| Author |
Linux is a bitch. |
Kurupt
friar
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 71 |  Posted: 08-10-2001 14:22
Says I.
They say it's really good n'all, but what can you do when installing it is about as user-friendly as a moldy dog turd.
Anyone with me?
I suspect not.
|
Theman
cleric
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 167
From: My chair
| Posted: 08-10-2001 20:26
No-body said it was user friendly....
Stable, yes
Reliable, yes
Secure, yes.
User Friendly, maybe.
If you want user-friendlyness then use a Mac.
|
Theman
cleric
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 167
From: My chair
| Posted: 08-10-2001 20:26
No-body said it was user friendly....
Stable, yes
Reliable, yes
Secure, yes.
User Friendly, maybe.
If you want user-friendlyness then use a Mac (which uses UNIX incidently).
|
Huff
cabalist
Joined: Sep 17, 2001
Posts: 58
From: London
| Posted: 08-10-2001 21:53
Well if you think that is hard, try installing OpenBSD onto a duel boot machine
    
|
Eric
cleric
Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 134
From: Liverpool
| Posted: 09-10-2001 01:49
Just stick win xp on instead - very reliable, no blue screens, and the resource management is plain fantastic!
All this linux > microsoft crap is old news.
|
Popculturemonkey
friar
Joined: Aug 26, 2001
Posts: 95 | Posted: 09-10-2001 02:48
fod XP... Too hard to rip off.
I'll use it once I get my hands on an OEM copy.
_________________
AtomicMonster.com: Death to Popular Culture.
|
Theman
cleric
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 167
From: My chair
| Posted: 09-10-2001 16:47
It is old news because people find it hard to grasp that Linux just wasn't designed for them. If you want to run a web server or a MUD then by all means use Linux. But if you're a home using then don't coming moaning when you can't get stuff to work.
On a side note I have a copy of Win XP RC2, and it crashes like hell, dosen't support half my hardware. Saying there are no blue screens is a feature, now it simply locks up rather than showing the screen....
|
Kurupt
friar
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 71 | Posted: 09-10-2001 20:42
Ummm....
By no means do I like Windows. It's poo.
I can't remember a day I used Windows and something didn't go wrong. Well, not exactly, but it does bollocks-up a hell of alot.
Linux is the dogs pecker when it comes to stuff like that, but it just won't let me install shit I need to, such as Printer, Sound Card, Modem. Damn.
If I could get it working proper, it would be leaking huge streaks of piss all over Windows.
With me?
|
Eric
cleric
Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 134
From: Liverpool
| Posted: 09-10-2001 22:56
The majority of home users who I have seen with problems on their system usually bought them from a crappy manufacturer, like tiny, or pc world.
My windows hardly ever crashes - when it does, it's because I'm pushing too hard for my system specs (running max payne on the highest graphic level on my little machine kind of, doesn't work).
Linux is good for server side things, but when it comes down to ease of use, user-friendliness, and compatability with the majority of software out there, it's plain pants.
Theman, you should get the win xp professional version 5.1 - it's seriously beta than all the betas. Very stable, no crashes (or lockups), you can dual boot from multiple os's if you prefer it that way.
It's windows like it should be - not buggy, but it's very technical - like a mix of the best bits of me and nt. Worth a try at least.
|
Theman
cleric
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 167
From: My chair
| Posted: 10-10-2001 08:55
I will do...then I will banish it's garishly awful colour scheme...
But to be honest I don't care what OS I use, as long as it actually does what I want...(which in general Linux does). OS wars are as stupid as KDE/GNOME war, why choose one when you can choose both? Choose one that suits you and use it, enjoy it and be happy.
|
Foddy
Arch-Wizard
Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 138 | Posted: 10-10-2001 20:13
Quote:
|
On 08-10-2001 14:22, Kurupt wrote:
Says I.
They say it's really good n'all, but what can you do when installing it is about as user-friendly as a moldy dog turd.
|
|
OK, I know I'm a little late in joining in on this discussion, but here goes.
Having installed RedHat 7 recently, I personally think it's gone too far over to the "easy-install" side.
You put the boot disk in and get flashy graphics, a windowing system to select which packages to install, and can do the lot in a couple of mouse clicks.
I would also disagree with Theman, who said about Linux "Secure, yes".
If you want to make Linux secure, you have to know what you're doing. You have to keep up to date and have to know how to tie everything down. You're not going to get a secure server out of the box.
You can do exactly the same for Windows, it just takes a whole load more reboots. 
Foddy
|
Huff
cabalist
Joined: Sep 17, 2001
Posts: 58
From: London
| Posted: 10-10-2001 23:34
The main reason you would reboot a linux system if you wanted to break some uptime records is when you recompile the kernal.
