Linux on the Desktop? A long way off...



  • At least, if the Synaptic package manager in Ubuntu 8.04 is any guide... 8)

    synaptic slowness



  • So, you're saying 2144 will be the Year of Linux on the Desktop?



  •  Well, I hope it's a bit quicker, because the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx will be assuming control in 2112...



  • @bnt said:

    Well, I hope it's a bit quicker, because the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx will be assuming control in 2112...
     

     What, you think those two are not related?



  • There's a reason for this...

    Actually, there's several reasons for it, one of which is clearly bad math...

    Fortunately, Ubuntu is not the only desktop linux solution, and synaptic is not the only Ubuntu package manager.



  • @tgape said:

    Fortunately, Ubuntu is not the only desktop linux solution, and synaptic is not the only Ubuntu package manager.

    Desktop Linux is like some cruel joke.  No matter what you use if you run into a problem the answer is always "well, distro X / package manager Y / desktop environment Z doesn't have those problems!"  When you've finally tried them all and are back where you started the advice is then "well, you can always grab the source and write your own!" 



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Desktop Linux is like some cruel joke.  No matter what you use if you run into a problem the answer is always "well, distro X / package manager Y / desktop environment Z doesn't have those problems!"  When you've finally tried them all and are back where you started the advice is then "well, you can always grab the source and write your own!" 

    I guess you prefer the "learn to like it or buy new hardware" approach of other operating systems?



  • @ammoQ said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    Desktop Linux is like some cruel joke.  No matter what you use if you run into a problem the answer is always "well, distro X / package manager Y / desktop environment Z doesn't have those problems!"  When you've finally tried them all and are back where you started the advice is then "well, you can always grab the source and write your own!" 

    I guess you prefer the "learn to like it or buy new hardware" approach of other operating systems?

    Well, buying new hardware may be cheaper than wasting a week on some problem. Besides most of the nicest features of latest linux distros require good hardware and you cannot run them on an ancient Pentium/266Mhz machine, do you?




  • @nsimeonov said:

    Well, buying new hardware may be cheaper than wasting a week on some problem.

    A private user probably thinks different. A corporate desktop user requires the hardware upgrade for 100s or 1000s of workplaces, so it quickly becomes more expensive than a week of tinkering.

    Besides most of the nicest features of latest linux distros require good hardware and you cannot run them on an ancient Pentium/266Mhz machine, do you?

    Depends on what you mean by "nicest features". Many of the desktop linux features I consider "nicest" do not require powerful hardware, i.e. multiple desktops, copy-paste using the middle mouse button, having a window manager that always works even when individual programs freeze, network transparency etc.




  • @ammoQ said:

    A private user probably thinks different.
    A Mac user probably [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_different]thinks different[/url].



  • @NSCoder said:

    @ammoQ said:
    A private user probably thinks different.
    A Mac user probably thinks different.
     

    OK, let's rephrase that to "would not agree".



  • @tgape said:

    Fortunately, Ubuntu is not the only desktop linux solution, and synaptic is not the only Ubuntu package manager.

     

    To be fair, this is the first time I've seen anything odd in Synaptic in several years. Behind it, the occasional broken package that gets fixed quickly.

    I've generally found Ubuntu good enough: this installation is on a 6-y.o laptop, and I've switched it between standard Ubuntu (Gnome), Kubuntu (KDE), and Xubuntu (Xfce), which is the lightweight window manager for really old systems. It's back to a pretty standard setup now - and all the experimentation occurred without any OS reinstalls, no unplanned downtime, no lost data. About the only reason I have to use my Windows box now are a couple of applications (Guild Wars!) and MS Office (which I have to use for compatibility reasons with other users). 



  • @bnt said:

    the only reason I have to use my Windows box now are a couple of applications (Guild Wars!) and MS Office (which I have to use for compatibility reasons with other users).

    Guild wars works perfectly on Ubuntu with Wine installed: http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=9194&iTestingId=27743
    Microsoft have also recently released / said they'll release the specs for all the binary MS Office file formats, so openoffice.org should support them properly soon enough.

