Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Ubuntu NVIDIA Graphics Driver: Windows Competitive, But Only With KDE

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the layers-to-work-through dept.

Graphics 306

An anonymous reader writes "The NVIDIA Linux driver across multiple GeForce graphics cards can compete with Microsoft Windows 7 on Ubuntu, but only when using the KDE desktop and not the default Unity/Compiz. It turns out based upon recent desktop environment benchmarking, Ubuntu's Unity desktop is now noticeably slower than GNOME/KDE/Xfce/LXDE with multiple GPUs/drivers. Sam Spilsbury of Canonical/Compiz acknowledges the problem but it may take longer than one Ubuntu cycle to correct."

cancel ×

306 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Remember that thread from the other day... (3, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325487)

... about problems with Linux on the desktop? [slashdot.org] Yeah. Here you go.

(I'm not saying it's Linux's fault, but it is undeniably a problem with Linux. If some guy drives into you while you're stopped at a red light, the result is still that you have a broken car.)

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325537)

I've said for a while now that desktop Linux's biggest problem is that the de facto primary consumer distro doesn't use KDE by default.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (4, Insightful)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325545)

The average desktop user is disappointed when they only get 347 FPS instead of 422 FPS on their 1080P 3D-accelerated desktop? This is news to me.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (1)

lordofthechia (598872) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326351)

A user may get upset that their $200 Video card performs no better than a $150 video card because of inefficiencies in the OS WM.

Also the performance difference should scale with more demanding games. So with a new enough game the user may be looking at 25 fps vs the 30fps they should be getting OR 50fps vs 60 fps, both of which are noticeable differences.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (3, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326635)

In the L4D2 natively on linux comments pointed out the basic problem with this assertion.

Functions have some overhead and efficiency. A function that has a minimum execution of 4ms will effectively cap your FPS at 250, some other API might have a minimum execution of 2ms, which caps at 500. But at the 60FPS range they can both be the same, or the performance could reverse, the 4ms function could scale much better than the 2ms function for example. Also, because no one really thinks too seriously about FPS in the range of 150+ a lot of weird shit can happen that won't effect normal use.

That said, you're right, who wants to have to buy a 50 or 100 dollar more expensive video card for the same performance? New games especially try and push the limits of the hardware, and you're just not going to get 300 FPS on Guild Wars 2, Borderlands 2 or Call of Duty 2 or with lots of details turned on using affordable hardware today. L4D2 is basically based on a 4 year old engine that aims to be fast on mid range machines. But getting 15 fps or even a steady 40 or 50 FPS with 15 in the marginal cases of major effects on screen can really hurt the experience. Obviously the next generation of consoles is going to raise the bar a step further.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326495)

I remember when I studied physics (years and years ago), that the human eye can only perceive about 60 cycles per second, so anything "flickering" or "rendering" faster than 60 times per second appears to be continuous. 120 times per second is overkill, twice over. 420 times per second is overkill 4 times over. This is like a pissing contest between audiophiles where one's speakers can emit frequencies at 220,000 Hertz, while anothers can reach frequencies of 350,000 Hertz. It doesn't matter that you can' hear anything over 22050 Hertz, (Nyquist sampling in the worst case gets sliced in half, so 44100 cycles per second sampling is the upper practical limit). And here we are comparing un-seeable graphics. Oh, and I can pee 10 inches further than you!

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (4, Informative)

CodeheadUK (2717911) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326607)

> I remember when I studied physics (years and years ago), that the human eye can only perceive about 60 cycles per second.

Wouldn't that be biology?

The point stands though. 60fps is as fast as you need to go for smooth animation. However, if a scene can only be rendered at 60 fps, adding more complexity, bad guysm, explosions, etc could push the render time over the VSYNC delay period. That's a bad thing, as you drop not to 59fps, but to 30fps, which is very noticeable.

Crazy FPS speeds aren't always an e-penis waving contest, it simply means you have plenty of GPU horsepower left in reserve for more complexity or more bad guys on screen without dropping below that VSYNC interval.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (4, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325623)

This is a problem with Ubuntu on the desktop, not Linux. Install Debian and whatever window manager you want and you have a perfectly useable Linux desktop.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (1, Troll)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325671)

For small values of "useable"

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325885)

We're talking Linux here not Windows 8. Try to keep up.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (0)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325913)

You can't quantify "usable" in that way. Sorry, thanks for playing.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (4, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326403)

No one is gonna call the article a troll or shill for pointing out a serious problem? I'm shocked! In the end the problem with Linux is NOT the UIs, or any of the pretty on top, in fact in many ways they have surpassed Windows and OSX in those areas.

Nope, the same damned problem that plagued Linux 10 years ago STILL plagues it to this very day, and it all comes down to drivers and kernel devs constantly futzing with low level internals with nary a thought to QA, QC, or backwards compatibility. Whether anyone likes it or not SOME backwards compatibility IS required, because most software companies and ODMs aren't gonna pay a team of devs to constantly rebuild their products because some kernel dev got an itch.

For proof I direct you to this page of over 100 show stopping bugs [narod.ru] which just FYI but every. single. bug. has links showing that yes this IS a problem and its not just one person's opinion or experience and damned near every. single. problem. on that list can be traced by to devs fucking with internals and breaking shit. Now compare that page to the same page from 3 years ago [narod.ru] and see how much has NOT been fixed in over 3 years.

All the DE wars, Gnome 2 VS Gnome Shell and KDE 3 VS KDE 4? That's all turd polishing because if the guts are constantly breaking nobody will care about the pretty and as long as the devs are given carte blanche to fiddle with anything without a thought about what its doing to the stability of the overall ecosystem things just won't get better.

That is why I had such high hopes for Ubuntu, I had hope that Shuttleworth would do like Google did with Android and just fork the thing away from the devs so that real stability and central management could be brought to bare instead of the cat herding we have now, but it was not to be.

Linux has beautiful UIs, and tons of software, but retailers like myself won't ever touch your product if we install it on a system and 6 months later its broken its own drivers because some dev got a bee in his butt to futz with some low level system files and trashed my customer's WiFi or sound...ohh God sound, WTF were they thinking with Pulse?

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (5, Insightful)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325829)

ubuntu is fine one you rip out unity. Kubuntu, Xubuntu, Lubuntu, Ubuntu with mate desktop, all work great just because unity and gnome are a flaming pile doesn't make the rest bad. apt-get purge unity && apt-get install anything-else(except gnome3) problem solved.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (2)

horza (87255) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326361)

Or you can use Unity for day to day use, then switch to Kubuntu/Xubuntu when you want optimum GPU performance across multiple nvidia cards. KDE could be the alternative to Win32 for gaming.

Phillip.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (3, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326737)

You may be able to use Unity. I have yet to find anyone else that can. I have installed it for about 12 users now, and none of them was able to use it for more than 10 minutes*.

All are perfectly happy with Gnome-shell (I am not, but that is different story).

*The essential problem is that hierarchical text menu structures work. Unrecognisable icons are completely unintelligeable and non-intuitive. Things like the Ubuntu Software Centre take huge amounts of screen space - making it very difficult to find anything - worse (horrifically worse) this particular evil beast has masses of animated crap at the top, needlessly eating your bandwidth and processing power.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (1)

silviuc (676999) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326271)

The above is flambait. What stops somebody running ubuntu from switching DE? Unity bad? Fine, there is KDE, XFCE, LXDE and various even lighter options like running just a featured window manager.

Re:Remember that thread from the other day... (4, Interesting)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326735)

Not even Ubuntu, but its desktops. TFS says KDE is faster than Windows, which seems right to me -- I'm running W7 on a year old notebook and kubuntu on an ancient tower, and the tower (with a much slower processor and less memory) is faster than the notebook. The tower is running kubuntu.

Desktop linux, not linux (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325847)

You keep saying "linux" when you really mean "desktop linux". Two points on that:

1. Linux is an entire world of computing, and desktop linux is actually a small part of that world. Linux is first a multi-user unix-like OS, and second everything else. Since when has a multi-user unix-like OS excelled at being a consumer-oriented desktop system? Never. They excell at being workstations and servers, and require a competant admin. That's just the reality of it, so why do you think it needs to be changed?

2. You (and others) keep implying that desktop linux is worthless ("period"), when people like me have been using it for 15 years and wouldn't even consider switching to a consumer OS. What you really mean is that it doesn't hold up as a consumer-oriented OS, and I'll be the first to admit that you're right. CONGRATULATIONS.

Re:Desktop linux, not linux (1)

Kwpolska (2026252) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326021)

*cough* OS X *cough*

Re:Desktop linux, not linux (2)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326063)

... which is no more competitive with Windows 7's graphics performance than Linux is. In fact less so with nvidia.

Open source == FAIL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326481)

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the problem is that open source is the worst way to develop software. When your only motivation to code is to feel smugly superior to everyone else and to push your freetard politics, you are not coding for quality. This is why Apple will ALWAYS eat lin-sux's lunch. Here come the downmods just for telling the truth.

