Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: CF_GE on 14 June 2002, 04:28
-
I am very pleased with the results I have had from Linux as a server. I've tried using Linux as a desktop, but found it to be too slow to get it setup (especially the eth0), and too hard to find out what program does what. Is there a pre-packaged operating system that comes ready-to-use like Windows. I think I could change my office over to Linux, but I can't even explain to someone how to get their email!
thanks-
:confused:
-
what version of linux were you using, and there are many programs, like for an office suite, use openoffice, i found it better then ms office, for the email client, try ximian's evolution. and for seting everything up, if you set it up right the first time, you won't have to mess with it again. also, ximian has a client called redcarpet which can update things.
ximians homepage (http://www.ximain.com)
-
The version of Linux that most people who choose Linux as their desktop run on their computers is Mandrake. However, Mandrake along with the other "mainstream" Linux distributions (redhat, suse, ELX, etc.) is quite slow, especially when using KDE. I don't know how they get away with it; maybe the KDE developers all run supercomputers so they don't see a problem, (they should test and compile KDE on pentium 233's I say) but for me, and many people, KDE 2.0 or higher is dog slow combined with the already bloated and obsolete X window system. Unfortunately, KDE seems to be the only usable desktop on Linux aside from GNOME, which is based on an inferior API in my opinion and has its fair share of problems (more crash-prone than KDE; ugly font support; underpowered interface; etc.) On my older machine, a pentium 600 /w 256 mb RAM(by no means completely obsolete; windows XP seems to run fine on it and it's as bloated as hell, right?) KDE frequently dives into swap space and consumes over 80 percent of system memory before I've even started anything! Simple and frequently used KDE apps like Konqueror also take an annoying amount of time to load on "slower" machines. The "fast" linux distributions, such as Debian and Gentoo, are more stable and robust, but are a pain in the ass to configure. (Gentoo is a source based distribution, which is a good and bad thing at the same time) It all boils down to how much time and knowledge you have.
-
If someone could make an operating system that was as powerful as Windows XPee or Mac OS X but ran on a 486ghz, I would worship them as a programming god. Desktop Linux needs at least a 33 mhz processor and about 512 kb RAM, which is quite sad. (unless you use Window Maker or TWM) (cringe)
[EDIT: I had to cover your lie's (http://smile.gif) ]
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: X11 / BOB ]
-
i don't know what distro you're using. I have a 433mhz celeron with 192mb of ram layin' around running KDE 2.2 and Mandrake 8.2. Right now I am using it, just to see if what you said is actually true, and while running IglooFTP-Pro, gAim, and Mozilla, my CPU is 97.8% idle, and I have 45mb of ram left.
I could supply a screenshot, if you want, showing that I am not lying.
-
first of all, completely ignore mose of winXP users post, *most* of it is filled with blatant lies.
When i first started using linux i was the same way, i didnt know which of the programs did what.
When I installed Red Hat I went through each package that was available and checked out what most of them did and took only the ones I wanted. If your using Mandrake, I wouldnt suggest using the 'recommended' install. If your using Red Hat there is a couple different choices of prepackaged installation modes. I always use 'custom' so i can choose out of the thousands of free high quality software that comes with it. I'm not sure how good the red hat pre-selected installs are, but I would recommend using KDE 3.0 which is one of the many different GUIs that come with Linux.
-
This was on Red Hat 7.2 with kde 2.2. Red hat focuses on GNOME instead of KDE, so they may have had crappy KDE packages. Whatever the case, KDE is slow regardless of the RAM usage. Selecting text in Konqueror is slow and makes the computer choppy. No KDE app starts up as fast as a Windows app, and Windows is supposedly "bloated." Right now, I have IE, Kazaa, Photoshop 7, mirc, and MSN messenger running under Windows XP, and my CPU usage is about 4 percent and I have 380 out of 512 MB free. Mandrake Linux 8.2, on the other hand, consumes over half my RAM with no programs loaded at all under KDE. I looked on the KDE system guard (the KDE equivilant to the Windows task manager) and X alone was eating up over 270 MB of my memory! What an outrage! Equally outrageous was the fact that on this ultra-fast system (1.73 ghz athlon, geforce 4, half gig ram) KDE took over 15 seconds to start, (more than the whole Windows XP OS takes to start)resizing and moving windows in KDE was choppy, and frequently used programs like Konqueror took over 2 seconds to start, whereas IE, Office, etc load instantly under Windows. You can interpret all this any way you want, but I see it as proof that KDE under Linux is just as bloated, if not more, than any version of Windows.
-
*cough*crack*cough*
-
quote:
*cough*crack*cough*
Maybe that hacking cold of yours would go away if you got out of that dark UNIX dungeon and stopped pecking out perl scripts.
-
actally, if you want a fast distro, go grab the redhat 7.3 installer that is xfs enabled. with xfs, i nolonger noticed bottlenecks in disk io as much. ext2 ext3 ntfs fat32 all those fs's are suck compared to xfs, and for the uninclined, it is a full featured journald filesystem that can fsck it self in less then 10 seconds. /*hint, it is was devoloped by sgi to run as fast as possible*/
ps, xpluser, did you use the nvidia glx drivers
[ June 13, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]
-
quote:
ps, xpluser, did you use the nvidia glx drivers
Why coitaintly, the first thing I did was install the drivers, in fact. I didn't notice much improvement, except 3d apps worked (sometimes, anyway; a lot of them crashed with segfaults)
-
o, and i kinda like my dark unix dungeon
, how do i post an image, like i don't have a website or anything, or anyhosting
-
xp, did you configure the XFree86-4 *correctly*,
ok lets all just get back on topic, i have heard a few good things about peanut linux, that it is small and pretty fast and full featured. and what is wrong with window maker. i think it is a very nice interface and it runs nice on my pentium 60mhz system under debian
-
Why are you acting like it's my fault? Of course I configured X correctly!! I bet if someone said Windows was slow you would piss all over the OS, and certaintly wouldn't say "it's your fault, not windows's." I spent weeks learning all about X and its config file while trying to solve a complex problem where Linux kept freezing every 5 minutes after starting an OpenGL program.
-
actaully XFree86-4 is an easy file to screw up /*heheheheheheh i would know */ and windows is no where near as configurable as linux is, so it is easy to mess it up. and actually use error is the first thing i look for period. for some resaon do you think that i also followed the way of tux, you have to remeber that i was bill gates bitch for a few years too, im not in the dark about windows, i know how even to use xpiss thats were i figured out its smb problems, it wouldn't share to a win98 machine, on the pentium 60 i setup winnt 4.0, and was having it do work for me like run the ti-link software and crunch seti at home, hehe, during the entire 3 week period i was doing that it got out but one packet. under debian it gets a packet a week. and i thought this was a topic on helping someone figure out how to use linux to use it to replace windows on a network and the applications under linux that would help do so
-
quote:
i know how even to use xpiss thats were i figured out its smb problems, it wouldn't share to a win98 machine
It shares fine with the Win98 machine next to me.
All this ranting means nothing; admit it, Linux needs a new display manager. X is very old, and it needs to be put down. Why don't you have a read here (http://www.osopinion.com/Opinions/MontyManley/MontyManley9.html).
-
agian true, x11 is quite odd but it doesn't need to be put away yet, and it does have problems, read the fortune cookie files, theres plenty of good jokes about xwindows in there. then again if i had money/*come one im only 15 and 9 months old, in my state that has some signifigance*/ i would have a mac, aqua is deffenitly awsome,
-
quote:
XP Luser said this:
If someone could make an operating system that was as powerful as Windows XP or Mac OS X but ran on a 486, I would worship them as a programming god. Desktop Linux needs at least a 800 mhz processor and about 512 mb RAM, which is quite sad. (unless you use Window Maker or TWM) (cringe)
ok that's just a LITTLE bit wrong
-WinXP is not fast, it takse 5 minutes for my AthlonXP 1700+ with 512MB DDR RAM to boot
-Linux DOES run on a 486, notice how things are named whatever_i386 or whatever_i486
-my Celeron 500 runs as a good desktop when it's not running a game server in the background to lag the thin down (server has extreme priority so if people start doin stuff i can feel the lag). my Celeron is actually faster than my Athlon for what i do in the desktop.....the scrolling is laggy though because ATI video cards are not supporting worth a crap :(
-my Celeron 500 has 384mb of PC100 SDRAM and according to KDE process manager, 250mb or so is unused and 100% of the pagefil is still free
-
the person who started this thread did so in a sensible and intelligent fashion.
XP Loser has dominated the replies with half baked nonsense that is phrased so as to sound as convinving as possible.
It only remains for me to apologise on behalf of the forums for allowing windows xp user to do this when people come here genuinely asking for help.
At this time i can only request that people ignore xp user in the hope of getting some sort of coherency out of these forums. This thread i feel is too far gone, filled as it is with lies and insults. I am ashamed that a sensible question could have been treated in such a disrespectful way.
If i had my way, xp user would have left these forums a long time ago. Free speech however is a relative concept.
-
can you screem fire in a movie theater?
can you make prank calls to the cops?
can you lie to people?
can you wear something with the work fuck on it in public?
you can do these things but there are consequense for doing them. besides i have more fun trying to help people figure out what is wrong and sharing my knowledge with others. i think that most feel the same way. i would rather be part of a sensible post then a flamewar, i will not respond to flamebait in the future, no matter how tempting. i think that most should take calums advice on this matter
-
quote:
-WinXP is not fast, it takse 5 minutes for my AthlonXP 1700+ with 512MB DDR RAM to boot
WTF??? 5 MINUTES?? I have an athlon 2100+ and it takes closer to 5 seconds to boot up. Even on my 600 mhz it takes no longer than 15 seconds to boot up.
I'm not "spreading lies;" it's true that KDE is just as slow if not slower than any Windows UI. Anyone who thinks of X as "cutting-edge" technology needs his head examined. Why do you think Linux handheld makers had to ditch using X windows on embedded devices? Because X is slow and bloated.
-
Calum cut the condescending crap; if you're going to respond to my posts at least make it something other than "ignore him, he knows not what he says."
-
quote:
XP Loser:
some shit designed to ruin the format of this thread and infuriate people
Of course you define condescending, XP Loser, so you should at least know what it is. I have no objection to you posting inflammatory garbage, no matter how pseudosensible you phrase it, but do not ruin a perfectly good "please help" thread with propaganda. This is the reason you should be banned.
-
You want me banned because you can't handle it when I insult KDE.
PS These other people are just as liable as me; they took my one beginning post and had a fit over it and therefore forced me to reply to their replies; it takes two to argue you know.
-
no i want you banned because the guy asked for help and you posted propaganda.
I agree totally about taking two to argue, hell i am responding to you right now, that's two posts from me and at least two from you we could have done without for a start, but i figure you've fucked this thread up so much now, what the hell...
This thing you have of being so obnoxious that dozens of people can't help but flame you is why i want you off. If you kept it to nontechnical threads then i would have no problems and would join in the discussion but, as i have stated MANY times, and i'm sure you won't understand it this time anyway, if somebody asks for help, especially if they are new to the site, i think it is only fair to allow that thread to contain only help and general discussion, not arguments and propaganda (bullshit).
Since you seem unable to post without inciting a riot, i think you should stay out of "help me" threads. If you don't i think you should be banned.
Very simple.
-
I can't win!
If I start a thread you close it, and if I post in someone else's you threaten to ban me.
My original post wasn't meant to inflame people (obviously it did) it was just my opinion of the major Linux distributions and how I have a problem with their speed. I was saying he could go with either that or the more advanced (gentoo, debian, etc) but they are harder to configure. Debian and gentoo are faster than mandrake and red hat, am I right?? You know some people don't have 1.5 ghz machines with 512 mb ram, and KDE can be a little annoying when you have a 400 mhz machine with 128 mb ram.
-
a lot of your first post was a load of crap, and it was written in such an arrogant tone that people are obviously going to respond.
I am not threatening to ban you, i cannot, and if the webmaster doesn't (and he is a staunch supporter of free speech) then fair enough to you, also i will not be closing any of your threads unless they have racist, sexist, or illegal content.
You've started tons of threads in the last few days that nobody has closed or deleted.
You did not provide any help, all your suggestions were negative, please do think before you post. It's your choice, but people will only ignore you and dislike you if you do not get your so called facts straight and speak to the point in a non-general thread.
-
Ok, without downloading any *other* software, how do I execute any graphical or non-graphical application on my windows server and have the application displayed on my windows client, utilizing the processing power of my windows server?
Seems, Xwindows has been able to do this since before M$ ever thought about writing a two bit GUI. X11 is still around because it works great, and because it is more capable than *anything* M$ has ever put out. And I can run multiple copies of it on one machine, it can serve desktops out from the server to the clients. It wasn't until recently that M$ "bought" a half baked solution to accomplish only some of the tasks that X11 has always been able to accomplish. That would be Terminal Services and with third party apps from Citrix. I don't have to buy some special server edition of any software to have this capability, I don't have to install any brain dead client software to access the servers. I don't have to pay anyone for this privelage. I can run apps on *any* operating system running Xwindows and display the applications on my Linux client running Xwindows, utilizing the power of the server for resource intensive apps. I have yet to see a better graphical environment. The day it comes out, it will replace X11. But like BSD, it's still around because it was well thought out from the beginning.
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
[a polite round of applause]
i liked that post.
So, M$windows cannot serve multiple graphical environments to multiple terminals? that's pretty useless, but of course it also means that each terminal must actually be a machine itself, and that machine... must be running a copy of Microsoft windows.
So on one hand there are 200 terminals in a building all getting served desktops from one machine requiring the owner of the system to purchase (or acquire for free) ONE EULA,
and on the other hand next door's building has 200 machines serving their own graphical desktops to themselves and only sharing data between themselves, requiring 200 EULAs (and you can bet those will be high priced ones too)...
am i on the right track?
i'm sure everybody here can see the benefits inherent in such a setup...
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
yes, voidmain you would be correct. but x11 is odd. like the accossing remote machines. and some have come to curse it. but the most fun i had with ssh/x11 /*the window manager, i don't know x11 the person personaly*/ is connecting to my friends computer and configureing it for him, and my way round bess. maybe that will be another howto hehe
ps, i am looking on ebay for an xtermanil, would you happen to know a company that makes a good one??
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: choasforages ]
-
I don't understand why anyone would curse it as you say. I don't know anyone that curses it (who knows how to use it). And I used to use IBM Xterminals a couple of jobs back, but setting up a cheap Linux PC works just about as well as the Xterminals. The nice thing about Xterminals are their reliability and if one does fail, just stick another one in it's place and you are off. You might find some on ebay...
-
well, i kinda need a little help with it, you could probably help me with it. i have read through some of X's docs and on the internet and cannot manage to compile XFree86 /*free software noramly makes me very angry when it doth not compile */. it errs out. i did not notice and autoconf or normal make files, just imake files. this confuses my ./configure && make && make install mind. i can retry and give exact errors. thanks
-
Can I ask a dumb question first? Why do you need to recompile it?
Do you have "imake" installed? It should be part of the X11 devel. imake is used to generate "Makefile"s from Makefile templates. It's been a while since I've compiled X from scratch so if I don't go camping this evening and have some free time, I'll attempt it again myself tonight. I would then be in a little better position to help you.
[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]
-
ahh, there is no dumb question. i need to compile it for ChoasnetOS, my linux distro. /*soon to be anyway*/ the only reason i would try LFS/little of my own knowhow is if i could get xwindows to compile. once i know i can build x, itlls be a few short weeks before i have a loaf disk image and a tar.gz file. for reconition on the fuckmicrosoft.com's alternative os catagory. /*when i get down building it, i still need to find someone to host the sucker well, thanks voidmain.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
I can't win!
If I start a thread you close it, and if I post in someone else's you threaten to ban me.
My original post wasn't meant to inflame people (obviously it did) it was just my opinion of the major Linux distributions and how I have a problem with their speed. I was saying he could go with either that or the more advanced (gentoo, debian, etc) but they are harder to configure. Debian and gentoo are faster than mandrake and red hat, am I right?? You know some people don't have 1.5 ghz machines with 512 mb ram, and KDE can be a little annoying when you have a 400 mhz machine with 128 mb ram.
Well, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about. I run KDE on my 300 mhz pc with 128mb ram and it works great. In fact it runs faster than win98se did. My other linux box is a 433mhz with 288mb ram and using BlackBox it runs great also. I speak from experience.
-
What version of KDE do you run? 1.1?
-
i want to say i use 3.x but i'm not even sure if there IS a 3.x (i think the x is a 4)
seriously dude, KDE is not as laggy as you think it is.
-
KDE 3.0 is much faster than 2.2 and an all around great improvement over the previous versions...
-
yeah, kde is faster then kde and manages to look better at the same time. so voidmain, how is it going with compiling X11 if you are trying to figure it out
thanks
-
I'm in love with the Windows XP interface.
-
quote:
Originally posted by choasforages:
yeah, kde is faster then kde and manages to look better at the same time. so voidmain, how is it going with compiling X11 if you are trying to figure it out
thanks
Sorry, I got sidetracked with helping someone configure a server farm with Piranha and LVS clustering.. I'll probably not have time to mess with it until at least Tuesday as I'm heading out of town tomorrow morning for a couple of days...
-
quote:
I'm in love with the Windows XP interface.
as am i, my friends and i spread the legs on it and we each took turns f***ing it to teach it a lesson but i think that on some level we all enjoyed it LOL.
sorry, i just saw that movie "Your Friends and Neighbors" last night and i had to say something similar to that story told in the sauna lol!
-
quote:
Originally posted by X11 / BOB:
And i can fly, drive a car and masturbate at the same time.
its easyt to fley- all you hsve to do is fall and miss the ground
-
Actually, I dont want to support M$ or anything, but on the issue of bootage, XP boots about 10 times faster than linux. Keep in mind however that I have almost no programs starting when XP starts, and I dont have an OEM version i.e. I dont have all that crap that no one wants that only serves to bloat
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
I bet if someone said Windows was slow you would piss all over the OS, and certaintly wouldn't say "it's your fault, not windows's."
Yes, youre right about that, I suppose it isnt fair. :confused:
quote:
Windows XP User #696969634534:
Why are you acting like it's my fault? Of course I configured X correctly!!
One reason I think it might indeed be fair when you come right down to it. Windows is idiot proof. Linux requires a large amount of exensive configuration. Therefore it is easier for someone to mess up on Linux. There are few bugs in Linux due to its GPL licensing. There are many bugs in XP due to its closed source nature. Therefore it is much easier for the system to crash even when virtually untouched by the user.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Windows XP User #5225982375:
WTF??? 5 MINUTES?? I have an athlon 2100+ and it takes closer to 5 seconds to boot up. Even on my 600 mhz it takes no longer than 15 seconds to boot up.
I'm not "spreading lies;" it's true that KDE is just as slow if not slower than any Windows UI. Anyone who thinks of X as "cutting-edge" technology needs his head examined. Why do you think Linux handheld makers had to ditch using X windows on embedded devices? Because X is slow and bloated.
5 seconds my ass. My new box with XP took around 3 minutes from the power switch to the point where you could use programs. Ive never seen any machine boot that fast. Hell your machine is still in POST after 5 seconds. As for kde being slow with a 233mhz, yes it is, but thats like complaining that Max Payne doesnt work as fast on your 400mhz as it does on your friends 900mhz. 233mhz is the minimum kde reccommends.
-
the min for WinXP is 600mhz i think it says, it's a big one.
-
Sorry to dissapoint you XPee shithead but KDE 3.0 runs great on my Toshiba Satellite with an Intel Smelleron, sorry Celeron 650 MHz processor and 64MB RAM.