Scali wrote:

What makes you say that? I personally could never get used to *nix platforms for development, because I find them particularly u […]
Show full quote

What makes you say that?
I personally could never get used to *nix platforms for development, because I find them particularly unfriendly.
DOS had nice tools like Turbo C++/Pascal, Watcom, CodeView and whatnot. Windows has Visual Studio of course, and various others, like Delphi.

But the tools on *nix, I always found them to be lacking. The IDEs/debuggers I've tried were always just GUI wrappers on top of gdb, which reminds me most of the crappy old debug.com from DOS. These wrappers always come apart at the seams. Slow, clunky, unstable.
The tools themselves are also generally very crappy. There's no nice SDKs with proper documentation. Instead you often get little more than some sourcecode with a 70s makefile dumped over the fence, and some crappy man pages.
Usually shit doesn't build out-of-the-box because you happen to have a slightly wrong revision of the kernel, gcc, simply the wrong distribution or whatever.

So no, as a developer, linux feels like a particularly amateuristic environment for development, cobbled together from random stuff that doesn't work particularly well together, and isn't following best practices.

Same as you, my experience makes me say it. I run qt creator in linux and from there can develop for linux, dos, and windows, including with the 'dos/windows-only' tools you listed. I wasn't only talking about the tools though but the platform as a whole - whatever I want to do, chances are it's more accessible in linux.

vvbee wrote:

including with the 'dos/windows-only' tools you listed.

Which tools are you referring to? And can you explain how you use them then?
Also, I'm pretty sure I've used Qt Creator on Windows...

vvbee wrote:

I wasn't only talking about the tools though but the platform as a whole - whatever I want to do, chances are it's more accessible in linux.

Which probably says more about your particular selective usages than about linux and Windows.

You ask me to explain to you but your tone says you don't want to learn from me. Let's not go there.

I wouldn't use qt creator in windows, not if there's a choice between windows and linux.

vvbee wrote:

I wouldn't use qt creator in windows, not if there's a choice between windows and linux.

I wouldn't use Qt either... But there was this open source tool that I wanted to use, but it was broken. It turned out to be written in Qt, so I had to install and learn how to use that, before I could fix and rebuild the application.
Can't say Qt left a very good impression with me.

blurks wrote:

schmatzler wrote:

I also need to be able to use Adobe programs and the latest versions of Photoshop and Illustrator do not work on Linux. Using CS6 is not an option.

Really? I always considered CS6 to be a fantastic Illustrator version. Even nowadays.

CC 2017 has added a lot of little useful features that make the program easier. The intelligence when dragging points is much improved and they have even introduced some of the vector tools to Photoshop now.
Speaking of Photoshop, that one has included the RAW engine from Lightroom now, so I don't have to open that up anymore for quickly improving photos with bad lighting or colors.

CS6 is several years old and you can see its age throughout the whole product line. It can't open files that have been saved for CC, too - and that is the most critical problem for me.

Scali wrote:

I wouldn't use Qt either... But there was this open source tool that I wanted to use, but it was broken. It turned out to be written in Qt, so I had to install and learn how to use that, before I could fix and rebuild the application.
Can't say Qt left a very good impression with me.

Yeah, there's the qt framework too. Not the same as the qt creator ide, but I use the framework too, it's great.

dr_st wrote:

While still in college, I once had a debate with a friend regarding tools to produce math papers. His claim was that Word can never match TeX in the ability to produce beautiful documents, which I challenged, and set to prove him wrong. The bottom line is: Word absolutely can produce beautiful documents, but the features that enable it to do so are very well-hidden and not trivial to master. 😀 All the default settings of the program are geared toward quick-n-dirty typing, not any kind of professional type-setting.

As you say, it's oriented to simple typing jobs like letters and so forth. Also, the end representation is subject to change depending on font mappings, print drivers, and a whole host of other factors that can mess with your page flow.

dr_st wrote:

Are there actual problems with the math in Excel? The final formatted output is indeed, meta-stable, as you put it, but I think that the underlying data should be very solid. Like in the previous example about Word - I believe that Excel experts can absolutely use it in a very precise and 100% correct way - it's just not on the surface.

I've witnessed some strange things in Excel, but I didn't dig deep enough to really understand what was going wrong. Suffice it to say that it wasn't a confidence builder.

