InformAction Forums

Currently, I am using Mepis (Debian rebranded) on a usb because:
1. This laptop is literally falling apart.
2. The IDE interface crapped out.
3. Being the nerd I am, I can make the laptop last until it falls apart completely.

Anyway, how has everybody been?

There was a relevant discussion at http://forums.informaction.com/viewtopi ... 972#p36982

This is going to split hairs; but, considering the influence of Linux with TomTom, Android, TiVo, PlayStation, et cetera et al, Microsoft is not the community standard.
For one thing: The OS has been bound to the i386/amd64 architectures. There is a small move towards ARM based laptops. Look at the Windows Phone development.
A lot of people forget- or don't know- that MIcrosoft is business. You must build your customer base in order to build your profit

Hardware:
AMD64 is limited to sixteen registers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_ ... e_examples
The only problem with CISC architecture is that bottlenecking of the CPU can occur. Both SPARC64 and POWER(PC) can take a greater load without additional stress to the CPU.

Gates had intended to enter the "UNIX" market with Xenix http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenix but decided against it in favor of the DOS based Windows.

scooty-cat wrote:This is going to split hairs; but, considering the influence of Linux with TomTom, Android, TiVo, PlayStation, et cetera et al, Microsoft is not the community standard.
For one thing: The OS has been bound to the i386/amd64 architectures. There is a small move towards ARM based laptops. Look at the Windows Phone development.

Dedicated Linux-user here, but I'm going to chime in to support Tom and point out that any devices that can't run Firefox - eg TomTom and PlayStations - aren't really relevant to the discussion of which OS a NoScript user is on, nor do they really come into play when discussing application compatibility. So Tom's position - that Windows supports the most applications - isn't really affected.

Android is a more convincing case, but I doubt Tom will ever be interested in running a mobile browser.

Thrawn wrote: Dedicated Linux-user here, but I'm going to chime in to support Tom and point out that any devices that can't run Firefox - eg TomTom and PlayStations

You are quite wrong on this one.
1. Using OtherOS-$VERSION, one can install FreeBSD on multiple PS3s, set up NFS, and have Firefox-3.5.X/3.X running. Noscript can be installed on it.
2. Using TWM, one can install Debian to the PS3 and run Iceweasel. Noscript can be installed on it. I am not mentioning NFS because its development on Linux is behind that of the BSDs and Solaris.
3. If a TomTom can be rooted, then the possibility of installing a version of Iceweasel for that architecture can be installed. You are forgetting about usb ip devices for internet connectivity.

Thrawn wrote: - aren't really relevant to the discussion of which OS a NoScript user is on, nor do they really come into play when discussing application compatibility. So Tom's position - that Windows supports the most applications - isn't really affected.

Android is a more convincing case, but I doubt Tom will ever be interested in running a mobile browser.

Windows does not support the most applications, the OSes that do are:.
1. Linux distros running wine on i386/amd64 allowing both Windows and Linux applications to be run.
2. Debian-kFreeBSD which allows Linux to be run on both FreeBSD compat- through a chroot setup, FreeBSD compat- through a chroot setup, Solaris compat- through a chroot setup, Windows compat- through wine, and native Linux applications. This is on i386/amd64.
3. FreeBSD on i386/amd64 for Solaris compat, Windows-wine, Linux compat, and Native FreeBSD.
4. NetBSD for FreeBSD compat, Linux compat on i386, ppc, amd64.

I'm a Linux user, FreeBSD tester- and porter when possible, NetBSD user, and OpenBSD user.

If a system runs a version of Firefox- include unbranded here- then it can run NoScript.

Other items that can run Firefox or an unbranded version are:

PS2, Wii, Smart devices supported by Debian & NetBSD, SBCs supported by Debian & NetBSD, and other architectures supported by whichever Linux distro and BSD flavor.

@scooty-cat: As a life long hacker and someone who has managed to get just about anything to do anything I want, I know that any device and infrastructure can practically be hacked to run anything, but that doesn't mean it applies to the mainstream or is a viable solution for everyone or that it was even intended to do so or even permitted by their respective manufacturer's in accordance with their TOS. I can take a farm of Xbox and PS3 gaming systems and configure them to create and launch missiles and even nuclear warheads, doesn't mean that it will be done or that it should be done or that the manufacturer wants it done. So we respect all input but keep in mind to tone it with relevance and practicality, not just "it can be done".

I'm surprised we haven't heard from anyone who prefers Mac OS X here. Well here's my 2¢.

Personally I prefer Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" because it just feels so much faster at everything than other OSes, also it's great for multitasking. Plus its Unix core makes it a relatively safe system. It ships with Time Machine, which I think is a really really nice backup program (it's saved me several times); Mac OS X Lion also comes with a nice graphing program too (Grapher.app); I haven't found equivalents of those programs for other operating systems.
Also at the time I got this computer the best laptops out there were MacBook Pro's, not sure if that's still the case seeing that my MacBook Pro has specs that are IMO better than all the MacBooks Apple sells now...

I said Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" specifically, because all OS X releases after Lion come with integrated socialware/trackingware, and for that reason alone I can never and will never use those as my primary OS. (Probably I'll end up moving on to some flavor of Ubuntu.)

Obviously most other people don't have that strong an aversion to social network.
So why do people prefer OS X after Lion? Why do people prefer OS X Yosemite (10.10) or whatever the latest OS X is at the time you read this?

barbaz wrote:I'm surprised we haven't heard from anyone who prefers Mac OS X here.

Well, I transitioned to Linux for philosophical reasons quite some time ago, and have never regretted it, but haven't used a Mac. I don't like Apple Corp much.

Plus its Unix core makes it a relatively safe system.

That's the one feature that might interest me if someone handed me a free iMac.

It ships with Time Machine, which I think is a really really nice backup program (it's saved me several times); Mac OS X Lion also comes with a nice graphing program too (Grapher.app); I haven't found equivalents of those programs for other operating systems.

Can't say I've used either one, so I can't really compare them.

However, when it comes to backups, I have found the robustness of Linux to be helpful. It's easier to recover a system that's modular and flexible. Eg I was recently able to recover a whole stack of applications from a drive with a corrupted bootloader, simply by doing a copy-without-overwrite of the /usr directory to a clean installation on another drive.

(Probably I'll end up moving on to some flavor of Ubuntu.)

I've been pretty happy with Lubuntu, but I guess my GUI requirements are pretty minimal. Most of what I install is for development. Typically I launch the underlying OpenBox instead of LXDE.

Thrawn wrote:

It ships with Time Machine, which I think is a really really nice backup program (it's saved me several times); Mac OS X Lion also comes with a nice graphing program too (Grapher.app); I haven't found equivalents of those programs for other operating systems.

Can't say I've used either one, so I can't really compare them.

Well, I've heard Time Machine compared to rsync... no idea what would be the command though. Time Machine backs up the entire system, such that you can restore a complete snapshot of your system by erasing/formatting your HDD and copying in a backup and you just boot the result and you're done. (It does have some builtin exclusions though, no idea what they are or how they'd translate to a Linux system.) Also when it makes a backup, it copies to the backup disk only what changed since the last backup, adding hard links to the existing backups for the files that didn't change. It automatically deletes the oldest backups when it doesn't have room (but it never deletes the last backup because then you would have no backup while it's making the new backup).

Sadly I don't have any similar comparison for Grapher.

Thrawn wrote:I've been pretty happy with Lubuntu, but I guess my GUI requirements are pretty minimal. Most of what I install is for development. Typically I launch the underlying OpenBox instead of LXDE.

I too like Lubuntu/LXDE/Openbox, in fact it's actually the *only* Linux window manager that I've seen properly display some of the programs I need. My only concern about it is whether I'm gonna be able to find drivers for the hardware in whatever laptop I try to install it on (and no, Wine is just not an option for me on my primary OS).

barbaz wrote:My only concern about it is whether I'm gonna be able to find drivers for the hardware in whatever laptop I try to install it on (and no, Wine is just not an option for me on my primary OS).

I haven't found that to be a problem with recent kernel versions...although I will acknowledge that my experience with Ubuntu on laptops is limited. You can always try a live CD/USB, though, to find out.