Linux

[Dave]

XP is atrocious. I had the computer connected to the LAN for about 20 minutes and got hit by the Slammer (?) RPC exploit. Was rather annoying because I didn't know at the time, so went to update to SP2 and had to re-install everything.

[Pangloss]

So now we're going to judge the current quality of an operating system by issues that were resolved three years ago?

 

You sure you want to go there?

[herme3]

You've stated MULTIPLE times that "Linux should just make their OS more compatible with this hardware". Are you seriously retarded or something? Do you understand what that entails? Do you know why the companies themselves give drivers rather than Windows supporting everything? It's because the companies keep the inner workings of their hardware a secret and in many countries it can be a felony to actually try and work some of these things out. Reverse Engineering can be done to find out exactly how the hardware works and how to interface with it' date=' allowing makeshift drivers to be written, but this isn't easy and certainly isnt a perfect solution as it doesn't always come out with drivers that support all the features, or that are of the same quality or efficiency as drivers written with prior knowledge of the architecture. Reverse Engineering has been done for a large amount of hardware but as Gaz's link stated it is a long and laborious process and isnt an ideal solution. There is a solution and if you cant be arsed to look around for it then thats your problem. Not all hardware works first time with Windows XP either, in fact is alot of legacy equipment that won't work at all with it anymore (if you remember the XP Compatibility List problems). You slam Linux's compatibility but I havent seen Windows running on PowerPC or Sparc processors or a host of other processors and architectures...... oh wait.. does that mean Windows isn't compatible??

[/quote']

 

The people that make the other operating systems don't need to make drivers for the hardware. Almost all hardware comes with drivers. The people that make other operating systems just need to figure out why the drivers won't work on their operating system.

 

Complaining about Windows XP not being compatible with legacy equipment is just plain stupid. One of my computers was made in 1999, and Windows XP works great on it. If your computer is older than that, I think it is time you buy a new computer.

 

I am complaining about operating systems that won't work with NEW hardware. However, you are complaining about operating systems that won't work with OLD hardware. How much sense does that make?

 

FreeBSD is not intended to be an alternative to Windows, and never will be

 

FreeBSD is like a really old operating system that has gone out of date a long time ago. It may have been nice in the days of Windows 3.1 but who would want it now?

 

Ubuntu is definitely my favorite distro. I installed FC4 over it and was rather disapointed considering FC3 was my first distribution. Actually' date=' herme3, you may be interested in why I, personally, left Windows for Linux:

 

http://scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=7915[/quote']

 

I've never had any of those problems with any of my systems running Windows XP. Usually when Windows XP crashes, it is because your computer isn't very good. Every computer I know that had Windows XP problems were cheap Celerons. My Pentiums and Centrinos work perfectly with Windows XP and all of my programs.

 

So now we're going to judge the current quality of an operating system by issues that were resolved three years ago?

 

You sure you want to go there?

 

Excellent point. All you need to do is run Windows Update to fix these issues. By the way, I didn't see any type of update software in FreeBSD. When a bug is discovered in FreeBSD, how is anyone going to fix it?

[radiohead]

All you need to do is run Windows Update to fix these issues. By the way, I didn't see any type of update software in FreeBSD. When a bug is discovered in FreeBSD, how is anyone going to fix it?

In Ubuntu, you have Synaptic or just sudo apt-get upgrade. Plus, apt-get upgrade is 20x faster than Windows Update because Windows Update is more front-end programming than it is anything else.

 

Also, up until about a year ago, I was running an old 386 with a 4 gig hard drive. Windows 95 would never run on it properly. I was forced to install Linux and then fell in love with it. I didn't have the money (nor did my parents) to buy a computer, so I put that piece of crap together from parts I found mostly on teh side of the road. Ubuntu worked almost perfect on it. There were some dependency issues, but nothing that I couldn't go without.

