It's been around 2.5 years back since I switched to Linux, I don't know why I did it or when I did it. It almost feels like I've been doing it for as long as I can remember. It's almost as if my mind is trying to fool me, subtly updating my memories such that things that I cognitively know happened on windows feel like they happened on linux. Even if, wine didn't exist. Even if I had to give up StarCraft, Hearthstone and Photoshop, I wouldn't go back.
Thankfully though, Wine does exist. So let's talk about gaming on Linux and how it goes.
Let's be honest of the bat. It isn't perfect, it's good, but not perfect. Wine claims to for the most part implement Windows XP which in my experience has been true. I am running Hearthstone, StarCraft and Photoshop on Linux essentially with no troubles.
Wine
There are some misconceptions about Wine and Linux though. The first and foremost that Wine is an Emulator. Wine stands for "Wine is NOT an emulator", and it isn't. It's an implementation of the Windows API translating this to linux system calls. Just like windows itself is an implementation of the windows api translating these api calls to NT Kernel system calls. There is no theoretical reason why Wine should be slower than Windows, and it isn't in the general case. If anyone is telling you that they haven't used it. Sometimes it's slower, sometimes it's faster because it's a different implementation. But there is no extra layer of translation added, it's simply an open implementation of the same layer that windows provided. But since its primary purpose is to run applications, this layer comes withour a start menu, wallpaper, clock, and all that stuff. It does however come with minesweeper.
Linux itself
The other misconception is that Linux is "difficult" or not user friendly. It can be if you want it not to be. Linux is very varied and allows you to mix and match your OS together much like you would mix and match the hardware from a homebuilt computer together. You can come with a nice prefab like Ubuntu which looks like this:
"I call it the orange, because it's like an apple, except orange, get it?"
However, mine looks more like this:
"I don't know what to call this."
This is not a prefab. This is something I threw together more or less myself. The core is actually Linuxmint 15 Petra. Anyone who knows Linuxmint 15 Petra knows that this doesn't even look close to what Linuxmint 15 Petra looks like when you open it up. There are no icons on my desktop, because I think they're ugly. I could put them there if I want though, there is no start menu because I don't need it. If I want to run a program I'll just type its name in the text bar below. But I degress.
So How did I install and get Heartthstone to run
The reason I picked Hearthstone as an exmaple and not STarCraft is because I had no problems whatsoever to get STarCraft to run, I had some small problem with HS. For STarCraft, everything went the same except for the small problem
This notebook is I think about 4 months old. It has a tech called optimus technology by nvidia. This means that it has two graphics cards. A shitty one which is normally used, and a more power hungry but better one which it should automaticlaly switch to seemlessly for more demanding applications. Well, this didn't work out of the box. I got an error, I googled the error. It told me how to fix it, I fixed it by typing
apt-get install bumblebee nvidia-drivers
or something like that, not sure what it was any more. The point is, that fixed it. I installed a package, the package manager handled the downloading of the package data, the installation and the automatic installation of whatever dependency those packages needed. I didn't have to click through any licences, select a folder where to install it, I just had to do that. If I wanted to I could have opened a graphical tool and selected those two packages from a list. I think this is more convenient, but whatever floats your boat.
Right, so now that my graphics acceleration driver problem was solved. I had to install wine. Well, this was easy enough.
apt-get install wine
. Again, the package manager automated the installation of dependencies and shared libraries, I didn't have to close any running applications nor restart my computer. It took about 20 seconds to complete the download and install it all.
So far so good, now install the Battle.net client. This was the most difficult part, both due to Windows and some problems with Wine. I had to leave my trusty Unix-like environment of doing things. Browse to the battle.net website, download the executable. Throw it into my downloads folder, start the virtual wine file explorer and double click the executable. Essentially, I would be doing up to this point what you did on windows. If Battle.net was a native Debian package. I would have installed it with
apt-get install battle.net
and the package manager would verfiy that my system has the specs and if possible download whatever extra drivers and libraries I need to make it have those specs.
But hey, battle.net was installed, great. So, I then started it. Now, wine is kind enough to add its windows applications to your normal application list. So, if you actually use said application list which I don't. You a battle.net icon would appear on your desktop or whatever your Linux uses to start such applications would happen. I don't use the application list and start every program with the command line, this is cumbersome for wine programs because that means I would have to start it every time with
. This was essentially what motivated me to write my own implementation of the Freedesktop application standart, so I wrote a simple program and now I just type
run battle.net
, the
run
program follows this standard and laucnhes whatever is in my application list. I could have again just configured my OS to put all applications on my desktop or in some menu, I choose not to because I think it gets in the way and looks ugly.
Okay, fine, I got Battle.net installed, I can open it and navigate to the Hearthstone tab and press install. Which went fine. Battle.net downloaded it and installed it while I sat back. But when I tried to run it, it crashed immediately. So I googled "Hearthstone wine crash on startup". Well, the first hit on google or something told me to do this:
- start winecfg - Go to libraries - add the dbghelp library - at overrides, select disable for said library
So I did. Then I tried again, and Hearthstone worked flawlessly and does so to this day.
And here's a picture of my using photoshop to blur out the names of me and my opponent while playing a game of Hearthstone on Linux.
"Two titlebars, two close buttons, one of the weirder artefacts of running wine I guess. Both work as expected."
So from my experience, no, Linux gaming isn't that difficult. And in return you get an OS that installs software super easily, doesn't need a virus scanner, whose file system requires no defragmentatio, no NSA backdoors, you can completely customize your OS and in my opinion it's just far more convenient in how it works.
I've been wondering about this for a while. As more and more people switch from windows to linux, which AFAIK is a process that has been speeding up recently, what guarantees that you don't need a virus scanner?
On July 19 2014 05:33 Perfi wrote: I've been wondering about this for a while. As more and more people switch from windows to linux, which AFAIK is a process that has been speeding up recently, what guarantees that you don't need a virus scanner?
Ah yes, this is also something which is very much a misconception. I'll probably update the OP with information like this.
Many people think that viruses don't exist for Linux because of the relative inpopularity of the software. This isn't true. In fact, Mac also has no viruses and since no one runs a virus scanner on linux, and they don't even exist. You'd think someone would write one. But the truth of the matter is that a virus has to exploit a bug in the OS to work. That an OS can have a virus is a bug, not a feature. A virus per definition is a program that in some way does things it's not supposed to be able to do, gain rights it shouldn't have. In the olden days of MSDOS this was absolutely terrible, a floppy could be injected, you inserted into your drive, it copied _itself_ onto your computer without you giving it permission to do so or manually copying it, and when another disk went into that computer it copied itself back to the other disk. This is the work of some creative coding which in some way managed to allow a program to run itself without a user telling it to be ran and doing things it doesn't have permission to do. This shouldn't happen, it's exploiting a bug.
The simple reason that viruses are not a thread on any operating system but Windows is quite simple, these bugs don't exist. And if they exist and they are found, they are immediately patched. Linux is open source, the code that makes up the operating system is public, if such bugs exist, they are much, much easier to find than on windows, you don't have to reverse engineer to find them. The code is public. But this also means that if they exist, people without malicious intend find them before the code even becomes a stable release and suggest a fix.
however.
