Best operative system?

[Artemis3]

Oh i see, I'm not sure if there are nvidia driver packages for these distros. Ubuntu hardy has 3 packages:

nvidia-glx-legacy (71.86.04 for gforce2 or less)
nvidia-glx (96.43.05 default)
nvidia-glx-new (169.12)

xorg is 7.3. You might want to experiment with these versions.

[WanderingKnight]

All operating systems suck. Scratch that, all software sucks, and the only thing you can do to prevent that is make it suck less. Let's leave that clear and only then discuss operating systems. Lack of understanding of that point (which is something any developer worth its salt should know) gets you the stupidly fanboyish discussions in Slashdot, OSNews and the like.

Either way, I prefer any Linux based OS since FOSS has a lot of advantages that go beyond its quality... though I do believe that Linux has a lot of points where it's clearly stronger than Windows in design philosophy and performance.

But overall I welcome anything that gives me choice. That's why I loathe Microsoft--it's not because of its OS (though it does suck at several levels, but it does many things right, too). It's because it created a market where there are no choices.

Actually it's the driver support that sucks in Linux

Actually, it's the companies that don't release a Linux driver and the community has to cope with hacking on unspec-ed devices (imagine MS making a driver for a third party company lol).

Sure people who just browse and check emails, with two speakers and onboard cards will hardly feel any different in Linux.

Try developers. Try UNIX students. The logic and organization behind any POSIX OS. Try people who would like to have a choice between graphical environments. People who would like to install things without going to the developer's webpage. People who would like to be assured that they're not getting cut off their updates because of the whims of a lonesome company. There are lots of things that Linux does leaps and bounds better than Windows, you know, and Windows only barely does because it's the standard and has to do it either way--and there are lots of reasons to use Linux. The philosophical aspect of it not being a minor one.

[npal]

I doubt people care about the philosophical aspect, that's what I was pointing out. And I do believe that we were talking about desktop computers, I mean... I mentioned Vista, Vista is NOT a server/dev platform... I know devs and servers can make extensive use of Linux. I also said that it's not Linux's fault regarding the driver support, but it's still there.

The philosophical argument... When I want philosophy, I'll get philosophy, however I don't need philosophy on my pc, I need something that works as I want it to. Now IF that philosophy can also give me everything I need so much the better, but basing my main OS choice on philosophy to excuse its current limitations... nope, not my thing. Linux is nice for a secondary operating system, and I bet many casual Window users could easily have it as main, but dedicated gamers and multimedia people like me... not a chance. Multimedia and game support is a terrible joke as it is. Not Linux's fault, but it's there and I'm not about to sacrifice my PC needs for philosophy.

[WanderingKnight]

Now IF that philosophy can also give me everything I need so much the better

It can. That's the whole point of Open Source, that everyone can collaborate to make software better (that's without the whole Stallmanist Free Software, Free Society advocacy). That's why I said that all software sucks--because it does. One of the best ways to make it better is to open it up so that more people can help to make it suck less. See "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (yes, ESR is an asshole, but he does make some interesting points).

but basing my main OS choice on philosophy to excuse its current limitations... nope, not my thing.

It has limitations, but it has a lot of advantages Windows doesn't have. If you can't see that, well... I don't know what you're doing analyzing it as an alternative anyways.

[grss1982]

I believe its Operating System, and not Operative System.

[grey_moon]

Originally Posted by grss1982

I believe its Operating System, and not Operative System.

I like operative system and shall now use it in all the meetings I attend along with the phrase the interweb

[LynnieS]

Just out of curiosity, where is amjzz (the original poster) since the thread was opened? The choice of the OS to use depends a lot on personal preference, the hardware being used, and to some extent and based on the purpose, ability, IMHO. If there is anything not widely supported involved, it would help to know that for making the suggestion, no?

[sa547]

Feels like some of us had been suckered in here with a troll question.

amjzz? What's your "operative system"?

[WanderingKnight]

I like operative system and shall now use it in all the meetings I attend along with the phrase the interweb

Actually, I've made that mistake before--I infer the OP must be Spanish-native since in Spanish we say "Sistema Operativo" and not "Sistema Operante" (the former is translated to operative and the latter to operating).

[LynnieS]

Unless things have changed recently also, I don't remember seeing MacOS being available for non-Apple hardware.

[Doughnuts]

There's no official MacOS ports for other hardware, but it can be done, since mac runs on Darwin, which is open source and POSIX compliant. Pretty easy to find bundles that contain all the drivers etc for most popular hardware, but ofc, it's it's against the Mac EULA. (Hint: if you hack a macintosh, what do you get?)

Originally Posted by grey_moon

I like operative system and shall now use it in all the meetings I attend along with the phrase the interweb

It's "The Internets". Don't believe me? Try searching it on The Google

[WanderingKnight]

Well, ever since Apple started support for x86 there's been x86 images wandering on the web.

That doesn't mean it'll work correctly though (Apple has the huge advantage of controlling the hardware its OS runs on).

[Ledgem]

Mac OS X server can now run under VMWare virtualization, not that it really helps many people. Mac OS X likely will never be installable on any system, because Apple isn't a software company, but a hardware company. They use their software to drive sales of their platform, which includes their computers, iPods, and upcoming devices. As people like to say, there's a reason why they changed their company name from "Apple Computer" to just "Apple."

[Claies]

Originally Posted by LynnieS

Unless things have changed recently also, I don't remember seeing MacOS being available for non-Apple hardware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psystar

Psystar stirred up the tech atmosphere a bit when they began commercially distributing custom-assembled PC's running Mac OS X. They and Apple are suing each other right now.

[killmoms]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

It can. That's the whole point of Open Source, that everyone can collaborate to make software better (that's without the whole Stallmanist Free Software, Free Society advocacy). That's why I said that all software sucks--because it does. One of the best ways to make it better is to open it up so that more people can help to make it suck less. See "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" (yes, ESR is an asshole, but he does make some interesting points).

But not everyone's a programmer. I know I'm not—I have no interest. But I still have things that I need/want in a computer when I sit down to use it.

It has limitations, but it has a lot of advantages Windows doesn't have. If you can't see that, well... I don't know what you're doing analyzing it as an alternative anyways.

Of course it does. But most of those advantages don't matter to me, or to most of the computing population, I'd wager. It's not an advantage if it's not on my list of "things I want in an OS."

Again, it's all subjective. What might be an advantage for you might not matter to me. And what I need or value in an OS might not matter to you. That's why, at the end of the day, OS choice is something that comes down to the person in question.

[WanderingKnight]

But not everyone's a programmer. I know I'm not—I have no interest. But I still have things that I need/want in a computer when I sit down to use it.

I'm not saying it should matter only to programmers. The openness of software should matter to everyone--since the more open it is, the more chances it has to be improved upon by the community, even if you're not part of the development community. I know I'm not, and I'm benefited daily by the Open Source community and the fact that it's free (as in speech).

I barely qualify as a coder, and among the Ubuntu Argentina users, probably less than 25% are programmers. And yet everyone is benefited by the openness of software, and everyone regards it as a useful thing.

Again, it's all subjective. What might be an advantage for you might not matter to me. And what I need or value in an OS might not matter to you. That's why, at the end of the day, OS choice is something that comes down to the person in question.

Of course, I'm not denying that. What matters to me is that Windows has such a deep entrenchment on the market that people don't even choose. They just accept whatever's shoved down their throats, and Microsoft gets to be one of the most powerful companies in the world that way.

[hobbes_fan]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

I'm not saying it should matter only to programmers. The openness of software should matter to everyone--since the more open it is, the more chances it has to be improved upon by the community, even if you're not part of the development community. I know I'm not, and I'm benefited daily by the Open Source community and the fact that it's free (as in speech).

I barely qualify as a coder, and among the Ubuntu Argentina users, probably less than 25% are programmers. And yet everyone is benefited by the openness of software, and everyone regards it as a useful thing.



Of course, I'm not denying that. What matters to me is that Windows has such a deep entrenchment on the market that people don't even choose. They just accept whatever's shoved down their throats, and Microsoft gets to be one of the most powerful companies in the world that way.

See the "openness" is also a problem not from the security standpoint but from a more all encompassing directional standpoint. At times open Source o/s have so many things they're trying to fix each fix invariably breaks something. Personally the the last 3 xubuntu/ubuntu updates have broken audio on java sites which I then have to fix. Which was time consuming the first time, a mild annoyance the second and downright irritating the third.

From a corporate standpoint what choice do you have? All your staff is windows trained, all your hardware is windows based, there's a severe shortage of qualified Linux technical support in most western countries. The lack of standardization is a massive issue from a staff training perspective. Most corporate environments can get away with a Linux based network but there's no way you could roll out Linux on an unsuspecting workforce and expect not to take a massive hit in productivity. (I can see the most common thing asked "where's my start button" and other similar level questions)

And we seem to forget open Source isn't just linux and it's derivatives. Audacity, Firefox, Thunderbird Open Office are all open source available on windows. It's not like Linux has the market cornered on open source.

Demonising M$ isn't doing Linux any good either. They just have to compete and refine the product (which at the end of the day is all it is). It's still too alien to the consumer. case in point the return rates for linux based netbooks (the eee I think from an article I read recently)which is triple that of the xp version - main cause stated it was too foreign to them. Now this is a very very basic system were talking about too.

Personally I think Linux needs to get it together as a package - training, support and the product. Not every one knew Windows use pre 1995, but all of a sudden training was everywhere. Every one felt confident in the day to day use. I look around for a Linux course and I have a total of 0. A lot of websites but no standardized approach. The documentation can be hit or miss.

[WanderingKnight]

I believe it's impossible for open source software, by simple nature, to "get it together as a package". OSS is what the development community wants it to be. And, for OSS, the more users it has, the bigger the development community will be--always. The latter isn't necessarily true for closed source software.

But of course, everything boils down to choice. What matters to me is not that people don't use Linux, it's that people don't choose Windows, either. They just see the PC as a toaster (an appliance) and feed their money to Microsoft when they could simply be using other equally (or more) competent free and open alternatives... which I'm sure many would choose if they gave the matter a simple thought. But most people don't... and Microsoft leverages that.

[Sides]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

But of course, everything boils down to choice. What matters to me is not that people don't use Linux, it's that people don't choose Windows, either. They just see the PC as a toaster (an appliance) and feed their money to Microsoft when they could simply be using other equally (or more) competent free and open alternatives... which I'm sure many would choose if they gave the matter a simple thought. But most people don't... and Microsoft leverages that.

I don't think there is much choice nowadays. It is really down to software support. Example few years back a handful of comercial CAD packages actually did supported linux, but today all of them withdraw there support. Now you either use Windows or have to one of those Unix variants, but then you'll need something different to a standard x86 setup. And i reckon it is the same with other software packages, video editing. Linux is fine for devs and for home usage, but when it comes to business it is either Unix, MacOS or Windows.

[WanderingKnight]

So, do +50% of home and office users make an extensive use of CAD and video editing software?

Really?