PDA

View Full Version : Why do you choose Ubuntu over Windows



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Frak
June 11th, 2008, 05:32 AM
Sorry, but I've tried many of these Linux games. Pretty much the only quality games you'll find are casual gaming apps like card games or clones of arcade games that are ~20 years old.

Firstly, the games library just isn't there. There are no large companies investing time in creating high-quality games for Linux that are of the caliber for say, Call of Duty 4, because there isn't enough of a market. For one, there isn't much money in open-source, just by the nature of the beast. For another, the number of users that use Linux and would consider getting games for it are incredibly minimal. Besides, with the complexity and extensiveness of games these days, you need a very large staff of programmers and testers and for the most part, there isn't such an extensive organization in the open-source community (though I would appreciate it if there was).

Secondly, Linux only has native support for OpenGL. While OpenGL is very powerful and can do a lot (otherwise it wouldn't still be in use), Direct X is really the bleeding-edge of graphics technology. And since it is a Windows platform, you will be getting the best-looking games on Windows. Also, since Direct X is a Microsoft product, I don't see it coming to Linux any time soon (sucks, I know, but such is the way things are).
I'd bet you'd be proud to know that many commercial games use OpenGL over or as an option besides DirectX.

Also, did you know that all new EA games will run under Linux? Sure, it has to be run under Wine or Cedega, but it runs. (EA uses Cider, which is basically an integrated Cedega for Macintosh games).

Finally, DX support under Linux is improving day-by-day. This is especially true in the case that most studios use DX9, not 10. Therefore, the Wine developers can focus on still working on DX9, while MS justifies the need for Vista to run DX10.

So, while there are bugs, you can play some of the more popular XP games with little to no problems.

sidran
June 11th, 2008, 06:24 AM
I'd bet you'd be proud to know that many commercial games use OpenGL over or as an option besides DirectX.
That certainly was the case 10 years ago. However, though I browse through the PC game section in the store somewhat often nowadays, I have yet to see any specifications listing "OpenGL graphics accelerators". Since these games are all designed for Windows, and often they want to take advantage of the latest graphics technology, they are all designed using Direct X. If I am wrong, please point me to a source.


Also, did you know that all new EA games will run under Linux? Sure, it has to be run under Wine or Cedega, but it runs. (EA uses Cider, which is basically an integrated Cedega for Macintosh games).

Finally, DX support under Linux is improving day-by-day. This is especially true in the case that most studios use DX9, not 10. Therefore, the Wine developers can focus on still working on DX9, while MS justifies the need for Vista to run DX10.

So, while there are bugs, you can play some of the more popular XP games with little to no problems.


While I like the idea of Wine (I have not tried Cedega or Cider before) and I have used it on occasion, I do not count this as a way to produce examples of "games for Linux". For one thing, compatibility in Wine is spotty, and more often than not you have to do some messing around to get your program working properly under Wine. Why would I bother doing that when I can just play it out of the box on my Windows PC just fine? I have a friend who bought Half Life and Portal, but only has a Linux PC. He tried using it in Wine, and though the site says you can, he never got it working and essentially gave up. I got Steam working, but Half-Life, only partially. Guild Wars, I couldn't get past a buggy menu screen. And in all cases, the performance just lagged horribly behind what I experienced when I had Windows XP on this machine. This is not what I call a good Linux gaming experience.

So, while it's a good idea in theory, it's not mature enough just yet.

jb1
June 11th, 2008, 07:55 PM
Also, did you know that all new EA games will run under Linux? Sure, it has to be run under Wine or Cedega, but it runs. (EA uses Cider, which is basically an integrated Cedega for Macintosh games).Being able to run on Linux natively and being able to run under WINE/Cedega are two different things. Why would I want to bother with the WINE install and configuration when I can just click next a few times in Windows? It's a pointless process, and I doubt most non-neckbeard users won't care until it's as easy on Linux as it is on Windows.


Finally, DX support under Linux is improving day-by-day. This is especially true in the case that most studios use DX9, not 10. Therefore, the Wine developers can focus on still working on DX9, while MS justifies the need for Vista to run DX10. Well I'm very happy that it's improving, but it's still years behind native Win32 DX.


So, while there are bugs, you can play some of the more popular XP games with little to no problems.Sure, if you consider fussing with WINE and editing config files "little to no trouble." Most users aren't of this opinion.

spoonmason
June 11th, 2008, 08:42 PM
This is the best thread I have ever subscribed to... so many arguments and all well thought out and presented in a honorable fashion... very educating.





PS. Will some of you more experienced users(/fixers) take a look and see if you can help me with my problem.... http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=5165232&posted=1#post5165232

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 11th, 2008, 11:03 PM
Finally, DX support under Linux is improving day-by-day. This is especially true in the case that most studios use DX9, not 10. Therefore, the Wine developers can focus on still working on DX9, while MS justifies the need for Vista to run DX10.

Nope! DirectX is NOT available natively in Linux!
Well ok, Wine guys really does a good job by putting their best effort, but DX in Linux won't ever go outside Wine as well as you wouldn't EVER be able to play DX games natively on Linux.

There's a different story for OpenGL, of course.

cardinals_fan
June 12th, 2008, 12:29 AM
This is the best thread I have ever subscribed to... so many arguments and all well thought out and presented in a honorable fashion... very educating.

It's very surprising that this inflammatory of a topic has lasted so long. Good job everybody!

Frak
June 12th, 2008, 12:55 AM
That certainly was the case 10 years ago. However, though I browse through the PC game section in the store somewhat often nowadays, I have yet to see any specifications listing "OpenGL graphics accelerators".

Many game "Safe-Modes" run under OpenGL. This is a "just-in-case" DX isn't installed or isn't functioning correctly.

EDIT
Straight from Wikipedia comes your notable games list.


* America's Army
* Baldur's Gate 2 – Defaults to D3D
* Call of Duty
* City of Heroes
* City of Villains
* CodeRED: Alien Arena
* Counter-Strike (not Counter-Strike: Source)
* Darwinia - Patched to default to D3D
* Doom 3
* Dwarf Fortress
* Earth 2150
* Enemy Territory: Quake Wars
* Far Cry – Defaults to D3D
* Frets On Fire
* FlightGear
* Half-Life (not Half-Life 2)
* Homeworld 2
* IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946
* Neverwinter Nights
* Penumbra: Overture
* Prey
* Quake series
* Rage
* Scorched3D
* Second Life
* Serious Sam
* Serious Sam 2 – Defaults to D3D
* Spring
* Starsiege: Tribes
* Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy
* The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay
* Trainz - Also runs in D3D
* Tux Racer
* Ultima IX: Ascension
* Unreal series
* Warcraft 3 - Defaults to D3D in Windows
* Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory
* World of Warcraft - Defaults to D3D in Windows
* Wurm Online
* X-Plane



Nope! DirectX is NOT available natively in Linux!

Who said it was?

sidran
June 12th, 2008, 01:52 AM
Many game "Safe-Modes" run under OpenGL. This is a "just-in-case" DX isn't installed or isn't functioning correctly.

EDIT
Straight from Wikipedia comes your notable games list.


Ok, I see some of those are fairly recent. Now, I don't know if that's a complete list or not, but that is not a bad idea anyway. Now, that still doesn't help for the fact that they are compiled for a Windows platform unless the company comes out with a Linux version. And despite the fact that they have OpenGL support, the fact that it's a win32 app still means it requires Wine if you even want to do anything with it in Linux, which is still a hurdle.

OpenGL still lags behind Direct X in terms of speed at which it adopts standards in computer graphics. This is due to a policy that the standard has to first be in place before it's added to the OpenGL specification. Apparently this may change, however, since control of the ARB is going over to Khronos. I, for one, would like to see OpenGL keep up with the standard, so we'll see what happens.

jb1
June 12th, 2008, 02:43 AM
Many game "Safe-Modes" run under OpenGL. This is a "just-in-case" DX isn't installed or isn't functioning correctly.

EDIT
Straight from Wikipedia comes your notable games list.





Who said it was?
Most of those games are ~5 years old. ID and Epic were really the last big dev firms to release OGL games with an consistency.

Frak
June 12th, 2008, 04:25 AM
Most of those games are ~5 years old. ID and Epic were really the last big dev firms to release OGL games with an consistency.
There are much more games, I just can't find a complete list.

ad_267
June 12th, 2008, 04:26 AM
If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?
Because it's better.

ache109
June 12th, 2008, 08:46 AM
Because it's free... No Need of the nasty hard drive eating hardware drivers:KS, and one thing is... there's wine so I can use my programs in windows xp. no virus, spams and everything.. but.. yah, it's not capable for gaming... and also some of the programs for windows are not supported by wine

thavinci
June 12th, 2008, 09:51 AM
Im sorry to say this, but linux is great for server type environments but the lack of control over you're network from a management point of view is just not worth it.

Kind of like downgrading everyone in company to 98 in that way.

Also it's definately NOT more stable. When you purchase windows youre almost sure everything will work correctly. Purchase linux you could be cought replacing hardware just to suite OS.

On numerous occasions we have had huge issues where ubuntu has issues with things as simple as network cards, pretty much breaking our network.

This has NEVER happened with Windows. I dont want to promote windows but it simply ends up that way after years of bad experiances. Micorsoft does research to make sure a driver is "stable" , now maby its not as "stable" as we would like but does it break our network? Does is cause "kernel panics"? Does it cause file servers to disconnect from network wait until its redy again to work?

The answer is NO.
There are millions of reasons why its best to stay with windows and only a few to move to linux. Hey it's greate to have something so flexible but it's def not stable.

ad_267
June 12th, 2008, 10:00 AM
Micorsoft does research to make sure a driver is "stable"

No.

Microsoft doesn't make the drivers. The hardware companies do. And a lot of them don't support Linux. They don't even need to write Linux drivers, only release specifications so that volunteers will write the drivers for them.

awahid2020
June 12th, 2008, 10:38 AM
I am a new UBUNTU user, but yes i used linux before like slackware, fedora, red hat and mandrake too, that time i liked red hat only. Coz others were in development phase.

BUT this time its UBUNTU, its awesome.
I can play Dvd, mp3 and whatever i could do in windows.
only 1 thing i am unable to it here is the DOTNET runtime enviorement based softwares. But I really dont care about it, as I am very much relaxed, coz now I dont have to deal with Viruses, spywares, trojans and etc etc, cookies thingy.
A MOnth ago my XP was infected by W32.MOMIB.A he he he, all I was left with was a computer with 3 hard disks with data in perfect condition but unable to access, double clicking was useless, explore was useless, BUT YES, I managed to open files VIA SEARCH. But thats not the was it should be.

I Updated virus scanners, scanned whole system, still USELESS.

I formatted the Harddrive, on which XP was installed, and installed XP again.
AGAIN it was hard work with no use.
I did'nt wanted to loose my data, If i would have repartitioned or formatted all the hard drives It would have cured viurs, but I didnt wanted to Loose data.

THEN I INSTALLED UBUNTU.

REEBOOTED PC, I WAS LIKE HEAVEN FOR ME, WOWOWWWWWWWW

I managed to clean files that were infected,
IT WAS mere a autorun.inf file which was hard to find no matter how hard u try.

Hmmm. Then I made a dual Boot, installed XP, It was perfectly ok again.

UBUNTU ROCKS
UBUNTU IS GREAT

INSTALLING XP AGAIN, DOesnt means I am back on XP, its just for 30 mins of computer usage from 13 hrs per day

dunce
June 12th, 2008, 10:52 AM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?
i have just installed ubuntu 8.04 but dont know where to go from here,like what else do i need to add to it i have sound on it, but no idea how to connect it to the internet.
it asks for things like which port to use,i have no idea,i wish to use speedtouch 330 modem which appears to be set up as both lights are showing green.
also i need to find a tutorial that explains the terms used as its different to windows.

AgentZ86
June 12th, 2008, 12:14 PM
Oh brother this again ?

I have windows, but never boot to it, it's just a useless POS thats happens to still be on my computer.

The answer is:
Linux just works better for me and my family.
It does all we want to do, and windows is starting to become a thing of the past as the price keeps going up, and all the strings attached to it.

You can't just use windows bye the way you have to have virus software, and spyware protection etc. So it's sort of a faulty OS because you can't use it on the net without these things or it will just get hacked or crash all the time because of viruses.

Not really a bad problem, as it can be delt with, but I just don't need the hassle anymore.

Since I've started using linux, I've been much happier.

So come on and try linux your computer will love you for it LOL

No freezups, lockups, blue screens, no viruses, no random reboots, no unkown error messages, and no pesky licenses to worry about.

:guitar:

spoonmason
June 12th, 2008, 12:30 PM
I'm gonna say this and its not in Defence of windows but more a point of question.

I used windows for most of my life and not one time did I ever get a virus. I had some unwanted ad-ware and some spy ware that attempted to do its thing but any person that remotely know there way around a desktop should know enough to be able to 'stay out of dark alley ways' per~say. I even used mIRC for a long time in the late 90's and between the ages of 12-15 I still knew where on the web I should go and where would be potentially malicious.

I guess my point is YES WINDOWS IS WEAK!!!! People should know this even from a novice level and keep their virtual noses out of places that can make their PC sick [awww poor lil guy, PC has a cold....AGAIN!!!!] :lolflag:

ad_267
June 12th, 2008, 12:31 PM
i have just installed ubuntu 8.04 but dont know where to go from here,like what else do i need to add to it i have sound on it, but no idea how to connect it to the internet.
it asks for things like which port to use,i have no idea,i wish to use speedtouch 330 modem which appears to be set up as both lights are showing green.
also i need to find a tutorial that explains the terms used as its different to windows.

Go to here: http://ubuntuforums.org/forumdisplay.php?f=336 and click on "New Thread" (It's just above "Threads in Forum : Networking & Wireless" in Red) and post there for help. You're more likely to get a good response from someone who can help there.

Frak
June 12th, 2008, 01:51 PM
No.

Microsoft doesn't make the drivers. The hardware companies do. And a lot of them don't support Linux. They don't even need to write Linux drivers, only release specifications so that volunteers will write the drivers for them.
Microsoft requires that drivers pass the Windows Logo Kit tests, so, in theory, yes, Microsoft does test stability of drivers.

jb1
June 12th, 2008, 03:42 PM
There are much more games, I just can't find a complete list.I'm sure there are, but how many are recent, much less have Linux ports?


No.

Microsoft doesn't make the drivers. The hardware companies do. And a lot of them don't support Linux. They don't even need to write Linux drivers, only release specifications so that volunteers will write the drivers for them.
MS does driver vetting and certification, especially for x64 platforms. This isn't foolproof obviously, but it'll give you a pretty good idea of whether a driver will be compatible.


Im sorry to say this, but linux is great for server type environments but the lack of control over you're network from a management point of view is just not worth it.
[...]

The answer is NO.
There are millions of reasons why its best to stay with windows and only a few to move to linux. Hey it's greate to have something so flexible but it's def not stable.I agree, but only to a point. If I needed to run an internet-facing web server it wouldn't be on Windows (but then again it wouldn't be on Linux either). Where MS shines is intra-organization services: directory services, email, office productivity, mobile phone integration et al. Linux really has no good alternative to these services.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 12th, 2008, 11:27 PM
No.

Microsoft doesn't make the drivers. The hardware companies do. And a lot of them don't support Linux. They don't even need to write Linux drivers, only release specifications so that volunteers will write the drivers for them.

True.
It's kind of the similar situation like with the games.

Actually It's "magic circle"
Companies don't make software (drivers, games, etc) because quite a small number of people use Linux. They make it for Windows instead and the people therefore use Windows. They also recommend Windows to new users and as this number grows companies work more to make Windows software.
And this goes all round the circle.
We, Linux folk, are nothing but just a deviation of the mainstream.

Mostly all programs, games and drivers are written by volunteers, who don't get paid. However we never think what great effort have they put into the software we use. And I think it is quite lucky that Linux has evolved this far already.

Thanks to all the Linux devs out there! We owe ya one!

ad_267
June 13th, 2008, 12:36 AM
Yeah ok maybe I was a bit wrong saying that Microsoft doesn't test the drivers, but they still don't have to actually write the drivers. Linux developers have to write a lot of drivers themseleves without having hardware specifications to work from.

If a driver doesn't work to Microsofts standards they can tell the manufacturers to make it better. If a driver doesn't work on Linux well it's pretty difficult to do much about it because the hardware manufacturer doesn't give a toss and the person who wrote the driver often doesn't have the information required to improve the driver.


Thanks to all the Linux devs out there! We owe ya one!
So true. I hope to be able to give back a bit some day.

novatotal
June 13th, 2008, 01:42 AM
Haha... nice analogy, I only knew windows and I had to try something different, Apple was an option but Ubuntu is free so I tried it first. It took some doing but with time and help from the community, I tweaked it quite a bit. Now, when I use windows; It's like having that same old wife who at times just makes you feel like ****.

except for the wife thing same here!!
granted you have to learn and learning takes time and time is money but..
once you learned, and your install is top notch, then you don't have to pay to anybody for a newer, flashier OS, or for an antiviruses, or for anything like the give me your money, your children and your ....s, you get with W$

radical3
June 13th, 2008, 03:00 AM
i can see where this guy is coming from im new to ubuntu i mean like 3 weeks new, when i first installed it i couldn't get anything to work including my wifi, so i used my lan, i went to a website and saw a bunch of linux downloads and thought "wow thas great" but when i doulble clicked the x.tar.gz file and it didnt automatically install i uninstalled ubuntu and literally chucked the cd to the other side of the room and went back to xp

........2 days later xp froze 14 time in 1Hr followed by a healthy dose of blue screens (and i reinstall xp every 3 weeks coz only way to keep it virus free still dont work ):mad:............................... I STARTED LOOKING FOR THE CD](*,). i reinstalled ubuntu(i have two hard drives) and with the fear of going back to xp lurking behind me i forced my self to get everything to work.

about a day later wifi was working,onboard sound was working, pci audigy sound card was working, graphics card was working, firefox flash was working , flash 8, dreamweaver 8, photoshop cs2, everything i had on xp was working on ubuntu. i uninstalled ubuntu and reinstalled it to see how long it would take me to get everything working again from scratch it took me 10 MINUTES.
the moral? it was only difficult coz i didnt know where anything was, now i know where everything pretty much is i dont have any(real) problems.

i migrated my files from xp and uninstalled it, useless, now that ubuntu can do everything xp can do (and more),theres no need for me to keep that poison on my system.
btw i dont give a flying :-# about games theres always playstation

p.s. ive got ubuntu set up nice and ive never even used the command line.

gohanssjn
June 13th, 2008, 05:55 AM
Just my 2C here.

I have used Win 3.1 all the way to Vista, and now have Ubuntu on my laptop. Love it. I have XP running perminantly in a VM on my second workspace (because I need Microsoft OneNote, nothign compares right now), but Ubuntu does everything I need at the moment.

My only negative is that I cannot get it to run on my desktop. Which is sad, because even all the games I play (TF2 and a lot more older and newer games) work just fine in Wine. but it will not work on my wireless card, my TV tuner, or my sound card.

Over all though, for the laptop, two HUGE thumbs up!

merata
June 13th, 2008, 08:54 AM
Anooshiravan Merat wrote:
Interesting avatar, maybe you should start thinking about changing that! ;-)

golgo13
June 13th, 2008, 10:54 AM
second that john LM
a quality 'product' that is produced mainly in peoples free time
it amazes me every time I think about linux vs windows and the huge difference in resources of both
maybe the advantage of linux is the desire towards making it better...

thavinci
June 13th, 2008, 12:57 PM
jb1: Very few people see it from the point of the corporate enviroment, so thanks for backing me ;>


Also as for web server, i don't actually use Linux ;>
FreeBSD for me, but realise there are better options even to that depending on youre requirements...

AgentZ86
June 13th, 2008, 01:37 PM
True.
It's kind of the similar situation like with the games.

Actually It's "magic circle"
Companies don't make software (drivers, games, etc) because quite a small number of people use Linux. They make it for Windows instead and the people therefore use Windows. They also recommend Windows to new users and as this number grows companies work more to make Windows software.
And this goes all round the circle.
We, Linux folk, are nothing but just a deviation of the mainstream.

Mostly all programs, games and drivers are written by volunteers, who don't get paid. However we never think what great effort have they put into the software we use. And I think it is quite lucky that Linux has evolved this far already.

Thanks to all the Linux devs out there! We owe ya one!

Again, windows is becoming a thing of the past.

Remember windows use to be a deviation of the mainstream as well, as just about all users were using DOS of some sort and just about all games required DOS, then things came around and more and more things worked on DOS and windows;and as more windows users developed more games required windows, and DOS became a thing of the past.

Similar to Linux More and more things are working well with linux and history will repeat itself, however with GPL it will be different this time.

:guitar:

hoboken
June 13th, 2008, 02:31 PM
Once I know my was around Reason, maybe I'll try using rosegarden ardour, etc, but for now windows is the place to be if you wanna create music.

Frak
June 13th, 2008, 03:15 PM
Once I know my was around Reason, maybe I'll try using rosegarden ardour, etc, but for now windows is the place to be if you wanna create music.
I thought that was Macintosh :P

reader4
June 13th, 2008, 05:06 PM
I originally started using Linux because I needed 64-bit for 16GB RAM and simulation work. I have switched my laptop to Linux because I like having it mirror my desktop. I like Linux more each day when I realize I can customize to the point of insanity... my workspace becomes more integrated and optimized for my use.

One example: I am an academic and spend endless hours writing papers, grants and presentations. For each, I need different quality pictures and videos. With ffmpeg/mencoder and imagemagick I can create a right-click option on every image/video to convert it, combine it, etc. No need to open a program, open the file, click through the steps, etc. One-click and it's done. Can I do that in XP? Not easily. I have my top 90% of tasks literally at my fingertips.

toppknott
June 13th, 2008, 07:25 PM
It's probably been said before, but here are my reasons for using Ubuntu:

o Beautiful interface, with customization built in by default
o Sensible home folder, no "Documents and Settings/blah blah/tons of dirs"
o Secured against me breaking it (user acct cannot administrate system)
o Philosophy of free software vs pirating it
o Install/Uninstall functions are very simple
o Ubuntu keeps getting better over time (unlike Windows)
o Easier to fix when broken
o Free OS, I do feel bad about my [pirated] copy of win XP
o Intelligent design!

ad_267
June 14th, 2008, 12:15 AM
I originally started using Linux because I needed 64-bit for 16GB RAM and simulation work. I have switched my laptop to Linux because I like having it mirror my desktop. I like Linux more each day when I realize I can customize to the point of insanity... my workspace becomes more integrated and optimized for my use.

One example: I am an academic and spend endless hours writing papers, grants and presentations. For each, I need different quality pictures and videos. With ffmpeg/mencoder and imagemagick I can create a right-click option on every image/video to convert it, combine it, etc. No need to open a program, open the file, click through the steps, etc. One-click and it's done. Can I do that in XP? Not easily. I have my top 90% of tasks literally at my fingertips.

That's a great example of the sort of thing I love about Linux too. I guess a lot of users who only use their computer for looking at Youtube videos and chatting on MSN would look at that sort of thing and be turned off from Linux, but with a distribution like Ubuntu nearly everything is just as simpe as in Windows. You can make it as simple or as customised and streamlined as you like.

leandromartinez98
June 14th, 2008, 05:29 PM
http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/1419/screenshotqa4.png

Gimp with open image+skype with video+inkscape+ooffice writer+VMD (openGL molecular graphics viewer)+terminal with 3 tabs+firefox with 2 tabs+evince with 27mb document open+system monitor

= 733 Mb of RAM, no signs of slowdown in any of the applications

Windows Vista+AVG in the same machine: 933 Mb of RAM (I would like
to know why, really, probably can be better than that).

I took the screenshot to put here because I was really working in
this conditions at this moment.

tharu
June 14th, 2008, 06:54 PM
I'm new to this forum and I'd also like to add some stuff to this topic.
First of all, let me start by saying this. In my country, there are no solid rules on software usage. Its only now that they've stopped selling pirated Windows CDs on the streets.
So if an OS goes through here, its a very good one, since its almost free. So my point is...I dont have to pay for windows, its free for me....just like linux.

But I started liking ubuntu for a little while. But the complications drive me mad. I've used Red hat in an internship period and had 1000s of problems. One being when you install a program, you have 1000 different ways for each one...cant figure out what the heck. And after you (with a lot of sweat) install it, there is no program shortcut sort of thing. You have to invoke the damn thing in a command line. :P::confused::confused:
:lolflag:

One thing windows is...its a very good UI. I think you geeks should really think of the UI. Cool graphics like in XGL type of stuff is great, but its not the friendlyness thats in Windows.

So make this easier for people...make it more friendly, then people will start asking why use windows when I have linux, not the other way round.!!!

Wishing you all the best....

Enverex
June 14th, 2008, 07:37 PM
Many game "Safe-Modes" run under OpenGL. This is a "just-in-case" DX isn't installed or isn't functioning correctly.

That's not really true, adding a new renderer to a game is a very long-winded and time consuming process, it also needs to be designed with the idea of multiple engines in mind. The "This is a "just-in-case" DX isn't installed or isn't functioning correctly." makes no sense considering DirectX has been a core Windows component since Windows 98 and isn't removable.

Also your list doesn't really list anything other than one or two games that are really mainstream:

* America's Army - Old game, designed as multi-platform
* Baldur's Gate 2 Defaults to D3D - OpenGL renderer was added for Mac support, unstable.
* Call of Duty - Unreal 2 Engine I think (same as Unreal Tournament 2003 and below).
* City of Heroes
* City of Villains
* CodeRED: Alien Arena
* Counter-Strike (not Counter-Strike: Source) - CS1 is just a HL1 mod.
* Darwinia - Patched to default to D3D
* Doom 3 - Designed as multi-platform
* Dwarf Fortress
* Earth 2150
* Enemy Territory: Quake Wars - Designed as multi-platform
* Far Cry Defaults to D3D - OpenGL renderer in this game is unusable
* Frets On Fire - Linux native game
* FlightGear - Linux native game
* Half-Life (not Half-Life 2)
* Homeworld 2
* IL-2 Sturmovik: 1946
* Neverwinter Nights - Designed as multi-platform
* Penumbra: Overture - Designed as multi-platform
* Prey - Doom 3 engine (see Doom 3)
* Quake series - Designed as multi-platform
* Rage
* Scorched3D - Linux native game
* Second Life - Designed as multi-platform
* Serious Sam - Designed as multi-platform
* Serious Sam 2 Defaults to D3D
* Spring
* Starsiege: Tribes
* Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy - Neverwinter Nights engine (see NWN)
* The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay
* Trainz - Also runs in D3D
* Tux Racer - Linux native game
* Ultima IX: Ascension
* Unreal series
* Warcraft 3 - Defaults to D3D in Windows
* Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory - Designed as multi-platform
* World of Warcraft - Defaults to D3D in Windows
* Wurm Online
* X-Plane - Linux native game

---------------------------------------------------

Just thought I'd point that out. It's very, very rare that games these days have an OpenGL renderer which is a shame (Most games in the past with OGL renderers were based on a Doom or Unreal engine).

jb1
June 14th, 2008, 09:41 PM
Yeah ok maybe I was a bit wrong saying that Microsoft doesn't test the drivers, but they still don't have to actually write the drivers. Linux developers have to write a lot of drivers themseleves without having hardware specifications to work from.

If a driver doesn't work to Microsofts standards they can tell the manufacturers to make it better. If a driver doesn't work on Linux well it's pretty difficult to do much about it because the hardware manufacturer doesn't give a toss and the person who wrote the driver often doesn't have the information required to improve the driver.


So true. I hope to be able to give back a bit some day.
I think it'd be fair to say that anyone who has ever spent any time with Linux knows this. But what's your point? You only seem to be evidencing the fact that industry doesn't care about Linux outside of the server market.



Gimp with open image+skype with video+inkscape+ooffice writer+VMD (openGL molecular graphics viewer)+terminal with 3 tabs+firefox with 2 tabs+evince with 27mb document open+system monitor

= 733 Mb of RAM, no signs of slowdown in any of the applications

Windows Vista+AVG in the same machine: 933 Mb of RAM (I would like
to know why, really, probably can be better than that).

I took the screenshot to put here because I was really working in
this conditions at this moment.First, your image really isn't proving anything; I can go open 4 or 5 copies of brand new games and not notice any slow down on Windows, and they use more resources that your 'common' apps. I frequently work with Firefox (~10 tabs), SecureCRT (5-10 tabs), Solar Winds, Packet Tracer, Outlook 2007, XChat, Pidgin, Acrobat, Foobar, Evernote, FlashFXP and EditPad Pro open without any issue.

Secondly, most of the memory use in vista is due to SuperFetch (http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/features/details/superfetch.mspx). What Vista does (and no, I'm not claiming it's perfect) is cache frequently used apps into RAM so that they start and act more responsively. When another app requests memory access, this memory is seamlessly unallocated so the new app can do what it needs to. The "high" memory use on Vista is actually very good for the user.

A good example of this is Firefox, which is generally pretty slow to open regardless of platform (due to being a horrible mess). On my Quad core/4GB RAM machine, Firefox takes at least 1.5-3 seconds to open in XP or Linux, but opens nearly instantly on Vista due to the caching that's going on.


I'm not sure why, in 2008, people still seem to (incorrectly) think that the amount of free RAM is any indication of performance or efficiency. This is what happens when users without any education in CS speak up about computers though. FYI, free RAM is of absolutely no use to you. None; It's essentially wasted.

If you think free RAM means much, I'd hate to see your face if you took at look at how real UNIX handles memory and data caching, specifically ZFS or JFS2.

khelben1979
June 14th, 2008, 09:59 PM
Because it's better.

Exactly! Windows XP is horribly slow compared to a Debian Linux system, in my opinion. Of course, it depends on what you do, but in the way I use the operating system I have experienced Linux as less laggy and I often have much more control over how the system reacts.

With Linux I really can focus on the things I want to do instead of wasting hours of maintainance of the system and experiences with crashes.

Windows XP is not a good operating system and the only reason to why I'm using it is because of the games.

Watching high defintion movies with Linux IS enjoyable even on my 5 year old PC(upgrades has been done to the graphics, though.)

leandromartinez98
June 14th, 2008, 11:54 PM
I'm not sure why, in 2008, people still seem to (incorrectly) think that the amount of free RAM is any indication of performance or efficiency. This is what happens when users without any education in CS speak up about computers though. FYI, free RAM is of absolutely no use to you. None; It's essentially wasted.

If you think free RAM means much, I'd hate to see your face if you took at look at how real UNIX handles memory and data caching, specifically ZFS or JFS2.

You are right, I'm no expert on that, I'm a chemist. I can only say that in my laptop I cannot open that ammount of programs in Vista and work well. I can also say that firefox takes more to open in Vista than in Ubuntu, also both of them are quite fast (1-2 seconds, I would guess). That said, you say that caching those things in order that the programs open rapidly is good, I do not thing that is consensual. I rather prefer wait 2 seconds for my firefox to be open than to have it taking my system resources while I'm trying to do something else. When I'm analysing the molecular dynamics trajectories, for example, I can load into memory different ammounts of data depending on the available resources. Maybe Vista is inteligent enough so that if a running application requires more memory some of the other "facilites" are automatically disabled, I really don't know (is it?). I supose it is not, otherwise it could be run in older machines.

But don't be angry! I'm not a linux fanatic. I just can work with it very well, for most things I need (I'm waiting for a OOffice release that faces powerpoint), and having to do programs sometimes the whole structure of the system is more interesting for me. Other things are far from satisfactory, like the Wifi support (mine works, but I cannot install ubuntu in my parent's laptop because I don't know if it is going to work allways, I have experienced all sort of problems).

Just to polemize, I think that this gamming discussion is not necessary. If you want to play games buy a playstation, or a Wii, they are much more fun. By the way, this is a possible outcome: Windows becoming a entertainment platform, while linux will be the best working environment.

jb1
June 15th, 2008, 04:50 AM
I rather prefer wait 2 seconds for my firefox to be open than to have it taking my system resources while I'm trying to do something else.You've obviously missed my point entirely. Vista only uses that memory for caching when you're not using applications that need it. I thought I was very succinct in saying "When another app requests memory access, this memory is seamlessly unallocated so the new app can do what it needs to."


Just to polemize, I think that this gamming discussion is not necessary. If you want to play games buy a playstation, or a Wii, they are much more fun.What about PC-only titles?

fredknex
June 15th, 2008, 06:15 AM
1. no anti virus
2. compiz is kickass

bad_cables
June 15th, 2008, 06:35 AM
why use linux?

because the app that i use was stopped in windows (dos) and is now continued in linux.

all apps will eventually stop in windows and pick up in linux so why not?

windows runs like crap. 99% of the people who have it don't pay for it, and of that 1% who do... 99% of them will never figure out that it is broken, so you tell me where the incentive is for M$ to even give a hoot and make a good product. linux is good out of the box and performs like a race car.

thank you very much for reading all 1200 postings and then reading mine so carefully... have a beer on me.

pastormick
June 15th, 2008, 07:14 AM
Because I can... (!)

thrasher6900
June 15th, 2008, 11:29 AM
Well, I prefer Linux over windows because windows can get buggy real quick.

All you have to do is go to a page and BOOM you've got something nasty that'll end up slowing your system down.

It's not really all that safe to do anything with on the internet without fear of viruses.

Now I don't get the point of this sort of meaningless, unprovoked destruction, but windows users are the prime target of such.

Linux doesn't give you any restrictions. If you cannot get something to work as said above, just google it and there's sure to be a terminal command to fix it.

I love using Linux and only us XP in VMWare when absolutely necessary.

There aren't as many nasties out there coded for Linux and open source offers anything that you would want to run on windows that costs hundreds of dollars for free.

With linux, the world is yours when it comes to you and your computer.

Tomatz
June 15th, 2008, 11:31 AM
Basically I dont see any advantages to using linux over windows xp, Im dual booting windows and ubuntu. Ubuntu is nice and all but I dont see anything that would make me prefer it over windows.The only thing i have been using ubuntu for is web browsing playing music/movies (cant play games) which I can do better/hassle free in windows.

So what are the advantages of l using linux over xp?

I use my xp disc to stop my table wobbling. Without it i might spill my coffee.

That's why i use Linux ;)

XpTheUndead-
June 15th, 2008, 12:06 PM
I started using the Linux because my XP setup was getting slower and slower and infected with lots of spyware, and I also lost my windows XP OEM CD. I have discovered that there is a lot of good free Linux distributions that works well on older hardware. I have 2 computers and the least powerful machine with a PIII Processing and 256 MB RAM is using Linux, and it is much faster than XP ever was on that machine.[-o<

leandromartinez98
June 15th, 2008, 04:42 PM
You've obviously missed my point entirely. Vista only uses that memory for caching when you're not using applications that need it. I thought I was very succinct in saying "When another app requests memory access, this memory is seamlessly unallocated so the new app can do what it needs to."

Obviously that's not true for wathever Vista does, otherwise it would
run nice in a 1GB RAM machine, and it simply doesn't. It simply needs
a lot of resources to run, that I think cannot be discussed. You can argue
that for a machine that has plenty of resources the way it uses them finally turns the system more user-agreable, but you cannot say that it is the overall efficiency that is being taken into account.

jb1
June 15th, 2008, 08:38 PM
Obviously that's not true for wathever Vista does, otherwise it would
run nice in a 1GB RAM machine, and it simply doesn't. It simply needs
a lot of resources to run, that I think cannot be discussed. You can argue
that for a machine that has plenty of resources the way it uses them finally turns the system more user-agreable, but you cannot say that it is the overall efficiency that is being taken into account.I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. This is going to be my final reply to you unless you stop asserting things about systems you don't understand.

You said it didn't release the RAM when another app needed it, which is patently false, as I've pointed out twice now. The memory footprint of the other kernel and userland apps have absolutely no relation to this caching feature.

If you want to claim that Vista is resource hungry then you have a valid argument, but stop trying to shoehorn this feature into theing 'the' reason for this resource usage. It is completely false.

Tomatz
June 15th, 2008, 09:06 PM
I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. This is going to be my final reply to you unless you stop asserting things about systems you don't understand.

You said it didn't release the RAM when another app needed it, which is patently false, as I've pointed out twice now. The memory footprint of the other kernel and userland apps have absolutely no relation to this caching feature.

If you want to claim that Vista is resource hungry then you have a valid argument, but stop trying to shoehorn this feature into theing 'the' reason for this resource usage. It is completely false.

Its still unsecure bloated fud with an awful out of date file system, whatever you say ;)

Why bother with the execution prevention and limited accounts when you can still write .dll's to the root. That still puzzles me to this day. Oh of course ntfs doesn't properly support permissions.

leandromartinez98
June 15th, 2008, 09:24 PM
You said it didn't release the RAM when another app needed it, which is patently false, as I've pointed out twice now. The memory footprint of the other kernel and userland apps have absolutely no relation to this caching feature.

If you want to claim that Vista is resource hungry then you have a valid argument, but stop trying to shoehorn this feature into theing 'the' reason for this resource usage. It is completely false.

It was you that introduced the "caching" thing into the discussion. I didn't know it exists at all. So, which percentage of the memory is taken by these caching and other "dynamic" memory allocations that can be freed in case other application requests it? Which percentage is "static" in that sense, that is, which are the differences on standard memory requirements when comparing ubuntu and vista?

Recall that all this started because I showed a snapshot in which, for me, Ubuntu was using less memory than vista, even while many applications were running. Which part of the Vista memory could be freed if some application needed it? It can go down to 290Mb (that Ubuntu uses when no application is running in my machine) if some other application needs to allocate the other 1.7Gb?

This is a thread about using Linux instead of windows. If I understand what you are saying, using less RAM is not at all an advantage. Not at all? I understand some of your arguments, but that assertion seems a little bit too strong, no?

I'm asking, no offense.
Thanks.

jb1
June 15th, 2008, 10:50 PM
Its still unsecure bloated fud with an awful out of date file system, whatever you say ;)This is incoherent; an OS cannot be FUD, only concepts or arguments.

And pretty much every FS other than ZFS and JFS2 are outdated.

Why bother with the execution prevention and limited accounts when you can still write .dll's to the root.
I agree that this is a bit silly, but they still cannot be called without privilege escalation.


Oh of course ntfs doesn't properly support permissions.Now this IS FUD, and also completely false.


So, which percentage of the memory is taken by these caching and other "dynamic" memory allocations that can be freed in case other application requests it? Which percentage is "static" in that sense, that is, which are the differences on standard memory requirements when comparing ubuntu and vista? This will vary based on total amount of RAM, processes running et al. I've never really looked at the base memory footprint of Vista though, so I can't really answer that.


