 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in Hardware / Software. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Hardware / Software - will an 'update' to vista soon be necessary? |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| User | Post | ||
HyperHacker Star Mario Finally being paid to code in VB! If only I still enjoyed that. <_< Wii #7182 6487 4198 1828                    Since: 11-18-05 From: Canada, w00t! My computer's specs, if anyone gives a damn. STOP TRUNCATING THIS >8^( Last post: 6286 days Last view: 6286 days |
| ||
| Suppose my local bookstore has no books on Linux, and I don't have a credit card to buy them online? Suppose I can't go online for help because I'm in the middle of installing/fixing Linux?
Also, I don't think I've ever had to use any of those "archane, undocumented Microsoft config GUIs are that aren't even accessible without digging through system32". They mainly seem to be leftovers from very old versions of Windows. |
|||
FreeDOS + Giant Red Koopa Legion: freedos = fritos  Since: 11-17-05 From: Seattle Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
Pretty much every bookstore here has books on Unixes (especially Linux), sometimes entire sections devoted to it. Then again, being in a large metropolis (Seattle) probably attributes to that  |
|||
Zidane Koopa  Since: 07-14-06 From: Melbourne, FL Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6292 days |
| ||
Originally posted by HyperHacker Okay, we get it, HH. You don't like Linux. Perhaps it isn't for you. But since you decided to post against the OS in favor of Winblows, I must point out that this is the weakest argument yet. What if a newcomer to Windows was in the same situation? Same problems, eh? At least in Linux, a new user can afford to experiment outside of root. With Windows... well, you have to use an administrator account to do anything. Black Lord +'s anecdote is a good example of how easy it is to work with Linux. A big reason why some people don't switch to Linux is because they don't want to be "noobs" again. But face it, if a person is good with working under Windows, it doesn't make him or her good with computers. You could even "program" Windows applications, but if making a switch to an OS that isn't Windows enough is so difficult that you'd rather stick with an inferior system, you have not yet reached that level of expertise with computers that you thought you did. In other words, you're still a noob. 
Linux is really easy, if you're willing to give it a chance. It comes with a package updater/manager that will list programs available for download and automatically download and install them if you want it to! Could you imagine how much easier that is to a newcomer to computers than Windows? FreeDOS +, I'm going to have to disagree with that article you linked. Linux is different than Windows, but it is also easier, especially to those who have little experience with computers. Heck, a day into my switch to Linux, I was already configuring my unsupported network card (I'll get back to that). Originally posted by HyperHacker Maybe if more people used Linux, companies would be willing to develop things that followed standards, instead of making shit that'll only work under Windows, utilizing some "feature" the OS offers for a one man development team to make a product dirt cheap. Originally posted by Sweet Kassy Molassy This is most likely due to proprietorship. Companies refuse to release their source, to develop multi-platform drivers, or even to release their goddamn specifications, making it hard for people to get them working. The plus to open source is that there wouldn't be these kinds of problems. You're in luck, though. There's a program called NdisWrapper that will use drivers made for Windows under Linux. I found and used this the same day I switched to Linux to get my unsupported F5D7001 Wireless G Plus Desktop Card by Belkin working. If you need some wireless drivers that'll work with it, you can find a nice long list of them here. Just extract NdisWrapper and the drivers to some folder and open up a terminal. cd to the folder you extracted it all to and use the following: make make install ndiswrapper -i path_to_driver.inf depmod -a ndiswrapper -m And there you go, your card will probably work. There's even a commercial program that will do the same thing. |
|||
BooUrns Buster Beetle  Since: 05-07-06 From: The CS Last post: 6287 days Last view: 6287 days |
| ||
| That's my major complaint about Linux right now - hardware support. I have some obscure Intel wireless card that isn't supported, and ndiswrapper kept giving me errors when I was trying to configure it. And I couldn't talk to ||bass or anyone else on IRC because I couldn't connect. But that hasn't completely turned me off to Linux. I've got Ubuntu working fine under VMWare, and I'm slowly learning where things are and how to do things. Yes, it's hard to learn and no, I don't think it'll ever replace Windows completely for me, but who knows?
