PC won't start? Our software fixes that!
-
@EJ_ said:
@morbiuswilters said:
For your moderately-skilled user who still isn't skilled enough to completely ignore the package manager, it's a nightmare...
This is about my skill-level, and this is basically why I just don't end up using linux day-to-day. I don't have the interest (or time) to want to learn how to be a through-and-through linux admin, which is what is necessary to really have good control over things it seems.
That's where I find myself, really. I could learn to do whatever I want to do in Linux, but it would just take too f*cking long each time. Bought a Dell netbook with Ubuntu a while back, and the package manager didn't work properly/consistently. I was willing to spend a few minutes working out how to use it in the first place, but that's a totally different level of understanding to what's needed to fix it. I sold the netbook (at a profit ;) and bought a proper laptop. Yes, with Windows. For what little it's worth, it's been kept updated with Windows Update and up-to-date drivers, has a decent 3rd part virus scanner and anti-malware tool, hasn't had a load of dodgy apps/drivers installed, and hasn't crashed once (as far as I remember) in the 12 months since it was bought.
I would note that Windows may not be perfect insofar as it needs to be kept updated, but of the thousand-odd Windows desktops I help administer over various companies, the ones which are kept virus free and were properly set-up to start with (90%+) are basically stable - in an absolute sense. We never touch them until a hard disk fails, or some such. Generally, almost all our trouble-shooting is a result of 3rd party apps that don't interact properly/sensibly with Windows.
What's really impressive, though, are the small percentage of our desktops that are basically administered by the totally clueless end-users. They have Windows Update turned on by default, and the users have heard about viruses and got us to install an AV package for them. Other than that, we don't support them until something goes wrong - and we rarely hear from them. Now that's a real WTF: Windows PCs being used by clueless users everyday, with full admin rights, and they're not crashing.
-
@ammoQ said:
For the last decade, I've used Linux on half a dozen notebooks from 4 different vendors (neither Lenovo nor HP though) and it always worked pretty well. The last one, a cheap Acer, caught me in the cold though: Everything worked fine out-of-the-box with Ubuntu 9.04, that is everything but the LAN adapter. Since I use WLAN at home, I didn't notice until I was at a customer's site and couldn't connect... Nothing a little driver download and compile wouldn't solve, but that day was mostly ruined for me.
Maybe it's my own bad luck. I've never owned a laptop that Ubuntu could sleep properly on... and that includes an iBook, which makes me particularly irritated, since Apple's entire product line is like 4 laptops. Apple laptops have to be the *easiest* to support. What really killed Ubuntu on the HP laptop was the hideously loud beep it made constantly for no reason.(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/331589). And what killed it on both laptops is its lack of hot-swappable monitor support, and non-rectangular monitor support. Since I use the laptops for presentations, that was a no-go.
Of course, seeing my earlier post, I always kind of wonder when Linux users say something "works." Is it works "works?" Or is it "works but then I have to restart the wifi network interface and sometimes sound cuts out" works? Because the latter is the type of problems I experience.
-
@blakeyrat said:
and that includes an iBook, which makes me particularly irritated, since Apple's entire product line is like 4 laptops. Apple laptops have to be the *easiest* to support.
Even the Intel Mac hardware is different enough from PCs to make Linux support difficult. For one, no BIOS. Also, they used to use WLAN cards that didn't have drivers for Linux, although people eventually worked around that with NDISWrapper (lets you use Windows network drivers in Linux), I believe. Linux hardware support isn't terrible, it's just not as broad as Windows. And, to be fair to Linux, most hardware with open specs or drivers is well-supported. When something isn't supported, more often than not it's because the manufacturer makes it almost impossible to write drivers.
@blakeyrat said:
What really killed Ubuntu on the HP laptop was the hideously loud beep it made constantly for no reason.(https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/linux/+bug/331589). And what killed it on both laptops is its lack of hot-swappable monitor support, and non-rectangular monitor support. Since I use the laptops for presentations, that was a no-go.
That has to be an old-as-shit Ubuntu release. I've got 8.10 and it has no such problems. You have to enable/disable the second monitor manually through a dialog, but I just wrote a simple daemon-script that monitored for connect/disconnect events and handled the modification to X.
@blakeyrat said:
Of course, seeing my earlier post, I always kind of wonder when Linux users say something "works." Is it works "works?" Or is it "works but then I have to restart the wifi network interface and sometimes sound cuts out" works? Because the latter is the type of problems I experience.
Actually, a lot of stuff that does work works pretty well. Some things are abysmal, like Flash. It's slow as crap even on a modern computer, crash-prone and it leaks memory like crazy. I run a completely separate Firefox process just for using Flash so that the memory leaks don't slow down my browsing and so when Flash inevitably shits itself it only takes down one browser window and not my dozens of open tabs.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That has to be an old-as-shit Ubuntu release. I've got 8.10 and it has no such problems.
Actually the bug was created in the 9.04 release. Your 8.10 doesn't have it because it pre-dates the bug. You seem to be under the illusion that Ubuntu does regression testing. :)
Also, it only affects some computers, not all. But for computers it does affect, the beep is *loud*, deafeningly-loud. Read the bug report for more info.
@morbiuswilters said:
You have to enable/disable the second monitor manually through a dialog, but I just wrote a simple daemon-script that monitored for connect/disconnect events and handled the modification to X.
Or I'll use an OS where it just works without me doing anything. (Read: every desktop OS other than Linux.)
Anyway, I'm not really anti-Linux or anything. On the contrary, I think if they ever got their act together, Linux could be a *great* force for the IT industry, and computer usability in general. But I've been playing with it off-and-on for the last 10 years, and I've given up on them ever getting their act together... it's simply never going to be the "year of the Linux desktop", so I've mostly given up on it.
-
@blakeyrat said:
On the contrary, I think if they ever got their act together, Linux could be a *great* force for the IT industry, and computer usability in general.
Linux already is a great force in the IT industry. It's great for embedded or servers, it's just not a good desktop OS for mainstream use. And, really, that's not even Linux, that's X/GNOME/KDE, although I know what you meant. My point is, Linux was never meant to be a competitor in the mainstream desktop OS space. It's not where its strengths lie. I use it, but I also admit I somtimes find myself wishing I used Windows so things just worked. However, my level of knowledge is much more than your average computer user, and even I find Linux to be a tedious, painful desktop OS. I do have my reasons for sticking with it, but believe me it's not due to stability, features, ease-of-use or prettiness.
-
-
Sorry, yah. I'm always really biased towards end-user experiences. There's already far too many people working on server software-- servers are good enough! Let's work on our collectively awful end-user experience!
I should make that more clear when I post.
Also, I prefer Windows servers because they're more usable too, so... take that! I guess.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I do have my reasons for sticking with it, but believe me it's not due to stability, features, ease-of-use or prettiness.
If your reason is your desktop wallpaper of a cat climbing an invisible ladder, you could have that in Windows, too.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Also, I prefer Windows servers because they're more usable too, so... take that! I guess.
Define usable. If you mean setting up a webserver with insecure defaults by pointing and clicking without knowing WTF you're doing, then yes they're "usable". If you mean actually setting shit up properly, then no they're not.
-
Linux runs fine on this laptop... with a patch to work around Toshiba's purely retarded BIOS. Apparently it was swapping out some important ACPI tables for completely different ones during boot, after the kernel had started. I cannot comprehend the insanity which would provoke such code.
I don't see how this is at all Linux's fault, though (I blame myself more for believing the Best Buy drone who told me Linux would run fine on it; I was kind of surprised he knew what Linux was.) Most of the problems Linux has with funky hardware are the hardware's fault.
-
@Lingerance said:
Define usable. If you mean setting up a webserver with insecure defaults by pointing and clicking without knowing WTF you're doing, then yes they're "usable". If you mean actually setting shit up properly, then no they're not.
You have to prove that IIS defaults are less secure than Apache defaults. I'm not taking that on faith.
Point 2: At least with a usable system you can figure out where the hell the security settings are stored (and they're stored all in one place) instead of having to crack open a giant book and look in 25 different files.
-
@Lingerance said:
@blakeyrat said:
Also, I prefer Windows servers because they're more usable too, so... take that! I guess.
Define usable. If you mean setting up a webserver with insecure defaults by pointing and clicking without knowing WTF you're doing, then yes they're "usable". If you mean actually setting shit up properly, then no they're not.This is so unfair. Linux is rapidly catching up when it comes to pointing-and-clicking your way to an insecure server.
-
@scgtrp said:
Linux runs fine on this laptop... with a patch to work around Toshiba's purely retarded BIOS. Apparently it was swapping out some important ACPI tables for completely different ones during boot, after the kernel had started. I cannot comprehend the insanity which would provoke such code.
