Linux or Stay with XP?

O

onebelo

Weaksauce
Joined
Jan 13, 2006
Messages
89
Right now I have my main desktop running Vista .. and a file server pc running XP (Dual PIII 1ghz). I'm planning on upgrading the server pc to core2duo and will probably do a clean install ...

I was thinking of putting linux in there but i dont have much experience with it. I have several hard-drives on this PC and I have it shared to my main desktop, also shared with limited permissions to my xbox and other PCs. I usually have aim/yahoo running and i also download, unrar with this machine. Sometimes I'll burn as well. I normally have a remote desktop session from my main desktop into the file server PC to do those things.

How hard is it to share folders and drives in Linux? Based on the above, which linux would you recommend? Ubuntu?

Or should I not even bother and stick with XP? :D
 
onebelo said:
Right now I have my main desktop running Vista .. and a file server pc running XP (Dual PIII 1ghz). I'm planning on upgrading the server pc to core2duo and will probably do a clean install ...

I was thinking of putting linux in there but i dont have much experience with it. I have several hard-drives on this PC and I have it shared to my main desktop, also shared with limited permissions to my xbox and other PCs. I usually have aim/yahoo running and i also download, unrar with this machine. Sometimes I'll burn as well. I normally have a remote desktop session from my main desktop into the file server PC to do those things.

How hard is it to share folders and drives in Linux? Based on the above, which linux would you recommend? Ubuntu?

Or should I not even bother and stick with XP? :D
Click to expand...

IMHO it is a piece of cake. Then again I have been using OpenBSD since 1996 or so. YMMV.
 
onebelo said:
Right now I have my main desktop running Vista .. and a file server pc running XP (Dual PIII 1ghz). I'm planning on upgrading the server pc to core2duo and will probably do a clean install ...

I was thinking of putting linux in there but i dont have much experience with it. I have several hard-drives on this PC and I have it shared to my main desktop, also shared with limited permissions to my xbox and other PCs. I usually have aim/yahoo running and i also download, unrar with this machine. Sometimes I'll burn as well. I normally have a remote desktop session from my main desktop into the file server PC to do those things.

How hard is it to share folders and drives in Linux? Based on the above, which linux would you recommend? Ubuntu?

Or should I not even bother and stick with XP? :D
Click to expand...

really easy, scaringly easy infact. The component you need within Linux is "SAMBA".
to interface with the SMB protocol windows networks used (and CIFS)

Ubuntu comes with it already installed as well and there is a nice simple GUI (under Administration-->shared Folders) which simplifies it all (just need local users, or do it as guest)

Ubuntu/Linux is actually really easy thanks to Ubuntu's drive to make it more accesible, you don't have to goto teh command-line at all for majority of things.

Try it. If you don't like go back to XP
 
yep...go with a linux distro and you can always switch back

my main server runs centOS...a bit more 'advanced' then ubuntu as it's all command line, but I wouldn't even consider going to a windows OS...it's so quick, and it's actually fun to fart around with it...having said that, it's been up 2 years, with 0 downtime that wasn't caused by me...once you set it up, and configure it, it's smooth sailing

as suggested by eeyrjmr, give ubuntu a try, from what I hear, it's pretty simple

edit, oh and a Dual PIII 1ghz...is more then enough for a decent fileserver, linux distros are not as resource retarded like a microsoft OS
 
Oh c'mon, now you're reaching for straws.

<edit> don't get me wrong, i work on several Linux boxes as well as many Windows machines (Network admin) but i really don't see a point in switching OS's around if everything works in the OS i'm using. Sure, if you want to tinker around some in Linux, but you could easily do this with a Live Distro running from CD without giving up the fileserver that you know.
 
simply because admining a linux server which is headless >>>>>> windows server which is headless.

it is alot easier to then expand the server to other things.
 
eeyrjmr said:
simply because admining a linux server which is headless >>>>>> windows server which is headless.

it is alot easier to then expand the server to other things.
Click to expand...

I call BS. For someone who has no experience with Linux and experience with Windows, Windows Admin is far easier.
 
even headless

and why are you calling me out? what have done to deserve that!
Plus anyway just cause he *may* know his way around windows doesn't mean he knows his way around a server setup, a desktop and a server are two completly different beasts
 
Personally i love using ssh to admin my ubuntu server. Great starter os for a server btw.
Comes with everything you need and it's slimmed down to just terminal.
 
im planning to do a clean install of the OS .. so thats the reason why im considering switchin to linux based OS or sticking with XP. If Ubuntu is as easy as it sounds, maybe ill give that a shot .. gives me something else to mess with besides windows, plus its free .. :D
 
ScYcS said:
Honest Question:
Why would you bother? I'd stick with XP if everything you need works.
Click to expand...

sure, XP can do a lot.. but linux (and any unix-based system) can do a lot more once you learn how to use them. If you "stick with windows", it may do everything you need -- but how do you know what you need if you've never used anything else? :)

I use a Windows machine for one of my workstations (the one I'm typing on now) and gaming. I've got a laptop running ubuntu and a server/workstation/mythtv machine running gentoo. I code a LOT on the linux machine and can do a ton of things under it that I can't do under XP. Only thing my linux desktop can't do is play games.

So try ubuntu or some other distro. You may find you can do a lot of things you couldn't or easily couldn't under XP. But you won't know til ya try.
 
I been using Windows for years and years, got a bunch of puters with XP, XP 64, one laptop with Vista H.P. (because it came with it) but as soon as I saw retail price of Vista "Ultimate" that was the last straw that pushed me to switch to Linux; on my "main" desktop PC no less! Some games won't run, but for every game that wouldn't work I got 10 more free w/the Linux distro.

I'd tried Linux prob. a dozen times in the past, never put it on my "main" PC before, always just checked it out on some old "extra" PC I'd had laying around. This is the first time that I felt like I'd really be satisfied with Linux as my main OS replacing Windows.

Some of the reasons why I wanted to switch: I HATE HATE HATE Microsoft's licensing - paticularly since they started doing "Activation" I don't want to have to call and type in all those numbers every time I have to re-install the OS, or if I want to upgrade my hardware. I don't even know how many copies of XP I own legally, it's more than one though. But even though I legally own it, I'd still want to find some way to not have to "activate". Before you call me silly for bitching about something that might seem like a minor irritation, let me mention that I worked at a PC Tech and sometimes I spent ALL DAY on the phone because the Windows XP that I just did a fresh re-install of for a customer wouldn't "activate" over the Internet even though it was on the SAME PC that it had just been running on, and had been installed on originally.

But, bigger reasons to switch are: that Linux has come a long way with: driver support that might be even better than Vista? LOTS of FREE applications, tons of cool little games, less spyware, less computer virus problems, a nice selection of desktop environments, excellent security, good performance, FAR less of a memory hog than Vista.

Linux seems like the natural choice for a server. Here's one good reason: with Linux on your new server, you're free to use your licensed copy of XP on another system, or give it to a friend who's building a PC and doesn't own a copy of Windows?

Of course you'll have to learn some, but it seems like you might be interested in learning this stuff anyway. If I could afford it now I would buy 4 - 5 Seagate HDs and put them in a software RAID on a Linux server. I'd love the feeling of knowing that I had reliable HD storage w/enough space that it would take me years to fill it with digital photos (I take a lot of pictures, I have a couple digital cameras and a son who's about 3 1/2 years old).

I think I want to get back into working in the computer field, and working with Linux on a daily basis is prob. a good idea in that case.

My friend has had Linux on his personal fileserver/webserver/Internet gateway firewall system down in the basement for years - I don't think he'd consider even for a moment going back to a Windows OS, though one guy had almost convinced him to switch to a BSD OS for a while, but I think he's decided on sticking with Linux now, since there was some hardware raid card driver issue or such.
 
I have to say, if all you are going to do is use that computer as a file serve then i suggest Centos. much more advanced then Ubuntu. I recently switched my file server from centos to Ubuntu and i am regretting it. Mostly because the tools in Centos are much more powerful then Ubuntu's.

To be honest i don't know if you should switch your file server over to Linux, since it does require some editing .txt files for optimal security and performance, but if you want the most advanced and secure server that will run forever(a little exaggeration) then I suggest Centos 5.
 
gibber, thanks for the info. good post!

sc3252, i will also be downloading from this pc as well and will be unraring and such. thats why i wanna upgrade it to a core2duo as well to make it faster to do so.

another quick question, if linux is installed on the primary partition, will it be able to read data off of other drives and partitions that ntfs?

i wont be doign this right away. maybe in a month or two so ill look into and make sure im ready for it :D
 
Time to play devil's advocate :eek:

gibber said:
I been using Windows for years and years, got a bunch of puters with XP, XP 64, one laptop with Vista H.P. (because it came with it) but as soon as I saw retail price of Vista "Ultimate" that was the last straw that pushed me to switch to Linux; on my "main" desktop PC no less!
Click to expand...

