Sign in to follow this  
lride

Who uses linux?

Recommended Posts

tstrimp    1798
How cute. Did I said that there were no graphical network managers? That I was forced by the evil Linus Torvalds to use the console? No. There are quite a few, tried 2 or 3 that I found on Synaptic and didn't found one that I liked so I did all the work on my own.

 

As I said, you could grab a Gnome (or KDE, or Unity, or whatever Mint uses) desktop environment and have all the graphical utilities you'd want, I simply choose not to and travel the rough path to see if I could learn something.

 

But bash the OS for my personal choices! I sometimes use the console on Windows too, must be a pretty archaic OS too right? Ooooh, spooky cmd!

 

You misunderstand. I'm not bashing Linux, I'm bashing your personal choices. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DigitalSavior    192
Out of interest when was the last time you installed Windows?

I have to agree that installing Windows is not something for beginners though. Recently I installed Windows 7 three times on two different machines. So that is twice on one PC on the same day, as after installing some weird error came up that even the helpdesk didn't know how to fix, so the advice was to just wipe the harddrive and install again. On the second machine installing went fine, until installing some additional software (ironically with Microsofts own installer) failed because it had no access to write to C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu. Right, Windows installer not having permission to add icons to the start menu, after a fresh install. Luckily there was a solution, involving either changing advanced user account control properties of a hidden folder (good luck for beginners) or entering a number of obscure command line commands (good luck for beginners). Installing Windows 8 luckily goes a lot faster, and except for the blue screen of death that showed every time you booted it up it worked perfectly. So in the end, out of four clean Windows installations, just one went correctly. And still some people claim Windows is easy....

 

I've installed Windows Vista, 7 and 8 multiple times over the past year on computers and VMs.  Not one problem aside from getting the correct ethernet driver from a vendor's site.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowomf    323
I think you can use any other Server OS as well and it will not crash anyways. I run a root server for years now with linux installed. We never had a crash, only scheduled maintenance. So Linux is not either a crashing OS.
Oh no, sorry I wasn't saying Linux does crash. I was just referring to a previous post where somebody claimed Windows as a Server sucks because it does crash regulary.
I know Linux can run years 24/7, as many other server OS, that's what they are made for.

1) Starts and runs slower than Mint.
Same Hardware? Else the comparison is pretty pointless.

4) Insists on being rebooted after every damn update (a problem that gets a bit worse since i sometimes only boot Windows at work once or twice per week and thus usually have a bunch of important updates waiting for me)
What makes people do that. I know many that only put their device in suspended mode, claiming that it takes too long to boot.
My suggestions:
  • Don't install a bunch off crap that you aren't even using. Especially things that start with Windows, add tray icons, uneccessary services, desktop widgets or toolbars...
  • Get yourself a SSD!
Edited by shadowomf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chad Smith    1343
<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="JinixVomitorium" data-cid="5017534" data-time="1357339098"><p>
Linux is just about the best OS out there. It will run many MS programs through WINE, and if it wont run, there are several substitute softwares. The best Linux distros ive used sofar are... ubunt(before version 10.10) , Linux MINT, Crunchbang. Every since i switched to linux back in 205ish... i've found it very difficult to chang back to windows. and well... Mac OS is for losers.</p></blockquote>

I just believe this post screams fanboy. While a topic like this will have to do about opinion so a little fanboy will come out. Though yours IMO just screams it.

1: your main argument for making it better is that it can run windows programs through wine? Don't see how it makes it a better OS.

2: your ending of Mac OSX is for losers screams it even more and makes your points null.

Their are pros and cons for every OS. Their are something's I feel OSX does better than both Linux and Windows. At the same time Linux has some things that I tend to like more than the other OS's. Windows also does stuff well (obvious with how popular it is). Saying an OS is for losers screams fanboy and IMO makes any point you have null.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribad    981

My suggestions:

  • Don't install a bunch off crap that you aren't even using. Especially things that start with Windows, add tray icons, uneccessary services, desktop widgets or toolbars...
  • Get yourself a SSD!
 

For not installing a bunch off crap like you name it you need more insight into the system and what is needed and what not. The tray thingi is another point that needs more knowledge than many W-users do not have.
I am on your side to say that W is easy to install as long as everything works fine, specially that all devices drivers are working, the disk and network drivers at the first.
If you need a network driver first and you have no second machine to download and prepare the installation you are lost. Had that with a WinXP installation and a 3com 1GB Fibre interface that is not supported out of the box, and I do not expected it.

Why should I use a SSD? To startup faster? And to shutdown the machine completely?

I think it is a good thing anyways to shutdown a workstation and poweroff. My household gets cut off at the end of the day except the fridge. It saves me a lot of money along the year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SimonForsman    7642
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="shadowomf" data-cid="5018116"><p><br /></p><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Tribad" data-cid="5017715"><p>I think you can use any other Server OS as well and it will not crash anyways. I run a root server for years now with linux installed. We never had a crash, only scheduled maintenance. So Linux is not either a crashing OS.</p></blockquote>Oh no, sorry I wasn't saying Linux does crash. I was just referring to a previous post where somebody claimed Windows as a Server sucks because it does crash regulary.<br />I know Linux can run years 24/7, as many other server OS, that's what they are made for.<br /><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SimonForsman" data-cid="5017722"><p>1) Starts and runs slower than Mint.</p></blockquote>Same Hardware? Else the comparison is pretty pointless.<br /><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="SimonForsman" data-cid="5017722"><p>4) Insists on being rebooted after every damn update (a problem that gets a bit worse since i sometimes only boot Windows at work once or twice per week and thus usually have a bunch of important updates waiting for me)</p></blockquote>What makes people do that. I know many that only put their device in suspended mode, claiming that it takes too long to boot.<br />My suggestions:<ul class="bbc"><li>Don't install a bunch off crap that you aren't even using. Especially things that start with Windows, add tray icons, uneccessary services, desktop widgets or toolbars...</li><li>Get yourself a SSD!</li></ul> <br /><p><br /></p></blockquote><br />
Its my work machine, same hardware, no crap installed, just the essentials i need to actually do my work (The Linux system has far more software and services installed),
an SSD is pretty much out of the question since both operating systems run more than fast enough and i need the extra space (its a laptop, if i swap to a SSD i'll have to put most of my data on a external USB or network drive instead which would be a royal pain in the ass),
also: i just said that Windows was slower than Mint, not that it was too slow to be used.

The reason i only boot Windows once or twice per week is because Mint is the more productive enviroment for me(I could probably learn how to use powershell, install a working desktop enviroment, the default one in Win7 is lacking too many basic usability features like window grouping, multiple desktops, etc (if it does have them i have no idea how to enable them), etc, for Windows aswell but i just don't see the point when Mint has what i want either out of the box or a few commands away and i've been using Linux for so long that i feel more comfortable using it, heck i don't even know where to start looking to get the functionality i want in Windows). Edited by SimonForsman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why should I use a SSD? To startup faster?

 

Not really. A SSD makes the entire system faster (and cooler, and more quiet), not just when booting. It's one of the best things to invest your money in, making a much bigger overall difference than e.g. having the most expensive CPU and the biggest bad-ass graphics card.

 

Anything that needs to touch the disk in a not strictly linear fashion will run a hundred times faster with a SSD due to almost non-existing access time. Which includes every compiler, everything program with a lot of DLLs, and all programs with a lot of plugins (so, every browser, office program, image manipulation program, etc.).

 

The buffer cache helps, certainly. But only to some extent, and only after the first run. SSD helps always, consistenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Katie    2244

It's almost all I use. At home I have a headerless linux server, a linux laptop to work on. I rent space on a linux server in a hosting centre for backing everything up to. At work my desktop is a linux system and the network is all Linux - my stuff runs on some tens of thousands of the servers in various places. I'd hate to be looking after that many machines running anything else.

 

I have a Mac Air for carrying around, but generally that's just used to SSH to a proper computer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SymLinked    1233
good luck, installing Windows from scratch is a pain and not for beginners
I'm sorry but your credability went out the window (no pun intended) with this one. I've seen you here for ages so you're definatly not a troll, but your statement that Windows is difficult to install is as stupid as claiming Linux is unstable. Wow..

It's a choice, like driving a Toyota vs. a Ford vs. an Opel. Some people prefer one, some prefer the other.
Except there's not a huuuuge difference between those (or most) cars. Fanboy much? :)
The difference between Linux and Windows isn't exactly small. Edited by SymLinked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not really. A SSD makes the entire system faster (and cooler, and more quiet), not just when booting. It's one of the best things to invest your money in, making a much bigger overall difference than e.g. having the most expensive CPU and the biggest bad-ass graphics card.

 

Also makes the swap page unusable (try to use it on a SSD and watch how quickly it dies due to wear off), so you better add more RAM to make up for it if you were using swap beforehand (wouldn't be such an issue if it wasn't because of several programs trying to use up as much memory as possible - yes, including many of the most popular programs). Of course if swap was disabled don't bother with it since it was already running OK without it.

