PDA

View Full Version : ubuntu vs viasta



Chymera
November 6th, 2007, 03:52 PM
ok, so let me get this straight, i prefer ubuntu to vista out of the following reasons:
-You can have it for free (legally), not that i give a damn about copyright, but no matter what crackers might say, the legal version is ALWAYS better....
-Customizability (and by that i don't only mean compiz & the likes)
... 2 big reasons to love ubuntu (and linux in general) but that's all what is to it.... for me

I got my hands on a legal copy of vista (with activation number etc....) from a friend, and was eager to test it on my computer (It always felt weird having an asus p5b premium Vista edition motherboard and never having tried vista on it :P ).

I'm not new to vista, just that i never used it at home, on my own computer where i know exactly whats going on and can do whatever i want to it :P

Since using ubuntu (about half an year) I noticed that a lot of common conceptions about linux didn't really apply to my situation...
I took the opportunity to see how well a clean install of the new Gutsy does (in terms of those common linux myths) against a clean fresh install of the not so new, but still quite new ms windows vista... The results turned out as i expected, but they might be rather surprising to most of you:

1) Linux is a lot faster - this is one i hear at least once a day
(It's quite hard to measure fastness, even if both systems were freshly installed, because its really hard to get a benchmark on it... Instead i resorted to the flintstone method of just opening a BIIIG folder right after boot, it has approximately 5000 .jpg files in it)

Time to load with the ms explorer: 4.5 sec
Time to load with nautilus: 8 sec (except the first occasion on which it crashed)

2) Linux doesn't crash (some people realize the utter stupidity of this remark and add "as often as windows" to the statement)

Crashes in Vista (over a period of 5 days, approx 4 hours per day spent working with it): 3
all three courtesy of media player

Crashes in Gutsy (approximately same time of usage): 14
4 courtesy of compiz
6 courtesy of ammarok
2 courtesy of open office
2 courtesy of nautilus


3) Ubuntu is a lot easier to install and set up
(Time it took me to get everything "just as i like it":)
Gutsy: 5 hours
Vista:4,5 hours

This is rather inaccurate since the way i like it has different limitations in either os... in vista i cant customize everything just as i like it, and in gutsy i cant get every piece of hardware to be recognized just as i like it (ye olde driver issues)

4) Linux systems eat a lot less resources
(This is also rather hard to judge since it also depends on which programs you are using, the standard conditions for both were: 1 messenger client running, all the eye candy turned on, 1 music player running in the background, 1 browser window with 9 tabs open, 1 file explorer opened - thats what i would consider normal usage)

Vista: 900 MB RAM / 250 MB SWAP
Gutsy: 900 MB RAM / 210 MB SWAP

5) You do not have to use Ctrl+Alt+Del in linux
(This one i added just because a friend of mine keeps bugging me with this completely innacurrate observation)
No, you really don't have to use the system monitor (which isn't set as CAD anyways) But you do have to use RSEIUB once in a while...

6) Linux systems don't get bloated as much as windows systems
This is entirely true... however, when i was using windows, i avoided the issue by freshly installing the os twice a year (the bloating usually becomes annoying after some 6 months of use)... In Ubuntu, in order to keep getting the newest stuff (and avoid upgrading, which is a total mess), I also have to do a new install, also, every 6 months.



Now, for the zealots among you who are planing to write angry replies:
1)I don't care about your feelings and will probably hurt them if you become verbally aggressive :P
2)I am not trying to bash on Ubuntu, remember what i've said at the beginning of the post, as a matter of fact I just uninstalled Vista a couple of hours ago.

aaaantoine
November 6th, 2007, 04:14 PM
By any chance were you able to reproduce the crashes in the various Ubuntu apps? The community might like you to report some bugs. :)

Chymera
November 6th, 2007, 04:17 PM
I know it would/could help the community but i never take the time to report crashes, its annoying enough to get them, afterwards I just want to get the mess over with and resume my work. Reporting a crash is like getting slapped and then asked how it felt :))

The only thing i do remember is that amarok always says smth about knotify .... and open office crashes when i open large .ppt's

And of course, i don't get as many crashes on a regular basis just that in those days i abused both systems as best i could :)

Kingsley
November 6th, 2007, 04:17 PM
Back to the first part of your post. How is a legal copy of Vista better than an illegal copy?

songshu
November 6th, 2007, 04:19 PM
totally true, but its what you make of it. and when i see your stats i don't want you to admin my box, regardless the OS ;)
i'll take the flame bait on this one ;)

p.s. No.4 is that Swap or pagefile?

1, thats why i don't use Nautilus, i have Thunar for that and never noticed i had to wait for something to open, don't have 5000 pics in 1 file but i do have 128.000 in total in seperate files

2. i had crashes and memory leaks before with Gnome and KDE some years ago, Yes it was definetly anoying. since then i use Xfce and picked my apps carefully...i work on a LTSP machine right now with 4 others 8 hours a day. uptime 2 weeks, no crash whatsoever

3. that takes me about 30 minutes, not counting the time it costed me to create my own image tough.

4. songshu@ubuntu:/usr/share/applications$ free -m
total used free shared buffers cached
Mem: 3364 2194 1170 0 210 1251
-/+ buffers/cache: 732 2632
Swap: 1937 33 1903

this is with 2 people working on the same box at this moment, 732 MB RAM 33 MB SWAP as said its with Xfce but with Firefox (i stopped counting the Tabs), Thunderbird (+- 10Gb per Mailbox) and Openoffice loaded in Memory, pidgin and Skype runing too

5. sorry, don't know what you do but i don't

6. i do a new install when i get a new machine, who cares about package 12.23456 instead of 12.23455

DutyDuty
November 6th, 2007, 04:22 PM
It is only fair to disagree with you on the crashing point. For me at least. I've kept track of most of my crashes with both Vista and Ubuntu, and I must say, I've had vastly more luck with Ubuntu.

Crashes in Vista: ~20 (Two Days, 4 hours total)
14 related to iTunes
5 immediate on startup.
1 because of the Chess Titans.

Ubuntu: 2 (One week, 10 hours total)
1 Sound-related issue.
1 unknown crash.

Vista, for me anyway, crashed whenever I try to import CDs into iTunes or update my iPod. (Very annoying) Lately, it has BSoD every attempted startup. I know this is a special case, and Ubuntu has crashed too, but at least I can do work etc. on Ubuntu.

igknighted
November 6th, 2007, 04:29 PM
It is only fair to disagree with you on the crashing point. For me at least. I've kept track of most of my crashes with both Vista and Ubuntu, and I must say, I've had vastly more luck with Ubuntu.

Crashes in Vista: ~20 (Two Days, 4 hours total)
14 related to iTunes
5 immediate on startup.
1 because of the Chess Titans.

Ubuntu: 2 (One week, 10 hours total)
1 Sound-related issue.
1 unknown crash.

Vista, for me anyway, crashed whenever I try to import CDs into iTunes or update my iPod. (Very annoying) Lately, it has BSoD every attempted startup. I know this is a special case, and Ubuntu has crashed too, but at least I can do work etc. on Ubuntu.

iTunes and Vista have never gotten along. The problem is on apple's end.

EDIT: @the OP - Linux and windows measure ram usage very differently. Windows counts only what is actually being used, while linux counts the ram that is being used for caching and other activities that are non-critical. That ram is free to be used by any application that needs it, but while the ram is sitting there, linux puts it to use to speed up your system doing other things. So while they might report the same, linux is likely actually USING far less ram.

EDIT: @ songshu - if you think version 2.3.4 instead of 2.3.3 isn't a big deal, you haven't been around linux users very long.

glupee
November 6th, 2007, 04:35 PM
I know it would/could help the community but i never take the time to report crashes, its annoying enough to get them, afterwards I just want to get the mess over with and resume my work. Reporting a crash is like getting slapped and then asked how it felt :))

The only thing i do remember is that amarok always says smth about knotify .... and open office crashes when i open large .ppt's

And of course, i don't get as many crashes on a regular basis just that in those days i abused both systems as best i could :)
I used to get a lot of crashes on ubuntu using amarok and ktorrent.. switched to kubuntu and not an issue any any more :guitar:

songshu
November 6th, 2007, 04:52 PM
EDIT: @ songshu - if you think version 2.3.4 instead of 2.3.3 isn't a big deal, you haven't been around linux users very long.

offcourse its a big deal, just like mobile phones, cars etc....everybody wants the latest.
but i have been using Linux for only 5 years now and have learned nevertheless to value stability over the latest version.

Dragonbite
November 6th, 2007, 04:58 PM
Insightful comparison. I have no intention of getting Vista any time soon, but at least you are trying to put impartial observations. Thanks.

BOOT UP

At work my system takes 10 minutes to boot up (I've timed it) from the services both locally and on the server. Anything less than that is fine by me.

CRASHING

For crashing, I've gotten both Windows and Linux to crash. Even to the point where the lights on the keyboard are blinking on-and-off and only a hard shutdown would work.

In general, though, I find Linux crashes a little cleaner than Windows has. After MS Exploder crashes the whole system just doesn't feel smooth (could also be psychological too).

INSTALLATION

Ubuntu base is easier to install and gives me a functional system I can start using sometimes. Once you're done with Windows you still have to install Office, Firefox, Trillian (IM), Photoshop, etc.

Then when you get to maintain them you have to go to Adobe.com, Firefox does it for you, Microsoft.com, etc.

Windows win with drivers, though.

RESOURCES

As long as the "feel" of the speed is comparable, which I've noticed Linux holds the same speed over time while Windows generally doesn't.

Since most of the time I'm using older systems (most that cannot handle Vista), little tweaks have noticeable effects.

23meg
November 6th, 2007, 05:05 PM
Reporting a crash is like getting slapped and then asked how it felt

Except that it helps you not get slapped again.

frodon
November 6th, 2007, 05:12 PM
6) Linux systems don't get bloated as much as windows systems
This is entirely true... however, when i was using windows, i avoided the issue by freshly installing the os twice a year (the bloating usually becomes annoying after some 6 months of use)... In Ubuntu, in order to keep getting the newest stuff (and avoid upgrading, which is a total mess), I also have to do a new install, also, every 6 months.You do ?

I don't, i'm using ubuntu since hoary and i have always upgraded with no problem. Sorry but this argument is really irrelevant for me.

Chymera
November 6th, 2007, 05:14 PM
Except that it helps you not get slapped again.

It's not to say that i never reported a crash, i did, some 3-4 times, and neither ms nor ubuntu ever got them fixed.... ms actually fixed it eventually but on the next release :D

Chymera
November 6th, 2007, 05:16 PM
You do ?

I don't, i'm using ubuntu since hoary and i have always upgraded with no problem. Sorry but this argument is really irrelevant for me.

Well i was referring to my machine, obviously, or else i would have posted the ram usage of your machine :P

Chymera
November 6th, 2007, 05:18 PM
Back to the first part of your post. How is a legal copy of Vista better than an illegal copy?

First of all you have access to the official updates (you can also have that via an illegal copy, if you call a stolen legal copy illegal)

Nano Geek
November 6th, 2007, 05:19 PM
I don't know what you did to make Ubuntu use 900 mb of RAM. On my computer it uses a little more than 400 mb with Rhythmbox, Liferea, and Compiz running.

23meg
November 6th, 2007, 05:26 PM
It's not to say that i never reported a crash, i did, some 3-4 times, and neither ms nor ubuntu ever got them fixed.... ms actually fixed it eventually but on the next release :D

Good; keep reporting them. That way there's a chance they'll be fixed.

Chrisj303
November 6th, 2007, 05:39 PM
Back to the first part of your post. How is a legal copy of Vista better than an illegal copy?


With an illegally activated copy of Vista, you have to keep an eye on what updates you install - and generally take a lot more care when connecting to Microsoft.

When SP1 for vista is released, it will not be a problem for legal vista owners - whereas everybody else will probabaly be looking for workarounds to stop the OEM emulation fixes being nuked.



In regards to the OP, I have had a very similar experience with Vista. In fact I have found that Vista works a lot better with my hardware - most notably wireless/keyboard and trackpad.

Vista uses Ram in a very different manner to Ubuntu. It is unfair to compare the 2 by just viewing system monitor.
My Vista install is every bit as 'snappy' and responsive as my Ubuntu install. It is also just as stable.

Chymera
November 6th, 2007, 05:40 PM
Good; keep reporting them. That way there's a chance they'll be fixed.

Since you are an ubuntu member you're probably familliar with the heap of never-read bug reports in launchpad... It's like writing a complaint letter to the government, chances are it won't be read, and chances are that people reading it will be too busy making some constitutions which end up crashing the original constitution during upgrade :P

... if you understand what i mean

BuffaloX
November 6th, 2007, 05:45 PM
Wow your linux experience suck.
I haven't tried Vista, and probably never will.

But most people report Vista as worse than XP, and my experience is that Ubuntu runs better than XP, or at least equally well, on 4 different systems.

I know a LOT of people that have removed Vista from their systems, and only one person I know use VISTA.
Unfortunately some of the people I know have had to buy a new copy of Windows XP, which I get a little bit angry about, because Microsoft make twice the money on a lousy product.

Several people i know have bought new laptops recently, they have all expressed much discontent that Vista is slow, their old programs don't work, they can't do stuff they could on their old laptop, and it takes forever to boot.
Some even thought the stores were scamming them, because their brand new laptop worked so poorly.

I haven't had your poor experience with any of the programs you mention, so I can't offer much help on it.
Except maybe you have some media files with bad headers.
Is it the same files that cause the crashes with Amarok?

frodon
November 6th, 2007, 05:46 PM
The success of of a bug report depends mainly on the quality of the report. First is that non-reproductible bugs are hard to solve just because devs in most of the cases need to be able to reproduce the bug to undersatand it.
Filling a bug report just reporting that a thing don't work will never help to solve it, there's a need to join some analysis, technical informations and log files. Most unreaded bug reports are incomplete bug reports but i agree with you that things can be improved there because i know some good bug reports with workarounds provided which don't move.
This is in general a false idea to think that filling a bug report is easy, i found out myself that filling good bug reports is sometimes really difficult and it takes time.

aaaantoine
November 6th, 2007, 05:49 PM
I know it would/could help the community but i never take the time to report crashes, its annoying enough to get them, afterwards I just want to get the mess over with and resume my work. Reporting a crash is like getting slapped and then asked how it felt :))


I'd say it's more like getting slapped and then filing a report with the police. It's the job of the police to make sure that jerk doesn't slap you again, or anyone else for that matter.

Of course, the full analogy carries over in that I wouldn't necessarily feel compelled to call the police if I didn't think I had enough information about the assailant.

23meg
November 6th, 2007, 05:55 PM
Since you are an ubuntu member you're probably familliar with the heap of never-read bug reports in launchpad... It's like writing a complaint letter to the government, chances are it won't be read, and chances are that people reading it will be too busy making some constitutions which end up crashing the original constitution during upgrade :P

... if you understand what i mean

1) Most of the time, people who first get to read bug reports are bug triagers, not developers, so the analogy doesn't work. There are very few reports that are "never read"; there are just a lot that never get acted upon, for various reasons (which I can detail if you care to do something about them).

2) If in the worst case, there's a 3% chance that a bug will get fixed once you report it, there's a 0% chance that it will get fixed if you don't. I'd like to believe you prefer the first one, so I won't ask a rhetorical question.

3) Bug report != bug, and not every bug report is a good one. Obviously I can't give you statistics but a lot of the bug reports that never get acted upon aren't very useful.

FOSS development largely relies on good bug reports. Keep reporting.

Chymera
November 6th, 2007, 05:58 PM
Wow your linux experience suck.
I haven't tried Vista, and probably never will.

But most people report Vista as worse than XP, and my experience is that Ubuntu runs better than XP, or at least equally well, on 4 different systems.

I know a LOT of people that have removed Vista from their systems, and only one person I know use VISTA.
Unfortunately some of the people I know have had to buy a new copy of Windows XP, which I get a little bit angry about, because Microsoft make twice the money on a lousy product.

Several people i know have bought new laptops recently, they have all expressed much discontent that Vista is slow, their old programs don't work, they can't do stuff they could on their old laptop, and it takes forever to boot.
Some even thought the stores were scamming them, because their brand new laptop worked so poorly.

I haven't had your poor experience with any of the programs you mention, so I can't offer much help on it.
Except maybe you have some media files with bad headers.
Is it the same files that cause the crashes with Amarok?

I know a lot of people who get offended and feel a stupid urge to insult whenever somebody doesnt toss linux's salad... surprisingly they are exactly the people with the lowest level of understanding about computers, they are called zealots and most often couldn't tell the difference between a linux distro and an atari game... except they would complain about having no compiz-fusion in atari....

CptPicard
November 6th, 2007, 06:20 PM
I really don't understand why the Ubuntu userbase in particular is so enamored of the idea of a "clean install". I have been using Gentoo, Debian and now Ubuntu for the past 10 years or so, and I very, very rarely do clean installs. I do admit that Ubuntu is for some reason more flaky in upgrades -- I've never managed to irreparably bork a Debian box with a dist-upgrade, but with Ubuntu it always feels like a distinct possibility...

Also the bugginess and bloat comparisons are a bit apples to oranges... a typical Linux box actually has way more stuff running from all sorts of "third parties" than the typical Windows box. The underlying infrastructure is remarkably sound -- I have never had "Linux" (as in the kernel) spontaneously crashing on me, while my switch to Linux occurred in 1999 or so, during the darkest BSOD days of Windows. This larger "size" of a modern Linux installation also is actually a reason to why we could pretty much forget all talk about Linux being any more resource-frugal than competitors in typical setups.

The package manager manages bloat very effectively. :) It's easy to just remove stuff you no longer need... of course if you get into the habit of compiling from source, you will eventually end up with a system where you lose track of what file belongs where...

BuffaloX
November 6th, 2007, 08:36 PM
I know a lot of people who get offended and feel a stupid urge to insult whenever somebody doesnt toss linux's salad... surprisingly they are exactly the people with the lowest level of understanding about computers, they are called zealots and most often couldn't tell the difference between a linux distro and an atari game... except they would complain about having no compiz-fusion in atari....

Sorry I don't understand your reaction. :confused:
I didn't mean to insult anyone, and I don't see why I deserve that kind of response.
I'm not saying your experience is untrue or due to incompetence.
Actually I believed you describe an authentic experience.

Regarding crashes I have experienced crashes caused by bad tags or headers in audio files, which would crash my audio player "audacious", which is why I pointed your attention to that possibility. But it may of course be something entirely different.

All I say is that most people I know, don't like Vista for the reasons I mentioned, and I think it's kind of stupid to pay Microsoft for two licenses for one machine.
Compared to what I hear from people I know, what you describe is very very different.

It would seem like your Ubuntu experience is worse than average,at least with regard to crashes and maybe speed also, and your Vista experience above average regarding itś speed.
This may be due to your hardware and the tasks you perform.

Chymera
November 7th, 2007, 06:11 PM
Well if you really haven't had any intention to insult you wouldn't have felt a need to use "suck" in your very first sentence.... also you wouldn't have insisted on ranting about how "many people" did this and that, in order to prove your point....
Your point being that Microsoft is scaming people, which is true to a certain extent, but still is (even though on the forums it's become a pass-time activity), an insult. Not only towards Microsoft (for which i have only little respect), but first of all towards people who are using or are interested in their products (me inculsively)

But if you insist, then probably your use of the english language was just..... misleading.

FuturePilot
November 7th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Crashes in Gutsy (approximately same time of usage): 14
4 courtesy of compiz
6 courtesy of ammarok
2 courtesy of open office
2 courtesy of nautilus


But how many of those rendered your computer useless until you rebooted?

NeoLithium
November 7th, 2007, 06:48 PM
ok, so let me get this straight, i prefer ubuntu to vista out of the following reasons:
-You can have it for free (legally), not that i give a damn about copyright, but no matter what crackers might say, the legal version is ALWAYS better....

Time to load with the ms explorer: 4.5 sec
Time to load with nautilus: 8 sec (except the first occasion on which it crashed)

Crashes in Vista (over a period of 5 days, approx 4 hours per day spent working with it): 3
all three courtesy of media player


3) Ubuntu is a lot easier to install and set up
(Time it took me to get everything "just as i like it":)
Gutsy: 5 hours
Vista:4,5 hours

6) Linux systems don't get bloated as much as windows systems
This is entirely true... however, when i was using windows, i avoided the issue by freshly installing the os twice a year (the bloating usually becomes annoying after some 6 months of use)... In Ubuntu, in order to keep getting the newest stuff (and avoid upgrading, which is a total mess), I also have to do a new install, also, every 6 months.


Hmmm, while a lot of what you said is subjective, I just thought I'd throw in my two cents. Depending on WHAT and WHERE you download your "liberated" copies of another OS (I won't say any locations so the forum doesn't get in trouble), the illegal versions can be just as good as the ones that come out of the box. Case in point is a friend of mine. His liberated Vista Ultimate works flawlessly, updates and all, and according to Microsoft Genuine Advantage, right off the bat, it's viewed as a legitimate copy. I'd like to make it clear that I put that statement up PURELY for information purposes.

Depending on your specs, it can be far different on things such as browser loading speed, etc. For me, on my Vista Ultimate (Ironically, which has a rating of 2.0 but no problems with speed that are noticable, even with Aero) I can load IE in around 1 second, MAX 2 seconds after clicking the icon. However this is where the software bloat comes in as well; my Photoshop or PSP X2 that I have, could not ever load as fast as the GIMP does in linux, it's just that simple....perhaps if it was stripped down like a junkyard wreck it might have a hope; but I can't see that happening. Microsoft Office stuff loads just as fast as my Open office counterpart on my Ubuntu install, though games seem to run the SMALLEST fraction better, barely noticable; but I'm a nerd.

As for the bloat, you're right, almost anything can become bloated, and my fully decked out Ubuntu installs ran around 20GB, including all my programming IDE's, multimedia software, etc. With Vista I'm sitting around 50GB with all the stuff I use installed (not including games, as I don't have those installed on my Ubuntu partition, so statement is a bit more fair) The bloat, however, I can get around. Some users can't, but I just seem to have the extra space.

My system specs aren't the best for Vista either, certainly not for ultimate though that's only due to my video card. Anyway, here's my info:

Intel Pentium 4 HT 3.2 GHz
1 GB DDR Ram (400)
NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 128MB Video Card
160GB Maxtor ATA Hard Drive

EDIT: I actually forgot to add that for Vista, I have yet to have it crash, though neither has my Gutsy install....perhaps I'm just lucky in that respect.

BuffaloX
November 7th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Well if you really haven't had any intention to insult you wouldn't have felt a need to use "suck" in your very first sentence.... also you wouldn't have insisted on ranting about how "many people" did this and that, in order to prove your point....
Your point being that Microsoft is scaming people, which is true to a certain extent, but still is (even though on the forums it's become a pass-time activity), an insult. Not only towards Microsoft (for which i have only little respect), but first of all towards people who are using or are interested in their products (me inculsively)

But if you insist, then probably your use of the english language was just..... misleading.

Regarding the use of the word "suck" I was mostly referring to the amount of crashes you had. I thought I cleared it from any kind of personal attack, by referring to your "experience".

My rant may seem a bit zealot like, I'll admit that, but what I describe, is what I have experienced, and I guess your post touched a sore spot.

English is not my native language, so I apologize if that makes my posts seem impolite. For instance in Danish (my native language) we very rarely use the word please, when we use it, it's more like a command, and therefore actually impolite, or something meant very sincerely.

Humph
November 8th, 2007, 09:02 AM
in Danish (my native language) we very rarely use the word please

I never knew that!

*Pleased to have learned something before breakfast*

amiga_os
November 8th, 2007, 08:07 PM
I know a lot of people who get offended and feel a stupid urge to insult whenever somebody doesnt toss linux's salad... surprisingly they are exactly the people with the lowest level of understanding about computers, they are called zealots and most often couldn't tell the difference between a linux distro and an atari game... except they would complain about having no compiz-fusion in atari....

To pin my philosophical colours to the metaphorical mast:
Microsoft aren't "evil"
Linux isn't the be-all and end-all
Open source software is much better for the market and the consumer, but it's not an "ethical" issue

I like Ubuntu, because the market philosophy has lead to a great community, and an improving distro (that can have shaky updates because of source compatibility, but not necessarily binary compatibility & other reasons).

Now to make my comment:
Having read this thread all the way through... your posts feel the most "zealot like", I'm sorry to say. It sounds like you've had a difficult time with Linux, and it sounds like you've had a slightly better time with Vista.

Opinions can get high in Linux circles, and in the Ubuntu forums... and lots of opinions are based on - well - raw opinion rather than fact sometimes. But let's try and be nice to each other?


I know a lot of people who get offended and feel a stupid urge to insult whenever somebody doesnt toss linux's salad... surprisingly they are exactly the people with the lowest level of understanding about computers,

What about Linus Torvalds? Overly protective of Linux, but great with computers... My point is, you make an unfair generalisation.


they are called zealots and most often couldn't tell the difference between a linux distro and an atari game... except they would complain about having no compiz-fusion in atari....

What about Richard Stallman? A zealot (btw there's nothing wrong with being a zealot per se, just depends what you're a zealot about), who can tell the difference between a linux distro and an atari game... and he cares more about not using non-free software than he does eye-candy. Again, my point is, you make an unfair generalisation.

DoctorMO
November 8th, 2007, 08:23 PM
Microsoft aren't "evil"

Not evil, but they are morally repugnant; not trustworthy and not nice enough for me to want them to be a part of my society.


Linux isn't the be-all and end-all

Well no, linux is just a kernel so obviously it can't be the be all and end all.


Open source software is much better for the market and the consumer, but it's not an "ethical" issue

Open source is as much an ethical issue as it is a political issue; should users be allowed to control their own computers: YES!

One thing I can't stand and that's rabid capitalists who will do anything to ignore socialism.

Dragonbite
November 8th, 2007, 08:39 PM
"viasta"?

songshu
November 8th, 2007, 08:40 PM
Open source is as much an ethical issue as it is a political issue; should users be allowed to control their own computers: YES!

One thing I can't stand and that's rabid capitalists who will do anything to ignore socialism.

well... i hope not to offend anybody here, but i would not feel save if everybody had the right to control the build of their own car and use it in public traffic..there is some point tough, except they are allowed to do so already, most don't know about the option but it should not be up to politics to start with. Linux boxes have been up for sale with the major computer makers since 2000 at least, but nobody buys them.

socialism? it is for a part. but there is as much capitalist motive in Linux as there is in any commercial OS.

songshu
November 8th, 2007, 08:45 PM
"viasta"?

that would be Viasta Vaquita ;)

amiga_os
November 8th, 2007, 10:02 PM
Not evil, but they are morally repugnant; not trustworthy and not nice enough for me to want them to be a part of my society.
Let me say that I definitely don't agree with many Microsoft market policies and practices... however to say I don't want "them to be a part of my society" is just incredible! Actually, there are LOADS of people in society who I don't agree with - but I can't write them out of my society. Furthermore, Microsoft has thousands of employees, just because I disagree with some of the company's corporate policy doesn't mean I want "them" not to be a part of my society. In the same way I take issue with some aspects of American foreign policy - however - I value many contributions many Americans have made to humanity (I could say the same thing about UK, Iranian, Chinese, Russian, French, etc. foreign policy - and much domestic policy for that matter).
Society assumes there's going to be a bunch of people in it who aren't exactly like me, and probably people I profoundly disagree with. Otherwise I'd be living in a dictatorship - and I'd be the dictator.

Well no, linux is just a kernel so obviously it can't be the be all and end all.
Good to see we agree... and good to see that you understand that Linux is just a kernel. I was putting my philosophical position particularly in response to the statement "I know a lot of people who get offended and feel a stupid urge to insult whenever somebody doesnt toss linux's salad". I presume you recognise that I concur that Linux is just a kernel - especially since I made special reference to Linus Torvalds, and especially in the context of him being protective of Linux (i.e. he's protective of Linux over and against other *nix kernels - e.g. OpenSolaris... of course, there's nothing wrong with him being protective of Linux)

Open source is as much an ethical issue as it is a political issue; should users be allowed to control their own computers: YES!
Can I just point out that I never said it was a political issue - I made reference to it being an economical issue (i.e. good for consumers), but what's good for the markets isn't necessarily what should dictate political policy. Which makes your next statement...

One thing I can't stand and that's rabid capitalists who will do anything to ignore socialism.
...quite unfair! How do you know if I'm a "capitalist" or not? Ok, I revise my statement - open source has bearing on ethical issues, but isn't in and of itself an ethic issue. There are many who would disagree with that opinion - however that doesn't make them all socialists, and that doesn't make me a rabid capitalist.

inversekinetix
November 12th, 2007, 05:46 AM
I wish ubuntu would just work right. Ive had more crashes and problems with 2 weeks of ubuntu than with 7 years of w2k and xp. Input languages should not disapper just because I reboot nor should going from full screen to window kill my box. The hardware worked fine from the offset, but there are so many little issues that i spend 75% of my time on ubuntu messing around trying to fix things rather than using my computer for something productive.