In Ubuntu or Kubuntu you need to replace both GNOME and KDE to get something stable. They apply a bunch of experimental patches to "improve" the experience, but the patches often creates more bugs.
For serious? I haven't heard about any of this, nor experienced any of its effects (to my knowledge).
There also seems to lack mature features for installing 3rd party content. This might not be much of a problem for really basic desktop user, but for a standard Linux users not being able to install and run tar-balls is a real problem (ubuntu doesn't even include/usr/local to PATH!), and they have obscured everything but/home and/mnt in the file-browsers, making it hard to access your webpage in/var/www, your source code in/src and your optional packages in/opt !!
Last I checked, hidden system folders is a Kubuntu-specific feature.
NVIDIA users have the nvidia-settings GUI that modifies resolution, refresh rate and pretty much anything else any "normal user" would ever need to change. I believe anyone looking to do something more obscure wouldn't really be bothered by xorg.conf. Users of free drivers usually have their needs covered by the DE-supplied app. ATI users on the other hand are pretty much up shit creek, but concerning Linux, they've always been.
Well-done troll, except Canonical does indeed provide paid support. Also, I fail to realize how sodomy plays a role in this wonderful distro, but I'm not one to judge based on the omission of a few pesky facts. "Don't complain, fix it" is my philosophy. Great job!
At any time, it's possible to walk into one of Second Life's two data centers, pat one of the rack-mounted servers, and say that particular server is running virtual New York, or San Francisco, or ancient Rome, and imagine itty-bitty people and buildings inside the 1U rack-mounted servers.
"No...I don't believe it...let me out! I want out!"
Mod this up, for serious. I've been saying this since I started using Debian years ago. Linux isn't an operating system, it's a kernel. There's no way you could all-encompassingly say that Linux doesn't do this or that or that its GUI sucks, because Linux has no GUI. Ubuntu has a GUI, as do many other OS's that use the Linux kernel. No one ever makes fair comparisons. It's true that many distributions have many of the same exact tools, but they're packaged differently. Even two distros as supposedly similar to each other as Debian and Ubuntu cannot be compared in terms of the experience of the end-user; they're completely different, and they really can't be referred to under the umbrella term "Linux", much less can the other 300 or so distributions.
I love these. A great joy is derived from verifying one of the few constants in my life: the Windows/Linux installation post. It generally goes something like this:
[broad, sweeping generalization about why Linux will never be "ready for the desktop" or why Windows is harder to install]
[multi-paragraph anecdote]
[conclusion stating either "I don't want to modify config files just to get things to work" or "Windows detected approximately dick"]
I love seeing those back-to-back, each trying to top the last. "Yeah? Well, I had to rape a bear to prove to Windows XP SP2 that I had the real copy! M$ sux!" "Oh really? Not only did I have to shovel twice as many babies into my furnace/power supply to keep my computer running with Ubuntu on it, I had to compile a driver! Grandma can't do that!" Keep it up, you guys! You're one of the reasons I stick around.
How many decades longer will it take to get a real installer package which works on every distro?
Why would you want that? That's like saying you want an installer package that works across Windows and Mac OS X. Linux isn't an OS. It's a kernel. Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, etc. are OS's that happen to use that kernel. If Linux gets popular, it's going to be one distro that does it.
How many decades longer will it take to get the OS to auto-detect and auto-configure new hardware?
Linux supports more hardware out of the box than Windows XP. The rest is due to the lack of support from manufacturers. This isn't the developers' fault.
How many decades longer does Linux need to spend looking at the distant taillights of Windows 95?
What?
But on the positive side, Linux wins hands-down in the "air of undeserved superiority" department, and it also has more text editors than any other OS. When you have tens of thousands of options for text editing, it seems you really don't have to worry about getting it to work as well as Win95 did.
