Why Use Linux?

jellybeard999 · 27 Dec 2010 at 18:56

I tried linux on my netbook, played with various distros etc and I'm sure I could get it set up as I would like in time, but in the end I went back to my heavily nlited XP as it didn't do anything extra, but limited the use of applications/games.

I found Crunchbang to be my favourite, as it's very lightweight and customisable, more so than ubuntu etc from the play I had, but it's very spartan to start with.

masterluke · 27 Dec 2010 at 20:28

NathanE said:
Yes but you wouldn't want to run them day-to-day. I doubt they're feature complete and they have a high probability of just crashing and taking your desktop session with it.

I think that's overly harsh.. compiz is actually very stable on my ubuntu box and I'm not sure I have ever experienced a single crash related to it with desktop effects set to "high". Its a fairly mature system i think.

Si105 · 28 Dec 2010 at 01:09

Oxy said:
fail.

+1.

Essexraptor · 28 Dec 2010 at 15:40

NathanE said:
Not an equal comparison.

Production-grade software versus a couple pre-release/preview/beta OSS projects with limited support that were shoehorned to play together.

I'm sure Microsoft has some internal proof-of-concepts that do similar things too. There is certainly no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the Windows desktop compositor is more than capable of doing those things. It is after all built upon DirectX and pixel shaders.

Not really a pre-release/preview/beta at all

I've loaded the compiz/emerald/beryl package onto my Linux "test and break" box over the last few days and the amount of customisation to a "standard" desktop is quite astounding frankly.

It's all fully stable and I'm running it all on a "low" hardware configuration.

The video link was, I believe, a show case of just what is capable and of course to make it more interesting a wide range of effects was included. It's a mix and match for your own "personal" choice. Sadly, a choice that Windows users will never get. And yes I run windows on a few machines and next to the Linux desktop they look really ...... plain

Essexraptor · 28 Dec 2010 at 15:46

masterluke said:
I think that's overly harsh.. compiz is actually very stable on my ubuntu box and I'm not sure I have ever experienced a single crash related to it with desktop effects set to "high". Its a fairly mature system i think.

Same here

Tried running it with the additional add-ons and Compiz Fusion?

With 4 desktops (3D cube) open in differnt apps and GLX-Dock (Cairo-Dock with OpenGL) and can't get it to crash

Essexraptor · 28 Dec 2010 at 15:52

Klo said:
I wouldn't want it to do that.

Then stick with a standard gnome/kde desktop... it's a choice after all

NathanE · 28 Dec 2010 at 15:58

Essexraptor said:
Not really a pre-release/preview/beta at all

I've loaded the compiz/emerald/beryl package onto my Linux "test and break" box over the last few days and the amount of customisation to a "standard" desktop is quite astounding frankly.

It's all fully stable and I'm running it all on a "low" hardware configuration.

The video link was, I believe, a show case of just what is capable and of course to make it more interesting a wide range of effects was included. It's a mix and match for your own "personal" choice.

Compviz website said:
The latest release of Compiz is 0.8.6. A C++ rewrite has been announced on 24th December 2009 and is about (June 2010) to be released as a beta version. This is a major rework of the whole project, aimed at easing future development.

It is clear from this statement that the developers are far from considering it to be production-ready.

Essexraptor said:
Sadly, a choice that Windows users will never get.

There's no way you can say that without it coming across as hyperbole. Not even Microsoft could tell you a definitive answer to that question I doubt. It may be that the next release of Windows greatly increases the amount of end-user customisation options available. But perhaps more importantly also exposing some new WDM API's that may allow third parties to create rendering extensions, effects, shaders etc. We will just have to wait and see. There's no doubt that it is more that *capable* of doing such effects. It is merely a question of when Microsoft chooses to *expose* that functionality to either end users or third party developers.

Sadly I suspect Microsoft won't bother increasing their competition in this space until OSX or some Linux distros add proper support for it.

Essexraptor · 28 Dec 2010 at 16:28

A few lines under your Compiz website quote is the line

First stable release of Compiz Fusion is 0.6.0 released on October 20 2007.

Which surely means that a production stable version was available way back in 2007

I'm not completely savvy with all the deep techinical ins and outs of desktop rendering and tearing etc but surely if a corporation like Microsoft can choose to expose us to these already possible technical capabilities... the only losers is us the consumers who pay our hard earned cash for the OS?

I take all your points, and as I have said I sit in both camps and it has given me something to think on more

ashatron · 2 Jan 2011 at 02:41

Linux is beautiful, simple as that.

How cannot not be when:
it's free,
has an excellent interface,
is open source
and gives you access to manipulate the operating system in anyway your knowledge permits.

Not to mention the incredibly simple and smart integration of the software / package installer.

Get a cd for free and have a go. You don't even need to install it to try it, you can run an ubuntu distro straight off the cd (it will run slower than if it were installed though).

ashatron · 2 Jan 2011 at 02:47

Also Linux ubuntu was the first OS (that I know of), that you could install and it would automatically configure your graphics, wireless and sound straight away.

No need to mess about like in windows xp finding the correct drivers for your computer then installing them and restarting again and again.

Obviously windows 7 has followed suite in this respect which is great.

Helloindustries · 2 Jan 2011 at 02:56

ashatron said:
Also Linux ubuntu was the first OS (that I know of), that you could install and it would automatically configure your graphics, wireless and sound straight away.

No need to mess about like in windows xp finding the correct drivers for your computer then installing them and restarting again and again.

Obviously windows 7 has followed suite in this respect which is great.

I'd have to disagree there.
Post-install, some -very minor- configuration is often required to enable the proper graphics drivers, and more serious configuration to get non-standard Wi-Fi operational.

Not forgetting non-free component install.

masterluke · 2 Jan 2011 at 10:04

speaking as someone who has attempted to get an old wifi dongle to work on windows 7 recently - this is also a problem with windows on occasion.

ashatron · 2 Jan 2011 at 14:52

Helloindustries said:
I'd have to disagree there.
Post-install, some -very minor- configuration is often required to enable the proper graphics drivers, and more serious configuration to get non-standard Wi-Fi operational.

Not forgetting non-free component install.

Really? I think it was ubuntu 8.10 I was using which didn't need any type if configuration.

Maybe your refering to earlier versions, I wasn't very clear in my first
post but I was thinking unbuntu 8.10.

Clearly your an old school Linux user!

Helloindustries · 2 Jan 2011 at 19:02

ashatron said:
Really? I think it was ubuntu 8.10 I was using which didn't need any type if configuration.

Maybe your refering to earlier versions, I wasn't very clear in my first
post but I was thinking unbuntu 8.10.

Clearly your an old school Linux user!

Old school user? Me? Nah. Only about 9 or 10 months.
I speak from my experience with Ubuntu 9.04 and 10.04, Mint 8 & 9, and Pinguy 10.04 & 10.10

Ubuntu 9.04 and 10.04: Enable Nvidia drivers, install restricted codecs, wireless.
Mint 8 & 9: Nvidia drivers, Wireless.
Pinguy 10.04 & 10.10: Wireless, Nvidia Driver.

Granted; there are a number of laptops, and off-the-shelf PCs that need no configuration under various version of Linux, but mine isn't one of them.

Andre_Powell · 2 Jan 2011 at 21:16

No OSX is built on Berkeley Unix.

RimBlock · 3 Jan 2011 at 03:42

Whilst I still like Linux very much I still feel it is a long way off from mainstream.

The initial set-up is now pretty easy and to be commended. Installing applications with something like Yum extender is also pretty easy if you know what you are looking for. Some applications do not have a decent gui though and still rely on command line file editing to get working and this is where it all falls down for a 'standard' user. Having to trawl through wiki links and how-tos in order to find out how to configure an application rather than have the application run a configuration program on first run or post install is making the whole Linux experience a bit too much of a chore for the non-IT minded IMO.

Transmission for example, installed fine, has config options on the web gui but has no way of automatically applying firewall rules to allow remote access to the web gui even if you specify that is what you would like.

Nzbget installs but doesn't have a config program and you have to create and manually edit a text config file based on a sample in the Wiki page.

Network manager also seems not to be handle dual network cards in a machine. I had to disable it and manually config the network config files in order to get both working.

Again, I very much like Linux and use it on my server but it is still not 'polished' enough for mainstream (i.e. non-IT skilled) usage IMO. The installation is so much more improved on the older version when it was more or less all command line though (I am talking around 18 years ago).

My experience has been mainly with CentOS 5.4/5.5 (yes server centric so not so many bells and whistles), Fedora 14 and Ubuntu 6 (I think). Other flavours or versions may do things differently.

RB

Helloindustries · 3 Jan 2011 at 03:52

RimBlock said:
Whilst I still like Linux very much I still feel it is a long way off from mainstream.

...Some applications do not have a decent gui though and still rely on command line file editing to get working and this is where it all falls down for a 'standard' user. Having to trawl through wiki links and how-tos in order to find out how to configure an application rather than have the application run a configuration program on first run or post install is making the whole Linux experience a bit too much of a chore for the non-IT minded IMO.

...

Again, I very much like Linux and use it on my server but it is still not 'polished' enough for mainstream (i.e. non-IT skilled) usage IMO. The installation is so much more improved on the older version when it was more or less all command line though (I am talking around 18 years ago).

RB

Agreed.
Though i do have my parents running two of three laptops (the old ones) on Linux Mint. They're very much the 'average user' types. Copy & paste is a technical challenge, but they're fine with it. They were pleased that the laptops felt faster, and happy with the comparative lack of malware/viri.

NickK · 3 Jan 2011 at 11:05

Fillado said:
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade -y

Hmm OSX does download in the background. Naturally it asks you just in case you're busy doing some work first.

I have windows XP/7 ultimate, OSX 10.4-10.6.6, redhat AS/ubuntu 8 through to 10.10/kubuntu 8.04. This includes using linux for commercial products.

It depends on what you want:
* spend time tinkering with the OS = linux then windows XP/7
* spend time using apps todo things = OSX then windows 7.

Yes linux is free, however after a year of using it (including compiling apps) the problem of attempting to coordinate package versions and apps (other than those shipped) made me move to OSX. I didn't want to waste my life administrating something that shouldn't need administrating.

mortals · 3 Jan 2011 at 12:17

Alfie said:
One of the best reasons for using linux is to bring out of date computers back to life. Linux will run very well on older machines.

This is a good use for linux

I have fluxbox on my old laptop and it's running sweet.
Also the reason why so many use it on netbooks.

Alfie said:
On modern enthusiast machines (ie i7 with an ssd) windows 7 runs much much faster. This is from my experience, sorry if it offends anyone.

100% disagree
My linux uses 180-200mb of RAM at desktop with loads of stuff running
My Windows7 uses 1GB of RAM on boot
My linux install is more responsive, loads quicker and runs a lot quicker than my windows7 install

I think people must be using bloated installs of linux or something :eek:

I know I don't have an enthusiast machine with a SSD but would guess comparing windows7 and linux would be similar even on an enthusiast machine.

I use linux because:
it's free
it's customisable
it is always evolving
it's quicker than windows
it has some amazing free apps

I recently installed mint fluxbox on my laptop as windows was unstable on it and it took me about 30mins (slow laptop) to install it and get it all running with wireless drivers and everything. (I did then spend another 30mins removing a lot of the bloat but it was all working in 30mins)

NathanE · 3 Jan 2011 at 12:43

mortals said:
My linux uses 180-200mb of RAM at desktop with loads of stuff running
My Windows7 uses 1GB of RAM on boot

Different operating systems measure memory usage in different ways. As it happens, Windows has a far more complex memory model than *nix. This is not a surprise though given that Windows NT was written by the same bunch of guys as VAX and VMS.