Which OS?

[Profquast]

I genuinly wanted to switch to linux, but my soundcard (Asus xonar dsx) is not supported, wireless internet isn't very good, and installing the graphics driver broke the enitre os. I can't get the cursor off of my second screen and the keyboard navigation doesn't work, thus I can't login. Also everything looks a bit unsharp. I have used windows for over 10 years since I was 6 and know it very well, so I'll stick to that for a while.

[yancyv8]

Ok there are 3 options. I am mostly unbias, and have used linux, mac and windows extensively.

Mac: If you want to spend money for no reason, and think that because lots of audio producers/video editors use it that it's a good product, or think dr dre beats are amazing, buy a mac. If you go on instagram and facebook constantly, get a mac. For anything that you need to be efficient, don't get a mac. It is based off of unix so the terminal is a familiar affair but the gui is bloated and inefficient. Of course there is the argument that final cut, pro tools, etc are amazing tools, and they are good, but on windows you can get just as good of an experiance in a much more powerful machine for the same cost.

Thanks,

 

Just put a hackintosh and triple boot it with windows and linux. Thats what I have going and its perfect. I hate how people just assume Macs are bad because of they're price tag. I agree completely they overprice the shizzzz out of it for crap components but when you can build a hackintosh like the one in my sig and still have windows AND ubuntu, i think that's pretty worth while. And macs are not inefficient, at all. I have 6 full screen windows open and all you have to do is literally swipe to get to the next one. Easiest thing in the world to switch between apps. Not to mention the OS looks great to begin with. DON'T hate macs just because of the price tag when you can build one yourself that performs better too. My hack pro mini would kill any mac pro you can buy ( at least until they release the new mac pro). 

 

I didn't even pay for the software for it. Just find a friend who has an actual mac, put the OS on a usb stick and your good to go.

[someone]

U should check out linux mint...i don't have them cause i'm gaming ... i wouldn't suggest windows on your case because of the terrible filesystem they have.

[Rhizo]

Just put a hackintosh and triple boot it with windows and linux. Thats what I have going and its perfect. I hate how people just assume Macs are bad because of they're price tag. I agree completely they overprice the shizzzz out of it for crap components but when you can build a hackintosh like the one in my sig and still have windows AND ubuntu, i think that's pretty worth while. And macs are not inefficient, at all. I have 6 full screen windows open and all you have to do is literally swipe to get to the next one. Easiest thing in the world to switch between apps. Not to mention the OS looks great to begin with. DON'T hate macs just because of the price tag when you can build one yourself that performs better too. My hack pro mini would kill any mac pro you can buy ( at least until they release the new mac pro). 

 

I didn't even pay for the software for it. Just find a friend who has an actual mac, put the OS on a usb stick and your good to go.

Yes, I am excluding this from my point of view at the moment, and for my next rig im thinking about getting hackingtosh compatable components so I can try it if I want. Depends on if I can get good graphics/motherboard with good support.

[GoodBytes]

Rhizo, on 11 Jun 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

From what you have said, i'm going to go ahead and assume you haven't used linux for very long if at all.

I think I have used quite a bit.. never my main OS, true, but still.

 

Quote

There is practically no maintenance, wireless is a no-problem

That is because you are using a highly modified Linux distro, such as Debian or Ubuntu. Normally, you need to write a script which contains your configuration options (and let's not even talk about if you need certifications), and type a series of commands to get your wireless working, with web access. And if you put the computer to sleep/wake-up, or your wireless disconnects, or get interrupted, then you need to re-pass to the entire process, again. Even if you make a shell script that will re-execute all this for you, you still manually need to execute it. You use fancy network managers add-on software that does the work for you. But that's silly. Imagine you need to download and install a network manager software to get Ethernet or/and wireless working on your system, so that you can get OS updates, install your software, etc. We are in 2013, and Linux doesn't have native support for internet and networking ( I mean, of course it does support it, but I mean having a native network manager). Of course it doesn't... the problem with Linux is that everything is in "components" (software done by devs to bring Linux to the modern area), and things that you assume to have, as it's common for all these years in other system, you don't. Again, if you get Ubuntu, or Debian, or any other distro, all that is done for you. And yes, I guess you get to choose one of many network managers.. but come on. That's silly. And that's 1 things of many.

 

Quote

i'v never had problems with it, and it is a VERY efficient os for work.

No it's not. It's POWERFUL and FLEXIBLE, that we can agree perfectly on that, including the capitalization of these words. But efficient? No. Efficient means that the computer requires minimal effort to do that I need to do, and is fast at doing it. MacOS is efficient, at the cost of flexibility.

 

Quote

You DO NOT need to use the terminal for everything if you don't want, you don't even need to touch it if you don't want to.

Nope. Anything that require admin privileges, which is more than all the User Account Control (UAC) popups from Vista, you need to terminal to type "sudo" before every command (or elevate the terminal as root), to elevate the command as root (administrator, in Windows world), which require to enter your user and password.

It's annoying. Some distros like Ubuntu, highly modifies Linux so that you can have a nice dialog box, like in Windows. But Linux community bashes it, as saying how it's a huge security issue, as the user can click on "allow" and can potential allow by accident malware and viruses. Ubuntu is a perfect example, of IE of Linux. Make a thread here and say you have a problem with IE, everyone will jump on you and say get Chrome or Firefox. Same thing happen if you go on Linux community (beside Ubuntu's), and ask for help on your issue.

Oh, and if you know you need to something big that requires root for convenience, and can work faster. You obviously don't want to use root all the time, but you try to make your life a bit easier at certain times. Well good luck. Because most programs (GUI or command line) will tell you, something along the lines of: "You are running as root! You are not suppose to do this! To bad! You are stupid! I am not running! Log-off, switch to non-root account, and now we will talk". Wonderful. You can't try and simplify your life.

Also, if you use xWindows environment that you might like, but new, or not crazy popular, the Terminal inside (which is an emulator), sometimes doesn't support all commands. So when you type a command, it says that the command doesn't exists... you might think it doesn't work, or for a wrong distro, but in reality the Terminal emulator sucks. If you quit xWindows, or open a new terminal screen (because you can do that. xWindows uses "F7", and you can use any other F key for a terminal screen), it will work there. How confusing it is for new users, let alone for those who are not very knowledgeable about computers.

 

Quote

Use synaptic package manager if you want a gui for package managing, and that's all you need.

[...]

File structure in linux is great, the reason devs have a problem coding for linux is because of the smaller current player base and the problem with creating multiple-distribution friendly setup files.

Linux should NOT have a marketplace for apps. It should be open like in Windows. You go on a site, you hit download, and you have the BINARY, which you just run. If you need to compile stuff, and configure a bunch of stuff than it's a fail. Of course, you can't.. different distro, different modification of Linux blocks from this being smooth sail. So instead of fixing the real problem, it's a patch.

Yes, I know what you are going to say: Doing this will break the core idea of Linux.... which again, while I agree with you, I reiterate: Linux is flexible and powerful but not easy to use or efficient.

In fact, in Windows, the entire 'installer' concept is optional. Copy 'Program Files' (or your location where you have your apps) on a USB key, and go to another computer, beside some programs, most of them will run perfectly fine. The installer is just extracting where you want the program and show you the license agreement, and set up the file associations (which some programs even check and do, at startup). Why is it the case? Because Windows has a clear file structure which I can explain in a few seconds.

-> Program can be installed anywhere on the system. By default a folder called "Program Files" is used to store the programs there, but it's not a must.

-> Program that wants to store data or configuration file that you want to affect all users, where even a limited user can read and write, there is "ProgramData" folder.

-> Program temp files: Temp folder, located on the user local profile folder (C:\Users\<Account Name>\AppData\Local\Temp)

-> Program configuration and data files that are not needed to be kept in a domain environment, such as program cache can be stored in C:\Users\<Account Name>\AppData\Local.

-> Program configuration and data files that are needed to be kept in a domain environment, such as program settings can be stored in C:\Users\<Account Name>\AppData\Roaming.

-> Program settings or data that requires database advantages: Registry.

Registry is arranged in 5 groups (in brief):

-> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT -> all account file association

-> HKEY_CURRENT_USER -> settings and data of current account

-> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE -> all account (program settings affecting all users, and hardware drivers)

-> HKEY_USERS -> settings specific to the current user

-> HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG -> pointer to the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\CurrentControlSet\Hardware Profiles\Current, for quicker access.

Simple. And covers everything, which most program don't uses.

Simple and elegant.

And, also, beside the file structure, there isn't highly modified version of Windows. Everything is the same, even Windows RT (assuming Windows didn't lock the desktop). While the program needs obviously to be compiled for ARM, and perhaps some API needs to be changed changes, but the way the program 'set itself' up, is identical.

 

Quote

Drivers are better than you think, they always work out of the box, and even if all the features don't work, it's never a real problem.

Doesn't mean that AMD and Nvidia now cares a bit more about Linux, that it's all good.

Many webcams, USB printers, wireless card, motherboard, keyboard/mouse drivers/software, TV Tuner, and more, don't work under Linux, or missing features. Important features, like power saving features, ability to use the hardware to it's full capabilities and not generically.

 

Linux has such a good community problems are simple to solve, for example, the arch linux wiki is the most to the point, information filled help wiki that has pretty much every solution.

It's not. The Arch Linux wiki and many communities, all assume that you have high knowledge of computers. You will find it very difficult to get a person, that won't stupidly and unhelpfully linke you to sites, and also explains thing in details. It's always using terms that not known by non computer literate, let alone Linux.

 

xWindows? What does that have to do with linux? Of course it's going to be horrid, but don't look at the bad community projects, look for the good ones (of which there are many).

The "best" and popular: KDE and Gnome, are too far from Windows. The problem is that the designers, is not 1 person or a group of small people, it's a large group of people, where a guideline are trying to make everyone happy, making things looks ugly. And as it's dev doing an interface and not designers, it's not as nice as MacOS or Windows, and most importantly, the polish is simply not there.

Talking about polish, here is another thing that is missing on all Linux software: polish.

Also, as every xWindows is different and have their own guidelines, programs feels completely apart... like if you put a MacOS program floating in Windows (ok fine, not that extreme, but its to give an example on what I mean). It just doesn't work very well. It's fine, it does the job, but it looks like out of place, unless it was deigned for the xWindows environment that you are using.

 

Please spend 6 months in linux

You mean 4 years and growing being forced to use it by school, is not enough?

I have used: Ubuntu, Ubuntu Server, Debian, SuSe and Arch Linux.

So in summery:

-> Linux runs on anything: yes.

-> Linux is powerful: yes.

-> Linux is flexible and customizable: yes.

-> Linux is a 2013 OS: Not without the bunch of programs needed and a highly modified kernel. (of course, several distros do that for you).

-> Linux is efficient: In terms of using system resources... arguably. Some things Linux is better at, others Windows is. I am not sure where MacOS fits, I have to admit. But efficient of using it? No.

-> Linux easy to use, get started (including installing and having full support for the hardware): No.

[Rhizo]

You mean 4 years and growing being forced to use it by school, is not enough?

I have used: Ubuntu, Ubuntu Server, Debian, SuSe and Arch Linux.

So in summery:

-> Linux runs on anything: yes.

-> Linux is powerful: yes.

-> Linux is flexible and customizable: yes.

-> Linux is a 2013 OS: Not without the bunch of programs needed and a highly modified kernel. (of course, several distros do that for you).

-> Linux is efficient: In terms of using system resources... arguably. Some things Linux is better at, others Windows is. I am not sure where MacOS fits, I have to admit. But efficient of using it? No.

-> Linux easy to use, get started (including installing and having full support for the hardware): No.

I mainly agree with this summary, although the ease of use comes with configuring it how you like it. It's not rocket science, and means you can have an experience tailored for your specific needs. This is what makes it 'efficient' as a workspace environment. 

 

Doesn't mean that AMD and Nvidia now cares a bit more about Linux, that it's all good.

Many webcams, USB printers, wireless card, motherboard, keyboard/mouse drivers/software, TV Tuner, and more, don't work under Linux, or missing features. Important features, like power saving features, ability to use the hardware to it's full capabilities and not generically.#

The only reason at the moment I still have my windows 7 partition on my main pc is because of these points along with the game support. I can't be bothered to set up my printer, although my webcam works fine for skype, and some applications (namely the adobe suite) are not available. This is probably my main issue with linux.

 

Still, using it as my primary os for a while now has made me much more adept to linux. I think one of the primary factors we are disputing is the efficiency. The reason for me linux is so efficient is because I have heavily configured my window manager to suit my work style, no frills.

 

Anyways, you made some good points, but we can agree to disagree.

 

I'm going to go and install gentoo now. ;)

[yancyv8]

No it's not. It's POWERFUL and FLEXIBLE, that we can agree perfectly on that, including the capitalization of these words. But efficient? No. Efficient means that the computer requires minimal effort to do that I need to do, and is fast at doing it. MacOS is efficient, at the cost of flexibility.

So in summery:

-> Linux runs on anything: yes.

-> Linux is powerful: yes.

-> Linux is flexible and customizable: yes.

-> Linux is a 2013 OS: Not without the bunch of programs needed and a highly modified kernel. (of course, several distros do that for you).

-> Linux is efficient: In terms of using system resources... arguably. Some things Linux is better at, others Windows is. I am not sure where MacOS fits, I have to admit. But efficient of using it? No.

-> Linux easy to use, get started (including installing and having full support for the hardware): No.

What exactly about a mac is not efficient? It can do everything I could ask for with ease and whenever I need it to. If you put an SSD in any system, it instantly becomes more efficient so I'm kind of confused with your argument when there isn't one other than a large price tag. I AM TALKING FOR HACKINTOSHES AS WELL. Not just apple made products but custom made products as well.

What does linux do that mac does not? I wana hear this because the only thing a mac doesn't have is the customizability MAYBE vs windows or linux. My hackintosh double boots into windows and both work absolutely fine for my recording studio and photo editing rig. Gaming as well since I don't game much other than WoW and Minecraft which both handle perfectly.

Gimme a rundown. I don't see anything a mac can't do that a windows or linux can.....unless you want to enlighten me. Everybody hates on apple cuz of the price tag. I'm not trying to advertise apple or macs but I hate when people try to talk an OS down just because of a pricetag or the stereotypes it brings with it.

[GoodBytes]

I guess your reply was on my "I am not sure where MacOS fits" comment.

Ok, just some clarification. On that point, I was saying talking about efficiency in using and managing system resources, not about in terms of a user doing things with the system, which was the point of conversation initially. And I was saying that I simply don't know how MacOS compares to Windows and Linux. I don't know, as I didn't do my research, and it's not an environment I use everyday, let alone have the equipment and software to measure these kind of things, so I don't want to say things that I don't know.

