Author Topic: Linux is a pieve of crap compared to Windows 2000. (Read 39127 times)

microsoft windows · « **on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 12:25:13 »

Or is it not? Or do you like Mac's better? Argue about operating systems here.

didjamatic · « **Reply #1 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 12:53:44 »

Each has strengths, each has things that pieve me.

sixty · « **Reply #2 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 13:09:18 »

I heard Windows 3.1 is pretty good. Also its best if you run it on old IBM hardware and only ever use a Model M on it. There we got that all covered and I saved some people some work to post, move on.

mike · « **Reply #3 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 13:13:53 »

What about TOPS-20 ?
Or RiscOS ?
And OpenGenera ?
Or LynxOS ?
Or L4 ?

microsoft windows · « **Reply #4 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 13:21:26 »

You can argue about them here too.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #5 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 13:21:59 »

Quote from: didjamatic;209864

Each has strengths, each has things that pieve me.

Like making type-O's?

Phaedrus2129 · « **Reply #6 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 14:00:44 »

Every operating system except OpenVMS is junk. Mainly because their logo is Jaws.

Findecanor · « **Reply #7 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 14:10:00 »

Quote from: mike;209872

What about TOPS-20 ?
Or RiscOS ?
And OpenGenera ?
Or LynxOS ?
Or L4 ?

L4 was just a µkernel. You could run Linux on top of it, with slightly faster context switching. But then, a lot has changed to the mainline Linux kernel since then.

instantkamera · « **Reply #8 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 14:29:32 »

Linux IS a piece of crap, but in that analogy, win2k is a squirt of hot diarrhea that has been fermenting in the bowl for 10 years, just begging to be flushed. Ill take a solid **** any day.

hyperlinked · « **Reply #9 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 14:38:41 »

Quote from: instantkamera;209893

Linux IS a piece of crap, but in that analogy, win2k is a squirt of hot diarrhea that has been fermenting in the bowl for 10 years, just begging to be flushed. Ill take a solid **** any day.

Kams, consider who started this thread and read the first few posts after the start of the thread.

You just got beat like by a guy with 4 brain cells.

ch_123 · « **Reply #10 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 14:48:49 »

Quote from: Phaedrus2129;209887

Every operating system except OpenVMS is junk. Mainly because their logo is Jaws.

This guy for President.

HaaTa · « **Reply #11 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 14:49:25 »

I prefer the Toto toilets over the INAX ones

instantkamera · « **Reply #12 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 14:54:46 »

im just saying...

ain't nothin' wrong with that.

HaaTa · « **Reply #13 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 15:09:03 »

One thing that I thought was useful, was the ability to choose from a Big (大) or Small (小) flush. Pretty much universally available on Japanese toilets, even the low-tech ones (no electronics).

instantkamera · « **Reply #14 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 15:13:26 »

Dual flush is pretty universal everywhere, no? I know it is common in Europe, and anything being newly installed here (in Canada) is DF.

I prefer the good, old-fashioned adage: "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down."

the problem is with people who "let the brown sit around".

instantkamera · « **Reply #15 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 15:19:18 »

Quote from: kishy;209909

We have a dual-flush low flow toilet waiting to be installed, replacing the old toilet (which is functionally fantastic).

I do not look forward to it.

aahhh. wink wink, nudge nudge, say no more.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #16 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 15:48:29 »

Quote from: HaaTa;209899

I prefer the Toto toilets over the INAX ones

Show Image

Lol what's the 2nd button from the left? A boobwash?

TexasFlood · « **Reply #17 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 16:12:42 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;209919

Lol what's the 2nd button from the left? A boobwash?

Or a ballswash.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #18 on:** Fri, 06 August 2010, 16:15:54 »

Quote from: ripster;209913

I look forward to my toilet while peeing.

Now in Asia...
Show Image

So that is illustrating not to jam the plumbing and porcelain up your rear? Do folks really need that point driven home (pun intended)?

sam113101 · « **Reply #19 on:** Fri, 13 August 2010, 22:21:01 »

is bidet a nice thing*?

chongyixiong · « **Reply #20 on:** Sat, 14 August 2010, 00:13:03 »

Quote from: sam113101;212461

is bidet a nice thing*?

Don't know about you guys, but it's predominant in my country. And I think a good hose to wash it down is better:

- environmentally friendly
- promotes a good wash with your fingers to make sure you are 'truly clean'
- nice soothing feeling

Although I couldn't find a bidet in HK or Taiwan washrooms.. I think US generally like toilet paper more?

Lanx · « **Reply #21 on:** Sat, 14 August 2010, 00:34:42 »

^----
wait... it's bidet only? i thought it was a combo like, do your thing... use toilet paper... activate bidet.

Oqsy · « **Reply #22 on:** Sat, 14 August 2010, 04:54:00 »

Whew, glad I made it to this thread before the doors locked! Let's see, I'll handcuff myself to this rail over here and take notes.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #23 on:** Sat, 14 August 2010, 11:49:22 »

Quote from: Phaedrus2129;209887

Every operating system except OpenVMS is junk. Mainly because their logo is Jaws.

I've got a little IBM "shark" storage rubber shark around here somewhere, wonder where that thing is?

Xuan · « **Reply #24 on:** Sun, 15 August 2010, 23:24:04 »

Those WCs are fancy, they should also add a few steel handles in the sides for the tourists not used to eat tons of rice every day

microsoft windows · « **Reply #25 on:** Mon, 16 August 2010, 16:57:55 »

Quote from: TexasFlood;212563

I've got a little IBM "shark" storage rubber shark around here somewhere, wonder where that thing is?
Show Image

I've got two whole bags of little Intel astronauts lying around.

Lanx · « **Reply #26 on:** Mon, 16 August 2010, 20:30:43 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;213209

I've got two whole bags of little Intel astronauts lying around.

isn't that old school? didn't they stop the astronaut campaign at the turn of the century? (give or take a year or 2)

microsoft windows · « **Reply #27 on:** Mon, 16 August 2010, 20:34:18 »

Who do you think you're talking to? What computer products do I have that aren't out-of-date? My AutoCad manual from 1989? Windows 2000? Office 97?

TexasFlood · « **Reply #28 on:** Mon, 16 August 2010, 21:18:14 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;213209

I've got two whole bags of little Intel astronauts lying around.

You could make a bean bag chair stuffed with bunny people.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #29 on:** Mon, 16 August 2010, 21:29:33 »

I've only got the little blue astronauts. And they're pre-Pentium.

Lanx · « **Reply #30 on:** Mon, 16 August 2010, 23:42:26 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;213296

Who do you think you're talking to? What computer products do I have that aren't out-of-date? My AutoCad manual from 1989? Windows 2000? Office 97?

your actually using win2k? i thought that was a joke...

typo · « **Reply #31 on:** Tue, 17 August 2010, 00:52:10 »

win2k is a little old? check out the toto website. the ones you guys posted aren't even the half!

microsoft windows · « **Reply #32 on:** Tue, 17 August 2010, 07:30:48 »

Quote from: Lanx;213361

your actually using win2k? i thought that was a joke...

I love Windows 2000 SP4. It's a great operating system. It never crashes, takes less than a second to properly shut down, and runs extremely fast. It's also compatible with modern software.

instantkamera · « **Reply #33 on:** Tue, 17 August 2010, 07:53:30 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;213415

I love Windows 2000 SP4. It's a great operating system. It never crashes

It DOES crash, hence the 4 service packs. Also, you actually have to USE the OS, for it to crash (browsing the web and running office 97 doesn't count as USING).

Quote from: microsoft windows;213415

, takes less than a second to properly shut down, and runs extremely fast. It's also compatible with modern software.

I think we have already covered how ridiculous a metric shutdown speed is, especially on a "server" OS.

Im sure there is tons of modern software that it isn't compatible with, probably some that will crash it.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #34 on:** Tue, 17 August 2010, 08:02:27 »

I have actually used W2K. I used it for a long time at work. It was installed on all the machines at my workplace and had the notorious 10-minute startups. But it never crashed on me.

ch_123 · « **Reply #35 on:** Tue, 17 August 2010, 08:49:07 »

Even though it's technically still supported, there are serious security flaws in it that Microsoft won't fix because it will require too much effort.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #36 on:** Tue, 17 August 2010, 18:04:22 »

W2K support actually ended in mid-July. A very sad month.

whininggit · « **Reply #37 on:** Wed, 18 August 2010, 15:47:18 »

If you ever tried to get Ubuntu to do something useful, you might be under the impression that Linux as a whole is a piece of crap. With every release I hope that they have fixed the numerous bugs present in the previous. I eventually get an installation to a point where I think everything is working but then I run across a show-stopper with no fix in sight.

For 10.04, this point was 4 weeks after installation and many wasted hours editing config files to get things to work which should work out of the box. After those 4 weeks I had an unsecure Samba server, unreliable ZoneMinder CCTV that craps out after a few hours and sluggish resource-hogging VNC remote desktop.

For comparison, Windows 7 with Luxriot was up and running in 2 hours and provided lightning-fast RDP remote desktop, stable CCTV monitoring and password-protected file sharing.

"Linux" is not the problem. Obsession with distros' number one priority being "sticking it to the man" and being "free" (as in freedom (but with conditions)) rather than fixing actual problems is.

EverythingIBM · « **Reply #38 on:** Wed, 18 August 2010, 16:16:08 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;213320

I've only got the little blue astronauts. And they're pre-Pentium.

What are you going to do with all of them, sell them? Or let them delicately age like vintage wine.

Quote from: microsoft windows;213722

W2K support actually ended in mid-July. A very sad month.

IBM still supports OS/2, but for a fee.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #39 on:** Thu, 19 August 2010, 10:01:09 »

Quote from: EverythingIBM;214063

What are you going to do with all of them, sell them? Or let them delicately age like vintage wine.

They just kind of sit around and gather dust.

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #40 on:** Thu, 19 August 2010, 19:28:11 »

you got any pics of those? I thought those guys were created to promote pentiums

TexasFlood · « **Reply #41 on:** Thu, 19 August 2010, 19:35:50 »

Quote from: D-EJ915;214738

you got any pics of those? I thought those guys were created to promote pentiums

Now that you mention it, weren't they tied into Pentium II MMX technology?

whininggit · « **Reply #42 on:** Sat, 21 August 2010, 08:29:36 »

Oh for Christs sake, I hate Geekhack. Not content with brainwashing me into buying more keyboards than I will need in my lifetime, I'm now browsing eBay looking for one of these Intel dolls for my desk at work.

On the topic of Ubuntu and how much it sucks, I'm getting 45MB/s disk 1 to disk 2 file copy versus 90MB/s in Windows 7 (same hardware). This is real-world 1TB of data, not a benchmark. It's probably my fault for not typing hdparm /dev/sda1 -dsds -fdfef -cweqwefd -ffdsf or similar nonsense post-install though.

JBert · « **Reply #43 on:** Sat, 21 August 2010, 10:24:31 »

What kind of filesystem are you using on those disks?

whininggit · « **Reply #44 on:** Sat, 21 August 2010, 10:32:28 »

ext3 on Ubuntu, NTFS on 7.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #45 on:** Sat, 21 August 2010, 16:27:55 »

Quote from: TexasFlood;214746

Now that you mention it, weren't they tied into Pentium II MMX technology?

Maybe they were. I don't know. But they just say "Intel Inside".

Lanx · « **Reply #46 on:** Sat, 21 August 2010, 17:01:15 »

mmx started with the first pentium (i think) so around 94/95ish. those spacesuits were popular towards the end of the century.
so unless intel tried to heavily brand spacesuits+mmx+pentium=> amd 3dnow
i don't think so.

ch_123 · « **Reply #47 on:** Sat, 21 August 2010, 17:08:33 »

Quote from: whininggit;215361

ext3 on Ubuntu, NTFS on 7.

There you go, use Ext4 or JFS instead...

whininggit · « **Reply #48 on:** Mon, 04 October 2010, 12:56:41 »

Quote from: ch_123;215461

There you go, use Ext4 or JFS instead...

Yep. Moved to ext4 and performance is good. Happy with Ubuntu now.

timw4mail · « **Reply #49 on:** Mon, 04 October 2010, 14:52:09 »

Windows 2000 sucks, and IIS sucks. Gentoo and Lighttpd are much better. That is all.

pikapika · « **Reply #50 on:** Sun, 10 October 2010, 17:35:08 »

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9/

best os logo ever

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #51 on:** Sun, 10 October 2010, 23:35:31 »

Yep, glenda ish teh awesomo. This used to be on my website's main page and I have glenda as my favicon

WhiteRice · « **Reply #52 on:** Mon, 11 October 2010, 00:11:33 »

I've never personally seen the Windows kernel. I don't know if anyone here has.

I have seen the linux kernel, hell anyone can. There is some very beautiful code. Taking something as complex as memory management and breaking it down into elegant instructions.

Wait where was I going with this...

Parak · « **Reply #53 on:** Mon, 11 October 2010, 00:18:45 »

Quote from: WhiteRice;232392

I've never personally seen the Windows kernel. I don't know if anyone here has.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795

Close enough? Teehee.

roaduck · « **Reply #54 on:** Sat, 16 October 2010, 01:26:01 »

Quote from: ripster;209913

I look forward to my toilet while peeing.

Now in Asia...
Show Image

God ripster that looks like a bidet on the floor - pee is gonna spraying everywhere and I wouldn't sit on one! And how did we go from Linux to a bog?

I prefer

zefrer · « **Reply #55 on:** Sun, 17 October 2010, 23:46:54 »

This is very disturbing.

Shawn Stanford · « **Reply #56 on:** Mon, 18 October 2010, 08:14:43 »

The hard drive in the computer designated as 'belonging' to my older daughter (a 5 or 6 year-old eMachine) just pooped itself. Since she's getting a lappy for Christmas, rather than putting in a new HD from NewEgg ($50 for .5tb? Crazy!), I installed an 8gb drive I found in my garage, slapped a copy of Win2k onto it (also found in my garage) and dragged it up my bedroom to play movies off our network (2tb on a PogoPlug NAS) and stream video off the internets.

Working fine so far.

Of course, juggling four different versions of Windows (Win2k on that box, Vista on my home desktop, XP on my work and personal laptops and Win7 on my wife's (newly rebuilt) laptop is interesting, but the basic concepts haven't changed; it's more a matter of remembering where they put this or that task in a given version.

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #57 on:** Mon, 18 October 2010, 20:25:43 »

I thought you said garbage at first and thought your garbage has nicer stuff than MW and EIBM basements

8_INCH_FLOPPY · « **Reply #58 on:** Mon, 18 October 2010, 22:03:18 »

What is a "pieve of crap"?

TexasFlood · « **Reply #59 on:** Mon, 18 October 2010, 22:09:16 »

Quote from: 8_INCH_FLOPPY;235750

What is a "pieve of crap"?

Extended use of Windows (particularly Windows 98, ME or Vista) can cause stress induced spelling errors. I recommend loading any Unix variant on any two of your computers and start another thread in the morning.

chimera15 · « **Reply #60 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 01:24:03 »

Aren't there like 8 sp's for windows 2000? I thought there were more than 4. Security is the problem. Every script kiddie can hack windows 2000, there's like a bazillion exploits for it. I set up a windows 2000 system just to practice on when I was learning hacking.

Shawn Stanford · « **Reply #61 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 06:39:08 »

Meh. It's not a mission-critical box.

instantkamera · « **Reply #62 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 07:09:29 »

Quote from: chimera15;235791

when I was learning hacking.

Are you learning that at the same school you are learning your javascript from ??

8_INCH_FLOPPY · « **Reply #63 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 14:09:50 »

You guys think Windows2000 has poor security? Anyone here ever used Windows ME? It's probably the least secure windows OS ever.

Shawn Stanford · « **Reply #64 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 17:29:09 »

Windows ME was complete **** in every conceivable way.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #65 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 17:36:40 »

Quote from: 8_INCH_FLOPPY;235750

What is a "pieve of crap"?

A type-o.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #66 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 17:37:20 »

Quote from: Shawn Stanford;236120

Windows ME was complete **** in every conceivable way.

It was better than Windows 98 though.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #67 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 17:48:48 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;236127

It was better than Windows 98 though.

Not sure I'd agree with that one, but would agree they're both crap compared to other releases.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #68 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 18:03:34 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;236127

It was better than Windows 98 though.

Not sure I'd agree with that one, but would agree they're both crap compared to other releases. Well, I never liked Vista and in general all Microsoft releases are questionable until a service pack or two come out.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #69 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 18:06:31 »

Quote from: kishy;236133

The DOS-based Windozes:

98SE > 98 > ME > 95(all)

Pre-95 is too bad to even qualify on a relative scale...

My order:
98SE > 95 (relatively speaking as a consumer product for the time) > 98 > ME
As far as pre-95, Windows for Workgroups v3.11 was Ok, again considering the time.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #70 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 18:12:25 »

You can still get a lot done on WFW 3.11. I still use it to this day.

zefrer · « **Reply #71 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 18:52:19 »

You live in the past though. You and John Connor.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #72 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 19:22:49 »

Well. If you have some older hardware, might make sense to run an older OS and application software on it. Depending on what you want to do, might be perfectly adequate. Software bloat isn't noticed if masked newer hardware with faster processors, bigger memory & disk. More powerful hardware helps sell more feature laden bloated software which helps sell more powerful hardware... But you can sure see the bloat if you load the software on older hardware as it starts to crawl as it chews up the CPU but even more than that uses all the memory and starts paging & churning the hard drive.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #73 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 19:24:00 »

Well. If you have some older hardware, might make sense to run an older OS and application software on it. Depending on what you want to do, might be perfectly adequate. Software bloat isn't noticed if masked by newer hardware with faster processors with more memory & disk. More powerful hardware helps sell more feature laden bloated software which helps sell more powerful hardware... But you can sure see the bloat if you load the software on older hardware as it starts to crawl as it chews up the CPU but even more than that uses all the memory and starts paging & churning the hard drive.

timw4mail · « **Reply #74 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 19:52:50 »

Quote from: TexasFlood;236178

Well. If you have some older hardware, might make sense to run an older OS and application software on it. Depending on what you want to do, might be perfectly adequate. Software bloat isn't noticed if masked by newer hardware with faster processors with more memory & disk. More powerful hardware helps sell more feature laden bloated software which helps sell more powerful hardware... But you can sure see the bloat if you load the software on older hardware as it starts to crawl as it chews up the CPU but even more than that uses all the memory and starts paging & churning the hard drive.

You can definitely see software bloat on newer machines. Older machines are not USABLE with bloatware.

8_INCH_FLOPPY · « **Reply #75 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 22:24:08 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;236127

It was better than Windows 98 though.

NO.

Brian8bit · « **Reply #76 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 22:47:54 »

I remember Windows ME. I can't remember what caused the blue screening more, ME itself, or the **** P4 Advent computer I had that liked to cook itself.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #77 on:** Tue, 19 October 2010, 23:01:25 »

Quote from: Shawn Stanford;236120

Windows ME was complete **** in every conceivable way.

Quote from: microsoft windows;236127

It was better than Windows 98 though.

Quote from: 8_INCH_FLOPPY;236220

NO.

I'm with Shawn Stanford and 8_INCH_FLOPPY on this one that Windows ME was complete **** in every conceivable way.

zefrer · « **Reply #78 on:** Wed, 20 October 2010, 06:46:08 »

Quote from: TexasFlood;236178

Well. If you have some older hardware, might make sense to run an older OS and application software on it. Depending on what you want to do, might be perfectly adequate. Software bloat isn't noticed if masked by newer hardware with faster processors with more memory & disk. More powerful hardware helps sell more feature laden bloated software which helps sell more powerful hardware... But you can sure see the bloat if you load the software on older hardware as it starts to crawl as it chews up the CPU but even more than that uses all the memory and starts paging & churning the hard drive.

Actually, I like to install linux on old hardware exactly to see that it won't crawl to a stop

To this day it is the only OS I have seen that can run equally well on old hardware as well as new.

TexasFlood · « **Reply #79 on:** Wed, 20 October 2010, 07:12:55 »

Quote from: zefrer;236281

Actually, I like to install linux on old hardware exactly to see that it won't crawl to a stop To this day it is the only OS I have seen that can run equally well on old hardware as well as new.

I'm using an older laptop right now and put Linux (current version) on it figuring it would run quicker than windoze and it's acceptable, at least to me, :wink:.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #80 on:** Thu, 21 October 2010, 20:01:06 »

Windows 3.1 runs great on old hardware. My Gateway 2000 keeps chugging along after 14 years and it's still pretty fast with 3.1.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #81 on:** Thu, 21 October 2010, 20:04:35 »

How long does minesweeper take to load?

8_INCH_FLOPPY · « **Reply #82 on:** Sat, 23 October 2010, 15:29:15 »

Windows ME on a Gateway was my first and only computer for several years. If anyone wants to know what HELL is like, give it a try.

Seriously, Windows 3.1 was better. The weirdest thing about 3.1 is getting used to having no desktop.

The weirdest thing about windows ME is whatever it happens to be doing that day: Making random noises, screen suddenly flashing different colors, spontaneous restarting, Error messages that don't make any sense, crashing, blue screen of death, red screen of death, violet screen of death. Pixellated-4bit-error-message-screen-of-death...

godly_music · « **Reply #83 on:** Fri, 05 November 2010, 14:43:52 »

Linux =/= Linux. If you put the latest vanilla Ubuntu on an old computer and expect it to run well, it won't. Lots of unnecessary daemons, lots of enterprise features and stuff like SELinux which, while nice in theory, won't be necessary for the average user and will slow things down substantially.

I have an old 1200 MHz laptop that I've treated to an Arch Linux install running LXDE. It beats every other distro I've tried to run on it (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Debian, even VectorLinux and Crunchbang). Usually 240p YouTube is a no-go, but with Arch I can watch 360p and it's smooth. XVid is also no problem. H264 needs beefier hardware.

You do not learn how a Linux works by using GUI configuration tools. That's why it's been said that "Linux is ****, stuff breaks and then you may have to get down to the command line". This is true, but you were supposed to START at the command line. Editing a .conf file is so elegant, I can't believe I didn't see it like this before. Addiction has set in.

Keymonger · « **Reply #84 on:** Fri, 05 November 2010, 16:14:00 »

Quote from: godly_music;243089

I have an old 1200 MHz laptop that I've treated to an Arch Linux install running LXDE. It beats every other distro I've tried to run on it (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Debian, even VectorLinux and Crunchbang). Usually 240p YouTube is a no-go, but with Arch I can watch 360p and it's smooth. XVid is also no problem. H264 needs beefier hardware.

You do not learn how a Linux works by using GUI configuration tools. That's why it's been said that "Linux is ****, stuff breaks and then you may have to get down to the command line". This is true, but you were supposed to START at the command line. Editing a .conf file is so elegant, I can't believe I didn't see it like this before. Addiction has set in.

Same experience here. Arch Linux has allowed for a proper introduction to the UNIX way of doing things, and I absolutely love it. I love working on a computer more than ever before.

instantkamera · « **Reply #85 on:** Fri, 05 November 2010, 22:25:31 »

you're not alone gents. This particular wallpaper is a favorite of mine (using it on my arch "netbook nomix" w/ openbox/tint2):

http://lapapunk.deviantart.com/art/Arch-Linux-113017263

it reads:

Quote

Relying on complex tools to manage and build your system is going to hurt the end users. [...] "If you try to hide the complexity of the system, you'll end up with a more complex system". Layers of abstraction that serve to hide internals are never a good thing. Instead, the internals should be designed in a way such that they NEED no hiding.

(this a very popular quote from Aaron Griffin, can be found on the arch wiki and wikipedia.)

archies unite!

ch_123 · « **Reply #86 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 08:59:50 »

I've got to a stage whereby I can install and configure Arch on a system quicker than I can try and make Ubuntu work the way I want it to.

instantkamera · « **Reply #87 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 09:33:18 »

Quote from: ch_123;243328

I've got to a stage whereby I can install and configure Arch on a system quicker than I can try and make Ubuntu work the way I want it to.

agreed. In the last while, I have grown to be at one with arch as I was with slack back in the day. It's nice to feel at home with a distro again. Although, in my not so old age (and haste to get working), I will sometimes forget a component or two in my install, only to have something fail down the road.

As I recently arched up my netbook, I had chromium fail to load because IT COULDNT FIND HELVETICA on my system. oopsie, forgot some core fonts.
You know a system is bare-bones when FONTS are not a default component.

zefrer · « **Reply #88 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 09:41:52 »

Quote from: godly_music;243089

Linux =/= Linux. If you put the latest vanilla Ubuntu on an old computer and expect it to run well, it won't. Lots of unnecessary daemons, lots of enterprise features and stuff like SELinux which, while nice in theory, won't be necessary for the average user and will slow things down substantially.

I have an old 1200 MHz laptop that I've treated to an Arch Linux install running LXDE. It beats every other distro I've tried to run on it (Ubuntu, Fedora, Mint, Debian, even VectorLinux and Crunchbang). Usually 240p YouTube is a no-go, but with Arch I can watch 360p and it's smooth. XVid is also no problem. H264 needs beefier hardware.

You do not learn how a Linux works by using GUI configuration tools. That's why it's been said that "Linux is ****, stuff breaks and then you may have to get down to the command line". This is true, but you were supposed to START at the command line. Editing a .conf file is so elegant, I can't believe I didn't see it like this before. Addiction has set in.

The same for me but with Gentoo

Kinda the arch equivalent but with from source compiling instead of binary packages. Pretty neat.

It's nice that you can bootstrap a new installation within your current one and that's actually how the installer works anyway

microsoft windows · « **Reply #89 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 09:43:04 »

1200 Mhz will run Windows 2000 or XP great. So will a 600Mhz CPU. And a 120Mhz can run them OK.

How well would Arch Linux run off a 160Mhz system with 80MB of RAM? That computer system ran Windows XP pretty well.

ch_123 · « **Reply #90 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 09:51:06 »

If you think Windows XP runs well on anything less than 256MB of RAM, your definition of 'runs well' is wrong.

On the other hand, you can have a usable Linux environment than fits within 64MB. Won't have all the trimmings, but still better any of the older versions of Windows.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #91 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 09:53:30 »

It ran pretty well off of 80MB. You'll be surprised. What I did was I made sure the installation was as clean as possible, and it wasn't nearly as slow as I expected.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #92 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 09:55:02 »

Quote from: TexasFlood;236228

I'm with Shawn Stanford and 8_INCH_FLOPPY on this one that Windows ME was complete **** in every conceivable way.

It was complete ****, but it still beat Windows 98.

Comparing Windows 98 and ME is like comparing cat and dog poop.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #93 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 10:00:06 »

Quote from: microsoft windows

Comparing Windows 98 and ME is like comparing cat and dog poop.

So they're both poop, but one is smaller in size?

ricercar · « **Reply #94 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 11:34:06 »

My poop doesn't stink. Neither does webwit's.

zefrer · « **Reply #95 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 12:25:19 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;243349

It ran pretty well off of 80MB. You'll be surprised. What I did was I made sure the installation was as clean as possible, and it wasn't nearly as slow as I expected.

Dude I've installed gentoo on lesser hardware than that. Damn small linux can install on 16mb ram at it's minimum. And you can get others to go lower than that like embedded devices. Linux runs on anything.

zefrer · « **Reply #96 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 13:54:51 »

You shouldn't take me seriously you know, I don't

godly_music · « **Reply #97 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 14:18:53 »

1200 MHz 512 MB RAM runs XP, but it does not run it well by a long shot. Tried just a few days ago.

instantkamera · « **Reply #98 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 14:41:34 »

Quote from: ripster;243457

MW has a fascination with poop.

I read (past tense) that as "My Wife ..."

Lucky you.

instantkamera · « **Reply #99 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 14:43:17 »

oh, and MW, when you install an OS that doesnt DO ANYTHING (which is windows in general), that's not considered "running".

a_fluffy_kitten · « **Reply #100 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 17:23:39 »

Quote from: microsoft windows;243350

It was complete ****, but it still beat Windows 98.

What??? No. Win98SE was pretty good. Me was just what happened to 98SE when it got old and had cancer.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #101 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 17:50:05 »

Quote from: instantkamera;243471

oh, and MW, when you install an OS that doesnt DO ANYTHING (which is windows in general), that's not considered "running".

