Favorite OS?

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Favorite OS?

Alright, thought so, wasn't completely sure.

[Satabi]

Re: Favorite OS?

I think Mhurron caught this, but is that something from Office Space?

Yes. My boss, who is an avid fan of the movie himself, got it for me.

I love my job.

[Feba]

Re: Favorite OS?

http://www.thinkgeek.com/books/humor/8e6c/

See; your very own jump to conclusions mat.

[DieselBoy09]

Re: Favorite OS?

because I like my Jump to Conclusions mat. >.>

I think Mhurron caught this, but is that something from Office Space?

[Mhurron]

Re: Favorite OS?

Though if anyone has any tips for a new Linux user, especially about said drivers, I'm all ears. x.x

Learn how to read and research on your own. There a lot of Linux forums, kubuntu has their own, and there is linuxquestions.org, but you will be expected by most to ask intelligent questions, be able to show and explain what you've done. Don't walk in crying, demanding that others essentially do everything for you.

[Satabi]

Re: Favorite OS?

Well I successfully set up my computer to dual-boot Vista and Kubuntu. So far it seems easy enough to grasp, and I'll probably use it full-time once I stop being too lazy to get drivers onto it. Though if anyone has any tips for a new Linux user, especially about said drivers, I'm all ears. x.x

[Feba]

Re: Favorite OS?

I don't really care. If you want to PM it to me, I'll read it, but don't go out of your way or anything.

[Moaku Hyena]

Re: Favorite OS?

By the way Feba, if ya ever want to learn about the new (horrible) features in Vista including my personal test drive of it, then feel free to poke me. I have info.

[Feba]

Re: Favorite OS?

Oh, by the way Mhurron, I'm done debating this. I don't feel I can continue without soapboxing, and I promised myself long ago I would never let myself do that again. If anyone has questions about linux, feel free to ask me though.

[Feba]

Re: Favorite OS?

Of course, the Device Manager exists in Windows XP as well,

I'm talking about anything else in general. The fact that it requires the OS to run is what I was referring to.

Drinking the kool-aid huh.

I said discussed, not proven. Large difference.

They would, until you asked them why they bought it and they told you it ran apps that they wanted it to run.

Then why would anyone buy from them and not someone like HP or Dell? Certainly if the OS itself wasn't worth it, people wouldn't bother with the hardware premiums.

Yes, people won't buy a computer that doesn't run apps they want to run, but at the same time OSX, Windows, and Linux can *all* run the apps almost anyone could want to, with minor differences between them.

Yes, because nothing runs on vista.

XP runs all the apps people use. Vista runs all the apps people use. XP is cheaper, lighter, and just about the same. Obviously, something other than applications are driving people to buy Vista over XP.

To people that actually work, OSS apps for the most part either do not work at all or are missing very important features.

Plenty of companies out there would disagree.

There is a cost to everything. Buy Windows and pretty much know whats going on because all Windows works a certain way. Buy a Mac and you have to learn the MacOS way. buy a machine then get Linux, now you have to learn about partitioning, installing an OS, choosing packages, where to find apps online, because you can't buy them in a store. Learn where everything is and in general spend a lot of time learning. A cost of money or a cost of time is only different in what it cost you, but it still costs.

Again, you're sidestepping the entire issue. Yes, linux does have a TCO, but you act like there's nothing involved in learning Windows either.

All that stuff you mentioned having to learn in Linux you have to learn in Windows as well, just because you don't remember that doesn't make it untrue. Everything in life that costs more than a hundred dollars or so will have a TCO higher than what it says on the sticker, the matter is, how high is it. If you believe MS, Linux has a higher TCO (at least on servers) because it's so unreliable, requires more effort, etc. If you believe the average linux user, MS flings FUD like monkeys fling poop.

TCO, yes, might be higher in some cases for linux, but at the same time you have to consider how much of a 'community' Windows has for support, and how good the free guides are.

What really matters in desktop-end-user-land as far as TCO goes is how easy is it to pick up and use. OSX and Ubuntu are at the top, in my experience, with Windows a tiny bit below that. The average user doesn't give two shits about setting up their system, and you know it. How many times have you had a relative have you fix their PC problem, when it was so simple you could do it in your sleep. People that don't understand computers just want something that works, which OSX, Ubuntu, and XP all do, and when it doesn't work, they just want to shove it off for someone else to take care of.

Complaining how hard it is to configure an OS is like complaining how hard it is to work on a car. The average person wouldn't know their head gasket from their axle, they just take it to a mechanic or their friend who likes fixing up cars.

[Feba]

Re: Favorite OS?

Those are not user friendly distros, they are specific use distros.

They were friendly when I tried them. Care to explain how they suddenly became only useful for specific things while I wasn't looking?

You keep talking about being able to configure your computer your way, but use GNOME. That alone is funny,

I don't believe I've mentioned being able to configure your computer at all in this discussion, although that is a perk, I don't really care about it. I don't care too much about GUIs, as long as they aren't total shit.

Like I said, I use GNOME because I can and it's convenient, but if GNOME grew to the point where I couldn't use it on my computer, I would switch to something less demanding.

OSS apps are significantly worse offenders for this.

I'd like some evidence, and no, Firefox doesn't count. Plenty of OSS apps still run in CLI. One of my favorite programs is run in CLI, and I simply choose to use a GUI window on it because clicking requires a very small amount less thought.

There is no need to spend the immense time making a program more 'efficient.'

I'm not saying an immense amount of time should, however pointlessly making things bloated is horrible.

Future use. Features that were created but dropped because of bugs prior to ship date. Welcome to development.

Care to explain when those features were used then, or why they weren't removed? Obviously devs don't always remove things (Hot Coffee, anyone?), but is there a good reason to leave 900kb~ worth of junk in a program? (Again, this was in 99)

That job has been done be the hardware

Indeed.

[Mhurron]

Re: Favorite OS?

Not necessarily true. The use of the chip to control software has been discussed before, potentially to restrict FOSS use.

Drinking the kool-aid huh. Machines have been shipping with these sporadically, but no one has noticed. You know why, because it doesn't bring an end to the world like people thought it would.

I think anyone who has ever bought from Apple or System76 would disagree with you.

They would, until you asked them why they bought it and they told you it ran apps that they wanted it to run. A system with just an OS that doesn't run apps you need is nothing more then a paperweight.

Not true at all. The fact that people buy systems with Vista on them shows that people don't care that something can run their apps

Yes, because nothing runs on vista.

To a point. All of those have alternatives, except probably TurboTax, but I believe the IRS has a web client now anyway.

To people who don't use their computer for anything other then personally surfing the web, maybe there is. To people that actually work, OSS apps for the most part either do not work at all or are missing very important features.

I do like how you blatantly sidestepped the entire issue there of the cost of the OS. Again, how many people would spend more on software- a single DVD to them- to hardware? It would be horrible for microsoft to allow the computers to become cheaper than the OS itself.

There is a cost to everything. Buy Windows and pretty much know whats going on because all Windows works a certain way. Buy a Mac and you have to learn the MacOS way. buy a machine then get Linux, now you have to learn about partitioning, installing an OS, choosing packages, where to find apps online, because you can't buy them in a store. Learn where everything is and in general spend a lot of time learning. A cost of money or a cost of time is only different in what it cost you, but it still costs.

[Moaku Hyena]

Re: Favorite OS?

Well that's good at least... but do they allow themselves to be deactivated *Without* Vista?

Ah, I may have screwed up a bit when I mentioned "Windows Vista PCs". Of course, the Device Manager exists in Windows XP as well, and maybe below XP. Windows XP doesn't have Hardware DRM in it, but there's a chance that it would find the TCP Module. Of course, XP wouldn't know what to do with it except see that it's there. If it doesn't find the TCP module then you're good as well.

And Mhurron does have a point about things being Vista Required only having the drivers ready for vista, but "Vista Compatible" would imply that it's ALSO compatible with Windows other OSes, most notably Windows XP would come to mind.

[Mhurron]

Re: Favorite OS?

And I've seen linux distros still getting down into the 20-40MB range. I'm not talking about growth in computers though, that's natural, I'm talking about the program being filled with junk for the sake of being filled with junk. See http://web.archive.org/web/200108022...faq/bloat.html
Now that was written back in 99, but the fact that it's bloated so much is still relevant, since that seems to be all MS has done with Vista. Unless you can come up with a good reason for "There were humungoid bitmaps never used. There were dozens of icons never referenced. There were tens of kilobytes of entries in the string table that had no meaning for the application whatsoever." being part of an application...

Future use. Features that were created but dropped because of bugs prior to ship date. Welcome to development.

OSS apps are significantly worse offenders for this.

http://www.delilinux.org/wiki/doku.p...ses:deli-0.7.2
http://www.puppylinux.org/wikka/MinReq

Those are not user friendly distros, they are specific use distros.

if people were focusing on making computers efficient instead of having the latest and greatest, that would be a non-issue.

There is no need to spend the immense time making a program more 'efficient.' That job has been done be the hardware now. Once again, OSS apps are the worst offenders for this. Then again, I'm old enough to remember when GNOME would sell itself as a complete GUI without bloat that would look like 2000 but run on a 486. Of course, I also remember when GNOME wasn't written by developers that thought all their users are drooling idiots.

You keep talking about being able to configure your computer your way, but use GNOME. That alone is funny, but the funniest is you weren't aware of how GNOME used to be and the controversy as they began to remove its customization because users can't handle options.

[Feba]

Re: Favorite OS?

meaning the device does absolutely nothing anyway.

Not necessarily true. The use of the chip to control software has been discussed before, potentially to restrict FOSS use.

No one buys a computer because of the OS on it.

I think anyone who has ever bought from Apple or System76 would disagree with you.

They buy a computer that runs their apps.

Not true at all. The fact that people buy systems with Vista on them shows that people don't care that something can run their apps, I see plenty of people doing just fine running most modern apps in 2k, it's the fact that either:
A- They just want it to show off
B- They think they have to have the latest OS to run something, regardless of whether they do or not, or
C- They don't know that there are alternatives

Between Office, Quickbooks, Tax software and games,

To a point. All of those have alternatives, except probably TurboTax, but I believe the IRS has a web client now anyway.



I do like how you blatantly sidestepped the entire issue there of the cost of the OS. Again, how many people would spend more on software- a single DVD to them- to hardware? It would be horrible for microsoft to allow the computers to become cheaper than the OS itself.