The term "virus" has been some-what displaced recently. It's not as bad as it used to be on windows and for the most part these kinds of bugs are removed. What isn't a virus but simply a malicious program that is often called a virus doesn't do something it's not supposed to do. It's just a program that you install and you give permission to do what it wants and it'll fuck your system over. Linux does not protect you against these programs, no operating system does. If you give a program administrator/root access, it can do _anything_ it wants, it has all rights, it can read, modify and delete anything it wants on your system. So while viruses are an extreme scarcity, malware is not, but you have to actually give malware rights in order for it to work.
To install software, you generally have to give the installation process administrator/root access. But on Linux, this in practice is not a problem, as the post highlighted, you tend to install software with the package manager. This means that in general it comes from a trusted source and a lot of the basic tools that make spreadsheets, do office work etc on linux you'll be using are open source as well so if they contained malicious code, people would know. So if you install from the official package repositories of your OS, you won't get a virus, this is as unlikely a nvidia driver update containing a virus. But anyone can set up a repository and if you install something from an untrusted closed repository with no public source under root access, in theory it can fuck your entire system over. But in practice if that happens it becomes public knowledge pretty quickly that that rep is not to be trusted and the package manager itself will warn you when trying to add that repository because it's known as a source that's not to be trusted.
Edit: Recently, there was found a bug by the way which allowed someone in a specific circumstance to gain root access who wasn't supposed to have it via some hole in the X Window Server, I believe that defect is patched now.
On July 19 2014 06:08 ComaDose wrote: thanks for the guide! as someone who uses linux at work and windows at home i have been considering making the leap.
What's your job if I might ask?
It's not really a fully fledged guide as much as detailing my experiences. Showing that while there are some problems and obstacles, they can easily be fixed if you google. I guess that other people will maybe have some other problems which can also be fixed.
On July 19 2014 06:08 ComaDose wrote: thanks for the guide! as someone who uses linux at work and windows at home i have been considering making the leap.
What's your job if I might ask?
It's not really a fully fledged guide as much as detailing my experiences. Showing that while there are some problems and obstacles, they can easily be fixed if you google. I guess that other people will maybe have some other problems which can also be fixed.
Yeah an example of good google keywords is almost more useful then a guide haha. I am a software design engineer. My product runs on a linux server.
On July 19 2014 06:03 SiskosGoatee wrote: The simple reason that viruses are not a thread on any operating system but Windows is quite simple, these bugs don't exist. And if they exist and they are found, they are immediately patched. Linux is open source, the code that makes up the operating system is public, if such bugs exist, they are much, much easier to find than on windows, you don't have to reverse engineer to find them. The code is public. But this also means that if they exist, people without malicious intend find them before the code even becomes a stable release and suggest a fix.
That's just nonsense. There are bugs in Linux that are not publicly known, either because they have not been discovered or have not been made public. No system of that size is bug-free, open source or not. And even if bugs are found and patched quickly, not all users update on a daily basis, be it for good reason, lazyness or ignorance.
It's pretty amazing how well linux has been doing against malware, but claiming that it runs bug-free code is ridiculous.
On July 19 2014 06:03 SiskosGoatee wrote: The simple reason that viruses are not a thread on any operating system but Windows is quite simple, these bugs don't exist. And if they exist and they are found, they are immediately patched. Linux is open source, the code that makes up the operating system is public, if such bugs exist, they are much, much easier to find than on windows, you don't have to reverse engineer to find them. The code is public. But this also means that if they exist, people without malicious intend find them before the code even becomes a stable release and suggest a fix.
That's just nonsense. There are bugs in Linux that are not publicly known, either because they have not been discovered or have not been made public. No system of that size is bug-free, open source or not. And even if bugs are found and patched quickly, not all users update on a daily basis, be it for good reason, lazyness or ignorance.
There are bugs, just no known bugs at the moment which comprise a security risk, there are many known bugs. But none of whom allow a virus to grant itself permission as far as I know.
Oh Im thinking of installing linux on a couple older laptops for better performance, since they dont run too many windows apps, and my GF wont need to learn WINE stuff to run things for just internet use and netflix streaming.
I don't think ill make the leap on my home pc yet though, I run a lot of games on my pc and I would rather not have to worry about the small glitches and bugs I might need to fix when running them (if they have weird compat issues out of the box on wine which I know isn't always the case)
On July 19 2014 06:03 SiskosGoatee wrote: The simple reason that viruses are not a thread on any operating system but Windows is quite simple, these bugs don't exist. And if they exist and they are found, they are immediately patched. Linux is open source, the code that makes up the operating system is public, if such bugs exist, they are much, much easier to find than on windows, you don't have to reverse engineer to find them. The code is public. But this also means that if they exist, people without malicious intend find them before the code even becomes a stable release and suggest a fix.
That's just nonsense. There are bugs in Linux that are not publicly known, either because they have not been discovered or have not been made public. No system of that size is bug-free, open source or not. And even if bugs are found and patched quickly, not all users update on a daily basis, be it for good reason, lazyness or ignorance.
There are bugs, just no known bugs at the moment which comprise a security risk, there are many known bugs. But none of whom allow a virus to grant itself permission as far as I know.
Also, this is pretty wrong. I am sure there are ways to get permissions, the thing is malware embedded into websites, or malicious other such links that can exploit linux are just less likely to be found. Why would I try to create something for linux when its easier to target windows and its larger userbase?
I have seen some breakdowns of code that inject themselves to get permissions via other applications which do have access to your pc (through the program's security flaws - looking at you Adobe (insert name here)!).
But yeah, your chances of that with smart browsing are way way lower on Linux. That being said, chances of malware or viruses on windows with smart browsing is also pretty rare.
On July 19 2014 07:35 ZeromuS wrote: Oh Im thinking of installing linux on a couple older laptops for better performance, since they dont run too many windows apps, and my GF wont need to learn WINE stuff to run things for just internet use and netflix streaming.
I don't think ill make the leap on my home pc yet though, I run a lot of games on my pc and I would rather not have to worry about the small glitches and bugs I might need to fix when running them (if they have weird compat issues out of the box on wine which I know isn't always the case)
On July 19 2014 06:03 SiskosGoatee wrote: The simple reason that viruses are not a thread on any operating system but Windows is quite simple, these bugs don't exist. And if they exist and they are found, they are immediately patched. Linux is open source, the code that makes up the operating system is public, if such bugs exist, they are much, much easier to find than on windows, you don't have to reverse engineer to find them. The code is public. But this also means that if they exist, people without malicious intend find them before the code even becomes a stable release and suggest a fix.
That's just nonsense. There are bugs in Linux that are not publicly known, either because they have not been discovered or have not been made public. No system of that size is bug-free, open source or not. And even if bugs are found and patched quickly, not all users update on a daily basis, be it for good reason, lazyness or ignorance.
There are bugs, just no known bugs at the moment which comprise a security risk, there are many known bugs. But none of whom allow a virus to grant itself permission as far as I know.
Also, this is pretty wrong. I am sure there are ways to get permissions
Assume there are, then they are easily fixed because the source code is public, and they are also easily found because the source code is public. Maybe there are, but they aren't known except for the X server exploit which I believe was fixed.
the thing is malware embedded into websites, or malicious other such links that can exploit linux are just less likely to be found. Why would I try to create something for linux when its easier to target windows and its larger userbase?
Because linux users don't use firewalls and all that crap to shield themselves so you'd get a guaranteed hit if you had a way to circumvent the permission model?
I have seen some breakdowns of code that inject themselves to get permissions via other applications which do have access to your pc (through the program's security flaws - looking at you Adobe (insert name here)!).
And that's why you don't generally run programs as root. You should never run wine as root for this very reason, it's not needed. In the vast majority of cases you won't be running applications as root. You run the package manager as root to install the software and after that point you run the software itself as user.
But yeah, your chances of that with smart browsing are way way lower on Linux. That being said, chances of malware or viruses on windows with smart browsing is also pretty rare.
That's the difference between an actual virus which circumvents the permission model and does things it's not supposed to do and malware which you actually have to give permission, in the idea case just visiting a site could give you a virus via exploiting holes in your browser and then your operating system. But since I don't run my browser as root I don't really see that happening. And even if it could some-how sidestep my browser and plant itself on my computer, it would still need to find a way to run itself on my computer and then it would only have user rights, not root rights, so then it could fuck up my home dir I guess.
You're todo list made my morning. Good info for people but I've found that people into programming or expanding their horizons will use Linux but most people use Windows for familiarity and 'user friendliness' <-- in quotes for a reason.
On July 19 2014 09:50 sUgArMaNiAc wrote: You're todo list made my morning. Good info for people but I've found that people into programming or expanding their horizons will use Linux but most people use Windows for familiarity and 'user friendliness' <-- in quotes for a reason.
My nan is on Linux though, 79 years old, knows barely anything about computers, but she has a chromebook, only uses it for email and some news site browsing.
I've used (almost exclusively) Ubuntu for 3 years now. I've never really liked running games in Wine; I try to stick to native games if possible when I'm on Linux, but I just boot Windows to play Windows games (still have to have Windows for non-Wine-compatible stuff like iTunes :/). The only exception is BW, which I'm used to running in Wine because the public computers at my school all run (modified) Debian
The only reason I haven't made the jump, now that sc2 is permanently unplayable on my current laptop, is that there are a million versions of linux and have no idea about the differences or which version would be best. Do you have suggestions?
Anyway last time I used it I was able to stream on maxed out settings at 60 fps (streamed at 30 fps with ffmpeg). Don't have the stream vod but take my word for it.
Maybe il set it back up and stream some more. Unfortunately after I sorted it out I continued poking and prodding, broke it, got bored and forgot about it.
Example: http://www.twitch.tv/iksf/b/549027770 Some performance issues not fixed everything yet used to be better. Without stream its 50+ fps solid on maxed out. Mute the vod for the first 6 odd minutes the audio is garbage, thats just my own bad configuration on stream though, could fix if could be bothered recording again, for me audio was fine.
On July 19 2014 15:52 Meatex wrote: The only reason I haven't made the jump, now that sc2 is permanently unplayable on my current laptop, is that there are a million versions of linux and have no idea about the differences or which version would be best. Do you have suggestions?
I'd just get Linuxmint or Ubuntu or SUSE, they're userfriendly and have the least chance of breaking.
Arch and Gentoo are basically the bleeding edge feeding you with all the latest, but also the most unstable tech and fairly DIY but also have the highest chance of breaking in your face and rely on your extensive knowledge to fix whatever breaks. Saying you run Arch and Gentoo is massive e-penis size though.
Apart from that though, if you say pick mint, you can choose from Mint Gnome, Mint Cinnamon, Mint KDE and Mint Xfce. This is your so called desktop environment / window manager default configuration. If you google the screenshots you can see these all look quite differently. You can probably google the differences between them and judge which you like the most. My computer in this screenshot:
Started out as a Mint KDE. If you look screenshots up of mint KDE you'll notice it doesn't look anything like that any more so yeah, the modding capabilities are quite high. Basically, when you decide on distro the biggest issue is going to be the package manager you want to use. Ubuntu and Mint for a large part use the same packaging system except Ubuntu is known to be less trusty with your personals. SUSE uses a different packaging system and is slightly more aimed in general at making a work computer rather than a personal computer.
You could also try old and trusty Debian which is very stable and reasonably user friendly. Uses the same overall packaging system as Ubuntu and Mint but in its default configuration doesn't give you the latest packages unless they've become stable and can be a bit too conservative at times.
My advice overall is:
- First Google your hardware to see if it's well supported. There are some cases where some hardware isn't. - If you read against using binary blobs, don't buy into it and just use them. There is no benefit for the end user in not using them except some ideological protest against using closed source software. - If you get an error somewhere, stay calm and google the error message, chances are the first hit will provide a very easy and straightforward solution. The askubuntu and linuxmint help fora are great at having people that explain to the newblets how to solve them - don't update anything if it works. Only update if you do it for a reason because you know the new version will fix some bug you've been annoyed at or has a new feature you like.
On July 19 2014 15:52 Meatex wrote: The only reason I haven't made the jump, now that sc2 is permanently unplayable on my current laptop, is that there are a million versions of linux and have no idea about the differences or which version would be best. Do you have suggestions?
I don't know what you are talking about, the graph on the right gives an nice overview ;P
/Sarcasm off
With all the Linuxes, look at three things: The base - Eg. Debian/Slackware/RedHat (defines wich software is already prepackaged for you to install without having to manually compile), The package manager (How to install new Software) The GUI(KDE, Gnome, Xface, usually all available for all distributions - also the Filemanager might be interresting, as changing it later on comes with great pain), see if you find a Linux that combines your top choices from these.
Edit: A lot Linux variants have Live CD's, which allow you to test the OS if you have a DVD drive without installing the system, they are a lot slower than the installed versions, but are great to see if you like the software that comes with the OS.
On July 19 2014 19:50 HaRuHi wrote: Edit: A lot Linux variants have Live CD's, which allow you to test the OS if you have a DVD drive without installing the system, they are a lot slower than the installed versions, but are great to see if you like the software that comes with the OS.
You can also create a Live Image on a USB Drive. A 4GB USB Drive is already big enough to create one on the USB drive.
I'm also currently switching to Linux MINT on my main computer, though I have a Windows 7 partition if I run into emulators/games that don't run on Linux. But I'm not playing a lot anymore, so I'll mainly use the Linux MINT OS.
So I went and got ubuntu to try that I had an issue where my touchpad wasn't recognized and I would have to disable a duplicate mouse which cause my cursor to jump a little to the left every 3 seconds Got wine and POL and tried for about 3 hours to get sc2 to work but it just kept crashing and saying I was low on video memory. I couldn't find any way to see video card drivers or anything but when I use apt-get to install latest nvidia drivers it said all up to date. When I get my desktop I may go linux for my laptop and windows on my desktop but otherwise will just stick with windows for now
It's basically a technology where your notebook has two graphics cards and your computer switches from a ligher to more intensive card depending on the task. Ubuntu for some reason I don't get does not come with bumblebee, the driver to enable this, by default, this is how you do it.
Yeah, you can also turn it off I guess and always use your advanced graphics card. Makes a hell of a noise though on this one. It was fairly easy to get bumblebee to work for me to just make it switch.
Normally i would play games on windows, do everything else at linux but i had to use only linux for 9 months at school and my part time job. In that period, i played hearthstone and baldurs gate 1-2ee with wine, dwarf fortress and dcss(dungeon crawl stone soup) by building from source. Wine is good for old games but it was quite buggy for me. My desktop manager kept died everytime i quit a game and alt-tabbing broke the game most of the gime. If steam pushes linux gaming, it might get better. But currently it is not usable for most people imo. PS: I had the same problem with my video cards. I have an hd6000 something and an intel graphics 4000. I learnt a lot about linux thanks to problems they caused.
yup I also tried to install bumblebee but it didn't seem to do anything I also I have issues because all my game data is installed to partition which linux can see but for some reason wine cannot Even POL is not very user friendly for dual booters who have games already installed
Each prefix of wine creates its own virtual partition. The default one is ~/.wine/drive_c/, as far as wine is concerned, drive_c is just a C:\ drive on windows and nothing exists deeper down than that.
What you can however easily do is create a symlink inside drive_c to your windows partition. Wine automatically does this symlinking drive_c/user/<name>/Documents to /home/<name>/Documents for instance.
On July 19 2014 17:38 SiskosGoatee wrote: Saying you run Arch and Gentoo is massive e-penis size though.
Both have great documentation; if you can follow directions (and, in Gentoo's case, have the patience to set cflags and compile most everything), you can use them.
Certainly you can use them. They're just not "user friendly" and I wouldn't recommend them to the average home user who simply lacks the technical savy.
I do virtually everything with the terminal, hence my wallpaper features 2 lines of terminal which can be expanded at the press of a hotkey. But I still don't like arch because the packages are very unstable and often break. I'm not that big un just updating for the sake of updating. I only update when I want a feature that I specifically know is in the update. The entire essence of Arch is to always get the latest of the latest.
I can definitely like the minimalism of the OS though. I actually had to go in the reverse route and tear everything I need out of it. I'd rather go into the route of just installing what I need.
Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install <application name> - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
yeah im definately liking the apt-get function though it is tricky at first because you have to know exactly what you want for example I needed to type this exactly to get graphics drivers working
Took me a lot of searching to figure that I needed the prime part
So now I only have 2 issues - I got sc2 working though via POL it doesn't work I just go to the starcraft 2 exe and right click run with wine. It will load the battle.net app and then crash but there is enough time for my to click launch and it gets into the game and works. Don't suppose you have ideas on this?
The last problem is my touchpad isn' detected by ubuntu and has a generic wheel mouse device instead maybe? but that makes the cursor jump left a bit every 3 seconds so I have to disable that device on startup every time.
The fun part starts when the stuff you want isn't in the repository, or just the wrong version, and nobody cares to provide a linux binary, and the source won't just compile when asked nicely.
On July 20 2014 20:49 spinesheath wrote: The fun part starts when the stuff you want isn't in the repository, or just the wrong version, and nobody cares to provide a linux binary, and the source won't just compile when asked nicely.
You mean the worst case scenario is when you essentially end up in the situation you are always in on windows?
On July 20 2014 20:49 spinesheath wrote: The fun part starts when the stuff you want isn't in the repository, or just the wrong version, and nobody cares to provide a linux binary, and the source won't just compile when asked nicely.
You mean the worst case scenario is when you essentially end up in the situation you are always in on windows?
I don't think I've ever compiled anything from source because a Windows binary wasn't available.
What are you talking about, they're not available all the time. Good luck trying to get a windows binary for say opam. The only reason you can even some-what hack it to work on windows is because it's open source. No documentation provided for that though that I know so you're on your own.
When things are not released with windows in mind, then sure, there won't be binaries. That's just obvious because any sane person who releases stuff for windows provides binaries. I never was forced to compile anything from source on windows.
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install <application name> - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
This is so misleading lol. Installing applications on windows is so much easier than using the linux package manager. The only reason why you would want to use linux is if you work in IT and you need fix things for a living. If you're just at home using your computer for entertainment, why would you want this headache?
On July 21 2014 02:35 SiskosGoatee wrote: And can you give me an example of something released with linux in mind but not having binaries?
I'm sure that there's always a binary of some version of a piece of Linux software available for some distribution. But, depending on the version of software you want and the distro that you want to use it on, a shit ton of packages can only be built from source.
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
I used linux for a bit to see what it was like a while back and it was more annoying than windows was. I'll give you an easier solution for most of the later steps: enter -> enter -> enter -> enter lol. Maybe move the arrow keys once or twice (for I agree etc...).
For bold, never had to do administrator thing since guess what, it can be disabled from the control panel once lol. For active applications, only recall one install asking me to close stuff otherwise no problems there. For last step, most cases, you can still use it before reboot and I rarely reboot after installs. Honestly, most of what you wrote is just nitpicking. Anyone who's installed anything just a couple of times will be able to go through installs easily.
On July 21 2014 05:03 BigFan wrote: For bold, never had to do administrator thing since guess what, it can be disabled from the control panel once lol.
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install <application name> - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
This is so misleading lol. Installing applications on windows is so much easier than using the linux package manager. The only reason why you would want to use linux is if you work in IT and you need fix things for a living. If you're just at home using your computer for entertainment, why would you want this headache?
No, this is exactly what you do on windows. You have to download an executable and run it. On linux the package manager automates downloading, running, installing, solving dependencies, everything. You need only tell the package manager the name of the package.
On July 21 2014 02:35 SiskosGoatee wrote: And can you give me an example of something released with linux in mind but not having binaries?
I'm sure that there's always a binary of some version of a piece of Linux software available for some distribution. But, depending on the version of software you want and the distro that you want to use it on, a shit ton of packages can only be built from source.
Unless you are on Gentoo, in which case you specifically choose Gentoo because you want to build from source to get the best optimization for your architecture. All packages in your repo are in facy binary packages.
apt-get does not compile from source, portage does.
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install <application name> - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
I used linux for a bit to see what it was like a while back and it was more annoying than windows was. I'll give you an easier solution for most of the later steps: enter -> enter -> enter -> enter lol. Maybe move the arrow keys once or twice (for I agree etc...).
, And you still have to read it, just clicking enter without reading is a sure way to get malware on Windows because a lot of the installers if you don't read carefully install a "sponsor application" with it which is malware. You have to read every step carefully. There is no such need in linux.
For bold, never had to do administrator thing since guess what, it can be disabled from the control panel once lol. For active applications, only recall one install asking me to close stuff otherwise no problems there.
Yeah, you can also set your email to autologin and tell your browser to remember you password on TL, not a smart idea.
For last step, most cases, you can still use it before reboot and I rarely reboot after installs. Honestly, most of what you wrote is just nitpicking. Anyone who's installed anything just a couple of times will be able to go through installs easily.
Hence I said, "if you're in bad luck", how windows is just designed is that in a lot of cases you have to reboot after installing stuff to use it. In Linux you can more often than not upgrade a program while it is running and the new features become available to you as you update in plenty of cases. You pretty much never have to restart your computer ever. My uptime is often months
That still doesn't address the issue of that you actually have to go to a site and download an executable and then run the executable though instead of just typing in the name and sitting back.
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
I used linux for a bit to see what it was like a while back and it was more annoying than windows was. I'll give you an easier solution for most of the later steps: enter -> enter -> enter -> enter lol. Maybe move the arrow keys once or twice (for I agree etc...).
, And you still have to read it, just clicking enter without reading is a sure way to get malware on Windows because a lot of the installers if you don't read carefully install a "sponsor application" with it which is malware. You have to read every step carefully. There is no such need in linux.
For bold, never had to do administrator thing since guess what, it can be disabled from the control panel once lol. For active applications, only recall one install asking me to close stuff otherwise no problems there.
Yeah, you can also set your email to autologin and tell your browser to remember you password on TL, not a smart idea.