Think Different.
Think BETTER.
Think Apple!

Re:Open source == FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326689)

lets count... upgrade apple and linux...
i used my pc for over 5 years now with upgrades non stop.
every year i spend around 200-300 euro for PARTS ONLY. 250x5 = 1250 euro over course of 5 years. lets make it fun, 400 euros ayear for low tyre gaming machine. 400 a year, 2000 all together.
with mac, €1,676.00 euro lets say once evry 1.5 year roughly 5590
So only 3590 euro difference. Lets add a few hundred bucks for applications that are otherwise free in Linux and sheer fun of being able to mess with OS and get good experience. i am not saying anything about performance, since mac compared to linux sucks donkey balls, there is no way to optimize anythingin mac, in linux i compile with gnetoo all applications for my specific processor and gpu, not to mention with only features i need.

and dont start me on your old mom who doesnt have knowledge on linux. she doesnt have knowledge on mac either. one time buy of laptop for 300 euro that will do ALL my parents ever need vs 1,099.00 euro... sorta not equal anyway.

think cheap, be cheap skate, love free as in beer!

Two statements: (4, Insightful)

aussersterne (212916) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325497)

Linux advocate:

"It may be slower, but you're not stuck with anything Windows-like and you can fix the code yourself!"

Prospective user:

"Wait... It's slower, AND it doesn't work like Windows, AND you want me to fix the code myself?!"

Re:Two statements: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325611)

Linux advocate:

"It may be slower, but you're not stuck with anything Windows-like and you can fix the code yourself!"

Prospective user:

"Wait... It's slower, AND it doesn't work like Windows, AND you want me to fix the code myself?!"

A key difference you curiously left out of these two statements is at least $120 [microsoft.com] .

Re:Two statements: (0, Flamebait)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325701)

A key difference you curiously left out of these two statements is at least $120.

So you're saying people should expect less from Linux because it's free?

Re:Two statements: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325755)

Well, Yes! That's how capitalism works. Deal with it.

Re:Two statements: (2)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325817)

No, he's saying that not paying $120 is an advantage.

Re:Two statements: (1, Insightful)

Kozar_The_Malignant (738483) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326089)

Time is money, and $120.00 is about an hour of my time. I'm pretty sure that I can't fix Unity in an hour.

Re:Two statements: (5, Funny)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326231)

I'm pretty sure that you can't fix Windows in a hour either.

Re:Two statements: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326401)

Perhaps what he is wanting to use windows for, isn't 'broken' in that fashion?

Re:Two statements: (1, Troll)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326771)

Perhaps, but, on the basis of 20 years of experience, it is almost certainly broken in some fashion.

Re:Two statements: (5, Funny)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326555)

Pay an Indian to fix it in several hours then.

Re:Two statements: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326745)

i am pretty sure, after u first time u installed windows u take a few hours just to find, download and install all programs u need, where fuckloads of them are not free.

while in kubuntu(which btw doesnt have unity)it may be matter of typing "apt-get install program-name" probably it even accepts multiple programs as argument.and btw, u are bullshitting us about 120 dollars an hour.

Re:Two statements: (2)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326059)

So you're saying people should expect less from Linux because it's free?

If by "less" you mean, "you will owe less on your credit card because you didn't drop a C-note on Windows", or, "I am less likely to be locked out of my system because I changed my hard drive and now Microsoft Activation doesn't recognize my serial number" or "My operating system takes up a lot less disk space and requires less in the way of computing resources now that I'm using Linux instead of Windows" then, yes, they should expect "less".

Re:Two statements: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325745)

Well at least $90.27 now (was much less at release, and a whole lot less if you bought the family pack).

As a consultant, I make more than that in an hour. Are you suggesting that within one hour, I will have a fully functioning system that is comparable to Windows and I will have less than one hour of retraining? No. Didn't think so.

Re:Two statements: (4, Insightful)

Nikker (749551) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325815)

If you're charging +$90/hr then, well ya I would suggest that.

Hell I set up Ubuntu 12.04 + Cairo-Dock + VMWare Workstation 9.0 on a computer illiterate friends computer with a Win7 Guest in about an hour on a quad core with a decent HDD. Then I showed her the dock and some wobbly windows and she basically taught her self she was so into it.

Funny thing is I don't even make close to your pay grade. You should start to wonder if you are really worth it.

Re:Two statements: (2, Interesting)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326747)

So you install Linux, then put VM+Win7 on it so she can get work done?

Sounds like YOU are the one not adding value.

Re:Two statements: (1)

armanox (826486) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325909)

Within an hour of what? Post-install, from install? Within an hour my Linux desktops are about as functional as Windows (Drivers, Flash, Java, A/V codecs, updates).

Retraining? When were you ever "trained" on Windows? I didn't learn how to use Windows in school, I learned how to use a computer - how to do Word Processing, Desktop Publishing, Spreadsheets, etc. We had Apple ]['s when I was in Elem, Macs (system 7 IIRC) in Middle school, and iMacs in HS (OS 9 and then OS X), with the exception of a few Windows 2000 and XP machines in the programming classes (or, if you were in assembly, they still had Windows 3.1); and used the old whens when needed. I'm glad to know that you're less flexible then school children.

Re:Two statements: (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325993)

Hell i could probably send you a script and you would have a usable desktop after running it. let me set it up and yes it will be usable after an hour (unless you have abominably slow internet) complete with more eye-candy than windows or apple ever though of and an app for whatever you could want. Need MS Office it runs well in wine last I checked or I could put it on a VM. If your here you are probably not using IE so you can probably have a your choice browser already, opera, firefox, chrome, all run of linux. as for chat Pidgen chatcleint runs linux, As does thunderbird for your email. VLC for media if you need something little less utiliatarian and more polished than you can use banshee, rythmbox, Clementine, or any of a dozen others. for torrents take your pick deluge, transmission,,,. other than nich stuff it can be done on linux.

Re:Two statements: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325971)

At US federal minimum wage, $120 is equivalent to 16.55 hours of work.

learning curve + slower performance + learning about the code + fixing the code = Home Premium is looking kinda good.

And that's assuming the person already knows how to code well enough to not break things. For the vast majority of people, the GP is right to omit the price difference: it makes Linux look less bad.

Straw Man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325625)

is bogus.

Re:Two statements: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325819)

Linux advocate:

"Use what you bloody want, I'm busy."

Prospective user:

"But...."

Linux advocate:

"Look there's a man over there that will take your money, go talk to him."

Prospective user:

"But yours is free."

Linux advocate:

"No it Free. Now piss off."

Re:Two statements: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326563)

What the Linux guy meant is that the code doesn't come broken from the factory, and you aren't stuck with it being broken for years and years and years, and even if you can't fix it yourself, if you wanted, you could pay someone to fix it. You can't do that with windows. Oh, and what the kids from best buy do isn't fixing it. They shut parts of it off to mask the problem. It stays broken.

Ubuntu Unity (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325509)

Im sorry, but can we finally admit that Unity is a mistake. I tried (REALLY TRIED) to like unity. Its not that bad after all, but it was a step BACKWARDS. Couple that with all of the GNOME devs going Batsh**t crazy and creating GNOME3 and we have a problem. KDE is where I live now, but I miss my GNOME2. For me this is just one more nail in the coffin of Unity. Dont get me wrong though, I can see myself going to Unity in a few years, but that is a LOOOONG time as far as Linux is concerned. There are just too many issues with it right now.

Re:Ubuntu Unity (4, Insightful)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325627)

Dont get me wrong though, I can see myself going to Unity in a few years, but that is a LOOOONG time as far as Linux is concerned. There are just too many issues with it right now.

Don't worry, by the time Unity's stability begins to materialize, they'll have lost interest and moved on to something else. Such is the way of the Linux desktop.

Re:Ubuntu Unity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325973)

err having been a bit of a lapsed believer recently why is KDE considered a heresy these days? I allways prefered it to Gnomw.

Unclean, Unclean!

Re:Ubuntu Unity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326191)

Well as someone who actually has old hardware and unaccelerated video: Because it was the first one to suck when KDE 4 came out and required 3d acceleration to do anything at a reasonable rate (OGL2.1+ cards BTW, which the system I was running at the time couldn't recieve better than a OGL1.4 card, hence no XComposite and no accelerated desktop). Additionally the initial KDE4 release SUCKED usability-wise, yet every distro packaged it by default in that release. That particular computer was running SuSE (THE KDE distro. Although I'd been running it as a console-server prior to that install).

Long story short, I put WindowMaker and XFCE on it and it went back to being smooth. Honestly for the non-newbie linux user, why the hell do you need a desktop enviroment? I'm faster doing file management from the console, and it's quite handy when an app isn't executing to actually find out what it's spitting out on the console, rather than going 'click click click click... it's still not open...'

But judging by all the stupid changes being made to both kernel and appspace nowadays I don't think I'm the intended audience anymore.

