I installed Linux (Mandrake, to be specific) and I wasn't all that impressed with what was there...

...now for the price (free), what was there was astounding. Word processors, games, databases, spreadsheets, email clients, web browsers, and the list goes on and on. And don't forget the great ease for many users and probably networking too.

But still, if I have the preference between my Mandrake Linux and Windows XP (or on that comp. it happened to be 98), I'll take my Windows along with my clean $400 MS Office, and all the other software that runs on it.

So, to make a long story short, unless you have NO money, I don't see why you would use Linux as an OS.

Personal preference. I personally enjoy working with unix (not linux though its a pain in the butt) I enjoy getting into the kernel and tuning it, pulling out all the defaults, recompiling software etc. I understand that this is not everyones cup of tea but not everyone likes to be spoon fed their data.

Now having said that Mac OSX gives me the best of both worlds. I get my BSD kernel and back end with the "pretty" front end and the ability to run apps such as Office, IE and various other corp software.

Originally posted by Chaos28k
I installed Linux (Mandrake, to be specific) and I wasn't all that impressed with what was there...

...now for the price (free), what was there was astounding. Word processors, games, databases, spreadsheets, email clients, web browsers, and the list goes on and on. And don't forget the great ease for many users and probably networking too.

But still, if I have the preference between my Mandrake Linux and Windows XP (or on that comp. it happened to be 98), I'll take my Windows along with my clean $400 MS Office, and all the other software that runs on it.

So, to make a long story short, unless you have NO money, I don't see why you would use Linux as an OS.


No I think your just to used to Windows and having it do everything for you -- Linux is a whole different type of operating system.

It is taking every ounce of restraint in my body to not flame you for everything you are worth.

you just installed it? you haven't even used the thing! go use the operating system, prior to judging it.

would you rather be slapped silly with dcom vulnerability scanners, or would you rather use a clean, and fairly easy to use operating system ?

You have got to be kidding me...

Let me guess your course of events...

a) You installed Mandrake.

b) You loaded up the desktop and poked around for awhile.

c) You got frustrated because it didn't act exactly as Windows, and rather than spend any more time trying to learn where everything was at; you gave up.

d) You came on WHT and proclaimed that all Linux users are crazy.


....


Reasons why this makes me laugh:

a) You gave no reasons that it did not "impress" you. Face it; you got frustrated, so this obviously means Linux is inferior.

b) "unless you have NO money, I don't see why you would use Linux as an OS." .... Okay, you obviously don't have any clue who your average Unix/Linux user is. [Hint: It's mostly people who are extremely proficient with computers ... network administrators, server admins, programmers, etc.].




When a distro comes along and says "Hey ... our desktop is more idiot-proof and user-friendly than Windows.", then you should come on WHT and gripe about it.

You ... well, stick to Windows. :rolleyes:

I had a very hard time with the transition from windows to linux. I tried very flavor of linus from mandrake, Suse, and Red Hat. I prefer Red Hat version as it has alot of users groups that are devoted to it and you can always find what you need. Not only is Linux a very stable OS, but virtually virus free and but why pay $$$$$.$$ for applications for windows when Open Source software will one day be the "norm"

What better way to have the ultimate support in the community than to have everything opensource and easily available to update and recompile and make better?

I am a Windows user and after playing with Linux for over 7 years, I am still not comfortable in the environment. I find it difficult to use, a lot harder than DOS when DOS was around. In fact, if not for administrators for my linux machine, it would have been the most vulnerable machine ever.

But it is just me and I would not go as far as to say that those using Linux are crazy. It is all a question of personal choice. That's why we have so many different types of Operating System and their variants in the market and each satisfying a different group of users.

If you are comfortable with Windows than continue to use it. If you are comfortable with Linux/Unix than use it. No one is right or wrong here. Both OS are quite capable and they are both proven over time.

Actually I'm going to agree with the tread starter here. As a desktop I much prefer Windows XP over Linux, even though I'd never use a Microsoft OS on a web server.

Originally posted by eddy2099


But it is just me and I would not go as far as to say that those using Linux are crazy. It is all a question of personal choice. That's why we have so many different types of Operating System and their variants in the market and each satisfying a different group of users.

If you are comfortable with Windows than continue to use it. If you are comfortable with Linux/Unix than use it. No one is right or wrong here. Both OS are quite capable and they are both proven over time.


I agree.

But, I didn't pop-up the "Windows users are insane!" topic to tell everyone why I use Linux.

