... and loving it.
Tired of all the bullshit my computer was giving me in conjunction with the Windows XP, I switched to a 100% Ubuntu environment last week, leaving the Windows section (and the games) on my travel laptop.
Linux had some amazing transformations ever since 2003, my last real encounter with it. First of all, it formatted my hard-drive, installed the system, matched all my hardware with the necessary drivers (even the internet worked at first click) and placed a few necessary programs (video and audio players, photo editing, browser, office pack), all in 15 minutes. As a comparison, an usual Windows installation (with all the following steps) could have taken at least an hour.
Everything moves smoothly, the interface resembles Windows and the tons of Internet informations about Ubuntu means that it's a breeze to resolve even the hardest task. While Wine is not extraordinarily stable and I might have missed some games if I wouldn't have had the laptop, I wouldn't go back to Windows and its multiple issues.
Are there any Linux users here?
myeah, ubuntu seems alrightish but the lack of games and having few other programs ruins any chance of me using it full time.
And of course for general usability its lacking- it took me ages to get the darn thing to recognise all my hard disks.
I use my linux'd netbook once every two weeks or so. I like the ubuntu. it's user friendly.
Judging by its rate of evolution, I'd say Linux is on the right path. Already it's more stable than any Windows version I've encountered (tried it on a computer that was overheating and restarting every hour using XP... no restart whatsoever in the last three days), it's more user-friendly at start and it's safer. Since most people use two computers nowadays, it's the perfect system for the work station and, I'd say, a perfect addition as the second OS in the main computer (leaving Windows to deal only with games).
Now, some game companies have proved more supportive of Linux than others (id is the most famous of these companies). It won't be long until their products will be ported on Linux from the start. But I'm not obsessed about it since nowadays I'm more interested in a stable system than a game rig.
Xandros and Ubuntu in particular have definitely evolved into something that can keep up with the mainstream OSes. PuppyLinux must also be embarrassing for MS and Mac, since the interface looks so polished with such a small footprint.
About a month ago, anandtech presented a very thorough "review" of Ubuntu Linux.
http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=3616
It's conclusion:
QuoteIn searching for an answer to our question of whether Ubuntu is good enough to convince me to switch, I ultimately have failed to find enough compelling reasons to entice me as a user to switch to Ubuntu for my day-to-day operations. I should make it clear that this is not taking price into consideration – this is only taking into account my current situation as a Windows Vista user. Ubuntu does plenty of things well and I could certainly use it for my day-to-day operations, but there are few things it does better and more things it does worse as compared to Vista, such that using Ubuntu likely hurt my productivity even after I adapted to the differences. It's hard to fully compete with commercially developed software when you're giving yours away for free, so I don't consider this a surprise.
From a performance standpoint, there's little reason to switch in either direction. As I stated early in this article performance was never a serious condition for evaluation anyhow, and the results don't change that. Ubuntu outperforms Vista at times, but at other times it looks to be held back by compiler differences and the disadvantage of needing to play nicely with proprietary products that don't return the favor (e.g. SMB performance). As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu performed no worse than Windows for my day-to-day needs.
The author also had some harsh words for the difficulty in trying to get certain items (namely wireless) working, and that when Ubuntu's otherwise flawless installation would break down, it would break down spectacularly requiring access to the command line interface and the need to compile your own drivers.
Other than the pure geeky joy of it (which I do understand) I can see no real reason to move to Linux.
The configuration curve with Linux is pretty steep. JACK (audio drivers) in particular doesn't like to play nice with onboard soundcards, I've noticed. Also, I never found out: have the latest flavors of Ubuntu or Xandros made DVD decryption any easier? With my version of Xandros, even after installing additional codecs, it would pretty much only read DVDs as data or if they were homemade video.
Well, for one thing I would install Ubuntu on a system owned by an older individual, that tries for the first time the wonders of the internet. During college I was part of a small business that offered home services (mostly after working hours) to computer owners and it was a pain to look at what people were doing with their Windows systems. They opened all mails, they accepted anything from anybody on their messenger list, they installed stupid demos/shareware programs/infected files. If you only listen to music/browse the internet/read and write documents/look at images/play solitaire-type games (and there are a lot out there like that), Ubuntu is the real choice.
While I agree that the Linux distributions aren't ready for the average user (which makes the majority of all computer users), competition is clearly needed. Because the way Microsoft treats its number one product is not normal. The author speaks about the difficulties of getting the wireless working? The same wireless that worked with Ubuntu "out of the box" needed for Windows drivers I could only locate after two hours of gruesome internet searches and close to twenty different installs. Not to mention the sudden death of the OS once in a while... or the bloatware it has become over the years... or the stupid action of saving all used files in a hidden temp folder, so as a single session might eat away half of your hdd...