For last step, most cases, you can still use it before reboot and I rarely reboot after installs. Honestly, most of what you wrote is just nitpicking. Anyone who's installed anything just a couple of times will be able to go through installs easily.
Hence I said, "if you're in bad luck", how windows is just designed is that in a lot of cases you have to reboot after installing stuff to use it. In Linux you can more often than not upgrade a program while it is running and the new features become available to you as you update in plenty of cases. You pretty much never have to restart your computer ever. My uptime is often months
That still doesn't address the issue of that you actually have to go to a site and download an executable and then run the executable though instead of just typing in the name and sitting back.
Come now, not sure why you're making it sound like it's complex to deal with window installations lol. You're sitting there, see the first screen to see what the install is and make sure it's what you want then you just click enter several times for the agreement, directory then installation. It's literally painless and you need seconds to do it! lol. Are there more steps? maybe a couple more. Are they time consuming or painful? no, infact, they are pretty easy to follow and it becomes like a pattern.
That's not much of an argument against my point lol. I'm talking about the annoying administrator message that would pop up with every single thing you did back in vista. I dunno if it's still around in windows 8 or not but it wasn't needed and is really easy to disable when you first get your computer. If you use adblock and are careful which sites you visit, the chances of getting any viruses, trojans etc... goes down a lot which means that leaving some passwords saved won't hurt. My TL is always logged on. I don't with email since I don't need to check it that frequently.
Thing is, that's really dependent on what you are installing. In cases where you need to do it, it's such a minor inconvenience at best considering how fast computers restart these days. I haven't restarted my laptop in ages either.
Nickpicking imo. Windows has much more variety in terms of software last I checked in comparison to Linux so you work a bit more but get software that have great support and enhance your experience. For the record, I'm not hating on Linux but don't think it's right to claim that windows is that much of a pain when it comes to installations.
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install <application name> - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
I used linux for a bit to see what it was like a while back and it was more annoying than windows was. I'll give you an easier solution for most of the later steps: enter -> enter -> enter -> enter lol. Maybe move the arrow keys once or twice (for I agree etc...).
, And you still have to read it, just clicking enter without reading is a sure way to get malware on Windows because a lot of the installers if you don't read carefully install a "sponsor application" with it which is malware. You have to read every step carefully. There is no such need in linux.
For bold, never had to do administrator thing since guess what, it can be disabled from the control panel once lol. For active applications, only recall one install asking me to close stuff otherwise no problems there.
Yeah, you can also set your email to autologin and tell your browser to remember you password on TL, not a smart idea.
For last step, most cases, you can still use it before reboot and I rarely reboot after installs. Honestly, most of what you wrote is just nitpicking. Anyone who's installed anything just a couple of times will be able to go through installs easily.
Hence I said, "if you're in bad luck", how windows is just designed is that in a lot of cases you have to reboot after installing stuff to use it. In Linux you can more often than not upgrade a program while it is running and the new features become available to you as you update in plenty of cases. You pretty much never have to restart your computer ever. My uptime is often months
That still doesn't address the issue of that you actually have to go to a site and download an executable and then run the executable though instead of just typing in the name and sitting back.
Come now, not sure why you're making it sound like it's complex to deal with window installations lol.
It's hardly complex, just a lot of effort. Having to google the site, download the executable and then click on it is effort and time that I'd rather save.
You're sitting there, see the first screen to see what the install is and make sure it's what you want then you just click enter several times for the agreement, directory then installation. It's literally painless and you need seconds to do it! lol. Are there more steps? maybe a couple more. Are they time consuming or painful? no, infact, they are pretty easy to follow and it becomes like a pattern.
You're ignoring the fact that you first have to download the installer and search for it. And those steps don't even exist on linux. Let's say we both want to install skype, who do you think is done more quickly. All I have to do is:
- press alt+f2 to open up a terminal - type "sudo apt-get install skype" - press enter
That's it, can you honestly say that that takes more time than what you're doing? You have to download the executable and all that stuff.
That's not much of an argument against my point lol. I'm talking about the annoying administrator message that would pop up with every single thing you did back in vista. I dunno if it's still around in windows 8 or not but it wasn't needed and is really easy to disable when you first get your computer. If you use adblock and are careful which sites you visit, the chances of getting any viruses, trojans etc... goes down a lot which means that leaving some passwords saved won't hurt. My TL is always logged on. I don't with email since I don't need to check it that frequently.
Well, let's put it like this, the GOM player when you install it on windows if you just click enter without reading installs adware on your computer.
Thing is, that's really dependent on what you are installing. In cases where you need to do it, it's such a minor inconvenience at best considering how fast computers restart these days. I haven't restarted my laptop in ages either.
Then you haven't updated its security definitions or updated your video card drives because those require it.
Nickpicking imo. Windows has much more variety in terms of software last I checked in comparison to Linux so you work a bit more but get software that have great support and enhance your experience. For the record, I'm not hating on Linux but don't think it's right to claim that windows is that much of a pain when it comes to installations.
You checked wrongly, Linux has far more software available to it. Most software written is only available to POSIX compliant OS'es
The thing is that most people who write software don't use windows to do so because it's a bad development environment so much software also isn't targeted to that platform. Common conveniences such as firefox were first available to POSIX and only later ported to windows, in fact the web was first only a POSIX thing, why do you think the internet still uses '/' to separate directories as in linux and not '\' as in windows?
I mean, you can even choose between like what, 20 different file managers on linux? Windows has one, the explorer.
On July 21 2014 02:35 SiskosGoatee wrote: And can you give me an example of something released with linux in mind but not having binaries?
I'm sure that there's always a binary of some version of a piece of Linux software available for some distribution. But, depending on the version of software you want and the distro that you want to use it on, a shit ton of packages can only be built from source.
Unless you are on Gentoo, in which case you specifically choose Gentoo because you want to build from source to get the best optimization for your architecture. All packages in your repo are in facy binary packages.
apt-get does not compile from source, portage does.
What?
No, sometimes shit isn't in the repos. Gnome 3.10, for example, never fully made into any of the debian repos and parts of 3.12, which is supposed to be adopted, still aren't even in experimental. Maybe they're in unofficial repos by now, but there was a long stretch where If you wanted them on a debian system, you had to compile them.
One of the main reasons that people use Arch and its derivatives is for access to the huge amounts of new software in the AUR, and those aren't binary packages.
On July 21 2014 02:35 SiskosGoatee wrote: And can you give me an example of something released with linux in mind but not having binaries?
I'm sure that there's always a binary of some version of a piece of Linux software available for some distribution. But, depending on the version of software you want and the distro that you want to use it on, a shit ton of packages can only be built from source.
Unless you are on Gentoo, in which case you specifically choose Gentoo because you want to build from source to get the best optimization for your architecture. All packages in your repo are in facy binary packages.
apt-get does not compile from source, portage does.
What?
No, sometimes shit isn't in the repos.
That's not what you said, you said a _package_ can only be built from source, a package is something that is in some repo. Some programs can only be made from source because they are in no repo whatsoever, but that's super rate.
Gnome 3.10, for example, never fully made into any of the debian repos and parts of 3.12, which is supposed to be adopted, still aren't even in experimental. Maybe they're in unofficial repos by now, but there was a long stretch where If you wanted them on a debian system, you had to compile them.
You know you can add other repos to your repo list right?
