f



Linux advocacy is a joke

Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.

It seems that the Linux users have 100+ different excuses to use when
confronted with the obvious deficiencies of Linux as compared to better
operating systems like Windows or OSX, which is real UNIX, not a sorry
hack like Linux.

So let us examine these typical responses for a few moments:

1. Call the person a troll. This one works real well especially when
the rest of the choir all chimes in and pat each other on the back. The
problem with this technique is that while it might fool the uninformed,
the smart person will still absorb the topic of the so called
"troll" and investigate on his own. Example: a so called
"troll" says that Linux doesn't work with a particular HP Printer,
the Linux advocates call him a known troll and ignore the content of
the message.

2. The "Works for Me" technique. This one is a real winner for the
LiNuts. Example: A person says "My Creative SB24bit card does not work
with Linux". The Linux advocate responds "My Creative card works fine,
it must be you". Notice that the Linux advocate never specifically
mentions the EXACT CARD. This is the half truth trolling technique of
the Linux advocates. This one is also used extensively for video cards
where some poor soul can't make a card work with Linux but yet the
Linux advocate will scream up and down that it works for him. Sure it
works for him. Works means it displays a picture on the screen. The
fact that TV/audio/remote control/dual monitor support and all the
advanced features of the card do NOT work under Linux gets ignored.
Watch out for this one!

3. RTFM. Oh this one is a beauty! Windows comes with a manual that is
about 1/64 of an inch thick, yet people seem to manage quite well.
RTFM? So which one? One of the hundreds of outdated HOW-TO's? Just
watch the fool who tries to use the "font-de-uglification howto" with a
xorg based distribution and hoses the entire system! Linux is all about
documentation? Yeah right! The only problem is that 90+ percent of it
is OUT OF DATE and INCORRECT! BTW, I thought Linux had great fonts
since 1990? Guess I must have been wrong.

4. The distribution switcheroo. This one is another classic of the
Linux advocates bag of tricks:

  Mandrake sucks, try Redhat.
  Redhat sucks, try Mandrake.
  Mandrake and Redhat suck, try Suse.

And it goes on and on endlessly because Linux has more distributions
than a Linux advocate has lies. It's like having an eternal "get out of
jail card". It's the perfect built in excuse, I have never seen this
used anywhere except with Linux.
If you walk into a Ford dealer, look at a Ford Focus and tell the
salesperson you like the VW Jetta better, is he going to try and sell
you another Ford, or worse yet a Chevy? Of course not, he will base his
sale on the Ford Focus. The REAL QUESTION is why does Linux NEED so
MANY distributions? The short answer is: they all suck in one form or
fashion and each one tries to fix what is wrong [in their opinion] with
the others. The entire concept leads to total confusion. IOW can I use
Ubuntu packages with Suse?

5. The Attack Microsoft technique. This is another lame method the
Linux lusers use to sway the thread toward Microsoft and avoid Linux's
faults. Newbie says I hear Linux doesn't work well with DESKTOP
multimedia, which is true. Linux advocate rants and raves about the
1000 virii release for Windows last week etc, which of course has
nothing to do with the OP question. The idea is to switch the topic to
attack Microsoft and away from the obvious lack of decent Linux
applications.

6. The server vs desktop vs multimedia vs desktop multimedia
switcheroo. This one is another beauty. Newbie claims multimedia (DVD,
DAW, Video, etc) doesn't work or works poorly with Linux compared to
Windows. The Linux luser squawks: Well Linux is good enough for Pixar
and Disney and tossed Windows out of the shop. Truth is that we are
comparing Apples and Oranges here. Yes Disney/Pixar used Linux once.
They replaced REAL UNIX, NOT WINDOWS, and the applications they were
using were HIGHLY customized and not for sale. Try and find something
like Sonar/Soundforge/Cubase/Garageband/Adobe Audition etc for Linux
and you will be met with a collection of HALF ASSED, HALF DONE, BUG
RIDDLED applications like Audacity, Ardour and Jack (off) because that
is what you will do trying to make Jack work.

7. Linux is more secure than Windows. This one is perhaps one of the
most lame and widely used Linux luser excuse. The simple truth is that
hackers simply do not waste any time or effort writing virus, worm or
trojan code for any operating system with such insignificant installed
base. Hackers want to impact the largest number of machines possible!
Therefore, the obvious platform to attack is the ubiquitous Windows OS,
used by virtually the entire planet. If Linux had a large installed
base that would approach that of Windows, Linux would already be the
target of thousands of hacker attacks. Hackers and techno-terrorists
are the real enemies, not Windows!

Yeah, the Linux community is full of lies. They hide behind x.003
releases so they can claim it is not a released version when the masses
complain that the program sucks. It's like some kind of a crutch. Tell
me, why slrn is still at .9.x.x after being around for 10+ years? Why?
Because it's a crutch. When it crashes and has bugs, and it does, the
author can hide behind the fact that it is not a released version,
another cover up by the Linux lusers. Linux is a total waste of time.
The advocates are children/zealots who are still sucking on mama's
breasts.

0
9/21/2005 1:30:48 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

65 Replies
604 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 21

Whatever...


http://desktoplinuxathome.com/

If you don't like it, just leave it... easy.

But I like my FREEDOM, thank-you.

0
ylikone (45)
9/21/2005 1:37:44 PM
On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.

They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.

You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.

If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 8:45AM  up 63 days, 20:34, 0 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
you223 (242)
9/21/2005 1:50:57 PM
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:30:48 -0700, eros.tintory wrote:

> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.

I find that claim laughable, considering the utter nonsense you have
posted here, not to mention some of your pals like 'tab'. How much more
juvenile can that be?

> 
> It seems that the Linux users have 100+ different excuses to use when
> confronted with the obvious deficiencies of Linux as compared to better
> operating systems like Windows or OSX, which is real UNIX, not a sorry
> hack like Linux.

OSX is not a 'real UNIX'. Windows is very much worse than Linux in almost
every respect these days, particulary security-wise.

> 
> So let us examine these typical responses for a few moments:
> 
> 1. Call the person a troll. This one works real well especially when
> the rest of the choir all chimes in and pat each other on the back. The
> problem with this technique is that while it might fool the uninformed,
> the smart person will still absorb the topic of the so called
> "troll" and investigate on his own. Example: a so called
> "troll" says that Linux doesn't work with a particular HP Printer,
> the Linux advocates call him a known troll and ignore the content of
> the message.

We call people trolls when they *are* trolls. For instance, you're a
troll, so why should you be taken as some sort of authority on Linux?
Particularly when it's glaringly obvious you know nothing about Linux, or
Linux users.

> 
> 2. The "Works for Me" technique. This one is a real winner for the
> LiNuts. Example: A person says "My Creative SB24bit card does not work
> with Linux". The Linux advocate responds "My Creative card works fine,
> it must be you". Notice that the Linux advocate never specifically
> mentions the EXACT CARD.

Since you made this example up, you can't use it to prove anything,
particularly this totally bogus point. It seems not to have occurred to
you that the people in this group are not stupid, and they don't have
collective amnesia. This means your attempts to use the same dreary lies
to smear us as have been used and refuted a hundred times in the past will
not work - we haven't forgotten. We know the truth, and we know you're not
telling it.

 This is the half truth trolling technique of
> the Linux advocates. This one is also used extensively for video cards
> where some poor soul can't make a card work with Linux but yet the
> Linux advocate will scream up and down that it works for him. Sure it
> works for him. Works means it displays a picture on the screen. The
> fact that TV/audio/remote control/dual monitor support and all the
> advanced features of the card do NOT work under Linux gets ignored.

Let's see you prove this. In detail.

> Watch out for this one!

Why?

> 
> 3. RTFM. Oh this one is a beauty! Windows comes with a manual that is
> about 1/64 of an inch thick, yet people seem to manage quite well.

Do they? I suppose that's why there are shelves full of books in any
bokkshop you care to name, devoted to using Windows.

> RTFM? So which one? One of the hundreds of outdated HOW-TO's? Just
> watch the fool who tries to use the "font-de-uglification howto" with a
> xorg based distribution and hoses the entire system!

Yep, that person would indeed be a fool. What's that got to do with
anything youv'e said? Do you expect others to do your thinking for you?

 Linux is all about
> documentation? Yeah right! The only problem is that 90+ percent of it is
> OUT OF DATE and INCORRECT! BTW, I thought Linux had great fonts since
> 1990? Guess I must have been wrong.

Hey, Lisa, you changed your name!

Listen, pal, do you think we are stupid? Do you think we can't remember
that this was trolled with only hours ago? Do you think we are going to
fall for this junk twice in the same day? Hardly. 

> 
> 4. The distribution switcheroo. This one is another classic of the
> Linux advocates bag of tricks:
> 
>   Mandrake sucks, try Redhat.

Mandrake is Mandriva and it doesn't suck. 

>   Redhat sucks, try Mandrake.
>   Mandrake and Redhat suck, try Suse.

Everyone has their favourite distro. Most of us will advocate it first.
But if someone wants an objective answer, they'll probably get one if they
ask politely. Ubuntu is reckoned to be excellent, though I've never used
it except on a Live CD.

> 
> And it goes on and on endlessly because Linux has more distributions
> than a Linux advocate has lies. It's like having an eternal "get out of
> jail card". It's the perfect built in excuse, I have never seen this
> used anywhere except with Linux.

Again, you're lying, lying lying. You're the liar here, pal. Get that
through your head.

Linux has plenty of distributions, which is great. I get to try all kinds
of new stuff, new ways of doing things, all for free. Cool.

> If you walk into a Ford dealer, look at a Ford Focus and tell the
> salesperson you like the VW Jetta better, is he going to try and sell
> you another Ford, or worse yet a Chevy? Of course not, he will base his
> sale on the Ford Focus.

Linux isn't a car, it's a kernel for an OS. Leave your car stories at the
door when you come in.

> The REAL QUESTION is why does Linux NEED so MANY distributions?

Why should that be the 'real' question? You're missing the entire point.
It's not a matter of need. liinux has many distributions because it's
Free, which means anyone who cares to can create and maintain a distro.
And lots of people seem to want to do that. If I had the ime and skill i
wouldn't mind doing it myself, just for fun, even if it was just a small
distro or Live CD


> The short answer is: they all suck in one form or
> fashion and each one tries to fix what is wrong [in their opinion] with
> the others.

No, they don't all suck, in any form or fashion. They address different
needs or desires on the part of users and maintainers. It's called
choince. Perhaps you've heard of it. 

