Group Policy: Windows vs Linux
location: linuxquestions.com - date: August 11, 2010
Background info: I'm soon to be making a jump from doing mostly desktop admin (mostly "on the side") to being hired to plan, build and be sysadmin to a small company network for my friend's business (for whom I've been doing work for hire on his websites for a while now). I'll be learning much as I go along (he's well aware of this): I've dabbled somewhat with Ubuntu server on my own but I've never implemented networking more complex than an average home network (router, cable modem, switch for upstairs, Windows networking and DHCP).
We expect to have 6-20 workstations (the 20 being what we expect to grow to), an internal SAN and some other miscellaneous boxes for special functions. The general attitude between us is a preference for *nix servers and a decision will have to be made whether to go with Win 7 or OS X Macs for the desktops (my bias is towards Windows but I ought to give it a fair comparison.) For both security and my sanity, I'm pretty sure we're going to n
openSUSE or Linux Mint?
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: July 21, 2011
I've been messing around with ubuntu for a while now and I've decided I want to give another distro a try. This is partially because my system is so cluttered that I'm tempted to reinstall ubuntu, so I figure if I'm doing that I might as well get some more experience with linux all around and just install a different one instead
I understand that mint is very much like ubuntu, but I do like some things about it - particularly gnome 2 instead of unity. I virtualbox'd it and it also seemed smoother and a little more polished than ubuntu, but I stress that I am by no means an expert.
I have also recently heard of openSUSE. I don't know much about it, but KDE looks interesting and I've heard openSUSE is a little more for experienced users than ubuntu, which I like, because I'm really trying to learn about linux.
I'm open to other possibilities as well, really just taking recommendations here to try some other stuff out and get some linux experience. I tried installing arch to a vi
Ubuntu 9.10 or Super OS or Linux Mint
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: April 7, 2010
I've already installed the Ubuntu 9.10 and, in the process of trying to learn more about the "How to's" of using it, I came across some other versions that created questions.
Another version is called the "Super OS" (hacktolive.org/wiki/Super_OS) that is, supposedly ver. 9.10 with lots of improvements/updates.
Another one, with a comparison to ver 9.10, is Linux Mint. (linuxbsdos.com/2010/01/16/linux-mint-8-vs-ubuntu-9-10/)
Is Super OS that much improved over the original ver 9.10?
Is Linux Mint really that much more "user friendly" but actually straying away from the Ubuntu that it is based on?
Since I am one that is not familiar with "writing" programs, and didn't start playing with computers really until Windough$ 95, would either of these be an easier to operate system than ver. 9.10?
If Super OS is much easier, since I've already done a dual boot, how easy would it be to maybe "upgrade" 9.10 to Super OS?
new to Linux, help with installing Pinguy OS
location: linuxquestions.com - date: December 5, 2011
I want to try a distro for people new to Linux, like Pinguy OS. What do I need to do? So far I backed up everything and defragged my comp. What's next?
Problem. I want to download Pinguy OS but the .iso is 1.6 GB and I only have a CD drive, with a blank CD waiting. =( Is there anything I can do, like try from USB? Or do I need to find a lighter distro?
My comp is old, I do have a large USB flash drive but I'm not sure it will work.
Booting from USB may not work on older comps, as is my understanding.
Windows vs Linux security after gaining administrative rights
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: May 16, 2011
There is a very common argument that Linux is more secure than Windows just because it is much less popular. An also very common response to that is that Linux actually is a much better target for attacks because it runs on most servers, and servers are a lot more tempting target than clients.
I personally think that when Linux is more secure in the scenario of a hacker who is determined to compromise a single system. It is also a lot more immune to worms (viruses that don't need a user to infect the system, like Blaster).
But - most of the malware in Windows infects the system when the user installs software that is infected with it. When we compare Windows 7 and Linux, both (apparently) react the same way to installing software - a user is asked to give an administrative access to the system (UAC or sudo). And here comes the part that I'm interested in - are there any additional security layers in Linux that make it more immune to malware after this stage, or does it become as
Ubuntu Server vs Windows SBS 2003 Help Me Get Back To Ubuntu
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: December 17, 2009
Hi, after trying Ubuntu Desktop for 5 months. Plus, another 3 months using Ubuntu Server. I've switched back to Windows Small Business Server 2003.
Here's my story. We have a small construction firm and no IT staff with 20 computers (Windows XP & Ubuntu JJ) & 1 Server. We bought a wonderful package for small businesses, Windows Small Business Server (SBS) 2003. I set it up and it was great. Namely: Active Directory, File Services, Print Services, Domain Group Policies were so user-friendly, all in 1 GUI. Except ISA Server, which I didn't know how to configure.
My frustration came when the server was attacked by a virus because I inserted a USB device, my mind was flying at that moment. Then AD users were not authenticated, group policies were erased, printers crashed, usual horrible stuff.
Now, I tried Ubuntu Server. I studied about basic SAMBA, LTSP, NFS, FTP, Squid, and other necessary tools to "COPY" our previous environment. It worked great until I forgot
LXer: Windows vs. Linux vs. OS X: CIO John Halamka Tests Ubuntu
location: linuxquestions.com - date: July 31, 2007
Published at LXer:
Last summer, CareGroup CIO John Halamka began looking for a viable alternative to the Microsoft Windows desktop operating system. After 16 years using Windows, he had enough of its instability and the countless updates that automatically installed themselves on his computer—often at inopportune times, like when he was in the middle of a presentation. As CIO of a health-care organization and affiliated medical school with 40,000 employees and 9 million patient records, Halamka has to be sure that the computers in the hospital, its administrative offices and medical school are secure, stable and easy to use.
Linux/x86 or Linux/x64
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: October 1, 2008
As I type this, I am running Ubuntu on an AMD Turion 64 X2 Dell Vostro 1000 laptop. Now, I wanted to download BOINC for this computer, and it comes in Linux/x86 and Linux/x64 versions. Now I'm thinking, 'obviously, I should get the x64 version, because I have a 64-bit microprocessor.' But then again, when I requested my free CD from Ubuntu, I thought I would be running it on a Pentium microprocessor. And yet, whatever I got, it seems to work fine on this. Do the free CDs determine cater for both versions, or is there something about Ubuntu which just works either way? Or did I select x64 somehow? Or am I just confusing myself and the whole x64\x86 thing has nothing to do with microprocessors?
In a nutshell, do I download the x86 version or the x64 version?
Ubuntu, the Windows of Linux. Page 2
location: linuxquestions.com - date: August 28, 2011
Like stated above by others, the reason why Ubuntu is a bad distro is because it's goal is to mimic Window$ as best it can. The only problems being:
1) People who are looking to use Linux often do so because they hate Window$ or because they want something better or different.
2) They make Ubuntu so much like Window$ that it inherits its default insecurities and faults like user permissions system, lots of popups for updates, lots of packages that break the system, etc.
3) They put all the experimental software they can find into Ubuntu. It may be even more bleeding edge than Fedora, I mean with unity and everything. This often leads to instability and crashes, and turns would-be Linux users away.
4) As user friendly as it is, there are alternative distros that are better and more stable. So why would anyone use Ubuntu ? Probably because it is the first distro they ever hear about, and also maybe the last. How many people have posted here saying they are using Linux 11.04 or someth
CrossOver for Windows > Linux
location: linuxquestions.com - date: May 24, 2013
I really want to get into using Ubuntu full time now, however of course the applications that are exclusive to Microsoft make me keep Windows. I recently found CrossOver, can anybody comment on its practicality? I'm just sick of Wine's buggy issues when trying to deal with Word etc so I'm looking into proprietary software.
If anybody knows of any other applications that are similar or better to CrossOver, please throw some names at me!
I mainly run Office products, Counter-Strike/Steam/BF3. Other than that I'm good to go for a linux turn over.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10