Staredit Network

Open source means dedicated developers are at work. They are doing this not from greed, thus, their work will always be superior to that of one that works through payments.


If you don't know anything about computers, this maybe true. But if you can type, then learning Linux is just like learning how to ride a bike. Once you get the hang of it, it's so natural, you don't even think about it. Evidence? I use Linux.


Is that all you care about? Computers aren't made for games. They're made for work stations. I can tell you that running multiple programs and compilers require much more than running a program as simple as Starcraft. (I'm not going to get into your "OMG DOOM 3 IS HARD TO RUN" stuff)


Because I use Linux.


On the contrary, I know many people who use Linux. I know many adults who prefer Linux over Windows. Reason? Because they actually work on their computers. They don't play games all day. We already have a machine that plays games. It's called a console, like an XBox or PlayStation.


Linux has more. If we subtract all the games from this list, you will see that there are many many more programs being developed for Linux over Windows. Reason? Because these people know that Linux is superior. They know where to invest their time.


That doesn't matter. You say that like Linux can't handle C. It can and does support just about every programming language that exists given that you download the compiler.

That doesn't follow at all!



I've used Linux and Windows. On Windows, I can install a new motherboard and have it boot up with very few problems. On Linux, that scenario is a nightmare.



Give me a break, that's someone saying, "I'm eating right now because I'm not not eating." Do you have an actual reason?



Stop right there. Here you go again, trying to twist my words. I did not say that no one uses Linux, I said that no one used OpenBSD.



We have no way of knowing which platform has more software, but considering over 98% of desktops are booting Windows, it's safer to say that Windows has more. Do you have a real reason to believe otherwise?



Obviously, any language can be used on Linux, but the majority of software is written in C, which is an outdated and unsafe language.


**********EDIT**********

I just realized that I let you off way too easily on your comment about the number of users. Only a Linux zealot would say that Windows' superior userbase doesn't have a positive impact on its use!

Because you don't understand! I have dealt with the open source community as well as products from other sources (that require money). From my experience, open source is far superior. Some examples:

Open Office is much better than Windows Office.

Gimp is vastly superior to any Image Editing Tool I've seen.

The built-in programs of Linux is also better than any built-in programs of Windows.

As for why I say they would be better, consider this. The most perfect society you can get is from a communist state. The problem is, it's swallowed by greed. Thus, it is impossible to achieve this utopia.

However, if one were to completely remove greed (in this case, the locked code), then we would be able to share information better. We wouldn't be afraid anymore. Guess what? That's what Open Source is all about. We make the programs Open Source so it's quick to debug; quick to find problems. Anyone who has experience in the language and devoted to that program can eventually figure out what's wrong and potentiall fix it for himself and literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of people around the world.

That is utopia for the programming world. Linux is devoted to this idea. That is why it will work. That is why it will become perfect.

If you try to use my communist analogy against me, keep in mind. This is not about political issues nor super greed (described by money and betrayal). This is simply letting go of credits and finally contributing. The amount of work put in doesn't have to be even for Open Source to work. That is why it will succeed.


For your scenario, I can tell you this. It's not just you. I will give you that it might have trouble. But did it ever occur to you of the opposite? That windows may have problems and Linux does not?

Some distrubutions of Linux does not have this problem. It should work fine. Sometimes, Windows has this problem. Your problem isn't unique. Simply because you have had bad experience on one particular computer doesn't make the OS at fault.

However, I've worked on Windows across countless machines. 80% of them have generated problems to me. From crashing a simple program (quick story - I have crashed Notepad and Paint on this computer) to the OS literally deleting itself.


You asked:

So why should I use that when I have Linux? There's no reason to! Your analogies are getting worse and worse.


Good, you agree with me. Since you agree with me that many people use Linux, what are you trying to argue against?


No it's not. When I first installed Linux, it had everything one could ever want. In theory, I wouldn't have needed to install anything else and I could still get all of my work done on it.

Things that were included? Many games. Enough to keep a person busy for months. Offices Tools. Open Office was included within my distro. Web Tools. All the browsers and developer kits I would need. It even included Python, perhaps the best programming language ever made.

Now, let us assume that Windows does in fact have more programs. How does this make it better? It doesn't. How much better something is is determined by the quality of the content. On Windows, what you have is basically crap but it's delivered in such a way that many consider to be extremely beautiful.

Linux? Samething. Minus the crap.


Ok. That your first sentence completely destroyed your point. I don't see what you're trying to argue against. Linux is updated with new things literally every day. New upgrades and patches are available everyday.

Thus, I completely agree that "It's time to move on!" Windows is the past. Linux is the future. Move on. We don't need this crap anymore.

Open Source is really a double edged sword.

On one hand, you could have hundreds, thousands, maybe millions of people working towards a common solution, it would get fixed faster, and in most cases, more efficiently or better.

On the other hand, people could also use it to exploit some code in it to hack, attack, ect someone elses computer.

On Windows and Linux:

Honestly, Windows sucks. They're getting worse and worse, not better. When I used Windows 98, it would never crash, or anything, but XP seems to crash every five minutes, and even the Task Manager stops responding. That's just messed up.

I have never used Linux much though, so I can't say that much about it.

But, I'll assume for now, that it's faster, stable, and more secure, at the expense of being harder to use, and having less programs. So what? You don't need to have every single friggen game installed on your computer. Every program I use for my work will work for all (major) OS's, so I'm fine there.

Anyone would be able to use Linux as efficiently as Windows after a while. Unless you have some super huge IQ, I don't think the first thing you did when you got on to Windows was load up VC++ and start programming.


Here's an example, AIM and MSN. IMO, MSN is 1000X better than AIM, yet everyone uses AIM. I don't. And all your saying to that is you'd rather jump on the bandwagon than try something new.


I'd be fine if they didn't make it for Windows

Windows Vista? If the trend of Microsoft OS's continues, then they'll die on this one. I don't think they could make anything suckier than XP. But then again, Microsoft is full of surprises.

Also:


You need 128 MB to run XP, 256 MB for it to run and be able to do something

Let's also compare that to that you needed, I believe, only 32 MB of RAM to run Windows 98 smoothly.

Cheeze, you're a joke. You're to the point of Kellimus now.

Open Office is not as good as MS Office. Gimp is not as good as Photoshop or Paintshop (what!?). Visual Studio is head and shoulders better than any other IDE/compiler set-up an any platform.

Also, I did NOT say Linux has tons of users. This is another case of you twisting my words. You claimed that I said that Linux has no one using it. I actually said that about OpenBSD, not about Linux, so I corrected you. You took that correction to mean that I'm saying everyone uses Linux. Insane. Had I done that, you would be crying "Strawman fallacy!".

Linux has very few users compared to Windows; they're mostly elitists who think dreamily of the days when C was the industry standard and when command-line input was the norm. Face it, it's over.

Lastly, about my C comment:

Most of that "good" open source code on Linux is written in C. C is horrific, but the Linux crowd refuses to move on to (and often campaigns against) using other languages in place of C.



As a side note, I often wonder whether Windows has more open source software than Linux. Many, many more people code for Windows boxes, and most amatuer code is open source.

No I'm not. I'm a human being. But people get them confused because I'm so awesome.


Eh, I don't keep track of what he says. So I'll take that as a compliment.


Open Office is now being fully supported by Google and Sun. If there can only be only one thing better than Microsoft, it would be Google. Now that's opinion, but from what I can tell, if Google likes it, then they're bound to make it better than it already is.

Gimp better than Photoshop? How often is Photoshop upgrades with new features?
I can tell you Gimp is getting ready to introduce an even better and improved version. Stacked with new features. http://linux.slashdot.org/linux/05/10/09/0...&tid=92&tid=106

As for your Visual Studios arguement, I really don't care. Reason? Visual Studios isn't a compiler.


Well then you're obviously been misinformed. I can assure you there are more Linux users than you think. But before I go on and make a mistake, I would like to know exactly how many Linux users do you think there are?


Doesn't make it better.


Command line? C? Is this all you have against Linux? It's so much more than that. Maybe you've never actually seen Linux at work. Behold (found off of Google Images):
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/acom/linux/screensh...inal_ubuntu.png


I really have no idea where you get your source of this. Linux developers use every language that exists. Whichever that suits them the best. It has nothing to do with being limited upon one language!


Amature?

Firefox. Open Source.
Python. Open Source.
The Gimp. Open Source.
Gaim. Open Source.
Open Office. Open Source.

These are all professional programs. I don't know what you're talking about when you say "amature". As for Windows having more Open Source programs. Ha. 98%, if not more, of the programs designed for Linux is Open Source.

Firefox, Gimp, Gaim, and OO are all for Windows as well, in addition to a million different Python interpreters. If that's the reason you're using Linux, it's time to switch. In fact, there are very few Linux-only programs (unless they are made specifically to deal with a shortcoming of Linux).

It's easier to develop better software for Windows. The Visual Studio IDE is easily the best, with code::blocks (for Windows as well as other platforms) probably coming in second. Microsoft's optimizing C++ compiler is is the fastest there is, and the .NET languages with garbage collection, reflection, run-time type saftey, and events (not to mention Windows Forms!) make Windows the clear choice.

Couple that with a larger userbase, and you have a winner.

That's because they know there are Window Users out there. They are nice enough to port it over to Windows. All of the programs above are meant for Linux. Not Windows.

Just so you know, the Linux Version of those programs are superior to their Window Counter Parts. I can assure you of that at the very least if not anything else.


Actually, I use Linux because it doesn't crash. Maybe you missed my post (not suprising since 90% of the SEN population don't read my replies) but I clearly said that Windows crashes more than anything.


Oh how I wish that were true. Countless times, I would need to find a program. Everytime I look, I come across the perfect program. Alas! It is for Linux only.

Ah, I can't remember the example right now. But maybe you can go look at Sourceforge.net some time.


Nope. Otherwise, all the developers would be over here already. Too bad they aren't.


No, what you have is a whole bunch of people who don't know about alternatives and are stuck with this crap. Why don't you comment on all of my arguements rather than dealing with something so specific? Are you dropping them?

If you are, it's quite clear you've already lost this debate. Maybe you'll have a better chance next time, when you actually think about what I'm saying before just blurting out some random thing out of your brain.

I see you don't actually want to adress my devlopment points. Understandable, as you're wrong.

Also, I would like that example of a program for Linux that isn't for Windows. I'm sure there may be a few, but for the most part it's the other way around (like VS).

Lastly, Windows 95 crashed. Windows 98 crashed. Windows ME crashed.


Windows 2000 didn't crash: it was extremely stable. Same with XP. They are built on NT technology, and you can keep your box on for weeks at a time without a hitch (you just need to keep up-to-date with patches, which is easy with the buil-in notice system). I've never had Windows XP crash, and I highly doubt you have, either. In fact, I hadn't seen the BSoD for XP until I saw a recreation of it online!

I never had Linux crash either, though, but the ease-of-use and excellent tools for Windows make it worth the money.


edit: You know what, I'm tired of wasting my time. Windows is the better choice for an OS, and Vista with the .NET Framework solidifies that. If you don't trust this developer, check out the biggest cross-platform game development site, GameDev.net, and you'll see the "M$ sucks!" crown routinely ridiculed. Have a nice day!

Already addressed in the first post. Perhaps if you actually read...

As for me being wrong? How can I be wrong. You repeatly accuse me of being wrong. I support my arguements with either evidence, experience or logic. You have none of these. If there was a judge here, it's quite clear that I know what I'm talking about and you're simply saying "You're wrong!"


I'm trying to get a friend to give me a list. However, one thing that comes to mind would be Konquerer. It's impossible to argue Konquerer is bad because it takes everything that is good in Internet Explorer (most compatibility with certain sites) and everything in Firefox (because there is no bad ) and combines them. Basically, it's the God of all Browsers.

A funny thing he told me (also another program) would be WINE. The irony is too great. You can find out what it means yourself but it's awesome. (It's more of a joke but it's awesome )


Yes. Yes. Yes.


No. I dual OS on this computer. Windows 2000 (the other OS) crashes way more than my Linux. By infinity times. Because Linux hasn't crashed yet.


Nope. Every XP I've ever used. I have crashed it at least once. I crashed Notepad on Windows 2000. I crashed Paint on Windows XP. My friend tried to crash the Log-In manager on Windows XP, I think he failed. Seriously, if I can crash such a simple program so easily, then what's to stop me from crashing big programs? Absolutely nothing. Stability? No way.


Cool. I already told you. I'm not intersted in games being developed. So your site really means nothing to me. I already recommended sourceforge.net for this arguement. Have you even bothered to look?

Crap, you responded before my edit.

By "crash", do you mean that you got a BSoD, or do you mean that Windows handled a program's error and then continued running? The latter isn't an OS crash, it's Windows working well.

Lastly, I'm wondering what caused notepad to hiccup. My guess was that you tried to open a gargantuan text tile in it. I've never heard of any other case (and neither has google).

edit: Oh, and GameDev isn't only game deveopment. In fact, the biggest programming forum there has nothing to do with games!

I never said OS crash. I simply said crash. Crash does imply programs crashing.


No. I can tell you that it crashed not because I opened something (nor did I save anything). Maybe you should try to crash it. See what happens. If you fail, then you're really really bad at being a developer. Unless you're not. In which case, why are you arguing when you don't know anything?


Cool. Forums aren't meant for professional developing. We already have something. Sourceforge. Have you checked it out yet? Didn't think so.

It's true, take my example, everyone uses AIM because all their friends do, so no one uses MSN, which is alot better. If a few people got all their friends to move over, then AIM would go down the drain.


I've never used Open Office, but I can assure you that GIMP is better than Photoshop. I have them both on my computer.


I actually laughed out loud at that. You got one OS right, which was ME, which always crashed. Yet 2000 and XP always crash, and 95 and 98 never crashed. I used an ME and 2000 oncem they both crashed at least twice in the couple hours I used them. I still a computer with 95, and one with 98. The 95 has NEVER gotten a blue screen, and the 98 did once or twice, yet continued working. if you get a blue screen, that doesn't mean it crashed, and it doesn't mean you ahve to restart.

XP is worse then the others (Maybe not ME). I can't tell you how many times its frozen, crashed, and even messed up while LOADING. Abd I've had the friggen TASK MANAGER freeze and crash on me, and stop responding. That's just bad. And by crashed, I mean it just failed, no blue screen or anything.

I use XP now because I am too lazy to uninstall it and change to Linux or 98, which is also a prime example of why people stay with Windows. Windows comes with most computers, so they just stay with it. Probably 1/4 to 1/2 of the people using Windows are to stupid to know how to.


You say this yet you come back, why?

Unless you poked at its memory (or something along those lines) while running, I can't imagine it crashing without openning something. And if you did do that, then you can't blame notepad for the crash, and it's childish of you to do so.


Someone else said this:


You're a joke. You're the first person who has said XP is less stable than Win95, and for CheeZe's sake get the heck out of here!


Before making up crap, try reading this interesting article on the history of Windows.

I'm going to say not Win95. But less than 98 SE. Which is probably just as bad.


So are you going to drop my other points?


I've already read that. I already know it.

This is like arguing with someone who claims that C++ is too slow for high-speed programs: no one else beleives what they're saying, there is no reason to believe what they're saying, but they won't ever admit they're wrong.

And how did you crash notepad? As a side note, I find it funny that you say "Windows crashed" when it was just an application's crash.

Yeah, how about the part where my OS deleted itself. Isn't that a little bit worse than the BSoD?

Yes, I also had Windows XP delete my registry database. Took me about a week to fix.

And about this:


Because yes, I'm going to trust some random person on the internet to make my opinions then my own personal experiance. Good call there buddy, I know the secret to finding out the better choice, looking on the internet, not using them.

Look, I've used 98 longer than I've had XP, and even with less time using XP, it's still frozen, crashed, and had many more problems than I've had with 98. You can give me one thousand sites saying XP is better, but since I've had less problems with my 98 than I have XP, I stand by what I said. 98 > XP.