Linux fanboy much?

microsoft windows · « **Reply #102 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 18:14:48 »

Oh no! Spam Alert!

ch_123 · « **Reply #103 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 19:25:09 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;243541

Linux fanboy much?

keyboardlover · « **Reply #104 on:** Sat, 06 November 2010, 22:24:59 »

Zomg ch_123 you're so clever! Hey, I can use Google too!

Check it yo!

instantkamera · « **Reply #105 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 00:44:20 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;243541

Linux fanboy much?

Stater of the obvious much?

Hell, Ill indulge your troll attempt.

I too am just a ****ing stater of the obvious. I have seen MW screenshots, his installations are little more than the bare OS, and last I checked, you cant get too much done with that (especially the versions that MW loves to run).

Also, one can easily conclude that MW cares more about simply running old versions of windows than he does actually DOING anything with them once they are installed.

I don't care if someone wants to run Windows, and there are plenty of circumstances that warrant it, but comparing windows (ANY VERSION) to linux in a "resource footprint" contest is foolish.

PS

It's only fanboyism if I'm wrong, which I am not.

imagine7xy · « **Reply #106 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 01:33:00 »

My take on it is that Linux is certainly not crap, but I can understand the frustration one can have with it, especially over hardware support. I've had it happen to me. The problem is that many manufacturers do not make sure their hardware works completely with Linux, the second problem is that Linux uses too many cryptic commands that dramatically increase production for a good lazy programmer (maybe even lets them focus on what is something more important) but steepen the learning curve, although they still remain just if not many times more powerful a software solution.

I would have to say Windows/Linux are a complete tie, I have to learn to love them both to stay sane, just don't make me use a Mac please.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #107 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 06:57:01 »

Quote from: instantkamera

Hell, Ill indulge your troll attempt.

Lol, your original post regarding MW was the real troll attempt...

Quote from: instantkamera

It's only fanboyism if I'm wrong, which I am not.

You said Windows is an OS that doesn't "do anything". On that point you are 100% wrong.

ch_123 · « **Reply #108 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 07:49:01 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;243642

Zomg ch_123 you're so clever! Hey, I can use Google too!

You the man now, dawg.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #109 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 08:01:02 »

Quote from: ch_123

You the man now, dawg.

Ehh...I'm ok. At least I'm not from Jersey.

instantkamera · « **Reply #110 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 08:40:34 »

win2k and lower are absolutely useless out of the box, and to expand on their functionality is to increase their footprint significantly. Im inclined to say the same about XP, although MAYBE you could get on the internet out of the box with included drivers? Vista is a stop gap between XP and windows 7 and isn't worth regarding in this argument (which I was under the impression was about which OS runs best on low resource platforms), and im not sure Windows 7 is either. I do see some netbooks coming with windows 7 starter/home/basic or whatever the **** it's called, not sure how well they run though, and the name implies that there is something lacking from those and the "better" win7 versions.

Bottom line, there really is no Windows release that can beat linux in a small footprint race, Windows is simply not modular enough to do it. Case in point, can I run windows sans GUI?

(and before you say that would be useless, let me state for the record that I have a fully functional system that runs a large % of console based apps, most of which are better than their windows counterparts)

I like linux, other people can like what they want.
I would rather run windows for certain windows-only software than say, use wine.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #111 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 08:46:23 »

The point never had anything to do with footprint. It had to do with you claiming Windows is an OS that doesn't do anything. Which is stupid and wrong. That's all, broseph.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #112 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 08:49:14 »

Most distributions of Linux aren't all that great out of the box either. Linux is all about customizing it to fit your needs. And, for a 10-year-old version of Windows, sure you got to install a few programs and some updates to get today's functionality. Installing a few programs in Windows 2000 actually probably takes less work than optimizing a Linux installation (although many do that as a hobby, there's nothing wrong with that).

Both Windows and Linux can get along just fine on older systems. Windows 95 can run the latest version of Opera, Office '97, and all sorts of other stuff. And Windows 95 runs fine off 16MB of RAM.

instantkamera · « **Reply #113 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 09:11:38 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;243770

The point never had anything to do with footprint. It had to do with you claiming Windows is an OS that doesn't do anything. Which is stupid and wrong. That's all, broseph.

Quote from: microsoft windows;243345

1200 Mhz will run Windows 2000 or XP great. So will a 600Mhz CPU. And a 120Mhz can run them OK.

How well would Arch Linux run off a 160Mhz system with 80MB of RAM? That computer system ran Windows XP pretty well.

The point WAS about footprint. My inflammatory comment about Windows was a silly attempt at simplifying the issue. Which is, as previously stated, a windows installation can be small and next to useless OR bloated and useful. FOR ME, neither option is preferred. That wont stop me from using windows under the right circumstances.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #114 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 09:22:00 »

Well, when I said "point" I was referring to where I quoted you.

Regardless of any 'bloat' arguments, I still personally prefer Windows 7 to Linux, and I use both. Actually, the most bloated OS I've seen is OS X. Last I saw it took up somewhere near 10 gb until you manually uninstalled all the language packs it comes with. Hope they fixed that.

ch_123 · « **Reply #115 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 09:23:41 »

So does Windows 7. Your point?

keyboardlover · « **Reply #116 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 09:26:48 »

Lol oh yea...well the last I looked at an OS X footprint was like 3-4 years ago so it makes sense that footprints have increased since then.

ch_123 · « **Reply #117 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 09:31:07 »

No, the latest version is about 8-10GB too.

And unlike Windows, the bundled software is actually usable...

instantkamera · « **Reply #118 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 09:32:06 »

Disk usage is only a small part of "footprint" (and the least important to me).

keyboardlover · « **Reply #119 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 09:47:18 »

Quote from: ch_123

And unlike Windows, the bundled software is actually usable...

Windows 7's bundled software is quite useful.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #120 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 10:21:35 »

You can get a lot done on Windows 2000 or XP without much background processes/bloatware running.

ch_123 · « **Reply #121 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 12:47:25 »

Ah, a disc burning utility that can only burn ISOs, how useful...

ch_123 · « **Reply #122 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 12:52:50 »

InfraRecorder is a nice open source one. I was put off it when I first tried it a few years ago when it was still in early development, and it didn't work nice. Has been working great any time I've used it recently.

DeepBurner, of which there is a freeware version, is what I've used the most in the intervening period. It's a good piece of kit, but the interface is as clunky as hell.

instantkamera · « **Reply #123 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 13:37:05 »

cdrecord (cdrtools) FTW

zefrer · « **Reply #124 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 13:53:31 »

I just chalked it up to one of his ancient PCs fault. Or just bad typing, who knows.

ricercar · « **Reply #125 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 13:56:47 »

Quote from: a_fluffy_kitten;243531

What??? No. Win98SE was pretty good.

Do WinSE and goatse come from the same root?

Quote from: instantkamera;243768

win2k and lower are absolutely useless out of the box

Bwah? 2K is a decently stable server platform out of the box, includes TCP/IP and a rtf/doc reader. You're thinking 95/98/me for sure. Shall we quibble and play word games or stop feeding trolls?

oops.

ricercar · « **Reply #126 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 13:59:30 »

Quote from: instantkamera;243768

win2k and lower are absolutely useless out of the box

Bwah? 2K is a decently stable server platform out of the box, includes TCP/IP and a rtf/doc reader. You're thinking 95/98/me for sure. Shall we quibble and play word games or stop feeding trolls?

oops.

ch_123 · « **Reply #127 on:** Sun, 07 November 2010, 14:07:11 »

Does no one remember the Summer of Worms? All those attacks were most effective against Windows 2000, IIRC.

Shawn Stanford · « **Reply #128 on:** Mon, 08 November 2010, 07:02:12 »

Affleck was the bomb in Phantoms.

ch_123 · « **Reply #129 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 04:45:53 »

Quote from: ricercar;243883

Bwah? 2K is a decently stable server platform out of the box, includes TCP/IP and a rtf/doc reader.

Desktop usage is one thing, but for servers, I wouldn't call an unsupported version of Windows a stable platform. Especially when much better alternatives are available for free.

imagine7xy · « **Reply #130 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 07:24:01 »

Windows 7 runs just as fine as Windows 2K, using a Quad Core & 8 GB 1333 everything is top notch, not a bit of lag ever, no difference from 2K. I don't know why you would be concerned about running say 20 system processes instead of 10 when by 2022 it will be affordable to run 1 TB of memory, consider that 2K's 32bit arch with cap you out at about 3.2 GB of memory possibilities. You are crazy to still seriously run 2K unless you are just doing it for sh*ts and giggles.

ch_123 · « **Reply #131 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 09:43:24 »

Win2K had PAE support, which allowed it to support something like 64GB of RAM. Later 32-bit versions of Windows restricted this functionality to server versions only. Linux has the same functionality available as far as I know.

I think there was some sort of catch involving driver support, but the point stands nonetheless.

fl1ckmasterflex · « **Reply #132 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 14:56:58 »

Quote from: instantkamera;243768

win2k and lower are absolutely useless out of the box, and to expand on their functionality is to increase their footprint significantly.

I can choose to install an obscure Linux distro that comes with nothing installed. Since it uses the Linux kernel I can then make a truthful statement that Linux is useless out of the box. Conversely I can create my own Windows distro that includes all the software I want and slipstream it into the install media making it just as useful as a modern Linux distro out of the box.

Ofcource if ms officially started bundling any more software than what they are now, I'd wager that we'd see some interesting anti-trust lawsuits.

Quote from: instantkamera;243768

Case in point, can I run windows sans GUI?

