The beginning of the end for microsoft
unicat
no less...
While the bloated giant Microsoft is buying favorable publicity
in News-fluff magazines with promises of big chunks of
advertising for the X-flop video game, smart firms are realizing
the truth - Microsoft is in serious trouble.
Not that they don't have loads of cash on hand, they can create
imaginary cashflow any time they want just by moving their own
money from one pocket to the other...
But they are not capturing the hearts and minds of the techno-
savvy, and their standards are going over like the proverbial turd
in a punchbowl. Active directory, the MS proprietary version of XML,
and the .net initiative, all are seeing adoption rates down around 1/5th
of the overall market.
But worse, major manufacturers are beginnning to break ranks. IBM will
spend a billion dollars beefing up Linux this year, and HP is not far
behind.
Sun, which has done the best of any of the UNIX vendors mostly because
of their
steadfast refusal to corrupt their product line with MS pollution, has
now bought
a manufacturer of Linux servers to augment its low-end systems.(Sun, by
the way,
is roughly the same size as MS, why everyone gets so excited about a
pipsqueak company like MS is beyond me).
But one development that should have rocked the newsworld is that
struggling
UNIX maker SGI is dropping all support for MS Windows based platforms.
This is so illustrative of the real nature of the computer marketplace
that it bears
more examination. Two years ago, a troubled SGI fell under the influence
of MS, and
was seduced into adding a WNT workstation to its product line. But
instead of a windfall
the new systems caused a near collapse of the company. Customers lost
confidence in
SGI's core UNIX systems, fearing that they would eventually be phased
out, sales
plumetted, and the stock fell from $24 to $2. Finally coming to their
senses, SGI has excorsized
the MS demon, refocused on UNIX (and Linux) and is now on the road to
recovery.
BTW - their stock is an incredibly undervalued bargain, you could buy
the whole company for
less than the value of their assets.
SGI is hardly a market leader, but their realization of the detrimetnal
effect of supporting
windows simply reinforces the mass move away from Microsoft being
carried out more
surreptitiously by the larger manufacturers.
Microsoft isn't laying still, they are hedging their bets by
diversifying into hardware. They
have announced the X-box (how you make money by selling a box that you
have to subsidize
by 1/3 of its sales price remains a mystery, but it might explain rumors
that production levels
are being held back significantly - bad news for games authors, but hey,
dance with the devil,
and you deserve what you get). And of course there is the new Microsoft
PC, which will attempt
to do away with all legacy standards(ISA, PCI, parallel ports, serial
ports, etc.) so that everyone
is forced to upgrade to it in order to run the new version of Windows
Xtremely Proprietary.
Or... the hardware makers that MS is betraying MIGHT, just might, decide
to fight back by investing
in Linux as an alternative OS..... wait a minute, they're already DOING
THAT. Maybe PC makers
aren't as dumb as they look.
Any way, enough MS bashing for now. We'll just close by saying that the
author will bet anyone reading
an imaginary nickel that MS stock is down to $10/share by 2003....
Alex Colvin
and for another opinion...
> the truth - Microsoft is in serious trouble.
There's much wishful thinking going around on this matter.
I'm not sure whether I disagree with you, but I'm not
persuaded. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
They've been seriously threatened before and managed to pull
their body parts out of the fire. Besides, they *live* for
serious trouble.
> But they are not capturing the hearts and minds of the techno-
> savvy, and their standards are going over like the proverbial turd
As the saying goes, "if you have them by the balls, their hearts
and minds will follow".
> But worse, major manufacturers are beginnning to break ranks. IBM will
These major manufacturers are always breaking ranks, which is why they
have been unable to mount any effective counter to Microsoft.
Microsoft has achieved success as much through the confusion and
weakness of its enemies as by its strategy and strength.
> Microsoft isn't laying still, they are hedging their bets by
> diversifying into hardware. They
SGI has never been as much of a threat as Nintendo.
As game consoles start connecting to networks, Microsoft hedges
their workstations by moving into servers.
Chris Hedley
> SGI is hardly a market leader, but their realization of the detrimetnal
> effect of supporting windows
Just to focus on this one point, it is apparent that the various "collaborations"
with Microsoft are almost inevtiably extremely detrimental to the partner
company. The fallout between MS and IBM is the stuff of which legends are
made, and years later, whilst at DEC, although the MS alliance most likely
wasn't instrumental in DEC's downfall, I thought that it was certainly a nail
in the coffin, something I also observed in various other companies which had
dealings with MS.
Chris.
--
//USENET01 JOB (CBH,ISA),'TALKING BOLLOCKS',REGION=4000K,CLASS=F,
// MSGCLASS=A,PASSWORD=WIBBLE,USER=CBH,COND=(04,LT)
Peter Seebach
>The following are the editorial opinions of the author- no more
>no less...
That may be, but I feel obliged to point out rumors that 3M recently passed
an internal edict that no Microsoft development platforms would be used for
new internal products. If other companies that actually *use* computers
start defecting, even half-heartedly, Microsoft could lose big.
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting & Computers: http://www.plethora.net/
Anonymous
because of its huge portfolio of
cash and investments. Even if they
made no revenue, they could survive
on cash and investments for a while.
Their biggest liability is their size.
It makes them a lot less agile and less
responsive to customers.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Featuring the worlds only Anonymous Usenet Server
-----------== http://www.newsfeeds.com ==----------
Peter Seebach
>Actually, as far as the X box goes, I've talked to a game developer
>from a well known game company, that is anxious for X box to succeed.
>The reason is that the other big console boxes charge huge license
>fees ($20-40 per game), thus making games more expensive and cutting
>into profits.
I have no confidence that Microsoft won't do this too, *if* their box
succeeds.
>So in this sense, even though I dislike Microsoft, if they can help
>break open other markets, then that's good (as long as they don't turn
>around and monopolize it later).
I certainly hope they lose horribly in that market. It doesn't need
Windows-type reliability.
Interconnect
> break open other markets, then that's good (as long as they don't turn
> around and monopolize it later).
detrimental to end users. Irrespective of whether it is MS or Sony or x...
Interconnect
Alex Colvin <aco...@bbn.com> wrote in message
news:3B13EFB9...@bbn.com...
> >The following are the editorial opinions of the author- no more
>
> and for another opinion...
>
> > the truth - Microsoft is in serious trouble.
>
> There's much wishful thinking going around on this matter.
> I'm not sure whether I disagree with you, but I'm not
> persuaded. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.
> They've been seriously threatened before and managed to pull
> their body parts out of the fire. Besides, they *live* for
> serious trouble.
Just curious. Do you own any MS stock? If not perhaps you should invest
*today*.
> > But they are not capturing the hearts and minds of the techno-
> > savvy, and their standards are going over like the proverbial turd
>
> As the saying goes, "if you have them by the balls, their hearts
> and minds will follow".
The key word here being "*if*"
> > But worse, major manufacturers are beginnning to break ranks. IBM will
>
> These major manufacturers are always breaking ranks, which is why they
> have been unable to mount any effective counter to Microsoft.
> Microsoft has achieved success as much through the confusion and
> weakness of its enemies as by its strategy and strength.
Good Point. MS power still comes from the *HUGE* user base that operate the
Windows platform. "*IF*" this starts to shift that's the day MS will be in
*real* trouble. GO LINUX!! GO! Hehehe.
David Fox
> According to unicat <uni...@olg.com>:
> > SGI is hardly a market leader, but their realization of the detrimetnal
> > effect of supporting windows
>
> Just to focus on this one point, it is apparent that the various
> "collaborations" with Microsoft are almost inevtiably extremely
> detrimental to the partner company. The fallout between MS and IBM
> is the stuff of which legends are made, and years later, whilst at
> DEC, although the MS alliance most likely wasn't instrumental in
> DEC's downfall, I thought that it was certainly a nail in the
> coffin, something I also observed in various other companies which
> had dealings with MS.
I can vouch for the damage that SGI's association with Microsoft has
done to them. I have a relative who works for Lucasfilm, and the
whole episode was a huge headache.
David Fox
> Microsoft is far from being dead because of its huge portfolio of
> cash and investments. Even if they made no revenue, they could
> survive on cash and investments for a while.
I would enjoy seeing them try this.
Morten Bjoernsvik
:
> SGI is hardly a market leader, but their realization of the detrimetnal
> effect of supporting windows simply reinforces the mass move away from
> Microsoft being carried out more surreptitiously by the larger
> manufacturers.
(that point needs some clarification, sorry if a bit on the side :-))
At that time "Rocket" Rick Belluzzo was the CEO of SGI, effectively
canning
project like the O2 follow up, cutting MIPS high end CPU development
like Beast and Alien. Things that made very bad impact on SGI irix-line.
SGI320 and 540 was too specialized to really succeed. SGI had to
invest heavily into driver development and maintenance to get WinNT
and then win2000 to work well. costs not justified in the mainstream
ia-32 market. Excellent machines but a bit too pricey.
But back to Rocket Rick:
He got a lot of whiz around the farenheit agreement, which actually
meant
SGI giving up all its intellectual property in hardware graphics to get
a uniform openGL api. DirectX started as a rip off of openGL. and like
everything M$ puts their hands on they introduce incompatibilities and
propiretary functionality.
Rocket Rick also spread FUD about commitment to irix and abandoning the
high
end graphics in a speech to shareholders on 10august1999.
But then finally the board of directors fired him.
That was an effective end to Windows/M$ at SGI.
And now that man is President and COO of Microsoft! It's a small world.
--
MortenB
Anonymous
the effect of exercisable stock options
is well documented in the SEC filings.
There's really nothing really "fraudulent"
about it. It's pretty much standard practice
with all companies.
Companies usually do stock buybacks to offset
the dilutive effect of incentive stock options.
Most financial statements include diluted earnings
per share which takes into account things like stock
options.
Financial accounting can be a pretty complex subject.
That is why accounting textbooks are so thick.
Dave Martel wrote:
>
> On Tue, 29 May 2001 18:24:47 -0400, Anonymous
> <anon...@anonymous.anonymous> wrote:
>
> >Microsoft is far from being dead
> >because of its huge portfolio of
> >cash and investments. Even if they
> >made no revenue, they could survive
> >on cash and investments for a while.
>
> Maybe not:
>
> <http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html>
>
> >Their biggest liability is their size.
> >It makes them a lot less agile and less
> >responsive to customers.
--------== Posted Anonymously via Newsfeeds.Com ==-------
Anonymous
Well they could fire all their employees
and hire a handful of engineers to support
Linux.
Sundial Services
In many respects, Microsoft is infected with "IBM Disease," and by that
I am referring to the attitude that Lou Gertsner almost singlehandedly
-cured- IBM of: namely, that "we are the world, or the only world that
matters."
Certainly no one can ignore the fact that Microsoft's systems are
becoming more bloated, and more sluggish, even as they become more and
more proprietary; more and more bundled with (e.g. Office). Furthermore
the strategy of producing a new version every year -and- numbering it
with the current year ... makes it more obvious to even the most
insensitive manager that "maybe we should wait until -next- year." From
that it's not a far leap to, "maybe we should just stick to what we
got."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sundial Services :: Scottsdale, AZ (USA) :: (480) 946-8259
mailto:in...@sundialservices.com (PGP public key available.)
> Fast(!), automatic table-repair with two clicks of the mouse!
> ChimneySweep(R): "Click click, it's fixed!" {tm}
> http://www.sundialservices.com/products/chimneysweep
John Unekis
How is MS going to make any money on the X-box????
They supposedly have to subsidize the hardware to the tune
of over $100 per box to get it price-competitive with PS/2.
Then they aren't going to charge licenses on the game
cartridges?
Where's the beef? This sounds like a sure-fire recipe for
disaster. No that I wouldn't LOVE to see MS get its hand
in the garbage disposal for a while, but wassup? Has Mr. Bill
gotten senile in his old age?
Darin Johnson wrote:
> unicat <uni...@olg.com> writes:
>
> > While the bloated giant Microsoft is buying favorable publicity
> > in News-fluff magazines with promises of big chunks of
> > advertising for the X-flop video game, smart firms are realizing
> > the truth - Microsoft is in serious trouble.
>
> Actually, as far as the X box goes, I've talked to a game developer
> from a well known game company, that is anxious for X box to succeed.
> The reason is that the other big console boxes charge huge license
> fees ($20-40 per game), thus making games more expensive and cutting
> into profits.
>
Ayende Rahien
"John Unekis" <uni...@olg.com> wrote in message
news:3B146F59...@olg.com...
> All MS-bashing aside, I have a very sincere question.
> How is MS going to make any money on the X-box????
> They supposedly have to subsidize the hardware to the tune
> of over $100 per box to get it price-competitive with PS/2.
> Then they aren't going to charge licenses on the game
> cartridges?
> Where's the beef? This sounds like a sure-fire recipe for
> disaster. No that I wouldn't LOVE to see MS get its hand
> in the garbage disposal for a while, but wassup? Has Mr. Bill
> gotten senile in his old age?
No, they aren't going to charge *as much as Sony* on the licenses.
They are certainly going to charge for licenses, just not as much as Sony.
cjt & trefoil
Mart van de Wege
> The following are the editorial opinions of the author- no more no
> less...
>
> While the bloated giant Microsoft is buying favorable publicity in
> News-fluff magazines with promises of big chunks of advertising for the
> X-flop video game, smart firms are realizing the truth - Microsoft is in
> serious trouble.
>
> Not that they don't have loads of cash on hand, they can create
> imaginary cashflow any time they want just by moving their own money
> from one pocket to the other...
>
> But they are not capturing the hearts and minds of the techno- savvy,
> and their standards are going over like the proverbial turd in a
> punchbowl. Active directory, the MS proprietary version of XML, and the
> .net initiative, all are seeing adoption rates down around 1/5th
>
> of the overall market.
<snipping the rest as the point should be clear by now>
I had a discussion on this topic just last night with a friend. The major
problem MS is facing is that their software has reached feature
saturation, ie it is becoming progressively harder to add features that
can be marketed as a value addition. This means that competitors now will
have a static target to compete against. Short of changing their file
formats on every release, MS will have no incentive to offer their
customers anymore, and customers are wising up to the 'incompatible file
format caroussel'.
With their software turning into a commodity product, MS's corporate
strategy, until now based on a manufacturing model, *must* turn to a
service model in order to maintain profit growth (remember that stocks
are rated on their profit *growth* not profitability per se). The problem
with a service model based on commodity software is that there is
virtually no barrier to entry for competitors, so MS is now doing
everything it can to survive this corporate changeover and enter the
service market with as large a marketshare as possible. Thus the pathetic
attemps at keeping control of the desktop.
The major competitor to MS is not the Free Software/Open Source movement,
it is established service companies, like IBM or HP (which has a sizeable
consulting division) or Accenture (formerly Andersen Consulting). These
are big guys and established names to go up against. MS is really
counting on .NET giving it a strategic advantage (leveraging Windows yet
again), but I think that this will become an uphill struggle for them. I
don't see MS losing a lot of marketshare, I think competition will be
hard pressed to get them under 75%, but I will forecast that the years of
double digit profit growth are at an end, and the resulting hard weather
for MS will lead to active competition in the software industry again.
Mart
(follow-up to misc.invest.stocks kept as this is on-topic for them)
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
Andrew McLaren
> The following are the editorial opinions of the author- no more
This is off-topic for comp.arch.
Now, back to discussing instruction level parallelism ...
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Microsoft is far from being dead
> because of its huge portfolio of
> cash and investments. Even if they
> made no revenue, they could survive
> on cash and investments for a while.
Which is getting them in trouble with the SEC for trying to use
their stock-holdings revenue to cover up for the underwhelming
sales of Lose2000 and LoseME
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Peter da Silva
> All MS-bashing aside, I have a very sincere question.
> How is MS going to make any money on the X-box????
> They supposedly have to subsidize the hardware to the tune
> of over $100 per box to get it price-competitive with PS/2.
> Then they aren't going to charge licenses on the game
> cartridges?
It's called "buying market share".
The next generation will probably start making money.
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- nic...@esperi.org
Disclaimer: WWFD?
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> All MS-bashing aside, I have a very sincere question.
> How is MS going to make any money on the X-box????
> They supposedly have to subsidize the hardware to the tune
> of over $100 per box to get it price-competitive with PS/2.
> Then they aren't going to charge licenses on the game
> cartridges?
> Where's the beef? This sounds like a sure-fire recipe for
> disaster. No that I wouldn't LOVE to see MS get its hand
> in the garbage disposal for a while, but wassup? Has Mr. Bill
> gotten senile in his old age?
Loss-leader until they achieve a monopoly position.
>
> Darin Johnson wrote:
>
> > unicat <uni...@olg.com> writes:
> >
> > > While the bloated giant Microsoft is buying favorable publicity
> > > in News-fluff magazines with promises of big chunks of
> > > advertising for the X-flop video game, smart firms are realizing
> > > the truth - Microsoft is in serious trouble.
> >
> > Actually, as far as the X box goes, I've talked to a game developer
> > from a well known game company, that is anxious for X box to succeed.
> > The reason is that the other big console boxes charge huge license
> > fees ($20-40 per game), thus making games more expensive and cutting
> > into profits.
> >
> > So in this sense, even though I dislike Microsoft, if they can help
> > break open other markets, then that's good (as long as they don't turn
> > around and monopolize it later).
Paul Repacholi
> In article <3B146F59...@olg.com>, John Unekis <uni...@olg.com> wrote:
> > All MS-bashing aside, I have a very sincere question.
> > How is MS going to make any money on the X-box????
> > They supposedly have to subsidize the hardware to the tune
> > of over $100 per box to get it price-competitive with PS/2.
> > Then they aren't going to charge licenses on the game
> > cartridges?
>
> It's called "buying market share".
And it is as Illegal as it gets.
BTW, where IS the 3 nice judges? They may well be the bogs biggest
problem.
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
Spam-To: u...@ftc.gov,enfor...@sec.gov,sn...@fcc.gov,hfur...@fcc.gov,
mpo...@fcc.gov,gtri...@fcc.gov
Erik Funkenbusch
news:3B145EB8...@optonline.net...
> The effect of share dilution through
> the effect of exercisable stock options
> is well documented in the SEC filings.
>
> There's really nothing really "fraudulent"
> about it. It's pretty much standard practice
> with all companies.
>
> Companies usually do stock buybacks to offset
> the dilutive effect of incentive stock options.
