# Linux



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

Anybody here using linux?


----------



## ShatteredGlass (Oct 12, 2012)

Yeah I was using Ubuntu, but I got a Chromebook for Christmas.

Chrome OS is pretty much Linux, though.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

MadTroll153 said:


> Yeah I was using Ubuntu, but I got a Chromebook for Christmas.
> 
> Chrome OS is pretty much Linux, though.


You know you can put Ubuntu on a chromebook right?


----------



## konqz (Jan 7, 2014)

I'm using Kubuntu. Dumped Windows a few months ago.


----------



## JamesM2 (Aug 29, 2012)

Yes, I'm using Ubuntu. I hate Windows 8 with a passion.


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

ubuntu i use sometimes.


----------



## forex (Dec 29, 2010)

used ubuntu as main os , but recently it crashed now am stuk with windows.
need to figure out how to get my pc up and running , all my stuff is there.


----------



## PaTrYcK (Jun 2, 2013)

Yep I'm running Kali Linux and I love it. I also love how it only takes like 5 minutes to update Linux unlike the 5 or so hours it takes to update windows


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Damn I was about to post this thread earlier... I would have beat you too. Procrastination strike again.

Debian Jessie ( 8 ) here as primary and only.


----------



## Colt45ws (Nov 17, 2013)

My router PC and my Server both run Gentoo Linux.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

Exclusively linux for the last 10 years (part time from '99-'03). Kubuntu currently, switched from Gnome to KDE in 2004.


----------



## MCHB (Jan 1, 2013)

I do all of my online stuff in ubuntu and use the lxde desktop! Nice and simple, the way it should be.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

MBwelder said:


> I do all of my online stuff in ubuntu and use the lxde desktop! Nice and simple, the way it should be.


Try xfce its ten times as fast


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

JamesM2 said:


> Yes, I'm using Ubuntu. I hate Windows 8 with a passion.


Exactly it sucks


----------



## bobby. (Mar 29, 2011)

I use Mint on both my desktop and netbook. I was using Ubuntu, but switched over a few weeks ago. I only ever boot up Windows when I need to port one of my programming projects over to it.


----------



## konqz (Jan 7, 2014)

I guess I should add, along with running Kubuntu on my laptop, I use Point Linux on a USB drive for banking etc. and Mint 16 Cinnamon for my Plex server desktop.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

I am trying to successfully run Linux but my laptop is very finicky and won't install nvidia drivers or successfully hibernate and standby and the brightness won't change


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

I usually run into suspend/hibernate issues when swap space isn't the same or more than physical memory.


----------



## Inscrutable Banana (Apr 1, 2008)

I have too many games for my main system to run Linux (not interested in dual booting), but if I had a laptop I'd probably be running either Kubuntu or Mint on it.


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

If you want to run Linux anyway, download VirtualBox (virtualbox.org) and run it there.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

No, because I have no reason to use it. Even if I did I could learn how to do similar things in Windows with regedit and what have you.

The primary superiority of linux over Windows is so technically oriented and low-layer that only a very specific group of people would legitimately need it, and an even smaller group of people actually have the expertise to use it.

If you can give me a practical thing you use linux for that I can't equally do with Windows, I will eat my shoe.


----------



## konqz (Jan 7, 2014)

Sacrieur said:


> No, because I have no reason to use it. Even if I did I could learn how to do similar things in Windows with regedit and what have you.
> 
> The primary superiority of linux over Windows is so technically oriented and low-layer that only a very specific group of people would legitimately need it, and an even smaller group of people actually have the expertise to use it.
> 
> If you can give me a practical thing you use linux for that I can't equally do with Windows, I will eat my shoe.


If you can use Windows, you can use Linux. It's pure nonsense that you need _expertise_ to use it...I'm a great example of that.
I hardly know how to do anything that would require 'expert' knowledge with Linux. If you can use Windows, you can use the 'main' distros (Ubuntu, OpenSUSE etc.) of Linux. 2008 and onwards Linux became as easy to use as Windows.
Also, regedit is far more limited for customizing and tweaking compared to Linux.

The single biggest advantage remains security. I do NOT miss having to have a bloated anti-virus and firewall running all the time, and no longer have to worry about the backdoors MS allows (windows error reporting being intercepted by the NSA).

Even MS is struggling to give people reasons to stay/buy new Windows devices. Office is generally the only thing they can come up with...I moved away from MS Office years ago -- even when I did use Windows as the security holes in it were brutal...and since MS in their utter wisdom decided to only patch things once a month (patch Tuesday), you would have to rely on third party security, or if you had the technical know how, go through MS's website to find out how to close things yourself.

I suppose the single biggest reason to use Linux over Windows? Windows 8. The biggest disaster in operating system history.


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> No, because I have no reason to use it. Even if I did I could learn how to do similar things in Windows with regedit and what have you.
> 
> The primary superiority of linux over Windows is so technically oriented and low-layer that only a very specific group of people would legitimately need it, and an even smaller group of people actually have the expertise to use it.
> 
> If you can give me a practical thing you use linux for that I can't equally do with Windows, I will eat my shoe.


My post was intended for the one who said he didn't want to do a dual boot. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Simple.

And I can think of plenty of things for which it is better for me.

I am curious as to why you felt the need to post here. I guess I kind of didn't expect a Linux/Windows flame war here.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

beli mawr said:


> My post was intended for the one who said he didn't want to do a dual boot. If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. Simple.


The OP asked if I used linux. I answered and explained my reasoning.


----------



## Inscrutable Banana (Apr 1, 2008)

beli mawr said:


> If you want to run Linux anyway, download VirtualBox (virtualbox.org) and run it there.


Not much reason for me to run Linux on a VM, really. I'll just wait until I have a secondary system to run it on.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

Inscrutable Banana said:


> Not much reason for me to run Linux on a VM, really. I'll just wait until I have a secondary system to run it on.


Why would you use Linux on a VM.......just make a liveusb with persistence and boot off of it to get the full experience without having to modify your system at all


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

And you need NO expertise to use Linux........its just that Linux is twice the speed of windows on most machines and you can install new versions of Linux on xp machines that have been discontinued support and will not ever get it again....I installed Linux mint 15 on my computer from 2005 it runs great.....I'm currently also running xubuntu 13.10 on my new laptop and it runs like a beast


----------



## Inscrutable Banana (Apr 1, 2008)

jsmith92 said:


> Why would you use Linux on a VM.......just make a liveusb with persistence and boot off of it to get the full experience without having to modify your system at all


Not much reason for me to do that, either.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

Has anybody used archlinux before????


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Use Arch if you don't want your hand held throughout installation. If you don't want to do everything by hand to get it up and running, go with something else.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

beli mawr said:


> Use Arch if you don't want your hand held throughout installation. If you don't want to do everything by hand to get it up and running, go with something else.


Does arch still let you customize as well?.....and does is use .deb or rpm?


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Arch has it's own package manager, pacman, IIRC.

You can customize the same things in every distribution. A lot of distributions take care of it from the start, whereas arch makes you come up with your own configurations from the get go.

I have an IRC bud that uses Arch and loves it. I may give it a try one day in a VM. I haven't gotten around to it.


----------



## Nono441 (May 14, 2012)

I never managed to get Archlinux (which a friend suggested to me) working, neither in a VM nor on the real thing. Though I could probably make it work today, last I tried was a year ago or so, but I had a generally poor experience with it and as such cannot recommend it to anyone.

I first used Mint, which was nice, but the cinnamon desktop environment was getting on my nerves, in addition, I made some rather poor choices at the installation screen regarding my disk's partitioning scheme, which I never bothered to fix, and also failed to install the proprietary graphics drivers (= no games), which was fine because I did not actually expect to use the system beyond development. Over time, though, I grew attached to it and it gradually became my main OS.

Eventually things just got out of control, so I backed up my home partition, wiped the whole thing and installed Debian on it (a mix of testing and stable, because the beta graphics drivers crash my GPU) and it's infinitely better. I still have some hiccups with xfce4 to sort out, but it works perfectly for the most part, and I can actually play games on linux! (which, in hindsight, probably lowered my productivity to near zero, but whatever, it works and that's what matters)

And, no, you don't need any special computer skills to use the popular distributions, really. All of them, with the exception of the weird ubuntu "unity" desktop, have a start menu, a desktop, a file explorer, a default browser (usually some version of firefox), so you'll feel right at home. After that you can proceed to install your favorite applications using your package/software manager, you can usually find what you need directly, or a linux alternative, and if the software is really unique, you can try to run it through Wine (a sort of windows emulator). If it just doesn't want to work, and if you have enough memory, you can boot up a windows VM and run it in seamless mode, though few apps besides old games need you to resort to that. And, honestly, when you do need to use the command line, it's not the wizardry it's cracked up to be, it's not hard to find out how to use a command and punch some characters on your keyboard. Yes, the command-line has a much bigger place in linux than in windows, but that doesn't mean it has to be hard.

The one thing you need on linux, however, is patience, the will to read lots of forum posts about issues you might have, don't be afraid to ask questions, and, of course, use common sense when troubleshooting issues. Usually though, you'll have everything you need straight away, unless you have some special requirements or some exotic hardware. It's not 2001 anymore, linux is actually usable as a desktop operating system.

As for "why should I use linux", that's a personal call that you have to make yourself, if you're a developer you will probably appreciate the comfort and consistency linux brings, if you're not, you might still find some cool stuff you don't have on windows, whatever, it's up to you to look ahead for what interests you, nobody's going to spend time arguing with you about why they prefer linux and try to map that to your own needs, because it's a subjective thing, if you have no need for linux then don't use it, period. If you're a mac user, no comment. (haha, couldn't resist, but seriously, macs have some good software which you cannot really find on linux, so, again, it's all subjective).