That reminds me of this little gem from Foxconn. Summary: Foxconn ACPI has a DSDT table which purposefully sabotages Linux kernel ACPI support. When confronted with this, they say the motherboard is not certified for Linux, insist that the ACPI is standards compliant, and present MS WHQL certification as evidence of said compliance.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Of course, seeing my earlier post, I always kind of wonder when Linux users say something "works." Is it works "works?" Or is it "works but then I have to restart the wifi network interface and sometimes sound cuts out" works? Because the latter is the type of problems I experience.
This is a fair question to ask. For me, hot-swappable monitor support and hibernation are not at all important. For me "It works" means: Sound, LAN, WLAN, 3D graphics, card reader, DVD playback work as expected and the whole thing is completely stable (no random crashes, no restarting subsystems etc.).
-
Ubuntu (perhaps any distro?) can't play an mp3 out of the box.
-
@dhromed said:
Ubuntu (perhaps any distro?) can't play an mp3 out of the box.
That's only due to Frauenhofer's patent, if the distro is sticking to being Free as in Not Beer.
And you can hold me responsible for the flamewar this thread is now going to turn into just because I mentioned the word patents.
-
@dhromed said:
Ubuntu (perhaps any distro?) can't play an mp3 out of the box.
Maybe true in a strict sense (i.e. no codecs on the installation CD) but when I set up my kubuntu notebook last year, I can't remember doing anything special in that regard and it plays mp3 without problems. I think it downloads the codecs after installation. Even DVD playback wasn't the adventure it used to be.
-
@ammoQ said:
Maybe true in a strict sense (i.e. no codecs on the installation CD) but when I set up my kubuntu notebook last year
I only tried the LiveCD, and perhaps kubuntu has a different philosophy on the interactions of licenses.
-
@ammoQ said:
For the last decade, I've used Linux on half a dozen notebooks from 4 different vendors (neither Lenovo nor HP though) and it always worked pretty well.
Anecdotal success/disaster stories with hardware and software of any kind are just like the tale with the blind men and the king's elephant: everybody is right but only very partially and for the specific circumstances that applied to him, which are often cheerfully left out of the equation.
Which wouldn't be a problem if they didn't all proclaim to hold the One, Ultimate Truth based on incomplete conclusions, and then proceed to bash the hell out of anybody disaggreing with them on similar premises, soon degenerating to /b/tard level:
E.g.
Linux Hat0rz: "I tried Linux on 10 different laptops and it didn't work for shit!"
Linux Zealotz: "Bullshit, I tried LInux on 10 different laptops too and it worked flawlessy in ALL of them!"
Linux Hat0rz: "You're full of shit, you Stallman cock-sucking underling."
Linux Zealotz: "At least HIS tastes better and is actually easier to suck than the micro + soft guy's!"
Linux Hat0rz: "NO U"
etc. etc.
The Right Thing to say would be: "I tried Linux on 10 different laptops, and some worked well, some so and-so, and some not at all. Those that worked had X and Y. Those that worked partially had X and Y but also Z, and those that didn't work had X but not Y etc. etc. conclusion: You can't always win".
-
@dhromed said:
;Ubuntu (perhaps any distro?) can't play an mp3 out of the box.
"Whaddya mean I have to open the box and install it on a PC? The guy at the store told me it would work out of the box!"
-
@davedavenotdavemaybedave said:
@dhromed said:
;Ubuntu (perhaps any distro?) can't play an mp3 out of the box.
"Whaddya mean I have to open the box and install it on a PC? The guy at the store told me it would work out of the box!"
No only Macs can do that.
-
@C4I_Officer said:
The Right Thing to say would be: "I tried Linux on 10 different laptops, and some worked well, some so and-so, and some not at all. Those that worked had X and Y. Those that worked partially had X and Y but also Z, and those that didn't work had X but not Y etc. etc. conclusion: You can't always win".
But that's not the truth. The right thing to say would be, in my case: "Whenever I bought my new notebook, I checked for Linux compatibility first, so it wasn't matter of luck that (everything/most things) worked fine."
-
@ammoQ said:
@C4I_Officer said:
The Right Thing to say would be: "I tried Linux on 10 different laptops, and some worked well, some so and-so, and some not at all. Those that worked had X and Y. Those that worked partially had X and Y but also Z, and those that didn't work had X but not Y etc. etc. conclusion: You can't always win".
