Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
OK *nix heads, what should I do?
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by Darth Jimmy James:
Linux is not a desktop system.
'Nuff said.
I don't give a fuck about three years in the future, besides, I've been hearing that same tired rhetoric now for ages. Give it up. Home users don't give a fuck about Linux because it doesn't work for them. Make it work for them and they will. I've yet to see any progress.
--- End quote ---
I have to agree with you. I've been hearing people say that Linux is going to take over soon since the mid/late 90's. To this day has it even came close to taking over? Nope.
You are absolutly right when you say Linux doesn't work well for most home users. Most home users have trouble operating Windows let alone Linux. Some people even think that Windows installers with configuration options are difficult to use. I'd hate to see those same people try to install something in Linux.
To this day, there aren't any GUI's Linux that I find appealing or attractive. Every GUI and every icon set for Linux just seems so generic looking if you ask me. I'm not overly impressed with the choice of fonts you get in most default Linux installs. When I install Linux I always install and use some of the MS fonts and some of the non-MS fonts that are installed with Windows. X11 is shit. Blackbox looks like ass. I've seen alot better black Visual Styles for XP(like the black version of Blackcomb Pro and the black version of Chrome 4 XP 2nd Generation).....however, I don't like black visual styles at all. Right now I'm using Chrome 4 XP 2nd generation...but I certainly am not using it's black version. I'm using the Blue w/Flag.
Using Linux isn't only frustration, it can be annoying as well. 1 thing that I find annoying about Linux is when you want to view your drives/partation the it always takes a like 10-15 seconds to do so because the ignorant OS has to scan your floppy drive and CD/DVD drives to see if there is any media in it...and if there is media in it it has to completely scan the media for it's files. Why in the fuck should it pre-fetch data on my CD, DVD, floppy media when all I want to do is view contents on a hard drive partation? It should only access the floppy/CD/DVD drives if I open the mount point for the drive with the media. Even after it has pre-loaded the stuff once, if I close out the browser and go back to mount points again say 30 seconds later it has to pre-load everything again.
Even if there is no media in your removable drives Linux insists on scanning the drives for a bit. Why would it continue accessing a CD drive if there is no disc in it(and it should see that the 1st time it accessed the drive)? I'm assuming that Linux doesn't use cache. What is so hard about such a supposed advanced OS using drive cache?
I have a huge list of Linux annoyances. I don't feel like typing them all up though. ;P
I think this is funny. Yesterday a friend of mine accidently booted into to Linux when he was using my computer. He called me in the room and he said, "What in the fuck is this shit?" He straight up said that it looked horrible(he is used to how nice I have Windows looking on this machine). He tried using it for a few minutes and he was lost. He said, "this system sucks man. It looks like shit and the way it works is retarded." "How do I get out of this shit and back into Windows? I want to play Blackhawk Down". Oh yeah! He also made a comment about the retarded startup sound that Linux played(KDE). He said that it sounded like something a weirdo would like. He booted into Mandrake 9.1.
Myself, I'd definatley recommend BeOS over Linux. Especially if you are already familiar with MacOS.
[ October 22, 2003: Message edited by: Viper ]
flap:
quote:1 thing that I find annoying about Linux is when you want to view your drives/partation the it always takes a like 10-15 seconds to do so because the ignorant OS has to scan your floppy drive and CD/DVD drives to see if there is any media in it...and if there is media in it it has to completely scan the media for it's files.
--- End quote ---
Nothing like that happens to me. If anything that situation is more akin to Windows, because the "ignorant OS" auto-mounts every volume it has access to. It's probably automount doing that. I don't use automount because I don't like my OS behaving like windows and auto-mounting disks, or syncing floppy disks on every single write. Of course you can do that if you want under a Unix system; under Windows though you're just forced to.
quote:I'm assuming that Linux doesn't use cache. What is so hard about such a supposed advanced OS using drive cache?
--- End quote ---
Of course it does.
quote:I think this is funny. Yesterday a friend of mine accidently booted into to Linux when he was using my computer. He called me in the room and he said, "What in the fuck is this shit?" He straight up said that it looked horrible(he is used to how nice I have Windows looking on this machine). He tried using it for a few minutes and he was lost. He said, "this system sucks man. It looks like shit and the way it works is retarded." "How do I get out of this shit and back into Windows? I want to play Blackhawk Down". Oh yeah! He also made a comment about the retarded startup sound that Linux played(KDE). He said that it sounded like something a weirdo would like. He booted into Mandrake 9.1.
--- End quote ---
So what are you trying to say? That your friend is a cretin? That he judges an operating system as being "shit" on the basis that he is ignorant of how to use it? That he judges it on how it looks, as do you?
xyle_one:
I actually enjoy using Linux. And making it look good wasn't difficult. Its a matter of taste. I do not think windows looks good. I think 2000s look is better than xps Luna scheme, again, that is a matter of taste. Above all, i dig aqua. But there is more to this than how something looks. Looks only take you so far, then you get old and noone likes you .
I like using linux purely for the fact that i can do whatever i want with it. No restrictions. I can use it as a desktop os, and a server. With each release, the distros are becomming easier and easier to use, and are actually taking care of the end user by making it consistent visually, and offering gui tools to do most things. Windows is easy, yeah, and it can do most things. But i feel that it is mediocre. It does a half ass job, when it works. And people are okay with that. Im not. Ive become to accustomed to systems that work, like macosX and Linux.
Getting linux to work wasnt hard. I installed it, and im done. It works. Perfectly. Same with my mac. Of course, the g4 and jaguar are built for each other, so there is less room for error. With windows, even xp, i had to go download new drivers, and it couldnt even pick up my linux machine or my mac. Then I had to install more software, like office apps, web browsers, couldn't get rid of IE, or Media Player, or MSN Messenger, and couldn't change the theme easily. Then i had to run windows update, restart 4 times, then put the windows disc back in so i could install IIS. After all this trouble. It couldn't even read the ext3 disc in the machine. It saw a drive there, but couldnt mount it. Mandrake does that automatically. It sees an ntfs drive on the system, and you can mount it, with no hassle. Im going to stop here. Rambling is bad...
Zombie9920:
I do have to agree that Luna looks like shit. I can't stand looking at it just like how I can't stand looking at black themes, plain themes and bright colored themes.
I have done all kinds of things to Linux but no matter how hard I try I can't seem to get it to look as nice as I want it to look.
preacher:
Any OS that is used somewhere on the desktop is a desktop operating system. Saying that linux is not a desktop OS would be like saying that MSDOS is not a desktop OS. MSDOS had/has millions of desktop users long before there were such things as graphical interfaces. Linux has a graphical interface that is light years ahead of other graphical interfaces that were part of desktop operating systems, such as MSDOS with Windows 3.1. It is also more simplistic than Windows 3.1 was when it was released. Linux is indeed a desktop OS, but it is not yet on the level with Windows XP or Mac OS X for simplicity. I just wish to clear this up. Once again I will not insist that anyone uses linux, however I dont like to be judged as a fool because I dedicate my time to the OS.
[ October 23, 2003: Message edited by: ThePreacher ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version