Running I3 Window Manager on Ubuntu for Windows
brianketelsen.com
brianketelsen.com
And I know many of you will say, oh that's not a problem, it never happened to me -- I will say good for you. But I need my work computer to, well, work, constantly. Yes, fighting a broken Arch Linux after an update is bad but not as bad as fighting a downright malicious program.
The interesting part of the article is not the part about why this guy uses Windows!
I used Thunderbird for about 10 years on my Mac laptop and every time I tried to switch to Apple Mail (or anything else) I quickly switched back. But the truth is, I have used Linux on my primary desktop PC for about 15 years now and can honestly say that it is a very pleasant experience.
I would agree that for a long time OpenOffice had compatibility issues (often no worse than trying to open an Office document on a Mac) but those days are long gone.
As a software developer and general techie, I believe that Free Software is important for my profession and for the public at large. For me, even if Linux was less convenient (which it is not - today anyway...it was more challenging, say, a decade ago) I would use it because I have serious concerns some of how Apple and Microsoft treat developers and the Free Software movement.
Downloaded a .docx template from Hubspot recently, LibreOffice could not even begin to open it correctly, the layout was screwed up all over the place.
Using this template probably saved us 20 hours of work. So the only reasonable solution here was to set up a Windows VM, sign up for Office, and use Word to edit the template.
It's very frustrating when people say things like "those days are long gone" and dismiss issues like this as mere "inconveniences" when they are not and we, while being devoted Linux users, are still facing these challenges.
Linux fits 99% of my use cases, and the other 1% is unbelievably frustrating.
So yeah, I agree with you on the 99%-1% part.
I'm staying on 15.10 until they come out with something better.
I pretty much run the same stack for email/editor/docs on every platform. For the most part Windows, OSX and Linux are interchangeable for me which is a nice place to be. I just find Linux gets in the way a lot less for my purposes.
Every platform has advantages and a slightly different mix of applications that make it suit some users more than others. I can certainly understand swapping between a Mac and Windows for iOS and Windows development or games and back to Linux for web/server stuff. But being stuck on a particular platform because of an email client would bother me.
I think it is great that this stuff is running on Windows but it bothers me that people feel they are trapped on Windows because of their email client. That seems so dated.
I wonder what Stallman would have to say about that? We've come around full circle to GNU/NT.
a) don't want to provide nice tools to windows users because then they'll no longer have the need to switch to a libre system
b) do want to provide nice tools to windows users because then they'll get a taste of how liberating freedom is
obviously there is a balance there, and I think GNU/NT might be a bit too far into entrenching-the-user for his tastes, though I can't speak for him obviously.
It seems there is no political note on his site for the announcement of ubuntu-on-windows.
Still, exciting times.
In any case, while free software might hurt me short term, proprietary software is guaranteed to hurt me long term.
I believe Linux is a 100% of the time platform because the choice (again, user choice) to run minimal terminal apps means like less than average 50% memory utilization for Thunderbird, which I love, with a web browser GUI and background full text indexing all damn day.
Outlook is just as crappy.
If all you need to do is plain text email, sure, Mutt is fine. If you deal with a large amount of email, calendar appointments, tasks, contacts, etc, in a professional role, nothing beats Outlook.
There's a reason it's so popular.
As you can see, those were nuisances. Otherwise, it was pretty much rock solid.
Several versions, ran them under XP and Windows 7.
My biggest complained about Outlook is actually a bug in their HTML engine. From Outlook 14:
> font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
What's the issue here? Simple, if Calibri isn't there, my browser looks for a font called "sans-serif" and doesn't use the default sans-serif font, the result the email is presented in a serif font. Correctly, it should look like this:
> font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
I know this is nit-picking but for me it is annoying.
That narrative, however, isn't one for which we can blame Microsoft.
0: https://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Web/CSS/font-family#Va...
Disclaimer: I'm not a PM/executive who has to juggle meetings and communication all day, so maybe I just ask less of email.
Edit: clarity
Again, popular does not mean good to me. That is the point. I have seen Outlook peg processors and waste disk IO with all those features.
I hate cloud services, but they keep such things minimal and some of us pray for mandates of no-fat client email, even to spite myself, because of Outlook and Thunderbird users.
Have you tried Google's Inbox on an underpowered Linux box? It's horrendously slow, in my experience. Gmail is fine though. Some web based software is really good, but others can definitely be a CPU hog.
Searching with notmuch is blazing fast and works better than gmail search.
HTML email is handled by w3m. The new "eww" would probably work also but I haven't tried that yet.
It's possible to send HTML email by writing in org-mode markup, but I haven't done that either. If people can inflict their HTML email on me, they can deal with my plain-text replies.
I suggest embracing this rather than worrying about it.
Yeah, I usualy turn displaying remote images off too.
Also, are there really companies who forces a certain font for emails? That is risky since you can't know if the other side supports that font.
For signature, there are even legal requirements which information needs to be provided.
Nowadays it carries a lot of dependencies.
