Agreed Agreed, Actually, even 128 bit is strong.

You need to understand that you are comparing key sizes for two different types of encryption--symmetric and asymmetric (also known as public-key encryption). Currently, 128-bits is considered "secure enough" for symmetric encryption schemes, such as IDEA and CAST. However, 256 bits is preferable for symmetric schemes--AES supports keysizes up to 256 bits. It's called symmetric because the same key is used for decryption and encryption. Why is it used? It's quick. Much quicker than public-key cryptosystems.

Public key encryption (RSA, Diffie-Hellman), on the other hand, is a whole different ballpark. 512 bits is not considered that strong of a public keysize. Correct my arithmetic if I'm wrong, but I believe 512 bits is something on the order of 154 digits. In fact, just recently, RSA-512, a sample 512-bit RSA key, was factored by a group of researchers... 1024 bits is more like it, and if you're feeling bored, 4096 bits (it takes a lot longer to generate the key).

No, 128 secret key encryption is fairly strong, depending on the cryptographic cypher being used.

512 bit secret key encryption would be really strong.

But secret key encryption wouldn't work for this, because it could be hacked, as the secret key would be embedded in the O/S. It would have to be public key encryption, and Microsoft would probably use a 2048+ bit key for it.
[edit] Yeah, that's correct, zeta. [/edit]

That said, some where in the OS is a variable that is set to false until you have activated you product. The hack would only have to change that. That said. if the code itself was encrypted, which I am not sure is possible, you could if_def the crap out of it (or something equivalnt to that) and that would make it more difficult.

First I was really, really tired when I wrote that last post. Hence the rambling. Anyway I was getting my information from the link below. But never fear I will do what I should have done before and refrence the propler material before the end of this post.

Has anyone read ALL of this? I have.

http://www.againsttcpa.com/tcpa-faq-en.html

And this

I cant seem to find the bit depth for the encryption they said they were using, I really though it was in that article, but it must have been in another. I will find it, and I will be posting it here

http://forums.winamp.com/showthread....hreadid=125331

Sorry, I know this post is off topic, but since you guys broke out on me like that, I felt I had no choice.

I'd like to see how they would pull that off, considering the O/S maintains process control, not the CPU...

You could just make it so that the processor itself checks the signature on the code that it runs--and make it refuse to run the code if it's unsigned or the signature is incorrect. Because it would be done in hardware, cracking it would be made much more difficult.

on the other hand, once it was cracked, it could not be effectively updated (anything that could be updated could be user-updated, effectively making it software).

Yeah, but the processor doesn't see all the code at once. So what, you'd have a 2048-bit key for each 128K of instructions? That would mean you could only run 5 processes at a time if the CPU had 512 K of cache.

Plus, how would you deal with the fact that data and instrutions are basically the same thing to a CPU?

First off I cannot even see how the fact that linux is 'overall' better than windows can be made in to a debate. For me, linux is hands down better (in my opinion) as both a server and a desktop OS. People who say linux is in its infancy or that it is not ready for the desktop have definately not spent enough time with it and are completely ignorant of where linux stands as an OS.

I used to use Windows...all varieties...over the past 8 years including good ole msdos back in the day. And I was using windows xp up until about 5 months ago. Then I switched to gentoo linux...how beautiful. From what I've seen linux does almost everything better than windows. I still switch back into xp now and then to do work for class and am always flabbergasted as to how I put up with it for so many years. Not only is it ugly, but it is slow and unstable. I cannot run xp under a heavy load for more than 2 hours without a crash. I have been running linux for one month straight without a reboot or crash and am sure it could go a LOT longer. Unfortunately I have to boot back into xp tonight to run maple. :(

As far as foghorn, I have not used it. But, I have heard enough about it to make me not want to use it. Woohoo...a new filesystem[sarcasm]...I can choose between several filesystems in linux and even mount windows fat32 and ntfs filesystems. And from what I hear foghorn is going to be big and bulky and all-in-one...and like xp, probably won't let you change/uninstall most components.

OMG don't get me started with IE either. Mozilla is a MUCH MUCH better all-around browser/email-client/etc. And then you also have opera and firebird depending on your tastes which I find are ALL better than IE in terms of usability, functionality, security, etc. IE has some serious layering problems and is void of all standards as far as javascript, html, etc etc etc. I'm not even going to get into IE's horrible security issues or how _when_ it crashes it can take out the whole OS.

