I want a windows-like OS that uses very little ram!

I wish Linux all the success in the world. I will continue to use it, although I can't rely on it exclusively. For all the progress I've seen over the last three years, it still has a long way to go.

 

Pepik, for what it's worth, I can agree with you to a certain extent. There will be no big switch to Linux, where every desktop gets a Linux distro. It will never happen... like that at least.

A total OS switch takes time. Especially when there are users of the older (not old) generations who may have trouble learning a new OS. Computers are new to them and some of them can't even comprehend that a computer needs an OS to operate. For example, this classification of people may not understand that an operating system gets a virus, not the computer hardware.

These people struggled to learned one OS. There is no way they will be able to learn a new one. (lol) It isn't really hard to learn desktop Linux, it takes the same amount of effort to learn any other desktop OS.

Eventually, the older generation of computer user will retire from their Microsoft Office job and have less a need to use a desktop. The newer generations will be more willing, and capable, of learning new ways to use a computer. This newer generation will be more accustomed to a dual-boot system, or maybe a strictly Linux environment. Developers have begun to see this and they are developing more and more for Linux. One day Linux will have more driver and game support than any other OS.

 

It's never going to happen, and it shouldn't happen. Linux is an amateur OS.
Try to turn it into an appliance for ignorant consumers and turn it over to
the business community and in no time it will just be Windows with a
different name.

There are some Linux distros that are trying to do that, and they earn nothing
but contempt from the real Linux community.

We don't give a tinker's damn whether a particular person has the sense to run
Linux or not.

And we aren't going to let the business community take it over.

Use that piece-of-shit operating system called 'Windows' if you want
to. And pay the price at every level.

How you can stand to run an OS that any snot-nosed teenager can
break into, and that the M$ Corporation can enter at will, and
that you actually have to pay MONEY for, beats the hell out of me.

But it's your life.

LIttlefoot

 

It shouldn't happen? It's an amateur OS? It will end up like Windows?...

I don't think so, bro. Linux will never end up like Windows. Windows is based on a single-user OS. Linux is a true networking OS with every single bit of functionality. It is specifically designed to be scalable.

Windows could never, ever keep up with a fully developed Linux desktop (if we can get one). Think about this: Bill Gates said that a desktop user will never need more than 640Kb of RAM. LOL! No modern OS can run on 640Kb RAM. What about programs? The Windows kernel was built on the idea that we will be using a measly 640Kb RAM. The Linux kernel was built to scale out to any amount of RAM you could fathom. Sure there are maybe 1Tb limits, but the kernel can be compiled to run any amount you want.

So think of Windows like this. Go to your local garbage dump and find an old 486 box. I bet it doesn't work, but who cares. Now pull out the mobo, CPU, RAM, hard drive, etc. Strip it of everything. Go buy a brand new computer gaming case for $200 that looks really cool; maybe with neon lights that looks like this:


^Looks real cool doesn't it? It might even look fast... but w/e, it's just a case.

Now take all of the old 486 components like the mobo, CPU, RAM, hard drive, etc, and put it all in this nice cool case.
Turn it on and just simply pray that it works. I bet if it works, you could sell it for about $500 to someone that knows nothing about computers.

My point is, all of that cherry-good bull crap about the outside only hides the old 486 product on the inside. It looks good but it is completely useless.

This analogy specifically expresses Microsoft Windows. It looks good on the outside, but it is an old POS on the inside.

 

Whether it is multi-user or not is irrelevant here. The average consumer is not insterested
in having one computer at home with a bunch of workstations. They all
want their own computer computer.

The issue is that they want something as easy to use as a refrigerator. They
don't want to learn anything technical. They don't even want to know that
the technical stuff exists.

Computers are just too complex to ever fit that bill. Even the simplest Linux
distro that will fit on a single floppy is too complex for that.

So they have to add layers and layers and layers of software designed
to make it "user-friendly". But it never works. The growing complexity
defeats them.

And so they have to arrange for backdoor access to be available to the
company that created and maintains the OS.

If they can slip in "the back door", anyone can....That's why Windows
is so vulnerable. And Mac _will_ be when it gets big enough to attract
big time investors.

Now we have to get deeper into the realities of business. Proprietary software.
Closed source. Manipulating retail businesses to use only the software
that the company wants them to use. Just like Microsoft.

Making money becomes a shared goal with "user-friendliness" and then
you are fucked.

Start with Linux and you get to the same place.

The corporations do the same thing to computers that they do to food:
Make it tasteless and pretty and poisonous in the long run.

What a waste of time to even try.

They could if the internet hadn't been taken over by Business. I've got a net
capable Linux distro here that fits on a single floppy. It has an editor, a web
browser, a web servter, a pager, an email and smtp and pop client, an
ftp client.....

Just no graphics. You could add basic graphics with a couple of more
floppies.

If it wasn't for the enormous amount of eye and ear candy on the web,
all used by businesses to make them seem to be different from their
competitition..And if the ISPs didn't _facilitate spammers and crackers
with shoddy practices that often ignore the RFCs....(or fail to modiify
them to adapt to modern conditions)

And if business didn't saturate the web and eat up all the bandwidth
with endless mindless entertainment sites.

We could have very simple operating systems that
displayed static graphics (HTML1:0 Pages that look like
magazine pages that can be printed as is) and did all the basic and
necessary things an internetworked computer should do.

We could have libraries and newstands and public forums and
mail and schools.....with 640K RAM.

Take these forums. The software on the server we are using now
is a ridiiculously complex and large application bundle that could
be replaced by a single newsserver and webserver.

Newsservers (NNTP) are incredibly efficient ways to host public
forums.

All this garbage we are using is, in fact, a pathetic attempt to
turn an HTTP (web) server into a newsserver.

An NNTP client, called a newsreader, is amazingly easy to
use once you get the hang of it. This thing here is a clumsy and
royal pain in the ass.

But the advertisers want the web softwareit because it makes it possible to get in
our faces with their ads. And they don't want to inconvenience people
with having to learn a new program. Might scare them away.

Even though that program is much easier to use.

The newsserver and a simple webserver would be so easy to run,
and use so lilttle bandwidth, that advertising wouldn't even be
necessary.

If the internet is going to be run by businesses who care more about
making money than anything else and cater to shoppers and those
seeking mindless entertainment, then we are going to have to have
gargantuan opertaing systems and tons of unnecessary software.

(a lot of very interesting and intelligent stuff deleted here, but not ignored)

[/QUOTE]

My pleasure,

Littlefoot

 

Thanks Littlefoot.

If you knew the true difference between a multi-user OS and a single-user OS, you would know exactly why Linux will not be as problematic as Windows. Maybe you really do know the difference and you just don't feel you should sharing it, idk. It is not about how many human users the OS can handle, it is about how many logical users it can allocate for_file_permissions. File permissions are a really big thing. Windows has a huge problem with it, and always will, forever. Linux handles rights and users like it was meant to be.

Linux will always be open source. It is not the OS that will change to be easier (like a refrigerator), it is the community that will change. Hardware drivers and other nice junk will become open source or at least be liscensed to package into Linux distros. The community will have developed from the millions of Linux users already contributing. Google will release the ultimate OS, and Linux will be underneath the core. Eventually, computers will be able to fix there own software without needing any intervention. Linux has the power to conquer.

Linux/Unix has already conquered the server world. Wouldn't it be nice if we could have a nice OS that everyone could appreciate. Maybe then more people will be accepting of a digital lifestyle.

Honestly, I disagree that the Internet is controlled by big business. It was started as a communication net and evolved into a community. The Internet will always belong to the community much like Linux. Business may be conducted via Internet, but the Internet will never be bought or owned by a business.

Of coarse, the Internet is another topic.

 

I follow you. Good point.

Not if the corporations take over. Open source is utterly antithetical to
their entire mode of operation. You can't keep other people from making
whatever use they want of open source software.

And you can't hide things you don't want the public to know about.
You lose control.

Take a look at the number of closed-source apps that now come with
Redhat, which has been trying to go commercial for a long time now.

There are none in Slackware.

It already has changed in the effort to make it user-friendly. KDE is three times
the size of my entire OS. It eats RAM and CPU cycles like a hog at the
trough.

And I can use every X app in the Linux world unless it has been written
specifically for KDE or Gnome. Which just sucks. Fortunately, there is
almost always an independent equivalent app available.

But I use textmode apps whenever possible. And it is possible for almost
everything, including sophisticated image manipulation (ImageMagick, etc.)
The textmode apps are usually far superior to the X apps that do the
same job.

And if those textmode apps are accessed through an integrated desktop
environment like KDE, most of the options and arguments are lost to
the user.

Now you are hedging, because you know you are wrong about this.

I am not a worshipper of technology. A computer isn't anything but
a very fast adding machine.

Study assembly language and this becomes very clear.

The belief that technology will solve all our problems is about to cost
us our planet.

The corporations would eat Linux alive.

And defecate shit as a result.

I already have a nice OS. I don't care what bunch of airheads that
want to waste their lives watching videos and listening to music and
playing videogames wants.

Fuck a digital lifestyle. That half-life just creates zombies. And trashes the
planet and can't exist without the serious exploitation of poor people all
around the planet. Hi-tech is very, very labor and energy intensive. And produces
some of the nastiest pollutants on the planet.

Computers are a tool.

[/QUOTE]
Honestly, I disagree that the Internet is controlled by big business. It was started as a communication net and evolved into a community. The Internet will always belong to the community much like Linux. Business may be conducted via Internet, but the Internet will never be bought or owned by a business.

Of coarse, the Internet is another topic.[/QUOTE]

The internst is absolutely controlled by the corporations. They control the
hardware and the infrastructure and the ISPs and the energy sources..

There is no reason at all why we can't have free access to the internet.
Or that very simple computers and OSes won't work on them at a practical level.

Except that the corporations don't want it that way. They want to appeal
to mindless consumers who want to watch TV instead of watching the
real world. They love such people because they can manipulate them
like puppets.

LIttlefoot

 

In RedHat, you pay for proprietary applications. RedHat caters to another businesses needs. You aren't actually paying for the Linux OS. With RedHat, you get the OS for free. Actually, they offer RedHat 10.4 to download for free. You can pay for it, but you are actually paying for the extended update service and maybe tech support. The big businesses pay RedHat for specialized applications and kernels and such.

You could always use Fedora (Fedora is supported by RedHat). Fedora is the 100% free RedHat with it's own twist. It is supported by the community. Everything is free in Fedora.

Basically, Linux is legally_open_source. It is protected under OSI (Open Source Initiative), and other legalities, to be open source and that can never be changed. As long as there is a community to support it, Linux will always be free. I am not merly stretching here, I am just making it clear.

FYI, I have studied machine laguage, assembly language, and other items such as operational algorithms. Not to mention languages such as C and C++.

 

AA, you have ignored almost every argument I have posted here. You have an agenda.
You aren't interested in debating anything.

You are a worshipper of technology who is, like all of your kind, utterly ignorant of
what is done to this planet and its weaker peoples in order to create your toys.

And utterly ignorant of the history of technology, which is one of failed promises and
predictions, with any real benefits enjoyed only by a priveleged minority.

You read the promotional material and think you are reading science.

Failing to comprehend the simple fact that the Corporations own the
scientists. Lock, stock, and barrel.

The myth that technology holds all the answers is one promoted heavily
by the Corporations because it creates so many jobs and investment incomes.

I remember grade school in the 50's, when all the scientists were telling
us that by 2000 robots would be doing all the work and Scientific Medicine
would have cured every disease and we'd all be living lives of luxury with
flying cars and there'd be bases on the moon and mars and grand space
stations circling the earth and we'd be mining the asteroids and thus
preserving our own environment.

Didn't happen, did it? But we gave the Corporations trillions of dollars
to try.

Now they are telling us that nanotechnology and genetic engineering and
artificial intelligence and alternative energy are going to save us.

All we have to do is give them trillions of dollars and just kick back and
be patient and play video games and everything will be just fine. The
geeks will fix everything.

Bullshit. It was bullshit in the 50's and it's bullshit now.

Littlefoot

 

I apologize if my posts have given you the impression that I was ignoring your argument. I can see what you are saying but I don't ignore anyone.

I can see that you might be attacking the person and not the problem. If you have comments about me you can send me a PM. This is a good thread and I would hate to see it disrespected.

Lets keep this on the topic.

 

Anyone can read back through our conversation and see that that isn't true
at all.

I have simply pointed out the obvious: You are a technology-worshipping
fanatic and your judgement cannot be trusted in this area.

Oh my. Now, since you have failed to bully me into accepting your distorted
views on technolog you are trying to shut me up by claiming that I am being
abusive and off-topic.

Another transparent attempt to bully me.

I'll post what I want, you twerp. And you'll live with it.

Littlefoot

 

"I want a windows-like OS that uses very little ram!"

Here's what I should have said in the first place:

There is no such thing.

By "windows-like" you mean an OS that has a Graphical Integrated
Desktop Environment (GIDE) that will allow you to accomplish almost
everything by clicking on something with a mouse.

GIDEs use incredible amounts of RAM.

And what do you get for it? To bring up your browser you click
on an icon.

I have a screen that isn't cluttered with icons and when
I want to bring up my browser I enter "ff" at the command
prompt,

("ff" is aliased to "firefox &". The "&" puts firefox in the
background and frees up the prompt. It is childsplay to
create whatever aliases you want.)

In both cases, the browser opens in a new window.

If you want the eyecandy and the illusory convenience
of a GIDE, then the price is a large amount of RAM and
a large amount of disk space, and a lot CPU cycles.
Most modern OSes that use GIDEs now require two
CPUs.

This is a lot of unnecessary hardware. A lot of
unnecessary damage to the environment mining
and manufacturing and powering it.

Doesn't seem like much when you just consider
what YOU are purchasing. But there are hundreds
of millions of people doing the same thing, and
the collective damage done is extreme.

Is your GIDE-equipped OS better than mine? No.
I can do everything that you can do.

Is it easier to use than mine? No. It takes just
as long, or longer, to learn to use the GIDE as
it does to learn to run your OS from commandline.

In fact, for a given amount of RAM and hard drive space
and available CPU cycles I can do a lot more than
you can.

Because I'm not wasting it all on a GIDE.

And I can run any Linux/Unix computer anywhere,
regardless of the GIDE or lack thereof. (Most servers
do not have a graphical interface at all, much less a
GIDE.)

Know the last time I called Technical Support for help?

Me neither. I can't even remember.

The professional geeks and the corporations love to make
you dependent on their fancy GIDEs, because they keep
you from learning how your OS really works.

It keeps you from learning how simple it really is.

And it forces you to buy hardware that you don't really
need.

LIttlefoot

 

I agree Littlefoot. Companies like Microsoft, for example, release Windows Vista and this OS conveniently needs newer hardware to operate properly. The actual selling point of Windows is the GUI (Graphical User Interface). When ever the newest Windows OS comes out, everyone wants to know what it looks like, not if it can operate a RAID5 or a cluster.

It would be nice if consumers could see the core functionality of an OS as the real features.

 

Who is "we"?

I thought Linux was about freedom. Now you don't like business using it and developing it. You don't like consumers using it with all their demands. Basically anybody who uses it in any way that isn't exactly the same as what you do with it is evil.

Well too bad, Linux should be for everyone that wants to use Linux. Do I feel bad that I have proprietary graphics drivers and flash installed? Not particularly. Do I feel bad that I like compiz? Not in the least.

You're happy with some crappy CLI? Good for you. Now what does that have to do with the rest of us?

You aren't sounding like a Linux fan, you are souding like the unabomber.

 

Sure is.

Business wrecks everything it touches. Business cares about money
and nothing else. They don't like freedom at all. They don't want people
to have the freedom to obtain whatever they are selling somewhere else,
especially for free.

That's the nature of the beast.

They already have Window and Mac. Which almost everyone agrees
are better at providing mindless entertainment and easy shopping
experiences.

And you can't provide those things with Linux without turning it into
a clone of Windows or Mac.

No. It is just a crying shame and a crime to turn something as wonderful
as Linux into a sophisticated TV (boob tube) and something as wonderful
as the internet into a vast shopping mall.

I won't have anything to do with either project and I'll say what I think about them.

It has been available for anyone to use for well over a decade.

Good for you. I don't even know what compiz is and I seem to be doing just
fine without it. And I don't need any proprietary drivers. The ones I have
work just fine.

There's nothing "crappy" about a CLI. It just doesn't have all the kindergarden
eye-candy. And it uses one hell of a lot less system resources.

It is much better for the environment.

Mine happens to be quite attractive. Good colors and good fonts and nice
formatting with a tasteful border. Different windows have different schemes.

I don't need little cartoons all over the place and I certainly like having the
whole screen available to display output from whatever app I'm running.
Some of my windows are divided into many smaller ones, displaying
system information. Some of them are used by graphical apps like
firefox, which I am using now.

You seem to want the computer to appear to be something other than it
is. It's a very hi-tech tool. Trying to pretend otherwise is not the road
to using it effectively.

You click on an icon and it runs an application. I type in a short
alilas and it runs a program. I can do what I do faster than you
can do what you do.

And NO ONE ever becomes good with a computer who can't
type well.

You seem to think that what you are doing is somehow superior
to what I am doing.

How so?

My. What a cheap shot.

I haven't said anything about hurting anyone or anything. And I am obviously an extreme
Linux fan.

Because I won't support your point of view I am a terrorist?

That's absurd.

What I had to say obviously bothered you. Why, if what I was saying wasn't
accurate?

The fact is that the over-indulgence in, and abuse of, technology, threatens
all life on Earth.

The unabomber was very small potatoes compared to that, wasn't he?

No, Papik. Computers aren't made using magic by happy little elves
living under the north pole.

LIttlefoot

 

Oh really, business wrecks everything it touches? Well I hope you don't own a computer made by "business". You know, one of those companies that keeps making computers slower and more expensive every year, and insisting on adding technology like wireless, bluetooth... oh the horror.

I support and promote Linux, but realistically. You don't seem able to do that. First you oversell its capabilities, and if anyone discovers its shortcomings you go on some luddite rant about how they shouldn't expect to have fun or be entertained on their computer. What's the point of that?

 

Computers were much better when their designs were controlled by the scientists.

You think they are better now because they have been turned into updated
boob tubes, allowing you to waste your life shooting space aliens and
watching crappy videos and listening to thousands of tunes that sound
just alike.

And they are cheaper because of the incredible exploitation of poor people
and their environments around the world.

Which should be a matter of shame to you, but obviously isn't.

I am using a 7-year old computer picked up at a garage sale for $10.
Works just fine.

You aren't promoting Linux. You are promoting the destruction of Linux.

No. I do with it everything I have described. Millions of people do the
same thing.

Just because you are an ignorant appliance operator who pretends to
understand Linux doesn't mean that others share your technical and
ethical deficits.

I have simply pointed out that technology has a down side, which mindless
consumers like you would prefer to ignore.

This really bothers you, obviously. To the point that you are posting lies
and behaving like a bitchy little girl.

Isn't that just too bad.

Littlefoot

 

God forbid people should waste their time listening to music or watching a video. You really must be the life of the party.

If making computers caused poverty Taiwan wouldn't be one of the most successful economies in the world. Sounds like you should stick to bragging about your FF alias and other wonders of IT achivement, economics isn't really your forte.

First you want to promote Linux and say its easy and great, now you want too sneer at regular computer users and tell us we aren't good enough for your beloved operating system.

 

Littlefoot:
"You think they are better now because they have been turned into updated boob tubes, allowing you to waste your life shooting space aliens and
watching crappy videos and listening to thousands of tunes that sound
just alike."

Pepik:
"God forbid people should waste their time listening to music or watching a video. You really must be the life of the party."

There you go again, completely distorting what I have said by isolating a
single paragraph and posting some snotty reply in response to it.

Virtual reality is based upon a very extensive and destructive industrial
complex and infrastructure.

It isn't created by happy little elves living under the North Pole using magic.

There have to be limits placed on it. Using the vast msjority of the bandwidth
for mindless entertainmant and selling things is not acceptable.

Excluding most of the people on the planet because of the cost of the hardware
and internet connection necessary to do the above is not acceptable.

If you don't think that people are exploited making your toys, then why don't you
take a trip to a lesser-devoloped nation and live near and work in one of the factories
for a few months?

You'll love toiling for 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, for a few dollars a day. and living and
working with some of the most carcinogenic and mutagenic substances on the planet.
You'll also love your residence. Carrying water and shitting in a hole in the ground and
cooking over dung fires. It's all really fun. Stay a little longer and maybe you can have a kid
with three eyes. What a blast!

Littlefoot

"It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine." REM

 

Revisited

There is more to life than partying. Most of the people who make all your toys don't
get much time, and don't have enough energy or money, to do much of it.

And sitting alone in your room with a computer is not partying.

Littlefoot