*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
NVIDIA Tegra K1 Mobile Processor Quad-core, 4-Plus-1 ARM Cortex –A15 MPCore processor with NEON technology Low-power NVIDIA Kepler-based GeForce graphics processor

...go ahead, I dare you to try to say that three times fast. :P

I ran across this article at PC World: "Nvidia $192 Tegra TK1 board could be used as a Linux gaming PC" http://www.pcworld.com/article/2150700/nvidia-192-tegra-tk1-board-could-be-used-as-a-linux-gaming-pc.html ...during my recent Linux news perusal. The article starts off: "Nvidia is bringing supercomputer-class performance to its $192 Jetson TK1 computer, which is targeted at embedded devices but could be used as a Linux-based gaming PC." It goes on to describe this board, which is likely intended to be used for purposes other than stand-alone PCs such as "in-car infotainment, robots with vision, surveillance, or medical devices that need real-time image processing." However, this thing runs Ubuntu 14.04 (and presumably, it has great potential as a Steambox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_Machine_(hardware_platform)) though I'm not sure if there's any currently-compatible graphic-intensive apps that'd actually make use of the 192 graphics cores on this thing. Nvidia provides the tweaked distro of Ubuntu... perhaps they've added some tools to utilize the graphics horsepower on this thing... that'd make sense if they're interested in having other companies use it in their own products.

You could think of it as a much more powerful version of a Raspberry Pi I suppose, and do with it whatever you wanted... me, I'd be curious to see what kind of small general-purpose PC it could make. For specs or to buy one (it'll be available in about two weeks) here's the link at Newegg: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813190005&nm_mc=AFC-C8Junction&cm_mmc=AFC-C8Junction-_-na-_-na-_-na&cm_sp=&AID=10446076&PID=4003003&SID=15rr8jny3esq0

« Last Edit: May 04, 2014, 11:01:29 PM by Palomine »

*

Lightfoot

  • Wandering Artist
  • 1962
    • Pulse
Isn't Steam available for Linux?  I'd assume that 80% of the games for Mac are also for Linux.  There's probably some demanding ones in there.

Pal replies: Steam is going Linux, but Apple's OSX, though Unix-based, isn't Linux. AFAIK, you can't run Mac games on a Linux system, though there may be emulation and/or virtual machine workarounds. I was just coming back to edit a mention of the Nvidia board's possible use as a Steambox when I saw your post. ;)

*

Lightfoot

  • Wandering Artist
  • 1962
    • Pulse
Isn't Steam available for Linux?  I'd assume that 80% of the games for Mac are also for Linux.  There's probably some demanding ones in there.

Pal replies: Steam is going Linux, but Apple's OSX, though Unix-based, isn't Linux. AFAIK, you can't run Mac games on a Linux system, though there may be emulation and/or virtual machine workarounds. I was just coming back to edit a mention of the Nvidia board's possible use as a Steambox when I saw your post. ;)

I meant that on Steam, based just on looking around, I'd -guess- that odds are if there's a Mac version there's an 80% chance of a Linux version, but also-

Many modern Mac games aren't actually Mac games.  They are PC games that use WINE to make them easily work on Macs.  If you look at many games, the Mac version will have higher requirements than the PC version.  The obvious complication is that the average Mac has a weaker GPU than the average PC (at least because most Macs use laptop parts), so they have two knocks against them performance-wise.  I suspect some MMOs even use this if there's a Mac version (like Lord of the Rings and Guild Wars 2).

What I meant was that because many of the games just use WINE to make the Mac version, it's often also used to make the Linux version.  Also, a lot of the native games are made from a program that can export for any system (like Unity), so if the person is willing to make a Mac version (and trouble-shoot any problems), you'll usually also see a Linux version.

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
I meant that on Steam, based just on looking around, I'd -guess- that odds are if there's a Mac version there's an 80% chance of a Linux version, but also-

Many modern Mac games aren't actually Mac games.  They are PC games that use WINE to make them easily work on Macs.  If you look at many games, the Mac version will have higher requirements than the PC version.  The obvious complication is that the average Mac has a weaker GPU than the average PC (at least because most Macs use laptop parts), so they have two knocks against them performance-wise.  I suspect some MMOs even use this if there's a Mac version (like Lord of the Rings and Guild Wars 2).

