# Yey, Back to Linux



## garthfluff (Jul 16, 2008)

Well, after having my laptop away for a cracked LCD and having to use my girls XP based laptop, it feels good to be back. Not ventured into this section much before, we got many other Linux users here?


----------



## giannifive (Jul 16, 2008)

There are a few, myself included. Although Chris makes it a point to give us shit whenever possible.



garthfluff said:


> Well, after having my laptop away for a cracked LCD and having to use my girls XP based laptop, it feels good to be back. Not ventured into this section much before, we got many other Linux users here?


----------



## garthfluff (Jul 16, 2008)

giannifive said:


> There are a few, myself included. Although Chris makes it a point to give us shit whenever possible.



We deserve it for using a completely useless operating system...


----------



## BigM555 (Jul 16, 2008)




----------



## garthfluff (Jul 16, 2008)

What distros you all using? I'm running Ubuntu here. I can see why people would be put off by the slight learning curve, but once set up, everything runs flawlessly. My laptops more plug and play now than it ever was under XP.


----------



## noodles (Jul 16, 2008)

giannifive said:


> There are a few, myself included. Although Chris makes it a point to give us shit whenever possible.



I find that a bit unfair, considering that he uses Linux himself.


----------



## noodles (Jul 16, 2008)

I'm currently using Suse 11.0. After making the mistake of trying KDE 4, I'm safely back with KDE 3.5.

My major complaint? Why can't someone put together a Linux distro where the fonts don't look like total ass? Seriously. Two systems sit on my desk at work, both identical, one with Windows XP and one with Linux. Why does the Linux take up more screen real estate with menu bars and font sizes? When I shrink them down, they become jagged and unreadable. Is it too much to ask to make Linux at least LOOK as good as Windows does?


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 16, 2008)

The best font rendering I've seen so far is in Fedora, it is really slick, but I prefer Ubuntu due to using it way too much back in the day.

I don't use Linux like I used to at home, I do occassionally, but its only in virtual machines now, as the only PC I have is old and long in the tooth. At work though, we use proprietary devices to route transactions, which use everything from SCO, HP UX, and their own form of Linux too, its rather good stuff, I enjoy it


----------



## garthfluff (Jul 16, 2008)

noodles said:


> I'm currently using Suse 11.0. After making the mistake of trying KDE 4, I'm safely back with KDE 3.5.
> 
> My major complaint? Why can't someone put together a Linux distro where the fonts don't look like total ass? Seriously. Two systems sit on my desk at work, both identical, one with Windows XP and one with Linux. Why does the Linux take up more screen real estate with menu bars and font sizes? When I shrink them down, they become jagged and unreadable. Is it too much to ask to make Linux at least LOOK as good as Windows does?



I agree, most distros looks like ass out the box, but with a bit of tweaking, they can be make to look pretty stunning. I'll post up some screen shots later on tonight.


----------



## noodles (Jul 16, 2008)

garthfluff said:


> I agree, most distros looks like ass out the box, but with a bit of tweaking, they can be make to look pretty stunning. I'll post up some screen shots later on tonight.



How about posting how to make it look better instead? I spend most of my time admining Solaris, and I really don't want to spend the time looking it up.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 16, 2008)

Debian here, trying the other ones (Fedora, Suse, Slackware) but always wanting my Debian back.

I guess I don't have font and interface problems because I don't like the usual desktop environments - I use Enlightenment (e16 for now), with the main programs set up with their own keyboard shortcuts. Things like Firefox, Scilab, vi, XMMS, the terminal, and the other everyday-use programs have shortcuts, and less-frequently-used programs are just accessed through the terminal. I got sick of GNOME and didn't care for KDE 3.5 or 4, partially for the same reasons but mainly because there was so much gobbledygook I didn't use, so I hacked together some config files and started just doing things the way I wanted.

Jeff


----------



## Elysian (Jul 16, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Debian here, trying the other ones (Fedora, Suse, Slackware) but always wanting my Debian back.
> 
> I guess I don't have font and interface problems because I don't like the usual desktop environments - I use Enlightenment (e16 for now), with the main programs set up with their own keyboard shortcuts. Things like Firefox, Scilab, vi, XMMS, the terminal, and the other everyday-use programs have shortcuts, and less-frequently-used programs are just accessed through the terminal. I got sick of GNOME and didn't care for KDE 3.5 or 4, partially for the same reasons but mainly because there was so much gobbledygook I didn't use, so I hacked together some config files and started just doing things the way I wanted.
> 
> Jeff



have you tried Ubuntu? you'll have the strengths of apt-get/dpkg, with the usability and general badassedness of say fedora. i just got ubuntu loaded on my machine, its my main os now, but i have XP dual booting for Sarah, she likes/knows windows, isn't ready for the switch.


