>/g/ told me that Linux is faster than Windows 10 and botnet free
>decided to install Ubuntu LTS and see for myself since /g/ told me that is the best starter OS for a noob like me and it's used by major companies.
>I find out that Ubuntu is actually slower than Windows 10 after using it for a few hours.
>the menus take forever to load, mouseovers are delayed, and even Firefox takes longer to open than when I used Windows 10.
Fuck that. I went back to Windows 10. Using it right now. It's faster than the Ubuntu LTS I had on it yesterday.
Linux actually made my PC slower than it was on Windows 10
>inb4 some NEET losers tell me I have to install some rice that takes away all the window compositing and use a completely flat paned UI which defeats the point of having a modern OS.
Fuck Linux. It's slower than Windows 10.
Don't fall for the Linux meme.
Dunno man Ubuntu is pretty fucking gay if you ask me...
I got interested in lincucks recently and spent a few days fucking around on my laptop, tried ubuntu and mint at first, nearly wanted to kms from being obsessive over included features. So I tortured myself and installed arch and now having a pretty splendid experience
Linux is faster than Windows, if you use a bare-bones autism distro that requires you to compile half the shit yourself, know what packages play well together and work the command line like a $2 whore.
>wait for updates to finish
>computer has to restart
>after booting computer checks for updates to proprietary bloat ware
>install skype/dropbox/Java/adobe updates
>try to shut down after work
>windows installs 26 more updates before shutting down
>os just works
Of course Ubuntu isnt any faster it has a big heavy DE. Ive noticed cinnamon uses a bit less ram than windows while having the same amount of features.
You want speed? Then install lxle or just install lubuntu. You get a computer thats a lot faster but the DE is a little more basic.
Does your Windows 10 cold boot in 11 seconds?
And this was three years ago.
If you are talking about on new hardware, and a fresh install, yea Windows is pretty fast. On older hardware not so much. I rescued a Pentium 4 from going in the dumpster at work. It originally had XP on it, and the office manager had me clean the shit off of it a few times, before he decided to replace it. With XP using it was painfully slow. I took it home, and installed OpenBSD + Xfce. It runs great now. It's a perfectly good machine for web browsing, word processing, and other light shit like that. I love OpenBSD, but it's never going to win performance benchmarks against just about Linux distro, or the other BSDs.
Windows has a tendency to get slower and slower, more unstable, and produce more, and more errors over time. When I used to use it, I reinstalled it at least once a year, because that was easier than trying to find and fix (assuming the problem could be fixed--shitty documentation and licensing restrictions ensure that some problems can't be fixed) all the shit that went wrong with it since it was last installed.
I'm sure a lot of people can relate here, but I'm often the one that people I know brings their PCs and laptops to, to work on. It's not uncommon for someone to bring me once that barely boots, or doesn't completely boot at all, because of all the malware shit on it. Yes, a little common sense and a little effort would go a long way, but things are as they are. Most people don't comprehend that they need to keep on top of security and maintenance, and Windows is prone to this sort of bullshit anyway. It severely impacts it's performance.
I've never seen that happen to a Linux or BSD system. On the PC I'm using at this very moment, I installed Manjaro on it about a year ago. It works just as well today as it did when I installed it, and I've done very little maintenance on it in all this time.
why do you appreciate it?
which software from AUR do you need?
looks pretty gross when some binary distro doesn't manage to package their popular software and instead let's user compile it from source.
Are you posting on /v/ right now, OP?
>he fell for the Linux meme
Anybody who knows what he's doing uses BSD
I'm sorry you got suckered into using what is essentially the FOSS equivalent of Windows
Using mint/dual boot now. Mint is as fast as windows if not faster.
>0.05 cents have been deposited to your account, Sanjeet. Thank you for doing business with us.
No, it's not.
I used to use Xubuntu for years, and while it's a great OS and I respect it for what it is, it's still slower than Windows 10.
Not to mention, Windows 10 is supposed to be a "heavy" OS with many bells and whistles.
"Linux is fast" is a dead meme.
Nice blog OP. Here goes mine:
>/g/ told me that Windows 10 is faster than Linux and botnet free
>decided to install Windows 10 and see for myself since /g/ told me that is the best OS for a noob like me and it's used by major companies.
>I find out that Windows 10 is actually slower than Ubuntu after using it for a few hours.
>the menus take forever to load, mouseovers are delayed, and even Firefox takes longer to open than when I used Linux.
>Fuck that. I went back to Linux. Using it right now. It's faster than the Windows 10 I had on it yesterday.
Windows 10 actually made my PC slower than it was on Linux
>inb4 some NEET gamers tell me I have to install some IOBit Advanced System Care that takes away all the Cache and use a completely flat paned OS which defeats the point of having an efficient OS.
Fuck Windows 10. It's slower than Linux.
Don't fall for the Windows 10 meme.
>complain loudly that Linux isn't getting the enormous marketshare it deserves
>crusade against windows, point out all it's flaws in an effort to get more people to switch to Linux
>people switch to Linux and find that the experience is shit or it doesn't work as well for them or their needs
>Loudly insult intellect of said users and lay blame squarely at the feet of switchers
>Go back to complain that Linux has no desktop marketshare and everyone else must be fucking retarded
Round and round we go, y'know.
>Crawled back to windows
Made the right choice, Prajeet
It's a more polished version basically. A lot of the bullshit of Ubuntu (spyware) is stripped out, and it has it's own repositories--Ubuntu is less conservative about updates and shit, so software is slightly more up to date, but that can be good or bad.
I'd recommend Mint Xfce, but Xubuntu actually compares pretty favorably there. Xubuntu also strips out much of Ubuntu's shit, and offers a better default DE--Anything > Unity or Gnome3. Xubuntu uses Ubuntu's repositories. Xubuntu also doesn't come with non-free software, however it's not hard to install yourself, if you want it. Mint's Xfce looks and feels nicer imo, but Xfce is highly customizable anyway, so either way you are not stuck with the default. All in all I'd rank both about equally.
Also, if you like customization and/or minimalism, I'd recomend Fluxbox over Xfce. I like Xfce, and it's the one I've used longest and most, but lately I've been using Fluxbox more and more, and like it better. It's not a full DE. It's a window manager. You use it to build the exact desktop you want without the bloat of a DE. Xfce is light compared to most DEs but it's still more bloated than it needs to be. Just my opinion though.
>11 seconds is pretty slow
using hdd or ssd?
How can linux be so full of crap.
You can't even install anything without doing console crap commands.
Just tested wine to run zsnes and nope, it's fucking frozen, whole fucking desktop is frozen lol. No way to kill process either alt+f2 does nothing. ctrl+alt+f1 brings up this useless console that does nothing.
this is the power of linux
>a non essential third party program caused Linux to crash
>clearly this is all Linux fault
that's no excuse, GUI is complete crap
>have to type password to terminal
>go back and give password to terminal again
>desktop still frozen
repeat whole shit
I think it's more like a couple of years ago, the download page only mentions Ubuntu 12.04.
Tbh I like the interface more than the new Windows interface, with the only exception being that it doesn't minimize to the notification bar thing properly.
local/gnome-shell-theme-super-flat-remix 1.0.2-1 (gnome-shell-extensions)
>The issue is that Gnome ***by itself*** *cannot* solve the configuration
>swamp, no matter what you call the aggregate system.
>The problem can only be solved by a bunch of projects working together
>to solve the problems all of us have made, or at best we are pumping
>water (and other things) from one place to the other in the swamp.
>For example, right now we have the font morass (actively being drained),
>where font configuration goes on in at least 5 or 6 places.
>Then there is the mime-type swamp, where it gets configured in a similar
>number of places (gnome, kde, /etc/mime* pluggerrc, mozilla, Apache,
>Then there is the documentation mire: man, info, docbook, html, scrollkeeper,
>And there are more.... A developing swamp is the definition of embeddable
>objects (graphics plugins). We have bonobo, kparts, netscape/mozilla
>plugins, to name three sets.
>And so on.
>Each of these swamps needs serious draining. This swamp is not of
>natural creation, but one formed by the people. You have personally
>contributed to making the swamp, as have I. Lets work together to
>reclaim good ground, and drain most of all of the swamp.
>For GNU, *BSD, X, Linux, Apache, Bind, Sendmail, Samba,
>etc. to truly revolutionize the world, the different projects *must*
>begin to work together to solve them, independent
>of other considerations. *NO* single project can solve these problems.
>It will require serious technical work (between projects), serious
>political work (between projects), cooperation (betweeen projects)
>and yes, at times, compromises.
>So please get off your hobby horse and help unite the free/open source
>communities on this topic; everything that divides us makes proprietary software stronger no matter what we call ourselves.
> - Jim Gettys
>Several articles say that kernel 3.17 supports Xbone controllers
>Have latest kernel
>Plug in Xbox One controller
>Ask several linux boards why
>Every single one tells me to go to ask ubuntu
>No one will answer
Why are Linux users such liars?
yeah I also fell on the linux meme, and I agree with you, it's absolutely garbage almost in every way possible, I tried mint, ubuntu mate, ubuntu, xubuntu, lubuntu, devian and opensuse, the only good thing about linux is how fast it is to set up programming shit
>>Ask several linux boards why
that's not how you report bugs, retard
it's not 2000 anymore.
if you aren't retarded and install some crapware, windows will not slow down.
bullshit. windows is better for desktops:
1. better drivers (or any drivers at all)
most distros aren't even in the business of updating their kernel within a release. but the only way to get new drivers on linux is to get a new kernel.
2. no slow X11
3. upstream that cares
mozilla can't optimize much for totally fragmented linux landscape, which even rejects their bundled libraries and wants to build it themselves w/o much profiling
Operating systems are supposed to be hassle free so you can be productive and get shit done, no one gives a fuck about you typing haxxor commands on a shell and googlin os problems because you don't have nothing better to do
>using wine to run a emulator that has a native linux version
Everything runs pretty smoothly on my machine. I'm not sure what the issue is... I've never used Windows 10, but loading up Chromium on Ubuntu is just as fast as Chrome was on Windows 7. I don't have any noticeable lag. I don't know what to tell you, as I'm really not a computer expert.
Despite the bait, it is a valid question to doubt the performance argument for Linux. People all know it's less convenient and their impression from back in XP/Vista told them that Windows is slow as shit so Linux must be faster on all fronts right?
Thing is my personal experience shows absolutely no evidence of that. And I think there is a real performance gain from Win8/10 to before that people often ignores.
>loading up Chromium on Ubuntu is just as fast as Chrome was on Windows 7
that's bullshit as proven by your very own X.org devs
next thing you claim that unofficial Chromium is as good as official Chrome while ignoring what Google says
I'm just going based on personal experience. It didn't feel any faster or slower on either operating system.
I don't use Chrome because I've read a bit about their RLZ tracking and targeted ads and it's kind of spooky, but I still prefer Chromium over other browsers.
KDE these days is downright amazing.
Hi there lonely manchild!
Are you tired of spending GBP on Wendy’s but getting shit-tier McDonalds?
Sick of bartering with normies for your num-nums? Mommy not buying you the latest vidya?
Hi, I’m Rog and I can teach you how to maximize your GBP with this one simple trick normies don’t want you to know about
No longer will you have to resort to smearing poopy-woopy to get the vidyas you deserve
For your access to the patented Rog Method, forward me fifty GBP and you’ll get a free copy of my instructional webm
So what exactly is wrong with Ubuntu? I've put it on two machines in the past and they both flew. No issues at all except something that went horribly wrong with a Chrubuntu install.
What's a better distro? I'm proficient enough to hate Windows, but I can't do every little thing through command line and write a new script every time I have to wipe my ass. What are Ubuntu's faults?
Don't tell me just that it's popular. Things I didn't like about it were the default UI and stupid app store.
Is Debian better? Mint?
Linux, obviously. Having updates made available immediately is always better. Nothing says you have to install the updates immediately, though it is probably a good idea. And with any decent Linux system, you can choose what updates to install with a level of granularity far beyond what Windows offers.
I remember switching it to gnome and that looked a lot nicer. I actually didn't even fuck with it after that because I really enjoyed it.
My main concern is encountering something in a distro that I just can't do. I'm happy to just google instructions and learn something new step by step, but I don't like lack of direct support for programs and having to jump through hoops to do basic shit. I liked Ubuntu for just being a regular fucking user friendly OS, but it was SO user friendly that I never learned much using it.
What are the advantages of distros that require a lot of manual fucking with things through command line? I don't do any programming, I just like being able to browse, do homework, torrent, and watch media. What do you actually DO with the command line that's better than just installing a native version of the application?
OpenBSD is the best Unix available and flies fast on almost any hardware new or old.
My main complaints for desktop use are slow boot/shutdown time and random annoying port quirks. Most recently Xfce used 100% CPU, mpd paused itself after every song, numerous outstanding GTK3 visual bugs like missing check boxes. Most annoyingly, tmux command history seems broken with urxvt. Xfce4-notifyd disappeared for like 6 months. The major ports like Firefox and Gnome 3 work perfectly.
This is partly due to shitty software being forced into an uncannily secure execution environment. The OBSD calibre has no access to USB devices, for example. Linux has taught me you really do need a tangled shitstorm of a base to accomodate all the features of shit like calibre.
Unity, GNOME 3 are known to be shit. There's simply not enough manpower for what they want to do, so they end up poorly optimized. GNOME 3 in particular has some really nice features, but manages to crash all the time for me.
This is an issue with linux, because Ubuntu is viewed as *the* linux distro. IMO you should at least use a different flavour of Ubuntu, or (as others point out) Mint, Fedora or anything else. Unity has been slow as crap for me as well.
Don't forget "linux" is not a single thing. Linux only refers to the kernel; Android is as much linux as Ubuntu, but they're not what people usually refer to as linux. From a desktop perspective, the only things you'll be interested in as changing would be the graphical manager (currently most used is X11, but Wayland and Mir are maturing and going to replace it; they are somewhat faster due to getting rid of some of the cruft) and the desktop environment+compositor (putting them together because usually they're pretty linked) - here you'll find there's a large variety, but my recommandations are Cinnamon, XFCE or LXDE, particularly Cinnamon.
Again, fragmentation is a real issue, and it's annoying Canonical is taking the "doing my own thing to the point of doing it poorly" approach.
This has been your non-meme reply.
Well it is. But not but thatt much. depend son what you have. also linux doesn't game or have the great software. so of course it's a little less heavy.windows runs fine on a frehs install without bloat shit. i see no problems.I used linux for years. not too much of a difference desu. On windows just fix you start up shit and all is well
>what is openMW
>what is steamOS
>what are emulators
You can literally play thousands of games on Linux. Steam may not be /g/'s recc. but it already seems like gamers don't really give a shit about how companies screw them over considering they keep buying from the same fucking people over and over again.
Not OP but mine does. Using a thinkpad t420 with ssd. Boots just about as fast a slinux did for me. maybe like 1 second slower or something.maybe
honestly there are things I miss about linux. if it just had better software and could game easily i'd be back at it.
Windows 10 isn't fast, it just caches everything to do with the UI so it seems fast
But you have fewer resources available for actually doing work
Linux is a work OS, not a consumer OS, so you won't find people caching their UI for "user experience". Even bloated shit like GNOME is lightweight compared to windows.
Remember, redhat actually recommends running DEs on production servers. Would you cache a fucking right click menu on a server?
>What are the advantages of distros that require a lot of manual fucking with things through command line?
Honestly none, except that advanced Linux skills could be pretty useful if you ever got a job in IT.
Riding on this thread; but basically I'm doing a fresh install and decided to give Linux OS a try cause why not. Win10 was also giving me too much shit so I wanna switch it for a bit and see if it's worth it.
Any recommendations on OS? Typical stuff like work + games + random shit.
I'm currently reading https://wiki.installgentoo.com/index.php/Babbies_First_Linux if its still relevant.
I installed debian testing with no prior experience with any linux OS 3 days ago and I'm having a great experience so far. It does run faster for me than windows 7 did. Also installing shit on the command line is way faster and easier than using .exe files. Configuring them isn't that hard either. I'm yet to start trying to make everything look pleasing to eye though, but I figured I should have the basic tools first before fiddling with their appearance. Now if anyone wanted to try linux but all they do is play games all day then that's pretty retarded, and in fact yes they should stick to windows because that's where all the compatibility with games is at.
If you like Ubuntu, then that is the better distro. It's all personal taste.
I hate it. The bloat, and the spying for starters. Canonical is a shitty company. It's not MS or Oracle, but it would very much love to be, and it's pretty close. I absolutely despise Unity, albeit not quiet as much as Gnome 3. It looks like shit, it's sluggish, and it strongly discourages customization. It, like Gnome 3 is designed with touch devices in mind. Too bad that most of the userbase they are being aimed at aren't using them on touch devices, but on PCs and laptops, for which they are awkward to use and hinder productivity.
Mint is better--think of it as a fixed and improved version of Ubuntu. Debian too (functionally, but I dislike the devs) but if you are new to Linux it might not be the best place to start. Mint, Manjaro, Antergos (I'll get shit for those two, but both are perfectly good beginner distros), OpenSuse, maybe even Fedora. Fedora is easy enough to use, and it's the cutting edge of Linux, however if you want to use non-free software it's not a good choice at all. My pick there would be either Manjaro Xfce or Mint Xfce.
I guess one thing you should know, that doesn't get stressed enough is that in the end, distro is irrelevant. Mostly. You can make any distro look and feel like any other. You can harden any distro to have airtight security, or you can make them as vulnerable as Windows XP. You could turn Cent into a great desktop, or run a server farm on Mint. Distros are basically just a default setup and a collection of pre-selected software. Generally they represent a way (one of many) of doing things, and they might have a specific use, or target audience in mind. Where you go after installation is up to you though. Most people however don't have any interest in radically altering their distro into a completely different one, which is why we have so many different ones to choose from in the first place.
prohint: real NEET's don't like linux either
To be perfectly fair, Daemon Tools is the only usable image mounting software on Windows. It's the only one that can handle images with multiple tracks (PS1, Sega Saturn, audio disc images, etc.)
WinCDEmu is a joke.
I didn't know Ubuntu had spying...I think I'll go with Mint next time, I like the bare bones look of its desktop. All I want is internet access, bittorrent, and audio/video playback. I don't do anything fancy, but Win10 gives me another tumor every time I use it.
Between the always watching NSA/Microsoft, the goddamned auto-downloading apps based on your keylogged entries, the ads, and the SHIT UI, I just can't do it. I liked Win7, I really did, but I'm fucking done.
Mint would serve you well. Xfce is known for being a lightweight desktop, while still looking good, and allowing you to customize things.
If you want even more minimal that that though, I highly recommend Fluxbox. It's simply a window manager, and out of the box it's about as minimal (and ugly) as things get without being text-based. That's the point though. You use it to create the exact desktop you want, and it's designed to be easy to do so. Easier than in Xfce, which is pretty easy.
OpenBox is another one to consider. It's similar to Fluxbox, as both were originally forks of Blackbox. They do have their differences though. OpenBox over time has become distinct from Blackbox, and is a project unto itself now. Fluxbox has remained more true to it's roots, and is rightfully thought of as a modern continuation of BlackBox.
Personally I prefer Fluxbox, but OpenBox is great. I started with Fluxbox is why I prefer it I think. Had I tried OpenBox first, I'd probably prefer it instead. I could happily use it in place of Fluxbox if I needed to though.
cwm is another one I like. It may not be available in your distro's repositories though, as it's largely unknown to much of the Linux community. It comes from OpenBSD. It very minimal, and it's meant to be simple, and to basically stay out of your way as much as possible. It's also designed to be heavily keyboard driven, so mice are not needed as much, or even at all.
>Tons of retarded fags like these two for example
You either learn to use Linux or you go back to Windows, you have zero say on how Linux should be tailored for your needs. You didn't contribute time, effort, bug tracks or money towards Linux development. Having this alternative to Windows is a global collection of projects all aiming to create an open system for everybody. There's no "I want to talk to your supervisor, this is unacceptable" on this one, you either support it or you don't.
Protip: whining about it in 4chan won't fix any bugs or speed up the development. You are only producing background noise.