Linux is a pile of shit
- Thread starter tongue_of_colicab
- Start date
BTW, for years my main file, terminal and db servers were Linux. I never updated them, just isolated them from the WAN for security. Ultimately I had to install one windows server for a PCB layout software's license server. It never came close to Linux uptimes and, had I switched to ms for all that other stuff, I'd have been paying thousands more each year for licenses. Terminal server licenses are crazy expensive under windows. Compare to something like Thinlinc on Linux which has ten seats for free...
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Windows uptime is fine. Even my "home server" running a bunch of VM's on a Intel NUC with Win 10 I didn't have to touch in months. Just checked and its been going for over a month now. Guess its only rebooting for the occasional update. Not that it matters because making all your software start at boot is easy on Windows. No need to dick around with half a dozen of incomprehensible files and scripts.
By the way if a OS update is frequently breaking a piece of software you could wonder if maybe that software doesn't have some issues with the way it interacts with the OS. If it truly was only down only to MS updates we'd have tons of software stop working every week but somehow we don't.
By the way if a OS update is frequently breaking a piece of software you could wonder if maybe that software doesn't have some issues with the way it interacts with the OS. If it truly was only down only to MS updates we'd have tons of software stop working every week but somehow we don't.
I do not really understand your point here.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
My 49 USD copy of WHS 2011 has also been up for years (also isolated from the net). Up until this gdamn Geforce 1070, I've generally had extremely good uptimes on my Windows machines. Now, however, this F'ing 1070 has made Windows far less stable than it used to be. Sometimes a driver makes it almost good, but inevitably there's a NV driver update that just makes things bad again.
The last time I had this many problems was the Radeon 5870. However, that became rock stable once ASUS released an updated bios for the MB with proper support for HPET (prior to that you couldn't disable it in the BIOS and the implementation wasn't good).
Regards,
SB
I have had good experiences with Linux myself, especially Ubuntu. At some point the desktop installation was smoother and more stable even than Windows, with fewer user interactions needed during setup etc. I have also loved the universal scanner driver that they had, which just always seemed to work with everything, as advertised. And I’ve rescued a handful of Windows installations or lost files by booting Ubuntu from a DVD and then just accessing the Windows file system from there.
At some point though, a Linux update killed my installation and then I couldn’t use it anymore.
Basic rule though yeah is use generic hardware (basically stuff that sold well last year or two years ago), and these days you can do a lot with just raspberry Pis
At some point though, a Linux update killed my installation and then I couldn’t use it anymore.
Basic rule though yeah is use generic hardware (basically stuff that sold well last year or two years ago), and these days you can do a lot with just raspberry Pis
DavidGraham
Veteran
While I understand the distinction you're trying to make, reality is a bit less black and white.
You can get a commercial Linux distribution like Red Hat Enterprise Linux or Oracle Linux with a support contract and you WILL get that support. This is mostly for server solutions but workstation editions do exist. Sure, this can get expensive. And you won't get the very latest versions of all the included software, and you aren't allowed to replace any parts of the distribution with unsupported 3rd party packages. So this may not be for everyone, but those who need it can get it. And if an OS update breaks compatibility with some application then an engineer will help you solve this.
The Windows situation really isn't very different, except that support is widely distributed instead of just coming directly from the OS vendor itself.
When you buy a device with an OS installed (like most people in the real world do) then Microsoft actually has zero support obligation to you. Instead, you must rely on your hardware vendor (ie Dell, Lenovo etc) for support, and they will kick cases upstream if necessary. And that can get very slow.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That's not quite how it works. Or at least how it used to work.
When I did support for MS many many years ago, we could not refuse support for any version of Windows, except for Enterprise versions which got automatically kicked up to Enterprise support.
With Vendor OEM (Dell, HP, etc.) versions we would urge the customer to contact Vendor OEM support in certain cases as they would be more aware of any special support issues that might arise from Vendor specific hardware issues. This was especially true with Vendors who did not use standard off the shelf hardware. Dell, for example, had custom MB, PSU, and other hardware at the time. Sometimes the Vendor would have custom drivers as their vendor specific hardware couldn't use generic drivers even if they used the same chipset (audio chip, graphics chip, networking chip, etc.) as off the shelf hardware.