 

Also may want to disable disk cache in browsers for a similar reason, although the situation there isn't anywhere even remotely as bad, so you can live with it really. As a general rule, you want to avoid writes to the SSD as much as possible, both due to wear off and because they're horribly slow (even slower than on a hard disk - SSDs are faster at reading).

 

Anything that needs to touch the disk in a not strictly linear fashion will run a hundred times faster with a SSD due to almost non-existing access time. Which includes every compiler, everything program with a lot of DLLs, and all programs with a lot of plugins (so, every browser, office program, image manipulation program, etc.).

 

Every program ever, really, thanks to filesystem fragmentation. Opening a file seems to be the biggest offender in such operations anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribad    981
After booting my W7 machine the all-day applications from the task bar start instantly.<br />So no need for a SSD<br />My HDs, in the workstation and in the server, that has 8 of them, are in quiet mode and thus not hearing them at all.<br />The temperature of the discs are never above 30C.<br /><br />Yes. SSD are fast, quiet, cool?<br /><br />And you are starting to introduce special hardware at a point where the discussion is about OS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kunos    2254

what's missing in Linux at this point is a killer application, a tangible reason for users to switch.

At the moment, there is none, unless you want to believe your geeky nerdy friend that keeps telling you "Windoz crashez all the timez dude". Some will surrender to the hype, get the thing installed and then, even if things go smoothly, what you do? What did you gain? You'll have to relearn the OS for what? Until the desktop experience is on par with Windows (which, imo, is not) and there is no real advantage to move over, people will rightly stay where they are.

 

Release Half Life 3 as a Linux-only killer app, and you'll start seeing a movement... until then, it's all useless geeky nerdy hype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tribad    981
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-cid="5018489" data-author="kunos"><p>what's missing in Linux at this point is a killer application, a tangible reason for users to switch.<br /><br />...&nbsp;<br /><br />Release Half Life 3 as a Linux-only killer app, and you'll start seeing a movement... until then, it's all useless geeky nerdy hype.</p></blockquote>Yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Release Half Life 3 as a Linux-only killer app, and you'll start seeing a movement... until then, it's all useless geeky nerdy hype.

 

Then what you'll get isn't a killer app, it's a flop =/ You don't need just a killer app, you need to convince users that the platform will bring many things like said killer app or they won't bother switching (why will they switch if they will be stuck with just one thing?). They need something that will look to be it will be better than what they already have.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if HL3 was a Steambox exclusive, though...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alh420    5995

[quote name='Sik_the_hedgehog' timestamp='1357535154' post='5018449']
As a general rule, you want to avoid writes to the SSD as much as possible, both due to wear off and because they're horribly slow (even slower than on a hard disk - SSDs are faster at reading
[/quote]

 

I think you should check out SSDs again, because I think your facts are slightly outdated.

Not only are they quite cheap, but most of them has pretty much the same write speed as read speed nowadays.

SSD is without question the most cost efficient upgrade you can give your computer today, if you don't have it already.

Makes it scary quick :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know they start fast since all the blocks are blank but once it starts running out of blank blocks and it needs to start erasing making them slower. Again, initially it's fast since blocks are pretty much new, but over time it will start slowing down. Some drives can erase blocks while it isn't writing to reduce slow down when it actually needs to write (and may rearrange blocks as needed), but if you're hammering it with writes constantly it isn't going to work very well. Not really a problem for normal file accesses, more of a problem when using the drive as an extension of RAM...

 

The wearing issue still exists. Remember, the problem with swap pages is that they're bound to write very often to the drive, and overwriting the old data, not appending. So if you go with a SSD either make sure you can run without a swap page or get a hard disk to run the swap page there (old small hard disks seem like they could be useful for this purpose).

Edited by Sik_the_hedgehog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bacterius    13165

[quote name='Sik_the_hedgehog' timestamp='1357556720' post='5018547']
The wearing issue still exists. Remember, the problem with swap pages is that they're bound to write very often to the drive, and overwriting the old data, not appending. So if you go with a SSD either make sure you can run without a swap page or get a hard disk to run the swap page there (old small hard disks seem like they could be useful for this purpose).
[/quote]

Or, you know, get some more RAM so you don't need to hit the disk so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
_the_phantom_    11250
The wearing issue still exists. Remember, the problem with swap pages is that they're bound to write very often to the drive, and overwriting the old data, not appending. So if you go with a SSD either make sure you can run without a swap page or get a hard disk to run the swap page there (old small hard disks seem like they could be useful for this purpose).

For the record I've been running an SSD as my primary drive since mid-2009 (256Gig OCZ Vertex series), with the swap drive pointed at it and having installed windows a couple of times over this period (due to system upgrades) and the drive still functions just perfectly.

Nor does it suffer from slow down issues or other related problems which plagued earlier drives - starting from about 2009 onwards SSD drive controller tech really did improve quite significantly to the point where on some drivers you would have to be writing gigs for data EVERY day before the drive would fail after about 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mdwh    1108
It's unclear what the OP is asking - yes indeed, the fact that Linux has little commercial support, and there are few computers sold with Linux, means it struggles to increase its market share. Most people buy computers as complete systems, and my impression is that marketing and support from "big name brands", as well as media coverage, are key to getting anywhere.

But saying "Then who cares to switch to Linux?" seems unrelated - if someone is considering switching, why should it matter what it comes on? You can buy machines without an OS, and anyone on a forum for game development I would hope is capable of installing their own OS.

The last bit is just plain wrong (OpenOffice), and seems a flawed argument anyway, since not everyone needs to run Office.

Personally I have Ubuntu installed dual-boot on my Clevo, though Windows is still my main preferred OS I use most the time - I think Ubuntu is fine, just I still prefer Windows overall. I only have Windows on my Samsung ultra-portable. I find it odd the way that arguments end up so polarised between "Windows is always crashing" and "Linux is unusable" when in practice neither are even remotely true imo (I've never had Windows 7 crash, even graphics driver crashes fail to take it out, Ubuntu failed to boot after an update however; even if overall Linux is more stable than Windows, the difference must be so tiny to be unnoticeable for users, as both are extremely stable; Ubuntu I would say is easy enough for an average user). Whilst I prefer Windows, the differences are slight and a matter of preference, and both are really good OSs.

@Bregma I've installed the retail version of Windows 7 (which wasn't customised to any particular version), and found it easy and straightforward, just as much as Ubuntu. The Windows 8 RTM seemed fine too. Hours to format the drives? Something seems seriously wrong there. As for rebooting, Ubuntu has to reboot after updates too, which it seems to do more often than Windows.

@MichaBen "I have to agree that installing Windows is not something for beginners though."

Is Linux? Or any OS?

@Karsten_: "As Google Android has proven, users are quite happy to run Linux. It just needs to be marketed upon them (sigh...)."

I agree that more people could run GNU/Linux if there was better marketing support. Though I disagree that Android is proof of this for Linux - although Android uses the Linux kernel, it is not the same OS as GNU/Linux - it's just that people tend to refer "GNU/Linux" as "Linux" (much to RMS's dislike).

@Sik_the_hedgehog "Also makes the swap page unusable (try to use it on a SSD and watch how quickly it dies due to wear off), so you better add more RAM to make up for it if you were using swap beforehand [snip]"

Do you have a reference for these claims that isn't years old? My reading on the subject suggests that this is a thing of the past. Also see http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx , "Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs?" Plus RAM is cheap these days... Edited by mdwh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SimonForsman    7642
I agree that more people could run GNU/Linux if there was better marketing support. Though I disagree that Android is proof of this for Linux - although Android uses the Linux kernel, it is not the same OS as GNU/Linux - it's just that people tend to refer "GNU/Linux" as "Linux" (much to RMS's dislike).

 

Allthough GNU/Linux isn't really an OS either, the LSB compliant distros could possibly be grouped together as an OS family(since they are binary compatible) but saying that a non LSB GNU/Linux distro is the same OS as for example Redhat or Ubuntu is quite misleading (Ubuntu for example is closer to being 100% binary compatible with Windows95(through wine) than it is to being 100% binary compatible with a some non-LSB distributions or Android)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mhagain    13430

Every few years I take a look at Linux (I'm due another look soon) but have always to date felt that it lacked a lot of the basic functionality that I take for granted in Windows, and back away from it.

 

Where Windows has succeeded may historically have been due to dubious business practices, but since the NT kernel-based versions started going mainstream there has also been an element of "worse is better" about it - the harsh truth there is that Windows simply stopped sucking and started being good enough for most serious tasks a long time ago.

 

What seems to be an unfortunate bad habit of many in Unix-land is that they pick a baseline year, decide for themselves that absolutely nothing has changed since then, and carry on as if that were the truth.  In this case it's sometime around 1998/99.  So much has happened in Windows evolution and development since then; a Windows 2000 (even!) box is easily capable of uptimes of 5 years or more (in practice Windows updates mean that will never happen, but I've personally seen many such boxes hitting that mark in reasonably controlled/sealed environments), for example, so the old myth of "Windows crashes every coupla days" is blatant horsesh-t.

 

One other unfortunate thing about Unix-land is a tendency to rip itself apart with infighting.  Historically this has been manifested in endianness wars, editor wars, and more recently Gnome vs KDE, distro wars, etc (you also see it in other technologies derived from this heritage, e.g. the evolution of many OpenGL extensions).  In Windows culture you tend to get one way of doing things, you may not like it, but it's consistent for everyone and you just get on with getting stuff done.

 

Ultimately it's not the OS, it's what you do with it that matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SimonForsman    7642
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mhagain" data-cid="5018649"><p>Every few years I take a look at Linux (I'm due another look soon) but have always to date felt that it lacked a lot of the basic functionality that I take for granted in Windows, and back away from it.<br />&nbsp;<br />Where Windows has succeeded may historically have been due to dubious business practices, but since the NT kernel-based versions started going mainstream there has also been an element of "worse is better" about it - the harsh truth there is that Windows simply stopped sucking and started being good enough for most serious tasks a long time ago.<br />&nbsp;<br />What seems to be an unfortunate bad habit of many in Unix-land is that they pick a baseline year, decide for themselves that absolutely nothing has changed since then, and carry on as if that were the truth.&nbsp; In this case it's sometime around 1998/99.&nbsp; So much has happened in Windows evolution and development since then; a Windows 2000 (even!) box is easily capable of uptimes of 5 years or more (in practice Windows updates mean that will never happen, but I've personally seen many such boxes hitting that mark in reasonably controlled/sealed environments), for example, so the old myth of "Windows crashes every coupla days" is blatant horsesh-t.<br />&nbsp;<br />One other unfortunate thing about Unix-land is a tendency to rip itself apart with infighting.&nbsp; Historically this has been manifested in endianness wars, editor wars, and more recently Gnome vs KDE, distro wars, etc (you also see it in other technologies derived from this heritage, e.g. the evolution of many OpenGL extensions).&nbsp; In Windows culture you tend to get one way of doing things, you may not like it, but it's consistent for everyone and you just get on with getting stuff done.<br />&nbsp;<br />Ultimately it's not the OS, it's what you do with it that matters.</p></blockquote><br />You might want to give the newer Ubuntu versions a try, i didn't think the last release i tried (12.04) to be polished enough for everyday use (too many annoying bugs and things that just didn't work out of the box) but it is doing some interesting things with the UI that are worth keeping an eye on. (The HUD in particular is a feature that for me atleast could make me ditch Mint for Ubuntu if they can get the integration with all key applications working out of the box(it was a bit too limited to get me to put up with all the annoying crap it had at the time), it has the potential to raise productivity dramatically and AFAIK noone else is doing anything similar yet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
NetGnome    773

Ubuntu (regardless of how you feel about it) is making linux really worth using day-to-day (not that you couldn't before). Mainly, due to wide-stemmed increases in standardization and community adoption and a remarkable increase in user friendliness as well as flexibility to modify (like any linux distro). With larger companies and communities as well as independants starting to notice the advances in the Ubuntu distro (EA, Valve, even nVidia is beginning to change its posture) and the incredible ease of acquiring/installing/managing software (Software Center/Synaptic in concert through Apt & Launchpad.net) have made it the no-brainer go-to distro for linux converts. While yes, many distros do things similarly, ubuntu follows a well honed KISS (keep it simple stupid) method focused on user accessibility that imho makes is better than alot out there. Love it or hate it, the nascent Unity desktop is actually well done and very useful and I'm very curious about how Wayland will shape up. As far as development goes, things like genie, eclipse, Qt (Qt 5 looks to be absolutely amazing btw), mono/monodevelop, Blender, GIMP, etc give you the tools you need to get stuff done and except for just simple environmental differences work exactly how you would expect them to.

 

All of these gave me more than enough cause to switch to Linux and leave Windows behind, so I have done so and I do not regret it one bit.

 

NOTE: edited to clean up garbles

Edited by Net Gnome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't be surprised if HL3 was a Steambox exclusive, though...

After launching Portal 2 on the Playstation 3, that seems unlikely.

 

Is it just me or are the posts from Linux users being utterly mangled by the forum software? dry.png

You'd think that all the Windows supporters would have their posts mangled/sabotaged, seeing that GameDev is presumably hosted on Linux servers. biggrin.png

Edited by Servant of the Lord

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this