Which OS do you use?

Just getting an idea of what the mathematicians and scientists of Veeky Forums use.

strawpoll.me/11660384

Other urls found in this thread:

linuxlinks.com/article/20080803104017665/Scientific.html
wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/List_of_applications
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Fuck off you desk zombies. I fucking hate /g/aylords

Anyone who uses Mac or Windows is a brainlet

Why?

CSfags: Debian/Gentoo(stable)
Economists: Windows 8.1
All the other boring social sciences: Windows 10
Arts: OSX
Engineers: Ubuntu MATE
Everyone else in STEM: Scientific Linux

Arch Linux master race reporting in.

Do you even Caelinux?

This data by itself isn't very interesting. You should compare it to the general population.

OS X masterrace

ios

>Linux
>not GNU/Linux

Fuck you

this 2bh pham.

a computer should be like a well-fit glove. a personally tailored and customized tool.

>tfw engineer and this accurately guessed my OS

Android mustard race :^)

linux of course.

>linux/BSD

FAGGOT

Astronomer here.
Astronomy has a huge love for Macs for some reason. Almost everyone (students and faculty) has a linux machine and a Mac laptop, or just a Mac desktop. I've never seen Windows.
The flavor of Linux mostly depends on the sys. admin of the department. At my undergrad they generally use CentOS and at my grad they generally use OpenSUSE. Obviously, there were always those people who liked using their own niche version of Linux.

who tf gets their gloves tailored

I dualboot wendowx and looniz.

i use my calculator

Primitives!... all you need is EMACS

dualboot w7 and linux mint. i do all of my work with linux though

Pure math and csfag here. I use Arch Linux. I've been using linux for over a decade and to me Arch is by far the easiest distro to use.

The package management system is actually super clever.
In other non-rolling release distros:
>Maintainers modify the shit out of packages in order to deliver a consistent look and feel resembling Windows or OSx.
>Recent features added to your favorite software won't appear in your distro's repositories until maintainers get a chance to add in their tweaks.
>If a package isn't in the repo and you try to compile and install it manually then you're likely to break the system altogether (eg. favorite software requires a different version of Pango and said version of Pango doesn't play nicely with the distro's modified packages).
In Arch:
>Most packages are completely unmodified. There are only a few patches and modifications made to packages and they're mostly to either deal with bugs or to make thing simpler.
>Packaging consists of writing a simple install script that briefly outlines how the package will be compiled and installed. For convenience packages are still distributed in binary form but a user may look up the install script and use it to compile/install the package themselves (this is especially useful if the user wishes to add a configure option to a package, which is ridiculously easy to do in Arch).
>Aside from the official repos arch also hosts a huge unofficial repository called the AUR where users maintain install scripts for less popular software.
>It's really easy to write your own install script on the rare occasion where you actually need to.

The only package management system better than Arch is the Nix package manager, but unfortunately it isn't ready for prime time yet. That said, I have the Nix package manager installed on my laptop (on Arch). It lives alongside pacman though I only use it for managing Haskell and Agda packages.

Pretty sure no one uses scientific linux at home. It's only used at university labs and shit, because it's actually weird as shit.

GPL is actually a hack that allows us to treat software like private property (with alienation rights) within a system that isn't meant for that.

BSD on the other hand is literally a fuck-me-in-the-ass license that doesn't invoke alienation rights upon data transfer.

I've used Arch before Gentoo, and honestly I'd never go back.
Portage is a much much fine-grained package managing system than pacman is, by far.
Pacman is fast because of the binary packages, and portage is slower because you compile everything and it's written in Python and has to recurse through trees to do dependency resolution, but the amount of control you get over your system just by changing a few text files is absolutely mind blowing my incredible.
I like it anyway.

What software is scientific linux used for?

I've used a bunch of distros but never bothered with Gentoo or Slack (actually I tried to install Slamd64 when it first came out but had trouble getting it to work on my system at the time).

What is the install/upgrade process like?

The install process is just like arch except you leave it to compile for a few hours instead of running pacstrap

It's also rolling release like Arch, just run emerge

OSX, I do not have enough patience for computers so I am ok

fuck off /g/ we dont have time to be ricer nerds

You should try NixOS

tfw wannabe engineer and he correctly guessed my os

I can't speak for every use case, but I worked in a lab that ran scientific Linux on the desktops. basically, it's more or less a standard which means, for example, NASA actually writes specific guides and program versions for scientific Linux. it also has a ton of stuff like ipython built in (I think).

I'd just like to interject for moment. What you're refering to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called Linux, and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called Linux distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux!

Kali Linux obvs
Tails USB when away from main comp
anyone saying anything else is a retard

Windows seems to come out on top.

Everyone knows you "muh security" freaks are just closet pedophiles.

Physics, Nuclear Theory
Research professor got the group iMacs for our desks. The unix is very comfy.

Not sure about Macs but true on Windows

Can anyone provide a concrete and easy to read pro/cons list for Linux? Because for the life of me I cannot see a reason to use that shit. MAYBE if you need something very specific for your work or if you are actually capable of customizing your OS, but otherwise I have no clue why someone would go for an OS nobody writes software for.

*inhales*
I'D LIKE TO INTERJECT FOR A MOMENT

I dunno nigga. I've been using Linux most of my life. Don't use it if you don't want to. I don't give a fuck.

???
linuxlinks.com/article/20080803104017665/Scientific.html

That kind of proves my point. All the software there is is technical one that's useless unless you work in a somewhat specific field. So, while I understand that someone who absolutely needs some of that software might want a Linux machine for work, there still is no reason why someone should use it for everyday and "common" computer uses.

im a computer engineer and i use windows 7

I thought you were asking about technical software. Linux does do "every day" stuff as well

wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/List_of_applications

>I have no clue why someone would go for an OS nobody writes software for.
Most scientific software is on Linux and my University provides a lot of Linux PCs.

The question is not why you should use Linux but why you shouldn't (and there might be legitimate reasons for that).

I am chained to windows like a slave because I like gaming

PC gaming is dead.

You got plenty of software on the windows that does not exist.

The ultimate solution.
Linux sucks, so just install windows and then just ssh into your uni server with x11 forwarding and voila you have linux without even bothering installing it.

Seriously /g/, get the fuck out of here.
We have linux, we can remote control it, we have thinlinc which is even superior to ssh and x11 forwarding. It's fucking useless to install linux.

The real reasons why people use linux are subjective, they are not objective.

t. computer engineer and an arch linux user.

>Linux sucks, so just install windows and then just ssh into your uni server with x11 forwarding and voila you have linux without even bothering installing it.
lol, have fun being subjected to the IT Department's user subjugating software that won't even allow you to install basic software without submitting a written justification for why you want it installed (hopefully said ticket gets a response within a few months if at all).

>you don't have freedom because you aren't allowed to stab people