Beep Boop Bip
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]
Posting mode: Reply
Subject   (reply to 1183)
BB Code
File URL
Embed   Help
Password  (for post and file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: BMP, CSS, EPUB, FLAC, FLV, GIF, JPG, OGG, PDF, PNG, PSD, RAR, TORRENT, TXT, WEBM, ZIP
  • Maximum file size allowed is 10000 KB.
  • Images greater than 260x260 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Currently 814 unique user posts.
  • board catalog

File 141555304836.jpg - (250.53KB , 640x692 , Emperor_Penguin_Manchot_empereur.jpg )
1183 No. 1183 [Edit]
Why use linux?
Expand all images
>> No. 1184 [Edit]
Here are reasons why I use linux. I probably forgot a hundred things.

-Linux has a package manager

---This is really big, installing and searching for things is insanely easy and you don't get fucking toolbars and adware shoved into your face when you want to install something.

---It's much faster than going on google, searching for a program, downloading the executable, running and installing it. You just type in a list of things you want to be installed and the system installs and downloads all those things for you and does it all on it's own.

---You can update every single program on your computer by just running one command. It all happens automatically.

-Multiple desktops! Though I think Windows 10 now has those too, linux has had them for almost 20 years.

-Linux based operating systems are (usually) free, you can just download it without ever paying for it or cracking it. There's also no stupid version stuff, like in Windows for example "Home premium" which is cheaper than "Ultimate" but has less features.

-There are no viruses at the moment. You don't need an antivirus program or any of that shit, don't have to be afraid of getting your computer infected.

-You can choose between multiple desktop environments and window managers and login managers. This gives you a lot of extra features, like tiling window managers and you can customize the looks more easily.

-It's flexible. If you don't like that thing right there, you can just replace it or change it. You can costumize practically everything you want to your liking, not just the looks but also under the hood.

-Superior file system support, for example you never have to defrag your drive. Linux supports more than 30+ file systems, Windows supports 4 file systems.

-You don't always have to install a driver every time you plug something in like a usb drive, on linux shit just works. Even very obscure hardware drivers are all integrated into the kernel, you plug the thing in and it works. (graphics drivers you have to install seperately exactly like in Windows(except if you use intel graphics))

-The shell is really really powerful, much more than on Windows. Some of you won't care about this but the things you can do in bash are fucking awesome. If you don't want to use the shell you can of course always move away from it and get GUI based programs instead.

---It's just insane how powerful it is, on windows you wanna mount an ISO? You might have to install a program for that first.. You wanna update your system in Windows? Oh, you have to reboot your computer and that takes a while, and if you want to update your installed programs you will have to do that manually.. You want to assign Ramdisk in windows? Or just change your partitioning? Oh, you might have to download a program for that first.. On linux you can just do it all in house, all those features are already there.

---It also brings stuff like SSH, you can control your computer using your phone and vice versa. It's just handy in general.

---I also really like terminal based applications because you can run them on almost all kinds of platforms and they tend to be much more faster thanks to shortcuts.

-Linux is fast and leightweight, good for older hardware or simple stuff like netbooks or phones. It boots really fast and has low resource usage. (When I boot my netbook it uses about 100 megabytes of RAM.)

-It's great for servers in many ways. Running it headless for example is very easy because of the great shell.

-It can be whatever the fuck you want, it just depends on how you customize it. Take stuff like arch for example.

-If you use a rolling release distro you (in theory) won't have to ever reinstall your system as it updates automatically. With Windows or OS X you have to upgrade or reinstall your system when a new version comes out. Like a jump from Windows 8 to Windows 10.

-You get security updates more frequently, every day is patch day so to speak.

-It's great for software developers. If you want to program something on linux it just works. Like Windows is great for games linux is very good for developing software.

-It's not hard to maintain your system, it's stable and you can leave it running for days without it crashing. The performance does not degrade over time.

-No rules, you can use it in whatever way you want. It does whatever you tell it to do, and it does it in that exact way. You don't have to fight with your system if you want to get off the path the developers wanted you to take.

-When you want to shut down your computer you don't have to wait 10 minutes for it to install updates. You don't always have to reboot your computer in order to finish an installation (of drivers for example).

-When you broke your system you can go out and fix it. With Windows I felt like every time it broke I had no choice but to reinstall it all.

-Awesome documentation and help on the internet.

-When troubleshooting it's easier to run terminal commands provided by people who help you. It's easier than explaining on how to navigate the GUI.