But that's not the truth. The right thing to say would be, in my case: "Whenever I bought my new notebook, I checked for Linux compatibility first, so it wasn't matter of luck that (everything/most things) worked fine."
That's the right thing to say/do if Linux compatibility/use is your primary goal, but I can only imagine dedicated webservers and workstations e.g. in an uni lab being intended as Linux b0xen right from the start.
But in most cases of desktop use, Linux is thrown in as a complement/afterthought into an existing system which may have had flawless windows support for years, and so comparisons are inevitable.
Typical scenarios are adding a Linux partition to an existing Windows system, or use it to "revive" an older system etc. only to discover it might not like your funderful hardware, and unlike windows there's no GUI device manager for the novices (if it boots all the way to x, that is).
-
@C4I_Officer said:
That's the right thing to say/do if Linux compatibility/use is your primary goal, but I can only imagine dedicated webservers and workstations e.g. in an uni lab being intended as Linux b0xen right from the start.
Many of my notebooks were installed for dual-booting, but since I knew that I would run Linux on it, I took care before the purchase that there would be no obstacles. That said, I've seen several notebooks with Linux were compatibility was not considered before the purchase, and they work well, too. But I'm completely aware that some notebooks will not work properly with Linux. Fortunately, it's not a big investment to get a Ubuntu CD and give it a try, as compared to, say, buying a copy of Windows 7 and trying if it works on an older notebook.
-
@ammoQ said:
This is a fair question to ask. For me, hot-swappable monitor support and hibernation are not at all important. For me "It works" means: Sound, LAN, WLAN, 3D graphics, card reader, DVD playback work as expected and the whole thing is completely stable (no random crashes, no restarting subsystems etc.).
<snark> So when you say "Sound" works, you're also checking that the keyboard volume/mute controls work, right? That the default sound channels automatically change when you plug in headphones?</snark>
I guess my point is, to the Linux user, the criteria for "works" is (to quote you) "no random crashes, no restarting subsystems." I have reams of "works" definitions that have nothing to do with crashes or subsystems. In my general experience, the reason Linux users always beam about how great Linux is is due to their generally low standards-- I have very high standards, so I'm never going to look at that computer and say it works well.
For some reason, PC gamers are the same way. "Battlefield: 2142 is an awesome game!" "When it's not crashing, showing the wrong menu, ignoring the fact that it doesn't run on widescreen monitors and the log in UI is criminally difficult, as long as you don't care that the online stats are all freakin' wrong, etc." How could anybody say that Battlefield: 2142 is an awesome game unless they had some kind of "EA Games Stockholm Syndrome"?
-
@blakeyrat said:
<snark> So when you say "Sound" works, you're also checking that the keyboard volume/mute controls work, right? That the default sound channels automatically change when you plug in headphones?</snark>
Yes, those all work fine. Or they used to, for the first 6 months. Then something got fucked and now they keyboard volume controls no longer control the volume. They show the little OSD thing with the volume going up and down, but the actual volume stays the same.
-
@blakeyrat said:
My beef wasn't against IIS, it was against idiots who use the GUI to setup a server without knowing WTF they're doing, like the idiot who keeps broadcasting SMB messages in a way that makes them hit my public interface.@Lingerance said:
Define usable. If you mean setting up a webserver with insecure defaults by pointing and clicking without knowing WTF you're doing, then yes they're "usable". If you mean actually setting shit up properly, then no they're not.
You have to prove that IIS defaults are less secure than Apache defaults. I'm not taking that on faith.
-
@Lingerance said:
My beef wasn't against IIS, it was against idiots who use the GUI to setup a server without knowing WTF they're doing, like the idiot who keeps broadcasting SMB messages in a way that makes them hit my public interface.
Well, ok, but idiots can do that using a CLI too. I don't see what "magical" property Linux config files possess that make it impossible to misconfigure a server.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Lingerance said:
My beef wasn't against IIS, it was against idiots who use the GUI to setup a server without knowing WTF they're doing, like the idiot who keeps broadcasting SMB messages in a way that makes them hit my public interface.
Well, ok, but idiots can do that using a CLI too. I don't see what "magical" property Linux config files possess that make it impossible to misconfigure a server.
Higher learning curve. It's not that Linux is a better tool, it's that it's a much more difficult tool to learn so the median skill level for someone configuring a server via CLI is much higher than via GUI. Somewhat related, Windows is the lowest common denominator. Everybody has probably used Windows at some point in their life and it's so ubiquitous that you end up with a higher percentage of idiots. There are plenty of smart, competent Windows admins but a bad admin is statistically more likely to be a Windows admin.
And as I said, it's getting a lot easier to configure Linux with a GUI, so it's a moot point.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Well, ok, but idiots can do that using a CLI too. I don't see what "magical" property Linux config files possess that make it impossible to misconfigure a server.
True enough, as morbs stated there is a higher learning curve, but also almost any server OS that allows configuration to occur through a GUI will run unecessary services by default, Ubuntu does this, Windows does this. Wheras most systems that offer only a CLI will try to follow the pricipal of least privilege or some other minimalistic philosophy. Theoretical example: you can secure the shit out of IIS only to be taken down by an SMB exploit.
Basically it's applying the wrong target audience, a good admin should understand the value of a minimalistic approach, but the OS will avoid that. The buzz on the new WS seems to be that MS has finally realized this, and offer a build-up approach versus their prious strip-down approach to psot install security.
-
@Lingerance said:
Theoretical example: you can secure the shit out of IIS only to be taken down by an SMB exploit.
Why would you secure the shit out of IIS without turning off SMB?
I mean, I get your point, but to me it boils down to: bad admins are bad. Duh.
Whether or not the server is running a GUI or uses a GUI for configuration has nothing to do with "bad admins are bad."
@Lingerance said:
The buzz on the new WS seems to be that MS has finally realized this, and offer a build-up approach versus their prious strip-down approach to psot install security.
Windows Server 2003 and 2008 are already this way, unless I'm confused about what you're referring to-- but everything is locked-down as far as possible.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Windows Server 2003 and 2008 are already this way, unless I'm confused about what you're referring to-- but everything is locked-down as far as possible.
2003 was not. It still had IE installed, SMB was on by default, a few more specifics I've forgotten and don't want to incorrectly repeat, etc...
There's a small difference to having a component locked down and it not being present at all. That being one is still potentially exploitable.
-
Adds another layer I guess, but it's firewalled to shit and back already even if the components are present.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Adds another layer I guess, but it's firewalled to shit and back already even if the components are present.
Also helps if you actually want to take the time to learn what every file is for. Doing so helps greatly with HIDS that monitor file changes. It also means that no updates are sent for something that is never used and when you actually have an installation system setup you're only installing things that are actually used, both case are great for when the available bandwidth is limited, which is an edge case, but if you were doing a mass installation of servers a disk image that's 1GB vs 3GB (numbers came from my ass) over 20+ machines can mean the difference between having the DC up and running in less than an hour as opposed to half the day (also from my ass). Effort should not be wasted securing that which shouldn't be there in the first place.
-
@tdb said:
Linux also has a vastly different philosophy with drivers. The majority of all existing hardware drivers are actually in the kernel tree, making it very easy for distributors to create a kernel that has all the drivers compiled as modules.
Windows, on the other hand, is just a giant blob for the most part, with relatively few optional features. And if it's been more than a week since that version was released, there will likely be hundreds of patches waiting to be downloaded in Windows Update.
Linux has all its drivers in the kernel, and you call Windows a "giant blob"?
-
@tdb said:
A plus side for downloading the entire binary is that you only need to download the latest version, not every one of the million patches between release and now.
It's called a SERVICE PACK.
-
@Lingerance said:
Also helps if you actually want to take the time to learn what every file is for. Doing so helps greatly with HIDS that monitor file changes. It also means that no updates are sent for something that is never used and when you actually have an installation system setup you're only installing things that are actually used, both case are great for when the available bandwidth is limited, which is an edge case, but if you were doing a mass installation of servers a disk image that's 1GB vs 3GB (numbers came from my ass) over 20+ machines can mean the difference between having the DC up and running in less than an hour as opposed to half the day (also from my ass). Effort should not be wasted securing that which shouldn't be there in the first place.
Gotcha, but that could easily become a false-economy if it takes you more than half a day to create the server config in the first place.
-
@operagost said:
Linux has all its drivers in the kernel, and you call Windows a "giant blob"?
Windows runs plenty of kernel-mode drivers. I'm guessing you're referring to the fact that Linux drivers can be compiled directly into the kernel, but most can also be run as modules (and most distros do it this way). I compile most of my drivers (except for the few bitchy ones that only want to run as modules) into the kernel, because I'm compiling the kernel already and it simplifies things for me, but it's not a requirement. Linux has plenty of flaws, I wouldn't say having the option to compile drivers into the kernel or as modules is a bad thing.
Edit: I realized right after I posted this that I missed the point. Criticizing Windows for being a "giant blob" compared to Linux is stupid, yes.
-
@operagost said:
@tdb said:
Linux also has a vastly different philosophy with drivers. The majority of all existing hardware drivers are actually in the kernel tree, making it very easy for distributors to create a kernel that has all the drivers compiled as modules.
Windows, on the other hand, is just a giant blob for the most part, with relatively few optional features. And if it's been more than a week since that version was released, there will likely be hundreds of patches waiting to be downloaded in Windows Update.
Linux has all its drivers in the kernel, and you call Windows a "giant blob"?
There's a whole world of difference between a kernel plus drivers (and might I remind you that those are just the drivers, not additional crapware) and a kernel plus core drivers plus a graphical user interface plus web browser plus whatever other applications, tools and system services Windows comes with. And even the Linux kernel is configurable, although that's beyond the skills of a standard user.
I'm not too thrilled about the whole monolithic kernel idea Linux has though. Microkernels have a certain elegance, and from what I've gathered, the NT kernel is one. I've been thinking of trying out Hurd and M4, but haven't found the time yet.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Actually, a lot of stuff that does work works pretty well. Some things are abysmal, like Flash. It's slow as crap even on a modern computer, crash-prone and it leaks memory like crazy. I run a completely separate Firefox process just for using Flash so that the memory leaks don't slow down my browsing and so when Flash inevitably shits itself it only takes down one browser window and not my dozens of open tabs.
Not really that different from my experiences with it on Windows then.
-
@tdb said:
I'm not too thrilled about the whole monolithic kernel idea Linux has though. Microkernels have a certain elegance, and from what I've gathered, the NT kernel is one. I've been thinking of trying out Hurd and M4, but haven't found the time yet.
1990 called, they want their cutting-edge ideas on kernel engineering back. They also said you took one of their "rad" MIPS processors and if you don't return it they're going to "just start whalin' on your ass all righteous-like".
Microkernels might be "elegant", but they are usually performance disasters. The workaround for this requires moving more core functionality directly into the kernel-space rather than relying on inter-module communication, which is what NT and Mach (OS X) do. Linux also makes extensive use of modules, kernel threads and other techniques lifted from microkernels. I suppose Linux is still more monolithic than NT, but the battle between microkernels and monolithic kernels ended a long time ago; most successful kernels are a hybrid that utilize the strengths of both designs.
-
@DescentJS said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Actually, a lot of stuff that does work works pretty well. Some things are abysmal, like Flash. It's slow as crap even on a modern computer, crash-prone and it leaks memory like crazy. I run a completely separate Firefox process just for using Flash so that the memory leaks don't slow down my browsing and so when Flash inevitably shits itself it only takes down one browser window and not my dozens of open tabs.
Not really that different from my experiences with it on Windows then.
And i've heard it runs pretty stable on Macs too.
-
@Nelle said:
@DescentJS said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Actually, a lot of stuff that does work works pretty well. Some things are abysmal, like Flash. It's slow as crap even on a modern computer, crash-prone and it leaks memory like crazy. I run a completely separate Firefox process just for using Flash so that the memory leaks don't slow down my browsing and so when Flash inevitably shits itself it only takes down one browser window and not my dozens of open tabs.
Not really that different from my experiences with it on Windows then.
And i've heard it runs pretty stable on Macs too.
Believe it or not, it's much worse on Linux.
-
@blakeyrat said:
So when you say "Sound" works, you're also checking that the keyboard volume/mute controls work, right? That the default sound channels automatically change when you plug in headphones?
Yes, and yes. Though I wouldn't care too much about the keyboard volume/mute controls, as I generally don't use them often.
@blakeyrat said:
I guess my point is, to the Linux user, the criteria for "works" is (to quote you) "no random crashes, no restarting subsystems." I have reams of "works" definitions that have nothing to do with crashes or subsystems. In my general experience, the reason Linux users always beam about how great Linux is is due to their generally low standards-- I have very high standards, so I'm never going to look at that computer and say it works well.
Yes, my definition of "it works" is a combination of "does everything I need" and "absence of annoyances and surprises". In that regard, my standards are very high. But I'm not the kind of user who whines when some nice-to-have feature isn't available.
-
Regarding misconfigured servers: http://www.dataloss.net/papers/how.defaced.apache.org.txt. Oops?
-