Now back to linux as a desktop OS. As I said I have been using it for months now. I do everything that I did in windows with it...programming, cd burning, video/audio encoding, web browsing, 3d modeling/image editing, building my website, etc. Now that I have gotten used to it I find it easier to use than windows (once it is set up) and have never had to worry about spyware, virii, crashes, or annoying popup ads. Everything that I dislike about computers/internet when using windows has gone away with linux. People who claim linux is not yet ready for the desktop have not given it a try AS A DESKTOP OS. So much cleaner, so much more secure, a hell of a lot faster, just as easy(if not easier) to use as xp...and with redhat or mandrake installation is about as simple as windows.

I am not really anti-microsoft so I am not writing this in bias. I am also not a fullfledged geek so hacking a kernel or programming for gtk is still way beyond my knowledge.

Oh and one more thing. The linux/'open source' community is the best in the world. Any time I have problems, I hit the gentoo forum and always get an answer within a few hours. If I have a problem with XP???...call tech support, be put on hold for an hour, talk to some tech support guy who is straight out of high school and doesn't know a thing about operating systems beyond changing the theme/colors in windows, and never get the answer I was looking for in the first place.

I'm going to stop now as this is getting long. Bottom line: Don't diss linux or praise windows until you have tried alternatives (day-to-day use...not just installing it and deciding that it sucks because it is 'different').

Upsurd note, not having anything to do with current discussion, but instead addresses the title head-on:

Why the fuck is this in Breaking News? It's old fucking hat.

Everybody knows Windows rules, for the most common reason: compatability. If I have a Linux machine, I have to make sure my sound card, video card, modem, etc are Linux compatable. Not only hardware, but software as well. When they start making games and graphic software Linux compatable across the board, I'll consider buying one. Even then there's the hardware. It's a lot to ask.

Linux might be better, but for now, it's the underdog on almost every front except bloat; Windows is becoming insanely bloated with shit I'll never use, I could probably remove it, but I'd have to enter a secret code and jump through flaming hoops with ripe bananas taped to my groin to actually remove half of them. Or I just stopped caring. Either way, meh.

Where there's a will, there's a way. No one says the CPU has to physically contain the stuff to do code signature verification/checking. It could be contained on a separate chip that can do incremental signature checking or something--just like nowdays the Northbridge and Southbridge of a motherboard do various important things.

Of course, that opens a whole new can of worms...

it's neither slow, nor unstable here. on a 2 year-old computer. you most likely have some form of driver problem, which can happen on linux just as easily, trust me. windows, like linux, needs to be upgraded to the newest version to run optimally.

this post is intended to be helpful, rather than for debate.

blaksaga, your reply sounds just like my experience with Windoze/Gentoo/Mozilla, even down to the very words of your post. Are you really from Omaha, Nebraska? :)

quote:
Originally posted by blaksaga
I cannot run xp under a heavy load for more than 2 hours without a crash.

Yes. I agree with Zootm, you most definatly have another issue than the XP virus. It sounds like a (what I call) a hard-core hardware conflict, usually one where two pieces of hardware are DEMANDING the same resource. Now, I have run XP for two years, and I can count the number of times on ONE HAND that XP has FATALY crashed on me <-- Truth, and this is comin from a guy whos about to ditch windows for linux (in the next couple of years:))

Linux has a better design, by default. I always wondered why windows executed a program by converting to 16bit hex and back again, or whatever whatever (correct me xzxzzx), but the point is that linux is text based, hell yeah its faster.

Problem is. I'm a gamer. Sad, but its about all I use my computer for (A little e-mail n bullshit bullshit). And one of the things I DIDN'T hear you say blaksaga is that you run ALL THE LATEST games on your computer. Furthermore, the last time I installed mandrake 7, I couldnt get my software-based modem to install. Hell I cant PROGRAM my own driver, I barely know how to get a linux box up. And I take back my statement in my other post, I think I did get slackware up, but there was NO GUI. My friend had said you gotta install X. Hell I dont know command line stuff for linux.