I did give it an honest attempt, but I couldn't ever use any Linux distro as my main OS-- way too many Windows-only programs I'm dependent upon. I also tried making a home theater MythTV box using Ubuntu, but got fed up with all the necessary tweaking.
And one of the best things about Linux (it's free) has been negated by the fact that MS has given me Ultimate editions of both Vista & Win7, and I only had to pay $79 for the OEM version of Vista Home Premium I run on my home theater pc.
Having said all that, I think Linux is great for 'secondary' computers & devices-- I run Ubuntu on my netbook, and have a few devices that run embedded Linux. And my next phone will run Android :)
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2009, 10:35:47 AM
About a month ago, anandtech presented a very thorough "review" of Ubuntu Linux.
http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=3616
It's conclusion:
QuoteIn searching for an answer to our question of whether Ubuntu is good enough to convince me to switch, I ultimately have failed to find enough compelling reasons to entice me as a user to switch to Ubuntu for my day-to-day operations. I should make it clear that this is not taking price into consideration – this is only taking into account my current situation as a Windows Vista user. Ubuntu does plenty of things well and I could certainly use it for my day-to-day operations, but there are few things it does better and more things it does worse as compared to Vista, such that using Ubuntu likely hurt my productivity even after I adapted to the differences. It's hard to fully compete with commercially developed software when you're giving yours away for free, so I don't consider this a surprise.
From a performance standpoint, there's little reason to switch in either direction. As I stated early in this article performance was never a serious condition for evaluation anyhow, and the results don't change that. Ubuntu outperforms Vista at times, but at other times it looks to be held back by compiler differences and the disadvantage of needing to play nicely with proprietary products that don't return the favor (e.g. SMB performance). As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu performed no worse than Windows for my day-to-day needs.
The author also had some harsh words for the difficulty in trying to get certain items (namely wireless) working, and that when Ubuntu's otherwise flawless installation would break down, it would break down spectacularly requiring access to the command line interface and the need to compile your own drivers.
Other than the pure geeky joy of it (which I do understand) I can see no real reason to move to Linux.
See this is the thing I don't like about these arguments (and maybe this is just me but I don't think so) Why is it always that you have to switch OSes? I use OSX at home, Ubuntu in Cafes, and Windows at work. Why do people feel the need to only be champion of one OS. I think all the ones I use do the job, and fairly well. Each have their flaws.
non issue for me. I can use any computer, almost any software you put in front of me. You should be able to as well (and by you I mean anyone on Languish)
I agree. In fact it's much better to know more operating systems than getting stuck in the mindset of an user of limited experience.
I remember that few years ago there some Linux die-hards that advocated against the appearance of a Windows-like GUI for their distributions in the same "extremist" voice that doesn't do any good. And I have a very weird experience with some Microsoft vendors that actually endorsed piracy for the Windows OS. Their reasons? "It's better for them to use it and get accustomed with it rather than getting a Linux for free and fighting for the enemy" <_<
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 11, 2009, 11:25:00 AM
Well, for one thing I would install Ubuntu on a system owned by an older individual, that tries for the first time the wonders of the internet. During college I was part of a small business that offered home services (mostly after working hours) to computer owners and it was a pain to look at what people were doing with their Windows systems. They opened all mails, they accepted anything from anybody on their messenger list, they installed stupid demos/shareware programs/infected files. If you only listen to music/browse the internet/read and write documents/look at images/play solitaire-type games (and there are a lot out there like that), Ubuntu is the real choice.
If ease of use is your main criteria, I can't imagine why you wouldn't recommend a Mac.
My parents, neither of whom are particularly computer geeks, have two iMacs and never have any problems with them.
While
you could probably set up a Linux machine for someone, you still have to do the setup. You could also just tell them to get a Mac and it'll work out of the box, no help needed.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2009, 01:29:26 PM
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 11, 2009, 11:25:00 AM
Well, for one thing I would install Ubuntu on a system owned by an older individual, that tries for the first time the wonders of the internet. During college I was part of a small business that offered home services (mostly after working hours) to computer owners and it was a pain to look at what people were doing with their Windows systems. They opened all mails, they accepted anything from anybody on their messenger list, they installed stupid demos/shareware programs/infected files. If you only listen to music/browse the internet/read and write documents/look at images/play solitaire-type games (and there are a lot out there like that), Ubuntu is the real choice.
