Linux Is A Lemon On The Retina MacBook Pro

nOrVow said:
The majority of distributions (or the most popular distributions for the matter) are derivatives of two father distributions and two father package management systems: Debian (.deb) and Red Hat (.rpm). The majority of all else, and the GNU user-land are distribution agnostic. All you need to do is tell them which package manager they've obtained?

.RPM? Ok, it'll coincide with Red Hat, Fedora, OpenSuSE, SLES, CentOS, Scientific Linux, Mageia.

.Deb? No problem. Debian, (*)buntu, Linux Mint.

All under the same vanilla architecture - GNU/Linux. So we do, in fact, have standards - they're GNU/Linux and the standard package management systems.

The issue would even more alleviating if the scheme of the discussion were slanted towards new adopters/beginners. Linux Mint and the Buntus serve the majority incredibly well.

You want corporate backing for Linux? We have Canonical for Ubuntu, and Red Hat for Fedora. The user may choose.
Click to expand...

There is a lot of corporate backing, no doubt about that. Red Hat Enterprise is the big one that I know of.

Linux Mint is what I recommend to newbies that want to try Linux. I find it more polished than Ubuntu (which Mint is a branch of, IIRC).

I understand that GNU/Linux is the standards, but I don't know the details (I'm somewhat of a newb. I know the Linux basics and can get done what I need done). I wouldn't mind seeing a major distro designed and designated by the Linux community as a "mass consumer" distro. Ubuntu was almost there, but Unity turned me off of that. Gnome or KDE were perfect. The majority of Linux software is easy to install and get going. But, and this is in my experience, there is also a lot of stuff out there that requires compling, make, or shell commands to get working. That would turn off a lot of consumers. That's what it was like when DOS was around and you had to edit ini and cfg files. Windows kind of got rid of that stuff. It's debatable that it made things worse (well, it DID make it worse, but easier for the end user). Registry, shared DLL's, etc. made a mess of things and opened a whole bunch of bad stuff with Windows. But, the positive impact really outweighed the negative. Linux is still a UI pasted on a CLI backend. I can still boot to the CLI and run startx to bring up the GUI. Not a bad thing at all, but the CLI is still required at times with Linux. Some people never see the DOS window in Windows and things work perfectly.

That's just my personal experience and opinion. So, as an opinion, it's not really 100% correct or incorrect. I'm sure I've exaggerated a bit on some points and some of my information may not be 100% correct, but my opinions are just that - opinions. And yes, they are very open to be changed.
 
nOrVow said:
He's confusing "fragmentation" with "choice". When you go to buy a pair of jeans, is it a problem that there are many choice? How about when buying a new car?..............

............The problem is his blind assertion that Linux needs an "All size fits all" model that reflects what Microsoft and Mac OS X go by. The same concept applies to the number of user-land GUIs and package management systems - choice and suitable desires. That certainly isn't a problem for end users - it's a healthy endeavor users actually want.

Linux is not Windows, nor should it ever be Windows.
Click to expand...


an OS isn't a pair of jeans or a car, an OS is more like a "D" cell battery. I don't care what color my battery is, or what brand, but when I stick it in my Mag-lite, I want it to light up. and I don't want to have to figure out which end is the negative or positive end, or if it puts out 1.6 volts instead of 1.5. I just want my flashlight to work.

I could live with Linux if it did everything Windows or the Mac does, as easily as Windows. I used to wait for every new release of Ubuntu eagerly, thinking, "cool, I can stop with the dual boot crap this year!" well, several years later, I don't bother even reading the release notes.

Not having companies like Adobe or EA developing software for an OS, for real, to make money on, is one of the main reasons Linux will remain an enthusiast's OS. if the proposed Linux version of Steam takes off, that might change. and considering the direction microsoft is going with Win 8, I really wish it would happen.
 
Ur_Mom said:
There is a lot of corporate backing, no doubt about that. Red Hat Enterprise is the big one that I know of.

Linux Mint is what I recommend to newbies that want to try Linux. I find it more polished than Ubuntu (which Mint is a branch of, IIRC).

I understand that GNU/Linux is the standards, but I don't know the details (I'm somewhat of a newb. I know the Linux basics and can get done what I need done). I wouldn't mind seeing a major distro designed and designated by the Linux community as a "mass consumer" distro. Ubuntu was almost there, but Unity turned me off of that. Gnome or KDE were perfect. The majority of Linux software is easy to install and get going. But, and this is in my experience, there is also a lot of stuff out there that requires compling, make, or shell commands to get working. That would turn off a lot of consumers. That's what it was like when DOS was around and you had to edit ini and cfg files. Windows kind of got rid of that stuff. It's debatable that it made things worse (well, it DID make it worse, but easier for the end user). Registry, shared DLL's, etc. made a mess of things and opened a whole bunch of bad stuff with Windows. But, the positive impact really outweighed the negative. Linux is still a UI pasted on a CLI backend. I can still boot to the CLI and run startx to bring up the GUI. Not a bad thing at all, but the CLI is still required at times with Linux. Some people never see the DOS window in Windows and things work perfectly.

That's just my personal experience and opinion. So, as an opinion, it's not really 100% correct or incorrect. I'm sure I've exaggerated a bit on some points and some of my information may not be 100% correct, but my opinions are just that - opinions. And yes, they are very open to be changed.
Click to expand...

The CLI isn't going to go away because it is the foundation of any *nix-like operating system. To remove the CLI in GNU/Linux would be like removing the GUI in Windows.

That being said, the average user (and no one who posts here is an average user) will never need to touch the command line. More advanced tasks, the kinds of tasks that the average user doesn't do on any platform, may require the use of the CLI. This doesn't make GNU/Linux more hostile to the average user as the tasks that require the CLI are things that the average user never does to begin with.

It does, however, present a challenge to "Windows Power Users" and does not mean that the CLI is inferior (in fact, Microsoft is pushing the CLI with Powershell and Server Core) but rather that there is a learning curve involved. In reality, the presence of CLI is no different than the advanced functionality in Windows; Windows power users often edit the registry, play around with drivers, and dig around in places services, administrative tools, and the event viewer. Windows power users also often use the CLI themselves (see ipconfig or bcdedit or sfc for any number of examples).
 
Ur_Mom said:
There is a lot of corporate backing, no doubt about that. Red Hat Enterprise is the big one that I know of.

Linux Mint is what I recommend to newbies that want to try Linux. I find it more polished than Ubuntu (which Mint is a branch of, IIRC).

I understand that GNU/Linux is the standards, but I don't know the details (I'm somewhat of a newb. I know the Linux basics and can get done what I need done). I wouldn't mind seeing a major distro designed and designated by the Linux community as a "mass consumer" distro. Ubuntu was almost there, but Unity turned me off of that. Gnome or KDE were perfect. The majority of Linux software is easy to install and get going. But, and this is in my experience, there is also a lot of stuff out there that requires compling, make, or shell commands to get working. That would turn off a lot of consumers. That's what it was like when DOS was around and you had to edit ini and cfg files. Windows kind of got rid of that stuff. It's debatable that it made things worse (well, it DID make it worse, but easier for the end user). Registry, shared DLL's, etc. made a mess of things and opened a whole bunch of bad stuff with Windows. But, the positive impact really outweighed the negative. Linux is still a UI pasted on a CLI backend. I can still boot to the CLI and run startx to bring up the GUI. Not a bad thing at all, but the CLI is still required at times with Linux. Some people never see the DOS window in Windows and things work perfectly.

That's just my personal experience and opinion. So, as an opinion, it's not really 100% correct or incorrect. I'm sure I've exaggerated a bit on some points and some of my information may not be 100% correct, but my opinions are just that - opinions. And yes, they are very open to be changed.
Click to expand...

In addition, I'd point out that text-based configuration files are part of what makes *nix so great. The format is universal (ASCII or UTF8), they are easily backed up, and they can be easily edited without special software. In addition, configuration files are usually well documented unlike the Windows registry.

The average user in GNU/Linux will not typically manually edit configuration files anymore than the average user in Windows edits the registry.
 
Very much agree there. I'm talking about the average Joe six pack, not the average [H] user. The CLI is very powerful, but in Linux (for me, anyway) I found myself going there more often than using the GUI tools. It could be because I learned the CLI first and know how to do it that way instead of a new GUI tool, or something else. If 99% of the stuff can be done via GUI, then I take my comments back. I admit I'm more of a power user than the average Joe, so I naturally do go for the CLI interface without any apprehension.

Admittedly, when I use OSX I do also hit the console for running certain commands and I'm sure there is a GUI interface somewhere. I'm not an OSX fan (don't hate it, either, though), but it's based on BSD, and it's not too foreign to me and I'm more comfortable in the CLI.

So, those biases might be clouding my judgement on the Linux CLI front. I'll admit that.

It's just when you say "I want Linux installed", you hear "Which distro?" and get shown a few dozen good ones. Intimidating for the new user. With Windows, it's Win7 home or pro or ultimate. With OSX it's just OSX (which is simpler than Windows when buying). I don't mind because I've tried half a dozen or more and enjoyed it... mostly. If there was one major distro that was for OEM and consumer distribution and was preinstalled, it would make a much bigger impact.


damicatz said:
The CLI isn't going to go away because it is the foundation of any *nix-like operating system. To remove the CLI in GNU/Linux would be like removing the GUI in Windows.

That being said, the average user (and no one who posts here is an average user) will never need to touch the command line. More advanced tasks, the kinds of tasks that the average user doesn't do on any platform, may require the use of the CLI. This doesn't make GNU/Linux more hostile to the average user as the tasks that require the CLI are things that the average user never does to begin with.

It does, however, present a challenge to "Windows Power Users" and does not mean that the CLI is inferior (in fact, Microsoft is pushing the CLI with Powershell and Server Core) but rather that there is a learning curve involved. In reality, the presence of CLI is no different than the advanced functionality in Windows; Windows power users often edit the registry, play around with drivers, and dig around in places services, administrative tools, and the event viewer. Windows power users also often use the CLI themselves (see ipconfig or bcdedit or sfc for any number of examples).
Click to expand...
 
Ur_Mom said:
Very much agree there. I'm talking about the average Joe six pack, not the average [H] user. The CLI is very powerful, but in Linux (for me, anyway) I found myself going there more often than using the GUI tools. It could be because I learned the CLI first and know how to do it that way instead of a new GUI tool, or something else. If 99% of the stuff can be done via GUI, then I take my comments back. I admit I'm more of a power user than the average Joe, so I naturally do go for the CLI interface without any apprehension.

Admittedly, when I use OSX I do also hit the console for running certain commands and I'm sure there is a GUI interface somewhere. I'm not an OSX fan (don't hate it, either, though), but it's based on BSD, and it's not too foreign to me and I'm more comfortable in the CLI.

So, those biases might be clouding my judgement on the Linux CLI front. I'll admit that.

It's just when you say "I want Linux installed", you hear "Which distro?" and get shown a few dozen good ones. Intimidating for the new user. With Windows, it's Win7 home or pro or ultimate. With OSX it's just OSX (which is simpler than Windows when buying). I don't mind because I've tried half a dozen or more and enjoyed it... mostly. If there was one major distro that was for OEM and consumer distribution and was preinstalled, it would make a much bigger impact.
Click to expand...

Very few Windows users install operating systems themselves. Most people use whatever came with their computer and, if, for some reason, it needs to be re-installed, they get someone knowledgeable about computers to do that.

Computers bundled with GNU/Linux would work the same way; I suspect most OEMs would standardize on a single distribution (Ubuntu looks to be the early favorite) and then maybe have the option of choosing a different distribution for "advanced users". The benefit of open source is that you can have one GNU/Linux distribution, like Ubuntu, take 95% of the GNU/Linux market-share and yet still maintain compatibility for the minority distributions.
 
damicatz said:
The average user in GNU/Linux will not typically manually edit configuration files anymore than the average user in Windows edits the registry.
Click to expand...

Probably true, though I can say from working PC repair that I had to get all up in Linux's CLI asshole FAR more often than direct editing the Windows registry to install/troubleshoot/fix shit.
 
If only they had put a 660m or 670m in this thing. It would be a great Win7 gaming laptop...
 
mynamehere said:
But if Linux were OEM, which distro would each user end up with? Would it be standardized, or would it be luck of the draw? Luck of the draw leading to no standard operation and maintenance of PCs, therefore the same old fragmentation issue, except then everyone would be forced to deal with it.
Click to expand...

OEMs would most likely standardize around Ubuntu on the desktop front, since it's the main beginner/most popular distribution with a corporate entity backing it. Just like Red Hat/CentOS/Debian are standardized enterprise distributions. An OEM simply isn't going to pick a random distribution without at least come private company or structure to foster it's growth. You can also buy support contracts from Canonical if one chooses too - kind of like a purchasing a TechNet subscription.

Dell is already making moves with it's Sputnik project, although targeted at developers, the distribution they've chosen is the main/most popular beginner distribution. If that fairs well, I don't see how it would fail for regular users. The effects would simply resonate that way.

motomonkey said:
an OS isn't a pair of jeans or a car, an OS is more like a "D" cell battery. I don't care what color my battery is, or what brand, but when I stick it in my Mag-lite, I want it to light up. and I don't want to have to figure out which end is the negative or positive end, or if it puts out 1.6 volts instead of 1.5. I just want my flashlight to work.

I could live with Linux if it did everything Windows or the Mac does, as easily as Windows. I used to wait for every new release of Ubuntu eagerly, thinking, "cool, I can stop with the dual boot crap this year!" well, several years later, I don't bother even reading the release notes.

Not having companies like Adobe or EA developing software for an OS, for real, to make money on, is one of the main reasons Linux will remain an enthusiast's OS. if the proposed Linux version of Steam takes off, that might change. and considering the direction microsoft is going with Win 8, I really wish it would happen.
Click to expand...

Sigh... that isn't the point I'm trying to make here. Linux does work out of the box. I don't see how Linux is hard at all dude... it's not hard, it's just different. You're trying to intertwine Windows habituations - it's not going to work. You're fueling your own intimidation. It seems you haven't studied documentation enough to get comfortable. The more you do this the more you'll realize it's not Windows. if you can't make it with the easiest distros, then i don't know what to tell you man. lol Ubuntu/Mint is fuck easy - a caveman can do it. If you're honestly trying to switch though, just be patient. If not, then just stick with Windows.
 
Ur_Mom said:
It is very relevant for many people. I can do everything I want with a Linux desktop, besides my gaming. I prefer Windows [...] I can show you a shit ton of people that would say that Windows isn't relevant. It's not. To their needs and uses.
Click to expand...
The fact that you can do everything you want on Linux yet you don't use it proves my relevancy argument. Just because there are some people you may know who don't like/use Windows doesn't mean that they are statistically relevant.

If you courteously combine the Linux and Android numbers then you see that the combined Linux desktop market share is just a sliver above "Other" where other means some esoteric OSes like OS/2 or some such.

jimmyb said:
Desktops are dying anyway versus smartphones and tablets. The former of which Linux has the largest marketshare of.
Click to expand...
That ought to be the weakest pro LOLnix argument I have ever heard. PCs dying is something we have read about since what ..., 1990? They are still here because people like to use them and they provide functionality that is and will remain unmatched by anything else out there.

In the corporate world, where money is being made, Linux has been summarily dismissed as viable desktop OS. If Linux were so great then clearly those whose primary purpose is to make profit would have long since ditched an OS that they have to pay for, yet the TCO of Linux in the desktop environment is abysmal.

nOrVow said:
Linux does work out of the box.
Click to expand...

Try telling that to folks with Atheros wireless cards which have been used in literally billions of inexpensive laptops and other devices. The list hardware compatibility issues goes on and on. Can they eventually be fixed? Sure, if you want to spend hours and hours troubleshooting stuff via "community" forums then they can absolutely be fixed. 94+% of the userbase is unwilling to do so because they feel that they shouldn't have to do it.
 
^^^ Agreed. I don't think anyone is saying that no one uses Linux on the desktop, but for the vast majority of end users and enthusiasts it is just not viable.
 
Thuleman said:
The fact that you can do everything you want on Linux yet you don't use it proves my relevancy argument. Just because there are some people you may know who don't like/use Windows doesn't mean that they are statistically relevant.
Click to expand...


I use Linux as a server quite a bit (couple of them, really). Perfect there. Very relevant. But, this is about desktop use, so I'll let that go.

I have used Linux on the desktop (and still have one at work), but Windows has my gaming and a few other things that I just can't do with Windows. Yea, there are some alternatives, but not with the following and support that the Windows versions have.

I know a lot of people that once they got past the initial learning curve, Linux would be a very good OS for them. Similar to OSX would be good for them. Internet, word processing, email, photos, printing, scanning... The basics. If they were to get a PC with Linux, they could figure it out. They are with Windows because their machine came with it. That, and Windows has a huge brand recognition.
 
nOrVow said:
Sigh... that isn't the point I'm trying to make here. Linux does work out of the box. I don't see how Linux is hard at all dude... it's not hard, it's just different. You're trying to intertwine Windows habituations - it's not going to work. You're fueling your own intimidation. It seems you haven't studied documentation enough to get comfortable. The more you do this the more you'll realize it's not Windows. if you can't make it with the easiest distros, then i don't know what to tell you man. lol Ubuntu/Mint is fuck easy - a caveman can do it. If you're honestly trying to switch though, just be patient. If not, then just stick with Windows.
Click to expand...

I didn't have a problem installing or running Linux, I used to compile early Beta versions and use them, I have a problem with it not being a windows replacement. If I can't run the Latest EA game, or Photoshop natively, without using wine, I am not interested anymore.
 
nOrVow said:
Sigh... that isn't the point I'm trying to make here. Linux does work out of the box. I don't see how Linux is hard at all dude... it's not hard, it's just different. You're trying to intertwine Windows habituations - it's not going to work. You're fueling your own intimidation. It seems you haven't studied documentation enough to get comfortable. The more you do this the more you'll realize it's not Windows. if you can't make it with the easiest distros, then i don't know what to tell you man. lol Ubuntu/Mint is fuck easy - a caveman can do it. If you're honestly trying to switch though, just be patient. If not, then just stick with Windows.
Click to expand...
I tried installing Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Fedora, and CentOS on a laptop and none of them supported my wireless card (RTL8188) or had drivers for my graphics chip (Intel GMA 3600). I had to buy a Linux friendly USB wifi adapter and YouTube videos had the frames dropping effect. Not exactly "work out of the box" quality.
 
nOrVow said:
OEMs would most likely standardize around Ubuntu on the desktop front, since it's the main beginner/most popular distribution with a corporate entity backing it. Just like Red Hat/CentOS/Debian are standardized enterprise distributions. An OEM simply isn't going to pick a random distribution without at least come private company or structure to foster it's growth. You can also buy support contracts from Canonical if one chooses too - kind of like a purchasing a TechNet subscription.

Dell is already making moves with it's Sputnik project, although targeted at developers, the distribution they've chosen is the main/most popular beginner distribution. If that fairs well, I don't see how it would fail for regular users. The effects would simply resonate that way.
Click to expand...
That would go a long way towards Linux breaking into the desktop. Sadly, it's getting them to agree on what to standardize and then get the community to get onboard with them. That, full hardware support and develop a solid gaming foundation for Linux. As far as the mainstream desktop goes, for now I think it's really just a case of too many cooks...
My thinking is that Joe User and his aging parents need to be made to feel right at home without a huge learning curve for it to happen.
 
Thuleman said:
In the corporate world, where money is being made, Linux has been summarily dismissed as viable desktop OS. If Linux were so great then clearly those whose primary purpose is to make profit would have long since ditched an OS that they have to pay for, yet the TCO of Linux in the desktop environment is abysmal.
Click to expand...

Clearly, Internet Explorer 6 must be the best Internet Explorer ever since so many businesses still use it.

Or, business suits aren't as smart as they'd like us to believe. The TCO of GNU/Linux is lower. The problem lies in the overpriced proprietary software that businesses foolishly buy into.

Try telling that to folks with Atheros wireless cards which have been used in literally billions of inexpensive laptops and other devices. The list hardware compatibility issues goes on and on. Can they eventually be fixed? Sure, if you want to spend hours and hours troubleshooting stuff via "community" forums then they can absolutely be fixed. 94+% of the userbase is unwilling to do so because they feel that they shouldn't have to do it.
Click to expand...

Blame Atheros. When someone releases a crappy Windows driver, do you blame Microsoft or do you blame those responsible for writing the driver? I only buy laptops with Intel wireless cards for a reason. Also, few people realize that wireless network cards actually require a firmware to be loaded everytime the computer boots up and if the manufacturer is not open about that firmware, it can be very difficult to reverse engineer a compatible one.

Compatibility issues would also be irrelevant with OEM systems bundled with GNU/Linux.

ccman said:
I tried installing Ubuntu, Linux Mint, Fedora, and CentOS on a laptop and none of them supported my wireless card (RTL8188) or had drivers for my graphics chip (Intel GMA 3600). I had to buy a Linux friendly USB wifi adapter and YouTube videos had the frames dropping effect. Not exactly "work out of the box" quality.
Click to expand...

How long ago did you try this?

I can't speak for your wireless card (Again, I only buy Intel) but Intel has top notch graphics drivers for GNU/Linux, easily surpassing the quality of the AMD and nVidia proprietary drivers.
 
damicatz said:
Clearly, Internet Explorer 6 must be the best Internet Explorer ever since so many businesses still use it.
Click to expand...

I'm kinda sorta maybe getting the idea that you don't like Internet Explorer 6 very much. Before the Internet turned into an animated, blinky, Flash-infested crap hole, IE6 was a pretty big improvement over IE5. I never really had any problems with it until around a year ago. Now, I just don't surf the web with anything older than Windows XP or something running Linux. It's really web developers who are too stupid to make sites that work across all browsers that are to blame for the fact that IE6 is no longer useful. If you want to blame someone for IE6 not being a decent browser, you should go point an accusing finger at the losers who make web pages.
 
SkribbelKat said:
It's really web developers who are too stupid to make sites that work across all browsers that are to blame for the fact that IE6 is no longer useful.
Click to expand...
You're trolling pretty hard here, so this will only be of benefit to others who may not have considered the following viewpoint, but the developers unconcerned with IE6 compatibilty are actually doing IE6 users a favor by helping to shove those users away from extreme security risks and toward more modern browsers with decent security features like sandboxing and malware protection.
 
soulman901 said:
Why in the world would anyone want to run that crappy OS?
Seriously, Linux blows chunks.
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.
Click to expand...

heheh, I have to admit he has a strong argument about that unification thing :)
 
damicatz said:
How long ago did you try this?

I can't speak for your wireless card (Again, I only buy Intel) but Intel has top notch graphics drivers for GNU/Linux, easily surpassing the quality of the AMD and nVidia proprietary drivers.
Click to expand...
I tried Linux Mint last weekend. Earlier this month, I had been trying the other distros. The wireless problem wasn't the lack of a Linux driver for the chip, it was that the wireless connection would drop in under 30 minutes, and the laptop would have to be restarted to regain connection. And to be fair to Linux, the GMA 3600 integrated into the Atom 2600 was not recognized by Windows 8 either. I had to download the Windows 7 32-bit driver from Intel, which was the only supported platform. I'm going to try my Lenovo x120e with Linux this weekend and use the Atom 2600 laptop for Windows 8.

In my times trying Linux, most of the time, the problem is drivers, specifically proprietary hardware. There's only so much Linux can do if the hardware manufacturer won't cooperate.
 
ccman said:
I tried Linux Mint last weekend. Earlier this month, I had been trying the other distros. The wireless problem wasn't the lack of a Linux driver for the chip, it was that the wireless connection would drop in under 30 minutes, and the laptop would have to be restarted to regain connection. And to be fair to Linux, the GMA 3600 integrated into the Atom 2600 was not recognized by Windows 8 either. I had to download the Windows 7 32-bit driver from Intel, which was the only supported platform. I'm going to try my Lenovo x120e with Linux this weekend and use the Atom 2600 laptop for Windows 8.

In my times trying Linux, most of the time, the problem is drivers, specifically proprietary hardware. There's only so much Linux can do if the hardware manufacturer won't cooperate.
Click to expand...

OK, after doing some research, that is actually a PowerVR GPU that is rebranded by Intel.

There is an experimental driver here however it requires patching the kernel as the requisite support hasn't been merged into mainline yet. I don't see Intel investing much effort into the PowerVR-based Atom GPUs on GNU/Linux or Windows 8 as future Atom processors will use Ivy Bridge graphics and the PowerVR GPU lacks a lot of basic features that are necessary for things like composting and AIGLX.
 
soulman901 said:
Why in the world would anyone want to run that crappy OS?
Seriously, Linux blows chunks.
How fragmented is Linux? Wonder why it can't become a desktop standard? There's your #1 reason. Once the Linux idiots can get over themselves and unify, you may have a chance. Until then, you are all a bunch of losers wasting time.
Click to expand...
Truth... Unless you have a need/use for Linux(i.e. server) or can deal with it, but when I used it, it annoyed the fuck outta me. Many things simply did not work correctly. Like Skype. How can Skype not work right? It's one of those apps that EVERYONE has.....

six_storm said:
Replace "Linux" with "Android" and you will get the biggest Interwebz chewing out of your life. True story.
Click to expand...
Truth, as well.
 
notetcetera said:
Truth... Unless you have a need/use for Linux(i.e. server) or can deal with it, but when I used it, it annoyed the fuck outta me. Many things simply did not work correctly. Like Skype. How can Skype not work right? It's one of those apps that EVERYONE has.....


Truth, as well.
Click to expand...

In what way did Skype not work?
 
probably in the same way that the other guy's video card failed to work properly--lack of drivers for the mic and/or video camera.

this is why linux is relegated to enthusiast adopters...unless you guys want a distro to include every driver out there (ubuntu and its derivatives are about as close to "unified" as a distro could be)
 
mope54 said:
probably in the same way that the other guy's video card failed to work properly--lack of drivers for the mic and/or video camera.

this is why linux is relegated to enthusiast adopters...unless you guys want a distro to include every driver out there (ubuntu and its derivatives are about as close to "unified" as a distro could be)
Click to expand...

The Linux kernel supports more hardware out of the box than Windows does.

In addition, the Linux kernel got USB 3.0 support in 2009; Windows 8 is the first version of Windows to support USB 3.0 out of the box.

See also : http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2882475/posts
 
From my observation as both as Windows and Linux distro user, I'd like to say that the whole Linux universe is great.

Linux distros are about choice. I look at fragmentation more of an Android ecosystem issue, because unless you put ROMs on your phone you are locked into that particular ROM. Choice is different, because you can choose what to put on your machine. It can really end up being survival of the fittest. Do you want stability and professional support? Go RHEL or SUSE. Don't want to pay for it? CentOS, Debian or Scientific. Do you want the latest features and cutting edge technology and are OK with troubleshooting it yourself? Go with Fedora or Gentoo. Want to jump on the bandwagon? Mint or Ubuntu. Want to make your own DVR? Myth TV.

The unification issues really only come up when people look at DistroWatch for awhile and try to interpret those numbers as real world users instead of page hits. I really thought that I would be reading a different set of responses from the [H] community, especially with all of the people who like to customize things on here ;)
 
that first link doesn't even claim what you just wrote here and certainly doesn't support that claim with anything written in it

did you post the wrong link?
 
On SATA, Windows was also a reason why AHCI was not enabled by default on many motherboards, I remember having to activate it (because it is so much better) every time.

Fragmentation is choice. Choice is not an issue in cars, clothes, food, PCs, etc. They all make very different models and there are many vendors, and it actually helps them sell more. (Hey, guess who is selling more, is it Macs and iPhones?).
Less fragmentation is less choice and is promoted by people who like to submit to a single big entity (i.e. mostly fanboys). They are probably *afraid* of choice and somehow try to justify it, but it only fools themselves.
 
pankkake said:
Shipping versions that would work out of the box.

For example, the Windows XP installer required a driver on a floppy if you wanted to install it on SATA.
Click to expand...

I've loaded XP on lots of computers with SATA controllers that required no special driver floppy to work just fine. What kind of weird controllers were you using?
 
With SATA controllers that had AHCI disabled. Yes you can do that but enabling AHCI after requires black magic.
 
I revived a family member's laptop recently. It used to not display video, but now it does. Having no Windows disk from said family member, I threw the latest Ubuntu on as a temp solution to see if I could get it to a desktop without failure.

Everything worked from the get go. I can't find any driver issues. In fact, the volume goes louder than what the speakers support, but apparently not what the sound card supports. This is just my best guess at why however. I remember that under windows, even at max settings the speakers never got this loud.

Having messed around with Mandrake, Slackware, and previous versions of Ubuntu, the new interface did throw me for a loop. I don't like it and it does come off as very buggy to me. All I have to say is...wtf happened with Ubuntu? I like the software center. Its a nice one stop shop for popular applications like pidgin and what have you. I like not having to hunt things down on the web for apps/programs I like to use with an integrated "download and done" setup, just like Steam, and the Android Play Store.

So one step forward one step back is how I feel about Ubuntu. Going to try Mint on it soon I think, if it lacks this horrible desktop interface that Ubuntu now uses.
 
SkribbelKat said:
I've loaded XP on lots of computers with SATA controllers that required no special driver floppy to work just fine. What kind of weird controllers were you using?
Click to expand...
When did you get that XP? The original XP CDs do not support SATA on my Gigabyte K8NF9. There are, however, some CDs with service packs integrated.
 
damicatz said:
OK, after doing some research, that is actually a PowerVR GPU that is rebranded by Intel.

There is an experimental driver here however it requires patching the kernel as the requisite support hasn't been merged into mainline yet. I don't see Intel investing much effort into the PowerVR-based Atom GPUs on GNU/Linux or Windows 8 as future Atom processors will use Ivy Bridge graphics and the PowerVR GPU lacks a lot of basic features that are necessary for things like composting and AIGLX.
Click to expand...
I saw the experimental driver but I wasn't comfortable with how to use it. You're right though that the Windows 8 support isn't there either. Using the Windows 7 driver, (some?) Metro apps blue screen the OS but without, I'm stuck with the "Microsoft Basic Adapter" at 1024x768. It looks like I made a bad platform/purchasing decision. I bought an Atom because I liked the smaller form factor and heard of good experience with it in Linux. I now read that was the previous generations. I guess newer is not always better.
 
damicatz said:
The main thing is a non-standard EFI. This makes things like power management/ACPI very difficult.
Click to expand...

Well said.
The OP isn't really news, we've known about the Linux+Apple power consumption issue for a while now.
 
pankkake said:
When did you get that XP? The original XP CDs do not support SATA on my Gigabyte K8NF9. There are, however, some CDs with service packs integrated.
Click to expand...

SkribbelKat said:
I've loaded XP on lots of computers with SATA controllers that required no special driver floppy to work just fine. What kind of weird controllers were you using?
Click to expand...

SATA controllers can operate in ATA emulation mode, which makes them function like PATA controllers. Windows XP installs without any third party drivers on these and for a long time after SATA came out, ATA emulation was the default.

SkribbelKat said:
What was the point in supporting USB 3.0 in 2009?
Click to expand...

Intel uses GNU/Linux as a platform for developing hardware. They modified the Linux kernel to support the USB 3.0 standard they were developing and when they were done, they contributed those changes back to the mainline kernel.

SamuraiInBlack said:
I revived a family member's laptop recently. It used to not display video, but now it does. Having no Windows disk from said family member, I threw the latest Ubuntu on as a temp solution to see if I could get it to a desktop without failure.

Everything worked from the get go. I can't find any driver issues. In fact, the volume goes louder than what the speakers support, but apparently not what the sound card supports. This is just my best guess at why however. I remember that under windows, even at max settings the speakers never got this loud.

Having messed around with Mandrake, Slackware, and previous versions of Ubuntu, the new interface did throw me for a loop. I don't like it and it does come off as very buggy to me. All I have to say is...wtf happened with Ubuntu? I like the software center. Its a nice one stop shop for popular applications like pidgin and what have you. I like not having to hunt things down on the web for apps/programs I like to use with an integrated "download and done" setup, just like Steam, and the Android Play Store.

So one step forward one step back is how I feel about Ubuntu. Going to try Mint on it soon I think, if it lacks this horrible desktop interface that Ubuntu now uses.
Click to expand...

What, specifically, was buggy?

You might try filing a bug report.

Most FOSS projects do not have the resources of Microsoft and cannot test the product on thousands of computer configurations (even Canonical who makes Ubuntu) so it is vitally important to let the developers know when you encounter bugs. A lot of bugs go unfixed because they only occur on certain configurations that the developers don't have and no one reports the bugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top