01.07
Around 17% of all traffic that reaches this blog is on the keyword ‘Gimp Sucks’. Just throwing that out there.
I love the self delusion of the Gimp developers. Look at their site under ‘contribute’:
“GIMP is Free Software and a part of the GNU Project. In the free software world, there is generally no distinction between users and developers. As in a friendly neighbourhood, everybody pitches in to help their neighbors. Please consider the time you give in assistance to others as payment.”
I’ve always thought there was a massive distinction between artists and developers. I think what they meant to say is ‘unless you are a programmer we won’t listen to you or cater to your needs’.
Here’s a conversation I have over and over again:
Linux Zealot: You should use Linux, Windows sucks and is for morons.
Me: I need stuff which you don’t get on Linux like Photoshop
Linux Zealot: Use Gimp, it’s better than Photoshop plus it’s free!
Me: Gimp sucks, (insert pages of things that it can’t do here)
Linux Zealot: If you don’t like it don’t use it, stop complaining it’s free!
So to the people pushing Linux (and Gimp) onto users, you have two choices:
- Shut up and stop promoting it (and calling people idiots for not using it) or…
- Cater for the needs and desires of your userbase and own up to and address the flaws.
You can’t claim it’s better as well as telling people to not complain as it’s free. As soon as you say it’s better and evangelise on this basis and it’s not actually better it just makes you a liar. And if you evangelise on the basis that it’s better and people say it isn’t then their opinions are valid and should be listened to. Also, telling people to ‘fix it yourself’ does not count.
As soon as you tell them they are, in fact, wrong and it is better* – as the Gimp** supporters love to do – then you have crossed the boundary between lies and self delusion. Enjor your stay, the Ubuntuforums are first on the left.
* The usual excuse is ‘you are thinking in the ‘Microsoft’ way. If you’d tried Emacs/VI/Latex before Word you’d find it just as easy’. Or just plain old WorksForMe(tm).
** Oh, and the name is still embarassing, offensive and exclusionary.
These kind of Linux users are hypocrites. They make up about 30% of all Linux users, but people still think of them when they think of Linux. It’s a shame. When the sensible Linux users (around 70%) try to give some feedback, they get flamed by the real Lusers, the 30%. It’s destroying the community, but it’s always been destroying the community. I don’t think there is any hope at all that the immaturity will end.
2 Thomas B.
I think it’s other way round: 30% are adequate and 70% are morons.
I’m not sure its fair to lump a latex toolchain in with the GIMP. Word is good and makes a bunch of things easy. On the other hand, latex is somewhat unintuitive. However, if we set aside vi/emacs, there are some benefits to using Latex for me. BibDesk is an absolutely top notch bibliography management system in my mind that is free in whatever sense of the word you feel like using and TexShop (as well as most LaTeX oriented editors) provides sufficient niceties, like navigation or in TexShop’s case latex macro aware spellchecking, that working with Latex isn’t much of a hassle. I think the most annoying part was the initial investment in learning the commands but that didn’t take particularly long. However, academic writing is not the use case for everybody.
I agree with you btw, GIMP is not very good and is no real competitor to Photoshop. However, for people that are looking for a free tool to do minor image editing it fits the bill. Never going to be a photoshop killer though.
gimp is a perfectly god name it stands 4 gnu image maniuplation porgram if u tihnk it stands 4 peopl in weelchairs then u need 2 get a cloo
yah i do all my design in gimp fotoshop isnt as good
Whoooah… Whoever you are, “thomas b hater”…
STOP THE FUCKING SPAM!
“STOP THE FUCKING SPAM!”
Indeed. This isn’t Slashdot.
Gimp still sucks and even I’m surprised that the open source world hasn’t provided a decent alternative. Too bad they don’t have paint.net.
I’m surprised that the open source world hasn’t provided a decent alternative
Especially given the greater demand for a simpler, less “powerful” tool that provides the basics in a manageable fashion.
@Thomas B,
You’re full of it. Not too long ago you were saying “Fsck Windows users” and talking about how stupid they are and how l337 Linux is. You were also saying “Fsck Windows”.
How’s that working for you? Are you posting from your YogiAndBooBuntu or (pirated) Windows XP partition?
I’m surprised that the open source world hasn’t provided a decent alternative
The funny thing is that it exists on windows, it’s called paint.net and the only thing it lacks is builtin suport for brushes (pretty sure there’s a plugin) and non destructive filters.
Heck even krita is better than gimp…
I just tried gimp and it didn’t suck. I successfully used it to modify a picture of my dog to give it a huge penis on its head.
I’ve been reading a lot of the comments on this blog (I’m bored). I’m having trouble actually believing that you people actually believe the shit you say.
I propose the theory that all of the hatertards here actually love Linux, but are sarcastically hating Linux in retarded ways in order to discredit Linux
Hot DAEM Adam! Did you just only realize that now??
Most of us, are using Linux on a day-to-day basis!
… It’s been stated countless times back home at LHB, but apparently you have selective reading comprehension…
Hatetard, did you just admit that this whole linux hate crusade is a sham? Either your kind is evolving or just bored of constantly failing to criticize the greatest operating system in the world.
Hatetard, did you just admit that this whole linux hate crusade is a sham?
No… he admitted that we hate linux because we use it, it’s somewhat difficult to hate something you’ve never even experienced unless you’re some kind of religious fanatic (like yourself). Linux is not the greatest operating system in the world, not even close.
Windows and Mac are better on the desktop (way… way… better).
FreeBSD is a lot more stable and is just as good server side.
OpenBSD is a lot more secure (masturbating monkeys sure can make secure stuff).
NetBSD runs on more toasters then linux.
I have to use linux and i hate it!
I hate that to have the latest version of the software that i want i need to compile from source.
I hate that software that should NOT be bleeding edge is included as soon as possible (thanks grub2 for making me dig out my windows repair disk)
I hate that for some reason packages include a LOT more crap then they should (looking at you wine packager guy)
I hate that updating to a new version even with a clean install always means problems (hardware that worked no longer does… why the hell?)
I hate that the only real DE choices i have, are a stagnated piece of crap that HAS LESS features with every new version (gnome), or a good but unstable one with lots of annoying quirks (KDE).
I would like just one that works thanks…
I hate that as a software developer, linux presents an ever moving target with unstable apis and crash prone inefficient components (pulseaudio…)
And most of all, i hate the moronic open source fanatics that instead of fixing the problems defend this crap with every ounce of irrationality in their pathetic little minds!
Oh and gimp REALLY sucks!
(i do like krita somewhat, and paint.net, which is open source btw, windows only unfortunately, and none of them can compare with photoshop)
No… he admitted that we hate linux because we use it, it’s somewhat difficult to hate something you’ve never even experienced unless you’re some kind of
religious fanatic (like yourself).
Or you’re a public relations employee of an illegal monopoly begging for a DoJ suit.
Windows and Mac are better on the desktop (way… way… better).
Windows and Mac cater to stupid people. Linux caters to security professionals. Why do you think so many people regard linux as the most secure operating system? Linux runs the greatest supercomputers known to mankind. It even runs the LHC. Why isn’t it good enough for you? Oh wait, because it’s your job to make linux look bad.
I hate that to have the latest version of the software that i want i need to compile from source.
Hatetards hate optimization and compilation flexibility? No surprise.
I hate that software that should NOT be bleeding edge is included as soon as possible (thanks grub2 for making me dig out my windows repair disk)
I hate that unstable software that should never have been designed is released as soon as possible with numerous different versions and an insane price tag. (thanks Windows Vista for crashing computers around the world)
More to come tomorrow. I just can never get tired of refuting hatetard logic.
Naah,. Kommenter is right..
And by the way: *BSD is much moar stable.
@Mr Belvedere
Whatever you say, asshole. And I no longer have Windows on my computer, and I never used Windows XP on it either. It was Vista.
Or you’re a public relations employee of an illegal monopoly begging for a DoJ suit.
“Illegal monopoly”, eh? I am kind of having a sense of deja vu right now. Can the real Adam please stand up?
Windows and Mac cater to stupid people. Linux caters to security professionals.
Sure, provided that by “security professionals” you mean some computer scientist wannabes with nothing more than an RHCT qualification working at near the minimum wage for some lousy, micro-cap company that looks like Dunder-Mifflin from The Office.
Why do you think so many people regard linux as the most secure operating system?
Maybe they got dropped to the floor too often during their infancy? Who knows!
I hate that unstable software that should never have been designed is released as soon as possible with numerous different versions and an insane price tag
At least that’s still better than some piece of crap clone of an 1970′s OS being touted as the next best thing since sliced bread, don’t you think?
More to come tomorrow. I just can never get tired of refuting hatetard logic.
Translation: “Please, humiliate me like that nerd kid back in the good ol’ school days. I am fair game.”
Not wanting to defend vista or anything, i sure hated it when it came out, but at least some of the problems were fixed with SP1, and windows 7 just got it right.
This is something you freetards never do, look at the present, you just cling to the past, when linux was better than windows 98, or to the future… YearOfTheLinuxDesktop™ am i right?
Why do I think so many people regard linux as the most secure operating system?
They don’t know what secure is, 15 minute sudo sessions ARE NOT SECURE!
“Hatetards hate optimization and compilation flexibility? No surprise.”
Yeah actually I do, more so with programs written in c that take ages to compile.
The real problem is that it’s not just compiling one piece of software, it’s compiling a crap load of separate dependencies because the latest versions aren’t in the repositories, much rather press next a couple of times.
By your statement I assume you use gentoo then? nothing wrong with gentoo just curious, at least gentoo delivers what it promises, I think.
“Windows and Mac cater to stupid people”
1% desktop market share, how’s that working out for you
Maybe they got dropped to the floor too often during their infancy? Who knows!
Such is hatetard logic. People smarter than me disagree with the position that I have been paid to take therefore they must be stupid. No wonder you need to go click-click to administer systems. Is the command line a bit too intelligent for you *snicker*?
People smarter than me disagree with the position that I have been paid to take therefore they must be stupid.
You have probably mistaken me for A. P. Lawrence, given that I never aim as low as he did and that, unlike you, a normal, self-respecting person usually doesn’t look forward to working a “Linux job” as a computer janitor.
No wonder you need to go click-click to administer systems.
If you can get your job done faster going “click-click” than with command lines, then I don’t see why using a GUI is such a bad thing at least productivity-wise. Sure, you aren’t going to look all “1337″ in front of your Cheese-Whiz gulping nerd friends, but, at the end of the day, you are being paid for what you do and the only thing that matters is the output that you can give your employer, not the lousy geek cred that no one gives two bits about.
Have fun day-dreaming about how smart you are hacking scripts for a shell that doesn’t even take more than a breath for a real professional to learn, hot-shot. Come back here again when you can show that you actually have some solid knowledge to boot and not just a gaping mouth belonging to a blathering script kiddie.
Thats what I don’t understand. I don’t understand why what effectively amounts to hobbyists tout the command line as the one true way. In my experience I have occasionally been pressed into doing basic administration tasks (granted in an academic environment). Learning all the CLI stuff sucks because you effectively have to already know the sequence of commands you are going to use ahead of time. Whereas with a GUI, one can just muddle through by exploring. It makes the whole process less painful.
I would assume that for an actual trained administrator it really doesn’t make a difference, but since most of the Linux Youth are hobbyists I would think they would prefer a GUI, or at least some kind of prompt system.
I really love how freetards say “I want to compile myself my software, so it’s faster, optimized for my architecture !!” when any software compiled with ICC is 10% to 70% faster than with GCC.
I bet CL gives faster programs than GCC, too.
Hatetards like to think that gcc is somehow inferior because of its open source nature. They are wrong. It can be improved anytime anybody sees fit. This way everybody gets the speedups. All it needs is a force, probably government, to back it, hense the establishment of the ISG.
icc, clang and visual c++ are all more efficient then gcc, fact. Whether gcc gets better or not isn’t the point. We don’t like to think it’s inferior because it’s open source, we like to KNOW it’s inferior because it sucks, clang is open source as well and it’s better, i really don’t understand your point Adam…
Oh and Declination, totally agree with you, the following flowchart explains the massive advantage of the GUI, and considering most users can’t even do this, well, freetards will still find some reason why having to use the CLI isn’t a problem…
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/tech_support_cheat_sheet.png
I still love this thread http://braid-game.com/news/?p=364 where a professional software developer (who’s shifted hundreds of thousands of copies) gets called an idiot and a newbie for finding the development tools in Linux to be poor.
Why is it always the users that are idiots? Why is there this failure to accept that something can be improved? Adam King, what do you hope to gain by stifling any discussion you can on what’s wrong with Linux and how to improve it? When someone finally goes ‘sod it’ and ditches Linux for good because it doesn’t do what they need and nobody will accept that it doesn’t do what they need, what do you gain? Is it a victory for Linux?
I’d probably be submitting code patches myself if it wasn’t for the fact I simply cannot talk about problems without getting flamed. Sure I may be wrong on a lot of points – but that is why you need the discussion. We can submit code to fix GCC, but we cannot talk about the problems that need fixing as this makes us ‘hatertards’? It’s a common fact that GCC produces slower code than ICC. Yet we are not allowed to talk about this simply because the source is available? If I worked in Intel would I then not be allowed to talk about improvements to ICC?
YOU AND YOUR ILK ARE DOING MORE DAMAGE TO LINUX THAN I EVER COULD.
Seriously.
Karabros,
What we advocate is more than just software, it’s freedom. We support the freedom to be secure that your software is not spying on you and to not have to restrict yourself to the whims of some company who’s only reason for existence is to make money off you. It’s that which hatetards seem to take issue with. ICC may be faster than GCC, but GCC is open source therefore GCC is more ethical. I will repeat my challenge from long ago: refute, line by line, the GNU manifesto and we might start to take you seriously.
Why would any of us care if freetards take us seriously? We don’t rate our own worth by what some group of fundies thinks of us.
If the software sucks, I will not use nor support it. I really couldn’t give a rats rectum what sort of hippy collectivist philosophy is behind it nor what the non-contributing community of brownshirts like yourself “think”, queefer.
I’m Free to use what I like and free to badmouth what I don’t like. Those derive from the Real fundamental freedoms that all of us in democratic states enjoy.
FOD
So, how long until snicker douche and mongo pop in?
Way to troll outside the Linux Hater Blog Adam Queef!
I’ll say it again, Adam Queef has NOTHING LEFT!
Why would any of us care if freetards take us seriously? We don’t rate our own worth by what some group of fundies thinks of us.
Hatetards always claim not to care about what others think but they spend so much time trying to convince them. Hatetards exist outside of any logic.
Actually, we mostly don’t give two shit what you think, Queefer, mostly because you’re full of shit, but we pay attention to you because you amuse us.
Dance, monkey!
Hatetards hate optimization and compilation flexibility?
Normal people don’t see a point in taking the extra step, and extra time cost, when the added “boost”. especially regarding GCC, doesn’t actually make up for the extra time spent not only compiling it, but the extra extra time spend compiling it at say, -O3 over the course of the application’s entire lifetime. Go ahead, do it, toss in some -O3 –funroll-loops, –ffast-math, –fomit-frame-pointer –finline-functions, I can guarantee you that the return will be overshadowed by the extra time wasted on unrolling loops and building at 03. If you were recompiling with ICC on the other hand, you may find noticible perf increases, providing of course you’re running on an intel arch (see SunStudio for AMD)
But hey, here you’re blathering about optimization and performance, and later on you move the goalposts, saying that you don’t give two shits about optimization and performance, (regarding ICC) because it’s about “freedom” and “ethics”, which is also bloody hilarious, since you on one hand ramble about “ethics” while on the other you continue to gibber about the ISG whose sole purpose is to dump the cost of pushing your own horribly misguided ideals unto tax payers (essentiasly putting foss developers on welfare). Pick a side and stick with it.
Go ahead, try it. That’s about the worst argument in favour of source-compilation, especially given that GCC has the absolute worst architecture-specific optimizations of any major compiler suite (those being ICC, SunStudio, MSVC and now CLANG, I’d venture even PCC has more efficient code generation at this point).
Windows and Mac cater to stupid people. Linux caters to security professionals.
Even if that were true, and there’s no evidence to suggest that it is, what does that have to do with the desktop? Windows ands OSX cater to people who want a useable, productive user experience, what you’re trying to argue is that “Linux is better tat that because it doesn’t cater to that market”.
Why do you think so many people regard linux as the most secure operating system?
Unbiased Citations would be appreciated.
Linux runs the greatest supercomputers known to mankind.
Except that the most efficient ones are powered by Super-UX (EarthSim2) Solaris (JAXA), respectively. Non-sequitur fail.
It even runs the LHC.
Because colliding hardons is what makes for a good desktop OS.
Why isn’t it good enough for you?
Because my needs don’t involve particle physics, nor huge,inefficient clusters?
Oh wait, because it’s your job to make linux look bad.
Yes, that’s precisely it. You’ve found me out.
I hate that unstable software that should never have been designed is released as soon as possible with numerous different versions and an insane price tag.
I suppose if you redefine “as soon as possible” (since you’re talking about Vista) to 5 years after the previous release, and redefine “insane price tag” to mean “more than my allowance from mommy allows for” you might be onto something.
More to come tomorrow. I just can never get tired of refuting hatetard logic.
I suppose if you redefine “refuting” to mean “flailing miserably” then yes, you’re doing just that.
I’ll say it again, Adam Queef has NOTHING LEFT!
Please, Queefer had nothing to begin with.
You don’t need the source to tell if your software is ‘spying’ on you. Paranoid much?
As for ‘refuting the GNU manifesto’, do you own any books? Do you own any CD’s? Do you own any movies? Do you have the right to copy, edit and duplicate these works or are your essential freedoms curtailed? Do you only read GPL’d books, or do you believe in actually supporting the authors in these cases? As it is EXACTLY the same thing. And don’t spout off about code access – the GPL demands freedom to redistribute, not just view. Providing source isn’t enough.
Or are you going to suggest expanding the ISG to include music, books, movies, newspapers etc as well?
I’d probably be submitting code patches myself if it wasn’t for the fact I simply cannot talk about problems without getting flamed.
In fairness, years ago (circa ’02-’03) There was a contingent of Gentoo users pushing ICC over GCC. Leave it to the ricers, eh?
We can submit code to fix GCC, but we cannot talk about the problems that need fixing as this makes us ‘hatertards’?
Or you can do what everyone else is doing and just move on to something better.
Sun has SunStudio.
Apple got fed up with GCC and is funding CLANG.
FreeBSD joined in on CLANG development.
OpenBSD shifted focus to PCC, which can now build OpenBSD.
NetBSD, last I checked was still analyzing their options, though I suspect they’ll follow OpenBSD’s lead.
That’s just off the top of my head.
the sad part that the GNU zealots are missing out on is that, it is not up to someone who believes in/support copyright/IP to refute the manifesto, but for them to refute copyright, which they cannot do, since the GPL is after all, a copyright license.
The manifesto, in fact refutes itself, in that copyright is all about giving the author the right to choose who can and cannot do what with their works, and under what terms – the GPL uses copyright law to do precisely that. You can’t “refute” copyright without refuting the manifesto, too.
Funny how this shifted from the crap that is gimp, to the silliness that is GNU.
MoveTheGoalPosts™
You expected Queefer to stay on topic?
Hi guys. I just created a new distro: It’s called “The Candlejack distro” and it is going to be awe
Because microsoft makes you pay for their software, they can afford to produce crap and just market it like crazy. Same thing with apple. Linux on the other hand, produces quality software. Hatetards are just jealous.
“produce crap and market it like crazy”
whow.. How many different distro’s does you guys have now? Is it 800? 900? And how many of them “just works”? How many of them never makes me go the commandline? How many of them can be used by normal humans? (i DO know that there’s a few of ‘em!)
And btw. Nice way of just changing the subject queefer!
Or should we say snickerdouche? Or any of your other AKA’s?
@ anon
I just created a new distro, too. It’s called BallPunch Linux, it seeks to accurately showcase the Linux desktop experience.
Adam: you didn’t answer the question. Do you feel that books, music and movies should be ‘free’ (as in speech) also or do you accept that you do not have the ‘freedom’ to copy them at will, and if not, why not?
Also, taking this to the logical conclusion do you also think that books and other forms of entertainment should be created by the state through taxes? And if not, why not?
Again, don’t make this a source thing as you can often get the source of ‘non free’ products. The GPL is about the ability to _modify_ and _distribute_.
I am eager to hear your opinion on this.
“Because microsoft makes you pay for their software, they can afford to produce crap and just market it like crazy. Same thing with apple. Linux on the other hand, produces quality software. Hatetards are just jealous.”
Then riddle me this. If Microsoft and Apple produce such crap, why is the bulk of the interesting stuff in Linux copies of either of their technology. All of the Linux audio players copied Apple’s DAAP and there are a number of stand alone servers available as well. The bulk of currently available browsers for Linux are based on WebKit which Apple basically took and actually developed. This makes it all the more amusing since people are calling on KDE to drop KHTML which WebKit is based on anyway. Lets see, what else. Ah yes, Samba, the implementation of Microsoft’s file sharing protocols. Clearly, the Great Satan is inferior so we must re-implement the lynchpin of corporate intranets. Even more baffling is how everyone says that “T3h Ribb0n is t3h 3v1lz!!!11!one” yet OpenOffice has decided a similar interface is the way forward. Yeah, I guess properly funded and research UI design really is inferior.
