Mac, PC, or Linux [Archive]

Jazzratt

16th May 2011, 14:53

Fuck Apple forever. Not because I have any particular problem with their horrifically expensive Personal Computers but becaquse of that fucking ad campaign that somehow convinced people that "PC" is synonymous with 'computer using Windows." A Mac is a fucking PC, that is it is Personal Computer, it just happens to cost a lot for no readily discernable reason and looks "sleeker" with a little half-eaten apple logo on it somewherere. (This isn't a rant at Inquisitive Lurker for the thread title, but exactly what it looks like - a rant about Apple sodding computers and their bloody stupid adverts.)

I have two computers, the ancient piece of shit I'm currently using which hasn't been upgraded since 2004 or thereabouts, it's running XP professional edition and is an aggravating bastard. The other is a laptop that used to be my sister's and I'm using Linux on that (PCLinuxOS, I intend to change over to Chakra when I can be arsed, though).

16th May 2011, 15:03

Both my pc's are windows, i used, to this one(my laptop who ended be "desktop"), ubuntu for a month or so and liked it but it was screwing my pc up with turning off completely while i was on it, so i was "forced" again back to windows.

Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk

16th May 2011, 15:09

I use Mac. Used to like using Ubuntu but my old laptop died. Windows does the job, but I don't think it is as user friendly as Mac and Linux. Plus, most Linux is free which gives it an immediate advantage over the other two. However, Mac wins in style and in terms of software too I'd say.

Quail

16th May 2011, 15:11

I'm using Ubuntu at the moment. I don't really play video games that often on a computer, and I find Ubuntu is nicer than Windows Vista, which I was running previously. Vista was really irritating and shit though.

graymouser

16th May 2011, 15:14

Fuck Apple forever. Not because I have any particular problem with their horrifically expensive Personal Computers but becaquse of that fucking ad campaign that somehow convinced people that "PC" is synonymous with 'computer using Windows." A Mac is a fucking PC, that is it is Personal Computer, it just happens to cost a lot for no readily discernable reason and looks "sleeker" with a little half-eaten apple logo on it somewherere. (This isn't a rant at Inquisitive Lurker for the thread title, but exactly what it looks like - a rant about Apple sodding computers and their bloody stupid adverts.)
Meh. Apple sells high-end machines with a better OS on them. I'd rather have Apple's implementation of BSD over Microsoft's accumulation of nonsense over the years. If more stuff worked on Linux I'd prefer to run that, but it doesn't so I go with a Mac.

Â¿Que?

16th May 2011, 15:59

I'm not a big fan of Bonjour, which comes on every Mac, mostly because you go to a public wi-fi and like every Mac in the spot with file sharing on appears on your sidebar. That means that if you have file sharing on, or any service that Bonjour picks up on, it'll show up on other people's laptop too. Bonjour seems to be a security risk, and so I don't like Macs, and would probably switch to windows or Linux on my Mac hardware if it weren't for the fact that I've amassed a good amount of work on this computer. The thought of backing everything up and starting anew really doesn't sound fun to me and fills me with anxiety.

Don't like windows because they probably have similar creepy zero-config software that is probably a security risk, although I personally haven't had as much experience with windows 7.

So I voted all three but Linux all the way!

EDIT: Here's some info on Bonjour and how to disable it for those concerned:
http://hints.macworld.com/article.php?story=20050707222434355

http://tech.karbassi.com/2007/11/06/leopard-turn-off-bonjour-mdnsresponder/

praxis1966

16th May 2011, 17:20

Meh. Apple sells low-end machines with a high end price tag.

Fixed.

Inquisitive Lurker

16th May 2011, 18:00

Back when Vista came out, Macs outperformed PCs. Not that you'd want to run Vista in the first place.

Landsharks eat metal

16th May 2011, 18:33

Windows XP, but I hate it. I'm going to put Linux on my laptop for college when I get it. Right now, I have to use my home computer, and my parents don't want Linux. (Actually, at this very moment, I'm using a Mac at school, which I hate even more.)

Spawn of Stalin

16th May 2011, 18:41

Kubuntu home computer for browsing the web, Windows 7 netbook for browsing the web in Starbucks, iMac for audio recording and mixing.

Fuck brand loyalty, they're all excellent.

praxis1966

16th May 2011, 18:53

Back when Vista came out, Macs outperformed PCs. Not that you'd want to run Vista in the first place.

Untrue. As Jazzrat already pointed out, Macs are PCs so that's a false dichotomy. Furthermore, it's pretty well known by now (as it was then by people who actually knew how to operate a computer) that Vista comes with a lot of extraneous processes installed and running which when shut down greatly improved performance. Therefore, there wasn't some inherent superiority of performance that Macs had over Vista boxes.

In addition, all the benchmarking I've ever seen of like for like tasks between Apple, Intel and AMD hardware indicates that Intel and AMD are actually faster pieces of hardware and retail for equal or less... and that's with some variant or another of Windows installed. This difference becomes even greater when you start talking about some flavor of Linux.

We haven't even even gotten into why Macs are pieces of shit when it comes to enterprise (read: large scale LAN, not enterprise=commerce necessarily) applications or why even Novell pwns Mac servers, lol...

Tablo

16th May 2011, 20:10

I am currently running windows xp on both my pcs. I had vista on my laptop, upgraded to 7, then downgraded for some reason. Now I'm about to upgrade my desktop to windows 7 so I can get that dx10/dx11 fanciness in my games. I had yellowdog on my ps3 and have messed with it other distros before on my pc, but I play games enough I can't justify dualbooting to jump between the two.

btw, fuck macs and their psycho fans. xP

16th May 2011, 22:14

Ubuntu fan since 2009. Before that ran Gentoo since 2004. Before that ran Redhat/Fedora starting in 2003. Eight years of sole GNU/Linux and I haven't looked back.

Spawn of Stalin

16th May 2011, 22:23

btw, fuck macs and their psycho fans. xP
See, I think a lot of Mac users give the rest of us a bad name. I understand that it's for some reason cool to be seen with your Mac in a popular hipster location. Why? I have no idea, IT'S A COMPUTER! Since when were computers fashionable?

I use a Mac because there are no Windows drivers for my Apogee audio interface whatsoever, and no decent drivers for my Pro Tools interface. I wouldn't call myself a fan of Apple by any stretch of the imagination.

praxis1966

16th May 2011, 22:36

See, I think a lot of Mac users give the rest of us a bad name. I understand that it's for some reason cool to be seen with your Mac in a popular hipster location. Why?

Because Justin Long is oh so cool and nerd chic with his shaggy hair and skinny jeans so anything he says about computers must be true.

In other words, hipsters are conformist tool bags.

Ele'ill

17th May 2011, 00:53

Windows 98 on a laptop, windows 7 on the main rig and Linux (Ubuntu) on two scrap machines.

altnet

17th May 2011, 01:30

I am forced to use windows as my main os due to compatibility reasons for school as well as pc gaming :( I would absolutely love to be able to use Linux full time although looks as if I will just have to settle for a dual boot setup.

MagÃ³n

17th May 2011, 03:11

I've mostly used Windows, but last summer I won a MacBook Pro in some sort of little lottery deal. Didn't expect to win, but I did. So I use them both, one for school work and stuff, the other for just messing around.

agnixie

17th May 2011, 07:50

Mac, sadly. I wish Linux covered all my uses but I tend to be disappointed even by the photography software and it's a sine qua non thing I need covered (though games would be a nice plus) :/

x371322

17th May 2011, 08:12

praxis1966

17th May 2011, 17:01

I mostly use Macs, but have an Ubuntu machine as well. I agree that apple fanboys are annoying and hipster douchebags, that I hope all suffer awful, awful lives... but obsessive apple haters are just as bad. It's a fucking computer. A machine. Get over it.

I suppose I agree with this. There are areas that Macs excel where WinX boxes don't and vice versa. I guess what I have trouble with is when people start talking shit about one>the other because most of the time they don't know what they're talking about... and most of the time they own Macs, lol.

Spawn of Stalin

17th May 2011, 19:45

Most people who say Macs are better than Windows PCs only use their Macs for browsing the web and downloading obscure indie music on torrents, in other words they would be better off saving their money and using Windows or Linux instead.

The Man

18th May 2011, 04:58

I use a Mac for RevLeft, but Jazzratt, man, I love your rants.

MagÃ³n

19th May 2011, 03:09

I don't get the whole Mac v. PC fights people seem to get into. Does it really matter? What works for a person, works for them. End of story.

19th May 2011, 06:27

As an aside, the whole "Windows = PC" thing is slightly annoying. As if Linux and OSX machines weren't PC's.

Inquisitive Lurker

19th May 2011, 13:05

As an aside, the whole "Windows = PC" thing is slightly annoying. As if Linux and OSX machines weren't PC's.

Well you can't use the old term of "IBM Clone" because IBM doesn't make computers anymore.

kitsune

19th May 2011, 14:05

Well you can't use the old term of "IBM Clone" because IBM doesn't make computers anymore.

If you're talking about the hardware, it's a PC. If you're talking about the operating system, it's Windows, or Mac, or Linux, or BSD, or Solaris, or whatever.

Comrade J

19th May 2011, 14:10

Saw an interesting documentary on the BBC the other day that UK people can watch on the iPlayer, about how technology brands like Apple for example, manage to convince everyone their shit is worth buying and devoting themselves too. It also shows an Apple store opening, people from around the world turn up and queue for 24 hours+ :ohmy: The shops look like churches, and there is a very cult-like following around the brand, as their marketing campaign involves secrecy (as opposed to Microsoft's extreme "LOOK AT THIS!" style marketing). Also they MRI scanned the brain of an Apple obsessive whilst showing him pics of Apple and non-Apple brands, and the parts of the brain that are activated when he sees an Apple product are the same as when they show pictures of Jesus and stuff to Christian fundamentalists. The documentary also looks at Google, Facebook, Nokia, Microsoft and maybe others but I forget.

Link (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b011cr8h/Secrets_of_the_Superbrands_Technology/) if you live in the UK and wanna watch it.

Spawn of Stalin

19th May 2011, 16:27

Yeah I think I saw a bit of that, might watch the whole thing. It's so true though, I know people who would buy just about anything with the Apple logo on it. It's pretty stupid because it seems like a lot of their stuff isn't even very good, I mean I use their computers because I don't have much of a choice, and they are really great for what I use them for. But I bought an iPod once and it died right after the warranty expired, bought another one which didn't work right out of the box! So I swapped it out for a Sony mp3 player which has been serving me well for about 5 years now, it's awesome and I like it much better than the iPod. Anyone have any idea why Apple is so popular with young kids these days?

Comrade J

19th May 2011, 16:46

Anyone have any idea why Apple is so popular with young kids these days?

Watching that documentary will give you some perspective on why many young people are so devoted to Apple. It comes down to their excellent marketing strategy, which involves a lot of secrecy, so people are debating/theorising on what the next Apple product will have on online social networks like Twitter and Facebook, and every time a new detail is released, the hype builds.

Personally I couldn't give a shit about them, I have never bought anything made by Apple, and I probably never will. I'd rather use open-platform rootable software like Android over a shitty iPhone, and as for mp3 player, laptop etc. there are plenty of excellent models that are cheaper because they don't have the ludicrous amount of hype attached to them, yet they work just as well or better. I've never been one for status symbols, and if I ever had an iPad or a Mac, I'd feel like a self-conscious prick if I used it in public.

Landsharks eat metal

19th May 2011, 17:39

I have already said that I hate Macs, but I actually have an iPod, which I find to be a quality product. A lot of MP3 players that are not iPods (but not all) are cheap pieces of crap that aren't worth buying even with their low prices. I find it a bit ridiculous to be against iPods just because they are popular. That's just as bad as automatically liking popular things. Either way, you're letting someone else determine how you feel.

(This isn't really pointed towards anyone... I just felt the need to say this.)

praxis1966

19th May 2011, 18:15

I think it's pretty obvious by now where I stand on the issue, and it's coming from the perspective of a tech support professional... At any rate, I was just wondering if Spawn of Stalin had used Sony's ACID at all. If so, how would you rate it compared to Pro Tools? I've never done any digital recording; everything I've ever done was all old skool with a 4-track and shit.

Watching that documentary will give you some perspective on why many young people are so devoted to Apple. It comes down to their excellent marketing strategy, which involves a lot of secrecy, so people are debating/theorising on what the next Apple product will have on online social networks like Twitter and Facebook, and every time a new detail is released, the hype builds.

Personally I couldn't give a shit about them, I have never bought anything made by Apple, and I probably never will. I'd rather use open-platform rootable software like Android over a shitty iPhone, and as for mp3 player, laptop etc. there are plenty of excellent models that are cheaper because they don't have the ludicrous amount of hype attached to them, yet they work just as well or better. I've never been one for status symbols, and if I ever had an iPad or a Mac, I'd feel like a self-conscious prick if I used it in public.

If I could rep this I totally would. Apple and Microsoft both are nothing but marketing hot air. It just so happens that Apple has managed to tap into the youth market a lot better than MS.

I have already said that I hate Macs, but I actually have an iPod, which I find to be a quality product. A lot of MP3 players that are not iPods (but not all) are cheap pieces of crap that aren't worth buying even with their low prices.

I know you weren't coming after me with this, but I gotta say I'd take the Pepsi Challenge with my Phillips GoGear and your iPod any day of the damned week...

Spawn of Stalin

19th May 2011, 20:33

I think it's pretty obvious by now where I stand on the issue, and it's coming from the perspective of a tech support professional... At any rate, I was just wondering if Spawn of Stalin had used Sony's ACID at all. If so, how would you rate it compared to Pro Tools? I've never done any digital recording; everything I've ever done was all old skool with a 4-track and shit.
Yeah I learned on ACID back when it made by Sonic Foundry, they folded around 2004 and Sony bought everything. ACID was really cool because it could timestretch and loop audio in just a few clicks and it would sound perfect, before ACID came along you had to use really expensive digital samplers to do that and it would take forever too. These days all the major programs can do timestretching and a lot more so it's not really the magic program it once was anymore. But still, coming from 4 track you're going to have more than enough options to keep you busy with ACID, or pretty much any other DAW.

How does it compare to Pro Tools? Well, software isn't the same as tape machines, different tape machines use different components and therefore sound different to one another. But these days almost everything is standardised and all DAW software sounds the same, so if you record the same drum hit into Pro Tools and ACID, they will both sound exactly the same. Pro Tools is the industry standard, and with good reason, it does everything.

As for what's best for you, depends on what you're doing. If you want to use the computer to make sounds with softsynths and drum machines I'd say Pro Tools and a bunch of plugins would be your best option. If you just want to replace your 4 track to record and mix audio coming from guitars and microphones I think you'll be happy with just about anything.

I'm pretty new to Pro Tools myself to be honest, although I've been trying to use it for a few years I've only just managed to figure everything out. If you're just starting out with software I'd recommend Reaper, it's a free download and a commercial license costs about $50 which I think is pretty reasonable, I know people who use it and they like it just fine.

praxis1966

19th May 2011, 21:04

Yeah, I don't need synth anything. Anything I'm gonna record is likely going to be all live drums, bass, guitar and vocals. Mainly I'd need a DAW primarily because it makes cleaning things up and editing a lot easier, not to mention it's cheaper than tape in the long run anyway. Thanks, homie!

Spawn of Stalin

19th May 2011, 23:10

Yeah in that case I would just go for the cheapest/free option available and worry more about mic placement and stuff. Check out http://tweakheadz.com/guide.htm if you need help with anything, it has the answer to everything...it's like the marxists.org of music production!

black magick hustla

20th May 2011, 08:21

Mac, sadly. I wish Linux covered all my uses but I tend to be disappointed even by the photography software and it's a sine qua non thing I need covered (though games would be a nice plus) :/

linux is really only useful for the hard sciences, some server shit, and nerds who love to fuck around with kernels. its not good for normal human beings, doesnt matter what the latest linux guy, which is prolly a tech nerd like me says. i used a lot linux for high energy physics whcih was a lot of coding in cplusplus and for modeling with fortran

Tablo

20th May 2011, 08:35

Linux is good for roguelikes.

ckaihatsu

22nd May 2011, 22:35

It's too bad there's not a category for Java -- it's practically an OS in its own right (that runs on top of Mac, PC, or a Linux OS). Many of the best apps I use are Java.

Here's a good article I happened to come across while browsing the web. Also check out the comments.

10 Greatest Open Source Software Of 2009

by Vivek Gite on December 24, 2009 · 108 comments

These are full-featured cross-platform softwares, free as in beer and speech. Vivek Gite picks his best open source software of 2009.

http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/10-greatest-open-source-software-of-2009.html

Tjis

22nd May 2011, 22:49

I mainly use GNU/linux (Gentoo), but I have a windows XP installation I use for games. I used to be a linux evangelist until I realized that what other people run on their computers does not change my life whatsoever.

ckaihatsu

22nd May 2011, 23:03

[W]hat other people run on their computers does not change my life whatsoever.

I'll have to politely argue this point....

While, as working-class-oriented political people, we don't focus our efforts on *consumer*-sided issues, there is something to be said for at least tacitly / explicitly supporting consumer and economic efforts that are generally anti-corporate.

So, people's choice of OS *is* something of a political / societal issue, with implications for *all* computer users -- would we rather extend our political (and purchasing) support to corporate-based commercial software development, or would we rather see functional and usable parallels from voluntarily collectivized (open-source) labor efforts -- ?

Just as with anything else political each one of us is only one person but in movements we, in the aggregate, can create 'sea changes' in the overall society -- the realm of software development is no exception here.

Tjis

22nd May 2011, 23:24

I'll have to politely argue this point....

While, as working-class-oriented political people, we don't focus our efforts on *consumer*-sided issues, there is something to be said for at least tacitly / explicitly supporting consumer and economic efforts that are generally anti-corporate.

So, people's choice of OS *is* something of a political / societal issue, with implications for *all* computer users -- would we rather extend our political (and purchasing) support to corporate-based commercial software development, or would we rather see functional and usable parallels from voluntarily collectivized (open-source) labor efforts -- ?

Just as with anything else political each one of us is only one person but in movements we, in the aggregate, can create 'sea changes' in the overall society -- the realm of software development is no exception here.

Having more people use free software does not necessarily mean that more people will develop free software though. Programmers, designers and documentation writers got to eat and live somewhere too, and there simply aren't many employment options in free software. The ones that do exist are mainly scientific or server related, because there's actual money to be made in those areas from something besides selling software. This is not the case with consumer software. Few people would employ a team of programmers for years to create something that does not pay itself back. So in some areas, free software will always lag behind because hobbyists, no matter how skilled, simply can't create a piece of software in their spare time in the same amount of time and with the same kind of quality as a paid team that works on it full-time.

Of course free software efforts should be supported but simply getting more users does nothing for quality and usability.

Edit: For example, I just looked up what the average video game development budget is. According to Wikipedia, developing a game will cost you somewhere between 18 and 28 million on average. This is needed to pay a team of 20 to 100 people full time for several months, often even years. Why would anyone be willing to spend that kind of money on a game, only to then release it as free software, allowing anyone to modify and redistribute without having to pay a dime?
Of course video games are an extreme example, considering it is much like the movie industry, but the same principle applies to image/audio/video editing software. Sure, there are some technically very advanced free software products available, but there is nothing that even comes close to the combination of power and usability of adobe's products. This is simply because adobe has the money to pay for quality, and they have that money because they sell proprietary software.

Edit 2: The only real long-term solution is a communist revolution, where (among other things) programmers take back what they programmed over all these years and release it for all to use, modify and redistribute as they wish. Free software right now is great, but it is much like an utopian socialist commune today. A great option for some, but by no means an option for everyone.

ckaihatsu

23rd May 2011, 00:04

I'll have to respectfully disagree here on your point about functional usability for the end user.

For many, many tasks a piece of software has only to be developed adequately *once* -- once it's finished, perhaps after many iterations of testing and revision -- it is entirely functional and consistently performs according to user expectations. (This is one feature particular to the realm of software -- because of its nature of being massively miniaturized and digitally based it is able to perform flawlessly, given the correct implementation, unlike much of the conventional world of physical machinery that may require more attention and maintenance, due to human-labor-driven processes and more wear-and-tear over time.) (An example here could be the TCP protocol for Internet traffic, the POP/IMAP protocol for email, various text editors for text editing, etc. -- the more complex the usability the more time it may take to "perfect" the particular software implementation for it.)

I do appreciate your point about the lack of an adequate (paying) labor market for the development of free software, but at the same time there's also the dynamic of *diminishing returns* at work, wherein more (paid) labor efforts does *not* automatically translate into an increase in quality for a given piece of software.

Of course I agree that *zero* products of labor should be controlled in a proprietary manner by corporations.

Also, f.y.i:

Canonical Ltd.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Canonical Ltd)
Canonical Group Limited[1]

Type Private company limited by shares[2]
Genre Software Development
Founded 5 March 2004
Founder(s) Mark Shuttleworth
Headquarters Europe (Registered: Douglas, Isle of Man. Operational HQ: Millbank Tower, London, United Kingdom)
Area served Worldwide
Key people Mark Shuttleworth
Jane Silber
Products Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Edubuntu, Launchpad, Bazaar, Landscape, Ubuntu One, Upstart
Revenue $30 million (2009)[3]
Employees 350+[4][5]
Subsidiaries Canonical UK Limited
Website www.canonical.com
References: Formerly "M R S Virtual Development Ltd"[6]

Canonical Ltd.[7] is a private company founded (and funded) by South African entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth to market commercial support and related services for Ubuntu Linux and related projects. Canonical is registered in the Isle of Man and employs staff around the world. Its main offices are in London, its support office in Montreal, and its OEM team in Lexington, Massachusetts, USA and Taipei, Taiwan.[8]

Business plans

In a Guardian interview in May 2008, Mark Shuttleworth said that the Canonical business model was service provision and explained that Canonical was not yet close to profitability. Canonical also claimed it will wait for the business to turn into a profitable one within another 3 to 5 years. He regarded Canonical as positioning itself as demand for services related to Free Software rose.[19] This strategy has been compared to Red Hat's business strategies in the 1990s.[20]. However, in an early 2009 New York Times article, Shuttleworth said that Canonical's revenue was "creeping" towards $30 million, the company's break-even point.[21]

In 2007, Canonical launched an International online shop selling support services and Ubuntu branded goods; later in 2008 expanding it with a United States-specific shop designed to reduce shipment times.[22] At the same time, the word Ubuntu was trademarked in connection with clothing and accessories.[23]

Contributor agreement

Contributing source code to projects funded by Canonical requires signing of Canonical's contributor agreement, which assigns copyright to Canonical, and allows the re-release of software under another license.[24]

Employees

Ubuntu Developer Summit October 2010 Orlando, Florida - a mixture of Canonical employees and Ubuntu community members

Canonical has over 350 employees[4] with main offices on the 27th floor of Millbank Tower near Westminster, London.[25] In the summer of 2006, Canonical opened an office in Montreal to house its global support and services operation.[20] Taipei 101 is also home to a Canonical office.[26] There is also an OEM team in Lexington, Massachusetts.[4]

Tjis

23rd May 2011, 00:18

I know about canonical. I didn't say it never happens. I said it is unlikely. And unless they go profitable they won't be able to go on forever. As the article you quote says, they are not there yet. The reason they can function at all right now is because there is 1 guy (Mark Shuttleworth) who decided to throw a lot of money at it out of idealism. Much like the utopian socialists of the old days who bought a piece of land with their own money to create their little utopia.

About those protocols you mention, those are not consumer software. There are very good reasons for businesses to make sure that they are good that have nothing to do with selling software. If the TCP/IP stack in linux was extremely buggy, no ISP would be able to use it for their services. If POP/IMAP had crappy implementations, e-mail providers would go out of business. The same goes for things like web servers. It is especially in this area in which free software performs well, far better than the competition even. But in areas where the competition makes their money not by delivering a service but by selling software it simply doesn't work like that.

I've yet to encounter a text editor that is as user friendly as Microsoft Office. Though personally I prefer emacs for my text editing needs it is not exactly something I'd recommend to most of my family. I recommend Openoffice to people that simply want a free alternative to Microsoft Office, but honestly Microsoft Office is better.

Also, you are right in saying that simply throwing more people at a project for a longer time does not at all mean that software will be better. In fact bringing in more people has this awful tendency to either make the software more crappy or even delay its release day, since making software generally can't be split up in small parts and scaled like building a car can.
However, all things being equal, a team working full-time to create a software product will do better and faster work than the same team working in their spare time after coming home from their real job.

Inquisitive Lurker

23rd May 2011, 01:28

This is not the case with consumer software. Few people would employ a team of programmers for years to create something that does not pay itself back.

Oh yeah, then explain Open Office. Full-blown, full-featured office suite for free.

ckaihatsu

23rd May 2011, 01:31

Many, if not all, of the fundamental, lower-level processes working "under the hood" of a typical Linux (free, open-source) OS did *not* come from private-sector development, as you're indicating here.

GNU (i /ˈɡnuː/)[1] is a Unix-like computer operating system developed by the GNU project, ultimately aiming to be a "complete Unix-compatible software system"[2] composed wholly of free software. Development of GNU was initiated by Richard Stallman in 1983 and was the original focus of the Free Software Foundation (FSF), but no stable release of GNU yet exists as of September 2010.[3][4][5] The latest alpha release of the GNU system is GNU 0.401, released in 2011, featuring GNU Hurd as the system's kernel. Other (non-GNU) kernels, most famously the Linux kernel, can also be used with GNU. The FSF maintains that Linux, when used with GNU tools and utilities, should be considered a variant of GNU, and promotes the term GNU/Linux for such systems, (leading to the GNU/Linux naming controversy).

GNU is a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix!", chosen because GNU's design is Unix-like, but differs from Unix by being free software and containing no Unix code.[6] Programs released under the auspices of the GNU Project are called GNU packages or GNU programs. The system's basic components include the GNU Compiler Collection (GCC), the GNU Binary Utilities (binutils), the bash shell, the GNU C library (glibc), and GNU Core Utilities (coreutils). GNU developers have contributed Linux ports of GNU applications and utilities, which are now also widely used on other operating systems such as BSD variants, Solaris and Mac OS X.

The GNU General Public License (GPL), the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL), and the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) were written for GNU, but are also used by many unrelated projects. A minority of the software used by GNU, such as the X Window System, is licensed under permissive free software licenses.

Richard Stallman views GNU as a "technical means to a social end".[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU

Also, text editors are not synonymous with word processors like Microsoft Office, OpenOffice, or LibreOffice. Text editors are far simpler while word processors are closer to desktop publishing pieces of software in functionality.

I don't mean to nit-pick here, but I think you're still leaving out the factor of "project completion", if you will. Yes, like anything else creative and innovative, software development *is* open-ended in the largest sense of the term, providing ongoing software solutions for humanity, whether from proprietary or open-source sources. But *many* basic, lower-level types of functionality have *already* been *completed*, like the development of the paper clip, for comparison, and will *not* require further innovation or creativity.

Tjis

23rd May 2011, 01:49

Oh yeah, then explain Open Office. Full-blown, full-featured office suite for free.

Openoffice.org is not an original work. It is a fork from the earlier staroffice, a proprietary product by Sun. For any contribution to be added in openoffice, the developer had to sign away their rights to Sun. This was then incorporated in the proprietary staroffice (which also included some features that were not present in openoffice), so it was essentially free labor for Sun.

Tjis

23rd May 2011, 01:56

Many, if not all, of the fundamental, lower-level processes working "under the hood" of a typical Linux (free, open-source) OS did *not* come from private-sector development, as you're indicating here.

Initially this was indeed the case. GNU started out as an idealist project by a group of disillusioned programmers, and linux started out as a hobby project. But that is decades ago. Most of the main contributors to the main GNU projects and the linux kernel are currently in full-time employment by businesses that have an interest in the well-being of the system, or employed by consortiums such as the linux foundation which receive funding by those businesses.

Also, text editors are not synonymous with word processors like Microsoft Office, OpenOffice, or LibreOffice. Text editors are far simpler while word processors are closer to desktop publishing pieces of software in functionality.

You are absolutely right.
Edit: actually, to call a text editor simpler than a word processor is not correct at all. Emacs is an incredibly advanced piece of software for example. They just perform different functions.

I don't mean to nit-pick here, but I think you're still leaving out the factor of "project completion", if you will. Yes, like anything else creative and innovative, software development *is* open-ended in the largest sense of the term, providing ongoing software solutions for humanity, whether from proprietary or open-source sources. But *many* basic, lower-level types of functionality have *already* been *completed*, like the development of the paper clip, for comparison, and will *not* require further innovation or creativity.
I am not. I am simply limiting myself to those pieces of software that are open-ended, because it is exactly in this area that free software underperforms compared to the competition. In all other areas it is doing great.

ckaihatsu

23rd May 2011, 02:17

Tjis

23rd May 2011, 02:54

Okay, just to be clear, let me put it *this* way: There are certain kinds of basic functionality *for a human*, in the anthropological / social sense of the word, that have already been achieved.

Do people have eyes with which to view images on a screen, and perhaps motion videos? Electronics (microchips and software) are now capable of photographing images, capturing video, storing them, displaying them, and transmitting them over the net.

Do people have ears with which to hear sounds? Electronics can now capture and/or create digital audio recordings, blah, blah blah.

You get the point -- we, as organisms, have *finite* sensory abilities, and there are *finite* forms of media that can (now) be captured to perfection, by technical standards and in line with the standards of human sensory organs and biological perception / use faculties.

Certainly there can continue to be ongoing innovative accomplishments, like 3D TV, but these will be *refinements* of the basic communication capabilities, in the fundamental forms of digital media, that the human being uses. In software terms this means that it's quite *debatable* whether or not there continues to be any kind of justifiable *leftist* *political* interest in such enhanced developments.

In short, this is the limitation of *consumer*-sided politics. Yes, there are fundamental contemporary requirements for decent human living in our current technological world -- these requirements, then, *are* valid humane mass political issues. But the finer points of which-or-what kinds of entertainment should be "considered" a "human right" are actually *consumeristic*, and will not lend themselves to inclusion in a (revolutionary) political program.
Are you saying that all software can be perfected to a satisfactory level because at some point the precision of their output will be more than we can sense? I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with that.
Software is not about creating sensory output, it is about automating various tasks, especially those that are repetive, tedious and/or too big for humans to achieve. The tasks that need to be done in society are by no means static. They change all the time. Because of this the demands on software change all the time as well.

But who decides what task will be solved by software? On one hand it's the programmers who create the software, especially in the free software world, where especially in the first stages of development, programmers have quite a lot of autonomy. Their motives vary, but in the free software world software developers usually develop to create something that is of use to them or others.
On the other hand it's capitalists who fund software development. Their motives are the same as usual: profit. But profit is a lot harder to generate in the free software world, because the licenses ensure that anyone can freely use, modify and redistribute the software without permission of the copyright holder (more accurately that permission is given by the license).

Because we live in a capitalist world, those who aren't part of the bourgeoisie usually have to sell their labor-power in order to get by. This leaves us with two categories of free software developers: those that develop in their free time, and those that develop for a wage. The first category is free to develop as they please but has little time to do so, and the second category works according to the specifications of their employer and have a lot of time to do so.

Big free software projects are not big because of their potential usefulness. Desire and need do not create software, much like hunger and poverty do not create food and money. Instead, big free software projects are big because they are partially developed by full-time developers, paid by capitalists who at some point expect to see a profit out of it.

Because of this, the only projects that become big are those favored by capital. Examples are the linux kernel (funded by 'internet industry', like ISPs, hosting providers, router manufacturers, etc), the mozilla suite (funded by mozilla corporation, who receives most of their money from google in exchange for making google the main search engine), openoffice (funded by Sun first, then Oracle, in order to get free development for StarOffice at first, and to promote the java platform), KDE (full-time developers from various companies, including Nokia who is interested in cellphone applications).. I could go on.

On the other hand, projects that are not at all interesting for profit generation do not receive such support from capital, and are dependent on hobbyists who have to do the work next to their main job. Because of that they're generally not as good as proprietary alternatives (where the profit comes from software sales).

This is not consumerist politics, this is class struggle.

ckaihatsu

23rd May 2011, 04:38

Are you saying that all software can be perfected to a satisfactory level because at some point the precision of their output will be more than we can sense? I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with that.

No, I'm saying that the hardware and software tools for satisfying the fundamental types of human-sensory-focused communication needs, through digital media, have now been achieved and that such tools are now democratically available, technologically mature and user-enabling, and even fairly low-cost for most people.

Software is not about creating sensory output, it is about automating various tasks, especially those that are repetive, tedious and/or too big for humans to achieve. The tasks that need to be done in society are by no means static. They change all the time. Because of this the demands on software change all the time as well.

You may want to give some examples here, and to distinguish *humane* human social need vs. market-driven market-making.

Because we live in a capitalist world, those who aren't part of the bourgeoisie usually have to sell their labor-power in order to get by.

Yes, of course I appreciate *this* point, and it is the basis of a proletarian-minded revolutionary politics, no matter what the field.

Big free software projects are not big because of their potential usefulness. Desire and need do not create software, much like hunger and poverty do not create food and money. Instead, big free software projects are big because they are partially developed by full-time developers, paid by capitalists who at some point expect to see a profit out of it.

Sure -- from a *usability* perspective, though, there's not much that can be said for any "politics" that argues for *any* software development for its own sake, whether from the private sector or otherwise. This is because the basic technological tools for humane social interactions (using digital means) have already been developed and are now readily available.

Tjis

23rd May 2011, 15:38

No, I'm saying that the hardware and software tools for satisfying the fundamental types of human-sensory-focused communication needs, through digital media, have now been achieved and that such tools are now democratically available, technologically mature and user-enabling, and even fairly low-cost for most people.
What does 'democratically available' mean? Do we vote for who gets to use them?

You may want to give some examples here, and to distinguish *humane* human social need vs. market-driven market-making.

The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of software projects that they consider a requirement for a free software environment which still require a lot of attention. You can look at it here: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/. On the list are such things as alternatives for Matlab, Skype and video editing software. These are not market-driven demands. People have a real need for mathematical computation, video/audio chatting and video editing and right now free software does not provide a good alternative to proprietary software.

To that list I'd like to add one more issue, which is screen reader software. This is software which gives a speech representation of what is on the screen, so that blind or near-blind people can use it as well.
On windows there is JAWS. The cheapest version of JAWS will cost you $895. Though there are some alternatives, in practice only JAWS is usable enough.
On linux there is a large amount of screen reader software, but simply nothing that is as good as JAWS. If you're blind, or seriously visually impaired, it is better to be on windows.
Who would develop good screen reader software for linux? Since there are quite a few such projects (LSR and Orca being the biggest currently) there is certainly not a lack of developers interested in creating it. What is lacking is time and money. No developer is able to work full-time on such a project without an income. But no capitalist is interested in providing this income, because there is no way to get a profit out of it.

Sure -- from a *usability* perspective, though, there's not much that can be said for any "politics" that argues for *any* software development for its own sake, whether from the private sector or otherwise. This is because the basic technological tools for humane social interactions (using digital means) have already been developed and are now readily available.
Where have I argued for software development for its own sake?
And are you honestly arguing that we're 'done'? That no new software is necessary because everything we need is here already? Have a look at that list by the FSF.

ckaihatsu

23rd May 2011, 16:24

No, I'm saying that the hardware and software tools for satisfying the fundamental types of human-sensory-focused communication needs, through digital media, have now been achieved and that such tools are now democratically available, technologically mature and user-enabling, and even fairly low-cost for most people.

What does 'democratically available' mean? Do we vote for who gets to use them?

I mean that user-friendly hardware and software for common everyday uses is now either very affordable or outright free, and does not require approval from any elitist group.

The Free Software Foundation maintains a list of software projects that they consider a requirement for a free software environment which still require a lot of attention. You can look at it here: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/. On the list are such things as alternatives for Matlab, Skype and video editing software. These are not market-driven demands. People have a real need for mathematical computation, video/audio chatting and video editing and right now free software does not provide a good alternative to proprietary software.

And are you honestly arguing that we're 'done'? That no new software is necessary because everything we need is here already? Have a look at that list by the FSF.

You're arguing the finer points here, in terms of satisfying usage needs for the overwhelming bulk of the population. These are *hardly* pressing humanitarian needs, in other words.

To that list I'd like to add one more issue, which is screen reader software. This is software which gives a speech representation of what is on the screen, so that blind or near-blind people can use it as well.
On windows there is JAWS. The cheapest version of JAWS will cost you $895. Though there are some alternatives, in practice only JAWS is usable enough.
On linux there is a large amount of screen reader software, but simply nothing that is as good as JAWS. If you're blind, or seriously visually impaired, it is better to be on windows.
Who would develop good screen reader software for linux? Since there are quite a few such projects (LSR and Orca being the biggest currently) there is certainly not a lack of developers interested in creating it. What is lacking is time and money. No developer is able to work full-time on such a project without an income. But no capitalist is interested in providing this income, because there is no way to get a profit out of it.

Hey, again, I agree with you on any principled points about worker empowerment, as for enabling programmers to tend to important, human-needs software projects.

Where have I argued for software development for its own sake?

Well, what is further software development *for*, then? Obviously common everyday needs are now provided for, while there's no mass popular decision-making process in place for directly democratically determining on a mass basis what the next project should be.

Further developments -- and industrial production, too, for that matter -- remain at the whim of the capital elite and their "market-making" behavior. You've acknowledged as much, as well.

Where is the politics here? I don't see any.

Tjis

23rd May 2011, 16:45

I mean that user-friendly hardware and software for common everyday uses is now either very affordable or outright free, and does not require approval from any elitist group.

You're arguing the finer points here, in terms of satisfying usage needs for the overwhelming bulk of the population. These are *hardly* pressing humanitarian needs, in other words.

True. I use GNU/linux daily and I rarely encounter a situation in which I must pay a lot of money in order to do what I want. I suppose the vast majority of people could get by just fine using free software.
Developing the remaining pieces of software certainly won't feed the starving or something like that. I never claimed this. Nor did I claim that we need this software more than we need food, clothes, shelter end medicine. What I did claim was that some software products will always remain behind their proprietary counterpart because of capitalism, and that the only real solution to this is a communist revolution. What I try to do here is link what is happening in the free software world to the wider class struggle.

Well, what is further software development *for*, then? Obviously common everyday needs are now provided for, while there's no mass popular decision-making process in place for directly democratically determining on a mass basis what the next project should be.

Further developments -- and industrial production, too, for that matter -- remain at the whim of the capital elite and their "market-making" behavior. You've acknowledged as much, as well.

Where is the politics here? I don't see any.
Heh, you just mentioned the politics involved yourself. Software development, including free software development is driven by the market, the will of the capitalists, their desire for profit. It is not driven by the needs of those that create and use the software.
How can you not see the politics?

ckaihatsu

23rd May 2011, 21:57

True. I use GNU/linux daily and I rarely encounter a situation in which I must pay a lot of money in order to do what I want. I suppose the vast majority of people could get by just fine using free software.
Developing the remaining pieces of software certainly won't feed the starving or something like that. I never claimed this. Nor did I claim that we need this software more than we need food, clothes, shelter end medicine. What I did claim was that some software products will always remain behind their proprietary counterpart because of capitalism, and that the only real solution to this is a communist revolution. What I try to do here is link what is happening in the free software world to the wider class struggle.

Yup, well-put, and I'm in agreement, of course.

Heh, you just mentioned the politics involved yourself. Software development, including free software development is driven by the market, the will of the capitalists, their desire for profit. It is not driven by the needs of those that create and use the software.
How can you not see the politics?

Yes, but this is the class politics of productive activity *in general* -- there's nothing of a worthwhile politics within the area of software development itself, just as there isn't any around telegraph technology (etc.), either....

Agent Ducky

23rd May 2011, 22:47

I personally have a Windows computer.
Linux sounds cool though.
And Apple pisses me off becaue they make their computers, software, files, devices, etc. purposely incompatible with other stuff. It's a blatant attempt at corporate monopoly and gets really annoying at times.

Inquisitive Lurker

23rd May 2011, 23:02

And Apple pisses me off becaue they make their computers, software, files, devices, etc. purposely incompatible with other stuff. It's a blatant attempt at corporate monopoly and gets really annoying at times.
Don't know what you are talking about. I run the same software on my Mac as I do on my PC. I sync files back a forth flawlessly. Their hardware can run almost any operating system (the newer ones that is, not the old PPC).

ckaihatsu

23rd May 2011, 23:16

Okay, I'd be remiss here if I didn't mention that the *best* jukebox music player happens to be from independent, non-corporate efforts. It's a small freeware Java app, so it's cross-platform. (Also a way for me to score some crowd-pleaser points here.)(grin)

http://www.stigc.dk/projects/javatunes/

JavaTunes

JavaTunes is a free ligthweight and platform independent jukebox with focus on the functionality.

Version 5.0. Released 15-MAY-2011. Approximately 750 KB

Any platform Windows only

Save the .jar or .exe file anywhere and double click it. JavaTunes needs Java. Install Java.

Any questions? Use the forum or mail me

JavaTunes highlights

Ogg Vorbis, FLAC, MP3, AAC, ALAC and WavPack files are supported.
No installation only one file.
Last.fm support http://www.last.fm/.
Similar artist playback that makes shuffling much more pleasant.
Find most popular tracks from an artist.
Replay Gain supported.
Gapless playback with Vorbis, FLAC and WavPack.
Karaoke with lyrics when a .cdg file with a matching name is found (MP3+G and OGG+G).
Lyrics from the internet or if embedded.
Album cover is showed if placed next to the audio file, if embedded or if found on the internet.
Apple infrared remote supported.
Web interface for small devices (must be enabled from the options menu).
Multiple artists and genres supported.
Locking preventing your guests in skipping other requests.
Queue mode resulting in no more half played songs. New requests are put in a queue.
Search as you type provides the desired song in a few seconds.
Album mode listing all your albums. Add a whole album to the play list and play it in the intended order.
Duplicate songs are found with intelligent matching.
Genre exception list to exclude certain genres in random mode.
Full screen and minimized mode with always on top.
UTF-8 encoding supporting every language in the world.
HTTP support to play songs from a romte computer through a webserver (try this songs.xml)
ShoutCast support with "now playing" (try skyfm.m3u)
Highly optimized by speed and size.
Drag and drop files or directories from the file system.
Statistic showing most played songs. Popular songs are marked with a star.
Platform independent running on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, Solaris etc.
- JavaTunes is freeware. Please donate for further development.

More...
Supported tags are ID3v1, ID3v2 (version 2, 3 and 4), Ogg Comments, APEv2 and QuickTime
Supported cover tags are APIC, METADATA_BLOCK_PICTURE and COVERART
The ID3v2 supported encoding are ISO-8859-1, UCS-2, UTF-16, UTF-16LE, UTF-16BE and UTF-8
The playback is based on JLayer 1.0.1 and Jorbis 0.0.17 and jFLAC 1.3 and WavPack Java decoder and JAAD and Java-Apple-Lossless-decoder.
The Apple Remote support is possible because of iremoted
The player does not alter your media files

WinRAR problems on Windows? Does double-clickling JavaTunes starts WinRAR? Solution: Start WinRAR. Goto "Options" -> "Settings" and choose "Integration". Remove the "JAR" flag and push "OK". Try again.

The player is testet with JRE 1.5 - 1.6

Browse old versions

23rd May 2011, 23:30

Personally I hate java as the apps programmed in it tend to become a resource hog very fast. I only use it when there is no alternative.

ckaihatsu

24th May 2011, 02:09

Personally I hate java as the apps programmed in it tend to become a resource hog very fast. I only use it when there is no alternative.

On occasion I *have* noticed an unjustified "flare-up" or two -- killing off the app and then restarting it does the trick.

24th May 2011, 08:04

On occasion I *have* noticed an unjustified "flare-up" or two -- killing off the app and then restarting it does the trick.

That always does the trick. That is not a solution though, at best a workaround.

ckaihatsu

24th May 2011, 09:40

That always does the trick. That is not a solution though, at best a workaround.

Yeah....

Also, the rule of thumb is to reboot the computer if things start looking at all hairy.... With heavy, varied usage the memory segmenting can get messier and more mixed-up, if I recall correctly. Install memory if things seem generally bottlenecked, and use all computers you have -- you can always VNC to get to others, if need be.

24th May 2011, 18:17

Yeah....

Also, the rule of thumb is to reboot the computer if things start looking at all hairy.... With heavy, varied usage the memory segmenting can get messier and more mixed-up, if I recall correctly. Install memory if things seem generally bottlenecked, and use all computers you have -- you can always VNC to get to others, if need be.
RAM memory doesn't get fragmented. You're confused with harddisks. And only Windows has this problem. But yeah, more memory is a good idea and certainly gives older hardware a new lease of life.

ckaihatsu

24th May 2011, 20:02

RAM memory doesn't get fragmented. You're confused with harddisks. And only Windows has this problem. But yeah, more memory is a good idea and certainly gives older hardware a new lease of life.

Well, I'm speaking from experience here. Also, 'confused' is a bit too strong a word to use here -- thanks for understanding.

bezdomni

25th May 2011, 22:52

Nothin' but Linux! (Ubuntu/Debian mainly, sometimes I use ArchLinux).

Iraultzaile Ezkerreko

25th May 2011, 23:08

For some reason I find paying an extra thousand dollars for a run-of-the-mill laptop just so self-important petit-bourgeois hipsters will like me to be a quite insane idea. So I buy Dells and mod them to my needs, never surpassing the price of the standard Mac even when I install state-of-the-art video and sound cards or upgrade RAM or processors.

bezdomni

26th May 2011, 00:34

Programmers, designers and documentation writers got to eat and live somewhere too, and there simply aren't many employment options in free software

That is really untrue, and becomes less and less true each day.

You think Canonical/Red Hat/Novell/Google/... don't pay their developers who make FOSS software?

deLarge

26th May 2011, 05:07

I use Linux (specifically, CentOS) most at work, though I've always used Linux and FreeBSD as a hobby. I had Windows 7 on my Macbook and Ubuntu/Windows 7 dualboot on my desktop.

Tjis

26th May 2011, 17:27

That is really untrue, and becomes less and less true each day.

You think Canonical/Red Hat/Novell/Google/... don't pay their developers who make FOSS software?
Funny. In the part you quoted I clearly said 'there simply aren't many employment options in free software', which is equivalent in meaning to 'there are some employment options in free software'. So no, I do not think that. As you should have noticed if you had read the part you quoted carefully.

The majority of software development jobs is still in proprietary software though, and the majority of free software developers are unpaid. The biggest contributors to big projects are usually paid though, as I've pointed out in multiple posts.

ckaihatsu

3rd June 2011, 04:35

(More functionality, doesn't require Java.)

http://www.clementine-player.org/downloads

3rd June 2011, 07:25

(More functionality, doesn't require Java.)

http://www.clementine-player.org/downloads

Clementine is a fork from Amarok (http://amarok.kde.org/) which radically redesigned its UI in its 2.0 release. Clementine holds true to the 1.0 look and feel. Both a very good players. For Gnome users there is Rhythmbox (http://projects.gnome.org/rhythmbox/) and Banshee (http://banshee.fm/).

Zav

3rd June 2011, 07:51

I'm dual booting Natty Narwhal (Ubuntu 11.4 for the non-savvy) and Vista at the moment. I LOATHE Unity (GNOME ftw!), but other than that, Ubuntu is the best OS I've used. I use Vista for the few apps I have that don't like Wine, because, imho (shared by a great many) Windows sucks.

3rd June 2011, 07:56

I have just removed the shitty ubuntu wubi, which was fucking up my pc:crying: but as soon as i find the "energy" i will format my pc and do a proper installation of Ubuntu but probably will keep a dual boot just in case.

Inquisitive Lurker

3rd June 2011, 13:22

I wonder how many use Linux just because it is free. You know you can torrent Corp editions of Windows XP (and newer) that require no key or activation.

kitsune

3rd June 2011, 14:01

I wonder how many use Linux just because it is free. You know you can torrent Corp editions of Windows XP (and newer) that require no key or activation.

My computer came with Windows 7 installed. Not for long, though.

Inquisitive Lurker

3rd June 2011, 14:21

My computer came with Windows 7 installed. Not for long, though.

Yesterday there was an article on Microsoft giving a sneak peak at Windows 8. It made me want to scream "Stop making new OS's until there is a need!" Classic over production and over consumption.

There was a need to Windows 7 because Vista sucked and XP was just getting too old. But Windows 7 is lovely and needs to major changes.

Black Sheep

3rd June 2011, 14:37

Windows XP for games and music recording (yeah,i can't stand audacity), Kubuntu for everything else.

kitsune

3rd June 2011, 14:52

I thought of dual booting specifically for gaming, but I'd rather set up a separate gaming system for that. Other than games, there's really nothing I would need Windows for.

Inquisitive Lurker

3rd June 2011, 14:59

I thought of dual booting specifically for gaming, but I'd rather set up a separate gaming system for that. Other than games, there's really nothing I would need Windows for.

Other software compatibility. Yes, most programs you can find a Linux equivalent, but not with support or compatibility. Nero Burning Rom, PowerDVD (the best DVD player IMHO), full blown office (yes there is Open Office, but it doesn't support the new 2007-10 formats). Outlook, if you are doing any business email.

Kamos

3rd June 2011, 15:22

Windows. The question of which Windows is a different matter. I switched from 2000 to XP back then because I found 2000 quite unstable and hoped XP would be better - and it certainly was. Now that I'm on XP, I don't see any need to upgrade; certainly not when I mostly use it for surfing the internet and playing games, plus whatever work needs to be done (which is also done via the Internet usually).

3rd June 2011, 22:01

(yes there is Open Office, but it doesn't support the new 2007-10 formats)

Yes it does. For quite some time now.

kitsune

3rd June 2011, 22:29

Yes it does. For quite some time now.

Not only that, but... use an OS so I can buy a specific program in order to use its proprietary format? Uh uh, no way. If a piece of software can't communicate with other software of the same type in one format or another, it's worthless. I can't even imagine sending someone an email that they would need a specific program in order to read or respond. That would be nuts, like using an image program that can't read or write jpg or png, only Bob's Super Neato Image Program's Special Format. If someone tried to hand me a file that required Bob's Super Neato Image Program to open, I'd just laugh at them. Any format worth using will either be convertible or directly usable by lots of other programs. I've never had a problem finding a compatible format in any type of file for any kind of system. MS Office? No prob, there are lots of common document formats to use. If it became a problem in a given situation, I'd just link that person to Google Docs. There are far too many options for that kind of ridiculous proprietary garbage to fly in this day and age. Which is good, because the more ridiculously proprietary a format is, the less likely I am to support it. "You want to require me to use a specific program to accomplish something? Tchyeah, right."

#FF0000

3rd June 2011, 22:36

I run Linux.

Ubuntu. 10.10

Haven't upgraded because I don't know how well Nvidia is supported in 11.04

f.u.c.k. l.i.n.u.x.

Inquisitive Lurker

3rd June 2011, 22:48

Not only that, but... use an OS so I can buy a specific program in order to use its proprietary format?

Who said anything about buying it?

I can't even imagine sending someone an email that they would need a specific program in order to read or respond.Try sending a meeting request. Something necessary in business.

And as far as proprietary formats, Photoshop, by far the industry standard, has them. You don't save graphics you are working on as a jpeg (data loss) or a tiff (layer loss). You want capability, you sometimes have to sacrifice compatibility.

kitsune

4th June 2011, 00:17

Inquisitive Lurker

4th June 2011, 01:01

You need a special piece of software to set up and track meetings? That sucks. Do you expect to only have meetings with people who have a compatible version of your software? That would be ridiculous

The hugely vastly enormous percentage of people working in office environments use Microsoft Outlook. The remainder use Lotus Notes because they just don't understand it's crappy software that is hell to support and is going to die the death.

I personally use Microsoft Entourage, the Mac equivalent of Outlook.

kitsune

4th June 2011, 03:08

Well, for Linux, Zafara is compatible with Outlook, Evolution and others, and there are server configurations like Zimbra and Bynari that take care of the back end. But surely your position can't be that it's perfectly fine for a single private corporation to have near total, monopolistic control over a specific means of communication, or even any kind of information sharing at all. How is that even marginally acceptable? It seems to me to be precisely the sort of thing that should be resisted and fought against.

Inquisitive Lurker

4th June 2011, 12:52

Le LibÃ©rer

4th June 2011, 13:25

I have one of each.

4th June 2011, 17:43

You need a special piece of software to set up and track meetings? That sucks. Do you expect to only have meetings with people who have a compatible version of your software? That would be ridiculous.

You only "have to sacrifice compatibility" in cases where the software vendor's greed produces monopolistic behavior, trying to force people to use only their program, and I don't support that.

There are plenty of lossless formats that Photoshop can save to and dozens of other image manipulation programs can work with. And if you want to preserve layer information in a psd file, that's not a problem (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uEb4R2C9oc).

Well, for Linux, Zafara is compatible with Outlook, Evolution and others, and there are server configurations like Zimbra and Bynari that take care of the back end. But surely your position can't be that it's perfectly fine for a single private corporation to have near total, monopolistic control over a specific means of communication, or even any kind of information sharing at all. How is that even marginally acceptable? It seems to me to be precisely the sort of thing that should be resisted and fought against.
++

It has nothing to do with it being acceptable, it just has to do with what IS. If you get a job in some corporation, you are going to have to use Microsoft Outlook (or god help you Lotus Notes). It's the way things are.
As kitsune pointed out, there are fine pieces of software that interact with outlook and whatnot.

Inquisitive Lurker

4th June 2011, 18:03

As kitsune pointed out, there are fine pieces of software that interact with outlook and whatnot.

Apparently you've never worked in a large office. You don't get to choose what software you use. The company has a system wide image that everyone uses. Hell, more and more companies aren't even giving users Administrator rights so you can't install software even if you wanted to. I've seen some that don't even give them Power User rights, so they can't even install local printers!

4th June 2011, 18:28

Apparently you've never worked in a large office. You don't get to choose what software you use. The company has a system wide image that everyone uses. Hell, more and more companies aren't even giving users Administrator rights so you can't install software even if you wanted to. I've seen some that don't even give them Power User rights, so they can't even install local printers!

Well, I agree that as long as we don't have any control in what we can run, the whole issue of open source software is moot. Then again, why did you bring it up in the first place? Free software is all about control in what we can do with the software and they are fine alternatives to the proprietary, closed shop, commercial software on offer, quite a lot of times doing a better job too.

Spawn of Stalin

4th June 2011, 19:09

What is a Chromebook can somebody tell me? I don't understand I heard about Chrome OS when they first announced it like 100 years ago but I don't get it is it just an operating system that is just a web browser and nothing else? Isn't this kind of a move against open source on Google's part? The software is based on open source but surely Google controls all the stuff you use online instead of local software like Google Docs and the cloud storage? I don't get it, what's the point?

ckaihatsu

17th June 2011, 18:54

I haven't looked into it much but it looks like the latest in the general trend towards lighter laptops and netbooks -- opting to keep more of the user's data and resources "in the cloud" since such fixed (server) resources are cheaper than ever and are usually free if one looks for them.

Besides the commercial "Chromebook" treatment, there are free and open-source versions of the same approach, like xPUD (see below).

For those who may want to host their *own* server-type resources, it can be done crisply through a common webpage (interface), to control the separate, dedicated server -- a conventional desktop tower computer -- from one's more-mobile, more-convenient laptop or netbook.

(In other words most server-type settings don't *require* the fancy graphical interface that we're used to using for more everyday-type "fun" stuff -- the format that a webpage provides is more than adequate for changing some settings "from afar". See below.)

Chromebook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A Chromebook is a mobile device running Google Chrome OS. The devices comprise a distinct class of personal computer falling between a pure cloud client and traditional laptop.[1][2][3]

Chromebooks are shipped with the Google Chrome OS operating system, which uses the Linux kernel, and the Google Chrome web browser with an integrated media player.[5][6] With limited offline capability and a boot time, according to Google, of eight seconds, Chromebooks are primarily designed to be used while connected to the Internet.[7] Instead of installing traditional applications, users add web apps from the Chrome Web Store, such as word processing and instant messaging.[8]Google claims that a multi-layer security architecture eliminates the need for anti-virus software.[4]

xPUD

Frequently Asked Questions [FAQ]

What are the minimal system requirements to run xPUD ?

An optimum system for xPUD would have an Intel Atom CPU, at least 384MB of RAM and an Intel graphics video chip.

Xpud needs 50 Mo of hard drive free space or USB stick of at least 50 Mo to be installed. Of course it runs on other hardware too, but you might need to download additional device drivers.

Which packages are available for xPUD ?

* core : Firefox (version 3.5.5), xterm command line, Xorg X window system (version X11R7.5)
* media : gnome-mplayer media player (version 0.9.8)
* apps.opt : epdfview pdf viewer (version 0.1.7), geany text editor (version 0.185), gpicview picture viewer (version 0.2.1), pcmanfm file manager (version 0.5), transmission bittorrent client (version 1.76)
* codecs.opt : audio and video codecs
* driver.opt : additional drivers
* dropbox.opt : dropbox (version 0.6.1)
* OOo.opt : Openoffice.org (version 3.1.1)
* skype.opt : skype (version 2.1 beta)
* xbmc : xbmc media player and manager (version 9.10)

http://www.xpud.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=9

Turnkey Linux by alonswartz, liraz

TurnKey Linux is an opensource project that aims to develop high-quality software appliances that are easy to deploy, easy to use and free. In a nutshell, we believe everything that can be easy, should be easy! http://www.turnkeylinux.org/

http://sourceforge.net/projects/turnkeylinux/

http://sourceforge.net/projects/turnkeylinux/files/

NewLeft

17th June 2011, 19:33

I use Funtoo, Ubuntu and I'm forced to use Windows 7 when I need it for certain apps.

Inquisitive Lurker

18th June 2011, 12:36

So what results do we have so far? Two-thirds of the users use a Windows machine (not surprising, we are for the majority posting from the Western world), a quarter use Macs, which is surprising, way more than their normal market share, and a third use Linux. I think that if the left were better at pirating that third would be closer to a quarter, or less. Years ago, well actually still have it, I got this wonderful Windows XP Pro Corporate Edition. No key, no activation. I must have installed that on 50 computers. Now If I could get something like that for Windows 7 Ultimate, that would be GOLD!

Revy

18th June 2011, 13:25

I prefer Windows. Windows 7 to be exact. Although the computer I am using right now (IBM Thinkpad) has Windows XP, because my other one stopped working (nothing to do with Windows, just the crappy Acer hardware, that company doesn't really care about quality).

Inquisitive Lurker

18th June 2011, 13:45

...just the crappy Acer hardware, that company doesn't really care about quality...
Acer has become the new Packard Hell.

RED DAVE

18th June 2011, 14:59

Mac. Been using one for over 20 years. Nothing like 'em, especially for artistic work, but they're fine for everything else. Used Macs, from craigslist, are a great buy.

RED DAVE

Zealot

18th June 2011, 16:46

I'm using all three by triple booting, they all have their pros and cons. I like using windows for gaming and other things but it has serious security and speed issues. Apple for its simplicity, interface and music but it's expensive. Linux is open source and considered the "hackers OS" by many people but if you play video games then Linux wouldn't be of much help.

scarletghoul

18th June 2011, 16:47

lol there are people who use apple ?? :laugh:

18th June 2011, 19:12

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

18th June 2011, 19:39

I run Windows 7 on a high-end gaming rig, although I've thought of dual-booting with some kind of Linux distro, if I can ever find a compelling enough reason to do so.

I've used an Apple laptop once, and I was distinctly underwhelmed. What the fuck is all the hype about?

RED DAVE

18th June 2011, 22:51

lol there are people who use apple ?? :laugh:OS of choice for artists, musicians, writers, etc.

RED DAVE

Tablo

19th June 2011, 01:49

I for one will explicitly delete all Windows installations from my hardware, perfectly pirated or not. I just don't like it.

Besides, I can imagine that pirating is actually very hard these days. Microsoft is always working on that side of its software...
Not really. I have pirated windows running on two of my machines and my family has them running on a couple of their machines and all our stuff updates and works fine.

agnixie

19th June 2011, 03:25

Mac. Been using one for over 20 years. Nothing like 'em, especially for artistic work, but they're fine for everything else. Used Macs, from craigslist, are a great buy.

RED DAVE

Someone told me if you resell macs every year, you can basically end up paying only a rent-price. Admittedly I tend to want to keep my gear for long enough so by the time I offload it it's not quite in shape - also mom often ends up buying it back for the sibs (even if I recover less money than I'd make reselling it elsewhere). That said I've done the latter since I've started paying my own equipment, so that also includes three PC laptops.

I got on macs because I wanted to apply for a job that required knowing some OSX software, stuck because of photography. So yeah, people do use macs. It's not as painful a platform as their idevices :p

I've used an Apple laptop once, and I was distinctly underwhelmed. What the fuck is all the hype about?

Depends on your needs/uses/habits. I went from Fedora to OSX, which is not as much of a jump as I feared, mostly because I've already got mac-like habits on Gnome. And for design purposes, some of the software on it is pretty sweet.

MarxSchmarx

20th June 2011, 04:25

I've used an Apple laptop once, and I was distinctly underwhelmed. What the fuck is all the hype about? Depends on your needs/uses/habits. I went from Fedora to OSX, which is not as much of a jump as I feared, mostly because I've already got mac-like habits on Gnome. And for design purposes, some of the software on it is pretty sweet.

Yeah, I guess a lot of formerly unix types like osx because it lets them do the command line stuff but there are programs like MS Office or iTunes that aren't available at all for linux. I have no idea about the graphics stuff, but for people who do run of the mill copmuting personally I find that a rather underwhelming rationale to jump on the mac bandwagon.

Another thing for macs is that so far they haven't been as susceptible to viruses as windows. My guess is that as more and more macs proliferate this will change very quickly, but for now, if you are the kind of person that unquestionably downloads and opens everything sent your way on the internet, and don't have the time to monkey around with LInux, then apple or at least os x is p probably appropriate.

Besides, like I suspect many primarily linux users, I have a separate windwos for gaming purposes. It's not like those are widely available on macs either, so except for the graphics people I think a lot of linux users (and virtually all of non-linux users) moving to macs is just conspicuous consumption.

agnixie

20th June 2011, 04:36

Another thing for macs is that so far they haven't been as susceptible to viruses as windows. My guess is that as more and more macs proliferate this will change very quickly, but for now, if you are the kind of person that unquestionably downloads and opens everything sent your way on the internet, and don't have the time to monkey around with LInux, then apple or at least os x is p probably appropriate.

On that point, I'll note that pre-unix MacOS was a virus ridden piece of shit despite its relatively small install base (about where Linux is now - used them at school mostly because a lot of said arts software was, at the time, mac only) - I suspect there's more than a numbers game.

ckaihatsu

20th June 2011, 11:35

On that point, I'll note that pre-unix MacOS was a virus ridden piece of shit despite its relatively small install base (about where Linux is now - used them at school mostly because a lot of said arts software was, at the time, mac only) - I suspect there's more than a numbers game.

I'll second this -- it's well-put, except for the virus part. Macs have been known for *not* being susceptible to viruses because of their custom hand-in-glove integration of the OS to the hardware. The myriad problems in pre-2000 / OS X usability had more to do with the idiosyncracies of its particular approach to the operating system.

Macs have *always* been more thought-through and user-friendly -- not to mention having a lock on anything design- or graphics-related -- that's why Apple has had a solid niche as the creative and elite edge in computer sales. In the late '90s, though, it was coming under repeated fire for not having its "fundamentals" (my wording) in place -- a UNIX-type system with protected memory allocations, non-pre-emptive multitasking, and multithreading. Windows had all of this and as consumer hardware came of age it made the traditional Apple approach to its (System 9) OS look more and more like a strange curiosity.

I recently wrote a short post on this general topic for an email list:

This is like watching generations of bacteria rise and fall in a petri
dish -- the successive cycles of software (and OSes) in the realm of
computers reveals a repeating life cycle of economics that we might
not see otherwise.

Initially there's a good idea, but a lack of resources to develop it.
Then some specialized, hobbyist interest forms around it if the
overall concept actually has some merit. Then the buzz starts and,
after awhile, more-volatile, specialized monetary parties may take a
chance to get in at the very start, thus getting the thing off the
ground.

If it takes off those initial interests will be able to cash in fairly
quickly from the suddenly increasing interest, for a quick turnaround.
With a growing base the software development cycles become healthy and
the software quickly matures, benefitting from a paid staff and
responsive user community.

At some point, though, the software grows to become unmanageable and
takes on a life of its own, growing its own economy around it, with
add-on vendors, repair technicians, customized services, and, yes,
even "scareware" -- this is the first time I've heard the term and it
really fits. We might consider it to be a protection racket that
develops within the context of the bloatware brand or operating
system, just as with a conventional economy.

Just for the record I think the Mac is proprietary bloatware and has
been for at least ten years now, the departure point being the release
and maturing of OS X ("Ten"), after which point its purpose was
fulfilled. These days the brand is as mainstream as the PC or Windows
was in the '90s, with the cutting-edge now undeniably passed forward
to Linux. Today people are still pooh-poohing it, but the flipside is
that it carries a still-mysterious geeky aura that the average person
is not ready to pierce.

Nonetheless Linux is maturing and will probably be commonplace in 5
years as people flee the Mac bloatware brand and its user base in the
mainstream reaches a critical mass.

Inquisitive Lurker

20th June 2011, 14:15

ckaihatsu

20th June 2011, 14:28

While it was once true that Macs had the edge with graphics and design, this is no longer the case. Get a powerful PC workstation and a full suite of Adobe software and there is nothing you can't do that a Mac can.

I'll do you one better here and note that the same can be said for the Linux platform -- using free and open-source software -- *and* I'm speaking from experience here. And don't get me started on the benefits of Java...(!)

agnixie

20th June 2011, 22:50

While it was once true that Macs had the edge with graphics and design, this is no longer the case. Get a powerful PC workstation and a full suite of Adobe software and there is nothing you can't do that a Mac can.

Unless your job requires you to know how to use Final Cut (one of the things the place I was applying to asked) or stuff like that, there's still a bunch of major design software that's mac only ;)

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

20th June 2011, 23:53

I'll do you one better here and note that the same can be said for the Linux platform -- using free and open-source software --

Since most open-source developers either compile Windows-compatible versions or let others do so, I don't see that as a compelling reason.

*and* I'm speaking from experience here. And don't get me started on the benefits of Java...(!)

Really? My impression from the more tech-savvy is that Java is a heap of fucking shit one shouldn't touch with a bargepole.

ckaihatsu

21st June 2011, 11:13

Since most open-source developers either compile Windows-compatible versions or let others do so, I don't see that as a compelling reason.

I'm speaking strictly of the Linux OS platform here.

Really? My impression from the more tech-savvy is that Java is a heap of fucking shit one shouldn't touch with a bargepole.

Your impression is either misinformed or otherwise mistaken somehow.

Black Sheep

21st June 2011, 11:58

Really? My impression from the more tech-savvy is that Java is a heap of fucking shit one shouldn't touch with a bargepole.

http://cdn.churchm.ag/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/if-programming-languages-were-essays1-620x1596.jpg

Bright Banana Beard

21st June 2011, 13:41

A trot using Mac!? That's a real huge shame.

21st June 2011, 18:53

http://cdn.churchm.ag/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/if-programming-languages-were-essays1-620x1596.jpg

Hahahahaha :lol:

Brilliant.

Black Sheep

23rd June 2011, 14:21

:p
I don't understand the html->flower pot thingy though.

Inquisitive Lurker

23rd June 2011, 14:41

:p
I don't understand the html->flower pot thingy though.
Neither do I, and I.T. was my career back in the day.

23rd June 2011, 15:19

:p
I don't understand the html->flower pot thingy though.

Probably a tongue in cheek commt at how HTML isn't really to be considered a "programming language" of any sort. That's how I got it.

Â¿Que?

4th July 2011, 13:49

Sorry to necro this thread, but I really don't feel like starting a new one. I just wanted to say I'm currently compiling kernel 3.0 which came out recently. Anyone else upgrade to the new kernel?

BeerShaman

4th July 2011, 14:27

Vista 64-bit for everything. Seems I am the only one.
Plus I have a laptop with Windows 7. It's awful!

4th July 2011, 14:41

Sorry to necro this thread, but I really don't feel like starting a new one. I just wanted to say I'm currently compiling kernel 3.0 which came out recently. Anyone else upgrade to the new kernel?
Eventually. I'll just wait for Ubuntu 11.10. There is not much "new" in this kernel by the way, nothing structurally or otherwise major anyway.

Vista 64-bit for everything. Seems I am the only one.
Plus I have a laptop with Windows 7. It's awful!
You are the first person ever that holds Vista in higher regard than Win7. Why is that?

Black Sheep

4th July 2011, 15:40

http://themetapicture.com/media/funny-comic-update-computer-linux-windows-mac-540x328.jpg

The free software thing is amazing - it's difficult to describe.Everything you need is available, with free support and community-developed.

I recently was doing lots of different terminal stuff, so i needed a split screen multi-tab terminal.
I ask about it on a forum.
They recommend 'terminator'
I install it in 5 seconds.
I run it.

Awesome! :tt1:
Assignment gets done like a cool breeze.

Pioneers_Violin

4th July 2011, 15:42

After years of hating Windows, I eventually switched to Macs and love it.

Philosophically, it's hard to argue with Linux.
I tried going to Suse 9 years ago and wasn't smart enough to make it work.
I'd consider switching to Linux someday but like my Macs and iOS just fine for now.

4th July 2011, 16:40

Philosophically, it's hard to argue with Linux.
I tried going to Suse 9 years ago and wasn't smart enough to make it work.
I'd consider switching to Linux someday but like my Macs and iOS just fine for now.

9 years ago Linux was still an infant on the desktop. It was basically a server optimised OS that could also run some desktop apps. I suggest you give Ubuntu 11.04 (the latest release) a look. You can do it without installing it, via the livecd. Of course it'll be pretty slow (loading everything from the cd after all), but it gives you a pretty good idea of how mature Linux is for today's desktop needs.

10th August 2011, 13:18

Q etc :D, ubuntu or kernel?Used ubuntu(with wubi) liked it, preferred it, but had to remove it cause it was fucking up with my pc(mainly shutting down on its own, mainly while watching a movie).I thought it was due to the stupid wubi version though, was i correct or i will still have a problem with the proper installation?Btw im asking for kernel cause my external says it works on it, but dont refers ubuntu.Any input?:)

gendoikari

10th August 2011, 13:28

Windows for playing videogames, Ubuntu for the rest.

Ditto. Though I wish ubuntu had support for games like windows.

Fulanito de Tal

10th August 2011, 14:49

Ubuntu. I think I've been using it for about 8 months. I forget how bad Windows is until I use someone else's computer and all it does is take forever and update everything all the time. And installing anything is a pain in the ass. And all the restarts! OMG, I forgot about those until last night I updated my friend's "malware" (don't need that with Ubuntu) and that took some resources until it eventually finished and then said that the computer needed to restart.

Oh, and if you have any problems with Ubuntu or using applications on Ubuntu, there is a forum where knowledgeable people will help http://ubuntuforums.org/ . I'm very glad my Windows days are behind me.

10th August 2011, 16:46

Â¿Que?

10th August 2011, 17:47

Nox

10th August 2011, 17:54

I voted PC.

Macs are the perfect Capitalist product; extremely overpriced, looks attractive, breaks easily.

A PC is simple, cheap, long lasting, and easy for anyone to use. My home-built PC costed about £350 whereas a Mac with the same specs would be over £2000.

My dad had a Mac that costed him around £600 at the time, it lasted about 5 months before it started messing up, he spent the next 3 or so months repeatedly sending it back to Apple requesting it to be fixed, and each time it was sent back "fully repaired", eventually he just gave up when he realised neither repair nor refund were going to happen.

As for Linux, well, it's ok. I just personally prefer PC.

Â¿Que?

10th August 2011, 18:00

I would just like to contribute a little experience of mine with Linux, and maybe get some input from people.

I've had a hell of a time with random freezes using the X windows system and an nvidia graphics card. Googling, I notice that the problem is common.

There are various drivers for the nvidia, none of which are all that great. The older ones (nv and I think there's another one) work, but no acceleration.

Then there's nouveau, which is a major headache, and which there's no acceleration yet, but should have some in the near future.

FInally, there's the nvidia proprietary driver, which I often see recommended, but which I have had trouble with as well.

Anyone got any suggestions or experience with this?

Currently, I'm using nouveau, which is the default with a debian installation, but I'm considering installing the proprietary driver, because it still freezes occasionally, even if I add the nouveau.noaccel=1 boot parameter.

Thanks.

Fulanito de Tal

10th August 2011, 19:41

Thanks Fulanito, noted.;)
i forgot to mention btw that i will be needing linux for uni also, since they say that its the OS they prefer and i will be using while on campus etc, so i dont know if that would made a difference.Also, i will be making a dual boot just in case if windows are needed, and on that notice is there a problem if windows are already installed?Or should i remove them, and then install both OS?

You're welcome!

You should look at that forum for a dual boot guide. Ubuntu uses a "swap" partition on the drive for storing stuff on it while its running. While you're installing it, it's going to ask you how much swap space you want to allocate, so you should know beforehand.

Quick overview of swap (http://www.linux.com/news/software/applications/8208-all-about-linux-swap-space)

Linux divides its physical RAM (random access memory) into chucks of memory called pages. Swapping is the process whereby a page of memory is copied to the preconfigured space on the hard disk, called swap space, to free up that page of memory. The combined sizes of the physical memory and the swap space is the amount of virtual memory available.