This is still really cool though.
My preferred setup would be Windows native, with macOS (ha) and Linux guests running with GPU acceleration—preferably in a manner that doesn't necessitate multiple videocards.
Too bad Apple is hellbent on locking macOS to Apple hardware. I'd totally license it otherwise.
I, for one, think that sounds excellent. For a workstation, I would much rather host everything on a simple Linux distro with focus on security and privacy, and keep Windows in VMs where I can manage it a little better. And the Windows Subsystem for Linux will run in there perfectly if I need it.
Also, multiple video cards are only necessary if your guest needs that GPU power. Considering that having 2 video cards these days is surprisingly common (Intel on-board + separate video card), I'm wondering about the feasibility of easily switching between shared video (eg. when your laptop is on battery) and separate GPU passthru (eg. when you're plugged into your epic 16-monitor setup).
Granted, Windows makes for a fairly terrible host operating system when you have to reboot it frequently on account of updates.
Using Proxmox as your host os you get a ZFS root filesystem with ZFS compression, SSD cache, Snapshots. Then you install Windows and maybe try to figure out if you can run MacOS in KVM.
The idea would be to leave the host system rather clean, and maybe even add a Linux guest in Proxmox.
Then in the host you just install a minimal xserver (maybe with i3) and log into your virtual machines via Spice/VNC/RDP. (Maybe add Zerotier on all guest for easy networking)
This way you can get all the benefits of ZFS and use the Proxmox backup functionality and do not have to reboot your system.
At least this is my plan for a new workstation setup. :) Instead of Proxmox, OmniOS (Illumos) together with pkgsrc (for xserver) might be an option.
(Sorry for typos. On mobile )
I have to do some work on a Linux VM, but also need Windows for Office and a few other apps.
But the Fedora VM is much slower than the native OS, even with a good SSD and plenty of Ram. I could care less about games / GPU, but the CPU / disk IO is just much slower. I use VMWare Workstation, so maybe that's my problem.
Around me Windows 10 has crashed more than macOS. but Windows 10 is really stable too.
but I do daily development on an Arch linux desktop sitting next to my MacBook Pro
I have a similar set up, both at home and at work, where I use a MacBook for Office, Omni{Focus,Graffle}, etc., but SSH into a Linux machine for serious development word. My reasons are two-fold. First of all, many OS X's command-line tools are behind the times and buggy. For instance, grep segfaults on trivial usages such as[1]:
% echo i860 | grep --color -e i860 -e i86
Or returns incorrect results for even trivial expressions: % echo "1234 1234 1234" | egrep -o "^...."
1234
123
4 12
Since I use UNIX command-line tools such as grep daily, I cannot have them fail (yes, I know, get GNU grep from Homebrew). Secondly, Mac hardware is very weak these days, even the Mac Pro is years behind. At the same time, you can get a similarly spec'ed machine on eBay for a couple of hundred of Euros. Plug a card to use CUDA, etc.[1] http://blog.loadzero.com/blog/tracking-down-a-segfault-in-gr...
I don't have many real stability problems (kernel panics), but there are oddball bugs everywhere. E.g. Mail.app likes to redownload all my e-mail when I quit and open it.
Regarding Dbus, I haven't had time to try this out yet: https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows10/comments/4ea4w4/fyi_you_c...
Both Mac ans Linux offer very good developer experiences, with hosts of cross-platform tooling and environments that are closer to the server that will most likely run your application. I understand that Windows is essential when you write code that runs on Windows, but, apart from that, what are the advantages over macOS and a more traditional Unix-like environment?
Development is split into two camps, Windows-centric and UNIX-centric. Trying to develop one on the other is a disaster, so let that inform your choice. As a consumer OS, I have a much easier time installing Ubuntu on my parents'/friends' computers, as it's easier to get used to and doesn't have as many viruses.
Generally, there is a gap between what’s documented, what was thought to be true, and what is. At some point they will produce behavior that just doesn’t match what compiled code expects. For how many libraries, applications and combinations thereof will they deal with this?
And then there’s maintenance. This is a scary kind of layer to be responsible for; future Microsoft employees will have a hard time doing anything to this layer without risking new misbehavior so we have to trust that they either know what they’re doing or that they won’t touch anything.
I’m not saying that they weren’t clever to try this, or that there isn’t a way to pull this off successfully. I do think the odds are against them though. Or maybe, I just missed something about their implementation that makes this a lot less risky than it seems to be.
It's been a few years since I've actively used Mac OS, but is this really true? Ancedotally it seems like a lot of Web developers still use Mac OS as their OS of choice.
You can look around [1] to see what kinds of things are just a "brew install" away on macOS... an awful lot of unix-y goodness.
I have 61 things installed -- ansible, git, nvm, postgresql, the_silver_searcher, tmux...
Since I develop on Linux for work, I don't know offhand of anything that Linux has that I can't get for macOS (not saying there are no such things, but I can't think of any).
