Ye Olde Pub (The English Pub)

[Stian89]

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

Ever since I dropped windows, about a year go, things have become a breeze. It's all the little things, you know what I mean... For instance: I was just reading another thread on the forum, when some dude had opened a small zip file he got on MSN, as soon as he opened the content, his entire system was crippled, and now the entire OS has to be reinstalled. Needless to say, we're talking about windows.

 

8994511[/snapback]

If you use your brains, you will never, and I repeat never get your credit card skimmed or get your computer infected by any virus.

8999166[/snapback]

 

Let's think about the enormous facebook plague that is currently racing across the world. My guess is that more then 80/90% of those users, have no brains. Those are users that would open an EXE, or click a banner that says "you're user one million - click to collect your price!", without giving it a second thought. At least I know a lot of those people myself - average joe's.

 

With Linux is the driver seat, people could still click those banners, without having to worry about being fucked over.

 

 

 

Yeah, you just gotta have some "nettvett". If Linux had been as popular you would have to run anti-virus software as well.

8999418[/snapback]

 

I agree, If linux had been as big as windows is right now, more vulnerabilities would probably exist, however, Linux is built on a base that is far more secure then anything windows uses. Meaning that the risk would still be a lot smaller. (I'm not gonna bother to start a big discussion on that matter, though).

 

Another thing that is great about Linux and security, is that whenever a flaw or security hole is exposed, the developers and the community, will instantly cover it up! I'm talking about a few hours, sometimes a lot less. Why can't microsoft do that? Here's why.

 

Whenever microsoft has to cover up one of their many flaws in one of their crappy OS'es (got personal there), they can't go out and release a patch or fix through windows update before they are absolutely one hudnred percent sure that it does in fact work on all system. They can't risk releasing a patch, or workaround, that conflicts with a previous patch, a service pack or whatever the issue at hand is. They therefore have to spend "years" testing their security update in a shitload of scenarios, to make sure it works properly. A commercial company fucking up on that front, is bad.

 

The linux community has thousands, tens of thousands of developers, contributers, community people and so forth, that help fix problems as soon as they appear.

 

Now... WIth all this said, I think windows is a good OS! It has a lot of nice features, no doubt. However, I strongly feel and believe that there is a better alternative out there, namely Linux!

 

Linux is not yet for everybody, and that's okay.

 

I'm not one of those fanatics that goes out and says: "You suck ass, because you don't use windows". If you want to you windows, thats fine with me, because it's your choice. And yours alone.

9000338[/snapback]

 

Is it just me or do you consequently write Linux with a capital L but Windows and Microsoft uncapitalized?

 

So, this average Joe that keeps clicking banners and links, do you think he would be able to update his kernel when the old one has a huge security hole in it? I thought not:)

 

An by the way, I use Windows so I wouldn't suck anyhow, but you on the other hand as a Linux user would suck if you told me that I sucked if I didn't use Windows. It's probably just a typo, but hey it was a fun one. Points to "skjul".

9006735[/snapback]

 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Linux is not for everyone. (Nor is widnows for that matter).

 

However, as I see you, you're lack of knowledge is actually part of the problem, as to why Linux doesn't gain more ground. You're giving it a bad rep.

 

Why? Because of the "kernel issue" you just mentioned. Do I think the average joe could update his own kernel? Yes. Why? Because it's just as easy as "windows update". A little bubble will pop up on your screen, where it will tell you that "software updates are available". The user just has to click this, click apply - and just wait. Everything is done automatically. You don't actually have to compile everything yourself. By all chances, the average joe won't even realize that he did a kernel update, just as most average joes have noe idea what they're updating when they use windows update.

 

Linux isn't harder then Windows, it's just different.

[cyclo]

Linux isn't harder then Windows, it's just different.

9007981[/snapback]

I would like to point something out. Linux in general is harder to use than windows. I think a more correct statement would be "There are a few linux distros that are just as easy to use as windows".

 

In general most linux distros require more knowledge of their user than windows does, but lately a couple of distros have become closer to windows user experience.

 

These distros however are however often not the choice of more advanced users.

[NikkaYoichi]

Linux isn't harder then Windows, it's just different.

9007981[/snapback]

I would like to point something out. Linux in general is harder to use than windows. I think a more correct statement would be "There are a few linux distros that are just as easy to use as windows".

 

In general most linux distros require more knowledge of their user than windows does, but lately a couple of distros have become closer to windows user experience.

 

These distros however are however often not the choice of more advanced users.

9008048[/snapback]

 

 

Thank you! Again you are one step ahead of pointing out my views, I can soon stop posting.

[Stian89]

Linux isn't harder then Windows, it's just different.

9007981[/snapback]

I would like to point something out. Linux in general is harder to use than windows. I think a more correct statement would be "There are a few linux distros that are just as easy to use as windows".

 

In general most linux distros require more knowledge of their user than windows does, but lately a couple of distros have become closer to windows user experience.

 

These distros however are however often not the choice of more advanced users.

9008048[/snapback]

 

I agree. However, if things had been turned upside down, and windows had just now been trying to make its way onto the desktop, you might have been saying the exact same thing, only about windows instead. I think the reason windows is "so easy", is because it's what we all grew up with (most of us anyway).

Endret 5. juli 2007 av Stian89

[cyclo]

I agree. However, if things had been turned upside down, and windows had just now been trying to make its way onto the desktop, you might have been saying the exact same thing, only about windows instead. I think the reason windows is "so easy", is because it's what we all grew up with (most of us anyway).

9008111[/snapback]

Well that's part of it at least. But one difference is that windows hides everything tricky or dangarous from it's novice users, while *nix doesn't hide anything from anybody.

 

But also remember that unix systems have been arround for ever. They aren't trying to make their way onto the desktop now.

 

Also I wouldn't say that I grew up with windows. I started with comandore 64 and amigaOS and moved my way up through dos, and I've been using *nix longer than I've been using Windows XP. My first *nix experiences where while Win95 was the major OS on the market.

I find that windows is easier to use for simple tasks, while anything more advanced I do on a *nix box. I could easily go over to only using *nix, but I have some software compatability issues there. I use certain applications that just aren't available on the *nix platform.

 

If somebody would make a complete "dummy" distro for linux, I'm sure it would be possible to make a distro that would be much easier for completely new users to use. I think one of the major problems with *nix today is every single distro made for novices isn't really for novices, but for novices and semi-advanced users.

[Stian89]

I agree. However, if things had been turned upside down, and windows had just now been trying to make its way onto the desktop, you might have been saying the exact same thing, only about windows instead. I think the reason windows is "so easy", is because it's what we all grew up with (most of us anyway).

9008111[/snapback]

Well that's part of it at least. But one difference is that windows hides everything tricky or dangarous from it's novice users, while *nix doesn't hide anything from anybody.

 

But also remember that unix systems have been arround for ever. They aren't trying to make their way onto the desktop now.

 

Also I wouldn't say that I grew up with windows. I started with comandore 64 and amigaOS and moved my way up through dos, and I've been using *nix longer than I've been using Windows XP. My first *nix experiences where while Win95 was the major OS on the market.

I find that windows is easier to use for simple tasks, while anything more advanced I do on a *nix box. I could easily go over to only using *nix, but I have some software compatability issues there. I use certain applications that just aren't available on the *nix platform.

 

If somebody would make a complete "dummy" distro for linux, I'm sure it would be possible to make a distro that would be much easier for completely new users to use. I think one of the major problems with *nix today is every single distro made for novices isn't really for novices, but for novices and semi-advanced users.

9008338[/snapback]

 

What you're saying makes a lot of sence, no doubt. I really don't have anything intelligent to say at the moment, nor am I gonna try to come up with something. To bottom line it, I think I agree with you, although we may differ at a few minor issues (not worth mentioning right now.).

[cyclo]

What you're saying makes a lot of sence, no doubt. I really don't have anything intelligent to say at the moment, nor am I gonna try to come up with something. To bottom line it, I think I agree with you, although we may differ at a few minor issues (not worth mentioning right now.).

9008362[/snapback]

I think we do too. But I must admit it nice to have this discussion with somebody who isn't a fanboy. Normally any windows<->linux discussion just makes me fade out and disappear. But our discussion however actually was interesting :)

[Stian89]

What you're saying makes a lot of sence, no doubt. I really don't have anything intelligent to say at the moment, nor am I gonna try to come up with something. To bottom line it, I think I agree with you, although we may differ at a few minor issues (not worth mentioning right now.).

9008362[/snapback]

I think we do too. But I must admit it nice to have this discussion with somebody who isn't a fanboy. Normally any windows<->linux discussion just makes me fade out and disappear. But our discussion however actually was interesting :)

9008405[/snapback]

 

The feeling is mutual.

[Heilage]

Linux isn't harder then Windows, it's just different.

9007981[/snapback]

I would like to point something out. Linux in general is harder to use than windows. I think a more correct statement would be "There are a few linux distros that are just as easy to use as windows".

 

In general most linux distros require more knowledge of their user than windows does, but lately a couple of distros have become closer to windows user experience.

 

These distros however are however often not the choice of more advanced users.

9008048[/snapback]

 

You are correct.

 

But let's not forget, a lot of things in Windows require a lot of experience and knowledge too. Not to mention working in Terminal under OS X.

[cyclo]

Klikk for å se/fjerne innholdet nedenfor

Linux isn't harder then Windows, it's just different.

9007981[/snapback]

I would like to point something out. Linux in general is harder to use than windows. I think a more correct statement would be "There are a few linux distros that are just as easy to use as windows".

 

In general most linux distros require more knowledge of their user than windows does, but lately a couple of distros have become closer to windows user experience.

 

These distros however are however often not the choice of more advanced users.

9008048[/snapback]

You are correct.

 

But let's not forget, a lot of things in Windows require a lot of experience and knowledge too. Not to mention working in Terminal under OS X.

9008644[/snapback]

Of course. My point wasn't that everything can be done really easily in windows. Most advanced features are easier to use in *nix than windows. But the things that most novice users actually would need to be able to do, usually is simpler to do in windows than most linux distros.

[Heilage]

That would be correct, yes. But I think it might be even easier in OS X.

[Lidskjalv]

Totally agree with that. I have had such a great time post XP, it is hard to explain. Sorry MS, your OS is great, no doubt about that, but be aware there is a serious threat lurking in the background, threatening the reign of you OS-empire. And it has just begun. Go Linux.

8994442[/snapback]

 

No, the OS isn't really that great, because it's been static the last six years. It has it's uses, no doubt about it, but for serious and constructive use I find it useless. I have no workflow in Windows.

 

For me, Windows XP has only one use left, and that is my games. Other than that, I run OS X.

9007515[/snapback]

 

Just a curiosity for those who didn't know. Apples OS X is actually Unix-based OS as well, just as Linux/GNU is. And therefore a kind of distro. Besides you have to pay for this one. Too bad certain aspects of personal computing is rather poorly covered in Linux this far. For instance there is not yet any fully substitute for Corel painter IX and Tilt/pressure on my Wacom board, or many of the Adobe applications (ie. Photoshop).

[Lidskjalv]

Linux isn't harder then Windows, it's just different.

9007981[/snapback]

I would like to point something out. Linux in general is harder to use than windows. I think a more correct statement would be "There are a few linux distros that are just as easy to use as windows".

 

In general most linux distros require more knowledge of their user than windows does, but lately a couple of distros have become closer to windows user experience.

 

These distros however are however often not the choice of more advanced users.

9008048[/snapback]

 

I would like to add that the use of a proper setup Linux box differ nothing to normal use of a Windows box. The computer novice would probably never even know. The setup process, on the other hand, when it comes to getting all multimedia, audio and video, windows network and write access to NTFS partitions, mounting disks, folder sharing and Samba configuration etc., will require a patient and experienced user for sure.

 

ED:errs

Endret 5. juli 2007 av pwd3679

[lain]

B7u5WFoK7yY

 

When i can install this straight from the box(cd/dvd) without a concern with drivers and so on, I would give it a go on my laptop. As of now, i find it less of a hassle running windows.

 

Edit2: Wrote edit note in norwegian ^^

Endret 5. juli 2007 av lain

[Stian89]

B7u5WFoK7yY

 

When i can install this straight from the box(cd/dvd) without a concern with drivers and so on, I would give it a go on my laptop. As of now, i find it less of a hassle running windows.

 

Edit2: Wrote edit note in norwegian ^^

9010298[/snapback]

 

You already can. Ubuntu 7.04 har compiz bulit in.

 

If you can wait just a little while longer 7.10 will come out, with and Compiz Fusion will be included. Fusion is a merge of beryl (your video), and compiz (best of both worlds) - which makes it great. I'm running it on my 7.04 box right now, it required about 2 minutes of pasting a few lines into a terminal. If you don't wanna use those two minutes, you won't have to in 7.10.

 

As far as drivers goes, the only thing you need is those that fit your graphics card. Ubuntu will detect your card automatically, suggest the appropriate driver, and all you have to do is click "enable", and it will be installed and configured automatically "under the hood".

 

Edit.

 

Of course this doesn't just go for Ubuntu, but a lot of other distroes as well. Not to mention that there has been a one-click-install capability for Compiz out for ages!

 

Here's a few links you might wanna look into.

Video demonstration of Compiz Fusion:

 

 

Also: https://www.diskusjon.no/index.php?showtopic=787296

 

 

Edit 2.

The setup process, on the other hand, when it comes to getting all multimedia, audio and video, windows network and write access to NTFS partitions, mounting disks, folder sharing and Samba configuration etc., will require a patient and experienced user for sure.

I get sort of sad when i read those kind of things. A distro such as ubuntu will give you all those features out of the box, although in 7.04 you will have to click "apply", and agree to install proprietary drivers on your machine, i.e. multimedia codecs, dvd support and so on.

 

The way it works, is you open say an mp3 file without having the proper codec, ubuntu will tell you that you need to install for instance the gstreamer (codec pack), and all you do is press "apply".

 

Of course you can still do this the way you described, through configuring and setting it up yourself, it is however no longer not the ONLY way to do it.

 

Get your facts straight. A shitload of "common problems" with Linux has been resolved over the past couple of years or so.

 

As far as sharing, network and all the other stuff you mention goes, it's all part of the out-of-the-box experience.

 

Edit3.

 

Another thing... just as an example. I recently found an 8 year old laptop that I brought home with me. I installed xUbuntu on it without a single problem, and on first boot i had graphics support (as far as that old crappy graphics card could handle), networking worked fine, sound, correct resolution, PCMCIA ports, USB, mousepad and basically all else you usually have to spend quite some time dealing with when installing a fresh batch of windows. Can you imagine the hassle, having to locate the manufacturers website for each freaking component, downloading the exe's, installing, rebooting, fiddling around like crazy.

 

Edit... again.

 

Yes, I know this makes me look like one of those "I hate windows" people, it's not the case, I just like pointing out that Linux isn't always the hassle people believe it to be.

Endret 5. juli 2007 av Stian89

[lain]

Nice, i didnt know that, guess i have to look into what kind of hardware i need to run Ubuntu 7.10.

 

*goes off to bookmark ubuntu homepage.

[Stian89]

Nice, i didnt know that, guess i have to look into what kind of hardware i need to run Ubuntu 7.10.

 

*goes off to bookmark ubuntu homepage.

9011412[/snapback]

 

You don't need anything, so to speak. If it can run windows, it can run Linux. (Of course there are hardware exceptions, but they're not common.)

 

As a comparison, you could run Compiz Fusion for instance on Ubuntu 7.10 on hardware that is several years old, regardless of what you might think,

does not require any particularly new or expensive hardware (unlike the big ass memory/hardware drain that is, you guessed it, Vista.)

 

 

Endret 5. juli 2007 av Stian89

[Arinomi]

Ubuntu is a very light system. It takes some time to load at bootstrap, but it is working smooth enough for me

[lain]

The final release of Ubunto 7,10 Gutsy Gibbon is expected to be done october 2007.

 

Doh, thats a long wait.

 

How is it to install the server version of ubunto, on a pc that has been running windows 2003 server for the last 5 years? Thinking mainly on getting access to all the drives and shareing the folders with stuff and getting remote access from another computer.

 

The last part is the biggest factor, since my server is standing in a corner in the basement without a monitor.

 

Seems there is a lot of linux talk here now, if people want us to stop, and go to the "real" forum for it, say so. But dont look like other people have much to talk about, so I tought I keep the chat going.

[Heilage]

Just a curiosity for those who didn't know. Apples OS X is actually Unix-based OS as well, just as Linux/GNU is. And therefore a kind of distro. Besides you have to pay for this one. Too bad certain aspects of personal computing is rather poorly covered in Linux this far. For instance there is not yet any fully substitute for Corel painter IX and Tilt/pressure on my Wacom board, or many of the Adobe applications (ie. Photoshop).

9010018[/snapback]

 

That's where the big hitch lies for me, since I'm a graphic designer I depend on software like Photoshop and Flash CS3, which isn't possible to run on any other *nix-based distros.

 

Ofcourse OS X is a distro, but I'd say that OS X has a certain higher lever of user-friendliniess than for example Ubuntu.