I find the majority of that.
The rest, yes I cop to as well.

Maybe I will see if I can try it again... 56M seems like a bit much for x64 Linux, but it is on the way.

S.

[Snorkasaurus]

Here's what happened:

• Import from FireFox but not SeaMonkey
• Cannot import from json file
• Apps Store is useless to me (do not wish to buy applications for an application)
• Does not show URL when hovering over Apps Store icon (cute)
• I do not understand the option to "Allow sites to ask to become default handlers for protocols" (I would have expected applications rather than sites to deal with protocols)
• I do not understand the option to "Allow sites to download multiple files" (not sure of the mistake is "upload" or "from" or "why are sites downloading from me")
• No easy way to add sites to cookie exception list
• I see no option to always clear data when exiting browser, where do you find it in your options?

Ultimately it just stinks of Google too much for me... not that Mozilla makes me warm and fuzzy inside. If I could get better addon/OS support from K-Meleon I'd at least consider that.

S.

[Snorkasaurus]

Been playing with it a little more... I should add:

• Browsing Iron extensions asks me what language I want each time I access it
• There does not seem to be a way to set per-site user-agent strings (UAControl xpi)
• Support Forums have no search facility without creating an account

Bah... this effort seems to be spiraling into something ugly in a hurry. I had a simple DNS problem where jwpcdn.com was resolving to the wrong address because of some intentional DNS poisoning that I am doing to block ads. Trying to modify and control DNS resolution on Xubuntu is a total nightmare since resolvconf nullifies /etc/resolv.conf and complicates the hell out of it. Hello XP CD.

Edit: was to properly close my list items.

S.

[viking60]

Well there is this one thing that Microsoft and I agree upon these days:

Seriously; if that is the one that fits you best then you should use it - choice is good. You seem to use it as a standard to measure up to, and you have not found anything that can.
That would be a good reason to keep it.
This is me and my XP :

So I will let you handle the "svcthost has ?#¤%/() do you really want to do this" messages to you and the fine AV bloatware too.

In other words; I have found something better - way better -for me.

[Snorkasaurus]

Seriously; if that is the one that fits you best then you should use it - choice is good.

To be honest, I kind of feel trapped... I would much prefer to use a non-Microsoft and non-Apple OS because their politics disgusts and annoys me, but I can't afford to have daily fights with documentation, design decisions made by distro maintainers, and a lineup of workarounds that are haunted by dependencies. Sooner or later the decision to stick with XP is going to bite me in the ass though, and I'll be sorry I didn't dump it.

S.

[viking60]

In the meantime here is what you are missing:
Several desktops.

Blistering fast copying of entire directories including pics and videos.
The flexibility to tailor your desktop to your exact liking:

No need for antivirus programs.
(Before any real damage could occur, a Linux user would have to read the e-mail, save the attachment, give it executable permissions and then run the executable. Not very likely, in other words)

Speed

Technological superiority.
Linux is the most widespread OS in the world. On both Smartphones and Supercomputers Linux is the world market leader. On Smartphones there is some competition from *NIX based Apple. On Supercomputers Linux is virtually without competition. So no one would dream of landing on the moon with Windows - NASA would use Linux.

For the laptops on board of the space station the NSA did use Windows XP for a while but even in space the computers were attacked by virus.
So the NASA switched from Windows XP to Debian 6
I could not have given a more precise description for it than what NASA did:

We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable.

Scalability

Cost
This is generally considered an advantage since Linux is free. However MS is marketing that expensive EQ quality therefor free EQ poor quality.
This is the "No free Lunch " effect.
You can package and sell Linux for money. The competing Linux distributions all provide slightly different feature sets beyond the core system, including canned e-commerce solutions, printed manuals and phone support options. There is no rule that says you can't make money distributing Linux. For those who choose to download and install free distributions from the Internet, Linux is truly free.


Advanced Capabilities
(In addition to the system utility tools from the Unix world, Linux usually comes with the Apache Webserver, an email server, router/firewall capabilities and SQL databases. These are extras costing up to thousands of dollars on Windows. There IS free software to do these jobs on Windows, but it has mostly been adapted from Linux and loses some functionality when ported to Windows.)

Choice
(Linux is distributed by several companies, giving consumers to pick and choose the flavor that best suits their needs. Windows is the product of a single company, Microsoft Corporation. Windows users have no choice but to accept what Microsoft offers.)

Rate of Advancement
Linux has and will continue to advance at a rate impossible for a close development project such as Microsoft Windows to sustain. A few factors driving this rate of progress are (in no particular order): the number of active developers; quantity and quality of feedback from the field; short development cycle from development team to the end user; absence of corporate "meddling" in the design process; independently developed open source subsystems frequently incorporated into Linux, giving it quantum advances in a short time.

[Snorkasaurus]

Hey v60... I am not sure I agree with (or need) all of these.

In the meantime here is what you are missing:
Several desktops.

Actually, I personally don't want that at all. No wallpaper, just a single colour background... No workspaces, just one desktop... No animated effects, no skins, no fancy anything... just a way to run applications and access hardware.

Blistering fast copying of entire directories including pics and videos.

Running Linux on this same hardware my file copies are the same speed as Windows XP. The only way I could see this being true is on local file copies [due to file system efficiency] but I very rarely copy files locally and am almost always limited by the bandwidth of my copy which would usually be USB or network.

The flexibility to tailor your desktop to your exact liking:

For me, XP is easier to configure a minimal interface for and does a better job of managing multiple monitors. Modern Linux DE's are just as resources intensive as modern Windows versions (which is fine for people who are not running a PC with 960M of memory). I wish the effort spent on creating more desktop configuration options had been spent on better support for multiple monitors or default themes that have a different colour of title bar for focused windows. It baffles me that the default window theme for some distros (okay DE's) has the same colour of title bar for focused and unfocused windows. That's terrible!

No need for antivirus programs.
(Before any real damage could occur, a Linux user would have to read the e-mail, save the attachment, give it executable permissions and then run the executable. Not very likely, in other words)

More than three quarters of my hardware based Windows boxes have no AV software installed... and an even higher percentage of my virtual based Windows boxes have no AV. People who write viruses obviously want them to propagate, and the fact that Windows uses file extensions to identify executable files while Linux uses x permission is what makes it much more effective to write viruses for Windows (and thus why people do not write Linux based viruses). The flip side is that Linux users have to go through the extra step of chmod'ing executable files before they can use them (which frankly can't be incredibly frequent anyways). It is all about the balance of security vs. ease of use vs. the laziness/inability of users to understand fundamental computer use.

Clearly the days of floppy based viruses are behind us... which is why it irritates me so much that application developers (Windows, browsers, email clients, etc.) still insist on making "automated execution" possible via their applications. For example, there were lots of people running Windows 98 [when it was current] who used Outlook Express as an email client, had preview pane turned on, and scripting enabled. This created a situation where the application could execute new code from a remote source without user intervention. Really? I am a poor application developer at best, but I sure as hell know enough not to create those kinds of conditions! The ability for Outlook Express to do this no longer exists [as far as I know] but there are still examples of poor design like this around today. Anyways, Linux's ability to shelter itself from "crapware" is a policy based feature... a policy that Microsoft could have adopted and integrated in to Windows, but they didn't - shameful. Especially considering Microsoft's propensity for stealing other people's ideas.

Speed

XP performs as well or better than Xubuntu on this box, and I am pretty sure that full blown Unity would be worse. XP installation may have taken slightly longer, but not by much and it is a one-time deal [supposedly]. Boot time is about the same, and application startup seems at least as good with XP. The only time I see Linux beating out XP for speed is when you have a specific function (such as a router) and you can build your Linux box to suit (and without a GUI). For simply running typical GUI based applications I see no difference. This is simply a myth... in fact I noticed that Linux had a harder time managing memory than XP on this box resulting in more swapping and worse performance.

Technological superiority.

Awwww, now without the source for Windows this cannot really be evaluated.

Linux is the most widespread OS in the world. On both Smartphones and Supercomputers Linux is the world market leader. On Smartphones there is some competition from *NIX based Apple. On Supercomputers Linux is virtually without competition. So no one would dream of landing on the moon with Windows - NASA would use Linux.

I would not call Linux on a phone or other embedded device the same as a desktop OS, they are simply not the same beast.

For the laptops on board of the space station the NSA did use Windows XP for a while but even in space the computers were attacked by virus.
So the NASA switched from Windows XP to Debian 6
I could not have given a more precise description for it than what NASA did:

We migrated key functions from Windows to Linux because we needed an operating system that was stable and reliable.

Don't even get me started on the NSA! :-)
I should note though, that Squeeze (Debian 6) had extremely good performance. Wheezy (Debian 7 - and the current stable release) is noticeably less adept at running on sub-current hardware.

