Slashdot Mirror
Linux Users Try FreeBSD 5, Windows
uninet writes "Most people know what GNU/Linux is, but fewer know about BSD and fewer still have actually used one of the major BSD variants (other than the highly customized Mac OS X). Ed Hurst, a writer and a long time GNU/Linux user, decided to give FreeBSD a try. Will Ed join the ranks of happy FreeBSD users? Find out at OfB.biz." And our own Roblimo, Windows-free for five years, has spent a week learning Windows XP.
Betcha they don't.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
It's not a review of Windows XP, but rather a series of old stereotypes and jokes about Windows that we've heard a million times. If you want a serious, objective review of XP in the same manner that you see Linux distributions reviewed, you should look elsewhere.
Interested in open source engine management for your Subaru?
Google Cache of main page here
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
I was 100% against MS's evil empire and Bill's attempts to takeover the world.
I think this says something about the nature of Linux users' hatred of Windows. Most of the fanboys seem to think that dislike of windows for technical reasons is evidence that MS is evil, and that the fact that Windows is ahead in the "desktop war" means that Windows is terrible. No wonder so many people don't take you guys seriously, if you don't understand that those connections aren't logical.
If you want to believe that Linux is technically better than Windows, fine. I happen to agree on that point. If you think that Microsoft is the evil empire, that's OK; you can form your own opinions. If you can't seperate the two ideas in your mind, then there's a problem, and you probably ought to reexamine your conclusions (or at least your mode of evangelism.)
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
Odds are you'll be pummeled for that post, but -- as I sit at my Linux box -- it occurs to me that I can't think of one desktop-oriented thing I do in Linux that I can't do in Windows or OSX.
It is easy to find fault with Microsoft and Windows. Most of it is deserved. But, Linux has faults, too. One big problem is part and parcel of its evelopment modeL: Because there's no single entity setting and enforcing standards, the highly touted benefits of "choice" often become a crapshoot of conflicting libraries, packaging schemes, and software compiled by God-Knows-Who in God-Know-Where.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The smarmy attitude got to me after a few paragraphs. "What's this 'Microsoft Internet Explorer' thing that I keep hearing about? It's profoundly inferior to everything I've ever used. People say it's popular, but they must be lying to me because it doesn't have tabbed browsing, and who can use the web without tabbed browsing?"
Sorry, but that gets old awfully damned fast. I've been using Red Hat at home exclusively for the last 7 months or so (since I got laid off and had time to really learn to use it), and while I much prefer it to Windows--even Win2k, of which I am rather fond--the difference isn't so incredibly huge that I would rather eat a Windows CD than install it.
Also, half of his problems seem to be with Windows APPS, rather than Windows. Nothing is keeping you from using a lot of the same apps in Windows, friend. When I do log in to my wife's Win2k box at home, I use OpenOffice, XChat, Gaim, and Mozilla Firebird--the same apps I use on my RH box.
How about some honest advocacy on the strengths of alternate operating systems? That would do more to show options to people who don't know they've got them. This kind of drek doesn't help anyone.
oh I know you *can* do the same things with Linux and I spent countless hours doing just that.
It was just far easier to click on a movie and have IE open it (including downloading the codec) rather than having to compile mplayer (with GUI options), make sure it worked fullscreen with X options, and make sure I had the codecs.
Or how about opening a Word document and making sure it looks identical to the one that was saved elsewhere?
When I was a freshman I started running servers for me and my friends (and about 30 other users). This was mostly an experimental network, for my, and other's learning purposes. I started out using slackware (which is STILL the only linux I will use) on all of my servers. This did work well, until Netatalk stopped working with the latest version of slack (I think they changed TCPWrappers and NetaTalk hadn't cought up yet). I then was forced to move to FreeBSD. I will never, ever, ever go back. System Admin under BSD is silky smooth and DAMN fast. The way I think about it is that BSD has had 30 years of lazy system admins working on it. Linux has a few years to go.
What is this GNU/Linux you speak of?
The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix"; it is pronounced "guh-NEW".) Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to as "Linux", they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems.
I have over 70 freaks, do you?
