By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Khuutra said:
ssj12 said:
Khuutra said:
ssj12, isn't that first video of the Sun OS? I didn't know that was "Linux" per se.

3-D desktops are always pretty cool. It was one of my favorite things about Ubuntu, though I couldn't get my video card running well enough to get it working right.

That second video is pretty crazy, I didn't kow they were able to distort videos in real-time that way yet.

 

isnt linux commonly refered to as an OS not made by Apple or Microsoft. So even though technically it is normally seperated in most OS market share listing it is a form of linux by linux's definition. Also Sun was originally based of an Unix kernal.

 

What? No. The GNU/Linux operating systems all run off of the Linux kernel, which is distinct from the Unix kernel that the SunOS uses (though it is similar).

 

Hmm... but isnt linux based off of unix... meaning linux and unix OSs are basically cousins or something. lol



PC gaming is better than console gaming. Always.     We are Anonymous, We are Legion    Kick-ass interview   Great Flash Series Here    Anime Ratings     Make and Play Please
Amazing discussion about being wrong
Official VGChartz Folding@Home Team #109453
 
Around the Network

I run Ubuntu Linux and Windows and both have problems.

Windows slows down with time as the registry bloats (and yes I use registry cleanup tools such as CCleaner) and antiviruses' take up more run time with every update. Startup takes over 4 minutes and I have a Pentium 4 @ 3Ghz with 1Gb of RAM, thats unacceptible (and i have perfect defragmentation using both defrag and defraggler and have run scandisc in DOS and Windows), certain programs (usually 3rd party like ad-aware) lock up my machine and require reboots.

Ubuntu has problems for me with my older monitor that has no plug and play monitor support, i had to search for hours trying to find the hidden monitor support menu "sudo displayconfig-gtk" in order to fix that stuff. And now with the update to Intrepid my machine locked during package cleanup and corrupted, I'm now manually updating from the CL and downloading all the necessary repositories will take most of the night. Also I'm having display driver problems, which i hope will be fixed after the full update (I have a NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200)

I like the clean operating environment that Ubuntu gives me so thats my preference. I runs so fast even with compiz.



Kickin' Those Games Old School.       -       201 Beaten Games And Counting

Soleron said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Soleron said:

 

1.  I haven't had a Windows virus in over 5 years.

2.  After trying SuSE, Ubuntu, Fedora, and a couple others I can honestly say that unless I'm running a stripped down GUI model that it's not faster.  In fact, pulling up notepad in Windows is faster than just about every GUI editting program I've used on a linux distro.

3.  This point is a pretty big lie especially on old PCs.  For example, Beryl becomes a huge performance hog as you increase the amount of stuff it does.  Just try the flames effect and watch older PCs struggle to perform.  If you're not doing anything that fancy then Stardock can match it without a noticeable performance decrease.

4.  Free versus a sunk cost doesn't lead to an advantage.  Unless you're building your own box (in which case the person would be savvy enough to make his/her own decisions), the average person is buying a box and getting Windows included in the package.

5.  Many great OSS applications on Linux have Windows counterparts.  Why be stuck with GIMP when I can have GIMP and Photoshop if I want?  Heck, I can also play real PC games while I'm at it.  Woo hoo!

6.  So either I install them separately after the OS or I install them with the OS.  I usually do it the former on my linux machines anyway.  If it's my box I'd rather get things as I need them instead of carrying a lot of bloat that I don't need.

7.  If by maze you mean a single installer then... well... then your point doesn't make sense.  Linux installations are only easy if you have a repository to install from.  Good luck to the poor novice trying to figure out make install on his/her own.


 

1. Because you are a sensible and knowledgable PC user. I know it's possible not to get viruses on a Windows system (I haven't got one running XP or Vista), but on Linux it is much harder to get infected in the case of malware and impossible in the case of viruses (because they don't exist)

 

2. Not for me, not on any computer. It's sometmes faster in the beginning, but after about a month XP and Vista slow right down, apparently by themselves.

 

3. I meant relative to Windows. With Compiz, you get get better effects than Aero on hardware Aero doesn't even support, like Intel integrated stuff.

 

4. I'll concede this, but it's the reason I hate MS so much (you can't buy a non-Windows PC for cheaper).

 

5. I'll concede this too, but it's better when the apps are native (GIMP on Windows sucks due to lack of integration). As for games, I honestly wouldn't recommend Linux to any serious gamer, or at least I'd say dual-boot.

 

6. You can't have it both ways. One of the criticisms of linux was that it required too much effort to set up, and now it doesn't you say their isn't enough control? For the average user, Linux is easier to set up than Windows.

 

7. Everything's in the main repository anyway. I've yet to find a useful program that isn't.

Are you not using a registry cleaner or something?

 



You know, I kind of detest all that bling that adds no real usability benefits. That 3D cube for example is nothing but a propped up virtual desktop, storing one on each side of the cube. Which Linux has been doing for quite some time without crippling the machine's performance.

