I would disagree. They are behind on wireless cards, and creative's mess of a X-FI driver but most things are supported in some way or another. Maybe not perfectly, but if a device manufacturer doesn't release a driver there's just no way to come out with the support that people need on lesser known devices.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Resolution: Switching to Linux for a Week
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
I would disagree. They are behind on wireless cards, and creative's mess of a X-FI driver but most things are supported in some way or another. Maybe not perfectly, but if a device manufacturer doesn't release a driver there's just no way to come out with the support that people need on lesser known devices.
Answer me this, why *SHOULD* we try to please people with non-standard hardware? Time isn't free, especially not coding time. Linux is not a business, it isn't run like a business, it isn't trying to be a business. There isn't any desire to please people.
You continue to assume that Linux devs want people to use Linux. In reality Linux devs want to use Linux themselves, and they really don't care beyond that. They are making the system that THEY want to use, others be damned.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
DING DING DING
This is exactly why Linux will never make it mainstream. The closest thing you'll get to help is a) technical instructions, b) RTFM, c) You should use (Insert other hardware here).
velusip
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,579
You really need to have the right hardware for linux. I know I don't so I only use it on the server with a well known NIC.
NO! this is the reason why hardware manufacturers who do BS like this will go out of fashion. These quirky hardware with their special drivers (only written by them for windows... and rely on reverse engineering for other OS's) are expensive hardware when compared to commodity hardware that the VAST majority of people have (you know those people that order from Dell, HP...)
It is the commodity hardware from Dell, HP... that have GREAT linux support. It is the vocal minority who get custom hardware, who think they know about computers that run into these odd bugs with linux distro's. The best thing these people can do is submit a bug to their distro/upstream with a bit of info on their hardware (it doesn't take much) But nooo their arrogance and their self believe that they know best stops them from doing the right thing.
It is those kind of people that Linux doesn't want/need and thankfully their own arrogance keeps them away
Thats the thing, if you have supported hardware you are laughing. Installing and using linux is then a piss easy!
if you have some odd/non-standard piece of hardware you can run into issues and you may be forced to jump through hoops.
Commodity hardware and OEM built machines that the vast majority of people buy are fine since the OEM makers go after cheap/abundant chips => increase probability that there will be a linux hacker with that hardware
You can get odd hardware working, but takes a bit of time.
So if you are custom building and have a thought you *may* want to run linux, just spend the extra time checking things like wifi,snd,... doesn't take that much. THAT is why the past custom built machines I have done all run linux witjhout any problem
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
YES!!! Let's all switch to exclusively using Dells and HPs! That's the solution! Damn those manufacturers and their competitions! Don't they think about the minuscule minority that uses Linux!?
Lets just shut down all those pesky competitors so we don't have to worry about people doing something crazy like choosing their own hardware configuration. I mean, how DARE they use hardware that isn't supported by the tiny minorities!?
Again. Linux has no chance because of this kind of BS. No one wants to switch to some vastly inferior (and yes, yes it is. I don't care if you like it, it is NOT user friendly for anything beyond basic tasks, even stuff like Ubuntu) OS to save $50, while at the same time losing tens or hundreds of hours trying to do what they already knew how to do in Windows. All hoping that some random programmer in the middle of bumfuck-nowhere decides to put their time into fixing a bug that is causing their problem.
Nemesis999
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
- Messages
- 2,763
P.S. Crippling your selection of hardware is not a solution.
YES!!! Let's all switch to exclusively using Dells and HPs! That's the solution! Damn those manufacturers and their competitions! Don't they think about the minuscule minority that uses Linux!?
Lets just shut down all those pesky competitors so we don't have to worry about people doing something crazy like choosing their own hardware configuration. I mean, how DARE they use hardware that isn't supported by the tiny minorities!?
Thats not what I am saying... funny how people read what they want to support their point of view.
WHAT I am saying is there is ALOT, a vast amount of hardware supported by linux and distro's setup their installCD and main kernel for these. There are however some hardware out there that maybe soo new and soo different that existing drivers in the linux kernel just don't work OR the hardware is soo convoluted and the manufacturers stick their fingers up at linux that impare reverse engineering
You talking about restricting your hardware? you are restricting your hardware to those special peices of kit, YES I am talking about X-fi how many true X-fi soundcards are out there? really how many? its only gamers that use them
You make out that there is loads of incompatible hardware when that simply isn't true.
