*nix vs. Windows (split from [UNIX] The Unix Mob)

[one_Two]

doom2.wad is closed source? Tbh I used to use Linux (mainly mandriva when it was around) more but just grew tired of its bullshit, I respect anyone who uses it as their main OS :)

[L1T]

doom2.wad is closed source? Tbh I used to use Linux (mainly mandriva when it was around) more but just grew tired of its bullshit, I respect anyone who uses it as their main OS :)

I meant to say source/data rather than just source. Also what "bullshit"? I can't imagine anything worse than using windows , reading it's log files and still not knowing where the error is occuring and why or registry ehhrrmerrgerdd registryyy.

[one_Two]

doom2.wad is closed source? Tbh I used to use Linux (mainly mandriva when it was around) more but just grew tired of its bullshit, I respect anyone who uses it as their main OS :)

I meant to say source/data rather than just source. Also what "bullshit"? I can't imagine anything worse than using windows , reading it's log files and still not knowing where the error is occuring and why or registry ehhrrmerrgerdd registryyy.

Dependancy errors, having to go into windows to get wireless drivers because files weren't there for linux, not everyone can get zandro running on it for some reason, wine doesn't support programs like content manager, no big time games. Another thing, *nix with no internet is rubbish, pretty much impossible to install even linux software. Still, I do like it, I have xubuntu on a box that I use for Perl, mainly cos all that stuff is set up for me there.

[L1T]

doom2.wad is closed source? Tbh I used to use Linux (mainly mandriva when it was around) more but just grew tired of its bullshit, I respect anyone who uses it as their main OS :)

I meant to say source/data rather than just source. Also what "bullshit"? I can't imagine anything worse than using windows , reading it's log files and still not knowing where the error is occuring and why or registry ehhrrmerrgerdd registryyy.

Dependancy errors, having to go into windows to get wireless drivers because files weren't there for linux, not everyone can get zandro running on it for some reason, wine doesn't support programs like content manager, no big time games. Another thing, *nix with no internet is rubbish, pretty much impossible to install even linux software. Still, I do like it, I have xubuntu on a box that I use for Perl, mainly cos all that stuff is set up for me there.

dependancy errors? You did it wrong man lol. Wireless drivers are either precompiled into the kernel or downloaded via a package. There is absolutely no reason to need windows for a wireless driver :S. Games depend on their developers besides the only game worth playign was ported to linux in the 90's ;). Just wondering how are you supposed to get windows software without the internet? You could have put linux software on a USB for when you have no internet you're free to remember.

Anyways let's not turn this into a windows vs linux thread. I don't want to derail this or have to post my giant list I created explaiing why *nix is superior.

[one_Two]

doom2.wad is closed source? Tbh I used to use Linux (mainly mandriva when it was around) more but just grew tired of its bullshit, I respect anyone who uses it as their main OS :)

I meant to say source/data rather than just source. Also what "bullshit"? I can't imagine anything worse than using windows , reading it's log files and still not knowing where the error is occuring and why or registry ehhrrmerrgerdd registryyy.

Dependancy errors, having to go into windows to get wireless drivers because files weren't there for linux, not everyone can get zandro running on it for some reason, wine doesn't support programs like content manager, no big time games. Another thing, *nix with no internet is rubbish, pretty much impossible to install even linux software. Still, I do like it, I have xubuntu on a box that I use for Perl, mainly cos all that stuff is set up for me there.

dependancy errors? You did it wrong man lol. Wireless drivers are either precompiled into the kernel or downloaded via a package. There is absolutely no reason to need windows for a wireless driver :S. Games depend on their developers besides the only game worth playign was ported to linux in the 90's ;). Just wondering how are you supposed to get windows software without the internet? You could have put linux software on a USB for when you have no internet you're free to remember.

Anyways let's not turn this into a windows vs linux thread. I don't want to derail this or have to post my giant list I created explaiing why *nix is superior.

Yeah mate, it's called a CD-ROM and you can install windows software from them without need for the internet. Dependency error is when you dont have files a file depends on, which you can't get without the internet. My wireless card came with linux drivers on the disc (not from auto start) but it was impossiblle to get the package working without the internet, that's bullshit and it's true.