Personally, as far as interfacing with the machine goes there's nothing better than Quicksilver. It went open-source at the end of last year so you linux geeks might get a release at some point in time.





Current-gen game collection uploaded on the profile, full of win and good games; also most of my PC games. Lucasfilm Games/LucasArts 1982-2008 (Requiescat In Pace).

I have Kubuntu 6.06 and it just now stop supporting flash players. So I can't even watch a video, it's ridicoulus. Ive been freaking out for the last two weeks. I guess im have to install this Ubuntu 8.10 update on a CD. Im have to use my mom's labtop since this computer im on doesn't have a burner. This disc drive im using is obviously dated. My Windows XP setup disc isn't working so I can't re-install Windows. Im so angry at that, especially since my webcam isn't working on Linux. I have another problem too. I have a lot of computer problems obviously, but luckily I can get online with no viruses. But this computer is too powerful CPU and GPU to just dump away. Intel Premium 4 1.6 ghz, that isn't perfect but it's good. Im not sure what kind of graphics card it holds, because my uncle put it in. But it has last gen console graphics. But im having mad computer problems, still.



Around the Network
ssj12 said:

Hmm... but isnt linux based off of unix... meaning linux and unix OSs are basically cousins or something. lol

Quick history lesson! *abridged*


Once upon a time, there was a company called AT&T who put its research folks (Bell Labs) together with a bunch of other smart folks developed some pretty neat software.  Years passed and it evolved a bit and became pretty useful.  AT&T, being the awesome folks they were, let everyone play with their newly developed toys.  What later would become Unix was licensed out to businesses, research groups, universities, and pretty much everyone who wanted it (including many many hippies). 

AT&T was pretty darn cool and because of that Unix became super popular.  And thanks to its popularity, more and more people learned to use it and improve it.  It was also the 70s which meant AT&T was probably composed mostly of hippies which may have contributed to their free spirited attitude.

However, later AT&T's legion of hippies would grow older and become bitter... and greedy.  They wanted more for Unix and people didn't like that so BSD Unix was born.  BSD lived on in Unix's stead.  Developers who enjoyed the freedom they had with AT&T once upon a time embraced BSD.

However, they in turn would become greedy and started offering their own commercial distros.  That's where Linus T. and his peeps come in.  For the last decade and a half everyone had been building their own distros and the like so even a random hippy off the street could do it.  The market was rich and he (with some other peeps) built the Linux kernel.  Unlike most of these other companies, Linus was not a jerk (though he probably was a hippy) and made his toys available to everyone.

And that's how it happened.  More or less.


And for the epilogue:

Sun sprung up around BSD creating Solaris and continues on with its Java programming language and giant black box server thingies.

Apple viciously ganked a BSD core for itself and has been repainting it in shiny colors to sell it for 8 times the price ever since.

Red Hat and many many other distros/companies/hippies appeared to inherit and broaden Linux.

Microsoft continued to wonder what all the fuss over this *nix stuff was as they tried to make their OS turn different colors other than blue.



Well, on another thread, nobody was able/willing to argue against my argument:

Ubuntu costs 0$; Windows costs about 150$
If you try to find out how many more times expensive Windows is over Ubuntu, you come up with infinity.
Windows cannot be infinity times better than Ubuntu, therefore Ubuntu is always the better choice.

Until someone does, I'm not going to argue against/for Ubuntu

Back on topic: I do like the Ubuntu interface, not because it looks pretty, but because it is functional.  You have all of you program launchers and taskbar icons at the top, and all of your currently open windows at the bottom.  Plus, multiple workspaces are nice.  I know that you can use a program on Windows to make multiple workspaces, but it works better if it is included in the OS.




 

Senlis said:

Well, on another thread, nobody was able/willing to argue against my argument:

Ubuntu costs 0$; Windows costs about 150$
If you try to find out how many more times expensive Windows is over Ubuntu, you come up with infinity.
Windows cannot be infinity times better than Ubuntu, therefore Ubuntu is always the better choice.

Until someone does, I'm not going to argue against/for Ubuntu

Back on topic: I do like the Ubuntu interface, not because it looks pretty, but because it is functional.  You have all of you program launchers and taskbar icons at the top, and all of your currently open windows at the bottom.  Plus, multiple workspaces are nice.  I know that you can use a program on Windows to make multiple workspaces, but it works better if it is included in the OS.

Counter argument: First, to get Ubuntu you'll have to burn it to a DVD. Not terribly expensive, but around 1 dollar. So it is not more than 150 times more expensive.

Counter argument nr two: I got my windows for free. I have never paid for a standalone version of windows, most have come with the computer, but I actually got this version of Vista for free. And since I didn't burn it (which was a stupid mistake btw) I paid less for it than I did for Ubuntu.

 



This is invisible text!

You can save the cost of a DVD if you have a USB flash drive and use the easy to use program that can be found here:

http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/

Now THAT is 100% free and environmentally friendly. Of course your computer must be able to boot from USB. :)



It wasn't free, the license for windows was paid with the computer.
You should be able to get the same computer for 100€ cheaper.