“Because microsoft makes you pay for their software, they can afford to produce crap and just market it like crazy. Same thing with apple”
Actually because microsoft and apple ‘make’ us pay for their software, they can do something called research and come up with innovations that people like, because, you know, doing so allows them to stay on business.
We tell lintards what we want from their software FOR FREE (you don’t even need to pay for research guys), and we’re called trolls, m$ shills, and other interesting and mildly offensive names.
“Linux on the other hand, produces quality software. Hatetards are just jealous.”
Linux software is either a bad ripoff, something original but entirely useless, or just plain terrible (like.. lets say.. the gimp), so you’re full of shit.
Don’t make me do a “worst linux apps” list or this server won’t be able to handle the load. I’m still pissed of about what they did to amarok… One of the best music players I’ve ever had the pleasure to use… turned into a joke. And worst of all, it’s STILL THE BEST ONE (on linux).
Sad.
If Windows is so good then why is linux used on most supercomputers in existence? Answer me that, hatetards.
Who gives a shit about supercomputers? What retarted argument is this? If Linux ran my toilet and the local sewage system I couldn’t care less either.
“Hatetards like to think that gcc is somehow inferior because of its open source nature. ”
GCC is inferior not due to it’s open source nature, but because it generates slower code. There are these things called “benchmarks” which prove this, by using something called “testing”.
“It can be improved anytime anybody sees fit.”
If that’s true, here’s the big question – why hasn’t it been improved yet?
“If Windows is so good then why is linux used on most supercomputers in existence?”
If Linux is so good, why is Windows used on most desktop, notebook and netbook PCs in existence?
Again Adam, do you only read ‘free’ books?
Karabros, you know as well as I do books are physical objects. Software is not a physical object so copying it is different. Stop making stupid references.
“If that’s true, here’s the big question – why hasn’t it been improved yet?”
Because it’s a bloated monstrosity and the freetards aren’t in a position to improve it (by “anyone who sees it fit” they mean somebody other than them, they just want free junk) and more more interested in using rhetoric to try coaxing others into doing it for them, while those in a position to do so got fed up and moved on to better solutions (see Apple, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, Sun, Intel, etc).
“Again Adam, do you only read ‘free’ books?”
Queefer doesn’t read! Sheesh!
Hatetards don’t care that linux runs the greatest supercomputers of all time. They just want to hate it. Arguing with them is so much fun because I always win.
Karabros, you know as well as I do books are physical objects. Software is not a physical object so copying it is different. Stop making stupid references.
Queefer, we both know that both literature and software are creative works, and that the tangibility of said item is irrelevant, the media isn’t what copyright law forbids from being copied, copyright doesn’t even apply to the physical medium , it’s the intangible content that’s being covered by copyright.
It’s the same with music, it’s the intangible content that’s covered by copyright, not the physical medium it’s on. It’s the same for a paintings, Photographs, TypeFaces, etc. A creative work is a creative work.
Arguing with them is so much fun because I always win.
So that’s what they call flailing miserably these days? Yes, Queefer, you “win”. Every single time.
“If Windows is so good then why is linux used on most supercomputers in existence?”
This argument has been refuted multiple times. However, I’m going to take another stab at it. Maybe it will sink in. The concepts are orthogonal. Any system, no matter how poorly designed and user-unfriendly can used on a supercomputer. “Why?,” you ask. Because when you have spent several billion dollars on a supercomputer you are going to hire a bunch of knowledgeable staffers to perform maintenance and customization anyway. Besides, supercomputers are batch processing systems. Batch processing is the antithesis of everything that might be useful on a desktop.
So what you’re saying is people who use supercomputers are smart enough to maintain linux. Thanks for playing. You just made my win that much more epic. Now go back to rotting your brain with microsoft products.
I. What’s with the fixation on supercomputers?
II. What do supercomputers have to do with the desktop, notebooks, netbooks, media centers, servers, embedded devices or really anything other than supercomputers?
III. Why the fixation with Linux on supercomputers when:
– The most efficient ones don’t run Linux.
