quake2 on linux

[X'tyfe]

I always find Linux users so full of themselves, self-centered and with egos the size of a watermelon (Jdolan). While it may beat the shit out of Windows in a lot of ways, you're going to have to accept that it has some major short comings which will never make it mainstream (but perhaps that's a good thing?)

[soh]

I always find Linux users so full of themselves, self-centered and with egos the size of a watermelon (Jdolan). While it may beat the shit out of Windows in a lot of ways, you're going to have to accept that it has some major short comings which will never make it mainstream (but perhaps that's a good thing?)

I like how you didn't quote anyone's post in there 

And its not like I'm not going to use Windows(Dual boot)

I'm still going to use it, just not as often...probably until I really need it

But other then that, its mainly Linux. So, I guess I'm full of myself

[soh]

I'm not even going to waste my time doing that. I dual booted Windows with Linux. So, If I want to play Q2 I'll just log back on Windows

See, this is what I don't get. What's the point of using linux at this point?
You made your choice, so no gaming for you

 My intention wasn't to game with linux in the first place. I really wanted to see what it was like to use compilers for my C programs and web browswers.
Which is why I wanted to boot back on Windows Vista when I would play Quake 2, since it is the only PC game that I play at all since I was like...8 years old.
Although, I'm noticing that the more that I start this computer up, I'm booting on Linux a lot more on Windows. I kind of forgot what using Windows is like
I really like Linux, so what ever the trouble is to use quake 2 on Linux I'll figure it out in time

...fuck Windows 

well if the only game you play is quake, there is no reason you should ever need to boot into windows unless your using some weird crazy ass proprietary program that you cant find a free one that does the same shit in linux

linux just makes a better desktop...

honestly what most people dont even know is the wonders of package managers if your using one like synaptic which comes with ubuntu... need a program? quick search, pick one, it will download and install it for you lol

ive never been able to be as productive in windows as i was linux, just because of the synaptic package manager in ubuntu

need to convert more people to linux, or at least make em try it so they stop hatin lol overclock.net has a good linux challenge thread up a lot of people should check out

Certain ones such as iTunes. Does linux rip mp3 files? I can't seem to do that, it only supports ogg vorbis and wav, along with some other one I can't seem to remember.
In the meantime I'm going to step back from Windows unless I have to rip some new music, or like you said can't find a program that isn't compatible. But since school is starting soon there won't be time to even use the computer unless I start up some reports, and email of course

Almost forgot, I'm going to be getting an iPod soon. So, I am going to use Windows for that. iTunes doesn't work on linux?

[VaeVictis]

I'm not even going to waste my time doing that. I dual booted Windows with Linux. So, If I want to play Q2 I'll just log back on Windows

See, this is what I don't get. What's the point of using linux at this point?
You made your choice, so no gaming for you

 My intention wasn't to game with linux in the first place. I really wanted to see what it was like to use compilers for my C programs and web browswers.
Which is why I wanted to boot back on Windows Vista when I would play Quake 2, since it is the only PC game that I play at all since I was like...8 years old.
Although, I'm noticing that the more that I start this computer up, I'm booting on Linux a lot more on Windows. I kind of forgot what using Windows is like
I really like Linux, so what ever the trouble is to use quake 2 on Linux I'll figure it out in time

...fuck Windows 

well if the only game you play is quake, there is no reason you should ever need to boot into windows unless your using some weird crazy ass proprietary program that you cant find a free one that does the same shit in linux

linux just makes a better desktop...

honestly what most people dont even know is the wonders of package managers if your using one like synaptic which comes with ubuntu... need a program? quick search, pick one, it will download and install it for you lol

ive never been able to be as productive in windows as i was linux, just because of the synaptic package manager in ubuntu

need to convert more people to linux, or at least make em try it so they stop hatin lol overclock.net has a good linux challenge thread up a lot of people should check out

Certain ones such as iTunes. Does linux rip mp3 files? I can't seem to do that, it only supports ogg vorbis and wav, along with some other one I can't seem to remember.
In the meantime I'm going to step back from Windows unless I have to rip some new music, or like you said can't find a program that isn't compatible. But since school is starting soon there won't be time to even use the computer unless I start up some reports, and email of course

Almost forgot, I'm going to be getting an iPod soon. So, I am going to use Windows for that. iTunes doesn't work on linux?

well there is itunes like programs that will sync with your ipod and everything, i know one of them comes pre-installed on SUSE

but if you absolutely cannot due without itunes, it will run in wine just fine, just look up a guide on how to get it running ive never done it so i dont know how hard it is...

on music rips, mine did just fine, i know it did ogg files with the quake2 sound track because those ARE ogg files... but im pretty sure mine ripped into mp3... forgot what program i was using to rip but when i was runnin linux i used amarok with the mp3 pluggin to play them, might have ripped with it as well... but im sure you can find a program that will rip into mp3's if you just look google it or just search in your package manager

[soh]

sudo apt-get install libxine1-ffmpeg gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly

Anyone wanting mp3 support on ubuntu for Amarok just type this on the terminal. It should work fine

If it doesn't you'll have to search for the remaining installation packages on Synaptic. But other then that, it should work

Okay, I got Amarok playing mp3's, along with MS Office 2007 on Linux. Now, all I have to do is get Quake 2 working...then I won't have to use Windows anymore...for good!

[VaeVictis]

sudo apt-get install libxine1-ffmpeg gstreamer0.10-plugins-ugly

Anyone wanting mp3 support on ubuntu for Amarok just type this on the terminal. It should work fine

If it doesn't you'll have to search for the remaining installation packages on Synaptic. But other then that, it should work

Okay, I got Amarok playing mp3's, along with MS Office 2007 on Linux. Now, all I have to do is get Quake 2 working...then I won't have to use Windows anymore...for good!

id just use synaptic xD terminal is great and all... but the ease of use of the synaptic gui is really impressive lol

and quake2 should be the easiest to get working honestly just use aprq2, if you have problems you can hit up jehar on irc or find squarehimself, i know they are both die hard linux fans

could also check out the quake2kicker at the top of the site, just click the get q2 icon it has a folder called linux when you unzip it that builds aprq2 i believe, pretty good start for a q2 client honestly, uses the demo pak files though so youll want to replace those with the ones off your q2 disc if you have it

[soh]

Still can't get quake 2 to work. But this is what my desktop looks like on Linux

[VaeVictis]

Still can't get quake 2 to work. But this is what my desktop looks like on Linux

so windows... xD

i know its just a personal preference... but if your gonna use linux, why make it look like windows? you can make your gui so much more user friendly and much more to your own tastes if you wanted to

[soh]

Still can't get quake 2 to work. But this is what my desktop looks like on Linux

so windows... xD

i know its just a personal preference... but if your gonna use linux, why make it look like windows? you can make your gui so much more user friendly and much more to your own tastes if you wanted to

 I'll slowly get out of the Windows phase. Just trying to get used to it. What does yours look like?

[VaeVictis]

Still can't get quake 2 to work. But this is what my desktop looks like on Linux

so windows... xD

i know its just a personal preference... but if your gonna use linux, why make it look like windows? you can make your gui so much more user friendly and much more to your own tastes if you wanted to

 I'll slowly get out of the Windows phase. Just trying to get used to it. What does yours look like?

ill be honest i havent run linux for awhile lol used to look pretty sweet though, have a desktop i need to put together that im gonna either run arch or ubuntu on... cant decide if i want the better os or the easier os xD

http://www.overclock.net/linux-unix/115329-show-your-linux.html  <--- that thread has some really cool set ups, a lot of generic ones too xD but if you browse through it it has some sweet screenshots

[reaper]

define better

[VaeVictis]

define better

well ubuntu is main stream stuff, its aimed to be easy... its got a lot of stuff preconfigured and its got a lot of stuff pre-installed, the package manager gui makes getting stuff a breeze... so it is an easier distro... however when something DOES break in ubuntu, its a total bitch :/ and when you update your distro stuff commonly breaks and its a pain in the ass to fix because you didnt actually do any of the work on your os... its a really good easy os when it works, a nightmare when it wont

arch on the other hand, you do everything yourself, its minimalistic, very fast, the install guide is like 10 pages long lol not very easy for newer users and harder to set up... but once you do get it all set up its golden, if something breaks, you should know what broke because you did it all, and theres not a million things that could break there is only what you put there, its much faster and smaller due to it being self built and not adding a bunch of junk that you dont need like ubuntu does... there are other reasons but i cant think of any right now slipped my mind i guess

ubuntu is a much easier os, takes less effort to run, but arch is a much better os while harder to start

[soh]

Ok, what about Knoppix???

I couldn't seem to have that OS installed on my computer. But I thought it looked neat.

Anyway, anyone ever use it before? Any opinions???

...and VaeVictis, I agree, synaptic is awesome

[VaeVictis]

Ok, what about Knoppix???

I couldn't seem to have that OS installed on my computer. But I thought it looked neat.

Anyway, anyone ever use it before? Any opinions???

...and VaeVictis, I agree, synaptic is awesome

i believe knoppix is one of those ones designed to just be a live cd, so its designed to boot and run from a cdrw dvdrw or flash drive without touching your hard drive, i could be thinking of a different one though lol

[reaper]

well ubuntu is main stream stuff, its aimed to be easy... its got a lot of stuff preconfigured and its got a lot of stuff pre-installed, the package manager gui makes getting stuff a breeze... so it is an easier distro... however when something DOES break in ubuntu, its a total bitch :/

I'm not sure what you mean, if something breaks running on another version of Linux it's not any easier to fix.  If you upgrade the entire Operating System and there is some kind of an issue that's not exactly surprising.  You also have the option to install the programs yourself, so that's not any different, besides that you had the option of something that will make the programs work fo ryou on command.  I would consider it easier to fix something with more support, and Ubuntu has a lot of that.  Also they both can run SELinux and other similar configurations.  I could see an argument about security, that the code is better analyzed or mainted in other operating systems, but there will always be mistakes and a choice has to be made.

arch on the other hand, you do everything yourself, its minimalistic, very fast, the install guide is like 10 pages long lol not very easy for newer users and harder to set up... but once you do get it all set up its golden, if something breaks, you should know what broke because you did it all, and theres not a million things that could break there is only what you put there, its much faster and smaller due to it being self built and not adding a bunch of junk that you dont need like ubuntu does... there are other reasons but i cant think of any right now  slipped my mind i guess

Setting up a program in Arch can be no different than Ubuntu, and there are a million things to go wrong, the kernel is a large program and there's still all the same utilities and programs.  How is it faster?  I click something and instant on Arch or Ubuntu.