Why Linux is so far behind...

By guru369
in Linux

 Share

Recommended Posts

Mentor

mitch00

Posted
Posted

I think you and me both know what I'm saying here :p e.g. you don't walk into a games shop and see an entire selection of games with "Linux only" written on the box. Whether its the developers fault or Linux I don't know... But my point still remains that IF I could use all the programs/games I use atm on Linux I'd switch in a heartbeat.

Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Linux but for a gamer it just isn't viable.

Anyway, whats Arch Linux like? I've noticed alot of people using it, I myself have only used Ubuntu/Fedora/SuSe/Mandrake.

Ha yeah... Sorry, I guess I did come off a bit angrier at you then I should of been, I just get mad at how many people use this argument against Linux and I finally lashed out at you, so for that I'm sorry :blush:

Anyways yeah, Arch is great. It has great package management, pretty bleeding edge, and it install a nice base system I can really work with to mold into the OS that I want. It has all the software I need in it's repositories (including codecs and video card drivers) by default, which is good, and I definitely learned alot with Arch, it really forces you to get to know your system well enough to be able to do practically anything. Highly reccomend for anyone willing to put a little effort into getting their pc setup, the feeling at the end when it's all done is great!

Anyways it's pretty late, I think I'm off to bed

Grand Master

chavo

Posted
Posted

Is Arch linux source based?

All linux distros are source based, hell even Windows is. You just can't get to look at Windows source for less than a gozillion dollars.

Are you wondering if it has a package manager and uses packages by default?

http://www.archlinux.org/

Mentor

Phixion

Posted
Posted

The websites been slow all day, haven't been able to get on... although I have downloaded the ISO and burned it... just need to see the installation documentation ;) seems a little more raw than the "nub" distros.

I really should get a seperate HD for all this Linux testing :)

Grand Master

matt74441

Posted
Posted

All linux distros are source based, hell even Windows is. You just can't get to look at Windows source for less than a gozillion dollars.

Are you wondering if it has a package manager and uses packages by default?

http://www.archlinux.org/

I meant was Arch Linux source based, in the sense that the package manager downloaded sources for programs (like Gentoo) rather than pre-compiled binaries (like Debian).

Collaborator

dwntwn

Posted
Posted

I meant was Arch Linux source based, in the sense that the package manager downloaded sources for programs (like Gentoo) rather than pre-compiled binaries (like Debian).

Arch is not source based. When a package is created they cofigure and compile the program and create a PKGBUILD file that will tell the package manager where to install the respective files..

Here is a tutorial on the process

PKGBUILD Tutorial

Mentor

alsheron

Posted
Posted

I tried linux once or twice.... It wasn't for me..... Maybe i just dont have the staying power.... I don't know much about linux, but i know one thing.... you need TONS on staying power to stand a chance of getting to grips with it.

I think also, a lot has to do with trying to learn stuff completely on your own.

You wipe your hard drive (as i did) install linux, and then POW...... You literally don't know what to do...... And as for looking stuff up to "fix" e.g. installing drivers.... Some of the info on the net is so incredibly convoluted as to be masochistically intended.... I missed Windows when I installed linux........ I just felt that using as OS wasn't meant to be that difficult and time consuming...... At least not for me......

Peace!

Grand Master

Barney T. Administrators

Posted
  • Administrators
Posted

I tried linux once or twice.... It wasn't for me..... Maybe i just dont have the staying power.... I don't know much about linux, but i know one thing.... you need TONS on staying power to stand a chance of getting to grips with it.

Not to dis your post, but have you ever tried Ubuntu or another noob friendly distro lately? It is JUST as easy as Windows. Sure, some of the places to "click" are different, but the learning curve is not as difficult as you make them out to be.

You really can be as simple or as complex a user as you want to be...

Barney

Proficient

madd_matt

Posted
Posted

The windows XP installer is driving me nuts, making me crave for a nice gentoo install >.<

I need XP, and am installing it on a machine.

After getting it installed the first time, it bluescreens with a stop error. Knowledge base says only fix for that one is to re-install. So I did. Except then it decides it can't access the hard drive. So i try again. Now its trying to format the hard drive but has been at 0% for a while.

*matt cries for the ease of use linux brings*

Grand Master

markwolfe Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted
*matt cries for the ease of use linux brings*
I do the same thing!

I'll admit that Linux takes some up-front learning, and that initial configuration may either go effortless, or give problems with needing to make stuff work because the hardware isn't natively supported.

But if you have a Linux box set up, using it is effortless! It feels like I am fighting the Windows boxes where I work, as they seem to constantly act up.

A lot of it is what you are used to, but Linux just seems to keep going and going for me.

Rising Star

karmakillernz

Posted
Posted

The windows XP installer is driving me nuts, making me crave for a nice gentoo install >.<

I need XP, and am installing it on a machine.

After getting it installed the first time, it bluescreens with a stop error. Knowledge base says only fix for that one is to re-install. So I did. Except then it decides it can't access the hard drive. So i try again. Now its trying to format the hard drive but has been at 0% for a while.

*matt cries for the ease of use linux brings*

It actually sounds like the hard drive may be dying. Since you're formatting it you probably don't have any important data so it's no big-deal if it does go, but you should still run some diagnostic tools on it just to be sure.

Proficient

madd_matt

Posted
Posted

Actually turns out it was a problem with the "software RAID" controller on the motherboard. When I moved the hard drives to non-RAIDified IDE controller it worked.

I've now spent all day getting essential software installed.

In a couple minutes i'm going to be installing ubuntu on the second hard drive, and in a shorter process i'm going to get an up to date system with -more functuniality- than the Xp install i've been setting up for the last 5 hours.

Grand Master

Brandon Live Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Linux struggles for many reasons. On the technical front, it's because:

1) Kernel is bloated and poorly architected. Poor threading implementation. Not a good multi-tasker, especially for desktop/multimedia uses. Improved significantly in 2.6, but still behind its desktop competition.

2) UI is unoriginal. Everything in KDE/Gnome is a copy of Windows or the Mac. Enlightenment and others copy NextStep, but are generally not user-friendly.

3) Reliability is not there. Linux is extremely high-maintenance. Significant stability problems when used for desktop/multimedia purposes (ie. not a server).

4) Generally poor hardware/software support. Yes, it's better than it used to be. A lot better. But it's still playing catch-up in the desktop arena.

Grand Master

matt74441

Posted
Posted

Linux struggles for many reasons. On the technical front, it's because:

1) Kernel is bloated and poorly architected. Poor threading implementation. Not a good multi-tasker, especially for desktop/multimedia uses. Improved significantly in 2.6, but still behind its desktop competition.

2) UI is unoriginal. Everything in KDE/Gnome is a copy of Windows or the Mac. Enlightenment and others copy NextStep, but are generally not user-friendly.

3) Reliability is not there. Linux is extremely high-maintenance. Significant stability problems when used for desktop/multimedia purposes (ie. not a server).

4) Generally poor hardware/software support. Yes, it's better than it used to be. A lot better. But it's still playing catch-up in the desktop arena.

Oh you, you're just saying that because you work for Microsoft.

Proficient

[LOF]skinnylegs

Posted
Posted
some people feel more comfortable using the CLI to configure stuff and they see Windows severely lacking in this aspect.
These people represent less than 1% of computer users. Linux is an exercise in mental masturbation. Linux is free if your time has no value. Next thread.....
Collaborator

ride365

Posted
Posted

No you missed my point entirely. Linux never has to be for the elderly or non-tech savvy. Why not have different levels of computing tools? Why homogenize computing to the lowest denominator? We can use Linux, they can use Windows, why do they all need to be on teh same level of ease of use?

Who says people that use windows are the lowest denominator? I don't consider myself to be and im sure many others don't as well. If you know what linux is id say your half way there.

Collaborator

ride365

Posted
Posted
skinnylegs' date='Feb 27 2006, 08:02' post='587248789']

These people represent less than 1% of computer users. Linux is an exercise in mental masturbation. Linux is free if your time has no value. Next thread.....

Very true I for one can't waste my time trying to correct stuff that should just work. Windows does this too but at least its mostly the same on all versions.

Grand Master

seta-san

Posted
Posted

it's not just the fact it wasn't designed for linux which is an issue. Linux has a huge problem with depenancies and such. The fact is, releasing games for linux can often become a tech support nightmare. The only way to garuntee a game works is by releasing the source and this is unacceptable for game developers. Besides, it's absolutely no loss not being able to play halo 2. All FPS games are the same so i'm pretty sure that doom or duke nukem is just as entertaining.

Grr... How is it Linux's fault that most game makers don't make a port of their Windows games for Linux? Does windows suck because it can't play Halo 2? I mean that game is only available on Xbox. So by your argument, it would be reasonable for me to say that Windows sucks right? It's obviously Windows' and Microsft's fault that you can't put that game into your comptuer and just *play*... an Xbox is a PC, hell Microsoft makes both products, why doesn't it work??

Because an Xbox game wasn't designed to work on Windows, nor vice-versa, same deal with Linux.

Oh yeah, I believe you just got pwned :laugh:

Grand Master

Chicane-UK Veteran

Posted
  • Veteran
Posted

Linux struggles for many reasons. On the technical front, it's because:

1) Kernel is bloated and poorly architected. Poor threading implementation. Not a good multi-tasker, especially for desktop/multimedia uses. Improved significantly in 2.6, but still behind its desktop competition.

2) UI is unoriginal. Everything in KDE/Gnome is a copy of Windows or the Mac. Enlightenment and others copy NextStep, but are generally not user-friendly.

3) Reliability is not there. Linux is extremely high-maintenance. Significant stability problems when used for desktop/multimedia purposes (ie. not a server).

4) Generally poor hardware/software support. Yes, it's better than it used to be. A lot better. But it's still playing catch-up in the desktop arena.

1) Bloated? Are you kidding me? The Linux kernel is a slimline flyweight compared to the behemoth that is Windows. I think the Linux kernel has to be one of the most refined out there! Poor threading? Not good at multitasking? Are we talking about the same Linux here or are you just borrowing from a Microsoft 'review' - if threading were so dire, and multitasking were so poor why would Linux be so well suited to big multiprocessor and server environments?

2) Depends which UI you use. Some look like Windows because they are designed to be.. other look worlds apart. And to say that a UI mimics Windows is funny considering the amount of styling cues MS (did and still continue to) borrow from Apple.

3) Well I disagree. I've never used / owned an unreliable Linux box. They're all bomb proof and very low maintainence. Every single patch bar a modification to the kernel can be applied on the fly without the need for a reboot.. whats high maintainance about that?

4) Agreed - but then thats only because driver vendors will neither release the specs needed to develop drivers, nor will they release Linux drivers of their own. What else can Linux users do?

Collaborator

dwntwn

Posted
Posted

it's not just the fact it wasn't designed for linux which is an issue. Linux has a huge problem with depenancies and such. The fact is, releasing games for linux can often become a tech support nightmare. The only way to garuntee a game works is by releasing the source and this is unacceptable for game developers. Besides, it's absolutely no loss not being able to play halo 2. All FPS games are the same so i'm pretty sure that doom or duke nukem is just as entertaining.

I hate to burst people's bubble here about linux and windows games etc etc etc... But most developers are actually creating linux binaries that run just as well (if not better) within Linux. As for the dependencies, I can only see the proper driver, xserver, opengl and mesa being the biggest dependencies since the linux binaries produced by game manufacturers are just that.. pre compiled binaries..

Just for some proof if you all wanna see :D

The Good Ole Screenie

I have World of Warcraft runnin, Quake4, Doom3, SimCity3000 and FarCry..

Sure I broke down and purchased the directx api called cedega and get this.. with a little reading and understanding of what is going on in the background I have the FPS the same if not better than windows :D

Ok I am done with the whole game thing... next!

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.