The main reason you would need to reboot winblows is if you moved the mouse.
|
Theman
cleric
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 167
From: My chair
| Posted: 12-10-2001 17:44
You wouldn't drive a car if you didn't know what you were doing. People seem to think that OS's are different and it is an obligation to make everything as easy as possible (format the hardrive...yes please...)
|
Eric
cleric
Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 134
From: Liverpool
| Posted: 13-10-2001 01:15
Huff...
<@[MUD]Maverick> Operating System: Windows 98 (4.10 - 2222) ?? Uptime: 9h34m53s ?? Res: 1152x864 ?? Dialup: blueyonder connection manager via Rockwell HCF 56K Speakerphone PCI Modem @ 48000bps (25.32MB up, 42.44MB down) ?? CPU: 1-Intel Pentium III, 550MHz ?? GPU: NVIDIA GeForce2 MX ?? HD(C:): 6.84 GigaBytes Free ?? HD(D:): 7.58 GigaBytes Free ?? Ram: Usage: 193/256MB (75.39%) [||||||||||]
Taken from mav in irc today.
Notice the uptime bit. Which kinda makes your anti-microsoft thing a bit sad.
I agree with theman, I will use whatever os does what I need. XP is like ME with bells and whistles, so it's right for me - plays games, word-processes, runs mud, doesn't crash a lot like 98 did, etc, etc.
The only reason they are making the likes of Redhat easier to use, is that at the moment, Windows is wiping the floor with all of it's competition - it is aimed at the general pc user.
You may hate bill gates for whatever reasons (jealousy? ), but you can't deny he's got himself a winner 
[ This Message was edited by: Eric on 13-10-2001 01:17 ]
|
Theman
cleric
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 167
From: My chair
| Posted: 13-10-2001 10:12
In my mind being anti-ms isn't a reason for using Linux (or BeOS, UNIX, MacOS...etc), these are, in my experience, the people who struggle away for hours on their computers and when the do get everything set up it's a case of what exactly can I do now....
Anyhow just recieved a nice shiny XP update, if it supports my modem then that'll keep me happy.
|
Kurupt
friar
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 71 | Posted: 13-10-2001 12:31
Most people don't choose to use Windows. They get given it when they buy their first computer cause they don't understand what Linux is just yet.
I think more people might choose Linux once they understand what it is. Maybe.
Linux still has issues though, ie, the installation process, full hardware integration, etc...
If you prefer Windows, that's fair play. I'm not one of these "Linux 0WNZZZZ!!!!1111" type people. I just think that when I get my next system I'm gonna make sure it's installed with Linux. Although if this Windows system you have, Eric, is so good, it may well be worth a try.
The problem is... it mush cost like ?200 or something, no?
|
Foddy
Arch-Wizard
Joined: Aug 19, 2001
Posts: 138 | Posted: 13-10-2001 12:48
A 9 hour uptime is nothing to be proud of. Take a look at:
Code:
| 12:25pm up 138 days, 18:36, 7 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 |
|
That's a Linux server running as a firewall for a 45M line, so it's not exactly sitting idle, either.
I've also know NT boxes that have been scheduled to reboot once a day, otherwise they become unstable.
All this doesn't mean that NT can't stay up for years, it just means that those are my experiences.
And that's no reason to hate Microsoft. If anything it's a reason to pity Microsoft ... but I don't.
I dislike Microsoft because of the way they work. They have a long history of playing dirty - using secret API calls, writing code specifically so it won't run on the competition's operating system, making customers pay for not using Windows, cross-subsidising unfairly, "enchancing" standards to make them incompatible, forcing any competition out using any means they can.
They effectively have a monopoly on desktop operating systems now. They're abusing this monopoly.
Imagine BT if it wasn't restricted by Oftel. It could kill off every other telco and possibly dial-up ISP almost over night. Luckily, it is regulated. Microsoft isn't.
I'm not saying that Microsoft operating systems don't have a place. I have to admit to using Windows on the desktop.
There's no way I'd use NT Server, though - apart from everything else, it's simply not the best choice.
Foddy
|
Theman
cleric
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 167
From: My chair
| Posted: 13-10-2001 13:18
Take a look at some of the features of XP:
CD Burning
Unzipping
Home Video Editing.
Of course Microsoft are aruging that it's making Windows the comprehensive OS, but it's more likely that they are cutting out those 3rd party apps. WMF was a pitiful attempt to cut out MP3 and produce a format that was only avaliable on the Windows platform.
|
Kurupt
friar
Joined: Sep 30, 2001
Posts: 71 | Posted: 13-10-2001 16:25
Quote:
|
On 13-10-2001 12:48, Foddy wrote:
I dislike Microsoft because of the way they work. They have a long history of playing dirty
|
|
Damn true!
They also have a habit of poaching promising open source system/program developers as soon as they look like they are onto something innovative.
|
Theman
cleric
Joined: Aug 31, 2001
Posts: 167
From: My chair
| Posted: 13-10-2001 18:25
They also have a nasty habit of pinching stuff like open-source networking code and putting it in their open products...
|
