Obviously that is a totally unsubstantiated guess. But regardless, what's your point?
See you've got two computers lessthan me
How do you know? I never said exactly how many computers I had. I said I had "several". So how can you have 2 more than several when you don't know exactly how many several is?
From this post you're obvious not really linux GUI user.
Well you didn't need to conclude from that post that I don't use a GUI Linux system because if you had read my post I said quote "my day-in day-out uses revolve around Windows".
I have a Linux / X Window System Desktop on my dual-boot system and I tinker with it for fun mainly and have done so for the last 4 or 5 years. And in all that time the average Linux Desktop really isn't that much better off than it was 4 years ago. Sure it's easier to setup, the icons are prettier, and you can usually run a GUI config tool as opposed to editing text files to make changes, as you had to do many years ago, but all of my major reasons for not liking Linux on the Desktop are the same today as they were back then.
Apparently you are the one that failed to notice what the article was about. Look again. The post was about "creating good user interfaces".
2. You shouldn't be offenced, here's why. How many people is using Windows? How many are geeks? What is average user in what field? Am I resonable to say what I've said?
I fail to see your point. If there was one.
3. We've got same hobbies I guess? Network is my field of interests. But you were the one that was complaining not me.
What was I complaining about?
I've just pointed out how you wouldn't need to do that more than once. Believe me I could extend this thing further.
Wouldn't need to configure my system more than once? That's highly unlikely. I install and uninstall programs all the time. I upgrade to new hardware, update my drivers, remove old drivers, and so on. Every so often, probably twice a year on average, I like to dump my system, start with a clean hard-drive, and install everything fresh. I also have multiple computers in my house and I'm the elected computer guru in my family so I'm often called on to help with their needs. I don't really want to spend 8 hours on the phone with my mom explaing to her how to add GTKLIB to her environment so she can compile the libraries that are needed in order to compile the base system which is needed in order to compile the user interface so she can have a GUI when all she wants to do is check her e-mail.
Like first divx. Works like hell for me and for all of my converted friends. Way better than windoze. My best result is watching divx, formating floppy, burning cd, listening to mp3, and meanwhile opening staroffice. All that on Celeron 400 (wanted to test low end machine). About picture being sketchy, mplayer set with correct parameters has best picture based on my testing.
I don't doubt your results. But did you just install Linux and then throw on a divx app and have it working this well? I kind of doubt it and that was really the point. I *can* get things working after a great deal of effort. And as I said in my first post, I don't enjoy nor tollerate "a great deal of effort" for Desktop stuff. I'm a Network/Admin guy. I like playing around with hardware, tweaking the kernel, setting up server daemons, and so on. But when it comes to the Desktop, I find configuring stuff borring and unenjoyable and I just want it to work.
I guess that the main thing you've done wrong, was testing gnome. Anyone reading your comment would say, that UI that you want is KDE and not GNOME.
I have no idea where you got Gnome from? Read my post again. I didn't mention Gnome one time. That said, I have used it in the past and didn't really care for it. I've also used KDE which I find better (for me), but still a far cry from where I want to be.
KDE is not for tweakers like me, but usefull for Windowze users, that want to become Linux users on a fast lane.
I kind of take offense to that. You are doing what so many other Linux users do. You are degrading and dehumanizing Windows users and you apparently think you are superior to them.
You said you like to tweak your UI as much as you can. Well you are obviously interested in and knowledgable about computers. But what about the people who aren't interested in the inner workings of the computer? Are you a car mechanic? A carpenter? An architech? How would you feel if you took your car in to get some major engine repairs done to it and you overheard the car mechanics talking about what a faggy little computer nerd you are. Laughing at how stupid you are because you probably wouldn't change your own oil for fear of getting your keyboard dirty.
The point is, just because you find computers interesting doesn't mean everyone else does. Think about it next time before you go off on your high horse about "Windoze" (l)users.
I personally wanna tweak every bit of my desktop and make additional lower underlaying scripts, to get job done as fast as it gets. For that I really don't consider waste of time. Every new distro takes me about a day to adapt my changes to it,
Again that is all fine and dandy for *you*. I enjoy tweaking my Network and my servers and will spend days setting up a new system and at least another weak refining all the security aspects of it. (Firewall, secure shell, disk quotas, closing services that aren't used, setting up automatic backups, planning for disaster recovery, etc...) That's fun. Screwing with mime type associations so that my desktop launches the right program when I click it is completely borring.
Windows does not work flawlessly. I have long since lost count of the number of blue screens and "illegal operations" I've had but it does work well enough for me to use it.
I know this is a common problem with Windows but I can honestly say it hasn't affected me to any great degree. And in the time since I've gone from 98SE to WindowsXP, I've yet to see a BSoD.
I'm a 30 year computer nerd so I CAN cope with the complexities of setting up Linux, et al but, if I just want to write a letter, why struggle?
Well I'm only a 10 year computer nerd (started when I was 15) but I can easily handle the "complexities of setting up Linux". I just choose not to because like you said, when I just want to [insert mundane task here], why should I bother?
Linux has failed to succeed DESPITE its strengths because, for normal people, it's not useable.
If something looks good and is easy to use, its faults will often be tolerated (and they can always be fixed). If it doesn't look good or it isn't easy to use it may not live long enough to get fixed.
I would imagine you use Windows then... or perhaps OSX. Because in my experience Linux on the Desktop is hardly "easy to use" or intuitive despite all the efforts made to make it so. It's fun to play around with on my dual-boot WindowsXP system but my day-in day-out uses revolve around Windows simply for the fact that everything works. I don't mind tinkering with configuration files for hours or days on end to get my Linux server to do something I want it to do. (i.e. samba, ftp server, e-mail, dns, dhcp, etc..) but when it comes to my Desktop, I just want the stuff to work. I don't find it enjoyable or even tollerable for that matter to fight my system for hours or days just to get an MPEG or DiVX music video to play back. And when it finally works, the quality and speed is sketchy at best. And the functionality of the program that I'm using to play it back with consists of "Play/Stop".
If it were just that one aspect that was a pain in the neck I could easily look past it and use Linux for my Desktop. Unfortunately I run into the same type of half-butted configuration nightmares for just about everything I want to do. Fonts, image display, games, instant messaging, web browsing, e-mail, printing, cd recording, copying images from my digital sitll camera, downloading video via firewire from my video camera, and on and on and on.
The X Window System works great when I just want to fire up some shells and ssh/telnet to a bunch of remote hosts and have them all on one screen at the same time.
I sum up what I think are the main reasons why Linux won't make it to the desktop just yet.
I find these kinds of comments interesting. Why? Because people have been saying the same exact thing about Linux on the Desktop for the last 5 years and they are still saying it. "It's not there yet but we are close."
I guess by close "they" are talking in astronomical terms. Alpha Centari is close to Earth compared to Polaris. Disregard the fact that it would take us thousands of years to get to either.
Serious question. Why do people even care about their Karma? It's not money, you can't spend it. So what if one guy has a billion karma and the next guy has 0? What difference does it really make?
I agree. Join the T(H)GSB [slashdot.org] Apr 21-27
$10 says slashdot.org gets a noticeable boost in the number of people visiting the site during that time... people's curiosity will be peaked and they'll have to come "just once" to see if the blackout is working.
So don't have five zillion daemons start up at boot in Linux. mv unimportant/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S* stuff to/etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K* stuff. Linux itself boots within a few seconds. Even X doesn't take that long. Starting up KDE/GNOME and starting daemons is where all the time goes.
This is a non-issue. The only daemons I have starting up are ones that are mission critical for my Desktop. (i.e. I don't run sendmail, ftp, nfs, etc..)
I dunno what programs other people are using, but mutt and dillo+galeon is a pretty sweet combination for me. They aren't unstable. Once I started using a console email program, I couldn't switch back. I can manipulate it with just my keyboard and use it from anywhere I am (most people have ssh or telnet, but few people have an X server sitting around on their Windows box).
Console? Laugh. Here's a quote from my original message that you cut out of your copy/paste.
"Again - if I wanted to run Pine I wouldn't bother having a GUI desktop." In case you didn't know it, Pine is a console e-mail program. The point is all the Linux zealots want people to use technology that's based in the dark ages in order to achieve speed and stability. Dude... don't get me wrong here. I don't not like Linux. I use Linux every day. I'm a huge advocate. But I think it has it's place which is the server arena and not the Desktop.
Also, I can't figure out why people like Outlook so much.
Actually I don't like Outlook. I've used it and I didn't find any advantage at all (for me) to use it over Outlook Express. They are two very different programs. Outlook Express is a small considerably light weight e-mail client that just does the basics.
Have you ever used any other email clients?
Yes, dozens. Netscapes mail program, Mozillas mail program, Sylpheed, KMail, Pine, Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, Aileron, GNUStep's Mail.App,... just to name a couple.
Of all the GUI email clients I've ever used, I have to say that Outlook is my least favorite (though I don't use the workgroup features, which I suppose might be a big draw if you needed them).
Again I don't use Outlook so I don't know if the "workgroup" feature is a draw or not. I don't use that feature.
Have you ever used Eudora?
Yes... a few years ago. It was a good e-mail client but I didn't think it was really worth paying for considering all the free alternatives. A quick glance over at their website shows me that it appears to be "free" now. Allthough based on this quick glance it appears to be just for Windows/MacOS. And this thread is about Linux so mentioning Eudora is kind of pointless.
There is one glaring problem with that statement. Macintosh OS X does NOT use X Windows. It has it's own display system based on Quartz. So any observations based on X windows have no relevance to OS X.
I'm sure that's going to be considered "Informative" or "Interesting". Anyway, for my response I'll just copy and paste right out of the article.
"Tests conducted by Wired News confirmed reader complaints that a new 800 MHz iMac takes an average of twice as long to render Web pages as a comparable or cheaper PC running Windows XP."
And I don't recall saying OSX was based on "X Windows" (as you incorrectly call it)...
The entire point of this thread was the guy who said "It does have *NIX behind it though, that might explain it" and really had nothing to do with Quartz vs. the X Window System.
Fact is, the GUI of X Windows with whatever window manager doesn't even come close to the performance of explorer. Okay, blackbox, windowmaker, etc are fast
Exactly. And if you're going to run a seriously crippled WM (by todays standards) just to get the same kind of speed that you get in Windows, then what's the point? Linux zealots want to slam you for running KDE or Gnome because it's bloated or whatever... they tell you your system is slow because you are running a bloated Window Manager... well tell me this, why is it that I have to run a 1MB Window Manager like Window Maker just to get the same speed that I get in MS Windows which has a God Only Knows how many megabyte Window Manager running. To those people, I suggest you check out www.98lite.net That will help level the playing field once again. How fast is your blackbox now?
