Sure, dude. Listen, fuck software, let me sell you this gorgeous bridge I've got out in Brooklyn.
If 7 comes even remotely close to Linux's performance on netbooks when it is actually released, I will eat my hat. Leaving aside the ridiculous assertions about what Microsoft would be willing to sell such a thing for.
There's no reason to blame Nvidia. DWM is beautiful on my system in Windows 7 (and even Vista!) and Quake 4 runs about the same in linux and windows... so I think the problem is with X. Ubuntu fed me the drivers with jockey- it's not like I went out to break linux.
There's every reason to blame nVidia. Ubuntu gave you the drivers that nVidia gave them, they can't check them for bugs, they can't tweak them for speed, they can't even look at them too long or the bits will spontaneously combust.
Am I just not allowed to have 3d graphics because I have an extremely popular non-discrete graphics card?
You are not allowed to have stable 3d graphics because you own a graphics card from the one major vendor that still refuses to ship free drivers. That's why. That's the only reason why. Go on any Linux forum and tell me who's having trouble with their graphics, and tell me what hardware they've got. The numbers don't lie.
What? I have never once run into Silverlight anywhere ever. It'll be completely gone in two years, just like most of the "let's throw all this shit at the wall and see what sticks" Microsoft pseudo-standards.
So what you're saying is that Win7, all 8 or so gigs of it, includes absolutely nothing other than some admin tools and solitaire, while Ubuntu, weighting in at about 3.7 gigs last time I thought to look, comes with an office suite, a photo suite, a mail client, a graphics editor, a chat client, and everything but the kitchen sink?
HINT: The average user won't notice things like 5 or 10 second faster boot times, or a slightly snappier response time. Or even a faster installation.
CLUEHAMMER: The average user will notice things like Ubuntu copying a directory full of a bunch of little files in 5 minutes, while Windows is still calculating space so it can show you a pretty and worthless progress bar and a "time remaining" countdown that's never even close to accurate.
Here's what they will notice: It's not microsoft.
Yeah buddy, you got that right.
it's not what they have at work.
Yeah, because everyone has such fond thoughts about how well their computer runs at work (no offense to any corporate IT reading this, your job's way harder than mine)
It doesn't run everything.
It runs Linux programs, it runs Windows programs, it runs DOS programs, it runs Playstation games, it slices, dices, makes julianne fries. You know what doesn't run everything? Windows.
And instructions for installing stuff don't work.
Unless you misspelled "apt-get", I really think you're full of shit.
I get Slack with KDE4, power button to login screen, in under 30 seconds, no problem. Logging in might be another 15. AntiX can get from post to logged in and ready to rock in less than 30 (I'd have to reboot and time it, and I'm not gonna). Ubuntu, yeah, about a minute or so. Which does pretty well smoke any version of Windows I've used in the real world.
Seconded. All the GUI tearing in Ubuntu gave me a headache within minutes of using 8.10-- I also have Nvidia graphics hardware. It's becoming increasingly clear that X11 will never be hacked into a usable local display option. The open source community badly needs something more desktop centric.
I find it very interesting that you blame X rather than nVidia. Lots of people who don't buy that crap have no problems.
Well, yeah. But the thing is, there's just no way of knowing how much slower and shittier Microsoft will manage to make Win7 before release. Probably fairer to do the comparisons now before they fuck it up any further.
I agree with this 100%. Funny, I was just having this conversation with someone yesterday.
It's a perception problem from the outside though. You and I know as Linux users, whether we use Ubuntu or not, that it's definitely become the dominant culture in desktop Linux. But there's a lot of people who just hear there's a million different kinds of Linux. The perception, although it's become much less true lately, is still pretty prevalent among the civilians.
What's the problem? How should we solve it? Is it even a problem? How much do we really want to push the "just use Ubuntu" meme, and are there drawbacks to that? Hell, I don't know. Just thinking out loud here.
A good analogy here is biological evolution. It's a "wasteful" process when looked at superficially, lots of duplicated and wasted effort, sometimes whole eons of what turned out, ultimately, to be evolutionary dead-ends. But that same "wastefulness" is the reason for the robust and diverse ecosystem of our planet.
To bring the discussion back to software, there is no way of knowing where the next great evolutionary breakthrough will occur. We need all the "waste" we can get.
I read your post, and I read Malevolyn's reply. S/he was kind of a jerk about it, but essentially correct. Let me see if I can do it better.
You've presumably got some code working somewhere, and you're having problems getting that same code working elsewhere. Great, you've come to the right place. Put that shit on Sourceforge or Freshmeat or something, and let people come to you. Someone else will do that work for you, then you get to read that code and figure out what they did. You win.
Like hell it doesn't. The KDE team said "here's a 4.0 release. That means it is a stable API, inside a desktop shell that will totally eat your babies. Have at it."
You say "No, that's not what I want that to mean! How dare you!" Well, tough shit, dude.
Windows is free, too, as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned. It comes with the computer, and Joe doesn't know ways to get the computer cheaper without it.
