Go away. Linux wasn't meant for you. Shoo.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Mar 07, 2009 5:29 AM EDT |
You bad person, wanting to run software. Since when was computing about doing the things you need to do? Since when did the applications begin to matter? Oh -- and Mr. L - A couple of points: 1. Apple is enjoying a renaissance with its cool notebooks and Mac-PC ads and product placement on 24 and, gee, if you've got an iPod and an iPhone, is a Mac such a stretch, but...they've still got less than 10 per cent of the US market. I wonder if software might have something to do with that, and wait!! 2. Why the heck have Parallels unless you want to run WIndows software? Hey!!! Waddya know. People actually do make the same complaint about Macs. Some folks run Parallels, others just use Windows. Software. It's why you have a computer. It makes perfect sense to me that somebody would like to run Linux -- with it's freedom from Registry screwups, spyware, etc, but doesn't because they rely upon a piece of Windows-only software. |
| number6x Mar 07, 2009 12:15 PM EDT |
Why is it so often painted as an either or situation? Using Linux does not mean you cannot also use Windows or a Mac, any more than drinking a Pepsi means you can never drink a Coke again. Most of the Mac owners I know also use Windows. The developers seem to favor Parallels, while others keep an old Windows box. Most of the Linux users I know either have a Windows install as well or have access to Windows through the workplace. I have a Win XP install on VirtualBox , and check web pages against Vista when developing at work. (We also have a Mac at work to check using Safari). I understand that there may be a large group of people who have one (or fewer) computers, but the fact that most Linux distros are designed to be installed side by side with Windows means that the distro makers see a demand for dual booting. Personal observation confirms this. There are a great mass of users who get a machine with an OS and never change it. This group will stick with whatever they get. and that will probably be Windows. Most Mac and Linux users are excited to upgrade software when a new version ships. Only a few Windows users will upgrade. Most will wait and 'upgrade' only when they buy a new machine and a new version of Windows happens to be on it. Being a Linux user and running Windows programs does not seem to be a problem for people in the real world. Most probably have a dual boot machine or are capable of using a virtualizer. The few Linux users I know of that refuse to use anything but Open Source and won't install Windows, won't be running commercial Windows software. The whole "I can't use Linux because I can't run software X" argument seems like so much FUD. Then run software X on Windows and run software Y on Linux. If you refuse to use Windows as a choice based on your dedication to GNU/Linux, then be proud of your sacrifice. |
| caitlyn Mar 07, 2009 2:31 PM EDT |
number6x: I don't run Windows and I don't consider it a sacrifice. Linux just does everything I need and does it well. I don't hate Windows and I don't get religious about operating systems. I just don't see the need to run two OSes when one does the job very nicely indeed. |
| herzeleid Mar 07, 2009 4:36 PM EDT |
@number6x - So dumping windoze is your idea of a sacrifice? Wow, thats hard to wrap my head around. I have to tell you, for me it's been a pleasure to leave microsoft behind. Pure, unmitigated pleasure, puncuated only by occasional agravation due, not to being without an ms app, but rather due to misguided or compromised organizations trying to force everyone they deal with into their narrow little microsoft-only world. |
| dinotrac Mar 07, 2009 4:45 PM EDT |
I don't run Windows and I don't consider it a sacrifice, but my wife does run Windows and, for her, it would be a sacrifice. It all depends on your needs. |
| nalf38 Mar 07, 2009 11:13 PM EDT |
dino-- I think you and the author agree on more than you think. I thought his language was a bit strident, but that he made a good point: that there aren't many potential OSX users who say "I would buy a Mac but I can't live without SoftwareX." They just switch, and if they want to run a Windows program, they use Parallels. There's a certain confidence (misplaced or not) that the Mac software offerings will be equivalent in quality to the ones they were using in Windows and, if not, they can always use Windows under a VM. For whatever reason, potential Linux users don't make that logical leap. "I can't live without uTorrent." Well, fine; if you can't be bothered to try Deluge/Monsoon/Azureus, run uTorrent under WINE or under VirtualBox. |
| caitlyn Mar 07, 2009 11:26 PM EDT |
nalf38: You forgot Transmission in your list of GUI bittorrent clients, which raises yet another point. With Linux you often have more choices than with Windows, not fewer. Of course, if you don't know the choices are there... |
| nalf38 Mar 08, 2009 1:21 AM EDT |
Caitlyn-- I think it's a branding issue more than anything else. Apple has successfully branded themselves as upscale. When the average person buys a Mac, they don't mind shelling out the extra several hundred dollars because they feel like they're trading up. I like the OSX look and feel, but I personally feel that my gnome+compiz+cairo-dock setup would impress any Mac user for both form and function. Despite that, even my closest friends think of Linux as Generic Windows, like eating off-brand cookies when what you really want are Oreos (tm). Part of that is *our* fault ("our" as in the Linux community). We deliberately marketed Linux as a replacement for Windows, and gave new users a false expectation that it would function exactly like Windows minus drive naming conventions and default save locations, when in reality Linux as is different from Windows as Windows is from OSX. They're all equivalent, but there's a learning curve when you switch, no matter which OS you started out with. |
| number6x Mar 08, 2009 1:19 PM EDT |
I should have put 'sacrifice' in quotes to better convey my meaning kind of like 'giving up' celebecy for Lent. trying for a little humor. I don't think people who choose to use only free software as making a sacrifice, a better description would have been 'proud of your principals', they probably see giving up Windows as a sacrifice similar to giving up celebacy for Lent. |
| gus3 Mar 08, 2009 4:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:I don't hate WindowsThen you're a bigger person than I am. Any time I have to help someone with Windows (any incarnation), I feel like I need a shower afterwards. |
| caitlyn Mar 08, 2009 9:14 PM EDT |
@gus3: I sincerely doubt I'm bigger than you. At 5' 2" tall and not particularly heavy I am smaller than most people :) Seriously, supporting Windows at some level, even if it's just interoperability with the OS you're really supposed to be supporting, is part and parcel of working in today's business world. I also don't share the ideology that many in the FOSS community believe which says proprietary software == immoral/unethical/evil. I have a very real problem with Microsoft's business practices. I do hate their cavalier attitude towards security. I think Windows users put up with a ton of B.S. that just isn't necessary. Hatred is a very strong emotion and it's a word with a lot attached to it. It doesn't accurately describe my feelings towards Windows. |
| tuxtom Mar 09, 2009 4:47 AM EDT |
Quoting:...the fact that most Linux distros are designed to be installed side by side with Windows means that the distro makers see a demand for dual booting. Personal observation confirms this.The demand isn't for "dual-boot", the demand is to be able to use the features of multiple operating systems. Dual-booting is rapidly becoming an historical artifact. It has more to do with dual-booting being "the is the way it has always been done" rather than it being the preferred method of fulfilling the demand. Until recently it has been the only method...virtualization was immature or non-existent for the average user, hardware wasn't up to the task and WINE...well, I don't want to go there. Virtualization has rendered dual-booting obsolete. |
| jacog Mar 09, 2009 5:38 AM EDT |
Also with regards to people wanting to play popular games on Linux and getting met with "but there are lots of FOSS games you can play". That is not an answer. It's like saying, "I want to watch Slumdog Millionaire, but it's not playing at my local cinema." and getting the response, "But you can watch Norbit instead, that's playing here!" ... nope, not a good answer... rather go to another cinema. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 09, 2009 6:06 AM EDT |
@jacog: That very much depends. Some people will say "I want to play Unreal Tournament 3". But do they really want to play only that game? Or do they simply want to play a fast-paced good looking FPS fragfest and is UT3 simply the best know implementation at the moment? In the latter case, the user may also be satisfied with Nexiuz. You have to know what a user really wants. |
| jacog Mar 09, 2009 6:24 AM EDT |
Well true... but a user might want to play Assassin's Creed ... not "a narrative-heavy action game set during the crusades". It's one game featuring one design, one cast of characters with voice actors, one specific setting. There is no substitute for it. Same can be said for many titles. And while Nexiuz is awesomecrazyfun, it's not a substitute for UT3 by any stretch. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 09, 2009 8:13 AM EDT |
As I said, it depends on the user (and on the Linux games available). Many games don't have a Linux equivalent (like Assassin's Creed). Other games do but people might want to play the original title (there's little sense in playing Nexuiz when all your friends are on UT3). But this does show the typical mindset of a gamer: It's windows centric. I don't think that Linux should follow Windows in gaming. It can be a gaming platform in it's own right. Very few people buy a PS3 and then complain that they cannot run XBox games. That should happen with Linux too. People should choose to game on Linux because of the strengths of the platform and the games available, not just because they want to play Windows games but cannot stand Windows anymore. Getting a Windows gamer to install Linux should be like buying a Wii to complement your PS3. Not to replace your PS3. Dual-boot is a fine option for gamers. |
| jacog Mar 09, 2009 8:49 AM EDT |
Yeah, I keep XP around for that very purpose... but I ran some hacky script on it to strip out all the unnecessary bits and have it as fast as it could possibly be. My XP is basically reduced to something mostly good for running games and not much else. Sadly Microsoft will eventually succeed in obsoleting XP, and then it won't even be a good gaming platform anymore. Still, I'd much rather run my favourite titles under Linux natively. My PC is not fast enough to handle the performance hit that wine gives and I really am not interested in getting a console. |
| number6x Mar 09, 2009 10:24 AM EDT |
The game issue often comes up as a reason why people will not or should not use Linux. But it is still a baseless argument. Just because you once drink a Pepsi, it does not mean that you are never allowed to drink a Coke again. You can use Linux and still use Windows to play games. When someone mentions the games argument I usually shrug and reply "Yeah if you want to play games, you should use Windows. I work with my computer so I use Linux." They rarely get the fact that they just dissed Windows as not being 'real', but just a toy. I gave a lunch and learn at work a few weeks ago covering scaffolding in Ruby on Rails 2.0. I used my personal laptop in the demo. Many people asked 'what they were seeing?' and were more interested in Linux that the subject. Sitting with a table and eating afterwards, one of the computer techs mentioned the games argument. I gave my answer about playing games and Windows. I noticed that a department director at our table cocked his head to one side and stared blankly at the tech, eyes unfocused. Its the same look my black labrador gets when you talk to him for more that two or three words. I could tell the exec kind of had a glimmer that Windows may not be as business oriented as he believed if these two computer people (a tech and a programmer) were both in such agreement that Windows was for games. (I'd like to claim that the exec was blown away by Linux and Open source's obvious superiority during my 30 minute demo, but get real!) It just seemed like something had brought into question part of the Exec's reality. I hope I at least planted a seed of doubt about Windows being the only solution that business can ever consider. I've also had luck when people attack Linux with a statement along the lines "Businesses shouldn't use software written by hackers." My reply is usually along the lines of "Yeah Linux and Unix were written by computer scientists with advanced degrees, not by college dropouts." (I don't personally believe that college drop outs cannot write good code, but I usually advance the argument in response to the implication that Linux is somehow 'shoddy' because of open source methodologies. Bill Gates is a self confessed, dumpster diving, code stealing hacker. If software written by self proclaimed hackers is wrong for business, then Windows is wrong for business. Otherwise, drop the argument and stop calling the kettle black. ) |
