Linux

[shiznit]

I've been messing around a little with Debian and Ubuntu and in my opinion Linux is quite useless (at least for me).

I approached Linux with an open mind, I knew it wasn't Windows. I learned a ton of stuff and got used to the terminal, but I find it's generally harder to do very simple tasks. The whole root/user is smart but in a way it restricts the user from simple tasks.

On Ubuntu the new version of Nautilus doesn’t use the address bar but has sort of like buttons. So let’s say you want to copy a file to a location and you happen to have surfed to it using the file browser you cannot copy and paste the location like in Debian, you have to retype the location in the terminal, and then you have to retype it again and the source location with sudo cp and then type your root password just so you can copy 1 file. Utter stupidity.

Despite that Ubuntu was actually very easy to use and it was my first time trying, Debian on the other hand was harder I removed it after 2 days of having it installed.

I was able to configure everything and even tweak it, driver support for Nvidia & ATI is quite bad. Gnome & KDE run about 30% slower then Windows XP (give or take). I was actually surprised, people always say Linux is faster but the desktop environment is much more sluggish then Windows. KDE takes a long time to launch programs (1-4 seconds), Gnome is better but the windows react slow, when you click on applications panel you can see the panel & text and then the icons loading in about a second. I think it's because each icon is basically a png or svg file that has to load and be resized at the time you open the menu. Unlike windows which has the sizes already determined in the icon file. Yes it’s good for icon makes but horrible for people who actually use the icons.

I've been also told by people that Linux is faster in native games then windows, I tried Quake3 & Doom3. Quake3 ran about 10fps lower then on Windows XP, Doom3 ran about 15-20fps lower. I was quite disappointed. I tried with other drivers and tweaks/settings and I got similar results.

In conclusion Linux is a long way to appealing to a mass audience, no average user will ever try it it’s just too hard and not because it’s not like Windows but because it’s just harder to use, even if it’s preinstalled on someone’s computer.

Anyone here run Linux fulltime? Has anyone else tried it? What are your thoughts?

[shiznit]

Also I have heard rumors that Sun/Google could have a OS someday. I can't imagine it being a Linux distro, I hope they don't run into the same problems most distros today run into.

[bork[e]]

I tried it a few months ago, was some version of Ubuntu.

Seemed nice tbh, but didn't see one advantage it had over xp...the only reason I really tried it was b/c of the screenshots I saw of ubuntu doing a google search for a new wallpaper.

If I had the time to play with it, I would love to. But just doens't seem to fun right now.

edit: Let me also state that I had zero skillzz at linux, picked the one that was "easiest" to get going and running. So I'm sure there are many advantages to running a linux box...meh, you get the idea.

[bitWISE]

I've ran a few Linux distros when I had a second box and I never found a practicle reason to have them.

[Bacon]

Linux really isnt meant for home pc use... or gaming... its more of a developers os, except for some distros that try to be user friendly, but in the end, it isnt. I originally ran gentoo for a server, and it works great, but for gaming and everything else, windows is sufficient. The only other thing that draws me closer to linux is the fact that it is almost 100% spyware and virus free, but it isn't enough to give up being able to install a game in less than 5 minutes, and be playing it.

[duffman91]

I have played around with virtually all flavors of unix, linux, and BSD. For desktop use, I prefer Ubuntu and Debian. For server use I prefer FreeBSD. For development use I prefer Solaris.

Once I understood the concepts behind Unix, I stopped having problems with operating systems in general.

Personally, I find operating systems and computer architecture to be interesting topics. That helped alot in learning certain things.

[^misantropia^]

Anyone here run Linux fulltime?

Me. Debian Linux, the testing branch. You're right about the ATI drivers being crap but the NVIDIA ones are quite up to par with their Windows counterparts. Gnome and KDE are a bit sluggish indeed, give XFCE a try (`apt-get install xfce`).

[stocktroll]

well even for developing ive found it much more efficient to be a master of visual studio instead of using linux

[duffman91]

stocktroll: Yeah, if you want to develop in .NET and not in ANSI C or C++. Microsoft has some interesting opinions about how some languages should be.

[raw]

I run Gentoo Linux on my file server full-time. I only have a network cable and a power cord plugged in and I run it all by remote shell and I also support Linux and Unix systems at work . I like Linux, it needs to be developed a bit more but it is well on its way to being a contender in the server market.

[shiznit]

I think Linux is best for web servers and such, cpanel, mysql & apache. But it's not the best for desktop.

[menkent]

i think ubuntu is the problem there. that shit is gay gay gay.

[bitWISE]

stocktroll: Yeah, if you want to develop in .NET and not in ANSI C or C++. Microsoft has some interesting opinions about how some languages should be.

VS will still compile code that isn't using .net. In fact the compiler is supposed to be even more optimized than previous versions. The only thing I don't like about VS is the lack of a Java compiler.

[Underpants?]

I've been messing around a little with Debian and Ubuntu and in my opinion Linux is quite useless (at least for me).

I approached Linux with an open mind, I knew it wasn't Windows. I learned a ton of stuff and got used to the terminal, but I find it's generally harder to do very simple tasks. The whole root/user is smart but in a way it restricts the user from simple tasks.

On Ubuntu the new version of Nautilus doesn’t use the address bar but has sort of like buttons. So let’s say you want to copy a file to a location and you happen to have surfed to it using the file browser you cannot copy and paste the location like in Debian, you have to retype the location in the terminal, and then you have to retype it again and the source location with sudo cp and then type your root password just so you can copy 1 file. Utter stupidity.

Despite that Ubuntu was actually very easy to use and it was my first time trying, Debian on the other hand was harder I removed it after 2 days of having it installed.

I was able to configure everything and even tweak it, driver support for Nvidia & ATI is quite bad. Gnome & KDE run about 30% slower then Windows XP (give or take). I was actually surprised, people always say Linux is faster but the desktop environment is much more sluggish then Windows. KDE takes a long time to launch programs (1-4 seconds), Gnome is better but the windows react slow, when you click on applications panel you can see the panel & text and then the icons loading in about a second. I think it's because each icon is basically a png or svg file that has to load and be resized at the time you open the menu. Unlike windows which has the sizes already determined in the icon file. Yes it’s good for icon makes but horrible for people who actually use the icons.

I've been also told by people that Linux is faster in native games then windows, I tried Quake3 & Doom3. Quake3 ran about 10fps lower then on Windows XP, Doom3 ran about 15-20fps lower. I was quite disappointed. I tried with other drivers and tweaks/settings and I got similar results.

In conclusion Linux is a long way to appealing to a mass audience, no average user will ever try it it’s just too hard and not because it’s not like Windows but because it’s just harder to use, even if it’s preinstalled on someone’s computer.

Anyone here run Linux fulltime? Has anyone else tried it? What are your thoughts?

whiskey-tango-foxtrot?
christ lol what kind of moron admits to being a moron as blatantly as this, ziznit? To give bearing on why you're a moron's moron, here's an analogous statement to what you just said: "I sat in a car once, never learned to drive it properly but my overall feeling was a car is completely useless, as compared to my bicycle."

[+JuggerNaut+]

I've been messing around a little with Debian and Ubuntu and in my opinion Linux is quite useless (at least for me).

I approached Linux with an open mind, I knew it wasn't Windows. I learned a ton of stuff and got used to the terminal, but I find it's generally harder to do very simple tasks. The whole root/user is smart but in a way it restricts the user from simple tasks.

On Ubuntu the new version of Nautilus doesn’t use the address bar but has sort of like buttons. So let’s say you want to copy a file to a location and you happen to have surfed to it using the file browser you cannot copy and paste the location like in Debian, you have to retype the location in the terminal, and then you have to retype it again and the source location with sudo cp and then type your root password just so you can copy 1 file. Utter stupidity.

Despite that Ubuntu was actually very easy to use and it was my first time trying, Debian on the other hand was harder I removed it after 2 days of having it installed.

I was able to configure everything and even tweak it, driver support for Nvidia & ATI is quite bad. Gnome & KDE run about 30% slower then Windows XP (give or take). I was actually surprised, people always say Linux is faster but the desktop environment is much more sluggish then Windows. KDE takes a long time to launch programs (1-4 seconds), Gnome is better but the windows react slow, when you click on applications panel you can see the panel & text and then the icons loading in about a second. I think it's because each icon is basically a png or svg file that has to load and be resized at the time you open the menu. Unlike windows which has the sizes already determined in the icon file. Yes it’s good for icon makes but horrible for people who actually use the icons.

I've been also told by people that Linux is faster in native games then windows, I tried Quake3 & Doom3. Quake3 ran about 10fps lower then on Windows XP, Doom3 ran about 15-20fps lower. I was quite disappointed. I tried with other drivers and tweaks/settings and I got similar results.

In conclusion Linux is a long way to appealing to a mass audience, no average user will ever try it it’s just too hard and not because it’s not like Windows but because it’s just harder to use, even if it’s preinstalled on someone’s computer.

Anyone here run Linux fulltime? Has anyone else tried it? What are your thoughts?

whiskey-tango-foxtrot?
christ lol what kind of moron admits to being a moron as blatantly as this, ziznit? To give bearing on why you're a moron's moron, here's an analogous statement to what you just said: "I sat in a car once, never learned to drive it properly but my overall feeling was a car is completely useless, as compared to my bicycle."

[Seg]

Debian and Unbuntu are probably all compiled optimised for a x386 chip. This would explain why everything was so slow. Then adding Gnome or KDE in there, which are known for being bloated and slow, didn't help either. Yes it's easy and runs on everything, but not as quickly as it could.

If you want speed go with Gentoo, they have builds for most processors. Ditch Gnome/KDE and use any other window manager. Seriously anything is faster than those two, but Fluxbox is my favorite. Forget Nautilus, it's always been a useless gimick. Open a console window and get things done. The commands are no more difficult than using DOS.

The thing is Linux is a server OS with a CLI. People can use it as a destop, but it was never designed as a desktop OS. So it requires a bit more effort to get it working well.

[shiznit]

whiskey-tango-foxtrot?
christ lol what kind of moron admits to being a moron as blatantly as this, ziznit? To give bearing on why you're a moron's moron, here's an analogous statement to what you just said: "I sat in a car once, never learned to drive it properly but my overall feeling was a car is completely useless, as compared to my bicycle."

I've heard this analogy before, it's flawed. Because you can clearly compare certain aspects of an object even if the objects are different. Furthermore I didn't suggest that Linux should be like Windows, I suggested that Windows is faster then Linux. This was based on my own experince but it doesn't mean it's flawed, I believe the desktop experience with Gnome & KDE on Linux is generally slower and that most people will probally agree with me.

I used Linux with an openmind, I didn't expect it to be the same as Windows. I expected it to be different, but at the same time I mentioned that certain tasks are harder to do because of the window managers in Gnome.

I suggested that using Nautilus is quite useless since you need to be root in order to do anything like copy a file. You might as well use terminal since you need to retype all the locations anyway.

[shiznit]

Debian and Unbuntu are probably all compiled optimised for a x386 chip. This would explain why everything was so slow. Then adding Gnome or KDE in there, which are known for being bloated and slow, didn't help either. Yes it's easy and runs on everything, but not as quickly as it could.

If you want speed go with Gentoo, they have builds for most processors. Ditch Gnome/KDE and use any other window manager. Seriously anything is faster than those two, but Fluxbox is my favorite. Forget Nautilus, it's always been a useless gimick. Open a console window and get things done. The commands are no more difficult than using DOS.

The thing is Linux is a server OS with a CLI. People can use it as a destop, but it was never designed as a desktop OS. So it requires a bit more effort to get it working well.

Yes the one I got was for x386, What's the difference between x386 & x86? I'll probally give Linux another go in a few months, perhaps I will try Gentoo but I have read that it's hard to configure?

[duffman91]

stocktroll: Yeah, if you want to develop in .NET and not in ANSI C or C++. Microsoft has some interesting opinions about how some languages should be.

VS will still compile code that isn't using .net. In fact the compiler is supposed to be even more optimized than previous versions. The only thing I don't like about VS is the lack of a Java compiler.

Right, but it is not ANSI standard.

[plained]

good readings in here

[Geebs]

Open a console window and get things done. The commands are no more difficult than using DOS.

[Timbo]

I love how these threads are almost universally a hive for misinformation :icon23: :icon25: (on both sides).

[Foo]

Save us linux man!

It's because anyone who does use Linux is too busy wrestling with their OS to type out explainations to the commoners.

amirite.

[^misantropia^]

VS will still compile code that isn't using .net. In fact the compiler is supposed to be even more optimized than previous versions. The only thing I don't like about VS is the lack of a Java compiler.

Right, but it is not ANSI standard.

At least their STL implementation conforms to the standard these days. And it only took them seven years or so.

@bitwise: give the Intel C Compiler (ICC) a try if speed is your concern, it beats MSVC++ pants down.

[shiznit]

I love how these threads are almost universally a hive for misinformation :icon23: :icon25: (on both sides).

Maybe you can enlighten us Timbo