-In my opinion a lot of the software you get on linux is better than the stuff on Windows. For example Transmission or Pidgin or ffmpeg. The Windows versions of those are not nearly as good as the linux versions in my opinion.

-You can run it on all kinds of platforms. Video game consoles, phones, smartphones, tablets, TVs, even a few calculators.

Things I don't like about linux:

-You can't play games, really. Wine works for me and there's steam coming and stuff, but let's be honest. You can't play games on linux nowhere near as well as on Windows.

-Pulseaudio sucks, I always uninstall it.

-Depending on your hardware, graphics drivers may or may not suck dick.

-It's not as user friendly as Windows or Mac OS X. (though this highly depends on what distro you use) Linux mostly targets tech savvy users.

inb4 someone comes and tries to refute every single point I brought up. I can't give you source for a lot of the things I mentioned, it's all based on my experiences.

Post edited on 9th Nov 2014, 10:30am
>> No. 1185 [Edit]
Elitism and being a super 1337 haxor.
>> No. 1186 [Edit]
More customization, more broken things to fix, more working things to break so you can fix them later, less resource usage.
>> No. 1191 [Edit]
>Linux mostly targets tech savvy users.
Why do some Linux users still think this? For many of the reasons you listed yourself, Linux is not at all hard to use nowadays- in some ways notably more convenient than Windows, even for those that understand little to nothing about computers. One might even argue that it's easier for novice users to get "hurt" in Windows (such as not paying attention to the toolbars tacked on to programs you mentioned or getting loaded down with viruses), as I don't think a novice user will do much rooting around under the hood to break things in Linux.
>> No. 1192 [Edit]
I see your point. I don't think linux is hard to use at all, it's much easier to use than Windows, but I'm good with computers anyways so I don't think I'm the best judge.
You surely can set it up so it's very simple and easy, I did that with my mom's computer too and she never has any problems with it even though she's not tech savvy (but she's not retarded either). I had to configure it for her and ask her what she wants and what looks she is comfortable with, though.

But I think realistically speaking when your average idiot would get a new computer and it had linux mint or ubuntu preinstalled they would be pretty freaking confused why it doesn't look like their friend's computer, where internet explorer went or why windows executables won't run, etc.

Of course this is not the system's fault at all, but I think you're underestimating how stupid the average user really is. I think this problem is a bit deeper than just what the system alone can do. That's how I look at it.

Edit: something like this for example does not suprise me: (3DPD warning)

Post edited on 9th Nov 2014, 5:15pm
>> No. 1194 [Edit]
>I think you're underestimating how stupid the average user really is
You may very well be right. I always tend to assume that most young adults are very computer literate... but thinking back on it, that wasn't always the case. I can see where an average person that isn't computer literate would be pretty dumbfounded if they were used to seeing Windows elsewhere and booted up a Linux distro.
>> No. 1217 [Edit]
freedom for the awaiting autist inside of you. open-source, package-manager, freedom, secure(?)
completely customizable, so you can chose what program to install, so it can get faster as you know everything that is installed and can remove whatever that is not needed
>> No. 1233 [Edit]
I once put ubuntu on my dad's computer because he kept getting viruses, and he used it for a while, but he had me switch him back to windows because he liked it better. To each his own.
>> No. 2190 [Edit]
File 161081899073.jpg - (356.80KB , 756x1100 , e15f25f4b550b89ef49e4b81fc649812.jpg )
I found something called Gobolinux which looks kind of interesting because the file system is more intuitive. This system allows you to have multiple versions of the same software.
>GoboLinux is an alternative Linux distribution which redefines the entire filesystem hierarchy. In GoboLinux you don't need a package database because the filesystem is the database: each program resides in its own directory.
>In other words, instead of a package manager placing executable files in /usr/bin, libraries in /usr/lib, and other resources in /usr/share, a program's files are all stored in one tree, such as /Programs/Firefox or /Programs/LibreOffice. This way the user, and package utilities, can remove software by deleting a single directory rather than keeping track of where individual files have been installed.
>Through a mapping of traditional paths into their GoboLinux counterparts, we transparently retain compatibility with the Unix legacy. There is no rocket science to this: /bin is a link to /System/Links/Executables. And as a matter of fact, so is /usr/bin. And /usr/sbin... all "binaries" directories map to the same place. Amusingly, this makes us even more compatible than some more standard-looking distributions. In GoboLinux, all standard paths work for all files, while other distros may struggle with incompatibilites such as scripts breaking when they refer to /usr/bin/foo when the file is actually in /usr/local/bin/foo

On a review from 2009, I found this comment which is really illuminating and illustrates a kind of mindset that seriously pisses me off.
>Okay, when I first saw the directory tree, I freaked out. That's, well, scary. Come on, can we be a little more civilzed? We don't need to type "system", do we? "sys" will do.
>Furthermore, I don't know how Gobo manages, but the idea of "one directory per application" seems to be anti-productive, since in Free and Open Source world, an "application" is built upon many many other packages, which may be languages (Perl, Python, Guile, etc.), libraries, other executable (piping, anyone?), etc. If you try to have "one directory tree per application", you basically have two choices: either do symlinks, which destroy the meanings of "one directory tree per application" anyway, or try to put all dependencies of an application into its tree, which is utterly wasteful.
>I mean, okay, if you are using Linux From Scratch, this seems to be a good idea since you can manage your stuffs easier. But, come on, apt and yum has resolve this problems ages ago! Basically, in modern GNU/Linux systems, you don't even care about where your programs are, until you are a sofisticated enough user, in which case the current Unix tree makes even more sense, since the files are classified by their functions (binary, executable file under */bin configuration file under */etc, library under */lib, etc.) and you can rapidly tweak stuffs (since we normally try to tweak a type of files together). Again, this is in favor of the eco system of FOSS.
>This kind of set up makes sense for Mac OS and Windows OS, since those systems are proprietary, and in that world, it is best to keep your code to yourself, which explains why it is so fucked up (to an extend that I rather not playing latest games than booting into Windows and wait for each programs to update). The amount of duplication of effort is just unreasonable from the user's point of view. Again, this is not just about disk space, it is about updating, keeping thing fresh. And, remember, after all, you DO WANT the applications to share stuffs!
>To me, the issue of managing applications for GNU/Linux is rather a done deal. Yes, there are some possible improvements (for example, some mechanism to allow mutiple version of an application to co-exist on a system, or "functional" management), but the basic system works very reliably.

Post edited on 16th Jan 2021, 9:49am
>> No. 2191 [Edit]
Another comment from that review.
>The filesystem should be intuitive, someone who has never used the system before should be able look at it and be able to instantly have a basic understanding of what is where.
>I find it strange that people are trying so hard to make linux into a desktop OS, and then resist as hard as they can any thought of changing the innate organizational shortcomings which confuse anyone who doesn't wish to spent the time to memorize its archaic "logic".
>Instead they spent many hours making layer after layer to try and hide these things from the user. If you have to hide stuff in a "user friendly" OS, it is not user friendly.
>> No. 2192 [Edit]
> because the filesystem is the database: each program resides in its own directory.
That sounds really similar to how osx's container system works. Each application is assigned its own container in ~/Library/Containers so it's hermetically isolated (osx enforces that an app doesn't write outside its container). In fact even without containers osx has a general rule: preference plists go in ~/Library/Preferences, application-specific crap goes in ~/Library/Application Support/bundle_id, and the application itself is basically a self-contained bundle in /Applications. Almost every app uses this structure, and the only ones that deviate from it are (surprise surprise) apps ported from linux (*).

>apt and yum has resolve this problems ages ago
>To me, the issue of managing applications for GNU/Linux is rather a done deal.
Ha! Definitely a "done deal" that they invented (at least) three different container formats to work around how much of an issue this is (snap, flatpak, appimage). I'd argue that the whole docker craze generally came about from the difficulty of deploying applications because of dependency hell. The holy distro package manager works fine if you stick to the paved road (and are ok with obsolete, out-of-date packages), but the moment you want to install something that's not on there, good luck running around to get the right versions of the libraries you need. And pushing the burden back on the developer to create a deb package or yum archive or whatever is a terrible idea, because the packaging steps are tricky enough that nobody's going to bother.

>Can remove software by deleting a single directory rather than keeping track of where individual files have been installed.
That's the key issue. You need developer buy-in, which is basically non-existent in the linux world. There's the XDG spec but even that's rarely obeyed by applications. It's more of a social issue than a technical one, since getting the linux guys to agree on a standard.

(*) I'm using linux here in the colloquial sense, what pedantics would refer to as the userspace part. So things like ported gtk apps, random command line utilites, etc.
>> No. 2248 [Edit]
File 161773462035.gif - (1.36MB , 1680x1050 , c7ae4628947e280495af5b88f9908cf5.gif )
Somewhere else, I wrote about the shortcomings of an over reliance on repositories to easily install things, and somebody else said guix somehow solves this problem. Those posts have since been deleted. Does anybody here know what makes guix special in this regard? My original post:

The cold, hard truth is that Linux isn't popular in Japan for casual use. Even less so than in english speaking countries. And when you're utterly reliant on repositories, you're mostly out of luck when it comes to getting software that has anything to do with loli or otherwise pornographic content, since very few will want to host that in theirs. The ecosystem restricts people culturally, where everything has to go through an approval process to be easily accessible.
>> No. 2249 [Edit]
File 161774170772.png - (193.20KB , 1078x698 , ch.png )
That reminds me of that time someone from /g/ tried to spread the "gospel" of stallman on 2ch.

I'm not too familiar with guix, but I don't see how a purely functional package manager is supposed to help anything. In theory it's nice because your setup is completely reproducible by just the config file, but you still run into the same issue that if what you're looking for doesn't have a predefined package you'll have to create one (it seems that this would be even trickier than regular package managers because of the additional restrictions that would come from being reproducible, I'm not familiar with this so for all I know it could in fact actually be a breeze to create new packages). But either way when you have to create your own packages I don't think you can call that "straightforward."
>> No. 2250 [Edit]
File 161774683054.jpg - (245.93KB , 695x990 , b843631c5242b18722cab381cb80d46f.jpg )
I thought something like that would be case. Conceptually, maybe it does solve the problem of cultural censorship if a single, inconspicuous file is all you need for a package to be strung together somehow. Really not sure about that. If in practice, developers or users would have to go through too much of a hurdle, the point is moot.

Post edited on 6th Apr 2021, 3:13pm
>> No. 2251 [Edit]
Compiling works easily enough, as long as the creator bothered to create some kind of automatic dependency retrieval or, better, there being only a small amount of non-standard dependencies.
There's plenty of PPA repositories, they can't be that hard to establish for your own program if you want to. Only thing I'm missing is the ability to have a proxy set only for certain repositories, that'd enable seamless TOR/I2P repositories, thus solving the lolicon censorship problem.
>> No. 2252 [Edit]
It's easy when it's "./configure && make && make install" but usually the more obscure the software is and the more badly you need it, the more arcane its build system is: requiring specific versions of some outdated library or patches to even work on my system.
>> No. 2253 [Edit]
File 161777177483.jpg - (141.96KB , 500x500 , 440c342f358033f01afca52566b40271.jpg )
>There's plenty of PPA repositories
Aren't those version restricted? Someone can't make a PPA and leave it alone forever, they have to update it for every new version of the OS that comes out, or people running the newer version wont be able to use it. Unless I'm wrong about that. And how easy is it for someone to get something from a repository and then host it in their own? Easy exchange from one person to another like that is important.

On a side note, I don't think there's any such thing as a "public repository" anybody can add stuff to like there is with file uploading.
>> No. 2254 [Edit]
File 161808447791.png - (398.95KB , 1278x962 , hnnnnnnnnnnnnnng.png )
What? What the fuck? I tried...
>> No. 2255 [Edit]
Are you trying to install icecat in a particular directory, because that's what it seems that command is for. If you're just trying to install icecat, the easier way to go about doing it would just be using apt-get, like so: sudo apt-get install icecat
>> No. 2256 [Edit]
This is on the guix system, which uses the guix package manager. I wasn't aware the guix system also has the apt-get package manager included. I wanted to try guix for a bit to see how easy it is to use.

Also, sudo didn't work. I suspect because the user me isn't part of the sudo group or something, and I didn't feel like looking up how to add it.
>> No. 2257 [Edit]
Ah! Sorry if I was unhelpful... I thought you might be using a typical Linux distro.
>> No. 2258 [Edit]
File 161809143320.jpg - (188.47KB , 850x596 , sample_bc44e794df9bbde22946beac01186711.jpg )
No need to apologize. I didn't elaborate in that post.

It's funny how they word things in this part
>if you want to download and install a ready-to-use package on a GNU/Linux system, you should instead be using a package manager like yum(1) or apt-get(1)
Guix is supposed to solve a problem, but seems to do so in a way that creates another problem. Unless it's actually really simple and I just need to read a bit of the manual for it to make sense.
>> No. 2269 [Edit]
Appimages seem to be the best solution of the three in terms of replicating that experience by a large margin. I wouldn't know about its technical shortcomings though.

Post edited on 11th Apr 2021, 1:43pm
[Return] [Entire Thread] [Last 50 posts] [First 100 posts]

View catalog

Delete post []
Report post

[Home] [Manage]

[ Rules ] [ an / foe / ma / mp3 / vg / vn ] [ cr / fig / navi ] [ mai / ot / so / tat ] [ arc / ddl / irc / lol / ns / pic ] [ home ]