You go on:
Well guess what those that pick those stupid peices of hardware ARE the minority, not the linux users, they can stick with their windows then IF they go and pick such stupid hardware (that will be supported in the end
noone wants to switch? funny that how people are... Inferior? says you, personally I think Vista is inferior.
and $50
whats that? £35 http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/st...null&sm=null&tm=null&sku=390408&category_oid=
Thats coming in at £150, OEM?
http://www.ebuyer.com/product/123052
£83 + P&P
stop talking bullshit
ok you don't like linux or FOSS, doesn't give you the right to spread FUD about how useless it is does it?. Concidering I use linux daily for work and play (and GOSH!!! get my work done!) its nothing like what you are saying.
And what are these wasted hours you go on about in settingh up linux?
I can pop an Ubuntu disk into my drive and have a desktop fully working in 30min with office and everything EVERYTHING working, no wasted time like you are inacturatly making out
do the internet a favour and disconnect, your kind of innactuate FUD is pathetic
crippling your selection of hardware.. how? how much actual hardware have you actually had to take off the list?
lets take sound cards
http://www.alsa-project.org/main/index.php/Matrix:Main
Oh look ONLY two classes of sound cards are not suppored OUT OF ALL THE OTHERS
Sound Blaster Audigy 2 ZS Video Editor USB
Sound Blaster X-Fi
and since Creative have FOSS'ed their X-fi drivers support for such cards will be included into ALSA shortly (the last release had initial support for X-fi, couldn't play but it had the sound controls)
what hardware, please provide a list,
are you making out that 90% of hardware doesn't work in linux
are you making out that 50% of hardware doesn't work in linux
are you making out that 10% of hardware doesn't work in linux
are you making out that 1% of hardware doesn't work in linux
cause an actual figure would show whether you are really crippling your selection of hardware OR you are yet again spreading FUD
please just disconnect
And what about all that hardware that doesn't work with windows? probably about the same % as what doesn't work with linux
A Dell laptop "vista ready" IT put XP onto it since we have a load of software that won't run in Vista
Oh look the built-in Bluetooth doesn't have XP drivers FAIL! oh look boot ubuntu installCD, EVERYTHING works, even 3D desktop, wifi and... Bluetooth
FAIL!
so Nemesis999 ever heard of glass houses
A Dell laptop "vista ready" IT put XP onto it since we have a load of software that won't run in Vista
Oh look the built-in Bluetooth doesn't have XP drivers FAIL! oh look boot ubuntu installCD, EVERYTHING works, even 3D desktop, wifi and... Bluetooth
FAIL!
so Nemesis999 ever heard of glass houses
Or what about 1year old printers not having ANY 64bit drivers for ANY windows
Or brand new mobo that will crash XP installer if a harddrive is connected to a ahci sata channel
Or XP crashing with nvidia card and >6gig of RAM
OH NOES UNSUPPORTED HARDWARE IN WINDOWS RUN FOR THE HILLS GET A MAC, GET LINUX ANYTHNIG BUT WINDOWS
Or brand new mobo that will crash XP installer if a harddrive is connected to a ahci sata channel
Or XP crashing with nvidia card and >6gig of RAM
OH NOES UNSUPPORTED HARDWARE IN WINDOWS RUN FOR THE HILLS GET A MAC, GET LINUX ANYTHNIG BUT WINDOWS
ImperfectLink
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 10, 2005
- Messages
- 327
Ubuntu's install is barely more complex than Windows'. If it wasn't for the linux swap file configuration, it would be for Joe blows. That said, the install of any OS should be somewhat irrelevant since the average person shouldn't be expected to go through that process. That job should be reserved for someone with a little more savvy. The usability equation should start with the desktop and apps which sadly is still lacking for Linux in general. I wouldn't say it was a long way off though, not like it used to be.
A comprehensive study would be necessary to establish it but I think it is safe to say Windows driver support easy wins over every other OS and especially linux.
Anyway.. so you purchased a laptop explicitly designed for Vista by a particular OEM then put XP on it and complain about problems (none of which was crashing at boot)? This is your example of bad hardware support? C'mon. One last question- why didn't you just order a Dell laptop with XP? Only a few of the top end models require Vista. All the Vostro (and I own one of these) and most of the Lattitudes are XP compatible and all hardware is supported.
I don't have the emotional stake in this you seem to though. Linux is still clearly a hobbyist OS.. great for what it is and terrible for mainstream. Windows is the reciprocal, so what?