Scalability

This is too vague and could mean any number of things. Having said that, Linux's ability to be configured for distributed processing is its only significant advantage over Windows with respect to scalability. Clustering, load balancing and fault tolerance are all features that Windows server versions are capable of or can use... I can't really see any reason for requiring scalability on desktop systems. If the term scalability is being used to describe the management of numerous desktops then I would expect that a comparison of large (more than 10k desktop) enterprises would show that more of them are running Windows than Linux as their desktop OS.

Cost
This is generally considered an advantage since Linux is free. However MS is marketing that expensive EQ quality therefor free EQ poor quality.
This is the "No free Lunch " effect.
You can package and sell Linux for money. The competing Linux distributions all provide slightly different feature sets beyond the core system, including canned e-commerce solutions, printed manuals and phone support options. There is no rule that says you can't make money distributing Linux. For those who choose to download and install free distributions from the Internet, Linux is truly free.

Awww, now how much is my time worth and how many hours did I spend trying to make Linux do what I want? Linux licensing might be free, but the support and management of it is not, and that is just another business model in our greedy world. There are numerous companies that sell their products at almost no margin (or give it away) because they know they'll make up for it and more on support. The fact that Linux does not cost anything up front is only part of the story.

Advanced Capabilities
(In addition to the system utility tools from the Unix world, Linux usually comes with the Apache Webserver, an email server, router/firewall capabilities and SQL databases. These are extras costing up to thousands of dollars on Windows. There IS free software to do these jobs on Windows, but it has mostly been adapted from Linux and loses some functionality when ported to Windows.)

Apache has no performance, scalability or feature loss in Windows. MySQL has no performance, scalability or feature loss in Windows. hMailServer is a free Windows based mail server with as many or better features than postfix, qmail, sendmail, exim, or any other Linux based mail server. It also has the performance and scalability of any of them as well as some of the best free support I have found for any free application package ever. Last time I checked, none of the above Linux based MTAs even had greylisting as a core feature... something I would call an essential feature of a modern MTA. Oh, did I mention it is open source? Windows firewall is free and has been sufficient for me since its inception, and there are plenty of free alternatives.

Choice
(Linux is distributed by several companies, giving consumers to pick and choose the flavor that best suits their needs. Windows is the product of a single company, Microsoft Corporation. Windows users have no choice but to accept what Microsoft offers.)

Rate of Advancement
Linux has and will continue to advance at a rate impossible for a close development project such as Microsoft Windows to sustain. A few factors driving this rate of progress are (in no particular order): the number of active developers; quantity and quality of feedback from the field; short development cycle from development team to the end user; absence of corporate "meddling" in the design process; independently developed open source subsystems frequently incorporated into Linux, giving it quantum advances in a short time.

I'm not really sure what this is.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to go back to XP, I just can't live with some of the deficiencies of Linux.

S.

[viking60]

Just a few remarks:
I really cannot see why you don't want more desktops without wallpapers and without effects etc etc.It gives you the opportunity to work structured with more data rather than hiding them beneath each other.
There is no connection between more desktops and wallpapers or fancy effects. I just used a pic to show what I was talking about.

And Linux on phones chrome books and supercomputers and Desktops are the same thing. They all have the same kernel.From there the diversity starts - which is a strong point of Linux.

It is like a potato; it can be used for everything.

Regarding the 960 MB of memory there are lots of Linux versions that take way less. I use Arch on Rasberry Pi and have a full blown XBMC media center on it.
You could use it as a proxy for secure browsing (TOR etc). That is ARM technology but it shows that Linux is small and flexible enough.

If you install Arch it will take almost nothing of your memory right after install. Then you can decide what DE you want.
But that takes some experience; and yes if you want it done by somebody it is not free. And Arch is modern.
So Linux is only free if you are capable of doing it. If you want to spend your time computing and want support for the rest; you can get this from Canonical, Novell or RedHat++

And the technical superiority is illustrated by the fact that no country uses Windows for mission critical operations. Not for nuclear weapons, not for Rockets and Space programs not for supercomputing in any shape. The internet is driven by Linux servers like Google Facebook and all the others...

We know that without seeing the source code of Windows.

All of this does not affect the fact that you feel that XP fulfills your need the best though - only you can decide that.

That you find XP easier to configure is natural after several years of habit, and Linux will have an initial learning curve (as Windows had the first time you used it - I thought Windows was completely unnecessary and could start my dbase, wordperfect and Symphony directly from DOS ).

That is also why many hesitate to make the Linux jump - the learning curve - and thereby the costs.
With Windows 8 that argument is gone since Windows 8 has a higher learning curve than Linux.

