On 08/01/2020 18:55, Rick C wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at 12:29:20 PM UTC-5, Rob Gaddi wrote:
>> On 1/7/20 8:00 PM, Rick C wrote:
>>> I bet the Apple still have a huge leg up on PCs when it comes to
>>> displays. Yeah, they both have the same hardware these days, but
>>> the way the software manages things is so much better on the Mac.
>>> I remember using a Mac many years ago and everything from top to
>>> bottom had a consistent look and feel. On the PC every program
>>> is in it's own world with unique fonts, sizes and windows.
>>>
>>> I had this machine fairly tuned up and could get most things done
>>> without eye strain and yet still got to treat the display as if
>>> it could show more than one window at a time. Then I fired up an
>>> HDL tool and the fonts are all so small it was impossible to read
>>> them without surgeon's magnifiers. So I finally gave in and went
>>> for the Windows screen adjustment. Seems I already had it set to
>>> 125%. So I thought 150% might do well... adjust, reboot and the
>>> screen looked like I had dropped the resolution to 1024 instead
>>> of 1920 pixels wide. Everything was so huge! Ok, so I backed
>>> that off to 135% and it seems to be a bit better, the new app can
>>> be read with only a bit of eye strain. But now I have to go into
>>> every app and tweak details to get it to look right again.
>>>
>>> On the Mac, if I could read one app, I could read them all! Too
>>> bad so much engineering software won't run on the Mac.
>>>
>>> So how does Linux handle things like font sizes? I'm thinking it
>>> is really the wild west or it forces the user to manually muck
>>> with all the settings on every program. At least I can get a lot
>>> more engineering tools to run under Linux than on the Mac. I
>>> really do need to try Linux sometime.
>>>
>>
>> Generally pretty well. I've been daily driving on Linux machines
>> for about a decade now and would never consider going back.
>>
>> That said, Modelsim on Linux does in fact have a font problem that
>> requires manually mucking with hidden settings in an undocumented
>> way, otherwise it's like you're trying to read source from orbit.
>
> I remember when I was young I was able to read anything, anywhere, in
> any light. I have one eye highly astigmatic which my brain uses, but
> does not rely on. As I've gotten older it has been a bit of a strain
> to compensate with glasses. I've now reached the point where I just
> can't read the durn computer unless the fonts are significantly
> bigger than standard. Some programs cooperate, but often only in the
> text display windows. Various controls are still very hard to make
> out.
>
> I'm pretty sure all that is handled cleanly in the Mac. It sounds
> like Linux is as I suspected, some programs work well with the
> settings and others don't... not unlike Windows.
>
> I keep saying I'm going to give Linux a try. I have one thing I need
> to get done today. After that I'll try dragging out a 15 inch laptop
> I've got and seeing if I can make it dual boot. Any suggestions as
> to which Linux would be optimal for running CAD tools? Also, I have
> a little experience with Raspbian on the rPi. I don't know if that
> should be a factor or not. Is there really much difference between
> Linuxes from a user perspective?
>
I can't say how well any particular program will work on Linux - that
depends on the program. But I can give you a few general points.
GUI software on Linux, like on the Mac, almost invariably uses a
graphics toolkit - GTK and QT are the most common for modern code, along
with Java toolkits. (Several others, such as TK/TCL or wxWidgits, build
on top of these.) A key point about the window layout for most of these
is that it is done with boxes and sizers that re-size according to the
size of the contents. That means if you have a window or a dialog box
and choose a bigger font, the widgets and the boxes all grow to fit. So
on these systems, most programs (but not all) work fine when you scale
the fonts or choose "high dots per inch" settings.
This is different from Windows base API where positions and sizes of
widgets is generally done using pixel counts. When you try to scale the
font sizes, you get a mess because the text no longer fits in the dialog
widgets. This is a lot less of a problem than it used to be, as more
programs on Windows also use decent toolkits, but you will see it.
So if you are going to use a high DPI screen, or just increase the size
of the fonts to fit ageing eyes (none of us are getting younger), a
modern Linux will be as good as a Mac (i.e., mostly fine, but with a
risk of a few exceptions) and better than Windows.
Under the hood, Linux and Macs work in quite a similar fashion - both
are *nix systems. On the gui side, Linux is vastly more configurable
than either MacOS or Windows, with dozens of different desktops to
choose from. This is, of course, both a blessing and a curse.
A huge difference between Windows and Linux is that in Windows, you
usually get software by going to the website for the software,
downloading it, and installing it. You update it by going to the
website, noticing there is a new version, downloading it, and installing
it. With Linux, you get the solid majority of your software from your
distribution - you find it in your package manager, click the checkbox
for the software you want, and the package manager handles the rest.
And it will tell you when there are new versions and easily update them
(but only if and when you want it to!). For software in the
distribution, this is hugely easier than the Windows way - for software
that is not part of the distribution, or when you want odd versions, it
can be more difficult.
As for Linux distributions, there are /many/. Most are somewhat niche -
if you want something for security testing, or for audio-visual work, or
for tiny systems, or for "compile everything yourself" aficionados,
there are distributions for you. For the more "normal" user, there are
basically two groups - Red Hat and Debian. Red Hat is a big favourite
for servers and workstations, and is often bought with support
contracts. CentOS is a free and compatible version. Debian is all
free, and has a massive software base. The emphasis on free (as in
"free speech", not "free beer") is not always the best for users,
however. So it is common to use derivatives that are based on Debian,
but include other software that makes life easier. Ubuntu is the most
well-known of these. Linux Mint is a derivative of Ubuntu which is
becoming increasingly common. (Knowing the chain of ancestry of a
distribution helps a lot when searching for help or tips - if you have
Linux Mint, and can't find information you want when searching for "How
do I do X in Linux Mint?", you can try searching for Ubuntu or Debian
instead, and the answer will probably still apply.)
So which should you choose? The main Linux software is found in all of
these, but third-party software (such as FPGA design tools) often
specifies only a few distributions - typically Red Hat and Ubuntu. It
is almost always fine to use a derivative of these.
My strong recommendation is Linux Mint. Ubuntu's desktop has always
struck me as ugly and intrusive - Windows does not have a monopoly on
making silly desktops that get in your way. Mint's desktop will make
you feel "this looks like a computer, and works like a computer". Mint
has two main desktops by default - Mate and Cinnamon. Cinnamon is
snazzier, with cooler effects - if you like that sort of thing. Mate is
simpler, though older, and makes it a lot easier to simply get on with
your work. So that is my choice, and my recommendation.
<https://www.linuxmint.com/download.php>
When you are running a program, there is little significant difference
between the distributions. But there are differences in the package
managers, and the choice of software they come with, and the choice of
desktop. (You can always install other desktops, but it's easier to
have one you like out of the box.)
Rasbian is a Debian variant, so much of it is the same as Linux Mint.
But Rasbian has a lighter and simpler desktop, which is a bit crude and
limited in comparison to Mate.
(For servers, my preference is pure Debian, if that is of interest to you.)
Remember, you can always try out a new OS in a virtual machine. I have
found Virtual Box very good. (And I've seen Windows programs running
faster inside Virtual Box on a Linux host than they ran on native
Windows on the same hardware.)