Most beautiful Linux.

[legendofphil]

I'm doing this on an Xbox, which has very little RAM, too little for a GUI.
Also being an Xbox, there aren't many distro's that have the required kernel mods already in.

 

[Westside]

I have a question. What is FreeBSD like? Is it based on Linux? Is it good?

 

[unr]

First off, linux if not "for l33t people only". At least not anymore. It hit mainstream quite recently and the word is already spreading. Give it a year or two, I promise you will change your views pretty quickly.

Second of all, CLI is NOT complicated. If you think that shell is scary, there are plenty of tools to help you do things in GUI mode. Yes, you will eventually need to use CLI, but it`s not that hard. `ls` to list directory contents, `cd` to change directories, tab key autocompletes paths, input program name to start it. Easy.
Do an experiment: Start > run > cmd [enter], use `dir` to list contents, `cd` to move around. Not as hard as you might have imagined, eh?

If you have not heard about Linux software as much as you heard about Win programs, that does not mean that there is no software for Linux.
In the past two years I found open source alternatives for almost every Windows program I ever needed to run. Only thing lacking is Photoshop (seriously, I hear this excuse for not trying Linux way too often).
Software installation is actually easier than Windows. All you have to do is start a package manager, select packages you need installed and click `Okay`. Done.

Get Ubuntu as your first distro, you should not be disappointed.

 

[Maikel Steneker]

Any linux distro with Compiz Fusion (comparable to Vista's Aero), is nice to look at.

If you're a beginner to linux, I suggest downloading Ubuntu 7.10 iso image (which will come out later today), burn it onto a blank CD and run (not install) the Live CD. Get a feel of what it's like and then make the decision to whether or not install it as your main OS, or dual boot it with Windows.

Lol, just use Beryl. That thing is very fucking awesome.

What they said.

Btw, why is everyone here antilinux? Linux is much better, though not all programs run.

If its much better...wouldn't it run more programs?

No. The GameCube doesn't have many games, but I believe it's better than the Xbox and PS2. Maybe that's just me though

If I can play the games I want to play and use the programs I want to use (or better alternatives) I don't really care about Windows

 

[SynGamer]

OpenSUSE 10.3 with Gnome 2.0 i believe...try that.

 

[superrob]

Ubuntu + Beryl mod is the ultimate eye candy!

 

[cenotaph]

There's no point in installing Linux for anyone.

Yeah, no one needs Linux... I guess I'll suggest to my boss that we migrate our mission critical systems to Windows, bet they'll keep up well with the load.

 

[Azimuth]

I agree, Linux is not yet ready for the general user base, although it is very close. I will consider it ready when you don't have to open a terminal ever. They are making great progress though and hopefully Linux will be ready soon.

Linux was created to replace other proprietary OSes because some people don't want to be told how to use their OS, tied down to vendor specific hardware or be dependent on another companies products. Its all about choice, freedom and community, things that are more important than money to some.

FreeBSD is berkleys branch of UNIX, Linux is a clone of UNIX. FreeBSD's license allows anyone to use the source in any way they want. Apple have benefited from this by using FreeBSD as the core of OSX.

Grab Ubuntu, whats there to lose?

 

[cenotaph]

I agree, Linux is not yet ready for the general user base, although it is very close. I will consider it ready when you don't have to open a terminal ever. They are making great progress though and hopefully Linux will be ready soon.

Linux was created to replace other proprietary OSes because some people don't want to be told how to use their OS, tied down to vendor specific hardware or be dependent on another companies products. Its all about choice, freedom and community, things that are more important than money to some.

FreeBSD is berkleys branch of UNIX, Linux is a clone of UNIX. FreeBSD's license allows anyone to use the source in any way they want. Apple have benefited from this by using FreeBSD as the core of OSX.

Grab Ubuntu, whats there to lose?

I don't think Linux will ever be as competent a desktop OS as Windows is. Considering how Windows is specifically targeted at desktop users (well, there's the server branch, but that's pretty much only used to centralize Windows desktop installations, so whatever) whereas Linux is developed by people working for major corporations whose interests lie in server performance on rather muscular hardware I'd say it's never going to approach Windows in terms of user experience on desktop machines.

Windows is an incompetent OS in many ways, but you can't deny its user friendliness and that Microsoft has succeeded rather well with creating an intuitive GUI people can understand.

Also, I believe Darwin was forked from NetBSD (as it has a more developed PPC branch) rather than FreeBSD. Edit: other sources tell me it's a mishmash of NetBSD/FreeBSD/NeXTSTEP-code.

 

[living-ghost]

First off, linux if not "for l33t people only". At least not anymore. It hit mainstream quite recently and the word is already spreading. Give it a year or two, I promise you will change your views pretty quickly.

Second of all, CLI is NOT complicated. If you think that shell is scary, there are plenty of tools to help you do things in GUI mode. Yes, you will eventually need to use CLI, but it`s not that hard. `ls` to list directory contents, `cd` to change directories, tab key autocompletes paths, input program name to start it. Easy.
Do an experiment: Start > run > cmd [enter], use `dir` to list contents, `cd` to move around. Not as hard as you might have imagined, eh?

If you have not heard about Linux software as much as you heard about Win programs, that does not mean that there is no software for Linux.
In the past two years I found open source alternatives for almost every Windows program I ever needed to run. Only thing lacking is Photoshop (seriously, I hear this excuse for not trying Linux way too often).
Software installation is actually easier than Windows. All you have to do is start a package manager, select packages you need installed and click `Okay`. Done.

Get Ubuntu as your first distro, you should not be disappointed.

Have you tried Gimp as a photo shop replacement?

 

[Azimuth]

Well, its true that windows is very user friendly but the advances Linux has made in the past couple of years have been amazing. By extrapolating I would approximate a viable alternative to windows in the next 2 years. It will still be rough around the edges but most people will be able to use it on a day-to-day basis.

UI has nothing to do with the kernel, its a whole other beast. If they continue work on KDE/GNOME/XFCE they will soon be as usable as windows.

Darwin is a combination of NextStep and FreeBSD, NextStep uses BSD Unix code
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_(operating_system)

 

[unr]

Windows is an incompetent OS in many ways, but you can't deny its user friendliness and that Microsoft has succeeded rather well with creating an intuitive GUI people can understand.
Microsoft achieved that by sacrificing functionality and freedom of choice.
Since Linux can be customized for any possible situation (from multimedia center to microwave) people see it as a long maze with dozen entrances and one exit. What they need to realize is that there are Linux distributions that can turn this maze into a straightforward path.
Linux is only the core. Everything else (console, GUI, etc) are ordinary programs that revolve around the kernel and use functionality it provides. Distributions only differ in installed programs and their configurations. What this means is that no matter what distro you choose, it is possible to turn it into your very own and unique experience.

QUOTEHave you tried Gimp as a photo shop replacement?

Yeah, I use it pretty often, however it lacks many features photoshop has.

 

[CrEsPo]

Linux doesn't lack programs, Windows is the one that lacks programs. For every Windows program you have you can find a Linux alternative that does the exact same thing. With the addition of having more alternatives for programs it gives you, the user, more flexibility on what software you want to use on your system.

Obviously Windows software isn't going to run (natively) on Linux. It's the same thing as saying that Windows software would run on a Mac. In the end Linux is just another OS and it's all down to personal preference. Some prefer Windows while others prefer Linux. Just because some of you don't know how to make Linux function properly doesn't mean it "sucks". On the contrary, once you learn how to use Linux properly it can become quite powerful.

 

[cenotaph]

UI has nothing to do with the kernel, its a whole other beast. If they continue work on KDE/GNOME/XFCE they will soon be as usable as windows.

I wasn't referring to the UI, but other stuff you'll notice when running desktop systems. Like, CPU- and I/O scheduling (which are currently rather server optimized. The CFS scheduler in 2.6.23 is a start for a better desktop experience, though), among other things.

Also, I find the notion that you believe I for a minute confused user- and kernel space rather insulting, thank you.

Microsoft achieved that by sacrificing functionality and freedom of choice.
No really, dude. The two elements - user friendliness and functionality - are polar, yes. A purely desktop centered OS can afford sacrificing a larger amount of functionality for usability as it's never used by the intended target audience. This is an advantage in my opinion as unnecessary functionality is more a liability than anything else, as any sysadmin would know.

QUOTE

Since Linux can be customized for any possible situation (from multimedia center to microwave) people see it as a long maze with dozen entrances and one exit. What they need to realize is that there are Linux distributions that can turn this maze into a straightforward path.

Yes, but only as far as kernel functionality goes. And if you spent some time studying the Linux kernel, you'd see most functionality - even though it might be useful on desktop platforms - is, as mentioned, rather server optimized and not as efficient as it would be had it been specifically targeted for desktops.

 

[enarky]

Have you tried Gimp as a photo shop replacement?

Never ever used Photoshop, I only use Gimp.

And Linux is ready for the Mainstream Desktop. It is you who is to lazy to learn how things work in the Linux world. You had a lifetime to learn how Microsoft products work, but you won't give Linux a measly three months to learn even the most basic principles. How else can this be called than lazy?

And please, don't start with your ill Grandmother that will never learn how to do anything with Linux! That's the same Person that will never learn jackshit about Windows. The same person whose PC you'll have to delouse regularly 'cause it's infested with trojan horses and worms, because they didn't fucking learn not to click on that pr0n.jpg.exe attachment. These.people.will.never.learn. It doesn't matter if they'll never learn on a windows machine or a linux machine.

 

[Azimuth]

I wasn't referring to the UI, but other stuff you'll notice when running desktop systems. Like, CPU- and I/O scheduling (which are currently rather server optimized. The CFS scheduler in 2.6.23 is a start for a better desktop experience, though), among other things.

Also, I find the notion that you believe I for a minute confused user- and kernel space rather insulting, thank you.

I think desktop performance is the least of Linux's problems right now(although CFS is going to be excellent from what I've seen), there is a need for better integration of applications and more aesthetically pleasing UIs because lets face it most people are shallow.

Sorry about the user/kernel space insult

No really, dude. The two elements - user friendliness and functionality - are polar, yes. A purely desktop centered OS can afford sacrificing a larger amount of functionality for usability as it's never used by the intended target audience. This is an advantage in my opinion as unnecessary functionality is more a liability than anything else, as any sysadmin would know.

thats why desktop oriented distros exist, they are created exclusively for personal computers.

QUOTE

Yes, but only as far as kernel functionality goes. And if you spent some time studying the Linux kernel, you'd see most functionality - even though it might be useful on desktop platforms - is, as mentioned, rather server optimized and not as efficient as it would be had it been specifically targeted for desktops.

You know that you can custom compile a kernel right? Just strip out the parts you don't need and include only those things that your system needs.

 

[unr]

No really, dude. The two elements - user friendliness and functionality - are polar, yes. A purely desktop centered OS can afford sacrificing a larger amount of functionality for usability as it's never used by the intended target audience. This is an advantage in my opinion as unnecessary functionality is more a liability than anything else, as any sysadmin would know.
Vast customization options allow to twist and bend linux to infinity.
More advanced users will be satisfied with ability to recompile kernel with only needed functionality and squeeze everything out of their hardware that way.
Casual users will enjoy being able to customize desktop environment in ways unimaginable to windows users.
Here is what I made out of my desktop: clicky (show-off moment)

QUOTEYes, but only as far as kernel functionality goes. And if you spent some time studying the Linux kernel, you'd see most functionality - even though it might be useful on desktop platforms - is, as mentioned, rather server optimized and not as efficient as it would be had it been specifically targeted for desktops.

Linux gives ABILITY to fiddle with it`s most intimate settings, but that does not mean it is NECESSARY. I will repeat myself: Linux is only kernel. Developers make whatever they want out of it. There are distros that are server-optimized, there are also distros that are desktop-optimized.

 

[Mewgia]

I agree, Linux is not yet ready for the general user base, although it is very close. I will consider it ready when you don't have to open a terminal ever. They are making great progress though and hopefully Linux will be ready soon.

I don't know about other distros, but the only time I -ever- had to open the terminal in PCLinuxOS was when I tried to install cTorrent (my computer is ghey and slow and when I try to run Amarok, firefox, and Azueres all at once it lags like hell, a kTorrent is banned on blackcats) there are huge download repositories already set up for the easy download of literally thousands of applications and a few games. Everything else is controlled though the PCLOS Control Center and a couple of other things that are conveniently located on the taskbar by default (and in the start menu). Again, I have not yet tried other distros (I plan on trying Ubuntu 7.1 and Gentoo soon) but I HIGHLY recommend PCLinuxOS for people of all skill level.

 

[cenotaph]

Vast customization options allow to twist and bend linux to infinity.
More advanced users will be satisfied with ability to recompile kernel with only needed functionality and squeeze everything out of their hardware that way.
Casual users will enjoy being able to customize desktop environment in ways unimaginable to windows users.
Here is what I made out of my desktop: clicky (show-off moment)
You're not getting my point and confusing two different target audiences. Yes, advanced users will want to recompile the kernel (I wouldn't run a stock kernel if my life depended on it as most pre-compiled kernels tend to be bloated. I also prefer disabling LKM support entirely as LKM rootkits can cause nightmares) but all of that's kind of irrelevant seeing as we're discussing OSes for the large unknowing mass who'll want something as simple as possible. There are desktop-centric distros, but they can only go as far as the kernel will allow them in terms of performance unless they modify it themselves and at that point you might as well turn to something like Syllable instead of going through all of the trouble.

Linux gives ABILITY to fiddle with it`s most intimate settings, but that does not mean it is NECESSARY. I will repeat myself: Linux is only kernel. Developers make whatever they want out of it. There are distros that are server-optimized, there are also distros that are desktop-optimized.

You're not getting my point. I will repeat myself: Linux is primarily engineered for server platforms. Thus, features that might benefit desktop users as well as server users will end up being tailored more for servers (check kernel mailing lists if you want examples of how performance in various benchmarks affects kernel development). Why is it that we haven't had a fair CPU scheduler until recently? Perhaps you're getting what I'm trying to say now.

I wasn't going to post again in this topic seeing as this is going nowhere, but went against my better judgement. With risk of being labeled as deserting in lack of proper support for what I'm proposing; unless someone contributes something significant, this is my last post. If you want to advocate Linux on desktops, go on. I think efforts should go into something that's aimed at desktops from the very beginning instead - not necessarily MS Windows, but rather something like Syllable or Haiku (decedent of BeOS).

 

[Hitto]

Guys, my mom uses Ubuntu. I tricked her into switching after I told her "openoffice" was the name of the new version of microsoft office. Photoshop -> gimp, IE->firexox, thunderbird she used already. There you go, migration complete.
She finds it much easier to use than having to launch spybot S&D, AVG antivirus, updating spywareblaster, and being worried sick everytime one of her dumbass friends mails her a powerpoint or flash file.

Most of you people who say "linux is not a desktop OS" DO NOT KNOW ONE *NORMAL* PERSON. Get out of your fucking basements.
Just Kidding, I love both windows and linux