[thelist] Developing in Linux

[Bill Moseley]

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 08:50:15PM +0300, Fred Jones wrote:
> I have tried now to switch from Windows to Linux. Thus far I feel that I
> have been unsuccessful. I posted a somewhat detailed post about this
> here:

What is your purpose for switching to Linux?  It's hard to give any
recommendation for switching without knowing how you use your
computer.  Were you expecting just a better Windows experience?

You will never be able to do in Linux what you do well in
Windows.  Linux isn't a Windows replacement (regardless of what hype
you hear about Ubuntu's desktop).  So, you can't think in those terms.

Just wait until you get used to using Linux for a while and, if are
like me, it will drive you *insane* trying to use a Windows machine.

OS X makes me just as crazy.  Resize windows in just the lower corner?
Only move windows by the task bar?  How stupid is that?


I had a dual boot machine for about a year and kept trying to switch
back and forth between Windows and Linux.  Linux sucked because I kept
trying to use it like Windows.  I never learned anything about Linux
like that.  Finally my machine died and I just went for the change and
starting to learn how to do my work in a Linux environment -- and
learned I had to quit trying to figure out how to make Linux work like
the Windows I was used to.


> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=790506

> 1. UltraEdit is an excellent editor and I know it well
> 2. SQLyog is a fantastic MySQL GUI and I have not found an equal to
> it for Linux
> 3. IrfanView is an excellent image view/simple editor
> 4. Version 2.3 of FileZilla is actually better IMO than version 3.
> Only version 3 is available for Linux however

Sounds like you want to use Windows.

I use my machine differently, perhaps.  So, with that in mind my
comments on those point might be:

1) I don't know UltraEdit but have you considered using a new editor?
There's plenty to pick from, and I suspect the Emacs and Vim users
would argue that they have very powerful editors.

2) What do the GUI tools have over the CLI interface?  I also always
wonder how those ERDs look when your application is in the
hundred-table range.  I like my schema in text files. And when I need
help with SQL I ask here, as I'm not an SQL expert.

3) Hard to imagine you can't find a replacement.  I have a number of
image viewers installed (and I'll bet I use "display" as much as
anything else).  Resize an image?  I'd do that on the command line.
I use The Gimp otherwise.

4) I have not used FTP in years, I'll bet.  I use svn, rsync, and scp
all day long.  Ubuntu lets you setup easy drag-n-drop "Connect to
server", but I've never found the need to use it.

Does Windows still not ship with a SSH client?




> 1. I tried to open a large SQL dump in gedit and my PC choked on
> it--Quanta performed even worse. I opened it in UltraEdit in Windows
> with no problem whatsoever. Note that my Windows machine has a
> quarter the RAM as well. And the Ubuntu machine was using (according
> to the System Monitor) under 1G RAM at the time.

I use vim.  Never had any issues but I would probably grep out the
items I need or filter or whatever instead of edit some huge file.
When you are at a command line you don't have to resort to doing
everything with your editor regardless of what the Emacs users say.. ;)


> 2. Seems to me that switching windows via clicking on the taskbar is
> faster in Windows

Switching windows?  Do you have compiz animation enabled?

Slightly slower window changes would seem like background noise to me,
compared to the rest of the day's work.  But, if it's that much slower
there are many other window managers that promote speed.


> 3. Overall it seems that Win 2K is faster than Ubuntu. Perhaps some
> empirical studies are necessary, but that's how it feels. Strikes me
> as odd, as well, because my Ubuntu machine's hardware is a lot
> better.

Speed?  Like what?  Like ripping DVDs and encoding them?  Or like
opening Firefox?  Like switching between windows?



> I tried Hardy, but I found it buggy. Perhaps because I used the 64
> bit version. Anyway it didn't work well for me so I have Gutsy now.
> I have read now that Hardy may be faster.

I can't answer with any authority, but the recommendations I've seen
are that there's not much advantage to using 64 bit version unless you
need the addressable memory.


Those points seem rather minor.  I can think of a lot more painful
things about using Linux.








-- 
Bill Moseley
moseley at hank.org