HW support made easy, the Windows way ...
Richard Rasker
No matter how well Linux can extend the life span of older hardware, even
Linux-users need some new hardware from time to time. And ever more often,
the hardware comes with severe warnings: "WARNING! Install Driver Software
from CD FIRST, Then [device]!", often in big type on huge red labels
sealing the bag with the goodies. I've seen it with USB-printers and lots
of other USB devices, but also PCI-stuff.
Alas, when I try to heed these warnings, it invariably turns out I can't
install the driver software from the CD, because there isn't any. For
Linux, that is. Luckily, when I hook the stuff up, it mostly works in one
go, so I never got round to researching exactly *why* these warnings were
given - until I got a call from a family member.
The man was trying to install a second hand PCI WiFi card (delivered with
driver CD) on a Windows box. He'd plugged in the card, and booted the
machine to install the drivers. Windows worked through its routine of "New
Hardware Found", he fed it the driver CD and he thought everything was
going fine. Not so. The card refused to work. Even worse, it wasn't even
recognized as such.
He tried installing the drivers again, rebooted again - and that several
times. No go. The manual he downloaded from the Internet gave no real
clues too. Then he contacted the previous owner; he'd seen the card work
on a machine there, so it coudn't be broken, but perhaps the guy knew what
might be wrong. The man told him that, yeah, now he thought about it,
there'd been a warning on the package, something about installing the
drivers *before* plugging in the card.
OK, so the cause of the problem was more or less clear, but not the
solution. Searching on the Internet suggested anything from uninstalling
the drivers (impossible, since the hardware wasn't recognized properly, so
he had no access to its properties), hacking the registry (a sure recipe
for disaster), removing mainboard device drivers (yeah, way to go!), doing
a rollback (and lose many months of installed apps, not to mention work),
right up to the King of all Windows Solutions: a fresh reinstall of XP.
Alas, I couldn't help the man either, so now he's been busy for many hours
preparing for a roll-back, making back-ups, retrieving the software he
installed the past months. Yup, this is the famous Windows ease-of-use as
I know it. But the man's looking on the bright side: the machine had
slowed down considerably in the past months, and hadn't he seen some signs
of malware? So it was due a reinstall or a rollback anyway. Poor sod ...
Anyway, my technical curiosity wasn't satisfied yet - but after some
digging, I think I found out what's going on. And yes, as I expected, it's
Windows' "user-friendly" way of making things "easy", turning out to be
something between a nuisance and a disaster.
What happened? As the man plugged in the card, Windows found it,
recognized it, and tried to locate and install drivers for it. All good
and well, and very user-friendly - if only Windows had recognized it
correctly. In fact, it didn't, and Windows set up the wrong drivers for
the hardware. But as the hardware turned a totally deaf ear to these
drivers, it didn't show up anywhere any more, so the user couldn't change
anything about it any more. The result: a one-way dead end street.
Of course this wouldn't have happened if the user had observed the right
installation order. But he couldn't have known this - and besides, I think
it's very logical to plug in a device, then install drivers (if at all
needed). Often, it's even advisable *not* to install the manufacturer's
drivers at all - I once permanently knocked out an XP laptop within 15
minutes, by simply installing some drivers and tools supplied with a USB
stick.
So once again, crappy design makes users jump through all kinds of hoops,
with punishment for failing to do so ranging from mild annoyance to many
lost hours. And this is what all those trolls here call "excellent Windows
hardware support"? You can keep it ...
Richard Rasker
--
Linetec Translation and Technology Services
Oliver Wong
news:pan.2006.09.15....@linetec.nl...
Your post is a bit on the antagonistic side, but otherwise this is a
good point and something Windows could be improved. However, I'm not certain
that it's a design flaw on Microsoft's part. It could be poor code on the
device manufacturers part.
To your friend, if he hasn't reinstalled Windows yet, I recommend he try
(physically) removing the device, and seeing if the drivers will install at
that point, and then re-installing the device (physically).
I'm surprised and a bit skeptical that Windows installed the wrong
drivers though. As I understand it, there's a standard (not sure if it's
from Microsoft, or defacto, or from somewhere else) signature that all
hardware is able to emit to the computer. It's something like an 10 bytes to
identify the manufacturer, and another 10 bytes to identify devices made by
that manufacturer. In my experience, when Windows can't find a match, a new
entry is added to the device manager under "unknown device". If an incorrect
driver WAS installed, the (phantom) device should show up in the device
manager, with a yellow "warning" sign indicating that while the driver is
functioning, the hardware is not. At that point, you can right click on the
phantom device, and choose "Uninstall driver".
- Oliver
Mark Kent
Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> espoused:
>
<snip windows driver woes preamble>
>
> Anyway, my technical curiosity wasn't satisfied yet - but after some
> digging, I think I found out what's going on. And yes, as I expected, it's
> Windows' "user-friendly" way of making things "easy", turning out to be
> something between a nuisance and a disaster.
>
> What happened? As the man plugged in the card, Windows found it,
> recognized it, and tried to locate and install drivers for it. All good
> and well, and very user-friendly - if only Windows had recognized it
> correctly. In fact, it didn't, and Windows set up the wrong drivers for
> the hardware. But as the hardware turned a totally deaf ear to these
> drivers, it didn't show up anywhere any more, so the user couldn't change
> anything about it any more. The result: a one-way dead end street.
>
> Of course this wouldn't have happened if the user had observed the right
> installation order. But he couldn't have known this - and besides, I think
> it's very logical to plug in a device, then install drivers (if at all
> needed). Often, it's even advisable *not* to install the manufacturer's
> drivers at all - I once permanently knocked out an XP laptop within 15
> minutes, by simply installing some drivers and tools supplied with a USB
> stick.
> So once again, crappy design makes users jump through all kinds of hoops,
> with punishment for failing to do so ranging from mild annoyance to many
> lost hours. And this is what all those trolls here call "excellent Windows
> hardware support"? You can keep it ...
>
One of my biggest bugbears with Windows is that you just can't get
underneath anything to find out what's going on. The GUI structure is
such a lashed-together mess that it seems near impossible to understand
relationships between drivers, devices, binaries and so on, with the
only place everything comes together seemingly being the registry.
As the registry is a monolithic binary lump, designed /not/ for ease
of manipulation by the admin or the user, then the one point at which
things ought to come together is the most opaque and arcane mess in
contemporary computing.
Now, whilst it can be said that device driver modules are not necessarily
easy to manipulate, that the modutils are not overly friendly, that the
files in /etc/ can have syntax which is less than immediately obvious,
and that the interelationships can be relatively complex, that it's
not necessarily immediately obvious which libraries are used by what,
it's also true that all these things can be determined, without too much
difficulty, through man pages and standard utilities which come with
linux distributions. Debian will even automatically offer to remove
no-longer required libraries.
So, when something doesn't work, you /know/ that it's worth putting
effort in to pursue the problem, because the chances are that there'll
be a fix. In Linux
So, when something doesn't work, you /know/ that it's worth putting
effort in to pursue the problem, because the chances are that there'll
be a fix. In Linux.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward,
then we are a sorry lot indeed."
-- Albert Einstein
Roy Schestowitz
> "Richard Rasker" <spam...@linetec.nl> wrote in message
> news:pan.2006.09.15....@linetec.nl...
>>
>> No matter how well Linux can extend the life span of older hardware, even
>> Linux-users need some new hardware from time to time. And ever more often,
>> the hardware comes with severe warnings: "WARNING! Install Driver Software
>> from CD FIRST, Then [device]!", often in big type on huge red labels
>> sealing the bag with the goodies. I've seen it with USB-printers and lots
>> of other USB devices, but also PCI-stuff.
>>
>> Alas, when I try to heed these warnings, it invariably turns out I can't
>> install the driver software from the CD, because there isn't any. For
>> Linux, that is. Luckily, when I hook the stuff up, it mostly works in one
>> go, so I never got round to researching exactly *why* these warnings were
>> given - until I got a call from a family member.
>> The man was trying to install a second hand PCI WiFi card (delivered with
>> driver CD) on a Windows box. He'd plugged in the card, and booted the
>> machine to install the drivers. Windows worked through its routine of "New
>> Hardware Found", he fed it the driver CD and he thought everything was
>> going fine. Not so. The card refused to work. Even worse, it wasn't even
>> recognized as such.
[commenting as I read, first pass]
"The Device is working properly" pitch, right? And the option for "reinstall
driver" -> "Have/from Disk". That never works. When Windows works, it might
work. When it fails, it falls down -- "SPLAT" -- face on the floor. And
there are many factor that can assist a failure, e.g. a Service Pack, a
patch, or even malware. And rarely will there be an indicative sign, other
than chronological reconstruction, to say what the culprit was, let alone
how to resolve the issue. That, among other reasons, is why so many people
reinstall Windows way too frequently. It's time-draining and it leads to
loss of data such as application settings.
>> He tried installing the drivers again, rebooted again - and that several
>> times. No go. The manual he downloaded from the Internet gave no real
>> clues too. Then he contacted the previous owner; he'd seen the card work
>> on a machine there, so it coudn't be broken, but perhaps the guy knew what
>> might be wrong. The man told him that, yeah, now he thought about it,
>> there'd been a warning on the package, something about installing the
>> drivers *before* plugging in the card.
>> OK, so the cause of the problem was more or less clear, but not the
>> solution. Searching on the Internet suggested anything from uninstalling
>> the drivers (impossible, since the hardware wasn't recognized properly, so
>> he had no access to its properties), hacking the registry (a sure recipe
>> for disaster), removing mainboard device drivers (yeah, way to go!), doing
>> a rollback (and lose many months of installed apps, not to mention work),
>> right up to the King of all Windows Solutions: a fresh reinstall of XP.
I guess this proves my previous point (hadn't read this before). And the "use
Google to solve Linux problems" myth is suddenly shattered, or at least
leveraged to align with Windows.
>> Alas, I couldn't help the man either, so now he's been busy for many hours
>> preparing for a roll-back, making back-ups, retrieving the software he
>> installed the past months. Yup, this is the famous Windows ease-of-use as
>> I know it. But the man's looking on the bright side: the machine had
>> slowed down considerably in the past months, and hadn't he seen some signs
>> of malware? So it was due a reinstall or a rollback anyway. Poor sod ...
The more complex the work environment, the longer it takes to 'reconstruct
'it (always with some loss assumed). Moreover, reconstruction of settings in
Windows is hard because not everything is a simple file in the home
directory, from which unwanted bits can be culled out. A complete image of
Windows before reinstallation is a loss cause as it contains the
'contamination' in system's state. That in itself is an issue that many
people face when a virus strikes. Their Norton Ghost image may already
contain a live (let us say "Frozen") virus, in which case the image is
'dirtified'.
>> Anyway, my technical curiosity wasn't satisfied yet - but after some
>> digging, I think I found out what's going on. And yes, as I expected, it's
>> Windows' "user-friendly" way of making things "easy", turning out to be
>> something between a nuisance and a disaster.
>>
>> What happened? As the man plugged in the card, Windows found it,
>> recognized it, and tried to locate and install drivers for it. All good
>> and well, and very user-friendly - if only Windows had recognized it
>> correctly. In fact, it didn't, and Windows set up the wrong drivers for
>> the hardware. But as the hardware turned a totally deaf ear to these
>> drivers, it didn't show up anywhere any more, so the user couldn't change
>> anything about it any more. The result: a one-way dead end street.
Imagine yourself installing SUSE, choosing GNOME as the desktop environment
and then finding yourself unable to use KDE. I suppose it's the way the
stack of drivers and components is constructed (one large blob rather than
hierarchical set of modules) which leads to such a trap. Software which is
designed by glueing bits, each of which is developed by a different team
without protocols/interfaces for communication and exchange, is bound to
become overly complex. And that's the issue Windows is facing.
>> Of course this wouldn't have happened if the user had observed the right
>> installation order. But he couldn't have known this - and besides, I think
>> it's very logical to plug in a device, then install drivers (if at all
>> needed). Often, it's even advisable *not* to install the manufacturer's
>> drivers at all - I once permanently knocked out an XP laptop within 15
>> minutes, by simply installing some drivers and tools supplied with a USB
>> stick.
>> So once again, crappy design makes users jump through all kinds of hoops,
>> with punishment for failing to do so ranging from mild annoyance to many
>> lost hours. And this is what all those trolls here call "excellent Windows
>> hardware support"? You can keep it ...
That statement assumes that you still have all these driver CD's somewhere at
the back of the drawer. Moreover, it assumes you don't 'tango' with several
different versions of Windows (yes, sometimes the drivers themselves vary,
i.e. are forked). Linux works out of the box and when it does, it's
painless. Windows is a different case altogether, despite the fact that
hardware manufacturer tailor hardware and software for that one platform and
work 'hand in glove' with Microsoft.