If ease of use is your main criteria, I can't imagine why you wouldn't recommend a Mac.
My parents, neither of whom are particularly computer geeks, have two iMacs and never have any problems with them.
While you could probably set up a Linux machine for someone, you still have to do the setup. You could also just tell them to get a Mac and it'll work out of the box, no help needed.
But could you recommend someone a Mac when that person only wants to pay bills and surf the web a few times a month? The cheapest Mac is a hell of a lot more expensive than the cheapest PC.
Quote from: Threviel on October 12, 2009, 01:58:51 AM
But could you recommend someone a Mac when that person only wants to pay bills and surf the web a few times a month? The cheapest Mac is a hell of a lot more expensive than the cheapest PC.
Mac Mini is pretty damn cheap.
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2009, 01:29:26 PM
While you could probably set up a Linux machine for someone, you still have to do the setup. You could also just tell them to get a Mac and it'll work out of the box, no help needed.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the operating system, regardless of which one it is, and everything to do with the OEMs selling hardware.
You could buy a computer that comes with a preinstalled OS and get exactly the same deal, only way cheaper...
Quote from: Barrister on October 11, 2009, 10:35:47 AM
About a month ago, anandtech presented a very thorough "review" of Ubuntu Linux.
http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=3616
It's conclusion:
QuoteIn searching for an answer to our question of whether Ubuntu is good enough to convince me to switch, I ultimately have failed to find enough compelling reasons to entice me as a user to switch to Ubuntu for my day-to-day operations. I should make it clear that this is not taking price into consideration – this is only taking into account my current situation as a Windows Vista user. Ubuntu does plenty of things well and I could certainly use it for my day-to-day operations, but there are few things it does better and more things it does worse as compared to Vista, such that using Ubuntu likely hurt my productivity even after I adapted to the differences. It's hard to fully compete with commercially developed software when you're giving yours away for free, so I don't consider this a surprise.
From a performance standpoint, there's little reason to switch in either direction. As I stated early in this article performance was never a serious condition for evaluation anyhow, and the results don't change that. Ubuntu outperforms Vista at times, but at other times it looks to be held back by compiler differences and the disadvantage of needing to play nicely with proprietary products that don't return the favor (e.g. SMB performance). As far as I am concerned, Ubuntu performed no worse than Windows for my day-to-day needs.
The author also had some harsh words for the difficulty in trying to get certain items (namely wireless) working, and that when Ubuntu's otherwise flawless installation would break down, it would break down spectacularly requiring access to the command line interface and the need to compile your own drivers.
Other than the pure geeky joy of it (which I do understand) I can see no real reason to move to Linux.
I need to finish reading this, but the impression I get so far is a number of his objections center on third parties not making their applications available for Linux-based systems. While he does shift the blame to Apple for iPhone/iPod syncing, he knocks Rhythmbox/Totem essentially for not being iTunes without noting that Apple refuses to release Linux versions of any of their software.
The Samba thing I've never encountered, but then all of my Samba shares are on Linux boxes for Windows boxes to mount, so I've never tried that. Of course, I could turn that around and cite the shitty performance in Windows when mounting NFS shares (the *nix standard at the moment), though since NFS is an open standard it should be better than Samba performance in Linux.
I'll have more later.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2009, 02:18:13 AM
Quote from: Threviel on October 12, 2009, 01:58:51 AM
But could you recommend someone a Mac when that person only wants to pay bills and surf the web a few times a month? The cheapest Mac is a hell of a lot more expensive than the cheapest PC.
Mac Mini is pretty damn cheap.
The cheapest mini in Sweden with keyboard and mouse, but without monitor costs 7.943,00 kr. For that price I could buy 3-4 cheap computers. They will have much worse hardware, but they will be enough for surfing the web and paying some bills. I would call that a hell of a lot more expensive for filling the same need.
Quote from: Threviel on October 12, 2009, 11:26:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2009, 02:18:13 AM
Quote from: Threviel on October 12, 2009, 01:58:51 AM
But could you recommend someone a Mac when that person only wants to pay bills and surf the web a few times a month? The cheapest Mac is a hell of a lot more expensive than the cheapest PC.
Mac Mini is pretty damn cheap.
The cheapest mini in Sweden with keyboard and mouse, but without monitor costs 7.943,00 kr. For that price I could buy 3-4 cheap computers. They will have much worse hardware, but they will be enough for surfing the web and paying some bills. I would call that a hell of a lot more expensive for filling the same need.
Really?
The cheapest Dell I could find was $409. The cheapest Mini is $729. Neither has a monitor. The mini is more expensive, but not 3-4x more expensive.
Cheapest Dell in Germany costs 299€, cheapest Apple Mac Mini costs 599€.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2009, 12:26:41 PM
Really?
The cheapest Dell I could find was $409. The cheapest Mini is $729. Neither has a monitor. The mini is more expensive, but not 3-4x more expensive.
Dell used to have some notoriety as an expensive PC brand. I see the Mac Mini as a minimum $599 USD; Best Buy's offering an eMachines tower for $249. A comparable computer to the Mac Mini would be the Acer AspireRevo (coming out around the end of the month), which is going for $199 on NewEgg.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 12, 2009, 12:37:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2009, 12:26:41 PM
Really?
The cheapest Dell I could find was $409. The cheapest Mini is $729. Neither has a monitor. The mini is more expensive, but not 3-4x more expensive.
Dell used to have some notoriety as an expensive PC brand. I see the Mac Mini as a minimum $599 USD; Best Buy's offering an eMachines tower for $249. A comparable computer to the Mac Mini would be the Acer AspireRevo (coming out around the end of the month), which is going for $199 on NewEgg.
You can also get the Shuttle SD50X all-in-one with touchscreen (!) for $430. The only drawback is no one is selling it with an OS preloaded yet.
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2009, 12:26:41 PM
Quote from: Threviel on October 12, 2009, 11:26:46 AM
Quote from: Barrister on October 12, 2009, 02:18:13 AM
Quote from: Threviel on October 12, 2009, 01:58:51 AM
But could you recommend someone a Mac when that person only wants to pay bills and surf the web a few times a month? The cheapest Mac is a hell of a lot more expensive than the cheapest PC.
Mac Mini is pretty damn cheap.
The cheapest mini in Sweden with keyboard and mouse, but without monitor costs 7.943,00 kr. For that price I could buy 3-4 cheap computers. They will have much worse hardware, but they will be enough for surfing the web and paying some bills. I would call that a hell of a lot more expensive for filling the same need.
Really?
The cheapest Dell I could find was $409. The cheapest Mini is $729. Neither has a monitor. The mini is more expensive, but not 3-4x more expensive.
My point still stands even if the mac is only twice more expensive, but here are a list of cheap computers that can be bought for around 2000 kr. http://www.pricerunner.se/cl/223/Stationaera-datorer?sort=3
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 11, 2009, 10:57:07 AM
The configuration curve with Linux is pretty steep. JACK (audio drivers) in particular doesn't like to play nice with onboard soundcards, I've noticed. Also, I never found out: have the latest flavors of Ubuntu or Xandros made DVD decryption any easier? With my version of Xandros, even after installing additional codecs, it would pretty much only read DVDs as data or if they were homemade video.
DVD decryption should be "on the fly" now, but I did not try it.
What lacks is Blu-Ray support. Well, Ubuntu does support Blu-Ray... but you need to manually decrypt the disc, copy it to your hard drive, then play it, wich amounts to many hrs of work to play a simple disc.
I've reinstalled Ubuntu on my work machine, on another hdd. I've noticed it lacks the following to be a general OS:
[/list][/list]
- Lack of HDMI sound support with Nvidia chipsets
- Lack of wireless network support
- Lack of Blu-Ray/HD-DVD support
- The "emulator" for games and other Windows software isn't working properly half of the time
Aside that, I think it's a decent OS. And I think the #1 point is now solved. Haven't tried it yet, really.
Quote from: viper37 on October 13, 2009, 10:14:01 AM
DVD decryption should be "on the fly" now, but I did not try it.
What lacks is Blu-Ray support. Well, Ubuntu does support Blu-Ray... but you need to manually decrypt the disc, copy it to your hard drive, then play it, wich amounts to many hrs of work to play a simple disc.
I've reinstalled Ubuntu on my work machine, on another hdd. I've noticed it lacks the following to be a general OS:
[list=1]
- Lack of HDMI sound support with Nvidia chipsets
- Lack of wireless network support
- Lack of Blu-Ray/HD-DVD support
- The "emulator" for games and other Windows software isn't working properly half of the time.
Aside that, I think it's a decent OS. And I think the #1 point is now solved. Haven't tried it yet, really.
I know the packaged versions handle DVD decryption, but I seem to recall Xandros stating that it didn't package decrypters that could handle commercial DVDs because those codecs were outlawed in some countries that they do business with.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 13, 2009, 10:53:10 AM
I know the packaged versions handle DVD decryption, but I seem to recall Xandros stating that it didn't package decrypters that could handle commercial DVDs because those codecs were outlawed in some countries that they do business with.
