Posts from What do you think about Linux systems?

What's this all of a sudden? oO

A kind old tech wizard said that a long time ago, when I was young and foolish. And he was fixing my brother's computer, not mine.

A kind old tech wizard said that a long time ago, when I was young and naive. And he was fixing my brother's computer, not mine.

Was Linux really around before Windows? Although there were other Unix-like systems back then... I don't know for sure.

Wasn't Linux around before Windows? Although there were other Unix-like systems... I don't know, anyway.

If I'm not mistaken, the chronology is roughly as follows:
Unix was already a quite serious operating system back in the early 70s (around 72-73).
The first prototype of Linux was created by Torvalds in 91.

The first widely distributed version of Windows (3.1) appeared in 92.

And the Windows that we more or less used was 95 - it already resembled Windows. BUT! In 95, many distributions had already been created - Linux was developed at that time to such an extent that Windows couldn't even dream of it.

Yes, I've also heard that many things for Windows were taken from Linux. But this is not prohibited - you understand the GNU license;)

By the way, the entire power of control in Linux is the bash console (although there are other shells) - the Windows console is a terrible mess compared to it. Only recently did Microsoft release something similar to this shell - PowerShell, but it has been in Linux since its inception.

Here is a small excursion into history;)

But I'm quite happy with Windows, it's more convenient.

Well, it depends on what you mean, I don't think Windows can compare to Linux in terms of convenience. It's just that when you feel the full power of the machine in your hands, when you realize that you are the master of the machine, and not some program... it's a very interesting feeling...

I'm actually thinking that if I have nothing to do this summer, I might organize all my files onto disks (my hard drive is only 80 GB, and it's the oldest part of my computer), and completely wipe this Windows installation. I'll try to figure out Linux. If it offers at least as many possibilities as Windows, then why not? But it seems like you need a lot of theoretical knowledge to manage everything... And that's probably the main reason for Linux's lack of popularity.

Well, it's hard to say; in terms of convenience, I don't think Windows can compare to Linux. But when you feel the full power of the machine in your hands, when you realize that you are the master of the machine, and not some program... it's a very interesting feeling...

Maybe, but I don't really "possess" the ability to use it, I admit. So, I'll just be that "program," or stick with that program. Another downside is that Unix has a completely different multimedia kernel; games and programs won't run on it. I don't remember what the file extension is for it; Windows uses "exe," but... I don't know.

Yes, indeed, I've also heard that many things for Windows were taken from Linux. But it's not forbidden – you understand the GNU license.

Of course, Unix didn't ask Windows, "Hey, you stole from us," and so on.

Perhaps, but I'm not very good at using it, I admit. So, I'll stick to that "program" or just stay on that program. Another downside is that Unix has a completely different multimedia kernel; games and programs won't run on it. I don't remember what the file extension is for it; Windows uses "exe," but... I don't know.

I didn't quite understand the first sentence. The file extension for executable files in Linux, if I'm not mistaken, is "run," although I might be wrong.

I didn't quite understand the first sentence. If I'm not mistaken, the extension for executable files in Linux is .run, although I might be wrong.

))) This is what m$ does to people:smile52:

In Linux, there are no extensions as such. Not at all.
Because they are not needed. There are simply file types, and Linux correctly identifies most of them. Files in Linux can have absolutely any name, and the dot in their names does not carry any information about the files themselves. Files can be named however you like (except for /, \, ?, <, >, *, \, because these are special characters). For example,
image.squashfs - Windows will understand squashfs as an extension and will not be able to do anything with it. The only thing is that spaces in file names are not welcome in Linux, because it is inconvenient to access them, but not for the system, but for you. There is simply an unspoken rule in these systems to give files understandable names.

Extensions are needed by Windows to match a specific program to process a specific file (this is called association). I hope everyone has seen what happens in Windows when you try to open files without extensions, with the wrong extension, or you simply don't have an application to process it in the system - it asks you to specify what to open it with. Try experimenting - for example, with text files - assign the extension txt - Windows will open it with Notepad. Then change the extension to doc - and Windows will open it with Word. Or, for example, a CD image file iso - change the extension to rar - and you can open it with WinRAR and see its contents, change the extension to mdf - and you will open it with Alcohol, if it is installed on your system.

Added after 12 minutes

Another downside is that Unix has a completely different multimedia kernel, so games and programs will not run on it.

I didn't understand what was meant by "different multimedia kernel" (and what it is at all), but other programs for Linux will work - as a rule, they are free, faster, and not as large. As for games, I already wrote about it.

Windows needs extensions to associate specific file types with the appropriate program for processing (this is known as file association).

That makes sense for Windows, but how does Linux recognize files? Let's say a regular text file opens with a default editor (I don't know which one). I want to install a different editor. How do I make the system recognize that specific text files should be opened with the editor I want, instead of the default one?

However, different programs for Linux will work – usually free, faster, and less bulky.

Isn't there an emulator for Windows programs? I think .exe files can be run in Linux...

For Windows, it's clear, but how does Linux recognize files?

by analyzing the content; there's even a special utility called "file," which is a standard shell utility in any Linux distribution. It identifies file types.

Let's say a regular text file opens with an editor (I don't know which one), and I want to use a different editor. How do I make the system recognize that specific text files should be opened with the editor I want, instead of the default one?

You're obviously referring to how to do this in a GUI, because in the console, there's no "default" – to open/run a file, you have to "tell" the system how and with what to do it. But in a graphical environment, you need to look in the settings and configure it, but there are many graphical environments, and it's different everywhere. Most often, you need to refer to the documentation if you can't find these settings by trial and error.

Isn't there an emulator for Windows programs? I think you can run .exe files in Linux...

There are emulators, but why reinvent the wheel when most applications are available for Linux, and emulators and virtual machines are probably only needed for games written for Windows. An .exe file is an executable file; in Linux, these files are also recognized as executable files that are processed by the kernel. But in applications, in addition to the executable files themselves, there are many other files necessary for the program to work. The problem is that programs written for Windows use Windows system libraries and functions and therefore don't work under Linux.

fellow forum members, I see that, to put it mildly, not many of you are interested in this topic. But just in case, I'll tell you something.

Your favorite game, Heroes of Might and Magic, will work under Linux - this has been proven through personal experience, and there are reasons to believe that any version of Heroes of Might and Magic will work. To be honest, I haven't tested all versions, but the third and fourth installments run smoothly on my system - without any tricks :). There should be absolutely no other problems when using this wonderful OS - you can do the same things as under Windows - surf the internet, listen to music, watch movies, work with email, communicate via ICQ, Agent, Jabber - whatever else, use office applications... basically anything... even controlling an orbital space station, if the need arises :smile52:. Moreover, all of this can be more convenient, more beautiful, more reliable, and faster - in short, however you want it, and not just a handful of programmers and marketers from Redmond :smile04:.
So, this is to say that if anyone has the idea that it might be worth trying, you can contact me for help in any way possible (whether it's a private message, email, ICQ, or a post in this thread) if you have any questions. I will try to help as much as I can.

And a few words about what you will gain by using Linux.
You will stop worrying about viruses, Trojans, worms, antivirus software, and their updates.
You will discover a vast amount of software that is regularly updated and supported, and is completely free and open-source - with such capabilities that Windows analogs can't even compare.
You will forget about using pirated software in most cases - let's be honest, if you've ever even thought about it :smile52::smile52:.
You will stop worrying about why your computer is "somehow" running slowly or not working as it should - because everything will be transparent and open, and everything can be fixed.
You will receive support from a huge open-source community - hundreds of thousands of people around the world who are ready to help and answer your questions.
And one more, not insignificant, plus - your network running under Linux will work noticeably better, whether it's a connection to the internet or a home network, because this OS was born in the network - it's its native environment, and the network under its control works much better than the mysteriously working Winsock. Proof - it's not for nothing that the servers of most websites you visit daily/nightly run under *nix systems :). Ask any administrator who knows a thing or two what he has on his server, and it won't be Windows - he'll just roll his eyes and ask if you've fallen from a tree :smile52:.

Look around - see what you can lose, except for your antivirus :D, glitches, and misunderstandings in the operation of your machine. Maybe it's worth trying?
Of course, there is one "but" - you will have to read a little at first if you are really going to live and work in these systems, but you can also do without it - there are different distributions. Besides, remember - the skills of using and working under Windows didn't come to you with the third click of the mouse :D. And if you like it, I assure you that after a couple of months of use, you will remember life under Windows as a terrible dream.
This will be especially useful for those who are somehow connected with information technology, believe me.

P.S. Just a big request, gentlemen, if you feel the urge to respond to this post, do so without mockery, spam, flame, etc. - strictly on topic.
I am not judging or forcing anyone - understand this as a small propaganda campaign :smile33:. The main point of this post is an attempt to offer my help on this topic if any of the forum members need it.

and a few words about what you will gain by using Linux.
You will stop worrying about viruses, Trojans, worms, and antivirus software and its updates.

Are all viruses only capable of corrupting Windows files? Why can't they do the same to Linux?

I'm happy with my XP. However, if Linux makes my computer run a little faster and without those terrible lags, why not give it a try?

Are all viruses only capable of eating Windows files? Why can't they mess up Linux in the exact same way?

A couple of facts stolen from Wiki:

Openness and cross-platform compatibility define operating systems based on the Linux kernel as unsuitable for the large-scale activity of malicious software codes.

A very large number of viruses and destructive programs have been created for Microsoft Windows (their number is in the hundreds of thousands). Special software—antiviruses—is used to combat them. There are different types of viruses: from relatively harmless ones that cause no particular harm to the user, to destructive ones that change system settings or destroy user or system files.

In Linux (as in all other UNIX-like systems), there has always been a clear separation of user rights. There is only one system administrator account ("superuser")—root. This user can perform unrestricted actions on the system: change settings, install and remove programs, modify system files, stop the operation of the system or its individual components. And there are regular user accounts: they can only change personal settings (appearance, program settings) and perform file operations only within their home directory (or in other directories if root permits). Programs can only be installed in one's own home directory or in directories where the user has write permission.

IMHO, a very good argument in favor of Linux:)

Are all viruses only capable of corrupting Windows files? Why can't they do the same to Linux?

And that's precisely why they can't – read Vikhry's post. Firstly, it's due to the clear separation of access rights. Because in Linux, no program can control the machine independently and secretly from the user; this system won't do ANYTHING until you tell it what to do.
But in Windows, any program can launch itself with system privileges – and nothing will stop it, because there's nothing to stop it – how can the system prevent itself?:D. That's how it happens that 3 scripts in VB, with a total size of one hundred lines of code, and one binary file of a few kilobytes can consume hundreds of megabytes of RAM and gigabytes of hard drive space, change several dozen (or even hundreds) of registry parameters (as is well known, this is one of the most important "parts" of Windows) – from harmless to critical – this is how the well-known and terribly annoying Brontok worm (also known by other names) works. And I recently saw the code for these scripts – it's just funny, to be honest.

Is it the same in Ubuntu? It looks and functions so similarly to Windows.