[Doc Holliday]

This is a clan announcement, argue elsewhere. Message l1t on irc, join #Linux or #UNIX, pm him here.

I'm with l1t

[one_Two]

I apologize if you thought this was arguing, I like things about most OS' (I've tried alot) tbh but if you're just gonna say *nix is better than windows in every way then you are way, way off the money.

[Doc Holliday]

I apologize if you thought this was arguing, I like things about most OS' (I've tried alot) tbh but if you're just gonna say *nix is better than windows in every way then you are way, way off the money.

You're posting in a thread of *Nix users preaching about Windows, are you trying to start something? Drop it.

[one_Two]

I apologize if you thought this was arguing, I like things about most OS' (I've tried alot) tbh but if you're just gonna say *nix is better than windows in every way then you are way, way off the money.

You're posting in a thread of *Nix users preaching about Windows, are you trying to start something? Drop it.

I just made a harmless remark about certain well known nuances of *nix and your bro blew a fuse, but w.e I'll leave you to it, I'm not aspie enough to argue OS' haha.

[Qent]

Split by request.

[L1T]

I apologize if you thought this was arguing, I like things about most OS' (I've tried alot) tbh but if you're just gonna say *nix is better than windows in every way then you are way, way off the money.

You're posting in a thread of *Nix users preaching about Windows, are you trying to start something? Drop it.

I just made a harmless remark about certain well known nuances of *nix and your bro blew a fuse, but w.e I'll leave you to it, I'm not aspie enough to argue OS' haha.

I did'nt blow a fuse I enjoy discussing why linux is superior with windows zealots. Well known nuances? I already explained why you were wrong. How is buying windows software in CD form better than copying all the software you want whenever you want to any media you want and installing/compiling it while offline using linux? We can also make binhosts and offline repos. So actually linux has more potential to obtain all the software you want while offline. The dependancy issue was your fault. It's always your fault. You probably did not update, emerge --depclean or revdep-rebuild properly. Or maybe you were using arch lol. Not having dependancies while offline is your fault. Go download the software and needed dependancies while online so you have it while your offline the same way you went out and payed for windows software at a store or while online. This point is really not an argument between the operating systems anyways. Should be discussing things like file system types, journaling , file hierarchy , interoperability with other operating systems, standards ,access to source code, ability to understand how your initialization system works, registry vs everything is a file mindset etc.. not what userland software you can get while on or off the internet lol which by the way neither wins or loses at.

That's it i'm posting the list when I get home.

And I'm not mad just having fun here. Friendly discussion one_too. Unless you try to diss my uncle richie stalmmanu

[Wirtualnosc]

Maybe I'd use Linux actually if it wasn't for the fact that most games I play and applications I use were made only for Windows... And that is a huge advantage, because the main thing we actually use OS for is to run them. Now don't be surprised that most people use this as their main OS...

Good thing developers are actually thinking of making multi-platform applications. And I heard from a lot of people that Windows 8 is shit.

[one_Two]

All I'm saying is most software released for linux comes with the bare minimum presuming you have other stuff. Take for instance: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Star-Office-8-P ... 944&sr=1-8 Star office, software released for windows and linux, try installing that on an offline linux box? It wont, you wont be able to, but it'll work on windows. I can't stress enough that I really don't mind *nix os' but just things have always annoyed me more about it than windows. The average person really doesn't care if software is open source or not, linux is billed as "if something doesn't work, or you wanna make quick changes you can do it your self", like yeah, can you fuck - only if you know how to compile a shit load of poorly documented source files on fuckin GPP or GCC or something you don't even have or have the wrong version of, or some shit. I've become physicaly ill trying to compile games on Linux before, aptget or w.e it is isn't the be all and end all, it's like you're working towards a fucking console with no errors, and tbh they'll usualy be errors, just what you can get away with. Lmao, it wasn't meant to be this way XD

[Ijon Tichy]

How is buying windows software in CD form better than copying all the software you want whenever you want to any media you want and installing/compiling it while offline using linux?

Who, beyond power users or programmers, knows or wants to compile things? And being offline happens less and less often these days, so it's much less of a worry.
And I remember setting up Gentoo with my only internet choice being wireless, when I didn't have wireless firmware. Oh boy was that not fun at all. I had to build the system in a chroot environment on a Lubuntu live USB. There is no way in hell an average user is going to do that.

We can also make binhosts and offline repos. So actually linux has more potential to obtain all the software you want while offline.

The average user has no clue how to do those things. I have no clue how to do those things, and I live in a friggin' terminal window! And again, most people don't care.

The dependancy issue was your fault. It's always your fault. You probably did not update, emerge --depclean or revdep-rebuild properly. Or maybe you were using arch lol. Not having dependancies while offline is your fault. Go download the software and needed dependancies while online so you have it while your offline the same way you went out and payed for windows software at a store or while online.

This is the sort of attitude that maligns Linux so effectively in the mind of the average user. "Oh, so something that you didn't know would happen, happened? No fuck you it's your fault and you're stupid." You aren't winning anyone over.

This point is really not an argument between the operating systems anyways. Should be discussing things like file system types, journaling , file hierarchy , interoperability with other operating systems, standards ,access to source code, ability to understand how your initialization system works, registry vs everything is a file mindset etc.. not what userland software you can get while on or off the internet lol which by the way neither wins or loses at.

The average user does not give a shit about file systems, how their OS's kernel works, source code availability, standards compliance, the Windows registry or equivalent for their OS, or anything like that. They want programs that get real-life things done, and they don't want their OS to give them any shit. They are not power users or kernel hackers; they want a job done as quickly as possible. Windows still leads there.

I am an avid Linux user myself. I understand perfectly well that Linux is not an ideal OS for your average user. There are a lot of hoops you have to jump through, even for stuff like Ubuntu, and it requires re-learning how you use computers to at least a major degree, if not completely. Hell, even for Doom, it's a shit choice - you know how painful it was to make Aerowalk with the only choices being outdated editors that crashed often in WINE and an incomplete map editor that crashed exactly as often? Mapping is a huge part of Doom, and Linux fails horribly in that regard.

Now don't get me wrong; I think Linux is a fine batch of OS's, or else I wouldn't be using them. But don't keep saying that they're better than Windows. In the ways important to your average user, they aren't.

Also, Doom is open source. The WAD format is open source. The graphics, maps, sounds, and whatnot inside the IWADs still have all rights reserved.

[Doc Holliday]

I'd like to let it be known that, while I agree with l1t, I am not into arguing on forums. That's why i'm not really taking part. And one_two, i apologize if i seemed rude. And while i agree with l1t, his attitude towards the whole thing is not representative of my own.

[one_Two]

I'd like to let it be known that, while I agree with l1t, I am not into arguing on forums. That's why i'm not really taking part. And one_two, i apologize if i seemed rude. And while i agree with l1t, his attitude towards the whole thing is not representative of my own.

And I apologize for posting inflammatory in your clan thread.

[L1T]

How is buying windows software in CD form better than copying all the software you want whenever you want to any media you want and installing/compiling it while offline using linux?

Who, beyond power users or programmers, knows or wants to compile things? And being offline happens less and less often these days, so it's much less of a worry.
And I remember setting up Gentoo with my only internet choice being wireless, when I didn't have wireless firmware. Oh boy was that not fun at all. I had to build the system in a chroot environment on a Lubuntu live USB. There is no way in hell an average user is going to do that.

We can also make binhosts and offline repos. So actually linux has more potential to obtain all the software you want while offline.

The average user has no clue how to do those things. I have no clue how to do those things, and I live in a friggin' terminal window! And again, most people don't care.

The dependancy issue was your fault. It's always your fault. You probably did not update, emerge --depclean or revdep-rebuild properly. Or maybe you were using arch lol. Not having dependancies while offline is your fault. Go download the software and needed dependancies while online so you have it while your offline the same way you went out and payed for windows software at a store or while online.

This is the sort of attitude that maligns Linux so effectively in the mind of the average user. "Oh, so something that you didn't know would happen, happened? No fuck you it's your fault and you're stupid." You aren't winning anyone over.

This point is really not an argument between the operating systems anyways. Should be discussing things like file system types, journaling , file hierarchy , interoperability with other operating systems, standards ,access to source code, ability to understand how your initialization system works, registry vs everything is a file mindset etc.. not what userland software you can get while on or off the internet lol which by the way neither wins or loses at.

The average user does not give a shit about file systems, how their OS's kernel works, source code availability, standards compliance, the Windows registry or equivalent for their OS, or anything like that. They want programs that get real-life things done, and they don't want their OS to give them any shit. They are not power users or kernel hackers; they want a job done as quickly as possible. Windows still leads there.

I am an avid Linux user myself. I understand perfectly well that Linux is not an ideal OS for your average user. There are a lot of hoops you have to jump through, even for stuff like Ubuntu, and it requires re-learning how you use computers to at least a major degree, if not completely. Hell, even for Doom, it's a shit choice - you know how painful it was to make Aerowalk with the only choices being outdated editors that crashed often in WINE and an incomplete map editor that crashed exactly as often? Mapping is a huge part of Doom, and Linux fails horribly in that regard.

Now don't get me wrong; I think Linux is a fine batch of OS's, or else I wouldn't be using them. But don't keep saying that they're better than Windows. In the ways important to your average user, they aren't.

Also, Doom is open source. The WAD format is open source. The graphics, maps, sounds, and whatnot inside the IWADs still have all rights reserved.

The discussion was about what operating system is better.

Not which operating is better for lazy people, average users and people who don't give a shit about their computing.

When comparing operating systems the OS themselves should be compared not the user's ability to comprehend and make the best of it. No ..lol oh no windows does not lead in getting jobs done quicker. I find it takes much longer in the majority of cases. Installing a piece of software alone is the first thought that came to mind. Ijon, i'm not trying to make fun of you but until you work in I.T. Until you work in windows AND Linux environments then you can base an opinion or compare them. Sitting at home fixing your own desktop ( or lol automasking everything) is not enough experience to even have an opinion on these matters.

And we already know about the source vs data I cleared that up yesterday.

[Ijon Tichy]

The discussion was about what operating system is better.

Not which operating is better for lazy people, average users and people who don't give a shit about their computing.

read: which OS is technically better, not which one is usably better

The average user defines where the computer goes. No IT company is going to make and market something like Linux to the average user using purely technical benefits, because they don't care. It doesn't matter how amazing the technology behind a system is if it isn't being put to use. All the shiny things Linux has are going to be completely ignored by the average user.

Also, one_Two never said anything about the kernel; he was saying that it's too hard to use, which it is. Until things like Ubuntu stop having five billion little issues that cause the average user to throw their hands up in the air (like Zandronum being hard to set up, which it IS if you don't have a fundamental understanding of how Linux works), his concerns will still be valid.

It doesn't matter what the power user thinks about this, because the power user took the time to get used to it and iron out any problems. They're willing to take the shit Linux will fling at them in order to get the most performance possible. They don't really have a good idea of what's too hard, because to them, nothing short of coding the OS themselves is too hard.

When comparing operating systems the OS themselves should be compared not the user's ability to comprehend and make the best of it. No ..lol oh no windows does not lead in getting jobs done quicker. I find it takes much longer in the majority of cases.

An OS is only as useful as its users make it. And if Windows was such a shit OS, then why does Windows 7 get positive reviews, and why has Windows endured for 15+ years?

Installing a piece of software alone is the first thought that came to mind.

Package managers are very nice things, but they are only as useful as your internet connection. Imagine downloading Adobe CS5 on a 100Kb/s line. Oooohhh boy, not fun. It'd be a whole helluva lot easier to just go to the store and buy it.
For smaller things, it'd be nice, but just because it isn't there doesn't mean you should toss out Windows entirely. I'm sure if you can handle managing a server, you can handle running an installer.

Ijon, i'm not trying to make fun of you but until you work in I.T. Until you work in windows AND Linux environments then you can base an opinion or compare them. Sitting at home fixing your own desktop ( or lol automasking everything) is not enough experience to even have an opinion on these matters.

Actually, no, that is completely irrelevant, and I've already addressed this.
Ignoring the ad hominem.

[Balrog]

re: package managers, yes, I agree that package managers are neat; there's actually a loose analog to apt-get for Windows called Chocolatey. If you have a shitty connection, if your system is any good you should be able to download the packages somewhere with a decent connection and install them with pkgadd or whatever.

[L1T]

All you did was go over the same points as the last post and even bring up something completely irrelevant like installing/compiling programs while offline which in fact I already explained why linux is better at IF it even had anything to do with the comparing operating systems. All that has to do with is the user thinking ahead and puting all his programs onto a USB or CD beforehand because he is free to unlike a windows user who would be forced to go out and buy all that shit or be completely SOL with OEM windows installs. ah yup you made me repeat myself. By the way everyone has internet this is 2013.

again
The discussion was about what operating system is better.
Not which operating is better for lazy people, average users and people who don't give a shit about their computing.
When comparing operating systems the OS themselves should be compared not the user's ability to comprehend and make the best of it.

Now aside from all the derailing ijon is trying to do lets discuss what actually makes linux superior:
Package Manager (this first point should take the win but let's continue)
Ability to compile everything from source including the kernel allowing us full customization + optimization. Something a windows user will never experience.
A more efficient, extensive , and powerful CLI/Shell
A more robust and powerful scripting language
Text config files rather than cluster fuck registry (admit it, you hate registry)
Everything is a file and can be manipulated
Plays nice with all operating systems. Plays nice with most filesystems. Strives to follow standards and works well with others while microsoft products....C'mon I don't have to explain this one...
A superior choice of different filesystems each with different benefits (yeah the customization does not end)
Superior filesystem journaling
A much better well though out filesystem heirarchy that simply makes sense.
Less vulnerabilites and exploits therefore it is more secure
Code has thousands of eyes on it leaving little to no chance of backdooring while microsoft has been knows to discuss deals and have repeated meetings with NSA
When you remove a hardrive with Linux installed and insert it into another machine you can very well guarantee it will boot.
Never have to restart the machine because a program other than the kernel requires me to.
Linux supports a wider range of CPU architectures.
Much more lightweight (getting even lighter)
In linux you command a process to be killed and it dies. In windows it's more of a suggestion.
Stability
Not have to activate my operating system and give information about my computer to any company.
No need to reboot after updating
Choice of rolling releases (yeah yeah the customization never ends does it)
not being required to type in a long random string of characters to install an app
not being nagged to register my apps, activate my apps, etc..
not having to worry about if my software will allow me to reload it
not having to worry about a company continuing to support my older version of software (I've had the oh we don't support that version, you'll have to upgrade to the new improved version to re-activate")
all the server-side/command line tools (apache, ssh, php, python, bash, rsync, rsnapshot, etc) - while a lot of this stuff has ported to Windows, its just not the same.
a scheduler (cron) that I can count on .. the windows task scheduler just doesn't seem to be very reliable.
Updates/upgrading system that barely ever fails and if it does it will explain why unlike windows and it's abstract error codes.
Proper Logging. When you switch from another OS to Linux you will be amazed at how in depth, clear cut and to the point the error and log messages are.
Superior permissions model
DRM free.
Never see a nagscreen or have a program crippled because I used it beyond the demonstration time limit.
a boot up process that mere mortals can understand .. nothing I hate worse than a Windows box that I can't boot into (Even into safe mode) -- AUGH. its like black magic trying to determine what is wrong. With Linux, it pretty much tells you where it hangs up
gui front ends for cli apps .. I like that a lot of stuff is not "rebuilt" on Linux and I get the option to use a GUI or script the command line for different tasks (ie cd burning, backups, etc)
general compliance to standards (ie storing mail in maildir/mbox format) -- ever have to resurrect an Outlook PST file? augh. nightmares. With the text based formats, I can directly manipulate the files.
Most importantly it's open source and it respects YOUR freedom

Linux is better and you are a peasant of the I.T. world if you think otherwise.