What I meant was that because many of the games just use WINE to make the Mac version, it's often also used to make the Linux version.  Also, a lot of the native games are made from a program that can export for any system (like Unity), so if the person is willing to make a Mac version (and trouble-shoot any problems), you'll usually also see a Linux version.

Disclaimer: I'm responding to Lightfoot's points here... if you're not interested in this subject matter, or if you go all MEGO http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/m/f/What-Is-MEGO.htm when you encounter more than 140 characters of text at a time, please do us all a favor and close this thread now. :P ;)

I'm absolutely not taking up a Mac vs. PC debate here, but I gotta ask you for more info Lighfoot, because two of your assertions are new to me. :)

I know only a little about WINE and have been dabbling with it (recently, for running Windows apps in Linux). On what do you base your claim that "many" modern Mac games are essentially the PC versions running on Mac via WINE? On the face of it that doesn't make a lot of sense... for one thing, if it worked the way you suggest, there'd be the extra CPU overhead you describe: a publisher knowingly handicapping the performance of their software title (or increasing it's minimum system requirements) simply to avoid actually porting it to MacOS seems somewhat unlikely to me. I'm not saying that software companies don't use emulation tools and virtual machine programs when porting a software title from one OS to another (they probably do in some cases) but I suspect that the finished result (the Mac OS version of a software title) is essentially running "native." Given that modern Macs (those made over the past decade and beyond) have essentially the same exact hardware as PCs (same CPUs, graphics cards, etc...) there'd seem to be little reason to utilize WINE to release the finished end-product (for-sale) Mac version of a Windows title, especially games, where performance is crucial to the user experience. At least that's how it seems to make sense to me, though of course I'll gladly read anything you point me to that says "many" Mac games are actually running under WINE (btw, what does "many" mean? most? more than half? what?).

Incidentally, I skimmed the Wikipedia article about WINE to see if I could find anything to support your claims... I couldn't. Though I did find text that differentiates WINE from traditional emulators and (on the surface) it would seem to contradict the consequence of your WINE assertion, even if it were routinely used as you suggest. This is the relevant bit of text from the Wiki:


Quote
The phrase "wine is not an emulator" is a reference to the fact that no processor code execution emulation occurs when running a Windows application under Wine. "Emulation" usually refers to the execution of compiled code intended for one processor (such as x86) by interpreting/recompiling software running on a different processor (such as PowerPC). Such emulation is almost always much slower than execution of the same code by the processor for which the code was compiled. In Wine, the Windows application's compiled x86 code runs at full native speed on the computer's x86 processor, just as it does when running under Windows.

Secondly, I'd also ask to see something that supports your assertion that "most Macs use laptop parts." To be sure, just like PC manufacturers, Apple uses "laptop" parts to make laptops and to make smaller-form-factor computers like Mac Minis. However, to the best of my knowledge, the CPUs and GPUs inside the regular Apple desktop computers are generally the same ones used in comparable PCs... though since Apple's a single manufacturer who produces a single line of computers vs. dozens of PC manufacturers each producing their own full line of computers, you can always find a comparable PC from some mfgr. with a slightly-more-recent version of a given CPU or a higher-spec GPU of course. Further, since the vast majority of current Apple desktops do not have internal slots the way your average Dell or HP desktop does (and the way that the silver Mac Pros used to) most Apples go through life with whatever graphics level they left the factory with until Apple updates the whole computer to a new version with higher-spec graphics... another reason that a traditional "box-type" desktop PC comparable to a given Mac often has more capable graphics... it's just a matter of swapping the graphics card... something that PC manufacturers and end-users (myself included ;)) do routinely.

So, I wonder if what you're suggesting is, in part at least, a result of your own anecdotal observations/experiences, rather than an objectively accurate/generalized overview of how things work (excepting of course the agreed-upon caveat that I outlined above re: a single mfgr. vs. all PC mfgrs. combined means the very-latest CPU/GPU versions will often be available first in some company's PC rather than in one made by Apple, etc...).

However, as regards Valve's Steam specifically, I cannot agree or disagree with you as I haven't used it yet. I'm talking about programs running under Windows, MacOS and Linux (in general, not Steam in particular). I was under the impression that Steam (among other things) is an online software environment that has been implemented under all three platforms: Win, Mac and Linux. While it's primarily a gaming space/system, I gather it's branching out and might eventually become a popular interface by which people could interact with their PCs (and other devices) ...at least, I assume that's what Valve would like to see happen. ;) WHETHER the exact same Steam game runs differently on a Windows PC, a Mac, a Linux PC or even a Valve-spec SteamBox (all having the same CPU/GPU) is unknown to me, though I expect someone out there will test that to see if any platform or implementation of Steam provides an edge.

Finally, let me say that having been using Linux for a couple years now as my primary OS after having been a "Mac guy" for literally more than a quarter century, let me point out that in reality, there are very few Mac software titles that are available in Linux... nothing like the "80%" you suggest is possible/likely via WINE... in fact, even counting popular third-party programs such as web browsers, I'd suspect the percentage of apps that are available in Linux that were sourced from/same as those for Mac to be less than half the number you suggest, perhaps a lot less than half. To be sure, there are some programs that are available for all three OSes (Win, Mac, Linux) such as the aforementioned web browsers and some open-source office and general-purpose apps (GIMP, etc...) but generally speaking, Linux users find and use comparable (not identical) software titles under Linux when there's no Linux version of an app they used to use under Windows or Mac. At least, that's my experience over the past two years: since there's no Linux version of Microsoft Office (or the equivalent Apple suite of apps) I (and most Linux guys AFAIK) use LibreOffice or OpenOffice instead (being open-source/multi-platform, there are little-used Mac and Win versions of those too as it happens). There's a bit of culture shock at first (when switching to Linux from Win or Mac) since you have to change some programs, but it's easier than people think (especially since the program that most of us spend the most of our time with is a web browser, and (as mentioned) with the exception of MS Explorer and Apple's Safari, those are available in fairly similar versions for all three platforms: Chrome, Firefox, Opera...).

Frankly, most Linux users would probably wish that "80%" of Mac software titles were or might someday be available in Linux. :) Again, I'm NOT inviting some jihadist platform debate here: I'm essentially platform agnostic at this point in my life: I mostly use Linux because it's fast, stable, safe, free (don't forget free! ;)), available in many flavors, and it runs great on older hardware... turning PCs that have become klunky under their original Windows 95/98/etc... into speed demons capable of running the latest versions of (Linux) OSes and apps. However, I still have and use MacOS on an older MacBook Pro and I use Windows 7 for work, since there's some custom software I need that's Win-only. For the most part, I gotta say that the user experience between ALL THREE operating systems is largely similar (if you don't count things like cost, where Windows and Mac suffer compared to Linux, or susceptibility to virii, where Windows suffers compared to Mac and Linux). It doesn't really matter which OS someone uses IMO. :D
« Last Edit: May 05, 2014, 03:54:02 PM by Palomine »

*

Lightfoot

  • Wandering Artist
  • 1962
    • Pulse
Disclaimer: I'm responding to Lightfoot's points here... if you're not interested in this subject matter, or if you go all MEGO http://netforbeginners.about.com/od/m/f/What-Is-MEGO.htm when you encounter more than 140 characters of text at a time, please do us all a favor and close this thread now. :P ;)

I'm absolutely not taking up a Mac vs. PC debate here, but I gotta ask you for more info Lighfoot, because two of your assertions are new to me. :)

I know only a little about WINE and have been dabbling with it (recently, for running Windows apps in Linux). On what do you base your claim that "many" modern Mac games are essentially the PC versions running on Mac via WINE? On the face of it that doesn't make a lot of sense... for one thing, if it worked the way you suggest, there'd be the extra CPU overhead you describe: a publisher knowingly handicapping the performance of their software title (or increasing it's minimum system requirements) simply to avoid actually porting it to MacOS seems somewhat unlikely to me. I'm not saying that software companies don't use emulation tools and virtual machine programs when porting a software title from one OS to another (they probably do in some cases) but I suspect that the finished result (the Mac OS version of a software title) is essentially running "native." Given that modern Macs (those made over the past decade and beyond) have essentially the same exact hardware as PCs (same CPUs, graphics cards, etc...) there'd seem to be little reason to utilize WINE to release the finished end-product (for-sale) Mac version of a Windows title, especially games, where performance is crucial to the user experience. At least that's how it seems to make sense to me, though of course I'll gladly read anything you point me to that says "many" Mac games are actually running under WINE (btw, what does "many" mean? most? more than half? what?).

I'm not sure I could guess exactly how many titles, and it might have changed in the last few years, but I know that when my main computer was a Mac (up until 2013), many of the games I had were using a "cider wrapper".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransGaming_Technologies

It was something new for Intel Macs, because it wasn't as possible with PPC Macs.  I'll have to turn on my Mac mini and check some of the games I have installed from Steam there.  They seem like Mac apps, but if you open them up (view contents or something on the contextual menu), there are either a lot of .exe files inside, or sometimes even a Windows-like system location imitation (with a "C:" folder and then the other folders the game needs all in the correct folders).

I can't really post links, so I'll have to post some of the news posts about Cider based games.

from June 11, 2007, on AppleInsider
"EA's new Mac games will demand Intel-based systems"
Quote
Presenting as part of the opening keynote address at Apple's annual developers conference on Monday, EA co-founder Bing Gordon announced his firm would soon begin releasing Mac games simultaneously alongside their Windows equivalents. But in the short time allotted to the executive, some of the underlying details and requirements of those games were not widely publicized.

For instance, each of the new Mac games announced thus far will be converted using TransGaming's Cider engine, which — unlike direct reprogramming efforts — wraps a layer around the game's original code. The interpreter translates all of the normally Windows-only system calls made by a game (including DirectX and Win32) to Mac calls with a minimal overhead.

Doing so not only cuts down on development time, the company says, but also guarantees equal support as multiplayer games, patches, and other features will always be shared between Mac and Windows versions. All of these have been chronic difficulties for games in the past, as developers had to convert code both to a new OS and a new processor architecture at the same time.

This may come at a high price for some users, however. TransGaming's technology normally only works with Intel-based Macs, leaving owners of older PowerPC systems without the ability to play any of the titles even if faster computers (such as late-model PowerMac G5s) would theoretically have the performance to run the games in a PowerPC-native form.

This was in 2007, so maybe this was a fad.  If you go to many games on Steam, the Mac version will have much higher requirements, sometimes 2-4x the RAM requirement, need twice as much HD space, and a video card a generation or two newer.

from September 18, 2012, on MacRumors
"Guild Wars 2 Arrives on Mac With Beta Client Release", a comment from a reader-
Quote
I know it's Cider and all but it's the same for other ”demanding” games that exists for both OS X and Windows (i.e. Starcraft 2, Borderlands etc.). Performance is much better in Windows, especially if the graphic details settings are cranked up (shaders) and if it's a complex scene that's being viewed. It's fine if your character is walking around in a tent or something, but for a game to be enjoyable I want it to be smooth in more or less all situations.

Incidentally, I skimmed the Wikipedia article about WINE to see if I could find anything to support your claims... I couldn't. Though I did find text that differentiates WINE from traditional emulators and (on the surface) it would seem to contradict the consequence of your WINE assertion, even if it were routinely used as you suggest. This is the relevant bit of text from the Wiki:[/color]

I'm not sure I understand.  At least on Macs, WINE is kind of an app that runs in the system (called "x.app" or something).  If I played something through Bootcamp, and then through x, the Bootcamp version would run much faster.  Many times better even.  If it's emulation or not is debatable, but at least in my experience, on Macs the programs through it will run much more slowly.

Secondly, I'd also ask to see something that supports your assertion that "most Macs use laptop parts." To be sure, just like PC manufacturers, Apple uses "laptop" parts to make laptops and to make smaller-form-factor computers like Mac Minis. However, to the best of my knowledge, the CPUs and GPUs inside the regular Apple desktop computers are generally the same ones used in comparable PCs

Aside from the Mac Pro (which is super-custom), Apple doesn't make desktops anymore.  The video cards used in the current iMac have an "M" at the end of the model number.  They typically use laptop video cards, and lower power processors meant for laptops, even in the iMacs.  They haven't always been that way, but it's been true for a while.  They generally have the Mac mini and iMac use similar parts as their laptops.  The cheapest iMac even uses Intel's Iris Pro integrated video meant for laptops.

Finally, let me say that having been using Linux for a couple years now as my primary OS after having been a "Mac guy" for literally more than a quarter century, let me point out that in reality, there are very few Mac software titles that are available in Linux... nothing like the "80%" you suggest is possible/likely via WINE... in fact, even counting popular third-party programs such as web browsers, I'd suspect the percentage of apps that are available in Linux that were sourced from/same as those for Mac to be less than half the number you suggest, perhaps a lot less than half.

I thought I said that maybe 80% of the games for Mac on Steam were also for Linux.  Even the Half-Life games are for both Mac and Linux on there.

I also was a Mac guy before, but I switched partly because of how few hardware options were available, and how-non upgradable they were.  They are about 80% similar.  I've thought about using Linux before (probably Xubuntu or Crunchbang or Mint XCFE), but I think I'm going to keep with Windows for now.

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
I thought (and my reply written such that) you were implying that 80% of Mac stuff is (or could easily be made) available for Linux, which is certainly not the case if it's regular programs we're talking about. However, I've barely used Steam... if you say that 80% of Mac titles available within Steam are actually Windows titles running under/with some sort of emulation and thus with reduced performance/higher system requirements, then I'm content to take your word for it though it seems a bad situation to me (for Mac users who want to play Steam games).

I agree that the dearth of "traditional" desktops from Apple is a sad thing. Though I appreciate their design sensibilities and though a new iMac looks lovely on a desk (and works quite well for most uses), it's not really a "box of slots" desktop of the sort that Apple made from the Macintosh II through the recently departed Mac Pro. (I had a Mac II... it was awesome :)). From time to time, there's rumor about some new "headless" Mac... i.e.: a desktop box with slots and bays but without a display. Given how devices other than computers are being used by more and more folks, I'd not hold my breath waiting for a new "regular" Mac desktop... and like you, the current Mac Pro is so custom/pricey that I don't really consider it to be in that category of PC.

« Last Edit: May 06, 2014, 10:16:11 AM by Palomine »

*

TheZookie007

  • L Cup
  • 53281
From time to time, there's rumor about some new "headless" Mac... i.e.: a desktop box with slots and bays but without a display.


That's the Mac mini, sorta. Only because of the very small footprint, there's barely any room for expansion in it, but if you get the previous generation Mac mini server, you could shoehorn two hard disks in there.

The Mac II is still an objet de lust for me, all these years later. It's such a great looking machine. The newest version of the Mac Pro, as beautiful as it is (or as beautiful as a shiny black wastepaper basket can be), is a departure from the near-infinitely-expandable Mac Pro of old.
ACB, BK, CT, NG, SA: FU. FUATH. 100x.

*

TheZookie007

  • L Cup
  • 53281
I agree that the dearth of "traditional" desktops from Apple is a sad thing. Though I appreciate their design sensibilities and though a new iMac looks lovely on a desk (and works quite well for most uses), it's not really a "box of slots" desktop of the sort that Apple made from the Macintosh II through the recently departed Mac Pro.


Indeed.

YouTube: "Why the Mac Pro Isn't for Professionals: WWDC 2013"
ACB, BK, CT, NG, SA: FU. FUATH. 100x.

*

Lightfoot

  • Wandering Artist
  • 1962
    • Pulse
Quote
if you say that 80% of Mac titles available within Steam are actually Windows titles running under/with some sort of emulation and thus with reduced performance/higher system requirements, then I'm content to take your word for it though it seems a bad situation to me (for Mac users who want to play Steam games).

Maybe I should water it down more and say, that I suspect it's that way.  Partly from evidence, partly theory.  I remember looking at one game there where the PC version required only 2GBs of ram, and the Mac version required 8GBs of ram.  I agree it's a bad thing, but for lower-end games it probably isn't a big deal.  Part of the issue might be with the way X/wine works with Macs.  Maybe in theory it shouldn't be that much of a hit for performance, but there's a hitch in practice.

The wonderful game Psychonauts uses cider for the Mac version (there isn't a Linux version though).
PC Requirements-
Processor: 1.0 GHz Pentium(R) III and AMD Athlon(tm)
Memory: 256 MB of RAM
Graphics: 64 MB GeForce (tm) 3 or higher or ATI(R) Radeon 8500 or higher (except GeForce 4 MX and Go series)

Mac Requirements-
Processor: Intel Core Duo Processor
Memory: 2 GB of RAM
Graphics: ATI X1600 / NVIDIA 8600GT / Intel HD3000 or better card with at least 128 MB VRAM

Cider is also used by Guild Wars 2, Star Trek Online, Eve Online, Warhammer Online (didn't it shut down?), and I THINK Lord of the Rings Online.

Yeah, I'd probably still have a Mac if they offered full mini-towers.  I was happy with the Mac mini, but as it got older, I was disappointed by the lack of upgrade options.  I had upgraded both my G3 and G4 as after a few years, adding in new ports (USB1 to the G3, and USB2 to the G4 if I remember correctly), adding new HDs, and both got newer video cards (the G3 has a 3dfx Voodoo 5, and it still works).

I think the old beige computers where my favorite appearance of Macs.  I never really liked the change to colors and metal.  I always thought my G4 was super ugly.

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
Maybe I should water it down more and say, that I suspect it's that way.  Partly from evidence, partly theory.  I remember looking at one game there where the PC version required only 2GBs of ram, and the Mac version required 8GBs of ram.  I agree it's a bad thing, but for lower-end games it probably isn't a big deal.  Part of the issue might be with the way X/wine works with Macs.  Maybe in theory it shouldn't be that much of a hit for performance, but there's a hitch in practice.

The wonderful game Psychonauts uses cider for the Mac version (there isn't a Linux version though).
PC Requirements-
Processor: 1.0 GHz Pentium(R) III and AMD Athlon(tm)
Memory: 256 MB of RAM
Graphics: 64 MB GeForce (tm) 3 or higher or ATI(R) Radeon 8500 or higher (except GeForce 4 MX and Go series)

Mac Requirements-
Processor: Intel Core Duo Processor
Memory: 2 GB of RAM
Graphics: ATI X1600 / NVIDIA 8600GT / Intel HD3000 or better card with at least 128 MB VRAM

Cider is also used by Guild Wars 2, Star Trek Online, Eve Online, Warhammer Online (didn't it shut down?), and I THINK Lord of the Rings Online.

Yeah, I'd probably still have a Mac if they offered full mini-towers.  I was happy with the Mac mini, but as it got older, I was disappointed by the lack of upgrade options.  I had upgraded both my G3 and G4 as after a few years, adding in new ports (USB1 to the G3, and USB2 to the G4 if I remember correctly), adding new HDs, and both got newer video cards (the G3 has a 3dfx Voodoo 5, and it still works).

I think the old beige computers where my favorite appearance of Macs.  I never really liked the change to colors and metal.  I always thought my G4 was super ugly.

Until I see something definitive that says otherwise, I'm content to go by your suggestion that some (perhaps the majority?) of STEAM titles for Mac are adapted (in some way, perhaps using WINE?) from the Windows versions and thus suffer accordingly. AFAIK, this applies specifically to games running within the STEAM environment... not to regular/stand-alone programs of course.

I had a Macintosh PowerPC G4 with the mirrored drive doors (one of the last G4 towers... it had Firewire 800 built-in early in Apple's product line/history) and I loved it. To this day, I've yet to see a tower-type PC case so well designed: one touch to open w/o any tools needed, the whole section with the logic board and slots hinged down neatly/smoothly/easily (unlike every Dell tower I've ever had, all of which sound like a creaking door from a haunted house), plenty of room for cabling, a lot of slots and bays for the physical size of the box and a couple (four actually) big sturdy grab handles to make lifting/carrying it easy. I know some didn't like the clear/white and blue color scheme of the G3 towers or the clear/white and grey color scheme of the G4 towers, but I was a fan... heck, they were SO well designed and constructed that I'd have liked them if they were mauve! ;) I still have my G4, though I don't use it anymore. I gather there are various distros of Linux that can run on those PowerPC CPUs, but my garage is full of misc. old PCs waiting for Linux installs, so the odds of me getting around to doing it for pre-Intel Macs any time soon are slim. ;)

  
« Last Edit: May 14, 2014, 11:11:55 PM by Palomine »

*

TheZookie007

  • L Cup
  • 53281
NetworkWorld is running a series where their Linux guy tries out a desktop a week.

"The Linux desktop-a-week review: Ubuntu Unity"

Mod edit to state the obvious: for non-Linux users who aren't quite clear about the distinction, there are different distributions of Linux... different 'flavors' or 'versions' if you will, some of which are based on other distributions (i.e.: Mint, Ubuntu, Tails and Crunchbang are all based on Debian). Further, some distros are available with only a single, specific desktop GUI, while others can be had/installed with your choice of desktop, so in those distros, you not only choose the distro, you can also choose which of several desktop GUIs to use with it. And yes, it's still further possible to add tweaks and customize various desktop GUIs too. So there's a lot of choice... you're not obligated to customize things, but with some distros/desktops you can if you want to. A lot.

I had the same initial experience as the article's author with Ubuntu's Unity when it was released: in that I hated it enough to stop using Ubuntu. I switched to Mint (with the Cinnamon desktop GUI) and though I have tried Ubuntu since then, I haven't liked it enough to switch back. -Pal  
« Last Edit: August 22, 2014, 10:11:12 PM by Palomine »
ACB, BK, CT, NG, SA: FU. FUATH. 100x.

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
I was going to post this among painted bodies, but it seems more fitting here.

linux boobs geeks chicks linux unix redhat open source opensource linux user groups community tits breasts painting boobs sexy funny hot motivational posters online inspirational wallpapers blogs developer programmer ULd Linux

*

TheZookie007

  • L Cup
  • 53281
Indeed! Open source rules! :D
ACB, BK, CT, NG, SA: FU. FUATH. 100x.

*

Palomine

  • Moderator
  • 24033
  • Modern Male Mammal, Linux enthusiast.
I won't bore you w/too many details, but I thought I'd provide an overview of my recent computer snafu if only to illustrate that while it's fast, free and stable, Linux ain't perfect.

I've been running Mint 15 with the Cinnamon GUI for a fair while now on my 8-year-old modest-spec PC and it's been great: I literally had no complaints of note... everything just worked just as it ought to pretty much all the time. However, all good things must come to an end: I was using the system to test and format some old hard drives via one of those USB to IDE/SATA adapters, as I've done countless times before. A particular drive was giving me trouble mounting after format (a 500GB Seagate Barracuda ST3500630AS) and on the third or fourth attempt, something happened.

The whole screen had a seizure: semi-random blocks covered the whole display, behind which the GUI was just barely visible (and probably not even active: just residual image left over in unrefreshed display memory). It was impossible to use the GUI to shut down, and ctrl-alt-delete and the on/off button were non-responsive, so I unplugged the PC, waited a minute and plugged it back in and powered it up. Much to my dismay, the PC wouldn't boot: as far as it was concerned it no longer had a bootable operating system on the SSD. There followed the inevitable googling (using a laptop) and a few attempts to restore/reinstall just the bootstrap portion of the installed OS, which might have put things back to normal. But it didn't and since I had a relatively recent backup, I decided to just go ahead and wipe the drive and start over (using the current release of Mint 17).

For some unknown reason, I can't install Mint 17. I've made multiple attempts, using two different install DVDs (downloaded and burned separately) and though it gets through the whole install process w/o errors, on the post-install shutdown/restart, there's an error that says "ModemManager [1351] <warn> Could not acquire the 'org.freedesktop.ModemManager1' service name" ...this error might be a clue about why Mint 17 doesn't work or it might easily be unrelated and moot. In any case, on restart, the PC still thinks that it has no bootable OS.

Mint 17 is a major and widely-used distro, equivalent to Ubuntu's 14 (both are LTS (long term support) releases). I vastly prefer Mint to Ubuntu, mostly due to the GUI (also Ubuntu's emphasis on "convergence" ...having the same GUI on PCs, tablets and phones is moot to me since I couldn't care less about tablets/phones). But Mint 17 wouldn't run (I briefly considered hunting around for my old Mint 15 installer but decided against it) so I had to try something else. First I tried Tails (1.1.2) which is that privacy-intensive Linux distro. After learning that it can't (easily) be installed and booted from a hard drive or SSD (for "security reasons") I installed it on a USB flashkey and booted the PC from that. It worked, but to be honest it's not nearly as polished and friendly as Mint or Ubuntu (let alone Mac OSX or even Windows), so I decided to give it a pass for now (as the OS on my main PC... I'll probably test drive it some more on a spare laptop).

SO, with Mint unbootable for unknown reasons, and Tails too kludgy for everyday use, I reached for the installer DVD of my last resort: back to Ubuntu (14.04.1 LTS to be precise). It installed alright and booted fine. Yes, it still sports their Unity GUI which I dislike (compared to Cinnamon or any of the three or four other GUIs available for Mint) and they've moved a lot of stuff around requiring me to google every time I want to know how to do something that they no longer do in a standard fashion (i.e.: to add a bookmark for a folder to the sidebar in the file manager, you have to enter that folder and then press ctrl-D ...why they changed it from the widely-used just drag-and-drop I have no idea). Anyway, Ubuntu is what I'm using again now (it was my first Linux) and I'm undertaking the laborious, time-consuming process of rebuilding the drive from backups, reinstalling the extra programs I like, etc... Trying to put my web-browsers back in order with my preferred extensions is a PITA... some aren't available anymore. And the simple internet traffic monitor I used in Mint (which was a Cinnamon GUI applet called Network Usage Monitor) doesn't exist for Ubuntu AFAICT, so I installed one called NTM - Network Traffic Manger but it doesn't work at all: when I click to launch it, it pops up for a fraction of a second and then disappears w/o any error message.

So, it'll be a while before things are back to normal... til I get all these little changes worked out... to say nothing of having to get used to the significantly different Unity GUI in Ubuntu (Mint's Cinnamon was a great traditional Gnome-style GUI and I'm gonna miss it). But at least the PC is running again.  
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 11:49:13 PM by Palomine »

*

SwitcherX

  • Legend
  • 6598
There's Kubuntu.  Ubuntu with KDE as the desktop.

Pal replies: Yes, countless variations to choose from: http://forum.bearchive.com/index.php/topic,126043.msg10268930.html#msg10268930 ...though in the interest of stability (since it's my 'main' PC and not an extra/test PC) I prefer to stay with one of the major distros, so I'll have a better chance of finding answers *if* the you-know-what ever *really* hits the fan. After a day of use, I'm getting accustomed to Ubuntu's Unity GUI (though I doubt I'll ever love it) and I'm discovering a few new Ubuntu quirks (related to resizing windows, adjusting column widths, etc...) that *may* be native to Ubuntu 14 *or* possibly specific to how it runs on my old Dell (which is about as far from exotic or cutting-edge hardware-wise as it's possible to get).

« Last Edit: October 13, 2014, 11:58:34 AM by Palomine »
Switcher X
A.K.A. Tina Fey Eichmann

"Thank you herr professor Tina Fey Eichmann, nuclear brain surgeon and moustache jockey."
-- Mammeister


"SwitcherX, you were always Mammeister's favorite...you bastard."
-- Notty