# Linux, worth getting?



## maliciousteve (Jan 5, 2009)

Hey guys. What are the benefits of Linux? What are the downsides of Linux?

I'm downloading Ubuntu at the momet so while that's taking forever to download I'd thought I'd check what you all think of it.


----------



## stuh84 (Jan 5, 2009)

Upsides:

More secure by default, the software is open source (and in most cases, free to download), gets you understanding more about an OS, and no registry to corrupt. If there is a problem and its not pure incompatibility between hardware and the OS, then it can be fixed, rather than just format and hope it works after.

Downsides:

Lower commercial support, harder to figure out, recording software is a bit behind the times (on par with stuff from about 5 years ago rather than today), the closest you get to a safe mode is starting in the command line, so if you break one line, you can essentially render your OS unusable until you fix it, rather than booting in a safe mode and fixing via a GUI (however, the sheer knowledge out there about linux, someone will be able to help you through it)


----------



## jaxadam (Jan 5, 2009)

I'm dual booting Ubuntu and Vista on my home computer. If you're even the slightest computer literate, you shouldn't really have any problems. There is a pretty good amount of info out there to get you around most problems.

It is a very highly customizable OS, and I'm sure there are lots of people on here that can tell you a great deal more than me. There is a little bit of a learning curve with getting used to using Terminal, but overall it's a pretty good OS.


----------



## arktan (Jan 5, 2009)

> *Linux, worth getting?*


In one word: Yes

In more words: Yes, yes, yes and yes. 


I'm dual booting Vista and Opensuse on mine. Suse because it's more work-oriented than the other distros. Ubuntu is a nice way to start but you'll be "stuck" with the really annoying gnome "user interface"  but that's just me disliking Gnome 

And if you don't like it, you can always get rid of it. There could be some starting problems with the bootloader. Mine for example loves to destroy itself if i forget to unplug my 320Gb harddrive and reboot with it plugged in... then i have to reinstall GRUB (which is my bootloader) and add the entry for Vista manually later on.
So install it with someone who has some expierence with it rather than doing it alone and possibly throwing your computer out of the window


----------



## stuh84 (Jan 5, 2009)

arktan said:


> Ubuntu is a nice way to start but you'll be "stuck" with the really annoying gnome "user interface"  but that's just me disliking Gnome



And I hate KDE


----------



## cpnhowdy (Jan 5, 2009)

What Stuart said. Also it depends on what you want to do with it. For me I use it only as a server because it is very solid and stable, can be very secure if you know how to lock it up, scriptable. 
I dont use it as a game or recording machine however. 

I suggest trying out Knoppix first KNOPPIX Linux Live CD and burning one of their bootable distros that way you can check and use Linux without having to install anything.


----------



## Scali (Jan 5, 2009)

I recall a lengthy discussion on linux on this forum not too long ago, mostly related to digital audio software and such. You might want to search for that thread, it may contain valuable information and opinions for you.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 5, 2009)

Yes.

Recording and games are behind, but if you want security and stability you don't have many other options.

As far as 'hard to figure out'... if you can learn Windows, you can learn Linux. Linux is all completely open and nothing is beyond your tinkering, so in that sense it's even easier to learn - if you read even a little C you can browse the kernel and user tool source and learn more than even the best Microsoft user outside the development offices.

It's hard to break (unless you login as root for everything you do like a bloody moron) and designed to be bulletproof. Use it.

Jeff


----------



## Elysian (Jan 5, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Yes.
> 
> Recording and games are behind, but if you want security and stability you don't have many other options.
> 
> ...



i've had ubuntu kill itself on dist-upgrades, its not all that hard to break... also, messing with grub is rather cryptic if you don't have google on hand... i far prefer lilo, but every distro besides slackware seems to have moved to grub 


fedora is my easy linux distro of choice, but if i feel like more of a challenge i load debian or slackware(i <3 slack)


----------



## stuh84 (Jan 5, 2009)

JBroll said:


> As far as 'hard to figure out'... if you can learn Windows, you can learn Linux. Linux is all completely open and nothing is beyond your tinkering, so in that sense it's even easier to learn - if you read even a little C you can browse the kernel and user tool source and learn more than even the best Microsoft user outside the development offices.



Aye, this I agree with, but to the average user, the mere thought of having to do ANYTHING in the command line is alien to them, hence the harder to use part.

Personally, I'd rather be able to awk, grep and sed my way through a command line than CD and dir, but some people dont want that at all


----------



## Zepp88 (Jan 5, 2009)

stuh84 said:


> Upsides:
> 
> More secure by default, the software is open source (and in most cases, free to download), gets you understanding more about an OS, and no registry to corrupt. If there is a problem and its not pure incompatibility between hardware and the OS, then it can be fixed, rather than just format and hope it works after.
> 
> ...



Truth.

It's a great alternative OS, with it's own suite of applications. As long as you don't do something to break it, it shouldn't fuck up much at all. Highly customizable, great for tweakers, and like Stu said, it really helps you understand the ins and outs of a computer and how things work.

Like most things, it's not for everyone, but it's fun to play with.

Things I like best are that it tells you exactly what's wrong when it fucks up, and it's almost always fixable rather easily without reformatting and all that bullshit. 

When I ran linux I used Arch Linux


----------



## Benjo230 (Jan 5, 2009)

mmmmm Ubuntu, should really get it again :/

There is a ditro out there called Musix, and im pretty sure there's a distribution called Ubuntu Studio, which is aimed at audio/video/graphic enthusiasts... Although i've not used either.

anyway, yeah Ubuntu = mmmmmm


----------



## Elysian (Jan 5, 2009)

Benjo230 said:


> mmmmm Ubuntu, should really get it again :/
> 
> There is a ditro out there called Musix, and im pretty sure there's a distribution called Ubuntu Studio, which is aimed at audio/video/graphic enthusiasts... Although i've not used either.
> 
> anyway, yeah Ubuntu = mmmmmm



i've tried ubuntu studio, and while it does indeed have a ton of studio apps, its all around very confusing, and not as powerful as a comparable windows setup...


----------



## JBroll (Jan 5, 2009)

Elysian said:


> i've had ubuntu kill itself on dist-upgrades, its not all that hard to break... also, messing with grub is rather cryptic if you don't have google on hand... i far prefer lilo, but every distro besides slackware seems to have moved to grub
> 
> 
> fedora is my easy linux distro of choice, but if i feel like more of a challenge i load debian or slackware(i <3 slack)



I love Slackware too. I might be a little too attached, as I have a mug and shirt with the flippy logo, but it's a hell of a setupd.

Distribution upgrades aren't always recommended (sticking to LTS releases is good enough practice) and those issues get ironed out... any software has bugs, and as far as I know it's much more improbable to get a bricked system with dist-upgrade.



stuh84 said:


> Aye, this I agree with, but to the average user, the mere thought of having to do ANYTHING in the command line is alien to them, hence the harder to use part.
> 
> Personally, I'd rather be able to awk, grep and sed my way through a command line than CD and dir, but some people dont want that at all



You really don't need to use the command line for all but a handful of things (which are usually beyond entry-level tools) in user-friendly distros. As much of a command-line nerd as I am, I can put my parents in front of Ubuntu and not have to worry about anything - GUI tools like the ones in the major user-friendly distros are robust and easier to use than whatever Windows counterparts there may be. Further, hardware autodetection is more complete and more devices are supported in Linux than in Windows - even when restricted to x86 and/or x86-64.

Jeff


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jan 5, 2009)

Elysian said:


> i've had ubuntu kill itself on dist-upgrades, its not all that hard to break... also, messing with grub is rather cryptic if you don't have google on hand... i far prefer lilo, but every distro besides slackware seems to have moved to grub
> 
> 
> fedora is my easy linux distro of choice, but if i feel like more of a challenge i load debian or slackware(i <3 slack)


most people like grub because it's easier to use and does more...

I remember the discussion scali is talking about, I forgot who was the one with all the comp sci knowledge but they failed to mention how the Bebox, the ultimate multimedia computer with a media-oriented OS, seriously failed...

I've got ubuntu on my main desktop but I'm not really sure why, just like last time with ubuntustudio 7.04 I ended up with kubuntu 8.10 which is really not what I wanted. Oh well  at least fucking virtual consoles with resolution over 640x480 work now with nvidia cards (ubuntu seriously fucked it up before).

I think ubuntu is a piece of crap, I send people to archlinux if they want to learn or use linux, static distributions like suse, fedora, ubuntu, etc. fail in every way imo and exude the qualities of windows that I loathe. Releases are abominations.


Anyway, with there now being a flash player for 64-bit there's really no reason to stick with 32 if you have a 64-bit proc and quite a bit of ram.


----------



## Scali (Jan 6, 2009)

D-EJ915 said:


> but they failed to mention how the Bebox, the ultimate multimedia computer with a media-oriented OS, seriously failed...


 
What do you mean by that though?
That good technology can fail if it isn't marketed properly? Or that good technology alone isn't enough to replace Windows? Or...?


----------



## Korngod (Jan 7, 2009)

i tried Yellow Dog Linux 5.0 on my PS3 and didnt care for it too much... maybe its the fact that it was on my ps3, i dunno. I tried to get it to recognize the ps3 wifi and it messed up and now it wont boot linux so i gave up on it


----------



## JBroll (Jan 7, 2009)

That must've been a hell of a configuration error, what did you do?

You might want to try another distro - since you're using Yellow Dog I assume the processor in your PS3 is a PowerPC, and there are Ubuntu releases for that architecture... 

Jeff


----------



## Scali (Jan 7, 2009)

The PS3 uses an IBM Cell processor. One of the cores is PowerPC-compatible, but I don't think the whole system is compatible enough to just run any regular PowerPC-distribution without problems. You'd probably need specific PS3-support.
I suppose most PPC distro's are aimed at Apples or IBM workstations, since those are the most common platforms with PPC processors, and they're quite different from a PS3.


----------



## stuh84 (Jan 7, 2009)

https://help.ubuntu.com/community/PlayStation_3

It does work however


----------



## JBroll (Jan 7, 2009)

Linux for PlayStation 3 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia might help, then, as I was just guessing based on the use of Yellow Dog.

Jeff


----------



## hairychris (Jan 7, 2009)

Got a Fedora build on my laptop but haven't spent too much time on it. I went this way because our standard Linux distro for servers at work is RHEL.

I still use windows most of the time. Commercial games & recording software aren't really available on Linux.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jan 7, 2009)

Scali said:


> What do you mean by that though?
> That good technology can fail if it isn't marketed properly? Or that good technology alone isn't enough to replace Windows? Or...?



Mainly that stuff with too specific of a purpose doesn'T fare well in the market.


----------



## Benzesp (Jan 7, 2009)

I've ditched Ubuntu and Open Suse all togeather for the Mint distro... Mint is great, I've had way less hardware compatability issues with it. And takes less terminal work to get it running how you want to. I'm really impressed so far.


----------



## Demeyes (Jan 7, 2009)

I've toyed with the idea of dual booting Linux but I know I just won't use it much. I've tried Fedora in college and I've tried Ubuntu off a live cd but I can't see myself dumping windows over them for my general use or college work.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 7, 2009)

Benzesp said:


> I've ditched Ubuntu and Open Suse all togeather for the Mint distro... Mint is great, I've had way less hardware compatability issues with it. And takes less terminal work to get it running how you want to. I'm really impressed so far.



I felt the same way, but now I'm on to nerdier pastures with Slackware - I now recommend plain Debian or Mint for most people I deal with.

Jeff


----------



## Scali (Jan 8, 2009)

I recommend FreeBSD


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 8, 2009)

I installed Linux a few times on some spare computers, but honestly, I never really found anything to do with it. For my needs, Windows gets the job done 

Also, what's the point of installing Linux on the PS3? Do you get any extra functionality?


----------



## JBroll (Jan 8, 2009)

You may not notice a lot of issues with Windows until it shits the bed and you've no idea what to do with it - note that I said 'when' and not 'if' - or your system gets compromised somehow.

For the PS3, I'm under the impression that it's just a full-on desktop but I'm not sure.

Jeff


----------



## Scali (Jan 8, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Also, what's the point of installing Linux on the PS3? Do you get any extra functionality?


 
Well, it turns your PS3 into a 'regular' PC, rather than just a game machine and CD/DVD/BluRay player.
Sony was selling a linux kit with mouse and keyboard. It was basically aimed at homebrew software development and such.

But if you're not interested in developing software for the PS3, or you already have a regular PC, then it is of little use I suppose.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> You may not notice a lot of issues with Windows until it shits the bed and you've no idea what to do with it - note that I said 'when' and not 'if' - or your system gets compromised somehow.
> 
> For the PS3, I'm under the impression that it's just a full-on desktop but I'm not sure.
> 
> Jeff





I'm a computer technician, so I deal with Windows all day long  I usually do spring cleaning once a year or so and format and reinstall just to keep things in tip top shape. I don't really get viruses or spyware, and I'm sure you can all guess my surfing habits 

I have 2 computers set up in my room, one is running XP, the other Server 2003. I think a lot of issues with Windows are over stated. Sure, if you have military level secrets to keep and you can't afford a compromise, then sure, run Linux. Personally, if I get a virus or something, I'll just format and reinstall. I doubt any of my games or the software I've become accustomed to will run on Linux.

I don't do any software development, I occasionally run an FTP server on my desktop to trade music and stuff with other people, so I don't really feel the need to switch to Linux, although if given the choice between Linux and Vista, I'd go Linux. I mean, if none of my software is going to work anyways, might as well be secure


----------



## JBroll (Jan 8, 2009)

I've been fixing computers since people were looking forward to Windows 95 and I've gotten the opposite impression about problems being overstated. The fact that people have gotten used to crashes, needing antivirus and antispyware software, and total system wipes is as strong a criticism of Windows as seems to be possible.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 8, 2009)

Meh, I run AVG, and that's it. I don't really crash, I reboot about once a week. Most people who crash all the time and are over run with spyware probably run Limewire and download anything they can get their hands on.

It's like the gun argument, the OS isn't as much to blame as people's surfing habits


----------



## JBroll (Jan 8, 2009)

I fixed up a computer for a guy just a few months ago... only had the computer (a studio box that's otherwise never networked) plugged in for a few minutes because the guy who was 'fixing' it needed to download something, and when I came by to clean it up there were more infections than even you could imagine. Even if you don't wind up with too many problems you do need to take precautions, so there is a bit to be said about the OS.

Jeff


----------



## Scali (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm a software developer by profession, and I've various projects over the years, using various flavours of *nix and Windows, with all kinds of tools and languages.

As such I really don't see the argument that people make for software development on linux. It's not like it's better than in Windows, just different. Ironically enough I even use the MSDN help system when developing portable code for *nix, because Microsoft has exceptionally well-written documentation for the standard ANSI C/C++ and STL stuff.


----------



## Ze Kink (Jan 8, 2009)

I dual boot XP and Ubuntu on this older laptop, which I "throw around" and use at work. After getting used to Linux, I've pretty much left the XP for running Reaper only, and now that I got my Macbook Pro, I don't need it even for that. Works like a charm. I recommend you try it out.


----------



## Elysian (Jan 8, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I'm a computer technician, so I deal with Windows all day long  I usually do spring cleaning once a year or so and format and reinstall just to keep things in tip top shape. I don't really get viruses or spyware, and I'm sure you can all guess my surfing habits
> 
> I have 2 computers set up in my room, one is running XP, the other Server 2003. I think a lot of issues with Windows are over stated. Sure, if you have military level secrets to keep and you can't afford a compromise, then sure, run Linux. Personally, if I get a virus or something, I'll just format and reinstall. I doubt any of my games or the software I've become accustomed to will run on Linux.
> 
> I don't do any software development, I occasionally run an FTP server on my desktop to trade music and stuff with other people, so I don't really feel the need to switch to Linux, although if given the choice between Linux and Vista, I'd go Linux. I mean, if none of my software is going to work anyways, might as well be secure


i'm with you on this one. the problem for me is, i'm just tired of the windows UI  but i haven't found anything besides mac os x that keeps my interest...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 8, 2009)

I'm not saying that Linux isn't "better" for some people, and I'm no MS enthusiast, I just don't prefer Linux to Windows for what I'm doing. For every day regular users, I would still recommend Windows.


----------



## garthfluff (Jan 9, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> I'm a computer technician, so I deal with Windows all day long  I usually do spring cleaning once a year or so and format and reinstall just to keep things in tip top shape. I don't really get viruses or spyware, and I'm sure you can all guess my surfing habits
> 
> I have 2 computers set up in my room, one is running XP, the other Server 2003. I think a lot of issues with Windows are over stated. Sure, if you have military level secrets to keep and you can't afford a compromise, then sure, run Linux. Personally, if I get a virus or something, I'll just format and reinstall. I doubt any of my games or the software I've become accustomed to will run on Linux.
> 
> I don't do any software development, I occasionally run an FTP server on my desktop to trade music and stuff with other people, so I don't really feel the need to switch to Linux, although if given the choice between Linux and Vista, I'd go Linux. I mean, if none of my software is going to work anyways, might as well be secure



That's the problem though. You should never just have to 'Format and Reinstall'. JB hit the nail on the head, people have just got so use to this shit that they now think that's how computers run.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 9, 2009)

Like I said, I'm not saying "Windows is better", I'm saying for every day regular users, I still wouldn't recommend Linux, unless they absolutely could not afford Windows and were adverse to software piracy


----------



## JBroll (Jan 9, 2009)

Why not?

Jeff


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jan 9, 2009)

Linux is great if you can use it.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Why not?
> 
> Jeff



Because people are stupid, and Windows is easier. I've worked computer sales before, and I got a lot of old (stupid) people coming in and wanting to get some shitty shit box just to get on the net to keep in contact with kids/grandkids/whatever. 

For me personally, all the software I use is Windows based. I have no need to run Linux. I'm sure if I really felt the need I could go and find all the equivalent shit for Linux, but I don't have a reason to 

If someone is willing to learn a new OS and is interested in trying it, that's cool. I just find a lot of Linux guys are kind of snobs about it, and recommend it just to recommend it.

I guess over all, my answer to the question of "Is it worth it?" is if you feel the need, or are interested in learning about it.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 9, 2009)

I've never seen why Windows is easier. I've never had to manually install graphics, NIC, and sound devices in Ubuntu, the KDE and GNOME layouts are much cleaner and better organized (perhaps software category really *is* more useful than developer name), and the errors can all be Googled for a quick fix. If my technophobic family can figure it out (and, get this, find it easier) it's not hard. I recommend it because it's more open and accessible, doesn't require bullshit like the "geek squad" or fancy-pants corporate IT wankers to fix, and supports more hardware with all of the functionality most users need.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 9, 2009)

JBroll said:


> I've never seen why Windows is easier. I've never had to manually install graphics, NIC, and sound devices in Ubuntu, the KDE and GNOME layouts are much cleaner and better organized (perhaps software category really *is* more useful than developer name), and the errors can all be Googled for a quick fix. If my technophobic family can figure it out (and, get this, find it easier) it's not hard. I recommend it because it's more open and accessible, doesn't require bullshit like the "geek squad" or fancy-pants corporate IT wankers to fix, and supports more hardware with all of the functionality most users need.
> 
> Jeff




Well, maybe that would be true if everyone were starting from scratch, but most people have at least somewhat of a familiarity with Windows from work or somewheres else, even if they aren't very good with computers. 

I've installed Ubuntu, and used Red Hat in University when I took CS, and fucked around with a couple other distro's, and I always find myself using Windows at home.

I've just never been a fan of using Linux for the sake of using it. Some people just want to use it for "geek cred" or something, not that I'm implying you or anyone else here is like that, I've just run into a lot of people like that. When I was doing my courses for my MCSE, there was this one guy that would just fucking go off in the middle of class about Linux and how it could do whatever so much better. That's all fine and dandy, but at the time it was an MS course and I wanted to get my certs and this guy was eating up class time which equals big money. Hell, I think my instructor almost punched this guy 

Like I said, if someone feels the need, all the power to them


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

Windows 7 looks like KDE4, and older KDE versions are similar to Windows in enough ways to help old Windows users.

I'd have punched the guy for going off about Linux in an MCSE class myself, that just doesn't make sense.

Jeff


----------



## Scali (Jan 10, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> When I was doing my courses for my MCSE, there was this one guy that would just fucking go off in the middle of class about Linux and how it could do whatever so much better. That's all fine and dandy, but at the time it was an MS course and I wanted to get my certs and this guy was eating up class time which equals big money. Hell, I think my instructor almost punched this guy


 
Yea, this sort of folk is the main reason why I don't want anything to do with linux.
Bottom line is: nobody needs linux.
On the desktop, Windows can do anything that linux can, and more.
For server or embedded use, there are various alternatives like Net/Open/FreeBSD that can do anything that linux can, and more.

So, use linux if you want to use linux. But if you try to convince others that you need linux, you're out of touch with reality.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

Scali said:


> On the desktop, Windows can do anything that linux can, and more.



Except for being secure and stable...

What the hell is so great about Windows, anyway? None of its advantages come from being a great operating system - they all come from being the most popular, and without that the garbage wouldn't even be considered.

Jeff


----------



## Scali (Jan 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Except for being secure and stable...


 
Nope, Windows even does that.



JBroll said:


> What the hell is so great about Windows, anyway?


 
Quite a long list of things really, but let's not get into that now.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

No, when an operating system has a special day of the month for patches (and all vulnerabilities found between two such days are held from the public instead of acknowledged and released immediately), can be brought to its knees by even the most limited accounts, can die completely and practically irreparably if the tiniest thing goes wrong with the registry, and all but requires antivirus and antispyware software, it can't say shit about security or stability.

Go ahead and start another Windows vs. Linux thread elsewhere if you want - Windows simply isn't worth the money, and your posts seem to convey the message that everyone *should* use Windows just because they should use Windows.

Jeff


----------



## Scali (Jan 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Windows simply isn't worth the money


 
That is your opinion. Not everyone shares that opinion.



JBroll said:


> and your posts seem to convey the message that everyone *should* use Windows just because they should use Windows.


 
Not at all. In fact, I don't even use Windows for everything myself. As I said, I use FreeBSD aswell.
Thing is just that I don't try to make it sound like either OS is the answer to everything, and any other OS has no redeeming value whatsoever.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

It's not my fault if everyone else wants to be wrong. [/tongue-in-cheek]

Linux has its own advantages, and isn't just used for its own sake - its hardware detection and autoconfiguration is typically better, the development community is more open and accessible and as a result new shiny things come out quickly, and so on. I play with FreeBSD every once in a while (I'll be trying PC-BSD over the next few days, actually) but I think it's a huge stretch to say it does everything better than Linux.

I also don't say one OS is the answer to everything, but Windows is such an embarrassment to computing that I feel fine bashing it. Windows wouldn't be anywhere if software quality was the deciding factor.

Jeff


----------



## Scali (Jan 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> I play with FreeBSD every once in a while (I'll be trying PC-BSD over the next few days, actually) but I think it's a huge stretch to say it does everything better than Linux.


 
Now I didn't say that, I just said it's better for server/embedded tasks.
With that, I mean that the *BSD kernel design is more efficient, making it scale better with more threads/processes, and getting more out of your resources. In server terms that means it allows you to process more requests per second, and have a lower response time to these requests.
In fact, only recently, a big upgrade was done to the linux thread scheduler, making it far more scalable than it has ever been. Still not as good as others like the BSDs, Solaris and yes, even Windows... But much closer.
Ofcourse the irony is that linux zealots were touting linux' efficiency and scalability long before... Even though it was based on nothing. Just like your claims on hardware detection and autoconfiguration are based on nothing.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

I think there are more than a few advantages to the 'kernel-of-the-week' approach, and I'll leave it at that.

'Based on nothing' is more than a little bit exaggerated. I'd have said nothing if I was the only one who had problems, but even the most diehard BSD users I know have trouble bringing themselves to defend its hardware detection or other automatic configuration tools. I haven't been involved in the politics well enough to remember the performance test nightmare, but you're the first I've heard to claim that Windows is more efficient now.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 10, 2009)

Okay, I didn't mean to start a debate. And I actually don't think Windows is worth $300 unless it's the server OS, and fuck, that's like 4 times the money, + CALS 

And that dude who was spouting off about Linux was a real dick to everyone. The best part is that I got hired straight out of college with a good job because of my job placement and everyone at the job liked me, this guy has had 5 jobs since we left school, all for server and security related shit (I'm just a desktop tech at my company) and the reason he's had 5 jobs? Because no one could stand to work with him  He's that much of a dick that in 3-4 years, he's had that many jobs. I've had the same job all this time. I have charisma.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

Wow, that's saying something.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 10, 2009)

Well, I find a lot of Linux snobs are like that though 

Everyone here sounds like they legitimately like it, I just hate pseudo geeks who think they're the shit because they can spout some shit off about Linux.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

I'm not sure if Linux fanboys are worse than Mac fanboys, but they're close enough...

Jeff


----------



## stuh84 (Jan 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> I'm not sure if Linux fanboys are worse than *Mac fanboys*, but they're close enough...
> 
> Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 10, 2009)

I don't think anything can be worse than a Mac fanboy.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

It's okay, having a fetish for turtlenecks, an irrational fear of mouse buttons, and an inability to resist shiny objects doesn't make anyone any less human...

Jeff


----------



## Elysian (Jan 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> I'm not sure if Linux fanboys are worse than Mac fanboys, but they're close enough...
> 
> Jeff



about 7-8 years ago, the linux fanboys were much worse(at least on any forum or linux chat room i ever tried to go in to get help), but the community has lightened up a LOT since then. back then it was so discouraging to try and learn linux, because if you didn't know something, you'd just get shit all over for being ignorant. nowadays though, apple fanboys are pretty bad, to the point that i'm actually seeing people defend apple's choice to not have a removable battery on the new macbook.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 10, 2009)

They don't have a removable battery? That's pretty ridiculous


----------



## stuh84 (Jan 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It's okay, having a fetish for turtlenecks, an irrational fear of mouse buttons, and an inability to resist shiny objects doesn't make anyone any less human...
> 
> Jeff



I LIKE SHINEY THINGS!


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jan 10, 2009)

Scali, the BSDs lag FAR behind as far as drivers are concerned, I don't know what cock you're smoking but there is no end-all-be-all OS. GNU/Linux is _not_ terrible like you make it out to be and if BSD has such a superior scaling and threading model why the hell does nobody use it?


----------



## Scali (Jan 10, 2009)

JBroll said:


> I think there are more than a few advantages to the 'kernel-of-the-week' approach, and I'll leave it at that.


 
Not really. The linux kernel at the base is just a poor piece of engineering. Sure, there are lots of people trying to patch all sorts of problems... But why would you even bother, when you can run OSes that don't need patches in the first place?



JBroll said:


> 'Based on nothing' is more than a little bit exaggerated. I'd have said nothing if I was the only one who had problems, but even the most diehard BSD users I know have trouble bringing themselves to defend its hardware detection or other automatic configuration tools.


 
I thought you were comparing to Windows there. Linux certainly is ahead in terms of *BSD there, then again, as I said, I would only use BSD for server/embedded stuff, where all this doesn't really matter. You don't have to install or configure hardware/servers often. You just set it up once, and let it run for years. It's not the setup time that matters, but how efficiently and reliably it runs, and that's where BSD shows its value.



JBroll said:


> you're the first I've heard to claim that Windows is more efficient now.


 
Yes and I stand by that. Ofcourse I speak as a software engineer, where efficiency is measured by how quickly it performs certain tasks, not by whatever figures I see in task manager or such. Because those don't mean much by themselves.



D-EJ915 said:


> Scali, the BSDs lag FAR behind as far as drivers are concerned


 
I know, I thought we were comparing Windows and linux there.



D-EJ915 said:


> and if BSD has such a superior scaling and threading model why the hell does nobody use it?


 
Heh, lots of people use it. Large websites, entire ISPs etc run on BSD flavours. Heck, Hotmail ran on BSD before Microsoft bought it (it might still run on BSD, I didn't keep track of their migration path).

It's just that regular users use linux, because linux is like the Windows of the non-Windows world. The argument for people using Windows because they don't know anything else, also goes for linux.
Most linux users mainly use linux because they don't want to use Windows, and linux was the only other OS they'd ever heard of.
Not a lot of non-Windows users have actually tried many OSes and made a conscious decision based on a technical evaluation of the different options.

Large companies like ISPs and Hotmail and such do however, and that's where you'll see BSD reasonably often, and that's also where BSD gets its reputation for reliability and efficiency from.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 10, 2009)

Scali said:


> Yes and I stand by that. Ofcourse I speak as a software engineer, where efficiency is measured by how quickly it performs certain tasks, not by whatever figures I see in task manager or such. Because those don't mean much by themselves.



Well, I, for one, speak as an uninformed Internet jerk, where efficiency is measured by I WANT TO ARGUE FOR NO GOOD REASON BECAUSE UNQUALIFIED STATEMENTS GET ME OFF, not by silly things like performance.

Jeff


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jan 10, 2009)

I'm interested in this BSD threading thing because Dragonfly BSD was created because the threading model in FreeBSD blew ass but even still Dragonfly's threading and performance is not as good as that under Linux. This info is from a comparison I read last year sometime so maybe it's better now


----------



## Scali (Jan 10, 2009)

Try this article: FreeBSD 7.0 ºÍÆäËûBSDÏµÍ³µÄÐÔÄÜ±È½Ï - ÐÂÎÅ LinuxÊ±´ú - ¿ªÔ´¡¢×ÔÓÉ¡¢¹²Ïí - ÖÐ¹ú×î´óµÄLinux¼¼ÊõÉçÇø


----------



## D-EJ915 (Jan 10, 2009)

seems like FreeBSD got a lot better but dragonfly is still sucking :/


----------

