Linux is useless

Post Reply New Topic

Offline Files is a feature that is built into Windows. It was introduced in Windows XP, though in XP, there is a limitation that fast user switching must be disabled to be able to use it, whereas Vista does not have this problem. The feature enables access to a Windows share even when the host of that share is turned off, not in the current network, or otherwise unavailable. It does this by keeping an offline cache of the files, which it stores in C:\Windows\CSC. Typically, the cache is automatically synced with the actual data during certain events, such as logging in, but I prefer to do it manually. Syncing is as simple as right-clicking a notification icon and selecting Sync All.

This is similar to syncing the contents of two folders, possible on both Windows and Linux, but I was happy with offline files, given that I already had about 30 symbolic links dependent on them. What I wanted was for Linux to be able to read the cache files found in C:\Windows\CSC (/host/Windows/CSC on Linux) and do things with them. I didn't need it to sync or update them. For example, I managed to get Half-Life 1 running under Wine, and it would be nice to have the same save file. I could create a symbolic link to the save folder under CSC and it would load the saves.

The problem is that files in the CSC folder don't seem to be stored the same way, and NTFS-3G messed everything up, corrupting enough of the cache that I had to destroy the rest.



I do not consider partitioning my hard drive to be a simple process. This is why I prefer to use WUBI in the first place. That isn't to say I don't know how to do it, but it's a rather lengthy process. I'd have to figure out how big this FAT32 partition would need to be, which I've miscalculated before. I'd have to make sure I have no files in that folder larger than 4GB, and give up using the ones that exceed that, since FAT32 cannot store this. In order to partition without having to reinstall Windows Vista, I would have to resize the existing NTFS partition, an operation that can fail and mess up everything. Then, if I find myself not wanting Linux on the machine anymore, I have to deal with the problem again in reverse.



Yes. It's sad that NTFS is not an open standard. I feel sorry for the guys that have to write the code that reverse-engineers a file system just to keep Microsoft's decision from wounding Linux. I get that, and it's unfair, and it's sad, but at the end of the day, what really matters to me is that Linux corrupted this folder. It's the same with Wine. I understand Linux is technically capable of running Bioshock, were a native binary available. I realize it might even run it better under the right setup than what Windows could do. I understand the Wine developers have a ridiculously difficult task on their hands and it's amazing they've gotten this far. But none of that changes the fact that I cannot run this game unless I run Windows.



Thanks

I agree that applications are more important than the operating system.

The operating system should just get the hell out of the way. Linux, Windows 2000 and XP do a pretty good job of this overall, Vista does not.

wrt applications:

bash is significantly better than cmd.exe ... I know not everyone uses these things but I find them efficient

vim is essential

LaTeX is a de facto standard, and with good reason. It beats the hell out of Word and OpenOffice for that matter

for programming languages, the ones I use the most are Python, Common Lisp (clisp) and Haskell (ghc)

for scientific computing software, Maxima (which is a mind-blowingly awesome CAS) and to a lesser extent Octave

firefox is of course a great browser

pidgin is a really really good IM client overall

I have skype too, it works fine

xpdf actually functions better for me in terms of speed than Adobe Reader in an average case

I would not characterize any of these programs as 'mediocre'; I wouldn't use them if they were

Granted all of these programs are available on Windows as well, but they're most of them more easily accessible under any Linux distro, often simply by virtue of being on the installation media. Things tend to click better.

Could you explain what you mean by this? Vista doesn't get in the way of my ability to use applications, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean.



That's only if you don't mind using an older version of the software. If you want the latest version, you have three choices. 1, a backport that can affect the integrity of the whole system, 2, a third party package that often can't install properly due to dependency complications, or 3, the source code, to compile yourself, which requires you to install a whole pile of dev packages, and often doesn't work anyway. Usually, you're stuck with the third option because since pretty much every version of every distro has its own variant package format, it's unlikely you'll be able to find one meant for your system. The problem of Linux and installation of third-party software is the main reason why so much software is included with the distros in the first place, but it's a crude solution and doesn't completely solve the problem.

Personally, I don't mind taking an extra minute or two to retrieve a setup exe from the Internet if it means I get the latest version of the software in a binary compiled by the creators who understand the code.

I tried Skype on Linux once. It didn't have webcam support, but I suppose that doesn't matter too much, given that so few webcams work with Linux anyway.

I'm not sure that these are such a big problem anymore, in the rare cases i need to go to a website and download software rather than use the repositories (i'm using ubuntu btw) there's usually a .deb file for ubuntu there (or on the getdeb site) none of which have caused me problems yet, tho i admit i don't go rooting around for obscure software much. skype for linux has video these days btw, and its working just fine with my desktop webcam (which i did a quick compatibility check on before i bought it), and the webcam on my eee pc works fine too of course. I think linux is fine for most people, the problems come when you have a specific application you need to run that isn't available, or find your existing hardware isn't compatible (which are both problems for macs too, guess its just a consequence of being minority os's in a microsoft dominated market).

Pretty much any OS is fine for most people. It doesn't really require any more knowledge of computers to use Linux than it does to use Mac or Windows- the problems people experience with Linux are almost universally ones of getting it set up properly on unsupported hardware, and Linux, unlike Windows and OSX, is practically always installed by the end-user rather than by the manufacturer.

You could buy a portable hard drive.

I'm talking about how Vista is monstrously slow and eats up more RAM than all the applications combined (in my case).



Every single program I mentioned on that list is 100% current on Linux, except Skype.



Generic binaries work consistently. I've used a few: VisualWorks Smalltalk, Skype, Picasa, etc., no problems.

In cases where I have had to compile source, GNU autoconf is usually there and I don't get so much as a hiccup out of the compilation process.

But usually, whenever I want an application, I look for it in the slapt-get repository and all I have to do is type slapt-get --install frobnitz.

When's the last time you used Linux, really?



Mine was fairly minimal out of the box. One CD.



That's generally what you get with Linux anyway



Hardware support has increased pretty well over the years. It's pretty amazing considering many devices have to be reverse engineered in order to produce drivers. Of course there's more official support in some cases now, too.

Vista IS meant to do that. Having a car with 300 horse power but never driving faster than 50 km/h doesnt make sense. So it is with RAM too. you want the computer to use that stuff. All of it.

That being said, there may be a problem with the OS not sharing with the apps.

Superfetch is the reason behind this "RAM eating" that Vista does, it actually makes programs run quicker from my observation. Disable it if you want, but expect a slowdown.

Why now though? Why not do that back in the XP days? Windows 2000? Windows 98?!?

If computers are getting faster, why do we need that?

Linux makes programs run quicker from my observation.

Because it uses the RAM to it's full potential.

They experimented with it on XP (prefetch anyone?), but I think it wasn't needed as RAM capacity wasn't big enough... either that or they would have to rewrite the entire OS. Now since computers are at least 1-4GB and swap files aren't needed as much, it's quite needed especially when it comes to RAM-intensive programs.

Yeah, XP wasnt aggressive enough in using memory. I currently run mine without a cache and get a better performance than with a cache.

Conclusion: forcing your computer to use ram is good.

Hm. My uni has a deal with MS to provide free Windows OS upgrades. I have an old licensed copy of Win98. With 1GB of RAM, would it be better to go for XP or Vista?

On a side note, I saw a comp in the university credit union that was still running Windows 95.

XP, hands-down

That's what I was thinking.