Don't know about Xandros, but I suppose it works the same as Ubuntu.
Ubuntu, when you download it includes a lot of codecs/decoders that are open source.
Some free stuff might be available (like MP3 codecs) that are given away for free, but are not open source.
With DVD decryption, you need an additional package, that is free of charge, but since it allows you to circumvent the encryption of a DVD, it is illegal in the US, as per the DMCA, hence not incorporated in the downloads.
Rule of thumb: Any DVD that works in Windows will work on Linux based system. Blu Ray is another matter entirely, but apparently, they are working on it.
Where is this crap about Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, not being able to handle wireless networking coming from? I've never had any issues in Ubuntu that weren't due to a flaky NIC. My EEE's connection is flawless.
Quote from: vonmoltke on October 13, 2009, 09:57:08 PM
Where is this crap about Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, not being able to handle wireless networking coming from?
~3 years ago, when good drivers for most wifi network adapters were rare. It was a royal pain in the ass, in fact.
Quote from: vonmoltke on October 13, 2009, 09:57:08 PM
Where is this crap about Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, not being able to handle wireless networking coming from? I've never had any issues in Ubuntu that weren't due to a flaky NIC. My EEE's connection is flawless.
http://linux-wless.passys.nl/query_alles.php
A lot of adapters are still unsupported.
Quote from: derspiess on October 14, 2009, 12:35:31 AM
~3 years ago, when good drivers for most wifi network adapters were rare. It was a royal pain in the ass, in fact.
It is still a royal pain in the ass, in fact.
Ick. I think I went through 3 or 4 wifi adapters trying to get one that worked right. Finally got NDISWrapper to cooperate, but then couldn't get that Netgear adapter to keep a connection longer than a few minutes.
Quote from: derspiess on October 14, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
Ick. I think I went through 3 or 4 wifi adapters trying to get one that worked right. Finally got NDISWrapper to cooperate, but then couldn't get that Netgear adapter to keep a connection longer than a few minutes.
I had an old Netgear USB adapter. Didn't work.
Tried a newer D-Link USB (N) adapter. Didn't work.
My PCI-E adapter is not even listed.
I stop bothering.
Quote from: vonmoltke on October 13, 2009, 09:57:08 PM
Where is this crap about Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, not being able to handle wireless networking coming from? I've never had any issues in Ubuntu that weren't due to a flaky NIC. My EEE's connection is flawless.
err... how about from the anandtech article I posted? And from the personal anecdotes of people in this thread?
It's not that linux can't handle wireless. It's that many wireless cards don't have the proper drivers, or you need to compile them yourself, or that they are in general a huge pain in the ass to get working.
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 12:58:18 PM
Quote from: vonmoltke on October 13, 2009, 09:57:08 PM
Where is this crap about Ubuntu, or any Linux distro, not being able to handle wireless networking coming from? I've never had any issues in Ubuntu that weren't due to a flaky NIC. My EEE's connection is flawless.
err... how about from the anandtech article I posted? And from the personal anecdotes of people in this thread?
It's not that linux can't handle wireless. It's that many wireless cards don't have the proper drivers, or you need to compile them yourself, or that they are in general a huge pain in the ass to get working.
I already told the story of the endless search on the net for a suitable driver for my wireless... on a Windows XP. If you could believe it, the driver that came with it did not work on XP.
This is a linux thread, therefore it's logical to try and find its flaws. If it were a Windows thread, I'd tell the story of my nephew that returned today from a week long trip, opened his computer, saw that the Windows OS was giving him a blue screen, restarted it only to find all the data from his second partition gone, deleted, erased.
Quote from: viper37 on October 13, 2009, 02:19:15 PM
Don't know about Xandros, but I suppose it works the same as Ubuntu.
Ubuntu, when you download it includes a lot of codecs/decoders that are open source.
Some free stuff might be available (like MP3 codecs) that are given away for free, but are not open source.
With DVD decryption, you need an additional package, that is free of charge, but since it allows you to circumvent the encryption of a DVD, it is illegal in the US, as per the DMCA, hence not incorporated in the downloads.
Rule of thumb: Any DVD that works in Windows will work on Linux based system. Blu Ray is another matter entirely, but apparently, they are working on it.
There must be some kind of license scheme with decryption, then. On mine, DVDs were decoded, but not decrypted, so I wasn't able to watch any commercial DVDs on my linux comp. After replacing my power supply and putting Windows back on, I found decryption was still iffy and ended up having to buy a commercial codec (Sonic CinePlayer)to play pressed DVDs.
