Vista Is Bad But Linux Is Horrendous!!!!
karla.bo...@yahoo.com
to Vista and have had various problems with software compatability.
I've spent countless hours on the phone and technical support websites
and finally after 3 days I have everything working.
This fiasco has left me with some doubt as to whether or not Microsoft
has the ability to maintain it's position as the defacto standard in
operating systems.
After reading about Linux I decided to give it a try on another system
which is an older P4 2.4G system based around an Asus board.
I downloaded Fedora and attempted to install.
First problem, my SATA drives were not found.
Google time >>>> 2 hours later <<<< I found the solution which was a
Custom Install Option.
(After a few cryptic questions and a partition manager that was
convoluted and potentially very dangerous in the hands of a new user,
Fedora was installed)
Second Problem, the system would not boot after install. I got a Grub
Error 15 message.
Google Time>>>>>>> 5 Hours Later <<<<.. Oh boy I found lots of
information on this puppy. About 5 hours later I fixed the problem
which involved copying a know working Grub configuration file from
some kind soul on the net, modifying it for my particular system and
replacing the one already installed. I did this with a Knoppix LiveCD.
So now I can boot the system, but my display image is shifted way off
the screen and too low to click on anything.
Google Time >>>>>> 2 hours later <<<< Ok I learned how to boot to a
command line and edit the Xorg file to fix the entries that were
incorrect for my common Nvidia card.
So now I could see my desktop, but it was at 1024x768 and what
appeared to be 16 colors.
Google Time >>> 3 hours later <<< I discovered that there is no
apparent way to get 32bpp, 3D acceleration, 85hz and 1280x1024 all at
the same time like I have with Windows.
Bummer.
I settled for 1280x1024 24bpp and no 3d because I don't use it and
Linux doesn't appear to have any games written for Linux anyhow.
So now I have the system up, am surfing the net and things look pretty
good.
Time to add a printer.
I go to the control panel and click on printers and peruse the list
but I don't see my Lexmark Multifunction listed?
I do see a similar model however so I decide to try this.
It installs easy enough, but when I go to print I get one line of
gibberish on the top of the page, the page ejects and the next page
does the same thing over and over and over again.
Rebooting the system does no good because the printer, like a mad
beast, starts right up again wasting my paper.
Finally I turn the damm thing off while I.....................
Google Time << 4 hours >>> I discover Print Ques, printer names and
the wonderful account called root. I finally figure out how to purge
this thing and with some trepidation I turn the printer on and
thankfully it behaves.
Oh well, I don't need to print right now anyhow so on to my network.
The problem is, I can't see my other 3 Windows Vista machines.
And now it's.........
you guessed it!
GOOGLE TIME << infinite >>> I discover something called Samba, but I
also learn that Microsoft Vista and Samba are not friends but only
after a day and a hlf of playing with a smb.conf file and reading
maybe a hundred web pages devoted to helping people get Samba working,
and this is with Windows XP which supposedly plays nicely with Samba.
I wouldn't know know, I never got Samba working.
At this point, I took the Linux CD's, all 6 of them including the
rescue CD which seems useless BTW and tossed them, violently I might
add, into the dustbin.
I have wasted far too much time with this Linux crap and I don't
intend to waste another millisecond trying to shoehorn this pile of
garbage into my systems.
I can see why Linux is free.
It doesn't work!
I can also see why it is not even making the slightest ding in
Microsoft's armour:
It, Linux, doesn't work.
I'm not sure, but if the Linux users expect people, ordinary people,
to spend their lives Googling in order to make Linux work, they are
daft.
Maybe in 10 years Linux might be able to install and work properly,
but for now Linux is too difficult and too buggy for the average user.
Karla
Alias
Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
www.ubuntu.com Order the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the
postage.
Alias
B Gruff
> I've spent the last 3 days attempting
I.T.T.A.!
Brian W
"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>
> Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
> www.ubuntu.com Order the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the
> postage.
That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my system
Hadron Quark
> karla.bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try
> Ubuntu. www.ubuntu.com Order the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and
> pay the postage.
>
> Alias
What is it with you Linux geeks and "free".
Here's a better idea - download the bloody thing and help save the planet.
Dean G.
wrote:
> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>
> news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
> > Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
> > postage.
>
> That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my system
So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30
minutes to install on a PC. When you consider that Linux also installs
many applications, which require a separate and also long installation
on other OS's. Thus you are saying that the fastest installing OS is
too slow for you, so you are going to use a slower one.
Not only that, but if you go with a pre-installed OS, then you are
likely going to end up re-installing the OS several times, as even the
experts who promote that OS suggest an re-install at least annually,
and perhaps more often for power users.
Abort, Retry, Fail, Reboot, Reinstall, Remit all of your money to
Redmond. Smile, you are one of those people Stalin called "useful".
Dean G.
jjwass...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
>
>
> > Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
> > postage.
>
> That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my system
The problem with Linux is that while the postage may be free, the time
required to make Linux work is astronomical. Sure the Linux pundits
will cry "it works fine for me" and blame the user, but the internet
is chock full of Linux horror stories.
I've always wondered what "works for me" actually means when spoken by
a Linux zealot.
Does it mean the system boots?
Does it mean 640x480 on the screen?
Does it mean their Epson 9 pin printer works?
Their Soundblaster 8 bit or Adlib card (remember those?) makes noise?
It sure seems that "works" takes on a totally different meaning when
Linux is involved.
Maybe the standard that Linux has to meet is just much lower and the
people using Linux don't mind doing without modern conviences?
I've tried Linux, including Ubuntu, and while it may ok for a techie I
would never let it anywhere near a common user because I know my phone
would not stop ringing.
Alias
If you had had the good sense to use IRC and talk directly to Linux
users, you would have saved yourself a lot of time googling.
Alias
Alias
Your loss.
Alias
Gary
to get it to work that really counts.
Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
"Dean G." <dgutt...@4ecp.com> wrote in message
news:1172165707....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Dean G.
> On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" <brian.wescombeSOD...@ntlSPAMworld.com>
> wrote:
>
> > "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>
> >news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> > > Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
> > > postage.
>
> > That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my system
>
> The problem with Linux is that while the postage may be free, the time
> required to make Linux work is astronomical. Sure the Linux pundits
> will cry "it works fine for me" and blame the user, but the internet
> is chock full of Linux horror stories.
A quick Google search finds far more Windows horror stories, with far
worse results, particularly on the malware front.
>
> I've always wondered what "works for me" actually means when spoken by
> a Linux zealot.
Funny, I've always wondered what "works for me" meant what spoken by a
Windows user.
Does it mean the system boot (and reboots, and reboots, and
reboots...)
Does it mean it starts up and shows the desktop ?
Does it mean the Windows PC is turned into a zombie spewing spam to
clutter everyone's inbox ?
Does it mean it defrags the disk every month ?
Does it mean that Windows is a good platform for key-logging malware ?
Does it mean it functions just enough that the user doesn't have to
actually think, so everything must be OK ?
Does it mean it cam pre-installed, so the user will live with it
instead of considering other option ?
Does it mean complaining about Linux not having every driver, while
Vista is OK even though the driver support is even more marginal ?
It seems "it works" has an odd meaning for Windows users.
Maybe the Windows standard is so low exactly because it is pre-
installed, and thus many of the users know little if anything about
the alternatives. Maybe the Vista users will be happy with all the DRM
restrictions , constant running of security and maintenance programs,
and the constant nagging of the user controls ? Maybe they don't mind
that they are susceptible to malware. Maybe they just don't want to
admit that they spend so much for an OS that is worse than the free
alternatives. Denial is a very powerful thing.
I recommend Linux to others, because the Windows users are always
calling me about some problem or another. If MS wanted to pay me for
each time I had to re-install Windows for one of their users, then I
might have a different view. If MS wanted to pay me for each time I
had to walk someone through booting into safe mode to remove some kind
of malware, then maybe I'd be more likely to have a "pro-Windows"
stance. But then it would be $elf-$erving, and certainly not an honest
opinion.
Meanwhile, I have better things to do than fix the constant problems
Windows users have.
Dean G.
Windows on your PC - it works better for the spammers than it does for
you.
Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User
"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
--
Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/
Alias
> Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you
> to get it to work that really counts.
> Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
LOL! Mine was ready to go right away.
Alias
chrisv
Dean G.
> Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you
> to get it to work that really counts.
> Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
Ubuntu worked fine for me right after the install. The last version I
had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a
long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer
to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really
work.
Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a
full distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux. Yes, maybe Windows
is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu,
on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working"
Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install
Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away
with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it.
Dean G.
karla.bo...@yahoo.com
> Gary wrote:
> > Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you
> > to get it to work that really counts.
> > Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
>
> LOL! Mine was ready to go right away.
>
> Alias
>
>
>
>
>
> >news:1172165707....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >> On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" <brian.wescombeSOD...@ntlSPAMworld.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>
> >>>news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> >>>> Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
> >>>> postage.
> >>> That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my
> >>> system
> >> So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30
> >> minutes to install on a PC. When you consider that Linux also installs
> >> many applications, which require a separate and also long installation
> >> on other OS's. Thus you are saying that the fastest installing OS is
> >> too slow for you, so you are going to use a slower one.
>
> >> Not only that, but if you go with a pre-installed OS, then you are
> >> likely going to end up re-installing the OS several times, as even the
> >> experts who promote that OS suggest an re-install at least annually,
> >> and perhaps more often for power users.
>
> >> Abort, Retry, Fail, Reboot, Reinstall, Remit all of your money to
> >> Redmond. Smile, you are one of those people Stalin called "useful".
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
So was mine.
Ready to go into the dustbin of course.
I just wasn't smart enough to toss it after the first set of problems.
Linux is a waste of time.
A HUGE waste of time.
karla.bo...@yahoo.com
So what you are saying is that I used the wrong version of Linux?
Tell me, what is the right version of Linux?
There seem to be so many different versions and I figured since Fedora
is associated with Redhat, it must be a well developed version of
Linux.
I was wrong.
As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
applications.
Linux is so pitiful and I got frustrated, after days of mucking with
Linux BTW, that I tossed it and I don't intend
to try it again until it reaches the point where it is installable and
usable on common hardware.
I just don't have the time to spend futzing with an operating system
and I doubt other common users do either.
Maybe it is a hobby for some, but not me.
Hertz_Donut
<karla.bo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172163583.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Karla...
Thanks for your post. I found it to be very informative.
Unfortunately, you have posted something that will cause all the penguin
heads to go nuts. Guess I'll have to not visit this newsgroup for a month
or two while all of the *nix zealots hemorrhage all over this newsgroup.
Enjoy
JDS
> Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
> www.ubuntu.com Order the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the
> postage.
>
> Alias
Hello? McFly? Troll! Hello??
--
JDS | jef...@go.away.com
| http://www.newtnotes.com
DJMBS | http://newtnotes.com/doctor-jeff-master-brainsurgeon/
arachnid
> On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" <G...@somewhere.usa> wrote:
>> Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes
>> you to get it to work that really counts. Vista a few hours. Linux days,
>> months, years.
>
> Ubuntu worked fine for me right after the install. The last version I had
> that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a long
> time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer to set up
> even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really work.
>
> Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a full
> distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux.
I bet you meant to say, "...to a bare OS install of Windows".
> Yes, maybe Windows is installed and "working", but you still can't do
> anything. Ubuntu, on the other hand, is ready to go with applications.
> You "working" Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to
> install Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do
> away with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it.
My new 160G laptop HD arrived a few days ago. Two hours after it arrived
I'd installed Ubuntu + the hundreds of applications that are part of the
default install + a few hundred more of my own favorite apps + did a
full update of the OS and all applications + had the system fully
and completely configured to my liking.
Windows isn't even in the ballpark anymore.
Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User
many, and the time to use them all..
"arachnid" <no...@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.22....@goawayspammers.com...
--
Dustbin
> On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" <brian.wescombeSOD...@ntlSPAMworld.com>
> wrote:
>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>
>> news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>>
>>
>>> Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
>>> www.ubuntu.comOrder the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay
>>> the postage.
>>
>> That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my
>> system
>
> So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30
> minutes to install on a PC.
We thought "Alias" was probably lying, you confirmed it.
"linux makes you stupid... and now, makes you a liar too."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Paul-B
>
> As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
> However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
> able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
> applications.
1. Download the Ubuntu .iso image 15 minutes
2. Burn to disk 4 minutes
3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes
4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds
5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes
6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute
7. Set up sharing, connect to other
PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes
8. Set up local and network laser
printers using cups 10 minutes
That's about how long it took me.
Cost? Nothing!
No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which
were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware
checkers.
Since then I've installed KDE and XFCE on the machine, and it's earning
it's keep running my business.
Never crashed or failed to boot, no blue screens, no uac, no nasty
pop-ups, no wga, no activation, no DRM
I have Windows XP (which I like) and Vista (which I don't) machines on
my network, but overall the Linux is faster and more productive on a
less powerful PC with less memory than the Windows machines.
And I had no previous experience with any flavour of Linux before 2
months ago.
--
Paul-B
karla.bo...@yahoo.com
> karla.bonerst...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
> > However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
> > able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
> > applications.
>
> 1. Download the Ubuntu .iso image 15 minutes
> 2. Burn to disk 4 minutes
> 3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes
> 4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds
> 5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes
> 6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute
> 7. Set up sharing, connect to other
> PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes
> 8. Set up local and network laser
> printers using cups 10 minutes
>
> That's about how long it took me.
>
> Cost? Nothing!
>
> No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which
> were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware
> checkers.
>
That's all very nice but I have one question?
How many months did you spend researching and hunting down hardware
that would work with Linux?
How many other versions of Linux did you try before you finally found
one that worked?
I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
Linux and each one said the same thing.
"Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
your carefully chosen hardware".
Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
So how long did you spend doing the research?
Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
yttrx
"tennant"? First off, you misspelled a word that you didnt mean
in the first place.
Secondly, you're a fucking idiot. Get the fuck out of COLA and
go back to your windows buddies, BITCH.
-----yttrx
7
of micoshaft corporation:
> I
Vista is the pistake pista.
Its bad so let us De-Pistify your PC!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ Micoshaft Pista Newcomer FAQ and Primer +
+ Edition: 21 - 9/24/06 +
+ Group: Pista Installees +
+ +
+ Copyright (c) 2007 Pista Removal Reality Team +
+ Sponsored by Micoshaft Corporation +
+ Released Under GPL 3 License +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Welcome to the Windopz De-Pistification FAQette.
WoW that was a mouthful wasn't it boys and girls?!
Have you De-Pistified your PC?
Let me explain:
You bought vista crap from our sponsor micoshaft corporation
and you realize after hours of reboots and re-installs
that our sponsor micoshaft has taken the piss out of you. So you
decide that this vista Pista is not for you.
Now you want to de-install Pista but expee takes up even
more hours and all your driver
diskettes are mislaid/lost and application cds are fscked
because your dog has been shagging it for some time, etc, etc, etc.
Oh Smuck is me you cry out in vain as your PC craps out on you
leaving you with nothing despite you having paid truck loads of money.
Then light at the end of the tunnel appears in the form
of Linux. Now you get angry and use Linux in anger to recover
you data. RAAAAARRRrrrr... you growl through into the night
recovering data, learning GNU/Linux and by midnight all your
work is done, your computers are working, you learned many
things and Linux with Beryl is the king. You can sleep in peace
knowing Linux is your friend and share your dreams
with others...
Get Linux here...
http://www.livecdlist.com
http://www.distrowatch.com
For Beryl, downloaded latest beta release
of Ubuntu (Feisty Fawn)...
http://cdimage.ubuntu.com/releases/feisty/herd-3/
Install Beryl using the 3 click guide which links from here...
http://wiki.beryl-project.org/wiki/Install_Beryl_on_Ubuntu
And so WoW, after 3 clicks, you have Beryl up and running on your PC!!!
All that remains is now for you to stick the De-Pistification
Inventory label on your PC to complete the job...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ Windopz De-Pistified PC +
+ OS: Ubuntu + Beryl +
+ Edition: 21 - 9/24/06 +
+ SN: 69 68 69 96 69 +
+ +
+ Copyright (c) 2006 Pista Removal Reality Team +
+ Released Under GPL 3 License +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Be sure to come back for more in the next installation
of Micoshaft Pista Removal FAQ and Primer - Edition 22.
karla.bo...@yahoo.com
> nym shifting asstroturfing coward karla.bonerst...@yahoo.com wrote on behalf
Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you mentally retarded?
I'm just curious.
karla.bo...@yahoo.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
So now we have the spelling police.
Tell me, are all Linux users as crude, vulgar and boorish as you?
arachnid
wrote:
> A few hundred apps and then a few hundred more? Amazed that you find so
> many, and the time to use them all..
Combine 15,000 free applications with a childishly simple package
manager/installer and one tends to develop a very large toolbox. :-)
yttrx
See, you came into this group on a crossposted thread, so really
you need to fuck off, thanks.
-----yttrx
yttrx
I am currently not a linux user, IDIOT. GO BACK TO YOUR OWN FUCKING
NEWSGROUP, BITCHASS HO.
-----yttrx
Kier
Zero. I just bought a PC. Or installed on hardware I already had,
including three laptops of varying vintage, and three other PCs. And for
the majority of my Linux time I used but one distro: Mandrake/Mandriva
> How many other versions of Linux did you try before you finally found
> one that worked?
They all work. Some of the smaller distros may not include all drivers,
though.
>
> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>
> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
> your carefully chosen hardware".
Linux is fine for most (not all, but most) hardware.
>
> Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
Not really. Most hardware these days will work with Linux. Of course,
there may always be *some* Linux-hostile hardware, but it's becoming
increasingly less common.
Oh, and BTW, 'tennant' is Dr Who, you must have mean 'tenet'.
>
> So how long did you spend doing the research?
>
> Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
If it's 'luck', then I've been 'luckly' six times at least, with
deifferent laptops/PCs.
--
Kier
Denny
You don't use Linux but yet you felt the need to post a Vista Sucks
message in a Linux group? Are you looking for some kind of pat on the
back? Approval? Maybe you have an inferiority complex and need attention?
Maybe you just have an attention deficit problem in general? Whatever it
is, you do seem to have a mental illness.
Or, maybe, just maybe, you are a troll.
If that is indeed the case, you are not a very good troll and you can add
trolling to your long list of failures.
It must be sad to be you :(
Chow4Now!
yttrx
You're new to this group, as you too slid over here on a crossposted
thread, you fucking moron.
And you havent seen my other posts about vista, some of which are
actually fairly positive.
And, you don't know that I've been posting to cola since at least 1997.
So fuck you, asshole. Go home.
-----yttrx
Denny
>> Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you mentally retarded?
>> I'm just curious.
> See, you came into this group on a crossposted thread, so really
> you need to fuck off, thanks.
> yttrx
A good therapist specializing in anger management would go along way
toward treating your disease mr. yttrx.
Interesting Wiki you have there.
Are you some kind of a freak?
http://wiki.bmezine.com/index.php/Yttrx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yttrx
Paul Bramscher
> On Feb 22, 2:46 pm, "Paul-B" <p...@rasf1.net> wrote:
>> karla.bonerst...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
>>> However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
>>> able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
>>> applications.
>> 1. Download the Ubuntu .iso image 15 minutes
>> 2. Burn to disk 4 minutes
>> 3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes
>> 4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds
>> 5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes
>> 6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute
>> 7. Set up sharing, connect to other
>> PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes
>> 8. Set up local and network laser
>> printers using cups 10 minutes
>>
>> That's about how long it took me.
>>
>> Cost? Nothing!
>>
>> No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which
>> were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware
>> checkers.
>>
>> Paul-B
>
> That's all very nice but I have one question?
More than one question, evidently...
>
> How many months did you spend researching and hunting down hardware
> that would work with Linux?
For me, none. I'm running linux on multiple machines from a PIII 800
MHz with a crappy 8 MB video card to a highly modern desktop, and a Dell
laptop. No problems on any of them.
How many months will it take the average American to pay off his credit
card for the new Vista machine, Vista OS, and Office he had to buy?
> How many other versions of Linux did you try before you finally found
> one that worked?
I've run Red Hat, openSUSE and Ubuntu. They all worked, but I prefer
Ubuntu.
> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>
> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
> your carefully chosen hardware".
I've asked a number of Windows Vista users and they ALL said the same thing:
"Vista is almost tolerable if you have ~$1000+ burning a hole in your
pocket for a new PC, ~$500 for the latest Office Ultimate and ~$400 for
the latest Vista OS. But in general, it's a piece of shit."
Gotta love those scientific polls, don't you? ;-)
Gary VanderMolen
> On Feb 22, 12:34 pm, jjwasserm...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" <brian.wescombeSOD...@ntlSPAMworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>
>> >news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> > > Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
>> > > postage.
>>
>> > That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my system
>>
>> required to make Linux work is astronomical. Sure the Linux pundits
>> will cry "it works fine for me" and blame the user, but the internet
>> is chock full of Linux horror stories.
>
> A quick Google search finds far more Windows horror stories, with far
> worse results, particularly on the malware front.
Naturally so, since Windows has many more users, and the average
Windows user is not very computer savvy.
I have to side with the OP on this issue. I consider myself technically
competent, having started my personal computer acquaintance with
writing assembly language programs for the Timex Sinclair 1000 and
the Commodore 64 back in the early 80's.
About once a year I try installing a new Linux variant. Invariably
one or more of my computer system components are not supported.
Typically it will be the modem, or graphics card, or printer. Yes,
there are workarounds available, which involve much research and
hand-editing some very obscure settings file. I don't have the time
to do that! Windows XP just works, and if I need to change some
setting, there is an intuitive GUI available to do so.
--
Gary VanderMolen
Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows Shell/User
"arachnid" <no...@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.22....@goawayspammers.com...
--
The Ghost In The Machine
<pa...@rasf1.net>
wrote
on 22 Feb 2007 19:46:03 GMT
<546a7oF...@mid.individual.net>:
> karla.bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>
>> As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
>> However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
>> able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
>> applications.
>
> 1. Download the Ubuntu .iso image 15 minutes
> 2. Burn to disk 4 minutes
> 3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes
> 4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds
> 5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes
> 6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute
> 7. Set up sharing, connect to other
> PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes
> 8. Set up local and network laser
> printers using cups 10 minutes
>
> That's about how long it took me.
>
> Cost? Nothing!
Pedant Point:
That 670 MB will probably set one back $0.30/GB, or a total cost
of 20 cents, storage costs wise. Bandwidth is typically $30/month
to $40/month for a 150 kB/s DSL connection -- at least, that's
what I'm getting bandwidth wise; YMMV -- and that would take about
an hour and a half to download at that speed. Since you specified
15 minutes that translates into a 750 kB/s connection, roughly, and
probably for about the same cost. (*slightly envious look*)
750 kB/s translates into 1.944 * 10^15 B/month, so each byte costs
1.54 * 10^-14 dollars, or $0.0154 per terabyte.
Burning to disk of course involves media costs -- about $10 for a
50-pack, but I've not looked lately, or $0.20 per.
Total cost: $0.40, but that's only if you keep the ISO lying about on
one's hard drive. :-)
One might pay more for a gumball nowadays. :-)
>
> No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which
> were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware
> checkers.
>
> Since then I've installed KDE and XFCE on the machine, and it's earning
> it's keep running my business.
>
> Never crashed or failed to boot, no blue screens, no uac, no nasty
> pop-ups, no wga, no activation, no DRM
>
> I have Windows XP (which I like) and Vista (which I don't) machines on
> my network, but overall the Linux is faster and more productive on a
> less powerful PC with less memory than the Windows machines.
>
> And I had no previous experience with any flavour of Linux before 2
> months ago.
>
Welcome to the fray. :-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: No such file or directory
DanS
>>
>> I've always wondered what "works for me" actually means when spoken
>> by a Linux zealot.
>
> Funny, I've always wondered what "works for me" meant what spoken by a
> Windows user.
>
> Does it mean the system boot (and reboots, and reboots, and
> reboots...)
>
> Does it mean it starts up and shows the desktop ?
>
> Does it mean the Windows PC is turned into a zombie spewing spam to
> clutter everyone's inbox ?
> Does it mean it defrags the disk every month ?
>
> Does it mean that Windows is a good platform for key-logging malware ?
>
> Does it mean it functions just enough that the user doesn't have to
> actually think, so everything must be OK ?
>
> Does it mean it cam pre-installed, so the user will live with it
> instead of considering other option ?
>
> Does it mean complaining about Linux not having every driver, while
> Vista is OK even though the driver support is even more marginal ?
>
> It seems "it works" has an odd meaning for Windows users.
AND LINUX Users.
>
> Maybe the Windows standard is so low exactly because it is pre-
> installed, and thus many of the users know little if anything about
> the alternatives.
Yeah, Grandma hasn't done her research on all of the computers they sell
at Walmart.
> Maybe the Vista users will be happy with all the DRM
> restrictions , constant running of security and maintenance programs,
> and the constant nagging of the user controls ? Maybe they don't mind
> that they are susceptible to malware. Maybe they just don't want to
> admit that they spend so much for an OS that is worse than the free
> alternatives. Denial is a very powerful thing.
Uncle George's O/S was pre-installed, therefore it was 'free'. Aunt
June's $300 Dell came pre-installed also. Very few people actually make
an effort to go out and buy an operating system to upgrade their home PC.
99.8% (minumum) of MS Non-server OS Sales are OEM pushed by
Dell/HP/Compaq, etc.
>
> I recommend Linux to others, because the Windows users are always
> calling me about some problem or another. If MS wanted to pay me for
> each time I had to re-install Windows for one of their users, then I
> might have a different view. If MS wanted to pay me for each time I
> had to walk someone through booting into safe mode to remove some kind
> of malware, then maybe I'd be more likely to have a "pro-Windows"
> stance. But then it would be $elf-$erving, and certainly not an honest
> opinion.
That may be your opinion of Windows XP, but not my personal experience
with it.
Of all the people you had recommeded Linux to, how many have actually
done it and have NOT called you for help ?
>
> Meanwhile, I have better things to do than fix the constant problems
> Windows users have.
Like spend your time teaching people how to install Linux ? How to search
for and find drivers for Linux ? Teaching them how to administer Linux...
>
> Dean G.
>
> Windows on your PC - it works better for the spammers than it does for
> you.
>
peterwn
>
> After reading about Linux I decided to give it a try on another system
> which is an older P4 2.4G system based around an Asus board.
> I downloaded Fedora and attempted to install.
>
> First problem, my SATA drives were not found.
>
Try a different distribution then, the various distributions would
have their strengths and weaknsses in ferreting out hardware.
Having said that, though, most modern distributions will install with
100% success on most machines, the exceptions being the support of
winmodems and certain other hardware items for which there are no or
less than perfect Linux drivers.
Matt I.
for it is 3rd party. The whole instalation to get it functional doesn't take
very long. Yes, there are add ons, but with what computer are there not?
"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
news:%23aVnw$qVHHA...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Gary wrote:
>> Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes
>> you to get it to work that really counts.
>> Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
>
> LOL! Mine was ready to go right away.
>
> Alias
>>
>>
>> "Dean G." <dgutt...@4ecp.com> wrote in message
>> news:1172165707....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" <brian.wescombeSOD...@ntlSPAMworld.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
>>>>> www.ubuntu.comOrder the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the
>>>>> postage.
>>>> That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my
>>>> system
>>> So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30
>>> minutes to install on a PC. When you consider that Linux also installs
>>> many applications, which require a separate and also long installation
>>> on other OS's. Thus you are saying that the fastest installing OS is
>>> too slow for you, so you are going to use a slower one.
>>>
>>> Not only that, but if you go with a pre-installed OS, then you are
>>> likely going to end up re-installing the OS several times, as even the
>>> experts who promote that OS suggest an re-install at least annually,
>>> and perhaps more often for power users.
>>>
>>> Abort, Retry, Fail, Reboot, Reinstall, Remit all of your money to
>>> Redmond. Smile, you are one of those people Stalin called "useful".
>>>
>>> Dean G.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
karla.bo...@yahoo.com
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well here is just a snippet of what I had to go through to get my
Nvidia video card to function properly under Linux.
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=81001
If you read through that link you will see how insane it is to get
Linux to work with common hardware like an Nvidia Fx5500 and a
widescreen LCD.
Maybe I should have kept my DEC orange screen monochrome CRT.
I'll bet Linux would work great with that one.
The average user doesn't stand an ice cubes chance in hell of getting
Linux to work properly with modern hardware and by work I mean up to
the same level that the hardware is supported by Windows.
IOW getting a 640x480 raster under Linux with a card that supports
1280x1024 under Windows doesn't count.
Neither does having an inkjet printer that prints color under Windows
print monochrome under Linux.
Sly Dog
"7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:_JmDh.5430$I46...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
That's nice...
yttrx
Aw, you found my wiki page!
And I'm not some kind of anything. I'm just a moniker and a persona.
-----yttrx
Dean G.
> On Feb 22, 1:58 pm, "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" <G...@somewhere.usa> wrote:
>
> > > Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you
> > > to get it to work that really counts.
> > > Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
>
> > had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a
> > long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer
> > to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really
> > work.
>
> > Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a
> > is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu,
> > on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working"
> > Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install
> > Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away
> > with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it.
>
>
> So what you are saying is that I used the wrong version of Linux?
Yes. The Fedora release is for people who are familiar with Red Hat
from work. It is not intended as a beginners starting point. If I were
to complain about trouble installing Windows 2003 Server on my
lapotop, and then go on to say I'll never use Windows again because it
obviously isn't ready for prime time, what would you say ?
That is essentially the same thing you have done, so get over
yourself.
> Tell me, what is the right version of Linux?
What is the right car ? Like all things, it depends upon your purpose.
Even Windows is getting in the game by diversifying their product
line. Simply put, one size fits all isn't a good idea.
> There seem to be so many different versions and I figured since Fedora
> is associated with Redhat, it must be a well developed version of
> Linux.
It is a well developed version of Linux if you need to run enterprise
class applications. It is not a home or beginners OS. Ubuntu is known
for being easy. the also have separate education and server editions.
Pick the right one for your purpose.
>
> I was wrong.
>
> As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
> However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
> able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
> applications.
All of this worked for me upon install, as did the applications.
>
> Linux is so pitiful and I got frustrated, after days of mucking with
> Linux BTW, that I tossed it and I don't intend
> to try it again until it reaches the point where it is installable and
> usable on common hardware.
It is, but if you have chosen to be a deliberately obastinate troll.
>
> I just don't have the time to spend futzing with an operating system
> and I doubt other common users do either.
Other common users would try Ubuntu, or Mandriva, or version known to
be easy to use. They would not chose versions geared toward technical
experts and then complain about the complexity. It takes a special
kind of... person to do that.
Dean G.
Paul-B
> On Feb 22, 2:46 pm, "Paul-B" <p...@rasf1.net> wrote:
> > karla.bonerst...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
> > > However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually
> > > being able to boot the system is far more important to me than a
> > > lot of applications.
> >
> > 1. Download the Ubuntu .iso image 15 minutes
> > 2. Burn to disk 4 minutes
> > 3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes
> > 4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds
> > 5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes
> > 6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute
> > 7. Set up sharing, connect to other
> > PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes
> > 8. Set up local and network laser
> > printers using cups 10 minutes
> >
> > That's about how long it took me.
> >
> > Cost? Nothing!
> >
> > No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which
> > were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware
> > checkers.
> >
> > Paul-B
>
> That's all very nice but I have one question?
Looks like more than one question to me...
>
> How many months did you spend researching and hunting down hardware
> that would work with Linux?
Umm, none, actually. I'd given up on Linux for years, for most of the
reasons quoted... I knew it was rock-solid (worked with Linux servers
for a while) and to be honest I didn't have the time to play around
with esoteric software to run a basic workstation when Windows 98 would
do the job.
Then a friend pointed me to Ubuntu (although I'd had a reasonable
experience with Knoppix as a rescue medium).
> How many other versions of Linux did you try before you finally found
> one that worked?
>
None. Plunged in wuth Ubuntu and have never looked back.
> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>
> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
> your carefully chosen hardware".
>
> Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
>
> So how long did you spend doing the research?
>
> Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
I presume you meant "tenet"?
No, I wasn't "lucky"... I left Linux alone for years, because my
full-time job doesn't leave me with much time to play with operating
systems. It was only when Ubuntu, in both server and desktop flavours,
came into my sphere of knowledge, that I found the time to think of it
as a very good alternative, given the right slot.
I was amazed at how easily Ubuntu replaced windows on my bog-standard
pc, without any of the hassles even XP gave me.
Don't get me wrong... I like my current version of Windows, XP Pro with
all the SP's. But I'm not blind to it's shortcomings, any more than I
am to the shortcomings in Linux, and there are quite a few. As for
Vista, at the moment it's nothing more than a dog's breakfast of an
operating system... all my clients have been told I'll install it for
them if they want, but I won't support it free of charge, if they
insist on having it they can pay me £65 per hour to sort-out the
problems which willl surely arise. Needless to say no-one wants it, and
no-one has looked-for an alternative support service... I retain all my
clients.
Put it like this. My Linux rig is an Athlon 64-bit 3500 cpu, 2 x 200Gb
SATA drives (Silicon Image controllers), with a bog-standard Gigabyte
GA-KA8N Ultra SLi mobo and a SafeCom wireless nic. Ubuntu installed
without asking me for any of the drivers, including the chipset and
SATA drivers, and that's something which neither XP or Vista could do.
Which, to my mind, is rather good.
--
Paul-B
Alias
> On Feb 22, 1:33 pm, Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote:
>> Gary wrote:
>>> Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you
>>> to get it to work that really counts.
>>> Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
>>
>> Alias
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> news:1172165707....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" <brian.wescombeSOD...@ntlSPAMworld.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>>>> news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>>> Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
>>>>>> postage.
>>>>> That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my
>>>>> system
>>>> So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30
>>>> minutes to install on a PC. When you consider that Linux also installs
>>>> many applications, which require a separate and also long installation
>>>> on other OS's. Thus you are saying that the fastest installing OS is
>>>> too slow for you, so you are going to use a slower one.
>>>> Not only that, but if you go with a pre-installed OS, then you are
>>>> likely going to end up re-installing the OS several times, as even the
>>>> experts who promote that OS suggest an re-install at least annually,
>>>> and perhaps more often for power users.
>>>> Abort, Retry, Fail, Reboot, Reinstall, Remit all of your money to
>>>> Redmond. Smile, you are one of those people Stalin called "useful".
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Ready to go into the dustbin of course.
> I just wasn't smart enough to toss it after the first set of problems.
>
> Linux is a waste of time.
> A HUGE waste of time.
>
Your loss. Keep paying MS.
Alias
Alias
> On Feb 22, 2:46 pm, "Paul-B" <p...@rasf1.net> wrote:
>> karla.bonerst...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>> As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
>>> However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
>>> able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
>>> applications.
>> 1. Download the Ubuntu .iso image 15 minutes
>> 2. Burn to disk 4 minutes
>> 3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes
>> 4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds
>> 5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes
>> 6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute
>> 7. Set up sharing, connect to other
>> PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes
>> 8. Set up local and network laser
>> printers using cups 10 minutes
>>
>> That's about how long it took me.
>>
>> Cost? Nothing!
>>
>> No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which
>> were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware
>> checkers.
>>
>> Paul-B
>
> That's all very nice but I have one question?
No, you have many wise ass questions, not one.
> How many months did you spend researching and hunting down hardware
> that would work with Linux?
Zero seconds.
> How many other versions of Linux did you try before you finally found
> one that worked?
None.
>
> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>
> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
> your carefully chosen hardware".
>
> Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
>
> So how long did you spend doing the research?
>
> Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
I guess I got lucky with my old ASUS AMD 800 Mhz with 512 PC-100 RAM, a
genius sound card and an old ATI video card. I'm tying this message with
it now.
Alias
DanS
@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:
> karla.bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I've spent the last 3 days attempting to upgrade 4 Windows-XP systems
>> to Vista and have had various problems with software compatability.
>> I've spent countless hours on the phone and technical support websites
>> and finally after 3 days I have everything working.
<SNIP>
>>
>> Maybe in 10 years Linux might be able to install and work properly,
>> but for now Linux is too difficult and too buggy for the average user.
>>
>> Karla
>>
>
> If you had had the good sense to use IRC and talk directly to Linux
> users, you would have saved yourself a lot of time googling.
>
> Alias
Ahh, IRC, another obscure section of the Internet. One that surely is
unfamiliar to most Internet users, just as (pure) UseNet was before it
started to get exposed thru a few large web interfaces (and so still many
think it is a web forum). It's been a long time since I popped on mIRC.
It's a great program as it's one of the few apps you can just copy and
paste the program directory somewhere at it ran fine.
The OP's reaction to use the Web would have been my route also probably,
for a bit, then a call to a Linux-knowledgable friend of mine when I was
totally frustrated.
IRC wouldn't have crossed my mind at all......
DanS
Alias
Once again a MS apologist can only provide a knee jerk reaction: an insult.
Alias
mavigozler
If you had just said "I'm an asshole" rather than "I'm just curious," that
clearly would have been a more credible statement.
The fact that you have cross-posted this between MS and Linux groups is all
the proof that even a "mentally retarded" lurker can understand to see that
you are just another troll getting a loser's thrill out of baiting others.
Wynston Percy Tybuh III
installing, reinstalling, uninstalling various Linux distros. and many more
hours Googling various hiccoughs I needed to get past.
Here's my prediction when any of the Linux distros get installs down to a MS
type install, THEN we'll see more of it in the hands of and on the
desktops/laptops of "regular" users. Till then...MS rules!
"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> karla.bo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I've spent the last 3 days attempting to upgrade 4 Windows-XP systems
>> to Vista and have had various problems with software compatability.
>> I've spent countless hours on the phone and technical support websites
>> and finally after 3 days I have everything working.
>> This fiasco has left me with some doubt as to whether or not Microsoft
>> has the ability to maintain it's position as the defacto standard in
>> operating systems.
>>
>> After reading about Linux I decided to give it a try on another system
>> which is an older P4 2.4G system based around an Asus board.
>> I downloaded Fedora and attempted to install.
>>
>> First problem, my SATA drives were not found.
>>
>> Google time >>>> 2 hours later <<<< I found the solution which was a
>> Custom Install Option.
>>
>> (After a few cryptic questions and a partition manager that was
>> convoluted and potentially very dangerous in the hands of a new user,
>> Fedora was installed)
>>
>> Second Problem, the system would not boot after install. I got a Grub
>> Error 15 message.
>>
>> Google Time>>>>>>> 5 Hours Later <<<<.. Oh boy I found lots of
>> information on this puppy. About 5 hours later I fixed the problem
>> which involved copying a know working Grub configuration file from
>> some kind soul on the net, modifying it for my particular system and
>> replacing the one already installed. I did this with a Knoppix LiveCD.
>>
>> So now I can boot the system, but my display image is shifted way off
>> the screen and too low to click on anything.
>>
>> Google Time >>>>>> 2 hours later <<<< Ok I learned how to boot to a
>> command line and edit the Xorg file to fix the entries that were
>> incorrect for my common Nvidia card.
>> So now I could see my desktop, but it was at 1024x768 and what
>> appeared to be 16 colors.
>>
>> Google Time >>> 3 hours later <<< I discovered that there is no
>> apparent way to get 32bpp, 3D acceleration, 85hz and 1280x1024 all at
>> the same time like I have with Windows.
>> Bummer.
>> I settled for 1280x1024 24bpp and no 3d because I don't use it and
>> Linux doesn't appear to have any games written for Linux anyhow.
>>
>> So now I have the system up, am surfing the net and things look pretty
>> good.
>> Time to add a printer.
>> I go to the control panel and click on printers and peruse the list
>> but I don't see my Lexmark Multifunction listed?
>> I do see a similar model however so I decide to try this.
>> It installs easy enough, but when I go to print I get one line of
>> gibberish on the top of the page, the page ejects and the next page
>> does the same thing over and over and over again.
>> Rebooting the system does no good because the printer, like a mad
>> beast, starts right up again wasting my paper.
>> Finally I turn the damm thing off while I.....................
>>
>> Google Time << 4 hours >>> I discover Print Ques, printer names and
>> the wonderful account called root. I finally figure out how to purge
>> this thing and with some trepidation I turn the printer on and
>> thankfully it behaves.
>>
>> Oh well, I don't need to print right now anyhow so on to my network.
>> The problem is, I can't see my other 3 Windows Vista machines.
>> And now it's.........
>> you guessed it!
>>
>> GOOGLE TIME << infinite >>> I discover something called Samba, but I
>> also learn that Microsoft Vista and Samba are not friends but only
>> after a day and a hlf of playing with a smb.conf file and reading
>> maybe a hundred web pages devoted to helping people get Samba working,
>> and this is with Windows XP which supposedly plays nicely with Samba.
>> I wouldn't know know, I never got Samba working.
>>
>> At this point, I took the Linux CD's, all 6 of them including the
>> rescue CD which seems useless BTW and tossed them, violently I might
>> add, into the dustbin.
>>
>> I have wasted far too much time with this Linux crap and I don't
>> intend to waste another millisecond trying to shoehorn this pile of
>> garbage into my systems.
>>
>> I can see why Linux is free.
>> It doesn't work!
>>
>> I can also see why it is not even making the slightest ding in
>> Microsoft's armour:
>> It, Linux, doesn't work.
>>
>> I'm not sure, but if the Linux users expect people, ordinary people,
>> to spend their lives Googling in order to make Linux work, they are
>> daft.
>>
>> Maybe in 10 years Linux might be able to install and work properly,
>> but for now Linux is too difficult and too buggy for the average user.
>>
>> Karla
>>
>
> Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
> www.ubuntu.com Order the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the
> postage.
>
> Alias
Joe User
> I've spent the last 3 days
Flattie has once again been spending his life on the Internet looking for
whatever problems he can find that other people might have with Linux.
After he finds enough (or gets tired of looking), he puts them all
together into a little story about himself and what horrors he experienced
the other day when he tried to install this new OS he read about called
Linux, and then he chooses a new name for himself (for the past few
years, he has favored pretending to be female) and posts it to COLA and
half a dozen other groups.
People, he has been doing this for more than 10 years. I think it must be
the most important thing in his life. He never tires of it, and I really
don't think he ever will.
Play with him all you like, but keep in mind that you're responding to a
completely fictitious story posted by some poor schmuck who has had
nothing better to do for the past decade. The guy is disturbed.
NoStop
> Have you been to this forum? How can this all be? A forum full of
> problems?
>
> http://www.ubuntuforums.org/
>
Stupid top poster! In any case, you'll find people there asking alot of
questions about all the various software packages that are available for
Ubuntu. It's like taking 20,000 Windows support forums and rolling them all
into one. Also, there are very many posters there who have just upgraded
their computers from Windoze to Ubuntu and still have to learn how to
overcome all the bad stuff they've learned using Windoze. For some, coming
from the Windoze world it is a bit daunting, but after a while they catch
on to the logic of GNU/Linux and it all becomes clear that this is the real
way to operate a computer.
Cheers.
--
The "Wow" starts now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyLqUf4cdwc&eurl=
NoStop
> Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes
> you to get it to work that really counts.
> Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
>
Another stupid top poster. But in any case, one can be productive with
Ubuntu even before it's installed, because you can get it on a LiveCD. :-)
Sure one can spend months and years probing all the strengths GNU/Linux
offers. Why? Because they're there and the operating system is capable of
doing so much beyond just running apps on the desktop. Alas, the same can't
be said for any version of Windoze.
Cheers.
>
> "Dean G." <dgutt...@4ecp.com> wrote in message
> news:1172165707....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" <brian.wescombeSOD...@ntlSPAMworld.com>
>> wrote:
>>> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
>>> >www.ubuntu.comOrder the 6.06 CD. They send it to you free and pay the
>>> > postage.
>>>
>>> That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my
>>> system
>>
>> So you have no OS ? I know of no recent OS that takes less than 30
>> minutes to install on a PC. When you consider that Linux also installs
>> many applications, which require a separate and also long installation
>> on other OS's. Thus you are saying that the fastest installing OS is
>> too slow for you, so you are going to use a slower one.
>>
>> Not only that, but if you go with a pre-installed OS, then you are
>> likely going to end up re-installing the OS several times, as even the
>> experts who promote that OS suggest an re-install at least annually,
>> and perhaps more often for power users.
>>
>> Abort, Retry, Fail, Reboot, Reinstall, Remit all of your money to
>> Redmond. Smile, you are one of those people Stalin called "useful".
>>
>> Dean G.
>>
>>
>>
--
wjbell
> On Feb 22, 1:58 pm, "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 1:11 pm, "Gary" <G...@somewhere.usa> wrote:
>>
>> > Its not how long it takes to install that counts. Its how long it takes you
>> > to get it to work that really counts.
>> > Vista a few hours. Linux days, months, years.
>>
>> had that took more than a few hours was Slackware 3.0, but that was a
>> long time ago, and the then current Windows version (95) took longer
>> to set up even with the vaunted "plug and play", which didn't really
>> work.
>>
>> Also, Linux does far more out of the box. People like to compare a
>> full distro of Linux to a bare OS install of Linux. Yes, maybe Windows
>> is installed and "working", but you still can't do anything. Ubuntu,
>> on the other hand, is ready to go with applications. You "working"
>> Windows box still needs more work. It takes far longer to install
>> Windows AND the equivalent applications. Hopefully Vista will do away
>> with the Windows Multiple Reboot Boogie, but I wouldn't count on it.
>>
>> Dean G.
>
> So what you are saying is that I used the wrong version of Linux?
It doesn't exist.
I've been through the distro juggling act before. I installed one and
everything "worked" but printing. I installed another and printing
worked but couldn't get networking running, etc, etc.
> There seem to be so many different versions and I figured since Fedora
> is associated with Redhat, it must be a well developed version of
> Linux.
>
> I was wrong.
>
> As for Linux shipping with a lot of applications this is true.
> However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
> able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
> applications.
Yeah, I've been waiting for MS to ship windows with 9 different text
editors.... Damn them...
> Linux is so pitiful and I got frustrated, after days of mucking with
> Linux BTW, that I tossed it and I don't intend
> to try it again until it reaches the point where it is installable and
> usable on common hardware.
Try back in about 5 years. Maybe.
>
> I just don't have the time to spend futzing with an operating system
> and I doubt other common users do either.
> Maybe it is a hobby for some, but not me.
>
--
wjbell
Peter K abandon his firewall lie:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/e6eaf7e09552e5e2?hl=en
Jim R failing to address the issue after being asked:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/5ad37ca14a2d7224?hl=en
And of course, Roy Culley -- COLAs loyal hall monitor:
http://groups.google.com/groups?as_q=cola+stats&hl=en&as_uauthors=roy+culley
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/578bb2221ad0453c?hl=en
wjbell
>> > On Feb 22, 2:46 pm, "Paul-B" <p...@rasf1.net> wrote:
>> >> karla.bonerst...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>> >> > However getting networking, printing, proper video and actually being
>> >> > able to boot the system is far more important to me than a lot of
>> >> > applications.
>>
>> >> 2. Burn to disk 4 minutes
>> >> 3. Boot from cd into Ubuntu 2 minutes
>> >> 4. Select install to hard drive option 5 seconds
>> >> 5. Install routine starts and finishes 20 minutes
>> >> 6. Remove disk, boot PC to desktop 1 minute
>> >> 7. Set up sharing, connect to other
>> >> PC's on (wireless) network 10 minutes
>> >> 8. Set up local and network laser
>> >> printers using cups 10 minutes
>>
>> >> That's about how long it took me.
>>
>> >> Cost? Nothing!
>>
>> >> No time looking for drivers, no time installing applications, which
>> >> were all bundled with the o/s, no need for virus-checkers or spyware
>> >> checkers.
>>
>> >> Paul-B
>>
>> > That's all very nice but I have one question?
>>
>> > that would work with Linux?
>> > one that worked?
>>
>> > Linux and each one said the same thing.
>>
>> > "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
>> > you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
>> > your carefully chosen hardware".
>>
>> > Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
>>
>> > So how long did you spend doing the research?
>>
>> > Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
>>
>> in the first place.
>>
>> Secondly, you're a fucking idiot. Get the fuck out of COLA and
>> go back to your windows buddies, BITCH.
>>
>> -----yttrx
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Tell me, are all Linux users as crude, vulgar and boorish as you?
>
Yes, they are.
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:54:55 -0800, karla.bonerstein wrote:
>> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
>> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>>
>> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
>> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
>> your carefully chosen hardware".
You must have had those conversations a *long* time ago, or with people
who need to do some serous catching up.
> Linux is fine for most (not all, but most) hardware.
Your chances of the hardware working under Linux, is currently better
than the chances of it working under Vista ... by a big margin.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
.----
| "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a 'Vista Upgrade
| Layer' when they go through our landfill sites" - Sian Berry, the
| Green Party.
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.19-1.2288.fc5
00:14:52 up 3 days, 11:40, 2 users, load average: 3.09, 3.04, 2.94
Alias
Some groups even have bots that will answer your Ubuntu questions. IRC
is not dead. I first used it with Win95. Course, over in Europe we also
used ICQ instead of MSN Messenger or AIM. That is until AOL made a few
Israeli boys rich and bought it.
>
> IRC wouldn't have crossed my mind at all......
>
> DanS
Now you have had it cross your mind :-) Also, had you ever installed
Ubuntu and had opened Firefox, you would have seen a recommendation to
visit the Ubuntu IRC room.
Alias
Alias
Some groups even have bots that will answer your Ubuntu questions. IRC
is not dead. I first used it with Win95, along with ICQ until AOL made
some Israeli boys rich by buying it. Now I use GAIM.
> IRC wouldn't have crossed my mind at all......
>
> DanS
Now it has :-) And, had you installed Ubuntu and opened Firefox, you
would have seen a recommendation to visit IRC and speak with experienced
Ubuntu users.
Alias
Alias
>
> People, he has been doing this for more than 10 years. I think it must be
> the most important thing in his life. He never tires of it, and I really
> don't think he ever will.
>
> Play with him all you like, but keep in mind that you're responding to a
> completely fictitious story posted by some poor schmuck who has had
> nothing better to do for the past decade. The guy is disturbed.
Thanks for the heads up, albeit a little late in the thread ;-)
Alias
DFS
> Another stupid top poster. But in any case, one can be productive with
> Ubuntu even before it's installed, because you can get it on a
> LiveCD. :-) Sure one can spend months and years probing all the
> strengths GNU/Linux offers. Why? Because they're there and the
> operating system is capable of doing so much beyond just running apps
> on the desktop. Alas, the same can't be said for any version of
> Windoze.
>
> Cheers.
Jeers to another stupid cola liar.
Frank
I can get a basic install of a Debian installed in 20 minutes
to an hour. Fedora is almost a beta issue for Red Hat.
<karla.bo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1172163583.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> I've spent the last 3 days attempting to upgrade 4 Windows-XP systems
> to Vista and have had various problems with software compatability.
> I've spent countless hours on the phone and technical support websites
> and finally after 3 days I have everything working.
karla.bo...@yahoo.com
Sorry Joe User but you have no idea what you are talking about.
I had to do a little research but I am assuming you are talking about
some uber troll that has been loose in comp.os.linux.advocacy.
I hate to burst your balloons but you've got the wrong person.
I did, in my research, however notice a trend that seems common
amongst Linux folks and that is whenever they are losing a thread, and
they are losing this one badly, they accuse some person of being a
flatfish.
I'm a little confused?
Is this like Godwin?
The reason I ask is because although I only searched a little, and I
might be totally off base on this, but I haven't seen any proof that
this flatfish really exists?
All I see are accusations without any data to confirm them.
And you've made the mistake of making a claim without any evidence to
support that claim.
This is not COLA after all.
But, like I said, you are howling up the wrong tree.
Now go back to Linux and your strange little group and be a good
soldier.
Karla.
yttrx
Paul Bramscher
> Verily I say unto thee, that Kier spake thusly:
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 11:54:55 -0800, karla.bonerstein wrote:
>
>>> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
>>> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>>>
>>> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
>>> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
>>> your carefully chosen hardware".
>
> You must have had those conversations a *long* time ago, or with people
> who need to do some serous catching up.
>
>> Linux is fine for most (not all, but most) hardware.
>
> Your chances of the hardware working under Linux, is currently better
> than the chances of it working under Vista ... by a big margin.
Absolutely.
I think it was Schestowitz that posted the URL from Dell:
http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/solutions/en/winvista?c=us&l=en&s=gen&redirect=1
Vista with 512 MB RAM, 800MHz-1GHz CPU:
"Great for: Booting the Operating System, without running applications
or games."
Wow -- you can boot the box, but not run anything. Does M$ own
interests in the nation's landfills also? They REALLY don't get it.
The degree to which someone needs to toss out a perfectly reasonable PC
is the degree to which another box gets linux installed on it.
Why don't they focus more on gaming, their flight simulator, and other
things they've been better at? Perhaps release a linux version.
Justin
What a lame post!
"NoStop" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:11721890...@netadmin1.interbaun.net...
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:32:04 +0000, Kier wrote:
>> That's all very nice but I have one question?
>>
>> How many months did you spend researching and hunting down hardware
>> that would work with Linux?
>
> Zero. I just bought a PC. Or installed on hardware I already had,
> including three laptops of varying vintage, and three other PCs. And for
> the majority of my Linux time I used but one distro: Mandrake/Mandriva
This is something I simply don't get. The Wintrolls constantly whine
about Linux not supporting hardware, but in actual fact, the truth is
exactly the opposite. When I drop Linux onto a box, the *last* thing I'm
concerned about is whether it will drive the video card, or the NIC, or
the sound card.
I'll grant, most of the stuff I buy is neither bleeding edge nor is it
gamer-level gear; it is instead desktop-working-machine type hardware,
with a few extras (a decent nVidia card instead of the onboard crud, say).
Given that the vast majority of people buying computers are _not_ going to
be getting gamer-level gear, the question of hardware support, for most
people, is a simple non-issue.
For those wanting bleeding-edge gear and the latest gamer gear, they have
*always* had the fun of dealing with crappy drivers and the like,
regardless of OS; it usually takes a few rounds to work out the kinks. If
they're willing to suffer the hassles in one OS, counting driver issues on
another OS as a failing seems pretty silly.
>> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
>> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>>
>> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
>> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
>> your carefully chosen hardware".
>
> Linux is fine for most (not all, but most) hardware.
Indeed. I buy a machine at the local Mom and pop shop, naked, take it
home, plug it in and install. Nowadays I don't even bother asking whether
such-and-such video, sound, NIC, etc is on it. If I want something
unusual - a RAID 5 controller, say - I'll ask for it, but for a stock box,
I go in, drop the cash, walk off with the machine and whether it supports
Linux or not simply isn't an issue: it will. At least, I've yet to find a
box that won't.
>> Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
>
> Not really.
Not in the slightest, unless, as noted earlier, you're *already* buying
gear you *expect* to have issues with, even in Windows.
> Oh, and BTW, 'tennant' is Dr Who, you must have mean 'tenet'.
Isn't it also French for something akin to "buggger"? As in "You little
bugger?"
>> So how long did you spend doing the research?
>>
>> Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
>
> If it's 'luck', then I've been 'luckly' six times at least, with
> deifferent laptops/PCs.
Likewise. You buy the box, you install the OS, you don't worry about it.
Where's the problem?
--
Do not contact me at kbjar...@ncoldns.com
jjwass...@yahoo.com
> [snips]
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 20:32:04 +0000, Kier wrote:
> >> That's all very nice but I have one question?
>
> >> How many months did you spend researching and hunting down hardware
> >> that would work with Linux?
>
> > Zero. I just bought a PC. Or installed on hardware I already had,
> > including three laptops of varying vintage, and three other PCs. And for
> > the majority of my Linux time I used but one distro: Mandrake/Mandriva
>
> This is something I simply don't get. The Wintrolls constantly whine
> about Linux not supporting hardware, but in actual fact, the truth is
> exactly the opposite. When I drop Linux onto a box, the *last* thing I'm
> concerned about is whether it will drive the video card, or the NIC, or
> the sound card.
Judging by the kind of hardware you seem to use, that is no surprise.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/157e4fbd4c842d22?hl=en&
" This machine:
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 6
model name : Celeron (Mendocino)
stepping : 5
cpu MHz : 434.365
Installed RAM : 96Mb
Win2K *crawls* on this thing. Meanwhile, I've got Ubuntu, using the
enlightenment desktop, running Pan and Sylpheed Claws at the moment,
and
all is good. Hmm, just realized I'm also running mysqld. Should kill
that. Funny, though, how I can be running a DB server on such a low-
end
box and not even be aware of it. :) ""
> I'll grant, most of the stuff I buy is neither bleeding edge nor is it
> gamer-level gear; it is instead desktop-working-machine type hardware,
> with a few extras (a decent nVidia card instead of the onboard crud, say).
You BUY this stuff?
I see better stuff put out for the dustman on Wed and Fri.
> Given that the vast majority of people buying computers are _not_ going to
> be getting gamer-level gear, the question of hardware support, for most
> people, is a simple non-issue.
Really?
Maybe you can explain to a friend of mine how to get Linux to work
with his 2 17 inch wide screen LCD monitors and Nvidia card with
digital and analog outs.
He plugged them into his Windows boxen and they worked fine, albeit he
had to tinker with the resolutions to get them the way he liked.
Linux?
It wouldn't even boot to a GUI.
He sat there looking at a "login" prompt wondering what he did wrong,
other than expecting Linux to work with 2 monitors.
> For those wanting bleeding-edge gear and the latest gamer gear, they have
> *always* had the fun of dealing with crappy drivers and the like,
> regardless of OS; it usually takes a few rounds to work out the kinks. If
> they're willing to suffer the hassles in one OS, counting driver issues on
> another OS as a failing seems pretty silly.
So how IS ATI and Linux doing these days?
> >> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
> >> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>
> >> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
> >> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
> >> your carefully chosen hardware".
>
> > Linux is fine for most (not all, but most) hardware.
>
> Indeed. I buy a machine at the local Mom and pop shop, naked, take it
> home, plug it in and install. Nowadays I don't even bother asking whether
> such-and-such video, sound, NIC, etc is on it. If I want something
> unusual - a RAID 5 controller, say - I'll ask for it, but for a stock box,
> I go in, drop the cash, walk off with the machine and whether it supports
> Linux or not simply isn't an issue: it will. At least, I've yet to find a
> box that won't.
All the mom and pop places have gone under.
All the superstores sell Vista machines or Macs.
> >> Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
>
> > Not really.
>
> Not in the slightest, unless, as noted earlier, you're *already* buying
> gear you *expect* to have issues with, even in Windows.
Nvidia, Lexmark and Asus (the brands mentioned I believe) are name
brands that work rather well with Windows.
You can't get more mainstream than that.
How come Linux can't seem to work with them?
> > Oh, and BTW, 'tennant' is Dr Who, you must have mean 'tenet'.
>
> Isn't it also French for something akin to "buggger"? As in "You little
> bugger?"
Buggery?
Why are Linux users constantly bringing homosexuality into
conversations where it does not belong?
> >> So how long did you spend doing the research?
>
> >> Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
>
> > If it's 'luck', then I've been 'luckly' six times at least, with
> > deifferent laptops/PCs.
>
> Likewise. You buy the box, you install the OS, you don't worry about it.
> Where's the problem?
The problem is Linux.
> --
> Do not contact me at kbjarna...@ncoldns.com
wjbell
You should, that way we have a way to explain why you're such a fucking
idiot.
The Ghost In The Machine
<aka@masked&anonymous.es>
wrote
on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 23:40:20 +0100
<uicWuJtV...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>:
Somebody has to. Million-dollar mansions don't build themselves. :-)
http://www.aaxnet.com/news/L981010.html
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Linux. Because it's not the desktop that's
important, it's the ability to DO something
with it.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
The Ghost In The Machine
<karla.bo...@yahoo.com>
wrote
on 22 Feb 2007 12:18:00 -0800
<1172175480.7...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
(assuming "tenet")
>>
>> > So how long did you spend doing the research?
>>
>> > Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
>>
>> "tennant"? First off, you misspelled a word that you didnt mean
>> in the first place.
>>
>> Secondly, you're a fucking idiot. Get the fuck out of COLA and
>> go back to your windows buddies, BITCH.
>>
>> -----yttrx
>>
>> --http://www.yttrx.net- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> So now we have the spelling police.
> Tell me, are all Linux users as crude, vulgar and boorish as you?
>
http://www.kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html
might be crude and vulgar, but also highly informative, about
an OS that really shouldn't have been let out of its pen. ;-)
And yes, I do believe K-Man uses Linux, though his website emphasizes
Windows, probably because he's more familiar with it (and more people
have problems with it :-) ).
As for yttrx -- he gives as good as he gets. Try kind words. ;-)
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
/dev/signature: No such file or directory
The Ghost In The Machine
<1172163583.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
> I've spent the last 3 days attempting to upgrade 4 Windows-XP systems
> to Vista
[rest snipped]
Go bug someone who cares. This is COLA amongst the crossposts. :-P
Followups reset.
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Useless C++ Programming Idea #992398129:
void f(unsigned u) { if(u < 0) ... }
[H]omer
> [H]omer wrote:
>> Your chances of the hardware working under Linux, is currently better
>> than the chances of it working under Vista ... by a big margin.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> I think it was Schestowitz that posted the URL from Dell:
> http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/solutions/en/winvista?c=us&l=en&s=gen&redirect=1
>
>
> Vista with 512 MB RAM, 800MHz-1GHz CPU:
>
> "Great for: Booting the Operating System, without running applications
> or games."
It's laughable that this system is labelled "Vista Capable". Capable of
*what*? Booting? That's it? I think that's stretching the taxonomy a
little far. Pedantically - oh yes, it does boot, but ...
Even the next system up is still only "basic", apparently. 1GHz and 1GB
gives you a limited Vista XPerience ... good grief!
If I was Michael Dell, I'd be too embarrassed to even *sell* Vista,
never mind *recommend* it ... or [spit] *pre-install* it and infect the
poor hapless systems with that pretentious bloat. There wouldn't be
enough money in the world to compensate for my guilty conscience.
> Why don't they focus more on gaming, their flight simulator, and other
> things they've been better at? Perhaps release a linux version.
Simulation games send me to sleep.
I'd be more interested in something like Halo 3 ... that is if there was
any chance of it ever actually being released for anything other than
the xbox. But as DFS keeps telling everyone, the PC is da best gaming
platform, honest, so we should all be happy regardless.
Some people swear by MS peripherals (mice, keyboards, etc.) ... some
people swear *at* them. I've never touched any MS hardware, so I
wouldn't know, but that court case where some French (IIRC) company
claimed MS stole their Ergonomic Keyboard idea, kinda put me off MS
hardware anyway.
I'll let someone else Google for the link, I'm too tired.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
.----
| "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a 'Vista Upgrade
| Layer' when they go through our landfill sites" - Sian Berry, the
| Green Party.
`----
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.19-1.2288.fc5
03:37:00 up 3 days, 15:02, 2 users, load average: 0.01, 0.06, 0.03
yttrx
Yeah. If you could, try to come up with your own idiom, instead of
stealing (and badly implementing) mine. Thanks.
-----yttrx
yttrx
wjbell
If the shoe fits...
Linuxiac
>>
>> I've asked a number of people about their personal experiences with
>> Linux and each one said the same thing.
>>
>> "Linux is fine if you pick and choose your hardware carefully and if
>> you happen to use a distribution that is well supported and works with
>> your carefully chosen hardware".
>>
>> Stray far from that tennant and Linux becomes a nightmare.
>>
>> So how long did you spend doing the research?
>>
>> Or did you just happen to *get lucky* ?
>
> I guess I got lucky with my old ASUS AMD 800 Mhz with 512 PC-100 RAM, a
> genius sound card and an old ATI video card. I'm tying this message with
> it now.
>
> Alias
Hey, I grabbed this curbside donation Dell Dimension 4100, (933Mhz
Pentium with 512Mb RAM), pulled out the worthless Winmodem and Creative
sound blaster, and booted http://pclinuxos.com LiveCDrom and installed
it. Took about 35 minutes. Also stuck in a dual layer Pioneer DVR-111
and a firewire card, new Crystal sound card, and it is running great.
Even gave Neal Boortz ( http://boortz.com ), the talk radio show host,
some LiveCDs of PCLinuxOS, and Simply Mepis. Linux LiveCDroms should be
in every satchel and 'tool' kit, because they work so well, give
thousands of great programs, and let the user actually 'own' the computer.
I always wipe out the prior OSes of donated computers, because that
protects me from lawsuits for using or making charitable contributions
of the proprietary leased code of Microsoft, Autodesk, Adobe, and
others. (anyone recall the Salvation Army lawsuit? BSA sued, so SA now
runs GNU/Linux!).
As for the TTF Fonts libraries, there is one available to all of the
Open Source community, that is legit and unfettered. search
http://google.com/linux for TTF Fonts.
Replacing Microsoft with a real working system, total freedom of choice,
that is upto 50X faster in most processes, performs concurrent
multi-tasking, and is immune to the "114,000 Microsoft Virus
Definitions", one new business and one new person per week, since 1997.
Johan Lindquist
yttrx was all like, "Dude,
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>> As for yttrx -- he gives as good as he gets. Try kind words. ;-)
>
> Stop it this instant.
Now, now, we all know those kind words can seem alittle scary at
first. Don't worry tho, we're all here to help you through it. Why,
before you know it, you'll be all huggles and honey.
--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
10:09:07 up 106 days, 7:50, 5 users, load average: 0.12, 0.41, 0.50
Linux 2.6.18.1 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729
The Old Duffer
"Linuxiac" <"at yahoo.com "> wrote in message
news:45deb0ca$0$4904$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> Serious snippage of previous text that was meaningless to this posting.
>
>
> with 512Mb RAM), pulled out the worthless Winmodem and Creative sound
> blaster, and booted http://pclinuxos.com LiveCDrom and installed it.
> Took about 35 minutes. Also stuck in a dual layer Pioneer DVR-111 and a
> firewire card, new Crystal sound card, and it is running great.
>
> Even gave Neal Boortz ( http://boortz.com ), the talk radio show host,
> some LiveCDs of PCLinuxOS, and Simply Mepis. Linux LiveCDroms should be
> in every satchel and 'tool' kit, because they work so well, give thousands
> of great programs, and let the user actually 'own' the computer.
>
> I always wipe out the prior OSes of donated computers, because that
> protects me from lawsuits for using or making charitable contributions of
> the proprietary leased code of Microsoft, Autodesk, Adobe, and others.
> (anyone recall the Salvation Army lawsuit? BSA sued, so SA now runs
> GNU/Linux!).
>
> As for the TTF Fonts libraries, there is one available to all of the Open
> Source community, that is legit and unfettered. search
> http://google.com/linux for TTF Fonts.
>
> Replacing Microsoft with a real working system, total freedom of choice,
> that is upto 50X faster in most processes, performs concurrent
> multi-tasking, and is immune to the "114,000 Microsoft Virus Definitions",
> one new business and one new person per week, since 1997.
Life is too short to "Peel An Olive"
Jamie Hart
news:OJ9FWbsV...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:
>
> "arachnid" <no...@goawayspammers.com> wrote in message
> news:pan.2007.02.22....@goawayspammers.com...
>> On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 14:34:56 -0500, Mike Hall - MS MVP Windows
>> Shell/User wrote:
>>
>>> A few hundred apps and then a few hundred more? Amazed that you find
>>> so many, and the time to use them all..
>>
>> Combine 15,000 free applications with a childishly simple package
>> manager/installer and one tends to develop a very large toolbox. :-)
>>
>
> You need 15000 tools in your toolbox?
>
There's no point in rationing tools when they're free.
Jamie Hart
news:1172193315.8...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>> Play with him all you like, but keep in mind that you're responding
>> to a completely fictitious story posted by some poor schmuck who has
>> had nothing better to do for the past decade. The guy is disturbed.
>
> Sorry Joe User but you have no idea what you are talking about.
> I had to do a little research but I am assuming you are talking about
> some uber troll that has been loose in comp.os.linux.advocacy.
>
Well, thank god you have a long and distinguished usenet career that let's
us know you're not a troll.
Heaven forbid if the persona you're using had only existed since yesterday,
that would really have ruined your credibility.
chrisv
>karla.bo...@yahoo.com wrote in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>>
>> Please don't take this the wrong way, but are you mentally retarded?
>> I'm just curious.
>
>If you had just said "I'm an asshole" rather than "I'm just curious," that
>clearly would have been a more credible statement.
>
>The fact that you have cross-posted this between MS and Linux groups is all
>the proof that even a "mentally retarded" lurker can understand to see that
>you are just another troll getting a loser's thrill out of baiting others.
*clap* *clap* *clap*
Good answer. The only way I can think that it might have been
improved is with a plonking at the end. But, of course, the asshole
will just nym-shift and do the same thing again. This same sorry
excuse for a human being has been doing this SAME tired act for YEARS.
chrisv
>On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:59:43 -0800, karla.bonerstein wrote:
>
>> I've spent the last 3 days
>
>Flattie has once again been spending his life on the Internet looking for
>whatever problems he can find that other people might have with Linux.
>After he finds enough (or gets tired of looking), he puts them all
>together into a little story about himself and what horrors he experienced
>the other day when he tried to install this new OS he read about called
>Linux, and then he chooses a new name for himself (for the past few
>years, he has favored pretending to be female) and posts it to COLA and
>half a dozen other groups.
>
>People, he has been doing this for more than 10 years. I think it must be
>the most important thing in his life. He never tires of it, and I really
>don't think he ever will.
>
>Play with him all you like, but keep in mind that you're responding to a
>completely fictitious story posted by some poor schmuck who has had
>nothing better to do for the past decade. The guy is disturbed.
Excellent post!
dgk
<ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Alias
...
>>> Linux is a waste of time.
>>> A HUGE waste of time.
>>>
>>
>> Your loss. Keep paying MS.
>>
>> Alias
>
>Somebody has to. Million-dollar mansions don't build themselves. :-)
>
>http://www.aaxnet.com/news/L981010.html
>
>--
And all the programmers and such that also get paid. I can't figure
out what it is about paying for stuff that many linux folks feel is
such a big deal.
I liked what I read on the Ubuntu site about Linux being "free". It
doesn't mean that folks can't charge money for writing programs. It
means that folks should be free to alter those programs to suit their
needs. That sounds ok although the vast majority of people will never
have the expertise to actually alter and recompile programs. And if
they did the customer support people would go nuts.
No one offers to fix that leak that's dripping water into my kitchen
for free. Oh, I'm "free" to do it myself, but I don't have the
expertise or experience to do that. So I pay someone. Nope, they won't
do it for free just because I'm a programmer and expected to work for
nothing.
Like it or not, we're in a capitalist world. People work and get paid
for the value of their labor. Well, in theory anyway. But we get paid
something.
I really have to wonder just how many of the "software should be free"
linux advocates actually have to earn money, or are you all living on
your parent's money while you go to college?
Dean G.
> "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote in messagenews:1172168052....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > On Feb 22, 12:34 pm, jjwasserm...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> On Feb 22, 12:22 pm, "Brian W" <brian.wescombeSOD...@ntlSPAMworld.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> > "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.es> wrote in message
>
> >> >news:%23sTgXPq...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>
> >> > > Funny, I installed Ubuntu in less than half an hour. Try Ubuntu.
> >> > > postage.
>
> >> > That's still more time than I ever plan to spend installing it on my system
>
> >> required to make Linux work is astronomical. Sure the Linux pundits
> >> will cry "it works fine for me" and blame the user, but the internet
> >> is chock full of Linux horror stories.
>
> > A quick Google search finds far more Windows horror stories, with far
> > worse results, particularly on the malware front.
>
> Naturally so, since Windows has many more users, and the average
> Windows user is not very computer savvy.
> I have to side with the OP on this issue. I consider myself technically
> competent, having started my personal computer acquaintance with
> writing assembly language programs for the Timex Sinclair 1000 and
> the Commodore 64 back in the early 80's.
> About once a year I try installing a new Linux variant. Invariably
> one or more of my computer system components are not supported.
> Typically it will be the modem, or graphics card, or printer. Yes,
> there are workarounds available, which involve much research and
> hand-editing some very obscure settings file. I don't have the time
> to do that! Windows XP just works, and if I need to change some
> setting, there is an intuitive GUI available to do so.
Well, I also have quite a bit experience, starting with an Apple II+
instead of the Timex and Commodore. So let's keep the standard apples
to apples here. I just bought a new PC. The video card is a GeForce
8800GTS. Should I thus abandon Windows for a few more years just
because the video card doesn't work properly ? By your standard, I
should.
Back to Ubuntu, because it just works, and I don't have time to screw
with expensive software that doesn't work. Given the choice, I'll
always chose software like Ubuntu which is free and works, over MS
Windows, which is expensive, and doesn't. And I'll be damned before I
shell out a bundle on Office 2007. From what I've seen, the interface
is a mess. I much prefer the simplicity of Open Office, or even MS
Office 2003. I just don't have the time to learn a new interface every
time some publisher wants to put "new and improved" on their box.
And speaking of "intuitive" interfaces, Vista doesn't have it. Windows
95 had it, XP wasn't bad, but Vista really missed the target on this
one. It seem like MS is going backwards on the interface. Sure, the
graphics are pretty, but the actual interface is a disaster.
So for now, I'll use Ubuntu, and load XP when I need it for a certain
game (the ONLY reason I use Windows, BTW) and be happy. What's a
second hand Vista Upgrade worth ? I mean on the market, not in terms
of usablility. I already know that is zero.
Dean G.
Windows Vista : unworthy at any price
yttrx
Wjbell everyone. Thief, liar, moron. He's here for eternity.
Try the meatloaf.
-----yttrx
yttrx
> So anyway, it was like, 04:55 CET Feb 23 2007, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> yttrx was all like, "Dude,
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy The Ghost In The Machine <ew...@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote:
>
>>> As for yttrx -- he gives as good as he gets. Try kind words. ;-)
>>
>> Stop it this instant.
>
> Now, now, we all know those kind words can seem alittle scary at
> first. Don't worry tho, we're all here to help you through it. Why,
> before you know it, you'll be all huggles and honey.