Re:Ubuntu Unity (1)

vurian (645456) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326265)

No, it didn't require anything like that, not even from the very beginning. You were always free to choose either opengl desktop effects, xrender desktop effects, and no desktop effects, and if kwin determined your gpu couldn't handle desktop effects from what the gpu advertised, it would disable desktop effects. And you would have a perfectly functional, fast, usable and beautiful desktop environment. Of course, some gpu's lied about their abilities in unspecified ways. But you can hardly blame kwin for that.

Re:Ubuntu Unity (4, Informative)

MMC Monster (602931) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325785)

I agree about Unity. It sucks rocks, and I downgraded to an earlier version of Ubuntu for a while.

HOWEVER, you may want to give Linux Mint 13 with the Cinnamon desktop. They basically take Gnome and add their own desktop to it. As a bonus, it's built off of Ubuntu and you can use all the Ubuntu repositories with it.

So you get the bug fixes associated with the latest Gnome, the repositories of Ubuntu, the solidness of Linux, and the clean interface of Cinnamon.

Been using it about a month and quite happy so far.

Re:Ubuntu Unity (1)

lexluther (529642) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325865)

I agree with this. very sad the fracture into Unity and Gnome3. I run 12.04 with gnome2 - not optimal, but comfortable, and not *that* buggy.

Re:Ubuntu Unity (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325947)

Sounds like MATE [wikipedia.org] is what you want/need.

Shame you didn't log in, as you're probably never going to come back and find this, are you?

Re:Ubuntu Unity (4, Interesting)

horza (87255) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326443)

I appear to switch too early ahead of the curve. I couldn't stand Gnome2 so switched to KDE 4.0, even though I knew it was a buggy mess. By the time it got to 4.2 it was pleasant to use. I bought a new PC and decided I may as well install the relatively new Unity along side just for fun... and have been using it ever since. I do appreciate KDE but I just find Unity nicer to use. I find KDE a little too much like Windows, but other than than they are both very pleasant and productive. Both have file managers that suck though (Nautilus and Dolphin). Not sure why XFCE went with Thunar instead of taking ROX, come to think of it.

Phillip.

Re:Ubuntu Unity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326489)

You can keep using GNOME 2, you do not even have to fork it either for that to happens, you know you can keep sending patch mainstream if you find a bug, heck you could even ask for maintainership!! I do not like MATE, I mean I do like mate (drink every day), I just not like people that forks a huge project like GNOME do a string replace (BTW you cant replace copyrights) and call it its own and did not even ask to become the new maintainer.

how to correct it immediately (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325511)

may take longer than one Ubuntu cycle to correct.

Actually you can correct it immediately, by using the KDE desktop. Plus, you get a richly featured desktop that isn't trying to cater to the Facebook crowd.

Re:how to correct it immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325533)

Too bad everything is in the wrong fucking place and it takes 5 times longer to get anything done when you have to go hit the forums to figure out the simplest thing. Fail.

Re:how to correct it immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325723)

Wrong place?
I've been using KDE for a while now.
Everything is where I expect it to be, and nicely organized / easy to find.

Unity messes things up making you have to search for everything. The browsing feature is completely unuseable and crap.

Re:how to correct it immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326019)

desktop folder is a stupid widget

Re:how to correct it immediately (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326277)

So? It's still in the exact same spot where desktop icons are on every other OS with a desktop. If the fact that you can add other things there scares you, maybe you should go back to Windows 95.

Re:how to correct it immediately (1)

Metal_Militia (1201049) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325763)

define "wrong fucking place" please.

Re:how to correct it immediately (2)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325941)

Any place but where I intuitively expect it to be. For 'the definition of wrong place' please use Gimp for approximately half a second and you'll understand the definition perfectly.

Re:how to correct it immediately (1, Interesting)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325985)

Works fine for me, since my own learning was not so specific that I can't function without things being static.

I can understand if maybe you have a learning disability, but if you don't you have nobody to blame but yourself.

Just because JASC or Photoshop or Paint.NET or whatever put it there, doesn't mean it's the best place to put it (if there is even such a thing).

Re:how to correct it immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326049)

For 'the definition of wrong place' please use Gimp for approximately half a second and you'll understand the definition perfectly.

So... "in a quite usable place" is your definition of "wrong place"? Huh. Well, if that's how you define it, more power to you, I guess, but now I can understand your communication problems with others.

Re:how to correct it immediately (-1, Troll)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326045)

define "wrong fucking place" please.

Well, in the US, they'll arrest you for fucking in public places.
So, definition: "public place" = "wrong fucking place".

Re:how to correct it immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325955)

[Citation needed]

Re:how to correct it immediately (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326203)

Too bad everything is in the wrong fucking place

KDE is probably the most flexible desktop out there for configuring it exactly how you want it to be.

The defaults are almost right for me, except that Dolphin isn't as good as Konq as a filesystem explorer, but that's trivial to configure too.

Who likes Unity ? (2, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325549)

I hate Unity.
Everyone on Slashdot seems to hate Unity.
The rest of the Internet seems to hate Unity too.

Is there anyone that actually likes Unity? Or are Canonical just trying to piss everyone off?

Re:Who likes Unity ? I do as of 12.04 (5, Informative)

LeDopore (898286) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325651)

I am on Slashdot and I do not hate Unity as of 12.04.

I could not stand the Unity that came with 11.10 - I run a lot of MATLAB, and there was no functional way to switch between multiple figures. People would moan and complain about Unity taking a few more clicks or whatever; for me it was actually impossible for me to switch between windows as needed on 11.10, try as I might. I was fearing a forced switch to Unity, since Ubuntu wouldn't be an option for me anymore.

Unity on 12.04 is a completely different story. While I still don't love its window-switching behavior, the super-W feature of displaying all windows is wonderful.

Unity might not be as polished as KDE 3.5 yet, but 12.04 was so much better than 11.10 that I'm willing to see where Canonical's headed.

Re:Who likes Unity ? (4, Interesting)

Ingenium13 (162116) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325747)

I refused to update for the longest time when Ubuntu switched to Unity, but then I got a new laptop and figured I'd give it a shot first. I was pretty set of just using Mint but really wanted to give Unity a try before switching. I was surprised that I actually sort of liked it, especially once I learned the keyboard shortcuts. My task bar always got cluttered with lots of windows in Gnome 2, and their order wasn't consistent which was a minor annoyance. Realistically, Unity feels a lot like Windows 7 to me (though I've only used Windows 7 briefly on other people's machines, I really liked the UI), and it got rid of all the clutter. I like that Gnome Do is essentially integrated into Unity, and there are some other nice features as well.

That said, I haven't seriously tried Gnome 3 yet. I installed it and loaded it up, and then did a wtf when I couldn't really figure out how to use it and wondered why it was so ugly before switching back to Unity. It felt like a very incomplete product. I've since read that you need to use a lot of add ons (or whatever the correct term for them is) to make it more usable, but at this point it's not worth the investment in time when Unity works well enough for me.

Re:Who likes Unity ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325789)

I like Unity but then again, I gave up on Linux and moved to OSX. Unity is what gave me the desire to move on.

Re:Who likes Unity ? (1)

valros (1741778) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325833)

I actually find Unity quite usable. I find its better suited to my desktop where I have two monitors but regardless of the number of screens I usually just maximize my main applications across multiple workspaces. This was also the general way I arranged windows prior to Unity, so all Unity did was give me a dock and more screen space, which as a minimalist I am thankful for. Granted some of the default settings are not in the best interest of usability, for each new install it takes me a while to tweak compiz to my liking.

Re:Who likes Unity ? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325983)

Lots of people, you just need to find ones that dont' have a stick up their ass, which is rare in the Linux world I realize, but they are out there.

Re:Who likes Unity ? (3, Interesting)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326057)

Iss there anyone that actually likes Unity? Or are Canonical just trying to piss everyone off?

Problem is, lots of people hate GNOME 3 too. And KDE has always been divisive, even though the original licence problems have long been resolved. But then, they broke KDE in the transition to KDE4, and from I've seen recently, it's still buggy as f**k and has been for years.

So that leaves, in no particular order;

1) GNOME 2. Abandoned. Resurrected as cinammon in the mint ubuntu fork, but still niche. And dear god, the launch bar is TEENY.
2) GNOME 3 /Gnome-shell. Hated by many, the 'let's take away all the stuff people liked' edition, complete with all the options to change virtually anything removed.
3) Unity. Jeez, GNOME 3 really does suck. Let's do something else altogether! Hmm, how about a sideways touch friendly mounted springy dock, and all the apps need to be modified so their window options get merged into the top bar, until they don't.
4) KDE4. Still buggy as f**k and options up to the eyeballs. And I'm struggling to think of a mainstream distro that really backs it; maybe openSUSE, but they kinda went agnostic with the whole Novell thing, and switched to GNOME.
5) XfCE. OK, fine. It's lightweight, it's simple. But some of us want a GUI shell that does more than just be a holder for a bunch of terminal windows. And doesn't look like it's still the year 2000.

So you have the most popular distro Ubuntu with a homegrown shell that's weird and slow, GNOME seem to have forgotten they actually had a userbase before they went off the deep end, KDE are bobbling around trying to work out how to make it not crash, and the remaining desktops are spraying off into a bunch of niche areas.

I'm currently trying to work out what distro & shell to use on my home quiet/dev rig as I'm sick of bugfixing the hackintosh OSX that's on there at the moment.

And right now, they ALL suck.

Re:Who likes Unity ? (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326285)

Don't forget GNOME 3 Fallback Mode! I got a new computer at work which runs Fedora and GNOME 3 in fallback mode and it's surprisingly good. The task switcher is the good simple one which switches between windows, and everything else is almost where it should be. It's what should have become GNOME 3 IMHO.

Re:Who likes Unity ? (1)

davidpack01 (580365) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326579)

Actually, Gnome 2 hasn't been abandoned. It's still alive and well as MATE [mate-desktop.org]

Re:Who likes Unity ? (2)

c (8461) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326161)

> Is there anyone that actually likes Unity?

I can't say I like it, but I don't hate it. I'm not even sure "like" is a word that applies to a desktop. If I'm noticing the desktop at all enough to like it, then there's something wrong... you're supposed to be using a computer for the applications, not the desktop.

As a small screen/netbook UI, it's minimalist and generally pretty good. I've had it on my netbook since the UNR days and I can't really complain.

As a general workstation desktop, 12.04 has fixed the worst annoyances (multi-head gliches, mostly) to the point that it doesn't really get in my way. 11.10 was not a good release and if that's where you first encountered it, I don't blame you for hating it.

Re:Who likes Unity ? (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326589)

Unity is less bad than Windows 8. It has been getting less annoying as it gets worked on. But I still miss GNOME 2

Indeed slow. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325559)

Tried to install the latest ubuntu on a 733 MHz laptop, and it was slow as snails. Ended-up switching to LXDE (lubuntu) which runs fine.

Re:Indeed slow. (2)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325647)

Tried to install the latest ubuntu on a 733 MHz laptop, and it was slow as snails. Ended-up switching to LXDE (lubuntu) which runs fine.

Even on high end hardware I'd use LXDE, all the extra bloat in KDE and GNOME serves no purpose but to waste memory and CPU cycles and the extra graphical fluff is just pointlessly distracting.

File Manager Re:Indeed slow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326267)

Here here. For browsing and minor activity the LXDE File Manager is a little weak, but I'll accept a slightly weaker file manager as a trade off against all the other issues I have with Gnome & KDE's bloat.

Re:Indeed slow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325737)

733 MHz? We send those to recycling. Too slow even for Office 2010. You're trying to use an X Manager with all the bells and whistles. This isn't a difficult concept.

Man up and get a real computer with a chip faster than my tablet. Or quit whining. Either would work for me.

Re:Indeed slow. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326069)

Man up and get a real computer with a chip faster than my tablet.

Translation "I have money and you dont but you should figure out a way to spend money you do not want to just so you can run some of the coolz graphics".

Not everyone has money to buy an ipad and a desktop and a laptop. Some people use what they get.

Re:Indeed slow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326229)

And some of us have affection towards our old hardware, and believe that just because you can get a new fiberglass moulded handle hammer doesn't mean that one you got for your first carpentry job with the old worn wooden handle that you can (and have) hammered while blindfolded should be discarded like so much useless scrap just because it's not 'the new thing'.

Or maybe you really like your old videogames and still have some that just aren't emulated properly on modern hardware (all the late DOS 3d accelerated games for instance.)

Re:Indeed slow. (1)

MonsterTrimble (1205334) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326417)

I'm running a 2002-era 1.4 GHz celeron & 512 MB of RAM with Peppermint 3 and it's still pretty slow. When I open up Chromium, Thunderbird & Pidgin at the same time I just walk away to go get a coffee. It MIGHT be done when I get back. How much RAM do you have in that thing?

Re:Indeed slow. (1)

symbolset (646467) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326791)

The problem with a machine that old isn't performance or compatibility. At that point it's past the service life of its capacitors and prone to fail.

use kubuntu instead (3, Interesting)

galaad2 (847861) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325565)

well, i figured it would be some problem with the graphics drivers and that's why i switched to using the kubuntu 12.04 LTS dvd instead of the normal ubuntu/unity one, i've been having weird issues with unity lately (invisble mouse cursor and ignored keyboard input on a fujitsu siemens Amilo La1703 notebook - but KDE works perfectly)

http://www.kubuntu.org/getkubuntu/download [kubuntu.org]
( for those that fell recently into the linux soup and don't know what this is, this is practically the same thing as ubuntu 12.04 LTS but with the KDE interface as default instead of unity. )

LXDE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325569)

So what I got from that article is that lxde is the best desktop environments except for the one(KDE) where you turn off an apparently significant portion to squeeze out more performance? And lxde is easily the least mature of the bunch with a goal of low resource usage so I only see it getting better.

Too many versions (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325581)

that's the problem with Linux. Choice is nice for the users, but for companies, this is a nightmare as they have to make a different version for each OS, since not everyone know how to compile the source, not to mention compatibility with the OS itself.

Solution: (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325593)

no DE + minimal WM.

use lxde? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325595)

Looked like LXDE came out on top as the best all around performer to me not KDE.

Re:use lxde? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41325753)

I didn't see LXDE in the test results.

It's slow anyway (1)

jones_supa (887896) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325607)

While I actually like Unity, it's still runs damn slow in general. It feels like there's some bad engineering going on there. Especially noticeable on netbook hardware, where Windows 7 runs OK and Aero is smooth, but Unity lags horribly even with basic tasks.

How can the desktop be slow? (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325631)

What are they doing wrong that results in a slow desktop? Re-rendering all text from HTML on every frame cycle of a drag? The graphics power available in modern GPUs has orders of magnitude more power than needed to manipulate a set of flat windows and icons.

That's okay. (1)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325691)

No one uses unity anyway.

No DirectX (1)

Dunge (922521) | more than 2 years ago | (#41325935)

Can't be Windows competitive without DirectX

VALVe saves the day.. ? (1)

Scot Seese (137975) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326023)

.. Isn't VALVe Software (Half-Life, Portal, Team Fortress franchises) working on a heavily optimized Steam client and OpenGL improvements for Ubuntu?

What prevents users from simply loading Steam onto their Ubuntu PCs along with all the tweaked OpenGL drivers and just rocking that instead of the default drivers?

HELP US GABEN, YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE!

Re:VALVe saves the day.. ? (1)

MostAwesomeDude (980382) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326173)

I don't know why you think that Valve will keep their modified drivers to themselves. Hint: You can't mix 'n' match acceleration drivers between your desktop and your applications except under extremely controlled conditions.

may take longer than one Ubuntu cycle to correct? (2)

tippe (1136385) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326293)

whatchu talkin bout Spilsbury?

sudo apt-get install kde-standard

A few minutes later, problem solved. Longer than one Ubuntu cycle... what a joke...

I still use GNOME3, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326307)

It's gotten noticably slower, and it gets even worse the more windows I have open. Apparently a $300+ GPU (Geforce 580GTX) is just not enough anymore to drive two monitors. :| It's even worse with my RadeonHD 5850, but I guess the open-source drivers still have some catching up to do with the propietary ones (which I haven't tried in a long time due to it never working with the X.org and kernel version I'm running). NVIDIA's driver now supports xrandr for managing multiple displays and that too has caused a number of regressions like my desktop dissappearing when I switch from single to multiple monitors. That's in addition to the bugs I've been having to deal with ever since GNOME3 was released which causes redrawing issues in xterm, vim and a number of other apps which has been driving me crazy and hasn't been fixed for around 6 months now.

That combined with the constant issues with sound ever since the introduction of PulseAudio has made me a very frustrated Linux user, and I am seriously considering just buying a Mac for my POSIX needs. I do get that some of these pains are neccesary to improve certain subsytems (PulseAudio seems nice, if it would just work and if older ALSA apps didn't trip up with it all the time), but I just really wish things could become stable again.

Huh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#41326355)

LXDE and Xfce are as performant as uglified KDE, yet KDE is still the clear winner. No bias there at all, huh? And of course, everyone focuses on the tragedy of the worst one being the worst, because it's Canonical's broken choice.

And people wonder why those who opt for a working, less bloated solution on Linux are so sarcastic and hard-bitten. Surely it's nothing to do with the fact that only the most visible options are paid lip service on a fan project that's supposed to be all about choice?

In that case... (2)

s13g3 (110658) | more than 2 years ago | (#41326711)

If you're a *nix user of any skill or experience and running Ubuntu who is genuinely concerned about performance and stability, you should probably be running Debian anyway and pointing to the Ubuntu repos for anything that might be missing or too old for your liking.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?