[waldojim]

Ok, after running Linux on a fist full of laptops, I have to ask: Does anyone else find it infuriating?

I have been using Linux off and on since RedHat 4.2. Always with hardware that wasn't quite cutting edge, but certainly not old. In fact, I ran 4.2 on my P 233 mmx. It was a very fun experience. And it worked.

Later I moved on to my Compaq notebook 100. A 475Mhz AMD K6-2 with 192MB of ram. I ran SuSE 7.2 and eventually 8.0 pro on that machine. Never once did I have a problem with either of them. Nothing worth mentioning anyway.

But now we get to the latest crop of machines... what the heck is going on?!

First, we have sound cards that have to be different on every computer? Not just subtle kind of different, no. EG: My HP DV5 needed a very special build, with VERY specific workarounds to get the sound card to work... using the exact same driver used on about 30 other different cards. It was more difficult to get sound on there than the Pentium with RH 4.2, and I had to learn a lot back then to get going! Now we have issues with video cards. Specifically Intel Optimus and even just Intel IGP (new SB cards). I have working Intel video, but it seems... broken. No display dimming, cannot detect the display correctly, I have incorrect refresh rate options, and so on. The ATI card is detected, but unusable - probably a good thing though, battery life is terrible as it is. No need to make it worse.

But even more deep than just vendor hardware, I am curious what is going on in the Linux community. Have any of you measured battery life in Linux VS Windows? I didn't expect Linux to be as frugal as Windows on battery power, but I expected better than I got. This laptop - which is netting my about 6 hours of life in Windows (poking around the internet), gets less than 3 in Linux. Of course, most of this is probably because the display cannot be dimmed, but there is more going on. Linux won't turn the hard drive off, cannot disconnect power to unneeded devices or even throttle the CPU with any aggressiveness.

So what am I missing? IS the community so worried about the fluff they are forgetting the core reasons people switch? Are they so worried about raw performance, they forget about those paying extra for stamina? I have Linux on my laptop, as I did my Lenovo, as I did my HP, and my Gateway, and Compaq, and so on.... But I don't think I will ever use it. Between the broken hardware, and the battery life, I don't see a reason. Right now, I am trying to decide if I want to leave it, or ditch it. That is a sad day for me really... I like what Linux used to be.

Any thoughts out there? Similar experiences? Or even advice on fixing those issues?

[HankRearden]

waldojim, on 29 April 2011 - 12:27 AM, said:

Ok, after running Linux on a fist full of laptops, I have to ask: Does anyone else find it infuriating?

I have been using Linux off and on since RedHat 4.2. Always with hardware that wasn't quite cutting edge, but certainly not old. In fact, I ran 4.2 on my P 233 mmx. It was a very fun experience. And it worked.

Later I moved on to my Compaq notebook 100. A 475Mhz AMD K6-2 with 192MB of ram. I ran SuSE 7.2 and eventually 8.0 pro on that machine. Never once did I have a problem with either of them. Nothing worth mentioning anyway.

But now we get to the latest crop of machines... what the heck is going on?!

First, we have sound cards that have to be different on every computer? Not just subtle kind of different, no. EG: My HP DV5 needed a very special build, with VERY specific workarounds to get the sound card to work... using the exact same driver used on about 30 other different cards. It was more difficult to get sound on there than the Pentium with RH 4.2, and I had to learn a lot back then to get going! Now we have issues with video cards. Specifically Intel Optimus and even just Intel IGP (new SB cards). I have working Intel video, but it seems... broken. No display dimming, cannot detect the display correctly, I have incorrect refresh rate options, and so on. The ATI card is detected, but unusable - probably a good thing though, battery life is terrible as it is. No need to make it worse.

But even more deep than just vendor hardware, I am curious what is going on in the Linux community. Have any of you measured battery life in Linux VS Windows? I didn't expect Linux to be as frugal as Windows on battery power, but I expected better than I got. This laptop - which is netting my about 6 hours of life in Windows (poking around the internet), gets less than 3 in Linux. Of course, most of this is probably because the display cannot be dimmed, but there is more going on. Linux won't turn the hard drive off, cannot disconnect power to unneeded devices or even throttle the CPU with any aggressiveness.

So what am I missing? IS the community so worried about the fluff they are forgetting the core reasons people switch? Are they so worried about raw performance, they forget about those paying extra for stamina? I have Linux on my laptop, as I did my Lenovo, as I did my HP, and my Gateway, and Compaq, and so on.... But I don't think I will ever use it. Between the broken hardware, and the battery life, I don't see a reason. Right now, I am trying to decide if I want to leave it, or ditch it. That is a sad day for me really... I like what Linux used to be.