    That would leave no reasons :)



  • @Thief^ said:

    Microsoft have also recently released / said they'll release the specs for all the binary MS Office file formats, so openoffice.org should support them properly soon enough.

    Given the complexity of MS Office's binary file formats, I would not expect OOo or any other software to support them 100% perfectly ever. Not even MS Office 2007.



  • I've had GW going under Wine before, but it's an old machine (almost 4y now), and the performance was well down. If I'm still playing GW in a couple of years, we'll see - rest assured that I am on the case. As for M$ Office, well, I don't mind actually mind using it. XP and M$ Office were "paid for" long ago i.e. M$ aren't getting any more of my money.



  • @bnt said:

    I've had GW going under Wine before, but it's an old machine (almost 4y now), and the performance was well down. If I'm still playing GW in a couple of years, we'll see - rest assured that I am on the case. As for M$ Office, well, I don't mind actually mind using it. XP and M$ Office were "paid for" long ago i.e. M$ aren't getting any more of my money.

    http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/7/22/ms/



  • You are misinterpreting "M$".

    Remember what's one of the most important applications written by MS? One that is actually on topic here (as it is for developers).

    Right: GW-BASIC, QBASIC, QuickBasic,  Visual Basic, Visual Basic .NET.

    And what does "M$" mean there? String variable named M.

    Now go look at the code. Among other stuff you find:

    100 REM Global variables to save typing work:
    110 A$ = "ASSIGN A=B B=A"
    120 B$ = "BTX"
    130 C$ = "Corporation"
    ...
    230 M$ = "Microsoft"
    ...

    So instead of writing "Microsoft Corporation", you now can simply write M$ + " " + C$, or in newer BASIC dialects, M$ &" " & C$. Actually, if you say Microsoft, everyone knows you are referring to the company, so colloquially, it suffices to say M$ instead of "Microsoft".

    So, whoever says M$ to refer to microsoft, he can sure do so - but should then refer to Linux with $L, to Ubuntu with $U, to Debian with $table, and to Perl with $P.

     

     

     

     

     

     

    NO! $P is NOT PHP. It is Perl.



  • Dunno if that last comment was aimed at me... anyway, I have a more personal, non-technical reason why I say M$ for Microsoft, and not MS.



  • @ammoQ said:

    I guess you prefer the "learn to like it or buy new hardware" approach of other operating systems?

     

    Strange, I've been running XP for about 5 years on one computer without ever having to replace the hardware.

    On the other hand, the last thing I remember from Linux was trying 4 different wifi cards before I could find one that was actually supported (not just claimed to be supported).  So who is it that always has to buy new hardware?



  • @bnt said:

    I have a more personal, non-technical reason why I say M$ for Microsoft, and not MS.
     

    Yes, we know - because you're a tool.

    Go back to /.



  • @Aaron said:

    Yes, we know - because you're a tool.

    Go back to /.


    Funnily enough just yesterday I was thinking that a bunch of people here couldn't cope in a moderation based forum like /., and they are only on TDWTF because of the lack of moderation.



  • @Aaron said:

    Strange, I've been running XP for about 5 years on one computer without ever having to replace the hardware.

    On the other hand, the last thing I remember from Linux was trying 4 different wifi cards before I could find one that was actually supported (not just claimed to be supported).  So who is it that always has to buy new hardware?

     

    Nobody has to buy new hardware "always". People who switch from XP to Vista might have to buy new hardware, depending on the hardware they have.

    People switching from Windows to Linux might have to, though the last time I had to do that was back in 2001 when I bought a new printer to replace a Windows-only GDI printer.

    People switching from Linux to Windows might have to buy new hardware, depending on the age of the existing hardware and the Windows version they switch to.

    People switching from one Linux distro to another one most likely can keep their hardware.

    Of course if someone plans to use a computer with Linux, it's wise to consider that when buying hardware.



  • @bnt said:

    Dunno if that last comment was aimed at me... anyway, I have a more personal, non-technical reason why I say M$ for Microsoft, and not MS.
    Is it because you're afraid of capital S?