Indeed. In fact, the recent stock market slump allowed MS to buy back stock
at a profit (at much lower rates than they optioned and sold the stock to
their employees in the first place)
Erik Funkenbusch
> But back to Rocket Rick:
> He got a lot of whiz around the farenheit agreement, which actually
> meant
> SGI giving up all its intellectual property in hardware graphics to get
> a uniform openGL api. DirectX started as a rip off of openGL. and like
> everything M$ puts their hands on they introduce incompatibilities and
> propiretary functionality.
Uhh.. not true. As usual, people like you confuse DirectX with Direct3D.
DirectX includes a ton of stuff not related to 3D at all.
Direct3D was bought by MS, and was not created as an OpenGL ripoff (in fact,
they are nothing alike).
Ed Allen
>
>So in this sense, even though I dislike Microsoft, if they can help
>break open other markets, then that's good (as long as they don't turn
>around and monopolize it later).
Why would you expect new spots on the same old leopard ?
Bill has said that the only way to make serious profits is through
having a "singularity".
He is attempting to skirt around the Sherman act by not using the
word "monopoly".
It will help no more than calling bank robbery an "unscheduled
withdrawal".
--
Microsoft Motto: Illegal we do immediately.
Unconstitutional takes a little longer.
Anonymous
> Which is getting them in trouble with the SEC for trying to use
> their stock-holdings revenue to cover up for the underwhelming
> sales of Lose2000 and LoseME
Do you mean their investment income?
That's always listed as a separate item
on their income statement.
Also, any cash flow from operations
and financing activities are also
separated.
These are all defined by GAAP
(Generally Accepted Accounting Principles).
CEOs may attempt to mislead investors
by highlighting only net income. But
the astute investor should know how
to look at the details carefully in the
SEC 10-Q filing.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > Which is getting them in trouble with the SEC for trying to use
> > their stock-holdings revenue to cover up for the underwhelming
> > sales of Lose2000 and LoseME
>
> Do you mean their investment income?
>
> That's always listed as a separate item
> on their income statement.
By LAW, yes. But, as we know, Mafia$oft has very little respect for
the law, and moved a lot of their blackmail income into the "sales" column.
>
> Also, any cash flow from operations
> and financing activities are also
> separated.
Yes, that's the way the LAW reads...but Mafai$oft is not known for
even recognizing the law, let along following it.
Bloody Viking
Peter Seebach (se...@plethora.net) wrote:
: That may be, but I feel obliged to point out rumors that 3M recently passed
: an internal edict that no Microsoft development platforms would be used for
: new internal products. If other companies that actually *use* computers
: start defecting, even half-heartedly, Microsoft could lose big.
It's safe to say that Microshit is in trouble with the server market. It's the
home user market that Microshit has the near-monopoly. Same with the office
LAN client computers. Just ask home users which OS they use, and it's always
Windows of some flavour. You might get lucky and find a Mac user or more rare,
a Linux user. I happen to be one of those rare Linux home users.
Linux is an OS that appeals to techie types, not normal home users in general.
The install can be a pain depending on equipment and distro used. At times,
you get to play "hacker" with the install, like on a stubborn laptop. Being a
Linux fan, I have to admit that it's not an OS for everyone, certainly not
yet.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
CUIDADO: Las Puertas Estan Listo Para Cerrar.
Bernd Paysan
> Linux is an OS that appeals to techie types, not normal home users in general.
> The install can be a pain depending on equipment and distro used. At times,
> you get to play "hacker" with the install, like on a stubborn laptop. Being a
> Linux fan, I have to admit that it's not an OS for everyone, certainly not
> yet.
No normal user ever installs his OS, at least not when you don't have to
(as it is often necessary with Windows 9x). The distributor installs it.
And the distributor installs it by cloning the hard disk. Cloning the
hard disk is not a bit more difficult on Linux than on Windows (except
that Linux has the hard disk clone program as part of every
distribution: dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdc).
The main "install nightmare" issue comes from wanabe techies who try to
install Linux themselves and fail. A lot of them would fail if they had
to try to install Windows, too.
Ah, and BTW: Installing Linux with current distribution doesn't even
give the slightest kick of "hacker achievement" as it did in Slackware's
time.
--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/
John Hoagland
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
Not yours, I hope.
Didn't Microsoft also reissue duplicate stock options when it was about 40?
2 + 2
Shun Yan Cheung
Bernd Paysan <bpa...@mikron.de> wrote:
>
>Ah, and BTW: Installing Linux with current distribution doesn't even
>give the slightest kick of "hacker achievement" as it did in Slackware's
>time.
Yeah, they have made it too darn easy to install Linux now...
For that matter, even Solaris installation has become too easy...
I used to dread OS upgrades, now I just pop in a CD and let it rip...
--
``Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly''
cjt & trefoil
drsquare wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2001 14:37:45 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (che...@mathcs.emory.edu (Shun Yan Cheung)) wrote:
>
> >In article <3B166799...@mikron.de>,
> >Bernd Paysan <bpa...@mikron.de> wrote:
>
> >>Ah, and BTW: Installing Linux with current distribution doesn't even
> >>give the slightest kick of "hacker achievement" as it did in Slackware's
> >>time.
>
> >Yeah, they have made it too darn easy to install Linux now...
> >For that matter, even Solaris installation has become too easy...
> >I used to dread OS upgrades, now I just pop in a CD and let it rip...
>
> Is it any easier than downloading it?
Shun Yan Cheung
Downloading is just a way to obtain the binary, but what happens
after getting the binary has improved tremedously. It used to be
that you have to find out exactly what kind of hardware (disks,
video cards, etc) you have inside your computer to do the installation.
Configuring the Xserver was particularly a royal pain in the butt...
you had to fond the resolution, refresh rate, and on and on and on....
Charlie Ebert
With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
upgrade their fleet!
They'll end up buying a NEW PC for everybody as buying the
software just won't work. You can't run XP on yesterdays
Pentiums and Pentium II's. It's a complete waste of time.
--
Charlie
-------
longhaul
>The following are the editorial opinions of the author- no more
>no less...
>
>While the bloated giant Microsoft is buying favorable publicity
>in News-fluff magazines with promises of big chunks of
>advertising for the X-flop video game, smart firms are realizing
>the truth - Microsoft is in serious trouble.
>
This is all well and good for you techy's who understand computers. I
don't. MSFT is user friendly to me. Sorry. Just my opinion. I hate
to go counter with millstox but us non-techies owe our computers to
MSFT.
Chris Morgan
> The install can be a pain depending on equipment and distro used. At
> times, you get to play "hacker" with the install, like on a stubborn
> laptop.
This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
never have to.
--
Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://www.mihalis.net
Temp sig. - Enquire within
Ben Franchuk
> This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> never have to.
Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
David Fox
Michael Vester
I find myself in the same situation. Despite my pro Linux stance and lack
of any respect for losedos, my friends and relatives call me for help.
Many times, the solution is a reinstall or even a format and reinstall. I
have done more losedos installs than I can remember. I should get an
honorary MSCE. My Linux advocacy is starting to pay off. My father is now
a very happy Red Hat Linux user. I can easily support him with ssh.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
Ben Franchuk
I find myself in the same situation. Despite my pro Linux stance and lack
> of any respect for losedos, my friends and relatives call me for help.
> Many times, the solution is a reinstall or even a format and reinstall. I
> have done more losedos installs than I can remember. I should get an
> honorary MSCE. My Linux advocacy is starting to pay off. My father is now
> a very happy Red Hat Linux user. I can easily support him with ssh.
--
rather than needing a @$#! network card. While I have re-installed both
for a lot of dumb reasons, one advantage of linux is you can with a little
work backup and restore your HD from boot floppies. Doze you can't easily
backup and restore ( crash computer - load w95 - find all driver of other
CD's - load backup software - restore computer )
Ben.
--
"We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents...
We borrow it from our children."
"Luna family of Octal Computers" http://www.jetnet.ab.ca/users/bfranchuk
Updated - Now with schematics.
Stuart Fox
"Charlie Ebert" <kd...@charlie.ebertlan> wrote in message
news:slrn9hdle...@charlie.ebertlan...
> In article <3B13DDE9...@olg.com>, unicat wrote:
>
> With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
> the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
> of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
> upgrade their fleet!
Duh! Volume licensing...
>
> They'll end up buying a NEW PC for everybody as buying the
> software just won't work. You can't run XP on yesterdays
> Pentiums and Pentium II's. It's a complete waste of time.
Pentium II's should be fine, Pentiums no.
Wim Lauwers
>
> Peter Seebach (se...@plethora.net) wrote:
>
> : That may be, but I feel obliged to point out rumors that 3M recently passed
> : an internal edict that no Microsoft development platforms would be used for
> : new internal products. If other companies that actually *use* computers
> : start defecting, even half-heartedly, Microsoft could lose big.
>
> It's safe to say that Microshit is in trouble with the server market. It's the
> home user market that Microshit has the near-monopoly. Same with the office
> LAN client computers. Just ask home users which OS they use, and it's always
> Windows of some flavour. You might get lucky and find a Mac user or more rare,
> a Linux user. I happen to be one of those rare Linux home users.
>
> Linux is an OS that appeals to techie types, not normal home users in general.
> The install can be a pain depending on equipment and distro used. At times,
> you get to play "hacker" with the install, like on a stubborn laptop. Being a
> Linux fan, I have to admit that it's not an OS for everyone, certainly not
> yet.
Installing wasn't any problem for me, and I like Linux a lot, though
there are other things that aren't mature yet. KDE sometimes hangs or
crashes, installing apps isn't consistent and requires more work than
on Windows, even with RPMs (menu-entries etc.). You still need some
commandline work to get things done. There is the real work to attract
typical Windowsusers. One or two years more, I guess...
Wim
Michael Vester
>
> Michael Vester wrote:
> I find myself in the same situation. Despite my pro Linux stance and lack
> > of any respect for losedos, my friends and relatives call me for help.
> > Many times, the solution is a reinstall or even a format and reinstall. I
> > have done more losedos installs than I can remember. I should get an
> > honorary MSCE. My Linux advocacy is starting to pay off. My father is now
> > a very happy Red Hat Linux user. I can easily support him with ssh.
> --
> I favor debian linux over Red Hat as debian you can upgrade via a modem
> rather than needing a @$#! network card. While I have re-installed both
> for a lot of dumb reasons, one advantage of linux is you can with a little
> work backup and restore your HD from boot floppies. Doze you can't easily
> backup and restore ( crash computer - load w95 - find all driver of other
> CD's - load backup software - restore computer )
> Ben.
Linux makes backing up easy by separating user data from everything else.
Just backup the home directory. losedos scatters user data all over the
place. I use a zip drive for my backups. For my single losedos computer, I
have a Ghost image on a cd ready to go. I backup the data on my losedos
computer to my Linux server and hope I get all of it.
I find a network card install in Linux quite simple. It has been over 4
years since I used a dial-up ISP. A Linux install with a network card with
my ISP requires setting the IP address, gateway and name servers. I never
experienced a Linux install that did not identify the NIC and load the
correct drivers.
Aaron R. Kulkis
Pre-installed Linux is MUUUUUUUUUCH more user-friendly than
pre-installed LoseDOS can ever hope for.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> David Fox wrote:
> >
> > Ben Franchuk <bfra...@jetnet.ab.ca> writes:
> >
> > > Chris Morgan wrote:
> > > > This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> > > > Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> > > > never have to.
> > >
> > > Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
> > > once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
> >
> > Unfortunately, they usually fail and call me for help.
>
> I find myself in the same situation. Despite my pro Linux stance and lack
> of any respect for losedos, my friends and relatives call me for help.
> Many times, the solution is a reinstall or even a format and reinstall. I
> have done more losedos installs than I can remember. I should get an
Maybe you should install RedHat instead
"Say...what if I could get you out of this mess...FOREVER.
I'll give you something that you can play around with for a week.
And if you like it, you can upgrade off the net for FREE..FOREVER."
> honorary MSCE. My Linux advocacy is starting to pay off. My father is now
> a very happy Red Hat Linux user. I can easily support him with ssh.
>
> --
> Michael Vester
> A credible Linux advocate
>
> "The avalanche has started, it is
> too late for the pebbles to vote"
> Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
Burkhard Wölfel
True. Win95 on 31 floppy disks, darn.
--
---------------------------------------------
Burkhard Wölfel
v e r s u c h s a n s t a l t (at) g m x . de
pubkey for this adress @ pgp.net
---------------------------------------------
Burkhard Wölfel
drsquare wrote:
>
> On 31 May 2001 14:37:45 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (che...@mathcs.emory.edu (Shun Yan Cheung)) wrote:
>
> >In article <3B166799...@mikron.de>,
> >Bernd Paysan <bpa...@mikron.de> wrote:
>
> >>Ah, and BTW: Installing Linux with current distribution doesn't even
> >>give the slightest kick of "hacker achievement" as it did in Slackware's
> >>time.
>
> >Yeah, they have made it too darn easy to install Linux now...
> >For that matter, even Solaris installation has become too easy...
> >I used to dread OS upgrades, now I just pop in a CD and let it rip...
>
> Is it any easier than downloading it?
The boxed distribution setup, as known to many windows users, has become
_so_ easy. SuSE 7.1 even configures most printers automatically during
graphic setup, former PITA for many new users - there's not much that's
missing, is it? Let's wait another year, or half a year, it's gonna be
interesting.
Relating on the subject header: I think the beginning of the end was
when the Linux developers decided to have the system communicate to the
user in a different style, I mean the GUIed configs, setup and stuff:
The tone is different, it's friendly and explanatory. I found many of my
questions answered before even asked when I checked it out first.
Windows talks to me like TV ads on setup, claiming everything.
There's people who say their MSWin doesn't crash. Mine always did, 5-20
times a week. I worked around many problems switching between imaged
versions of my system. I learned to tweak it this way and that way, but
_nothing_ provided by the package itself helped me, it was all third
party products and information.
Now think of the "advertising" during setup again. The "information"
provided, the style, the f1-help, the install handbook. It's ridiculous.
But this is the "normal" user's door into computing.
I know, any system has to be maintained. But MSWin implies the opposite.
I think that Linux is not _that_ complicated at all, it's like read, ask
and learn for some months and then smile. It has it's pains, the thresh
is still too high for most users. But MSWin's pains are harder, they get
you unexpectedly, the put the blame on you and sell products to you.
(Does anyone know how many of the third parties , like documentation
providers, system tools and so on, are owned by MS? <ironic
class="half"> ...tactic?</ironic> )
It's convenient at first and shoots you in the back when you
_really_need it. (no, not the bullet, the OS)
I guess MS is going to lose many slightly advanced users. The XP
registration progress scares many european users, I don't know what it's
like in the US. The price is also a reason to consider migration to OSS
OS's.
Burkhard Wölfel
I called the support hotline of my distro (SuSE) once.
-they didnt have one of those expensive "0180"-lines, as most
commercial hotlines in Germany do.
-they told me that my ditribution was out of date and so was my right
for support. Then they helped me solve my problems and asked me not to
call again.
I was amazed.
Did anyone have such an experience with a Microsuffe'd helpline? Ben?
Burkhard Wölfel
You are right, nothing to be sorry about.
You'll be sorry enough soon, wait until it'll f### you up.
Work around the traps to avoid it, but it's not much less than learning
Linux.
I even think it's harder. But perhaps I am wrong, MSWin is so
unpredictable, perhaps your system is all fine?
Ketil Z Malde
> But worse, major manufacturers are beginnning to break ranks. IBM will
> spend a billion dollars beefing up Linux this year, and HP is not far
> behind.
In short, expect AIX, HP-UX, IRIX and other niche Unices to gradually
find their way to whatever pastures aging OSes go to, and the
companies put effort behind Linux to put in whatever enterprise
functionality necessary.
> Sun,
will probably keep Solaris around for a while. They're not in danger
of marginalization for a while. I'm not entirely sure what Compaq
will do, probably let their Unix stuff become marginalized, and push
Linux as an alternative on their PeeCees.
> Microsoft isn't laying still, they are hedging their bets by
> diversifying into hardware.
They will have to be rather brilliant to keep and expand their
dominance. They own most desktops, true enough, but with obnoxious
pricing and control schemes, people are bound to at least look at
alternatives to some degree. And while their home turf is, if not in
imminent danger, then certainly under attack, they find
their other fronts, like
. WinCE vs. embedded Linux, and the existing RTOSes (mostly VxWorks?)
. Xbox vs Sony, Sega and Nintendo
. Windows whatever Advanced whatever Server vs. the above mentioned
Unix crowd, sporting z900s, starfires, galaxies, and superdomes.
are not a given victory, by a long shot.
-kzm
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Ben Franchuk
>
> Ben Franchuk wrote:
> >
> > Chris Morgan wrote:
> > > This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> > > Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> > > never have to.
> >
> > Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
> > once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
>
> True. Win95 on 31 floppy disks, darn.
the HD for this old machine came with windows pre-installed.
(No drivers)
I have to keep a copy of the w95 install on older HD and swap
disks around to install w95.
Michael Vester
>
> Michael Vester wrote:
> >
> > David Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > Ben Franchuk <bfra...@jetnet.ab.ca> writes:
> > >
> > > > Chris Morgan wrote:
> > > > > This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> > > > > Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> > > > > never have to.
> > > >
> > > > Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
> > > > once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, they usually fail and call me for help.
> >
> > I find myself in the same situation. Despite my pro Linux stance and lack
> > of any respect for losedos, my friends and relatives call me for help.
> > Many times, the solution is a reinstall or even a format and reinstall. I
> > have done more losedos installs than I can remember. I should get an
>
> Maybe you should install RedHat instead
>
> "Say...what if I could get you out of this mess...FOREVER.
> I'll give you something that you can play around with for a week.
> And if you like it, you can upgrade off the net for FREE..FOREVER."
>
help elsewhere. The owner of the consulting firm that I sometimes work
from, is my next project. His losedos 98 systems are starting to show
signs of losedos rot. I won't reinstall, I will solve his problem
permanently with Linux.
Toon Moene
> This is all well and good for you techy's who understand computers. I
> don't. MSFT is user friendly to me. Sorry. Just my opinion. I hate
> to go counter with millstox but us non-techies owe our computers to
> MSFT.
Unfortunately, I'm not all that convinced that giving computers (i.e.
having the company install them on their desks) to non-techies is really
a good idea.
Daily I have to deal with people mailing Microsoft Word documents around
who would be (from looking over their shoulder when they're "working")
much more efficient using an IBM Selectric with a Courier ball.