Well, GnomeMeeting works with Netmeeting quite nicely, StarOffice is just as good if not superior to Office, and Mozilla renders pages faster than IE. Things have changed a bit since November 2002. The one thing I will give you is that XP does have more extensive hardware support but that's easily overcome by doing a little homework before buying any periphs. I don't know about XP having a "superior experience" to Linux, it's all about what you do with your OS, but it's certainly a different experience.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
The first thing that happened after I fired up Windows XP is that it virtually ordered me to download a series of patches. I did so, but it wasn't like a SuSE update where you see every patch available and can say "yes" or "no" to each one if you like. The Windows update process told me nothing except that it was happening, and that I needed to reboot when it was over. A Windows-using friend said, "Yes, that's the way it works, and if you don't do the updates your computer keeps annoying you, so you have to do them even if they take hours like they sometimes do."
I don't know what he's talking about. By default (a stock Windows XPPro install) Windows will download updates in the background, and let you know when they're ready to install. You then have the option of saying "yes, install them now", "no, install them later", or you can click a button (labeled "Details...", I think) to see exactly which updates have been downloaded, and choose precisely which ones you'd like to install. I don't often give a lot of love to Microsoft, but I actually like the way they've handled the Windows Update thing- it's automatic and painless by default but you can have fine-grained control (or disable it totally) if you like.
So I find his claims really false- it sounds like he missed the "Details..." button. It's possible that the pre-installed copy of XP on his laptop was configured by the OEM (Toshiba) to work differently than a "stock" WinXP install, but if he's gonna write an article (and presumably get paid for it) then it's really his duty to figure that out.
I don't know if that's the case, just saying it's possible. In my opinion, anybody who is going to review an OS should really be reviewing a stock install, not some pre-configured OEM install that might differ from the "standard" experience.
At any rate, I'm only a couple of paragraphs into his review, and already I can't take anything he says seriously because there's such a glaring error right off the bat. Nice job.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
That's interesting that you say you like IE over Moz.. while I do use Windows most of the time (FreeBSD the rest of the time; I never got into Linux much), I can't stand IE. It's to the point where I keep a copy of Firebird on my USB drive so I can quickly copy it to another computer I happen to be using, because IE is just so clunky and horrible to use. IMNSHO, of course. :)
As for Office being better than WP, have you tried OpenOffice? Recently? It's been good for awhile, and still getting better. I haven't used WP since 5.1 for DOS, so I can't really comment on how well it works. But I had some bad experiences with MS Office a couple years ago, switched to OpenOffice, and haven't had any problems since then, with interoperability or anything else.
Upgrading Windows is definitely easy (when it works and doesn't break stuff, that is). It took me a long time to figure out how to upgrade FreeBSD successfully, and I never really did figure it out for Linux.
Basically, I rather like Windows 2000 and XP, they're very stable, and when you turn off all the extra flashy GUI shit, they're pretty nice to use. The main thing that keeps me from using FreeBSD as my main desktop system is hardware compatibility... I tried it for awhile, but everything always felt like it *sort of* worked, but not as well as it should be.
However, Windows is the only MS product I use. I can't stand IE, like I said before, and I have no problems with not using MS Office. I don't even have MS hardware (I've always liked Logitech's stuff better).
My $0.02.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
I've never used Free or NetBSD. In fact, I'd not used the BSDs at all (apart from SunOS 4.x which is BSD-derived) until recently. I've been using Linux since January 1992.
/proc filesystem and 'killall '. Also, the ability to run User Mode Linux (or in this case, it'd be User Mode OpenBSD).
What I felt about OpenBSD? Having heard of OpenBSD's security reputation, and the goodness of 'pf', I wanted to evaluate it to replace a CheckPoint FireWall 1 system (expensive software rental that MS can only dream of). I had already determined that OpenBSD will do all the things we currently do with CheckPoint.
Installation - it felt like installing SLS or Slackware back in 1994. Now that's not all negative - I had OpenBSD installed and ready in minutes and all off a single CD. Deciding to investigate further features of OpenBSD, I started doing a desktop install - put X on first (and got X and fvwm95 - I'd forgotten how fast X is with a simple UI). I then decided to install KDE from ports as I was missing Konqueror too much.
Evaluation: Ports is nice, but apt-get is better.
KDE works pretty much like it does under Linux.
Compiling stuff from source seems to all work the same way. Mostly you can find it in ports, but I've built a few other things too.
Things I miss: Other than Debian's apt, I really miss the
However, for the real eval, I was mostly looking at pf and altq.
I think OpenBSD shines here. The syntax of pf rules in pf.conf is far clearer than Linux iptables. Also, altq (for queuing and traffic control) has much easier syntax than the Linux equivalent. I don't have to go diving for the FAQ - the manual page for pf.conf is clear, concise and understandable and makes constructing the pf.conf rules file a piece of cake.
Generally, I'm impressed with OpenBSD, particularly having a compact default install which is very useful if you want something as a firewall or a server. Although I will stick with Linux (Debian for servers, RedHat for desktops), for firewalling, my future installations will be OpenBSD due to the ease of use and power of pf and altq.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Things changed a lot in the 6 years I was using Linux. Things had changed a lot in Windows as well.
Windows doesn't crash anymore, Windows is easily updated, Windows is fast, etc.
Linux has some application support, Linux *can* be easily updated, Linux is getting better, etc.
They both have their good and bad points. That wasn't my intention for writing the post. It was to a) show that Windows is better for me than Linux b) that Roblimo was overly obnoxious in his review of his switch and c) using Windows in a Windows-world is far easier than trying to get Linux to stumble along in that same Windows-world.
Go install portupgrade (/usr/ports/sysutils/portupgrade). Then, cvsup your ports tree, and run "portsdb -Uu". (You need to do this after every time you cvsup the ports tree.) After that, installing ports is as easy as typing in "portinstall foo". You say you like packages? Add the -P switch, as in "portinstall -P foo" to look for a package, and install from source if that fails, or "portinstall -PP foo" to install exclusively from a package.
"Hu, ho, ho-ah-oh-oh-oh. Hu, ho ho-ah-oh-oh-oh. Mario Paint! Whoaaa!"
I use Windows XP Pro at work, whilst being a long time Slackware user at home. Before Slackware I used various proprietary BASICs and a little DOS. At first I hated working in Windows. Nothing works the way you want it to. Printer drivers (I have never installed a single printer driver on my machine at home, my old HP Laser just works anyway) conflicting with each other, not being able to set the right screen frequency, because I need a monitor driver and so on.
After learning all the little quirks (there are probably just as many oddities with GNU/Linux that I don't notice) I can now work efficiently with XP , but would never let it replace my beloved unix at home. As long as you're doing something anticipated by the programmers, Windows is beautifully simple to use. When you are trying to ad lib, your screwed. I suppose you could set Windows with lots of little helper programs and registry tweaks, but im Linux I don't have to.
Examples:
Get a file from a Mac user, who doesn't tag .doc and .xls on his Office file names and don't know what it is? Most unix filesystem browsers use file magic, and identify these files correctly.
Want your MOD.* files to open with ModPlug Player when you click on them? Windows Explorer can't grok prefixes.
Want to download a URL to a local file? Write an HTML document with a link, or download the Windows version of the standard GNU/Linux utility wget.
Windows package management just simply sucks.
Want to set reasonable defaults for new users, like how their Start Menu behaves or what theme they get? There might be a way to do this, but I still haven't figured out how.
I have no idea how to download streamed media so I can watch it behind our corporate firewall. At home, this is my preferred way of watching online movies, due to bandwidth uncertainty.
I have seen less than ten GNU/Linux crashes in my eight years of Linux experience. Last week, some program or other in my XP box had a BSoD shootout with my printer, but aside from that, I get perhaps one crash every two or three months, which is still a lot. This is not, I believe, caused by Windows, but rather by poor applications and drivers. Somehow, though, Windows seems to attract poor applications and drivers.
Granted, a lot of my problems stem from me not knowing my way around the system, but I think this is why you don't see many "I switched to Windows" stories. People tend not to do this to themselves voluntarily.
...ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
a)
/usr/ports && make search name=packagename`) or though browsing the online ports collection.
/usr/ports && make search name=packagename`) or though browsing the online ports collection.
1. Find name of package you need
2. Find the package
3. Download package you need
4. Build package you need
5. Find and download any and all dependencies (the real time consumption)
6. make install
The order is more like this.
a) to build from source
1. Find name of package (either via `cd
2. cd to the port dir
3. `make install clean`
b) to get pre-compiled source
1. Find name of package (either via `cd
2. `pkg_add -rv packagename`
For example I can install kde in either 5-10 mins or 2-3 hours. The FreeBSD has many more options and is very powerful. A look at the ports man page and all of the pkg_* tool's man pages would revel alot of extra usage.
Two useful articles from onlamp:
Ports Tricks
Cleaning and Customizing Your Ports
It seems to partly go the other way around, but just as illogically - their hatred of the "Evil Empire(TM)" causes them to nit pick or outright fabricate technical issues with Windows. And the "popular == bad" theme is certainly tangible. It reminds me of Indie Rock Pete from Diesel Sweeties. ;)
Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V is universal to Windows, Mac, and Linux. Deal with it. Windows Update lets you pick which items to install or not install. You can make yourself a non-priveleged user in WinXP too. And holding Linux up as an ease-of-install bar for Windows to meet is a joke.
There are certainly issues (default user is admin, IE sucks, OE sucks...) but I don't know how a lot of these "Linux guy using Windows" complaints get created.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
Some probably do, and as you imply, there's little reason for that.
However, some of us think that M$ is evil for their business practices. Is it ethical to systematically buy out or destroy their competition? To deliberately spoil users' experience for the sake of market share? To use their massive cash pile and their monopoly in one field to (try to) gain it in others? To deliberately flout the legal system? And so on, and so on - the details have been debated enough already.
(For example, what does it say about them that their most credible remaining competitor in the OS market is one that can't be bought out, sued to oblivion, 'partnered' into docility, embraced and extended, or any of their usual tactics?)
If M$ behaved ethically, then their technical failings wouldn't be such a problem; people would be able to use alternatives, and M$ (like everyone else) would have the choice of improving their products or losing out. It's their immoral and illegal business practices that make such deep technical problems possible in the first place.
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
Windows bashings aside (it is getting old) but the new found fashionability of 'Linux' bashing is pretty silly.
Can't think of one thing you can't do on Windows (95/98/NT/2000/XP)? Let me give you a hand: Fire up Mplayer to watch any video you want. Interpolate with a large number of different machines. Secure your network. Remote X Session over ssh.
I'm just throwing out what's on the top of my head, but you get the point. 'Linux' isn't perfect, of course not. But it isn't less then Windows and has strengths that make a highly technical group very fond of it.
Linux bashers and Windows apologists are just as pointless as their Linux/BSD/Mac counterparts.
Quack, quack.
AH.. I am not sure what it is but the arrogance comes AFTER using a BSD for a while... keep working at it and you will get there if you are as smart as me ;)
projects @ http://spectechnologies.net
Rob's article was incredibly biased. His first complaint is about copying and pasting, which is simply a result of the fact he's used to the other method. No method is greater than the other.
Then he says Windows "ordered" him to download patches, and that it didn't tell him what they were or whether or not he could install them. This is COMPLETELY FALSE. Windows Update, whether in IE or in the system tray, allows you to view every patch. If it's the system tray app, it lets you uncheck any patch you don't want. If it's the website, you can click the button to remove it from installation.
Then he complains that Windows doesn't come with office productivity software, which is a little bizarre considering you know he'd be bitching about Microsoft and their monopolistic practice of including an office suite. They're damned either way.
He mentioned installing mIRC didn't require a root password, and goes on to mention spyware problems. Of course, his account is set up with administrator privileges, and if he was set to a limited account, he could prevent installation and so forth. The standard Slashdot argument against this is that installation should ask you to do this by default, but since we're dealing with RobLimo the Suse Linux user, you'd think that'd be the first thing he do anyway due to Linux experience with managing user accounts. But, of course, now it is a "security risk."
Then his complaints are with mIRC and his inability to uncheck the dialog box so it stops popping up. At this point, I stared at the screen with my jaw dropped. Was RobLimo purposely being stupid? I've used xchat and mIRC, and mIRC wins hands-down as an IRC client. Even if you don't like mIRC, it's so customizable you can create your own IRC client using its scripting capabilities. xchat is godawful, interface-wise and customizability-wise.
But, again, that has nothing to do with Windows. In fact, xchat for Windows works just fine (and retains the ugly-ass GTK widgets), so RobLimo should have stuck with it, but he needed something to complain about, right?
He rightfully complains about Internet Explorer, but then waits four hours before bothering to get Mozilla (Opera is the best one anyway, just not free). He just needed to bitch about Internet Explorer for a paragraph, when most Linux users switching to Windows wouldn't bother with IE to begin with. He's purposely dumbing down his using experience to complain about Windows.
He does the same for Outlook Express. Why would he use Outlook Express if he just downloaded Mozilla? Again, he's purposely dumbing down his using experience to have more complaints. His spam comments don't even affect me since I use Outlook 2003 which has great built-in junk mail filtering.
Windows Messenger is easy to disable from starting up. Especially for an advanced Linux user like RobLimo. Another biased complaint.
Apparently, RobLimo's only slowdown problem is CTRL-C and CTRL-V. Of course, for Windows users, those are incredibly fast shortcuts for them. I use them all the time. If this is all he can offer alongside pointless IE/OE bitching, there is no other point for his article than to be Windows flamebait. In fact, I find it amusing he complains about the copy/paste shortcuts and ignores the fact that Linux can barely copy/paste anything between apps. With Windows, it's almost sickening what you can play around with and copy between apps. But that never gets mentioned. In fact, there are no real positives mentioned.
RobLimo vaguely mentions "slowdowns" and "idle time" problems. Huh? Nice specifics, there. I've experienced weird little quirks in all Linux distributions as well. I chalked it up to cache flushes, swap space, whatever. Since RobLimo never, ever mentions what exactly he's talking about, we'll never know what he meant.
Then he goes on to mention "little specialty programs" that he would have to pay for on Windows, which, of course is false. There is tons of freeware for Windows,
"Sufferin' succotash."
FreeBSD 5.x is clearly documented as being still "alpha-quality" and is certainly not for newcomers. 4.8-RELEASE (preferably with patches, since 4.9 is almost done) or 4.9-RELEASE (due in a week) would have been the proper platform for this new user.
The author of the article referred to was obviously a Linux fanboy/zealot. And, I wonder if he has problems using a computer under ANY operating system.
1- He complains that Windows Update doesn't tell him what it is doing. This is absolute crap- a lie. You have the option to see information about every patch it is applying, you can remove patches, there are direct links to very informative security bulletins telling you what the patch is all about. If the author considers himself technically minded, but didn't actually READ what was on the screen, that was his problem. But- he succeeded in installing the patches- and that is what is important. See- it's set up so even morons like him can do it.
2- He couldn't figure out how to add icons in the 'bottom panel' (Taskbar) in Windows. Well, if he had tried to drag and drop, wonderful things would have happened. But, instead he sat there like a slack-jawed idiot, looking for problems. It takes about 2 seconds to add something to the taskbar, or the start menu.
3- Once again, feigning (or proving) total ignorance, he didn't understand what these 'pop-up' ads are all about- and why can't IE get rid of them? True- IE out of the box will display pop-ups, but when you add the Google Toolbar (free) not only will it block pop-ups, but it will give you some awesome IE/Windows only tools right in your browser. The Google Toolbar is better than any similar thing I have seen in other browsers. The answer is out there. And it's free, and it's good.
There were a lot of other problems I saw with his article. But because he was already preaching to the choir, most of it will just be greeted with silly smiles, and lots of head shaking. It must make him feel good to be surrounded by people who think the same way he does, and only make his half-hearted attempts at looking at other options.
No reason to lie.
What's amusing about this article is that it is usually the other way around. It is quite often the Windows-centric viewpoint (and occaional "fanboy" or "zealot") making some half-true observations about a Linux desktop environment. Sometimes the observations are accurate. More often they show a lack of understanding or experience with the environment in question. And if the forum allows it, they are often followed by a string of replies from more experienced Linux users addressing the various issues outlined in the article.
The article and discussions will be intermixed with additional banter. There will almost always be a Linux elitist disparaging the abilities of the author. And its just as likely that there will be a true Windows fanboy/zelot making snide comments about "defaults" and "standards" and "grandma" users being unable to make use of the information mentioned in the article responces.
The interesting thing is that we're now to a point where names "Linux" and "Windows" are almost interchangable in these desktop environment conversations.