Why Linux sucks

[MattyBoy]

The very idea that Windows is not as "powerful" as Linux is extraordinarily laughable.

I have a UNIX, not linux background and I now use Windows almost solely. Lots of professional development experience in both environments.

I thought Elijah described it beautifully, by explaining the extra effort of getting into linux, but the extra power available to you once you are into the groove. In UNIX, I never came across any spurious limits, no matter how creatively I used its tools. I got past most of the mundane things that I spend time doing repeatedly in Windows. Most applications that I use in Windows have features that look prettier, but prove more limited in the end.

These days I am further from the intense programming and use UNIX less, but I still remember the joy of working within UNIX and I still get plenty of joy from working efficiently with tools like gvim and cvs.

Asher,
I have gotten to the stage where I generally just skip your posts in any thread that mentions Windows vs anything else. Because you come across as so biased, your posts have lost all credibility, no matter how much stuff you dig up to back up your arguments.

[Whaleboy]

"Like how?"

WineX

"How do you figure? Last time I checked, only the latest "beta" 2.5 kernels had decent multitasking performance compared to Windows. Even then, the latencies are higher on Linux 2.5 than Windows XP"

The beta kernels havent sorted out their IP stacks properly yet. Read more stuff. You will see that the 2.4 production series have superior multitasking capabilities, second IIRC, only to 4.4BSD.

" Better hardware abstraction?? You have to be kidding me! I had to recompile my kernel so I could get half-functioning audio! Linux's "hardware abstraction" is non-existant for the most part, except for things like SDL, which still are pathetic in comparison to DirectX 9. Not to mention the GDI+ in Windows is faster and better than XWin.."

I never said it didnt involve effort! The fact that you had to recompile it is good. Means that the binaries were better suited to your box. As for your audio, you should use ALSA, not OSS, IIRC, theyre going to change that with 2.6.x. SDL are totally separate to the kernel in Linux. Run Mesa instead of SDL and openGL anyway. It kicks ****.

What I mean by hardware abstraction is closer to the NetBSD sense. Part of the reason that linux has been ported to so many architectures. It is a part of the kernel that creates a unified "interface" for system calls that then interfaces with the hardware itself. Creates a degree of separation, and of course, with a modular approach, greater stability (althuogh in this a bit more RAM usage). Not bad for 4 months of reading!

Lots of people say that UT runs better in linux than Windows, even in WINE. Linux is a better platform, but mark my words! .

"The difference for me, is Windows works and *nix doesn't. ARTS is the only sound server that works for me in Linux right now, it doesn't use my USB devices properly (digicam, mp3 player, joystick), the fonts are still hideous, I patch more security glitches weekly on my distro than in Windows, and the lack of apps make it fairly useless"

Then you are more likely using a windows sound card, or a lame OSS driver. To activate the USB devices, install hotplug, or better yet, upgrade to a distro that has it (like Mandrake 9.1 or Slackware 9.0). If the fonts are hideous, engage anti-aliasing and install better fonts.

An independent study somewhere (look on linux.com) showed that OSS code has about 0.25 the errors than proprietery code. The bug fixes and updates are released early and often by the linux/bsd community, as opposed to being released by Microsoft who effectivly control their bug-fixes. In linux, when a bug is found, it is fixed pronto, and the fixed released immediately. If you are using a modern package management system like apt-get, then that wont be a problem. If its apt, set up a cron job for an update daily or overnight.

This way, you know you are getting better code, although you dont have to if you dont want to. Personally, I prefer to OSS bug fixing ways, its more open, honest. Contrary to MS propaganda, it is not indicative of poorer code, only better bug-fixing.

[Whaleboy]

"Have you ever used RPMs"

RPM sucks so much arse! APT and DPKG, as well as ports is the way to do!

"CTRL-ALT-DEL, and launch a new Explorer.EXE"

I ran XP pro, and it crashed the system. Simple as that. Im not a microserf, so I dont know if what you say is true, but again, just confirms that my system has small faults, and windows isnt fault-tolerant.

" I'm sorry man, but you have to try to make this more believable"

If the best you can do is accuse me of lying, then I trust you concede the argument. Begone cretin! jk

"I use Libranet"

Dont. Use straight up debian, or a hard-disk installation of Knoppix.

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
WineX

WineX still is rather crap, it works for a very distinct minority of games and isn't free...

The beta kernels havent sorted out their IP stacks properly yet. Read more stuff. You will see that the 2.4 production series have superior multitasking capabilities, second IIRC, only to 4.4BSD.

You sound like a marketing machine -- what're you talking about? I want technicalities, why is it superior and what are your sources?

I never said it didnt involve effort!

The purpose of hardware abstraction is to eliminate all of the efforts of recompiling your kernel, having code tailored specifically for your hardware, etc. Hell, you even need to configure and use multiple sound engines in Linux...

The fact that you had to recompile it is good. Means that the binaries were better suited to your box.

What does this have to do with hardware abstraction? Linux's "customization" abilities is a double-edged sword. It's great if you've got a pathetically underpowered system since you can cut out crap you don't need, but it also leads to inconsistent systems and general usability nightmares and an over-reliance on people to configure every little detail of their systems for things that should just work.

As for your audio, you should use ALSA, not OSS, IIRC, theyre going to change that with 2.6.x. SDL are totally separate to the kernel in Linux.

I've tried both -- both work the same way, where only ARTS runs sounds.

What I mean by hardware abstraction is closer to the NetBSD sense. Part of the reason that linux has been ported to so many architectures. It is a part of the kernel that creates a unified "interface" for system calls that then interfaces with the hardware itself. Creates a degree of separation, and of course, with a modular approach, greater stability (althuogh in this a bit more RAM usage). Not bad for 4 months of reading!

Maybe you should do more research into the NT architecture. It was designed to be portable and componentized, and in fact Longhorn takes componenetization to the next level, almost to WinCE type levels. There's a reason that Windows was ported to IA-64 before Linux, you know.

Lots of people say that UT runs better in linux than Windows, even in WINE. Linux is a better platform, but mark my words! .

Lots of people say Elvis lives too, is this proof?

Then you are more likely using a windows sound card, or a lame OSS driver.

SoundBlaster Audigy

To activate the USB devices, install hotplug, or better yet, upgrade to a distro that has it (like Mandrake 9.1 or Slackware 9.0). If the fonts are hideous, engage anti-aliasing and install better fonts.

Don't you think I've tried all of this? I've tried a ton of different USB controller modules, device drivers, etc for the USB. And I did engage anti-aliasing and even copied MS' TTF to try to make them better. They're still much uglier than WinXP w/ a calibrated cleartype.

An independent study somewhere (look on linux.com) showed that OSS code has about 0.25 the errors than proprietery code.

Independent study on linux.com

Find a link if you cite something, mmkay?

[Asher]

Originally posted by elijah
I ran XP pro, and it crashed the system. Simple as that.

No, it's not.

Look, you don't know what you're talking about. If Explorer.EXE crashed, it relaunches or you launch it yourself. If the entire computer crashes, then it's a video display driver issue, not Explorer.EXE.

If the best you can do is accuse me of lying, then I trust you concede the argument. Begone cretin! jk

Of course I accuse you of lying, you've done nothing but make vague blanket statements with the odd patently false "fact" and hard-to-believe stories that go against all of my, and people I know's, experiences with Windows. And since you have a penchant for calling people who use Windows "microserfs", why shouldn't I believe you're nothing but a *nix troll with too much time on his hands?

Dont. Use straight up debian, or a hard-disk installation of Knoppix.

Oh shush, I've used Linux longer than you have.

Debian's installer is practically coded by 12 year olds, and Knoppix just...blegh.

I use Libranet to install, then I use apt-get to sync with the latest unstable Debian.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MattyBoy
Asher,
I have gotten to the stage where I generally just skip your posts in any thread that mentions Windows vs anything else. Because you come across as so biased, your posts have lost all credibility, no matter how much stuff you dig up to back up your arguments.

Thank you for sharing, I now realize the errors of my ways and will change my beliefs and information because MattyBoy doesn't think they're worth reading.

For what it's worth, I don't pay much attention to your posts either. In fact, I just now noticed you did post in this thread.

[MattyBoy]

Grr
Cheeky little *&%!^$
Let me at him!

[Asher]

Anyway, while idly looking for multitask performance figures, I found this site: http://thetechnozone.com/comdex/2002...otout-2002.htm

MacOS X vs WinXP vs Linux

Agathon will love the category "Adherence to "Fitts's Law", which rates MacOS X at "very poor" and WinXP at "good".

More fun stuff:

Although graphics performance is, of course, more strictly related to hardware than software, there is no doubt that the fancy 3-D shadows and alpha-blended eye candy of Mac OS X carries an impact. Indeed, a recent article in Wired News entitled "Why Do New iMacs Surf So Slowly?" notes that the sluggish graphical user interface of OS X makes an $1800 iMac surf the Web more slowly than an older $400 PC running Windows -- and this is tangibly obvious by even the most casual observer. Pages, noted Wired, on average took as least twice as long to be displayed, even on such unmatched platforms. Mac OS X is also slower than Linux at most server-related tasks. Acknowledging the problem, an Apple spokesperson euphemistically stated "We are merely at the beginning of the performance opportunities in Mac OS X."

Most modern graphics cards support 2D and 3D acceleration via X windows drivers under Linux.

Although Microsoft and Apple both attempt to limit the amount of revisions possible to their respective graphical user interfaces, third-party hacks are available for both platforms. XP is considerably ahead here, with a dramatic array of options, including StarDock's WindowBlinds, TGTSoft's Styles XP, and several others.

And http://www.cnet.com/software/0-42966...9-8-7618644-3:

CNET's call: Windows XP
Vote: 6-0
Sure, we're impressed that the Mac has come up to speed with features such as full keyboard support, a column or Web view for its folders, support for the right-click, and a customizable interface. But Windows has had all or most of those tools for years. We also find XP's new, task-oriented interface much more intuitive and powerful than Aqua's baffling directory scheme and clunky, annoying Dock.

[Ted Striker]

Linux is NOT stable.

If it was there wouldn't be 100000000 kernel patches.

How many times has FreeBSD ever had a patch?

ONCE!!!!


For you guys who are just using it for development or in school you have absolutley no clue!

Not only that Linux encourages Hacker Archictecture which means "we'll just piece it together until it works."

I want standards, I want a tight piece of code that's been through load testing and smashed to pieces by some QA engineers who are paid to make sure the sh1t works.

I don't want to have to download a patch that Hans in Czech Repulic pieced together at:

ftp://www.hans.com/link/probably/doe...ddwontime.html

So gimme UNIX any day.

By the way, don't put BSD in the same light as Linux.

There is no Linux/BSD.

BSD IS UNIX. Linux is a WANNABE UNIX.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

Agathon will love the category "Adherence to "Fitts's Law", which rates MacOS X at "very poor" and WinXP at "good".

Don't bring me into this. I'll think I'll just stand by and laugh since you already proved yourself ignorant of the simplest application of Fitts' Law, which even I, a lowly philosopher, could understand straight off the bat.

And for the record you'll see that the site you linked to links to asktog.com for an explanation of Fitts' Law. Remember asktog.com? You should, that's the site you said was completely wrong about Fitts' Law.

So which is it? Are the people who did your survey wrong because they don't understand Fitts' Law or are they ignorant because they agree with someone you have argued doesn't understand Fitts' Law.

You can't have it both ways (or I suppose you'll just go back and edit your posts to remove your inconsistency).

You know, catching you in contradictions is becoming an entertaining sport.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Don't bring me into this. I'll think I'll just stand by and laugh since you already proved yourself ignorant of the simplest application of Fitts' Law, which even I, a lowly philosopher, could understand straight off the bat.

The problem is, of course, as a lowly philosopher you are aparently incapable of understanding what Fitts' law is, but that didn't stop you from trying to pretend like you did (isn't that what philosophy is all about, pseudo-intellectuals trying to act like they're a whole lot brighter than they actually are?)

And for the record you'll see that the site you linked to links to asktog.com for an explanation of Fitts' Law. Remember asktog.com? You should, that's the site you said was completely wrong about Fitts' Law.

I never said it was completely wrong about Fitts' Law, I said his interpretation of it near the end regarding the menu bar position is an incorrect interpretation of it. Which is why this site I just linked to, rather correctly, scored OS X as "very poor" for adherence to Fitts' law. There's a whole lot more to it than that menubar position, which I tried to explain to you, but it's lost on you.

You know, catching you in contradictions is becoming an entertaining sport.

You're not catching anyone in contradictions, Agathon, you're simply finding new ways to make an ass out of yourself in whatever topic you reply to.

Would you prefer if I made a new thread and dumb Fitts' Law down for you, explain its scope, then compare its implications in all of the major OS GUIs?

It's quite easy to see why OS X scored "very poor" on it, and XP "good". XP was designed with Fitts' law in mind, the entire time (hence the "ghastly" large buttons in Luna), while OS X was designed to look purty and be flashy. Simple fact, Agathon, simple fact...

[Agathon]

Let's laugh at Asher again!!!!

From the conclusion of the comparison page he linked to.

The features-oriented chart above does not take into account the ease of use of a particular solution. As Bruce Tognazzini notes in his discussion of Fitts's Law, it is important to look at the user's productivity, not the computer's. Generally, Mac OS X and Windows XP are far easier to configure than Linux-based systems. And, despite its limitations in a few areas, Mac OS X is arguably the most elegantly implemented and fundamentally usable operating system currently available, despite occasional user interface gaffes.

I'll repeat the important bit:

And, despite its limitations in a few areas, Mac OS X is arguably the most elegantly implemented and fundamentally usable operating system currently available

So which is it this time? Are these guys a credible source of information (and thus Mac OS X is superior to Windows XP) or do they have no credibility at all (in which case your using them as evidence for your case is completely silly).

[Asher]

Originally posted by Agathon
Let's laugh at Asher again!!!!

From the conclusion of the comparison page he linked to.

I'll repeat the important bit:

So which is it this time? Are these guys a credible source of information (and thus Mac OS X is superior to Windows XP) or do they have no credibility at all (in which case your using them as evidence for your case is completely silly).

The guy just doesn't know how to draw conclusions properly is all, if you'd look at the rest of the article he quite clearly said XP won in terms of usability, then in the conclusion he says OS X is the most usable.

Nobody's perfect, but the guy is damn right about OS X sucking when it comes to Fitts' law.

And how about YOU, Agathon? C|Net voted 6-0 in favor of Windows XP's interface, and you used them as evidence in the other thread for something else. Why do you ignore that?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

I never said it was completely wrong about Fitts' Law, I said his interpretation of it near the end regarding the menu bar position is an incorrect interpretation of it.

That's not an interpretation, it is an instance of the law, as I patiently explained to you the other day. If you can't see how it's an instance then you must be an idiot. It is patently obvious that if one icon is placed right against the corner of the screen and another one in the centre and the cursor is placed between them, that the one in the corner will be easier to capture. Test it yourself, don't take my word for it.

And I'd remind you that the claim under discussion was that Fitts' law entails that the edges and corners of the screen are the most easily accessed points. That is what BT is claiming, and that's what I said. You were just wrong about it, despite your vaunted computer knowledge.

Why not just admit this small point and save some face, instead of trying to come up with increasingly ridiculous excuses.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Asher

The guy just doesn't know how to draw conclusions properly is all, if you'd look at the rest of the article he quite clearly said XP won in terms of usability, then in the conclusion he says OS X is the most usable.

This is your response!!?!?!?!

So the guy is intelligent enough to pick out the advantages of each system but mentally incompetent when it comes to thinking about them all together?

Lame.

Anyone can see you've been owned on these last two points due to your contradicting yourself.

I don't think I need say any more.