[QUOTE=swift and shift;35299692]because stallman[/QUOTE]
stallman is a really bad spokesperson please get someone new
You guys do know you're getting angry at someone else's view that in no way affects you, right?
If you come into a Linux thread, you know the people are going to be [B]pro-linux[/B] so why bash their view on it? It's a waste of time and you're starting a flame war.
Oh my god I take back everything I said this is so satisfying
guys I'm
guys listen okay
ready
I'm listening to music THROUGH A TERMINAL
I'M A HACKER BECAUSE I'M NOT USING A GRAPHICAL INTERFACE
10111000110101011010010101010101
Im a linux noob, it is my secondary os. I am currently an undergrad for computer science, and I can say linux is much more powerful from a programming stand point. Trying to write some complex codes with windows is putting a cast on yourself. Many big organizations, including the U.S. govt use linux for various reasons, one of the major ones being network security. I am not able to fully utilize linux yet because I'm still a noob, but if you want more specifics on why linux is better than windows for programming then search it in google.
Another thing is say you get a virus that you cant delete through windows, well on linux you delete the file, no questions asked.
Lastly, take someone that isn't into programming. Well one thing is you can fully customize the UI. It's proven to be faster. Plenty of cool programs that you can mess around with, even for a practical user. (videos, music, pictures, etc...)
Do I advocate fully switching? No - gaming. Also depends on the device. Netbooks - definitely!
As far as the "Why?" Well, One man's justification is as good as the next... Whether their answer satisfies you or not is irrelevant, either it's good for you or not, too much subjectivity involved. I agree, "freedoms" is justification enough, or simply "I like it better."
[QUOTE=Relaxation;35352745]
Another thing is say you get a virus that you cant delete through windows, well on linux you delete the file, no questions asked.
[/QUOTE]
That's what I had always used Linux for at first. In a way, it's ironic that I most commonly used Linux for repairing Windows computers.
I use it because a windows install doesn't work. You heard that right, it installs, but errors on booting and I'm too skint to buy a new hard drive
As already pointed out by someone, Linux makes developing stuff in C++ a lot easier. Using external libraries on Windows is really inconvenient, while on Linux all you have to do is [I]sudo apt-get install libglfw-dev[/I].
It's also really clever that all software and libraries are installed in a way so that they are available from everywhere - without the need to mess with the environment PATH or anything.
I use Linux because my laptop only has 256MB of RAM (which is actually 240MB because of graphics). Windows eXPerience noms the RAM, especially if you install an antivirus program, even on a clean install.
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;35303504]Great for you, but not to most end users! You can script a whole Datacenter build in powerCLI but most people will go with vSphere why? UI is great, and works out of the box, CLI is powerful and handy if you know how to use it but most apps should be ready to go out of the box not, hold on I gotta write a custom config, the exception is with servers/services[/QUOTE]
One of the reasons I like Linux is because I read posts like these and now I realize how much these people are missing out. It's quite sad that someone can consider the terminal "Anti-productive". You have to be a pretty inexperienced sysadmin to think GUIs make your job faster... Sure they can. When your terminal interface SUCKS. I wonder if they realize why Microsoft is prioritizing CLI on Windows Server from now on.
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;35303504]You actually have two DE's Core/Full, have you ever deployed even windows 2008/R2 server, or are you just assuming everything?[/QUOTE]
Excuse me? Comparing Full install and Core to installing multiple DEs in parallel on a Linux [B]Client[/B] box? I mean, the fact that you care about UI on servers is already very telling...
[QUOTE=Naelstrom;35303300][vid]http://67.177.47.177/videos/rCyvQHLCLgzY7JnJ.webm[/vid][/QUOTE]I just wanted to say, this simple video made my day. It make me believe audio gifs are possible, or will be possible and standard in the future.
[QUOTE=Chezhead;35391740]I just wanted to say, this simple video made my day. It make me believe audio gifs are possible, or will be possible and standard in the future.[/QUOTE]
It's an HTML 5 video...
[QUOTE=Chezhead;35391740]I just wanted to say, this simple video made my day. It make me believe audio gifs are possible, or will be possible and standard in the future.[/QUOTE]
We already have these things, they're called video and audio codecs. The one above in particular is libvpx and libvorbis, aka [url=http://www.webmproject.org/]WebM[/url].
(Also animated gif's with audio sounds horrid, please no)
God dammit. Don't let the trolls know they can post HTML5 video that auto plays and plays the most horrid sounds as soon as the page loads. Not to mention that each time someone quotes it, you have two seperate instances of it playing.
Please do something Garry.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35393692]God dammit. Don't let the trolls know they can post HTML5 video that auto plays and plays the most horrid sounds as soon as the page loads. Not to mention that each time someone quotes it, you have two seperate instances of it playing.
Please do something Garry.[/QUOTE]
Oops sorry, I didn't think about that; good thing this is the Linux subforum where nobody visits. v:v:v
[QUOTE=Naelstrom;35394075]Oops sorry, I didn't think about that; good thing this is the Linux subforum where nobody visits. v:v:v[/QUOTE]
can u tell me abut it more?
What tags do u use? format nedded?
[QUOTE=Aloveoftheworld;35394119]can u tell me abut it more?[/QUOTE]
Only if you add me on steam and prove you're worthy,
[sub][sub][sub]but really I've already disclosed everything you need.[/sub][/sub][/sub]
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35393692]God dammit. Don't let the trolls know they can post HTML5 video that auto plays and plays the most horrid sounds as soon as the page loads. Not to mention that each time someone quotes it, you have two seperate instances of it playing.
Please do something Garry.[/QUOTE]
for me it doesn't play sound unless my mouse is hovering over it
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;35393692]God dammit. Don't let the trolls know they can post HTML5 video that auto plays and plays the most horrid sounds as soon as the page loads. Not to mention that each time someone quotes it, you have two seperate instances of it playing.
Please do something Garry.[/QUOTE]
Audio only plays when you hover your mouse over the video.
[QUOTE=gparent;35374935]One of the reasons I like Linux is because I read posts like these and now I realize how much these people are missing out. It's quite sad that someone can consider the terminal "Anti-productive". You have to be a pretty inexperienced sysadmin to think GUIs make your job faster... Sure they can. When your terminal interface SUCKS. I wonder if they realize why Microsoft is prioritizing CLI on Windows Server from now on.
[/quote]
For common users it is anti productive, for automation/administration it is one of the most powerful tools. I am not talking about servers I am talking about clients, hence the whole "end users" word there. Is English not your first language?
[quote]Excuse me? Comparing Full install and Core to installing multiple DEs in parallel on a Linux [B]Client[/B] box? I mean, the fact that you care about UI on servers is already very telling...[/QUOTE]
Yeah I am still saying that the option is there, not that it is better/worse but that it is there. I don't think you can install windows without a GUI.
We aren't talking about common "end users" here. This is the linux section, where most of us are very experienced.I think we went a bit off topic here. The whole point of this thread is to explain, why WE like to use linux.
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;35397280]For common users it is anti productive, for automation/administration it is one of the most powerful tools. I am not talking about servers I am talking about clients, hence the whole "end users" word there. Is English not your first language?[/QUOTE]
Your point is moot whether we're talking about servers or not because the command line is faster either way. Is English not your first language either? I think what you're trying to say is that the ratio of time invested versus time saved is a lot higher for regular users than sysadmins, which is really something I'm not concerned about. In both cases the command line will save you time.
[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;35397280]Yeah I am still saying that the option is there, not that it is better/worse but that it is there. I don't think you can install windows without a GUI.[/QUOTE]
But it's not there. Again, English: having the option of either installing a GUI or not is not what the above poster was talking about at all. He was comparing the customization of the DE in Linux versus Windows, where Linux is a lot more powerful (you can literally change everything).
EDIT: No wonder you think my English is bad. Look at what you wrote:
[QUOTE]Great for you, but not to most end users! You can script a whole Datacenter build in powerCLI but most people will go with vSphere why? UI is great, and works out of the box, CLI is powerful and handy if you know how to use it but most apps should be ready to go out of the box not, hold on I gotta write a custom config, the exception is with servers/services[/QUOTE]
So first your point is that for most end users command line is bad, and then you say that people would rather use vSphere's UI rather than PowerCLI for vSphere (something the average regular user will never hear of in their entire life). You end your sentence by saying that servers/services are an exception. So why would people prefer vSphere's GUI then? It's server software and you just said servers were an exception.
Please rewrite this so that it makes sense, I'm clearly missing your point.
I like to use Arch because it's easy to make it everything Windows is, but then there's the added benefit of being able to make it everything Windows simply can't be.
It's a rewarding and experienceful experience to install, configure and use a(n Arch) Linux. But I'm still dependant on the .net framework and microsoft office.
[QUOTE=ichiman94;35401170]It's a rewarding and experienceful experience to install, configure and use a(n Arch) Linux. But I'm still dependant on the .net framework and microsoft office.[/QUOTE]
I won't argue with Microsoft Office, as LibreOffice isn't a complete replacement for that, but there's Mono if you're looking for other .Net implementations.
After reading through the first page of this thread, I decided to reboot the lappy I'm on to my Linux partition.
I haven't played any games on my lappy in a while and steam runs fine for me, also running Arch with XFCE and Compiz is [I]sooo[/I] much sexier than running in Windows.
Why the hell haven't I done this in so long?
Minus games, my main OS is Linux.
1. Development. Coding on Windows just isn't fun. There are more open source software development tools available for Linux. I like working in a command line, with limited GUI usage.
2. Customization. If I don't like something about my OS, it bugs the hell out of me. With Linux it's possible to fix those problems properly, without resorting to questionable hacks and 3rd party closed-source apps from the internet (as seems so common with Windows).
3. Knowledge. I like knowing how my computer works. If something goes wrong with Linux it certainly is annoying, because it usually requires some investigative work. You have to learn something new. That can be time consuming but it's such a great thing. Going hand in hand with that, it took me three or four tries to "get" Linux. I kept trying out various distros but it wouldn't stick and I would go back to Windows. What I didn't realize was that I just didn't know enough yet. Eventually I tried Linux again, and I realized that my knowledge base was wide enough to get a foothold, and I was on my way!
[QUOTE=Larikang;35506588]
1. Development. Coding on Windows just isn't fun. There are more open source software development tools available for Linux. I like working in a command line, with limited GUI usage.
[/quote]
Yes.
I love using tools like Valgrind that you can't get on Windows. And I don't consider myself to be a GUI jockey. I do most of my real work in vim or gvim. I really don't like lurking around File/Edit/Tools menues.
[quote]
3. Knowledge. I like knowing how my computer works. If something goes wrong with Linux it certainly is annoying, because it usually requires some investigative work. You have to learn something new. That can be time consuming but it's such a great thing. Going hand in hand with that, it took me three or four tries to "get" Linux. I kept trying out various distros but it wouldn't stick and I would go back to Windows. What I didn't realize was that I just didn't know enough yet. Eventually I tried Linux again, and I realized that my knowledge base was wide enough to get a foothold, and I was on my way![/QUOTE]
I used Gentoo for about 3 years, and I liked having to constantly fix things. :v:
I did eventually get kind of tired of it and switched to Fedora, but it was fun.
I use it mainly for University.
Most of the Software we se is open source, the huge Intel Math Libraries are free for Linux, the big servers run Linux because of stability and configuration as well as security.
[B]Differences:[/B]
Open source is a methodology for developing software: a lot of people contribute to source code to provide the best solution - this is why linux is much more secure than windows or ios.
Freedom is more a definition of an unrestricted: use, modification, redistribution, and so on.
The open source project doesn't necessarily have to be free (freedom not gratis) but a free project is usually open source. Examples:
Android: Open source, people are free to modify the source but the team usually employs paid programmers to finalise the code for android. The new system is released together with kernels and modems but source code is released ~1 month after. Also the system uses proprietary libraries for eg. 3d graphics library. This is far from free but still open source. Another example could be imagining a creation of software that is fully free: ie. no restrictions at all (BSD license, WTFPL license) but little or no people developing bugfixes and changes so the software is fully free but necessarily open source (little contribution).
