Linux adoption

I want to adopt a Linux, but i'm not sure if i can take this commitment.
Any successful Linux owners here?

>>36
why didn't you just download one of the dvd isos?........

>>41
I have a netbook without a CD-ROM drive.

>>42
ever heard of a virtual drive?

>>42
just get a usb cd-rom drive. seriously, they only cost about 0.80 XAG.

>>43
>>44
I did get it to install via USB.  My main gripe was the fact that I had to go to some guy's blog to find out how to do it instead of just reading the FreeBSD install guide.

>>45
you have to do the same thing for any other operating system.

>>24
Non-electrical Touring complete machines. With enough thought, a genius could probably develop a transmit-a-electromagnetic-or-electrical-signal process.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/a_bunch_of_rocks.png

>>25-27
Actually, most of the Amish community aren't anti-technology, they are closer to anti-materialistic. In some Amish communities, if there is an issue that necessitates the use of high technology, they would debate with themselves and then actually purchase and learn to use that technology.

>>1
1. It's easy to play with Linux on a test computer or a VM.
2. There aren't many reasons why you must give up what you already have for Linux.

The OpenSolaris kernel is much better. It just needs some polishing and some loving like Linux got from rms's ass.

>>50
Or you could use one of the BSDs.

>>51
or a modern operating system, like plan 9 or minix.

>>52
Or a real operating system like Windows.

>>53
Back to /g/, please.

>>53
4/10. Toy operating systems don't count. Get back to me when Windows gets support for deleting files that posses active handles.

50<<
Open Solaris is alright; i would have used to more but i can't be bothered relearning all the OS specific commands & how everything fits together

>>55
There are multiple ways to do this(the simplest way: kill processes using those handles, simpler way: force processes to close their own handles, trickier way: have a kernel mode component close those handles and delete the file, and there's probably other ways I'm not aware of), but of course subsequent operations using that handle will fail.

>>57
Fucking idiot, that's not deleting files that possess active handles.  That's just deleting files with NO active handles, because you ensured that first!

Now fuck off!

>>57
Like I said, Windows is a toy. I prefer real operating systems over toys systems that are designed specifically not break old toys.

>>58
And what if I unlink the file directly from the filesystem without closing its handle, using handle would subsequently fail anyway because the underlying file doesn't exist anymore.

Are you saying UNIX-like operating systems would handle it much more gracefully? Other alternatives to this would be to keep the handle and the file's contents alive(cached or the actual contents locked until all handles to it have been closed) while unlinking it from the filesystem.

Windows also offers an API for delayed removal/renaming of files in case they're in use ( even if the implementation for this is a bit useless as the 'delay' is usually the next reboot ).

Regardless of what you desire, implementation of any of this behaviour isn't hard, but given your attitude, I'd believe you don't really know anything about how the NT kernel works internally, so arguing with you is pointless, as you don't see that this is a non-issue and if there would be a need for this, it wouldn't be hard to implement by any seasoned Windows driver developer.

And given your attitude, I'd believe you don't really know anything about how UNIX kernels work internally, so arguing with you is likewise pointless, as you don't see this is an issue and it shouldn't have to be implemented as a driver because it's trivial behavior that the OS should already be handling.

>>61
What about his your attitude?

I agree with >>60. Most people who bash Windows in favour of a toy OS just aren't EXPERT enough.

>>60
Yes, Unix-like operating systems let somebody delete a file, while the existing read handles can merrily keep thinking the file & data is still there, and keeps it all consistent.

>>64
And then you can put another file on top of it and crash and loose all you rdata. I know it's true, I read it on slashdot.

>>64
The file is still there, just its entry in the directory has been removed. Like a GC, only once a file isn't referenced (by directories or handles) it is really gone.

>>66
Indeed. The fact that virtually all Windows programs, including Explorer, tend to leave zombie file handles lying around, makes this issue unbearable.

>>67
Not to mention that Windows likes fucking itself up the ass when you've got programs crashing, and still thinks there are file handles open when you're trying to delete a directory or overwrite files.

Sometimes, no amount of SysInternals can un-fuck itself up the ass, and you just have to resort to another goddamn reboot.

>>69
Never encountered such an issue (unsolvable without reboot). Open file handles are freed once the process is terminated ( an exception to this is when you have a process which is being debugged, and while it has been terminated, its handles and memory space aren't freed until you have the debugger close the process ). There was a case when explorer didn't close the handle to some video files which have been previewed ( preview is handled by multiple third party directshow filters, such as haali's splitter/ffdshow video decoder, but this happens within explorer's process), restarting explorer would close those handles.