Once again: which distro for this setup should I install? Pentium IV system
RayLopez99
never seem to get a straight answer. That's why I stick to Windows.
Let me try again (though I doubt anything constructive will come of
this exercise).
Target: a clueless newbie who only uses the internet for light
document creation (so I plan to use OpenOffice not a heavy duty
document creation program like Microsoft Word), surfing the net,
email, but without a mail manager like Outlook (she just stores the
emails online, no even bother to delete them and keeping them all in
her 'inbox' LOL). Skype is now an option she wants, so sound must
work (unlike last time). No need for multimedia aside from what's
embedded in your browser of choice. I'll add Adobe Reader but I doubt
she even uses that. Printer: any generic inkjet support is fine,
preferably supporting some HP product.
System: Pentium IV (note it's no longer a Pentium II, as per my
earlier variant of this question). 1 GB Ram. 50 to 75 GB ATA HD. DSL
external Modem attached to generic Ethernet card (note: no dialup
modem anymore)
Which Linux distro?
I cannot maintain this machine for this user--once I set it up, I plan
to "set it and forget it". I will not be doing maintenance on this
machine except on a sporadic, once every few years basis. So I need
something very stable.
This should be an easy question to answer in Linux land--but as always
I seem to get 10 different answers that seem to contradict each other.
Unless I hear a clear, straight answer, I plan to install Windows XP
on this machine for this user.
"thanks in advance"
Note to my friends a COLA--this does not count towards the 30 day
boycott of COLA since I'm only copying you. My Usenet group of
interest is COLS.
Goodbye.
RL
Mike Easter
RayLopez99 wrote:
> Target: a clueless newbie who only uses the internet for light
> document creation (so I plan to use OpenOffice not a heavy duty
> document creation program like Microsoft Word), surfing the net,
> email, but without a mail manager like Outlook (she just stores the
> emails online, no even bother to delete them and keeping them all in
> her 'inbox' LOL). Skype is now an option she wants, so sound must
> work (unlike last time). No need for multimedia aside from what's
> embedded in your browser of choice. I'll add Adobe Reader but I doubt
> she even uses that. Printer: any generic inkjet support is fine,
> preferably supporting some HP product.
>
> System: Pentium IV (note it's no longer a Pentium II, as per my
> earlier variant of this question). 1 GB Ram. 50 to 75 GB ATA HD. DSL
> external Modem attached to generic Ethernet card (note: no dialup
> modem anymore)
>
> Which Linux distro?
A P4 with a gig of ram can run anything 'popular'. I would choose a
recent Mint, KDE or Gnome because that would be 'easier' I think than
the LXDE version.
http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/reviews/index.cfm?reviewid=3242985 Linux Mint
9 review
http://linuxtrends.com/linux-mint-tastier-ubuntu/ Linux Mint: the
tastier Ubuntu
<this one has reviews of Linux Mint XFCE, Debian, KDE, and Gnome>
http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/category/linux-mint-reviews/ Linux Mint
Reviews
You can find a lot more reviews by going here
http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=mint and locating the
Reviews section and clicking the links next to '9:'
http://desktoplinuxreviews.com/category/linux-mint-reviews/
> I cannot maintain this machine for this user--once I set it up, I plan
> to "set it and forget it". I will not be doing maintenance on this
> machine except on a sporadic, once every few years basis. So I need
> something very stable.
The clueless newbie can undoubtedly handle it better than you have
demonstrated here.
> Unless I hear a clear, straight answer, I plan to install Windows XP
> on this machine for this user.
Windows XP would also be a good choice, but it needs to be a legitimate
license so that the clueless newbie won't be running into snags from MS.
--
Mike Easter
WoW
> Which Linux distro?
The Natural Philosopher
> Sigh. I keep posting and posting and posting this question, and I
> never seem to get a straight answer. That's why I stick to Windows.
>
> Let me try again (though I doubt anything constructive will come of
> this exercise).
>
> Target: a clueless newbie who only uses the internet for light
> document creation (so I plan to use OpenOffice not a heavy duty
> document creation program like Microsoft Word), surfing the net,
> email, but without a mail manager like Outlook (she just stores the
> emails online, no even bother to delete them and keeping them all in
> her 'inbox' LOL). Skype is now an option she wants, so sound must
> work (unlike last time). No need for multimedia aside from what's
> embedded in your browser of choice. I'll add Adobe Reader but I doubt
> she even uses that. Printer: any generic inkjet support is fine,
> preferably supporting some HP product.
>
> System: Pentium IV (note it's no longer a Pentium II, as per my
> earlier variant of this question). 1 GB Ram. 50 to 75 GB ATA HD. DSL
> external Modem attached to generic Ethernet card (note: no dialup
> modem anymore)
>
> Which Linux distro?
>
But debian lenny should be boringly stable, relatively clear of the
bleeding edge, and install 'straight off'.
ray
+1
bbgruff
> Unless I hear a clear, straight answer, I plan to install Windows XP
> on this machine for this user.
Personally, I think you ought to go right ahead and install XP.
I say this on the basis that anything done by *you* will be an unmitigated
disaster.
Far better that you and XP get the blame than Linux.
RayLopez99
wrote:
>
> probably doesn't matter a damn
>
> But debian lenny should be boringly stable, relatively clear of the
> bleeding edge, and install 'straight off'.
Probably? Are you sure? And does "Debian Lenny" have the same
features that WoW recommends:
Gnome Desktop
All about the PCLinuxOS Gnome 2010.07 desktop.
Remember, I need Skype. Is there a 'repository' or somesuch that I
can install Skype in 'debian lenny'?
So who is right: Wow, you, both, neither? Once again, more questions
than answers with Linux.
RL
The Natural Philosopher
> On Oct 13, 11:29 pm, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> probably doesn't matter a damn
>>
>> But debian lenny should be boringly stable, relatively clear of the
>> bleeding edge, and install 'straight off'.
>
> Probably? Are you sure? And does "Debian Lenny" have the same
> features that WoW recommends:
>
> Gnome Desktop
> All about the PCLinuxOS Gnome 2010.07 desktop.
>
> Remember, I need Skype. Is there a 'repository' or somesuch that I
> can install Skype in 'debian lenny'?
>
No sure. I use hardware VOIP.
But lenny has gnome standard desktop.
> So who is right: Wow, you, both, neither? Once again, more questions
> than answers with Linux.
>
I don't remember you said anything about skype last time. If skype is
needed go Ubuntu.
Debian stable is not directly supported by skype, but later Ubuntu is.
> RL
ray
The 'answer', noballs, is that there is no ANSWER. As has been pointed
out to you time and time again - but you fail to grasp is that IT DOESN'T
MATTER. Virtually any Linux distribution will run virtually any Linux
software - what's so tough about that?
philo
The way you've posed your question there is only one answer:
stick with XP
If you were serious about using Linux and a newbie
you'd already have installed Ubuntu or PCLinux OS
RonB
The machine could handle about any distribution, but I'd say XP also --
because I'm not in the mood to go down the same bullshit trolling pathway
yet again.
--
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.5 or Fedora 13 or VectorLinux Deluxe 6.0
RonB
In other words, non-problem solved.
RonB
> The way you've posed your question there is only one answer:
>
> stick with XP
>
> If you were serious about using Linux and a newbie you'd already have
> installed Ubuntu or PCLinux OS
Or Mint... or Mandriva... or...
Just another attempt at trolling.
William Poaster
As far as the Dopez99 troll goes, *everything* about Linux is tough. He's
too stupid to own a computer.
--
VI VI VI The editor of the beast.
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit
Keith Keller
[note Newsgroups:]
On 2010-10-13, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 10/13/2010 01:40 PM, RayLopez99 wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^
> If you were serious about using Linux and a newbie
> you'd already have installed Ubuntu or PCLinux OS
If the OP were really serious about using linux, he'd stop posting to
cola (as he claims to have threatened).
--keith
--
kkeller...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://www.therockgarden.ca/aolsfaq.txt
see X- headers for PGP signature information
pete
Yup. The reason you keep getting lots of different answers is because
whenver you ask a group of advocates "which <thing> should I use?"
they always hear "what is your favourite <thing>?" and reply to that
question.
It just goes to show that in practice there's little, if no, difference
between the ease / effectiveness any of them will add to your needs so
it comes down to personal preference.
--
http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/1220101017454928319.php
RonB
> It just goes to show that in practice there's little, if no, difference
> between the ease / effectiveness any of them will add to your needs so
> it comes down to personal preference.
There are so many good choices that that's what it comes down to, personal
preference. Personally I prefer VectorLinux for the Desktop, but it's not
quite a beginner's distribution -- and Xfce might turn off those new to
Linux.
Terry Porter
xp and dopez were made for each other, along with ie6. The 500,000 windows
(only) viruses, worms and trojans mean that dopez will never be lonely or
bored.
--
This quadcore running Gnu/Linux Gentoo:
http://www.gentoo.org/main/en/about.xml
ray
Yeah - noballs likes to try to stir things up and he hasn't even done a
very good job of that this time around.
Stefan Patric
> Sigh. I keep posting and posting and posting this question, and I never
> seem to get a straight answer. That's why I stick to Windows.
With Windows, you have only one choice. Windows. With Linux, there are
a multitude of options and variants. And with any query of "What's the
best Linux distro for . . .", you'll get a multitude of answers.
> Let me try again (though I doubt anything constructive will come of this
> exercise).
Oh, ye of little faith. ;-)
> Target: a clueless newbie who only uses the internet for light document
> creation (so I plan to use OpenOffice not a heavy duty document creation
> program like Microsoft Word), surfing the net, email, but without a mail
> manager like Outlook (she just stores the emails online, no even bother
> to delete them and keeping them all in her 'inbox' LOL). Skype is now
> an option she wants, so sound must work (unlike last time). No need for
> multimedia aside from what's embedded in your browser of choice. I'll
> add Adobe Reader but I doubt she even uses that. Printer: any generic
> inkjet support is fine, preferably supporting some HP product.
>
> System: Pentium IV (note it's no longer a Pentium II, as per my earlier
> variant of this question). 1 GB Ram. 50 to 75 GB ATA HD. DSL external
> Modem attached to generic Ethernet card (note: no dialup modem anymore)
>
> Which Linux distro?
PCLinuxOS 2010 LXDE (http://www.pclinuxos.com/?page_id=188).
See, I _was_ able to recommend just one distro. :-) Not that there
aren't others that will do the job just as well, but I prefer PCLOS for
firsttimers.
> I cannot maintain this machine for this user--once I set it up, I plan
> to "set it and forget it". I will not be doing maintenance on this
> machine except on a sporadic, once every few years basis. So I need
> something very stable.
Then, PCLinuxOS is a good choice.
Most everything works "out-of-the-box." ("Most" doesn't mean "all".) It
is not strict Open Source like Debian and others. So, it includes
proprietary, but legal, stuff like Flash, drivers, etc. It's easy to
install (or remove apps) with its package manager. It's current enough
that you don't NEED to do updates to keep it running. For example, I
have version 2007 running on a 10 year old Dell laptop (256MB RAM) that
has never be updated since the initial installation in 2007, and it's
still running fine.
