Page 4 of 6

Re: I recommend Xubuntu

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 4:40 pm
by bob
jdart wrote:Xubuntu (http://xubuntu.org/) is the regular Ubuntu distro with Xfce instead of the default UI. Ubuntu in versions 11 and 12 decided to roll their own UI, called the Unity interface, which is truly horrible, and very unintuitive even if you have used previous Ubuntu versions. Xubuntu fixes that. Xfce is very nice and more or less resembles the pre-version 11 UI. I'm running version 12.04 on most of my machines, and it is stable, but I did have one box I couldn't get it to install on.

--Jon
I've been using Fedora for years and have been totally happy. Works with everything, wireless, ethernet, laptops, desktops, etc. Installs easily and runs well. Suse is not bad but it is horribly bloated with too many unneeded service daemons at start-up, not to mention it doesn't install on every laptop, some simply won't boot the install image.

My only gripe is the major rewrites of commodity things like gnome. It has worked perfectly for years. Now things like "focus follows mouse" is gone, the way you install things has changed, startup options have changed. Etc. I've quit updating each time a new Fedora version comes out, if the current version does what I need it to do...

Re: Operating System

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 5:00 pm
by ZirconiumX
This is a viewpoint from someone with really crap hardware.

Desktop Environments:
  • Aqua (Mac OS X interface) Pros: Looks really nice, actually. Easy to find that instance of GVIM or whatever. Cons: Closed-source, otherwise the R-Pi would have a port.
  • GNOME 2 Pros: Has the really intuitive GNOME interface. Cons: Is a huge memory sucker, uses 175MB just starting on a 256MB system.
  • GNOME 3 Pros: None that I can think of. Cons: Don't even bother asking me about the problems of GNOME 3.
  • KDE Pros: Quite clean interface Cons: Is updated so many times that by the time you've gotten used to the current one, there are 3 new versions that look completely different.
  • LXDE Pros: Loads really quickly, even when you've got a processor that is equal to a 300Mhz Celeron. Is rediculously customisable, too much so. Cons: Is so minimalist that you've constantly got to go back to Synaptic or whatever (if it came with it, it usually doesn't) to get a calculator, or whatever.
  • Xfce Pros: Has four desktops in a single instance! Loads slightly slower than LXDE, but will have loaded long before the kettle boils. Cons: What on earth are you supposed to do with four desktops?! That'll suck memory.
Matthew:out

Re: I recommend Xubuntu

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:53 pm
by pocopito
When I occasionally have to use a windows OS what I miss the most is a real terminal. Not that I'm a master using it, but even at a very basic level it allows lots of operations in a really easy way. Secondly I guess is the easiness of installing applications: 99% of the times it's just a matter of a single command, and updates are also easy and centralized.

On the other hand since people from gnome started to do "funny things" with it I've gradually switched to xfce (kde always looked kind of "too cute" to me): it provides everything I need in an easy way, and I use it in ubuntu and fedora.

PS: for the people who think linux is a "nerds OS": a couple of years ago I installed ubuntu to my brother and his wife (they use their computer just for the internet), and since then I spent more time with them and less with their computer.

Re: I recommend Xubuntu

Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 9:22 pm
by stevenaaus
I just had a nasty meltdown in Fed14. KDE would go into a crash loop when it started, switching between plasma and some gnome-wm at 10 second intervals. Gnome still worked. I spent the whole afternoon trying to fix the f***ing thing. Finally got it i think - I'd booted Linux Mint earlier and the silly thing had altered system clock backwards by 12 hours (which isn't obvious until you see the am/pm thing messed up) and KDE wasnt coping. Ah , the joys of Linux.

Re: Operating System

Posted: Mon Jun 25, 2012 2:48 am
by UncombedCoconut
Adam Hair wrote:
lucasart wrote:
stevemulligan wrote:My engine is c# so I had to choose windows.

I constantly have putty open on a ubuntu machine though. I've complained to Microsoft about the horrible "console" or dos prompt thing they have. I really want an ssh client and a console with normal select/copy/paste behaviour on a basic install. I'd also prefer they add basic linux filesystem commands so I could type ls instead of dir without having to install cygwin or something like that.
Yes, nothing beats the GNU Bourne Again SHell. It's a beast!!!!
To give you an idea, I once afound a chess program entirely written in shell! It was not strong and extremely barebone search, but try to do that in DOS with a *.bat file...
Somebody at least attempted it:

http://www.rohitab.com/discuss/topic/10 ... hess-game/
This program looks like a chess interface with no AI. My Bash chess project was a UCI engine (though I wouldn't call it artificially intelligent) with no interface. I'm not really sure how one would code an engine in the DOS batch language. It would surely be more difficult than doing it in Bash, which is already masochistic.

Re: Operating System

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:29 am
by Carotino
Slackware Linux, with BlackBox. is spartan, stable as a rock, fast as a rocket. An operating system for real men! :D

Re: Operating System

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:45 pm
by Evert
I use a Mac laptop (love the trackpad), apart from that I use Linux (which is actually my preferred operating system).

Been running gentoo for a couple of years now, which is great. Installing things takes a little longer, but it's not prohibitive and I get to extensively customise things.

Re: Operating System

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 12:46 pm
by Evert
I haven't experienced any problems installing Windows games in Linux and I've been using 64 bit wine for at least the past half year....

Re: I recommend Xubuntu

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:40 pm
by diep
lucasart wrote:
jdart wrote:snip
--Jon
I second that! Unity is horrible.
Well if i look objectively owner of Ubuntu is a South African/ English guy and he has sold in past before the project he started; so it is not unlikely he'll sell Ubuntu one of the coming years and then like redhat and suse it'll get very expensive and impossible to afford. So when unity works great i bet he sells the thing for big bucks. Then even if you'd like it i guess you won't be using unity :)

Re: Linux / OS X

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 1:49 pm
by diep
stevenaaus wrote:I recently moved to KDE 4.5.2 (64 bit Fed 14) and am getting used to it. Powerful enough, with GL compositing and not too many bugs. Windows 7 seems to have some nice features too - but also motza of the usual microsoft crap.
Vincent wrote:Too many annoying bugs in os/x meanwhile all sorts of software soon doesn't work as every few months there is a 'new version' and their development tools only work always for the 'latest' version of os/x. Very mean way of doing business.

Laugh. I hear you :) Their upgrade cycle is the worse, and now their new macbooks are no longer upgradeable hardware-wise.

But I've learnt how to use OSX (almost) properly, and have really come to appreciate some of it's "different" features. I think stability varies alot with major and minor OSX releases. 10.7 (current) is probably a little undercooked, and they're moving to 10.8 very shortly.
Vincent wrote:OS/x is too amateuristic. You know select 2 items, click right mouse button to copy it. OOPS it unselected it already, won't work!
...
os/x doesn't get through any ergonomic guide line. it should be fined if you ask me for that reason.
Although it does things differently, and takes time to learn, amateur is the wrong word. Apple's Objective C framework and XCode is a premier development suite, and makes for very attractive, integrated and consistent interfaces.
You read me wrong. It's not a 'learning cycle'. I've professional developed for os/x in that sense (what other reason would i have a 2800 euro laptop for, i wouldn't be able to afford a 2800 euro laptop, even if i would want to spend that much for a buggy OS with a design laptop that overheats already if you play a 1080p video, not to mention the joy using gcc 4.0 gives, the only compiler that loses contests with a turtle). It's just not ergonomic. If you count objectively how many mouse movements you do, they won't get through any ergonomic guide line simply with os/x.

They're stuck in the ancient past.

Simple example, attach a huge TFT at your tiny macbookpro (i have a 17 inch model) and if you open an application the pulldown menu is located still at the TFT of the laptop, so you have for each small tiny action to move your mouse to the other monitor and click there.

This is simply outdated form of doing things. This is still from the single console single processor times from 1980s.

This is not 'getting used', you just can't modify it. Sure you can enforce os/x to have the pulldown menu at the huge TFT, in which case it doesn't work on the laptop TFT, and things fock up as well if you don't attach the TFT.

The thing is, it's not ergonomic.

Another big BUG is the way how selecting things works. Obviously i'm using a 3 mouse button mouse with it. If you keep down the control key you CAN select more than 1 item, just like with windows.

In windows and *nix you then right click the mouse and can COPY the items.

If you do that in os/x it has already UNSELECTED the items. This is another stupid bug in os/x. If you are experienced in os/x you know there is 2 obvious ways to get this action done. Both require a lot more work than at windows/linux.

So from functional viewpoint they will NOT get through any serious OBJECTIVE ergonomic usability certification with os/x.

It's too much overhead to get simple daily stuff done in os/x.

OS/X increases odds for injuries like RSI dramatically.