PDA

View Full Version : Ubuntu users, unite!


Doctortux
June 21st, 2009, 02:44 PM
I was just wondering, how many of you out there use ubuntu? I use it because it is the closest free thing to a mac.

Gerri Shin
June 21st, 2009, 03:27 PM
I have the ability to use it, and I have used it as my main OS in the past, however I do run Mac OS right now.
(I'm not sure which choice I should choose for the poll since it's not my main OS but I do have the ability to use it anytime I want via Virtual machine)

Captain Fabio
June 21st, 2009, 03:47 PM
I have had a play with it before, however, I didn't take much a liking to it.

processr
June 21st, 2009, 03:54 PM
I have a laptop with Vista and Ubuntu on dual boot. I find myself using Vista more frequently, but Ubuntu is handy when I want a quick startup. =3

Zet
June 21st, 2009, 04:56 PM
I still can't install WINE on ubuntu :( so 'no' I don't use ubuntu, though it's UI could use an upgrade.

Silver
June 21st, 2009, 06:28 PM
The last time I tried to use it, I wiped my entire HDD, so yea, I haven't tried again.

Reina
June 21st, 2009, 06:38 PM
I used to have Ubuntu, but I didn't like a lot about it. I mean, I LOVED the jiggling windows xD; But I hated the fact that I had to go to so much trouble to get certain programs that I could use with just a few clicks using Windows. And most didn't even work... Dissapointing ;~;

twocows
June 21st, 2009, 09:43 PM
I used to have Ubuntu, but I didn't like a lot about it. I mean, I LOVED the jiggling windows xD; But I hated the fact that I had to go to so much trouble to get certain programs that I could use with just a few clicks using Windows. And most didn't even work... Dissapointing ;~;
I find using programs easier on Linux, unless you try to use something specifically written for Windows. And then it's the program developers' faults.

No, I don't use Ubuntu. I tried it once, but I prefer Arch. Xubuntu's not too bad, but I prefer to build from the ground up, not get an OS loaded with stuff I don't need.

Cartmic
June 25th, 2009, 01:34 AM
My whole family uses Ubuntu, we haven't regretted our switch over since we did it coming up to 2 years ago.

I still can't install WINE on ubuntu :( so 'no' I don't use ubuntu, though it's UI could use an upgrade.

sudo apt-get install wine

or

Applications>Add remove appliations>Search for WINE.

Try something other than Gnome, I get the impression KDE would be more suited to you out of the box.(see attachment)

I personally believe Gnome is just fine and needs no upgrade, with Compiz-Fusion it has capabilities above and beyond Vista. Alot of people seem to think if at first glance a UI looks plain and "boring" then the whole thing is rubbish. This is far from the truth...take a look at RISC OS sometime, the default stoney look is a bit dated, but its the most intuitive UI that I've ever used.

I used to have Ubuntu, but I didn't like a lot about it. I mean, I LOVED the jiggling windows xD; But I hated the fact that I had to go to so much trouble to get certain programs that I could use with just a few clicks using Windows. And most didn't even work... Dissapointing ;~;

I find this the lamest argument around. Sure back in the day when you had to download a tarball extract the source and compile it your self, but with modern Linux distributions it takes around two clicks to open the package manager. Now if as I'm guessing you are trying to run windows programs, what on earth are you trying use Linux for? It's like trying to make Lemonade with Orange juice. There are more than adequate Linux alternatives to the majority of programs.

Archer
June 25th, 2009, 03:26 AM
Surely, it takes some patience, but it annoys me how many people give up on it. To be honest, I'm posting from Windows 7 because Office 2007 surpasses the open-source alternatives available to Linux and I can't be bothered fixing it up with Wine until I get a bigger Hard Drive and transfer everything to that.

And guys, if you don't want to risk damaging your partitions (which is very unlikely, unless you do something stupid) then try a Wubi installation, which is a temporary partition that you can uninstall from Windows.

And lol at trying to be like OSX. It is different in it's own right and is used by many people with access to OSX. I use it because I prefer it to Windows most of the time, but each to his own...

Oh, keep in mind my Avy was like this before I saw the thread...

.little monster
July 6th, 2009, 10:15 PM
I just installed it. Literally an hour ago, in fact as we speak it is updating to the newest version. Haha, I have no experience with Linux system either. It's nice to learn new things though, and I would much rather sacrifice functionality for security. I also would rather get Ubuntu than Hackintosh because..I like all the Linux affects, and on my computer Ubuntu would be about 30 times quicker. I am actually having trouble typing on Ubuntu because the letters pop up so much quicker than they did in Windows. Haha, and it was still very fast in Windows. Oh well. :3 New things are nice.

Bianca Paragon
July 6th, 2009, 10:23 PM
OSX86 is the closest thing to a free Mac.
I recommend you try it.

.little monster
July 7th, 2009, 06:03 AM
I don't think I will, I like Ubuntu.

Bianca Paragon
July 7th, 2009, 07:05 AM
I don't think I will, I like Ubuntu.
Why use an amateur-created OS? Would you trust your family's safety to a car built by the guy down the street? :X

.little monster
July 7th, 2009, 08:02 AM
That is not even close to a fair comparison. Linux is a good system, and it is an extremely secure system. The programs that I use all work for Ubuntu (linux). All I have to do is get used to the way you have to install. I would much rather have security than functionality.

Bianca Paragon
July 7th, 2009, 08:14 AM
That is not even close to a fair comparison. Linux is a good system, and it is an extremely secure system. The programs that I use all work for Ubuntu (linux). All I have to do is get used to the way you have to install. I would much rather have security than functionality.
I'd rather have security *and* functionality, imo. OSX gives me that. Linux is open source; which means day in, day out; people are analyzing for flaws to exploit ~ seems kinda silly to use an OS like that XD

.little monster
July 7th, 2009, 10:56 AM
I'd rather have security *and* functionality, imo. OSX gives me that. Linux is open source; which means day in, day out; people are analyzing for flaws to exploit ~ seems kinda silly to use an OS like that XD
Maybe I don't like Apple things? Maybe I like Linux? :| People have an opinion and mine is Ubuntu is better than what you're suggesting, deal with it.

Alistair
July 7th, 2009, 11:14 AM
Yes, please stop with the Apple elitism, Cloud. We all get that you love OSX, but please stop trying to convince people that your opinion is correct. By the way, the people that look for those security flaws in Linux usually look to patch them up, rather than to exploit them (Linux is the hacker's OS of choice, after all XD).

Anyway, I use Ubuntu on a regular basis. I had it installed on my old desktop a while ago (back in the Dapper Drake days), and loved it then. Unfortunately for me, no one else in my family liked it. But now I run the Live CD when I need to get my Ubuntu fix (as well as an efficient OS for surfing and watching movies). Watching movies on Ubuntu is like a dream for me. No hiccups on 720p Matroska video (Unlike Windows 7). I just hope Google releases Chrome for Linux soon.

HarrisonH
July 7th, 2009, 01:37 PM
Why use an amateur-created OS?
And now it's obvious you're no more than a troll.

I used to use Xubuntu, but after a month or so, I'd realize that I needed something that would only run on Windows. I never shut off my computer unless I absolutely have to, so after going back into Windows, there would be no real reason for me to spend the time to get back into Xubuntu.

twocows
July 7th, 2009, 02:12 PM
Why use an amateur-created OS?
Ubuntu is a huge project with hundreds of contributors. Maybe a few people don't write the best code, but everything that gets included is reviewed first by people who know what they're doing.

Would you trust your family's safety to a car built by the guy down the street? :XThat's a poor comparison. First of all, it's not just one person building the "car." It's a team of ex-Honda (they're a good company, right? I'm not sure) employees and engineers who have banded together in an effort to make affordable cars with freely published blueprints. As for the safety of the cars, they are tested by these same engineers as well as interested businesses who feel that they can deploy these cheap and efficient cars to safe company money.

And then there's the "security by obscurity" argument that people like to bring up. These cars basically drive on their own roads and, as such, are immune to most of the problems that come from driving at high speeds on a crowded expressway. I think I'd purchase one of those cars over something GM put out.

My analogy isn't much better, but you get the idea.

I'd rather have security *and* functionality, imo. OSX gives me that. Linux is open source; which means day in, day out; people are analyzing for flaws to exploit ~ seems kinda silly to use an OS like that XD
That's the brilliance of it. There are thousands of people looking for ways the system could be exploited all the time; it's getting constantly updated with fixes for problems that haven't even been exploited.

Archer
July 7th, 2009, 05:40 PM
This is effectively a thread for people that happily use Ubuntu, so shoving OSX in their face isn't going to go down well. I use Ubuntu with Windows 7 and I am perfectly happy with it. I don't have any intention of using Apple products and that's my choice. No, I don't use an iPod, I don't use iTunes and I have no intention of ever using OSX. It's my choice to stick to Windows and Linux and to support mp3 Player manufacturers so that Apple doesn't achieve even more of a monopoly over that market.

.little monster
July 7th, 2009, 05:44 PM
This is effectively a thread for people that happily use Ubuntu, so shoving OSX in their face isn't going to go down well. I use Ubuntu with Windows 7 and I am perfectly happy with it. I don't have any intention of using Apple products and that's my choice. No, I don't use an iPod, I don't use iTunes and I have no intention of ever using OSX. It's my choice to stick to Windows and Linux and to support mp3 Player manufacturers so that Apple doesn't achieve even more of a monopoly over that market.
I use Ubuntu all by itself without dual boot, I want to force myself to learn it's ways. Also, with Ubuntu my computer goes about 10 times faster and has at least 10 GB more storage in the HDD because something like Windows or OSX isn't taking up so much space. I also like the security. Oh also, this is my way to break away from illegal programs, my XP was illegal. So was my Vista. I like freedom.

Zet
July 7th, 2009, 06:02 PM
I use Ubuntu all by itself without dual boot, I want to force myself to learn it's ways. Also, with Ubuntu my computer goes about 10 times faster and has at least 10 GB more storage in the HDD because something like Windows or OSX isn't taking up so much space. I also like the security. Oh also, this is my way to break away from illegal programs, my XP was illegal. So was my Vista. I like freedom.
have fun removing grub when common sense hits you in the head.

Ubuntu is the most horrible open source OS I have ever used, the damn thing can't install wine for me :/ that and any other program I try to install fails

Silver
July 7th, 2009, 06:14 PM
A question to all of you Linux buffs. Would I be able to boot a linux distro off of an external Firewire drive? I'm current using a iMac and I'm only able to easily have/create 2 total partitions, and the 2nd is being occupied by Windows XP for various reasons. Though I'd like to try a linux distro again. I believe I still have my Ubunto disc that I burned from the iso file.

twocows
July 7th, 2009, 06:51 PM
A question to all of you Linux buffs. Would I be able to boot a linux distro off of an external Firewire drive? I'm current using a iMac and I'm only able to easily have/create 2 total partitions, and the 2nd is being occupied by Windows XP for various reasons. Though I'd like to try a linux distro again. I believe I still have my Ubunto disc that I burned from the iso file.
Probably. Unetbootin is traditionally used for making bootable flash drives, but you'd probably be able to do it with a firewire (http://unetbootin.sourceforge.net/) drive. Not sure, though, just guessing.

Gerri Shin
July 7th, 2009, 06:52 PM
that shouldn't be too hard there silver. (at least using the disk utility if OSX you can easily split some of the free space in your XP partition for Linux.)

Corvus of the Black Night
July 7th, 2009, 07:01 PM
I really want to install it, but I'm worried. I don't want my parent's to find out my compy's under a completely different OS... o.o

The Dual Boot is a good idea but my parents would definitely notice...

Would UNetbootin solve that issue?

Silver
July 7th, 2009, 07:07 PM
that shouldn't be too hard there silver. (at least using the disk utility if OSX you can easily split some of the free space in your XP partition for Linux.)

Wait. What?
So if I want to boot Linux off my external firewire drive, how would I go about doing that?

And, would I just use Disk Utility to reset and reformat my drive, as currently, it's set to an Mac OS Extended, and thus only readable by Mac OS.

.little monster
July 7th, 2009, 07:38 PM
I really want to install it, but I'm worried. I don't want my parent's to find out my compy's under a completely different OS... o.o

The Dual Boot is a good idea but my parents would definitely notice...

Would UNetbootin solve that issue?
You can always just boot it from the CD everytime instead of installing it. I am not sure if you can save files to it though, I am pretty sure that way is just for testing.

have fun removing grub when common sense hits you in the head.

Ubuntu is the most horriblest open source OS I have ever used, the damn thing can't install wine for me :/ that and any other program I try to install fails
Just because I like something people normally don't doesn't mean I lack common sense. Horriblest isn't a word. Also, I already installed Wine (meaning it is your own fault and that you shouldn't talk bad about an OS because you couldn't) and multiple of other programs including VBA, Advanced Map, encription programs, and many others. :|

Also on top of that, I have already checked, every program I like and use all work for Linux. Every single one, I know they do. How do I know, I have them installed. In fact, two of them actually CAME with Ubuntu. So, I don't really see why Linux is so bad for me.