For me personally Linux also tends to be much less "black box" than Windows, which I appreciate, as it lets me configure stuff much more naturally than in Windows. And the coherency of how the system manages resources, the file-driven aspect of the OS makes it a rather pleasant experience to use. Of course, OpenBSD is better, but it's not well-supported enough at this time.


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Well said. The only thing I'm going to say is...



Nono441 said:


> and installed Debian on it (a mix of testing and stable, because the beta graphics drivers crash my GPU)


You're setting yourself up for some pain at some point. Check out experimental and backports, instead of using testing.


----------



## zonebox (Oct 22, 2012)

jsmith92 said:


> Anybody here using linux?


I love linux, I'm not an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I have been using it on and off since the late 90s. This laptop is running Xubuntu 13.10, my other laptop has Windows 8 which I also like.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

I installed Ubuntu and windows 8.1 today and it is dual booting perfectly


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

Sacrieur said:


> No, because I have no reason to use it. Even if I did I could learn how to do similar things in Windows with regedit and what have you.
> 
> The primary superiority of linux over Windows is so technically oriented and low-layer that only a very specific group of people would legitimately need it, and an even smaller group of people actually have the expertise to use it.
> 
> If you can give me a practical thing you use linux for that I can't equally do with Windows, I will eat my shoe.


Heresy, I call heresy.
People complain about linux being too difficult, i mean that would have been valid 10 or so years ago. But with the advent of desktops like unity, and gnome, i think that's not really true anymore. Linux is also far more powerful, the only reason you should keep windows is if you have software that needs it (many of my games for example).


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

jsmith92 said:


> Has anybody used archlinux before????


I'm on arch, rolling updates ftw


----------



## DeniseAfterAll (Jul 28, 2012)

I use a Dual Boot .

There are windows programs which don't work on Wine . . which have no Linux distributions .

. . just as there are Linux programs which suck *** on Windows .


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

galacticsenator said:


> Heresy, I call heresy.
> People complain about linux being too difficult, i mean that would have been valid 10 or so years ago.


It really wasn't even that difficult 10 years ago. By then many of the configuration GUIs we use now were around.

Now... when I started using it in the 90s... a very different story.

I found my manual from RH 7 when moving. That was 2000, at that point it already hag a graphical installer and partitioner.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

Sacrieur said:


> If you can give me a practical thing you use linux for that I can't equally do with Windows, I will eat my shoe.


For a start off the top of my head:

 Drastically quicker/easier/transparent/logical file management with KIO slaves.
 Huge time savings in finding and installing all the software I need (just open the package manager, search and click install and know for certain I've got a real program and not adware/trialware).
 Having all of your software automatically updated through the package manager so you actually get security patches and improved versions without unrealistic internet trawling (sure Chrome and a few other programs will update themselves on Windows, but most don't)... and as a result, no need for an antivirus program sapping your computer's resources and interrupting you.
 Easy zooming in and out with a keystoke. I couldn't live without this, I use it every day, maybe I need glasses. There's lots of other desktop effects, all far more configurable than whatever default effects Windows does, but that's the one that matters to me.
 A multi-panel/taskbar desktop for heavy multitasking. Maybe it's because I've always had lobotomized "home" editions of Windows, but I could never figure out how to do much of anything to customize Windows panels, which makes task management awkward in Windows.
 Easier visual program killing with ctrl+alt+esc+click (the task manager isn't much good if you don't know the name of the window and have a hundred processes running).
 KDE's activities (though I don't personally use them much).
 A real copy/paste clipboard with a history, and useful built-in screenshots tool.
 An environment that actually suits you and your individual productivity needs instead of a generic average person, because you've actually selected the desktop environment and settings that work for you.
 A computer that can stay up to date for the next 5 or 10 years without buying anything.

Possibly if you spend countless hours searching for and separately installing third party programs of questionable reputation you can do some of these things with Windows... or you could write all your own software from scratch if you really want to, but that's not being practical.

Want some mustard for your shoe?



galacticsenator said:


> Heresy, I call heresy.
> People complain about linux being too difficult, i mean that would have been valid 10 or so years ago. But with the advent of desktops like unity, and gnome, i think that's not really true anymore. Linux is also far more powerful, the only reason you should keep windows is if you have software that needs it (many of my games for example).


Linux can be difficult if you're installing it to a Windows machine, because hardware drivers are a crapshoot. For that reason, I wouldn't generally recommend that a non-technical person waste their time trying to install a different OS than their computer came with. Linux is also a bad idea if you've put a lot of time and effort into learning specific programs which are Windows-only and don't want to start over with something new, or have need for specialized software not available on Linux. Also, anyone who has a lot of money to spend on software is likely better off using Windows since it has a large ecosystem of expensive stuff which I will assume is good though I'll never be able to afford to touch it... and software pirates may prefer Windows for that same reason. So there are lots of personal factors in the decision.


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Thank you Dr. Forrester  Man it's been a while since I've seen MST3K, used to watch it regularly.

Practical uses:


 3D Modeling: Blender is as capable as the big boys, and scripting in Python means it's capabilities are always being enhanced.
Office suites: nearly fully compatible with MS Office, they have greater capabilities in scripting, as they use Python and Perl, not just VBScript.
Better on lower spec hardware.A P4 at work boots into a full desktop under Linux in the amount of time it takes Windows from typing my password to when the desktop first appears (forget about usable).
 Also, Linux:


Has a large community. If you have a problem, likely many others have as well, and you'll get a swift response.
If it's a bug, developers take note somewhat quickly.
You're not waiting for one company to "look into it."

Has a large selection. This is a great thing and a curse. Several programs exist with the same purpose. A good thing as if one doesn't work with your flow, another may. The bad side is some of these "alternatives" are sub par.
Is free, as in freedom. You're free to use it as you like, not as the company wants you to.
While there are exceptions like Unity, Web Browsers (cookies) and other commercial ventures, for the most part your actions are not tracked or spied upon.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

galacticsenator said:


> Heresy, I call heresy.
> People complain about linux being too difficult, i mean that would have been valid 10 or so years ago. But with the advent of desktops like unity, and gnome, i think that's not really true anymore. Linux is also far more powerful, the only reason you should keep windows is if you have software that needs it (many of my games for example).


Ya exactly that is by far the only reason I am dual booting right now


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

Also I just wanna say that this thread has been kinda fun to participate in and I'm glad I made it lol


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

And on top of that I also want to say that I am using normal Ubuntu....but I might get rid of the unity desktop......I'm not sure at this point.....on xubuntu there was video tearing so I deleted it and installed Ubuntu 13.10.....right now I actually love it and it is similar to mac osx in the way of the dock and other features so Mac is not that bad after all.....if I had nothing else I would use Mac


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

jsmith92 said:


> Ya exactly that is by far the only reason I am dual booting right now


There is currently a windows rewrite called reactOS being developed for the purpose of being there when windows finally switches to everything being metro and no desktop........and you can read about it here http://www.reactos.org... Its a really cool project and once its done I will definitely switch to it instead of windows 8.1


----------



## CeilingStarer (Dec 29, 2009)

I'm back on Fedora at the moment. 

I like the philosophy and the community, plus it's where I started (Red Hat 8 from memory). I've done 'em all more or less... Archlinux is definitely my other favourite, but I just want "out of the box" these days. Kali is cool too - I really want to start investing some time learning all the hacking/cracking/security stuff. Haven't used Windows since I quit making music years ago.

I use Linux because it's free, fast, transparent and I don't have to worry about all the bloat/security issues. I'm also a nerd.


----------



## nooneknowsmyname (Feb 4, 2013)

I'm using Android on my phone. Does that count?

Otherwise I use Windows 7 for my gaming desktop and Mac OS 10.8 (about to update to 10.9) for my Macbook.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

nooneknowsmyname said:


> I'm using Android on my phone. Does that count?
> 
> Otherwise I use Windows 7 for my gaming desktop and Mac OS 10.8 (about to update to 10.9) for my Macbook.


I actually am trying to use linux regularly and since I have android on my phone that sorta counts because android has a Unix base


----------



## pbandjam (Sep 24, 2011)

I dual boot with Elementary OS and Windows 8.1 at the moment. Also have installed Linux Mint on my other laptop.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Paul said:


> Drastically quicker/easier/transparent/logical file management with KIO slaves.


I have never needed to know what these are.



> Huge time savings in finding and installing all the software I need (just open the package manager, search and click install and know for certain I've got a real program and not adware/trialware).


I do not find this to be useful. Third party platforms already exist for most of my needs (like Steam).



> Having all of your software automatically updated through the package manager so you actually get security patches and improved versions without unrealistic internet trawling (sure Chrome and a few other programs will update themselves on Windows, but most don't)... and as a result, no need for an antivirus program sapping your computer's resources and interrupting you.


Windows nowadays is basically completely automated. All updates are run in the background and pretty much all commonly used programs are updated automatically.



> Easy zooming in and out with a keystoke. I couldn't live without this, I use it every day, maybe I need glasses. There's lots of other desktop effects, all far more configurable than whatever default effects Windows does, but that's the one that matters to me.


Windows has a built in program called magnifier that zooms in and out. What other desktop effects? I'm not aware of anything useful to me.



> A multi-panel/taskbar desktop for heavy multitasking. Maybe it's because I've always had lobotomized "home" editions of Windows, but I could never figure out how to do much of anything to customize Windows panels, which makes task management awkward in Windows.


I've never had any problems with multi-tasking.



> Easier visual program killing with ctrl+alt+esc+click (the task manager isn't much good if you don't know the name of the window and have a hundred processes running).


Alt + f4? If the program doesn't respond right away a prompt will appear allowing you to end the task.



> A real copy/paste clipboard with a history, and useful built-in screenshots tool.


Prtscn works fine. I'm not aware of any clipboard history, but then again I've never needed it. I can install a program that will allow me to do this though.



> An environment that actually suits you and your individual productivity needs instead of a generic average person, because you've actually selected the desktop environment and settings that work for you.


If I needed that much customization I'd install Stardock.



> A computer that can stay up to date for the next 5 or 10 years without buying anything.


We both know that's all hardware.



> Possibly if you spend countless hours searching for and separately installing third party programs of questionable reputation you can do some of these things with Windows... or you could write all your own software from scratch if you really want to, but that's not being practical.


If by countless hours you mean five seconds then sure.

---

If you have a use for Linux (something about KIO?) then that's great. But let's be honest here. You're the only one in this thread that seems to have something to gain from using Linux and has the knowledge necessary to use it.

Most people just use it because they feel like they're cool and edgy using CLIs and that Windows is too mainstream to be cool.

Linux is plenty easy to use, I agree; but I didn't say it was hard to use -- I said that to use it in the capacities that it really shines isn't something most people who work with computers need or know how to do.


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Sacrieur said:


> If you have a use for Linux (something about KIO?) then that's great. But let's be honest here. You're the only one in this thread that seems to have something to gain from using Linux and has the knowledge necessary to use it.
> 
> Most people just use it because they feel like they're cool and edgy using CLIs and that Windows is too mainstream to be cool.


That's an unfortunate truth. Look at any Linux forum and you can find those users easily: "This doesn't work. Fix it for me and keep it that way or Linux sucks."

Another practical use: If you do (or will) work on your company's website or even your own, most still use Unix or Unix-like OSes (such as Linux) as they're still seen as the most secure. Having knowledge of permissions, etc will give a head start on managing the site.

Of course this may not matter to you, but you asked for practical uses. Now if you meant practical for YOU, well, then I can't answer that, only you can.


----------



## davidc (Nov 20, 2008)

I use Xubuntu lately. Thinking of switching to Arch when I have a free couple of days. Desktop Linux has really improved drastically in the last couple of years. Sacrieur is (partly) right though, Windows still has a lot of advantages for non-technical power users.


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

davidc said:


> Sacrieur is (partly) right though, Windows still has a lot of advantages for non-technical power users.


No argument here, and I haven't seen anyone else here try to disprove that fact, either, unless I missed it. As far as I'm concerned to each their own. f you ask me what's good, I'll answer.

The statement



> If you can give me a practical thing you use linux for that I can't equally do with Windows, I will eat my shoe.


really isn't a fair statement to make if one is looking to make a general comparison. This is as each user's uses are different. And many will have a practical use, or they wouldn't be doing it. Then when an honest answer is given each point is argued against. Obviously his uses (primarily gaming, guessing at the mention of "most of my my needs (like Steam)") are different than the man who answered (who may work in IT). So be it. And will always lead to endless arguments either way.

While I may agree as it may be true among those I know, the statement "most people are doing it because it's cool" cannot be made without backing evidence. Just because it's in their experience doesn't make it a universal truth.

I have been using both for over twenty years - in the case of Windows, pre-WIndows 3.0 if anyone remembers that - so I can do things equally well either way. If I were to give a Windows user Linux and tell them to do something, they'd have a hard time. If I gave a Unix user who never used windows a copy, they'd have a hard time as well - I don't care how much WIndows is supposedly "dumbed down". I am proficient with fdisk and sfdisk yet am lost with DISKPART which I understand is really powerful.


----------



## Paul (Sep 26, 2005)

Sacrieur said:


> I have never needed to know what these are.


Your grandparents have never needed to know how to operate a PC, and Oog didn't need to know how to make fire because Ugh was in charge of that.

_I do not find this to be useful. Third party platforms already exist for most of my needs (like Steam)._

The only thing you do with your computer is play games? Why not get a console? But I gather you're referring to multiple third party platforms which obviously defeats the point of being unified and easy.

_Windows nowadays is basically completely automated. All updates are run in the background and pretty much all commonly used programs are updated automatically._

I've seen Windows, the majority of the programs most people run on it are not updated and those that are tend to waste your time installing updates when you launch them. Every time I boot Windows I get this horrible Adobe updater thing that doesn't fit in at all with the rest of the system and hijacks the computer at times of its own choosing. I can only imagine how bad the updaters get when you have more things installed, since I have almost nothing installed in Windows. Anyway it's it's both unsafe (as illustrated by infection stats) and incredibly annoying, but if you've never tried anything else you just accept that torture as a normal part of using a computer.

_Windows has a built in program called magnifier that zooms in and out._

Having to launch and operate a program for a simple task like that is ridiculously inconvenient. Windows has always had magnifier even back in XP, yes -- but I never used it because it completely misses the point, it can't be used in a fraction of a second whim to check that you're reading something correctly or identify the object in the background of a photo/video.

_What other desktop effects? I'm not aware of anything useful to me._

The task switching effects tend to be the most useful to most people.