– The largest Linux-based supercluster is actually only using Linux one slave nodes while all the heavy lifting is being done by Cray’s proprietary UNICOS kernel.
- All of the most powerful Linux-based clusters are using proprietary interconnects (a cluster is only as performant as its individual nodes, and individual nodes are only as performant and efficient as their interconnect allows them to be).
IV. Have you even been in the same building as a supercomputer?
V. Do you actually believe the nonsense you’re spewing?
VI. Are you capable of understanding common English, because what Declination saod, and what you extrapolated from it have nothing to do with each other.
Yes, Queefer, once again, you “win”.
Why is linux used on supercomputers?
1. It’s highly customizable (and trust me, they aren’t choosing between gnome or kde…)
2. It’s a fully monolith kernel, so when properly configured it’s as fast as possible.
3. It’s free, saves money when run on clusters.
4. Windows and Mac aren’t made for supercomputers, so it makes no sense to even be comparing them in this area.
5. People who work with super computers are highly trained and payed individuals, they can get the damn thing to work.
6. This does not in any way shape or form make linux remotely good on the desktop, in fact, it proves the opposite.
7. All of this could be achieved with FreeBSD, but people are trained to be linux sysadmins unfortunately.
8. WHAT THA FUCK DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE GIMP SUCKING TESTICLES?!?!?!
Wow. Hatetards are big on the consessions today. First linux users are smart, and now free software is good because it reduces the cost of supercomputers? What’s with the sudden intelligence hatetards? Did windows suddenly blue screen?
“So what you’re saying is people who use supercomputers are smart enough to maintain linux”
I think you may need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Also, I think you need to think about what it means to use a supercomputer or even a computing grid/cluster. The users aren’t actually involved in any of the maintenance or operating and in some cases don’t even log on to the systems themselves. They just submit jobs to a queue for processing.
However, if you meant use super computer in the sense of the resources they provide, your statement is laughable. Clearly, all those meteor/climatologists doing weather simulations on super computers are qualified in the aspect of Linux administration/customization…
Adam: software comes on cd. You can download ebooks direct to your pc, no paper required – its just a stream of bits. Should I not have the freedom to modify and distribute it?
My server runs Linux. My phone runs Linux. My desktop does not. I use whatever is best for the job rather than base my decisions on bizarre ideologies. You are like a looney vegan that claims that they somehow have nicer food despite limiting themselves to a subset of it.
Sure, make your choice based on your warped idea of freedom, but stop pretending that isn’t the reason. Plus answer the question – do you believe that being able to edit and redistribute ebooks is q fundamental right?
Unlike Adam, see, I actually don’t mind proprietary software. When you have a great program, take Photoshop for example, why the hell would you want to make it free?
Honestly, who cares anyway, Queefer failed on LH and so he does here… let him have fun with his supercomputer cluster in his basement, once his mom starts throwing out all the hardware from the 80s, he will be installing Windows again.
I will never install Windows.
I will never pay the Microsoft tax.
VIVa LA FREEDOM!
Whats especially amusing is his solution to the problem of the ‘Microsoft Tax’ is, you guessed it, a tax. So rather than the optional ‘Microsoft Tax’ there would be a *mandatory* ‘Linux Tax’. Plus it’ll be created by the government so you know it’ll be both quality and cost effective!
3. It’s free, saves money when run on clusters.
Only relative to an identical cluster running a non-free OS.
Take a look at, say China’s Earth Sim 2. 1024 cores for 130 Teraflops at ~100 GFLOPs per core, vs Xeons and their 18 GFLOPs per core, given that AFAIK Linux doesn’t run on NEC’s custom vector processors that power ES2, a Xeon would have to cost 1/5th that of an EC for a free OS to impact the upfront cost of hardware, and that excludes the cost on your power bill of having 5 times as many cores, and that’s further excluding other hardware costs, fewer processors equals fewer nodes equals less space in your data centre, and less storage and memory (you are after all, equipping your nodes equally), and you’re even getting a much more efficient cluster out of it (at 95% effic, ES2 is the most efficient cluster in the top 500).
Then there’s the OpenSolaris approach, the SparcxVIIs powering JAXA cost considerably less than NEC’s Vector CPUS (since they aren’t custom hardware), and output about ~45GFLOPs per CPU, vs ~18 more Xeons, 2.5 quad-xeons to one quad-SVII, and again, you’re looking at better power efficiency overall, fewer CPUS, fewer nodes, and a free OS, and at 91% effic, iot’s the second most efficient in the top 500 by a considerable margin (iirc IDRIS is next at ~80% on 4 times more cores for comparable overall output), and you’re looking at between 40% and 70% effic for the rest). And that’s only going to get better once Fujitsu finally unveils their VII/fx line which is supposed to pump out 120 GFLOPs.
So it depends on how you look at it, if you’ve got a cluster with 300,000 Xeon cores, Linux will probably save you some money, but if you’re looking at building a cluster to achieve a given level of output, while minimizing cost, you’re generally better off going less, more powerful hardware*, which is less than fully supported by Linux.
* There are caveats to this approach, however – you can’t expect IBM for example, to use NEC or Sun hardware in their BlueGene/RoadRunner/etc cluster systems – It ends up costing them less to go with their own Power/PPC/Cell hardware, same applies to any other HPC vendor who manufactures their own hardware.
2. It’s a fully monolith kernel, so when properly configured it’s as fast as possible.
That’s faulty logic at best, man, Monokernels aren’t inherently faster than Microkernels (that is to say a poorly designed monokernel is not inherently faster than a well-design Microkernel – look at any virtualization solution using a hypervisor that claims ~98% bare-metal performance – the hypervisor is little more than a glorified microkernel). Besides, individual node performance is capped by interconnect performance – the most streamlined kernel in the known universe won’t show you any performance gains when paired with a shitty interconnect, and even beyond that, there’s efficiency to take into account, Linux has yet to show that it can operate as efficiently in this role as Super-UX or Solaris.
4. Windows and Mac aren’t made for supercomputers, so it makes no sense to even be comparing them in this area.
Granted. Though MagicCube (powered by WinHPC) shows some promise. Cost ultimately works against it here, though.
5. People who work with super computers are highly trained and payed individuals, they can get the damn thing to work.
Granted. not necessarily related, Though I find it funny that FORTRAN is still the most dominantly used functional language for HPC. If nothing else, I’d say that GCC having a FORTRAN compiler by default is an advantage here.
6. This does not in any way shape or form make linux remotely good on the desktop, in fact, it proves the opposite.
Of course.
7. All of this could be achieved with FreeBSD, but people are trained to be linux sysadmins unfortunately.
Eeeh. Yes and no. FreeBSD isn’t designed with HPC in mind, though it scales higher than Linux, it just isn’t fit for superclusters, you’d have to work with much more, smaller nodes because the SMP isn’t all that great past 16 cores (to the freetards, that’s 16 cores per node, not per cluster) which becomes rather inefficient when you’re in the tens of thousands in terms of core count, not to mentions ramps up the cost of hardware regarding storage and memory per node, as well as power consumption, especially given that like Linux, it has less than full support (to put it nicely) for beefier, more efficient more cost-effective hardware, so you’re stuck with commodity hardware.
That being said, Linux is popular in HPC because commodity intel hardware is popular in HPC.
“Windows and Mac aren’t made for supercomputers, so it makes no sense to even be comparing them in this area.”
Not exactly HPC, but Mac’s do have an interesting grid computing system built in. Having used it, XGrid is pretty awesome. If I recall for a while UVA had the most FLOPs because they had something like 2,000 Macs in a cluster.
@Appleton
Hehehehe don’t get me wrong i wasn’t defending linux on supercomputers, just repeated the reasons i’ve been told it was used (and they make some sense)
And i’m a microkernel fan btw XD.
Was not aware FreeBSD wasn’t good for superclusters, just assumed it was does do to the higher scalability, learn something new everyday
a free piece of shit is still a piece of shit …. Gimp has always been and most likely because of it’s developers attitudes will always be, a giant frustrating time wasting piece of crap … their only argument is well its free if you don’t like it go use something else …. i’d love to go use something else unfortunately every photo editing program iv tried for linux sucks as well ….. every photo program iv used in my life allows you to trace a line around an object copy it and paste it somewhere else …. not in linux , not in one of these programs that are better because they are free … im stuck forever dual booting windows just to use something as simple as paint.net which is free by the way and if you send its developers some constructive input on their program they will listen to what you have to say and may actually use your input to better their product , what they dont do is tell you that if you dont like it go fucking use something else … the gimp team should go choke on a dick