> Your post is a bit on the antagonistic side, but otherwise this is a
> good point and something Windows could be improved. However, I'm not
> certain that it's a design flaw on Microsoft's part. It could be poor code
> on the device manufacturers part.
Aye. But the customer is caught in a deadlock-type situation, which is partly
permitted due to bad O/S architecture and the ability to retract component
or reverse an installation.
> To your friend, if he hasn't reinstalled Windows yet, I recommend he
> try
> (physically) removing the device, and seeing if the drivers will install at
> that point, and then re-installing the device (physically).
A time machine may be a worthwhile route.
> I'm surprised and a bit skeptical that Windows installed the wrong
> drivers though. As I understand it, there's a standard (not sure if it's
> from Microsoft, or defacto, or from somewhere else) signature that all
> hardware is able to emit to the computer. It's something like an 10 bytes
> to identify the manufacturer, and another 10 bytes to identify devices made
> by that manufacturer. In my experience, when Windows can't find a match, a
> new entry is added to the device manager under "unknown device". If an
> incorrect driver WAS installed, the (phantom) device should show up in the
> device manager, with a yellow "warning" sign indicating that while the
> driver is functioning, the hardware is not. At that point, you can right
> click on the phantom device, and choose "Uninstall driver".
Interesting. I didn't know some of these things. And I suspect it was more
than 10 bytes when I worked with an ARM processor, communication from a
GUI-based front-end.
Best wishes,
Roy
--
Roy S. Schestowitz | Partition if an operating $ysteM must be set aside
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Swap: 1036184k total, 310188k used, 725996k free, 53980k cached
http://iuron.com - next generation of search paradigms
![[H]omer's profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjWMQWyYwHeIwxhG3nGUeGWmLQD0R8TeZrvdWDiv5-2S_z3rHg=s40-c)
[H]omer
> The man was trying to install a second hand PCI WiFi card (delivered with
> driver CD) on a Windows box. He'd plugged in the card, and booted the
> machine to install the drivers. Windows worked through its routine of "New
> Hardware Found", he fed it the driver CD and he thought everything was
> going fine. Not so. The card refused to work. Even worse, it wasn't even
> recognized as such.
Windows has the most crap hardware enumeration of any OS I've ever
worked with.
Tell you're friend to run regedt32 and look here:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\PCI
Once he's cleared out all the dead wood from that crap, he should
install the driver *then* plug in the card.
IIRC there's a slightly easier way, that involves launching device
manager whilst booted into safe mode ... that way *all* enumerated
devices are shown, regardless of connection/enabled status.
In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
"Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
OS: http://distrowatch.com/
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
This message has not been photoshopped in any way.
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
03:51:44 up 90 days, 4:08, 3 users, load average: 0.07, 0.27, 0.42
DFS
> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
Roy Culley
<znBOg.5387$KA6.3054@clgrps12>,
"Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> writes:
>
> Your post is a bit on the antagonistic side, but otherwise this
> is a good point and something Windows could be improved. However,
> I'm not certain that it's a design flaw on Microsoft's part. It
> could be poor code on the device manufacturers part.
How on earth can it be poor code on the device manufacturers part?
The problem shows itself when the manufacturers drivers have NOT
been installed before the device is connected.
This is clearly yet another Windows desigh flaw. It has been known
about for years yet MS are either unwilling and / or unable to fix it.
--
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as
false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca the Younger (4? BC - 65 AD)
Richard Rasker
Simple: whichever one suits your purposes best. It's the same as asking
someone else which car of all those many thousands of makes and models is
the best one for you to buy.
> They ALL are the right one!
Indeed: they ALL support vastly more hardware in vastly superior ways than
Windows does.
> Ain't choice great!!
You say it!
ed
flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:50:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
> /*Sarcasm on*/
>
> They ALL are the right one!
> Ain't choice great!!
Most of them are easily placed in one of three categories, rpm, deb or
pkg based. Deb is the right category.
What category is windows? Probably the pkg, pre sysv category.
--
Regards, Ed :: http://www.gnunix.net
proud c++ hacker
Vin Diesel has so many muscles that he resembles a condom full of
walnuts.
Linonut
> /*Sarcasm on*/
>
> They ALL are the right one!
> Ain't choice great!!
Anyone who looks into Linux for about an hour will quickly find a
suitable distro to start with.
Hell, plenty of people at least know about Red Hat.
--
Mayor Noche's Bomba Shelter. Where bad food and bad people go
together. Try our Sleepy Joe -- it's half dog-food, half downers.
Today's special -- red beans and reds.
-- The Firesign Theatre
flatfish+++
> After takin' a swig o' grog, flatfish+++ belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:50:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
>>>> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>
>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>
>> /*Sarcasm on*/
>>
>> They ALL are the right one!
>> Ain't choice great!!
>
> Anyone who looks into Linux for about an hour will quickly find a
> suitable distro to start with.
Not in my experience.
They will either pick the top one (distrowatch) or go for Redhat, which is
proabably wrong for most desktop users.
> Hell, plenty of people at least know about Red Hat.
Most noobs to Linux think Redhat IS Linux
Android
> They ALL are the right one!
Would you prefere to chose between Microsnot Wingshit XP and Wingdong 98
or M$-DOG 6.22?
Linux users have a broad varité of distros to chose from - you're sure to
find the distro that suits your needs.
Android
> Most noobs to Linux think Redhat IS Linux
Not very good with the logical thinking skills, flatdick? Microtroll!
Redhat IS Linux, but Linux isn't Redhat.
But you are Bill Gate$' slave whatever Wingshit version you use.
Hadron Quark
You really believe 400 distros each with their advocates is good for
Linux development?
Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact. No Dispute. None.
This is why smaller companies dont enter markets where there are already
recognised marlet leaders - *UNLESS* they have an angle which can
attract a proportion of the market sufficient to justify the time &
expense of development and support. And before you say "OSS is free",
remember that TIME is money albeit a different currency.
Anyone who is worked in the real IT business world knows this : it would
appear only the real COLA gang hardcore and a few lifelong students seem
to think that 400 distros are a good idea.
That's not about choice : its about market dilution and confusing new
recruits.
--
This is a scsi driver, scraes the shit out of me, therefore I tapdanced
and wrote a unix clone around it (C) by linus
-- Somewhere in the kernel tree
Peter Köhlmann
> Android<fr...@software.invalid> writes:
>
>> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> skrev:
>>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
>>>>> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>>
>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>> /*Sarcasm on*/
>>> They ALL are the right one!
>>
>> Would you prefere to chose between Microsnot Wingshit XP and Wingdong 98
>> or M$-DOG 6.22?
>>
>> Linux users have a broad varité of distros to chose from - you're sure to
>> find the distro that suits your needs.
>>
>> distrowatch.org
>>
>
> You really believe 400 distros each with their advocates is good for
> Linux development?
>
Actually: Yes
> Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact. No Dispute. None.
>
What "fact"?
And yes, I dispute your "facts". There is a lot of this "dispute"
Since when have you been declared god and responsible for linux?
< snip more Hadron droppings >
--
You're genuinely bogus.
Richard Rasker
> Android<fr...@software.invalid> writes:
>
>> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> skrev:
>>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
>>>>> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>>
>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>> /*Sarcasm on*/
>>> They ALL are the right one!
>>
>> Would you prefere to chose between Microsnot Wingshit XP and Wingdong 98
>> or M$-DOG 6.22?
>>
>> Linux users have a broad varité of distros to chose from - you're sure to
>> find the distro that suits your needs.
>>
>> distrowatch.org
>>
>
> You really believe 400 distros each with their advocates is good for
> Linux development?
>
> Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact. No Dispute. None.
You're confusing "fact" with "opinion", or even "wish". But that's OK,
you're in good company: George W. "weapons of mass destruction" Bush, Bill
"our software has no bugs that anyone wants fixed" Gates, and many, many
others.
> This is why smaller companies dont enter markets where there are already
> recognised marlet leaders - *UNLESS* they have an angle which can
> attract a proportion of the market sufficient to justify the time &
> expense of development and support.
Then, for instance, all those small, almost unknown car manufacturers must
be completely bonkers, throwing money after designing and building new
cars all the time. Boy, you're stuck in the T-Ford age. Grow up.
> And before you say "OSS is free", remember that TIME is money albeit a
> different currency.
I bet the people who make the more obscure distibutions have their reasons
to do so, e.g. because they want to solve a problem they had with the
other distributions, or just because it's easy and fun to do. Or because
they wanted to learn about the OS. They don't consider the time they spent
on it to be "lost money" at all.
> Anyone who is worked in the real IT business world knows this : it would
> appear only the real COLA gang hardcore and a few lifelong students seem
> to think that 400 distros are a good idea.
It would only appear to the real hardcore M$ apologists and Soviet
dictators to decree that no choice at all is better than a wide choice.
> That's not about choice : its about market dilution and confusing new
> recruits.
What do you mean "confusing new recruits"? Not everyone is as stupid and
shortsighted as you ... And the market isn't "diluted" by those many
distros, quite contrary, it's enriched. In case you didn't know: OSS is
about the free sharing of ideas and concepts. OK, perhaps most of those
small distros are in fact not really interesting to the greater audience,
and contribute nothing really worthwhile to the OSS community. But once in
a while, something really nice, smart, or interesting pops up in one of
those "insignificant" distros. And contrary to your suggestion, this
innovation then makes its way into all distros very fast, so *everyone*
can benefit from it.
This seemingly wasteful process of continuous creation and demise of
"insignificant mutations" is called the "evolutionary model", and it's
widely recognized as the best way to develop succesful, complex structures.
But I guess you're one of those dumbheads in favour of "Intelligent
Design". By One God^H^H^HGates, in One Microsoft Way - resulting in
One Supreme OS, making all other OS'es obsolete, so no-one has to compete
... hahaha! The very idea ...
Android
> Android<fr...@software.invalid> writes:
>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>> /*Sarcasm on*/
>>> They ALL are the right one!
>>
>> Would you prefere to chose between Microsnot Wingshit XP and Wingdong 98
>> or M$-DOG 6.22?
>>
>> Linux users have a broad varité of distros to chose from - you're sure to
>> find the distro that suits your needs.
>>
>> distrowatch.org
>>
> You really believe 400 distros each with their advocates is good for
> Linux development?
> Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact.
Have you ever heard of evolution and the benefits of biodiversity? I
guess not, uneducated microsheep.
> No Dispute.
I dispute it.
> That's not about choice : its about market dilution and confusing new
> recruits.
Linux is for INTELLIGENT people. Hardly for herd thinkers, who are easely
confused.
Hadron Quark
> Op Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:28:18 +0200, schreef Hadron Quark:
>
>> Android<fr...@software.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> skrev:
>>>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
>>>>>> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>>> /*Sarcasm on*/
>>>> They ALL are the right one!
>>>
>>> Would you prefere to chose between Microsnot Wingshit XP and Wingdong 98
>>> or M$-DOG 6.22?
>>>
>>> Linux users have a broad varité of distros to chose from - you're sure to
>>> find the distro that suits your needs.
>>>
>>> distrowatch.org
>>>
>>
>> You really believe 400 distros each with their advocates is good for
>> Linux development?
>>
>> Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact. No Dispute. None.
>
> You're confusing "fact" with "opinion", or even "wish". But that's OK,
> you're in good company: George W. "weapons of mass destruction" Bush, Bill
> "our software has no bugs that anyone wants fixed" Gates, and many, many
> others.
Nice try dimmo. There is a big difference to "Fact : 400 distros take a
LOT of maintenance" to "They have WMD". One is a fact. The other could
have been true but was shown to be a lie.
Do you dispute that 400 distros will require a LOT of maintenance?
Do you? Come on ....
>
>> This is why smaller companies dont enter markets where there are already
>> recognised marlet leaders - *UNLESS* they have an angle which can
>> attract a proportion of the market sufficient to justify the time &
>> expense of development and support.
>
> Then, for instance, all those small, almost unknown car manufacturers must
> be completely bonkers, throwing money after designing and building new
> cars all the time. Boy, you're stuck in the T-Ford age. Grow up.
What small companies?
Kit Cars?
This is not even a half decent analogy. These people make money and its
in their FINANCIAL interest to sell their cars. Or they lose their jobs
and go hungry.
So, we'll strike that one off will we?
>
>> And before you say "OSS is free", remember that TIME is money albeit a
>> different currency.
>
> I bet the people who make the more obscure distibutions have their reasons
> to do so, e.g. because they want to solve a problem they had with the
> other distributions, or just because it's easy and fun to do. Or
> because
It is easy and fun : hence 400 distros.
> they wanted to learn about the OS. They don't consider the time they spent
> on it to be "lost money" at all.
Obviously not : but their skills would maybe be better employed fixing
bugs in the main branches?
>
>> Anyone who is worked in the real IT business world knows this : it would
>> appear only the real COLA gang hardcore and a few lifelong students seem
>> to think that 400 distros are a good idea.
>
> It would only appear to the real hardcore M$ apologists and Soviet
> dictators to decree that no choice at all is better than a wide
> choice.
Who said that? I didnt. Cant you read? Are you unable to formulate a
coherent reply? Who said "no choice"? Who? Not me for sure. But if you
cant see the difference between 2-10 distros and 400, well ....
>
>> That's not about choice : its about market dilution and confusing new
>> recruits.
>
> What do you mean "confusing new recruits"? Not everyone is as stupid and
> shortsighted as you ... And the market isn't "diluted" by those many
LOL. I'm stupid? Because I'm a realist? I wont have a dicksize
competition with you, but i can assure you my qualifications and
industry experience are fairly extensive.
> distros, quite contrary, it's enriched. In case you didn't know: OSS is
> about the free sharing of ideas and concepts. OK, perhaps most of
> those
Yess, we know. Yawn.
> small distros are in fact not really interesting to the greater audience,
> and contribute nothing really worthwhile to the OSS community. But
> once in
Correct : they just waste resources and confuse the nOOb.
> a while, something really nice, smart, or interesting pops up in one of
> those "insignificant" distros. And contrary to your suggestion, this
> innovation then makes its way into all distros very fast, so *everyone*
> can benefit from it.
Innovation can occur in the others too you know.
>
> This seemingly wasteful process of continuous creation and demise of
> "insignificant mutations" is called the "evolutionary model", and it's
> widely recognized as the best way to develop succesful, complex
> structures.
So how come Linux apps are so crap in many cases and that no one worth
mentioning is actually using it over an OS which costs money?
>
> But I guess you're one of those dumbheads in favour of "Intelligent
> Design". By One God^H^H^HGates, in One Microsoft Way - resulting in
> One Supreme OS, making all other OS'es obsolete, so no-one has to compete
> ... hahaha! The very idea ...
No. I'm not. I'm a true Linux advocate who want to see it succeed. Not
same brain dead hippy with an unfulfillable dream.
>
>
> Richard Rasker
--
For internal use only.
Hadron Quark
You're good. Very good.
--
Luser, n.:
Someone who picks up a female hitch-hiker walking home from a date.
Handover Phist
> Android<fr...@software.invalid> writes:
>>
>> confused.
>>
>> distrowatch.com
>>
>
> You're good. Very good.
http://www.websterscafe.com/yoda.jpg
--
A Linux machine! Because a 486 is a terrible thing to waste!
-- Joe Sloan, j...@wintermute.ucr.edu
DFS
> Op Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:53:26 -0400, schreef flatfish+++:
>
>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:50:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the
>>>> *right* OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>
>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>
> Simple: whichever one suits your purposes best.
Cool. How do I know which of the 400 Linux distros suits my purpose? Do I
have to try 8 of them?
My purpose is to replace Windows. I can't be much more specific, really -
that's what I need. I do some gaming (mostly shooters F.E.A.R, Half-Life,
City of Villians, Quake4), video editing (Pinnacle Studio), CD/DVD burning
(Nero), play the occasional DVD movie, some .mp3 files, light spreadsheet
work, no programming, I'm working on a website (Macromedia Homesite).
All of it works well under Windows.
> It's the same as
> asking someone else which car of all those many thousands of makes
> and models is the best one for you to buy.
>
>> They ALL are the right one!
>
> Indeed: they ALL support vastly more hardware in vastly superior ways
> than Windows does.
Nice. My hardware includes a Logitech Quickcam webcam, Audigy 2 ZS sound
card, ATI x700 video card, internal WD Raptor drive, Epson 3590 photo
scanner, HP Photosmart 1215 printer, DFI LanParty UT nF4 Ultra-D mobo, AMD
Athlon64 X2 3800+, external Western Digital USB drive.
Again, all of it works well under Windows.
flatfish+++
>
> Cool. How do I know which of the 400 Linux distros suits my purpose? Do I
> have to try 8 of them?
The magic number is 43.2599992804
> My purpose is to replace Windows. I can't be much more specific, really -
> that's what I need. I do some gaming (mostly shooters F.E.A.R, Half-Life,
> City of Villians, Quake4), video editing (Pinnacle Studio), CD/DVD burning
> (Nero), play the occasional DVD movie, some .mp3 files, light spreadsheet
> work, no programming, I'm working on a website (Macromedia Homesite).
Good luck :(
> All of it works well under Windows.
Yep....
Hadron Quark
Update on crappy HW support : for some reason, Firefox 1.5 wont properly
submit the form data to the EPROM based router interface on my new
D-Link DSL-G684T modem/router/wireless combo. Have no idea why, was
laughed at by my ISP support and have to boot to windows to use IE to
enter the configuration data. I have *no* clue as to why this is the
case. Grrr.
As it is, it was easier to connect via rj45 and run the cd wizard :
doing it through wireless proved dodgy. Ive left it on the cable now :
so no wireless for the moment. And guess what? Its just as well because
my first attempt at configuring gnome for WAP proved a disaster with
Dapper, despite a couple of "it just works" posts in the Ubuntu forums
(there are plenty more "it doesnt work posts). If Richard Rasker is
reading this, *this* is the type of half arsed stuff I'm referring to -
less distros might lead to far better quality control.
Distros as mostly the same anyway.
--
These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Rick
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>> Op Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:53:26 -0400, schreef flatfish+++:
>>
>>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:50:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the
>>>>> *right* OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>>
>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>
>> Simple: whichever one suits your purposes best.
>
> Cool. How do I know which of the 400 Linux distros suits my purpose? Do
> I have to try 8 of them?
>
> My purpose is to replace Windows. I can't be much more specific, really -
> that's what I need. I do some gaming (mostly shooters F.E.A.R, Half-Life,
> City of Villians, Quake4), video editing (Pinnacle Studio), CD/DVD burning
> (Nero), play the occasional DVD movie, some .mp3 files, light spreadsheet
> work, no programming, I'm working on a website (Macromedia Homesite).
>
> All of it works well under Windows.
Fine, fine.. so stay with windows.
>> It's the same as
>> asking someone else which car of all those many thousands of makes and
>> models is the best one for you to buy.
>>
>>> They ALL are the right one!
>>
>> Indeed: they ALL support vastly more hardware in vastly superior ways
>> than Windows does.
>
> Nice. My hardware includes a Logitech Quickcam webcam, Audigy 2 ZS sound
> card, ATI x700 video card, internal WD Raptor drive, Epson 3590 photo
> scanner, HP Photosmart 1215 printer, DFI LanParty UT nF4 Ultra-D mobo, AMD
> Athlon64 X2 3800+, external Western Digital USB drive.
>
> Again, all of it works well under Windows.
Fine, fine.. so stay with windows.
>
>>> Ain't choice great!!
>>
>> You say it!
>>
>>
>> Richard Rasker
Linonut
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:24:44 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> Cool. How do I know which of the 400 Linux distros suits my purpose? Do I
>> have to try 8 of them?
>
> The magic number is 43.2599992804
Nah. I tried one distro, Mandrake. I actively used three others:
RedHat, Debian, and Gentoo.
That is all. Most people might try a handful before settling on one.
>> My purpose is to replace Windows. I can't be much more specific, really -
>> that's what I need. I do some gaming (mostly shooters F.E.A.R, Half-Life,
>> City of Villians, Quake4), video editing (Pinnacle Studio), CD/DVD burning
>> (Nero), play the occasional DVD movie, some .mp3 files, light spreadsheet
>> work, no programming, I'm working on a website (Macromedia Homesite).
>
> Good luck :(
>
>> All of it works well under Windows.
>
> Yep....
Yep, you guys like the status quo. That's good to know, but it doesn't
help the others who have different needs or limitations.
Not everyone is happy with Windows. That doesn't mean that many will
not be any happier with Linux, Some people won't be happy with any kind
of computer. But they can pretty easily try Linux and decide for
themselves.
For far too long, the consumer computing environment has been one big
feature war. He who has the biggest feature matrix wins.
--
I believe the technical term is "Oops!"
[H]omer
> Op Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:53:26 -0400, schreef flatfish+++:
>> Ain't choice great!!
>
> You say it!
DFS hates freedom; Flatty hates choice. Frankly, I don't know why
anybody pays either one of these freaks any attention.
--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged
This message has not been photoshopped in any way.
Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.16-1.2133_FC5
02:35:08 up 91 days, 2:51, 1 user, load average: 0.02, 0.03, 0.00
Linonut
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>> Op Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:53:26 -0400, schreef flatfish+++:
>
>>> Ain't choice great!!
>>
>> You say it!
>
> DFS hates freedom; Flatty hates choice. Frankly, I don't know why
> anybody pays either one of these freaks any attention.
Take a look at the way flatso trolls Peter K.
--
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.
Peter Köhlmann
> After takin' a swig o' grog, [H]omer belched out this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>> Op Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:53:26 -0400, schreef flatfish+++:
>>
>>>> Ain't choice great!!
>>>
>>> You say it!
>>
>> DFS hates freedom; Flatty hates choice. Frankly, I don't know why
>> anybody pays either one of these freaks any attention.
>
> Take a look at the way flatso trolls Peter K.
>
Just let him
He is looking the idiot even more (if possible at all) with every post
Flatfart seems to think that using Snots trolling technique is getting him
any points
--
Only two things are infinite,
the Universe and Stupidity.
And I'm not quite sure about the former.
- Albert Einstein
Richard Rasker
AFAICS, even those 400 distros combined require less maintenance than
Windows alone - as they're without a shadow of a doubt less insecure and
buggy. The reason for this is something you don't seem to recognize:
these distros aren't isolated, stand-alone systems. They have more
overlapping areas than differences, and that makes their maintenance
relatively easy.
>>> This is why smaller companies dont enter markets where there are
>>> already recognised marlet leaders - *UNLESS* they have an angle which
>>> can attract a proportion of the market sufficient to justify the time
>>> & expense of development and support.
>>
>> Then, for instance, all those small, almost unknown car manufacturers
>> must be completely bonkers, throwing money after designing and building
>> new cars all the time. Boy, you're stuck in the T-Ford age. Grow up.
>
> What small companies?
>
> Kit Cars?
>
> This is not even a half decent analogy. These people make money and its
> in their FINANCIAL interest to sell their cars. Or they lose their jobs
> and go hungry.
>
> So, we'll strike that one off will we?
You were the one starting about "entering markets with established market
leaders", whereas those distro builders don't "enter a market". They just
offer to the world what they think is a nice Linux distribution they
voluntarily put together - for whatever reason.
>>> And before you say "OSS is free", remember that TIME is money albeit a
>>> different currency.
>>
>> I bet the people who make the more obscure distibutions have their
>> reasons to do so, e.g. because they want to solve a problem they had
>> with the other distributions, or just because it's easy and fun to do.
>> Or because
>
> It is easy and fun : hence 400 distros.
Why not? What business of yours is it anyway what these people choose to
do in their own good time? I don't hear you complaining about all the
people taking up crochet, or painting, or playing in a band, or one of
those countless other rather time-consuming, yet mostly "wasteful" (in
terms of money) activities - the results of which they often proudly show
to the world as well.
>> they wanted to learn about the OS. They don't consider the time they
>> spent on it to be "lost money" at all.
>
> Obviously not : but their skills would maybe be better employed fixing
> bugs in the main branches?
First: The vast majority of the bugs that need fixing are NOT bound to
any particular distribution. They're bound to applications, lots of which
are found in the vast majority of distributions. So most of your case is
already moot.
Second: What if that's not what these people are interested in? Do you
want to see people do something against their will, just because you in
all your arrogance think that what they're doing right now is wasting
valuable time and therefore money? Well, you know what happens when people
do something they'd rather not do? Their productivity drops like a brick.
Third: Please look at Microsoft first if you start talking about wasting
resources on useless activities. Those idiots annually sink billions of
dollars and millions of man-hours in trying to enter *saturated* markets
with toys 'n trinkets that are even crappier than their current cash-cows,
instead of putting those resources to good use making a better OS plus
Office Suite. And oh, chalk up another billion a year for marketing;
apparently, product quality alone isn't enough to make people buy it, and
they know it. And add yet another billion or so spent on totally useless
software patents, with an expected ROI of zero. Or do you seriously
believe that all those many billions of dollars and millions of man-hours
are money and time well spent?
>>> Anyone who is worked in the real IT business world knows this : it
>>> would appear only the real COLA gang hardcore and a few lifelong
>>> students seem to think that 400 distros are a good idea.
>>
>> It would only appear to the real hardcore M$ apologists and Soviet
>> dictators to decree that no choice at all is better than a wide choice.
>
> Who said that? I didnt. Cant you read? Are you unable to formulate a
> coherent reply? Who said "no choice"? Who? Not me for sure. But if you
> cant see the difference between 2-10 distros and 400, well ....
You still don't get the picture, do you? For novice Linux users, the
choice *is* limited to perhaps five distros - because those are the
distros recommended to them when they ask "which one is suitable for
me?" Those who want to try Linux, don't just blindly pick any old one out
of the list of 400. They look around, ask for information, and quickly get
an idea what's their best bet. And when someone wants a good server
distro, the choice is also limited to perhaps a dozen or so distros. And
those looking for a good toolbox live CD distro, can choose between twenty
or so - each with particular uses, e.g. heavily network oriented, or more
allround (such as Knoppix). And then there are a few "tinker"-distros,
like LFS, and Gentoo. Or very small distros, or distros capable of running
on really old machines, or "local specialties", or the "real" hobby
projects ... etcetera etcetera. And you want to shove all this into just a
handful of distributions? It simply wouldn't work.
>>> That's not about choice : its about market dilution and confusing new
>>> recruits.
>>
>> What do you mean "confusing new recruits"? Not everyone is as stupid
>> and shortsighted as you ... And the market isn't "diluted" by those
>> many
>
> LOL. I'm stupid? Because I'm a realist? I wont have a dicksize
> competition with you, but i can assure you my qualifications and
> industry experience are fairly extensive.
No, you're not a realist, you have a limited vision.
>> distros, quite contrary, it's enriched. In case you didn't know: OSS is
>> about the free sharing of ideas and concepts. OK, perhaps most of those
>
> Yess, we know. Yawn.
>
>> small distros are in fact not really interesting to the greater
>> audience, and contribute nothing really worthwhile to the OSS
>> community. But once in
>
> Correct : they just waste resources and confuse the nOOb.
They do not waste resources any more than you do fanatically playing
football (or whatever), or spending your free time in another unproductive
manner.
>> a while, something really nice, smart, or interesting pops up in one of
>> those "insignificant" distros. And contrary to your suggestion, this
>> innovation then makes its way into all distros very fast, so *everyone*
>> can benefit from it.
>
> Innovation can occur in the others too you know.
Sure, so the number of distros really doesn't matter all that much. I
don't say that there *must* be at least 50, or 100, or 200, just as long
as there's enough diversity to suit everyone's taste. It just so happened
that about 400 have come into existence so far. It's quite a lot, I
admit, but no big deal all the same - it's just a bunch of people having
fun with a free OS.
>> This seemingly wasteful process of continuous creation and demise of
>> "insignificant mutations" is called the "evolutionary model", and it's
>> widely recognized as the best way to develop succesful, complex
>> structures.
>
> So how come Linux apps are so crap in many cases and that no one worth
> mentioning is actually using it over an OS which costs money?
People don't choose the OS that costs money, it's the only one presented
to them if they ask for a computer. Linux isn't offered or even mentioned,
because it makes the (desktop) industry no money - yet. This is slowly
changing, as ordinary people are discovering Linux, just as the server
market has discovered it.
>> But I guess you're one of those dumbheads in favour of "Intelligent
>> Design". By One God^H^H^HGates, in One Microsoft Way - resulting in One
>> Supreme OS, making all other OS'es obsolete, so no-one has to compete
>> ... hahaha! The very idea ...
>
> No. I'm not. I'm a true Linux advocate who want to see it succeed. Not
> same brain dead hippy with an unfulfillable dream.
OK, then we at least have one thing in common. We just percieve things
differently.
Hadron Quark
LOL. But thats not the issue is it?
*snip* lots of BS that denies that 400 distros== wasted effort in the
long run. Are you really that stupid?
Gregory Shearman
> Android<fr...@software.invalid> writes:
>
>> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> skrev:
>>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
>>>>> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>>
>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>> /*Sarcasm on*/
>>> They ALL are the right one!
>>
>> Would you prefere to chose between Microsnot Wingshit XP and Wingdong 98
>> or M$-DOG 6.22?
>>
>> Linux users have a broad varité of distros to chose from - you're sure to
>> find the distro that suits your needs.
>>
>> distrowatch.org
>>
>
> You really believe 400 distros each with their advocates is good for
> Linux development?
The more the merrier. There were only around 10 when I started using it. Not
much choice.
> Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact. No Dispute. None.
No, it's simply your opinion.
> This is why smaller companies dont enter markets where there are already
> recognised marlet leaders - *UNLESS* they have an angle which can
> attract a proportion of the market sufficient to justify the time &
> expense of development and support. And before you say "OSS is free",
> remember that TIME is money albeit a different currency.
Time isn't money. It is experience. The richer the experience, the better
use of time.
Why are you talking of "markets"? Linux programs mainly come from paid
hackers writing solutions for business. The software itself isn't the
business... It is part of the structure of the business.
> Anyone who is worked in the real IT business world knows this : it would
> appear only the real COLA gang hardcore and a few lifelong students seem
> to think that 400 distros are a good idea.
Do you really think anyone but yourself really cares that there are hundreds
of different distributions of the GNU/Linux system?
> That's not about choice : its about market dilution and confusing new
> recruits.
There's no market to dilute... and where's the confusion? A "new recruit"
describes what they want to do in a linux questions forum... then they'll
be told which distribution to try. No problem no confusion.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> Android<fr...@software.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> skrev:
>>>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
>>>>>> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>>> /*Sarcasm on*/
>>>> They ALL are the right one!
>>>
>>> Would you prefere to chose between Microsnot Wingshit XP and Wingdong 98
>>> or M$-DOG 6.22?
>>>
>>> Linux users have a broad varité of distros to chose from - you're sure to
>>> find the distro that suits your needs.
>>>
>>> distrowatch.org
>>>
>>
>> You really believe 400 distros each with their advocates is good for
>> Linux development?
>
> The more the merrier. There were only around 10 when I started using it. Not
> much choice.
>
>> Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact. No Dispute. None.
>
> No, it's simply your opinion.
No. Its a fact.
>
>> This is why smaller companies dont enter markets where there are already
>> recognised marlet leaders - *UNLESS* they have an angle which can
>> attract a proportion of the market sufficient to justify the time &
>> expense of development and support. And before you say "OSS is free",
>> remember that TIME is money albeit a different currency.
>
> Time isn't money. It is experience. The richer the experience, the better
> use of time.
Time is NOT experience.
>
> Why are you talking of "markets"? Linux programs mainly come from paid
> hackers writing solutions for business. The software itself isn't the
> business... It is part of the structure of the business.
>
>> Anyone who is worked in the real IT business world knows this : it would
>> appear only the real COLA gang hardcore and a few lifelong students seem
>> to think that 400 distros are a good idea.
>
> Do you really think anyone but yourself really cares that there are hundreds
> of different distributions of the GNU/Linux system?
Yes. The people who make them and then abandon them for a start. And
then the users who picked up on a now disbanded distro. I could go on.
>
>> That's not about choice : its about market dilution and confusing new
>> recruits.
>
> There's no market to dilute... and where's the confusion? A "new recruit"
> describes what they want to do in a linux questions forum... then they'll
> be told which distribution to try. No problem no confusion.
Of course there is a market.
--
KDE == (see GayDE) Kool Desktop Environment - Make X Window look like winbloze...
What a fucking great idea! The developers of this have a mental sickness,
please avoid this product -> see GNOME.
-- Jakes on #Debian
Jamie Hart
suddenly it's not the issue. LOL!!
> *snip* lots of BS that denies that 400 distros== wasted effort in the
> long run.
OK, let's see you support your allegation.
Please provide proof that having 400 distros is wasting effort. Not
opinion, proof.
While you're looking for your proof, consider the effectiveness of "blue
sky" research.
Hadron Quark
If the effort is better put to other distros then its fairly clear. We
could argue semantics all day and night, but clearly you think 400
distros is a good thing.
I think, and the public at large thinks, that its bloody ridiculous. It
leads to fragmented minorities on poorly supported distros. And if you
cant see that then your over enthusiasm as blinded you to common sense.
"Emperors New Clothes" anyone?
I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
answer with any merit.
>
> While you're looking for your proof, consider the effectiveness of
> "blue sky" research.
--
No other warranty expressed or implied.
Rick
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>>
>>> Android<fr...@software.invalid> writes:
>>>
>>>> flatfish+++ <flat...@linuxmail.org> skrev:
>>>>>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>>>>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>>>>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
>>>>>>> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>>>> /*Sarcasm on*/
>>>>> They ALL are the right one!
>>>> Would you prefere to chose between Microsnot Wingshit XP and Wingdong 98
>>>> or M$-DOG 6.22?
>>>>
>>>> Linux users have a broad varité of distros to chose from - you're sure to
>>>> find the distro that suits your needs.
>>>>
>>>> distrowatch.org
>>>>
>>> You really believe 400 distros each with their advocates is good for
>>> Linux development?
>> The more the merrier. There were only around 10 when I started using it. Not
>> much choice.
>>
>>> Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact. No Dispute. None.
>> No, it's simply your opinion.
>
> No. Its a fact.
It is NOT a fact. It is YOUR opinion.
>
>>> This is why smaller companies dont enter markets where there are already
>>> recognised marlet leaders - *UNLESS* they have an angle which can
>>> attract a proportion of the market sufficient to justify the time &
>>> expense of development and support. And before you say "OSS is free",
>>> remember that TIME is money albeit a different currency.
>> Time isn't money. It is experience. The richer the experience, the better
>> use of time.
>
> Time is NOT experience.
>
>> Why are you talking of "markets"? Linux programs mainly come from paid
>> hackers writing solutions for business. The software itself isn't the
>> business... It is part of the structure of the business.
>>
>>> Anyone who is worked in the real IT business world knows this : it would
>>> appear only the real COLA gang hardcore and a few lifelong students seem
>>> to think that 400 distros are a good idea.
>> Do you really think anyone but yourself really cares that there are hundreds
>> of different distributions of the GNU/Linux system?
>
> Yes. The people who make them and then abandon them for a start. And
> then the users who picked up on a now disbanded distro. I could go on.
Yes, people do care about certain distributions, but who really worries
that there are so many?
>
>>> That's not about choice : its about market dilution and confusing new
>>> recruits.
>> There's no market to dilute... and where's the confusion? A "new recruit"
>> describes what they want to do in a linux questions forum... then they'll
>> be told which distribution to try. No problem no confusion.
>
> Of course there is a market.
>
Fine. Define it.
--
Rick
Rick
Many people seem to thing that having different distros is a good thing.
>
> I think, and the public at large thinks, that its bloody ridiculous. It
The 'public at large' doesn't even know what distribution is, much less
how many there are.
> leads to fragmented minorities on poorly supported distros. And if you
> cant see that then your over enthusiasm as blinded you to common sense.
>
> "Emperors New Clothes" anyone?
>
> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
> answer with any merit.
IN YOUR OPINION.
>
>> While you're looking for your proof, consider the effectiveness of
>> "blue sky" research.
>
--
Rick
chrisv
>Why not? What business of yours is it anyway what these people choose to
>do in their own good time?
You're wasting your words on a Wintroll who's just determined to be
anti-Linux no matter what.
chrisv
>Do you really think anyone but yourself really cares that there are hundreds
>of different distributions of the GNU/Linux system?
Well, the other Wintrolls think it's one one way to take cheap-shots
at Linux...
Oliver Wong
"Roy Culley" <r...@nodomain.none> wrote in message
news:f04tt3-...@dog.did.it...
> begin risky.vbs
> <znBOg.5387$KA6.3054@clgrps12>,
> "Oliver Wong" <ow...@castortech.com> writes:
>>
>> Your post is a bit on the antagonistic side, but otherwise this
>> is a good point and something Windows could be improved. However,
>> I'm not certain that it's a design flaw on Microsoft's part. It
>> could be poor code on the device manufacturers part.
>
> How on earth can it be poor code on the device manufacturers part?
> The problem shows itself when the manufacturers drivers have NOT
> been installed before the device is connected.
Sorry, it was a poor choice of wording. If Windows really did mistake
this device for another device, that means there was a collision in the GUID
(Globally Unique Identifier) that the device used to identify itself. GUIDs
are supposed to be, as their names imply, globally unique. Perhaps the
device manufacturer just chose some GUID arbitrarily, rather than
registering with whatever centralized source distributes these numbers to
ensure that no collisions occur.
>
> This is clearly yet another Windows desigh flaw. It has been known
> about for years yet MS are either unwilling and / or unable to fix it.
If everyone in the world agrees that "42" is the ID for the Soundcard
from Vendor Foo, and then Vendor Bar turns around and uses "42" as the ID
for their WiFi card, then yes, there's not much MS can do to fix it other
than to yell at Vendor Bar to change their hardware and register a unique
number (e.g. "43").
- Oliver
Hadron Quark
Many people think a lot of things. Everyone is entitled to their
opinion. Right and wrong.
I think having different distros is a good thing : but not 400 different
distros. Cant you see the difference? really not? Well, its hopeless
trying to convince you. Its called marklet frgamentation. It happened
with home computers in the mid 80s. Lots of people ended up with dud
machines with zero support. It really is that simple.
>> I think, and the public at large thinks, that its bloody
>> ridiculous. It
>
> The 'public at large' doesn't even know what distribution is, much
> less how many there are
Great advocacy. And when the PAL come to hear about Linux, what distro
is best for them eh? Err ..... Whoops.
>
>> leads to fragmented minorities on poorly supported distros. And if you
>> cant see that then your over enthusiasm as blinded you to common sense.
>> "Emperors New Clothes" anyone?
>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice"
>> isn't an
>> answer with any merit.
>
> IN YOUR OPINION.
Of course. In my learned opinion. In my experience of SW both
professional and OSS.
Whats YOUR opinion? Dont be like Kier : try and formulate one of your
own.
Particuarly, justify 400 distros to me. And "choice" isnt an answer or
justification - its a by product.
>
>>
>>> While you're looking for your proof, consider the effectiveness of
>>> "blue sky" research.
>>
--
Store in a cool place.
Richard Rasker
[snip]
> *snip* lots of BS that denies that 400 distros== wasted effort in the
> long run. Are you really that stupid?
Who the hell do you think you are, deciding for other people that what
they really like to do is a stupid waste of effort? Trying to get it into
your head that opinion!=fact is a waste of effort - and just look at
yourself: you're spending lots of effort on insulting the work and hobby
of a lot of people, without any effect whatsoever but making yourself look
like a really arrogant git.
Jamie Hart
>>
>> Please provide proof that having 400 distros is wasting effort. Not
>> opinion, proof.
>
> If the effort is better put to other distros then its fairly clear.
That is again merely opinion, and what is more, opinion that supports a
conclusion not in debate.
You are not supposed to be arguing about what would happen _if_ more
effort is put into other distros, you are supposed to be providing proof
that having 400 distros is wasting effort.
There are many ways you could attempt to do that, you could bring up
applications that were developed independantly on different distros but
have exactly the same feature set, or you could point to distros that
have been abandoned and not taken up by others.
If you make a decent attempt to provide proof of your assertion, I'll be
happy to debate them with you, you may even convince me that you're right.
But this wishy-washy "it stands to reason" crap will not convince anyone
but your fellow trolls.
DFS
and why. You've been evading for a couple days.
Hadron Quark
> Op Mon, 18 Sep 2006 03:15:59 +0200, schreef Hadron Quark:
>
> [snip]
>
>> *snip* lots of BS that denies that 400 distros== wasted effort in the
>> long run. Are you really that stupid?
>
> Who the hell do you think you are, deciding for other people that what
> they really like to do is a stupid waste of effort? Trying to get it
> into
I'm not deciding anything for other people : I'm deciding for
myself. There's a big difference.
> your head that opinion!=fact is a waste of effort - and just look at
> yourself: you're spending lots of effort on insulting the work and hobby
I'm not insulting their efforts : I'm saying that its detrimental to the
overrall good of Linux. Again a big difference. If their efforts were on
the major distros which will likely survive the inevitable "distro
abandonware era" then Linux will be far fitter and stronger and able to
take on windows.
> of a lot of people, without any effect whatsoever but making yourself look
> like a really arrogant git.
I am arrogant in that I believe that when I have an opinion, I can
justify it : but you're naive and arrogant. You're just plucking the
Linux choice Harp at random with little or no wish to look deeper at the
harm that a distributed work effort can do for Linux and the resulting advocacy.
>
> Richard Rasker
--
You can see that there are 25 unread articles in `news.announce.newusers'.
There are no unread articles, but some ticked articles, in
`alt.fan.andrea-dworkin' (see that little asterisk at the beginning of the
line?)
You can fuck that up to your heart's delight by fiddling with the
`gnus-group-line-format' variable.
-- From the (ding) Gnus 5 documentation, by Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark wrote:
>> Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> writes:
>>
>>> OK, let's see you support your allegation.
>>>
>>> Please provide proof that having 400 distros is wasting effort. Not
>>> opinion, proof.
>> If the effort is better put to other distros then its fairly clear.
>
> That is again merely opinion, and what is more, opinion that supports
> a conclusion not in debate.
What are you debating?
>
> You are not supposed to be arguing about what would happen _if_ more
> effort is put into other distros, you are supposed to be providing
> proof that having 400 distros is wasting effort.
Err, its a natural conclusion.
400 distros will NOT remain a viable option. Its as plain as the nose on
Shylocks face.
>
> There are many ways you could attempt to do that, you could bring up
> applications that were developed independantly on different distros
> but have exactly the same feature set, or you could point to distros
> that have been abandoned and not taken up by others.
I did.
>
> If you make a decent attempt to provide proof of your assertion, I'll
> be happy to debate them with you, you may even convince me that you're
> right.
I think you are convinced : you just wont admit it to yourself.
It does not take rocket science to know that 400 distros and growing is
over the top. That *IF* the developers of these distros were to help in
the development of more stable, functional distros then it would benefit
those larger and more stable distros tremendously. The rest is, as they
say, QED.
>
> But this wishy-washy "it stands to reason" crap will not convince
> anyone but your fellow trolls.
What "fellow trolls"? I'm not trolling. I believe it.
--
'Mounting' is used for three things: climbing on a horse, linking in a
hard disk unit in data systems, and, well, mounting during sex.
-- Christa Keil
Bob Hauck
<qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> writes:
>> Please provide proof that having 400 distros is wasting effort. Not
>> opinion, proof.
>
> If the effort is better put to other distros then its fairly clear.
Not really. It is only "better" if you think those 400 people could
somehow be induced to work on the distro you approve of. If they would
not do that, then whatever they do is irrelevant to any reasonable
definition of "wasted effort".
It also seems to me that having 400 more people who know the details of
how to put a distro together is a good thing in terms of the ability of
the community to sustain itself.
> We could argue semantics all day and night, but clearly you think 400
> distros is a good thing.
Don't know about the OP, but I do think it is a good thing. You have
this weird mentality that seems to believe that those 400 people could
all be induced to work on, say, Ubuntu. But that isn't the case at
all. If you prevented them from working on their distro, likely as not
they would find something else to do with their time rather than work on
the distro you prefer them to work on.
So having 400 distros is, I think, pretty much irrelevant in terms of
wasted effort, but where it is important is that you have 400 people who
know how to put a distro together. That's a nice hunk of expertise to
have floating around out there.
> I think, and the public at large thinks, that its bloody ridiculous.
But nobody who matters cares what you think, and even if they did there
is no way to implement your idea. So it is you who are wasting effort
arguing for an impossible thing that may not even be all that desireable
to begin with.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| A proud member of the unhinged moonbat horde.
-| http://www.haucks.org/
Rick
That is your opinion. It is NOT a fact.
> Cant you see the difference? really not? Well, its hopeless
> trying to convince you.
I can see that I am happier knowing I can use Suse with WindowMaker as
my window manager, that HAVING to use (insert name of distro) with
(inset manager) as the window manager.
> Its called marklet frgamentation.
Define the market.
> It happened
> with home computers in the mid 80s. Lots of people ended up with dud
> machines with zero support. It really is that simple.
If it really is that simple, then there will be a 'market' shale out,
and a leader will emerge.
>
>>> I think, and the public at large thinks, that its bloody
>>> ridiculous. It
>> The 'public at large' doesn't even know what distribution is, much
>> less how many there are
>
> Great advocacy. And when the PAL come to hear about Linux, what distro
> is best for them eh? Err ..... Whoops.
>
>>> leads to fragmented minorities on poorly supported distros. And if you
>>> cant see that then your over enthusiasm as blinded you to common sense.
>>> "Emperors New Clothes" anyone?
>>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice"
>>> isn't an
>>> answer with any merit. IN YOUR OPINION.
>
> Of course. In my learned opinion.
aha HAHAH HAh AHHA ahHA haHA hAH
> In my experience of SW both professional and OSS.
>
> Whats YOUR opinion? Dont be like Kier : try and formulate one of your
> own.
>
> Particuarly, justify 400 distros to me. And "choice" isnt an answer or
> justification - its a by product.
Choice. Choice Choice Choice.
Dynebolic users seem to like the choice. So do Debian and Ubuntu users.
So do many of the users that specifically choose one distro over
another. Just becasue choice is not important to you doesn't mean it
isn't important to other people.
>
>>>> While you're looking for your proof, consider the effectiveness of
>>>> "blue sky" research.
>
You really do need to learn that OSS != CSS, and that the CSS 'market'
!= the 'OSS market', whatever that is.
--
Rick
Bob Hauck
<qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I think having different distros is a good thing : but not 400 different
> distros. Cant you see the difference? really not?
So what are you going to do about it? Regardless of whether 400 distros
is a good idea or not, there is no way for you or me or anybody else to
enforce the number you think is right.
And _that_ is a very good thing.
Kier
> Whats YOUR opinion? Dont be like Kier : try and formulate one of your
> own.
Kindly refrain from insulting me in a thread where I'm not even involved
in the arguement. And don't assume I get my opinions from anyone but me,
dickhead.
--
Kier
flatfish+++
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:01:52 +0200, Hadron Quark
> <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think having different distros is a good thing : but not 400 different
>> distros. Cant you see the difference? really not?
>
> So what are you going to do about it? Regardless of whether 400 distros
> is a good idea or not, there is no way for you or me or anybody else to
> enforce the number you think is right.
>
> And _that_ is a very good thing.
At some point the Principal of natural selection will take over.
Hadron Quark
It is a fact that there are 400 or so distros ... It is a fact that its
my opinion. Who cares?
>
>> Cant you see the difference? really not? Well, its hopeless
>> trying to convince you.
>
> I can see that I am happier knowing I can use Suse with WindowMaker as
> my window manager, that HAVING to use (insert name of distro) with
> (inset manager) as the window manager.
err, you can do all that WITHOUT a specific distro dedicated to your
needs. Do you not see or understand that?
I use Ubuntu dapper, but I dont use evolution : should I release a
"distro" which has only Gnus and emacs-snapshot?
No.
>
>> Its called marklet frgamentation.
>
> Define the market.
>
Oh, FFS. You define it. If you cant think that one out then I'm done
with you. Its just too painful.
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
> answer with any merit.
It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
laboratory in which different ideas can be tried. The 'choice'
part of it comes into play by allowing a darwinistic selection to
take place. Distributions that actually hit upon something that
users like will become more popular, and other distributions will
be more likely to pick up those features (which is possible because
of the GPL). Yes, it is messy and potentially confusing, but
ultimately it results in better software regardless of what distro
you choose.
If 400 distributions seems intimidating, my best advice is to
stick with mainstream ones that seems well represented with
3rd party books and Internet forums - that will give you more
support options. Download a few live demo CDs, give 'em a spin,
and then go with the one you like best.
Of course I know from earlier posts you've already done this,
but I offer this as general advice to anyone else that might be
considering Linux.
Cheers,
Thad
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
>> answer with any merit.
>
> It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
> innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
You can innovate within a specific distro.
> If 400 distributions seems intimidating, my best advice is to
seems?!?!?!?
> stick with mainstream ones that seems well represented with
> 3rd party books and Internet forums - that will give you more
> support options. Download a few live demo CDs, give 'em a spin,
> and then go with the one you like best.
Exactly my point.
>
> Of course I know from earlier posts you've already done this,
> but I offer this as general advice to anyone else that might be
> considering Linux.
Me too. 400 is too many.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Thad
>
--
<miguel> any new sendmail hole I have to fix before going on vacations?
-- Seen on #Linux
Rick
About you? Who knows.
BUT... it is NOT a fact that it is 'bad' that there are 400+ Linux based
distributions, which is what you claim.
>
>>> Cant you see the difference? really not? Well, its hopeless
>>> trying to convince you.
>> I can see that I am happier knowing I can use Suse with WindowMaker as
>> my window manager, that HAVING to use (insert name of distro) with
>> (inset manager) as the window manager.
>
> err, you can do all that WITHOUT a specific distro dedicated to your
> needs. Do you not see or understand that?
ERR... so what? It seems many people like distros like Dynebolic. Who
are you to deny them that?
>
> I use Ubuntu dapper, but I dont use evolution : should I release a
> "distro" which has only Gnus and emacs-snapshot?
>
> No.
Well, that is up to you.
>
>>> Its called marklet frgamentation.
>> Define the market.
>>
>
> Oh, FFS. You define it. If you cant think that one out then I'm done
> with you. Its just too painful.
So, you can't define whatever market you are blathering about.
--
Rick
Rick
> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
>>> answer with any merit.
>> It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
>> innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
>
> You can innovate within a specific distro.
>
>> If 400 distributions seems intimidating, my best advice is to
>
> seems?!?!?!?
>
>> stick with mainstream ones that seems well represented with
>> 3rd party books and Internet forums - that will give you more
>> support options. Download a few live demo CDs, give 'em a spin,
>> and then go with the one you like best.
>
> Exactly my point.
>
>> Of course I know from earlier posts you've already done this,
>> but I offer this as general advice to anyone else that might be
>> considering Linux.
>
> Me too. 400 is too many.
>
--
Rick
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
>
> I'm not insulting their efforts : I'm saying that its detrimental to the
> overrall good of Linux. Again a big difference. If their efforts were on
> the major distros which will likely survive the inevitable "distro
> abandonware era" then Linux will be far fitter and stronger and able to
> take on windows.
Of course this assumes that work done in an abandon distro is
inevitably lost, and that is just not the case. One possible
reason that Linux has outpaced the BSDs in market acceptance
is exactly because the GPL encourages 'friendly forking'. By
that I mean innovations made in a forked version of a project
can be rolled back into the main tree. In fact, that often
happens. Some group has their own idea for a feature that is
not accepted by the main project maintainers. They fork their
own version. The innovation proves itself with the users and
is (after much debate on the dev list usually) folded back into
the parent project. The forked project then dies. This
happens not just with Linux but other open source projects
also.
And yes, sometimes a niche distro is just a bad idea or is
poorly implemented, and it will die without giving anything
back... but sometimes thats how innovation happens, by trying
all sorts of crazy ideas and seeing which ones work. We learn
something even from our failures.
Ultimately, calls for unity in the open source world are about
as hopeless as trying to herd cats. Open source software
developers will go their own way... it is a big part of why they
are OSS developers. The 'choice' thing is not just about the end
users having choice, its also about the developers choosing what
they develop. It may seem chaotic and inefficient from the
outside, but it is what it is and is unlikely to change. Try to
bring too much order to the chaos, and the individual participants
will simply leave and create a new community with all the same
chaos and freedom to experiment that the old one had. That
freedom is really what attracts most developers and not any
unified sense of purpose to defeat Microsoft.
Later,
Thad
Richard Rasker
[snip top posting fixed]
[snip]
> DFS wrote:
>> Richard Rasker wrote:
>>> Op Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:53:26 -0400, schreef flatfish+++:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:50:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
...
>>>>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>>>
>>> Simple: whichever one suits your purposes best.
>>
>> Cool. How do I know which of the 400 Linux distros suits my purpose?
>> Do I have to try 8 of them?
Nope
...
> I'm still waiting to find out which Linux distro is the right one for me,
> and why. You've been evading for a couple days.
Sorry, didn't notice this one. Well then, let's do your list (and I wish
all my prospective Linux users were as thorough :-):
>> I do some gaming (mostly shooters
I don't play games, so please don't take my word for the following
information ...
>> F.E.A.R,
Nope, this game is apparently not available for Linux (although there /is/
a F.E.A.R. Linux server).
>> Half-Life,
There seems to be a Linux version of this one.
>> City of Villians,
Seems to work under Linux with Cedega.
>> Quake4,
Linux version available, AFAICS.
Mandriva should have no problems with Cedega and the Linux games, but
again: no guarantees from me. Usually, I recommend game lovers to stick to
(dual boot) Windows for this purpose.
>> video editing (Pinnacle Studio)
Kino does this very well in an everyday home-movie way, Cinelerra is the
thing to use if you want to get more professional, although even then,
Kino remains the best (simplest) tool for importing and exporting your
video. Both work just fine with the newest version of Mandriva - and I
speak from personal experience. Note that Cinelerra is quite a resource
hog, though, and that you need to add a "contrib" repo to the software
manager (see below).
>> CD/DVD burning (Nero)
No problem. K3b works like a charm, on any distro.
>> play the occasional DVD movie, some .mp3 files
With Mandriva, this is a matter of simply adding contrib and PLF
repositories to the software manager (see http://easyurpmi.zarb.org/),
then installing libdvdcss. This also gives you access to win32-codecs, in
case you want to play Windows-format video. And of course thousands of
other free packages. After this (say 5 - 10 minutes on a broadband
connection), everything works.
>>light spreadsheet work,
OpenOffice Calc is just fine. If I'm not mistaken, it still lacks a few of
Excel's "power features" (pivot tables, most notably), but for all the
rest, it's a very complete and reliable spreadsheet application.
>>no programming, I'm working on a website (Macromedia Homesite).
I don't know about this one. All of the distros mentioned offer several
web authoring tools, but I don't feel the need to use them. I do my PHP
coding in Kate (an editor with multi-syntax highlighting), and usually
enter larger pieces of static content (text, pictures) in OpenOffice
Writer, after which I clean up the HTML manually.
And now for the hardware. Note that I only have lots of experience with
Mandriva, and that I usually have the PowerPack versions (i.e. with
several 3rd party drivers and other non-free software). With the Free
versions, you may have to do a bit more yourself.
>> My hardware includes a Logitech Quickcam webcam,
Supported in Mandriva, no issues that I know of.
>> Audigy 2 ZS sound card,
Mostly supported (last I heard, only SPDIF I/O was still missing or
flaky), although I wouldn't recommend this card to anyone: I've checked it
out, and although it's a 24-bit card, it has in my opinion a worse S/N
ratio than many 16-bit cards.
>> ATI x700 video card,
AFAIK supported out-of-the-box by Mandriva PowerPack; Free versions
probably require subsequent ATI driver installation if acceleration and
other enhanced features are required.
>> internal WD Raptor drive,
No problem.
>> Epson 3590 photo scanner,
Hmm, listed as "Basic scanning/Film scanning unit unsupported" at
www.sane-project.org. OK, so no full support yet.
>> HP Photosmart 1215 printer,
Fully supported.
>> DFI LanParty UT nF4 Ultra-D mobo, AMD Athlon64 X2 3800+, external
>> Western Digital USB drive.
No problem, no problem, and no problem.
>> Again, all of it works well under Windows.
Well, that's the platform the manufacturers built the drivers for - so
it'd be rather embarrassing if the stuff *didn't* work well under Windows
(although it has happened on multiple occasions that Open Source drivers
turned out to be more stable than the original ones).
So, let's cut to the chase...
>> My purpose is to replace Windows.
The verdict:
To my surprise, three out of the four games mentioned seem available or at
least playable under Linux. The other Windows software packages have at
least adequate Linux equivalents, with the possible exception of the web
authoring tools.
Most hardware should work in one go, although you'd have to do without
sound card SPDIF, and film scanning. The ATI video card might require ATI
driver installation.
Whether or not one unsupported game and two not fully supported pieces of
hardware are an issue, is of course up to you.
Your best bet distro-wise would be the Mandriva Free DVD - on your
machine, it should take half an hour at most to install. If money's
less of an issue, and you like the convenience, you might consider buying
the PowerPack version - it includes ATI drivers and such.
Other distros that should perform equally well are Suse and Ubuntu. I was
also considering Fedora Core 5, but last time I tried it, I found its
software downloads were awfully slow, and adding some of the repositories
wasn't exactly a breeze either.
Now, where can I send the bill for an hour's worth of IT consultancy? ;-)
Hadron Quark
>
> ERR... so what? It seems many people like distros like Dynebolic. Who
> are you to deny them that?
I'm not denying them anything. You totally miss the point. You don't
release a specific distro for each and every minority fad. You customise
existing ones and use them accordingly.
*400*. FFS.
>> I use Ubuntu dapper, but I dont use evolution : should I release a
>> "distro" which has only Gnus and emacs-snapshot?
>> No.
>
> Well, that is up to you.
You clearly live in some strange world. "choice man, its groovy".
It doesnt need a dedicated bloody distro to have a purple background as
opposed to a green one you know.
>
>>
>>>> Its called marklet frgamentation.
>>> Define the market.
>>>
>> Oh, FFS. You define it. If you cant think that one out then I'm done
>> with you. Its just too painful.
>
> So, you can't define whatever market you are blathering about.
Jesus H Christ. Are you really so closed minded? What fucking market do
you think I'm referring to? Heres a hint : it aint the Dow Jones.
--
Do not use or store near heat or open flame.
Hadron Quark
Hadron Quark
> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not insulting their efforts : I'm saying that its detrimental to the
>> overrall good of Linux. Again a big difference. If their efforts were on
>> the major distros which will likely survive the inevitable "distro
>> abandonware era" then Linux will be far fitter and stronger and able to
>> take on windows.
>
> Of course this assumes that work done in an abandon distro is
> inevitably lost, and that is just not the case. One possible
Not always the case. Often the case.
> reason that Linux has outpaced the BSDs in market acceptance
> is exactly because the GPL encourages 'friendly forking'. By
> that I mean innovations made in a forked version of a project
> can be rolled back into the main tree. In fact, that often
Not all distros are in any way "innovative" : its a popular misbelief.
> happens. Some group has their own idea for a feature that is
> not accepted by the main project maintainers. They fork their
> own version. The innovation proves itself with the users and
> is (after much debate on the dev list usually) folded back into
> the parent project. The forked project then dies. This
> happens not just with Linux but other open source projects
> also.
Nothing wrong with that. But the exception rather than the rule IMO.
>
> And yes, sometimes a niche distro is just a bad idea or is
> poorly implemented, and it will die without giving anything
> back... but sometimes thats how innovation happens, by trying
> all sorts of crazy ideas and seeing which ones work. We learn
> something even from our failures.
Yes, yes. I agree we learn from failure. But we also learn from pulling
together and seeing results. learn by momentum not retension.
>
> Ultimately, calls for unity in the open source world are about
> as hopeless as trying to herd cats. Open source software
> developers will go their own way... it is a big part of why they
> are OSS developers. The 'choice' thing is not just about the end
> users having choice, its also about the developers choosing what
> they develop. It may seem chaotic and inefficient from the
> outside, but it is what it is and is unlikely to change. Try to
> bring too much order to the chaos, and the individual participants
> will simply leave and create a new community with all the same
> chaos and freedom to experiment that the old one had. That
> freedom is really what attracts most developers and not any
> unified sense of purpose to defeat Microsoft.
I don't deny the need for freedom : but like all "societies" anarchy can
be dangerous. And 400 distros and growing is just that. Anarchy. Not
freedom. Not choice. But pointless, headless chicken abuse of a
wonderful system.
>
> Later,
>
> Thad
>
>
--
Turn off engine while fueling.
JEDIDIAH
It already has, and has been for quite a long time.
That 400 number is a pure fiction for most people.
--
Apple: Because a large harddrive is for power users.
|||
/ | \
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Hadron Quark
Wrong advice.
What about CEDEGA?
>
>>> Half-Life,
>
> There seems to be a Linux version of this one.
Nope.
You were being setup. Its not a question of Linux but *which distro*.
> Most hardware should work in one go, although you'd have to do without
> sound card SPDIF, and film scanning. The ATI video card might require ATI
> driver installation.
might?!?!?!? You can use VESA but no HW openGL.
>
> Whether or not one unsupported game and two not fully supported pieces of
> hardware are an issue, is of course up to you.
>
> Your best bet distro-wise would be the Mandriva Free DVD - on your
> machine, it should take half an hour at most to install. If money's
> less of an issue, and you like the convenience, you might consider buying
> the PowerPack version - it includes ATI drivers and such.
Why not the other 399? Why do they not meet his needs?
>
> Other distros that should perform equally well are Suse and Ubuntu. I
> was
Easy answers that I could have come up with. You have basically
suggested the 4 most popular distros with the largest support
community. Funny that.
> also considering Fedora Core 5, but last time I tried it, I found its
> software downloads were awfully slow, and adding some of the repositories
> wasn't exactly a breeze either.
But thats nothing to do with his needs : its a problem with execution speed.
>
> Now, where can I send the bill for an hour's worth of IT consultancy?
> ;-)
To list the 4 main distros took you an hour?
So in an hour you have basically worked out that 396 distros are not
suitable? I salute you.
>
> Richard Rasker
tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com
To an extent, yes, but an innovation might also be something that
takes a specific feature in a direction different than what the rest
of the dev team wants. It might be incompatible with other design
choices. Sometimes, forking is the only way to try out something
that is fundamentally new. I lurk on quite a few dev mailing lists
(and occasionally even contribute), so I see these debates go on
all the time.
Later,
Thad
Hadron Quark
Forking is not linked to a new distro. You can still fork an app or two
and package accordingly.
>
> Later,
>
> Thad
>
--
fuckoff, n.:
The tie breaker at the Miss America Beauty Pageant.
Rick
> Rick <no...@nomail.com> writes:
>
>
>> ERR... so what? It seems many people like distros like Dynebolic. Who
>> are you to deny them that?
>
> I'm not denying them anything. You totally miss the point. You don't
> release a specific distro for each and every minority fad. You customise
> existing ones and use them accordingly.
When you customize one for a perpurose, and they publish it so others can
use it, that is generally regarded a different distribution.
>
> *400*. FFS.
So what?
>
>>> I use Ubuntu dapper, but I dont use evolution : should I release a
>>> "distro" which has only Gnus and emacs-snapshot? No.
>>
>> Well, that is up to you.
>
> You clearly live in some strange world. "choice man, its groovy".
Yeah, its what democracy is based on.
>
> It doesnt need a dedicated bloody distro to have a purple background as
> opposed to a green one you know.
So what if someone whats to od that? How does hurt you?
>
>
>>
>>>>> Its called marklet frgamentation.
>>>> Define the market.
>>>>
>>> Oh, FFS. You define it. If you cant think that one out then I'm done
>>> with you. Its just too painful.
>>
>> So, you can't define whatever market you are blathering about.
>
> Jesus H Christ. Are you really so closed minded? What fucking market do
> you think I'm referring to? Heres a hint : it aint the Dow Jones.
So, you can't define whatever market you are blathering about.
Rick
Richard Rasker
> Richard Rasker <spam...@linetec.nl> writes:
>
>> Op Mon, 18 Sep 2006 11:16:09 -0400, schreef DFS:
>>> I'm still waiting to find out which Linux distro is the right one for
>>> me, and why. You've been evading for a couple days.
>>
>> Sorry, didn't notice this one. Well then, let's do your list (and I
>> wish all my prospective Linux users were as thorough :-):
>>
>>>> I do some gaming (mostly shooters
>>
>> I don't play games, so please don't take my word for the following
>> information ...
>>
>>>> F.E.A.R,
>>
>> Nope, this game is apparently not available for Linux (although there
>> /is/ a F.E.A.R. Linux server).
>
> Wrong advice.
>
> What about CEDEGA?
What do you mean "wrong advice"? I looked it up, and as far as I could
see, it wasn't playable. If it *is* playable with Cedega, he's even better
off.
>>>> Half-Life,
>>
>> There seems to be a Linux version of this one.
>
> Nope.
Hmm, I see - it's just a Linux server. The game itself seems playable
through both Wine and Cedega.
>> Most hardware should work in one go, although you'd have to do without
>> sound card SPDIF, and film scanning. The ATI video card might require
>> ATI driver installation.
>
> might?!?!?!? You can use VESA but no HW openGL.
If you get the PowerPack version of Mandriva you *do* get the OpenGL
drivers.
>> Your best bet distro-wise would be the Mandriva Free DVD - on your
>> machine, it should take half an hour at most to install. If money's
>> less of an issue, and you like the convenience, you might consider
>> buying the PowerPack version - it includes ATI drivers and such.
>
> Why not the other 399? Why do they not meet his needs?
He didn't ask that. He asked which out of the 400 I could recommend, and
why. I recommend a mainstream distro that has, in my personal experience,
the best combination of hardware and software support, and fulfils his
wish-list in the best possible manner.
Had he asked for the best solution to set up a web server, I'd have come
up with totally different distributions. And had he expressed the desire
to use firmware-embedded Linux in small electronic devices, he would've
got a different advice again. And so on.
But I guess you want me to list all 400, and then compare each of the
items of his HW/SW list to each of these distros. Well, you may do that,
if you like, but
>> Other distros that should perform equally well are Suse and Ubuntu. I
>> was
>
> Easy answers that I could have come up with. You have basically
> suggested the 4 most popular distros with the largest support community.
> Funny that.
Why is that funny? These distributions cater best to the needs and wishes
of a mainstream PC user such as DFS: most extensive hardware support,
greatest choice in software, very good overall support of both the OS and
a lot of the software packages. There are other suitable distros - but
less suitable none the less because they involve more "nerdy stuff" to get
everything working. And as he explicitly asked for a Windows replacement,
I assume the best distro involves as little nerdy stuff as possible.
>> also considering Fedora Core 5, but last time I tried it, I found its
>> software downloads were awfully slow, and adding some of the
>> repositories wasn't exactly a breeze either.
>
> But thats nothing to do with his needs : its a problem with execution
> speed.
Nah, I have this feeling that DFS would find a 20k/s download of updates
and new packages on a 4MB ADSL line very annoying - I know I did. That's
why I mentioned it, but in last place.
>> Now, where can I send the bill for an hour's worth of IT consultancy?
>> ;-)
>
> To list the 4 main distros took you an hour?
No. To compare DFS' wish list with what's available and supported took me
an hour. And if, for instance, it turned out that Mandriva for sure
couldn't handle his webcam, it would've ended last, not first. It's called
"making an inventory", and it takes time. But
> So in an hour you have basically worked out that 396 distros are not
> suitable? I salute you.
Now be a good little troll, and stop making yourself look so utterly
stupid.
The Ghost In The Machine
<no...@nomail.com>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:44:26 -0400
<12gtq1f...@news.supernews.com>:
Perhaps. But if it takes 30 minutes to install a distro
and there are 400 distros, it will take more than a month
just for installation testing of all distros on hardware --
assuming one is silly enough to need to do such, and each
workday is 8 hours in length. :-)
Most people will probably just pick one of the top five.
(I got into Gentoo because Debian was being problematic,
and looked around. :-) )
--
#191, ewi...@earthlink.net
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
JEDIDIAH
> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
>>> answer with any merit.
>>
>> It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
>> innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
>
> You can innovate within a specific distro.
I hope you don't manage any important computers or code.
That's just about the DUMBEST thing you've come up with
yet. You leave what works ALONE so that it continues working.
Development forks are for the new and interesting ideas.
[deletia]
JEDIDIAH
>
>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm not insulting their efforts : I'm saying that its detrimental to the
>>> overrall good of Linux. Again a big difference. If their efforts were on
>>> the major distros which will likely survive the inevitable "distro
>>> abandonware era" then Linux will be far fitter and stronger and able to
>>> take on windows.
>>
>> Of course this assumes that work done in an abandon distro is
>> inevitably lost, and that is just not the case. One possible
>
> Not always the case. Often the case.
>
>> reason that Linux has outpaced the BSDs in market acceptance
>> is exactly because the GPL encourages 'friendly forking'. By
>> that I mean innovations made in a forked version of a project
>> can be rolled back into the main tree. In fact, that often
>
> Not all distros are in any way "innovative" : its a popular misbelief.
That is a paradox.
If they aren't "innovative" then there's nothing inherent in
them that will cause confusion, even in large numbers (like 400).
Hadron Quark
> On 2006-09-18, Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com writes:
>>
>>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
>>>> answer with any merit.
>>>
>>> It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
>>> innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
>>
>> You can innovate within a specific distro.
>
> I hope you don't manage any important computers or code.
>
> That's just about the DUMBEST thing you've come up with
> yet. You leave what works ALONE so that it continues working.
> Development forks are for the new and interesting ideas.
Sorry? You clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. Stick to
having sex with your sister and practicing the banjo.
YOu have a distro : you download code, you branch, you
experiment. Easy. You innovate.
Innovations don't require their own distro old son.
>
> [deletia]
--
A word to the wise: a credentials dicksize war is usually a bad idea
on the net.
-- David Parsons in c.o.l.development.system, about coding in C
Hadron Quark
> On 2006-09-18, Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com writes:
>>
>>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I'm not insulting their efforts : I'm saying that its detrimental to the
>>>> overrall good of Linux. Again a big difference. If their efforts were on
>>>> the major distros which will likely survive the inevitable "distro
>>>> abandonware era" then Linux will be far fitter and stronger and able to
>>>> take on windows.
>>>
>>> Of course this assumes that work done in an abandon distro is
>>> inevitably lost, and that is just not the case. One possible
>>
>> Not always the case. Often the case.
>>
>>> reason that Linux has outpaced the BSDs in market acceptance
>>> is exactly because the GPL encourages 'friendly forking'. By
>>> that I mean innovations made in a forked version of a project
>>> can be rolled back into the main tree. In fact, that often
>>
>> Not all distros are in any way "innovative" : its a popular misbelief.
>
> That is a paradox.
>
> If they aren't "innovative" then there's nothing inherent in
> them that will cause confusion, even in large numbers (like 400).
Removing, say, Gnome, isnt "innovative". Sorry.
Rick
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>> On 2006-09-18, Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't
>>>>> an answer with any merit.
>>>>
>>>> It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
>>>> innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
>>>
>>> You can innovate within a specific distro.
>>
>> I hope you don't manage any important computers or code.
>>
>> That's just about the DUMBEST thing you've come up with
>> yet. You leave what works ALONE so that it continues working.
>> Development forks are for the new and interesting ideas.
>
> Sorry? You clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. Stick to
> having sex with your sister and practicing the banjo.
You are such a dickhead.
>
> YOu have a distro : you download code, you branch, you experiment. Easy.
> You innovate.
>
> Innovations don't require their own distro old son.
>
>
Require? Who said anything about require?
DFS
<snip>
Thanks for the good answer. I read all of it.
So you're saying I should use Mandriva (I actually used it for a few months
off and on - 9.2 then 10.0 or 10.1 - worked pretty well).
Of course mine was a little bit of a 'fantasy' post; my actual games,
hardware and software is different - actually more downscale and a few less
pieces. I didn't purposely list unsupported equipment, but I certainly
could have and made your life hard :)
You did a lot of good research - I do appreciate it. The upshot is: decent
game support (but Cedega isn't a seamless solution - I'm sure I'll have to
give up some games), fair to good hardware support (I have a feeling the
photo-printing capabilities I get with the Windows driver will not be
available, I've seen issues with the Audigy2 ZS and Linux), fair to good
software replacements (Quantas is the website tool I would probably want if
I can't have HomeSite, k3b I've used and it's good, OOCalc I can live with
but it's not snappy like Excel).
You also recommend Suse and Ubuntu. Isn't it too much to ask of Windows
users to spend all that time installing and configuring and figuring out
what works on what distro?
Regardless of these issues, in real life, I don't think I could move 100% to
Linux. I develop Access/VB/SQL Server/Oracle solutions for a living - and
I'm not ready to walk away from the earnings. A virtualization solution
might be possible - and I'm going to explore a speedy, hardware-based one
before too long - but it would have to run SQL Server and the Hummingbird
Doc Mgmt system flawlessly.
> Now, where can I send the bill for an hour's worth of IT consultancy? ;-)
Good question. Maybe to the same place I send my bill for the hassles of
getting k3b running on Slackware? Or to the place where I'm compensated for
time wasted when KNode crashed and lost my partly-composed cola post.
Here, I think: dream_on@it_will_never_happen.com
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:16:08 +0200,
Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
> Gregory Shearman <ZekeG...@netscape.net> writes:
>
>> Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>>> Here is a *fact* : it is NOT. 100% Fact. No Dispute. None.
>>
>> No, it's simply your opinion.
>
> No. Its a fact.
that it's your opinion, is a fact, that's about it.
Additionally, the *fact* that people dispute your opinion, proves that
it is indeed, disputable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFD1R4d90bcYOAWPYRAuZHAJwOT6BMQPtO3xeuFYhBq99EcZFdagCdEX2w
HRwHVaKk9UdE/ygzocY37bw=
=Or1k
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
The nice thing about Windows is - It does not just crash, it displays
a dialog box and lets you press 'OK' first.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 21:26:28 GMT,
Rick <trol...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 23:12:20 +0200, Hadron Quark wrote:
>
>> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>
>>> On 2006-09-18, Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't
>>>>>> an answer with any merit.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
>>>>> innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
>>>>
>>>> You can innovate within a specific distro.
>>>
>>> I hope you don't manage any important computers or code.
>>>
>>> That's just about the DUMBEST thing you've come up with
>>> yet. You leave what works ALONE so that it continues working.
>>> Development forks are for the new and interesting ideas.
>>
>> Sorry? You clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. Stick to
>> having sex with your sister and practicing the banjo.
>
> You are such a dickhead.
>
Hadron is pretty consistant in one thing at least, if you disagree with
him, he's eventually going to just fall back to insults, rather than
debate.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFD2IKd90bcYOAWPYRAu0qAKDS4WuaIuTSS03JJ8GLOABbGng1EACg0BQ/
8pYKFqWa1RYqDQhTwTECq88=
=kVYf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you don't have the time to do it right, where will you find time
to do it over?
Jamie Hart
>>>
>>>> OK, let's see you support your allegation.
>>>>
>>>> Please provide proof that having 400 distros is wasting effort. Not
>>>> opinion, proof.
>>> If the effort is better put to other distros then its fairly clear.
>> a conclusion not in debate.
>
> What are you debating?
I told you in the next paragraph.
>> You are not supposed to be arguing about what would happen _if_ more
>> effort is put into other distros, you are supposed to be providing
>> proof that having 400 distros is wasting effort.
>
> Err, its a natural conclusion.
>
No it isn't, it's your opinion and it will remain your opinion until you
present some proof. So far you're just waffling.
> 400 distros will NOT remain a viable option. Its as plain as the nose on
> Shylocks face.
More personal attacks? What's the matter, can't you provide proof of
your assertion?
>> There are many ways you could attempt to do that, you could bring up
>> applications that were developed independantly on different distros
>> but have exactly the same feature set, or you could point to distros
>> that have been abandoned and not taken up by others.
>
> I did.
I didn't see it, just some waffle about it standing to reason that 400
distros was bad. You tried the same thing in this post, but it still
won't wash. Provide proof or admit it's just your opinion.
>
>> If you make a decent attempt to provide proof of your assertion, I'll
>> be happy to debate them with you, you may even convince me that you're
>> right.
>
> I think you are convinced : you just wont admit it to yourself.
>
Bollocks.
> It does not take rocket science to know that 400 distros and growing is
> over the top. That *IF* the developers of these distros were to help in
> the development of more stable, functional distros then it would benefit
> those larger and more stable distros tremendously. The rest is, as they
> say, QED.
>
They only say QED when they have presented proof of an hypothesis. It
does not mean, "I haven't thought things through so I'll try to sound
like I know what I'm talking about".
What you have done is postulated two separate situations, failed to
provide a link between them and then tried to offer the (unproven)
result of one as proof for the other.
Here's what you need to do. Firstly separate "400 distros is wasting
effort" and "more effort on fewer distros would be good". Decide which
you want to argue, do some research so you can present some proof for it
and then come back and debate it.
If you can't do that, at least try to provide some proof that having
less distros would result in more effort being put into those that are left.
>> But this wishy-washy "it stands to reason" crap will not convince
>> anyone but your fellow trolls.
>
> What "fellow trolls"? I'm not trolling. I believe it.
>
Let's see, you state that having 400 Linux distributions is a bad thing
for some undefined reason. You refuse to offer proof of this and rely on
vague pleas that people believe you 'cause you know what your talking
about'.
That's classic FUD my friend.
If you weren't trolling you'd be having these conversations somewhere
where you would have a chance of changing things, instead, here you are
spreading your FUD on an advocacy group.
Add to this your penchant for bringing in the names of COLA regulars who
are not even involved in the conversation, your constant sucking up to
the other wintrolls and your constant defense of windows and there are
few left who don't believe you are a troll.
Jamie Hart
distro that fits on a credit card sized CD and has all the networking
tools that you could need then you are limited to about 20, they don't
take any time to install and you can probably test them all in a day.
If you want a general purpose desktop distro then you start with the
top five, you'll probably need to test two or three of them before you
find one that you like. Again, you can do that in a day.
Once you've got used to Linux and have some real idea of what is what,
you can re-analyse your choice and maybe try a few of the less known
distros. By then you'll know more about how to choose one that is right
for you.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
> On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 00:50:15 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> [H]omer wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In fact there's an even easier way of dealing with *all* Windows
>>> hardware enumeration problems, follow the Microsoft Mantra
>>> "Wipe'n'Reinstall®", but this time make sure he reinstalls the *right*
>>> OS: http://distrowatch.com/
>>
>> There are nearly 400 there. Which is the right one, and why?
>
> /*Sarcasm on*/
>
> They ALL are the right one!
> Ain't choice great!!
And none of them suffer from the brain-dead Microsoft Windows
hardware-recognition behaviour which started this thread.
Richard Rasker
> Richard Rasker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
> Thanks for the good answer. I read all of it.
Well, Linux advocates /are/ capable of doing more than just running around
and shouting "All's well with Linux!" ;-)
> So you're saying I should use Mandriva (I actually used it for a few months
> off and on - 9.2 then 10.0 or 10.1 - worked pretty well).
I think indeed that with Mandriva you'll be most comfortable. Its not just
that Windows users seem to feel most at home with KDE (Suse would be fine
as well then), but also the fact that the installation of both the OS and
software (plus updates) is very quick and painless, and that extending the
amount of available packages is a matter of copying and pasting a few
lines in a terminal window - and yes, this can also be done from the GUI,
but that's actually a bit more cumbersome.
> Of course mine was a little bit of a 'fantasy' post; my actual games,
> hardware and software is different - actually more downscale and a few less
> pieces. I didn't purposely list unsupported equipment, but I certainly
> could have and made your life hard :)
Ah well, we've all seen those troll rants, pretending to be an actual
installation ending up in hell, because the "Linux victim" had unsupported
sound and video cards, and a Canon multifunction printer. And of course
the installer wiped the Windows part of his HD - and perhaps the back-ups
on the shelf too, for good measure ...
I think it's a good thing you actually kept to a common configuration -
and even then, with almost each install I do, I stumble upon one or
two small things that don't work properly, if at all. But about "making my
life hard" ... um, no. I'd simply conclude that this-and-that doesn't seem
to be supported. It only gets hard when I have the gear at hand, and try
to get it to work anyway.
> You did a lot of good research - I do appreciate it. The upshot is: decent
> game support (but Cedega isn't a seamless solution - I'm sure I'll have to
> give up some games), fair to good hardware support (I have a feeling the
> photo-printing capabilities I get with the Windows driver will not be
> available, I've seen issues with the Audigy2 ZS and Linux), fair to good
> software replacements (Quantas is the website tool I would probably want if
> I can't have HomeSite, k3b I've used and it's good, OOCalc I can live with
> but it's not snappy like Excel).
>
> You also recommend Suse and Ubuntu. Isn't it too much to ask of Windows
> users to spend all that time installing and configuring and figuring out
> what works on what distro?
It actually takes less time to check out the hardware support of two or
three distros than it takes to do a basic Windows install (with drivers,
without applications) - although a few hints from a more experienced
Linux user certainly make a lot of difference, as the novice at first
wouldn know where to find the appropriate configuration tools.
The fastest way is firing up the live CD version of a distro. You can
start checking things within minutes - but the downside is that if
everything indeed works in a satisfactory manner, you still have to do the
full install. But as a full install isn't exactly time-consuming weither,
I usually do that right away.
For instance, installing Mandriva from DVD shouldn't take more than half
an hour. And if all available devices are hooked up and switched on,
they're not just automatically detected, but often configured as well.
("The Dropping of Jaws" is my favourite moment during an install - it's
the moment when new users see that their printers, scanners, MP3 players
and digital cameras all "just work", without the need to install any
manufacturer's drivers from CD's, and often even without configuration.
Of course, there's always something that doesn't work in one go, but they're
impressed all the same.)
If all hardware is supported, you usually know it within an hour.
> Regardless of these issues, in real life, I don't think I could move 100% to
> Linux. I develop Access/VB/SQL Server/Oracle solutions for a living - and
> I'm not ready to walk away from the earnings.
And you shouldn't. Well, not all in one go, at least ;-) Many years ago, I
*did* walk away radically from quite a lot of Windows oriented work (book
translations, system maintenance), and it cost me quite a bit in earnings.
I never regretted the step, though.
> A virtualization solution might be possible - and I'm going to explore
> a speedy, hardware-based one before too long - but it would have to run
> SQL Server and the Hummingbird Doc Mgmt system flawlessly.
Everyone should choose what's best suited for him. My Linux users either
chose it deliberately because of endless, costly trouble with Windows, or
got second hand PC's from me, with Linux installed. Some of them asked me
if I couldn't just have installed a cracked copy of XP, but I said I don't
like pirated software. And what I didn't say is that if I gave them a
cracked XP version, they'd be treading a path to my door every time
something went wrong with it - which was one of my reasons to abandon
Windows in the first place.
>> Now, where can I send the bill for an hour's worth of IT consultancy?
>> ;-)
>
> Good question. Maybe to the same place I send my bill for the hassles
> of getting k3b running on Slackware? Or to the place where I'm
> compensated for time wasted when KNode crashed and lost my
> partly-composed cola post.
OK, let's cancel it out against all those countless hours I long ago spent
trying to make Windows do what I wanted, instead of simply doing what
Gates c.s. decided I should do.
> Here, I think: dream_on@it_will_never_happen.com
Good. Um, it bounced ...
Linonut
> Regardless of these issues, in real life, I don't think I could move 100% to
> Linux. I develop Access/VB/SQL Server/Oracle solutions for a living - and
> I'm not ready to walk away from the earnings. A virtualization solution
> might be possible - and I'm going to explore a speedy, hardware-based one
> before too long - but it would have to run SQL Server and the Hummingbird
> Doc Mgmt system flawlessly.
In our new building, we have a guy from another project that is even
more MS-centric than ours. He's been going on about virtualization and
Virtual PC, and also abouve VMware. He seemed to have an outdated view
of QEMU, though.
Anyway, he was talking about some low-overhead clients for
virtualization, and that looks like something to learn about.
>> Now, where can I send the bill for an hour's worth of IT consultancy? ;-)
>
> Good question. Maybe to the same place I send my bill for the hassles of
> getting k3b running on Slackware? Or to the place where I'm compensated for
> time wasted when KNode crashed and lost my partly-composed cola post.
I've lost more time wrestling with MS products, myself, than OSS
products.
Upgrades on debian are pretty seamless. I normally create a DVD set so
that I can install while on the road, away from a network. But I
finally added a Debian http site to /etc/apt/sources.list, and then I
upgraded Xorg and a whole lot of other stuff.
While I was working on Word documents.
Nieshe!! I mean schweeeeeeeet!
(How the does one spell "nice" with "sh", anyway!)
--
Real programmers don't use Pascal.
Gregory Shearman
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 12:33:20 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 17:01:52 +0200, Hadron Quark
>> <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I think having different distros is a good thing : but not 400 different
>>> distros. Cant you see the difference? really not?
>>
>> So what are you going to do about it? Regardless of whether 400 distros
>> is a good idea or not, there is no way for you or me or anybody else to
>> enforce the number you think is right.
>>
>> And _that_ is a very good thing.
>
> At some point the Principal of natural selection will take over.
Oh No Headmaster! I was only installing Debian.... I wasn't even LOOKING at
Puppy Linux!
--
Regards,
Gregory.
"Ding-a-ding-dang,My Dang-a-long ling-long"
JEDIDIAH
> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>> On 2006-09-18, Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com writes:
>>>
>>>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
>>>>> answer with any merit.
>>>>
>>>> It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
>>>> innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
>>>
>>> You can innovate within a specific distro.
>>
>> I hope you don't manage any important computers or code.
>>
>> That's just about the DUMBEST thing you've come up with
>> yet. You leave what works ALONE so that it continues working.
>> Development forks are for the new and interesting ideas.
>
> Sorry? You clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. Stick to
> having sex with your sister and practicing the banjo.
>
> YOu have a distro : you download code, you branch, you
> experiment. Easy. You innovate.
...at which point you don't have one distribution anymore.
You have TWO.
>
> Innovations don't require their own distro old son.
You just described a FORK, you moron. Of course it means
you have two distros. You just described the genesis of
Mandrake and Ubuntu.
[deletia]
--
Oracle... can't live with it... |||
/ | \
can't just replace it with postgres...
flatfish+++
See ATI...........................
Hadron Quark
> On 2006-09-18, Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> JEDIDIAH <je...@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>>
>>> On 2006-09-18, Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>> tha...@tux.glaci.remove-this.com writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hadron Quark <qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have asked a few people to justify the distros : and "choice" isn't an
>>>>>> answer with any merit.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not just about choice (though that is a factor), it's about
>>>>> innovation. Think of each distribution as a sort of experimental
>>>>
>>>> You can innovate within a specific distro.
>>>
>>> I hope you don't manage any important computers or code.
>>>
>>> That's just about the DUMBEST thing you've come up with
>>> yet. You leave what works ALONE so that it continues working.
>>> Development forks are for the new and interesting ideas.
>>
>> Sorry? You clearly have zero idea what you are talking about. Stick to
>> having sex with your sister and practicing the banjo.
>>
>> YOu have a distro : you download code, you branch, you
>> experiment. Easy. You innovate.
>
> ...at which point you don't have one distribution anymore.
>
> You have TWO.
No you dont.
You have a development machines.
>
>>
>> Innovations don't require their own distro old son.
>
> You just described a FORK, you moron. Of course it means
> you have two distros. You just described the genesis of
> Mandrake and Ubuntu.
For fucks sake : by your rational, if I customise anything on the
installed distro then I have a new distro. Heres some news : I
dont. because I havent packaged it as a distribution.
>
> [deletia]
--
New York:
Where men are men, sheep enjoy it, and lepers laugh their heads off.
Mark Kent
Bob Hauck <postm...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 15:19:54 +0200, Hadron Quark
><qadro...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Jamie Hart <use...@jhart.ath.cx> writes:
>
>>> Please provide proof that having 400 distros is wasting effort. Not
>>> opinion, proof.
>>
>> If the effort is better put to other distros then its fairly clear.
>
> somehow be induced to work on the distro you approve of. If they would
> not do that, then whatever they do is irrelevant to any reasonable
> definition of "wasted effort".
>
> It also seems to me that having 400 more people who know the details of
> how to put a distro together is a good thing in terms of the ability of
> the community to sustain itself.
Basically, Mr Quark's assertions are not self-evident. Few things
are.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Schshschshchsch.
-- The Gorn, "Arena", stardate 3046.2