_I've never had any problems with multi-tasking._

MS-DOS users never had any problems with multitasking either.

For a random example, if in Windows you want to have some reference material in front of the document you're writing a report in, what do you do? You give up because you can't pin a transparent window to the top so it stays there when you type below it. You probably end up awkwardly tiling your windows so that half your screen space is wasted just because you need to be able to see a 700x200 window along with your document.

For another example, Windows doesn't do workspaces. You can't make a virtual desktop to split up the different types of tasks you're working on to different virtual screens.

_Alt + f4? If the program doesn't respond right away a prompt will appear allowing you to end the task._

Alt+F4 only works on the active window.

_Prtscn works fine._

That's silly. There's no timer on print screen, there's no selection tool, you can't tell it whether to do the whole screen or just the current window, you can't draw a box around the area you want. Instead of 10 seconds, you're spending like 5 or 10 minutes to take your screenshot, open up your graphics program, crop the section of the screen you wanted, save it to the format you need, then since you lack KIO slaves for your file dialogs you need some other tool to get it to the internet.

_I'm not aware of any clipboard history, but then again I've never needed it._

I'm sure you've needed it nearly every day, everyone copies something and then wants to check the thing they copied before that. You just know that you can't, so you give up and forget. Nobody in the 1950s needed a smartphone, either.

_I can install a program that will allow me to do this though.
If I needed that much customization I'd install Stardock._

Enjoy wasting your time running an installer for a poorly supported, buggy, potentially ad-infested program that may not update properly. And next time you have any sort of Windows problem, you'll need to uninstall it in order to be sure that the third party software you've hooked into Windows isn't destabilizing it.

_We both know that's all hardware._

Hardware has nothing to do with keeping your computer up to date for 5 or 10 years. A low end 5 year old PC has no trouble running the latest linux versions, but is stuck with Windows XP. I bought my netbook in fall 2009, it came with Windows XP. If it didn't have Linux on it, it'd be as useful as a brick with the obsolescence of XP and impending end of security updates.

_Most people just use it because they feel like they're cool and edgy using CLIs and that Windows is too mainstream to be cool._

If someone wants to be cool, they use a Mac. You must live in an alternate universe if you think anyone uses Linux to be cool.

CLI use has little to do with operating system -- the Windows PowerShell is an excellent CLI used by many, I hear. People who use the CLI do so for personal efficiency. Personally I'm too lazy to learn shell scripting or vi, so I only use the shell for server tasks, occasional bulk operations with wildcards that'd take you way longer with a GUI, or occasionally to search the file system faster.

_Linux is plenty easy to use, I agree; but I didn't say it was hard to use -- I said that to use it in the capacities that it really shines isn't something most people who work with computers need or know how to do._

Everyone uses a desktop environment and window manager more than they use anything else on their computer, and that's where Linux shines. Everyone would benefit from finding one that better suits them. Yes, most people are better off using Windows or Mac because of widespread availability of free and paid support and the software ecosystem, but it's also true that everyone would see a variety of productivity advantages from Linux (compared to Windows, haven't used Mac so can't compare).


----------



## ShatteredGlass (Oct 12, 2012)

jsmith92 said:


> You know you can put Ubuntu on a chromebook right?


Yes, but I wouldn't bother. It defeats the purpose of having a Chromebook for me.


----------



## CyclingSoPhob (Apr 8, 2008)

I've wanted to fully switch over to Linux for probably 10 years or more but just never got around to it. My first experiences were just simple tinkering with Knoppix and Phlak live cds. Back in December I built my own custom brew desktop so the os of choice was Linux Mint Petra. Been using it for a month and absolutely love it. My goal is to become a pro web developer so the software I needed was a simple and free install from the package manager. My own personal goal is to do everything open source and so far it looks like I've got a good start.

Running Apache on Linux with the PHP module installed is definitely a nice learning experience since everything would be configured pretty much the same on a public server, just making sure everything is secure. Geany is my new lightweight ide and I've also got Gimp for image editing and Inkscape for vector graphics and wire framing. MySQL is installed along with PHPMyAdmin. I've also got OpenShot for video editing and Blender to play around with. Most of these programs are available on windows but running these on Linux have been a nice surprise. Inkscape would crash sometimes on my Windows machine but runs perfectly on Mint.

If anyone wants to try Linux I would definitely recommend Mint. The only problem installing you may have is if you run an AMD chipset. I had to alter a configuration file so that IOMMU is software based. This is to get the USB and networking to work properly. Other than that everything is smooth sailing. Linux, you've got a new fanboy.


----------



## jsmith92 (Dec 30, 2013)

CyclingSoPhob said:


> I've wanted to fully switch over to Linux for probably 10 years or more but just never got around to it. My first experiences were just simple tinkering with Knoppix and Phlak live cds. Back in December I built my own custom brew desktop so the os of choice was Linux Mint Petra. Been using it for a month and absolutely love it. My goal is to become a pro web developer so the software I needed was a simple and free install from the package manager. My own personal goal is to do everything open source and so far it looks like I've got a good start.
> 
> Running Apache on Linux with the PHP module installed is definitely a nice learning experience since everything would be configured pretty much the same on a public server, just making sure everything is secure. Geany is my new lightweight ide and I've also got Gimp for image editing and Inkscape for vector graphics and wire framing. MySQL is installed along with PHPMyAdmin. I've also got OpenShot for video editing and Blender to play around with. Most of these programs are available on windows but running these on Linux have been a nice surprise. Inkscape would crash sometimes on my Windows machine but runs perfectly on Mint.
> 
> If anyone wants to try Linux I would definitely recommend Mint. The only problem installing you may have is if you run an AMD chipset. I had to alter a configuration file so that IOMMU is software based. This is to get the USB and networking to work properly. Other than that everything is smooth sailing. Linux, you've got a new fanboy.


Ya man......web development is awesome...... It's one of the unique programming languages because the platform you develop on doesn't have to be specific and many of them do require a specific one.......I set up a CUPS printer server today using an old computer and its awesome.... I also set a static IP because I realized that every time I rebooted the PC the IP would change and I had to change the printer IP on all the computers connected to it so setting a static IP fixed this issue


----------



## andy1984 (Aug 18, 2006)

i had crunchbang on my netbook and windows 7 on the desktop. just switched to mint on both. never had such an easy experience with linux on my netbook. everything works, and most of the basic stuff i want was already there. so easy, so free, and such a good OS and applications. windows kept using the noisy disk drive of desktop for no good reason, but linux doesn't do that so i can sleep in peace while torrenting overnight. + i just find linux makes more sense to me than windows. easy to get and update the applications i want.

i always have puppy linux as a backup/portable desktop as i can boot to it on any machine from a memory stick which is nice.


----------



## Yer Blues (Jul 31, 2013)

Can Wine translate DirectX 10 calls to OpenGL yet?


----------



## nullptr (Sep 21, 2012)

Sacrieur said:


> Linux is plenty easy to use, I agree; but I didn't say it was hard to use -- I said that to use it in the capacities that it really shines isn't something most people who work with computers need or know how to do.


example of ease of use of linux. I've been trying to install this for several hours system wide on windows, when in linux it's in the repos and i can just one click install. If you're doing development, windows is useful only for .NET and visual studio (a great IDE btw).


----------



## CyclingSoPhob (Apr 8, 2008)

The repo is definitely a candy store. And if what you're looking for isn't in there you can search for a ppa. Canon printers are supposedly Linux unfriendly but downloading the driver from a ppa got my Pixma 1800 working perfectly.

I know it's hard to persuade a diehard Windows user but Linux is truly an easy operating system, and very intuitive at that. If you're a diehard gamer Windows is going to be hard to top but Steam is trying to change that at this very moment.


----------



## Nono441 (May 14, 2012)

galacticsenator said:


> example of ease of use of linux. I've been trying to install this for several hours system wide on windows, when in linux it's in the repos and i can just one click install. If you're doing development, windows is useful only for .NET and visual studio (a great IDE btw).


There's Mono on linux (and most other systems) to compile run .NET applications, I've been playing with it lately and it's wonderful. The IDEs aren't really there, though, but that's ok in most cases I think.


----------



## twitchy666 (Apr 21, 2013)

so you'd prefer an old rustbucket Ford Fiesta built in 1970 to a BMW?

function over form

my old Audi never goes wrong
everyone buys the *newest* product that looks pretty that you have to replace soon


----------



## beli mawr (Dec 18, 2013)

Nono441 said:


> There's Mono on linux (and most other systems) to compile run .NET applications, I've been playing with it lately and it's wonderful. The IDEs aren't really there, though, but that's ok in most cases I think.


That's good to know. My last impression of Mono was bloated as .NET (unfortunately it would have to be, to duplicate the functionality), and it had quite a few bugs.


----------



## Sacrieur (Jan 14, 2013)

Paul said:


> The only thing you do with your computer is play games? Why not get a console? But I gather you're referring to multiple third party platforms which obviously defeats the point of being unified and easy.


Why would I get a grossly inferior console to play games on?

I do many things on my PC.



> I've seen Windows, the majority of the programs most people run on it are not updated and those that are tend to waste your time installing updates when you launch them. Every time I boot Windows I get this horrible Adobe updater thing that doesn't fit in at all with the rest of the system and hijacks the computer at times of its own choosing. I can only imagine how bad the updaters get when you have more things installed, since I have almost nothing installed in Windows. Anyway it's it's both unsafe (as illustrated by infection stats) and incredibly annoying, but if you've never tried anything else you just accept that torture as a normal part of using a computer.


That's really an Adobe problem, not a Windows problem. You can't hold Microsoft accountable for bad design choices by other companies.



> Having to launch and operate a program for a simple task like that is ridiculously inconvenient. Windows has always had magnifier even back in XP, yes -- but I never used it because it completely misses the point, it can't be used in a fraction of a second whim to check that you're reading something correctly or identify the object in the background of a photo/video.


In general, the programs I would need to zoom in on already have built-in functions for that. For instance in Firefox all I have to do is Ctrl + Numpad+ or Numpad- or alternatively, Ctrl + Mouse Wheel.



> The task switching effects tend to be the most useful to most people.


Alt + Tab or Windows Key + Tab does the trick well enough.



> MS-DOS users never had any problems with multitasking either.


As I mentioned previously, if I truly wanted to beef up my control, I'd install Stardock. But I have no need to in the same way I don't need to put a V-8 engine in a car with a V-6 to drive to work and back.

I've always worked in an efficient manner. That is, always cleaning up tabs after I've finished with them and etc. It astounds me that people can have twenty or thirty programs open at once and actually need them open. I view this as simply bad organization practices. Many programs are easily restarted and closed as needed. For instance, the Windows Calcluator is brought up as easily as Windows Key → "calc" → Enter. This is a process that takes less than two seconds and is just as quick or quicker than hunting it down through a list of already open programs (or simply clicking it on the task bar).



> For a random example, if in Windows you want to have some reference material in front of the document you're writing a report in, what do you do? You give up because you can't pin a transparent window to the top so it stays there when you type below it. You probably end up awkwardly tiling your windows so that half your screen space is wasted just because you need to be able to see a 700x200 window along with your document.


I can admit that being unable to pin windows to the top is a tad troublesome, but a quick search turned up dozens of applications that enable this quite easily.



> For another example, Windows doesn't do workspaces. You can't make a virtual desktop to split up the different types of tasks you're working on to different virtual screens.


There are programs easily found that can do this simple thing. Stardock also offers this service.



> That's silly. There's no timer on print screen, there's no selection tool, you can't tell it whether to do the whole screen or just the current window, you can't draw a box around the area you want. Instead of 10 seconds, you're spending like 5 or 10 minutes to take your screenshot, open up your graphics program, crop the section of the screen you wanted, save it to the format you need, then since you lack KIO slaves for your file dialogs you need some other tool to get it to the internet.


You can do the active window with Alt + Prtscn, Ctrl + Prtscn will take a picture of the whole desktop. I think Microsoft's reasoning behind not putting a selection tool is that you can edit the picture after it's been posted.



> I'm sure you've needed it nearly every day, everyone copies something and then wants to check the thing they copied before that. You just know that you can't, so you give up and forget. Nobody in the 1950s needed a smartphone, either.


Nah I really don't. The only program which I have that problem is in Photoshop, which already has a stored history.



> Enjoy wasting your time running an installer for a poorly supported, buggy, potentially ad-infested program that may not update properly. And next time you have any sort of Windows problem, you'll need to uninstall it in order to be sure that the third party software you've hooked into Windows isn't destabilizing it.


Stardock isn't a free-adware model. It's pay to use.



> Hardware has nothing to do with keeping your computer up to date for 5 or 10 years. A low end 5 year old PC has no trouble running the latest linux versions, but is stuck with Windows XP. I bought my netbook in fall 2009, it came with Windows XP. If it didn't have Linux on it, it'd be as useful as a brick with the obsolescence of XP and impending end of security updates.


Hardware has _everything_ to do with it. Also, I ran Windows 7 off of an AMD Athlon 1 GHz processor (which ran faster than Windows XP, I should add). You're not stuck with any OS. As a matter of fact, with the exclusion of Vista, newer Windows versions run faster than older ones.



> If someone wants to be cool, they use a Mac. You must live in an alternate universe if you think anyone uses Linux to be cool.


You'd be surprised.


----------



## forex (Dec 29, 2010)

anybody knows were to find redhat for free.
want to follow some Lpic stuff.


----------



## Gwynevere (Oct 6, 2013)

forex said:


> anybody knows were to find redhat for free.
> want to follow some Lpic stuff.


I know CentOS is supposed to free red hat, without the support. I'd look into that.


----------



## DisgustingPig (Aug 4, 2013)

i have 2 extremly old pcs. one intel atom netbook and a dualcore desktop with a mid range graphiccard.

i bought my netbook like 4 years ago (or 3, i cant remember) erased windows xp and installed debian on it.

debian with fluxbox. it is extremly fast and uses only 99 mbyte amafter booting. the perfect system for my netbook. i mainly use it for surfing/youtube/music/facebook/video/multimedia in general. and a little office too.

on the deskop i have 2 hds, one with debian (with xfce this time) and one with windows 7. 

i use win 7 for playing adventures, which are the only genre of games, i like nowadays. 

i am playing "the wolf among us" and "real myst masterpiece edition". 


i have a long history with linux. started in the debian 3.0 days. i tried red hat, suse (before it became open suse), mandrake and settled for debian later. since then debian is my system of choice


----------