 The entire concept leads to total confusion. IOW can I use
> Ubuntu packages with Suse?

Nope, but you can use apt for SUE. What's your point? Oh, I forgot, you
don't really have one, you're just slinging lies around like mud and
hoping oen or two will stick.

> 
> 5. The Attack Microsoft technique. This is another lame method the
> Linux lusers use to sway the thread toward Microsoft and avoid Linux's
> faults. Newbie says I hear Linux doesn't work well with DESKTOP
> multimedia, which is true.

No, it *isn't* true, so your whole lie falls apart right here.

 Linux advocate rants and raves about the
> 1000 virii release for Windows last week etc, which of course has
> nothing to do with the OP question. The idea is to switch the topic to
> attack Microsoft and away from the obvious lack of decent Linux
> applications.

What 'obvious' lack are you talking about? I don't see a lack on my
desktops. Multimedia? - I've got xine, mplayer, streamtuner, amaroK,
soundjuicer, xmms, rosegarden, audacity, hydrogen - want me to go on? I
could, for a long time.

I've got the GIMP, cinepaint, k3b.... you get the picture, right? 

> 
> 6. The server vs desktop vs multimedia vs desktop multimedia
> switcheroo. This one is another beauty. Newbie claims multimedia (DVD,
> DAW, Video, etc) doesn't work or works poorly with Linux compared to
> Windows.

Newbie is wrong.

 The Linux luser squawks: Well Linux is good enough for Pixar
> and Disney and tossed Windows out of the shop. Truth is that we are
> comparing Apples and Oranges here. Yes Disney/Pixar used Linux once.

No, not just once, liar.

> They replaced REAL UNIX, NOT WINDOWS, and the applications they were
> using were HIGHLY customized and not for sale. Try and find something
> like Sonar/Soundforge/Cubase/Garageband/Adobe Audition etc for Linux
> and you will be met with a collection of HALF ASSED, HALF DONE, BUG
> RIDDLED applications like Audacity, Ardour and Jack (off) because that
> is what you will do trying to make Jack work.

Again, you are a liar.

> 
> 7. Linux is more secure than Windows. This one is perhaps one of the
> most lame and widely used Linux luser excuse. The simple truth is that
> hackers simply do not waste any time or effort writing virus, worm or
> trojan code for any operating system with such insignificant installed
> base.

Once again, wrong, wrong, wrong. And BTW, they're not hackers, they're
scriptkiddies and crackers.

> Hackers want to impact the largest number of machines possible!
> Therefore, the obvious platform to attack is the ubiquitous Windows OS,
> used by virtually the entire planet. If Linux had a large installed
> base that would approach that of Windows, Linux would already be the
> target of thousands of hacker attacks. Hackers and techno-terrorists
> are the real enemies, not Windows!

That I might agree with, except that the weak security of Windows has
helped to create these crackers and terrorists and continues to perpetuate
the threat of their activities. The internet is awash with this shit
*because* Windows is weak wrt security. Linux has far, far fewer of those
weaknesses, and will not make an easy target even when it is muchmore
prevalent.

> 
> Yeah, the Linux community is full of lies.

No, it isn't. Saying ti doesn't make it true.

 They hide behind x.003
> releases so they can claim it is not a released version when the masses
> complain that the program sucks. It's like some kind of a crutch. Tell
> me, why slrn is still at .9.x.x after being around for 10+ years? Why?

Because it works,and does what its users want *now*, dimwit. You seem
inordinately hung up on silly numbers. Function is what matters.

> Because it's a crutch. When it crashes and has bugs, and it does, the
> author can hide behind the fact that it is not a released version,
> another cover up by the Linux lusers. Linux is a total waste of time.

Funny, you seem to spend an awful lot of time attacking something you
claim is bad, while we're all busy productively using it day in day out.

> The advocates are children/zealots who are still sucking on mama's
> breasts.

And just what are you? A bile-filled, lying, nymshifting arsehole who has
nothing better to do in life but attack what he cannot understand.

Show me how you're a better person than any Linux advocate here. Just try.
I will laugh in your face.

The truth is, you are a coward who hides behind nyms and slags off the
hard work and efforts of others. How proud your family must be of you.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/21/2005 2:29:53 PM
On Wednesday 21 September 2005 14:30 eros.tintory@hotmail.com wrote:

> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly

This all seems to be a re-post of a re-post of......

Is this Susan again?
0
bbgruff (6628)
9/21/2005 2:56:07 PM
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:50:57 +0000, General Protection Fault wrote:

> On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
> 
> They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.

Eric Raymond is not *my* leader. There are quite a lot of other advocates
who wouldn't say he was their leader, too.

> 
> You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
> b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.

Why is this supposed to be a lie?

> 
> If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.

Maybe you'd like to explain that. On old hardware you may not get the
fastest of performances, but I don't see how it can be any less easy to
*use*.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/21/2005 2:57:36 PM
eros.tintory@hotmail.com blithely blithered
> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some

That's because we're better than you and sick of stupid people.

-- 
Microsoft is not the answer.
Microsoft is the question.
NO (or Linux) is the answer.
	-- Taken from a .signature from someone from the UK, source unknown
0
jason3015 (1054)
9/21/2005 3:05:37 PM
eros.tintory@hotmail.com wrote:

> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance.

Only when the "newbie" is a useless, headfucked Wintroll like you. Get the
hell out of here.
-- 
My computer runs MY operating system: PCLinuxOS
Registered Linux User #376403

The Microsoft Motto: "We're the leaders, wait for us!"
0
9/21/2005 3:43:21 PM
General Protection FUD wrote:

>On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
>
>They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.
>
>You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
>a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and

If it's not, it's in areas where it SHOULDN'T be as "easy to use", due
to security issues.  Sure, if you're running Windows as administrator,
you can click on everything willy-nilly, and most all of it will run,
for better OR FOR WORSE.

>b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.
>
>If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.

So, you need new hardware, with "new" being defined as anything newer
than a 486?  Maybe so, but not many people care.

0
chrisv (22840)
9/21/2005 3:46:58 PM
In article <1127309448.550615.11060@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
 eros.tintory@hotmail.com wrote:

> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
> 
> It seems that the Linux users have 100+ different excuses to use when
> confronted with the obvious deficiencies of Linux as compared to better
> operating systems like Windows or OS X, which is real UNIX, not a sorry
> hack like Linux.
> 
> So let us examine these typical responses for a few moments:
> 
> 1. Call the person a troll. This one works real well especially when
> the rest of the choir all chimes in and pat each other on the back. The
> problem with this technique is that while it might fool the uninformed,
> the smart person will still absorb the topic of the so called
> "troll" and investigate on his own. Example: a so called
> "troll" says that Linux doesn't work with a particular HP Printer,
> the Linux advocates call him a known troll and ignore the content of
> the message.

Troll
 
> 2. The "Works for Me" technique. This one is a real winner for the
> LiNuts. Example: A person says "My Creative SB24bit card does not work
> with Linux". The Linux advocate responds "My Creative card works fine,
> it must be you". Notice that the Linux advocate never specifically
> mentions the EXACT CARD. This is the half truth trolling technique of
> the Linux advocates. This one is also used extensively for video cards
> where some poor soul can't make a card work with Linux but yet the
> Linux advocate will scream up and down that it works for him. Sure it
> works for him. Works means it displays a picture on the screen. The
> fact that TV/audio/remote control/dual monitor support and all the
> advanced features of the card do NOT work under Linux gets ignored.
> Watch out for this one!
> 
> 3. RTFM. Oh this one is a beauty! Windows comes with a manual that is
> about 1/64 of an inch thick, yet people seem to manage quite well.
> RTFM? So which one? One of the hundreds of outdated HOW-TO's? Just
> watch the fool who tries to use the "font-de-uglification howto" with a
> xorg based distribution and hoses the entire system! Linux is all about
> documentation? Yeah right! The only problem is that 90+ percent of it
> is OUT OF DATE and INCORRECT! BTW, I thought Linux had great fonts
> since 1990? Guess I must have been wrong.

Are you that lazy to read the manual?
 
> 5. The Attack Microsoft technique. This is another lame method the
> Linux lusers use to sway the thread toward Microsoft and avoid Linux's
> faults. Newbie says I hear Linux doesn't work well with DESKTOP
> multimedia, which is true. Linux advocate rants and raves about the
> 1000 virii release for Windows last week etc, which of course has
> nothing to do with the OP question. The idea is to switch the topic to
> attack Microsoft and away from the obvious lack of decent Linux
> applications.

Then you must have been brown-nosing Gates and Ballmer quite a bit 
lately.
 
> 7. Linux is more secure than Windows. This one is perhaps one of the
> most lame and widely used Linux luser excuse. The simple truth is that
> hackers simply do not waste any time or effort writing virus, worm or
> trojan code for any operating system with such insignificant installed
> base. Hackers want to impact the largest number of machines possible!
> Therefore, the obvious platform to attack is the ubiquitous Windows OS,
> used by virtually the entire planet. If Linux had a large installed
> base that would approach that of Windows, Linux would already be the
> target of thousands of hacker attacks. Hackers and techno-terrorists
> are the real enemies, not Windows!

Does it bother you that much of Linux and OS X are more secure than 
Windoze?

> Yeah, the Linux community is full of lies. They hide behind x.003
> releases so they can claim it is not a released version when the masses
> complain that the program sucks. It's like some kind of a crutch. Tell
> me, why slrn is still at .9.x.x after being around for 10+ years? Why?
> Because it's a crutch. When it crashes and has bugs, and it does, the
> author can hide behind the fact that it is not a released version,
> another cover up by the Linux lusers. Linux is a total waste of time.
> The advocates are children/zealots who are still sucking on mama's
> breasts.

Dream on, Microsoft drone.

-- 
Microsoft and Windoze: The combination that made computing dangerous.
Apple and OS X: The combination that made computing insanely great.
0
peejster01 (4380)
9/21/2005 3:59:58 PM
On 2005-09-21, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:50:57 +0000, General Protection Fault wrote:
>
>> On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>>> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>>> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>>> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
>> 
>> They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.
>
> Eric Raymond is not *my* leader. There are quite a lot of other advocates
> who wouldn't say he was their leader, too.
>
>> 
>> You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
>> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
>> b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.
>
> Why is this supposed to be a lie?
>
>> 
>> If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.
>
> Maybe you'd like to explain that. On old hardware you may not get the
> fastest of performances, but I don't see how it can be any less easy to
> *use*.

How easy is Linux to use without X apps what use, say, GTK or Qt?  Don't
bull$hit me that you can run Qt and GTK apps on a 486.  A bunch of 
apps with different GUIs do not constitute an easy-to-use system.

Of course, you likely believe xman(1) is "easy to use", so nevermind.

-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
11:30AM  up 63 days, 23:19, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.01, 0.00
0
you223 (242)
9/21/2005 4:35:12 PM
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 06:30:48 -0700, eros.tintory wrote:

> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance.

Yeah, I know what you mean.  After all, the wintrolls who wander in and
act like that really mess things up for everyone.

On the other hand, if you ignore them and don't troll yourself, there's
lots of folks around to answer questions, give pointers, help you along
your way with Linux.

If you're getting a hostile response, that pretty much sums up what
category you're in: curious newbie, or slimy little troll.


0
kbjarnason (4613)
9/21/2005 4:35:50 PM
eros.tintory@hotmail.com poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.

Take a look at the man in the mirror, son.

0
iso
9/21/2005 5:01:11 PM
General Protection Fault poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
>
> They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.
>
> You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
> b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.
>
> If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.

Looks like we've got some tag-team trolls on the beat now.

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
9/21/2005 5:02:13 PM
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 16:35:12 +0000, General Protection Fault wrote:

> On 2005-09-21, Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 13:50:57 +0000, General Protection Fault wrote:
>>
>>> On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>>>> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>>>> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>>>> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
>>> 
>>> They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.
>>
>> Eric Raymond is not *my* leader. There are quite a lot of other advocates
>> who wouldn't say he was their leader, too.
>>
>>> 
>>> You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
>>> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
>>> b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.
>>
>> Why is this supposed to be a lie?
>>
>>> 
>>> If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.
>>
>> Maybe you'd like to explain that. On old hardware you may not get the
>> fastest of performances, but I don't see how it can be any less easy to
>> *use*.
> 
> How easy is Linux to use without X apps what use, say, GTK or Qt?  Don't
> bull$hit me that you can run Qt and GTK apps on a 486.  A bunch of 
> apps with different GUIs do not constitute an easy-to-use system.

There is a difference between not-new hardware and ancient hardware. And
putting those two statements together as you did and then saying they
somehow make up a lie is pretty bogus stuff. Linux is easy to use. When
installed on very old - getting on for obsolete - hardware, it may be
somewhat less easy, but the vast majority of users will not encounter it
on anything but normal, up-to-date hardware 

> 
> Of course, you likely believe xman(1) is "easy to use", so nevermind.

Did you suddenly decide you were a mind reader or something? If so, give
it up, because you suck at it.

-- 
Kier

0
vallon (8614)
9/21/2005 5:45:10 PM
General Protection Fault wrote:
> On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>>leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>>odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>>among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
> 
> 
> They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.

He's a Libertarian fruitcake to some, a leader to others, somewhere in 
between for alot of people.

> You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
> b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.
> 
> If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.

* Run an old, command-line, or very slim linux on old hardware.
* Run a new linux with Gnome/KDE on current hardware.  Or keep it 
command-line if you're just running a server.  The point is that you get 
the chose, mix-and-match, have your cake and eat it too.

Your analysis assumes a monolithic linux.  That's just not the case.
0
9/21/2005 5:54:48 PM
On 2005-09-21, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
> General Protection Fault poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>
>> On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>>> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>>> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>>> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
>>
>> They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.
>>
>> You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
>> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
>> b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.
>>
>> If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.
>
> Looks like we've got some tag-team trolls on the beat now.

I didn't start the thread, asshat.


-- 
FreeBSD 4.8-RELEASE i386
 1:05PM  up 64 days, 54 mins, 1 user, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
0
you223 (242)
9/21/2005 6:13:15 PM
begin  trojan.vbs It was on Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:45:10 +0100, that Kier
wrote:

<snip>
> Did you suddenly decide you were a mind reader or something? If so, give
> it up, because you suck at it.

Gormless P. FUD sucks at everything. 

-- 
To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; 
to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it.
-- Scott Granneman -- 
Senior consultant for Bryan Consulting Inc. in St. Louis
0
willpoast (5106)
9/21/2005 6:43:49 PM
General Protection Fault poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> How easy is Linux to use without X apps what use, say, GTK or Qt?  Don't
> bull$hit me that you can run Qt and GTK apps on a 486.  A bunch of 
> apps with different GUIs do not constitute an easy-to-use system.
>
> Of course, you likely believe xman(1) is "easy to use", so nevermind.

The fact of the matter is that people got along for years with simple
MS-DOS.

For many people of that era, DOS was very easy.

But times change, things get more powerful.

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
9/21/2005 7:10:48 PM
General Protection Fault poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> On 2005-09-21, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
>> General Protection Fault poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
>>
>>> On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>>>> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>>>> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>>>> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
>>>
>>> They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.
>>>
>>> You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
>>> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
>>> b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.
>>>
>>> If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.
>>
>> Looks like we've got some tag-team trolls on the beat now.
>
> I didn't start the thread, asshat.

No, but you poked your nose into it.  You need to expect a response.

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
9/21/2005 7:11:59 PM
eros.tintory@hotmail.com wrote:
> Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
> leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
> odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
> among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
Third only to astrofurfers and morons like yourself.

> 
> It seems that the Linux users have 100+ different excuses to use when
> confronted with the obvious deficiencies of Linux as compared to better
> operating systems like Windows or OSX, which is real UNIX, not a sorry
> hack like Linux.
Neither OS X nor Windows is better than GNU/Linux--though OS X at least 
has some redeeming values. Windows is just a toy. You are also incorrect 
regarding OS X's status as a Unix. It less of a unix than FreeBSD is, 
which isn't.

> 
> So let us examine these typical responses for a few moments:
> 
> 1. Call the person a troll. This one works real well especially when
> the rest of the choir all chimes in and pat each other on the back. The
> problem with this technique is that while it might fool the uninformed,
> the smart person will still absorb the topic of the so called
> "troll" and investigate on his own. Example: a so called
> "troll" says that Linux doesn't work with a particular HP Printer,
> the Linux advocates call him a known troll and ignore the content of
> the message.
It's all in how the question is framed. Asking "How can I get my HP 
P1100 working in Linux?" is a valid question. "Why the fuck doesn't 
Linux support my printer?! This POS doesn't do anything!" is just 
trolling. Please note, this is an advocacy newsgroup, not a technical 
support group.

> 
> 2. The "Works for Me" technique. This one is a real winner for the
> LiNuts. Example: A person says "My Creative SB24bit card does not work
> with Linux". The Linux advocate responds "My Creative card works fine,
> it must be you". Notice that the Linux advocate never specifically
> mentions the EXACT CARD. This is the half truth trolling technique of
> the Linux advocates. This one is also used extensively for video cards
> where some poor soul can't make a card work with Linux but yet the
> Linux advocate will scream up and down that it works for him. Sure it
> works for him. Works means it displays a picture on the screen. The
> fact that TV/audio/remote control/dual monitor support and all the
> advanced features of the card do NOT work under Linux gets ignored.
> Watch out for this one!
No, typically when we say "works for me", it indicates that full support 
is possible, though the poster does not understand exactly what the 
problem is. When someone asks "Why doesn't my SB 24-bit work?!", yet 
provides no information to solve the problem with, we are somewhat 
limited in our ability to help. Hence the 'it works for me' encouragement.

Also, your example is invalid--that particular sound card had support 
merged into the mainline kernel quite some time ago.

> 
> 3. RTFM. Oh this one is a beauty! Windows comes with a manual that is
> about 1/64 of an inch thick, yet people seem to manage quite well.
This is why just about any marginally compitant techie can collect ~$150 
a week in part-time Windows tech support? It's all easy shit, like "why 
doesn't my printer work?" I get asked similarly easy questions regarding 
tech support (I don't charge for it, unless I Actually do the work 
myself) all the time.

> RTFM? So which one?
Ideally, the one that comes with the distribution?

> One of the hundreds of outdated HOW-TO's? Just
> watch the fool who tries to use the "font-de-uglification howto" with a
> xorg based distribution and hoses the entire system! Linux is all about
> documentation? Yeah right! The only problem is that 90+ percent of it
> is OUT OF DATE and INCORRECT! BTW, I thought Linux had great fonts
> since 1990? Guess I must have been wrong.
It does have good fonts. Just not the fonts that are built OOTB.

> 
> 4. The distribution switcheroo. This one is another classic of the
> Linux advocates bag of tricks:
> 
>   Mandrake sucks, try Redhat.
>   Redhat sucks, try Mandrake.
>   Mandrake and Redhat suck, try Suse.
> 
> And it goes on and on endlessly because Linux has more distributions
> than a Linux advocate has lies. It's like having an eternal "get out of
> jail card". It's the perfect built in excuse, I have never seen this
> used anywhere except with Linux.
You see it all the time in Windows. "My 98 computer crashes all the 
time!", to whit the windroids respond "Use XP!". Or "My DOS games don't 
work!", where the windroids respond "Dual boot 98!". The only time where 
I recommend someone use something else is if it's just plain easier on 
them. Trying to make Knoppix support hardware that wasn't built into it 
is a lot more difficult than simply installing Debian from scratch.

> If you walk into a Ford dealer, look at a Ford Focus and tell the
> salesperson you like the VW Jetta better, is he going to try and sell
> you another Ford, or worse yet a Chevy? Of course not, he will base his
> sale on the Ford Focus. The REAL QUESTION is why does Linux NEED so
> MANY distributions?
Does it? Seems more like an issue of want than need. Each distribution 
serves a function, and there are quite a few that serve adequately for 
everything. Better to have 300 different distributions than try to be 
everything for everyone and fail miserably (As in, a failure as 
spectacular as that of Windows XP).

> The short answer is: they all suck in one form or
> fashion and each one tries to fix what is wrong [in their opinion] with
> the others. The entire concept leads to total confusion. IOW can I use
> Ubuntu packages with Suse?
Can you use OS X packages on Windows? Why would I want to use Ubuntu 
packages on SuSE?

> 
> 5. The Attack Microsoft technique. This is another lame method the
> Linux lusers use to sway the thread toward Microsoft and avoid Linux's
> faults. Newbie says I hear Linux doesn't work well with DESKTOP
> multimedia, which is true.
No, no it isn't true. GNU/Linux is a better multimedia platform than 
Windows is--though commercial support is often lacking. GNU/Linux is 
simply more well-suited to use for multimedia playback than Windows is.

> Linux advocate rants and raves about the
> 1000 virii release for Windows last week etc, which of course has
> nothing to do with the OP question.
I usually go on to correct the poster's misconception, not comment on 
Windows security vulnerabilities.

> The idea is to switch the topic to
> attack Microsoft and away from the obvious lack of decent Linux
> applications.
What obvious lack of decent Linux applications? I have experienced no 
such lack when using Linux. Hell, most of the apps I use on Windows are 
just ports of *nix apps (or games--which is why I keep Windows around).

> 
> 6. The server vs desktop vs multimedia vs desktop multimedia
> switcheroo. This one is another beauty. Newbie claims multimedia (DVD,
> DAW, Video, etc) doesn't work or works poorly with Linux compared to
> Windows.
I go on to explain why he percieves that, and how to fix the problem.

> The Linux luser squawks: Well Linux is good enough for Pixar
> and Disney and tossed Windows out of the shop. Truth is that we are
> comparing Apples and Oranges here.
Not really.

> Yes Disney/Pixar used Linux once.
> They replaced REAL UNIX, NOT WINDOWS, and the applications they were
> using were HIGHLY customized and not for sale. Try and find something
> like Sonar/Soundforge/Cubase/Garageband/Adobe Audition etc for Linux
> and you will be met with a collection of HALF ASSED, HALF DONE, BUG
> RIDDLED applications like Audacity, Ardour and Jack (off) because that
> is what you will do trying to make Jack work.
Audacity is not a replacement for any of the applications you speak of, 
nor was it designed as such. Jack is a specialized low-latency audio 
server, not an audio editing package.

> 
> 7. Linux is more secure than Windows. This one is perhaps one of the
> most lame and widely used Linux luser excuse. The simple truth is that
> hackers simply do not waste any time or effort writing virus, worm or
> trojan code for any operating system with such insignificant installed
> base.
Actually, Linux recieves more attacks than Windows does--because of it's 
dominance in the web server market.

> Hackers want to impact the largest number of machines possible!
And they don't do that by targeting insignificant targets like Windows 
or IIS. Windows may dominate the desktop, but crackers and other asshats 
attempt to attack servers. The only area where Windows really suffers a 
lot of attacks are mass-mailer worms or zombie-style trojans for DDoS 
attacks.

> Therefore, the obvious platform to attack is the ubiquitous Windows OS,
> used by virtually the entire planet.
Yeah, if people were trying to attack desktop boxes. However, most 
attacks are directed at web servers (and the majority of those run Linux).

> If Linux had a large installed
> base that would approach that of Windows, Linux would already be the
> target of thousands of hacker attacks. Hackers and techno-terrorists
> are the real enemies, not Windows!
No, Windows is definitely public enemy #1 when it comes to computer 
users. It causes more problems than every cracker who has ever touched a 
keyboard, combined.

> 
> Yeah, the Linux community is full of lies. They hide behind x.003
> releases so they can claim it is not a released version when the masses
> complain that the program sucks.
Vista sucks too--and according to you, we should use it to judge the 
future release to the public. OSS projects typically release very early 
code. Why people use these alpha releases then complain when the 
software has bugs, I will never understand.

> It's like some kind of a crutch. Tell
> me, why slrn is still at .9.x.x after being around for 10+ years? Why?
Because there hasn't been a release substantial enough to warrant a 
major point update.

> Because it's a crutch. When it crashes and has bugs, and it does, the
> author can hide behind the fact that it is not a released version,
> another cover up by the Linux lusers. Linux is a total waste of time.
> The advocates are children/zealots who are still sucking on mama's
> breasts.
> 
0
theletterk3 (2489)
9/21/2005 9:23:05 PM
General Protection Fault wrote:
> On 2005-09-21, eros.tintory@hotmail.com <eros.tintory@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>Just a quick stroll through any Linux discussion group will quickly
>>leave the newbie with a feeling of hostility and arrogance. For some
>>odd reason, maybe it's a social thing, Linux supporters seem to be
>>among the most juvenile people on the face of the earth.
> 
> 
> They learned it from their leader, Eric Raymond.
> 
> You missed the biggest lie of all, which is really a contradiction:
> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, and
> b) Linux runs on very old hardware, like 386/486s.
> 
> If you don't have new hardware, Linux is not easy to use.
Seems easy enough to me.
0
theletterk3 (2489)
9/21/2005 9:23:36 PM
TheLetterK poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:

> Neither OS X nor Windows is better than GNU/Linux--though OS X at least 
> has some redeeming values. Windows is just a toy. You are also incorrect 
> regarding OS X's status as a Unix. It less of a unix than FreeBSD is, 
> which isn't.

Personally, I don't think Windows is just a toy.  It is pretty capable.

It is also somewhat quixotic in its rejection of many of the fundamentals of
computers and security.

Anyway, I have to say that the level of trolling has really gone down.
There's only a couple trolls here now that exhibit any kind of knowledge
of computing, let alone Linux.

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
9/21/2005 11:20:24 PM
"Lin�nut" <lin?nut@bone.com> stated in post
7_WdnZngDdMld6zeRVn-3A@comcast.com on 9/21/05 4:20 PM:

> TheLetterK poked his little head through the XP firewall and said:
> 
>> Neither OS X nor Windows is better than GNU/Linux--though OS X at least
>> has some redeeming values. Windows is just a toy. You are also incorrect
>> regarding OS X's status as a Unix. It less of a unix than FreeBSD is,
>> which isn't.
> 
> Personally, I don't think Windows is just a toy.  It is pretty capable.
> 
> It is also somewhat quixotic in its rejection of many of the fundamentals of
> computers and security.
> 
> Anyway, I have to say that the level of trolling has really gone down.
> There's only a couple trolls here now that exhibit any kind of knowledge
> of computing, let alone Linux.

Other than Peter K are there any?


-- 
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.




_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
0
SNIT (24281)
9/21/2005 11:32:51 PM
On Thursday 22 September 2005 00:20 Linønut wrote:

> Anyway, I have to say that the level of trolling has really gone down.
> There's only a couple trolls here now that exhibit any kind of knowledge
> of computing, let alone Linux.

Is this eros character Susan as well?

- and what do you know about that redneck (I assume it's one of your lot?)
that calls everybody a commie?

- and where has baa-lamb been while Susan has been back?

Bill
0
bbgruff (6628)
9/21/2005 11:50:02 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
B Gruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> espoused:
> On Thursday 22 September 2005 00:20 Lin�nut wrote:
> 
>> Anyway, I have to say that the level of trolling has really gone down.
>> There's only a couple trolls here now that exhibit any kind of knowledge
>> of computing, let alone Linux.
> 
> Is this eros character Susan as well?
> 
> - and what do you know about that redneck (I assume it's one of your lot?)
> that calls everybody a commie?
> 
> - and where has baa-lamb been while Susan has been back?
> 

There I was thinking Susan was Lisa was Flatty was Gary, and you think
it  might be billwg!!! all along?  Interesting possiblity...

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward.
0
mark.kent (15323)
9/22/2005 6:18:42 AM
General Protection Fault wrote:


> a) Linux is as easy to use (or easier to use) than Windows, 

Certainly agree with that, it is. Anyone who uses Windows can certainly 
very easily use most of the newer distros.......
0
gbplinux (1091)
9/22/2005 10:01:24 AM
You know, reading through this group i can't help but think to myself,
your missing the point!!!!  Linux is free and flexable.  If you want to
fill bill gates pockets with more of your money go right ahead!!! we
wont stop you.  but  don't spread mis-information, until youknow what
your talking about. I'm a newbie, and yes when you are used to using
windows there are some things about linux that are hard to get along
with.  But what if you had been using linux for the last 15 years??
instead of mocking people that are willing to try something that your
not, that is learning something new, respect them for it.

0
theaffman (1)
10/1/2005 6:13:14 AM
As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments
and look to better the Linux OS to make it acceptable to all levels of
experience and all demands for usefullness/functionality.  Debating is
a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.

If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and ask
yourself what people and businesses want.  Then work to give it to
them.  For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for
you and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
want.

Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
nothing.  Only your individual actions and demands will get you to the
point that you want.

0
pvaculin (1)
10/5/2005 10:45:02 PM
On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
> this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
> would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
> acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments
> and look to better the Linux OS to make it acceptable to all levels of
> experience and all demands for usefullness/functionality.  Debating is
> a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.
>
> If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and ask
> yourself what people and businesses want.  Then work to give it to
> them.  For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for
> you and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
> want.
>
> Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
> nothing.  Only your individual actions and demands will get you to the
> point that you want.
>
I see little need to 'better' the Linux OS and make it more functional 
for the computer-illiterate.  It's plenty functional right now. Attempts 
to 'dumb down' the OS and make it desktop-friendly just lead to an 
impotent Linux system. If they want Windows or OS X, they know where to 
find it.
0
notamisfit (769)
10/5/2005 11:08:21 PM
On Thursday 06 October 2005 01:08, George Ellison stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.advocacy...:/

> I see little need to 'better' the Linux OS and make it more functional
> for the computer-illiterate.  It's plenty functional right now.
> Attempts to 'dumb down' the OS and make it desktop-friendly just lead
> to an impotent Linux system. If they want Windows or OS X, they know
> where to find it.

This is exactly what I keep telling all those Microsoft-indoctrinated
newbies...  They all want Windows, but they want it to come from
somewhere else than Microsoft.  They move to Gnu/Linux because of the
bugs in Windows, not because of the design of Windows.

I know that I for one didn't switch to Gnu/Linux in order to escape
Windows.  I ran NT at the time and I could live with it, but I
discovered Gnu/Linux and FOSS, and I found that that was what I wanted
to use.

I simply don't understand how they can whine about Gnu/Linux not being
user-friendly enough.  When I first installed Mandrake 6.0, I had zero
problems and there was no such thing as Usenet or Internet for me back
then.  And that was Mandrake 6.0.  Look at the handholding the
installers do today... ;-)

If people want Windows, they do indeed know where to look for it, and
most likely they won't have to go out and buy it either, as Microsoft
makes sure that Windows is the only operating system sold with an
end-user computer, so they must have a Windows CD-ROM laying around.

If the vendor offers other operating systems as a choice, Microsoft
revokes his license as a Windows reseller.  Just ask Dell... ;-)

Another interesting tale is a post I've just read on A.O.L.M. from a
woman who claims that she almost lost her job when one of the Microsoft
representatives she does business with discovered in a meeting that she
was running Mandrake on her laptop.

Presumably the Microsoft grunt filed a complaint to the woman's boss,
based upon her choice of operating system on her own machine.  She
hasn't posted the full story yet, but I'm looking forward to reading
it... *grin*

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)
0
stryder (1500)
10/6/2005 10:48:04 AM
George Ellison wrote:
> On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
>>this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
>>would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
>>acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments
>>and look to better the Linux OS to make it acceptable to all levels of
>>experience and all demands for usefullness/functionality.  Debating is
>>a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.
>>
>>If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and ask
>>yourself what people and businesses want.  Then work to give it to
>>them.  For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for
>>you and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
>>want.
>>
>>Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
>>nothing.  Only your individual actions and demands will get you to the
>>point that you want.
>>
> 
> I see little need to 'better' the Linux OS and make it more functional 
> for the computer-illiterate.  It's plenty functional right now. Attempts 
> to 'dumb down' the OS and make it desktop-friendly just lead to an 
> impotent Linux system. If they want Windows or OS X, they know where to 
> find it.

There are distros like Ubuntu which are bridging the gap.  It presents a 
friendly Gnome for the masses, but it's not crippled in the slightest -- 
flip to KDE, straight to console, whatever you want.  All the 
granularity of Debian for a hardcore nut, and highly desktop-friendly 
for the newbie.

That would suggest two different OS's -- but the amazing part is that 
it's all on the same OS.

A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
  right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
total control for those who want that too.
0
10/6/2005 3:41:03 PM
On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> George Ellison wrote:
>> On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
>>>this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
>>>would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
>>>acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments
>>>and look to better the Linux OS to make it acceptable to all levels of
>>>experience and all demands for usefullness/functionality.  Debating is
>>>a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.
>>>
>>>If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and ask
>>>yourself what people and businesses want.  Then work to give it to
>>>them.  For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for
>>>you and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
>>>want.
>>>
>>>Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
>>>nothing.  Only your individual actions and demands will get you to the
>>>point that you want.
>>>
>> 
>> I see little need to 'better' the Linux OS and make it more functional 
>> for the computer-illiterate.  It's plenty functional right now. Attempts 
>> to 'dumb down' the OS and make it desktop-friendly just lead to an 
>> impotent Linux system. If they want Windows or OS X, they know where to 
>> find it.
>
> There are distros like Ubuntu which are bridging the gap.  It presents a 
> friendly Gnome for the masses, but it's not crippled in the slightest -- 
> flip to KDE, straight to console, whatever you want.  All the 
> granularity of Debian for a hardcore nut, and highly desktop-friendly 
> for the newbie.
>
> That would suggest two different OS's -- but the amazing part is that 
> it's all on the same OS.
>
> A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
> it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
>   right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
> total control for those who want that too.

I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
runlevels weren't documented. 

So much for total control. 
0
notamisfit (769)
10/6/2005 3:45:38 PM
George Ellison wrote:
> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> 
>>George Ellison wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
>>>>this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
>>>>would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
>>>>acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments
>>>>and look to better the Linux OS to make it acceptable to all levels of
>>>>experience and all demands for usefullness/functionality.  Debating is
>>>>a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.
>>>>
>>>>If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and ask
>>>>yourself what people and businesses want.  Then work to give it to
>>>>them.  For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for
>>>>you and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
>>>>want.
>>>>
>>>>Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
>>>>nothing.  Only your individual actions and demands will get you to the
>>>>point that you want.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I see little need to 'better' the Linux OS and make it more functional 
>>>for the computer-illiterate.  It's plenty functional right now. Attempts 
>>>to 'dumb down' the OS and make it desktop-friendly just lead to an 
>>>impotent Linux system. If they want Windows or OS X, they know where to 
>>>find it.
>>
>>There are distros like Ubuntu which are bridging the gap.  It presents a 
>>friendly Gnome for the masses, but it's not crippled in the slightest -- 
>>flip to KDE, straight to console, whatever you want.  All the 
>>granularity of Debian for a hardcore nut, and highly desktop-friendly 
>>for the newbie.
>>
>>That would suggest two different OS's -- but the amazing part is that 
>>it's all on the same OS.
>>
>>A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
>>it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
>>  right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
>>total control for those who want that too.
> 
> 
> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
> runlevels weren't documented. 
> 
> So much for total control. 

Go to a terminal:

sudo su {password}
init 1

(Set up sax and xorg to your liking.)

Same procedure with Debian.  And a lot quicker than downloading Gentoo, 
researching your hardware, custom-compiling your own kernel -- and then 
doing the same thing with sax and xorg anyway.
0
10/6/2005 4:01:50 PM
George Ellison wrote:
> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> 
>>George Ellison wrote:
>>
>>>On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
>>>>this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
>>>>would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
>>>>acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments
>>>>and look to better the Linux OS to make it acceptable to all levels of
>>>>experience and all demands for usefullness/functionality.  Debating is
>>>>a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.
>>>>
>>>>If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and ask
>>>>yourself what people and businesses want.  Then work to give it to
>>>>them.  For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for
>>>>you and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
>>>>want.
>>>>
>>>>Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
>>>>nothing.  Only your individual actions and demands will get you to the
>>>>point that you want.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I see little need to 'better' the Linux OS and make it more functional 
>>>for the computer-illiterate.  It's plenty functional right now. Attempts 
>>>to 'dumb down' the OS and make it desktop-friendly just lead to an 
>>>impotent Linux system. If they want Windows or OS X, they know where to 
>>>find it.
>>
>>There are distros like Ubuntu which are bridging the gap.  It presents a 
>>friendly Gnome for the masses, but it's not crippled in the slightest -- 
>>flip to KDE, straight to console, whatever you want.  All the 
>>granularity of Debian for a hardcore nut, and highly desktop-friendly 
>>for the newbie.
>>
>>That would suggest two different OS's -- but the amazing part is that 
>>it's all on the same OS.
>>
>>A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
>>it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
>>  right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
>>total control for those who want that too.
> 
> 
> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
> runlevels weren't documented. 
> 
> So much for total control. 


http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-8430.html

Or just go to Google and type 'ubuntu runlevel'.

I dunno man -- it takes 2 minutes to hunt around on the Ubuntu Forums 
and Google, or quite a bit longer to install Gentoo.  Which is easier?

I'm not knocking Gentoo -- it's a highly regarded distro, but your 
reasoning for slamming Ubuntu suggests that you hunted around for less 
than 2 minutes, and went for something that probably takes even an 
experienced linux user 2 hours.  Doesn't make much sense.
0
10/6/2005 4:14:30 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
> runlevels weren't documented. 
>
> So much for total control. 

Did you try going to another virtual console to do your exploring from
there?

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
10/6/2005 5:29:59 PM
Lin�nut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> 
> 
>>I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
>>and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
>>Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
>>and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
>>time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
>>runlevels weren't documented. 
>>
>>So much for total control. 
> 
> 
> Did you try going to another virtual console to do your exploring from
> there?

Looks like there's a utility you can also install:
sysv-rc-conf

I just loaded it now and checked it out.  Looks quite handy.

Or you can manually fiddle /etc/inittab and corresponding rc's.

I've used Red Hat and SuSE for about 6 years each, and admit that 
tweaking runlevels is easier there.  But that just might be because I've 
only used Ubuntu for 4 months or so, and the runlevel assignments are 
different with ubuntu/debian.

I used to like booting only to command-line, then getting into x with 
"startx" only when I needed it, but I no longer need to conserve 
resources that badly.
0
10/6/2005 6:01:26 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Bramscher belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Looks like there's a utility you can also install:
> sysv-rc-conf
>
> I just loaded it now and checked it out.  Looks quite handy.
>
> Or you can manually fiddle /etc/inittab and corresponding rc's.

I see also a KDE GUI app:  ksysv

Also check out sysvconfig.

RedHat always used 3 for networked console, and 5 for networked GUI.

Debian uses 2 for the full karoake networked GUI.

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
10/6/2005 7:07:55 PM
On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> George Ellison wrote:
>> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>>George Ellison wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
>>>>>this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
>>>>>would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
>>>>>acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments
>>>>>and look to better the Linux OS to make it acceptable to all levels of
>>>>>experience and all demands for usefullness/functionality.  Debating is
>>>>>a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and ask
>>>>>yourself what people and businesses want.  Then work to give it to
>>>>>them.  For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for
>>>>>you and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
>>>>>want.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
>>>>>nothing.  Only your individual actions and demands will get you to the
>>>>>point that you want.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I see little need to 'better' the Linux OS and make it more functional 
>>>>for the computer-illiterate.  It's plenty functional right now. Attempts 
>>>>to 'dumb down' the OS and make it desktop-friendly just lead to an 
>>>>impotent Linux system. If they want Windows or OS X, they know where to 
>>>>find it.
>>>
>>>There are distros like Ubuntu which are bridging the gap.  It presents a 
>>>friendly Gnome for the masses, but it's not crippled in the slightest -- 
>>>flip to KDE, straight to console, whatever you want.  All the 
>>>granularity of Debian for a hardcore nut, and highly desktop-friendly 
>>>for the newbie.
>>>
>>>That would suggest two different OS's -- but the amazing part is that 
>>>it's all on the same OS.
>>>
>>>A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
>>>it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
>>>  right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
>>>total control for those who want that too.
>> 
>> 
>> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
>> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
>> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
>> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
>> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
>> runlevels weren't documented. 
>> 
>> So much for total control. 
>
> Go to a terminal:
>
> sudo su {password}
> init 1
>
> (Set up sax and xorg to your liking.)
>
> Same procedure with Debian.  And a lot quicker than downloading Gentoo, 
> researching your hardware, custom-compiling your own kernel -- and then 
> doing the same thing with sax and xorg anyway.