It wasn't about not supporting the customer, it was about supporting the customer in the best way possible. Of course, if the customer did not want to contact Vendor OEM support, we would contact the Vendor OEM for them if it appeared to be a specific vendor hardware issue. In that case, we'd either keep the customer on the line with us or offer to call them back.
That's the official policy, but of course, with 3rd party support contractors sometimes they would have employees who didn't do their job as they were supposed to. If those contract companies built up a history of such behavior their service contract would be terminated if they did not fix the issue.
Regards,
SB
When I did support for MS many many years ago, we could not refuse support for any version of Windows, except for Enterprise versions which got automatically kicked up to Enterprise support.
With Vendor OEM (Dell, HP, etc.) versions we would urge the customer to contact Vendor OEM support in certain cases as they would be more aware of any special support issues that might arise from Vendor specific hardware issues. This was especially true with Vendors who did not use standard off the shelf hardware. Dell, for example, had custom MB, PSU, and other hardware at the time. Sometimes the Vendor would have custom drivers as their vendor specific hardware couldn't use generic drivers even if they used the same chipset (audio chip, graphics chip, networking chip, etc.) as off the shelf hardware.
It wasn't about not supporting the customer, it was about supporting the customer in the best way possible. Of course, if the customer did not want to contact Vendor OEM support, we would contact the Vendor OEM for them if it appeared to be a specific vendor hardware issue. In that case, we'd either keep the customer on the line with us or offer to call them back.
That's the official policy, but of course, with 3rd party support contractors sometimes they would have employees who didn't do their job as they were supposed to. If those contract companies built up a history of such behavior their service contract would be terminated if they did not fix the issue.
Regards,
SB
DOS? As in two in Spanish?
You can't possibly mean Disk Operating System...
You know it! No /sudo stuff for me lol
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Another day another moment where you got wow, Linux is beyond fucking stupid.
So I need to do a clean install for my project and move from Ubuntu desktop to Ubuntu server. How hard could it be? Well very hard because of the total shit job that shitbuntu calls an installer. So the installer is installing a whole bunch of shit and after it appears to have installed the OS it will trow you a partition prompt. Okay, well never mind why the installer doesn't start out with asking how you want to partition your disk (where the fuck has it been installing the shit in the previous menus to?), the real joke is that it just doesn't work. I can't select a partition! Can't select any partitions, click next, installer tells you you must select partitions. Its like one of those things that makes you wonder if every single programmer that worked on this was lobotomized.
Also it doesn't appear Ubuntu server knows how to deal with UEFI and it takes forever to install despite a 800MB .iso. Installing W10 is quicker.
So I need to do a clean install for my project and move from Ubuntu desktop to Ubuntu server. How hard could it be? Well very hard because of the total shit job that shitbuntu calls an installer. So the installer is installing a whole bunch of shit and after it appears to have installed the OS it will trow you a partition prompt. Okay, well never mind why the installer doesn't start out with asking how you want to partition your disk (where the fuck has it been installing the shit in the previous menus to?), the real joke is that it just doesn't work. I can't select a partition! Can't select any partitions, click next, installer tells you you must select partitions. Its like one of those things that makes you wonder if every single programmer that worked on this was lobotomized.
Also it doesn't appear Ubuntu server knows how to deal with UEFI and it takes forever to install despite a 800MB .iso. Installing W10 is quicker.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
But that's just it. Why do you need to boot to a live CD first to do the partitioning? Why isn't the included in the installer? The first windows I installed was windows 98 when I was something like 10 years old. Even that included a partitioning tool as far as I can remember.
In this case I already had a previous install on the ssd and apparently the Ubuntu server installer can't handle that and trows you into a loop.
In this case I already had a previous install on the ssd and apparently the Ubuntu server installer can't handle that and trows you into a loop.
If you spent half the time to RTFM instead of bitching on Beyond3d, you would have been done a long time ago.
Unless you're setting up software raid, it is really fucking simple. Select a disk, select free space, create a linux partition (type 83) with / as mount point, create a linux swap partition (type 82), write partition data, - done !
Format and install.
It shouldn't take you more than 10 minutes to install a Ubuntu server from initial boot on USB to first login prompt. Once you know what you're doing it takes two minutes.
Cheers
Literally every linux distro has a partitioner in the installer. It would not be possible to install onto anything other than pre-linux-paritioned disks were this not the case. Tell us which distro you have that lacks this partitioner in the installer????
Oh wait, did you just click past that step and forgot to tell us in your rant?
