You can do that with Linux too.. You don't need to use Linux for other types of stuff if you don't want to. I've seen some computers come with Linux pre-installed..
Edge is a web browser.. What do you mean by "if I still used web browsers"?
Nightfox
I don't know why I would use Linux over Windows. As far as I've been lead to believe, you may have compatibility issues with games, etc... by using Linux. Overcoming those issues would be work for nothing.
Andeddu wrote to Nightfox <=-
Re: Re: This strange world
By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Fri Jul 31 2020 11:47 pm
You can do that with Linux too.. You don't need to use Linux for other types of stuff if you don't want to. I've seen some computers come with Linux pre-installed..
Edge is a web browser.. What do you mean by "if I still used web browsers"?
Nightfox
I don't know why I would use Linux over Windows. As far as I've been
lead to believe, you may have compatibility issues with games, etc...
by using Linux. Overcoming those issues would be work for nothing.
I mean, the only browser I use on a daily basis is Safari (the best
damn browser in the world). Edge is only used when I am on my PC which
is only once per week - and I am not there to browse the internet, I am there to game.
I like customizability and tweaking things. But these days, I tend to like using a computer as a tool for doing things (including playing games) and getting work done, rather than using a PC just for the sake of using a PC.
[[..]] It took some customization to get it where I wanted it, but my
main desktop on Linux just... gets out of my way and lets me work. Not
to mention that there's tools that have become essential in some of my workflows that either don't exist on Windows, or are a right pain in
the ass to get working right.
For the longest time I was a casual Linux user, then started playing
with dual booting for a few years, then the aha moment happened when I noticed I could significantly speed up certain daily workloads in
Linux. Once that happened Linux became my go to and I only booted
Windows for a couple games that didn't run on Linux. Then I realized I really didn't care enough about one or two games to bother maintaining
a Windows install or having to dual boot...
[[snip]] being able to do this really efficiently the Linux way instead^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of cumbersome the Windows way. With a customisable GUI such as FVWM,
you can remove most to all the convoluted GUI jockeying you do with
Windows. Things like pruning spam e-mail before I download it,
Dennisk wrote to Andeddu <=-
I don't know why I would use Linux over Windows. As far as I've been
lead to believe, you may have compatibility issues with games, etc...
by using Linux. Overcoming those issues would be work for nothing.
I mean, the only browser I use on a daily basis is Safari (the best
damn browser in the world). Edge is only used when I am on my PC which
is only once per week - and I am not there to browse the internet, I am there to game.
I can think of many, many reasons. Here are a few things I can
do, that Windows users cannot do, or cannot do easily.
1) Run a filesystem that supports snapshots, checksumming,
automatic repair and combining multiple devices into one volume.
2) Access the machine remotely via SSH and be able to administer,
run programs, check e-mail.
3) Run multiple users simultaneously.
4) Choose my own GUI and desktop environment. Switch between
them at will.
5) Not be spied upon or have my OS "phone home".
6) Install Linux on whatever machine I like without breaking
licensing terms.
7) Get an OS and upgrades for free.
8) Update the hardware, or move the hard drive to another machine
with few, if any, problems.
9) Run it on older hardware, configure and change every aspect of
it.
Re: Re: This strange world
By: Nightfox to Andeddu on Fri Jul 31 2020 11:47 pm
You can do that with Linux too.. You don't need to use Linux for other types of stuff if you don't want to. I've seen some computers come with Linux pre-installed..
Edge is a web browser.. What do you mean by "if I still used web browser
Nightfox
I don't know why I would use Linux over Windows. As far as I've been lead to believe, you may have compatibility issues with games, etc... by using Linux Overcoming those issues would be work for nothing.
I mean, the only browser I use on a daily basis is Safari (the best damn browser in the world). Edge is only used when I am on my PC which is only on per week - and I am not there to browse the internet, I am there to game.
If you aren't a gamer, Linux would probably be fine for you. It depends on what you do with a PC. But yeah, if you really want to be able to play PC games, perhaps it would be easier to just keep using Windows.
Only if you're insistent on playing specific games or running specific programs. The majority of the steam library works as easily on Linux as on Windows. And if you're only using a web browser and word processor, there's even fewer reasons to leave yourself locked to Windows.
The biggest reason to change is to avoid being dependent on a singular company that absolutely does NOT have your best interests at heart. That and to make computer use fun again. If you ever get the urge, there's all kinds of things to tweak, customize, or substitute in Linux. That may not be your cup of tea, but it's great for those of us for whom it is.
I can think of many, many reasons. Here are a few things I can do, that Windows users cannot do, or cannot do easily.
1) Run a filesystem that supports snapshots, checksumming, automatic repair and combining multiple devices into one volume.
2) Access the machine remotely via SSH and be able to administer, run programs, check e-mail.
3) Run multiple users simultaneously.
4) Choose my own GUI and desktop environment. Switch between them at will.
5) Not be spied upon or have my OS "phone home".
6) Install Linux on whatever machine I like without breaking licensing terms.
7) Get an OS and upgrades for free.
8) Update the hardware, or move the hard drive to another machine with few, if any, problems.
9) Run it on older hardware, configure and change every aspect of it.
repair and combining multiple devices into one volume.I thought NTFS did that.
2) Access the machine remotely via SSH and be able to administer,Windows supports this, but you have to pay for Windows Server.
3) Run multiple users simultaneously.I'm trying to remember if Windows Server supports this. But I don't think
I still use Windows, but I get paid for it. Everything at home is Linux.
What are the tools that don't exist in Windows? But I hear ya, the *nix environment can provide a wealth options in the command line. Are there gui-based progs in Linux for which there are no Win equivalents?
web. It's a n open and free OS which I can see has its benefits. I think users will have to have some knowledge about computers though... Linux is unlikely to hold your hand in the same way Windows does. Very little can go wrong in Windows as it "looks after" you. As long as you don't download a virus, there's not much that can go wrong.
If you aren't a gamer, Linux would probably be fine for you. It
depends on what you do with a PC. But yeah, if you really want to be
able to play PC games, perhaps it would be easier to just keep using
Windows.
Therein lies the problem. I ONLY use the PC for games. I've historically used the PC for media, university work, etc... however, gaming is all I use my home computer for now. I have never used any other OS other than Windows at home or work so I am completely ignorant of the alternatives, which is for good reason as I only play games :P.
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:36 pm
I can think of many, many reasons. Here are a few things I can do, that Windows users cannot do, or cannot do easily.
1) Run a filesystem that supports snapshots, checksumming, automatic repa and combining multiple devices into one volume.
2) Access the machine remotely via SSH and be able to administer, run programs, check e-mail.
3) Run multiple users simultaneously.
4) Choose my own GUI and desktop environment. Switch between them at wil
5) Not be spied upon or have my OS "phone home".
6) Install Linux on whatever machine I like without breaking licensing terms.
7) Get an OS and upgrades for free.
8) Update the hardware, or move the hard drive to another machine with fe if any, problems.
9) Run it on older hardware, configure and change every aspect of it.
That's a comprehensive list. Obviously Linux has its benefits for those who require their systems to do more than just play games or browse the web. It' n open and free OS which I can see has its benefits. I think users will have have some knowledge about computers though... Linux is unlikely to hold your hand in the same way Windows does. Very little can go wrong in Windows as it "looks after" you. As long as you don't download a virus, there's not much t can go wrong.
I think a lot of the reputation Windows has for being easy to use is that it comes preinstalled with wintel hardware. Lots of people who boast how easy it is to manage a Windows install would not be able to actually install it, identify the hardware, track the drivers etc. Which happens to be the hard part of installing Linux, mostly.
Dr. What wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Andeddu <=-
I can think of many, many reasons. Here are a few things I can do,
that Windows users cannot do, or cannot do easily.
1) Run a filesystem that supports snapshots, checksumming, automatic repair and combining multiple devices into one volume.
I thought NTFS did that.
2) Access the machine remotely via SSH and be able to administer, run programs, check e-mail.
Windows supports this, but you have to pay for Windows Server.
3) Run multiple users simultaneously.
I'm trying to remember if Windows Server supports this. But I don't
think so.
4) Choose my own GUI and desktop environment. Switch between them at will.
Not to mention that most Linux desktops support the concept of multiple desktops.
5) Not be spied upon or have my OS "phone home".
This was actually the same reason I dropped Windows 2000 and moved to Linux. Never looked back.
I still use Windows, but I get paid for it. Everything at home is
Linux.
Gamgee wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Andeddu <=-
I don't know why I would use Linux over Windows. As far as I've been
lead to believe, you may have compatibility issues with games, etc...
by using Linux. Overcoming those issues would be work for nothing.
I mean, the only browser I use on a daily basis is Safari (the best
damn browser in the world). Edge is only used when I am on my PC which
is only once per week - and I am not there to browse the internet, I am there to game.
I can think of many, many reasons. Here are a few things I can
do, that Windows users cannot do, or cannot do easily.
1) Run a filesystem that supports snapshots, checksumming,
automatic repair and combining multiple devices into one volume.
2) Access the machine remotely via SSH and be able to administer,
run programs, check e-mail.
3) Run multiple users simultaneously.
4) Choose my own GUI and desktop environment. Switch between
them at will.
5) Not be spied upon or have my OS "phone home".
6) Install Linux on whatever machine I like without breaking
licensing terms.
7) Get an OS and upgrades for free.
8) Update the hardware, or move the hard drive to another machine
with few, if any, problems.
9) Run it on older hardware, configure and change every aspect of
it.
Nice list and all true. One other big one I'd add is that you
don't need to worry about virus problems (and install/run/update
antivirus software which slows your computer down).
To paraphrase the OP up there at the top of the post - I don't
know why I (or anyone) would use Windows over Linux. For me,
there are just *NO* reasons to do so.
Andeddu wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:36 pm
I can think of many, many reasons. Here are a few things I can do, that Windows users cannot do, or cannot do easily.
1) Run a filesystem that supports snapshots, checksumming, automatic repair and combining multiple devices into one volume.
2) Access the machine remotely via SSH and be able to administer, run programs, check e-mail.
3) Run multiple users simultaneously.
4) Choose my own GUI and desktop environment. Switch between them at will.
5) Not be spied upon or have my OS "phone home".
6) Install Linux on whatever machine I like without breaking licensing terms.
7) Get an OS and upgrades for free.
8) Update the hardware, or move the hard drive to another machine with few, if any, problems.
9) Run it on older hardware, configure and change every aspect of it.
That's a comprehensive list. Obviously Linux has its benefits for those who require their systems to do more than just play games or browse the web. It's a n open and free OS which I can see has its benefits. I
think users will have to have some knowledge about computers though... Linux is unlikely to hold your hand in the same way Windows does. Very little can go wrong in Windows as it "looks after" you. As long as you don't download a virus, there's not much that can go wrong.
Arelor wrote to Andeddu <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Andeddu to Dennisk on Sun Aug 02 2020 05:57 pm
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Sun Aug 02 2020 12:36 pm
I can think of many, many reasons. Here are a few things I can do, that Windows users cannot do, or cannot do easily.
1) Run a filesystem that supports snapshots, checksumming, automatic repa and combining multiple devices into one volume.
2) Access the machine remotely via SSH and be able to administer, run programs, check e-mail.
3) Run multiple users simultaneously.
4) Choose my own GUI and desktop environment. Switch between them at wil
5) Not be spied upon or have my OS "phone home".
6) Install Linux on whatever machine I like without breaking licensing terms.
7) Get an OS and upgrades for free.
8) Update the hardware, or move the hard drive to another machine with fe if any, problems.
9) Run it on older hardware, configure and change every aspect of it.
That's a comprehensive list. Obviously Linux has its benefits for those who require their systems to do more than just play games or browse the web. It' n open and free OS which I can see has its benefits. I think users will have have some knowledge about computers though... Linux is unlikely to hold your hand in the same way Windows does. Very little can go wrong in Windows as it "looks after" you. As long as you don't download a virus, there's not much t can go wrong.
I think a lot of the reputation Windows has for being easy to use is
that it comes preinstalled with wintel hardware. Lots of people who
boast how easy it is to manage a Windows install would not be able to actually install it, identify the hardware, track the drivers etc.
Which happens to be the hard part of installing Linux, mostly.
Most popular Linux distributions are actually very low maintenance.
Once you set them up you can pretty much forget about them. Then there
is Gentoo and Arch and the like, but if you are running those you
either know what you want out of it, or you are a poser XD
Underminer wrote to Ogg <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Ogg to All on Sun Aug 02 2020 09:51 am
What are the tools that don't exist in Windows? But I hear ya, the *nix environment can provide a wealth options in the command line. Are there gui-based progs in Linux for which there are no Win equivalents?
There's several, but right off the top of my head Rsync, Cron, Thunar (specifically custom actions - you can do SOME customization that way
in Windows, but it's very limited and an extreme PITA comparatively),
and proper package management. Not to mention the utility found in bash scripting compared to trying to do anything similar with a batch file - and you can easily set said bash scripts up to take variables thrown by your custom action in Thunar (file explorer) to process files or
folders in any number of ways.
There's a multitude of others, but I might have to think a bit on some
of them. Suffice it to say that as I started discovering ways to ease
my common workflows in Linux my life got easier, and Windows felt more cumbersome with each discovery. ---
= Synchronet = The Undermine - bbs.undermine.ca:423
On 08-02-20 13:00, Nightfox wrote to Ogg <=-
I'm not sure what workflows he uses, but in *nix operating systems, the set of GNU command-line tools can be very useful such as grep, sed,
etc. Those are not included in Windows by default, but there are
Windows command-line versions that can be downloaded and installed.
Also, I usually throw extra fun in because I try to purchase hardware that has good FOSS support so I don't need propietary drivers of modules. It sucks when the vendor drops support for your GPU and you don't get modules for modern kernels anymore.
If you're not into hardware intensive gaming, a linux box serves the same purpose a Windows or Mac box does. If you already use Firefox, Chrome, or Libre Office, the learning curve is slight for small changes in function or appearance. Several open source programs are ported to linux, windows and mac, so the platform they rin on means less.
Interesting.. I've always used my PC for a lot more than just games. And actually, these days, I don't play PC games nearly as often as I used to..
I also use my computer for keeping track of my finances (I've been using Microsoft Money for that for a long time), software development, photo & video editing, general-purpose things like web browsing, email, etc., and lots of stuff. Many times, I just like using something with a real keyboard too, as well as a bigger screen than what's available with a smartphone or a tablet.
The benefits are indeed only realised for those willing to venture beyond what the graphical software spefically does. If you aren't the type to think of your own solutions, there probably is little benefit, aside from the lower cost and perhaps lesser hardware requirements.
The argument that less goes wrong with Windows, I don't know about that. I hear the argument that Windows is easier to use, but when something does go wrong, its just as hard to fix as Linux. I set up a Windows machine some time ago (Windows 10), and installation wasn't as smooth as I thought it would be. The machine would present almost no information and seem to be busy for ages doing who-knows-what. Then there is drivers. If you bought your hardware new, or bought it all installed, its OK, but if you were to try and find drivers for a printer you bought second hand, then it can be awful going through dodgy sites. Not Microsoft's fault, but still part of the Windows experience. Occasionally when I need to do something more complex in Windows, I find it quite frustrating.
If you want a dedicated graphics card though, there isn't much choice these days between something that uses a chip from Nvidia or AMD (formerly ATI). think onboard CPU graphics from Intel is probably fairly well supported in Linux though. And I'm not sure if AMD's processors still have onboard graph in them.
Nightfox
I am ONLY into hardware intensive gaming.
I like that Linux is around as an alternative to Windows. I know Microsoft h the largest marketshare in the OS business, which is unlikely to ever change but it's nice to know that there's something else I can use should Windows e become too oppressive.
The virtual keyboard on my iPad Mini 5 is very responsive and almost as good as a physical keyboard. I do 95% of all my browsing either on my iPad or iPhone. The gaming laptop I have has only Steam, EA Origins, UPlay, Battle.NET and Epic Store installed. I don't even have a proper word processor & haven't activated my trial of Microsoft Word. It's a gaming system through and through. All photo taking/editing can be done on my iPhone as the default software is fairly powerful... I have no intrerest in esoteric PC centric software or development of any kind, nor do I have any knowldge or ability in that field.
Intel's onboard graphics usually work very well with Linux and OpenBSD. For the sort of thing I do with a computer, I am very likely to stick with a configuration that features one of those.
AMD/ATI has enough FOSS support for lots of their cards as to consider them a fine choice imo. My main workstation came with an nvidia back in the day and I ended up replacing it with an AMD once nvidia dropped support for it. I am not a GPU hunter, but I was starting to get bad performance with modern video codecs with my old nvidia.
Also, the motherboard has an nvidia chipset that does not play well with OpenBSD. I'd be running OpenBSD instead of Slackware on this thing otherwise.
Both Theo de Raad and Linus have strong opinions about nvidia, no wonder why :-P
If you want a dedicated graphics card though, there isn't much choice
these t sure if AMD's processors still have onboard graphics in them.
AMD is still adding video to it's cpu's
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse.
In 5 years time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was
5 years and more ago.
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years and more ago.
Dennisk wrote to Gamgee <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux,
developers will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all
the new users. That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of
choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but
with a limited audience, there is less impetus for software and
hardware support. But if it were to get more users, and better
software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect
"power users" and make it another "Consumer OS", locked down.
Andeddu wrote to Moondog <=-
I like that Linux is around as an alternative to Windows. I know
Microsoft hold the largest marketshare in the OS business, which
is unlikely to ever change, but it's nice to know that there's
something else I can use should Windows ever become too
oppressive.
I like that Linux is around as an alternative to Windows. I know Microsoft hold the largest marketshare in the OS business, which is unlikely to ever change, but it's nice to know that there's something else I can use should Windows ever become too oppressive.
developers specifically develop their games for. There's a cost/benefit to using either Windows or Linux. A lot of users here use Linux, but they use their PCs for a lot more than simply gaming.
Underminer wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to Andeddu on Tue Aug 04 2020 12:55 am
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years and more ago.
Yeah, but if you have your home directory on a separate disk or
partition, you're not losing or setting EVERYTHING up with every change
- another nicety over Windows. I don't distro hop myself, but I can understand the appeal for some. I stick to arch on my main rig, and a
mix of Debian and Centos elsewhere for the most part. ---
Underminer
Gamgee wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Gamgee <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux,
developers will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all
the new users. That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of
choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but
with a limited audience, there is less impetus for software and
hardware support. But if it were to get more users, and better
software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect
"power users" and make it another "Consumer OS", locked down.
I have to disagree with some of that. That's the whole point of
Linux (and open-source software). It's open-source and
won't/can't be locked down. "Power users" don't really need much "support" from their distro of choice, that's why they're power
users. Once you've installed and are using your distro of choice,
what else do you need from "the distro"?
Ogg wrote to All <=-
Hello Dennisk!
** On Tuesday 04.08.20 - 01:55, dennisk wrote to Andeddu:
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse.
Maybe that is their joy or hobby. Maybe they have another pc that they don't change.
In 5 years time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was
5 years and more ago.
I can't imagine changing distros and relearning all the subtleties of
the new distro. I would get more joy by getting totally familiar with
one kind of environment so that I can get on with "work".
I just don't find a virtual keyboard good enough for how I type. One major thing is that I like tactile feedback (which is essential for touch-typing).
software and hardware support, distros would start to neglectI have to disagree with some of that. That's the whole point of
"power users" and make it another "Consumer OS", locked down.
Linux (and open-source software). It's open-source and
users. Once you've installed and are using your distro of choice,
what else do you need from "the distro"?
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux, developers
will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all the new users.
That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but with a limited audience, there
is less impetus for software and hardware support. But if it were to
get more users, and better software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect "power users" and make it another "Consumer OS",
locked down.
The benefits are indeed only realised for those willing to venture
beyond what the graphical software spefically does. If you aren't the type to think of your own solutions, there probably is little benefit, aside from the lower cost and perhaps lesser hardware requirements.
The argument that less goes wrong with Windows, I don't know about
that. I hear the argument that Windows is easier to use, but when something does go wrong, its just as hard to fix as Linux.
I set up a Windows machine some time ago (Windows 10), and installationwasn't as
smooth as I thought it would be. The machine would present almost no information and seem to be busy for ages doing who-knows-what. Then
there is drivers. If you bought your hardware new, or bought it all installed, its OK, but if you were to try and find drivers for a
printer you bought second hand, then it can be awful going through
dodgy sites. Not Microsoft's fault, but still part of the Windows experience. Occasionally when I need to do something more complex in Windows, I find it quite frustrating.
Yup, Linux is usually easy to install and get running. NOow, installing
it and getting properly adapted to the hardware... you usually need the GPU kernel modules and to account for things such as Optimus, which are real battery killers if left unchecked. Some networks adapters need specific firmware that is not available from the installer, or you get
a gelded version. You get the idea.
Also, I usually throw extra fun in because I try to purchase hardware
that has good FOSS support so I don't need propietary drivers of
modules. It sucks when the vendor drops support for your GPU and you
don't get modules for modern kernels anymore.
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years
time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years
and more ago.
Yeah, dealing with dual GPU setups can actually be quite a pain in GNU/Linux used to have this laptop that has a Intel Onboard and an nVidia Geforce chip it. I remember spending days reading stuff up in stackoverflow and the archw to understand how to do application specific switching of the graphics chip. eventually gave up and just disabled the intel onboard one and used the nVid
A great way to learn linux without disturbing your main computing rig is to buy a single board computer such as a Raspberry Pi and install the Raspberry Pi OS (formerly Raspbian) or another ARM-based linux distribution, preferrably Debian-based. Manjaro is a bit more complex under the hood (Arch).
A Pi4 can be had for about $50 for the 4gb model. Be sure to add the heatsink kit and a fan, though. Set it up to connect through VNC and access it through VNC viewer installed on your Windows box. There are times when I doing research or looking for data on older DOS programs, and some o fthe abandonware sites looks sketchy. I'd rather browse those sites with Firefox or Chromium on the Pi4 rather than risk my Windows box.
You maintain that mobile devices are eating the PC market alive. That'd be iOS and Android eating Windows alive if true.
On the other hand, Microsoft has basically thrown the towel and is actually selling Linux industrial solutions, because Unix-like stuff has basically "won" for datacenters and containers.
Windows will be around for long, but it is no longer the unbeatable giant it used to be. No wonder Microsoft is investing heavily in other fields nowadays. Such as railway companies :-P
What is odd is that I use Linux for the same reason! I want an easier life, not to be bothered, and most of all, not have to change the way I do things or interact or be imposed upon. I liked the fact I could install Linux once, and it would run, and I wouldn't have to go through the format/reinstall cycle that Windows (at least back then) needed you to do.
I can't be bothered setting up a fresh system, nor do I want my customisations to disappear or learn a new UI I didn't choose. So with Linux, I can install once, and by my selection of GUI and software, I can stick to my tried and true habits.
Windows is quite decent now. It's stable, I reinstalled Windows once on my
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux, developers
will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all the new users.
That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but with a limited audience, there
is less impetus for software and hardware support. But if it were to
get more users, and better software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect "power users" and make it another "Consumer OS",
locked down.
I think GNU/Linux "turning into Windows" wouldn't be that much of a problem and I think this is happening already anyway with the more "user-friendly" distros such as Mint and Ubuntu. I quite doubt whether
the operating system would be as locked down as Windows or OSX though. Perhaps there might be some distros that would do that for the sake "user-friendliness" but I doubt most distros would follow suit. I think there will always be minimial distros and the Free nature of the
operating system ensures that; should they want to use something full-featured like Mint or something minimal like Arch or Gentoo.
I think pulling people into GNU/Linux would ultimately be a net
positive as it would, as you mentioned, deal with the lack of impetus
for software and hardware support in the operating system. Though, now that I'm typing this, I don't think it's that big of a deal nowadays? Whenever I install GNU/Linux to a new machine, usually laptops, most of the stuff generally work out of the box sans wifi or bluetooth. But anyway, I think getting more people into GNU/Linux would give impetus
to kernel development, and, hopefully, to have that Free software
support on wifi and bluetooth drivers would be a godsend.
The only issue that I was thinking with more people getting into
GNU/Linux would probably be the increase in nonfree stuff. Though I
think by just plain awareness in GNU/Linux would also bring forth Free software principles and, hopefully, inspire more developers to develop towards that as well. :-)
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The benefits are indeed only realised for those willing to venture
beyond what the graphical software spefically does. If you aren't the type to think of your own solutions, there probably is little benefit, aside from the lower cost and perhaps lesser hardware requirements.
This is true. Most of the power in GNU/Linux lies in being able to use
the command line. But doing so would take effort on the user's part to read and understand how things work. While I might argue that doing so
is not that hard, not everyone has the motivation nor the time to sink into reading manuals just to figure how stuff works. Still, however,
being to harness that would surely help you "elevate" your computing experience.
The argument that less goes wrong with Windows, I don't know about
that. I hear the argument that Windows is easier to use, but when something does go wrong, its just as hard to fix as Linux.
This is also true. I would even go as far as saying that problems that arise while using GNU/Linux, which aren't many, are easily solvable by either just reading the error message or by just searching about it and usually the first result would give the answer. Now that I've thought about it, I can't even recall a time when my install broke in some mysterious way. It's usually just either missing libraries or
unresolved dependencies. Though it might also be because I'm not
running a particularly heavy environment as well and my stuff don't
depend on as much dependencies as, say, a usual Ubuntu or Mint install. But even then, I used to run Xubuntu and didn't have that much problems
as well.
I set up a Windows machine some time ago (Windows 10), and installation
wasn't as
smooth as I thought it would be. The machine would present almost no information and seem to be busy for ages doing who-knows-what. Then
there is drivers. If you bought your hardware new, or bought it all installed, its OK, but if you were to try and find drivers for a
printer you bought second hand, then it can be awful going through
dodgy sites. Not Microsoft's fault, but still part of the Windows experience. Occasionally when I need to do something more complex in Windows, I find it quite frustrating.
I swear, I think most of the "usability" of Windows comes from decades long familiarity of people with the operating system (and fairly aggressive push of M$ to include Windows by default to computers, as
well as teaching M$ software by default in schools). Though I have
grown up using Windows as well, taking a step back and looking at the whole process of just even installing drivers in a new Windows system feels like a pain. Going to dodgy websites, trusting that .CAB or .EXE file are not some ransomware of sorts and in the end, praying to the Operating System Gods that the driver you just installed would actually make that device work. It's even much more painful when using
"esoteric" software that would somehow demand some unknown .dll file
that you have no idea why you don't have or why it's needed in the
first place.
Dealing with it is incredibly frustrating. And don't even get me
started with Windows Updates. :'-(
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years
time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years
and more ago.
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on
the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for
you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my
place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years
now.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
I just don't find a virtual keyboard good enough for how I type. One major thing is that I like tactile feedback (which is essential for touch-typing).
Heh. It became too oppressive a couple of decades ago, IMHO.
There are other lesser-known alternatives too, and there have been in the past too. In the mid-late 80s, there were also other computer systems on the market competing with PCs & Windows, such as the Amiga, Mac (of course), and other PC operating systems and environments such as OS/2 (from IBM), GeoWorks, and I think some others too. Many of those went away in the 90s due to Microsoft's dominance with Windows. But also, the 90s is when Linux started up. In the 90s, there was also another company called Be, Inc. that made an operating system called BeOS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BeOS
BeOS was originally developed for Be, Inc.'s own computer, the BeBox, which used a PowerPC processor. Be, Inc. was started by Jean-Louis Gasse, who used to work at Apple. I heard BeOS was a contender to replace the classic MacOS, before Apple ended up buying NeXT and using NeXT as the basis for OS X.
BeOS was later ported to Intel PCs, and they sold a version for PC compatibles using Intel and AMD processors. I bought a copy of BeOS 4.5 around 1998 or 1999; I actually thought it looked promising, and it had great multi-tasking. But it still couldn't compete with Windows.
I just don't find a virtual keyboard good enough for how I type. One
major thing is that I like tactile feedback (which is essential for
touch-typing).
I think it's hit or miss for our generation. Seeing the younger generation using virtual keyboards, you'd think they were on physical keyboard such is the speed they're able to type.
I am in love with this 1984 Apple keyboard I am using right now, it's feels even more tacticle than my Cherry MX mechanical keyboard.
You can do a lot more than gaming with Windows too.. Part of it depends on what environment you're comfortable with. Some people just don't really trust Microsoft and want to run something other than Windows.
Look for Youtube videos on how to install Windows subsytem for Linux (WSL2), then install a linux distro such as Ubuntu or Kali from the Windows app store. Follow the instructions in the video on how to access a linux desktop running on Windows without a VM. You would access it like you were performing a remote desktop session.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... *breathes in* AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Windows is stable. That's a good one. It's better than previous offerings in some cases, but much much worse in others, for one You still measure stable uptime on most Windows systems in hours, sometimes days, past that you still start to get increasingly weird problems. That's fine for playing games, which I understand is your priority, but when you start dealing with production or productivity environments it's laughably horrible. Then there's the frequency with which auto updates, which you have very very little control over, have a bad tendency to either require and auto reboot systems, or break critical functionality until a reboot - and they can't even manage to leave user settings alone without wiping them out half the time. Once again, fine for gaming, but the frequency with which I get frantic calls from clients who have had a mission critical system or functionality break during work hours because of an unavoidable update or other random event is higher than it has been since Vista.
I suppose you could do pretty much anything with Windows... which is why it's so popular in the business/corporate world. As a gamer I have no issues with Windows, all my nVidia drivers are fully compatible and everything just works. I am not an advanced user of computers, I know more than probably 90% of the population, but that's not hard. I rely on Windows for a hassle free experience... everything is made to work on this platform so I can't see myself going anywhere else in the immediate future.
I've also previously had Windows auto-update my graphics drivers too with no warning. That's the kind of shit that could potentially drive people like me away from the platform. There should be an overlap period of a week or so allowing the user to update in their own time... which, in the example you've provided, is particularly important for businesses.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-04-20 17:50, Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
This is true. Most of the power in GNU/Linux lies in being able to use
the command line. But doing so would take effort on the user's part to read and understand how things work. While I might argue that doing so
is not that hard, not everyone has the motivation nor the time to sink into reading manuals just to figure how stuff works. Still, however,
being to harness that would surely help you "elevate" your computing experience.
Yeah, people bang on about this interface or that, but my primary interface is Bash, usually over SSH, because most of my Linux systems
are running as servers. I do have one desktop, which is running
Cinnamon on Mint, which I like as an interface. And I have a netbook running Lubuntu
The argument that less goes wrong with Windows, I don't know about
that. I hear the argument that Windows is easier to use, but when something does go wrong, its just as hard to fix as Linux.
If not harder. Linux at least is honest about its complexity. Windows tries to hide the complexity, and that makes diving under the hoof
harder at times.
This is also true. I would even go as far as saying that problems that arise while using GNU/Linux, which aren't many, are easily solvable by either just reading the error message or by just searching about it and usually the first result would give the answer. Now that I've thought about it, I can't even recall a time when my install broke in some mysterious way. It's usually just either missing libraries or
unresolved dependencies. Though it might also be because I'm not
running a particularly heavy environment as well and my stuff don't
depend on as much dependencies as, say, a usual Ubuntu or Mint install. But even then, I used to run Xubuntu and didn't have that much problems
as well.
Biggest challenge I've had is installing newer software on an older distro, but I solve that one, by installing the dependency that was too old from source by hand, using a newer version. Then the software I
waas installing compiled properly. :)
But that's no different in the Windows world, where newer software
won't install on older versions of Windows - these days, usually
Windows 7 is the cut off, but there is software that will only install
on Windows 10. Difference is, that unlike my old Linux system, you
can't upgrade the parts that are "too old" individually under Windows
as easily, and generally compiling from source isn't an option.
I swear, I think most of the "usability" of Windows comes from decades long familiarity of people with the operating system (and fairly aggressive push of M$ to include Windows by default to computers, as
well as teaching M$ software by default in schools). Though I have
grown up using Windows as well, taking a step back and looking at the whole process of just even installing drivers in a new Windows system feels like a pain. Going to dodgy websites, trusting that .CAB or .EXE file are not some ransomware of sorts and in the end, praying to the Operating System Gods that the driver you just installed would actually make that device work. It's even much more painful when using
"esoteric" software that would somehow demand some unknown .dll file
that you have no idea why you don't have or why it's needed in the
first place.
One thing I do notice with Windows is other than the Microsoft
components, upgrades are driven by individual vendors, while on Linux, updates are generally managed by the distribution maintainers. While
the Linux way is great in that it's generally painless, and reboots are rarely needed (only when upgrading the kernel and possibly glibc), some apps, like Firefox aren't updated as promptly or automatically as they
are on Windows.
Just different ways of doing things.
... On a clear disk you can seek forever.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-04-20 18:20, Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on
the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for
you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my
place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years
now.
For me, it depends on the application. A lot of ham radio applications these days are built for either Debian or Ubuntu, and there's often packages for only those distros (e.g. AllStar, DVSwitch) are easiest installed on Debian Stretch, where they can be installed from apt repositories.
Some business oriented applications are built for a Red Hat style
distro, and will run on RHEL or CentOS without any dramas, possibly
Fedora with some massaging.
I use mostly Debian nowadays, with some CentOS, Lubuntu and Mint.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
Unless I have a compelling reason to try a particular distro, I'll use what best fit my operational needs.
... The exception also declares the rule
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux, developers
will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all the new users.
That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but with a limited audience, there
is less impetus for software and hardware support. But if it were to
get more users, and better software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect "power users" and make it another "Consumer OS",
locked down.
I think GNU/Linux "turning into Windows" wouldn't be that much of a problem and I think this is happening already anyway with the more "user-friendly" distros such as Mint and Ubuntu. I quite doubt whether
the operating system would be as locked down as Windows or OSX though. Perhaps there might be some distros that would do that for the sake "user-friendliness" but I doubt most distros would follow suit. I think there will always be minimial distros and the Free nature of the
operating system ensures that; should they want to use something full-featured like Mint or something minimal like Arch or Gentoo.
I think pulling people into GNU/Linux would ultimately be a net
positive as it would, as you mentioned, deal with the lack of impetus
for software and hardware support in the operating system. Though, now that I'm typing this, I don't think it's that big of a deal nowadays? Whenever I install GNU/Linux to a new machine, usually laptops, most of the stuff generally work out of the box sans wifi or bluetooth. But anyway, I think getting more people into GNU/Linux would give impetus
to kernel development, and, hopefully, to have that Free software
support on wifi and bluetooth drivers would be a godsend.
The only issue that I was thinking with more people getting into
GNU/Linux would probably be the increase in nonfree stuff. Though I
think by just plain awareness in GNU/Linux would also bring forth Free software principles and, hopefully, inspire more developers to develop towards that as well. :-)
I started using Linux in 2000, and back then the focus was on getting "mom" to use it. Linux users seemed to believe that "mom" had to use
it, and this market was important to unseat Microsoft. I don't believe that anymore, and I think Linux will always be, and should be, niche. Also, I think the attempts are misguided, as the barrier is more to do with inertia, documentation, not the fact that Gnome wasn't controlled
by systemd, or that we don't have apps which override window
decorations, etc, or a containerised software installation system. My wife who is not computer literate navigates KDE Plasma just fine, as
does my 8 year old daughter, who has been able to work the GUI for some time now. Linux is and has been usable for some time now.
In part, the problem is that because Linux is a developers OS,
developers approach the problem in terms of what new code can be
written. So the "solution" always tend to be, more code, another standard, another frameworks, which is NOT what Linux needs. And these solutions are always promoted from the developers POV. The
simplification Linux needs is not new software or a new GUI, but rather simplification of choice and method. There are too many distros, and different distros have different 'spins', even more confusing! Sadly,
even Puppy Linux is like that know, with multiple Puppies. Even *I*
get confused! There is Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, this spin, that spin.
There are multiple ways to do things, and which ones work depends on
your distro. Developers believe that there should be a uniform look,
but then they change their GUI, its a bit braindead to be honest. No
one is in charge.
In the ideal world, there would only be a small number of distros, you could count them on one hand, each one designed for a different use
case (full PC, portable, single board PC), one package mangement system (RPM or DEB, I'm not fussed, but I prefer RPM) and sub-systems which
can actually be understood, are well documented and don't constantly break. Pulseaudio would not exist and there would be no braindead
ideas where the software tries to be too "clever", (pulse audio), and things would not break on updates. There would be agreement on
standards. Software and hardware vendors would actually be able to release a package that will work for all Linux users.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The benefits are indeed only realised for those willing to venture
beyond what the graphical software spefically does. If you aren't the type to think of your own solutions, there probably is little benefit, aside from the lower cost and perhaps lesser hardware requirements.
This is true. Most of the power in GNU/Linux lies in being able to use
the command line. But doing so would take effort on the user's part to read and understand how things work. While I might argue that doing so
is not that hard, not everyone has the motivation nor the time to sink into reading manuals just to figure how stuff works. Still, however,
being to harness that would surely help you "elevate" your computing experience.
I agree that is not for everyone, but I'm always surprised when people
who make a living writing software and install complex frameworks don't take advantage of it.
The argument that less goes wrong with Windows, I don't know about
that. I hear the argument that Windows is easier to use, but when something does go wrong, its just as hard to fix as Linux.
This is also true. I would even go as far as saying that problems that arise while using GNU/Linux, which aren't many, are easily solvable by either just reading the error message or by just searching about it and usually the first result would give the answer. Now that I've thought about it, I can't even recall a time when my install broke in some mysterious way. It's usually just either missing libraries or
unresolved dependencies. Though it might also be because I'm not
running a particularly heavy environment as well and my stuff don't
depend on as much dependencies as, say, a usual Ubuntu or Mint install. But even then, I used to run Xubuntu and didn't have that much problems
as well.
I did break my system once when I started using it, back before
journaling filesystems existed, and a hard shutdown caused files to be lost that I didn't know how to replace. But that was aaaggges ago. I haven't had since then any wierd problems that I couldnt' resolve, and
the few times I did, it was something not unexpected (ie, I made a
system change that didn't quite work), or some niggly problem with specific software during an update that I could resolve.
The other thing I liked, compared to Windows, is no performance degradation. None. I don't know about now, but Windows would age, get slower, more buggy. I NEVER had Linux do that, no matter what software
I installed.
I set up a Windows machine some time ago (Windows 10), and installationwasn't as
smooth as I thought it would be. The machine would present almost no information and seem to be busy for ages doing who-knows-what. Then
there is drivers. If you bought your hardware new, or bought it all installed, its OK, but if you were to try and find drivers for a
printer you bought second hand, then it can be awful going through
dodgy sites. Not Microsoft's fault, but still part of the Windows experience. Occasionally when I need to do something more complex in Windows, I find it quite frustrating.
I swear, I think most of the "usability" of Windows comes from decades long familiarity of people with the operating system (and fairly aggressive push of M$ to include Windows by default to computers, as
well as teaching M$ software by default in schools). Though I have
grown up using Windows as well, taking a step back and looking at the whole process of just even installing drivers in a new Windows system feels like a pain. Going to dodgy websites, trusting that .CAB or .EXE file are not some ransomware of sorts and in the end, praying to the Operating System Gods that the driver you just installed would actually make that device work. It's even much more painful when using
"esoteric" software that would somehow demand some unknown .dll file
that you have no idea why you don't have or why it's needed in the
first place.
Dealing with it is incredibly frustrating. And don't even get me
started with Windows Updates. :'-(
Usability comes from familiarity, I completely agree and devs need to learn this so they don't constantly break what people have learned with their experiments. My daughter is familiar with KDE Plasma, so to her, that is easy.
Should would be JUST as comfortable with KDE 3, I'm sure, if that was still current. If they were to change it, because of some new fad or idea, she would get frustrated. There is no problem with it now. I
think his focus on mechanics and UI design, and redesigining things all the time is largely pointless, and mostly a self-indulgent wank. Most
UI redesigns turn out to just be a PITA.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years
time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years
and more ago.
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on
the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for
you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my
place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years
now.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
Is there any real qualitative difference between them? I do need to switch away from Fedora on my laptop soon, as Fedora dropped 32 bit support. I'm thinking Debian. Someone raved about Mint, but I'm not
sure what day-to-day difference there would be aside from the contents
of the repository.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
You can use enterprise licensing and domains to control updates, which does very little for SOHO... I don't like how forceful updates are in a
On 08-06-20 09:14, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
On the other hand, mine's the exact reverse, haha! There are instances that I'm using older or more esoteric software and as such are often
not provided in the package repositories, I usually end up compiling
those ones from source if I can't find an .appimage or similar for it.
I swear, I think most of the "usability" of Windows comes from decades long familiarity of people with the operating system (and fairly aggressive push of M$ to include Windows by default to computers, as
well as teaching M$ software by default in schools). Though I have
grown up using Windows as well, taking a step back and looking at the whole process of just even installing drivers in a new Windows system feels like a pain. Going to dodgy websites, trusting that .CAB or .EXE file are not some ransomware of sorts and in the end, praying to the Operating System Gods that the driver you just installed would actually make that device work. It's even much more painful when using
"esoteric" software that would somehow demand some unknown .dll file
that you have no idea why you don't have or why it's needed in the
first place.
One thing I do notice with Windows is other than the Microsoft
components, upgrades are driven by individual vendors, while on Linux, updates are generally managed by the distribution maintainers. While
the Linux way is great in that it's generally painless, and reboots are rarely needed (only when upgrading the kernel and possibly glibc), some apps, like Firefox aren't updated as promptly or automatically as they
are on Windows.
Just different ways of doing things.
Yeah, I agree. It's basically just picking your own poison, haha! :-)
On 08-06-20 09:19, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
For me, it depends on the application. A lot of ham radio applications these days are built for either Debian or Ubuntu, and there's often packages for only those distros (e.g. AllStar, DVSwitch) are easiest installed on Debian Stretch, where they can be installed from apt repositories.
Oh wow. I've been thinking of getting into ham radio recently, just because of this whole pandemic thing is making me a bit looney at
times. It's great that there's good support for those in GNU/Linux.
It's exactly this, isn't it? We use what fits the best for our needs. Though I do think there's also pleasure in just figuring how stuff
works in different systems, if you have nothing better to do that is.
:-P
... The exception also declares the rule
... Not enough mail? Here, let me help...
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The only problem is that if many people switch to Linux, developers
will turn it into "Windows" in order to accomodate all the new users.
That is the catch 22. Linux is great becase of choice, customisability and being able to hack and modify, but with a limited audience, there
is less impetus for software and hardware support. But if it were to
get more users, and better software and hardware support, distros would start to neglect "power users" and make it another "Consumer OS",
locked down.
I think GNU/Linux "turning into Windows" wouldn't be that much of a problem and I think this is happening already anyway with the more "user-friendly" distros such as Mint and Ubuntu. I quite doubt whether
the operating system would be as locked down as Windows or OSX though. Perhaps there might be some distros that would do that for the sake "user-friendliness" but I doubt most distros would follow suit. I think there will always be minimial distros and the Free nature of the
operating system ensures that; should they want to use something full-featured like Mint or something minimal like Arch or Gentoo.
I think pulling people into GNU/Linux would ultimately be a net
positive as it would, as you mentioned, deal with the lack of impetus
for software and hardware support in the operating system. Though, now that I'm typing this, I don't think it's that big of a deal nowadays? Whenever I install GNU/Linux to a new machine, usually laptops, most of the stuff generally work out of the box sans wifi or bluetooth. But anyway, I think getting more people into GNU/Linux would give impetus
to kernel development, and, hopefully, to have that Free software
support on wifi and bluetooth drivers would be a godsend.
The only issue that I was thinking with more people getting into
GNU/Linux would probably be the increase in nonfree stuff. Though I
think by just plain awareness in GNU/Linux would also bring forth Free software principles and, hopefully, inspire more developers to develop towards that as well. :-)
I started using Linux in 2000, and back then the focus was on getting "mom" to use it. Linux users seemed to believe that "mom" had to use
it, and this market was important to unseat Microsoft. I don't believe that anymore, and I think Linux will always be, and should be, niche. Also, I think the attempts are misguided, as the barrier is more to do with inertia, documentation, not the fact that Gnome wasn't controlled
by systemd, or that we don't have apps which override window
decorations, etc, or a containerised software installation system. My wife who is not computer literate navigates KDE Plasma just fine, as
does my 8 year old daughter, who has been able to work the GUI for some time now. Linux is and has been usable for some time now.
In part, the problem is that because Linux is a developers OS,
developers approach the problem in terms of what new code can be
written. So the "solution" always tend to be, more code, another standard, another frameworks, which is NOT what Linux needs. And these solutions are always promoted from the developers POV. The
simplification Linux needs is not new software or a new GUI, but rather simplification of choice and method. There are too many distros, and different distros have different 'spins', even more confusing! Sadly,
even Puppy Linux is like that know, with multiple Puppies. Even *I*
get confused! There is Ubuntu, Lubuntu, Xubuntu, this spin, that spin.
There are multiple ways to do things, and which ones work depends on
your distro. Developers believe that there should be a uniform look,
but then they change their GUI, its a bit braindead to be honest. No
one is in charge.
In the ideal world, there would only be a small number of distros, you could count them on one hand, each one designed for a different use
case (full PC, portable, single board PC), one package mangement system (RPM or DEB, I'm not fussed, but I prefer RPM) and sub-systems which
can actually be understood, are well documented and don't constantly break. Pulseaudio would not exist and there would be no braindead
ideas where the software tries to be too "clever", (pulse audio), and things would not break on updates. There would be agreement on
standards. Software and hardware vendors would actually be able to release a package that will work for all Linux users.
... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
I agree that I think people should not jam GNU/Linux to other people's throats by "getting them into using it". I think the operating system should speak for itself, for its features and its benefits for the
people meaning to use it. Give them a reason to switch and it should be their choice in doing so. Though, I don't know, with people slowly
being privacy aware and now cares about how and where their data is
being used, GNU/Linux becomes more increasingly the sole choice for
such users should that be the case, GNU/Linux will cease to be a niche operating system. Though I'd argue that it isn't the case anymore...?
I've been seeing mass use of GNU/Linux systems in my university and
some opt to using it because it interfaces well with our university
stuff. Sure, I think the more minimal ones will always remain niche.
Arch, Gentoo, Slackware and the likes will never achieve the same
amount of popularity that Mint and Ubuntu experiences.
Yeah, I think the problem with adoption's to do with inertia mostly,
for people to adopt GNU/Linux there must be a functional, practical and tangible reason for them to do so. Something like deep, underlying
systems such as the init system or linux subsystems are stuff that a normal person would not care about. They don't care whether their
system boots 0.5 seconds slower because systemd is bloated or whatnot. Though, I'd argue that such questions have their place and that we shouldn't just fall into "meh, it is what it is" mentality. Save those questions for the developers not the users.
I think the various systems, standards and frameworks that spring up in GNU/Linux is both a good and a bad thing. On one side it shows how
active things are in the development side of things and gives any
coming user the faith that GNU/Linux won't just be obsolete after a few decades despite not being taken care of by a single monolithic body. On the other side, it is what you mentioned: the amount of stuff presented also puts the user in a paradox of choice situation. Though personally,
I think it's a good thing that there's a lot of choices because it's exactly the point of software freedom and that the ideal solution
should be more around the "let's create a more consolidated distro"
rather than shooting the whole development in the foot slightly by hampering developer freedom and homogenizing things (I prefer my xbps
and portage over apt, thank you very much). :-)
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
The benefits are indeed only realised for those willing to venture
beyond what the graphical software spefically does. If you aren't the type to think of your own solutions, there probably is little benefit, aside from the lower cost and perhaps lesser hardware requirements.
This is true. Most of the power in GNU/Linux lies in being able to use
the command line. But doing so would take effort on the user's part to read and understand how things work. While I might argue that doing so
is not that hard, not everyone has the motivation nor the time to sink into reading manuals just to figure how stuff works. Still, however,
being to harness that would surely help you "elevate" your computing experience.
I agree that is not for everyone, but I'm always surprised when people
who make a living writing software and install complex frameworks don't take advantage of it.
Are they? Well, I don't write software for a living but if that's the
case then they're definitely using a boat to travel the road.
This is also true. I would even go as far as saying that problems that arise while using GNU/Linux, which aren't many, are easily solvable by either just reading the error message or by just searching about it and usually the first result would give the answer. Now that I've thought about it, I can't even recall a time when my install broke in some mysterious way. It's usually just either missing libraries or
unresolved dependencies. Though it might also be because I'm not
running a particularly heavy environment as well and my stuff don't
depend on as much dependencies as, say, a usual Ubuntu or Mint install. But even then, I used to run Xubuntu and didn't have that much problems
as well.
This is true. A friend of mine always had problems with Windows over
time, he would install Windows 10 and after two years it would slow
down to a crawl and would randomly throw errors at him which would then prompt him to reset his system. Rinse and repeat.
Yeah, UI redesigns are a massive PITA from a user's standpoint.
Suddenly things that you're used to aren't what they are. I really
liked the old GNOME but then they completely went 180 with GNOME 3.
Though it's great that MATE exists, users can't just rely to some concerned developer to fork the older, more desirable, version and maintain it. The lead developers themselves shouldn't just suddenly
depart to their previous design language and expect everyone to use
their system. To be honest, that's part of the reason why I just used
CLI applications and stuck with a simple window manager, things are
more consistent and are much more customizable; though of course window managers are not for everyone.
I think part of what I said earlier has to do with inertia that you've talked about in the other thread. Windows just has this decades long inertia to back it up and people who grew up using it wouldn't just
give it up easily for something else. So yeah, I agree, usability comes with familiarity but Windows has so much familiarity that even if it is technically subpar compared to the other operating systems that people still find it usable.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Some Linux users 'distro-hop', they move from distro to distro every 6 months, start fresh, I couldn't think of anything worse. In 5 years
time, my "workstation" will still be as it is now, as it was 5 years
and more ago.
I think there's some merit in distrohopping, though I used to distrohop myself haha! On one side, it's an exercise in software freedom and on
the other, it's finding out what package distribution model works for
you. As I've mentioned, I used to distrohop a lot before. Started with Ubuntu, then went around the Ubuntu derivaties (Xubuntu, Ubuntu MATE, etc.) then dove into Arch, Manjaro and Gentoo ultimately finding my
place in Void Linux which has been my distro for the past three years
now.
Currently considering trying out Guix or just going back to Gentoo for that flexibility, but let's see. I'm being quite lazy lately. :-)
Is there any real qualitative difference between them? I do need to switch away from Fedora on my laptop soon, as Fedora dropped 32 bit support. I'm thinking Debian. Someone raved about Mint, but I'm not
sure what day-to-day difference there would be aside from the contents
of the repository.
In my limited experience distrohopping, most of the difference lies
with how minimal stuff are post-install and the package manager that
they use (... also the init system). For example, Arch, Debian, Gentoo
and Void Linux all are quite minimal post-install, though there are DE options, which means that you have to install most of the programs yourself. Which is great for a tinkerer and customizability standpoint
but would be a pain for someone who just wants a system that works.
Also, Gentoo and Void Linux use OpenRC and runit respectively which
some might care about.
Package manager-wise, some argue that apt lacks features that pacman
has, but you might have to look it up if it applies to your use case. Portage is source based and I really like fiddling with USE flags and stuff and the excitement of building software that are just slightly optimized for your hardware just don't lose their charm (0.5 sec faster boot time, aww yeah :-P). XBPS is much more leaner and simpler from a "user maintaing the system" standpoint.
I find XBPS and runit to be just right for me. It's powerful, simple
and fast.
On 08-07-20 15:41, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
True, though I do find it annoying when key desktop apps don't update
on Linux like they do on Windows, even after using the distro's package management.
What are the examples of these? I'm quite curious as I haven't really encountered any. But I think that's also because I don't use that much software anyway.
On 08-07-20 15:43, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
It's good for these crazy times. I get on a "welfare net" most
mornings, where hams around this end of the country get on and let each other know how things are going, and compare notes on lockdown
survival. :)
Man, that's so interesting. I should get a license too soon, but the pandemic really put a stop into anything here. Now we're facing an economic recession and just doing my morning reading of the news makes
me sad.
Yeah, if that's the case a more minimal install would be more apt for
you. I had this period of time that minimal distros scared the crap out
of me and I would rather just go through Ubuntu, install all my stuff there are remove all of the other unnecessary stuff that I didn't need. It's quite silly actually now that I think about it. But yeah, since
you have your own workflow jive, it would probably better if you have a minimal install since then you'll just be adding stuff into it.
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually develop your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-07-20 15:41, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
True, though I do find it annoying when key desktop apps don't update
on Linux like they do on Windows, even after using the distro's package management.
What are the examples of these? I'm quite curious as I haven't really encountered any. But I think that's also because I don't use that much software anyway.
I have had distros install an old version of Firefox, and had to
install a copy in my user profile from the Mozilla site, so it would update using its own mechanisms.
Vk3jed wrote to Atroxi <=-
On 08-07-20 15:43, Atroxi wrote to Vk3jed <=-
It's good for these crazy times. I get on a "welfare net" most
mornings, where hams around this end of the country get on and let each other know how things are going, and compare notes on lockdown
survival. :)
Man, that's so interesting. I should get a license too soon, but the pandemic really put a stop into anything here. Now we're facing an economic recession and just doing my morning reading of the news makes
me sad.
We're up for a recession here too, though due to fortuitous
circumstances, we're relatively insulated from the worst effects of it.
Good news is there some cheap ways to get started, especially on the highly (and globally) networked VHF/UHF bands, which is where our nets operate.
Underminer wrote to Atroxi <=-
Hey man, super glad you're fitting in and enjoying yourself. This is
not meant to be a killjoy message in any respect, but just a heads up:
You don't need to include the entirety of previos messages in your
reply quoting. Try to just quote the relevant and needed parts to
remind people what you're replying to; for those reading on the typical 80x24 terminal screen a wall of reply quote can get in the way of
message flow a bit.
Sometime's it's a bit of an art to pick the quote lines appropriately,
but I'm sure you'll get the hang of it quickly :) ---
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually develop your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
Red Hat or Fedora has something called a "kixstart" file or something
like that, which would have all the config options for a new install,
or most of them. Better than multiple spins. You could download the distro intaller, and then the config you want, then simply load the
config you want at install.
One spin, multiple outcomes.
Moondog wrote to Atroxi <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Atroxi to Dennisk on
Fri Aug 07 2020 01:22 pm
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
I agree that I think people should not jam GNU/Linux to other people's throats by "getting them into using it". I think the operating system should speak for itself, for its features and its benefits for the people meaning to use it. Give them a reason to switch and it should be their choice in doing so. Though, I don't know, with people slowly being privacy aware and now cares about how and where their data is being used, GNU/Linux becomes more increasingly the sole choice for such users should that be the case, GNU/Linux will cease to be a niche operating system. Though I'd argue that it isn't the case anymore...? I've been seeing mass use of GNU/Linux systems in my university and some opt to using it because it interfaces well with our university stuff. Sure, I think the more minimal ones will always remain niche. Arch, Gentoo, Slackware and the likes will never achieve the same amount of popularity that Mint and Ubuntu experiences.
Yeah, I think the problem with adoption's to do with inertia mostly, for people to adopt GNU/Linux there must be a functional, practical and tangible reason for them to do so. Something like deep, underlying systems such as the init system or linux subsystems are stuff that a normal person would not care about. They don't care whether their system boots 0.5 seconds slower because systemd is bloated or whatnot. Though, I'd argue that such questions have their place and that we shouldn't just fall into "meh, it is what it is" mentality. Save those questions for the developers not the users.
I think the various systems, standards and frameworks that spring up in GNU/Linux is both a good and a bad thing. On one side it shows how active things are in the development side of things and gives any coming user the faith that GNU/Linux won't just be obsolete after a few decades despite not being taken care of by a single monolithic body. On the other side, it is what you mentioned: the amount of stuff presented also puts the user in a paradox of choice situation. Though personally, I think it's a good thing that there's a lot of choices because it's exactly the point of software freedom and that the ideal solution should be more around the "let's create a more consolidated distro" rather than shooting the whole development in the foot slightly by hampering developer freedom and homogenizing things (I prefer my xbps and portage over apt, thank you very much). :-)
There is choice that matters, and choice that doesn't. That is an individual thing too. For me, the important choices are being able to use the GUI I like, being able to have the system look and act the way I want, backward compatibility and being able to keep existing workflows and capacities. I don't really care about choice of package managers, as long as it works, or choice of distros (as long as the distro doesn't limit me), or choice of installer defaults (you can always change the options).
Yup, I agree. We shouldn't stife that individual choice which I think is central to how GNU/Linux works.
... Whatever happens, happens.
Linux users are a diverse group with diverse interests. The friendly desktop movement is probably second to the linux server side. Ubuntu
and Mint are most likely the leaders in the desktop development, and
all the little Windows and OSX lookalikes depend on these bigger
distros momentum.
Moondog wrote to Atroxi <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Atroxi to Dennisk on
Fri Aug 07 2020 01:35 pm
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Is there any real qualitative difference between them? I do need to switch away from Fedora on my laptop soon, as Fedora dropped 32 bit support. I'm thinking Debian. Someone raved about Mint, but I'm not sure what day-to-day difference there would be aside from the contents of the repository.
In my limited experience distrohopping, most of the difference lies with how minimal stuff are post-install and the package manager that they use (... also the init system). For example, Arch, Debian, Gentoo and Void Linux all are quite minimal post-install, though there are DE options, which means that you have to install most of the programs yourself. Which is great for a tinkerer and customizability standpoint but would be a pain for someone who just wants a system that works. Also, Gentoo and Void Linux use OpenRC and runit respectively which some might care about.
Package manager-wise, some argue that apt lacks features that pacman has, but you might have to look it up if it applies to your use case. Portage is source based and I really like fiddling with USE flags and stuff and the excitement of building software that are just slightly optimized for your hardware just don't lose their charm (0.5 sec faster boot time, aww yeah :-P). XBPS is much more leaner and simpler from a "user maintaing the system" standpoint.
I find XBPS and runit to be just right for me. It's powerful, simple and fast.
OK, that is what I thought it would be. I'm a tinkerer, so the "default" is only what lasts that 5 minutes until I switch to the GUI, shell and personalisation I want to use, and install the standard software I consider essential for my system. Anytime I've set up a new Linux machine (which isn't that often), that is the first thing I do. Last time I installed Linux on a netbook, I ended up just copying most of my config from my main machines home directy, used the same Window Manager (FVWM) with almost the same configuration, and installed the same software that I use day to day, or occasionally need.
Yeah, if that's the case a more minimal install would be more apt for you. I had this period of time that minimal distros scared the crap out of me and I would rather just go through Ubuntu, install all my stuff there are remove a of the other unnecessary stuff that I didn't need. It's quite silly actually now that I think about it. But yeah, since you have your own workflow jive, would probably better if you have a minimal install since then you'll just b adding stuff into it.
Maybe it matters more for new users, the distro's defaults.
Oh certainly, I think the defaults are really more for the new users at some point once you go deep into the GNU/Linux rabbit hole you'll eventually deve your own workflow which might not be similar to the distro's defaults.
... Whatever happens, happens.
There are times I would like to go the "linux from scratch" approach, however I doubt if something went seriously wrong or if I got too deep
in it, I wouldn't finish the process. Although if things go smoothly,
I would try it again to see if i could streamline the process (and
learn even more)
I'm sorry! Yeah, it's quite a balance to not lose context and have a wall of text when the conversation has been going on for a while. I'll be more mindful from now on. :-)
There are times I would like to go the "linux from scratch"
approach, however I doubt if something went seriously wrong or if
I got too deep in it, I wouldn't finish the process. Although if
things go smoothly, I would try it again to see if i could
streamline the process (and learn even more)
It's not real difficult - the instructions are pretty much
step-by-step and all inclusive. Quite tedious after a while, and
you end up with a bootable but not really useable system until you continue with adding everything you need (with BLFS for example).
I've done it a couple of times, but for me at least, the end
result is not really worth the effort expended to get there. It
is a nice learning experience which helps you understand the
"guts" of Linux, especially the boot process and compiling
software.
DaiTengu wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Gamgee to Moondog on Fri Aug 07 2020 06:51 pm
There are times I would like to go the "linux from scratch"
approach, however I doubt if something went seriously wrong or if
I got too deep in it, I wouldn't finish the process. Although if
things go smoothly, I would try it again to see if i could
streamline the process (and learn even more)
It's not real difficult - the instructions are pretty much
step-by-step and all inclusive. Quite tedious after a while, and
you end up with a bootable but not really useable system until you continue with adding everything you need (with BLFS for example).
I've done it a couple of times, but for me at least, the end
result is not really worth the effort expended to get there. It
is a nice learning experience which helps you understand the
"guts" of Linux, especially the boot process and compiling
software.
running Gentoo taught me more about Linux than any other distro
ever did. Granted, back when I first started, I was bootstrapping
with stage 1, and now it just installs a base system that you
eventually recompile after modifying your use flags and tweaking
your compiler settings.
I currently have a gentoo install that's about 6 years old, it's
gone through 2 different CPUs and 3 different motherboards. It
still runs great.
It's definitely frustrating though when you get upgrading
conflicts, but luckilly the gentoo forums hold of wealth of
information on solving just about any issue you run into.
On 08-08-20 21:41, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I found that a pain in Fedora too, so much so, that at times I was
looking at moving away to avoid having to update all the time.
But I've gotten used to the updates, and the updates from version to version aren't that significant. It is almost like a rolling disto.
So I stayed.
On 08-08-20 22:14, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
If you are wanting to learn how to make a distro, it is useful. But if you want to learn Linux, and have time, I think it is much better to
learn BASH scripting or better yet, the Unix toolset, awk, sed, cut,
grep, and others, maybe groff as well. With this knowledge, you'd be
able to create new and novel solutions. Or you can learn more
customisation, editing existing scripts, or learning to configure FVWM.
The corporate world is hardcore Intel, Windows and Azure and
Microsoft 365. They're doing just fine.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont have problems with it. ---
I use Windows 10 at work, company supplied machine, and I've never seen an update happen. They must happen, because occasionally the software change slightly, but it seems to be in the background.
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Aug 10 2020 09:29 am
I use Windows 10 at work, company supplied machine, and I've never seen an update happen. They must happen, because occasionally the software change slightly, but it seems to be in the background.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-09-20 22:01, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
My desktop was a Fedora 17 or so install, that has been continuously updated to Fedora 31, and due for one now. Most of the time, the
update just means minor updates to versions. KDE 4 to KDE 5 was the
only "breaking" change, and that was years ago.
Sounds good, but the key detail is what's the process for such updating
to create the effective "rolling distro"?
MRO wrote to Underminer <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Underminer to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Aug 09 2020 03:25 pm
Like I say, if you just want to play games fine, it will work well enough for that. If you need to do anything resembling real work you either need to do a lot of self learning and setup, or be willing to spend $$ to have someone else do it for you.
Meanwhile, you take a system running a stable distro of Linux and it will run just as stable and happy as a stand alone system, part of a network, or anything else you want to do with it.
Dealing with Windows on an idividual or smb basis makes me want to boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Slackware was my first distro back in the mid 90's. I remember starting a kernel compile, and having to let it run overnig
Slackware is the base system that my NAS runs on, using a system called "UnRAID". So I still get to tinker with it from time
time. :)
Re: Re: Linux
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Wed Aug 05 2020 06:56 am
The corporate world is hardcore Intel, Windows and Azure and
Microsoft 365. They're doing just fine.
Microsoft's Windows is the default. When the average Joe purchases a computer, it's pre-installed with Windows. Whether they
switch to Linux or another OS is hardly relevant as Microsoft have made their money. I am not aware of too many folk who bui
their own machines with the intent of bypassing the requirement of a Windows license.
Re: Re: Linux
By: Underminer to poindexter FORTRAN on Sun Aug 09 2020 03:25 pm
Like I say, if you just want to play games fine, it will work well enough for that. If you need to do anything resembli
real work you either need to do a lot of self learning and setup, or be willing to spend $$ to have someone else do it
you.
Meanwhile, you take a system running a stable distro of Linux and it will run just as stable and happy as a stand alone
system, part of a network, or anything else you want to do with it.
Dealing with Windows on an idividual or smb basis makes me want to boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont have problems with it.
Microsoft does not make the bulk of their money from selling you a software license. They don't give a damn if you pirate the
hell out of it. They want you to use Microsoft Office, pirated or not, because that way they ensure the dominant document
format in the IT ecosystem is one they control. Then they can charge multiple kilobucks to enterprise customers if they want to
do fancy stuff with that format.
Or patent troll you, or whatever.
I don't build my own machines with the intention of screwing Microsoft, but I certainly build them from used components or buy
used ones because that is so much more cost effective. Running Linux or OpenBSD on top of them certainly prevents a MS Windows
sale.
Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Microsoft's Windows is the default. When the average Joe purchases a computer, it's pre-installed with Windows. Whether they switch to Linux
or another OS is hardly relevant as Microsoft have made their money. I
am not aware of too many folk who build their own machines with the
intent of bypassing the requirement of a Windows license.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it.
Make a program that a fool could use, and only a fool will want to use it.
For us the biggest advantage (other than being able to control what gets updated when) is having one server reaching out to the internet to download the updates. Then all of our servers & workstations can download from that one server, saving on bandwidth and speeding up installations.
i use windows and linux in harmony. i dont really see why you get aggrivated by windows.
maybe there are some 3rd party programs you could use to tweak it to your liking. ---
i use windows and linux in harmony. i dont really see why you get
aggrivated by windows.
I deal with and support this junk all day, so I have a very low tolerance left for annoyances with it for my own usage. Likewise, decades of deskside support, depot work, and IT consulting have bombarded me with the multitude of really stupid ways Windows environments can fail. Linux isn't immune to that, but I find it easier to avoid. If you prefer Windows, by all means use it.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have
problems. ---
I don't think it works quite like that. Some people are too smart, and end up creating problems they didn't need to.