To paraphrase Oedipus, Hamlet, and Lear, I wish I had found this out 
some time ago. I've already got Gentoo to a parity with what Ubuntu was 
offering, and I don't think I'm going to switch anytime soon.
0
notamisfit (769)
10/6/2005 7:35:57 PM
On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> George Ellison wrote:
>> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>>George Ellison wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
>>>>>this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
>>>>>would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
>>>>>acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments
>>>>>and look to better the Linux OS to make it acceptable to all levels of
>>>>>experience and all demands for usefullness/functionality.  Debating is
>>>>>a waste of time and accomplishes nothing.
>>>>>
>>>>>If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and ask
>>>>>yourself what people and businesses want.  Then work to give it to
>>>>>them.  For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for
>>>>>you and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
>>>>>want.
>>>>>
>>>>>Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
>>>>>nothing.  Only your individual actions and demands will get you to the
>>>>>point that you want.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I see little need to 'better' the Linux OS and make it more functional 
>>>>for the computer-illiterate.  It's plenty functional right now. Attempts 
>>>>to 'dumb down' the OS and make it desktop-friendly just lead to an 
>>>>impotent Linux system. If they want Windows or OS X, they know where to 
>>>>find it.
>>>
>>>There are distros like Ubuntu which are bridging the gap.  It presents a 
>>>friendly Gnome for the masses, but it's not crippled in the slightest -- 
>>>flip to KDE, straight to console, whatever you want.  All the 
>>>granularity of Debian for a hardcore nut, and highly desktop-friendly 
>>>for the newbie.
>>>
>>>That would suggest two different OS's -- but the amazing part is that 
>>>it's all on the same OS.
>>>
>>>A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
>>>it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
>>>  right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
>>>total control for those who want that too.
>> 
>> 
>> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
>> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
>> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
>> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
>> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
>> runlevels weren't documented. 
>> 
>> So much for total control. 
>
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-8430.html
>
> Or just go to Google and type 'ubuntu runlevel'.
>
> I dunno man -- it takes 2 minutes to hunt around on the Ubuntu Forums 
> and Google, or quite a bit longer to install Gentoo.  Which is easier?
>

Well, it depends on whether your Google toolbar is on the screen or not 
:-)

> I'm not knocking Gentoo -- it's a highly regarded distro, but your 
> reasoning for slamming Ubuntu suggests that you hunted around for less 
> than 2 minutes, and went for something that probably takes even an 
> experienced linux user 2 hours.  Doesn't make much sense.

Yeah, well, if I made sense, where the hell would I be?

I'll admit that I didn't really try all that hard with Ubuntu. I'd 
burned a bunch of different distros to kill the weekend (I was getting 
_really_ tired of Fedora and yum). Ubuntu just happened to be the first 
one I tried, so I knew I was ultimately going to move on. I probably 
would have gone back to it and tried to fix it if Gentoo hadn't hooked 
me so hard (I was going to quit when the whole thing started to go over 
my head. (Un?)fortunately for me, I've managed to get everything to work 
(even the scrollie wheelie), and Lord is it fast. 

0
notamisfit (769)
10/6/2005 7:41:48 PM
On 2005-10-06, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
>> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
>> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
>> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
>> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
>> runlevels weren't documented. 
>>
>> So much for total control. 
>
> Did you try going to another virtual console to do your exploring from
> there?
>

Yeah, but the NVIDIA driver I was using requires me to kill all X 
clients.
0
notamisfit (769)
10/6/2005 7:42:22 PM
On 2005-10-06, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Bramscher belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Looks like there's a utility you can also install:
>> sysv-rc-conf
>>
>> I just loaded it now and checked it out.  Looks quite handy.
>>
>> Or you can manually fiddle /etc/inittab and corresponding rc's.
>
> I see also a KDE GUI app:  ksysv
>
> Also check out sysvconfig.
>
> RedHat always used 3 for networked console, and 5 for networked GUI.
>
> Debian uses 2 for the full karoake networked GUI.
>

I feel like a total idiot now. Well, if I ever get tired of Gentoo, I 
know that I'll probably try Ubuntu again.
0
notamisfit (769)
10/6/2005 7:43:20 PM
George Ellison wrote:
> On 2005-10-06, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
> 
>>After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Bramscher belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>Looks like there's a utility you can also install:
>>>sysv-rc-conf
>>>
>>>I just loaded it now and checked it out.  Looks quite handy.
>>>
>>>Or you can manually fiddle /etc/inittab and corresponding rc's.
>>
>>I see also a KDE GUI app:  ksysv
>>
>>Also check out sysvconfig.
>>
>>RedHat always used 3 for networked console, and 5 for networked GUI.
>>
>>Debian uses 2 for the full karoake networked GUI.
>>
> 
> 
> I feel like a total idiot now. Well, if I ever get tired of Gentoo, I 
> know that I'll probably try Ubuntu again.

Actually -- I'm impressed you got Gentoo working.  You deserve a pat on 
the back for that.

I thought it looked too complex for my tastes.  Maybe I'll give it 
another go, alot of people swear by it.

But it sounds like you need to jot down all your hardware spec's before 
you go that way.  My manuals are scattered in different places, and I 
tend to play "musical parts" with my various linux boxes.  That's not 
good from a Gentoo perspective.
0
10/6/2005 8:14:47 PM
On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> George Ellison wrote:
>> On 2005-10-06, Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Bramscher belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Looks like there's a utility you can also install:
>>>>sysv-rc-conf
>>>>
>>>>I just loaded it now and checked it out.  Looks quite handy.
>>>>
>>>>Or you can manually fiddle /etc/inittab and corresponding rc's.
>>>
>>>I see also a KDE GUI app:  ksysv
>>>
>>>Also check out sysvconfig.
>>>
>>>RedHat always used 3 for networked console, and 5 for networked GUI.
>>>
>>>Debian uses 2 for the full karoake networked GUI.
>>>
>> 
>> 
>> I feel like a total idiot now. Well, if I ever get tired of Gentoo, I 
>> know that I'll probably try Ubuntu again.
>
> Actually -- I'm impressed you got Gentoo working.  You deserve a pat on 
> the back for that.
>
> I thought it looked too complex for my tastes.  Maybe I'll give it 
> another go, alot of people swear by it.
>
> But it sounds like you need to jot down all your hardware spec's before 
> you go that way.  My manuals are scattered in different places, and I 
> tend to play "musical parts" with my various linux boxes.  That's not 
> good from a Gentoo perspective.

I pretty much played it by ear, and got spanked for it a few times 
(had to recompile the kernel a few times to get things such as the DVD 
player or sound working right).

The point I might have been trying to make a few points back is that 
distros like Gentoo (and probably Slack), instead of holding the users 
hand, force him into the thick of things. This might be too hairy for 
some, but it encourages a lot of good computer using habits (ie 'Read 
the documentation before doing anything'). Things like conf files and 
etc/fstab aren't hard to understand, it's just that most distros take 
such great lengths to configure everything 'out of the box.'
0
notamisfit (769)
10/6/2005 8:18:34 PM
On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> Lin�nut wrote:
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Bramscher belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> 
>> 
>>>Looks like there's a utility you can also install:
>>>sysv-rc-conf
>>>
>>>I just loaded it now and checked it out.  Looks quite handy.
>>>
>>>Or you can manually fiddle /etc/inittab and corresponding rc's.
>> 
>> 
>> I see also a KDE GUI app:  ksysv
>> 
>> Also check out sysvconfig.
>> 
>> RedHat always used 3 for networked console, and 5 for networked GUI.
>> 
>> Debian uses 2 for the full karoake networked GUI.
>> 
>
> For the record, ksysv is supposed to come with kdeadmin -- but for some 
> reason it doesn't seem to be part of the ubuntu backport.  You need to 
> go to Synaptic (or apt-get, etc.) and manually pull down ksysv.  I just 
> checked it out.
>
> Also, when you first run ksysv, it'll ask for your distro, with ubuntu 
> it looks like "debian" is what you want to pick.  (I picked it, and it 
> seemed to be cool with it).
>
> Anyway, the point with all this is that we linux people enjoy a 
> multitude of options.  You've got a handful of methods, tools, and 
> entire distros.  Whatever suits your style.  I see no right or wrong here.

True that. The only distros I've got a burning hate for are the ones 
that limit redistribution.
0
notamisfit (769)
10/6/2005 8:22:58 PM
Lin�nut wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Bramscher belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> 
> 
>>Looks like there's a utility you can also install:
>>sysv-rc-conf
>>
>>I just loaded it now and checked it out.  Looks quite handy.
>>
>>Or you can manually fiddle /etc/inittab and corresponding rc's.
> 
> 
> I see also a KDE GUI app:  ksysv
> 
> Also check out sysvconfig.
> 
> RedHat always used 3 for networked console, and 5 for networked GUI.
> 
> Debian uses 2 for the full karoake networked GUI.
> 

For the record, ksysv is supposed to come with kdeadmin -- but for some 
reason it doesn't seem to be part of the ubuntu backport.  You need to 
go to Synaptic (or apt-get, etc.) and manually pull down ksysv.  I just 
checked it out.

Also, when you first run ksysv, it'll ask for your distro, with ubuntu 
it looks like "debian" is what you want to pick.  (I picked it, and it 
seemed to be cool with it).

Anyway, the point with all this is that we linux people enjoy a 
multitude of options.  You've got a handful of methods, tools, and 
entire distros.  Whatever suits your style.  I see no right or wrong here.
0
10/6/2005 8:23:34 PM
On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers in
> this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows nor OSX
> would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find Linux an
> acceptable option.  It is time to take out emotion from the comments

    Hey, most of the market subjected itself to DOS in various forms
LONG after Macintosh came out. So the question of "acceptable" is 
probably more interesting than you think it is.

[deletia]

    Most people want computers to be more like a VAX than a DOS machine.

-- 
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club!                           |||
                                                                   / | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
0
jedi (14754)
10/6/2005 9:43:44 PM
On 2005-10-06, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
>> George Ellison wrote:
>>> On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
[deletia]
>> A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
>> it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
>>   right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
>> total control for those who want that too.
>
> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 

	If you can't shut down the login manager in Ubuntu, you don't 
really have any business running much else. By using Gentoo you make 
yourself a menace at large.

> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
> runlevels weren't documented. 
>
> So much for total control. 

	Those that can do. Those that can't (like yourself) should 
probably just by a Mac.

-- 
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club!                           |||
                                                                   / | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
0
jedi (14754)
10/6/2005 9:48:15 PM
On 2005-10-06, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
>> George Ellison wrote:
>>> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>George Ellison wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
[deletia]
>>> 
>>> So much for total control. 
>>
>> Go to a terminal:
>>
>> sudo su {password}
>> init 1
>>
>> (Set up sax and xorg to your liking.)
>>
>> Same procedure with Debian.  And a lot quicker than downloading Gentoo, 
>> researching your hardware, custom-compiling your own kernel -- and then 
>> doing the same thing with sax and xorg anyway.
>
> To paraphrase Oedipus, Hamlet, and Lear, I wish I had found this out 
> some time ago. I've already got Gentoo to a parity with what Ubuntu was 
> offering, and I don't think I'm going to switch anytime soon.

	If you can't be sat in front of AIX and promptly figure 
out how to get the login manager up or down, you really have no 
business anywhere near Gentoo. Nevermind the easy stuff (other 
Linuxen).

-- 
NO! There are no CODICILES of Fight Club!                           |||
                                                                   / | \
That way leads to lawyers and business megacorps and credit cards!
0
jedi (14754)
10/6/2005 9:50:15 PM
On 2005-10-06, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> On 2005-10-06, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
>>> George Ellison wrote:
>>>> On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
> [deletia]
>>> A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
>>> it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
>>>   right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
>>> total control for those who want that too.
>>
>> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
>> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
>> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
>> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
>
> 	If you can't shut down the login manager in Ubuntu, you don't 
> really have any business running much else. By using Gentoo you make 
> yourself a menace at large.
>

Menace at large, eh? I think I like that. ;-)
>> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
>> runlevels weren't documented. 
>>
>> So much for total control. 
>
> 	Those that can do. Those that can't (like yourself) should 
> probably just by a Mac.
>

Just who the fuck do you think you are?

You know, I've been using Linux for a total of six weeks, and I've just 
got to say that I think I've done pretty god damned well for myself 
here. I've already got Gentoo set up far better than I would have gotten 
with Ubuntu (Gentoo's incredibly well documented, and hand editing 
everything teaches me to customize above and beyond). If I had figured 
out that I should have killed gdm instead of X, or looked up the 
runlevels, yeah I would have been able to fix it right quick. But I 
didn't know, and the dumbed-down approach isn't going to teach me.
0
notamisfit (769)
10/6/2005 9:54:35 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> I feel like a total idiot now. Well, if I ever get tired of Gentoo, I 
> know that I'll probably try Ubuntu again.

Actually, if you decide to, get the 14 CDs (or 2 DVDs) of Debian 3.1
("sarge") instead.  Use jigdo-lite to do a jigsaw download to assemble
the ISOs.

Or you may be able to just download the 1 Ubuntu CD and netinstall the
rest.  I use the netinstall to migrate to xorg (from xfree86).  Others
update the whole kit'n'kaboodle.

I like using dselect or aptitude to search for interesting packages I
haven't seen before.  With 15000+ packages available, there's always
something new to find!

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
10/7/2005 12:34:20 PM
George Ellison wrote:

> I feel like a total idiot now. Well, if I ever get tired of Gentoo, I 
> know that I'll probably try Ubuntu again.


Why bat with the minor leagues when we're ready to play pro ball?


Suse GM 10.0
http://www.opensuse.org/Welcome_to_openSUSE.org


-- 
http://360.yahoo.com/manfrommars_43
updated 10/6
0
jabailo (8241)
10/7/2005 12:38:18 PM
begin  In <1128552302.391457.66890@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, on
10/05/2005
   at 03:45 PM, pvaculin@gmail.com said:

>As I read your comments and the emotional comments from the readers
>in this forum one thing is being missed.  If there were no Windows
>nor OSX would everyone (real people not hobbyists and techies) find
>Linux an acceptable option.

Of course not; there will never be an operating system that everybody
considers acceptable. Why do you imagine that it matters?

>If you are a developer, look outside your circle of influence and
>ask yourself what people and businesses want.

Why? The developer is developing for himself and for those who pay
him. Nor is that a bad thing; some very good software has been the
result.

>For you hobbyists and techies look for what is not working for you
>and demand from those working on the distros  the functionality you
>want.

Demands? They can offer suggestions, but they have no standing to make
demands. Even if they write code to provide a function, they can only
suggest that it be included in the code base; if they demand that it
be accepted, the developers will, quite properly, mock them for their
temerity.

>Again debating the merits of one OS over another is accomplishing
>nothing. 

What newsgroup are you posting in? Which part of "advocacy" don't you
understand?

Lots of people are making enhancements to Linux, its documentation and
the programs that run on it; this is not the newsgroup for discussion
s of their work.

>Only your individual actions and demands

Demands? See above.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org

0
spamtrap16 (3722)
10/7/2005 12:51:15 PM
Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> 
> > I feel like a total idiot now. Well, if I ever get tired of Gentoo, I 
> > know that I'll probably try Ubuntu again.
> 
> Actually, if you decide to, get the 14 CDs (or 2 DVDs) of Debian 3.1
> ("sarge") instead.  Use jigdo-lite to do a jigsaw download to assemble
> the ISOs.

I actually have the DVDs. I attempted to install Debian after giving up on 
Ubuntu and trying Gentoo for the first time. Problem was, the DVD's took 
forever to load, and I was already starting to think about ways to make Gentoo
work if I tried it again. And my little Gentoo experiment ended my Debian/
Ubuntu experiment right then and there.

> 
> Or you may be able to just download the 1 Ubuntu CD and netinstall the
> rest.  I use the netinstall to migrate to xorg (from xfree86).  Others
> update the whole kit'n'kaboodle.

I tried the Debian 1CD net install, but after detecting my eth0, it failed to
do anything for an excessively long period of time.

> 
> I like using dselect or aptitude to search for interesting packages I
> haven't seen before.  With 15000+ packages available, there's always
> something new to find!
> 
> -- 
> Code is community.
0
notamisfit (769)
10/7/2005 3:12:11 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> I actually have the DVDs. I attempted to install Debian after giving up on 
> Ubuntu and trying Gentoo for the first time. Problem was, the DVD's took 
> forever to load, and I was already starting to think about ways to make Gentoo
> work if I tried it again. And my little Gentoo experiment ended my Debian/
> Ubuntu experiment right then and there.

Forever to load?  It takes a few minutes to index the contents of each
DVD, the first time.

>> Or you may be able to just download the 1 Ubuntu CD and netinstall the
>> rest.  I use the netinstall to migrate to xorg (from xfree86).  Others
>> update the whole kit'n'kaboodle.
>
> I tried the Debian 1CD net install, but after detecting my eth0, it failed to
> do anything for an excessively long period of time.

There's an expert mode that probably lets you do what the old debian
installer did -- hand-pick the drivers.

But anyway, Gentoo's cool too, I'm using it as I type.

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
10/7/2005 3:36:50 PM
Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:

> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
> 
> > I actually have the DVDs. I attempted to install Debian after giving up on 
> > Ubuntu and trying Gentoo for the first time. Problem was, the DVD's took 
> > forever to load, and I was already starting to think about ways to make Gentoo
> > work if I tried it again. And my little Gentoo experiment ended my Debian/
> > Ubuntu experiment right then and there.
> 
> Forever to load?  It takes a few minutes to index the contents of each
> DVD, the first time.
> 
> >> Or you may be able to just download the 1 Ubuntu CD and netinstall the
> >> rest.  I use the netinstall to migrate to xorg (from xfree86).  Others
> >> update the whole kit'n'kaboodle.
> >
> > I tried the Debian 1CD net install, but after detecting my eth0, it failed to
> > do anything for an excessively long period of time.
> 
> There's an expert mode that probably lets you do what the old debian
> installer did -- hand-pick the drivers.
> 
> But anyway, Gentoo's cool too, I'm using it as I type.
> 
> -- 
> Code is community.

Yeah, I think that 99 percent of the problem with installing Debian is that I
had already tried Gentoo and I was hooked.
0
notamisfit (769)
10/7/2005 3:38:49 PM
On 2005-10-06, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> On 2005-10-06, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> On 2005-10-06, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
>>> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
>>>> George Ellison wrote:
>>>>> On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> [deletia]
>>>> A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
>>>> it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
>>>>   right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
>>>> total control for those who want that too.
>>>
>>> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
>>> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
>>> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
>>> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
>>
>> 	If you can't shut down the login manager in Ubuntu, you don't 
>> really have any business running much else. By using Gentoo you make 
>> yourself a menace at large.
>>
>
> Menace at large, eh? I think I like that. ;-)
>>> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
>>> runlevels weren't documented. 
>>>
>>> So much for total control. 
>>
>> 	Those that can do. Those that can't (like yourself) should 
>> probably just by a Mac.
>>
>
> Just who the fuck do you think you are?

	Yet someone else that needs to run a firewall and snort at home
becuase most people maintain their machines as if they were setting up
a candy store for DDoS networks.

	Before driving down the freeway in an 18 wheeler you should
at least get the training wheels off first.

        If you find Ubuntu constraining then it is a good guess that
the training wheels haven't come off yet.

>
> You know, I've been using Linux for a total of six weeks, and I've just 
> got to say that I think I've done pretty god damned well for myself 
> here. I've already got Gentoo set up far better than I would have gotten 
> with Ubuntu (Gentoo's incredibly well documented, and hand editing 
> everything teaches me to customize above and beyond). If I had figured 
> out that I should have killed gdm instead of X, or looked up the 
> runlevels, yeah I would have been able to fix it right quick. But I 
> didn't know, and the dumbed-down approach isn't going to teach me.

	The dumbed down approach is not going to stop you from teaching
yourself.

	Strangely enough this is an area where Mac users deviate from
WinDOS users.

-- 
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
                                                                  |||
	                                                         / | \
0
jedi (14754)
10/7/2005 4:01:34 PM
JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2005-10-06, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> > On 2005-10-06, JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
> >> On 2005-10-06, George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2005-10-06, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> >>>> George Ellison wrote:
> >>>>> On 2005-10-05, pvaculin@gmail.com <pvaculin@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >>>> A linux for computer science geeks only will be crippled in another way: 
> >>>> it'll be crippled against mass adoption.  So Ubuntu (and others) have it 
> >>>>   right -- build simple interfaces for those who need them, but allow 
> >>>> total control for those who want that too.
> >>>
> >>> I tried Ubuntu for about thirty minutes before hitting the panic button 
> >>> and installing Gentoo from CD. Like most of the 'idiot-friendly'
> >>> Linuxes, there's just no escape. I was stuck w/ 640 x 480 shit graphics, 
> >>> and couldn't kill the X client to install the NVIDIA driver set. Every 
> >>
> >> 	If you can't shut down the login manager in Ubuntu, you don't 
> >> really have any business running much else. By using Gentoo you make 
> >> yourself a menace at large.
> >>
> >
> > Menace at large, eh? I think I like that. ;-)
> >>> time I tried, the login screen would just pop up again, and the 
> >>> runlevels weren't documented. 
> >>>
> >>> So much for total control. 
> >>
> >> 	Those that can do. Those that can't (like yourself) should 
> >> probably just by a Mac.
> >>
> >
> > Just who the fuck do you think you are?
> 
> 	Yet someone else that needs to run a firewall and snort at home
> becuase most people maintain their machines as if they were setting up
> a candy store for DDoS networks.

I'm dumb, but I'm not that dumb. I've got a basic firewall setup that should
hold me until I figure out iptables better. It's more restrictive than I 
typically allow, but that's just incentive to learn.

> 
> 	Before driving down the freeway in an 18 wheeler you should
> at least get the training wheels off first.
> 
>         If you find Ubuntu constraining then it is a good guess that
> the training wheels haven't come off yet.
> 
> >
> > You know, I've been using Linux for a total of six weeks, and I've just 
> > got to say that I think I've done pretty god damned well for myself 
> > here. I've already got Gentoo set up far better than I would have gotten 
> > with Ubuntu (Gentoo's incredibly well documented, and hand editing 
> > everything teaches me to customize above and beyond). If I had figured 
> > out that I should have killed gdm instead of X, or looked up the 
> > runlevels, yeah I would have been able to fix it right quick. But I 
> > didn't know, and the dumbed-down approach isn't going to teach me.
> 
> 	The dumbed down approach is not going to stop you from teaching
> yourself.
> 
> 	Strangely enough this is an area where Mac users deviate from
> WinDOS users.

I'm one of those people who learn best by constantly breaking something then
teaching myself how to fix it.
> 
> -- 
> Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
>                                                                   |||
> 	                                                         / | \
0
notamisfit (769)
10/7/2005 6:08:06 PM
George Ellison wrote:
> Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:
> 
> 
>>After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>
>>>I actually have the DVDs. I attempted to install Debian after giving up on 
>>>Ubuntu and trying Gentoo for the first time. Problem was, the DVD's took 
>>>forever to load, and I was already starting to think about ways to make Gentoo
>>>work if I tried it again. And my little Gentoo experiment ended my Debian/
>>>Ubuntu experiment right then and there.
>>
>>Forever to load?  It takes a few minutes to index the contents of each
>>DVD, the first time.
>>
>>
>>>>Or you may be able to just download the 1 Ubuntu CD and netinstall the
>>>>rest.  I use the netinstall to migrate to xorg (from xfree86).  Others
>>>>update the whole kit'n'kaboodle.
>>>
>>>I tried the Debian 1CD net install, but after detecting my eth0, it failed to
>>>do anything for an excessively long period of time.
>>
>>There's an expert mode that probably lets you do what the old debian
>>installer did -- hand-pick the drivers.
>>
>>But anyway, Gentoo's cool too, I'm using it as I type.
>>
>>-- 
>>Code is community.
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think that 99 percent of the problem with installing Debian is that I
> had already tried Gentoo and I was hooked.

My CD-ROM is faster than my DVD player, and I generally find no use for 
keeping media of things I don't need at the moment.  If a few weeks or 
months go by, you'll most likely want a more recent version than what's 
on your media anyway.

So Ubuntu's 1 CD method works pretty well (especially if you're on 
broadband).

The other thing that's nice is synaptic.  It hasn't let me down yet.
0
10/7/2005 6:29:08 PM
On 2005-10-07, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> So Ubuntu's 1 CD method works pretty well (especially if you're on 
> broadband).

 Yeah, it makes a whole lot of sense that way, and you're automatically
kept up to date as a side effect.

> The other thing that's nice is synaptic.  It hasn't let me down yet.

 Well, I had a problem with a "mozilla-firefox" update conflicting with
a "firefox" installation, and I had to jump through some hoops to get
that straightened out. But that's the *only* problem I've had with it.

-- 
 Sincerely,

 Ray Ingles                                              (313) 227-2317
 
 "The growing and dangerous intrusion of this new technology [threatens
   our] economic vitality and future security. [It] is to the American
     film producer... as the Boston Strangler is to the woman alone."
         - Jack Valenti, in 1982, regarding the advent of the VCR.
0
sorceror (1832)
10/7/2005 6:34:38 PM
John Bailo wrote:
> George Ellison wrote:
> 
>> I feel like a total idiot now. Well, if I ever get tired of Gentoo, I 
>> know that I'll probably try Ubuntu again.
> 
> 
> 
> Why bat with the minor leagues when we're ready to play pro ball?
> 
> 
> Suse GM 10.0
> http://www.opensuse.org/Welcome_to_openSUSE.org

It's highly optimistic that IBM/Novell is shifting revenue streams: the 
future won't be in writing proprietary operating systems.  Support, 
consulting, and hardware is where the opportunity will be, and it looks 
like they're going to be well-poised.  I applaud them -- and I'm about 
as anti-corporate a person as you'll meet.

I run opensuse 9.3 on my bleeding-edge test box, and have been pretty 
impressed with it.  A good distro, and 10 OSS sounds even better.

Only question is -- can you get a linux job at IBM and not have to wear 
a suit and tie?  We don't like that.
0
10/7/2005 6:44:49 PM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
George Ellison <notamisfit@nerdshack.com> espoused:
> Lin�nut <lin�nut@bone.com> writes:
> 
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, George Ellison belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>> 
>> > I feel like a total idiot now. Well, if I ever get tired of Gentoo, I 
>> > know that I'll probably try Ubuntu again.
>> 
>> Actually, if you decide to, get the 14 CDs (or 2 DVDs) of Debian 3.1
>> ("sarge") instead.  Use jigdo-lite to do a jigsaw download to assemble
>> the ISOs.
> 
> I actually have the DVDs. I attempted to install Debian after giving up on 
> Ubuntu and trying Gentoo for the first time. Problem was, the DVD's took 
> forever to load, and I was already starting to think about ways to make Gentoo
> work if I tried it again. And my little Gentoo experiment ended my Debian/
> Ubuntu experiment right then and there.
> 
>> 
>> Or you may be able to just download the 1 Ubuntu CD and netinstall the
>> rest.  I use the netinstall to migrate to xorg (from xfree86).  Others
>> update the whole kit'n'kaboodle.
> 
> I tried the Debian 1CD net install, but after detecting my eth0, it failed to
> do anything for an excessively long period of time.
> 

Have you submitted a bug report?  The debian guys are always interested in
fixing problems, and you seem to have found one, or perhaps two, problems.
That you're seeing almost the same behaviour from two different install
methods suggests that there's something in the debian stock kernel which
doesn't agree - but debian installs always have more than one kernel to
choose from - did you try another one?

This isn't the Microsoft Windows world, so bug reports are taken
seriously, and are acted upon...

good luck, anyway.
-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
A writer is congenitally unable to tell the truth and that is why we call
what he writes fiction.
		-- William Faulkner
0
mark.kent (15323)
10/8/2005 8:04:51 AM
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2005-10-07, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
> 
>>So Ubuntu's 1 CD method works pretty well (especially if you're on 
>>broadband).
> 
> 
>  Yeah, it makes a whole lot of sense that way, and you're automatically
> kept up to date as a side effect.
> 
> 
>>The other thing that's nice is synaptic.  It hasn't let me down yet.
> 
> 
>  Well, I had a problem with a "mozilla-firefox" update conflicting with
> a "firefox" installation, and I had to jump through some hoops to get
> that straightened out. But that's the *only* problem I've had with it.

Needless to say, I still keep a tall stack of CD's of a few recent 
distros.  In the unlikely event of internet failure, I keep multiple 
linux distros that I can install without being online...

Of course, if the internet ever failed for general social/political 
reasons (not local issue) it might be likely that the power grid would 
die also.  So it's bye-bye to all OS's.
0
10/9/2005 3:28:41 AM
begin  oe_protect.scr 
Paul Bramscher <brams007_nospam@umn.edu> espoused:
> Ray Ingles wrote:
>> On 2005-10-07, Paul Bramscher <brams006_nospam@umn.edu> wrote:
>> 
>>>So Ubuntu's 1 CD method works pretty well (especially if you're on 
>>>broadband).
>> 
>> 
>>  Yeah, it makes a whole lot of sense that way, and you're automatically
>> kept up to date as a side effect.
>> 
>> 
>>>The other thing that's nice is synaptic.  It hasn't let me down yet.
>> 
>> 
>>  Well, I had a problem with a "mozilla-firefox" update conflicting with
>> a "firefox" installation, and I had to jump through some hoops to get
>> that straightened out. But that's the *only* problem I've had with it.
> 
> Needless to say, I still keep a tall stack of CD's of a few recent 
> distros.  In the unlikely event of internet failure, I keep multiple 
> linux distros that I can install without being online...
> 
> Of course, if the internet ever failed for general social/political 
> reasons (not local issue) it might be likely that the power grid would 
> die also.  So it's bye-bye to all OS's.

I'm still looking at how many solar panels I can get on the roof, how
many batteries in a shed, how much of a windmill I can get away with,
how much solar heated water I can do...  the real "killer" issue is water
supply, though.  Fortunately, I'm not all that far from some enormous
lakes, unfortunately, so are a lot of other people ;-)

-- 
end
| Mark Kent   --   mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk  |
All heiresses are beautiful.
		-- John Dryden
0
mark.kent (15323)
10/9/2005 6:41:02 AM
After takin' a swig o' grog, Paul Bramscher belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Needless to say, I still keep a tall stack of CD's of a few recent 
> distros.  In the unlikely event of internet failure, I keep multiple 
> linux distros that I can install without being online...
>
> Of course, if the internet ever failed for general social/political 
> reasons (not local issue) it might be likely that the power grid would 
> die also.  So it's bye-bye to all OS's.

The Internet is the main reason why Linux is where it is today.

-- 
Code is community.
0
iso
10/9/2005 1:07:38 PM
George Ellison wrote:

> 
> I tried the Debian 1CD net install, but after detecting my eth0, it failed to
> do anything for an excessively long period of time.

Have you tried doing it with the network cable (i.e. to your router) 
disconnected? I had exactly the same experience with Ubuntu. My router 
comes pre-configured from my Wife's company (they also pay the Broadband 
charges! <VBG>) and is unnaccesible and set to DHCP. What I found was 
that Ubuntu hung for ages and ages on the "configuring Apt" section 
because the router as set up won't resolve the ISP's IP without first 
tweaking dhclient.conf which of course can't be done until after the 
install is up and running! So by disconnecting the router it then went 
very fast past the configuring Apt stage. The difference in time was 
about 45 minutes!
0
gbplinux (1091)
10/10/2005 1:31:40 PM
Reply: