I want linux :D

[MR-93]

I'm maybe change to Linux soon. I downloaded Ubuntu desktop edition and i'm gonna buy some CD's for those .iso files...

I have some questions about Linux Ubuntu:

1. Does Soldat, Map maker and other stuff related to soldat work on Linux?
2. Can someone send a screen of a program menu or something like that...
3. Is the statrup faster than Windows?
4. I heard something about scripting in Linux. Do i must use those script things every day and can i use pascal with it?
5. If you have changed Windows to Linux. Was it easy to use?

I'll want to see some screens about using of linux and some info...

I will add some more questions if i have something to ask...

[FliesLikeABrick]

1) kinda, some or most of them work in wine
2) http://www.ubuntu.com/files/GutsyImages/Places-Menu.jpg
3) much, much, much, much faster
4) no, you don't have to use scripts for anything.  There may be a pascal interpreter, I don't know.  There are tens or hundreds of better languages to use
5) very.  I've been using Ubuntu-only for 3 years.  So has my mom, dad, girlfriend and most of my friends

[jrgp]

In addition to what flies said, it not only boots faster than windows, it is much faster than windows in every other aspect. The majority of software that is made for it is free, and all that come with it is free. Viruses almost don't exist. There are around 15 updates for the software it contains each day, all for free. All of them make it better (less likely of containing any kind of bugs), add new features, and kill possible security issues.

4) You only need to use scripting if you are programming for something. Yes, there are dozens of programs behind the scene using scripting, but it is all done for you behind the GUI (graphical user interface).

Flies, what he asked for was a program menu, not the places menu. Here's a pic of my programs menu and Firefox showing this thread behind: http://img68.imageshack.us/img68/2510/menunn5.jpg

You can see a bunch of other screenshots from my computers, all runnning linux, here: http://jrgp.us/screenshots/

If you search for "linux screenshots" or something similar at http://images.google.com, you will see a crapload more.

[Clawbug]

I have one question for you. Why do you want to change?

Linux faster than Windows, yes, if the kernel and packages are ripped to minimum and optimized to the hardware.

With Pentium 2 CPUs ranging from 266 MHz to 450 MHz with RAM ranging from 64 MB to 640MB, Windows XP is faster than Ubuntu, Kubuntu or Xubuntu, doesn't matter if it is 6.06 or 8.04, still slower. Same can be seen with 800MHz AMD Duron with 768 MB of RAM. Again, Windows XP is faster. And same result repeats with AMD Athlon 64 X2 with 2 GB of RAM.

Honestly, I've never seen Any *buntu systems being faster than Windows XP(except when installing), and if someone is concerned about the speed, there is no reson to use Vista then. I am well aware of the fact that XP is old, Vista is new, and Vista is something which Ubuntu should be compared to, but for me, the "omg Ubuntu is fater!1!"-myth is just a joke, which has been going even before there was Vista around.

So quite much, if someone recommends you linux, and tells about it's features, take it with a great grain of salt.

I am not telling that it is bad, because it really it isn't. It is just different. Once you get used to it, it is great. But it involves more work than Windows. You can tweak it more. You can break it more easily. YOU are the one who tells what to do with Linux, instead that Windows does everything for you. This can be good or bad. If you know what you are doing, you'll love it. If you have absolutely no clue what to do, search web and pray you find the answer, or make your own thread to the forums (in this case probably ubuntuforums.org) .

But whatever you ever do with Linux, you will run into problems, eventually. Just like with Windows. Both have their weaknesses, both have their cures. It is up to the user really to take care of them.

Though, one great thing about Linux is it's freedom. You have alot, hundreds of flavors to taste, and pick up your very own favorite.

Actually the only reason I am not using Linux right now is the lack of games, especially Soldat. Yes, you can get them working at times with Wine, but don't except games to really work. They have problems, alot. For example Soldat, I've only once played it with no issues, but a month later there was new Soldat release which broke the compatibility.

Though, there are some cool games which work natively on Linux, for example Nexuiz, AssaultCube, Teeworlds and Tremulous.

