>>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.