I've been using Ubuntu for about 3 weeks now and I have mixed feelings. After my initial disappointment (installed ubuntu inside windows, which made it very slow so I uninstalled it the next day) I gave it another try, installed it properly and everything worked (more or less) right out of the box. Except for one thing, my ATI card. I've been spending hours trying to get it to work properly, and it still doesn't. If I use the open-source drivers I have a laggy firefox (when using Compiz, the 3D desktop environment) and no suspend/hibernate mode (!!!!!!!!!!!), which is pretty essential for a notebook. So I tried the proprietary closed-source ATI drivers, suspend/hibernate works, but still laggy firefox (with compiz on). After some research I tried the open-source drivers again and did some manual tweaks, which is not so easy for a Linux newb like me, and now got no lag anywhere anymore, no flickering videos and a working Compiz. But no suspend/hibernate. It supposedly will be fixed with the new kernel 2.6.29, which will be released in the new distro release 9.04 in April, but yeah, that's in April. I could compile my own kernel, but no thanks, that's just too much of a hassle.
I then tried open office for work and school, and it works okay. But I had huge problems with Japanese language input for a presentation, open office impress just lagged insanely and was that was not really fun to work with. Will do my first presentation with ubuntu in 2 days, let's see how it works (hopefully no problems with the beamer).
I will stick with ubuntu, because I see it as a hobby and it's fun to play around with. But it has its frustrating moments and I would not recommend it to someone who just needs something that works and has no time to bother researching in forums. I don't think ubuntu works out of the box for anyone, there's always something that doesn't work and will not be so easy to fix. I like ubuntu's design, I like compiz, I like virtual desktops, I like pidgin (IM-client), I like that everything is free, I like that it's different. But I miss my good old winamp (all Linux players suck imo), miss my KMPlayer (VLC is meh), miss the windows explorer (nautilus is okayish) and miss SUSPEND MODE.
|
On February 03 2009 16:56 MamiyaOtaru wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2009 15:52 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
OSX is not based on Linux, but on FreeBSD This is a bit of a simplification. Darwin (the open source underpinnings of OSX) is a bit of a mishmash of NEXTSTEP and FreeBSD. Its kernel (XNU, for "X is Not Unix") is a blend of the Mach kernel with a BSD subsystem. which means that this: Show nested quote +(and everything comes from one source because the FreeBSD team provides both kernel and software) is pretty irrelevant when discussing OSX, esp since OSX layers further proprietary stuff on top of Darwin that is in no way related to FreeBSD. Show nested quote +and everything in a Linux distribution comes from different sources because the Linux development team only provides the kernel. Yeah, a Linux distro is pieced together from a lot of places, but it's splitting a pretty fine hair to say BSD does otherwise. FreeBSD does not develop the GCC, Xorg, KDE, Gnome, or any of a large amount of software one would be using with a desktop flavor of BSD. They gather it together and dump it in their tree. Sort of like, say, Debian. With the major difference that they do actually work on their kernel, instead of letting Linus et al do so. Show nested quote +(FreeBSD) is a "real" Unix ... while Linux is an "inofficial" Unix clone ... There are differences. The only thing that makes Linux not "official" Unix is Linux distros don't bother applying for the UNIX Certification. Yeah, "Unix or Not" is determined by a test and a piece of paper. FYI, FreeBSD has not applied either. It is also described as a "unix like" system. Show nested quote +Besides, it's not (legally) possible to use Linux as the kernel for a proprietary, closed operating system: You mean like Tivo? Show nested quote +the Linux license (GPL) forces you to open up (and release under the GPL as well) anything that you build using the Linux source code. Yes, if you distribute Linux you are required to make your changes available. That's it. Linux is the kernel. As you point out above, "the Linux development team only provides the kernel." You can layer all the proprietary stuff on top of the kernel that you want, which is exactly what a lot of smartphone makers do. Some of them are totally open, but many are not and the GPL does not forbid this. If Apple had layered carbon, cocoa, core image, etc etc on top of Linux, they would only have been obligated to release any changes they made to the kernel itself. The proprietary stuff doesn't come under the purview of the GPL. Show nested quote +The *BSD licenses, on the other hand, permit that their code will end up in closed proprietary products. This much is correct. And all spectacularly off topic for someone who is contemplating moving away from Windows :D If he can't be talked out of doing so, I would recommend OSX, but such a recommendation has nothing to do with perceived similarities with FreeBSD or levels of unixness. And I'll preemptively mention another difference often brought up between BSD and Linux. You often here how Linux and the way it is packaged in distros leads to fragmentation, while you don't see this in BSD. Well this grows more laughable by the year, as FreeBSD gives rise to PC-BSD, Dragonfly BSD, and so forth. These, along with NetBSD and OpenBSD, while not representing as great a number as the number of different Linux distros, nevertheless represent at least 4 distinct kernels, whereas all Linux distros share the same kernel, and which are all (like the BSDs) source compatible with one another. Many distros, but one kernel. Depending on how one looks at it, this is a lack of fragmentation, in contrast to the many kernels in BSD land. I hope this involved discussion of the finer points of Linux vs BSD, the likes of which I participated in many times over the years, establishes that I am indeed a long time Linux user, which I hope will lend weight to my anti-recommendation a couple posts ago - made not as a Linux hater, but someone who is very familiar with its shortcomings.
Yeah you're correct I didn't really go into much detail so it ended up being a bit vague, but I also didn't want to write a book about it since it's rather irrelevant for a Windows user trying out Linux, like you said.
Just one thing about the "many kernels" thing: many Linux distributions have the same kernel but patch it like mad, and every distro applies different patches. So in the end it's all fragmented there too. Every BSD has the advantage that they provide you one kernel (which will be the same for all FreeBSD users, for example) and also provide you with the most basic programs (and most of them are not made by GNU (although you can choose to install the GNU tools of course), so that you can actually use the operating system. And this baseline is always the same in every BSD. And the documentation, especially the manpages, are better since they all come from the same source, so they're consistent in style. And if you want to know anything about it, you can look it up in the official manual which contains *A LOT* of info about the whole system, even about configuring X11 which wasn't even created by the *BSD developers. So this is really a place to turn to when you have questions. In many Linux distributions, this is missing - users often have to use Google or check Wikis and forums and then you get different (maybe also bad/wrong) answers, there's often no "standard way" of doing things.
Of course, on the Linux side, there are efforts (LSB) to create a good baseline as well, so that you can rely on every LSB-compliant distribution to have certain programs, libs and APIs, and to behave mostly the same.
Still, users going from Linux to BSD often say that the system feels more streamlined and consistent. This is a key weakness of Linux - everything is from different sources, and you can feel that in almost every corner. *BSD, Windows and OSX don't have this weakness, or at least they try very hard to integrate stuff in order to not make it so blatantly obvious that not everything comes from the same source.
I'll just end this by mentioning some (maybe overlooked) aspects I've learned about the age-old Linux vs. Windows debate, while being both a Windows and Linux user myself:
- Linux is important, its mere presence forces MS and Apple to create better products. Without it, they would sell you extreme bullshit for extreme prices
- The philosophy etc. behind it is great. MS and Apple both produce "eat or die" products and both have very shady business tactics and abuse their dominant position frequently, and they toy around with your system sometimes (2 recent examples: MS updating Windows Update through a secret "back door" without using the Windows Update program (no message, warning, confirmation, nothing - your system was changed (for the better probably, but still - that's an absolute no-go)), and since very recently MS installs a secret(!) Firefox extension together with .NET 3.5 SP1 which can't be uninstalled the normal way)
A lot of things are proprietary, cryptic, confusing or just plain secret (just think of the chaos called the Windows registry).
Linux, especially if you use a democratic community distribution like Debian, will never do any sort of shady shit to you - because people aren't driven by lower motives like greed or full control at any cost - they just want to create a good OS, and they don't want to hide stuff from you or restrict your usage in any way - they want to give you full transparency and full control, as it should be.
The two things above should make you respect Linux, and not laugh about it even if you don't like it 
- If you really value much that you buy a new hardware and it should work, if it really annoys you when you have to spend like 1 hour making it work (even though you will not change hardware often), then use OSX or maybe Windows but only OSX makes this a breeze
The above point is probably the most important point against Linux. I've seen countless of "I've used Linux but I didn't like: yadda, yadda, yadda so I've switched back to Win or bought a Mac" and the MAJORITY of these are because users are fed up with certain hardware not working (fully) and searching on the web (maybe in vain) for how to make it work, wasting hours of time.
My hardware and peripherals always work with Linux because I only buy it after I made sure that it will work *hint*.
- If you want the best possible look and the best possible integration, you need OSX, Windows being the second choice
- If you want the best possible compatibility (hardware-side), you need OSX, Windows being the second choice
- If you want the best possible compatibility (software-side), you need Windows
- If you want to play a lot of new games without hassles, you need Windows
- If you need special business-related programs, chances are those will only run on Windows
- If you need the usual well-known killer apps (e.g. the Adobe palette) for graphics, video or audio editing, you'll need OSX or Windows because they only run there
- If you like tweaking many aspects about your system, you need Linux
- If you are interested in the technical background of how an OS works, or if you want to program, then Linux will be no requirement but it'll make things easier and (the important point) much more transparent for you. Linux can even turn people who find computers (Windows) boring into sysadmins or programmers.
- If you distrust big US corporations, you need Linux
- If you like Unix and/or the commandline, you need either Linux or OSX with some modifications
- If you want the best possible security, you need Linux or OSX. Because even though Windows made big advances in that area (especially with Vista and later versions), it is still the main target, and malware authors can rely on certain software always being present, making it easier to infect it or easier to do certain malicious operations. Some common disadvantages of Linux (excess of choice, lack of users) are an advantage here. The fact that you can modify a Linux system to a much bigger extent also makes it easier to harden it against attacks
- If you don't really care about any of these situations above, then you can use any OS
Here's an advice if you're still unsure whether or not to try Linux:
Ask yourself "why not Linux?" instead of "why Linux". Try to use Linux, but if you find out that it won't work out (hardware issues, software compatibility issues, etc.) then simply don't use it. It's perfectly fine to use Windows or OSX because you need or want certain things you can only have with them. It's the reason I still use Windows as well - I simply need it for some things. I'd prefer to use only Linux, but life's not perfect.
Why am I suggesting that you should at least TRY Linux (give it a chance)? Simple: for example, if you're a Windows user who *only* does common stuff like browsing, chatting and listening to music, and you're sure that your hardware works with Linux, then you could easily try out Linux just to gain additional freedom, control, security, and no costs except the time you need to learn it. If it works out, you're better off than a Windows user. If it doesn't, you can still fall back to your Windows and troll about how shitty Linux is on the desktop.
Damn, this ended up being much longer than originally intended.
|
EPT