Never had any problems with wireless cards and Linux, but then I specifically made sure the wireless cards had linux drivers before I bought them. Wasn't hard to find, most of them do.
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 12:58:18 PM
err... how about from the anandtech article I posted? And from the personal anecdotes of people in this thread?
It's not that linux can't handle wireless. It's that many wireless cards don't have the proper drivers, or you need to compile them yourself, or that they are in general a huge pain in the ass to get working.
Sorry, I haven't had time to finish the article yet.
My personal experience, though, is that I've never had issues with wireless cards that weren't hardware related, and I have yet to find a PCMCIA or USB adapter that is anywhere near as reliable as a built-in chipset.
Quote from: derspiess on October 14, 2009, 11:04:32 AM
Ick. I think I went through 3 or 4 wifi adapters trying to get one that worked right. Finally got NDISWrapper to cooperate, but then couldn't get that Netgear adapter to keep a connection longer than a few minutes.
I had the same problem with a Netgear PCMCIA card. In Linux and Windows. I'm never buying Netgear's products again.
Ubuntu does have an issue with the wireless manager that gets installed by default, though. Network Manager is inferior to wicd (http://wicd.sourceforge.net/), and I did have configuration issues with my connections before I switched.
Quote from: vonmoltke on October 15, 2009, 07:04:39 AM
I had the same problem with a Netgear PCMCIA card. In Linux and Windows. I'm never buying Netgear's products again.
I've found Netgear to be marginally worse than Linksys. Whenever anybody asks for wireless recommendations from me, I tell them to fork over the extra cash for a D-Link, as it's worth it. :contract:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:13:47 AM
I've found Netgear to be marginally worse than Linksys. Whenever anybody asks for wireless recommendations from me, I tell them to fork over the extra cash for a D-Link, as it's worth it. :contract:
I've come down firmly in Rosewill's camp, which is hard to recommend to people since their stuff isn't carried by most stores.
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 12:58:18 PM
err... how about from the anandtech article I posted?
I must have missed it, since I've read the article in spurts over several days. What page is it on?
Quote from: Barrister on October 14, 2009, 12:58:18 PMAnd from the personal anecdotes of people in this thread?
That was a response to the personal anecdotes in this thread, which were sparse on details until after I said this.
Sorry about the choppy replies. I've been extra scatterbrained lately.
A buddy of mine, who is a lifelong Mac fanboy, bought a Dell Mini 9 to turn into a Hackintosh. He's loving Ubuntu so much now that he's not sure he wants to put Leopard on it :D:
Quote from: derspiess on October 15, 2009, 11:58:38 AM
A buddy of mine, who is a lifelong Mac fanboy, bought a Dell Mini 9 to turn into a Hackintosh. He's loving Ubuntu so much now that he's not sure he wants to put Leopard on it :D:
Apparently the Dell Mini's make very nice hackintoshes.
Quote from: Alexandru H. on October 14, 2009, 02:28:26 PM
I already told the story of the endless search on the net for a suitable driver for my wireless... on a Windows XP. If you could believe it, the driver that came with it did not work on XP.
Windows XP was built in what, 2002-2003?
Vista is the current OS. Vista has no driver problems with wireless adapters afaik.
Linux having problems with wireless adapters in 2002-2003, I could understand.
In 2009, I don't.
Quote
This is a linux thread, therefore it's logical to try and find its flaws. If it were a Windows thread, I'd tell the story of my nephew that returned today from a week long trip, opened his computer, saw that the Windows OS was giving him a blue screen, restarted it only to find all the data from his second partition gone, deleted, erased.
We're not saying Linux (whatever flavour you may prefer) is a butched up OS that completely crap.
We're just saying that for the average user, it is no good. It's still far from Windows, though it's getting closer.
I named the issues that personally prevent me from using Ubuntu on any of my machine as the default OS. I like that little OS. It's fast, it's not that hard to use, but sometimes, you just hit your head on a wall. And these happen to be critical issues for me.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 14, 2009, 02:49:02 PM
There must be some kind of license scheme with decryption, then. On mine, DVDs were decoded, but not decrypted, so I wasn't able to watch any commercial DVDs on my linux comp. After replacing my power supply and putting Windows back on, I found decryption was still iffy and ended up having to buy a commercial codec (Sonic CinePlayer)to play pressed DVDs.
that is possibly the problem. Some DVDs won't play easily in a computer.
I'll check some of mine tonight to see.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 15, 2009, 07:13:47 AM
I've found Netgear to be marginally worse than Linksys. Whenever anybody asks for wireless recommendations from me, I tell them to fork over the extra cash for a D-Link, as it's worth it. :contract:
I went from D-Link to Linksys, myself actually. Got fed up with half working routers.
Seems I got the same deal with Linksys...
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2009, 02:41:38 PM
We're not saying Linux (whatever flavour you may prefer) is a butched up OS that completely crap.
We're just saying that for the average user, it is no good. It's still far from Windows, though it's getting closer.
I named the issues that personally prevent me from using Ubuntu on any of my machine as the default OS. I like that little OS. It's fast, it's not that hard to use, but sometimes, you just hit your head on a wall. And these happen to be critical issues for me.
That's my take on Linux. I think it's really amazing people have built up this entire OS from scratch, for free. I understand it does a few things pretty well, and has found a few niches where it even dominates.
But I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to use it as a home computer. :lol:
Quote from: viper37 on October 15, 2009, 02:44:15 PM
I went from D-Link to Linksys, myself actually. Got fed up with half working routers.
Seems I got the same deal with Linksys...
Linksys cards get spotty connections, but their routers are the worst I've ever used. I'm stuck with a couple freebies, so my main source of network integrity is running two WRT54G routers redundantly.
As far as the codec, no. DVDs ran fine on Windows until I formatted and replaced it with Linux, and the problem continued when I put Windows back on. Tested with every DVD I owned; as mentioned, DVD-ROM drivers are actually twofold for playing commercial DVD video: a decoder to interpret the format, and a decrypter, to read data from the VOB streams. It turned out that the driver for the decrypter is actually attached to the system, not to the device itself (first thing I updated and reinstalled was the driver for the optical drive).
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
But I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to use it as a home computer. :lol:
Yeah, it's like these guys who're using a Mac. Who in his right mind would use a non standard OS on his machine?? ;) :P
Quote from: viper37 on October 16, 2009, 02:29:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on October 15, 2009, 02:47:52 PM
But I can't imagine why anyone would ever want to use it as a home computer. :lol:
Yeah, it's like these guys who're using a Mac. Who in his right mind would use a non standard OS on his machine?? ;) :P
You joke, but there are perfectly valid reasons someone would want to run OS X. First is you want to get stylish Apple hardware, then you also get OS X thrown in. Second is the "it just works" factor.
And of course there's perfectly calid reasons people use Windows. It comes pre-installed on 99.9% of non-Apple PCs. It runs almost every possible piece of software imaginable. And while the ease of use isn't as good as Apple, it's generally not too bad. And since it comes pre-installed, most useds don't have to go under the hood very often (and if they do you can probably find a friend who can fix it for you).
But Linux? What's the reason someone would run Linux (on a home desktop or notebook)? It's free, but the cost of the OS is pretty negligible in the overall cost of the system. Ease of use is not as good as the competition, since if something goes wrong it REALLY goes wrong. It runs a lot less software than the competition. And it has no swanky hardware to drive sales.
Other than the sheer geeky coolness of it, I just don't see the reasoning.
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 03:49:53 PM
Other than the sheer geeky coolness of it, I just don't see the reasoning.
It's secure (the same "security by obscurity" thing Macs benefit from) & it tends to run well on lower spec PCs. If you want to set up a PC where you'll only need to do web browsing, email, and some light office-related stuff, it should serve that purpose well.
Like I said earlier, I can't see having Linux as the OS on my main pc, but I can see a bunch of reasons to have it set up on a secondary pc.
Quote from: derspiess on October 16, 2009, 07:57:46 PM
It's secure (the same "security by obscurity" thing Macs benefit from) & it tends to run well on lower spec PCs. If you want to set up a PC where you'll only need to do web browsing, email, and some light office-related stuff, it should serve that purpose well.
Like I said earlier, I can't see having Linux as the OS on my main pc, but I can see a bunch of reasons to have it set up on a secondary pc.
Not just "security by obscurity" since tarball installation requires the user to specifically enter the terminal and run as an administrator. Debian and RPM packages also run in a much more compartmentalized manner than Windows' EXE or MSI installers.
Just for shits & gigs, I did a quick mental inventory of all Linux devices I have in my house. Most of them run some flavor of embedded Linux, but Linux is Linux:
*HTC Hero running Android
*Tivo HD
*Tivo Series 2 Dual-Tuner
*Chumby
*Hauppauge Media MVP media streamer
*WRT54G router running DD-WRT firmware
*Pinnacle video converter box
*Acer Aspire One running Ubuntu
*Old Celeron desktop PC running Ubuntu
Quote from: derspiess on October 17, 2009, 11:53:03 AM
Just for shits & gigs, I did a quick mental inventory of all Linux devices I have in my house. Most of them run some flavor of embedded Linux, but Linux is Linux:
*HTC Hero running Android
*Tivo HD
*Tivo Series 2 Dual-Tuner
*Chumby
*Hauppauge Media MVP media streamer
*WRT54G router running DD-WRT firmware
*Pinnacle video converter box
*Acer Aspire One running Ubuntu
*Old Celeron desktop PC running Ubuntu
My comments were directed solely towards desktop/laptop linux. Linux has definitely found a home in embedded devices. -_-
And my post had nothing to do with yours :contract:
Quote from: Barrister on October 16, 2009, 03:49:53 PM
And while the ease of use isn't as good as Apple, it's generally not too bad. And since it comes pre-installed, most useds don't have to go under the hood very often (and if they do you can probably find a friend who can fix it for you).
Whatever avantages a mac may have over windows ease of use is certainly not one of them.
As to why you'd use linux- its very resource cheap.
I've a friend who uses ubuntu as standard because he has a seriously shit laptop and all he really needs to do with it is play music, do homework and use the internet.
Linux would be the OS of choice for modernizing old computer rigs or for low-power PCs like netbooks that might not be able to handle the massive boot processes of Windows or Mac; other than that, I'd point out that Xandros has gone semi-commercial and is included in OEM netbook builds with enough third-party software that it's usable out of the box as pretty much anything other than a gaming rig.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 18, 2009, 09:47:27 AM
other than that, I'd point out that Xandros has gone semi-commercial and is included in OEM netbook builds with enough third-party software that it's usable out of the box as pretty much anything other than a gaming rig.
I hope things turn around, but the whole Linux on netbook thing doesn't seem to have been too successful. I thought this would be Linux's big chance to penetrate the mainstream market, but it seems that consumers react negatively when they realize the machine doesn't run some version of Windows (IIRC this has resulted in a lot of returned netbooks).
Quote from: derspiess on October 18, 2009, 08:03:00 PM
I hope things turn around, but the whole Linux on netbook thing doesn't seem to have been too successful. I thought this would be Linux's big chance to penetrate the mainstream market, but it seems that consumers react negatively when they realize the machine doesn't run some version of Windows (IIRC this has resulted in a lot of returned netbooks).
The whole Linux thing is kinda bass-ackwards; most usable distributions aren't free anymore, but even though they make some money, they
don't spend any on advertising. It's a shame, because on the surface, it looks exactly like why antitrust regulators salivate when they hear mention of Microsoft, but a lot of this is the doing of the people that handle business operations for those Linux distributions as well.
Linux is bloated. Apparently ;)
Linus Torvald: Linux is bloated (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/)
Quote
LinuxCon 2009 Linux creator Linus Torvalds says the open source kernel has become "bloated and huge," with no midriff-slimming diet plan in sight.
During a roundtable discussion at LinuxCon in Portland, Oregon this afternoon, moderator and Novell distinguished engineer James Bottomley asked Tovalds whether Linux kernel features were being released too fast, before the kernel is stabilized.
Citing an internal Intel study that tracked kernel releases, Bottomley said Linux performance had dropped about two per centage points at every release, for a cumulative drop of about 12 per cent over the last ten releases. "Is this a problem?" he asked.
"We're getting bloated and huge. Yes, it's a problem," said Torvalds.
Asked what the community is doing to solve this, he balked. "Uh, I'd love to say we have a plan," Torvalds replied to applause and chuckles from the audience. "I mean, sometimes it's a bit sad that we are definitely not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel that I envisioned 15 years ago...The kernel is huge and bloated, and our icache footprint is scary. I mean, there is no question about that. And whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse."
He maintains, however, that stability is not a problem. "I think we've been pretty stable," he said. "We are finding the bugs as fast as we're adding them — even though we're adding more code."
Bottomley took this to mean that Torvalds views that the current level of integration is acceptable under those terms. But Mr. Linux corrected him. "No. I'm not saying that," Torvalds answered. "Acceptable and avoidable are two different things. It's unacceptable but it's also probably unavoidable."
Among techies, Windows usually gets the bad wrap for bloat, but as Linux expands it reach, roping in so many additional features and devices, it can't help but suffer the same fate. What's different is how such problems are tackled.
"Okay, so the summary of this is that you expect that 12 per cent to be back to where it should be next year, and you expect someone else to come up with a plan to do it," joked Bottomley. "That's open source." ®