QOTD: Do You Use Linux/BSD With a GUI?

[cybot_x1024]

for some strange reason my two last posts got cut off half way

 

[x3nophobe]

Yes Ubuntu 8.10 on a dell lattitude d630c love it.

 

[cruiseoveride]

Of course. What do you think people still use Windows or something?

 

[Guest]

Yes. I have a mix of XP, Ubuntu (Gnome, KDE 3.x, XFCE), DesktopBSD 1.6 (KDE 3.x) and FreeNAS (FreeBSD based, with no GUI). As for drivers for Linux/BSD.. it hasn't really been much of an issue. Yes, graphics drivers may not always be cutting edge.. but so far thay have worked. Installing Ubuntu and DesktopBSD in some ways is less hassle than Windows XP. I haven't had to hunt for drivers for chipsets, video, NICs and other hardware that often show up as yellow/not auto installed in Windows XP. Stability wise, applications sometimes will crash as with any OS.. but this has never hung the system like occurs with XP, and the desktop usually keeps right on running. When the desktop does hang (rare), you just hit CTRL-ALT-Backspace to restart the desktop manager (which is not a reboot), re-logon and you're good to go. XP.. well.. if the desktop hangs.. it's usually time to hit the power switch (followed by a CHKDSK next boot from Recovery Console just to be safe). As for boot times, especially with older hardware.. Ubuntu is faster than XP. Each has it's uses.

 

[Guest]

Yes and no. I have been using a file/web/mail server at home for more than 10 years, without a GUI. I still connect to it through SSH and read mails with alpine. Last year I bought an Acer Aspire One with linux preinstalled. It is nice.

 

[Guest]

I have three Linux machines and four Windows XP machines at home. Of the Linux machines, two are desktop/workstations running Fedora 10 with a GNOME GUI. The server runs Fedora 6 with XFCE installed, but not running as the machine has no monitor and is maintained via SSH. If I do find occasion to use XFCE on my server (and I haven't yet), all I have to do is switch to runlevel 5 and log in with VNC; which like X and XFCE, is installed and configured, but not set to run at boot.

On another subject, like many others here I find Windows to be relatively useless. However, my wife and I are some pretty serious gamers so it's no wonder that my four Windows machines are gaming rigs for us and our friends.

 

[alberto_lc]

Yes, 1 servers one running asterisk, ipcop and a file server, no GUI, other laptop with vista/suse.

 

[average joe]

Hi,
I'm run Linux Servers at work and do not have a GUI. I'm new to Linux and have only worked with it for about a year. It has a very steep learning curve but the graphical interface didn't seem to make it any easier for me. In fact, it seemed to obfuscate the problems. Far to many things required me to drop back to a shell to fix. So much so that I dropped the GUI entirely. I do use web based interfaces for many systems though Monowall, IPcop, Smoothwall, and Webmin to name a few. Nothing can replace a good bar graph for showing trends and performance over time. Apache2 is much easier from the command line than from Webmin. I wish I knew how to code IP Chains so I could drop the prebuilt firewall packages entirely.

 

[sumpm1]

Yes, Ubuntu is the STUFF. My wife was having problems with viruses and the such on XP. I set her up with Ubuntu and she LOVES it!

 

[nachowarrior]

I'm a big fan of linux in every form. So yes. mostly i enjoy the standard ubuntu distro's with the gui of course. But i have been known to impliment xfce on old laptops, and kde on systems for users that like pretty GUI's out of the box. I also run debian based maemo (nokia n7xx and n8xx series) which has a rather nice little gui, simple clean, lightweight. I like that there is much more support for gaming and games than there was when i first started using ubuntu, making my total system migration closer and closer every day.

note: xubuntu runs as fast on a p3 with 256 megs of ram as a windows vista system does on a mid-high end dual core with 4 gigs of ram.

 

[nachowarrior]

[citation][nom]bmullan[/nom]What I found interesting recently is that when I got a new PC and it came with Vista 64... I now have the SAME issues with drivers that I have with Linux.Its not Linux... its the vendors who just haven't worked to get drivers for 64 bit operating systems into the market.One other point.. on my Ubuntu 64 bit system I have access to literally 10's of thousands of applications that can run natively.On my Vista 64... its almost impossible to find 64 bit applications. Despite my searching I've found probably less than 100.So maturity in the 64 bit world is something to be considered.[/citation]
also 64 bit ubuntu you can just get the 32 bit libs, never had a problem running anything that way... a little more work, but it's an option to get the job done, unlike windows... works or it doesn't, end of story for the most part.

 

[tmcd35]

Currently running Aqua/Quartz on my primary BSD disrto 😉 Playing with NetBSD in a VM. Using XFree86/Fluxbox/Thunar and (eventually) Simdock. Whenever I get the urge to instal Linux, usuall OpenSuSE, XFCE tends to be my GUI of choice.

 

[Guest]

No GUI. I only use Linux as my personal server running the last Slackware.

 

[pochacco007]

"...So If we follow your logic we can say that new Windows 2008 and Windows 7 are sucking because they are including PowerShell. Thank goodness most people here are not like you. You are ... (alright I will use political correct term.) misinformed." sal-e

the default is not powershell [command prompt] but a gui. while in linux it is by default a command prompt. windows doesn't suck for having powershell as an OPTION. when apple released the gui os the second time, it was a very successful feature on an os. those who didn't follow similar steps like what microsoft did, they were bound to be held back. read a book called, only the paranoid survives, in which he'll quickly give you an explanation of why command prompt isn't going to go anywhere but where it is. linux sucks until they can restructure it like apple or ms os. read "only the paranoid survives" and you'll understand.

 

[zshift]

Oh yes i do, ubuntu 9.04 alpha with ext4, running on my OCed setup, boots from post to login in under 5 seconds, and thats on my slower hdd with 16MB cache, my main vista hdd uses 32MB cache. current setup:
c2q q9300 @3.52GHz/1.39V
2x2gb mushkin pc2-6400 @935MHz/2.1V/5-5-5-18
asus p5q-e
assu eah4870 dk top 512 @835gpu/1085mem
wd 750gb black
wd 500gb caviar
lite on 22x dvd burner sata

installing ubuntu, not a single driver was needed, only updated gpu drivers for better performance. even my 1920x1080 lcd was detected properly upon install, and i have since upgraded to a samsung t240 and it works just fine as well. overall its great, the ONLY downside i see is gaming, which is far better on windows. aside from that, WINE lets me use any programs i like from windows, and there are many great open source alternatives to the everyday things i do in windows. plus, vista's and 7's aero has NOTHING on Compiz Fusion. if you dont know what it is, google it, you'll love it, guaranteed.

 

[neiroatopelcc]

[citation][nom]Article[/nom]Linux is definitely the operating of choice for power users and administrators alike.[/citation]
Only if your boss doesn't care if a task takes 10 minutes or 5 hours to complete.
Linux is fast, sure, but it's so inconsistent that you can hardly perform any task on two different distros without running into problems. Less versions is better really. Less customizable, sure, but better overall.

As for gui or not - on my vmware linuxes I'm running gui - mostly with a terminal window open though. But on production systems it's cli only.

 

[SAL-e]

[citation][nom]pochacco007[/nom]"...So If we follow your logic we can say that new Windows 2008 and Windows 7 are sucking because they are including PowerShell. Thank goodness most people here are not like you. You are ... (alright I will use political correct term.) misinformed." sal-ethe default is not powershell [command prompt] but a gui. while in linux it is by default a command prompt. windows doesn't suck for having powershell as an OPTION. when apple released the gui os the second time, it was a very successful feature on an os. those who didn't follow similar steps like what microsoft did, they were bound to be held back. read a book called, only the paranoid survives, in which he'll quickly give you an explanation of why command prompt isn't going to go anywhere but where it is. linux sucks until they can restructure it like apple or ms os. read "only the paranoid survives" and you'll understand.[/citation]
Wow, I was almost proud of you. For the first time you try to make an argument based on some kind of reasoning. Why the hell you spoiled it at the end by "Linux sucks"? Any way I like you so I will try to talk to you. First lets clear some confusions:
1. Name "Linux" is used to identify two different things. The kernel and the distribution OS based on that kernel.
2. If we are talking about the Linux kernel, yes it is ruled by the command-line interface. But this is much better then having no interface at all. Windows OS are based on NT kernel and it has only API interface. You need additional tools to manage it. Have you ever try to recover the Windows system after serious crash and only working portion is the NT kernel and Windows Recovery Console? It is not fun at all. In 99% of the cases is more efficient to re-install the whole Windows or boot from Linux CD and use Linux to recover Windows. Linux kernel and its command shell allows to recover from any situation and I can tweak the inter workings of the OS on the fly. The command-line interface is the best interface for power user and system admins. That is why MS has created the new PowerShell.
3. When we talking about Linux distributions there are many different ones. Some are only command-line driven and they have very special purpose. But you for some reason are ignoring the fact that many new distributions have very good GUI. Some are more innovating then Windows and OS X. When it is coming to looks agreement will not be achieved. It is user preference and one size fits all will not fly. Linux distributions are the only OS that offers really many choices: Gnome, KDE, XFCE, and many many more.
Linux problems are:
1. Microsoft sees the tread that Linux is and it is using their dominate market position to inhibit development of Linux by forcing artificial incompatibilities and withholding protocol specifications.
2. The hardware vendors are not ready to work in new framework that FOSS requires, and they need to come with new business models and this is taking time.
3. The big one. Linux communities are not equipped yet to support users that are not capable or do not want to support them self.
The good news for all TUXes or the bad for some MS executives is that all problems I listed are been addressed as I write this and in near future Linux will hold much better market position. For example as embedded OS Linux is taking leading position right now.

 

[crymsonpheonix]

I had KDE 4.2 on Arch, but switched to Fluxbox when I noticed plamsa was eating around half of my memory and CPU! sometimes I use the DE, sometimes I just use the bash prompt, depending on what I'm doing. I also have a FreeBSD VM that runs without X or a DE installed. I have in the past run Gnome, XFCE, KDE 3.x 4.X, and TWM (just because it was there) I've used Compiz and Beryl before it, but found that it just like Aero, flashy, but power hungry.