OK, I think you people are entitled to use whatever OS you want, but honestly I can't take any more of this mindless X11/Linux bashing. Time to disperse some lies!!
quote:
That explains why it takes me 5-10 seconds to open the trash can in KDE. Even on FreeBSD.
This is either a lie or you are using a year-old version of KDE. Konqueror 3.1.4 loads in less than two seconda on my laptop from a cold start.
quote:
If you can figure it out how to find, let alone edit the myriads of configuration files. Even through the graphical configuration panels it is a pain. And don't even start on installing other desktop environments. When the DE was not included with the distro, I've had to edit a files just to make the DE appear in the KDM/GDM menu! Linux may be theoretically more configurable, but its very tedious work.
Oh where to begin. Look, configureability doesn't mean something is hard to use. If you want to actually *use* GNU/Linux, then use it. Out of the box configurations usually work just fine. The point he is trying to make is that Linux is capable of being configured in hundreds of more ways than OS X or Be OS could ever dream of doing. It is one of the most flexible operating systems ever devised.
quote:
That is, if you like spending hours editing configuration files. You can't configure X11 any more with the wizards (graphical or command line) than Aqua and others. And configuring X11, while possible, is a painful process, whether with wizards or config files.
Please download the latest Fedora test core, or use SuSE Linux 8.2. It is doubtful you will ever touch the XF86Config file because they both do a superb job of auto-detection. Anyway, Fedora/Red Hat Linux has an easy GUI tool for changing your display settings such as video card driver, etc.
quote:
You mean like the fact that you have to open a wizard, and log off each time you want to change the resolution and colour settings without having the screen move all the tme?
In GNOME 2.4:
click the menu on the panel -> preferences -> screen resolution. Adjust it. You don't have to restart X (if you are using 4.3) This is just as easy as Windows XP. I admit, color settings require a logout, but it takes around 10 seconds to log in and out of X.
Now to comment on Jimmy James's comments:
quote:
"more configurable" might have something to do with what's wrong with it. The damn thing is too hard for average people to set up.
Please don't lie. For the most part, using a modern desktop distribution like Red Hat or SuSE, it is easier to set up than Windows OR Mac OS X if you consider the wide amount of hardware it runs on. It is amazing it detects things as well as it does. Again, Red Hat comes with a graphical tool for you point-and-click nuts so you can easily choose your graphics settings. How much easier do you want it?
quote:
Ha ha ha ha!! Jokes are funny! And that's not a joke... GDI is better than X11. GDI supports layering, limited alpha blending, and is tied to the kernel, meaning that it's part of the core system, not an afterthought.
First, all that stuff like alpha-blending and layering *will* be included soon in X. However I think it is kind of needless, except where massive eye-candy is concerned. Windows XP doesn't even make use of transparency in its default theme. Oh, and GDI being tied to the kernel is a very bad thing. Modular design will always be better. When GDI crashes it brings the entire fucking system down. Very bad, especially if you are running a server. Being modular doesn't make X slow. Warcraft III runs faster *emulated* on X with nvidia's drivers than my silly Windows XP installation runs it. How about that? I was doing remote desktop the other day on my LAN, and I accidentally ran Quake III, and I thought "OMG it's going to crash the computer", but lo and behold it loaded the thing and ran it, *remotely* at 15 fps. Can *any* other graphics system claim such remote display capabilities out of the box???
quote:
Is it? Have you ever heard the phrase "Your mileage may vary"? I installed Linux on several machines... getting it up and running wasn't hard at all... but making it actually do anything was.
You know what, I'd like to see OS X or BeOS run on the wide range of hardware that Linux does and do half as good a job of autodetecting and configuring devices.
quote:
I tried to like it, I really did, but all the stuff that I was told makes Linux so great was what made it so frustrating to use. I tried for a week to use my PC as a DHCP server with Linux (RH8) and COULD NOT. This was on top of X11 being a flaky ass bastard and not wanting to run more than half the time.
Oh boo hoo. Have you ever tried tldp.org?? Do you need wizards to lead you through everything? Maybe you do, but it's not like it will hurt you to actually learn what's going on behind the scenes when configuring a DHCP server.
quote:
In my experience, Be just works. In my experience, Linux doesn't quite make it there. I don't care because I run an OS built on NeXTStep. NeXT/OS X does, always has, and always will kick the shit outta plain-vanilla UNIX and clones.
Yeah, the key word is "in your experience."
Linux, not NeXT is the master OS, know this. It is not the product that makes it so good, it is the process. Open collaboration and massive backing by large corporations such as IBM are catipulting Linux into the 21st century with more momentum than all other "alternative" OSes combined. In four years Linux will have a greater desktop market share than Windows. In ten more years it will be running on 98% of all computers, and in twenty years it will achieve self-awareness and begin programming itself.
Okay the last paragraph is just a joke, but you guys can take jokes right?
