103 replies to this topic

[rick taylor]

Anybody tried linux on a PPC machine? Everything seemed to work without any fiddling. I have almost no experience when it comes to linux, but installing Ubuntu my powermac was easy and I was able to (briefly) use it without any long commands.

In contrast, to get my toshiba laptop working I had to find & install drivers for my display card, wifi, ethernet and god knows what else, if it was a simple case of running an install program I may have continued.

I love the idea of linux, the price esspecially, its just too much work to get set up.

[sandmanfvrga]

bwhsh8r, on Jul 8 2006, 10:51 AM, said:

Linux is good and it never breaksdown unless you really mess up.  Osx looks prittyer.... and its simple... but linux is better.
max

LOL!!!      

No offense dude, but that is rediculous.  I mean I have tried alot of distros.  Yes Linux is modular, open source, and has the freedom to do alot but that freedom is a double edged sword.  I have ran Distros (Mandrake, Mandriva, Vector Linux, Ubuntu, Suse, etc) that changing a KDE setting or whatnot crashed the system and a reinstall was the only thing that fixed it.  NO, I didn't do anything terminal, just changed settings.  Plus, getting drivers to work:  HAH!      If you don't get a distro that has a repos and have other people package the stuff for you to click and download, you are in for compiling yourself.  I know, I had to take some distros and compile Nvidia drivers but for other distros it was easy.

Not to bash you or Linux users but Linux will never be as good as OSX until there is standardization (said that earlier in this thread).  If you are fine with tinkering with your OS and having to do things like compile your own stuff, then Linux is fine but alot of people don't.  Again, no offense but OSX is streamlined, unified, standardized and Linux is to scatter brained.  BUT I do give a hats off to you Linux users.  Even though I don't agree with you, us OSX users and the Linux users are sticking it to Microsoft.  

[bliss]

linux for servers etc.

os x as a desktop operating system.

thats the way it should be

and windows... well for my grandma to lern how to use a mouse ;-)

bwhsh8r, on Jul 12 2006, 09:51 PM, said:

Im a linux user too, but you have to admit that i have a point... i think its good that there are alot of flavors suited for everyone... but it hurts linux too because they share alot of stuff but the kernal is the onlything is the same necicarly.  it helps and hurts linux at the same time   what distro do you use?

<3 linux 4 life

max
oh, and ps i like the we are the champions thing

well i 100% agree.

linux could be better if the whole thing would be better structured. i mean better for people like me, who just want a simple to intsall os with programs like photoshop etc and not to compile a program before installing.

the only os that comes closest to my imaginations of a free and legal OS is PCBSD - and well its not linux powered, but the "feel" is closer to osx/windows



well also i do not hate linux, i love it too, i also loved BeOS what has really could be the greatest OS on the planet...

[xandiztxu]

Why:

The stability of LINUX (Never had a single crash if it)

And the power of OS X (I think development tools, OS X wins)

Windows (Ehrr... nevermind)

[Slaytanic]

sandmanfvrga, on Jul 13 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

I have ran Distros (Mandrake, Mandriva, Vector Linux, Ubuntu, Suse, etc) that changing a KDE setting or whatnot crashed the system and a reinstall was the only thing that fixed it.  NO, I didn't do anything terminal, just changed settings.  Plus, getting drivers to work:  HAH!  

I'd like very much to know which settings made you brake your KDE installation... Perhaps asking to someone with a LITTLE bit more knowledge than you would have solved the problem without reinstalling everything or KDE..

sandmanfvrga, on Jul 13 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

I know, I had to take some distros and compile Nvidia drivers but for other distros it was easy.

NVidia drivers are binaries, you did not compile them surely...

sandmanfvrga, on Jul 13 2006, 05:20 PM, said:

Not to bash you or Linux users but Linux will never be as good as OSX until there is standardization (said that earlier in this thread).  If you are fine with tinkering with your OS and having to do things like compile your own stuff, then Linux is fine but alot of people don't.

You said OSX is better than Linux, but you should say that it is more user friendly, from what you say later..

BTW, I installed OSX on my x86 and tried it a little bit... it is beautiful to see (I prefer my XGL+Compiz desktop, it has more beautiful effects ;-) ) but I didn't like the way it works..

[sandmanfvrga]

Oh great a smartass Linux user trying to show me up on the net.  Wow!    Look slick, I had Ubuntu and Suse crash on my for changing resolutions and other settings in KDE; and YES the problems were known and had to go to the forums there to get a fix and some didn't have a fix.  So stop trying to make me look stupid since I didn't talk to somebody "smarter" or have "more knowledge" than me.  The problems were distro problems, but oh NO Linux is SO stable.  

If you download the nvidia drivers from Nvidia site, boot up without starting X, then you run it at the command prompt with the kernel headers installed (won't COMPILE without them),  then it COMPILES the drivers.  Yes smartass I did.  

Third point is your opinion, whatever.  Get tired of people on the net TRYING to make others look stupid.  Typical know it all.  Glad you and Linux are happy, but I know what happened and I did nothing wrong but follow instructions on distro sites.  So lay off the know it all attitude.    Go ahead and pick this apart to, but I don't like messing with smartass know it alls on the net, nobody wins.

[Slaytanic]

sandmanfvrga, on Jul 14 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

Oh great a smartass Linux user trying to show me up on the net.  Wow!    Look slick, I had Ubuntu and Suse crash on my for changing resolutions and other settings in KDE; and YES the problems were known and had to go to the forums there to get a fix and some didn't have a fix.  So stop trying to make me look stupid since I didn't talk to somebody "smarter" or have "more knowledge" than me.  The problems were distro problems, but oh NO Linux is SO stable.  

sandmanfvrga, on Jul 14 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

If you download the nvidia drivers from Nvidia site, boot up without starting X, then you run it at the command prompt with the kernel headers installed (won't COMPILE without them),  then it COMPILES the drivers.  Yes smartass I did.  

Mmmm.. you're a little bit right... you must compile something.. I knew they were closed source software so I immediately tought "You don't have any sources so you don't compile them.. this is the truth:

Quote

The nvidia driver is proprietary software, so nvidia only releases a binary. This normally wouldn't work, since drivers must be compiled to fit your kernel, but they added a layer (the kernel interface) which is compiled to fit your kernel, and ALREADY fits their driver binary.

So, both of us made a mistake: you must compile something, but NOT the driver.. excuse me for my mistake.. but this is not about the topic

sandmanfvrga, on Jul 14 2006, 12:39 PM, said:

Third point is your opinion, whatever.  Get tired of people on the net TRYING to make others look stupid.  Typical know it all.  Glad you and Linux are happy, but I know what happened and I did nothing wrong but follow instructions on distro sites.  So lay off the know it all attitude.    Go ahead and pick this apart to, but I don't like messing with smartass know it alls on the net, nobody wins.

Again, excuse me if it seemed that I wanted to make you look stupid.. I simply found wrong what you said, and posted my answer.. but as you say, it is simply my opinion against yours.. no one wins.. or better, everyone thinks to have won ;-)

[biped]

zorxd, on Jan 27 2006, 04:52 PM, said:

Overall Linux has much better foundations (thanks to GPL, Linux can use BSD code, but BSD can't use Linux code, which keeps Linux superior in my opinion) and is a lot faster.

But of course, OSX has a much nicer UI. (except the Finder application which sucks compared to Konqueror)
I always hated computers which aren't custom PCs (that include Apple).
OSX 10.4.3 works very well on my laptop, but I still prefer running Linux as my main OS.
Maybe I would use OSX more if it could replace Windows completly in the future (and Linux don't) and of course if I can get future versions of OSX to run on my computer.

freebsd has linux binary emulation. considering very little software for either platform is distributed specifically in binary only ( usually always source code option ) this isn't too much of an issue for either platform. Never needed to run BSD binaries on linux either, so not gonna comment on that.  how significant this is to base your opinion on ? probably completely insignificant unless you have some commercial software you don't want to run on its intended platform.

I am not sure where you get the idea that linux is faster.  AFAIK FreeBSD has proven itself performance wise against any linux, in many situations, you may have some specific benchmark to prove otherwise, please provide a link.  In fact FreeBSD's network stack ( probably a clone of OpenBSD's ) can handle more bandwidth than a handeful of linux boxes ( toss in a couple cisco routers and its still not close )

even lately there is a movement for desktops usage with freebsd... its peppy

but this is turning into a slashdot thread...



as for the GUI thingy, gnome/kde vs OSX, if you take away the only PRO OSX arguement ( Application availability ), and toss away purely subjective issues ( eye candy, visual appeal ).  and get down to the real criteria that make a GUI great, you still hit a fork.  

As pointed out by a person who has years of university study in cognitive sciences.  There is a such a thing as cognitive style.  Certain individuals who are frightened by flashing clocks on their VCRs/DVDs, a technical discussion with polysyllabic jargon, or even user manuals, are more likely to prefer OSX.

ok this is slanderous, my apologies, but in the end the GUI score still comes down to an issue of cognitive style, which is subjective,  so pretty much irrevelent when trying to judge two GUI's.  technical details aside. Gnome/KDE works just as reliably for people who know how to use, as OSX does for people who know how to use it.

personally i like gnome, it stays out of your face (imho like a well behaved GUI should) has some nice functionality to it. doesn't suffer in dual monitor configurations from stupidities like a unified single menu pull down or lack of a maximize button.  but then again thats just what my cognitive style prefers.

[bluedragon1971]

paulmer2003, on May 2 2006, 06:11 PM, said:

By URL, I ment like /etc/ and such. Locations on filesystem.

But you can do that.  While in Finder, type shift-command-g, that will give you the Go to Folder prompt.  Type the path you want to go to in that box and hit enter, or click the Go button.  Just because you don't type it into an address bar doesn't mean the feature isn't there.  It's just implemented differently.

[sandmanfvrga]

Slaytanic, on Jul 14 2006, 08:51 AM, said:

Mmmm.. you're a little bit right... you must compile something.. I knew they were closed source software so I immediately tought "You don't have any sources so you don't compile them.. this is the truth:
So, both of us made a mistake: you must compile something, but NOT the driver.. excuse me for my mistake.. but this is not about the topic
Again, excuse me if it seemed that I wanted to make you look stupid.. I simply found wrong what you said, and posted my answer.. but as you say, it is simply my opinion against yours.. no one wins.. or better, everyone thinks to have won ;-)

You flip flop man.  One time you say I need to get with somebody esle that knows more now you say we are both right.  Ok, thats fine.  I just don't understand why some Linux users think every person that has tried Linux and didn't get it to work was at fault and not the OS.  I have talked to alot Linux users that get all up in arms about it.  Even though we are all "right" and we like different stuff, one fact has been proven:  OSX is more user friendly than Linux.  Again, my opinion.

[Then there were none.]

gnu linux is good for the compuetr litirate but far too complicated for the average user, there needs to be big changes before it can become a widely adopted os

[sandmanfvrga]

Thank you matthunter3, somebody else that agrees.  Linux is great in its own right, but my mom couldn't use Linux and she could use Windows and OSX.  User friendly for non geeks is where the main money is today.  That is why Windows is on about every computer you can buy in a store, ease of use for the common person.  Linux doesn't have this.

[Slaytanic]

I agree on the fact that OSX is more user friendly than some distributions, no doubts about that ;-) Surely I won't suggest your mother to compile Gentoo Linux from stage1 as I did.. But when your mother will master OSX and the computer itself, I would suggest her to move to something more challenging, i.e. linux ;-)

[sandmanfvrga]

Oh God no!!  Once she learns something, that is it. that is how most computer users are and that is fine.  I don't blame them.

[Dapper Dan]

i really dont think you can compare linux to osx, OSX is an operating system designed for a small set of hardware components with R&D $$$$$$$, while linux is designed for a broad spectrum of hardware with little to no funding.

[bwhsh8r]

PC-BSD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  

                                                                                              





max

[BRP]

sandmanfvrga, on Jul 21 2006, 01:44 PM, said:

Thank you matthunter3, somebody else that agrees.  Linux is great in its own right, but my mom couldn't use Linux and she could use Windows and OSX.  User friendly for non geeks is where the main money is today.  That is why Windows is on about every computer you can buy in a store, ease of use for the common person.  Linux doesn't have this.

This isn't entirely true; if you set someone who knows how to use Windows or OSX in front of a working KDE or GNOME session, they will stumble around a little bit maybe, but they will figure out how to get into what they need to do, mostly.

The problem is setup.  Installing in Windows?  Stick in a CD, run an EXE, click "I agree" on porn adware install, whatever, you just follow directions.  Installing on a Mac?  Get a .dmg in Safari, drag something to the /Applications folder, easier done than said.  Installing in Linux?

Run xterm and su. Okay, ubuntu/debian users do this: apt-get install blah.  Gentoo users need to emerge blah and run etc-update, and screw you evil RPM bastards use SUSE and YaST at least.  Oh, and you BSD guys?  Yeah, you're kind of SOL.

Well, let's just say that's not quite as intuitive as it could be.

[clockworks]

domino, on Nov 29 2005, 04:12 PM, said:

I would have to say hands down Linux. Red Hat Enterprise for my web servers and Ubuntu for my workstation. It's just unfortunate that ATI drivers trully suck on Linux.

My sentiments exactly.

I love Linux.  I love the apps.  amaroK + K3b + digiKam + Kmail + Kontact + Kaffeine + Kopete + Adept = a killer integrated, beautiful desktop.  Heh, I guess I don't love Linux so much as I do KDE...

Also, now it's so easy to install software in Linux, given a distro that setups a proper yum or apt configuration out of the box.  I'm mean seriously...you have a GUI where you type in a search bar the name or description of the app you want, double click, and bam, it's installed.  Ridiculously easy.

And it's all free.  Can't beat that.

[clockworks]

Here's a good case study.  I installed Linux (Fedora Core 2 or 3, can't remember) on my gf's computer.  For the first few months, I'd get calls every now and then...

"I want to open Word documents."
"Run yumex, search for openoffice, install it."

"I want to download mp3s off the internet."
"Run yumex, search for apollon, install it."

"This page doesn't work in Konqueror."
"Run yumex, search for firefox, install it."

etc, etc.

So eventually everything got installed and configured.  ..and it's been over a YEAR since I've had to administer anything for her.  Every now and then I'll ask "How's the computer?"  The answer is always the same, "I LOVE it.  Everything works, it never messes up, I never have viruses, adware or spyware."

Every once in a while she'll have to use a Windows machine for school or something and she'll actually complain about it (no tabbed browsing in IE, no popup blocking in IE, she actually has to PAY to use software, etc).

She's the perfect end user case.  She doesn't give a DAMN about what operating system she uses, what anyone else uses, etc.  A computer is just a tool to get stuff done, and she's grown to love Linux because, once it's setup, it does everything she needs, consistently without maintence for a year, and it's free.

The only downside, the initial setup, is being addressed with more desktop oriented distros these days like (K)Ubuntu.  Out of the box, Ubuntu's apt repositories are set for most applications that everyday users need.

"But when something goes wrong in Linux, the user needs someone with a degree in computer science to fix the problem."
Please, as if a normal user would know what to do in Windows, or OSX, if anything went wrong.

"But all they know is Windows."
So they only have the capacity to learn one operating system in their lifetime?  Sit them down in front of Gnome or KDE and they'll pick it just as quickly as they did Windows.  After a while, it will be the opposite...they'll say, "This stupid Windows feature doesn't work like KDE!"

[Eric C]

Mashugly, on Nov 29 2005, 05:10 PM, said:

Here are the things that I see:

Linux
Pros:
1. Highly customizable
2. Many options
3. Almost fully open source
4. Secure
5. Mostly free
6. Good online support
7. Stable

Cons:
1. Distro options can be duanting
2. Cluttered with too many customizable options
3. Horrible UI (sorry, I know this is debatable, but KDE and Gnome just require too many sacrifices. I have high hopes for KDE 4 though)
4. Tough learning curve
5. Little attention to detail
6. Not noob friendly (for the most part)
7. Important things like Flash, Java, MS Fonts, and even mp3 codecs don't come standard (most of the time)
8. Self-compiling installation of apps
9. Too many versions for good software distribution
10. Lack of driver support

OS X
Pros:
1. Simple to use, very intuitive
2. Small learning curve
3. BSD foundation
4. Fast support and bug fixes
5. Good community
6. About to take over the OS world
7. Consistant UI

Cons:
1. Not free
2. Kernel is a mix-and-match, and not very well optimized
3. Not the fastest OS
4. PPC and x86 versions will make it difficult in the short term for simple software/hardware support
5. Partially open source, but not quite
6. Too much proprietary-ness (AAC, etc)

What say you?

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Only I'd like to add is that once the steep Linux learning curve peaks it is wonderful.  It took me a little over a month, and about 5 seperate isntalls of Ubuntu Dapper to get things right, but once I did it's been all down hill.

OS X is very nice, but I feel it is limiting and at times even frustrating for a more advanced user.