>
My loathing for you is seared by the heat of a million suns of pure
hatred.
-----yttrx
Paul Bramscher
> Verily I say unto thee, that Paul Bramscher spake thusly:
>> [H]omer wrote:
>
>>> Your chances of the hardware working under Linux, is currently better
>>> than the chances of it working under Vista ... by a big margin.
>> Absolutely.
>>
>> I think it was Schestowitz that posted the URL from Dell:
>> http://www.dell.com/content/topics/global.aspx/solutions/en/winvista?c=us&l=en&s=gen&redirect=1
>>
>>
>> Vista with 512 MB RAM, 800MHz-1GHz CPU:
>>
>> "Great for: Booting the Operating System, without running applications
>> or games."
>
> It's laughable that this system is labelled "Vista Capable". Capable of
> *what*? Booting? That's it? I think that's stretching the taxonomy a
> little far. Pedantically - oh yes, it does boot, but ...
>
> Even the next system up is still only "basic", apparently. 1GHz and 1GB
> gives you a limited Vista XPerience ... good grief!
>
> If I was Michael Dell, I'd be too embarrassed to even *sell* Vista,
> never mind *recommend* it ... or [spit] *pre-install* it and infect the
> poor hapless systems with that pretentious bloat. There wouldn't be
> enough money in the world to compensate for my guilty conscience.
It speaks volumes about internal oversights within Dell. Evidently
their marketing people NEVER RAN THAT WEB SITE PAST A SINGLE ENGINEER OR
CONSUMER STUDY GROUP. It is the most laughable claim I've seen in years
of surfing digital cyberspace: great for booting the box, but not
running any games or applications.
I've been around since the Apple //, and have actually NEVER seen
anything so ridiculous.
If I were Dell, I'd fire every marketing person, starting with the
author of that web page -- and everyone above him (straight to the top)
who let it slip by.
At the very least, they could be honest. If such a machine can't run
games or applications, then it's not Vista Capable, it's GREAT FOR
LINUX. Are they selling Windows, or are they selling hardware?
Dean G.
> On Feb 22, 4:30 pm, DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h....@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote innews:1172168052....@h3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
> > >> I've always wondered what "works for me" actually means when spoken
> > >> by a Linux zealot.
>
> > > Funny, I've always wondered what "works for me" meant what spoken by a
> > > Windows user.
>
> > > Does it mean the system boot (and reboots, and reboots, and
> > > reboots...)
>
> > > Does it mean it starts up and shows the desktop ?
>
> > > Does it mean the Windows PC is turned into a zombie spewing spam to
> > > clutter everyone's inbox ?
> > > Does it mean it defrags the disk every month ?
>
> > > Does it mean that Windows is a good platform for key-logging malware ?
>
> > > Does it mean it functions just enough that the user doesn't have to
> > > actually think, so everything must be OK ?
>
> > > Does it mean it cam pre-installed, so the user will live with it
> > > instead of considering other option ?
>
> > > Does it mean complaining about Linux not having every driver, while
> > > Vista is OK even though the driver support is even more marginal ?
>
> > > It seems "it works" has an odd meaning for Windows users.
>
> > AND LINUX Users.
>
> > > Maybe the Windows standard is so low exactly because it is pre-
> > > installed, and thus many of the users know little if anything about
> > > the alternatives.
>
> > Yeah, Grandma hasn't done her research on all of the computers they sell
> > at Walmart.
>
> > > Maybe the Vista users will be happy with all the DRM
> > > restrictions , constant running of security and maintenance programs,
> > > and the constant nagging of the user controls ? Maybe they don't mind
> > > that they are susceptible to malware. Maybe they just don't want to
> > > admit that they spend so much for an OS that is worse than the free
> > > alternatives. Denial is a very powerful thing.
>
> > Uncle George's O/S was pre-installed, therefore it was 'free'. Aunt
> > June's $300 Dell came pre-installed also. Very few people actually make
> > an effort to go out and buy an operating system to upgrade their home PC.
> > 99.8% (minumum) of MS Non-server OS Sales are OEM pushed by
> > Dell/HP/Compaq, etc.
>
> > > I recommend Linux to others, because the Windows users are always
> > > calling me about some problem or another. If MS wanted to pay me for
> > > each time I had to re-install Windows for one of their users, then I
> > > might have a different view. If MS wanted to pay me for each time I
> > > had to walk someone through booting into safe mode to remove some kind
> > > of malware, then maybe I'd be more likely to have a "pro-Windows"
> > > stance. But then it would be $elf-$erving, and certainly not an honest
> > > opinion.
>
> > That may be your opinion of Windows XP, but not my personal experience
> > with it.
>
> > Of all the people you had recommeded Linux to, how many have actually
> > done it and have NOT called you for help ?
>
> > > Meanwhile, I have better things to do than fix the constant problems
> > > Windows users have.
>
> > Like spend your time teaching people how to install Linux ? How to search
> > for and find drivers for Linux ? Teaching them how to administer Linux...
>
> > > Dean G.
>
> > > Windows on your PC - it works better for the spammers than it does for
> > > you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Nvidia video card to function properly under Linux.
>
> http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=81001
>
> If you read through that link you will see how insane it is to get
> Linux to work with common hardware like an Nvidia Fx5500 and a
> widescreen LCD.
>
> Maybe I should have kept my DEC orange screen monochrome CRT.
> I'll bet Linux would work great with that one.
Having just bought a PC with a GeForce 8800GTS, I feel your pain, but
not your hypocrisy.
I'd like to post a snippet of what it takes to get it working under
Vista, but, AFAIK, there isn't a way to do it yet. Half-assed
functioning doesn't count by your own standard. Maybe I need to go
back to MS-DOS and a Hercules card. I'll bet MS has finally got that
to work right.
Dean G.
Linonut
> And all the programmers and such that also get paid. I can't figure
> out what it is about paying for stuff that many linux folks feel is
> such a big deal.
Paying isn't a big deal.
The big deal is paying and then have the vendor yank the rug out from
under you, for more paying.
> Like it or not, we're in a capitalist world. People work and get paid
> for the value of their labor. Well, in theory anyway. But we get paid
> something.
All too often, you pay for nothing but the privilege of getting bug
fixes.
> I really have to wonder just how many of the "software should be free"
> linux advocates actually have to earn money, or are you all living on
> your parent's money while you go to college?
A ridiculous aspersion that applies equally well to your average Windows
user.
--
Windows XP is like a box of chocolates --
you never know when the steel bolts are going to spring out and
plunge straight through both cheeks.
Linonut
> Johan Lindquist <sp...@smilfinken.net> wrote:
>>
>> Now, now, we all know those kind words can seem alittle scary at
>> first. Don't worry tho, we're all here to help you through it. Why,
>> before you know it, you'll be all huggles and honey.
>>
>
> My loathing for you is seared by the heat of a million suns of pure
> hatred.
Looks like we got Harlan Ellison here.
--
What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away.
Jim
keyboard a moment ago in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
<snip crybaby stuff>
Maybe you should go find the box your PC came in
Put the PC, monitor, keyboard and mouse in the box
take it to the place from where you purchased it
and tell them you're too THICK to own a PC.
IF you had READ TFM you would have found out that Fedora is NOT for newbies.
IT IS A DEVELOPER DISTRIBUTION OF REDHAT. You would have been better off
with OpenSuSE, Mandriva, or Ubuntu. These are pretty much click-n-drool
installations. Which probably explains why I'm so keen on SuSE. Less time
fucking about with primary installation dependencies, more time drinking
coffee and watching the 2.1GB default install package fly in.
--
-*- Linux Desktops & Clustering Solutions -*- http://dotware.co.uk
-*- Registered Linux user #426308 -*- http://counter.li.org
-*- Once upon a midnight dreary, as I porn-searched, weak and weary,
o'er many a strange and spurious site of hot XXX galore.
But when I clicked my fav'rite bookmark, suddenly there came a warning,
and my heart was filled with mourning, mourning for my lost amore.
"'Tis not possible," I muttered, "give me back my free hardcore!"
Quoth the server: "404"
-*- Disclaimer:
By sending an email to ANY of my addresses you are agreeing that:
1. I am by definition, "the intended recipient"
2. All information in the email is mine to do with as I see fit and make
such financial profit, political mileage, or good joke as it lends itself
to. In particular, I may quote it on usenet.
3. I may take the contents as representing the views of your company.
4. This overrides any disclaimer or statement of confidentiality that may
be included on your message.
Hadron Quark
> karla.bo...@yahoo.com came up with this when s/he headbutted the
> keyboard a moment ago in comp.os.linux.advocacy:
>
> <snip crybaby stuff>
>
> Maybe you should go find the box your PC came in
> Put the PC, monitor, keyboard and mouse in the box
> take it to the place from where you purchased it
> and tell them you're too THICK to own a PC.
>
> IF you had READ TFM you would have found out that Fedora is NOT for
> newbies.
"RTFM" - Linux advocacy at it's best.
You've done your bit today Jimbo, well done. Now, back to chrisv and willy
boaster.
Gary VanderMolen
> Back to Ubuntu, because it just works, and I don't have time to screw
> with expensive software that doesn't work. Given the choice, I'll
> always chose software like Ubuntu which is free and works, over MS
> Windows, which is expensive, and doesn't.
The cost of the OS isn't really much of an issue. Most people
acquire the new OS as part of the bundle when they purchase
a new PC. For upgraders, I've seen generic OEM copies of Vista
go for as low as $50. I get mine free in return for being a
beta tester for MS.
Gary VanderMolen
Gary VanderMolen
> Having just bought a PC with a GeForce 8800GTS, I feel your pain, but
> not your hypocrisy.
>
> I'd like to post a snippet of what it takes to get it working under
> Vista, but, AFAIK, there isn't a way to do it yet. Half-assed
> functioning doesn't count by your own standard. Maybe I need to go
> back to MS-DOS and a Hercules card. I'll bet MS has finally got that
> to work right.
Since you bought that PC recently, it should have come with a
guarantee to work properly with Vista. As a last resort you should
be able to get your money back. It is highly unusual for a device to
*not* work under Windows since the major peripheral makers know
where their bread and butter is coming from (something you can't
say for Linux).
Gary VanderMolen
Dean G.
> "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote in messagenews:1172247083.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I'm not using Vista, so I don't really care. The point was "karla"(-
fish?) ranting about how some things didn't work completely under
Linux due to driver issues, while Vista has far more dirver related
issues at the moment. Both will be resolved in time, but some people's
hyprocrisy will never end.
Dean G.
Dean G.
> "Dean G." <dguttada...@4ecp.com> wrote in messagenews:1172247083.0...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Another thing, maybe you should tell Intel and Nvidia that their
butter is coming from a Linux user in my case. Linux, Core 2, and
GF8800. No Vista.
Dean G.