Ubuntu Satanic?

So aside from getting teh br00talz music, you get a bunch of aesthetic mods that you can easily do yourself? Doesn't seem like something that would make Linux users go out of their way for it.

Unless its purely designed to get Winblows users during the transition to hook up on that...

If I was a Satanist, maybe I'd like that - for now I enjoy my matrix theme.
 
Sommer said:
So aside from getting teh br00talz music, you get a bunch of aesthetic mods that you can easily do yourself? Doesn't seem like something that would make Linux users go out of their way for it.

Unless its purely designed to get Winblows users during the transition to hook up on that...

If I was a Satanist, maybe I'd like that - for now I enjoy my matrix theme.
Click to expand...

To be honest with you, since I saw Windows 7(aka Vista 2) I have started finding more info about Linux. I can run Linux now as good as Windows. And when I get tired of Vista, I am not going to find my way back to Windows.

I don't like these Ubuntu knockoffs that include Linux Mint, gOS, and this one. It just seems like during the process of adding more visual stuff they would break a bit of code.
 
Thats sort of the paradox behind Linux's popularity.

The only way Linux will become more popular than Windows is if Linux allows user to do everything from the GUI. Ubuntu is pretty good at that - hence why it's newb-friendly, but the more you do that the more you defeat the purpose of having Linux.

I hope most people realize the true power of Linux and come over to it, but it's still got a long ways to be comparable in the user-friendliest/deadliest OS of Windows.

Both my computers are dual-boot and that's something I highly suggest to most people. There are things that run on Windows and wont, at least for the time being, on Linux. Games are big one in that field. Some work well on Wine, the majority don't. :rolleyes:
 
Sommer said:
Thats sort of the paradox behind Linux's popularity.

The only way Linux will become more popular than Windows is if Linux allows user to do everything from the GUI. Ubuntu is pretty good at that - hence why it's newb-friendly, but the more you do that the more you defeat the purpose of having Linux.

I hope most people realize the true power of Linux and come over to it, but it's still got a long ways to be comparable in the user-friendliest/deadliest OS of Windows.

Both my computers are dual-boot and that's something I highly suggest to most people. There are things that run on Windows and wont, at least for the time being, on Linux. Games are big one in that field. Some work well on Wine, the majority don't. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I disagree you should be able to do everything you want from the GUI, the command line should only be for advanced users and automation.

OS X is a windows killer OS, not Linux.
 
tlarkin said:
OS X is a windows killer OS, not Linux.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the fact that OS X is proprietary is keeping them from killing Windows. Also Apple is going to have to learn to make some competitive moves and quit worrying about Greenpeace, and the other little things.
 
/\E said:
Yeah but the fact that OS X is proprietary is keeping them from killing Windows. Also Apple is going to have to learn to make some competitive moves and quit worrying about Greenpeace, and the other little things.
Click to expand...

How is it proprietary? Explain that please.

Apple has grown in 3 years from a 4% market share to almost 10%. That is leaps and bounds in a world already dominated by one product. All companies are going more green, in the long run it saves you money and makes waste management a lot better amongst a lot of other things.
 
I gotta agree with TLarkin. The new macbooks have some insane battery life (8+ hours i think?!) which helps keep old dead batteries out of landfills. Nothing wrong with jumping onboard the 'Green' bandwagon really.
 
How is it proprietary? Explain that please.
Click to expand...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X

"Closed source with open source components"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
Well known examples of proprietary software include Microsoft Windows, RealPlayer, iTunes, Adobe Photoshop, Mac OS X, WinZip and some versions of Unix.
Click to expand...

OS X is a windows killer OS, not Linux.
Click to expand...
It's a nice OS, but the cost as well as the act that they only run on macs (legally and to most users) and the lack of available software keep it from becoming mainstream. Also, I don't think there is such thing as "Windows Killer" - no matter how much beating Windows market share takes, it will always carve in some niche (DirectX, for example... for as long as MS has its hands on DX people willl buy Windows just for games).
 
Oh geez. Didn't see the "naughty" screen shot on the page. Got in trouble for posting a link on another forum of mine. Oops
 
hackapelite said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OS_X

"Closed source with open source components"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software


It's a nice OS, but the cost as well as the act that they only run on macs (legally and to most users) and the lack of available software keep it from becoming mainstream. Also, I don't think there is such thing as "Windows Killer" - no matter how much beating Windows market share takes, it will always carve in some niche (DirectX, for example... for as long as MS has its hands on DX people willl buy Windows just for games).
Click to expand...

While this typically is an argument I get into with Linux fan boys, but I will go ahead and speak out a few things here. First off, having open source code in a closed source package is not bad. Open Source allows for Apple to have the newest kernel tested beyond other products due to it's open source implementations. The open source community does a lot to improve stability and security.

The article you linked is from wikipedia, which means it is already subjective. They are saying a definition of proprietary software is one that is A) closed source code, B) not licensed under some sort of open source license.

That definition is pretty broad and I can tell you right now dealing with the tons and tons of package managers and god awful repository requirements of some Linux distros, plus some of the licensing restrictions (see Debian) that it very well could be considered proprietary. Which is why that wikipedia article you linked is under debate.

What proprietary literally means is that it is property owned by a proprietor, thus a company or an entity or something similar. So you can see where the huge debate comes from. I am not going to bother with it. However, in terms of usage there is nothing that a Windows box can do that a Mac can't and vice versa minus some video games.

Core Animation is an API that Apple developed and released with 10.5. It is very similar to DX in the manner that it allows applications direct access to hardware via the API to do 2d and 3d renderings. It is also how OS X has the eye candy on the desktop.

The problem is developers aren't too savvy on Core Animation and of course Apple executives haven't gone out and tried to get the Game developers aboard. A lot of game developers would probably love to port their games to the Mac but there are still some gray areas between them. It is not like DX is the only game in town, it is just the current best game in town. If Apple and the game developers finally get on the same foot you will see a lot more games being ported and even developed for the Mac.
 
tlarkin said:
I disagree you should be able to do everything you want from the GUI, the command line should only be for advanced users and automation.

OS X is a windows killer OS, not Linux.
Click to expand...

I never said Linux was a Windows killer, in fact I believe I stated why it wouldn't/couldn't be. But then again saying OS X is a Windows killer is slightly contradicting seeing as its a Unix-like OS.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top