YEAHBUT! When that Windows install shits the bed and dies a horrible, gurgly death, and you don't have an install disc or a CD key, suddenly Windows is no longer free.
Y'know, I tried, honest to God. I sell Ubuntu boxes, and every once in a blue moon I actually get someone who's stuck with a must-have IE-only website (usually a ten year old work system that they have to log into), and for a long time I tried to do it with ies4linux. But it's so maddeningly buggy on every installation I've ever attempted it on that I had to quit on it. Leave it running for twenty minutes, it never fails to gobble up 100% of the CPU, desktops freeze, customers bitch, chaos ensues.
What I do now is recommend that they buy a Crossover license. Six months later, I have yet to regret my decision.
I agree that it's not quite a strawman, but it's a pretty gross overgeneralization to say (as you did in your original post) "the Linux crowd has the free as in beer mentality." I'm just one more datapoint in the ocean, but...
Do I use the free stuff? Yeah, mostly. But not always. I got Crossover free in October, after using it for a while I bought a license and recommend it whenever I can. I keep meaning to buy the GoblinX disc set. I have bought several Linux-related books that are available free online.
But mostly it's the free stuff, right? Now, why is that? Could it possibly be because I am not even given the option to buy the stuff I might want on the platform of my choosing? Yeah, that might be it. I sure as hell ain't gonna pay money for Windows software to try and hack into working in Wine (no offense to Wine devs, you guys do phenomenal work). If I see something out there I want, and it's offered for my platform (or even maybe certified by the company to work in emulation, to try to return to the original topic) I'll gladly buy it. I've heard the same chorus from Linux users all over the place. But these folks don't seem to want our money. So fuck 'em.
Oh, wonderful. Another way to automatically install and run Windows executables over a network, except now it's in Firefox. Great idea, guys. I'm sure that'll work out beautifully for everyone.
The same mechanism that allows Ubuntu to install and update the Ubufox extension through apt allows Microsoft to do sleazy stuff like this. Can't get one without allowing the other (yeah, it sucks, whaddaya do).
Oh, and really, the "M$" "Mafia$oft" thing. Not cool, man. Make your argument and go your way, but don't go out of your way to make yourself look childish. (This friendly tip brought to you by someone who agrees with your message and would like to see it disseminated more effectively.)
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, dude. Listen, fuck software, let me sell you this gorgeous bridge I've got out in Brooklyn.
If 7 comes even remotely close to Linux's performance on netbooks when it is actually released, I will eat my hat. Leaving aside the ridiculous assertions about what Microsoft would be willing to sell such a thing for.
There's no reason to blame Nvidia. DWM is beautiful on my system in Windows 7 (and even Vista!) and Quake 4 runs about the same in linux and windows... so I think the problem is with X. Ubuntu fed me the drivers with jockey- it's not like I went out to break linux.
There's every reason to blame nVidia. Ubuntu gave you the drivers that nVidia gave them, they can't check them for bugs, they can't tweak them for speed, they can't even look at them too long or the bits will spontaneously combust.
Am I just not allowed to have 3d graphics because I have an extremely popular non-discrete graphics card?
You are not allowed to have stable 3d graphics because you own a graphics card from the one major vendor that still refuses to ship free drivers. That's why. That's the only reason why. Go on any Linux forum and tell me who's having trouble with their graphics, and tell me what hardware they've got. The numbers don't lie.
What? I have never once run into Silverlight anywhere ever. It'll be completely gone in two years, just like most of the "let's throw all this shit at the wall and see what sticks" Microsoft pseudo-standards.
So what you're saying is that Win7, all 8 or so gigs of it, includes absolutely nothing other than some admin tools and solitaire, while Ubuntu, weighting in at about 3.7 gigs last time I thought to look, comes with an office suite, a photo suite, a mail client, a graphics editor, a chat client, and everything but the kitchen sink?
Yeah, we knew that already.
HINT: The average user won't notice things like 5 or 10 second faster boot times, or a slightly snappier response time. Or even a faster installation.
CLUEHAMMER: The average user will notice things like Ubuntu copying a directory full of a bunch of little files in 5 minutes, while Windows is still calculating space so it can show you a pretty and worthless progress bar and a "time remaining" countdown that's never even close to accurate.
Here's what they will notice:
It's not microsoft.
Yeah buddy, you got that right.
it's not what they have at work.
Yeah, because everyone has such fond thoughts about how well their computer runs at work (no offense to any corporate IT reading this, your job's way harder than mine)
It doesn't run everything.
It runs Linux programs, it runs Windows programs, it runs DOS programs, it runs Playstation games, it slices, dices, makes julianne fries. You know what doesn't run everything? Windows.
And instructions for installing stuff don't work.
Unless you misspelled "apt-get", I really think you're full of shit.
Wow. Windows may catch up with Linux's simplicity and ease of use yet!
I get Slack with KDE4, power button to login screen, in under 30 seconds, no problem. Logging in might be another 15. AntiX can get from post to logged in and ready to rock in less than 30 (I'd have to reboot and time it, and I'm not gonna). Ubuntu, yeah, about a minute or so. Which does pretty well smoke any version of Windows I've used in the real world.
Fuckin' nothing, that's what.
Seconded. All the GUI tearing in Ubuntu gave me a headache within minutes of using 8.10-- I also have Nvidia graphics hardware. It's becoming increasingly clear that X11 will never be hacked into a usable local display option. The open source community badly needs something more desktop centric.
I find it very interesting that you blame X rather than nVidia. Lots of people who don't buy that crap have no problems.
Only if you buy nVidia cards with shitty closed drivers. The rest of the free world has totally moved on.
Now you know. And knowing's half the battle.
You forgot to mention Windows does 3-4 times as many things by default
Name two.
Way to duck the point altogether. The problem isn't that an anti-virus is there or not there, the problem is that it's necessary.
Well, yeah. But the thing is, there's just no way of knowing how much slower and shittier Microsoft will manage to make Win7 before release. Probably fairer to do the comparisons now before they fuck it up any further.
Nope, I'm pretty sure it's just UbuntuDupe and Twitter. Which leads me to wonder just whose sockpuppet you are...
[citation needed]
I agree with this 100%. Funny, I was just having this conversation with someone yesterday.
It's a perception problem from the outside though. You and I know as Linux users, whether we use Ubuntu or not, that it's definitely become the dominant culture in desktop Linux. But there's a lot of people who just hear there's a million different kinds of Linux. The perception, although it's become much less true lately, is still pretty prevalent among the civilians.
What's the problem? How should we solve it? Is it even a problem? How much do we really want to push the "just use Ubuntu" meme, and are there drawbacks to that? Hell, I don't know. Just thinking out loud here.
A good analogy here is biological evolution. It's a "wasteful" process when looked at superficially, lots of duplicated and wasted effort, sometimes whole eons of what turned out, ultimately, to be evolutionary dead-ends. But that same "wastefulness" is the reason for the robust and diverse ecosystem of our planet.
To bring the discussion back to software, there is no way of knowing where the next great evolutionary breakthrough will occur. We need all the "waste" we can get.
I read your post, and I read Malevolyn's reply. S/he was kind of a jerk about it, but essentially correct. Let me see if I can do it better.
You've presumably got some code working somewhere, and you're having problems getting that same code working elsewhere. Great, you've come to the right place. Put that shit on Sourceforge or Freshmeat or something, and let people come to you. Someone else will do that work for you, then you get to read that code and figure out what they did. You win.
Like hell it doesn't. The KDE team said "here's a 4.0 release. That means it is a stable API, inside a desktop shell that will totally eat your babies. Have at it."
You say "No, that's not what I want that to mean! How dare you!" Well, tough shit, dude.
Windows is free, too, as far as Joe Sixpack is concerned. It comes with the computer, and Joe doesn't know ways to get the computer cheaper without it.
YEAHBUT! When that Windows install shits the bed and dies a horrible, gurgly death, and you don't have an install disc or a CD key, suddenly Windows is no longer free.
Wait them out, that's what I say.
Y'know, I tried, honest to God. I sell Ubuntu boxes, and every once in a blue moon I actually get someone who's stuck with a must-have IE-only website (usually a ten year old work system that they have to log into), and for a long time I tried to do it with ies4linux. But it's so maddeningly buggy on every installation I've ever attempted it on that I had to quit on it. Leave it running for twenty minutes, it never fails to gobble up 100% of the CPU, desktops freeze, customers bitch, chaos ensues.
What I do now is recommend that they buy a Crossover license. Six months later, I have yet to regret my decision.
I agree that it's not quite a strawman, but it's a pretty gross overgeneralization to say (as you did in your original post) "the Linux crowd has the free as in beer mentality." I'm just one more datapoint in the ocean, but...
Do I use the free stuff? Yeah, mostly. But not always. I got Crossover free in October, after using it for a while I bought a license and recommend it whenever I can. I keep meaning to buy the GoblinX disc set. I have bought several Linux-related books that are available free online.
But mostly it's the free stuff, right? Now, why is that? Could it possibly be because I am not even given the option to buy the stuff I might want on the platform of my choosing? Yeah, that might be it. I sure as hell ain't gonna pay money for Windows software to try and hack into working in Wine (no offense to Wine devs, you guys do phenomenal work). If I see something out there I want, and it's offered for my platform (or even maybe certified by the company to work in emulation, to try to return to the original topic) I'll gladly buy it. I've heard the same chorus from Linux users all over the place. But these folks don't seem to want our money. So fuck 'em.
Oh, wonderful. Another way to automatically install and run Windows executables over a network, except now it's in Firefox. Great idea, guys. I'm sure that'll work out beautifully for everyone.
The same mechanism that allows Ubuntu to install and update the Ubufox extension through apt allows Microsoft to do sleazy stuff like this. Can't get one without allowing the other (yeah, it sucks, whaddaya do).
Oh, and really, the "M$" "Mafia$oft" thing. Not cool, man. Make your argument and go your way, but don't go out of your way to make yourself look childish. (This friendly tip brought to you by someone who agrees with your message and would like to see it disseminated more effectively.)