I have been forced to because I am waiting for an replacement psu from eBay for my G4. I have been using Mint Linux. Its pretty good. All the stuff to watch DVD's and stuff is part of the install. Getting restricted drivers is simple. Install was painless. Wireless set up was very easy. Switching resolutions in my LCD works fine. Networking and file sharing was easy. Getting my LaserJet 4 M Plus with the JetDirect card going was simple. I rather use it than Windows XP. It isn't OS X but it gets the job done imho.
-
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've been running GNU/Linux exclusively on my PCs for about 3-4 years now and I've been happy since. My Athlon XP PC has been running Slackware exclusively since version 10, and my work laptop has been running Ubuntu since 5.10. Hardy is running swimmingly on my new work laptop, a Dell Latitude D630. I still have my iMac G5 for my OS X needs, but even that has been running in dual-boot with Kubuntu for a while now.
I like the idea of being able to use old hardware and it satisfies my urge to tinker. I scrounged most the box at my town dump. The motherboard slips my mind but the processor is an Athlon 2200 or something like that. I threw a gig of repurposed ram, a 80 gig drive and a 64 meg nVidia card in it. Its no gaming box but its more than fine for general duties.
QuadSix50
Well-known member
Yeah, I got a chuckle out of that question too.
I haven't tried OpenBSD but I have tried FreeBSD and I do like it a lot. I especially love the ports and packages system that it has. I have the ISOs for 7.0 but I just haven't found the time to install it on a PC just yet.
I did install NetBSD once on my Quadra. I might do it again since Debian Etch doesn't officially support mac68k anymore.
II2II
Well-known member
I've used Linux and NetBSD on my main machine in the past, and still use Linux on my XO. Alas, both are starting to look more and more like their commercial cousins given that projects like Gnome and OpenOffice and Firefox gets a lion's share of the development efforts and much of the stuff that fits in with the Unix philosophy has been receiving less and less attention.
In some respects, I'm also increasingly seeing some aspects of the Unix mentality as barbaric. While I agree that text-processing is (in principle), better than word processing, it still has many faults. For example, the final stages of document preparation are still dominated by the compile, verify, edit cycle. That is cumbersome, and there is no need for it with the speed of contemporary computers. The dominant text-processing system (LaTeX) is also unweildy to use. I doubt that many people understand its internals, which means that system-wide changes that should be as simple (like changing the paper size) is usually a chore. A lot of people don't even understand how to use the userland stuff, which is why practically every LaTeX website is a list of tips on how to use it. Alas, a lot of Unix software falls into the same traps.
There is a lot of space for improvement in Unix. We have long since left the age where text editors were line editors, which made it difficult to make random changes to documents. Yet Unix shells are still essentially line-editors, line-editors that ignore the lessons of environments like MPW and Smalltalk. (Heck, given the text editor analogy it's also worth mentioning that most unix text editors don't even have soft linewrap or automatic spellchecking.) Some people are trying out new ideas with things like window managers, but those ideas barely work since a subset of applications depend upon the old windowing model -- either directly (like the Gimp) or indirectly (paned windows make it hard to split screens).
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I guess the short answer is: Linux doesn't make much sense these days. It offers very little that is both unique and contemporary. And I don't see many attempts to make it so.
In some respects, I'm also increasingly seeing some aspects of the Unix mentality as barbaric. While I agree that text-processing is (in principle), better than word processing, it still has many faults. For example, the final stages of document preparation are still dominated by the compile, verify, edit cycle. That is cumbersome, and there is no need for it with the speed of contemporary computers. The dominant text-processing system (LaTeX) is also unweildy to use. I doubt that many people understand its internals, which means that system-wide changes that should be as simple (like changing the paper size) is usually a chore. A lot of people don't even understand how to use the userland stuff, which is why practically every LaTeX website is a list of tips on how to use it. Alas, a lot of Unix software falls into the same traps.
There is a lot of space for improvement in Unix. We have long since left the age where text editors were line editors, which made it difficult to make random changes to documents. Yet Unix shells are still essentially line-editors, line-editors that ignore the lessons of environments like MPW and Smalltalk. (Heck, given the text editor analogy it's also worth mentioning that most unix text editors don't even have soft linewrap or automatic spellchecking.) Some people are trying out new ideas with things like window managers, but those ideas barely work since a subset of applications depend upon the old windowing model -- either directly (like the Gimp) or indirectly (paned windows make it hard to split screens).
Anyway, sorry for the rant. I guess the short answer is: Linux doesn't make much sense these days. It offers very little that is both unique and contemporary. And I don't see many attempts to make it so.
pee-air
Well-known member
Linux makes more and more sense with each passing day. It's functionality, ability, and suitability to an ever growing range of tasks, is making Linux, excuse me, GNU/Linux, more and more relevant.
To be a successful alternative to the big two, (I like using auto industry parlance.) Linux needs to become less distinguishable in its perceived areas of weakness (ie. ease of use and install, suitability to task, availability of applications, etcetera) while simultaneously distinguishing itself from its commercial brethren's weaknesses. (ie. less bloat, open and secure (ie. you are able to make it more secure than it was when you received it, because nothing is hidden from the user.) more economical, etcetera.)
I apologize for disagreeing with you. I realize that it is my role in life to agree with everything that everyone says, but I was unable to resist a stab at the aforementioned comment. I do hope that you will forgive me this moment of rebellion and not judge me too harshly for taking a look at the proverbial big picture.
QuadSix50
Well-known member
@ II2II and ealex79,
Well, it's not for everyone but that doesn't negate it as a useful desktop alternative. Otherwise, we wouldn't have people using GNU/Linux (predominantly) or any of the BSDs with exclusively on their computers. The same could be said of either Windows or Mac OS years ago depending on which faction you ask.
BTW, there have been enough threads arguing for and against GNU/Linux on the desktop (or portable). I'll let those speak for themselves in regards to more in-depth arguments.
Well, it's not for everyone but that doesn't negate it as a useful desktop alternative. Otherwise, we wouldn't have people using GNU/Linux (predominantly) or any of the BSDs with exclusively on their computers. The same could be said of either Windows or Mac OS years ago depending on which faction you ask.
BTW, there have been enough threads arguing for and against GNU/Linux on the desktop (or portable). I'll let those speak for themselves in regards to more in-depth arguments.
ealex79
Well-known member
Sure. The thing is... if a user wants to use it as desktop operating system, and feels comfortable doing that, she should!
I would call myself hobby programmer, but I'm just.. how is that called.. if you get too much stuff. splended? and just want things beautiful, and easy, but open to access, change and understanding up to the deep inner workings. It's good that OS X is there.. it does just that.
Linux is that too, but yea.. for server deamons :beige: ...fiddling with the text file setup once, use it for years to come.
Fiddling with text files (most using their very own structure) to setup *all* and *every* single app is just annoying.
QuadSix50
Well-known member
I can understand this statement with something like Slackware, but then again Slackware was never meant to be for the average computer user. But rarely is this an issue in Ubuntu, and quite possibly the new Fedora 9 that was recently released (haven't tested the latter yet). With Ubuntu 7.10, the only problem I had that required command line configuration was getting my wireless to authenticate to my RADIUS server at work using WAP with EAP/TLS because the Network Manager applet had a bug. In 8.04, it's been fixed so I don't even need to do that anymore.
pee-air
Well-known member
I use Linux as my primary operating system for two reasons:
1) It's conducive to my "if...then" way of thinking. [tangent] Although, admittedly, my "if...then" way of thinking is telling me that "if" I focus on computer use like I used to, "then" I will not be focusing on the more important things that I need to focus on right now. [/tangent]
2) I like watching Linux evolve. It fills me with something that neither the Mac or Windows operating systems do: pride in human achievement.
1) It's conducive to my "if...then" way of thinking. [tangent] Although, admittedly, my "if...then" way of thinking is telling me that "if" I focus on computer use like I used to, "then" I will not be focusing on the more important things that I need to focus on right now. [/tangent]
2) I like watching Linux evolve. It fills me with something that neither the Mac or Windows operating systems do: pride in human achievement.