Which part of the Vista memory could be freed if some application needed it?This part being used for caching... I'd think that obvious.


It can go down to 290Mb (that Ubuntu uses when no application is running in my machine) if some other application needs to allocate the other 1.7Gb?

This is a thread about using Linux instead of windows. If I understand what you are saying, using less RAM is not at all an advantage. Not at all? I understand some of your arguments, but that assertion seems a little bit too strong, no?
In the context of your original argument, no, it does not matter. A computer with, say, 1GB of RAM is not any more efficient by only using a fraction of that, when using the free RAM for caching can significantly increase performance. I never said that RAM doesn't matter at all, and really have no idea where you'd get that idea from. You seem to have missed every single point I've made though, so I'm just going to drop the issue, and it seems unlikely this discussion will go anywhere.

leandromartinez98
June 15th, 2008, 11:25 PM
This will vary based on total amount of RAM, processes running et al. I've never really looked at the base memory footprint of Vista though, so I can't really answer that.

In the context of your original argument, no, it does not matter. A computer with, say, 1GB of RAM is not any more efficient by only using a fraction of that, when using the free RAM for caching can significantly increase performance. I never said that RAM doesn't matter at all, and really have no idea where you'd get that idea from. You seem to have missed every single point I've made though, so I'm just going to drop the issue, and it seems unlikely this discussion will go anywhere.

It is not going anywhere because, in spite of your knowledge about the structure of the system, you also don't seem to know enough details to really be making an argument. I did understand your point that the system can take advantage of "free" memory to improve performance, whenever it is smart enough to not compete with applications. The caching part of Vista does that, good enough. However, if you don't know which percentage of the memory (~900Mb in my PC) is being used for caching, your point is meaningless. If it is only 1% of that, then all your argument is irrelevant, because the system is indeed taking up too much memory from what could be being used by other applications. The knowledge of that percentage is essential here, and that what I was trying to ask in the last post. Sorry taking your time with my ignorance...

kool_kat_os
June 15th, 2008, 11:26 PM
i use windows xp on my computer, ubuntu in virtualbox

sidran
June 16th, 2008, 05:42 AM
Windows Vista+AVG in the same machine: 933 Mb of RAM (I would like
to know why, really, probably can be better than that).

It's not that atypical. Windows Vista just has a very large memory footprint. It does have a lot of bells and whistles, so I'm not surprised. As an illustration, I currently have running on my desktop a bare-bones Vista installation (reinstalled for the 3rd time in 2 months ><) that has absolutely nothing additional (and I mean nothing) on it outside of drivers for my wireless adapter. It's currently running only Windows Update (not even in Aero), It is taking up 595 MB of RAM.

But, it's true. You won't see any slowdown in your performance no matter how much RAM is being used, until you start using all of it, and have to make lots of use of the page file (virtual memory). The only thing more RAM is better for is allowing you to use more applications at once without much of a performance hit (again, due to less use of the page file). Despite Windows Vista's increased memory footprint, it still runs just as fast as my XP partition for this reason.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 16th, 2008, 08:15 AM
Just for sake throwing yet another post on the RAM thing:

I can keep my XP's base footprint below 200MBs.
I'm pretty sure one could "tune" Vista to let's say around 300MBs.

Tomatz
June 16th, 2008, 09:06 AM
This is incoherent; an OS cannot be FUD, only concepts or arguments.



Ok crud then, you steered around the point of my statement.


And pretty much every FS other than ZFS and JFS2 are outdated.



Ok, Wasn't ntfs released in 1993? EXT3 was released in 2003 and we now have ext4 to play with :)


I agree that this is a bit silly, but they still cannot be called without privilege escalation.

Well at least we agree on something. (although i do like the way you open an escalated shell on vista, could be easily implemented on linux though)


Now this FUD is completely false



HeHe So you can set execution permissions? Nope!




Thanks ;)


Also the following link may help you understand the differences between filesystems *cheeky grin*:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems


P.s

Do you run linux?

Tomatz
June 16th, 2008, 02:05 PM
Just for sake throwing yet another post on the RAM thing:

I can keep my XP's base footprint below 200MBs.
I'm pretty sure one could "tune" Vista to let's say around 300MBs.

Considering all the crud you have to run just to keep it running smoothly and secure...

:^o

standingfire
June 16th, 2008, 03:47 PM
Quite simply, I like stability, I like creativity, I don't enjoy shelling out hundreds of dollars for software. My example, my laptop which costs a thousand dollars, can act as a development platform, a server, a net security platform and an ordinary workstation.
The Windows equivalent would cost over a thousand dollars per task and consume more than three times the space.
I can update my machine on with minimal intervention, (read work while I sleep)
I will innovate and coordinate as I need.

jb1
June 16th, 2008, 04:06 PM
Ok, Wasn't ntfs released in 1993? EXT3 was released in 2003 and we now have ext4 to play with :)I believe NTFS has received incremental updates with each major release, but I don't feel like looking it up right now.


HeHe So you can set execution permissions? Nope!
Sure you can; NTFS has the normal read/write/execute, as well as list and other special permissions.


Do you run linux?
Not currently, no (unless you count my router appliance), and if I did it wouldn't be on a desktop. I was a UNIX admin for a number of years before moving into engineering though, and have run Linux servers at home before. I currently run OpenSolaris as a home file server, and use a MacBook fairly regularly as well. I simply don't see the point of desktop Linux, as my time is valuable, and generally feel that BSD and various flavors of UNIX are better business products. If I ever felt the need to run a *nix desktop, it would be a Mac, simply because it's the most polished UNIX platform out there.


Considering all the crud you have to run just to keep it running smoothly and secure...

:^o
I run two applications that sit in the background and exercise a bit of common sense on the web; that's hardly an inconvenience.

Frak
June 16th, 2008, 05:35 PM
I believe NTFS has received incremental updates with each major release, but I don't feel like looking it up right now.

* v1.0 with NT 3.1 released mid-1993
* v1.1 with NT 3.5 released autumn 1994
* v1.2 written by NT 3.51 (mid-1995) and NT 4 (mid-1996) (occasionally referred to as "NTFS 4.0", because OS version is 4.0)
* v3.0 from Windows 2000 (occasionally "NTFS V5.0")
* v3.1 from Windows XP (autumn 2001; occasionally "NTFS V5.1"), Windows Server 2003 (spring 2003; occasionally "NTFS V5.2"),Windows Vista (mid-2005) (occasionally "NTFS V6.0") and Windows Server 2008



Sure you can; NTFS has the normal read/write/execute, as well as list and other special permissions.

Read-only, hidden, system, archive, not content indexed, off-line, temporary

And also everything that the ACL provides (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_Control_List#File_system_ACLs).

FTBPrimeEvil
June 16th, 2008, 06:35 PM
I have a dual boot Vista Ultimate and Ubuntu, So far I spent over six thousand dollars for my Windows Systems and to date I have spent nothing on Linux, LOL (enough said)!

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 16th, 2008, 11:14 PM
I have a dual boot Vista Ultimate and Ubuntu, So far I spent over six thousand dollars for my Windows Systems and to date I have spent nothing on Linux, LOL (enough said)!
That's quite a number!
That alone makes using Linux more!

timmahhny
June 17th, 2008, 06:17 AM
Why do I use Linux? Simple:
Windows Vista and XP suck.
Mac is too damn expensive for what they want; and you can't
customize the machine. You are in fact more of a slave to Steve Jobs than
to Bill Gates.
So, I use Ubuntu because it is more friendlier to use than other versions
of Linux I have battled with for almost ten years.
I use Linux because it is more secure than either Mac or Windows.
Because it is a great operating system.
And finally:
When people see you use Linux they automatically think you know more than what you actually do!
T

barbedsaber
June 17th, 2008, 06:18 AM
Why do I use linux you ask?, I'm sure I could think of a few reasons.

mirosol
June 17th, 2008, 01:02 PM
First thing that comes in mind is networking... Try to setup SSH server on a windows machine. Or how about a bulletproof ftp server? Those can be done. I know. But it's just so much easier in linux. And there are always how-to's, if you don't know everything (who does?)... Try to compare Ubuntu wiki and forum for MS's equilevants? Or Windows help?

And yes, i do own Vista Home Premium licence. Activated it already 2 times, so there's not much use for that in future. Tried to get it working for me. I honestly did. After two or three weeks i had to let it go. There were things that went broken, and there was no way to fix them without doing a clean install. Which is not an option, because you can only activate your copy 5 times.

For paying that 250€/$ for basic system that doesn't allow you to do anything.. I call that a rip-off. You can get OSX with physical manual and physical mediums for 125... They even include those with every sold machine... I don't have windows mediums...? But I do have Ubuntu mediums! Thanks to Ship-It service.

For ammount of software i use daily basis, i would have to pay more than 3000$ to keep myself in clear from software piracy.

Open source is good thing. At the moment, in my two computers, neither of those are running anything illegal/pirated. Everything is published under GPL (or WTFPL or DSB licence), except Opera Browser - Which i prefer over firefox because it works better with KDE and it isn't biased towards other operating systems (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405903). (Seems like they are fixin' it though... but still i think it's not your choice for KDE)

And yes. i consider myself to be a "power-user". I have few friends that are allowed to ssh to my machine. I make music on my computer, edit video, write code (badly), use it as music jukebox and video player. And heck. Even play open source games on it.

There is just nothing that could beat linux in quality and price. It's usability might seem pretty harsh for beginners, but once you get used to command line and figure out how things work for yourself, there's no turning back. You have the power to manage your desktop and server. No-one else.

Think of this post as my thank you to everyone who has ever written anything under open source licenses. Thank You.

bryctucker
June 17th, 2008, 01:15 PM
The reason is because it is a better server, and its free, its a better server because it doesn't run autoupdates even if you tell it not to like windows, and then restart when your hosting a site and a FEAR Server, so why use XP? becuase there is this little thing called wine that you can run your windows apps on linux, and there is even a new linux distro out that is called linux xp desktop 2008 and looks like vista and they say all your xp apps will run on it. so i think sence that day is now here that windows apps can run on linux and we now have auto (semiauto at least) installers called RPMs which do everything in an install for you not like an .tar.gz file, the days of Windows and microsoft are limited if the computer geeks have a say in it. sorry buddy your out of luck

P.S. i know RPM has been out, but its just recently been perfected.

WINDOWS SUCKS

midguard
June 17th, 2008, 01:24 PM
Hi I thought this a good place to put my first post to the Ubuntu forums.

New to Ubuntu as a 100% home user. (work I have to run XP for the time being)

I still dual boot to WinXP for the kids, most of the games that they want to play never work in Wine or Cedega.

They always whinge when they have to boot Win to play those games.

WinXP for some games for the kids, Linux for everything else


Midguard

Tomatz
June 17th, 2008, 01:45 PM
I run two applications that sit in the background and exercise a bit of common sense on the web; that's hardly an inconvenience.

How do you "exercise common sense on the web" when you use windows?


Bit Orwellian, all this double think ;)

leandromartinez98
June 17th, 2008, 01:55 PM
The applications I use to work are: gcc/gfortran, latex, vim, VMD, pymol, a pdf viewer, tcl and python, and a web server that runs my own scripts for providing some services. Ah, and inkscape and gimp. All this is more natural to install, update and mantain in linux. I run windows do do my presentations in powerpoint, because I'm not satysfied yet with the ooffice alternative.

One thing that is unfare about this comparison is that the opensource comunity, as the name implies, provides most of its software also for the windows platforms. That means, we continue to have a choice. If, for example, GNU compilers, Inkscape, Vim, Gimp and others ran only in free systems, than I would simply be forced to use linux, and abandone windows, because paying for the non-free alternatives is absolutelly out of question. Using linux is a way to support this model of software development, whose applications are now absolutelly essential for me.

pmlxuser
June 17th, 2008, 01:59 PM
"None" please use IE to browse the web and delete the linux partition (its eating you valuable space, Be very happy with all the free windows app and help (everything). why did you install linux anyway. go and buy youself some nice windows software and be happy

"as for me and my friends we shall never stop using linux till it stops being linux"

AgentZ86
June 17th, 2008, 02:34 PM
Because it's there
:guitar:

TrackTrack
June 17th, 2008, 03:02 PM
I think Linux is "Next Generation"
and The Online Game Community | Big Fish Games (etc).........
Will see that they need to build for Linux yes there is Wine but...........
maybe just a .run for games, so you can install and be on your way,

Do you think that Windows 90- did not need a push at work "haha" you should see, But i don't bash i like windows & i "love" Linux OS also Mac"

you can do more and get this i can do Live Script "Java Script" with a hot cup of java and my Linux OS better then i could b-for,

WebSite -build- "Linux --------- Mac"


(Etc"

jb1
June 17th, 2008, 03:59 PM
First thing that comes in mind is networking... Try to setup SSH server on a windows machine. Or how about a bulletproof ftp server? Those can be done. I know. But it's just so much easier in linux.As a network engineer I can honestly say that this is false; it actually takes about the same effort on both platforms. OpenSSH packages exist for both, secure FTP/SFTP servers exist for both. You can't simply install the packages and run with default settings on either, and a LARGE amount of security is handled via ACLs, SPI etc by firewalls at your borders. Only an idiot would rely on an SSH or FTP server for security (although it certainly should be secure), since at that point any bad packets have already ingressed your network and made it into your interface. The same concepts apply for home use as well.

However, it would only be fair to point out that each system is better suited for certain tasks. Remote access vis SSH is better suited for UNIX, simply because RDP over VPN is more common in the MS world. FTP would largely depend on your shop's setup though. I personally favor UNIX for most internet facing stuff, but wouldn't want to try hacking together an LDAP domain with email auth integration. And there is simply NO solution for secure mobile integration in the UNIX world.

And there are always how-to's, if you don't know everything (who does?)... Try to compare Ubuntu wiki and forum for MS's equilevants? Or Windows help?http://technet.microsoft.com
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx

Plus literally millions of web forums just like this one. Amazing what actually (gasp!) searching for information can yield, huh?

That said, Canonical does have a good thing going on here.


How do you "exercise common sense on the web" when you use windows?


Bit Orwellian, all this double think ;)
I don't use IE, don't go to random porn sites and don't download everything that pops up. Basically, I do what any other non-idiot PC user does without even thinking about it.

P.S. You're really bad at trolling.

bufsabre666
June 17th, 2008, 04:08 PM
P.S. You're really bad at trolling.

yet you arent my friend

((puts on flame retardant suit))

leandromartinez98
June 17th, 2008, 04:15 PM
don't go to random porn sites and don't download everything that pops up

And people complain about not being able to game on linux!!!! :lol:

Tomatz
June 17th, 2008, 04:23 PM
I don't use IE,

Why ever not?


don't go to random porn sites

Which ones do you go to then?


Basically, I do what any other non-idiot PC user does without even thinking about it.

So you run Linux :)


P.S. You're really bad at trolling.

No you are just a pro.



:guitar:

plvick
June 17th, 2008, 07:46 PM
there are a lot... really

a few practical ones:
no viruses, adware, spyware... whatever all that is called

you don't need to reinstall, just keep upgrading. at least debian based distros such as ubuntu
stability. it just _is_ more stable.

and once you know more about linux, you'll realise that you can tweak it as you want it, customize it to your needs.

plus you don't support an unethical monopolistic company.

my suggestions if you play games: dual boot with windows (games) and ubuntu (everything else)
go here: ubuntuguide.org

I think "malicious code" covers it? Zero malicious code. It is a sweet benifit.

Perhaps cedega for gaming? Some argue it does windows gaming better then windows... at least for titles it supports (which is a lot).

bankit
June 18th, 2008, 06:53 AM
how can u compare windozexp with linux...
i just wiped out my xp... after a windoze update... the machine RIP... won't even boot into safe mode... now on ubuntu... much better...

Nessa
June 18th, 2008, 07:04 AM
Why? It has something to do with needs and wants. ;)

jrz
June 18th, 2008, 11:37 AM
In some, perhaps many, cases Windows XP or another version exists only because it came preloaded rather than by choice. In fact a friend just recently purchased a new Dell notebook specifically requesting Ubuntu and was told it was unavailable and neither could he have WinXP installed. He took what he could and installed Ubuntu as a dual boot option and allowed MS to apply it's updates via the internet which killed Vista so he simply formatted the drive and installed Ubuntu only. No further problems!
I use Ubuntu primarily because of the power of shell scripts which is very useful to me. It really boils down to what your needs are and what best serves them. There are pluses and minuses applicable to each OS so you just have to weigh them for your self.

jb1
June 18th, 2008, 03:32 PM
I think "malicious code" covers it? Zero malicious code. It is a sweet benifit.
Zero malicious code? Really? Read this (http://ubuntuforums.org/announcement.php?f=326) and get back to me. Or take a look over here (http://secunia.com/), here (http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1), here (http://www.rootkit.nl/) or here (http://www.sans.org/reading_room/whitepapers/linux/901.php).


Perhaps cedega for gaming? Some argue it does windows gaming better then windows... at least for titles it supports (which is a lot).Cedega kind of steps on the OSS mantra of never ever paying for anything. Unless you're suggesting that the average gamer pull the cvs and build their own.

ramadan
June 18th, 2008, 05:40 PM
actually am using windows since version 3.1 and i have to say that windows XP is an excellent operating system totally stable and really fast and am really satisfied with it but sometimes you cant customise it as you want so am trying linux cos it is so.
linux is good but it is very diificult to deal with, right now my OS is Ubuntu 7.10 i hope i can perfect it soon

mirosol
June 19th, 2008, 08:38 AM
As a network engineer I can honestly say that this is false; it actually takes about the same effort on both platforms. OpenSSH packages exist for both, secure FTP/SFTP servers exist for both. You can't simply install the packages and run with default settings on either, and a LARGE amount of security is handled via ACLs, SPI etc by firewalls at your borders. Only an idiot would rely on an SSH or FTP server for security (although it certainly should be secure), since at that point any bad packets have already ingressed your network and made it into your interface. The same concepts apply for home use as well.

However, it would only be fair to point out that each system is better suited for certain tasks. Remote access vis SSH is better suited for UNIX, simply because RDP over VPN is more common in the MS world. FTP would largely depend on your shop's setup though. I personally favor UNIX for most internet facing stuff, but wouldn't want to try hacking together an LDAP domain with email auth integration. And there is simply NO solution for secure mobile integration in the UNIX world.
http://technet.microsoft.com
http://www.microsoft.com/communities/newsgroups/default.mspx

Plus literally millions of web forums just like this one. Amazing what actually (gasp!) searching for information can yield, huh?

Hmm. My earlier post was written from homeuser/poweruser point of view, not from professional side. Topic of the thread kinda points to that direction...

"The same concepts apply for home use as well."
No they don't. Average home user dont' have anything else but some sort of *DSL* box between their machine and ISP's network. And that's a fact, regardless of OS.

I must say, as ms2003server admin, that there are several reasons for companies to use MS servers, and many of them are truly understandable. And if company uses 2003, there's no real advantage of having linux machines as desktops. And vice versa. Web server is another thing.. How many of you have rights from your ISP's to even have web server at home? (of course you can set up a testing srv...)

For homeuser who want's flexibility out of his/her machine, linux is only choice. Maybe i should have stated clearer - try to setup SSH or bulletproof FTP to XP HOME at your own house? To have that kind of setup in xp home, it takes really much of knowledge (and resources/cash) to do it even remotely safe. As in linux, you can have port 22 wide open and still feel secure. Even with basic settings... Of course i would recommend to use some sort of brute-force blocker (iptables?) and high standards for passwords. And how about VPN and RDP running on xp home.. How are you going to manage users without GPo's? Or even if you could, there's still higher SYSTEM-user which you cannot control without real effort, and $C, $D shares with writing privileges open for everyone...

I must say that i don't have any experience with linux and mobile systems. Which, for me, seems to be something completely different than home users problem.

About help and support.. Ok. Ubuntu's wiki and forum are not the best example. How about comparing MS's own tech support site and Gentoo's wiki? Been reading both (gentooWiki&MSTechnet) a lot in past 2 years.. And i said COMPARE! I did not say i couldn't find any information on windows. Plus, Technet doesn't really help anyone with XP home.
Still i think it's better to get a picture of what's really happening when you're about to make changes to you system. Pretty screenshots don't help you understand anything. But then again.. It could be just me...

Bottom line:
Ubuntu (The Desktop) isn't supposed to be a server, but it does it securely enough for any home user with little tweaking. Windows XP/Vista HOME isn't supposed to be a server, and it doesn't do it securely enough for any home user. At least without real extra effort. For corporate use, i don't have personal favourite. I like to work with both. If my employer wants to pay for ms based server and clients, i have nothing against that.

I could still point out, that sometimes it's impossible to use anything else than windows, as some specific CAD/CAM softs run solely on windows. (and that's out of topic too, IMHO)


That said, Canonical does have a good thing going on here.
In that ,i agree 100%. And Canonical isn't the only one... (RHEL-Fedora - Novell-SuSE...)

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 19th, 2008, 10:03 PM
I could still point out, that sometimes it's impossible to use anything else than windows, as some specific CAD/CAM softs run solely on windows.

I hear ya! 3ds Max is one of things why I keep Windows around.
Blender's probably cool piece of software, but I'm not really up for learning new CAD software.

jb1
June 19th, 2008, 10:40 PM
No they don't. Average home user dont' have anything else but some sort of *DSL* box between their machine and ISP's network. And that's a fact, regardless of OS.Most home users have DSL/Cable/Wireless routers these days, which create a NAT firewall by design. And, yes, those security practices do apply to home users as well, even if they don't have enterprise hardware. Good security practices are good practices, period.


As in linux, you can have port 22 wide open and still feel secure.And it's a false sense of security. This should especially be common sense after the recent Debian OpenSSH exploit. Doubly so for someone who is an SA.


Web server is another thing.. How many of you have rights from your ISP's to even have web server at home? (of course you can set up a testing srv...)How many ISPs allow ANY servers? Most TOS for residential accounts specifically forbid any sort of server, whether it's FTP, SSH or web. Not that I think this is a terribly strong argument either way, since ISPs generally don't scan or enforce this.


And how about VPN and RDP running on xp home..
XP home does not allow RDP connections (without using the XP Pro TS dll). :)


As for the rest of your post, you make some decent points about home users, but also seem to ignore the fact that most users don't even have a clue what Linux is, much less want to use it. Linux might be OK for the average user if they could get a PC with it pre-installed, or have someone install it for them. But what happens when their wireless doesn't work? Or their printer isn't supported? Or they need to edit their xconfig to change resolutions? Or they need to use a Windows application? Linux forums are a good resource for the semi-savvy user, but completely worthless to people who simply call the repair shop every time they don't understand something. And I can promise you it's a hell of a lot easier to find a Windows tech than it is a Linux one.

But then again what average user needs FTP or SSH access to their home PC? And what user savvy enough to need this uses XP Home, without a router? :)

AgentZ86
June 20th, 2008, 04:28 PM
As for the rest of your post, you make some decent points about home users, but also seem to ignore the fact that most users don't even have a clue what Linux is, much less want to use it. Linux might be OK for the average user if they could get a PC with it pre-installed, or have someone install it for them. But what happens when their wireless doesn't work? Or their printer isn't supported? Or they need to edit their xconfig to change resolutions? Or they need to use a Windows application? Linux forums are a good resource for the semi-savvy user, but completely worthless to people who simply call the repair shop every time they don't understand something. And I can promise you it's a hell of a lot easier to find a Windows tech than it is a Linux one.

But then again what average user needs FTP or SSH access to their home PC? And what user savvy enough to need this uses XP Home, without a router? :)

You have forgot to mention the fact the most Windows users don't even have a clue what windows is, much less want to install it.

I have been selling computers for 15 years and in the past couple years I started selling new and older systems with linux and include the re-installation CD. Depending on what they need to do with the computer, most of them could care less which operating system is on it. Many just want to get onto the internet, or a child in school that they want to have access for researching papers etc.

But lets not forget that even most windows users have no clue of what to do when their computer software fouls up. They pay me $99.00 per hour for service, at least that was the going rate about a couple years ago, however I don't even do service any more. Ubuntu is just too easy for the end user to re-install.

As with windows if you have compatible linux hardware it's just too easy.

And bye the way I have no complaints or callbacks on my linux computers as I've had in the past 15 years of selling and repairing windows computers; and that is a fact.

I'm not saying it's better or worse then windows, I just know I was a windows user and technician for years and I must say that linux has done a fine job winning me over and I don't have any call backs on computers problems. However, I guess Linux could be bad for my business since I don't have any service calls related to software or windows problems anymore that I can get paid to repair. But I must say that I also make out with the initial sale of linux computers because many of the older computers don't even have certificate of windows on them, so then what are you suppose to do with the computer ? Buy a legit copy of Windows for about $100-$199 and install it, on an older P3 or P4 ?
No thanks, I sell used computers for $25.00 to $75.00 with Linux installed and it's really amazing how many people really don't care. And they love the fact that I tell them if you learn Linux you will never have to buy software again unless you want to. Or if you like your software you can make a nice donation to the development community.
And they really love hearing that.

Well thats all I know.
:guitar:



Happy debating.

jb1
June 20th, 2008, 07:51 PM
You have forgot to mention the fact the most Windows users don't even have a clue what windows is, much less want to install it.Most people DO know they have Windows installed, at least in my experience. But then again I'm not a PC repair guy.

Furthermore, they most certainly will care when they find out that they can't use X piece of software and must find a "good enough" equivalent, can't play DVDs without jumping through hoops, can't sync their cell phone, can't do anything beyond print from their multifunction printer/scanner/fax, can't visit their bank website because they need IE or can't open that .docx file from work etc etc.

Linux might work for someone who only needs to browse the web and check email, but most people do more than that these days. Outside of that and servers it's entirely a hobbyist OS.

Tomatz
June 20th, 2008, 08:07 PM
Most people DO know they have Windows installed, at least in my experience. But then again I'm not a PC repair guy.

Furthermore, they most certainly will care when they find out that they can't use X piece of software and must find a "good enough" equivalent, can't play DVDs without jumping through hoops, can't sync their cell phone, can't do anything beyond print from their multifunction printer/scanner/fax, can't visit their bank website because they need IE or can't open that .docx file from work etc etc.

Linux might work for someone who only needs to browse the web and check email, but most people do more than that these days. Outside of that and servers it's entirely a hobbyist OS.

You really need to install Linux.

Ubuntu plays DVDs "out of the box". Also i Don't only browse the web. I game, play media, run my small business without nags all for free. Also installing my printer drivers was as easy as going to lexmark.co.uk and downloading the drivers, doesn't malfunction?. Also all banks in the UK work fine with opera and firefox. In fact the only thing i do mainly on windows is game and the one game i play on Linux (enemy territory: quake wars which is Linux native and recent) runs twice as good on Linux as it does on xp. Read the reviews if you don't believe me.

I am a PC technician also. People DO think that XP/Vista is the computer and not just software. This is mainly because of the way the manufacturers tend to slyly call the OS disc images "recovery discs".

How long ago was it you tried desktop Linux?

fred_miller
June 20th, 2008, 09:19 PM
If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?

I have a HP notebook. It was a pre vista purchase and I was later supplied a (free) Vista upgrade. Windows works and all, it's just so damn big. If I use the recovery disks, (my only option as the keycode don't work with a generic Windows op system disk (what the Indian's tell me at support when I called)), Windows XP home installs at 20.7 GB and Vista home basic at 25.3 GB. So 1/2 my 40 GB disk is ate up before I download the first porn photo! After some trimming I got XP down to about 18GB, but if I try and remove Vongo it causes an error box every time you log on saying the registry has an error. Only way to fix that is reload the restore disk, a 3 1/2 hour waiting game. The only reason I even keep XP is that I have an off brand USB TV tuner that only works in Windows (so far), one software package I use some that needs Windows, and the fact that my wifi works faster in XP than in Ubuntu. If I could fix that last issue I have an old win 2000 desktop for the software, and the TV tuner card will be junk in 2009 anyway, thank you very much fcc, and windows XP and Vista would go in the pile with the dos, 16 bit windows, and OS/2 as old crap that outlived it's usefulness!

thschiavo
June 20th, 2008, 09:56 PM
About programming... Is it just for me or Netbeans works better in Ubuntu than in XP or Vista? Days ago, I read an article about java programming in Ubuntu, and the conclusion was: "ubuntu is the best operating system for java programming I ever tried". Sorry I can`t give you a link. :popcorn:

I usually use my XP for watching TV (can`t find correct drivers for Ubuntu yet) and for my mails (i just love windows mail, it can`t be helped, sorry!)... But, I do programm a lot and I just can`t understand how can anyone programm in Windows... For example, in simbolic programming like Maple... it seems to me that Maple is more stable and faster in Ubuntu. Don`t really know if it`s true. Is it true?

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 12:34 AM
You really need to install Linux.I don't *need* to do anything of the sort, and have neither the motivation nor use for doing so.


Ubuntu plays DVDs "out of the box".
The DeCSS code needed for playback is illegal to ship in the US.


Also i Don't only browse the web.
And you're probably a hobbyist... In case you somehow missed it, my post was addressing obstacles the 'average users' would encounter.


Also installing my printer drivers was as easy as going to lexmark.co.uk and downloading the drivers, doesn't malfunction?.
Try that on an HP, Lanier or Okidata and get back to me. Also note that I didn't mention Lexmark, but multifunction printers - specifically the functions other than printing - in general. Lexmark is but one manufacturer. Also, I said multifunction, not malfunction.


Also all banks in the UK work fine with opera and firefox.
Many banks in the US still require IE, either due to User Agent checking (which is admittedly easily overcome if you know what to do, but still well beyond the scope of what the average user knows) or by using ActiveX or other IE-specific code.

Edit: Your claim is also false.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/06/linux_ubuntu_blog.html

Annoyingly, my bank explicitly doesn't allow access using Linux, for security reasons. Note to self: change to an "open" bank. Actually, what are the implications, if any, of trying online banking via Linux? Do any / most banks enable access? A partial list of UK banks and their support for GNU/ Linux is available here (http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/banking.html#list) - but I have no idea of its accuracy.


While I can't debate that Linux fits _your_ needs, your entire post boils down to anecdotal evidence, and in no way refutes my points.


How long ago was it you tried desktop Linux?
I've already answered this.

greco8523
June 21st, 2008, 12:47 AM
I hate virus

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 12:54 AM
and the TV tuner card will be junk in 2009 anyway, thank you very much fccYour tuner will still work with an ADC.

And analog TV needed to die; the FCC did consumers a huge favor there. All that horrible SD programming actually takes up less spectrum in digital format, so now they can support more HD for all of us with TVs made in the past 10 years.

Roasted
June 21st, 2008, 06:15 AM
I like the free atmosphere Linux offers. I like the Samba Server that I set up with Linux, too. It works great.

Linux I use as my main, however, XP is there to cover up the fallbacks from Ubuntu... like if I'm ever in the mood to watch a DVD or full screen youtube, XP is the answer, unfortunately.

Frak
June 21st, 2008, 07:29 AM
Your tuner will still work with an ADC.

And analog TV needed to die; the FCC did consumers a huge favor there. All that horrible SD programming actually takes up less spectrum in digital format, so now they can support more HD for all of us with TVs made in the past 10 years.
The amount of HD tv's in households is still very low.

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 07:45 AM
The amount of HD tv's in households is still very low.
The number was up from 15% to just about 30% this year (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31530/113/). With normal adoption growth and the preparation for the digital cut over, that number is likely to reach 50% shortly. That's a far cry from 'very low.'

The FCC is helping the push to get everyone on digital, which will push prices down and get more programming out there.

I'd put money on it that in 2, 3 years max, HDTV adoption will be up around 70-80%.

Tomatz
June 21st, 2008, 08:50 AM
I don't *need* to do anything of the sort, and have neither the motivation nor use for doing so.


The DeCSS code needed for playback is illegal to ship in the US.


And you're probably a hobbyist... In case you somehow missed it, my post was addressing obstacles the 'average users' would encounter.


Try that on an HP, Lanier or Okidata and get back to me. Also note that I didn't mention Lexmark, but multifunction printers - specifically the functions other than printing - in general. Lexmark is but one manufacturer. Also, I said multifunction, not malfunction.


Many banks in the US still require IE, either due to User Agent checking (which is admittedly easily overcome if you know what to do, but still well beyond the scope of what the average user knows) or by using ActiveX or other IE-specific code.

Edit: Your claim is also false.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/06/linux_ubuntu_blog.html




While I can't debate that Linux fits _your_ needs, your entire post boils down to anecdotal evidence, and in no way refutes my points.


I've already answered this.

I'm sorry but i can't respect your opinions until you install ubuntu
yourself.


Edit: Your claim is also false.


All the major banks do:

http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/banking.html

[edit] Looks like you should have done your research as you took the word of an obvious novice to be true. If you see the date that blog was made, firefox 3 was still in beta and unsupported by all banks (also the default browser in hardy). I had this problem so i just used opera. Firefox 3 is now supported. It wasn't the OS being linux it was the browser being beta.


I said multifunction, not malfunction.


All my functions work (all in one)? Oh and jobs dont get stuck in the printer que like on xp. Also it works over my wi/lan via SAMBA which IMO is the only good thing to come out of microsoft (SMB anyway) :)

Wubi?

P.s My business is not a hobby its my livelihood. So no argument for you there.

BigSilly
June 21st, 2008, 10:06 AM
The number was up from 15% to just about 30% this year (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31530/113/). With normal adoption growth and the preparation for the digital cut over, that number is likely to reach 50% shortly. That's a far cry from 'very low.'

The FCC is helping the push to get everyone on digital, which will push prices down and get more programming out there.

I'd put money on it that in 2, 3 years max, HDTV adoption will be up around 70-80%.

I wouldn't. Especially not when you consider the various countries' forthcoming recessions. People just won't/don't have the money to buy expensive new TV's. It'll be interesting to see whether you are proved correct in your guess.

For me, my next step is getting rid of the bloody thing altogether. I'm sick of it's constant yap.

leandromartinez98
June 21st, 2008, 10:53 AM
I don't *need* to do anything of the sort, and have neither the motivation nor use for doing so.

And you're probably a hobbyist... In case you somehow missed it, my post was addressing obstacles the 'average users' would encounter.


Many banks in the US still require IE, either due to User Agent checking (which is admittedly easily overcome if you know what to do, but still well beyond the scope of what the average user knows) or by using ActiveX or other IE-specific code.


I won't discuss here that in general things work more "out of the box" in windows than in linux, but your image about linux is really outdated. I do everything I need in Ubuntu, except using Itunes and Powerpoint, I had never a problem waching a movie, using any kind of printer (even the ones shared over windows networks), scanners and other USB devices.

Concerning the banks, I never had any problem with any of the banks I used, in France and in Brazil. Anyway, from the bank point of view it is pathetic to require IE, I would certainly fire the site designers I found that about some site of mine. Now I remember that once some people in Brazil had a problem of that kind with a bank. Some linux users, and there are some much more idealistic than me, simply refused to install windows for using the site, and the bank was forced to provide a compatible site, because of consumer laws. And given the fact that most viruses and spywares work on windows and not on linux, I really feel safer accessing my bank sites in linux, but probably you will say that this is a false sense of security.

Your motivation to install linux should come from participating in this forum, you will be able to criticize Ubuntu for the things that really don't work!

t.rei
June 21st, 2008, 12:53 PM
I use linux for anything work-related (where MY productifity is fokus #1) and since a few wine versions also for all gaming. It's no more work then on windows, and its free, free and WAY advanced.

Honestly. I enjoy working with ubuntu + compiz - I can make it behave whatever way I want within a few minutes.

My gf bought a new laptop... vista... wlan randomly disconnects, performance worse then the same game on my linux+wine. So... If you can have linux, why would you use vista.

Things I use daily:
latex, gaim, xchat, banshee, firefox, thunderbird, transparency and expose are central to my workflow, burning cd's and using subversion, gimp, open-office, ... so many things that just work under linux, are easy to install (no google) and just work.
And I tried to work on XP and Vista... a pain in the a*s. Nothing less.

Well, KDE1 was bad... but those were different times.

Canis Major
June 21st, 2008, 02:23 PM
I don't really have any claims that linux is better over windows, as both have their own strengths and weaknesses according to their architectures. (I would like to believe)

However, I am finding myself more comfortable programming in Ubuntu than in Windows. Perhaps this just might be a passing fancy, but I am finding myself using Ubuntu more often than Windows.

I still keep both operating systems on my laptop, however, as some things are better off done on Windows. (Hint: I don't use wine, so I play Windows games on Windows, and my music recording software is on Windows too)

Well, Linux has this quality which always catches attention, as Computer Science majors in my university seems to be the only ones very much excited over this Ubuntu, other students here always ask me what OS I am using, because "It's definitely not Windows." When people get curious, it's a good chance to introduce it to them.

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 06:57 PM
I'm sorry but i can't respect your opinions until you install ubuntu
yourself.
I have 8.04 on my laptop, as I said earlier in this thread.


All the major banks do:You said "all banks" not "all the majors banks," so my original argument stands.


All my functions work (all in one)?Anecdotal, again.


I wouldn't. Especially not when you consider the various countries' forthcoming recessions. People just won't/don't have the money to buy expensive new TV's. It'll be interesting to see whether you are proved correct in your guess.

For me, my next step is getting rid of the bloody thing altogether. I'm sick of it's constant yap.
I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't care about the adoption rates of anywhere but the US. And our rates seem perfectly healthy.

P.S. We're not in a recession, or headed for one.




your image about linux is really outdated.
Only if you consider about a month outdated. :)


Concerning the banks, I never had any problem with any of the banks I used, in France and in Brazil.And while this is great for you, it's also entirely anecdotal, which I've already pointed out. Something working for you does not mean it will work for someone else. There are a lot of banks in the states that simply do not support browsers other than IE. Period. Unless you can show that ALL banks in the US support Firefox, then you have not refuted this argument.

LaRoza
June 21st, 2008, 07:00 PM
And while this is great for you, it's also entirely anecdotal, which I've already pointed out. Something working for you does not mean it will work for someone else. There are a lot of banks in the states that simply do not support browsers other than IE. Period. Unless you can show that ALL banks in the US support Firefox, then you have not refuted this argument.

It is anecdotal the other way also...

And since you can use IE in Linux, it really doesn't matter.

Tomatz
June 21st, 2008, 07:16 PM
Anecdotal Anecdotal Anecdotal Anecdotal Anecdotal....


...No my personal experience. All your argument is based on is outdated hearsay.

And if you do have ubuntu installed how about posting a screenshot of this page (just press print-screen).



How many other Americans here can't get onto their bank website?

I bet none say they can't (with a bean count over 10 anyway) ;)

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 07:29 PM
It is anecdotal the other way also...It is a fact that some websites don't support browsers other than IE - not anecdotal at all. It's poor reasoning to try and use anecdotal evidence to refute that. Even saying "most do" is a better argument.


And since you can use IE in Linux, it really doesn't matter.I touched on this earlier in the thread... ie4Linux or WINE are not things the average user will either know about or be comfortable setting up.


Anecdotal Anecdotal Anecdotal Anecdotal Anecdotal....


...No my personal experience. What do you think anecdotal means? :lol:


All your argument is based on is outdated hearsay.Rhetoric, plain and simple.


And if you do have ubuntu installed how about posting a screenshot of this page (just press print-screen).
OK, since the Linux Youth thinks I owe him something, despite him being unable to refute any of my arguments, I'll edit this in a few minutes.

Here you go pal, have fun.
http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/525/ubuntulc0.th.png (http://img95.imageshack.us/img95/525/ubuntulc0.png)

Tomatz
June 21st, 2008, 07:42 PM
It is a fact that some websites don't support browsers other than IE - not anecdotal at all. It's poor reasoning to try and use anecdotal evidence to refute that. Even saying "most do" is a better argument.


I have found one and its a cosmetic store (but that's just anecdotal)


What do you think anecdotal means?

Wikipedia:


Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity: the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy or untrue.


My and the thousands of other ubuntu users evidence is clearly not anecdotal evidence. Its based on personal experience and not hearsay, as your argument is. Do you actually know what anecdotal means?


Rhetoric, plain and simple.

Hmmm. I could say the same



OK, since the Linux Youth thinks I owe him something, despite him being unable to refute any of my arguments, I'll edit this in a few minutes.

Ok here starts the insults. How did i know that was coming ;)

LaRoza
June 21st, 2008, 07:47 PM
It is a fact that some websites don't support browsers other than IE - not anecdotal at all. It's poor reasoning to try and use anecdotal evidence to refute that. Even saying "most do" is a better argument.


Some sites do not support IE, that is a fact.



I touched on this earlier in the thread... ie4Linux or WINE are not things the average user will either know about or be comfortable setting up.

Then this user will have to either go back to their comfort zone, or learn something new. Nothing all that exciting or ground breaking.

dayosh
June 21st, 2008, 07:50 PM
I will start by saying that I personally am not a "hardcore" Linux user. I am quite proud of myself, because any problems or hiccups I've run into with Ubuntu (mainly graphical ones, and also changing minor things, like the Grub menu) I've been able to research and fix on my own, but I'm still nowhere near a "pro," by any means.

The reason I have a dual boot of XP & Linux is for two reasons. The first being that I am a hardcore gamer, and I have problems running numerous games on Ubu. While I realize that most of these issues are not a problem with the rest of you, this is where the second issue comes into play: my graphics card. I am currently running an ATI Radeon X1950 Pro.

Maybe it's just me and my paranoia, but it seems (to me) like out of all of the graphics cards released by ATI, the X1950 Pro hates working with Ubu the most (and had I known this when I built this rig, you can bet I would've gone nVidia). The hilarious thing (in irony) is that now I am having technical driver issues with the card in XP (not just Ubu), so I am seriously considering shopping for a new card. If /when that happens, I may or may not switch totally over to Ubu (depending on how games and such work).

So, for now...I am still a fairly noobish user. As I've said, I'm proud of myself, for being able to research and dig myself out of most problems and hiccups, but I am by no means a "pro." So, the dual boot is a way for me to get my feet wet, and I suppose XP is just there as a "security blanket," of sorts, in case something should go wrong and the system should crash (if it did, it would probably be my own fault, not Ubu's).

Only other reason I can think of is that being a college student, if you hand in a paper written in Open Office, professors (who have used nothing but Windows all their lives) get huffy if it doesn't look exactly like the other students' papers (margins, font, etc.).

Sorry for babbling. lol Just putting in my .02. Hope that helps. :)

-Dayosh

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 07:59 PM
My and the thousands of other ubuntu users evidence is clearly not anecdotal evidence. Its based on personal experience and not hearsay, as your argument is. Do you actually know what anecdotal means?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anecdotal

based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

Ok here starts the insults. How did i know that was coming ;)
What did you expect when you basically called me a liar?


Some sites do not support IE, that is a fact.And they are mostly obscure sites that an average user would not encounter. I've yet to see a popular site not work in IE, but have seen some that don't work in Opera and Firefox.

(For the record, I use Firefox as my browser, and have for years. However, I STILL have to use IETab to access certain sites in 2008. Sadly, that option is not available in Linux.)

Then this user will have to either go back to their comfort zone, or learn something new. Nothing all that exciting or ground breaking.That was kind of my point... What average user wants to spend time learning just to be able to do something that's included as basic functionality in Windows (an OS they already know [to some extent])? Even as someone whose been in IT for nearly 10 years, I don't want to exert extra effort to use a computer where I don't have to. The purpose of computers is to make life easier through automation, not add more complexity.

BigSilly
June 21st, 2008, 09:09 PM
...I don't want to exert extra effort to use a computer where I don't have to. The purpose of computers is to make life easier through automation, not add more complexity.

I don't understand the discussion then. With all due respect, use something else. Your complaints aren't going to have any impact whatsoever on the way Linux works, and no-one here is going to convince you of the benefits of learning the new things. I've not read the whole thread, so if I've missed something here please let me know, but it sounds like you need to be using Windows.

There's a lot of talk though, about just what this "average Joe" is or isn't capable of doing on his PC. Mostly it's a load of cobblers, since I'm a very average Joe home PC user myself, who was just looking for a way to make my PC my own a few years ago. I got a Linux off a mate, it was very, very different at first, but I managed to figure out the differences and am very comfortable now. It didn't take a great deal of effort to be fair, but I haven't had to delve too deeply. Deep enough to get me what I want from a PC - internet, wireless, MP3, DVD/CD burning, printing, games and emulation etc. Usual home use. Even the wife was so impressed she bought an Ubuntu Dell, and she's pretty demanding. It has to work and be clear and simple, or it's useless. I gave her a bit of coaching on installing from the repository (since like most ex-Windows users they're used to downloading from sites), and that was that. She's had it about 3-4 months and not a peep or complaint.

If we're comparing anecdotes, that's mine then above. Is it less valid than yours?

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 09:52 PM
I don't understand the discussion then. With all due respect, use something else. Your complaints aren't going to have any impact whatsoever on the way Linux works, and no-one here is going to convince you of the benefits of learning the new things. I've not read the whole thread, so if I've missed something here please let me know, but it sounds like you need to be using Windows. I think you're missing my point. I don't use Desktop Linux for the reasons I've outlined. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either, only point out why Linux isn't widely used. Contrary to the popular belief on forums like this, it's not because Bill Gates is an evil man; it's because Linux still has many quirks and requires things to be done "the hard way" where other OSes don't.

As for learning, please try to understand that I'm using the common image of "the average user" to play devil's advocate here. I learn new things about networking and computers every day, but that's because doing so pays the bills. I don't want to come home and fuss with with config files et al when I can just point and click in Win or Mac. (For example, do you know how easy installing software is in OSX? Or that there is absolutely no chance of dependency problems? Linux still seems like an early beta OS when compared to OSX.) Computers are supposed to make life easier, not require me to learn some overly-complex system just because the OSS community was off building fancy window managers instead of adding better wireless or suspend/hibernate support (two of the things I had problems with when trying to run 8.04 on my laptop).


There's a lot of talk though, about just what this "average Joe" is or isn't capable of doing on his PC. Mostly it's a load of cobblersWhen people refer to the "average user" they are speaking to the lowest common denominator; the "idiot" who can't do anything except what he's learned through rote memorization.

Roasted
June 21st, 2008, 09:57 PM
I don't understand the discussion then. With all due respect, use something else. Your complaints aren't going to have any impact whatsoever on the way Linux works, and no-one here is going to convince you of the benefits of learning the new things. I've not read the whole thread, so if I've missed something here please let me know, but it sounds like you need to be using Windows.

There's a lot of talk though, about just what this "average Joe" is or isn't capable of doing on his PC. Mostly it's a load of cobblers, since I'm a very average Joe home PC user myself, who was just looking for a way to make my PC my own a few years ago. I got a Linux off a mate, it was very, very different at first, but I managed to figure out the differences and am very comfortable now. It didn't take a great deal of effort to be fair, but I haven't had to delve too deeply. Deep enough to get me what I want from a PC - internet, wireless, MP3, DVD/CD burning, printing, games and emulation etc. Usual home use. Even the wife was so impressed she bought an Ubuntu Dell, and she's pretty demanding. It has to work and be clear and simple, or it's useless. I gave her a bit of coaching on installing from the repository (since like most ex-Windows users they're used to downloading from sites), and that was that. She's had it about 3-4 months and not a peep or complaint.

If we're comparing anecdotes, that's mine then above. Is it less valid than yours?

I understand what you're saying, but I have one serious problem with Ubuntu that just enrages me. I've used Ubuntu ever since the day 6.06 came out a couple years back. By no means am I an idiot with computers, especially when you consider the amount of years I've been around them as well as my career path.

For a long time I've been trying to get DVD playback to work. Today, I formatted Ubuntu, reinstalled it, and followed a simple guide that was "guaranteed" to work. Didn't work.

There's just certain instances out there that make sense to use XP. In your wife's case, since she bought a Dell branded Ubuntu machine, it should work for her. In my case, where I built my computer and have to configure everything on my own, things can be a little stickier, as I've experienced.

When at all possible, I'm on Ubuntu. But I'd rather go to XP if I know XP works than spend 4 weeks trying to troubleshoot a single problem with no hope in sight as I currently have done.

Just saying... there's obvious reasons to use each operating system, but in the end, you gotta use what works and what gets the job done.

cardinals_fan
June 21st, 2008, 10:14 PM
(For example, do you know how easy installing software is in OSX? Or that there is absolutely no chance of dependency problems? Linux still seems like an early beta OS when compared to OSX.)

What? Installing software is really easy (I use Arch). "pacman -S *software I want*" to install, and "pacman -Syu" upgrades everything installed to the latest available.

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 10:30 PM
What? Installing software is really easy (I use Arch). "pacman -S *software I want*" to install, and "pacman -Syu" upgrades everything installed to the latest available.In OSX all you do is drag an application to where you want it. It's very intuitive. You don't need to open up a terminal or need to know the specific name of the software in the repository (for example appx may not be the same as AppX or AppX-1.342.34.345.3). And there is absolutely no chance of dependency hell, which pacman, apt etc can (and do) still suffer from.

cardinals_fan
June 21st, 2008, 10:53 PM
In OSX all you do is drag an application to where you want it. It's very intuitive. You don't need to open up a terminal or need to know the specific name of the software in the repository (for example appx may not be the same as AppX or AppX-1.342.34.345.3). And there is absolutely no chance of dependency hell, which pacman, apt etc can (and do) still suffer from.
How do you update it?

BigSilly
June 21st, 2008, 10:57 PM
...I don't want to come home and fuss with with config files et al when I can just point and click in Win or Mac. (For example, do you know how easy installing software is in OSX? Or that there is absolutely no chance of dependency problems? Linux still seems like an early beta OS when compared to OSX.) Computers are supposed to make life easier, not require me to learn some overly-complex system just because the OSS community was off building fancy window managers instead of adding better wireless or suspend/hibernate support (two of the things I had problems with when trying to run 8.04 on my laptop).

When people refer to the "average user" they are speaking to the lowest common denominator; the "idiot" who can't do anything except what he's learned through rote memorization.

Well, I take your points. Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of time I've actually put in to figuring Linux out, but it doesn't seem to me to be much more time here than I spent staring at BSoD's in Windows (I had lots of these, no lie), wondering why I'm not getting sound today, defragging, virus-checking/removing, registry cleaning etc etc. My experience with Windows wasn't so hot in the first place (I don't have particularly obscure hardware or anything, but had no end of bother), so when WGA got me it was time to move on. I know that many find it quite incredulous, but I have honestly found for the most part that Linux has been easier. Though I concede it may need a user to 'polish it up'. Maybe I'm right and I've just not realised how much time I've put into it. I wouldn't change it for anything though. I love my PC, and it feels like it belongs to me now.



For a long time I've been trying to get DVD playback to work. Today, I formatted Ubuntu, reinstalled it, and followed a simple guide that was "guaranteed" to work. Didn't work.

There's just certain instances out there that make sense to use XP. In your wife's case, since she bought a Dell branded Ubuntu machine, it should work for her. In my case, where I built my computer and have to configure everything on my own, things can be a little stickier, as I've experienced.

When at all possible, I'm on Ubuntu. But I'd rather go to XP if I know XP works than spend 4 weeks trying to troubleshoot a single problem with no hope in sight as I currently have done.

Just saying... there's obvious reasons to use each operating system, but in the end, you gotta use what works and what gets the job done.

Sorry to hear of your trouble with DVD playback. I think I've been very lucky in this respect perhaps. My PC (desktop) seemed to "like" Linux almost immediately. Once I knew what I had to install (libdvdcss2, libdvdread3), it's played all my DVD's fine, though obviously you don't want to hear this! It's been like that for all the other bits and bobs inside my PC. They've all just worked fine. The only thing I had to buy extra was a HP printer, but that was fine as my Lexmark had literally just bitten the dust before I discovered Linux. I'd say to you - have you tried any other distros? Just because it doesn't work in Ubuntu for you, doesn't mean it won't in Mandriva, PCLinuxOS etc.

But yeah - you got to use what works for you. And my simple story has been mostly very positive. I wish it were so for everyone, I really do, but no OS is perfect I suppose.

Tomatz
June 21st, 2008, 11:00 PM
based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence.

Isn't that what you are doing. Where's the "science" in your argument?

Tomatz
June 21st, 2008, 11:02 PM
In OSX all you do is drag an application to where you want it. It's very intuitive. You don't need to open up a terminal or need to know the specific name of the software in the repository (for example appx may not be the same as AppX or AppX-1.342.34.345.3). And there is absolutely no chance of dependency hell, which pacman, apt etc can (and do) still suffer from.

HeHe :-\"

Ahh the good old days of RISCOS.


Wow you really need to stop adding those dodgy repos. They will break your system.

;)

Tomatz
June 21st, 2008, 11:04 PM
I understand what you're saying, but I have one serious problem with Ubuntu that just enrages me. I've used Ubuntu ever since the day 6.06 came out a couple years back. By no means am I an idiot with computers, especially when you consider the amount of years I've been around them as well as my career path.

For a long time I've been trying to get DVD playback to work. Today, I formatted Ubuntu, reinstalled it, and followed a simple guide that was "guaranteed" to work. Didn't work.

There's just certain instances out there that make sense to use XP. In your wife's case, since she bought a Dell branded Ubuntu machine, it should work for her. In my case, where I built my computer and have to configure everything on my own, things can be a little stickier, as I've experienced.

When at all possible, I'm on Ubuntu. But I'd rather go to XP if I know XP works than spend 4 weeks trying to troubleshoot a single problem with no hope in sight as I currently have done.

Just saying... there's obvious reasons to use each operating system, but in the end, you gotta use what works and what gets the job done.


If you are having problems with DVD playback it is probably due to the region setting. The easiest way to fix this is to just use vlc.

You can install it via synaptic ;)

Roasted
June 21st, 2008, 11:10 PM
If you are having problems with DVD playback it is probably due to the region setting. The easiest way to fix this is to just use vlc.

You can install it via synaptic ;)

Yep.

I did.

In fact, it's my default DVD player.

See why I'm so confused now? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

BigSilly
June 21st, 2008, 11:14 PM
Yep.

I did.

In fact, it's my default DVD player.

See why I'm so confused now? :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Did you read my post further up? If not, let us know if you got libdvdcss2 and libdvdread3 from Synaptic too.

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 11:18 PM
How do you update it?
Not on my MacBook now so I had to search for an image, but basically you just click "update" or set them to download in the background, much like Windows Update. Updates via Synaptic are actually pretty decent as well from what I've seen, so no complaints there.

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3042/osxupdate03vs1.jpg


Isn't that what you are doing. Where's the "science" in your argument?
In certain situations, yes. The only reason I even mentioned it was because you attempted to (fallaciously) use anecdotal evidence to refute a factual statement. I never said anecdotal evidence was irrelevant, only that your argument was broken.

You also haven't refuted any of my other arguments, and have attempted to troll me on numerous occasions (hence the Linux Youth comment), so I saw little reason to grant you concession there.

Roasted
June 21st, 2008, 11:22 PM
Did you read my post further up? If not, let us know if you got libdvdcss2 and libdvdread3 from Synaptic too.

Yep. Got both of them.

BigSilly
June 21st, 2008, 11:25 PM
Yep. Got both of them.

Oh right. I can't imagine the issue you're having here then. :( What's going wrong then when you play a DVD? Scratch that, I'll have a look through your profile at your other posts. This is probably the wrong thread for it isn't it?

EDIT: Crikey. I would have given up too. I followed this guide here (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=766683), and that pretty much sorted it for me. I'm sure you've already seen that, and it's proved no use.

Well, if it doesn't work, then it's back to Windows I guess. :(

Roasted
June 21st, 2008, 11:30 PM
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=810589 to my active dvd issue-filled thread.

Carry on with the regular XP/Linux topic, folks. :)

Tomatz
June 21st, 2008, 11:35 PM
Not on my MacBook now so I had to search for an image, but basically you just click "update" or set them to download in the background, much like Windows Update. Updates via Synaptic are actually pretty decent as well from what I've seen, so no complaints there.

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3042/osxupdate03vs1.jpg


In certain situations, yes. The only reason I even mentioned it was because you attempted to (fallaciously) use anecdotal evidence to refute a factual statement. I never said anecdotal evidence was irrelevant, only that your argument was broken.

You also haven't refuted any of my other arguments, and have attempted to troll me on numerous occasions (hence the Linux Youth comment), so I saw little reason to grant you concession there.


Lol

You have lied continuously.


"i never said anecdotal evedence was irrelevant"

Everything BUT!



In certain situations, yes.

Where? Please tell me. I must be blind.


There is only one troll here and its not me. I would have been banned by now don,t you think?

pauleh1
June 21st, 2008, 11:35 PM
Linux is just there. It'll always be there, freedom and security.


Using Windows on the other hand is like walking on eggshells. "so-and-so program has stopped working and needs to close".

jb1
June 21st, 2008, 11:55 PM
Lol

You have lied continuously. Where have I lied? Please show evidence that I have done this.

LaRoza
June 21st, 2008, 11:59 PM
Please keep it civil everyone.

This thread is rather pointless, so you want lose anything if y'all take some time to do something else ;)

cardinals_fan
June 22nd, 2008, 02:50 AM
Not on my MacBook now so I had to search for an image, but basically you just click "update" or set them to download in the background, much like Windows Update. Updates via Synaptic are actually pretty decent as well from what I've seen, so no complaints there.

http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3042/osxupdate03vs1.jpg

But doesn't that only update the OS? Or does it also update all installed software?

RiceMonster
June 22nd, 2008, 03:06 AM
This argument is so stupid.

"Regular people can't use Ubuntu/Linux blah blah blah"

"Yeah they can blah blah blah"

"Windows/Mac does this blah blah blah"

"Well Linux does this blah blah"

Who cares? So jb1 has trouble with Linux and he thinks it's too hard to use. Other people don't want to use Windows because they don't like it or maybe they had trouble with it. When it comes down to it, is it really worth wasting this much time arguing about it? No it's not.

Tomatz
June 22nd, 2008, 09:23 AM
But doesn't that only update the OS? Or does it also update all installed software?

It does update some software (i.e. Itunes). Its not like updating a linux system though.

meganox
June 22nd, 2008, 12:21 PM
I always wanted to use free software and I installed linux before but could never find time to "learn" it. Then recently I had a massive hardware failure and ended up on an old Duron system with 512MB of RAM and a GeForce Ti4600. There was absolutely no point in installing XP on this box, but Ubuntu runs like a dream, even with Compiz. Now the only proprietary softwares I have are nVidia drivers and Skype, which makes me very happy indeed. I just need to learn the Gimp and I'm done with windows for everyday stuff, although I will keep dual booting XP to run the games of yesteryear.

WeeWoh
June 22nd, 2008, 12:37 PM
I was just thinking about Linux and stuff. Linux is a damn difficult OS to get up and running while with Windows Vista I installed and it worked straight away. There are less programs available for Linux and it is more difficult to use. So why does I keep returning and ploughing on through different Linux distros? Has anyone else found this? I was quite happy with Vista on my laptop, so why did I choose to install Debian and then Ubuntu?

Does anyone else have these sort of thoughts? Do we use Linux because it is free or because we love tinkering? I dont like bash or Linux terminals, but I do like MS DOS.

Would Linux be the same if it was as easy as Windows and would more or less people use it and would its user base change?

What is your thoughts?

artrbinfo
June 22nd, 2008, 12:39 PM
I have dual boot. And I use Linux as play ground! It's fun!

WeeWoh
June 22nd, 2008, 12:44 PM
I used to dual boot on my laptop but I got an old machine that use for Linux now. Dual booting never really worked. I either used Linux so much that Vista became useless or Vista so much that Linux became useless. It didnt work really. I kept losing files and stuff so my current setup is a lot better.

bufsabre666
June 22nd, 2008, 12:53 PM
it just works

the8thstar
June 22nd, 2008, 12:54 PM
I now use GNU/Linux as my main OS. Vista is still here somewhere on the hard disk, but I rarely fire it up. It's not that I don't like it, but Ubuntu does everything for me, save for my webcam.

On the whole, Ubuntu has been (and is) hard to learn when you are coming from Windows, but altogether it's a more interesting and rewarding experience... because it's challenging IMO. But the result is worth it: a more stable, more secure and faster system and a more educated user.

After 1.5 year of use, I have now reached the point where I only do minor tweaking and do mostly WORK on my laptop. At last.

mrgnash
June 22nd, 2008, 12:57 PM
It would actually take a lot more time and effort for me to set Windows up with everything I wanted: bash, LaTeX, GIMP, a decent text editor (Gedit), a decent music player (never did find anything on XP/Vista that compared to Banshee/Amarok/Rhythmbox), and an awesome desktop environment on par with Gnome (never found that either, the closest I could get was BB4Win).

Ghliofris
June 22nd, 2008, 02:19 PM
I can understand your reluctance to use Linux only. I have been switching back and forth between Microsoft and Linux for years. I first started with Dos 5.0 with Windows and then Slackware 96 was the first Linux I used. There are pros and cons for both.

Why use Windows? Ease of use. The reason it is so easy to use is that you are use to it. Let's face it, most, if not all of us started on Microsoft. Humans, by nature, are creatures of habit. Most software written today is for Microsoft. When you go to a store looking for software, it is all Microsoft, with an occasional Mac. You don't see any for Linux, at least I haven't, other than distros at a local PC store.

Linux is not mainstream. It is not a closed community either, it is an open open community. You can do what you want with the operating system legally. Of course some programming knowledge needed, but that can be learned through books and forums, like this one.

You say you are an avid gamer and that is why you keep Windows. Well I am too. Counter Strike Cal-r, World of Warcraft, Evercrack,, errr I mean Everquest, Starcraft, Total Annihilation, Doom, Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, Guild Wars, all running in Linux.

Stick with dual boot. Start to migrate you games over to Linux. If you need any help, just post in the forums. These forums are one of the main reasons I switched. Always friendly, never berating anyones questions. Most, if not all, Linux users remembered when they started out with the question "What is Linux?"

I know that 99%, who have installed Windows, never fully read the EULA. Well, I read somewhere that according to law professors, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, under the EULA, anything that is done on Windows, including sent or received with Messenger, can become property of Microsoft. Here is an article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/02/microsoft_eula_asks_for_root/) that should worry you. Google Microsoft EULA (http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+EULA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a) and read some of these articles. Try to make your own distro of Windows and see what happens.

Anyways, that is my 4 cents.

leandromartinez98
June 22nd, 2008, 03:58 PM
I dont like bash or Linux terminals, but I do like MS DOS.

Uau, this I had never heard!

leandromartinez98
June 22nd, 2008, 04:05 PM
Updates via Synaptic are actually pretty decent as well from what I've seen, so no complaints there.

I solidarize with your suffering while saing that. You are doing well, you are almost arriving to the point of saying that there is something in Linux better than Windows. A little more persistance and you get there! Getting rid of drugs is always a long way, the first step is to recognize you have a problem. ;)

Frak
June 22nd, 2008, 05:24 PM
How do you update it?
The update manager automatically opens every 3-5 days. Or you can invoke it by going to Apple -> Update Manager.

Frak
June 22nd, 2008, 05:26 PM
But doesn't that only update the OS? Or does it also update all installed software?
You can use the update manager for other programs through the new Toolkit for 10.5

In 10.4, the toolkit had an ability for a graphical cURL representation for updates. Though, this was seperate applications, not through the update manager.

Frak
June 22nd, 2008, 05:30 PM
The number was up from 15% to just about 30% this year (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/31530/113/). With normal adoption growth and the preparation for the digital cut over, that number is likely to reach 50% shortly. That's a far cry from 'very low.'

The FCC is helping the push to get everyone on digital, which will push prices down and get more programming out there.

I'd put money on it that in 2, 3 years max, HDTV adoption will be up around 70-80%.
With recessions in many countries, especially the United States, I doubt that number will increase anymore rapidly. Plus, you must also realize that when a product reaches peak (solid HDTV with the low cost of LCDs) there is usually a heavy initial rush on the product.
BUT
The product usually slows in sales afterward. People who can easily afford the product will usually buy the product. Those who can only afford may wait the rush. Finally, those who cannot afford it will wait until the prices lower dramatically.


EDIT
BTW, triple post. I'm a hero.

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 05:59 PM
With recessions in many countries, especially the United States, I doubt that number will increase anymore rapidly. Plus, you must also realize that when a product reaches peak (solid HDTV with the low cost of LCDs) there is usually a heavy initial rush on the product.
BUT
The product usually slows in sales afterward. People who can easily afford the product will usually buy the product. Those who can only afford may wait the rush. Finally, those who cannot afford it will wait until the prices lower dramatically.


I agree. The cost of electronics has dramitically dropped (people focus on the rising costs of food and fuel, and forget there is a drop in housing and electronics and clothes).

I realised when I was in the store, the cost of a large HD tv was less than my laptop. I could have, if I wanted, gotten a 42" TV instead of my laptop (I don't use the laptop a lot)

jb1
June 22nd, 2008, 06:06 PM
With recessions in many countries, especially the United States, I doubt that number will increase anymore rapidly.
We're not in a recession, and the main consumer electronics countries (China, Japan) economies are booming. The growth of HDTV sales is predicted to continue to rise with consoles and the digital cut over. Perhaps it won't be as fast as previously expected, but it's certainly coming. You already have a hard time buying a new SD-only TV these days, and the ones you can find are all pretty small.

artrbinfo
June 22nd, 2008, 06:08 PM
I agree. The cost of electronics has dramitically dropped (people focus on the rising costs of food and fuel, and forget there is a drop in housing and electronics and clothes).

I realised when I was in the store, the cost of a large HD tv was less than my laptop. I could have, if I wanted, gotten a 42" TV instead of my laptop (I don't use the laptop a lot)
Just to check what is the price of bred and milk(1 liter) in your country (USA)? Here bred (~300g)costs 1.7$ and one liter milk 1.5$...

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 07:29 PM
Just to check what is the price of bred and milk(1 liter) in your country (USA)? Here bred (~300g)costs 1.7$ and one liter milk 1.5$...

From that price, milk is $3 for two liters, soda is less than $2 for two liters and it is more expensive than milk. The milk I get for my mum (I am a vegan and don't drink it) costs less than $3 for a gallon.

It would also depend on the type of bread. The only bread I occasionally eat cost $2 a lb (it is organic).

artrbinfo
June 22nd, 2008, 07:39 PM
Ahh so here is still higher prices. I know some other vegans, so nice to see you :D

Tomatz
June 22nd, 2008, 07:40 PM
From that price, milk is $3 for two liters, soda is less than $2 for two liters and it is more expensive than milk. The milk I get for my mum (I am a vegan and don't drink it) costs less than $3 for a gallon.

It would also depend on the type of bread. The only bread I occasionally eat cost $2 a lb (it is organic).

2 litres of milk here is around 2 which is just under $4 but wages are higher here.

Tomatz
June 22nd, 2008, 07:44 PM
You are a vegan, cool!

I find vegetarians pointless though. Whats the point in not eating meat and then eating animal produce? Some even eat fish!!! "ill eat it aslong as its not furry and cute". Ugghhh!

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 08:09 PM
2 litres of milk here is around 2 which is just under $4 but wages are higher here.

That is expensive, compared to American prices (where I live). Also, remember I am using gallons in my measurements. $3 a gallon. 1 US Liquid gallon is 3.78 liters.


You are a vegan, cool!

I find vegetarians pointless though. Whats the point in not eating meat and then eating animal produce? Some even eat fish!!! "ill eat it aslong as its not furry and cute". Ugghhh!

I know I am cool :-)

Vegetarians typically do it for health reasons, not ethical reasons. I do it for health reasons, but find eggs and milk just as bad (or worse) than flesh. Those who eat fish are not vegetarians, they just don't eat red meat (no classification for that).

jb1
June 22nd, 2008, 08:11 PM
From that price, milk is $3 for two liters, soda is less than $2 for two liters and it is more expensive than milk. The milk I get for my mum (I am a vegan and don't drink it) costs less than $3 for a gallon.

It would also depend on the type of bread. The only bread I occasionally eat cost $2 a lb (it is organic).
Milk here (New Orleans, La) is about $3 a gallon, soda is generally around $1-$1.50 per 2 liter and bread is $2-$3 an pound. Most starchy foods are going up however, due to the ethanol scam.


That is expensive, compared to American prices (where I live).
They're paying around $8 a gallon for gas, too. I have a friend working in the UK currently and he always tells us to shut up if we complain about gas prices. :(

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 08:15 PM
Milk here (New Orleans, La) is about $3 a gallon, soda is generally around $1-$1.50 per 2 liter and bread is $2-$3 an pound. Most starchy foods are going up however, due to the ethanol scam.

They're paying around $8 a gallon for gas, too. I have a friend working in the UK currently and he always tells us to shut up if we complain about gas prices. :(

Hope everything is well in New Orleans (I don't know the state of the city at the moment)

Well, when the UK gets more land, then it will matter. England is about the size of the state I live in. If all driving were done in the state, it wouldn't be so bad to have such high prices :-)

jb1
June 22nd, 2008, 08:26 PM
Hope everything is well in New Orleans (I don't know the state of the city at the moment)Thanks for asking. Most of the metro and suburban areas were rebuilt a long time ago, but some areas are still pretty bad.


Well, when the UK gets more land, then it will matter. England is about the size of the state I live in. If all driving were done in the state, it wouldn't be so bad to have such high prices :-)LOL

I think this applies to all of the Eu though, not just the UK.

Tomatz
June 22nd, 2008, 08:27 PM
That is expensive, compared to American prices (where I live). Also, remember I am using gallons in my measurements. $3 a gallon. 1 US Liquid gallon is 3.78 liters.

Yeah everything's more expensive here. A can of coke is about 75p here (in letchworth near London).


I know I am cool :-)

And modest as always laroza

:lolflag:


Vegetarians typically do it for health reasons, not ethical reasons. I do it for health reasons, but find eggs and milk just as bad (or worse) than flesh. Those who eat fish are not vegetarians, they just don't eat red meat (no classification for that).


I think they see it as more of a fashion statement.

:)

jeremy1138
June 22nd, 2008, 08:29 PM
I think Ubuntu and Linux is general is a lot nicer and more customizable than Windows. Also, I can find equivalents of many very expensive programs that are available for Windows for free on Linux. Linux presents a lot less risk of viruses as well. I could go on and on but just suffice it to say that Linux has many great advantages over Windows.

edit:
and I see that I am way off topic here... Yes, gas prices are ridiculous... I live in Central New York (not new york city but the state of new york) and I just paid $4.12 a gallon earlier this week for Regular Unleaded... Gotta love it!

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 08:39 PM
I think this applies to all of the Eu though, not just the UK.

I don't think anyone is driving out of the UK...


Yeah everything's more expensive here. A can of coke is about 75p here (in letchworth near London).

And modest as always laroza

I think they see it as more of a fashion statement.


I can of coke costs between 25 cents to 50 cents. Some stores sell them for more, but that isn't where people buy them.

No one is as modest as me (or as good looking or cool).

Some do I guess. Many talk about it and make a big deal. Some people I know are still surprised to learn I am a vegan.

sujoy
June 22nd, 2008, 08:40 PM
Re: If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?

because i love linux :)

JohnSearle
June 22nd, 2008, 09:01 PM
Vegetarians typically do it for health reasons, not ethical reasons. I do it for health reasons, but find eggs and milk just as bad (or worse) than flesh. Those who eat fish are not vegetarians, they just don't eat red meat (no classification for that).

I'm a vegetarian, and I'm doing it for ethical reasons. I know it is somewhat hypocritical to condemn meat eating, but then eat animal related products, but I find it a real hassle to go completely vegan. Pretty well everything you buy has some dairy in it. I will probably eventually go completely vegan, but I'm not at that point yet. Right now I use organic products to at least aid in reducing the animal abuses.

Also there are also freegans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freegans) who are critical of using animal products, but then will use it if discarded. It's the waste not want not philosophy. Why bother letting something just go to waste all together.

Also, my wife is a vegan who works for an animal rights NGO, thus I eat primarily vegan meals at home... so my abuses are somewhat kept in check.

- John

Masoris
June 22nd, 2008, 09:16 PM
Windows XP doesn't have beautiful window manager such as GNOME and KDE. That's all! :popcorn:

Barrucadu
June 22nd, 2008, 09:20 PM
One day whilst eating dinner my brother said "I've decided to become a vegetarian! If you don't support me, I'll cook my own meals." We've got a mini lottery running in the rest of the family about how long he'll last - I've got 10 on a week.
LaRoza, could you answer a question for me? What exactly do vegans eat? :lol:

JohnSearle
June 22nd, 2008, 10:18 PM
LaRoza, could you answer a question for me? What exactly do vegans eat? :lol:

Although you didn't ask me, I'll answer anyway :)

Most dishes are convertible into vegan meals. Eggs and dairy can both be replaced, meats can be replaced with soy products, etc. So although you can't buy most of these meals, you can certainly make similar dishes.

Aside from that, there are numerous great original vegan dishes. I think I eat better foods now then I ever did while I ate meat.

You should point your brother to Veggie Works - Vegan Cook Book.pdf, it has some great vegan recipes.

- John

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 10:18 PM
I'm a vegetarian, and I'm doing it for ethical reasons. I know it is somewhat hypocritical to condemn meat eating, but then eat animal related products, but I find it a real hassle to go completely vegan. Pretty well everything you buy has some dairy in it. I will probably eventually go completely vegan, but I'm not at that point yet. Right now I use organic products to at least aid in reducing the animal abuses.


I am sure you also enjoy the health benefits of it. I like raw food and at least whole food, so I don't really get anything pre-made with dairy.

People sometimes feel a need to attack my vegan diet by asking why I own things made of leather (only two things, a belt and shoes). I respond by saying I don't eat them.


One day whilst eating dinner my brother said "I've decided to become a vegetarian! If you don't support me, I'll cook my own meals." We've got a mini lottery running in the rest of the family about how long he'll last - I've got 10 on a week.
LaRoza, could you answer a question for me? What exactly do vegans eat? :lol:

Before I became a vegan, I drank about a half gallon of milk a day, and ate almost raw steak many times a week (I have cooked and prepared by own meals since I was 14 mostly, I am 20 now). I decided to stop and be a vegetarian (actually, a vegan, but I didn't think of it that way at the time.) and after the last gallon jug of milk was gone, I never bought another. I never felt a desire to go back (and I am now repulsed by eating animal products, it isn't food to me).

Vegans eat a lot of different things. You don't realise how much there is until you actually look. I love fruit and get all sorts of kinds. I also eat vegetables (of course), my favourites are brocolli, spinach and carrots. For snacks, I get chips a lot, typically potato (baked, because I like them that way) or corn chips (blue corn, organic). When I get the blue corn chips, I make guacamole with all fresh ingrediantes (and no milk, mayo or whatever, that stuff just ruins the taste). I also like rice, beans, nuts (almonds and hazelnuts are my favourites), oatmeal (with whole rolled oats and blueberries, better than that stuff you get in those little bags). I also like olives a lot.

Also, there is an abundance of canned fruits and vegetables for when things are out of season.

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 10:20 PM
Most dishes are convertible into vegan meals. Eggs and dairy can both be replaced, meats can be replaced with soy products, etc. So although you can't buy most of these meals, you can certain similar dishes.

You should point your brother to Veggie Works - Vegan Cook Book.pdf, it has some great vegan recipes.


I have never eaten "fake" meat or some such. I have never eaten anything that usually has dairy or eggs, but replaced with something else. So those "alternatives" are not universal.

(I have never tasted "tofu" or anything made with it)

JohnSearle
June 22nd, 2008, 10:33 PM
I have never eaten "fake" meat or some such. I have never eaten anything that usually has dairy or eggs, but replaced with something else. So those "alternatives" are not universal.

(I have never tasted "tofu" or anything made with it)

I wasn't referring to 'fake' meat, but a replacement for meat in dishes that traditionally contain meat. That goes the same with other goods, such as a vegan brownie, which is held together with (at least in some cases) flax seeds instead of eggs.

Also wasn't referring to universals, but common things vegans eat. And I can tell you right now, you're obviously not a common vegan if you've never even tasted tofu ;)

- John

Tomatz
June 22nd, 2008, 10:39 PM
By fake meat you mean processed fungus *ughhh*.

Read up on it it is actually the product of biological warfare. The processing technology anyway.

jb1
June 22nd, 2008, 11:14 PM
I am sure you also enjoy the health benefits of it.
Wait, how is it more healthy when you're missing out on certain proteins etc by not eating meat? I mean, I know you can take supplements for this (most vegetarians do, not sure about vegans), but wouldn't it just be easier to get it the natural way?

Not that I'm debating you choice here, I just found that comment perplexing.

leandromartinez98
June 22nd, 2008, 11:23 PM
Most starchy foods are going up however, due to the ethanol scam.


This has nothing to do with etanol. This has to do with the protecionism of developed countries and, maybe, to the cost of transportation due to the raise in the price of oil. Etanol occupies in Brazil less than 5% of cultivable area. A typical farmer in Brazil gets less than ten cents of dolar for the liter of milk (I really know what I'm talking about for family reasons...), and this is still competitive with other activities, so if the price for the consumer is more than one dolar is not for the cost of production. The price of five kilos of rice in Brazil is 2 dolars, of good rice.

I feel this discussion should be moved to some other section of the forum, but I could not find one that fits exactly, maybe "networking"?

leandromartinez98
June 22nd, 2008, 11:28 PM
common vegan if you've never even tasted tofu ;)


Why eat tofu if you can eat camembert, brie, chevres??? I totally respect other people's choice, but you are missing so many pleasures! (and there is no scientific evidence that this is healthier than some well balanced alimentation). By the way, prepared in some ways I like tofu as well.

leandromartinez98
June 22nd, 2008, 11:30 PM
By fake meat you mean processed fungus *ughhh*.


Generally fake meat is made of soja. Many times this is really good. And there are many fungus that are really good as well!

jb1
June 22nd, 2008, 11:31 PM
This has nothing to do with etanol. This has to do with the protecionism of developed countries and, maybe, to the cost of transportation due to the raise in the price of oil. Etanol occupies in Brazil less than 5% of cultivable area. A typical farmer in Brazil gets less than ten cents of dolar for the liter of milk (I really know what I'm talking about for family reasons...), and this is still competitive with other activities, so if the price for the consumer is more than one dolar is not for the cost of production. The price of five kilos of rice in Brazil is 2 dolars, of good rice.

I feel this discussion should be moved to some other section of the forum, but I could not find one that fits exactly, maybe "networking"?
Um, no. The price of corn, for just one example, here in the states is directly related to the ethanol scam.

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=biofuels&id=18173&a=

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 11:33 PM
Wait, how is it more healthy when you're missing out on certain proteins etc by not eating meat? I mean, I know you can take supplements for this (most vegetarians do, not sure about vegans), but wouldn't it just be easier to get it the natural way?

Not that I'm debating you choice here, I just found that comment perplexing.

Not again...

Protein is made of amino acids and is assembled in the body. Human protein requires 22 different amino acids, 8 of which need to be eaten (the others can be synthesised). All 8 (in fact, almost all 22 I think) are found in non animal products. In fact, animals that are eaten by humans get those amino acids by eating plants (or eating animals that eat plants). No matter what form it is in, the protein's are broken down, so animal protein is harder to digest, especially when it is cooked (which is carcinogenic in many cases).

Plants have the amino acids in a more accessible form for protein synthesis.

Not all plants have all 8, or all 8 in equal proportions, so eating more than one food fulfills the requirements for the creation of human protein.

Now that you know what "protein" is, re-evaluate your statements ;)

EDIT: Just realised, I failed to mention that no animal species share the same protein, so even if the animal being eaten has the same amino acid ratio's, it has to be broken down like everything else into individual amino acids. Eating animal protein is like eating a chain of paper clips that need to be separated, eating plant (and others) is like eating short chains and single paper clips.

leandromartinez98
June 22nd, 2008, 11:34 PM
Vegans eat a lot of different things. You don't realise how much there is until you actually look. I love fruit and get all sorts of kinds. I also eat vegetables (of course), my favourites are brocolli, spinach and carrots. For snacks, I get chips a lot, typically potato (baked, because I like them that way) or corn chips (blue corn, organic). When I get the blue corn chips, I make guacamole with all fresh ingrediantes (and no milk, mayo or whatever, that stuff just ruins the taste). I also like rice, beans, nuts (almonds and hazelnuts are my favourites), oatmeal (with whole rolled oats and blueberries, better than that stuff you get in those little bags). I also like olives a lot.

Also, there is an abundance of canned fruits and vegetables for when things are out of season.

I'm not vegan at all, I like too much eating everything to be it. But I went once to a marriage of a vegan couple and everything to eat was vegan. It was extremelly good, I must say. But I don't think they eat like that every day, the work/taste ratio is not very favourable.

leandromartinez98
June 22nd, 2008, 11:43 PM
Not again...

Protein is made of amino acids and is assembled in the body. Human protein requires 22 different amino acids, 8 of which need to be eaten (the others can be synthesised). All 8 (in fact, almost all 22 I think) are found in non animal products. In fact, animals that are eaten by humans get those amino acids by eating plants (or eating animals that eat plants). No matter what form it is in, the protein's are broken down, so animal protein is harder to digest, especially when it is cooked (which is carcinogenic in many cases).

Plants have the amino acids in a more accessible form for protein synthesis.

I'm sorry, but this is not true. The aminoacids in plants are not more accessible for digestion than in animals. They are in the form of proteins, and the proteins are the same thing everywhere: chains of alpha-aminoacids bound by peptide bonds, which are identical in all proteins. Diggestion breaks this bonds by a process called hydrolisis, which is the same no matter the origin of the protein. And when proteins are cooked they go through this process, so they are actually easier to diggest. There are some particular proteins that may be harder to diggest, but these are well spread both in animal or plant products.

leandromartinez98
June 22nd, 2008, 11:45 PM
EDIT: Just realised, I failed to mention that no animal species share the same protein, so even if the animal being eaten has the same amino acid ratio's, it has to be broken down like everything else into individual amino acids. Eating animal protein is like eating a chain of paper clips that need to be separated, eating plant (and others) is like eating short chains and single paper clips.

That's false, plant proteins are as chains of paper clips than animal ones. We are made to diggest that. Single aminoacids could be directly injected into our blod.

LaRoza
June 22nd, 2008, 11:46 PM
That's false, plant proteins are as chains of paper clips than animal ones. We are made to diggest that. Single aminoacids could be directly injected into our blod.

It would depend on the plant and amino acid in question, but rarely are plant proteins burnt before being eaten.

Tomatz
June 22nd, 2008, 11:54 PM
Generally fake meat is made of soja. Many times this is really good. And there are many fungus that are really good as well!

Quorn...

...Ughhh

I don't know if you get it in the states (if you are American) but it's rancid :(


I myself love my meat and ethically i don't have a problem with that but i must admit if i just eat a meal with just vegetables i feel the benefits the next day ;)


@jb1

Enough with the baiting. It's getting boring and its well past your bedtime.

jb1
June 22nd, 2008, 11:57 PM
Now that you know what "protein" is, re-evaluate your statements ;)I passed college biology, thanks. I am just under the impression that certain proteins and vitamins needed to come from meat. What about fats then? Do you just load everything up with vegetable oil?

LaRoza
June 23rd, 2008, 12:02 AM
I passed college biology, thanks. I am just under the impression that certain proteins and vitamins needed to come from meat (largely due to medical papers I've read).

B-12 and B-6 are found in usable amounts in animals, however, B-12 is needed in tiny amounts (and there are plant sources) and B-6 is only needed according to the amount of protein one eats.

Deficiencies of nutrients are probably more common in non Vegans, due to the modern life style and lack of attention to nutrition.

Tomatz
June 23rd, 2008, 12:03 AM
I passed college biology, thanks. I am just under the impression that certain proteins and vitamins needed to come from meat. What about fats then? Do you just load everything up with vegetable oil?

Well this scientific study begs to differ:

http://www.ivu.org/oxveg/Talks/veglongevity.html

LaRoza
June 23rd, 2008, 12:06 AM
I passed college biology, thanks. I am just under the impression that certain proteins and vitamins needed to come from meat. What about fats then? Do you just load everything up with vegetable oil?

Fats? Animal fats are useless (in general, fish and other fats can be useful).

I mentioned the foods I eat in an above post, I am sure you see many sources of essential fatty acids and fat in general, without the problem of cooked fat, or unhealthy proportions.

mirosol
June 23rd, 2008, 12:46 AM
What's jb's "natural way"?

I've taken my biology lessons too, and we'll probably agree that humans don't have necessary tools by design to "naturally" eat animals. Compare your teeth and the ones you can find on your pet cat...

Either way, this is getting closer and closer to the original topic all the time.

dynamethod
June 23rd, 2008, 12:49 AM
only cause i cant play GTA San Andreas on wine, lol

LaRoza
June 23rd, 2008, 12:54 AM
What's jb's "natural way"?

I've taken my biology lessons too, and we'll probably agree that humans don't have necessary tools by design to "naturally" eat animals. Compare your teeth and the ones you can find on your pet cat...


Yeah, we should stop this :-)

People think whatever they grew up with is "natural", so to the average westerner, eating chicken nuggets is "natural".

mirosol
June 23rd, 2008, 01:25 AM
I'll try to draw bottom line to jb1's visions...

He doesn't use linux for home/desktop computing, because he thinks that it's harder to use than commercial operating systems. Although he likes it's server capabilities.

So his answer to the topic is - "No I don't." Period.

Reason why he sees something wrong with everyone elses posts is not clear to me. It seems like even issue in the posts don't matter. There's still something wrong, even if he totally agrees with other post... I could say "beats me".

Maybe he gets off by observing other people's logic. Everyone is different in their thoughs. I can't blame him for that. Everyone is allowed to have their perversions.

And it's good thing that everyone isn't thrilled about linux. There are plenty of space for everyone's opinions. Thing i don't get, is why he takes other opinions so personally, off topic and "all the way".

But hey! There's nothing wrong in using closed source/commercial software. If it suits you better, go for it. It's ok to use vista. If you like it, it's your thing.

OSX is great also. I have one of those in family. Personally i need/want to get "under the hood", so it doesn't suit me. But still, it's much easier "wife's machine" to maintain. She also does her work with it, so it has to be working all the time.

So. If you guys don't mind, this will be my last post to this thread. Hopefully we all can stay in some sort of harmony, despite the OS and other software we are using. May they be whatever.. And please from now on, let this topic just be what it's meant to be in the first place.... I see that people want to answer that question and it's sort of interesting too.

So IMHO, take your chitchat about nothing and everything to some off-topic thread.

Thank you, and if i offended anyone, i'm so sorry. That was not my intention..

jb1
June 23rd, 2008, 02:01 AM
What's jb's "natural way"?

I've taken my biology lessons too, and we'll probably agree that humans don't have necessary tools by design to "naturally" eat animals. Compare your teeth and the ones you can find on your pet cat...

Either way, this is getting closer and closer to the original topic all the time.
We are actually omnivores, and have historically (throughout the hominid lineage) been hunter/gatherers, so this is obviously false. Cats are also considered to be carnivores, so yes there is an obvious difference, but it's also completely irrelevant.

I meant 'natural' in the sense that we have historically had meat in our diets. In very simple terms, something occurring in nature is natural.

I didn't mean that to have any negative connotations though, and only posed those questions of LaRoza out of curiosity. I completely respect the fact that he has set a diet out for himself and sticks to it. It's a pretty hard thing to do in our modern world.




He doesn't use linux for home/desktop computing, because he thinks that it's harder to use than commercial operating systems. Although he likes it's server capabilities.It's not so much that I find Linux "hard" to use, but rather that it requires needless steps to accomplish the same goals. If I could run Linux as a desktop as easily as I can Windows (viruses and crashes are not a problem for me and have not been for many years), then I'd switch in a heartbeat. But that's just not the case for me, as certain things are years behind their Windows counterparts and I'm tied to certain Window apps. This is all just my opinion, of course.


Maybe he gets off by observing other people's logic.
This actually has something to do with it, although I've mostly stuck around due to the "because Gates is an evil man" type replies. There was some good discussion in this thread earlier, although it's mostly dried up over the past few pages.


OSX is great also. I have one of those in family. Personally i need/want to get "under the hood", so it doesn't suit me.OSX has just as much 'under the hood' as Linux does, as it runs on a fully POSIX compliant BSD kernel. You can even compile GNU apps/tools as well as KDE or Gnome for it (although I'm not sure why you'd want to considering the OSX interface is quite nice and actually consistent). In fact, I run a number of familiar GNU tools on my MacBook.

LaRoza
June 23rd, 2008, 02:06 AM
So IMHO, take your chitchat about nothing and everything to some off-topic thread.


This thread is the "some off-topic thread" ;)

Tomatz
June 23rd, 2008, 07:45 AM
It's not so much that I find Linux "hard" to use, but rather that it requires needless steps to accomplish the same goals. If I could run Linux as a desktop as easily as I can Windows (viruses and crashes are not a problem for me and have not been for many years), then I'd switch in a heartbeat. But that's just not the case for me, as certain things are years behind their Windows counterparts and I'm tied to certain Window apps. This is all just my opinion, of course.

Linux is still rough around the edges and for many people its just not desktop ready but things like package management, hardware detection and driver installation are years ahead of other OS's. I still have windows installed because at present i could not do everything i wanted without it. That doesn't mean windows is better it's just better supported by manufacturers. Realistically its going to be another 3-4 years before Joe public can use Linux (believe me i work with Joe public every day) but it will be worth the wait.

mabtifro2
June 23rd, 2008, 08:17 AM
i dont think slicedbread intended this thread to attract thousands of posts..thats awesome. and check out his avatar haha i appreciate his humor

leandromartinez98
June 23rd, 2008, 08:38 AM
I prefer linux because is comes with less fat. But we must recognize that Windows is still easier to digest. Windows comes with a lot of tasty temptations, but the vitamins you get from linux are the essential ones.

Thanks Tomatz for asking if I'm american, that's a compliment for my english. Actually I'm brazilian. And soy meat can be good, yes, if well prepared (I certainly prefer un bife-de-chorizo (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/199/494017584_185e09d58a.jpg), on the other side).

Frak
June 23rd, 2008, 05:17 PM
We're not in a recession, and the main consumer electronics countries (China, Japan) economies are booming. The growth of HDTV sales is predicted to continue to rise with consoles and the digital cut over. Perhaps it won't be as fast as previously expected, but it's certainly coming. You already have a hard time buying a new SD-only TV these days, and the ones you can find are all pretty small.

We (the US) are not (!=) China nor Japan. And many countries (not just China and Japan) are in recession, and its already been confirmed that the US is in a recession.

And that statement about buying SD-only TV's is hard is truly false, since I can go to my local Wal-Mart supercenter and buy a big-screen SD TV.


I passed college biology, thanks. I am just under the impression that certain proteins and vitamins needed to come from meat. What about fats then? Do you just load everything up with vegetable oil?

Even though Beans are put into the "Meat" category, its not an animal, nor is it processed.
Beans + Corn (be it in a form of tortillas, chips, or just raw) provides all of the essential Amino acids needed to build protein. Also, Animal fats are nearly useless for healthy inner workings, with the exception of fish. Vegetable fat is much more healthy, and yes, there is a such thing as Vegetable fat.
Finally, you can get all the essential Vitamins and Minerals from vegetables and fruits.

typovar
June 23rd, 2008, 05:36 PM
Fontforge runs on Linux-variations only. One needs either Cygwin, MacOSX, an emulator or andLinux (coLinux) to run this programm. There's no (cheap) alternative for FontForge.

LaRoza
June 23rd, 2008, 05:40 PM
Beans + Corn (be it in a form of tortillas, chips, or just raw) provides all of the essential Amino acids needed to build protein. Also, Animal fats are nearly useless for healthy inner workings, with the exception of fish. Vegetable fat is much more healthy, and yes, there is a such thing as Vegetable fat.
Finally, you can get all the essential Vitamins and Minerals from vegetables and fruits.

Beans + Rice also.

All fruits and vegetables contain fat (all cells have it) also.

jb1
June 23rd, 2008, 05:42 PM
We (the US) are not (!=) China nor Japan. Thanks, I was confused there for a minute.


And many countries (not just China and Japan) are in recession, Please note that I was only speaking of adoption in the US. I neither know the numbers for nor care about the adoption rates of other countries.

and its already been confirmed that the US is in a recession
This is false. The lefties are claiming that we're in recession, but this is by no means true or indicitive that it's been "confirmed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession

In macroeconomics, a recession is a decline in a country's real gross domestic product (GDP), or negative real economic growth, for two or more successive quarters of a year.

http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 0.6 percent in the first quarter of 2008,
according to advance estimates released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the fourth quarter, real
GDP also increased 0.6 percent.

What some people are doing is speculating that we are headed for recession. The people claiming that we're currently in one are decidedly NOT economists, and almost always some form of political pundit.


And that statement about buying SD-only TV's is hard is truly false, since I can go to my local Wal-Mart supercenter and buy a big-screen SD TV.Eh, I realize this is anecdotal at best, but I had a hard time finding a 36" SD set for our camper a few months ago, and ended up just getting a 32" LCD.

Frak
June 23rd, 2008, 05:54 PM
Thanks, I was confused there for a minute.

That's why I'm here.


Please note that I was only speaking of adoption in the US. I neither know the numbers for nor care about the adoption rates of other countries.

If you're not speaking of the rest of the world, then why do you keep encouraging that of China and Japan in adoption rates?


This is false. The lefties are claiming that we're in recession, but this is by no means true or indicitive that it's been "confirmed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recession


http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm

You are right, I am not an economist. But to mass majority, the recession means the dollar losing value. As we have all learned, a word changes meaning when the mass majority feels it is right to do so, or is too ignorant to search a real definition.

jb1
June 23rd, 2008, 06:31 PM
If you're not speaking of the rest of the world, then why do you keep encouraging that of China and Japan in adoption rates?I think there was some misunderstanding here. I only mentioned China in reply to your claim that most countries were in recession. It stands to reason that if _we_ are not in recession, and the countries that produce the majority of our consumer electronics aren't in recession, then the issue is moot. That's what I was getting at. The study I linked to only covered the US market, so I thought it'd be a given that this was what I was referring to. I guess I should've been more clear about that though.


You are right, I am not an economist. But to mass majority, the recession means the dollar losing value. As we have all learned, a word changes meaning when the mass majority feels it is right to do so, or is too ignorant to search a real definition.I'll agree that most people don't truly understand economincs (hell, I don't either beyond personal finance and investments and even then I'm a noob) but this doesn't change the definition of a word. Colloquial definitions do change over time and get updated, but to change the meaning of recession to a definition so drastically different robs the word of all meaning.

Tomatz
June 23rd, 2008, 09:45 PM
I prefer linux because is comes with less fat. But we must recognize that Windows is still easier to digest. Windows comes with a lot of tasty temptations, but the vitamins you get from linux are the essential ones.

Thanks Tomatz for asking if I'm american, that's a compliment for my english. Actually I'm brazilian. And soy meat can be good, yes, if well prepared (I certainly prefer un bife-de-chorizo (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/199/494017584_185e09d58a.jpg), on the other side).

You just made me hungry. Do you have a recipe? :)

maxidrom11
June 24th, 2008, 06:01 PM
I use ubuntu for a change -- i think its pretty cool -- I just need to find an exchange for dreamweaver

hookzilla
June 24th, 2008, 08:20 PM
I use Windows XP on 2 newer PC's because that's the OS that came with them, Turbotax runs in Windows, some websites require IE, and my wife is trying to learn "The Computer" and her friends use Windows. I have Linux on 2 older machines (Xandros, Ubuntu) for experimenting, something different, free O/S, etc. I'm considering putting Ubuntu on all of them after MS kills XP, once my wife is convinced she can use Firefox and if Turbotax offers a Linux version. For myself, everything I can do in Windows XP otherwise, I already can do in Linux. In fact, I try to have the same software on each PC. Wireless is tougher in Linux, though I've been successful in getting 4 wireless cards I own to work fine.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
June 25th, 2008, 11:43 AM
If you have Windows XP, why do you use linux?

Because I can!

teaumaz
June 25th, 2008, 12:02 PM
- Because when I uninstall things, I can rest assured that my software is indeed completely uninstalled without leaving behind trash
- Because Linux does not have a registry so my Linux install will work as smooth after 6 months of heavy usage as it does on the day that I installed it
- Because I do not agree with certain parts of the Microsoft EULA
- Because from a technical point of view I find Gnome to work more logical than the Windows GUI so I end up being more productive

kessaris
June 25th, 2008, 12:02 PM
I use linux for the same reason I use the dvorak keyboard.

It's better.

SoxFan
June 25th, 2008, 03:37 PM
The REAL question is if you have Linux why would you use Windows XP (or any other version)?

In my case there is only 1 answer.... I have to because I have been unable to find/configure a remote desktop to connect to my work computer that will share a smart card reader. I have been able to find the Nortel VPN that should work. I have been able to get it to work on a Mac but even the remote desktop for Mac doesn't allow sharing of the smart card. I am required to log onto my work machine (Windows XP soon to be Windows Vista - uck). If I could do this I would dump the Windows for ever.

WeeWoh
June 25th, 2008, 05:26 PM
I can understand your reluctance to use Linux only. I have been switching back and forth between Microsoft and Linux for years. I first started with Dos 5.0 with Windows and then Slackware 96 was the first Linux I used. There are pros and cons for both.

Why use Windows? Ease of use. The reason it is so easy to use is that you are use to it. Let's face it, most, if not all of us started on Microsoft. Humans, by nature, are creatures of habit. Most software written today is for Microsoft. When you go to a store looking for software, it is all Microsoft, with an occasional Mac. You don't see any for Linux, at least I haven't, other than distros at a local PC store.

Linux is not mainstream. It is not a closed community either, it is an open open community. You can do what you want with the operating system legally. Of course some programming knowledge needed, but that can be learned through books and forums, like this one.

You say you are an avid gamer and that is why you keep Windows. Well I am too. Counter Strike Cal-r, World of Warcraft, Evercrack,, errr I mean Everquest, Starcraft, Total Annihilation, Doom, Diablo, Neverwinter Nights, Guild Wars, all running in Linux.

Stick with dual boot. Start to migrate you games over to Linux. If you need any help, just post in the forums. These forums are one of the main reasons I switched. Always friendly, never berating anyones questions. Most, if not all, Linux users remembered when they started out with the question "What is Linux?"

I know that 99%, who have installed Windows, never fully read the EULA. Well, I read somewhere that according to law professors, Harvard, Yale, Princeton, under the EULA, anything that is done on Windows, including sent or received with Messenger, can become property of Microsoft. Here is an article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/08/02/microsoft_eula_asks_for_root/) that should worry you. Google Microsoft EULA (http://www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+EULA&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a) and read some of these articles. Try to make your own distro of Windows and see what happens.

Anyways, that is my 4 cents.

Thats worrying. Thats veeeerrrry worrying. Anyway thanks for your opinion. I think your comment about habit is right. I learned some MS DOS when I was messing with a good old windows 3.1 machine that didnt want to work. It just seems easier than bash but its probably because I learnt it first. My friend, who showed me Linux learned bash first and had real trouble with DOS.

jb1
June 26th, 2008, 01:52 AM
- Because Linux does not have a registry so my Linux install will work as smooth after 6 months of heavy usage as it does on the day that I installed it
I don't understand this complaint. You literally have to go on a mad install/uninstall frenzy to muck up a Windows install in this manner. I've had XP installs that lasted 4-5 years without getting slower or having any OS issues, and had plenty of software installed.

max littlemore
June 26th, 2008, 08:18 AM
Thats worrying. Thats veeeerrrry worrying. Anyway thanks for your opinion. I think your comment about habit is right. I learned some MS DOS when I was messing with a good old windows 3.1 machine that didnt want to work. It just seems easier than bash but its probably because I learnt it first. My friend, who showed me Linux learned bash first and had real trouble with DOS.
I started out with DOS, well before windows 3.1 and then learned bash. I have had to do things in DOS since, mostly utilities and support for work, and I never find it easy to do anything beyond very basic scripting. I probably have a similar reaction a plumber has unblocking a toilet or sewer pipe when they could be fixing a tap. "My god this is so full of s**t!"

Sorry if that comes across as rude, I don't mean to be, but really, if you list all of the things that DOS can do and compare it with the list of what bash+gnu tools can do, you very quickly realise that DOS is a tiny subset of bash. If you do anything tricky with scripting at all, it's hard to take DOS seriously.

Actually, that's another good reason for Linux, bash scripting at native speeds (cygwin is so slow) and DOS scripting at about the same speed as you get on windows(DOSBox). :)

gunashekar
June 26th, 2008, 09:03 AM
I have now switched completely to Linux on all my machines. When I did have windows installed (dual boot), I used it for the following :
1. My daughter had a few windows games that she grew out of over the last 6 months
2. Whenever I edit or prepare a MS Office document, I used to save it as MS word/excel/power-point from within open office, but i had to check it once by opening in MS office to make sure that others can read it. I later switched to wine and now have even removed wine.
3. I was used to adobe acrobat (full version) and photoshop CS besides microsoft office and a few statistical programs written for windows and was often tempted to boot into the windows partition. Now I have found ways of doing these tasks in Linux based software.

Now my compaq presario V6000 (intel celeron M processor) , other modified/reassembled laptops (P4, core 2 duo), desktops (old and new) all have hardy heron running and the last few irritants with things like wireless cards, printers have been eliminated (some problems went away on updating, some needed a bit of tinkering aided by the ubuntu forums and googling) . I no longer need a dial-up modem and I have stopped trying to make them work.

Honestly my daughters and wife liked the look and feel of windows and felt that ubuntu could look a lot better. I have now found out that by using portions of Mac4lin and other tweaks I have a look and feel I like and my family is excited that they can ask me to change anything. I could often get what they wanted or better by googling around. This gives me immense satisfaction and power over the machines I own. The mere thought that some multinational corporation owns a portion of my personal computer was not at all a pleasant thought.

crtlbreak
June 26th, 2008, 08:21 PM
I think the Subject of this thread actually describes it best for me

You have windows XP but use linux. =D>=D>=D>

mohtasham1983
June 28th, 2008, 03:07 PM
Amarok is pretty good, but the only thing it has over iTunes, in my opinion, is being able to fetch the lyrics of whatever song you're playing--though, that's a pretty awesome feature!

It's not the only advantage. Amarok will never tell you that it requires konquerer as an upgrade. The other day I saw a new upgrade for iTune on my friend's computer. They were trying to force my friend to install safari on it.

Another advantage of Amarok over iTune is its much lower CPU usage. Don't you have that CPU, RAM monitoring applet on your panel?

hihihi
June 28th, 2008, 08:16 PM
if I have potato, why I eat strawberry?

Tomatz
June 28th, 2008, 09:27 PM
if I have potato, why I eat strawberry?

Because potato's are horrible raw....

cardinals_fan
June 29th, 2008, 02:26 AM
Because potato's are horrible raw....
I like them raw and wriggling... :twisted:

crtlbreak
June 30th, 2008, 11:05 AM
Because potato's are horrible raw....

I wonder what is worse - a raw potato or a cooked strawberry?

Tomatz
June 30th, 2008, 11:30 AM
I wonder what is worse - a raw potato or a cooked strawberry?


Mmmmm

I like jam :)

RWells
June 30th, 2008, 01:21 PM
I use Linux because, we have a lot of thunder storms, tornados this time of year.
And as every one knows, you should stay away from windows during a tornado!.

ramadan
July 1st, 2008, 12:13 AM
brilliant idea:)

lockerhaxor
July 1st, 2008, 12:22 AM
I see the advantage because it's faster, looks great, no viruses, AND you can play games through Wine and such.

slaming
July 2nd, 2008, 08:39 AM
because of the fact that the average computer user is attracted to flashy things and clicks.

mmm flashy light
thats me thats y i use ubunutu but i seriously need to gte my xp back (after formating my drive to a linux swap it got wiped) cause i am a gamer and wine kinda sucks team speak doesn't work with my head set so i'm just kinda screwes at the moment but once i gte windows on i'll be a dual bootign it and probly use both equally

toucher5
July 2nd, 2008, 09:15 PM
I think that the best reason to switch to linux is that Microsoft is planning to make windows xp (there best version yet that everyone has grown accustomed to) quit working by next year. They don't even have a new version that is even working properly yet. Do you really want to support a group of people that give a half finished product at realease time and expect you to pay full price or support a group that gives to you freely and just asks that you donate if you feel like it?
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9098418

If you haven't tried it yet, you should try WINE. It allows you to run most Microsoft windows programs in linux.

I hope you can why we switched to linux. Good luck on your choice. Watch out for Microsoft's blue screen or death and a major drop of speed on processing. Windows is notorious for that.:lolflag:

Frak
July 2nd, 2008, 09:18 PM
I think that the best reason to switch to linux is that Microsoft is planning to make windows xp (there best version yet that everyone has grown accustomed to) quit working by next year. They don't even have a new version that is even working properly yet. Do you really want to support a group of people that give a half finished product at realease time and expect you to pay full price or support a group that gives to you freely and just asks that you donate if you feel like it?
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9098418

If you haven't tried it yet, you should try WINE. It allows you to run most Microsoft windows programs in linux.

I hope you can why we switched to linux. Good luck on your choice. Watch out for Microsoft's blue screen or death and a major drop of speed on processing. Windows is notorious for that.:lolflag:
Bah, FUD

Microsoft cannot legally stop your OS from working. They have been in many Anti-Trust lawsuits before, fat chance they're going to risk it again.

LaRoza
July 2nd, 2008, 10:45 PM
Microsoft cannot legally stop your OS from working.

Technically, they can. And that is what matters. If law mattered, there would be no crime.

Do you think it is wise for the governments of the world to trust a corporation? Individuals?

Frak
July 3rd, 2008, 12:50 AM
Technically, they can. And that is what matters. If law mattered, there would be no crime.

Do you think it is wise for the governments of the world to trust a corporation? Individuals?
Anyways, fat chance they would do it. Microsoft would be critisized way too much for it. Plus, with Apple gaining lead on the market, albeit slowly, Microsoft is trying to keep in order.

LaRoza
July 3rd, 2008, 01:05 AM
Anyways, fat chance they would do it. Microsoft would be critisized way too much for it. Plus, with Apple gaining lead on the market, albeit slowly, Microsoft is trying to keep in order.

Given the number of computers relying on Windows that the governments use, it is a dangerous situation.

cardinals_fan
July 3rd, 2008, 01:09 AM
Given the number of computers relying on Windows that the governments use, it is a dangerous situation.
*seizes LaRoza's tinfoil hat and crumples it into a ball*

EDIT: *remembers that LaRoza is a mod and trembles with fear*

LaRoza
July 3rd, 2008, 01:14 AM
*seizes LaRoza's tinfoil hat and crumples it into a ball*

EDIT: *remembers that LaRoza is a mod and trembles with fear*

/me cooly takes the ball of tinfoil and chucks it at Frak.

Frak
July 3rd, 2008, 03:24 AM
/me cooly takes the ball of tinfoil and chucks it at Frak.
/me takes ball of tinfoil and creates an atom smasher that creates mini blackholes that don't disinigrate.


MUAHAHAHAHA

LaRoza
July 3rd, 2008, 06:54 AM
/me takes ball of tinfoil and creates an atom smasher that creates mini blackholes that don't disinigrate.


MUAHAHAHAHA

As I said before, it would be worth doing only to see it work :-)

tadcan
July 3rd, 2008, 08:40 AM
Going to go out on a limb here and answer the question.

... because I use avid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avid)

MongooseCage
July 3rd, 2008, 01:40 PM
I honestly don't know...

Its just that I mess up Windows everytime I use it. I install NOD32 whatsoever dont visit to illicit websites and I still find it messed up. Like really messed up to the F. I go into windows and my mouse doesnt work my keyboard doesnt work I have to sleep it and then unsleep it. NOD32 finds lots of viruses.
The main thing is that its like this viral world, everyone wants money for every petty job they do. Whereas in linux, I get hundreds of distros and all I pay is my electricity and internet.Besides the linux kernel is so flexible, I have a slackware and ubuntu system running, they look entirely like my creation. Instead of having all my shortcuts on the top I use AWN and have shortcuts below. It looks entirely different from the original ubuntu or normal PC because it looks the way i want it

jwkolberg
July 3rd, 2008, 05:14 PM
I don't play games so for everyday tasks and school work it is much faster, and it has been running for more than a year and I have not had to reinstall. With XP I was doing complete reinstalls every 3 or 4 months because it would start running/starting up so slowly.

A_608
July 3rd, 2008, 05:30 PM
I like the idea of free software. I am looking for audio editing stuff. I am trying out Studio64 dual booting with XP. Once I get everything running, I may ditch windows. I do not want to use vista. The major music sellers, eg Sweetwater and others, sell systems with XP. Vista has been out over a year.

adamogardner
July 3rd, 2008, 05:43 PM
well I'm a traveller and I see linux as this: A village of foreigners (all the commands and arguments in the command line interface) and the village itself as the file system. Now at first, everyone in the village looked at me funny because I had never seen anyone like them nor spoke the language. but as time goes they have proven willing to assist anyway they can as long as you speak in the native tongue. eventually I plan to have these natives under my totalitarian command, and reap the wealth of the entire village. but until then the little rewards of becoming familiar with a new neighbor (the village is small; not a metropolis by anymeans) or getting better at speaking to others is what makes this operating system for me a village to build a home in!

jmfa59
July 4th, 2008, 12:20 PM
Plus you will gorget Cltr+Alt+Del.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
July 4th, 2008, 03:15 PM
well I'm a traveller and I see linux as this: A village of foreigners (all the commands and arguments in the command line interface) and the village itself as the file system. Now at first, everyone in the village looked at me funny because I had never seen anyone like them nor spoke the language. but as time goes they have proven willing to assist anyway they can as long as you speak in the native tongue. eventually I plan to have these natives under my totalitarian command, and reap the wealth of the entire village. but until then the little rewards of becoming familiar with a new neighbor (the village is small; not a metropolis by anymeans) or getting better at speaking to others is what makes this operating system for me a village to build a home in!
thats a pretty original thought... but it fits quite well! ;)

kenono
July 4th, 2008, 10:06 PM
I liked the analogy above, very fitting :)

I feel Linux runs much more smoothly on my desktop, I originally installed it to learn it for a module I was doing at university last year. However the more I used it the more I liked the ease and the reliability.

I eventually stopped using XP although the disk is somewhere still.

Biskit64
July 5th, 2008, 03:52 PM
I run Linux because i like to tinker , and its has plenty of free apps i would have to buy for xp, dvd burning and viewing software plus its generally virus free.
I keep xp around because the wife and one of my kids are pretty much point and click pc users.
My other daughter is comfortable with Linux and uses it for day to day things , web browsing printing college papers and all that.

cbossi
July 5th, 2008, 11:05 PM
I run Linux because i like to tinker , and its has plenty of free apps i would have to buy for xp, dvd burning and viewing software plus its generally virus free.
I keep xp around because the wife and one of my kids are pretty much point and click pc users.
My other daughter is comfortable with Linux and uses it for day to day things , web browsing printing college papers and all that.

why do you use linux?
since 2001.....why...Stability!!!!

Spaceman9
July 6th, 2008, 12:19 AM
When I see a thread like this I always wonder why is linux so often compared only to Windbloz. There is the Mac OS X. And I wonder how many people know Gates started working on Windbloz with code from Linux, Free BSD and Unix? And Steve Jobs at Apple picked a distro of Free BSD called Darwin to use as the OS for the Mac line of computers.

Without Unix, Linux and Free BSD there wouldn't be any Windbloz nor any Mac OS X.

Roasted
July 6th, 2008, 01:20 AM
I've ran XP for years. It's stable. To deny that is simply a lie to yourself.

I've also used Mac OS X for years, also another good choice.

And lastly, Ubuntu... for the last three years it was my main OS of choice.

Each OS has their high points and down points. XP, specifically SP2 and later, is a great choice if you want quick functionality. Linux in general requires you to tinker more. And although some of you may be happy with Linux, the simple fact is they have a little ways to go until they match the simplicity of what XP offers.

I like having a blend of everything and tinkering with everything. I don't find there to be a right or wrong answer as to which is better... simply, which best works for you.

noobsalive
July 6th, 2008, 01:12 PM
I don't need to press ctr alt del.
The only blue i ever see is from themes.
It has a community.

JohnLM_the_Ghost
July 6th, 2008, 01:53 PM
When I see a thread like this I always wonder why is linux so often compared only to Windbloz. There is the Mac OS X. And I wonder how many people know Gates started working on Windbloz with code from Linux, Free BSD and Unix? And Steve Jobs at Apple picked a distro of Free BSD called Darwin to use as the OS for the Mac line of computers.

Without Unix, Linux and Free BSD there wouldn't be any Windbloz nor any Mac OS X.

There is quite a truth in this... except for the Linux Part. Linux was made in 1991 while both Windows and Mac series were started in 80s. So none of them actually used Linux. But they surely used Unix what was around from 60s.

btw Microsoft's one of first OSs - "Xenix" was actually based on Unix!

Frak
July 6th, 2008, 04:49 PM
btw Microsoft's one of first OSs - "Xenix" was actually based on Unix!

Yep, and what a piece of crap it was. Though, Macromedia Cold Fusion could run on it just fine.

bilijoe
July 7th, 2008, 04:53 AM
I use Linux because, we have a lot of thunder storms, tornados this time of year.
And as every one knows, you should stay away from windows during a tornado!. As good a reason as any.

bilijoe
July 7th, 2008, 06:18 AM
Because the End User License Agreement (EULA) for XP scares the Hell out of me! Having just read it (an arduous task, seemingly designed to discourage a person with normal reading abilities from actually reading the damned thing), I feel like I need to consult an attorney, specializing in corporate and copyright law, before I dare turn my XP machine on again. And I fear, if I do turn it on, Microsoft will be prowling through my entire system and network, looking for copies of all software they may have any interest in, and checking it against some kind of master list, in order to find out if I might, somehow have accidentally downloaded, or otherwise acquired some piece of software they feel I don't have all the necessary credentials to use. It also upsets me to find out that I don't even own the copy of XP that I paid hundreds of dollars for--I am merely leasing it from Microsoft. I hope I can sleep tonight. I'm worried I might lay awake all night, fearing a knock on the door, by the Microsoft Police. At the very least, I think I'll unplug the network cable from every Windows machine I have, to disconnect it from the Internet, before I turn it on. Lord, I'm glad I switched to Linux, and I'm going to purge my entire house and office of everything that is made by Microsoft, or that mentions or has on it any kind of label that says "Microsoft" or "Windows". I strongly suggest, despite the fact that it may take hours, that you all read, and make sure you understand every line of every Microsoft EULA you have that came with every piece of computer software or hardware you have ever purchased (or leased, as the case may be). And I thought Microsoft was creepy before! SHEESH!

edemkrimea
July 7th, 2008, 11:28 AM
i think that linux and windows are for different types of users.Linux for those experienced but windows for those who do not want to know how it works.I'm a novice don't know much but as for me as a home desktop user Windows is more effective in multimedia and GAMES (these two things are most popular for internet is costly).That is why most of my friends prefer using Windows.
Greetings from the Crimea

LouEven
July 7th, 2008, 12:05 PM
291 posts on a Linux forum about "If you have Windows XP why use Linux?". One very good reason, they don't make Windows XP anymore and the support ends in less than a year from today.

While Linux, specifically Ubuntu, still marches on getting better and better. Face it that blob of buggy device drivers (a.k.a Winblows) is now obsolete. Vista FAILED miserably and can only be PROPERLY described as an EPIC FAILURE..<---(slow loud voice from a.t.o.s), need I go on? :guitar:

A much better and up to date question would be how many people here in this forum would be willing to buy Windows 7? And How would they implement it?

Cheers!!