Most people aren't careful about numerical representation because, hey, it's Excel. The emphasis is on speed and convenience, but this rapidly falls apart as complexity ramps up. Not to mention the few times when inferred data types get it wrong and really bite you in the ass.

Scali wrote:

What makes you say that? I personally could never get used to *nix platforms for development, because I find them particularly u […]
Show full quote

What makes you say that?
I personally could never get used to *nix platforms for development, because I find them particularly unfriendly.
DOS had nice tools like Turbo C++/Pascal, Watcom, CodeView and whatnot. Windows has Visual Studio of course, and various others, like Delphi.

But the tools on *nix, I always found them to be lacking. The IDEs/debuggers I've tried were always just GUI wrappers on top of gdb, which reminds me most of the crappy old debug.com from DOS. These wrappers always come apart at the seams. Slow, clunky, unstable.
The tools themselves are also generally very crappy. There's no nice SDKs with proper documentation. Instead you often get little more than some sourcecode with a 70s makefile dumped over the fence, and some crappy man pages.
Usually shit doesn't build out-of-the-box because you happen to have a slightly wrong revision of the kernel, gcc, simply the wrong distribution or whatever.

So no, as a developer, linux feels like a particularly amateuristic environment for development, cobbled together from random stuff that doesn't work particularly well together, and isn't following best practices.

I feel a lot depends on which domain you're operating in. For instance, I find Python to be very slick in terms of how the base API, extensions, and documentation are stitched together. Some C libraries, on the other hand, are extremely crusty. Maybe even most, as there's no shortage of bad C programmers in this world.

gdjacobs wrote:

I feel a lot depends on which domain you're operating in. For instance, I find Python to be very slick in terms of how the base API, extensions, and documentation are stitched together. Some C libraries, on the other hand, are extremely crusty. Maybe even most, as there's no shortage of bad C programmers in this world.

Well, that's the thing... For Windows there are very nice solutions in certain domains, which linux doesn't have.
The opposite is rarely true, since most linux software is open source and/or Windows ports exist.
And Microsoft is now actively investing (again) in closing the gap between *nix and Windows, with the Ubuntu subsystem you can now install on Windows, so porting/running linux software on Windows is only getting better (you always had solutions like Cygwin and Mingw anyway, but those were of 'linux-quality', so to say).

So to me it feels like at best you 'get away with' using linux in certain domains, because the tools in that domain are acceptable... But worst-case, for certain domains the tools are very poor, or even non-existent.
Windows just has a better balance. You don't just 'get away with' using Windows in most cases. There are industry-leading solutions for Windows in various domains. And even the worst cases aren't as bad as it gets on linux.

A lot of that has to do with this thing called binary interface stability, which many people in the linux world don't understand. They seem to think it's fine to completely throw APIs and file formats around whenever they update their code, because well "you have the source", so go ahead and patch up your code for all these new and undocumented changes they made, just so your application works the same as it did before (hopefully).
You can't build a stable ecosystem that way. Too much time is wasted on keeping the same code running as-is, rather than pushing forward.

Plasma wrote:

Errius wrote:

Apple has eaten Linux's lunch. It's a huge company now, bigger than Microsoft and IBM put together.

It's success is fragile however, and could disappear overnight if something "cooler" comes along. Nobody needs iMacs and iPhones and iPads like they do Windows and IBM mainframes.

bahahaha what? What lunch is that? Nobody runs Apple servers.

There ARE Apple servers? What can they do?

Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman wrote:

There ARE Apple servers? What can they do?

There WERE Apple servers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xserve
Discontinued years ago... probably because nobody used them.

Questions like this come up from time to time here, the important thing to remember is the fact that your a member means your into computers at some level.

The vast majority of people simply don't care, they'll go out and buy a cheep laptop and use whatever comes with it, which will be windows.
Unless MS loose this stranglehold, and even though these same people complain about Windows 10 interface, nothings going to change.

That same person then comes into work, the company doesn't want to waste resources training them on the difference between Windows and another OS no matter how small.
On the flip side Its simply expected they know how to use a windows PC (No matter how untrue this is in some cases)

Then their is support. Any IT company can support windows environment, so its much more competitive market. Linux and lesser extent Apple is considered a specialist market.
(I have never worked for a company that had a Linux engineer, even Apple is always self taught)

I even had 1 company about 10 years ago that purchased mac books, just to install Windows on. MacOS wasn't used at all!

