Acmlm's Board - I2 Archive - Hardware/Software - linux distro
| User | Post |
Jizuko
Posts: 217/1191 |
If XP's gui fails it restarts.
Even my dad can handle XP, XP is made so everyone can handle it. It's easy to use and compatible with almost everything.
Linux isn't bad, I'm on it right now in school, but neither is windows. It depends on what you use it for. Gamers and altiallos should go to Windows, server and networkadministrators should probably go to linux. Ofcourse there's some pretty good desktop dists for linux too. Xandros which I'm on, runs KDE 3.1, works really well. Hasn't crashed so far. XMMS, which is a clone of winamp, even the menues are the same. There's openoffice for wordprocessing, and replacements for most things. Not games though. Pretty hard to make a game run unless the developer released a version for Linux too, like Unreal Tournament 2k4.
Both serves its purposes. And I'm sure that the reason Linux is hacked more is because it's used alot more on servers. It's easy to setup a webserver on linux and have it run for ages. It's also free. You don't have to worry about big brother eating your ass...
As for getting everything to work at first startup, I think debian owns there. Ah, apt-get install gimp, apt-get install mozilla-firefox, apt-get install mozilla-thunderbird, apt-get install dia, etc etc. You can make KDE look pretty nice too, lots of schemes out there. And glassy slick glass buttons to replace the other ones too.
Best of all with Linux is that you get updates for most programs quickly. Unlike when a company controlls alls instances of a program and you have to wait until they release a version (that you have to pay for too  ). |
kitty
Posts: 787/2449 |
Heh, your loss I suppose  Don't know how anyone can be lost in Windows but I suppose when you're used to terminals you get lost easy... kinda like putting people used to punch-cards in front of DOS machines. |
Error
Posts: 27/54 |
I have a VIA board.
I ditched Windows today and doing some tests for Fedora Core 2 Test 3 |
kitty
Posts: 784/2449 |
Did you do what I suggested, find the manufacturer of the board, go to their website and download drivers?
If you have a VIA board or nForce/nForce2 board, you'll notice a HUGE performance increase with those drivers over stock Windows ones, especially in gaming. Tell me what you have, I'll link to drivers for the chipset/sound |
Error
Posts: 26/54 |
Well when XP's gui's fail.. then what?
It's drivers just wouldnt work AT ALL for my onboard sound no matter how many GUI's I went through..
I'll stick to my good ole kernel based drivers built in by myself.. |
kitty
Posts: 780/2449 |
Originally posted by Error
Whereas I don't know what the fuck I'm doing in XP thus It crashes and burns.
No offense but how do you know what you're not doing in XP? It's got a GUI for everything and a huge help section as well! It's got support for plug and play, automatic driver searches/installs, automatic updating and, in case you fuck something up, system restore! |
Error
Posts: 25/54 |
Legion so far all you're saying is what I simply said.
Linux is only as exploitable as the fucking idiot running the server.
If you don't know what your doing in Linux you are going fsck yourself.
Luckily for me I know exactly what I'm doing.
Whereas I don't know what the fuck I'm doing in XP thus It crashes and burns.
user error is user error is user error.
It's a story as old as time and linux doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator and isn't MEANT for those not willing to get their hands dirty.
it's an OS for those of us who care about knowing every little nook and cranny about our system's functions.
As for a unified GUI? Fuck that. |
Legion
Posts: 519/5657 |
"Legion have you tried out Linux at all?"
No, I just like to assume on my own without actualling trying it out. Of course I have.
If you mess up a setting in Linux, you might find the your whole OS is fucked and wont boot. No way to fix it. But with windows, each setting is fixable and a five letter string doesn't have the potential of crashing your comp.
When you secure a system, you try to shut down things that you're not going to be using and try to make things you are going to use as secure as possible. Most people are under the impression that Linux is secure by default. Not true.
And what's with all of these Linux distributions that give you 15 text editors and tons of GUI's? That's another problem with Linux. There's just too much of everything. If the KDE and GNHIP joined up and made on gui for X11 it would be so much better. As it stands now, things are too hard to configure. Why look at text files all day and why have a gui application with a text based configuration? It's pointless I tell you.
Windows 2003 is a lot more stable. The background services that crash the OS have been turned off by default leaving only the services you need turned on which is the complete opposite of Windows 2000 where everything was on by default.
