Simparadox Posted February 12, 2002 Report Share Posted February 12, 2002 Heh, oh boy. When I started reading this thread I swore I wouldn't reply. I've been away from the forums for over a month, I've just started checking again, I should just keep my nose out of this... ...but there's no way in hell it's gonna happen. There's a bunch of stuff I want to reply to and I don't want to do it in multiple posts so there's going to be a lot of quotes here. Sorry if I misquote someone. Here goes: quote:Originally posted by Dredd Down with Linux! Long live Windows! HORRAH! There's really no reason for me to reply to this other than to say... "Wha...?" I didn't know people felt this way and I can't even fathom why anyone could possibly want to see Linux go down. quote:Originally posted by Xierxior linux is not a gamming platform it was origionaly unix which was a (server) os Linux _is not_ Unix. Linux is a powerful, stable, fast, multi-purpose operating system that is equally up to the task of being used on home, workstation, or server computers. Most people picture the bash shell when they think Linux and this leads to the two most common misconceptions that I hear.. 1) "Linux? Oh, that's old. It looks like DOS. I have Windows now." (from the not so tech-savvy) or 2) "Linux? That's too hard to use for home computers." Both are wrong. First of all, in most distros you can set Linux up with xfree86 using a graphical interface that was better than the M$ setup program andmore user friendlyup until the XP installer which is fairly user friendly. I just got finished installing SuSE on my laptop (I like trying out different distros and my laptop always end up as a guinea pig) and after about a half hour I was done. Booted it up, brought to a nice graphical log-in shell, and a second later I was in GNOME. Without any other setup work I was playing around with some of the apps that came with the distro. It wasn't any more difficult or time consuming than when I upgraded to XP on this computer. It goes without the saying that, other than on boot-up, I didn't see the bash shell once and I never had to mess with. Nor would I have to if I only intended to use it as my home computer. quote:Originally posted by Supreme Cmdr There are VERY few hardcore gamers running Linux, who don't already have a Windoze box (or even a dual-boot one), so, WHATS the point?!? If you're arguing that Linux gaming won't ever become popular (which I think you are... but I could be wrong) then you're probably right. If you're saying that there's no reason to game on Linux, however, then you're wrong. First of all, if Linux had the same driver support as Windows it should, theoretically, provide better game performance. More importantly, though, it lets me play games on the platform _I_ want to use. And, of course, people who actually want to use Winblows should be allowed to play games there. Anyway, I'm not going to get off onto a tangent about open standards... ...as far as Linux gaming ever coming of age, I doubt it. It won't happen right now, that's for sure. It's not Linux's fault, though, and it has nothing to do with its worth as a desktop or gaming OS. The reason's simple, I think... Linux-savvy gamer: "I'd use Linux all the time, if only my games ran on it and it was easier to install them." Game developer: "I'd develop my games for Linux if more gamers used Linux." Linux developer: "We'd find easier installation methods if only more games were developed for Linux." I could be wrong, but this seems to be the general idea with members of the above groups that I actually encounter. quote:Any OS that makes you set the vertical refresh rate of your monitor before you can install it is a WASTE of time and resources.Red Hat actually does require this. I don't know about the newest versions, but my 7-ish version did. Most of the time it finds the right refresh right on its own, though. Overall, though, I'd say Red Hat is the worst choice for a desktop operating system. Try SuSE or Mandrake. quote:MAC enviorments. (mac is not all that great either) (off-topic, but it's late and I don't care. Sorry, SC ) Just felt like randomly saying that I hate Apple and everything Steve Jobs and his company stands for. That said, OSX is great and I'd use it in a second if it were available for my PC. I still find it hard to believe that people call Microsoft evil because they want to have a strangle-hold on the OS market when not only is Apple trying to gain control of the OS market, but they want you to buy their hardware too. Eugh.... quote:Personally I am glad its dying.Linux is far from dying. It's home user-base is actually growing. It's business user-base is growing at an even greater rate. Not an "over-take M$ and conquer the world" rate, but enough that most of my friends, even the less computer-savvy ones, know what Linux is and have probably seen or used it at least once. My mom even knows about, since she works with a program to put it on low-end computers that are given to low-income families. quote:Exactly how could you improve on say Windows 2000/XP?? In an x86 enviorment there is simply no other way to approach an OS IMO. Sure you could make it more stable, more secure ETc. AS far as the core concetps behind windows or the MAC OS they cannot be improved upon with todays technology.As a quick note, Apple's don't use x86 architecture. Kind of seems like you're grouping Mac and x86 together. Anyway, there are plenty of ways to approach an OS. As Menchise pointed out, Windows is pretty bloated and that's bad. And yes, you can make an OS more stable and more secure. As a matter of fact, there's no reason not to. If you admit that M$ isn't doing enough to make Windows more stable/secure than you're admitting exactly why Linux is a worthy competitor (by the way, I'm still in shock there are people outside of MS who think it isn't). Ugh. I'm really sorry about this long post, I didn't think I'd have to reply to so much. I'll admit, this is the first time I've ever had to defend Linux (usually it's the other way around). I'm kind of happy that Linux has reached the point where people aren't just saying "Yeah, whatever, use Linux.". There's more stuff I want to say, but Menchise has it all covered. Except for one thing: what the hell are you talking about that windows is more stable than Linux/xfree86? I don't know who said it originally so I won't quote, but Windows (even XP/2k) is both more crash prone than xfree86 and less able to recover from program crashes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now