It's not to say the other OS's don't have their uses, WebDev's often use Linux, but are also more computer literate so can support themselves, but for the average user Windows is just easier all round.

PS, Same argument for servers/office

Well it has been a while since the last good ol OS flame war round 'ere.

Saying elementaryOS is linux is not entirely accurate... it runs on a linux kernel, but what you are comparing is the desktop environment (Window Manager etc)... not 'linux'. Its like saying Vista is better than XP because its got Aero theme?

The linux core/standard does not have any WM or desktop environment, just X. I wonder if you installed and used a 'proper distro' like Arch (subjective of course 🤣) in the proper flexible linux fashion (not a dumbed down GUI fashion), would your friends have the same friendly user experience as they do with elementaryOS? o.0.

So no, it's not linux but a customised ecosystem flavour of linux complete with its own inconsistencies and incompatibility and has already tunnelled you into using it's package manager and ethos for usability... probably incompatible with other 'linux' software out there which cannot get deployed to you because its not in a compatible package for your distro or you don't have the correct gui toolkit or runtime for general software to work. Of course you can install it, but it would be nice to not have to have 200 different runtimes installed from all the programs over time you have had to fudge in order to work on your particular distro and setup. Remember, linux is a kernel... a distro is essentially:

linux kernel + argument over something like systemd/initd + package manager + desktop environment + selected applications + selected preinstalled packages

...each distro owner adding their own take to it... basically like macOS and Windows... its just another OS that does everything they do its own way with their own ecosystem... there is no standard linux GUI (outside of fugly dated X)...distros don't even make WM's anymore, just syphon off someone else’s which they like the look of, or can insert the phrase 'lightweight' into the feature list.

Development for 'C' console programs on linux and windows isn't that different for anyone who's familiar with 'C' and a keyboard (quite shocking how many developers these days don't even know how to use pipes correctly). Visual studio installs cli tools so replace 'gcc' with 'cl' and 'ar' with 'link' and rewrite you batch build scripts as bash scripts and wrap a few compiler nuances in preprocessor directives... until you want a gui or use anything outside of the POSIX standard say. Then you have to decide on your dependencies and build and deploy and maintain them. .Net covers pretty much all this without even having to explicitly include it... it's essentially a runtime environment so consider it most stuff you want to do in one big lib which is authored by the authors of your OS and you don't have to worry about dependencies or other issues that you get when using multiple third party libs from multiple third party vendors. .Net is huge, cannot emphasize enough, and no equiv in nix development (no mono doesn't count. Not feature complete).... .Net does so much... json, xml, drawing, string parsing etc etc...

For deployment, on linux you are screwed... for anything GUI, you need to choose a toolkit to use... not just for development, but deployment then you also have to identify which linux distros you want to support because I can guarantee only a handful of people will be able to build the sources if they come across a problem, so essentially you are having to maintain more environments (all of which are 'linux') and ecosystems for less gain since you are doing more development effort and only reaching a limited audience... and not even all 'linux' users.... sigh... that doesn't pay the bills.

Basically. Linux is not very development friendly for wirting programs for non developers (aka end users) and requires orders of magnitude more development time and effort.

too much customisation, too many avenues that can be taken at any one point... too many vendors pushing their ecosystems (all open, but its still an ecosystem with its own standards)... you'll find no one package manager is enough, or find yourself having to install a host of compilers and dependencies (what package managers do for you)... then all the different gui kits qt, gtk blah blah...more runtimes for each new package you download inside or outside of your host of package managers running...blah blah etc. Yes there is an 'open' alternative to most programs, but they are usually a few features behind mainstream and not always entirely compatible... gimp is great, but unless the wider world uses OpenOffice, most emails would consist of... "ah sorry can't open your .doc, some of the textboxes are in the wrong place, formatting screwed...can you send it me again with like Office95 compatibility or something". Plus there would be no one directly addressing your issues should any arise (better hope someone else has had the same problem and is willing to talk to you about it), or you are in bed with a certain distro (like RH or Conical) which basically means you can get support, but nothing in life is free, then you are back in the MS 'world not free' boat but with a platform which has minimal market share in comparison... essentially you are at the mercy of what packages the author of the program you want to use, decides to use to write it....and there are sooo many different solutions for all kinds of things...many good, even more bad...all polluting your OS... that you have absolute control over... yes this happens in Windows and OSX, but their development environments are more streamlined so this is far less of an issue with the OS functionality removing this burden from the user.

I love linux, but all the reasons I love it are probably all the reasons non power users don't. Various distros have attempted to address this, Ubuntu I think was one that really got the wider publics attention (personally I hate), and others followed each adding their own little renditions, colours, gui's... deps and ecosystems. All calling themselves linux, but not all compatible with each other without fiddling. Of course the ability to be able to fiddle, outweighs the importance of not having to fiddle in the first place o.0. Linux is defo my goto OS when I just want to spend all evening fecking around attempting to build some program I like the look of. Mahoosive satisfaction when its working, then you look at your watch and realise its dark outside and when you started it was daylight.

I can't see most games using much of what the OS provides being that different across platforms (nix/Windows)? They usually fire up their engines and are essentially an application layer to them, so the compatibility would probably be entirely dictated by compatibility of the engines used? ... unfortunately for a lot, directX isn't native on Linux...non native stuff 'tends' to be more of a headache to support since you are at the mercy of the compatibility layer and how well that works 🙁. Again not a great situation for development house...more work required, less returns.

There are no linux games because there isn't enough of a market for it surely? Maybe its this deployment saga again... how do you push your game to the widest audience on the destination platform? More avenues == more support tickets later.

Why does directX exist? OpenGL ES is bar none, the most widely deployed and used API, DirectX is only available on windows desktop PC's and Xbox? There is no equivalent for windows phones? or is there? even if there is windows devices only make up 1.1%, compared to Android ~80%? Yet I think unless you developing for an phone/tablet Game, if you said you didn't know any DirectX you would probably go straight to the bottom of the pile when applying for a games programming job?

Windows pwns gaming on desktop PC's! no ifs or buts... the stats, repeated failed attempts to get linux gaming like windows, say it all, and have done for years.

Linux IS a gaming platform though... more android devices than anything else so more games running on them... so thats not the problem? Just for linux on desktop PC. See deployment sagas above.

And a word about OSX, well last time I checked it was SuS (single unix spec) compliant...so it is Unix (ya'know... the proper *nix) essentially with Apples GUI/ecosystem built on top. There is in fact an OS called Darwin which Apple released that contains a lot of the macOS/OSX code which Apple had to release to comply with SuS (iirc).... hence the existence of Darwin... think of it like Apples 'distro' for Unix...free of course...probably does feckall, but at least you can fiddle.... how very unapplelike o.0.

Funny how you don't get OSX users calling themselves Unix users, but 'any old distro' user will say they use Linux 😉

spiroyster wrote:

Why does directX exist? OpenGL ES is bar none, the most widely deployed and used API, DirectX is only available on windows desktop PC's and Xbox? There is no equivalent for windows phones? or is there? even if there is windows devices only make up 1.1%, compared to Android ~80%? Yet I think unless you developing for an phone/tablet Game, if you said you didn't know any DirectX you would probably go straight to the bottom of the pile when applying for a games programming job?

Windows Phones use DirectX 11 (not sure if the latest ones also do DX12).
And unlike OpenGL ES, this is the same DirectX 11 as on the desktop, not a special not-entirely-compatible derivative.
My own DirectX 11 engine has only a few #ifdefs to handle desktop vs phone application environment, and compiles and runs as-is on x86, x64 and ARM.
This is not possible with OpenGL ES. For starters, ES has a different dialect of GLSL, so all your shaders need to be modified.

So from a technical point-of-view I'd say it is superior to OpenGL ES. It's just the tiny installed base of WIndows Phone vs OpenGL ES on both iPhones and Androids.

Scali wrote:

Windows Phones use DirectX 11 (not sure if the latest ones also do DX12). And unlike OpenGL ES, this is the same DirectX 11 as o […]
Show full quote

spiroyster wrote:

Why does directX exist? OpenGL ES is bar none, the most widely deployed and used API, DirectX is only available on windows desktop PC's and Xbox? There is no equivalent for windows phones? or is there? even if there is windows devices only make up 1.1%, compared to Android ~80%? Yet I think unless you developing for an phone/tablet Game, if you said you didn't know any DirectX you would probably go straight to the bottom of the pile when applying for a games programming job?