Linux also has a bad directory management. Microsoft's Acitve Directory is far superior to ANYTHING Linux has. And Linux is also known for it's shitty sound card support. Something Windows mastered lonnnng ago.
"I've had more problems with XP with my hardware than Linux EVER did."
I'm sorry that you've had problems with XP but I've never had ANY major problems within the past two years of using it. Through constant usage, I've only managed to crash it once. Just once. And that was when I started a newly installed copy of WinMX. And as for freezes, only a handful of times and that's because I was putting up some serious resource requirments.
And never have I seen the BSOD. Does XP even have one? Because if it does, I sure as hell wouldn't know about it. The reason people have problems with Windows is because they abuse it and don't treat it right. And you'd have to do some serious abusing I might add. People don't use virus scanning regularly (or at all), people just let spyware pile up and NEVER scan for it, people do all kinds of stupid shit on their comps like deleting system files, trying to mod them or move them, etc...
XP is indeed a very stable OS. Sure it was riddled with security holes when it first came out, but that's why you should wait about 6 months before changing to a newly released OS. It gives them time to fix the major defects and iron out a lot of the bugs. Don't be fooled by what the fanboys tell you, Windows is indeed the shit. At least XP is. I can't speak for ME, heh. With each new release, Microsoft is getting better and better. XP is worlds better than ME and 2003 is worlds better than 2k.
And if this whole thing bored you, then here's a little bed time reading. Linux is exploited MORE than Windows. Enjoy. |
kitty
Posts: 751/2449 |
Error: You never said what type of mobo you have. You didn't even install SP1 AFAIK. Windows is 100% plug + play and you need the drivers for it to work. Otherwise, you're screwed. (Note: All 2K SP2 and up drivers work with XP SP1 as well)
I've never had a Windows hardware problem and, if I install/reinstall/uninstall hardware, I don't need to recompile my kernel. Windows does all the changes for me.
I know how to manually install drivers if need be, instead of waiting for the "Your new hardware is installed and ready to be used" tooltip in the system tray. But I'm NOT willing to learn how to compile drivers into my kernel. I change hardware WAY too often to put up with that shit! (I've had my current setup exactly this way for 3 months now which I think is the longest I've ever gone with no hardware changes!)
Linux does have a huge advanage over Windows - cost.
To me, Windows has more advantages that outweigh that - ease of setup and use, hardware compatibility, software compatibility, documentation, help (for really stupid PC users, I suppose, but not every PC user is nearly as literate as any of us).
If Linux kernels were superior to the NT kernel, MS would not hesitate to use it at all - it's free code, they can idiot-proof it and sell it for tons of cash and not have to hire people to further the development of the NT kernel, people do it for free!
There's a reason 
edit: I'm not saying some people don't find Linux better than Windows. Obviously, many do or they wouldn't use it.
I don't care about the HD space it uses, or if it uses over 100MB for its footprint sometime. I have 200GB of HD space and 1GB of DC DDR400 RAM. I have a 3200+ processor, and 128MB of 600MHz DDR video RAM. In other words, I'll take my bloated GUI and its "quirks" over a terminal |
Error
Posts: 24/54 |
Excuse me? i've been using Linux as my main operating system ever since I got into it a while back..
I'm not your average joe "redhat user".. And I'd appreciate it if you didn't treat me like one.
As for server use I'd use NetBSD or FreeBSD on my servers actually.
BSD's biggest advantage is it's networking abilities.
I use Linux as my main desktop.
Currently I've installed Windows XP Pro next to it so I can play some Windows only games.
I've had more problems with XP with my hardware than Linux EVER did.
And the thing is I can actually FIX my linux problems.. my onboard sound worked perfectly on Gentoo just by compiling my drivers into the kernel.. same with my ethernet..
XP Pro didnt even TRY to fix up my onboard sound.. user friendly indeed.. I had to install a PCI Soundblaster card just to get my sound to work in XP.. |
Kasumi-Astra
Posts: 293/1867 |
My main OS is Windows XP Home. I have got it on dual boot with SuSE now, though.
SuSE is really easy to install, but predicably it didn't detect my modem. Installing drivers in Linux is not user friendly at all, so I'm waiting for me and my PC to be driven home from university to see if it connects with the network at home.
