LINUX???

[deSelys]

Linux doesn't has to be free. You are misinterpreting the Open Source and free software definitions:

From http://opensource.org/docs/osd:

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html:

Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of free as in free speech, not as in free beer.

Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:

    * The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
    * The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
    * The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
    * The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.

From Red Hat's FAQ:

Issue:
You mentioned licensing - what does this mean? I thought Linux was free.
Resolution:
Except for a few components provided by third parties (for example, Java) all the code in Red Hat products is open source and licensed under the GPL (or a similar license, such as the LGPL). So you always have free access to the source code. In fact you can download it from our FTP servers at any time. However, Red Hat does not provide free access to the binaries of Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and these, combined with an annual subscription to Red Hat Network, access to upgrades, and a selected support services, are the components that Red Hat bundles into each Red Hat Enterprise Linux solution. Since every Red Hat Enterprise Linux product includes support for the system on which it is installed, Red Hat supplies the products with a per-system usage/support subscription. This simple model ensures that systems which useRed Hat Enterprise Linux are able to access the maintenance, services and product upgrades to which they are entitled. Of course, as mentioned before, this has no impact on your access to the Red Hat Enterprise Linux source code.

As you can see, Open source doesn't mean free of any costs.

[OOZ662]

As I'd heard (in class, from the teacher's curriculum, no less), it was due to the work of Linus Torvalds to keep Linux free that it became violation of law to charge for the operating system itself. You can charge for the support, the manual, the disk it's on even, but not the operating system. Nothing to do with Open Source definitions.

EDIT: And, yes, I didn't read all of that yet. It's a bit early in the morning to be able to make sense of it.

[RTHolmes]

Somebody mentioned Red Hat as being a good distribution. It is, but you can't get it unless you pay for a Red Hat support contract.

They changed it a round a couple of years ago, Redhat Enterprise is the paid for version, they renamed the free version from Redhat to Fedora. Fedora has the benefit that not only the open source community contributes to it, Redhats own developers also contribute because it forms the basis of their Enterprise distro.

Another advantage with Fedora is the wealth of support information out there for it (a walkthrough for setting up a box in Redhat 5 will still be mostly applicable to Fedora Core 9)

plus its what Linus uses http://fedoraproject.org/

[Angus]

Linux on the next machine in my case, no doubt.
With XP
DUAL BOOT!!!

[GtoRA2]

Hey look the best way to get all the biggest dorks in AH in one thread.



NERDS!!!

[Mr No Name]

I Resemble That Remark!   

[RTHolmes]

 

[OOZ662]

Linux on the next machine in my case, no doubt.
With XP
DUAL BOOT!!!

Even getting a dual-boot system to work is a pain in the butt because of how Windows hates having another bootloader present.

NERDS!!!

I, good sir, am a Geek. There is quite a difference.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Download virtualbox and run linux in a virtual machine. That way you can keep windows and get to know linux and see if it fits your bill or not.

[forHIM]

The pre-compiled version of Redhat is not available in a RedHat branded distro.  Centos takes the source and re-compiles it on their systems and releases it less any RedHat specific packages.

SLES/Suse is the same way, the commercial product is not downloadable, but you can get the source code and compile it if you're a die-hard.

I believe OpenSuse and Fedora are the bleeding edge distributions which are probably not appropriate for a novice.

Even though I work in Linux daily, my game machine and other home systems are Windows based.  My next older system will hopefully become a VMware ESXi system (which is now a free download) and on top of that will be my os's of choice.

Back on subject:  depending on the children learning games, I'm not sure if Linux would be best.  You'll have to install a windows emulator like cedega or wine.  Most learning games require windows and VGA console.  But it's been a few years since I looked into what's available in that segment for free/cheap.

[Mr No Name]

The Ubuntu builds such as mint linux, parsix, gOS, kubuntu, mythbuntu, ubuntu, xubuntu you can install inside windows just like any other program, performance of linux is diminished a little but it will serve the purpose of letting you get used to the OS... Mac OSx and most linux builds seem to be organized in a similar manner

[kamilyun]

To the original poster:

Consider your need for a computer for the kids a free pass to upgrade your personal gaming machine.  That's what I think at any rate. 

I've been through the same thing with me, my wifey and daughter.  I get new computer (for work), wife gets my old computer (2 years old), daughter gets wife's computer (5 years old).

Works out perfect:  at Target (Wal-Mart I bet, too), you can get discount software (Sesame Street, Winnie the Pooh, etc) for $9.99.  That stuff is 5 years old anyway, so it runs great on the old computer.  They learn all the colors, alphabet and basic addition--you get a new gaming machine.

Use what ever operating system comes with your new computer. 

[BiPoLaR]

I have a question.
Will AH run off LINUX?

[Mr No Name]

yes bipolar if you install it using cedega, it runs well.... and since ati TREMENDOUSLY improved their drivers for linux in the last few weeks, frame rates are super close to native windows... now it is nvidias turn to play catch-up

[68Wooley]

Hey look the best way to get all the biggest dorks in AH in one thread.



NERDS!!!

This is a community of people who fly cartoon planes, frequently to the exclusion of all other social contact.

I think 'dork' is pretty much a foregone conclusion all round really.