>>10
Using Windows is nothing to be ashamed of. I can't imagine why you would want to move to desktop Linux anyway. It's slower and has less useful applications available for it.
Still, if it makes you feel 'elite', then go for it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 21:17 ID:XypCmWrZ
>>19
SLOWER???
As kindly as I can put it, please evacuate the premises with haste.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 21:43 ID:cNpofj1/
>>20
Have you ever used KDE or Gnome on low-end hardware? It's slow as fuck. A clean XP install (i.e. without all the crapware that major PC manufacturers like to put in) is a lot smoother.
>>22
that someone is you. >>21 is correct, both types of modern desktop linux are fucking bloated
sure you can use X with fvwm2 and simple apps from the 90s but that's no competition to xp
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 21:56 ID:uB/lTZQ1
"Trying to learn to hack on a Microsoft Windows machine or under any other closed-source system is like trying to learn to dance while wearing a body cast." --ESR, "How To Become A Hacker"
Also, there's tons of other, less bloated DEs and WMs out there. That's no excuse to say that linux is slow.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 22:12 ID:cNpofj1/
Quoting ESR? You automatically fail. He's wrong, anyway.
>>23
Yeah. Because we all know it doesn't scale, and that it's completely necessary to have a GUI. We all know that if the GUI isn't as smooth, the OS itself is slow. Totally....right?
Fag.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 22:42 ID:cNpofj1/
>>30
The discussion is about the performance of DESKTOP linux, not the underlying OS.
>>31
"Desktop" linux infers that it is for use directly, not as a remote server. Consider that these "desktop" versions oft do not even come with the X server installed. If a specific graphical system or the like was noted, I wouldn't have commented. It's a matter of labeling things properly. Sure; the GUI in Windows is more polished than the GUIs available for 'nix... doesn't mean performance really suffers.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 22:52 ID:cNpofj1/
>>32
No, desktop linux implies a modern linux distribution with either KDE or Gnome as the main environment.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 23:10 ID:AL3E2+ac
18/MacOSX/Obj-C/Ruby
In before fag =D
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-01 23:11 ID:muxLxU60
>>24
lemme quote a cooler guy: trevor blackwell.
"Besides their intrinsic characteristics, languages define commmunities of programmers. You want to choose one that lets you communicate with good programmers, because you'll learn from them. They tend to prefer powerful languages like Python, Lisp, and C++. So for example, although Visual Basic is actually a powerful and complete language, few good programmers use it. C++, on the other hand, is a rather poorly designed language, but for historical reasons a lot of smart people use it so at least you'll be in good company. The principle applies to operating systems too. Although Windows 2000 and its successors are actually decent operating systems, few of the good programmers use them, so if you do, most of your colleagues will be mediocre. FreeBSD or Linux have much better communities around them. (...) Spend time reading other people's well-written programs. Sadly, a lot of Linux and Gnome open source is poorly written."
has less useful applications available for it.
someone has obviously never used amarok, kate, or konsole.
all the applications i've used on windows recently are worse than the applications i'd use to do the same things on *nix.
fortunately kde 4 will run on windows, so using windows won't be quite as bad once that happens.
i challenge you to name one app that i'd actually have any reason to use that runs on windows but not on *nix.
also, i used freebsd 6 and kde 3 on a machine with a 450MHz AMD K6-2 processor and only 56MB of RAM for a while and it was about the same speed as when i was using windows 2000.
Oh, wow, could you OS fags please gb2/comp/? We have enough religious wars here even without your bullshit. And you >>19 faggot should be shot for starting this.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 4:10 ID:P815O/kk
Old/All of the above/Erlang t(^_^t)
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 4:48 ID:jjwNNF3w
22/UNIX/Haskell, but I can read-write essentially any language
There are hundreds of useful applications that have no Linux counterpart.
Decent music composition and production software is only available for Windows and Mac OS. The cream of the crop of disassemblers - IDA Pro - only has a GUI version for Windows. Practically all Microsoft applications are only available for Windows and sometimes Mac OS, and while many have been cloned for Linux, there is no good copy of Outlook, and no IDE matches the power of Visual Studio. And games, of course, both old and new.
>>45
I don't do music composition and production, so I don't know what's available for Linux there, but for the others you mentioned:
gdb > IDA Pro
KMail + KAddressBook + KOrganizer > Outlook
KDevelop > Visual Studio
IDA Pro, Outlook, and Visual Studio really are shit.
Wine works well enough for most games I've wanted to play recently.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 5:49 ID:7aiNQQw1
gdb > IDA Pro ??
Ok, now I know you're trolling. Have you even used IDA?
>>48 I don't do music composition and production, so I don't know what's available for Linux there
Ardour is great, but currently only supports digital audio (no MIDI). Also, most decent audio interfaces are unsupported in Linux (and no, M-Audio ``pro'' gear doesn't count as decent.)
Also various scripting languages but I've never really settled with any particular one. I prefer Ruby over Python. I recently re-discovered Javascript, which is really neat.
Debian because somewhere along the line I became really attached to APT.
Began to dabble in Common Lisp a month or two ago, and I'm very intrigued. Haskell is next on my hit list for whenever I get bored of CL.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 14:51 ID:3NfriDKH
23/OS X/Haskell, Python, Lisp, C
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 14:55 ID:mvIT/GyX
31/Ubuntu/Python (Yes, I suck, but all I need is python and a smattering of Perl and php to get by)
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 15:16 ID:24CnOqTB
>>49
no, i haven't, but disassembler with GUI = automatic fail
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 16:08 ID:dRyT98T8
>>56
Try it - despite your console-fag attitude, I think you'll be surprised. It's incredibly powerful.
>>62
You can put in a executable image for which you have no source, and it figures out all the library calls, determines where the functions are, works out the interesting strings and structs and cross-references it all. Then you can go in and explore the program as if following hyperlinks, and annotate/rename parts of it to get a better understanding. Or use scripting to do the same. And it does this with executables from many different architectures and platforms.
If you're serious about reverse-engineering, IDA Pro will be your main tool.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 17:34 ID:dRyT98T8
>>64
Oh and it also has a debugger on Windows / Mac / Linux built in so you can take your annotated disassembly and run it, while continuing to edit it inside the debugger.
Fair enough if you prefer GDB, but GDB won't do that shit for you.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 19:05 ID:gvxonK4M
Linux is only free if your time is worthless.
I'm looking at you, 14-year-old "31337 pengUin hackers".
I'm on Windows. I never have to recompile my kernel (or everything else, in the case of Gentoo). I install my drivers in a couple clicks (PS: even IF Linux were faster, it would have worse performance because the drivers suck. Linux on servers is a different thing.). ANY software that I want is available to me without having to dick around with WINE. I don't have a computer so I can waste time tinkering it, I have it so I watch porn like everybody else.
ANY software that I want is available to me without having to dick around with WINE
That's like saying that the only real software is windows software.
way to think mate ;)
It's true. Examples: no good FTP software for Linux. No good productivity suite (although OO is a nice try). Also, nothing works unless you want to spend hours on it.
no good FTP software for linux
what? You don't like ftp/sftp?
You could alternatively use gFTP or ftpcube.
Please mention your definition of ``good'' next time.
Also, nothing works unless you want to spend hours on it.
Let me translate this for the others Also, nothing works because i've never ever read a man page or a README file
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 21:24 ID:gxqXPbTp
I think that's exactly what gvxonK4M wanted to convey: he prefers an easy to use operating system on which no manuals need to be read.
>>76
So he prefers a system designed for babies who don't even know how not to crap their pants?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 22:48 ID:gxqXPbTp
>>77
that pretty much sums it up.
I kinda agree though, it's better to let the system do by itself what the system should do by itself. Then again you can get Knoppix working in two minutes, so it's probably an unfair accusation at linux.