Even though Windows sucks, this is cool

[xsphat]

Check it out

[lowpoly]

Nice bluescreen curtain!

[bhtooefr]

Holy crap.

I want one.

(Although, that bluescreen isn't accurate for Win3.1.)

[bigpook]

I would like to see it with a nautilus motif....

[graywolf]

By the way, Windows does not suck. Microsoft does tend to release new versions before they are fully debugged, but by SP2 they are usually pretty stable. And anyone who is not a total idiot has to turn off all those idiot features (I suppose it has to be that way, the idiots sure would not be able to figure out how to turn them on). But XP is as stable as any OS I know of that is readily available today. Probably more stable that OSX, and certainly more stable than most versions of Linux (as much as I hate to admit that). And admitedly any form of Unix is better than any form of MS-DOS; however, who, but a few of us nerds, uses the command line interface any more?

[bigpook]

Sorry, I have to disagree. Windows does suck. But I agree that it is the OS for idiots.
While XP may be ok, there is no way it is more stable than linux.
Talk to me when you get uptimes that surpass a year.
Talk to me when windows doesn't need multiple layers of protection to keep from being exploited.
Talk to me when windows has a file system that doesn't fragment.
And whats up with drive letters? How about a unified file system. Why is Desktop at the top of the tree? That makes no sense to me.
Windows is an OS on training wheels...

I use the command line everday, while I am no guru, it can be the fastest way to get some things done. I don't really think you have to be a nerd to use the command line either. It is just another tool to get things done.
Granted you need to know what you are doing, you have to be willing to learn, but thats the price of knowledge.

Sorry for the rant, not having a good day.

[Waves77]

Couldn't agree with you more bigpook.

Little too add to it actually, except for the fact that Linux everything is transparent and open, I can learn, change, rewrite or add anything I want. In windows there's very little control that I have except mostly tweaking through a gui.

Plus cost. I do freelance development, the amount of tools that I use day to day would cost me an arm and a leg if I needed those on Windows.

[bigpook]

I just didn't want to come off like some kind of prick. Which I probably did.

So I apologize for that. My computer needs are fully covered by linux, with the exception of gaming. I do have an XP box that I fire up just to play Battlefield 2. And I do use XP at work because I have to. If the software I need to use would run on linux, then I would run linux, but until that day comes, I am stuck with windows.

Everybody has different needs. So windows may be the only choice for you. Thankfully, I don't have to run windows(at home), which means that I don't have to pay for it, which means that I do not worry about malware, virus's and other crap that seem to afflict the windows os, which means I don't have to reboot, reboot, reboot, which means I don't have to let the machine run for hours while it defrags itself, which means I don't have to go to the manufacturers site to download drivers, which means I don't have to worry about windows genuine advantage( or whatever corporate spyware they want to call it), which means I can install a package simply and quickly from the command line using apt-get install, which means I don't have to call microsoft to ask permission to re-validate my license so I can re-install it on another machine, which means I don't have to answer to a corporation in order to run my OS, which means I don't have to deal with some brain-dead call center when I need tech support, which means I don't have to deal with some windows user who thinks they know more than me, which means I am free from having to deal with a corporation that I do not trust.

windows is the 10 dollar rubber dome keyboard.

linux is the old-school IBM model M/HHKB Pro 2.

The above is purely my opinion. Most will not agree with me. If I have offended anyone please accept my apologies in advance.

[graywolf]

I started using Linux with Slackware 1.0. That was back in the days when your choice of distributions was Slackware or roll your own. I used it for 10 years, then I got to where I required MS Windows to run the software I needed. But I continued to run Slackware on my server.

I tried various distributions over the years, but I always went back to Slackware because I liked the BSD type environment. Did you know that Slackware and its derivatives are set up like BSD, while all the rest of the Linux dist's are set up like Sys V?

If you do not know the ins and outs of Linux you are even worse off than if you do not know the ins and outs of Windows. The BSD's tend to be more stable, but back in the day you could not get BSD free unless you were in a University setting. OSX is based on FreeBSD, BTW, they chose that because the license lets you develop proprietary systems with it while the license Linux is under requires you to release the code if you base it on Linux. Note that does not mean you can not develop proprietory software that runs on Linux, just that you can not use Linux for the base of it.

As for needing all that stuff to be safe on Windows, you don't! It is a case of FUD selling the stuff like hotcakes. I do not run all that crap, I have had one case of a virus. I was running all that crap when I got it. I decided that if it was not going to protect me I was going back to my old way of doing things and not waste the CPU cycles. How is my old way?

Well, first I virus scan any software I download before running it. Second I do a virus scan every Sunday followed by a Spyware scan. Nothing runs automatically. In the year since I went back to that I have had zero problems. I seems that most of those things your antivirus and antispyware programs find, are downloaded witht the updates so you will see it find something and think it sure is doing a good job, and maybe you should get the pay for version. Simple salesmanship. Not exactly honest, but it is making some folks rich.

Nope, in my experience, and I have only been dealing with computers since 1961, you are wrong. All of the OS that I have delt with require extensive tuning for a geek or nerd to be happy with them. The only real advantage Linux has is that you can compile a custom kernel, if you are not going to do that, you might as well stick to Windows. And the real disadvantage is that if you have to run some particular commercial software, usually for work or business reasons, you are SOL.

[xsphat]

Well damn, now I'm gonna go buy a Windows machine instead of a Mac.

[bigpook]

I started with redhat 5.1 and used it as a simple windows file/print server, aside from samba there was NO extensive tuning. I use ubuntu for the desktop and my servers now, but have used redhat, suse, mandrake, debian,vector, ipcop, astaro and gentoo. Gentoo didn't last long though, talk about compiling, I just want to use my computer....

I have not compiled a kernel in years, the last I recall was to use a 486 as a firewall. But that was years ago.There are way more advantages to linux than being able to compile a kernel too.
I agree on commercial software, for some reason photoshop comes to mind, I am sure there are others but I don't really know. I don't have a need for them.

My work laptop is win xp, my office is all windows, and the laptop is provided to me. All of the software I use for work only works on windows. Thats ok, I can deal with that.

But at home I get to call the shots. I am running 7 machines, 4 of which are running apache with mysql. I have all of the low end plumbing stuff too, dhcp, dns, ftp, ssh, vnc, etc....

There are too many cool tools that come with a base install to mention, but rsync, cron, ntp, autofs, nfs, did I mention rsync?, mdadm, vim, cups.......

I have no idea how much money it would cost me to do all that I do with windows, but something tells me that the price is somewhat higher than the 0 dollars that I spend now. And as a bonus, I don't have to phone home to verify my license, and I get the updates for free.

So sticking with windows is simply not an option. The cost is prohibitive, and the performance/reliability is just not there for me.

As a side note, my work laptop, which has the uber, special,battlestar galatica, enterprise edition of Symantec still did not stop my laptop from getting a raging infection that had the IT shop wiping the drive and re-installing the OS. This has happened to me twice in 3 years.
This is a work laptop, connected to a customers network, no less...when I believe the virus's struck. The second time was when I downloaded a windows file manager program that supported dual panes, I am such a wanker, the software had some kind of malware in it, poorly written it seems, as it trashed my laptop.

This is such crap. I don't ever have these problems with linux. My linux machines have yet to be compromised either. And I KNOW the outside world is knocking, I run snort on my firewall and use portsentry to block the worst offenders. The port scans are never ending and people are always trying to get in. And yet my apache server has never failed, the mysql server has not fallen over, and my boxs would have higher uptimes but my UPS's only last so long, and I live in Florida where power outages can be common during the summer months.

Sorry for the rant. I just don't like being spoon fed a line of skata.

[karlito]

meh... they are all ass.  For me windows xp is a well known ass so it's my poison of choice. Ubuntu requires drivers just like windows and just like windows if u run stupid ubuntu updater it kills the drivers. and yes if you want to do anything at all meaningful on ubuntu you have to install "real" (aka proprietary teh devil) nvidia drivers not this ghetto open source crap drivers.

i've run windows for years and never had a virus why? cause i dont download stupid sht! simple as that... there are viruses for every OS... downloaded happy smiley faces for your email messages is a bad idea!

so honestly all this crap about one OS being better than another is all crap. they all have plusses and minuses so it's really a matter of what you want to do... run publicly accessible apache mysql? then yea bsd/linux is the best way to go. Although i run a dev version of mysql and apache just fine on my winXP.

oh and btw I bought winXP pro in 2002 for ~$130 and it's suvived 3 full PC refreshes with 0 calls to microsoft... can't complain about spending $130 for an OS that does everything I want.  All this extra frilly crap they keep tacking on to OSes is bleh.

oddly enough the OS I cant stand the most is Mac .  The UI makes me want to kill someone O_o... and holy crap I use Eclipse all the time and when they show me the shortcuts for all the crap i do in windows such as (ctrl+shft+f, etc) I have no idea how to even do it in mac... it shows me a picture of a freaking up arrow and some crazy squigly chinese character... i mean what the f... to complex for me... and the maximize button doesnt maximize... and dont even get me started on Finder

[xsphat]

The UI is why I use Mac because this thread has just lost me since, like, the third post. Karlito, all that stuff you just said is Greek to me. So I guess the answer is use what you like and foggedaboutit.

[Waves77]

And I KNOW the outside world is knocking, I run snort on my firewall and use portsentry to block the worst offenders.

How are you liking that combo? I'm running csf+lsf+fwsnort+psad on mine right now, and quite happy with the results.

[bhtooefr]

The various icons for the shortcut keys do confuse me, especially when they're not printed on the key.

Command is easy enough (it's not Chinese, IIRC it's a Scottish symbol or something for a castle.)

I'm pretty sure the one with a line at the top, then with a 45 degree bend so it points down to the right, then another 45 degree bend at the bottom, and a line at the top right, is Option, but not 100% sure.

[bigpook]

Sorry for the above rant. I reread it and cringed, I can go over the top sometimes.
Linux, Mac and Windows are fine. You use the tool that works best for you. I didn't mean to imply that one was better than the other, because really, it does come down to what you like best. Not what some maniac is screaming about on a street corner.

I do wish that there was better inter-operability between all of them, especially Linux and Windows. And file formats that worked seamlessly between all 3 would be a big plus. I can't help but say that Windows is largely at fault here. Its not like the linux platform is closed.

[graywolf]

This is such crap. I don't ever have these problems with linux. My linux machines have yet to be compromised either. And I KNOW the outside world is knocking, I run snort on my firewall and use portsentry to block the worst offenders. The port scans are never ending and people are always trying to get in. And yet my apache server has never failed, the mysql server has not fallen over, and my boxs would have higher uptimes but my UPS's only last so long, and I live in Florida where power outages can be common during the summer months.

(SMILE) Well, you know best. I get a lot of port scans too, according to my firewall log. However, I finally noticed that if I was not running the bit torrent software they went down about 95%. When you think of it, attempting to connect to your machine is exactly what happens when you are running bit torrent, as machines all over the world are checking to see what you have available.

Last year I had a lot of what logged as denial of service attacks, but actually was, my ISP people finally decided, an attempt to highjack my internet connection, by someone in Germany.

But I would have had both those problems running any operating system.

Your point about the cost of using Windows for servers is entirely valid. Besides I already said that Windows is not the best for servers. I even chose to have my webhost on a Linux Machine even though it would cost no more to have it on a Windows machine (currently free with ads, sigh).

So, my point, Windows does not suck. Linux does not suck. BSD does not suck. Unix does not suck. Even OSX does not suck. But some of them are better for particular purposes than the others. Of course BSD, OSX and Linux are all forms of Unix which means on the desktops of the world there are only Windows and Unix systems. OTOH, if you want to call your Unix OS Unix you have to pay a hefty fee to the people who own the name.



Not your grandmothers Windows XP

[karlito]

I do wish that there was better inter-operability between all of them, especially Linux and Windows. And file formats that worked seamlessly between all 3 would be a big plus. I can't help but say that Windows is largely at fault here. Its not like the linux platform is closed.

Yep corporations are "evil".  MS killing all Office application competition makes me cringe. iTunes (and now Zune) makes me cringe. I personally blame our government for a lot of it (that is there job after all). For example, the French gov is/was fighting to make apple open it's iTunes DRM and i *think* apple just stopped letting people in france use itunes.

anyways i fully appreciate open source but as a software engineer i want to get paid o_O.

[xsphat]

anyways i fully appreciate open source but as a software engineer i want to get paid o_O.

I hear Microsoft is hiring ...

[Waves77]

anyways i fully appreciate open source but as a software engineer i want to get paid o_O.

I'm getting paid 10K right now (freelance) to work on a foss project

[bhtooefr]

OTOH, if you want to call your Unix OS Unix you have to pay a hefty fee to the people who own the name.

Going off on a tangent: Interestingly Apple actually bothered to pay for the name for OS X 10.5/x86...

[megarat]

And file formats that worked seamlessly between all 3 would be a big plus.

No kidding!  Particularly, WTF is up with those three different newline characters?  You'd hope that something as lowest-common denominator as an ASCII text file would have no compatibility issues, but alas.

[CaptCarrot]

Back on topic...

Have a look at some of his other stuff here... I'm lving that 3d pong table

[pex]

Am I the only one who has seen linux go down?  

Maybe it's the dependency hell everyone likes about linux.  Or the driver support.

I wait for someone free of copyright and patent constraints to merge the best of all of the OSes (why not stick Windows's face on a linux base if they're both so great?).  Linux certainly isn't the best.

Sometimes I feel like there's someone pulling the strings, making sure each product has some good features but other purposely omitted, so that we can't just have one very excellent product but many which don't completely meet our needs.  That's how I feel when I see many markets for products and it seems like that's not lost on the OS market.

[bigpook]

That depends on what you mean by going down.
Don't know about dependency hell, its been years since I last experienced that.
Not sure about driver support, except for wireless adaptors.
I have had great luck with everything I have plugged into my linux box.

I ended up with ubuntu as it has been the easiest to deal with. running 8.10 now.
It works real well for what I am doing with it. It may not work real well for you.

[ashort]

That depends on what you mean by going down.
Don't know about dependency hell, its been years since I last experienced that.
Not sure about driver support, except for wireless adaptors.
I have had great luck with everything I have plugged into my linux box.

I ended up with ubuntu as it has been the easiest to deal with. running 8.10 now.
It works real well for what I am doing with it. It may not work real well for you.

Driver support in recent Ubuntu is unparalleled in any version of Windows.  For running XP on my T60 thinkpad I have to d/l "intel board drivers", then the nic driver, bluetooth, blah blah blah.  With Ubuntu, it downloads each piece as needed as a part of the install.  With Ubuntu, every piece of hardware I had worked as soon as the OS was done installing.  If you read all that, you saw that I can't use my intel nic post-install on Windows without adding at least two pieces of software to it.  Why can Ubuntu get that right and not Windows?

Some manual config for bluetooth in Ubuntu that wasn't particularly user friendly, but I got that down the first time.  This is me, I describe myself this way:  "I like linux, but I think it hates me."  However, have you ever been stuck in bluetooth hell in windows?  NOT fun.  Feels like you should just throw your BT device away and start over.

There is still some dependency hell out there.  I've hit it but in 8.04 and I think it couldn't find what it needed in the default mirrors that were setup as a part of the install.  No details....didn't write them down and it's been too long.  

Setting up virtual interfaces for vbox isn't particularly fun, but if you're into virtualization you SHOULD be able to figure it out.

[secularzarathustra]

ditto for lenny,

everything just works...now my HURD install is where I get to have dep. fun