Status of Linux review
Ernest
OK first off, this is NOT a definitive review of all the
Linux systems. I have been looking at what is easy
to install and use for the BASIC level END USER
that is technically illiterate - you know the type that
does not understand why you should not click on
the 'Yes' button on every pop-up box they see.
To that end my evaluation criteria have been
1. Ease of install as compared against Windows XP.
2. Ease of post install use for general office activities.
3 Ease of post install use for basic Internet activities,
not I have NOT included chat, teleconferencing, or
Instant Messaging type stuff.
4. Reasonable security in an out of the box install.
5. Reasonable levels of backwards compatibility
with applications and hardware.
NB This is not a performance comaprison with Windows
or a review of system performance, I am simply looking
for what some of my clients could use on a basis for them
to install and use - they are challenged finding an ON
button on many computers.
The system I have used is a Pentium 4 3 gHz with
3 GB of RAM and a 200 GB SATA drive. This is a 64 bit
board and CPU. All software has been loaded on
this same machine.
I have not tried every system available due to accessibilty
of software problems - downloading ISOs over 28.8 kbps
with a 6 hour cut off is NOT an effective way to get software.
The best compatibility with Windows based software
and games, for all systems, is obtained by downloading
and installing WINE for applications and Cedega for
games (this will also run older games from earlier OSs).
Results to date
Mandrake 10 - need tech knowledge to install - about
on par with DOS 6 and Win 3.1 re installation skills.
OK to use but needs updating. After all, it is 18 months
older than the rest of the systems tried.
Free Mandriva 2006, Ubuntu 5.10, Fedora Core 4,
Fedora Core 5 - were all OK to install some problems
with post installation administration functions. OK
to use. Debian 3.1 I had installation problems with
and also tried to install on a P 4 2.4 gHz 32 bit machine
as I thought problems amy be related to the 64 bit
hardware, got a different set of installation problems.
Nothing major just annoying - Note, had same sorts of
troubles with Win XP on those machines. All had
better out of the box security than Windows XP as
they included basic firewalls in their packages. They
also required establishment of user accounts and
opened into user accounts when booted. All were
backwards compatible with the older hardware and
software that I had on hand.
Recommendations to clients who are going to use
Linux and only Linux - install Fedora Core 5 or Ubuntu 5.1
and take a little time and trouble to learn the differences
between them and the Windows you are used to. I also
suggest that they get a tech to install WINE and XINE
for them sot hat they can readily use their older Windows
applications and play DVDs. Free Mandriva 2006 and
fedora Core 4 are not quite as good but acceptable.
With all installations they recognised my Network
Interface Card, video card, and modem, loading the
correct drivers. All ahd to be told what my monitor was
and FC 5, U 5, & FM 06 all had drivers for it, the rest
used generic drivers that worked well.
All came with Open Office, two browsers and two mail
clients - usually their own versions with Thunderbird
and Firefox.
The only real complaints I have are outside the test
criteria and relate to difficulties with dual boot systems.
All recognised the Windows installation and set up the
boot loader to handle that. However, in each case I
could not use the GUI interface admin functions to
reset the owner and group permissions of the Windows
created parttions or folders to enable me to have full
access within the Linux installations, They all enabled
read and execute of FAT 32 partitions, with FC 5 and U 5
allowing read and execute of NTFS partitions as well.
This is an issue for full sharing of files between the OSs.
Regards,
Deadly Ernest
(all typos fault of server or
other gremlins)
Terry Collins
> Results to date
>
> OK to use but needs updating. After all, it is 18 months
> older than the rest of the systems tried.
If this is a problem, did you test the update methods as well?
In 94(?), when I first decided to try Linux, the only distro that
installed without problems on the hardware I then had was RH4.0(?), so I
stuck with it.
RH then failed on every upgrade I carried out with each new version. So
much that I needed to back up data, then install the new version onto a
new system. ATT,RH only had RPM (uninstall, then install new version)
for updates of particular packages.
Eventually, I ended up trying Debian and once apt worked, it has been
great for updating and upgrading. Potato, Woody, Sarge so far. but then,
I've always preferred command lines.
apt-get update updates your application listings,
apt-get upgrade actually upgrades application and kernel images
apt-get dist-upgrade (rare) for swapping versions.
I believe Yum also acts this way. There probably are other systems.
Ernest
Did not try the Mandrake update method as
Free Mandriva 2006 is the latest version of this.
Red hat is now a comemrcial server standrad
OS and the free desk top version is called Fedora
Core - and its update manager does work.
