[geek]nerd[/geek]

[Misanthrope]

I really don't see anyone using Mac OS X graduating to Linux or BSD, even
if Mac OS X is based on BSD, it's still too "stupid moron" friendly system,
you never even see a command prompt unless you specifically request for
it and if you do, you already know what to do with it, Mac does not teach
you anything about it.

I respectfully disagree. Here is why:

1) A "stupid moron" system build on top of a rock solid predecessor good enough for server tasks ( meaning amazing memory management and resource consumption when compared to others ).

vs

2) A "stupid moron" system build on top of an unreliable system that takes further steps in the name of Digital Rights Management that further unstabilize the system, make driver building so difficult you can make DoS attack based on revoking the MS certification of the license, and not to mention an enourmous resource hog that bogs down anything under 2gb of ram.

There are flavors of stupid and a stupid flavored BSD beats any stupid microsoft OS you can come up with.

 

[Misanthrope]

I find my way around some Red Hat on the company's dedicated server, want to get it on one of the laptops that are just lying around to fuck with it, but I resort to partying every time. Well, I do enough work to work on my spare time :Smug:

Found it more practical to invest into a Mac Pro - instead of dumping a thousand dollars on average every year for upgrades or complete workstation change, I'd rather dump it all at once on this monster for next 4-5 years (like 16 Gbs of RAM, 6 TB of storage and like a ton of videocards).

Simple math: that G5 which is 4+ years old STILL works fucking awesome.

Hooking up a new 600 Watt PSU and my old 7950GT into my office PC today, hello CoD4!

You are on a different economical league. I am sincerely happy you can waste that much money on PC's, this price debate is truly irrelevant to you sir.

 

[Misanthrope]

I guess maybe in terms of emancipation from systems that lead you by the hand, at least switching to OS X means you're aware there are alternatives out there.

As I mentioned on the previous post ( in which I did a personal first and replied to a person I am ignoring ) I don't really think this is a matter of simplicity or user friendliness. I've come to terms with the notion that user friendliness its an inevitable evil at this point.

Both companies have also a horrible track record that truly demonstrates everything that is wrong with capitalism: desperate, unethical, extremely heavy handed attempts to lock the user into their monopoly and control things that should be ( legally ) considered out of the scope like hardware usage and choices.

So it really bogs down to a technical argument purely, and OS-X is more reliable than anything windows has done so far ( with only NT being anywhere near the reliability but still so far behind Unix-like systems its not even funny )

 

[DisplayofCharacter]

and OS-X is more reliable than anything windows has done so far

It just works, right? You sound like the rest of the Apple marketing sheeple. Its cool you like to advocate your clearly superior Unix-based systems that have a clearly superior 20% total market share of all computers out there. They're clearly superior when you spend most of your day compiling kernels instead of actually doing anything, while other OSes are, you know, enabling their users to get work done or become entertained.

That being said, yes I know almost all of the servers run on Unix-based systems because of its stability. That doesn't mean that translates to home use.

But its cool, you do get tux racer and internet cred. It would have been cooler if you triumphed like Plan 9 or even FreeBSD, what all the awesome kids are tooling with.

 

[Matse]

Windows XP never crashes on me. Just never. It does everything I want it to do. I tried a Mac once and I didn't like it. Microsoft is great.

 

[rahvin]

Windows XP never crashes on me. Just never. It does everything I want it to do.

You just have to show it who's THE MAN once. And you're THE MAN, Matse. You are.

 

[Matse]

Could you please tell us something we don't know in your next post? This forum is full enough of spam already.

 

[Misanthrope]

It just works, right? You sound like the rest of the Apple marketing sheeple.

Yes! This was my objective!

Seriously though paying extra for good looking hardware is almost the most stupid thing you can do when it comes to computer ( almost because there is only one thing that is even more stupid: Using Vista )

Its cool you like to advocate your clearly superior Unix-based systems that have a clearly superior 20% total market share of all computers out there. They're clearly superior when you spend most of your day compiling kernels instead of actually doing anything, while other OSes are, you know, enabling their users to get work done or become entertained.

There is like a 70% chance that all of this is going through a Linux based server right now, almost 100% if you count all the DNS servers your information goes through.

So market share its only relative if you talk consumer market.

Second we've come a long way. I am going to describe the complete process I did to have a running Linux system:

1) Went to www.archlinux.com

2) Downloaded the Iso, booted up my system

3) Followed painfully simple instructions ( type setup, select hdd, autoconfigure, change ONE word in one file to include DHCP, a bunch of yes/no or recommended choices )

4) typed pacman -Syu

5) typed pacman -S gnome, gnome-extra

6) changed 2 more lines of text on a single file and restarted

After that it was all 100% graphical or with a browser readme right next to me to literally copy/paste commands.

I did that something like 1 year ago, ever since the only thing I had to do to stay 100% up to date with ALL the software I install on my system is type this command:

su -c "pacman -Syu"

Or just use a GUI tool ( a very simple window with a button that almost says "click here to download and update all stupid!" )

Seriously I installed Linux ONCE, I even had to open the wiki to remember the steps cause it was so long ago. I also never run an anti virus, never defrag anything, never mind what site or email I open, I basically just do what needs doing.

And that is like crazy hard compared to installing and maintaining say, Ubuntu which means you can probably use 3 steps less and do nothing but click "yes, yes, default, keep windows, slide to how many GB to use, give me your timezone, you are done take out the CD" on a nice graphical system.

That being said, yes I know almost all of the servers run on Unix-based systems because of its stability. That doesn't mean that translates to home use.

No it doesn't means that it automatically translates to home use. However it does nowadays, its even more "home ready" than Vista was at launch in fact.

But its cool, you do get tux racer and internet cred. It would have been cooler if you triumphed like Plan 9 or even FreeBSD, what all the awesome kids are tooling with.

Internet cred? Mmm well I like that I get internet help that doesn't involves people saying "uuuh you are going to format your hdd" for most solutions.

 

[Misanthrope]

Windows XP never crashes on me. Just never. It does everything I want it to do. I tried a Mac once and I didn't like it. Microsoft is great.

I don't want to break any rules but I can give you a link to a PICTURE that if you open on internet explorer will likely give me full access to your PC or crash it on the spot.

Saying "I dont use IE" is not a good enough excuse since it is an OS component.

 

[rahvin]

I also never run an anti virus, never defrag anything, never mind what site or email I open, I basically just do what needs doing.

I'm gonna trust you about the setup process and maintenance, but I don't think being virus- and clutter-free for years depends on the OS you're using. I'm a fairly competent user - on an amateurish level - of the dreaded Microsoft juggernauts and I can't remember ever having virus-related problems. I run some anti-spyware application every once in a while and it picks up low-threat stuff like cookies from the more disreputable websites I visit, but nothing else.
The number of people who don't have a clue is certainly higher among Windows users, which I think accounts for a lot of the "need to wipe the hard drive" crashes. There's no evidence the clueless kind wouldn't fuck up a Linux installation or similar, and I don't think we should assume so just because someone who knows what he's doing can tell which OS is better.

 

[hyena]

The number of people who don't have a clue is certainly higher among Windows users, which I think accounts for a lot of the "need to wipe the hard drive" crashes. There's no evidence the clueless kind wouldn't fuck up a Linux installation or similar, and I don't think we should assume so just because someone who knows what he's doing can tell which OS is better.

Yes and no. While you're right that there is a selection bias, some Linux installations are totally foolproof. I installed Kubuntu for my brother to make him stop complaining about his computer's slowness - he has absolutely no clue about what's what, but the thing works like a clock. In the specific case, the point is that he's got an old laptop with very little RAM, and Windows either crashed all the time or couldn't perform elementary operations in a reasonable amount of time. As a consequence, my brother went all hysterical, opened and closed applications as if there were no tomorrow, and ended up doing a lot of damage. With an OS that manages RAM more efficiently, he doesn't need to do any of that crap anymore so the computer works.

 

[plintus]

I don't think we should assume so just because someone who knows what he's doing can tell which OS is better.

Someone who knows what he's doing can tell you what OS/platform is better for.

 

[DisplayofCharacter]

( almost because there is only one thing that is even more stupid: Using Vista )

Except if your hardware is competent enough to run Vista. Though I don't advocate Vista's superiority, its a fine platform if there are enough resources available to run it well. People that run Linux usually run both Linux and XP (very occasionally Vista) if they game. If they don't game, they usually have older computers (no point in upgrading video cards or other expensive items to keep up) that Vista would not run well on, if at all. Surely advantage to Linux as it performs much better on smaller resources, but most people that want both, have both.

The real center of my argument is that (*sigh*) I'm inclined to agree with Plintus on this one. Those that know the difference use what they can to their advantage. OS superiority arguments are futile because I personally believe the most intelligent users employ whichever they can to their advantage. You appear to me to be intelligent (though our opinions differ) and I'm sure you know that Windows has its place. Though Microsoft has released a few clunkers (ME for sure, Vista is looking to turn out that way) they also did a lot to proliferate computers to the general public as a whole, and they still run games a hell of a lot better than WINE and its variants. Gaming does matter to me, though I don't keep up as much on the hardware as I could.

So market share its only relative if you talk consumer market.

You can't ignore it.

6) changed 2 more lines of text on a single file and restarted

You forgot "pacman -make me a sandwich"

In all seriousness (and though I despise XKCD - though that joke was funny as the comic is occasionally) I've messed around with Linux platforms and though I do think Arch is probably the best (haven't messed around with Gentoo yet or some of the less-documented ones like FreeBSD) even Ubuntu and its variants make it easier than that. Linux has certainly come a long way and it is definitely a viable desktop alternative.

Seriously I installed Linux ONCE, I even had to open the wiki to remember the steps cause it was so long ago. I also never run an anti virus, never defrag anything, never mind what site or email I open, I basically just do what needs doing.

That's good. It means it worked as it should, and it does what you want it to. Perfect example of my considerations expressed above.

And that is like crazy hard compared to installing and maintaining say, Ubuntu which means you can probably use 3 steps less and do nothing but click "yes, yes, default, keep windows, slide to how many GB to use, give me your timezone, you are done take out the CD" on a nice graphical system.

No it doesn't means that it automatically translates to home use. However it does nowadays, its even more "home ready" than Vista was at launch in fact.

I agree for the most part. Ubuntu is Linux for people that want Linux to be Windows. Lots of GUI and hand-holding that is usually unnecessary. That being said, they do have a pretty damn good community from the documentation I've looked at.

Internet cred? Mmm well I like that I get internet help that doesn't involves people saying "uuuh you are going to format your hdd" for most solutions.

You'll run Plan 9 if you want real internet cred .

 

[Misanthrope]

Except if your hardware is competent enough to run Vista.

Hardware was very competent prior to Vista and one can make an argument that the "updates" vista offered were minimal if any, yet the requirement for horsepower was increased exponentially.

I just think that being bullied into upgrading computers is something hardware manufacturers love about Microsoft, after all they almost always willingly buy into their monopolistic practices since they are covered in the back end by Microsoft with constant pointless updates that drive forward technology that is quite frankly, most of the times unecessary.

For the average person, a computer that was release on the windows xp era its still capable for all the tasks they do anyway.

The real center of my argument is that (*sigh*) I'm inclined to agree with Plintus on this one. Those that know the difference use what they can to their advantage.

My argument is actually the opposite: ignorance is not bliss. Most people do not realize the options they have and what they are paying for with Microsoft which basically relinquishes control of the hardware they bought slowly but surely. I still say that being ignorant on what DRM means and what we are letting a software vendor get away with in the name of "Digital Rights Management" its absurd.

More over, even if I was to concede on the assumption that one's intelligence can be regarded as the technical ability one has with computers ( which I am not and disaprove of the analogies, even if good natured ) as a "smart" person ( read: geek ) I am more than willing to use any chance I get to talk about DRM, copy protection schemes and other things that directly affect what I get to do on my computer, since people who buy into DRM schemes out of ignorance make things like HDMI cables and Blueray movies the standard, which means that I get to deal with poor driver development ( because of the stupidly increased requirements on the driver certification proces ) even if I actively try to prevent using HDMI cables and Blueray movies or Securom games or whatever.

More over there is constant talk about even more severe restrictions at which point a computer user will need to start shadowing gaming consoles having to install mod chips to deactivate security features hardcoded into the actual hardware, just because somebody decided that merely owning a Region Free DVD drive ( which is 100% legal on my country ) is no longer something that I should be allowed to own and hence my entire computer is rendered useless.

All because some people say "Oh you complain to much, I don't really know what you are talking about but I like the pretty vista menus so shut up"

In all seriousness (and though I despise XKCD - though that joke was funny as the comic is occasionally) I've messed around with Linux platforms and though I do think Arch is probably the best (haven't messed around with Gentoo yet or some of the less-documented ones like FreeBSD) even Ubuntu and its variants make it easier than that. Linux has certainly come a long way and it is definitely a viable desktop alternative.

So we agree that user-friendliness is no longer an excuse not to support FOSS software development model?

 

[Misanthrope]

I'm gonna trust you about the setup process and maintenance, but I don't think being virus- and clutter-free for years depends on the OS you're using. I'm a fairly competent user - on an amateurish level - of the dreaded Microsoft juggernauts and I can't remember ever having virus-related problems. I run some anti-spyware application every once in a while and it picks up low-threat stuff like cookies from the more disreputable websites I visit, but nothing else.
The number of people who don't have a clue is certainly higher among Windows users, which I think accounts for a lot of the "need to wipe the hard drive" crashes. There's no evidence the clueless kind wouldn't fuck up a Linux installation or similar, and I don't think we should assume so just because someone who knows what he's doing can tell which OS is better.

True to a degree only.

However even if Linux was to raise to mass popularity it would still be a lot more stable and secure than windows simply because of the FOSS philosophy and having an easier way to detect, address and correct security issues.

More over, by virtue of being a modular system the development can be more stable and secure from the get go.

So technically speaking Linux and in the bigger picture FOSS and GNU are a superior model when compared to closed source development.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

I respectfully disagree. Here is why:

1) A "stupid moron" system build on top of a rock solid predecessor good enough for server tasks ( meaning amazing memory management and resource consumption when compared to others ).

vs

2) A "stupid moron" system build on top of an unreliable system that takes further steps in the name of Digital Rights Management that further unstabilize the system, make driver building so difficult you can make DoS attack based on revoking the MS certification of the license, and not to mention an enourmous resource hog that bogs down anything under 2gb of ram.

There are flavors of stupid and a stupid flavored BSD beats any stupid microsoft OS you can come up with.

I agree on both those, but then I wasn't talking about those issues, what
I was saying is that your (as in general you, not you specifically) using of
OS X will not lead you to using BSD/Linux anymore than anyone using Vista
would.

What I meant by "stupid moron" friendly was, that when it comes to OS X,
the user doesn't really think of what is beneath all the GUI stuff he sees nor
do they need to, thus they are more likely to stay ignorant than to go
testing BSD/Linux. Most Mac users are "stupid morons".

As for it being a better platform, I'm fairly certain it is, for one it's not using
technology from Windows 95 But if I wasn't a gamer I wouldn't switch to
Mac, I would switch fully to Linux.

If Mac would somehow become a good and most importantly supported
platform for games, I would definetly take it over Windows any day.
There is a few things Apple need to change for that to happen tho and I
don't think they are willing to do those things, for one the hardware needs
to be customer upgradable and without buying over-priced stuff from Apple,
of course this might wreck havoc on the system stability and Apple would
need to get other companies to write drivers for their hardware.

In short, Mac is better than Windows, unless you're a gamer.
Mac usage will also not lead anyone to using BSD/Linux.

 

[Misanthrope]

I agree on both those, but then I wasn't talking about those issues, what
I was saying is that your (as in general you, not you specifically) using of
OS X will not lead you to using BSD/Linux anymore than anyone using Vista
would.

Thats fine, 99% should remain on a need to know basis when it comes to operating computers, the problem are "professionals" on the IT field that advocate windows, hence I gotta spend most of my day at work getting upwards of 6000 virus alerts and losing all my work data on a bi-monthly basis unless I do an unauthorized back up of all my files to a flash drive.

 

[DisplayofCharacter]

Hardware was very competent prior to Vista and one can make an argument that the "updates" vista offered were minimal if any, yet the requirement for horsepower was increased exponentially.

For the average person, a computer that was release on the windows xp era its still capable for all the tasks they do anyway.

I agree with most of the above. The average computer is more than enough for most internet tasks, word processing, the average software etc. and the majority of those tasks can be done for free on Linux if people want to learn to use it. As a gamer and technophile though, I enjoy following the progression, I just don't enjoy paying for it. Vista did update some things, but nothing substantial. More GUI than anything else, a little security and file management, but nothing of serious progression.

My argument is actually the opposite: ignorance is not bliss. Most people do not realize the options they have and what they are paying for with Microsoft which basically relinquishes control of the hardware they bought slowly but surely. I still say that being ignorant on what DRM means and what we are letting a software vendor get away with in the name of "Digital Rights Management" its absurd.

Agreed. DRM is the scourge of computer-related media and it hampers much more than doing any good. On top of that, its frequently cracked in short order making it impotent to boot.

More over, even if I was to concede on the assumption that one's intelligence can be regarded as the technical ability one has with computers ( which I am not and disaprove of the analogies, even if good natured ) as a "smart" person ( read: geek ) I am more than willing to use any chance I get to talk about DRM, copy protection schemes and other things that directly affect what I get to do on my computer, since people who buy into DRM schemes out of ignorance make things like HDMI cables and Blueray movies the standard, which means that I get to deal with poor driver development ( because of the stupidly increased requirements on the driver certification proces ) even if I actively try to prevent using HDMI cables and Blueray movies or Securom games or whatever.

To clarify my position, I was considering your intelligence in general. As long as that's known.

Some people with huge wallets and substantially less consideration think the upgrade in picture and sound (not substantial regarding the price) is worth it. Likely that's the only thing they consider. Certainly not the manufacturing company's greater ability to control how consumers use their property.

More over there is constant talk about even more severe restrictions at which point a computer user will need to start shadowing gaming consoles having to install mod chips to deactivate security features hardcoded into the actual hardware, just because somebody decided that merely owning a Region Free DVD drive ( which is 100% legal on my country ) is no longer something that I should be allowed to own and hence my entire computer is rendered useless.

All because some people say "Oh you complain to much, I don't really know what you are talking about but I like the pretty vista menus so shut up"

People are really dumb in general when it comes to technology. Just in my personal experience, when they do stupid things and have a 5 year old computer riddled with viruses, rootkits, spyware, adware, all the fucking wares there are (except the good kind) because they can't do simple maintenance and can't be bothered to learn anything else, its really frustrating. Even more frustrating is that its nearly impossible to shift this paradigm, as it is monetarily driven and people can't be bothered. Two things that are inconsolably hard to change (not to divert the conversation).

I hate DRM.

So we agree that user-friendliness is no longer an excuse not to support FOSS software development model?

Absolutely. I use a lot of free and open-source programs on windows even when I'm not in Linux (I'll mention them if you want). Its not my fault if people don't want to learn.

That being said, there is no excuse if the software is irrevocably hard to use, but that's often not the case.

 

[Salamurhaaja]

the problem are "professionals" on the IT field that advocate windows.

You wanna know the reason for this?

IT people are the laziest fuckers on the planet, they don't wanna solve
anything, it would take away from their WoW or surfing time. It's a lot
easier to say "oh, sorry, looks like we have to use the ghost image on
this machine, you'll get it back sometime in the next month".

Lazy fuckers, how I envy them for their jobs

 

[plintus]

Meant to ask: what's the problem of running Windows on Intel Macs and playing virtually any recent game for Windows?

Well, I don't mean iMacs, but recent (aluminium) MacBooks and MacBook Pros oughta do the job.

Mac Pros can be configured with NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GT 512MB, and I'm pretty sure you can plug in the latest NVidia cards as well (driver situation needs further clarification, but new Pros got some extra power cables, as 8800 GT I found needs a 6-pin cable, which is a problem with my G5).

IT people are the laziest fuckers on the planet, they don't wanna solve anything, it would take away from their WoW or surfing time.

Yeah, got to install WAR and WoW at work, CoD4 just doesn't cut it any longer