[rashdanml]

-> Linux is efficient: In terms of using system resources... arguably. Some things Linux is better at, others Windows is. I am not sure where MacOS fits, I have to admit. But efficient of using it? No.

I am seriously questioning your definition of "efficient". Linux does a lot. With very little resources. There's a reason why Linux is the predominant server OS, where efficient use of resources is mandatory. Maximizing output with minimal use of resources is the very definition of efficiency. 

[the_hardware_guy]

I would dual boot ubuntu or debian and win7 technically installing OSX being installed on anything other than a computer distributed by apple is illegal. If you invest in good software I recommend sony vegas you can get the same quality editing if you want good audio get a xonar essence if you are a gamer a xonar phoebus.

[dolarsignzeroxeighty]

I think I have used quite a bit.. never my main OS, true, but still.

 

That is because you are using a highly modified Linux distro, such as Debian or Ubuntu. Normally, you need to write a script which contains your configuration options (and let's not even talk about if you need certifications), and type a series of commands to get your wireless working, with web access. And if you put the computer to sleep/wake-up, or your wireless disconnects, or get interrupted, then you need to re-pass to the entire process, again. Even if you make a shell script that will re-execute all this for you, you still manually need to execute it. You use fancy network managers add-on software that does the work for you. But that's silly. Imagine you need to download and install a network manager software to get Ethernet or/and wireless working on your system, so that you can get OS updates, install your software, etc. We are in 2013, and Linux doesn't have native support for internet and networking ( I mean, of course it does support it, but I mean having a native network manager). Of course it doesn't... the problem with Linux is that everything is in "components" (software done by devs to bring Linux to the modern area), and things that you assume to have, as it's common for all these years in other system, you don't. Again, if you get Ubuntu, or Debian, or any other distro, all that is done for you. And yes, I guess you get to choose one of many network managers.. but come on. That's silly. And that's 1 things of many.

 

you're really making me laugh...

unless you're using a linux distribution that doesn't have a user interface , you don't need to type in any commands to connect to the internet and you don't need a network manager.

you're spreading wrong information in the internet just because you're stuck in your microsoft bandwagon,that's my first impression , lets take a peak of what you have in your post.

 

 

 No it's not. It's POWERFUL and FLEXIBLE, that we can agree perfectly on that, including the capitalization of these words. But efficient? No. Efficient means that the computer requires minimal effort to do that I need to do, and is fast at doing it. MacOS is efficient, at the cost of flexibility.

 

Nope. Anything that require admin privileges, which is more than all the User Account Control (UAC) popups from Vista, you need to terminal to type "sudo" before every command (or elevate the terminal as root), to elevate the command as root (administrator, in Windows world), which require to enter your user and password.

It's annoying. Some distros like Ubuntu, highly modifies Linux so that you can have a nice dialog box, like in Windows. But Linux community bashes it, as saying how it's a huge security issue, as the user can click on "allow" and can potential allow by accident malware and viruses. Ubuntu is a perfect example, of IE of Linux. Make a thread here and say you have a problem with IE, everyone will jump on you and say get Chrome or Firefox. Same thing happen if you go on Linux community (beside Ubuntu's), and ask for help on your issue.

 

first paragraph :

user interfaces are commands in the background dumbed down so everyone can do what they want without breaking a sweat.

it would be against the principle of user interfaces to say that they're require more then a click to open up the program you're trying to run, after you find them, but you can have icons on your desktop ( depending on which user interface you're using ) or you have a menu bar anyways.

mac's aren't really expensive for what you get if you compare them to a prebuilt computer of the same type at the same price. 

you should also keep in mind that when a person buys a mac , they know it's going to be plug & play automatically without needing to do anything after spending a phew minutes changing their settings ( language , wifi and all that) and they can rely on their support if anything goes wrong.

 

second paragraph :

typing in a phew letters takes less time then moving your mouse all the time for UAC.

linux is open source , do you know what open source is? because if you don't , i'm sorry for you.

 

 

 

Oh, and if you know you need to something big that requires root for convenience, and can work faster. You obviously don't want to use root all the time, but you try to make your life a bit easier at certain times. Well good luck. Because most programs (GUI or command line) will tell you, something along the lines of: "You are running as root! You are not suppose to do this! To bad! You are stupid! I am not running! Log-off, switch to non-root account, and now we will talk". Wonderful. You can't try and simplify your life.

Also, if you use xWindows environment that you might like, but new, or not crazy popular, the Terminal inside (which is an emulator), sometimes doesn't support all commands. So when you type a command, it says that the command doesn't exists... you might think it doesn't work, or for a wrong distro, but in reality the Terminal emulator sucks. If you quit xWindows, or open a new terminal screen (because you can do that. xWindows uses "F7", and you can use any other F key for a terminal screen), it will work there. How confusing it is for new users, let alone for those who are not very knowledgeable about computers.

 

p1 :

logout root

that command is mentally challenging me when i open up my linux shell, so i'm just going to switch user accounts instead using the user interface which takes more time.

 

p2:

the windows command line is 10 times worse then the linux command line.

 

 

 

Linux should NOT have a marketplace for apps. It should be open like in Windows. You go on a site, you hit download, and you have the BINARY, which you just run. If you need to compile stuff, and configure a bunch of stuff than it's a fail. Of course, you can't.. different distro, different modification of Linux blocks from this being smooth sail. So instead of fixing the real problem, it's a patch.

Yes, I know what you are going to say: Doing this will break the core idea of Linux.... which again, while I agree with you, I reiterate: Linux is flexible and powerful but not easy to use or efficient.

In fact, in Windows, the entire 'installer' concept is optional. Copy 'Program Files' (or your location where you have your apps) on a USB key, and go to another computer, beside some programs, most of them will run perfectly fine. The installer is just extracting where you want the program and show you the license agreement, and set up the file associations (which some programs even check and do, at startup). Why is it the case? Because Windows has a clear file structure which I can explain in a few seconds.

-> Program can be installed anywhere on the system. By default a folder called "Program Files" is used to store the programs there, but it's not a must.

-> Program that wants to store data or configuration file that you want to affect all users, where even a limited user can read and write, there is "ProgramData" folder.

-> Program temp files: Temp folder, located on the user local profile folder (C:\Users\<Account Name>\AppData\Local\Temp)

-> Program configuration and data files that are not needed to be kept in a domain environment, such as program cache can be stored in C:\Users\<Account Name>\AppData\Local.

-> Program configuration and data files that are needed to be kept in a domain environment, such as program settings can be stored in C:\Users\<Account Name>\AppData\Roaming.

-> Program settings or data that requires database advantages: Registry.

Registry is arranged in 5 groups (in brief):

-> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT -> all account file association

-> HKEY_CURRENT_USER -> settings and data of current account

-> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE -> all account (program settings affecting all users, and hardware drivers)

-> HKEY_USERS -> settings specific to the current user

-> HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG -> pointer to the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\CurrentControlSet\Hardware Profiles\Current, for quicker access.

Simple. And covers everything, which most program don't uses.

Simple and elegant.

And, also, beside the file structure, there isn't highly modified version of Windows. Everything is the same, even Windows RT (assuming Windows didn't lock the desktop). While the program needs obviously to be compiled for ARM, and perhaps some API needs to be changed changes, but the way the program 'set itself' up, is identical.

 

 

p1: 

what's wrong with an app store? you basically download & run , just like windows executables , but you don't spend all your life on google to find what program to get to do what you want , which can also have malicious files. you just do a simple search in the app store and you're done and you're not going to get any malicious files.

 

p2: no , programs use the registry in windows.

 

 

p3: what's your point? linux distributions also can do that

p4: the windows registy will kill your windows if you don't know what you're doing. the only way to kill your linux would be if you edit your kernel or loader.conf file and do a syntax error.

 

p5: i don't even wanna comment

p6:no way? i never thought that windows had a backwards compatibility mode to run programs

 

 

 

 

 

Doesn't mean that AMD and Nvidia now cares a bit more about Linux, that it's all good.

Many webcams, USB printers, wireless card, motherboard, keyboard/mouse drivers/software, TV Tuner, and more, don't work under Linux, or missing features. Important features, like power saving features, ability to use the hardware to it's full capabilities and not generically.

 

It's not. The Arch Linux wiki and many communities, all assume that you have high knowledge of computers. You will find it very difficult to get a person, that won't stupidly and unhelpfully linke you to sites, and also explains thing in details. It's always using terms that not known by non computer literate, let alone Linux.

 

p1: linux supports more hardware then windows does. the only problem is that some fancy keyboards and mouse don't have linux drivers and software because the manufacturers didn't make them. it's not because linux is bad.

 

p2: what?you can always mention that you're computer illiterate and you're going to still get help...

 

 

 

The "best" and popular: KDE and Gnome, are too far from Windows. The problem is that the designers, is not 1 person or a group of small people, it's a large group of people, where a guideline are trying to make everyone happy, making things looks ugly. And as it's dev doing an interface and not designers, it's not as nice as MacOS or Windows, and most importantly, the polish is simply not there.

Talking about polish, here is another thing that is missing on all Linux software: polish.

Also, as every xWindows is different and have their own guidelines, programs feels completely apart... like if you put a MacOS program floating in Windows (ok fine, not that extreme, but its to give an example on what I mean). It just doesn't work very well. It's fine, it does the job, but it looks like out of place, unless it was deigned for the xWindows environment that you are using.

 

p1: read what's open source. if you don't like how it looks , you can always change it or look for something else. you're not limited to 1 desktop unlike windows that you can't change it. you can try to make it look better , but you won't get rid of it.

 

p2:what? xwindow environment doesn't matter at all most of the time and usually there's other alternatives anyways for ywindow environment.

 

 

 

You mean 4 years and growing being forced to use it by school, is not enough?

I have used: Ubuntu, Ubuntu Server, Debian, SuSe and Arch Linux.

So in summery:

-> Linux runs on anything: yes.

-> Linux is powerful: yes.

-> Linux is flexible and customizable: yes.

-> Linux is a 2013 OS: Not without the bunch of programs needed and a highly modified kernel. (of course, several distros do that for you).

-> Linux is efficient: In terms of using system resources... arguably. Some things Linux is better at, others Windows is. I am not sure where MacOS fits, I have to admit. But efficient of using it? No.

-> Linux easy to use, get started (including installing and having full support for the hardware): No.

 

p1: if you were in programming or whatever , it's really not the same then if you're using it just because.

 

p2: you don't need allot of programs needed unlike windows and you don't need to mess with the kernel at all.

you don't know where Os-X fits because you don't understand that all operating systems at the end of the day are the same as long they have a user interface.

Linux is easy to use and get started , anyone that knows how to install windows can install linux without any problems. support is in the forums , with people that want to help, not because they're paid to and you get terrible support most of the time because the persons have been doing that all day and didn't have the type of people they like and they had to not get angry or do anything that will make them loose their job.

[GoodBytes]

you're really making me laugh...

Ah so that is how it is, you think I am wrong, which is fine. That's cool, promotes critical thinking and all that, and plays a part of the learning process.

But you try and put me down and shove me off as well. Nice. You are just pissed, because someone highlighted some flaws of Linux... therefor he must be Windows fanboy... therefor he must be an idiot. Ignoring the fact that every OS has its long list of flaws. Nothing is perfect.

unless you're using a linux distribution that doesn't have a user interface , you don't need to type in any commands to connect to the internet and you don't need a network manager.

You don't because it is included by the distro! But it's not part of Linux itself. Again, you said it yourself "if your using a linux distribution that doesn't have a user interface". We are talking about Linux, not some guy or group of guys that got together and decided to bring programs together and highly modify Linux to make it all happen.

you're spreading wrong information in the internet just because you're stuck in your microsoft bandwagon,that's my first impression , lets take a peak of what you have in your post.

The information I provide is accurate.

user interfaces are commands in the background dumbed down so everyone can do what they want without breaking a sweat.

Those the kind of moronic and ignorant comment that was said back in the early days of computers when graphical user interface OS's arrived. Saying how command line is far superior. Graphical user interfaces has open new possibilities and interactions with the computer. You can multitask, something you could not do.. And don't tell me about multiple terminal.. that is not multi-tasking.. ok well it is, I'll give you that, but not properly. I can't have terminal side by side, I can't interact with several terminal at once. Also, user interface removes the need to know a super long list. Moreover, it makes multiple command line converted down to a button click. It also pushed (keyword here is: pushed) to have rich graphical experience with programs with pictures, video and sound. And don't tell me you are using Lynx. Because, I am not buying it. Beside, surfing a website with keyboard, sucks horribly, with all the links you need to pass with the arrow keys and select the one you want. You can't just click. And if it has 2 columns where you have a link on teh second column, but need to pass through a long list of link on the first column, like a online help doc.. well that will be annoying.

it would be against the principle of user interfaces to say that they're require more then a click to open up the program you're trying to run, after you find them, but you can have icons on your desktop ( depending on which user interface you're using ) or you have a menu bar anyways.

Obviously it requires more clicks.. command line DON'T HAVE A MOUSE! I can tell you right now, that a GUI requires much less keystrokes.

And yes, you are right. Every time I try to open a program, I need to wear my hunting gear, and go into a wild hunt that takes month, in trying to find that icon.

mac's aren't really expensive for what you get if you compare them to a prebuilt computer of the same type at the same price.

I think that meant for another post... we are about: How Linux an efficient OS at a user experience level, which I am arguing against.

OOOOOOHHHH I get it! "cost of flexibility". That is where it comes from!

The word 'cost' is used in this context to say: to lose, or sacrifice.

So, my sentence meant that in order to achieve a higher efficiency rate in usage, MacOS is sacrificing flexibility and power to the user.

Here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cost, look at point #2 for a different definition on 'cost' if you prefer a different definition.

they know it's going to be plug & play automatically without needing to do anything after spending a phew minutes changing their settings ( language , wifi and all that) and they can rely on their support if anything goes wrong.

Hence my point, on how MacOS is a more efficient OS at a user experience level.

typing in a phew letters takes less time then moving your mouse all the time for UAC.

Then I think you should calibrate your mouse. It should not travel the entire desk to travel half your screen.

And while you have to type "sudo ". I get to do left > Enter, which is 2 keys being pressed instead of 5. Or not even, simple Enter, depending if you are on Vista, 7, or 8, and your account privileges and situation (task being done).

linux is open source , do you know what open source is? because if you don't , i'm sorry for you.

Well I am not sure what you are trying to say... are you indirectly telling me I can edit the source code and do my own version of Linux? If so, you have JUST proven my point about many Linux community members, that just goes: "Here is the source code, fix it!", instead of helping me or someone else solve my problem, or educate the person in need.

p1 :

logout root

that command is mentally challenging me when i open up my linux shell, so i'm just going to switch user accounts instead using the user interface which takes more time.

