What is Digg?201 Comments
- thtroyer, on 10/10/2007, -5/+32I don't like Windows/Vista either, but isn't it a bit unrealistic to think that Linux is the end-all solution for everyone?
- Ramzy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26"The operating system takes up at least 60 GBytes of disk space"
Last i checked, Vista doesn't require 60GB of HDD space. In fact, a full Vista install + updates uses about 16GB give or take. If you disable automatic system restore, you'll go down to about 11GB. - antitab, on 10/10/2007, -6/+26This is a terrible article. If you can get past the trivial grammatical errors, the content isn't much more correct.
"On Linux, regardless of the distribution, music will play, movies will run"
Unless you happen to live in a country where non-Xiph codecs are illegal to distribute without a license.
"(Vista) takes up at least 60 GBytes of disk space"
What?
"Vista's Aero ... doesn't make an application run faster, does it?"
Yes, it does, assuming you have a decent supply of RAM. That's the whole point of GPU acceleration.
"Regardless of what version is installed, or where it came from, a Linux machines will work."
Unless you have an unsupported or obscure hardware configuration. Then you're screwed.
"Increasing number of available applications for Linux have made it easier to get away from bloated Windows applications. Dislike the ribbon? Abandon Microsoft Office and come over to Open Office."
Oh awesome, from one slow, bloated app to another! Sign me up!
"GIMP 2.2, a powerful application similar to Adobe's Photoshop in terms of it features."
lol no.
"So there you have it. Linux is better than Vista."
Okay, what?
The author also manages to make himself look like a jackass with comments like, "Doesn't seem to be getting anywhere with that world domination plan, though." - GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+21That's unrealistic. This is quite possibly the most biased article ever written.
1. Hardware requirements: Linux doesn't require a lot of memory or the beefiest graphics card on the market just to get up and running.
"In contrast, some flavors of Linux can run on a box with as little as 64 Mbytes of RAM and a 486 processor. That's Linux with a graphical user interface, too."
It's not going to be *NEARLY* as powerful as Vista / Ubuntu running on a faster computer, so why is this statement here? It's like saying, "my Jetta gets 30MPG so it can beat your Ferrari". It's a pathetic cop-out / straw man's argument.
2. Security: Antivirus and anti-spyware applications are not necessary on Linux boxes, but are essentially required on Vista machines.
Why doesn't this mention that it's easier to hack a Linux box than a Windows box, and that the protection from getting hacked on Linux is experience with the system, the same thing that protects Vista users from spyware? If you know how to use a computer, you're not going to be getting hacked on Linux or spyware on Windows.
3. No limitations: Linux doesn't restrict how content is used on the system.
"For example, Vista has copy protection technology for HD-DVD and Blu-ray disks. ".
Linux can't even ***** *PLAY* HD-DVDs or Blu-Rays! Who the ***** wrote this article? The "EVIL DRM!!!" that came with Vista were decryption keys that decrypted various formats. And, by the way, after the old keys were leaked on to Digg, they changed them and Vista was updated.
4. It's all Genuine: There's no such thing as Linux Genuine Advantage.
This is one event that lasted for about half an hour, and only affected a slice of Vista users. There are three XP computers and two Vista computers in this house, none of them went down.
5. Get the apps, already: Increasing number of available applications for Linux have made it easier to get away from bloated Windows applications.
Like what, GIMP, FireFox and OpenOffice? Three apps that are available on Windows too? - kent1146, on 10/10/2007, -7/+20Let's be quite honest here. Vista is designed for the mass-market. Linux is not mass-market for several reasons, including the requirement of having knowledge and complementary software that not everybody has right off the bat. Shouldn't your statement sound more like:
"Vista is a disgusting monstrosity. Downloading a Linux ISO, installing Linux, downloading all of your drivers, installing all of your drivers, learning command line to know how to recompile your kernel, learning what to do if your OS doesn't have all of the components pre-installed (like gcc), finding out that not all of your devices are supported and having to resort to forums and user-made drivers for support, finding and/or buying Linux-compatible replacements of all of the software you need, learning how to install those, learning how to use Wine / Cedega just to get a 6-month old Windows game running, resorting to forums as your primary line of support (sorry, Grandma... Linux doesn't have a 1-800 number for you to call. You can't even speak to someone in India about your problem, let alone someone in the US).
Wouldn't the more practical solution be "Vista is a disgusting monstrosity, Windows XP is obviously the superior choice?" - GawtMilk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13Ah, sorry, just another note.
The technical innacuracies in this article are :
"The operating system takes up at least 60 GBytes of disk space, and needs at least 64 Mbytes video RAM."
The operating system takes up 12GBytes, and needs NO video RAM. You need VRAM for higher resolutions or Aero support.
"The common Linux distributions take up only 1.5 Gbytes of disk space. "
The more common Linux distribution, Ubuntu, needs 8GB of space.
"Vista uses 256 Mbytes just for screen rendering alone, and that's not even at optimum levels. That's a lot of memory just for graphics."
Well, Vista uses the GPU -- that's true. However, it only uses 256MB if you're trying to add all the effects. If you are running 800x600 without any effects, it uses less than 64MB -- just like you'd expect with Linux.
"These DRM features can slow down the computer, cause technical support problems, and conflict with peripheral hardware and existing software."
That's not true. These DRM features kick in when the HD-DVD or Blu-Ray asks for them. On Linux, these DRM features don't kick in and the media won't play.
"Vista's DRM can interfere with all kinds of computer use, including the ones that have nothing to do with digital rights. "
Unless the file has embedded DRM, and needs a key, Vista doesn't effect the file. If you've got an unencrypted, DRM-free .MP3 file, and you double click it, it will load in it's respective program and play. Nothing else.
"Related to the first point about system resources, Vista is continually monitoring itself to ensure compliance. That costs the CPU. "
Like, thirty cycles out of billions. There's no noticeable effect.
"Most Linux distributions come with GIMP 2.2, a powerful application similar to Adobe's Photoshop in terms of it features."
GIMP sucks. I've used it. Plus, you can get it on Windows. - myak, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Aren't you bored with this? "Five ways Linux is better than Vista", "Ten reasons to switch from Vista to Linux", "Eight ways to be a nerd" and such. I suppose everyone here knows already that Linux is so much better than Vista, in so many ways, virtually every imaginable way, it's faster, it's prettier, more stable, less prone to user errors, has no UAC, it's free as in beer and as in speech, no spyware, no adware, no viruses, no trojans, you don't need games because everyone has a console and plays on it and PC gaming is obsolete (or it isn't, then you can use cedega and it works just fine), has perfect package management (depends on distro but each and every one is better than that in Vista), lower hardware requirements, improving hardware support, no DRM, no piracy warnings because it's all legal, no supporting evil MS, more control over your PC if you want it and more clear and usable tools if you just want to click through everything, more configuration options.
Have I covered everything? I hope so, at least for all the major things I suppose. Now, you can stop posting those topics, it's so boring and everyone on Digg knows it already. So, it's not Digg readers you need to convince, it's the rest of the world, who apparently doesn't read Digg because they still use and buy Windows. Go and enlighten them, not us.
(Sorry for the anger, I use Linux in two flavors myself but I have had enough of this ***** already.) - evilregis, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Of all of the things to bust Linux on, installing applications is NOT one of them. Package management systems make it monkey proof. No finding/downloading an executable. No Next, Next, Next, Next. Just search for what you want -- "mp3 player" and put a check beside whichever one you choose -- Apply.
Now that's not to say Linux is flawless, but seriously... application installation is one of its highest points in my opinion. - sabach, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15I only need one reason...$0.00.
- kent1146, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14I can go out and buy a 500GB hard drive for 90 bucks. I'm not really too concerned whether my OS takes up 3GB, or 11GB, or 16GB, or 50GB. That extra dozen or so GB of space is NOT going to make me think "Oh my god! 11GB! My precious hard drive space! I'm going to switch to Linux, and deal with the forum-based support, hit-or-miss drivers, and requirement that I learn a totally new OS and download totally new software! It's SO worth it for that extra 8GB of space I get!"
- daftman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10No, it's not the end-all solution for everyone. But it is an alternative solution to Vista.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -25/+35Vista is a disgusting monstrosity, Linux is obviously the superior choice.
- Hale, on 10/10/2007, -10/+19I just installed kubuntu a few hours ago, and I could already list 5 things that Vista does better.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Disk fragmentation being a perfect example.
- maz2331, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Defragmentation is not necessary with EXT3 or Reiser filesystems.
- tehKnivage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10Are you living in the past? Sure, Linux is far from perfect, but aren't most things?
"Downloading a Linux ISO, installing Linux"
For some distros so as the 'buntu family and debian you can simply download an exe that installs it without the need to manage formatting and such. If you do download/burn an iso, using something like Ubuntu to install is *very* easy. Don't know what Vista install is like but *heaps* easier than XP's.
"installing all of your drivers"
With Ubuntu I only installed video drivers. And it was easier than XP.
"learning command line to know how to recompile your kernel"
W...T...F? Command line knowledge is almost non-essential and I've been using Linux for several years and compiling my kernel has NEVER been required.
"learning what to do if your OS doesn't have all of the components pre-installed (like gcc)"
okay, sorta alright and I did use the command line here, but one line:
apt-get install build-essential
Google is your best friend. Also, this implies that someone has chosen to compile from source rather than using debs/repositries.
"finding and/or buying Linux-compatible replacements of all of the software you need"
For the basic user, Ubuntu comes with everything you need really. OpenOffice, Firefox, GAIM (Pidgin in Gutsy I would think). Sure, people need more than this but there's just the "add/remove" apps thing which has most of what you need. Are you saying that Windows comes with all your software?
"...learning how to install those"
Double clicking a deb hardly requires decent computer knowledge.
"learning how to use Wine / Cedega just to get a 6-month old Windows game running"
If you want Windows games, use Windows. Simple. I do, I dual boot (setting this up is NOT difficult, and if you can't work it out and can't get it working, stick with XP).
"resorting to forums as your primary line of support"
Is this somehow bad? And there IS phone support for distros like Ubuntu and Linux Mint (a Ubuntu derivative).
Okay, now I'm not trying to be a Linux zealot here. I'm typing this up in Windows and currently I'm spending most of my time in Windows right now. Also, I've largely referred to Ubuntu coz if you're just starting out, why would you use a different distro? - HUKI365, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Have you even USED Vista?
/bootcamped triple-boot Macbook - chestertonb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Just gonna chuck my 2 penneth in.
Just been been tentatively playing about with a new install of Ubuntu on a machine we are testing at work and I wanted to listen to some radio from the BBC. Now in their infinite wisdom the BBC like you to use real player (which is probably the worst piece of software known to man but hey ho) and the package management just wouldnt work. Now this is where Linux falls down for me, when the package management works its brilliant but when it doesnt you might aswell pray to Sun Gods to try and get something working.
"What I've got chmod the bin file and do what? Eh? What the ***** is a deb file? You want me to do what? Oh ***** this!!!11"
The above was my part of the conversation I had with a mate trying to get real player working. Now I'm relatively I.T. savvy but I lost the will to live and to me this is the exact reason why the likes of Ubuntu arent ready for major distribution.
Linux users to me seem to think themselves as part of an exclusive bunch whose sole reason in life is to tell you how good Linux is but not to fix all that ***** that stops it from being a genuine OS option in the average home or workplace.
When its comes down to a choice between Ubuntu or Vista then its a case of No thanks I'll stick with XP please, call me in about 2 years. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -11/+18I love Linux, I hate Vista.
BUT...installing an application on Vista is 'relatively' painless.
Installing an app on the average linux build involves friggin voodoo.
Look linux boys, get it sorted, get it painless, get it so my Mother can install linux apps, and you're on.
Otherwise...(fingers in ears shouting 'la la la doo doo doo' very loudly) - JasonCox, on 10/10/2007, -14/+21Look everyone, another 'Vista sucks, go *nix!' post on Digg! Quick, digg it up!
*eye roll* - brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10If you had a girlfriend you'd be spending time with her instead of tweaking your OS install.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -9/+15You know what is unrealistic? Believing your garbage. If linux was superior it would be capturing marketshare all over the place instead of just in the imaginations of digg users. Come back when it is.
- gmiley, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6One thing I noticed, he sort of compares apples to oranges with the "Hardware requirements" point. Of course you need better hardware for Vista, it's built to take advantage of that hardware. And if you are installing Linux on a 486 with 64MB of ram, guess what... you're running in console mode and probably only using it as small-load server, not a desktop work/play PC.I very much doubt you will be running a slick Gnome desktop.
- roxya, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I have to laugh whenever linux advocates compare GIMP to Photoshop.
- magic6435, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6wtf are all these Vista problems people keep talking about? ive been running it for 5 months with ZERO problems all hardware found on install rock stable much more than xp and that includes video editing with premier pro, modeling with Modo and maya, webdesign with RoR and gaming such as c&c3 and bioshock....
all you people bashing vista without ever using it need to stfu. - diggymow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Buried, oversight or not Vista does not take up 60Gig of space and never will. Also I'm tired of this free apps argument, almost all those apps are available free for Vista as well people just don't realize it. Also as has been stated the distro's with graphical features like Vista's have similar requirements to run them so the hardware comment isn't fair either.
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"downloading all of your drivers, installing all of your drivers, learning command line to know how to recompile your kernel, learning what to do if your OS doesn't have all of the components pre-installed (like gcc), finding out that not all of your devices are supported and having to resort to forums and user-made drivers for support..."
Dude, this isn't 1996. Just last week, I tried Ubuntu 7.10 Tribe 5 (an alpha release) and absolutely everything was detected and running by default - Compiz Fusion (fancy desktop effects) were even running flawlessly on the Live CD. I'm not so lucky - I had to install the nVidia Drivers (you click 'enable' in the Restricted Drivers Manager) and copy three commands from a web site to get my sucky wireless card to work... The only OS that I've had to download all my drivers for was Windows - my LAN card didn't even have to work - I had to boot in to my Ubuntu partition to download the drivers! Also, in four years of Linux use, I've never compiled a kernel, or had to compile any software (except for my own code, of course).
There are some problems, of course (nothing's perfect), the worst at the momentbeing ATI graphics cards, which is being fixed now, and some wireless chipsets.
"You can't even speak to someone in India about your problem, let alone someone in the US)."
You can get support from Canocal (Ubuntu), Red Hat, Novell (SuSE), or Dell, depending on the make of your PC and what distro you are using it. You just have to pay for it. - Binarydemon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It seems unfair to compare every distro of Linux to Vista. Like hardware requirements - the distro's designed to run well on older like DSL or PuppyLinux are more comparable to Win9x versions of windows in terms of looks/performance (granted better hardware support and stability than early window OS's). Similarly I find Ubuntu's hardware requirements to be on the steeper side- realistically a 1ghz processor and 512mb for a decent desktop experience.
The DRM issue wasnt created by Microsoft, they are simply willing to work with content providers. Linux distro's either ignore DRM content or provide a workaround of questionable legal standing. - brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9Here's another... my_time_value*hours_to_setup_and_maintain > cost_of_windows
Linux is only free if you live with your parents and are unemployed. When I was in college I played with lots of Linux distros. I was always amazed at how six hours could disappear just trying to get sound to work. - TotalHalibut, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It doesn't take much to be better than Vista. Try making the same post about XP. Whatever your reasons, they'll be trumped by
'I get to play games, and use things, and not have to ***** around in order to do so' - freexe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7Codecs install themselves in Ubuntu now. In fact Fawn is as ready as it needs to be.
I'm currently building two machines for family and friends, and for the first time they wont be windows boxes. I'm pretty sure it's going to be a lot less hassle to maintain them as well.
I might have to answer a few questions about anti-virus and firewalls, but the answers are pretty easy. - Fixthemedia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I run Ubuntu (typing from it as we speak). I just have to say its not perfect, just like any other OS. I am not a linux expert by any means, but when it comes to using a "desktop OS", I think everyones opinion matters. The reason I choose to run Ubuntu is because I support open source. I have run into less problems with XP than with MY experience with Ubuntu. I am not talking about navigation, or even installing and running programs, its just I my self have found legitimate bugs that I reported. If you don't like windows and what they are about, then run something else and stop complaining about it. The reason I believe linux fails is because most developers don't listen to the average user. There will always be the linux distros with the really hard learning curve, but in my eyes, none replace windows or OSX.
- simmux, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No. I'm simply saying that when we talk about OS X we know what we talk about; when we talk about Vista we also know; but when we talk about Linux we don't know which of the 231 billions of possible configurations we're talking about. It's simple. And all 5 points in the article are questionable. It very much depends on what you're going to do with your box:
1 - nonsense. I don't need a machine to "get up and runnig". I need it to do things. Everybody does. And, depending on what you need to do, it's not a fact that Linux needs less HW resources.
2 - security is an issue on Linux also. Again, it depends on what you deploy your machine for.
3 - same wprkarounds are available on Winboxes. Just Google
4 - "Regardless of what version is installed, or where it came from, a Linux machines will work." I won't even answer to this. It makes no sense...
5 - "Increasing number of available applications for Linux have made it easier to get away from bloated Windows applications". Again: no way. Or are you implying that Gimp is a viable substitute to Photoshop (and the list of wannabe Linux SW is endless)?
BTW: I own 3 macs and 2 Linux boxes. No Winboxes. - XIUgraag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+42GB swap file + 4GB install dvd backup (no need anymore for putting disk in when it needs drivers) + system restore points + a few gigs for the installation... is it really that bad?
- sabach, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm an IT professional, Linux is a part of my computer toolbox because my time is NOT cheap and it would irresponsible for me to not learn to use the best tools available. Linux gives me tools to do things that Windows never will. I don't know when you first started computing but think about this, how long did it take you to learn your way around Windows? I'd guess at least 25 hours. I'm going to learn all about Vista because I'll have to support it eventually, but so far I'm not impressed with it.
- Bloc, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5protip: you can get open source software for windows too.
- tdous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Because then you'd either be geek trendy with Linux or fake-gake trendy with Mac to show off to fellow Mac users and back-scratch and rub each other.
As it stands, you're a fairly average user who gets what they need from an O/S. Which isn't good enough. Apparently. - brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6More like: Just open this program, choose from a list, click install...wait a while, maybe get a dialog box, do some forum searches, find out what dependencies are missing, search for those files, try to figure out which version/kind of each file you need and where to put it, try the program again, still doesn't work because you need to change your OS config, do some more forum searches, try an obscure 37 character command off the forum, still doesn't work, etc.
- antitab, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'll ignore the unnecessary personal insults and cut right to your arguments:
"There are legal codecs for use in linux"
I'm not talking about win32codecs when I refer to unlicensed MPEG, Dolby, WMV etc codecs. Most (if not _all_) codecs, outside of those provided by Xiph, fall under definite patent and licensing terms which, in America and other countries, must be purchased by the distributor in order to be legally distributed. This is why most distros opt out of providing gstreamer-plugins-ffmpeg and the like by default -- because it's illegal.
"average HD space isn't in this range anymore"
I bought the MacBook I am currently using last June. It shipped with a 60 GB hard drive. Though that's not really relevant -- I was merely pointing out the glaring inaccuracy in the article. Vista takes 15GB max with all components.
"Aero is not an acceleration technology is USES acceleration technology"
You're completely missing the entire context of that quote. The article writer is using Aero in the context of its GPU accelerated nature. My rebuttal stands.
"This is a strange criticism since windows only supports modern hardware fully"
No it really isn't when you consider that Linux tends to only support ancient hardware fully.
"With Linux you will have full true colour and any resolution the card supports."
Not if the card was made any time in the last two years, most of the time. This is why Bulletproof X is such an improvement, because before it, while with windows you may have been stuck with 640x480 at 256 color (I have never seen Windows running in 16 color mode), with Linux if your card was unsupported you were greeted with a lovely terminal for a monitor and no non-ascii graphics whatsoever.
"(OO.org)'s footprint is considerably smaller than MS Office"
Show me some benchmarks, because I highly doubt this.
"The authors intent was to show that the Gimp is closer to photoshop than to paint."
Then he should have said that, rather than "GIMP's features approach Photoshop's" (paraphrased).
"We should be talking about core OS functionality and hardware support, not bundled software."
The article is about operating systems, not kernels. And what is an operating system but a kernel + bundled software? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I can have linux up and running with full driver/device support in as long as it takes the installer to install it.
- kotatsu, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I don't get the Vista hate, I really don't. I have Vista Home Premium on my new PC and it a) has Vista Media Center which talks to my Xbox for TV, XVID, Video Podcasts, music, photos etc, b) plays PC games, c) looks nice, and d) runs great. Why would I want to throw all that away and use Linux?
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4[insert open app here] doesn't exist without the close source apps making people money so they can go home on their spare time and build those linux drivers for you.
- insomniac8400, on 10/10/2007, -14/+17This argument is moot. XP trumps all.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3My total used space is about 14Gb which includes installed software and I have been using vista for about a month
- srg13, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"no Unreal Tournament 3... "
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px ... - brufleth, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It isn't a 1 to 1 replacement by any stretch of the imagination and unless you only use your computer to play solitaire and check your gmail account then you'll almost certainly spend more time tweaking a Linux install to get things working than you would in Vista.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6blah blah blah. nobody cares.
- BlackCow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3What a stupid article. I use Linux on my other computer and its good but just because its free doesn't make Vista a POS.
Compared to XP I've never had the thing crash, things load super fast (thank you super prefetch), and driver support is fine now (it was bad when it first came out) but honestly, Linux has pretty bad driver support to.
To be fair I am running this on a high end gaming PC. Games have all run fine except for EA's Battle Field 2, (which is a bit stuttery because it can't handle super prefetch) but I was getting tired of their bugs and lack of wide screen support anyway lol. Oh and COURSE they won't release a patch! - ladon86, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"And my experience with Linux (Ubuntu) is that it is far easier for non-tech people out of the box than Vista is"
Everyone has experience with Windows, not many have experience with Ubuntu.
I really think that you are deluded if you believe what you said - if you just say it to promote Linux, fair enough. -
Show 51 - 100 of 201 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is