It'll be interesting to see what I'll be using in five years from now. |
|||
neotransotaku Sledge Brother Liberated from school...until MLK day  Since: 11-17-05 From: In Hearst Field Annex... Last post: 6288 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| One of the major reasons why I haven't defected from Windows to some Linux distro is dealing with hardware issues. I had to help my friend before getting support and well, it is a pain. Even setting up network support on PS2/Linux was a pain because the drivers that came with that version of Linux did not support my network adapter. When you can't get network support on Linux, you basically have a dead operating system.
I still use Windows because it hasn't pissed me off enough like everyone else. I don't get the errors people get, I don't get the crashes that I hear so much about. Windows installation is nice because I know where things are installed. When I install something for UNIX, well, I'm not sure where it goes  Supposedly if I use --prefix to fix and explicitly state where I install my things, I will know where it goes. However, if something else assumes where program X is installed and I don't remember where I installed program X, I'm in trouble. Installing programs for UNIX is superior to Installing programs for Windows in terms of automation. However, when the installation process breaks down because of obscure errors, well I get frustrated because I don't even know where to begin because usually the error message from the compiler is obscure or worst yet, it segfauls for no reason at all (scrollkeeper-0.3.1  )
I guess what it comes down is to patience. HH has more patience with Windows than with Linux, and hence his apprehension to Linux as a whole, in my opinion. |
|||
Drag  80  Since: 01-18-07 From: USA Last post: 6286 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Black Lord + Linux is a good operating system for running a server. If you're running a dedicated server with Linux, chances are, you most likely wouldn't regularly be using the machine to play games or install software. You (or someone else) would install the server software, and set it up, and then you'd leave it alone until you need to update the software or something. You can't counter a "Linux isn't user friendly" argument with "Linux is great for running servers", because those usages are too different. Now, my personal stance on the Linux vs Everything Else argument is that I use Windows, because it works. I *RARELY* ever have problems with Windows (which really makes me wonder what the hell some of you guys do to your copies of Windows). All of my programs and games and such work on Windows, so it works for what I use it for. I've always viewed Linux as more of a "let's hack! (not to be confused with 'crack')", or "let's make software to make Linux better!" operating system, and not much of a "let's play games!" operating system. I probably acquired this feeling because *almost* every Linux user I've ever known was the elitist "Linux > *" variety of users who are snobby and think everyone who doesn't use Linux is a lesser person in general. I know this doesn't apply to all Linux users, but I'll be damned if it doesn't apply to a lot of you. Another thing is the whole GP2X GNU incident (see footnote), which generally reinforced my indicated feelings on Linux users. Another factor that comes into play is the past. Back in the days of Windows 9x (and other related dos-based Windows OSes), Windows used cooperative multitasking. Cooperative multitasking is basically where the OS will pass complete control over to one process, which can take as much time as it likes, and then when it's done, it returns control to the OS, which then passes control to the next process, etc etc, until all of the processes have had a chance to run, and the cycle starts over. This of course has some problems, such as when a program crashes, it has a much higher tendancy to bring the whole system to a halt if it never passes control back to the OS. In those days, Linux used pre-emptive multitasking. This multitasking is basically where the OS will *dictate* a time slot for a process to run, and then it will pass control to it. When the time slot has expired, the OS takes control back from the process, and gives it to the next one, etc etc. This is much more stable and reliable, since if a program crashes or freezes, the OS can continue to operate, and the other processes are still able to run, and thus, action can be taken about the malfunctioning process. So in those days, Linux truely was more stable and reliable. However, when Microsoft developed the NT core, they implemented pre-emptive multitasking. So any Windows system that runs using the NT core will have the pre-emptive mutltasking and will be more stable and reliable. So all in all, Windows basically caught up to Linux at that point, and the only thing seperating the two now was personal preference, purpose, etc. And that's basically think how it still is these days... based on personal preference and the purpose of the machine. GP2X GNU incident: GPH, makers of GP2X were using some other company to work on the version of Linux that is used on the GP2X. Said company wasn't complying with the GNU, and wasn't making the source available. GPH could do *nothing* about this, because of the contracting and such. Anyway, some people of the community were talking to GPH, and they were *really close* to getting the problem solved, but then some lameass decided to slashdot a VERY biased and EXTREMELY uninformed version of the story, which caused a bunch of GNU followers to harass the living hell out of GPH, which effectively delayed the solution and caused tempers to worsen. The worst part is that 90% of the bashers didn't know (or care) anything about the situation or about GPH or even about the GP2X itself, and just bashed GPH based off of "oh my god someone cried wolf WE'LL HELP YOU!!" Throughout this whole affair, there were discussions on the forums, basically saying that the GNU people were jumping to conclusions, acting too quickly and harshly, and were judging unfairly since they didn't know (or care) about the situation. There were a LOT of pro-Linux and pro-GNU community members who were acting very snobbishly about the situation, basically stating that GPH should be shut down, the source should be distributed, we don't give two shits about the situation, we don't care if you were about to solve the problem, we felt it necessary to take action, blah blah blah. In the end, GPH dropped the contracted company and are either doing it themselves, or have another company that *IS* complying with the GNU. Now, how do you think I feel about Linux users after this whole affair? |
|||
|
FreeDOS + Giant Red Koopa Legion: freedos = fritos Since: 11-17-05 From: Seattle Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| Package managers usually negate the need to compile anything at all, plus they typically install in standard places (like /usr/local). | |||
|
neotransotaku Sledge Brother Liberated from school...until MLK day Since: 11-17-05 From: In Hearst Field Annex... Last post: 6288 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| Package managers work when it has the software you want and Cygwin's package manager doesn't have everything. Cygwin is a bad example I know but it does demonstrate the shortcoming of a package manager. Other issues is keeping software up to date--SPIM's current version is 7.3, while the copy in Ubuntu's package manger is 7.2.1 |
|||
|
BooUrns Buster Beetle Since: 05-07-06 From: The CS Last post: 6287 days Last view: 6287 days |
| ||
| Well, that's a pleasant surprise. It looks like students can buy a Windows Vista Home Premium Upgrade DVD for around $75. Not bad, considering the normal Home Premium upgrade is around $160. | |||
spiroth10 Paratroopa Since: 01-28-06 From: USA Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| also if you don't like linux, there IS a similar alternative.
BSD. I've only used it in a limited quantity, but I'm trying it out as a secondary OS after I'm done downloading PC-BSD (a variant of FreeBSD, because I hate the god-forsaken FreeBSD installer. I can't get it to work and feel like I'm not going to erase all my partitions. I've got a horror story about that one...) anyway BSD is different flavor of Unix. While it may look the same on the outside, it is a more uniform OS than linux. I compare linux to chaos and BSD to Order. Both philosophies have their advantages. Linux is a fast paced powerhouse with thousands new hardware supported very quickly. There are more and more people working on it daily too. BSD has a slower development pace, and often it takes software months/years to get ported over fully, although there is a (quite good) layer of compatibilty with linux applications Although it's main advantages are it's 1. ports system (which is mimicked by Gentoo, probably the most highly acclaimed distro as of late, mostly due to it's ports system...) This will easily solve your problems with getting software. Almost all major software is in the ports system, so compiling isn't necessary as often as in linux, and seeing as it is a major part of the OS itself, it is much more well supported, less buggy, and easier to use than most linux package managers. 2. The OS is upgradeable! thats right, you don't have to download the install CD set for each version, through portage, you can actually upgrade the core OS to new versions. BSD is a whole operating system, not just a kernel and underlying programs. it is also even more stable than linux (due to it's slower growth rate) and faster for a majority of issues (based off many, many benchmarks I have seen) Although, I've used linux for a loooong time, and I have to defend it as well. all that "Illegible" stuff does actually make sense if you understand programming (more specifically makefiles) that is there so you can tell where the compiler screws up and how in case the person that coded it screwed up somewhere. And I do believe you can place make in silent mode. most of your issues, XKeeper, I would only expect from a PC novice (no offense meant). Even windows variants of make (from Borland to VC++) have similar (if not essentially the same) output. you also have to realize that while DOS is simpler to use, it is highly restrictive. What about Symlinks? How about the various shells available? hell, with modern distros, all you need to do is clikc a few times, wait like 30mins to an hour, and you have a whole system setup and ready to go with little/no configuration. FOR DESKTOP AND SERVER AND WORKSTATION! sure, sometimes there can be issues getting hardware to work. But nowadays, unless the hardware is extremely obscure, it probably doesn't work because (like winmodems) they are based off cheap hardware that need windows to run, or are brand new and you'll need to wait awhile. Unix variants are suitable for all types of users and setups. In a not so far off future, it is likely that they will dominate the PC market. You must realize that all this DRM crap (and vista's "security") are nothing more than an attempt to fight back against the Open Source community that is dealing them a death blow, Apple hasn't posed MS a real threat in many years. There are thousands of personal users converting daily, and soon businesses will convert as well. The server market is dominated, the desktop market is beginning to rise in favor of *nix/BSD, and once desktops take a firmer hold, businesses will start using it too because that will be what all the software is for, and what employees will be comfortable with. Microsoft's dominance is slowly dying down, and its stock havent fallen only because of the Xbox. Call me a fanboy/loyalist, but its the truth. MS is going to die long before Unix variants do. Its what the people want, they just arent educated enough on the matter to realize it. I had a livecd going yesterday, all my hardware working 100%, and I was online and screwing around in like 5 mins. yesterday. Thats a lot more than Windows users can ever say. |
|||
|
Metal Man88 Gold axe It appears we have been transported to a time in which everything is on fire! Since: 11-17-05 Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Hiryuu I specialize in running Windows 3.11 far past the fact. Assuming your system is compatible AND it runs, you can browse the internet, play old games, upload files, download files, play music, what have you. Just about everything I do on a daily basis, too! |
|||
|
FreeDOS + Giant Red Koopa Legion: freedos = fritos Since: 11-17-05 From: Seattle Last post: 6285 days Last view: 6285 days |
| ||
| spiroth, you post has a few flaws or incorrect implications:
1. You're assuming that all the BSDs are similar. Actually, if you look at them, you can't really tell that FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and Mac OS X all shared some ancient codebase. OpenBSD and FreeBSD might only be recognisable as siblings by name alone if you didn't know the history. 2. Similar to point 1, you assume that the *BSDs all use the same package manager. This is also untrue: Mac OS X uses something with Finder iirc; OpenBSD uses a ports/packages system that was based on FreeBSD's, but is now very different; FreeBSD also has a ports/packages system that is really only similar to OpenBSD's by name now; NetBSD has pkgsrc which aims to be portable between different operating systems (it has versions for the other BSDs (incl Mac OS X), Linux, Windows (Cygwin or Interix), Solaris, HP-UX, etc); and so on. 3. You claim that Apple can't compete technologically against Microsoft. Mac OS X is some hybrid of NeXTSTEP, Mach, FreeBSD, and who knows what. It's inherintly superior to Windows NT (features, stability, security, etc). 4. Although I'd consider the *BSDs to be mostly superior to Linux (I can't say much about FreeBSD, that damn installer is scary), there's no real indication they're being adopted over it. I will attribute most of this to the legal battles in the early 1990s over weather 386BSD had illegal AT&T UNIX code; the settlement was eventually that only a portion of the kernel was illegal (which was quickly rewritten), however by that time, Linux had already developed into a pseudo-usable form desktop users were adopting. If it weren't for the legal troubles, I have little doubt that the *BSDs could have prevailed at least on the level Linux does, if not more. 5. On a smaller implication, you sound like Unix is still around with its original corporation. Actually, it's out-lived the original corporation that developed it. There's several reasons for this; let's just give an analogy, MS Windows will die when Microsoft does unless they decide to free it  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - Hardware / Software - will an 'update' to vista soon be necessary? |
| |
