Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
OK *nix heads, what should I do?
Laukev7:
Mac OS X > BeOS > FreeBSD > Mac OS 9 > Linux > Windows NT/2000/XP > Windows 9x
suselinux:
Originally posted by Darth Jimmy James:
suselinux, it's guys like Preacher who help me keep my faith in Linux. it's dipshits like you who make me hate it. fuck off you opinionated asswipe
Dipshit?
Opinionated?
Hey those were published findings, saying that Linux isn't a Desktop OS because it sucks is.
but rest assured that you do not make me hate Apple.
insomnia:
quote:Linux is not a desktop system.
--- End quote ---
Are just trolling, or do you mean this.
All big distros are Desktop-Linux.
The desk on my Slackware box is faster than any Mac, Windows or BeOS Desk(and a lot more configurable).
quote:The issue here is not support.
--- End quote ---
Support is always an issue, ask any person who's building something new, how inportant it is.
quote: Many people more knowledgeable than I am hate X11. It's tedious to configure and dated. It's not for nothing that Apple, BeOS and AtheOS, don't use it by default. There are even community projects like Fresco are aiming to offer a better alternative to X11.
--- End quote ---
I find all these "more knowledgeable" people stupid.
X11 is more configurable than anything.
I still haven't read any argument against it on this board. "X11 is old" is NOT an argument. It's not even old.
quote:You're not looking for an OS to run, HE IS. If you can't offer useful suggestions, then fuck off.
--- End quote ---
And start lying like you?
You don't know shit about computing.
quote:You're right. i don't.
--- End quote ---
Than stop lying about it!
quote:I don't understand how a tired ass, outmoded, low-tech, last-generation, dead-end turd like X11 still hangs around.
--- End quote ---
You don't undestand anything about it.
quote:And what the fuck does your statement mean anyway? Because he states that Be's framework is better (look at the tech specs... IT IS), and that you can install an X11 layer on Be... he "doesn't understand"...
--- End quote ---
Look at ALL the "tech specs" (...if you can...).
quote:
One question...
DID YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT HE SAID?
I don't believe you did. Every other graphics framework is better than X11, even GDI. Yes, WINDOWS XP HAS A BETTER GRAPHIC FRAMEWORK.
--- End quote ---
One question for you...
IS THAT A JOKE OR DO YOU KNOW THAT LESS.
quote:And the GUI won't crash on you like X11 does every 5 minutes.
--- End quote ---
That's plain wrong.
quote:Combined with its lack of response and visual cues as to when something is happening.
--- End quote ---
Again, that's plain wrong.
If you want to use BeOS, fine...
But why always these silly lies about Linux?
hm_murdock:
quote: You don't undestand anything about it.
--- End quote ---
Oh yeah? Why don't you fucking tell me what's so great about it? What makes it so good? If it's so damn awesome, why did NeXT NOT USE IT, why did RISC OS NOT USE IT, why did Amiga NOT USE IT.
quote: I find all these "more knowledgeable" people stupid.
X11 is more configurable than anything.
I still haven't read any argument against it on this board. "X11 is old" is NOT an argument. It's not even old.
--- End quote ---
"more configurable" might have something to do with what's wrong with it. The damn thing is too hard for average people to set up.
And we know it's not "old", but it's TIRED.
quote: One question for you...
IS THAT A JOKE OR DO YOU KNOW THAT LESS.
--- End quote ---
Ha ha ha ha!! Jokes are funny! And that's not a joke... GDI is better than X11. GDI supports layering, limited alpha blending, and is tied to the kernel, meaning that it's part of the core system, not an afterthought.
quote: That's plain wrong.
--- End quote ---
Is it? Have you ever heard the phrase "Your mileage may vary"? I installed Linux on several machines... getting it up and running wasn't hard at all... but making it actually do anything was.
And don't give me the tired argument that "I need to learn more" because it's bullshit. Nobody's ever going to take your OS seriously if the learning curve involves buying a goddamn book.
quote: Again, that's plain wrong.
--- End quote ---
Prove it. In my opinion, X11 and nearly all GUI frameworks for it (GNOME, KDE, et cetera) lack quite a bit in informing the user of what's happening.
And if you can state your opinions as facts, then I will too. Because Linux doesn't work for what I need it to, it sucks.
That's what's so shitty about the arguments. Nearly all of them boil down to "well, Linux is better for what I do"... and therefore you believe that it's better for someone else... JUST BECAUSE YOU USE IT FOR SOMETHING.
I tried to like it, I really did, but all the stuff that I was told makes Linux so great was what made it so frustrating to use. I tried for a week to use my PC as a DHCP server with Linux (RH8) and COULD NOT. This was on top of X11 being a flaky ass bastard and not wanting to run more than half the time.
I restarted to XP, patched the bastard up, turned on Internet Connection Sharing, and ran it headless on my cable modem for two months... ZERO INFECTIONS OF ANYTHING. And that was during the period of all those worm attacks. Was I hurt by them? No.
Linux is great for people that know and care about UNIX. I know enough UNIX to get me around a shell window, to start and kill processes. But none of this matters. I run OS X, so all the UNIX shit can exist without me knowing or giving a shit, because I don't.
I think I can sum it up... I DON'T GIVE A FLYING FUCK ABOUT UNIX. All I care about... and all anybody, except obviously you guys... care about is using their computer. /etc, root access, X11 configuration, window managers, config files, fsck, interactive startup... NOBODY CARES.
As long as their computer works, that's what matters.
In my experience, Be just works. In my experience, Linux doesn't quite make it there. I don't care because I run an OS built on NeXTStep. NeXT/OS X does, always has, and always will kick the shit outta plain-vanilla UNIX and clones.
NEXTSTEP RULES
Laukev7:
quote:All big distros are Desktop-Linux.
--- Quote ---
Linux distros can be used for the desktop. They're just not good at it. What can you expect when most Linux distros rip off the Windows interface, which isn't even a good desktop model in the first place?
--- Quote --- The desk on my Slackware box is faster than any Mac, Windows or BeOS Desk
--- End quote ---
That explains why it takes me 5-10 seconds to open the trash can in KDE. Even on FreeBSD.
quote: (and a lot more configurable).
--- End quote ---
If you can figure it out how to find, let alone edit the myriads of configuration files. Even through the graphical configuration panels it is a pain. And don't even start on installing other desktop environments. When the DE was not included with the distro, I've had to edit a files just to make the DE appear in the KDM/GDM menu! Linux may be theoretically more configurable, but its very tedious work.
quote: X11 is more configurable than anything.
--- End quote ---
That is, if you like spending hours editing configuration files. You can't configure X11 any more with the wizards (graphical or command line) than Aqua and others. And configuring X11, while possible, is a painful process, whether with wizards or config files.
quote: I still haven't read any argument against it on this board.
--- End quote ---
You mean like the fact that you have to open a wizard, and log off each time you want to change the resolution and colour settings without having the screen move all the tme?
--- End quote ---
--- End quote ---
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version