  • @Aaron said:

    Strange, I've been running XP for about 5 years on one computer without ever having to replace the hardware.
     

    Same here, and I just upgraded my 3 year old laptop to Vista Business. Everything is enabled, Aero included. No tweaks, nothing disabled yet. Nothing major to report. Install went flawless. 

    It is now my development box.

     

    People who make these comments are usually uninformed people who listen to morons who tried installing Vista with Aero on their 533 mhz laptop with 256MB of RAM and cannot figure out why Vista doesn't run very well.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    People who make these comments are usually uninformed people who listen to morons who tried installing Vista with Aero on their 533 mhz laptop with 256MB of RAM and cannot figure out why Vista doesn't run very well.

    No sane person would expect Vista to run well on such a computer. But with every major Windows version, like the switch from 9x to XP and now XP to Vista, some older, but still working hardware pieces are rendered obsolete because they lack driver support. You might argue if this is MS' fault or the hardware vendor's, but that is little help for the affected users.



  • @ammoQ said:

    but still working hardware pieces are rendered obsolete because they lack driver support. You might argue if this is MS' fault or the hardware vendor's, but that is little help for the affected users.
     

    I might argue it is the user's fault for deciding to upgrade an older computer's OS for no justifiable reason.

    Also, the Vista installer very accurately (from my experiences) reports any hardware or driver issues during an upgrade.

    Choosing to ignore sound, practical advice is the problem.



  • @ammoQ said:

    still working hardware pieces are rendered obsolete because they lack driver support. You might argue if this is MS' fault or the hardware vendor's, but that is little help for the affected users.
    I'd put it down to the cost of progress.



  • @bstorer said:

    @ammoQ said:
    still working hardware pieces are rendered obsolete because they lack driver support.
    I'd put it down to the cost of progress.
     

    If the new hardware is definitely better (like a faster CPU or more RAM), I'll happily agree. But in some cases, you get nothing but compatibility, because the old piece was by any means "good enough".



  • @ammoQ said:

    If the new hardware is definitely better (like a faster CPU or more RAM), I'll happily agree. But in some cases, you get nothing but compatibility, because the old piece was by any means "good enough".
     

    The last major hardware obsolesence I remember on the Windows platform is when they got rid of support for ISA hardware in Server 2k3.

     

    I see no reason to think that was not a good thing.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I might argue it is the user's fault for deciding to upgrade an older computer's OS for no justifiable reason.

    Better security, slick GUI, DX10 etc.


    Also, the Vista installer very accurately (from my experiences) reports any hardware or driver issues during an upgrade.

    I guess there is also a program available for free download that lets you check that before you buy the Vista box?



  • @ammoQ said:

    But in some cases, you get nothing but compatibility, because the old piece was by any means "good enough".
    Clearly the manufacturer didn't see a point in updating the driver. A piece of hardware being "good enough" does not mean it isn't also obsolete.



  • @ammoQ said:

    Better security, slick GUI, DX10 etc.
     

    Again, learn to make better decisions.

    @ammoQ said:

    I guess there is also a program available for free download that lets you check that before you buy the Vista box?

    http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/get/upgrade-advisor.aspx

    First hit on google.



  • @bstorer said:

    Clearly the manufacturer didn't see a point in updating the driver.
     

    Of course not. Updating the driver means unpaid work. Not updating the driver means sales of new hardware.

    A piece of hardware being "good enough" does not mean it isn't also obsolete.

    Obsolete as in ... no longer supported? That would seem to be a tautology to me.



  • @bstorer said:

    Clearly the manufacturer didn't see a point in updating the driver. A piece of hardware being "good enough" does not mean it isn't also obsolete.
     

    I assume AmmoQ is smart enough not to be arguing about drivers that don't support Vista. That is a hardware manufacturer issue. He said obsolete hardware.

    Like I already said, the only recent obsolescence I remember is ISA on Server 2k3. He is right as far as ISA being obsolete there, but I am not sure I can agree that MS should continue supporting ISA. 

     

    If he is trying to say a missing driver is equal to obsolescence, well then, that is just fucking stupid.



  • @ammoQ said:

    @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    I might argue it is the user's fault for deciding to upgrade an older computer's OS for no justifiable reason.

    Better security, slick GUI, DX10 etc.

    Only one of those is an even remotely sensible reason to upgrade old hardware: better security. A slick GUI and DX10 are not reasons to upgrade a computer that can't handle it.



  • @bstorer said:

    Only one of those is an even remotely sensible reason to upgrade old hardware: better security.
     

    And even then, XP is still being supported so I am not sure how much that is worth upgrading an old computer preemptively.



  • @bstorer said:

    A slick GUI and DX10 are not reasons to upgrade a computer that can't handle it.
     

    What if the computer is strong enough but some peripheral devices, like the printer, scanner, sound card etc. are not supported?



  • @ammoQ said:

    @bstorer said:

    A slick GUI and DX10 are not reasons to upgrade a computer that can't handle it.
     

    What if the computer is strong enough but some peripheral devices, like the printer, scanner, sound card etc. are not supported?

    Well, that sounds like the sort of thing to check first, doesn't it?



  • @ammoQ said:

    What if the computer is strong enough but some peripheral devices, like the printer, scanner, sound card etc. are not supported?
     

    You should be checking on this before upgrading, and contacting the manufacturer if they are not yet supporting Vista.

    You see, you have the problem of thinking that Vista should support your printer, but that is not the case. Your printer should support Vista.

    The sooner you understand that, the better off you will be.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You see, you have the problem of thinking that Vista should support your printer, but that is not the case. Your printer should support Vista.
    This might be the best reduction of the problem that I've ever read. Good show, sir.



  • @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    You see, you have the problem of thinking that Vista should support your printer, but that is not the case. Your printer should support Vista.
     

    It should support Linux too, and everyone would be happy.



  • @ammoQ said:

    It should support Linux too, and everyone would be happy.
    Not Welbog. He's holding out for the MINIX drivers.



  • @ammoQ said:

    It should support Linux too, and everyone would be happy.
     

    You should make that argument to the hardware manufacturer, not me. Maybe it doesn't make sufficient business sense for them?



  • @Aaron said:

    @bnt said:

    I have a more personal, non-technical reason why I say M$ for Microsoft, and not MS.
     

    Yes, we know - because you're a tool.

    Go back to /.

     

    Oh, Bravo, Sir!

    That faint "whoosh!" that you heard, just as you hit "Post", was the sound a clue makes, as it shoots past miles above your head.

    Jeepers... I go out for a couple of hours, and return to find I've somehow started a pissing contest. What was that about /.  ? 



  • @bnt said:

    Oh, Bravo, Sir!

    That faint "whoosh!" that you heard, just as you hit "Post", was the sound a clue makes, as it shoots past miles above your head.

    Jeepers... I go out for a couple of hours, and return to find I've somehow started a pissing contest. What was that about /.  ? 

    You're the douchebag who said "M$", not Aaron.  Unless you were doing it ironically, you are a moron and will be relentlessly flamed for your moronic ramblings. 



  • @bnt said:

    I've somehow started a pissing contest.
     

    Not really, you have pretty much proven yourself too stupid for most of us to even care about.



  •  @morbiuswilters said:

    You're the douchebag who said "M$", not Aaron.  Unless you were doing it ironically, you are a moron and will be relentlessly flamed for your moronic ramblings. 

    So, why does saying M$ make me a douchebag? In English, please. 



  •  @MasterPlanSoftware said:

    @bnt said:

    I've somehow started a pissing contest.
     

    Not really, you have pretty much proven yourself too stupid for most of us to even care about.

    Yet you keep responding to a thread I started? Irony doesn't begin to cover it. I bet you're seeing the low post count and thinking "n00b".



  • @bnt said:

    In English, please.

    Have I been using any other language?

     

    @bnt said:

    So, why does saying M$ make me a douchebag?

    Because it's a lame Slashdot meme. 



  • @bnt said:

    So, why does saying M$ make me a douchebag? In English, please. 
    Because it's retarded to "mock" Microsoft for trying to make money?


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.