Not signed in (Sign In)
    •  
      CommentAuthorhmobius
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2007
     (145.21)
    I don't want to spark off any religious debates here but I really tried to get into Linux a few years ago - think I was using Mandrake Linux then - but stuff just never clicked for me and getting help wasn't a great experience. I found a level of newbie disdain from forums which i dislike and went back to Windows. OK so Vista really does suck, but it does Work and so did 2000 and XP before it.

    Has Linux changed that much? Is it worth the pain? I hear great things about Ubuntu but what's the selling point? Why not use FreeBSD or OpenBSD even for that matter? I really liked BeOS when it was around and was sad when it died.
    • CommentAuthorElohim
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2007
     (145.22)
    To be honest, a religious debate backed up with facts would be awesome for me right now. Actually, does it count as religious if backed up with facts?

    Hmph. Anyway, let the battle commence...
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2007
     (145.23)
    hmobius: It's gotten a bit better. This, based on my experience with Fedora. The install went fine; I understand that Ubuntu is even slicker.

    Support is still mostly via discussion boards. I saw a few newbie brush-offs, but mostly of people who didn't try searching for an answer first. If you start your question "I tried X based on what I read on thread Y, but I still have a problem," people will respect that you did your homework.

    Mind you, I use XP on my "main" productivity and fun machine. I think XP is pretty good. Vista . . . Vista could suck a honeydew melon through a garden hose. My laptop came with Vista and I have half a mind to put Ubuntu on it.

    My Fedora box is what a friend calls a "TiFaux" system . . . a MythTV television PVR. It's great! I think I used my VCR for recording once this year.
    •  
      CommentAuthorKostika
    • CommentTimeDec 6th 2007
     (145.24)
    I don't use Linux on my PC, I can't. I need to be able to play games without any hassles. But I do use it on my MicroPC. I have a Sharp Zaurus and it runs it's own Linux build. I've been considering changing the distro, but I'm still too scared of screwing it up and ending up with a £300 brick. I'll get the courage eventually.

    Linux does have its benefits though. It certainly doesn't need a lot of the power to run wonderfully unlike Windows. It is a good OS. I agree that everyone should give it a go if they can.
    • CommentAuthorElohim
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2007
     (145.25)
    Cool. I reckon I'm almost definitely going to boot up in the next couple of days. Anyone want to throw their hat in the ring before I do it?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJosh T.
    • CommentTimeDec 8th 2007
     (145.26)
    All of this conversation got me looking into Ubuntu and when i get back to my house on Friday I'm going to switch over. Tried out Kubuntu too but Gnome just feels better than KDE. Good luck on your linux exploits Elohim.
    • CommentAuthorElohim
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (145.27)
    I tried out the LiveCD once I got back from Uni and loved it. I'm going to do a bona fide install once I can get my drive partitioned.

    @ Josh T. - How are you liking it so far?
    • CommentAuthorhank
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (145.28)
    Try Mint.. It is pretty much as close to a *poof* done distro as I have found.
    •  
      CommentAuthoriangil
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (145.29)
    I've been running Ubuntu for a year or so on my dual-boot laptop. The other partition is Windows XP, but I haven't run it in months. I only ever boot up XP when I get an overwhelming desire to play Starcraft or something, which is not often at all

    Ubuntu nearly completely converted me when I first installed it—it's the easiest and simplest OS to install ever. But the thing that ensured that I would never go back to Windows was Amarok. I was feeling extreme frustration at the sparse functionality, intentional incompatability, and unseemly bloat that is iTunes, and I don't care what you say about WinAmp or Foobar2000, they're (nearly) just as shit. Amarok is hands-down the best music program I've ever used. It has every feature that I've always wished those other programs had.

    Also, the Ubuntu forums is a wonderfully helpful—and free—resource that has consistently provided solutions to every problem I've encountered in Ubuntu.

    The thing I love most about Linux is that if there's some feature that you wish it had, either:
    a. it's there, and you just haven't found it yet, or
    b. some nerd thought the same thing, built the feature, and it's available free online.

    That said, the switch can be tough, and the new interface can get some getting used to. Some computer know-how (or willingness to learn) is really helpful, even with Ubuntu.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrfrancis
    • CommentTimeDec 10th 2007
     (145.30)
    I will say only this: I run Linux machines for a living. I've been a UNIX administrator professionally for a bit of the 80s, most of the 90s and 00s.

    I run Windows XP on my desktop and my laptop.

    Linux is swell, but seriously, right tool for the right job. Firefox's Linux port is bloody slow and always has been, sadly. OpenOffice is all right, I suppose, although there again I find it to be a pig. I wish X-windows had been taken out and killed years ago and replaced with something sensible. And yeah, I do my share of PC gaming, so that matters, too.

    I dunno. I've tried it and don't care for it to this day. Tried it on my daughter's machine and gave up there, too. Mind you, I've always got a Linux server running in my house and it's crucial to my day to day. But not as my interface, no.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbpepple
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2007
     (145.31)
    Unless you are dependent of playing Windows games, I'd say go for it. Obviously, I'm a bit biased since I'm a developer for Fedora, but for most users, Linux has gotten to a point where almost anyone can use it without problems.
    •  
      CommentAuthorhmobius
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2007
     (145.32)
    @bpepple : Is Fedora ok running in a virtual pc? (specifically MS Virtual PC 2007) I tried installing Open BSD the other day and it completely hated the virtual display drivers.
    •  
      CommentAuthorbpepple
    • CommentTimeDec 11th 2007
     (145.33)
    @hmobius: I'm not 100% sure, since I've never ran MS Virtual PC (or Windows since the mid-90's), but a quick google search shows that others have had success with a little bit of work. Most likely your display problem was due to MS Virual PC only having 16-bit color resolution, while Open BSD & Linux tend to default to 24-bit color resolution. Here's a link that might help you: Fedora on MS Virtual PC
    •  
      CommentAuthorhmobius
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2007
     (145.34)
    @bpepple : Excellent stuff. Thanks
    •  
      CommentAuthorUnsub
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2007
     (145.35)
    I'm having a time out until I can learn some manners.
    I run XP on my PC but had an old pentium2 laptop I stuck Puppy linux on instead of 95 and the difference was quite incredible.
    I was able to do 90% of the stuff I use a computer for like forums etc. Even sites with lots of pics came up way faster.
    I use a lot of freeware on my XP system but I think for most people who just want to experience what linux is like an older PC with a smaller distro like DSL(damn small linux or puppy is a great way to go. It will also give you a very secure place to put all that boring spreadsheet stuff away from all your porn/games etc.
    •  
      CommentAuthorrfrancis
    • CommentTimeDec 14th 2007
     (145.36)
    @Unsub: I've messed a bit with Puppy on an ancient (early 2000) laptop I have lying around. I'm a bit weirded out by how it wants to be booted off of CD exclusively. As far as I can tell, anyway. Sure is fast, though, I agree.
    • CommentAuthoreggzoomin
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2007
     (145.37)
    "Unless you are dependent of playing Windows games, I'd say go for it. Obviously, I'm a bit biased since I'm a developer for Fedora, but for most users, Linux has gotten to a point where almost anyone can use it without problems."

    Unless you need any sort of specialised hardware support, or rely on Windows software. For musicians, Linux is less than useless. No Pro Tools, no Nuendo, no Cubase, no Logic, no Sonar and no plugins of any note. No support for proper soundcards - I don't mean anything manufactured by Creative, I mean professional multichannel interfaces. I'm well aware of Audacity, but to be honest, I've tried the 'doze version and it's nowhere near as good as the commercial packages. XP for me, then - it's fair to say that, at the moment, Vista is similarly useless. I've not looked into the subject in depth, as video editing is not my thing, but I suspect the same things are true for those who want to hack up great lumps of vids using specialised kit.

    Also worth noting is that I installed SUSE 10.1 on its release and it wouldn't recognise my graphics card, a Radeon 9700, no matter how I twisted and turned.
    •  
      CommentAuthorDoc Ocassi
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2007 edited
     (145.38)
    I will have to disagree with you here eggzoomin, as with regard to hardware support have a look at the ALSA soundcard matrix you will see plenty of multichannel devices listed, you will have the same setup problems and learning curve with any linux install. You have distros built for sound, like Studi64 which is already at Version 2.0. The software you can get for linux is not as bad as you say, for example Jack is a great tool, you have to watch your hardware when building a multimedia box, but that is no different than any OS. Ardour, RoseGarden and Hydrogen are professional level tools, of course you only get what you pay for, but if you aren't willing to pirate very expensive software, these are all freely available.
    • CommentAuthoreggzoomin
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2007
     (145.39)
    Seems things have improved in the last year or two as regards hardware support, then. I'll still be sticking with Nuendo and ProTools though - looking at the packages you mentioned, the functionality still isn't as good as the commercial equivalents. The other problem for me is one of market inertia - any files I receive to work on from my clients - unless they're just .wavs - are either ProTools or Nuendo, so I'd either need to keep them installed on a 'doze box or change my working requirements to .wav only. Still, as you say, it's better than it was.
    • CommentAuthorElohim
    • CommentTimeDec 15th 2007
     (145.40)
    You know, if you really need to run Windows programs, WINE can probably sort it for free, and there are higher end emulators if you're willing to shell out a small amount of cash.