Yes, Slackware with KDE. Office work, music and movies I can get in Windows too, but not safe internet without headaches / money.
- Status
Ubuntu 9.04beta with Gnome. Getting some second hand hardware and no vista licence made me give linux a serious try, and have never looked back.
linuxguyit
Distinguished
- Aug 23, 2008
- 8
- 0
- 18,510
Yes, Ubuntu with Gnome, and Arch with XFCE, both base installs that I installed necessary things into.
harrycat88
Distinguished
- Jun 18, 2008
- 98
- 0
- 18,630
Yes, I have five Linux boxes and all five use Gnome.
The main things that make Linux better then windows, is it comes with it's own GCC and Fortran compiler, you can move directory's or programs around and leave a symbolic link behind to point where the item is. You can configure and change anything you like without a nag screen and the biggest advantage is,is the terminal program. With the terminal program, you don't have to search through all the stupid menus; you just type in the name of the program and start working immediately.
The main things that make Linux better then windows, is it comes with it's own GCC and Fortran compiler, you can move directory's or programs around and leave a symbolic link behind to point where the item is. You can configure and change anything you like without a nag screen and the biggest advantage is,is the terminal program. With the terminal program, you don't have to search through all the stupid menus; you just type in the name of the program and start working immediately.
I have installed Ubuntu on at least 6 different systems. Never had to hunt down drivers. It just works.
Its way less of a hassle than Windows in many regards.
All of my software is free and maintained via package manager.
Instead of getting annoying popups from all my different apps, My package manager keeps track of everything. I can explore a vast library of safe software and install it instantly by checking a box.
There is no incentive for open source software to have more features than you need. Its more minimal. Proprietary software keeps adding stuff so they have reasons to sell you new software. Usually it just adds complexity.
If windows would focus on a single non limited version, they would drastically cut costs. YOU end up paying more. They cripple everything to give you incentive to pay. If you want to run a web server then Linux/Apache is what most companies go to. IIS is crippled and requires you to buy licenses to connect more people. The money spent paying for expensive software could better be spent customizing open source software to your companies needs. You can then contribute the code to the community and improve or even change the focus of that software (forking).
Proprietary software locks you in. Big corporations get screwed when this software stops being supported.
We all know how terrible the security of Windows has been.
Here is what I think about that.
I bet you anything that most Microsoft programmers have not seen most of the code. They lock it up tight even within the company.
With open source software, any programmer can see how the software works.
You would think that this would make the code more vulnerable.
But the reality is that people interested in using the software will report these holes and even possibly provide patches to fix them.
Free software has gotten so awesome lately.
Netbeans - Use it for web development, prefer over Dreamweaver
OpenOffice - Does everything I need for office stuff.
7-Zip - Extracts EVERYTHING
Media Player Classic / VLC - Plays ANY media content
Compiz - Very nice desktop
HandBreak - Great video encoding
Linux OpenGL Screen Savers are very cool.
VirtualBox - Run any OS on your Linux install with little performance loss.
Never had a problem reading USB drives or burning CDs/DVDs under Ubuntu
You can create a bootable USB Flash Drive with Ubuntu.
Ubuntu can detect Windows and create a dual boot system during install.
Just love it to death.
Its FREE!!!!!
Its way less of a hassle than Windows in many regards.
All of my software is free and maintained via package manager.
Instead of getting annoying popups from all my different apps, My package manager keeps track of everything. I can explore a vast library of safe software and install it instantly by checking a box.
There is no incentive for open source software to have more features than you need. Its more minimal. Proprietary software keeps adding stuff so they have reasons to sell you new software. Usually it just adds complexity.
If windows would focus on a single non limited version, they would drastically cut costs. YOU end up paying more. They cripple everything to give you incentive to pay. If you want to run a web server then Linux/Apache is what most companies go to. IIS is crippled and requires you to buy licenses to connect more people. The money spent paying for expensive software could better be spent customizing open source software to your companies needs. You can then contribute the code to the community and improve or even change the focus of that software (forking).
Proprietary software locks you in. Big corporations get screwed when this software stops being supported.
We all know how terrible the security of Windows has been.
Here is what I think about that.
