Moderator: Edi
I managed to crash both Linux AND Windows 2000 on a machine I have at home, so the stability argument is moot.Shinova wrote: Linux is not shit. It's superior to any Windows in OS structure, stability, and a more. Plus, it's free and it has none of all the strings attached to Windows and its programs.
Compiler comes built in with all distros I've ever used and is ./configure; make; make install really that hard? You only need those 3 steps for 99.9% of programs. Okay it can take a while with some larger programs but it compiles against the exact libraries on your system so you skip DLL hell.MKSheppard wrote:I managed to crash both Linux AND Windows 2000 on a machine I have at home, so the stability argument is moot.Shinova wrote: Linux is not shit. It's superior to any Windows in OS structure, stability, and a more. Plus, it's free and it has none of all the strings attached to Windows and its programs.
As for all the "free" programs Linux offers, you have to compile most
of them...which was a royal PITA.
I prefer compiling to RPMs because no dependency hell. However, I use precompiled for larger stuff, since I don't want to wait for days for stuff to compile on a P-120.Crazy_Vasey wrote:Compiler comes built in with all distros I've ever used and is ./configure; make; make install really that hard? You only need those 3 steps for 99.9% of programs. Okay it can take a while with some larger programs but it compiles against the exact libraries on your system so you skip DLL hell.MKSheppard wrote:I managed to crash both Linux AND Windows 2000 on a machine I have at home, so the stability argument is moot.Shinova wrote: Linux is not shit. It's superior to any Windows in OS structure, stability, and a more. Plus, it's free and it has none of all the strings attached to Windows and its programs.
As for all the "free" programs Linux offers, you have to compile most
of them...which was a royal PITA.
Anyway most things can be obtained in RPM format now.
Do you even realize that you != The norm? Do you realize why this is a fallacy?MKSheppard wrote:I managed to crash both Linux AND Windows 2000 on a machine I have at home, so the stability argument is moot.Shinova wrote: Linux is not shit. It's superior to any Windows in OS structure, stability, and a more. Plus, it's free and it has none of all the strings attached to Windows and its programs.
As for all the "free" programs Linux offers, you have to compile most
of them...which was a royal PITA.
That's the exact reason why Mandrake made drakfont, which takes care of compiling the fonts for you.Pu-239 wrote:Fonts are a bitch though. You have to run ttmkfdir, mkfontdir(is that right, need to look at docs) in the directory, edit the XFS config files, then restart the X server and XFS.
X sucks without Window's fonts.
I'm guessing it's because they don't care about privacy, or to be more elaborate, they don't care about Microsoft forcing others to have thier privacy invaded. Being a monopoly that controls everything and selling prducts that invade privacy is a bad (for us) combination.DPDarkPrimus wrote:http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?d ... 7-22&res=lPu-239 wrote: M$ will lose a large deal of marketshare if that happens.
But, on topic... why is it that no one in Congress has pointed out that Palladium would be a clear violation of privacy?
Nitram, I've used computers since the mid 1980s, and from the DOSSirNitram wrote: Do you even realize that you != The norm? Do you realize why this is a fallacy?
You have to install the development packages. Preferable, install all of them.MKSheppard wrote:Nitram, I've used computers since the mid 1980s, and from the DOSSirNitram wrote: Do you even realize that you != The norm? Do you realize why this is a fallacy?
days, and Linux was just too complex to use to compile those programs...
I tried and tried and tried to compile programs, but I kept getting thrown
back with errors...
Lots of experience in the DOS environment (which transmuted to Windows over time) only means you are very set in your ways, Shep.MKSheppard wrote:Nitram, I've used computers since the mid 1980s, and from the DOSSirNitram wrote:Do you even realize that you != The norm? Do you realize why this is a fallacy?
days, and Linux was just too complex to use to compile those programs...
For one thing, you could probably download binary RPM's and avoid compiling. But if you need to compile and can't, you either aren't doing "configure; make; make install" properly or (more likely) you didn't install the development libraries. Remember the part in the install process where it asked if you wanted a development install, a workstation install, or a server install? Always install the development stuff.I tried and tried and tried to compile programs, but I kept getting thrown back with errors...
Dev libraries take up a lot of space. Of course this is only an issue for me with my puny 6GB harddrive.Darth Wong wrote:Lots of experience in the DOS environment (which transmuted to Windows over time) only means you are very set in your ways, Shep.MKSheppard wrote:Nitram, I've used computers since the mid 1980s, and from the DOSSirNitram wrote:Do you even realize that you != The norm? Do you realize why this is a fallacy?
days, and Linux was just too complex to use to compile those programs...For one thing, you could probably download binary RPM's and avoid compiling. But if you need to compile and can't, you either aren't doing "configure; make; make install" properly or (more likely) you didn't install the development libraries. Remember the part in the install process where it asked if you wanted a development install, a workstation install, or a server install? Always install the development stuff.I tried and tried and tried to compile programs, but I kept getting thrown back with errors...
I did, goddammit. I ended up nuking Mandrake and installing W2K, and I'veDarth Wong wrote: Always install the development stuff.
For software installation, Debian is better. For configuration, it's a lot of manual stuff, though I've been accustomed to not having fancy GUIs due to using Core/LFS/Redhat mixture.MKSheppard wrote:I did, goddammit. I ended up nuking Mandrake and installing W2K, and I'veDarth Wong wrote: Always install the development stuff.
never been happier...
Uh, what's so complex about 'configure; make; make install', exactly?MKSheppard wrote:Nitram, I've used computers since the mid 1980s, and from the DOSSirNitram wrote: Do you even realize that you != The norm? Do you realize why this is a fallacy?
days, and Linux was just too complex to use to compile those programs...
I tried and tried and tried to compile programs, but I kept getting thrown
back with errors...
Good. Trade liberty for convenience. Ben Franklin would have been proud.MKSheppard wrote:I did, goddammit. I ended up nuking Mandrake and installing W2K, and I've never been happier...Darth Wong wrote: Always install the development stuff.
