Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Ubuntu with Compiz is the way to go.

and a lot of plugins.

At 9/5/07 06:28 PM, KwamaKing wrote: Ubuntu with Compiz fusion is the way to go.

Fixed it for you...

At 9/5/07 06:43 PM, seel wrote:

At 9/5/07 06:28 PM, KwamaKing wrote: Any other linux distrobution besides Ubuntu with Compiz fusion is the way to go.

Fixed it for you...

Double fixed.

At 9/5/07 05:54 PM, seel wrote:

At 9/5/07 01:03 AM, davisev5225 wrote: Does your XP machine have efficient memory management? NO

Neither does vista... One does not simply lose 4GB of memory, seriously, you just can't do that today unless you try to calculate 1/0 or some shit. :S

This must be one of the most awesome lines i ever read :D

At 9/6/07 10:53 PM, DearonElensar wrote:

At 9/5/07 05:54 PM, seel wrote:

At 9/5/07 01:03 AM, davisev5225 wrote: Does your XP machine have efficient memory management? NO

Neither does vista... One does not simply lose 4GB of memory, seriously, you just can't do that today unless you try to calculate 1/0 or some shit. :S

This must be one of the most awesome lines i ever read :D

It's also a deliberately calculated lie, or just plain ignorance manifesting itself.

XP can only support up to 3gb RAM. Anything over that, and your system doesn't read it or support it. Same with Vista x86. XP x64 and Vista x64 are the only 2 versions of Windows that support more than 3gb RAM.

Also, Linux sucks. It may "be more secure", but nothing really runs on it, and you have to heavily modify games before THEY run on it. Thanks, but I'll stick with my Vista x64. I will admit that I have used Linux to fix a borked XP machine, though. (OH, and OSX sucks balls.)

At 9/7/07 01:35 AM, davisev5225 wrote: Also, Linux sucks. It may "be more secure", but nothing really runs on it,

What are you getting at here? Are you knocking linux because it doesn't run a lot of Windows applications natively?
You can't honestly believe it's correct to rate an operating system based on how well it runs another OS' programs. Try rating it on its own apps and you'll see it's just as good if not better than Windows.

You have web browsing, coding, text-editing, messenging, 3d effects and eye candy, dvd/cd burning apps, multimedia players, download managers, and just about everything else.

and you have to heavily modify games before THEY run on it. Thanks, but I'll stick with my Vista x64. I will admit that I have used Linux to fix a borked XP machine, though. (OH, and OSX sucks balls.)

Going back to games it's not fair to rate an OS on how welll it runs games that are developed for a different os. Instead look at what Linux has to offer. The Unreal Tournament series, Quake series, etc.

How often do you use an XP cd to fix a linux install that's been borked? For that matter, how often is your linux install borked? Not often, I imagine.

It's always the same damn excuses "Well LINUX doesn't run WINDOWS applications or WINDOWS games. I don't want it."

At 9/7/07 01:35 AM, davisev5225 wrote: (OH, and OSX sucks balls.)

Don't knock it until you try it.

I think every operating system has its ups and downs for different aspects of computing.

Linux for example when coding C, C++ or anything with OpenGL I think its just easier to deal with and faster.

For more "office"and web application work a windows machine might be easier to work with because of Word, Excel, and I guess that fact that I program my web apps in .net with visual studio.

And although I don't have much experience with macs I have heard that they are just great with video and sound applications like After Effects, and other Mac specific apps that deal with video and sound.

So I don't think any one OS can be knocked because of its ability to perform all tasks the best, because honestly there isn't one that exists. Plus its all on personal preference on how you like to run your machine, which is probably somewhat biased in the statements above.

Macs are usually regarded as designer's tools because of OS X's superior font-handling over Windows. That and Mac interfaces are very usable, it's pretty easy to get things done on OS X.

Also, all the major design/graphics programs operate on a Mac (Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator etc)

At 9/7/07 01:35 AM, davisev5225 wrote:

At 9/6/07 10:53 PM, DearonElensar wrote:

At 9/5/07 05:54 PM, seel wrote:

At 9/5/07 01:03 AM, davisev5225 wrote: Does your XP machine have efficient memory management? NO

Neither does vista... One does not simply lose 4GB of memory, seriously, you just can't do that today unless you try to calculate 1/0 or some shit. :S

This must be one of the most awesome lines i ever read :D

Lol :D

It's also a deliberately calculated lie, or just plain ignorance manifesting itself.

/me ignores the flaming

XP can only support up to 3gb RAM. Anything over that, and your system doesn't read it or support it. Same with Vista x86. XP x64 and Vista x64 are the only 2 versions of Windows that support more than 3gb RAM.

I didn't say XP can handle more than 3gb of RAM, I said vista can crash even if you have 4GB of RAM because it has shitty memory management.

Also, Linux sucks. It may "be more secure", but nothing really runs on it, and you have to heavily modify games before THEY run on it. Thanks, but I'll stick with my Vista x64. I will admit that I have used Linux to fix a borked XP machine, though. (OH, and OSX sucks balls.)

It is a lot more secure, and that's a reaaaaly strong argument why to get it. Also, why are you saying that nothing runs on it?? Why don't you take a look on sourceforge.net and count how many applications/games/whatever there that works on a Linux dist (it says in the description)? Also, you don't have to modify any games in any way to get them to run in Linux. Either it's a native game, or it's a Windows game that can run if you installed Wine (which is just 3 clicks to install). But as someone said, you can't say an OS sucks because it can't run another systems native applications and games... That's like saying the Xbox 360 sucks because it can't play NES games. Also, please give arguments to why OS X sucks balls instead of being an ignorant Microsoft fanboy.

At 9/7/07 01:35 AM, davisev5225 wrote: XP can only support up to 3gb RAM. Anything over that, and your system doesn't read it or support it. Same with Vista x86. XP x64 and Vista x64 are the only 2 versions of Windows that support more than 3gb RAM.

That's is pretty much not true, for a better explanation see XP Myths
And if you still want to claim it's true what you say, please back it up with sources because i don't believe you just because you say something (especially since you have already demonstrated a lack of knowledge)

At 9/7/07 09:55 PM, DearonElensar wrote:

At 9/7/07 01:35 AM, davisev5225 wrote: XP can only support up to 3gb RAM. Anything over that, and your system doesn't read it or support it. Same with Vista x86. XP x64 and Vista x64 are the only 2 versions of Windows that support more than 3gb RAM.

That's is pretty much not true, for a better explanation see XP Myths
And if you still want to claim it's true what you say, please back it up with sources because i don't believe you just because you say something (especially since you have already demonstrated a lack of knowledge)

Hmmm, you seem to be right. I went and looked it up on Microsoft's site, and found this:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library /Aa366778.aspx

Also, to the rest of you folks calling me names, including a "Microsoft fanboi", here's my response:

I can do anything and everything I want on Windows. It has a nice GUI, LOTS of functionality, support for any application I could ever need or want, and most games are developed natively for it before any other platform. Why would I switch when I have everything I need?

Also, Linux may be more secure out of the box, but I can get some low-profile programs to secure any version of Windows tighter than you can ever achieve with Linux, so STFU about that security.

At 9/7/07 11:11 PM, davisev5225 wrote: Also, to the rest of you folks calling me names, including a "Microsoft fanboi", here's my response:

I can do anything and everything I want on Windows. It has a nice GUI, LOTS of functionality, support for any application I could ever need or want, and most games are developed natively for it before any other platform. Why would I switch when I have everything I need?

Hey, i don't care what you use. You could decide to cluster a load of old $.99 calculators and glue the wires to a tv for all I care. My issue is that you seem to disparage every other OS that you know of when you probably have very little experience with any of the alternatives.

The problem is Vista is behind the technology curve. The only reason that Windows maintains it's dominance is that Linux is too disjointed to have to have a standard api for programmers (they are working on solving this with LSB and the Portland Project) and OSX is stuck on Mac hardware only. At best it's memory management and security have finally reached those of *nix systems such as Mac and Linux. As for your nice GUI, it really has nothing on Compiz Fusion.

As for what linux can do that Windows still can't. 1) Linux can download and install lots of open source apps that I use from a secure server via an installer program packaged with the OS. I installed a configured Apache/php/msyql environment with just a few clicks on the package manager. I didn't even have to search for a package on the internet.

2). (Note, I've simplified the terminology and various distinctions between OS components in this discussion). I can switch out the entire GUI subsystem. I can have Compiz fusion if I want an Aero Glass like system, or I can install a system that is low on memory. These different GUI systems also can completely change the way the GUI behaves. On my favorite, fluxbox, I can tab my windows together so that only one app is showing. My applications menu is obtained by right clicking on the desktop. The best part is I can install as different systems and choose which one I want when I log in.

3)Workspaces. I can have virtual desktops that I can switch between. I can run blender on one desktop, and then switch to another has my IDE in it, and then switch to a third and have firefox up. Windows Vista still lacks this feature. Between this and fluxbox, my work flow has increased dramatically because I can organize my windows better.

4) I can run linux off a CD. This makes it very to use when setting up new systems or fixing borked ones, including Windows systems.

Of course, I'm sure Vista has some nice features linux lacks. The best thing of all, though, is linux is free. So on my machine I can have both Linux, which I work on 95% of the time, and Windows for the few programs that don't run on linux. With VM's and dual boot systems, we can have the best of all worlds instead of having a pissing contest over which one is THE best. I know a few people who practice this.

Also, Linux may be more secure out of the box, but I can get some low-profile programs to secure any version of Windows tighter than you can ever achieve with Linux, so STFU about that security.

How so? Seriously, this was the comment that really got me going. I wasn't going to jump into this flame war until I saw this gem.

First of all, linux has AV programs and Rootkit detectors just like Windows does. As for firewall software, it's built right into the kernel. So, if as you say, linux is more secure out of the box than windows, then if I add the same security software to linux that you add to windows, you lose your advantage. The only thing I will grant you is that the Windows equivalents are easier for the novice to use, but this is moot when you compare experienced users.

Furthermore, Linux lacks that annoying registry. As I understand it, most programs in Windows write to that registry. It's one big configuration file which, if corrupted, makes your system unusable. In otherwords, one screwed up installer could wreck your system. On linux, everything maintains its own configuration. Even various components of the OS maintain their own config files. So, if, for example, my Xserver's config file were corrupted, I could still boot into a fully functioning shell and fix it, and still be able to use all my cli apps. If my window manager's config file were somehow corrupted, I could boot into a different windows manager.

Ugh, you said the V word.
Windows XP through and through. untill microsoft comes up with an operating system that simply doesn't work with viruses and malware (not going to happen) that doesn't mean they're just bundling their home-made antivirus solutions with it, then I might upgrade. but untill then, as long as the compatibility remains, I wouldn't dream of suggesting that anybody upgrade to Vista and waste the extra system resources that it requires!

At 9/7/07 02:01 AM, RageOfOrder wrote: It's always the same damn excuses "Well LINUX doesn't run WINDOWS applications or WINDOWS games. I don't want it."

I think it is weird that the WINE project hasn't been mentioned at all in this discussion.

Another thing that Linux has over Windows is that it is actually gaining the capability to run many M$ apps natively. Linux users can admit that unfortunately there is SOME really useful, user-friendly software that is built for windows. This is only because lately, big companies target audience are windows users. However starting with this new Ubuntu trend, this is likely to change.

An open source alternative is usually already on the way, but a lot of the time we can still use that M$ software. M$ will never focus on that kind of OS portability.

Just like every other Windows OS, it's best features are HIDDEN.
Open Console Window Here
Copy Folder Address

So on and so forth.
I still prefer Windows XP 64, it's all the power of Vista without the bulk! :)

At 9/7/07 11:11 PM, davisev5225 wrote: Also, Linux may be more secure out of the box, but I can get some low-profile programs to secure any version of Windows tighter than you can ever achieve with Linux, so STFU about that security.

That is utter bullshit my dear little moron. :)

I just won't continue with this argument... You clearly do not know what you're talking about at all when you mention anything about Linux (especially the security).

Tj I have WINE and it works for some programs (not all look at the AppDB). Look at VirtualBox it allows you to run a virtual machine.

VigilanteNighthawk look up bblean or blackbox it is a Windows alternative to fluxbox

Anyways, I recently switched from Windows to Ubuntu and I find it a fun OS. I find it interesting that if you can't find an installer for a program, you could always install it from source. Also, remember Linux is gaining more and more support. It doesn't cost $400 and there are equivalents to most Windows programs and they are ususally preinstalled. Also, the preinstaller VigilanteNighthawk mentioned help me get used to it faster. Finally, it isn't a hassle to connect to wifi, it autodetects it and if not, you can connect in two clicks

At 9/8/07 02:45 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 9/7/07 11:11 PM, davisev5225 wrote: Also, Linux may be more secure out of the box, but I can get some low-profile programs to secure any version of Windows tighter than you can ever achieve with Linux, so STFU about that security.

How so? Seriously, this was the comment that really got me going. I wasn't going to jump into this flame war until I saw this gem.

First of all, linux has AV programs and Rootkit detectors just like Windows does. As for firewall software, it's built right into the kernel. So, if as you say, linux is more secure out of the box than windows, then if I add the same security software to linux that you add to windows, you lose your advantage. The only thing I will grant you is that the Windows equivalents are easier for the novice to use, but this is moot when you compare experienced users.

Simple. Go here:

Shields UP!

Run the tests from that site and tell me that you have a secure OS. I have my Windows server machine in full stealth - Shields UP can't find that it even exists except for the fact that I visited the site. The ironic thing is I run a web server and a game server there, so people DO connect to my machine - they just get filtered so only valid traffic is allowed through.

I'd love to see Linux do that.

Also, about OSX:

I work with OSX on a daily basis. I'm a network tech for a school that uses iMac computers, and has recently purchased 32 Mac minis. I know how to get around in OSX, and have secured it for student use. I'm deploying an image onto all the school machines with OSX on it. Needless to say, I have almost as much experience in OSX as I have in Windows. I can safely say it sucks.

Hahahahahaaaaaaahahahah.

Davisev, you truly are a retard. Anyone with half a brain and a router can pass the tests on that site, regardless of the OS.

At 9/8/07 09:21 AM, thatguy wrote: VigilanteNighthawk look up bblean or blackbox it is a Windows alternative to fluxbox

Still they remain a pain in the ass to get to get them working like you want them to in windows, they just run so much better in Linux

At 9/8/07 12:52 PM, davisev5225 wrote: Simple. Go here:

Shields UP!

I haven't done crap with my windows install to hide itself (partly because this is my gaming install, my main install has stuff like the noscript extension for Firefox which solves a lot) and it couldn't detect anything.
You want to know why?, because i have a hardware based firewall in my router which runs some kind Linux distro (probably very custom made).
Linux can block those things without a problem, and it doesn't even need to install third part applications.
Why do you think these guys use a Linux kernel for their device (which is able to give you a level of security you can never reach windows xp or vista)

At 9/8/07 01:36 PM, DearonElensar wrote:

At 9/8/07 09:21 AM, thatguy wrote: VigilanteNighthawk look up bblean or blackbox it is a Windows alternative to fluxbox

Still they remain a pain in the ass to get to get them working like you want them to in windows, they just run so much better in Linux

At 9/8/07 12:52 PM, davisev5225 wrote: Simple. Go here:

Shields UP!

I haven't done crap with my windows install to hide itself (partly because this is my gaming install, my main install has stuff like the noscript extension for Firefox which solves a lot) and it couldn't detect anything.
You want to know why?, because i have a hardware based firewall in my router which runs some kind Linux distro (probably very custom made).
Linux can block those things without a problem, and it doesn't even need to install third part applications.
Why do you think these guys use a Linux kernel for their device (which is able to give you a level of security you can never reach windows xp or vista)

Yeah, some routers use a distribution of Linux to close ports from outside access, but mine doesn't. Also, the machine in question has been set as the DMZ server for my router, so it is completely open. The router doesn't block ANY traffic to that machine.

At 9/8/07 12:52 PM, davisev5225 wrote: Simple. Go here:

Shields UP!

I haven't done crap with my windows install to hide itself (partly because this is my gaming install, my main install has stuff like the noscript extension for Firefox which solves a lot) and it couldn't detect anything.
You want to know why?, because i have a hardware based firewall in my router which runs some kind Linux distro (probably very custom made).
Linux can block those things without a problem, and it doesn't even need to install third part applications.
Why do you think these guys use a Linux kernel for their device (which is able to give you a level of security you can never reach windows xp or vista)

Wow, looky here:
Unable to connect with NetBIOS to your computer.
All attempts to get any information from your computer have FAILED. (This is very uncommon for a Windows networking-based PC.)

Doesn't say it's uncommon for my Linux machine. I wonder if maybe just perhaps that might suggest that linux is more secure?

Oh look. Linux also doesn't have a Messenger service!
No threat there.

And the only ports I have open are standard HTTP/SMTP/POP/SSH and IMAP ports. Easy to close.

At 9/8/07 12:52 PM, davisev5225 wrote: Needless to say, I have almost as much experience in OSX as I have in Windows. I can safely say it sucks.

Yet again, you failed to provide reasons why.

At 9/8/07 12:52 PM, davisev5225 wrote:

At 9/8/07 02:45 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 9/7/07 11:11 PM, davisev5225 wrote:

Simple. Go here:

Shields UP!

Run the tests from that site and tell me that you have a secure OS. I have my Windows server machine in full stealth - Shields UP can't find that it even exists except for the fact that I visited the site. The ironic thing is I run a web server and a game server there, so people DO connect to my machine - they just get filtered so only valid traffic is allowed through.

I'd love to see Linux do that.

Do you even know anything about linux to make such a claim? A stealth port is just a port in which a packet is dropped and no response is sent. Read up on IPtables, which is the lowest level interface to the linux firewall, since you clearly have never used linux in a serious capacity. It would simply be a matter of dropping the packet in question. The only real room for debate as to whether or not linux could do the same is to evaluate what criteria it is you use for dropping packets in your firewall.

Also, about OSX:

I work with OSX on a daily basis. I'm a network tech for a school that uses iMac computers, and has recently purchased 32 Mac minis. I know how to get around in OSX, and have secured it for student use. I'm deploying an image onto all the school machines with OSX on it. Needless to say, I have almost as much experience in OSX as I have in Windows. I can safely say it sucks.

I have serious doubts about this. First, as someone else posted, you haven't stated a single way in which OSX sucks other than "trust me". Second, according to your own profile. you are 18 years old and a student. Where are you working as a "network technician?" Maybe at your colleges computer lab. I'll grant that with your sign up date you may be 19 now, but the fact remains that wherever you are working you are likely under heavy supervision and being trained. I have serious doubts that you are as qualified an expert as you claim.

At 9/8/07 04:24 AM, TJ wrote: I think it is weird that the WINE project hasn't been mentioned at all in this discussion.

That might be because, in all practicality, WINE is stuck in a perpetually broken state (at least if you ask me.) There are certain programs that run under it, but this is an incredibly small portion as opposed to the whole. Nothing I've ever tried has ran successfully under WINE.

The bottom line: if you want Windows programs, you'll probably just have to deal with Windows. Install it on a virtual machine for all I care, but WINE isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread or something: it has an incredibly long way to go for much stuff and probably won't ever be 'done.'

At 9/8/07 09:24 PM, thoughtpolice wrote:
That might be because, in all practicality, WINE is stuck in a perpetually broken state (at least if you ask me.) There are certain programs that run under it, but this is an incredibly small portion as opposed to the whole. Nothing I've ever tried has ran successfully under WINE.

Everything I've ever tried either doesn't work or only half works. I've heard some adobe products run well under it, but I've never tried.

The bottom line: if you want Windows programs, you'll probably just have to deal with Windows. Install it on a virtual machine for all I care, but WINE isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread or something: it has an incredibly long way to go for much stuff and probably won't ever be 'done.'

Agreed, I don't know why everyone keeps pushing wine. If anything, it's only going to turn people away from linux. Imagine what would happen to someone who bought an ubuntu machine from dell based on a friends recommendation only to find out they can't run any of their high priced software.

At 9/8/07 08:34 PM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 9/8/07 12:52 PM, davisev5225 wrote:

At 9/8/07 02:45 AM, VigilanteNighthawk wrote:

At 9/7/07 11:11 PM, davisev5225 wrote:

Simple. Go here:

Shields UP!

Run the tests from that site and tell me that you have a secure OS. I have my Windows server machine in full stealth - Shields UP can't find that it even exists except for the fact that I visited the site. The ironic thing is I run a web server and a game server there, so people DO connect to my machine - they just get filtered so only valid traffic is allowed through.

I'd love to see Linux do that.

Do you even know anything about linux to make such a claim? A stealth port is just a port in which a packet is dropped and no response is sent. Read up on IPtables, which is the lowest level interface to the linux firewall, since you clearly have never used linux in a serious capacity. It would simply be a matter of dropping the packet in question. The only real room for debate as to whether or not linux could do the same is to evaluate what criteria it is you use for dropping packets in your firewall.

Also, about OSX:

I work with OSX on a daily basis. I'm a network tech for a school that uses iMac computers, and has recently purchased 32 Mac minis. I know how to get around in OSX, and have secured it for student use. I'm deploying an image onto all the school machines with OSX on it. Needless to say, I have almost as much experience in OSX as I have in Windows. I can safely say it sucks.

I have serious doubts about this. First, as someone else posted, you haven't stated a single way in which OSX sucks other than "trust me". Second, according to your own profile. you are 18 years old and a student. Where are you working as a "network technician?" Maybe at your colleges computer lab. I'll grant that with your sign up date you may be 19 now, but the fact remains that wherever you are working you are likely under heavy supervision and being trained. I have serious doubts that you are as qualified an expert as you claim.

I was a student, and am still 18. I was being trained while I was a student, and now have a job with the school doing the same work.

You folks want to know why I say OSX sucks? OK, I'll tell you. For starters, I'll link you to THIS, and let you know that I've run into every single one of those problems multiple times.

Next, in OSX, you have to enter your password about 3 different times before it will let you do anything other than run a program. I can understand a password to log in, but again to install something and again to configure it in the system preferences?

On the mac, if you want a program that does something, you have 2 alternatives. You can buy Apple's software, which usually doesn't come by itself, so you have to purchase some super-expensive bundle (only to find out that macs 2 months down the road will come with the bundle for free), or you have to go buy Joe Blow's software that works, but barely.

Apple doesn't like their users to think. They design their computers to do everything for the user. Example: I don't want my computer defragmenting itself, I want to do that myself. I want to see how fragmented my system has gotten, and I want to defragment it as part of my usual maintinence cycle. (Yes, macs and Linux systems need just as much maintinence as Windows, so don't even go there.)

OSX is written for a very specific hardware set. That's great from a programming point of view, because you can anticipate every system it will be installed on, but it forces you to pay for a mac, when you could have bought a PC that runs just as nicely (if not better) for half the price.

ON a personal note, the OSX interface just irks me. It's all about bright, flashy colors, fading menus, and other stuff that looks just as gay (literally) as the old rainbow apple logo.

At 9/9/07 04:38 AM, davisev5225 wrote: You folks want to know why I say OSX sucks? OK, I'll tell you. For starters, I'll link you to THIS, and let you know that I've run into every single one of those problems multiple times.

Seen it, funny as hell. But I have never run into any of those problems and I know you haven't, unless you were using an eight-year-old Bondi Blue iMac like the one in that video.

Next, in OSX, you have to enter your password about 3 different times before it will let you do anything other than run a program. I can understand a password to log in, but again to install something and again to configure it in the system preferences?

You enter your password once when installing most programs. Much more secure and not as annoying as the shit you have to go through with Windows.

On the mac, if you want a program that does something, you have 2 alternatives. You can buy Apple's software, which usually doesn't come by itself, so you have to purchase some super-expensive bundle (only to find out that macs 2 months down the road will come with the bundle for free), or you have to go buy Joe Blow's software that works, but barely.

Wrong. There's a ton of good open-source programs you can download for free that are usually much better than what you can get on a PC. Trillian, for example. Decent IM client, but you have to pay for Trillian Pro to get all the features. If you're on an iMac, you can download Adium, which is better in every way and it's free. Dreamweaver? Fuck that. Coda is far better, and cheaper.

I honestly think you're full of shit. I don't believe you've actually used Tiger as much as you say. If you did, you'd know that all of these reasons you posted are void. I've used the shit out of PCs my whole life and "switched" last year. I can safely say that Windows sucks shit and OS X is much better, and more compatible now that we can run Windows, Linux and OS X at the same time. But I don't really give a shit about what you use. As long as Apple keeps selling iPods 'n shit, and Mac prices continue to drop, I'm happy.

Mac Minis do suck though.