What keeps you from being 100% Linux (or other non-Windows)

[ProviaFan]

I could complain about all of the usual issues that some photographers have with GIMP (no color management, no 16 bit support, etc.), but recently I read about Krita, which I plan to try on the weekend since it solves my major complaints with GIMP.

Color calibration is still a sore spot. Yes, I realize that Argyl now supports a USB calibrator, but I'm not buying that particular (more expensive) colorimeter, since I already have a GMB Eye One Display 2. Unfortunately, I'd still need a dual-boot scenario for color management in Linux.

Photo organizing doesn't seem to be "there" yet for those who have large libraries of RAW/DNG files tagged with embedded XMP metadata. I reject F-Spot on the same principle that I reject Apple's Aperture; that is, all information is stored in a "proprietary" database that would require an impossible programming feat on my part to transfer to another program in the future. Other applications may have very rudimentary support, but that is worthless if I have to open each image individually to edit the metadata.

In summary, image editing and color management aren't quite ideal yet, but the issues aren't things that can't be worked around. Organization is the show stopping problem, though. I'll seriously consider switching when something gets feature parity with Adobe CS2 Bridge in batch metadata editing.

 

[InlineFive]

So far because I can't find a distro that I like. I really like Fedora but the fact that releases come out so quickly is a downer for me.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: InlineFive
So far because I can't find a distro that I like. I really like Fedora but the fact that releases come out so quickly is a downer for me.

How long do they wait between releases?

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: InlineFive
So far because I can't find a distro that I like. I really like Fedora but the fact that releases come out so quickly is a downer for me.

So use CentOS. Though for desktop systems, quick releases is generally considered a benefit.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

How long do they wait between releases?

Roughly six months, just like Ubuntu.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: ProviaFan

I reject F-Spot on the same principle that I reject Apple's Aperture; that is, all information is stored in a "proprietary" database that would require an impossible programming feat on my part to transfer to another program in the future.

Do you mean EXIF data? I thought F-Spot kept it embedded in the picture file? I read somewhere that it will even write embedded comments.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: InlineFive
So far because I can't find a distro that I like. I really like Fedora but the fact that releases come out so quickly is a downer for me.

So use CentOS. Though for desktop systems, quick releases is generally considered a benefit.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

How long do they wait between releases?

Roughly six months, just like Ubuntu.

Hm, I find 6 months to be just about right. Plenty of time for major features to get worked in, and not too long to have to wait for them.

 

[ProviaFan]

Originally posted by: Brazen
Do you mean EXIF data? I thought F-Spot kept it embedded in the picture file? I read somewhere that it will even write embedded comments.

No, I'm referring to XMP, which is a way to store IPTC metadata by embedding it in files that support it (JPEG, DNG) or by storing it in sidecar files (for Nikon, Canon, and other proprietary raw formats). My metadata storage needs go far beyond just storing a short comment in a spare EXIF field, which is why I'm eager to see what the digiKam (and other) project developers will come up with (they seem to be heading in the right direction).

 

[Smilin]

right or wrong, my opinion:

command line is linux is very mature, works well, works smoothly.
Seems that everything outside command line is all crunchy, semi-buggy, lacks features and most of all is badly, badly integrated. It's very obvious that different moving parts have been made by different people. The gears often grind when they try to mesh.

Per my sig:
The only game you can play on linux is 'catch the monkey' the infamous banner advertisement. This is obviously a gross exageration but nontheless gaming on linux sucks. Gaming is of critical importance to me.

With a exception of the big-name linux apps like gimp, apache, stuff like that everything written for linux is stuck in this never-ending pre 1.0 stage. Open source guys get these grand ideas in their head but without a boss+paycheck driving them hard crap just never seems to get finished. Couple examples: FreeDos (not linux related but makes an example) just finished...in 2006!, The FOSS version of the .net framework etc. See half the stuff on sourceforge for example.

The "you can do anything on linux that you can do on windows" thing just really doesn't fly very far with me. 2003 Server + AD + Exchange + MS Office is just a monster. Sure it costs money but that combo just smacks everything else around. If you try to duct-tape some foss solution together it might get you by for a small biz but anything enterprise would flop. The rest of "you can do anything.." may actually be true but it needs a big fat * at the end that says, "with considerable effort, wont' quite work as smooth, and good luck with any bugs!". Newsgroups and forums like AT are not real tech support.

Related to the previous points: the "foss is better cuz everyone looks at the source!" just doesn't fly with me either. Nobody that believes this really wants to be told the emperor has no clothes. The percentage of users who actually look at the code is small. The percentage of those that know what they are doing is smaller. Look, how many people in the *world* truly know what it takes to write a memory manager? How many people could spot a security vulnerability if it was right in front of them? The concept is very noble, but as far as making better software it's a crock. That said, I love the nobility of the concept... of course I love the nobility of the concept of socialism too. Doesn't mean it works in practice though.

The final reason and possibly the most important...
People retorting to this post will try to leverage this against me perhaps but I wouldnt' be honest if I didn't say it. You gotta pick one. Yep. It is *not* possible to be good with both *nix and Windows. If you think you are good with both then you probably aren't as good as you think. I've got Windows kung-fu like Bruce Lee (or Neo ). There are guys here the same way with *nix. Nobody here is going to be at the same level in both. Jack of all trades kinda thing. I have chosen windows. Although I ramped up hard on linux at one time I just don't have enough hours in my life to put my hard level of commitment into two things. Right or wrong, my decision is made so I gotta push forward.


whelp I could go on. You are welcome to retort of course but I can't promise a reply. arguments over this stuff could (have!) gone on for years and I've got stuff to do and really don't care enough to expend the effort.

some concessions:
Linux does NOT suck. You won't find me saying this. Similarly those with strong overall knowledge that favor Linux won't say the same about Windows (I submit drag as a great example...very *nix guy.) If you ever see someone on either side of the aisle saying otherwise then more than likely THEY suck. Seriously, they are a windows/linux zealot and shouldn't be listened to...you can often spot these guys by them spelling MS with a $...sure sign of a 12 year old or an idiot.
I'm glad Linux is around if for nothing else than to offer fire under the ass of windows. I look forward to Linux being around for a long long time.

Peace! (I hope.. )

 

[Smilin]

(I submit drag as a great example...very *nix guy.)

What?

(I submit drag as a great example...very talented *nix guy.)

there.

 

[M00T]

Drag is a unix man page written in plain english.

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: Brazen

Originally posted by: InlineFive
So far because I can't find a distro that I like. I really like Fedora but the fact that releases come out so quickly is a downer for me.

So use CentOS. Though for desktop systems, quick releases is generally considered a benefit.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

How long do they wait between releases?

Roughly six months, just like Ubuntu.

Hm, I find 6 months to be just about right. Plenty of time for major features to get worked in, and not too long to have to wait for them.

But don't you have to completely reinstall in order to upgrade to the newest distro? I don't want to have to take the time to reconfigure my system every six months.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: InlineFive
But don't you have to completely reinstall in order to upgrade to the newest distro? I don't want to have to take the time to reconfigure my system every six months.

you shouldn't have to, but I haven't tried updating Fedora yet. Maybe soon.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Smilin
The FOSS version of the .net framework etc. See half the stuff on sourceforge for example.

I heard mono finished implementing the asp.net spec before microsoft did. Not that I'd expect it to be a superior platform to microsoft's whole .net implementation in general, just commenting...

That said, I love the nobility of the concept... of course I love the nobility of the concept of socialism too. Doesn't mean it works in practice though.

Oh nice. The old "open source isn't good because it's communism" argument :roll:

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Smilin
With a exception of the big-name linux apps like gimp, apache, stuff like that everything written for linux is stuck in this never-ending pre 1.0 stage. Open source guys get these grand ideas in their head but without a boss+paycheck driving them hard crap just never seems to get finished. Couple examples: FreeDos (not linux related but makes an example) just finished...in 2006!, The FOSS version of the .net framework etc. See half the stuff on sourceforge for example.

I think the 1.0 thing isn't as important as it used to be. It's just a number, it doesn't necessarily mean anything in FOSS. There are a LOT of pre-1.0 applications out there that are pretty mature and useful.

The "you can do anything on linux that you can do on windows" thing just really doesn't fly very far with me. 2003 Server + AD + Exchange + MS Office is just a monster. Sure it costs money but that combo just smacks everything else around. If you try to duct-tape some foss solution together it might get you by for a small biz but anything enterprise would flop. The rest of "you can do anything.." may actually be true but it needs a big fat * at the end that says, "with considerable effort, wont' quite work as smooth, and good luck with any bugs!". Newsgroups and forums like AT are not real tech support.

Isn't AD just OpenLDAP and Kerberos? Setting that up correctly in FOSS is difficult, but not impossible. It's probably difficult to do it right in Windows land too (I don't know, haven't tried ).

Related to the previous points: the "foss is better cuz everyone looks at the source!" just doesn't fly with me either.

That's a bad quote, try: FOSS is better because anyone can look at the code. Neither really matters, but it's nice to have that freedom.

some concessions:
Linux does NOT suck. You won't find me saying this. Similarly those with strong overall knowledge that favor Linux won't say the same about Windows (I submit drag as a great example...very *nix guy.) If you ever see someone on either side of the aisle saying otherwise then more than likely THEY suck.

Or they just have a strong opinion. Add this to the end of most of those statements: "for me." As in, Windows sucks for me. It may in fact suck, for them.

Peace! (I hope.. )

Just a bit of fun discussion. Piece to you too.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin
The FOSS version of the .net framework etc. See half the stuff on sourceforge for example.

I heard mono finished implementing the asp.net spec before microsoft did. Not that I'd expect it to be a superior platform to microsoft's whole .net implementation in general, just commenting...

And Microsoft uses Samba test code. No biggie.

That said, I love the nobility of the concept... of course I love the nobility of the concept of socialism too. Doesn't mean it works in practice though.

Oh nice. The old "open source isn't good because it's communism" argument :roll:

That's not how I interpretted that comment. Socialism (or communism) is good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. The same can be said about open source and security. In theory the many eyes concept works perfectly, in reality the number of security bugs in open source software says that it isn't true.

I think Bruce Schneier wrote something on this concept a while back. I don't have a link off hand, but it basically can be summed up by this quote from Aleph1:

So does all this mean Open Source Software is no better than closed source software when it comes to security vulnerabilities? No. Open Source Software certainly does have the potential to be more secure than its closed source counterpart. But make no mistake, simply being open source is no guarantee of security.

The number of eyes looking at the code don't matter, it's the quality of the eyes that does.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Smilin

"teh only game yuo can palay on Lunix is 'catch teh monkey bannar ad.'" - JeffK

I think that sig is top 3 all time.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: kamper

Oh nice. The old "open source isn't good because it's communism" argument :roll:

That's not how I interpretted that comment. Socialism (or communism) is good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. The same can be said about open source and security. In theory the many eyes concept works perfectly, in reality the number of security bugs in open source software says that it isn't true.

That's not how I interpretted that comment either, but I realize the sensitivity of the communism/socialism comparison to GPL software ever since back in the early 90's (I think it was) when Microsoft organized protest rallies labeling The FSF guys as a bunch of communists.

 

[stash]

Originally posted by: M00T
Drag is a unix man page written in plain english.

++

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: Smilin

With a exception of the big-name linux apps like gimp, apache, stuff like that everything written for linux is stuck in this never-ending pre 1.0 stage.

As has already been said, 1.0 is just a label, and doesn't necessarily attest to the maturity of the software. The is at least _some_ v0.# FOSS software out there that is at least as stable as anything Microsoft puts out there.

The "you can do anything on linux that you can do on windows" thing just really doesn't fly very far with me. 2003 Server + AD + Exchange + MS Office is just a monster. Sure it costs money but that combo just smacks everything else around.

This is rather true. As pointed out, yes AD is just an LDAP directory. More accurately Group Policy is the killer part of AD, and something I very much wish the FOSS community to address. Redhat's Directory Server may evolve into this; I could see Ubuntu doing something with this; and Novell is at least trying (I don't keep track of Novell's stuff much though).

eGroupware is the best competitor to Exchange/Outlook (including the whole MS Office suite is moot in my book, with OpenOffice), and in the web interface, eGroupware blows Exchange out of the water, though it is rather messy and clunky. Once Mozilla gets Lightning's arse out the door, this tide may change.

it needs a big fat * at the end that says, "with considerable effort, wont' quite work as smooth, and good luck with any bugs!".

Not true of all things, for either side. As I've said before, you have to realize what is the best tool for the job at hand. As an example, I've admin'd IIS servers since 2001. About 2 years ago, I decided to try out Apache because one of our techs was wanting to do some PHP, and at the time PHP was a bear to setup in IIS and would not have been auto-updated. After about a month I knew how to do everything in Apache that I could do in IIS and more, and it's incredibly easier and faster for me to set up an Apache on Linux server then an IIS server.

Newsgroups and forums like AT are not real tech support.

Yeah, I think I've called MS tech support twice in my life. After killing an hour or so just trying to explain my situation so some Hindu guy, trying to figure out what he is saying over his thick accent, sending him some log files and waiting for a callback, I fixed the problem myself using Google and forums.

Related to the previous points: the "foss is better cuz everyone looks at the source!" just doesn't fly with me either. Nobody that believes this really wants to be told the emperor has no clothes. The percentage of users who actually look at the code is small. The percentage of those that know what they are doing is smaller. Look, how many people in the *world* truly know what it takes to write a memory manager? How many people could spot a security vulnerability if it was right in front of them? The concept is very noble, but as far as making better software it's a crock. That said, I love the nobility of the concept... of course I love the nobility of the concept of socialism too. Doesn't mean it works in practice though.

As n0c said, it's not that _everybody_ looks at the source, it's that _anybody_ _can_ look at the source. Many projects have evolved considerably because someone wanted some additional functionality and coded it themselves, or one person started a project and abandoned it and then someone else found it and took over maintaining it or forked it. I think this happens more often then you realize.

The final reason and possibly the most important...
People retorting to this post will try to leverage this against me perhaps but I wouldnt' be honest if I didn't say it. You gotta pick one. Yep. It is *not* possible to be good with both *nix and Windows. If you think you are good with both then you probably aren't as good as you think. I've got Windows kung-fu like Bruce Lee (or Neo ). There are guys here the same way with *nix. Nobody here is going to be at the same level in both. Jack of all trades kinda thing. I have chosen windows. Although I ramped up hard on linux at one time I just don't have enough hours in my life to put my hard level of commitment into two things. Right or wrong, my decision is made so I gotta push forward.

I would say I'm "good" at both. Here on the forums, I answer FOSS and Windows questions. However, if I would call myself an "expert" in any one, it would be Windows and definately not linux. I know enough about linux though, that I prefer it on my home file server and laptop, and I admin both linux and Windows servers at work - and I'm the _only_ admin for both.

 

[Brazen]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: InlineFive
But don't you have to completely reinstall in order to upgrade to the newest distro? I don't want to have to take the time to reconfigure my system every six months.

you shouldn't have to, but I haven't tried updating Fedora yet. Maybe soon.

I too cannot give any personal testament to upgrading either, but they can both be upgraded from their package managers, and I've heard that it is generally trouble-free. I did do an Ubuntu Dapper to Ubunty Edgy Beta upgrade that went smooth as ice, but it was on a clean installed test machine.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin
The FOSS version of the .net framework etc. See half the stuff on sourceforge for example.

I heard mono finished implementing the asp.net spec before microsoft did. Not that I'd expect it to be a superior platform to microsoft's whole .net implementation in general, just commenting...

If they've barely started on asp, how are they finished?
"ASP.NET 2.0 - Work has started in some of the features of 2.x in Mono. "
from: http://www.mono-project.com/ASP.NET

Supporting the spirit of my "stuck in pre 1.0 stage" is the fact that we're on 2.0 and 1.0 & 1.1 may never get finished:
"Much of the original .NET 1.1 specification has been implemented in Mono. Most work today is going into implementing the changes in .NET 2.0, which has yet to be finalized by Microsoft."
from: http://www.mono-project.com/Start

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: SmilinThat said, I love the nobility of the concept... of course I love the nobility of the concept of socialism too. Doesn't mean it works in practice though.

Oh nice. The old "open source isn't good because it's communism" argument :roll:

Oh nice. The old vastly over simplify then play ignorant and act like you don't know exacly what I'm talking about then put words like "good" or "bad" into my mouth that I never said followed by an eye-roll but no other substance argument. (I'll spare the roll)

This is my opinion formed by years of observation. I'm quite welcome to it. Present your own opinion if you wish but bump up the maturity level if you want it to be taken seriously. Geez.

Like it or not there are similarities between socialism and/or communism and FOSS. Also, Like it or not there are times when raw greed by members of a capitalist society or a company get things done far far better. I said nothing about this being good or bad. It just is. This is also but one tiny line out of my rather lengthy post above. If you guys intend to nitpick one tiny point at a time we'll end up in some year-long special olympics argument that I frankly don't have the time for. If it heads that way, I'll just say, "you win" and get back to getting something done.

I would much rather you just post your own opinions on the topic separate from mine and be done with it.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

That said, I love the nobility of the concept... of course I love the nobility of the concept of socialism too. Doesn't mean it works in practice though.

Oh nice. The old "open source isn't good because it's communism" argument :roll:

That's not how I interpretted that comment. Socialism (or communism) is good in theory, but it doesn't work in practice.

Not to turn this into P&N but you've got to be cafeful about that kind of statement. Sure, communism failed in Russia and other various places but there are countries in the world that are very well off with governments that are far more socialist than the United States. Even China, despite lots of problems, isn't exactly lacking economic power.

The same can be said about open source and security. In theory the many eyes concept works perfectly, in reality the number of security bugs in open source software says that it isn't true.

I think Bruce Schneier wrote something on this concept a while back. I don't have a link off hand, but it basically can be summed up by this quote from Aleph1:

So does all this mean Open Source Software is no better than closed source software when it comes to security vulnerabilities? No. Open Source Software certainly does have the potential to be more secure than its closed source counterpart. But make no mistake, simply being open source is no guarantee of security.

The number of eyes looking at the code don't matter, it's the quality of the eyes that does.

I wasn't so much thinking about the many-eyes and security issue. I was mostly reacting to the implication that the difference between open and closed source have anything to do with the differences between failed communist governments and successful capitalist ones.

I hope that makes sense. I'm starting to get confused and I'm not sure I explained myself properly. Plus, like I said, this isn't P&N so I probably shouldn't have brought it up in the first place.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: kamper
Not to turn this into P&N but you've got to be cafeful about that kind of statement. Sure, communism failed in Russia and other various places but there are countries in the world that are very well off with governments that are far more socialist than the United States. Even China, despite lots of problems, isn't exactly lacking economic power.

Yeah, I generalized quite a bit.

 

[kamper]

Originally posted by: Smilin

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: Smilin
The FOSS version of the .net framework etc. See half the stuff on sourceforge for example.

I heard mono finished implementing the asp.net spec before microsoft did. Not that I'd expect it to be a superior platform to microsoft's whole .net implementation in general, just commenting...

If they've barely started on asp, how are they finished?
"ASP.NET 2.0 - Work has started in some of the features of 2.x in Mono. "
from: http://www.mono-project.com/ASP.NET

Supporting the spirit of my "stuck in pre 1.0 stage" is the fact that we're on 2.0 and 1.0 & 1.1 may never get finished:
"Much of the original .NET 1.1 specification has been implemented in Mono. Most work today is going into implementing the changes in .NET 2.0, which has yet to be finalized by Microsoft."
from: http://www.mono-project.com/Start

I'll point out that I said "heard" (it was from a guy at work who does a lot of .net programming at home on os x) and back right out of this discussion because I have never played with mono's asp.net.

Originally posted by: kamper

Originally posted by: SmilinThat said, I love the nobility of the concept... of course I love the nobility of the concept of socialism too. Doesn't mean it works in practice though.

Oh nice. The old "open source isn't good because it's communism" argument :roll:

Oh nice. The old vastly over simplify then play ignorant and act like you don't know exacly what I'm talking about then put words like "good" or "bad" into my mouth that I never said followed by an eye-roll but no other substance argument. (I'll spare the roll)

Sorry. I realize I was reading a lot into your words but I really don't see why socialism ever entered into the discussion given that the only way I've ever heard about it in the context of software is to disparage the concept open source.

This is my opinion formed by years of observation. I'm quite welcome to it. Present your own opinion if you wish but bump up the maturity level if you want it to be taken seriously. Geez.

Like it or not there are similarities between socialism and/or communism and FOSS.

And the similarities have very little to do with why communism is less successful than capitalism. Communism doesn't suck because it encourages sharing, it sucks because it enforces a massive system of central co-ordination that can't cope as well as a decentralized system. Open source, if anything, tends to be less centrally organized than closed source.

Also, Like it or not there are times when raw greed by members of a capitalist society or a company get things done far far better.

If by better you mean faster then I absolutely agree with you. I think that, long-term, both are capable of producing high quality stuff but certainly, the speed is an important quality. I have no problem with proprietary software, that happens to be why I prefer a bsd style license rather than gpl. I'm only arguing from the open source perspective in the sense that if both worlds have produced software that fulfills my needs, I'd prefer the open version.

I said nothing about this being good or bad. It just is. This is also but one tiny line out of my rather lengthy post above. If you guys intend to nitpick one tiny point at a time we'll end up in some year-long special olympics argument that I frankly don't have the time for. If it heads that way, I'll just say, "you win" and get back to getting something done.

I don't want to nitpick your entire post, I just made a flippant, off-hand remark about two sentences. But given your position and the fact that this is a thread specifically about replacing microsoft software with open source stuff, did you really expect not to generate much traffic?

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: kamper
I don't want to nitpick your entire post, I just made a flippant, off-hand remark about two sentences. But given your position and the fact that this is a thread specifically about replacing microsoft software with open source stuff, did you really expect not to generate much traffic?

First, sorry I jumped your sh1t.

Second, yea it's one of those threads that starts out facing down hill regarless of where it ends up. This is an almost religious debate so any two people could go back and forth point by point *forever*.

What I would *like* to see (unlikely to happen) are standalone opinions on the topic. It's probably the only way the sharing of ideas on this topic will remain constructive. Any point and counter point will degenerate into a war of attrition and the winner will be the one left standing after all the sensible people have given up.

Anyone want to place bets on the maximum depth that the nested quotes reach in this thread? We're up to like 3 or 4 now. hehe.