I'm expecting this post to generate a lot of hate, but it's been on my mind for a long time.
First of all, no I'm not taking computer science at the moment since I'm busy as hell with my normal first year; with that said, no, i don't know EVERYTHING there is to say about a certain OS or underlying code in general.
What i do have to say is; why do people hate on other OS's? A good analogy is to hate on someone for their car because it's not some ferrari X4523 and can't reach a top speed of 5000km/h even though road limit speeds are something like 50 km/h.
What the hell defines a good OS? It's like people hating on Ubuntu for being "lol-noob-friendly-sucks" because it doesn't use the shell that is used by custom linux users.
I mean, the whole freaking point to the end user is a computer that can _get_chocolate_done_. I've had my time with linux trying to customize and get two finger scrolling, different shell extensions, and other spoon to work which would just use up all of my time. And for what? Something that another prebuilt OS can provide.
It's like trying to use newtons method to divide something because you're too lol-hardcore to actually use a freaking calculator.
Personally, after using all the OS's out there, i use Windows; why? Because i can do everything i want on it, the only thing that differentiates OS's is the code that you can build on either platform, but all basic functions are the same in terms of applications (All OS's run code).
I think i may be writing this for Ubuntu, since the linux community hates it; but i find Ubuntu as a competent OS and i don't see why everyone's totally hardcore OS is better than any other one.
A good OS may be a relative thing to the user, sure, but what makes your OS sooo much better than mine?
I hate all OSs for specific reasons. Windows in general is buggy as shit sooner or later and no matter how safe you think you are behind an AV, you aren't. The Mac OS is like Linux with a big fucking padlock. It's the communist OS. Linux is "if you fudge one thing up, there goes your system" plus its lack of many mainstream software that I like to use. Needless to say, those OSs also have their perks. Macs are great for DJing purposes (though I prefer Linux for it since the alternatives are just about the same). Only reason I'd use Windows was if I was a hardcore gamer and I'm not but I do like the fact that I can use it for making .Net applications. Linux is just there. It's an open canvas waiting for me to do something with it that's amazing. It also makes great software for servers. Not to mention that 99% of it is virus free. Viruses are being written for Debian based systems now so Ubuntu users might be in trouble if they just go around installing random DEB packages.
actually, no. i think you deserve a more well written, justifiable answer than "derp". so here goes:
as far as operating systems go, there are benefits and losses to all of them. what i love about UNIX-based systems (linux, OSX, BSD) is the fact that they have a command line that actually DOES stuff. the command promt in windows SUCKS. i want to do more with my shell than move files around and look at the contents of a folder.
there are several reasons why i don't like ubuntu, and all of them are legitimate concerns. first of all, ubuntu handles the root account in a way that i don't agree with.
Spoiler for ubuntu root issues:
(in most linux systems, the root account is created at install, the admin sets the password, and then additional users are added. in ubuntu, a root account is created at install, it is assigned a random password, not known by the admin, and then the users are required to sudo in order to run root commands, which i find to be a very dangerous practice, especially because ubuntu likes to give sudo access to everyone and their cousin)
Also, i am against ubuntu's wealth of upstream development in its applications.
Spoiler for upstream development:
don't know what I'm talking about here? go install something like debian or fedora, and use their gnome desktop. now install ubuntu and look at theirs. the two are VERY different. this is because ubuntu developers add a bunch of their own features and concepts to the gnome source before shipping it with ubuntu. they do this with A LOT of applications, modifying them so they all work together. unfortunately, this creates bugs. normally there in an open source system, if someone finds a bug, they report it to the developer of the application, and the developer works on the bug, then an update is released and the bug goes away. with ubuntu's upstream development, however, the bug can be in the ubuntu additions to the program, and that leaves the app's developer powerless to fix any issues. it also makes it a lot harder to track down a bug, with several levels of upstream introduced.
Another thing i don't like about ubuntu (or a vast majority of distributions) is automated dependency tracking.
Spoiler for what's that??:
automated package management is the system that ubuntu (and many other systems) use to install software. it shows up in ubuntu as "apt-get" or "synaptic package manager" or "aptitude" or "add/remove applications" *«-yes, all of those are in ubuntu. 4 separate package managers. i think that's a bit of a problem to start with.* anyway, in an OS, different programs depend on other programs to do eveything they want. for example, firefox depends on certain mozilla core components, as does thunderbird, etc. when you install an application with an automated dependency tracker, the system tries to figure out what the app needs, if you have it installed, what it needs to get to install it, if the version number is correct, etc, etc. this causes a lot of problems for people who like to customize a lot. for example, go into a fresh ubuntu install, install several applications, rebuild your kernel, uninstall one app, install some packages from source, and then reinstall that app. see how well the system works. with dependency tracking you don't have much control over how your system interacts with itself, and you're left hoping that everything will work right. for an end user who's not doing much with his computer besides going on facebook and writing papers for school, this is fine. but for someone who actually USES their computer?? not for me.
well, those are three big reasons i don't like ubuntu, now i should probably support my own OS.
i run slackware linux exclusively on all my systems. slackware is a linux distro, aimed at being as "vanilla" as it can be. it features no dependency management and no upstream development to speak of. in a slackware environment, it is the admin's responsibility to set up everything about the system, from the graphical environment to installing programs. most all programs you install, you have to build from source, which means that in order to build them, you have to also build and install all of their dependencies. a system like this takes a bit longer to get set up, but it is also near impossible to break, and can easily have the kernel rebuild frequently, certain daemons removed or installed, etc. and, since root is managed the correct proper way, it is much better suited for a multi user system, as anyone who wants to use sudo has to be given permission by the admin, and without root access, everyday users can't break anything that isn't in their /home folder (making the OS virtually indestructible)
as far as windows goes, the only thing i actually LIKE about the system is the software that is written for it. if big name games/apps were written for linux, i see no reason for windows to exist at all. the interface is clunky at best, it eats system resources like no other (example, conky with all effects enabled takes less resources than aero does, and does a whole lot more) and its just not fun to use. using linux/bsd, i have fun doing stuff. its fun to open the terminal and start working on stuff, its fun to compile an application from source, its fun to build a new kernel and time my boot to see if it runs faster. in windows, you're stuck. theres no real customization to speak of, all the desktop customizing apps run on top of explorer, and theres no real way to make it lighter on resources, either.
i can't speak much for OSX. its weird. i like the fact that it has big name apps/games, i like the fact that its UNIX based, i like the interface, but i don't like that it can only run on certain hardware, and i also don't like that the only to run it legally is to spend too much on that hardware. i havent used it much, as my graphics card is not supported by it, and i don't really want to use something that won't take advantage of my system, so i can't really give as big of a complaint/lovefest for it as i can for linux/windows.
so, to answer your question, i hate on other OS's because i have used many of them extensively, and (at least in my opinion) am qualified to do so.
i think a good OS is one that works out of the box, and can satisfy an end user's facebook/word document needs, but can also be customized heavily and still remain stable. a good OS should not get slower just because it has been installed a while, a good OS shouldn't include utilities that cause features of other programs to not function. a good OS should be able to run on many different systems, and should have a wealth of applications written for it.
and my OS is better than yours because i built it from scratch for myself, and built every single thing on here with my machine in mind. it currently runs a full desktop on just 3% of my computer's resources, boots in 15 seconds, and can run all my applications and games flawlessly. it has full support for my wacom tablet, hdmi output, runs photoshop, MSOffice, features a wonderful shell (zsh) that can run everything i want it to. it has enough eyecandy to look great, impress the end user, and still can run lighter than XP/7 ever did (even the light version of XP can't hold a match to my current slackware). also, i love it.
also:
tetris999 Wrote:I've had my time with linux trying to customize and get two finger scrolling, different shell extensions, and other spoon to work which would just use up all of my time.
tetris999 Wrote:I mean, the whole freaking point to the end user is a computer that can _get_chocolate_done_.
i don't think the typical end user really NEEDS two finger scrolling and different shell extensions working to _get_chocolate_done_, but that's just me.
tl;dr: i gave my reasons for my OS, gave my reasons for hating ubuntu/windows and explicitly answered all the questions that you posed.
i think the point was why fudge around with linux when you can just install a system where everything you need is already installed and you don't need to waste endless amounts of time rebuilding kernels and compiling programs from source code. The time you've wasted doing that could actually be spent doing something.
Everything you've mentioned as "fun" wasn't actually productive, it was just trying to get things to work properly ._.
ProperBritish Wrote: [ -> ]i think the point was why fudge around with linux when you can just install a system where everything you need is already installed and you don't need to waste endless amounts of time rebuilding kernels and compiling programs from source code. The time you've wasted doing that could actually be spent doing something.
Everything you've mentioned as "fun" wasn't actually productive, it was just trying to get things to work properly ._.
actually no, everything i listed was extraneous. a linux system doesn't need you to do those things, its just stuff i like to do.
Linux gives the user free reign over whatever the hell they want to do with their system really. It's almost all completely open source so one is free to tweak and edit it to one's liking. Nobody said it'd be easy but the effort put forth is worth it.
Joomla12 Wrote: [ -> ]Linux gives the user free reign over whatever the hell they want to do with their system really. It's almost all completely open source so one is free to tweak and edit it to one's liking. Nobody said it'd be easy but the effort put forth is worth it.
I usually avoid bias with my opinons unless it's something weighed out the good with the bad (or the otherway around) that it begins to sound like I'm being bias.