Then, try to play a game or watch a DVD. Yeah, you can get it to work. Only after serious time spent installing and tweaking. Then, performance isn't as goog as windows.
This is a really good point. When you install Windows all of these things work "out of the box". To get the same basic funtionality out of a Linux distro, you have to spend hours/days fussing with libraries and configuration files. And when you finally have it "working", it's slower than molasses rolling uphill in the middle of January.
Now, I LOVE Linux and use it for servers/firewall
Again - I can't agree with you more on this issue. Linux as a server for web, e-mail, dns, ftp, samba, nfs, dhcp, router, firewall, etc absolutely rocks!!
but as a desktop OS....Its got a long way to go. Also, I HATE windows
hehehe... I read a post on here somewhere a while back that said "Linux isn't for geeks, it's for people who hate Windows". There's a lot of truth in that statement. I hate M$ Windows but I'm afraid I hate the X Window System even more. I wouldn't mind checking out OSX, but it sounds like OSX has the same speed issues as the X Window System.
Actually, I installed the nVidia binary-only drivers recently onto my 450 MHz Linux/Windows 2000 box, and X runs way faster now. Of course it takes longer initially to start but once that happens it runs faster than I've ever gotten X to run (I'm using FVWM95 at the moment because I don't have the bandwidth to download KDE).
Once I download and install KDE it might slow a bit but the difference has been so amazing under FVWM95 that the slowdown might not be significant.
I too am running the nVidia binary drivers for my GeForce2 card. I can't honestly say I've noticed a bit of difference. I can run Quake 3 now, but the GUI isn't any faster.
I am running KDE 3.0 because I actually want the convenience of having a common looking Desktop environment and applications. It's just slow though... that's the only word to describe it. It's slow to load and compared to my Windows system it's slow just using it. And I don't have an old system either. AMD T-bird 1.33GHz CPU w/ 512MB of PC2100 DDR RAM and a 40GB ATA/100 IDE drive.
Window Maker runs pretty good... but then you lose 95% of your GUI environment. (i.e. no Desktop, no taskbar.) And even Window Maker doesn't seem to refresh as fast as my MS Windows system does. For example, open up any window and have your settings set so that your Windows are opaque (display contents while moving)... Now click the title bar area of the window and drag it around the screen with your mouse as fast as you can. Now do the same thing in Windows. Notice how much faster it is in Windows. Granted that's probably not a very scientific way of testing the speed of the GUI but never-the-less it's an easy way to see the difference. Resizing windows is the same story. In X it's like lagging, sluggish... especially when viewing Images. I have a digital camera that takes pictures up to 2048x1536 resolution. I can scroll through them pretty quickly in Windows and I can resize the window with only a slight delay. In X it's like a painfull process... When I click a corner and resize a Window it's choppy and the system will lag, the mouse cursor will start pausing and unpausing. I can't really blame my hardware because it runs fine if I reboot to Windows.
It does have *NIX behind it though, that might explain it.
I'll probably get "Flamebaited" or "Trolled" for this... but oh well.
I've been using Linux for my server for several years and it absolutely rocks. Awesome stability, fast execution of everything I do and I never have to reboot except when updating the kernel. My best uptimes are 50 and 60 days which I think is pretty good for a home system.
Anyway over the past several years I've explored the X Window System on my Desktop several times and I always end up going back to Windows sooner or later because it's just better. There's just no denying it. And I'm not talking about running MS Office, Video Games, Photoshop, or anything like that. I'm just talking about basic GUI functions and programs like E-mail and web surfing. Booting my Windows system is as fast or faster than booting Linux/X. (Rebooting is of course a major complaint of mine when it comes to MS Windows and that is a non-issue on any Linux system. However, it's not nearly as bad with Windows XP.) Windows just has a smoother/faster feel to it. Programs load faster, widgets automatically line up properly (ehem! GTK+ sucks ehem!), and so on. The issue of stability always comes up when talking about Windows. Well... I don't know what version of Netscape/Mozilla/Galeon/Opera/Konqueror other people are using but in my experience they are more unstable than IE/Windows. Is everyone running Lynx? What's the point of having a GUI desktop then? And I've yet to find a completely stable GUI e-mail program in X. Again - if I wanted to run Pine I wouldn't bother having a GUI desktop. Outlook Express has been rock solid for me. (Oh no... I almost advocated something about Windows. This is "flamebait" for certain now.)
Basically if you set aside all the "evil empire" issues surrounding Microsoft, which is hard for many of us to do myself included, I think Windows makes for a good Desktop environment and OSX and all the Linux distros that use X are in second place for the vast majority of Desktop users. Coders/programmers and other such people probably wouldn't agree but think about what your uses are for a computer compared to the average Desktop user.
When I'm looking to download a program for some reason I first try to find a link to an actual file that I can get. If some place has a registration process that I have to go through, I'll probably just move on to some place that doesn't have a process.
If all else fails and I have to fill out some form, I gurantee you the form is going to be full of bogus data just so I can get to the link and the e-mail address I use is probably going to either be vulgar or will be something like you@yourcompany.com. (So make a note - These forms are STUPID and USELESS. STOP using them!)
If I absolutely must use a valid e-mail address to get some kind of password or unlock key (and finding a warez copy has failed) then I'll use one of several hotmail or yahoo e-mail addresses that I keep around just for this purpose.
And finally if I don't receive the password or unlock key to that e-mail address within the time it takes me to walk to the fridge and grab another soda and come back, chances are I will never end up going on to the link because I never check those bogus e-mail accounts on a regular basis. And by the time I go back and check it again for some other reason, I will have forgotten about that companies software program anyway.
What if the machine had its original OS upgraded? For example, the original machine came with the OEM Win95, but then was upgraded to Win98? Can't you donate the Win98 license along with the machine and its original license?
Of course you can.
Also, what if the machine is donated with a non-MS operating system, or for that matter, no operating system at all?
Psh... isn't it obvious? You buy a new copy Windows and send that with the PC.
The average residential cost of electricity in the U.S. is 8.27 cents per kilowatthour. Assuming that your 300w power supply is running at 300 watts constantly (which it isn't) it costs about 2.5 cents per hour
8.27 * 300 = 2,481... which would be 2,500 rounded to the nearest hundreds. I assume the 300w must be.3 which would be 2.481 instead of 2,481. And would be 2.5 when rounded instead of 2,500. So I assume this is how you got your number. But what do the numbers mean exactly?
What is a kilowatthour? And at 2.5 cents per hour does that mean a 300w P/S is costing me $18 per month? (.025 * 30 * 24 = 18)
And if that is true, does that mean my 3 computers running around the clock are costing me $54 a freaking month to run? Holy crap?? Time to turn these mothers off and go outside. That's not even figuring in the cost of my monitors, speakers, printer, scanner,... OMG!!
scream:/$ su -c "shutdown -h now" armand:/$ su -c "shutdown -h now" LisaWIN "Start -> Shutdown -> Yes"
How do you figure up the cost that your computer uses?
I have 3 mid tower Enlight cases that are on around the clock. 2 of them have 250W P/S and 1 of them has a 300W P/S. My computer has a 19" ViewSonic monitor and my wifes computer has a 17" ViewSonic monitor and both are on 24/7 but I would imagine that each monitor is in power saving mode for at least 10 hours each day. (The third computer has a 15" ViewSonic monitor but that computer is my "server" so the monitor is only powered on for an hour or two a month. The rest of the time it is physically shut off.) I also have an OfficeJet G85 printer/fax/scanner/copier and a JetDirect print server that are on 24/7. But I've always assumed that these two devices are consuming virtually no power.
Anyway... I've always wondered how much juice all this stuff is sucking up and it's not really possible for me to shut everything off for a month and then compare power bills.
Anyone know how to calculate the usage? Or better yet does anyone know of some kind of portable power meter I can buy and plug into my power strip that can monitor the power draw on all these devices?
I was thinking the same thing when I read the article. (I thought it was a great article by the way). But he seemed to fail to take into consideration the expodential growth in quality the various data formats consume. He talks about being able to store a lifetime of MP3's on these drives. When consumers have that much space available at their fingertips, I highly doubt anyone will still be satisfied with 128kbps MP3 files.
Next gen. music CD's are supposed to be recorded at much higher resolutions thereby requiring much more data storage capacity. Video DVD's wont be 4.xGB forever. And video games are becomming ever more photo realistic.
So the bottom line is, I don't think we'll have any problem finding ways to use up the storage space.
Well, obviously this "priming" will have to switch to use port 80 if others are blocked, then the response servers can give your client information about the "port of the day".
Umm... that would suck if you have a firewall. I like knowing that such and such service is using such and such port day in and day out. I don't want to reconfigure my firewall so that such and such service can work with the "port of the day".
Sounds like this might have it's uses as a teen/secondary phone line. But after reading dozens of posts from other slashdoters, there's no way I would replace my main line with this. Here are my main dislikes.
Power goes out - you lose your phone line. (You say get a UPS - but as one guy said "You are spending more money to buy equipment on a technology that is supposed to save you money.)
Internet service goes down for some other reason - again you lose your phone line. In the last 5 years I can't remember my phone line ever just "going down". Yet in the last 3 years that I've had a cable modem, I've lost my service at least a hundred times. Sometimes it's only down for 1 minute, other times it's down for a day or longer.
Can't be used for 9-1-1. Not everyone has a cell phone and in an emergency situation, such as would be the case if you were dialing 9-1-1, finding the phone book and flipping through it to find the phone number for the police department would suck. And yes, I have actually had to use 9-1-1 before.
1 year service contract and early penalty fees for cancelling service early. If you decide the service sucks, you have to pay a large termination fee.
How do you gurantee you'll have the available bandwidth to make and receive calls under IPV4? They say you need 90kbs available to make calls but what if I'm getting an awesome d/l rate on some 600MB ISO that I'm downloading which is consuming 100% of my bandwidth?
These were the main things that caught my attention. So like I said, this could be usefull for teen line or secondary line but not as a primary line.
I had a 128k ISDN dual-channel line comming to my house before cable was available to me and I stupidly cancelled my phone line because the ISDN modem was supposed to be able to automatically handle phone calls by dropping 1 of the channels "on demand". It didn't work worth a dang and I ended up paying to get my phone line reconnected in the end.
Slashdot Mirror
Probably 90% of Windows users aren't geeks.
