IDE's and compilers

[Albatross]

[Powershell is] more of a programming language then a Shell

In my eyes and for my uses, that is not a good thing. I use shells for the specific purpose of launching and controlling programs, one at a time, not for scripting, and Powershell to me sounds like it would be tedious and overkill, not to mention slower than most common *nix shells.

[Unity] still manages to be absolute crap in the process

No flamebaiting. Please explain in further detail what's wrong with it with up-to-date information, or as computerquip put it, gtfo. :/

[Unity is] so damn buggy, it's borderline useless...

Funny... reviewers stopped complaining about its stability a few months into 2011...

computerquip += 1

-Albatross

[Computergeek01]

@ chrisname: Oh I see, when you said the file manager you meant the GUI. Yeah that is pretty much crap I agree with you there.

I thought you meant the component that Windows calles "File View Mapping" which I personally think is loaded with potential.

[acorn]

I always use an IDE but to be honest it has always bothered me that if someone took away my IDE and just gave me the bare tools i dont think I could figure out how to compile a full size project.

[anonymous23323124]

@acrorn Me too to be honest. I know how to use build utilities now, so I just have to remind myself of some basic makefile syntax and I'd be ok...

[1yR4jE8b]

I have quite a long post coming up, so I'd just like to say something first:

I do not hate FOSS, in fact, I encourage using FOSS as much as possible and all of the software I develop uses open source licensing.

But even more than using FOSS just because it's free, (beer and freedom and whatever else), I use software that *works* above all else.

However this does not mean I am biased against FOSS, I just dislike software that makes my life more difficult, and *unfortunately* Linux (and the various desktops) is one of them. I find it endlessly frustrating, and gets in my way more often then it lets me get work done. I love the *idea* of Linux, but the reality is far less pretty.

Anyway....

[1yR4jE8b]

To be quite honest, I'm tired of the "Linux GUI is buggy and shitty" argument.
Either explain what's "buggy" and "shitty" about it, or gtfo. I personally have
no problem with Unity. I've used KDE4, Unity (based off of Gnome if iirc), and
the latest Gnome. I enjoyed them all. They all had better affects and potential
than what Windows provides you. It's open source, it's highly customizable, and
I fail to see where it's "crap".

First off, just because it's open source, doesn't make it good.

Gnome (shitty):
-Contrary to what you say, at least Gnome 3, is *not* highly customizable. It's
quite the opposite, it's barely customizable at all. Even with gconf hacking
it's very difficult to change the default behaviour of the Gnome3 desktop.
-Gconf? I thought the Windows Registry was "bad", yet gconf does the exact same
things...
-Constantly removing features claiming it makes it "easier to use", but in the
process, makes it much more difficult for power-users to customize to suit
their workflow. You know what Windows does to make it easier to use for
everyone? *Design their interface properly*
-Nautilus is an awful file manager, especially in Gnome3 where they decided
that the toolbar with the "back", "forward", "up-directory" buttons etc...
should be removed...borderline useless now.

KDE (buggy):
-Not as buggy as it was before, but still pretty buggy, and while new releases
fix many things, new things constantly break too.
-Slooooooooooooooow, overall, the desktop feels very sluggish. Programs take
longer to open than other DEs and everything in general still feels slower.
-Very unpolished compositing window manager, many effects but many of them
feel unfinished or are so poorly optimized they bring desktop FPS to an
absolute crawl.
-KNetworkManager still doesn't support WPA2?! Seriously?! Shameful...

Unity (buggy AND shitty):
-Unstable, unstable, unstable. I can't count the number of times that it has
flat out crashed on me. Or how often I've come back to my computer after
work and my window decorations have crashed, or just the simple action of
dragging a window across to a dual monitor or using the "Aero Snap" feature
has crashed Compiz completely. It's a mess.
-The launcher is a shameless rippoff of the Windows 7 Superbar. Except the
"app-menu" is ugly, difficult to navigate and always trying to show me things
that I don't give a crap about ("Apps available for Download" or whatever,
seriously, how many people have actually installed an application from here?)
The way to "view all apps" is not only, not obvious at all, when you finally
do get there it's organized in such a messy way that it makes it even harder
to find what I'm looking for. Not to mention it's very unpolished, many
applications don't work right with it. Overall, the whole experience feels
very slapdash.
-Same for the global menu, overall. The fact that it autohides until you hover
over it's location was an absolutely braindead design choice, and many applications
flat out don't work with the global menu at all.
-Unity was touted for its touch capabilities, but from my experience, the touch
capabilites either don't work properly, or at all.
-Ubuntu software center is slow and unstable, not to mention if I close it while
it's downloading or installing something it just stops. It doesn't minimize to
the background or to the AppIndicator, it just stops.
-As far as usability goes, overall it takes much longer (# of clicks) to do
anything in Unity then it did using Gnome 2 or with KDE4.

Don't even get me started on the actual Kernel itself...what a bloated mess.

Windows 7:
-not as many flashy (read: useless) effects as Compiz or Kwin, but the Aero
compositor rarely crashes (It hasn't crashed on me, personally, since Windows
7 came out) whereas both Kwin and Compiz are extremely unstable in comparison. And unlike
other compositors, the effects given with Aero actually make the desktop more usefull, instead of
just "prettier"
-Windows desktop search blows the pants off of any Linux solution I've used.
It's faster and gets much better results. Not really a deal-breaking feature,
but its so good it's worth mentionning in passing.
-The Superbar is substantially easier to use than Unity's. Windows 7 interface
is a case study of elegant design, and brilliant application of HCI principles
whereas Unity is just a slapdash mess of stolen ideas meshed together in a
silly attempt to be "hip" and "original". It's not. KDE is functional, and
I would say it's the best Linux DE available, but it's still
too buggy and slightly sluggish. Linux Mint's customized Gnome 2 is a close
second. Everything else doesn't even compare.
Gnome 3 should be a case study of what *not* to design, it's a disaster, especially
in multiple monitor setups.

As a sysadmin, the Windows 7
interface is amazing: fast, easy to use, and most importantly *stays out of my
way*, yet even my grandma can use it (skipped from Windows 98 to 7!) and doesn't complain.
I would never subjugate her to Linux desktop concepts...
I have never found virtual desktops essential (let alone usefull) either. As someone who constantly
has 10+ different applications open at a time, I always end up forgetting which desktop
something is on, they actually make it *harder* and more time consuming for me to
manage my applications...so I just don't use them, application management is not a problem with Windows 7.

In my eyes and for my uses, that is not a good thing. I use shells for the
specific purpose of launching and controlling programs, one at a time, not for
scripting, and Powershell to me sounds like it would be tedious and overkill,
not to mention slower than most common *nix shells.

As a system admin, Powershell is a godsend. It is also just as usefull for
simple shell tasks, you can run make and gcc just the same in powershell as
you would in bash or cmd.exe.

It's funny that you tell me not to make biased assumptions about Linux desktops,
but then you go and assume that Powershell is going to be slower, tedious, and "overkill"
just because it uses OOP and .Net. Then you disregard scripting because *you* don't use
it, yet every single *nix system use shell scripts for most sysadmin tasks.

You attempt to criticize poweshell but you've never even used it and don't even know anything
about it, I've used Linux on a daily basis since Ubuntu 6.06 and have tried almost
every single release of most of distrowatch.com's top 10 distros since then. I
have *never* been satisfied with the desktop experience of any Linux distro.
What can you say about your experience with Powershell?

I do some sysadmin for a Microsoft IIS server with Powershell
at work, and I run a Linux server at home which hosts my website, and I prefer IIS
by a substantial margin. It's easy to learn, and the Powershell IDE built right
into Windows 7 is awesome. Unix shells are archaic, and have always been difficult
to do advanced tasks with, even for someone with 10+ years of Unix shell experience
it still frustrates the hell out of me.

I have never noticed a substantial speed difference
on either, even with large scripts. I've had some bash scripts run way slower then
some PS scripts, it all depends on what you are doing; and since you can't do the same tasks on the same platforms you can't accurately judge them against
eachother in real-world side-by-side testing.

[1yR4jE8b]

Funny... reviewers stopped complaining about its stability a few months into
2011...

Reviewers say lots of things, and there are many biased reviewers in the Linux
world. I trust my personal experience with it, and I've tried to like it, there's
hints of good design here and there but overall it's so damn frustrating to use
that I'd rather use a non-FOSS desktop and actually get work done,
instead of fighting with *any* Linux desktop that still doesn't work properly
in 2011.

Year XXXX is the year of the Linux desktop, I laugh at this statement.
Every.Single.Time.
Linux is usefull for a few things, but a serious Desktop Environment is not one of them.

gtfo?
No thanks.

[S6k9GNh0]

You still say unstable and buggy (yet you don't explain how it's buggy). You say open-source isn't a capability. You say that and then I can say the exact opposite for Windows (7) in my experience. My desktop refuses to respond and restarts all the time. I've yet to have this problem with _any_ DE or WM I've ever used on Linux in the past 3 years. The only reason KDE is sluggish is because of the heavy use of effects given by OpenGL addons which can be removed and/or disabled.

You say "Unix shells are archaic" which you don't explain nor is it really related. Give an example on how something is truly easier in Powershell rather than the bash equivalent.
You say "Gnome 3 is *not* highly customizable" which you don't explain how it's not customizable (since you can literally change anything you want with a custom build or a branch, not to mention *gasp* the configuration files).

All your shit is still biased. Just because you make a lengthy paragraph doesn't mean our point is invalid.

[Disch]

darkestfrieght wrote:

Linux is usefull for a few things, but a serious Desktop Environment is not one of them.

This.

Sums it up quite nicely. My experience with Gnome/KDE were similar to what has been described.

Windows "just works". In the event that you have a problem with it, you just google the problem and find a solution. 90% of the time the solution is as simple as flipping a switch. More importantly, the solutions are something anyone is capable of doing.

When something goes wrong on Linux (which, from my experience, is far more often), you're expected to spend 2 hours wresting with manpages and commandline-fu. This is not something a casual user should ever be expected to do.

I can't resist mentioning this... comical and close-to-home: http://xkcd.com/196/



But of course... OS WARS ... what's the point?

[S6k9GNh0]

I guess it's safe to assume that I'm some Linux genius to have used Linux (normally with a Windows counter-part on the same drive) for 7 years straight...

[Disch]

I just saw this post, which I though was funny in an ironic way:

Xander314 wrote:

Oh yeah, and moving windows between virtual desktops usually crashed something T_T And I'm too inept/lazy to do anything about it...

My point. You are not alone, and that is not infrequent. I've experienced things like this, and so have many other people.

How many times have you heard people say "I'm stuck with Windows because Linux doesn't work for XXX"? I hear it often.

How many times have you heard people say "I'm stuck with Linux because Windows doesn't work for XXX"? I don't think I ever heard it.

so whether I want to be or not, I'm stuck with Windows 7

Yes, I'm so terribly sorry that you're forced to use something that actually works.

[anonymous23323124]

@Disch Lol. I didn't think of it like that. :P I'm glad I amused you ^^

For most things Windows is better for me. However, my main issue with Windows is that I'm impatient. Windows will start in a minute if it's well maintained (CCleaner, reinstalls, registry cleaning etc). Ubuntu starts in 10 seconds. Other than that, yeah. Windows has Steam, Source Engine, DirectX, MS Office, Visual Studio, etc ;)

[1yR4jE8b]

lol

You still say unstable and buggy (yet you don't explain how it's buggy). You say open-source isn't a capability. You say that and then I can say the exact opposite for Windows (7) in my experience. My desktop refuses to respond and restarts all the time. I've yet to have this problem with _any_ DE or WM I've ever used on Linux in the past 3 years.

Then you obviously haven't used Unity, it still crashes like a mother in the linux lab at my work. And Plasma Desktop (KDE4's gui shell) still crashes from time to time on my machine at work.
I can't even remember how many times an update has flat out hosed one of my Linux systems, causing kernel panics at boot time, forcing a reinstall. I've never been *forced* to reinstall Windows, even when recovering from extensive Virus damage, of all operating systems Microsoft provides the best built-in recovery tools on the market. period.

The only reason KDE is sluggish is because of the heavy use of effects given by OpenGL addons which can be removed and/or disabled.

Excuses.
I don't need to disable Aero to make my Windows 7 desktop fly.

You say "Unix shells are archaic" which you don't explain nor is it really related. Give an example on how something is truly easier in Powershell rather than the bash equivalent.

As someone who has never used Powershell, it would be very difficult for you to understand my preferences, but PowerShell can do everything the Unix shells can do in more or less the same way that they do it.
Unix shell's are archaic because they still rely on parsing text, and passing text output from one program to another. I would argue that Powershell would even be *faster* because of it's object system and programming model, instead of parsing raw text and ridiculous regular expressions.
However, the real power comes using the object piping system rather than just parsing text output. So, PowerShell can do exactly pretty much everything that bash can do, but bash doesn't even have the capability to do what PowerShell can do. They work in very similar ways, but Powershell is much more modern and robust.

You say "Gnome 3 is *not* highly customizable" which you don't explain how it's not customizable (since you can literally change anything you want with a custom build or a branch, not to mention *gasp* the configuration files).

Can't you read? I said that gconf hacking does very little in being able to let me change the default behaviour, also, configuration by editing raw text files, with obscure syntax, by hand shouldn't be a requirement in 2011. Especially when making a mistake editing certain files could result in a total meltdown of the desktop environment. Especially on a 'modern' desktop like Gnome 3.

See, I don't have time to start learning Gnome APIs and creating custom branches just to get the desktop to be usable in a way that I'm comfortable. That's the job of the upstream developers, and they've done a very poor job, I'm too busy doing things using my computer to do *my* work then to do theirs.

All your shit is still biased. Just because you make a lengthy paragraph doesn't mean our point is invalid.

No, I am not biased, I have administered Linux and Windows for both work and hobbies on a daily basis for more than 10 years and have formed valid opinions based on years of personal experiences and preferences. I like and dislike software based on their merits, not their licensing or hippy idealistic views. If anything *you* are biased because you know absolutely *nothing* about one part of the argument (Powershell), and are in complete denial of anything negative from the other part of the argument (blatant bugs in Linux desktops).
Just because you're butthurt because I dislike Linux with good reasoning doesn't mean I'm biased.

Disch's post get's a million upvotes ;)

[anonymous23323124]

@Disch Just saw your previous post. I love that XKCD comic. And it's heartening to hear I'm not the only one who had problems with Linux :)

Disch wrote:

But of course... OS WARS ... what's the point?

Yep ;)

[S6k9GNh0]

Actually, I never said I was actually in favor of Linux. I said that I can rely on it and it doesn't do what you've claimed in my several years of using it. I'm saying that you don't look at the given negative side of Windows where as you obviously look at everything negative from Linux.

1. Windows cost money.
2. It's not open source nor can we add many extensions to it (afaicr)
3. It's not as "pretty".

I've never experienced what you claim to be the bad side of Linux DE's and I cannot help but wonder why that is. Windows works out of the box but I will not be in favor of something that costs as much money as it does to bring something that's even comparable to something that is 100% free (not to mention, I'm not in favor of Windows). In any case, I'd rather lean on Mac OS and it's interface. It's downright good lookin'. Although, I'd probably have my own quirks for it if I were able to use it all of the time.

[anonymous23323124]

I am perfectly aware of Windows' failings. That's why I wanted to switch to Linux. But whether you've experienced them or not, I have certainly had many issues with Ubuntu. Sure, I could probably solve them with enough time, but there are other things I'd rather be doing for the moment ;)

[S6k9GNh0]

I've only used Unity in Ubuntu (which it's part of?). KDE 4 and others were either built and used in LFS environments or (whenever I first started with Linux, and after I got tired of working with Linux architecture) part of my Arch Linux installation. I also used Fedora for awhile with Gnome but got tired of the open-source software policy.

[anonymous23323124]

When I upgraded to the Unity version of Ubuntu, I thought it looked fantastic, but I quickly discovered the various issues, so I gradually drifted back to Windows.

Coincidentally, as long as I play video games (I'm 16 so it may be a while yet :P), the cost issue of Linux is irrelevant as I must dual boot Windows anyway. At least until Valve man up and port the Source engine to Linux.

EDIT: At the advice of a friend I'll be trying either FreeBSD or Arch Linux this summer.

[Albatross]

I had a long post exploring the biases of some of the louder people in this thread, but I just realized there's no point. If you don't mind, I'll just ignore all the rudeness levied at me and other members of this forum by two certain people (EDIT: Actually, I will give names because this is out of hand. darkestfright, computerquip, please calm down), and leave this thread be until it drifts to a better topic.

I'll add another million upvotes to Disch's

OS WARS... What's the point?

-Albatross

[1yR4jE8b]

1. Windows cost money.

~120$ every 5-6 years to get the new version is hardly a lot of money. I'll take ~120$ that works over free and frustrating, the amount of time that 120$ saves me is worth more to me then all the time I would need in Linux doing "commandline-fu" (thanks for that one Disch).
http://ncix.com/products/?sku=45350&vpn=GFC-00026&manufacture=Microsoft

2. It's not open source nor can we add many extensions to it (afaicr)

Oh well. If you *like* Kernel hacking, then yeah, Linux is for you.
For general use though, I'm more interested in it working out of the box and staying out of my way, not what license it uses and if I can hack the kernel.
I've had to write drivers for both Windows and Linux, and I can't really say one either better than the other.
There are plenty of extensions available for Windows. Display Fusion being my favorite, it costs money but it's only 30$ for a liftetime upgrade, unlimited install license which is absolutely crazy cheap.

I'll gladly pay for software that I use which makes my life easier. I've bought Visual Studio 2008 and 2010 Professional, Windows 7, and Adobe CS5 Web Premium, and many others.

Even Linux Torvalds has said that sometimes a proprietary solution can be the best one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8 (9:50-10:00 minute mark - Bitkeeper is proprietary software) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BitKeeper.

3. It's not as "pretty".

Subjective.
Personally I can't stand the cartoonish look of GTK, and I find the brushed metal looks of KDE and OS X very distracting. I've tried custom themes for all of them (except OS X), but there's always some aspect that isn't *quite* right for me. Ubuntu's dedication to Orange tones in their themes baffles me, it's such a harsh color, and doesn't belong anywhere near something that I need to stare at all day.
On the Windows side, the glassy Aero effects are classy, and give an "immersive" look to the desktop. It's not perfect, but it's more than easy enough on the eyes to not be distracting. Some of the custom themes over at VirtualCustoms are absolutely fantastic too, I'm a huge fan of Mr. Grimm's work, I still stick to the default Glass theme though.

I am perfectly aware of Windows' failings.

Me too, the Update Mechanism is my biggest complaint. Updates...to install Updates?! ...U.P.D.A.T.E.C.E.P.T.I.O.N......but seriously, it's better with Windows 7 but still needs a lot of work. Windows also lacks a lot of out-of-the-box Drivers...but hey, at least these drivers actually exist...And while I love Powershell, I can't believe it's taken them this long to acknowledge that some things can be done more efficiently from a terminal.

EDIT:

I had a long post exploring the biases of some of the louder people in this thread, but I just realized there's no point. If you don't mind, I'll just ignore all the rudeness levied at me and other members of this forum by two certain people (EDIT: Actually, I will give names because this is out of hand. darkestfright, computerquip, please calm down), and leave this thread be until it drifts to a better topic.

I'm actually quite sorry if I've been rude to you, and rereading my posts I think I might have melded both you and computerquip together when writing some of my posts responding to both of you at the same time.

I'm willing to call a truce with computerquip too, I admit I can be a bit fiery and blunt about my opinions so I'll back off from now on too. :)

My mother always says I should have went to Law School because I like to argue so passionately ;) but I'm even more passionate about programming.

How did this turn from IDE's and Compiler's to OS WARS in the first place?

EDIT 2: *looks at my first post where I call Unix shells pathetic*

oops