The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Now, this is kinda about Linux... But just so's everyone knows, I'm not going to bother typing in a potted history of Linux... since I'd guess pretty much everyone here knows what it is, and what its about... and if you don’t, then there’s bound to be more than the odd forum member willing to explain it to you (what I'm really saying is that I don’t want to fill this up with too much extraneous fluff (and what I really mean by that, is that I cant be bothered :) ))
Although, the 'odd' (read once every two months or so) some topic pops up about why Linux is supposedly far better than Windows, to which people reply that this may be the case, but that the software support isn’t as comprehensive as you would like, that the interface is too complicated, etc... There’s ALWAYS one guy who claims to have tried installing Linux, unfortunately to no avail, and that, if someone like themselves (not a technical guru certainly, but definitely PC proficient) cant install Linux, what chance does the rest of the 'real' world have? (this point is SO certain to come up, its almost FOGs law)
What pretty much everyone always fails to grasp is that Linux is not written to be a desktop OS.
It’s made primarily to use on Servers, as network controllers and workstation hands off OS.
It is as a result of this that Linux has become so complicated to install, because its only intended to be handled by professionals. People who know exactly what they want to install onto their networks... and more importantly, what they don’t want to install.
These are the people who complain, not about the number of times Windows crashes (since this can be pretty much minimised (to the point of almost halting it altogether) with some good Admin) but with how bloated Windows NT and 2000 are, and how much useless information HAS to be installed whether you want it or not.
Now, before anyone complains (although the chances of people not getting REALLY bored by this point and pushing off are rather slim) part of the problem with this misconception about Linux's use, is that there are a few commercial vendors out there attempting to sell Linux to the home user. Whether this is admirable, or whether this is more the commercial sector trying to cash in wherever it can, is, I'm sure, open to debate...
Getting to the point of the topic (I nearly forget there was one for a minute) (just think how long this would have gone on if I had decided to stick in the Linux explanation too!)
A couple of days ago, it was announced (so far as these things can be) that there is, currently in development, a desktop version of Linux.
Given that Linux is currently, adamantly supported by pretty much every major developer who isn’t Microsoft (including IBM, Intel, HP and Sun)...
Given Linux's famed open source policy...
Given is greater stability (by which I refer less to the OS, which, due to its current open configuration, is as stable or as unstable as the person who installs it... what I mean is the software, about which, MANY developers claim is much easier to develop stronger, faster, much more stable software for, because of its open source architecture)
Moreover, given the Desktop Linux will be at least, as simple to install and use as Windows 95/98/ME/etc...
Would you REALLY want jump ship to Linux from Windows?
Having to fight against the 90% stake currently held by Microsoft. That the majority (read 99.9% of all software is currently developed within and for the Windows environment? In addition, Windows software (for all is instability) is often a great deal more advanced than Linux’s alternative
Where will you go?
There is no doubt that the eventual release of Desktop Linux WILL be a big event. Many of the industry’s main players are VERY interested in cutting a chunk out of MS's side, and will aid the expansion of the open source, developer friendly software, over the closed source of MS (mmm... sounds like Apple Inc.? :) )
There was a time, not so long ago, when this sort of decision was decided by businesses, due to the volumes of software purchased, they could make or break an OS, the home user reaping whatever remained. Its only been very recently that the industry has discovered just how valuable the Home Users decision is, how a users home machine can affect their business buying purchases, how large the home market is, etc.. (so much so, that MS release a home version of Windows). As a result it is really is your purchasing choice that affects the direction of the Operating Systems of the future
Linux or Microsoft?
Which do you want to boot today?
Although, the 'odd' (read once every two months or so) some topic pops up about why Linux is supposedly far better than Windows, to which people reply that this may be the case, but that the software support isn’t as comprehensive as you would like, that the interface is too complicated, etc... There’s ALWAYS one guy who claims to have tried installing Linux, unfortunately to no avail, and that, if someone like themselves (not a technical guru certainly, but definitely PC proficient) cant install Linux, what chance does the rest of the 'real' world have? (this point is SO certain to come up, its almost FOGs law)
What pretty much everyone always fails to grasp is that Linux is not written to be a desktop OS.
It’s made primarily to use on Servers, as network controllers and workstation hands off OS.
It is as a result of this that Linux has become so complicated to install, because its only intended to be handled by professionals. People who know exactly what they want to install onto their networks... and more importantly, what they don’t want to install.
These are the people who complain, not about the number of times Windows crashes (since this can be pretty much minimised (to the point of almost halting it altogether) with some good Admin) but with how bloated Windows NT and 2000 are, and how much useless information HAS to be installed whether you want it or not.
Now, before anyone complains (although the chances of people not getting REALLY bored by this point and pushing off are rather slim) part of the problem with this misconception about Linux's use, is that there are a few commercial vendors out there attempting to sell Linux to the home user. Whether this is admirable, or whether this is more the commercial sector trying to cash in wherever it can, is, I'm sure, open to debate...
Getting to the point of the topic (I nearly forget there was one for a minute) (just think how long this would have gone on if I had decided to stick in the Linux explanation too!)
A couple of days ago, it was announced (so far as these things can be) that there is, currently in development, a desktop version of Linux.
Given that Linux is currently, adamantly supported by pretty much every major developer who isn’t Microsoft (including IBM, Intel, HP and Sun)...
Given Linux's famed open source policy...
Given is greater stability (by which I refer less to the OS, which, due to its current open configuration, is as stable or as unstable as the person who installs it... what I mean is the software, about which, MANY developers claim is much easier to develop stronger, faster, much more stable software for, because of its open source architecture)
Moreover, given the Desktop Linux will be at least, as simple to install and use as Windows 95/98/ME/etc...
Would you REALLY want jump ship to Linux from Windows?
Having to fight against the 90% stake currently held by Microsoft. That the majority (read 99.9% of all software is currently developed within and for the Windows environment? In addition, Windows software (for all is instability) is often a great deal more advanced than Linux’s alternative
Where will you go?
There is no doubt that the eventual release of Desktop Linux WILL be a big event. Many of the industry’s main players are VERY interested in cutting a chunk out of MS's side, and will aid the expansion of the open source, developer friendly software, over the closed source of MS (mmm... sounds like Apple Inc.? :) )
There was a time, not so long ago, when this sort of decision was decided by businesses, due to the volumes of software purchased, they could make or break an OS, the home user reaping whatever remained. Its only been very recently that the industry has discovered just how valuable the Home Users decision is, how a users home machine can affect their business buying purchases, how large the home market is, etc.. (so much so, that MS release a home version of Windows). As a result it is really is your purchasing choice that affects the direction of the Operating Systems of the future
Linux or Microsoft?
Which do you want to boot today?
True that Linux is not the preffered interface.... but I think the probl;em is that most people who talk about it on the FOG have never used linux, and do not know what it's all about!
Open source!
Sonic
Open source!
Sonic
New Jimmy wrote:
When the
> various versions unite to one Linux desktop version for the home
> user...Im there.
Thats the point...
This isnt Linux as it is now... This is 'Desktop' Linux
When the
> various versions unite to one Linux desktop version for the home
> user...Im there.
Thats the point...
This isnt Linux as it is now... This is 'Desktop' Linux
Install whatever kernel you're happy with, and then put Xwindows over the top of it...voila, an interface that looks exactly like Windows, with the best parts from MacOS thrown in there too, and the option to switch between that and Xterm (console) with a simple keypress.
Ild switch to Linux without even thinking, if there was only one major version of it as oppossed to Suse, Red Hat etc.. Corel Linux was looking promising with its Windows like GraphicalUserInterface, however Microsoft then bought a 24% stake in them.
When the various versions unite to one Linux desktop version for the home user...Im there.
When the various versions unite to one Linux desktop version for the home user...Im there.
WOW!
zeldapro wrote:
> WOW!
lol... I was intending to use this to make a point in the discussions going on, on Monday, about the state of the Prime forum...
About the type of subjects get raised...
What subjects get replied to...
And what subjects get ignored...
And how they were all connected...
But after I had written the aritcle I got bored... :)
> WOW!
lol... I was intending to use this to make a point in the discussions going on, on Monday, about the state of the Prime forum...
About the type of subjects get raised...
What subjects get replied to...
And what subjects get ignored...
And how they were all connected...
But after I had written the aritcle I got bored... :)
WOW!
Now, this is kinda about Linux... But just so's everyone knows, I'm not going to bother typing in a potted history of Linux... since I'd guess pretty much everyone here knows what it is, and what its about... and if you don’t, then there’s bound to be more than the odd forum member willing to explain it to you (what I'm really saying is that I don’t want to fill this up with too much extraneous fluff (and what I really mean by that, is that I cant be bothered :) ))
Although, the 'odd' (read once every two months or so) some topic pops up about why Linux is supposedly far better than Windows, to which people reply that this may be the case, but that the software support isn’t as comprehensive as you would like, that the interface is too complicated, etc... There’s ALWAYS one guy who claims to have tried installing Linux, unfortunately to no avail, and that, if someone like themselves (not a technical guru certainly, but definitely PC proficient) cant install Linux, what chance does the rest of the 'real' world have? (this point is SO certain to come up, its almost FOGs law)
What pretty much everyone always fails to grasp is that Linux is not written to be a desktop OS.
It’s made primarily to use on Servers, as network controllers and workstation hands off OS.
It is as a result of this that Linux has become so complicated to install, because its only intended to be handled by professionals. People who know exactly what they want to install onto their networks... and more importantly, what they don’t want to install.
These are the people who complain, not about the number of times Windows crashes (since this can be pretty much minimised (to the point of almost halting it altogether) with some good Admin) but with how bloated Windows NT and 2000 are, and how much useless information HAS to be installed whether you want it or not.
Now, before anyone complains (although the chances of people not getting REALLY bored by this point and pushing off are rather slim) part of the problem with this misconception about Linux's use, is that there are a few commercial vendors out there attempting to sell Linux to the home user. Whether this is admirable, or whether this is more the commercial sector trying to cash in wherever it can, is, I'm sure, open to debate...
Getting to the point of the topic (I nearly forget there was one for a minute) (just think how long this would have gone on if I had decided to stick in the Linux explanation too!)
A couple of days ago, it was announced (so far as these things can be) that there is, currently in development, a desktop version of Linux.
Given that Linux is currently, adamantly supported by pretty much every major developer who isn’t Microsoft (including IBM, Intel, HP and Sun)...
Given Linux's famed open source policy...
Given is greater stability (by which I refer less to the OS, which, due to its current open configuration, is as stable or as unstable as the person who installs it... what I mean is the software, about which, MANY developers claim is much easier to develop stronger, faster, much more stable software for, because of its open source architecture)
Moreover, given the Desktop Linux will be at least, as simple to install and use as Windows 95/98/ME/etc...
Would you REALLY want jump ship to Linux from Windows?
Having to fight against the 90% stake currently held by Microsoft. That the majority (read 99.9% of all software is currently developed within and for the Windows environment? In addition, Windows software (for all is instability) is often a great deal more advanced than Linux’s alternative
Where will you go?
There is no doubt that the eventual release of Desktop Linux WILL be a big event. Many of the industry’s main players are VERY interested in cutting a chunk out of MS's side, and will aid the expansion of the open source, developer friendly software, over the closed source of MS (mmm... sounds like Apple Inc.? :) )
There was a time, not so long ago, when this sort of decision was decided by businesses, due to the volumes of software purchased, they could make or break an OS, the home user reaping whatever remained. Its only been very recently that the industry has discovered just how valuable the Home Users decision is, how a users home machine can affect their business buying purchases, how large the home market is, etc.. (so much so, that MS release a home version of Windows). As a result it is really is your purchasing choice that affects the direction of the Operating Systems of the future
Linux or Microsoft?
Which do you want to boot today?
Although, the 'odd' (read once every two months or so) some topic pops up about why Linux is supposedly far better than Windows, to which people reply that this may be the case, but that the software support isn’t as comprehensive as you would like, that the interface is too complicated, etc... There’s ALWAYS one guy who claims to have tried installing Linux, unfortunately to no avail, and that, if someone like themselves (not a technical guru certainly, but definitely PC proficient) cant install Linux, what chance does the rest of the 'real' world have? (this point is SO certain to come up, its almost FOGs law)
What pretty much everyone always fails to grasp is that Linux is not written to be a desktop OS.
It’s made primarily to use on Servers, as network controllers and workstation hands off OS.
It is as a result of this that Linux has become so complicated to install, because its only intended to be handled by professionals. People who know exactly what they want to install onto their networks... and more importantly, what they don’t want to install.
These are the people who complain, not about the number of times Windows crashes (since this can be pretty much minimised (to the point of almost halting it altogether) with some good Admin) but with how bloated Windows NT and 2000 are, and how much useless information HAS to be installed whether you want it or not.
Now, before anyone complains (although the chances of people not getting REALLY bored by this point and pushing off are rather slim) part of the problem with this misconception about Linux's use, is that there are a few commercial vendors out there attempting to sell Linux to the home user. Whether this is admirable, or whether this is more the commercial sector trying to cash in wherever it can, is, I'm sure, open to debate...
Getting to the point of the topic (I nearly forget there was one for a minute) (just think how long this would have gone on if I had decided to stick in the Linux explanation too!)
A couple of days ago, it was announced (so far as these things can be) that there is, currently in development, a desktop version of Linux.
Given that Linux is currently, adamantly supported by pretty much every major developer who isn’t Microsoft (including IBM, Intel, HP and Sun)...
Given Linux's famed open source policy...
Given is greater stability (by which I refer less to the OS, which, due to its current open configuration, is as stable or as unstable as the person who installs it... what I mean is the software, about which, MANY developers claim is much easier to develop stronger, faster, much more stable software for, because of its open source architecture)
Moreover, given the Desktop Linux will be at least, as simple to install and use as Windows 95/98/ME/etc...
Would you REALLY want jump ship to Linux from Windows?
Having to fight against the 90% stake currently held by Microsoft. That the majority (read 99.9% of all software is currently developed within and for the Windows environment? In addition, Windows software (for all is instability) is often a great deal more advanced than Linux’s alternative
Where will you go?
There is no doubt that the eventual release of Desktop Linux WILL be a big event. Many of the industry’s main players are VERY interested in cutting a chunk out of MS's side, and will aid the expansion of the open source, developer friendly software, over the closed source of MS (mmm... sounds like Apple Inc.? :) )
There was a time, not so long ago, when this sort of decision was decided by businesses, due to the volumes of software purchased, they could make or break an OS, the home user reaping whatever remained. Its only been very recently that the industry has discovered just how valuable the Home Users decision is, how a users home machine can affect their business buying purchases, how large the home market is, etc.. (so much so, that MS release a home version of Windows). As a result it is really is your purchasing choice that affects the direction of the Operating Systems of the future
Linux or Microsoft?
Which do you want to boot today?