You wanna make it to the desktop market, I want auto updates, no user inputed command line routines, click and go all the way. Hell when I ran windows 3.1 or 95, I could literally look in the windows directory and tell you if a file was part of the operating system or if a program had installed it, whether it belonged there or not. now theres over 15,000 files in the XP OS, I cant fool with that. And by the same token I'm not tryin to leard how to write my own drivers for Linux, I wanna download and install THATS IT.

BTW I didn't mean to derail this thread (even though it should BE dead) with the TCPA thing. Also I couldnt find anything about the cypher strength in TCPA, musta been in my imagination:)

NOTE: THe following is not a flame. Please do not read it as so. I respect other's opinions and hearby offer my responses in a supposed-to-be non-offensive manner. :)

I don't have cheap/insufficient hardware...Athlon XP 1900+, 512mb DDR, 9600 RPM IBM harddrive, GeForce 4 mx440, etc etc. If I do in fact have a hardware conflict causing problems this would be a windows kernel problem.

The real problem is that the windows kernel is not built to handle a huge load. It is built for average users who just want one or two browser windows open and maybe winamp or something. I constantly burn cd's, play audio/video, ftp, compile source, install apps, etc etc sometimes all at the same time. It's funny that I can do all of this in linux with no problems.

Ha, no you didn't hear me say that because it would have been a lie. You have a point here...but this point has become so repetitive. The reason why there is few games for linux is because of the small market share. As linux grows so will its collection of games. Enemy territory and quake 3 still kick a$$! :)

Actually most distros including slackware now install the X and the DE of your choice automatically. At least that's how it worked back when I played around with redhat...and I know mandrake and suse are the same.

As far as your hardware problem...I have not recently heard from anybody who could not use linux because of hw compatibility issues. Most hardware is supported now-a-days...even if you have to use a third party driver. (ie: gimp-print) Unless of course you have microsoft hardware. :(

Click and go is overrated. If you actually take the time to learn the command line, it becomes much faster than point and click at most tasks. And there is nothing that you can do with a gui in linux that you can't do with the command line.

However nowadays in linux there is guis to do most everything...so your point here is moot. You want gui's for everything, go download mandrake.

I had to boot to windows just a while ago. :( Hehe its amazing how crappily slow my fresh install of xp is even when just dragging windows around. Yet on linux everything is smooth and clean and I can have 50 apps running and my music still won't skip like windows.

---

I'm not saying windows is absolute crap...it has its purpose. Many people are happy with windows and it works for them. It all depends on what you do with an O/S and what your preferences are. I prefer linux...you can choose whichever you like...all that I ask is that people do not flame linux before you try it and get familiar with it. (not directed at you potato...directed at all those windows-"roulz" lamers that continually flame message boards about things they know absolutely nothing about)

Linux is NOT that good, and Windows is NOT that bad.

XP is quite stable. My system has yet to crash running XP, except that time when my motherboard died, which is a funny story, but now's not the time.

Linux has a better design, and if all you were doing is using the O/S, then Linux beats Windows hands-down. However, the sheer number of programs and hardware designed/written for Windows far, far exceeds the same for Linux.

Window's program execution is actually comparable to Linux's, and is based more on the platform (x86) than the O/S. It's just that Windows has huge amounts of bloat, and things programmed for Windows tend to be "bloaty" too.

Who cares about derailing the thread? It was never railed in the first place...

Furthermore, Longhorn's FS is not really a new FS - it's a totally new way of thinking about files, with NTFS as it's base file system (according to Microsoft).

I'll get to the rest of what people said later...

Don't get me wrong. I don't like Windows very much, and I like Linux a lot. Just don't argue incorrect points.

No one said you did

Quote:

If I do in fact have a hardware conflict causing problems this would be a windows kernel problem.

not true it would be a driver problem from the hardware manufacturer.

Quote:

The real problem is that the windows kernel is not built to handle a huge load. It is built for average users who just want one or two browser windows open and maybe winamp or something.

not true. the XP kernel is capable of multi word processing, and on a pentium 3 or 4 parallel processing.

Quote:

I constantly burn cd's, play audio/video, ftp, compile source, install apps, etc etc sometimes all at the same time.

dont we all

Quote:

The reason why there is few games for linux is because of the small market share.

no, its because Linux isnt ported for current gaming technology, and games for linux have to be 'modified' to run on a linux platform.

Quote:

Actually most distros including slackware now install the X and the DE of your choice automatically. At least that's how it worked back when I played around with redhat...and I know mandrake and suse are the same.

Not my version of slack (about 3 or 4 years ago)

Quote:

As far as your hardware problem...I have not recently heard from anybody who could not use linux because of hw compatibility issues. Most hardware is supported now-a-days...even if you have to use a third party driver. (ie: gimp-print) Unless of course you have microsoft hardware. :(

Like I said it was 3 or 4 years ago. To be in ANY business you have to stay up with the time OR stay behind.

Quote:

Click and go is overrated. If you actually take the time to learn the command line, it becomes much faster than point and click at most tasks. And there is nothing that you can do with a gui in linux that you can't do with the command line.

Click and go is overrated? Well my friend you arnt going to make it to the desktop market very well are you? Click and go is where a NOVICE user starts, no one wants to have to crack open a text book to learn how to use a computer, unless your gonna get PAID to do it. Now I started with a Commadore 64, and then to IBM DOS then to DOS 3.0, and so on and so forth, but I'm too old to be beatin my head aginst the keyboard (hell mine cost $74)

Quote:

However nowadays in linux there is guis to do most everything...so your point here is moot. You want gui's for everything, go download mandrake.

Hell yes I want a GUI! My days of... Oh shit See above ^^^^^

Quote:

I had to boot to windows just a while ago. :( Hehe its amazing how crappily slow my fresh install of xp is even when just dragging windows around. Yet on linux everything is smooth and clean and I can have 50 apps running and my music still won't skip like windows.

I never said windows was BETTER than Linux.

Quote:

I'm not saying windows is absolute crap...it has its purpose.

Yes you are, and you did

Quote:

its amazing how crappily slow my fresh install of xp is even when just dragging windows around.

Quote:

Many people are happy with windows and it works for them. It all depends on what you do with an O/S and what your preferences are.

Yes they are, and will be as long a windows is EASIER than linux. Peoples preference will always be the easy way, its human nature.

Quote:

all that I ask is that people do not flame linux before you try it and get familiar with it.

Never have

Peace

you're not going to stop people from flaming Linux, there will always be haters out there. I don't understand it and own the only computer in the house, which my family uses just as much as me. Windows for my Family's compatability. If I switched to Linux my Mom would beat me with a rubber mallet.

I'm done. I refuse to stoop to the low level of childish flaming which is what seems to happen in forums like these.

I have expressed my _opinions_ and _my_ experiences in a simple, professional manner (see above) and have nothing left to say. I could argue about this forever but don't have the time or patience.

Will an admin please lock this thread and let it die. It is ancient. If you want there are 879659458 million other threads just like this one all over the internet.

found something interresting today...

i usually run seti at home, yesterday i downloaded the linux version of it...

on my windows XP, avarage time for completing a workunit was 50 hrs 13 mins, with the graphics thing on (dunno, i like it to have it running, ok?)

On Linux, i've completed two workunits, bo th took under 10 hrs to complete.

No Hardware changed.... nothing different but the OS.

weather it's because of better code for the linux version, or because of Linux as a OS, it's very saying i believe...

ah well, just my two cents

Hey fickle, have you thought of maybe running a dual boot?
you can have lilo time-out after 10 seconds that way you family can just turn on the computer and wait a couple of seconds for windows to boot, and then when you want linux then you just have to reboot.

The graphics slow it down a lot. Linux should not be significantly faster with the graphics off in Windows XP, I'd imagine only 2-3%, if that.

but i have the graphics turned on in linux aswell

Well, maybe you're getting easier packets, or there's something wrong with seti@home for Windows. There is no real reason that a Linux-based program like seti@home would be 500% faster than a Windows-based program, assuming the same code for the main engine.

Ok, now im 100% sure of superiority of linux over windows, any windows

i would install redhat righ away, but winamp avs doesnt run under linux, even if using a wine
:( DAMMIT!

if you're 100% sure, you're 100% wrong :D

Get you video card manufactures newest driver.

