This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Operating System Poll; Linux Questions

#31Orestes417Posted 8/5/2013 4:03:03 PM
Basically I'd put it like this. If you have a system in place that works for what you need, then "switching" for any reason other than expanding your skillset is little more than a lark. It's not pointless, but it is probably aimless. Keeping your options open is never a bad thing though.
---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.
#32Killah PriestPosted 8/5/2013 4:05:42 PM
I think windows XP was the best OS to be honest.

I had no problems with vista, 7, or 8 either tho but XP had longevity.
---
Laugh, and the world laughs with you. Weep, and you weep alone.
The armory of god is guarding me but all you can see is holographic artistry.
#33eragonman9(Topic Creator)Posted 8/5/2013 5:20:44 PM
Golden Maven posted...
Fair enough. TC never did say what he was trying to do. That's why I was making the point that Linux might be a total waste of time.


I like to change things up every once in a while, and I just wanted to use Linux for a while. I didn't really have any specific goal other than running a new OS in a non-permanent way.
---
*poke* *jiggle*
http://i.imgur.com/7uRLQ1E.png http://i.imgur.com/DrEfjso.png http://i.imgur.com/jm0j6t7.png
#34Digital StormPosted 8/5/2013 5:38:57 PM
Some things are just plain easier on a *nix machine. But then again, I've been using it for fourteen years now so I'm just more productive on a CLI than with Windows.
---
Ooo eee, oo ah ah, ting tang, walla walla bing bang.
#35New LinkPosted 8/6/2013 7:48:49 PM
Digital Storm posted...
Some things are just plain easier on a *nix machine. But then again, I've been using it for fourteen years now so I'm just more productive on a CLI than with Windows.


Between being able to string commands together, piping output, and generally being able to script any task imaginable. Once you learn a few bash commands and a few operators, it's hard to be anywhere near as productive on a non-unix system. I haven't owned a mac since before OSX, and use a windows box at work (vendor lock-in) ... but even in the completely foreign GUI on a mac, i can still do everything i need to a lot faster as it has a true shell. Powershell is a big step forward for windows, I use it daily, but it's a laughable excuse for a shell in comparison.

Windows has Active Directory... that's a pretty nice tool that was better than any linux alternative.... until samba4 was released earlier this year.

Honestly aside from the gaming catalogue and vendor lock-in (ie, Ie only websites, .net webapps, etc. (I blame IE6 for the mess on the intranet, the internet isn't so bad) I cannot fathom a reason to use windows. It's slower, less stable, less customizable, has built-in back doors, is more difficult to work with, and more prone to infection than the bubbleboy. "Oh, the. net application on this website autoloaded a rootkit on my machine without prompt!" "Oh, a java memory buffer overflow virus in a banner ad, better run that!"

I do have a certain love for MsOffice, having vba built into each application is very convenient, but if you arent using the vba scripting that's built in there really is no reason to choose it over libreoffice, as it's perfectly capable of creating documents that render in a standard format as opposed to differently depending on the version you have installed.

Windows still has a lock in the office-space due to the residue left by IE6, and it will likely remain that way for a while, but more and more I go out and see people running linux on their laptops, and the desktop space is the only market that linux hasnt completely dominated (phones, embedded devices, servers, etc) yet. As people become more aware and vendors continue selling linux devices ootb, we could see that change.

The lock on the desktop market is simple, people go to the store, best buy, walmart, etc. They have two options, a wide range of windows boxes, or some mac boxes. Should that third option be available what would happen? "Wait, you mean I can buy a computer with this 'mint' operating system, have none of the problems that come with windows, and not have to spend 1,300 on a macintosh netbook?"
---
-SNES- Hasta Pasta!
Sieh nur wie ich laufen kann... Mich fängst du nicht, ich bin der Lebkuchenmann!
#36Pako PakoPosted 8/6/2013 9:32:09 PM(edited)
Orestes417 posted...
Oh and don't use Wubi. Period. I've never seen a case where it's been used that wouldn't have been better off with a proper install or a VM.

WUBI is decent as an alternative to running Linux off a liveCD (the longer WUBI "install time" offsets the wait when you run programs off the CD) and is a bit more straightforward than arranging a Virtual Machine, but yes, a proper full-install is always better.

I would suggest Xubuntu (XP-esque), Mint (between XP/Win7), or Ubuntu (MacOS/XP).

Golden Maven posted...
What is it about Linux that's better for home use? I believe that's what we're talking about. I'm not trying to be an ass, I always have an open ear. I honestly have yet to find a compelling reason to use Linux on a home computer.

Like Lonestar mentioned, older systems run a LOT faster with Linux. I'm still using my 2001 laptop for movies, browsing, and Flash games just as easily as a 2011 machine. Linux for newer hardware... that's more of a risk since most hardware is tested for Windows first. (and even that OS is a gamble). And cutting edge gaming? Like the Mac/PC webcomic, that's still all Win.

Price-wise, that $300 2011-model Win8 laptop from BestBuy? You could pay $100 on Craigslist for it and get a fresh Linux install, or put up the $300 and dual-boot/format, or go to HP/DELL's online/phone-order and ask for an OS-less model for less.

Going online, common-sense sometimes goes out the window. Being the more popular OS, Windows has waves of malware to be exposed to. Some people might not recognize a pop-up or pop-in, and NoScript still has flaws. (Some sites, like Intuit, won't work with scripting globally enabled. I have Chrome installed for that.)

*nix isn't perfect. I still have some hardware conflicts, bugs, lock-ups... but the machines all start-up into Linux faster, run multiple desktops without lag, and generally handle similar tasks (e.g. image editing, office work) better without buying additional software. (e.g. Adobe Photoshop, MS Office Suite Pro, etc.)

Golden Maven posted...
That's actually a fair point. I guess I'll admit I don't trust myself with Linux. Windows is a beast I've been taming since 3.1. I consider myself above average with Windows and feel pretty comfortable setting someone up with it.

A valid reason -- stick with what you know. I'd still use XP (nlite FTW!) if my machines were optimized for it (some are too new, others too old); quite a few users online probably still have it running.

I mean, there's no reason for me to suddenly use MacOS even though it's more cutting-edge. It does the same job, but feels bery different. Still, some common ground exists between all the major OS types: Anti-viruses, firewalls, browsers, etc. and most of them are usually provided with a central repository ("Windows update," "Apple Software update," "Ubuntu Software Center") to give you some up-to-date basic programs. (Spreadsheets, movie-players, etc.)

eragonman9 posted...
I didn't really have any specific goal other than running a new OS in a non-permanent way.

Try a liveCD, or a really small distro like Puppy (which acts a lot like the old 9.x MacOS) that can load entirely into your RAM.
---
-=PakoPako=- (Proud member of board 917023!)
"This was brought to you by FRUNGY, the Sport of Kings!"
#37Golden MavenPosted 8/7/2013 3:23:55 PM(edited)
There's definitely something sturdy about Linux. I always got the feeling like you could give it to the most unsafe user in the world and they couldn't mess it up.

With Windows, all you need to do is run the wrong .exe and all hell breaks loose. My reaction to a lot of issues with Windows is just to reformat. It's probably less time consuming than trying to pin down the problem and clean up the mess.

Pako Pako posted...
Linux for newer hardware... that's more of a risk since most hardware is tested for Windows first. (and even that OS is a gamble).


Interesting comment. I wish distros would adopt the latest kernel faster, because that's what seems to hold things back.

AMD released the source to UVD, which is a big boost for Linux. Unfortunately, you need to be running the latest kernel, and play around with some commands to get it working. It might take months before we see a distro with that functionality built-in.
#38Orestes417Posted 8/7/2013 3:32:02 PM(edited)
Any rolling release distro should have it very quickly after release and you can always compile your own or find 3rd party repositories. The reason more traditional distros don't update fast is for testing and support. That and some of them have a habit of patching the hell out of their kernels.

You want up-to-date software and relative ease of use, you should be looking at OpenSUSE's Tumbleweed.

---
If they asked how I died tell them: Still angry.
#39Kerr AvonPosted 8/8/2013 10:46:47 AM
This is hardly a fair poll, since most people on this board won't have much experience with non-Windows PC operating systems. I've not voted, as I'm almost totally inexperienced with Linux or anything other than Windows, DOS 6.22, or (very slightly) Windows 3.1.

If I did vote it would probably be for Windows 7, which I think is maybe the best Windows OS ever (I prefer XP in some ways, Windows 7 in others), though since it is a Windows OS, it is cursed with bloat-ware, annoying faults, and other problems. It's a million times better than Windows 95/95 though...
---
"PCs don't catch viruses or malware. Stupid users do." - The Cranky Hermit.
For all things N64: http://z9.invisionfree.com/Nintendo_64_Forever/