Obviously that is a totally unsubstantiated guess. But regardless, what's your point?
See you've got two computers lessthan me
How do you know? I never said exactly how many computers I had. I said I had "several". So how can you have 2 more than several when you don't know exactly how many several is?
From this post you're obvious not really linux GUI user.
Well you didn't need to conclude from that post that I don't use a GUI Linux system because if you had read my post I said quote "my day-in day-out uses revolve around Windows".
I have a Linux / X Window System Desktop on my dual-boot system and I tinker with it for fun mainly and have done so for the last 4 or 5 years. And in all that time the average Linux Desktop really isn't that much better off than it was 4 years ago. Sure it's easier to setup, the icons are prettier, and you can usually run a GUI config tool as opposed to editing text files to make changes, as you had to do many years ago, but all of my major reasons for not liking Linux on the Desktop are the same today as they were back then.
And I have to ask again, so what's your point?
1. If you didn't noticed "post is about GNOME"
Apparently you are the one that failed to notice what the article was about. Look again. The post was about "creating good user interfaces".
2. You shouldn't be offenced, here's why. How many people is using Windows? How many are geeks? What is average user in what field? Am I resonable to say what I've said?
I fail to see your point. If there was one.
3. We've got same hobbies I guess? Network is my field of interests. But you were the one that was complaining not me.
What was I complaining about?
I've just pointed out how you wouldn't need to do that more than once. Believe me I could extend this thing further.
Wouldn't need to configure my system more than once? That's highly unlikely. I install and uninstall programs all the time. I upgrade to new hardware, update my drivers, remove old drivers, and so on. Every so often, probably twice a year on average, I like to dump my system, start with a clean hard-drive, and install everything fresh. I also have multiple computers in my house and I'm the elected computer guru in my family so I'm often called on to help with their needs. I don't really want to spend 8 hours on the phone with my mom explaing to her how to add GTKLIB to her environment so she can compile the libraries that are needed in order to compile the base system which is needed in order to compile the user interface so she can have a GUI when all she wants to do is check her e-mail.
Like first divx. Works like hell for me and for all of my converted friends. Way better than windoze. My best result is watching divx, formating floppy, burning cd, listening to mp3, and meanwhile opening staroffice. All that on Celeron 400 (wanted to test low end machine). About picture being sketchy, mplayer set with correct parameters has best picture based on my testing.
I don't doubt your results. But did you just install Linux and then throw on a divx app and have it working this well? I kind of doubt it and that was really the point. I *can* get things working after a great deal of effort. And as I said in my first post, I don't enjoy nor tollerate "a great deal of effort" for Desktop stuff. I'm a Network/Admin guy. I like playing around with hardware, tweaking the kernel, setting up server daemons, and so on. But when it comes to the Desktop, I find configuring stuff borring and unenjoyable and I just want it to work.
I guess that the main thing you've done wrong, was testing gnome. Anyone reading your comment would say, that UI that you want is KDE and not GNOME.
I have no idea where you got Gnome from? Read my post again. I didn't mention Gnome one time. That said, I have used it in the past and didn't really care for it. I've also used KDE which I find better (for me), but still a far cry from where I want to be.
KDE is not for tweakers like me, but usefull for Windowze users, that want to become Linux users on a fast lane.
I kind of take offense to that. You are doing what so many other Linux users do. You are degrading and dehumanizing Windows users and you apparently think you are superior to them.
You said you like to tweak your UI as much as you can. Well you are obviously interested in and knowledgable about computers. But what about the people who aren't interested in the inner workings of the computer? Are you a car mechanic? A carpenter? An architech? How would you feel if you took your car in to get some major engine repairs done to it and you overheard the car mechanics talking about what a faggy little computer nerd you are. Laughing at how stupid you are because you probably wouldn't change your own oil for fear of getting your keyboard dirty.
The point is, just because you find computers interesting doesn't mean everyone else does. Think about it next time before you go off on your high horse about "Windoze" (l)users.
I personally wanna tweak every bit of my desktop and make additional lower underlaying scripts, to get job done as fast as it gets. For that I really don't consider waste of time. Every new distro takes me about a day to adapt my changes to it,
Again that is all fine and dandy for *you*. I enjoy tweaking my Network and my servers and will spend days setting up a new system and at least another weak refining all the security aspects of it. (Firewall, secure shell, disk quotas, closing services that aren't used, setting up automatic backups, planning for disaster recovery, etc...) That's fun. Screwing with mime type associations so that my desktop launches the right program when I click it is completely borring.
Windows does not work flawlessly. I have long since lost count of the number of blue screens and "illegal operations" I've had but it does work well enough for me to use it.
I know this is a common problem with Windows but I can honestly say it hasn't affected me to any great degree. And in the time since I've gone from 98SE to WindowsXP, I've yet to see a BSoD.
I'm a 30 year computer nerd so I CAN cope with the complexities of setting up Linux, et al but, if I just want to write a letter, why struggle?
Well I'm only a 10 year computer nerd (started when I was 15) but I can easily handle the "complexities of setting up Linux". I just choose not to because like you said, when I just want to [insert mundane task here], why should I bother?
Linux has failed to succeed DESPITE its strengths because, for normal people, it's not useable.
Agreed, unfortunately.
If something looks good and is easy to use, its faults will often be tolerated (and they can always be fixed). If it doesn't look good or it isn't easy to use it may not live long enough to get fixed.
I would imagine you use Windows then... or perhaps OSX. Because in my experience Linux on the Desktop is hardly "easy to use" or intuitive despite all the efforts made to make it so. It's fun to play around with on my dual-boot WindowsXP system but my day-in day-out uses revolve around Windows simply for the fact that everything works. I don't mind tinkering with configuration files for hours or days on end to get my Linux server to do something I want it to do. (i.e. samba, ftp server, e-mail, dns, dhcp, etc..) but when it comes to my Desktop, I just want the stuff to work. I don't find it enjoyable or even tollerable for that matter to fight my system for hours or days just to get an MPEG or DiVX music video to play back. And when it finally works, the quality and speed is sketchy at best. And the functionality of the program that I'm using to play it back with consists of "Play/Stop".
If it were just that one aspect that was a pain in the neck I could easily look past it and use Linux for my Desktop. Unfortunately I run into the same type of half-butted configuration nightmares for just about everything I want to do. Fonts, image display, games, instant messaging, web browsing, e-mail, printing, cd recording, copying images from my digital sitll camera, downloading video via firewire from my video camera, and on and on and on.
The X Window System works great when I just want to fire up some shells and ssh/telnet to a bunch of remote hosts and have them all on one screen at the same time.
I sum up what I think are the main reasons why Linux won't make it to the desktop just yet.
I find these kinds of comments interesting. Why? Because people have been saying the same exact thing about Linux on the Desktop for the last 5 years and they are still saying it. "It's not there yet but we are close."
I guess by close "they" are talking in astronomical terms. Alpha Centari is close to Earth compared to Polaris. Disregard the fact that it would take us thousands of years to get to either.
Good useability is probably more important than correct functionality.
Please explain. Are you saying that it's more important to be able to find your "Preferences" menu then it is to actually have it work?
but focus on one UI style and make that the best. Rather one perfect UI than a dozen so-so ones.
Who gets to decide which single UI is the best though? And then what happens when tens of thousands of people disagree?
I'm at 50, so I'm not karma whoreing.
Serious question. Why do people even care about their Karma? It's not money, you can't spend it. So what if one guy has a billion karma and the next guy has 0? What difference does it really make?
I agree. Join the T(H)GSB [slashdot.org] Apr 21-27
$10 says slashdot.org gets a noticeable boost in the number of people visiting the site during that time... people's curiosity will be peaked and they'll have to come "just once" to see if the blackout is working.
Picture us on a merry-go-round, and then I push you the fuck off. That's centrifugal force.
No it's not. If you're on a merry-go-round that's going so fast you can no longer hold on and you are thrown off - that's centrifugal force.
So don't have five zillion daemons start up at boot in Linux. mv unimportant /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/S* stuff to /etc/rc.d/rc5.d/K* stuff. Linux itself boots within a few seconds. Even X doesn't take that long. Starting up KDE/GNOME and starting daemons is where all the time goes.
... just to name a couple.
This is a non-issue. The only daemons I have starting up are ones that are mission critical for my Desktop. (i.e. I don't run sendmail, ftp, nfs, etc..)
I dunno what programs other people are using, but mutt and dillo+galeon is a pretty sweet combination for me. They aren't unstable. Once I started using a console email program, I couldn't switch back. I can manipulate it with just my keyboard and use it from anywhere I am (most people have ssh or telnet, but few people have an X server sitting around on their Windows box).
Console? Laugh. Here's a quote from my original message that you cut out of your copy/paste.
"Again - if I wanted to run Pine I wouldn't bother having a GUI desktop." In case you didn't know it, Pine is a console e-mail program. The point is all the Linux zealots want people to use technology that's based in the dark ages in order to achieve speed and stability. Dude... don't get me wrong here. I don't not like Linux. I use Linux every day. I'm a huge advocate. But I think it has it's place which is the server arena and not the Desktop.
Also, I can't figure out why people like Outlook so much.
Actually I don't like Outlook. I've used it and I didn't find any advantage at all (for me) to use it over Outlook Express. They are two very different programs. Outlook Express is a small considerably light weight e-mail client that just does the basics.
Have you ever used any other email clients?
Yes, dozens. Netscapes mail program, Mozillas mail program, Sylpheed, KMail, Pine, Outlook, Outlook Express, Eudora, Aileron, GNUStep's Mail.App,
Of all the GUI email clients I've ever used, I have to say that Outlook is my least favorite (though I don't use the workgroup features, which I suppose might be a big draw if you needed them).
Again I don't use Outlook so I don't know if the "workgroup" feature is a draw or not. I don't use that feature.
Have you ever used Eudora?
Yes... a few years ago. It was a good e-mail client but I didn't think it was really worth paying for considering all the free alternatives. A quick glance over at their website shows me that it appears to be "free" now. Allthough based on this quick glance it appears to be just for Windows/MacOS. And this thread is about Linux so mentioning Eudora is kind of pointless.
There is one glaring problem with that statement. Macintosh OS X does NOT use X Windows. It has it's own display system based on Quartz. So any observations based on X windows have no relevance to OS X.
I'm sure that's going to be considered "Informative" or "Interesting". Anyway, for my response I'll just copy and paste right out of the article.
"Tests conducted by Wired News confirmed reader complaints that a new 800 MHz iMac takes an average of twice as long to render Web pages as a comparable or cheaper PC running Windows XP."
And I don't recall saying OSX was based on "X Windows" (as you incorrectly call it)...
The entire point of this thread was the guy who said "It does have *NIX behind it though, that might explain it" and really had nothing to do with Quartz vs. the X Window System.
Fact is, the GUI of X Windows with whatever window manager doesn't even come close to the performance of explorer. Okay, blackbox, windowmaker, etc are fast
Exactly. And if you're going to run a seriously crippled WM (by todays standards) just to get the same kind of speed that you get in Windows, then what's the point? Linux zealots want to slam you for running KDE or Gnome because it's bloated or whatever... they tell you your system is slow because you are running a bloated Window Manager... well tell me this, why is it that I have to run a 1MB Window Manager like Window Maker just to get the same speed that I get in MS Windows which has a God Only Knows how many megabyte Window Manager running. To those people, I suggest you check out www.98lite.net That will help level the playing field once again. How fast is your blackbox now?
Then, try to play a game or watch a DVD. Yeah, you can get it to work. Only after serious time spent installing and tweaking. Then, performance isn't as goog as windows.
This is a really good point. When you install Windows all of these things work "out of the box". To get the same basic funtionality out of a Linux distro, you have to spend hours/days fussing with libraries and configuration files. And when you finally have it "working", it's slower than molasses rolling uphill in the middle of January.
Now, I LOVE Linux and use it for servers/firewall
Again - I can't agree with you more on this issue. Linux as a server for web, e-mail, dns, ftp, samba, nfs, dhcp, router, firewall, etc absolutely rocks!!
but as a desktop OS....Its got a long way to go. Also, I HATE windows
hehehe... I read a post on here somewhere a while back that said "Linux isn't for geeks, it's for people who hate Windows". There's a lot of truth in that statement. I hate M$ Windows but I'm afraid I hate the X Window System even more. I wouldn't mind checking out OSX, but it sounds like OSX has the same speed issues as the X Window System.
Actually, I installed the nVidia binary-only drivers recently onto my 450 MHz Linux/Windows 2000 box, and X runs way faster now. Of course it takes longer initially to start but once that happens it runs faster than I've ever gotten X to run (I'm using FVWM95 at the moment because I don't have the bandwidth to download KDE).
Once I download and install KDE it might slow a bit but the difference has been so amazing under FVWM95 that the slowdown might not be significant.
I too am running the nVidia binary drivers for my GeForce2 card. I can't honestly say I've noticed a bit of difference. I can run Quake 3 now, but the GUI isn't any faster.
I am running KDE 3.0 because I actually want the convenience of having a common looking Desktop environment and applications. It's just slow though... that's the only word to describe it. It's slow to load and compared to my Windows system it's slow just using it. And I don't have an old system either. AMD T-bird 1.33GHz CPU w/ 512MB of PC2100 DDR RAM and a 40GB ATA/100 IDE drive.
Window Maker runs pretty good... but then you lose 95% of your GUI environment. (i.e. no Desktop, no taskbar.) And even Window Maker doesn't seem to refresh as fast as my MS Windows system does. For example, open up any window and have your settings set so that your Windows are opaque (display contents while moving)... Now click the title bar area of the window and drag it around the screen with your mouse as fast as you can. Now do the same thing in Windows. Notice how much faster it is in Windows. Granted that's probably not a very scientific way of testing the speed of the GUI but never-the-less it's an easy way to see the difference. Resizing windows is the same story. In X it's like lagging, sluggish... especially when viewing Images. I have a digital camera that takes pictures up to 2048x1536 resolution. I can scroll through them pretty quickly in Windows and I can resize the window with only a slight delay. In X it's like a painfull process... When I click a corner and resize a Window it's choppy and the system will lag, the mouse cursor will start pausing and unpausing. I can't really blame my hardware because it runs fine if I reboot to Windows.
It does have *NIX behind it though, that might explain it.
I'll probably get "Flamebaited" or "Trolled" for this... but oh well.
I've been using Linux for my server for several years and it absolutely rocks. Awesome stability, fast execution of everything I do and I never have to reboot except when updating the kernel. My best uptimes are 50 and 60 days which I think is pretty good for a home system.
Anyway over the past several years I've explored the X Window System on my Desktop several times and I always end up going back to Windows sooner or later because it's just better. There's just no denying it. And I'm not talking about running MS Office, Video Games, Photoshop, or anything like that. I'm just talking about basic GUI functions and programs like E-mail and web surfing. Booting my Windows system is as fast or faster than booting Linux/X. (Rebooting is of course a major complaint of mine when it comes to MS Windows and that is a non-issue on any Linux system. However, it's not nearly as bad with Windows XP.) Windows just has a smoother/faster feel to it. Programs load faster, widgets automatically line up properly (ehem! GTK+ sucks ehem!), and so on. The issue of stability always comes up when talking about Windows. Well... I don't know what version of Netscape/Mozilla/Galeon/Opera/Konqueror other people are using but in my experience they are more unstable than IE/Windows. Is everyone running Lynx? What's the point of having a GUI desktop then? And I've yet to find a completely stable GUI e-mail program in X. Again - if I wanted to run Pine I wouldn't bother having a GUI desktop. Outlook Express has been rock solid for me. (Oh no... I almost advocated something about Windows. This is "flamebait" for certain now.)
Basically if you set aside all the "evil empire" issues surrounding Microsoft, which is hard for many of us to do myself included, I think Windows makes for a good Desktop environment and OSX and all the Linux distros that use X are in second place for the vast majority of Desktop users. Coders/programmers and other such people probably wouldn't agree but think about what your uses are for a computer compared to the average Desktop user.
Let the flame fest begin...
When I'm looking to download a program for some reason I first try to find a link to an actual file that I can get. If some place has a registration process that I have to go through, I'll probably just move on to some place that doesn't have a process.
If all else fails and I have to fill out some form, I gurantee you the form is going to be full of bogus data just so I can get to the link and the e-mail address I use is probably going to either be vulgar or will be something like you@yourcompany.com. (So make a note - These forms are STUPID and USELESS. STOP using them!)
If I absolutely must use a valid e-mail address to get some kind of password or unlock key (and finding a warez copy has failed) then I'll use one of several hotmail or yahoo e-mail addresses that I keep around just for this purpose.
And finally if I don't receive the password or unlock key to that e-mail address within the time it takes me to walk to the fridge and grab another soda and come back, chances are I will never end up going on to the link because I never check those bogus e-mail accounts on a regular basis. And by the time I go back and check it again for some other reason, I will have forgotten about that companies software program anyway.
I have done this myself and compared the results with a decent power meter. I was only off by 10%.
Interesting. I'll have to give that a try. What were your results though? How much power do your computers consume and how many computers do you have?
What if the machine had its original OS upgraded? For example, the original machine came with the OEM Win95, but then was upgraded to Win98? Can't you donate the Win98 license along with the machine and its original license?
Of course you can.
Also, what if the machine is donated with a non-MS operating system, or for that matter, no operating system at all?
Psh... isn't it obvious? You buy a new copy Windows and send that with the PC.
Sheesh...some people...
The average residential cost of electricity in the U.S. is 8.27 cents per kilowatthour. Assuming that your 300w power supply is running at 300 watts constantly (which it isn't) it costs about 2.5 cents per hour
... which would be 2,500 rounded to the nearest hundreds. I assume the 300w must be .3 which would be 2.481 instead of 2,481. And would be 2.5 when rounded instead of 2,500. So I assume this is how you got your number. But what do the numbers mean exactly?
... OMG!!
8.27 * 300 = 2,481
What is a kilowatthour? And at 2.5 cents per hour does that mean a 300w P/S is costing me $18 per month? (.025 * 30 * 24 = 18)
And if that is true, does that mean my 3 computers running around the clock are costing me $54 a freaking month to run? Holy crap?? Time to turn these mothers off and go outside. That's not even figuring in the cost of my monitors, speakers, printer, scanner,
scream:/$ su -c "shutdown -h now"
armand:/$ su -c "shutdown -h now"
LisaWIN "Start -> Shutdown -> Yes"
How do you figure up the cost that your computer uses?
I have 3 mid tower Enlight cases that are on around the clock. 2 of them have 250W P/S and 1 of them has a 300W P/S. My computer has a 19" ViewSonic monitor and my wifes computer has a 17" ViewSonic monitor and both are on 24/7 but I would imagine that each monitor is in power saving mode for at least 10 hours each day. (The third computer has a 15" ViewSonic monitor but that computer is my "server" so the monitor is only powered on for an hour or two a month. The rest of the time it is physically shut off.) I also have an OfficeJet G85 printer/fax/scanner/copier and a JetDirect print server that are on 24/7. But I've always assumed that these two devices are consuming virtually no power.
Anyway... I've always wondered how much juice all this stuff is sucking up and it's not really possible for me to shut everything off for a month and then compare power bills.
Anyone know how to calculate the usage? Or better yet does anyone know of some kind of portable power meter I can buy and plug into my power strip that can monitor the power draw on all these devices?
So... when do we get the petabyte storage?
I was thinking the same thing when I read the article. (I thought it was a great article by the way). But he seemed to fail to take into consideration the expodential growth in quality the various data formats consume. He talks about being able to store a lifetime of MP3's on these drives. When consumers have that much space available at their fingertips, I highly doubt anyone will still be satisfied with 128kbps MP3 files.
Next gen. music CD's are supposed to be recorded at much higher resolutions thereby requiring much more data storage capacity. Video DVD's wont be 4.xGB forever. And video games are becomming ever more photo realistic.
So the bottom line is, I don't think we'll have any problem finding ways to use up the storage space.
Well, obviously this "priming" will have to switch to use port 80 if others are blocked, then the response servers can give your client information about the "port of the day".
Umm... that would suck if you have a firewall. I like knowing that such and such service is using such and such port day in and day out. I don't want to reconfigure my firewall so that such and such service can work with the "port of the day".
These were the main things that caught my attention. So like I said, this could be usefull for teen line or secondary line but not as a primary line.
I had a 128k ISDN dual-channel line comming to my house before cable was available to me and I stupidly cancelled my phone line because the ISDN modem was supposed to be able to automatically handle phone calls by dropping 1 of the channels "on demand". It didn't work worth a dang and I ended up paying to get my phone line reconnected in the end.
Then again, this is the same crowd that considers Linux a viable Desktop OS. Perhaps I've outgrown Slashdot.
Or just maybe.... the world doesn't revolve around you. Ever heard of an opinion?