Oh, one note: Linux actually is more economic than Windows XP. My secondary comp drew 49W from the wall when idling with Ubuntu, when it drew 53W from the wall with Windows XP. Though, this can be tweaked quite much with the OS used (for example turn off Windows processes and services could make Windows draw less power). Also noted the same with my Athlon 64. In Windows, idling w/o fan, the CPU temperature was around 52, in Linux it stayed below 50 even though I wrote text document with Gedit.

So please, test Ubuntu, test other distros, test even more, and test even more distros, and then make your conclusion. Try to note the strenghts and weaknesses, and try to turn weaknesses for strenghts with both Linux and Windows.

And remember, when you run into problems, there is a whole Linux community behind you, helping you out as much as they can. And all they wish you to do is help others as much as you can. 

[Shadow G-Unit]

+1 for the jrgp.

[jrgp]

Honestly, I've never seen Any *buntu systems being faster than Windows XP(except when installing), and if someone is concerned about the speed, there is no reson to use Vista then. I am well aware of the fact that XP is old, Vista is new, and Vista is something which Ubuntu should be compared to, but for me, the "omg Ubuntu is fater!1!"-myth is just a joke, which has been going even before there was Vista around.

This depends entirely on what you're doing, how you have the system configured (if at all) and the file system the system is running on. You are not limited to ubuntu's default, ext3, which can be slow. There are dozens that work out of the box, some are faster, other's aren't. ext3 is only the default due to it's proven reliability during a system crash / power failure.

And as for reliability, linux will ALWAYS be better. Virtually unlimited uptimes, never having to reboot (especially if you use kexec). You never have to "reformat" linux. There is just no reason for it whatsoever. Viruses / spyware / badware can't render it unusable.

About linux being easier to "break", that is only because root lets you do anything you want to it. If you misconfigure something, it is easy to boot to a live cd and fix what you broke. End of story. No hunting around google looking for a patch to fix the MBR without wiping your NTFS filesystem or other shinyfoo you have to deal with when windows fecks itself. Linux has these tools built in.

+1 for the jrgp.

huh?

[Mangled*]

I think if someone wants to switch to Linux they need to have a valid reason other than to be a Linux guy.

I mean, it's not as if Linux holds any kind of huge advantage over Windows, or Mac OS for that matter. I'm not so sure that Linux is faster, I just think it's that people who use Linux have nothing whatsoever on their hard drive and they just sit there all day looking dreamily at their desktop, occasionally opening FireFox to Google for the answer to a question that they just thought up.

[jrgp]

I think if someone wants to switch to Linux they need to have a valid reason other than to be a Linux guy.

I mean, it's not as if Linux holds any kind of huge advantage over Windows, or Mac OS for that matter. I'm not so sure that Linux is faster, I just think it's that people who use Linux have nothing whatsoever on their hard drive and they just sit there all day looking dreamily at their desktop, occasionally opening FireFox to Google for the answer to a question that they just thought up.

hmm, lets see....

Code: [Select]

joe@joe-desktop:~$ df -hT
Filesystem    Type    Size  Used Avail Use% Mounted on
/dev/sdb1     ext3     15G   11G  2.4G  83% /
/dev/sdb3     ext3    275G  178G   83G  69% /home
/dev/sda3 reiserfs    4.0G   83M  4.0G   3% /tmp
/dev/sdc1      jfs     20G   11G  8.9G  54% /mnt/.f
/dev/sdd1      xfs    115G   83G   32G  73% /mnt/videos
/dev/sda1     ext3     67G   41G   23G  65% /mnt/backups
192.168.1.202:/home   nfs     19G  7.6G  9.9G  44% /mnt/server1
192.168.1.203:/home   nfs     51G   24G   24G  50% /mnt/server2
totals: 353.89 GB / 563.32 GB

My system (1gig of ram, athlon 64 X2  3280+ ~ 2ghz) always runs fast as hell. I'm running dual monitors and always have a few media players, a bunch of file managers, firefox, a few konsole's and a few other things runnning at any given time.

Are you all totally ignoring that this site and everything else FLAB hosts are running on his Linux servers? Forgetting that Google which gets millions of hits every second completely uses Linux for all of its servers?

And really, Mangled*, "FireFox" is a retarded perversion of the browser's name. It is officially referred to either as Firefox or FF. Nothing else.

[FliesLikeABrick]

Clawbug, I don't know what you're talking about... I've never seen an XP system faster than a ubuntu system, especially if you look 3 months after xp is installed

edit:just read mangled's post.... what are you smoking?  I have hundreds of gigabytes of stuff in Linux on my machines, and many terabytes of stuff on my servers.... my one windows XP partition on my one laptop, by comparison, has 10GB tops on a 20GB partition and crawls.


edit again: oh, and mangled?  hard drive space usage only really impacts Windows machines due to fragmentation.  No other OS uses filesystems with fragmentation issues like FAT32 and NTFS have

[SadistAtHeart]

I think if someone wants to switch to Linux they need to have a valid reason other than to be a Linux guy.

I mean, it's not as if Linux holds any kind of huge advantage over Windows, or Mac OS for that matter. I'm not so sure that Linux is faster, I just think it's that people who use Linux have nothing whatsoever on their hard drive and they just sit there all day looking dreamily at their desktop, occasionally opening FireFox to Google for the answer to a question that they just thought up.

You don't really know what you're talking about, do you?

1. The amount of stuff you have on your hard drive does not affect the speed of your computer, merely the fragmentation of the files (which linux has no problems with)

2. Your statement "and they just sit there all day looking dreamily at their desktop, occasionally opening FireFox to Google for the answer to a question that they just thought up...." you don't actually believe that's true, do you? Honestly now, I really just think you're trying to under the skin of our linux using forum-goers.

[jrgp]

No other OS uses filesystems with fragmentation issues like FAT32 and NTFS have

I find it pretty depressing that I always see ads for expensive commercial real-time defregmentation software for windows servers. What a terrible waste of money

[Clawbug]

Clawbug, I don't know what you're talking about... I've never seen an XP system faster than a ubuntu system, especially if you look 3 months after xp is installed

My observations are based on fresh installations. I agree that Windows really gets slower over time, but it is actually due to programs either messing registry, or starting processes at startup or generally hooking system resources. If I cut the processes to the bare minimum, which is around 20, defrag the HDD and clean the registry the system is way faster, though, doesn't beat clean, fresh installation.

But as I said in the another post, one can't really compare Linux and Windows, as there aer hundreds of distros to choose from,  ranging from mp3 players(iPod, Sandisk Sansa, hopefuly Creative Zen V), game consoles(Xbox, PS2, PS3) and routers to server clusters and supercomputers.

[Shadow G-Unit]

@Poke: Might want to create your own thread?

[Poke Master]

alright i'm on it

[jrgp]

Clawbug, I don't know what you're talking about... I've never seen an XP system faster than a ubuntu system, especially if you look 3 months after xp is installed

My observations are based on fresh installations. I agree that Windows really gets slower over time, but it is actually due to programs either messing registry, or starting processes at startup or generally hooking system resources. If I cut the processes to the bare minimum, which is around 20, defrag the HDD and clean the registry the system is way faster, though, doesn't beat clean, fresh installation.

Anyone who uses Windows without some kind of antivirus / antispwyware and a firewall program running in the background and starting when the system boots is a moron. For that reason, you just can't compare a windows installation running without those programs and Linux in terms of performance. And another thing, Linux doesn't get corrupt or degrade itself underneath while you use it over a long period of time. It always stays the same unless you change it.

But as I said in the another post, one can't really compare Linux and Windows, as there aer hundreds of distros to choose from,  ranging from mp3 players(iPod, Sandisk Sansa, hopefuly Creative Zen V), game consoles(Xbox, PS2, PS3) and routers to server clusters and supercomputers.

You can still compare the usage of Linux on a home computer vs Windows.

@Pokemaster and Shadow: What are you guys talking about?

[Clawbug]

Moron because of what? Those myth-alike claims that when you let Windows access Internet without firewall, it instantly gets infected?

Usually, if not always, when a computer gets infected, it is due to the stupid user. Well, you can blame the OS all you want for letting that ThisIsNotAVirus.exe to inject itself to the vital Windows DLLs, but in the end it is the user who runs the program.

[jrgp]

Moron because of what? Those myth-alike claims that when you let Windows access Internet without firewall, it instantly gets infected?

Usually, if not always, when a computer gets infected, it is due to the stupid user. Well, you can blame the OS all you want for letting that ThisIsNotAVirus.exe to inject itself to the vital Windows DLLs, but in the end it is the user who runs the program.

umm, no. On linux it is the fault of the user for explicitly downloading a file, giving it executable permissions, and running it.

On windows, all you need to do is browse the wrong sites with Internet Explorer or not have any firewall, anti badware software running and leave it connected directly to the internet. Doing that will render it a zombie in at least 20 minutes, depending on your connection.

[Clawbug]

Moron because of what? Those myth-alike claims that when you let Windows access Internet without firewall, it instantly gets infected?

Usually, if not always, when a computer gets infected, it is due to the stupid user. Well, you can blame the OS all you want for letting that ThisIsNotAVirus.exe to inject itself to the vital Windows DLLs, but in the end it is the user who runs the program.

umm, no. On linux it is the fault of the user for explicitly downloading a file, giving it executable permissions, and running it.

On windows, all you need to do is browse the wrong sites with Internet Explorer or not have any firewall, anti badware software running and leave it connected directly to the internet. Doing that will render it a zombie in at least 20 minutes, depending on your connection.

In Linux, EVRYTHING is up to a user. If something breaks, it is because of the user. And that's the weakness and reason why it is never going to challenge Windows when it comes to the average Joe.

Actually about average of 30% of the viruses are caught anyway by the software, thus having one is quite much waste of time and resources. And yet still, it is up to the user.

[jrgp]

Moron because of what? Those myth-alike claims that when you let Windows access Internet without firewall, it instantly gets infected?

Usually, if not always, when a computer gets infected, it is due to the stupid user. Well, you can blame the OS all you want for letting that ThisIsNotAVirus.exe to inject itself to the vital Windows DLLs, but in the end it is the user who runs the program.

umm, no. On linux it is the fault of the user for explicitly downloading a file, giving it executable permissions, and running it.

On windows, all you need to do is browse the wrong sites with Internet Explorer or not have any firewall, anti badware software running and leave it connected directly to the internet. Doing that will render it a zombie in at least 20 minutes, depending on your connection.

In Linux, EVRYTHING is up to a user. If something breaks, it is because of the user. And that's the weakness and reason why it is never going to challenge Windows when it comes to the average Joe.

Actually about average of 30% of the viruses are caught anyway by the software, thus having one is quite much waste of time and resources. And yet still, it is up to the user.

Somehow I doubt the average Joe who only cares about internet browsing and IM's would want to deal with anti-badware software and firewalls, and the waste of time that entails, let alone digging into the core of linux and screwing with something.

[Lapis Lazuli]

Clawbug, I don't know what you're talking about... I've never seen an XP system faster than a ubuntu system, especially if you look 3 months after xp is installed

edit:just read mangled's post.... what are you smoking?  I have hundreds of gigabytes of stuff in Linux on my machines, and many terabytes of stuff on my servers.... my one windows XP partition on my one laptop, by comparison, has 10GB tops on a 20GB partition and crawls.


edit again: oh, and mangled?  hard drive space usage only really impacts Windows machines due to fragmentation.  No other OS uses filesystems with fragmentation issues like FAT32 and NTFS have

Ubuntu and Xubuntu are both -extremely- slow on my test PC, which runs on a <1Ghz processor and 96MB of RAM. Windows XP SP2 was fast compared to how they run on this machine, even after several months of use.

Now, that is not to say that Linux is not effecient. It is a very nice OS, one which I will swear by. However, I will not lay the blanket statement down that Linux is -always- faster. Linux is a different machine, yes, and it does generally the same things in different ways.

For example, lets say you drive a car to work in LA. Traffic backs up and you've got delays. You happen to see a guy ride past you on a motorcycle, cruising down the lines between the lanes.

The car is Windows. Linux is the motorcycle. They each do the same thing differently. In some cases, Windows may be better. It comes with the ability to use a large margin of the software products available today. Linux will often times require a bit of tweaking, but there are small communities of fans devoted to using your particular distribution (unless you use Puppy Linux, which is the most worthless piece of shit I have ever seen).

tl;dr: Windows and Linux are different. Your results may vary.