Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Aloone_Jonez on 5 December 2005, 16:40
-
http://www.itwriting.com/winvandals.php
Most articles I've read just bitch about Windows and don't get to the true, this article is great, I completely agree with it 100%. Windows isn't inherently insecure, it's just that Microsoft has provided retarded default settings that give the average user little choice but to run an insecure set up.
-
Even muzzy says Windows blows! (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92733&postcount=6)
(kinda)
-
yup
the easy way
is the bad way!
-
Even muzzy says Windows blows! (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=92733&postcount=6)
(kinda)
Well about 50% I recon.
The sad thing is Windows has the potential to be a very good operating system (better than UNIX in many ways) but MS won't let this happen. Just think of the tools and features that could be added?
One of the most shittyest things is you have to pay for 3rd part products that should be shipped with the OS like theming, a decent programming language, and registry management tool. Windows is far worse for things MS has left out rather than the shit they've added.
-
The Windows firewall doesn't compete with iptables. You can barely configure it. Firewalls are important, and every operating system connected to a network should have a very fucking good one. Especially Windows. Is there something I'm missing about the Windows firewall or is it really just plain shit?
In Windows, can you renice (i.e. change the priority of) processes? I like to renice processes e.g. when I'm compiling something big and I don't want GAIM to run the slightest bit slow. Can you do this in Windows? I don't remember seeing anything like this in the Task Manager, but I never searched for it.
Simple things like these (I suspect that they wouldn't be so simple to implement.) are important. They tell you that the design of specific bits of the operating system probably don't completely suck, as well as being useful.
I just think Windows sucks, and that it doesn't compete with real operating systems like GNU/Linux or FreeBSD on any level but a few that only retards* feel are important, which is why retards are attracted to Windows.
* This term used loosely.
-
Hmmmm. I suppose so. Yes, you can bottle up your computer, and enforce permissions, and all that. That might make Windows a bit more secure. But I don't think that makes it a good operating system. Plenty of reasons for this opinion, and it has more to do with modularity and process control and separation of OS and applications, none of which Windows does well. And let's not even get started on memory management, because it doesn't exist.
So yeah, you can take steps to make Windows better. But you can only go so far. And that's not a source issue, that's a system design issue. One more reason why Windows is not allowed to enter my home.
-
The sad thing is Windows has the potential to be a very good operating system (better than UNIX in many ways) but MS won't let this happen.
Not quite ... Winblow$ has serious design flaws (http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_A.html) ... there's not too much you can do make it better.
-
But those design flaws are from a definitional standpoint. I agree with that guy's idea of what an operating system should be, and what it should not be. But maybe Aloone Jonez doesn't. So I won't overtly say that "Windows is a flawed design". It would be more appropriate to say that "Windows is incapable of meeting my expectations for an operating system". Both have the same result.
-
Windows isnt going to get better util there is a viable alternative to M$. Competition breed innovation.
-
Windows isnt going to get better util there is a viable alternative to M$. Competition breed innovation.
That's just what the capitalist technocratic whores want you to believe. Giving smart people lots of money to do cool stuff without marketing or boss pressure is truly what breeds innovation. Which is why guys programming in their spare time are revolutionizing the computer industry, while the corporate marketing companies like Microsoft get slammed.
-
Microsoft is anti-capitalist by virtue of its business practices. Its one thing to compete. Its another thing to use illegal business practices and Gestopo like tactics in order to be the corner the IT market.
-
piratePenguin, worker201 and H_TeXMeX_H,
I didn't say that Windows would become beter than UNIX or it'd be perfect. I said it could be better than UNIX in some ways and it already is.
Here (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=95279&postcount=92) are the main advantages Windows has to offer.
These are the only advantages of Windows, personally I'd rather use a more secure and stable operating system.
While this is still true, I've managed to improve this myself by using a limited, account, dissabling some services and not using a memory resident anti-virus.
About the memory allocation issue you've highlighted:
I personally don't have these problems because I don't run any big programs like large image and film editing software, but colleagues of mine at work have. The memory protection, registry and security problems have improved in slightly Windows 2000 and XP, however I can't see MS fixing them properly (especially the running everything as root issue).
If another company took control of Windows then these disadvantages could be minimised. I don't think open sourcing it would be a good idea unless one main party still remained in control of the entire OS to prevent inconsistency issues (Linux has these).
-
personally I'd rather use a more secure and stable operating system.
You mean like GNU/Linux and FreeBSD?
Even though Windows isn't as stable or secure as UNIX it has a better desktop
I don't think so.
For example OLE is consistent across the Windows platform this isn't the case with UNIX, and the clipboard is another example, let's not forget drag and drop.
I know not-much about OLE and the alternatives, so I won't comment on that. As for the the clipboard, I can copy and paste between Firefox and Konqueror and GAIM and Konsole and xterm. I remember you brought up Inkscape in relation to this before.Note that Inkscape has its own internal clipboard; it does not use the system clipboard except for copying/pasting text by the Text tool.
source (http://www.inkscape.org/doc/advanced/tutorial-advanced.html)
That explains that.KDE applications don't communicate with the GNOME desktop very well and vice versa
In what ways? Alot has changed recently.dependences also aren't a problem with Windows.
That's what I used to believe, but not anymore (something I read in the packaging standards thread). I'm sure there are Ubuntu users who don't even know what dependencies are.As I've mentioned before Windows XP boots faster than most OSs.
I don't think boot-speed is all that important. But any GNU/Linux user that does can just optimize their init scripts or use initng (http://initng.thinktux.net/index.php/Main_Page) (I use initng myself. I just decided to try it and now I couldn't be fucked changing it (nothing wrong with the way it is). It boots in about the same time as the usual sysvinit (six seconds when I last compared (which was before I had much stuff starting at boot)) because I start so little stuff at boot.
-
I know not-much about OLE and the alternatives, so I won't comment on that.
OLE stands for object linking and embedding, it enables you to embed objects from other applications in documents and then edit them using the respective application. For example I could paste a MS paint picture into a MS Word document then click on it and a MS paint tool bad apears enabling me to edit the picture, of course this isn't just restricted to MS software Correl Draw does the same thing.
As for the the clipboard, I can copy and paste between Firefox and Konqueror and GAIM and Konsole and xterm.
So big deal?
Exchanging text between applicaions is easy (both UNIX and even DOS can do this in the form of pipes), what about objects? Can you copy something from the Gimp then paste it into OpenOffice, click on it and edit it?
I remember you brought up Inkscape in relation to this before.source (http://www.inkscape.org/doc/advanced/tutorial-advanced.html)
That explains that.
No it doesn't, you've missed the point, even DOS applications allow cut and paste but what they don't allow DDE (dynamic data exchange) between programs and neither does UNIX (well as far as I'm aware anyway).
Can you copy objects from Inkscape, past them into ABI Word, click on them and edit them again in Inkscape?
Come to think of it this is probably why OpenOffice was designed the way it is. The word processor, spread sheet and drawing package are all one module because if they weren't then could couldn't insert drawings and spread sheets into Writer and then edit them. OpenOffice uses more memory than MS Office because of this, if UNIX supported DDE then OO would probably be faster and more efficient but it isn't.
In what ways?
The main one that springs to mind is drag and drop, I found it very frustrating how I couldn't drop a file from KDE to OpenOffice of ABI Word and edit it.
Alot has changed recently.
Has the aforementioned changed?
I haven't used Linux properly for a year or so now so I personally don't know.
That's what I used to believe, but not anymore (something I read in the packaging standards thread). I'm sure there are Ubuntu users who don't even know what dependencies are.
I personally haven't had this problem although I'm not denying the fact it does exist, all I know is I've found it harder to install Linux stuff than Windows stuff. There again I am more familular with Windows but I don't see how this makes that much differance most things are simple, download the package and run it as administrator, and if it's good software it'll work, there's no fucking around looking for on that suites your distro or compiling. I blame MS for this as well as the vendors, there's a Microsoft package system for Windows but the silly software vendors don't use it.
I don't think boot-speed is all that important.
It's very important if you don't waste electricity leaving your system running 24/7.
But any GNU/Linux user that does can just optimize their init scripts or use initng (http://initng.thinktux.net/index.php/Main_Page) (I use initng myself. I just decided to try it and now I couldn't be fucked changing it (nothing wrong with the way it is). It boots in about the same time as the usual sysvinit (six seconds when I last compared (which was before I had much stuff starting at boot)) because I start so little stuff at boot.
We've already discussed this before, I think we decided that boot speed is highly variable, it depends on how you configure your operating system, and Linux and BSD are more variable than Windows because they're more configurable which I know is an advantage.
A lot of Window's problems are caused by its legacy of allowing the user and programs complete control of the system. UNIX's lack of desktop ability is also due to its legacy of being a text based operating system, it wasn't originally designed with the desktop in mind just as Windows wasn't originally designed with security in mind. Yes, a lot has changed recently Windows has become more secure and UNIX has become more desktop friendly but both OS's have a fair way to go on both issues.
-
OLE stands for object linking and embedding, it enables you to embed objects from other applications in documents and then edit them using the respective application. For example I could paste a MS paint picture into a MS Word document then click on it and a MS paint tool bad apears enabling me to edit the picture, of course this isn't just restricted to MS software Correl Draw does the same thing.
I think I see what you mean (literally (http://illhostit.com/files/9427194474203936/ole.png)).
So big deal?
Exchanging text between applicaions is easy (both UNIX and even DOS can do this in the form of pipes), what about objects? Can you copy something from the Gimp then paste it into OpenOffice, click on it and edit it?
I don't have OpenOffice so I don't know. Although, I can tell you can't copy from the GIMP into Krita (IMO Krita is shit anyhow. It's unstable and I prefer the GIMP's interface. I think they've alot of polishing to do, and alot of completing-things to do. Who says pasting from the GIMP is so hard? It could be on the roadmap, approx. 2,000 years down the line (that is: when they fix the stability issues), for all we know. If you do (say pasting from the GIMP is so hard), then I hope you can explain why.).
I can't tell you about pasting from Krita to the GIMP, because after I tried to copy in Krita, low and behold, it crashed.
DOS
Everyone in the DOS world uses the same clipboard and stuff, I would guess.
Can you copy objects from Inkscape
No, only text in Inkscape gets to the outside world, because it uses it's own internal clipboard.
past them into ABI Word, click on them and edit them again in Inkscape?
Could you do that easilly (i.e. almost-naturally) if both Inkscape and Abiword were made primarally for Windows (and made use of all it's API/stuff)?
Come to think of it this is probably why OpenOffice was designed the way it is. The word processor, spread sheet and drawing package are all one module because if they weren't then could couldn't insert drawings and spread sheets into Writer and then edit them. OpenOffice uses more memory than MS Office because of this, if UNIX supported DDE then OO would probably be faster and more efficient but it isn't.
Maybe. But KOffice is many different binaries (they share some core libraries) just like MS Office.
The main one that springs to mind is drag and drop, I found it very frustrating how I couldn't drop a file from KDE to OpenOffice of ABI Word and edit it.
Hopefully not too-frustrating. Otherwise, I could put you in contact with a good shrink.
Has the aforementioned changed?
I dunno. But back when I was on good ol' Mandrake things sure-were worse. Thankfully it wasn't all that hard to steer away from GNOME apps.
It's very important if you don't waste electricity leaving your system running 24/7.
I don't leave my computer on 24/7.
The electricity went off 'bout an hour ago and I timed the computer booting up. 16s to GDM login. Then probably about 10 seconds (max) for GNOME to be fully started up.
A lot of Window's problems are caused by its legacy of allowing the user and programs complete control of the system. UNIX's lack of desktop ability is also due to its legacy of being a text based operating system, it wasn't originally designed with the desktop in mind just as Windows wasn't originally designed with security in mind. Yes, a lot has changed recently Windows has become more secure and UNIX has become more desktop friendly but both OS's have a fair way to go on both issues.
Well if the problems you're describing with the GNU/Linux desktops were fixed, I wouldn't even notice. For my uses, the system is close to perfect, and for alot of other peoples uses too. How many people find Windows stability (I've had alot of issues with Windows' stability. I dunno if it's the hardware, it could be, but not all the time. Right clicking on a folder and explorer fcks up making Windows go shit-slow (again)... wtf?) close to perfect?
Microsoft did all the important-for selling things first. I think that could partly-explain why Windows sucks so bad. My Windows experience is haunted by stability and security issues, and being treated like a fucking retard too. If lack of DDE/OLE haunts you, get help.
-
I think I see what you mean (literally (http://illhostit.com/files/9427194474203936/ole.png)).
I knew about this, now try and see if KOffice will interoperate with OpenOffice or ABIWord in this manner?
I don't have OpenOffice so I don't know. Although, I can tell you can't copy from the GIMP into Krita (IMO Krita is shit anyhow. It's unstable and I prefer the GIMP's interface.
UNIX might be able to share data but Windows goes one step further and shares objects - a big advantage.
Everyone in the DOS world uses the same clipboard and stuff, I would guess.
Each app has its own clipboard but there were ways to get round this and no it wasn't pretty. I'm sorry I shouldn't have mentioned DOS here.
No, only text in Inkscape gets to the outside world, because it uses it's own internal clipboard.
I think the problem might be due to the fact that the Linux clipboard might not support vector formats, I don't know.
Could you do that easilly (i.e. almost-naturally) if both Inkscape and Abiword were made primarally for Windows (and made use of all it's API/stuff)?
Certainly yes.
Maybe. But KOffice is many different binaries (they share some core libraries) just like MS Office.
I can do exactly the same with Corel Draw and Word even though they don't share the same binaries.
Hopefully not too-frustrating. Otherwise, I could put you in contact with a good shrink.
It's very frustrating when you want to work with Inkscape and ABI Word, it it too much to ask to be able to draw something in a drawing program, then past it into a word processor and click on it to edit and adjust it?
You can convert it to a raster format, but that's a pain in the arse, the print quality is shit, you can't resize with out seeing the pixels and to modify the graphic you need to go back into Inkscape and re-export it to a raster, then re-import it to ABI Word.
Hopefully not too-frustrating. Otherwise, I could put you in contact with a good shrink.
LOL - a typical zealot response, so it's the user's fault now for the OS's shortcommings. :rolleyes:
These issues still exist and calling the user stupid for noticing and being botherd about them is just plain childish.
How many people find Windows stability (I've had alot of issues with Windows' stability.
At work the admin have set the screensaver to lock the system and prompt for a password, I got round this annoying feature by setting the screensaver delay to 9999 miniutes (just under a week), I went on holiday for a couple of weeks and forgot to turn it off, when I came back it was still going, no BSOD, I just moved the mouse and it prompted me for the password.
Microsoft did all the important-for selling things first. I think that could partly-explain why Windows sucks so bad. My Windows experience is haunted by stability
I've already told you how to fix 99% of those issues.
If lack of DDE/OLE haunts you, get help.
OLE/DDE are very important tools in the office, they enable you to easilly create documents using many peices of software. OpenOffice and KOffice have implemented these features for themselves by using their own libraries and standards, when they really should've been part of the OS in the first place, hence they can't interoperate with each other.
-
The Windows firewall doesn't compete with iptables. You can barely configure it. Firewalls are important, and every operating system connected to a network should have a very fucking good one. Especially Windows. Is there something I'm missing about the Windows firewall or is it really just plain shit?
it's just plain shit. ;)
-
These issues still exist and calling the user stupid for noticing and being botherd about them is just plain childish.
Where did I say you were stupid? I was just making a joke, sheez.
At work the admin have set the screensaver to lock the system and prompt for a password, I got round this annoying feature by setting the screensaver delay to 9999 miniutes (just under a week), I went on holiday for a couple of weeks and forgot to turn it off, when I came back it was still going, no BSOD, I just moved the mouse and it prompted me for the password.
What? Is this news? Oh wait, we're talking about Windows, I guess it is.
OLE/DDE are very important tools in the office, they enable you to easilly create documents using many peices of software. OpenOffice and KOffice have implemented these features for themselves by using their own libraries and standards, when they really should've been part of the OS in the first place, hence they can't interoperate with each other.
Can I really make a picure in paint, paste it into Word, and edit it inside word using the paint interface? I guess that would be pretty cool.
Windows cannot do this on 256MB RAM (http://img400.imageshack.us/my.php?image=16ks.png). And to think that my system is still running responsive as ever with all that stuff open.. I mean, here, I just drew a gradient in GIMP (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=23dv.png) (you'll notice the time in the clock is the same), not a hitch. A look at the System Monitor (http://img387.imageshack.us/my.php?image=33md.png). Is that two/three/FOUR FUCKING times more memory being used than physical RAM available? How the FUCK is it still so fucking responsive. I didn't close anything between then and now, and I'd hardley know KDevelop, the GIMP, Inkscape, KWord, amaroK, the System Monitor, and Gnome Terminal are running but for the cluttered taskbar (image (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=45xh.png).
-
I thought it had been universally accepted that Windows memory management was shit. Making it extremely limiting for certain types of applications, graphics being a major one. As far as the sort of person who wants to use MSPaint to make a Word document goes, well real programs and tough operating systems just aren't necessary.
By the way, object linking and embedding (OLE), which makes that possible, is one of the things that makes Windows so insecure. A virus can propogate from Outlook to Excel to Word to Powerpoint and back to Outlook without ever leaving your inbox. It's also a major cause of office suite bloat - an interoperability of a feature set that no one in their right mind would ever use. Plus, having each task centrally defined and apportioned, rather than peripherally, makes MSOffice unmodular and inefficient memory users. I'm glad that Linux doesn't have this kind of crap.
-
Can I really make a picure in paint, paste it into Word, and edit it inside word using the paint interface? I guess that would be pretty cool.
This works in Word but I don't have Word at home so I'll show you with WordPad and MS Paint and even OpenOffice.
You can paste from MS Paint to WordPad:
http://www.illhostit.com/files/9010837856089104/OLE1.PNG
Click on it and up pops a MS Paint tool bar allowing you to edit the image:
http://www.illhostit.com/files/3812224035403325/OLE2.PNG
Look you can even insert OpenOffice Drawings into WordPad!
http://www.illhostit.com/files/8067180888122247/OLE3.PNG
Interestingly when I edited a MS Paint picture which I'd inserted into OpenOffice it MS Paint appeared in a new Window. Perhapps the OO developers didn't like the idea of other application's tool bars being placed over thier own because it doesn't always look too pretty (especially when the other program has been designed by someone else). Notice in my previous example how the OO toolbar only partially covers WordPad's?
Windows cannot do this on 256MB RAM (http://img400.imageshack.us/my.php?image=16ks.png). And to think that my system is still running responsive as ever with all that stuff open.. I mean, here, I just drew a gradient in GIMP (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=23dv.png) (you'll notice the time in the clock is the same), not a hitch. A look at the System Monitor (http://img387.imageshack.us/my.php?image=33md.png). Is that two/three/FOUR FUCKING times more memory being used than physical RAM available? How the FUCK is it still so fucking responsive. I didn't close anything between then and now, and I'd hardley know KDevelop, the GIMP, Inkscape, KWord, amaroK, the System Monitor, and Gnome Terminal are running but for the cluttered taskbar (image (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=45xh.png).
I know Windows is shit at memory management but if you can't see that OLE and DDE are advantages then I can put you in contact with a good shrink. :p
-
Actually, the memory management in Windows NT isn't "bad". It's the fact that modern programmers are extremely lazy, cranking out shoddy code with tons of bloat, broken code, and all-round wastefulness. One huge reason that the system becomes so unstable is that this same level of piss-poor quality typically is given to hardware drivers as well. OEMs try to get their driver programmers, who have probably never made anything but Java chat programs and 3D games to add crap to a simple driver for a sound card that plugs into 250MB worth of crap "home entertainment" software that came with the sound card. What happens? ALL OF IT IS GARBAGE AND IT CRASHES THE SYSTEM.
These same drivers are often times greedy with memory allocation for the hardware. But then, there's not a single piece of software that exists nowadays that isn't greedy. The problem I see is that it's likely that the suits got it in their head, that idea that "computers are going so fast that programs will never catch up," so they had their boys just rape the shit out of the code. Who gives a blue fuck if it's efficient or stable? The computer is fast and smart enough to make it run well.
Garbage.
How do I know that this is the case? I was there for Mac OS 8's release. I remember when it was a BIG DEAL that it would be more stable... and it was... but then, it had simply become easier to spot the shitty apps. Classic Mac had its share of shit programs, mostly anything that was a piss poor port of a Windows app, like AIM, Yahoo, or even a lot of games. Quite a bit of native software was just plain ass, as well. Drivers for hardware, many times would knock heads with some other extension or control panel. Why? LAZINESS.
I know it's easy to blame MS for all the problems, but you really need to sit back and think for a moment... "When I run better quality software, Windows doesn't fuck up." Now, think about the reason for that. Is it possible that maybe Windows isn't as bad as you like to bitch about? Is there even the most remote possibility that maybe it doesn't suck? Could you ever even conceptualize that Windows isn't "shit"?
Somehow I doubt it.
-
No I cant.
-
As an avid user of Adobe Illustrator, I have used it extensively in OSX and Windows (95, 98, and XP). The memory management issues are much worse in Windows. Unless Adobe has been pulling some fucked up shit, this isn't their fault. With no other applications running, this kinda points to Windows as the culprit. Especially when I boot up Linux and run something even more memory intensive than a huge Illustrator file, and have no problems whatsoever on the same machine. If I had to guess, based on what I have seen, the problem is that Windows allots itself too much memory, and is reluctant to give it up to other programs. Linux, I believe doesn't allow enough, which makes some basic apps seem slow, and makes your desktop not refresh as often as you might like.
I'm sure Microsoft chose to have Windows manage memory the way they did for a reason. But I'm saying that this reason is often inhibitive to hardcore work.
-
This works in Word but I don't have Word at home so I'll show you with WordPad and MS Paint and even OpenOffice.
You can paste from MS Paint to WordPad:
http://www.illhostit.com/files/9010837856089104/OLE1.PNG
Click on it and up pops a MS Paint tool bar allowing you to edit the image:
http://www.illhostit.com/files/3812224035403325/OLE2.PNG
Look you can even insert OpenOffice Drawings into WordPad!
http://www.illhostit.com/files/8067180888122247/OLE3.PNG
Feck that is cool. I wonder is anyone working on bringing this to GNU/Linux...
-
Windows XP access swap file memory instead of RAM. I dont know if thats normal for OS's to do. Its slows the system down a lot. I can load a lot more stuff up on linux than I can on Windows
-
Hah, well you can minimise swap file usage on Windows 2000, the memory management on XP sucks.
-
I don't know about XP, I can't see why MS would make memory management worse, I know XP uses more RAM than Windows 2000 but it seems to be ok when you disable all the unnesacery services.
I was very impresed with Windows 2000's memory management today at work. I was doing my colege work in OpenOffice while Adobe searched a directory full of very large .pdfs. The system remained very responsive despite the fact that Acrobat reader was using up nearly 100% of the CPU and 376.38MB allocated when there was only 256MB of physical memory.
http://www.illhostit.com/files/1009397511819603/mem%20usage.jpg
One thing I did notice is that although switching between tasks was quite fast using alt+tab, it took ages to maximise a minimised program, I think I've heard about this problem before though.
-
Funny how pretty much every thread in here turns into Windows vs. Linux on issues that weren't even the case when the thread started.
-
One thing I did notice is that although switching between tasks was quite fast using alt+tab, it took ages to maximise a minimised program, I think I've heard about this problem before though.
Muzzy mentioned this before. Whenever you minimize some window some info. is erased, and when you ALT+TAB it isn't. It's better keeping it, 'cause you'll need it again.
Something like that.
-
Windows could be a good OS, but it isnt. Microshaft bloats it up with stupid needless bells and whistles. It also manages memory like shit. I wouldnt run Windows with less than 512 Megs. You might as well suck eggs with anything below that. Windows isnt going to get until there is some competition to Microshaft.
-
Windows could be a good OS, but it isnt. Microshaft bloats it up with stupid needless bells and whistles. It also manages memory like shit. I wouldnt run Windows with less than 512 Megs. You might as well suck eggs with anything below that. Windows isnt going to get until there is some competition to Microshaft.
Hmm odd, because I ran Windows 2000 fine on 128mb and 256mb of memory. :rolleyes:
-
Hmm odd, because I ran Windows 2000 fine on 128mb and 256mb of memory. :rolleyes:
dmcfarland did not mention which Windows version he meant. Windows 95 runs decent on less than 512 MB RAM, but Windows XP is slow as hell on 256 MB RAM.
-
Hmm, it seemed a like a general comment to me, so I decided to put my point of view in. :P
-
Actually, XP's memory management is identical to 2000.
-
Exactly ,
Windows XP's memory managemant is the same as Windows 2000's. I run XP on 248MB and it works perfectly, I've used briefly at a computer auction on a machine with 128MB and it wasn't that bad. Anti-virus is the main problem, followed closely by Windows update, then luna and lastly the other unecasary services added in XP. The shit thing about Windows memory management is that minimised tasks are alwasys swapped to disk.
-
Exactly ,
Windows XP's memory managemant is the same as Windows 2000's. I run XP on 248MB and it works perfectly, I've used briefly at a computer auction on a machine with 128MB and it wasn't that bad. Anti-virus is the main problem, followed closely by Windows update, then luna and lastly the other unecasary services added in XP. The shit thing about Windows memory management is that minimised tasks are alwasys swapped to disk.
Try running close to the same amount of shit that I had running and see how responsive wonderful-Windows is. Try starting up more programs then, and more programs and more programs, and see how things go.
And if minimizing in Windows is shit, then that's another reason Windows is shit.
-
Windows 95 runs decent on less than 512 MB RAM,
Sounds funny when you put it that way. When Windows 95 came out desktops didn't even support that much RAM. Hell, 95 itself didn't support that much. :D
For the record, 95 runs decent on 32MB, better with 64MB.
-
LOL I installed Windows 95 on a Laptop with 4MB of RAM once andit was very very slow.
-
Exactly ,
Windows XP's memory managemant is the same as Windows 2000's. I run XP on 248MB and it works perfectly, I've used briefly at a computer auction on a machine with 128MB and it wasn't that bad. Anti-virus is the main problem, followed closely by Windows update, then luna and lastly the other unecasary services added in XP. The shit thing about Windows memory management is that minimised tasks are alwasys swapped to disk.
That's my point, all that extra "shit" slows it down horribly... :rolleyes:
Hence why I run Windows 2000, I shouldn't have to spend time tweaking the system just so it runs fast, Windows 2000 has always ran very fast for me. :)
-
That's my point, all that extra "shit" slows it down horribly... :rolleyes:
I agree and it's got fuck all to do with memory management.
-
I agree and it's got fuck all to do with memory management.
Then do what I said:Try running close to the same amount of shit that I had running and see how responsive wonderful-Windows is. Try starting up more programs then, and more programs and more programs, and see how things go.
Hell I might just do this on my brothers XP computer, after he next formats.
-
I agree and it's got fuck all to do with memory management.
It is completely relevant to memory management, since all those extra "services" that slow XP down reside in memory. :rolleyes:
Not to mention switching to the "Classic" theme from Luna does fuck all for speed.
-
I was reffering to Windows XP. Win 95, 98 and nt had/have crappy memory management. Its all relative to what the latest/greatest/fastest computer that was on the market at the time.
Memory is definetly the name of the game. Windows manages memory like crap and Ive always had a custom swap file size on my windows installs. I am stating a simple fact that Windows OS's have crap memory management.
I agree you can tweak Windows so it runs better. Most users are not that savy and wouldnt know how to do that unless someone shows them and it still would be iffy at that. The average user just wants to plug it in and make it go.
Windows could be made better, but I dont ever see it happening. Im sure windows will continue to blow on the desktop and on the enterprise systems.
-
Try running close to the same amount of shit that I had running and see how responsive wonderful-Windows is. Try starting up more programs then, and more programs and more programs, and see how things go.
Err, where did I say "Windows' memory management is as good or is better than Linux's"?
It is completely relevant to memory management, since all those extra "services" that slow XP down reside in memory. :rolleyes:
Memory management is all about how the kernel controls memory allocation and swapping to disk. Enableing or disabling services will affect the total amount of memory being used but makes no differance to how the kernel manages the memory requests made by applications. If two identical systems, one running XP and the other running Windows 2000 had exactly the same amount of data in memory then the memory would be allocated in exactly the same manner, XP might even be slightly better.
Not to mention switching to the "Classic" theme from Luna does fuck all for speed.
Well it does reduce memory usage some what and it depends on your graphics card - if you have a shitty on-board graphics card like mind you'll notice a bigger differance, disabling the active desktop feature also helps a lot too.
-
Err, where did I say "Windows' memory management is as good or is better than Linux's"?
I quoted that from way back (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107869&postcount=36), and I didn't get a response.
The shit thing about Windows' memory management is not that minimizing things makes things generally slower, it is that it just plain fucking sucks bollox.
Linux, on the other hand, has kick-ass memory management. I always knew it was good, but not as good as I recently realised (loading as much fucking SHITE up as possible and do random stuff, and still very close to as responsive as before. I'm gonna record it some time (using xvidcap, which wouldn't compile just now), and show it off goody. Because that's how damn good it is.).
-
I quoted that from way back (http://www.microsuck.com/forums/showpost.php?p=107869&postcount=36), and I didn't get a response.
You're wrong, I didn't comapare Windows' memory management to Linux's in the post you've quoted or anywhere else for that matter.
-
You're wrong, I didn't comapare Windows' memory management to Linux's in the post you've quoted or anywhere else for that matter.
I didn't say you did.
What you did say is:Exactly ,
Windows XP's memory managemant is the same as Windows 2000's. I run XP on 248MB and it works perfectly, I've used briefly at a computer auction on a machine with 128MB and it wasn't that bad. Anti-virus is the main problem, followed closely by Windows update, then luna and lastly the other unecasary services added in XP. The shit thing about Windows memory management is that minimised tasks are alwasys swapped to disk.
-
That's true but it isn't an issue if you don't minimise the tasks.
Yes it is a bug and yes it is shit but Windows' memory managment isn't that shit (alright it might not be as good as Linux's I haven't used Linux that much so I don't know). My point still holds true Windows isn't that bad or as bad as you want it to be or would like it to be, for me the wors thing about Windows is Microsoft rather than it's quality as a whole.
-
That's true but it isn't an issue if you don't minimise the tasks.
You've completely missed the point.
The memory management in Windows is, infact, shit. Linux has great memory management. According to a guy in ##freebsd on freenode, the Linux guys coppied alot from FreeBSD in the memory management area, and still have a bit more work to do. Some rarely used stuff in FreeBSD, like "kernel stack swapping" isn't available on Linux. So the FreeBSD memory management probably does compete well with, and probably beats, Linux's.
Windows memory management is shit. And it's not because of the minimizing fuckup.
Memory management is important, because it allows you to do more things faster. Linux allows you to do more things faster than Windows.
-
LOL I suppose I don't know any better because I've never pushed Linux to its limits.
All I know is that Windows isn't as bad as the Linux community say it is or want it to be so I'll tale what you've said very loosely.
-
All I know is that Windows isn't as bad as the Linux community say it is or want it to be so I'll [take] what you've said very loosely.
Windows is really bad. You mightn't think so, because you don't do 3D rendering (infact, one of my older brothers was asking me about GNU/Linux once. He does do a loada 3D rendering and stuff. On Windows (really the only OS he uses), he mainly uses 3D Studio Max. It doesn't run on GNU/Linux, but Maya, another cool program that he'd be able to use, and that would be fit replace 3D Studio Max, did. And he'd heard that running it on GNU/Linux is somehow faster or otherwise better (can't remember exactly) than running it on Windows (which is interesting. I might look into this, someday.). Needless to say, he's still using Windows and 3D Studio Max. He seems to quite-like 3D Studio Max, and doesn't wanna switch to Maya.), and you've never opened The GIMP, Inkscape, Firefox, GAIM, AmaroK, Konqueror, Glade, monodevelop, KDevelop, KWord and KSpread all in one go.
-
The average user doesn't ever get into the serious Windows memory management problems. Hell, the average Linux user doesn't ever really drive their machine either. But if you do, you'll notice the difference right away. If Windows is rendering something, forget about it doing anything else. Data crunching, same thing. Opening really huge files causes it to flub as well.
Real life experience: I had an Encapsulated PostScript file. It was only about 40MB, but it was 40MB of text, like way over a million lines of code. Using a Windows machine, with 1.5GB RAM and a Pentium4, Adobe Illustrator would not open this file. The amount of memory taken up by Windows combined the amount of memory taken up by Illustrator probably left plenty of room in the memory. But in order for Illustrator to interpret the file, it had to load each and every line separately. Eventually, even 1.5GB RAM fills up, and it starts to swap, but it can't deallocate memory to accomodate moving stuff from RAM to swap. I let it go on like this for over 8 hours before I finally gave up. It just sat there and thrashed the whole time.
So, I put the file on a USBstick and took it home. Loaded it onto my Mac, and attempted to open it in Illustrator. Took about 10 minutes, but it finally came up. And within another 10 minutes, the RAM had been cleared, and I could move around at full speed and get some work done. My Mac has 640MB RAM and a G3 900MHz processor.
Granted, I don't get monster files like this that often. Most people don't. But if you do, you're going to need better memory allocation and deallocation than Windows can provide. Issues that you take for granted, like apps taking forever to minimize/maximize, or thrashing for a few minutes before accepting responses, these things just don't happen in Linux or OSX.
-
Feck that is cool. I wonder is anyone working on bringing this to GNU/Linux...
Well it looks like this OLE stuff was one of the original goals of the famous GNOME project."Gnome" is actually an acronym: GNU Network Object Model Environment. Originally, the project was intended to create a framework for application objects, similar to Microsoft's OLE and COM technologies. However, the scope of the project rapidly expanded; it became clear that substantial groundwork was required before the "network object" part of the name could become reality. The latest development versions of Gnome include an object embedding architecture called Bonobo, and Gnome 1.0 included a fast, light CORBA 2.2 ORB called ORBit.
I don't know exactly how this stuff works and what uses it, yet, but I'll eventually find out, and post my findings.
(At least now I have an idea of what that Bonobo Component Browser (under Applications > System Tools) thing is)
EDIT: Yes, I know this stuff wouldn't be consistent accross all GNU/Linux systems, but it would be consistent accross GNOME.
-
Yes, I know this stuff wouldn't be consistent accross all GNU/Linux systems, but it would be consistent accross GNOME.
That's just the problem and it will remain the case unless the majority of developers adopt Gtk as a standard or it gets integrated into KDE - I think the two desktop enviroments need to be unified.
One of the great thing about Linux is it offers people lots of choices but this is also one of tis biggest downfalls. Someone might innovate and come up with a new then another developer might think of a better way of doing it but they don't even consider making it compatabile with the other person's system.
-
That's just the problem and it will remain the case unless the majority of developers adopt Gtk as a standard or it gets integrated into KDE - I think the two desktop enviroments need to be unified.
One of the great thing about Linux is it offers people lots of choices but this is also one of tis biggest downfalls. Someone might innovate and come up with a new then another developer might think of a better way of doing it but they don't even consider making it compatabile with the other person's system.
I wouldn't like to see KDE and GNOME unified. Each user has their own preference, because the enviornments are different and different people like different things. Certain things are standardized (e.g. by freedesktop.org and they usually obey these standards (*cough*unlike Windows*cough*). Things that haven't been standardized might or might not be standardized in the future, depending on their importance, and how easy/hard they would be to standardize.
-
I can agree to some extent but some things need to be stardardised (like packages for eaxmple) but they don't get standardised. Anyway theres no way of enforcing standards people just decide whether or not to use them.
-
I can agree to some extent but some things need to be stardardised (like packages for eaxmple) but they don't get standardised.
I disagree completely.
Mostly because I think you are misusing the term standard in a Microsofty way, ie, "standard" is really short for "what I think should be standard".
A standard for a communication protocol or file format is useful, since it helps you to share information with others through networking and file trading. Although there are like 50 different image formats, a jpeg is a jpeg on every computer. But other solitary systems should not necessarily be standardized. For example, packages. Each system designer has decided on his/her own which packaging system to use. And now you are going to decide once and for all which is "better" better? No, you don't get to decide that. Because it doesn't affect anyone except the person installing the packages. If you don't like rpms, or whatever, you don't have to use them. You can get a system that uses deb packages instead. Making someone else use your favorite packaging system is fascistic, since it only helps you when you go to use his computer. It doesn't do a fucking thing for him.
Same with desktop managers. And window managers. And filesystems. And most other things too. Standards help people share. Making everyone use the same program/system is what Microsoft does.
-
By the way, object linking and embedding (OLE), which makes that possible, is one of the things that makes Windows so insecure. A virus can propogate from Outlook to Excel to Word to Powerpoint and back to Outlook without ever leaving your inbox. It's also a major cause of office suite bloat - an interoperability of a feature set that no one in their right mind would ever use. Plus, having each task centrally defined and apportioned, rather than peripherally, makes MSOffice unmodular and inefficient memory users. I'm glad that Linux doesn't have this kind of crap.
I wasn't meaning to say that Linux should copy Windows directly where OLE is concerned but provide a superiour implementation. One way would be not to link objects in documents to applications but to give each object a data type similar to MIME so when you import a gif into ABIWord and click on it up pops The Gimp or Xpaint depending on your system settings.
I disagree completely.
Mostly because I think you are misusing the term standard in a Microsofty way, ie, "standard" is really short for "what I think should be standard".
No because MS standards are closed, I'm proposing an open standard.
A standard for a communication protocol or file format is useful, since it helps you to share information with others through networking and file trading.
Just like having a standard package format would help people distribute thier software - they should have to worry about distributing it in 100 or so packages formats there should be just one or two.
Although there are like 50 different image formats, a jpeg is a jpeg on every computer.
Exactly 50 different formats but how many are used on the Internet?
But other solitary systems should not necessarily be standardized. For example, packages. Each system designer has decided on his/her own which packaging system to use. And now you are going to decide once and for all which is "better" better? No, you don't get to decide that. Because it doesn't affect anyone except the person installing the packages. If you don't like rpms, or whatever, you don't have to use them. You can get a system that uses deb packages instead. Making someone else use your favorite packaging system is fascistic, since it only helps you when you go to use his computer. It doesn't do a fucking thing for him.
But its a fucking pain in the arse, I personally couldn't give a fuck whether it's a .deb or .rpm I just want to be able to download one file and install it on many Linux distros, this also puts many developers off writing Linux software, it'd certainly put me off.
Same with desktop managers. And window managers.
They are already going through a standardisation process but no one's ever going to force you to use KDE, Gnome, Xfce.
And filesystems.
That's a biggy, fair enough there's no point in having a standard file system if all you're going to to do is format your hard drive, but putting your files on a USB stick is a completely different story.
Standards help people share.
And a standard package format will help people share software which is after all the spirit of the GPL.
Making everyone use the same program/system is what Microsoft does.
Who said about making everyone use the same program/system?
Just the same format.
Differant pieces of software could be used to read the same package you know, just like I can open an .sxw in OpenOffice or ABIWord or you could edit a .jpg in The Gimp, Adobe Photoshop, Xpaint or even MS Paint.
-
What's your beef against multiple package formats anyway? You should be using synaptic or smart or apt-get or something like that. If you need some program that's only available in an rpm, then you're probably not understanding what it is that you need. Learn how to build shit from source. The fact that many software distributors only build packages for a few distros and leave the source for everyone else is more than reasonable.
Personally, I have never been upset with packaging systems. I use an rpm distro, and I use a package manager program (smart at the moment) to get all the updates I need. If a package I want is not in a smart (apt, yum) repo, then I go get the source and build it myself. Never had any problems. So what are you doing wrong that has you so upset?
-
What's your beef against multiple package formats anyway?
Not being able to download one package and install it on many different distros.
Learn how to build shit from source.
Fine for small things but it's impractical for large programs especially on a low end machine.
The fact that many software distributors only build packages for a few distros and leave the source for everyone else is more than reasonable.
How about proprietary software?
Oh fuck it it's evil anyway, but shit you support Mac and it's proprietary - just a shame that the forum software only lets me use 8 roll eyes smilies. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Oh fuck I've reached my limit.
So what are you doing wrong that has you so upset?
Installing Opera and OpenOffice 2.0 on both Ubuntu and Vector Linux - I've fucked up both.
-
I know I'm probably being irrational here, but package maintainers decided on a standard format long ago. It's called C. Any support beyond that is strictly on a per-case basis. Get over it. :p
-
Worker, this is when you start saying the things that put me off of Linux and its community.
Learn how to build shit from source.
Okay, know how you just said that you want lots of choices in installer package formats? Yeah. Well, you just told him that he should be using apt-get, which uses ONE format, and if he wants something else, he needs to re-think what he wants. Then, you told him he should just build from source. Foot. In. Mouth. You whined that him wanting something that improves the quality and value of Linux is "fascist", but then you turn around and tell him that his way of doing things is wrong. Good one.
Some people want to just use their goddamn computer and not fuck around with all this stupid shit. What I've never figured out is how OPENSTEP and Mac OS X can exist, be so popular, and NOBODY WILL EVEN TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT USES THEIR METHODS. We tried it with GenSTEP... and I believe Komodo uses a similar system, so don't fret Aloone, someone's on your side.
So what are you doing wrong that has you so upset?
Another snobbish Linux phrase! What if he's NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG? He's trying to do it a way he wants... isn't that the Linux Way? Oh, no, I'm sorry... I forgot. It isn't. The Linux Way is this...
Choose which of eleven thousand disparate but somehow similar distros you want. Hope to high heaven that the software and drivers you want and need are available in an "installer package" format that this damn thing uses. Download 80 ISOs. Burn them. One of them was bad. Download it again. Burn it. Boot with the first one. SHIT. Somebody decided to use some new fancy-pants Linux boot CD format that isn't compatible with your machine. WTF? Give up on that one, try a different distro. It only comes on DVD and you don't have a DVD drive. Look for another. Finally give up and get Ubuntu or Fedora or something. Download 11.46 million ISOs and burn them. Install it. Your NIC doesn't work. At all. X11 will only run at 800x960 8 bit @ 50Hz. Fuck all. You repartition so you can have a Windows drive and install XP there so you can research how to make this junk work. You finally get X11 going right, but it won't do 95Hz for some reason. Asking on forums, nobody will ever help you to get it going... instead they all say "RTFM NOOB." There is no manual for X11. After 3 months you finally learned how to make your NIC work... buy a different one. Yours is about a year old... far too new!! Never mind the fact that it's one of the most common ones, but nobody bothered to write software for it. Oops!! At this point you realize that you tried to use Linux 3 months ago, but you've been running Windows ever since, trying to figure out how to make Linux run.
I wonder what goes into the head next...
Aloone, if you want some UNIX that isn't like pulling teeth to use, go find yourself a used Power Mac (Wegener Media sells blue G3s for $100) and install Mac OS X.
-
Some people want to just use their goddamn computer and not fuck around with all this stupid shit.
So usesynaptic or smart or apt-get or something like that
?
And that doesn't mean stop the world from revolving until everyone drops their package managers and picks up Aloone_Jonez's choice of package manger, jevux. People who like Gentoo's emerge will still use Gentoo's emerge. And the people who "want to just use their goddamn computer and not fuck around with all this stupid shit" will use whatever the fuck they want to use, most likely something easy like apt-get, if that's what they want.
What I've never figured out is how OPENSTEP and Mac OS X can exist, be so popular, and NOBODY WILL EVEN TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT USES THEIR METHODS.
But THERE'S NO MORE ROOM FOR ANOTHER PACKAGING FORMAT OR WE'LL ALL DIE OF CONFUSION!
Another snobbish Linux phrase!
First time I've heard it anyhow.
Choose which of eleven thousand disparate but somehow similar distros you want.
The choice usually isn't rocket science, new users usually chose between the same few, as recommended by other users.
Hope to high heaven that the software and drivers you want and need are available in an "installer package" format that this damn thing uses.
Few new GNU/Linux users have to worry about drivers. Linux supports (and usually supports well) boat-loads of hardware which will usually be detected and configured automatically.
Download 80 ISOs. Burn them. One of them was bad. Download it again. Burn it. Boot with the first one. SHIT. Somebody decided to use some new fancy-pants Linux boot CD format that isn't compatible with your machine. WTF? Give up on that one, try a different distro. It only comes on DVD and you don't have a DVD drive. Look for another. Finally give up and get Ubuntu or Fedora or something.
"WTF?" You said it. I wonder what percentage of new users start on something that isn't "Ubuntu or Fedora or something".
Your NIC doesn't work. At all. X11 will only run at 800x960 8 bit @ 50Hz. Fuck all. You repartition so you can have a Windows drive and install XP there so you can research how to make this junk work. You finally get X11 going right, but it won't do 95Hz for some reason. Asking on forums, nobody will ever help you to get it going... instead they all say "RTFM NOOB." There is no manual for X11.
man xorg.conf, NOOB! :p
After 3 months you finally learned how to make your NIC work... buy a different one. Yours is about a year old... far too new!!
Never mind the fact that it's one of the most common ones, but nobody bothered to write software for it.
Ha. Ha. What NIC are we talking about here?
Aloone, if you want some UNIX that isn't like pulling teeth to use, go find yourself a used Power Mac (Wegener Media sells blue G3s for $100) and install Mac OS X.
Why EXACTLY do you think GNU/Linux is like "pulling teeth" to use?
-
I don't get it ... all the package managers I've used so far are quite easy to use ... I don't see a problem with there not being a single package distribution method. There are even different ways to distribute the same package ... for example most rpm packages from the livna Fedora repo actually have a source code tarball and a few install scripts inside them and are compiled when you install them, while rpms typically contain binaries ...
it's like saying lets all switch to using .zip for all our archives ... there's no real point ... each has their own strength and weaknesses ... even if you wanted to, you could not decide on which packaging system is best, or if you did you would be doing so arbitrarily not logically
-
Logically speaking, we should *all* be using 7-zip, if only for the compression ratios. :cool:
-
Okay, know how you just said that you want lots of choices in installer package formats? Yeah. Well, you just told him that he should be using apt-get, which uses ONE format, and if he wants something else, he needs to re-think what he wants. Then, you told him he should just build from source. Foot. In. Mouth. You whined that him wanting something that improves the quality and value of Linux is "fascist", but then you turn around and tell him that his way of doing things is wrong. Good one.
Sounds like my intentions weren't clear. What I suggest is using some sort of package manager, whichever suits you best, to manage as much as you can. For the few programs that aren't available from your package manager's repos, if you really need something, you can just build from source, because that will always be workable. OpenOffice or X11 - you should never have to try to build those from source, because they are available from like 10 different package management systems. However, occasionally, you will want a program/library that isn't in your pms (!) - gdal or grass for example. Or one of the packages you want isn't properly built by the distributor - such as transcode from Dag, with improper png support. Then you build from source.
Some people want to just use their goddamn computer and not fuck around with all this stupid shit. What I've never figured out is how OPENSTEP and Mac OS X can exist, be so popular, and NOBODY WILL EVEN TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT USES THEIR METHODS. We tried it with GenSTEP... and I believe Komodo uses a similar system, so don't fret Aloone, someone's on your side.
1. I still have GenStep wallpaper on my computer, and I use it from time to time.
2. I have no problem with people building computer systems that suit their needs and match their ideals - in fact, I support it. What I do have a problem with is demanding that an existing system meet their needs. I happen to like Linux the way it is. And if you don't, thats cool, whateva. But if you change Linux to suit your needs in a way that tramples on my needs, then we have a problem. That's all I'm saying.
Another snobbish Linux phrase! What if he's NOT DOING ANYTHING WRONG?
Then he wouldn't have any problems. It sounds snotty, but it isn't. A computer will do exactly what you tell it to do. If it doesn't do what you ask, then you asked incorrectly. That's how computers work.
Don't make this harder than it is. Regardless of what you might think, or have heard on the net, Linux does "just work". But don't think that means you will be composing TeX documents within 5 minutes of booting the installation disk, because you will quickly be disappointed. You have to work at it. With an Apple, you can take the computer out of the box and be working in 10 minutes. Linux is not like that, and if it was, it wouldn't be Linux.
Choose which of eleven thousand disparate but somehow similar distros you want. Hope to high heaven that the software and drivers you want and need are available in an "installer package" format that this damn thing uses. Download 80 ISOs. Burn them. One of them was bad. Download it again. Burn it. Boot with the first one. SHIT. Somebody decided to use some new fancy-pants Linux boot CD format that isn't compatible with your machine. WTF? Give up on that one, try a different distro. It only comes on DVD and you don't have a DVD drive. Look for another. Finally give up and get Ubuntu or Fedora or something. Download 11.46 million ISOs and burn them. Install it. Your NIC doesn't work. At all. X11 will only run at 800x960 8 bit @ 50Hz. Fuck all. You repartition so you can have a Windows drive and install XP there so you can research how to make this junk work. You finally get X11 going right, but it won't do 95Hz for some reason. Asking on forums, nobody will ever help you to get it going... instead they all say "RTFM NOOB." There is no manual for X11. After 3 months you finally learned how to make your NIC work... buy a different one. Yours is about a year old... far too new!! Never mind the fact that it's one of the most common ones, but nobody bothered to write software for it. Oops!!
Sounds okay to me - it's all for fun, right? It is for me, anyway.
Jimmy, I mailed you a Fedora DVD. Paid for the shipping costs out of my own pocket. Shame on you for saying how anti-community I am.
I downloaded Vector Linux this weekend. To prove how nice a guy I am, I am going to install it, and then outfit it. So if anybody has anything specific they want me to go over, let me know. Open Office and Opera are already on the list.
-
Logically speaking, we should *all* be using 7-zip, if only for the compression ratios. :cool:
There are also not so good things about 7-zip ... like the processor usage goes to 100% while making an archive ... is that normal :confused:
-
There are also not so good things about 7-zip ... like the processor usage goes to 100% while making an archive ... is that normal :confused:
Actually, I was referring to 7za more than the 7zFMn, but I think I know what you mean. I used to have that problem with the CLI on occassion, and I fixed it somehow, but I don't remember what config file where did it. :(
My best suggestion is to stop using the GUI, since it has a bad process leak or something on that order that makes it use way more CPU cycles than it needs.
-
there's a gui for it ? ... I use command line ... maybe there's an option to limit how much processing power it uses ? ... or maybe my install is bad ?
-
just renice other tasks.
-
Jimmy, I mailed you a Fedora DVD. Paid for the shipping costs out of my own pocket. Shame on you for saying how anti-community I am.
I didn't say you were anti-community. What I did say is that sometimes the community can be quite hostile toward new ideas.
Not every idea, and not every time. But there are certain issues that I see a large number of people dislike. Methods of getting software in to Linux is one of those things.
-
OpenOffice or X11 - you should never have to try to build those from source, because they are available from like 10 different package management systems.
OpenOffice is rpm only.
Linux does "just work"
Of course it does and it works well out of the box but installing shit on Linux well that's a totally different story.
it's like saying lets all switch to using .zip for all our archives
But how many different archive formats do you see on the Internet?
Two, three maybe?
Exactly no one wants to fuck around with distributing their files in so many fucking different formats.
I've tried installing Opera onb Ubuntu, it fucked up.
I've tried installing codecs on Ubuntu they didn't fucking work.
I've tried OpenOffice 1.1.5 which came with a binary installer and it worked, but when I tried OO 2.0.1 which was a package it fucked up and the same applies to Vector Linux.
Packages in general are a good idea but the community should be focusing their time on developing more on developing one or even two different systems that are compatable rather than loads of shitty ones.
Not every idea, and not every time. But there are certain issues that I see a large number of people dislike. Methods of getting software in to Linux is one of those things.
You're right, I'm right we both know we're right so let's just accept that no one's going to liston because we're right.
-
You're right, I'm right we both know we're right so let's just accept that no one's going to liston because we're right.
No, you THINK you're right just the same we we THINK we're right.
Packages in general are a good idea but the community should be focusing their time on developing more on developing one or even two different systems that are compatable rather than loads of shitty ones.
Xorg, GNOME, and hundreds more packages that work with GNU/Linux are released by the developers only in ONE source format, yet you see them on a fuckload of distributions.
GET YOU'RE PACKAGES (OpenOffice WTF were you thinking?) OFF YOUR DISTRIBUTOR, THAT'S WHY THEY PROVIDE THEM.
-
:tux: says: damn man, all this shit about pkg management fucking up is usually user error, not the OS. Granted dependency hell is there just like RPM hell... but I digress. opera on ubuntu.. download the fucking file from operadotcom... open terminal... sudo apt-get install o(TAB for filename completion) and hit enter.. type in your fucking password and its done.. How fucking hard is that?
Again, pkg management is not fucked up, its usually the user. Blaming the OS is like trying to sue the car maker because you can't figure out how to use the fucking horn.. RTFM :tux:
-
Not my fault it fucked up I downloaded the correct Opera package for my distro and followed the instructions to the letter and it didn't work. I also followed Piratepenguin's instructions when installing the codec package and it just didn't work.
I've managed to get FireFox 1.5 and OpenOffice 1.1.5 to work with no problems and DOSEmu installed well too it's just those fucking stupid packages that fuck up on me.
-
My god, someone get this one a chill pill.
Mabye he doesn't want to deal with RPM hell. Most binaries are RPM's, but what if he uses Debian? So now he has two choices, bitch for a deb, or compile from source. Source compilation takes time, and isn't available for a closed product like Opera.
But wait, the Distro provider has a repo, right? Let's say Joe Debianuser wants to run OpenOffice.org. Now, it has a RPM installer, screwing him over, and the Debian repo has 1.1 as the latest version. Now he has to waste his time compiling it.
OSX doesn't have package issues. Neither does Windows, FreeBSD, or any other OS around. Why should Linux get screwed.
And if you ever want people to switch to Linux, being a little shit-face eliteist doesn't help them.
-
Anyway I'd like to discuss the Linux package isssue in a separate thread, could a mod please move the posts that deal with it to the Linux section under a name like Linux Package problems?
Meanwhile back on topic, Microsoft know that restricted accounts can increase security but they don't educate the average joe about this when they install Windows. You have to search their website for this info and I only found it by shear luck when I was browsing Google:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/luawinxp.mspx
-
:tux: says : A shit faced elitist. Uh Huh.. Anyway. ubuntu is debian based, so yep you are too correct there. Admittedly it took about two days of google-work to find correct way to install opera. Apologies if I came off as whatever dude labeled me as. Apologies not to dude, but to my fellow linux user. So far, apt-get works great, provided you always precede the install with sudo apt-get check (for busted dependencies) then sudo apt-get update (for out of date packages) not sure on wether that order means anything, but has (so-far) solved my dependency nightmares) then the old sudo apt-get install 'your cool package desired here'.
Also, sudo apt-get clean keeps disk space freed up when you're done by removing all that extra source you didn't need.
Agreed as to your suggestion on this thread needing to get moved to the linux portion of the forums.
:tux: I suppose I must have tagged my previous post with 'Flame On ' or something. Heh
-
hmmm ... so I guess yum is a bit better than apt-get, cuz I never had that many dependency problems (like 2 total) ... still it would probably be cooler if all dependencies were included with every install (having something install properly is more important than keeping packages small)
-
:tux: says: I would have to agree with you as far as Yum being better than apt-get, as far as its usage to Ubuntu's flavors. As for installer probs with Opera, that's more about Opera not truly being ported for Ubuntu dist, which is on ubuntu, not Opera. Almost everything else I have had no install issues. But yes, ease of installation is or should be more important, unless you are an elitist ( :fu: ) and just have to desire building all of your apps from source. Heh :tux:
-
hmmm ... so I guess yum is a bit better than apt-get, cuz I never had that many dependency problems (like 2 total) ... still it would probably be cooler if all dependencies were included with every install (having something install properly is more important than keeping packages small)
With APT, you NEVER have dependancy issues. Dependencies are calculated and installed. That's the wonder of Debian.
-
Hmmm ... well, uhhh ... SkyNet said he had some dependency problems with apt ... so ... I'm not sure that any package manager is perfect, not even apt
-
With APT, you NEVER have dependancy issues. Dependencies are calculated and installed. That's the wonder of Debian.
Wow, um... that's a little like saying that Portage automatically gets the latest and greatest of everything, resolves package dependencies, and builds all on its own. You're still going to need package.keywords, and THAT doesn't guarantee you'll be on the bleeding-edge as it were. Let's call apples apples: when you go for the latest and greatest, regardless of packaging standards, you're going to run into missing dependencies every now and again. Nobody can plan all possible scenarios for all distros (what we have being wholly remarkable, considering Microsoft can barely keep up with JUST PATCHES for ONE system).
-
Windows cannot do this on 256MB RAM (http://img400.imageshack.us/my.php?image=16ks.png). And to think that my system is still running responsive as ever with all that stuff open.. I mean, here, I just drew a gradient in GIMP (http://img373.imageshack.us/my.php?image=23dv.png) (you'll notice the time in the clock is the same), not a hitch. A look at the System Monitor (http://img387.imageshack.us/my.php?image=33md.png). Is that two/three/FOUR FUCKING times more memory being used than physical RAM available? How the FUCK is it still so fucking responsive. I didn't close anything between then and now, and I'd hardley know KDevelop, the GIMP, Inkscape, KWord, amaroK, the System Monitor, and Gnome Terminal are running but for the cluttered taskbar (image (http://img207.imageshack.us/my.php?image=45xh.png).
And what's 1,000 times cooler, is that I could do all that crap on a 32MB RAM machine with wireless connectivity and no disk-drive*.
You're staring at the reason I'm starting to get interested in embedded hardware. Oh the possibilities...
* Xorg (http://www.x.org), LTSP (http://www.ltsp.org/), I love you.
-
No matter what packaging system you use, you can still run into problems of incompatible versioning. This program needs version4, that program needs version5, and you can't have both. I admit that it looks frustrating to someone who is just on this Linux ride to try it out, but for the diehards, it's like a challenge, and there are some creative-ass solutions to these kinds of issues out there.
I complain every once in awhile about 9 hour Google bughunts and rpm searches, but in reality, I love that stuff - it makes me happy. It's why computers are so fun and engaging - they can take every synapse in your brain and put it to work on solving what sounds like the most trivial of problems. You forget to smoke, eat, drink, sleep, screw, etc, because you are so into it. Like crack, but only costs like $1000 per year.
-
Oh well Piratepenguin we tried to get this thread back on topic, we failed. :rolleyes:
I know here's an idea, let's just have a couple of packaging formats and as many package managers as you like that can work with them both and they're backwards compatable?
Then we wouldn't have to worry about all this version 5 or 4 bullshit or whether it's a rpm, deb or tgz.
-
You forget to smoke, eat, drink, sleep, screw, etc, because you are so into it. Like crack, but only costs like $1000 per year.
There isn't enough room in my sig for all the awesome stuff you say. :D
For the record, I frequently forget to eat because of the computer. \o
-
For the record, I frequently forget to eat because of the computer. \o
I frequently forget to eat cuz of video games (good ones only of course), maybe I should set an alarm to go off at mealtimes.