NationStates Jolt Archive

People giving up their time and effort for free, to obtain things. This actually applies to the Open Source movement in general.

Discuss.

What is Linux?

What is Linux?

It's a sort of wild cat, a communist wild cat apparently.

Linux is rubbish for playing games on (if you get a windows emulator, you have defeated the point of Linux), most open source games are a shower of shite, but OpenOffice is excellent. There we go.

Also how is it communism? It's more like "people being bored and occupying their time and YOU can benefit, hurrah"

It's a sort of wild cat, a communist wild cat apparently.

Is it venomous?

People giving up their time and effort for free, to obtain things. This actually applies to the Open Source movement in general.

Discuss.

What's there to discuss? Loads of people enjoy computer programming. Some programming enthusiasts decided to distribute their work for free. So what?

OpenOffice is excellent.

Eh, I'm using that at the moment. I hate it, it's just a glitchy word.

Eh, I'm using that at the moment. I hate it, it's just a glitchy word.
It's not that glitchy for me :confused:

Also the interface is far less rubbish than the latest Office stuff.

if you get a windows emulator, you have defeated the point of Linux

Maybe if the only thing you ever do with computers is play games ...

It's not that glitchy for me :confused:


Well it is for me. The main problem however is that it's still not fully compatible with normal .doc word documents (which accounts for 99% of the stuff I receive and send). Whenever I export my open office work as microsoft word format (so I can print it in the library and send it to people), everything is always messed up, so I have to spend ages fixing all the faults on the page.

Maybe if the only thing you ever do with computers is play games ...
And write essays. And surf the internet. What else is there really to do?
Well it is for me. The main problem however is that it's still not fully compatible with normal .doc word documents (which accounts for 99% of the stuff I receive and send). Whenever I export my open office work as microsoft word format (so I can print it in the library and send it to people), everything is always messed up, so I have to spend ages fixing all the faults on the page.
Aye the captions are a pure ballache when Word opens them, to be fair.

Eh, I'm using that at the moment. I hate it, it's just a glitchy word.

I've had entire documents entirely disappear out of the blue.

And write essays. And surf the internet. What else is there really to do?

Oh, silly Microsoft user, don't you know that you could be spending your time using the terminal to partition your hard drives and edit your boot loader files with Linux? You're missing out on a lot.

I've had entire documents entirely disappear out of the blue.

Wut?

And write essays. And surf the internet. What else is there really to do?

... never mind, then.

Is it venomous?

Seems to be something else, shame since I've been waiting a long time to discuss communist wildcats.

Wut?

Everything in the document went kaboom and disappeared after OO crashed IIRC. The file still existed on the disk, but was now empty (you would expect at least the last saved copy to be there, but nooo..)

I've had entire documents entirely disappear out of the blue.



Oh, silly Microsoft user, don't you know that you could be spending your time using the terminal to partition your hard drives and edit your boot loader files with Linux? You're missing out on a lot.

Lolwut?

I use the wonderful Gparted to partition. I also had to edit my boot loader files in Windows manually.

What is Linux?

Well, I could be wrong, but I believe Linux is an old, old wooden ship that was used during the Civil War era.

Everything in the document went kaboom and disappeared after OO crashed IIRC. The file still existed on the disk, but was now empty (you would expect at least the last saved copy to be there, but nooo..)

Hmmm... *takes a note*

C++ pisses me off. I'm a dumbass, you don't have to tell me.

And write essays. And surf the internet. What else is there really to do?

Aye the captions are a pure ballache when Word opens them, to be fair.

Writing essays? You said OO.o works for you.

Surfing the Internet? I'm getting along find with Opera, which is admittadley closed-source, however whenever I have to use a site that isn't compatible (a quirk of the program, it's the same with the Windoze version), I'll load up what happens to be the most popular open-source program, Firefox.

Lolwut?

I use the wonderful Gparted to partition. I also had to edit my boot loader files in Windows manually.

Linux users frequently try to convert windows users. Yet, for personal computing, Linux doesn't really offer all too much more...If you're into doing technical stuff and actually learning how computers work, Linux is for you, but what else does linux really offer that would require people go through all the muck needed to learn it over windows?

Writing essays? You said OO.o works for you.
Uhu. I write about 12 properly meaty essays a year. That leaves me with 353.25 spare days to fill my time.
Surfing the Internet? I'm getting along find with Opera, which is admittadley closed-source, however whenever I have to use a site that isn't compatible (a quirk of the program, it's the same with the Windoze version), I'll load up what happens to be the most popular open-source program, Firefox.
Have been using Firefox for years. I just like Windows XP and unashamedly will do so for some time. It's great for gaming and everything works on it.

Uhu. I write about 12 properly meaty essays a year. That leaves me with 353.25 spare days to fill my time.

I'll shoot myself if I ever have to write another. :(

Linux users frequently try to convert windows users. Yet, for personal computing, Linux doesn't really offer all too much more...If you're into doing technical stuff and actually learning how computers work, Linux is for you, but what else does linux really offer that would require people go through all the muck needed to learn it over windows?

Muck you need to learn? I'm running PCLinuxOS, it took me 20 minutes to install what it takes XP 3 hours at least.

It took me two days to get adapted to Linux over Windows which I had been using for years. There is very little muck.

C++ pisses me off. I'm a dumbass, you don't have to tell me.

But ... what does that have to do with linux?

Eh, I'm using that at the moment. I hate it, it's just a glitchy word.

Wouldn't that cancel out?

A glitchy Word.. would be a redundancy, wouldn't it?

Muck you need to learn? I'm running PCLinuxOS, it took me 20 minutes to install what it takes XP 3 hours at least.

It took me two days to get adapted to Linux over Windows which I had been using for years. There is very little muck.

And the average user understands how to mount & burn ISOs, what a "partition" is, what the bootloader is, what a swap file is...all standard Linuxite stuff. Just look at linux help forums. They can't resist providing a solution that tersely uses the terminal or shell.

And then there's all the compatibility issues one needs to get through...

Uhu. I write about 12 properly meaty essays a year. That leaves me with 353.25 spare days to fill my time.

Have been using Firefox for years. I just like Windows XP and unashamedly will do so for some time. It's great for gaming and everything works on it.

Everything works on my particular distro. It loaded bluetooth, WiFi, detected ethernet, videocard. Everything.

And the average user understands how to mount & burn ISOs, what a "partition" is, what the bootloader is, what a swap file is...all standard Linuxite stuff. Just look at linux help forums. They can't resist providing a solution that tersely uses the terminal or shell.

And then there's all the compatibility issues one needs to get through...

I set partitioning on automatic. You can order free Linux distro cds if you don't feel you're upto mounting and burning.

And the average user understands how to mount & burn ISOs, what a "partition" is, what the bootloader is, what a swap file is...all standard Linuxite stuff.

I'm a complete fucking n00b, and even I know that...

But ... what does that have to do with linux?

It doesn't. That's why I'm a dumbass? Sorry, just to add this: Open source shit pisses me off. Another computer would probably solve that problem, but I'm a cheap Jew.

It doesn't. That's why I'm a dumbass? Sorry, just to add this: Open source shit pisses me off. Another computer would probably solve that problem, but I'm a cheap Jew.

What browser are you using?

I'm a complete fucking n00b, and even I know that...

I've had to direct people on how to navigate a torrent site before. Never underestimate the incompetence of the computer pleb.

It would be communist if the government had told those people they could do that.

I've had to direct people on how to navigate a torrent site before. Never underestimate the incompetence of the computer pleb.

You'd have to direct me, too. Never done it.

Told you. I am the pleb. :)

It would be communist if the government had told those people they could do that.

(Government involvement isn't required for communism)

So people getting together to work on a project they find interesting without expectation of compensation beyond the project itself is communism? What the hell do you need a revolution for, then? People do that all the time and have been for as long as we've been capable of doing so.

What browser are you using?

...

...

...Firefox...:$

It would be communist if the government had told those people they could do that.

Tux also isn't russian.

So people getting together to work on a project they find interesting without expectation of compensation beyond the project itself is communism? What the hell do you need a revolution for, then? People do that all the time and have been for as long as we've been capable of doing so.

I know >_>

I think One-O-One is mixing 'Communism' with 'Communalism'.

...

...

...Firefox...:$

Don't worry, in case you said Internet Explorer, I had a reponse ready.

"Have fun with your viruses then." :wink:

I know >_>

I think One-O-One is mixing 'Communism' with 'Communalism'.

Yeah, show me people getting together to collectively clean toilets or file TPS reports for no compensation other than a job well done and I might reconsider my viewpoint.

Don't worry, in case you said Internet Explorer, I had a reponse ready.

"Have fun with your viruses then." :wink:

Put it this way: I have stuff to do. I am active duty. If I had time to dedicate to it, then maybe I would consider screwing around with a linux kernel. I need the prepackaged crap that Microsoft offers at the expense of versatility. btw Firefox does not keep the viruses off of my porn. ;)

btw Firefox does not keep the viruses off of my porn. ;)

It does on mine, somehow. :0

It does on mine, somehow. :0

I'm a riskl taker when it comes to searching for porn. I've gone through 5 hard drives. I'm cerial.

I'm a riskl taker when it comes to searching for porn. I've gone through 5 hard drives. I'm cerial.

You know, there comes a time when it's cheaper to buy porn.

I'm a riskl taker when it comes to searching for porn. I've gone through 5 hard drives. I'm cerial.

Shouldn't you just reformat when you can't get rid of infection? If you don't, just send your next ones my way.;)

You know, there comes a time when it's cheaper to buy porn.

Or steal it from your dad.

I'm a riskl taker when it comes to searching for porn. I've gone through 5 hard drives. I'm cerial.

You know, there comes a time when it's cheaper to buy porn.

Or bookmark virus-free ones. Dear god, man, how much porn do you plow through?

Hahaha. Oh, the bad puns.

Shouldn't you just reformat when you can't get rid of infection? If you don't, just send your next ones my way.;)

I've managed to kick the habit. I got the real thing in Japan. Shwing!

Put it this way: I have stuff to do. I am active duty. If I had time to dedicate to it, then maybe I would consider screwing around with a linux kernel. I need the prepackaged crap that Microsoft offers at the expense of versatility. btw Firefox does not keep the viruses off of my porn. ;)

Honestly, touch the linux kernel? I've never done something of the sort. As I said before, I installed this OS faster than I did XP, and it didn't involve five minutes of typing a hexadecimal code in an attempt to be "licenced".

Or bookmark virus-free ones. Dear god, man, how much porn do you plow through?

Hahaha. Oh, the bad puns.

I've been using internet porn for nine years and I can say honestly I have never had a virus on any computer I have ever owned.

Honestly, touch the linux kernel? I've never done something of the sort. As I said before, I installed this OS faster than I did XP, and it didn't involve five minutes of typing a hexadecimal code in an attempt to be "licenced".

Can you play most new video games without extensive modding? It's not something I've really looked into.

I've been using internet porn for nine years and I can say honestly I have never had a virus on any computer I have ever owned.

Ah.



So you download porn on other people's computers?

:D

I've been using internet porn for nine years and I can say honestly I have never had a virus on any computer I have ever owned.

I was referring to One-O-One. Multi-quote just came at the worst time.

It would be communist if the government had told those people they could do that.

No, because Communism is anarchist.

The notion of a "Communist government" is oxymoronic. Standard Marxist theory holds that the capitalist stage is followed by a socialist stage, which necessarily involves a very active government. This is only a transitory period, until the proletariat is able to seize direct control of the means of production themselves, abolishing the state altogether.

No, Linux and Open Source is not really Communism. It's about competition of ideas, letting the better approach win out without being at the mercy of a commercial interest which may promote it well or badly, commission it well or badly, or cripple its potential to keep their commercial handle on it. It's about how software works being right out there in the open, for the appreciation or criticism of others in the field. Instead of monetary reward, contributors get recognition of at least their effort, and of their excellence if they are so.

Social competition is the root. Just as it is of capitalism really -- a large part of consumption is about showing off, the satisfaction of the nice things we can buy doesn't just reside in their being comfortable or shiny or entertaining or even empowering, it's in their status as trophies.

Recognition is just as much a trophy as is money in the pocket. No Communism there. Competition.

Even in a career sense, there are benefits to contributing to Open Source. You get name recognition and practical experience both in making a workable product and in collaborating with other developers. You get to see just how good you are, it's right there for anyone to read in your code. It's got your name on it, not the name of some company that paid you to do the work.

If I could have the fame of Linus Torvalds, or the money of Steve Jobs, I'd take the fame. But I can't, because I don't have the talent either for coding or for business.

And why don't I compare the fame of Torvalds with the money of Bill Gates? Because the Gates of Open Source hasn't emerged yet. Perhaps s/he is one of you.

Linus Torvalds gets to collect royalties for the collaborative work of thousands of unpaid workers. Yup, sounds communism to me.

Well it is for me. The main problem however is that it's still not fully compatible with normal .doc word documents (which accounts for 99% of the stuff I receive and send). Whenever I export my open office work as microsoft word format (so I can print it in the library and send it to people), everything is always messed up, so I have to spend ages fixing all the faults on the page.

Print it to a PDF file. Then everyone can see it exactly like you made it.

http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/motivational_linux.jpg

This sums Linux up perfectly.

It's about competition of ideas, letting the better approach win out without being at the mercy of a commercial interest which may promote it well or badly, commission it well or badly, or cripple its potential to keep their commercial handle on it.
Unfortunately the lack of commercialism causes certain peculiar idiosyncrasies to appear in most Open Source projects, like the insatiable quest of creating new features while previous features are badly incomplete and/or, at the very minimum, barely usable (usually due to horrendous...or worse...user interface). :D


Let's face it, unless you're comfortable using command line, manually editing configuration files and googling out a LOT of basic usage help, which is usually applicable as is only for that particular distro, Linux is not for you unless you happen to luck out and have completely compatible hardware and keep your usage simple by creating text documents and browsing the web with the default software that came with your Distro-Of-Choice (do hope it has automatic updates as well). ;)

If you still decide to venture into the realms of opensource, start by getting opensource software to your Windows or Mac: Big portion of the free software also has Windows and Mac binaries/installers available like Openoffice, VLC player, GIMP (= ze paint program), GNU Compilers, etc.. Not forgetting the overused Firefox - That opensource variant of Internet Explorer :p

If you still want to venture deeper afterwards...then try various Linux distros using LiveCDs/DVDs to see which fits you and your computer the best - Just don't be surprised when the differences between distros are bigger than difference between eg. Win 98 and XP and that while other changes are purely cosmetic from the user's persepctive (eg. slapt-get install vs. apt-get install vs apt-get --install) you still need to find out what works on the distro you're trying.

You will also probably need to try out or google pre-installed software in order to find out their purpose as the naming scheme can occassionally be quite non-descriptive (eg. Dolphin is a file explorer/manager, not sealife encyclopedia and Samba is Windows network filesharing, not some sort of music jukebox ) and, of course, that such pre-installed software is oft tied to specific distro or window manager or desktop environment or.... ;) OTOH occassionally that piece of software is available - and even installed by default - across most distros...

One more thing is freedom of choice: Most distros pack - by default - more than one tool for one job and quite often each of these tools has a feature - sometimes a critical feature - or two the other tools lack (eg. EMACS vs rest of the Linux software :fluffle:). Then when you fire up the package manager (depending on the distro) don't be surprised to find a dozen, a hundred more tools for the same job (eg. media playing).


Now, if you're still onboard the opensource train you can enjoy great features like package management (simply awesome, for that matter someone should create something similar to Windows as well), stability (kernel wise, X is entirely different ballgame), security (well, sort of), indepth customizability/tweakability (just don't expect it to have a graphical interface...), freedom from commercial aspects (ALSO a downside), free code (ALSO a downside, esp. if distro by default enforces it which creates problems with closed code hardware drivers, programs & repositories) and huge library of software for - quite literally - all sorts of purposes (depending on the distro...). :)

btw. X - esp. installing closed drivers and configuration - is from the Satan(tm)

I have used Linux fairly often. It is pretty good. The point always comes back to it is Free. I suppose but how many times a day do you switch back into Windows. Mine was every few hour maybe even 5 or 6 times a day. Drivers are pain. Some programs just just plain won't work or require adapters. I don't think it is worth the effort. there are some program that work better in Linux but very few.

Unfortunately the lack of commercialism causes certain peculiar idiosyncrasies to appear in most Open Source projects, like the insatiable quest of creating new features while previous features are badly incomplete and/or, at the very minimum, barely usable (usually due to horrendous...or worse...user interface). :D


Let's face it, unless you're comfortable using command line, manually editing configuration files and googling out a LOT of basic usage help, which is usually applicable as is only for that particular distro, Linux is not for you unless you happen to luck out and have completely compatible hardware and keep your usage simple by creating text documents and browsing the web with the default software that came with your Distro-Of-Choice (do hope it has automatic updates as well). ;)

If you still decide to venture into the realms of opensource, start by getting opensource software to your Windows or Mac: Big portion of the free software also has Windows and Mac binaries/installers available like Openoffice, VLC player, GIMP (= ze paint program), GNU Compilers, etc.. Not forgetting the overused Firefox - That opensource variant of Internet Explorer :p

If you still want to venture deeper afterwards...then try various Linux distros using LiveCDs/DVDs to see which fits you and your computer the best - Just don't be surprised when the differences between distros are bigger than difference between eg. Win 98 and XP and that while other changes are purely cosmetic from the user's persepctive (eg. slapt-get install vs. apt-get install vs apt-get --install) you still need to find out what works on the distro you're trying.

You will also probably need to try out or google pre-installed software in order to find out their purpose as the naming scheme can occassionally be quite non-descriptive (eg. Dolphin is a file explorer/manager, not sealife encyclopedia and Samba is Windows network filesharing, not some sort of music jukebox ) and, of course, that such pre-installed software is oft tied to specific distro or window manager or desktop environment or.... ;) OTOH occassionally that piece of software is available - and even installed by default - across most distros...

One more thing is freedom of choice: Most distros pack - by default - more than one tool for one job and quite often each of these tools has a feature - sometimes a critical feature - or two the other tools lack (eg. EMACS vs rest of the Linux software :fluffle:). Then when you fire up the package manager (depending on the distro) don't be surprised to find a dozen, a hundred more tools for the same job (eg. media playing).


Now, if you're still onboard the opensource train you can enjoy great features like package management (simply awesome, for that matter someone should create something similar to Windows as well), stability (kernel wise, X is entirely different ballgame), security (well, sort of), indepth customizability/tweakability (just don't expect it to have a graphical interface...), freedom from commercial aspects (ALSO a downside), free code (ALSO a downside, esp. if distro by default enforces it which creates problems with closed code hardware drivers, programs & repositories) and huge library of software for - quite literally - all sorts of purposes (depending on the distro...). :)

btw. X - esp. installing closed drivers and configuration - is from the Satan(tm)

1st, there are more user-friendly versions of Linux (Red Hat, I believe). Also, Firefox is a not a variant of Internet Explorer, though it is a web browser, it is closer to a variant of Netscape Navigator.

And for whoever says gaming sucks on a Linux, it wouldn't, but due to lack of customers using Linux, most companies do not produce games for it. However, if they would it would actually run better, as the overhead RAM used is paltry compared to Windows. But that's what you get with a bare-bones OS.

Oh, and not many viruses are made for Linux, because there is, again, little user base, and those that do use it are generally programmers and hackers. The type of person who are not only well-protected, but it's possible that they can send a more effective virus back to you.

I have used Linux fairly often. It is pretty good. The point always comes back to it is Free. I suppose but how many times a day do you switch back into Windows. Mine was every few hour maybe even 5 or 6 times a day. Drivers are pain. Some programs just just plain won't work or require adapters. I don't think it is worth the effort. there are some program that work better in Linux but very few.

Eh, I took the plunge and installed PCLinuxOS on my laptop I bought from my brother. It's designed to be easy to install for newbies (though I have some experience with Terminal via a computing course I've done), and has large amounts of support. It actually has a site to check compatability.

http://www.dba-oracle.com/images/motivational_linux.jpg

This sums Linux up perfectly.

Do you use Linux? Because if you don't, you're not really qualified to comment.

Your view is a outside one stuck back in 2002, lots has changed since then.

How do I get a job selling Linux? It seems like the future and I'd like to get in on the ground floor.

There's plenty of good free stuff on windows too, such as Fraxy, Angband/ToME/etc., Dwarf Fortress, and so on.

How do I get a job selling Linux? It seems like the future and I'd like to get in on the ground floor.

I know it's a joke, but Google Redhat Linux, they don't sell the software, they sell support.

1st, there are more user-friendly versions of Linux (Red Hat, I believe).
I suspect you're still better off with command line than with whatever patched on GUI front-ends that come along. ;)
Also, Firefox is a not a variant of Internet Explorer
The italics and the smiley were there to mean that while they have nothing in common per se, the basic usage and most used features between them are very similar.

It's also the Other Browser - You either use IE or Firefox or suffer from incompatibility regardless of standards. :(
And for whoever says gaming sucks on a Linux, it wouldn't
It might because Linux simply doesn't have good and solid audio, video and game controller hardware support.

There's also no single DirectX equivalent interface available.
However, if they would it would actually run better
That greatly depends on background software that's running, which can be quite a heftly load on default install - Both on average Linux distro and Windows.
as the overhead RAM used is paltry compared to Windows.
Xorg can be a memory hog and Linux is a poor swapper as well. :)

Unfortunately the lack of commercialism causes certain peculiar idiosyncrasies to appear in most Open Source projects, like the insatiable quest of creating new features while previous features are badly incomplete and/or, at the very minimum, barely usable (usually due to horrendous...or worse...user interface). :D

That's true enough. Everyone wants the glory of being an "inventor" but there's less glamour in fixing bugs or trying to hammer out standards to use. Even more thankless is the non-coding administrative work like legal defence or the representation of non-commercial software interests to lawmakers.

But in the long term, privacy and ownership issues will make a real historical difference. Yes, Linux has to stay in the game with word processors, games, etc ... but five years later old software is just old software. It obsoletes quickly.

When you choose Linux over Windows, you choose principle over practicality. IF, and it's a big if, one or other of those becomes the core of future software* there will be two very different worlds for the user. (a) Difficult computing, which requires learning and choices, but in which all users participate in development, if only by their choices. Strenuous liberty! Or (b) Intuitive computing, without learning or choice, where any criticism of the milieu is dismissed with "go back to the cave." Bondage with ease!

Two different worlds. (a) The Linux world, where we own our Operating System and a suite of basic tools as we own the roads, cooperatively with others, restricted in our rights to protect the rights of others. (b) The Windows world, where we own nothing, not even the hardware in our house or our palm or our implant, where the adjunct to a mind which we call a computer remains the intellectual property of corporations, and it serves our wills only as long as we pay, and thereby serve those corporate interests.


What more oft in Nations grown corrupt
And by their vices brought to servitude,
Than to love Bondage more than Liberty
Bondage with ease than strenuous Liberty.

*(a start-from-scratch OS is still possible, with elements of both: remuneration for coding work, but also publicly agreed standards and user-modifiable code. It may even be required, to be compatible with open source hardware)


Let's face it, unless you're comfortable using command line, manually editing configuration files and googling out a LOT of basic usage help, which is usually applicable as is only for that particular distro, Linux is not for you unless you happen to luck out and have completely compatible hardware
That should not be a matter of luck, but of design.
Many manufacturers value the nerdy and therefore influential Linux/Unix user base, small though it is, and release open-source drivers of comparable quality to the Windows ones.
Myself, when considering a hardware purchase, do a google on the prominent options to find which has the best Linux support.
Eventually, that shouldn't even be necessary. Open-source drivers can be reconfigured to different libraries and recompiled, and the only purpose to closed-source drivers is to protect the secrets of closed-source hardware. Such hardware is being driven to extinction by the need for compatibility, hardware interoperability as defined by IEEE standards.
That's a long view of course. Chipmakers still have a lot of sway in defining standards. But consider what has happened to motherboard manufacturers -- they compete mainly on reliability, and the primary difference between two boards is the chipset. They're manufacturers ... factory owners. If they can compete purely on the basis of how well their factory works, and leave the choice of chipset to the consumer, and leave the definition of interoperability standards to an industry-and-public standards board ... why wouldn't they?
That will happen to chipmakers too. It's Mac v. PC (and no, I don't mean Mac v. Windows.) "Vertical integration" -- Mac OS only on a branded Mac, Windows on any generic standards-compliant PC -- utterly failed for Mac. They fucking died, limping from the foot of "Mac OS is better" to the foot of "Mac boxes are better." The bottom line was that a Windows PC was more bang for the buck, because the software company did what it knew best and left making the boxes to all comers. It might have been different if IBM had bought the rights to Windows and tried to maintain a monopoly on both hardware and software.

Microsoft are a copyright-dependant company. They're going to die. Copyright-dependant industries aren't viable now, let alone in the future. They got a stake through their hearts with the 14.4k modem and are staggering along zombie-like into a tooled-up battlefield of promiscuous wireless devices and privacy in the armour of encryption. Grand capitalism, competition on the large scale, dictates that it should have its zombie head blown off before it bites every other industry and turns them into lumbering dinosaurs too.

Smart money should be going to what takes their place, which isn't necessarily Linux. We need, and we will get, ownership of our computers, and of every scrap of their OS. We need, and will get, ownership in the strong sense: the right to dispose how we please of the object, to modify or destroy it, to misrepresent it as own own creation, to use it even unlawfully.

And that's how Windows will fail. They will tie themselves to copyright, to the corruption of common-law property rights to serve an increasingly invasive "copy" right ... and the users will walk away. Give us what we paid for ... or we will take some substitute without paying, even if it means learning command-line.

and keep your usage simple by creating text documents and browsing the web with the default software that came with your Distro-Of-Choice (do hope it has automatic updates as well). ;)

Keeping your usage simple is a virtue. It's like having a tidy room -- have only what you need.

If you still decide to venture into the realms of opensource, start by getting opensource software to your Windows or Mac: Big portion of the free software also has Windows and Mac binaries/installers available like Openoffice, VLC player, GIMP (= ze paint program), GNU Compilers, etc..

I agree with that. Sure, very few people read the code of their Open Source tool they just downloaded. Unless it's been around for a while, there's no assurance that it isn't ebil just because someone else could have checked it line for line.

OpenOffice has a big company behind it, who invested heavily in both it and in Linux. Their reputation is some protection. VLC has VideoLAN, good rep but nothing like the stake of Sun. GIMP is an excellent example -- a really open development process and wide contributor base. GNU anything is irreproachable. Those are all good recommendations for a Windows user needing something for free.

Not forgetting the overused Firefox - That opensource variant of Internet Explorer :p

What's your beef?

If you still want to venture deeper afterwards...then try various Linux distros using LiveCDs/DVDs to see which fits you and your computer the best - Just don't be surprised when the differences between distros are bigger than difference between eg. Win 98 and XP and that while other changes are purely cosmetic from the user's persepctive (eg. slapt-get install vs. apt-get install vs apt-get --install) you still need to find out what works on the distro you're trying.

LiveCD's are an excellent option for trying out Linux, yes.

I think a lot of potential Linux converts were lost when the install failed and whacked their Windows installation. That's a lot less likely to happen nowdays ... and impossible if you run Linux only from the CD.

Credit to MS for that, too. Installing windows used to default to formatting the whole first disk, but it now recognizes a Linux installation and leaves it alone if there's empty space. I think it even puts a loader for it in its own boot menu?

I used to be a nut for multibooting. IIRC, I had Windows 95, 98, NT, Linux Redhat, Mandrake, FreeBSD and OpenBSD all on the same disk, with Lilo for the bootloader. Of course, I only used two or three of them, the others I just started up once to check they worked. ;)


You will also probably need to try out or google pre-installed software in order to find out their purpose as the naming scheme can occassionally be quite non-descriptive (eg. Dolphin is a file explorer/manager, not sealife encyclopedia and Samba is Windows network filesharing, not some sort of music jukebox ) and, of course, that such pre-installed software is oft tied to specific distro or window manager or desktop environment or.... ;) OTOH occassionally that piece of software is available - and even installed by default - across most distros...

Oh come on. It's not that hard. Freshmeat has pretty explicit descriptions of what software is for.

And as to cross-distro problems, it's usually about either the installer (apt or rpm) Install some extra libraries and set the local environment for those packages that need them.

You're right. But if you consider how much better it has gotten, it's just a matter of time before a package manager will automate it all, installer libraries kernel version everything.

The worst of it is when a package needs something from a new kernel, and you don't want the damn testing kernel for anything else. But shit, compare that with "this software [which you bought] is not compatible with Windows Vista."

It's the two worlds I mentioned in my first passage. (a) You can do this, but it will be a ball-tearing pain. (b) Go back to the shop. They might give you a free upgrade.

One more thing is freedom of choice: Most distros pack - by default - more than one tool for one job and quite often each of these tools has a feature - sometimes a critical feature - or two the other tools lack (eg. EMACS vs rest of the Linux software :fluffle:). Then when you fire up the package manager (depending on the distro) don't be surprised to find a dozen, a hundred more tools for the same job (eg. media playing).

Freedom of choice ... having to decide which one you like better. Terrufying isn't it?

EMACS is indeed an icon of Open Source. It's almost tragic to see how much work went into making an editor ... but it's sort of cheering too. Before everyone expected buttons and moving pictures (when the interface was all text) an editor was the most important application. Next step up from the OS, the thing which had to work and which you turned to first if you needed to do anything inside a file.

Tragic, because few people use an editor enough to learn EMACS. I prefer it to vi, but for most things (eg plain text) I prefer joe. I've forgotten most of the keystrokes for EMACS.

Cheering, because one day our current software will be evaluated for craftsmanship, like antiques. And we can tell old-codgerly tales about how we actually used EMACS for sweeping chimneys or shoeing a horse. : )

Now, if you're still onboard the opensource train you can enjoy great features like package management (simply awesome, for that matter someone should create something similar to Windows as well), stability (kernel wise, X is entirely different ballgame), security (well, sort of),

Um, hang on. It's security to the limits of your competence.
There is really no limit to how secure you can make a Linux box. It's up to you to draw the line of how much functionality you sacrifice, and how much time you put in learning. The actual configuration is a fraction of that.

Principle again. Neither you nor I can be certain of the effect of every line of code which runs on our computers. Open Source says that anyone can, Closed Source says that only the copyright owner can. Decompiling narrows the gap, but the gap is still there, because a compiler is deterministic but a decompiler just guesses.

You can't say the same for a Windows box, that you can understand and alter every aspect of its behaviour. Because there is a barrier you can't cross, which is reading the source of the kernel.

It comes down to who you trust. Trust the copyright owner of a closed source app on your open source box, and you risk everything. Trust the OS copyright owner on your box, you risk everything. But which one can you do without?

The OS has to be open-source. Ultimately, the hardware has to be open-source (anyone can build a copy -- slower, bigger, using more power perhaps -- and test it with various inputs against its open-source definition) or else you are essentially trusting the biggest gorilla in the room. Never a good strategy.

You have to trust the hardware, and you have to trust the OS. They're the things you can't do without. Applications you can avoid, even a web-browser -- you could wget the page and read it in EMACS with tags all over it if you had to.

The stakes are high. It's privacy, it's knowledge, it's ownership. It's the power which comes from knowledge, and it's the very freedom of our minds and the course of history which is at stake.

... indepth customizability/tweakability (just don't expect it to have a graphical interface...), freedom from commercial aspects (ALSO a downside), free code (ALSO a downside, esp. if distro by default enforces it which creates problems with closed code hardware drivers, programs & repositories) and huge library of software for - quite literally - all sorts of purposes (depending on the distro...). :)

Yep, Linux has downsides. It's a matter of principle, and principle wins in the end.

To say otherwise is to see history as nothing but the repetition of mistakes. Let's not make a religion of Operating Systems ... let's not make Ineffability of the workings of our intellect (workings in which machines play a growing role) by allowing a weak principle like copyright (exclusive ownership of ideas) to dictate how and what we can think or say.


btw. X - esp. installing closed drivers and configuration - is from the Satan(tm)

What's your beef with X?

Closed drivers are bad, yea. Closed config scripts are very bad. Both are the fault of manufacturers, and easily remedied by not buying their damn product.

But X?

Keep in mind, however, that Windows is sharkproof (http://www.xkcd.com/349/).

Linux (pronounced [ˈlaɪnʌks] if you're a retard, [ˈlɪnəks] if you get laid all the time) is an umbrella term for a collection of useless operating systems (OSs) commonly used by 12-year-old snobs desperate to appear "1337" in front of other 12-year-old social misfits. It is free as in "free beer", and is the only operating system which allows one to engage in OS wars with people who use the same operating system, a feature that has revolutionized Slashdot since its inception.

Linux is an illegitimate child of Unix. She claims to have remembered nothing about it except an strange extension called "infiltrate.exe".

Uncylopedia speaketh true.

If your on-die cache isn't big enough to run a monolithic kernel without hitting RAM, you suck and therefore are a Linux twerp.

Real users run Unix. The best of both worlds: you pay for it, and can't play good games.

Keep in mind, however, that Windows is sharkproof (http://www.xkcd.com/349/).

It's a good point, but isn't specific to either Linux or (h-hem, BSD is UNIX) any other OS.

It could equally well be applied to posters who dip their toes in a thread, and lose a leg.

Keep in mind, however, that Windows is sharkproof (http://www.xkcd.com/349/).

Damn it! I'm desperately trying not to like Xkcd, as thats like a Geek initiation. Stop trying to convert me, damn it!

And write essays. And surf the internet. What else is there really to do?

Silly Yootopia. Do you not know that essays MUST* be written in docbook or LaTeX - which run perfectly under linux ;) ?

*Actually, many of the "hard" sciences (physics, chemistry, maths and so on) indeed expect one to do that.

Linux (pronounced [ˈlaɪnʌks] if you're a retard, [ˈlɪnəks] if you get laid all the time) is an umbrella term for a collection of useless operating systems (OSs) commonly used by 12-year-old snobs desperate to appear "1337" in front of other 12-year-old social misfits. It is free as in "free beer", and is the only operating system which allows one to engage in OS wars with people who use the same operating system, a feature that has revolutionized Slashdot since its inception.

Linux is an illegitimate child of Unix. She claims to have remembered nothing about it except an strange extension called "infiltrate.exe".

Uncylopedia speaketh true.

Using Uncyclopedia as a source is equatable to be using Conservapedia as a source, except you should know better.;)

Using Uncyclopedia as a source is equatable to be using Conservapedia as a source, except you should know better.;)

Nothing is equatable to using Conservapedia as a source.

Nothing. Don't even joke about it.

Damn it! I'm desperately trying not to like Xkcd, as thats like a Geek initiation.

To be a Geek, you need to be ostracized by other students by year 4 in school, have reports for contradicting a teacher (and being right of course), building a model of the Enterprise which could actually move without breaking, and experimenting with anal probes to test the validity of UFO reports.

I really doubt that liking some website that's only been around for a few years is enough.

Stop trying to convert me, damn it!

Don't worry. You aren't eligible, despite the fuzzy Mandelbrot shit in your avatar.

A real Geek would have found some way to make the avatar 1600 x 1200, popup with mouseover.

EDIT FOR LOLS: Popup ad is trying to interest me in alien chicks? I like Aide, the one who looks like a stocking stuffed with ashes.

To be a Geek, you need to be ostracized by other students by year 4 in school, have reports for contradicting a teacher (and being right of course), building a model of the Enterprise which could actually move without breaking, and experimenting with anal probes to test the validity of UFO reports.

I really doubt that liking some website that's only been around for a few years is enough.



Don't worry. You aren't eligible, despite the fuzzy Mandelbrot shit in your avatar.

A real Geek would have found some way to make the avatar 1600 x 1200, popup with mouseover.

EDIT FOR LOLS: Popup ad is trying to interest me in alien chicks? I like Aide, the one who looks like a stocking stuffed with ashes.

So, reading, understanding and posting to Slashdot does nothing for me? Sweet.

So, reading, understanding and posting to Slashdot does nothing for me? Sweet.

It depends. If your user number is six figures, maybe.

If it starts with a 1 or 2, definitely.

If it's only five figures, I surrender.

People giving up their time and effort for free, to obtain things. This actually applies to the Open Source movement in general.

Discuss.

Linux is an Anarchist. They work on it because they intend to use it themselves, and they dont mind others making use of their copies.

Linux is an Anarchist. They work on it because they intend to use it themselves, and they dont mind others making use of their copies.

So a sucessful model of anarchism?

So a sucessful model of anarchism?

yes anarchy. At its best i must say. too bad it wont work in the non digital world.

well, i can see where the OP is coming from.

owning means of production: check - linux users are free to change the kernel, write programs, etc, using freely available tools and distribution channels

no government: check - the 'real world' government doesn't have a say in what is produced or how. there are some central organisations to coordinate things (such as Canonical for Ubuntu) though.... which are more at the mercy of consumer sovereignity and competition than any kind of planned system. so its a little mixed there.

is it a planned economy/system: see above. kinda yes, kinda no. overall, no. for specific distros, yes.

equality of outcome: yes, nobody gets paid.... apart from Canonical (again, for example) who probably generate payment for what they do. Red Hat certainly do. so, individual programmers and the majority of free software: yes. some distros: no.

i'm probably forgetting something important here...

No, Linux and Open Source is not really Communism. It's about competition of ideas, letting the better approach win out without being at the mercy of a commercial interest which may promote it well or badly, commission it well or badly, or cripple its potential to keep their commercial handle on it. It's about how software works being right out there in the open, for the appreciation or criticism of others in the field. Instead of monetary reward, contributors get recognition of at least their effort, and of their excellence if they are so.

Social competition is the root. Just as it is of capitalism really -- a large part of consumption is about showing off, the satisfaction of the nice things we can buy doesn't just reside in their being comfortable or shiny or entertaining or even empowering, it's in their status as trophies.

Recognition is just as much a trophy as is money in the pocket. No Communism there. Competition.

Even in a career sense, there are benefits to contributing to Open Source. You get name recognition and practical experience both in making a workable product and in collaborating with other developers. You get to see just how good you are, it's right there for anyone to read in your code. It's got your name on it, not the name of some company that paid you to do the work.

If I could have the fame of Linus Torvalds, or the money of Steve Jobs, I'd take the fame. But I can't, because I don't have the talent either for coding or for business.

And why don't I compare the fame of Torvalds with the money of Bill Gates? Because the Gates of Open Source hasn't emerged yet. Perhaps s/he is one of you.

nobody said there can't be personal competition in communism.

Linux... working? Sorry, logically impossible. Linux does not work.

yes anarchy. At its best i must say. too bad it wont work in the non digital world.

Hacking societies kernel? Cool concept.

Linux... working? Sorry, logically impossible. Linux does not work.

:rolleyes:

Hacking societies kernel? Cool concept.

the problem is anarchy is not working. the solution is Hack the scoiety and reprogram society so anarchy works.

nobody said there can't be personal competition in communism.

The "withering away of the State" does imply it.

Where there is competition, there will be cheating. A "communist government" would need to enforce some mutually agreed rules, even if there was no property crime.

Linux... working? Sorry, logically impossible. Linux does not work.

Um?

You know, I had this image of you based on your posts and chosen screen name. It was of a fragile but elegant concept, riding a rhetorical steed which, though spirited and excessively muscular, overcomes with each post it's instinctive urge to buck you off and trample you into the dirt.

:$ A tiara of reason, worn with but grudging admission of servitude by a savage and predatory intellect ...:$

And I gotta say, your avatar spoils that completely. You're some kind of deviated prevert!

Um?

You know, I had this image of you based on your posts and chosen screen name. It was of a fragile but elegant concept, riding a rhetorical steed which, though spirited and excessively muscular, overcomes with each post it's instinctive urge to buck you off and trample you into the dirt.

:$ A tiara of reason, worn with but grudging admission of servitude by a savage and predatory intellect ...:$

And I gotta say, your avatar spoils that completely. You're some kind of deviated prevert!

You had an image of me? I'm flattered. However, what can I say? Patrick Bateman is a sexy beast.

Linux is an Anarchist. They work on it because they intend to use it themselves, and they dont mind others making use of their copies.

Anarcho-syndicalism in my opinion. The people with a shared interest get together. Some things are just too big for individuals.

You had an image of me? I'm flattered. However, what can I say? Patrick Bateman is a sexy beast.

Okay. That's useful information.

You know what would be really cool? An image search engine, where you pasted in an image instead of typing in a search word, and it found you images identical or similar so you could identify ... for instance ... a Patrick Bateman when you'd never seen one before.

Only supernerds are using Linux. Let them have their toys.

Okay. That's useful information.

You know what would be really cool? An image search engine, where you pasted in an image instead of typing in a search word, and it found you images identical or similar so you could identify ... for instance ... a Patrick Bateman when you'd never seen one before.

I'm sure Google's working on it.

Okay. That's useful information.

You know what would be really cool? An image search engine, where you pasted in an image instead of typing in a search word, and it found you images identical or similar so you could identify ... for instance ... a Patrick Bateman when you'd never seen one before.

Comparing md5 checksums? That of course would only find exact copies.

Only supernerds are using Linux. Let them have their toys.

Wow. You further extend the range of subjects on which you don't have a clue.

Keep trying. If you ever say anything which makes a lick of sense, I'll be the first to cheer.

I'm sure Google's working on it.

Fuck Google. With each new use they find for the data they have collected, I become more alarmed about their power to "reveal" the internet to the average user.

Power corrupts.

=========

Comparing md5 checksums? That of course would only find exact copies.

But it's damn fast. No need to actually store the whole picture. Good thinking ninety-nine.

EDIT: Damn, it doesn't work. The search "spider" needs to read the whole image to get a checksum ... I'm pretty sure. Proxies can read the checksum of a page though, to see if it needs updating ... way out of my depth here ...

Isn't Linux that preachy kid from the Peanuts gang?

Damn it! I'm desperately trying not to like Xkcd, as thats like a Geek initiation. Stop trying to convert me, damn it!

Come to the dark side. It is your destiny! :D

Linux... working? Sorry, logically impossible. Linux does not work.

Yeah! That's why Linux servers and PCs have to reboot all the time, whereas there are servers running Windows that haven't rebooted in years. And even without reboots, that's why linux crashes all the time, but windows is incredibly stable.



Oh, wait...

Wow. You further extend the range of subjects on which you don't have a clue.

Keep trying. If you ever say anything which makes a lick of sense, I'll be the first to cheer.

Not if I beat you to it!

Come to the dark side. It is your destiny! :D



Yeah! That's why Linux servers and PCs have to reboot all the time, whereas there are servers running Windows that haven't rebooted in years. And even without reboots, that's why linux crashes all the time, but windows is incredibly stable.



Oh, wait...



Not if I beat you to it!

A properly configured Linux server is stable. A properly configured Windows server is stable.

Fuck Google. With each new use they find for the data they have collected, I become more alarmed about their power to "reveal" the internet to the average user.

Power corrupts.

=========



But it's damn fast. No need to actually store the whole picture. Good thinking ninety-nine.

EDIT: Damn, it doesn't work. The search "spider" needs to read the whole image to get a checksum ... I'm pretty sure. Proxies can read the checksum of a page though, to see if it needs updating ... way out of my depth here ...

Md5 hashes won't work, neither will any others. Change the size of the file, change the colour depth, change the filetype - all change the hash. You'd need to do some fancy pattern recognition. Maybe a hack like comparing colour percentages - if two images have 1.532% pixels of one colour and 3.572% pixels of another (and so on) then there's a good chance that they're the same image.

A properly configured Linux server is stable. A properly configured Windows server is stable.

Ah, so Linux works then?

Ah, so Linux works then?

Only by your pathetically inadequate definition. As a whole, no. Linux does not work.

Only by your pathetically inadequate definition. As a whole, no. Linux does not work.

In what ways does it "not work?"

Can you provide me examples of areas in which the Windows line of Operating Systems displays technical superiority to Linux systems?

People giving up their time and effort for free, to obtain things. This actually applies to the Open Source movement in general.

Discuss.
You make me laugh. Volunteering is hardly communism.

In what ways does it "not work?"

Can you provide me examples of areas in which the Windows line of Operating Systems displays technical superiority to Linux systems?

If I thought it was worth the effort, yes, I could create a substantially long list of things Linux fails miserably at. However, no matter how accurate, objective, correct or sane my list was, you'd reject it because you're obviously a fanboy with a hard on for Linux.

In what ways does it "not work?"

Can you provide me examples of areas in which the Windows line of Operating Systems displays technical superiority to Linux systems?
I'll guess it's because you can't play as many games...

I'll guess it's because you can't play as many games...

I don't play games, really.

If I thought it was worth the effort, yes, I could create a substantially long list of things Linux fails miserably at. However, no matter how accurate, objective, correct or sane my list was, you'd reject it because you're obviously a fanboy with a hard on for Linux.

Ah, yes, the old "I can prove it, but you won't accept it, so I won't." What an excellent method of demonstrating your claims to be accurate.

EDIT: And a lame attempt at an ad hominem at that. Nice.

Ah, yes, the old "I can prove it, but you won't accept it, so I won't." What an excellent method of demonstrating your claims to be accurate.

EDIT: And a lame attempt at an ad hominem at that. Nice.

Ad hominem? Your avatar has the address of gnu.org in it! If you're not a fanboy, I don't know what is.

I don't play games, really.
Then name a few 'failures'. It couldn't hurt and it might educate the rest of us that haven't experienced those same 'failures'. I find Linux to be an exceptional server and router for the cost. It doesn't require enormous amounts of resources and can be loaded on a cheap Sparc IPX/IPC, yet it still gives acceptable performance.

Then name a few 'failures'. It couldn't hurt and it might educate the rest of us that haven't experienced those same 'failures'. I find Linux to be an exceptional server and router for the cost. It doesn't require enormous amounts of resources and can be loaded on a cheap Sparc IPX/IPC, yet it still gives acceptable performance.

A few that severely cripple Linux as a viable platform my uses:

1. There is no equivilent of Photoshop - GIMP is a terrible replacement, with an awful interface, no true CMYK support (making it useless for print work), no automation except through an obfuscated scripting language, no support for 16 or 32-bit per-channel images.

2. Linux doesn't "just work". Even the simplest of tasks often requires manual modification of configuration files, frantic Googling for tricks to workaround stupid interface quirks, lack of drivers and lack of support.

3. Open source programs, even Gnome/KDE (and especially the more obscure X interfaces) are always, ALWAYS designed badly. Always. Programmers do not know how to create effective, efficient user interfaces. Linux is created by programmers for themselves, and therefore contains all their shitty opinions on how UI should work.

4. There is not effective equivilent of Premiere Pro, Illustrator, Corel Painter or Flash. My Wacom doesn't work properly in Linux.

I can't really be bothered listing more.

Ad hominem? Your avatar has the address of gnu.org in it! If you're not a fanboy, I don't know what is.

Yes, I support the GNU project and its goals, and I think that Linux is a better kernel than the kernel used by Windows, and that the rest of the OS tends to be better, and I believe in freedom of knowledge (including freedom of software).

But!

You used the fact that I support the FSF to claim that I'm too stupid or something to listen to reason. Essentially, you're using the fact that I am pro-linux to automatically discount my opinion that Linux works. That is ad hominem because your argument applies to me, not to the only relevant matter: The technical merits of Linux (and windows, if you want to compare them).

Further, you can state something true about somebody and it still be an attack. For example, say you are debating the issue of gay adoption somebody who is gay, and he asks for evidence to support your claim. If you say "well you're just a cock-loving homo, you just wouldn't accept my evidence that gays can't be good parents anyway" then that would be an ad hominem, even if it's true that the individual is gay.

Yes, I support the GNU project and its goals, and I think that Linux is a better kernel than the kernel used by Windows, and that the rest of the OS tends to be better, and I believe in freedom of knowledge (including freedom of software).

But!

You used the fact that I support the FSF to claim that I'm too stupid or something to listen to reason. Essentially, you're using the fact that I am pro-linux to automatically discount my opinion that Linux works. That is ad hominem because your argument applies to me, not to the only relevant matter: The technical merits of Linux (and windows, if you want to compare them).

Further, you can state something true about somebody and it still be an attack. For example, say you are debating the issue of gay adoption somebody who is gay, and he asks for evidence to support your claim. If you say "well you're just a cock-loving homo, you just wouldn't accept my evidence that gays can't be good parents anyway" then that would be an ad hominem, even if it's true that the individual is gay.

You're easily wounded then. Makes me laugh.

A few that severely cripple Linux as a viable platform my uses:

1. There is no equivilent of Photoshop - GIMP is a terrible replacement, with an awful interface, no true CMYK support (making it useless for print work), no automation except through an obfuscated scripting language, no support for 16 or 32-bit per-channel images.

That's nice. But I'm talking about technical merits of the OS itself, not the available software. Available software is much more likely to change than the technical merits of the OS itself.


2. Linux doesn't "just work". Even the simplest of tasks often requires manual modification of configuration files, frantic Googling for tricks to workaround stupid interface quirks, lack of drivers and lack of support.

Oh, so it's too hard for you to set Linux up to work? Boo hoo. I find it funny, though. I bet if a Mac user said "well Windows doesn't just work; Macs are easy," you would, like most Windows users, say something like "Oh, so you need your computer to baby you?"
I find Linux quite easy, modifying a few configuration files is no problem. But the nice thing is you can easily modify it-- Linux is much more customizable, which is why many people find it difficult. So the real question is-- what's better, more customization, or more ease of use?
Apparently, I tend more towards customization. You go the other way. But that's pretty subjective.


3. Open source programs, even Gnome/KDE (and especially the more obscure X interfaces) are always, ALWAYS designed badly. Always. Programmers do not know how to create effective, efficient user interfaces. Linux is created by programmers for themselves, and therefore contains all their shitty opinions on how UI should work.

In what way are they designed badly? Be specific. I've never had a problem with any Free Software UI. (Of course, many of them just have CLIs, which people only think is difficult because they're computer-phobic)


4. There is not effective equivilent of Premiere Pro, Illustrator, Corel Painter or Flash. My Wacom doesn't work properly in Linux.

I can't really be bothered listing more.

Again, that's software available. what about the merits of the OS itself?

You're easily wounded then. Makes me laugh.

Easily wounded? No. don't flatter yourself with the delusion that you can hurt my feelings. I was just calling an ad hominem because you committed a logical fallacy and probably believed it to be evidence for your point.

If Linux had equivilent software, drivers, and a better windowing system, then it'd be superior to Windows. However, it does not, therefore it doesn't work.

Easily wounded? No. don't flatter yourself with the delusion that you can hurt my feelings. I was just calling an ad hominem because you committed a logical fallacy and probably believed it to be evidence for your point.

I really don't care enough to attempt to "hurt your feelings." I just laugh that you're on the defensive for being identified as a fanboy.

If Linux had equivilent software, drivers, and a better windowing system, then it'd be superior to Windows. However, it does not, therefore it doesn't work.



I really don't care enough to attempt to "hurt your feelings." I just laugh that you're on the defensive for being identified as a fanboy.

Hah. suddenly it's going on the defensive to point out fallacies? I thought that was just good debating policy.

Hah. suddenly it's going on the defensive to point out fallacies? I thought that was just good debating policy.

I was attacking your beliefs because it amused me, not to make a point. My points stand on their own.

1. There is no equivilent of Photoshop - GIMP is a terrible replacement, with an awful interface, no true CMYK support (making it useless for print work), no automation except through an obfuscated scripting language, no support for 16 or 32-bit per-channel images.

True. But is that the fault of linux or of the creators of the program/hardware ? Same for problem 4.

2. Linux doesn't "just work". Even the simplest of tasks often requires manual modification of configuration files, frantic Googling for tricks to workaround stupid interface quirks, lack of drivers and lack of support.

Hmm. This is true on silly linux distributions bundled with for instance several netbooks and -naturally- the advanced ones one mostly compiles themself.
I did not have such problems on mainstream distributions; other than with accomplishing things that are not even possible on windows.

3. Open source programs, even Gnome/KDE (and especially the more obscure X interfaces) are always, ALWAYS designed badly. Always.

You seem to be implying that Vista is designed well - which is of course laughable. And saddening - since life indeed would be better with a better interface.

I was attacking your beliefs because it amused me, not to make a point. My points stand on their own.

Actually, at the time you made that post, you specifically said that you were going to not post a technical analysis because I was, you said, just a fanboy who would never listen to reason. You only provided points after I persisted. And those points were amazingly shallow-- not a technical analysis of the merits of the OS design.

2009. "My dad can beat up your dad" is replaced by "my computer can beat up your computer".

The "withering away of the State" does imply it.


No, it really doesn't. There is nothing implicitly anti-competitive about communism, and where policing is required, there is no implication it needs be external.

I was attacking your beliefs because it amused me, not to make a point. My points stand on their own.

Using ad hominem fallacy, blaming the other poster for being offended, claiming you were doing it for amusement, not to prove a point.

Not a mod, but I think you just clearly painted 'troll' on your ass.

A few that severely cripple Linux as a viable platform my uses:

1. There is no equivilent of Photoshop - GIMP is a terrible replacement, with an awful interface, no true CMYK support (making it useless for print work), no automation except through an obfuscated scripting language, no support for 16 or 32-bit per-channel images.
true, that, speaking as a CS2/CS4 design premium user who has to use GIMP occasionally

2. Linux doesn't "just work". Even the simplest of tasks often requires manual modification of configuration files, frantic Googling for tricks to workaround stupid interface quirks, lack of drivers and lack of support.
in my experience, this is both true and false.
one install of ubuntu went amazingly smoothly. never had a problem with it, no crashes, no issues, done what i want with no messing around with anything i wouldn't do in Windows... in fact, probably less fuss than i might put into windows. it was just: install, start using. great. intuitive enough to just get going with it from the off.

the other install, on a newer machine, was much more difficult. it hated my graphics card, and i had to hunt down drivers for it. not too bad. but then trying to get my wifi card to work with windows drivers through an emulator killed the fuck out of it. somehow it wouldn't start in any mode, and formatting the drive and re-installing just hangs on the install. obviously its some other (hardware) problem, but still.... Windows XP loads fine on the same machine.

3. Open source programs, even Gnome/KDE (and especially the more obscure X interfaces) are always, ALWAYS designed badly. Always. Programmers do not know how to create effective, efficient user interfaces. Linux is created by programmers for themselves, and therefore contains all their shitty opinions on how UI should work.
nah. the heron kubuntu i have using Gnome and KDE is just lovely to use. much prefer its clean interface to Vista, which i did love until using 'buntu. admittedly, using the terminal is not a good interface for most users, but you can do most everyday tasks in a simple, clean interface without ever touching the terminal.

that said, a lot of the free software i've downloaded with the package manager (see? no terminal!) have interfaces that look like they haven't been updated since 1995...

4. There is not effective equivilent of Premiere Pro, Illustrator, Corel Painter or Flash. My Wacom doesn't work properly in Linux.

I can't really be bothered listing more.
yeah, but the obvious reason for that is of the chicken-and-egg nature of the software/hardware relationship. nobody (including Adobe) will make great graphics apps for linux until more people use it. graphic professionals won't use linux until there's more good software for it.


however.... technical question. if Mac OS is (or was, once) based on BSD, would it not be possible to get Mac OS Adobe products to work on 'nix? and iirc, Adobe CS2 works ok on linux using WINE, right?

And the average user understands how to mount & burn ISOs, what a "partition" is, what the bootloader is, what a swap file is...all standard Linuxite stuff. Just look at linux help forums. They can't resist providing a solution that tersely uses the terminal or shell.

And then there's all the compatibility issues one needs to get through...

There is actually a very good reason for providing shell solutions to problems - they can be copied and pasted. It is far easier and less prone to errors to instruct someone to open a terminal and type "command -opt foo -bar" than to ask them to open a graphical program, locate the appropriate icon (which may move or appear different on different systems), select it, input the appropriate entries, select them, etc.

When you're giving advice like that, you aren't looking to show them around the program, you're looking to provide a solution to a single problem. Being able to provide something that is copied in and executed is by far superior, and until there is a unified way of scripting GUIs it will remain so.

I have used Linux fairly often. It is pretty good. The point always comes back to it is Free. I suppose but how many times a day do you switch back into Windows. Mine was every few hour maybe even 5 or 6 times a day. Drivers are pain. Some programs just just plain won't work or require adapters. I don't think it is worth the effort. there are some program that work better in Linux but very few.

I can count on one hand the number of times I've use a Windows machine this year.


<snip a lot of good stuff>

EMACS is indeed an icon of Open Source. It's almost tragic to see how much work went into making an editor ... but it's sort of cheering too. Before everyone expected buttons and moving pictures (when the interface was all text) an editor was the most important application. Next step up from the OS, the thing which had to work and which you turned to first if you needed to do anything inside a file.

Tragic, because few people use an editor enough to learn EMACS. I prefer it to vi, but for most things (eg plain text) I prefer joe. I've forgotten most of the keystrokes for EMACS.

Cheering, because one day our current software will be evaluated for craftsmanship, like antiques. And we can tell old-codgerly tales about how we actually used EMACS for sweeping chimneys or shoeing a horse. : )

<snip a bunch more good stuff>

Some really fantastic stuff here. I'm just going to comment on Emacs a bit.

There is a reason that Emacs is so big, so extensible, so configurable, and so powerful. It is because it is a rare and excellent example of a program built by hackers for hackers. It fits into the three great tools of the programmer - editor, compiler, debugger.

There are a lot of people whose job doesn't involve producing fancy looking documents, or producing pretty graphics, or typing up spreadsheets. Their job requires producing code, and the best code they can. For this, you don't need a nifty GUI, or many of the other features of programs such as Microsoft Word. You need a program that is absolutely fantastic at editing text. It needs to be as completely keyboard controlled as possible, so you don't have to move your hands off the keys. It needs to be as reconfigurable as possible, so that you can use it as you need it - a tool for programmers should not force you into one workflow, but let you build your own. It needs to be as programmable as possible, so that you can minimise your typing.

Emacs is one of the pinnacles of this principle (vi is the other). Both are ancient and massive, arcane and complex, they both seem massively overengineered for having the purpose of editing text. But both are infinitely powerful, because they have been written by a lot of very smart people, who were producing tools for themselves to use. What editor do the vast majority of Emacs authors use? Emacs, of course.

The hackers will always enjoy most writing programs for their own use, and writing tools they can reuse again. This is why GCC is so powerful, why automake and autoconf are so powerful, why bash is turing complete, perl exists, and Emacs is a thermonuclear text editor. Because they are all tools written by programmers to make their lives easier.


What's your beef with X?

Closed drivers are bad, yea. Closed config scripts are very bad. Both are the fault of manufacturers, and easily remedied by not buying their damn product.

But X?

It's far too overengineered for what it does and the purpose it now serves. Did you know you can run programs (X clients) from a remote machine on your local machine (the X server) and have them interact just as normal programs? It's network transparent, ancient, and vastly in need of rebuilding.

Unlike text, graphics has advanced massively since it was first designed. Its limitations are everywhere - hell, even Window Managers are a hack to make it nicer to use, as are the hundreds of widget sets. Then there are the multiple cut buffers, the ancient font models, and many other internal issues. For just one set of complaints (reached by a quick googling of "X sucks"), try this mailing list message (http://lists.canonical.org/pipermail/kragen-tol/2000-March/000549.html).

<snippety>

3. Open source programs, even Gnome/KDE (and especially the more obscure X interfaces) are always, ALWAYS designed badly. Always. Programmers do not know how to create effective, efficient user interfaces. Linux is created by programmers for themselves, and therefore contains all their shitty opinions on how UI should work.

<snippety>

You think they are designed badly. I find the UI of many *n?x programs to be excellent for the task at hand, and very good at getting out of my way and letting me work myself. Of course, I use irssi for chatting - everything through a text interface. I use conkeror for browsing - emacs style interface to Firefox. I use emacs for text editing - powerful, configurable, and fully keyboard controlled.

I've always found it much harder to use a UI which says "Thou shalt do this like this" than one which says "Tell me what to do". The first is your typical mouse based point and drool, while the second is a common CLI/text based unixy system.

<snippety>

however.... technical question. if Mac OS is (or was, once) based on BSD, would it not be possible to get Mac OS Adobe products to work on 'nix? and iirc, Adobe CS2 works ok on linux using WINE, right?

With sufficient black magic and blood sacrifices, it might be possible. This course of action is not recommended.

-snip-

yeah, but the obvious reason for that is of the chicken-and-egg nature of the software/hardware relationship. nobody (including Adobe) will make great graphics apps for linux until more people use it. graphic professionals won't use linux until there's more good software for it.


however.... technical question. if Mac OS is (or was, once) based on BSD, would it not be possible to get Mac OS Adobe products to work on 'nix? and iirc, Adobe CS2 works ok on linux using WINE, right?

According to WineHQ, CS2 and CS3 are on the Silver list which means "Applications with minor issues that do not affect typical usage".

Also, on the interface for GIMP thing, there is a branch-off called Gimpshop which is designed to be familiar for users of Photoshop, unfortunately I couldn't get it installed on this distro because it wasn't in the package manager, and I couldn't find all the dependencies, but I tried on my parents XP and the thing was beautifully familiar. A lot of this stuff The Mindset seems to be describing are just idiosyncrasies of the system, which you get used to, much like anything else.

Whenever I'm confronted with someone who mistakes choice in software (or hardware) for a matter of ideology, that tiny ounce of my hope left in humanity decreases.

Linux is an OS, communism is an ideology. It's like comparing oranges to hydraulic pumps.

As for the "working" part of the topic title. No. It's not WORKING any more than other operating systems. I use both Windows and Linux (and sometimes Solaris - when they force me to), and let me tell you, both of them can derail and fuck themselves up. If Windows crashes, you reboot and/or hope it fixes itself (it often does). If Linux freezes, you better know how to operate the system components from the shell.

I don't know anything about Linux, but presumably, if good products can be designed without any incentives other than a desire to do good for the community, that suggests that socialism is possible. The main argument used for capitalism is that people are selfish by nature. Of course, even if most people are selfish in our society, this would prove nothing, because those people may have learned selfishness from the society around them, it may be socially created, not biological.

Wikipedia is also an open-source, pro-Linuxy kind of thing. And Jimbo Wales is a fucking objectivist. No, I don't think linux, because it's free software (free as in free beer and free speech), should be anywhere close to communism.

Also note that not all areas of open source software succeed very well. For example - computer games. There's plenty of effort towards developing effective web server software (e.g., apache) but games are still left out of the picture. Granted, games tend not to run on linux well to begin with due to driver issues, but how does that stop open source developers on *windows* from releasing a GOOD open source game to discount the whole "open source can't make good games" argument?

Wikipedia is also an open-source, pro-Linuxy kind of thing. And Jimbo Wales is a fucking objectivist. No, I don't think linux, because it's free software (free as in free beer and free speech), should be anywhere close to communism.

Also note that not all areas of open source software succeed very well. For example - computer games. There's plenty of effort towards developing effective web server software (e.g., apache) but games are still left out of the picture. Granted, games tend not to run on linux well to begin with due to driver issues, but how does that stop open source developers on *windows* from releasing a GOOD open source game to discount the whole "open source can't make good games" argument?

Alien Arena

Alien Arena 2008 is a free, stand-alone deathmatch game based on source code released by id Software. Begun by COR Entertainment in 2004, the game combines a 1950s-era sci-fi atmosphere with gameplay similar to the Quake, Doom, and Unreal Tournament series. Alien Arena focuses mainly on online multiplayer action, although it does contain single-player campaigns against bots.

Alien Arena has been released for Microsoft Windows, Linux and FreeBSD. The game has been free to play since its inception, and there are currently no plans to change it to a pay-to-play format. However, as of October 15, 2008, the latest SVN builds now feature in-game advertising, in the main menu and in some maps. [1] While the game's content is proprietary, the CRX engine is open source.

Surely fits some critera? There was a Ask Slashdot (http://ask.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/12/15/1933218) awhile back based around Linux games, of which there are quite a few. They're just not well known because they're not released by huge media organisations like EA (would avoid them like the plague with DRM, anyway). The whole "no games" thing is a throw-back from 2002.

And of course there is always Dosbox, cause every now and then, playing a little SimFarm is damn relaxing.

With sufficient black magic and blood sacrifices, it might be possible. This course of action is not recommended.

i'll mix up a fresh batch of virgins' blood, then ;)

According to WineHQ, CS2 and CS3 are on the Silver list which means "Applications with minor issues that do not affect typical usage".

Also, on the interface for GIMP thing, there is a branch-off called Gimpshop which is designed to be familiar for users of Photoshop, unfortunately I couldn't get it installed on this distro because it wasn't in the package manager, and I couldn't find all the dependencies, but I tried on my parents XP and the thing was beautifully familiar. A lot of this stuff The Mindset seems to be describing are just idiosyncrasies of the system, which you get used to, much like anything else.

ah right, i remember checking CS2 a while back, but couldn't remember the specifics, thanks :) and much as Gimpshop sounds like a great idea, GIMP still doesn't appear to have the same functionality as photoshop... but maybe that's me being a photoshop-snob. i'll give it a look in :wink:

People giving up their time and effort...to obtain things.
That's called the barter system, not communism.

Nothing is equatable to using Conservapedia as a source.

Nothing. Don't even joke about it.

What about Unconservapedia, the conservative joke encyclopedia? (Or would it be a liberal encyclopedia? Hmm, I smell a winner of a wiki.)

What about Unconservapedia, the conservative joke encyclopedia? (Or would it be a liberal encyclopedia? Hmm, I smell a winner of a wiki.)

How would that be any different from the original conservapedia?

Open Source is not communism. Communism is an economic system. Open Source is a license which protects intellectual property rights of the authors. Although there may be adherents to the open source philosophy which act like political radicals and dress like communist guerrillas the similarity stops at not bathing. Open source software licenses like the GPL are actually a great thing and they allow authors more freedom not less (as opposed to communism). Open source software is a gift to the community at large but with certain strings attached which prevent anyone from taking code modifying it and not contributing their changes back (not a good thing if your the original author). It makes a lot of sense for large projects which one author can not possibly complete themselves. Getting paid for that work however is an open question... Personally most of the projects I have worked on are open source but I get payed a salary to work on these things by my employer (the university).

How would that be any different from the original conservapedia?

It's jokes wouldn't be as funny.

Open Source is not communism. Communism is an economic system. Open Source is a license which protects intellectual property rights of the authors. Although there may be adherents to the open source philosophy which act like political radicals and dress like communist guerrillas the similarity stops at not bathing. Open source software licenses like the GPL are actually a great thing and they allow authors more freedom not less (as opposed to communism). Open source software is a gift to the community at large but with certain strings attached which prevent anyone from taking code modifying fit and not contributing their changes back (not a good thing if your the original author). It makes a lot of sense for large projects which one author can not possibly complete themselves. Getting paid for that work however is an open question... Personally most of the projects I have worked on are open source but I get payed a salary to work on these things by my employer (the university).

Indeed. The important thing about free software is not the price. Free software might be distributed without cost, or it might be distributed for profit. Free software is free in the sense that speech is free. The important issue is the issue of rights. Usually, though, because one of the fundamental software rights is the right to copy and share, it might be difficult to sell copies of software for a large amount of money.

Whenever I'm confronted with someone who mistakes choice in software (or hardware) for a matter of ideology, that tiny ounce of my hope left in humanity decreases.

Actually, to many Free Software/OpenSource/TheCopyLeft is an ideology.

Actually, to many Free Software/OpenSource/TheCopyLeft is an ideology.

Yeah in a way there is a movement behind it, but it has as much to do with Communism as hobbits have to do with Star Wars.

Yeah in a way there is a movement behind it, but it has as much to do with Communism as hobbits have to do with Star Wars.

They call them Ewoks, in Star Wars.

exactly my point. Ewoks ¬= Hobbits

exactly my point. Ewoks ¬= Hobbits

Your point is.... Linux is communism... it's just called 'Ewoks'?

just tried installing ubuntu 8.10 to a usb pen drive, and am kinda disappointed :( it all worked fine, but the persistance it offered wasn't really good enough. it wasn't a proper install, but rather the 'try ubuntu from the live CD' (replace CD with USB drive). it would automatically log in as root, for example, and any password i set for root wasn't kept. didn't keep drivers quite properly, either.

might try again with a different method http://www.pendrivelinux.com/ubuntu-810-persistent-flash-drive-install-from-live-cd/

just tried installing ubuntu 8.10 to a usb pen drive, and am kinda disappointed :( it all worked fine, but the persistance it offered wasn't really good enough. it wasn't a proper install, but rather the 'try ubuntu from the live CD' (replace CD with USB drive). it would automatically log in as root, for example, and any password i set for root wasn't kept. didn't keep drivers quite properly, either.

might try again with a different method http://www.pendrivelinux.com/ubuntu-810-persistent-flash-drive-install-from-live-cd/

I wish I had a computer new enough to boot from USB.:(

I don't particularly like Ubuntu anyway, however the 3D effects are awesome.

I wish I had a computer new enough to boot from USB.:(

I don't particularly like Ubuntu anyway, however the 3D effects are awesome.

Ubuntu is pretty awesome but depending on your hard ware it can take a while to set up any Linux distro to be just the way you like it. OpenSuse is a pretty good alternative.

I don't like all that fancy 3d stuff. I like my Linux to be clean and simple.

Your point is.... Linux is communism... it's just called 'Ewoks'?

No, I think he's saying that hobbits run Linux on their computers...

No, I think he's saying that hobbits run Linux on their computers...

That makes more sense. Thanks. :)

Ubuntu is pretty awesome but depending on your hard ware it can take a while to set up any Linux distro to be just the way you like it. OpenSuse is a pretty good alternative.

I don't like all that fancy 3d stuff. I like my Linux to be clean and simple.

I know what you mean, but I was just running a Live CD and it gave me some kicks.

That makes more sense. Thanks. :)

The real question, of course, is what distro they use. I bet it's Ubuntu.

The real question, of course, is what distro they use. I bet it's Ubuntu.

Isn't there a 'Ubilbo' release?

People spending their time and effort to create things, which they then distribute freely based on their personal philosophies. Not communism.

People spending their time and effort to create things, which they then distribute freely based on their personal philosophies. Not communism.

While I agree Linux isn't communism per se, I do see the argument that it could be considered a counterargument to the common point that people won't work without compensation. If it were entirely true that people would never work without personal benefit, Linux (or indeed, Free Software in general) could not exist.

People spending their time and effort to create things, which they then distribute freely based on their personal philosophies. Not communism.

That actually sounds a lot like communism. Here's an article that argues that argues that Free Software is "sorta communist:" Article (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1707)

The point of communism, as communists would describe it, is to implement the communist ideal:

From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

In this particular sense, free software development does indeed follow. Since there is often no direct and exclusive material remuneration for the work done, the principle reasons for doing software work on free community projects are the abilities and desires of the developers. We have an “interest-ocracy”, as some have described it—those who care enough about the design to do the work, get to determine how it is done.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing any good ever came out of open sores.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, nothing any good ever came out of open sores.

I dunno, this (http://media.komonews.com/images/070626_Jake_Finkbonner.jpg) made me laugh, and I'm pretty sure the flesh eating bacteria came through an open sore.

Why so serious?

Why so serious?

Did you get elocution lessons from Rosy O'Donnell? "Why so serious?"

People giving up their time and effort for free, to obtain things. This actually applies to the Open Source movement in general.

Discuss.

Er, if you do something to obtain things, you're not doing it for free.

In the minds of many people, communism is something evil. You might argue that some positive things are communism and even be right about that if you pick the right definition of communism, but saying "X is communism" still is very close to trolling if you ask me.

To all those people who say linux doesn't work and windows does: too bad for you, guess you'll have to continue paying uncle Bill. It's funny how it's the other way around for me.

Some of the few times I've had to use windows (and MS office), it ate my files, even when I was just reading them. Open source software never did that to me. When windows doesn't work, I'm lost and probably would reinstall. When linux doesn't work, I can fix it. When I need to do some special configuration in windows, I'm lost and would need to buy software to do it for me. When I need to do some special configuration in linux, I can figure out how to do it. Windows is damn ugly, which distracts me, and while I can figure out how to fix some of that, matching my minimalist and elegant linux desktop would be a lot of work.

In summary, I know how to use linux and it hasn't failed me yet. I do not know how to use windows and am not interested in learning because it seems to hate me (eating files) and it's much more expensive than the free and functional thing I already have.

Am I a linux fanperson? I don't know. I think the software architecture of the linux kernel, X and the GNU utilities is horrible, and Linus Torvalds is a jerk.

But hey, it's the only thing I know that works. Which can't be said about any system calling itself "communism" so far...

While I agree Linux isn't communism per se, I do see the argument that it could be considered a counterargument to the common point that people won't work without compensation. If it were entirely true that people would never work without personal benefit, Linux (or indeed, Free Software in general) could not exist.

I work on open source software and guess what? I get payed. You would be surprised how often it works that way. Often times it makes sense to give the software away even if you ( as an organization ) pay to develop it. It makes sense anywhere where *you* are developing the software for your own use and you want to reuse code which has already been developed or you want to encourage further development and collaboration with people outside your organization.

Just look at the credits for various pieces of open source software which you use. You see people with @intel.com, @ibm.com ... Linux isn't developed by unemployed hackers in their mamas basements anymore. Open Source is big business.

Did you get elocution lessons from Rosy O'Donnell? "Why so serious?"
http://img210.imageshack.us/img210/8873/jokermcdonald27sco3.jpg
Why so fattening?

Communism sucks and fails, as does Linux.

Communism sucks and fails, as does Linux.

Trolling sucks and fails, as does No Names Left Damn It.

Take that Adunabar!;)

Communism sucks and fails, as does Linux.

For you.

See how easy it is to add a few words that change your statement from silly trolling to an opinion that may well have a sound basis in fact ?

That will be E 100.

Trolling sucks and fails, as does No Names Left Damn It.

Take that Adunabar!;)

Well you're a nice person, not at all a bitch.