[Snorkasaurus]

I really cannot see why you don't want more desktops without wallpapers and without effects etc etc.It gives you the opportunity to work structured with more data rather than hiding them beneath each other.
There is no connection between more desktops and wallpapers or fancy effects. I just used a pic to show what I was talking about.

Sorry fellah, I just get bent out of shape when I see how much effort is put in to a fancy rotating desktop selector when basic multiple monitor configuration is barely mediocre. xrandr seems to be the best I have found for managing multiple monitors and it is a nightmare compared to the drag-n-configure of XP. If I have overlooked a Linux equivalent I would not be surprised if I had to install significant dependencies or a complete other DE to get it.

Regarding the 960 MB of memory there are lots of Linux versions that take way less. I use Arch on Rasberry Pi and have a full blown XBMC media center on it.

I was pretty pissed with my Arch experience which I guess would have been about a month ago or so. During the install I was given an option to select between two different partition types (IIRC)... it allowed me to continue through the entire installation and finally I was screwed at the end of the installation because I had chosen the wrong partition type - and I saw no documentation explaining the reason for choosing or not choosing either type during the install. I don't actually care if a distro wants to have a manual installation, but if it does, it is imperative that every single decision has its implications clearly described.

If you install Arch it will take almost nothing of your memory right after install. Then you can decide what DE you want.
But that takes some experience; and yes if you want it done by somebody it is not free. And Arch is modern.
So Linux is only free if you are capable of doing it. If you want to spend your time computing and want support for the rest; you can get this from Canonical, Novell or RedHat++

Well, I have no lack of experience... I have tried numerous Linux distros numerous times over the last twenty years and have been responsible for desktops, servers, and network devices/services for networks as large as 9000 named user accounts and as small as a dozen. I have seen my share of Linux, just not as a desktop OS.

And the technical superiority is illustrated by the fact that no country uses Windows for mission critical operations. Not for nuclear weapons, not for Rockets and Space programs not for supercomputing in any shape. The internet is driven by Linux servers like Google Facebook and all the others...

We know that without seeing the source code of Windows.

If I have learned anything about computing in this life it is that people treat computers like guns... their opinions of what is "best" is very frequently based on misinformation and tradition. The fact that Windows is not used in any way for rockets, space programs or supercomputing (which I don't believe) does not mean it can't be.

PS: "mission critical operations" is a term that can have greatly varying definitions depending upon who you ask.

That you find XP easier to configure is natural after several years of habit, and Linux will have an initial learning curve (as Windows had the first time you used it - I thought Windows was completely unnecessary and could start my dbase, wordperfect and Symphony directly from DOS ).

I don't agree that it is learning curve [as opposed to habit] that keeps me off Linux, it really is technical limitations. Managing multiple monitors is a big one for me, dependencies for many GUI applications because they are designed for specific DE's or written for use by an interpreter, and functions that are simply not available (text editor for example).

That is also why many hesitate to make the Linux jump - the learning curve - and thereby the costs.
With Windows 8 that argument is gone since Windows 8 has a higher learning curve than Linux.

This is precisely why I feel so trapped... I can't find a more functional desktop OS than XP, I can't find a way to make Linux work for me, and I certainly can't use Windows 8. All I can do is cross my fingers 'till the compromise comes.

S.

[viking60]

Yes you have my sympathy - MS has trapped everybody and made it hard to install anything else than Windows 8 on new HW - they had too since nobody will choose it voluntarily.

And I will agree that most mid sized corporations use Windows especially on the Desktop. But that has been an interopt deal for years. Many used IBM S36 S38 AS400 etc with dedicated terminals. But the (5250) emulation to Windows grew in importance.
Servers and firewalls (Squid etc) are Linux based and used but the desktops are mostly Windows - I do think that bit is about to change especially in Europe and Asia.

We know that the US is (ab)using Microsoft for industrial espionage - so good business leaders will have to eliminate that risk (they will have to eliminate it even on mere suspicion).

What you could do is to jump to Windows 7 of course - it does not have the HW lock that Windows 8 has. (in fact Windows 7 will not work on Windows 8 boxes without tampering).

[R_Head]

If they want to get away from the MS claws is the industry to start writing applications for Linux. As good or better than the ones for MS.

We use a lot CATIA V5; read that is not supported on Linux so we are forced to use MS simply because of that application alone.

One thing that we abolish recently is the use of PST files and all has to be Archived in the cloud; just to serve you better and keep you safe.