I bet you anything that most Microsoft programmers have not seen most of the code. They lock it up tight even within the company.
With open source software, any programmer can see how the software works.
You would think that this would make the code more vulnerable.
But the reality is that people interested in using the software will report these holes and even possibly provide patches to fix them.
Free software has gotten so awesome lately.
Netbeans - Use it for web development, prefer over Dreamweaver
OpenOffice - Does everything I need for office stuff.
7-Zip - Extracts EVERYTHING
Media Player Classic / VLC - Plays ANY media content
Compiz - Very nice desktop
HandBreak - Great video encoding
Linux OpenGL Screen Savers are very cool.
VirtualBox - Run any OS on your Linux install with little performance loss.
Never had a problem reading USB drives or burning CDs/DVDs under Ubuntu
You can create a bootable USB Flash Drive with Ubuntu.
Ubuntu can detect Windows and create a dual boot system during install.
Just love it to death.
Its FREE!!!!!
I use the terminal just as much as the GUI, this applies to all the *nix's I use between work/home (Debian & Ubuntu, Solaris, Leopard), I just find it easier to automate my daily work with a nice little bash script that using the GUI, but obvious stuff like web browsing or document processing just got to be done through the GUI (although for most scripting or simple text editing i just use vi)
Sidux w/KDE, if it's too bloated for what I'm running, then it's time to turn to Tom's and look at what I need to make up the difference, right?
Yups, Gnome on a dozen Xeon machines - slowly replacing the Win2003-s with Fedora 10 - and although I use Fedora 10 i have Gui on each and every one (I guess i can't deny my windows heritage), and i think nowadays it will become a no-brainer choice. We have enough juice in most machines that GUI doesn't slow them down, remote managenet of GUI can be secured quite well, GUI gives u a much broader range of tools to work with, than console (i love krusader).
On my personal laptop I use WinXp TabletEdition, becouse of 3 things:
- touchscreen support could be problematic
- most of the MMO-s are hard to wine
- if u handle an xp well, it will last a decade for u without having to reinstall it (4 years it is now on my lappie)
CadilLAC
On my personal laptop I use WinXp TabletEdition, becouse of 3 things:
- touchscreen support could be problematic
- most of the MMO-s are hard to wine
- if u handle an xp well, it will last a decade for u without having to reinstall it (4 years it is now on my lappie)
CadilLAC
pochacco007
Distinguished
- Aug 3, 2008
- 161
- 0
- 18,680
linux is small because there is nothing that is being done to be more like apple or microsofts os. linux is still living in the days of the golden ages [meaning their still living in the past] while everyone else is moving forward. if people were to build linux to be similar like windows xp or os x, then it would succeed. but it isn't going to happen, so i can still say linux sucks.
pochacco007
Distinguished
- Aug 3, 2008
- 161
- 0
- 18,680
linux is small because there is nothing that is being done to be more like apple or microsofts os. linux is still living in the days of the golden ages [meaning their still living in the past] while everyone else is moving forward. if people were to build linux to be similar like windows xp or os x, then it would succeed. but it isn't going to happen, so i can still say linux sucks.
look at the moment of os history when it went from command prompts to graphical. there were those who lived on the command prompts that didn't like the graphical approach. but the graphical approach succeeded and those who didn't follow it will shrink. if we apply this to linux, we can clearly see that they didn't change and is why they're small.
look at the moment of os history when it went from command prompts to graphical. there were those who lived on the command prompts that didn't like the graphical approach. but the graphical approach succeeded and those who didn't follow it will shrink. if we apply this to linux, we can clearly see that they didn't change and is why they're small.
tiredwolf
Distinguished
- Mar 31, 2009
- 28
- 0
- 18,530
Yep Ubuntu server and Ubuntu 8.10. Both are great, some times I use a GUI for the server, but the GUI runs on the Desktop machine. Through SSH -X. Really nifty feature, you can launch programs running on the Server but the GUI is handled through the guest machine. Useful for things like configuring myth and what not.
I use Ubuntu, Mandriva and Arch in triple boot Using both Gnome and KDE 4.2 so its pretty much good
and believe me the screen you show is now not seen in many distro,, with high end bootsplash plymouth emerging linux is getting much better,,, The only problem is myth.. People still consider linux as command line which is total nonsense..
Distor like Mandriva, Dreamlinux, Ubuntu provide easy to use system and with Control Panel like in Mandriva, openSUSE and Dreamlinux its so much easy to use Not to mention the power of freedom to choose in Arch
I believe people will use Linux soon as all major companies now thinking linux as a potential platform.. hopefully steam will port all its game to linux
Using both Gnome and KDE 4.2 so its pretty much good and believe me the screen you show is now not seen in many distro,, with high end bootsplash plymouth emerging linux is getting much better,,, The only problem is myth.. People still consider linux as command line which is total nonsense..
Distor like Mandriva, Dreamlinux, Ubuntu provide easy to use system and with Control Panel like in Mandriva, openSUSE and Dreamlinux its so much easy to use
Not to mention the power of freedom to choose in Arch I believe people will use Linux soon
as all major companies now thinking linux as a potential platform.. hopefully steam will port all its game to linux 
Niva
Distinguished
- Jul 20, 2006
- 383
- 1
- 18,785
Yup, typically gnome with compiz fusion for giggles, xfce on an old laptop too. I've converted a bunch of mexicans in the Houston area to running linux, they love it - all they do is browse, email and p0rn I guess. I think they primarily love it because they've had much less viruses. Majority of these users came to me with virused up machines and often not having kept their CDs so that I can even reinstall windows as an option. Linux rox, cheer!
Hey Everybody, look who is back! It is pochacco007. I am sorry on Monday Soul_keeper was really harsh on you. Please do not hold on it too much.
[citation][nom]pochacco007[/nom]look at the moment of os history when it went from command prompts to graphical. there were those who lived on the command prompts that didn't like the graphical approach. but the graphical approach succeeded and those who didn't follow it will shrink. if we apply this to linux, we can clearly see that they didn't change and is why they're small.[/citation]
Yes, Lets look at OS history. Microsoft told us that Windows 98 would be the last OS with command-line. But they did not follow on their promise, they just move the icon in the menu, but it is not the first time so I don't hold that against them. Later in 2006 Microsoft releases PowerShell. Wikipedia:
[citation][nom]pochacco007[/nom]linux is small because there is nothing that is being done to be more like apple or microsofts os. linux is still living in the days of the golden ages [meaning their still living in the past] while everyone else is moving forward. if people were to build linux to be similar like windows xp or os x, then it would succeed. but it isn't going to happen, so i can still say linux sucks. [/citation]
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.
[citation][nom]pochacco007[/nom]look at the moment of os history when it went from command prompts to graphical. there were those who lived on the command prompts that didn't like the graphical approach. but the graphical approach succeeded and those who didn't follow it will shrink. if we apply this to linux, we can clearly see that they didn't change and is why they're small.[/citation]
Yes, Lets look at OS history. Microsoft told us that Windows 98 would be the last OS with command-line. But they did not follow on their promise, they just move the icon in the menu, but it is not the first time so I don't hold that against them. Later in 2006 Microsoft releases PowerShell. Wikipedia:
So the old argument command-line vs. GUI is lame. The winner is Command-line + GUI.
[citation][nom]pochacco007[/nom]linux is small because there is nothing that is being done to be more like apple or microsofts os. linux is still living in the days of the golden ages [meaning their still living in the past] while everyone else is moving forward. if people were to build linux to be similar like windows xp or os x, then it would succeed. but it isn't going to happen, so i can still say linux sucks. [/citation]
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.
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.
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.
cybot_x1024
Distinguished
- Sep 1, 2008
- 181
- 0
- 18,680
Yep, Slackware, SUSE 9.3 and OpenSUSE 11 all with KDE and the shell. Those who knew Slackware from
cybot_x1024
Distinguished
- Sep 1, 2008
- 181
- 0
- 18,680
Yep, Slackware, SUSE 9.3 and OpenSUSE 11 all with KDE and the shell. Those who knew Slackware from version
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
-
Question Samsung 990 PRO M.2 2000 GB PCI Express 4.0 V-NAND MLC NVMe- Started by DefalDonut
- Replies: 5
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram