Pandora or laptop?

[diligentcircle]

I, on the other hand, would recommend you get yourself a laptop with Windows 7 installed on it before they go out of fashion now that Win8 has been released. You'll get all the games you want, and the coding environments are far better than anything you'll find on linux. Linux is ok for small portable devices, but it really isn't desktop material at all.

I don't know what you're talking about when you say that GNU/Linux "isn't desktop material", considering that proprietary video games is the only area where it is at all behind. I'm tempted to challenge you to name one program that isn't a game that works on Windows only (incompatible with Wine), and doesn't have an equally suitable replacement that works on GNU/Linux, but I'm sure you'll name some obscure proprietary program that nobody uses if I do that...

 

[Kumaki]

NOTE TO ALL ADMINS, THE ROM SITE I HAVE REFERENCED ABOVE IS ALL LEGAL HOMEBREW ROMS!!

Duh...

I wanted to make sure that was known, since the Admin rightly frown on our sharing ROM sites.

 

[Exophase]

I don't know what you're talking about when you say that GNU/Linux "isn't desktop material", considering that proprietary video games is the only area where it is at all behind. I'm tempted to challenge you to name one program that isn't a game that works on Windows only (incompatible with Wine), and doesn't have an equally suitable replacement that works on GNU/Linux, but I'm sure you'll name some obscure proprietary program that nobody uses if I do that...

Since he cited development I'm going to guess he likes Visual Studio or some other Windows-only IDE. I for one have never liked using it, I do my coding in gvim (or notepad++ on Windows if I have to, it's kind of a toss-up but I'm not really happy with the state of gvim there) and consoles w/makefiles and for my purposes Linux is slightly better.


On the topic of buying Linux laptops.. unless it costs less I'd never even consider it. If I want Linux I'll install it myself and dual boot. I'm not going to throw away a free Windows install, even if I only want to use it occasionally. My desktops don't have Windows because I have to build them and don't have enough incentive to pay for it. But I actually had plans to use some Windows stuff once I got my laptop.


These days it's uncommon to find a laptop that has major hardware driver issues. Yes, you'll probably have to use a proprietary blob somewhere, but this doesn't really tend to make things more difficult except for the FSF agenda.


And IMO you shouldn't spend > $400 only to get a Brazos laptop. Big waste of money. For that price you can get something with a much faster processor.

 

[Gausen]

Everdrive64

I've never used one of these, but I'm sure they are top quality since you have them in your store

 

[Linux-SWAT]

Everdrive64

I've never used one of these, but I'm sure they are top quality since you have them in your store

I have one. Indeed they are.

 

[Matthias_H]

I'm tempted to challenge you to name one program that isn't a game that works on Windows only (incompatible with Wine), and doesn't have an equally suitable replacement that works on GNU/Linux, but I'm sure you'll name some obscure proprietary program that nobody uses if I do that...

Uhm, Photoshop? (Don't say GIMP; it lacks so many features and can't do 16 bits per channel, essential for scientific image editing or even just photos)


Uhm, Illustrator? (Don't say Inkscape; so full of bugs it blows my mind)

 

[urjaman]

According to winehq, both of those can be run on wine. (but tbh with some hacks, one version of illustrator needed a windows install to install into wine...)

 

[ekianjo]

I'm tempted to challenge you to name one program that isn't a game that works on Windows only (incompatible with Wine), and doesn't have an equally suitable replacement that works on GNU/Linux, but I'm sure you'll name some obscure proprietary program that nobody uses if I do that...

Uhm, Photoshop? (Don't say GIMP; it lacks so many features and can't do 16 bits per channel, essential for scientific image editing or even just photos)


Uhm, Illustrator? (Don't say Inkscape; so full of bugs it blows my mind)

Amusing, an OS that is not capable of bringing updates to all software you have installed is considered desktop material ?


A number of photoshop versions work fine on Wine, by the way.


Now, you can say that illustrator, office are more capable than what is available on Linux, but it's very biased because you need to pay for those, and not just a little amount of money. Of course there will always be a market driven by niche, high-paying clients. Linux is not playing in that market at the moment (at least not that piece of the market), so the comparison does not make really sense.

 

[TrashyMG]

Also if you need 16 bits per channel or more can currently be done with Cinepaint, Also this feature is coming out when gimp 3.0 is released


Edit: also Krita can do this.

 

[diligentcircle]

Uhm, Photoshop? (Don't say GIMP; it lacks so many features and can't do 16 bits per channel, essential for scientific image editing or even just photos)

I found CinePaint very easily with a quick search; it supports deep color.


I also did a quick search and found that Photoshop works with Wine.


EDIT: h34r:

Uhm, Illustrator? (Don't say Inkscape; so full of bugs it blows my mind)

Inkscape isn't the only vector graphics editor in existence for GNU/Linux. I found Skencil, Gestalter, and Pencil with a quick search (Gestalter claims to be loosely based on Illustrator as well).

 

[_wb_]

Windows a good OS for coding? WTF? Maybe if you have plenty of cash floating around to be spent on fancy IDE's and if you're only interested in producing binaries, not something others can easily compile for themselves.


But seriously, for serious coding you need GNU/Linux. Try to do any of these in Windows:


- apt-get install (or similar) state-of-the-art compilers for nearly any programming language


- apt-get install (or similar) *-dev


- get all the sources for the entire OS you're working on, and have the option to add functionality or fix bugs in the OS itself


- automake, autoconf, intltool etc etc make it so much easier to develop cross-platform and localized software


- lots of cutting edge stuff (e.g. academic prototypes) will typically not even be released on Windows in the first few months/years

 

[elwing]

Maybe if you have plenty of cash floating around to be spent on fancy IDE's and if you're only interested in producing binaries, not something others can easily compile for themselves.

that's the work of the majority of the developers... most of us use fancy IDE and only produce binaries for end user running windows...

 

[ZXDunny]

Why would I want others to easily compile things? And both my IDEs were free (Delphi and VS). I have no need of OS source code, I tend not to worry about being able to fix bugs myself, and I've never needed to add functionality to windows beyond what I get out of the box - maybe this is something people need to do to linux. I never have though, so I wonder about the worth of that particular item. I don't need cross-compiling functionality because I develop for windows. I have one project that builds for linux without changes to the source and that's PandaBAS. Other than that I've never needed (or wanted) to cross-compile.


As for cutting edge compilers... Yes, I might grant you GCC, but that's all. I know of no other compiler that a) isn't available for windows, B) cannot be made to run in windows and c) has more functionality than the equivalent in windows - FPC in particular is so full of bugs that extensive use of DEFines to check if it's being employed need to be used to get sources to build correctly.


D.

 

[diligentcircle]

I have no need of OS source code, I tend not to worry about being able to fix bugs myself, and I've never needed to add functionality to windows beyond what I get out of the box - maybe this is something people need to do to linux. I never have though, so I wonder about the worth of that particular item.

Just because some of us value a particular freedom in our OS and other software to improve it doesn't mean people "need" to do it in GNU/Linux. I've never done this. I still like the option.

 

[Rockthesmurf]

The Pandora can also be a conversation starter. A laptop isn't interesting to anyone.


Having a Pandora also means you can be a more involved member of this nice community of hackers.

Boy goes into student union, heads to bar to get a beer. Girl sees boy, "Hey boy, what is that you have there in your pocket?". Boy responds, "This, why this is a Pandora". Girls seems excited, "Most the other boys in here only have laptops."


It could be the start of a beautiful love story, a story that could even be written on the Pandora.


Anyway, one potentially good thing about the Pandora, is I *think* that it holds its values pretty well? As in if anything my Pandora (first hour of preorders) has probably gone up in value ever since I had it rather than down. Where as a laptop will reduce in values as soon as you buy it. So there is potential to get a Pandora, see if it works well for your purpose, if it does GREAT, if not you can look to sell it on and get a laptop.

 

[_wb_]

Why would I want others to easily compile things? And both my IDEs were free (Delphi and VS). I have no need of OS source code, I tend not to worry about being able to fix bugs myself, and I've never needed to add functionality to windows beyond what I get out of the box - maybe this is something people need to do to linux.

Right, so you're claiming Windows doesn't have any bugs at all, and it has all the functionality anyone would ever want, and their API is perfect. I beg to differ.

I never have though, so I wonder about the worth of that particular item. I don't need cross-compiling functionality because I develop for windows. I have one project that builds for linux without changes to the source and that's PandaBAS. Other than that I've never needed (or wanted) to cross-compile.

Sure, if you only want to develop for Windows, that's fine. If you're fine with your software running on only 1 OS, on only 1 kind of hardware (x86), sure, why not. Maybe you even consider it to be a feature that your binaries will at some point become useless to anyone not using ancient legacy hardware/software or emulators emulating that ancient stuff. So that, you know, you can be sure that your contribution to humankind will not be permanent (the horror).

As for cutting edge compilers... Yes, I might grant you GCC, but that's all. I know of no other compiler that a) isn't available for windows, b ) cannot be made to run in windows and c) has more functionality than the equivalent in windows - FPC in particular is so full of bugs that extensive use of DEFines to check if it's being employed need to be used to get sources to build correctly.

Sure, anything (including of course gcc) can be made to run in Windows if you put enough effort in it. Or at least that will be the case until Microsoft decides to make a non-Turing complete version of Windows that has so much DRM that it becomes impossible to run arbitrary code.


Most of the cutting edge stuff I'm aware of (research prototype implementations etc.) is being created in a GNU/Linux environment, and is available in git or svn repos as source code. Sure, if the project is kind of mature they tend to compile it for Windows every now and then and put some Windows executable on some website; in the early stages people typically don't even bother to do that. If you want the cutting edge stuff it's usually way easier to just clone the git, ./configure; make and done.

 

[ZXDunny]

Why would I want others to easily compile things? And both my IDEs were free (Delphi and VS). I have no need of OS source code, I tend not to worry about being able to fix bugs myself, and I've never needed to add functionality to windows beyond what I get out of the box - maybe this is something people need to do to linux.

Right, so you're claiming Windows doesn't have any bugs at all, and it has all the functionality anyone would ever want, and their API is perfect. I beg to differ.

Not at all, and I'd like to know how you drew that conclusion on so little evidence. I said that I've never found it necessary to need the source code to windows, and I doubt I ever shall. Your point about the API is null; if there is any functionality I need then I can code it just as easily as I can in linux.

I never have though, so I wonder about the worth of that particular item. I don't need cross-compiling functionality because I develop for windows. I have one project that builds for linux without changes to the source and that's PandaBAS. Other than that I've never needed (or wanted) to cross-compile.

Sure, if you only want to develop for Windows, that's fine. If you're fine with your software running on only 1 OS, on only 1 kind of hardware (x86), sure, why not. Maybe you even consider it to be a feature that your binaries will at some point become useless to anyone not using ancient legacy hardware/software or emulators emulating that ancient stuff. So that, you know, you can be sure that your contribution to humankind will not be permanent (the horror).

I've abandoned many projects in my time, usually when the hardware (or indeed the OS) they ran on became obsolete. It doesn't bother me. It does bother my users, sure, but as they didn't pay for it they're not entitled to anything. I don't continue development on a different platform.


Contribution to humankind? Don't make me laugh. I contribute more in my day-to-day work than I ever could by sitting in front of a keyboard. This is a hobby, not a crusade.

Sure, anything (including of course gcc) can be made to run in Windows if you put enough effort in it. Or at least that will be the case until Microsoft decides to make a non-Turing complete version of Windows that has so much DRM that it becomes impossible to run arbitrary code.

That is at least true. I'm abandoning windows when win7 is no longer viable - win8 is certainly not worth the effort. The question is, which OS do I plump for? Mac OSX seems to be the best choice so far, but Apple are also moving closer to what windows is becoming, so may not be viable for long. If the only viable desktop OS left is linux then it'll have to be that - but it won't be ideal.


D.

 

[diligentcircle]

Contribution to humankind? Don't make me laugh. I contribute more in my day-to-day work than I ever could by sitting in front of a keyboard. This is a hobby, not a crusade.

So, you're basically saying that your software is completely worthless and not worth sustaining? In that case, you should have no problem just dumping the source code, no compilation at all, with no documentation. Or just not sharing it at all. Of course, we both know that's bullshit.

 

[ZXDunny]

Contribution to humankind? Don't make me laugh. I contribute more in my day-to-day work than I ever could by sitting in front of a keyboard. This is a hobby, not a crusade.

So, you're basically saying that your software is completely worthless and not worth sustaining? In that case, you should have no problem just dumping the source code, no compilation at all, with no documentation. Or just not sharing it at all. Of course, we both know that's bullshit.

It's of worth to me; that's why I write it. And of all of my abandoned projects, I have dumped the source code. Some have been picked up by others, some have not. But no, I don't bother to document it - if (as happened with the IDE "BASin" I created) people want it badly enough then they can figure it out.


And no, once I'm done with my code, it's not worth sustaining in my view.


D.

 

[elwing]

hehe


http://sonicstealth.com/programs/shop/simplecart.cgi?category=Internet&showitem=nccode001