Does AutoCAD run on Linux?
Does AutoCAD run on Linux?
dota 2 in linux now! :P
don't you like R, rjrich?
Does AutoCAD run on Linux?
CAD and database compatibility are the 2 gaping deficiencies of Linux in general. Aside from games, which I don't play.
I've tried to use GNU/Linux on the desktop, but it still seems to fragile.
Slackware is a good choice if you want similar performance but less trouble.
I've tried to use GNU/Linux on the desktop, but it still seems to fragile.
I really have to disagree with you there. Ten years ago, yeah. It would take a lot of work to get a desktop installation going. These days Mint and Ubuntu work on almost anything straight out of the box including all of the necessary drivers.
I'm using openbox on Gentoo, previously fvwm (also Gentoo). Really... I've never had any issues that weren't hardware related.
I started w/ .99 pre- kernels and 50+ slackware floppies.
Pretty cool too, spamray. Pre-Mandriva days. About 10 years old?
I was reading up on this and I think I heard that Ubuntu was the best for gaming and there is a software called WINE that could emulate the drivers needed for your GPU. That is all I know for now. I also heard that steam is working on Linux compatibility. So there are no ROMs out there that can run SC2? I was thinking about switching to Linux
I'd still defend Windows over Mac. I really don't like Mac users.
I'd still defend Windows over Mac. I really don't like Mac users.
CentOS is an open source version of RHEL. It's a server distribution.
Show Image(http://i.imgur.com/zFMTYKb.jpg)
Oddly, I think I actually got laid like 1000000 times more often than I had to reboot my computer that had Linux on it.
(http://i.imgur.com/zFMTYKb.jpg) (http://i.imgur.com/zFMTYKb.jpg)
Oddly, I think I actually got laid like 1000000 times more often than I had to reboot my computer that had Linux on it.
I have played with and run it off and on for almost 15 years and administrated a server with it for 2/3rds that time.
Linux is like this... (ignoring games)
If it works for you out of the box, GREAT! No problem. If not... Big Problem.
Getting unsupported or partially supported hardware working can be difficult and time consuming. Once running though, Linux can be quite good, I just wish people could come up with some better names than "Yet another....", good god, you people are geeks, you can do better than that. 50 programs all with the same name, gee, thanks.
And YES, you can get Autcad running on Linux.
http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=86 (http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=application&iId=86)
Long story short, if you're not looking to switch out of some conviction, you're better off sticking with Windows. Linux is less approachable, will break on you, will be harder to fix and has little advantage for the average user who asks lazy questions such as our OP.
Linux has a number of merits, but they're really only merits if you put principles over practicability. Or you enjoy tinkering. Or have a job in programming.
Long story short, if you're not looking to switch out of some conviction, you're better off sticking with Windows. Linux is less approachable, will break on you, will be harder to fix and has little advantage for the average user who asks lazy questions such as our OP.
Linux has a number of merits, but they're really only merits if you put principles over practicability. Or you enjoy tinkering. Or have a job in programming.
Totally disagree. Look at something like package management. On windows you have to search out and manually install each piece of software. And updating can be worse with some software. On a beginner friendly distro like ubuntu there's an insanely easy to use software center from which you can install/update pretty much anything you're liable to need. I consider anything without a decent package manager totally unusable.
Nearly everyone uses it and quite a bit...
Just not where they think.
Linux is the best
No one ever uses it
Refrigerator
Linux is the best
No one ever uses it
Refrigerator
I bet there are some refrigerators running linux!!
Linux is the best
No one ever uses it
Refrigerator
I bet there are some refrigerators running linux!!
LG makes many that do I think.
Totally disagree. Look at something like package management. On windows you have to search out and manually install each piece of software. And updating can be worse with some software. On a beginner friendly distro like ubuntu there's an insanely easy to use software center from which you can install/update pretty much anything you're liable to need. I consider anything without a decent package manager totally unusable.
You can't play many retail games on linux.
That's it.
You can't play many retail games on linux.
That's it.
yes you can. check out the steam client for linux.
http://media.steampowered.com/client/installer/steam.deb
http://steamforlinux.com/
http://store.steampowered.com/browse/linux/
Who needs "retail games" when you have Dota2 and Quake 3?LoL? I don't like Dota2 :P
Who needs "retail games" when you have Dota2 and Quake 3?
pff. Everyone knows Nexuiz/Xonotic is the best Linux game! :P
pff. Everyone knows Nexuiz/Xonotic is the best Linux game! :P
Take games out of the equation for a moment. I can't think of anything that I have to customize (other than turning off Unity) or that I'm missing with a fresh installation of Ubuntu 12.04. If you are not a gamer how is it not ready for primetime? In general, I think it's definitely a viable alternative unless you have some application that won't run on Linux. I have some accounting software that will only run in Windows. So, in that case I just fire up a VM when I need to use that software.On both Lenovo netbooks (x100e, S10e) it runs great. Like it was made for them.
Just wondering if the OP has learned anything yet?
You can't play many retail games on linux.
That's it.
yes you can. check out the steam client for linux.
http://media.steampowered.com/client/installer/steam.deb
http://steamforlinux.com/
http://store.steampowered.com/browse/linux/
To be [un]fair, there aren't a lot of compatible games yet.
Just wondering if the OP has learned anything yet?
Probably very little. Just a bunch of offhand comments that assume the OP wanted to talk about a kernel.
I think Linux enthusiasts tend to assume too much when thinking and talking about the software as an operating system. That's a big reason why most consumers tend to walk away from your typical desktop distro (all of them, actually): Even if you set it up and coach them and act as their on-call repairman, they start to feel that the environment is too unsettling for them. Too many features not properly expressed in the GUI (need to use CLI); too many shifts in the GUI ("uh, KDE became weird and unstable this year... gotta learn and use Gnome for a while"... then Gnome jumps the shark too); audio that still sucks (bad); the near impossibility of installing 'off the shelf' independently-downloaded apps and the weird cult-like reverence that Linux techies have for "the repository"; hardware snafus and the discovery that "the freeware driver wasn't written for quite this model" or similar idiocy; the ridiculous expectation that enthusiasts give prospective users that they can switch to a Linux desktop if a live CD seems to work for 5 min. on their hardware (then later, all the things that don't work surface one by one until the user realizes they wasted weeks of their time).
Amazingly, the impediments to app developers are nearly as onerous.
None of the above is any real barrier for people who work as sysadmins (esp. for Internet/web services). The big mistake is in thinking you can take hacker and server room culture and make it useable to average consumers by adding a candy coating to a noncommittally-supplied raft of UIs. Apple avoided that and Google also did not make that mistake with Android, since underneath the candy there is a philosophy of greater feature-stability, vertical integration, and hardware compatibility tailored to complete systems not individual chips. And you'll notice Google used the Linux kernel but did not incorporate "Linux" anywhere in the marketed Android identity; selling Android as a "Linux" would have confused people and sent most early adopters running in the other direction.
SACRED CATTLE!You can't play many retail games on linux.
That's it.
yes you can. check out the steam client for linux.
http://media.steampowered.com/client/installer/steam.deb
http://steamforlinux.com/
http://store.steampowered.com/browse/linux/
To be [un]fair, there aren't a lot of compatible games yet.
did you even look at the 249 games listed on steam?
Now pre-10.10 was a different story. What versions of Linux were you using? If I'm not sure about hardware compatibility I'll just boot a live USB first to see how it runs before trying a full installation.While far from a Linux guru, I've been using and experimenting with Linux off and on since 1997 and nearly every Ubuntu since version 6 or so.
the near impossibility of installing 'off the shelf' independently-downloaded apps and the weird cult-like reverence that Linux techies have for "the repository"
the near impossibility of installing 'off the shelf' independently-downloaded apps and the weird cult-like reverence that Linux techies have for "the repository"
You think that typing ONE LINE of command to install any programme without worrying it being a malware or fake is difficult? And you think windows or Mac does a better job in this? By trapping users to download malwares?
Yeah, that ONE line plus dozens of others required to chase down dependencies and change config options. OS X comes close to getting it right, because most apps behave like simple files and I can choose to make them global or just stored/run under one user with just drag and drop. A typical Linux app is relatively unruly, and installing one that is not packaged for your particular distro+version leads to hijinx (like uninstalling a dependency to get a different build of it in there, only to discover that 1/3 of your OS also got uninstalled or no longer able to get through updates because of broken dependency resolution).the near impossibility of installing 'off the shelf' independently-downloaded apps and the weird cult-like reverence that Linux techies have for "the repository"
You think that typing ONE LINE of command to install any programme without worrying it being a malware or fake is difficult? And you think windows or Mac does a better job in this? By trapping users to download malwares?
Probably very little. Just a bunch of offhand comments that assume the OP wanted to talk about a kernel.
I think Linux enthusiasts tend to assume too much when thinking and talking about the software as an operating system. That's a big reason why most consumers tend to walk away from your typical desktop distro (all of them, actually): Even if you set it up and coach them and act as their on-call repairman, they start to feel that the environment is too unsettling for them. Too many features not properly expressed in the GUI (need to use CLI); too many shifts in the GUI ("uh, KDE became weird and unstable this year... gotta learn and use Gnome for a while"... then Gnome jumps the shark too); audio that still sucks (bad); the near impossibility of installing 'off the shelf' independently-downloaded apps and the weird cult-like reverence that Linux techies have for "the repository"; hardware snafus and the discovery that "the freeware driver wasn't written for quite this model" or similar idiocy; the ridiculous expectation that enthusiasts give prospective users that they can switch to a Linux desktop if a live CD seems to work for 5 min. on their hardware (then later, all the things that don't work surface one by one until the user realizes they wasted weeks of their time).
Amazingly, the impediments to app developers are nearly as onerous.
None of the above is any real barrier for people who work as sysadmins (esp. for Internet/web services). The big mistake is in thinking you can take hacker and server room culture and make it useable to average consumers by adding a candy coating to a noncommittally-supplied raft of UIs. Apple avoided that and Google also did not make that mistake with Android, since underneath the candy there is a philosophy of greater feature-stability, vertical integration, and hardware compatibility tailored to complete systems not individual chips. And you'll notice Google used the Linux kernel but did not incorporate "Linux" anywhere in the marketed Android identity; selling Android as a "Linux" would have confused people and sent most early adopters running in the other direction.
Probably very little. Just a bunch of offhand comments that assume the OP wanted to talk about a kernel.I'm not so sure about learning very little, but the rest I agree with (though I have VERY serious issues with Android from a developer standpoint :mad:).
I think Linux enthusiasts tend to assume too much when thinking and talking about the software as an operating system. That's a big reason why most consumers tend to walk away from your typical desktop distro (all of them, actually): Even if you set it up and coach them and act as their on-call repairman, they start to feel that the environment is too unsettling for them. Too many features not properly expressed in the GUI (need to use CLI); too many shifts in the GUI ("uh, KDE became weird and unstable this year... gotta learn and use Gnome for a while"... then Gnome jumps the shark too); audio that still sucks (bad); the near impossibility of installing 'off the shelf' independently-downloaded apps and the weird cult-like reverence that Linux techies have for "the repository"; hardware snafus and the discovery that "the freeware driver wasn't written for quite this model" or similar idiocy; the ridiculous expectation that enthusiasts give prospective users that they can switch to a Linux desktop if a live CD seems to work for 5 min. on their hardware (then later, all the things that don't work surface one by one until the user realizes they wasted weeks of their time).
Amazingly, the impediments to app developers are nearly as onerous.
None of the above is any real barrier for people who work as sysadmins (esp. for Internet/web services). The big mistake is in thinking you can take hacker and server room culture and make it useable to average consumers by adding a candy coating to a noncommittally-supplied raft of UIs. Apple avoided that and Google also did not make that mistake with Android, since underneath the candy there is a philosophy of greater feature-stability, vertical integration, and hardware compatibility tailored to complete systems not individual chips. And you'll notice Google used the Linux kernel but did not incorporate "Linux" anywhere in the marketed Android identity; selling Android as a "Linux" would have confused people and sent most early adopters running in the other direction.
The other day, I had to explain to a web designer what AMD and Intel were, not the difference, but that they were two different manufacturers.
Still calling BS. I have installed Ubuntu on PCs for family members that use Apple and they have no problem using it. There is absolutely no need for the average user to use the command line or even install software. When updates are ready you just hit the Install Updates button. That's it.
Still calling BS. I have installed Ubuntu on PCs for family members that use Apple and they have no problem using it. There is absolutely no need for the average user to use the command line or even install software. When updates are ready you just hit the Install Updates button. That's it.
Yes, no need for average user to use command line.
On the other hand I actually have some sympathy with people who don't want to have to understand an OS or the inner workings of a PC..its a tool, an interface between them and work. Unless you have a leaning to these things why should anyone have to actually have technical knowledge to use something marketed as an office essential and the effective replacement of the typing pool.This is what
Still calling BS. I have installed Ubuntu on PCs for family members that use Apple and they have no problem using it. There is absolutely no need for the average user to use the command line or even install software. When updates are ready you just hit the Install Updates button. That's it.Inevitably, they want to install an HP printer with a scanner... Wirelessly. All I can say to you at that point is have fun.
This is whatmanymost geeks fail to understand.
People want their PC to work like their washing machine. Turn it, it does the job, you turn it off.
On the other hand I actually have some sympathy with people who don't want to have to understand an OS or the inner workings of a PC..its a tool, an interface between them and work. Unless you have a leaning to these things why should anyone have to actually have technical knowledge to use something marketed as an office essential and the effective replacement of the typing pool.This is whatmanymost geeks fail to understand.
People want their PC to work like their washing machine. Turn it, it does the job, you turn it off. If it breaks, call a repair man. I've gotten to where I even handle billing like a repair man, makes it easier for people to understand.
That's it, nothing more, like you said, it's a tool for them, not a lifestyle. This is why people love Iphones, it works like an appliance.Still calling BS. I have installed Ubuntu on PCs for family members that use Apple and they have no problem using it. There is absolutely no need for the average user to use the command line or even install software. When updates are ready you just hit the Install Updates button. That's it.Inevitably, they want to install an HP printer with a scanner... Wirelessly. All I can say to you at that point is have fun.
The same goes for external backups with automated software, something I am seeing more and more of.
Printer/scanner combos are the bane of my existence, particularly if they are HP or (F'me), both HP and Wireless.
While you may not be able to use the HP software you can still set up a printer and scanner easily for them. Ubuntu has some sort of backup software they push now but I just set up rysnc and forget about it. You can do this for your clients as well without the need for them to do anything but make sure their backup drive is plugged in (or if off-site just make sure the PC is on a connected to the Internet.)
Are you saying that you rely on improperly engineered solutions for repeat business, and that you rely on this repeat business for continuity?Are you saying I'm any different than the entire car industry? :p
It's very easy to set up anything in Ubuntu now, it works just like Windows nowadays: install all the modules and load all of them when booting up, scarifying speed for compatibility.You lost half my customers when you said "install", however one thing many people forget, is that you still have to convince a customer to remove or alter Windows just to even try and install Linux. That alone, pretty much scares the bejeezus out of 99% of the population.
LOL, I don't know how to respond to that LA. I guess you mean rsync is geeky? Here is a pic of the "Control Panel" for Ubuntu if you think it's less geeky. From what I can tell the backup application is very similar to Apple's Time Machine. Just set it and forget it.Not the backup, but the scanner system, rsync as well though.
Of course, if people want to try out linux while keeping Windows on their system, they could run linux from a live CD or have someone set them up with a dual-boot system.
Reading comprehension isn't what it used to be. ;)
Of course, if people want to try out linux while keeping Windows on their system, they could run linux from a live CD or have someone set them up with a dual-boot system.
Eek.
I just tried out ubuntu on a livecd.
Me wants to switch.
I love vim.
And you launch it by going to a terminal and typing 'vi'.
No you can't. That launches vi. You have to install vim (or gvim) and type "vim" to launch it.Of course, if people want to try out linux while keeping Windows on their system, they could run linux from a live CD or have someone set them up with a dual-boot system.
Eek.
I just tried out ubuntu on a livecd.
Me wants to switch.
I love vim.
And you launch it by going to a terminal and typing 'vi'.
No you can't. That launches vi. You have to install vim (or gvim) and type "vim" to launch it.Of course, if people want to try out linux while keeping Windows on their system, they could run linux from a live CD or have someone set them up with a dual-boot system.
Eek.
I just tried out ubuntu on a livecd.
Me wants to switch.
I love vim.
And you launch it by going to a terminal and typing 'vi'.
Sorry if I came off as a bit snippy, just want to make sure you understand vi and vim are different beasts. If you try to use vi like vim it will not end well.No you can't. That launches vi. You have to install vim (or gvim) and type "vim" to launch it.Of course, if people want to try out linux while keeping Windows on their system, they could run linux from a live CD or have someone set them up with a dual-boot system.
Eek.
I just tried out ubuntu on a livecd.
Me wants to switch.
I love vim.
And you launch it by going to a terminal and typing 'vi'.
I apologize for lying about my experience with ubuntu 13.04.
I really do.
/sarcasm
Sorry if I came off as a bit snippy, just want to make sure you understand vi and vim are different beasts. If you try to use vi like vim it will not end well.No you can't. That launches vi. You have to install vim (or gvim) and type "vim" to launch it.Of course, if people want to try out linux while keeping Windows on their system, they could run linux from a live CD or have someone set them up with a dual-boot system.
Eek.
I just tried out ubuntu on a livecd.
Me wants to switch.
I love vim.
And you launch it by going to a terminal and typing 'vi'.
I apologize for lying about my experience with ubuntu 13.04.
I really do.
/sarcasm
You didn't, but I did! Sorry.B... but... how do you start vi?
It may be ubuntu specific, but 'vi' legitimately starts VIM.
From https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VimHowto
"You can start vim in console mode by typing vi or vim at the terminal"
You didn't, but I did! Sorry.B... but... how do you start vi?
It may be ubuntu specific, but 'vi' legitimately starts VIM.
From https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VimHowto
"You can start vim in console mode by typing vi or vim at the terminal"
You didn't, but I did! Sorry.B... but... how do you start vi?
It may be ubuntu specific, but 'vi' legitimately starts VIM.
From https://help.ubuntu.com/community/VimHowto
"You can start vim in console mode by typing vi or vim at the terminal"
Is it even open source? (tied to UNIX perhaps?)
Is it even open source? (tied to UNIX perhaps?)
Good question. It first appeared on BSD UNIX, and its license says BSD. But "BSD" then and now, are quite different of course. It's probably closed, if I'm correct there aren't any forks, only work-alikes.
But FreeBSD ships with the actual vi, maybe it was opened up later...? :eek:
Open BSD is open source.
minux 3 anyone? lol
minux 3 anyone? lol
Which has to do with linux... how?
minux 3 anyone? lol
Which has to do with linux... how?
Really? Minix was what Linus actually used to write Linux on.
Which has to do with linux... how?
It was already changed to bsd. if anything I helped change it back to linux with the Linus vs Tanenbaum reference.
:D
He started Linux in part because he thought Minix was sh**. :))
Hello, any linux user 'round here? Can you tell me something about your experience with it, and how it is compared to windows? thx
e.g. USB 3.0 on Linux could be an issue since it is first released.
The life cycle of an Linux distro is also an issue with users because normally it has short life cycle, users may have no support after 2-3 years, e.g. Ubuntu 9.
e.g. USB 3.0 on Linux could be an issue since it is first released.
Tell me about it. Linux had USB 3.0 drivers in upstream long before the hardware became common or even available in the mass market.The life cycle of an Linux distro is also an issue with users because normally it has short life cycle, users may have no support after 2-3 years, e.g. Ubuntu 9.
No, it isn't. Most common distros are very open about their release schedule and anyone who expect long-term support from every release of every distro even though it's stated by developers that the release will be supported for X months, is an idiot.
If someone wants stable system (stable as in "not constantly changing"), recent Ubuntu LTS releases are supported for 5 years, and it's more in case of Debian or enterprise distros such as RHEL or SLE*.
BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.
Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".
Ubuntu is has the most $$$ backing it at the moment and seems to have the most active development so I will discuss it for a moment.
BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.
Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".
I don't agree, the best way I've heard it described is "BSD is what you get when a bunch of UNIX hackers try to make a UNIX clone. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers try to make a UNIX clone." They are very similar, they just have different goals.
GNU Hurd (the actual gnu kernel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd
Unix clone ≠ based on unix.
For it to be unix based they would have had to have taken and modified the actual unix source code and modified it. They didn't.
GNU Hurd (the actual gnu kernel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd
AKA longest running joke of the free software world.
Ubuntu is has the most $$$ backing it at the moment and seems to have the most active development so I will discuss it for a moment.
What? O_o
BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.
Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".
Ubuntu is has the most $$$ backing it at the moment and seems to have the most active development so I will discuss it for a moment.
What? O_o
i do not understand your confusion.
canonical has tons of service/maintenance contracts that they use to pay for some to there projects.
i am discussing this from a workstation point of view.
from a server view centos is killing redhat enterprise. i qm on tapatalk and can't type a lot as i have a meeting to run off to.
BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.
Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".
GNU doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Linux. That's just Stallman's way of "wording" it. because he still can't get over the face some college kid beat him to it. And yes Linux was modelled after UNIX (if you like that term better.)
BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution) was fully licensed from ATT. The other versions are open/free branches based on BSD. Just like Linux is based on UNIX. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
GNU/Linux is in no way based on Unix, it is just Unix like. Just like if I went out and made an operating system that resembled Windows from scratch it wouldn't be Windows based, just Windows like.
Fun fact- GNU actually stands for "GNU's not Unix".
GNU doesn't necessarily have anything to do with Linux. That's just Stallman's way of "wording" it because he still can't get over the face some college kid beat him to it 20 years ago. And yes Linux was modelled after UNIX (if you like that term better.) That's why the 'nux is there. Linus himself has mentioned this in several interviews over the years when asked about the name of Linux.
...now if I had said clone...that may have been inappropriate, but I didn't.
You guys keep going more and more off topic. You sound like Stallman. Linux is the kernel - the main part of the OS. It was developed completely independently of GNU on a Minix box. With that kernel you can use whatever tools you want on top of that whether they are GNU or custom programs. Both types of Linux exist. Some use GNU and some don't.
What about different kernels in Debian?it seems like you already know the answer to this.
Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.
Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.
Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.
Using that kind of "logic", there shouldn't be any GeForce/Radeon owners because of flamewars on the internets...
Narcix has not replied since he opened this discussion :(
We scared him off with all the OT BS and inaccurate pedantry.
Linux threads always turn into perdantic nit-picking. Makes me sad. I sort of think that's why it's not perhaps doing as well as it could, because the community and the developers can't get over themselves.
Using that kind of "logic", there shouldn't be any GeForce/Radeon owners because of flamewars on the internets...
Not really.
Difference being a commercial entity and one that is propelled by community and open sharing. Money will help sell itself, whereas with something that is open and free, it instinctively comes to as something that has no value or has less value than the paid alternative.
When you're trying to convince people to move over to an open and free alternative, and yet you're punishing them for not understanding something as irrelevant as how to refer to what the thing even is, the potential users are gonna become confused, irritated, and move away.
Money sucks, but it does what it's supposed to do and does it well.
It's like one of those moody kids in high school that snap at you for asking how they are. You get a "**** off!" for being curious and you're not likely to ask again whereas the pretty chick with the nice-smelling perfume always responds with "Great thanks! How are you?" and you're more inclined to ask again, even elaborate if you gather the balls to.
As someone said, Unix is user-friendly, it just chooses its friends carefully. I consider this to be some kind of a filter.I heartily agree. Most of the Linux desktop advocates switched to Mac OS X (certified Unix) almost a decade ago.
As someone said, Unix is user-friendly, it just chooses its friends carefully. I consider this to be some kind of a filter.I heartily agree. Most of the Linux desktop advocates switched to Mac OS X (certified Unix) almost a decade ago.
Interesting confluence of user-friendly and choosiness there.
To be honest, "how it is compared to windows?" sounds more like a flamebait. Flamebait that never fails.