Topic 'Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?' in forum 'Unix and Linux' - dslreports.com

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 14 Apr 2014 12:13:33 EDT

Billy Brethr posted : An assessment of the threat of malware includes the quality of timing. The lag between when a malware in introduced "into the wild" and when the major Anti-Virus companies identify the code as malware and include it's signature into their virus definition updates might be a week or even longer. It is during this time period that the vast majority of malware is propagated, as no one on the planet is protected against it. And once the initial "new" infection is in place and has a measure of control over the machine, it is then able to download and install additional malware, which may or may not be standardized and identifiable by the major malware companies.

One should consider that the failure of an anti-virus to identify the presence of malware does not necessarily indicated that the system is malware-free; it may also indicate that the malware is unique to that specific machine and has no universal characteristics that can be used to identify it's presence.

Further, there are stealth malwares that have the ability to hide their presence on a machine. Not just rootkits, which utilize one way of hiding their presence, but also simple scripts that make use of legitimate system files in order to download and install more standardized malware on an "as needed" basis.

Unique script tells standard, legitimate Windows file to download and execute malware, which then does whatever it wants. AV software identifies the newly downloaded malware and deletes it, but leaves behind the unique script and the legitimate "tools" that it can use to do the whole thing over & over again. Unless knows what to look for and where to look, all they will ever see is "Brand X" anti-virus software doing a "good job" of finding & removing malware, but the reality is that "Brand X" isn't doing a thing to address the root cause of it all.

This is just one of the many reasons why I constantly harp on the fact that people that believe in anti-virus softwares are in more jeopardy than people that do not, as they have a false sense of security that gives them permission to ignore obvious signs of infection (pop-ups, slow computer, delays in browsing, etc...). They don't know what it's doing, but their certain it's not infected. Maybe downloading updates for Windows, Java, Adobe, Google, iTunes, etc... All that invisible crap running in the background provides electronic "cover" for the existence of undetected malware, and that is just one of the many reasons why I identify, hunt-down and ruthlessly murder any and all processes, services, etc... that have the word "updater" in them, as an alternative to identifying, hunting-down and murdering the software engineers that created them.

Microsoft enables, subsidizes and contributes to the problem by it's fundamental belief that a User does not, and should not be afforded the right to make a decision to run any kind of update on an "as needed" basis. It should be a fundamental rule of any programming that all software that wants to run an update must require explicit manual permission to do so, and any software that fails to comply with this is categorized as malware and is automatically deleted in it's entirety.

Further, these updates must be required to provide a standardized, universally formatted report that gives explicit details as to the purpose for every single update and that these reports must carry with them a certification that can be revoked if in the event that the update software fails to make full disclosure of what the purpose of the update is.

It comes down to a fundamental question as to who owns, and has the right to fully control the computer, the hard drive and the magnetic, electronic 1's and 0's on that hard drive. The international Microsoft monopoly and the corrupt US Justice Department have defined for the Users what their rights are, and most Users accept that definition blindly, without ever giving it a 2nd thought. They accept the retarded notion that they are only given a "license" to use the Operating System, while never even considering that the Operating System is a intangible product, but the 1's and 0's are tangible and require electricity, hardware and regular service in order to keep them functional. The rights of individuals to own their 1's and 0's is never discussed. I may not own the relationship between the 1's and 0's on my computer, but I certainly own the magnetic fields and other medium that define those relationships. I may not own the sound in the air, but I certainly own the air. It's MY air, and no one has the right to tell me what I can and cannot do with my air, nor do they have a right to search or surveil my air without my permission, nor do they have the right to install software that does things with, in or too my air without my permission. It's a God-given and inalienable right; one worth fighting, killing and dying over.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:47:40 EDT

Tirael posted : To be honest, the only thing that a registry cleaner does is keep Windows from trying to find a file that isn't there (which is what 99.999% of the "leftover" registry keys are). The thing is that the whole process of Windows bouncing through the hive is so quick (and it only does it on startup and when the file needs to be accessed) that it could not POSSIBLY affect actual performance. Unless you (the user) were trying to access files that are not there. If someone figures out how to do that, let me know.
--
Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:13:26 EDT

me1212 posted :

said by NetFixer:

I have had experience with (while repairing the malware damage on their systems)

How often does that have to be done though? I may be lucky but I've only once or twice had a real malware problem in the modern windows world. Sure I've had a good deal of little things but maleware bytes takes care of that when I have anything.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 14 Apr 2014 07:58:24 EDT

Billy Brethr posted :

said by DarkSithPro:

A lot of games have demos and after you delete it keeps useless registry (entries). Also 3rd party mods and expansion packs.

Registry cleaners can sometimes be useful for deleting BAD registry entries, say for example an entry that instructs the O/S to launch an .exe that isn't there (for whatever reason), which may cause an error and a delay in boot times.

"Useless" registry entries, i.e. leftovers that are left behind in the registry and do nothing have no effect on the speed of the Operating System whatsoever. It is claimed that there is a "controversy" on the use of Registry Cleaners, but then there is also a controversy on whether or not the earth is flat. And handful of stupid, crackpots publicly insist that a registry can become "dirty" and that a "cleaner" will somehow make the system run better, and hoards of uninformed and gullible people believe them because they want to believe that they can press a few buttons and "PRESTO!" something positive has happened.

There is no, absolutely none, zero credible, objective and authoritative evidence that indicates that the deletion of "useless" registry entries by Registry Cleaners do anything positive for the system, If there is any debate at all on this issue, it is between those that have taken the time to research the issue and found that there is no such evidence, and those that want to believe in one-button fixes, the tooth fairy, free healthcare, unicorns and other fantasies propagated the stupid.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 14 Apr 2014 05:05:34 EDT

Tirael posted :

said by dave:

Most of the stuff you mention is pure snake oil.

Most of the stuff is pure snake oil (if and only if) you are not connected to the internet. Since most of us are, then there is any number of things (from botnets, ddos, brute force hacks, and etc) that can and will infect a system.

NetFixer is also right. Most gamers look at some online tutorial that tells them to stick a system in the DMZ (dumbest piece of advice ever) and do it. Personally, I game a lot. I have a lot of games through online services (Steam, Blizzard, and etc). My girlfriend also likes to try to figure out how many Chrome windows she can have open at any given time (seriously, 13 GB worth of Chrome windows). I will be damned if I do not do some ounce of prevention ensure my network doesn't get FUBAR'd by something she does (or I do by accident).

Assuming that you are unhackable or that malware protection (be it free or otherwise) is useless is a fool's errand. Only opening the ports you need open, closing the ones you don't, and having base level AV (such as MSE) is a must in today's online world.
--
Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 22:57:01 EDT

DarkSithPro posted :

said by dave:

"Run smooth", eh? There's a deep technical term for you.

All I know is, I don't install that crapware, I don't need to constantly reinstall the OS. and yet my Windows computers at home run just fine. As do the Windows computers I use at work (the work PCs run [I think] some MS endpoint protection, which is probably like Security Essentials for the enterprise).

I don't understand why having an online game subscription requires any of that other stuff, unless you're telling me that playing online games automatically opens you up to malware (I don't do games). And having to pay for games doesn't seem like an indictment of the OS to me.

Perhaps if you did game you would understand. A lot of games have demos and after you delete it keeps useless registry. Also 3rd party mods and expansion packs. Sometimes malware slips in. Cleaning the system keeps frame rates up. If you don't game then that is why you don't need to keep cleaning your system.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 22:55:37 EDT

NetFixer posted :

said by dave:

I don't understand why having an online game subscription requires any of that other stuff, unless you're telling me that playing online games automatically opens you up to malware (I don't do games)

Possibly because most gamers I have had experience with (while repairing the malware damage on their systems) have a habit of disabling software firewalls, and either putting the gaming system in a DMZ or physically bypassing any external firewall/router for the gaming PC(s). If you have stranger sex without a condom, you get what you ask for.
--
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

When governments fear people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 22:46:52 EDT

dave posted : "Run smooth", eh? There's a deep technical term for you.

All I know is, I don't install that crapware, I don't need to constantly reinstall the OS. and yet my Windows computers at home run just fine. As do the Windows computers I use at work (the work PCs run [I think] some MS endpoint protection, which is probably like Security Essentials for the enterprise).

I don't understand why having an online game subscription requires any of that other stuff, unless you're telling me that playing online games automatically opens you up to malware (I don't do games). And having to pay for games doesn't seem like an indictment of the OS to me.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 22:33:40 EDT

DarkSithPro posted :

said by dave:

said by DarkSithPro:

have to constantly use AV, registry cleaners, malware scanners, cache cleaners, and buy and subscribe to expensive programs and games to keep the system running the way I want it to be running.

What I don't understand is why you have to do that, and I (a long-time Windows NT user) need no such things.

Most of the stuff you mention is pure snake oil.

Because if I don't Windows won't run smooth and I won't know for sure if I have a malware infection, or not and I won't be able to play the online games I have that require monthly subscription such as WOW. The Windows environment cost money and time if you want entertainment and security.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 22:21:37 EDT

dave posted :

said by DarkSithPro:

have to constantly use AV, registry cleaners, malware scanners, cache cleaners, and buy and subscribe to expensive programs and games to keep the system running the way I want it to be running.

What I don't understand is why you have to do that, and I (a long-time Windows NT user) need no such things.

Most of the stuff you mention is pure snake oil.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:54:40 EDT

DarkSithPro posted : A couple of things come to mind. Wants and needs. Games and portable music devices first. A lot of us want games and music as it's enjoyable and because we spend our hard earned our money to be entertained. This is why we buy expensive iPods, video cards, Core i7 cpus, memory upgrades, SSD drives, and pay 60 bucks for blockbuster games. Then there's a need factor. If you work at a company chances are you need Microsoft Office. You also need to run programs for specialized peripherals depending on the company you work for that are only available on Windows, or Mac due to commercial reasons. But who am I to kid? It all comes down to money. I have to constantly use AV, registry cleaners, malware scanners, cache cleaners, and buy and subscribe to expensive programs and games to keep the system running the way I want it to be running. It's an expensive entertainment/work box that only runs better than Linux when you pay so much damn money to keep it that way. I guess free can be better if you look at your quarterly bank statement.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 19:27:34 EDT

darcilicious posted :

said by TuxRaiderPen2:

Linux is a first rate OS [...] especially desktop.

No, it's not. But such is your OPINION. And even Linux users here disagree with it.
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 13 Apr 2014 15:18:33 EDT

TuxRaiderPen2 posted :

said by maartena:
As long as a Linux distro on a laptop isn't able to be picked up from a dockingstation with 2 monitors attached on 2 different resolutions, and moved to a conference room with the laptop native screen and a projector with 2 completely different resolutions, without drivers and xserver freaking out about it, Linux isn't going to replace any Windows desktop in any office anytime soon.

Well in the referenced case above this falls similar in to the whole close the lid hibernate/sleep/suspend etc...

I've never had that work on a laptop reliably regardless of the OS. I quit even touching it after loosing work becasue of it...

And as for the monitor/projector thing.. hot pulling a laptop and then plugging into another setup hot..hmm.. if that is supposed to work, then I learned something new.. but I never do that...

I am in a similar situation and both my laptops my huge 17" Dell :D and my 15" compaq both did the same thing.. native screen on, and VGA output to a projector.. I never had any issue with doing it.. but I didn't try this hot swap thing... and this was and is still on 10.04 with OEM nVidia drivers on both.

I'll let the X gurus pipe in, but I don't think it is supposed to work that way, ie: hot swap monitors... at least in Linux.

Others outside IT continue to do presentation on laptops with only Linux, as we don't have anything else, and no issues, but again.. they don't do this whole hot swap thing.

said by maartena:
They are talking about an OS that can replace the Windows system they and their family uses every day for a large variety of tasks,

My family has no choice, if they want support they use Linux, I don't support anything else..They've been doing it for almost 2 years now...

said by maartena:
including games

I think this has been covered before, if you want that your on the wrong OS, and always will be. That is not likely to change, and quite honestly, that is fine with me.

said by maartena:
, syncing their iPhones,

What are you talking about "syncing" ? ? I don't have an idiot phone, and with my Droid device, I have no clue as to what your talking about.

Transfer files? I do that via Airdroid or pull the uSD card out and put in an adapter.

said by maartena:
(and don't come back with: they should buy android!),

Should be doing that anyway. :p

There is this neat little KDEConnect feature now for 14.04 that you put a small application in your device, and then it sends SMS message, phone call notices, battery levels to the desktop as a notification. Supposedly you can even browse files on the device.

said by maartena:
watch Netflix video without having any issues (Silverlight),

That is NOT going to happen. The software that powers this is not compatible with Linux by design.

said by maartena:
and being in a retail store, seeing a great deal on a printer, and not having to research first whether the thing will work in your OS.

Then get the manufactures to quit being cheap crooks, but is steal simple to achieve. Purchase HP, period. Much like modems, the computer should not be expected to make up for a dumb controller less device. Purchase HP and so long as they have the HPLIP service already running they plug in a USB printer and HPLIP will start a "wizard" to handle it, gee just like some other "OS."

I can relate 100's of stores of Janey going to the local megamart and getting some printer on sale, and still having problems to get it installed on your "perfect 'OS'" and getting calls from them to ask me about it. I try it on my Linux systems and it works great. Easy way to aquire cheap to free pritners/AIO's.

Even one of the more stuborn set of AIO's has built in support from *buntu's, Kodak. They have included the C2ESP setup needed to power these by default for 2 YEARS.

said by maartena:
The flash and silverlight alternatives available for Linux are often unreliable and slow. (see my post earlier in Linux Mint).

I run the flash hog with out issue and view all kinds of videos with it. Don't seem to have any issues other than that of flash being a hog to start.

As for the other. Won't touch it. I know the last issue of Linux Format I got wasted a lot of paper and ink on something that would allow you to run the actual infestationlight software... and it working with iPlayer (since they are a UK magazine)..

I personally don't see the need to feed sites which use that crap, but if you insist that it can't be done, well your wrong...and if Linux Format is using it then their solution is normally pretty friendly to the noobs/mom|dad/grandma|pa set for their use too. I have no use for that solution.

said by maartena:
One of the biggest frustrations I run into running Linux, is that it is not at all friendly to switching monitors on the fly. I often put my laptop into a docking station where I use 2 monitors, and want the 24" to be my main monitor. Then, I pick up the laptop, move to the conference room, and plug in a projector with a different resolution. So withing 5 minutes, I switch from 24" + laptop screen ---> laptop screen only ---> laptop screen + projector.

See other post reply, but as far as I know Linux is not designed to do that, and never was at least "hot."

said by maartena:
Another PITA is older apps. I have a few little apps (a multi-renamer is one) that were once designed for Windows 2000, haven't been updated since 2001, but still work perfectly fine on Windows 8, and are lightweight, and fast, and work better then newer alternatives. There is a good chance that most Windows 32-bit software designed since 1995, will work 20 years later on whatever we run in 2015. There are some obvious exceptions of course, such as anti-virus and other system tools specifically designed for certain windows versions, but I still play games from 2004 for instance, without any dependency issues.

Again, games = your not using Linux.

said by maartena:
Try doing that in Linux. If you found a app or game, which a developer stopped maintaining in say 2004, you are going to find it is almost impossible to get it to work in newer versions of Linux, because the backward compatibility of many libraries is simply horrible.

Since I gave up using that other "OS" decades ago.. I have no idea... I've already been there with some software that is used to read WX stations... I've yet to test it on 14.04. It relies on some USB libs that there was changes to, and then there was changes in the make file format that effected compiling... who knows if it will compile now..

And I guess if you'd like to try the 20+ cases of 3.5" disks of old shareware stuff I've still got in storage to see if it runs on a infestation 8 system, I could ship you some.. I doubt much of it runs.

said by maartena:
Here is a great example of a game that works in both Windows and Linux..... but there is quite a caveat:

Windows: a MSI installer is available. A few clicks and you are done.

Again games means NO LINUX. It is just never going to happen, and I for one have no issue with that. And if lamer gamer is your be all end all to life, then I think getting a device dedicted to that v. a PC would be investment. Yes I am total biased against games. I see no value in them. If I were to feel the need for that, then I will break out my 2600.

said by maartena:
Linux: No repository carries this game, and hasn't for years. You will have to compile it yourself. Now for a seasoned linux user this may not be a problem, it really doesn't help with those who want to use Linux as an alternative, and are average users.

No arguement that Linux software installation has issues. It has come a LOOOONG way in just the past few years.

Many of the distros offer these "software stores" which will do exactly what you want. Yes your game is not likely to be in it.

Can a lot more be done. YES!

Is it ever going to be as simple as some other "OS?" NO! But in comparison, of apt/synaptic v. yum, I'll take apt/synaptic any day. Even with synaptic, you select a package tell to mark for installtion, and it does its thing...

Your game could create "STATIC" built binary versions which would probably allow for something similar to the install process you want. In the Linux world that is tannamount to murder practically. Developers like your referenced game need to invest in creating a shell script that handles much of this so that it can offer an install experience close the other installers on some other alleged "OS."

If VMWare can get their Player software to install with a simple script now versus the old nonsene of having to find and install a bunch of dependencies ahead of time, then I think a game that is developed on Linux to start should be able to outshine them.

Yes, you probably need to have something to handle variances from 10.04 to 14.04, and RH/CentOS/Fedora, and then Gentoo well your probably just out of luck since they probably would prefer to toggle in the software on the front panel. :D :p

said by maartena:
So while you may call Linux a "first rate" OS, the reality is that it really isn't. It may be first rate in the server world, and you will hear no argument from me on that. At all. But it is second rate, and if we include Mac OS I would even say third rate to Windows on the desktop.

Linux is a first rate OS, regardless of where it is used server and especially desktop.

Your right it won't run uber lamer duty 2014, and it never will. A-OK with me! Mom and dad, you know what they do... email, play solitare, web browsing, access banking sites, some word processing, some spread sheets.. and every bit of that works just like any other "OS" and I don't have to clean up messes. They don't know any different really other than the icons look different.

As for netcrpax, you want that, well get a Roku or something that plays it. For me my Linux PC's play media just fine. They suck down all my viewing needs, spit out a daily playlist for VLC, and I play it. I don't seem to have the least issue with it. And I am not locked into some proprietary and DRM'd format.
--
1311393600 - Back to Black.....Black....Black....

Want health care? Get a job! No to ACA! No to USNHS or USHIP or anything like them!
Job = Benefits = Health care, simple.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:19:24 EDT

maartena posted :

said by DarkSithPro:

My point is Microsoft and Apple have the commercial software and hardware OEM's by the balls. It's a fact the Open Source nVidia and AMD/ATI Open Source drivers and even closed source blobs are pathetic compared to their windows counterparts. Directx/Direct3d? Open Source has nothing to counter Microsoft's propriety API. Too many game developers like it and employ Direct3d with frame rate benefits. Specialized peripherals such as printers, faxes for businesses, you can forget about majority Linux driver support. What I'm trying to say is that someone who is looking for a personal desktop platform to support their games, programs, and peripherals will find that "Microsoft" provides more so than any Linux distribution at this current time.

