discovered the linuxhaters blog some weeks ago, its really great. so i'll have a look at the other one

but i can only partly agree on the i've always been amused how their efforts in pushing Linux on all popular sites has never paid off.. maybe they got people to try it, but that's it.
linux isnt a good solution for everyone, true. but its not like windows/mac os would be better for everyone, too.
your a gamer? then dont use linux
your lazy and want things to just work? dont use linux
you ideological prefer open source ? use linux
you are interested in technical aspects and willing to spent some time to learn how things can work differently (and sometimes just better)? then use linux
you neither want to spend a lot of money, nor have illegal software? use linux

i was "forced" to use linux because of my university. and im glad i discovered how great it is _for me_. (i dont think i would have made it through all the problems if i would have had a choice.)

edit: ppl complaining about companies not porting games for linux is stupid. first there have to be enough customers to justify the additional work

if Lunix devs would get their shit together and make the platform usable, cross-distro compatible, more standardized, more streamlined towards the average end user then its marketshare would make people take you seriously when you complain about games not being ported to linux or hardware not working on it

but NO. let's instead waste years on nerdy gimmicks, on forking into N projects that suck and won't ever be completed or usable, on bitching to companies about opening their hardware specs

linux could adress to gamers, lazy people, open sauce fanatics altogether.. but it fails miserably and the mindset of the linux fanboys is so damaging it's becoming intolerable

it's like a propaganda machine:
your hardware doesn't work on lunix - it's the hardware company's fault!
your application/game doesn't work well on lunix - it's the software developer's fault!
you miss some common sense functionality that is present in mainstream OS'es - it's your own damn fault, because you don't even really need it..

on one hand Lunix can't be wrong, but on the other hand Microsoft is blamed for everything.

but NO. let's instead waste years on nerdy gimmicks, on forking into N projects that suck and won't ever be completed or usable, on bitching to companies about opening their hardware specs

but how could you change that? its the nature of oss. someone gets interested and starts coding. you cant blame them.

i blame those pretentious self-important geeks from OSF, LSB etc. for posing as the guiding gurus of the linux world, yet failing to herd the masses towards a saner dev environment. the nature of OSS can be influenced where it's no longer viable to reinvent the wheel for everything.. and just go with a solid core that's already out there.

i also blame the mindless zealots for spamming sites like Digg/Reddit/etc. all the time with Windows FUD, silly "linux is better than win" articles and X institution switching over to linux.

they could instead acknowledge the problems at hand and pressure devs to fix them so they won't disservice the platform when someone reads their propaganda, installs a distro for 10 minutes and makes his mind forever about how it sucks.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1574661#pid1574661

no comments

i see what u did there and i agree with your parallel
that type of thinking is derived from fanboyism

linux people need to be more on the critical side.. that's my whole point

yeah but you're not critical, you're just talking shit. gg?

blogs i posted are critical, unless your stupid enough to think they're meaningless "trolling"

your hardware doesn't work on lunix - it's the hardware company's fault!
your application/game doesn't work well on lunix - it's the software developer's fault!
you miss some common sense functionality that is present in mainstream OS'es - it's your own damn fault, because you don't even really need it..

It's you're hardware manufacturer's fault for a reason. Sort of hard to write code, especially real low level instructions for a device if you don't have the necessary documentation.

LoL OP fails here too. Do everybody a favor and stick with Windows.

- granted, complete idiots might get confused in the beginning as it's different to windows, but who's to blame for this really?
- not sure about the clipboard system but there's zillions of tools to change stuff there, bet you can fix it if you really want
- there's an endless amount of distros which isn't really helping in some way, then again no one uses any of those besides the handful of main distros?
- never had any incompatibilities myself, I'm using Ubuntu which puts quite a lot of effort into getting all this mess sorted. can't help you if you try to run some script kiddie's overnight developer build alpha version of an operating system, you don't use all sorts of clusterfucks for applications either so should be even more obvious for the OS?

to me it's like:
Install Ubuntu, almost everything done (applications such as office, players, image editors, editors, firefox, email, burning software, irc/icq/msn/whatnot clients all already installed), add a handful of codecs which takes approximately 2 minutes to find and install (hi windows), click 2 tickboxes to get better drivers for your graphics card and you're done in way less than 1h with a fully working system. Even with having all the files already downloaded on a separate harddrive, I could never do this with windows xp or 2000.
Both Q3 and all sorts of media playback run faster on linux in my case. This might be because of shitty windows drivers for my system, but that doesn't change the facts. It hardly ever crashes for me, I don't even have to think about all sorts of malware or virus, it just works for me.

If you're one of those new-games-every-other-day hippies it's obviously a bad choice, but if you just need a secure and stable working platform with additional Q3, then yay good times \:D/ couldn't care less if it works for you, but it works really good here and I'm not exactly doing a lot of work in terminals or nerding it up with elite system files editing. At least Ubuntu got useful gui's for almost everything, hello 2008.

lmao@u \:D/

long version of WorksForMe™

and what's wrong with that? It's same with Windows XP vs 2000 vs Vista, for some people it works - others hate it.

to begin with: all of those have the market share to count.
all of those are so compatible that it doesn't even matter which one you pick (with the possible exception of Win2000 for some new things, because it's naturally dated).

linux doesn't afford to let basic things not to work because it needs users and other OS'es already have those users covered for their needs.

thanks for proving the stupid WorksForMe™ mentality once again.

lol I really don't see what's wrong with works-for-me, at the end of the day you'll pick an operating system that works for you and not for someone else? or do you just go for the operating system that most of your friends use, or your daddy bought you with your new computer? awww that's cute <3 but makes no sense.

tell that to the zealots pushing/advocating Linux and bitching about the status quo.

yeah, keep telling me then? congratulations, you fail.

oh and please elaborate why linux needs users? it's mostly for free, Canonical doesn't get a single buck out of me using their operating system....?

k.. at this point you're too retarded to waste my time with you

no, you just fail to make a point. I haven't paid a single dollar for all my linux software while it's all legal (not some cracked shit from torrents). do you pay all your software that you use with windows? do you break any laws software-wise (cracks, stolen keys, nodisk etc.)? I'm fairly sure you don't, you'd be pretty much the first windows user ever to do this.

Stop wasting your time with this retard.

got 6h of uni a week :-/

legality card omg!
as if you pay for all the music/movies you download.. if it doesn't stop you for those, what's the point then?

i use free software mostly btw.

the difference is that I don't have to pay for an operating system when I can get a working operating system for free (+legal), especially since windows is way overpriced. same for all the other apps.

I stopped reading after the first line of your post., but people tell me that the rest is just as self-contained and plain. The notion that Linux users are smarter than Windows XP users is not original, even if it seems to be true. In most cases Linuxians do not know more about operating systems than a Windows user.

Operating systems? Study your Silberschatz for a few months and come back to really own all Windows users and Linux users too. And the debates with Aquashark will also stop.

idiots here refers to people who change operating system, and then expect it to be the same. one example could be the filesystem and folder structure etc. that linux uses, it is a different concept and therefore you have to learn about it first. everybody seems to know windows by now so they think it has to be that way for all eternity. it seems strange or complicated at first sight, and you wonder where your D: and E: partitions went, why files don't necessarily have an extension anymore and so on. but isn't that just because you've known it that way for years from windows? I wonder what complete freshmen would think about it, when they're not biased by using windows for years.

I don't feel superior for using linux, but linux feels superior to me so I use it. It excels at what I need and do, and that's why I use it. I've been using Windows 2000 and XP for years, and I quite liked it besides some flaws. Then I gave Ubuntu 7.04 a try and it all worked so nicely that I sticked to it. It is definitely not the preferable choice for most people for various reasons, but it is not a useless piece of shit and inferior to Mac OS or Windows at all times. But apparently you're not allowed to prefer an operating system that fits your needs as that is a WorksForMe thing, whatever that is supposed to mean.

How do you choose your operating system? By what everybody is using or a majority of people believe to be a good choice, or by what works for you?

To me it seems that the same way you expect me as a linux user to be a stuck-up nerd with superiority complex, you would never expect somebody to use linux just because it works for them, and not because they want to be different/elite/nerds/super smart/rebels - which is exactly the case for me.
A friend of mine (who doesn't play any computer games or is too much into computers) started to use Ubuntu even earlier than me, coming from Windows 2000. He prefered it for performance (old notebook), stability, security and the fact that all software he would need (office, latex, browser, email) would be for free and preinstalled. But surely he's just one of those stuck-up nerds with superiority complex, even though he probably doesn't know enough about computers to even reinstall Windows on his own.

i dont think you can really group everyone who uses linux into the same category. there are a few degrees of linux uses. most people who use ubuntu usually dont know shit about linux and would be afraid/not know to do anything in runlevel 3 or lower. subsequently most people who use distros like slackware, gentoo, or arch tend to know much more about linux and computers in general.

but this arguement holds true for windows as well. obviously theres lots of people who use windows and dont know shit about computers. but there is also lots of people who use windows and know the ins and outs of it.

bottom line. while im sure on average most people who use linux are smarter (in terms of computer usage at least) than their windows counterparts, it really depends on the user or distribution. There are lots of linux distros that hold your hand for everything (mandrake, linspire, ubuntu, fedora) and then there are some that leave you on your own (gentoo, slackware)

someone once said that people are not taught to use computers, they're taught to use windows

oh and just to give a counter argument as well:

Vista



hahaha.

Linux defeats itself, no needs for counter arguments.

My operating system is better than yours.


winner.

is better at what?
at consuming my time with useless shit i could be done with in 2 seconds and 2 clicks away in a decent OS?

have fun with your spinning cube. luser.

I don't use desktop effects as they're partially no use to me or would slow down my Q3. The cube is a useless show-off feature anyway.

And seeing as you're somewhat illiterate, I'll state it one more time: all the tasks I have to perform take the same time or even less on ubuntu that they took me on windows xp.

nice of you to shorten your version of WorksForMe™

WorksForMe seems a reasonable argument as long as you can't provide a reason why it's a bad thing?

seems a reasonable argument for why linux fails and why idiots like you become representative for an otherwise good idea/movement.

you're incapable of getting the big picture and too selfish to care.
now stfu and gtfo

seeing as you're really good at keeping this interesting conversation up with your well-argued replies, it's a shame I have to stop here and give my full attention to a singleplayer turn-based flash rpg. see you around, dickhead!

what's to argue well about, moran? linux works for your needs, GREAT! but this thread is not about you.. now what?

let's look away from all the inherent linux problems just because it works for you and your limited scope of use? what kind of argument is that?

only a retard can believe that WorksForMe™ is actually an argument.

what problems would that be?

see links in original post.

and btw retard: it's more of a matter of Linux vs Linux if you don't get it.

way2totally miss the point.

linuxnerds are raged now :( they have no sense of humour

no funny in here

I'm well aware that the links he posted are trolls/humour pages, but I think he actually takes those two links seriously :D:D:D:D:D

i meant the comments in here

:D::D:D:D:D:D::D:D:D:D:D:D::D:D:D


:D

great communication skills aquashark

what a flamethread, awesome
i'm using xp x64 on my desktop and ubuntu on my laptop
what's the problem with that?
osx is useless in any way and made for gay fashion victims (won't talk about this piece of shit here)
windows is better for gaming
linux is better for everything else

i ported to ubuntu to try it out at first - then i realized that my battery lasts around 30% longer on ubuntu than on windows so i completely switched on the laptop.
and because - as you say - windows is so much better 80% of the people at my university use linux on their notebooks rather than windows - so you go ahead now and tell my why is it this way? they must be all retarded, huh?
the majority of people use windows because of the lack of choice - none of them tried linux - either because they're used to windows and don't want change or just because they always get windows with a new computer.
my girlfriend - who used linux for the first time on my notebook (didn't tell her it was linux) had no problem with it whatsoever.

i'm not saying linux is great when it comes to drivers but for the everyday use of a normal person ubuntu for example is way better suited than the windows you get on your retail pc with its outdated drivers, lack of firewall/antivirus, shitty internet explorer and whatnot.

now you're going to flame me etc - i'm using the best of both worlds, get over it.

*edit*
oh shi- i almost forgot to mention servers
not even microsoft hosts their websites on windows webservers - linux/unix is just king in this segment - but you're probably going to flame them aswell

this is not about linux on servers (they're very respectable in that sector)
this is not about win vs linux mostly, more like linux vs itself and why it fails to become better and more widely spread (which i support as well)

was trying to point that linux is plagued with a lot of rabid fanaticism, people would rather turn a blind eye for linux problems and point fingers at everybody else

"hey it works for me.."
"you don't need that feature anyway"
"your hardware company is at fault for your hardware not working"
"windows sucks, that's why linux is so great"

"boycott X company for not opening their hardware specs or proprietary file format for which they invested a lot of money, hard work and research.. we know better.. we're a minority from teh internetz!"

etc.

too much idealist stupidity crushed by the real world.

well there is some of that
but i'd say its 3 people with no real-life who spam the intarwebses 24/7
the not open hardware specs are a small problem - its bullshit and if they're not opening it they should at least bring us proper working drivers
but drivers are a thing of their own - you get that problem on windows 64bit versions at least as often as on linux

and to all those small bits of software you were referring to: its better to have something half-working, written by some 12yearold one night, than not to have anything like it at all (there's TONS of software that just doesn't exist for windows but is quite useful for one purpose - so you need it RIGHT NOW and then never again)

but all of that doesn't really matter for the normal retail pc customer
they don't need the best drivers and stuff

i'd say there's billions of euros wasted on stuff you simply don't need. a BIG part of that is microsofts fault - with their licensing programs "vista compatible" and stuff like that you're forced to get hardware you don't need just to run an OS you didn't exactly ask for.
for example: person x wants to "do email" and sometimes "write letters" - why do those people buy a ~600€ machine with 3d acceleration, windows vista, 250GB hdd and stuff like that when you could put together a machine for ~200 with linux which would do the same job quite as good?
windows is expensive - even with a low-end retail pc you pay around 50€ for windows - which, in the low-end segment, is quite a big part of the price

*edit*
i'm not giving anything to any fanboys - neither to the linux fanboys nor to your kind - i'm just stating what comes to mind with this whole thing

windows is almost free when its oem'ed with pc's, so that doesnt really stand as a point

Wow, you are either a god-tier troll or the dumbest person I've ever seen contribute to the Linux vs Windows argument.

http://blogs.computerworld.com/who_writes_linux_corporate_america

Linux is not made by a bunch of random people anymore, it hasn't been like that for a VERY long time. Most of the kernel is being worked on by paid developers. Why would companies invest money into linux if it was really as bad as you say?

It's not.

You are the stupid one for arguing over nothing.

Linux/Windows on a desktop level is PURELY preference based, nothing more.

edit: Why do you even give a shit.

I mean... this is like me going to a metal concert and telling everyone that metal sucks and they shouldn't use it. You are arguing a choice of personal preference.

I don't give a shit if you use windows, and I don't care they you have to make ESR posts trying to convince yourself that it's better, you are the one clutching at straws and being an ADHD fucktard. We don't care. We just use what we prefer.

sorry, i assumed people would read through the links i posted before starting this mess

edit: read http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1619306#pid1619306 and go die in a fire

I did read, see above:

I'm well aware that the links he posted are trolls/humour pages, but I think he actually takes those two links seriously :D:D:D:D:D

--

too much idealist stupidity crushed by the real world.

Who cares lol, I'll continue using my OS which is personal preference because I can. I don't need to try and convince myself that it's better, because I already know it is.

yes, this is quite some trolling:
http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/07/fallacy-of-choice.html
http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/2008/06/good-...-free.html
http://elliotth.blogspot.com/2008/09/linux-de...years.html
etc.

you fail to see his points because he jokes about? typical luser mindset.

see what the problem is about?
if i criticize Linux you attack me for endorsing Windows.. this is really stupid.

do you think i would't want a free reliable OS?
do you think software companies wouldn't want a new reliable platform to write programs/games for and extend their market?

oh wait.. linux is not much of a market, yet. why is that? because it's a gimped OS promoted by zealots who'd churn free crap all day.

Why are you even still responding to me?

I already told you I don't give a shit about the market value of linux. Why can't people make their own decisions without listening to others? This isn't just a problem with the computer world, it's a problem everywhere.

brb using my superior OS

market value of linux comes from its value as a product.
otherwise Firefox would still be stuck bellow 1% with your superior OS

who cares lol, its better

same way a local cafe produces better food than McDonalds, same way an indie artist produces better music than the mainstream, the same way a local office shop gives better service than currys

most people are idiots, so in a way i think im happier they stay the fuck away

ye, agreed with that analogy, but as of now, linux isn't even niche and it's competing more with itself through various distros.

it is more like a do-it-yourself recipe that ends bad anyway, so you might as well not waste time on it, pay for Windows and use free open source software on that (with the expanded possibility of running good quality commercial software/games too).

a market share of 15-20% wouldn't hurt anyone and would provide enough leverage to not feel left out by game devs, software devs and especially hardware companies

the current OS model cannot sustain growth and certainly cannot ask for proper support from those mentioned above because it's too divisive, unfocused and chaotic to be dealt with.

imagine drivers written by hardware companies that actually work. you might not care now, but you will sometimes in the near future when your something-something isn't properly detected or working.

you're more anti-Linux than i am, because you fail to acknowledge these problems to begin with or you simply don't care.

plus, you're a retard.

ironic coming from the guy who spams WORKS4ME NOT RAEL ARGHUMANT11!!1 when somebody tells them their personal preference

linux isn't anywhere near ready for the public, it could possibly be in the future sure, but it won't stop me using it now because I prefer it - fixing a problem here is much faster than fixing a problem in windows, for me at least because the linux way of doing things makes more sense to me than the windows way - because I'm not a peon

now you're just being smug

whatever..

not had a problem in windows for well over 5 years now

same

windows has problems? º_º

OSX86 THE BEST!!!!

windows xp WorksForMe.

I am a computer scientist :D

I use linux for work.
I use linux at work.
I think linux first.

At home I use windows, I play games and watch movies on it and do my photo editing on it, linux-lovers i hate to say this but gimp is light years behind photoshop.





and oh I forgot to mention I ogle at Macs and their users (consists of mostly blond females).

finally a word of reason.

windows for home
osx for work
linux for servers
linux desktop for nerds

linux desktop is pointless for any normal person who can afford to buy a decent commercial desktop os, or savvy enough to download one for free if they cant

Another genial thread, how else? To you people, not this piece of garbage, called...see upstairs.

the band of retards would be incomplete without you and your exercised "ronglish"

mac os ;-D

Its the simple stuff that puts me off linux. Imagine you work on a project and then you have some pc issue and need to fix it. Everyone knows windows so its mostly pretty fast done. Not so in linux.. you have to check a bunch of forums and type in 1000 haxor commands in some terminal to get some simple driver installed.
Or you cant move stuff to an external hdd because you are missing some rights..

Its those small problems that makes you think how the fuck can i work with this seriously?
Except of course you have some IT Department or someone with linux knowledge which you can stress all day with questions..

Its just not user friendly at all

Another thing that seriously puts me off is that most of the linux people are acting like every child could use it... just enter these lines here sudo exec blablah ,/r /w bla blah .. oh and then you have to edit some conf file with these lines.... yeah ok. simple.
Generalising of course but thats the impression i got.. so back to osx/xp for me :)

i think the most annoying part is that people who use it treat Linux like the holy cow of operating systems just because it's free, so it's ok to push it to everyone because they have no right to complain.

the community would burn you at a stake for being critical, much like any respectable religious nut.

also you wouldn't believe the shit these people give even to companies trying to support their elitist OS circle-jerk minority. they would rather blame others for their faulty OS model and lack of compatibility/standards.

the Linux environment sucks as a whole.

sounds pretty much like the quake community, innit

> Its the simple stuff that puts me off linux. Imagine you work on a
> project and then you have some pc issue and need to fix it.
> Everyone knows windows so its mostly pretty fast done.

this statement baffles me. that's one of the main reason i have a hard time dealing with windows. if something serious isn't working you get no information what and where. it's mostly just some standard errormessage that doesn't tell you shit and drives my pulse high as your following trial&error might take you 5mins or 5hours or 5days to figure out. on any other unix derivative it's mostly a matter of minutes by searching for the descriptive error message.

NERD FIGHT lol omg #care diaf get a life fukin nerds xD

play more ntf

Everything is. And if you dont like it do something about it...
Linux as itself is perfect, it's like constructor: you sit and you start programming and make everything what you want out of it. Go ahead do everything you think is missing there... the creators dont complain at all because it was not intended for wide community. It's indeed specific.
Even if you say that you are talking about linux as itself, you have your anchors in windows by which you compare two of them. If you saw it as different objects which are intended to be used in their own ways there would be none as this "article" in your mind.
People tend to be negative about things by talking and thinking instead of putting their positive energy in changing what seems to them "not right".

sry I have real code to write, I just want my os to fucking work ty.

I really really like Arch Linux. I only use it on my laptop right now but it will be a distribution I will continue to use for a long time I feel. I've fucked around with Linux for years and never saw it as a viable option until I found Arch. I will always play Q3 on XP though. I have no desire to use Linux for games.

i recommend SLAX - simple & lightweight. also it is modular and it installs as persistent LiveUSB (you can boot it from a stick and when you exit your settings are saved as usual).

one would expect from a Live USB distro to be really gimped down, but this one proves how much bloatware comes with a regular distro installation.

"The modular approach gives you the ability to include any other software in Slax easily. If you're missing your favourite text editor, networking tool or game, simply download a module with the software and copy it to Slax, no need to install, no need to configure."

if i would have a netbook/ultra portable i'd install this together with my Firefox profile = win

I don't think I would use GNOME or KDE if someone paid me.

While we are at it Monkey_Business rox :)

linux is for systemconfig nerds,
windows & mac os is for people actually using their computer productive.

Yeah, like browsing this website and playing quake and stuff

if u are a kid and play mostly games etc. use windows,
if u are a man, and like the machine, use Linux ;)

ah yes.. the stupid complexity argument
as if windows or mac is only restricted to the bare bones of a standard installation.

but then again.. i understand you compensate the countless hours you have wasted by trying to looking smug/elite

Linux is better than Windows in every aspect, get over yourself deranged lunatic lol.

Except in usercount

:E

Linux in a nutshell (as viewed by Adobe devs trying to figure how to make Flash work on a zillion combinations of sound layers and whatnot):
http://blogs.adobe.com/penguin.swf/linuxaudio.png
(notice the carefully formulated title at the bottom center)

here is the official, more omitting version (in case your Linux propaganda handbook outruled the previous link as "trolling"):
http://www.linuxfoundation.org/images/0/09/Audiostack.png

enjoy your premium for eliteness. i'll be here doing essentially the same thing - using my computer, but with a lot less wasted hours under my belt.

Linux does indeed excel in very specialized ways (on servers, scientific computers, specialized devices), but in now way it is ready for general use on the desktop.

..and this whole thread proves how stupid and reactionary its fanbase is, hence the derogatory newspeak (freetards, FOSStards, open sauce, lunix, lusers, WorksForMe™ etc.)

i hope you burn in dependency hell for your stupidity.

BRB booting into windows, how many times have u heard this on irc ?? :P

Linux is free yea and its good, but I never would use it for gaming, photoshopping, music, movies = everyday use.

If I really need to use it at work/universitity I will use it. But thats it.

I really like that if I find some program and I want it, I just double click exe and it will install.

For that it is free... well I think he who invent "free linux" is idiot. He could have 1000000xxxxxxxxx money and big company. If you see that every server is useing Linux.

Getting rich is not a crime :)

http://paranoidlinux.org/

#86 They already have linux you pay for, its called unix or OSX.

As a developer, Linux if you stick to something with support, something like Centos (basically RHEL) is an amazing OS which offers a load of performance benefit, especially when compared to Windows or OSX.

Quite frankly as an operating system to use on a day to day basis (IM/chat/gaming), Linux can be painful to use, problems with drivers, figuring out dependencies for compiling something from source and indeed compiling something from source and mishmashing it together with packaged applications can be horrible.

I would however like to point out that if it wasn't for Linux, it would be a lot more difficult for amateur developers to both write and deploy applications. I myself would never use Windows for programming and would definitely not use OSX for deployment (even though I write applications using OSX).

Linux offers people a free alternative to unix and thats what it should be seen as, you should consider it as a stable alternative to Windows with the ability to be a lot more if you have the patience to deal with it.

Er you got it backwards, theres a free version of unix called linux, not the other way around

Read it again.

just finished reading a preview for the new versions of Ubuntu and Fedora. while the new features sound like real improvements, they should really, really look into the visuals as well (and not in the moronic overdone "look i'm spinning a cube with motion blur" kind of way).

i mean.. Fedora manages to look uglier than (the unchanged) Ubuntu this time around, now that's a great feat!

Ubuntu: http://arstechnica.com/news.media/screenshot66.png
Fedora: http://arstechnica.com/news.media/screenshot67.png

the colors and UI inconsistencies made me think way back, to the times of Win 3.1

also in the Ubuntu screenshot there are so many pixels wasted on dead space in the GNOME interface it's not even funny. drop the height on those elements ffs! even the alignment is sloppy..

which begs the question: what are they thinking?
the nerd segment is already settled (tho i'm not sure in favor of whom), their selling point atm should be the interface.. how about trying?

openbox, fluxbox, e17. Fuck all the other window managers.

If the UI means so much, then use OSX.

Even then you do realise, that OSX is basically BSD with a very fancy UI.

it's not about what i use.

it's about how linux fails to deliver after all these years even in the most superficial kind of way.

i've seen UI mockups lightyears away from the current GNOME/ugly colour scheme combinations..

it's like the wrong people are doing the UI part.

i think linux is in many aspects very interesting for someone that wants to get the most experience out of an OS and is not shy at learning things that go beyond point and click.
then it can become an ultimative tool to be very productive.

you can get advanced knowledge with windows as well but the edge isn't that high to an intermediate user because windows attempts to hide everything and it's _not_ easy to get to know how things are done sometimes.

i especially love the one-tool-one-job philosophy where you can chain them and do exactly what you want in a matter of seconds (and some trivial scripting knowledge).

one tool for one job? that's like aquashark being paid to sit on a broomstick, right?

OP fails:
----
the failure of Linux is best expressed by the market growth of MacOS, a commercial operating system tied to Apple hardware..
----
MacOS is based on Unix with various modifications. Way to fuck that point up.

----
maybe it has something to do with that disfunctional decade old clipboard system they still insist using (if you close the application from which you copied something, you can't paste anymore.. amazing :D)
----

Funny, it works for me. Oh wait:

http://linuxhaters.blogspot.com/ - funny blog about Linux clusterfuck / lusers / FOSStards / WorksForMe™

Sorry, force of habit probably.

----
not to mention from a (commercial) software dev's point of view: the wasted man hours for making your application work for every distro that tries so desperate to be different in all the wrong/meaningless ways (compatibility that will most like break in the next distro version anyway, so they just release the app for Windows/Mac and call it a day).
----
If you're (game developers) having problems making your application work with every distro available, you're doing it wrong. Go back and learn ANSI C, etc. This of course assumes a high level language, something OP wouldn't know about. Furthermore, try to understand *WHY* a distribution is different before you assume that they're all so different that a game developer can't properly write code to accompany all the distributions. Hey, look they all use the LINUX KERNEL, something Nvidia has support for.

----
or maybe it has something to do with all those "oh so different, but do we really need so many?" distros that insist in using different xorgs, kernels, libraries, sound systems (all of which are broken), compiler flags etc. that break Linux apps to the point it's better to use their Windows counterparts through Wine
----

It's clear you have no idea what you talk about. Different xorgs? It's called patching and it's done for a reason. Different kernels sort of adheres with the basic principle that underlying bugs in the Operating System should preferably be fixed with new support for technology added. By the way, if you're fucking with compiler flags and something breaks, that's your own fault. Be a game developer or a user. Learn what the hell you're doing before you do it.

Granted, I can understand why gamers don't understand Linux and gripe about it, which is clear by the way OP tried to express his points, but learn a little something before you start a debate about Linux.

Edit: done with this thread. Reason: OP is a complete idiot.

MacOS is based on Unix with various modifications. Way to fuck that point up.

no shit.

my point was: people would pay a premium price for a Unix-like OS that comes attached with expensive hardware, rather than just use a free OS with any hardware they want. do you see the failure now?

way to make yourself look stupid.

didn't bother to read the rest as it's really bad structured (use [quote] kthxbye). i assume it's full of the standard failing of luser mindset (boohoo! the devs/users are too blame)

Using 'bad structure' as an argument. That's beautiful. You know what you sound like? Like a flailing arms little girl screaming, bitching and covering its ears going "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUU".

keep reflecting to this post: http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1619907#pid1619907

linux is usable, as long as you are not a power user or a gamer,
and you don't need the newest hardware, because it's unlikely the newest hardware comes with linux support.
Good appz cost money and good appz are mostly only written for windows, besides graphics/video appz are sometimes also avaible for mac.
If you want to surf the web or write letters or do anything with the computer on a casual basis, linux is still good for you,
otherwise if the stuff you does not include programming,
but graphics, videoediting, music, gamez, whatever (for example chess!), windows/mac is the way to go.

i tried to switch to linux several times in the last years and failed. It was either my Dual Monitor setup not working right, or Bluetooth or soemthing else and i didnt have the time to fix stuff.

But now i acutally made the switch to Ubuntu Hardy and am very pleased with it. All of my hardware worked out of the box and the whole system is alot faster than windows. I am not a gamer anymore though, i use this pc only for working (developing software) and Ubuntu gives me all i need...for developing its far superior to windows because you can have all the server apps on your local PC.

By now i even think that the Linux Desktop (gnome in my case) is better than windows. Its way more customizable, the fact to have 4 workspaces by the press of a button alone makes it really cool to work on, and i looks cool because of nice 3d effects that even run on low end hardware :)

I miss photoshop a bit, other than that i have all the tools i need, and im glad that i finally made the switch because its a BIG PLUS to have Linux skills as a web developer ;)

sounds like you should try osx

you get all that stuff + photoshop

i've heard photoshop cs3 runs in wine however i do not know how well. you could always use virtualbox too

efix dongle

for me im using both windows and linux on my desktop (at the same time, via xdmcp. see here ). each has their use. im sure i could be reasonably fine in linux, most games i play can run in wine/cedega or have native versions (e.g. quake games). however windows has many programs that wont work well in linux and to no fault to linux. Linux wasnt designed to adhere to the windows api, thats wine's job.

however, the notion that windows is superior to linux as a desktop is pretty pathetic. these days linux is just as capable of being a desktop os as windows is and has programs that can do pretty much anything windows programs can do with the exception of unsupported hardware (which isnt a big deal compared to a more obscure oses like the bsds, beos, etc.)

linux is much more suited for a server than windows though although even then i would rather use freebsd than either of them.

i've always been bewildered and amazed by lusers masking the blatant disabilities of Linux with ignorant comments about outdated win problems/crashes/blue screens, conspiracy theories and "you don't really need that" remarks..

while some linux users are idiots (and clearly some windows users in this case such as you) the fact is that windows does have problems/crashes/blue screens. just the other day one of my neighbors came over and asked me to look at their computer. i asked what the problem was before going over there and they described a bsod so i told them to restart the computer and that its normal. and this was windows xp, so not really outdated (im not going to vouch for vista because frankly i dont use it and probably never will). while linux has less, it does too. in fact, probably the only operating systems that dont crash are the ones used by nasa or the military for mission-critical systems which cant afford to crash

this thread is not about Linux vs Windows, it's about Linux vs common sense, Linux vs itself: lack of standards and coherent effort of the Linux scene to break the barrier between them and the real world.

Lack of standards? You should look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_standard_base
and i use linux and im not part of this so called barrier breaking attempt to bring linux to the desktop. In fact i'd rather they just keep using windows if it works fine for them.

Also

to keep retards away

its alittle late seeing as how you're here posting this massive attempt to troll about something you seem to know jack shit about.

oh and those two links are just toll blogs like this thread is

you basically said the same shit as every luser in this thread and called me a troll

i really don't give a shit anymore. you're really worse even than the clueless anti-xerp retards who'd rather gimp the netcode instead of fixing the game.

oh and about LSB, Jeff Bailey (LSB steering committee member) replied in the comments to the post (he might have find the article relevant.. oh noes!!) and this is the follow up.

and if you call these articles trolling:
http://elliotth.blogspot.com/2008/08/desktop-...board.html
http://elliotth.blogspot.com/2008/09/desktop-...rcise.html
http://elliotth.blogspot.com/2008/08/desktop-...hmbox.html

you must be retarded.. that dude not only is a knowledgeable veteran Linux user, he's a good software dev too.. check his other entries, because his blog is not dedicated to "hating" (criticizing) Linux

im not going to argue the fact that LSB is at the moment useless but it has potential. the only link i looked at was the clipboard though and surprisingly my clipboard works fine. in fact. the only time i would ever have a problem was when copying and pasting from linux to windows over tightvnc. so that guy is doing something wrong. its not hard to highlight then click the middle of the mouse

oh and btw jeff bailey doesnt speak for everyone who uses linux or foss

err.. if you don't understand that clipboard article you have no idea what you're talking about and shouldn't be defending Linux at all.

it's about the clipboard model.. not about someone who can't copy/paste.

you didn't even read it through to get to the more obvious problem: if you close the application from which you copied something, you can't paste anymore.

and what exactly is so hard about leaving a program open....?

if linux's clipboard model is the only fucking problem you can think of youre an idiot

the clipboard was just a simple example how linux insists in decade old models (early 90's) that don't match the user's need. it's an unwanted "feature" propagated by god knows what obscure nerdy reasoning

want a summary of current linux problems?

- audio systems are broken (all of them)
- compatibility with older distros/programs almost nonexistant (you have to upgrade the whole OS just to use a new Firefox version, old programs don't work because they're compiled with different versions of glibc/whatnot.. and don't tell me to compile them myself)
- desktop environments are fugly with poor usability (tons of screen space wasted with poor aligned/streamlined UI elements, ugly fonts with inconsistent sizes....)
- terminal+config editing in the 21th century
- a bajillion distros all failing in their own way, all striving to be different the wrong way
- a moronic overzealous community with a propaganda machine more hideous than scientology.. willing to hide the dirt under the rug and attack others work rather than be blunt and open to criticism
etc.

- my audio works fine. i've used alsa or oss or alsa with oss and numerous sound servers or none at all with no problems.

- even windows has compatibility problems with older versions of itself. so much so to create an entire subsystem for it. oh and you should compile it yourself and not be lazy

- which desktop environment? there are tons ot choose from. this is completely opinion based. im not a huge fan of kde or gnome but e17, fluxbox, blackbox, jwm, etc. are fine for me.

- terminal/config editing. you can use linux without ever editing a single config file if you use a distro like linspire. not to mention you even have to edit files in windows at times (in many cases i'm having to change the registry which is essentially a giant config file)

- arch linux isnt failing at all. and thats what im using.

- windows and mac have the same problem. in fact so does quake, and halo, and counter-strike, etc.

you seem to still miss a fundamental thing about linux. the people who put their effort into making something dont want/care about your criticism for the most part because frankly. if theres a problem you can go fix it yourself

- my audio doesn't work fine.. in Ubuntu i get better sound in Quake3 running the win32 version through WINE. in Fedora sound doesn't work at all because it's officially known as broken for a lot of sound chips. when sound does work i can't listen to music while playing a game.. or have sound in two apps at the same time.

have you seen the forking mess of those audio libs? freedom proves rather restrictive in that area.. if only they'd concentrate their efforts on 2-3 audio sound systems..

- the compatibility issues are driven by the dependency environment in which the pogram was compiled (kernel, gcc, glibc, libstdc++, coreutils etc.) combined with the short distro life cycles that don't ever look back..

instead of having a lowest common denominator for decent app compatibility then adding layers of bleeding edge crap on top, they just simply prefer to break all compatibility.

imagine you're a commercial software company. having to revive your apps every new distro release means unnecessary costs..

Linux has a negligible market value so nobody cares to fix/maintain their drivers or apps just because some nerds broke compatibility and now they're whining like it's your fault.. fuck that!

it's a vicious circle at the end of the day.

- which desktop environment? every single one of them is a sketchy, tasteless pos that would've sucked even in the 90's.

- editting xorg.conf just to change my screen resolution and refresh rate or editting fstab to mount my hard drives isn't quite comparable with the times when you have to edit registry in Windows

as of right now im using my arch linux box as a desktop because my windows box's psu died.

i dont use ubuntu or fedora but my sound setup is alsa + dmix which is working just fine and i have 2 soundcards (one usb one onboard each used for various things)

as for compatibility. even windows has compatibility problems with older versions of programs and you know what? most of the time you cant even find the sourcecode for them to try to compile them yourself anyways. As for now i seriously never have compatibility problems with applications and im using arch which has the latest updates almost always (although in most cases precompiled for the distro similar to rpms or debs).

As for changing resolutions once you have the resolutions setup in your config you dont need to restart X and even if you havent done that yet xorgcfg -textmode in an xterm then ctrl+alt+backspace and you still havent actually hand edited the config file.

nvidia manages to keep their drivers compatible almost all the time btw by compiling the parts of the driver during installation. how hard was that? and really thats the only non-free driver i think i've ever had to use in linux. ever.

have you seen the forking mess of those audio libs? freedom proves rather restrictive in that area.. if only they'd concentrate their efforts on 2-3 audio sound systems..

Who is THEY? you act as if linux is a company. Not to mention theres really only 2-3 sound systems actively used anyways. Alsa + Dmix + oss compatibility. or oss and vmix which works well. or god forbid you go buy a $10 soundcard with hardware mixing such as the soundblaster live 5.1

Im not going to say sound in linux is perfect but its far from what you describe it as

as for desktop environments well. If you really feel that every single interface in linux ever made is bad then maybe you should use the windows xp interface (See Here). point is. everyone has their own opinion of things and in my opinion e17 + compiz will beat anything on windows xp or vista

oh and the whole idea behind linux and foss is that if you dont like something you CAN CHANGE IT. In fact, if you dont like linux then DONT USE IT, To sit here and bitch about it is pointless, shut up, use something else, or go fix things you think are problems

its about choice. your acting as if people are forcing you to use linux (which they in fact arent)

so all the people developing linux now are that useless? can't they figure out common sense, what most people want?

why promote/defend linux and then tell your mom/non-tech savy friend/neighbor to code what they want? what's your point anyway? just to be clear: you want linux to grow or not?

i dont care if linux grows or not. the whole reason people use linux is not because its easy to use but because you're given the freedom to choose what you want to do with it.

also notice how i DONT promote it to friends or family. they're perfectly fine on windows.

so whats your arguement here. because theres some problems in linux we should all not use it?

freedom to use my programs and hardware at full potential > freedom of a gimped OS designed by unidimensional autistic nerds

if you dont know how to configure your shit then you should probably stick to windows. especially these days where udev practically loads all your hardware for you

heres pretty much exactly my stance on linux on the desktop

its alittle out of date but 100% relevant to what were discussing
http://desktoplinux.com/articles/AT7702650846.html

so really linux is ready for the desktop if YOURE ready to set it up which most people arent and why they should just stick to windows for the time being.

Mark Shuttleworth actually proposed coordinating the release cycles of Ubuntu with other mainstream distros, like Fedora/Red Hat/et al, with the intent of working together to share kernel/gcc/library versions to mak ethings more compatible. Unfortunately, his proposal was pretty well rejected by other distros...

nice freedom.

also.. how about Jeff Bailey + Miguel de Icaza (see #119)

i won't plough through the internet to find out what other major devs saw LinuxHater's Blog relevant to endorse it.. this oughta be enough

dos 3.0 didnt crash

I just installed archlinux and I'm fucking loving it.

cause its the best :)... other than freebsd of course

Miguel de Icaza is a free software programmer, best known for starting the GNOME and Mono projects.

http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2008/Jun-12-1.html

I love the LinuxHater's Blog. This is a must-read RSS feed.

It is funny in a way that xkcd is funny to Unixers. Whoever is writing that blog has extensive experience on Linux and enviable writing skills.

A first class grilling/roasting of Linux and the Linux community. It should help keep things in perspective.

Some good starting points: (list of articles he liked at the time)

if even fucking Miguel, the G-N-O-M-E founder, appreciates the points in that blog.. stop being so self-sufficient, ignorant and most of all: brainwashed.

the opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference.
at this point Linux needs more tough love.

i rest my case.

http://www.lynucs.org/index.php?p=apps
for an impression how cool linux can look

I'm using linux oon 5 machines in my house, 4 of them being dedicated "special" machines with very special purposes:

1) is dedicated to being a video disk recorder for satellite tv. It uses proprietary PC based hardware once designed by a company with a windows based OS that ultimately failed. It is now very cheap on ebay and a perfect base for a linux based OS (and since VDR is the best and most stable app available for all platforms when it comes to a video disk recorder that just works and doesn't annoy with strange crashes, the OS choice was pretty easy here. Especially since it can be booted from the network, making it completely diskless).

2) My Data-Server. Most of the stuff I use it for can be done for example with a windows machine. But if you ever tried administrating a windows machine over the internet with sometimes slow connections, you will very soon be fond of the power a linux shell gives you - and with the whole OS being controllable with that shell, you don't ever need to touch the machine itself. It also backups my Emails from my IMAP server, serves as a webserver with transparent proxy configuration for several different webpages/webinterfaces, download server and boot-server for my VDR machine, see 1). Of course it also supplies the network data storage for the VDR to record it's stuff to.

3) My HTPC. This is arguably the weakest link in my Linux chain - since the ati drivers still suck ass for HTPC usage, the video tearing is annoying as hell. Still it is the OS with the fastest achievable boot times for the sole purpose of being a HTPC. That and the fact I can easily utilize the processor power it has with some nice X-Forwarding stuff over the network is the reason I still boot Linux on it as the primary OS, although windows in this case has the upper hand.
Nevertheless, this part could easily be taken over by a machine running any OS - as long as XBMC starts without user interaction, because controlling a HTPC with a mouse or keyboard just sucks - this has to be remote control driven.

4) My main computer, a subnotebook hooked up to a 24" lcd. This only really works because of one reason: I don't need photoshop newer than cs2 and foobar2000 runs acceptably under wine. I don't play games - so it's more important for me that it boots fast and satisfies my needs as a nerd *g*. If I would give this machine in the state it is to friends of mine who only use the browser and every 2 months an office tool, they would be satisfied too, so that's also something every OS can achieve, so why would I take the route and buy one, as long as it does what I need.

5) My network wireless router. No real OS choice here since it is a linux based firmware replacement that gives me ultimate control over the firewall and the traffic shaping scripts - something I need in our flat here, if 3 people want to use the internet together, while managing downloads, games, video streams and skype connections. It also makes a great way to forward ports from the outside to my PCs over a secure shell link giving me access to all my PCs when I am at university with my notebook for example.

So all in all - would I recommend somebody to switch to linux completely ? No, why should he - if he has to switch he already has bought a OS, directly or indirectly and that OS most probably does everything he needs, alot of stuff better and easier to configure than linux. But if you have alot of special purpose machines, don't do much but surfing the web, chatting and listening to music - then linux doesn't really fall short, it can do all those things without being a pain in the ass.
If you want to play computer games, stay with windows.
If you have the money, buy an apple - but don't be surprised when the only music player you will ever see is Itunes and don't be surprised that you can't give anybody the music on your ipod without him installing Itunes himself - apple aren't exactly interested in you using their products without being chained to their other products ;) Let's see when they get sued in the EU for that, just like microsoft :D

yeah, for dedicated devices Linux is very good (servers, scientific machines etc.)

when it comes to general purpose desktops it becomes a rough ride
like i said.. the ever changing environment leads to companies not being able to port/support their work without huge costs.

too many distros, too many sound systems, too many libraries.. all randomly breaking compatibility with new versions.. you can't predict the costs, you can't run a business in this sector.

to this you can add an irational resent of closed-source software by the Linux community who delude themselves with an open-source only utopia, when actually some of the good open-source software out there isn't really "free" because for example Mozilla's Foundation devs are getting paid for their work.

if commercial companies can't sustain business on Linux, then the platform isn't really free, is it? a great deal of choices being removed by default.

btw, let's not spread false information (like typical Linux users do sadly):

- OSX has a good deal of commercial & open source alternatives for default pre-installed software. here's an example: http://www.opensourcemac.org/

- iTunes sellls DRM-free music now, that you can play under any program on any device.

I know there are opensource alternatives on the mac, my flatmate owns a mac mini :) But if you have ever filled an Ipod with music and tried to get that music off of the ipod on a PC that doesn't have itunes installed you would know exactly what I mean ;) All songs get renamed to some stupid filename like 000001111aAABDSDadasd.mp3 and written to a database, as if you couldn't give them sensible names and a sensible directory structure if you use a database as your backend for information in the first place. I really, really despise apple, not because of their OS, OSX seems like a great OS for people who don't have the need for customization and just want that everything works as painlessly as possible. It is their philosophy that is even worse than microsoft - everything should be from apple, protocoll standards don't really matter, they will be supported but if somehow possible be replaced by proprietary technologie that is better suited for their plan on world domination with apple products ;)
You are of course correct that linux as a desktop PC has ALOT of problems that make it hard to develop for from companies that try to sell software for money. It is just a dependency hell right now. But I am not sure if it is fair to compare it to closed OS software from one developer: those have the enormous advantage of having one leader (or let's say one group of leaders), having a defined structure on the company and a basic set of design rules everyone MUST adhere too. Try doing that in the linux world, it is not possible and it throws linux back of course in a certain way. But the upside of that is, that you get alot of different projects that in the long run will probably benefit each other - it just might take them alot longer than the big companies :)

i have an iPod and i don't use iTunes (which is the worst pos ever)

i use Xplay (a Windows Explorer extension that allows you to copy/paste music in the iPod directly like on any USB stick).

Attached Image: 67336-xplay.jpg (201KB)

Your missing my point ;) Of course there are better alternatives, there are even some (a foobar2k plugin for example, called foo_pod) that change the filenames to something sane and then update the database so itunes still works with that damn thing, in the case a friend of yours is a "normal" mac user who never isntalled a custom app in his life ;)
That doesn't make the standards better though - and knowing apple this will get worse in the future :D

truth is simple users like your friend don't want to choose, they take "choice" over "just working for my needs" in an instant

as long as people who want to choose have choices, it's all good..

most software that comes with XP by default is garbage (Internet Explorer, MS Paint, Defrag program etc.). i don't even use their simple programs like Notepad.. i prefer the open source Notepad++ way better

i can choose the best of both worlds: commercial apps (games, professional programs) & freeware/open-source