I'm free!

After deciding I really don't like Vista as an 'upgrade' path for my home PC and that XP will only be around for so much longer, I was considering a Mac, but I don't like the idea of paying top buck for custom hardware.

I took the plunge and decided to give Linux another go (it's been a year or two) and I stuck the latest version of Ubuntu on my system. The installation went smoothly and I must say it's really put the enjoyment back into computing for me. I'm not the type who gets a thrill from tweaking the OS, but things seem to have progressed to the point (with my hardware at least) where you don't need a PHD to install all the gubbins in Linux. I love the way all the software is available in an easily accessible repository from your desktop, and I finally have a nice, flashy 3D accelerated desktop. Somehow it feels like the Amiga days again...

Maybe it's time you took another look?

I took a look a while back. It was okay, but I couldn't network with anything because Ubuntu wouldn't recognise the old card I have. Plus, I have a ton of programs that will never work on Linux.

It's Windows for me. Vista isn't so bad, so I don't mind.

to use windows program on linux you can try wine.
"sudo apt-get install wine" then try to open an exe using wine (by shell or right click ->open with)

Network cards are peanuts. Maybe it's time to shell out for a new one?

Well, if there's a killer app you can't live without, then that's a sticking point. There are a lot of Linux alternatives out there.

I'm just keeping hold of my old XP disc, it's easier for the rare occasion I need it.

lol I love reborn again Linux people. Expect the "Having lots of trouble configuring this to work with that" post in the future ;-)

Linux is fine if you have oooodles of free time to play with configs, or if your a basic user to such a degree that you NEVER install multiple things to play nicely together.

Finding someone else who got package A, E, and Z to all play together is a rare thing, and in most cases you tend to find give up and look for just the packages people got to actually work together and lower your bar to be satisfied using those (apacheX, phpX, qmail, squirlmail, mysql x.x, and so on)

Eh maybe you're right, DH, but so far it's a breeze and I have most of what I want installed.

Welcome to the club :)

Not had any major package problems myself with ubuntu yet in 3 years use (except 64bit + blitzmax) and i wouldnt class what i do as 'basic' use.
The only real problems i have had in general has been with getting DRI going on the occasional graphics card, 1 crap wireless card and an old webcam.
Fedora, however is a different story, its quite a bit more fiddily. (but is more suitable for my personal needs so im using that at the moment)
The rest of my problems were because i didnt know what i was doing.

When I read the title of this thread I thought you were either:
- looking for love
- left your job
- installed linux

Linux is great because it's free, only intelligent people use it and it's not microsoft.

Thanks, Dan. So what's the problem with 64 bit and Max? I haven't installed that yet. LOL, guess I'm the exception to the rule!

To be intelligent all you have to do is install Linux. :)

Im not sure, something to do with the compiler not getting access to the 32 bit libs or something, but it sounded ubuntu-specific.
However seek out dawlane's posts, he aparently found a way but i had already gone back to 32 bit (as there was not much noticable difference on my dodgy 3ghz Celeron 64)

Im gonna stick with 32 bit for a while (and that goes for all OSes) as it certainly seems more robust, compatable and reliable at the moment.

Lol, you forgot: -Got rid of the wife/gf :D

Sure, one day ;)



Thanks, but I don't have time (or the desire, really) to try every one out and hope they work. I use Windows because they were designed to work under it.



There aren't any Linux alternatives I couldn't use under Windows. Oh wait, there is one, but I already use an app I prefer to it. The long story short is- I use many killer apps ;)

I'm with Dark Half. I don't really understand the need to switch operating systems... but if the grass seems greener to you on the other side, have fun!

I use Linux over Vista, because Vista is not free, it is slow, it has DRM, it is unstable, it is difficult to use, it uses too much memory, it doesn't have automatic software updating capability and is generally a really bad product. I also know that I'm not being spied upon by Microsoft.

Wrong.
Maybe.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.
Wrong.

Spoken like a true Linux fan. Vista hard to use? Are you serious? Wait, don't answer that.

vista certainly does use too much memory - xp and ubuntu run fine on my laptop with 1gb of RAM, but vista churns like crazy whenever I'm doing anything.

Vista ran perfectly well on my desktop with 1GB RAM. Only upgraded it to 1.5GB because I had some spare cash burning a hole.

Thanks GfK, you said everything I wanted to! :) Vista is fine. There have been articles written about how most programs crash under it because the people who wrote them were dumb and referenced memory under XP they shouldn't have. Since Vista restricts that kind of thing, things crash.

Of course, everyone blames the operating system.

I knew it was time to get out when I installed Windows Media Player 11 and suddenly a DVD that had played fine wouldn't play at all, even in VLC media player. Uninstalling WMP11 had been made purposely difficult by MS, for some reason.

The fact is that there is a hell of a lot of processing going on behind the scenes in Vista, not to protect the user's information, but to protect DRM. Having components of Vista communicate with each other in an encrypted manner costs a lot of processing cycles, no matter how good at optimisation those MS boys are.

WMP11 sucks, and so does VLC. Get Zoom Player for movies. But, ultimately it's not an issue with Windows. It's more than likely the 47,000 codecs you have installed which are causing issues with your DVDs not playing.



Firstly, I don't really know why you want to save processing cycles. If you're that worried, get a second core and let that take care of things. As for MS, well they don't need to be good... much of the video rendering is done on your graphics card these days. As annoying as it can be, drm is a part of all our lives, and going to Linux isn't going to help anyone get around that fact.

EDIT: That's not to say you're wrong in going with Linux for however long. Enjoy :)

Ummm, you can tweak vista to consume less resources by turning off much of the stuff you don't need.

This is the traditional Linux vs Windows debate and in most cases, no one backs down. Not a big deal, just funny either way.

Bottom line is that M$ rules the world. I don't care for M$ much, however I want my stuff to work out of the box. Some of you are going to pipe up and say "then buy a mac". I own a macmini, and yes, it works very well. But if I want to be ahead of the techno curve, that means I must spend $2,000+ on a mac. My pc (which is 3 years old now, and still beating the pants off a $1,500 mac) costed me $500 at the time to throw together (I happen to still have a few XP lic lying around, so saved 300 there).

Linux, sure, your welcome to your opinion. But like I said above, unless you have a TON of time to WASTE on testing this with that before you actually get to something productive, then by all means have a go at it. I've had plenty of experience with Linux, Unix (it was all we used at GE Medical Systems), and the like and when it comes to personal computing, I'll stick with Windows as a primary and Mac as a close second (if I were rich).

When the day comes where I have absolutely nothing better to do than beta test for the little guy, then and only then will you see me locked in a room having lacked the better part of a shower for months trying each feature command switch of compiling a package to make sure it works with another package which has been updated in years (or gets updated more than 3 times a month) :-)


Well, I used to run full blown web servers. I had a dual CPU with 1 TB of storage as a webserver, another dual cpu with 2 TB of storage as a file server, and a linux fullon with 76gb (raid 5) as a bare min backup for either. I ran tape backups daily, weekly, and monthly. I remember one of my family members asking if I could upgrade the SSL support however I couldn't find decent documentation on compiling with apache 1.x (with the SSL module). There was documentation, dont get me wrong, but most of it wasn't on my flavor of linux (debian), and most of what was on my flavor didn't compile correctly (actually hosing up other packages). So, I found a few documents on upgrading to apache 2 with built in SSL, php4 side-by-side with php5, and so on. After redoing that over and over for 2 weeks straight (finding the flaws in the documentation by actually using the man pages and compiling my own from the package source) I was happy and never to touch the system again (unless a gun was held to my head).

Then, one glorious day, one of the drives failed. YEAY. So, just plug in a new drive, rebuild the array from the index, and continue as usual right? HELL NO!!!! Linux has a UID set on the drives, this UID didn't match the old UID not to mention the journal from the ext3 drive hadn't been closed properly due to a bad shut down.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA... opppss, sorry, that momentary onset of insanity tends to come back from time to time (its like that nervous twitch that never went away after having kids).

anywho.... After a few updates, and then going from sarge3.1 (debian) to the new 4.0 (and finding that they left a few things out, and moved things around, ooooppps, so NONE of the documentation people had written for sarge worked for 4.0) I contacted Bluehost and now pay a small yearly fee for unlimited domains and a few hundred gig of storage. They can worry about the servers, they can worry about the backups, they can keep the hardware compatible with the OS, they can do the software updates. And above all, they can have Linux!

Ok, so, before that, I used to use Unix and Linux at GE Medical systems back in the late 90's and early 2000's. We used SGI computers and GE made sure that we NEVER upgraded to newer hardware OR software as they hated the growing pains associated with each (mostly software, and in that I am referring to OS's).

But as Reactor said, "but if the grass seems greener to you on the other side, have fun! ", and I completely agree!

Yeah, we all have a lovely mutual respect thing going on here. I can't argue with all that Linux experience... just hope the ride is smoother for me.

To run apps with rather than the OS! I don't think I should have to buy a beefier computer every few years just to run the next version of Windows. Don't get me wrong, Windows, Mac and Linux... none is ideal. I'm just trying to find the place that's most comfortable.

May I retrospectively apologise for the thread title. I sound like Mr Humphries!

:)

For me it just comes down to- I have things to do with my programs, and the OS is just something they happen to run on. I really don't spend much time thinking about it, and except for the odd occasion, Windows doesn't remind me it's there by doing something stupid. When it does, it pretty much comes in line with every other bit of software which has its annoyances. I have no issue paying for Windows either, because hey, in one way or another I'm using it every day, and MS keep it updated for me.

I'm sure it will be. From my experience Ubuntu is a great system, and Linux in itself is a great idea, however in it's current form(s) it's really only for basic users (who demand little from it as far as commercial demands go) or the HardCore users (those who live by the light of a console terminal screen) who had a ton of spare time on their hands.

I really do hope it works out for you (regardless of how drawn out I make it sound)

In regards to the speed of your computer- no worries if you can't afford to upgrade. As GfK mentioned though, you could always disable some things. Vista isn't going to stop you watching a DVD because it consumes a little more memory, but I know what you're saying.