1. Everything I want works fine.
2. I think it is easy.
3. I like the way it looks and it's effects.
4. It is quicker.

Edit: So you cant go "LIAR!!" http://i30.tinypic.com/9a8j20.png
(http://i30.tinypic.com/9a8j20.png)

Archer
July 7th, 2009, 09:16 PM
Guys, look into doing a Wubi install. It creates a virtual partition from Windows and can be uninstalled from Windows Add/Remove Programs. The only downside is that you can't hibernate.

twocows
July 7th, 2009, 09:28 PM
I really want to install it, but I'm worried. I don't want my parent's to find out my compy's under a completely different OS... o.o

The Dual Boot is a good idea but my parents would definitely notice...

Would UNetbootin solve that issue?
Unetbootin lets you make a bootable external drive, like on a flash drive. So yeah, you could just plug it in when you want to use the OS and take it out when you're done.

Wait. What?
So if I want to boot Linux off my external firewire drive, how would I go about doing that?

And, would I just use Disk Utility to reset and reformat my drive, as currently, it's set to an Mac OS Extended, and thus only readable by Mac OS.
Use Unetbootin and make the EHD bootable, et voila! You now have an OS on your EHD.

Guys, look into doing a Wubi install. It creates a virtual partition from Windows and can be uninstalled from Windows Add/Remove Programs. The only downside is that you can't hibernate.
I haven't really looked into Wubi and similar things (though I do regularly use VirtualBox), but I would think a virtual partition would suffer from becoming fragmented.

IIMarckus
July 7th, 2009, 09:35 PM
I'd rather have security *and* functionality, imo. OSX gives me that. Linux is open source; which means day in, day out; people are analyzing for flaws to exploit ~ seems kinda silly to use an OS like that XDFun fact: OS X is built off FreeBSD, which is open source, and Apple releases the source code for Darwin (Mac OS’s underlying architecture) under an open‐source license.

I don’t use Ubuntu myself, although I switched my sister over to it. Generally I prefer the BSD (http://www.openbsd.org) way of doing things, but Ubuntu and Linux definitely have their place.

Archer
July 7th, 2009, 09:38 PM
Not really, you just do a defrag before installing, so the disc image is saved consecutively and then you should (don't take my word on this one) be able to defrag the partition from within Linux, which sees it as a real partition. You do get ever so slightly reduced disc performance, but probably less of a difference than an external HDD.

It's mainly used for getting used to Linux and deciding if it's worth a dedicated partition without having to run it from the CD for weeks until you get used to it.

Which makes me think, wouldn't running them off a UNetBootIn installer mean it boots like the Live CD does, because they're quite slow. =/

IIMarckus
July 7th, 2009, 09:45 PM
Which makes me think, wouldn't running them off a UNetBootIn installer mean it boots like the Live CD does, because they're quite slow. =/Some live CDs have the option to cache everything to RAM, so if you can stand a longer boot time in the end it turns out to be blazingly fast. I know SLAX does this, but it might not be an option with most.

Archer
July 7th, 2009, 09:58 PM
Look, it can be done, but it's a real pain to do. Hopefully, the option will exist in Karmic, but you can check out the long way around here:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BootToRAM

I looked into burning the Live CD to a DVD, which would have a positive effect on speed for a Live Session. It would help when showing friends.

I found an article on the Ubuntu forums about "Ubuntu - Mention it, don't preach it". It details how you should tell people about Ubuntu, but don't be an obnoxious fanboy and shove it down their throats, or you wreck the public image. I think this is important to realise, it's worth just having a live CD on you, so people can try it out, when they get curious, but not trying to force it upon them.

It's worth taking the same approach for any OS. I am suggesting to a particular person not to preach OSX. You're making me hate it more. =/

twocows
July 7th, 2009, 09:58 PM
Which makes me think, wouldn't running them off a UNetBootIn installer mean it boots like the Live CD does, because they're quite slow. =/
I'm not sure, to be honest. I'm not sure where the bottleneck is in Live CDs, so I wouldn't know if the speeds would change. I would think it would be faster, as (a) it has write access and thus can do whatever fancy caching stuff it does, and (b) I believe it takes longer to read from a CD than from a Firewire or USB device.

Archer
July 7th, 2009, 10:37 PM
From what I can establish, on a normal 4 GiB flash disk, you get ~20MiB/s read and ~5 MiB/s write speeds. With an external USB HDD, you are looking at ~30MiB/s read and ~20MiB/s write speeds. Taking into account the development of USB 3.0 and it's supposed compatibility with linux, we could see better speeds soon enough. Of course, Firewire is faster than USB 2.0.

CDs read at ~8MiB/s, where as DVDs read at ~22MiB/s. That should make a huge difference, when I believe it's just about the speed at which it copies the OS to RAM.

Enough of my babbling.

Cartmic
July 8th, 2009, 03:21 AM
Fun fact: OS X is built off FreeBSD, which is open source, and Apple releases the source code for Darwin (Mac OS’s underlying architecture) under an open‐source license.

:D that is the icing on the cake for the argument brought forth by Cloud.

Bianca Paragon
July 8th, 2009, 03:35 AM
:D that is the icing on the cake for the argument brought forth by Cloud.
Uh, no it's not lol.
Yes, Darwin is based on an open source product (many, infact, FreeBSD and NeXT to name a few) but the retail product, Mac OS X? Is *not* open source. It's a professional, closed source product. Just because Apple *choose* to release a certain percentage of their code-base back to the community does not mean that they have an Open Sores product.
Thanks for playing, though!

Archer
July 8th, 2009, 04:17 AM
That's incredibly noble of Apple, but to be perfectly honest, I thought this was a thread about Ubuntu. If you want to start a discussion about backwater OSs instead of taking this discussion off course, then by all means, be my guest.

Although,
does not mean that they have an Open Sores product.
I lol'd.

Anyway, what Desktop Environment do you all use? Gnome is default, but a lot of people switch to KDE or Xfce. I've used Xfce in the past, but that was on an ancient computer. I just run standard Gnome, as KDE annoys me somehow.

Gerri Shin
July 8th, 2009, 06:44 AM
well, I never really deviate from the packages, just because I'm not as fluent in code as others and I might mess something up so bad, but If I'm using Ubuntu, I'll use Gnome. If I use Kubuntu, I'll use KDE. I currently have Kubuntu in my VM and not Ubuntu, so I'm trying out the KDE environment.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 8th, 2009, 11:11 AM
Oh my.

Somehow, the Ubuntu iso I downloaded got trimmed in about half (I swear to God, when it first appeared in the download folder, it was 698 or so MB; but somehow it got trimmed to 386 MB) and then, I made a "pseudo-flash drive" (on my computer drive H; I did this because I couldn't obtain a CD or Flashdrive with enough space) by partitioning a new drive from some data I trimmed from C (it's now 95 GB; good enough for my needs) and formatting it under the FAT32 system. I used UNetbootin to extract the iso, and for some odd reason it didn't catch it... and I loaded it onto H.

Then I boot my computer and I realize that something was wrong, far too late.

The damn thing got stuck on startup, because the files were incomplete! It freaked me out! Luckily, I know how to change boot order, and I made it work again. Phew. At least I knew my Pseudo Flashdrive idea worked...

For those who are curious, I also partitioned another drive, R, that I was going to see if I could install Ubuntu to.

twocows
July 8th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Anyway, what Desktop Environment do you all use?
Desktop environments are bloated. I can't stand them. I tend to use Openbox (http://www.icculus.org/openbox/) as my window manager, though sometimes I use Fluxbox (http://www.fluxbox.org/). They're both good. I use fbpanel (http://fbpanel.sourceforge.net/) or PyPanel (http://pypanel.sourceforge.net/) for a taskbar, various file managers, mrxvt (http://code.google.com/p/mrxvt/wiki/Main) for my terminal (though I use urxvt (http://software.schmorp.de/pkg/rxvt-unicode.html) if I'm using a text browser), and Emacs (http://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/emacs.html) for being cool.

The damn thing got stuck on startup, because the files were incomplete! It freaked me out! Luckily, I know how to change boot order, and I made it work again. Phew. At least I knew my Pseudo Flashdrive idea worked...
That's weird. At least it worked, though.

Silver
July 8th, 2009, 03:27 PM
Unetbootin lets you make a bootable external drive, like on a flash drive. So yeah, you could just plug it in when you want to use the OS and take it out when you're done.


Use Unetbootin and make the EHD bootable, et voila! You now have an OS on your EHD.


I haven't really looked into Wubi and similar things (though I do regularly use VirtualBox), but I would think a virtual partition would suffer from becoming fragmented.

I use an Apple iMac as my computer and from what I can see Unetbootin is Window's only. Granted I could use my XP partition, however, I don't like doing things relating to my computer on my secondary OS. Also, how would I go about making my EHD bootable? And if I want to make it partitioned so only like 20GB is bootable for Linux.

twocows
July 8th, 2009, 03:50 PM
I use an Apple iMac as my computer and from what I can see Unetbootin is Window's only. Granted I could use my XP partition, however, I don't like doing things relating to my computer on my secondary OS. Also, how would I go about making my EHD bootable? And if I want to make it partitioned so only like 20GB is bootable for Linux.
Unetbootin makes the EHD bootable when it installs the OS to the EHD. It doesn't change anything on your primary hard drive, so there's no reason not to do it on your XP partition. If you want to partition your EHD, use something like GParted (http://gparted.sourceforge.net/) or Parted Magic (http://partedmagic.com/); I think they can handle external hard drives, though I'm not certain.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 9th, 2009, 06:46 AM
I got Ubuntu to work, and I quite like it. Zip fast, like the orange... but there's two things I really don't like about it:

1. Setting up my wireless driver seems practically impossible, since I can't connect wired and I can't find any information about setting up the Broadcom 8.02 b/g WLAN...
2. The. Beeping. It terrifies me so much. And when I try to turn it off, Terminator says that I don't have the permissions to do that XP

Other than that I quite like it. Once I get the wireless up, I'll get the WINE program and I'll probably start using Ubuntu more often.

By the way, is there a way to rearrange the OS's at boot? I want to make Vista to appear first, with a lower countdown, just in case my parents decide to take a peek.

Ziraider
July 9th, 2009, 07:58 AM
I swicthed from Windows to Linux and love it!

.little monster
July 9th, 2009, 08:00 AM
Linux is a vast improvement over Windows in my opinion.

twocows
July 9th, 2009, 08:40 AM
1. Setting up my wireless driver seems practically impossible, since I can't connect wired and I can't find any information about setting up the Broadcom 8.02 b/g WLAN...
If all else fails, use ndiswrapper. I recommend looking here (http://www.linux-drivers.org/network.html) first for a Linux driver, though. Make sure you find out your exact wireless card model.

Alternatively, give me your exact wireless card model (lspci at terminal should be able to help you) and I'll dig one up for you. Internet is one of those things that needs a bit of work in Linux to get running if it's not already supported.
2. The. Beeping. It terrifies me so much. And when I try to turn it off, Terminator says that I don't have the permissions to do that XPStart whatever you need from terminal using sudo (sudo runs the command with root privileges). Then kill it from there. Or Google is your friend; you can change almost anything on a Linux system with a little Googling.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 9th, 2009, 10:10 AM
Well, the beeping stopped, that's definitely a good thing. I'll keep working on trying to get the WLAN up though. Ugh, it's a real pain. I'll see if I can get that model number for you in a bit. All I know about the driver at the moment is that it is Broadcom 8.02 b/g WLAN but I don't think that'll help much.

EDIT: Here's what I got, Twocows:

rachel@rachel-laptop:~$ lspci
00:00.0
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Host Bridge (rev a2)
00:00.1
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 0 (rev a2)
00:00.2
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 1 (rev a2)
00:00.3
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 5 (rev a2)
00:00.4
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 4 (rev a2)
00:00.5
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Host Bridge (rev a2)
00:00.6
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 3 (rev a2)
00:00.7
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation C51 Memory Controller 2 (rev a2)
00:02.0
PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation C51 PCI Express Bridge (rev a1)
00:03.0
PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation C51 PCI Express Bridge (rev a1)
00:05.0
VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation C51 [Geforce 6150 Go] (rev a2)
00:09.0
RAM memory: nVidia Corporation MCP51 Host Bridge (rev a2)
00:0a.0
ISA bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP51 LPC Bridge (rev a3)
00:0a.1
SMBus: nVidia Corporation MCP51 SMBus (rev a3)
00:0a.3
Co-processor: nVidia Corporation MCP51
PMU (rev a3)
00:0b.0 USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP51
USB Controller (rev a3)
00:0b.1
USB Controller: nVidia Corporation MCP51
USB Controller (rev a3)
00:0d.0
IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP51 IDE (rev f1)
00:0e.0
IDE interface: nVidia Corporation MCP51 Serial ATA Controller (rev f1)
00:10.0
PCI bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP51
PCI Bridge (rev a2)
00:10.1
Audio device: nVidia Corporation MCP51 High Definition Audio (rev a2)
00:14.0
Bridge: nVidia Corporation MCP51 Ethernet Controller (rev a3)
00:18.0
Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron]
HyperTransport Technology Configuration
00:18.1
Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron]
Address Map
00:18.2
Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron]
DRAM Controller
00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron]
Miscellaneous Control
03:00.0
Network controller: Broadcom Corporation BCM4311 802.11b/g WLAN (rev 02)
07:05.0
FireWire (IEEE 1394): Ricoh Co Ltd R5C832 IEEE 1394 Controller (rev 05)
07:05.1
SD Host controller: Ricoh Co Ltd R5C822 SD/SDIO/MMC/MS/MSPro
Host Adapter (rev 22)
07:05.2 System peripheral: Ricoh Co Ltd R5C843 MMC Host Controller (rev 12)
07:05.3
System peripheral: Ricoh Co Ltd R5C592 Memory Stick Bus Host Adapter (rev 12)
07:05.4
System peripheral: Ricoh Co Ltd xD-Picture Card Controller (rev ff)

rachel@rachel-laptop:~$

I don't know if I got the spacing quite right, but I bolded the part with my WLAN on it.

twocows
July 9th, 2009, 11:22 AM
Well, the beeping stopped, that's definitely a good thing. I'll keep working on trying to get the WLAN up though. Ugh, it's a real pain. I'll see if I can get that model number for you in a bit. All I know about the driver at the moment is that it is Broadcom 8.02 b/g WLAN but I don't think that'll help much.

EDIT: Here's what I got, Twocows:

I don't know if I got the spacing quite right, but I bolded the part with my WLAN on it.
I'll help you in private message, I don't want to clog up the thread.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 10th, 2009, 08:24 AM
Well, everything's working and wow, am I surprised. Ubuntu boots faster than Vista EVER did, even on dual boot.

.little monster
July 10th, 2009, 08:27 AM
Ubuntu is meant for small, crappy computers, so if your computer is good it will boot up very fast. Even on those bad computers it boots up pretty fast. It takes Ubuntu 15 seconds to boot up on my computer. :3

The recommended requirements are:
-8 GB HDD
-385 MB Ram
-700 MHz (x86)
-VGA @ 1024x768

Corvus of the Black Night
July 10th, 2009, 08:32 AM
-8 GB HDD
-385 MB Ram
-700 MHz (x86)
-VGA @ 1024x768
lololol I could run this on my computer from 1995 XD

I might just do it to run a couple killer commands. The computer's good as dead now anyhow XD

Speaking of commands, I think the way the Linux commands are formulated is a much better system than the Command prompt.

.little monster
July 10th, 2009, 08:42 AM
lololol I could run this on my computer from 1995 XD

I might just do it to run a couple killer commands. The computer's good as dead now anyhow XD

Speaking of commands, I think the way the Linux commands are formulated is a much better system than the Command prompt.
xD Awesome. >:3 Evil scientist.

I couldn't agree more, they are easier to use and remember.

twocows
July 10th, 2009, 09:01 AM
lololol I could run this on my computer from 1995 XD

I might just do it to run a couple killer commands. The computer's good as dead now anyhow XD

Speaking of commands, I think the way the Linux commands are formulated is a much better system than the Command prompt.
If you want to run a Ubuntu variant on an old computer like that, go with Xubuntu (http://www.xubuntu.org/). XFCE is far more lightweight than GNOME, and it should run better on your computer.

Archer
July 10th, 2009, 09:52 PM
If you want to run a Ubuntu variant on an old computer like that, go with Xubuntu (http://www.xubuntu.org/). XFCE is far more lightweight than GNOME, and it should run better on your computer.
I'm going to support that suggestion. I've used it on an older computer (granted, not too old.) And found it run quite well.

Anyone know what Fluxbuntu is like? It seems quite different, although I'm quite happy with Gnome, atm.

twocows
July 11th, 2009, 10:30 AM
I'm going to support that suggestion. I've used it on an older computer (granted, not too old.) And found it run quite well.

Anyone know what Fluxbuntu is like? It seems quite different, although I'm quite happy with Gnome, atm.
Haven't heard of it, but I regularly use fluxbox on a few installations and love it. I might check it out, so thanks for bringing it up.

.little monster
July 12th, 2009, 08:52 PM
I installed Xubuntu to try it out, and I hit the wrong thing and I accidently installed over my Ubuntu. D: So I got Xubuntu up and running and I really did not like it, I could not do some things I really liked in Ubuntu for some reason. So, I had to get rid of Xubuntu and re-install Ubuntu then get all my settings back. It was not exicting. D:

Archer
July 12th, 2009, 09:53 PM
What couldn't you do? Xfce shouldn't stop you from doing anything.

Yeah, you've got to be extra careful when doing installs. You should just be able to add Xfce as an option in Sessions on the login screen. That's what I did.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 13th, 2009, 05:05 AM
I installed Xubuntu to try it out, and I hit the wrong thing and I accidently installed over my Ubuntu. D: So I got Xubuntu up and running and I really did not like it, I could not do some things I really liked in Ubuntu for some reason. So, I had to get rid of Xubuntu and re-install Ubuntu then get all my settings back. It was not exicting. D:
Did you incorrectly partition your disk? o.O

Archer
July 13th, 2009, 05:20 AM
Did you incorrectly partition your disk? o.O
You don't have to - as I said above, you can integrate the Xfce desktop environment into the current install as an option at log in.

We should get a few Linux desktop screenies going. ;D

Corvus of the Black Night
July 13th, 2009, 06:10 AM
O rly. Intersting.

I should get some screenies of mine up, but I'm far too lazy. I should be using Ubuntu more but my parents like to watch what I do often :\

Archer
July 13th, 2009, 07:04 AM
O rly. Intersting.

I should get some screenies of mine up, but I'm far too lazy. I should be using Ubuntu more but my parents like to watch what I do often :\
Why would they really care if you have Ubuntu on there? Isn't it your computer?

Come on, if you're good enough to use Linux, you know what you're capable enough to use what you want. I'll post a screeny soon.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 13th, 2009, 07:41 AM
Well, the thing is, they don't want me changing my computer, and they check it once in a blue moon, but that chance worries me... and Vista... sucks :\

Might get one later today, it's not much of anything interesting.

.little monster
July 13th, 2009, 10:52 AM
Did you incorrectly partition your disk? o.O
Nope, this is because I removed the OS that I had before (I intentionally made it so I had more to do because I had nothing to do at all.) The only real difference that I disliked is that I couldn't put the shortcuts to programs I use most often on the top taskbar like I can on Ubuntu. D:

twocows
July 13th, 2009, 02:32 PM
Nope, this is because I removed the OS that I had before (I intentionally made it so I had more to do because I had nothing to do at all.) The only real difference that I disliked is that I couldn't put the shortcuts to programs I use most often on the top taskbar like I can on Ubuntu. D:
If XFCE is anything like openbox (read: I haven't used XFCE in a looong time), you can just put the application in the conf file somewhere and it'll appear.

.little monster
July 13th, 2009, 03:19 PM
If XFCE is anything like openbox (read: I haven't used XFCE in a looong time), you can just put the application in the conf file somewhere and it'll appear.
Didn't do that for me. Doesn't matter, it actually ran slower than Ubuntu..I don't know why. o_o

twocows
July 13th, 2009, 03:37 PM
Didn't do that for me. Doesn't matter, it actually ran slower than Ubuntu..I don't know why. o_o
Weird. I believe XFCE doesn't have as many daemons running in the background, and it's not nearly as CPU-intensive.

Corvus of the Black Night
July 13th, 2009, 03:40 PM
That's why it's for older compy's; it should have run blazingly fast on your compy O.o

Archer
July 13th, 2009, 04:00 PM
Didn't do that for me. Doesn't matter, it actually ran slower than Ubuntu..I don't know why. o_o
I can't see why that wouldn't work. I haven't used XFCE in a while, but you could add launchers to the panel and it ran faster. Keep in mind that stuff like Firefox and other non-native programs will consume the same amount of memory. It's just stuff like the file browsers and background programs that run faster. The whole idea of Xubuntu is to run faster on older hardware. There has to be some explanation.

If you really want speed, try Puppy Linux in RAM mode. That's supposed to be insane.

.little monster
July 13th, 2009, 04:11 PM
I just think the CD had some problems while burning. :\

Archer
July 19th, 2009, 05:32 AM
I just came across this article, and I suggest to anyone that's interested in the linux scene to take a look.

http://linux.oneandoneis2.org/LNW.htm

It's titled Linux is not Windows and makes some interesting observations regarding common rants people have about Linux. If you want to make a fuss about how you disagree with this, then this wasn't intended for you.

Good read, though. :D

.little monster
July 19th, 2009, 05:39 AM
I do not really like that article. It brings up good points but it seems to me to be biased. It is using common internet-ways to express emotion, in favor of Linux.

Archer
July 19th, 2009, 06:25 AM
I do not really like that article. It brings up good points but it seems to me to be biased. It is using common internet-ways to express emotion, in favor of Linux.
Of course it's biased, it's trying to get a point across. You don't waste space in an essay highlighting the points that don't support your statement. =/

It's just interesting to look at things from a new perspective. Especially the Lego analogy. That really makes sense.

It's not all biased. It's trying to explain how are different pieces of software and the different products are there for people with different needs and abilities. It says that Linux is not simply a poor-man's Windows (or MacOS for that matter) or that it's not just a way to avoid viruses. It's a different suite for the people that want to venture into that side of things - the people who are genuinely interested in trying out Linux and aren't afraid to give up some time to learn about it.

Basically, what I got out of it was:

If you don't like Linux, it's not the product for you, so don't waste time complaining. Also, the mere presence of it shows that some people want to use it, which justifies both the OSs existance and is a good enough reason for people to use it.

As I said, which I think applies to this entire thread. If you don't like Linux, leave the people who want to use it to discuss it in peace. It's like coming to this forum and then complaining about pokemon's flaws and acting mislead or ripped-off. If you don't like it - stay out.

This isn't a stab at you, by the way. I'm just venting my thoughts. :D

.little monster
July 19th, 2009, 06:51 AM
You can get the point across without being biased, you just have to watch what you say and how you say it.

Archer
July 19th, 2009, 07:01 AM
You can get the point across without being biased, you just have to watch what you say and how you say it.
That's true, but it's not like there was false information to prove a point, though. Besides, if you are trying to say anything, there's going to be some underlying bias to some degree. I see what you're saying though, but it seems that the article was only for linux users, so it should appeal to the target audience, anyway.

What media (more specifically, music) players do you guys use in Linux? I'm running Banshee, which I prefer to Rhythmbox, but it's not perfect...

IIMarckus
July 19th, 2009, 09:22 AM
What media (more specifically, music) players do you guys use in Linux? I'm running Banshee, which I prefer to Rhythmbox, but it's not perfect...I watch all my movies with mplayer + aalib (http://i31.tinypic.com/2eg8brb.jpg)!

Okay, no I don’t. I do use mplayer as my primary media player though.

.little monster
July 19th, 2009, 09:38 AM
I just use the default in Ubuntu. Nothing special.

Just finished messing with the taskbars though: http://i25.tinypic.com/2n180uw.png

twocows
July 19th, 2009, 12:15 PM
You don't waste space in an essay highlighting the points that don't support your statement. =/
Sure you do. One of the most important parts of an argument is to bring up opposing points and then crush them with your flawless logic. Yay debate. <3

I use the mplayer front-end most of the time on Linux, even though I hate it. Oh, how I do hate it. I prefer the terminal version, but I don't know the playback controls (if they exist).

as2
July 19th, 2009, 12:17 PM
That's true, but it's not like there was false information to prove a point, though. Besides, if you are trying to say anything, there's going to be some underlying bias to some degree. I see what you're saying though, but it seems that the article was only for linux users, so it should appeal to the target audience, anyway.

What media (more specifically, music) players do you guys use in Linux? I'm running Banshee, which I prefer to Rhythmbox, but it's not perfect...

Amarok 1.4 is amazing. Works fine in Gnome, too :)

IIMarckus
July 19th, 2009, 01:15 PM
I use the mplayer front-end most of the time on Linux, even though I hate it. Oh, how I do hate it. I prefer the terminal version, but I don't know the playback controls (if they exist).You mean stuff like leftarrow = back, rightarrow = forward, space = pause, etc? Those are all described in the manpage. I’ve never used the GUI version.

twocows
July 19th, 2009, 04:18 PM
You mean stuff like leftarrow = back, rightarrow = forward, space = pause, etc? Those are all described in the manpage. I’ve never used the GUI version.
I checked (and double-checked) the manpage but didn't see that listed. But now that you mentioned it, I see it. Strange. Thanks anyway; now I don't have to use that fugly front-end.

Zet
July 19th, 2009, 04:26 PM
How many of you ubuntu users can go without WINE? if you want to escape from Windows/Mac OSX don't use any emulations or go back to Windows/Mac OSX if you can't handle not using something to emulate another OS's programs. Since you really wouldn't be escaping at all

.little monster
July 19th, 2009, 04:48 PM
I actually do not use Wine for anything. Everything I use has Linux versions. I was surprised when I found out my HP printer had Linux drivers and software. :P Well, easy-to-find drivers and software. I assumed I would have to edit them myself..because it's HP like my brother had to do with his HP printer, but the HP website actually had Linux drivers..maybe my brother just didn't look. :|

as2
July 19th, 2009, 11:48 PM
How many of you ubuntu users can go without WINE? if you want to escape from Windows/Mac OSX don't use any emulations or go back to Windows/Mac OSX if you can't handle not using something to emulate another OS's programs. Since you really wouldn't be escaping at all

I don't use Wine on my Ubuntu box, but I do have a Windows install for the few games I do play that don't run in Linux (Roller Coaster Tycoon comes to mind!) but OpenTTD works great in Linux natively and I spend most of my time playing that!