Windows Phones use DirectX 11 (not sure if the latest ones also do DX12).
And unlike OpenGL ES, this is the same DirectX 11 as on the desktop, not a special not-entirely-compatible derivative.
My own DirectX 11 engine has only a few #ifdefs to handle desktop vs phone application environment, and compiles and runs as-is on x86, x64 and ARM.
This is not possible with OpenGL ES. For starters, ES has a different dialect of GLSL, so all your shaders need to be modified.

So from a technical point-of-view I'd say it is superior to OpenGL ES. It's just the tiny installed base of WIndows Phone vs OpenGL ES on both iPhones and Androids.

Yeah I figured it might. Then there is the whole thing called UWP, which again is only streamlining it even more. I wonder why Windows phone share is so pitiful.

OpenGL 4.6 has been released and this now supports SPIRV (Vulkan) shaders meaning the nail in the coffin for GLSL. I'm not an 'ES' developer so have no idea of the roadmap for it but I suspect it will soon support SPIRV too. Of course Vulkan is OpenGL's (and ES) long term future now with any updates probably being maintenece for OpenGL, however I still think there is a market for 'higher level' api's. Given the extra work required for Vulkan in comparison to OpenGL code size, the only thing Vulkan really gives at the moment is performance increase (and it comes at development cost)... so mainly Android and a few desktop PC games (Linux and Windows!). OpenGL ES may die before OpenGL if Vulkan is popular on Android o.0

I think the problem with Vulkan and DX12 for mobile phones is the high requirement for the minimum GPU featureset.
GPUs for mobile phones are generally somewhat behind the curve, especially the cheaper ones.
So the installed base of phones that can even run Vulkan in the first place is probably small, if not non-existent.

I think the future of OpenGL is that it will become a high-level API implemented on top of Vulkan as the 'driver'. There are already projects underway for this.

keenmaster486 wrote:

...Or at least be relegated to the sidelines. […]
Show full quote

...Or at least be relegated to the sidelines.

Already, using Microsoft software is unnecessary. I have been using Linux-based operating systems and open-source software on my main computer for years now, and my life has been made infinitely better. On the rare occasion that a program requires Windows and does not work in Wine, I fire up a virtual machine and am quickly reminded of why I made the switch.

When my friends need to borrow my computer, they have never had any problems using it... most likely due to elementaryOS's similarity to the OS X interface and the fact that many things are done in a browser nowadays.

And on that note, I should mention that in Boulder, CO, where I live, I'd be surprised if the statistic wasn't very close to 50/50 for Apple/Microsoft loyalty.

I'm not the biggest fan of OS X myself, but it's better than Windows. The introduction of Windows 10 pushed me even further away - for a while, I used Windows 7 and thought it was adequate if not excellent - but the very idea of an OS as a service, receiving updates ad infinitum instead of new versions, is just repulsive to me. It feels like building a giant playing card tower, just waiting to collapse.

Once in a while, I have to use my sister's computer. It's a shiny, brand-spanking-new top-of-the-line HP laptop - running Windows 10. Slightly better specs than my 2-year-old Dell machine. And yet somehow it struggles to load even the mouse cursor before restarting to install more updates, and when it finally does start up, everything takes about ten times as long as it does on my Linux machine to load. In all complete seriousness, I am not exaggerating.

Does anyone have any thoughts, or do we have any Microsoft fanboys in here willing to refute my opinion?

Never. It doesn't matter if your OS is easy to use if people's Windows software doesn't work on it. Windows is cheaper than ever, most people are resigned to surveillance (and if you have a mobile phone of any kind, you are too), and it is stable enough that most people get their work done reliably on it, unlike in the 9x days. Nobody except hardcore nerds is going to have the patience for Wine. I've tried Wine and it sucks.

And fuck OSX. You want proprietary? You want locked-down? Apple's entire business model has been that since Wozniak was pushed out in the '80s. Pay an exorbitant price for a complete system whether you need a whole new computer or not, and then three years later throw the whole thing in the dumpster and get a newer, shinier one. Your software doesn't run on the new machine? Too bad! Buy new software! I'd much rather give Microsoft my money than those bastards.

I would never call myself a "fanboy" but Microsoft's product is the best all-around desktop OS going and has been since Windows 2000. Linux might be technically superior, *BSD is almost certainly technically superior and the idea of college kids creating an OS out of sheer love for computers and a desire to make Unix better is an inspirational story, but in the end the OS is there to run your software and solve your problems, and Windows runs more software and solves more problems than other desktop OSes. I do not see any threats to their position in the desktop and laptop PC market anytime soon.

As for the OS as a service model, there is a constant low-level cyber world war that has been waging for years. An OS with Windows' visibility and market share needs constant updates to stay ahead of state-subsidized crackers. You can't even compare it to the truly odious "games as a service" model because instead of making you buy the same OS over and over, you pay once to get an endless parade of new Windows versions.

I feel like the current situation is a bit depressing, let's see what the future holds.
As far as Windows 10 is concerned, it is the first OS which successfully causes a split-up bewteen Windows users.
Ironically, it seems macOS and *nix users tolerate Windows 10 and MS' shift in business policy even more than first-gen Windows users.

For normal PC users with security concerns, there are essentially just two options:

a) Stay with pre-Win10 Windows a little bit longer
b) Bite the apple and use macOS

It's also funny that after some many, many years, this old parody still holds true at the core.

http://www.webaugur.com/bazaar/53-what-if-ope … e-airlines.html
http://www.linuxscrew.com/2007/10/07/fun-linu … d-dos-airlines/

Except, that the Linux one is biased of course, like usual. If that wasn't the case, there would be a real way out.
Like for so many years, a part of the community fails to acknowledge the issues users have,
making even fun of them and calling them stupid.

Examples: Lot's of information scattered all over different places, with the solutions for
specific issue often written for prior versions now oudated (changes over night. Where's that device manager gone ?).
Devs that use swear words in mailing lists, making them persons of questionable trust.
Including the big white chief himself (remember f*ck nvidia).

Also, Linux binary compatility is almost non-existend. You can't run a 10 years old exetuable
as you can on Windows or macOS. Even worse, if you're kind hearted and still want to give Linux
a chance, you'll fail miserabily at the compiling stage.:

Your program requires an old version of a library, that's nolonger maintained.
But no one has compiled it for your modern Linux, either.
Now what to do ? Compile anything yourself painstakingly over night on Atom Notebook ?

Provided you went that far. Without internet connection, you're left stranded quite soon.
On Windows or older Mac OS, in emergency, you can install something like .NET and other updates from a book's CD ROM at least.

Don't get me wrong. *nix flavors have their place. In case of Raspberry Pis, it works wonderfully,
because these their creators don't focus Linux as the center of their universe.
Rather, they take the users by the hand and help them with their projects/interests.
So it's not a technical problem that.

Edit: Typos fixed.
Edit: Mores fixes.

Jo22 wrote:

Don't get me wrong. *nix flavors have their place. In case of Raspberry Pis, it works wonderfully, because these their creators […]
Show full quote

Don't get me wrong. *nix flavors have their place. In case of Raspberry Pis, it works wonderfully,
because these their creators don't focus Linux as the center of their universe.
Rather, they take the users by the hand and help them with their projects/interests.
So it's not a technical problem that.

.....unless the problem lies in the Broadcom chipset iself like the VC4 driver unexpectedly breaking in Stretch (urgently needing to update for security reasons) for many months going unmentioned in news updates. This is the closest to a Windows 10 update experience i've ever went through.

Wow, I didn't expect this thread to get so big 🤣

I should clarify that yes, I was focusing on the average consumer user like me. Businesses obviously are constrained by the software they must buy and use, like the example of civil engineering that was given earlier. Were Autodesk to release software for Linux, the game might look a little different.

But someone like me gets by just fine with Linux.

However, I am what most people would describe as a "power user". If something goes wrong with my Linux-based machine I usually know what fancy-dancy commands to use in the terminal to fix it, which most people would not... in fact I'm honestly not sure how useful Linux would be to me if I had no idea what to do with the terminal.

I think perhaps when or if a Linux distro comes along which is "foolproof", i.e. just works 99% of the time without needing special knowledge to fix it, that might sound the very beginning of a death knoll for non-free OS's.

Because that's what the average consumer user wants, is for their computer to just work.