That wasn't me, it was Dark Half. :p

Gfk, why are you lying again? Vista doesn't have automatic software updater, it can only update some crap Microsoft products/Vista. Ubuntu updates every single program automatically from repositories. Vista is so difficult to use so I prefer Ubuntu.

Why do you get so angry? You should try to fix that.

Well I doubt that John Galt is going to try and run a server and he's not using Debian, so I don't see the relevance. Just because whatever distro you tried was horrible doesn't mean they all are. Linux is great as long as you don't ask it to do too much. If you want an all-singing, all-dancing OS then you have to pay but why pay $200 if all you want to do is play a CD, check your emails, watch YouTube and fiddle around in BlitzMax?

Correct.

I'm just about to install Ubuntu 8.04 on my desktop machine, screw vista.

The problem I always run into with Linux is if you want to do anything just a little bit out of the ordinary, it becomes a pain in the butt.

Say you find some web app that want to run on your website.

In Window, you would copy it to your web server, and maybe go into the MMC and turn on a feature or two by clicking a checkbox in a config program.

In Linux, you have to edit a text file for Apache, edit a text file for PHP, etc. And, pray you don't need to compile some component of PHP or APache in, because the nightmares are only beginning when you run into that.

It seems that people who write Windows apps take ease of use into consideration. And people who write Linux apps, just make them work and move onto the next idea. I know that probably isn't true (mostly), but it sure feels like it and it is a pain in the butt.

There might be some Linux copycat applications for stuff like iPhoto, iTunes, Nero, Windows Media Player and the horrible Microsoft Office Suite.

But there are zero alternatives for applications like Final Cut Studio, Photoshop CS3 (no, The GIMP does NOT count), Montage, Scrivener, StoryMill, Journler, Mellel, Logic, Reason, ecto, Flash CS3 or any (specialized) business software suite. And you know what? Unless ONE distribution gains a significant market share, none of this stuff will ever come to the Linux world.

GNU/Linux only plays a significant role in the server world, and even there the competition is not sleeping: Microsoft Windows Server 2003 is a very good and reliable product, FreeBSD has better performance than GNU/Linux and (Open)Solaris is gaining momentum -and- hype and it is Free and Open Source, too.

One of the Linux kernel hackers recently blogged about how he failed to configure dual monitor support on his machine: No beamer for the presentation, sorry. Now if a KERNEL HACKER does not manage to get it running, how is my retired father-in-law supposed to do it or the regular user?

The list of stuff where GNU/Linux after 15 years of development still fails is just too long to go and sell it as a real alternative to Windows or OS X on the desktop (for everybody). Life is too short to waste it on debugging sessions, especially when nobody except for a few geeks gives a damn about the system in the first place.

Even folks like Miguel de Icaza and other Open Source developers recommend reading the Linux Haters Blog. The guy who writes it could use a more mass compatible language, but what he's got to say holds a lot of truth.

Oh, one comment about the magically update feature of Ubuntu Linux: The moment you install a commercial software suite on your Ubuntu, that update feature is about as useful as the one in Microsoft Windows. The Ubuntu repositories only update what the developers think is worthy of being in their repository; and if you want the latest and greatest version of a software, you usually have to update it manually. It always takes a while before somebody updates the repository. And if Photoshop CS4 would be released for GNU/Linux (which is highly unlikely to ever happen), you could bet that it would NEVER be in the Ubuntu repositories and only be available directly from Adobe.

So from this perspective, there is no difference between Microsoft and Canonical; they only update the crap they ship themselves. (Yes, I know about the unsupported repositories; but in a professional environment, you won't use unsupported stuff.)


As for the usability: All systems suck in their own way. For me, OS X in general sucks the least, but for example iTunes in combination with my iPod Touch is the most user hostile software that I've ever seen. With Vista, Microsoft demonstrated that their star is slowly sinking, but the competition they ought to be afraid of certainly is not GNU/Linux. It will take Canonical another couple of years to produce a desktop system that is anywhere near the usability of Windows Vista - and Vista already is a good deal behind OS X Leopard. (Three words for you: Quick Look, Spotlight.)

Mobile devices are the next big thing, and in that market, Microsoft is only -a- player, not -the- player, and they don't have a monopoly there. This niche is more important for the future than the slowly diminishing desktop market.

zzzzzzzzz

So, the thread bores you, so you thought it would be important to move it to the top of the list so others could read it?!?!

/pushes Wiebo

Are you free Mr Humphries?

LOL. Has anyone ever seen that episode of 'Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends?'

I thought someone had paid off their credit card. Well, that's my thinking...

I thought he had quit WoW

I agree with reactor. The OS isn't really that important, the software you run on it is. I use photoshop, 3dsmax, painter, and a couple of other win32 only apps and there really are no real alternatives for linux that I can use in a professional environment.

Those 3 apps make up about 90% of my computer usage, and linux would get by for the other 10% but why bother. Windows is convenient and does the job even on my dated system.

If you need more ram, 2gb of PC6400 DDR2 ram can be picked up from your local store for $25 these days.

"Vista is slow"
Its faster than XP(after sp1) but not for everything. Simple things like copying files, network shares and zip processing is still a dog in vista. However, vista -is- slower than ubuntu on my 2GB 2Ghz laptop.
"Has DRM"
Yes it does.
"it is difficult to use"
Lack of familiartiy thats all (same reason some find linux based OSes dificult). Windows basically patronises the intermediate to advanced user, it treats you like an idiot and has re-invented some of the jargon in a horrid attempt to simplify it which can be confusing even to engineers with 15 years+ experience.
it is unstable
I have had a fair few bluescreens. Seem to have stopped since i updated a driver but it still shows that its kernel can 'panic' over a simple driver issue. The network is still unstable sometimes. The wireless will simply drop out and windows new annoying network-diagnostic thing then blames the router! (which i know it isnt as my other laptop running Fedora is perfectly happy). Other than that i would say stability was 'Ok' but its not a patch on ubuntu (better than fedora9 though!)
"it uses too much memory"
Its a bohemoth!!
"it doesn't have automatic software updating capability"
It does, but it is not centralised into a single manager. The user is nagged by applications at different times. OS updates can be automatic but then you get horrors like time-forced restarts and assumption you want to install on shutdown etc.
"and is generally a really bad product"
It has its goods, bads, and awfuls. However, I would say its got a long way to go yet, expecially for large scale corporate compatability with existing systems. Give it the 6-7 years XP needed and it might be a good operating system (if not a tad out of date).


@winni: Dont forget the virtual kernels like wine. Many apps can run happily under it (with little difference in speed). Admittedly many take some hacking about to get working, but the fact that it can work is promising. Apps like wine are getting better all the time.

Try searching this: http://appdb.winehq.org/ usually if its platinum it just works, gold means some fiddling, silver or less usually means a hassle or no-go.

Personally i use wine for games, Paintshop Pro 9 and a few other bits. I know older versions of PS work too (not sure about CS3 though). I also know Flash 8 and 2004 work and have platinum status.

What D4NM4N said, pretty much mirrors my experience with Vista... to sum it up in one word... dog!

Microsoft know it'll never invade the business sector like XP has hence the increasing info about Windows 7 and a release date of next year.

Regarding Wine it's just reached version 1.0 (in other words, finished).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/18/wine_one_finally/

So you're suggesting that everybody should ditch Windows, install a god-awful OS instead to stick two fingers up at Microsoft, then run an emulator so you can still run software made for the OS you were trying to avoid in the first place.

Brilliant. Can I borrow your book of "Brilliant Plans by Private S. Baldrick" when you're done with it?

*waits for everybody to miss the point and bark "Wine is not an emulator!!!!!11+"*

Not at all, im saying each to their own but to say its a "god-awful os" when you have not taken time to learn it is a bit unfair (and incorrect). At first it could appear awful simply because of lack of familiarity. Plus, dont forget, Linux is not an OS its a kernel (its kind of like saying an engine -IS- a car). Ubuntu is an operating system and so is Fedora. 'Linux' is not. Technically i could ask you the same thing; So you think everyone shouuld stick their fingers up at an alternative that is different to (and in many ways better than) what you know and are familiar with?

Personally, while i dont hate it or them, i have a certain dislike windows / microsoft, because of my own issues/experience nothing to do with the 'status quo'. If people have issues with windows then its certainly worth looking elsewhere. In fact even if people dont have issues its still worth a look, but i have always maintained that its not for everyone (just like windows or osx).

Right, its not. Its a self contained win32 kernel designed to run symbiotically with linux/unix/bsd etc.

From this day fourth, I hereby name Wine, "Self contained win32 kernel designed to run symbiotically with linux/unix/bsd"


Kinda catchy, unlike "emulator". Pffft. Who on earth can say that?

That's never stopped the Linux Lover's Club saying the same about Windows.

Lol, true.

how about "slave kernel"?
Not sure if thats an official term but its technically what it is :/

Hehe... I like it.

If 'Emulator' gets shortened to 'Emu', WTF are you going to shorten *that* to?!

Ah, but you can pretty much guarantee that 90% of the "Linux Lover's Club" have used windows for an appropriate time (and in many cases CAN use), got irritated with it and then dropped it for whatever reason.
That most certainly is not true the other way round.

Lol, S&M-K ? :D

Yes, and then decided they needed to run an emulat.... uh... i mean, a self-contained win32 kernel designed to run symbiotically with linux/unix/bsd.... *takes a breath* in order to use the software they actually want to use.

Well, i only use it for mainly games and PSP (which is all i use windows for these days other than B3d & testing Bmax stuff)
For 3D Modelling, video, music, comms, office etc im sorted natively.

It IS a shame that b3d wont work though :(

Wine/CrossOver: Fine solutions for hobbyists and private persons. In a professional environment, people will refuse to run software on an unsupported environment.

Besides, such solutions are migration crutches at best and should only be used temporarily. If you have to use those tools on the long run, you should doubt the viability of that platform for your purposes and better use the real thing again.

For example, I only use BootCamp or Parallels when I need another platform for testing purposes or multi-platform development, which is where virtualization software makes perfect sense. But I no longer need to run applications in a VM to do my normal work; the transitional period is long over and I have everything that I need in the form of native applications.

But I don't think it makes any sense to switch to another operating system only to run my software on crutches because there are no native alternatives. That neither saves money (because it burns A LOT of very expensive time), nor does it solve a problem - it only creates new ones.

I also do not have any ideological issues with proprietary and closed source software, and I find it perfectly acceptable when developers want to get paid for their work. I pay the hardware engineers at Intel when I buy a new CPU, and I pay the engineers at BMW when I buy a car. I also pay Z.A. Recht when I buy his latest book. Now why all of a sudden is it so bloody wrong to pay software developers by buying a license to a closed source product?

I know that bullshit argument that once the software is written, its production costs goes to zero because it can be copied infinitely. Well, so can a digital copy of a novel or the latest Iron Maiden album in mp3 format or the new Harry Potter movie when it's ripped to mp4. Strangely, I have not yet heard anybody scream and shout that Joanne Rowling should "open source" Harry Potter, or that Steve Harris should open source his new album.

So why should programmers open source their hard work?

WHat annoys me is the shear amount of memory and processing power each new version of windows takes. I'm all for progress, but, XP only ran fast and well with at LEAST 512 MB. Vista is probably the same at around 1.5 GB. that roughly three times more memory, for not at lot more in my opinion.

The jump up to XP from win 98 included a far more stable OS.

Agreed.
They shouldnt have to if they dont want to or are in a position where they cannot get financial gain from simply being huge (like the big open source names).
Im politically neutral on this, i appreciate the value of open source and the buisiness models around it. However i also respect that small-medium sized developers have neither the presence, sponsorsip or corporate clout to be able to survive without commercial closed source.

I will use software if its good. If its free, fine, if not and its priced right then i buy it. I think a great many people (certainly in the ubuntu camp anyway) feel the same. I have quite a few commercial linux programs which i have bought and so have most of the other linux users i know of. So, for people to imply that all linux users are open source zealots is quite inaccurate.

I think this sums all the stereotypes up nicely :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-0s-7-Z0&feature=related

"Ill show you expandability"
ROFL!! :D

Linux (despite looking like the village idiot) is right though, it does run on everything from servers to glorified calculators ;)

I liked this one too (although what mac says is just so wrong, no problem with video play/edit here :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-22EpQOm8c&feature=related

Mac is a PC btw. PC is not a Windows btw.

gah! that always annoys me too. It should really be a MAC and a MIC --(Modern (IBM or Intel?) Clones).
Although MACs are more MIC-like these days.

I was going to mention this in my last post but changed my mind :)

Who said it was? If there was a decent commercial Windows alternative I would purchase it. If someone is generous enough to produce free or open source software, all the better.

My opinion

Windows :

- expensive OS
- cheap hardware
- many softwaretitles available
- easy to start with

MacOSX :

- cheaper OS
- expensive hardware
- less softwaretitles available
- easy to start with

Linux

- Free/small fee for support, manual and discs
- cheap hardware
- less softwaretitles available
- easy to start with, but it can be hard when using 3th party apps or drivers

Nice list, but I can think of a worth addition for both Windows and Linux.

- Upgrade your computer yourself

Just wasted a whole day trying to get an apparently simple dual boot system working.

Don't anyone DARE say "I told you so!" ; )

It works for me. ;)

hehe!!! Seriously though, get ready to do that a LOT!


I love that philosophy! "You can get it to work, barely, but you can, so use it!"

I wish Auto manufacturers don't take that philosophy on
"Hey, your car may be busted, but it was working, which shows promise for our abilities! Here's our next million dollar advertisement!"


lol I bet NASA scientists say the same thing:
"Damn Joe, we keep demanding more and more out of these computers. Last year we only needed 1 Teraflop of power and this year we need 2 teraflops of power? What is our deal?"

@GFK
I almost fell off my chair laughing at your most recent response!

I have dual boot!

linux: "Windows Loader>Ubuntu>Windows loader>ubuntu 8.04" starts ubuntu,.
Windows: "Windows XP" Starts windows.

Don't ASK how ubuntu figured that layout out! :-)

Considered the misleading opinions and 'facts' presented on linux websites and the 'experiences' of many linux users, this club is either doing propaganda or is computer illiterate. I would say that it's a mix of both though. There are professionals using Linux who are objective enough to learn and use what they have to and get the job done without trying to be evangelists, but I bet they don't want to be in such a club. If I have to be in any club, it has better having nothing to do with an OS.

Personally, in open source projects I miss the direction, design and dedication found in successful companies. This is one reason why you still can't find good replacements for professional tools despite all these years and the huge userbase: if a project starts from the bottom, you don't have a clear projection of the objectives; as soon as the project gets big enough, the interface and implementation becomes very clumsy. It isn't enough for a product to work: the most important aspect is the time and ease required to perform a task. The other reasons is that besides dedicated foundations of likeminded individuals, talented professionals can work on open source projects only in spare time, while very talented professionals are usually already working in successfull companies spending all their energy on their day work (and what's left in private life).

And with Linux, the time to take is a lifetime......

I don't understand what there is to "learn" when using Linux. I installed it, learned a couple of terminal commands (that you don't have to use, but are faster imo.), and that's it. Anyone who is not a retard knows to how to use the menu, how to add icons, how to install games/software since it is all GUI based. If you want to tweak Linux it is easy too (easier than Windows infact), since you don't need some external applications (linux is built for the user's control in mind.)

Launching programs, installing programs, and updating programs is easier in Linux. You can learn that in about 55 seconds.

John Galt, here's a few tips for you.

Whether you're installing linux or windows you should set the partition you want to install to as the active partition. Also, in Ubuntu use the manual partitoner, not the automatic one, as it usually just wipes everything.

Then you dont understand linux at all.... (no offense)

Linux is more than terminal commands. Installing and configuring packages that need to play nicely together (in some cases packages that have been updated independently) tend to need recompiling to work and ALL need their own configurations.

This entails a config change with vi (or whatever), stop and start the process, test, heaven forbid a recompile, reinstall, reconfig, stop and start of the process then test again.

But yes, linux is fine for people that only need a GUI and just use the Internet with some basic office stuff.


true but when people install linux so easily, and get into the gui, they get bold, they get very bold...... then they find out how cruel the world really is ;-)



There is nothing wrong with Debian. Nor did I say debian was horrible.



Ummm, webserver stuff in linux isn't asking for it to sing or dance. In fact Windows IIS sucks MORE than apache (I used to run a windows IIS server before I switched to linux).

> But yes, linux is fine for people that only need a GUI and just use the Internet with some basic office stuff.

Which is what most people want from Windows. :)

GNU/Linux will win eventually, but mainly because it runs Firefox. When most of what people care about on computers these days runs through a browser, why spend $200 on an OS when a free one does it just as well. I'm not sure your average Dell purchaser is going to care how well they can run Final Cut or Photoshop. Pretty sure they'd notice a few extra dollars in their pocket for no perceivable difference though.

Otherwise, GNU/Linux is free and runs on loads of different platforms and hardware, giving a mostly consistent experience wherever it goes. Of all places where it'll be most dominant, mobile is the most obvious, since the margins are extremely low to begin with. That's where it'll start. The desktop market is stalling and we keep being reminded of how PC gaming is dieing. That's next. Server market, it's arguably competing pretty well already.

As for me, I use whatever does the job best for what I wanna do. At work I use Windows since I work with .NET and SQL Server. At home I use Ubuntu and Mac OS X. All three are perfectly good at what I do the most (dicking about on the Internet) and none required much special setup to be able to do that.

I disagree with the whole, "Linux is going to win because most people don't need much." People want whatever supports their activites the best. They want their printer to work. They want to read the pptx file their friend sent them. They want to plug in their camera and see the pictures come up without a hassle. They want to run the program they bought from the software store. They want every game they buy to work. They want someone to provide technical support, most of the time via the phone. When they decide to paint some pretty pictures, they want to use that Photoshop program everyone has told them about. You say Linux does everything just as well as Windows, but I disagree. At the moment, and in terms of what the average person is after, it doesn't. That's a reason to spend $200 on an OS.

Another reason some people purchase an operating system is because they want to join the in-crowd. They want to be a part of the popular choice, or to have the right image. No matter how functional Linux is, it has the image of a programmer. Windows tries to appeal to the common person, and Mac is all about making its users feel like hip and happenin' designers ;) While Ubuntu (and others like it) are helping fix the geek stigma of Linux, the community betrays that image and presents every aspect of Linux as it is- an OS for the technically minded.

ROFL!!!

Firefox runs on Windows and MacOSX too, if you haven't noticed...

As long as the good programmers decide to write Windows software and hardware drivers mainly, Linux cannot be a winner. It will also not go away because of some good features the OS has.

If someone chooses to buy Windows, he chooses for best hardware and software support.
If I go out and buy a new piece of hardware of any type for a PC, I'm sure it will run under Windows because drivers are allready included. With Linux it's more like, I hope someone made a driver for it and it is detected automaticly...

I tried Linux a few times as desktop in the past and webcamsupport was very bad, some chipsets weren't recognised.
Linux will run fine on older hardware, but it will and cannot replace Windows.

And besides all that, in Windows to install Blitzmax you only need to doubleclick the setup to get it installed, so it's more userfriendly to me. I'm sure it's a lot harder for a noob to get it running on Linux/MacOSX because of some needed packages.

Its not so much a philosophy rather a necessity. If you want to use a trouble free, faster and more secure system but still have 1 or 2 apps that you cannot replace with a native solution then its a minor inconvenience. Plus, once its working you can literally back up wine's entire "Drive C" to a dvd so you never have to mess about again if a re-install is needed.
As i said, i only use it for 1 app and thats paint shop pro 9. Simply because its my favorite paint app. Gimp is more or less as powerful but i simply prefer PSP. (I have used it for the odd game too)

This kind of comment proves how much people dissing it dont know/understand:
-Linux DOES NOT have a gui, its called the X server that runs on Linux or Unix with a windows manager (ie, gnome, kde etc.)
-A Major distro will have a gui and a package manager front end, so nawi is right in saying that when you have these things you rarely if ever need to drop to the terminal.
-To say its only good for "basic office and internet" kind of proves how much people who say that have actually tried to use it. I use it for everything from video editing and 3D modelling to programming with software thats just as good (for what i want) as i use on windows.
-To say there is always package problems is just plain wrong. I cant think of any major problems in 3 years of running 32bit ubuntu.
-It doesnt take a lifetime to learn it just requires different thinking to how you would with windows.
-You can't judge "Linux" on a "Distro". A distro could be a completely disorganised unstable mess like some of the obscure ones, or it could be awesome where it just works and is well supported.

I'm sure linux is terrific if you don't want to use any useful cutting edge apps or games.

True, shame theyre not for a decent cutting-edge OS. Rather its all for an OS that, for each generation only get any good at the end of its lifespan and by then is out of date.

I dont need cutting edge software (i wouldnt use half of it anyway), i just want quality, functional and stable software that does everything I want it to do, and If i want games i boot windows or use a console. (unless of course they are native or wineable of course)

im not lacking anything really by using ubuntu/fedora over windows, i can 3d model, program, edit family vids & pics, do office stuff, develop my website, communicate and have it all nice, stable and Bulls..t free.

At least, for 3d modelling its pretty good, it runs two of the three main industry standard apps (maya & XSI).

Linux desktop share doubled in the last year thanks to increasing bundling of the OS. People are realising they don't need to pay 50-100 bucks for Windows. Driver support is getting increased every year, as the usage share keeps doubling. So, predictions like "Windows will never be replaced" will be jokes in 5-10 years. Of course, there won't be sudden switch away from Windows, it will be a smooth but probably exponential switch.

http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/06/19/2113242.shtml

Double zero is still zero ;)

(kidding)

Seriously, you're a brave defender of the Linux realm, but Windows being replaced in 5-10 years is a pipe dream. More people are using Linux, but for the reasons mentioned above, I think you'll see more people switching to the uber-costly Mac than a Linux box.

Personally i hope linux or mac doesnt never takes over completely. I would like to see a properly divided market with cross platform being a normal expectation. As a standard is only a good thing when everyone can benefit from it.

As ive always maintained linux isnt for everyone but nor is mac or windows.
Its each to their own, kinda like cars and taste in women (..or men).

The funny thing is how in and out distros become. One min it was Red Hat, then it was Mandrake, then ubuntu.

"SPIN THE WHEEL OF DISTROS!"



Waiiiiit a min!!!! If you do Games, wouldn't that fit in the "everything I want it to do" category. I mean I can easily say that Windows does EVERYTHING I want it to do because I dont have to boot to linux to do something special?!?

Just a thought.... :-)


BETAMAX will rule the world! HD-DVD is the future! Mark Sibley is Human! and of course LINUX is the future of personal computing...


I fully agree with this. I would stick with mac if it weren't so costly to do so....


Agreed.

And Firefox 3 portable edition completely blows. But fully installed it ROCKS!

Who made this prediction? My prediction is that in 5-10 years it is not sensible to claim that Windows will never be replaced, since Linux and Mac is gaining usage % really fast.

Touche, although im more interested in writing them, if i want to play them i do it either in wine, in windows or simply use my console.

Its no biggie. If i couldnt dual boot and had no windows software to support then i probably wouldnt bother with windows at all, i would just use my consoles & whatever works in wine.
(and windows doesnt do everything -=I=- want, which is why i primarily use a linux based OS)

I guess if i had to be 100% honest then neither of them do an absolute 100% of what I want, although ubuntu and fedora are a lot closer to it.

There is one thing that people are over looking here.
And that is that the average user/noob will only know about Windows or Mac OS X ( as MS Windows is pre-installed on every PC that is bought from places like PC World,etc) , and many probably wouldn't know the difference between a PC and a Apple Mac ( my boss is one such person as he as a complete plonker when it come to anything that is computer related).

For Linux to become really main stream and threaten Microsoft and Apple in the OS market ( I wouldn't class Apple really as a OS supplier as they claim to be a PC manufacturer that just happens to supply there own OS ),
all the distro's would have to be standardized ( as at the moment it's just a mish-mash of ideas ), support a majority of hardware and have software that is compatible with the most popular business/Home user applications.

Then I would think Linux would become a real contender in the world of computing, but until then spread the word LINUX IS THE FUTURE.

And so is BETAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAX (write that in somewhere)

So back to the original topic, and my original response ;-)

Followed by


HEHE 8-D

well theres no argumental defence for lack of knowelage.

Yes it is funny how a superior system always loses out to a inferior one. ;)

Id agree with that :D

wtf is o rry though :?
please tell

It would appear to be a very bad attempt at pulling a sswift (humor)

http://www.hjo3.net/orly/

Way to miss the point. Unless you're stealing Windows or MacOSX, neither run Firefox for free. And my point about Firefox is that the applications people rely on are increasingly becoming web based, to the point that the operating system matters much less. At that point, nobody wants to spend money on something that's no different to a free something.

As for PPTX, OpenOffice 3 handles that fine. It handles doc, docx, xls, xlsx, whatever else you want to throw at it, and it's free. Plus the interface sucks way less than the latest Office one.

As for people wanting to use Photoshop, can you honestly tell me someone who spends $500 on a PC is going to spend $500 on an image editor?

This topic seems to have turned into the usual poo flinging with the usual trolls, so I'm done.

Indeed.

@the endof the day kwwp going john, its worthit in the end.

Goodnight everyone. its been a midsommar party hereand ive had afew...
PDAs gone all blurry

Jeez I had a few too many myself last night and I'm s'posed to be going cycling today. I'm going to stick with Ubuntu, but there are niggles here and there. Now some services have started failing because root keeps deciding to take ownership of stuff in my home directory.....

LOL markcw... love the mario one ;)

John: That's a rather odd problem. Are you sure it's root that owns those files and not "nobody"?
Do you often add files to your home folder remotely, for example via Samba? Is that "some files" or all files? Config files? Regular documents?

I also assume you aren't randomly going in and typing gksu before everything you run ;)

I use loads of opensource stuff under Windows as well if they are good.
Like Firefox, Openoffice, Gimp, Blender and so on, so lot's of good free titles are available on Windows as well.

If something is not for free, but it's worth my bucks, I pay for it like PaintShop Pro, BlitzMax, BLIde Plus and even Windows.

So it makes no sense telling that software running under Windows is more expensive. And not every software title under Linux is free, you payed the exact same price for BlitzMax as I did.

People have to choose for themselves if they want to use expensive software yes/no.
Everyone has it's own good reason to use Windows, Linux, MacOSX, Amiga OS and so on.

ooh me 'ed :(
(all day hangover)

Actually i never felt free with Linux as i couldn't play the games i wanted to, i couldn't use the tools i needed to use and i couldn't access the devices and data i had, so much for freedom on Linux.

Depends on how you define freedom (i have a real 12 bottle headache here so i dont mean to be moody or anything)

One could argue that you are bound in to a system of corporate dependency, others could argue this is normal and everyone should get over it. Personally i want choice (I CHOOSE to use Ubuntu and Windows) and while alternatives keep chipping away at market dominance then all the better for all.

The reason i think like this is fairly easy; why should one body (and in this case a company) decide how the whole world should do its computing?. What if they go out of business tomorrow or there's another war? What if they sudenly decided to dissalow all non-corporate development because of viruses, piracy or terrorism?

Like drug addiction dependency always sucks.

If you're a hardcore gamer then Windows is essential, as it is for developers and artists. There are some advantages to using Linux over Windows, obviously you need to have Linux and Windows on dual boot.

One of the advantages of Linux is that not many people use it, so there aren't many viruses created for it. It is more secure than XP because of sudo, so it's harder for viruses to infect your system. If you have nothing valuable on your hard drive you can run without any anti-virus software at all which is practically unthinkable in XP.

Well, for (most) games i agree, but unless you are using .net and c# then development and 'art' isnt really an issue (c++, java, pascal, blitzmax, python, Photoshop, PSP, gimp, Maya, XSI, ac3d, blender, yak.yak.yak. and others can all work on a linux system)

Cross platform is cross platform and that goes for development too (except for the compiling of course, but thats vice versa :)

If your a hardcore gamer then you would be better off buying a PS3 or a XBox 360 as a PC for gaming can be too expensive ( need latest hardware to play latest game etc,etc ) and lately I have notice fewer games being released for the PC (haven't seen many in the shops).


Developers don't just develope for Windows as a lots of hardware use embedded os's ( a good majority being Linux based so linux would be a natural choice )
As for artists: many use Mac's as they think Mac's are hip, cool and sexy ;) ( and don't die as much as a PC ) ( opinions may vary )
Hell even "The Golden Compass" used Maxon's BodyPaint3D on Apple hardware.


People are using it all the time. It's just that they don't know it ( back to embedded OS's again )
People just don't know about Linux desktop's as almost every PC sold in place's like PC World,etc has Windows pre-installed and so Joe/Joanne Bloggs wouldn't know about it and wouldn't know how to use it ( as most can barely use Windows to start with )


True. Any sane OS developer wouldn't give a user administrative rights all the time (Microsoft haven't quite learned this yet).

No it's just easier to target Windows ( as 99% are aimed at Windows and Linux security update/fixes are almost daily ) as every Tom, Dick and Hary ( most haven't got a clue about basic computer security ) has a Windows based system connected to the net.
If a Linux based OS was winning the popularity contest. Then it would be the other way round.


If a Linux machine is connect to a Windows Network environment then a anti-virus software on the Linux based machine is essential ( it may not effect the Linux machine but it can play havoc with a Windows machine if accidently passed on )

@Picklesworth:

Couldn't tell you if it was root or nobody. I sorted the problem and it never came back. Only thing I can think that caused it was an edit to fstab to auto-mount an internal NTFS drive. The problem happened a couple of times then never again!?