f



Linux: demoted to rightful place as the desktop "Play OS"

Someone relates the truth about Linux:


http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451

Full post:

"96RT10
commented on Jul 11, 2007 12:55:33 PM
After using Ubuntu exclusively for a few months, I don't think it's as 
"ready" as everyone would make you think. I tried to love it, I think it's 
better than Vista, but it's still not as good as XP, in my opinion.

My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few 
minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a download, 
then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work - and that's 
assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows registry is 
nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing those! But 
suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build gets installed 
on your system, all your drivers stop working and you have to take another 
45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.

I know... for every problem there is a solution, the forums are full of 
helpful people, but for me the problems just keep coming and it's never 
fully "right" for very long.

Don't get me wrong, I still love Ubuntu, but I think I'm going to have to 
demote it from "main OS" to "Play OS".... at least for the desktop. A lot of 
people are missing Linux's strong point - the server." 


0
nospam11 (18349)
7/12/2007 3:49:07 PM
comp.os.linux.advocacy 124139 articles. 3 followers. Post Follow

23 Replies
665 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 4

DFS wrote:

> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
> 
> 
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451
> 
> Full post:
> 
> "96RT10
> commented on Jul 11, 2007 12:55:33 PM
> After using Ubuntu exclusively for a few months, I don't think it's as
> "ready" as everyone would make you think. I tried to love it, I think it's
> better than Vista, but it's still not as good as XP, in my opinion.
> 
> My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few
> minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a download,
> then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work - and that's
> assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows registry is
> nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing those! But
> suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build gets installed
> on your system, all your drivers stop working and you have to take another
> 45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.
> 
> I know... for every problem there is a solution, the forums are full of
> helpful people, but for me the problems just keep coming and it's never
> fully "right" for very long.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I still love Ubuntu, but I think I'm going to have to
> demote it from "main OS" to "Play OS".... at least for the desktop. A lot
> of people are missing Linux's strong point - the server."


With every computer OS when you first install you need drivers for hardware.
Not all drivers come with Windows and not all drivers come with Linux. The
only ones I have downloaded lately for Linux have been the ATI's, the
installer ran the graphics fine with a reasonable default, but I like the
extra little touches that ATI's driver and controller give you.

But on new hardware what ever drivers I find I need, or find I prefer from
the default drivers with the distro, I pop them into the one directory as
downloads, in my case $HOME/downloads then when I have all working it takes
less than 5 mins to pop $HOME/downloads onto a CD. Thats it, so long as I
have this hardware I have my drivers handy, can update them as and when,
easy and cheap enough to update the CD.

If you were happy to compile than this is even easier than bins, because you
can switch distros without worrying about whether a bin you have is alright
with your new distro. (not that I switch distros very often).

I can't really accept the driver issue as something to keep people away from
Linux. If is different to the Windows way, but that doesn't mean it is more
difficult. Probably a one hour tutorial at the most and you would have the
driver issues sussed.

Of cause I accept that some driver installs have been problematic at times,
but I can't accept that it is still like that. The hardware and distros
that I use are just the off the shelf stuff just like everyone else. But I
don't hit on problems, in *all* cases I get the install in and running with
defaults, other than the ATI I mentioned which I pop in the the place in
the install where it asks for additional drivers. Rather than mess on at
install time, I like to get the system on then do the adjustments from the
inside. But I have to say that they are not really any adjustments to do
these days. I know there are some in here who will say I;m lieing and that
it is much more difficult than I am claiming. But I would happily wipe off
any one of my computers and install from any of the top 10 distros and will
bet both socks I get a full working system.

Why? What am I doing different to those who come in here telling us {some
distro} doesn't work or doesn't install? I don't know what it is I could be
doing different, I have asked myself and others many times over the years.
Some have tried to claim that it is only because I have been doing this
stuff for so long, but that isn't the answer because I am claiming that I
do nothing at all out of the ordinary when I install a Linux. Just like you
I select the language, keyboard layout, the time zone, but unlike you I
don't select any extra packages from the defaults at this time, I want the
system up fast so I can finish the setup part. Could that simple thing be
the answer? I doubt it, I think that the answer has to lay with the people
who are having the problems.

Ah, I have just remembered the one driver I had to go looking for a little
while back.

Webcam. that is the only driver I had to go looking for. The only question
that might catch some is whether to go with kernel or libusb. The Debian
based and openSuse go for the kernel, but I personally think it is safe to
say that nothing is really lost if you go with libusb. The kernel way will
probably grow in use because it will allow for faster streaming so is no
doubt going to form part of webPhone technology, which probably means an
increase in the number of people waving their breathing apparatus at you,
never mind, you is too young to know about this sort of thing. gads, I'm
too young to know about this sort of thing too.


0
spam226 (1980)
7/12/2007 3:38:12 PM
On 2007-07-12, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
>
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451
>
> Full post:
>
> "96RT10
> commented on Jul 11, 2007 12:55:33 PM
> After using Ubuntu exclusively for a few months, I don't think it's as 
> "ready" as everyone would make you think. I tried to love it, I think it's 
> better than Vista, but it's still not as good as XP, in my opinion.

I prefer PCLinuxos myself, but that's just me.
I've also used mepis and yoper as well as the various
versions of Slackware and even gentoo. None of them
the latest versions however except for PClinuxos.


> My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few 
> minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a download, 
> then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work - and that's 
> assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows registry is 
> nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing those! But 
> suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build gets installed 
> on your system, all your drivers stop working and you have to take another 
> 45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.

Drivers?
I ain't got no stink'n drivers <smiles>.
Seriously though unless he has really obtuse hardware, the driver
issue should not be a problem, at least it wasn't for me with
either Ubuntu or PClinuxos with one exception, my RAID controller
was not automatically recognized with Ubuntu, but was with
PClinuxos. It's an on-board device on my older Asus board.
Kernel updates should be handled by the package manager and
such things as the nvidia drivers should be updated automatically
at the same time.
Why is he recompiling kernels?
Just download the new one using the package manager.
Lilo will give troubles if /sbin/lilo is not executed after
a kernel upgrade however. The instructions are usually given
by the package manager.
Modifying the registry is easier than a text configuration file?
Is he serious? At least with a text configuration file the
user stands a chance. What chance does he have with the registry?


> I know... for every problem there is a solution, the forums are full of 
> helpful people, but for me the problems just keep coming and it's never 
> fully "right" for very long.

I think this guy is digging too deep into the distribution and his
lack of experience is getting the best of him.

> Don't get me wrong, I still love Ubuntu, but I think I'm going to have to 
> demote it from "main OS" to "Play OS".... at least for the desktop. A lot of 
> people are missing Linux's strong point - the server." 

Actually a lot of people are *getting* Linux's strong point, the server
it's the desktop they are missing. It is pretty strong as well.

Linux has some issues that's true but for the most part
they are easily worked around by asking in the forums.
Jumping into a kernel compile is almost never needed
and can be dangerous. Especially in the hands of a person who
has troubles with text configuration files.

0
water.skidoo (589)
7/12/2007 4:07:31 PM
waterskidoo <water.skidoo@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 2007-07-12, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
>>
>>
>> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451
>>
>> Full post:
>>
>> "96RT10
>> commented on Jul 11, 2007 12:55:33 PM
>> After using Ubuntu exclusively for a few months, I don't think it's as 
>> "ready" as everyone would make you think. I tried to love it, I think it's 
>> better than Vista, but it's still not as good as XP, in my opinion.
>
> I prefer PCLinuxos myself, but that's just me.
> I've also used mepis and yoper as well as the various
> versions of Slackware and even gentoo. None of them
> the latest versions however except for PClinuxos.
>
>
>> My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few 
>> minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a download, 
>> then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work - and that's 
>> assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows registry is 
>> nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing those! But 
>> suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build gets installed 
>> on your system, all your drivers stop working and you have to take another 
>> 45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.
>
> Drivers?
> I ain't got no stink'n drivers <smiles>.

Yes you do.

> Seriously though unless he has really obtuse hardware, the driver

Like a lot of makes of printers/scanners, wireless cards & dongles and
certain ATI or NVidia cards? Yes, if you use HP or Brother you are
laughing. But dont expect all the same HW to be support as is under
XP. As many of the posters here now realise, its better to advocate "do
your homework before trying to install Linux". See if it works with
Linux!

> issue should not be a problem, at least it wasn't for me with

When will you learn "works for me" is not advocacy. What HW do YOU use?
Do YOU use the same laptop as HE does?

> either Ubuntu or PClinuxos with one exception, my RAID controller
> was not automatically recognized with Ubuntu, but was with
> PClinuxos. It's an on-board device on my older Asus board.
> Kernel updates should be handled by the package manager and
> such things as the nvidia drivers should be updated automatically
> at the same time.
> Why is he recompiling kernels?
> Just download the new one using the package manager.

Depends if its there.

> Lilo will give troubles if /sbin/lilo is not executed after
> a kernel upgrade however. The instructions are usually given
> by the package manager.

Lilo isn't even used in Ubuntu normally. So, err?

> Modifying the registry is easier than a text configuration file?
> Is he serious? At least with a text configuration file the
> user stands a chance. What chance does he have with the registry?

Normally he uses the accompanying wizard or the registry editor. Its
very, very simple. Yes, config files ARE better, but the plethora of
formats and their distributed nature often makes it difficult for the
nOOB.
>
>
>> I know... for every problem there is a solution, the forums are full of 
>> helpful people, but for me the problems just keep coming and it's never 
>> fully "right" for very long.
>
> I think this guy is digging too deep into the distribution and his
> lack of experience is getting the best of him.

Obviously.

>
>> Don't get me wrong, I still love Ubuntu, but I think I'm going to have to 
>> demote it from "main OS" to "Play OS".... at least for the desktop. A lot of 
>> people are missing Linux's strong point - the server." 
>
> Actually a lot of people are *getting* Linux's strong point, the server
> it's the desktop they are missing. It is pretty strong as well.
>
> Linux has some issues that's true but for the most part
> they are easily worked around by asking in the forums.
> Jumping into a kernel compile is almost never needed
> and can be dangerous. Especially in the hands of a person who
> has troubles with text configuration files.
>

A kernel compile never needs you to edit text configuration files. Or I
never did. Its what the config tools are for.

-- 
I cannot see average users bothering with windows machines once they
realise what they can do with a PS3. : Mark Kent, COLA Rottweiler and Optimist.
0
hadronquark (21814)
7/12/2007 4:15:25 PM
Hadron Quark wrote:

> waterskidoo <water.skidoo@yahoo.com> writes:
> 
>> On 2007-07-12, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
>>>
>>>
>>>
http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451
>>>
>>> Full post:
>>>
>>> "96RT10
>>> commented on Jul 11, 2007 12:55:33 PM
>>> After using Ubuntu exclusively for a few months, I don't think it's as
>>> "ready" as everyone would make you think. I tried to love it, I think
>>> it's better than Vista, but it's still not as good as XP, in my opinion.
>>
>> I prefer PCLinuxos myself, but that's just me.
>> I've also used mepis and yoper as well as the various
>> versions of Slackware and even gentoo. None of them
>> the latest versions however except for PClinuxos.
>>
>>
>>> My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few
>>> minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a
>>> download, then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work -
>>> and that's assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows
>>> registry is nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing
>>> those! But suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build
>>> gets installed on your system, all your drivers stop working and you
>>> have to take another 45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.
>>
>> Drivers?
>> I ain't got no stink'n drivers <smiles>.
> 
> Yes you do.

You are aware, "true linux advocate" and "kernel hacker" Hadron Quark that
the "Kernel build" already includes those drivers, are you?


< snip more of another "true linux advocacy" post from Hadron Quark, "true
linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
specialist" and  "CUPS guru">
-- 
The Day Microsoft makes something that does not suck is probably
the day they start making vacuum cleaners.

0
Peter.Koehlmann (13228)
7/12/2007 4:31:25 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451
>
> Full post:

Not the full post.  Just one commentor's comments.

> My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few 
> minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a download, 
> then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work - and that's 
> assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows registry is 
> nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing those! But 
> suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build gets installed 
> on your system, all your drivers stop working and you have to take another 
> 45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.

I call bullshit.

> I know... for every problem there is a solution, the forums are full of 
> helpful people, but for me the problems just keep coming and it's never 
> fully "right" for very long.

I call bullshit.

> Don't get me wrong, I still love Ubuntu, but I think I'm going to have to 
> demote it from "main OS" to "Play OS".... at least for the desktop. A lot of 
> people are missing Linux's strong point - the server." 

I wouldn't call that a demotion.

Why?

Because, for me, Linux is my "play OS".  I just /love/ playing it!

Trying to play at what I do on Windows is just too much "work"!

-- 
Tux rox!
0
linonut1 (1515)
7/12/2007 4:40:48 PM
On 2007-07-12, Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Drivers?
>> I ain't got no stink'n drivers <smiles>.
>
> Yes you do.
Technically yes, but they are already in the kernel or
called by the kernel. What I should have said was driver
disks.

>> Seriously though unless he has really obtuse hardware, the driver
>
> Like a lot of makes of printers/scanners, wireless cards & dongles and
> certain ATI or NVidia cards? Yes, if you use HP or Brother you are
> laughing. But dont expect all the same HW to be support as is under
> XP. As many of the posters here now realise, its better to advocate "do
> your homework before trying to install Linux". See if it works with
> Linux!

It's always prudent to do some research but personally I have installed
more than a few versions of Linux and everything I have
seems to be supported.
Doing research is a good idea, epsecially if one is planning on
installing Vista.

> When will you learn "works for me" is not advocacy. What HW do YOU use?
> Do YOU use the same laptop as HE does?
I'm not trying to advocate, I'm simply pointing out
that I, and many others do not have troubles.
Some do, of course.

> Depends if its there.
True, but it still sounds like he doesn't know what he is doing
and got into things he should not have.

>> Lilo will give troubles if /sbin/lilo is not executed after
>> a kernel upgrade however. The instructions are usually given
>> by the package manager.
>
> Lilo isn't even used in Ubuntu normally. So, err?
It was an example.

> Normally he uses the accompanying wizard or the registry editor. Its
> very, very simple. Yes, config files ARE better, but the plethora of
> formats and their distributed nature often makes it difficult for the
> nOOB.

Yes it is difficult, but assuming no wizard, and no instructions
a user can at least poke around in a text config file and should he
see something that applies to the problem he might be having
he can play with it.
Linux config files are modified by the install program or the 
control center programs as well.
I rarely play with anything other than hosts files or the slrn.rc
file.

> A kernel compile never needs you to edit text configuration files. Or I
> never did. Its what the config tools are for.

No, but if he has trouble with reading config files he will have
trouble with a kernel compile.
The *wizard* just puts a nice face on it that's all.
0
water.skidoo (589)
7/12/2007 5:41:59 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
<linonut@bellsouth.net>
 wrote
on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:40:48 GMT
<slrnf9cmcl.lb9.linonut@mlsrock.launchmodem.com>:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
>>
>> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451
>>
>> Full post:
>
> Not the full post.  Just one commentor's comments.
>
>> My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few 
>> minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a download, 
>> then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work - and that's 
>> assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows registry is 
>> nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing those! But 
>> suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build gets installed 
>> on your system, all your drivers stop working and you have to take another 
>> 45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.
>
> I call bullshit.

It depends on the device.  For older devices, the driver
is probably already in the kernel; if that's the case,
it's merely a matter of building the module, and that
can usually be done incrementally with a little work.
I'll admit to wishing that Linux didn't try to rebuild
the entire mess every time the config.h file changes,
but there's some interesting tradeoffs here.

Since "shipped kernels" generally have every module under
the sun enabled already, one may not even have to rebuild,
but just load the module -- it's already there.

I've not worked with newer devices, and it's going to be
interesting as Linux continues to evolve.  Ideally, the
kernel makefiles would pick up new source/modules without
much difficulty.

>
>> I know... for every problem there is a solution, the forums are full of 
>> helpful people, but for me the problems just keep coming and it's never 
>> fully "right" for very long.
>
> I call bullshit.

Certainly Linux problems, once solved, tend to stay solved.
The kernel, however, could be improved, though I can't put
my finger on exactly where, and Gentoo's made some mods
of its own (in the genkernel utility) that are a little
creaky; the main one is that it feeds something to 'make
oldconfig', which is a throwback to ancient software in
that it prompts for config parameters in a highly specific
and unchangeable order (unchangeable by the user, but the
program reads from some .config file and therefore the
order of the prompts can change at any time -- very evil
for scripting, especially if one is working with minor
kernel upgrades -- 2.6.11 to 2.6.12, say).

>
>> Don't get me wrong, I still love Ubuntu, but I think I'm going
>> to have to demote it from "main OS" to "Play OS".... at least
>> for the desktop. A lot of people are missing Linux's strong
>> point - the server." 
>
> I wouldn't call that a demotion.
>
> Why?
>
> Because, for me, Linux is my "play OS".  I just /love/ playing it!
>
> Trying to play at what I do on Windows is just too much "work"!
>

Heh...certainly eradication of viruses from Windows is a
lot of work, plus there are issues regarding the single
workspace that I can't tolerate for very long.  It's just
so damned....confining.

In any event, Linux (more accurately, Apache on Linux)
won't dominate the server market for very long, if
Microsoft has its way.  "Unix Killer" NT was the harbinger,
and while Google is getting Microsoft's wrath (at least
as far as one video regarding Ballmer is concerned),
it's illogical to think that Google is the only target,
and it's even more illogical to think Microsoft has stopped
trying. ;-)

As for gameplay -- OpenGL is a very nice, stable platform. ;-)

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #10239993:
char * f(char *p) {char *q = malloc(strlen(p)); strcpy(q,p); return q; }

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
7/12/2007 5:49:42 PM
Asstroturfer DFS wrote on behalf of Micoshaft Corporation:

> S

Ubuntu Linux installs in 30 minutes and Linux has
worlds biggest support list out of the box.

Livecds are just as good, autodetecting everything
in sight and booting a PC in a two minutes.
http://www.livecdlist.com

Linux comes free with C compiler, editor, web server, database,
free 3D games like Torcs, open office and all with source code.
Everything to develop new applications or modify and extend your
own and the right to make and distribute your own versions
of the software.

Windopws nowhere to be seen.
You just end up paying through the nose,
and when kids can't pay they resort to piracy at an early stage.

--
Windopws: Only if you want your kids to grow up as pirates.


0
7/12/2007 7:13:48 PM
Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:

> It depends on the device.  For older devices, the driver is probably 
> already in the kernel; if that's the case, it's merely a matter of 
> building the module, and that can usually be done incrementally with 
> a little work. I'll admit to wishing that Linux didn't try to rebuild
>  the entire mess every time the config.h file changes, but there's 
> some interesting tradeoffs here.
> 
> Since "shipped kernels" generally have every module under the sun 
> enabled already, one may not even have to rebuild, but just load the 
> module -- it's already there.

Rebuilding (even just kmods) is rarely necessary with a well supported
distro, since many if not most of the additional drivers (i.e. those not
enabled by default, or proprietary drivers, etc.) are built by somebody
else and released on third party repos (e.g. Livna). Installing such
things is merely a question of installing the [repo-config].rpm then
running yum or apt. All these supposed additional steps that DooFy yaks
about are taken care of automatically by helper scripts run as
[pre]/[post] scripts in the RPM/deb and/or various initscripts
(depending on the package maintainer). If his distro does not provide
that facility, then maybe he aught to switch to one that does. It's not
like there aren't many to choose from, after all.

> I've not worked with newer devices, and it's going to be interesting 
> as Linux continues to evolve.  Ideally, the kernel makefiles would 
> pick up new source/modules without much difficulty.

IME Linux has worked OTB on more *new* hardware than XP, and certainly
more than Vista. Vista driver support is *still* a joke - just look in
microsoft.public.windows.vista.* for evidence of that.

One example was my first attempt to install XP onto an Intel SATA-RAID
(ICH6) system, which initially failed because it needed a driver disk
(as in "floppy" disk) on a system without a floppy drive. I had to buy a
USB floppy drive just to install XP ... how retarded. For all I know,
that may still be true of Vista - I'm sure the Trolls will confirm one
way or the other. Meanwhile I installed Fedora 6 (and now 7) onto the
same hardware without a hitch (and no prehistoric floppy drive required).

I also found the Windows ICH6-R drivers to be extremely unstable,
causing the array to become invalidated on at least 3 occasions that I
remember (requiring a WipeNReinstall® - it was RAID0).

I find it amazing that despite the fact that Microsoft and it's
so-called "partners" had nearly six years and six billion dollars to
develop Vista and compatible drivers, the freely contributed or reverse
engineered drivers in Linux arrived faster and work better. There are
2,000 lines added, and a further 2,800 modifications to the Linux source
every *day* - maybe that has something to do with it.

> Certainly Linux problems, once solved, tend to stay solved.

Not always true ("10 little bugs in the code"), but certainly Linux, and
the GNU/Linux codebase in general, does seem to have a better handle on
issues than the proprietary world, undoubtedly because of the Freedom of
the GPL. There will always be bugs, but thanks to the GPL there will
also be many who are ready and able to resolve those issues, without
having to consider whether or not it is financially viable to "bother".

> The kernel, however, could be improved, though I can't put my finger 
> on exactly where

From my recent foray into the LKML I'd say ACPI is a mess, certainly
Torvalds seems to thinks so. Then there's the never ending Holy Grail of
the perfect scheduler. Various experimental drivers (as always) need
work. Ext4 is looming and needs more testers. Etc., etc.

The Linux kernel is fundamentally sound, if (as expected) in a constant
state of flux, as is shall always be.

> and Gentoo's made some mods of its own (in the genkernel utility)
> that are a little creaky; the main one is that it feeds something to
> 'make oldconfig', which is a throwback to ancient software in that it
> prompts for config parameters in a highly specific and unchangeable
> order (unchangeable by the user, but the program reads from some
> .config file and therefore the order of the prompts can change at any
> time -- very evil for scripting, especially if one is working with
> minor kernel upgrades -- 2.6.11 to 2.6.12, say).

Yeah well, Gentoo is not really meant to be user friendly, is it? :)

However, it's about time they updated their buildsystem.

> As for gameplay -- OpenGL is a very nice, stable platform. ;-)

And most importantly, unlike DirectX, it's "Open".

-- 
K.
http://slated.org

..----
| "Computer games don’t affect kids, I mean if Pac man affected us as
| kids, we’d all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills
| and listening to repetitive music." - Kristian Wilson, Nintendo
`----

Fedora release 7 (Moonshine) on sky, running kernel 2.6.21-1.3194.fc7
 20:42:49 up 11 days, 19:37,  2 users,  load average: 0.38, 0.44, 0.38
0
spam95 (5695)
7/12/2007 7:44:35 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [H]omer
<spam@uce.gov>
 wrote
on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 20:44:35 +0100
<aucim4-ul7.ln1@sky.matrix>:
> Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
>
>> It depends on the device.  For older devices, the driver is probably 
>> already in the kernel; if that's the case, it's merely a matter of 
>> building the module, and that can usually be done incrementally with 
>> a little work. I'll admit to wishing that Linux didn't try to rebuild
>>  the entire mess every time the config.h file changes, but there's 
>> some interesting tradeoffs here.
>> 
>> Since "shipped kernels" generally have every module under the sun 
>> enabled already, one may not even have to rebuild, but just load the 
>> module -- it's already there.
>
> Rebuilding (even just kmods) is rarely necessary with a well supported
> distro, since many if not most of the additional drivers (i.e. those not
> enabled by default, or proprietary drivers, etc.) are built by somebody
> else and released on third party repos (e.g. Livna). Installing such
> things is merely a question of installing the [repo-config].rpm then
> running yum or apt. All these supposed additional steps that DooFy yaks
> about are taken care of automatically by helper scripts run as
> [pre]/[post] scripts in the RPM/deb and/or various initscripts
> (depending on the package maintainer). If his distro does not provide
> that facility, then maybe he aught to switch to one that does. It's not
> like there aren't many to choose from, after all.

True enough.  Gentoo has its own quirks, but AFAIK DFS is not using it.

>
>> I've not worked with newer devices, and it's going to be interesting 
>> as Linux continues to evolve.  Ideally, the kernel makefiles would 
>> pick up new source/modules without much difficulty.
>
> IME Linux has worked OTB on more *new* hardware than XP, and certainly
> more than Vista. Vista driver support is *still* a joke - just look in
> microsoft.public.windows.vista.* for evidence of that.

I'm not sure I want to. :-)  But certainly my problems
have been few -- although part of that is because I don't
have new hardware.

>
> One example was my first attempt to install XP onto an Intel SATA-RAID
> (ICH6) system, which initially failed because it needed a driver disk
> (as in "floppy" disk) on a system without a floppy drive. I had to buy a
> USB floppy drive just to install XP ... how retarded. For all I know,
> that may still be true of Vista - I'm sure the Trolls will confirm one
> way or the other. Meanwhile I installed Fedora 6 (and now 7) onto the
> same hardware without a hitch (and no prehistoric floppy drive required).
>
> I also found the Windows ICH6-R drivers to be extremely unstable,
> causing the array to become invalidated on at least 3 occasions that I
> remember (requiring a WipeNReinstall� - it was RAID0).
>
> I find it amazing that despite the fact that Microsoft and it's
> so-called "partners" had nearly six years and six billion dollars to
> develop Vista and compatible drivers, the freely contributed or reverse
> engineered drivers in Linux arrived faster and work better. There are
> 2,000 lines added, and a further 2,800 modifications to the Linux source
> every *day* - maybe that has something to do with it.

Hard to say, but that's busier than I would have expected.

>
>> Certainly Linux problems, once solved, tend to stay solved.
>
> Not always true ("10 little bugs in the code"), but certainly Linux, and
> the GNU/Linux codebase in general, does seem to have a better handle on
> issues than the proprietary world, undoubtedly because of the Freedom of
> the GPL. There will always be bugs, but thanks to the GPL there will
> also be many who are ready and able to resolve those issues, without
> having to consider whether or not it is financially viable to "bother".
>
>> The kernel, however, could be improved, though I can't put my finger 
>> on exactly where
>
> From my recent foray into the LKML I'd say ACPI is a mess,

I certainly agree; my Athlon will not shut down properly and I have
to hold the power button for 5 seconds.  Since 2.6.22 is now out I
might try that this weekend.

> certainly
> Torvalds seems to thinks so. Then there's the never ending Holy Grail of
> the perfect scheduler.

The good news: regardless of what scheduler they write, the rest of the
system won't be affected (except perhaps from a performance standpoint).

> Various experimental drivers (as always) need
> work. Ext4 is looming and needs more testers. Etc., etc.
>
> The Linux kernel is fundamentally sound, if (as expected) in a constant
> state of flux, as is shall always be.

Ideally, yes.  In any event, the problems I see aren't that
major; I was thinking more along the lines of the kernel
build system, which I'd have to study anyway to see if
they're doing anything fundamentally peculiar in there.

>
>> and Gentoo's made some mods of its own (in the genkernel utility)
>> that are a little creaky; the main one is that it feeds something to
>> 'make oldconfig', which is a throwback to ancient software in that it
>> prompts for config parameters in a highly specific and unchangeable
>> order (unchangeable by the user, but the program reads from some
>> .config file and therefore the order of the prompts can change at any
>> time -- very evil for scripting, especially if one is working with
>> minor kernel upgrades -- 2.6.11 to 2.6.12, say).
>
> Yeah well, Gentoo is not really meant to be user friendly, is it? :)
>
> However, it's about time they updated their buildsystem.

Something for somebody to work on, I suppose.  I'm not sure what would
need to be done in there, but I could get the source in a pinch and
see what they're doing.  'ebuild unpack' is very nice. :-)

>
>> As for gameplay -- OpenGL is a very nice, stable platform. ;-)
>
> And most importantly, unlike DirectX, it's "Open".
>

A big plus.

-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: Not a text file

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
7/12/2007 8:15:13 PM
BearItAll wrote:

<snip 8 paragraphs>

You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to write excessively 
long, dull posts (don't take it personally - but they're boring).  Is that a 
byproduct of your Linux systems 99.977% uptime?

Look to Linonut and myself as models of brevity and succinctness.



0
nospam11 (18349)
7/13/2007 2:06:24 AM
On Jul 12, 11:49 am, "DFS" <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> Someone relates the truth about Linux:

DFS found yet another "I bought a machine that is documented as not
supported for Linux, tried to install Linux anyway, and now I'm going
to tell you my tale of Woe".  Article.

HP sells several "Linux ready" machines, all of which will run SUSE
10.0 or later, and Ubuntu, in less than an hour, and will configure
themselves using standard preinstalled "probes" and Modules.  In some
cases, you will have to get the first update to get the 3D
accellerators and WiFi modules.

I bought a Z-60p which I had running Linux in less than an hour.  The
Atheros 5418 WiFi card is so new that there aren't HAL settings for
the chipset yet, but I knew that when I ordered it (I may still opt
for the Intel card until Atheros gets it's act together).

It would be nice if you could call, Dell, Lennovo, or HP and say "I
want a machine that is ready to run Linux, even though you can send it
with XP preinstalled.  Which do you reccomend?, and get a correct
answer.

The latest trap is the folks who are getting bargains on "Vista Only"
machines, which have been made "Linux Hostile", and then think that
this would be a good machine for Linux.


> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=20100...
>
> Full post:
>
> "96RT10
> commented on Jul 11, 2007 12:55:33 PM
> After using Ubuntu exclusively for a few months, I don't think it's as
> "ready" as everyone would make you think. I tried to love it, I think it's
> better than Vista, but it's still not as good as XP, in my opinion.
>
> My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few
> minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a download,
> then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work - and that's
> assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows registry is
> nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing those! But
> suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build gets installed
> on your system, all your drivers stop working and you have to take another
> 45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.

When I installed SLED 10.0, it installed a simple frame-buffer,
ethernet driver, and core system.  When I ran the auto-update, it
automatically installed my ATI FireGL graphics 3D accelerator (fcglx),
and when I plugged in a netgear WG511T, and ran the update, it figured
out that I needed the MadWiFi driver, installed the right version, and
gave me a gui interface to start it up.  So did RHEL 5.

Fieisty fawn is a freebie download.  the CD ISO is very basic.  If you
pay a few bucks, you can get the DVD version, and install everything
from the DVD.

I noticed that he never asked anybody for help.  No face-to-face
person with previous experience helping others install Linux.

It turned out, as you read later in the article, he had no trouble
installing Kubuntu, or SLED 10, but then again, SLED 10 is a
commercial distribution.  Instead of looking at where he had success,
the entire article focused on his rants and raves about how the very
newest version of Ubuntu didn't like his video card.

I remember the days of Windows 3.0, when you get a "generic"
installation, and a bunch of driver disks.  If you installed them in
the wrong order, you pretty much had to start over from scratch (which
is one reason Microsoft wasn't slapped for "per processor" licenses of
Windows).


0
rex.ballard (3732)
7/13/2007 3:59:55 AM
DFS wrote:

> BearItAll wrote:
> 
> <snip 8 paragraphs>
> 
> You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to write excessively
> long, dull posts (don't take it personally - but they're boring).  Is that
> a byproduct of your Linux systems 99.977% uptime?
> 
> Look to Linonut and myself as models of brevity and succinctness.

I can not see me ever taking advice from you. 

0
spam226 (1980)
7/13/2007 7:40:30 AM
DFS wrote:

> BearItAll wrote:
>> DFS wrote:
>>
>>> BearItAll wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip 8 paragraphs>
>>>
>>> You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to write
>>> excessively long, dull posts (don't take it personally - but they're
>>> boring).  Is that a byproduct of your Linux systems 99.977% uptime?
>>>
>>> Look to Linonut and myself as models of brevity and succinctness.
>>
>> I can not see me ever taking advice from you.
> 
> With your first-ever one-line response, you already started.  Good job!

It was a deliberate thing.

0
spam226 (1980)
7/13/2007 12:26:39 PM
BearItAll wrote:
> DFS wrote:
>
>> BearItAll wrote:
>>
>> <snip 8 paragraphs>
>>
>> You seem to have an awful lot of time on your hands to write
>> excessively long, dull posts (don't take it personally - but they're
>> boring).  Is that a byproduct of your Linux systems 99.977% uptime?
>>
>> Look to Linonut and myself as models of brevity and succinctness.
>
> I can not see me ever taking advice from you.

With your first-ever one-line response, you already started.  Good job! 


0
nospam11 (18349)
7/13/2007 1:02:35 PM
After takin' a swig o' grog, DFS belched out this bit o' wisdom:

> Look to Linonut and myself as models of brevity and succinctness.

You bastard!  <grin>

I'd write even less, but I don't have the time.

-- 
Tux rox!
0
linonut1 (1515)
7/13/2007 1:03:48 PM
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:49:07 -0500, DFS wrote:

> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
> 
> 
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?
articleID=201000451
> 
> Full post:

[snip]

What is it with these stupid bloggers? They just keep copmparing apples 
and oranges, i.e. Windows' (percieved) "ease of use" with Linux' 
"problematic installation", to conclude that "Linux isn't suitable for 
general use". Duh. 
If everyone had to install every OS from scratch, Linux might be 
considered "tricky" in certain areas (e.g. installing proprietary drivers 
for graphics and wireless cards), but Windows wouldn't even be in the 
same league.

The truth of the matter is that properly installing an OS isn't for 
everyone, and that there's always the possibility of problems cropping up.
The installation is therefore best left to the more knowledgeable people 
among us, or those who don't mind solving a few problems here and there.

Having said that, I've installed Linux well over a hundred times now on a 
huge variety of hardware, and in all but a few cases, I succeeded in 
getting the machines fully operational within an hour or two at most - 
including installig graphics drivers, built-in wireless cards and whatnot.
The only failed installation was an HP laptop which wouldn't install at 
all, for reasons I couldn't fathom (the Windows install on it had 
suddenly crapped out as well, and even Knopppix wouldn't get past the 
text screen, so it might have been a broken hardware issue). 
For all the rest, problems were limited to hardware driver issues, e.g.
the built-in SD Card reader/writer in my own Toshiba Tecra M1 (for which 
Toshiba won't release either specifications or a Linux driver), a Canon 
printer or two (driver problem), and one or two wireless adapters for 
desktop machines (same problem again).

I think mr. Wolfe should get himself a preinstalled, preconfigured Linux 
laptop computer, and make an honest comparison for a change. Or at least 
he should try installing a shrink-wrap version of XP (no, not the tailor-
made restore disk, of course) on his laptop, and see how he fares ... Or 
even better: get an "ordinary user" to install both. Only then you'll can 
keep up at least the appearance of an impartial comparison - and some 
years ago, I made an attempt at doing so myself:
http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2004090702426RVMDMS



Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl/
0
spamtrap12 (1976)
7/13/2007 2:41:33 PM
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard Rasker
<spamtrap@linetec.nl>
 wrote
on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:41:33 -0500
<Qr2dndCMcPuAEgrbnZ2dnUVZ8vWdnZ2d@fiberworld.nl>:
> On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:49:07 -0500, DFS wrote:
>
>> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
>> 
>> 
>> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?
> articleID=201000451
>> 
>> Full post:
>
> [snip]
>
> What is it with these stupid bloggers? They just keep copmparing apples 
> and oranges, i.e. Windows' (percieved) "ease of use" with Linux' 
> "problematic installation", to conclude that "Linux isn't suitable for 
> general use". Duh. 
> If everyone had to install every OS from scratch, Linux might be 
> considered "tricky" in certain areas (e.g. installing proprietary drivers 
> for graphics and wireless cards), but Windows wouldn't even be in the 
> same league.

One of the reasons Microsoft Windows is so "easy to use"
is that someone else is doing the hard work.

Window Preinstalls are very nice -- until they break.

>
> The truth of the matter is that properly installing an OS isn't for 
> everyone, and that there's always the possibility of problems cropping up.
> The installation is therefore best left to the more knowledgeable people 
> among us, or those who don't mind solving a few problems here and there.
>
> Having said that, I've installed Linux well over a hundred times now on a 
> huge variety of hardware, and in all but a few cases, I succeeded in 
> getting the machines fully operational within an hour or two at most - 
> including installig graphics drivers, built-in wireless cards and whatnot.

I've done Linux installs on Optiplexes that don't have the
ability to boot from CD-ROM; that's how easy it is. :-)
To be sure, Win3.1 had that ability as well way back then
(but that's absolutely ancient, of course).

Linux installs can have teething problems, but once they're
worked out, things go fairly smoothly, in my experience.
Of course the same could be said for Windows installs
after a fashion; after the Nth reinstall of Windows
because of bit rot the procedure may become second nature
(and unfortunately necessary) to many. :-)  Contrariwise,
Linux is foreign and difficult because reinstallation is
done once in a blue moon, and one forgets the procedure.

Of course documentation here helps a lot.  Gentoo in
particular has its Handbook, which helps.  I can't say
regarding other distros.

> The only failed installation was an HP laptop which wouldn't install at 
> all, for reasons I couldn't fathom (the Windows install on it had 
> suddenly crapped out as well, and even Knopppix wouldn't get past the 
> text screen, so it might have been a broken hardware issue). 
> For all the rest, problems were limited to hardware driver issues, e.g.
> the built-in SD Card reader/writer in my own Toshiba Tecra M1 (for which 
> Toshiba won't release either specifications or a Linux driver), a Canon 
> printer or two (driver problem), and one or two wireless adapters for 
> desktop machines (same problem again).
>
> I think mr. Wolfe should get himself a preinstalled, preconfigured Linux 
> laptop computer, and make an honest comparison for a change. Or at least 
> he should try installing a shrink-wrap version of XP (no, not the tailor-
> made restore disk, of course) on his laptop, and see how he fares ... Or 
> even better: get an "ordinary user" to install both. Only then you'll can 
> keep up at least the appearance of an impartial comparison - and some 
> years ago, I made an attempt at doing so myself:
> http://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2004090702426RVMDMS
>

This is yet another illustration of how Microsoft tilts the playing
field: preinstalls, after all, make for not-quite-right comparisons.

>
>
> Richard Rasker


-- 
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows Vista.  Because a BSOD is just so 20th century; why not
try our new color changing variant?

-- 
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

0
ewill5 (11075)
7/13/2007 3:31:30 PM
On 2007-07-12, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
>
>
> http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000451
>
> Full post:
>
> "96RT10
> commented on Jul 11, 2007 12:55:33 PM
> After using Ubuntu exclusively for a few months, I don't think it's as 
> "ready" as everyone would make you think. I tried to love it, I think it's 
> better than Vista, but it's still not as good as XP, in my opinion.
>
> My biggest problem was drivers. Installing a driver in XP takes a few 
> minutes to download, then just run an exe. In Linux, you have a download, 
> then you have to run ten other commands, and it might work - and that's 
> assuming a driver exists for your hw. Modifying the windows registry is 
> nothing compared to tracking down .conf files and changing those! But 
> suppose you do get it running... then the next Kernel build gets installed 
> on your system, all your drivers stop working and you have to take another 
> 45 minutes to re-download and re-compile.
>
> I know... for every problem there is a solution, the forums are full of 
> helpful people, but for me the problems just keep coming and it's never 
> fully "right" for very long.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I still love Ubuntu, but I think I'm going to have to 
> demote it from "main OS" to "Play OS".... at least for the desktop. A lot of 
> people are missing Linux's strong point - the server." 
>
>
You can always use a *for pay* version like SUSE or Redhat.  They have much better driver
support and still cost 1/4 what Windows does.

*R* *H*

-- 
Life is too short to stuff a mushroom.
		-- Storm Jameson
0
7/13/2007 10:59:49 PM
On Jul 13, 11:31 am, The Ghost In The Machine
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Richard Rasker
> <spamt...@linetec.nl>
>  wrote
> on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 09:41:33 -0500
> <Qr2dndCMcPuAEgrbnZ2dnUVZ8vWdn...@fiberworld.nl>:
> > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 10:49:07 -0500, DFS wrote:
> >> Someone relates the truth about Linux:
>
> >>http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?
> > articleID=201000451
>
> >> Full post:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > What is it with these stupid bloggers? They just keep copmparing apples
> > and oranges, i.e. Windows' (percieved) "ease of use" with Linux'
> > "problematic installation", to conclude that "Linux isn't suitable for
> > general use". Duh.

Both claims are now outdated.  If you have a machine that wasn't
designed for Vista, it probably won't be easy installing Vista on it.
If you tried to take a machine made for Vista, and attempted to
install Windows NT 4.0 on it, that would be a painful experience as
well.

Conversely there are a number of "Linux Ready" PCs now being produced
by major OEMs.  They usually come with extra RAM capacity, higher
resolution displays, Nvidia or ATI FireGL cards, which have XGL (X11
with OpenGL) accelerators.  Typically, a commercially supported
products such as SLED, RHEL, Linspire, or Ubuntu DVD will install
automatically in less than an hour.

As for ease of use, it depends on what you want to do and how often
you use it.  My dad just picked up an iMac and after playing with the
Unix Shell interface, he went out and got a book on shell
programming.  He found it wonderful that he could back up a whole
bunch of pictures using a one-line shell command.

GUI interfaces are great when most of what you are doing is "one shot"
requests such as  a one-time copy/paste request, occaisionally.   When
you start finding yourself spending hours cutting fields from a
spreadsheet to put them into a word "form", one field at a time, the
term "Ease of Use" no longer applies.  It limits how much you will be
able to do.

Eventually, you either reach the point where you spend 30-40 hours/
week doing "copy/paste", or you start learning to write scripts.  You
might write VBA macros.  You might write WISH scripts, or maybe you
pull down cygwin and start using PERL or Python, and using PHP to
create forms that can be accessed from a web browser.

> > If everyone had to install every OS from scratch, Linux might be
> > considered "tricky" in certain areas (e.g. installing proprietary drivers
> > for graphics and wireless cards), but Windows wouldn't even be in the
> > same league.
>
> One of the reasons Microsoft Windows is so "easy to use"
> is that someone else is doing the hard work.

Even then it's only 1/2 the work.  If you have ever had to "re-image"
a hard drive that has been corrupted by a virus, you quickly learn
that recovery isn't simply "slip in the disk, install, you're done.
Account settings have to be backed-up and recovered.  Downloaded or CD-
ROM applications have to be found, reinstalled, and reconfigured.
Passwords, Cookies, e-mail, even critical documents could be lost
forever.

If you simply try to recover the entire "Documents and Settings"
directory, you STILL end up with a corrupted registry, desktop icons
that take you nowhere, and often, a bigger mess than reconfiguring by
hand.

For Windows, the only way to reliably "fall-back" from a corrupted
machine is to run Windows as a VM Image under Linux.  You can back up
the entire image to a USB drive, and recover to that image whenever
it's needed.  Keep the same kinds of Daily, Weekly, and/or monthly
back-ups and vaults you would do with any other business system.

> Window Preinstalls are very nice -- until they break.

Best ways to break a Windows system:
    1 - browse e-mail and web using IE with ActiveX and ActiveScript
enabled.
    2 - Install lots of downloaded 3rd party applications and then
         try to remove a few of them.
     3 - Install 3rd party applications, then try to uninstall them.
     4 - Install 3rd party applications, then run Windows "automatic
Update".
     5 - Let children under 17 play with the computer.
     6 - Always log in as Administrator while doing the above.
     7 - share you computer with other people (family, coworkers).
     8 - create a "public share"  - then connect to non-WEP WiFi.
     9 - set Admin password to Admin, Password, or Root.
            use numbers 1 for i, 0 for o, and 5 for s.  That'll fool
them.

> > The truth of the matter is that properly installing an OS isn't for
> > everyone, and that there's always the possibility of problems cropping up.
> > The installation is therefore best left to the more knowledgeable people
> > among us, or those who don't mind solving a few problems here and there.

It's worth noting that Best Buy has Geek Squad on site to install
upgrades to Vista.
That should be a pretty good clue that Vista isn't that easy to
install.

> > Having said that, I've installed Linux well over a hundred times now on a
> > huge variety of hardware, and in all but a few cases, I succeeded in
> > getting the machines fully operational within an hour or two at most -
> > including installing graphics drivers, built-in wireless cards and whatnot.

I've had a few problems with a few machines, but it has almost ALWAYS
because I ignored the hardware compatibility list when choosing the
hardware.  Serves me right.


0
rex.ballard (3732)
7/17/2007 2:16:39 AM
On 2007-07-17, Rex Ballard <rex.ballard@gmail.com> wrote:

> Both claims are now outdated.  If you have a machine that wasn't
> designed for Vista, it probably won't be easy installing Vista on it.
> If you tried to take a machine made for Vista, and attempted to
> install Windows NT 4.0 on it, that would be a painful experience as
> well.
 I do not agree.
Vista will *run* on most machines made in the last few years given
enough memory and a decent video card, which is just about any
video card. You may not get all of the eye candy, but it will
run.
I do agree that modern machines would give NT 4.0 fits though,

> Conversely there are a number of "Linux Ready" PCs now being produced
> by major OEMs.  They usually come with extra RAM capacity, higher
> resolution displays, Nvidia or ATI FireGL cards, which have XGL (X11
> with OpenGL) accelerators.  Typically, a commercially supported
> products such as SLED, RHEL, Linspire, or Ubuntu DVD will install
> automatically in less than an hour.

I often wonder what a *Linux Ready* PC, as defined by manufacturers
really is?
Aside from peripherals, and even that's pretty difficult to screw up
it's very hard to find a modern PC that Linux will not run on.
Laptops excluded, depending upon the model the distribution
may need to be tweaked.

> Even then it's only 1/2 the work.  If you have ever had to "re-image"
> a hard drive that has been corrupted by a virus, you quickly learn
> that recovery isn't simply "slip in the disk, install, you're done.
> Account settings have to be backed-up and recovered.  Downloaded or CD-
> ROM applications have to be found, reinstalled, and reconfigured.
> Passwords, Cookies, e-mail, even critical documents could be lost
> forever.

This is also a prime reason why people are reluctant to move
to Linux.
Like I said in another post, many users, especially home users
have their entire lives in these systems. They are the ones
who do the *upgrades* rather than fresh Windows installs.


> If you simply try to recover the entire "Documents and Settings"
> directory, you STILL end up with a corrupted registry, desktop icons
> that take you nowhere, and often, a bigger mess than reconfiguring by
> hand.

So how are these users going to move all this personal stuff
to Linux?
It's really no different, at least initially.

> For Windows, the only way to reliably "fall-back" from a corrupted
> machine is to run Windows as a VM Image under Linux.  You can back up
> the entire image to a USB drive, and recover to that image whenever
> it's needed.  Keep the same kinds of Daily, Weekly, and/or monthly
> back-ups and vaults you would do with any other business system.

The smart user runs an image back up program along with
an incremental back up. I have this set up to run
daily and weekly all automatically.
Recovering, if necessary is a matter of booting
the back up program CD and pointing to the file.
I use Acronis True Image.

>
> Best ways to break a Windows system:
>     1 - browse e-mail and web using IE with ActiveX and ActiveScript
> enabled.
>     2 - Install lots of downloaded 3rd party applications and then
>          try to remove a few of them.
>      3 - Install 3rd party applications, then try to uninstall them.
>      4 - Install 3rd party applications, then run Windows "automatic
> Update".
>      5 - Let children under 17 play with the computer.
>      6 - Always log in as Administrator while doing the above.
>      7 - share you computer with other people (family, coworkers).
>      8 - create a "public share"  - then connect to non-WEP WiFi.
>      9 - set Admin password to Admin, Password, or Root.
>             use numbers 1 for i, 0 for o, and 5 for s.  That'll fool
> them.

I agree with all of the above.


> It's worth noting that Best Buy has Geek Squad on site to install
> upgrades to Vista.
> That should be a pretty good clue that Vista isn't that easy to
> install.

They also patrol the neighborhoods taking service calls from
home/small business users who have messed up their systems.

> I've had a few problems with a few machines, but it has almost ALWAYS
> because I ignored the hardware compatibility list when choosing the
> hardware.  Serves me right.

Until Vista, this was less likely to happen with Windows than with Linux.
However, Vista has brought incompatible hardware to a new level.
When Creative Labs is *selling* a driver for their card, you know it
is getting bad.
Shame on them for extorting money from their customers.
0
water.skidoo (589)
7/17/2007 1:53:39 PM
On Jul 17, 9:53 am, waterskidoo <water.ski...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2007-07-17, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Both claims are now outdated.  If you have a machine that wasn't
> > designed for Vista, it probably won't be easy installing Vista on it.
> > If you tried to take a machine made for Vista, and attempted to
> > install Windows NT 4.0 on it, that would be a painful experience as
> > well.
>
>  I do not agree.
> Vista will *run* on most machines made in the last few years given
> enough memory and a decent video card, which is just about any
> video card. You may not get all of the eye candy, but it will
> run.

Vista needs LOTS of memory.  Keep in mind that even up to around 2002,
most PCs could not support more than 1 gigabyte of RAM.  Many of the
older machines, with PCI-100 busses couldn't support more than 256
megabytes of ram.  Many of the machines made for Windows 95 were
normally only configured with around 32 megabytes of RAM.

Vista might run in some sorta "cripple mode" if you tried to run it on
a graphics card with 1 megabyte of display ram (very common in Windows
95), and I'm not sure that an S3 Video chip of the Win9x era would
perform very well with Vista.  There is a hardware compatibility list
for Vista that even knocks out most Windows XP machines sold before
2004.

> I do agree that modern machines would give NT 4.0 fits though,
>
> > Conversely there are a number of "Linux Ready" PCs now being produced
> > by major OEMs.  They usually come with extra RAM capacity, higher
> > resolution displays, Nvidia or ATI FireGL cards, which have XGL (X11
> > with OpenGL) accelerators.  Typically, a commercially supported
> > products such as SLED, RHEL, Linspire, or Ubuntu DVD will install
> > automatically in less than an hour.
>
> I often wonder what a *Linux Ready* PC, as defined by manufacturers
> really is?

Normally, it's a PC that has been configured with peripherals and
options that will allow an experienced installer to configure a
"standard" Linux system in 90 minutes or less.  Typically, this means
using only components which are on the Linux compatibility list.  Most
often, the "Standard" is LSB-3, which is supported by nearly all of
the commercial distributors.  Debian based distributions such as
Ubuntu may not always be fully supported without downloading the
binary-only drivers.  For example, if you want the 3D accelleration on
an ATI driver, Debian doesn't include it, but you can download it.

The BIG caveat there is that it needs to be a commercial distribution
that supports LSB3 such as SLED, RHEL, Linspire, Xandros Professional,
or the other commercially supported hardware.  I have seen more than a
few postings in this newsgroups referencing people who downloaded free
versions and then complained about how things didn't work the way they
thought they should.

> Aside from peripherals, and even that's pretty difficult to screw up
> it's very hard to find a modern PC that Linux will not run on.
> Laptops excluded, depending upon the model the distribution
> may need to be tweaked.

Purchase a machine with a DirectX-10 card, it probably won't run Linux
well.
Purchase a machine with an 802.11-A/B/G/N WiFi card, it probably won't
run Linux well.
Purhcase a machine with RAID SATA controllers built-in, and it
probably won't run Linux
all that well.

Generally, if you get a brand new computer, at bargan basement prices,
there reason the price has fallen so low, is because it doesn't
support Linux.  If you look at the price discounts on various PC
models, almost invariably, the Linux-Ready machines are not as deeply
discounted from their original prices.

These days you can get a "Vista Only" PC for about 1/2 off (they
aren't selling very well).  Meanwhile, you can get a Linux Ready PC,
but the discount is often less than 20% even 6 months after initial
release.

Some Linux-ready PCs such as the Z61p - are on Allocation.  You have
to wait for Lennovo to get a shipment and put it on their web site
before you can get one.  They are great machines and really powerful,
with a wonderful high resolution display (no ugly fonts on this linux
box).  But even when I ordered it, I had to wait almost 3 weeks for
delivery because the shipment hadn't arrived yet.

I purchaseed the machine with an XP license (XP preinstalled), but
quickly went out and purchased a second hard drive, which became my
Linux drive.  I'll keep the other drive in case I need to take it in
for repairs.

My only regret was that I got the Atheros 5418 A/B/G/N WiFi card, and
I still don't have a reliable driver for it.  There have been a few
MadWifi drivers, and there is now a DadWiFi driver that is supposed to
work better.  Until it works correctly all the time (probably within
the next few weeks), I have been using a Netgear WG511 card which uses
older atheros cards - and works great with WiFi.

> > Even then it's only 1/2 the work.  If you have ever had to "re-image"
> > a hard drive that has been corrupted by a virus, you quickly learn
> > that recovery isn't simply "slip in the disk, install, you're done.
> > Account settings have to be backed-up and recovered.  Downloaded or CD-
> > ROM applications have to be found, reinstalled, and reconfigured.
> > Passwords, Cookies, e-mail, even critical documents could be lost
> > forever.
>
> This is also a prime reason why people are reluctant to move
> to Linux.

It is amusing isn't it?  People get attacked by a viruse, or download
a program that puts them in "DLL Hell", and they are so traummatized
by the experience of loosing all of their personal data, that they
are afraid to try Linux.

The irony is that Linux is much easier to back-up/recover.  If you
have
an external USB drive, you can back up 3-4 images.

Even better, if you create a Windows VM, save it to the USB drive,
install Linux, and then restore the Windows VM image to Linux, you can
use VMware player and have the same environment you had the day you
switched (less some storage).  The irony is that Windows will actually
run faster, be better secured, and viruses will do less damage (easy
back-up and recovery still available).  This feature alone makes
VMWare Workstation worth the $170 price.

> Like I said in another post, many users, especially home users
> have their entire lives in these systems. They are the ones
> who do the *upgrades* rather than fresh Windows installs.
>
> > If you simply try to recover the entire "Documents and Settings"
> > directory, you STILL end up with a corrupted registry, desktop icons
> > that take you nowhere, and often, a bigger mess than reconfiguring by
> > hand.
>
> So how are these users going to move all this personal stuff
> to Linux?

Use VMware Converter.  It will create a VMWare image exactly like
whatever you were using.
Then replace the hard drive with a bigger drive, install Linux, and
restore the image.
Now you have the BEST of Windows AND the best of Linux - all on a
single machine.

> It's really no different, at least initially.
>
> > For Windows, the only way to reliably "fall-back" from a corrupted
> > machine is to run Windows as a VM Image under Linux.  You can back up
> > the entire image to a USB drive, and recover to that image whenever
> > it's needed.  Keep the same kinds of Daily, Weekly, and/or monthly
> > back-ups and vaults you would do with any other business system.
>
> The smart user runs an image back up program along with
> an incremental back up. I have this set up to run
> daily and weekly all automatically.
> Recovering, if necessary is a matter of booting
> the back up program CD and pointing to the file.
> I use Acronis True Image.

I've used TrueImage too.  It's not bad for falling back in times of
crisis.  It's not so great for trying  to get archives from documents
you backed up 7 years ago.  There are probably a lot of people who
would get toasted in an IRS audit, not because they actually cheated
on their taxes, but because they can't access the tax records
electronically anymore.

Try and read you 1999 quicken files with Quicken 2007.  Not a pleasant
experience.


> > Best ways to break a Windows system:
> >     1 - browse e-mail and web using IE with ActiveX and ActiveScript
> > enabled.
> >     2 - Install lots of downloaded 3rd party applications and then
> >          try to remove a few of them.
> >      3 - Install 3rd party applications, then try to uninstall them.
> >      4 - Install 3rd party applications, then run Windows "automatic
> > Update".
> >      5 - Let children under 17 play with the computer.
> >      6 - Always log in as Administrator while doing the above.
> >      7 - share you computer with other people (family, coworkers).
> >      8 - create a "public share"  - then connect to non-WEP WiFi.
> >      9 - set Admin password to Admin, Password, or Root.
> >             use numbers 1 for i, 0 for o, and 5 for s.  That'll fool
> > them.
>
> I agree with all of the above.
>
> > It's worth noting that Best Buy has Geek Squad on site to install
> > upgrades to Vista.
> > That should be a pretty good clue that Vista isn't that easy to
> > install.
>
> They also patrol the neighborhoods taking service calls from
> home/small business users who have messed up their systems.

Yes.  I'm surprised they haven't advertized Linux installation as one
of their services.  Sooner or later a Geek Squad knock-off will do
it.  That would be a HUGE breakthrough for Linux. But not necessarily
the end of Microsoft.


> > I've had a few problems with a few machines, but it has almost ALWAYS
> > because I ignored the hardware compatibility list when choosing the
> > hardware.  Serves me right.
>
> Until Vista, this was less likely to happen with Windows than with Linux.
> However, Vista has brought incompatible hardware to a new level.
> When Creative Labs is *selling* a driver for their card, you know it
> is getting bad.
> Shame on them for extorting money from their customers.

Keep in mind that end users are not Microsoft customers.  Microsoft
sells 99% of it's product directly to OEMs and CIOs.  Fraud,
extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of justice are all
used to make sure that Microsoft sales reps meet their quota.  There
are some indicators that Microsoft may even be involved in bribery.
We now know that Microsoft made direct contributions to the Bush
campaign and several "pet charities" who launder donations into
"public service announcements" and funding politically motivated
programming - even as early as the first primaries (maybe before).  It
seems that the Gates foundation is also pouring money into these same
Charities as PACs.


0
rex.ballard (3732)
7/18/2007 3:22:37 PM
Rex Ballard wrote:

> These days you can get a "Vista Only" PC for about 1/2 off (they
> aren't selling very well).

Where?  Show me where I can get such a machine for "about" 50% of its price 
from a few months ago.

(here's where you slink away as usual)




> My only regret was that I got the Atheros 5418 A/B/G/N WiFi card, and
> I still don't have a reliable driver for it.

Let down - again - by Linux and open source software





> Fraud,
> extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of justice are all
> used to make sure that Microsoft sales reps meet their quota.  There
> are some indicators that Microsoft may even be involved in bribery.

I really wish MS would make you stand up in court and substantiate your 
idiocy, or face 5 years in jail.  You would immediately stop blabbering this 
trash.

And, why do you continue to bill corporations exorbitant rates and promote 
proprietary closed-source IBM products, some of which run only on MS Windows 
(thereby helping MS sales rep with their fraud, extortion, blackmail, 
sabotage and obstruction of justice), but think you can come on cola and 
pretend to care about Linux and try to promote open source?

You're a bundle of contradictions, conspiracies, paranoia, hypocrisy and 
lies.  In other words, you're a cola Linux "advocate".




0
nospam11 (18349)
7/18/2007 4:52:20 PM
Reply: