Thank apple for the Linux 'desktop'

[h3%5kr3w]

It would be rather neat to see where cloud can go, and the extent of how far. Truthfully this is easily feasable for anything that does not require streaming. A fullscreen flash client/server model that is used to render the desktop and apps. This would be wonderful for things like corporations mind you, where you can have your proprietary O.S. that you can administer on the fly from one central location that uses lower overhead, so you would basically have dumb terminals that just needs the fullscreen flash client, but... at the same time, you can just implement Sun O.S. with the sun terminals and you have the same solution.. Vako wasnt it you that was researching that?

But as a home system this would be a horrible thing for many reasons.

[Bolts]

I do see the application of the dumb terminal idea for business; however, I think that the server would be better implemented if it were on site, mainly for security reasons, but also for cost. I have not researched the cost aspect, but I feel, especially after the virtualisation episodes, that paying an external company would potentially be more expensive. If anyone knows about a legitimate study into this, I'd love to read about it. It's difficult for me to find info on cloud computing that's not just buzz.

[redxine]

People, this isn't the 90's any more. Windows is stable and secure, as long as the system admin isn't a muppet.

I have a warm feeling inside knowing that my operating system can't be shut down [easily] by the 'superiors' (Canonical, Novel, Gentoo-kid-that-compiled-from-source-and-made-a-distro). Just read through the Vista Eula/agreement/whatever for a while. It makes me kinda sick. Also, I've always thought of a Windows platform as being a bit unprofessional. I'd be a little uneasy knowing that the elevators to the Taipei 101 ran on Windows. NO! They'd use Embedded Linux if necessary; they probably use all hardware.

The thing is that Linux and UNIX runs great when bundled with the right hardware. That's where Apple got it right. As for other companies, they've made small agreements with Micro$oft to make their hardware nearly incompatible with anything besides Vista.

**Growls angrily at (most) computer companies and turns towards Dell and Apple.**

[h3%5kr3w]

The thing is that Linux and UNIX runs great when bundled with the right hardware. That's where Apple got it right

Actually it's kinda the opposite. Apple specs out hardware and then writes the perfect drivers for it... Am I wrong?

[Bolts]

That's about right. Did you know that the OSX license agreement doesn't allow users to install it on non-Apple hardware? Only Apple devs get to within the license. I found this out when I was thinking about hackintoshing my laptop. I wanted to see if it had actually gotten better since I last used it.

[stingwray]

Actually it's kinda the opposite. Apple specs out hardware and then writes the perfect drivers for it... Am I wrong?

Erm, same thing, the right hardware is the one that has good drivers written for it.

[h3%5kr3w]

well, yeah, you are right but instead of them creating the hardware, they have intel or whichever other company custom craft it for them, and then they structure the existing O.S. archetecture around that hardware. That's the only real reason why OSX is superior to everything in stability anyways (though I'm sure there are certain criteria that Apple provides to intel or whoever to ensure it's Apple proprietary er something..)

[pritchard9]

I'm a new linux convert. Still dual booting Arch Linux with XP just now, just incase I need XP for something, but I havent use XP in a good couple of weeks.

I love Linux. I like what it stands for, though I think some of the linux fanboys *looks away, trying to hold back the grin* sometimes lose what it stands for. I see it standing for choice. Choice between Linux or Windows, or OSX, or between linux distros.

Im not going to bash Windows. I wouldnt know how to use a computer today if I hadnt grown up with a windows 95 computer in the house. Then 98, then XP..

I just love.. Hmm, I find it pretty hard explaining. Theres something really assuring with Linux for me. It seems so transparent. Sure, from what I've experienced, some of it's really sketchy, requiring work-arounds such as using ndiswrapper with unsupported wireless cards and the like, but I find that great! It shows that Linux is truely giving choice to people - allowing people to use cards who's manufacturers havent given Linux there time and effort almost as efficiently as if they were natively compatible.

I'm liking the command line alot too. It just seems so damn powerful! Especially compared to the likes of Windows. It's quite liberating writing crap loads of arguments and options, then piping it and greping it.. And then, to top it off, scripting the process and having that script work! Then having it start on boot.. To me, if feels like how computers should feel: free, and transparent, like a really solid base from which you can customise and mould to your liking.

Maybe I've been lucky with compatible hardware (though my BCM wireless card was a right bitch to set up), and maybe I'm really late in the linux game, but I think it's great at what it does. Do I think Linux will ever over-take windows? No. Not when companies are willing to pay money for a great OS, with part of that payment going towards support for if (or when..) something goes wrong.. Do I want it to over-take windows? Too right :)

Sorry if this is a bit off topic. This was all on the tips of my fingers and well, I couldnt stop myself.. *looks around nervously, then dives back in to next nooby script*

[h3%5kr3w]

good call pritchardo. TBH, I don't have too much love for the command line because of how frustrating it can be to try to learn half the stuff it does without a college professor explaining it in detail (because for a TON of stuff, just doing a man <insert cli command here> doesnt do jack but confuse me.)

Now I do have love for the GUI and Distros in general. I have to say that the reason for this is I was a quick adopter to Win 3.1 and then 95, So to me Gui is a step foreward, not backward. I just wish people would put more into the Gui of their programs in linux, or rather, everybody needs to come together and think of a standard. Let the big differences in distros be what's under the hood and what it's made for, not for how many places you can find firefox, but nowhere in site to manage users, or vice versa for the next distro. We need that to just depend on which Window manager your using.

[VaKo]

I have a warm feeling inside knowing that my operating system can't be shut down [easily] by the 'superiors' (Canonical, Novel, Gentoo-kid-that-compiled-from-source-and-made-a-distro). Just read through the Vista Eula/agreement/whatever for a while. It makes me kinda sick. Also, I've always thought of a Windows platform as being a bit unprofessional. I'd be a little uneasy knowing that the elevators to the Taipei 101 ran on Windows. NO! They'd use Embedded Linux if necessary; they probably use all hardware.

The thing is that Linux and UNIX runs great when bundled with the right hardware. That's where Apple got it right. As for other companies, they've made small agreements with Micro$oft to make their hardware nearly incompatible with anything besides Vista.

**Growls angrily at (most) computer companies and turns towards Dell and Apple.**

Windows 6.x will only be dropped into retard mode if it can't activate, which is where the difference between KVS and MAK keys comes into place. The only times I ran into problems with windows activation was when I was blatantly pirating the key, when I've used a legit key its been fine. I can see how the need to activate windows causes problems but Windows is a product at the end of the day and MS have a right to make cash from it (Windows XP was probally the most pirated software ever). If OSX was pirated at the same levels as Windows then you just know that the dark parts of Mr Job's head would open up and activation would be required, as it is you need specific hardware for it to work.

Linux is a good OS, and given that a large amount of it was produced for free and in peoples spare time it does well. But just because something is made by a company with a logo and a legal dept it doesn't mean its crap. Windows has a lot to offer. Any true geek would usually say the best OS would take the good bits from Windows, OSX, Linux, BSD, UNIX and Plan9 et al and remix them into something awesome. One way of doing things is far to limiting.

[h3%5kr3w]

Any true geek would usually say the best OS would take the good bits from Windows, OSX, Linux, BSD, UNIX and Plan9 et al and remix them into something awesome.

The thought of this idea as an operating system just made me soil myself...... (in a good way.. if there is one like this)

[CraigHB]

Hello, I'm new to Hak5 and this is my first post here. I've watched a few episodes on my TiVo and desktop computer. I've found the shows interesting so far.

I'd like to post with regard to comments earlier in this thread (if you don't mind). I've been a Linux user for a long time. I did my first install in the early '90's with a distribution called Slackware. Linux pretty much sucked back then, but it's come a long way (OTOH, so did Windows). I'm now using Debian 4.0 and have been since 1.0. I think Debian is outstanding. It's probably the most low level of the distros. You can really get down to the finest details. Debian installs can be unwieldy if you don't know what you're doing, but nothing rivals their package tools and vast selection. Hardware support can be an issue, but I build my own kernels with monolithic support for my particular hardware, makes the system fast and compact. The latest kernel source includes an array of hardware support that's pretty impressive. All the off-the-shelf hardware I used on my current system is fully supported with one caveat, I had to use nVidia's driver package which taints the kernel by violating the the open source license, haven't found any other option to get my X desktop working. Setting up a Debian install with a custom kernel is not something your average computer user would ever want to deal with so I would consider myself unusal in that regard.

Even after my glowing comments about Debian and Linux, I still use Windows primarily for one reason, a lot of the software I use is not available for Linux. I suppose I could go the dual boot or emulation route, but I don't really feel like switching back and forth between operating systems or setting up an environment with all its pitfalls. At this point, I use a swapable boot drive. I'll pop in the Linux drive when I feel like playing with it, but mostly, I run Windows. I find Linux to be a RPITA to configure at best, but once it's set up right, it's way faster and somewhat more reliable than Windows. It's worlds more configurable and you can really customize things down to the nitty-gritty. Linux is way more secure too. Nothing's worse than that evil covert-malware-installing ActiveX.

If I could get Linux versions of all the software I use, I'd run it full time in a heartbeat. So, it's really the software industry that's driving me to use Windows more than anything else. As far as OSX, I'd be even more limited with the proprietary hardware. If there was a PC port for OSX, that might be something worthwhile for me, but even then, I'd still have the same software availability problem I do with Linux, but maybe to a lesser degree, I don't know.

[moonlit]

Hello, I'm new to Hak5 and this is my first post here. I've watched a few episodes on my TiVo and desktop computer. I've found the shows interesting so far.

Welcome, enjoy your stay.

All the off-the-shelf hardware I used on my current system is fully supported with one caveat, I had to use nVidia's driver package which taints the kernel by violating the the open source license, haven't found any other option to get my X desktop working.

Thanks to nVidia, then, that your super awesome graphics card work in Linux at all. I really do dislike this "waaah, my machine is unclean, I needs teh source!" attitude. nVidia could just tell the Linux community to get bent but it didn't, it provided a working, useful driver and for that I believe Linux users should be thankful. When's the last time you heard a Windows user say "hey, that's not good enough, nVidia, I want your source code!"? Right, never.

Setting up a Debian install with a custom kernel is not something your average computer user would ever want to deal with so I would consider myself unusal in that regard. Even after my glowing comments about Debian and Linux, I still use Windows primarily for one reason, a lot of the software I use is not available for Linux. I suppose I could go the dual boot or emulation route, but I don't really feel like switching back and forth between operating systems or setting up an environment with all its pitfalls. At this point, I use a swapable boot drive. I'll pop in the Linux drive when I feel like playing with it, but mostly, I run Windows. I find Linux to be a RPITA to configure at best, but once it's set up right, it's way faster and somewhat more reliable than Windows. It's worlds more configurable and you can really customize things down to the nitty-gritty.

You're right, you are unusual in that sense. Most people don't want to have to learn how to do that stuff, or even do it if they do know how. I'm sure I could learn to do it myself but I refuse to in principle, it's just too much time and effort for something that, on any other OS, I don't have to do. Still, there's the binary option, and whenever I use Linux I appreciate that.

I agree that dual-booting when one OS does everything is a bit pointless, why would you even install the second OS if it just duplicates functionality, uses valuable disk space, and makes you reboot when you want to do something it can't do? Virtual machines, on the other hand, are just dandy. When I get sick of them, I just kill the window, it's gone, I have my regular OS right there underneath. Wonderful.

I also agree that Linux is a "RPITA" to set up. Actually, that's not entirely true. It depends on what hardware you have and how determined you are to sabotage yourself with specific requirements. In a VM, I can set up Ubuntu in minutes (excluding install, most of which it does itself anyway)... yet if I decide I want to set up Gentoo on my desktop with all kinds of weird and wonderful hardware, it probably won't be so easy. I'll take the Ubuntu install with the standard hardware, thanks.

As for customisable, yes, it is more customisable than Windows but that doesn't necessarily mean it's *easily* customisable. For example, I took at look at changing the usplash graphic on Ubuntu 8.10 earlier, just because I had a VM which wasn't really doing anything and I thought it might be neat to install XBMC on it and have it boot with no sign that it was even Ubuntu. Great, I thought, now let's take a look and see what's involved... I should not have to compile *anything* to change a boot screen. I may have had to compile apps to create and/or install the bootscreen and I would've definitely had to compile the bootscreen itself. This is customisation, sure, but it definitely isn't fun.

Linux is way more secure too. Nothing's worse than that evil covert-malware-installing ActiveX.

Sure, single out one technology (ActiveX) from one product (Internet Explorer) which was created years ago, which few people seem to even use any more, which can be turned off, which doesn't even run in alternative browsers and which might've actually been useful had it not been for a few oversights in the way of security. I'd say that's a pretty weak example.

If I could get Linux versions of all the software I use, I'd run it full time in a heartbeat. So, it's really the software industry that's driving me to use Windows more than anything else. As far as OSX, I'd be even more limited with the proprietary hardware. If there was a PC port for OSX, that might be something worthwhile for me, but even then, I'd still have the same software availability problem I do with Linux, but maybe to a lesser degree, I don't know.

You can get OSX for generic hardware, check out the OSX86 project(s) and various distros based on the research within it. Against the EULA, probably, and possibly against the law in your region, but it works. Sometimes.

[VaKo]

ActiveX has its place, a home PC maybe not but for intranet stuff it was useful.

[thecircusb0y]

All I can say is the article is truly poorly written. There is practically nothing in it, and it's worthy of being published. The editors let anything get posted these days, so anybody without regard for being a real writer, can post anything they want without regard to collecting facts like a real journalist.

oh well.

Mac, Windows, OSX, use what you want, and thats it. Its a computer, its 1's and 0's.

Pick your poison, and pray that we get to keep that freedom. Who knows maybe Microsoft or Apple will suddenly file Bankruptcy and Obamasoft will be born. lol

[h3%5kr3w]

@moonlit - I completely agree with you with everything you said.

@CraigHB - I have to side with moonlit on the Nvidia drivers. They are solid. That's all you really need. besides what would be the point of giving the source for drivers that cannot possibly be debugged any more than what the manufacturer has made them.. I mean THEY made the card, not you. *btw, sry for the rant. Welcome to the board*

Who knows maybe Microsoft or Apple will suddenly file Bankruptcy and Obamasoft will be born. lol

LAWL!

[CraigHB]

Welcome, enjoy your stay.

Thanks, your engaging reply makes me want to stick around.

Thanks to nVidia, then, that your super awesome graphics card work in Linux at all. I really do dislike this "waaah, my machine is unclean, I needs teh source!" attitude. nVidia could just tell the Linux community to get bent but it didn't, it provided a working, useful driver and for that I believe Linux users should be thankful. When's the last time you heard a Windows user say "hey, that's not good enough, nVidia, I want your source code!"? Right, never.

Yes, thanks to nVidia. Their driver seems to work very well. That *is* kinda lame the kernel squaks about that, I agree it's uncalled for. nVidia is doing a big service for the community. They shoudn''t *have* to release their source if they don't want to. And, it makes sense, there's just too much proprietary stuff in there they don't want competitors getting ahold of.

I agree that dual-booting when one OS does everything is a bit pointless, why would you even install the second OS if it just duplicates functionality, uses valuable disk space, and makes you reboot when you want to do something it can't do? Virtual machines, on the other hand, are just dandy. When I get sick of them, I just kill the window, it's gone, I have my regular OS right there underneath. Wonderful.

Glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels this way. The VM route would be the most viable. I may look into that one of these days. Thanks for the recommendation.

I also agree that Linux is a "RPITA" to set up. Actually, that's not entirely true. It depends on what hardware you have and how determined you are to sabotage yourself with specific requirements. In a VM, I can set up Ubuntu in minutes (excluding install, most of which it does itself anyway)... yet if I decide I want to set up Gentoo on my desktop with all kinds of weird and wonderful hardware, it probably won't be so easy. I'll take the Ubuntu install with the standard hardware, thanks.

True, a stock install with some distros on supported hardware is actually easier and much faster than a Windows install. My Debian install is totally scripted and I can reload to a fully configured system in about 5 minutes (apps and all), no exaggeration. My Windows install is fully unattended using a custom slipstreamed installation disk and it takes a good 20 minutes. Then I still need to load and configure applications.

As for customisable, yes, it is more customisable than Windows but that doesn't necessarily mean it's *easily* customisable. For example, I took at look at changing the usplash graphic on Ubuntu 8.10 earlier, just because I had a VM which wasn't really doing anything and I thought it might be neat to install XBMC on it and have it boot with no sign that it was even Ubuntu. Great, I thought, now let's take a look and see what's involved... I should not have to compile *anything* to change a boot screen. I may have had to compile apps to create and/or install the bootscreen and I would've definitely had to compile the bootscreen itself. This is customisation, sure, but it definitely isn't fun.

Definitely, sometimes you can change something easily in a simple text file, other times it takes a recomplie after spending hours pouring over configuration scripts and cryptic flat files. I've even had to tweak on the code a little in some instances.

Sure, single out one technology (ActiveX) from one product (Internet Explorer) which was created years ago, which few people seem to even use any more, which can be turned off, which doesn't even run in alternative browsers and which might've actually been useful had it not been for a few oversights in the way of security. I'd say that's a pretty weak example.

Yea, it probably is a bad example, but it has really pissed me off at times. Even so, IE won't display some pages properly with ActiveX disabled. Either web developers are still using it quite a bit or shutting it off breaks something else in IE. At this point, I run it off in my internet zone and on in my trusted zone and trust sites I normally visit. Also, there are some local ActiveX controls and scripts Windows trys to run on some occasions. I've had trouble with those disabled as well.

You can get OSX for generic hardware, check out the OSX86 project(s) and various distros based on the research within it. Against the EULA, probably, and possibly against the law in your region, but it works. Sometimes.

That sounds like a bit of a kludge. If Apple released a commercial version of OSX for PC, I'd probably give it a try just to see what all the hoopla is about. Otherwise, I have zero experience with Apple/Mac. That's probably a bad thing, but Windows and Linux keep my hands full on PC as it is.

[h3%5kr3w]

Dont feel bad, the closest I have came yet to a Mac was an old powerbook... And I did not even touch it. Too expensive for my taste.

oh and btw,

. If Apple released a commercial version of OSX for PC, I'd probably give it a try just to see what all the hoopla is about

I wouldnt hold my breath... Least not until Steve Jobs breathes his last breath anyways.. (not a stab at Steve with that comment btw. I dont like him but bad health is never something to make fun of)

[VaKo]

Mr Jobs was the one who stopped Apple licensing its software for use on 3rd party whitebox Macs when he returned. His motive was that it was cutting into Apples profits, which is why the Apple platform is so locked down compared to Windows.