Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 27

Thread: Why Linux Rocks Big Time

  1. #1
    Member t048's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    197

    Why Linux Rocks Big Time

    Lets see, there are so many reasons. I upgraded every major software component of my computer with out rebooting once (with the exception of the kernel. I only upgraded the header files). Just try to install a program in Windows and you'd be rebooting all over the place.

    There are so many applications that come with it to increase productivity. Some notable ones are Dia, vim & latex , GtkGraph, Kdict (and Gdict), gftp, GIMP, GQView, StarOffice, GCC, Java, a hex editor, and many others. Just try to insert a graph of a function or a diagram of an electrical circuit into a Word file. You'd need some expensive programs to do so. Actually, in all fairness, I was able to find a shareware program that does graphs for Windows.

    There are so many applications that come with it for every day use. Some of these programs are one of the many text editors (such as Kate, Gedit, vim), one of many web browsers (such as Konqueror, Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, Galeon, Lynx and Links), one of many html editors, chat programs, email programs, instant message programs, programs for running things like PDAs, scanners, and digital cameras, news reader programs (such as pan and knode), address books, calendars and too much more to list. There are even games, just not very many.

    Don't like how the GUI looks or acts? Change it! Or you could just use another one. You aren't limited to one weak option. Never need SCSI support or FAT support? Just don't compile it into your kernel and it won't bog you down!

    From personal experience, I've enjoyed more stability with Linux that I ever did with Windows. And, in the rare event that some part of my system acted up, I was able to quarantine the offending application and kill it with out disrupting the rest of the OS.

    From personal experience, I haven't notices much speed difference between Windows and Linux. Starting IE 5.0 in Windows 98 takes about half the time as Konqueror in KDE 2.2.1. Starting StarOffice (5 or 6 beta) in Linux takes about 3/4 the time it takes in Windows. Windows boots much faster than Linux... and much more often

    And Linux is prettier. The GUIs in Linux are much nicer than that of Windows. In fact, sometimes when I try to read things in Windows, they are so illegible because of the ugly jagged fonts that I have to print them out to read them. I don't have that problem in Linux and I have screen shots to prove it (I'd post them if I could find a place to upload the pics).

    I like Linux for what it can do, not because of what Windows can't do. So that's my rant and my opinion. Feel free to tear it apart as you will.

  2. #2
    Member SpookyEddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    450
    linux = choice = "all good baby"

    Regards.

    Eddy

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Posts
    28
    Up till about 3 hours ago I had linux installed on this system. The only Reason I deleted its partion was because I'm waiting for my replacement 40gig IBM 60GXP drive from Newegg once I have that I'm setting up a raid array and triple booting win98(games) win2k (certin things that I dont think are avalable on Linux) and then Mandrake 8.0 for basicly every thing else. When I had linux on this system, it rocked. windows doesnt hold a candle to it.
    If knowledge is power, and power corrupts, does that mean those with knowledge will be corrupted?

  4. #4
    Member pbharris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Chicago, IL United States
    Posts
    437
    I do enjoy not worring about so many viruses. And being able to have mp3s play while playing Heavy Gear or Soldier of Fortune while having open browsers, and aim and icq and a few other apps open and being able to close them and have the system be as responsive as the day i started.

    and hey! my desk top can look any way *I* . Yes this OS does rock big time.

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Knoxville
    Posts
    186
    If Linux is so good then why do must Linux users dual boot with Windows?

  6. #6
    Xtreme Member NDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Burbank, CA
    Posts
    5,020
    If Linux is so good then why do must Linux users dual boot with Windows?
    Because there are applications they don't want to stop using which are not available for Linux, only for Windows. The same reason many MAC users also use a PC...

  7. #7
    Member lynchmob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    281
    Every now and then,you see a 4-5 year-old child still sucking on a baby bottle...
    Seriously,though.The majority of the time 100%- windows users must connect with a web server thats 100% Linux.And Linux users sometimes connect to a MS based server.Unless you looked into it a little deeper,neither the MS or'nix user could tell the difference.
    I must confess I use Windows,but only to keep abreast of the changes and things that I need to know to keep up to date,as a(for now)part-time computer tech.Matter of fact,I hope windows sticks around if for no other reasons than these:
    1.They keep the techies in business
    2.As a guide to how not to design an operating system.
    lynch
    seldom right,but never in doubt...

  8. #8
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Guelph, Ont, Canada
    Posts
    28
    Originally posted by ngc457
    If Linux is so good then why do must Linux users dual boot with Windows?


    If brains are so good, why do most brain users dual boot with ignorance?

    My Linux box for day to day use (browsing, light office, etc.), a proxy for my other boxes, and mp3 server etc. etc. Always runs. Took a little while to figure out how to tell it what to do, but it always does what I tell it to without to do. So, I RTFM on a regular basis. My preferred OS because it is an OS - not a regime.

    My Windows (98SE) box mostly for games and work from the office (we use Office 2000). Took very little time to set up - but proves to be obtuse when it comes to doing what I want it to, and I am still searching the arcana to find the hidden registry keys. It's a tinhorn despot - it refuses to acknowledge that I paid for the computer and am in charge, but the machine and I have reached a detente crashes fairly rarely now.

    My Mac (OS 9) box for graphics and medial design, as do the media designers at work. It has issues with memory and window management, but I hear from my cohorts that OSX resolves many or all of them. My favourite GUI, but I miss the hotkeys that Windows offers (or maybe I haven't found all of them yet). It's a very friendly dictator. I'll never figure out how to tell it what to do - I find the "all GUI all the time" interface a little like responding to a troll - much care and attention spent, only to walk into a brick wall.

    Oh, **** ...

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Knoxville
    Posts
    186
    I use w2k for everything. Office work spreadsheets, word and database web design and graphics design and gaming. w2k fits all my needs. Thats what I call an OS. In a year and a half of running w2k it has crash once and that was because a ram chip went bad. In other words the OS didn't crash my hardware did. That is stable.
    BTW a high end PC with good graphics card and good monitor fact will blow away the Mac for graphics design.

  10. #10
    Ultimate Member otheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales, UK
    Posts
    2,531
    Linux = Democracy. Free thinking, acting. Togetherness and creativity with no limits. All contribute to the (r)evolution, all decide where it goes and what it does. It's not patronised neither ruled by anyone. It's the way of the future......

    Microsoft = monarchy, one decides the rest obey. After you ring them a couple of times to allow you to play your own mp3s, let me know how you feel....


    People don't like linux because it's free, but because of why it's free!

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Knoxville
    Posts
    186
    Linux = Democracy. Free thinking, acting. Togetherness and creativity with no limits. All contribute to the (r)evolution, all decide where it goes and what it does. It's not patronised neither ruled by anyone. It's the way of the future......

    Microsoft = monarchy, one decides the rest obey. After you ring them a couple of times to allow you to play your own mp3s, let me know how you feel....


    So finally someone admits that Linux is a religion. BTW I can play any **** MP3 format I wish. Just because Microsoft include programs with thier OS doesn't mean you have to use them. You can use any **** thing you wish. In fact I have far more freedom then any Linux user (loser) because I have far more software choice and much of it is far better then anything Linux has. Have you ever heard of PhotoShop, Flash, Dreamweaver, InDesign, Illistrator, GoLive, Director, Freehand and many other high end top quality software that allows you to do something. Linux is nothing but a bunch of freeware ****.
    BTW I can get a bunch of freeware **** for w2k too. I even have more freeware **** to choise from then Linux. w2k has more freedom then Linux.

  12. #12
    Ultimate Member otheos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales, UK
    Posts
    2,531
    So finally someone admits that Linux is a religion.
    So the word democracy identifies to you as a religion?

    How old are you?

  13. #13
    Xtreme Member NDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Burbank, CA
    Posts
    5,020
    BTW a high end PC with good graphics card and good monitor fact will blow away the Mac for graphics design.
    I must disagree...

    If you compare a PC to MAC with the same clockspeed and similar hardware specs running ANY Adobe applications you mentioned above and other graphic applications from different software companies, you will clearly see that they run significantly faster on MACS... However, a MAC isn't fast in all areas. For example, in Adobe Photoshop benchmarking G4 867Mhz Vs Intel Pentium 4 at 2Ghz.... Let's keep in mind that the PC is 1113Mhz faster than the G4...

    Benchmark for RGB-to-CMYK color-conversion, the G4 was more than 60% faster despite the fact that the G4 was at 867Mhz an the Intel P4 at 2.0Ghz using the i850 chipset. However, for Image reduction and Lighting Effects, the P4 was able to complete the task in 1.7 seconds vs. the G4's 3.2 seconds. But I wonder how the benchmark scores would've turned out if it was P3 900Mhz Vs. G4's 887Mhz???? For Photoshop performance on AMD processors, Intel P3 1Ghz is faster than AMD 1.Ghz in the 1Ghz and under roundup. However, for the 1Ghz + roundup, P4 Vs. AMD T-Bird, the T-Bird is faster on most graphic applications...

    And graphic card and monitor would have nothing to do with the performance of the system in any of the graphic applications you mentioned above? They're all 2D applications. If you were running 3D applications such as 3D Max, then the video card would make a significant difference...


    Last edited by NDC; 10-06-2001 at 08:23 AM.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Knoxville
    Posts
    186
    I agree clock speed for clock speed the G4 is faster. But I wasn't talking about same clock speed. I was comparing G4 867 with P4 2 gig and AMD 1.4 gig. Also the PC is half the price.
    Monitor and graphics card has no effect on performance. I strongly disagree. They may not speed things up that much or at all but they are very important on the appearance of the graphic. Compare 19" quality flat screen with a 15" **** monitor and tell me other wise. You want a card and monitor that are easy on the eyes, has good color and is sharp. I consider that performance. Looks performance is a million times more important then speed performance. Looks performace is the same for both mac and PC.

  15. #15
    Xtreme Member NDC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Burbank, CA
    Posts
    5,020
    Monitor and graphics card has no effect on performance. I strongly disagree. They may not speed things up that much or at all but they are very important on the appearance of the graphic. Compare 19" quality flat screen with a 15" **** monitor and tell me other wise.
    Well, when you said that "a high end PC with good graphics card and good monitor fact will blow away the Mac for graphics design", is that what you REALLY meant? A PC with a 19" quality flat screen and a MAC with a 15" **** monitor? Just what did you mean when you said that a high end PC with good graphics card and good monitor fact will blow away the Mac for graphics design? I think for fair comparison, you should be comparing both systems with the same quality monitor, no? What if the MAC and the PC were using the same monitors? Would the PC still blow the MAC away?


    Looks performance is a million times more important then speed performance. Looks performace is the same for both mac and PC.
    Look, no hard feelings, but you're really confusing me here, ngc457... You just said above that "looks performance is the same for both Mac & PC"... So what did you mean by a high-end PC blowing away a Mac? You even said yourself that a MAC G4 is faster than a PC for clockspeed for clockspeed...


    Anyhow... I'll let this thread continue with what the topic indicated... It appears I changed the directions... Sorry, folks!
    Last edited by NDC; 10-06-2001 at 09:04 AM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •