-
Updated 2023-07-12: Hello, Guest! Welcome back, and be sure to check out this follow-up post about our outage a week or so ago.
Anybody use a Linux machine as their main desktop machine?
- Thread starter bmacsys
- Start date
QuadSix50
Well-known member
I'm sorry, but RPM has HARDLY the solution to this issue. Yum is still slow as hell, and it goes back to one of many packaging systems available. Personally, I prefer APT for packaging as it is much faster and does a better job of dependency resolution. The only benefit that RPMs have over DEBs is that they can roll back to earlier versions if something goes wrong, but I've rarely found myself in such a problem on a Debian-based distribution.
Whatever the GNU/Linux community does agree on as a standard, it must be something as easy to install as it is in Windows or Mac OS (this is what the people working towards a standard installation/uninstallation procedure are striving for). Until then, the various package management systems will continue to be the only solution and GNU/Linux's penetration will eventually flatten. Just my opinion.
porter
Well-known member
One of the naffest decisions for AIX was including support for RPMs, then having two conflicting packaging systems.
Years ago, long before Debian or RedHat existed there was a thing called the System V Packaging system, defined by AT&T, as used by Solaris today, (with the PaCkAge DaTaStReAm header). Seeing as Linux is more SysV than BSD it's a shame it was not adopted.
ealex79
Well-known member
You are right, there are other things, better things.
But this is what a Linux installation is, no central instance that smoothes things out. Microsoft decides about the API at al on Windows, Apple does on Mac OS. The Linux Kernel and the general UNIX and C interfaces are standardized, too. But then it totally breaks down.
In my opinion, the GNOME API's live in the late 80ies, Qt/KDE are too far from standard C++ to be really useful (tell me any *large*, real software using the KDE libs except KDE itself), X11 api protocols are just horror and nothing else, and it goes further to the configuration systems, they live in the 60's and 70's.
So still my point is: Linux systems make *great* server systems. Server program usually use C/C++ plus maybe some scripting language, don't need an GUI, are configured once in a way that makes text files are just better than a GUI, and run really, really good under Linux.
And Mac OSm and I think Vista too.. are just fine for desktop usage. I think, better then Linux.
Unknown_K
Well-known member
That is one nice system, I just got a Sun Ultra 5 myself but basically a stock config.
Was wondering if you know of any places online to get Solaris 8? I got 9 from SUN but 8 isn't there (just 9/10). Currently I installed Debian and it works nicely, but I want to try an older Solaris and 8 seems to be a good start.
QuadSix50
Well-known member
Lots of open source applications use the Qt library, even in Windows. Even Maemo (which is used by the Nokia N-series) is moving over to Qt. From comparisons that I've read on GTK vs Qt, Qt is a lot easier to program for compared to GTK. Most of the open source music applications, jabber clients like Psi, and standalone productivity apps like Scribus that I've seen have been coded in Qt. Heck, even KDE is being ported to Windows!
This thread in the Ubuntuforums gets into a discussion about GTK vs Qt, as someone had asked which would be better to code for (if you can ignore the bickering back and forth parts
).http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=138936
This is subjective. Many would argue that any of the open source BSDs would trump GNU/Linux in the server space. And for some, Mac OS X and Vista are just not flexible enough as the available desktop flavors in both the GNU/Linux and BSD worlds. I get along just fine in Ubuntu, sometimes to the point where it just bores me (even though it has the same potential as any other GNU/Linux distribution) that I look to more challenging distributions. (Thank goodness for choice!) But that unnoticeable boring factor about Ubuntu is enough for my soon-to-be 7-year-old to use it daily without hassle.
ChristTrekker
Well-known member
I have that card in my U5 too. I wish I could get it working under Solaris 10.
I don't want to downgrade to 8 just to (occasionally) use that card.conceitedjerk
Well-known member
Well, the SunPCi card WILL work under Solaris 9, so you won't have to downgrade too far
It won't work right out of the box, mind you, but all it takes is creating a few symbolic links to get it to function. Instructions are floating around the net, thankfully!
It won't work right out of the box, mind you, but all it takes is creating a few symbolic links to get it to function. Instructions are floating around the net, thankfully!
ChristTrekker
Well-known member
I've followed those instructions, which are rumored to work with 10 as well. Unfortunately, I think rumor is all it is. I've found no conclusive confirmations of it. If, as stated above, 9 is just a tidier 8, then downgrading from 10 (sounds like it) really is fairly significant.Well, the SunPCi card WILL work under Solaris 9, so you won't have to downgrade too far
It won't work right out of the box, mind you, but all it takes is creating a few symbolic links to get it to function. Instructions are floating around the net, thankfully!
conceitedjerk
Well-known member
I can tell you, with over a dozen failed attempts under my belt, that the SunPCi will not work under Solaris 10.
I HAVE gotten it to work with Solaris 9, though.
I HAVE gotten it to work with Solaris 9, though.
ChristTrekker
Well-known member
techfury90
Well-known member
It works with 9 very well. 10 is epic fail.
This is a bit of an old post but I thought I might add my $0.02 as well.
I do, on a regular basis, too... mostly because my only Mac, a Powermac 5500, is mouseless. It's also missing the right hand speaker cover, and I want to be able to use a remote control with it as well.
But in terms of what I think of Linux... it's the best software implementation of an FPGA we'll ever get. FPGAs are hard to program, but can do almost anything. In the same way people speak of Web 2.0, FPGAs are almost certainly destined to become version 2.0 of the CPU; Linux has the makings of being version 2.0 of what people expect from an OS.
I don't think for one second that commercial software is a good idea. Sure, it puts you ahead of any competition, but it also discriminates who can and can't legally use your software - whoever will (or won't, for whatever reason, be it financial or otherwise) pay the license fee for it. Extending off of that, I find that, in an ideal world, I'd have computing in the mess it's already in any day but without EULAs, licensing fees, royalties or anything of the like.
I accept that a computer is what it is - a spatial object that required money to be paid before the various parts that built it were able to be obtained - but I believe that software is different. If you write a gigantic, amazing program then your computer is stolen, you no longer have that program unless you make backups.
This is the primary difference I see between hardware and software and is also the main driving force behind my firm belief in free software - computers should be fun and open in all aspects of usage, and commercial software removes all the fun and just turns the whole experience into a sour, over-driven, characterless tirade.
That doesn't mean Linux is already perfect. Linux is not an operating system; it's a kernel, that I might add conforms to standards that were written in the late 50s/early or mid 60s: UNIX. So is OS X. UNIX is a pretty good specification - it was written just before the world lost all precept of doing things well, and so its simple philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" has lived on. But, although that simple directive is a very good one, times are changing. Us lot see Rhapsody or System 1.1 and see character, essence, care; someone else will, at best, see the oldest screen they ever saw and at worst say "ooh, is that the next version of Windows?" (well maybe not but you never know).
We see the fundamentals of good UI design, crafted with some of the last strands of character and care that exist in the earth. Others, sadly, won't appreciate it. Nowadays, people just want fancy UIs with a lot of shiny graphics - and there are a fair share of rather interesting/odd graphic design concepts out there for the taking for anyone who wants them - but they are increasingly being based on constructs that are more and more empty - just take a look at a reasonably modern version of OS X. There are way more flaws to be found today than there used to be. But I'm not dissing Apple. I'm just saying that even the best, because of where we're at now, are starting to fail.
And Linux has hardly anyone on board with more than a passing cursory glance at the fundamentals of core UI interaction design (except for people like this guy, who made an excellent writeup of UNIX and other platforms and where they stand UI-wise), so desktop Linux is the worst offering for the PC screen that we've ever seen. There are of course the occasional fleeting moments where someone - or a group of people - get a really inspirational idea, like the KDE 4.x startup splashscreen, and there are some really impressive examples of reasonably solid-looking UIs available for Linux (such as, again KDE 4), but for the most part, what UI componentry Linux has available for it is designed by geeks, for geeks. And since alot of the people on board the Linux bandwagon are overly biased or heavily one-sided, many people have a strong dislike or like toward this group or that technology, so I wouldn't be surprised if I get at least one "but GNOME is better". This hampers everyone's ability to move forward - the freedom to be found in Linux is pressuring everyone into finding true perfection out of what should be perceived perfection, over-biasing everyone to one thing or another.
Therefore, as Linux stands now, the open source kernel is mostly suited for servers - as time has proven - and embedded situations, and, like you've most likely deduced from the paragraphs above, I have no problems with saying that Linux is not completely ready for the desktop.
But, thankfully, once I get some exposure to a computer that is both affordable and heavily geared toward rendering visual material, I'll start work on some mockups for a user interface that I've been working on in my head for the past few years and would probably put Linux in a prime position to be more ready for the desktop than ever.
-dav7
I do, on a regular basis, too... mostly because my only Mac, a Powermac 5500, is mouseless. It's also missing the right hand speaker cover, and I want to be able to use a remote control with it as well.
But in terms of what I think of Linux... it's the best software implementation of an FPGA we'll ever get. FPGAs are hard to program, but can do almost anything. In the same way people speak of Web 2.0, FPGAs are almost certainly destined to become version 2.0 of the CPU; Linux has the makings of being version 2.0 of what people expect from an OS.
I don't think for one second that commercial software is a good idea. Sure, it puts you ahead of any competition, but it also discriminates who can and can't legally use your software - whoever will (or won't, for whatever reason, be it financial or otherwise) pay the license fee for it. Extending off of that, I find that, in an ideal world, I'd have computing in the mess it's already in any day but without EULAs, licensing fees, royalties or anything of the like.
I accept that a computer is what it is - a spatial object that required money to be paid before the various parts that built it were able to be obtained - but I believe that software is different. If you write a gigantic, amazing program then your computer is stolen, you no longer have that program unless you make backups.
This is the primary difference I see between hardware and software and is also the main driving force behind my firm belief in free software - computers should be fun and open in all aspects of usage, and commercial software removes all the fun and just turns the whole experience into a sour, over-driven, characterless tirade.
That doesn't mean Linux is already perfect. Linux is not an operating system; it's a kernel, that I might add conforms to standards that were written in the late 50s/early or mid 60s: UNIX. So is OS X. UNIX is a pretty good specification - it was written just before the world lost all precept of doing things well, and so its simple philosophy of "do one thing and do it well" has lived on. But, although that simple directive is a very good one, times are changing. Us lot see Rhapsody or System 1.1 and see character, essence, care; someone else will, at best, see the oldest screen they ever saw and at worst say "ooh, is that the next version of Windows?" (well maybe not but you never know).
We see the fundamentals of good UI design, crafted with some of the last strands of character and care that exist in the earth. Others, sadly, won't appreciate it. Nowadays, people just want fancy UIs with a lot of shiny graphics - and there are a fair share of rather interesting/odd graphic design concepts out there for the taking for anyone who wants them - but they are increasingly being based on constructs that are more and more empty - just take a look at a reasonably modern version of OS X. There are way more flaws to be found today than there used to be. But I'm not dissing Apple. I'm just saying that even the best, because of where we're at now, are starting to fail.
And Linux has hardly anyone on board with more than a passing cursory glance at the fundamentals of core UI interaction design (except for people like this guy, who made an excellent writeup of UNIX and other platforms and where they stand UI-wise), so desktop Linux is the worst offering for the PC screen that we've ever seen. There are of course the occasional fleeting moments where someone - or a group of people - get a really inspirational idea, like the KDE 4.x startup splashscreen, and there are some really impressive examples of reasonably solid-looking UIs available for Linux (such as, again KDE 4), but for the most part, what UI componentry Linux has available for it is designed by geeks, for geeks. And since alot of the people on board the Linux bandwagon are overly biased or heavily one-sided, many people have a strong dislike or like toward this group or that technology, so I wouldn't be surprised if I get at least one "but GNOME is better". This hampers everyone's ability to move forward - the freedom to be found in Linux is pressuring everyone into finding true perfection out of what should be perceived perfection, over-biasing everyone to one thing or another.
Therefore, as Linux stands now, the open source kernel is mostly suited for servers - as time has proven - and embedded situations, and, like you've most likely deduced from the paragraphs above, I have no problems with saying that Linux is not completely ready for the desktop.
But, thankfully, once I get some exposure to a computer that is both affordable and heavily geared toward rendering visual material, I'll start work on some mockups for a user interface that I've been working on in my head for the past few years and would probably put Linux in a prime position to be more ready for the desktop than ever.
-dav7
QuadSix50
Well-known member
But....but.....GNOME is better! :lol:
I kid, I kid. I have to be honest that I do enjoy pretty much all of the desktop environments and window managers out there (I can even appreciate twm for what it is, and it has been useful to me when I've needed it). I do think that GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop, but that statement varies for the targeted audience. But even that is kind of blurry. My kids do use an Ubuntu distribution on their PC, and they're happy with it. My two older sons (ages 7 and 4) get along pretty well with it, and if they have any questions they pretty much come to me. I think it's a matter of having that support system that is ubiquitous with Windows. Not so much commercial support from a vendor, but that personal support from a friend who is well-versed on the OS. The same is the case with the Mac. My friends are pretty lucky IMO that they know someone who is well-versed in the three major platforms (Windows, OS X, GNU/Linux), and were I to install a desktop-oriented distribution on their computer, I believe that they can rest assured that if a problem occurs that they get the answers they need from me.
So far, the issues have been few and far between with GNU/Linux than with Windows. I've gotten more requests recently for Windows issues than I've gotten from my kids with their Ubuntu PC. Now, I'm sure that's hardly a worthy comparison, but when the issues I've addressed between the two platforms are compared, there is a definite difference.
I kid, I kid.
I have to be honest that I do enjoy pretty much all of the desktop environments and window managers out there (I can even appreciate twm for what it is, and it has been useful to me when I've needed it). I do think that GNU/Linux is ready for the desktop, but that statement varies for the targeted audience. But even that is kind of blurry. My kids do use an Ubuntu distribution on their PC, and they're happy with it. My two older sons (ages 7 and 4) get along pretty well with it, and if they have any questions they pretty much come to me. I think it's a matter of having that support system that is ubiquitous with Windows. Not so much commercial support from a vendor, but that personal support from a friend who is well-versed on the OS. The same is the case with the Mac. My friends are pretty lucky IMO that they know someone who is well-versed in the three major platforms (Windows, OS X, GNU/Linux), and were I to install a desktop-oriented distribution on their computer, I believe that they can rest assured that if a problem occurs that they get the answers they need from me.So far, the issues have been few and far between with GNU/Linux than with Windows. I've gotten more requests recently for Windows issues than I've gotten from my kids with their Ubuntu PC. Now, I'm sure that's hardly a worthy comparison, but when the issues I've addressed between the two platforms are compared, there is a definite difference.
porter
Well-known member
I think "Is Linux ready for the desktop?" is a really crap question. The current crop of linux distributions are better than Win3.1, WinNT 3.5, Win 95 etc, but apparently those were all ready for the desktop. What we have is a case of continually moving goal posts and expectations.
A more reasonable question is "Will Linux meet your needs?".
A more reasonable question is "Will Linux meet your needs?".
