If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PCWorld)   Should 2013 be the year you switch to Linux? One penguin seems to think so   (pcworld.com) divider line 186
    More: Interesting, linux, PC users, class switching, Start Button, online banking, ubuntu, switches  
•       •       •

3872 clicks; posted to Geek » on 01 Jan 2013 at 6:30 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



186 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-01 07:45:29 PM

CujoQuarrel: gingerjet: Linux is only free if your time has no value.

/Android succeeds because it hides the OS from the user

It takes almost now time to install Linux these days. About 6 mouse clicks , a few simple questions, walk away for a bit and it's done.

The only reason to use Windows is that it is superior for games.


And office products. Word and Excel are vastly superior to anything I've used on LINUX and they're is nothing anywhere even remotely close to OneNote.
 
2013-01-01 07:50:54 PM

meanmutton: Word and Excel are vastly superior to anything


This is true, but god, do I hate Word and Excel. The less time I spend with them, the happier a man I am. And I totally don't _get_ One Note. It seems far too complex to be a useful notetaking tool. I like plaintext.
 
2013-01-01 07:51:51 PM
no
 
2013-01-01 07:52:04 PM
Win8 is idiotic in many ways, but underneath it is about the same as win7.

It's just another Vista, another ME. A cash cow.

I have not looked at linux for a few years. It totally sucked in 2010, the one and only way it was better than windows? It's free.

Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.
2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.
3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.
 
2013-01-01 07:59:29 PM
Since 2005, I have seen articles like this on Fark. They seem further away now than ever before.
 
2013-01-01 08:00:32 PM

CujoQuarrel: Why on earth would you want iTunes? I detest that program.
In a business environment MSOffice is great. For a home user it's excessive overkill. Actually for most of things I do at work it's overkill. They have to keep adding functionality to it so they have a reason to sell you new versions and it's getting ridiculous.


I agree with you on iTunes and MS Office for home use. I was just pointing out that a Linux switch wouldn't be practical for people who use iTunes (either because they have iStuff or are gluttons for punishhment).
 
2013-01-01 08:02:41 PM
If everyone switched to Linux, what would all the current Linux users switch to?
 
2013-01-01 08:06:20 PM

from my blood: Win8 is idiotic in many ways, but underneath it is about the same as win7.

It's just another Vista, another ME. A cash cow.

I have not looked at linux for a few years. It totally sucked in 2010, the one and only way it was better than windows? It's free.

Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.
2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.
3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.


To install a program (I hate the word 'apps')
I find the name of it. I either go to the software center and point at it or I type (Debian distro here)
'sudo apt-get install program name'
Enter password
It installs and it installs all the necessary libraries.

What 'apps' are you having problems with?
 
2013-01-01 08:07:06 PM

cman: Desktop Linux is a failure. Its openness, while appealing to nerddom, does not translate to the layman.

Let me give you an example of why normal people avoid linux like the plague:

Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

Desktop linux lacks consistency, uniformity, and is just plain confusing for many folks. Not everyone is in love with the Command line like us nerds are.

Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.


I would really love to see some unification. It isn't about minor UI quibbles for basic users, they could care less whether there's a start button or a typeable menu... they just want desktop icons to launch their internets.

Basic users also don't have any clue what "distro" they would be on, and no idea how to find programs and if they could why they wouldn't just install. Assuming there is a mechanism for users to find software they'd want, good luck figuring out whether an application to do what you want should be KDE based (kWhatever) or gnome based (gWhatever) or some third base. Even if they can navigate that far, as you mentioned, RPM (of which 3 distros use different versions), apt, deb, or searching in an app store for your distro (even portage tree for gentoo is kind of this). How many times have Windows users looked for software to do what they want? They won't install anything someone didn't tell them to, cause they've never heard of it. Or worse google a poorly worded description for what they want a program to do and installing the first result.

This fracturing is the bane of a lot of users who know more than jack crap. 75% of computer users could use it just fine, but they sure as hell won't install it themselves, and if they could, good luck tech supporting them. You think trying to get them to tell you what version of Windows is bad, or which Browser they use on Windows... multiply that by dozens of distros, a half dozen desktop environments...

Let me know when users can "just install" stuff across linux, in total transparency to them, and I may be forced to admit we're withina decade of the "year of the linux desktop".
 
2013-01-01 08:11:04 PM
What, again?
 
2013-01-01 08:11:48 PM

CujoQuarrel: from my blood: Win8 is idiotic in many ways, but underneath it is about the same as win7.

It's just another Vista, another ME. A cash cow.

I have not looked at linux for a few years. It totally sucked in 2010, the one and only way it was better than windows? It's free.

Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.
2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.
3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.

To install a program (I hate the word 'apps')
I find the name of it. I either go to the software center and point at it or I type (Debian distro here)
'sudo apt-get install program name'
Enter password
It installs and it installs all the necessary libraries.

What 'apps' are you having problems with?


Proper package management does do well with dependencies... RPM is not proper, end users will not ever open a terminal making apt and portage useless without better front ends than I've seen.

Configuration is also totally worthless in linux. Every few years I try, and for some reason there are STILL files, whether for keyboard or mouse, or monitor resolutions, or who knows what they want to me manually edit. PISS OFF. As a user, I want point and click, and a pretty interface... and I'm a software developer. Good luck convincing end users they want less than that.
 
2013-01-01 08:12:27 PM

from my blood: Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.


I don't know how you tried to install applications in Linux. In Ubntu or Debian it's (1) Open the package manager, (2) Find the program you want to install, (3) Click.

from my blood: 2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.


This is true. Commercial software needs to continually add features in order to sell you the latest "upgrade." Doesn't matter whether the new features are useless, make the application harder to use or slow your new quad-core machine to a crawl.

from my blood: 3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.


I've found the core applications to be just as stable as in Windows. More esoteric applications can crash more, but that happens in Windows, too.
 
2013-01-01 08:13:50 PM
About the games lock-in for windows users - I really wish Apple had done more to advance OpenGL games. And I don't mean shiatty iPhone game development in objective C. Apple could really have knocked MS off their perch in this arena, but Jobs obviously didn't give a shiat about gaming.
 
2013-01-01 08:18:15 PM

Mitt Romneys Tax Return: from my blood:

I've found the core applications to be just as stable as in Windows. More esoteric applications can crash more, but that happens in Windows, too.


The problem with that logic... is that all applications in linux are esoteric. There are some "mainstream" ones for browsing, and a few other high profile areas, but 99% of users haven't heard of any of the applications for general computing, and have no idea how to find them.
 
2013-01-01 08:18:43 PM

CujoQuarrel: To install a program (I hate the word 'apps')
I find the name of it. I either go to the software center and point at it or I type (Debian distro here)
'sudo apt-get install program name'
Enter password
It installs and it installs all the necessary libraries.

What 'apps' are you having problems with?


Yeah, my elderly mom would love that.

Also the perennial n00bs I know who can't understand how to save a file in a folder and then go back and find it later.

"Don't close that letter I'm writing, I haven't printed it!!!"

"I'll save it."

"But then I'll have to start over!!!"

*Facepalm*

/ To be fair, the perennial n00bs would probably be just as happy being retarded with Linux as with Windows.
 
2013-01-01 08:20:52 PM

WhippingBoy: If everyone switched to Linux, what would all the current Linux users switch to?


BeOS! er...Haiku! Or Plan9. So many options!
 
2013-01-01 08:25:33 PM

lordargent: Shuttleworth is trying to make Ubuntu into the next windows, but in doing so is throwing choice and configurability out to the dogs as a result.


Every checkbox, every option, every configuration parameter increases the QA load exponentially. Linux fans want bells and whistles, but they also want to pay $0. That's a tough spot for Ubuntu's product team. I'd argue that keeping the options simple is the best way to please the most people.

That said, both Windows (up to 7 at least) and OS X have more window management options than Unity.
 
2013-01-01 08:26:32 PM

Quantumbunny: The problem with that logic... is that all applications in linux are esoteric. There are some "mainstream" ones for browsing, and a few other high profile areas, but 99% of users haven't heard of any of the applications for general computing, and have no idea how to find them.


In a typical user-friendly Linux distro, the basics are pre-installed. There's a web browser, a media player, an office suite, a photo organizer/editor and some basic games.

I wouldn't expect a beginner to use Synaptic Package Manager or apt-get, but the Ubuntu Software Center is just as easy to use as Google Play or the App Store.
 
2013-01-01 08:27:27 PM
is this a repeat of 2000 and 2007?
 
2013-01-01 08:29:08 PM
Honestly, the "year of the Linux desktop" demonstrates a category error. Linux is not an operating system, as we understand it. Linux is a class of operating systems that all use the same kernel. At a low level, yes, they're identical, but users don't live at that low level. They live in userspace, and each Linux distribution is a different experience in userspace.

So we will never see a "Linux desktop". What we might see is the rapid uptake of a highly specific Linux distribution- something like Android.

Although, honestly, I'm looking forward to the next iteration of operating system design. We're due for a fundamental change in how we interact with computers, and I'm not talking about mobile OSes, which these days are just sandboxed desktop OSes. I'm talking about entirely new ways of organizing data (really? a tree is the best data structure we can use for filesystems? I don't buy it), entirely new operating modalities (why should applications render into windows- shouldn't windows ask applications for data to display? Flipping that around would allow us to, for example, put a word processor document, four web browser instances, and a filesystem folder full of porn into tabs within a single window, save that windowstate and call it back up as a workspace as needed). I'm just bullshiatting on ideas, but let's be honest: there hasn't been a significant change in operating systems since the GUI.

Chakan: BeOS! er...Haiku! Or Plan9. So many options!


VMS. It was here before you, and it will be here long after you.
 
2013-01-01 08:30:53 PM
i172.photobucket.com
 
2013-01-01 08:32:10 PM
I installed Ubuntu the other day but only because it was the only way to play Baldur's Gate: Enhanced Edition on my computer. Baldur's Gate:EE does not like Intel Integrated Graphics boards/cards. It's unplayable on my computer. Something to do with OpenGL. Some genius discovered that it would be playable if you installed Ubuntu and WINE. As long as you only play it in windowed mode, the game runs perfectly! Now I can finally get my Minsc on!
/Go for the eyes Boo!
//Buttkicking for justice!
 
2013-01-01 08:38:15 PM

t3knomanser: Honestly, the "year of the Linux desktop" demonstrates a category error. Linux is not an operating system, as we understand it. Linux is a class of operating systems that all use the same kernel. At a low level, yes, they're identical, but users don't live at that low level. They live in userspace, and each Linux distribution is a different experience in userspace.

So we will never see a "Linux desktop". What we might see is the rapid uptake of a highly specific Linux distribution- something like Android.

Although, honestly, I'm looking forward to the next iteration of operating system design. We're due for a fundamental change in how we interact with computers, and I'm not talking about mobile OSes, which these days are just sandboxed desktop OSes. I'm talking about entirely new ways of organizing data (really? a tree is the best data structure we can use for filesystems? I don't buy it), entirely new operating modalities (why should applications render into windows- shouldn't windows ask applications for data to display? Flipping that around would allow us to, for example, put a word processor document, four web browser instances, and a filesystem folder full of porn into tabs within a single window, save that windowstate and call it back up as a workspace as needed). I'm just bullshiatting on ideas, but let's be honest: there hasn't been a significant change in operating systems since the GUI.

Chakan: BeOS! er...Haiku! Or Plan9. So many options!

VMS. It was here before you, and it will be here long after you.


Um, nope. VMS was '75? I was here in '71. It probably knew more before me, though. After may be a valid point, tho.
 
2013-01-01 08:39:49 PM
Been using Linux for...21 years now (holy crap). It's been mostly alongside windows, though my laptops, home server, and workstation at work are all Linux of some variety, my home desktop is Windows. That's mostly so I can play Steam games.

/nothing says Windows like setting up something to run overnight and wake up to a login screen because an update installed itself and told the PC to reboot.
 
2013-01-01 08:41:48 PM
The problem with desktop Linux isn't the OS, it's the applications. Almost every desktop app that isn't the exact same as the Windows version (ex, Firefox) is really half-assed. Ironically, this is most prevalent with power user or geek oriented software. For example, there are some pretty easy to use music players on Linux, there is nothing nearly as powerful as Foobar2000. Sure, most of it's functionally could be replicated on Linux with several different apps, some command line, but why should I have to do that?
 
2013-01-01 08:54:09 PM

Quantumbunny: CujoQuarrel: from my blood: Win8 is idiotic in many ways, but underneath it is about the same as win7.

It's just another Vista, another ME. A cash cow.

I have not looked at linux for a few years. It totally sucked in 2010, the one and only way it was better than windows? It's free.

Why Linux distros (Ubuntu, Redhat) were worse than Windows 7 in 2010:
1. Harder to figure out app installs (install requirements, why did it fail to install?!) Most of the time with windows, you just hit next a few times, but with Linux omg it needs 10 libraries that end up conflicting with something else and some other nonsense.
2. Apps have less features. Funny how linux knuckleheads insist the kettle is hot pink. It is not. There's no point discussing this with fanboys, they just cannot see the truth.
3. Apps crash more often and for weirder reasons. Linus kernel may be stable, but linux coders just cannot keep up with the changes in the libs and such, if they were able to code right the first place.

To install a program (I hate the word 'apps')
I find the name of it. I either go to the software center and point at it or I type (Debian distro here)
'sudo apt-get install program name'
Enter password
It installs and it installs all the necessary libraries.

What 'apps' are you having problems with?

Proper package management does do well with dependencies... RPM is not proper, end users will not ever open a terminal making apt and portage useless without better front ends than I've seen.

Configuration is also totally worthless in linux. Every few years I try, and for some reason there are STILL files, whether for keyboard or mouse, or monitor resolutions, or who knows what they want to me manually edit. PISS OFF. As a user, I want point and click, and a pretty interface... and I'm a software developer. Good luck convincing end users they want less than that.


I've had much better luck with Debian than RPGs I must admit.

Cant think of a single config file I've edited on this machine. There is a GUI for everything (which basically just edits the config files for you)
Well, except for the hosts file to kill some annoying web sites but that not normal usage...
 
2013-01-01 08:54:42 PM

washu: For example, there are some pretty easy to use music players on Linux, there is nothing nearly as powerful as Foobar2000.


Depends what you're doing of course, but as someone who runs Mac, Linux and Windows I gotta say VLC is your friend on any platform.
 
2013-01-01 08:54:46 PM

cman: Desktop Linux is a failure. Its openness, while appealing to nerddom, does not translate to the layman.

Let me give you an example of why normal people avoid linux like the plague:

Random user: Which one should I download, RPM, .Deb, tar.gz? Why is Ubuntu telling me that I need to "sudo apt-get install -f"?

Desktop linux lacks consistency, uniformity, and is just plain confusing for many folks. Not everyone is in love with the Command line like us nerds are.

Android, however, is an example where Linux is actually doing good. It may only be for mobile devices, but it has uniformity; it has clarity.


Desktop linux is communist, Android is fascist?
 
2013-01-01 08:58:14 PM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.  That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.


Was this post from 1998?
 
2013-01-01 08:58:48 PM

washu: For example, there are some pretty easy to use music players on Linux, there is nothing nearly as powerful as Foobar2000. Sure, most of it's functionally could be replicated on Linux with several different apps, some command line, but why should I have to do that?


If you want big programs that do a lot of different things then you may never be happy with Linux. Part of the design philosophy of Linux is that that applications should do one thing very well. It keeps programs small and nimble and allows them to be built and maintained maintained by a single programmer or a small team.
 
2013-01-01 09:25:28 PM

enry: /nothing says Windows like setting up something to run overnight and wake up to a login screen because an update installed itself and told the PC to reboot.


Heh, I hear ya. Many has been the morning when my loud and vocal swearing has awakened the wife.
 
2013-01-01 09:26:17 PM
Mitt Romneys Tax Return:
If you want big programs that do a lot of different things then you may never be happy with Linux. Part of the design philosophy of Linux is that that applications should do one thing very well. It keeps programs small and nimble and allows them to be built and maintained maintained by a single programmer or a small team.

Foobar2000 is actually just as you described. Much of its functionality is in third party plugins and external tools. What makes it so useful is the integration into one very powerful (note I did not say easy to use) package. Having to manually invoke or script each separate tool is much more cumbersome.

Foobar2000 is just one example, there are lots of tools aimed at the power user that are built for Windows but just don't seem to exist on Linux.

Users want to accomplish task "A" which requires steps 1, 2 and 3. Linux almost certainly has programs to do steps 1, 2 and 3, but nothing to tie them together in a polished package. That's the problem. When users go searching for how to do "A" on Linux they find nothing, because there is no one program to do it.
 
2013-01-01 09:28:56 PM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.


This is a legitimate argument.

That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.

This is not. Ubuntu users don't compile their own code any more than Android users compile their own apps.
There's Steam for LInux now, if the library grows, my last reason for sticking with Windows will be gone.
 
2013-01-01 09:31:53 PM

washu: Mitt Romneys Tax Return:
If you want big programs that do a lot of different things then you may never be happy with Linux. Part of the design philosophy of Linux is that that applications should do one thing very well. It keeps programs small and nimble and allows them to be built and maintained maintained by a single programmer or a small team.

Foobar2000 is actually just as you described. Much of its functionality is in third party plugins and external tools. What makes it so useful is the integration into one very powerful (note I did not say easy to use) package. Having to manually invoke or script each separate tool is much more cumbersome.

Foobar2000 is just one example, there are lots of tools aimed at the power user that are built for Windows but just don't seem to exist on Linux.

Users want to accomplish task "A" which requires steps 1, 2 and 3. Linux almost certainly has programs to do steps 1, 2 and 3, but nothing to tie them together in a polished package. That's the problem. When users go searching for how to do "A" on Linux they find nothing, because there is no one program to do it.


Yes but if you need to do steps 1, 2, and 3 to to 'B' that no one haw pre-programmed for Windows you're just out of luck.
 
2013-01-01 09:34:52 PM

Dejah: I see that "runs your existing applications" is nowhere in your list.  That's why 2013 is the year that Linux is still only run by people who like compiling their own code.


How would compiling your own code make it run your existing applications?

You don't really know what you're talking about do you?
 
2013-01-01 09:41:48 PM
I hate this idea that Linux is for nerds. I'm a nerd and I hate Linux. I grew my teeth all those years ago on langauges no one has even heard of anymore and I thought those days were dead and buried for good and then along comes Linux and says, "heya folks, crap is cool." OK. I don't really blame people who use Linux because it's better than Bill Gates who took DOS and said "more money for me."

The reality is that one has a choice between buying shiat for free (Linux) and paying money for an OS that smells slighly less bad. But if you think that Linux is nerdy you aren't smart; you just lack taste.
 
2013-01-01 09:43:08 PM
Quantumbunny: Configuration is also totally worthless in linux. Every few years I try, and for some reason there are STILL files, whether for keyboard or mouse, or monitor resolutions, or who knows what they want to me manually edit. PISS OFF. As a user, I want point and click, and a pretty interface... and I'm a software developer. Good luck convincing end users they want less than that.

I built a desktop specifically to run Linux, I chose only name brand components, and I had no hardware trouble to speak of.

Monitor resolutions? Let me take a quick screenshot for you.

www.lordargent.com

Keyboard? Mouse?

I'm actually using a wireless MicroSoft keyboard and mouse, and there's a calculator button on that keyboard that when pressed, brings up the calculator in linux (surprised even me).

MrEricSir: Every checkbox, every option, every configuration parameter increases the QA load exponentially. Linux fans want bells and whistles, but they also want to pay $0. That's a tough spot for Ubuntu's product team.

It's open source, you will find more than enough people who want to do QA.

IMO as a software developer, cutting out features that a decent percentage of your user base wants is a no no. I could imagine if it was some hugely ridiculous request, but moving a menu system to the other side of the screen hardly qualifies as a ridiculous request. You have to look at how people use your software and develop features based on that.

On the flip side, how much time was spent on Ubuntu 1 (cloud storage) when dropbox.com already works perfectly in Ubuntu?

How about Ubuntu 1 for Mac (aren't apple users going to use the apple option anyway?)

washu: For example, there are some pretty easy to use music players on Linux, there is nothing nearly as powerful as Foobar2000.

Can you give some examples of what Foobar2000 does that you didn't see elsewhere (other than the theming)? I thought music player features were basically commoditized these days.
 
2013-01-01 09:44:14 PM
A general observation - not addressed to anyone in particular...

I don't care what platform people want to do their computing on (although I wish Microsoft had more competition so Windows wouldn't be quite so problematic) - use what works for you.

What does annoy me about Linux threads is all the FUD that gets spread around about how hard it is to use, how you have to compile all your packages, how hardware support sucks and how you have to use the command line to change your wallpaper. It's like there's people who have concluded that Linux hasn't changed since 1999, when they unsuccessfully tried to install the Slackware CD that came in their PC Magazine.

Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows. Period. Is it for everyone? Of course not. Is there a learning curve? Certainly (ever try teaching someone to use Windows for the first time?). Will it work on all hardware? No (neither will Windows). It's just another way of getting stuff done.
 
2013-01-01 09:45:47 PM

t3knomanser: I'm talking about entirely new ways of organizing data (really? a tree is the best data structure we can use for filesystems? I don't buy it),


Tree-based structure is straightforward. Anything else I can imagine would involve keeping up with a lot of metadata, and that just sounds hard. Not impossible... but a difficult paradigm shift to step into without jumping in all at once. It's hard enough to keep media files with proper, consistent meta data (artist, title, etc) ... I imagine doing that with system data would be error prone. I see room for improvement, though. Just curious what you're thinking.

entirely new operating modalities (why should applications render into windows- shouldn't windows ask applications for data to display? Flipping that around would allow us to, for example, put a word processor document, four web browser instances, and a filesystem folder full of porn into tabs within a single window, save that windowstate and call it back up as a workspace as needed). I'm just bullshiatting on ideas, but let's be honest: there hasn't been a significant change in operating systems since the GUI.

Well, for part of that, isn't that how the web works? And the web is where we do most things anyway. Aside from that, I kinda like how the rest of my programs are set up. As far as what you're saying with Windows, doesn't QT already allow for that? You can write QT applications that can be imported into others. Kinda like how you can add a konsole part or a kate part to a program. Or do you just wanna make that more free-form?

Now, I do wish there was a unified way for ALL programs to essentially hibernate - save memory state to disk and wake up on demand. Isn't that kinda how Android works?
 
2013-01-01 09:50:34 PM

CujoQuarrel:
Yes but if you need to do steps 1, 2, and 3 to to 'B' that no one haw pre-programmed for Windows you're just out of luck.


Windows is far more likely to have something pre-programmed for any random task than Linux. Besides its own massive software library, most useful Linux/UNIX software has been ported to Windows. The reverse is not true.

On Windows, one can solve a task the "Windows way" and in most cases also the "UNIX way" with a bit of extra software. If there is a particular task that only has UNIX software, it can probably be done on Windows. If there is a particular task that only has Windows software then there is a good chance it cannot be done on Linux without resorting to VMs or emulation of Windows.
 
2013-01-01 09:54:03 PM
Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows.

My ubuntu installs go a lot easier than my WIN 7 installs.

Installed from a live USB stick, was able to surf the web on Firefox while the OS was installing.

// I remember spending lots of time waiting for windows installs to pop up yet another dialogue box, wishing it would ask all of the shiat up front and not pop up crap during the middle of the install. NO, I don't want to set the system clock, because as soon as I get this box running and on the network, the clock will get set automatically.

0.tqn.com
 
2013-01-01 09:54:27 PM
As a BSD user, I find you lack of source disturbing. Been on a BSD only desktop since 1998, there's nothing I can't do (save games, but I can't play them in OS X either, so it's moot) that anyone on Windows can do, PDF? Sure, Flash based games? Yup Youtube? You betcha.

Can I roll a desktop for my mom, where it's all point and click? Install FreeBSD and a few ports, results in a desktop O.S with no typing in a terminal for anything.

Year of the desktop for me, my mother and most of my family happened in 2002 when I moved back to my home city.

That said, I wish I could play Diablo, SW:TOR and other games under either BSD or Linux, but that's what my install of Windows XP is for.... for now
 
2013-01-01 09:59:51 PM
I've been running Ubuntu 12.10 (middling 2009-vintage desktop) and 12.04 LTS (old ThinkPad T60) for the last month or so and they run beautifully. I used to work in a Fedora shop doing QA test automation and lab support, so I'm not a total n00b. You were scorned if you wussed out and used a UI so I didn't use them a lot but I actually prefer Unity to the Windows-esque UIs I've used in the past.

If I have a problem, the chances of getting an answer via search that isn't "install distro n, f@g0t!!1" isn't as good as with Windows, but better than it used to be. Speaking of Windows, I'm having relatively little difficulty getting the Windows apps that I need like Silverlight (for Netflix) or MSPaint (it does things that I can't find in a native Linux app without having to bury my head in a doc file) to run under Wine. If I'm feeling particularly prehistoric, I can fire up DOSBox too.

Screen fonts do suck compared to Windows, and I had an unnecessary DNS problem at install that was a royal pain and needed a config file twiddle to fix on both revs of V12. Other than that, it's been a pleasure to work in.
 
2013-01-01 10:08:21 PM
Another article whining about Windows 8? "ERMAHGERD CHAAAAAAANGE, WE'RE DOOMED!"

notthisshiatagain.jpg

That being said, I have several old laptops sitting around and I have Mint installed on all of them, because all they're used for is the internet and Open Office. I like Linux, I just think that it's never going to be mainstream unless there's some consistency and interoperability. Then again, I feel like most of the people I know that use it are probably doing so specifically because it's not mainstream.
 
2013-01-01 10:10:09 PM

TimeCubeFan: Pro Tools. Virtual Instrument libraries. And pretty much all my music production software. I'd love to try Linus, but if it doesn't run my studio apps then it's pretty much useless to me.


Linux audio/studio distribrutions

Quite a few musicians use an audio/studio oriented Linux distro. Even for live performances.
 
2013-01-01 10:16:40 PM

lordargent: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows.

My ubuntu installs go a lot easier than my WIN 7 installs.

Installed from a live USB stick, was able to surf the web on Firefox while the OS was installing.

I remember spending lots of time waiting for windows installs to pop up yet another dialogue box, wishing it would ask all of the shiat up front and not pop up crap during the middle of the install. NO, I don't want to set the system clock, because as soon as I get this box running and on the network, the clock will get set automatically.


I'm not a huge fan of Ubuntu, but their installer rocks. Definitely the best in Linux land.

I use Debian, so the installer requires tending and is not as straightforward as Ubuntu's.

To their credit, Microsoft has made a lot of progress on their installers. The Win 7 installer is immeasurably better than the XP installer, and out of the box hardware support has improved. There's still the problem of the "Installing update 1 of 95, please do not shut down your computer" for the first five reboots after installing Windows, though.
 
2013-01-01 10:17:04 PM

lordargent: Mitt Romneys Tax Return: Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows.

My ubuntu installs go a lot easier than my WIN 7 installs.


How are those Wireless drivers treating you.

In all seriousness, this hogwash can go die in a hole already. Ubuntu(or any linux distro really) is a hobbyist's toy, a model railroad that you nerds are so desperate to get other people involved with because you're clamoring for even just one person to care half as much as you have about the fact that three weeks after you started your linux install, it's now almost working to 90% of your system's marked capacity. I don't swing my hobby of polishing my testicles with the floor buffers at the mall while Security isn't looking and demand that you do the same, so I see absolutely no reason why I should hear this rubbish every single year. And it is every goddamn year.
 
2013-01-01 10:20:22 PM

"Linux is just as easy to install, configure and use as Windows. Period."


And which distros out of the hundreds out there are easy to install?

 
2013-01-01 10:24:24 PM
RatOmeter: Quite a few musicians use an audio/studio oriented Linux distro. Even for live performances.

That's part of the problem though, there are plenty of alternate apps, some worse, and some that are actually probably better than whatever app someone is used to.

But it doesn't run "THEIR" app and they don't have time to learn a new app.

// whereas, the techie in me loves playing around with apps (Years of developing/testing/code reviewing etc makes me very polarized about software so I'm always looking for the "perfect" app for me.)

// In my case, I basically live inside of Hugin and Rawstudio.

Now, I don't know how Rawstudio

www.photographyblog.com

Stacks up to Lightroom

g-ecx.images-amazon.com

Feature wise, but rawstudio does everything that I needed it to do and was free (vs $149 (MSRP) for lightroom)).
 
2013-01-01 10:33:34 PM

vharshyde: How are those Wireless drivers treating you.


Just installed Debian Testing on a refurbished Latitude E4300 (nice computer in perfect condition - got it for a song because it's a bit long in the tooth). Wireless works fine, although I had to install a driver (just like in Windows and just as easy to install). Proprietary software isn't installed by default in Debian, it would have worked out of the box in Ubuntu.

Also, my ALPS touchpad works fine, as do the function keys and hard buttons. The OS install and all of my applications take up about 10 GB of my 80 GB hard drive. The OS uses about 175 mb of RAM at boot, leaving the remainder of my 2GB for getting work done.

Have you tried looking for Win 7 64-bit drivers for a prefectly functional LaserJet 1000 printer? Don't bother, they don't exist. Printer works fine in Debian Testing, though.
 
Displayed 50 of 186 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report