poty posted:

whats the best looking linux

no joke answers

poty posted:

whats the best looking linux

no joke answers

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

centos or fedora

they ship with gnome by default, which is dogshit, but it is pretty, i hope

Bored Online posted:

pop os has the most decent set of default wallpapers and a default dark theme

Progressive JPEG posted:

poty posted:

had never heard of this before. looks nice thanks


finally. a porn os

Bored Online posted:

pop os is an ubuntu for consumer computers so if all you care about is fiddling with this linux thing it is sufficient.

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

The problem with Ubuntu isn't a matter of taste. It's not that I don't like Unity, or I have bad feelings about Shuttleworth, or that the logo doesn't agree with me. It's much more fundamental: The Ubuntu model for development is broken.

Ubuntu periodically forks Debian's "Unstable" tree (Debian's rolling release). Canonical, inc. works from that snapshot for six months, and then publishes a Ubuntu release.

Inside that Ubuntu release, there is a core of Canonical-supported packages. Canonical accepts bug reports for these packages. These packages receive updates for the supported lifetime of the release. Ubuntu's "core" is supported much the way that Debian or CentOS is.

The problem is that this core is only a fraction of the packages on the system. Ubuntu 14.04, the latest "long term support" release, contains 44378 packages. Only 8751 of them are in the supported part. The rest of the packages go into a separate repository, "Universe."

The packages in Universe, the missing 35 thousand packages, are six months old on release day. They've gone six months without updates or security patches. By the end of the release cycle, they're five and a half years out of date.

--

Shadowhawk will doubtlessly point out that a legion of unpaid, untrained, unorganized volunteers can "maintain" packages in universe. But it's completely optional. Any given package might be untouched (bad), get backported security updates (good), be updated religiously from upstream (really bad), or replaced with something completely different from debian (really, really bad).

There's no release management process. There are no guarantees about what you find in Universe. It's totally up to the kindness of individual strangers.

Universe and Launchpad.net are sources of "works on my machine" issues and security holes. And that is all I have to say about that.

--

Of course, all this peril can be avoided if you don't enable the "Universe" repositories. If you restrict yourself to the core and update repos, you should have no problems. In that case, Ubuntu could be just fine.

Now let's try to use it.

I'd like to build a ruby application.
Whoops. There's no bundler. That was part of Universe.

Python?
Oops. No pypi and no virtualenv. Those are also stuck in Universe.

Java?
Sorry. Maven was also part of Universe.

Perl?
Nope, no mod_perl2.

PHP?
Actually, PHP works fine with only core. All the necessary bits are supported. I can say without any trace of sarcasm that Ubuntu is 100% totally suitable to hosting PHP applications.

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

ubuntu is bad

friends don't let friends use ubuntu

Bored Online posted:

pop os

quote:

We believe the computer and operating system are the most powerful and versatile tools ever created. We’re building an OS for the software developer, maker, and computer science professional who uses their computer as a tool to discover and create.

IMAGINE
the future of automation
Code life into the machinery of the future. Everyone from hobbyists to factory automation professionals can leverage vast open source tools and a vibrant hardware ecosystem to create incredible robots to do nearly anything.

poty posted:

finally. a porn os

Nomnom Cookie posted:

use arch Linux. it’s not “good”, I’m not saying that at all, but anyone who tries to sell you on a “good Linux” does not have your best interests at heart. I don’t either, but I’m honest. you should use arch because it is the most Linuxy Linux that there is

1. cryptic package manager with occasional boot breakages
2. wiki full of instructions on how to choose and configure components that should just work
3. enormous repository of shoddy user-supported packages
4. twelve kinds of kernel
5. systemd
6. everything is CADT
7. if all of the above doesn’t sound good to you then what the gently caress are you doing with Linux? give up. Linux is suffering, and some people enjoy it. maybe you’re not one of those people, and that’s fine. use windows or macos
8. man pages
9. patches welcome
10. that’s a bad patch, gently caress you
11. don’t use gentoo, because building from source isn’t linuxy, it’s BSD-y. that’s just how it is

Progressive JPEG posted:

akadajet posted:

i always wondered why they had to cover her titties with the logo

Broken Machine posted:

because many men are still deeply afraid of women having agency over their bodies and demand they cover themselves

Nomnom Cookie posted:

use arch Linux. it’s not “good”, I’m not saying that at all, but anyone who tries to sell you on a “good Linux” does not have your best interests at heart. I don’t either, but I’m honest. you should use arch because it is the most Linuxy Linux that there is

1. cryptic package manager with occasional boot breakages
2. wiki full of instructions on how to choose and configure components that should just work
3. enormous repository of shoddy user-supported packages
4. twelve kinds of kernel
5. systemd
6. everything is CADT
7. if all of the above doesn’t sound good to you then what the gently caress are you doing with Linux? give up. Linux is suffering, and some people enjoy it. maybe you’re not one of those people, and that’s fine. use windows or macos
8. man pages
9. patches welcome
10. that’s a bad patch, gently caress you
11. don’t use gentoo, because building from source isn’t linuxy, it’s BSD-y. that’s just how it is

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

how do thread schedulers compare/contrast between linux/macos/windows? i mean i'm sure winders is a tire fire as usual

Farmer Crack-rear end posted:

how do thread schedulers compare/contrast between linux/macos/windows? i mean i'm sure winders is a tire fire as usual

Lambert posted:

In all likelihood, Windows has the best one. Microsoft often is the first to implement advanced technology. And macs os probably is the tire fire, as with everything else.

The Management posted:

linux is good for servers, garbage for desktop. it does way too much work in interrupt context and has very bad scheduler latency in general. it should not be doing anything real-time like graphics or audio. it should be running lots of processes performing IO

The_Franz posted:

the windows scheduler is a tire fire with high core counts and real numa systems

burning swine posted:

re: linux
the scheduler is utter poo poo for desktop applications, unless you feel like installing the CK patchset

Gonna Send It posted:

Per Wikipedia/ASML from 2016, EUV for a site was producing 1200 wafers per day at 85% uptime, vs DUV producing 5000 wafers a day at 95% uptime. At $120 million per system, you can see it's very expensive to scale EUV to match DUV wafer output. It's a 150 ton vacuum chamber that's bigger than a bus with a giant laser downstairs; compare that to a relatively tiny DUV system that runs in atmosphere.

As for customer process development, I don't think many people at ASML can even talk to it. It's so divorced from what we all do on a daily basis. The customer expects focus, overlay, and throughput from us; the rest of it is up to them to make the magic happen. Our machines meet the specs and definitely work, but I imagine there's a TON of work for the customer to develop a process for high volume manufacturing. Making one wafer is relatively compared to making tens of thousands of wafers and all the dies on them have to work.

We're just a cog in the machine that is the fab, and I'm just a cog in the machine that fixes the machine. Thousands of people show up to work here everyday; whether they're construction, Intel fab, Intel office, or machine support (not just ASML). It's a huge undertaking that's never been done by anyone before.

The_Franz posted:

the windows scheduler is a tire fire with high core counts and real numa systems

Notorious b.s.d. posted:

you don't need any special scheduler tweaks to make linux a good desktop