Linux

[FHorse]

[Split from here

If you really want to try using a Linux distribution, i strongly recommend starting with something simple and intuitive as Ubuntu. You can use VirtualBox if you want try, install VBox, create a virtual machine, install on it Ubuntu, you play with OS. If you have some problem, ask me. For the second part of you post, sorry but I don't understand what you mean (my english is poor )

[3gengames]

If you really want to try using a Linux distribution, i strongly recommend starting with something simple and intuitive as Ubuntu. You can use VirtualBox if you want try, install VBox, create a virtual machine, install on it Ubuntu, you play with OS. If you have some problem, ask me. For the second part of you post, sorry but I don't understand what you mean (my english is poor )

Nah it's fine, And plus neither computer is mine so I have to find one somewhere that I can then tear into.....my PC right now is just a flashdrive with like 100 programs on it I made or more, all kinda of languages, and they take up %0.1 of the 8GB drive....


The system of how it takes a opcodes main part and deciphers the registers it uses, memory location, and addressing mode, value, etc....I tried figuring out from a 6502 assembler in Javascript but....yeah....It wasn't pretty

[Disch]

All I hear is good stuff about Ubuntu....Hmm...

Well then! Let me give you some contrast!

I've been on Ubuntu for about a year now. Let me tell you some of my tales:

----------------------
Installing new programs sucks unless the programs come from the repositories.

Finding binaries for Linux online that you can just download and run is a rare conveinience. Most expect you to download the source and compile it.

Often, this means downloading and installing all of the program's dependencies. Which is easy if the dependencies are available in the repositories (and the repositories have the right version of the dependencies). Otherwise you have to find them yourself and hope that installing other packages won't destroy packages you already have installed (read: it will destroy them).

I had the pleasure of trying to install some WinAmp clone that someone recommended (which turned out to be incredibly lame). Afterwards, dozens of my installed packages were broken, and every time I wanted to install a new package I got error messages saying my package versions were incompatible. But of course it didn't tell me WHICH packages were causing the problem.

After about 15 minutes of trial and error... trying to downgrade different package versions in order to fix the problem, I got everything straightened out (until a week later when I tried to install something else -- then a whole new set of broken packages surfaced and I had to repeat the process).


Oh, also, I tried installing BSNES. But I didn't have QT on my system. So I tried installing QT, but the repositories had an outdated version because I don't update my OS every week like I guess you're supposed to.

Long story short, after about 2 hours of dicking around trying to compile BSNES, I gave up and just got the Windows binary and ran it in Wine.

I still don't have a Linux binary.

-------------------
Linux likes to waste your time and make you jump through hoops to do simple tasks.

My sister has a external hard drive with a USB plug that she keeps a bunch of music and stuff on. I wanted to copy some stuff onto it for her.

So I plug the drive in my computer and try to copy files to it. I mean it should be that simple, right?

Of course not! Linux doesn't want to mount the drive because it's NTFS. Note that NTFS IS supported, and there really shouldn't be any problem. But instead of just mounting the drive so I can use it, it tells me to open a command prompt and type some bullshit to mount the drive.

Note this is the mounter that's telling me to do this. Not only that, but it tells me verbatim exactly what I need to type to mount the drive. This means the mounter knows how to mount my drive, and is perfectly capable of doing it... it's just refusing to do it itself.

I just about threw my box out the window at that point. How retarded is that? Seriously.

So I do what it says and manually mount the drive via the commandline. It appears to work. Until I try to copy files to the drive, at which point it informs me that I don't have permission to write to the drive.

So I check permissions to make sure I can write to the drive. All signs say I can, except I can't.

I try logging in as root to copy files to the drive. No luck.

Finally I give up and ask my Linux-savvy friends on IRC. After a few minutes of back and forth, doing various diagnostics, we discover that the drive is mounted as read only (so I guess the mounter told me how to mount it incorrectly).

They walk me through the process of mounting it as read+write (which of course I have to do manually via the commandline). Note that this process wasn't striaghtforward, as they had to find where the drive was being loaded, and we had to set up a folder to mount it to, figure out what filesystem to mount it as, etc.

Finally we got it all working. I checked the timestamps of my IRC logs to see how long it took from the time I asked for help, to the time where I got the drive working....

2 hours.

I'm not exaggerating. And that's not even counting the time I spent on my own before I asked for help, which was at least another hour. So 3 hours to plug in a USB drive and get it to work.

Here's the kicker.... THIS IS TYPICAL. This isn't a rare one-time occurance. Every time I need to do something new on this machine, it takes at least an hour to figure out how to do it.

Nothing is intuitive.

Nothing is user friendly.

Nothing is easy.

This OS is the biggest joke I've ever seen.


Oh, also, I still have to manually mount (and unmount) the drive whenever I need to use it on this computer. I have a system set up where it's easier to do now.. and it only takes a few seconds... but it still isn't as simple as "plug in the drive and use it"

-------------------
Linux is not nearly as stable as everyone claims

The OS is pretty solid, yes, but the again so is Windows. Windows isn't the cause of crashes on Windows, it's the programs that you run that cause the machine to screw up.

Linux has all the same problems. Linux itself is pretty solid. But the programs you run have just as many bugs and problems as any Windows program.

I tried out KDE for a bit. Tons of visual glitches, and crashes every half hour.

If a game or emu or something has a problem when in fullscreen, your resolution gets hosed. I've had this happen to me a few times and the only way I can fix it is to log out and log back in.

-----------------------------

So yeah. Those are my tales.

I heard nothing but good things about Ubuntu, as well. And I was optimistic and really wanted to like it when I tried it out.

But now I'm just fed up with it. I'll leave it on this box for cross-platform compilation pursposes, but the next box I get I'll be switching to Windows and will never look back.


Know what you're getting into. I can tell you this (and this has even been confirmed by some people I know that like Linux.. so this isn't one-sided):

- You will need to spend a lot of time figuring things out. Even on "user friendly" distros like Ubuntu
- You will need to read pages and pages of documentation and man pages to learn how to do things.
- You will need to use the commandline regularly (I try my best to avoid it wherever possible, but I still have to use it sometimes)


As far as I can tell... the people that like Linux are people that like to solve computer puzzles and tinker around with their machine.

So if you like to do that, then you might have fun on Linux.

But if you want your computer to "just work"... then STAY AWAY.

I really want to do something like a emulator like this but there aren't any good examples on how opcodes are figured out by the values of the numbers, atleast in my research :(

http://www.obelisk.demon.co.uk/6502/reference.html

[Bregalad]

Windows isn't the cause of crashes on Windows, it's the programs that you run that cause the machine to screw up.

This is true, except very long ago with Windows 95 and 98 which used to crash all by themselves. This has been long fixed in all Windows NT series, and now Windows 7 is very fast and actually still boots and shuts down faster than linux on my PC (even tough I've had it for 8 months).

A program crashing under older Windows (95, 98, NT4, etc...) used to be really badly handled by the OS and had many chances to crash the whole system. A program crashing on Windows 2000 or XP used to cause some trouble (serious lagging until you can open the task manager and kill it), sometimes the computer would freeze if you weren't lucky, but most of the time it was ok.
I don't know if it's Windows 7 or my Dual Core CPU (the fact that if one program is taking one core and crashing, the OS can kill it form the other core) or both, but now if a program crash Windows detect it immediately and kill it automatically without any lag or anything. I see blue screens when booting Windows once in a while (fails to boot), and it's a big mystery to me, but other than that I'm fully satisfied with Windows 7.

What is good with Ubuntu is that it's really damn easy to install on a computer (although getting it to work alongside with Windows is a bit more complicated) and that it does a lot of things automatically like detect hardware and install programs. The bad things is that if something is not done automatically, you will have a VERY HARD time doing it manually, especially if you're not a professional computer scientist (someone who isn't skilled/knowledgeable with computers can just forget it).

Linux is good for geeks computer scientists. Mac is good for fashion victims who have money to waste. Windows is good for everyone else. This is the way I see things I know not everyone will agree. To be honest I like the fact that Linux is 100% free and open source, but that don't make it the best OS ever.

[FHorse]

I do not want to start a flame talking about Windows or Linux or what is better or worse. I just want to tell you about my experience for over 10 years. I am a very satisfied user of a Gentoo installed on this machine from over five years and have never had a crash since then my computer regardless of the software installed and used. is true with the Gentoo I have to waste time to make updates (compiled from sources) but meanwhile I program an emulator:) and it is true that I lost some time and patience to set everything right at the beginning, but I also allowed us to deepen my knowledge and satisfy my curiosity. Stop. I will not talk more linux

[tepples]

Just something I wanted to get off my chest about NTFS support on Ubuntu:

But instead of just mounting the drive so I can use it, it tells me to open a command prompt and type some bullshit to mount the drive.

Note this is the mounter that's telling me to do this. Not only that, but it tells me verbatim exactly what I need to type to mount the drive.

That's because the drive was not cleanly unmounted, and some file operation was three-fourths done. Showing a command line to be copied into a terminal is a way to remind the user that the disk isn't in a fully consistent state from the point of view of Linux. If you want to restore reliable write access, you can make Windows finish the job by plugging the drive into any nearby XP box and then doing an "eject" from My Computer or "safely remove" from the taskbar. But this issue is actually Microsoft's fault for not publicly documenting how to complete that last fourth (journal replay) on NTFS.

It took you two hours. Were you without access to a PC running Windows for the entire two hours? If not, did you try checking the file system for errors from the drive's properties under Windows?

but the next box I get I'll be switching to Windows and will never look back.

Say you install the 64-bit version of Windows 7. But you can't install a driver for an obscure piece of hobbyist hardware because it hasn't been digitally signed by a company with a certificate from a Microsoft-approved certificate authority. (Yes, a company, because individuals can't readily buy these certs.) Actually, you can install it, but it'll force an always-on-top "Test Mode" notice in all four corners of the screen.

You will need to spend a lot of time figuring things out. Even on "user friendly" distros like Ubuntu

You will need to spend a lot of time figuring things out. Even on "user friendly" distros like Windows 7

[Disch]

That's because the drive was not cleanly unmounted, and some file operation was three-fourths done.

Fair enough.

Showing a command line to be copied into a terminal is a way to remind the user that the disk isn't in a fully consistent state from the point of view of Linux.

If that's the case, a message box saying "this drive was not properly unmounted. Are you sure you still want to mount it?" with a yes/no box would be a more reasonable approach.

Linux's "point of view" in this case is completely idiotic in every possible meaning of the word.

But this issue is actually Microsoft's fault for not publicly documenting how to complete that last fourth (journal replay) on NTFS.

Fair enough.

This would carry much more weight if Linux actually had problems working with the drive.

But the facts are:

1) Linux was able to mount the drive just fine
2) Linux was able to read/write to the drive just fine
3) There weren't any problems with the drive on my sister's computer before or after I mounted it on my Linux box
4) Despite that #1-3 indicate nothing was wrong, I still had to wrestle Linux into doing something that CLEARLY should be simple and automated (or at least it's clear to anyone with any sense of UI design)

So it's not really a "compatibility with NTFS" problem... because Linux handled NTFS flawlessly. It's just a "mounter is being stupid" problem.

It took you two hours. Were you without access to a PC running Windows for the entire two hours?

I currently only have 1 computer, so yes.

Say you install the 64-bit version of Windows 7. But you can't install a driver for an obscure piece of hobbyist hardware because it hasn't been digitally signed by a company with a certificate from a Microsoft-approved certificate authority.

Here's the solution to that problem: don't get obscure pieces of hardware that won't work with your computer.

I'm sure it's difficult to hook a blender up to a Windows 7 box, too. But who gives a shit.

You will need to spend a lot of time figuring things out. Even on "user friendly" distros like Windows 7

Okay, okay. I get your point.


But honestly... are you really going to tell me that anyone can just pick up and use Ubuntu? Because that's crap and you know it.

Most people can just pick up and use Windows, without ever having used it before. Children, for example. You can sit a 6 year old in front a computer, spend 5 minute showing them the basics, and inside a week they'll have figured it out enough to do almost anything they want.

Try that with a Linux box.


EDIT: On second thought... if someone sets up an Ubuntu box and gets everything working, then introduces the child to it, then yeah they would be able to figure it out.

So my retort here was poor / incorrect.

Touche on this point. I'll concede it for now.

EDIT2: no strikeout tags? lame

[tepples]

But the facts are:

1) Linux was able to mount the drive just fine
2) Linux was able to read/write to the drive just fine
3) There weren't any problems with the drive on my sister's computer before or after I mounted it on my Linux box

That's a sanity check to make absolutely sure nothing is wrong. Some power losses and "surprise removals", as the USB standard calls them, result in a pretty fcuked up file system and possible data loss if a machine tries to write without first replaying the journal. So if there are journal transactions to replay, force to ignore.

4) Despite that #1-3 indicate nothing was wrong, I still had to wrestle Linux into doing something that CLEARLY should be simple and automated (or at least it's clear to anyone with any sense of UI design)

"Click this button to potentially lose your data." "Click this button to install a virus on your computer." People will actually click it.

Were you without access to a PC running Windows for the entire two hours?

I currently only have 1 computer, so yes.

Dual boot. Or did it not come with Windows? Or was it pre-XP?

Here's the solution to that problem: don't get obscure pieces of hardware that won't work with your computer.

Like a lot of the sort of homemade hardware that might come from tinkerers on this forum. Notice that a lot of what retrousb.com sells is "obscure pieces of hardware" such as the CopyNES kit.

But honestly... are you really going to tell me that anyone can just pick up and use Ubuntu?

Once it's installed and configured, then yes, as you realized. The reason you see more problems with installation and configuration is because name brand Windows PCs come with a "restore disc", a distro customized to the hardware.

Most people can just pick up and use Windows, without ever having used it before. Children, for example.

That and horror stories that I used to read in MacUser of kids dragging files to the trash because they wanted to give them to some Oscar the Grouch figure that they imagined lived inside the trash can.

You can sit a 6 year old in front a computer, spend 5 minute showing them the basics, and inside a week they'll have figured it out enough to do almost anything they want.

Some Linux desktops, especially OLPC's Sugar, are specifically designed for kids. Others are just as easy to learn: things might be in different places, but that affects a GNOME->Windows switcher just as much as a Windows->GNOME switcher. Windows is only "easier" because a lot of us have been using it since 1995.

EDIT2: no strikeout tags? lame

I don't have mod-installation privileges (or at least I'm not aware of them), which I imagine would be necessary to add new elements to BBCode markup.

[Disch]

"Click this button to potentially lose your data." "Click this button to install a virus on your computer." People will actually click it.

Right. The user is so stupid that they ignore a warning popup box, yet still smart enough that the OS expects them to figure out how to grapple with the commandline and mount the drive by hand.

Besides... how is utterly failing to mount the drive in any way benefitial? I still don't get it. The only danger is mounting as read+write. If it thought that there was a risk of data loss, there still wouldn't be any harm in mounting as read only. But it even refused to do that.

The computer is so afraid of the user making the wrong choice that it doesn't even offer the choice? Screw that. The computer is supposed to do what I want... not the other way around.

That's actually kind of the trend I notice with Linux. It's more like you have to work for it, rather than it working for you. I guess that's fun for a lot of hobbyists, but it brings me back to my original point: it's not an OS that "just works". Every little thing takes finnagling.

So if you like playing around and exploring your OS and learning all sorts of cool commanlind jargon, you might have a lot of fun with Linux.

Personally, I hate that crap. My computer is a tool. I mean to use it. Few things are more frustrating to me than tools that need to contantly tinkered with.

Dual boot.

I have enough trouble with this machine, thank you. Though admittedly, dual boot difficulties are probably the fault of Windows.

Besides I don't have a copy of Windows around. If I did, I probably wouldn't be using Ubuntu any more.

I did have an opportunity to dual boot at one time, but at that time I also had a seperate box with Windows on it, so I didn't feel the need.

Like a lot of the sort of homemade hardware that might come from tinkerers on this forum. Notice that a lot of what retrousb.com sells is "obscure pieces of hardware" such as the CopyNES kit.

I find it hard to believe that those don't work on Windows.

[Dwedit]

*hey mods, split the Linux discussion to another topic*

I've tried out AndLinux, basically "Linux For Windows". It's a distribution of CoLinux that somewhat works out of the box. (Only thing really broken out of the box is Unicode support for accessing the C drive).
You get a GUI, and can run some KDE applications, like Konqueror, and also can run the Synaptic package manager to get packages from Ubuntu.
You can even run Wine.
Only problem is that the Windows side and Linux side don't like talking to each other, and can only communicate through a virtual network card. X is super-super slow. Also, installed applications aren't added to any menus anywhere, so you need to run them from a terminal.

[tepples]

Like a lot of the sort of homemade hardware that might come from tinkerers on this forum. Notice that a lot of what retrousb.com sells is "obscure pieces of hardware" such as the CopyNES kit.

I find it hard to believe that those don't work on Windows.

Windows XP, the 32-bit version of Windows Vista, and the 32-bit version of Windows 7 will load drivers without a verifiable Authenticode digital signature. The 64-bit version of Windows Vista and the 64-bit version of Windows 7 will not. Google explains.

If you don't have a copy of Windows, then where did you buy your computer?

[UncleSporky]

I have quite a bit of dislike for Linux. Admittedly I haven't used it that much, partly because I dislike it, for many of the same reasons that Disch listed.

I have quite a few friends and coworkers who use Linux and claim it's so awesome, and I have to switch to it. They keep trying to entice me to use it, so I periodically get demonstrations of all of its awesome features. Almost invariably, they'll call me over and say "watch this," click into whatever they're showing me, and say "wait, it's not working like it should." Then they proceed to tweak some settings, check dependencies or recompile software. More than half the time they will eventually be able to get it to work...and more than half the time it turns out they were just showing me it's as good as Windows, not offering anything new or exciting. In fact, they're most often excited to show me how they got something to work in Wine.

It really doesn't seem to be worth my time to invest in it. I would gladly pay $100 rather than spend 100 cumulative hours of reading documentation or recompiling.

And judging by a lot of the sites I visit, I'm glad to see that most of the internet has woken up to this too. I remember how anti-Windows the discussion tended to turn back in the day (which was probably justified, given the state of the OS back at the start of the internet). Nowadays, I see a lot more people with the same viewpoint as me: Windows just works, and Linux probably isn't worth the headache for most people.

[tepples]

I would gladly pay $100 rather than spend 100 cumulative hours of reading documentation or recompiling.

How much time are you willing to spend on the phone with a Microsoft representative in India to get activation status straightened out after you have added hardware to your PC?

[UncleSporky]

I would gladly pay $100 rather than spend 100 cumulative hours of reading documentation or recompiling.

How much time are you willing to spend on the phone with a Microsoft representative in India to get activation status straightened out after you have added hardware to your PC?

None, because I have never had to deal with this situation. I've added lots of hardware over the years and never had "activiation status" issues.

And if my options consist of having to tell someone my product key and being on my way after a few minutes, versus hardware simply not working with no indication why and being unable to find drivers or competent help on the internet, I would take the first option.

[Banshaku]

If you don't have a copy of Windows, then where did you buy your computer?

Maybe he just, you know, built it? Tepples... Sometime you try to make things complicated when you know then answer already