One of the main reasons that people use Arch and its derivatives is for access to the huge amounts of new software in the AUR, and those aren't binary packages.[/QUOTE]
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
I used linux for a bit to see what it was like a while back and it was more annoying than windows was. I'll give you an easier solution for most of the later steps: enter -> enter -> enter -> enter lol. Maybe move the arrow keys once or twice (for I agree etc...).
, And you still have to read it, just clicking enter without reading is a sure way to get malware on Windows because a lot of the installers if you don't read carefully install a "sponsor application" with it which is malware. You have to read every step carefully. There is no such need in linux.
For bold, never had to do administrator thing since guess what, it can be disabled from the control panel once lol. For active applications, only recall one install asking me to close stuff otherwise no problems there.
Yeah, you can also set your email to autologin and tell your browser to remember you password on TL, not a smart idea.
For last step, most cases, you can still use it before reboot and I rarely reboot after installs. Honestly, most of what you wrote is just nitpicking. Anyone who's installed anything just a couple of times will be able to go through installs easily.
Hence I said, "if you're in bad luck", how windows is just designed is that in a lot of cases you have to reboot after installing stuff to use it. In Linux you can more often than not upgrade a program while it is running and the new features become available to you as you update in plenty of cases. You pretty much never have to restart your computer ever. My uptime is often months
That still doesn't address the issue of that you actually have to go to a site and download an executable and then run the executable though instead of just typing in the name and sitting back.
Come now, not sure why you're making it sound like it's complex to deal with window installations lol.
It's hardly complex, just a lot of effort. Having to google the site, download the executable and then click on it is effort and time that I'd rather save.
You're sitting there, see the first screen to see what the install is and make sure it's what you want then you just click enter several times for the agreement, directory then installation. It's literally painless and you need seconds to do it! lol. Are there more steps? maybe a couple more. Are they time consuming or painful? no, infact, they are pretty easy to follow and it becomes like a pattern.
You're ignoring the fact that you first have to download the installer and search for it. And those steps don't even exist on linux. Let's say we both want to install skype, who do you think is done more quickly. All I have to do is:
- press alt+f2 to open up a terminal - type "sudo apt-get install skype" - press enter
That's it, can you honestly say that that takes more time than what you're doing? You have to download the executable and all that stuff.
That's not much of an argument against my point lol. I'm talking about the annoying administrator message that would pop up with every single thing you did back in vista. I dunno if it's still around in windows 8 or not but it wasn't needed and is really easy to disable when you first get your computer. If you use adblock and are careful which sites you visit, the chances of getting any viruses, trojans etc... goes down a lot which means that leaving some passwords saved won't hurt. My TL is always logged on. I don't with email since I don't need to check it that frequently.
Well, let's put it like this, the GOM player when you install it on windows if you just click enter without reading installs adware on your computer.
Thing is, that's really dependent on what you are installing. In cases where you need to do it, it's such a minor inconvenience at best considering how fast computers restart these days. I haven't restarted my laptop in ages either.
Then you haven't updated its security definitions or updated your video card drives because those require it.
Nickpicking imo. Windows has much more variety in terms of software last I checked in comparison to Linux so you work a bit more but get software that have great support and enhance your experience. For the record, I'm not hating on Linux but don't think it's right to claim that windows is that much of a pain when it comes to installations.
You checked wrongly, Linux has far more software available to it. Most software written is only available to POSIX compliant OS'es
The thing is that most people who write software don't use windows to do so because it's a bad development environment so much software also isn't targeted to that platform. Common conveniences such as firefox were first available to POSIX and only later ported to windows, in fact the web was first only a POSIX thing, why do you think the internet still uses '/' to separate directories as in linux and not '\' as in windows?
I mean, you can even choose between like what, 20 different file managers on linux? Windows has one, the explorer.
My tags were breaking so I wasn't able to split your quote lol. I'll keep it in the same order though:
Takes a bit more time, yes, but it's so easy to do and most people using windows are accustomed to it so I doubt many want to learn a new OS if it saves you a bit of time (even with the simplified commands)
Doesn't really address the administrator thing I mentioned though. Other than that, it's a pretty minor inconvenience since you'll see what you are installing before you do it. If I went to install x and was also told y will be installed, I just check it off and continue pressing enter. Again, minor imo but ok.
Yes, I haven't updated my video drivers recently or security definitions. I was a hardcore gaming enthusiast at one point where I used to spend hours upgrading video card drivers from beta to official release ones to get more fps or see benefits so I know you need to restart but the average person likely wouldn't update anywhere close to that. Infact, for most people, unless they are having some graphics problems whether it's a bug, problems in game etc... they likely won't update them much (maybe 1-2 times a year if even). Heck, I haven't even updated my own laptop drivers in years since I don't play much games on it. For security, it's not like you have to update with every single release. I time my updates when it comes to that and just do all of them at once then I don't update again for x time.
I'll give you this since you're likely right. Maybe I was thinking of mac when I was considering linux software. You make it sound as if I'm trying to bash linux. What I'm saying is simple. Windows might have a couple of extra steps when installing but anyone who's installed enough times will be able to easily go through the steps and it's a minor inconvenience at best. Finding the software through google is also a simple process if you know what you need. Does it takes a bit more time? yes but it's really negligible imo. Linux is a cool OS but for my purposes, I can put up with a couple of extra steps to keep using windows.
On July 21 2014 02:35 SiskosGoatee wrote: And can you give me an example of something released with linux in mind but not having binaries?
I'm sure that there's always a binary of some version of a piece of Linux software available for some distribution. But, depending on the version of software you want and the distro that you want to use it on, a shit ton of packages can only be built from source.
Unless you are on Gentoo, in which case you specifically choose Gentoo because you want to build from source to get the best optimization for your architecture. All packages in your repo are in facy binary packages.
apt-get does not compile from source, portage does.
What?
No, sometimes shit isn't in the repos.
That's not what you said, you said a _package_ can only be built from source, a package is something that is in some repo. Some programs can only be made from source because they are in no repo whatsoever, but that's super rate.
Gnome 3.10, for example, never fully made into any of the debian repos and parts of 3.12, which is supposed to be adopted, still aren't even in experimental. Maybe they're in unofficial repos by now, but there was a long stretch where If you wanted them on a debian system, you had to compile them.
You know you can add other repos to your repo list right?
One of the main reasons that people use Arch and its derivatives is for access to the huge amounts of new software in the AUR, and those aren't binary packages.
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install <application name> - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
I used linux for a bit to see what it was like a while back and it was more annoying than windows was. I'll give you an easier solution for most of the later steps: enter -> enter -> enter -> enter lol. Maybe move the arrow keys once or twice (for I agree etc...).
, And you still have to read it, just clicking enter without reading is a sure way to get malware on Windows because a lot of the installers if you don't read carefully install a "sponsor application" with it which is malware. You have to read every step carefully. There is no such need in linux.
For bold, never had to do administrator thing since guess what, it can be disabled from the control panel once lol. For active applications, only recall one install asking me to close stuff otherwise no problems there.
Yeah, you can also set your email to autologin and tell your browser to remember you password on TL, not a smart idea.
For last step, most cases, you can still use it before reboot and I rarely reboot after installs. Honestly, most of what you wrote is just nitpicking. Anyone who's installed anything just a couple of times will be able to go through installs easily.
Hence I said, "if you're in bad luck", how windows is just designed is that in a lot of cases you have to reboot after installing stuff to use it. In Linux you can more often than not upgrade a program while it is running and the new features become available to you as you update in plenty of cases. You pretty much never have to restart your computer ever. My uptime is often months
That still doesn't address the issue of that you actually have to go to a site and download an executable and then run the executable though instead of just typing in the name and sitting back.
Come now, not sure why you're making it sound like it's complex to deal with window installations lol.
It's hardly complex, just a lot of effort. Having to google the site, download the executable and then click on it is effort and time that I'd rather save.
You're sitting there, see the first screen to see what the install is and make sure it's what you want then you just click enter several times for the agreement, directory then installation. It's literally painless and you need seconds to do it! lol. Are there more steps? maybe a couple more. Are they time consuming or painful? no, infact, they are pretty easy to follow and it becomes like a pattern.
You're ignoring the fact that you first have to download the installer and search for it. And those steps don't even exist on linux. Let's say we both want to install skype, who do you think is done more quickly. All I have to do is:
- press alt+f2 to open up a terminal - type "sudo apt-get install skype" - press enter
That's it, can you honestly say that that takes more time than what you're doing? You have to download the executable and all that stuff.
That's not much of an argument against my point lol. I'm talking about the annoying administrator message that would pop up with every single thing you did back in vista. I dunno if it's still around in windows 8 or not but it wasn't needed and is really easy to disable when you first get your computer. If you use adblock and are careful which sites you visit, the chances of getting any viruses, trojans etc... goes down a lot which means that leaving some passwords saved won't hurt. My TL is always logged on. I don't with email since I don't need to check it that frequently.
Well, let's put it like this, the GOM player when you install it on windows if you just click enter without reading installs adware on your computer.
Thing is, that's really dependent on what you are installing. In cases where you need to do it, it's such a minor inconvenience at best considering how fast computers restart these days. I haven't restarted my laptop in ages either.
Then you haven't updated its security definitions or updated your video card drives because those require it.
Nickpicking imo. Windows has much more variety in terms of software last I checked in comparison to Linux so you work a bit more but get software that have great support and enhance your experience. For the record, I'm not hating on Linux but don't think it's right to claim that windows is that much of a pain when it comes to installations.
You checked wrongly, Linux has far more software available to it. Most software written is only available to POSIX compliant OS'es
The thing is that most people who write software don't use windows to do so because it's a bad development environment so much software also isn't targeted to that platform. Common conveniences such as firefox were first available to POSIX and only later ported to windows, in fact the web was first only a POSIX thing, why do you think the internet still uses '/' to separate directories as in linux and not '\' as in windows?
I mean, you can even choose between like what, 20 different file managers on linux? Windows has one, the explorer.
My tags were breaking so I wasn't able to split your quote lol. I'll keep it in the same order though:
Takes a bit more time, yes, but it's so easy to do and most people using windows are accustomed to it so I doubt many want to learn a new OS if it saves you a bit of time (even with the simplified commands)
Yes, it takes more time. And it's even easier on linux, however, this is only for one program. Imagine you have to install 5 programs. In this case the windows version pretty much is five times as time-consuming. The linux version becomes:
Let's say you wanted to write some code that updates all your programs once a week at midnight to the latest versions. How would you do that in windows exactly? Write some program that downloads the executables and automatically installs them? On linux it's a simple matter of:
0 0 0 7 * * apt-get install >> sudo crontab -f
Doesn't really address the administrator thing I mentioned though. Other than that, it's a pretty minor inconvenience since you'll see what you are installing before you do it. If I went to install x and was also told y will be installed, I just check it off and continue pressing enter. Again, minor imo but ok.
It means you have to read it and if you make a mistake your system is filled with obnoxious adware.
Yes, I haven't updated my video drivers recently or security definitions. I was a hardcore gaming enthusiast at one point where I used to spend hours upgrading video card drivers from beta to official release ones to get more fps or see benefits so I know you need to restart but the average person likely wouldn't update anywhere close to that. Infact, for most people, unless they are having some graphics problems whether it's a bug, problems in game etc... they likely won't update them much (maybe 1-2 times a year if even). Heck, I haven't even updated my own laptop drivers in years since I don't play much games on it. For security, it's not like you have to update with every single release. I time my updates when it comes to that and just do all of them at once then I don't update again for x time.
Okay, so you're saying that Windows is convenient only if you are satisfied with not getting the latest drivers and security updates?
A "gaming OS" is convenient for you only if you don't demand the highest FPS?
I'll give you this since you're likely right. Maybe I was thinking of mac when I was considering linux software. You make it sound as if I'm trying to bash linux. What I'm saying is simple. Windows might have a couple of extra steps when installing but anyone who's installed enough times will be able to easily go through the steps and it's a minor inconvenience at best. Finding the software through google is also a simple process if you know what you need. Does it takes a bit more time? yes but it's really negligible imo. Linux is a cool OS but for my purposes, I can put up with a couple of extra steps to keep using windows.
Does it take a lot of time? No, maybe 1 minute or something until the installer starts rolling and you can sit back, but 1 minute is 12 times as much as 5 seconds. And if you install multiple programs it already starts to become quite a lot.
If you have to perform a repetitive pattern in Windows you'll often find yourself just doing it over and over which becomes super obnoxious. In Linux there's usually one command that streamlines the repetition for you.
On July 20 2014 10:55 SiskosGoatee wrote: Yeah, installing software on windows is a pain in the proverbial butt:
The windows way:
- Google the name of the application. - Go to the site - Go to the download page - Download the right one for your architecture and OS - Right click, save as - Open your file browser - navigate to your downloads folder - Click the executable - Run it as administrator, hoping it doesn't bomb your system - Agree to a licence you never bothered to read - Select the folder you want to install it in - Close all active applications, the installer says so - If you're in bad luck, reboot after install
The linux way:
- apt-get install - sit back and watch some videos of Avilo getting thoroughly beaten by Minigun in offrace
I used linux for a bit to see what it was like a while back and it was more annoying than windows was. I'll give you an easier solution for most of the later steps: enter -> enter -> enter -> enter lol. Maybe move the arrow keys once or twice (for I agree etc...).
, And you still have to read it, just clicking enter without reading is a sure way to get malware on Windows because a lot of the installers if you don't read carefully install a "sponsor application" with it which is malware. You have to read every step carefully. There is no such need in linux.
For bold, never had to do administrator thing since guess what, it can be disabled from the control panel once lol. For active applications, only recall one install asking me to close stuff otherwise no problems there.
Yeah, you can also set your email to autologin and tell your browser to remember you password on TL, not a smart idea.
For last step, most cases, you can still use it before reboot and I rarely reboot after installs. Honestly, most of what you wrote is just nitpicking. Anyone who's installed anything just a couple of times will be able to go through installs easily.
Hence I said, "if you're in bad luck", how windows is just designed is that in a lot of cases you have to reboot after installing stuff to use it. In Linux you can more often than not upgrade a program while it is running and the new features become available to you as you update in plenty of cases. You pretty much never have to restart your computer ever. My uptime is often months
That still doesn't address the issue of that you actually have to go to a site and download an executable and then run the executable though instead of just typing in the name and sitting back.
Come now, not sure why you're making it sound like it's complex to deal with window installations lol.
It's hardly complex, just a lot of effort. Having to google the site, download the executable and then click on it is effort and time that I'd rather save.
You're sitting there, see the first screen to see what the install is and make sure it's what you want then you just click enter several times for the agreement, directory then installation. It's literally painless and you need seconds to do it! lol. Are there more steps? maybe a couple more. Are they time consuming or painful? no, infact, they are pretty easy to follow and it becomes like a pattern.
You're ignoring the fact that you first have to download the installer and search for it. And those steps don't even exist on linux. Let's say we both want to install skype, who do you think is done more quickly. All I have to do is:
- press alt+f2 to open up a terminal - type "sudo apt-get install skype" - press enter
That's it, can you honestly say that that takes more time than what you're doing? You have to download the executable and all that stuff.
That's not much of an argument against my point lol. I'm talking about the annoying administrator message that would pop up with every single thing you did back in vista. I dunno if it's still around in windows 8 or not but it wasn't needed and is really easy to disable when you first get your computer. If you use adblock and are careful which sites you visit, the chances of getting any viruses, trojans etc... goes down a lot which means that leaving some passwords saved won't hurt. My TL is always logged on. I don't with email since I don't need to check it that frequently.
Well, let's put it like this, the GOM player when you install it on windows if you just click enter without reading installs adware on your computer.
Thing is, that's really dependent on what you are installing. In cases where you need to do it, it's such a minor inconvenience at best considering how fast computers restart these days. I haven't restarted my laptop in ages either.
Then you haven't updated its security definitions or updated your video card drives because those require it.
Nickpicking imo. Windows has much more variety in terms of software last I checked in comparison to Linux so you work a bit more but get software that have great support and enhance your experience. For the record, I'm not hating on Linux but don't think it's right to claim that windows is that much of a pain when it comes to installations.
You checked wrongly, Linux has far more software available to it. Most software written is only available to POSIX compliant OS'es
The thing is that most people who write software don't use windows to do so because it's a bad development environment so much software also isn't targeted to that platform. Common conveniences such as firefox were first available to POSIX and only later ported to windows, in fact the web was first only a POSIX thing, why do you think the internet still uses '/' to separate directories as in linux and not '\' as in windows?
I mean, you can even choose between like what, 20 different file managers on linux? Windows has one, the explorer.
My tags were breaking so I wasn't able to split your quote lol. I'll keep it in the same order though:
Takes a bit more time, yes, but it's so easy to do and most people using windows are accustomed to it so I doubt many want to learn a new OS if it saves you a bit of time (even with the simplified commands)
Yes, it takes more time. And it's even easier on linux, however, this is only for one program. Imagine you have to install 5 programs. In this case the windows version pretty much is five times as time-consuming. The linux version becomes:
Let's say you wanted to write some code that updates all your programs once a week at midnight to the latest versions. How would you do that in windows exactly? Write some program that downloads the executables and automatically installs them? On linux it's a simple matter of:
Doesn't really address the administrator thing I mentioned though. Other than that, it's a pretty minor inconvenience since you'll see what you are installing before you do it. If I went to install x and was also told y will be installed, I just check it off and continue pressing enter. Again, minor imo but ok.
It means you have to read it and if you make a mistake your system is filled with obnoxious adware.
Yes, I haven't updated my video drivers recently or security definitions. I was a hardcore gaming enthusiast at one point where I used to spend hours upgrading video card drivers from beta to official release ones to get more fps or see benefits so I know you need to restart but the average person likely wouldn't update anywhere close to that. Infact, for most people, unless they are having some graphics problems whether it's a bug, problems in game etc... they likely won't update them much (maybe 1-2 times a year if even). Heck, I haven't even updated my own laptop drivers in years since I don't play much games on it. For security, it's not like you have to update with every single release. I time my updates when it comes to that and just do all of them at once then I don't update again for x time.
Okay, so you're saying that Windows is convenient only if you are satisfied with not getting the latest drivers and security updates?
A "gaming OS" is convenient for you only if you don't demand the highest FPS?
I'll give you this since you're likely right. Maybe I was thinking of mac when I was considering linux software. You make it sound as if I'm trying to bash linux. What I'm saying is simple. Windows might have a couple of extra steps when installing but anyone who's installed enough times will be able to easily go through the steps and it's a minor inconvenience at best. Finding the software through google is also a simple process if you know what you need. Does it takes a bit more time? yes but it's really negligible imo. Linux is a cool OS but for my purposes, I can put up with a couple of extra steps to keep using windows.
Does it take a lot of time? No, maybe 1 minute or something until the installer starts rolling and you can sit back, but 1 minute is 12 times as much as 5 seconds. And if you install multiple programs it already starts to become quite a lot.
If you have to perform a repetitive pattern in Windows you'll often find yourself just doing it over and over which becomes super obnoxious. In Linux there's usually one command that streamlines the repetition for you.
Keep in mind that everything I wrote is for the average person. As a previous enthusiast, I was installing a ton of things daily and it really never bothered me that it consumed a couple of extra minutes for all of them. I doubt it bothers anyone else for that matter especially if you've done it enough times since it becomes routine.
Reading doesn't even take a minute at best. Heck, I don't even 'read' it. I know what I need to install, see the name of it as I install it. If I get another dialog with another name then I know that's extra stuff, uncheck that then just continue. Is there a chance that you might miss a step and end up with malware? well, guess if you don't bother 'reading' lol. Is it time consuming? not really, no. It becomes easy to 'check' as you install something if anything else is being installed as well.
Believe it or not, windows can still run on the same drivers that you get when you first buy or built the system. You make it sound like windows will stop working if one doesn't constantly update drivers but that's not the case. If a windows machine is working fine with its current drivers, there is no reason to update to new ones unless there is a major benefit (new feature etc...). If I was heavily gaming like I used to, then it would be worth it to take a look at newest drivers and play around with fps etc... but when my laptop is mostly for work and gaming is limited to something simple like BW, then no, there is no need for me to update my drivers because I won't see any benefits. Also, please don't make such statements and claim that's what I said. My post was talking about the average person who probably plays facebook games like tetris or flash ones: "the average person likely wouldn't update anywhere close to that. Infact, for most people, unless they are having some graphics problems whether it's a bug, problems in game etc... they likely won't update them much (maybe 1-2 times a year if even)."
No, I never said that either. fps mattered to me only when I had a machine focused on gaming, not now: "I was a hardcore gaming enthusiast at one point where I used to spend hours upgrading video card drivers from beta to official release ones to get more fps or see benefits"
Yes, I prefer windows and will always do so over linux because of its gaming capabilities. I also have grown accustomed to/love the UI, have programmed many times on it and use it for pretty much everything. To me, it's a multipurpose machine that does everything I want so linux doesn't compare in that aspect.
hehe nope, it never felt obnoxious to me even after installing so many programs. I love it! XD It's always a new experience with every install so sorry, not convincing enough lol Either way, at this point, we are just rehashing points all over again so there's nothing more to discuss imo.
i think that's the first time you mentioned that you program. it shocks me to learn some people prefer to do that on windows. what kind of stuff do you do?
On July 23 2014 02:34 ComaDose wrote: i think that's the first time you mentioned that you program. it shocks me to learn some people prefer to do that on windows. what kind of stuff do you do?
me? I had to talk several programming courses so I've programmed in java, C, C++ and some internet programming like perl etc... I don't do it much these days though since I don't work as a programmer or anything like that but I was mostly trying to convey the point that I don't have much issues with windows in anything I've had to do so far.