Firtly, jahaha, my windows bitch thread had more replies than this! :p
Seriously though:
Unix - Stable server style OS, good for what it is.
Linux - Depending mostly on Unix's stable base code along with it's Windows like GUI. Server OR Desktop? COMEON Linux you can't have it both ways! And because most of the Linux distributions have been for Desktops they probably went for the wrong audience. What companies are going to sell their computers with Linux on it? Next to none.
Windows XP - Advertised Pumped OS, Thrown at you when you buy a new desktop computer, do you really have a choice? FK them for releasing such an unstable OS with all the 'white hackers' attacking it's quality codework! *Windows at it's finest*
Windows Longhorn (pre-released) - It's not released yet, so there is no point bitching or bragging about it! The final of it may not even have what is predicted.
Apple's Mac OS X - Pretty, UI, what about the performance Apple? don't forget that! Oh wait... you did! :P

All in all, we have today:
- some stable server OS's and some weak ones.
- some good desktop OS's and some piss poor ones due to their elaborate features and frequent updates.

So who will set the standard.. Microsoft with their pre-released Longhorn? Maybe, just maybe it will set the standard for a few weeks after it's released but will they fix all those bugs, holes, incompatible programming problems or just tease us with yet another quality OS?
/- I'm being sarcastic with the use of 'quality' if you haven't used Windows before :p -//

Re: Windows rulezzz.. Linux sucks
 

Are you a moron or what? Windows is only useful to me because most programs are Windows only. Trust me, if I could find alternatives to all the programs I use, Windows would no longer exist on my system.

You scream that Windows is superior because of its GUI. Wow. KDE can match XP's GUI relatively easy and then it beats it. Gnome... well, I haven't used it a lot, so I'm not going there.

You say that "Oh, Longhorn r0x!", but you haven't even tried it. From what I've heard, even without it's new flashy colorful lights and using NTFS, it is amazingly slow right now. I can't speak from experience, since I am missing 1/40th of the ISO to see how much it sucks.

Your only arguments is that the fisher price GUI of XP and the GUI that you have never even seen before is better than Linux's Gnome and CharUI. Well, oh well. Big deal. I can actually play videos decently on Linux where Windows plays it like shit in all players. I can do almost anything I feel like on Linux. Can the same be said about Windows?

You're 12. Do I care? Just looking at that post you surely seem to need to learn some basic English again.

Why do more people use Windows? Well, because 99% of the new computers come with Windows, because the average computer user has never heard of Linux or do not have the ability to install it. Linux isn't as easy to use as Windows, but to be truthful it's not that hard to learn how to use it properly.

Why are there more programs for Windows? Easy, more people use Windows than Linux. It is that simple. But everyone should know by now that Linux is the biggest threat to MS and with Longhorn still more than 2 years off, I wouldn't be suprised if more people start using Linux.

Now I'm shutting up. Windows sucks for me. It seems anytime I get confortable using Windows XP Pro it crashes and burns and restarts itself. This is without even having a virus, folks. No MS Blaster here.

Re: Re: Windows rulezzz.. Linux sucks
 

I would suggest that means you're doing something wrong =)

I've only had that happen to me ONCE with Windows XP. At least, to the catastrophic extent that you seem to be describing. That's when XP went off deciding that it should munch up the MFT on my NTFS partitions. It was partially my fault, I suppose, as I was trying to get NTFS not to bother supporting the old 8.3 file naming standards, and inexplicably, the MFT would be wiped everytime I tried to turn that support off (via a Registry key... and for the folks who suggest I don't how to use regedt32... how about no?). I finally succeeded, although I'm not quite sure why...

I also have Mozilla Firebird crash on me occassionally--is that because of Windows XP too? Not necessarily.

Yo look little dude.

You dont know the first thing about linux.
Im not saying that Windows is a bad OS (no i use Windows XP for my developing, coding and gaming needs).
But would you please atleast do a little research before you go and bash linux? it is a GOOD OS, VERY GOOD and VERY STABLE (for the ones who know what theyre doing).
The Linux Kernel 2.6 is coming out soon, and it supports up to 64processors. 64!!!! and CPU HOTPLUGGING which basically means that if you have a 64processor system, you can take like 63 processors, unplug them and plug in new and faster processors, without rebooting.

Please admit it, you know NO programming whatsoever.
You have absolutely nothing to do as a MSCP or other.
You probably dont even know how multitasking works in DOS.

the 2.6 kernel is out already, as far as i know.

I find it relatively amazing how incorrect both sides of the argument are. Linux is not all high and mighty, primarily because if you take the number of programs written for Linux, and cube it, you're probably close to the number for Windows. Many of these programs are irreplacable in Linux.

Windows is overall a crappy O/S, but XP is actually pretty stable, and if you use good hardware, it should very, very infrequently crash, as far as a desktop machine goes.

And keep in mind, this whole thread is a joke.

It's almost out. A feature freeze has been declared.

Linux is all high and might. With Linux, you can hack a fish! That's right, a fish!

http://bigmouth.here-n-there.com/billy-intro.html

That's right, I'm running it under gentoo-amd64.

ok i didnt know that much about the development of the 2.6 but its nice to know your features.

Linux doesn't need to be ported. Linux natively supports OpenGL, and the nVidia and ATI drivers make use of the openGL calls. Games are what has to be ported, and due to the 'small market share', companies don't find much money in porting games over to Linux. Although, with Epic Games, they have the Unreal engine ported to Linux. The installer is on disk 3 of UT2k3, and I believe they are also porting UT2k4 to Linux as well. Linux is definately quite capable of playing games, and many DirectX calls have been properly wrapped to OpenGL through WineX. I played Warcraft 3 in Linux as well as the expansion.

I mainly use linux for digital content creation. I do 3D animation and modelling in Linux using Maya, which also happens to be more stable and quicker in Linux than it is in Windows. I am one of those people that have used windows since 3.1 and have stuck with Windows all the way to XP. My switch to linux has been hard, because it is indeed a whole different OS. the hard part about it is setting it up. However, with enough tweaking and the right window manager, you can increase your workflow to a much higher level than you can achieve in windows. Windows is still quite the capable OS. But it doesn't leave you much to customize compared to Linux.

Current Setup
Redhat Linux 9.0
Windows XP Pro
Grub Bootloader
KDE3.1 Window Manager

Hardware (the important specs):
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz, HT enabled
1024MB RAM
ATI FireGL X1

Both Linux and windows runs stable. Linux a tad bit more stable as I have had Maya running and things being created on one of my older workstations with a constant uptime of around 60 days. Everything ran as efficient as it did on boot up. (Redhat 7.3). I have a computer running IM and IRC programs using Fedora Core1 (not intensive applications though) and that has been going strong now for just over 30 days now. I haven't had a chance to test the uptimes I can get on redhat 9 because I shut down the computer I use it on every night to carry it to the office (I have a Shuttle SB65G2) so I can't give an honest comparison there.

Hard drive efficiency, well... I would take ext3 or xfs filesystems over NTFS any day. They run more efficient and are journaled. I also have access to the Fat32 partition between Linux and windows. After running defrag in windows on the NTFS and the Fat32 (I mainly use the Fat32 partition in Linux for storing files to share with windows), the NTFS partition was extremely fragmented and the Fat32 partition was 0% fragmented. This is just one thing to show how well Linux also manages files by making sure thay stay in one piece instead of being fragmented all over the place.

Kernel recompiling is a god-send as well. The default kernel in Redhat comes with so many modules installed and such that I most likely don't need. They are mainly there to insure compatibility with most systems they are installed on. By removing un necessary modules and adding modules you would like, not only are you enhancing the kernel to your specific system and your needs, but it is also being compiled on your machine as well, which has a tendancy of making things run a little more efficient on your hardware, as well as keeping the kernel small. The benefits? Faster boot times, kernel is less resident in the memory due to its size, and you don't need to worry about services trying to call functions that you deemed un-necessary and removed from the kernel. This is something you absolutely cannot do with windows unless you had the NT5 (Windows 2000) or NT5.1 (Windows XP) kernel source code and a compiler.

