«

[Reup]

Add 128megs of RAM and XP will run like a charm. Btw, if you're running a modern Linux distro using KDE or Gnome, 128megs will also be rather slow, especially when you want to run OpenOffice.

But I'm curious, why didn't you provide your nan with a nice Ubuntu system? If you're actually promoting it's use, why'd you still pick Win98, a 8 year old bug-ridden OS that can hardly run modern software???

[win98]

I cannot do half the stuff on linux that i can on windows linux suxs

[troop18546]

Linux is free but almost noone uses it. That answers your question. I'm sticking to Windows. Linux is a piece of sh...

[Rinforzando]

Personally, I think Linux is superior to windows. But it'll never be popular if it doesn't become easier to use. E.g. I've downloaded Linux games before, but I gave up onb getting most of them to work because of the constant need to update libraries and portage trees and satisfy dependencies and blah blah blah...

Once I can play games on Linux like I can on Windows, then perhaps I'll consider permanently switching OS.

[chickenman]

Well i am back at last,

@ Reup
I use Fluxbox

@ win98
Linux can do a lot more than you think.

@ Rinforzando
I do agree with you on that, installing software \ games from source can be a pain in the behind, well at least it is not as hard as doing the same thing on a Windows system.

[Dino]

My personal opinion is that no Linux version could ever match commercial OS (Windows). Only thing I see as an advantage is that Linux is free, but if you want real quality, you'll have to pay for it. Pure logic tells you that everything that's free is in most cases of lower quality than product you respectfully pay for.

Microsoft could be monopolistic corporation, Windows could have many bugs and security flaws, Bill Gates could be disliked for personal reasons, but fact stays that Windows is the best OS you could get for your PC. And I'm not going to change my OS until another quality developer enters the market with it's OS that is better than Windows.

[Reup]

Originally posted by Reup+Sep 3 2005, 01:03 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Reup @ Sep 3 2005, 01:03 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> But I'm curious, why didn't you provide your nan with a nice Ubuntu system? If you're actually promoting it's use, why'd you still pick Win98, a 8 year old bug-ridden OS that can hardly run modern software??? [/b]

Chickenman, you're avoiding my question. I don't care which distro you're using:

Do you think your nan could work with a Linux desktop? If so, then why have you supplied here with Windows 98 instead? If all she needs to do is mail, surf and type the occasional letter, she'd be happy with a nice Gnome or KDE desktop (or even Fluxbox for that matter).

@Overlord:

<!--QuoteBegin-Overlord
Pure logic tells you that everything that's free is in most cases of lower quality than product you respectfully pay for.[/quote]

That's flawed logic if you ask me. If the price-tag is higher the quality doesn't automatically increase. I'm willing to wager that the programmers working on Linux are every bit as good as the ones Microsoft employes. They write decent code based on open standards designed by respectable and knowlegdeable institutions.
Besides, why is paying more respectable then getting something that's free for free?
It's not like you're stealing or pirating software :blink: Is is beneath you to use something you didn't pay a sh*tload of money for?

Besides, you haven't even tried using Linux, so how can you form an opinion about it? Pff...

[Dino]

@Reup:

If the price-tag is higher the quality doesn't automatically increase.

I said in most cases, not in all. At least that's what experience teaches me.

I'm willing to wager that the programmers working on Linux are every bit as good as the ones Microsoft employes. They write decent code based on open standards designed by respectable and knowlegdeable institutions.

IMO, the best programmers will always have their hard work payed off in one way or another. Don't get me wrong, I give every credit to those who do stuff for free, for community, but won't you mainly choose workplace which gives you good pay rather than work for free?

Besides, why is paying more respectable then getting something that's free for free?

You're right, it's not. I just said it that way, as an expression.

Is is beneath you to use something you didn't pay a sh*tload of money for?

It's not, and I've never said that.

Besides, you haven't even tried using Linux, so how can you form an opinion about it? Pff...

Where exactly did I state that? Believe it or not, my opinions are always based on something. There's no need to start presuming.

[Reup]

Originally posted by OvErLoRd@Sep 11 2005, 12:42 PM
IMO, the best programmers will always have their hard work payed off in one way or another. Don't get me wrong, I give every credit to those who do stuff for free, for community, but won't you mainly choose workplace which gives you good pay rather than work for free?

Ever heard of hobbies or voluntary work? I'd rather do work for free, to support a good cause then to work for a coorporation that delivers poorly designed products, or has an unethical policy (btw, I'm not saying MS has either of those, it's just an example).

[Dino]

Originally posted by Reup@Sep 12 2005, 08:45 AM
Ever heard of hobbies or voluntary work? I'd rather do work for free, to support a good cause then to work for a coorporation that delivers poorly designed products, or has an unethical policy (btw, I'm not saying MS has either of those, it's just an example).

I'm all for voluntary work, and have done it myself in many occasions in my life, so our views match there. But since we're talking Windows vs. Linux (or rather MS vs. open-source) here, I'm just trying to point out common market behaviour nowadays (good developers would rather have their work payed), and I don't think MS delivers poorly designed products.

As for unethical policy, I agree that it could be discussed.