If you're using a sane distro, you won't get tens of thousands of text editors. Like with Ubuntu, I only get one obvious one, and it's listed as "Text Editor" in the Applications menu. I have to use a menu to get to an application? Ha! Linux on the desktop indeed! More seriously, you seem to be ignoring that Windows 95 was horribly unstable, an OS teetering on top of another OS. Linux distros are inherently more sophisticated than WinDOS. NT, on the other hand, I think is its equal concerning raw technology, but not by design or implementation.
Dell's overtures toward Linux are nothing more than a bargaining chip in it's licensing fees with Microsoft. Consumers don't care about/for Linux, they just want something they know and can use. If someone drops a few hundy on a new PC then finds out they can't go to Best Buy to get software for it, that's going to be one pissed off consumer.
This I agree with, kinda. If they have the will to learn a new interface and how to use that "Add/Remove" button in the Applications menu, the non-professional types could manage just fine. For the others, eh, we're getting there.
Dell has no intention of looking bad in that respect, so Linux on the desktop will never be a reality. Servers, maybe. But desktops, never.
"Linux on the desktop" pisses me off, because it assumes that everyone does the same set of tasks. It also assumes that there is a universal criteria for desktop usage. The former is false for obvious reasons. The latter is false because there isn't; what you mean to say is that it's not ready for Windows users. I think anyone who could get along with Mac OS X could get along with Ubuntu just as well.
Can you double-click a binary package to launch an installer?
Yes, GDebi in Ubuntu handles deb packages. I think it resolves dependencies to the best of its ability as well, but I haven't used it, so don't quote me on that.
I'm sorry, but it's statements like these that make it glaringly obvious why Linux isn't ready for the general public.
Holy Jesus fucking Christ I'm tired of hearing this. Is it really all that mentally taxing to copy and paste a command? It's not difficult in any way to say "Go to Applications, then click Terminal. Now copy and paste this command:" Or Hell, if you want to complicate it, head to Add/Remove Programs in the menu and install it there. I don't see how it could possibly be any simpler than a menu entry with the words "Add/Remove", searching for the app, selecting it and then hitting "Apply". I haven't had to touch the terminal since I installed Ubuntu 6.10 except for using the Nouveau utility that dumps information about your video card through a series of tests, and I don't think grandma's going to be doing that.
Linux, more specifically Ubuntu, is ready for the desktop, and has been for a while. Saying that too much has to be done in the terminal is a really old argument.
but I have to jump back to metacity in order to play Oolite because Beryl takes over my 3d card
There's an option in advanced general settings of beryl-settings called "Unredirect Fullscreen Windows", which tells the wm not to composite fullscreen apps. This should solve your problem, unless of course you're running it windowed.
Not the whole of it, anyway. A loosely connected collection of operating systems won't suddenly get popular, because that's just not promotable. It's a hell of a lot more feasible to get people to switch when you say "Get Ubuntu!" rather than "Get Linux! One of three hundred different flavors!" It's one distro that will rise up and take the desktop (well...hopefully).
Well, yeah, but...Audacity. That extra application kind of makes it cumbersome to use in combination with a sequencer, especially since you're really just working with samples rather than with the VST itself.
The modern incarnation of the tracker concept would be Renoise. It has VST support and other things that electronic musicians would expect from a studio application, with the efficient interface only a tracker provides. It's also only $60, which is trivial compared to FL Studio, which is something like $300 for the fully functional version. [/ad]
That's essentially the concept of IDM; taking sounds from different sources that shouldn't work in any coherent sense and making them come together musically. This doesn't even go that far, sampling's been around for years. Also, "musician" refers not only to those who can play musical instruments, but also to those who compose musical works. He fits the criteria, as far as I can tell.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought'd it be math rock.
Sorry, sorry, sorry. I'll leave through the side door.
What does that entail? Did he hemorrhage "WRITE (6,7) 7 FORMAT(12H GOD DAMN IT)" and flatline? What about his death rattle? "STOP END"?
In Ubuntu or Kubuntu you need to replace both GNOME and KDE to get something stable. They apply a bunch of experimental patches to "improve" the experience, but the patches often creates more bugs.
For serious? I haven't heard about any of this, nor experienced any of its effects (to my knowledge).
There also seems to lack mature features for installing 3rd party content. This might not be much of a problem for really basic desktop user, but for a standard Linux users not being able to install and run tar-balls is a real problem (ubuntu doesn't even include /usr/local to PATH!), and they have obscured everything but /home and /mnt in the file-browsers, making it hard to access your webpage in /var/www, your source code in /src and your optional packages in /opt !!
Last I checked, hidden system folders is a Kubuntu-specific feature.
NVIDIA users have the nvidia-settings GUI that modifies resolution, refresh rate and pretty much anything else any "normal user" would ever need to change. I believe anyone looking to do something more obscure wouldn't really be bothered by xorg.conf. Users of free drivers usually have their needs covered by the DE-supplied app. ATI users on the other hand are pretty much up shit creek, but concerning Linux, they've always been.
Well-done troll, except Canonical does indeed provide paid support. Also, I fail to realize how sodomy plays a role in this wonderful distro, but I'm not one to judge based on the omission of a few pesky facts. "Don't complain, fix it" is my philosophy. Great job!
At any time, it's possible to walk into one of Second Life's two data centers, pat one of the rack-mounted servers, and say that particular server is running virtual New York, or San Francisco, or ancient Rome, and imagine itty-bitty people and buildings inside the 1U rack-mounted servers.
"No...I don't believe it...let me out! I want out!"
Mod this up, for serious. I've been saying this since I started using Debian years ago. Linux isn't an operating system, it's a kernel. There's no way you could all-encompassingly say that Linux doesn't do this or that or that its GUI sucks, because Linux has no GUI. Ubuntu has a GUI, as do many other OS's that use the Linux kernel. No one ever makes fair comparisons. It's true that many distributions have many of the same exact tools, but they're packaged differently. Even two distros as supposedly similar to each other as Debian and Ubuntu cannot be compared in terms of the experience of the end-user; they're completely different, and they really can't be referred to under the umbrella term "Linux", much less can the other 300 or so distributions.
I love these. A great joy is derived from verifying one of the few constants in my life: the Windows/Linux installation post. It generally goes something like this:
[broad, sweeping generalization about why Linux will never be "ready for the desktop" or why Windows is harder to install]
[multi-paragraph anecdote]
[conclusion stating either "I don't want to modify config files just to get things to work" or "Windows detected approximately dick"]
I love seeing those back-to-back, each trying to top the last. "Yeah? Well, I had to rape a bear to prove to Windows XP SP2 that I had the real copy! M$ sux!" "Oh really? Not only did I have to shovel twice as many babies into my furnace/power supply to keep my computer running with Ubuntu on it, I had to compile a driver! Grandma can't do that!" Keep it up, you guys! You're one of the reasons I stick around.
How many decades longer will it take to get a real installer package which works on every distro?
Why would you want that? That's like saying you want an installer package that works across Windows and Mac OS X. Linux isn't an OS. It's a kernel. Ubuntu, Fedora, Slackware, etc. are OS's that happen to use that kernel. If Linux gets popular, it's going to be one distro that does it.
How many decades longer will it take to get the OS to auto-detect and auto-configure new hardware?
Linux supports more hardware out of the box than Windows XP. The rest is due to the lack of support from manufacturers. This isn't the developers' fault.
How many decades longer does Linux need to spend looking at the distant taillights of Windows 95?
What?
But on the positive side, Linux wins hands-down in the "air of undeserved superiority" department, and it also has more text editors than any other OS. When you have tens of thousands of options for text editing, it seems you really don't have to worry about getting it to work as well as Win95 did.
If you're using a sane distro, you won't get tens of thousands of text editors. Like with Ubuntu, I only get one obvious one, and it's listed as "Text Editor" in the Applications menu. I have to use a menu to get to an application? Ha! Linux on the desktop indeed! More seriously, you seem to be ignoring that Windows 95 was horribly unstable, an OS teetering on top of another OS. Linux distros are inherently more sophisticated than WinDOS. NT, on the other hand, I think is its equal concerning raw technology, but not by design or implementation.
Dell's overtures toward Linux are nothing more than a bargaining chip in it's licensing fees with Microsoft. Consumers don't care about/for Linux, they just want something they know and can use. If someone drops a few hundy on a new PC then finds out they can't go to Best Buy to get software for it, that's going to be one pissed off consumer.
This I agree with, kinda. If they have the will to learn a new interface and how to use that "Add/Remove" button in the Applications menu, the non-professional types could manage just fine. For the others, eh, we're getting there.
Dell has no intention of looking bad in that respect, so Linux on the desktop will never be a reality. Servers, maybe. But desktops, never.
"Linux on the desktop" pisses me off, because it assumes that everyone does the same set of tasks. It also assumes that there is a universal criteria for desktop usage. The former is false for obvious reasons. The latter is false because there isn't; what you mean to say is that it's not ready for Windows users. I think anyone who could get along with Mac OS X could get along with Ubuntu just as well.
I think it would be in our best interests to aim for jigawatts. 1.21 would be sufficient.
He was asking for it.
If I have to do all that just to get a game running smoothly, it's painfully obvious why Windows will never be ready for the desktop.
Can you double-click a binary package to launch an installer?
Yes, GDebi in Ubuntu handles deb packages. I think it resolves dependencies to the best of its ability as well, but I haven't used it, so don't quote me on that.
I'm sorry, but it's statements like these that make it glaringly obvious why Linux isn't ready for the general public.
Holy Jesus fucking Christ I'm tired of hearing this. Is it really all that mentally taxing to copy and paste a command? It's not difficult in any way to say "Go to Applications, then click Terminal. Now copy and paste this command:" Or Hell, if you want to complicate it, head to Add/Remove Programs in the menu and install it there. I don't see how it could possibly be any simpler than a menu entry with the words "Add/Remove", searching for the app, selecting it and then hitting "Apply". I haven't had to touch the terminal since I installed Ubuntu 6.10 except for using the Nouveau utility that dumps information about your video card through a series of tests, and I don't think grandma's going to be doing that.
Linux, more specifically Ubuntu, is ready for the desktop, and has been for a while. Saying that too much has to be done in the terminal is a really old argument.
Lucky for you, I'm starting a standardization advocacy group standardization advocacy group.
but I have to jump back to metacity in order to play Oolite because Beryl takes over my 3d card
There's an option in advanced general settings of beryl-settings called "Unredirect Fullscreen Windows", which tells the wm not to composite fullscreen apps. This should solve your problem, unless of course you're running it windowed.
...adderall.
Not the whole of it, anyway. A loosely connected collection of operating systems won't suddenly get popular, because that's just not promotable. It's a hell of a lot more feasible to get people to switch when you say "Get Ubuntu!" rather than "Get Linux! One of three hundred different flavors!" It's one distro that will rise up and take the desktop (well...hopefully).
Well, you wouldn't copyright infringe a purse, would you? Would you?
Snape kills Dumbledore!
Oh wait...
Mod parent up. Aphex Twin is the grand master of IDM; any big innovation in electronic music after 1992 is probably, at least in some part, his doing.
Well, yeah, but...Audacity. That extra application kind of makes it cumbersome to use in combination with a sequencer, especially since you're really just working with samples rather than with the VST itself.
The modern incarnation of the tracker concept would be Renoise. It has VST support and other things that electronic musicians would expect from a studio application, with the efficient interface only a tracker provides. It's also only $60, which is trivial compared to FL Studio, which is something like $300 for the fully functional version. [/ad]
Despite the name, it's really not that pretentious a genre, I swear.
That's essentially the concept of IDM; taking sounds from different sources that shouldn't work in any coherent sense and making them come together musically. This doesn't even go that far, sampling's been around for years. Also, "musician" refers not only to those who can play musical instruments, but also to those who compose musical works. He fits the criteria, as far as I can tell.