If you owned Vista HP and didn't need Vista Ultimate why would the price of it bother you? Also, the price of Vista HP (for system builders) is the exactly same as the retail price of the commercial versions of Mandriva, Xandros, RHEL, and SLED 10 ($99).

Some games won't run, but for every game that wouldn't work I got 10 more free w/the Linux distro.
Click to expand...

Eh? So if I can't play BF2 I get 10 free versions of Linux BF2?

I'd tried Linux prob. a dozen times in the past, never put it on my "main" PC before, always just checked it out on some old "extra" PC I'd had laying around. This is the first time that I felt like I'd really be satisfied with Linux as my main OS replacing Windows.
Click to expand...

What was different this time?

Some of the reasons why I wanted to switch: I HATE HATE HATE Microsoft's licensing - paticularly since they started doing "Activation" I don't want to have to call and type in all those numbers every time I have to re-install the OS
Click to expand...

You have to "activate" commercial versions of Linux as well, in a very similar if not exactly the same manner (SLED 10?)

I worked at a PC Tech and sometimes I spent ALL DAY on the phone because the Windows XP that I just did a fresh re-install of for a customer wouldn't "activate" over the Internet even though it was on the SAME PC that it had just been running on, and had been installed on originally.
Click to expand...

All day doing what? The system is totally automated. Takes 2 minutes if you have your installation ID ready. The only invasive question you have to answer is "Is this the only PC you have this copy of Windows installed on?"

But, bigger reasons to switch are: that Linux has come a long way with: driver support that might be even better than Vista?
Click to expand...

Better hardware support than Vista is just absurd. There are dozens of vendors who still either don't bother to write Linux drivers or will not release sufficient hardware specs to the open source community for them to write drivers themselves. X-Fi? J-Micron? Broadcom wireless?

LOTS of FREE applications
Click to expand...

Also very true of Windows www.download.com ;)

less spyware, less computer virus problems, a nice selection of desktop environments, excellent security, good performance, FAR less of a memory hog than Vista
Click to expand...

All spot on except for "good performance." My Windows installation boots, shuts down, encodes/transcodes DVD faster, and gets better framerates than my Kubuntu installation. The only area in which I notice better performance in Linux is transferring to and from USB volumes (go figure).

Linux seems like the natural choice for a server. Here's one good reason: with Linux on your new server, you're free to use your licensed copy of XP on another system,
Click to expand...

True.

or give it to a friend who's building a PC and doesn't own a copy of Windows?
Click to expand...

Nay, that would be illegal.

Of course you'll have to learn some, but it seems like you might be interested in learning this stuff anyway. If I could afford it now I would buy 4 - 5 Seagate HDs and put them in a software RAID on a Linux server. I'd love the feeling of knowing that I had reliable HD storage w/enough space that it would take me years to fill it with digital photos (I take a lot of pictures, I have a couple digital cameras and a son who's about 3 1/2 years old).
Click to expand...

I see your point but I'm sorry that you believe that fake-RAID with consumer drives is reliable.

Like I said, just playing Devil's advocate. I like Linux, and I like Windows, and I use both. But I don't delude myself on the pros and cons of either. ;)
 
ScYcS said:
I call BS. For someone who has no experience with Linux and experience with Windows, Windows Admin is far easier.
Click to expand...

I myself prefer linux (using both and experience with both), both have their pluses and minuses, but ultimately it depends on your experience.
 
ScYcS said:
Honest Question:
Why would you bother? I'd stick with XP if everything you need works.
Click to expand...

Why not? I always want to learn something new. Linux is way more efficient and easier to deal with, that is when you get it working right.
 
You can do everything in linux that you can do in windows (except crash as much), although the big downside is that there is a large learning curve. Hopefully you have a friend somewhere around that can help you when you get stuck (aside from these forums). Personally, I am all about not giving Microsoft any of my money unless I absolutely have too.

It will be hard at first (even with Ubuntu), but if you stick it out you will never look back.
 
man most of the previous post i had in this thread seems be good with the database issue i assume ..

anyhow .. just wanna say thanks to all those that have helped .. been running ubuntu for the past couple of weeks and its been running great! had to fiddle around with the ATI drivers for a bit to get ti to work with compiz-fusion but so far so good. i love it ..

i even installed ubuntu on my dell laptop that i use sometimes the other day as well lol :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top