View Full Version : Ten ways to tidy up the Linux desktop mess
Ten ways to tidy up the Linux desktop mess
http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/desktop-apps/2011/09/02/ten-ways-to-tidy-up-the-linux-desktop-mess-40093822/
LOL :lol:
zdnet trying to get technical is always funny. :p
This made me lol:
Distributions need to stop modifying desktopsThen he's harping on about more desktops should be available one minute, then apparently saying they should all have the same "standardised" configuration... So everything should just stay the same then? What a muppet :p
Create lightweight versions of existing desktops for low-powered machines
Don't they already do that for a few of them?
iGoD ReLeNtLeS
04-09-11, 19:21
^ If your computer cant handle linux, then tbh, can you even call it a computer, more a calculator? :chuckle:
Linux for calculators! Brilliant!
^ If your computer cant handle linux, then tbh, can you even call it a computer, more a calculator? :chuckle:
Or a wrist watch? :p
Don't they already do that for a few of them?
hehehe yeah. I'm not sure how TWM, Awesome or any of the other plethora of window managers can be called anything but "lightweight".
Mr. Grapes
05-09-11, 13:09
^ If your computer cant handle linux, then tbh, can you even call it a computer, more a calculator? :chuckle:
:rolleyes:
come on... it's not that the computers can't handle "Linux"... it's that they can't handle latest eyecandy-on-by-default fests that the likes of ubuntu have become.
example:
my Dell D600 laptop (1.8 Ghz Pentium-M) is no slouch, but it is old. since i have had it, it has run XP and Ubuntu side by side no problem. with every successive release of ubuntu, fewer thing work properly without excessive tinkering.
of a particular problem is the built in graphics: Radeon 9000 mobility or R250. no longer officially supported by the AMD/ATi binary driver, but to get actual open GL performance out of it that it's capable takes so much f'ing about with settings that i can't be bothered anymore. i had it tweaked nicely for one release and everything worked well. desktop effects, tux racer etc, no problem. then next release something fundamental changed making all my settings irrelevant and now no longer works, and since the default install (unity) requires decent 3D rendering (even 2D desktops look awful without some kind of hardware acceleration) then I'm afraid it's time to jump...
:rolleyes:
come on... it's not that the computers can't handle "Linux"... it's that they can't handle latest eyecandy-on-by-default fests that the likes of ubuntu have become.
example:
my Dell D600 laptop (1.8 Ghz Pentium-M) is no slouch, but it is old. since i have had it, it has run XP and Ubuntu side by side no problem. with every successive release of ubuntu, fewer thing work properly without excessive tinkering.
of a particular problem is the built in graphics: Radeon 9000 mobility or R250. no longer officially supported by the AMD/ATi binary driver, but to get actual open GL performance out of it that it's capable takes so much f'ing about with settings that i can't be bothered anymore. i had it tweaked nicely for one release and everything worked well. desktop effects, tux racer etc, no problem. then next release something fundamental changed making all my settings irrelevant and now no longer works, and since the default install (unity) requires decent 3D rendering (even 2D desktops look awful without some kind of hardware acceleration) then I'm afraid it's time to jump...
You can't really blame Linux nor Canonical for ATI producing crap drivers.
In fact, these days I rarely bother with the proprietary blobs as the open source drivers usually cover enough to get a working desktop. However I do sympathize with your issues; graphics, along with wireless chipsets, have long since been the subject of buggy / incomplete drivers (not just on Linux too).
Mr. Grapes
05-09-11, 13:38
I wasn't blaming linux or canonical. just saying that the need for lightweight distros has arisen because everyone assumes that linux = lightweight by default, when actually a full size distro like ubuntu is actually pretty bloated feature rich, and will utilise decent hardware.
but the plain fact is that computers which are by no means 'slow' can actually end up with more issues than newer hardware when the opposite used to be the case. my comment was more that ubuntu used to be the distor of choice for that laptop, but out of the box now it just plain sucks (on that laptop) and i'm going to have to use a explicitly light distro.
Lorem-Ipsum
05-09-11, 14:18
Whoever wrote that article is an idiot. Nuff Said.
I wasn't blaming linux or canonical. just saying that the need for lightweight distros has arisen because everyone assumes that linux = lightweight by default, when actually a full size distro like ubuntu is actually pretty bloated feature rich, and will utilise decent hardware.
but the plain fact is that computers which are by no means 'slow' can actually end up with more issues than newer hardware when the opposite used to be the case. my comment was more that ubuntu used to be the distor of choice for that laptop, but out of the box now it just plain sucks (on that laptop) and i'm going to have to use a explicitly light distro.
ahh i see
My apologies then
My washing machine uses Linux in the controller. (so I'm told)
@Mr Grapes. I use Puppy linux on all my machines (some VERY old - K6-2 and P90 included). The video drivers are always the topic of conversation on every release. I've managed to get all Nvidia cards sorted and there are lots of people who have sorted the drivers for ATI cards.
There are several Puppies available based on different base binaries. The main one uses Ubuntu binaries, but there are others.
One huge plus feature of Puppy is that it was designed originally to be a 'live' linux run from CD, but it will save your settings and all installed packages back to the CD for your next session. It can still use that feature(termed a frugal install, because it keeps the kernel and base system totally separate from any personal stuff) even when running from a hard drive (or you can install it like any other Linux) This means it is vary easy to upgrade and move around. I have an install on a bootable USB microdrive that I carry around with me for fixing machines. It has Wine and Virtualbox, and I have XP installed in a Virtual Machine that runs under Virtualbox on every machine I've tried it on so far.
heavywater
07-09-11, 02:18
My washing machine uses Linux in the controller. (so I'm told)
I'm not convinced by that, I'd guess some use Java though (possibly). Even stripping a load out of the kernel, linux would be way too bloated for what a washing machine would need. I can't really see any point in it. :confused:
I'm not convinced by that, I'd guess some use Java though (possibly). Even stripping a load out of the kernel, linux would be way too bloated for what a washing machine would need. I can't really see any point in it. :confused:
Why Java?
Surely if you're writing a controller then you want your program to compile to machine code rather than byte code.
heavywater
07-09-11, 12:03
That's why I said possibly. Almost all washing machines and simple electronics will use machine code, but seeing as Burn-IT seems to think there's something more going on, it's most likely to be java rather than linux.
Also, you'd probably be surprised how many things run java. :lol:
isnt ubuntu meant to be for the 'genera' public' and compete with windows/OSX - in that way, it needs all its fanciness?
It is a digital controller that displays error codes etc. I would have thought it would be embedded Linux rather than Java - but I actually care little enough about it not to look it up - as long as it works.;)
GSVRasputin
20-09-11, 09:41
You do find small pieces of the Linux kernal in the strangest of places from Washing Machines to jet fighter planes. It's easier to strip down the kernal than to build a new one and costs a lot less.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.12 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.