Any thoughts out there? Similar experiences? Or even advice on fixing those issues?

I run it on my laptop with no trouble at all. Battery life is the same. No real difference as far as I can tell. I have a netbook I installed 11.04 on as well and it too runs quite well. I'm not doing any heavy lifting on my laptop. Primarily business uses.

[PCBroKing]

Getting the firmware is often a struggle when using a linux-based OS. While you can just go straight to the manufacturer website and get everything you need for Windows, you need to search and search and search for everything you need to get a proper system. It sucks.

[Evildave]

I dunno. Last notebook I ran it on, over several versions of Linux, each successive version had better support for the hardware. When I eventually put windoze shista back on it to pass it off on someone insufferably inflexible, it was harder to get windoze to work. It needed drivers for the sound. Drivers for the wireless. Drivers for the bluetooth. It was like nothing worked. Of course, I'd changed that DELL computer over to linux because nothing really did work. It was a basket case.

Several rounds of downloading crap off Dell's web site later, it finally all lit up. And then needed a SOLID 40 HOURS of downloading/patching the crap out of the OS. Quite a bit of it involved the 'automatic update' popping up a dialog that needed a click, and just sitting there until I happened to come back and see it had been waiting for a click for hours. Since minutes after I walked away.

Then I put the alternate boot of Ubuntu on it (with Wubi), and it didn't take any real effort at all. Reboot, it just worked. All of it just worked.

So mixed results. Certainly some notebooks are absolute crap for Linux, but they're made that way. You may as well complain that your Ford Fiesta doesn't burn diesel fuel.

This post has been edited by Evildave: 13 July 2011 - 10:03 PM

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 13 July 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

So mixed results. Certainly some notebooks are absolute crap for Linux, but they're made that way. You may as well complain that your Ford Fiesta doesn't burn diesel fuel.

How many people try to claim that diesel 'just works' in everything? Now think about how many times people try to make that claim about Linux.

It is amazing to me how people forget about the simple things though. Your comments about Windows not having drivers built in for example. SO what? Windows doesn't need to. The manufacturer has them readily available. For years there were no drivers for the sound card in my HP laptop on Linux. As of right now there are still no drivers for switchable graphics cards in Linux. No amount of arguing about availability, or fighting the OS is going to change that.

Also, your Dell laptop should have had Windows pre-installed. There should have been ZERO driver issues visible to the end user. All they had to do was make a backup on day one, and never would they understand the concept of hunting for drivers.

[linuxrants7xpg]

waldojim, on 14 July 2011 - 12:17 AM, said:

Also, your Dell laptop should have had Windows pre-installed. There should have been ZERO driver issues visible to the end user.

It's interesting to me that some people will claim that there are no driver issues with Windows (this doesn't mean I'm talking about you waldojim) but there are with Linux when comparing a pre-installed Windows environment to a manually installed Linux system. Facts are, when you install Windows manually, there quite often are driver issues. When you install Linux manually, sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. In my experience, Linux works without issue more often than Windows XP did. When a system comes pre-installed with Windows or Linux, there's never any driver issues. Some people just don't like to compare the two on equal footing.

[waldojim]

linuxrants7xpg, on 14 July 2011 - 03:43 PM, said:

It's interesting to me that some people will claim that there are no driver issues with Windows (this doesn't mean I'm talking about you waldojim) but there are with Linux when comparing a pre-installed Windows environment to a manually installed Linux system. Facts are, when you install Windows manually, there quite often are driver issues. When you install Linux manually, sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. In my experience, Linux works without issue more often than Windows XP did. When a system comes pre-installed with Windows or Linux, there's never any driver issues. Some people just don't like to compare the two on equal footing.

Here is my equal footing. I can install Windows on that Sony SB with no issues. Yes I do have to download drivers. Those drivers are readily available.

Linux flat would not work correctly. The distros that DID run had so many problems they weren't worth using. Video issues, display not working correctly (40hz mode, 2 pixels too wide, etc), secondary video card not functional, and battery life from hell.

I use Linux on many systems. I have done so for years upon years. And recently I have noticed a trend. Lately either the community wants something to work, and makes it happen, or they don't care. It would seem that switchable graphics on notebooks, is a 'don't care' item. It would also seem that letting users correct errors made by Linux is also a 'don't care'. I know how to edit the appropriate files - or at least, how you used to do it. These days though, they regenerate those files on every boot. There is no way to fix incompatibilities with the display permanently.