As long as a Linux distro on a laptop isn't able to be picked up from a dockingstation with 2 monitors attached on 2 different resolutions, and moved to a conference room with the laptop native screen and a projector with 2 completely different resolutions, without drivers and xserver freaking out about it, Linux isn't going to replace any Windows desktop in any office anytime soon.

That was one of my major issues when I ran Linux in my office. I am an IT specialist, so I had the choice without the boss complaining, but after moving around the office and trying to show stuff to people using different projectors, different monitors, etc, etc..... I just about threw it out the window, and went back to Windows instead. On Windows I could leave all my open software running, hook up to a projector, and off we go. On Linux I had to restart the gui part to even recognize it had a brand new monitor, and I have had the NVidia driver crash on me more then once.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sat, 12 Apr 2014 23:12:43 EDT

maartena posted :

said by TuxRaiderPen2:

said by DarkSithPro:
Linux is inferior to Windows and Mac in terms of commercial software and peripherals usability. If all you have is second rate alternatives to the big boy commercial software companies, then that just sucks.

Tons of commercial operations rely on Apache, MySQL, Postgre, etc. and others! I would not call these second rate alternatives.

SAP? Red Hat and RHEL is used to power SAP servers.. and do you know how infested with SAP junk the business world is?

I don't think you can find a lot of people who would disagree with the fact that Linux is a great platform for servers. As a matter of fact, for quite a few applications I would recommend Linux over any OS, because it works, is rock stable, and very versatile.

But people in this topic aren't talking about a SAP server, Apache webserver, MySQL database server, Postgre server, etc, etc....

They are talking about an OS that can replace the Windows system they and their family uses every day for a large variety of tasks, including games, syncing their iPhones, (and don't come back with: they should buy android!), watch Netflix video without having any issues (Silverlight), and being in a retail store, seeing a great deal on a printer, and not having to research first whether the thing will work in your OS.

The flash and silverlight alternatives available for Linux are often unreliable and slow. (see my post earlier in Linux Mint).

One of the biggest frustrations I run into running Linux, is that it is not at all friendly to switching monitors on the fly. I often put my laptop into a docking station where I use 2 monitors, and want the 24" to be my main monitor. Then, I pick up the laptop, move to the conference room, and plug in a projector with a different resolution. So withing 5 minutes, I switch from 24" + laptop screen ---> laptop screen only ---> laptop screen + projector.

Windows does this pretty seamlessly, and remembers the monitors once they have been used at least once.... Linux freaks out, and I often have to restart the X server just to get it to work.

Another PITA is older apps. I have a few little apps (a multi-renamer is one) that were once designed for Windows 2000, haven't been updated since 2001, but still work perfectly fine on Windows 8, and are lightweight, and fast, and work better then newer alternatives. There is a good chance that most Windows 32-bit software designed since 1995, will work 20 years later on whatever we run in 2015. There are some obvious exceptions of course, such as anti-virus and other system tools specifically designed for certain windows versions, but I still play games from 2004 for instance, without any dependency issues.

Try doing that in Linux. If you found a app or game, which a developer stopped maintaining in say 2004, you are going to find it is almost impossible to get it to work in newer versions of Linux, because the backward compatibility of many libraries is simply horrible.

Here is a great example of a game that works in both Windows and Linux..... but there is quite a caveat:

»www.ultimatestunts.nl/ - a remake of the 80s DOS game Stunts.

Windows: a MSI installer is available. A few clicks and you are done.

Linux: No repository carries this game, and hasn't for years. You will have to compile it yourself. Now for a seasoned linux user this may not be a problem, it really doesn't help with those who want to use Linux as an alternative, and are average users.

So while you may call Linux a "first rate" OS, the reality is that it really isn't. It may be first rate in the server world, and you will hear no argument from me on that. At all. But it is second rate, and if we include Mac OS I would even say third rate to Windows on the desktop.

And yes, for the record: I have ran Linux on and off since the mid-nineties, and my laptop runs Linux Mint 16.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:46:22 EDT

Tirael posted : There is a hard push right now in the *nix (specifically Debian based distros like Ubuntu) to get 3D hardware acceleration. I have gamed on Linux through Steam and such. I see no real noticeable difference in quality. However, the setup is needlessly tedious and annoying.
--
Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 09 Apr 2014 01:34:42 EDT

Wily_One posted :

»youtu.be/C6cxNR9ML8k

Real servers run Linux. (Used to be Unix, but Linux pretty much has the lock for most deployments now.)

Desktop/personal OS is another issue. I don't spend time trying to make Linux "look just like Windows" - that's a fool's errand.

Use the best tool for the job.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Tue, 08 Apr 2014 20:21:36 EDT

DarkSithPro posted :

said by TuxRaiderPen2:

said by DarkSithPro:
Linux is inferior to Windows and Mac in terms of commercial software and peripherals usability. If all you have is second rate alternatives to the big boy commercial software companies, then that just sucks.

Ok.. you've rattled my cage.. and the WRONG cage! :mad: :mad: :p

So back it up!

Tons of commercial operations rely on Apache, MySQL, Postgre, etc. and others! I would not call these second rate alternatives.

SAP? Have you heard of them? Probably not as your "commercial" software is probably limited to duty calls extreme lamer 14 or something... Well even though I despise the company to all good night.. Red Hat and RHEL is used to power SAP servers.. and do you know how infested with SAP junk the business world is? It is is worse than that other infestation with a w. :mad:

Yes, your right that if you want to run lamer gamer nonsense, Linux is NOT the OS your looking for! I for one am 100% happy and thrilled with that.. I don't play on my systems... and even if I did... my idea of games is PacMan, Zaxxon, Ms. PacMan, Centiepede, and guess what if you wanted to persue it.. MAME has that covered. And MAME runs quite well on Linux.

Oh.. but it can't run "office" applications! Really? Seems that Libre|Openoffice has that covered... no it is not perfect, but some of that is due to intentional fiddling by a certain company in Oregon...seems many organizations have decided that it is time to cut the gravy train to that company.. even if they are not migrating to Linux to do it..they are moving away from the huge fees for said program(s).

Hardware? Ok... there could be issues with ANY OS in re hardware. I've been there on your ever so perfect OS in hardware that should be supported with drivers, and it was junk and didn't work.. Same still applies today regardless of OS. Some stuff will never work in Linux, oh well. I support companies that do support linux by providing OEM drivers, and or support software to make their stuff work in Linux like nVidia, and HP.

So I will take my FIRST RATE Linux OS any day, any time, thank you.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Tue, 08 Apr 2014 15:24:53 EDT

darcilicious posted : None of us here are running SAP at home, so chill. When someone talks about "commercial software" on Windows and OS X, they are NOT talking about SAP and other server software (commercial or otherwise).

They are typically referring to (for example) user software such as the Adobe suite of multimedia design applications, various sound editing/mixing software packages (e.g. DAWs such as Logic Pro, Ableton Live, Pro Tools etc), and the like where yes the number and quality of these programs on Windows and OS X far outnumber the ones on Linux.

So no, games are not the end-all be-all of commercial apps for users that run primarily on OS X or Windows.
--
♬ Dragon of good fortune struggles with the trickster Fox ♬

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Tue, 08 Apr 2014 14:52:28 EDT

TuxRaiderPen2 posted :

said by DarkSithPro:
Linux is inferior to Windows and Mac in terms of commercial software and peripherals usability. If all you have is second rate alternatives to the big boy commercial software companies, then that just sucks.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Tue, 01 Apr 2014 20:40:03 EDT

Tirael posted : I edited my post to reflect what I meant. It was a little late when I wrote it initially.
--
Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Tue, 01 Apr 2014 10:26:16 EDT

Maxo posted :

said by Tirael:

Commercial software developers can develop for Linux if they find it in their business interest, and many do. There do not HAVE to be free alternatives.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.blogspot.com

»www.facebook.com/maxolasersquad

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Tue, 01 Apr 2014 01:58:14 EDT

Tirael posted :

said by DarkSithPro:

Linux is inferior to Windows and Mac in terms of commercial software and peripherals usability

Commercial software: Absolutely. This is an ideological choice by the open source community for the most part, the exceptions being Suse, Canonical, and Red Hat (Fedora). There are paid for alternatives for some Linux packages, but because of the GPL, there are a lot of free alternatives (and derivative works). It isn't about second rate alternatives. In the eyes of Linux, those programs from "big boy commercial companies" doesn't exist. All that exists are packages that do the similar functions in the Linux sphere.

Peripherals usability: I have not found a single peripheral (I assume you mean keyboard, mice, webcams, printers, headsets, card readers, kvm switches, gamepads, Smart Card readers, and etc) that does not work in Linux, with a little bit of know how and the ability to read. I have found programs that do not work, such as Silverlight, however.

As far as the Silverlight stuff: It downloads a wine-compholio, so it really isn't a native Linux thing. That is why it causes issues (such as what maartena said). By not work, I meant "does not work the way it should". Of course I could get it to show video, but constant crashing, crappy sound, crappy frames rates, and the like is equivalent to "not working". This is in Debian.
--
“Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites.” - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 31 Mar 2014 22:52:52 EDT

DarkSithPro posted : Linux is inferior to Windows and Mac in terms of commercial software and peripherals usability. If all you have is second rate alternatives to the big boy commercial software companies, then that just sucks.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 31 Mar 2014 08:47:24 EDT

El Quintron posted :

said by maartena:

Linux has gotten too complex. And after more then 20 years of development, it is still not close to really replace the desktop for the little-more-then-average user. And for the record, yes I am typing this from my laptop running Linux.

I think there's some fairness in that comment, but I also think that Windows fosters bad computing habits, and by that I mean the idea that a single computer should be all things to all people.

Linux doesn't foster this, and as a result your everyday computer user either views it a complicated or limited, when in fact Windows is just poor at doing lots of things, versus your typical Linux setup which is much more focused on a particular set of tasks.

EQ
--
Support Bacteria -- It's the Only Culture Some People Have

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 23:18:11 EDT

maartena posted :

said by jawilljr:

And because it is so easy to install software in windoze...the above is what a lot of people get..

Windows is a big NO.

That is a user issue. I guarantee you that if you let a user that DOES do the above work with a Linux computer, he/she will have made a mess out of your Linux install as well. No you don't have toolbars that come with freeware programs, but if you just start installing stuff from the repositories, you will eventually get a pretty cluttered system, and in some cases, one program can break another because the dependencies have changed.

Say what you will, but A current Windows 7 installation (or Windows 8) can pretty much run all Windows software released in the last 15 or so years. If you have programs that require different versions of Visual Basic, C++, DirectX, etc.... they will run perfectly fine alongside programs that require newer versions of those. Most programs released in say 2000, will run on the same Windows as a program released in 2014.

In Linux, you are going to be in dependency HELL if you want to do this.... no matter how much love an OLD program, if it can't work with newer C++ libraries, you are going to have a problem with newer software that DOES need those newer libraries.

Personally, I run Linux Mint 16 (I switched to Mint when Ubuntu changed its GUI) on 2 computers, MacOS on my wife's Macbook, and Windows 7, Windows 8 on 2 more computers, so I take the best of all worlds, and combine them.

I love this laptop, Linux Mint works great, but I am under no illusions that Linux is just not ready for mainstream use, and problems like the ones with Netflix, are real.

The biggest strenght of Linux, is also its major weakness: Everyone can participate and develop for Linux, but there is also no authority. There are roughly 20 different types of distributions, and from those 20, several hundred forks have been created. The most well known ones are probably the ones based on Debian, but there is also based on Redhat, Mandriva, Gentoo, etc, etc..... in one distro you can install a .deb, in another a .rpm, and in yet another you will have to compile stuff from scratch most of the time, etc, etc.... there is NO uniformity.

So the next time you complain about Linux not being supported by such and so, THIS is why. A company can't possibly be expected to support not only the main distributions, but also the hundreds of forks that are available. Even Linus Torvalds has commented on this..... it has gotten a little TOO complex. What Linux should one choose? Yeah if you just do some email and webbrowsing, any might do.... but soon you may find out that program A is only available through Fedora based Distro's, and program B only is available through Debian based, and if you want to run both program A and B on the same computer, you are going to have to compile ONE of those from scratch with the sourcecode, and that brings a lot of it's own headaches with it.

Distrowatch.com has a top 100 of distributions, but there are many many more..... granted, some are the same fork (Ubuntu/Kubuntu/Lubuntu/Xubuntu etc), but even within those the differences are big enough to warrant their own spot in the listings.

Linux has gotten too complex. And after more then 20 years of development, it is still not close to really replace the desktop for the little-more-then-average user. And for the record, yes I am typing this from my laptop running Linux. :)

--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:42:17 EDT

jawilljr posted : [att=1]

And because it is so easy to install software in windoze...the above is what a lot of people get..

Windows is a big NO.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 17:13:42 EDT

tubbynet posted :

said by maartena:

It is certainly keeping me from installing Linux my main media center PC in the living room, it will stay on Windows 7.

perhaps you misinterpreted the meaning of my post.
i have been messing with *nix for about 12 years. i started when i was about 15 messing around with red-hat right about the time that the fedora project came to fruition. i've run *nix as my daily driver since then, though for work i do have to use a windows vm to interoperate with the working class. i don't claim to be a linux expert -- but i feel very comfortable messing with the guts of linux and can make things (usually) work.

my post was to show that -- yes, this does work and if you are comfortable with the concept of user agents, etc -- then this is a pretty easy install, especially in ubuntu.

yes -- the performance isn't as great as native windows/mac -- because *nix has to have several layers of abstraction to get the silverlight plugin working. would i run this on an htpc -- probably not. however -- when i have to travel with my work pc -- it will suffice for simple streaming to kill time.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 15:56:54 EDT

maartena posted :

said by tubbynet:

said by Tirael:

I could never get Pipelight to work, no matter which browser I used (Chromium, Firefox, Iceweasel, Google Chrome). I just gave up.

i did this in about 10 mins on an xubuntu jump box i have through an nx session.
worked like a champ with chromium.

q.

But it is a prime example as to why Linux isn't ready for mainstream desktop use. A new linux user that has a netflix account would expect to have to install something silver-light-ish from the main repository, when the need arises, more or less like Windows will direct you to a silverlight download when you do not have it installed.

Instead, when in Mint 16 you decide to search for silverlight, nothing comes up. So you take to Google. Not knowing the name pipelight, you may search for something like Silverlight for Linux. The first page of searches does not mention ANYTHING about something called "pipelight", but instead shows pages referring to Moonlight, which for many years was indeed a work-in-progress to come up with a Silverlight for Linux, but has since been abandoned.

So you read around for a while, and on a 2nd page of search you come across 2 links:

»www.webupd8.org/2013/08/ ··· nux.html
»how-to.wikia.com/wiki/Ho ··· in_Linux

The first link shows how to install pipelight.
The second link shows other alternatives, mostly going the Wine route or the route of using a Virtualbox VM to show video.

So since you want a native Linux solution, you go the first route: installing pipelight.

Quite quickly, you are confronted with some command line work. Now for me that is not a problem, I don't mind the command line, and have no problem working with it. But for the generation that started using computers for the first time when Windows 95 was the main OS.... command line feels unfamiliar. And strange.

But allright! Since I just did a fresh Mint 16 install on this laptop, AND I have a Netflix account, I will give this a try.

First thing I am noticing during the install is that it will add 216 MB to my diskspace. That seems a lot, but I am sure there is a lot of dependencies that needs to be downloaded that I may not have gotten with my rather fresh Mint 16 install. Among others, there is a Microsoft font it needs to install, and I need to accept their EULA etc. Thats all fine. I am noticing however, it is actually downloading windows type .exe files from the corefont website. That reminds me back in the day when you had to extrace a NDIS driver from a executable to get the firmware for some linksys wireless card I used way back when! :D

(Will edit this post as I now need to close my browser)

After restarting the browser, the little "test" they linked to in the article above, works..... But Netflix does not. It refuses, and just tells me I am not running a supported platform, and it cannot play video. I need to run Windows or MacOS... or, surprisingly, Chrome OS, which IS linux based if I remember correctly, but of course Google uses their own proprietary code, and Google is a company that actually bothered to BUY licensing for Silverlight, which might explain why it is supported.

The fix, of course, is easy and supplied in the article: We need to lie to Linux about our browser and OS version, and several plugins are available to do just that. After installing this plugin, and telling Firefox to lie, and saying it is running Windows with Firefox 26, it is time to try it.

So, I went for some SD content.... I have been watching Deepspace 9 again, so once I logged on Netflix and I selected my profile, I just play the next episode. The performance however.... is horrible. The play stutters, and it isn't the kind that is because of buffering. Nor should it, I have a 100 Mbps connection here, and it buffers HD streams to my TV without problems..... ever. This though, seems rather uncomortable. The sound stutters too every so often.

Is it the hardware? I think not, it is a 3 year old laptop, core 2 duo, 4 GB of RAM, and it plays HD video from other sources without issue.

OKay lets try something HD.

I select Torchwood. And low and behold...... "The Silverlight plugin has crashed". Great, reload the page to try again.... not promising so far. Actually, quite the opposite, this is dismal and quite embarrassing if you wanted to sell Linux to a Netflix watcher.

Torchwood now starts, and it is in HD. It starts pretty fast, which I think is because of my fast internet connection. Playback however, is horrendous, like it has 5 frames per second. Okay, I decide to fast forward to the 18 minute mark. Oh great, the silverlight plugin crashed again, please reload......

After reload it starts play again, and it did remember where I was. But that is not because of silverlight, but in spite of it. ;) Netflix just saves that. In Torchwood in the meantime, one of the characters comes through a door. The door opens with what seems 3 to 5 fps..... Its horrendous.

So conclusion: Yes, it is possible to get pipelight to work. But it is horribly unstable on a brand new Mint 16 installation, on a core 2 duo laptop with 4 GB, connected to a 100 Mbps internet connection that plays full HD on my TV every time of the day without problems, on a media center PC that is actually LESS in specs.

So although the poster above me might claim: "oh its easy, it worked here", the reality is that it doesn't for everyone. It certainly didn't for me. When 2 people are in a room and barely move and just speak.... it seems to work. But if they start running, slamming doors, fight, or do anything action-wise, it just becomes unwatchable.

And for the record: This VERY laptop was a media center for my 2nd TV, and played 1080p video on my other PC without a HITCH using a Windows 7 install. I since then put an apple TV in that room, and reclaimed this laptop. So I am 100% sure it is not the hardware. It is the linux way of implementing/using Silverlight, and it just isn't ready for the average user that wants to use things like Netflix.

It is certainly keeping me from installing Linux my main media center PC in the living room, it will stay on Windows 7.

Conclusion in the end: NO.

--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 30 Mar 2014 10:56:28 EDT

tubbynet posted :

said by Tirael:

I could never get Pipelight to work, no matter which browser I used (Chromium, Firefox, Iceweasel, Google Chrome). I just gave up.

i did this in about 10 mins on an xubuntu jump box i have through an nx session.
worked like a champ with chromium.

q.
--
"...if I in my north room dance naked, grotesquely before my mirror waving my shirt round my head and singing softly to myself..."

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 22:31:21 EDT

jawilljr posted :

said by maartena:

I have the same on my Linux mint laptop btw, can't get netflix to work.

Why not start a new thread? You never know, someone might be able to help fix the problem.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 19:29:31 EDT

maartena posted :

said by Maxo

There is nothing Linux can do to make proprietary technologies work on it correctly. If the vendor will not support their proprietary platform on Linux, then getting it working will always be a hit-or-miss hack.

This is not so black and white as you describe here. Companies like Microsoft license their technologies to anyone that wants to pay for them. Take NTFS support for example. This has been reverse-engineered by a group of open source people, and was many years in the making before it was any good, and it still isn't perfect. Companies like paragon, easeus, Norton, and others simply went to Microsoft and bought the support to make NTFS work perfectly on their partitioning bootable CD's, some of which use a proprietary kernel to boot. But then, they also SELL their software to make that money back.

Linux distros can actually pay Microsoft for technology licensing of certain technologies, including DirectX, but then Linux would slowly become a commercial enterprise with the need to sell Linux to return the investment, and that isn't going to fly. But bottom line, companies usually don't REFUSE to offer support or technology licensing, but you can PAY for it. It just doesn't make much economical sense for Linux.

I have the same on my Linux mint laptop btw, can't get netflix to work.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:10:52 EDT

Tirael posted : Three. For some reason Netflix and Amazon would not register the Silverlight plugin being installed. Although, this was over a year ago now, so it may be working better.
--
Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 11:48:59 EDT

Maxo posted :

said by me1212:

You are 100% right, linux needs to get streaming to work and easy installs of programs. Just click and go even if each distro does it differently its something.

Streaming works fine on Linux.

There is nothing Linux can do to make proprietary technologies work on it correctly. If the vendor will not support their proprietary platform on Linux, then getting it working will always be a hit-or-miss hack.

Vendors that want to stream on Linux can do that if they believe it is in their interests. Vendors that do not may find the community build hacks, like pipelight, but there's not much more that we can expect "Linux" to do.

It's like saying Google+ needs to support grandpa. If grandpa is not on Google+, that's a decision he made, not G+. It's the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Linux "supports" just fine, we just need the vendors to support Linux, which they will do if the customer base is there. The customer base will come when vendors support Linux. And then the circle repeats. Fun.
--
"Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter

»maxolasersquad.com/

»maxolasersquad.blogspot.com

»www.facebook.com/maxolasersquad

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 10:10:14 EDT

me1212 posted : You are 100% right, linux needs to get streaming to work and easy installs of programs. Just click and go even if each distro does it differently its something.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:01:02 EDT

Maxo posted :

said by Tirael:

I could never get Pipelight to work, no matter which browser I used (Chromium, Firefox, Iceweasel, Google Chrome). I just gave up.

How many PCs did you try? I have it working on four different machines. I used the instructions posted by jawilljr and it worked perfectly all four times. I am very impressed with how well it works, even on my underpowered laptop.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 03:53:43 EDT

Tirael posted : I could never get Pipelight to work, no matter which browser I used (Chromium, Firefox, Iceweasel, Google Chrome). I just gave up.
--
Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 26 Mar 2014 01:16:19 EDT

jawilljr posted : You can watch Netflix with Linux. All you have to do is add the pipelight repository to install Silverlight.

Here are the Instructions.

After installing Silverlight, you need to use a User Agent Switcher.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Tue, 25 Mar 2014 23:01:12 EDT

Tirael posted : Amazon Instant Video prefers Silverlight, but can use Flash. You are correct about Netflix.

As far as games, Steam on Linux (and SteamOS) is what almost all Linux distros are doing to bring gaming to Linux.
--
Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Tue, 25 Mar 2014 22:38:36 EDT

maartena posted :

said by BlitzenZeus:

I have a similar setup, I still do my gaming in windows as wine can be a real pain, but I can use either for just about everything else. Overall I started with command line operating sytems like dos, and as long as it's functional I can use either. I have a linux vm in windows I don't feel the need to use often, and I have a windows vm in linux I mostly just use to watch netflix since it's less of a pain in the ass than trying to get netflix working on linux. The windows vm works overall far better than wine, and I can change it to seemless mode where I can use windows, and linux programs side by side, even relative fullscreen, however of course gaming in a vm doesn't quite work. There's stuff like dosbox too, but I'm not running anything that old.

Besides the games, there is another thing I noticed in your posts here: Netflix. We here are a "cord cutter" household, meaning we do not have a traditional TV service like cable or satellite, but use online methods of watching TV only.

We have Amazon Prime, which uses Silverlight, and Netflix, which probably uses the same. I also use a service called Overplay SmartDNS so I can access BBC iPlayer, Australian on-demand networks, Canadian TV, etc.... and some of those probably use Silverlight as well.

Our main living room TV has a WINDOWS box with XBMC, and I generally just use a Chrome browser on the TV to get to all the things I want to play online. My second TV has a Apple TV, and my office has 2 monitors, on one of which I often play movies, etc while doing stuff on the first monitor.

I have Linux Mint 16 on my laptop, which seems to work pretty good. But I do know that Linux just isn't there yet.

I'll make this statement:

Linux is great for the really basic user (grandma that uses email and facebook and a solitaire game), and the really advanced user that knows the in-and-outs of the command prompt and knows what they are doing. If you fall somewhere in between, and know how to install games and programs on your computer, and use it for a bit more then the basics, you'll run into problems with Linux. It will take you 2 hours to get a game to work, only to find out that you still can't run it in a Window (which I do with many online games so i can very easily switch back and forth between programs) or you find out certain plugins do not work, etc, etc....

The thing is, Linux CAN be great. It CAN be. Right now, it takes too much trouble to make a game-installer that will work out of the box on ALL linux distributions. If the Linux distributions get their heads together and come up with one streamlined installation method for e.g. games, so that a user can literary go to a game store, and buy the DVD for "Civilization V for Linux", and it will guaranteed work with all current Linux versions, or at the very least the top 10 distros, and it will install like Windows: insert DVD, auto run, click install, next, next, next, OK, done...... THEN I think Linux has a potential to grow.

They don't need to focus on getting Windows programs to work, they need to focus on streamlining ALL distros in such a way that the underlying installation processes work the same, regardless of what distro type you use, whether Debian, SUSE, Mandrake, Slackware, Gentoo or other based.

But that is not likely to happen, as it sets the distros apart. But as long as so much diversity exists in Linux, it will also be its downfall. Or at least it will prevent it from climbing to a respectable market share on the desktops.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 24 Mar 2014 21:33:38 EDT

BlitzenZeus posted : I have a similar setup, I still do my gaming in windows as wine can be a real pain, but I can use either for just about everything else. Overall I started with command line operating sytems like dos, and as long as it's functional I can use either. I have a linux vm in windows I don't feel the need to use often, and I have a windows vm in linux I mostly just use to watch netflix since it's less of a pain in the ass than trying to get netflix working on linux. The windows vm works overall far better than wine, and I can change it to seemless mode where I can use windows, and linux programs side by side, even relative fullscreen, however of course gaming in a vm doesn't quite work. There's stuff like dosbox too, but I'm not running anything that old.
--
I distrust those people who know so well what god wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires- Susan B. Anthony
Yesterday we obeyed kings, and bent our necks before emperors. But today we kneel only to the truth- Kahlil G.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Mon, 24 Mar 2014 17:26:39 EDT

Tirael posted : GIMP can do what Photoshop does, but it requires downloading a bunch of plug-ins, brush packs, and etc. I agree with you on using Photoshop, but only because the out-of-the-box experience requires very little user setup.

If you are going to game on Linux, Ubuntu and Fedora are the best distros to use, imo. Ubuntu has traditionally had great support for gaming on Linux and Fedora has the most current drivers for newer hardware.

The problem with WINE is that proprietary drivers are the best to use (imo) when you game. Those drivers are a PITA as it is and adding WINE instability on top of it just makes it worse. However, when you do get it working, there is no real difference in gaming on Linux and gaming on Windows. Some people report better FPS, but I think that is more placebo than anything else.
--
Reality doesn't bite, rather our perception of reality bites. - Anthony J. D'Angelo

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 23 Mar 2014 22:36:40 EDT

maartena posted : My biggest issue with Linux is still games. I play several games on Steam, and several MMO's not on steam, and although there is a chance they may work using wine, I have always had problems getting them to work.

Another problem is my photoshop CS. I restore old photos as a hobby, and GIMP simply doesn't cut it.

Everything else, I can use Linux for, and I actually run Linux mint on one of my laptops. But since I don't want to multiboot I will still stick with windows. My machine has windows 8.1 with Start8 for the start menu, and it has been rock stable.
--
"I reject your reality and substitute my own!"

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 23 Mar 2014 13:03:00 EDT

Billy Brethr posted :

said by me1212:

I know I've seen a screenshot of linux that looks nearly identical to xp a few years ago, no idea what it was but its out there.

You sound like me. I have a visual memory. I remember the heart of the text, or meaning, and have a reliable recollection of an image associated with it. Not a "photographic memory" in the sense that I can re-create the image, but strong enough so that I immediately recognize the image once I see it.

»downloadsquad.switched.c ··· ows-xp/A

This was the article and image that provoked the OP in this thread, and your post reminded me that the idea for the post actually came from here, and it's been brewing in the back of my mind ever since. In 2009 I promised myself that eventually those Linux geniuses would craft an Ubuntu so remarkably perfect that your mom couldn't tell the difference, and Microsoft would go tits-up as a multinational, illegal and predatory monopoly.

So it's 4 years later and I'm like, "Well?" Most of my computer clients are hanging on to XP for as long as they can, despite Microsoft's threats to "End it's Life".

When I attempt to deconstruct the reasons why MS has been able to hang on for so long to this illegal monopoly, one possible theory to explain it in part is that somehow MS has put effort into preventing and delaying the development of a parallel, open-source Operating System that does not require the average User (your mom) to have to relearn everything they already barely know, in order to surf the internet and do their email. One notion I had that perhaps MS attempted to legally coerce people from adopting, i.e. "copying" it's GUI and associated images, but now I wonder if they also don't infiltrate the el33tist ranks of linux bitophiles and role-model retarded and snobbish behavior about how Linux doesn't come to YOU (you sniveling peon), you must prove that you are worthy, and come to IT. Sort of like those arrogant Mac Users, except Linux is much more difficult to use than Windows, and not easier. All of the arrogance, and none of the benefits.

Which, to me, sounds just like Microsoft.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sun, 23 Mar 2014 09:40:24 EDT

me1212 posted : I know I've seen a screenshot of linux that looks nearly identical to xp a few years ago, no idea what it was but its out there.

Personally, I would get zorin. There is a free(as in beer) version and a non free(as in you pay for the beer) version. The free version come standard with a windows 7 layout and works nearly identical. I know there is a windows xp gui lay out in it, but I don't know if its in the free or pay version.

Both are free as in free speech.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Sat, 22 Mar 2014 13:02:27 EDT

paradigmfl posted :

said by rfhar:

I think that the only reason that Linux has only ten percent of the market is because no one has the money to spend to advertise Linux and it is cheaper to buy a computer with Windows because all the companies that pay to get their stuff on Windows machines.
My wife is the most technophobic person you will likely ever find and she could run all of the Linux distro's I have looked at.

I have personally switch two users over to Linux Mint. Both users are beginners. For instance one doesn't even know how to rename a file in Windows. It's been four months and both are still using it. One thinks it's "OK" but keeps asking for a virus scanner. The FBI virus wiped out their old XP install. I keep explaining that while they exist there is almost effectively no real need for it. The other couldn't be happier and they love Linux.

For people who mainly just use the web it's very easy to switch.

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Fri, 21 Mar 2014 05:46:41 EDT

I_Got_Tazed posted : .

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Thu, 20 Mar 2014 05:48:02 EDT

anon posted : The OS was YLMf OS Based on red flag linux or ubuntu i don`t know. Search for YLMF oS 2.0 It outdated but somewhat stable and fast and look like win xP.
For win 7 search win7 youtube bluedxca93 on google.

regards bluedxca93

Re: Ubuntu That Looks Like Windows: Are We There Yet?

Wed, 19 Mar 2014 11:48:23 EDT

Billy Brethr posted :