Congrats, Linux, was deigned to have 1 computer with multiple terminal (monitor + keyboard stations) all link to that computer, and share its resources amongst them. This was done, because computers where not only extremely big, but also extremely costly (and I am not talking about a super fancy gaming rig with RAID 10 inside.... I am talking: Super expensive that only really large business and some governmental department (read army), and at best select Universities willing to take a huge hit of their resource budget to get one.. and possibly spend a few years paying it back) (Ok well.. it was Unix at the time.. but still!) And Windows was deigned for PC when they were introduced, so you have this possibility. Doesn't change the fact that, if you need to stay in root, and use some program, you can't. Because the program itself purposely disable itself. So let's say, I am trying to fix something out of my system (yea yea, I know, Linux is perfect, nothing breaks, therefore there is nothing to fix). Let's assume that situation, now I go and open Chrome, let's say, to check some information out to verify what I am trying to do... well you can't. Chrome blocks you.

[GoodBytes]

the windows command line is 10 times worse then the linux command line.

All the commands of the Windows command prompt always works. Not, some command might sometimes.. based on the desktop environment you decide to use, not work or work, but will always (assuming it's not one of those commands that is specific for a distro) work outside of xWindows desktop environment, on the main terminal window.

what's wrong with an app store? you basically download & run , just like windows executables , but you don't spend all your life on google to find what program to get to do what you want , which can also have malicious files. you just do a simple search in the app store and you're done and you're not going to get any malicious files.

The app store of Linux doesn't allow the dev(s) to present their product. It's a list, that you need to, essentially, search through with a brief description. Also, when the list is long, it's near impossible to manage. Remember old days? before Google, before AltaVista, and so on... you had AOL, and other similar companies that was doing a Yellow-Book, if you will, of the web. Well, you know how AOL could not catch up, to the demand of newly released websites, and many sites where difficult to class as it fits between or in 2 or more categories? No? Well, AOL and others were doing this, as there was no real search engine. Yea, it's for a reason no one does this anymore. Even Google has trouble getting new websites.

Windows have countless of programs being updated and also countless being released. Imagine these numbers under Linux. That package manager would be hell. And searching through it, would take ages. And if you search for something... like I don't know.. "Calculator", you'll get a never ending list (assuming, of course, we are in this world, where all Windows programs are Linux). And there is more issues, such a approval process. If you don't have one, then you can have malware that can slip in, and if you do, then you don't have the latest version, it will take time for it to show up.

Why am I even talking about this? I should not have to explain this. The issues are known, and you can see it on any store system for apps.

p2: no , programs use the registry in windows.

All my programs are in a separate partition for a reason. If I re-install Windows, because my SSD has an issue, or something screws up at some moment, and let's say it's during busy time. I can in 5-8min re-install Windows (yes, that fast). And, because all my programs are in separate partition, I can run them immediately if I need them. The installation process, is most of the time, not really needed, beside for the points I mentioned, hence why it is used. The only 2x set of software suits I need to re-install are Office and Visual Studio, but to be honest, I haven't even checked why. It might be needing some common files missing in Program Files or system directory, because it's Microsoft, and like to store things there, and define some environment path and/or service, but not because it needs registry entries per say. Again, I don't know for sure, but I am sure that if I dig into it, I can run it without having to run the setup. The other software I have will run just fine. It will need the registry to register a service, that is true, but the program executable can run and do that itself.

p3: what's your point? linux distributions also can do that

We are not talking about distro, we are talking about Linux itself. But yes, Linux does that... but my point is that the folder structure of Linux is poor to a point that many programs don't know where to store things.

p4: the windows registy will kill your windows if you don't know what you're doing. the only way to kill your linux would be if you edit your kernel or loader.conf file and do a syntax error.

Not really no. You might have fun by having not a device be detected anymore, a driver re-installation is needed. But, override the .exe file association to something else. Sure. But breaking Windows by itself? No. You can't. All the Windows core and what Microsoft judges key you don't have permission, even if you try to override it. What happens if loader.conf gets corrupted. It's a text file. What is it's 100MB big.. it will take time to access. You don't see when you login to your e-mail account something saying "parsing our text file of all accounts... please hold... this may take 5min or more as new accounts are created, and every time a new account is created, you need to restart, as it might be a match...". No. Now I am no idiot. I know that loader.conf doesn't have accounts and stuff... and it can't be 100MB big. I know. Calm down. I am just saying that a database approach is quite powerful, more than what people give credit for. For SURE it has up and downs, but my point here, is that it's not perfect either, and it also has it's up and downs, and isn't as glorious as many people believe. It's just different school of thought.

p6:no way? i never thought that windows had a backwards compatibility mode to run programs

I am not talking about backward compatible... if you wonder.. as you can see Windows one is pretty darn good (assuming that programs follow Microsoft documentation properly):

(spoiler: Reversi from Windows 1.0 still work in Windows 8)

That aside,

Windows RT and Windows 8 are the same OS version. One is not older than the other. So there is no question about backward compatible, it's the same level of version.

[intermission]

Maaan there was a bunch of spaces here, and I thought I would be done... Ok let's continue

[/intermission]

p1: linux supports more hardware then windows does. the only problem is that some fancy keyboards and mouse don't have linux drivers and software because the manufacturers didn't make them. it's not because linux is bad.

I am sorry? What? Linux supports more hardware than Windows? Ok, now you are just trolling.

p2: what?you can always mention that you're computer illiterate and you're going to still get help...

You'll get help alright... but fill with jargon many times, and the things will be assumed that you know.

p1: read what's open source. if you don't like how it looks , you can always change it or look for something else. you're not limited to 1 desktop unlike windows that you can't change it. you can try to make it look better , but you won't get rid of it.

LOL! And there we go... I said it before, you mentioned it indirectly above, and now you say it directly.

[sarcasm]Wow! Helpful! Thanks! I'll get right on that.[/sarcasm]

p2:what? xwindow environment doesn't matter at all most of the time and usually there's other alternatives anyways for ywindow environment.

Polish is extremely important. In fact, it's critical to any software. That is how you get the "it just works" feel, and this is what makes programs and games awesome, and so on.

[GoodBytes]

p1: if you were in programming or whatever , it's really not the same then if you're using it just because.

How so?

p2: you don't need allot of programs needed unlike windows and you don't need to mess with the kernel at all.

you don't know where Os-X fits because you don't understand that all operating systems at the end of the day are the same as long they have a user interface.

What are we talking about? You lost me again.

So how, not knowing the performance comparison by heart of an OS, makes it that I don't understand at all the OS? Soooo, if I ask you, for the sakes of simplicity, how many FPS Crysis 3 have on average with a GeForce GTX 260, Core i5 850, 4GB of RAM system, you tell me that you don't know. Ok, So you are saying that makes you not understand Crysis 3, and you should replay it? WHAT?! That makes no sense. Please re-read my paragraph. I don't think you read it correctly.

Linux is easy to use and get started , anyone that knows how to install windows can install linux without any problems.

You forgot the star that says: If you use a highly modified Linux distro such as Ubuntu. Yes, I agree. My point is that Linux needs this to be at such 'level'. Windows does not. It's part of itself natively, making, it more efficient, at a user experience level.

support is in the forums , with people that want to help,

Obviously not you, twice you told me to get the source code and fix it myself.

not because they're paid to and you get terrible support most of the time because the persons have been doing that all day

Then stop. If your are not going to help someone properly because you are tired, then don't.

Woooow.. ok I needed to split this in 3 post.. not going to do this again.

Anyway, it's over.

[91Chris]

Haha. There's so many people here that don't know what they're on about.

[TheIceCreamMan]

Windows 7| Placebo theme.   Sample Image:

 

[dolarsignzeroxeighty]

Woooow.. ok I needed to split this in 3 post.. not going to do this again.

Anyway, it's over.

 

yep , it's over for you.

linux is a kernel , not an operating system.

you showed that you didn't know what was a kernel the whole time and assumed it was an operating system.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qS7nqwGt4-I

[Guest]

Totally skimmed over the replies, but I do agree with @GoodBytes that Linux is not a user-friendly OS, unless the user is a power user.

[wkronbaek]

Some Gnome linux if you gotta be productive, dual boot if you can't live without that DX11/for-other-reason-not-emulateable game.

[dolarsignzeroxeighty]

Totally skimmed over the replies, but I do agree with @GoodBytes that Linux is not a user-friendly OS, unless the user is a power user.

 

linux is a kernel.

linux distributions are user friendly if they have a user interface.

[GoodBytes]

So you better correct the internet quick... because Linux is an Operating System.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux

Or better yet, from Linux.org

What is Linux?

Linux is an operating system that evolved from a kernel created by Linus Torvalds

Source: http://www.linux.org/article/view/what-is-linux

 

 

So, not a single point you said was correct, and your attempt to try an humiliate me, failed.

And then calling people a cry baby... wow...

[dolarsignzeroxeighty]

good thing that ubuntu , Fedora , Red Hat , etc. are called Linux Distributions

[GoodBytes]

good thing that ubuntu , Fedora , Red Hat , etc. are called Linux Distributions

That is right. A Linux distribution is an operating system. But so is Linux, as defined above.

[rashdanml]

Linux.org isn't an official site, it's community driven. Linux started as a kernel, and has always been a kernel. However, the kernel is the most important part of an operating system, so it became synonymous with operating system. Doesn't always mean they're the same. When people say Linux, they usually refer to a specific Linux distribution, and only some actually differentiate between kernel and distribution like they're supposed to.

 

Also, Wikipedia isn't always the most trustworthy of sources.

 

FYI, this is the official Linux kernel site: https://www.kernel.org/ Appears to label Linux as an OS too.

[GoodBytes]

Linux.org isn't an official site, it's community driven. Linux started as a kernel, and has always been a kernel. However, the kernel is the most important part of an operating system, so it became synonymous with operating system. Doesn't always mean they're the same.

 

Also, Wikipedia isn't always the most trustworthy of sources.

 

FYI, this is the official Linux kernel site: https://www.kernel.org/

Linux kernel.. is not Linux. Hence, why it is refereed as Linux kernel.