Not a desktop version, but you can get something close to a base CLI linux install with server 2008 core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008#Server_Core

You are somewhat correct in saying that Linux is more modular by design. This is mostly because it shares the UNIX design philosophy. Microsoft has demo'd a 25MB windows 7 CLI build running as a web server. I think if they wanted to enter the embedded market they probably could dedicate a few tens of millions of dollars and get the code refactored to compete with Linux w.r.t modularization. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsS_0wSfoU#t=3m30s

instantkamera · « **Reply #133 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 15:45:44 »

Again, my point with linux is that there really IS no box to come out of. Linux installs are pretty much entirely dictated by the user. Windows with a proper repository of useful software and a package manager to go with it would actually be awesome.

2008 core is ridiculous. That is still a GUI, Why draw GUI elements at all? Because windows sysadmins are afraid of text?

Yes MS COULD do something minimal or more modular than Windows currently is, but they haven't.

JBert · « **Reply #134 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 17:08:43 »

Quote from: fl1ckmasterflex;244710

Ofcource if ms officially started bundling any more software than what they are now, I'd wager that we'd see some interesting anti-trust lawsuits.

You are comparing apples to melons. Microsoft controls who can bundle their software, with GNU/Linux, this is not the case. They vouched to make their software free*, so everyone who wants to make a distro can do so at any time.

* Closed-source development not withstanding - read this as "this source code wants to be out there/free".

ch_123 · « **Reply #135 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 17:56:11 »

Quote from: fl1ckmasterflex;244710

Not a desktop version, but you can get something close to a base CLI linux install with server 2008 core http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Server_2008#Server_Core

Yeah, but it's still running a GUI to display that command line screen. You still get all the problems associated with GUIs - unnecessary memory usage, and the potential stability/security issues, and having to run the appropriate drivers which cause more of the aforementioned resource/security/stability issues, but all the time without getting any of the benefits of having a GUI running away in the background - a classic Microsoft 'solution'.

I've read somewhere that MS has been working for the past few years on modularizing the components of Windows so that they can run the OS without having to run the GUI on top of it. And they're still working on it years later because not even Microsoft knows what's going on inside the belly of the beast. My understanding is that the NT kernel was originally a microkernel design, and they shoved more and more of the operating system's functionality into the kernel for performance reasons and now it's a gigantic mess because if they take stuff out of the kernel they'll just break other stuff that should be unrelated but isn't.

Yep, *nix has modularity, Windows just sucks balls.

Quote

You are somewhat correct in saying that Linux is more modular by design. This is mostly because it shares the UNIX design philosophy. Microsoft has demo'd a 25MB windows 7 CLI build running as a web server. I think if they wanted to enter the embedded market they probably could dedicate a few tens of millions of dollars and get the code refactored to compete with Linux w.r.t modularization. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNsS_0wSfoU#t=3m30s

What they said time after time was that MinWin was just the basic kernel that they were going to use in Windows 7 and 2008 Server R2. It's not a viable OS by itself, they just took the kernel, hooked up a very basic environment around it and ran a dumbed down (they say so themselves in whichever video they first announced it in) http server on top of it. I wouldn't boast about it needing 25MB of RAM, especially given that you can get a GUI Linux desktop running in about 16MB of RAM, and probably not much more for a proper web server running on top of a CLI linux installation with the appropriate user land utils.

Embedded? There are real embedded systems that run in kilobytes of RAM that do real things. Still wouldn't boast about needing 25MB to run a castrated http server on top of a DOS-like shell.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #136 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 18:00:26 »

Quote from: instantkamera

Windows with a proper repository of useful software and a package manager to go with it would actually be awesome.

Windows already has a repository of useful software (it's called the majority of software built today) and the package manager is the built-in installer. Unlike Linux, Windows doesn't need a repository, because it doesn't come in all these different flavors like Linux. And at least with Windows, you don't have to worry so much about package dependencies...everything is typically nicely bundled.

D-EJ915 · « **Reply #137 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 19:44:13 »

Unless they use things like DirectX, .NET, Java, etc. The amount of crap you need to get a working windows system is ridiculous.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #138 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 19:48:00 »

You all've seen nothing if you haven't set up a Windows 3.1 system these days. To sum it up, it's drivers to the tenth power.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #139 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 19:50:13 »

Quote from: D-EJ915

Unless they use things like DirectX, .NET, Java, etc. The amount of crap you need to get a working windows system is ridiculous.

For me it takes the same amount of time to set up a Win 7 machine the way I want as it does a Linux machine.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #140 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 19:53:21 »

It can actually take more work customizing a Linux system to optimal functionality. But there's nothing wrong with that. Use whichever operating system you prefer. But I like Windows and you all can't change that.

instantkamera · « **Reply #141 on:** Tue, 09 November 2010, 21:22:17 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;244752

Windows already has a repository of useful software (it's called the majority of software built today) and the package manager is the built-in installer. Unlike Linux, Windows doesn't need a repository, because it doesn't come in all these different flavors like Linux. And at least with Windows, you don't have to worry so much about package dependencies...everything is typically nicely bundled.

and therein lies the downfall of Windows. Because the user is tasked with getting all their software from all over hell's half acre, instead of a trusted resource, the stupider end of the user base inevitably winds up with a hosed system, be it through the installation of malicious software, or just plain poorly written ****.

Dependencies are a problem in windows. Java, that is a dependency. .NET framework is a dependency. Python, perl, ruby ... all dependencies. The difference is that you are used to dealing with them. Doesn't make them any better, in fact, it's far worse. Often prebuilt binaries on a windows box try to bundle in the required libraries, add ons etc. This is really haphazard and can lead to software conflicts, duplicate versions, leftover registry **** etc etc.

All GOOD package managers for nix handle all this in stride.

zefrer · « **Reply #142 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 04:38:01 »

The windows installer is not a package manager, get your facts straight. Here.

Again, package managers in linux are typically responsible for upgrading/installing the OS itself as well. There is no equivalent in the windows world.

ch_123 · « **Reply #143 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 04:41:43 »

Windows Update, maaaaaaaan.

*runs*

woody · « **Reply #144 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 04:53:42 »

Quote from: ch_123;244609

Win2K had PAE support, which allowed it to support something like 64GB of RAM. Later 32-bit versions of Windows restricted this functionality to server versions only. Linux has the same functionality available as far as I know.

Linux has PAE as kernel option, I use it with 6GB of RAM. The CPU support is up-to 64GB, but desktop motherboards usually cap at 8 or 16GB.
I've read on the net about hidden PAE support in XP which one can somehow enable, but it is kinda flaky with gotchas.

zefrer · « **Reply #145 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 04:54:17 »

Quote from: ch_123;244852

Windows Update, maaaaaaaan.

*runs*

Hahahaha

fl1ckmasterflex · « **Reply #146 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 05:27:49 »

Quote from: instantkamera;244722

2008 core is ridiculous. That is still a GUI, Why draw GUI elements at all? Because windows sysadmins are afraid of text?

Yes, csrss.exe (the win32 subsystem) is running. However you're exaggerating or unfamiliar with the bloat that a NT subsystem ads. Running X and a desktop environment on Linux might do that, but thats not the same on NT. Right now my w7 devbox has been running for about 13 or so hours and csrss has consumed about 24 seconds of CPU time. This will only go down if you only use the box to run windows services (i.e. the intended use of server core)

fl1ckmasterflex · « **Reply #147 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 05:48:01 »

Quote from: ch_123;244749

You still get all the problems associated with GUIs - unnecessary memory usage, and the potential stability/security issues, and having to run the appropriate drivers which cause more of the aforementioned resource/security/stability issues

Thats quite comical. Unfortunately your rant is not based on reality. CSRSS.exe(win32 subsystem) is one of the most stable pieces of code in Windows. Windows Safe mode relies on it. As far as drivers go you can choose not to install any graphics drivers.

Quote from: ch_123;244749

Yep, *nix has modularity, Windows just sucks balls.

The UNIX spec has nothing to do with kernel modularity. Also the Linux kernel is anything but modular. Its a giant binary blob. Thats the reason there is never going to be a stable kernel ABI layer for many things such as display drivers. Something that NT had about 17 years ago.

Quote from: ch_123;244749

What they said time after time was that MinWin was just the basic kernel that they were going to use in Windows 7 and 2008 Server R2.

You're mistaken. MinWin is *already* in Windows 7 and server 2008. They're refactoring their codebase and while they're not going to make a new product with it they're using it to build a complete OS - aka Windows.

Quote from: ch_123;244749

I wouldn't boast about it needing 25MB of RAM, especially given that you can get a GUI Linux desktop running in about 16MB of RAM, and probably not much more for a proper web server running on top of a CLI linux installation with the appropriate user land utils.

Yawn, here comes the troll. Nobody said it was a boast.

Quote from: ch_123;244749

Embedded? There are real embedded systems that run in kilobytes of RAM that do real things. Still wouldn't boast about needing 25MB to run a castrated http server on top of a DOS-like shell.

Thats it? Got any more refutations for imaginary points that I never made?

fl1ckmasterflex · « **Reply #148 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 05:54:49 »

Quote from: instantkamera;244816

and therein lies the downfall of Windows. Because the user is tasked with getting all their software from all over hell's half acre, instead of a trusted resource, the stupider end of the user base inevitably winds up with a hosed system, be it through the installation of malicious software, or just plain poorly written ****.

This is true. But, you can have a similar problem on the Linux side of things too. In the future its possible that hundreds and thousands of software vendors would want users to install software through their own repository. And guess what - The same problem of not having a sufficiently vetted white-list appears.

Its just a matter of scale. If tommorow all the commercial software on windows was available on Linux, who is going to employ people to test and verify that the software doesn't contain malware? Heck even if it was all magically open sourced, who is going to sift through all that code and verify that its kosher?

Shawn Stanford · « **Reply #149 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 06:04:36 »

I read somewhere that the debate in the early 60s at IBM between a 6-bit or 8-bit byte almost caused fistfights in the hallways at Old Armonk...

ch_123 · « **Reply #150 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 06:34:04 »

Quote from: fl1ckmasterflex;244862

Thats quite comical. Unfortunately your rant is not based on reality. CSRSS.exe(win32 subsystem) is one of the most stable pieces of code in Windows. Windows Safe mode relies on it. As far as drivers go you can choose not to install any graphics drivers.

Irrelevant. Anything that runs in the background without needed is a potential liability. With software, it's only as stable or secure as long as long as problems don't show. GUIs are particularly problematic in the case of Windows because of how entangled into the working of the OS they are.

And if you don't install drivers, you're still using whatever default drivers that Windows has. How else would the GUI with that command prompt window work?

Quote

The UNIX spec has nothing to do with kernel modularity. Also the Linux kernel is anything but modular. Its a giant binary blob. Thats the reason there is never going to be a stable kernel ABI layer for many things such as display drivers. Something that NT had about 17 years ago.

It certainly appears that the lack of modularity in Windows is at least partially to do with the Windows OS architecture, so it's fair to say that Unix enjoys better inherent modularity over Windows. Either way, in practice just about any Unix-based system is miles ahead of Windows in terms of modularity, so it's something of a moot point.

Also, if the NT display driver architecture has been such a success for 17 years, how come they seem to change it every second release?

Quote

You're mistaken. MinWin is *already* in Windows 7 and server 2008. They're refactoring their codebase and while they're not going to make a new product with it they're using it to build a complete OS - aka Windows.

I said that MinWin was the underlying kernel being used in Windows 7 and Server 08 R2. You reply with "No, you're wrong, it's being used in Windows 7 and Server 2008". Apparently I'm missing your subtle genius here.

Quote

Thats it? Got any more refutations for imaginary points that I never made?

Well, you were the one who was talking about the great MS kernel that takes up 25MB of RAM, and how it could be the basis for embedded systems, so if you are so offended by your own ideas, I suggest keeping them to yourself.

ch_123 · « **Reply #151 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 06:46:18 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;244752

Unlike Linux, Windows doesn't need a repository, because it doesn't come in all these different flavors like Linux.

If that was true, how come the repositories are distribution-specific?

zefrer · « **Reply #152 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 06:47:32 »

Quote from: Shawn Stanford;244866

I read somewhere that the debate in the early 60s at IBM between a 6-bit or 8-bit byte almost caused fistfights in the hallways at Old Armonk...

Haha that's awesome and completely unsurprising considering Symbian went through the same 'fight' for their own OS. (they eventually had _two_ APIs, one for 6bit bytes and one for 8bit.. ever wonder why symbian is not considered very developer friendly?

)

instantkamera · « **Reply #153 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 07:04:11 »

Quote from: fl1ckmasterflex;244865

This is true. But, you can have a similar problem on the Linux side of things too. In the future its possible that hundreds and thousands of software vendors would want users to install software through their own repository. And guess what - The same problem of not having a sufficiently vetted white-list appears.

Its just a matter of scale. If tommorow all the commercial software on windows was available on Linux, who is going to employ people to test and verify that the software doesn't contain malware? Heck even if it was all magically open sourced, who is going to sift through all that code and verify that its kosher?

Well technically apple does it right now. It's called the app store. Not that I believe they give a **** what the code looks like, but they pretend to. At least then the user has someone to blame for not keeping the riff-raff out.

I don't agree that popular proprietary software could be somewhat of a monkey wrench for linux.
Currently, the open source stuff has a proven model that works well. Strength in numbers. Linux users all suffer from the same problem: we can't run X piece of popular software. So the community tends to go through a phase of trial and error, where the bad software gets weeded out, and the better bits rise to the top. Since the community tends to "support" very few pieces of software for a given task (and we like to share our opinion), these software choices tend to propagate easily to the next user, and so on.
I like to think the same would apply if a good enough piece of prop. software was introduced into the fold (like photoshop). Having a community that likes to help others, but at the same time takes pride helping themselves, I have to think a big release like that would again, have the weight of numbers behind it. I can think of a couple pieces of software acutally where this is the case, opera being one of them.
The main reason though, that I don't think proprietary software will hurt the linux distribution model is that we are happy with the thousands of (free) tools we have that there IS no proprietary replacement for. This is also why I think a repo for windows would work. I really don't expect a big package like PS or Office etc to cause the user harm, it's the little utilities that you have to scour the net for that are more likely to be dubious.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #154 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 08:40:00 »

Quote from: instantkamera

Dependencies are a problem in windows. Java, that is a dependency. .NET framework is a dependency. Python, perl, ruby ... all dependencies. The difference is that you are used to dealing with them. Doesn't make them any better, in fact, it's far worse. Often prebuilt binaries on a windows box try to bundle in the required libraries, add ons etc. This is really haphazard and can lead to software conflicts, duplicate versions, leftover registry **** etc etc.
All GOOD package managers for nix handle all this in stride.

All the dependencies you mentioned you typically install once (in both Linux and Windows) and fuggedaboutit (until you have to upgrade). Those aren't the dependencies I'm talking about. I'm talking about package-level dependencies due to the way binaries are created in Linux. For example, you want to install a package only to find out it depends on 6 other packages. THat kidn of stuff is very confusing for people coming from the Windows world where most things are quite nicely bundled. Actually I've never had software conflicts or duplicate version issues in either system. In Windows you do have the issue of leftover registry entries hanging around but it's a trade-off I'm willing to live with. Linux's lack of ease of installing pretty much everything is one of it's biggest weaknesses IMHO. I've yet to see a GUI package manager in Linux that isn't confusing and you can't expect people to use the command line to install,update,etc. I agree that when you know how to do this, it's a pretty slick system. But too confusing for new users. In the end it's all about usability anyway - that's what makes or breaks your software.

ch_123 · « **Reply #155 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 09:17:32 »

But given that most decent package managers automate the dependency handling without any user intervention, what's the issue? It's not that much more different than installing, for example, a game under Windows which tells you during installation that you need to install DirectX, a multiplayer client, an anti-hack utility and some audio/video codecs.

zefrer · « **Reply #156 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 09:33:28 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;244901

All the dependencies you mentioned you typically install once (in both Linux and Windows) and fuggedaboutit (until you have to upgrade). Those aren't the dependencies I'm talking about. I'm talking about package-level dependencies due to the way binaries are created in Linux. For example, you want to install a package only to find out it depends on 6 other packages. THat kidn of stuff is very confusing for people coming from the Windows world where most things are quite nicely bundled. Actually I've never had software conflicts or duplicate version issues in either system. In Windows you do have the issue of leftover registry entries hanging around but it's a trade-off I'm willing to live with. Linux's lack of ease of installing pretty much everything is one of it's biggest weaknesses IMHO. I've yet to see a GUI package manager in Linux that isn't confusing and you can't expect people to use the command line to install,update,etc. I agree that when you know how to do this, it's a pretty slick system. But too confusing for new users. In the end it's all about usability anyway - that's what makes or breaks your software.

Again very innacurate. To repeat once more, you are comparing two very different things. You can't compare a *nix package manager that can upgrade/install the entire OS to anything in the windows world because there is nothing in the windows world that can do that.

As for GUIs, ubuntu seem to have finally made a good one.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #157 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 09:38:25 »

Quote from: kishy;244933

keyboardlover, making a point that is absolutely, unquestionably factual and that I agree with?

I think hell froze over...

db_Iodine · « **Reply #158 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 09:43:16 »

Quote from: ripster;244939

There will always be 1% of the market that uses Linux on the Desktop.

I believe in diversity and so do Canadian magazine editors.
Show Image

She's obviously suffering because someone cut the top of her head off.

HaaTa · « **Reply #159 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 09:47:50 »

Quote from: ch_123;244927

But given that most decent package managers automate the dependency handling without any user intervention, what's the issue? It's not that much more different than installing, for example, a game under Windows which tells you during installation that you need to install DirectX, a multiplayer client, an anti-hack utility and some audio/video codecs.

One question, why the hell do you have to install DirectX every time you install a new game? This is $#%# retarded. Why the hell should you waste space and time reinstalling the same thing over and over again.

But yeah, Windows is a terrible environment for developing complex software using non-standard libraries (there should be no reason for me to point my compiler to the lib path of the dependencies I'm using with my compiler). And I'm not talking about .NET and the Microsoft libs, just everything else.

fl1ckmasterflex · « **Reply #160 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 09:49:24 »

Quote from: ch_123;244869

GUIs are particularly problematic in the case of Windows because of how entangled into the working of the OS they are.

It is true that Win32 subsystem is almost entirely in kernel mode as compared to Xwindows. However thats not sufficient reason to assume anything. Its a different design. Xwindows has its drawbacks too. Since it shares memory space with other user-loadable binaries, and I've seen this happen quite a few times, a rogue app can take down Xwindows (and all other running applications) while keeping the OS working (a hollow victory when faced with possible data loss from crashing the other running apps).

Quote from: ch_123;244869

And if you don't install drivers, you're still using whatever default drivers that Windows has. How else would the GUI with that command prompt window work?

Yes, but it defaults to basic VGA drivers that don't interact much with the card. Thats what I meant. You don't need to install 3rd party drivers.

Quote from: ch_123;244869

It certainly appears that the lack of modularity in Windows is at least partially to do with the Windows OS architecture, so it's fair to say that Unix enjoys better inherent modularity over Windows. Either way, in practice just about any Unix-based system is miles ahead of Windows in terms of modularity, so it's something of a moot point.

I think the issue is customization is not a necessary condition for a OS to be modular. One philosophy is that when writing desktop operating systems for mass usage you want to keep the number of possible configurations to a small amount to allow software developers to target the platform. They can write software assuming X,Y,Z, components are always going to be present. And subsequently you don't have to re-train your support staff to handle all possible configurations while troubleshooting. Thats fine for your average user but for power users its a major downer not being able to customize the OS.

Quote from: ch_123;244869

Also, if the NT display driver architecture has been such a success for 17 years, how come they seem to change it every second release?

I just gave an example of where it has a higher modularity index over the Linux kernel. A stable driver interface means a display driver author doesn't have to care about changes in the kernel and can just treat it as a blackbox.

Quote from: ch_123;244869

I said that MinWin was the underlying kernel being used in Windows 7 and Server 08 R2. You reply with "No, you're wrong, it's being used in Windows 7 and Server 2008". Apparently I'm missing your subtle genius here.

I didn't word that correctly.

What I meant to say was MinWin *is* Windows 7 & WS2008. There is no separate kernel from the "normal" Windows kernel.

Quote from: ch_123;244869

Well, you were the one who was talking about the great MS kernel that takes up 25MB of RAM, and how it could be the basis for embedded systems, so if you are so offended by your own ideas, I suggest keeping them to yourself.

Um, I merely pointed out a fact which surprises people - Which is that NT can be made to run on a much smaller resource budget. I didn't realize that it could be taken as trumpeting from the rooftops.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #161 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 09:53:12 »

I think the problem isn't just Linux, but also a problem with C/C++ in that it isn't really supported by a modern application framework that handles dependencies nicely, like Java or .NET. As such, Java packages do tend to be the easiest to install in both operating systems. The package dependency issue I'm referring to is similar to the DLL-Hell days of COM C/C++ on Windows systems. If you've worked on stuff like this, and worked on C/C++ applications in Linux, you know that these two environments are just as frustrating for developers and why.

instantkamera · « **Reply #162 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:06:34 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;244954

I think the problem isn't just Linux, but also a problem with C/C++ in that it isn't really supported by a modern application framework that handles dependencies nicely, like Java or .NET. As such, Java packages do tend to be the easiest to install in both operating systems. The package dependency issue I'm referring to is similar to the DLL-Hell days of COM C/C++ on Windows systems. If you've worked on stuff like this, and worked on C/C++ applications in Linux, you know that these two environments are just as frustrating for developers and why.

I've been kinda glossing over one thing you seem to be insisting:

That no modern package manager has solved the dependency dilemma.

I believe you are wrong, I think there are a few that do just fine, they offer ease of use AND flexibility.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #163 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:10:15 »

Well, I disagree. But I am not a fanboi of either operating system. Can you say the same?

ch_123 · « **Reply #164 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:13:54 »

Quote from: fl1ckmasterflex;244951

It is true that Win32 subsystem is almost entirely in kernel mode as compared to Xwindows. However thats not sufficient reason to assume anything. Its a different design. Xwindows has its drawbacks too. Since it shares memory space with other user-loadable binaries, and I've seen this happen quite a few times, a rogue app can take down Xwindows (and all other running applications) while keeping the OS working (a hollow victory when faced with possible data loss from crashing the other running apps).

X11 sucks big time, and recently it seems like there is serious interest in moving away from it (Canonical, Intel, Nokia and others planning to move to Wayland in the not-too-distant future). But the thing about X is that at least I have the choice to get rid of it if I don't want to use it.

Even if we assume that the Windows GUI is not a liability, how much RAM is it using up that wouldn't be used otherwise? If I have a data center with a thousand Windows server boxes, what many gigabytes of RAM do I lose to something that no one is ever going to interface with? People pay through their teeth for server RAM these days, it would be nice if the OS didn't waste it.

Quote

I think the issue is customization is not a necessary condition for a OS to be modular. One philosophy is that when writing desktop operating systems for mass usage you want to keep the number of possible configurations to a small amount to allow software developers to target the platform. They can write software assuming X,Y,Z, components are always going to be present. And subsequently you don't have to re-train your support staff to handle all possible configurations while troubleshooting. Thats fine for your average user but for power users its a major downer not being able to customize the OS.

The real problem comes of course when not even the manufacturer can properly customize the OS themselves because they don't understand what two decades worth of development has done to the design. You could even question the intelligence of anyone thinking that an OS design can be both a good desktop AND good server OS at the same time, but that's another debate.

Quote

I didn't word that correctly. What I meant to say was MinWin *is* Windows 7 & WS2008. There is no separate kernel from the "normal" Windows kernel.

Yeah, I think I might have phrased my point wrong myself there.

Quote

Um, I merely pointed out a fact which surprises people - Which is that NT can be made to run on a much smaller resource budget. I didn't realize that it could be taken as trumpeting from the rooftops.

The problem is that people did trumpet about it and acted as if MS was going to release a Windows derivative that can run on tiny amounts of RAM. Guess I developed something of an allergic reaction to it

Quote

One question, why the hell do you have to install DirectX every time you install a new game? This is $#%# retarded. Why the hell should you waste space and time reinstalling the same thing over and over again.

Companies make bad software that installs onto the machines of the customer in stupid ways. This is not limited to Windows as I discovered the hard way when I tried to install the Intel C++ compiler onto something that wasn't Red Hat...

zefrer · « **Reply #165 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:17:55 »

KL, can you provide actual evidence/example of what you are insisting is correct? Because I know for a fact what you are saying is not the case.

It maybe that the last time you used Linux was with early versions of Redhat which did not in fact resolve any dependencies. Still, does not make what you're saying right.

instantkamera · « **Reply #166 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:18:59 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;244966

Well, I disagree. But I am not a fanboi of either operating system. Can you say the same?

Nope, I guess not. I have preference. Shame on me.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #167 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:21:05 »

Quote from: zefrer

KL, can you provide actual evidence/example of what you are insisting is correct? Because I know for a fact what you are saying is not the case.

I already did, and Kishy agreed. Use both systems for any extended period of time. The proof is in the pudding! And if you "know" it's not correct, then prove it!

Quote from: zefrer

It maybe that the last time you used Linux was with early versions of Redhat which did not in fact resolve any dependencies. Still, does not make what you're saying right.

Nope, the last time I used Linux was on my Kubuntu 10.04 machine. I've been using Linux for 5+ years. Windows much longer. (And developing/building/installing software much longer).

ch_123 · « **Reply #168 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:22:56 »

How is the dependency 'issue' under Linux different to that under Windows? From what you've said, it appears the same issues affect the two equally.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #169 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:26:14 »

Quote from: ch_123

How is the dependency 'issue' under Linux different to that under Windows? From what you've said, it appears the same issues affect the two equally.

Well that was correct, in the Windows COM days (before .NET).
Not anymore. Windows has cleaned up their operating system and application framework a lot since those days.

Linux still needs to catch up...

zefrer · « **Reply #170 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:26:28 »

Show me, not with words, an example of this problem you speak of.

ch_123 · « **Reply #171 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:28:14 »

Only time I've seen problems with dependencies under Linux is with either outdated software, or proprietary software (which is usually outdated too). Otherwise, in my many years of using Linux, I've never been affected by it for just about anything else.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #172 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:28:48 »

Quote from: zefrer

Show me, not with words, an example of this problem you speak of.

Can I show you with a hyperlink then?

Quote

Although these repositories are often huge it is not possible to have every piece of software in them, so dependency hell can still occur. In all cases, dependency hell is still faced by the repository maintainers. Examples of these systems include Apt, Yum, Urpmi, ZYpp, Portage, Pacman and others.

zefrer · « **Reply #173 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:49:28 »

I know what dependency hell means, thanks

You still have not shown an example of where and how dependency hell occurs in a linux distribution from a user's point of view.

From the article you just linked:

Quote

Dependency hell is a colloquial term for the frustration of some software users who have installed software packages which have dependencies on specific versions of other software packages [1]. This was mainly attributable to old Linux package managers. Current package managers have largely solved this problem by automatically resolving and downloading dependencies.

Emphasis my own. So, again, you are saying dependency hell still occurs in modern linux distributions? Show me.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #174 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:52:35 »

Quote from: zefrer

Emphasis my own. So, again, you are saying dependency hell still occurs in modern linux distributions? Show me.

No, I'm saying that in terms of the user's perspective, the package managers in linux make installing dependencies confusing. More so than in the majority of Windows application installs, where everything is nicely bundled. What the user experiences, is a result of how well the operating system's package management/install tool handles such dependencies (or the package that's being installed itself). The issues are a result of all those things.

I don't know how you want me to show you. Use the ****ing operating systems, compare them, and you'll see for yourself.

zefrer · « **Reply #175 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:56:34 »

Quote

No, I'm saying that in terms of the user's perspective, the package managers in linux make installing dependencies confusing. More so than in the majority of Windows application installs, where everything is nicely packaged. What the user experiences, is a result of how well the operating system's package management/install tool handles such dependencies (or the package that's being installed itself). The issues are a result of all those things.

What? Confusing how? The user is not asked anything nor does he see anything, dependencies are handled automagically. You have tried Ubuntu, how can you not know this.

You're not making much sense, sorry man

keyboardlover · « **Reply #176 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 10:59:50 »

Quote from: zefrer

What? Confusing how? The user is not asked anything nor does he see anything, dependencies are handled automagically. You have tried Ubuntu, how can you not know this.

That's not true in all cases. It all depends on the structure of the package you're installing. I'm sorry I can't name a package off the top of my head to give you as an example. But I know that it happens and I've seen these issues.

I'm sure even if you search Ubuntu's forum (install/build section probably) you'll see many examples of what I'm talking about.

instantkamera · « **Reply #177 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 11:04:56 »

Quote from: zefrer;244994

What? Confusing how? The user is not asked anything nor does he see anything, dependencies are handled automagically. You have tried Ubuntu, how can you not know this.

You're not making much sense, sorry man

yeah, I call BS.

instantkamera · « **Reply #178 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 11:06:30 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;244995

That's not true in all cases. It all depends on the structure of the package you're installing. I'm sorry I can't name a package off the top of my head to give you as an example. But I know that it happens and I've seen these issues.

I'm sure even if you search Ubuntu's forum (install/build section probably) you'll see many examples of what I'm talking about.

So now it's not all deps, it's ones you don't have an example of. Meanwhile, I'm sure no user has ever had issues installing software on a windows box. I think your NON fanboyism is getting to your head.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #179 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 11:10:03 »

Well Kishy agreed with me, so apparently I'm not the only person on the board whose experienced this.

What I'm saying is that in my experience, I've seen fewer issues installing things in Windows, and I gave reasons why that is. I don't understand what part of that anyone has an issue with, at this point.

HaaTa · « **Reply #180 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 12:11:21 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;244977

Well that was correct, in the Windows COM days (before .NET).
Not anymore. Windows has cleaned up their operating system and application framework a lot since those days.

Linux still needs to catch up...

I call BS. With Linux you have variety, some good, some crap, some ok. It's up to the individual or distro to choose which one (preferred web browser anyone?).

In a perfect world everyone uses .NET, but this is not a perfect world and everyone doesn't use .NET

And what Linux frameworks are you talking about? If you mention xlib, I'll just point you to MFC. Both are equally terrible (I've programmed using both).

And in terms of software development tools, Linux is just less of a pain in the ass. Sure there's is Visual Studio's for Windows, but that is a major piece of bloatware (debugger is good, but you're not always debugging, build system is absolute crap in comparison to say SCONs or CMake).

keyboardlover · « **Reply #181 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 12:19:02 »

Quote from: HaaTa

I call BS. With Linux you have variety, some good, some crap, some ok. It's up to the individual or distro to choose which one (preferred web browser anyone?).

I'm not understanding - what exactly are you referring to here? Variety of what?

Quote from: HaaTa

In a perfect world everyone uses .NET, but this is not a perfect world and everyone doesn't use .NET

I never said that. I'm not talking JUST about .NET.

Quote from: HaaTa

And what Linux frameworks are you talking about? If you mention xlib, I'll just point you to MFC. Both are equally terrible (I've programmed using both).

Just talking about Linux frameworks in general. Java and .NET are much easier to work with in my experience.

Quote from: HaaTa

And in terms of software development tools, Linux is just less of a pain in the ass. Sure there's is Visual Studio's for Windows, but that is a major piece of bloatware (debugger is good, but you're not always debugging, build system is absolute crap in comparison to say SCONs or CMake).

By bloat, you seem to be referring to features. Those features, in my experience, only speed up development time. Especially VS 2010 (which is what I currently use). What makes SCONx or CMake any better than MSBuild? It's not the builder so much as the framework IMO. Builders just build what they're told to; they're not very smart tools.

zefrer · « **Reply #182 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 12:20:42 »

In my line of work suggestions to the effect of 'Let's use .NET' are cues for laughter, not serious discussions.

There are tools that are right for certain jobs. Use them.

I still don't know what KL is talking about tho

That's why I kept asking for an example. We've gone from installation, to dependencies, to linking and search paths and who knows what else.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #183 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 12:24:33 »

Quote from: zefrer

I still don't know what KL is talking about tho That's why I kept asking for an example. We've gone from installation, to dependencies, to linking and search paths and who knows what else.

All those things are inter-related. If you don't understand that and why, then that explains why you don't understand what I'm talking about.

zefrer · « **Reply #184 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 12:28:32 »

Of course they're related. (I develop software for unix)

What I'm asking is what is the problem you are referring to? Dependencies that are not satisfied at install time? That's the repository maintainers' problem, not the users'.

Linking errors? Can't happen in modern distros as long as you use the package manager.

Invalid search paths? Not a problem.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #185 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 12:36:10 »

Quote from: zefrer;245046

What I'm asking is what is the problem you are referring to? Dependencies that are not satisfied at install time? That's the repository maintainers' problem, not the users'.

Actually that is the users' problem as in some cases, they have to hunt down the dependent packages to install manually. Out of curiosity, what flavor do u develop sw for?

zefrer · « **Reply #186 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 12:43:53 »

This is what I'm talking about. There is no such thing as developing for a specific distribution. It is the case, yes, that some distributions (redhat I'm looking at you) go out of their way to change things subtly, like using outdated gcc versions and what not. In that case you make a package that installs in different locations or that is compiled with the specific gcc version used in, for example, Redhat 5.0.

But as far as development goes, what the distribution that it is eventually installed on doesn't even factor into the equation.

In short, my work uses redhat. I don't like Redhat tho haha

HaaTa · « **Reply #187 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 12:44:24 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;245042

I'm not understanding - what exactly are you referring to here? Variety of what?

This was only to single out that you were only referring to .NET. But as an example lets say packaging systems (rpms, debs, etc.).

Quote from: keyboardlover;245042

Just talking about Linux frameworks in general. Java and .NET are much easier to work with in my experience.

I'm still trying to figure out what you're comparing, in general my opinion of Linux frameworks is pretty good.
As for Java, sometimes Java is the right tool for the job. Other times I don't really want this giant virtual machine and eating up memory and clock cycles.
My opinion of .NET is about the same.

Quote from: keyboardlover;245042

By bloat, you seem to be referring to features. Those features, in my experience, only speed up development time. Especially VS 2010 (which is what I currently use).

Easy, why should I have to initialize and search all of the project files when I am just trying to compile? Just a waste of time. Getting around this is possible in Windows, but not that straightforward for a Windows user (cmd).

Quote from: keyboardlover;245042

What makes SCONx or CMake any better than MSBuild? It's not the builder so much as the framework IMO. Builders just build what they're told to; they're not very smart tools.

For example, with CMake I can build a project with 4 separate library dependencies in about 5 lines of script/code.
The equivalent in a typical build file for Visual Studios is in the kilobytes of xml. It's complicated enough that you almost have to use the GUI to change it. Again requiring me to start up Visual Studios again rather than just changing, say a build target.
Secondly, try to create this build file from scratch. Another giant pain in the ass.
Whereas CMake or SCons I can just create the build file on any computer/text editor and just drop it in. When it's 5 lines of script, why the hell should I have to wait for VS to load when I would already be done the changes, in say notepad.

instantkamera · « **Reply #188 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 13:05:40 »

LOOK.

You have to admit, the future is with unified frameworks for rapid development of cloud-capable plug-and-play synchronous social-system software. The blogosphere has spoken, and any one who doesn't see that we are on the tipping point of a breakthrough in real-time embedded systems needs to check their CMS for SEO. AJAX, LAMP, NET, JSON, ODBC ... these are all just part of the paradigm shift to Quantum computing. You'd have to be a fool not to get on at the ground floor and harness the synergy...

keyboardlover · « **Reply #189 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 13:14:25 »

Quote from: HaaTa

For example, with CMake I can build a project with 4 separate library dependencies in about 5 lines of script/code.
The equivalent in a typical build file for Visual Studios is in the kilobytes of xml. It's complicated enough that you almost have to use the GUI to change it. Again requiring me to start up Visual Studios again rather than just changing, say a build target.
Secondly, try to create this build file from scratch. Another giant pain in the ass.
Whereas CMake or SCons I can just create the build file on any computer/text editor and just drop it in. When it's 5 lines of script, why the hell should I have to wait for VS to load when I would already be done the changes, in say notepad.

No one is forcing you to open Visual Studio. I typically use Notepad++ to write build files. And if you're machine is fast anyway, the performance hit is negligible. Hardware is cheaper than software and that's a trend that will likely continue.

ch_123 · « **Reply #190 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 13:44:09 »

Quote from: keyboardlover;244992

the package managers in linux make installing dependencies confusing.

How?

keyboardlover · « **Reply #191 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 13:46:22 »

Quote from: ch_123

How?

At least in ubuntu, I've noticed several times in the gui package manager that the package I installed had other dependencies, but it didn't tell me what they were. I had to hunt them down and install them manually for it to work.

ch_123 · « **Reply #192 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 13:49:09 »

What packages were they? I've used Ubuntu and Debian for god knows how many years, and the only time I've ever seen stuff like that was when I was playing around with unstable repos. For mainline stuff, I've never seen it happen.

keyboardlover · « **Reply #193 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 13:54:10 »

Quote from: ch_123

What packages were they? I've used Ubuntu and Debian for god knows how many years, and the only time I've ever seen stuff like that was when I was playing around with unstable repos. For mainline stuff, I've never seen it happen.

That's the thing, I wish I could remember. The last thing I remember installing was nvclock so it may have been that. I remember when I did install that through the command line though, it was quite easy. My main point is that the gui package management is confusing and the command line is a turn off for most people.

zefrer · « **Reply #194 on:** Wed, 10 November 2010, 14:06:06 »

Is that what you mean? Never seen that either.

I posted a screenshot of the new package manager gui for ubuntu one page back. Reviews say it is good.

News:

Author Topic: Linux is a pieve of crap compared to Windows 2000. (Read 39127 times)