Waccoon wrote:
I always wondered how you're supposed to install Linux from tarballs right off the Internet.
It's not very much fun, especially if you don't have any sort of a bootstrap kernel to get you started. But, this is how it was done in the old days. Boot up with a boot floppy (with limited kernel), then start compiling system specific stuff onto your manually preped hard drive. Much fun, I only did it once on an old ALR SMP 486 server. There were no precompiled kernels available for the architecture so I had to do my own.
KDE is an embarassment for Linux. It's utlra-slow, heralds visuals instead of function, and works no better than any Windows toolkit. It's a shame that GUI programmers are regarded as second-class in the programming world, but they do deserve it to a point.
One of these days I'll get around to writing my own GUI toolkit.
I'm going to disagree with this. KDE is a great environment and gets better with every revision. I see nothing wrong with adding some visual flare to spice up the desktop. And, since most distributions are using it as their standard, it will only get better.
The thing is, most basic things can be done in the control panel, and Windows is almost guarenteed to boot into a GUI. If Linux has a problem, you'll be staring at a shell prompt with no clue where to start looking for the problem (and no web browser to log onto forums and ask questions).
Wrong. Windows can boot to safe mode for non critical errors, but for system critical failures (bad patch, driver, service, etc.) you have to use the recovery console, a (very limited) CLI.
In Linux I can run X in any runlevel or from a floppy if needed. But, most fixes that would cause me not to be able to boot could be fixed easily from the command line.
For the most part, if you stack up, feature for feature, a Linux build against a Windows build, the Windows build will run faster.
Windows is faster than Linux overall, but speed isn't everything.
I don't agree with this. On the same hardware, running the same application, they should be relatively the same. But, It really depends on the application. (ie. I know for a fact that my machine can serve web pages via Apache faster than the Windows version.)
I'll contest that. I've never seen a package manager in those distros that worked properly. You always have some damn dependency problem that gets in the way. Also, people overlook bugs and obscure error messages. Mandrake drives me insane with it's endless barage of error messages (which just print errors and don't actually RESOLVE them), and the endless stream of bugs and glitches that really make Windows look stable by comparrison.
YaST on SUSE has never given me a problem. If there is a dependancy problem with a 3rd party (unsupported) app, then it's up to the user to get the file. Otherwise, it solves dependencies just like it should.
MacOS should be an example of the perfect computer. Use someone else's proven OS, and just build your own desktop. I really wish XWindows would drop dead.
I don't see your problem with XWindows really. Can you explain more.
