Which operating system do you use most?

[Lich]

Maes said:

Bingo. This has been spotted long ago and even has a name: Linux Fault Threshold. Heh.

This shit is hilarious.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Graf Zahl said:

Didn't you know? Linux is not an OS, it's a religion. Its users are not just simple users, they are believers. :D:D:D

(and before anyone accuses me of believing in Microsoft, let me make clear that I don't. But the fact is, they still offer the best overall solution for my problems - as sad as it is.)

Oh I know it is, I'm a member of it!

But I also appreciate that part in parenthesis, as it follows what I said earlier in the thread. Different OSes for different uses and users. For me, Windows doesn't solve my problems as well as Linux does, save for writing music. An OS is nothing but a tool. At home I like to use DeWalt and Craftsman tools, while my grandma has always preferred Black & Decker. A saw still cuts wood, but it's just what we prefer and what we're looking for in it.

[Graf Zahl]

Lich said:

This shit is hilarious.

One has to be fair though: After reading this guy's other articles it's plainly obvious that he's a gigantic jerk with a clear agenda. His brilliant rethoric doesn't mask that.

[Lich]

Graf Zahl said:

One has to be fair though: After reading this guy's other articles it's plainly obvious that he's a gigantic jerk with a clear agenda. His brilliant rethoric doesn't mask that.

I'm definitely not denying that. The guy is totally couching his attitude in a "hey I'm funny in an asshole kind of way" fashion. As I said earlier in the thread, I'm an XP-x64/Ubuntu 64-bit dual-boot user and I plainly see the utility of both environments. But that guy's LFT concept is just too funny to me, having went to college with people who are all too similar to the apologists he mentions.

[Gez]

Graf Zahl said:

One has to be fair though: After reading this guy's other articles it's plainly obvious that he's a gigantic jerk with a clear agenda. His brilliant rethoric doesn't mask that.

Well, he says it himself:
"I'd freely admit that I'm not the nicest of people; many would say I'm a complete prick. A complete prick whose defining pair of traits is on the one hand, a complete inability to listen to anyone else, ever, and on the other hand, an almost pathological need to find someone else to blame for my problems. [...] I'm a short-tempered, blinkered, pig-ignorant, self-obsessed prick."

[sLydE]

Wow, all I really wanted was the data from the poll, but I got something much better!

[Edward850]

Graf Zahl said:

Just to make it short: The problem with the Linux crowd is to deny that there is a problem that prevents it from going mainstream.

Hang on, during your long posts, you only stated that you had a problem with Linux, but never what the problem was. If you mentioned your problems, people might be welling to help.

Graf Zahl said:

As long as some software developers feel the need to provide different binaries for different Linux distributions all talk about compatibility remains empty talk.

As what was mentioned before, you can infact run Linux across different distributions. It just so happens that the packagers a different, not the actual program.

Graf Zahl said:

As long as people have to compile software from the source the system is not end-user friendly.

Ironically, the only thing I had to compile so far in my Linux experience, was zdoom.

Graf Zahl said:

I am not talking about people like him and me but about the average Joe.

I installed Linux Ubuntu on a friends PC for their family. The only person who has touched windows since then was Curtis (my friends brother), because he doesn't like NOT having admin privileges.

Graf Zahl said:

Complain all you want about Windows - but these problems don't exist there - and that's why it will remain as dominant as it is.

Doesn't windows have a huge issue with DRM? I sure wouldn't want to have software like DRM forced upon me, thats why I use Linux. Well that, and I have been able to keep my computer on for ages (because I fucking have to... cursed 6 year old processor).

[TheDarkArchon]

Edward850 said:

Hang on, during your long posts, you only stated that you had a problem with Linux, but never what the problem was. If you mentioned your problems, people might be welling to help.

Software he uses doesn't run on Linux.

[Graf Zahl]

Edward850 said:
Hang on, during your long posts, you only stated that you had a problem with Linux, but never what the problem was. If you mentioned your problems, people might be welling to help.

Learn to read complete posts before responding. It's actually 2 things that keep me away from Linux:

1. I need to run Windows only software.
2. I most certainly don't want to waste time figuring out how to make software work. My time is too valuable for that.

As what was mentioned before, you can infact run Linux across different distributions. It just so happens that the packagers a different, not the actual program.

... and if you read more carefully you would have noticed that this 'just' is a problem in my eyes. As long as there is no unified Linux binary available I consider the situation a problem.

Doesn't windows have a huge issue with DRM? I sure wouldn't want to have software like DRM forced upon me, thats why I use Linux. Well that, and I have been able to keep my computer on for ages (because I fucking have to... cursed 6 year old processor).

DRM for what? Since I avoid DRM protected media like the plague I really can't say. I don't use Windows Media player, I don't download content that I can't freely use or make freely usable without a shitload of work.

[Edward850]

Graf Zahl said:

2. I most certainly don't want to waste time figuring out how to make software work. My time is too valuable for that.

Never do I. Thats why I use Linux to save time.

Graf Zahl said:

and if you read more carefully you would have noticed that this 'just' is a problem in my eyes. As long as there is no unified Linux binary available I consider the situation a problem.

By 'unified Linux binary' do you mean the program your trying to run, or the OS itself? If it is the program, then keep in mind that the binarys are the same, just packaged differently.

If its the OS your talking about however, then your right, that is a little strange, but keep in mind that you could be worse off with windows.
You spend $200 on Windows763 or whatever, then suddenly Microsoft releases the next one up that not only costs more, but if you want to run any software off that, you have to buy it. Sure it has backward compatibility and this all new piece of software that you don't need or can't uninstall easily for that matter, but that doesn't seem worth it in the end.

Graf Zahl said:

DRM for what? Since I avoid DRM protected media like the plague I really can't say. I don't use Windows Media player, I don't download content that I can't freely use or make freely usable without a shitload of work.

Well we agree on that.

[Creaphis]

You're a few pages behind, Eddie.

Graf Zahl said:

2. I most certainly don't want to waste time figuring out how to make software work. My time is too valuable for that.

Yet posting here is a valuable use of time? I'm dumbfounded.

[Graf Zahl]

Edward850 said:

You spend $200 on Windows763 or whatever, then suddenly Microsoft releases the next one up that not only costs more, but if you want to run any software off that, you have to buy it. Sure it has backward compatibility and this all new piece of software that you don't need or can't uninstall easily for that matter, but that doesn't seem worth it in the end.

... and that's the major error in thinking the Linux crowd does.

1. I don't spend $200 on Windows. I buy a preinstalled computer that costs little more or sometimes even less than a custom built computer. In any case, the OS is already installed so I don't need to bother installing it myself. Time and money saved.
You see, the mere fact that I'd have to install and fully configure Linux myself costs more in time than I'd ever spend in money on a preinstalled OEM Windows version. Where's the advantage now?

2. Why upgrade? I only did that once and that was from Win 3.11 to Win95. All other 'upgrades' I made were done by buying a new computer because the old one had outlived its usefulness. Honestly, is there even one reason to change from XP to Vista? I only did because my old computer was no longer up to the tasks I needed it for.
Even DirectX10 is more or less a non-issue. No economically sound company would want to lose their customer base by limiting their software this way (unless, of course this company is M$ itself)

Creaphis said:

Yet posting here is a valuable use of time? I'm dumbfounded.

Of course it is! Imagine all that time spent trying to make Linux do what I'd like it to do! :P

[Joe]

This thread is fucking retarded.

[John Smith]

Graf Zahl said:

1. I don't spend $200 on Windows. I buy a preinstalled computer that costs little more or sometimes even less than a custom built computer. In any case, the OS is already installed so I don't need to bother installing it myself. Time and money saved.
You see, the mere fact that I'd have to install and fully configure Linux myself costs more in time than I'd ever spend in money on a preinstalled OEM Windows version. Where's the advantage now?

You do spend some amount of money on Windows whenever you buy a new computer. Also, with the editions of Vista, you can spend more than just some. Getting Vista Ultimate (which, along with Business, is one of the only two editions I'd even consider) on a brand new XPS laptop is an extra 150 dollars more than just getting Home Premium. I'll not disagree that it probably isn't 200 dollars that you have to pay for Windows (although in this case I would definitely say the standard Windows tax + 150 for Ultimate certainly is very close), but its most certainly some amount more than the actual cost of putting, say Ubuntu, on your computer.

Also, as far as time goes, by the time it takes to make Vista useful, turning off all of the crap you've described, I'd have Ubuntu installed as well. Same amount of time to have a functionally usable machine. So the argument for saving time is shit, sorry.

Also I have to know, what the hell is the point of having Vista if not for DirectX 10. What the hell else does Vista do for you that XP or XP with some third party application does not do equally well or better?

[chungy]

Graf Zahl said:

1. I don't spend $200 on Windows. I buy a preinstalled computer that costs little more or sometimes even less than a custom built computer. In any case, the OS is already installed so I don't need to bother installing it myself. Time and money saved.
You see, the mere fact that I'd have to install and fully configure Linux myself costs more in time than I'd ever spend in money on a preinstalled OEM Windows version. Where's the advantage now?

You can also buy pre-installed Linux computers, sometimes even with OEM specific customization (eg, Dell does them)! Where's your argument now?

[Bucket]

Oh, I don't know. Must be somewhere in the dozen other points he made.

[Craigs]

Joe said:

This thread is fucking retarded.

I got tired of watching Graph and Mike argue yesterday... now it's just getting boring. Someone should probably throw a few weapons into the fight, just to spice things up.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Craigs said:

I got tired of watching Graph and Mike argue yesterday... now it's just getting boring. Someone should probably throw a few weapons into the fight, just to spice things up.

Windows, Linux, and OS X are all crap. Plan 9 FTW!

Seriously, Neil Stephenson's analogy of OSes to cars still seems to hold true even today, and even after reading this long thread. OS X is still the hermetically sealed European roadster, Windows is still the station wagon that sells copies with mindshare, and Linux is the free tank. BeOS is the only one not showing up.

Actually, I think the mindshare argument might be even stronger today, albeit now split between both Apple and Microsoft. You either buy a Mac, a Windows machine, or an "other".

[exp(x)]

Solaris!

[Edward850]

Why can't we just agree to disagree?

[GreyGhost]

That would be too easy. OS/2 Warp!

[Creaphis]

I'm actually just browsing this site on an abacus.

[CODOR]

LS-DOS!

[exp(x)]

Creaphis said:

I'm actually just browsing this site on an abacus.

Wow, you finally beat me.

[GreyGhost]

QNX Neutrino!

Creaphis said:

I'm actually just browsing this site on an abacus.

Beats me as well - I'm using an Etch A Sketch.

[Remilia Scarlet]

Creaphis said:

I'm actually just browsing this site on an abacus.

I've been using pen and paper, with IPoAC as my transport protocol.

[Espi]

John Smith said:

Getting Vista Ultimate (which, along with Business, is one of the only two editions I'd even consider)

Is there something I'm missing here? Because it seems like the only thing you get beyond home basic is crap you don't need: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx

Also I have to know, what the hell is the point of having Vista if not for DirectX 10. What the hell else does Vista do for you that XP or XP with some third party application does not do equally well or better?

There is no point in buying Vista by itself. But it doesn't really hurt to get it with a new computer.

[Sharessa]

Have you ever had pigeon? It's good eatin'. Sometimes they come with little notes attached. Like fortune cookies with wings.

[Jodwin]

John Smith said:

Also, as far as time goes, by the time it takes to make Vista useful, turning off all of the crap you've described, I'd have Ubuntu installed as well. Same amount of time to have a functionally usable machine. So the argument for saving time is shit, sorry.

He had only mentioned that he turned off UAC. Turning that off takes less than five minutes. You can't install Ubuntu in less than five minutes. You lose.

[chungy]

Espi said:

Is there something I'm missing here? Because it seems like the only thing you get beyond home basic is crap you don't need: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-vista/compare-editions/default.aspx

As for real features, Ultimate Edition is the only one that gives disk encryption itself, though you might as well save yourself $300 and just download TrueCrypt which can do the same thing, even on Windows XP or the "lower" editions of Vista.