fractionMan
Custom Title
For 60K I'd program in the nude.Iam said:I dunno, coders.
Anyone's for £60k pa.
Linux, what a pain in the arse
- Thread starter Sunray
- Start date
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
With VS2005 I can develop code faster than any dev tool on Linux.
Finally got the nvidia drivers installed tho they have set themselves to a low res. Thought yay, a graphical package installer. That crashes instantly.
Still no net connection, I can't get ndiswrapper to compile with 3.4 of gcc. Setting CC does nothing. The kernal does not like, drivers build with different version of the compiler that created the kernal. Might remove 3.3 to see if that works. If I do anything else its gonna complain anyway.
The RT2500 open source drivers do not compile on that version of the kernel.
Finally got the nvidia drivers installed tho they have set themselves to a low res. Thought yay, a graphical package installer. That crashes instantly.
Still no net connection, I can't get ndiswrapper to compile with 3.4 of gcc. Setting CC does nothing. The kernal does not like, drivers build with different version of the compiler that created the kernal. Might remove 3.3 to see if that works. If I do anything else its gonna complain anyway.
The RT2500 open source drivers do not compile on that version of the kernel.
lobster
Well-Known Member
jayeola said:
its a old pals act, we (microsoft) create the operating system you (symantec) make a anti-virus , we both make money of the hard working punters and we can make deliberate security wholes that you will charge them for to fix..
after all we are both capitalist pigs and proud of it
Jonti
what the dormouse said
It's only fair to point out that most readers here will be concerned with 32-bit machines. You were commenting on the 64-bit Intel Ubuntu distribution, and not the 32-bit Intel or PPC distributions that most readers here will be expected to be on about.
Ubuntu really does the job very well on PCs. It's a shame to obscure the fact.
Genghis Cohen
Minister For Scrabble
Sunray said:
Correct.
Heheheh, thats lunix all over.
Genghis Cohen said:
mine did without a prob...
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
lobster said:
Yes a totally different story to the point I was making. If you have ever used VS2005 you will realise that there really is no faster way of developing software. Its lighteningly fast.
Back to windows at the moment. Cant be arsed right now, figuring out stuff off a text screen with no internet connection have worn me down. Didn't even install screens on there by default.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
Very odd.Sunray said:
I've installed Ubuntu onto Intel or AMD hardware at least a dozen times, and only one (very old PC) was unsuccessful. My experience has been similar to most other posters here, who find Ubuntu easier to install than XP; and that it gives a far more secure "out-of-the-box" configuration. I'd like to help more, but it's not at all clear from your posts what's going wrong. I'm sure the Ubuntu team would like your detailed bug reports in any case -- especially on the 64-bit installs and hassles.
If you are unable to make a bootable Ubuntu CD on your kit, you can pick one up from the Metroshack Computer Learning Centre at 64 Railton Road, Brixton, London (normal office hours). They distribute a nicely packaged pair of Ubuntu CDs: one live CD, and one install CD. I'd certainly recommend booting from the live CD and checking things out before installing the system onto the hard disk, especially if one is thinking of installing Ubuntu onto a laptop (which can have pretty idiosyncratic hardware).
The ability to run from a live CD is a major attraction of the Ubuntu distro -- it means you can check things out thoroughly and without any risk to your existing system. Just boot from the live CD.
lobster
Well-Known Member
Sunray said:
Visual studio is fast as the language you use, so it does not truly mean faster development, there is mono for unix type box's that is quite compatible with C#.net.
Not every unix programmer writes in c/c++, i hope you know python, perl, java, ruby, php amonst other high level languages are used, which have quick developing time.
Sunray said:
I could say the same about Eclipse, or any other IDE I'm familiar with...! And look, no spare cycles wasted on spyware/malware detectors...!
Sunray said:
Well... If "sudo apt-get install screen" is a lot of work, then perhaps you shouldn't be using linux...? Oh, and I've noticed that Xp doesn't have screen installed by default, either....
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
hehe.
God, now I'm getting attacked because I can't be arsed to use the command line. Its not like I can't use the command line, its because I can't be arsed Well, just not now.
Having just downloaded 7Gb of software which I've burnt onto 2 DVD's I feel committed to this distro now. I have a gui, even if its set itself to fairly low res, so I can work a little quicker now. If I can recompile ndiswrapper with the right compiler, I reckon I would probably be off the ground.
What is staggering me is how long it takes to boot.
Post the bios boot, Windows boots, to functional, in about 6 seconds. Debian takes probably a minute. I do remember the last time I got Linux working, I was shocked how quick it all was compared to windows.
God, now I'm getting attacked because I can't be arsed to use the command line. Its not like I can't use the command line, its because I can't be arsed Well, just not now.
Having just downloaded 7Gb of software which I've burnt onto 2 DVD's I feel committed to this distro now. I have a gui, even if its set itself to fairly low res, so I can work a little quicker now. If I can recompile ndiswrapper with the right compiler, I reckon I would probably be off the ground.
What is staggering me is how long it takes to boot.
Post the bios boot, Windows boots, to functional, in about 6 seconds. Debian takes probably a minute. I do remember the last time I got Linux working, I was shocked how quick it all was compared to windows.
Sunray said:
Well... Do you spend all your time rebooting...? Last time I rebooted my computer at work was 48 days ago... But I suppose when you reboot as many times as Windows does ("Its windy outside, Windows requires a reboot") booting times get important.
And I suppose I could argue that Debian is more complex than Windows. But I "can't be arsed"...
Be interesting to see why you can't compile the driver... In the past I've set an alternate compiler as you have. Do you have any extra info...? But then, I "can't be arsed" about it. Sounds like too much effort...!
lobster
Well-Known Member
Sunray said:
windows xp does not boot in 6 seconds even with 4gb or more ram and the fastest amd dual core,
linux varies on what windows manager / desktop enviroment you use on how fast it loads. A minute sounds about right .
i don't want to be disrespectful but usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.advocacy
has so many of these stories, it sounds like you regually post there.
jæd said:
which compilers have you tried? i presume were meaning C/C++
Sunray
Its sunny somewhere.
I'm rebooting all the time as I do not have and net access on Debian so I have to shut down debian and boot XP. Just for lobster I will time my machines XP boot with a stopwatch.
apttitude installed the 3.4 version of CC and I then modified my .bashrc so that it had
CC='gcc -V 3.4'
export CC
in it. Compiled ndiswrapper and thats giving me a invalid format for the .ko file. Stopped working on reboot. I had to use the recovery mode. Will get back to it but I am refreshing my C++, C# and VB.net at the moment. I wanted Linux to refresh my UNIX, but not quite at the depth I was getting into with debian.
jæd said:
apttitude installed the 3.4 version of CC and I then modified my .bashrc so that it had
CC='gcc -V 3.4'
export CC
in it. Compiled ndiswrapper and thats giving me a invalid format for the .ko file. Stopped working on reboot. I had to use the recovery mode. Will get back to it but I am refreshing my C++, C# and VB.net at the moment. I wanted Linux to refresh my UNIX, but not quite at the depth I was getting into with debian.
Jonti
what the dormouse said
It's pretty obvious you don't think and that you want to muddy the picture.
A basic Linux distro can fit on a floppy disk. And there's lots of folks use USB memory sticks to carry their own Linux system around with them. What you are talking about is the additional software on top of the operating system that Linux makes available. And yes, it's a very great deal. But no, having scads of free software available is not the same as bloat at all. Is it?
The Ubuntu CD, for example, is 632MB, and it's based on Debian. It's a full Linux distro, and includes everything your average desktop user needs; its suites of free office, internet, graphics and other applications work with Windows file formats and suit most purposes. And you can run it on both Macs and PCs.
XP also comes on a single CD, and weighs in at 599MB. But it's incomplete. You do not get suites of free office, internet, graphics and other applications bundled on that CD. You have to buy all that (except you do get a bloated and buggy browser that's seen no development for years and remains a security menace). There's far less on the base XP installation than on the base Ubuntu installation. And, of course, XP needs extensive tweaking and more software installed before it is safe to use on the interent.
Ubuntu Linux gives you less bloat and more useful software than XP. It's easy to install (and the live CD means you can be sure it'll work on your kit *before* you install it). And Ubuntu Linux is far easier than Windows to use safely on the internet, especially if you're not an expert.
and that you want to muddy the picture.A basic Linux distro can fit on a floppy disk. And there's lots of folks use USB memory sticks to carry their own Linux system around with them. What you are talking about is the additional software on top of the operating system that Linux makes available. And yes, it's a very great deal. But no, having scads of free software available is not the same as bloat at all. Is it?
The Ubuntu CD, for example, is 632MB, and it's based on Debian. It's a full Linux distro, and includes everything your average desktop user needs; its suites of free office, internet, graphics and other applications work with Windows file formats and suit most purposes. And you can run it on both Macs and PCs.
XP also comes on a single CD, and weighs in at 599MB. But it's incomplete. You do not get suites of free office, internet, graphics and other applications bundled on that CD. You have to buy all that (except you do get a bloated and buggy browser that's seen no development for years and remains a security menace). There's far less on the base XP installation than on the base Ubuntu installation. And, of course, XP needs extensive tweaking and more software installed before it is safe to use on the interent.
Ubuntu Linux gives you less bloat and more useful software than XP. It's easy to install (and the live CD means you can be sure it'll work on your kit *before* you install it). And Ubuntu Linux is far easier than Windows to use safely on the internet, especially if you're not an expert.
lobster
Well-Known Member
jæd said:
by any chance are you using a very odd gcc? its common to upgrade the compiler and then at some stage compile a new kernel, in fact alot users never reinstall any form of unix aless the filesystem failes or something, alot just keep up to date with --current or equvialent .
Slamd64 will be updating gcc soon and i will want to compile a 2.6.17.x kernel when its out, it should work, ive not heard any different. If its a path Issue, thats generally a matter of changing a plain text file or path name, Certainly you should not need to downgrade the compiler...
Similar threads