Two perhaps philosophical questions.. I am not antilinux or proMS. I would love there to be other viable mainstream OS's because competition = good for everyone. My browser is Chrome.
How many years of failure to break into the mainstream before the open-source movement is declared a failure as such? Progress on linux is cited and obvious, but then progress in windowsland continues at a good clip as well which means the gap is not narrowing.
After linux has: a massive driver base increase (somehow); a fluid, complex, effective, idiot-proof install routine; a complex flexible GUI with all the applets, functions, capabilities, options, system management, help files etc.., on par with MacOS or XP.. then, will there still be any substantial difference between them? Will it still be as stable/efficient/flexible? For the record I see no "major" differences between MacOS and Windows to typical end users, only aesthetic and depth of "tweaking" permitted so far as the usability goes (not hardware/software support).
How many years of failure to break into the mainstream before the open-source movement is declared a failure as such? Progress on linux is cited and obvious, but then progress in windowsland continues at a good clip as well which means the gap is not narrowing.
After linux has: a massive driver base increase (somehow); a fluid, complex, effective, idiot-proof install routine; a complex flexible GUI with all the applets, functions, capabilities, options, system management, help files etc.., on par with MacOS or XP.. then, will there still be any substantial difference between them? Will it still be as stable/efficient/flexible? For the record I see no "major" differences between MacOS and Windows to typical end users, only aesthetic and depth of "tweaking" permitted so far as the usability goes (not hardware/software support).
ClariorHincHonos
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2007
- Messages
- 1,972
Having played with Ubuntu and CentOS/Red Hat quite a bit, I can say that he had to have screwed things up quite a bit to have this many issues.
Ubuntu is an EASY install. It honestly is as easy as installing Windows. CentOS is the same. The only thing that *might* trip you up is partitioning, if you get detailed with it, but that's really not difficult either once you find a basic guide. As for the video issues, that too is very simple to fix-hell, it gives you the safe option in the install/boot menu. If you read the second day he gets it all fixed and running, and loves it.
Now if he bitched about installed Arch or Gentoo...yeah, I could see that creating some issues.
Ubuntu is an EASY install. It honestly is as easy as installing Windows. CentOS is the same. The only thing that *might* trip you up is partitioning, if you get detailed with it, but that's really not difficult either once you find a basic guide. As for the video issues, that too is very simple to fix-hell, it gives you the safe option in the install/boot menu. If you read the second day he gets it all fixed and running, and loves it.
Now if he bitched about installed Arch or Gentoo...yeah, I could see that creating some issues.
YES!!! Let's all switch to exclusively using Dells and HPs! That's the solution! Damn those manufacturers and their competitions! Don't they think about the minuscule minority that uses Linux!?
Lets just shut down all those pesky competitors so we don't have to worry about people doing something crazy like choosing their own hardware configuration. I mean, how DARE they use hardware that isn't supported by the tiny minorities!?
Again. Linux has no chance because of this kind of BS. No one wants to switch to some vastly inferior (and yes, yes it is. I don't care if you like it, it is NOT user friendly for anything beyond basic tasks, even stuff like Ubuntu) OS to save $50, while at the same time losing tens or hundreds of hours trying to do what they already knew how to do in Windows. All hoping that some random programmer in the middle of bumfuck-nowhere decides to put their time into fixing a bug that is causing their problem.
Then explain to me why all computers I have put together, consisting of pretty much everyday parts produced by MSI, Asus, Acer, HP, Shuttle, Creative, Nvidia, etc... have all JustWorked in Gentoo ?
As for the user friendly part, yes, configuring X isn't really what you would call user friendly if you compare it to changing the resolution in windows,.. I won't argue on that.
Relying on other programmers is basically what got your system to operate properly aswell...
difference is that the people that programmed YOUR os (assuming windows) get paid either way, and that linux programmers usually program to get it working, and therefore don't slack off half the time.
Your "inferior because it's not user friendly to meatballs" is pretty much a useless comment...
the architecture behind a linux system is FAR superior to that of a windows computer.
everything is neatly organized, the number of cpu cycles that it takes to execute a command are WAY less, the memory management system is vastly superior, installing managing, and locating applications is pretty damn easy because most distro's have a package manager that /WORKS/ unlike Installshield that commonly leaves rubbish arround in the windows registry, some files in the install dir that need to be cleaned up manually later....
in windows, if something goes wrong, you re-install, in linux, if it goes wrong, in 90% of the cases, you can even fix it without needing a livecd.
if it's horribly wrong, you insert a livecd and within just a few minutes the entire system is up and running again, as it was before.
(assuming that you know what you are doing, which is commonly the case if you succeeded in installing Gentoo on your own)
I could probably rant on like this forever, but i'd probably just end up repeating myself.
I remember first trying to install Ubuntu on my little AMD Sempron64 1.8 machine with 2gig RAM and a 320gb SATA HD using a Radeon 9500 just to see how well I could get it to work. Easiest Linux install every. I played with the Add/Remove program features, remote desktop management using windows to access it and the setup of an email server and a few other things I had no understanding of in a linux environment.
Needless to say, for a guy like me who has only minimal linux knowledge, I was quite pleased with it. To this day it acts as a MySQL server box for some of my servers.
Needless to say, for a guy like me who has only minimal linux knowledge, I was quite pleased with it. To this day it acts as a MySQL server box for some of my servers.
Open-source can't be declared a failure, as it is self sustaining. The people developing Linux USE Linux, and they certainly aren't going to switch to Windows. There is no business to go under, etc... Hell, the core Linux community (the ones doing all the developing) aren't pushing for Linux to go mainstream to begin with (as it really doesn't matter to them). After all, more users == more bug reports + more complaints + more bandwidth used, and who really wants a bunch of whiny users bitching about how much the code that people slaved over for free "sucks"?
Exactly, which is why Linux will never go mainstream. It isn't TRYING to be a Windows clone, it doesn't WANT to be a Windows clone. Linux exists because people wanted something DIFFERENT. And since different == not user friendly, Linux will remain a niche in the desktop market.
So then what are you bitching about? Was the computer you tried to run Linux on advertised as supporting Linux? No? Well then by your own logic its your own damn fault that things broke!
YES!!! Let's all switch to exclusively using Dells and HPs! That's the solution! Damn those manufacturers and their competitions! Don't they think about the minuscule minority that uses Linux!?
Actually, they do: http://www.dell.com/content/topics/...&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs&dgc=IR&cid=11973&lid=471885
I build all my own systems and they all work great in Linux. There are combinations that break things (just as there are for Windows), but 95%+ of systems will run Linux perfectly fine.
How is being "inferior" == not user friendly? Fuck user friendly. I want speed. I don't want to click through a 10 page GUI wizard to do something that takes a single terminal command. I spend most of my time in Linux at a terminal because it is FASTER. Since it is faster, it is superior. Of course, Linux is also far more stable, has no viruses, has a much, much better security design than Vista, prevents normal users from fucking up their own system, keeps all user data in a single, easily backed up location (the user's home directory), is faster, doesn't have any DRM or "trusted computing" bullshit that robs you of your rights, and is far more efficient (8GB is too small for Vista to even install to, but Ubuntu will fit comfortably in the same amount of space). Inferior? Hardly.
Again, as for losing "tens of hundreds of hours trying to do what they already knew" - like WHAT? *WHAT* takes so goddamn long in Linux that a *NORMAL* user would know how to do in Windows? Can you even name a single task?
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
indeed
The generic drivers out today will work in 99% of the cases, and support for the rest is usually not long behind... it's not the devs fault that you're using (obviously) rare hardware in a configuration that they haven't anticipated. It's like getting pissed at MS because a driver crashes your computer.
What I meant was failure to "catch on" or become viable in the mainstream, and yes actually lots and lots of people and companies seem to want that. IBM comes to mind.. just a few years ago they dumped one Billion $$ into linux systems Read here. Another example is the EEE PC which debuted with Linux but is now available with windows as well. The problem for linux is not relatively reasonable people like yourself who seem to have a good grasp on what linux is/should be.. but obnxious fanboys who can't shut up about how great it is and how it will take over the world if only the world would listen.
...And since different == not user friendly, Linux will remain a niche in the desktop market.
Agreed.
So then what are you bitching about? Was the computer you tried to run Linux on advertised as supporting Linux? No? Well then by your own logic its your own damn fault that things broke!
I'm not sure what computer you are referring to. I've not mentioned any particular linux experience of my own. Perhaps you are thinking of a different poster. Nonetheless one's shopping options with regard to hardware explicitly supporting XP (my OS of choice for now) versus explicitly supporting Linux leave linux looking, well all but nonexistent. This may be for fair or unfair reasons (market size not OS quality brings driver support from 3rd party hardware vendors) but as a user and consumer, it remains reality. The point I was making before was that the PC market is so truly massive if you can not easily find good hardware that runs XP (or vista, winXP-64 or win95 for that matter) you are exceptionally lazy or stupid.
I build all my own systems and they all work great in Linux. There are combinations that break things (just as there are for Windows), but 95%+ of systems will run Linux perfectly fine.
This is fine but also heresay. The "reviewer" as well as myself have had nightmarish experiences with Linux, but I don't generalize based on that one or two examples. I will make the inference though, that without a commercial entity capable/willing to do widescale testing and given that hardware support generally flows from commercial entities supporting their customers.. that getting Linux running is on average a more trying prospect and more often impossible. This is not so much a critique of linux's quality as an acknowledgment of realities of any hardware market but either way the result is more headaches on one side than the other.
How is being "inferior" == not user friendly? Fuck user friendly. I want speed. I don't want to click through a 10 page GUI wizard to do something that takes a single terminal command. I spend most of my time in Linux at a terminal because it is FASTER. Since it is faster, it is superior. Of course, Linux is also far more stable, has no viruses, has a much, much better security design than Vista, prevents normal users from fucking up their own system, keeps all user data in a single, easily backed up location (the user's home directory), is faster, doesn't have any DRM or "trusted computing" bullshit that robs you of your rights, and is far more efficient (8GB is too small for Vista to even install to, but Ubuntu will fit comfortably in the same amount of space). Inferior? Hardly.
re:speed
I have to think we must use our machines for rather different tasks. Most of my time at a PC is spent in a game, browser, Office app, and wonderfully stream-lined apps like Media Player Classic and DVDShrink which do not ordinarily entail any pages of gui options. None of any of this would be better done, if even possible, from a command line. The speed at which the other 10% of my time is spent seems irrelevant but again our usage likely differs.
Vista also seems to put all user data in the user home folder, though I don't much use vista. I'm not convinced for a moment Linux has intrinsically better security it simply has better obscurity. That is a benefit nonetheless, but not one owed to quality code design. In spite of the vulnerability of windows I've never lost a single byte of data to a virus in my 15+ years of windows usage. I also find the stability argument nonsense. My XP boxes have run flawlessly for years. This is in great contrast to win95 or win98 which had significant stability problems. Today linux and windows are the same- garbage in, garbage out. You load crap software they will both crash but not otherwise.
I'll be the first to say Vista is bloated, but who cares if the OS is 2, 6 or 8GB? This is the age of 1TB drives for 100$. Do you get a special prize for a smaller OS footprint? I have a combined 9,000+GB of space in my house- I'm supposed to care about 2 or 4 GB? If you do have a hard-on for "efficiency", you could get WinXP down to 687MB like the first Eee faithful did.
IBM wants Linux to win in the *SERVER* market - where Linux is already winning. Last I heard Linux actually had like 50% of the server market. That may have changed, but Linux is a major, major player in the server world - which is what IBM is dealing with.
You could quite easily say the same about Linux. There are tons of lists saying what works, what sort of works, and what doesn't work at all for just about every piece of hardware imaginable. And for what its worth, there are OEMs shipping Linux pre-installed (like Dell).
The reviewer's problem was 100% user error. Windows would have done the *exact* same thing as Ubuntu. Ubuntu actually fixed the reviewers problem for him had his just waited a second and paid attention. Ubuntu will automatically set up dual, triple, whatever-number-of-OSes-you-have boots *for you*. The reviewer is the one that unplugged the drive the system was trying to boot from. I would love to see a bootloader than can boot from a drive that doesn't exist - that would be really damned impressive
I'm a programmer, so yup, we do different stuff
Whenever I have to use the command line in Windows (which is often - there are many amazing command line programs like grep, sed, etc... with Windows ports) I cringe in pain.When I say everything I mean *EVERYTHING*. Ever single personal setting, bookmark, everything that the user can set is stored in the home directory. Even things like the current wallpaper and theme selection (including downloaded themes) all end up in the home directory. If I copy/paste my home directory to another machine, everything will look and feel identical (assuming all the same programs are installed, of course
)In this case I mean the design of the user system. The same design as BSD and OS X. I can execute random programs all day long on my Linux system, and they won't ever be able to do things like format my drive or install rootkits because *I* can't do those things. The lowest privilege user level in Windows still have more rights than a regular user in Linux does, and there are several admin-escalation bugs in Windows. Oh, and unlike on Windows, a program can't ask to have higher usage rights (like a program can with UAC). So I have to explicitly give it admin rights when I run it. Bugs like remotely executing code don't have as much of a problem when the code that can be executed can't really do anything.
So what I was referring to *does* have to deal with a better security design - the exact design MS is trying to slowly migrate to. Which, oddly enough, is the same design Unix had, so its older than Windows, but whatever
Windows, even XP and Vista, stability drops off significantly after its been up for a long time. Vista has improved this, definitely, but there are still problems there. Even Server 2008 needs to be rebooted about once a week or so to stay running smoothly.
I've never had a program crash Linux before
(honestly can't say I've had too many programs crash Windows, either)Install size still matters when you are dealing with laptops. Find me a 1TB laptop drive for $100 and I'll be all over. I'm stuck with this tiny little 100GB drive that I have to try and squeeze both Linux and Windows on. The amount of space it takes up rapidly becomes a major concern (its the reason I went with Server 2008 over Vista - to squeeze out a couple of extra GB). Of course, there are also those pitifully small SSD drives now, and I don't think too many people will be happy when 1/3rd of their 30GB SSD drive is taken up by Vista
brucedeluxe169
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Messages
- 3,720
kllrnohj , bravo my good man....
seriously, i dont get all the linux hate on this board....
fact is, it is a good operating system, and it is only getting better, and at a faster rate than windows.... give it time
seriously, i dont get all the linux hate on this board....
fact is, it is a good operating system, and it is only getting better, and at a faster rate than windows.... give it time
Seconded, all very well said and supported.
The hate for anything that doesn't come out of Redmond around here is pretty crazy.
No, wait, what's crazy is the notion that for one product to be good, everything else must suck. Linux, OS X, Windows, they all have major strengths and major weaknesses, very simple.
The hate for anything that doesn't come out of Redmond around here is pretty crazy.
No, wait, what's crazy is the notion that for one product to be good, everything else must suck. Linux, OS X, Windows, they all have major strengths and major weaknesses, very simple.
Thank you
Agreed. You'd think Linux shot their dog or something.
Agreed. Well, OS X doesn't have any strengths, but I agree with the rest
I'm a programmer, so yup, we do different stuff
Amazing, powerful, cryptic and generally hard to use, nevermind having names that seem to have nothing to do with what they actually due (though I'm sure if you expanded the acronymn out it might become meaningful.
The reality is that 99.99% of the time, there's nothing I'd use grep for that I couldn't do more quickly with Copernic on XP or Vista's built in search.
Now if those programs were easier to use and didn't require a search through man pages to figure out how to use them for anything beyond the most basic functionality (functions that are far easier to perform on Windows or, I suspect, on a Mac).
I can't find anything that would indicate that Linux has 50% of the server market.
In 8/2007, MS accounted for almost 70% of the servers Deployed that year. Linux had roughly 25% (with sales down 23% over 2006). source
Perhaps if you combined all *nix servers you'd be at or above 50%, but Linux isn't #1 according to that article and some ZD article in 2004 didn't expect them to be anywhere near 50% this year. Of course it's possible that there prediction was way off and Linux exploded this year, but you'd think that'd be tech front page news.
FYI, I realize that you're discussing using them for shell scripting (at least I assume that's what you're using them for), but that doesn't make it a good OS for desktop use.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure there are implementations of all of those tools for windows. I can't say I've ever needed them, but I don't program on windows (well I program on it, but not for it).
I just find the hassle of using the tools far outweighs their usefulness, unless you're forced to do a lot of shell scripting. About the only times I use them is when something has gone horribly wrong and it requires parsing records for a specific field (which may or may not have a delimiter).
If it's a fixed length file, I believe there are editors where you can do a vertical select.
IMO, that functionality could be wrapped in a gui that abstracts much of the command line flag/man page hell from them.
FWIW, this is not an attack on Linux. It's generic complaint about unix tools.
As an aside, just heard that Larry Flynt is looking for a government bailout.
Here's the headline:
Government bails out Porn Industry and there was much rejoicing.
FWIW, I'm pretty sure there are implementations of all of those tools for windows. I can't say I've ever needed them, but I don't program on windows (well I program on it, but not for it).
I just find the hassle of using the tools far outweighs their usefulness, unless you're forced to do a lot of shell scripting. About the only times I use them is when something has gone horribly wrong and it requires parsing records for a specific field (which may or may not have a delimiter).
If it's a fixed length file, I believe there are editors where you can do a vertical select.
IMO, that functionality could be wrapped in a gui that abstracts much of the command line flag/man page hell from them.
FWIW, this is not an attack on Linux. It's generic complaint about unix tools.
As an aside, just heard that Larry Flynt is looking for a government bailout.
Here's the headline:
Government bails out Porn Industry and there was much rejoicing.
Nope. I rarely write a bash script. I did write a web server in bash just to prove it was possible.
Yup, there are. I have them. The windows command line just sucks so bad that it removes most of their usefulness.
I don't find the tools a hassle to use at all. Even if I'm just searching for a file, I'll still use the command line and just use find or slocate rather than using Gnome's search (which is similar to Vista's search). I even have a terminal that drops down when I hit the ~ key - just like in quake
I almost never have to do this, and I'm not really sure what/who you are responding to, but yes, you can do a vertical select in most IDEs - regardless of whether it is fixed length or not (I've only ever done it in visual studio, and only a couple times at that).
There *are* GUI wrappers for many of the common tools. They aren't popular because they aren't as powerful. For example, you can't pipe the output of a GUI tool to a different GUI tool (eg, grep | sed > file)
Use them a couple of times and you remember them just fine. Its not hard to remember 3-5 characters.
More quickly? Bullshit. I can cd to a directory from a command line faster than you can double-click your way to it, I promise. Vista's built in search is much, much slower than grep. Easier? Definitely. Faster? Not a chance.
Easy to use == SLOW. Not necessarily slow in processing, but slow to use. And there are GUIs for grep if you really want one. Likewise, there are far easier ways to do them in Linux as well. Gnome has a built in search just like Vista does, its called Beagle (and it ships with Ubuntu afaik). Gnome also lets you save search results, I believe.
So in this case there is not only a way to search that is every bit as brain-dead simple as in Vista, there are also much more powerful, flexible, and faster ways to search. Its pure win-win.
Can't seem to find the stats I was thinking of. I remember reading an article where many companies were buying Windows servers (because they were cheaper due to MS discounts) and then turning around and installing Linux on them, so that sale stats where out of line with actual usage stats. That could have been BS, I don't know. Regardless, Linux is still a major player in the server world.
heatlesssun
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2005
- Messages
- 44,154
I always find these OS discussions intresting. People are talking about things like command line vs. GUI tools. Personally, things like digital media capability, tablet functionality, gaming and hardware support are far more important to me.
I've been running some flavor of a Linux desktop for ten years. Remember, ten years ago Linux was supposed to replace Windows as THE OS. Microsoft's days as a monopoly were about to end with the US anti-trust suit. Microsoft would then have to face a free market where a proprietary OS like Windows wouldn't be able to compete. The logic being that it was open source, "free", more stable, more secure, and just all around a far better platform.
Fast forward to the present. Linux is still too complicated as a platform to do things that I take for granted on Windows. Thats not to say that its not capable. If someone just wants a machine to web surf on and doesnt want to worry about anything else, Linux is pretty cool. But once you get into the universe of things that PCs do these days, it becomes an ever more complicated solution.
Bluetooth? Support for iTunes, Zune and other media distribution systems. 21st Century human-machine interfaces in the form of devices like a tablet PC? Synchronization and integration with smart phones? Media capabilities? Games?
Yes these things are available in Linux but someone show me a fully functional Linux desktop that integrates with an iPhone or a Windows Mobile or Blackberry, plays games, records TV, plays DVD & Blu-Ray discs, has an online media subscription and/or download service (torrents dont count) plays games and works with a pen.
I have such a device in front of me. My Vista based HP tx2z (nice tablet pc BTW). Open source efforts simply arent enough to make Linux a total desktop platform. It needs commercial development and money. Cobbling stuff together is great if you have the time and inclination, but when you just want to get to it, its not really all that rewarding.
Well
I've been running some flavor of a Linux desktop for ten years. Remember, ten years ago Linux was supposed to replace Windows as THE OS. Microsoft's days as a monopoly were about to end with the US anti-trust suit. Microsoft would then have to face a free market where a proprietary OS like Windows wouldn't be able to compete. The logic being that it was open source, "free", more stable, more secure, and just all around a far better platform.
Fast forward to the present. Linux is still too complicated as a platform to do things that I take for granted on Windows. Thats not to say that its not capable. If someone just wants a machine to web surf on and doesnt want to worry about anything else, Linux is pretty cool. But once you get into the universe of things that PCs do these days, it becomes an ever more complicated solution.
Bluetooth? Support for iTunes, Zune and other media distribution systems. 21st Century human-machine interfaces in the form of devices like a tablet PC? Synchronization and integration with smart phones? Media capabilities? Games?
Yes these things are available in Linux but someone show me a fully functional Linux desktop that integrates with an iPhone or a Windows Mobile or Blackberry, plays games, records TV, plays DVD & Blu-Ray discs, has an online media subscription and/or download service (torrents dont count) plays games and works with a pen.
I have such a device in front of me. My Vista based HP tx2z (nice tablet pc BTW). Open source efforts simply arent enough to make Linux a total desktop platform. It needs commercial development and money. Cobbling stuff together is great if you have the time and inclination, but when you just want to get to it, its not really all that rewarding.
Well
I understand what you're saying, and it's a fair enough point, but the truth is that you're not going to get that type of functionality unless the UI is there. Game companies, I suspect, regularly consider whether they should drop support for PCs and just stick with consoles. I suspect most don't even think about Linux, because the potential gain in revenue is minimal, even the % of linux users buying the game was 10x that of windows.
BD may come some day...for all I know, Anydvd makes a Linux version, which should make playing BDs possible.
DVDs, as far as I know, have been playable on Linux for longer than most people have owned a DVD player, thanks to DVD John.
The bottom line is you can't expect those modern touches on HCI, because far too many that use Linux kinda like that nobody else uses it, even if they complain about their superiority. It's not that different from people who say the music I like is great and hte music that the masses like sucks.....but the truth is they'd hate it if their band became huge (and I've been in that group of theys, so I know what I speak).
I think Desktop LInux is about where it will remain for the foreseeable: an OS for developers and enthusiasts.
I think it will continue to do fairly well on servers (though I'm not sure if there are advantages over using a comercial version of *nix) and in embedded systems.
Bingo.
Don't hold your breath. Linux likely will never get HDCP, so "real" BD support won't ever exist. Then again, playing DVDs is technically illegal on Linux since it bypasses the encryption. Good ol' DMCA
Correct.
No, not at all. Developers love to see their product being used. It is a huge feeling of pride to see your hard work be used by so many people. There are many people trying to push Linux out to the mainstream, but public image is the key to acceptance. Linux doesn't have an advertising budget, and is facing a very rich and very powerful company. You even see crap like that in this thread, where people have bought the FUD hook, line, and sinker. Crap that hasn't been true for over a decade is still being claimed as a flaw or downside of Linux, even among the enthusiasts who are going to be more well-informed than the average user.
Can't help you with the first one, but MythTV will handle the recording TV, playing DVDs has worked for ages, playing Blu-Ray discs works if they aren't encrypted (as in support for the format itself is there, but since Linux doesn't support DRM you have to find ways around the encryption. Personally I consider that a plus, but whatever). As for online media, such as what, exactly? I'm not familiar with online media outside of flash videos (such as hulu and whatnot), which work just fine. As for games, there are a few. Id and Epic games regularly come out for Linux, which proves that the platform works for games, but yeah, your choices are pretty limited there.
Only if you are in the hardware minority. Lets face it, tablets aren't popular - they never have been. They *work* in Linux, there just aren't many tablet-targeted apps and such. I doubt you will see this change until (or should I say if?) tablets at least become moderately popular. There are already specialized distros for netbooks, such as Ubuntu Netbook Remix with custom UIs. http://www.canonical.com/projects/ubuntu/nbr
So it definitely isn't that open source efforts aren't enough (as they clearly are. Vista is the one copying from everyone else, not Linux
), its just that there needs to be a developer base using the hardware in question. There also isn't any "cobbling stuff together", and since when has an OS ever been "rewarding"?EvilAlchemist
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2008
- Messages
- 2,730
I think the hardest part about using linux is the difference between windows.
I have used if for so long, I felt lost when trying Ubuntu.
Nothing was where i expected it to be.
Other then that, it was stable and I found it to be a great O/S.
We all seem to like what we are comfortable with.
We have used windows so long that anything different seems wrong to us.
Damn you Microsoft .......
I have used if for so long, I felt lost when trying Ubuntu.
Nothing was where i expected it to be.
Other then that, it was stable and I found it to be a great O/S.
We all seem to like what we are comfortable with.
We have used windows so long that anything different seems wrong to us.
Damn you Microsoft .......