The difficulty of linux to set up mainly comes in the fact that alot of settings are located in files in the /etc directory. For example, if I was to install an nVidia graphics driver, once installed, I have to edit /etc/X11/XF86Config so that the driver that the card is using is 'nvidia' instead of 'vesa' or 'nv', and I would have to adjust the necessary options to get the resolution to be running at the 1280x1024 that I want at 24bits (Trust me, there is no difference in colour defenition between 24 and 32 bits). Or, if I wanted to add a partition to permanently be mounted everytime I boot up, I would have to edit /etc/fstab accordingly to do so. However, there are various frontends that are and are being developed that will allow you to edit settings in your graphics and network and whatnot without having to know what you need to do to the file itself. Although, it doesn't hurt to know what files do what in case you screw something up and can't load up your X server. Possible things that can go wrong, say you upgraded your linux kernel after you had your nVidia or ATI drivers installed. you would need to get into runlevel 3 so you can see the command line instead of X trying to start on you. You would need to recompile the drivers for that kernel before you can start X.

Another nice thing with linux that I found was a huge advantage over windows. The lack of necessary restarting. You almost never have to restart the computer for anything that isn't related to adding or removing hardware. Lets take graphics drivers for instance. Most likely, you need to install them in the command line. Open a terminal and type 'init 3' as root. This kills the X server which is necessary to install nVidia drivers. Once those are installed and you modified /etc/X11/XF86Config accordingly, type 'init 5' to load the X server and GDM to log back in. I had once had my system partitioned so that everything except /boot was one partition. I was running out of space and had to make use of empty partition on another hard drive. So I basically partitioned the space, reformatted it, moved all the data from /home over to it, then remounted that partition as /home without rebooting the computer. I just had to make sure I was logged in as root to do all that.

Speaking of root, this is one major security issue that is the base of almost all problems people have with windows. By default, on installation, when you boot into windows, your main user is granted administrator rights. Now this isn't as powerful as root, but the only thing you are missing that root has is the ability to mess with important windows files. Almost everyone I know that is using windows is using it as an administrator. and this is allowing you to unknowingly have programs installed on your computer where they shouldn't be, and sometimes, system settings remotely changed on you that shouldn't be. In Linux, upon installation, you are asked to create a root password. This is usually absolutely necessary before the installation will even continue. Then upon booting into linux for the first time (With Redhat anyways), you are asked to create a user. This is the user you will always log in as. The user has no access to important system files and cannot write to anything outside the $HOME directory, except for maybe /tmp unless you set permissions otherwise as root. This is a huge security benefit. Even if you log into the X server as root, you will sometims get warnings depending on which program you are running telling you that you would be dumb to continue using root for everyday tasks. Thus, nothing gets changed on you when you are logged in as a regular user, except for configurations in $HOME that you have access to, like $HOME/.mozilla or $HOME/.wine or something. Therefore, nothing will happen to your operating system unless you do something to it. Now, you don't have to log out to log back in as root to install something. Thats what the command line is for... :D You can have multiple instances of root logged in to do multiple things. It isn't usually suggested to stay logged in as root just in case though. You can usually log into root by typing 'su', although it is usually suggested you type 'su -c "command"'. That is probably one of the biggest benefits I find with linux is that kind of security.

As for kernel 2.6.0, as of today, they are at 2.6.0-testll-bk13. So hopefully later this month or early next month they will finally have the fully stable 2.6.0 kernel released. I have read articles talking about kernel latency, and 2.6.0 at its worst is supposed to be faster than 2.4.x at its best. Plus there will be many other speed enhancing features that will push the boundaries of real-time computing. I look forward to it. Been waiting for it since I checked the menuconfig in 2.6.0-test1.

Anyways, enough of my rambling. Not exactly the best place to blabber on about linux. I only came here to see if there were any projects to clone Winamp5 on Linux or anything. I still like my XMMS and Winamp 2 though. But hopefully this explains alot for some of you windows folk out there too scared to try linux. I have been using Linux now for 8+ months and I am not a programmer... :D

oh a god sent, a person running linux aswell who's not a troll....

one thing you forget to mention though, as i can see you're running redhat.... rpm's.... the default package manager for SUSE, Redhat/Fedora and Ximian.... it's pure hell, when you want to install something, you often have to download a dozen other rpm's the application depends on, and then you sometimes have to find new rpm's for the dependence rpm's aswell. Which is why i choose Debian, cause it does all this automaticly, unfortunantly 3rd party vendors pretty much only makes rpm's and very raraly debian packages.

Hopefully the Fedora implementation of Apt-get/Synaptic, apt-rpm, get's improved some more, also i've read some guys are working on having rpm's and deb's coexitst.