--
Toon Moene - mailto:to...@moene.indiv.nluug.nl - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)
GreyCloud
>
> "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@charlie.ebertlan> wrote in message
> news:slrn9hdle...@charlie.ebertlan...
> > In article <3B13DDE9...@olg.com>, unicat wrote:
> >
> > With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
> > the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
> > of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
> > upgrade their fleet!
>
> Duh! Volume licensing...
Still too damn expensive. The latest report from Redmonds own marketing
analysts have said that Office XP is becoming too expensive and that end
users are balking at spending that much money on it. Sales are slower
than expected during Thursdays launch of Office XP.
> >
> > They'll end up buying a NEW PC for everybody as buying the
> > software just won't work. You can't run XP on yesterdays
> > Pentiums and Pentium II's. It's a complete waste of time.
>
> Pentium II's should be fine, Pentiums no.
--
V
GreyCloud
I find it comical to see on FOX news network the constant advertisements
of "Professor Windows" to teach you how to use windows... and all the
Wintrolls says its so easy and intuitive.
--
V
GreyCloud
>
> unicat <uni...@olg.com> writes:
>
> > But worse, major manufacturers are beginnning to break ranks. IBM will
> > spend a billion dollars beefing up Linux this year, and HP is not far
> > behind.
>
> In short, expect AIX, HP-UX, IRIX and other niche Unices to gradually
> find their way to whatever pastures aging OSes go to, and the
> companies put effort behind Linux to put in whatever enterprise
> functionality necessary.
>
> > Sun,
>
> will probably keep Solaris around for a while. They're not in danger
> of marginalization for a while. I'm not entirely sure what Compaq
> will do, probably let their Unix stuff become marginalized, and push
> Linux as an alternative on their PeeCees.
>
Slowy, but surely, Sun is incorporating more linux software packages
into their lineup. Take a look at their recent bundles... Gnome WM...
gcc... GIMP... etc. And they take it the necessary step further to add
documentation to those that they do support.
> > Microsoft isn't laying still, they are hedging their bets by
> > diversifying into hardware.
>
> They will have to be rather brilliant to keep and expand their
> dominance. They own most desktops, true enough, but with obnoxious
> pricing and control schemes, people are bound to at least look at
> alternatives to some degree. And while their home turf is, if not in
> imminent danger, then certainly under attack, they find
> their other fronts, like
>
> . WinCE vs. embedded Linux, and the existing RTOSes (mostly VxWorks?)
> . Xbox vs Sony, Sega and Nintendo
> . Windows whatever Advanced whatever Server vs. the above mentioned
> Unix crowd, sporting z900s, starfires, galaxies, and superdomes.
>
> are not a given victory, by a long shot.
>
> -kzm
> --
> If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
--
V
WesTralia
>
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <kd...@charlie.ebertlan> wrote in message
> > news:slrn9hdle...@charlie.ebertlan...
> > > In article <3B13DDE9...@olg.com>, unicat wrote:
> > >
> > > With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
> > > the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
> > > of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
> > > upgrade their fleet!
> >
> > Duh! Volume licensing...
>
> Still too damn expensive. The latest report from Redmonds own marketing
> analysts have said that Office XP is becoming too expensive and that end
> users are balking at spending that much money on it. Sales are slower
> than expected during Thursdays launch of Office XP.
Everyone is waiting for Monday's launch of Office XP II that contains
the new and improved Office XP II file formats which will obsolete the
Office XP file formats.
Personally, I prefer having an ice cold beer and putting a clothes pin
on a dog's tail and watching it spin in circles.
--
Erik Funkenbusch
news:slrn9hdle...@charlie.ebertlan...
>
> With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
> the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
> of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
> upgrade their fleet!
Where do you get those figures?
MS hasn't released pricing on XP yet, and those prices are much higher than
the current Win2k pricing (which was the same as the NT4 pricing before it).
Herr Maestro Bantz
>
>
> Personally, I prefer having an ice cold beer and putting a clothes pin
> on a dog's tail and watching it spin in circles.
>
> --
Also try tape on a cat's paw, base of tail or my fav across the forehead and
ears...
WesTralia
LOL!
Now I have something to do this weekend!
--
Rob Barris
<er...@visi.com> wrote:
I'm sure he's referring to Office XP. Pricing was shown on CNBC on
5/31/01 - I thought it was $239 for upgrade, $479 for new.
Rob
KSG
"Michael Vester" <mve...@v-wave.com> wrote in message
news:3B17417E...@v-wave.com...
> Ben Franchuk wrote:
> I find a network card install in Linux quite simple. It has been over 4
> years since I used a dial-up ISP. A Linux install with a network card with
> my ISP requires setting the IP address, gateway and name servers. I never
> experienced a Linux install that did not identify the NIC and load the
> correct drivers.
Maybe I could get you to install Linux on my computer. I've tried Debian
and Red Hat, neither found my NIC, and I could never get networking to work.
Win2k came up just fine with networking and all.
KSG
David Fox
> Michael Vester wrote:
> >
> > David Fox wrote:
> > >
> > > Ben Franchuk <bfra...@jetnet.ab.ca> writes:
> > >
> > > > Chris Morgan wrote:
> > > > > This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> > > > > Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> > > > > never have to.
> > > >
> > > > Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
> > > > once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
> > >
> > > Unfortunately, they usually fail and call me for help.
> >
> > I find myself in the same situation. Despite my pro Linux stance and lack
> > of any respect for losedos, my friends and relatives call me for help.
> > Many times, the solution is a reinstall or even a format and reinstall. I
> > have done more losedos installs than I can remember. I should get an
>
> Maybe you should install RedHat instead
I took this route with my wife, but the fact is that while installing
any operating system can be difficult, actually USING windows is, on
the balance, a lot easier than using Linux. For example, there is a
lot of handholding when it comes to typesetting chinese characters in
LaTeX. I imaging the Microsoft equivalent would be considerably
easier. Viewing faxes has always been problematic under Linux, and so
on.
Ayende Rahien
"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:v4qfhtk6m9kue2hlc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 11:27:57 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Burkhard Wölfel <burkhard.NO...@mail.uni-oldenburg.de>)
> wrote:
>
> >Ben Franchuk wrote:
>
> >> Chris Morgan wrote:
> >> > This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> >> > Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> >> > never have to.
> >>
> >> Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
> >> once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
> >
> >True. Win95 on 31 floppy disks, darn.
