scientific linux vs ubuntu
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: August 6, 2010
Has any one experienced working with "Scientific linux"? what's the difference between these two linux distributions and is "Scientific linux" really better than ubuntu for scientists and science students?
Arch Linux vs Windows 7
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: April 12, 2011
Every once in a while, I'll look at a Linux distro and get urges to install it. In the past, I've used Ubuntu (both gnome and kde) quite a bit so I think I could handle using Arch Linux from what I've seen. Actually, I've even virtualboxed it and had no problem!
However, I wanted my desktop to remain windows (basically for gaming). But right now I'm on a laptop I use for just about anything. The problem is that while it is my laptop, my girlfriend uses this quite a bit as well. I'm getting super urges to install Arch Linux, but I want to justify that urge to her! A lot of the reason is because I completely optimize and "pimp out" any OS I have, so this Windows is actually super nice looking and quite fast (as fast as windows can get I guess.)
I'm basically wondering what some of you power users think about Arch Linux vs Windows 7 directly. Is there any sort of speed test out there, and what is the compatibility of certain laptop devices that come with it (such as
Linux vs. OS X (Honest answers please!)
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: October 17, 2008
Yeah, I know that OSX is Darwin with Aqua and all of the closed-source apple apps thrown on top...
My question is what are the advantages/disadvantages of OS X vs. Linux considering they're both (loosely) UNIX based? Advantages both in the nitty gritty of the OS and the interface of either.
Already, using the Mac, one large plus is that it has bash, rather than that horrible shell that comes with Windows, and the ugliness that is Cygwin...
LXer: Mid2012: Arch Linux vs. Slackware vs. Ubuntu vs. Fedora
location: linuxquestions.com - date: July 31, 2012
Published at LXer:
At the request of many Phoronix readers following the release of updated Arch Linux media, here are some new Arch Linux benchmarks. However, this is not just Arch vs. Ubuntu, but rather a larger Linux distribution performance comparison. In this article are benchmark results from Ubuntu 12.04 LTS, CentOS 6.2, Fedora 17, Slackware 14.0 Beta, and Arch Linux.
Linux vs. BSD vs. OSX vs. Solaris vs. Windows
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: January 7, 2012
Hey there! Just for the heck of it, what do you guys think on the Linux vs. BSD vs. OSX vs. Solaris vs. Windows debate?
I know that Windows is a great OS and has a lot of its own strengths due to having used every version since Win95, and I used Macs at my graphic design class last year and they were pretty good, and BSD and Solaris are supposed to be great too, Solaris in the server world specifically.
CrunchBang vs Damn Small Linux vs Puppy
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: March 20, 2011
Besides Ubuntu 10.10 I am using CrunchBang 10 openbox on the old Celeron computer (see my sig. ).
CrunchBang is running well but even a little multitasking is making my pc slow. For example, if I run FF alone it performs well but if I try to listen to some music using vlc or smplayer it becomes very slow.
Now, has anyone here used both CrunchBang & DSL or CrunchBang & Puppy ?
I am trying to know which one of these is the lightest & can be installed to hard drive ?
Please confine your choice within these three.
Thanks in advance.
Random Story (Linux vs. Mac vs. Windows vs. IBM vs. Dell vs. Novell)
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: March 4, 2010
/*Please put any comments in a slash-splat splat-slash scheme*/
Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Samuel Palmisano, Tux, Michael Dell, and some negotiators from Novell were meeting at the South Pole to discuss the current state of the computer market. The negotiations go smoothly until ...
Linux vs Windows 2003 Server Which is the fastest file server
location: linuxquestions.com - date: October 31, 2007
My server at home just failed and I have had a replacement here waiting for this as I knew it was imminent.
My question is this: -
I have a 10 user license for Windows 2003 SBS but would like to consider a Linux Server as an alternative.
I mainly need to transfer pretty large files (800MB+) to and from the server.
What would be that fastest performer for 'File Serving' only - Linux or Windows 2003 Server. Also which would be faster NFS or Samba. Finally if I use Linux which FS would be quickest and best for this environment EXT2/3, XFS, ReiserFS etc..
I have 2 Mac OS X systems both running Leopard (10.5) OS, I also
have 4 PC's all running Vista & XP in Dual Boot setups.
I am unsure if NFS would perform better than Samba for the 2 Mac's, if I use Ubuntu for a server. I can use DiskShare for NFS on the PC's or Samba whichever is the fastest.
Apologies if I have posted in the wrong section, please let me know if I should post it elsewhere.
Any help o
Paragon NTFS for Linux vs NTFS3g
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: May 15, 2008
Is there any difference between Paragon Software's NTFS for linux and NTFS-3g provided with Ubuntu? Is NTFS for Linux better than NTFS-3g?
Re: Puppy Linux vs Lubuntu
location: ubuntuforums.com - date: January 9, 2013
I tried Ubuntu, Linux Mint and Lubuntu. Guess what? All three operating systems failed to boot with all the same error. Later on, I tried Puppy Linux Slacko and Puppy Linux Precise.
Unlike Ubuntu, Linux Mint and Lubuntu, Puppy Linux just works. I installed Puppy Linux very easily with the Windows-installer in Windows XP. I really like Puppy Linux. It's very fast, user-friendly and the graphical user interface is similar to Windows, which I am used to. But, that's not all. The coolest thing is: when I started Puppy Linux, I didn't have to install any drivers. The sound, high resolution and my network adapter immediately works. That's very impressive, because in Windows XP, I had to install an audio driver, video driver and network adapter-driver. When I boot Puppy Linux completely into RAM (I have one whole GB, so running Puppy Linux in RAM is no problem for me ), I can format my internal harddrive to more formats than Windows XP can. Windows XP supports FAT32 and NTFS. Puppy Linux s
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10