Using a live USB to run gparted is what one does if your partition tables or OS get hosed. It's a "just in case" approach.
So please let us know which linux installation program you were using that doesn't have a partitioner. Let us verify this mystery!
I do not know about Ubuntu, but installing Fedora has been way faster than Win10 for me on the same hardware. But you seem to hate Ubuntu, maybe you should run something else like Windows 10?
I'm a "Windows Guy" entirely, but I've got a few Linux VMs at home running under my Hyper-V server: a CentOS 6 and an Ubuntu 16 LTS. They both have specific uses, the Ubuntu box manages my private UseNet indexer / crawler, the CentOS box serves as a software bridge for some legacy home automation stuff.
In my daily Windows grind, I much prefer CLI where feasible. I can type reliably at 80+WPM, when I'm forced to do work via mousing and clicking it becomes arduous in comparison. Even in non-CLI applications or use-cases, I'm one of those folks who will use the maximum available keyboard shortcuts. In fact, thls whole UWP thing Microsoft is working towards really irks the devops side of me in terms of Getting Shit Done(TM).
Anyway, using the CLI in Linux seemed really straightforward to me. Sure, it took a bit of google to understand how to install packages (is it Yum? Is it Apt-Get?) and some of the oddball system-D and GRUB stuff gets interesting to learn. But it's also a brand new OS to me, and after about a solid day of tinkering, I had my Ubuntu Usenet crawler completely operational - which included Apache, Tomcat, an NGINX database that I even tweaked up with selective table compression LOL, and it all started on boot with no GUI whatsoever (not counting the actual crawler web application interface.) The CentOS home automation bridge was harder and took longer, but it was also far more involved at a software and config level and I already knew what I was getting into.
I did try installing Mint OS on an old Dell laptop about a year ago as a playtoy / just-to-see thing, and for whatever reason the Mint installer was a total failure on that old-ass hardware. Since Mint is based on Ubuntu, I swapped for whatever the current Ubuntu distro was at the time, and it worked right out of the box. When I say it worked, I also include all the partitioning support too. The necessary drivers installed, all the laptop-specific power configuration was set up, it all just seemed to work as I would expect from a modern OS.
I'm not going to tell anyone Linux is the way forward for general users, but I'd call myself a far-advanced Windows user and I didn't find Linux especially hard to do or unstable to use, even on my old shitty Dell Mini10v.
In my daily Windows grind, I much prefer CLI where feasible. I can type reliably at 80+WPM, when I'm forced to do work via mousing and clicking it becomes arduous in comparison. Even in non-CLI applications or use-cases, I'm one of those folks who will use the maximum available keyboard shortcuts. In fact, thls whole UWP thing Microsoft is working towards really irks the devops side of me in terms of Getting Shit Done(TM).
Anyway, using the CLI in Linux seemed really straightforward to me. Sure, it took a bit of google to understand how to install packages (is it Yum? Is it Apt-Get?) and some of the oddball system-D and GRUB stuff gets interesting to learn. But it's also a brand new OS to me, and after about a solid day of tinkering, I had my Ubuntu Usenet crawler completely operational - which included Apache, Tomcat, an NGINX database that I even tweaked up with selective table compression LOL, and it all started on boot with no GUI whatsoever (not counting the actual crawler web application interface.) The CentOS home automation bridge was harder and took longer, but it was also far more involved at a software and config level and I already knew what I was getting into.
I did try installing Mint OS on an old Dell laptop about a year ago as a playtoy / just-to-see thing, and for whatever reason the Mint installer was a total failure on that old-ass hardware. Since Mint is based on Ubuntu, I swapped for whatever the current Ubuntu distro was at the time, and it worked right out of the box. When I say it worked, I also include all the partitioning support too. The necessary drivers installed, all the laptop-specific power configuration was set up, it all just seemed to work as I would expect from a modern OS.
I'm not going to tell anyone Linux is the way forward for general users, but I'd call myself a far-advanced Windows user and I didn't find Linux especially hard to do or unstable to use, even on my old shitty Dell Mini10v.
It does feel like Red Hat/Fedora are leading the way generally to make linux more friendly for others and with Spin selection:
https://spins.fedoraproject.org/
https://labs.fedoraproject.org/
https://spins.fedoraproject.org/
https://labs.fedoraproject.org/
Similar threads