| techiem2 Mar 09, 2009 4:31 PM EDT |
Yeah, I'm also in the Windows install for games (and the occasional IE-only school website I have to suffer with) category. I generally tell my friends "Windows is for games that won't run in Linux". And that's pretty much all I use it for. Fortunately the games I play most (Furyband/Nexuiz....) are Linux native. :) |
| caitlyn Mar 09, 2009 4:53 PM EDT |
Dual-booting is rapidly becoming an historical artifact. It has more to do with dual-booting being "the is the way it has always been done" rather than it being the preferred method of fulfilling the demand. Until recently it has been the only method...virtualization was immature or non-existent for the average user, hardware wasn't up to the task and WINE...well, I don't want to go there. Virtualization has rendered dual-booting obsolete. I strongly disagree. Try running virtual machines on a netbook, for example. Dual booting gives 100% of system resources to the OS running. Virtualization divides resources. That's fine on a powerful, state of the art machine. It's not fine on older equipment or on the increasingly popular grab-and-go netbooks. Dual booting XP and Linux makes sense for people who want to run Windows games. It's actually the best solution. |
| tracyanne Mar 09, 2009 5:30 PM EDT |
Quoting:I strongly disagree. Try running virtual machines on a netbook, for example. Works very well on my BENQ. Linux, EeeBuntu, host, with VirtualBox and Windows XP client. I had to try it, in part to stick up the nose of my Windows 7 on Dell Mini 9 using collegue, in part to to find out. But I'v had Windows XP running in a VM on my partner's machine a single core 1 Gig laptop (no hyper threading unlike the Atom) with 768 Meg of RAM, and Windows ran fine with 512 Meg of Ram assigned to it, more importantly the underlying Linux (Mandriva) system worked just fine with 256 Meg of RAM and I could run must application with running the VM with XP on it. It was because of this that I knew that XP would run fine on the BENQ, in a VM. |
| caitlyn Mar 09, 2009 6:34 PM EDT |
@tracyanne: I'm glad virtualization works for you on the BENQ netbook. While I have no reason at all to doubt your results I still believe that 512MB RAM assigned rather than 1GB or 768MB will make a difference in performance in some cases that are important to me. Dual booting gives 100% resources per OS while virtualization doesn't. What I disagreed with was the comment that dual (or multi) booting is obsolete and should be entirely replaced by virtualization. I do agree that virtualization is slick and in many cases its the better way to go. Just not all cases. |
| tracyanne Mar 09, 2009 8:50 PM EDT |
caitlyn, Virtualisation would be even better if the VM either gave better access to the hardware or had better virtualised components. I'd like to so something where it was possible to trivially swap between OSs, I guess I'm looking for something that's a combination of Virtualisation and dualbooting. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 09, 2009 9:17 PM EDT |
Tracyanne: So, basically you want a hypervisor that's stripped to the bone, giving as much power as possible to the guest OSes? |
| tracyanne Mar 09, 2009 9:40 PM EDT |
yes |
| jdixon Mar 09, 2009 11:46 PM EDT |
> Try running virtual machines on a netbook, for example... Meredith's EEE 4G runs many older games fine in dosbox. I'd say dosbox counts as a virtual machine, though you may not agree. However, your point is taken. Running a full virtual machine capable of running Windows will seriously strain most netbooks on the market, though I expect any of them with at least with 1GB of memory are capable of doing so. And since most virtual machines don't really support DirectX very well (any recommendations as to ones which do would be appreciated), Windows gaming suffers accordingly. |
| tuxtom Mar 10, 2009 4:15 AM EDT |
Quoting:Dual booting XP and Linux makes sense for people who want to run Windows games. It's actually the best solution.Well, in that regard I would think the best solution would be a dedicated Windows gaming station. I don't know about most people, but I usually need to multitask when I am on my computer...email, web, ssh, ide, etc. Now if I have to dual-boot when I play games then I am effectively crippled unless I can do all my work in WIndows, in which case what's the point of running Linux? Besides, hardware is dirt cheap and widely available today...something that was not the case when dual-booting emerged. "Boot Once, Run Anything" (Copyright 2009 tuxtom.com) |
| jacog Mar 10, 2009 4:57 AM EDT |
What he said |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 10, 2009 5:45 AM EDT |
@tracyanne: You could use Xen for that. Xen needs nearly nothing as the host. Use a fully stripped, bare distro with Xen as the host on a modern platform that supports hardware virtualisation and you should be good. Try a base (not standard, just base) Debian Lenny with the Xen kernel and unload as many modules as you can get away with. You may want to add LVM so you can use LVM volumes instead of disk images for your guests. |
| tuxtom Mar 11, 2009 5:00 AM EDT |
I don't think Xen gives you the Desktop sessions you really want. You might get that for the host but not for the other instances (unless you use vnc or something). Also, does Xen support Windows? I don't think so...maybe I'm wrong. |
| herzeleid Mar 11, 2009 12:41 PM EDT |
Quoting:Also, does Xen support Windows? I don't think so...maybe I'm wrong.Of course it does. |
| herzeleid Mar 11, 2009 12:42 PM EDT |
Quoting:Also, does Xen support Windows? I don't think so...maybe I'm wrong.Of course it does. windoze running under xen is pretty snappy from what I hear. |
| ColonelPanik Mar 11, 2009 12:42 PM EDT |
Linux |
| tuxchick Mar 11, 2009 12:45 PM EDT |
where can I get shoo linux, looking forward to your speedy reply, thank you. |
| jacog Mar 11, 2009 12:55 PM EDT |
Shoo |
| jdixon Mar 11, 2009 1:03 PM EDT |
>> Tracyanne: So, basically you want a hypervisor that's stripped to the bone, giving as much power as possible to the guest OSes? > yes Well, while I hate to push a proprietary product, for that purpose, VMware's ESX is probably the best available. See http://www.vmware.com/technology/whyvmware/robust-foundation... for an admittedly biased comparison. Apparently it's now a free download from VMware: https://www.vmware.com/tryvmware/?p=esxi I have no idea what else may be required to actually get it working, or if it's actually a complete solution, but if it also requires VMware Infrastructure, you can get a 60 day trial of that too: https://www.vmware.com/tryvmware/index.php?p=vi3 If you should decide to try it out, I bet LXer would love a writeup and review. :) |
| jdixon Mar 11, 2009 1:07 PM EDT |
> where can I get shoo linux Shoo Linux, don't bother me. Shoo Linux, don't bother me.... Or do you mean Shoe Linux, the version intended to run on those new LED flashing shoes on the market (don't laugh, I bet someone is trying even now). |
| gus3 Mar 11, 2009 1:37 PM EDT |
Shoe Linux powers the Smart Phone. ....can't believe my brain came up with that one...... |
| tuxchick Mar 11, 2009 2:31 PM EDT |
Shoe Linux powers the Shoe Bomb! It is, literally, Da Bomb! |
| number6x Mar 11, 2009 5:00 PM EDT |
Shoe Linux SE (Security Enhanced) helps to protect you against Shoe Bombs! |
| gus3 Mar 11, 2009 5:16 PM EDT |
I can't believe nobody has spotted my two-layer pun yet. |
| Sander_Marechal Mar 11, 2009 5:19 PM EDT |
Nope. Can't see it. You may want to sketch it out :-) |
| gus3 Mar 11, 2009 5:20 PM EDT |
A Mel Brooks comedy series... |
| NoDough Mar 11, 2009 9:03 PM EDT |
>> A Mel Brooks comedy series... Nah, couldn't be. His hardware was a Sun (beam Tiger.) |
| gus3 Mar 11, 2009 9:21 PM EDT |
But not the Smart Phone. |
| jdixon Mar 11, 2009 9:36 PM EDT |
> I can't believe nobody has spotted my two-layer pun yet. Maxwell Smart and his shoe phone. Now all you need to do is tie in the cone of silence. :) |
| gus3 Mar 11, 2009 9:44 PM EDT |
The cone of silence that constantly fails to live up to its touted purpose, yet was never decomissioned? Remember, Bill Gates started young. |
| jdixon Mar 11, 2009 9:57 PM EDT |
> The cone of silence that constantly fails to live up to its touted purpose... Oh, the cone of silence worked perfectly. You couldn't hear a thing when you were in it. :) > Bill Gates started young. Hmm. I'd never considered that possibility. I'll have to do the math sometime and see if it's possible. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!