I know options exist today but I would love to see native support and it's oh-so-close.
Would be great to be able to finally script things to copy stuff over to the Windows box such as LE certs.
It's getting to the point where I'm thinking about using a Windows laptop and Linux desktop with a KVM switch, but then I'm not portable.
God I miss this. It was way ahead of the time and I guess Microsoft got their UI act together, then lost it, and are trying to find it again.
As for tiling, the best you can do are these:
https://github.com/fuhsjr00/bug.n
https://github.com/ZaneA/HackWM
The latter is by a budding Chicken Lisp; I found him and love a lot of what he does; not sure he is ready for prime-time.
As I said, stumbled upon your blog because of Chicken Lisp musings (dare I say chicken scratch)? Thanks for that, all very interesting.
ConEmu makes a staggering number of off-by-one errors in putting characters on the screen when I ssh into a Linux machine and use tmux. Vertical separators end up jagged, things that are supposed to fit the width of the screen end up wrapping, my Vim status line says "IISUAL", and so on. But mintty gets tmux right.
Thanks for writing it up, interesting stuff! - An i3 user
Well, time to see if I can get StumpWM running on it, for more hipster cred. (Partly joking, partly serious.)
Spend some time with it again. You'll learn to hate it just as much as you did the first time around. For me, it's because of a single factor: BSOD caused by shitty geforce drivers. I used to think the linux geforce drivers were shit because it was a neglected platform. Now I know the truth: windows geforce drivers are full of pain and tears as well. I don't see any of the same issues on OS X.
There is a lot of problem with Windows, GPU driver quality is not one of them.
Spending more time with it can let you find _different_ things to hate, of course. In general, all software suck.
You mean on Linux, right? Because in Windows 10, going full screen in a youtube video on an external screen routinely causes my entire system to crash (BSOD, error dump, restart).
Perhaps you have a different issue? Maybe a hardware failure? Windows 10 should not be BSODing for a graphics driver failure
I can't use Ubuntu 16.04 because Radeon drivers cause constant, infuriating tearing on my screen and the computer hangs on startup every other time I boot up. fglrx isn't much better, but it's at least stable.
1. You ran i3 as a proof of concept now but going long term you ll face dozens of issues when you want to make it useful. The same is true for everything you ll install through Ubuntu for Windows..
2. Windows mail clients are totally wrong, slow and they are not only hazardous to people using but also to receivers of emails. Outlook users don't know how to put subjects, respond and distort the format and conversation all the time. (Long time outlook user here)
3. Desktop productivity tools are long history. No reason why someone would use ms office anymore.
4. Windows for Ubuntu is doomed to be a second class citizen, and if it by chance becomes a first class citizen then why would someone need the Windows overhead and complexity? (How can I apt-get remove windows)
I congratulate MS devs taking HN seriously recently but windows in 2016 is obsolete..
Desktop productivity tools are history... no, no they're not, MS office sells millions of copies for a reason.
Windows mail clients are wrong. They're not the same as unix mail clients for sure, but who gets to dictate whether that's right or wrong? Personally I think all mail clients that allow HTML are wrong, but I understand that I'm in a minority there.
I'd suggest that Windows has many advantages over linux on the desktop. The hardware support is better, there's a better range of desktop apps available for people who like desktop apps (including games of course).
Personally I'm looking forward to ubuntu on windows. there's a load of areas where I prefer working in a linux/unix like environment (e.g. anything command-line based where linux is far superior to Windows (although Windows is getting better in that regard)), and I hope that this will let me get the best of both worlds, whilst avoiding the overhead of running a VM.
You should take a walk in an administration building. IE6 and MS Office are still in use. "For security reasons".
All mail clients are totally wrong. I hate how everything is a web app right now, and I'd love a desktop mail client that worked well. I run Thunderbird now, but it's a beast, and mutt/pine/etc are rather unwieldy, even for a heavy cli user like me.
Also, if Windows source code was freely available there would be support for Windows applications on Linux.
My point was that it is trivial for Microsoft to implement support for an open system, compared to implementing support for a closed system such as Windows.
There would be better support for running Windows applications under Linux if Windows was an open system.
I love Arch too but people like you are so die hard in their toxicity that any collaboration asking about Windows related stuff is impossible.
As a Windows user myself even I know that's simply not true. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
[1] http://www.neowin.net/news/crypto-ransomware-hits-major-webs...
[2] http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2016/04/adobe-flash-update...
[3] http://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2016/04/maisto-toymaker-we...
[4] https://labs.bromium.com/2014/02/21/the-wild-wild-web-youtub...
[5] http://www.neowin.net/news/nhs-website-sent-users-to-malware...
[6] http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/malware-attacks-thou...
[7] http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/04/exclusive-ongoing-ma...
[8] http://www.pcworld.com/article/227352/attackers_use_google_i...
[9] https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2012/10/05/bing-image-black...
[10] https://medium.com/@networksecurity/oleoutlook-bypass-almost...
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12024411 and marked it off-topic.