Member since: Apr 28th, 2009
Oct 26th 2010 5:40PM You know... I am so glad I don't use Ubuntu anymore.First off, they all lost their minds and broke our sound with Pulse Audio, then they went ahead and almost irreversibly integrated Pulse Audio into Ubuntu to make it next to impossible to remove without losing sound completely in the process.Then they decided to REMOVE some superior open source apps from te default install because some idiot on their team decided that they had some adequate alternative. No, Empathy is NOT comparable to Pidgin and F-Spot sure as hell doesn't come close to GIMP, yet the Ubuntu devs decided to put those in as replacements anyway.Then they decided to jack up the titlebars so the buttons are, quite simply, poorly placed. And it all seems horribly arbitrary.Then I think at some point Mark (Who is increasibgly showing he has no clue what makes a usable desktop by this point.) considered dropping the system tray for no reason.Now they're leaving GNOME for Unity. Yeah. Now there's just simply NO logic in what direction Ubuntu's development is going in. None. Say goodbye to Ubuntu being the answer to Linux being a success on the desktop, Mark killed it.What's next? Ditching X altogether and trying some cheap window manager just because it is "new?" Maybe switch Ubuntu from Linux to Darwin? Come on! How many more idiot decisions will it take before Ubuntu loses its success?
Mar 29th 2010 2:13PM @mark - You are very clearly doing it wrong.Linux does that too. It can even do that without actually DOING anything. It's called a separate /home partition. Another feature Windows never dreams of doing because it doesn't even have a unified file system that allows you to treat separate file systems as part of the whole. Only Windows forces you to back up your files/run a program to pull over old configuration or documents. Linux just remounts your /home partition and carries on. Tools like the migration tool Windows has are a symptom of an inflexible file system structure.Also, it's quite easy to repair Linux compared to Windows because Linux provides you with more than a crippled DOS session for a recovery console like Windows does. Instead of offering you only 50 commands that are a major toss up over whether they'll fix your problem, Linux provides you with a single mode that won't activate network or daemons, and any LiveCD can do a lot more for even Windows on the same system than the Recovery Console Windows makes you put up with. Windows has you either try to find a magic combination with its severely crippled recovery tools to fix the problem, or its only guaranteed fix by way of reinstalling Windows a lot. Linux allows you to just fix the problem. And it's not that hard. At worst you Google it, which will be possible from most any LiveCD since it doesn't just install Linux like any Windows media does.Your mistake was also using two of the WORST Linux distributions out there for stability or reliability: Ubuntu and Fedora. Ubuntu's built right off of Debian Unstable and has some of the least competent Linux devs working it. And Fedora is actually Red Hat's experimental branch.Video driver support is only flakey if you're a sucker with an ATI card, and that's ATI/AMD's fault, not Linux's. All the others just plain work. nVidia cards require installation of a proprietary driver, but that takes five minutes tops and only an idiot would have any trouble with it. Actually, hardware support for Linux is loads better than Windows because it actually supports waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more hardware out of the box, and has the more extensive driver base as well as what platforms it can run on. Try installing Ubuntu and XP on that same machine and see what works out of the box on your system compared to the two. You'll find that XP will have NOTHING working, where Ubuntu will have most, if not all, your hardware working without you having to set anything up. This is because most drivers you'll ever needa re installed as a part of the kernel package and udev modprobes them at boot. Your network problem would be easily solved had you actually rubbed two brain cells together and realized there was ndiswrapper that allows you to use drivers not explicitly written for Linux. You would have discovered that and easily fixed your wireless problem had you actually done some research. And unless you're using a laptop, wireless isn't really worth the slowness, insecurity, OR unreliability. Wireless just can't compare to a good ethernet connection. Speaking of networks, did you know Windows has a deliberately crippled IP stack that makes it operate on the network much slower than any other operating syetm you could use?The only reason you had to boot into Windows was because you couldn't figure out how to set up your wireless card. That's your fault, not Linux's. And GUI tools? Yeah, you're not a competent software developer if you can only use GUI tools. Linux is *the* platform for software development. It offers, FOR FREE, and with a greater degree of reliability and flexibility way more compilers and development tools than you will EVER see Microsoft cough up for Visual Studio. In fact, Microsoft has DUMBED DOWN development with the advent of C# and .NET.A CLI is always going to be faster, more powerful, and more efficient than a GUI. Windows and Microsoft have trained idiots like you into thinking that they're obsolete and useless. But GUIs are severely limited and slow at what they do, and are extremely generic procedures and can't be relied on for something mission critical.There's also several damn good reasons why Linux is the better choice for a server There's a damn good reason why over 60% of the Internet, including this very web site, are run on Linux. There are several damn good reasons why Linux is most commonly chosen for embedded use. There is many damn good reasons why Android is beginning to overtake Windows Mobile AND OS X in the mobile market. And the only reason Windows is used is because Microsoft forced it into a monopoly. Illegally. At least TWICE they were convicted of anti-competitive monopoly behavior. They can't even consider acquisition or expansion without clearing it with the DoJ and EU first.Trust me. No one except those like you who can't seem to tolerate a learning curve uses Windows because they actually want to. Windows is only successful because it was artificially given a market by MicrosoftStop blaming Linux for your inability to get a clue on how to actually use it.And I reiterate, it's easier to fix Linux without having to use crippled recovery tools or reinstalling it the way Windows forces you to.
Mar 17th 2010 4:26PM I doubt this is true at all.Considering the fact that Macs and replacement mac hardware (Two VERY RELEVANT things to management of an IT infrastructure.) is 50-75% more expensive than a PC. Are these IT Pros working for Apple, perhaps, just like the same so-called IT Pros who worked for Microsoft who claimed Linux had a higher TCO than Windows?I am calling bullshit on this one since it's a proven fact that up-front costs of a Mac and their maintenance costs are WAY higher than a PC, and there's less IT techs trained for OS X, which means their supply is less then their demand. That's a high salary right there.Up-front cost of buying a Mac is NOT the only expensive thing about these machines. Between the fact that equivalent PC hardware is anywhere between 30% to a whopping 85% LESS than the Mac version of the same hardware, the fact that Macs quite simply don't have the power of a high-end PC, nor the value-oriented operating systems available for it (Last I checked, OS X cost $300 in most retailers, that's even more than Windows 7 Ultimate, and Linux, which is frequently at the heart of most IT infrastructures, only costs anywhere from $0-$50. Upkeep on Windows is semi-expensive between upgrades and handling false WGA positives in Windows (Some cases call for buying a new license.), Linux is dirt cheap, and I can guarantee you a PC infrastructure built on Linux is much less expensive to manage than one built on Macs running OS X. I guarantee you this. Because there's virtually no licensing costs on Linux, and the fact that PCs cost way way way way less than Macs (Mid-level PC is under $500, Mid-Level Mac is over $1,000), and the fact that upgrading Linux is free, AS WELL AS the fact that there's more of an availability of hobbyist/freelance programmers handling sovftware codebase outside of your own infrastructure. PCs running Linux are MUCH cheaper and MUCH more powerful and useful than Macs. This is why Hollywood uses Linux and not Mac OS X for visual effects despite claims for Macs graphical abilities.There's also the sad, cold fact that you simply can't do half the things you need to do on a Mac without installing a regular PC operating system on it first. OS X is too limited and prohibitive to be useful for ANY enterprise usage, which, compared with their prohibitive costs, is why you'll rarely see Macs in a corporate setting, and most certainly NEVER as the heart of an IT infrastructure.I question the credibility of the IT Pros making this claim. I remember not too long ago, IT Pros for ANOTHER certain company that can't stand competition much like Apple was making the same claims about their flagship product versus Linux in terms of TCO.The fact that this is an Apple blog ALSO increases the dubious nature of this so-called study. Bias would most definitely be a factor in this article. Now, if it showed up on more neutral ground like CNet or /. then MAYBE I'd consider it.But honestly? I think this article is bullshit. considering there's so many actual FACTS about Macs that this article blatantly ignores to make it sound liek Macs are actually cheaper than PCs (An outright lie.)Sorry to burst your bubble, but Macs will never belong in a corporate IT environment so long as Apple scalps their users on costs on their productt.
Mar 6th 2010 12:07PM For all that alleged finesse.. the thieves chose to steal MACBOOKS?What was wrong with the GOOD laptops?
Feb 2nd 2010 1:26PM Not that Windows users would know a decent command line if it bit you on the ass.cmd and PowerShell are jokes. As a Linux user who has access to dozens of powerful command lines instantly, I laugh at both of them.cmd is based on DOS, and has all the limitations and hangups of it predecessor: No multitasking, no features, few commands, automation is severely lacking (Batch files? SERIOUSLY?)PowerShell was a half-assed attempt by Microsoft to try to hook in the *nix users by offering a crippled and useless fake POSIX-style shell (With an unneeded and pointless .NET dependency.), but since Windows is everything BUT POSIX PS is about as useless as cmd.
Feb 2nd 2010 1:19PM It'd be easy to just run Linux, mount the NTFS partition, and delete it from there. While you're at it, maybe just delete the whole partition and put something actually worthwhile there, like a massive swap partition, your computer would get more use out of that. Linux doesn't give a crap about Windows's, many FS bugs.
Jan 12th 2010 10:26PM How about a smartphone that actually amounts up to its competition?Oh wait, I'm expecting too much of an Apple product.
Jan 3rd 2010 1:01PM Show off your Steve Jobs Cultism by buying this lamp!Is it as function-free as their products?
Jan 1st 2010 1:52PM @DA623 - Oh? Generally FUD has to be untrue to be FUD. Of course, since this is a Apple fanboy blog I'd expect someone pointing out all of Apple's flaws would simply be dismissed as FUD or trolling. After all, to people who actually hang out at blogs like this, they're busy thinking Apple can do no wrongThere isn't a single Apple product that isn't locked down to all hell.There isn't a single Apple product that doesn't have an incomplete feature set.There isn't a single Apple product that doesn't cost 25 to 75% percent more than their competition, which, as pointed out, has more functionality and power then all of Apple's products combined.There isn't a single Apple product that actually proves the ambitious claim that their products are of any higher quality. iMacs crash, iPhones get hacked, iPods hard disks eff themselves easier than any other HDD-based PMP in the entire history of the industry. And all you Steve Jobs cultists love to deny it despite proof to the contrary.Let's also forget that Apple has never once innovated. Like Microsoft they bought out or ripped off their technology, or simply suffered from Not Invented Here syndrome.Wrap it in a buzzword and make it shiny and idiot Apple bloggers like you drool over it simply because Steve Jobs tells you to.I dare you to name an Apple product that doesn't fit that bill. I'll point out EXACTLY what's wrong with that product that proves you wrong.
Jan 1st 2010 11:10AM I forgot to mention that I am simply NOT surprised Apple did this. I bet they would have done it whether or not the Chinese Government wanted them to.This is a typical action on the part of Apple.
Save your tabs and Panorama tab groups in Firefox 4
Amazon Appstore for Android hands-on review: Android Market is in trouble