I am gald Debian Sarge works for you, but I was
seeking a distro that could be used without going
near a command line as it is intended for non-tech
types.
Puss in boots
dea...@nospam.netspace.net.au says...
> The system I have used is a Pentium 4 3 gHz with
> 3 GB of RAM and a 200 GB SATA drive. This is a 64 bit
> board and CPU. All software has been loaded on
> this same machine
>
players you mentioned have them. Check out the following link for a
local supplier of Linux distros:
http://www.elx.com.au/cat/software?elx=fe51ea2146626288d2cc12af43723061
For my 2 cents worth openSuSE or Mandriva have the best installers and
setup options, KDE the better desktop environment.
--
Puss in boots
<currently downloading openSuSE 10.1 X86_64 DVD, all 3.5GB worth>
Box: AMD X2 3800+, 1024 Mb PC3200 DDR RAM Dual Channel, Asus A8N-VM CSM
motherboard, nVidia 7600GT VGA card
Ernest
wrote:
>In article <6nri629rbm5dvgu8f...@4ax.com>,
>dea...@nospam.netspace.net.au says...
>> The system I have used is a Pentium 4 3 gHz with
>> 3 GB of RAM and a 200 GB SATA drive. This is a 64 bit
>> board and CPU. All software has been loaded on
>> this same machine
>>
>So why don't you try one of the 64 bit optimised distros? The major
>players you mentioned have them. Check out the following link for a
>local supplier of Linux distros:
>http://www.elx.com.au/cat/software?elx=fe51ea2146626288d2cc12af43723061
>For my 2 cents worth openSuSE or Mandriva have the best installers and
>setup options, KDE the better desktop environment.
The ones I have tried and noted are the 64 bit Intel versions,
some of the 32 bit ones would not work properly.
Rod Speed
> OK first off, this is NOT a definitive review of all the
> Linux systems. I have been looking at what is easy
> to install and use for the BASIC level END USER
> that is technically illiterate - you know the type that
> does not understand why you should not click on
> the 'Yes' button on every pop-up box they see.
> To that end my evaluation criteria have been
> 1. Ease of install as compared against Windows XP.
That is just plain silly when that level of user almost
exclusively uses a system which has XP preinstalled
and there are fuck all with Linux preinstalled available.
> 2. Ease of post install use for general office activities.
> 3 Ease of post install use for basic Internet activities,
> not I have NOT included chat, teleconferencing, or
> Instant Messaging type stuff.
You cant ignore that sort of thing when so many of
that level of user will want to do that sort of thing.
> 4. Reasonable security in an out of the box install.
Again, mindlessly superficial when the other obvious
alternative is to use it behind a decent hardware firewall/router.
> 5. Reasonable levels of backwards compatibility
> with applications and hardware.
Again, that level of user doesnt worry about that sort of thing much.
> NB This is not a performance comaprison with Windows
> or a review of system performance, I am simply looking
> for what some of my clients could use on a basis for
> them to install and use - they are challenged finding
> an ON button on many computers.
Its terminally stupid to be encouraging that level of user to use
something like Linux, if only because that level of user will have
FAR more opportunity to ask for assistence with XP than Linux.
> The system I have used is a Pentium 4 3 gHz
> with 3 GB of RAM and a 200 GB SATA drive.
That amount of ram is mad for that level of user too.
Few would use that much drive space either unless
they are into digital movie processing etc.
> This is a 64 bit board and CPU.
Fuck all of that level of user would need that.
> All software has been loaded on this same machine.
> I have not tried every system available due to accessibilty
> of software problems - downloading ISOs over 28.8 kbps
> with a 6 hour cut off is NOT an effective way to get software.
Then you should have organised some way to get it more effectively.
> The best compatibility with Windows based software
> and games, for all systems, is obtained by downloading
> and installing WINE for applications and Cedega for
> games (this will also run older games from earlier OSs).
And fuck all of that level of user would be able to handle that.
They have enough trouble installing and using the games on XP.
> Results to date
> Mandrake 10 - need tech knowledge to install - about
> on par with DOS 6 and Win 3.1 re installation skills.
> OK to use but needs updating. After all, it is 18
> months older than the rest of the systems tried.
> Free Mandriva 2006, Ubuntu 5.10, Fedora Core 4,
> Fedora Core 5 - were all OK to install some problems
> with post installation administration functions. OK
> to use. Debian 3.1 I had installation problems with
> and also tried to install on a P 4 2.4 gHz 32 bit machine
> as I thought problems amy be related to the 64 bit
> hardware, got a different set of installation problems.
> Nothing major just annoying - Note, had same sorts
> of troubles with Win XP on those machines.
Then there is some fundamental problem with those machines.
> All had better out of the box security than Windows
> XP as they included basic firewalls in their packages.
So does XP, fuckwit. And that level of user should
be using a hardware firewall/router anyway.
> They also required establishment of user accounts
> and opened into user accounts when booted. All
> were backwards compatible with the older hardware
> and software that I had on hand.
Irrelevant with that level of user.
> Recommendations to clients who are going to use
> Linux and only Linux - install Fedora Core 5 or Ubuntu 5.1
> and take a little time and trouble to learn the differences
> between them and the Windows you are used to.
Its completely stupid to be recommending any
of that level of user use any flavour of Linux.
> I also suggest that they get a tech to install WINE
> and XINE for them sot hat they can readily use
> their older Windows applications and play DVDs.
Pity if they want to rip and copy DVDs.
> Free Mandriva 2006 and fedora Core 4 are not quite
> as good but acceptable. With all installations they
> recognised my Network Interface Card, video card,
> and modem, loading the correct drivers. All ahd to
> be told what my monitor was and FC 5, U 5, &
> FM 06 all had drivers for it, the rest
> used generic drivers that worked well.
Which will mean absolutely nothing to that level of user.
> All came with Open Office,
And that level of user will be fucked when they
attempt to use stuff created in the real Office.
> two browsers and two mail clients - usually
> their own versions with Thunderbird and Firefox.
> The only real complaints I have are outside the test
> criteria and relate to difficulties with dual boot systems.
And that is completely stupid with that level of user anyway.
> All recognised the Windows installation and set up the
> boot loader to handle that. However, in each case I
> could not use the GUI interface admin functions to
> reset the owner and group permissions of the Windows
> created parttions or folders to enable me to have full
> access within the Linux installations, They all enabled
> read and execute of FAT 32 partitions, with FC 5 and U 5
> allowing read and execute of NTFS partitions as well.
> This is an issue for full sharing of files between the OSs.
Dual boot is just plain fucked for that level of user.
They have enough trouble even with plain old XP.
> Deadly Ernest
Pathetic, really.
Ernest
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ernest <dea...@nospam.netspace.net.au> wrote
>
>> OK first off, this is NOT a definitive review of all the
>> Linux systems. I have been looking at what is easy
>> to install and use for the BASIC level END USER
>> that is technically illiterate - you know the type that
>> does not understand why you should not click on
>> the 'Yes' button on every pop-up box they see.
>
>> To that end my evaluation criteria have been
>
>> 1. Ease of install as compared against Windows XP.
>
>That is just plain silly when that level of user almost
>exclusively uses a system which has XP preinstalled
>and there are fuck all with Linux preinstalled available.
>
Actually the majority of people I am being asked by
do not have XP - they usually buy older used machines
that do not ahve an OS on them - many currently use
from Win 3.1 or Win 9x. Not everyone can afford new
Dells and HPs like you Roddy.
>> 2. Ease of post install use for general office activities.
>> 3 Ease of post install use for basic Internet activities,
>> not I have NOT included chat, teleconferencing, or
>> Instant Messaging type stuff.
>
>You cant ignore that sort of thing when so many of
>that level of user will want to do that sort of thing.
>
You may be surprised how many do not and don't
want it. Feel free to evaluate and report on those
aspects if you want - they are not viable options
to test for me or the people asking me about Linux.
>> 4. Reasonable security in an out of the box install.
>
>Again, mindlessly superficial when the other obvious
>alternative is to use it behind a decent hardware firewall/router.
>
So I should tell them to go and spend more money,
that they don't have, on extra software when they can
get it free with Linux.
>> 5. Reasonable levels of backwards compatibility
>> with applications and hardware.
>
>Again, that level of user doesnt worry about that sort of thing much.
>
You would be surprised how many do - they do not
want to buy new hardware or software if it can be
avoided and the current stuff work.
>> NB This is not a performance comaprison with Windows
>> or a review of system performance, I am simply looking
>> for what some of my clients could use on a basis for
>> them to install and use - they are challenged finding
>> an ON button on many computers.
>
>Its terminally stupid to be encouraging that level of user to use
>something like Linux, if only because that level of user will have
>FAR more opportunity to ask for assistence with XP than Linux.
>
Obviously you have not looked at the latest Linux
offerings, a small learning curve to know the layout
and then less help needed than with XP.
>> The system I have used is a Pentium 4 3 gHz
>> with 3 GB of RAM and a 200 GB SATA drive.
>
>That amount of ram is mad for that level of user too.
>
>Few would use that much drive space either unless
>they are into digital movie processing etc.
>
And none of the OSs tested required anywhere
near that level of hardware either, but it was what I
am using - and had little, if any, bearing on what
the OS system layout and usability is.
>> This is a 64 bit board and CPU.
>
>Fuck all of that level of user would need that.
>
see above remark
>> All software has been loaded on this same machine.
>
>> I have not tried every system available due to accessibilty
>> of software problems - downloading ISOs over 28.8 kbps
>> with a 6 hour cut off is NOT an effective way to get software.
>
>Then you should have organised some way to get it more effectively.
>
Why, you want to pay for the extra discs to
be purchased and shipped to me and I will
then test them.
>> The best compatibility with Windows based software
>> and games, for all systems, is obtained by downloading
>> and installing WINE for applications and Cedega for
>> games (this will also run older games from earlier OSs).
>
>And fuck all of that level of user would be able to handle that.
>
>They have enough trouble installing and using the games on XP.
>
Clearly you have not tried the latest flavours of Linux
as they are easier to intsall than Win XP
>> Results to date
>
>> Mandrake 10 - need tech knowledge to install - about
>> on par with DOS 6 and Win 3.1 re installation skills.
>> OK to use but needs updating. After all, it is 18
>> months older than the rest of the systems tried.
>
>> Free Mandriva 2006, Ubuntu 5.10, Fedora Core 4,
>> Fedora Core 5 - were all OK to install some problems
>> with post installation administration functions. OK
>> to use. Debian 3.1 I had installation problems with
>> and also tried to install on a P 4 2.4 gHz 32 bit machine
>> as I thought problems amy be related to the 64 bit
>> hardware, got a different set of installation problems.
>> Nothing major just annoying - Note, had same sorts
>> of troubles with Win XP on those machines.
>
>Then there is some fundamental problem with those machines.
>
Nothing wronf with the machines just good hardware
that the software
>> All had better out of the box security than Windows
>> XP as they included basic firewalls in their packages.
>
>So does XP, fuckwit. And that level of user should
>be using a hardware firewall/router anyway.
>
Funny of the 4 copies I have and the 55 other copies
I have installed for people, none of them came with
any firewall as part of the initial installation. There has
been one added to one of the latest Service Packs
but that is a post install activity.
>> They also required establishment of user accounts
>> and opened into user accounts when booted. All
>> were backwards compatible with the older hardware
>> and software that I had on hand.
>
>Irrelevant with that level of user.
>
Seems you still don't know squat about people or
average users beyond the corporate environment.
>> Recommendations to clients who are going to use
>> Linux and only Linux - install Fedora Core 5 or Ubuntu 5.1
>> and take a little time and trouble to learn the differences
>> between them and the Windows you are used to.
>
>Its completely stupid to be recommending any
>of that level of user use any flavour of Linux.
>
Why, it works, and is accessed, by the GUI
interface with minimal other activity - all the
same as that level of user does with any Windows.
>> I also suggest that they get a tech to install WINE
>> and XINE for them sot hat they can readily use
>> their older Windows applications and play DVDs.
>
>Pity if they want to rip and copy DVDs.
>
Same applies with XP - the 64 bit version of
XP required DVD player software to be loaded
before it would even play a pre-record DVD.
>> Free Mandriva 2006 and fedora Core 4 are not quite
>> as good but acceptable. With all installations they
>> recognised my Network Interface Card, video card,
>> and modem, loading the correct drivers. All ahd to
>> be told what my monitor was and FC 5, U 5, &
>> FM 06 all had drivers for it, the rest
>> used generic drivers that worked well.
>
>Which will mean absolutely nothing to that level of user.
>
>> All came with Open Office,
>
>And that level of user will be fucked when they
>attempt to use stuff created in the real Office.
>
I see you have never used Open Office as it
is fully compatible with MS Office apps and
can open them no trouble.
>> two browsers and two mail clients - usually
>> their own versions with Thunderbird and Firefox.
>
>> The only real complaints I have are outside the test
>> criteria and relate to difficulties with dual boot systems.
>
>And that is completely stupid with that level of user anyway.
>
Gee I wonder if that is why I said it was OUTSIDE
the test criteria.? Oh yeah it was.
>> All recognised the Windows installation and set up the
>> boot loader to handle that. However, in each case I
>> could not use the GUI interface admin functions to
>> reset the owner and group permissions of the Windows
>> created parttions or folders to enable me to have full
>> access within the Linux installations, They all enabled
>> read and execute of FAT 32 partitions, with FC 5 and U 5
>> allowing read and execute of NTFS partitions as well.
>> This is an issue for full sharing of files between the OSs.
>
>Dual boot is just plain fucked for that level of user.
>
See above comment.
>They have enough trouble even with plain old XP.
>
And most don't want XP or have it.
>> Deadly Ernest
>
>Pathetic, really.
>
You sure are Roddy.
Rod Speed
>>> OK first off, this is NOT a definitive review of all the
>>> Linux systems. I have been looking at what is easy
>>> to install and use for the BASIC level END USER
>>> that is technically illiterate - you know the type that
>>> does not understand why you should not click on
>>> the 'Yes' button on every pop-up box they see.
>>> To that end my evaluation criteria have been
>>> 1. Ease of install as compared against Windows XP.
>> That is just plain silly when that level of user almost
>> exclusively uses a system which has XP preinstalled
>> and there are fuck all with Linux preinstalled available.
> Actually the majority of people I am being asked
> by do not have XP - they usually buy older used
> machines that do not ahve an OS on them -
> many currently use from Win 3.1 or Win 9x.
Pity that fuck all of them are that level of user.
> Not everyone can afford new
> Dells and HPs like you Roddy.
There arent many desperate povs around that cant manage
the well under $1K that it needs for a new system with XP
preinstalled, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
And those who are that pov wouldnt be using XP anyway,
they'd be using a second hand copy of Win9x, so you
should be comparing Linux with that, not XP.
>>> 2. Ease of post install use for general office activities.
>>> 3 Ease of post install use for basic Internet activities,
>>> not I have NOT included chat, teleconferencing, or
>>> Instant Messaging type stuff.
>> You cant ignore that sort of thing when so many of
>> that level of user will want to do that sort of thing.
> You may be surprised how many do not and don't want it.
Nope, I know there are fuck all that dont have at least some of that.
> Feel free to evaluate and report on those aspects
> if you want - they are not viable options to test
> for me or the people asking me about Linux.
You're a fool if you dont tell THAT LEVEL
OF USER that Linux isnt suitable for them.
>>> 4. Reasonable security in an out of the box install.
>> Again, mindlessly superficial when the other obvious
>> alternative is to use it behind a decent hardware firewall/router.
> So I should tell them to go and spend more
> money, that they don't have, on extra software
> when they can get it free with Linux.
I wasnt talking about SOFTWARE, fuckwit.
And anyone with a clue that cant afford commercial
software just uses the pirated copys anyway.
>>> 5. Reasonable levels of backwards compatibility
>>> with applications and hardware.
>> Again, that level of user doesnt worry about that sort of thing much.
> You would be surprised how many do - they
> do not want to buy new hardware or software
> if it can be avoided and the current stuff work.
There's fuck all of THAT LEVEL OF USER that operates like that.
They dont even understand those basic concepts.
And the last thing you should be doing is encouraging them
to use linux when they wont have a hope in hell of dealing
with the inevitable downsides of trying to use it on older
hardware, let alone be able to use the raft of dirt cheap
software that they can get at places like Clint's for peanuts.
>>> NB This is not a performance comaprison with Windows
>>> or a review of system performance, I am simply looking
>>> for what some of my clients could use on a basis for
>>> them to install and use - they are challenged finding
>>> an ON button on many computers.
>> Its terminally stupid to be encouraging that level of user to use
>> something like Linux, if only because that level of user will have
>> FAR more opportunity to ask for assistence with XP than Linux.
> Obviously you have not looked at the latest Linux offerings,
Wrong, as always. Use them most days thanks, fuckwit.
> a small learning curve to know the layout
> and then less help needed than with XP.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
Its a hell of a lot easier to tell someone how to capture a
SMART report on their dubious hard drive with Everest
than it ever is to do the same thing using knoppix.
>>> The system I have used is a Pentium 4 3 gHz
>>> with 3 GB of RAM and a 200 GB SATA drive.
>> That amount of ram is mad for that level of user too.
>> Few would use that much drive space either unless
>> they are into digital movie processing etc.
> And none of the OSs tested required anywhere near
> that level of hardware either, but it was what I am using
You should have done the testing on the sort of hardware
those povs are likely to be using. And you would have
discovered that plenty of the distros have a real
problem with 64M systems with onboard video.
> - and had little, if any, bearing on what
> the OS system layout and usability is.
Wrong again when they wont even get anything
on the monitor with a distro that cant handle
those low memory machines elegantly.
>>> This is a 64 bit board and CPU.
>> Fuck all of that level of user would need that.
> see above remark
See above.
>>> All software has been loaded on this same machine.
>>> I have not tried every system available due to accessibilty
>>> of software problems - downloading ISOs over 28.8 kbps
>>> with a 6 hour cut off is NOT an effective way to get software.
>> Then you should have organised some way to get it more effectively.
> Why, you want to pay for the extra discs to be purchased
> and shipped to me and I will then test them.
Pointless, you cant even manage the most basic stuff.
>>> The best compatibility with Windows based software
>>> and games, for all systems, is obtained by downloading
>>> and installing WINE for applications and Cedega for
>>> games (this will also run older games from earlier OSs).
>> And fuck all of that level of user would be able to handle that.
>> They have enough trouble installing and using the games on XP.
> Clearly you have not tried the latest flavours of Linux
Guess which pathetic little clown has just
got egg all over its pathetic little face, yet again.
> as they are easier to intsall than Win XP
Bare faced pig ignorant lie. Name
one, you cant, its a bare faced lie.
>>> Results to date
>>> Mandrake 10 - need tech knowledge to install - about
>>> on par with DOS 6 and Win 3.1 re installation skills.
>>> OK to use but needs updating. After all, it is 18
>>> months older than the rest of the systems tried.
>>> Free Mandriva 2006, Ubuntu 5.10, Fedora Core 4,
>>> Fedora Core 5 - were all OK to install some problems
>>> with post installation administration functions. OK
>>> to use. Debian 3.1 I had installation problems with
>>> and also tried to install on a P 4 2.4 gHz 32 bit machine
>>> as I thought problems amy be related to the 64 bit
>>> hardware, got a different set of installation problems.
>>> Nothing major just annoying - Note, had same sorts
>>> of troubles with Win XP on those machines.
>> Then there is some fundamental problem with those machines.
> Nothing wronf with the machines
> just good hardware that the software
Whoops, another premature ejaculation.
Likely thats what cause you the problem with XP.
>>> All had better out of the box security than Windows
>>> XP as they included basic firewalls in their packages.
>> So does XP, fuckwit. And that level of user should
>> be using a hardware firewall/router anyway.
> Funny of the 4 copies I have and the 55 other copies
> I have installed for people, none of them came with
> any firewall as part of the initial installation.
Presumably you actually are that terminally stupid.
> There has been one added to one of the latest
> Service Packs but that is a post install activity.
No it isnt. If you are silly enough to buy XP today, it
comes with SP2 slipsteamed, you pig ignorant clown.
In spades when you buy the hardware with XP preinstalled.
>>> They also required establishment of user accounts
>>> and opened into user accounts when booted. All
>>> were backwards compatible with the older hardware
>>> and software that I had on hand.
>> Irrelevant with that level of user.
> Seems you still don't know squat about people or
> average users beyond the corporate environment.
Guess which pig ignorant fuckwit is so stupid it hasnt
even noticed that I deal with VASTLY more of that
level of user than I ever do with those in any corp
environment and have done so for DECADES now too.
>>> Recommendations to clients who are going to use
>>> Linux and only Linux - install Fedora Core 5 or Ubuntu 5.1
>>> and take a little time and trouble to learn the differences
>>> between them and the Windows you are used to.
>> Its completely stupid to be recommending any
>> of that level of user use any flavour of Linux.
> Why, it works, and is accessed, by the GUI
> interface with minimal other activity - all the
> same as that level of user does with any Windows.
The most obvious reason why is because when they inevitably
need some assistence, they are MUCH more likely to be able
to find someone who knows something about Win than they
ever will that will know anything about Linux.
In spades with when they ask what is a decent app
for a particular task and get vastly more suggestings
of something like irfanview than they ever will with
something thats as good for linux.
>>> I also suggest that they get a tech to install WINE
>>> and XINE for them sot hat they can readily use
>>> their older Windows applications and play DVDs.
>> Pity if they want to rip and copy DVDs.
> Same applies with XP
No it doesnt. They just ask what most use and
almost none of those will even mention linux apps.
> - the 64 bit version of XP required DVD player software
> to be loaded before it would even play a pre-record DVD.
The 64 bit version is completely irrelevant, those pathetic
pov you were mindlessly rabitting on about wont have
the hardware to run it and those that do with have
bought it with that stuff PREINSTALLED, stupid.
There's fuck all that come with linux preinstalled, as I said.
>>> Free Mandriva 2006 and fedora Core 4 are not quite
>>> as good but acceptable. With all installations they
>>> recognised my Network Interface Card, video card,
>>> and modem, loading the correct drivers. All ahd to
>>> be told what my monitor was and FC 5, U 5, &
>>> FM 06 all had drivers for it, the rest
>>> used generic drivers that worked well.
>> Which will mean absolutely nothing to that level of user.
>>> All came with Open Office,
>> And that level of user will be fucked when they
>> attempt to use stuff created in the real Office.
> I see you have never used Open Office
Best get your eyes tested then child.
> as it is fully compatible with MS Office apps
Complete pig ignorant pack of lies.
> and can open them no trouble.
Complete pig ignorant pack of lies.
>>> two browsers and two mail clients - usually
>>> their own versions with Thunderbird and Firefox.
>>> The only real complaints I have are outside the test
>>> criteria and relate to difficulties with dual boot systems.
>> And that is completely stupid with that level of user anyway.
> Gee I wonder if that is why I said it was
> OUTSIDE the test criteria.? Oh yeah it was.
Pity you mindlessly rabitted on about it anyway.
>>> All recognised the Windows installation and set up the
>>> boot loader to handle that. However, in each case I
>>> could not use the GUI interface admin functions to
>>> reset the owner and group permissions of the Windows
>>> created parttions or folders to enable me to have full
>>> access within the Linux installations, They all enabled
>>> read and execute of FAT 32 partitions, with FC 5 and U 5
>>> allowing read and execute of NTFS partitions as well.
>>> This is an issue for full sharing of files between the OSs.
>> Dual boot is just plain fucked for that level of user.
> See above comment.
See above.
>> They have enough trouble even with plain old XP.
> And most don't want XP or have it.
Then why are you comparing linux with XP fuckwit ?
> Deadly Ernest
Pathetic, really.
Ernest
<rod.sp...@gmail.com> wrote:
Are the pathetic Roddy trying again to act as if he
knows something. I will answer the important parts
of your crap in my own order here, as many of the
answers are again the same - you have no knowledge
of the demographic that this is intended for or about.
1. I reported on the usability of certain OSs for an
intended user demographic. I also added a bit at
the end for some of the tech minded people who
will be reading this and likely to try dual booting
for themselves - I know thinking of others is a bit
beyond your abilities but not mine.
2. My system has a 256 MB nVidea graphics card
not an on board 64 MB one - how you thought that
is a bit beyond me but so are most of your twisted
mental processes.
3. Win 9x is fast becoming a non-viable OS as you
can not get Win 9x drivers for any of the newer
systems or peripherals - it also has trouble with
USB and other new hardware developments. It
is almost impossible to get it to run on most of the
second hand P4 that are starting to hit the market
due to no drivers for the onboard services and buses.
No official support for any Win 9x systems now.
4. Most people in the older and / or poorer groups
can not afford new computers and buy used units
and then seek out old operating systems to install
as many used computers do not come with software.
The majority of used machines being sold now are
P3 and P4 that had previously had Win 2K or Win XP.
5. The 386 / 486 / Pentium 1 systems are falling over
and not being resurected due to lack of working
spares for them and incompatibility with the majority
of new hardware. The BIOS etc is just too far back.
6. You have clearly not tried using the latest Linux
distros or you would not be makign those silly
statements about them being too hard for anyone
used to only Win 9x, or their ease of install.
7. My copy of Open Office has no trouble opening
any of my files created in MS Office applications,
as a matter of fact when I wish to open old documents
that were created in MS Word 2 (for Windows) I have
to open it in Open Office and resave it as a Word 6
file as MS Word from Office 2003 will not open them.
Suggest you get a copy of Open Office and try it.
7. You comments about assistance are irrelevant
as a proper Linux install needs only one thousands
of the assistance needed for any Win distro - so they
will not likely need any assistance post install . Also
this was posted on a tech support NG for other techs
to read and think about what to recommend to their
clients - gee once the client gets it installed they are
going to seek help elsewhere - Oh sorry I forgot your
clients only use you once before they realise the big
mistake they made and went elsewhere. That is not
true of the rest of us.
And last - since you clearly have no real knowledge
of the systems, software, demographic target group
and no wish to enter into a reasonable discussion I
will just drop you back into my kill file and thus not
have to worry about your next rant in reply to this.
Good bye.
dew
> Are the pathetic Roddy trying again to act as if he knows something.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> I will answer the important parts of your crap in
> my own order here, as many of the answers are
> again the same - you have no knowledge of the
> demographic that this is intended for or about.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> 1. I reported on the usability of certain
> OSs for an intended user demographic.
Pity you fucked that up completely and are so stupid
that you cant even manage to grasp that that particular
group you claim to have concentrated on is the LAST
group that anyone should be attempting to foist linux on,
because they wont have a hope in hell of actually dealing
with the inevitable problems they will have with linux.
> I also added a bit at the end for some of the
> tech minded people who will be reading this
> and likely to try dual booting for themselves
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> - I know thinking of others is a bit
> beyond your abilities but not mine.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> 2. My system has a 256 MB nVidea graphics
> card not an on board 64 MB one
Completely and utterly irrelevant to what a
system those povs are likely to have will have.
> - how you thought that is a bit beyond me
Thats always been obvious.
> but so are most of your twisted mental processes.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> 3. Win 9x is fast becoming a non-viable OS
> as you can not get Win 9x drivers for any
> of the newer systems or peripherals
Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.
And with those you cant, linux usually wont fly on
those either, IN SPADES WITH THAT LEVEL OF USER.
> - it also has trouble with USB
Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.
> and other new hardware developments.
Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.
Linux usually wont fly on those either, IN
SPADES WITH THAT LEVEL OF USER.
> It is almost impossible to get it to run on most of the
> second hand P4 that are starting to hit the market
> due to no drivers for the onboard services and buses.
Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.
> No official support for any Win 9x systems now.
No official support for any linux either, fuckwit.
> 4. Most people in the older and / or poorer groups
> can not afford new computers and buy used units
> and then seek out old operating systems to install
> as many used computers do not come with software.
Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.
> The majority of used machines being sold now are
> P3 and P4 that had previously had Win 2K or Win XP.
Complete and utter pig ignorant drivel.
> 5. The 386 / 486 / Pentium 1 systems are falling
> over and not being resurected due to lack of working
> spares for them and incompatibility with the majority
> of new hardware. The BIOS etc is just too far back.
Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claims.
> 6. You have clearly not tried using the latest Linux distros
Wrong, as always.
> or you would not be makign those silly statements
> about them being too hard for anyone used to only
> Win 9x, or their ease of install.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet
paper bag WITH THAT LEVEL OF USER.
> 7. My copy of Open Office has no trouble opening
> any of my files created in MS Office applications,
Irrelevant to the hordes of MS Office documents
that have a problem with Open Office.
> as a matter of fact when I wish to open old documents
> that were created in MS Word 2 (for Windows) I have
> to open it in Open Office and resave it as a Word 6
> file as MS Word from Office 2003 will not open them.
> Suggest you get a copy of Open Office and try it.
Been there, done than thanks, and actually
have a clue about its capabilitys too thanks.
Have fun listing the access apps that Open Office can handle.
> 7. You comments about assistance are irrelevant
> as a proper Linux install needs only one thousands
> of the assistance needed for any Win distro -
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
And the absolute vast bulk OF THAT LEVEL OF USER
GETS A SYSTEM WITH WIN PREINSTALLED ANYWAY.
> so they will not likely need any assistance post install .
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Also this was posted on a tech support NG for other techs
> to read and think about what to recommend to their clients
Only the terminal eejuts and rabid bigots would actually be
stupid enough to suggest linux TO THAT LEVEL OF USER.
> - gee once the client gets it installed
> they are going to seek help elsewhere
Those desperate povs you mindlessly rabitted on about
wont be clients of anyone, you silly little terminal fuckwit.
> Oh sorry I forgot your clients only use you once before they
> realise the big mistake they made and went elsewhere.
Hasnt happened with a single one thanks, fuckwit.
> That is not true of the rest of us.
Just how many of you are there between those ears, child ?
> And last - since you clearly have no real knowledge
> of the systems, software, demographic target group
> and no wish to enter into a reasonable discussion I
> will just drop you back into my kill file and thus not
> have to worry about your next rant in reply to this.
That aint gunna save you bacon you stupid pig ignorant fuckwit.
> Good bye.
Not going anywhere thanks fuckwit.
> Deadly Ernest
Pathetic really. Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.