While the intent of the thread starter might have been to instigate..I do agree with him on the point that Linux desktops are no where near the ease of use that Windows XP brought to the table.

I've used RH, Mandrake and some other distros on and off (mainly checking to see how they develop etc.) and they just aren't easy to use..

You have applications that aren't formatted in a standard way (ie. what might be under the option menu in one app, is under the preference menu etc.) Not to mention that the Ctrl + C, Ctrl + V isn't very uniform. So it might not work from one application to another. Or at least that is what happened to me.

Then there is the lack of good graphic programs (like photoshop..GIMP is way too rough)

Going as far as to say that it sucks is too far..But no..it isn't polished enough so that the regular Joe can use it.

True, actually we should not even have this discussion on which is better in the first place.

Generally I prefer Linux over Windows on the desktop... only reason I don't run Linux on my machine right now, is the problems people are having with the driver for my Wifi card.

OpenOffice, works great for all my word processing and spreadsheet needs.

Mozilla is a great browser

Also, the other reason I like Linux, websites can't install spyware/adware on my machine.

I use Linux because...

1. It's free.

2. It's faster.

3. My desktop is 150% customizable.

4. Upgrades are more readily available, and security problems are more rapidly corrected.

5. It's challenging.

6. The community is awesome.

7. It's FUN!

I enjoy tweaking my kernel. I enjoy compiling software. I enjoy editing config files. I enjoy configuring my hardware. I enjoy Linux, period. Do I like Windows? Sure, but I like Linux a whole lot more. I do everything in Linux, except some photo/graphic things, because I just can't get use to The Gimp. I use OpenOffice for writing documents, vi for websites, mplayer for movies, XMMS for music, MozillaFirebird for web browsing, ogle for dvds, the gimp for light editing, etc, etc, etc. I play most of my games in Linux, too. I can do everything in Linux that I can do in Windows, except with Linux, I don't end up banging my head on my desk in the midst of it all.

Does it cut it as a desktop operating system? Not for everyone. Linux is a server OS. No matter how pretty it gets, that is still the main focus, and hopefully it will remain the main focus. But it works for me, and it's what I prefer. No one is forcing you to use it, so if you don't like it, use Windows and quit complaining.

Use what you like, just like I do.

I use Linux as I just find the Window Fisher Price interface to restraining. Most of my work is done in consoles. Email: console, SSH session: consoles.

Also with a nice light WM is works faster than Windows. I can open other peoples documents using OpenOffice. Also I didn't get infected by the blaster worm.

However I will say that I still do use Windows for gaming.

Just my 2cents

Rus

Eh to each their own. I prefer FreeBSD over windows, but I'll always have a windows box, I don't want to spend a couple hours configuring my computer to play a game, when it can be installed in 10 minutes. Even if I went strictly FreeBSD, I'd never get away from Windows, because I'm in the IT field, there's no hiding from it. It's easy to drag the flaws out of something you don't like. *NIX wasn't made to be be like windows - linux just does a good job at making *NIX as user friendly as possible; and like previously mentioned, it's not for everyone.

J.

I have Mandrake at home. I wanted to play around with it for a while to get to know it, but my computer is just too old for the client side and desktop parts to work faster than a snail. I would love to try it out some more, but until I have the time and money to build a new computer, I'll just let it run as a remote server instead, and that is just fine, too.

I have to use WinXP at work, and I'm worried about all those patches that needs to be installed all the time. Sooner or later there will be an OS that is enormous in both size and resources, and I don't like it. When it comes to Windows, I prefer 98/ME, but only as a client. For a server I would choose Linux or Novell Netware.

The only thing that would prevent me from completely abandon Windows 98 at home is the fact I can't run Photoshop in Linux. I'm willing to switch to some other software for my graphics, but I'm very used to Photoshop and what it can do. I probably would have Linux Mandrake on my new computer, and keep my old with Win 98 for those few games I play, and the software I just can't run on anything else.

The only thing that would prevent me from completely abandon Windows 98 at home is the fact I can't run Photoshop in Linux.
Photoshop runs on mac rather well and with osx, you get virtually the same benefits of linux. ;)

I prefer FreeBSD

However, for a home desktop, I prefer Windows... Windows XP Pro to be exact. I don't look @ using a BSD Machine as a day-to-day machine, I consider it a server with no GUI.

I'm not a fan of Linux, I use to like Redhat, but they have gotten to full of themselves.

As an old UNIX guy, if forced to select one and only one OS, I'd take UNIX. Once you've learned UNIX and have spent sufficient time with it, you'll likely find it more flexible and powerful and stable than Windows.

Remember the adage that has often been used to describe UNIX (and Linux): "Difficult to learn, easy to use".

I have used photoshop in linux with wine. You can also use vmware from within linux to run any windows apps you connect get to run with wine.

*sobs* softwares are expensive, but I learn to live with it and get everything free (legally) whenever possible. IE: Buying a new PC; me: "Hey, gimme OEM license of Windows + Office or I'll go bankrupt with my student loan" shop clark: "Er...." me: "You know you wanna..." shop clark: "... fine...*fiddles with glasses, punches calculator* aw... there goes a few hundred dollars in sales"

hehehe...

As for linux, I'm using RedHat at my end, just as a server running off from family cable connection for hosting stuff for friends and family (family Pictures, video etc)

I run Windows XP, Mac OSX 10.2 and RedHat 9 (in Gnome) and SuSE 7.2 (in KDE).

Personally I find RedHat a pain as a desktop. Some of the configurations (by default) have to be done from the command line. Fine for people who know about computers, rubbish for newbies or non-techies. Yes I know you can download visual editing bit for these, but for a new user you shouldn't have to! Documentation and online help is also pretty poor in comparison to windows. It's there but it's written by techies for techies.

OSX on the other hand I find a dream to work with and since OSX you can dig around at the back if you want as well. It's downside is you have to run it on Apple hardware (or apple approved).

I still use Windows for my main desktop and my internet gateway, but then I do have a very stable windows os. Don't think I've ever had the windows xp kernel die on me. I'd say I use my mac as a second machine and I now just use my RedHat machine as a development webserver now.

I won't even get into the problems I had with Samba on Linux (worked first time on the mac)

I think OSX is the perfect balance between Unix and Windows.

I love it.

I prefer Windows as a desktop OS, but to quote from a page at linux.com:


One Linux.com editor tried to figure out how much he would have had to spend to get Windows software equivalent to the software that came with his USD $70 Mandrake 8.0 "PowerPack Edition," and stopped counting when he reached USD $1,500. He was only adding up the desktop software he used every day, and didn't count the server packages that were included and he didn't need. If they had been included in his tally, he probably would have concluded that his USD $70 investment in Mandrake Linux was the equivalent of $5,000 or more in Windows software.

Originally posted by KIAHost
I think OSX is the perfect balance between Unix and Windows.

I love it.

Yeah, for this reason I am thinking about getting a MAC Laptop.

As, for Linux, I love the users ability to customize it. I personally have a RH9 Box. But I use WinXP PRO for my main computer.

But I think the important thing about this whole thread is to think about who are we talking about? End users, Servers, .......

Linux IMO, will never be a "end user" friendly enviroment. My 55 year old father, whom doesn't lack knowledge of computers, wouldn't be able to do anything with linux, besides install it. I know this thread hasn't said that, but I have read many "Hate M$CROSOFT" threads in the past (not here) that think "Linux is the Futer", "Linux is so easy", Linux Rules the world", "Linux will be on every desktop in a few years."

This is the talk that makes me laugh. Like an earlier post in this thread. I enjoy my games, and even thought they might run a little bit better on Linux , it at all, I like to install them fast.

Anyway, both OS's have there place. I like them both, and am going to try OSX.

Originally posted by Maxplayer14

Anyway, both OS's have there place. I like them both, and am going to try OSX.

You wont be sorry, Apple did an awsome job on OS X, they have taken the best OS structure (BSD) and made it extremely functional for the end user, they've made it easy to switch from windows to mac without a huge learning curve of hours of editing config files to get your X server to run at the highest res possible etc. Yet they still give the functionality to the power unix user to drop to a command shell, recompile the kernel and compile various apps that are needed to perform a variety of tasks. (not to mention the design of the cases is slick :) )

I agree, I never thought I'd be a mac fan until I bought one. Now I love it.

I think Windows 98 is the best,runner up bieng Lindows....

The Dude :)

I personally like Windows 2000 or Windows 98 for use on my main PC, then there's RHL 8.0 on another PC, assorted windows ranging from 3.1 to XP on other PCs/Laptops/Notebooks
But I'd only use:
Windows 2000 Advanced Server
or
RedHat Linux 7.3/8.0

on a server
as I believe that with the right management these two are both powerful, secure and easy-to-use operating systems, which have a wide range of server-side-applications available to them, which enables the end customer to be content.

I run Windows on several PCs... cant remember the last time I bought a licensed copy... oh, the mircile of CDRW drives!

I do not like Windows. In fact, I hate it. But I have to use it since I need some software that isnt avaliable for Unix yet.

how much does a Mac running OS X retail for approx? :)

In the UK the cheapest you can get is an eMac for £650 inc VAT (retail)

I've got one of the old style 'snow' iMacs and it does me just fine. The confusing thing about Macs is the reported processor speed. A 600Mhz motorola chip cannot be compared to a 600Mhz Intel chip as motorola will out perform the intel chip every time.

Originally posted by WeirdWay
how much does a Mac running OS X retail for approx? :)

Go to the source, www.apple.com

Die hard Debian user here. Windows has it's place in the market I'll admit, but for personal use I choose Linux. Linux in general is all about choice. The reason there is not one official Linux distribution is because everyone has different needs and they like to be able to choose a distribution that fits their needs best.

The packaging system which Debian is built around is arguably the best out of any Linux distribution released to date. APT (Advanced Package Tool) tracks and resolves dependencies for every package in the system. It allows users to install complex package combinations (like, all of the X Window System) with just a few commands. The dependency tracking is so good, a Debian system can be upgraded between major releases without downtime or a reinstallation. This is something that distributions like RedHat have just picked up on (up2date) but Debian has been using for several years. Debian packages are easy to work with because they are built with standard tools .. one could build a Debian package with a text editor, "tar", and "ar". APT also gives you the convenience of binary packages for quick installation but the flexibility to build and optimize your own packages.

The Debian release cycle is very long, but with good reason. Debian always has 3 branches in developemnt: stable, testing, and unstable. All new development goes into unstable, including new packages, new versions of packages, and bug fixes. Once it is determined that the unstable branch is complete, there is a code freeze and the branch gets moved to testing. During the testing phase, only bug fixes are introduced into the branch, and all bug fixes go through unstable first. By time a particular branch makes it to the stable phase, it has been thoroughly tested and is rock solid. After it reaches stable, only security fixes and major bug fixes are allowed.

*gets off her soapbox*

I'm not totally against Windows, like I said..it has it's place in the market.

JMHO. ;)

BTW. you can install various OS X apps with APT (fink installer uses it) :) so it is certainly pretty well thought out and obviously useable/portable

A 600Mhz motorola chip cannot be compared to a 600Mhz Intel chip as motorola will out perform the intel chip every time.
And with the G4 and its velocity engine, it can up to quadrouple the clock speed. The original G4's, like the one I have, running at 400mhz is supposed to be effectively running at 1.5GHZ when it's using applications that take advantage of the velocity engine.

Originally posted by ub3r
It is taking every ounce of restraint in my body to not flame you for everything you are worth.

you just installed it? you haven't even used the thing! go use the operating system, prior to judging it.

would you rather be slapped silly with dcom vulnerability scanners, or would you rather use a clean, and fairly easy to use operating system ?

I used it for everything I used Windows for for about a week.

Originally posted by Rich2k
A 600Mhz motorola chip cannot be compared to a 600Mhz Intel chip as motorola will out perform the intel chip every time.

Very true.

Something i found amusing was (this is typed from memory so isn't completely accurate):

I was on a page a few links deep from macrumors.com where I read that someone saw an Intel guy at some conference with "Processor Engineer" or something similar on his badge. He asked him why Intel wasn't developing a 64-bit chip for desktop use and why don't intel try reducing the pipeline etc. on the chips and the answer he gave made me laugh. Apparently they were internally investigating possible chip designs, and one would be around 1-1.5Ghz, short pipeline... a nice chip. It would probably perform as well as or better the current 3ghz lineup. But because intel have spent the last 5-10 years promoting the clock speed is everything myth, now it has backfired on them and they discovered that nobody would be likely to buy the superior chip because the clock speed was lower...

i use unix, linux and xp. Sadly the OS id probably like the most I dont use: OSX. Xp is alright (btw: i only have it because a family member bought me a copy as a gift), linux is pretty kool, it seems to be able to run on the crapiest boxen, and solaris, i love me some solaris on a sun box =]

This just seems like a total troll to me, new poster registers today (guessing as it's september) and starts a windows vs linux flame war.

Also I dont think ANYONE should be advocating piracy on this forum. Whether they are in the webhosting business or not.

Originally posted by Umbongo
new poster registers today (guessing as it's september) Date Registered: 09-28-2003... But close enough, I reckon...

95% RH Linux here... But I always have the standby Win XP Pro at my left elbow as backup for running software (imaging mostly) that isn't available for *nix. Plus, I need to check web designs across platforms/browsers.

With all I'm reading about OSX, I reckon I should give it a spin sometime, and probably will...

Perhaps the most intelligent thing in the "OS wars" I've ever seen was the statement "Operating systems are like religions." None is necessarily more 'correct,' except to those who use it. People get really offended if you insult theirs. And it's hard to go from one to the other.

Personally, I got real sick of Microsoft back when Win98 (with daily bluescreens) was the new thing, and have run Linux on my desktop ever since. I've now got a desktop with Gentoo, but keep WinXP on my laptop. (I'm toying with making it dual-boot, but WinXP is definitely going to stay.)

It's one thing to declare Linux the 'best' server OS. (I happen to think it is, although as I said, I can hardly tell you what's right for you.) But the desktop front is entirely different -- I've used Linux for 5+ years and still keep Windows around. I constantly bellyache about having to restart when I install a program, or trying to figure out why Alt+drag doesn't do anything. But I think that, unless you're a die-hard fanatic, replacing Windows entirely isn't the easiest thing to do. Sometimes it's nice to plug in a USB device, crash the box, but have it auto-detect it after several reboots, as opposed to trying to find the right kernel module under Linux.

Granted, I think it's stupid to start a thread bashing Linux because you didn't like it your first day, but I think it's equally as foolish to reply ranting about what an idiot you are. Give it a while and it might grow on you, but what works for others might not work for you -- no one can tell you what the best OS is. (Plenty will try, though :D)

Originally posted by rrdega
Date Registered: 09-28-2003... But close enough, I reckon...

95% RH Linux here... But I always have the standby Win XP Pro at my left elbow as backup for running software (imaging mostly) that isn't available for *nix. Plus, I need to check web designs across platforms/browsers.

With all I'm reading about OSX, I reckon I should give it a spin sometime, and probably will...

Well I've been visiting here for a few months ... just never got around to registering until I needed to a few days ago because I needed a question answered.

And now that I'm registered, why not post?

Originally posted by Chaos28k
I installed Linux (Mandrake, to be specific) and I wasn't all that impressed with what was there...

...now for the price (free), what was there was astounding. Word processors, games, databases, spreadsheets, email clients, web browsers, and the list goes on and on. And don't forget the great ease for many users and probably networking too.

But still, if I have the preference between my Mandrake Linux and Windows XP (or on that comp. it happened to be 98), I'll take my Windows along with my clean $400 MS Office, and all the other software that runs on it.

So, to make a long story short, unless you have NO money, I don't see why you would use Linux as an OS.


LOOK PAL. COME SAY THAT TO MY FACE.

DONT YOU EVER EVER EVER SAY THAT ESPECIALLY TO CHUCK JEREMEY CHAMBERS CERTIFIED LINUX ADMINISTRATOR.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:angry: :mad: :angry: :angry:

Originally posted by Chaos28k
Well I've been visiting here for a few months ... just never got around to registering until I needed to a few days ago because I needed a question answered.

And now that I'm registered, why not post?

Because you make a fool of yourself when you do?:stickout:

So, use Windows then, not like anyone really cares which brings up my second point, no one cares, so why post?

Originally posted by Dixiesys
So, use Windows then, not like anyone really cares which brings up my second point, no one cares, so why post?


That's one way to put it ...

I would say; before you post, use some discretion on what you have to say. Mocking Linux users is generally not a good idea in a technology-oriented forum.

An OS ologopoly is better than an OS Monopoly. Having a handful to choose from not only provides some competition between them but also gives the consumer a choice. Not that any one OS is better than another, but each will have their followers.

You People that Prefer Linux are Crazy...

Yes we are... (Like a fox)

But what is your point?

I have money but why spend it on making Bill Gates richer?
I can download hundreds of programs that run just fine on Debian and it does not cost me an arm and a leg and I do not have to pay to upgrade every time they decide to fix the bugs that should not be there to start with.

But hey if you think Bill needs another $45 billion keep donating your hard earned cash, and you call us crazy?????

The more I think about the original post and see replies of logic, patience, and opinions (rather than yelling back at the OP and flaming him/her no matter how big of a fool he/she looks). It really goes to show that *nix users (Mac as well ;)) are quite used to ridiculous posts such as this as well as having composure and the knowledge to know that it's all really a matter of personal preference. I'll say it one hundred times and
yet again, that Windows has it's place in the world..but it is definitely not for me. I can do just about anything on Linux that I can on Windows. The only reason people post such nonesense as, "Linux doesn't have as much software as Windows", "Linux doesn't have as many games as Windows" and my favorite, "Linux doesn't have anything like MS Word or Photoshop"..is only because they're unaware of what really is out here for us Linux users. People usually tend to spout off about things they are either A) afraid of or B) have no knowledge of.

I've seen so many people afraid of "breaking their system" because they don't know how to use an Xterm or don't know legitimate commands to type..people afraid of not having a program that they use regularly in Windows (and there are many available programs out there, such as Gimp, AbiWord, Star Office and the list goes on).
It simply amazes me how (dare I say it?) closed minded many (I said many, not all) Windows users are and how afraid they are to give something else a shot...or at least attempt to try and understand it, so they lash back with idiotic comments or flames.

Don't get me wrong, I have just as much respect for a Windows user as I do for a Linux, BSD, Solaris, etc. user...but the more posts I see like this original...the more I'm reminded of AOL....;)

Are we talking about a OS for a server or a desktop here? :eek:

sassSE, there is no Photoshop alternative in Linux..Gimp is generally ok but I found it much, much harder to work with. Not to mention that the PSD files are never done quite right..Last build I tried couldn't even open them up properly.

I am not saying it is bad, but overall Photoshop is 'THE' standard for graphics in a designer's world.

Originally posted by Monte
You People that Prefer Linux are Crazy...

Yes we are... (Like a fox)

But what is your point?

I have money but why spend it on making Bill Gates richer?
I can download hundreds of programs that run just fine on Debian and it does not cost me an arm and a leg and I do not have to pay to upgrade every time they decide to fix the bugs that should not be there to start with.

But hey if you think Bill needs another $45 billion keep donating your hard earned cash, and you call us crazy?????

I am an actually Linux user, as you will see if you read this post, but this is the attitude I dislike. Don't bye it because the guy who owns it is rich?

If I become the largest webhost provider in the world, are you going to tell people not to go to me because I am a rich, brilliant business man?

Originally posted by Maxplayer14
I am an actually Linux user, as you will see if you read this post, but this is the attitude I dislike. Don't bye it because the guy who owns it is rich?

If I become the largest webhost provider in the world, are you going to tell people not to go to me because I am a rich, brilliant business man?

Only if you give crappy service and your servers die every 8 hours and you charge your customers more and more to fix your servers when they should have worked right to start with.

Do that and I will tell people not to host with you because you are over priced and a lousy host.
But you are the one that said we are crazy, you are the one that started flaming people for their choice of software.

As I said if you want to keep donating your hard earned money to Bill Gates go for it none of my business but don't call me crazy because I made a choice to use what I consider a better OS.

Originally posted by Monte
Only if you give crappy service and your servers die every 8 hours and you charge your customers more and more to fix your servers when they should have worked right to start with.

Do that and I will tell people not to host with you because you are over priced and a lousy host.
But you are the one that said we are crazy, you are the one that started flaming people for their choice of software.

As I said if you want to keep donating your hard earned money to Bill Gates go for it none of my business but don't call me crazy because I made a choice to use what I consider a better OS.

I am sorry, but you make no sense what-so-ever. Also, I started flaming who? You got a real problem, because I never flamed anyone. I think you need to read this entire post, instead of accusing people of flaming.

Second off, you are not "donating" anything. Donating would be just giving something in return for nothing.

Originally posted by LKSS_Imperat
sassSE, there is no Photoshop alternative in Linux..Gimp is generally ok but I found it much, much harder to work with. Not to mention that the PSD files are never done quite right..Last build I tried couldn't even open them up properly.

I am not saying it is bad, but overall Photoshop is 'THE' standard for graphics in a designer's world.

Couldn't agree more. I use windows daily for desktop stuff and design, and a redhat box for a server and development purposes.

I like both, though linux does seem to make more sense to me (I'm a big fan of the way it's structured and that you have simple config files rather than layers and layers of dialogues to configure things).

But there just are some things that you can't run on linux. Photoshop being one. Although gimp is good, particularly for free it still isn't photoshop.

Neither can you run flash, dreamweaver, illustrator, freehand and a host of other industry standard design and development tools.

I have started to fall more and more in love with linux since I started using it though, so might one day move to OSX so I can have the best of both worlds.

I'm just hoping that stuff about apple porting OSX to the intel platform will turn into a reality, then I'd move to OSX in a minute.

Originally posted by Monte

But you are the one that said we are crazy, you are the one that started flaming people for their choice of software.


I believe that was Chaos28k, the OP. :eek:

Originally posted by LKSS_Imperat
sassSE, there is no Photoshop alternative in Linux..Gimp is generally ok but I found it much, much harder to work with. Not to mention that the PSD files are never done quite right..Last build I tried couldn't even open them up properly.

I am not saying it is bad, but overall Photoshop is 'THE' standard for graphics in a designer's world.

And I agree. But Gimp is similar..may not be the greatest, but it's out there..and an alternative. I did not mean to say that Gimp is "The" equal to Photoshop on the Linux side, I merely suggested that there is an alternative. :)

Use crossover office for photoshop. It works well I hear.

I'm just hoping that stuff about apple porting OSX to the intel platform will turn into a reality, then I'd move to OSX in a minute.
Why not run your windows apps on a mac? With VirtualPC, you can run a lot of windows apps on the mac already. The newer versions have built in support to utilize the velocity chip in the G4's so you shouldn't see a noticable speed degredation and I believe there may even be a WinXP version of VirtualPC available. This would give you the opportunity to switch between platforms with a press of a few buttons. I used to do that until I realized my moniter wasn't big enough for everything I wanted to do and I got tired of running the overhead on my mac, but it actually worked pretty well. It seems like I only had a few compatibility problems with some PC games on my mac, but I also had an older version of VirtualPC and MacOS running.
I merely suggested that there is an alternative.
Kinda like paintbrush on windows? ;)

Originally posted by LinuxAdmin
LOOK PAL. COME SAY THAT TO MY FACE.

DONT YOU EVER EVER EVER SAY THAT ESPECIALLY TO CHUCK JEREMEY CHAMBERS CERTIFIED LINUX ADMINISTRATOR.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:angry: :mad: :angry: :angry:

I thought we were trying to show him that we're not crazy. :confused:

Originally posted by Alex042
Why not run your windows apps on a mac? With VirtualPC, you can run a lot of windows apps on the mac already. The newer versions have built in support to utilize the velocity chip in the G4's so you shouldn't see a noticable speed degredation and I believe there may even be a WinXP version of VirtualPC available. This would give you the opportunity to switch between platforms with a press of a few buttons. I used to do that until I realized my moniter wasn't big enough for everything I wanted to do and I got tired of running the overhead on my mac, but it actually worked pretty well. It seems like I only had a few compatibility problems with some PC games on my mac, but I also had an older version of VirtualPC and MacOS running.


If I bought a mac I could just run the mac native versions which would presumably be faster and more stable than running an emulator. Pretty much everything I use in windows is available for the mac already (adobe and macromedia stuff mostly).

The main thing that puts me off is that apple has a monopoly on mac hardware and it protects those rights so agressively they put microsoft to shame. Although microsoft gets a bad rap from everyone for monopolistic prices, at least you can run windows on a machine you've built yourself.

The way it stands at the moment, If you want to run OSX, you have to buy a mac. If you want to buy a mac it must come from apple (or else). You don't have a wide choice of components from a diverse and competitive manufacturing base in the way you do with intel/AMD PCs.

If they released OSX for intel compatibles I think they'd actually be a far better competitor to windows and you'd see many more people moving to OSX (or at least giving it a try and if it's as good in practice as it looks in all the demo's I've seen I'm sure they'd win over a lot of people).

Those new G5's running the latest panther release do look pretty sweet though.

I should've phrased my post differently and not said crazy, but my point was that if you can use Windows, which after testing both I found was easier to use, why would you use Linux?

I was more looking for the other side's view rather than aflame war. Sorry about that.

And by teh way, I did mean desktops, not servers.

Originally posted by Chaos28k
I should've phrased my post differently and not said crazy, but my point was that if you can use Windows, which after testing both I found was easier to use, why would you use Linux?


Just because you found Windows easier to use, does not mean everyone else does.

"why would you use Linux"? ... See the above.


You're not making much of a case for yourself here.

I'm not trying to. I'm watching everyone who knows more about it fight each other, and learning.

Stick with the system you know well and feel comfortable with. An OS no matter how secure or robust is only as good as the one who administer it.

Slackware with KDE 3 for me :)

Can't believe you just attacked more than half of this forum with a forum thread topic like that.

If you want to use windows, go for it. Pay the big bucks, enjoy security flawed software, enjoy waiting for updates for mission critical stuff, enjoy being a person who will have to pay for almost every single piece of software and most of all, enjoy the hundreds of worms and virii that your machine is open to.

So, I am going to sit back and laugh while enjoying my stable desktop.

Chris

Originally posted by EthicalEpi
If I bought a mac I could just run the mac native versions which would presumably be faster and more stable than running an emulator. Pretty much everything I use in windows is available for the mac already (adobe and macromedia stuff mostly).

The main thing that puts me off is that apple has a monopoly on mac hardware and it protects those rights so agressively they put microsoft to shame. Although microsoft gets a bad rap from everyone for monopolistic prices, at least you can run windows on a machine you've built yourself.

The way it stands at the moment, If you want to run OSX, you have to buy a mac. If you want to buy a mac it must come from apple (or else). You don't have a wide choice of components from a diverse and competitive manufacturing base in the way you do with intel/AMD PCs.

If they released OSX for intel compatibles I think they'd actually be a far better competitor to windows and you'd see many more people moving to OSX (or at least giving it a try and if it's as good in practice as it looks in all the demo's I've seen I'm sure they'd win over a lot of people).

Those new G5's running the latest panther release do look pretty sweet though.

You're thinking along the lines of apple in the 90s... when they nearly went bankrupt. They let people make apple clones which ran the Mac OS.

Apple is a hardware company, who bundles a great OS with their hardware. Not the other way round. The way that apple manufactures their own computers means that it removes many of the problems windows users face - drivers for example. Install Mac OS X on ANY G3/4/5 mac and it will detect all your internal hardware without a hitch or a "we detected hardware blah etc." box in sight. It just works. Now if there were 95848 pieces of hardware that COULD be in the system and company A's hardware conflicts with company B's hardware... this is where the problems start...

That's very true of windows though. If you only use hardware with digitally signed drivers you rarely get hardware problems in the OS. However if you use unsigned drivers you might get people stamping on memory all over the place and bringing the system down.

Originally posted by phision.com
You're thinking along the lines of apple in the 90s... when they nearly went bankrupt. They let people make apple clones which ran the Mac OS.

Apple is a hardware company, who bundles a great OS with their hardware. Not the other way round. The way that apple manufactures their own computers means that it removes many of the problems windows users face - drivers for example. Install Mac OS X on ANY G3/4/5 mac and it will detect all your internal hardware without a hitch or a "we detected hardware blah etc." box in sight. It just works. Now if there were 95848 pieces of hardware that COULD be in the system and company A's hardware conflicts with company B's hardware... this is where the problems start...

I was thinking more about the way mac hardware is sold now rather than in the past. Any attempts by third parties to build and sell on apple machines, even if the parts are sourced from apple appear to be frought with problems (being sued amongst other things).

I do understand what you're saying about stability, everything coming from the same manufacturer, but then the down side of that is the lack of competition and the higher prices of mac hardware.

If you buy decent PC hardware you no longer have the problems you mention, when used with the latest releases of the operating system. I use windows 2000 and its pretty stable. If I install a new piece of hardware in the vast majority of cases it'll just install the drivers for me without a hickup.

I can buy a faster PC for my money than I can a mac at the moment (not consididering the G5 which is still too pricey for me). I know the velocity engine and mac architecture makes the mhz comparison meaningless but in terms of end use PCs are still cheaper and faster.

I'd much prefer it if I could go out and buy parts from wherever I want, build my own PC and have OSX run on that along with windows, linux, unix or whatever else I want to install and run on the same box.

I'm sure I'm not alone or apple wouldn't have been investigating the release of OSX for intel compatibles. If they did that I think there'd be a lot of people moving over to OSX who might not normally go out and buy a mac.

It's OSX that's attractive to me, not necessarily the mac hardware (though like I say the new G5 looks pretty awesome it's also quite pricey at the moment).

I'm not trying to knock macs - I'm sure they are good computers and aesthetically they are pretty interesting aswell. Just a bit too expensive compared to a comparable PC.