Linux may have the functionality, but Windows is still pretty good if you're gentle with it, and it's much, much more convenient to use as well. |
Ailure
Posts: 1278/11162 |
Legion have you tried out Linux at all? Originally posted by Legion
In a performance test, Windows Server 2003 beat the living hell out of Redhat doing 60 to 95% faster. Left it in the dust.
I have seen this severeal times. But only in Microsoft's ads.  (BTW how much did Windows Server 2003 cost? ) I would like to see more tests with diffrent distros and all. (and after all, Red hat hadn't been updated for awhile now... I would like to see the same test with fedora  and when it's compiled from source)
I like Linux becuse it gives Microsoft competition. Windows got better after Linux started to be a threat.
Personally I like both OS's as much. |
Legion
Posts: 518/5657 |
Originally posted by Error
Originally posted by Legion
Um, why is FreeBSD an option? That's not Linux.
And I don't use any Linux. I use Windows because it's a lot better than Linux.
No it's not.
More than likely you're just to dumb / stupid to grasp the concept of a more advanced OS.
Heh, it's even more likely that you're just one of those trend whores who uses Linux because you want to be cool and only went off what you heard.
All hard core punk rock music fans say that once a band gets on MTV they have sold out. They don't care if the band actually has good music - they just won't listen to it.
This is whats happening with Linux and Windows. People think that Windows actually sucks. There are a lot of people that know very little about Linux/Unix/BSD that say "Gooo Linux! Window Sucks"
Linux more stable? Not really. Windows Server 2003 can reach uptimes of 100+ days. Security wise? How secure do you think Linux noobs (which is probably about 90% of you) can make it?
More advanced? That's the funniest thing I've heard in quite some time.
In a performance test, Windows Server 2003 beat the living hell out of Redhat doing 60 to 95% faster. Left it in the dust.
As for bugs and faulty coding? If Linux was more mainstream, I guaruntee you more bugs and security holes would be found to give Windows a serious run for its money. |
Ailure
Posts: 1270/11162 |
Originally posted by Legion
And I don't use any Linux. I use Windows because it's a lot better than Linux.
It depends on what actually. Win XP can compete with Linux. Especially when it come to the User interface.
Honestly, many things in Linux must be done in Bash, in root mode. But Linux is good for the experinced/brave users, like me.  (if I ever get around installing Fedora now...)
Security wise, Linux is better than Windows yes, as long you aren't logged in as root... |
Error
Posts: 23/54 |
Originally posted by Legion
Um, why is FreeBSD an option? That's not Linux.
And I don't use any Linux. I use Windows because it's a lot better than Linux.
No it's not.
More than likely you're just to dumb / stupid to grasp the concept of a more advanced OS. |
Legion
Posts: 501/5657 |
Um, why is FreeBSD an option? That's not Linux.
And I don't use any Linux. I use Windows because it's a lot better than Linux. |
Phoenix21692
Posts: 10/34 |
I vote for Mandrake since that is the distro I use on a regular basis. Other distros that I have used are Knoppix and SuSE. I've tried to install RedHat Linux 9.0, but it never worked. |
Error
Posts: 1/54 |
I'm currently sporting Gentoo Linux.
I've been all over the wall.. debian, redhat. fedora, mandrake. slackware..
Even toyed with linux from scratch..
gentoo is linux from scratch with portage so Im happy more or less.. I just have minor problems with portage.. |
theclaw
Posts: 28/202 |
I've never managed to get any Linux distro to work. I don't have spare hard drives that could be reformatted either... The only distros around here are an old version of Mandrake, and one of Red Hat. Haven't seen newer kinds for sale anywhere either. I'm using Win2000 right now, upgraded (it's confusing to explain) from 98SE. I've seen Linux running on just one computer, it was a laptop (no clue about the distro). Looked like MS-DOS, but with that penguin in the corner. |
Tarale
Posts: 75/2720 |
yep, apt-get really is great, that's why I have it on my Fedora install. I don't need to set up my Linux for a server, I just use it for personal use, so there's no point me using Debian really, but I DO like Debian's apt-get. FAR better than Red Hat's alternative... o.o |
| This is a long thread. Click here to view it. |
|
