madeofstaples wrote:Craze Frog wrote:Linux? It sucks. Even if I use it for extended periods of time, and sort of becomes accustomed to it, when I boot windows I just go "ah!!! I didn't remember it was that much better!".
Really? I always find myself trying to switch to a new virtual desktop. I feel so constrained in windows.
Who prevents you from using virtual desktops in Windows?
Craze Frog wrote:Linux supposedly has a powerful shell. Did I say powerful??? Bash, the de facto Linux shell doesn't have autompletion of previously typed commands. Cmd has it. The FreeBSD default shell (whatever it is) has it. But not bash.
THE MAN PAGES FOR BASH wrote:History expansions introduce words from the history list into the input stream, making it easy to repeat commands, insert the arguments to a previous command into the current input line, or fix errors in previous commands quickly.
History expansions are not the same as what csh does. History expansions doesn't let you cycle between previously typed commands quickly.
Craze Frog wrote:Linux is the only desktop OS which doesn't have a GUI toolkit that is both reasonably fast, has good internationalization support and is free to use for commercial applications.
"Linux" in itself, is not necessarily a desktop OS. I haven't had any problems thus far with GTK, and I don't really care so I cannot comment on the "free to use for commercial applications" thing.
When I say Linux, I mean the distros, if I mean the kernel I will say so. GTK is free, but it's insanely slow on my computer. Opening and closing invisible window takes twice the time with GTK compared to Windows, and the main problem with GTK isn't the invisible stuff, but the speed of redrawing. It's just so insanely slow it's hardly usable. QT is lightning fast but not free.
Here someone (not me) finds the file open dialog so slow he thinks it's a bug:
http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtopic.php?t=29336 . The GTK version is
120 times slower than when he codes it manually. I can't believe you and everyone else don't notice this, are people asleep at the wheel :p ?
Craze Frog wrote:The Linux kernel doesn't have stable ABI. To provide drivers they basically need to be in the kernel source if they should work and get maintained. Instead of vendor lock-in we now have vendor lock-out!
My wireless drivers are closed source and must be loaded as a kernel module
And that kernel module won't work with kernel 2.8.x (it could even break with 2.6). Windows NT drivers still works on XP. If I have old hardware I use an old driver. If there is a driver for Linux 2.4 it won't work with 2.6. So the companies will have to keep working constantly to keep up with a moving target. Obviously they don't really want to do that.
Craze Frog wrote:Linux is totally unsuitable for desktop users. One major reason for that is that it's not working as advertised:
Yet isn't the use of linux as a desktop OS still increasing?
Yes, because it's free, and many of the alternatives are quite unsuitable as well. That W sucks is not proof that X is very good.
Craze Frog wrote:If you tell me that your car isn't rusty and sell it to me, then you tricked me. It's not the fault of the car manufacturer.
In the Linux world, it doesn't work like that, and as long it doesn't, Linux isn't suitable for the desktop.
The Knoppix website says that "IMPS/2-compatible USB-mouse" are supported. And I have a common brand of IMPS/2-compatible USB-mouse (second page of google picture search for "mouse"). For some reason this mouse doesn't work in Knoppix. Now if I complain about this on some forum, I get a reply similar to "you expect THAT mouse to work?!?". Of course I expect it to work when it's listed on the list of supported hardware!
It's not about the amount of supported hardware, it's about working as advertised.
I've never encountered any problems like yours, but I'm guessing if it's obvious to someone that such a mouse wouldn't work, then there must be something about it which indicates this much. The fact that you could not recognize that something is not the fault of Linux.
The mouse was made by Microsoft, so the poster just assumed that then it wouldn't work. He obviously didn't understand that the manufacturer doesn't matter as long as a standard is followed. And I know for sure that the standard is reasonably well followed, because the mouse works without special drivers in all linux distros except Knoppix.
Craze Frog wrote:my this and that doesn't work BUT SOME SITE SAYS IT DOES
etc etc
it sounds like, at least in some cases, you're trying newly-released-not-yet-stable packages and complaining that they don't work.
That's wrong. (Unless all stable versions, including the long term support version, of Ubuntu ships with not-yet-stable packags.)
Calm down, geeze, people are giving you this software for free. You know that rusty car you were tricked into buying? Linux is the, in your case, rusty car that you got for free.
Let's say we agree to a contract. You will give me a service for free. I can still sue for breach of contract if you don't give me service.
Besides the car was advertised as a Cadillac, and I'm just saying that it's not, so stop saying it is.
Steve the Pirate wrote:Craze Frog wrote:..when I boot windows I just go "ah!!! I didn't remember it was that much better!".
I get exactly the opposite... I can't live without virtual desktops...
Ok, so why don't you use virtual desktops on Windows then?
Steve the Pirate wrote:Or all the enhancements of Compiz Fusion.
Enhancements? Compiz Fusion doesn't even run here.
And windows looks like crap compared to my desktop. I mean, you can't really even change the theme without downloading third party software (eg. Windowblinds), or cracking some dll or something.
Oh really? Now tell me on which OS the font rendering is better,
Windows or
Linux? Even Linux fans admits that the Linux version looks like crap. However, they claim it's something wrong with the setup. Which is like shooting themselves in the foot, because it's the
default setup.
Of course, the font rendering looks different on different distros, but I have tried over a dozen, I've followed a ton of guides, I've downloaded both the bitstream fonts and the Microsoft fonts, and they continue to look really bad.
JamesM wrote:Craze Frog wrote:Yes! Yes! Let's determine a file's type by it's ending! Brilliant!
So you honestly think that a c source file, a text file and a protracker module should all open in the same program, and that is "excellent"? Well, I don't like that. And to prevent it there's only two things that can be done: Specify filetype in the filename or as metadata. No, you can't "just look at the contents of the file", because those three totally different file formats will in many cases contain information of exactly the same type.
This is determined by the file browser (of which there are several). The standard ones are konqueror and metacity (?) IIRC, and each has a dialog similar to that in windows explorer that will allow you to change the default editor for filetypes. Failing that you can just go <RMB>->Open With ...
Metacity is the window manager, Nautilus and Thunar are file managers. And you just underline my point: when you do that it assigns a program to the extension. Which Alboin for some reason or another thought was an utterly silly idea...
Alboin wrote:
Craze Frog wrote:Linux supposedly has a powerful shell. Did I say powerful??? Bash, the de facto Linux shell doesn't have autompletion of previously typed commands. Cmd has it. The FreeBSD default shell (whatever it is) has it. But not bash.
IIRC, auto completion is done with the history tool, no? Anyway, my bash has auto completion with the TAB key, and a history of previous commands with the UP key.
How many times do I have to explain that
- I don't want autocompletion of file and folder names
- I don't want a history of previous commands
but I want autocompletion of previous commands with the UP key. I can't believe this is so hard to get. It's a basic feature available by default in other major operating systems (notice the plural, this is not a Windows feature).
Why? and as already mentioned bash doesn't store any history itself, it uses the history command. Because you haven't RTFM, you probably don't know that you can type CTRL-r and search the history for any string, then edit/execute it. And you'll find that cmd doesn't auto-expand possible commands in $PATH or directory/file names, whereas bash does. If bash added the extra functionality such as you are describing some ambiguity may develop. Which is a Bad Thing.
1. Bash stores the history itself. If you had read the manual you'd have known that the history command is build into bash.
2. If tab is used for autocompletion of filenames and UP for autocompletion of history I don't see any ambiguity.
3. Csh has it, so it can't be impossible.
4. Cmd doesn't auto-expand ANYTHING, read the manual again. If you type a * it's up to the program to expand it. Sounds stupid? It's actually an excellent idea if a common library function performs the expansion. The program actually gets the arguments that the user gave it, which is a very good idea right from the beginning.
And why can't I compare bash to cmd? Let's see...
Opening a c file in the default editor with cmd:
Sorry, but you're right. I can't compare cmd to bash, because bash
can't open a file in the default editor. Instead you must specify which editor you want
every time.
What is a 'default editor'? A GUI app?
If you don't use a GUI you can set the default editor to vim, nano, emacs, pico or whatever you like. Most people use only one editor. And yet they have to type the name of it every time they want to start it.
Running stuff on "a server boxen" (where did you learn English grammar?) is not relevant to this topic, where the original poster uses Linux as a desktop OS. Linux is a great server OS.
I've read that Linux actually supports more hardware than any other operating system in history. Granted, much of that hardware is old, and uncommonly used, but nevertheless.
Sure, the problem is that supported hardware doesn't work. Including, but not limited to:
IMPS/2 mouse
S3 ProSavage graphics chip
Wacom graphics tablet
rt2400-chipset
Standard USB keyboard
Yes, of course linux doesn't support a usb keyboard. Of course it doesn't. How stupid of me.
It's supported, but it doesn't work. Think it's something wrong with it? Then why does it work with another distro? Because in Linux, quality control is null and void.
So nvidia doesn't make drivers for Linux? If so, what then am I using, exactly?
You're using a driver that will only work with a particular kernel version, even if the API is the same as other kernel versions.
I love the way you manage to compare cheese to chalk without breaking a sweat.
How is this any different to windows? So because linux can't do this and neither can windows linux is inferior? Tit.
Um, what? Windows has a stable ABI. Linux hasn't. Very simple.
Besides, even if Windows sucks, which I didn't neither say nor not say, that would not make Linux any better. Just because Windows is bad, you can't say that Linux is good.
So.....take....out......your....USB stick......How often is it that you install Ubuntu that this becomes inconvenient?
It's inconvenient when you don't know it. This isn't written anywhere and it doesn't give a warning. Like when I installed on an XFS partition, there was no warning whatsoever, the installation just didn't boot. (In the later versions, they fixed this, so that it gave the error "The root partition can't be XFS" even if you were installing to an ext3 partition.)
This is like what I wrote in the previous posts, it's OK once, but not all the time. How often do you think I install Linux? Not very often. Yet twice,
completely valid configurations has made the installation unbootable.
Yeah, and what would Windows do? "No, what you REALLY want is fat32. You don't? Of course you do! <wipes root partition>"
Ok, Windows sucks. So what? I said Linux sucks. That doesn't mean I think Windows is great. It just means that Linux can't boot, which is rather poor performance for an operating system.
You invite flamewars with your stupid, misinformed posts. You got me into a flying rage last time with the "C is stupid and everyone who uses it is stupid" thread and I swear the same will not happen with this.
Stupid and misinformed? Who has no clue how the history command in bash works? Who has no idea who does the filename expansion under Windows? Who doesn't know the name of the file manager?
os64dev wrote:@crazy frog
But, I don't want a history of previously typed commands, I want aucomplete of previously typed commands. If I type "command 1 ahoi", then "blabbery" I should then be able to type "co", arrow up, and since "blabbery" doesn't match it should go to "command 1 ahoi".
Well since i use the command "make -f makefile.mk all" alot during build i only have to type "!ma" and it does the auto completion for me. Surely you would have know this if you read the manuals. This remark is rather sarcastic as all your posts clearly tell us that you didn't.
Nice, but that's not what I want.
And then we have your statement about cmd.exe, did you ever wonder why microsoft introduced powershell? It was due to the restrictions of cmd.exe and as they say powershell has added functionality to match bash. How much more clear do you want it.
I don't want it any more clear - I can see from the description that PowerShell is a bloated monstrum without basic features - just like bash.
Don't get me wrong you are intitled to you own oppinion and therefore i am not bashing you. I hope you extend the same curtesy to the other forum members as they also are entitled to their opinions. Always keep in mind that there are programmers that have way more experience then you have. Not to mention, different coding style, and way of working. By saying that your style, way of working, and tools are the best is somewhat similar to proclaiming that you are god. It is total nonsence and will only provoke people into ranting instead of conversation.
Sorry, but when an operating system doesn't boot, I find that appalling (most distro's doesn't). If people honestly finds that excellent I actually
don't think they are entitled to this opinion. If it doesn't boot then it
isn't excellent by
definition.
Of course, you are entitled to your opinion that they are entitled to say whatever they want.
