Linux/Xp

This is a discussion on Linux/Xp within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; There are many good applications made for Windows and that is probably the reason why so many uses it. Originally ...

  1. #16
    Registered User raimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    107
    There are many good applications made for Windows and that is probably the reason why so many uses it.
    Originally posted by -KEN-
    I have tried it, I have 2 distros, actually. I know hillbillie has, too. Tell me this: What does Linux as an OS bring you that Win2k/XP/NT doesn't? It's a helluvalot more unstable in my opinion, it's slow, does nothging new to me, has inferior
    If you think it is more unstable than Win2k/XP/NT, then you just don't know how to use it. In Linux, you have efficient tools to recover from program crashes. There is not many situations where you would lose your control from the system. In Win2k/XP/NT, you have no clue what went wrong and how to fix it.

    Linux is not slow. You can do administration tasks much faster on Unix command line than in Windows with its terrible gui stuff. Emacs is far more better and stable to write your short texts than Microsoft Word. The best thing in Linux is that you do not have to reboot it even if you would upgrade your whole system! Reinstalling the OS is not needed unless your box gets broken. Windows Update is a nightmare if compared to e.g. Debian's packaging system. All the games you need are made to Linux and if you need more, just code them. Linux (or XFree) is not worse at graphics drawing than Windows.

    Windows is just the system you have got used to. There is nothing wrong with that but it is a shame.

  2. #17
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3,230
    To each his own...

    >>Linux is not slow. You can do administration tasks much faster on Unix command line than in Windows with its terrible gui stuff.<<

    You can't sompare command line to GUI...it's just not a fiar comparison. Besides the fact is that GUI _is_ faster (have you used XP's admin stuff?), depending on what you're trying to do...

    >>If you think it is more unstable than Win2k/XP/NT, then you just don't know how to use it. In Linux, you have efficient tools to recover from program crashes. There is not many situations where you would lose your control from the system. In Win2k/XP/NT, you have no clue what went wrong and how to fix it. <<

    I've crashed Linux quite a few times, and sometimes it will just slow down to a crawl on everything. This is using GUI, mind you - not command line.

    >>Emacs is far more better and stable to write your short texts than Microsoft Word

    for short texts? Ever heard of Notepad?

    >>Update is a nightmare

    No argument here.

    >>All the games you need are made to Linux and if you need more, just code them

    I'm sure that you're nowhere NEAR correct here, but I'm definately not a gamer, so I couldn't care less. And "just code them"? Oh yeah..."Warcraft 3 hasn't been ported to Linux yet, so let me code it! Yay!"

    >>Windows is just the system you have got used to. There is nothing wrong with that but it is a shame.

    Likewise, it's a shame that you can't see how great Windows is.

  3. #18
    Registered User raimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    107
    >>You can't sompare command line to GUI...it's just not a fiar comparison.

    I have to, because in windows you cannot do any changes on command line.

    >>Besides the fact is that GUI _is_ faster (have you used XP's admin stuff?),
    >>depending on what you're trying to do...
    Sure. It depends.

    >>I've crashed Linux quite a few times, and sometimes it will just slow down to a crawl >>on everything. This is using GUI, mind you - not command line.

    Killing processes is possible. That's what you could have done. (No, you could not have done it with your crawling GUI)

    >>>>Emacs is far more better and stable to write your short texts than Microsoft Word
    >>for short texts? Ever heard of Notepad?

    Notepad is nothing compared to Emacs. But ok, Emacs is ported to Windows. (But Notepad is not ported to Linux. Ask yourself, why?)

    >>Likewise, it's a shame that you can't see how great Windows is.
    Well, I have used it for many years. Nothing could be harder than getting it working like I want.
    But of course, it is just a click to make it work like Windows programmers have wanted it to work.

  4. #19
    Christian
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    618
    >I have to, because in windows you cannot do any changes on command line.<

    You can change file attributes that I know for fact. Also what is the great benif of typing some command compared to just something as simple as changing cheak box? I don't care if it it takes a second longer, with a gui. I'll mistype the command line command a few times.

    >Notepad is nothing compared to Emacs. But ok, Emacs is ported to Windows. (But Notepad is not ported to Linux. Ask yourself, why?)<
    1. It's made by microsoft.
    2. It's a very simple text edtor nothing special. I'm sure there has to be a very basic text editor for linux.
    I shall call egypt the harmless dragon

    -Isaiah 30.7

  5. #20
    ¡Amo fútbol!
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Posts
    2,136
    >>I have to, because in windows you cannot do any changes on command line.

    Hmm, lets see. I can change file attributes, modify user groups, read files, delete files, edit files, delete folders and its contents, ect. ect. ect.


    >>Notepad is nothing compared to Emacs. But ok, Emacs is ported to Windows. (But Notepad is not ported to Linux. Ask yourself, why?)

    Let's see, because it is a simple text editor with one font that could be coded in very little time. Hence, no one bothers porting it. However, it is ideal for short little blurbs.

  6. #21
    Registered User Sunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    101

    omgosh

    It's a helluvalot more unstable in my opinion, it's slow, does nothging new to me, has inferior products...good God, the list could go on. Of course it has its good points too, but there's no reason to use Linux as your primary desktop OS.
    Ouch-help-*ack ack* choking...help...

    Plus, the gui in Linux is so much better than any Windows GUI. Like XP for example, they decided to make it skinnable. Jeesh. X had that feature already installed 6 years ago.... And if the GUi crashes, just press Ctrl+Alt+F2 or any other F key, kill the process that's crashed, return to the GUI, continue working. Windows->Crash->BlueScreen of death->Please reinstall-> Reinstall-> goto (Windows).

    Ever heard of Star Office? It can do anything Ms Office does that you need.

  7. #22
    TK
    Guest
    The graphics in Linux are very good. My Linux desktop looks a lot better than my Win2k or Xp desktop.

    I noticed yesterday that the system slowed to a crawl after leaving it on for 3 days. As a programmer, that reminds me of a memory leak. I could have been caused by the Winxp style that I downloaded and had running, however I'll continue to test the system out.

    I can kill processes in Win2k and also in Linux, but I have a lot to learn in Linux. It's a lot different but I like it. I'm reading a book called Red Hat Linux 7.2 Bible. Just reading about some of the command line options now, built in commands and Bash commands.

    There is a lot of information on Linux networking. I might turn this computer into a database or file server in a few months and pick up another desktop client.

    Emacs is a very sophisticated text editor. I have a 500 page book about GNU Emacs that I'm going to work through next. I also have a book on Vi. They are in a different league that notepad.

    Look it, this is the bottom line. I was able to download Linux off of the internet and burn it to 3 cds. I installed it on my second hard disk (and old hard disk) and now I have a duel boot system. I am very surprised how good Linux looks and operates. I still have to configure many things however. It comes with a CD Burner and DVD player. I want to get those working because I have a burner. I just was happy to get email and interent working. It didn't take much. I find Kmail to be quite good, and I so far perfer the Konqueror web browser.

    In a few months I'll be figuring out how to use the built in firewall. Wouldn't mind reading a lot about them. Wouldn't mind setting up a wireless LAN with Linux.

    The great thing is that I won't have to pay millions of dollars to learn how to use my computer. If I just went the MS route, than I would be forced to learn .net and 12 months later, they would change everything. Well I'm still going to work with .net, but I want to work a little smarter by planning for the long term and using the free stuff, especially since it is high quality. I have not noticed Linux KDE desktop running any slower than Win2k (but they are very different architectures). It is also plain to see that Linux has way more features.

    I have crashed the KDE desktop once so far and could not recover. I tried to play an incomapible file in Xine. Actually I can not play any files yet on Linux, however that might be partly having to do with the fact that I don't know what I am doing yet. That is why I am reading a book about it.

    I can not specify all of the reasons why I want to learn how to use Linux, first the desktops, than the kernal. Some of those reasons are private. I think that Linux and Windows currently serve different interests and that developers would get much more out of Linux because of the GNU lincense, the ability to have full freedom to examine and change the source code. If you are a developer who is with a company and is using a corporate product such as .net servers or Oracle, or java, or vb or something like that, than you don't need to use Linux or know about it, unless you just want to take a private interest in it. All it takes is a $60 hard disk and a CD burner, plus the right link to download (burn as a iso image with adaptec). I am pleasently surprised by the features and performance. I don't know which is better, Windows or Linux, but they are both good (except for Win9x/ME which suck).

  8. #23
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3,230
    Dean, I'm not even going to bother reading that whole thing...condense!

    >>Windows->Crash->BlueScreen of death->Please reinstall-> Reinstall-> goto (Windows).

    Hah, you don't know how to restart the GUI if it crashes? C'mon, if windows is so simple you should be able to figure that out.

    >>Ever heard of Star Office? It can do anything Ms Office does that you need.

    Haha, StarOffice, that's funny.

    >>I'm sure there has to be a very basic text editor for linux.

    Sure there is, Pico.

    >> can not specify all of the reasons why I want to learn how to use Linux, first the desktops

    If you mean multiple desktops, XP actually has those....

    >>I don't know which is better, Windows or Linux

    There's no true answer to that. They're both great depending on what you want to do, how you want to do it, and what format it's got to be in. If your entire office uses MS Word, and you bring in some StarOffice file, I doubt they're going to be too happy . If you like Linux, then use it. It's none of my business, and I couldn't care less...it's as arbitrary as fighting over what compiler is better.
    Last edited by -KEN-; 06-16-2002 at 10:34 AM.

  9. #24
    Unregistered
    Guest

    Re: People people

    Originally posted by Sunny
    THe way I see it, and take no offence newbies,
    but Linux outpasses by far any of Windows OSs, and the only difference is that there are more games being developed for Windows, and because MS is a monopoly, a lot of hardware manufacturers give all their support to ms. But the tide is changing, ever since IBM invested 8Million $$ in Linux. After all, Windows can't be hanging around forever....Jeesh
    If you haven't tried it, don't say anything against it....:P
    linux is unstable? wtf are you trying to do on it? rm * or maybe youve got 2,000 processes running...

    what a joke linux unstable im sure thats why my slack server has an uptime of 7 months 14 days... now i want you to show me a xp box that has that kind of uptime

  10. #25
    Registered User Dual-Catfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    802
    Holy christ, this is going NOWHERE. Do you think a bunch of kids on a C++ Programming forum can solve the age old question of which OS is superior?

  11. #26
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3,230
    >>Holy christ, this is going NOWHERE. Do you think a bunch of kids on a C++ Programming forum can solve the age old question of which OS is superior?

    Like I said, no OS is particularly all-around superior.

    >>what a joke linux unstable im sure thats why my slack server has an uptime of 7 months 14 days... now i want you to show me a xp box that has that kind of uptime<<

    I said CAN BE, and my XP box upstairs has been running nonstop since I first installed it (about...I rebooted a couple of times the first week when I was toying around) don't remember how long ago that was, but it was somehwere around the release date, I'm sure.



    All I asked is what Linux brings you that Windows doesn't, not which OS was better. ie: why did you decide to use Linux over Windows?

  12. #27
    Just because ygfperson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    2,493
    i like linux for its stablity. but bear in mind that i'm dual-booting with windows 98. the gui is somewhat slower, but its never crashed on me. (except with my tv tuner, but it does that in windows too, under certain conditions.) i agree that each os has its advantages and disadvantages. for me, linux is better.

  13. #28
    Registered User Sekti's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    163

    ...

    Think of it this way:
    Linux -> Free
    Windows -> From 180 and up (Cheapest I've seen)

    And linux is stable but freeBSD is better windows has the majority and acos isnt up for doanload (or is it ken) in my mind its what you need to do

    server -> FreeBSD
    Normal Desktop -> Windows
    Differnet Desktop -> Linux
    +++
    ++
    + Sekti
    ++
    +++

  14. #29
    Unregistered
    Guest
    All I asked is what Linux brings you that Windows doesn't, not which OS was better. ie: why did you decide to use Linux over Windows?

    1). you have acess to the source
    2). the os as a whole runs faster than ms(i have stats to back this up)
    3). the best security analysis tools are available for linux(nmap etc...)
    4). an os that is truely multiuser...
    5). an extremely stable os(uptimes of over 2 years)
    6). an os that is moresecure than ms(talking about the os and not the deamons it can run)
    7). more free software than you can shake a stick at and contrary to some of your beliefs some of this software is by far superior to their windows equivalent
    8). the ability to run windows/dos/mac software using an emulator
    9). a free os
    10). practically no viruses for linux
    11). linux can be adapted to your need(linux from scratch)
    12). linux comes with free and awesome developing software
    13). a massive internet and irc community

    the list could go on... im not against windows but i really do have to say i prefer linux for programming/networking/chatting/servers/routers etc...

    but windows get my vote once it comes to gamming :P warcraft 3 ownz

  15. #30
    Just one more wrong move. -KEN-'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Posts
    3,230
    >>2). the os as a whole runs faster than ms(i have stats to back this up)

    I'm sure you do...

    >>3). the best security analysis tools are available for linux(nmap etc...)

    I think there's nmap for windows now...

    >>4). an os that is truely multiuser...

    Depends on what you mean by that..you can set XP/NT/2k to be "truly multiuser" depending on what you want.

    >>5). an extremely stable os(uptimes of over 2 years)

    XP hasn't even been out for 2 years

    >>6). an os that is moresecure than ms(talking about the os and not the deamons it can run)<<

    We're not talking about 9x here, NT/2k/XP is what we're comparing...

    >>7). more free software than you can shake a stick at and contrary to some of your beliefs some of this software is by far superior to their windows equivalent<<

    I wouldn't say FAR superior, but there are a few things (like nmap)
    that are superior, yes.

    >>8). the ability to run windows/dos/mac software using an emulator

    Why would I need to emulate window or DOS? (and who would WANT to emulate mac ) But there are emulators out there for windows, should the need arise...

    >>10). practically no viruses for linux

    That's because it's easier to target stupid COM holes or Outlook issues, it's easier for the kiddies to write up VBSript and send it through email...it doesn't say a thing about the OS, but the general laziness of these virus writers.

    >>11). linux can be adapted to your need(linux from scratch)

    Uhh...huh?

    >>12). linux comes with free and awesome developing software

    GCC....

    >>13). a massive internet and irc community

    I'm sure windows has it's fair share of IRC people, but Windows doesn't NEED a "community" so to speak.

    >>warcraft 3 ownz

    AAAA!! That's out already?!?!? must....buy...!!!!!

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-06-2003, 05:36 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21