Why don't you use Linux ?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
When you buy a computer, it usually comes with an OS. People want to use a computer so it really doesn't matter to them -- you buy it, turn it on and use it.


I was in a computer store a couple of years back. They had lots of Windows 8 PCs there. I tried to run Notepad. Couldn't figure out how to do it without knowing the magic keyboard commands to run programs.

Modern Linux is far more 'Windows-like' than Windows is. For me, Windows is now just a way to run Media Composer, iTunes and games. Everything else is on Linux.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Originally Posted By: Kiwi_ME
Are you using Zoneminder for your cameras?

It's called iVTVision. It's actually by a Canadian company.

Thx for that, will keep it in mind for the future.
 
One weakness that bugs me, though, is that if you export video, it happens to use the .mov format, which is about as appetizing to a Linux user as .wmv would be.
wink.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
One weakness that bugs me, though, is that if you export video, it happens to use the .mov format, which is about as appetizing to a Linux user as .wmv would be.
wink.gif



As long as the codecs used within that .mov container are cool (even h264 and AAC as long as you have the codecs installed); it is almost trivial to change the container format in Linux. FFMPEG and on of its GUI's would do the trick for you; even in batches.
 
I can easily convert, but the software itself is proprietary, so I don't know what it would take to get the software to output "something else." I can easily convert any .mov file to whatever floats my boat with FFMPEG and WinFF. It's not like a Quicktime file is hard for me to view, but some insurance adjusters lack certain skills, let's say. Considering they have zero idea about how to deal with a split rar file over email, and I have to hand deliver this stuff to them on a CD or DVD, I might as well convert it anyhow. I joked to one that I should just convert the videos to Super 8 film, since I darn well know he has a projector in his attic and it's more his speed.
wink.gif
 
If computers came with no OS and you had to load your own, Windows would be a minor player...doing a clean install is a waste of a day. I can install Mint or Ubuntu in 15-20 minutes and have a fully functioning machine. I can even install Arch completely in less time than Windows.

Windows only dominates because of past business practices where they forced computer companies to use Windows on all or none of their products. This forced monopoly killed off almost all the competitors (some of which were way better than Windows). They've stayed on top because it's what people know and so that is what they ask for. But it is slipping away. At the low end, Chrome OS is winning. It will be even better as it merges with Android. And at the high end Mac OSX has taken a big chunk of business away. Windows basically lives in the $400-$1000 range of computers and laptops...only because they have almost no competition in this price range.

But look what happens when people have a choice on other computer devices...Windows hasn't made a dent in phones and just a minor one at best on tablets (at the high end). That's because they haven't been allowed to control manufacturers like they did 20 years ago. People like Android (Linux based) and iOS better because they are a better.
 
I would agree with that. Hand a person a computer with no OS and a sealed Windows package when they do their purchase. I suspect the frustration level would be monumental, and the Best Buy geek squad or whatever would be run off their feet.
 
Microsoft is working hard to keep Microsoft products in front of college students. At least at the two colleges my wife is affiliated with. Even giving away Office access now. School email uses outlook.
 
Originally Posted By: BikeWhisperer
People like Android (Linux based) and iOS better because they are a better.


I love my Chromebook, but don't use it for everything. I use Chrome OS where Chrome OS is the best fit. I use Android where Android is the best fit. I use Windows where Windows is the best fit. I've used so many OSes over my life time (every one mentioned in this thread), and I've determined that not one of them is better or worse than others -- each is simply different. Some excel at some tasks more than others. And some will be a better fit for different people depending on their demands.

Just like in the automotive world -- there are few absolutes. I take any blanket statement with a grain of salt, any statement that says, "oh, this one over here is factually better than that one over there." That's like bench racing. What might look good on paper doesn't always translate to a good real-world experience for everybody.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
I would agree with that. Hand a person a computer with no OS and a sealed Windows package when they do their purchase. I suspect the frustration level would be monumental, and the Best Buy geek squad or whatever would be run off their feet.


Well, if that was the case Microsoft would just make it more friendly to install. Why should they waste their time on that when it isn't the business model since it comes installed on almost every machine in the store?

99% of the world have no idea what Linux/Mint/etc is, have no clue it would be easy install, etc.
 
Well, at one time, installing an OS used to be part of the process. And, one can still buy an OS separately (or get a free one). I'm not sure if Microsoft would make it more user friendly to install, if post purchase OS installation became the norm. They would be well served to do so, if that were the case, but I'm not sure that would be the case. I've seen some pretty kludgy things in MS's past, and given that I'm talking about MS, that's saying something.

Apple and MS have no idea how lucky they are that the pendulum didn't swing far enough to get the OS decoupled from the computer. Well, I hope they do have an idea, but one never knows.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak

Apple and MS have no idea how lucky they are that the pendulum didn't swing far enough to get the OS decoupled from the computer. Well, I hope they do have an idea, but one never knows.


One of Apple's strengths(make what you will of it, but it's a strength none the less) is that they control both the hardware and software.

Part of the stability of OS X(although not all of it) can be attributed to this-by only having to support a limited degree of hardware, they can make sure it works very well with that hardware.

BTW, unlike Windows, OS X installs are pretty much agnostic to what system they are installed-I've cloned or swapped drives from dramatically different hardware with no ill effects provided that the version was fully supported on both systems. As an extreme example-and as a proof of concept for naysayers-I've cloned OS X Leopard(10.5) back and forth between a Titanium Powerbook(c. 2002) and a Macbook(late 2007). It works the same whether I use the retail disk to install on the Powerbook or gray(system specific) disk for the Macbook. By doing that, I'm going between two computers that are drastically different-in fact about the only thing in common is that they're both laptops! Most significantly, they use totally different processor architectures.

Installs of the Mac OS-whether "Classic" versions or OS X-are unbelievably easy. Granted when you get back to System 6 it's really just a matter of copying and pasting the system folder then making sure it's blessed, but still later "classic" versions are simple can often be done with a simple drag/drop/bless operation(and sometimes blessing isn't even necessary depending on what's needed). I did about 5 clean OS 9 installs last Tuesday for a co-worker who's using a G3 to run some very expensive equipment-we spent the day swapping hard drives so that I could do the install from the one in my office and then let him test a "tweak" of the install on his computer(and minimize downtime). With the exception of OS X 10.0, which was a science-fair experiment that Apple had the audacity to charge $130 for, and with "hacked" versions modified to work on computers aren't officially supported(i.e. 10.9 on the Mac Pro 1,1 in my office) I've yet to to find a version of the Mac OS that didn't "just work" and install without trouble and in minimal time. Leopard(10.5) was the worst since it has physically the largest footprint and installs from a DVD, but it takes about 45 minutes. I did a clean install of 10.11(El Capitan) on a friend's Retina Macbook Pro and it took all of about 10 minutes to zip from the USB 3.0 flash drive to the PCIe solid state drive in the computer. Something like Mavericks(10.9), still my favorite, takes 20-30 minutes over USB 2.0 onto a platter drive.

Newer Macs now even let you do a clean install over the internet-just launch "Internet Recover" and the computer talks to Apple's servers and reinstalls the OS that shipped.
 
The internet restore is a pretty darned good idea. I can have a Linux distro going in well under half an hour. As I've mentioned on the forum before, the HP printer install went more smoothly on Linux, as of late, than it did on Windows, and the NIC on the second last computer worked fine plug and play in Linux, but certainly not in XP.
 
Ive done the internet install thing with Linux, too. I always keep around a copy of Ultimate Boot CD and I had a server machine I was testing, so I booted that, and was able to netboot from the menu the installer for CentOS. It was slow over my 24mbit internet service, but probably faster in reality compared to downloading the whole DVD, burning it, and installing it. I was only installing a minimal set of packages so it saved a fair bit I presume. Im not sure where it was netbooting the install DVD from, but, it worked well enough. CentOS wasn't the only choice, either.
Of course, who wants that RHEL based garbage on their machine? I later decided I was keeping the server and wiped CentOS off so I could install Gentoo. Installing that is in a whole 'nother league. If it was a fast machine, I could probably have a minimal install in...an hour? Thats just basic it-boots-to-the-terminal functionality. To get a fully built machine with a desktop..another 12-14 hours? Depends on processor speed.

I don't see why the speed of the install is an issue with windows anyway. I don't find myself refeshing it on a monthly basis or anything. The only time I remember reinstalling windows lately is when a hard drive has bit it.
 
Last edited:
That's pretty cool. I never tried that. Yes, I suppose speed could be limiting, but it would be better than having Windows 98 SP1 and trying to download the rest of updates on dialup, I assure you.
wink.gif


Well, install speed really isn't that big of a deal, I suppose, in the grand scheme of things. But, it is nice to be able to do a fresh install in a fairly short period of time, especially if something happens to go wrong. I don't do a lot of refreshing either, but when I do, I'd rather not it take up the better part of a day.
 
One other thing on OS X:

The last three versions have been free, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Apple has also been on a "rapid"(~1 year) release cycle since Mountain Lion(10.8) came out in the fall of 2011. I suspect that the move to "free" upgrades since 10.9(along with no change in system requirements since 10.8) has been done as a means of strongly "encouraging" folks to run the newest OS. This frees Apple from having to maintain security updates for older versions(which historically has extended to the two previous versions). Realistically, I probably have 8-9 more months with 10.9(still my preferred OS) before the security updates stop, at which point I will have to bite the bullet and upgrade. Productivity apps like Office 2016 may also push me there. I have enough computers that I can(and do) run the most current version on so that I'm at least familiar with them, but "where the rubber meets the road" and I'm actually getting work done, I prefer 10.9.

Granted, again, OS X is a special case since it is intimately integrated with the hardware and legally can't be installed on anything but Apple hardware. For that matter, there's only one version of OS X-Snow Leopard Server(10.6) that's legal to virtualize, and I suspect that's done to retain some path for legacy support of PowerPC software(10.6 was the last version with a PowerPC emulator).
 
Over the years I've had a few Linux stations. Hardly plug and play.. getting better yes but still not perfect. Just don't have the time to play with it anymore. My main station is a Mac and it works great and would like to add another downstairs for the kids. I have XP and 7 on Virtual Box for my class activities with no issue's. If I were to build and quick box for a website or file server I'd go with Linux.. but no need for it.
 
Part of it, I find, is watching what you buy. I specifically chose an HP printer known the work completely in Linux, with complete HP support for that. That saved a lot of grief. The NIC I mentioned was thankfully plug and play. They included Linux drivers on the CD, but I fell out of my chair when I saw that there were actually three source code packages, which I'd have to compile and see which I needed. Fortunately, that wasn't the case.
 
Originally Posted By: Garak
Part of it, I find, is watching what you buy. I specifically chose an HP printer known the work completely in Linux, with complete HP support for that. That saved a lot of grief. The NIC I mentioned was thankfully plug and play. They included Linux drivers on the CD, but I fell out of my chair when I saw that there were actually three source code packages, which I'd have to compile and see which I needed. Fortunately, that wasn't the case.


My experience is that HP has the best driver support at least of anyone in the consumer market. I tend to gravitate toward their printers for that very reason.

I find it oddly satisfying when I can log onto the HP website with a 15 year old laptop running a 10 year old OS(OS X Tiger) and download drivers for a printer I just took out of the box.
 
Yes, that is very helpful, or even hooking up a semi-modern printer to a much older computer with an older version of Linux. The only glitch I've found in Mint lately was that I needed to discover the printer myself as a USB printer, rather than have it do it itself. Two installs ago on Ubuntu, it was completely plug and play. This just required deleting the printer and redoing, which was no biggie.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom