Thats does not make sense. You never tried any versions of Linux, yet with no experience at all you know that they all suck?Now there's a problem. I don't have Linux, never tried it and among the mess of thousands of distributions, there's no way I can one that I like.
>_<
It's still an absurd statement.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law
Not really. Put yourself in someone else's shoes. Thousands of distributions out there.
How would you find one that you liked?
First it would need the features you like most, and then you would have to try them all. Not an easy task.
Even trying to search for this may take forever, and I'll admit I think I might want to do that later, but I can't do it now.
Well, I'm on someone else's shoes. I'm trying Linux for the first time after 10 years of absence (when I did try it for a period of a little over a month). Did it the day before yesterday.
Today (so, 3 days later):
- I have apache installed, configured along with PHP and MySQL.
- Have setup gcc to my linking, downloaded, configured and compiled wxWidgets, Boost and SQLite. Still struggling to get familiar with Eclipse and may move to KDevelop instead for the time being. Which means I'm already searching newer and better solutions for my problems
- Have been able to mount my windows partition and move my projects here.
- Have been playing silly games, setting up OpenOffice and otherwise exploring my new OS
- I like Gnome, but love KDE, which means I've tried two different GUIs on the same OS (beat that)
- My machine... well Elysia, really you should see my laptop now. I mean, looks like I just bought it. So much faster and responsive I'm beating myself over the head why haven't I done this before.
I am still struggling to get familiar with it, of course. But it's not giving me headaches. I gather it will be still a month pass (did I say this right, you english speaking folks?) before I get to fully understand the filesystem and its implications on my day to day work. The Linux packaging system seems also more complicated than the click-exe to install in windows.
But I, neither you, should expect two OSes to be equal or share a common learning curve on all things.
EDIT: Oh, and by the way, I didn't spend one cent so far. I'm shock full of software I haven't spend one cent in. I don't feel the pull of the torrent, if you know what I mean,
Last edited by Mario F.; 03-02-2008 at 08:06 AM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
That worried me too. The general advise here was Ubuntu. But I wanted to explore my options a little more. So I decided to read about it over the web and reserve 1 day on the web to better understand how things work.
What I learned: It doesn't matter really. I ended up choosing openSUSE since I always like the damn chameleon and it was the one I used before. You see, for the most part the distribution only determines the OS core and the application bundle. You can then just go anywhere in the web get whatever else you need.
For free.
Last edited by Mario F.; 03-02-2008 at 08:19 AM.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
I am using andLinux - This is linux build on Ubuntu and can be started on Windows (As NT service for example) - and gives possibility to run all linux programs in a window inside windows.
I'm trying it now and very satisfied so far. I have no intentions to switch complitely to windows but possibility to use Intel compiler for free is very applealing
All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection,
except for the problem of too many layers of indirection.
– David J. Wheeler
I use Arch on any modern machine I put linux on, and damn small linux on any box that is older, both work great. If I had my windows games, I wouldn't go back.
I stick to virtualizing ubuntu with vmware. I found that there is little for me to do with a full blown hard drive or partition dedicated to the OS and I never really do NEED it so I just toy with it every once in a while.
It is also possible to run Ubuntu from inside a file using Wubi:
http://wubi-installer.org/
Saves having to make a partition or run through a virtual machine
Edit: why do those stupid thumbs keep appearing in my posts o_0
interesting. Is it quicker than vmware? And can you switch to and from windows quickly?
I'll quote Mario on that:Not really. Put yourself in someone else's shoes. Thousands of distributions out there.
How would you find one that you liked?
Somehow, the concept of which distro to choose has been blown up into some huge matter. That's absurd. Things that differ between distros:What I learned: It doesn't matter really.
1) The package manager.
2) The installer.
3) The configuration interface.
4) Some defaults. E.g. Ubuntu defaults to Gnome.
Since most of them are quite good, it really doesn't matter. Also, you keep repeating that there are "thousands" of distributions. I've already pointed out that for a newcomer, only 4 really matter nowadays.
The stuff you notice most, however, are the applications you use. Gnome is the same everywhere (maybe differently themed, but since you like eye-candy, you'll re-theme anyway). Same for KDE. OpenOffice is the same everywhere. Firefox is the same everywhere. (Except on Ubuntu, where it's branded "Iceweasel".) Evolution is the same everywhere.
The applications matter much more than the distributions. Your claim is founded on your fears and doubts, not on facts.
All the buzzt!
CornedBee
"There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
- Flon's Law