2 Years With Linux


Recommended Posts

T3X4S

Dang it I am trying to get the 1TB SSD drive but someone is postponing my order process and it's slowing this.  Once I get the 1TB SSD, I can start the darn *nix path.  I want to experience this *nix OS once again and see what happen, but not till I get this drive. :/

Just dont give it more than 20GB of your SSD - otherwise its a waste of a good SSD.

I ran mint on an SSD, but it was fast on a traditional HDD...then again - everything is fast if you have a nice, clean system.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mouettus

Never got everything working right, especially wifi and gfx drivers. D-link usb wifi-n adaptor has never been a go and then the best resolution I could get with my gtx260 was 1080i @ 30fps no matter the drivers. Once in a while I dual boot a distro just for kicks and tinker with it but I never settle. And no, I'm not into using commands and editing files for stuff...

 

Nice to play on tho. A breath of fresh air once in a while from the windows environment. I love trying different UIs

Link to post
Share on other sites
simonlang

wow some uninformed crap here, like claiming that netflix would not work on linux, that's just not true and if someone would post such stuff in the windows section, would get a warning point honestly. :wacko:

i mean netflix ubuntu support was all over the news, i guess even neowin would have covered?

the support was there in ubuntu before netflix finally removed their ridiculous filter (!) which did nothing more than excluding linux despite it had the playing capability already.

 

never had a driver issue, the wlan gets recognized right from the beginning, the free and open radeon driver gets better and better every time, now even sound output via hdmi is no problem anymore.

 

when someone throws in windows xp then i finally know that this thread will going downhill soon. windows xp is unsafe per default and a big security risk, not even the biggest ms lover would claim so otherwise. that thing is outdated and needs to be replaced with no matter what.

 

also never understood the hate for the Konsole or terminal. i never could work faster or more productive, especially ubuntu has a BIG wiki i would have killed for in my win 9x days, and it's just copy&paste some commands. so easy and fast. in win you have to risk your system everytime with those suspicious .exe files where anything could be in the code.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
T3X4S

wow some uninformed crap here, like claiming that netflix would not work on linux, that's just not true and if someone would post such stuff in the windows section, would get a warning point honestly. :wacko:

i mean netflix ubuntu support was all over the news, i guess even neowin would have covered?

the support was there in ubuntu before netflix finally removed their ridiculous filter (!) which did nothing more than excluding linux despite it had the playing capability already.

 

never had a driver issue, the wlan gets recognized right from the beginning, the free and open radeon driver gets better and better every time, now even sound output via hdmi is no problem anymore.

 

when someone throws in windows xp then i finally know that this thread will going downhill soon. windows xp is unsafe per default and a big security risk, not even the biggest ms lover would claim so otherwise. that thing is outdated and needs to be replaced with no matter what.

LOL  wow you take this stuff seriously, huh ?

calm down, its OK. 

Dont let it get to you that linux will be nothing more than a geek thing for a very long time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
neo1911

This day marks my second year using Linux 100%. Didn't even once go back to Windows.

 

The main reason I left Windows, was the price. 

 

If you had been alert enough to snatch the 15 USD License deal on Windows 8, your main reason to leave windows is your own doing.

 

But Windows 10 is nearing launch. I might want to look out for similar deals early next year. You can happily switch back.

 

I hate Linux with passion. Most of my stuff doesnt work and many softwares like iTunes or MS Office are not compiled for it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
simonlang

 

I hate Linux with passion. Most of my stuff doesnt work and many softwares like iTunes or MS Office are not compiled for it.

 

lmfao. and that's obviously linux fault. keep spending your money :rofl:

Link to post
Share on other sites
+InsaneNutter

The anti Windows excuses in this thread are just terrible. I've used Linux for years and know sometimes doing the most simple things can be a pain in the ass to get working.

 

I have two Nettop PC's that run XBMC on-top of Ubuntu, when these resume from sleep by default Ubuntu will output to 720p and not 1080p, despite me having set 1080p as the screen reselution. So to fix this i have to force Ubuntu to only output at 1920x1080 @ 60hz by editing xorg.conf

 

Then for simply waking the device up with an IR remote, that's another mission in its self to get working: XBMC wakeup from Media Center Remote

 

Granted i got both working after spending many hours messing about, however the process of doing this has changed over the years which is a pain having to Google and workout how to do something in a newer version of Ubuntu.

 

Despite the initial pains of setting it up, i do appreciate Linux as i've not had to spend money on a Windows licence, plus Linux does work a lot better for simply running XBMC or Plex on low end hardware. (I've had both Windows and Linux on these Nettops over the years)

 

What im trying to say is dont be a fanboy of any one OS, Windows is not perfect. Linux is not perfect and OSX is also not perfect. However each OS has its strengthens in certain areas.

 

I use Windows on my Desktop PC, OSX on my Laptop and Linux powers my router, XBMC box's and some of my virtual servers on Esxi.

 

You learn more by not been a fanboy of any one OS, I find that they can all work well together and you get the benefits of using the OS's with strengths in particular areas, expanding your knowledge of multiple OS's at the same time.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
T3X4S

The anti Windows excuses in this thread are just terrible. I've used Linux for years and know sometimes doing the most simple things can be a pain in the ass to get working.

 

I have two Nettop PC's that run XBMC on-top of Ubuntu, when these resume from sleep by default Ubuntu will output to 720p and not 1080p, despite me having set 1080p as the screen reselution. So to fix this i have to force Ubuntu to only output at 1920x1080 @ 60hz by editing xorg.conf

 

Then for simply waking the device up with an IR remote, that's another mission in its self to get working: XBMC wakeup from Media Center Remote

 

Granted i got both working after spending many hours messing about, however the process of doing this has changed over the years which is a pain having to Google and workout how to do something in a newer version of Ubuntu.

 

Despite the initial pains of setting it up, i do appreciate Linux as i've not had to spend money on a Windows licence, plus Linux does work a lot better for simply running XBMC or Plex on low end hardware. (I've had both Windows and Linux on these Nettops over the years)

 

What im trying to say is dont be a fanboy of any one OS, Windows is not perfect. Linux is not perfect and OSX is also not perfect. However each OS has its strengthens in certain areas.

 

I use Windows on my Desktop PC, OSX on my Laptop and Linux powers my router, XBMC box's and some of my virtual servers on Esxi.

 

You learn more by not been a fanboy of any one OS, I find that they can all work well together and you get the benefits of using the OS's with strengths in particular areas, expanding your knowledge of multiple OS's at the same time.

Nutter, Im glad you posted this.  In every Windows v Linux thread (and Windows v OSX) the Linux people will say "I dont know what you're talking about - I never have problems..."   Or when you're in a Linux support site and trying to explain what it is you're having problem with, some idiot will go,

"all you have to do is   cls<some arcaic CLI/script\t\s; xorg/grub;:thisis\stupid -shutdown"  and Im sitting there thinking, Oh, thats all :wacko:

So thank you for giving a great example of one of the many issues Linux people claim dont exist.

I have no problem paying for something if it works for me.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
caerma

Wow, now that I think about it, I am almost 20 years with Windows. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Haggis

I always find if you just use linux for web browsing etc then its fine no mucking about

 

If you play about with it there will always be a time to use the command line and play about with it

 

but then thats what i love it for

 

I still use windows at work and on other computers in the house so see the good points of both

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Aergan

I find Xubuntu to be my "work" OS and Windows to be the thing that gets loaded to play Steam or for Nvidia Gamestream / Steam In-home Streaming.

I do find myself using OSX a lot at the moment because my main reason for using Xubuntu is native SSH support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
neo1911

Some people love to tinker endlessly their Linux installation. While some guys like me buy the $15 Windows license and stfu.

I tried to force some of my friends to buy the Windows license when it was in offer but they said that they refuse to pay even $15 to Microsoft in principle.

I accept that fact but at the same time hate being labelled dumb just because I chose OSX and Windows on my main systems.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mindovermaster

Wow, 3 pages in one day.

 

If you don't like Linux, simply don't use it... No use fighting over it...

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
simplezz

This day marks my second year using Linux 100%. Didn't even once go back to Windows.

The main reason I left Windows, was the price. And the fact that 90% of my software was already open source. (I pirated a lot of stuff, but it really wasn't worth it)

Price initially attracted me to GNU/Linux. I was already building my own PC's and the cost of a Windows licence seemed hard to justify. After using it for a while I realised how much better it was than Windows.

 

I started out like most of you, Ubuntu. I tried different distros, and settled for a good year with Debian and its derivatives. (Crunchbang, Mint Debian, etc.)

Debian just, works. Apt-get... Greatest thing since sliced bread... Plus that Orange and Haggis uses it also.

APT is pretty good, but in my experience, Arch and Gentoo have the best package managers. Once you've used Pacman/Yaourt or Portage for a while, you'll wonder how you ever did without them :)

 

Using Linux for so long, I get to repairing Win 7 on my Mom's computer. Took like 20 minutes to install. Oh, and then 100+ updates.... Takes a good 3 hours after many resets. :angry:  I can install Linux like 10x in that time...

Couldn't agree more. Windows is such a PITA to install or update, and even then it can't update the entire system in one go because it doesn't have proper package management for desktop apps. Moreover, the constant rebooting can drive a sane man mad. It's so poorly designed. I can update my whole system, including patching a running kernel without a single reboot.

 

Then about a year ago, my Dad started to like it, he asked me to install it along side of his Windows install. A few months later, he wiped his Windows partition out. It just is 10x easier with no antivirus, no malware to worry about, no defragging. He can easily reinstall Linux and be back to his humble self in about 10 minutes...

I have my whole family and friends running GNU/Linux now. They never get malware, viruses, or Winrot. You can't buy the peace of mind of knowing that banking and other sensitive things can be done without fear of someone stealing your information via Windows keylogger malware. The built in package manager will update all installed software meaning no out-of-date vulnerable programs running on the system; Yet another attack vector of Windows.

Then there's performance. More often than not, a Linux installation will outperform a Windows one due to lower system requirements, lightweight desktop environments, no bloated and system degrading antivirus, and superior filesystems (EXT4, BtrFS, ZFS).

And finally choice/customisation. There's a distro out there to cater for every taste and whim. And if that's not enough, there are distros like Arch and Gentoo which allow one to build a system from the ground up to exact specifications. When I compare the two, Windows seems like a child's toy.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
HawkMan

but most people capable of using linux won't bother with windows anymore. the problem afaik are the windows only users, time and time again i had to spend hours to fix and clean their stuff, because they just click on a .exe file downloaded from some nice looking websites and it ends up in a mess.

the about 70 updates you have to install on a fresh win7 are also a fact and i find it hard to accept in modern times that such stuff won't downloaded and installed during the installation. i like to fire up a webbrowser while it's installing and browse the web. always possible with linux, yet not implemented with windows.

there are just many little things you start to value if you use linux longer, it really runs nice, fast stable and as KDE proves can look quite good with virtual desktops and effects are awesome.

 

 

Ok, we'll just ignore that you started much of this by making up "facts" about windows then...

 

 

What?

 

That kind of BS he makes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
simonlang

Then there's performance. More often than not, a Linux installation will outperform a Windows one due to lower system requirements, lightweight desktop environments, no bloated and system degrading antivirus, and superior filesystems (EXT4, BtrFS, ZFS).

 

 

good that someone brings up filesystems. i recently read that opensuse will have btrfs as it's default file system replacing ext4. anyone using btrfs and is it worth a switch? i read about a bit online and it seems to have more options while performing slightly worse. never had any issue with ext4 myself but still ....

Link to post
Share on other sites
fusi0n

The day that I can set up Linux on a random computer, and have it work out of the box, including recognising my (any) wi-fi adapter, without opening a terminal session, and do any driver upgrading without using the terminal, is when I will think about using Linux on a daily basis.

 

As it is now, Linux remains a geek OS.

 

This is why the "Year of Linux" is just your wet dream.

 

It ain't goin' nowhere.

lol.. Linux is all around you.. Just because it isn't on a desktop, doesn't mean it's not there.. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
simplezz

anyone using btrfs and is it worth a switch? i read about a bit online and it seems to have more options while performing slightly worse. never had any issue with ext4 myself but still ....

It performs better in certain cases and worse in others from what I've seen. It's definitely a future filesystem. I'd hold off deploying it on stable systems until it's more mature. On less important installations, give it a whirl :)
Link to post
Share on other sites
T3X4S

I think why so many people flock to linux is crappy old hardware that wont run on Windows.  Now its not much of a stretch to assume the reason they have crappy, old hardware is lack of money.  This same lack of money will turn its nose up to the mere idea of paying for an OS, when one is completely free.  Then, because it is free and works on old, crappy hardware, they overlook all the issues and love it....  just something I thought of just now, it might be rubbish.  However, for all the people talking about how much faster linux is than win7 -- get an SSD, problem solved.  Pretty hard to get faster than instantaneous.

But, I realize this is just fodder as the debate will continue to rage on with no end or winner in sight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
simplezz

The day that I can set up Linux on a random computer, and have it work out of the box, including recognising my (any) wi-fi adapter, without opening a terminal session, and do any driver upgrading without using the terminal, is when I will think about using Linux on a daily basis.

I guess you haven't used Linux for a while then lol. The last time I had to do any driver stuff was when I set up my Raspberry PI which required a recompiliation for the ARM architecture. Apart from that, my PCI-e & USB Wifi devices work OOTB. Unlike Windows where I either need to find a driver CD or download software from some specific OEM site. I know which one is easiest.

As it is now, Linux remains a geek OS.

It's funny how people I've installed it for don't have a problem, and they don't even know what a terminal is. It just works for them. There's no malware, virus, or Winrot headaches that come with Windows. In fact, one woman I installed it for was phoned by someone claiming to be from Microsoft technical support, who told her to download some software to fix it (yes people do fall for such scams). It couldn't run on Xubuntu, so they gave up.

I'm sure a lot of Windows users (non-geeks/techs) couldn't install Windows either. That's why they buy OEM machines. It's a shame that the majors don't offer a GNU/Linux alternative installation option. That would knock ?20-50 off the price of a PC straight away.

This is why the "Year of Linux" is just your wet dream.

In a world where almost everything runs on the Linux kernel, that expression has no meaning. If you're talking about the desktop, then things are changing. Steam Machines are going to do what the major OEM's haven't had the courage to do; Produce mainstream GNU/Linux offerings that run a fully fledged distro. And when that takes off, you might see a knock-on effect with desktop PC's and laptops.

It's an exciting time for Linux and FOSS.

It ain't goin' nowhere.

We'll see.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
simonlang

I think why so many people flock to linux is crappy old hardware that wont run on Windows.  Now its not much of a stretch to assume the reason they have crappy, old hardware is lack of money.  This same lack of money will turn its nose up to the mere idea of paying for an OS, when one is completely free.  Then, because it is free and works on old, crappy hardware, they overlook all the issues and love it....  just something I thought of just now, it might be rubbish.  However, for all the people talking about how much faster linux is than win7 -- get an SSD, problem solved.  Pretty hard to get faster than instantaneous.

But, I realize this is just fodder as the debate will continue to rage on with no end or winner in sight.

 

while it's true that for older hardware a lightweight distro lxde or xfcce based can be the solution, there are also many people actually having an ssd still running ubunut or something else.

 

for example my system is certainly not high end, but i would say mid range, 4 GB ram, amd athlon x2 250, radeon hd5450, and i ran win vista for a long time on it without any issues now running KDE and it's just as fine plus i have no more worries about viruses and adware.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
simplezz

I think why so many people flock to linux is crappy old hardware that wont run on Windows.  Now its not much of a stretch to assume the reason they have crappy, old hardware is lack of money.  This same lack of money will turn its nose up to the mere idea of paying for an OS, when one is completely free.  Then, because it is free and works on old, crappy hardware, they overlook all the issues and love it....  just something I thought of just now, it might be rubbish.

Cost can be the impetus initially. Both of upgrading of hardware and the cost of a Windows licence. It certainly was for me. However, once people see how flexible, powerful, and trouble free it is, they appreciate it more than costly, limited, and bloated proprietary OS' like Windows. Just look at the installation footprint on Windows 7/8. 20GB just for the OS. That's ridiculous.

 

However, for all the people talking about how much faster linux is than win7 -- get an SSD, problem solved. Pretty hard to get faster than instantaneous.

It's not just disk performance though. And even it were, Linux is still faster. My Arch Linux Systemd/XFCE box takes 4 seconds from grub to fully loaded and working desktop. Windows 8 can't even touch that. 13 seconds before it gets to the desktop, but it's still not fully loaded at that point.

CPU and memory is where Windows is truly bloated though. Especially when you factor in security software like antiviruses, firewalls, etc.

 

But, I realize this is just fodder as the debate will continue to rage on with no end or winner in sight.

There is no debate. There isn't even a competition. Anybody who has seriously used GNU/Linux will tell you that.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
adrynalyne

I get a chuckle from comments like "costly, limited, bloated, proprietary OS' like Windows".

 

 

GNU/Linux is only free if your time is worth nothing.

For being a limited, proprietary OS, it runs a heck of a lot more software than GNU/Linux does.

Plenty of bloated distros out there too.

 

Ultimately it should boil down to user preference and need, and not silly labels.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Joshie

Cost can be the impetus initially. Both of upgrading of hardware and the cost of a Windows licence. It certainly was for me. However, once people see how flexible, powerful, and trouble free it is, they appreciate it more than costly, limited, and bloated proprietary OS' like Windows. Just look at the installation footprint on Windows 7/8. 20GB just for the OS. That's ridiculous.

 

It's not just disk performance though. And even it were, Linux is still faster. My Arch Linux Systemd/XFCE box takes 4 seconds from grub to fully loaded and working desktop. Windows 8 can't even touch that. 13 seconds before it gets to the desktop, but it's still not fully loaded at that point.

CPU and memory is where Windows is truly bloated though. Especially when you factor in security software like antiviruses, firewalls, etc.

 

There is no debate. There isn't even a competition. Anybody who has seriously used GNU/Linux will tell you that.

Your very specifically configured Linux install is exactly the problem. Meanwhile, the 'successful' Linuxes have unimpressive ready-to-use cold boot times. Ubuntu out of the box is slower than Windows 8, Android is a joke (but it wasn't designed for it), and ChromeOS is roughly on par with Windows 8.

 

Having a box that you have to put hours into configuring isn't anything to brag about to the majority of users out there. It's bad enough that nobody wants to put that much effort into setting up a PC anymore--an awful lot of people simply aren't shutting down in the first place anymore, so boot times are becoming increasingly moot. Who cares how quickly something boots to desktop when people are just closing the lid or letting it go to sleep? And wake times are practically instant.

iTunes is fine on OS X.

It's better than on Windows, but there's a good chunk of OS X users who gripe about iTunes every day. It's not a well-written application.

Link to post
Share on other sites
gohpep

I'm pretty sure I haven't used the command line except by choice in Linux. There is a GUI for software updates, anti virus, file management and everything else. I don't know where people get the idea that you have to use the Terminal to get stuff done in Linux. GUI works just fine.

Many Windows programs have been officially ported to Linux or work with Wine.

Linux feels faster and more fluid for some reason to me, typing, moving the mouse, and managing windows just feels snappier than on Windows.

I have not had a single driver problem.

As for security, we have no idea how many vulnerabilities exist in Windows. It is a good thing people can identify vulnerabilities in open source code, though. If Windows had a bug like shellshock, we probably wouldn't ever know about it. And as for shellshock, and other vulnerabilities, they were patched promptly. You can't act like Windows doesn't have security flaws either, and the only reason why you can boast that shellshock wasn't found in so long is because Microsoft does not disclose for how long the bug was in their software.

 

Linux is ready. It just needs more public support.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.