Edit: Just so we all are clear, my comments are being based on my usage, and my habits. I am in no way claiming this is how things will be for everyone. I am not trying to convert anyone one way or another. I am only voicing an opinion based on my lengthy experiences with Linux ranging from RedHat 4.2 through all the SuSE releases, Mandrake years, Lycoris, even Xandros. I have tried many different distros over the years, running as many as 4 distros on a machine so I could explore the differences. The recent builds feel sloppy and rushed from where I sit. They also feel like they are trying to do what Windows has done: remove USER CONTROL. That was one of the reasons I liked Linux. I could make it do anything I wanted. These days, they want you using the pretty little button that does 1/100th of what the original controls could make it do.

This post has been edited by waldojim: 14 July 2011 - 04:28 PM

[Evildave]

waldojim, on 14 July 2011 - 12:17 AM, said:

Evildave, on 13 July 2011 - 10:00 PM, said:

So mixed results. Certainly some notebooks are absolute crap for Linux, but they're made that way. You may as well complain that your Ford Fiesta doesn't burn diesel fuel.

How many people try to claim that diesel 'just works' in everything? Now think about how many times people try to make that claim about Linux.

It is amazing to me how people forget about the simple things though. Your comments about Windows not having drivers built in for example. SO what? Windows doesn't need to. The manufacturer has them readily available. For years there were no drivers for the sound card in my HP laptop on Linux. As of right now there are still no drivers for switchable graphics cards in Linux. No amount of arguing about availability, or fighting the OS is going to change that.

Also, your Dell laptop should have had Windows pre-installed. There should have been ZERO driver issues visible to the end user. All they had to do was make a backup on day one, and never would they understand the concept of hunting for drivers.

Actually, the manufacturer had the drivers, it's true. Mixed with drivers that DID NOT WORK. Hence multiple rounds to get it up and running.

I don't see why the double standard. Linux got it working PERFECTLY without jumping through any hoops.

Micro$uck Windoze took DAYS of screwing around with the stupid thing to get a clean install. And it didn't work a lot better than when it was new, and I removed windoze in absolute disgust and installed Linux. Because the drivers SUCKED. The sound came out like an AM radio. The performance wasn't there. An XP virtual machine under Linux worked BETTER than native Micru$uck Windoze Shista.

Therefore LINUX is 'bad'????

Can't tell if trolling, or just stupid.

[waldojim]

Sounds like your doing both. Might want to stop now.

[Evildave]

Well, obviously comparing an OS with bent and broken drivers that you have to scour the internet for and jump through hoops to install (Windoze), versus one that updates its self and finds the drivers automatically, even if a manufacturer never even made drivers for their own garbage (Linux), the one that you have to work on FOR DAYS to get it running (Windoze) 'wins'.

The OS that updates its self HANDS OFF (Linux) clearly loses to the one that you MUST CONSTANTLY BABYSIT, rebooting over and over again to full update in a timely manner (Windoze).

The one you can trivially script to download and install ALL of your apps automatically while you do something else (Linux)? Clear loser compared to the one you have to sit in front of and manually peck at GUI popups and feed CDs and DVDs to for a week, setting up (Windoze).

Being able to copy your user folder and recover ALL of your settings doesn't matter when a Windoze Luzer can just start over from scratch every time.

The OS that you set up once, and (unless you want to), NEVER needs to be reinstalled (Linux) clearly loses over the OS that self destructs if an internet infection doesn't take it down (Windoze).

The OS that doesn't care where you back it up to (Linux, OS X) naturally compares unfavorably to Windoze 7 Home Premium, that will MOUNT a backup drive on the network, but REFUSE to back up to it, because that's a 'professional' feature.

Most of this rides on pure preference. If you drove a Volkswagen bug all your life, and were used to changing the points every month, and doing all kinds of 'routine maintenance', on it (like rebuilding the engine three times in ten years while you own it) to keep it going, driving a Honda that NEVER needs such work would be 'unthinkable'. (BTW, that's my brother there, the die-hard Volkswagen fan.) Who'd drive a 'Japanese car' when you can drive a broken-down Hitlermobile, anyway?

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 15 July 2011 - 03:22 PM, said:

Well, obviously comparing an OS with bent and broken drivers that you have to scour the internet for and jump through hoops to install (Windoze), versus one that updates its self and finds the drivers automatically, even if a manufacturer never even made drivers for their own garbage (Linux), the one that you have to work on FOR DAYS to get it running (Windoze) 'wins'.