Back in the day, people used to request a Windows refund from
Microsoft, it made the news back in the '90s.
Do you know if they were successful in obtaining a refund? I reckon it's a hard one to argue as they'd have purchased the computer with Window's pre-installed... surely that's an admission that they were happy with the transaction at the time?
Re: Re: Linux
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 2020 06:35 pm
Back in the day, people used to request a Windows refund from
Microsoft, it made the news back in the '90s.
Do you know if they were successful in obtaining a refund? I reckon it's a hard one to argue as they'd have purchased the computer with Window's pre-installed... sure
that's an admission that they were happy with the transaction at the time?
On 08-10-20 20:46, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I think the key detail is that the difference between an up to date
Fedora 31, and the Fedora 32 release, is most of the time not that significant. So even though you still make the "leap" from Fedora 31
to 32 then to 33, etc, that "leap" is actually a small step.
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-10-20 20:46, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I think the key detail is that the difference between an up to date
Fedora 31, and the Fedora 32 release, is most of the time not that significant. So even though you still make the "leap" from Fedora 31
to 32 then to 33, etc, that "leap" is actually a small step.
That's not a helpful practical detail, just a statement of what appears
to be fact. I'm more interested in the process used. I know how
Debian is upgraded, and I don't know what other distros can be successfully upgraded in a similar way.
Andeddu wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
Do you know if they were successful in obtaining a refund? I reckon
it's a hard one to argue as they'd have purchased the computer with Window's pre-installed... surely that's an admission that they were
happy with the transaction at the time?
The argument was based on the MS TOS that stated you could get a refund. However Microsoft required the OEM Vendors to provide the refund, so nobody received one from Microsoft. It did however do a good job at promoting Free Software concerns.
Re: Re: Linux
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Andeddu on Mon Aug 10 2020 06:35 pm
Back in the day, people used to request a Windows refund from
Microsoft, it made the news back in the '90s.
Do you know if they were successful in obtaining a refund? I reckon it's a hard one to argue as they'd have purchased the computer with Window's pre-installed... surely that's an admission that they were happy with the transaction at the time?
On 08-12-20 21:25, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Fedora is updated in a very similar way to Debian. DNF is Fedora's equivalent of APT. You use DNF to do a system upgrade, by passing a system-upgrade flag and the version you want to upgrade to.
Dennisk wrote to MRO <=-
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:50 pm
boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Idiots may not have problems with it, but anyone who isn't one, will.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have problems. ---
I don't think it works quite like that. Some people are too smart, and end up creating problems they didn't need to.
On 08-14-20 09:49, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Yes, they moved away from Yum years ago. IIRC, DNF is native code, Yum was python, so DNF is a bit faster. DNF was pretty much a drop in replacement for Yum.
I only use Fedora because my first distro was a Red Hat based one (Definite Linux 7.0) , then I moved to Red Hat (I think 6.2? 7.0?). I stuck with what I know, and Fedora has the packages that I'm used to having installed on my system.
Re: Re: Linux
By: Arelor to DaiTengu on Mon Aug 10 2020 07:38 am
Sadly,Slackware has been losing ground to OpenBSD in my networks since Patrick has such bad communication issues. The current -stable release of Slackware is
getting a bit outdated for some tasks and I find myself upgrading those boxes to OpenBSD -release. Slackware development is very active - changelogs scrolling
blazing fast - but we don't get a picture of that the release goals are and what we can expect.
Roadmaps are nice to have, especially with huge open source projects like distros. It sounds like they just don't quite have a "big picture" group as to where they
want to go.
The only machine I run any kind of *BSD on here is my pfSense router. I haven't used it in any production environment in about a decade.
My go-to choice for any kind of production server is CentOS. It's stable, and that's often what I need.
DaiTengu
... I can't promise anything but I can promise 100%.
Heh, just a word of warning. It looks like IBM is doing IBM things and started quietly outsourcing what Red Hat's team used to do to India. So much for their promises of letting Red Hat be the same it always was...
On 08-14-20 22:25, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
There were some differences with the API, and how it works internally,
but from the POV of a user, its almost exactly the same. You likely
won't have to do anything different except type "dnf" where you used to type "yum".
A rolling Fedora distro does sound like not a bad way to go.
Stick with what works for you. I don't feel the need to evangelise any particular distro, but if you do want to remain up to date, Fedora is great in that regard.
Linux is literally my day job. :)
I'm a sysadmin for a large adtech company. I manage about 2000
physical server s and a couple hundred virtual ones.
dealing with Linux all day really has
killed my desire to ti nker with it in my free time. :)
On 08-16-20 13:28, Underminer wrote to Vk3jed <=-
that's the primary reason I run mostly Debian or variants. There was a time when Red Hat/CentOS were the preferred distros.
Yeah, if there's a package available there's going to be a .deb. The
AUR is super nice in Arch though. ---
On 08-17-20 08:59, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
From yum? Yes. If you know yum, you know dnf.
I tend to find that there are sometimes .deb's where there aren't
.rpms. Not often, but it does happen. Typically with software
packaged by the software creator. On occasion, I've found a .deb, but
no .rpm.
Not a deal breaker, as its rare, but .deb system have a slight
advantage there, and is probably the one factor which pushes me toward Debian.
Being able to compile the kernel, and choose what goes into it was something that surprised me. It was one of the first things I tried to customise! (After
selecting the window manager I wanted). I borked the system a few times, but my compiled kernel did run faster and leaner. I mostly customize the GUI (I use FVWM, which allows for some heavy customisation, more than any other WM I've used), the shell, streamlining things, and changing some niggly defaults that don't suit me and adding things I think are missing (like a shutdown/reboot button) on the XDM login screen, disabling pulseaudio, adding the -CK kernel patch, adding scripts, etc, occasionally using my own copy of a
binary instead of the distro one (I try to avoid this, because its a headache during updates).
It's been some time since I tried to play with Arch, I keep meaning to go back to it, but honestly, dealing with Linux all day really has killed my desire to tinker with it in my free time. :)
On 08-17-20 21:59, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I just found that I stil have yum installed!
Yeah, the availability of apt repos and version specificity has
definitely kept me in the Debian camp in recent years.
Perhaps not worth moving on for you then?
Vk3jed wrote to Dennisk <=-
On 08-17-20 21:59, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I just found that I stil have yum installed!
Haha is it actual yum or a symlink to dnf?
Yeah, the availability of apt repos and version specificity has
definitely kept me in the Debian camp in recent years.
Perhaps not worth moving on for you then?
At this time, no, but if there's something I intend to use heavily that requires Red Hat/Fedora, or at least strongly prefers a RH flavoured distro, then I will seriously consider Fedora over CentOS.
On 08-18-20 21:15, Dennisk wrote to Vk3jed <=-
Haha is it actual yum or a symlink to dnf?
It's a symlink to dnf!
At this time, no, but if there's something I intend to use heavily that requires Red Hat/Fedora, or at least strongly prefers a RH flavoured distro, then I will seriously consider Fedora over CentOS.
Cool. If any questions, let me know.
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to Atroxi <=-
Atroxi wrote to Dennisk <=-
Dennisk wrote to MRO <=-
MRO wrote to Dennisk <=-
Re: Re: Linux
By: Dennisk to MRO on Mon Aug 10 2020 08:50 pm
boot things out the window far too often.
why is windows so hard for you? they designed it so even idiots wont
have problems with it. ---
Idiots may not have problems with it, but anyone who isn't one, will.
if someone is smart enough, they will be smart enough not to have problems. ---
I don't think it works quite like that. Some people are too smart, and end up creating problems they didn't need to.
Yeah, I remember years ago when I really wanted to customize the crap
out of the Windows 7 box, with all those custom aero stuff and
aesthetic stuff that only a nerd teenager would care about. I went into
a dive of modifying system files to the point of breaking my system
just because I wanted to change the way it works. Then, I found
GNU/Linux and it blew my mind how I can actually build a custom system from the ground up instead of stripping one away and making it custom (though still not quite).
Being able to compile the kernel, and choose what goes into it was something that surprised me. It was one of the first things I tried to customise! (After selecting the window manager I wanted). I borked the system a few times, but my compiled kernel did run faster and leaner.
I mostly customize the GUI (I use FVWM, which allows for some heavy customisation, more than any other WM I've used), the shell,
streamlining things, and changing some niggly defaults that don't suit
me and adding things I think are missing (like a shutdown/reboot
button) on the XDM login screen, disabling pulseaudio, adding the -CK kernel patch, adding scripts, etc,
Oh yes. What a thrill doing something like that is. A few months ago I dived head-first into Gentoo and suddenly a whole world of
customization was opened to me. I never imagined how these small tweaks would actually be beneficial on the long run but it did. Sadly, the
amount of time compiling packages really took a toll on me, haha! And I feel like I'm not yet smart enough to deal with stuff or maybe I'm just lazy to give up a weekend to just learn the stuff.
Right now I've pretty much integrated my whole setup around using bspwm and terminal applications. It's surprising to me actually how little
that I need to have to be able to use my computer productively (or not, haha!). Most of the time I'm just writing stuff and that's done through vim and I either compile it to LaTeX or groff. Other than that, most of the stuff that I have are scripts that I wrote to manage the system's functions like using dmenu as a power menu, display menu, mount menu,
etc. I think right now the only thing that I'm missing is the ability
to do spreadsheets, and while libreoffice does that I would like to do spreadsheets in the commandline.
occasionally using my own copy of a binary instead of the distro one
(I try to avoid this, because its a headache during updates).
Oh man. It IS a pain.
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 96:00:20 |
| Calls: | 287 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 5,605 |
| Messages: | 226,625 |