The only time you really HAVE to reboot a linux box is to load a new kernel. I have noticed on the Ubuntu beta that they suggest a reboot for things other than just Kernel upgrades, but I think that is because it is easier to tell a user unfamiliar with linux to reboot the machine than to explain how to restart a group of services from the command line (not that it's hard, just different). I believe they are trying to make desktop administration more familiar to people migrating from a Windows world.

Steve_Harris wrote:

h/w support sucks

Steve_Harris wrote:

Linux simply isn't ready for the desktop.

What needs to be done to change public perspective on these issues? Linux supports more hardware out of the box than any other OS I have ever used. I can't even get windows to load a driver for the integrated nic on my 5 year old motherboard out of the box. Most default windows installs have required me to spend a good hour or so tracking down 3rd party drivers to get all of my hardware working. I can't remember the last time I had a linux install not properly detect a piece of hardware and load a driver. I understand that some people have had difficulty getting some wireless chipsets supported, but thanks to ndiswrapper you go through almost the exact same procedure to set that up as you do on Windows (ie: same driver). I firmly believe that recent linux distros like FC6 and Ubuntu 6.10 are ready for prime time. I'm not sure what it is that makes you think that linux isn't ready for YOUR desktop, but it certainly is ready for mine. I would have no qualms about putting Ubuntu on a system for my grandmother. It is fast, easy to use, stable (not that Windows isn't), and unaffected by 99% of the malware floating around on the internet. All of that means less headaches for me. It has been my experience that people are very polarized in the Windows vs Linux debate, but the arguments for and against each really don't apply anymore. In my experience Windows (2000 and up) is very stable. The only crashes I have had have been hardware related. On the other side of the argument linux has made great strides forward in the usability department. Nearly every bit of administration you want to do on a recent linux desktop can be done through a GUI. Naturally the command line is more efficient if you feel comfortable using it, but there are GUI's for just about everything. I'm not trying to start a Windows vs Linux debate. I really don't have anything bad to say about Microsoft, they make a fine product. I prefer linux because it makes me more productive in every aspect of my job.

I purchased my first handgun about a year ago strictly for hobby/range shooting. I was in a similar situation as you describe not knowing much about firearms so I wanted something inexpensive with plans to upgrade down the road if I took to the hobby. I ended up buying a new HiPoint C9 (9mm) for about $100 at a local gun store. For some reason HiPoint has a bad reputation, I think it is due to them being so inexpensive, but they come with a lifetime warranty and so far with about 2,000 rounds through the gun I have been impressed.

What about a company like RedHat? To the best of my knowledge they do not have any closed source products, yet they pay their employees (quite well according to an old college friend of mine that works there) and continue to make money. I don't disagree with you about paying developers. I am a professional developer from 9-5, but I also am constantly working on small additions to whatever open source project happens to grab my attention this week. I do the first job to survive. I do the second because it is fun to take a large project and add that one feature that you think it's missing.

I have never been able to get that library to build. Is there a newer version available then the one on CP?

As you are alluding to, a much more interesting statistic would be the number of man hours spent on Linux development per week as compared to Vista. It's too bad there is no way to get such a statistic with any degree of accuracy.

Gottcha. I read the topic and skipped over the desktops part. Sorry to have taken a critical tone in my response. I think that there is a common misconception as to what exactly Linux is, and I am generally quick to try to correct that misconception by pointing out that Linux is just a kernel. Everything else is just software built on top of it. Richard Stallman (GNU) doesn't get the credit he deserves :)

The way you described it is probably more accurate. I guess what I meant was that if I were to write a device driver to control a robot I was building then I would not be legally required to submit the source code for that to the kernel until I chose to distribute my derived work publicly. My only experience with kernel development has been as a paid contractor so my comment, incorrectly, was based only from that viewpoint. Thanks for the correction.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but what do GTK, KDE, GIMP, OO, Beagle, GConf, etc have to do with the Linux kernel? The original question is a tough one to get accurate metrics on. Technically anyone who has had code accepted into the mainline kernel tree is a "developer of the Linux Kernel" myself included. However most of us "kernel developers" would be the first to admit that we shouldn't really be included in those metrics due to our very limited contributions. I have had 3 device drivers accepted into the mainline kernel. Every one of them was for a custom, 1 of 1, high speed DAQ developed for a customer. I am the only person that will ever get any use out of the kernel modules I submitted into the kernel tree, but legally if you get paid to write code that links against the Linux kernel you are obligated to submit it for inclusion in the kernel. The benefits for doing so are great. When the next major update to the device subsystem breaks compatibility with the current kernel api, those nice guys (and gals) over at kernel.org will update my drivers for me to ensure that when someone downloads the new kernel source all of the modules compile. I know I went off on a bit of a tangent, but I wanted to illustrate my point that literally speaking there are probably thousands of kernel developers, but in reality probably fewer than 100 that are truly active in its day to day development.

If the code is written properly in the first place then it will be secure regardless of whether it is open or closed source. Relying on security through obscurity is a very dangerous position to be in. It's not the bugs that security experts find in open source software and report that people should be worried about. Those sorts of bugs get patched within days (sometimes hours) of being discovered. The dangerous bugs are the ones that someone stumbles upon in a closed source application and chooses to keep to themselves in order to exploit for some type of gain. These bugs may provide an entry point to the system for years to come and no one would ever be the wiser.

Not to start a flame war, but is there a compelling reason to run Windows Server 2003 instead of Linux on the box? Setting up a LAMP[^] server in Linux is about as trivial as can be and it doesn't cost a dime.

I read a review of the 770 in a Linux oriented magazine recently (can't remember which one off the top of my head). The review was mostly negative which struck me as odd since the 770 runs a custom Linux distribution. Generally the Linux magazines are very heavily biased toward Linux based devices and to see that they gave the 770 such a poor review would cause me concern if I was in the market for one. I'll try to dig up the magazine article this evening for you.

http://www.real.com/linux

I use AnkhSVN to add SVN integration to VS2005 and it has worked very well for me. I never took the time to learn the full set of SVN commands so using Tortise and AnkhSVN have worked out great for me.

That is just too darn cool.

I don't think too many people that frequent these message boards are simply "Office users" as you so eloquently put it.

Debian is a fantastic distro, but it's not for the faint of heart. I've been a Linux user for years (I have no choice at work) and I still run into problems configuring my debian server. Ubuntu is a distro based on the debian sources, but it is much more user friendly. It has the same text based installer as Debian, it also shares the same package management system (apt), but the configuration seems to be much easier. An interesting note about Ubuntu is that the root account comes disabled out of the box. By default all configuration is done via the sudo command as a regular user. Mandriva is a distribution that seems to be geared to the linux beginner. It's a little too "pretty" for me out of the box, but they have a configuration center (the name escapes me) that is extremely straight forward. I haven't used Mandriva/Mandrake for some time now, so I can't say what their default package management system is, but I assume they still use RPM's. Mandrake is a good installable linux distro for someone that wants to learn a bit about linux without having to configure everything by hand. SUSE is a distro that is somewhat similar to Windows in that they hide a lot of configuration options from the users. SUSE is known for usually working out of the box, but is not intended to be very configurable. SUSE is a good distro for beginners. Fedora is workstation distro funded by RedHat. This is a very complete distribution. It is relatively easy to configure and use. Fedora has a very large user base so it is easy to find help on the web when you run into problems. They use yum as a package management system and, while not quite being up the the level of apt, it is a very good system. The installer is completely graphical which makes installation a breeze. I use a combination of Linux and Windows every day. One is not necessarily better than the other in my opinion. They both have their strengths and weaknesses. I generally just use the best tool for the job. At work, much of the software I write needs to run on Windows/Unix/Linux so I have no choice but to use all three. I still use Windows for my day to day things like email and office documents, and I don't see this changing anytime in the near future. I much prefer Visual Studio over any development tools available on Linux/Unix, but I must admit that KDevelop is a very nice IDE if you have to use it. I am not a "hard core" Linux proponent, but I also realize that it's not going to go away. Linux certainly has a strong foothold in

I like it because it has the best features of Debian (apt, etc.) with a much more up to date package set.

There are calculators all over the place on the web. Most of them only take into account your height/weight/age, but this one seems to look at your daily activities as well. I just found it with a google search, I'm sure there are better ones out there. http://www.diyglobalsolutions.com/bmr\_bmi.htm

Try counting the calories you are eating for a few days. It sounds like you may not be eating enough. You should never try to cut more than 500 or so calories off of what your bodies maintenance calorie requirement is. Cutting too many calories will almost ensure that our body burns healthy muscle instead of fat for an energy source. Our bodies were built with preservation as the number one goal, so if it notices that you have severely limited the number of calories you are feeding it your body will do everything it can to ensure that your fat stores are the last to go. This leads to a decrease in lean muscle mass which in turn leads to a lower metabolism which has the nasty habit of causing you to actually gain weight once you start eating normally again.