Archer
July 20th, 2009, 01:21 AM
How many of you ubuntu users can go without WINE? if you want to escape from Windows/Mac OSX don't use any emulations or go back to Windows/Mac OSX if you can't handle not using something to emulate another OS's programs. Since you really wouldn't be escaping at all
Although I have Wine installed, I don't use anything through it regularly. I think the only applications I use through Wine are small standalone apps that people have written in 20 mins. For example, save file converters. Aside from that, everything is native to linux.

It's important to realise, that although the need for a Windows application occurs in some situations, the fact that the developer has decided to go with Windows is not a fault on the part of Linux developers. If people really need to use Windows applications, then they might as well use Windows. As for MacOS, it often faces a similar dilemma to what Linux does. Although it's beginning to shift a little, developers still focus on Windows more than Mac, which is a large contributing factor to people dual-booting Windows on a Mac.

It's a bit like free-to-air and cable TV. Some people are perfectly happy with the free-to-air channels and see no need to pay for a cable service. Other people want to have access to the cable channels, so they pay for it. There's no point paying if you don't want the cable channels, as there is no point complaining that you want access to the cable channels, but refuse to upgrade.

You choose the product that best suits you. If you occasionally want to pick up the odd cable program, but don't generally need it, along comes a 'wine adaptor' that allows the TV to play that program. This isn't about people trying to be stubborn and refuse to get cable, it's an option to access the occasional program.

It's a strange analogy, there's no doubt, but this seems to explain the principal behind my ideas.

It's actually worth noting that Wine Is Not an Emulator. It effectively translates the code and runs it like any other Linux application. As a result, there is usually no performance loss and it can integrate into the Linux environment. This isn't a perfect explanation by any means, but it basically makes Linux able to read the program as Windows does, not emulating it. Virtualisation, on the other hand, is emulation, as you're pretending to be running another system.

I can see what you're saying Zet, and it's a valid point, but to be perfectly honest, it's just the problems of living in a Windows world. That's what happens when a company gets the monopoly on a product.

Zet
July 20th, 2009, 02:03 AM
oh god, I was just trying to start a little riot, didn't expect it to turn out like this XD

Bianca Paragon
July 20th, 2009, 02:17 AM
is usually no performance loss
Hahahahaaaa
No. Just. No.
Did you even read what you just said? :\

IIMarckus
July 20th, 2009, 06:48 AM
How many of you ubuntu users can go without WINE? if you want to escape from Windows/Mac OSX don't use any emulations or go back to Windows/Mac OSX if you can't handle not using something to emulate another OS's programs. Since you really wouldn't be escaping at allI don’t use alternative operating systems to “stick it to Microsoft”—I do it to learn new things, to have fun, and for the practical reason that I don’t like to pay for things. I have no shame in using my W2k laptop for things that can’t be done with my OS of choice.

This dislike of Microsoft seems to have been in Ubuntu since the beginning. (https://launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/1) I must say I’m not a fan of it.there is usually no performance lossHahahahaaaa
No. Just. No.
Did you even read what you just said? :\WINE is not emulation in the typical sense. It’s a reimplementation of Windows libraries that remaps Windows system calls to Linux ones. This has none of the performance loss associated with running programs in a virtualized environment, and only a very minor one otherwise (if it can be noticed at all). See the Wine site (http://www.winehq.org/myths).

In a similar way, OpenBSD and the other BSDs have compatibility layers that allow them to run binaries made for Linux and each other, with no performance loss. I believe this first came about out of a desire to run Netscape on BSD.

Bianca Paragon
July 20th, 2009, 07:16 AM
*Any* overhead means it's not running as well or as fast as the original product on native code. You go on and on and on about how WINE isn't emulation; and it's true ~ it's not. But it IS interpretation and depending on the complexity of the code in question it can mean a small, but noticeable overhead, through to plain out not usable.

Thanks for the rep, btw; I'll make sure to get it removed.

IIMarckus
July 20th, 2009, 08:09 AM
But it IS interpretationIt’s not interpretation. Wine is not a low‐level or a high‐level emulator.

Wine can also be faster than applications run on Windows. (http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5) (When it works, of course. It’s no substitute for an actual Windows installation.) Compatibility layers like Wine are not necessarily faster nor necessarily slower than native code.

twocows
July 20th, 2009, 09:01 AM
How many of you ubuntu users can go without WINE? if you want to escape from Windows/Mac OSX don't use any emulations or go back to Windows/Mac OSX if you can't handle not using something to emulate another OS's programs. Since you really wouldn't be escaping at all
I multi-boot all my machines, so I've never really needed to use WINE.

*Any* overhead means it's not running as well or as fast as the original product on native code. You go on and on and on about how WINE isn't emulation; and it's true ~ it's not. But it IS interpretation and depending on the complexity of the code in question it can mean a small, but noticeable overhead, through to plain out not usable.
I've heard stories of software running faster on WINE than on Windows, though I've no firsthand experience with it (since I don't use WINE).

Thanks for the rep, btw; I'll make sure to get it removed.
I think s/he down-repped because of the delivery of your response, which some might consider a flame.
I'd like to make a "WINE" joke here, but that would just be inappropriate, now wouldn't it?

It’s not interpretation. Wine is not a low‐level or a high‐level emulator.

Wine can also be faster than applications run on Windows. (http://wiki.winehq.org/BenchMark-0.9.5) (When it works, of course. It’s no substitute for an actual Windows installation.) Compatibility layers like Wine are not necessarily faster nor necessarily slower than native code.
That must have been where I saw that.

Bianca Paragon
July 20th, 2009, 09:47 AM
It’s not interpretation. Wine is not a low‐level or a high‐level emulator.
Interpreter != Emulator.
Hurrrr.
Wine interrupts windows code-base calls and library functions and where possible (ie, where you have a nativelib) it'll call on the native and where not possible (ie, most of the time) it will interprut the call to the equivalent function of the underlying Linux system.
I repeat, for your clarity:

HURRRR DERP DERP.

This means there is OVERHEAD and it is SLOWER and FAR LESS COMPATIBLE in most all situations. Isolated cases of it running Win32 code faster are merely where the underlying Linux system is basically feature-less and the application would ordinary run on a feature-rich OS install such as Windows Vista.

Zet
July 20th, 2009, 08:38 PM
Ok, so a lot of people are wondering why cloud.CONNECTED is still posting here. I shall reveal this life long secret that only very few people know in life. And it here it is:

".....People are allowed to have different viewpoints and can say it where they feel like it" and you people may think she is "flaming" but the truth is; she isn't, if you stop for a second and put yourself in her shoes, you'll realise a different viewpoint isn't flaming. I might as well consider anyone posting a different OS that isn't Windows in a "What's your OS?" thread as "flaming" [/grammar fail]

as2
July 20th, 2009, 11:01 PM
Ok, so a lot of people are wondering why cloud.CONNECTED is still posting here. I shall reveal this life long secret that only very few people know in life. And it here it is:

".....People are allowed to have different viewpoints and can say it where they feel like it" and you people may think she is "flaming" but the truth is; she isn't, if you stop for a second and put yourself in her shoes, you'll realise a different viewpoint isn't flaming. I might as well consider anyone posting a different OS that isn't Windows in a "What's your OS?" thread as "flaming" [/grammar fail]

It gets a bit boring though, when certain people repeatedly imply that Linux isn't a "proper" OS. Get over it. Lots of people are very happy using these operating systems, even if you prefer Windows or Mac for your own reasons. And simply saying it's crap won't change anyones opinions, which is the point of debating a different viewpoint...

Linux isn't going to replace Windows on the desktop for a long time, despite what a loud minority spouts. It's a different experience, this lot make Linux look somewhat bad too, since I agree, it's certainly not ready yet.

In my experience though, I find Ubuntu and Debian to be amazing, and now I rarely boot back to Windows. For one, I like not being tied to Microsoft; Secondly it find them to be far more flexible for my needs. All I really run is Firefox and Pidgin for example, therefore I don't need to run various security and AV systems that I'd need to on Windows. The command line is awesome, and the available development environments I find to be better (I develop Php/Mysql and more recently Python web apps). But maybe you don't need any of this? Then Windows or MacOS is probably a better solution for you! Be happy with it!

Oh, I do run a Windows server btw. It suits the requirements of running a small office with 10 windows computers! If I could be bothered to figure out Active Directory with Samba maybe it'd be running Linux too. Just an example of different requirements.

IfI could afford a Macbook; I'd have one tomorrow :) Alas, it's not going to happen any time soon! Especially not at £845 for the basic 13" model!

Zet
July 20th, 2009, 11:14 PM
You can install the Mac OSX on any computer, just gotta do some tweaking, and you really don't need any antivirus protection if you only visit few sites that are trusted

.little monster
July 21st, 2009, 07:43 AM
You can install the Mac OSX on any computer, just gotta do some tweaking, and you really don't need any antivirus protection if you only visit few sites that are trusted
Yes, that is a huge factor in it too. People just want to stick in a CD and play. Either they don't want to tweak, or they think it's incompatible. I actually will try Mac OSX when I get my new HDD, but I will always dual boot with Ubuntu.

twocows
July 21st, 2009, 06:26 PM
You can install the Mac OSX on any computer, just gotta do some tweaking, and you really don't need any antivirus protection if you only visit few sites that are trusted
The legality of that in the US is questionable at best. The project itself is legal, but using the OS X software on anything but an Apple-labeled computer is a breach of the End User License Agreement. EULA agreements are enforceable legal contracts in most states, especially so if you're required to click to agree to the terms (clickwrap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickwrap#Legal_consequences_in_the_United_States)). I think I already went over this in another thread, so I won't go into more detail.

In the EU, on the other hand, Apple's license agreement is not enforceable as no signing takes place. IANAL, but as far as I know, you're allowed to break their EULA there unless you specifically signed it. Don't take that to court, though.

Zet
July 21st, 2009, 06:29 PM
Wouldn't installing Windows on a non-windows endorsed/labeled product be breaking the EULA?

twocows
July 21st, 2009, 06:49 PM
You'd have to check the EULA for the version of Windows you're using. I doubt it, though; Microsoft doesn't have the incentive like Apple does. They just makes the OS, not the hardware; they've incentive to allow as many options as possible for installing Windows.

Archer
July 21st, 2009, 10:00 PM
Wouldn't installing Windows on a non-windows endorsed/labeled product be breaking the EULA?
Not really, if you think about it, most custom built computers are not labelled with the Windows sticker. Which is really a marketing strategy to make the computer seem more compatible.

Also, Macs are allowed to dual-boot Windows with OSX on their hardware. Microsoft allows this, but Apple will not allow OSX to be installed on a standard computer. So they won't let you do it the other way around.

Another aspect is that the install disc for Ubuntu is available to be sent to you for free (completely, and you get stickers, too!). I've looked around, and I could only find it for $130 on Amazon. Plus you've got to download patches, etc for OSX86. All of which is legally questionable. Plus, all of Apple's software is fairly expensive. You want an office suite? That's extra. OpenOffice is preinstalled on Ubuntu and major updates are free and automatic.

Unless you're buying a Mac, then it's easier to just go with Linux. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against people using Macs, but I'm certainly not going to switch.

I do miss Windows Media Player, ironically. I was fond of the whole-library view with Album Art next to each Album. Has anyone found something similar?

This is what I mean. It's not my Screeny, btw.
http://media.arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.media/wmp-11-library.png

Bianca Paragon
July 21st, 2009, 10:21 PM
Don't be daft. OpenOffice is available for Mac too, if you *really* want to use the retarded step child of Office Suites.

Really? It's easier to go with Linux? Because I insert a Boot132 CD into a machine; swap it for a retail OSX DVD and it's all done. The entire install takes about 20 minutes; faster than Windows.

Zet
July 21st, 2009, 10:30 PM
How is it easier go with linux? I'd rather have a nice looking display than how horrible and ugly linux looks like. The only good looking linux distro I have ever seen is Linux Mint

IIMarckus
July 21st, 2009, 11:49 PM
Another aspect is that the install disc for Ubuntu is available to be sent to you for free (completely, and you get stickers, too!).However, this takes a while—up to ten weeks (https://shipit.ubuntu.com/). Contrast this with how most people buy computers with the operating system preinstalled, and often buy them in person. (For instance, most Mac users at my university probably buy them from the Apple store on campus.)Unless you're buying a Mac, then it's easier to just go with Linux.For a normal office‐style installation, possibly. I seem to recall the Ubuntu installation process being very straightforward, but general usage is not yet trouble‐free.

Example: My sister uses Ubuntu. She was irritated because it didn’t play DVD movies by default. Whenever she inserted a DVD, the movie player popped up a vague and unhelpful error message. There was no indication from the message as to why the DVD wouldn’t play (Ubuntu doesn’t come with “non‐free” DVD codecs by default, and they aren’t installable from the default repositories), or how to fix the problem (allow apt to use “non‐free” repositories and install the codecs).How is it easier go with linux? I'd rather have a nice looking display than how horrible and ugly linux looks like. The only good looking linux distro I have ever seen is Linux MintWhat answer do you expect to such a subjective statement? People don’t have the same tastes in themes. In any case, Linux is visually very (http://gnome-look.org/) customizable (http://kde-look.org/).

Bianca Paragon
July 21st, 2009, 11:55 PM
In any case, Linux is visually very (http://gnome-look.org/) customizable (http://kde-look.org/).
OS X and even to a lesser degree, Windows Vista/7 come pre-pretty.

Archer
July 22nd, 2009, 12:12 AM
How is it easier go with linux? I'd rather have a nice looking display than how horrible and ugly linux looks like. The only good looking linux distro I have ever seen is Linux Mint
Oh sure, the default theme for Ubuntu is ugly as sin, there's no doubt about that, but it's quite easy to pick one of the nicer themes that are inbuilt, as of Jaunty, and there are far more available on sites such as Gnome-Look. Once you start using compiz and better effects, you can end up looking incredible.

And for it being easier, I meant that I don't have to buy myself a copy of Leopard/Snow Leopard, get some patcher to change it so it works with my setup, then install it when I'm already happy with Linux, and then have to tweak around with all of the bugs caused by installing something on hardware that it shouldn't be on. Linux is totally free and easier, IMO, to install.

If you're prepared to install OSx86 and work out any bugs, then that's fine. All I'm saying is that I would rather stick with Ubuntu than stuff around with anything else.

If it's any consolation, There is an included theme for Ubuntu which looks very similar to the Linux Mint one, although with slightly nicer _ [] X buttons. It's called Dust. Besides, they're focusing on appearance a lot more for the release of Karmic.

I personally don't like the default OSX theme, anyway. The brushed metal look isn't my favourite, but each to his own.

Bianca Paragon
July 22nd, 2009, 12:27 AM
compiz
SPIANNAN CUBEZ YAY

And for it being easier, I meant that I don't have to buy myself a copy of Leopard/Snow Leopard, get some patcher to change it so it works with my setup, then install it when I'm already happy with Linux, and then have to tweak around with all of the bugs caused by installing something on hardware that it shouldn't be on
Patcher? Wut? Download Boot 132. Burn CD. Boot CD. Swap for Leopard DVD when prompted. Install. Install Chameleon on first boot. There's no "patcher"; and I'm sorry to tell you this but..OSX was always intended to be on PC hardware :3 There's no fundamental difference except for Apple's signed EFI which is what Boot 132 and Chameleon are used for.

If you're prepared to install OSx86 and work out any bugs, then that's fine.
What bugs? Linux is a far buggier OS experience due to the fact that the components for the OS aren't made entirely by a single corporation that ensures 100% compatibility~

Zet
July 22nd, 2009, 04:06 AM
I'd hate to say it but I gotta agree with Sawaa, I had no problems installing OSX while installing a linux distro takes longer since you have to load the software via live CD, then select how much you want to partition, then convert to GRUB, install the OS to partition size, while installing OSX is simple as counting to three

Archer
July 22nd, 2009, 06:24 AM
I'd hate to say it but I gotta agree with Sawaa, I had no problems installing OSX while installing a linux distro takes longer since you have to load the software via live CD, then select how much you want to partition, then convert to GRUB, install the OS to partition size, while installing OSX is simple as counting to three
You've got to create a new partition for OSX anyway. I hardly see how that counts. You put in the disc, press install, follow the wizard and then let it do its thing for 20 mins or so. Done.

How much of an impact does a few extra minutes one one occasion make?

When you installed OSx86, did it work instantly with all of your hardware? Because I've heard of people having to install fixes to even get keyboards or mice to work. I'm just curious, it's not a baited question.

Bianca Paragon
July 22nd, 2009, 06:28 AM
You've got to create a new partition for OSX anyway. I hardly see how that counts. You put in the disc, press install, follow the wizard and then let it do its thing for 20 mins or so. Done.

How much of an impact does a few extra minutes one one occasion make?

When you installed OSx86, did it work instantly with all of your hardware? Because I've heard of people having to install fixes to even get keyboards or mice to work. I'm just curious, it's not a baited question.
If you use depreciated hardware like PS/2 keyboard and mouse or an AGP graphics card or whatnot? Yes. You'll have issues. Of course, there are patches that solve this.

I guess it's worth pointing out as a concession that if you intend to use OSX as a whitebox OS then some pre-planning helps; properly supported hardware (Intel CPU, Intel Chipset, SATA HDD's) does help. But with Boot 132 generic and other similar products you can pretty much have an OOTB working solution. The days of olde are just that - old.

Zet
July 22nd, 2009, 06:28 AM
No, you would need to make a partition for Windows ;P and everything works correctly <3~

IIMarckus
July 22nd, 2009, 07:40 AM
Linux is a far buggier OS experience due to the fact that the components for the OS aren't made entirely by a single corporation that ensures 100% compatibility~Indeed, one of the reasons I prefer BSD to Linux is that the BSD projects work on the kernel and the base utilities together to make a cohesive operating system. Linux is more of a mesh between various software projects like the kernel, binutils, X Windows, and the desktop environment, each with different maintainers and therefore no one place to report bugs.

twocows
July 22nd, 2009, 09:21 AM
How is it easier go with linux? I'd rather have a nice looking display than how horrible and ugly linux looks like. The only good looking linux distro I have ever seen is Linux Mint
The window manager, among other things, makes the look of a Linux system. If you're using one of the crappy ones that everyone seems obsessed with, then sure, it's going to look ugly. Linux Mint has four different versions, one of which is based on fluxbox. This window manager is highly customizable and quite popular; there's a lot you can do to make it look nice. Unfortunately, Linux Mint is on version 8, and the latest version with fluxbox included is version 6. However, it's not that hard to just install a new window manager on any system and use it instead of the default. Another popular choice is Openbox, which integrates pretty well with common desktop environments like GNOME and KDE; or you could even use it without a desktop environment if you wish and install a few programs to give you the desired functionality (for starters, these (http://icculus.org/openbox/index.php/Help:Contents#Cool_programs_to_run_with_Openbox)). And besides all that, there are numerous projects out there to give you an OS X or Windows look, so there's always that.

SPIANNAN CUBEZ YAY
There's a lot more to Compiz than the spinning cube. It has support for window transparency, lots of window effects, some other less-used features, a bunch of plugins for anything you're missing, and configuration options for a lot of other stuff. I don't use it because I find many of the features to be more than I need, but a lot of people love it.

Archer
July 24th, 2009, 03:42 AM
If you use depreciated hardware like PS/2 keyboard and mouse or an AGP graphics card or whatnot? Yes. You'll have issues. Of course, there are patches that solve this.

I guess it's worth pointing out as a concession that if you intend to use OSX as a whitebox OS then some pre-planning helps; properly supported hardware (Intel CPU, Intel Chipset, SATA HDD's) does help. But with Boot 132 generic and other similar products you can pretty much have an OOTB working solution. The days of olde are just that - old.
Would inbuilt laptop keyboards/touchpads be treated as PS/2 devices - would they work? I had no idea that compatibility had developed that far. I might actually try that one day. The problem is that I'd be more inclined to try it on a virtual machine or an old spare box (to add more fun to that deal, my old test box is an AMD...)

Twocows, I don't really find (from the screenshots I've been looking at) that fluxbox looks any nicer than the standard Gnome/KDE/XFce way of doing things. In fact, I think that most of the GTK themes are great. Emerald sort of kicks their borders out of the water, though :D.

I realise that you're a fan of minimalism, but I guess there needs to be some mid-point between efficient and practical.

You should post a Desktop Screeny. :P

twocows
July 24th, 2009, 08:44 PM
I realise that you're a fan of minimalism, but I guess there needs to be some mid-point between efficient and practical.

The real trade-off was the time it took to set things up, customize it, and get any missing functionality (not as hard as you'd think; took maybe a day the first time, each time after took at most half an hour).
You should post a Desktop Screeny. :PA screenshot would be kind of useless. I don't really have anything fancy going on. I use the right click menus for getting to most of my programs. I disabled window borders; I find windows to be cleaner without them. I have some keyboard shortcuts for commonly used functionality or programs (ctrl+alt+f brings up Firefox, for example). I have a taskbar that I can toggle off or on with a keyboard command; it has all the normal taskbar stuff and a few keyboard shortcuts in icon form. That's really all there is.

DrCoolSanta
July 25th, 2009, 09:06 PM
I find the arguement here totally stupid. Being a fan of Linux in general, I have tried convincing many people that they can have a much better desktop computer with a different operating system. But what I have understood till now is, even though people have many arguements for the use of Linux and the others have none, there is always a reason for them to not use it. Choice of OS is like your sexual preference, you can't force it on people.

The only bad thing about linux is its different flavours, there's red hat, debian, gentoo. And the the different distros you have based on them, like ubuntu, cent os etc.
The main reason of their existence is that whenever somebody says that something like Ubuntu is bad because of the lack of some feature, there is always another one that could cater your needs.
And there is always a perfect distro for everyone.
The bad thing about this is to choose, it takes a lot of trial and error or reading to find out which is the best for you.

Though, I always find that ubuntu is one of the most perfect distros for beginners, I am what you would call an advanced user of the linux. I can keep myself entertained on a shell window, even though I have probably the worlds most eye candy spiffy desktop, I still end up using the terminal for the work.

Ubuntu tries to be the minimalistic in its approach, it tries to be more fast and efficient, what windows does is, it tries to be the most pretty and everything without blowing up your computer. So you have to tune down windows and tune up Ubuntu.

I find ubuntu rather easy to use and more specifically customize, my wallpaper changes every 10 seconds, the windows wobble, I have 4 desktops, It rains when I want it to, so much more, I really can't list everything down.

I have a laptop with minimal hardware, on windows it would take it 5 mins to do a simple task and on ubuntu it does everything within a second with all the eye candy.

On the other hand I also have a Ubuntu server on my oldest computer, let me list down what all it can do.
I have a wireless network at home, so all these functionality are available to even the laptops of the house and anywhere in the house, even in the garden and the neighboring restaurant.
I have a printer on it and CUPS lets me print to it from anywhere and from any OS. My friends with windows computer tried it with the windows way and its so buggy half of the time it is not working. It doesn't work if they ever shutdown their computers and I do that very often.
TorrentFlux allows me to schedule, que and keep my torrents and normal downloads downloading on a server that utilises a lot less power than my other computers thanks to my spiffy hardware. And not to forget, I can que them from anywhere. My friends still havn't figured out how to make it work on their windows machines, I know how and the procedure is a lot more complicated than writing one 'sudo apt-get install . . .' command.
Kplaylist allows me to keep my hard-drive and my parent's free of all the music we have. And it also allows us to listem to it whenever we want to without having to have crap on the HD and since its a local network the speeds are pretty fast.
Similarly, with the help of PHP and an FLV Player (flash applet), I can even keep all my videos and movies on that computer and can watch them whenever I feel like. This is something you could do pretty easilly on windows, but the speeds and the simplicity of installing apache and PHP make it very awesome and simple on Linux.
I even have some detachable sound hardware, and I can command it to play on that hardware, the music I have on it whenever I want to, with VLC and its remote website.
The best part is, I have configured my router to allow it to be connected from outside, so I can do a lot of this from outside my home.

Another use is that I have created a super computer out of many usual core 2 duo machines at my mother's research lab to aid her in chemistry. And once again all thanks to the software available for Linux thats free.
Supercomputers cost a lot of money, and this cluster is just tuned up for her work and is VERY fast and is pretty cheap.

EDIT: I believe the poll is useless, it can never show the real life situation, only people who have some idea what ubuntu is come to this thread, very few others do.

twocows
July 26th, 2009, 12:20 AM
The only bad thing about linux is its different flavours, there's red hat, debian, gentoo. And the the different distros you have based on them, like ubuntu, cent os etc. The main reason of their existence is that whenever somebody says that something like Ubuntu is bad because of the lack of some feature, there is always another one that could cater your needs. And there is always a perfect distro for everyone.
Forking is a good thing. It circumvents bureaucracy and encourages innovation.

The bad thing about this is to choose, it takes a lot of trial and error or reading to find out which is the best for you.So does everything worth having. That doesn't mean choice is bad.

Though, I always find that ubuntu is one of the most perfect distros for beginnersThe best distribution for a beginner is one that forces them to learn as much as possible about Linux, not one that allows them to know practically nothing about it. Ubuntu is fine for someone who wants something that just works, but for someone who is just starting and plans to work further with Linux, I would recommend something like Gentoo or Arch Linux, or perhaps a BSD.

Ubuntu tries to be the minimalistic in its approach, it tries to be more fast and efficientNo; perhaps you're thinking of Xubuntu? Ubuntu uses GNOME, which is definitely NOT minimalist or fast or efficient. It's bloated and loads a bunch of useless daemons you'll probably never need.

what windows does is, it tries to be the most pretty and everything without blowing up your computer.Windows is built to be as all-encompassing as possible; anything that the common user might want to do with Windows is pretty much possible with minimal hassle (or at least it is meant to be). I don't think there's an OS in existence whose sole purpose is to "be the most pretty."

I find ubuntu rather easy to use and more specifically customize, my wallpaper changes every 10 seconds, the windows wobble, I have 4 desktops, It rains when I want it to, so much more, I really can't list everything down.Most of that stuff stems from the bundled Compiz, I believe. That's available on every major distribution, though I'm not sure how many bundle it like Ubuntu does.

I have a laptop with minimal hardware, on windows it would take it 5 mins to do a simple task and on ubuntu it does everything within a second with all the eye candy.Try Xubuntu. Or better yet, build an Arch install. You'll be impressed what old hardware can do.

On the other hand I also have a Ubuntu server on my oldest computer, let me list down what all it can do
...
The best part is, I have configured my router to allow it to be connected from outside, so I can do a lot of this from outside my home.None of that is specific to Ubuntu. You could accomplish most of that with pretty much any OS, including Windows or OS X. And Windows could do it fast, provided you did a bit of tweaking.

Another use is that I have created a super computer out of many usual core 2 duo machines at my mother's research lab to aid her in chemistry. And once again all thanks to the software available for Linux thats free. Supercomputers cost a lot of money, and this cluster is just tuned up for her work and is VERY fast and is pretty cheap.You can make a Beowulf cluster with any OS. You could probably even have different OSes on different computers in the cluster and still pull it off, provided the software knew what was going on.

EDIT: I believe the poll is useless, it can never show the real life situation, only people who have some idea what ubuntu is come to this thread, very few others do.Then why mention it?

Bianca Paragon
July 26th, 2009, 01:50 AM
Hey twocows, were you bullied by processes and daemons when you were young? Or do you just still use a 386? Because there is quite literally no reason *at all* for anyone to be as paranoid and obsessed about making sure the OS isn't doing ANYTHING AT ALL. Processes/Daemons = background functionality. It's 2009; that's what our OS's do nowadays; they give us FEATURES. Deal with it, sister.

DrCoolSanta
July 26th, 2009, 04:44 AM
Forking is a good thing. It circumvents bureaucracy and encourages innovation.

So does everything worth having. That doesn't mean choice is bad.

The best distribution for a beginner is one that forces them to learn as much as possible about Linux, not one that allows them to know practically nothing about it. Ubuntu is fine for someone who wants something that just works, but for someone who is just starting and plans to work further with Linux, I would recommend something like Gentoo or Arch Linux, or perhaps a BSD.

No; perhaps you're thinking of Xubuntu? Ubuntu uses GNOME, which is definitely NOT minimalist or fast or efficient. It's bloated and loads a bunch of useless daemons you'll probably never need.

Windows is built to be as all-encompassing as possible; anything that the common user might want to do with Windows is pretty much possible with minimal hassle (or at least it is meant to be). I don't think there's an OS in existence whose sole purpose is to "be the most pretty."

Most of that stuff stems from the bundled Compiz, I believe. That's available on every major distribution, though I'm not sure how many bundle it like Ubuntu does.

Try Xubuntu. Or better yet, build an Arch install. You'll be impressed what old hardware can do.

None of that is specific to Ubuntu. You could accomplish most of that with pretty much any OS, including Windows or OS X. And Windows could do it fast, provided you did a bit of tweaking.

You can make a Beowulf cluster with any OS. You could probably even have different OSes on different computers in the cluster and still pull it off, provided the software knew what was going on.

Then why mention it?
There is something totally wrong with you. I never said that Ubuntu was better than the rest, in fact, I was just being more specific about my flavour of Linux. Everybody who uses Linux knows that you can turn any flavour of linux to have features of another. And mind you, my cluster uses Red Hat anyway. I have OpenSuse on my development machine at home. I was just presenting my arguement against those who say that Windows is the best, and that there is nothing else that anyone will wever want to use, or for that matter even Mac. THere were people here who just keep ranting about windows or mac being better, I am just trying to say that windows is nowhere near the competition. Mac and Linux are far ahead of Windows. My post was just to show what all windows can do, and in listing what I have been able to achieve on my linux installations easily, I mentioned how well it can be done on windows, and there is nothing in the list that says that windows can't do the same. And for that matter, I am not here to discuss how Ubuntu is better than Gentoo or Arch or anything, I believe that the distros are something that everybody has a different opinion on and according to the person's need he might have to use a different distro than the one I might wanna use. There is nothing that you can do with one distro that you can't on another. And no don't give me stuff like aptitude can't remove RPMs.

No matter what you say, having a tonne distros is still a bad thing. I mean, I know when I first made a switch, choosing from millions isn't really the thing that I wanted to do. And no, not every good thing has to be chosen from millions. Choice is good, as long as you don't have to download the installation CDs, and format your hardware everytime you try one. Atleast where I live, downloading a CD takes an hour or 2, thanks to the uber slow ISPs in India.

And when I talk about beginners, I talk about someone who actually wants to use the OS not someone who is on his way to become a computer geek. Give a geek any distro, any OS, and within two days it is not what you ever thought it could be like.

When I said minimalistic, my comparison was between windows and Ubuntu. Ubuntu is minimalistic because it does not enable compiz by default, it has a basic theme and everything. Whilst windows vista or 7 just eat on your resources. I am not really minimalist the way you are, and I respect your opinion in that sense but I prefer for my desktop to be be pretty and fast at the same time and even on old hardware.

Xubuntu gives me the creeps, I said I use all the old school stuff, but xubuntu is horrible imo. I know a lot of people who like it, and I respect their opinion, but I don't like something that basic, sure it is fast and everything, but GNOME looks decent and thats what I want. GNOME is pretty decent, looks better than windows XP and with beryl - compiz it is comparable to vista and is precisely faster than the windows versions. The WM in Xubuntu, I forgot the name since I don't use it much, is good for old hardware but not really pretty and I find the untidiness quite creepy.

You sure wanna say that again, windows Vista was totally about the looks and nothing else, all other features were totally not what I expect an efficient Operating System to be like, I don't know anyone who has them turned on anyway.

And since you mention this, what is this tweaking you talk of, I have done much and I believe I have done everything that's possible on windows to make it faster, still it refuses to be as fast as a server built on Linux.

I am not trying to be rude or anything, but I challenge you to make a diskless beowulf cluster on windows vista, that means no hard disks on the nodes. And along that, I want you to have NFS, RSH, SSH and along with that find me software that runs on it. Now prove me that this is faster than a Linux cluster of the same specifications and same hardware.
And while you are taking this challenge, look up beowulf clusters on wikipedia, and look at that part where it says that beowulf's are made on FOSS software. Good luck finding a FOSS version of windows.

And now I hope I got my point accross. I believe, there was something that you didn't like about Ubuntu, thats totally alright, but my point was not to prove that Ubuntu is better than the other linux distros, but that windows is the most horrible thing on earth and linux for that matter is much better in that sense.

twocows
July 26th, 2009, 10:42 AM
Hey twocows, were you bullied by processes and daemons when you were young? Or do you just still use a 386? Because there is quite literally no reason *at all* for anyone to be as paranoid and obsessed about making sure the OS isn't doing ANYTHING AT ALL. Processes/Daemons = background functionality. It's 2009; that's what our OS's do nowadays; they give us FEATURES. Deal with it, sister.
I'm a performance nut without a lot of cash. My best computer is a mid-range laptop, and the rest are all various types of old, so the less background stuff there is running, the faster my stuff tends to work. I find it's worth it to just start whatever I need up manually; in Windows, for instance, I have a batch file that starts all the printer-related services if I need to print. It's especially important in Windows because I do my gaming there; I like to have a high (and consistent) framerate, especially if I'm playing a multiplayer game. With all the services that I've disabled and the various tweaks I've made, I find I can play most modern games at a pretty consistent 60 frames per second on the laptop, provided I turn the graphics down a bit.

There is something totally wrong with you.
Why, thank you! I just love personal insults as a response to normal discussion! For maximum effect, read all my text in the voice of Oscar the Grouch.
I never said that Ubuntu was better than the rest, in fact, I was just being more specific about my flavour of Linux. I never said you did. I was just pointing out that you could do a lot of the stuff you mentioned on other operating systems.
Everybody who uses Linux knows that you can turn any flavour of linux to have features of another.More or less, yes. But there are plenty of people right here in this forum that don't use Linux and don't know that, and may have gotten the false assumption that you could only do those things on Ubuntu. I was just explaining this.
And mind you, my cluster uses Red Hat anyway.You should try MOSIX.
I was just presenting my arguement against those who say that Windows is the best, and that there is nothing else that anyone will wever want to use, or for that matter even Mac.You didn't explain that at all. Also, like I said, a lot of what you mentioned can be done on Windows or OS X.
There were people here who just keep ranting about windows or mac being better, I am just trying to say that windows is nowhere near the competition. Mac and Linux are far ahead of Windows.Windows is really the only choice if you're going to be gaming. You can try to WINE games on Linux, but you'll likely lose a good deal of performance if you can even get the game working; WINE is more useful, for instance, if you have some useful little program someone wrote and didn't port to Linux. And while more games these days are getting Mac versions, there are still plenty of good ones that simply can't be played on OS X (again, you could try WINE, but it really isn't meant for gaming).
My post was just to show what all windows can do, and in listing what I have been able to achieve on my linux installations easily, I mentioned how well it can be done on windows, and there is nothing in the list that says that windows can't do the same.I didn't understand the first part of that. However, as far as I read into your original message, the implication was that Windows couldn't do those things. All you said about Windows was that it was built to be pretty, which is simply untrue.
And for that matter, I am not here to discuss how Ubuntu is better than Gentoo or Arch or anything, I believe that the distros are something that everybody has a different opinion on and according to the person's need he might have to use a different distro than the one I might wanna use.I never said any one was all-around better; in fact, I implied that was untrue. Each distribution offers something different; Gentoo is a lot more focused on hardware optimizations at compile-time, for instance.
There is nothing that you can do with one distro that you can't on another. And no don't give me stuff like aptitude can't remove RPMs.I know that. Not everyone does, though, so I explained it. Well... except... Yum can't remove Debian packages.

No matter what you say, having a tonne distros is still a bad thing.I will not agree with you on this point. Let's start a little hypothetical here. Assume there are only two distributions in existence, and that the Linux kernel was encumbered in such a way that only these two could exist (and that nobody's going to develop a new kernel at this point that doesn't have such insane restrictions). And let us also assume that code can't be forked from these projects. They're the only two Linux distributions in the world that will ever exist. One is primarily designed for servers; any code contributed that doesn't make the distribution more useful for servers is discarded. The other is specifically designed to run on older computer; for instance, mid-1990s stuff. It's too crippled to be useful to anything except something from the mid 90s. There is no distribution for general use; people who want to use their OS for something other than these two things are considered a niche group and not worth spending time on. Also, the server project has a stupid admin; people have submit code for five years to fix a gaping exploit in the distribution, but the project admin doesn't think any of the code submitted fixes the exploit gracefully enough, and denies it all. Someone tried to offer a version of the distribution with a fix, along with a few other changes to make it more available to desktop users, but the people in charge sued for copyright infringement.

These are the sorts of problems that arise when you take choice out of the equation. You're stuck with stuff that may not be useful to you, and nothing ever really gets developed.
I mean, I know when I first made a switch, choosing from millions isn't really the thing that I wanted to do.If you know what you want in a distribution, you're not choosing from millions, you're choosing from maybe twenty at most. Spending a bit of time investigating those options ends up being a very useful investment.
And no, not every good thing has to be chosen from millions. Choice is good, as long as you don't have to download the installation CDs, and format your hardware everytime you try one. Atleast where I live, downloading a CD takes an hour or 2, thanks to the uber slow ISPs in India.Investigate a bit and you can usually narrow your options down to maybe two or three. My ISP caps my bandwidth pretty low, but I didn't really have any problems.

You sure wanna say that again, windows Vista was totally about the looks and nothing else, all other features were totally not what I expect an efficient Operating System to be like, I don't know anyone who has them turned on anyway.There were too many changes in Vista to count. All but one of them weren't Aero, which is the eye candy.

And since you mention this, what is this tweaking you talk of, I have done much and I believe I have done everything that's possible on windows to make it faster, still it refuses to be as fast as a server built on Linux.I have 39 Vista services disabled (some of them related to programs I rarely use), most of which (surprisingly) don't seem to interfere with any of my day-to-day operations. The task scheduler has most of its tasks deleted, and I used Autoruns to get rid of a lot of the stuff that tries to start on logon. There are a few other tweaks, but most of them are for customization purposes, not performance ones. One thing I do is make batch files to start services I may need to start for some reason.

I am not trying to be rude or anything, but I challenge you to make a diskless beowulf cluster on windows vista, that means no hard disks on the nodes. And along that, I want you to have NFS, RSH, SSH and along with that find me software that runs on it. Now prove me that this is faster than a Linux cluster of the same specifications and same hardware.
And while you are taking this challenge, look up beowulf clusters on wikipedia, and look at that part where it says that beowulf's are made on FOSS software. Good luck finding a FOSS version of windows.I may have been speaking out my bum on this one, but to be honest, there's no reason why it's technically not possible to do something like that with Windows. I imagine you could probably recompile the necessary software with Cygwin and a few changes and get it working on Windows just fine.

windows is the most horrible thing on earth and linux for that matter is much better in that sense.Both are useful in their own ways. That's why I multi-boot all my computers.

Bianca Paragon
July 26th, 2009, 11:19 AM
I'm a performance nut without a lot of cash. My best computer is a mid-range laptop, and the rest are all various types of old, so the less background stuff there is running, the faster my stuff tends to work. I find it's worth it to just start whatever I need up manually; in Windows, for instance, I have a batch file that starts all the printer-related services if I need to print. It's especially important in Windows because I do my gaming there; I like to have a high (and consistent) framerate, especially if I'm playing a multiplayer game. With all the services that I've disabled and the various tweaks I've made, I find I can play most modern games at a pretty consistent 60 frames per second on the laptop, provided I turn the graphics down a bit.
You do know the print services run idle and use *zero* resources when they're not being used, right? So..all you're doing is inconveniencing yourself when you DO need to print. That's the idea of a SERVICE. It provides a SERVICE to you when it's required and sits idle (doing nothing and costing nothing) when you don't.

DrCoolSanta
July 26th, 2009, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry if I sounded like that, I really wasn't trying to pass on a personal insult or anything.

Now that I think of it, you do have a point somewhere.

We were talking about having too many distros, choice is good I aggree, but sometimes it just doesn't work out well. There are two things a beginner could do, spen some time reading the documentations and details of every project mentioned on wikipedia as a linux distro. And there are somethings that really don't work together, take this as an example RPMs and DPKG, they don't work together and there are many situations when you need the other. And Debian flavours like Ubuntu are never really bundeled with build-essentials and you end up having to install them first before going on compiling stuff for your installation.

Personally, I get pissed if I have to read through a wall of text just to make a choice. And we are talking about someone who doesn't even know what Linux precisely is.
Sure you could say that the person should atleast have an idea as to what linux is all about, and for that he needs to try one distro and what should we really suggest him to try?
Next think of this, on debian, when I was trying to make it NFS boot, it was just editing a file and run a command, but on Red Hat, its downloading the kernel, configuring it (and actually trying to understand compiling kernels) and then compiling configuring grub to boot them and what not.

But just look at what I posted first again, I really did mention that all that was possible on windows, its just that its a lot harder on windows than on linux. There really is no point in saying that you can't do all that on windows, but there are drawbacks, and some are major.

Vista had changes, and only about 2 or 3 are useful?

I tried all that and still I'd say, with all that disabled my windows xp is still slower than my ubuntu on a dual boot. My ubuntu has nothing disabled and looks nice and everything, actually I installed more stuff, enabled things on it and everything to make it look nicer. And my windows, I have tuned it down to look like vermin and its still much slow.

Technically, it is possible to do something like that on windows (if you forget that you have to pay for windows), but there really is not much use for that. I have still to see something that runs faster on windows than on linux, and I still have to see a piece of software that runs in parallel on windows beowulf cluster. And IRL people actually prefer linux over windows for various reasons when it comes to this. You can really tune up your linux configuration for better performance and faster calculations. Windows really is pathetic with network programming. You can really program in linux without your code looking like a piece of **** (if you know windows programming, you'd know that there are big pieces of code that you really don't wanna understand and you just copy paste that over time) and when it comes to networking, which is an important aspect of beowulf, is really pathetic in windows.

And when I challenged you to do it, you can't make windows to be diskless (closest to that, I have only come accross BartPE) Now that adds to the cost doesn't it?

I aggree about the part about windows being better for games, Linux isn't really that good when it comes to games, and it probably will never be. Think of OpenGL, Microsoft is not going to support it now so its only for Linux now. We can really forget about cross platform gaming since now we have two different rendering engines in both.

And cloud, I really don't think windows is better at being fast, I would do anything to get rid of as many services as possible on windows. And there is nothing to argue about, that zero resource part is a bit more theoretical than it sounds and it really makes a difference when you turn then off.
And that's precisely what I am saying, you need to do so much on windows to make it fast enough, but linux really is much faster even without having to turn of so many services.

Cartmic
July 27th, 2009, 01:01 AM
Don't be daft. OpenOffice is available for Mac too, if you *really* want to use the retarded step child of Office Suites.

Firstly I am not going to deny that MS Office is a good product, because I think It's an excellent product! But OpenOffice IS just as capable. Have you ever given it serious usage for a long period of time?

Secondly what do you have against the Open Source model? You act like Mr. Free Software; Richard Stallman himself came and got you in your dreams.

Bianca Paragon
July 27th, 2009, 04:24 AM
Firstly I am not going to deny that MS Office is a good product, because I think It's an excellent product! But OpenOffice IS just as capable.
No.
Have you ever given it serious usage for a long period of time?
Yes.
Secondly what do you have against the Open Source model? You act like Mr. Free Software; Richard Stallman himself came and got you in your dreams.
Open Sores software is a pretty bad business model. It's as if I were walking around during the day with a giant picture of what I look like naked, above my head; in-case anyone in the general public wants to know what I look like nude to either
a) base their own artistic work on
or
b) offer other "alternatives" to how I should dress.
Sorry, my fashion is a closed source business model.
And so is my software.
Also, stallman, interject, gnu, blah blah blah

Cartmic
July 27th, 2009, 04:50 AM
No.

Yes.

Open Sores software is a pretty bad business model. It's as if I were walking around during the day with a giant picture of what I look like naked, above my head; in-case anyone in the general public wants to know what I look like nude to either
a) base their own artistic work on
or
b) offer other "alternatives" to how I should dress.
Sorry, my fashion is a closed source business model.
And so is my software.
Also, stallman, interject, gnu, blah blah blah

That's quite fair enough opinion. I believe it to be what ever model suits your company best. MS have done well with its commercial closed source model, and Red Hat has done well with it's commercial open source model.

May I ask which OOo version did you last use?

What did you find lacking in OOo compared to MS Office?

Bianca Paragon
July 27th, 2009, 05:04 AM
That's quite fair enough opinion. I believe it to be what ever model suits your company best. MS have done well with its commercial closed source model, and Red Hat has done well with it's commercial open source model.

May I ask which OOo version did you last use?

What did you find lacking in OOo compared to MS Office?
I couldn't even tell you. I can tell you when I used it; which was when I needed an OSX Office Client and Office 2008 had not quite come out yet, so you can date based on that.
My primary gripes were mostly with regards to poor handling of imported Microsoft Office Documents (and total lack of .docx support, -at the time-); in addition poor support for *exporting* to Office Formats; some of the mess's it made of my CV is inexcusable.
Microsoft Office is ubiquitous and lacking complete and proper support for the industry standard is just..poor.

DrCoolSanta
July 27th, 2009, 07:24 AM
Actually, even though OpenOffice treis to be like MS Office, its still really different. Hence a person trying to work on it expecting it to be a port of Ms Office to Linux is not going to be pretty. But for someone who only has used OpenOffice since the beginning and really does not expect every piece of software to immitate MS, then that's good.

And personally, I use AbiWord and GNumeric to do the job, but someone else might prefer Google Docs (which I know is not open source but is free atleast)

But really, open source software allows for certain improvements, I aggree that open source isn't really very pretty and in some cases as easy to use, but it certainly has more functionality. Besides money has some value, which is a lot more important to some people than more professional software.

twocows
July 27th, 2009, 09:33 AM
I'm sorry if I sounded like that, I really wasn't trying to pass on a personal insult or anything.
No problem.

Personally, I get pissed if I have to read through a wall of text just to make a choice. And we are talking about someone who doesn't even know what Linux precisely is.
Walls of text often help you learn what Linux is.

Next think of this, on debian, when I was trying to make it NFS boot, it was just editing a file and run a command, but on Red Hat, its downloading the kernel, configuring it (and actually trying to understand compiling kernels) and then compiling configuring grub to boot them and what not.
That might be implemented by now; Fedora especially has gained a lot of ground in the past few years. Too bad the documentation is still outdated more often than not.

Vista had changes, and only about 2 or 3 are useful?
Vista had a lot of back-end changes. The problem with making back-end changes that aren't performance related is that the end user doesn't usually notice them.

I tried all that and still I'd say, with all that disabled my windows xp is still slower than my ubuntu on a dual boot.
Try running nLite (http://www.nliteos.com/) on your XP disc and disabling/removing anything you don't plan to use. Slipstream SP3 while you're at it. I have my 2000-ish IBM Aptiva running XP pretty well (slows down a bit with Firefox); plus, no IE <3 (had to replace a few system files with some ReactOS components to keep certain functionality, though).

Windows really is pathetic with network programming.
Yup.

Think of OpenGL, Microsoft is not going to support it now so its only for Linux now.
As far as I know, Windows still supports OpenGL. Microsoft just pushes DirectX more, but you can use either rendering mode in Windows. It's beyond me why gaming companies don't just use OpenGL, to be honest. There's probably some reason I haven't thought of.

Firstly I am not going to deny that MS Office is a good product, because I think It's an excellent product! But OpenOffice is just as capable. Have you ever given it serious usage for a long period of time?
If you go searching for extensions and plugins, you can make it roughly equivalent, but it's a stretch to say that it's as good out of the box. Though there are a few nice surprises in there that MS Office doesn't have.

Mr. Free Software; Richard Stallman
I'd like to point out that not everyone agrees with RMS' version of free software. I think the fundamental ideas he puts forward are fine, but I believe he's not practical enough about it.

DrCoolSanta
July 27th, 2009, 10:58 AM
Fedora is community running so it is nice, but the example I just gave you, thats something I doubt will ever change about Fedora or any Red Hat based distribution, thats something I believe is very debian centric. Debian is actually way different from Red Hat and I seem to like it better now, its not really something advanced but it gets the work done without it being complicated.

Thank you for pointing out nLite, since I practically have removed all that stuff manually till now. And its pathetic how windows just doesn't want to mend its ways and be as fast as Linux would be. And its really disturbing to see how actually all that makes a real difference in the speed of windows. However, my laptop takes one hour to even open the start menu, I am going to dump that installation even if I paid extra for the WinXP, though I guess, I usually only run ubuntu on it anyway.
The best part is that my laptop (its really small, I have my PC to do the big jobs xD) doesn't have a CD rom, and I actually installed Ubuntu just directly off the internet, it just downloaded and installed at the same time. Thats what I love about Linux, just about everything is possible.

Windows supports OpenGL, just that the new versions of OpenGL will never be supported, or so was true till I dumped OpenGL for Direct3D, appearantly for the same reason.

Lets really not talk about free software: The govt. brainwashes you and after that you are not ready for the free internet world anymore.
Unless that TCPA project was really going to work, then people like cloud would come here to say that they aggreed with us about the FOSS, since she won't have thepiratebay offer her all the paid software she has.
And in case it isn't thepiratebay or any other p2p method she usees to get that software, I really pitty her.

Or if she were talking about closed source yet free software being better, she is just plain pathetic.

Archer
August 1st, 2009, 04:54 AM
And personally, I use AbiWord and GNumeric to do the job, but someone else might prefer Google Docs (which I know is not open source but is free atleast).
I've tried Abiword in the past, and I've found it rather clunky and ugly. Each to his own, though.

Actually, you probably already know this, but OpenOffice is undergoing Project Renaissance. It's a community effort to re-design the interface, as Office 2007 really highlighted how dated the interface of OO3 was. I personally can't wait for the release which should be later this year.

DrCoolSanta
August 1st, 2009, 05:37 AM
I just want to point out, that I actually found MS Office really bad and ugly when it first came out. I wanted an option for it to look like the old ones, the options were really badly hidden.

I aggree that each has his own opinion, but I just want to point out, that in fact like how cloud says against OpenOffice not being just as capable, it is wrong. Open software is just as good if you actually try to use it and not find flaws the very moment you start using it, that too you forget that the payed versions also have their own flaws.
Don't expect OpenOffice to be MS Office, it is not, try actually spending as much time as you used to learn OpenOffice. Open software is meant for those, who know the value of money or want more functionality.

Let me give you an example that I know scientists who moved from software for which they paid as much as $5000 and even more to free and open software. Why? because, very few people could actually afford it and there weren't many people to help them out, they only had the documentation which often didn't answer their questions.
MS Office is not as expensive as that but still the only reason there are as many people using it is basically because they have a pirated copy.

I know India for sure, if anything ever happens to your computer and it needs to be formatted, the vendor just puts in a pirated copy of windows, no matter you bought the original or not!

twocows
August 1st, 2009, 09:21 AM
stuff about MS Office piracy
Hence why Microsoft designs WGA the way it does. If they really wanted to limit piracy, they'd make a phone home requirement or something. WGA isn't there to prevent piracy, it's there to prevent casual users from sharing their software. These are the people that won't know about alternatives, and if they can't just share the software, they'll probably just end up going out and buying it. On the other hand, Microsoft knows that pirates are the kind of people that will probably know about free alternatives; if they can't pirate the software, there's a good chance they'll switch to a free alternative. A pirated copy of the software still holds a general reliance on Microsoft software and may equate to some sort of purchase in the future, but a switch to a free alternative is essentially a lost sale (and may lead to less reliance on Microsoft software in general). Thus, they designed WGA in such a way as to restrict people from sharing software among their friends, but not to prevent piracy in general. I've got to give them some credit, it's brilliant.

DrCoolSanta
August 1st, 2009, 11:07 AM
Microsoft has in past sued trackers and pirated software websites. I don't think they have succeeded but they have.
Also Microsoft was interested in the TCPA thingy, which I hope is never going to come.

Archer
August 2nd, 2009, 11:54 PM
That's an interesting perspective, twocows. Letting pirates go is sort of a marketing technique. It still makes them the most-used OS.

I'm interested in trying KDE. Is it worth adding the kubuntu-desktop package, so I can integrate it? I've heard people complain about KDE...

Bianca Paragon
August 3rd, 2009, 12:01 AM
That's an interesting perspective, twocows. Letting pirates go is sort of a marketing technique. It still makes them the most-used OS.

I'm interested in trying KDE. Is it worth adding the kubuntu-desktop package, so I can integrate it? I've heard people complain about KDE...
There's a Balmer quote along the lines of "We'd rather users steal our product, than use the other guys"

xMeowthz
August 3rd, 2009, 06:18 PM
Yes it's dual booted with Windows 7 RC. I used to have vista/craptza, but it won't do it good.

.little monster
August 4th, 2009, 11:23 AM
Yes it's dual booted with Windows 7 RC. I used to have vista/craptza, but it won't do it good.

I used to dual boot with XP, but I ran out of space and I needed to put some more things on it, so I had to take Ubuntu off. >:

rednano12
August 4th, 2009, 12:27 PM
The only app that I would like to run that doesn't run in WINE is XSE. XD Other than that, I haven't booted into Windows since I first installed Ubuntu, and every few months, I find myself shrinking my windows partition. Go Linux!

Archer
August 6th, 2009, 06:17 AM
Well sadly, I'm stuck using Windows for Visual Studio 2008, which I need for my software classes.

Anyone know of a linux equivalent? At least for VB and/or C#.

If I can sort that out, it means a lot more mugs of Ubuntu for me.

IIMarckus
August 6th, 2009, 08:42 AM
Mono? (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page)

.little monster
August 6th, 2009, 08:55 AM
Well sadly, I'm stuck using Windows for Visual Studio 2008, which I need for my software classes.

Anyone know of a linux equivalent? At least for VB and/or C#.

If I can sort that out, it means a lot more mugs of Ubuntu for me.
Have you tried running it through Wine?
Mono? (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page)

4wordlawl

Archer
August 6th, 2009, 01:56 PM
Mono? (http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page)

Yeah, I've heard of it, but some peope praise it and some call it a poor gimmick.

I'll give it a go. Is it in the Ubuntu Repo, or can I just get a package?

Smitty96
August 6th, 2009, 06:47 PM
Its good to know PokeCommunity has a good userbase of Ubuntu users. I used to dualboot, but not anymore. My Windows HDD was 20 GB, Windows itself took up at least a good 5, and all the useless programs I had brought it up to ten, so with my music it was almost full, and I wanted to put Linux documents on it too... So I deleted Windows. My Linux HDD is only 10 GB, thats why I need the other one too. Along with Wine, Ubuntu is so much better than Windows. The things that bugged me most about Windows was that it was slow, not customizable without programs that slowed it down more, and the amount of expensive software. But now with Ubuntu I have a fast, reliable, customizable desktop. (And I get multiple workspaces!) Plus, I can still play my old Windows games in Wine. I think the only reason so many people use Windows is because they're used to it, or have never heard of Linux.

SiegHart
August 6th, 2009, 08:07 PM
hmm im not gonna bother reading everyones post but i highly recomend having a dual boot of ubuntu and either vista or xp, my friend uses ubuntu and vista and i use ubuntu and xp, and its definately handy for gaming if you use "wine" and "alchohol"(programs) to run games on it,....reason for those programs is cuz ubuntu is linux based and cant run windows .exe files but those programs allow you to run them =D

also ubuntu is very friendly when it comes to the taskbar =P(it can have two different taskbars that you can switch between,(kinda like having two moniters and each has its own taskbar))

Archer
August 6th, 2009, 10:15 PM
hmm im not gonna bother reading everyones post but i highly recomend having a dual boot of ubuntu and either vista or xp, my friend uses ubuntu and vista and i use ubuntu and xp, and its definately handy for gaming if you use "wine" and "alchohol"(programs) to run games on it,....reason for those programs is cuz ubuntu is linux based and cant run windows .exe files but those programs allow you to run them =D

also ubuntu is very friendly when it comes to the taskbar =P(it can have two different taskbars that you can switch between,(kinda like having two moniters and each has its own taskbar))
Don't get under the impression that WINE is perfect. If you really want perfect, then run a Virtual Machine with Windows 7 RC.

I am fond of the Gnome Panel's versatility, but I use Cairo-Dock as my taskbar, so I don't deal with it that much. I love the insightful comments I get from the fish, though.

Bianca Paragon
August 6th, 2009, 10:25 PM
Don't get under the impression that WINE is perfect. If you really want perfect, then run a Virtual Machine with Windows 7 RC.

I am fond of the Gnome Panel's versatility, but I use Cairo-Dock as my taskbar, so I don't deal with it that much. I love the insightful comments I get from the fish, though.
And have no workable 3D acceleration :( Really, only Parallels has any sort of across-the-board functionality with 3D acceleration; which is a pretty important feature to have if you're virtualizing WINDOWS of all things.

.little monster
August 6th, 2009, 10:36 PM
also ubuntu is very friendly when it comes to the taskbar =P(it can have two different taskbars that you can switch between,(kinda like having two moniters and each has its own taskbar))

Or you can do what I do and just combine them and make the one you have left look like a Window's taskbar only with a Ubuntu icon. : 3

Smitty96
August 7th, 2009, 11:26 AM
i highly recomend having a dual boot of ubuntu and either vista or xp, my friend uses ubuntu and vista and i use ubuntu and xp, and its definately handy for gaming if you use "wine" and "alchohol"(programs) to run games on it,....reason for those programs is cuz ubuntu is linux based and cant run windows .exe files but those programs allow you to run them =D But if you're using Wine, then why dual boot with Windows? I deleted Windows off my computer completely, best decision I ever made.(concerning computers)

Freestyle Farfetch'd
August 7th, 2009, 04:24 PM
I have a partition with Linux Mint (A more refined, nicer Ubuntu derivative), which I use occasionaly! I've tried at various points using Linux as my main OS, and every time, have found it just-not-quite-ready, though it's getting very close now. All it really needs is a little more developer support, a slightly more polished UI, and less dependancy-hell. (Seriously, if a package needs a paticular library which is fairly obscure, it should probably just come with it. If the user's already got it installed, it can always just not install it).

What may also help Linux is a unified GUI toolkit, or at least some sort of front end that would implement both GTK and Qt and have them looking the same. I'm sure there was a Qt->GTK wrapper at some point. Some more work on that, and having it included and enabled by default would definately have things looking a bit less all-over-the-place in Ubuntu.

Another problem with Linux as I see it is that it's got no real standardized API. There's a multitude of gui toolkits, as I already mentioned, a whole slew of different graphics APIs and a multitude of different sound servers, each with their own libraries. It's a bit of a mess really, and there's no one way to write Linux programs. Although this does give the developers plenty of options, it gives the end users a headache when it comes to dependancies, and causes a lot of inconsistancies between the way applications look and feel. I'm at risk of repeating myself here, but Linux developers could do with agreeing on a standard set of libraries to implement graphics, gui and sound.

I'm not saying Windows is perfect on this front either, but it's a hell of a lot better. Sure, there's the choice between OpenGL and Direct X, OpenAL and DirectSound, but the end result isn't nearly half as muddled, and most applications come out looking and behaving constitantly.

twocows
August 7th, 2009, 08:20 PM
But if you're using Wine, then why dual boot with Windows? I deleted Windows off my computer completely, best decision I ever made.(concerning computers)
Gaming. WINE is horrible for a lot of games.

Napalm
August 7th, 2009, 08:37 PM
The first time I used Ubuntu, i was shocked by how different it was to XP. But after 2 weeks, I was really used to it, in fact. I prefer Ubuntu WAY MORE than Windows. I found most of the alternative programs. I've only needed Wine for Photoshop.

Best thing about Ubuntu, it's Open Source and FREE :D

Archer
August 8th, 2009, 03:45 AM
I've just installed Monodevelop, and it's really confusing, having come from Visual Studio. I can't seem to find the form builder in a VB.Net GTK App, so I'm lost. Does anyone use it?

Spinor
August 8th, 2009, 07:59 PM
Well I just got Ubuntu just because my uncle says it give good 'opportunities' for aspiring programmers or something. I've never really used Linux before so wheeeee, I'm lost.

Just to be safe I had it installed in a different disk. All I have to do is reconnect a few cables when I feel like switching through Windows and Ubuntu

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
August 8th, 2009, 08:25 PM
Nope, I don't use it come to think of it. I never heard of it before


:t354:TG

.little monster
August 10th, 2009, 07:41 AM
Well I just got Ubuntu just because my uncle says it give good 'opportunities' for aspiring programmers or something. I've never really used Linux before so wheeeee, I'm lost.

Just to be safe I had it installed in a different disk. All I have to do is reconnect a few cables when I feel like switching through Windows and Ubuntu
Dual booting would be a lot easier. o.o

Mumei
August 10th, 2009, 12:14 PM
No Ubuntu. Yellow Dog. Or Fedora. And not even on my main computer, it's for a school project and on a PS3. I use Vista for my main OS =)

Archer
August 13th, 2009, 09:51 PM
No Ubuntu. Yellow Dog. Or Fedora. And not even on my main computer, it's for a school project and on a PS3. I use Vista for my main OS =)
What does Fedora have over Ubuntu. They're rather similar, no?

Bianca Paragon
August 14th, 2009, 02:11 AM
Except one is RPM and the other is Deb :3 That's pretty much..a huge difference, really.

Pokedude45
August 14th, 2009, 04:30 AM
I tried it once

on my flashdrive when my Hard Drive crashed (stupid windows)

But now I use SLAX for my flashdrive

Archer
August 14th, 2009, 04:48 AM
Except one is RPM and the other is Deb :3 That's pretty much..a huge difference, really.
I guess. It doesn't make a huge difference outside of the package managers. DEBs seem to be more popular, though. RPM is making some improvements from what I've seen, though.

Bianca Paragon
August 14th, 2009, 04:50 AM
Deb is definitely the better package format; imo. And apt-get is the best thing ever.

Azelf118
August 14th, 2009, 05:42 AM
I use ubuntu!! It is easy to install, easy to configure. It is also very fast! And if you want to install windows apps, just install wine!

Bejesus
August 14th, 2009, 06:49 AM
Hello. I've been using a Live USB of Ubuntu created using Unetbootin. After using it a bit i liked it quite a lot, although it wasn't persistent. I found pendrivelinux.com, which has a link to something that creates a persistent Ubuntu from the iso file i already had. Once i did this i re-booted. Ubuntu loads for quite a while and then i get a black screen with this message and other similar ones continually appearing:

end_request: I/O error dev fd0, sector0

I just have to shut down and re-try to the same result.

The first method i had i seemed to prefer to be honest, the latter was a bit irksome. Is there any way to make the Unetbootin Live USB persistent?

Archer
August 15th, 2009, 06:14 AM
I'm not 100% sure what you mean by persistent, but if you're having issues, then it's best to use the in-built Live-CD creator which is available from Jaunty onwards. I haven't used it personally, but it's supposed to work for most linux distros.

Good luck.

twocows
August 15th, 2009, 09:38 AM
Hello. I've been using a Live USB of Ubuntu created using Unetbootin. After using it a bit i liked it quite a lot, although it wasn't persistent. I found pendrivelinux.com, which has a link to something that creates a persistent Ubuntu from the iso file i already had. Once i did this i re-booted. Ubuntu loads for quite a while and then i get a black screen with this message and other similar ones continually appearing:

end_request: I/O error dev fd0, sector0

I just have to shut down and re-try to the same result.

The first method i had i seemed to prefer to be honest, the latter was a bit irksome. Is there any way to make the Unetbootin Live USB persistent?
It can't write to the index of your flash drive (presumably because flash hardware works different than standard hard drives). I have no idea how you would fix this.

Bejesus
August 15th, 2009, 10:01 AM
Sucks :( oh well, thankyou anyway.

.little monster
August 16th, 2009, 08:56 AM
I don't know what to say to the flash drive thing, except good luck on getting it to work.

Topic~

How did you first get into using Ubuntu or any other Linux distribution?

Bejesus
August 16th, 2009, 09:47 AM
Ctep, thanks haha. In response to your question...it was Xscreensaver (application thingy). A bit lame but once i seen it, i really wanted to try it all out and after about 12 months or something or lazily gathering more research i decided i could happily try Linux out with most of the features i need.