[B]Why:[/B]
Freedom is the most important thing in the world (if you think life is please check if you'd taken your daily dose of medicine) and software is no different. People should value freedom of software for the following reasons:
1. Users have FULL control,
2. There is always another way to grab a copy of the software so money is not an issue,
3. Users do not have to fear control of usage, distribution issues, etc.
4. If you know how to code you can modify ANY piece of software YOURSELF,
5. If you don't know how to code it is still important to use free software since you still have community which does the main work for you (bugfixes, security patches, improvements), if you know a programmer ask him to help, ask your son, daughter, mother, father, grandma, grandpa (dog lol), you do not have to know how to program to use free software,
6. Proprietary software may not include malware but there is no way to check so using it you will have to "trust" the developer,
7. It is common knowledge proprietary software usually DOES contain malware (especially microsoft windows): Word from office packet collects info about computer hardware, keys you type even when you type outside of the application, metadata about other open word documents, old versions of the word file even if it has been discarded. Windows update collects data about hardware without consent. MSN messenger controls the thing you type: it will not for example let you send [url]www.piratebay.se[/url]. Is this FREEDOM?
8. Proprietary software is known to collect data from your HDD and unless you uninstall the software you have no say (see point 7),
9. free software also promotes free formats. Free formats can be adapted by anyone (ie FLAC can be decoded by amarok, vlc, etc) not just by their "owners" (i put owners in quotes because i believe that software should have authors not owners - which makes sense if you think about it),
10. Free software does not enforce DRM,
Free software is the most important factor when using a system - most people put usability over the freedom. It is wrong but it needs to be taught to people not persuaded or forced. There would be an issue when free software would be shit like there is no tomorrow but fortunately this is not the case. If you watch last 100 years people got more lazy and lazy taking everything for granted. Once stuff like ACTA passes through and your ISP will start monitoring, blocking and banning users you will then realise how important freedom is.
Examples of free software that you use probably not thinking about it:
- Mozilla firefox browser,
- Blender 3D suite,
- vlc media player,
- chromium (base for google chrome),
- linux kernel (to some extent),
- GNU toolchain and various other software,
- free formats, including: FLAC, PNG, PDF, AAC, HTML,
- and tons more...
[B]Does FSF really support free software:[/B]
I know what im about to say will be criticised but no, fsf does not support free software and licenses by GNU like GPL are not free. Why? Because they are copyleft (wiki it). In short copyleft licenses forces you to make your code free which is not what freedom is. The freedom must be taught to people but not shove down their throat. And so free licenses are: BSD, WTFPL, Apache license, MIT license, and such. making a license copyleft is basically denying one spectrum (proprietary software license) and forcing another (free software license). Real freedom is in licenses that do not limit you in ANY way whether it is for "good" of the end-users.
Another thing to mention is the famous 4 freedoms. Without writing a lot about it I can just tell you they are wrong straight away: they say [I]freedom to[/I]. Just to clarify you cannot be free to. Freedom is "from" something not "to" something: It is like saying freedom to slavery - it does not make sense and misses the point: free software should respect user's freedom in that the user is free from: restrictions on how to redistribute software, free from restriction how to use it, how to modify it. This is just my little thought that no one else cares to point - you are free when noone tells you what to do not when someone forces the freedom to you or takes it away. Trying to determine whether you are free from "restrictions" is not always easy but just re-read my post and see if you are REALLY free from any restriction.
Last thing i wanted to say is that completely free licenses will have less text in their body - you can guess that more text means more talk about what you are not allowed to do and what are the restrictions. So here is a (full) body of WTFPL - a truly free license:
[CODE] DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
Version 2, December 2004
Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
as the name is changed.
DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. [/CODE]
Thanks, hope this is helpful and answers some of the raging windows fans questions :)
Janek566
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
