This video is kinda shocking, in the difference between what Linux was before:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xC5uEe5OzNQ
Before Linux was just a boring desktop, but now it has grown up a bit..
The first one is Windows Vista though, but when the guy plays around with a dock and a big cube its Ubuntu..
What has happend here??

Hmm, never payed much attention to Linux. The new version looks nice but, what does that really do for performance? Vista isn't much better but, it's reliable. Linux has gotten better though. Maybe Windows will have some competition soon.

What you see in the video is a desktop environment/window manager. It is a program running IN linux, it is not linux. There are many window managers/desktop environments for linux. Some are nice and simple, and others are fancy and pretty. It has nothing to do with the operating system. And just because it looks nicer, does it make it better? more powerfull?

Yep its just a shell . That video is old... but yeah compiz fusion is lots of fun if just a bit useless?

I think Vista just got burned by an open-source OS with graphics

Now I want Ubuntu...

~iE

A bit like the Mac, which is all GUI and no extra-special performance unless you spend loooooadsamoney on 4 gigs a' RAM. I'm looking forward to seeing what Snow Leopard brings to the table.


It's free and it doesn't natively run Windows apps, which means:

No games that are of any consequence (other than SimCity 3000... great.), no Notepad++, no Office '07/'03 etc. (could be considered a positive...), no iTunes, no MSN (aMSN isn't as good), no Photoshop/Dreamweaver etc. Basically no commonly used software, and the alternatives are largely not as good (aMSN, GIMP, gedit......)

It's also hard to install common utilities such as Java and Flash Player, you have to learn how to use the terminal if you want to get anything done, Gnome makes it hard to open/manage files with the GUI, the directory structure is confusing because software installs in several different places, you have to be a real Linux geek if you want to get anything to work.

What is IS good at, however, is: Apache; Perl; PHP; MySQL; Security and I can't see much that's different about it.

Thats not totally the point..
I was thinking a bit of how the graphics of it has improved?
Its a change from when it was 7.04, when you could mostly just have KDE or Gnome.
Yes, i am a Windows user but i know some about the other systems..
Is there at all any program to make this kind on Windows?
If it was made a Windows 7 them there would have been small difference.

That reminds me of that you can grab a free copy of Windows 7 BETA copy tomorrow..
(I will get that one Just for fun though, so i can test too..)

is there like a theme for vista users like this so we can download it i mean that looked awesome

The "cube" effect is not just a theme, it's part of a whole piece of software that probably can only be integrated into Linux from the way the OS was coded (im speculating).

That applies to the rest of the UI as well, like how you can't slap a vista start menu bar on a Mac.



Short answer : Nah, sorry


----


Interesting video though, i may burn a live CD with Ubuntu sometime just to check it out

What about how when u close a file it like sparkles up and what not is there a theme for that? or anything remotely close to it

Well if you are saying that Ubuntu is just a shell on top of linux, Winydows is just a shell on top of M$-DOS. And with the latest Ubuntu that has come out, it has a replacement program PRE-installed that will cover for any M$ software you mgith use. It has open office which is just as good as M$ office, pidgin is an IM program that incorporates most popular IM protocols. Gimp is more powerful than photopaint.

Now I may be ranting on a bit, but Linux is not worse than Windows, It is actually better, in the fact that it is open source and community modified, so if you find a problem in any of the apps, you can post a bug report and it is fixed within a week or so. Now that beats waiting months for Service Packs to come out.

It's not a theme, it's a setting in a desktop environment (which can be extended (if you know how...) to include features such as sparks when you shut a window)


Ubuntu doesn't have to utilise a GUI, neither does Windows, the GUI of which isn't on top of MS-DOS. Ubuntu has always had the preinstalled equivalents of Windows software. I personally think that OpenOffice is better than Office 2007, but that Office 2003 is better than both of them; Pidgen is difficult to use and it didn't work with my MSN or AIM (..or Skype); GIMP is not as good as Photoshop or Paint.NET; and I was unable to find an equivalent to Notepad++ because all that is available is IDEs for C, C++ etc. which I'm not interested in, there were a couple of 'text editors for programmers' but I couldn't get them working.

Whilst I agree that the principle of Open Source is more efficient, secure and.. free, I believe that until Linux can reliably run Windows applications, it can't compete with Windows for the home user.

Like earlofvarrock said, it's a built in feature of the OS, and really cant be modified, sorry

But a thing that is possible is the program-changing menu, you can make it show all the apps open and display the contents.
I mean the one for ALT+TAB thoguh, its a powerpack.

And its impossible that Windows is built on MS-DOS, MS-DOS is more like a console, and in new Windows there is
MS-DOS more built-in to the new one because of the Commandline, which is the closest you get MS-DOS without the system.
And the oldest Windows isnt NT, XP and Vista is built on the newest NT, 4.0.
But Vista is most upgraded.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 and 3.1 are built on MS-DOS, and they arent graphical, only text building it up in all graphics.
You can find the parts of the graph-letters in Key-map, their routes with different tones of transparency in black.

But Linux is from the same tree, i think, and is built on one source-code and later more and more upgraded.
The difference is that Windows changed it away from MS-DOS.

That's Beryl, and not part of Linux itself (although bundled with many distros under the name Compiz Fusion).

While Aero gives a pleasing and simple interface, Compiz and Beryl just give all these useless flashy effects that try to impress kids or something. Useless IMO.

EDIT: King Aragorn, All Windows versions from 1.0 to ME are all based on DOS. And they do not use text to "build it up in all graphics", but actual graphics. It's effectively a GUI for DOS. But you're right about NT. Every Windows OS since 2000 has been based on NT. (But next time please don't post all this incorrect info, it might confuse some of the people less experienced with computers )

Here's a video of it on vista. For everything it costs about $40.

In response to your first paragraph: QuickLaunch.

MS-DOS should not be confused with CLIs. MS-DOS is a separate Operating System which uses a CLI to interface with the user. XP and Vista are built on Windows NT, but that does not mean that they are NT 4.0. They have been considerably modified since then.

Linux is not from the same 'tree' as Windows. It is a Unix-like operating system - totally and completely separate from Windows. Just because it uses a CLI doesn't mean that it is the same.


So, all those who argue that Linux is better because it has a better interface, that's not a given as there are many options for GUI, AND we can get it for Windows. p0wned.

I didnt mean that windows and Linux was in family, but that all Linux is from one source.
All the time i thought Windows 1.0-3.1 was built on text, but Windows 95 and 98 are graphical you can see it clearly by the look.
I looked a bit on Wikipedia, i see that 3.1 was graphical after all, but 1.0 and 2.0 looks a bit texty?
It was their first try, so it might have not been best, but they maybe played around and made graphical afterwards..

Sorry if anyone got confused by my little post..

I wouldnt agree that Linux has a better interface, its so boring with KDE and GNOME, its just a plain bar..
I will soon try to make a system out from C++, which of course will be fully graphical with self-made graphics, but ideas from other systems.

Linux was initially made by 1 person (Linus Torsvald) but is now contributed to by many people.

Windows 3.1 did indeed have a GUI, but MS-DOS to then didn't have GUIs because the computers didn't have the power to render graphics.

These are very common problems you encounter when you switch from Windows to Linux. Despite being a fan and a regular user of Linux, I admit that there are a lot of things that bug me about it, some of which you've listed there. However, there are some solutions to the problems you listed.

1) iTunes. A big problem with Linux. Apple are still steadfastly refusing to write Linux versions of their products...(why can't all the big companies be like Google and make Windows, Linux and Mac versions of their products ) however it is possible to get iTunes working, because I've done it. The Wine AppDB entry for iTunes shows the versions that are currently compatible with Wine. When I installed iTunes 8 in Wine under Ubuntu the install went smoothly, everything worked like in Windows and it recognized both my iPod Touch 2G and iPod Nano 4G. However I know some people have had problems getting iPods to work with Linux.
(Incidentally, the Wine AppDB linked to above is fantastic if there's a Windows program you think you just can't live without. You can use the site to check whether your application will run under Wine, if there are any known issues with it and what versions will work. Whilst Wine is far from perfect, it's always worth checking here before looking for an alternative application, even if you think your program probably won't work anyway. Amazingly, with a little effort you can even get Internet Explorer to run on Wine, although I don't know why you'd want to )

2) MSN. I agree aMSN looks like a piece of junk. However there are some perfectly decent clients out there. Personally I like Pidgin.

3) Office 03/07 actually work alright on Wine according to the AppDB, with a few bugs. And if I remember rightly, it is possible to use Photoshop on Wine, although the more advanced features aren't available. As for GIMP being inferior to Photoshop, yes it is more complicated, but once you're used to it, it can be just as powerful as Photoshop. I reccomend you play around with the features and follow some of the tutorials on the GIMP site so you can get used to it if you're moving to GIMP from another paint program.

Oh and I just remembered, isn't there going to be a completely online version of MS Office soon? Then you'll be able to use it on any computer with internet access.

4) Games - well yes there aren't many, but they do exist and aren't too bad. Admittedly you're not going to get stuff to rival COD4, Crysis, Left4Dead, e.t.c., so Linux isn't best suited to PC gamers. But if most/all of your decent games are on consoles like your Wii and Xbox like me, then it's not really a problem (I rarely game on PCs anymore except on online games). Also a lot of games are now available on the internet - including yes, you guessed it, Runescape. As long as I can play Runescape on HD, I couldn't care really While these online games aren't exactly COD4, they can be just as addictive. And let's face it, you must have liked online games to a certain extent to end up on here

5) I really wouldn't say you have to be a "Linux geek" to work with Linux. It's just a different way of dealing with things. If you'd only ever used Linux, I'm sure you'd be saying Windows was rubbish and you had to be a Windows geek to use it

6) Finally, when you said "Security and I can't see much that's different about it", I presume you're saying that Linux's security is meant to be better than Windows but you can't see how it is better. Well it definitely is better, I assure you I wrote a lot about this in the spoiler of this post. And also I have no idea why almost all the 's in that post turned to /s

I actually meant that Linux didn't look that much different to Windows or OS X in practice, I know there are security betterness thingys and it all works differently etc. ad infinitum. but that it isn't actually that different to use if you're moving from Windows. If Windows had fully customisable task bars on potentially all 4 corners of the screen, it would look just like OS X and GNOME; another way in which it is similar to Windows, you click on the 'Firefox' icon, and the Internet pops-up. Simple! That's all some people use it for. You are right, when there's a full online version of Office and Photoshop with all the features, speed etc. Linux WILL be the way to go As I've said before.. until then...

Oh right, sorry for the misunderstanding. Yes, I do see your point about it being similar to Windows. This is one of the reasons why I've never understood how people can say it's 'weird' and 'complicated' (that is, people moving from Windows to Linux) as the GNOME interface is pretty simple. I would also like to point out that GNOME isn't the only interface for Linux: there are others, like KDE, Ratpoison, Enlightenment, and so on into infinity. Sorry if you already knew that, it's just it bugs me slightly how people think Linux=GNOME interface.

Theres one thing:
Who has grown up?
The guy recording, or Linux?
The guy recording is playing and not showing anything else than playing.
Linux is like a soldier, follows every single instruction.
Get that one?
Now who/which is grown-up?
This is about the clip at the start of the topic..

I know, although the only interfaces I've ever used are GNOME and CLI.


Linux 'growing-up' would entail it being ready for mainstream usage and becoming significantly more user friendly.

It has been used on Acer's One computers, but thats because of space-saving.
Maybe one day it will be some steps away from Microsoft and Apple?
But i think Apple is a bit behind Microsoft, Apple have not made much tp develope, but Microsoft has alot and even supporting it.
Apple just sits there giving out normal-use programs like iWork and iLife.
Butn ot much for developers, that part is e\why i dont want a Mac, i want to be fre to be develop.
Myself i try to make a system, just thinking of bare-bone currently.
Going for C++ code at it.
Will post some pics of how it will be if i get started.

Cool, good luck with building your system. If you want to base it around Linux, Linux from Scratch is a great option. I'll be interested to see how it goes on.

I ahve no plan on basing it on anything than C++ code and my own graphic-skills..
The system will be very graphical though, so when i get started, i will make a hell good of graphics system.
But first i have to plan it, executeable file-format, storing format, design(difficult to make practical)
and most, what build-system.
I made a UI, but it didnt debug because of an error with the host file, in VB.
And by making it graphical it will save space and memory, but i also need to work alot with it.

Linux can always be "grown up". There can be an infinite number of builds. It can be "grown up" at any time.

Then again, depends on your opinion of what "grown up" means.