Plus, there's one more attribute, PCLOS will install and run on just
about any hardware (within reason). A few months ago, I put 2010 LXDE on
a 10-12 year old Dell desktop (Windows ME) of a friend of mine. It had
been sitting in a closet for 5 years gathering dust. I replaced the
modem with a $5 basic 10/100 ethernet card, I had laying around, and
upgraded the RAM from 128MB (even PCLOS wouldn't run on that. Well, it
almost did.) to 512MB--the maximum the MB would work with.
The original (and only) hard drive tested okay. So, the install went on
it. All went fine. The installer even recognized and properly
configured the onboard graphics for the original Dell 15" CRT monitor.
That surprised me. I was expecting to have to troubleshoot the graphics
because of the age of the system.
It's been 6 months, now, and the system has been running without problems.
Stable enough?
> This should be an easy question to answer in Linux land--but as always I
> seem to get 10 different answers that seem to contradict each other.
Windows-think. What if there were only one make of automobile? Or one
flavor of ice cream? Or the only restaurant for dining out was
McDonalds? (Yuck!) Expand your horizons. Get out of the box Ballmer has
you unknowingly locked in. There's a world of variety and choice out
there.
> Unless I hear a clear, straight answer, I plan to install Windows XP on
> this machine for this user.
I think I have given you one, but others will give you others. It's the
nature of the beast when you have many, many choices.
> "thanks in advance"
>
> Note to my friends a COLA--this does not count towards the 30 day
> boycott of COLA since I'm only copying you. My Usenet group of interest
> is COLS.
FWIW--and I know you don't really care--but your query is "off topic" in
COLA, and should have never been copied, posted, etc. there.
Stef
Attila
> I don't remember you said anything about skype last time. If skype is
> needed go Ubuntu.
>
> Debian stable is not directly supported by skype, but later Ubuntu is.
>
I'm afraid that's not correct. :( I've had to use skype for years and never
went to -buntu. If you need skype go to the skype website and download a
copy and stick it in your /opt directory. Duh... ;) Not exactly rocket
science. "doesn't support" skype doesn't mean "won't run skype". It means
that skype is not found in the package system of debian but skype runs
perfectly find on every flavour of debian.
Attila, The Freetard from Hell
Cornelia Schneider
5c7776...@e14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> And does "Debian Lenny" have the same
> features that WoW recommends:
>
> Gnome Desktop
> All about the PCLinuxOS Gnome 2010.07 desktop.
Yes.
> Remember, I need Skype. Is there a 'repository' or somesuch that I
> can install Skype in 'debian lenny'?
Yes. I run Skype on Lenny. (on an IBM ThinkPad X31, not the most powerful
notebook on earth, quite close to your P IV)
BTW, most Linux distributiions can be tested through a live CD. That would
be a good idea before installing one.
Cornelia
--
Be out and be proud - today is the first day of the rest of your life
Support Transgenre Strasbourg : www.sts67.org
Creative stuff : www.bownbend.com
GPG key ID 83FF7452
Bill_h
Trolling snipped.
> That's why I stick to Windows.
>
Please do. Now fuck off.
--
Bill_h
White Spirit
> Which Linux distro?
Either Slackware or Gentoo.
David Brown
> Sigh. I keep posting and posting and posting this question, and I
> never seem to get a straight answer. That's why I stick to Windows.
>
Perhaps it's something about the way you ask questions?
Or perhaps you can't handle the fact that there is a /choice/ here?
There are lots of Linux distros, with their pros and cons, and different
users have different opinions and different favourites.
> Let me try again (though I doubt anything constructive will come of
> this exercise).
>
> Target: a clueless newbie who only uses the internet for light
> document creation (so I plan to use OpenOffice not a heavy duty
> document creation program like Microsoft Word), surfing the net,
MS Word is not a "heavy duty document creating program" - it's a word
processor. It's okay for some uses, but encourages bad style and can't
cope well with larger documents, and it doesn't play well with other
systems or file formats. Open Office (or to be more precise, Open
Office Writer) is also a word processor. It is somewhat better at
working with larger documents (it doesn't crash as often on big files),
it makes good style easier, and it works well with other formats.
But open source is about choice - AbiWord might be a better choice for
light word processing jobs, since it is smaller, faster and easier than
either Open Office or MS Word.
This of course applies even if you choose windows, and regardless of
your choice of Linux distribution.
> email, but without a mail manager like Outlook (she just stores the
> emails online, no even bother to delete them and keeping them all in
Outlook is a poor choice for email. It may be appropriate if you are
tied to an Exchange server, but it's email handling is terrible compared
to other programs (even Outlook Express was better for email!).
Again, open source is about choice. Evolution is good if you want a
large program integrating calenders and other such things, while
Thunderbird is a good choice for a more dedicated email client.
And again, this applies even if you choose windows, and regardless of
your choice of Linux distribution.
> her 'inbox' LOL). Skype is now an option she wants, so sound must
> work (unlike last time). No need for multimedia aside from what's
> embedded in your browser of choice. I'll add Adobe Reader but I doubt
Abode Acrobat Reader is the worst possible choice for a pdf reader. It
is slow, bloated and insecure. You can run it on Windows or Linux, but
on either platform there are far better choices for pdf reading. Your
choice, of course.
> she even uses that. Printer: any generic inkjet support is fine,
> preferably supporting some HP product.
>
Most printers work fine out of the box with modern Linux distros.
> System: Pentium IV (note it's no longer a Pentium II, as per my
> earlier variant of this question). 1 GB Ram. 50 to 75 GB ATA HD. DSL
> external Modem attached to generic Ethernet card (note: no dialup
> modem anymore)
>
> Which Linux distro?
>
I would go for Linux Mint (using the standard gnome interface). It's
easy to install, works fine with almost any hardware, looks pleasant,
and has a wide selection of software that is simple to install.
> I cannot maintain this machine for this user--once I set it up, I plan
> to "set it and forget it". I will not be doing maintenance on this
> machine except on a sporadic, once every few years basis. So I need
> something very stable.
>
> This should be an easy question to answer in Linux land--but as always
> I seem to get 10 different answers that seem to contradict each other.
>
It's called /opinion/, based on /choice/. If you go to alt.car and ask
for recommendations for a car, you'll get ten different contradictory
answers. You are used to the windows world - that's like going to
alt.coke.zero and asking for recommendations for a fizzy drink.
> Unless I hear a clear, straight answer, I plan to install Windows XP
> on this machine for this user.
>
If you want a clear, straight answer, ask a single person - not a newsgroup.
William Poaster
> On 13/10/2010 20:40, RayLopez99 wrote:
>> Sigh. I keep posting and posting and posting this question, and I
>> never seem to get a straight answer. That's why I stick to Windows.
>>
>
> Perhaps it's something about the way you ask questions?
>
> Or perhaps you can't handle the fact that there is a /choice/ here?
> There are lots of Linux distros, with their pros and cons, and different
> users have different opinions and different favourites.
The plain simple fact is RayLopez99 is a *troll*.
<snip>
--
VIII. Any non-trivial program contains at least one bug.
philo
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:35:26 -0500, philo wrote:
>
>> The way you've posed your question there is only one answer:
>>
>> stick with XP
>>
>> If you were serious about using Linux and a newbie you'd already have
>> installed Ubuntu or PCLinux OS
>
> Or Mint... or Mandriva... or...
>
> Just another attempt at trolling.
>
COLA has degenerated and I no longer subscribe to it...
but what the hell, I didn't bother to remove the group from the OP's post
chrisv
> RayDopez99 wrote:
>
>> Which Linux distro?
>
>Either Slackware or Gentoo.
I think he should "man up" and do Linux from scratch!
The Natural Philosopher
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I don't remember you said anything about skype last time. If skype is
>> needed go Ubuntu.
>>
>> Debian stable is not directly supported by skype, but later Ubuntu is.
>>
> I'm afraid that's not correct. :(
But what you later go o9n to say syas it eaxctly IS correct..
viz...
I've had to use skype for years and never
> went to -buntu. If you need skype go to the skype website and download a
> copy and stick it in your /opt directory. Duh... ;) Not exactly rocket
> science. "doesn't support" skype doesn't mean "won't run skype". It means
> that skype is not found in the package system of debian
Exactly.
> but skype runs
> perfectly find on every flavour of debian.
Which I never denied or contested.
One Shot, One-Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:6rtdb6lhdfbu5n4dr...@4ax.com...
"chrisv" is a nym-shifting liar. "chrisv" is a worthless piece of shit.
White Spirit
> White Spirit wrote:
>> RayDopez99 wrote:
>>> Which Linux distro?
>> Either Slackware or Gentoo.
That should keep him busy for the next three years.
On a similar note, I was wondering what specs for a Windows machine.
32Gb RAM? 1Tb hard drive? How many cores would I need in order to get
the same performance as a Pentium4 with 512Mb RAM running Arch Linux?
Michael Black
I keep my copy of "Slackware Linux for Dummies" on a prominent place on a
shelf, next to "Unix for Dummies" and somewhere else, I have "Linux System
Administration for Dummies".
If something can be dummied up, then surely it can't be too hard.
Of course, if this was still the days when pocket size paperbacks ruled
the earth, it might not be so simplified. Back then, if you picked up a
copy of a Penguin book about radio astronomy or the pyramids, you'd
actually have to wade through pages and pages, without graphics and
without a lot of empty space or Big Headings.
Michael
chrisv
>I keep my copy of "Slackware Linux for Dummies" on a prominent place on a
>shelf, next to "Unix for Dummies" and somewhere else, I have "Linux System
>Administration for Dummies".
Personally, I refuse to buy anything that claims to be written for
"dummies".
>If something can be dummied up, then surely it can't be too hard.
Don't know about that...
--
"So how come Windows Mobile is ahead of Linux on smartphones?" -
Timmy Smith, July 2009
RayLopez99
> Yup. The reason you keep getting lots of different answers is because
> whenver you ask a group of advocates "which <thing> should I use?"
> they always hear "what is your favourite <thing>?" and reply to that
> question.
> It just goes to show that in practice there's little, if no, difference
> between the ease / effectiveness any of them will add to your needs so
> it comes down to personal preference.
>
> --http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/1220101017454928319.php
OK Pete. But by that logic, I should stick to Windows XP, since it's
my (and the vast majority of others) favorite "thing" for hardware
like this.
I thought Linux had an advantage over Windows XP--or is it just a "me
too" product? It's not clear that all distros support Skype for
example (though I think Attila the Freetard in this thread may be
right, but still, it's not 100% clear).
RL
RayLopez99
> Be out and be proud - today is the first day of the rest of your life
> Support Transgenre Strasbourg :www.sts67.org
> Creative stuff :www.bownbend.com
> GPG key ID 83FF7452
Transgender? You XXY or somesuch? That's fine. But it also explains
why you favor the 1%--you clearly are unique. For you, and others
like you, I don't mind if you use Linux. But what gets my goat is
when this 1% tries to tell the 99% why Linux is so much better--and
falls flat on their alternative face.
RL
RayLopez99
Why is that? We had two votes for Debian Lenny and PCLinux OS. Why
do we need two more distros? Do they support Skype?
Paralysis by analysis--that's Linux. And now we see fragmentation of
that 1% market share. What is 1%/1000? My calculator says it's
effectively zero.
Rounding error. Linux is Rounding Error OS.
RL
RayLopez99
>
> COLA has degenerated and I no longer subscribe to it...
> but what the hell, I didn't bother to remove the group from the OP's post
You have degenerated "philo", and you're no friend of mine.
RL
ray
> On Oct 14, 2:28 am, pete <no_one_you_k...@notthisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> Yup. The reason you keep getting lots of different answers is because
>> whenver you ask a group of advocates "which <thing> should I use?" they
>> always hear "what is your favourite <thing>?" and reply to that
>> question.
>> It just goes to show that in practice there's little, if no, difference
>> between the ease / effectiveness any of them will add to your needs so
>> it comes down to personal preference.
>>
>> --http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/1220101017454928319.php
>
> OK Pete. But by that logic, I should stick to Windows XP, since it's my
> (and the vast majority of others) favorite "thing" for hardware like
> this.
Yes, NoBalls - you should stick to xp - it's all you can understand.
The Natural Philosopher
this and install' type operation.
Which we don't think you are capable of doing more than...:-(
> RL
RonB
> Again, open source is about choice. Evolution is good if you want a
> large program integrating calenders and other such things, while
> Thunderbird is a good choice for a more dedicated email client.
Since I use a Palm Treo, I use J-Pilot for my calendar, Claws Mail for
email, Pan for newsgroups. I used to use to Thunderbird with Lightning,
which integrates a calendar with your email client, but don't have any
personal use for it, since I use J-Pilot. Never did like Evolution.
pete
to perform a sanity check from time to time - see if the rules have
changed. If you already have XP and are happy with it, then yes - there
are few reasons to go to the trouble of dumping it and relearning a
new operating system and set of applications, unless that's one of your
goals too: to learn some new skills.
Personally, I have a mixture of machines. My primary box runs a popular
Linux implementation - simply because I like command line interfaces
and have the desire and ability to automate a lot of everyday functions,
which is easier to do from a script than from a GUI. However, I also
have a virtual machine (VirtualBox) environment that allows me to run
XP for a lot of the applications I prefer, that are not availalbe on a
Linux system.
It's a bit like having both a car and a bicycle - you have the choice
and flexibility of both, without getting tied into the question of
which one is better.
--
http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/1420101015062430786.php
RonB
> OK, leaving aside the obnoxious and immature responses. It's quite valid
> to perform a sanity check from time to time - see if the rules have
> changed. If you already have XP and are happy with it, then yes - there
> are few reasons to go to the trouble of dumping it and relearning a new
> operating system and set of applications, unless that's one of your
> goals too: to learn some new skills.
Those of us at COLA have gone through the Ray Lopez circus before. He's
not asking because he really wants to know. It's just more trolling.
> Personally, I have a mixture of machines. My primary box runs a popular
> Linux implementation - simply because I like command line interfaces and
> have the desire and ability to automate a lot of everyday functions,
> which is easier to do from a script than from a GUI. However, I also
> have a virtual machine (VirtualBox) environment that allows me to run XP
> for a lot of the applications I prefer, that are not availalbe on a
> Linux system.
> It's a bit like having both a car and a bicycle - you have the choice
> and flexibility of both, without getting tied into the question of which
> one is better.
I run a couple programs in a Win2K VirtualBox machine. (Movie Magic
Screenwriter and NetObjects Fusion) but I don't use the CLI a lot in
Linux. I prefer Linux because it's more secure and I don't waste a lot of
time worrying about anti-virus and anti-malware programs -- no do I have
to reboot every time I get an update or install a new program. I also
don't have to listen to a hard drive thrash for several minutes after
booting, like I would in Windows.
William Poaster
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:00:34 +0000, pete wrote:
>
>> OK, leaving aside the obnoxious and immature responses. It's quite valid
>> to perform a sanity check from time to time - see if the rules have
>> changed. If you already have XP and are happy with it, then yes - there
>> are few reasons to go to the trouble of dumping it and relearning a new
>> operating system and set of applications, unless that's one of your
>> goals too: to learn some new skills.
>
> Those of us at COLA have gone through the Ray Lopez circus before. He's
> not asking because he really wants to know. It's just more trolling.
Not only in COLA, the Dopez troll tried this shit in comp.os.linux.misc
too.
Just a sample:
"For the SEVENTH time, please, what distro for an old computer? "
Message-ID: <2482ded3-3aeb-4b0d...@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>
Yes, that's *seven* times &he'd had plenty of useful replies in the
previous six of his trolling threads, which he chose to ignore.
<snip>
--
Linux, the choice of a GNU generation.
Chris Ahlstrom
I still get the thrashing of the hard drive... when I run
Win 2003 Server in a VM on Linux. :-D
Seriously, though, although Win 2003 Server has some good points, it still
has a lot of rough edges. For example (and this is live, not in a virtual
machine), I insert a CD and copy some files. Then I click "Eject" or press
the CD button, and Win 2003 still shows the files and directories it was
showing for the CD.
Even Thunar (XFce file manager) knows enough to blank the list and remove
the drive from being shown.
Tried to copy a 700 Mb directory of files from a native Vista partition
into a Virtual PC, running Win 2003 Server, using Windows Explorer. After
at least 20 minutes, it was still "Preparing to Copy". I decided to skip
the copy and just "Import" the shared drive into Subversion directly.
The result was a copying rate not even as good as Zmodem over a
Hayes modem. Left it running, should be done in the morning.
I don't get it... How can the Windozers put up with such crap?
It's insane.
--
Whoever has lived long enough to find out what life is, knows how deep a debt
of gratitude we owe to Adam, the first great benefactor of our race. He
brought death into the world.
-- Mark Twain, "Pudd'nhead Wilson's Calendar"
RonB
> I still get the thrashing of the hard drive... when I run Win 2003
> Server in a VM on Linux. :-D
It figures. I won't let Win2K have Internet access at all. VirtualBox just
let's me "unplug" it.
> Seriously, though, although Win 2003 Server has some good points, it
> still has a lot of rough edges. For example (and this is live, not in a
> virtual machine), I insert a CD and copy some files. Then I click
> "Eject" or press the CD button, and Win 2003 still shows the files and
> directories it was showing for the CD.
>
> Even Thunar (XFce file manager) knows enough to blank the list and
> remove the drive from being shown.
I use Thunar every day. I've gotten use to Xfce and like it now. My
younger brother, who is a Windows programmer, for years preferred Win2K to
XP. I think he's pretty happy with Windows 7 now.
> Tried to copy a 700 Mb directory of files from a native Vista partition
> into a Virtual PC, running Win 2003 Server, using Windows Explorer.
> After at least 20 minutes, it was still "Preparing to Copy". I decided
> to skip the copy and just "Import" the shared drive into Subversion
> directly.
>
> The result was a copying rate not even as good as Zmodem over a Hayes
> modem. Left it running, should be done in the morning.
>
> I don't get it... How can the Windozers put up with such crap? It's
> insane.
I have no idea why they would put up with this crap, probably because they
don't know better. I know on the Vista machine I had to fix, with high
speed Internet, it took 2.5 hours to do the first major upgrade (it took
about 6 upgrades altogether, 2 major >300 Meg downloads), but most of the
time was the upgrade process itself, not the downloading -- and it was
about 300 Megs of files. What the...? Often a Linux first upgrade,
especially if you're using an older CD, can download 300 megs of files,
but the process takes about 20 minutes. What is Vista doing with its files
that takes it so long to load them? Have they fixed this in Windows 7?
BTW, the Vista re-install (mostly the upgrade process) took about six
hours. That's insane. And I didn't even bother with trying to get their
Norton activated (which took me three hours of calling and waiting the
last time) -- I just put Avast on it and told them to let the Norton
subscription run out in January.
GangGreene
[putolin]
> Paralysis by analysis--that's Linux. And now we see fragmentation of
> that 1% market share. What is 1%/1000? My calculator says it's
> effectively zero.
>
> Rounding error. Linux is Rounding Error OS.
>
> RL
Go tell someone who gives a shit
JEDIDIAH
> On Oct 14, 2:28 am, pete <no_one_you_k...@notthisaddress.com> wrote:
>
>> Yup. The reason you keep getting lots of different answers is because
>> whenver you ask a group of advocates "which <thing> should I use?"
>> they always hear "what is your favourite <thing>?" and reply to that
>> question.
>> It just goes to show that in practice there's little, if no, difference
>> between the ease / effectiveness any of them will add to your needs so
>> it comes down to personal preference.
>>
>> --http://thisreallyismyhost.99k.org/1220101017454928319.php
>
> OK Pete. But by that logic, I should stick to Windows XP, since it's
> my (and the vast majority of others) favorite "thing" for hardware
> like this.
...except Windows has to be constantly maintained to deal with it's
inherently insecure design. A Windows user desktop cannot be treated
like an appliance locked down and then burned into ROM.
>
> I thought Linux had an advantage over Windows XP--or is it just a "me
Not getting rooted during the installer would be the main thing.
[deletia]
This is due to it's Unix foundation which Windows lacks and MacOS shares.
--
It's a great paradox. |||
/ | \
Mac users aren't supposed to be capable of organizing their
own files with the Finder or browse the storage on a digital
camera yet they can be expected to track down their own QT
extensions with no real help from Apple.
JEDIDIAH
> On 13 Oct 2010 20:53:42 GMT, ray wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:29:33 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> RayLopez99 wrote:
>>>> Sigh. I keep posting and posting and posting this question, and I
>>>> never seem to get a straight answer. That's why I stick to Windows.
>>>>
>>>> this exercise).
>>>>
>>>> Target: a clueless newbie who only uses the internet for light
>>>> document creation (so I plan to use OpenOffice not a heavy duty
>>>> but without a mail manager like Outlook (she just stores the emails
>>>> 'inbox' LOL). Skype is now an option she wants, so sound must work
>>>> (unlike last time). No need for multimedia aside from what's embedded
>>>> uses that. Printer: any generic inkjet support is fine, preferably
>>>> supporting some HP product.
>>>>
>>>> variant of this question). 1 GB Ram. 50 to 75 GB ATA HD. DSL external
>>>> Modem attached to generic Ethernet card (note: no dialup modem anymore)
>>>>
>>>> Which Linux distro?
>>>>
>>>
>>> But debian lenny should be boringly stable, relatively clear of the
>>> bleeding edge, and install 'straight off'.
>>
>> +1
>
> Yup. The reason you keep getting lots of different answers is because
> whenver you ask a group of advocates "which <thing> should I use?"
> they always hear "what is your favourite <thing>?" and reply to that
> question.
> It just goes to show that in practice there's little, if no, difference
> between the ease / effectiveness any of them will add to your needs so
> it comes down to personal preference.
ANY "ease of use desktop distribution" will likely do.
If you want to treat the thing like an appliance, then ANY distribution would
probably do so long as you can easily install the required software.
The "500 Linux distributions" are infact all using the same small number of
common components. A few might be a little wierder than the rest and default to
something zany like GNUstep or WindowMaker.
RonB
> ...except Windows has to be constantly maintained to deal with it's
> inherently insecure design. A Windows user desktop cannot be treated
> like an appliance locked down and then burned into ROM.
Oh, but this is Ray Lopez. He runs his pirated XP computers for years at a
time without anti-virus or anti-malware software and without ever getting
infected. As a matter of fact, he's rarely ever heard of viruses or
malware on XP computers. Or am I'm getting him confused with another
bullshitting WinTroll?
David Brown
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:51:04 +0200, David Brown wrote:
>
>> Again, open source is about choice. Evolution is good if you want a
>> large program integrating calenders and other such things, while
>> Thunderbird is a good choice for a more dedicated email client.
>
> Since I use a Palm Treo, I use J-Pilot for my calendar, Claws Mail for
> email, Pan for newsgroups. I used to use to Thunderbird with Lightning,
> which integrates a calendar with your email client, but don't have any
> personal use for it, since I use J-Pilot. Never did like Evolution.
>
I've only tried Evolution a bit, and didn't much like it either. I'll
try Claws sometime (imap for email is such a wonderful thing, and makes
it easy to use multiple email clients). Other than that, I like
Thunderbird. It does everything I need in an email (and newsreader)
program, and it works well on Linux and Windows, so it's the standard
email program at my company.
The Natural Philosopher
monstrosity. Evolution is like trying to reinstall the worse half of it.
Aragorn
identifying as RonB wrote...
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 20:00:34 +0000, pete wrote:
>
>> OK, leaving aside the obnoxious and immature responses. It's quite
>> valid to perform a sanity check from time to time - see if the rules
>> have changed. If you already have XP and are happy with it, then yes
>> - there are few reasons to go to the trouble of dumping it and
>> relearning a new operating system and set of applications, unless
>> that's one of your goals too: to learn some new skills.
>
> Those of us at COLA have gone through the Ray Lopez circus before.
And those of us who are *not* in comp.os.linux.advocacy *also* have gone
through the Ray Lopez circus before, and at nauseam.
> He's not asking because he really wants to know. It's just more
> trolling.
It's like the seasons. It just keeps on coming back time and time
again, looking just a little bit different with each new iteration, but
underneath the new shiny cover story, there's the same old trolling
attempt. That's why the thread is crossposted to beyond C.O.L.A. as
well. The more people Ray can piss off, the happier he and his goons
in C.O.L.A. will be.
> [...] I prefer Linux because it's more secure [...]
I use GNU/Linux because it is what is *is* - a highly versatile
UNIX/POSIX system of incredible quality and stability, developed as
Free and Open Source Software - not because of what it is *not* (i.e.
Microsoft Windows).
I have always chosen the operating systems on my machines myself, rather
than accepting a hardware vendor's choice. And yes, at one stage, that
included Microsoft Windows NT - albeit for a relatively short time
only, and at a time when "everyone else" was using Windows 95 for a
desktop/workstation.
Even the hardware vendors themselves were not very supportive of NT at
the time, and neither was the proprietary software industry (except for
Microsoft itself and a handful of other companies, e.g. Symantec). I
found the same lack of support in the many years before NT, when I was
using OS/2. Still, my needs were different back then, and it didn't
bother me too much.
I have been using GNU/Linux exclusively now for over eleven years, and
had it been readily available back in 1997 - when I still didn't have
an internet connection at my home - then I probably would never have
bothered with NT, because when I decided to abandon OS/2 for my (at the
time) next machine, what I was really looking for was a UNIX system,
but proprietary UNIX - I was specifically interested in NeXtSTeP at the
time - was simply unaffordable for a non-corporate workstation user.
(If I remember correctly, then NeXtSTeP x86 went for some 800+ Euro for
the standard edition, and twice as much for the developer's edition.)
In the past eleven years, I have never ever longed for any other
operating system than GNU/Linux, least of all any version of Microsoft
Windows. GNU/Linux serves all of my needs - which have become more
elaborate and mature since the 1990s, mind you - and it has taught me a
great deal about computers and information technology. Even to this
very day, it still continues to do so.
Lastly, considering the long way GNU/Linux has come since Richard
Stallman announced the GNU initiative in 1984 and Linus Torvalds
announced his new kernel - which he called "Freax" at the time; the
namechange to "Linux" was actually inspired by his friends - on Usenet
in 1991, GNU/Linux is now a very mature UNIX/POSIX operating system,
with the widest possible hardware support of any operating system in
existence, both in terms of processor architectures and in terms of
scalability.
From the purely technical perspective, there is, in my humble and
personal opinion, nothing valid to substantiate the use of Microsoft
Windows. Yes, I am aware of how certain types of proprietary software
may not have an equivalent version for GNU/Linux (or UNIX/POSIX in
general), and of how certain hardware is designed specifically /for/
Microsoft Windows. But that's a different debate. One cannot judge
the quality of an operating system by the availability of (proprietary)
application software, nor by it being not supported by certain hardware
peripherals (for which there often are alternatives) or certain
organizations/companies.
The way I see it, the major reasons as to why some people are clinging
on to Microsoft Windows still in this day and age rather than going
with GNU/Linux are the following:
(1) Withdrawal symptoms. People have been conditioned by "The
"Microsoft Way" and somehow cannot seem to either let go
of Windows, or are having difficulties embracing the
paradigm of a multi-user operating system. Or both.
(2) Unknown is unloved. GNU/Linux, although being distributed
commercially, is in itself not a corporate product, and the
commercial distributions do not have the budget to use the
advertising industry as much as big corporations like
Microsoft or Apple. In addition to this, most end-user
desktop machines are still being offered with Windows only,
and many IT-related companies - my own ISP included - will,
although abundantly making use of GNU/Linux on their
internal infrastructure, refuse to officially support
GNU/Linux towards their customers. This keeps GNU/Linux
out of the public attention and even - in the event of said
ISP and similar IT companies - out in the fringes, which
influences the public opinion in such a way that the masses
think of GNU/Linux as "being not stable yet", "being badly
supported" and "being a hobbyist thing". All of which are
false notions, but in the human brain, the truth is always
in the eye of the beholder. And that's all provided that
the people have actually already *heard* of GNU/Linux,
because I know loads of people who haven't, for all of the
aforementioned reasons.
(3) In the event of Windroid trolls, an IT-form of ultra-
rightwingedness. It is a known fact that the C.O.L.A.
trolls are simply intolerant of GNU/Linux and anyone using
it, testimonial of which is their habit of going ad hominem
with every GNU/Linux advocate, not to mention the various
cyber-harassment techniques - e.g. bots, nymshifting et al
- they deploy. Furthermore, during my own brief residence
on said group, it quickly became clear to me that all of
these trolls had rightwinged sympathies, manifesting
themselves in writing from outright racist comments to
claims that GNU/Linux would be a communist plot to
overthrow capitalism. (Although I shall not claim that
my experience reflects an absolute truth, it would also
appear as if all Win-trolls are exclusively USA-based.
I have certainly not encountered any non-US American Win-
trolls anywhere yet.) In addition to that, the persistent
and very ferocious habit of trolling - I have elaborated
on this before - suggests a psychotic addiction to
bullying. The very fact that these threads are being
crossposted beyond C.O.L.A. so as to irritate as many of
us GNU/Linux users as possible illustrates that.
(4) Different from trolls, albeit somewhat related, are the
paid Microsoft shills. Microsoft's fascist imperialism
is by definition intolerable of competition of any sort,
and sees competition where none was intended. Microsoft
has in the past made the mistake of allowing their shills
to be traced[*], but just because they're not making the
same mistakes again does not mean that they're not around
anymore. Quite the contrary, albeit that they will
generally not bother with C.O.L.A. because that's not where
their target audience resides. They are much more
efficient at spreading deliberate misinformation in
technical newsgroups, where unsuspecting newbies are
looking for assistance. The shill will then move in to
offer such assistance, and in a very polite and friendly
way, while imbuing his (or her) advice with misinformation,
which in the end always boils down to GNU/Linux not being
quite as good, and Microsoft Windows being better. And of
course, it doesn't end on Usenet. Microsoft's corporate
power and financial strength allow it to spread similar
misinformation through the corporate media, or at the very
least influence these media so that they won't publish or
mention anything about GNU/Linux, similar to how they can
dictate that certain computer manufacturers won't support
GNU/Linux and even void the end-user's warranty if the user
installs any other operating system on their machine than
the Windows version it came with, and any updates to that.
The bottom line is that - as I've mentioned higher up already - from the
purely technical perspective, there is nothing to warrant the use of
Microsoft Windows anymore, since it is not an operating system for this
era of interoperability and interconnected computer systems. And thus,
by consequence, as laid out above, it all boils down to a matter of
politics and deliberate corruption of the public opinion through FUD,
harassment and obscuring.
[*] Look up on the Barkto Incident (and its aftermath) on Google. I am
also not being paranoid when I say that this is still on-going. I
have personally already exposed a number of paid Microsoft shills
in several of the newsgroups I'm subscribed to, albeit that I must
admit that it's becoming more rare now. Perhaps their activities
are too subtle now for me to discern that they could be on
Microsoft's payroll, or perhaps the frequency of their activities
has diminished. But rest assured that they're still out there.
--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
The Natural Philosopher
>
> From the purely technical perspective, there is, in my humble and
> personal opinion, nothing valid to substantiate the use of Microsoft
> Windows. Yes, I am aware of how certain types of proprietary software
> may not have an equivalent version for GNU/Linux (or UNIX/POSIX in
> general), and of how certain hardware is designed specifically /for/
> Microsoft Windows. But that's a different debate.
But is is why largely the Linux desktop community is so disadvantaged
vis a vis the Microsoft one.
There needs to be a shim specification, a shim that can be added to any
linux distro, that would present and absolutely guaranteed standard AP
interface to the OS for any third party commercial offering.
And a standard way to prevent copy violation.
If money could be made supporting Linux, more people would.
William Poaster
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:17:22 -0500, JEDIDIAH wrote:
>
>> ...except Windows has to be constantly maintained to deal with it's
>> inherently insecure design. A Windows user desktop cannot be treated
>> like an appliance locked down and then burned into ROM.
>
> Oh, but this is Ray Lopez. He runs his pirated XP computers for years at a
> time without anti-virus or anti-malware software and without ever getting
> infected. As a matter of fact, he's rarely ever heard of viruses or
> malware on XP computers. Or am I'm getting him confused with another
> bullshitting WinTroll?
Nope. Here he admits having a pirated XP copy:-
Date: 7 Feb 2007
Message-ID: <1170895122....@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Seems he also has a pirated copy of Vista:-
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:58:07 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <4eeaeccd-d108-4911...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
--
FireFox - Why, wtf did he do?
David Brown
You don't have to have Outlook just because you have windows! I have
/never/ had Outlook on a PC. I haven't even had MS Office since Word
2.0 on WfW 3.11. So there's been no "ditching Outlook" here.
I use Windows for many things, and I use Linux for many things. I
couldn't do my job with just one of them. I'm a pragmatic on these
things - use the best tool for the job in hand.
White Spirit
> On Oct 14, 1:12 pm, White Spirit<wspi...@homechoice.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 13/10/2010 19:40, RayLopez99 wrote:
>>> Which Linux distro?
>> Either Slackware or Gentoo.
> Why is that?
Because either one would consume a considerable amount of your time long
before you ever connected your computer to the Internet.
Aragorn
identifying as The Natural Philosopher wrote...
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> From the purely technical perspective, there is, in my humble and
>> personal opinion, nothing valid to substantiate the use of Microsoft
>> Windows. Yes, I am aware of how certain types of proprietary
>> software may not have an equivalent version for GNU/Linux (or
>> UNIX/POSIX in general), and of how certain hardware is designed
>> specifically /for/ Microsoft Windows. But that's a different debate.
>
> But is is why largely the Linux desktop community is so disadvantaged
> vis a vis the Microsoft one.
Well, you have to understand that the Free & Open Source Software
community is divided into several camps, and that it is an entirely
different culture, with its own paradigms.
First of all, even though most Free Software licenses do not exclude
commercial distribution of the software, the software itself is not
conceived with commercial incentives in mind. As such, Free & Open
Source Software usually gets developed because some developer thought
it was a good idea to do write a particular tool or application, rather
than because there was a demand for it.
Secondly (but related to the above), as most of the FOSS development -
most, but not all - is done on a voluntary basis, there is little
incentive for the majority of the developers to write up a FOSS
equivalent to some proprietary and commercial software suite, unless
said developers actually would have use for such an
equivalent/alternative themselves. And if they then choose to do so,
then, in good hacker tradition, the tool would work very well and get
the job done, but would at the same time lack the visual polish -
read: "point & click userfriendliness" - that Windows and MacIntosh
users have come to expect. Much like a racecar, which is intended to,
say, do the Nürburgring Nordschleife in less than 8 minutes, but offers
no luxury to its driver.
It is a typical human trait to take for granted what has been originally
offered as a bonus. Mouse-driven graphical user interfaces with drag &
drop, the automatic mounting and unmounting of removable storage
devices, plug & play - which, if you recall the amusing presentation of
Windows 98 by Bill Gates was originally actually more of a "plug &
pray"-kind of thing on Windows. (In case you haven't seen that video,
Gates wanted to demonstrate the plug & play ability of Windows 98 by
plugging in a USB scanner, which immediately caused Windows 98 to go
BSOD on him... and all the viewers in the room... ;-))
Nobody remembers (or wants to remember) the days of MS-/PC-DOS - or the
equivalent era of the minicomputers and the dumb terminals - where one
had to use a commandline to start applications and find ways to export
data from one application to another. On UNIX this has always been
more easy than on DOS because UNIX has always been one big toolbox from
which the user took the tools that they needed in order to get a job
done, and the output from one tool could (and still can) be fed as the
input to another tool.
DOS technically also allowed for this, but as DOS was conceived entirely
differently - with the application software actually *becoming* the
operating system for the time it was loaded into memory[1] - the more
complex application software typically stored its data in a format
proper to the application, which usually meant that the data was not
exportable to another application. I remember the days that I had to
write several macros in both WordPerfect and dBASE to get the two of
them to work together so my dad - who was a total computer-illiterate -
could import addresses from the dBASE IV database application I had
written for him - which used the completely standard dBASE IV file
format - as a mailing list for WordPerfect 5.1, and even then still
that didn't quite work out well.
A lot of that has changed in the meantime due to the advent of graphical
user interfaces which allowed simple "drag & drop", and the more
advanced implementations of this in the form of object embedding. But
even then still, proprietary software tends to impose its proprietary
data formats, and one of the main (but unofficial) reasons for this is
the sheer preservation of the proprietary nature itself. This is an
direct consequence of capitalism, where everyone is concerned with
patents and business strategies. It's a way to keep people using your
proprietary and commercially developed software. Or in short, vendor
lock-in. All corporations are by nature predatory and ultimately in
service to self, regardless of how it appears. The only difference is
in their voracity.
> There needs to be a shim specification, a shim that can be added to
> any linux distro, that would present and absolutely guaranteed
> standard AP interface to the OS for any third party commercial
> offering.
The (GNU/)Linux API is open. But I take it you mean a uniformity
between distributions? Well, in that case, there is the LSB ("Linux
Standard Base"), which guarantees that a given software package will
run on all LSB-compliant distributions of the same version, but not
every distribution subscribes to that, and FOSS development also
advances at a greater pace than proprietary and commercial software.
In addition to that, proprietary software developers prefer to install
their own libraries, which overwrite existing system libraries. In
Windows, this is quite accepted by the userbase, despite the horror
stories of "DLL Hell" and the likes, but in the GNU/Linux world, this
is generally frowned upon. The GNU/Linux operating system has its own
package managers, which keep track of what's installed where, rather
than to use a third-party installer. And yes, some binary third-party
software uses its own installer, but this typically does not overwrite
any existing software other than that of the same vendor/developer.
Proprietary software developers don't like that.
As an aside here, not having all GNU/Linux distributions perfectly in
sync with eachother in terms of version numbers et al also has its
advantages. Namely, it becomes harder - read: "less interesting" - for
malware writers to target the GNU/Linux userbase as a whole. There is
no monoculture like there is on the Microsoft Windows platform.
Diversity is good, although it must never become a total chaos, of
course. ;-)
> And a standard way to prevent copy violation.
I have my reservations against all of that "copy protection" stuff.
Like with patents, its current purpose no longer has any binding with
what it was originally intended for, and it has become a means to
ensure the success of capitalistic interests and power. The whole
financial-economic system is poison. But that, too, is a whole other
debate, I'm afraid.
> If money could be made supporting Linux, more people would.
Several companies are making money out of offering GNU/Linux support,
just as companies - including but not limited to Microsoft itself - are
making money out of supporting Windows. The main difference is that
with Microsoft Windows, there is the additional cost of purchasing the
Windows licenses, and that the software will never be yours to do with
as you please.
And in fact, on a larger scale, many companies who were previously
already active in the world of proprietary UNIX - companies like IBM,
SGI, Sun Microsystems (now Oracle) and Hewlett-Packard - are investing
resources to the development of the Linux kernel because they realize
that in the long run, doing so will benefit them as well. SGI for
instance is still maintaining and supporting IRIX, but has already
announced that no new releases of IRIX will be developed. It is much
more lucrative for them to invest resources to the development of Linux
than to develop a new release of their own proprietary UNIX variant,
which only runs on their own hardware anyway. Linux - the kernel -
already supports SGI's hardware, so in the long run, it'll save SGI
lots of time and effort.
On a sidenote, I do regret Oracle's decision to pull the plug on
OpenSolaris - which by consequence also drops a nuke on Nexenta OS,
alias GNU/kOpenSolaris - but at least they're still contributing to the
development of the Linux kernel, which they were already doing before
they had acquired Sun Microsystems.
[1] DOS stands for "Disk Operating System", which is not the same thing
as "an operating system". DOS's purpose was to load an executable
into memory from (originally) a floppy disk and then pass all
control of the machine onto that application. (Actually, due to
the properties of both DOS and the CPU[2] it was developed for,
there was little "passing on".) Application software under DOS
used its own device drivers - e.g. dBASE IV, WordPerfect 5.x,
MS-Word, TurboPascal, Lotus 123 and others all used their own mouse
and display drivers. It was not all that uncommon for the machine
to require a reboot after using one of those applications because
they hadn't properly cleaned up after themselves.
[2] The original x86 architecture (prior to the Intel 80286) did not
distinguish between kernel and userspace. There were no privilege
rings, so basically everything ran "in kernel mode", with full
access to the hardware. All current x86 processors still cold-boot
to "real mode", which is the i8086/8088-compatible mode of the i286
and all later x86 processors. Even (U)EFI machines do so, but on
those machines, the (U)EFI firmware switches the boot processor[3]
to "protected mode" itself before the OS is loaded, requiring a
different boot procedure for the OS kernel than on systems with a
legacy BIOS.
[3] "Real mode" does not support multi-processing or multi-threading,
since the i8086/8088 processor was intended for a single-tasking,
single-user operating system. I'm not sure whether (U)EFI and
similar firmware initializes the other processors/cores (and
hyperthreads) in the system, but on systems with a legacy BIOS,
initializing the other CPUs is done by the kernel at boot time.
RayLopez99
>
> read more »
Remember what we said about head injuries and being verbose Aragorn?
Off meds again?
Glad you enjoy your Linux setup. I personally like doing what 99% of
the computing public has agreed is right--kind of like driving on the
right side of the road (in the USA, not the UK).
But you like being different...because you *are* different. And I
mean that as a statement of fact, not an insult.
RL
RayLopez99
I see WS--so your answer was meant as sarcasm, or an inside joke.
I'll take both these distros off my list then. Thanks for the heads
up.
RL
felmon
> Skype can be made to work on all of them. It just may not be a click on
> this and install' type operation.
Skype is easy to install, no problem. I wish it were more up-2-date
though, that more development were going on. Skype is very important to a
lot of people. I feel a bit sheepish showing my backwards little Skype.
it works alright though.
Felmon
felmon
> The bottom line is that - as I've mentioned higher up already - from the
> purely technical perspective, there is nothing to warrant the use of
> Microsoft Windows anymore, since it is not an operating system for this
> era of interoperability and interconnected computer systems. And thus,
> by consequence, as laid out above, it all boils down to a matter of
> politics and deliberate corruption of the public opinion through FUD,
> harassment and obscuring.
sorry but logically this is a 'non sequitur'. you cannot infer from
'there is no technical reason not to use Linux' to 'therefore the only
reasons not to use it are political or corrupt.'
as you pointed out there are other non-technical reasons which are
honorable such as not being able to run the software on Linux which one
needs.
Felmon
Aragorn
identifying as felmon wrote...
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:04:39 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>
>> The bottom line is that - as I've mentioned higher up already - from
>> the purely technical perspective, there is nothing to warrant the use
>> of Microsoft Windows anymore, since it is not an operating system for
>> this era of interoperability and interconnected computer systems.
>> And thus, by consequence, as laid out above, it all boils down to a
>> matter of politics and deliberate corruption of the public opinion
>> through FUD, harassment and obscuring.
>
> sorry but logically this is a 'non sequitur'. you cannot infer from
> 'there is no technical reason not to use Linux' to 'therefore the only
> reasons not to use it are political or corrupt.'
I have already way elaborated on the technical aspects of a UNIX/POSIX
operating system versus those of Microsoft Windows a long time ago, and
ad nauseam. Therefore I saw no need to reiterate all of that in my
previous post in this branch of the thread.
However, I will humor you with this small but concise description: of
all operating systems in existence, Microsoft Windows is the worst
possible design. It is a technical abomination, and it is
responsible - together with its very creators, due to their policy
of "security by obscurity" - for a waste of valuable bandwidth on the
internet due to the fact that some 85 to 90% of all Windows machines on
this planet being part of *at* *least* *one* botnet, with most of the
spam being sent out also unwittingly coming from /pwned/ Windows
machines. Spam alone makes up for some 80% of all e-mail being sent
out over the internet on a daily basis. (And just because you've got a
spamfilter doesn't mean that the spam doesn't get sent to your account
either.)
> as you pointed out there are other non-technical reasons which are
> honorable such as not being able to run the software on Linux which
> one needs.
At the trade-off cost of having your system be part of a botnet, dealing
with viruses all of the time, having a slow system despite hardware
that would fifteen years ago still classify as mainframe-grade, and
having to rely on expensive third-party software to get /some/
usability from your expensive computer system? No thanks, I think I'll
pass on that.
Besides, as I have said before, I prefer a UNIX/POSIX system, because
it's far more logically organized, it doesn't hide anything and it
allows me to do whatever it is that I want to do. With a UNIX/POSIX
system, your computer really *is* a computer. With Microsoft Windows,
it becomes a household appliance of limited usability coupled to
abundant annoyance, both to yourself and to everyone else on the
internet.
I do not wish to dictate to people what they can and cannot use. I am a
firm believer in freedom, but at the same time I am also a firm
believer in responsibility. It's a matter of balance. People running
Windows on their systems are co-responsible for most of the badness on
the internet. And I consider it *my* responsibilty to, with the
knowledge I have, however elaborate or however limited that may be,
point that out to them.
Roger Blake
> However, I will humor you with this small but concise description: of
> all operating systems in existence, Microsoft Windows is the worst
> possible design.
It is certainly the worst I have ever dealt with, and I've worked with
quite a few over the last 30 years that I've been involved in the computer
industry.
Linux is OK and that's what I use on my own systems, but I do miss TOPS-20.
(Remember, if you don't have 36 bits you're not playing with a full DEC.)
--
Roger Blake
(Change "invalid" to "com" for email. Google Groups killfiled due to spam.)
"0bama snoozed while oil oozed."
One Shot, One-Kill
"Aragorn" <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
news:i9c04e$hbv$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> On Saturday 16 October 2010 07:49 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody
> identifying as felmon wrote...
>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:04:39 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> The bottom line is that - as I've mentioned higher up already - from
>>> the purely technical perspective, there is nothing to warrant the use
>>> of Microsoft Windows anymore, since it is not an operating system for
>>> this era of interoperability and interconnected computer systems.
>>> And thus, by consequence, as laid out above, it all boils down to a
>>> matter of politics and deliberate corruption of the public opinion
>>> through FUD, harassment and obscuring.
>>
>> sorry but logically this is a 'non sequitur'. you cannot infer from
>> 'there is no technical reason not to use Linux' to 'therefore the only
>> reasons not to use it are political or corrupt.'
>
> of "security by obscurity" - for a waste of valuable bandwidth on the
> internet due to the fact that some 85 to 90% of all Windows machines on
> this planet being part of *at* *least* *one* botnet, with most of the
what "fact" jack? what anal cavity did you pull this 85-90% of all windows
machines being owned fact from little Rex?
it's not a fact if you can't prove it moron.
Steel
This is the nonsense I am talking about. The poster has absolutely no
evidence to supports its ridiculous claims about an 80 to 90% of
anything. It's just lip-service.
Chris Ahlstrom
> On 2010-10-16, Aragorn <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote:
>> However, I will humor you with this small but concise description: of
>> all operating systems in existence, Microsoft Windows is the worst
>> possible design.
>
> It is certainly the worst I have ever dealt with, and I've worked with
> quite a few over the last 30 years that I've been involved in the computer
> industry.
Windows has a *lot* of features. But to the point of being grotesque.
Windows Media Player, for example, exemplifies all that is wrong with
Microsoft's approach to computing.
> Linux is OK and that's what I use on my own systems, but I do miss TOPS-20.
> (Remember, if you don't have 36 bits you're not playing with a full DEC.)
Heh. Hadn't seen that one before! I used TOPS-10 in grad school.
God, I remember those long editing sessions using a line editor (whose name
I can't recall) on a green screen in a room full of carrels with
green-screen terminals.
Well do I remember the "scrinch" of the line-printers as the computer went
down, and the ensuing silence.
--
"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a necessity."
-- Oscar Wilde
felmon
> On Saturday 16 October 2010 07:49 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody
> identifying as felmon wrote...
>
>> On Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:04:39 +0200, Aragorn wrote:
>>
>>> The bottom line is that - as I've mentioned higher up already - from
>>> the purely technical perspective, there is nothing to warrant the use
>>> of Microsoft Windows anymore, since it is not an operating system for
>>> this era of interoperability and interconnected computer systems. And
>>> thus, by consequence, as laid out above, it all boils down to a matter
>>> of politics and deliberate corruption of the public opinion through
>>> FUD, harassment and obscuring.
>>
>> sorry but logically this is a 'non sequitur'. you cannot infer from
>> 'there is no technical reason not to use Linux' to 'therefore the only
>> reasons not to use it are political or corrupt.'
>
> I have already way elaborated on the technical aspects of a UNIX/POSIX
> operating system versus those of Microsoft Windows a long time ago, and
> ad nauseam. Therefore I saw no need to reiterate all of that in my
> previous post in this branch of the thread.
>
> However, I will humor you with this small but concise description: of
> all operating systems in existence, Microsoft Windows is the worst
> possible design.
thanks but I wasn't contesting the claims about the technical superiority
of one operating system to the other, I was contesting the logic of your
inference from 'X is not technically good therefore there are only
dishonorable reasons to use X'. that's still a non sequitur inspite of
your further elaborations.
please indulge me but I am going to cut some of your text which, though
interesting, doesn't speak to the point about logic.
[...]
> People running Windows on their systems are co-responsible for most of
> the badness on the >internet.
> [...]
this makes it sound like every Windows user is an infectious agent. if
that were so, it doesn't eliminate the non sequitur but it might argue
that whatever honorable reasons there are to use Windows, they are
outweighed by the damage it does. I don't buy the premise but that's a
different story.
apart from that, I agree with your assessment of Linux. I made my
original comment only because I didn't think your conclusion was
warranted, that's all.
Felmon
Aragorn
identifying as felmon wrote...
Now now, you are putting words into my mouth. Never have I said that
people's reasons for using Windows were dishonorable. What I did
attempt to convey however was that in my personal opinion and from the
purely technical perspective, there were _no_ _valid_ _reasons_ for
using Windows.
That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any reasons. Humans wouldn't
be humans if they did everything right and logically. And neither
would the world look like what it does today.
> that's still a non sequitur inspite of your further elaborations.
I don't see this as a non sequitur. Merely as something you
misunderstood. ;-)
>> People running Windows on their systems are co-responsible for most
>> of the badness on the >internet.
>> [...]
>
> this makes it sound like every Windows user is an infectious agent.
It is. No company has ever done so much for the proliferation of
computer viruses as Microsoft has, when it designed Windows. And on
top of that, Windows is spyware; it phones home once every week. There
is a way to disable this, but it requires a third-party (shareware)
tool, written by some French guy.
> if that were so, it doesn't eliminate the non sequitur but it might
> argue that whatever honorable reasons there are to use Windows, they
> are outweighed by the damage it does.
That was my whole point.
> I don't buy the premise but that's a different story.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Yet if you look at the very
design of Microsoft Windows and at the fact that Microsoft always
releases its software as production-ready when it is in fact still in
beta grade, then it's hard to disagree with the argument.
> apart from that, I agree with your assessment of Linux. I made my
> original comment only because I didn't think your conclusion was
> warranted, that's all.
As I said, you have misunderstood me then. ;-)
Thufir Hawat
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2010 18:10:08 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> Skype can be made to work on all of them. It just may not be a click on
>> this and install' type operation.
>
> Skype is easy to install, no problem.
http://www.skype.com/go/getskype-linux-beta-ubuntu-32
You *can* click to install, but it's not recommended. Similarly, WINE
does the same thing:
http://www.winehq.org/download/deb
but for a better reason.
Douglas Mayne
> Sigh. I keep posting and posting and posting this question, and I never
> seem to get a straight answer. That's why I stick to Windows.
>
> Let me try again (though I doubt anything constructive will come of this
> exercise).
>
> Target: a clueless newbie
>
Ouch...that person needs some education first. Turning anyone loose on
the internet is like walking around a dark alley at night; it's just
asking for trouble.
>
> who only uses the internet for light document
> creation (so I plan to use OpenOffice not a heavy duty document creation
> program like Microsoft Word),
>
OK, OpenOffice is a cross platform app, thus that shouldn't enter into
the discussion one way or another, whether Windows, Mac, or Linux is
chosen for the user.
> surfing the net,
OK, I touched on this above. Does surfing the net include online banking
sites? Buying stuff on EBay which usually requires paying with Paypal?
That's where I think the weak link to an _unpatched_ OS of any type
(Windows, Mac, Linux) runs into serious problems. Windows has certainly
improved its security model and now malware writers are moving to include
other ubiquitous targets for attack, including Java, Adobe Flash, Adobe
Reader, other browsers (including Firefox) to mention a few targets. All
of these need to be patched regularly, as does the operating system (and
MS Office if applicable). IMO, "Set and forget is not an option."
> email, but without a mail
> manager like Outlook (she just stores the emails online, no even bother
> to delete them and keeping them all in her 'inbox' LOL). Skype is now
> an option she wants, so sound must work (unlike last time). No need for
> multimedia aside from what's embedded in your browser of choice. I'll
> add Adobe Reader but I doubt she even uses that. Printer: any generic
> inkjet support is fine, preferably supporting some HP product.
>
> System: Pentium IV (note it's no longer a Pentium II, as per my earlier
> variant of this question). 1 GB Ram. 50 to 75 GB ATA HD. DSL external
> Modem attached to generic Ethernet card (note: no dialup modem anymore)
>
Good common specs. Should just work.
>
> Which Linux distro?
>
Any of them, but probably a Debian derivative (Ubuntu, Mint, etc.).
Personally, I use Slackware. It is compatible with the latest Debian
binaries, therefore, proprietary programs such as Skype will work with
it. The prerequisite to using Slackware is the ability to read and follow
instructions. IME, that is seriously lacking across the entire population.
> I cannot maintain this machine for this user--once I set it up, I plan
> to "set it and forget it".
>
As I said, that is a _very_ bad idea. It's just worse with Windows, IMO.
>I will not be doing maintenance on this
> machine except on a sporadic, once every few years basis. So I need
> something very stable.
>
Stability isn't the issue. It's about _security_.
>
> This should be an easy question to answer in Linux land--but as always I
> seem to get 10 different answers that seem to contradict each other.
>
Yeah, sure you do.
> Unless I hear a clear, straight answer, I plan to install Windows XP on
> this machine for this user.
>
Go for it. AFAIK, XP will be patched until 2014. That's a few years of
usage left, I guess. At the very least, make sure you pay to keep your
antivirus paid and some method to keep the defintions up to date.
> "thanks in advance"
>
> Note to my friends a COLA--this does not count towards the 30 day
> boycott of COLA since I'm only copying you. My Usenet group of interest
> is COLS.
>
> Goodbye.
>
> RL
>
Note: Comments inline.
Security is just a difficult problem. As hard as it is to believe, people
fall victim to scams, including online scams. The problem is magnified by
several orders of magnitude, if as you say, the user is "clueless newbie"
and is working on a system he/she cannot trust. The way you have
presented the problem is as a simple straw man type with no solution.
Therefore, my advice for you as presented, is to keep her off the
internet until she is prepared to be there. There are classes she can
register for (say, at community college, etc.) to at least be aware of
the problems and risks. Who knows, after the first week of classes, she
could even surpass your knowledge.
--
Douglas Mayne
felmon
ok. I misread the line that says,
>>>>> The bottom line is that - as I've mentioned higher up already - from
>>>>> the purely technical perspective, there is nothing to warrant the
>>>>> use of Microsoft Windows anymore, since it is not an operating
>>>>> system for this era of interoperability and interconnected computer
>>>>> systems. And thus, by consequence, as laid out above, it all boils
>>>>> down to a matter of politics and deliberate corruption of the public
>>>>> opinion through FUD, harassment and obscuring.
it sounded like the _use_ of Microsoft Windows "all boils down to a
matter of politics..." which would seemingly impugn the users. I guess
you mean this criticism to fall on the heads of Microsoft, not those who
use its products.
but later you wrote that
>>> People running Windows on their systems are co-responsible for most of
>>> the badness on the >internet.
>>> [...]
which does fall on the heads of users making them culpable for a
multitude of ills and thus dishonorable. but I guess you still are not
impugning their _reasons_ for using it.
about their reasons you say they have no valid technical reason to use it
but even then, they are outweighed by the damage use of the operating
system does, even if one has no choice but to use proprietary software
about which you seem to say:
> That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any reasons. Humans wouldn't
> be humans if they did everything right and logically. And neither would
> the world look like what it does today.
as if running necessary software weren't doing something "right and
logically."
I think you tar with a rather broad brush as if everyone using Microsoft
stuff is infecting others with malware and downplay the costs of
abandoning software necessary in the present state of play to business
and livelihood.
but I don't have much energy for mounting a defense of them. not only my
head-cold prevents it but my lack of enthusiasm for Windows. it is also
hard to mount a defense when one reads reports of tons of serious
security vulnerabilities.
> No company has ever done so much for the proliferation of
> computer viruses as Microsoft has, when it designed Windows. And on top
> of that, Windows is spyware; it phones home once every week. There is a
> way to disable this, but it requires a third-party (shareware) tool,
> written by some French guy.
can you give me a further hint about what this is about?
Felmon
Aragorn
identifying as felmon wrote...
Microsoft, affiliated hardware manufacturers, affiliated third-party
software developers/vendors, politicians and ostensibly obviously
pro-Microsoft IT journalism, yes.
> but later you wrote that
>
>>>> People running Windows on their systems are co-responsible for most
>>>> of the badness on the >internet.
>>>> [...]
>
> which does fall on the heads of users making them culpable for a
> multitude of ills and thus dishonorable. but I guess you still are not
> impugning their _reasons_ for using it.
They are co-responsible, albeit unknowingly so. Nobody would
voluntarily use an infected or botnet-enslaved machine, of course.
That's why viruses and botnets exist as they do, i.e. to inflict
whatever form of damage - e.g. a coordinated DDoS attack against a
domain, sending spam, etc. - without the computer owner knowing about
it.
> about their reasons you say they have no valid technical reason to use
> it but even then, they are outweighed by the damage use of the
> operating system does, even if one has no choice but to use
> proprietary software about which you seem to say:
>
>> That doesn't mean that there wouldn't be any reasons. Humans
>> wouldn't be humans if they did everything right and logically. And
>> neither would the world look like what it does today.
>
> as if running necessary software weren't doing something "right and
> logically."
That all depends on your definition of "necessary software". I have
exclusively been using GNU/Linux for eleven years now - from before I
had an internet connection, even - so I guess that in those eleven
years, I have never used any "necessary software".
In other words, "necessary" as defined by whom? And why did "they" deem
that software "necessary"?
> I think you tar with a rather broad brush as if everyone using
> Microsoft stuff is infecting others with malware and downplay the
> costs of abandoning software necessary in the present state of play to
> business and livelihood.
If abandoning whatever software has a cost, then that software is guilty
of vendor lock-in. Microsoft is the only software vendor whose
operating systems and proprietary application software is notoriously
(and deliberately) incooperative with other platforms, *especially* in
the event of GNU/Linux and FOSS, whereas FOSS on the other hand has the
largest collection of interoperable software and respect for
internationally agreed-upon standards.
> but I don't have much energy for mounting a defense of them. not only
> my head-cold prevents it but my lack of enthusiasm for Windows. it is
> also hard to mount a defense when one reads reports of tons of serious
> security vulnerabilities.
Wintrolls are by definition blind to all of those. They say we make it
up. We are after all a bunch of conspiring communists in their eyes.
>> No company has ever done so much for the proliferation of
>> computer viruses as Microsoft has, when it designed Windows. And on
>> top of that, Windows is spyware; it phones home once every week.
>> There is a way to disable this, but it requires a third-party
>> (shareware) tool, written by some French guy.
>
> can you give me a further hint about what this is about?
Apparently, as of Windows XP on, Windows contacts Microsoft once every
week to convey information about your computer to Microsoft. Part of
that information is with regard to the licensing - whether you are
still legitimately using your copy of Windows, etc. - while other
information may be your IP address - of which Microsoft claims that it
will only be used "for administrative purposes" and that it will not be
stored in their database. (Yeah, right, this is definitely a company
to be trusted, right?) Considering how the "Windows scripting
language" has access to all of your other information entered on a
Windows system - e.g. your e-mail address book, if you're using Outlook
(Express) - I wouldn't be surprised if that information were
transmitted to Microsoft and stored in some database as well. We are
after all talking of a company for whom the word "ethics" does not
exist.
There is a tool to disable this "phoning home", but it's not a Microsoft
tool. It's distributed as shareware and was developed by a Frenchman,
who discovered this "feature" of Windows. I don't have any further
information on it, other than that it requires some modifications to
the Registry, so apparently it's not as simple as disabling a
certain "service" from starting up. I don't use Windows, although I
will sometimes read stuff about it on occasion.
One Shot - One Kill
"Aragorn" <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
> On Monday 18 October 2010 07:03 in comp.os.linux.setup, somebody
>
> week to convey information about your computer to Microsoft. Part of
> that information is with regard to the licensing - whether you are
> still legitimately using your copy of Windows, etc. - while other
> information may be your IP address - of which Microsoft claims that it
> will only be used "for administrative purposes" and that it will not be
> stored in their database. (Yeah, right, this is definitely a company
> to be trusted, right?) Considering how the "Windows scripting
> language" has access to all of your other information entered on a
> Windows system - e.g. your e-mail address book, if you're using Outlook
> (Express) - I wouldn't be surprised if that information were
> transmitted to Microsoft and stored in some database as well. We are
> after all talking of a company for whom the word "ethics" does not
> exist.
nice load of bullshit little "rex ballard" junior.
I also like all of the "facts" and "proof" you supplied to support you
bullshit claims.
just because some lying piece of shit like you makes a claim means nothing.
either show some real proof to backup your bullshit lies or admit that you
are a lying piece of shit.
Aragorn
identifying as One Shot - One Kill wrote...
> "Aragorn" <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
> news:i9hv9m$vmc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> Apparently, as of Windows XP on, Windows contacts Microsoft once
>> every week to convey information about your computer to Microsoft.
>> Part of that information is with regard to the licensing - whether
>> you are still legitimately using your copy of Windows, etc. - while
>> other information may be your IP address - of which Microsoft claims
>> that it will only be used "for administrative purposes" and that it
>> will not be stored in their database. (Yeah, right, this is
>> definitely a company to be trusted, right?) Considering how
>> the "Windows scripting language" has access to all of your other
>> information entered on a Windows system - e.g. your e-mail address
>> book, if you're using Outlook (Express) - I wouldn't be surprised if
>> that information were transmitted to Microsoft and stored in some
>> database as well. We are after all talking of a company for whom the
>> word "ethics" does not exist.
>
> nice load of bullshit little "rex ballard" junior.
Ad hominem, my favorite. <eg> I don't even have to read the rest of
your post anymore, because you've already lost. And stop changing your
e-mail address in order to get out of people's killfiles.
> I also like all of the "facts" and "proof" you supplied to support you
> bullshit claims.
Much of what I have said in earlier posts came from slashdot.org and
from a very pro-Microsoft computer magazine to which I have canceled my
subscription /because/ of their pro-Microsoft bias.
But even if I were to find that magazine again and scan it and put it
online for you to see, you wouldn't be able to read it because it's in
Dutch, and that's not a language you understand. Hell, you can't even
speak English without swearing or insulting someone. Next thing you'll
be spewing up green pea soup and then we'll have to call an
excorcist...
> just because some lying piece of shit like you makes a claim means
> nothing. either show some real proof to backup your bullshit lies or
> admit that you are a lying piece of shit.
They only lying pieces of shit here are all of you Wintrolls. What the
hell are you so afraid of that you have to enter GNU/Linux newsgroups
and attack both the operating system and its users? Don't like it?
Fine, then don't use it. At least *we* are not dictating what you can
and cannot use on your computer.
In addition, I also don't think it's fair that a *troll* should be
accusing another person of being a liar. You've got *no* credibility
at all, simply *because* you are a troll, and a liar, and a defamer,
and a totally uneducated and unmannered primate. Even cavemen had
better manners than you.
Now go and update your virus definitions or something. Back into the
bin with you.
<plonk>
One Shot - One Kill
"Aragorn" <ara...@chatfactory.invalid> wrote in message
so the only place this info exists is in some ancient magazine.
funny that none of the millions of websites on the planet know nothing about
this.
funny that none of the worlds computer security experts knows nothing about
this.
funny how none of the worlds privacy watchdog groups knows nothing about
this.
how come the only person who knows about this is some lying piece of shit
like you.
RayLopez99
> Ouch...that person needs some education first. Turning anyone loose on
> the internet is like walking around a dark alley at night; it's just
> asking for trouble.
But I've walked dark alley's at night, in rough neighborhoods and
nothing happened. Did you know many crimes against the person occur
during daylight hours? More money that way.
> OK, I touched on this above. Does surfing the net include online banking
> sites? Buying stuff on EBay which usually requires paying with Paypal?
> That's where I think the weak link to an _unpatched_ OS of any type
> (Windows, Mac, Linux) runs into serious problems. Windows has certainly
> improved its security model and now malware writers are moving to include
> other ubiquitous targets for attack, including Java, Adobe Flash, Adobe
> Reader, other browsers (including Firefox) to mention a few targets. All
> of these need to be patched regularly, as does the operating system (and
> MS Office if applicable). IMO, "Set and forget is not an option."
> IMO, "Set and forget is not an option."
Very interesting. Very very. I appreciate your input. This is
starting to point me back to Windows XP for this user. If I have to
maintain it, even remotely, then I'd like to do so using my extensive
Windows experience, and not having to relearn another OS like Linux.
> > System: Pentium IV (note it's no longer a Pentium II, as per my earlier
> > variant of this question). 1 GB Ram. 50 to 75 GB ATA HD. DSL external
> > Modem attached to generic Ethernet card (note: no dialup modem anymore)
>
> Good common specs. Should just work.
>
> > Which Linux distro?
>
> Any of them, but probably a Debian derivative (Ubuntu, Mint, etc.).
> Personally, I use Slackware. It is compatible with the latest Debian
> binaries, therefore, proprietary programs such as Skype will work with
> it. The prerequisite to using Slackware is the ability to read and follow
> instructions. IME, that is seriously lacking across the entire population.
Interesting. So apparently though Linux "just works", if the distro
does not have the latest binaries for programs like Skype, you need to
tinker with it in such a way that's not easy to understand? That's
the gist of what you wrote as I read it.
>
> > I cannot maintain this machine for this user--once I set it up, I plan
> > to "set it and forget it".
>
> As I said, that is a _very_ bad idea. It's just worse with Windows, IMO.
Done. You just convinced me to stick with XP. Thanks.
End of thread.
RL
David W. Hodgins
> so the only place this info exists is in some ancient magazine.
It's every 90 days.
http://www.instantfundas.com/2010/02/beware-of-microsoft-windows-anti-piracy.html
--
Change nomail.afraid.org to ody.ca to reply by email.
(nomail.afraid.org has been set up specifically for
use in usenet. Feel free to use it yourself.)
The Natural Philosopher
many facts, in defense of your position.
I mean, really, what in your post, is of any value to anybody but yourself?
The Natural Philosopher
So, if windows 'just works' how come you need to buy a drawing program
and install it yourself? Suerly every program you ever might need comes
inside the box marked 'Windows XP'
?
chrisv
>I mean, really, what in your post, is of any value to anybody but yourself?
I mean, really, why not just KF the worthless asshole?
--
"Ubuntu is garbage." - "True Linux advocate" Hadron Quark
JEDIDIAH
> Aragorn wrote:
>>
>> From the purely technical perspective, there is, in my humble and
>> personal opinion, nothing valid to substantiate the use of Microsoft
>> Windows. Yes, I am aware of how certain types of proprietary software
>> may not have an equivalent version for GNU/Linux (or UNIX/POSIX in
>> general), and of how certain hardware is designed specifically /for/
>> Microsoft Windows. But that's a different debate.
>
> But is is why largely the Linux desktop community is so disadvantaged
> vis a vis the Microsoft one.
>
> linux distro, that would present and absolutely guaranteed standard AP
> interface to the OS for any third party commercial offering.
...or they could just do it the Windows way and make sure everything is
sorted out. It's not like they need to get a special license to distribute
relevant parts of the system. They could have a tarball that has the entire
system requirements on it top to bottom starting from libc if they wanted to.
Some companies already do this.
Pick a target and anyone you don't cover will meet you halfway if your
stuff is remotely compelling.
>
> And a standard way to prevent copy violation.
All DRM does is inconvenience ME the PAYING CUSTOMER.
--
Apple: Because if it's not from the iTunes store,
then it's pirated. |||
/ | \
Nico Kadel-Garcia
> On 2010-10-15, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Aragorn wrote:
>
> >> From the purely technical perspective, there is, in my humble and
> >> personal opinion, nothing valid to substantiate the use of Microsoft
> >> Windows. Yes, I am aware of how certain types of proprietary software
> >> may not have an equivalent version for GNU/Linux (or UNIX/POSIX in
> >> general), and of how certain hardware is designed specifically /for/
> >> Microsoft Windows. But that's a different debate.
>
> > But is is why largely the Linux desktop community is so disadvantaged
> > vis a vis the Microsoft one.
>
> > There needs to be a shim specification, a shim that can be added to any
> > linux distro, that would present and absolutely guaranteed standard AP
> > interface to the OS for any third party commercial offering.
>
> ...or they could just do it the Windows way and make sure everything is
> sorted out. It's not like they need to get a special license to distribute
> relevant parts of the system. They could have a tarball that has the entire
> system requirements on it top to bottom starting from libc if they wanted to.
Just Sorted Out? Oh, my, have you ever looked at the licensing
agreements for Windows software, and the installer conflicts?
"A Guaranteed AP" is not going to happen in any business or
development with more than one development crew. Look at the different
GUI's, alone, between IE 6 and IE 7, between Microsoft Word 97 and
Microsoft Word 2003, between the XP desktop and the Vista desktop.
Even one vendor with a ery powerful monopoly cannot, and never will,
keep it consistent across multiple distinct applications for more than
a single major release. Feature creep, and exciting new demoware, are
far too valuable.
The Linux world, and the underlying free software and open source
worlds, have their own issues. Raise your hands if you've evern had to
clean up software that violates the File System Hierarchy. (And
everyone who uses djbdns and daemontools and other Dan Bernstein
tools, I'm talking to you.)
> Some companies already do this.
Name one that doesn't feature creep or API burden its software in ways
expressly against the use of some of its customers. Name *one*.
> Pick a target and anyone you don't cover will meet you halfway if your
> stuff is remotely compelling.
Sorry, I've been "meeting halfway" for years on projects, and in many
cases the core developers refuse to budge.
> > And a standard way to prevent copy violation.
>
> All DRM does is inconvenience ME the PAYING CUSTOMER.
No, that's not all it does. It protects the revenue stream of the
software or data *distributors*. And I've seen enough wholesale theft
that I've found modest DRM to be useful in discouraging the most
blatant thieves. Unfortunately, it's often done so badly that it
hinders the customer: DVD region protection is that way. (DECSS,
available at Penguin Liberation Front, is amazingly useful for various
reasons, many of them entirely legitimate.)
Matt Giwer
Te Salude!
An excellent recitation.
--
Yes, I am lying. But hear me out. I have better lies than my opposition.
-- The Iron Webmaster, 4286
http://www.giwersworld.org/holo/nizgas3.html a4
Wed Oct 20 02:47:52 EDT 2010
JEDIDIAH
> On Oct 19, 10:11 am, JEDIDIAH <j...@nomad.mishnet> wrote:
>> On 2010-10-15, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > Aragorn wrote:
>>
>> >> From the purely technical perspective, there is, in my humble and
>> >> personal opinion, nothing valid to substantiate the use of Microsoft
>> >> Windows. Yes, I am aware of how certain types of proprietary software
>> >> may not have an equivalent version for GNU/Linux (or UNIX/POSIX in
>> >> general), and of how certain hardware is designed specifically /for/
>> >> Microsoft Windows. But that's a different debate.
>>
>> > But is is why largely the Linux desktop community is so disadvantaged
>> > vis a vis the Microsoft one.
>>
>> > There needs to be a shim specification, a shim that can be added to any
>> > linux distro, that would present and absolutely guaranteed standard AP
>> > interface to the OS for any third party commercial offering.
>>
>> ...or they could just do it the Windows way and make sure everything is
>> sorted out. It's not like they need to get a special license to distribute
>> relevant parts of the system. They could have a tarball that has the entire
>> system requirements on it top to bottom starting from libc if they wanted to.
>
> Just Sorted Out? Oh, my, have you ever looked at the licensing
> agreements for Windows software, and the installer conflicts?
I've written these things so don't try to bullshit me.
[deletia]
>> Some companies already do this.
>
> Name one that doesn't feature creep or API burden its software in ways
> expressly against the use of some of its customers. Name *one*.
I'm not even sure if this is on topic.
>
>> Pick a target and anyone you don't cover will meet you halfway if your
>> stuff is remotely compelling.
>
> Sorry, I've been "meeting halfway" for years on projects, and in many
> cases the core developers refuse to budge.
>
>> > And a standard way to prevent copy violation.
>>
>> All DRM does is inconvenience ME the PAYING CUSTOMER.
>
> No, that's not all it does. It protects the revenue stream of the
> software or data *distributors*. And I've seen enough wholesale theft
No it doesn't.
DRM doesn't stop pirates. It never did.
[deletia]
It didn't in 1983 and it doesn't in 2010. You would think that
developers and companies would get the hint after awhile.
--
Nothing quite gives you an understanding of mysql's |||
popularity as does an attempt to do some simple date / | \
manipulations in postgres.
Aragorn
identifying as Matt Giwer wrote...
> On 10/15/2010 08:45 AM, Aragorn wrote:
>
> Te Salude!
>
> An excellent recitation.
Thank you, Sir. I am pleased that you have found it of value. ;-)
Aragorn
identifying as chrisv wrote...
> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>
>> I mean, really, what in your post, is of any value to anybody but
>> yourself?
>
> I mean, really, why not just KF the worthless asshole?
And what makes you think that we don't, or haven't, for that matter? It
just so happens to be that the pathetic slime keeps on adding subtle
spelling changes to both his nym and his e-mail address so as to escape
killfiles.
That said, instead of just adding the umpteenth killfilter for the
weasel, I am going to apply some heuristics to keep him out of my view.
And in addition to that, I'm going to start killfiling every thread
which has comp.os.linux.advocacy - which is a group most definitely
*not* about GNU/Linux advocacy at all - in the thread's group list.
If I had any desire to see Windroid drivel and be insulted, then I would
have stayed in said group. However, I have left C.O.L.A. somewhere in
2006, and *still* those psychotic Windiots know how to clutter my view
with their three-word vocabulary from the gutterside kindergarten.
They are a waste of valuable oxygen which could otherwise be inhaled by
humans.
No more, I say.
chrisv
> somebody identifying as chrisv wrote...
>
>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>
>>> I mean, really, what in your post, is of any value to anybody but
>>> yourself?
>>
>> I mean, really, why not just KF the worthless asshole?
>
>And what makes you think that we don't, or haven't, for that matter? It
>just so happens to be that the pathetic slime keeps on adding subtle
>spelling changes to both his nym and his e-mail address so as to escape
>killfiles.
Doesn't happen to me. Any any case, there's no reason, that I can
think of, to play with the idiot.
--
"people want Windows. And if they don't have Windows they will fail."
AZ Nomad
>And what makes you think that we don't, or haven't, for that matter? It
>just so happens to be that the pathetic slime keeps on adding subtle
>spelling changes to both his nym and his e-mail address so as to escape
>killfiles.
When I run into a nymshifter, I kf the ISP.
Sometimes I have to finetune the rule or add exceptions, but I'd
rather do that than see any more turds from the numshifter.
William Poaster
> Aragorn wrote:
>
>> somebody identifying as chrisv wrote...
>>
>>> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mean, really, what in your post, is of any value to anybody but
>>>> yourself?
>>>
>>> I mean, really, why not just KF the worthless asshole?
>>
>>And what makes you think that we don't, or haven't, for that matter? It
>>just so happens to be that the pathetic slime keeps on adding subtle
>>spelling changes to both his nym and his e-mail address so as to escape
>>killfiles.
>
> Doesn't happen to me. Any any case, there's no reason, that I can
> think of, to play with the idiot.
Doesn't happen to me, either.
Once a wintroll is binned, they stay binned. :-)
--
Cpio - A Star Wars Movie archiving droid.
FreeBSD 8.1 64-bit; Kubuntu 10.04 64-bit
Kubuntu 10.10 64-bit; Scientificlinux 5.5 64-bit
One Shot - One Kill
"chrisv" <chr...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:osdub69hioua164dj...@4ax.com...
more lies from the shitty asshole calling itself "chrisv"