 

I would also like to bring up that Microsoft forces you to buy their product again after a new version is put out? That's bull crap. You are wasting money when you could just as easily do

 

apt-get dist-upgrade

and get the latest distro of your OS (if you are running a Debian based distro).

All *nix distros have commands like that, along with apt-get upgrade.

[Clara]

Hi everyone!

 

I hope that nobody gets mad at me for saying this, but I kinda agree with herme3. I use Windows XP a lot, and I've never had any problems with it. What does Linux have that Windows XP doesn't?

 

~Clara

[radiohead]

No one will get mad. As long as you are open-minded enough to consider that Windows is not the end-all-be-all of OS's, then you will be fine.

[Pangloss]

Apparently it's okay to consider that LINUX is the "end-all-be-all" of OS's, though.

 

At Science Forums, Linux is politically correct.

[Clara]

Ok thanks. I was just wondering what are some of the differences between the different operating systems? I don't really support just one operating system. I'm sure that everyone that doesn't like Windows XP has a good reason. I've always used Windows XP but never had any problems.

[radiohead]

I do think that Windows is good for gaming and that's about it. Anything you can do on Windows, within reason, you can do on Linux. But, there are some things that do require Windows for me. Bryce 5 is one of them. I have yet to find a 3-D renderer like that. Blender is awesome, but it's not the same.

 

In fact, just FYI, I think the default XP theme looks like it was built by teh teletubbies.

[Clara]

I do think that Windows is good for gaming and that's about it. Anything you can do on Windows' date=' within reason, you can do on Linux. But, there are some things that do require Windows for me. Bryce 5 is one of them. I have yet to find a 3-D renderer like that. Blender is awesome, but it's not the same.

 

In fact, just FYI, I think the default XP theme looks like it was built by teh teletubbies.[/quote']

 

LOL, I've never thought that. But I guess it is nice and colorful.

 

I don't know too much about games and 3-D rendering. I like to play some games, and surf the Internet. Would Linux make that easier than Windows?

[radiohead]

If you just want to surf the internet and play games, stick with Windows.

[Pangloss]

What if I happen to want to use Visual Studio to write ASP.NET applications for secure, high availability, high volume e-commerce portals, as I've done four times in the past 18 months, not because I think it's better than LAMP, but because it's what I happen to know? Should I switch to Linux, or stick to Windows?

 

Please advise. I'm very worried that my desktop may not be attractive enough, and maybe I should stop earning money and spend several hundred hours mastering a completely different programming language because my icons look like somebody spilled the teletubby custard.

 

Thanks!

[radiohead]

You can install Visual Studio on WINE...or even Point2Play if you are feeling like a GUI.

Also, if you in desperate need of only a few Windows applications, VMware should suffice quite nice. No 3-D acceleration, though, so only RTS games and games liek Metal Slug are playable.

[Gaz]

By the way, I didn't see any type of update software in FreeBSD. When a bug is discovered in FreeBSD, how is anyone going to fix it?

 

ROFLMAO!

 

portupgrade buddy, downloads, compiles and updates all installed software to the latest version. Don't see anything like that in windows - you have to uninstall, reinstall, configure manually for each application on each machine you own.

 

Portupgrade can be run from a cron job to do it automatically every whenever you chose! Show me that kind of power in windows and i'll be impressed.

[Aeternus]

The people that make the other operating systems don't need to make drivers for the hardware. Almost all hardware comes with drivers. The people that make other operating systems just need to figure out why the drivers won't work on their operating system.

 

Complaining about Windows XP not being compatible with legacy equipment is just plain stupid. One of my computers was made in 1999, and Windows XP works great on it. If your computer is older than that, I think it is time you buy a new computer.

 

ROFL!!!

 

Ok AGAIN, you seem to be missing the point. The drivers arent written using some generic setup that works on every platform, the majority are written based on Windows API's and Windows system calls. Linux and Mac OS and Unix and a variety of other operating systems are different systems, they are not Windows, they do not have the same API calls, in fact, they probably wouldnt even be allowed to as those API calls etc are something that Microsoft probably own due to copyright etc. The whole point is, different operating systems work in different ways and are more efficient or comfortable or stable or "advantage X" because of this. If everyone was exactly like Windows, what the hell would be the point?

 

Also, you say that they dont work, did you go find the NDIS wrappers? They do work. They let the windows drivers work on non windows systems. Note they are WINDOWS drivers, not generic drivers, not "works everywhere drivers", WINDOWS drivers. The drivers are made to work with Windows, Windows doesnt make the drivers work with it, that is just a byproduct of its success.

 

I'm not slanting Windows, its a great OS but please just think about what your saying and realise that Windows isnt the end all, and that there are other reasons behind things other than "the OS is crap" and also that just because you have to put a little work in sometimes, doesnt mean its not worth it.

 

Also please realise that a ) FreeBSD is not Linux, and that there are many DIFFERENT Linux AND Unix operating Systems and they can all be very different, allowing alot of choice, sampling one is not sampling them all, b ) FreeBSD is considered to be one of the most rock stable and secure OS' around and Gaz has already provided evidence of this. It isn't OLD it is experienced and has had alot of time to improve, but it isn't necessarily striving for the all round Desktop machine as it is often used on Server machines etc.

 

You mention that people who have legacy hardware should just "get a new computer". That is YOUR philosophy, you are quite happy to throw away hardware that still works perfectly and can do exactly what a person might need, but others arent. As Gaz has stated his older equipment is perfect for a variety of things and just for the record, PowerPC processors arent "legacy hardware" they are the processors currently used in Macs and the fact that Linux OS' work on them allows people to experiment and allows Mac users to have an alternative IF THEY WISH.

 

Don't apply your narrow view of what a computer should do to everything. Your needs aren't everyones needs. I asked you to find a respect for the different operating systems, not a love.

 

PS - Pangloss, i don't think anyone is saying "Linux is the end all", I think we are just trying to get herme3 to realise that Windows isn't the end all, and that there are other options. Some of the posts come out rather pro linux/unix but only because they wish to highlight their advantages or Windows disadvantages purely to prove the point, not to prove that Windows is any less of an OS or that Linux or Unix operating systems are the end all.

[Sayonara]

So now we're going to judge the current quality of an operating system by issues that were resolved three years ago?

He appears to have been giving an example of what led him to that opinion.

 

Stop stirring up the animosity. You made your feelings on this type of discussion clear on the first page, and if you don't like it you are free to not read it.

 

 

Apparently it's okay to consider that LINUX is the "end-all-be-all" of OS's, though.

Or - to put it another way - it's okay to discuss reasons why Linux may or may not be preferable to WinXP in a thread that was posted for that purpose.

 

 

Please advise. I'm very worried that my desktop may not be attractive enough, and maybe I should stop earning money and spend several hundred hours mastering a completely different programming language because my icons look like somebody spilled the teletubby custard.

If you have exhausted your constructive comments - which, by the way, were very interesting - you should probably avoid the childish dismissals. "Stop earning money" is clearly ridiculous on its own. I'm beginning to think someone else is logged in as you.

[Evangelante]

Is there a type of linux that you can store on a 1.44 MB Floppy Disk? I know I could just use a Live-CD linux, but floppies can be written onto quicker.

[1veedo]

I think there are. I know there's some Java *nix OS in development right now that has a demo running off a floppy. But then again, I think this is more of a unix OS then Linux.

I've never had any of those problems with any of my systems running Windows XP. Usually when Windows XP crashes, it is because your computer isn't very good. Every computer I know that had Windows XP problems were cheap Celerons. My Pentiums and Centrinos work perfectly with Windows XP and all of my programs.

The XP computer across the room runs a pentium 4. I don't see a big difference over there. Sometimes nobody will use it for a couple days (hense it was never rebooted) and when somebody finally does get on, XP complains "Not enough system memory to complete the requested function." (something similar at least) So I have to reboot, which takes forever btw. Not too long ago IE automatically popped up with an add upon starting the computer. Ad aware fixed that, though.

 

The real reason I think Windows was done very poor by Microsoft is because everything just gets jumbled in there. After any length of time a typical installation of Windows and software gets into a complete mess. Linux on the other hand has a much better way of dealing with files, programs, etc. Generally the only way to clear out a Windows install is to reformat and install it, and then your software, all over again. 6 months later and it's running extreamly slow again. I generally never saw the diference in speed progressing, but let me tell you, after I reinstall Windows I notice dramatic improvement on speed.

 

PS: As for BSD being ancient, you probably get this impression because it's more of a "text" install. I personally have never ran FreeBSD, but I know of some Linux distros that appear old while installing it but turns out to be awsome. Those were the exact thoughts when I was installing FC3 for the first time, even though that's actually a graphical install.

[Klaynos]

A quick google for "linux on a floppy" gave me a host of links, including:

 

http://www.toms.net/rb/

http://www.antlinux.com/pmwiki/pmwiki.php?n=AntLinux.HomePage

 

Not sure whether either will work or how good they are though.

 

I'm just wondering, couldn't you use mono on Linux to do your .net development Pangloss? And my opinion of ASP is less than good anyway :s

[herme3]

ROFL!!!

 

Ok AGAIN' date=' you seem to be missing the point. The drivers arent written using some generic setup that works on every platform, the majority are written based on Windows API's and Windows system calls. Linux and Mac OS and Unix and a variety of other operating systems are different systems, they are not Windows, they do not have the same API calls, in fact, they probably wouldnt even be allowed to as those API calls etc are something that Microsoft probably own due to copyright etc. The whole point is, different operating systems work in different ways and are more efficient or comfortable or stable or "advantage X" because of this. If everyone was exactly like Windows, what the hell would be the point?

 

Also, you say that they dont work, did you go find the NDIS wrappers? They do work. They let the windows drivers work on non windows systems. Note they are WINDOWS drivers, not generic drivers, not "works everywhere drivers", WINDOWS drivers. The drivers are made to work with Windows, Windows doesnt make the drivers work with it, that is just a byproduct of its success.

 

I'm not slanting Windows, its a great OS but please just think about what your saying and realise that Windows isnt the end all, and that there are other reasons behind things other than "the OS is crap" and also that just because you have to put a little work in sometimes, doesnt mean its not worth it.[/quote']

 

Why would anyone want to go through a lot of work to install hardware when it takes less time with Windows? Let's say you want to visit someone who lives a few miles away. You could get in a car, and drive there in a few minutes. Or, you could buy some plane tickets, fly all the way around the world, and get there using much more time and money. It makes no sense!

 

Even if you do know how to setup your hardware the difficult way, why wouldn't you just save the time and use Windows?

 

PowerPC processors arent "legacy hardware" they are the processors currently used in Macs and the fact that Linux OS' work on them allows people to experiment and allows Mac users to have an alternative IF THEY WISH.

 

MAC COMPUTERS ARE PURE CRAP!!!!!

 

I'm sorry. Give me a minute to calm down....

 

I know a place that had all Mac computers connected on a network. Those computers would freeze all the time for no reason at all. One time, every computer on that network froze. When they restarted, none of them would reconnect to the network. It ended up being a corrupt sound driver on one computer! Can you imagine one sound driver taking down the entire network?

 

Anyway, the place got smart and threw out all those Mac computers. They bought some nice Compaqs with Windows installed. The network and computers worked perfectly after that.

[ydoaPs]

herme3, remember, God hates fanboys...

[herme3]

herme3, remember, God hates fanboys...[img']http://ctrlaltdel-online.com/?t=archives&date=2005-02-05[/img]

 

I actually do like Nintendo better than PlayStation. However, I can't really relate to that comic because I do own a PlayStation and several Nintendo systems.

 

I don't think I'm being a fanboy when comparing Macs and other computers. I just explained why Macs are so bad. A sound driver error would never crash an entire network with Windows computers.

[ydoaPs]

and you have been shown that MS is crap as well and you basically respond with "MS is the greatest thing since sliced bread!"

[Aeternus]

and you have been shown that MS is crap as well and you basically respond with "MS is the greatest thing since sliced bread!"

 

Na, I have to disagree there. It hasn't been shown that MS/ Windows is crap, simply that there are alternatives and that these alternative are viable for certain people. It's been shown that Windows does have problems, that other operating systems have some problems too. Windows isn't crap but neither is Linux or Mac OS X. That is what I am trying to point out to herme3. You may disagree and that's your opinion, which is fair enough.

 

 

Why would anyone want to go through a lot of work to install hardware when it takes less time with Windows? Let's say you want to visit someone who lives a few miles away. You could get in a car, and drive there in a few minutes. Or, you could buy some plane tickets, fly all the way around the world, and get there using much more time and money. It makes no sense!

 

Even if you do know how to setup your hardware the difficult way, why wouldn't you just save the time and use Windows?

 

You personally had problems setting up things with ONE distro of UNIX. There are plenty of others for UNIX and there are also distros for LINUX that focus more on compatibility and hardware. On alot of systems you can simply install these and it will simply work. On others it wont (this is also true for things in Windows). Ok, with some hardware it may take a little extra time for some things, but as has been pointed out to you there are advantages in using Linux. I personally find it much easier and much faster to do things with a quick shell command on Linux (things that are MUCH harder to do via the Windows/DOS shell) than via a GUI. I also find that Media players such as MPlayer are far more likely to read partially corrupt or incomplete videos or media than Windows Media Player or a host of other Windows Players.

 

I enjoy the use of Workspaces in Gnome and the flexibility and ease of management it gives me in working with things across various windows. Yes this can be replicated on Windows but to paraphrase you "why should i go to the extra trouble when its already there in Linux?". I find it much easier to run a headless server setup, and ssh into it for use of irssi or to use a proxy client to the irssi proxy setup in the form of XChat rather than simply connecting directly to the IRC network, as it keeps me connected and logs important events. I thoroughly enjoy the ease with which i can update ALL of my system (not just the OS specific parts but the entire system, all applications included) using Gentoo's portage system and am amazed by how customisable it is with its various package.mask/.use/.keywords etc. The fact that various compilers and interpreters come as default in most Linux distros is an advantage to me as I enjoy that aspect of computing.

 

Seriously, the problems or percieved problems you are pointing out are either a) minor problems, b ) non-existant, or c) things that you consider to be important. You must understand that other people have different opinions of what is important. The fact is, my Gentoo system is far more responsive after prolonged use and even before than any Windows system I have used. It's memory management system uses as much memory as possible to cache recently used data or recently opened programs, leaving enough that programs can be loaded in without having to immediately swap out, making the best use of the memory available rather than just leaving it idle wastefully. Again, I am not saying Windows is crap, or that Linux is better than it, but you must understand that some people see advantages in Linux or Unix or Mac OS or any operating system that you dont appreciate as much in your use of a computer. These people have their own needs that Windows doesnt fulfill or that these other operating systems fulfill more easily or to a better degree in certain ways (stability, security, efficiency etc). If you can't understand that, then theres no point arguing with you, as then you are simply what yourdadonapogos says, a fanboy.

[Klaynos]

From your comments I guess that those mac's where probably running macos 8 or 9, which was attrociouse, from personal experiance they crash all the time and don't seem to be able to handle simple tasks. But saying that macosX is one of the most stable and fastest os's avaliable, and guess what it's bassed on BSD. The powerpc (the processor inside most mac's) is an EXCELLENT processor. Shame they are so damn expencive