Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
7
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ubuntu 9.04 continues to amaze.
Got a Quad Core with 10,000 RPM Raptor SATA drive.
Installed Ubuntu in 6 - 7 minutes.
(From pressing install button to booting up and displaying a web
page from the real internet in firefox)
Installation was from an ext2 formatted SD Card!! (Details
of how to make one enclosed below.)
Boot time is 15 to 20 seconds (thats including typing in the username
and password).
Installing additional software like KDE and compiz pushes
the boot time out to 30 seconds.
The machine can boot with virtually no speed loss if the
10,000 RPM drive is moved to an external portable E-Sata drive box.
To watch a machine boot off the external drive at those
speeds is amazing. Even more amazing is that internal or
external operation, Linux doesn't care - there is no
complaining drivers are not installed, or change of
video, or any other kind of crap that comes with windummy
machines.
So finally machines that can be Linux servers and Linux
office desktop PCs can have their
drives moved around from PC to PC in a typical
office mix without any kind of headaches or support issues
for the IT administrator. (Providing the build standard
is not immensely different from one PC to the next.)
This must be an ideal situation for schools, colleges,
universities, governments and big businesses where
the sprawl of machines and variety causes significant
management issues with driver issues and blue screens
whenever windummy machines are around.
The 2.4GHz AMD quad core with 4Gb RAM home built base unit
with 10,000 RPM drive cost around 250 pounds.
Ubuntu 9.04 Dumbfoundationalism Experiences
-------------------------------------------
I just don't believe it!
I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 9.04 on an Asus EEE.
It took me 17 minutes from clicking start of installation
to finishing installation, booting up
AND browsing first web page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHAT AN ACHIEVEMENT FOR THE UBUNTU TEAM!!!!!
HIP HIP HOORAY!
HIP HIP HOORAY!!
HIP HIP HOORAY!!!
I am totally dumb founded!!
Ubuntu 9.04 is technically just astonishing!!
Nothing as powerful exists for the PC in the whole world.
And nothing as powerful as this has existed in the PC's entire history!!!
2Gb of software installed including open office, networking,
browser, user management, gimp, email, music/movie player,
DVD burner, synaptic, rsync, etc. etc.. etc..
To make matters 'worse', I didn't even install to the internal
disks, I installed to a 2.5" 40Gb external pocket drive
running off of a USB port!!!
Since I didn't believe the install time, I thought I must have
made a mistake with the mental note of time.
So I installed again!
And its 17 minutes again from pressing the install button to booting
up the new install and opening up firefox and then typing
google and getting first page up!!!
Since the EEE 1000 hasn't got an optical drive, I installed with
from the SD Card formatted to EXT2 (Micoshaft FAT format is a disaster
for an SD Card and won't work at these speeds)
Here below some pointers to how it all got done...
Using extlinux to convert a liveCD iso to bootable SD card
-------------------------------------------------------------
Converting an ISO file to a bootable USB stick or a bootable
SD Card for EEE is easy.
Without being able to convert a distro into a bootable USB flash /SD Card,
that distro can't be easily loaded into netbook like EEE
and stand to miss out on users installing it into netbooks.
So I would recommend all distro mainters look at their netbook
boot strategy and offer something to boot their distros
from USB flash and SD cards or miss out on users installing it into
netbooks.
Having done a few conversions, a pattern emerges that works well for
most syslinux / isolinux / extlinux based distros.
1. Put your SD card or USB flash drive into your desktop Linux PC and
���then�open�a�console�and�type�dmesg
���You�should�see�some�line�indicating�your�flash�drive�as
���being�picked�up�and�allocated�with�a�comment�like�sdc�/�sdc1�etc..
���Remember�both�names�-�the�first�is�/dev/sdc�which�is�your
���device�name,�and�the�second�is�/dev/sdc1�which�is�your�partition�name.
���(Don't�get�confused�between�drive�/dev/sdc�and�partition�/dev/sdc1
���or�your�drive�could�become�scrambled�eggs�later�on.�Also�remember
���it�may�be�called�sdg�or�sdh�etc�depending�what�you�see�when�you
���plug�in�device�and�type�dmesg)
2. Install gparted on your machine using synaptic.
���To�run�it�you�can�type
�����sudo�gparted
���in�a�console�window�and�select�on�the�right�side�the�drive�name�allocated
���in�step�1.�Right�click�on�the�bar�that�represents�the�partition
���and�click�on�manage�flags.
���Enable�the�boot�flag�and�click�OK.�This�makes�the�SD�Card�/�USB
���stick�bootable.
3. Format the partition /dev/sdc1 to ext2 linux format.
���This�format�is�not�directly�readable�under�WINDUMMY�Osen,�but�there
���are�free�drivers�for�it�-�try�for�example�www.fs-driver.org
���The�ext2�format�is�many�times�faster�than�windummy�FAT�so
���ditching�WINDUMMY�file�formats�is�advised.
4. Identify that you have syslinux or isolinux in your liveCD by
���opening�the�.ISO�file�in�archive�manager�and�checking�that�it�has
���isolinux�or�syslinux�directory�somewhere�in�the�liveCD.
���In�ubuntu,�the�root�directory�of�/dev/sdc1�will�not�be�writeable
���unless�you�are�in�super�user�mode.
���You�can�run
��������sudo�file-roller
���to�open�iso�files�like�xubuntu-9.04-desktop-i386.iso�in�super�user
���mode�and�extract�all�the�files�in�the�iso�file
���to�the�/dev/sdc1�partition.
5. Go to the flash drive and locate the syslinux (or isolinux) directory.
���rename it to extlinux. Inside the now renamed extlinux directory will
���a�file�such�as�syslinux.cfg�or�isolinux.cfg.�Rename�that�to
���extlinux.conf
���
6. Get syslinux - this is a boot loader and menu system for FAT based
���file�systems.�Download�the�latest�version�from�here...
���http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/
���Unzip�it�and�go�to�the�extlinux�directory.
���On�my�machine�path�is�something�like�this....../syslinux/extlinux
���Run�the�program�there�by�typing�this�-�(note�this�command�is�updating
���the�partition�/dev/sdc1)
���./extlinux�--install�/dev/sdc1/extlinux�
���This�puts�a�new�file�into�your�SD�card�/�USB�flash�disk
7. from the extlinux directory change to the mbr directory
���cd�../mbr
���and�then�run�this�-�again�note�this�time�its�updating�the�device�by
���writing�data�to�the�first�sector�as�opposed�to�the�first�partition.
���sudo�cat�mbr.bin�>�/dev/sdc
���(Note�at�this�stage�you�may�need�to�do�some�of�the�sudo�commands�after
���entering�super�user�mode�to�make�it�work�properly.
���So�the�above�command�would�have�been�done�as�follows�in�Ubuntu.
���sudo�-s
���cat�mbr.bin�>�/dev/sdc
���)
���This�makes�the�card�bootable�and�useable�in�an�Asus�EEE�and�many�other
���PCs�with�SD�card�or�USB�flash�disk�boot�facility.
This method tested and works for
1. Ubuntu
2. Slax
3. Knoppix
4. Puppy
5. DSL
6. GParted
7. gOS
8. Dynabolic
9. MoonOS Kachana
10. Xubuntu
11. TinyOS (incredible distro!)
(Note the method does not work for .ISO files built with grub bootloader -
�need�a�different�install�method�with�grub�boot�loader�instead�of�syslinux.)
Try installing something powerful like Ubuntu on to a netbook
and see it take netbooks to new heights.
3D Translucent Cube Desktop
---------------------------
The latest EEE1000 has fast enough graphics for translucent
3D desktops. An easy way to do all this with Ubuntu is:
Install Ubuntu on EEE (compiz itself
appears to be installed by default in the default install),
then install compiz settings manager using Synaptic
which allows compiz to be fully 'exercised'.
And then do the following to get the 3D cube desktop
working...
�Go�to�General�>�Display�Settings�>�Lighting�and�turned�it�off
�Enable�Desktop�Cube�and�then�Desktop�Cube�>�Transparent�Cube�and�set�the
�two�opacity��settings�to�30%
�then�Desktop�Cube�>�Skydome�and�check�the�skydome�check�mark
�Enable�Rotate�Cube
�Enable�Enhanced�Zoom�Desktop
�Right�click�the�virtual�workspaces�panel�and�increase�the�number
�of�colums�to�8.
And hey presto - 100% 3D translucent desktop with 8 screens!!!!!!!!!!
�[Some�shortcuts�for�the�3D screen
��ctrl�+�alt�+�left�or�right�arrow�to�spin�cube
��ctrl�+�alt�+�down�arrow�and�then�left�or�right�arrow�for�a�ring�switcher
��super�+�E�for�yet�another�switcher
��super�+�mouse�wheel�scroll�to�zoom�in�and�out�of�the�3D�desktop.
�]
Reducing Font Sizes And Turning ON Sub Pixel Rendering
------------------------------------------------------
The EEE can be astonishingly good to look at once the
font size is reduced to about 8 and sub pixel rendering
is turned ON. It is still absolutely
readable and everything appeared like a 'full screen' miniature
desktop equivalent of a big desktop PC.
System > Appearance > Fonts get to the font settings
in Ubuntu. On software like firefox and some other applications,
need to also to set local use of fonts ( Edit > Preferences > Content
will have font settings for firefox that also need to be changed).
VirtualBox
----------
Yes! VirtualBox can run on Ubutu set up with 3D translucent desktop.
http://www.virtualbox.org
Install virtual box and then install programs like windopws XP and run
it pretty much at it would run on a normal netbook. Its hard to tell
if the netbook is running Linux or the WINDUMMY OSen when the software
is run full screen becaue the speed and responsiveness is about
the same between a real windummy OSen install and a virtual box
virtual machine running it all in Linux.
Conor
>
> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
And then if you have an Intel graphics chipset, such as those on most
laptops and netbooks, you spend 2 hours trying to get the graphics
performance to around 50% of what it was in 8.10 and STILL spend ages
trying to get windows network shares browsing working properly.
But at least they've fixed the hard drive load cycle bug.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Will Kemp
> In article<6MlWl.38425$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 7 says...
>> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
>
> And then if you have an Intel graphics chipset, such as those on most
> laptops and netbooks, you spend 2 hours trying to get the graphics
> performance to around 50% of what it was in 8.10
Ah, is that what the problem is? Graphics performance, ey? I switched
from Fedora 10 to Ubuntu 9.04 beta a couple of months ago and there were
quite a few things about Ubuntu that seemed better than Fedora - but
performance wasn't one of them. It made my 2GHz Core II Duo with 4GB RAM
system work like a 386 (i'm exaggerating slightly!). X kept freezing up,
too.
Anyway, last week i switched back to Fedora (F11 preview) and it's all
working properly again.
> But at least they've fixed the hard drive load cycle bug.
Have they? That was another thing that pissed me off about Ubuntu - the
hdd would spin down constantly and then i'd get this pause when i tried
to do something that needed to access it. I never had that with Fedora
and i'm now not having it with Fedora again!
7
> In article <6MlWl.38425$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 7 says...
>>
>> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
>
> And then if you have an Intel graphics chipset, such as those on most
> laptops and netbooks, you spend 2 hours trying to get the graphics
> performance to around 50% of what it was in 8.10 and STILL spend ages
> trying to get windows network shares browsing working properly.
Get smart. Use Linux HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) by searching in
google to choose vendors that are supported.
As for windowps networking, just run smb4k. I also use konqueror
and put web links on my management web page to servers with URLs
like smb://.... Its a lot quicker
than micoshfat offering both for browsing and using file management tools
like rsync to synchronise directories with files that have changed.
Once the links are set up, one click, enter password, and you are in to all
the departmental servers. Because its a web page, you can put it behind
an descriptive image or some helpful notes.
As always, micoshaft can't be trusted with networking.
Beware of micoshaft tampering with Samba connections
(there is a deliberate flag in something
called the registry that is set up to discriminate against
samba connections. Once the flag is cleared, all network
access is treated equally. As if you need such headaches
for EACH AND EVERY MACHINE when their networking doesn't
work in the first place - for which they got fined $400
million+ in the EU.) The best practice approach I find is to
convert a PC box to a linux samba server box and mangage
all connections as a standard from there. So every windumpy PC *MUST*
be able to connect to it before it is released to the user.
That way the entire networking will always work
and its the odd windumpy PCs that drop out because of
some update or software install that needs repair
(and boy oh boy will that take DAYS with some
windump machines to get it repaired!!!)
Best practice approach like this that makes Linux samba
boxes central to fault repairing saves vast amounts of time
isolating faulty PCs from working ones that constantly
plage departmental PCs.
7
I had a very interesting hard disk issue.
The raptor drive I thought automatically was SATA II, because I didn't
think anyone would want to sell a 10,000 RPM drive with SATA I !!
Wrong!
So during some database testing, a dual core PC was outperforming the quad
core. But the interesting thing was that quad core was still booting faster
than dual core.
Conclusion: There is a lot of head thrashing going on during boot under
Linux and the 10K RPM drive performs better. So may be Linux boot
could be improved further if a secondary boot area with a single contigious
flat file could be created that was constructed after booting that
minimized head thrashing by storing the needed files contigiously in
duplicate in that boot area. Every boot operation would continue to be the
same but if some configuration changed for example, the non-continious
files would be accessed so that booting will finish but at the slower pace,
and then after booting, that flat file could be reconstructed again with
the latest set of boot files stored contigiously. You would also need flags
to allow booting from flat file or the full fresh boot as files are not
always going to be synchronised.
johannes
7 wrote:
>
> Conor wrote:
>
> > In article <6MlWl.38425$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 7 says...
> >>
> >> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
> >
> > And then if you have an Intel graphics chipset, such as those on most
> > laptops and netbooks, you spend 2 hours trying to get the graphics
> > performance to around 50% of what it was in 8.10 and STILL spend ages
> > trying to get windows network shares browsing working properly.
>
> Get smart. Use Linux HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) by searching in
> google to choose vendors that are supported.
>
> As for windowps networking, just run smb4k. I also use konqueror
> and put web links on my management web page to servers with URLs
> like smb://.... Its a lot quicker
So adding all this up it will be a lot more than 6 minutes to get it to
work properly.
Conor
> Ah, is that what the problem is? Graphics performance, ey? I switched
> from Fedora 10 to Ubuntu 9.04 beta a couple of months ago and there were
> quite a few things about Ubuntu that seemed better than Fedora - but
> performance wasn't one of them. It made my 2GHz Core II Duo with 4GB RAM
> system work like a 386 (i'm exaggerating slightly!). X kept freezing up,
> too.
>
It's only with Intel chipset graphics. Something to do with them trying
to be clever and introducing cutting edge drivers that don't work.
There's some workarounds which involve either regressing drivers,
changing to XGA or doing a kernel update to a BETA version.
>
> > But at least they've fixed the hard drive load cycle bug.
>
> Have they? That was another thing that pissed me off about Ubuntu - the
> hdd would spin down constantly and then i'd get this pause when i tried
> to do something that needed to access it. I never had that with Fedora
> and i'm now not having it with Fedora again!
LOL.
Conor
> Get smart. Use Linux HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) by searching in
> google to choose vendors that are supported.
>
I was and the Intel 945 chipset is. The problem is Ubuntu chose to use
broken drivers when they moved to 9.04 that try to implement a new
acceleration mode. In 8.10 and below, there's never been an issue.
> As for windowps networking, just run smb4k. I also use konqueror
> and put web links on my management web page to servers with URLs
> like smb://.... Its a lot quicker
I use Gnome. The problem is that the Ubuntu team didn't put wins in
eithe nsswitch.conf or smb.conf as a protocol so you need to add it
manually. Until you do, you cannot access windows network shares
without knowing the target IP and share name.
Conor
> So adding all this up it will be a lot more than 6 minutes to get it to
> work properly.
Indeed. Takes me about 30-40 minutes on a X2 4800+ with 2GB RAM desktop
and about the same on a 1.73 Ghz Core Duo lappy with 2GB RAM.
And then you spend another couple of hours implementing the fixes to
get everything working properly as it did in previous versions.
The problem with Ubuntu that doesn't exist in
Suse/Mandriva/Fedora/Debian etc is that in a rush to meet their self
imposed 6 month release schedule, they let some really whopping show
stoppers through which are usually caused by an omission in a config
file. Other distributions will hold back a release.
Ubuntu sadly is the epitomy of shitty quality control. Even going with
a LTS release doesn't guarantee anything as both the hard drive load
cycle bug and the windows network browsing bug came into being with
8.04 LTS.
Rick
> In article <4A2A58A5...@sizefi9727247tter.com>, johannes says...
>
>> So adding all this up it will be a lot more than 6 minutes to get it to
>> work properly.
>
> Indeed. Takes me about 30-40 minutes on a X2 4800+ with 2GB RAM desktop
> and about the same on a 1.73 Ghz Core Duo lappy with 2GB RAM.
>
> And then you spend another couple of hours implementing the fixes to get
> everything working properly as it did in previous versions.
>
> The problem with Ubuntu that doesn't exist in
> Suse/Mandriva/Fedora/Debian etc is that in a rush to meet their self
> imposed 6 month release schedule, they let some really whopping show
> stoppers through which are usually caused by an omission in a config
> file. Other distributions will hold back a release.
>
> Ubuntu sadly is the epitomy of shitty quality control. Even going with a
> LTS release doesn't guarantee anything as both the hard drive load cycle
> bug and the windows network browsing bug came into being with 8.04 LTS.
From what I've read, the network browsing bug is a Gnome bug, as was the
bug that wouldn't allow remotely managing users, and some other admin
tasks.
--
Rick
Ezekiel
> Conor wrote:
>
>> In article <6MlWl.38425$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 7 says...
>>>
>>> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
>>
>> And then if you have an Intel graphics chipset, such as those on most
>> laptops and netbooks, you spend 2 hours trying to get the graphics
>> performance to around 50% of what it was in 8.10 and STILL spend ages
>> trying to get windows network shares browsing working properly.
>
>
> Get smart. Use Linux HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) by searching in
> google to choose vendors that are supported.
>
One side of freetards mouth - "Linux is great at hardware support and
everything just works."
Other side of freetards mouth - "Don't buy any hardware unless you make sure
it's one one of the several 'Hardware compatibility Lists' that are out on
the web or you'll have problems."
Ezekiel
And since Ubuntu uses gnome it really doesn't matter does it? The bottom
line is that someone who installs Ubuntu and wants to browse the network
won't be able to. It's broken plain and simple and Canonical released
Ubuntu with this bug that was obviously never tested. Because it's a gnome
bug vs a XYZ bug is of little consequence to the user who can't browse the
network.
Rob Morley
Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-mail.com> wrote:
> And since Ubuntu uses gnome it really doesn't matter does it?
Kubuntu, Xubuntu - both Ubuntu, neither Gnome ...
Ezekiel
No... Kubuntu is Kubuntu and Xubuntu is Xubuntu.
When someone says they're running Ubuntu then they mean that they are
running Ubuntu... not Xubuntu.
Rob Morley
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> So may be Linux boot
> could be improved further if a secondary boot area with a single
> contigious flat file could be created that was constructed after
> booting that minimized head thrashing by storing the needed files
> contigiously in duplicate in that boot area.
That would be the hibernation file then?
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:05:14 +0100, Conor wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4A2A58A5...@sizefi9727247tter.com>, johannes says...
>>>
>>>> So adding all this up it will be a lot more than 6 minutes to get it
>>>> to work properly.
>>>
>>> Indeed. Takes me about 30-40 minutes on a X2 4800+ with 2GB RAM
>>> desktop and about the same on a 1.73 Ghz Core Duo lappy with 2GB RAM.
>>>
>>> And then you spend another couple of hours implementing the fixes to
>>> get everything working properly as it did in previous versions.
>>>
>>> The problem with Ubuntu that doesn't exist in
>>> Suse/Mandriva/Fedora/Debian etc is that in a rush to meet their self
>>> imposed 6 month release schedule, they let some really whopping show
>>> stoppers through which are usually caused by an omission in a config
>>> file. Other distributions will hold back a release.
>>>
>>> Ubuntu sadly is the epitomy of shitty quality control. Even going with
>>> a LTS release doesn't guarantee anything as both the hard drive load
>>> cycle bug and the windows network browsing bug came into being with
>>> 8.04 LTS.
>>
>> From what I've read, the network browsing bug is a Gnome bug, as was
>> the bug that wouldn't allow remotely managing users, and some other
>> admin tasks.
>>
>>
>>
> And since Ubuntu uses gnome it really doesn't matter does it?
Yes, it does. Gnome bugs usually effect every distro using that version
of Gnome, not just (insert name of distro).
> The bottom
> line is that someone who installs Ubuntu and wants to browse the network
> won't be able to. It's broken plain and simple and Canonical released
> Ubuntu with this bug that was obviously never tested. Because it's a
> gnome bug vs a XYZ bug is of little consequence to the user who can't
> browse the network.
It may be of little consequence to the uninformed user. When that bug bit
me, I wasn't very happy with Canonical until I learned it was a Gnome
bug, and also learned that more distros than Ubuntu were effected.
--
Rick
Rick
Unless they are running XUbuntu, but calling it UBuntu..
And, of course, you can run XFCE on Ubunutu instead of Metacity. So, is
that Ubuntu, or XUbuntu? What if you install Ubuntu, Install the XFCE
environment and then remove Gnome?
--
Rick
Ezekiel
If what you say is true then it's a serious condemnation of the QA (quality
assurance) and testing that is done by the various distros. It's bad enough
that gnome broke this major piece of functionality (the ability to browse
the network) and then gnome released this into the code base. This alone
would indicate that quality control measures are poor to non-existant.
But then you say that there were several distros where this didn't work
which tells me that besides gnome not bothering to test their code, distros
such as Ubuntu and all of the others don't bother testing their code either
before releasing it.
A bug this obvious was released in several distros and nobody noticed. Why
is Linux quality control so pathetic?
Rick
Yeah, right, do you think th Gnome devs are the only group that releases
software with bugs...
.. the flip side is.. when Gnome released the updates, those problems
were fixed on all those distros...
It seems you hold OSS to different standards that proprietary software.
--
Rick
Ezekiel
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:59:50 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:46:36 -0400
>>> Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-mail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> And since Ubuntu uses gnome it really doesn't matter does it?
>>>
>>> Kubuntu, Xubuntu - both Ubuntu, neither Gnome ...
>>
>> No... Kubuntu is Kubuntu and Xubuntu is Xubuntu.
>>
>> When someone says they're running Ubuntu then they mean that they are
>> running Ubuntu... not Xubuntu.
>
> Unless they are running XUbuntu, but calling it UBuntu..
Considering that Xubuntu is a separate download from a separate web page
then the person who downloads and installs Xubuntu from the Xubuntu website
and decides to call it Ubuntu would be as wrong as the person who installs
Fedora and decides to call it Ubuntu.
> And, of course, you can run XFCE on Ubunutu instead of Metacity. So, is
> that Ubuntu, or XUbuntu? What if you install Ubuntu, Install the XFCE
> environment and then remove Gnome?
Yeah... all five people who do this are certainly relevant in this
discussion. The fact is that UBUNTU is screwed up and they released a
screwed up product that was never properly tested. Some convoluted 0.x%
edge case in your hypothetical scenario doesn't change this.
Clive
"7" <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote in message
news:6MlWl.38425$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Ubuntu 9.04 continues to amaze.
>
> Got a Quad Core with 10,000 RPM Raptor SATA drive.
> Installed Ubuntu in 6 - 7 minutes.
> (From pressing install button to booting up and displaying a web
> page from the real internet in firefox)
>
> Installation was from an ext2 formatted SD Card!! (Details
> of how to make one enclosed below.)
>
> Boot time is 15 to 20 seconds (thats including typing in the username
> and password).
>
Mine does it in that on an old PC with 1GB RAM running at 750MHz
> there is no
> complaining drivers are not installed,
Correct - things will just refuse to work like video cards,
WiFi, card readers, digital cameras, satnav etc etc.
> So finally machines that can be Linux servers and Linux
> office desktop PCs can have their
> drives moved around from PC to PC in a typical
> office mix without any kind of headaches or support issues
> for the IT administrator.
I very much doubt that - but if you want to live in a dream world!
> (Providing the build standard
> is not immensely different from one PC to the next.)
Which is why you need someone controlling the IT, not people
like you that think they know everything and then blame the PC.
> This must be an ideal situation for schools, colleges,
> universities, governments and big businesses where
> the sprawl of machines and variety causes significant
> management issues with driver issues and blue screens
You don't get those problems with a proper system that
is managed correctly. When is the last time you worked in
IT or even went to school. You sound like you have very
little knowledge or experience. It is one thing reading from a
book and then repeating it, but the real experience comes
from practical working.
You could probably repeat all the technical terms, but if asked to
expand I bet you wouldn't be able to. You would probably
reach for Google every time and pass the answers off as your own.
>
> The 2.4GHz AMD quad core with 4Gb RAM home built base unit
> with 10,000 RPM drive cost around 250 pounds.
>
>
expensive.
>
> Ubuntu 9.04 Dumbfoundationalism Experiences
> -------------------------------------------
>
> I just don't believe it!
>
Neither could I when I realised the total lack of driver
development and support.
> I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 9.04 on an Asus EEE.
>
So what!
> It took me 17 minutes from clicking start of installation
> to finishing installation, booting up
> AND browsing first web page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Good job all the drivers worked.
> WHAT AN ACHIEVEMENT FOR THE UBUNTU TEAM!!!!!
> HIP HIP HOORAY!
> HIP HIP HOORAY!!
> HIP HIP HOORAY!!!
>
Oh dear, too much alcohol down him.
> I am totally dumb founded!!
>
You will be when it stops working.
> Ubuntu 9.04 is technically just astonishing!!
>
Not really, it has NO improvements over v7.
> Nothing as powerful exists for the PC in the whole world.
> And nothing as powerful as this has existed in the PC's entire history!!!
>
Yes it has, but people confuse power with speed.
YAWN, reading this LINUX stuff puts me to sleep!
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:59:50 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>
>>> Rob Morley wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:46:36 -0400
>>>> Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-mail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And since Ubuntu uses gnome it really doesn't matter does it?
>>>>
>>>> Kubuntu, Xubuntu - both Ubuntu, neither Gnome ...
>>>
>>> No... Kubuntu is Kubuntu and Xubuntu is Xubuntu.
>>>
>>> When someone says they're running Ubuntu then they mean that they are
>>> running Ubuntu... not Xubuntu.
>>
>> Unless they are running XUbuntu, but calling it UBuntu..
>
> Considering that Xubuntu is a separate download from a separate web page
> then the person who downloads and installs Xubuntu from the Xubuntu
> website and decides to call it Ubuntu would be as wrong as the person
> who installs Fedora and decides to call it Ubuntu.
.. or the person that calls a generic self-adhesive bandager a Band-Aid,
or a generic soda drink a coke, or a person that calls a kernel an
operating system...
>
>
>
>> And, of course, you can run XFCE on Ubunutu instead of Metacity. So, is
>> that Ubuntu, or XUbuntu? What if you install Ubuntu, Install the XFCE
>> environment and then remove Gnome?
>
> Yeah... all five people who do this are certainly relevant in this
> discussion. The fact is that UBUNTU is screwed up and they released a
> screwed up product that was never properly tested. Some convoluted 0.x%
> edge case in your hypothetical scenario doesn't change this.
By your definition then, (insert name of software vendor) is screwed up
and they released a screwed up product that was never properly tested.
--
Rick
Conor
says...
> From what I've read, the network browsing bug is a Gnome bug, as was the
> bug that wouldn't allow remotely managing users, and some other admin
> tasks.
It isn't. I posted a fix on the forums. It was a misconfiguration of
the smb.conf file if you want it system wide or nsswitch.conf if you
want it Gnome specific.
Rick
> In article <pd6dnSKBNZTcwbfX...@supernews.com>, Rick
> says...
>
>> From what I've read, the network browsing bug is a Gnome bug, as was
>> the bug that wouldn't allow remotely managing users, and some other
>> admin tasks.
>
> It isn't. I posted a fix on the forums. It was a misconfiguration of the
> smb.conf file if you want it system wide or nsswitch.conf if you want it
> Gnome specific.
Which forums? I'd like to take a look.
--
Rick
Rick
> In article <pd6dnSKBNZTcwbfX...@supernews.com>, Rick
> says...
>
>> From what I've read, the network browsing bug is a Gnome bug, as was
>> the bug that wouldn't allow remotely managing users, and some other
>> admin tasks.
>
> It isn't. I posted a fix on the forums. It was a misconfiguration of the
> smb.conf file if you want it system wide or nsswitch.conf if you want it
> Gnome specific.
Was putting wins in front of dns in the nsswitch.conf the fix?
--
Rick
Conor
says...
> Was putting wins in front of dns in the nsswitch.conf the fix?
Yeah.
Conor
Rick
> In article <pd6dnUeBNZTT4LfX...@supernews.com>, Rick
> says...
>
>> Was putting wins in front of dns in the nsswitch.conf the fix?
>
> Yeah.
... OK. I'm sure if you post was the one I originally saw, or another,
but thanks, that is what I have been doing.
--
Rick
Tim Smith
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
[reasonable well-written article deleted]
Where did you copy that from? That actual author should be credited.
--
--Tim Smith
Rick
> Because when people report a bug, the Linux community mobilizes and
> cries out in unison "Works for me. You must be doing something wrong.
> RTFM".
Where are you reporting bugs? When I report bugs, they get viewed,
categorized and assigned.
--
Rick
DFS
> Where are you reporting bugs? When I report bugs, they get viewed,
> categorized and assigned.
And then they sit there along with the other tens of thousands of Linux/OSS
crapware bugs, waiting to be fixed.
Nearly 270,000 bugs have been reported about the one distro Ubuntu, over a
4.5 year period.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs
It's ***incredibly*** sloppy crapware.
Tim Smith
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
> -------------------------------------------------------------
Out of curiosity, I wanted to see how those numbers compare to Windows.
I made two identically configured virtual machines, each with 1 gig of
RAM, and one virtual CPU (the underlying CPU is a Xeon 3500 at 2.66 MHz).
Ubuntu was indeed a fast install. 7 minutes on the nose. Windows XP
with SP2 took 12:06. For both installs, I accepted the defaults. Both
were set up to not ask or a password for login, so that the subsequent
boot time measurements would not be influenced by how fast I can fill
out a login dialog.
For boot time, XP is 17 seconds from the time I hit the virtual power
button to desktop up and accepting commands. 28 seconds on Ubuntu.
--
--Tim Smith
DFS
> For boot time, XP is 17 seconds from the time I hit the virtual power
> button to desktop up and accepting commands. 28 seconds on Ubuntu.
Cue 7 to come around and label you a "Micoshaft asstroturfer"
Rick
It is incredibly good software on it's own merits, and stellar when
compared to Windows.
--
Rick
Rick
> Yep.
> They either tell you it's a duplicate of another submission or that it
> will be fixed in version xx.yy.zz. But that rarely happens.
>
> Linux developers are too busy designing spinning cubes.
... and you expect to have an credibility at all with comments like that?
--
Rick
Rick
> Linux is more like a black hole which absorbs your time.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
7 figured out that stuff quite a few weeks ago.
I gave him a helpful hint about ext2linux, but he's actually gotten
a nice install setup built before me. I haven't had a chance to work on it
at all in the last few weeks :-(
--
Q: How does a hacker fix a function which
doesn't work for all of the elements in its domain?
A: He changes the domain.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> In article <6MlWl.38425$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>,
Sounds like Windows trades some install time for better boot time (due to no
need for autoprobing at boot).
--
Q: What's yellow, and equivalent to the Axiom of Choice?
A: Zorn's Lemon.
Snit
9:13 AM:
Where do you think each has benefits?
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Will Kemp
> In article<6XrWl.13393$c74...@newsfe08.ams2>, Will Kemp says...
>
>> Ah, is that what the problem is? Graphics performance, ey? I switched
>> from Fedora 10 to Ubuntu 9.04 beta a couple of months ago and there were
>> quite a few things about Ubuntu that seemed better than Fedora - but
>> performance wasn't one of them. It made my 2GHz Core II Duo with 4GB RAM
>> system work like a 386 (i'm exaggerating slightly!). X kept freezing up,
>> too.
>>
> It's only with Intel chipset graphics.
Yeah, it's an Intel 965GM.
> Something to do with them trying
> to be clever and introducing cutting edge drivers that don't work.
> There's some workarounds which involve either regressing drivers,
> changing to XGA or doing a kernel update to a BETA version.
That sounds like a pain. But i would have given it a try if i'd known
about it while i was still running Ubuntu.
>>> But at least they've fixed the hard drive load cycle bug.
>> Have they? That was another thing that pissed me off about Ubuntu - the
>> hdd would spin down constantly and then i'd get this pause when i tried
>> to do something that needed to access it. I never had that with Fedora
>> and i'm now not having it with Fedora again!
>
> LOL.
>
Will Kemp
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:12:32 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> Rick wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:46:36 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 13:05:14 +0100, Conor wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article<4A2A58A5...@sizefi9727247tter.com>, johannes says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So adding all this up it will be a lot more than 6 minutes to get it
>>>>>>> to work properly.
>>>>>> Indeed. Takes me about 30-40 minutes on a X2 4800+ with 2GB RAM
>>>>>> desktop and about the same on a 1.73 Ghz Core Duo lappy with 2GB RAM.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then you spend another couple of hours implementing the fixes to
>>>>>> get everything working properly as it did in previous versions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with Ubuntu that doesn't exist in
>>>>>> Suse/Mandriva/Fedora/Debian etc is that in a rush to meet their self
>>>>>> imposed 6 month release schedule, they let some really whopping show
>>>>>> stoppers through which are usually caused by an omission in a config
>>>>>> file. Other distributions will hold back a release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ubuntu sadly is the epitomy of shitty quality control. Even going with
I guess you haven't reported many bugs then...
Conor
says...
> Where are you reporting bugs? When I report bugs, they get viewed,
> categorized and assigned.
You'll be reporting them in Bugtraq like I do then.
One thing reading up on various things there like the load cycle count
bug was the number of posts on Bugtraq saying they were show stoppers
and to delay the release until they were fixed, which got ignored.
Ahmad Mushtaq
> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Got a Quad Core with 10,000 RPM Raptor SATA drive.
> Installed Ubuntu in 6 - 7 minutes.
> (From pressing install button to booting up and displaying a web
> page from the real internet in firefox)
>
> Installation was from an ext2 formatted SD Card!! (Details
> of how to make one enclosed below.)
>
> Boot time is 15 to 20 seconds (thats including typing in the username
> and password).
>
> Installing additional software like KDE and compiz pushes
> the boot time out to 30 seconds.
>
> The machine can boot with virtually no speed loss if the
> 10,000 RPM drive is moved to an external portable E-Sata drive box.
>
> To watch a machine boot off the external drive at those
> speeds is amazing. Even more amazing is that internal or
> external operation, Linux doesn't care - there is no
> complaining drivers are not installed, or change of
> video, or any other kind of crap that comes with windummy
> machines.
>
> So finally machines that can be Linux servers and Linux
> office desktop PCs can have their
> drives moved around from PC to PC in a typical
> office mix without any kind of headaches or support issues
> for the IT administrator. (Providing the build standard
> is not immensely different from one PC to the next.)
> This must be an ideal situation for schools, colleges,
> universities, governments and big businesses where
> the sprawl of machines and variety causes significant
> management issues with driver issues and blue screens
> whenever windummy machines are around.
>
> The 2.4GHz AMD quad core with 4Gb RAM home built base unit
> with 10,000 RPM drive cost around 250 pounds.
>
> Ubuntu 9.04 Dumbfoundationalism Experiences
> -------------------------------------------
>
> I just don't believe it!
>
> I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 9.04 on an Asus EEE.
>
> It took me 17 minutes from clicking start of installation
> to finishing installation, booting up
> AND browsing first web page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> WHAT AN ACHIEVEMENT FOR THE UBUNTU TEAM!!!!!
> HIP HIP HOORAY!
> HIP HIP HOORAY!!
> HIP HIP HOORAY!!!
>
> I am totally dumb founded!!
>
> Ubuntu 9.04 is technically just astonishing!!
>
> Nothing as powerful exists for the PC in the whole world.
> And nothing as powerful as this has existed in the PC's entire history!!!
>
> 2Gb of software installed including open office, networking,
> browser, user management, gimp, email, music/movie player,
> DVD burner, synaptic, rsync, etc. etc.. etc..
>
> To make matters 'worse', I didn't even install to the internal
> disks, I installed to a 2.5" 40Gb external pocket drive
> running off of a USB port!!!
>
> Since I didn't believe the install time, I thought I must have
> made a mistake with the mental note of time.
> So I installed again!
> And its 17 minutes again from pressing the install button to booting
> up the new install and opening up firefox and then typing
> google and getting first page up!!!
>
> Since the EEE 1000 hasn't got an optical drive, I installed with
> from the SD Card formatted to EXT2 (Micoshaft FAT format is a disaster
> for an SD Card and won't work at these speeds)
>
> Here below some pointers to how it all got done...
>
> Using extlinux to convert a liveCD iso to bootable SD card
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Converting an ISO file to a bootable USB stick or a bootable
> SD Card for EEE is easy.
>
> Without being able to convert a distro into a bootable USB flash /SD Card,
> that distro can't be easily loaded into netbook like EEE
> and stand to miss out on users installing it into netbooks.
>
> So I would recommend all distro mainters look at their netbook
> boot strategy and offer something to boot their distros
> from USB flash and SD cards or miss out on users installing it into
> netbooks.
>
> Having done a few conversions, a pattern emerges that works well for
> most syslinux / isolinux / extlinux based distros.
>
> 1. Put your SD card or USB flash drive into your desktop Linux PC and
> then open a console and type dmesg
> You should see some line indicating your flash drive as
> being picked up and allocated with a comment like sdc / sdc1 etc..
> Remember both names - the first is /dev/sdc which is your
> device name, and the second is /dev/sdc1 which is your partition name.
> (Don't get confused between drive /dev/sdc and partition /dev/sdc1
> or your drive could become scrambled eggs later on. Also remember
> it may be called sdg or sdh etc depending what you see when you
> plug in device and type dmesg)
>
> 2. Install gparted on your machine using synaptic.
> To run it you can type
> sudo gparted
> in a console window and select on the right side the drive name allocated
> in step 1. Right click on the bar that represents the partition
> and click on manage flags.
> Enable the boot flag and click OK. This makes the SD Card / USB
> stick bootable.
>
> 3. Format the partition /dev/sdc1 to ext2 linux format.
> This format is not directly readable under WINDUMMY Osen, but there
> are free drivers for it - try for example www.fs-driver.org
> The ext2 format is many times faster than windummy FAT so
> ditching WINDUMMY file formats is advised.
>
> 4. Identify that you have syslinux or isolinux in your liveCD by
> opening the .ISO file in archive manager and checking that it has
> isolinux or syslinux directory somewhere in the liveCD.
> In ubuntu, the root directory of /dev/sdc1 will not be writeable
> unless you are in super user mode.
> You can run
> sudo file-roller
> to open iso files like xubuntu-9.04-desktop-i386.iso in super user
> mode and extract all the files in the iso file
> to the /dev/sdc1 partition.
>
> 5. Go to the flash drive and locate the syslinux (or isolinux) directory.
> rename it to extlinux. Inside the now renamed extlinux directory will
> a file such as syslinux.cfg or isolinux.cfg. Rename that to
> extlinux.conf
>
> 6. Get syslinux - this is a boot loader and menu system for FAT based
> file systems. Download the latest version from here...
> http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/utils/boot/syslinux/
> Unzip it and go to the extlinux directory.
> On my machine path is something like this....../syslinux/extlinux
> Run the program there by typing this - (note this command is updating
> the partition /dev/sdc1)
>
> ./extlinux --install /dev/sdc1/extlinux
>
> This puts a new file into your SD card / USB flash disk
>
> 7. from the extlinux directory change to the mbr directory
> cd ../mbr
> and then run this - again note this time its updating the device by
> writing data to the first sector as opposed to the first partition.
>
> sudo cat mbr.bin > /dev/sdc
>
> (Note at this stage you may need to do some of the sudo commands after
> entering super user mode to make it work properly.
> So the above command would have been done as follows in Ubuntu.
>
> sudo -s
> cat mbr.bin > /dev/sdc
> )
>
> This makes the card bootable and useable in an Asus EEE and many other
> PCs with SD card or USB flash disk boot facility.
>
> This method tested and works for
>
> 1. Ubuntu
> 2. Slax
> 3. Knoppix
> 4. Puppy
> 5. DSL
> 6. GParted
> 7. gOS
> 8. Dynabolic
> 9. MoonOS Kachana
> 10. Xubuntu
> 11. TinyOS (incredible distro!)
>
> (Note the method does not work for .ISO files built with grub bootloader -
> need a different install method with grub boot loader instead of syslinux.)
>
> Try installing something powerful like Ubuntu on to a netbook
> and see it take netbooks to new heights.
>
> 3D Translucent Cube Desktop
> ---------------------------
>
> The latest EEE1000 has fast enough graphics for translucent
> 3D desktops. An easy way to do all this with Ubuntu is:
>
> Install Ubuntu on EEE (compiz itself
> appears to be installed by default in the default install),
> then install compiz settings manager using Synaptic
> which allows compiz to be fully 'exercised'.
> And then do the following to get the 3D cube desktop
> working...
>
> Go to General > Display Settings > Lighting and turned it off
> Enable Desktop Cube and then Desktop Cube > Transparent Cube and set the
> two opacity settings to 30%
> then Desktop Cube > Skydome and check the skydome check mark
> Enable Rotate Cube
> Enable Enhanced Zoom Desktop
> Right click the virtual workspaces panel and increase the number
> of colums to 8.
>
> And hey presto - 100% 3D translucent desktop with 8 screens!!!!!!!!!!
>
> [Some shortcuts for the 3D screen
> ctrl + alt + left or right arrow to spin cube
> ctrl + alt + down arrow and then left or right arrow for a ring switcher
> super + E for yet another switcher
> super + mouse wheel scroll to zoom in and out of the 3D desktop.
> ]
>
> Reducing Font Sizes And Turning ON Sub Pixel Rendering
> ------------------------------------------------------
>
> The EEE can be astonishingly good to look at once the
> font size is reduced to about 8 and sub pixel rendering
> is turned ON. It is still absolutely
> readable and everything appeared like a 'full screen' miniature
> desktop equivalent of a big desktop PC.
> System > Appearance > Fonts get to the font settings
> in Ubuntu. On software like firefox and some other applications,
> need to also to set local use of fonts ( Edit > Preferences > Content
> will have font settings for firefox that also need to be changed).
>
> VirtualBox
> ----------
> Yes! VirtualBox can run on Ubutu set up with 3D translucent desktop.http://www.virtualbox.org
>
> Install virtual box and then install programs like windopws XP and run
> it pretty much at it would run on a normal netbook. Its hard to tell
> if the netbook is running Linux or the WINDUMMY OSen when the software
> is run full screen becaue the speed and responsiveness is about
> the same between a real windummy OSen install and a virtual box
> virtual machine running it all in Linux.
>
> http://www.livecdlist.comhttp://www.distrowatch.co
i really dont believe this my experience with 9.04 was very bad and i
would rather say that linux is not fit for many purposes, my current
linux installation doesnt play sound if a web page with flash is
open ...
Rick
> It's true.
> Read the Ubuntu forums, or what DFS posts to see ho many of these bugs
> have been around for years.
>
> Too much focus on eye candy and not enough on quality.
Read all the Windows forums ...
--
Rick
Rick
Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
I have access to large and varied support systems.
I do not have to worry about "the license police".
I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
redistribute it without fear of legal action.
As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them on
your own.
--
Rick
Bambleweeny57
> i really dont believe this
It sounds quick but I can believe it. Whilst I've never timed and
installation I have done installations in the time it takes to drink a
cup of tea :).
> my experience with 9.04 was very bad and i would rather say that
> linux is not fit for many purposes
I've installed Ubuntu on a range of laptops & desktops & have had few if
any problems. I've installed windows on machines and frankly given up on
getting certain bits of hardware to work. To pretend that one
installation is indicative of all installations is just silly.
> my current linux installation doesnt play sound if a web page with
> flash is open ...
Have you asked for help on the Ubuntu IRC channel or forums? (and you
won't have to get your credit card out if you do).
BW
--
Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so.
Ezekiel
"Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:pd6dnWqBNZSELrfX...@supernews.com...
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:33:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Rick stated in post pd6dnXqBNZQSCLfX...@supernews.com on
>> 6/6/09 9:13 AM:
>>
>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:04:17 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Where are you reporting bugs? When I report bugs, they get viewed,
>>>>> categorized and assigned.
>>>>
>>>> And then they sit there along with the other tens of thousands of
>>>> Linux/OSS crapware bugs, waiting to be fixed.
>>>>
>>>> Nearly 270,000 bugs have been reported about the one distro Ubuntu,
>>>> over a 4.5 year period.
>>>>
>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs
>>>>
>>>> It's ***incredibly*** sloppy crapware.
>>>
>>> It is incredibly good software on it's own merits, and stellar when
>>> compared to Windows.
>>
>> Where do you think each has benefits?
>
> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>
> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
Same for Windows users.
> I have access to large and varied support systems.
Samre for Windows users.
> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists for
Windows?)
> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
Just like Windows users.
> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
Just like Windows users.
> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
Exactly like Windows users.
> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA,
> you can find them on your own.
The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows first
(Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on Windows.
(OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on Windows than on
Linux.)
Snit
11:19 AM:
At 7:32 this morning you claimed to be done with me. You cannot quit me.
But so be it... let's look at your list. Yes: you can correspond directly
with developers of desktop Linux distros... though I have also worked with
Windows developers, contact is not as easy. As for support: there is
clearly more support for Windows than there is for any desktop Linux
distro... and you have access to lots of free software on Windows, too.
Yes, you can have OSS changed... but you can have programs made for either.
Do you have an example where this has actually helped you?
In any case, sad to see you cannot think of a single benefit of Windows.
Shows how little you know of computing in general.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pd6dnWqBNZSELrfX...@supernews.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:33:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Rick stated in post pd6dnXqBNZQSCLfX...@supernews.com on
>>> 6/6/09 9:13 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:04:17 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where are you reporting bugs? When I report bugs, they get viewed,
>>>>>> categorized and assigned.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then they sit there along with the other tens of thousands of
>>>>> Linux/OSS crapware bugs, waiting to be fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly 270,000 bugs have been reported about the one distro Ubuntu,
>>>>> over a 4.5 year period.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs
>>>>>
>>>>> It's ***incredibly*** sloppy crapware.
>>>>
>>>> It is incredibly good software on it's own merits, and stellar when
>>>> compared to Windows.
>>>
>>> Where do you think each has benefits?
>>
>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>
>>
>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>
> Same for Windows users.
Not in my experience. It has been extremely easy to exchange email, or
converse through forums with OSS devs.
>
>
>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>
> Samre for Windows users.
Good for them.
>
>
>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>
> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
> for Windows?)
You might want to inquire of employees of Ernie Ball, or any company that
has been "audited" by the BSA.
>
>
>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>
> Just like Windows users.
Good for them. I have access to $0 operating systems.
>
>
>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>
> Just like Windows users.
How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing software
and all the rest.
>
>
>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>
> Exactly like Windows users.
They can't alter Windows and resitribute it. The can't alter and
redistribute Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or iTunes or .. well, hopefully
you get the point.
>
>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them on
>> your own.
>
> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on Windows.
> (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on Windows than
> on Linux.)
If true.. good for them. I find PCLinuxOS is better for me'
--
Rick
Rick
Personal attack from you... you are the weakest link. Goodbye.
--
Rick
Snit
11:25 AM:
>
> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
> news:pd6dnWqBNZSELrfX...@supernews.com...
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:33:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> Rick stated in post pd6dnXqBNZQSCLfX...@supernews.com on
>>> 6/6/09 9:13 AM:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:04:17 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Where are you reporting bugs? When I report bugs, they get viewed,
>>>>>> categorized and assigned.
>>>>>
>>>>> And then they sit there along with the other tens of thousands of
>>>>> Linux/OSS crapware bugs, waiting to be fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nearly 270,000 bugs have been reported about the one distro Ubuntu,
>>>>> over a 4.5 year period.
>>>>>
>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs
>>>>>
>>>>> It's ***incredibly*** sloppy crapware.
>>>>
>>>> It is incredibly good software on it's own merits, and stellar when
>>>> compared to Windows.
>>>
>>> Where do you think each has benefits?
>>
>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>
>
>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>
> Same for Windows users.
Harder to talk directly with the Windows developers... maybe. His
implication, though, is that OSS is not available for Windows. He is wrong.
On Windows, though, you have the choice of OSS or commercial software to a
*much* larger extent than on desktop Linux.
>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>
> Samre for Windows users.
There is, no doubt, a larger support system for Windows.
>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>
> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists for
> Windows?)
He seems to not get that.
>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>
> Just like Windows users.
Yup.
>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>
> Just like Windows users.
No doubt. And he is including purchase price of the OS, only. He has not
shown Windows costs more overall.
>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>
> Exactly like Windows users.
Yup.
>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA,
>> you can find them on your own.
>
> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows first
> (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on Windows.
> (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on Windows than on
> Linux.)
And OpenOffice 3.1, at least, was available for Windows and OS X before it
was for Linux, at least in any way the general user could install it.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11:38 AM:
I made no personal attack... I noted the fact that you keep saying goodbye
but then talking to me.
Hey, either way I win now: either you stop trolling me, as I want, or you
prove me right that you cannot quit me.
Life is good.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
I did not imply OSS is not for Windows. It is most definitely available
for Windows. I am saying it is easier to contact and converse with OSS
developers than proprietry developers.
>
>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>
>> Samre for Windows users.
>
> There is, no doubt, a larger support system for Windows.
Maybe. I still have access to large and varied support systems.
>
>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>
>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>> for Windows?)
>
> He seems to not get that.
Firefox is my main browser, and Thunderbird is my mail email client. I
use them cross platform. I also iTalc, also cross platform. It seems that
I do indeed understand that OSS can run on Windows.
>
>>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>>
>> Just like Windows users.
>
> Yup.
>
>>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>>
>> Just like Windows users.
>
> No doubt. And he is including purchase price of the OS, only. He has
> not shown Windows costs more overall.
I am speaking of costs like Windows, Office, Photoshop and other
proprietary software.
>
>>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>>
>> Exactly like Windows users.
>
> Yup.
Is it your position that you can change MS Word, and then redistribute it?
>
>>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them on
>>> your own.
>>
>> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
>> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on
>> Windows. (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on
>> Windows than on Linux.)
>
> And OpenOffice 3.1, at least, was available for Windows and OS X before
> it was for Linux, at least in any way the general user could install it.
--
Rick
Ezekiel
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:25:18 -0400, Ezekiel wrote:
>
>> "Rick" <no...@nomail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pd6dnWqBNZSELrfX...@supernews.com...
>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:33:48 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rick stated in post pd6dnXqBNZQSCLfX...@supernews.com on
>>>> 6/6/09 9:13 AM:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:04:17 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Rick wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where are you reporting bugs? When I report bugs, they get viewed,
>>>>>>> categorized and assigned.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And then they sit there along with the other tens of thousands of
>>>>>> Linux/OSS crapware bugs, waiting to be fixed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nearly 270,000 bugs have been reported about the one distro Ubuntu,
>>>>>> over a 4.5 year period.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bugs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's ***incredibly*** sloppy crapware.
>>>>>
>>>>> It is incredibly good software on it's own merits, and stellar when
>>>>> compared to Windows.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you think each has benefits?
>>>
>>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>>
>> Same for Windows users.
>
> Not in my experience. It has been extremely easy to exchange email, or
> converse through forums with OSS devs.
So when you email an OSS dev who works on Firefox, Gimp, OpenOffice,
Apache, etc it goes to a different person than if a Windows users emailed
them?
>>
>>
>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>
>> Samre for Windows users.
>
> Good for them.
>
>>
>>
>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>
>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>> for Windows?)
>
> You might want to inquire of employees of Ernie Ball, or any company that
> has been "audited" by the BSA.
Irrelevant. Windows users have access to all of the same major FOSS
applications as Linux users. Because this Ball guy decided to illegally use
propreitary software doesn't change this fact.
>>
>>
>>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>>
>> Just like Windows users.
>
> Good for them. I have access to $0 operating systems.
And 100's of millions of Windows users also have access to $0 operating
systems but they would rather use Windows.
>>
>>
>>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>>
>> Just like Windows users.
>
> How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing software
> and all the rest.
If I want to upgrade then it's my choice. It's also my choice to use the
free OpenOffice, Gimp, Apache, etc. Windows users have the choice of using
either propreitary apps or FOSS apps. You can only choose the later.
>>
>>
>>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>>
>> Exactly like Windows users.
>
> They can't alter Windows and resitribute it. The can't alter and
> redistribute Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or iTunes or .. well, hopefully
> you get the point.
And neither can you alter or redistribute these apps. The difference is
that I can use the apps if I want to or need to or I can use FOSS apps
which is the only option available to you. We both have the option of
using, altering and redistributing FOSS apps. I also have the option of
using propreitary software when needed. I'll take more choice over less
choice any day.
>>
>>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them on
>>> your own.
>>
>> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
>> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on Windows.
>> (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on Windows than
>> on Linux.)
>
> If true.. good for them. I find PCLinuxOS is better for me'
Most certainly true.
Snit
11:36 AM:
...
>>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>>
>> Same for Windows users.
>
> Not in my experience. It has been extremely easy to exchange email, or
> converse through forums with OSS devs.
The topic is not you nor your experience, the topic is the ability to
correspond with developers of OSS apps... and you can do that as easily for
any other platform as you can with Linux. If I contact a Firefox developer,
for example, he is not going to respond more quickly if I use Linux!
>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>
>> Samre for Windows users.
>
> Good for them.
Which means your benefit is not a real one.
>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>
>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>> for Windows?)
>
> You might want to inquire of employees of Ernie Ball, or any company that
> has been "audited" by the BSA.
No OS forces you to break the law - though you used to tell me to get codecs
for Linux I and to risk breaking the law. We were speaking about Amarock
and I noted how some problems. You said:
Rick
The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by
installing some codecs.
Funny how you forgot that.
>>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>>
>> Just like Windows users.
>
> Good for them. I have access to $0 operating systems.
Well, your system likely came with Windows anyway... just the other day
people in COLA were complaining how hard it is to get a computer sans OS.
And the initial cost of the OS is not really a big part of the cost of a
computer. But, sure, if all else were equal, free would be better than not
free.
>>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>>
>> Just like Windows users.
>
> How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing software
> and all the rest.
You can use FOSS on Windows if you want. Many people prefer to pay for
software though... for good reasons.
>>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>>
>> Exactly like Windows users.
>
> They can't alter Windows and resitribute it. The can't alter and
> redistribute Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or iTunes or .. well, hopefully
> you get the point.
But you can pay to alter FOSS... and you can have programs written for any
OS.
Do you have an example where this supposed benefit has helped you?
>>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them on
>>> your own.
>>
>> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
>> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on Windows.
>> (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on Windows than
>> on Linux.)
>
> If true.. good for them. I find PCLinuxOS is better for me'
Hey, use what you like... but it is sad you cannot think of any strong
advocacy points.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
Of course not, I am speaking of communicating with OSS devs as opposed to
CSS devs.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>>
>>> Samre for Windows users.
>>
>> Good for them.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>>
>>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>>> for Windows?)
>>
>> You might want to inquire of employees of Ernie Ball, or any company
>> that has been "audited" by the BSA.
>
> Irrelevant.
Relevant.
> Windows users have access to all of the same major FOSS
> applications as Linux users.
Possibly, but it is still running on Windows.
> Because this Ball guy decided to illegally
> use propreitary software doesn't change this fact.
Ernie Ball. It is a company. They didn't realize they were running the
"illegal" software. When given the chance to pay a smaller fine and then
upgrade their Microsoft software, they chose to pay the higher fine and
switch to all OSS.
>>>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>>>
>>> Just like Windows users.
>>
>> Good for them. I have access to $0 operating systems.
>
> And 100's of millions of Windows users also have access to $0 operating
> systems but they would rather use Windows.
Good for them. I would rather not run Windows.
>>>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>>>
>>> Just like Windows users.
>>
>> How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing
>> software and all the rest.
>
> If I want to upgrade then it's my choice. It's also my choice to use the
> free OpenOffice, Gimp, Apache, etc. Windows users have the choice of
> using either propreitary apps or FOSS apps. You can only choose the
> later.
You say I have only the later choice? How are you going to enforce that?
>>>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>>>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>>>
>>> Exactly like Windows users.
>>
>> They can't alter Windows and resitribute it. The can't alter and
>> redistribute Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or iTunes or .. well, hopefully
>> you get the point.
>
> And neither can you alter or redistribute these apps.
No, I can't. But OSS apps can be altered and redistributed.
> The difference is
> that I can use the apps if I want to or need to or I can use FOSS apps
> which is the only option available to you.
Really? How are you going to stop me from using CSS apps?
> We both have the option of
> using, altering and redistributing FOSS apps. I also have the option of
> using propreitary software when needed.
How are you going to stop me from using CSS apps?
> I'll take more choice over less choice any day.
>>>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them
>>>> on your own.
>>>
>>> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
>>> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on
>>> Windows. (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on
>>> Windows than on Linux.)
>>
>> If true.. good for them. I find PCLinuxOS is better for me'
>
> Most certainly true.
--
Rick
Snit
11:46 AM:
...
>>>>>> It is incredibly good software on it's own merits, and stellar when
>>>>>> compared to Windows.
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you think each has benefits?
>>>>
>>>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>>>
>>> Same for Windows users.
>>
>> Harder to talk directly with the Windows developers... maybe. His
>> implication, though, is that OSS is not available for Windows. He is
>> wrong. On Windows, though, you have the choice of OSS or commercial
>> software to a *much* larger extent than on desktop Linux.
>
> I did not imply OSS is not for Windows. It is most definitely available
> for Windows. I am saying it is easier to contact and converse with OSS
> developers than proprietry developers.
How is that an advantage for Linux? Remember: there is OSS for both Windows
and Linux. And OS X.
>>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>>
>>> Samre for Windows users.
>>
>> There is, no doubt, a larger support system for Windows.
>
> Maybe. I still have access to large and varied support systems.
Sure: but the question was about the benefits of Linux. You are not doing a
very good job advocating benefits. Maybe you did not understand the
question.
>>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>>
>>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>>> for Windows?)
>>
>> He seems to not get that.
>
> Firefox is my main browser, and Thunderbird is my mail email client. I
> use them cross platform. I also iTalc, also cross platform. It seems that
> I do indeed understand that OSS can run on Windows.
Ah, more of your feigning ignorance to try to make a point. That is a nasty
habit you have.
Also interesting to note you also use Windows. Why?
>>>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>>>
>>> Just like Windows users.
>>
>> Yup.
>>
>>>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>>>
>>> Just like Windows users.
>>
>> No doubt. And he is including purchase price of the OS, only. He has
>> not shown Windows costs more overall.
>
> I am speaking of costs like Windows, Office, Photoshop and other
> proprietary software.
Ah, so it is a benefit of Linux that you do not have the *choice* to use
software that you might want to such as those... you are "stuck" with the
options that run on both Windows and Linux such as OpenOffice, Gimp, etc.
That is just whacked. You really do not get the question, do you? Again: I
asked about benefits of Linux compared to Windows. And vice versa. You
completely flopped on the other side... and are not doing well on the one
side you opted to try to answer. No wonder you do not like talking about
Linux.
>>>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>>>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>>>
>>> Exactly like Windows users.
>>
>> Yup.
>
> Is it your position that you can change MS Word, and then redistribute it?
Nobody even hinted at that. You are just lost.
>>>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them on
>>>> your own.
>>>
>>> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
>>> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on
>>> Windows. (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on
>>> Windows than on Linux.)
>>
>> And OpenOffice 3.1, at least, was available for Windows and OS X before
>> it was for Linux, at least in any way the general user could install it.
No comment? How surprising. LOL!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Snit
11:58 AM:
...
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>>>>
>>>> Same for Windows users.
>>>
>>> Not in my experience. It has been extremely easy to exchange email, or
>>> converse through forums with OSS devs.
>>
>> So when you email an OSS dev who works on Firefox, Gimp, OpenOffice,
>> Apache, etc it goes to a different person than if a Windows users
>> emailed them?
>
> Of course not, I am speaking of communicating with OSS devs as opposed to
> CSS devs.
Ah, it was his mistake to think you were sticking to the topic. OK. Sigh.
...
>>>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>>>
>>>> Samre for Windows users.
>>>
>>> Good for them.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>>>
>>>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>>>> for Windows?)
>>>
>>> You might want to inquire of employees of Ernie Ball, or any company
>>> that has been "audited" by the BSA.
>>
>> Irrelevant.
>
> Relevant.
Yet you folded and cannot say how or why. You are really bad at supporting
your views. Have you ever been told that before?
>> Windows users have access to all of the same major FOSS
>> applications as Linux users.
>
> Possibly, but it is still running on Windows.
You call users "its". Quite telling.
>> Because this Ball guy decided to illegally
>> use propreitary software doesn't change this fact.
>
> Ernie Ball. It is a company. They didn't realize they were running the
> "illegal" software. When given the chance to pay a smaller fine and then
> upgrade their Microsoft software, they chose to pay the higher fine and
> switch to all OSS.
Ah, choice is good.
>>>>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>>>>
>>>> Just like Windows users.
>>>
>>> Good for them. I have access to $0 operating systems.
>>
>> And 100's of millions of Windows users also have access to $0 operating
>> systems but they would rather use Windows.
>
> Good for them. I would rather not run Windows.
Good for you... but can you *advocate* Linux?
>>>>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>>>>
>>>> Just like Windows users.
>>>
>>> How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing
>>> software and all the rest.
>>
>> If I want to upgrade then it's my choice. It's also my choice to use the
>> free OpenOffice, Gimp, Apache, etc. Windows users have the choice of
>> using either propreitary apps or FOSS apps. You can only choose the
>> later.
>
> You say I have only the later choice? How are you going to enforce that?
He is, clearly, speaking on Linux... which is essentially true unless you
risk using Wine or the like.
>>>>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>>>>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly like Windows users.
>>>
>>> They can't alter Windows and resitribute it. The can't alter and
>>> redistribute Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or iTunes or .. well, hopefully
>>> you get the point.
>>
>> And neither can you alter or redistribute these apps.
>
> No, I can't. But OSS apps can be altered and redistributed.
That is pretty much a given in Linux... everyone knows that. Why even
mention it?
>> The difference is
>> that I can use the apps if I want to or need to or I can use FOSS apps
>> which is the only option available to you.
>
> Really? How are you going to stop me from using CSS apps?
Show me the Photoshop version for Linux. How about Dreamweaver. MS Office.
These are the apps you pointed to... and they are not supported on WINE or
on Linux.
>> We both have the option of
>> using, altering and redistributing FOSS apps. I also have the option of
>> using propreitary software when needed.
>
> How are you going to stop me from using CSS apps?
You have issues, dude. :)
>> I'll take more choice over less choice any day.
>
>>>>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them
>>>>> on your own.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
>>>> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on
>>>> Windows. (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on
>>>> Windows than on Linux.)
>>>
>>> If true.. good for them. I find PCLinuxOS is better for me'
>>
>> Most certainly true.
>
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Rick
> Rick stated in post pd6dnWaBNZT1JLfX...@supernews.com on
> 6/6/09 11:46 AM:
> ...
>>>>>>> It is incredibly good software on it's own merits, and stellar
>>>>>>> when compared to Windows.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you think each has benefits?
>>>>>
>>>>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>>>>
>>>> Same for Windows users.
>>>
>>> Harder to talk directly with the Windows developers... maybe. His
>>> implication, though, is that OSS is not available for Windows. He is
>>> wrong. On Windows, though, you have the choice of OSS or commercial
>>> software to a *much* larger extent than on desktop Linux.
>>
>> I did not imply OSS is not for Windows. It is most definitely available
>> for Windows. I am saying it is easier to contact and converse with OSS
>> developers than proprietry developers.
>
> How is that an advantage for Linux? Remember: there is OSS for both
> Windows and Linux. And OS X.
The OSS I am using is OSS.
>
>>>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>>>
>>>> Samre for Windows users.
>>>
>>> There is, no doubt, a larger support system for Windows.
>>
>> Maybe. I still have access to large and varied support systems.
>
> Sure: but the question was about the benefits of Linux.
I have access to large and varied support systems.
> You are not
> doing a very good job advocating benefits. Maybe you did not understand
> the question.
>
>>>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>>>
>>>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>>>> for Windows?)
>>>
>>> He seems to not get that.
>>
>> Firefox is my main browser, and Thunderbird is my mail email client. I
>> use them cross platform. I also iTalc, also cross platform. It seems
>> that I do indeed understand that OSS can run on Windows.
>
> Ah, more of your feigning ignorance to try to make a point. That is a
> nasty habit you have.
A personal attack by Snit. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.(snip)
--
Rick
Rick
> Rick stated in post pd6dnWWBNZSEKrfX...@supernews.com on
> 6/6/09 11:36 AM:
>
> ...
>>>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>>>
>>> Same for Windows users.
>>
>> Not in my experience. It has been extremely easy to exchange email, or
>> converse through forums with OSS devs.
>
> The topic is not you nor your experience, the topic is the ability to
> correspond with developers of OSS apps... and you can do that as easily
> for any other platform as you can with Linux. If I contact a Firefox
> developer, for example, he is not going to respond more quickly if I use
> Linux!
Who appointed you the topic police? I can converse with OSS developers
much easier than CSS developers. Yes, OSS run on Windows. However, I
prefer an OSS OS.
>
>>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>>
>>> Same for Windows users.
>>
>> Good for them.
>
> Which means your benefit is not a real one.
Whether the benefit is shared by others or not does not lessen the fact
that it is a benefit to me.
>
>>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>>
>>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>>> for Windows?)
>>
>> You might want to inquire of employees of Ernie Ball, or any company
>> that has been "audited" by the BSA.
>
> No OS forces you to break the law - though you used to tell me to get
> codecs for Linux I and to risk breaking the law. We were speaking about
> Amarock and I noted how some problems. You said:
>
> Rick
> The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing some
> codecs.
>
> Funny how you forgot that.
I didn't forget. It may be illegal in some place to install some codecs.
And, apparently the "illegal" software at Ernie Ball was an oversight.
>
>>>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>>>
>>> Just like Windows users.
>>
>> Good for them. I have access to $0 operating systems.
>
> Well, your system likely came with Windows anyway...
My present system was purchased with Vista, yes. My last one was
purchased bare. My netbook was purchased with Ubuntu pre-istalled.
> just the other day
> people in COLA were complaining how hard it is to get a computer sans
> OS.
>
> And the initial cost of the OS is not really a big part of the cost of a
> computer.
Yes, it is, especially on low cost machines.
> But, sure, if all else were equal, free would be better than
> not free.
>
>>>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>>>
>>> Just like Windows users.
>>
>> How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing
>> software and all the rest.
>
> You can use FOSS on Windows if you want. Many people prefer to pay for
> software though... for good reasons.
How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing software
and all the rest.
>
>>>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>>>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>>>
>>> Exactly like Windows users.
>>
>> They can't alter Windows and resitribute it. The can't alter and
>> redistribute Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or iTunes or .. well, hopefully
>> you get the point.
>
> But you can pay to alter FOSS... and you can have programs written for
> any OS.
>
> Do you have an example where this supposed benefit has helped you?
Personally? No. But companies and other people alter OSS all the time.
>
>>>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them
>>>> on your own.
>>>
>>> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
>>> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on
>>> Windows. (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on
>>> Windows than on Linux.)
>>
>> If true.. good for them. I find PCLinuxOS is better for me'
>
> Hey, use what you like... but it is sad you cannot think of any strong
> advocacy points.
Thin what you like.
--
Rick
Will Kemp
> Most of them have been reported already and still are not fixed.
I guess it depends on what distro/system/subsystem the bug you're
reporting is in. I've had good results from reporting bugs on quite a
few occasions - and at times i've been pleasantly surprised by the
helpfulness of the response. I've never reported a bug and had a problem
with the outcome.
And apart from adding to existing bug reports being a good thing to do
because it can help give the maintainers an insight into how widespread
the effects are, it's often a good source of workarounds until the bug
is fixed.
Snit
12:30 PM:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:57:08 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Rick stated in post pd6dnWWBNZSEKrfX...@supernews.com on
>> 6/6/09 11:36 AM:
>>
>> ...
>>>>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>>>>
>>>> Same for Windows users.
>>>
>>> Not in my experience. It has been extremely easy to exchange email, or
>>> converse through forums with OSS devs.
>>
>> The topic is not you nor your experience, the topic is the ability to
>> correspond with developers of OSS apps... and you can do that as easily
>> for any other platform as you can with Linux. If I contact a Firefox
>> developer, for example, he is not going to respond more quickly if I use
>> Linux!
>
> Who appointed you the topic police? I can converse with OSS developers
> much easier than CSS developers. Yes, OSS run on Windows. However, I
> prefer an OSS OS.
The question you were asked was:
Where do you think each [Ubuntu and Windows] has benefits?
Now you are saying that you like something that is available on both
platforms. Lovely. When it is pointed out how poorly you are doing in
answering the question you whine about "topic police".
Seriously, why not just try to advocate Linux from time to time?
>
>>
>>>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>>>
>>>> Same for Windows users.
>>>
>>> Good for them.
>>
>> Which means your benefit is not a real one.
>
> Whether the benefit is shared by others or not does not lessen the fact
> that it is a benefit to me.
If it is available on both, as it is, it is not a benefit for either (unless
you can show differences between the two).
As I have repeatedly noted, you are really bad at supporting your views.
You just do not get the whole concept of showing where one thing has a
benefit over another.
>>>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>>>
>>>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>>>> for Windows?)
>>>
>>> You might want to inquire of employees of Ernie Ball, or any company
>>> that has been "audited" by the BSA.
>>
>> No OS forces you to break the law - though you used to tell me to get
>> codecs for Linux I and to risk breaking the law. We were speaking about
>> Amarock and I noted how some problems. You said:
>>
>> Rick
>> The user has to take the chance of breaking laws by installing some
>> codecs.
>>
>> Funny how you forgot that.
>
> I didn't forget. It may be illegal in some place to install some codecs.
> And, apparently the "illegal" software at Ernie Ball was an oversight.
So you can install illegal software on either platform. How is this a
benefit of one over the other? Or did you forget the question again?
>>>>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>>>>
>>>> Just like Windows users.
>>>
>>> Good for them. I have access to $0 operating systems.
>>
>> Well, your system likely came with Windows anyway...
>
> My present system was purchased with Vista, yes. My last one was
> purchased bare. My netbook was purchased with Ubuntu pre-istalled.
How much did the addition of Vista cost?
>> just the other day
>> people in COLA were complaining how hard it is to get a computer sans
>> OS.
>>
>> And the initial cost of the OS is not really a big part of the cost of a
>> computer.
>
> Yes, it is, especially on low cost machines.
I would love to see support for this! Keep in mind: the topic is not just
the purchase price of the computer. Just to keep you focused...
>> But, sure, if all else were equal, free would be better than
>> not free.
>>
>>>>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>>>>
>>>> Just like Windows users.
>>>
>>> How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing
>>> software and all the rest.
>>
>> You can use FOSS on Windows if you want. Many people prefer to pay for
>> software though... for good reasons.
>
> How much does it cost to upgrade Windows, Office, image editing software
> and all the rest.
Well, depends on what software you use. If you use OpenOffice and Gimp it
is free to upgrade those. If you use MS Officer and Photoshop then you have
to pay more (though often you can get *significant* employee discounts... as
in almost free).
>>
>>>>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>>>>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly like Windows users.
>>>
>>> They can't alter Windows and resitribute it. The can't alter and
>>> redistribute Photoshop, or Dreamweaver, or iTunes or .. well, hopefully
>>> you get the point.
>>
>> But you can pay to alter FOSS... and you can have programs written for
>> any OS.
>>
>> Do you have an example where this supposed benefit has helped you?
>
> Personally? No. But companies and other people alter OSS all the time.
Sure: on any OS they want to run it on. Do you remember the question you
were asked to answer? Seems not!
>>>>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA, you can find them
>>>>> on your own.
>>>>
>>>> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows
>>>> first (Google earth, Chrome, etc) and it usually runs better on
>>>> Windows. (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on
>>>> Windows than on Linux.)
>>>
>>> If true.. good for them. I find PCLinuxOS is better for me'
>>
>> Hey, use what you like... but it is sad you cannot think of any strong
>> advocacy points.
>
> Thin what you like.
Hey, look up: you show no signs of even remembering the question!
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:46:36 -0400
> Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-mail.com> wrote:
>
>> And since Ubuntu uses gnome it really doesn't matter does it?
>
> Kubuntu, Xubuntu - both Ubuntu, neither Gnome ...
>
Wrong.
Ubuntu uses Gnome
Kubuntu uses KDE
A classic clusterf@ck in one distro.
--
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller
7
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> [reasonable well-written article deleted]
>>
>> Where did you copy that from? That actual author should be credited.
I'm moving from power user to something beyond - hopefully
a Linux developer in the near future. I didn't 'copy', merely
collected whats out there and collated it and worked out the
rest with experimentation.
> 7 figured out that stuff quite a few weeks ago.
>
> I gave him a helpful hint about ext2linux, but he's actually gotten
> a nice install setup built before me. I haven't had a chance to work on
> it at all in the last few weeks :-(
100% correct - I can't have done it without trying out Chris's ext2
conversion of making a bootable SDCard and dropping fat32.
Ext2 and linux on bootable SDCard is around 10x faster than
outdated fat32.
Don't miss out on ext2 on SDcard and USB cards. It ups the
performance by x 10 and boots faster than a real windummy PC
can ever hope to achieve on an identical machine.
Here it is all again - the how to:
Snit
12:14 PM:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 12:01:25 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Rick stated in post pd6dnWaBNZT1JLfX...@supernews.com on
>> 6/6/09 11:46 AM:
>> ...
>>>>>>>> It is incredibly good software on it's own merits, and stellar
>>>>>>>> when compared to Windows.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do you think each has benefits?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Linux based systems have a distinct lack of malware.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Same for Windows users.
>>>>
>>>> Harder to talk directly with the Windows developers... maybe. His
>>>> implication, though, is that OSS is not available for Windows. He is
>>>> wrong. On Windows, though, you have the choice of OSS or commercial
>>>> software to a *much* larger extent than on desktop Linux.
>>>
>>> I did not imply OSS is not for Windows. It is most definitely available
>>> for Windows. I am saying it is easier to contact and converse with OSS
>>> developers than proprietry developers.
>>
>> How is that an advantage for Linux? Remember: there is OSS for both
>> Windows and Linux. And OS X.
>
> The OSS I am using is OSS.
Sad how you cannot answer the question. You simply are not able to find
benefits of Ubuntu over Windows.
>>>>>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> Samre for Windows users.
>>>>
>>>> There is, no doubt, a larger support system for Windows.
>>>
>>> Maybe. I still have access to large and varied support systems.
>>
>> Sure: but the question was about the benefits of Linux.
>
> I have access to large and varied support systems.
But that is not a benefit in comparison to Windows... you do realize that...
right?
>> You are not
>> doing a very good job advocating benefits. Maybe you did not understand
>> the question.
>>
>>>>>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>>>>>
>>>>> Same for Windows users. (You are aware that FOSS software also exists
>>>>> for Windows?)
>>>>
>>>> He seems to not get that.
>>>
>>> Firefox is my main browser, and Thunderbird is my mail email client. I
>>> use them cross platform. I also iTalc, also cross platform. It seems
>>> that I do indeed understand that OSS can run on Windows.
>>
>> Ah, more of your feigning ignorance to try to make a point. That is a
>> nasty habit you have.
>
> A personal attack by Snit. You are the weakest link. Goodbye.(snip)
Personal attack? Where? You claimed you were not really lost in an area
you were pretending to be lost. I noted that. No attack at all.
But nobody believes you are really leaving. I would not mind if you did,
though.
--
[INSERT .SIG HERE]
Hadron
7
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 11:51:36 GMT
> 7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>
>> So may be Linux boot
>> could be improved further if a secondary boot area with a single
>> contigious flat file could be created that was constructed after
>> booting that minimized head thrashing by storing the needed files
>> contigiously in duplicate in that boot area.
>
> That would be the hibernation file then?
Good point - I should try that (totally missed it!) - although I lost the
raptor drive to another project for now. Next month, I'm booked in for a
VelocityRaptor (a proper SATA II Raptor 10,000 RPM drive :-D ).
7
> In article <_esWl.38560$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 7 says...
>
>> Get smart. Use Linux HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) by searching in
>> google to choose vendors that are supported.
>>
> I was and the Intel 945 chipset is. The problem is Ubuntu chose to use
> broken drivers when they moved to 9.04 that try to implement a new
> acceleration mode. In 8.10 and below, there's never been an issue.
Then continue to use 8.04 until 9.10 comes out!
>> As for windowps networking, just run smb4k. I also use konqueror
>> and put web links on my management web page to servers with URLs
>> like smb://.... Its a lot quicker
>
> I use Gnome. The problem is that the Ubuntu team didn't put wins in
> eithe nsswitch.conf or smb.conf as a protocol so you need to add it
> manually. Until you do, you cannot access windows network shares
> without knowing the target IP and share name.
That is all related to micoshaft anti-trust issue.
They were fined $400 million+ for not having documentation.
Up until that date, if you thought you were purchasing micoshaft
products because they were supported, then you would be
catastrophically wrong. They did not have the documentation
themselves and paid several million dollars PER DAY in fines
until they wrote the manual. If I were the presiding judge,
I would have lifted the entire networking and support revenue
from micoshaft because it was a criminal deception based income
and told them that to their face.
Any way, the manuals are now written and so everyone can go
about writing the compatible software properly
because the protocols are becoming documented for the first time.
The problem you cite is absolutely trivial for a Linux administrator
to solve. You merely script desired actions
where you say something has to be done manually.
I use gambas (a VB like clone) to put scripted actions behind
a GUI so all I do is press buttons all day.
so all I do is press buttons for commonly
7
>
>
> 7 wrote:
>>
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>> > In article <6MlWl.38425$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 7 says...
>> >>
>> >> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
>> >
>> > And then if you have an Intel graphics chipset, such as those on most
>> > laptops and netbooks, you spend 2 hours trying to get the graphics
>> > performance to around 50% of what it was in 8.10 and STILL spend ages
>> > trying to get windows network shares browsing working properly.
>>
>> Get smart. Use Linux HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) by searching in
>> google to choose vendors that are supported.
>>
>> As for windowps networking, just run smb4k. I also use konqueror
>> and put web links on my management web page to servers with URLs
>> like smb://.... Its a lot quicker
>
> So adding all this up it will be a lot more than 6 minutes to get it to
> work properly.
By 'working properly' you mean customise it to your user.
That always kills time!
You can script it though - in Linux you can script anything
and everything unlike windump PCs. Similar to writing bat files,
but immensely powerful with full weight of ALL applications trying
to cooperate with you to make the scripting experience work.
You can use traditional bash scripts of if you are lazy like
me, you might want to try Gambas (a VB like clone) that can
script up anything, do database, graphics, sound, video, html
browsing etc to make scripting and reporting an immensely powerful tool.
Everything is accessible under Linux because everything is configured
in simple text based configuration files.
Rick
> Rob Morley <nos...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:46:36 -0400
>> Ezekiel <Ze...@not-such-mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> And since Ubuntu uses gnome it really doesn't matter does it?
>>
>> Kubuntu, Xubuntu - both Ubuntu, neither Gnome ...
>>
>>
> Wrong.
>
> Ubuntu uses Gnome
> Kubuntu uses KDE
>
> A classic clusterf@ck in one distro.
So, it is your position that XFCE does not run on Ubuntu?
--
Rick
DFS
> I downloaded and installed Ubuntu 9.04 on an Asus EEE.
>
> It took me 17 minutes from clicking start of installation
> to finishing installation, booting up
> AND browsing first web page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why so freakin' slow?
> I am totally dumb founded!!
You added an extra word.
> Ubuntu 9.04 is technically just astonishing!!
pffftttt... it's more than just that! It's perfect!
> Nothing as powerful exists for the PC in the whole world.
In the whole wide world!!! Linux is a miracle!!!
> And nothing as powerful as this has existed in the PC's entire
> history!!!
Ever in history!!!! Go Lin... <crapware freezes randomly>
7
wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
> On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:45:57 GMT, 7 wrote:
>
>> Conor wrote:
>>
>>> In article <_esWl.38560$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 7 says...
>>>
>>>> Get smart. Use Linux HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) by searching in
>>>> google to choose vendors that are supported.
>>>>
>>> I was and the Intel 945 chipset is. The problem is Ubuntu chose to use
>>> broken drivers when they moved to 9.04 that try to implement a new
>>> acceleration mode. In 8.10 and below, there's never been an issue.
>>
>>
>> Then continue to use 8.04 until 9.10 comes out!
>
> Ubuntu 8.04 doesn't install in 7 minutes like 9.04 does.
Well Mr. Obvious, then use the Linux HCL and 9.04 and get it right first
time with supported hardware!
The alternative is that you are not allowed to be near a computer if you are
that much limited / retarded - hire a real Linux engineer to do the job!
Tony Houghton
Moshe Goldfarb <goldfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is a "bug" or at the very least an idiotic default setting.
>
> Why with Ubuntu is the nvidia-settings program run by default as
> a user and not automatically set up to prompt the user for sudo
> password?
>
> It's ridiculous.
>
> The user goes through all the trouble of setting up his card,
> dual displays etc and then when he clicks the box to save the
> settings to the /ext/X11/xorg.conf file he gets a cryptic error
> message saying it failed.
>
> This is the kind of major "gotcha" bugs that the Linux community
> puts up with that would never pass muster in the Windows world.
That's not what happens in 180.22 in Debian. It opens a save dialog
defaulting to your home directory. AIUI nvidia-settings is closed source
so Ubuntu Jaunty's 180.25 shouldn't have any major differences.
--
TH * http://www.realh.co.uk
RonB
> Well Mr. Obvious, then use the Linux HCL and 9.04 and get it right first
> time with supported hardware!
I don't know if it's a Ubuntu problem or Xorg problem -- but Xorg
*should* support Intel Graphics with their new release, especially since
it has been doing so for years. I have absolutely no problem with my
Intel graphic chips on my Optiplex and Latitude using CentOS (which, I'm
guessing, uses an older version of Xorg) -- but this would definitely be
a worrisome issue for me if I was trying to use Ubuntu. I can't change
the Intel Graphics chip set on my laptop and, since I'm using a small
form factor Optiplex, I don't want to add a graphics card (with its extra
heat and power consumption) to my desktop computer. So this is a
legitimate issue, one that I suspect that will soon be solved.
--
RonB
"There's a story there...somewhere"
Hadron
It's incredible.
You seem to totally miss the point on purpose.
And even IF it opened a directory pointing to your "home directory",
err, so what? The config file is not stored in your home directory.
Gregory Shearman
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
>>>
>>> And then if you have an Intel graphics chipset, such as those on most
>>> laptops and netbooks, you spend 2 hours trying to get the graphics
>>> performance to around 50% of what it was in 8.10 and STILL spend ages
>>> trying to get windows network shares browsing working properly.
>>
>>
>> google to choose vendors that are supported.
>>
>
> everything just works."
Which "freetard" said this? Mr Nobody, eh?
> Other side of freetards mouth - "Don't buy any hardware unless you make sure
> it's one one of the several 'Hardware compatibility Lists' that are out on
> the web or you'll have problems."
Common sense. Do your research and buy what works. It's a method that
can be used in all facets of life.
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power
Gregory Shearman
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> 7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
>>
>> Out of curiosity, I wanted to see how those numbers compare to Windows.
>> I made two identically configured virtual machines, each with 1 gig of
>> RAM, and one virtual CPU (the underlying CPU is a Xeon 3500 at 2.66 MHz).
>>
>> Ubuntu was indeed a fast install. 7 minutes on the nose. Windows XP
>> with SP2 took 12:06. For both installs, I accepted the defaults. Both
>> were set up to not ask or a password for login, so that the subsequent
>> boot time measurements would not be influenced by how fast I can fill
>> out a login dialog.
>>
>> For boot time, XP is 17 seconds from the time I hit the virtual power
>> button to desktop up and accepting commands. 28 seconds on Ubuntu.
>
> Sounds like Windows trades some install time for better boot time (due to no
> need for autoprobing at boot).
Yeah, and on XP you get to play Solitaire... at least until you can
scour the 'net for more application to install.
The Natural Philosopher
> and the developer.
> For example, I made a suggestion way back about Kaffiene and
> that if you switched desktops and a video was playing, you
> should have the option of either keeping it playing or pausing
> it via a menu setting.
>
> The author actually implemented that in a future version, the
> next one I believe and gave me a workaround.
>
> So that's a case where things went well.
>
> Here is a "bug" or at the very least an idiotic default setting.
>
> Why with Ubuntu is the nvidia-settings program run by default as
> a user and not automatically set up to prompt the user for sudo
> password?
>
> It's ridiculous.
>
> The user goes through all the trouble of setting up his card,
> dual displays etc and then when he clicks the box to save the
> settings to the /ext/X11/xorg.conf file he gets a cryptic error
> message saying it failed.
>
> This is the kind of major "gotcha" bugs that the Linux community
> puts up with that would never pass muster in the Windows world.
yeah, that's why most home *windows* systems run as 'root' So the coders
don't have to worry about permissions anywhere..nor do the hackers.
TomB
>> I have been able to correspond directly with developers of OSS apps.
>> I have access to large and varied support systems.
>> I do not have to worry about "the license police".
>> I have access to large amounts of legal $0 software.
>> With money I have save on software, I can afford to buy other things.
>> If I have the need, can pay someone to alter OSS software, and
>> redistribute it without fear of legal action.
> Exactly like Windows users.
All true, but not for the OS itself.
>> As for benefits if the other OS.... this is COLA,
>> you can find them on your own.
>
> The difference is that FOSS software is often available for Windows first
> (Google earth, Chrome, etc)
True in some cases. Untrue in most others.
Google Earth is *not* FOSS by the way.
> and it usually runs better on Windows.
> (OpenOffice and Firefox benchmarks prove it runs faster on Windows than on
> Linux.)
Firefox and OpenOffice run just fine for me on Debian Sid. But you try
to run mutt on Windows. A living hell.
--
"Programming today is a race between software engineers striving to
build bigger and better idiot-proof programs, and the Universe trying to
produce bigger and better idiots. So far, the Universe is winning."
~ Rick Cook
Tim Smith
7 <website_...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> Micoshaft Appil asstroturfing fraudster pounding the sock Moshe Goldfarb
> wrote on behalf of Half Wits from Micoshaft Appil Department of Marketing:
>
>
> > On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:45:57 GMT, 7 wrote:
> >
> >> Conor wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <_esWl.38560$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com>, 7 says...
> >>>
> >>>> Get smart. Use Linux HCL (Hardware Compatibility List) by searching in
> >>>> google to choose vendors that are supported.
> >>>>
> >>> I was and the Intel 945 chipset is. The problem is Ubuntu chose to use
> >>> broken drivers when they moved to 9.04 that try to implement a new
> >>> acceleration mode. In 8.10 and below, there's never been an issue.
> >>
> >>
> >> Then continue to use 8.04 until 9.10 comes out!
> >
> > Ubuntu 8.04 doesn't install in 7 minutes like 9.04 does.
>
>
> Well Mr. Obvious, then use the Linux HCL and 9.04 and get it right first
> time with supported hardware!
You read as well as you write, apparently. He did use hardware from the
HCL, and it didn't work.
--
--Tim Smith
Davey
> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
Life doesn't get much better than this.
Conor
says...
>
> 7 wrote:
> > Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
>
> Life doesn't get much better than this.
It does when you factor in the 2 hrs fucking around to get everything
working as it should.
--
Conor
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't
looking good either. - Scott Adams
Conor
> > I was and the Intel 945 chipset is. The problem is Ubuntu chose to use
> > broken drivers when they moved to 9.04 that try to implement a new
> > acceleration mode. In 8.10 and below, there's never been an issue.
>
>
> Then continue to use 8.04 until 9.10 comes out!
>
But that still has broken windows network browsing and the hard drive
load cycle count bug.
> > I use Gnome. The problem is that the Ubuntu team didn't put wins in
> > eithe nsswitch.conf or smb.conf as a protocol so you need to add it
> > manually. Until you do, you cannot access windows network shares
> > without knowing the target IP and share name.
>
>
> That is all related to micoshaft anti-trust issue.
Rubbish. It's all related to the fact some stupid cunt didn't put
"wins" in the list of server types to authenticate against in the
smb.conf or nsswitch.conf files.
Lusotec
> Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
To me, install times of 6 minutes of 60 minutes are of little difference.
What is important is how much of your time is required. Installing Windows
XP requires far more work and time than installing Mandriva (or Ubunto,
PC-BSD, FreeBSD).
With Windows XP:
- put CD
- wait few minutes
- answer question
- put CODE,
- wait 15 minutes for system to be put on disk
- remove CD
- reboot
- go to windows update
- repeat last two steps twice more
(yes, it is needed, install will fail )
- find drivers (CD, download)
- install needed drivers, boot
- install AV
- reboot
(this reboot is needed to get AV going and AV must be active
when installing programs, just in case...)
- go to sites and download programs from internet
- wait for download
- install program
- wait
- repeat last two steps for each program to install
- reboot
(some programs ask to reboot, and some times it is needed)
With Mandriva:
- put CD
- wait few minutes
- answer questions
- wait 8 minutes
- remove CD
- reboot
- answer questions
- go to package manager
- add repositories
(using easyurpmi)
- select all update packages and any other wanted programs, click install
- wait
- reboot
(needed for a kernel upgrade)
Mandriva install is easier and faster but most importantly it concentrates
the installer work in two parts. Windows install requires the installer's
attention in many small part.
Installing on several equal machines, is equally easy for both OSs. Imaging
software does it all.
Installing on several different machines, is easy with Mandriva. Just be
careful to install all drivers required for all machines on the first
machine. Then imaging software does the rest. After, only minor work is
required for each machine. Copying Windows system FS to different systems
is far from being reliable...
Regards.
Conor
> Well Mr. Obvious, then use the Linux HCL and 9.04 and get it right first
> time with supported hardware!
>
Intel 945 graphics are in the Linux HCL.
Conor
> > So adding all this up it will be a lot more than 6 minutes to get it to
> > work properly.
>
> By 'working properly' you mean customise it to your user.
NO. By working properly, I mean browsing windows networks straight out
the box like 7.10 did. Not having the hard drive load cycle count bug,
which 7.10 didn't. Having decent intel graphics performance like 8.10
did.
> That always kills time!
> You can script it though - in Linux you can script anything
> and everything unlike windump PCs. Similar to writing bat files,
> but immensely powerful with full weight of ALL applications trying
> to cooperate with you to make the scripting experience work.
> You can use traditional bash scripts of if you are lazy like
> me, you might want to try Gambas (a VB like clone) that can
> script up anything, do database, graphics, sound, video, html
> browsing etc to make scripting and reporting an immensely powerful tool.
> Everything is accessible under Linux because everything is configured
> in simple text based configuration files.
Why do you keep reposting this bullshit? Did you not even read my
posts? THIS STUFF WORKED. THEY BROKE IT IN THE LAST FEW RELEASESES.
Conor
>
> 7 wrote:
> > Ubuntu installed in 6 mintues and booting in 15 to 20 seconds
> >(...)
>
> To me, install times of 6 minutes of 60 minutes are of little difference.
> What is important is how much of your time is required. Installing Windows
> XP requires far more work and time than installing Mandriva (or Ubunto,
> PC-BSD, FreeBSD).
>
importance as its a once in a blue moon event. Likewise for me, boot
times are irrelevent as I use a laptop and use sleep/suspend/hibernate.
What is important to me is the time I have to spend fucking around to
get things working which either did in the past or do but suddenly
decide not to, usually at some critical moment.