I have been building PC's since I was a child. During that time, I have had the wonderful experience of trying out MANY different operating systems over the years. I have used MS Dos, Windows 1.01 - 7 including NT 3, and 4. I have had absolutely amazing experiences with Geoworks Pro. I have used Linux since the 2.2 kernels, trying out, even building my own systems along the way (Gentoo was great for 100% custom systems at one point). I have used various flavors of Unix too, including Sun OS, BSD, HP Unix, AIX and so on.

In all that time, Linux was the biggest pain in the ass.
Always.
In the early days, it was the sound card that was #1 PITA.
Then it became other oddities that Linux didn't play well with. The Nakamichi CD Changer for example. Or 3d video cards.
Lately it is wireless cards, laptop sound cards, Alps touchpads, dual GPU video setups, and so on.
In the old days, I could get Linux itself running smoothly in 30 minutes, and then take DAYS fixing sound card problems. Now, when they creep up, you wait MONTHS or YEARS for someone to release a 'patched' driver.
In the old days, I may find myself tweaking Xfree86.conf to find the exact timings that my system could cope with, usually over a beer or two, and less than an hour. Lately, if the system doesn't work right, you are screwed, and have to wait yet more MONTHS for someone else to patch the automatic script they use.

I take 20 minutes to install Windows. I go to AMD or Nvidia websites for drivers for the video card. ~ 5 minutes of my time wasted. I then go to my motherboard or system manufacturers website for drivers for core components (which already work btw) like the sound card, and network card. In the last 10 years, none have failed. I download, install, and walk away happy. I then download my browser of choice, and ad-block plus. Another 2 minutes of my time. In 30 minutes, I have a system that will do anything I want.

Use what works.
If Windows works for me, then why should that make your butt hurt?
I posted initially because I am getting more and more frustrated with how Linux works. It gets WORSE on my systems with every release. Linux also takes HOURS upon HOURS to fix the little problems.

How many hours do you think I wasted back during the transition to PULSE audio because the drivers were broken? Did you know they actually left both ALSA and PULSE on most systems and didn't bother with any documentation on HOW TO SWITCH BACK? I eventually found a wonderful how-to from the SuSE guys, but that was on the forums, nothing documented.

Quote

The OS that updates its self HANDS OFF (Linux) clearly loses to the one that you MUST CONSTANTLY BABYSIT, rebooting over and over again to full update in a timely manner (Windoze).

Who cares? I don't watch my machine. My Windows box updates at 4am. On its own. I never see it happen.

Quote

The one you can trivially script to download and install ALL of your apps automatically while you do something else (Linux)? Clear loser compared to the one you have to sit in front of and manually peck at GUI popups and feed CDs and DVDs to for a week, setting up (Windoze).

You go through all that? I certainly don't. I have ONE CD that is used during a Windows setup. The Windows install DVD. After that, the network is a godsend. I have all of my PC's backed up to my media center, which is raid enabled and running a dual gigabit network interface. I wait for nothing. Updating apps? I prefer the updates coming from the source. 3rd parties can tamper with the files.

Quote

Being able to copy your user folder and recover ALL of your settings doesn't matter when a Windoze Luzer can just start over from scratch every time.

I refuse to even awk any statments that need name calling.

Quote

The OS that you set up once, and (unless you want to), NEVER needs to be reinstalled (Linux) clearly loses over the OS that self destructs if an internet infection doesn't take it down (Windoze).

The OS that doesn't care where you back it up to (Linux, OS X) naturally compares unfavorably to Windoze 7 Home Premium, that will MOUNT a backup drive on the network, but REFUSE to back up to it, because that's a 'professional' feature.

Most of this rides on pure preference. If you drove a Volkswagen bug all your life, and were used to changing the points every month, and doing all kinds of 'routine maintenance', on it (like rebuilding the engine three times in ten years while you own it) to keep it going, driving a Honda that NEVER needs such work would be 'unthinkable'. (BTW, that's my brother there, the die-hard Volkswagen fan.) Who'd drive a 'Japanese car' when you can drive a broken-down Hitlermobile, anyway?

Fist, Linux has never been a one time OS. It can certainly get close, but the moment something changes - add a hard drive, change a video card, or whatever other crap item that makes it refuse to boot, then you get to go through the month long process of reinstalling it, and TRYING to fix everything again. Yes that certainly does lose to an OS that I have NEVER seen a virus in (Windows 7), and have NEVER had to reinstall - EVEN while changing hardware, or adding hard drives. Oh yea - and Windows works with my raid controllers - unlike Linux.

You car references are sadly lacking.

[Evildave]

Nah. Microsoft=Hitler, in case you didn't follow that. I'm sure most people did.

Who'd want the 'updates' and 'service packs' all done at once? Someone who was passing a computer on to someone who doesn't have an internet connection that can download squat. Or who otherwise has a limited window to have an internet connection. So you download and install massive wave of updates, then service pack, then massive wave of updates, then another service pack, then massive waves of updates. You know, the Micro$uck way of letting them suck your life away.

Besides, isn't this about NOTEBOOKS? Do you leave your NOTEBOOK on 24/7? Seems like an odd thing to do. For MOST windoze lusers, that '4:00am' becomes '8:14am', when they turn the computer on, and it sits there like a brick, 'updating' until it's almost lunch time. I can see where that would be desirable if you hate doing work.

As opposed to Linux 'update', which updates EVERYTHING in one pass, in a timely manner, to the VERY latest version, without any interaction beyond starting it. As if someone wrote it who CARES!

So, you rip all your software to your 'media center'? Good for you! But you still sit there and click, and click, and click, and click to set each software package up. Requiring you to sit your butt in front of the computer the ENTIRE time that happens while you wait... to... click... again....

You horribly misrepresent the time spent on your setups, but lying suits someone who pretend that windoze is 'easy' to set up. It's what they start doing just as soon as they start telling themselves they'll be 'done by dinner', after they told themselves they'd be doing work by lunch. Yeah, dinner next tuesday! Five minute NVIDIA download??? LOL! I mean, really. I'm, still smiling! Even with infinite bandwidth, the SERVER limits your download speed. After a LONG download, a long, long, LONG install, and at least two PROMPTED 'wait to click' reboots that take several minutes each, and making the VERY generous assumption that it WORKS, and you don't have to try a 'beta' or download the PREVIOUS driver version. 'Five minutes'. HA! And all that snappy setup on a notebook drive? What's sad is, you appear really believe your own B.S. You look out at the sun rising the next day, and it was all 'ten minutes' as far as your 'special' frame of reference for 'time' goes.

But as I said, our experience differs. You loathe linux, and to you, everything non-Windoze is a horror show that you wish would disappear from the world.

I have used Windoze, Linux, OS/X and indeed other various flavors of UNIX, and DOS, and all manner of things, including embedded, and see the Beast of Bellevue for what it really is. The 'threat' of Linux isn't necessarily that they'll ever compete against Micro$uck's monopoly exploitation machine. It's that it will raise standards above the GARBAGE that Microsoft passes off as a 'product'. And then someone in their M$ dungeon will have to actually work to make an OS that doesn't suck. And maybe Ballmer has to settle for chrome instead of gold inlay on his yacht because they spent a little money to make a quality product.

Would Linux work on EVERY SINGLE LAPTOP that it was shipped from a factory installed on (i.e. pre-tested)? YES! Absolutely. Unlike versions of Windoze that gets shipped on notebooks completely UNTESTED and not working worth half a damn. Linux works on MILLIONS of smart phones. They mostly ship with Android, which is Linux. Tablets? Android/Linux (well, eventually when someone 'beats' iOS somehow)! Chromebooks? LINUX!

So yeah, Linux works pretty damned close to perfectly. Compared to windoze, that is a never-ending horror show.

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 15 July 2011 - 07:45 PM, said:

Nah. Microsoft=Hitler, in case you didn't follow that. I'm sure most people did.

I caught that. Your analogies need a lot of work. Especially since the Windows PC's you buy as a system. The Linux systems are more akin to kit cars: build your own.

Quote

Who'd want the 'updates' and 'service packs' all done at once? Someone who was passing a computer on to someone who doesn't have an internet connection that can download squat. Or who otherwise has a limited window to have an internet connection. So you download and install massive wave of updates, then service pack, then massive wave of updates, then another service pack, then massive waves of updates. You know, the Micro$uck way of letting them suck your life away.

Besides, isn't this about NOTEBOOKS? Do you leave your NOTEBOOK on 24/7? Seems like an odd thing to do. For MOST windoze lusers, that '4:00am' becomes '8:14am', when they turn the computer on, and it sits there like a brick, 'updating' until it's almost lunch time. I can see where that would be desirable if you hate doing work.

As opposed to Linux 'update', which updates EVERYTHING in one pass, in a timely manner, to the VERY latest version, without any interaction beyond starting it. As if someone wrote it who CARES!

First, Windows does combine the vast majority of the updates into service packs, saving a considerable amount of time. Second, Linux ends up with many, many more updates and updating more often. That actually gets annoying. Starting the computer EVERY DAY and having it annoy you with updates. I waste absolutely ZERO time with Windows updates. I want you to STOP AND THINK ABOUT THAT.

ZERO TIME WASTED IN WINDOWS. ZERO. That means NONE. I don't waste time on updates because I don't have to. LINUX REQUIRES ME to BABYSIT IT through the 150+ updates a week.

Yes my notebook sits on ALL THE TIME. 24/7. You know why? Because WINDOWS understands power management. WINDOWS will drop the machine into low power mode where it can sit for A WEEK on a charge. Linux can't do that.

ALSO WINDOWS does it's updates EITHER on it's own at 4am OR when you SHUT DOWN your PC. ON YOUR SCHEDULE. You OBVIOUSLY have no clue how Windows operates these days.

Quote

So, you rip all your software to your 'media center'? Good for you! But you still sit there and click, and click, and click, and click to set each software package up. Requiring you to sit your butt in front of the computer the ENTIRE time that happens while you wait... to... click... again....

You horribly misrepresent the time spent on your setups, but lying suits someone who pretend that windoze is 'easy' to set up. It's what they start doing just as soon as they start telling themselves they'll be 'done by dinner', after they told themselves they'd be doing work by lunch. Yeah, dinner next tuesday! Five minute NVIDIA download??? LOL! I mean, really. I'm, still smiling! Even with infinite bandwidth, the SERVER limits your download speed. After a LONG download, a long, long, LONG install, and at least two PROMPTED 'wait to click' reboots that take several minutes each, and making the VERY generous assumption that it WORKS, and you don't have to try a 'beta' or download the PREVIOUS driver version. 'Five minutes'. HA! And all that snappy setup on a notebook drive? What's sad is, you appear really believe your own B.S. You look out at the sun rising the next day, and it was all 'ten minutes' as far as your 'special' frame of reference for 'time' goes.

I misrepresent this how? I click a button, wait a moment for the installer to pop up (usually less than 10 seconds), click next two to three times, give the machine about 20 seconds to install the software, and click finish. I keep my media center VERY organized, so FINDING the software is easy. I just select the next item, and repeat the above. It takes no time at all.

As for the 5 minute download from NVIDIA - that is on a SLOW DAY. I average 5MB/sec from them. That is MEGA BYTES not BITS. At 5MB/s that 200MB download takes about 40 seconds. Sorry that your internet sucks.

And no, the only reboot I make is once EVERYTHING is installed. And yes, nvidia drivers tend to work 99.99% of the time. There are some oddities regarding active shutter 3d - but that is something 99% of the population will never deal with.

Also - get a notebook drive that is a 7200RPM drive, and you will find that they are extremely quick. Mine clock in about 75MB/sec - only 5MB-10 or so slower than last years Samsung F1.

Quote

But as I said, our experience differs. You loathe linux, and to you, everything non-Windoze is a horror show that you wish would disappear from the world.

I have used Windoze, Linux, OS/X and indeed other various flavors of UNIX, and DOS, and all manner of things, including embedded, and see the Beast of Bellevue for what it really is. The 'threat' of Linux isn't necessarily that they'll ever compete against Micro$uck's monopoly exploitation machine. It's that it will raise standards above the GARBAGE that Microsoft passes off as a 'product'. And then someone in their M$ dungeon will have to actually work to make an OS that doesn't suck. And maybe Ballmer has to settle for chrome instead of gold inlay on his yacht because they spent a little money to make a quality product.

You are severely mistaken. I have converted MANY people to Linux - when it suits them.
I have used Linux for MANY, MANY years.
I also know to use what works.
You may want to drop the attitude that you know why I don't like current generation Linux - because it is quite apparent you cannot comprehend the reasoning.

MS may not make a perfect OS. But it is leaps and bounds better than Linux these days.

Quote

Would Linux work on EVERY SINGLE LAPTOP that it was shipped from a factory installed on (i.e. pre-tested)? YES! Absolutely. Unlike versions of Windoze that gets shipped on notebooks completely UNTESTED and not working worth half a damn. Linux works on MILLIONS of smart phones. They mostly ship with Android, which is Linux. Tablets? Android/Linux (well, eventually when someone 'beats' iOS somehow)! Chromebooks? LINUX!

So yeah, Linux works pretty damned close to perfectly. Compared to windoze, that is a never-ending horror show.

Sorry, I have never seen a copy of Windows - shipping with a product that did not work. With the exception including hardware that was utter crap to start with. Who cares about smartphones right now? First, they are not even the same class of product, and secondly - it would appear they are going to fail AGAIN. Android is getting sued into oblivion, and Symbian never made it mainstream. Chromebooks? A WEB BROWSER. A GLORIFIED iPAC. They do NOTHING more than play on the internet.

Yep - Linux is doing great. In the limited markets that Windows isn't designed to compete in. I am glad to know my TV runs Linux. I am ecstatic that my Phone runs Linux. I also happen to think it is terrific that NEITHER of them is a PC. Because they can't do a quarter of what my PC does.

[LiveBrianD]

What a troll, evildave... can we not have flame wars? We need fire extinguishers here....

I have a grandparent who does not use computers. I've considered trying to get her to use linux, but it would be too much of a hassle for me. I looked at joli OS, because it looks nice and simple... BUT... it really isn't. It's actually Ubuntu with lots of stuff, like updates, hidden. I wanted to load an office suite on it. I couldn't get libreoffice to work at all; openoffice required me using 'sudo' in the terminal to load the synaptic package manager, then look through all of the stuff there to find it and load it. Then I had to do a little extra work to add it to the home screen. To install the vmware drivers, I needed to use the terminal. And to increase the font sizes? It wasn't obvious how to get to the settings and do that. With windows, I just click start and type 'dpi' and boom, there I am. I gave up on it and I think I'll just use Windows 7 instead. All I need to do with it is install drivers (simply download them from the manufacturer's website or insert the cd, then click the exe and follow a few simple steps), maybe load a few programs (which is really easy to do), and there you go.

And chromebooks are useless pieces of junk. They cost around the same amount as my $450 AMD Fusion E350 11" netbook, where a web browser is just one of the things it can do. I can run all sorts of stuff on it, and it runs windows smoothly. If I keep it in sleep, it takes about 3 seconds from hitting the power button to seeing the lock screen, and by the time I've typed my password it's already associated with my wifi. I click on chrome, wait 1 second, and start surfing. Easy enough. And if chromebooks are supposed to be thin clients, maybe useful for businesses, remember that the price is a bit much for a linux OS that does nothing more than surf the web. A typical Windows Intel ATOM netbook would be better, and cheaper.

Granted, waldojim, your internet connection is faster than average (mine is supposedly 15mbps down, 3mbps up), and I get about 1.5MB/sec downloading the file. I think that speed is around the national average. That'll take me just over 2 minutes to download. Not a huge deal.

[waldojim]

LiveBrianD, on 16 July 2011 - 11:19 AM, said:

Granted, waldojim, your internet connection is faster than average (mine is supposedly 15mbps down, 3mbps up), and I get about 1.5MB/sec downloading the file. I think that speed is around the national average. That'll take me just over 2 minutes to download. Not a huge deal.

According to speedtest, my internet is faster than 99% of the US. And I will not pretend that doesn't have an effect on things. That said, even at 1.5MB/sec, a 200MB driver is still under a 30 second download. I don't wait more than a minute for anything except Ubuntu ISO's. For some reason, Ubuntu ISO's are hosted on the slowest servers known to man. It takes HOURS to download them at the 160KB/sec limit I always hit.

Either way, I think we can agree that Linux has never made it to 'the easiest thing since Windows' yet.

My frustration is only that Linux tends to stay behind the curve for far too long. That makes hardware support crap for someone like me that tries to stay relatively cutting edge.

[LiveBrianD]

waldojim, on 16 July 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

LiveBrianD, on 16 July 2011 - 11:19 AM, said:

Granted, waldojim, your internet connection is faster than average (mine is supposedly 15mbps down, 3mbps up), and I get about 1.5MB/sec downloading the file. I think that speed is around the national average. That'll take me just over 2 minutes to download. Not a huge deal.

According to speedtest, my internet is faster than 99% of the US. And I will not pretend that doesn't have an effect on things. That said, even at 1.5MB/sec, a 200MB driver is still under a 30 second download. I don't wait more than a minute for anything except Ubuntu ISO's. For some reason, Ubuntu ISO's are hosted on the slowest servers known to man. It takes HOURS to download them at the 160KB/sec limit I always hit.

Either way, I think we can agree that Linux has never made it to 'the easiest thing since Windows' yet.

My frustration is only that Linux tends to stay behind the curve for far too long. That makes hardware support crap for someone like me that tries to stay relatively cutting edge.

When I downloaded Ubuntu the other day, I simply went to the Alternate Downloads section of their site and used the bittorrent version. That gave me about 1.5MB/sec, with my connection the bottleneck. Keep that in mind the next time you need to download it. Besides, with bittorrent, if the download is interrupted, it doesn't get corrupted like happens to me 99.9% of the time I use HTTP. I can't seem to get HTTP to pause/resume properly either, often times I pause it, hit resume, and 2 seconds later it says I'm done, I launch the file and get an error that it's corrupted.

It's a little hard to run a speedtest because Comcast TurboBoost kicks in (which accelerates the first little bit of the download), so I have to start downloading something else first so turboboost wears off, then IMMEDIATELY run the speedtest. I did it without trying that and got 22mbps down, 3.6up. I tried to do that and got 16mbps down, 3.7mbps up. Apperantly the average is 8.74mbps down.

When I download, say, a 20MB file, often times by the time I finish typing in a file name for it it's already done or there are just a few seconds left. Thanks turboboost! (and the fact that many browsers start downloading the file while you choose the file name)

I just downloaded Openoffice as a test, 151MB, and I got 1.5-1.7MB/sec. It took exactly a minute and a half. However, I wonder what the internet connection speeds are like in some places. For instance, http://www.maximumpc...are_buying_them one guy saidThere's more than one state such as West Virginia of all places where a (*vast*) majority of the state only has dial up; sad but true. To make matter even more interesting; have fun getting ANY mobile signal outside of the so called major cities there.

[Evildave]

waldojim, on 16 July 2011 - 01:11 PM, said:

Either way, I think we can agree that Linux has never made it to 'the easiest thing since Windows' yet.

My frustration is only that Linux tends to stay behind the curve for far too long. That makes hardware support crap for someone like me that tries to stay relatively cutting edge.

To watch an Android tablet commercial, Linux is easier to use than ANYTHING, even iOS. The most powerful thing, 'ever'. Who am I supposed to believe? The pretty actress pretending to read that guy's mind, or YOU?

I'm pretty sure you don't need to futz with driver downloads on Android tablets and phones. Though most instances of linux builds made for those devices, it 'just works', too, since it's just Linux either way, with a different GUI slapped on top, and a few tweaks in the build options.

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 16 July 2011 - 11:05 PM, said:

To watch an Android tablet commercial, Linux is easier to use than ANYTHING, even iOS. The most powerful thing, 'ever'. Who am I supposed to believe? The pretty actress pretending to read that guy's mind, or YOU?

I'm pretty sure you don't need to futz with driver downloads on Android tablets and phones. Though most instances of linux builds made for those devices, it 'just works', too, since it's just Linux either way, with a different GUI slapped on top, and a few tweaks in the build options.

The actress who has no idea what is in her hand of course. Why wouldn't you believe the snake-oil sales people? They are so convincing after all.

[Evildave]

Precisely. And yet, Microsoft sales people are just as empty-headed.

To hear it from you, Linux is non-existant in the world except for whatever edition of Linux with whatever issues with YOUR oddball hardware that you have.

Yet Linux is everywhere. Surrounding you. Taking over every nook (and kindle, among many others) and used by every granny.

Yet somehow you believe that Linux 'doesn't work for anyone'.

Yeah, I think the cute, clueless asian girl with whatever tablet was more believable than you.

[waldojim]

Evildave, on 17 July 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

Precisely. And yet, Microsoft sales people are just as empty-headed.

To hear it from you, Linux is non-existant in the world except for whatever edition of Linux with whatever issues with YOUR oddball hardware that you have.

Yet Linux is everywhere. Surrounding you. Taking over every nook (and kindle, among many others) and used by every granny.

Yet somehow you believe that Linux 'doesn't work for anyone'.

Yeah, I think the cute, clueless asian girl with whatever tablet was more believable than you.

my oddball hardware isn't as oddball as you think.

HP DV5 was a long lived series that took A YEAR to get supported correctly. Almost 1/2 of the current generation laptops use some form of multiple graphics now. AND THEY STILL DON'T WORK RIGHT.

Linux doesn't work as a desktop OS. If you weren't so busy trolling, you would understand that distinction.