----------



## JBroll (Jul 16, 2008)

That's what got me started, but I don't need the training wheels anymore. Great for starters, but Debian had everything I liked about Ubuntu as well as the ability to strip things down even more. I hated new installs and trying to pare everything down - there's just too much stuff that I don't need in them and a lot of things I need are missing - so I just do the Debian net install.

Jeff


----------



## cev (Jul 16, 2008)

Debian and PCLinuxOS here, although XP is my main OS and I mostly just screw around with Linux. If I could play all my games in Linux I'd probably switch, but that's just wishful thinking at this point.

I love Compiz Fusion so much, and I'm thrilled that ATI is finally starting to get their act together with their Linux drivers.


----------



## giannifive (Jul 16, 2008)

I've used Gentoo for about 4 years now. Great distro. Never had any of the font ugliness issues with it. In fact, fonts look worse on X11 on my Mac than they do on my Linux machine.

Chris's rip on some Linux user here (don't remember who it was) was about him using Linux to seem cool or something along those lines. Personally I started using Linux because it was the best OS for my work (scientific computing, etc.), but ended up realizing it suited me just fine for everything else, too. I could care less what other people think.


----------



## cev (Jul 16, 2008)

I tried Gentoo once. It took a whole weekend to install (with the help of a Linux-savvy friend) and within a week, I managed to completely break the install.

Lesson learned: Gentoo is not for beginners


----------



## technomancer (Jul 16, 2008)

All of our servers are RedHat/CentOS/Fedora. Actually, all of the software I develop runs on those 3 

There may be other distros, but none of our enterprise customers care 

As for Linux on the desktop, I moved to OS X several years ago and have never looked back.


----------



## Azathoth43 (Jul 16, 2008)

I've been using Sabayon Linux for a while. But without ASIO, VST and my audio interface support (even SPD/IF doesn't work). I mostly stay in XP.


----------



## Buzz762 (Jul 16, 2008)

My laptop runs Mepis 7.0 and FreeBSD. I use BSD more, though...


----------



## garthfluff (Jul 16, 2008)

noodles said:


> How about posting how to make it look better instead? I spend most of my time admining Solaris, and I really don't want to spend the time looking it up.



Cool, want sort of stuff do you want to see? Skinning Linux etc? Any particular themes, Vista glass like etc? I'll be happy to attempt to write up anything you are interested in.


----------



## Digital Black (Jul 16, 2008)

Linux will only become a mainstream reality when it doens't look like an OS from 95 ( though some can look sweet) and wireless networking is easy for any monkey. Most linux won't even do WPA encrytion without serious compromise as I understand it.

I run yellow dog on my PS3. Nothing to write home about. Never could get wireless to work on my router with WPA ( So I hack flashed a buffalo router with Tomato and use it as a wireless client that distributes NAT through the ethernet ports). I use a shitload of live distro's for PC audit and diagnostics..


----------



## JBroll (Jul 16, 2008)

Erm, the new KDE (3.5+) and GNOME layouts look pretty fucking snazzy.

I have no problem using WPA on mine.

Jeff


----------



## Elysian (Jul 16, 2008)

cev said:


> Debian and PCLinuxOS here, although XP is my main OS and I mostly just screw around with Linux. If I could play all my games in Linux I'd probably switch, but that's just wishful thinking at this point.
> 
> I love Compiz Fusion so much, and I'm thrilled that ATI is finally starting to get their act together with their Linux drivers.


i've never had luck getting compiz working on my multimonitor setup


----------



## Chris (Jul 16, 2008)

giannifive said:


> There are a few, myself included. Although Chris makes it a point to give us shit whenever possible.



That is absolutely bullshit. I use Linux at home, at work, and for this site. The only thing that I say that might be construed as "giving someone shit" is that it is not user friendly and not for the non-technical.


----------



## ibznorange (Jul 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> That is absolutely bullshit. I use Linux at home, at work, and for this site. The only thing that I say that might be construed as "giving someone shit" is that it is not user friendly and not for the non-technical.



i recall you bashing linux once in complete sarcasm, but not being serious


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 17, 2008)

Digital Black said:


> Linux will only become a mainstream reality when it doens't look like an OS from 95 ( though some can look sweet) and wireless networking is easy for any monkey. Most linux won't even do WPA encrytion without serious compromise as I understand it.



When was the last time you used Linux, 2005?

I'll tell you a little story about when I installed Ubuntu 7.10. I plugged in the ethernet cable to download the drivers for my wireless card. Once I had done this, I unplugged the cable, put in the WPA key for my router. I then went to Google afterwards. 

SOME distros make it hard, but only in an effort to stay open source, and also I think a few actually try and make it difficult so they can feel superior about themselves, but some of the larger distros have EASY ways of getting started, Ubuntu and PCLinuxOS being two prime examples.


----------



## Scali (Jul 17, 2008)

stuh84 said:


> When was the last time you used Linux, 2005?


 
So in 2005 it still looked like an OS from 1995? 

As an aside, I've only used linux at university and whenever I encounter it at work. I've been running FreeBSD at home for years (only as a server/gateway/firewall/etc, desktop systems are Windows), and have also toyed with various other flavours such as HP-UX and Solaris.
From a user's perspective, they're all pretty much the same, because they all use X and generally the same KDE or Gnome environments (or whatever archaic stuff some people use), and on the commandline you usually find bash and pretty much the same selection of tools (gcc, awk, sed, grep and all that). They just work slightly differently, which can be annoying at times.


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 17, 2008)

I meant the wireless side of things, hence the response to that part of the question, however it has been pretty recent for Linux to start looking great, and there are still issues, but to be honest, most people around are still running XP, and I can't see how XP in its standard form looks any better than KDE or Gnome.


----------



## Scali (Jul 17, 2008)

Well, there are subtle differences. KDE and Gnome look good from a distance... But if you look more closely, you'll see that Windows XP, and especially MacOS just render fonts a bit tighter. They have better kerning, antialiasing, scaling and that sort of thing.

Aside from that, one thing I really dislike about *nix is when applications just use their own set of widgets, and ignore your windowmanager. That changes both the look AND the feel of the application. Makes it look cheap, and sometimes quite confusing. For example, some scrollbars work by clicking below or above the bar, others work by clicking left or right. When you have two different applications running side-by-side, and each has its own way for scrolling and things, it can be really annoying.


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

Before I switched to Mac I was an Archlinux user.


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 17, 2008)

Scali said:


> Well, there are subtle differences. KDE and Gnome look good from a distance... But if you look more closely, you'll see that Windows XP, and especially MacOS just render fonts a bit tighter. They have better kerning, antialiasing, scaling and that sort of thing.
> 
> Aside from that, one thing I really dislike about *nix is when applications just use their own set of widgets, and ignore your windowmanager. That changes both the look AND the feel of the application. Makes it look cheap, and sometimes quite confusing. For example, some scrollbars work by clicking below or above the bar, others work by clicking left or right. When you have two different applications running side-by-side, and each has its own way for scrolling and things, it can be really annoying.



I wont disagree in general, I find OS X way better to look at that than KDE and Gnome, but some distros have customized it right, I still think Fedora when set right is one of the best looking Distros around.

In terms of the look and feel thing though, thats something which always bothered me, everything does feel like a separate entity, hence my love for OS X, EVERYTHING feels like its part of the OS


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

stuh84 said:


> I wont disagree in general, I find OS X way better to look at that than KDE and Gnome, but some distros have customized it right, I still think Fedora when set right is one of the best looking Distros around.
> 
> In terms of the look and feel thing though, thats something which always bothered me, everything does feel like a separate entity, hence my love for OS X, EVERYTHING feels like its part of the OS




This is why I ended up switching to OS X.

I wanted something a little more mainstream, something that had a solid application base with an integrated feel, and something that I didn't have to tweak for hours.

But I still love linux, I sometimes miss fooling with it.


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 17, 2008)

Yeah, I remember being dissapointed with Ubuntu 7.10 for one reason. I'd got everything set up in about 20 minutes. Wheres the fun in that?! 

I find when using Linux, I got to a point where I was playing with the configuration and adding programs, compiling new ones and everything, just for the sake of it, and then once done, I'd do nothing with them.


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

Linux is definetly fun.

But for the same reasons that it's fun, it's not the ideal desktop OS for me.


----------



## Scali (Jul 17, 2008)

stuh84 said:


> I find when using Linux, I got to a point where I was playing with the configuration and adding programs, compiling new ones and everything, just for the sake of it, and then once done, I'd do nothing with them.


 
I think that's a phase you're going through.
I went through all that tweaking and tuning long before linux even existed.
I played with C64, Amiga, and MS-DOS.

By the time I first heard of linux, I was already 'bored' with all the tweaking, and was in a position where I wanted things to just work. I didn't want to tweak and tune anymore, I wanted to be productive.
Aside from that, things like Cubase, 3dsmax, and games didn't work on linux anyway.


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

[action=Zepp88] loves DOS, and wants a DOS machine again...[/action]


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 17, 2008)

Scali said:


> I think that's a phase you're going through.



Correction, went 

I've been Mac only for about 6 months, and using OS X as my primary OS for over a year.

The most tweaking I do now is with compressors, EQ and faders.



Zepp88 said:


> [action=Zepp88] loves DOS, and wants a DOS machine again...[/action]



DOSBox ftw 

Nothing like playing Commander Keen about 15-20 years after it was released


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

There's nothing more entertaining than having graphical web browsing and instant messaging working in DOS.


----------



## arktan (Jul 17, 2008)

well, Suse 11 is out.... openSUSE.org

might interest some of you guys.... i need to update to it from suse 10.3....


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 17, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> There's nothing more entertaining than having graphical web browsing and instant messaging working in DOS.



What, not even a house full of puppies, all howling to the tune of Number Of The Beast?

This I must try.....


----------



## garthfluff (Jul 17, 2008)

noodles said:


> How about posting how to make it look better instead? I spend most of my time admining Solaris, and I really don't want to spend the time looking it up.



Cool, Display Microsoft fonts like on Windows - Ubuntu Forums that should help you out at the moment. It's the one thing i think is essential for any Linux desktop. It makes things look almost indefinably better.


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

stuh84 said:


> What, not even a house full of puppies, all howling to the tune of Number Of The Beast?
> 
> This I must try.....



Those puppies would be banished from my house as quickly as possible.


----------



## Thomas (Jul 17, 2008)

I have been using Linux since late 2003. I started out with Mandrake (it was later renamed to Mandriva), then gave up after a few days. I then tried Red Hat, messed around with that for weeks, then gave up, but it was AMAZING learning experience. I learned more about computers than I had in the past few years.

After a while, I started missing Linux and I wanted to try out something completely different, so I installed Slackware. A few days after I managed to succesfully compile a working, brand-new 2.6 kernel (it had just been released back then), customized the KDE desktop to my own needs. Since then I rarely used Windows XP, and a year after I would ditch it completely.

I am now on Arch Linux, and I couldn't be happier. Besides music recording and all the jazz, it does absolutely everything I need, and it does it extremely well.

KDE is hands down the best desktop environment I have ever used. It may look pathetic at first as the KDE team is absolutely aesthetically clueless. The good thing is that most of it can be customized. My problem with many desktops is that their colors suck and cannot be changed (e.g. OS X, although I use OS X quite a lot for other purposes). It kills my eyes to stare at a white background of more than a little while.

A comparison, stock KDE vs. my current desktop:










Another thing that I find really useful is the transparent device encryption support (LUKS) in Linux. All my stuff is encrypted. If my computer should get stolen, or the authorities snatch it for whatever reason, I am on the safe side. They will never find a thing. Yes, I have things to hide. The best thing about it is that it is no hassle at all -- everything happens behind the scenes. All I have to do is enter a password when I boot up my computer. No, it does not slow down my computer noticely.

I could keep praising Linux all day, but I would also like to say something about Apple's OS X. It is a great operating system, it does many of the same things that Linux does, and can run many of the same applications. While it is not my main OS, I do use it for recording music. It is absolutely amazing in that regard (even if you only have Garage Band), and I can see why a whole lot of people are attracted to it. As much as I love Linux, I could never see myself using it for the music thing.


----------



## stuh84 (Jul 17, 2008)

Thomas, whats your view on KDE4? Just more out of curiosity than anything.

This thread makes me want to have a linux box again 

I wish I had a spare PC


----------



## Thomas (Jul 17, 2008)

I have not tried KDE4 out yet. Unless it has the same functionality as 3.5, I won't use it. Most of the things I have read about 4.0 were negative. When 4.1 comes out, and if it becomes a part of Arch Linux (version 4.0 is not. I wonder if that says something about its quality?), then I will give it a go.

I was disappointed with how it looked, though, when the first screenshots came out. I think the default appearance has improved a bit, but those scrollbars are just unforgivable.





A LOT of people complained about those. I even contacted the (aesthetically clueless) KDE developers about it, but they were much more concerned about meeting deadlines than delivering a quality release.


----------



## giannifive (Jul 17, 2008)

When I say "giving shit" I mean picking on someone in a half-serious way.

Here's the thread I was thinking of, by the way:

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/co...9228-ss-org-cs-source-server.html#post1077746

Perhaps I misunderstood. No offense, man.



Chris said:


> That is absolutely bullshit. I use Linux at home, at work, and for this site. The only thing that I say that might be construed as "giving someone shit" is that it is not user friendly and not for the non-technical.


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

Thomas said:


> I have not tried KDE4 out yet. Unless it has the same functionality as 3.5, I won't use it. Most of the things I have read about 4.0 were negative. When 4.1 comes out, and if it becomes a part of Arch Linux (version 4.0 is not. I wonder if that says something about its quality?), then I will give it a go.
> 
> I was disappointed with how it looked, though, when the first screenshots came out. I think the default appearance has improved a bit, but those scrollbars are just unforgivable.
> 
> ...



The Arch guys are picky about what's added to their repositories, so I'm not surprised the haven't added it yet.

As a desktop I always used xfce4 and kept it strictly GTK, best balance for me. Though I really do like Gnome as well.


----------



## Thomas (Jul 17, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> The Arch guys are picky about what's added to their repositories, so I'm not surprised the haven't added it yet.


And that is a very good thing in my book. I don't want bug-ridden software. Supposedly the first KDE 4.0 release was like that.



Zepp88 said:


> As a desktop I always used xfce4 and kept it strictly GTK, best balance for me. Though I really do like Gnome as well.


Everytime I used Gnome, I kind of missed the functionality of KDE, but I think it looks much better than KDE out-of-the-box. I should give it a go sometime soon.


----------



## Buzz762 (Jul 17, 2008)

Chris said:


> That is absolutely bullshit. I use Linux at home, at work, and for this site. The only thing that I say that might be construed as "giving someone shit" is that it is not user friendly and not for the non-technical.



I agree with this, though in the CS:Source thread you were giving D-EJ915 for stating his kernel version


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

Including patches?


----------



## noodles (Jul 17, 2008)

garthfluff said:


> Cool, Display Microsoft fonts like on Windows - Ubuntu Forums that should help you out at the moment. It's the one thing i think is essential for any Linux desktop. It makes things look almost indefinably better.



Wow! That is exactly what I was looking for, I can actually make things smaller without them looking like dogshit.


----------



## Leon (Jul 17, 2008)

Debian.


----------



## garthfluff (Jul 17, 2008)

noodles said:


> Wow! That is exactly what I was looking for, I can actually make things smaller without them looking like dogshit.



Yeah, it's pretty much essential for any distro. Anything else you want written up? I'll stick up a few screens of my desktop. Whoops, print screen has fucked up my desktop. It's compleatly smooth at this end. I'll give it a go tomorrow and try to get some better captures.


----------



## Chris (Jul 17, 2008)

Buzz762 said:


> I agree with this, though in the CS:Source thread you were giving D-EJ915 for stating his kernel version



Jeff states his kernel version every 5 threads. The kid owns a fuckin' vax, for chrissakes.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jul 17, 2008)

Digital Black said:


> Linux will only become a mainstream reality when it doens't look like an OS from 95 ( though some can look sweet) and wireless networking is easy for any monkey. Most linux won't even do WPA encrytion without serious compromise as I understand it.
> 
> I run yellow dog on my PS3. Nothing to write home about. Never could get wireless to work on my router with WPA ( So I hack flashed a buffalo router with Tomato and use it as a wireless client that distributes NAT through the ethernet ports). I use a shitload of live distro's for PC audit and diagnostics..


lol, I hate the window managers/desktops in windows and OS X, they have serious 100% fail ratings from me.

As far as WPA and encryption, dude! Just pick up a WRT hack dd-wrt or something onto it and set up a WDS, it's so much better than one of those lameass cards and fuckin easy too.

Scali: the unix tools work one way, the GNU tools work a different way =3


lol chris I don't have a vax  that would be cool though. I do have 2 SGI O2s now although the board is dead on one. I installed IRIX 6.5 on it the other day as it had 6.3 on it. ohhh and I updated my web site to list some computers and stuff: http://dej915.serveftp.com:777/systems.html

My GNU/Linux history goes back to when KDE and GNOME 1.0 came out lol, the good old days. The GNOME panel was 200 times better than the epic phail they have going on now. I really hate GNOME now, lol.


ohhhh and I _hate_ that fancy graphics bullshit, so it also affects my opinion on a lot of things


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> kernver



Fixed.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jul 17, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Before I switched to sucking Steve Job's dick I was an Archlinux user.



eww


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 17, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> eww

























ONLY THAT ONE TIME! I WANTED A MAC PRO!


----------



## Thomas (Jul 18, 2008)

Zepp88 said:


> Including patches?


Including patches, config, and build number.


----------



## Zepp88 (Jul 18, 2008)

Thomas said:


> Including patches, config, and build number.



Damn


----------



## Scali (Jul 18, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> Scali: the unix tools work one way, the GNU tools work a different way =3


 
If only there was a thing as "the unix tools" 

GNU stuff is all built from the same codebase, regardless of OS or architecture, so they all work the same... But there are various OSes that supply their own variation of certain tools, which each have their own quirks.
If possible, I often compile and install the GNU tools alongside the native ones.


----------



## Elysian (Jul 18, 2008)

noodles said:


> Wow! That is exactly what I was looking for, I can actually make things smaller without them looking like dogshit.



i did it this morning before i went to work, and i love it as well, windows fonts always looked better to me than linux fonts


----------



## noodles (Jul 18, 2008)

Elysian said:


> i did it this morning before i went to work, and i love it as well, windows fonts always looked better to me than linux fonts



I'm a Solaris admin, which means I know dick about making Linux look good. I fucking live on my terminal server connections.


----------



## Thomas (Jul 18, 2008)

Out of curiosity, and if it's not too much hassle, could any of you guys who are dissatisfied with your default Linux fonts post a screenshot?

I could not be any happier with mine on Linux, but on OSX they look kind of blurry and unclear, and it won't go away no matter what I do.


----------



## Elysian (Jul 18, 2008)

Thomas said:


> Out of curiosity, and if it's not too much hassle, could any of you guys who are dissatisfied with your default Linux fonts post a screenshot?
> 
> I could not be any happier with mine on Linux, but on OSX they look kind of blurry and unclear, and it won't go away no matter what I do.



i think its more that i like the way windows fonts look and are displayed, and the linux ones just feel like cheap knockoffs, if that makes any sense


----------



## garthfluff (Jul 18, 2008)

Elysian said:


> i think its more that i like the way windows fonts look and are displayed, and the linux ones just feel like cheap knockoffs, if that makes any sense



If I've got a spare 10 mins tonight I'll unpatch mine and post a comparison.


----------



## giannifive (Jul 18, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> lol chris I don't have a vax  that would be cool though. I do have 2 SGI O2s now although the board is dead on one. I installed IRIX 6.5 on it the other day as it had 6.3 on it. ohhh and I updated my web site to list some computers and stuff:



Dude, you have an SGI O2 and you actually run IRIX?!? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So can you even run anything useful on IRIX nowadays? Wasn't the last web browser for IRIX Netscape or Mosaic?


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jul 18, 2008)

giannifive said:


> Dude, you have an SGI O2 and you actually run IRIX?!? I don't know whether to laugh or cry. So can you even run anything useful on IRIX nowadays? Wasn't the last web browser for IRIX Netscape or Mosaic?


Dude you are so clueless it's unbelievable.  Check out Nekochan Net.

btw running anything but irix on an O2 is retarded


----------



## Jeff (Jul 19, 2008)

I run an 8.04 64-bit machine as my main Linux workstation at work, several 8.04LTS servers, and unfortunately several SuSe boxes still floating about. In total I'd say about 50 linux machines to support, along with all the Windows machines. 

That said, I much prefer my OSX box.


----------