>
Roughly 250, I believe.
Ayende Rahien
"WesTralia" <WesT...@house.invalid> wrote in message
news:3B17FFBA...@house.invalid...
> Everyone is waiting for Monday's launch of Office XP II that contains
> the new and improved Office XP II file formats which will obsolete the
> Office XP file formats.
Office XP (except for PPT), uses 2K's file formats.
Ayende Rahien
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 02:55:54 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Ayende Rahien" <don't...@spam.me>) wrote:
>
> >"drsquare" <now...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> >news:v4qfhtk6m9kue2hlc...@4ax.com...
>
> >> >> once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
>
> >> >True. Win95 on 31 floppy disks, darn.
>
> >> I wonder how many you'd need for 2K
>
> >Roughly 250, I believe.
>
Really? You must be able to type *really* fast.
Ian Pulsford
>
> In article <3B166799...@mikron.de>,
> Bernd Paysan <bpa...@mikron.de> wrote:
> >
> >Ah, and BTW: Installing Linux with current distribution doesn't even
> >give the slightest kick of "hacker achievement" as it did in Slackware's
> >time.
>
> Yeah, they have made it too darn easy to install Linux now...
> For that matter, even Solaris installation has become too easy...
> I used to dread OS upgrades, now I just pop in a CD and let it rip...
>
> ``Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly''
You're all right, we should make it virtually impossible to install so's
we can keep those stupid, scary people outside of Mum's basement away
from Linux.
IanP
Ian Pulsford
>
> Bloody Viking wrote:
> > Linux is an OS that appeals to techie types, not normal home users in general.
> > The install can be a pain depending on equipment and distro used. At times,
> > you get to play "hacker" with the install, like on a stubborn laptop. Being a
> > Linux fan, I have to admit that it's not an OS for everyone, certainly not
> > yet.
>
> No normal user ever installs his OS, at least not when you don't have to
> (as it is often necessary with Windows 9x). The distributor installs it.
> And the distributor installs it by cloning the hard disk. Cloning the
> hard disk is not a bit more difficult on Linux than on Windows (except
> that Linux has the hard disk clone program as part of every
> distribution: dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdc).
>
> The main "install nightmare" issue comes from wanabe techies who try to
> install Linux themselves and fail. A lot of them would fail if they had
> to try to install Windows, too.
That is so arrogant. If you tried to install the Yoyodyne 2020 system
first time you would probably fail too. You are saying inexperienced
people shouldn't even try. First time I ever tried DOS, OS/2, Linux,
and FreeBSD I failed at installations. I redid them till I got them
right. You are no smarter than the average man on the street, the only
advantage you have is experience. Determined people always succeed
eventually, those who don't usually just aren't interested in installing
an OS in any case.
IanP
Michael Vester
I always de-activate the PnP feature on any NIC. Yes, I have to use dos
and run the little dos configuration program that comes with the NIC. I
pick io and irq that won't conflict with anything else and I let the
configuration utility do its thing. PnP is kind of a Mr. Clippy for
hardware, useless. Manually setting irqs, io ports is trivial.
I should correct my previous statement, Linux has never failed to detect
and install a NIC with PnP de-activated.
John Bayko
>>
>> will probably keep Solaris around for a while. They're not in danger
>> of marginalization for a while. I'm not entirely sure what Compaq
>> will do, probably let their Unix stuff become marginalized, and push
>> Linux as an alternative on their PeeCees.
>
> Slowy, but surely, Sun is incorporating more linux software packages
> into their lineup. Take a look at their recent bundles... Gnome WM...
> gcc... GIMP... etc. And they take it the necessary step further to add
> documentation to those that they do support.
I've even seen Sun officials refer to Solaris as "Sun's version of
the Linux kernel".
John Bayko
>> News-fluff magazines with promises of big chunks of advertising for the
>> X-flop video game, smart firms are realizing the truth - Microsoft is in
>> serious trouble.
>> But they are not capturing the hearts and minds of the techno- savvy,
>> and their standards are going over like the proverbial turd in a
>> punchbowl. Active directory, the MS proprietary version of XML, and the
>> .net initiative, all are seeing adoption rates down around 1/5th
> <snipping the rest as the point should be clear by now>
>
> I had a discussion on this topic just last night with a friend. The major
> problem MS is facing is that their software has reached feature
> saturation, ie it is becoming progressively harder to add features that
> can be marketed as a value addition. This means that competitors now will
> have a static target to compete against.
[...]
> With their software turning into a commodity product, MS's corporate
> strategy, until now based on a manufacturing model, *must* turn to a
> service model in order to maintain profit growth
[...]
This is precisely what I said in an email earlier today, but in a
fair bit more detail. What the heck, I'll just add it here - skip it now
if you aren't interested:
This is true. Office 2000 has been a bust, in Microsoft terms. So
has many of their recent launches - in fact, ever since Windows 94
(renamed Windows 95 cause - well, you know Microsoft and schedules...)
was introduced with a $250M+ USD marketing budget, and sold almost
exactly as many copies as new computers that year (ie. nobody but a few
nerds upgraded), each new Microsoft introduction has been met with less
enthusiasm than the one before. Most press articles I've seen about
Office XP have been "Yawn, more features I won't use, but clippy the
office assistant is dead. Upgrade if you have to, I've got better things
to do."
Software has long since ceased to provide any added value with new
releases. It is reaching the point Microsoft instinctively fears, but
can't seem to put its finger on - a commodity. You can get 95-98% of
Microsoft Office for free, from Software602, a company which provides it
as a loss-leader to get publicity for its more interesting products.
Historically, software has always been this way. Until PCs,
operating systems and system software was simply stuff companies tossed
in with the hardware customers bought. An anomaly in performance growth
and price reduction made this unprofitable, and third party companies
were able to use volume markets to cover development costs, and as a
side effect sell additional software which integrates with their system
software (Microsoft's product tying - IE with Windows to cut out
Netscape, for example).
The improvement in technology is what made new applications
possible, and these new applications created a new, chaotic industry
which simply couldn't be followed. Nobody knew what the heck a computer
fundamentally was anymore. The Late Douglas Adams (sniff) pointed this
out (I'm sure you can find the quite for yourself - roughly it traces "a
computer is really a..." perceptions from calculator, to typewriter, to
television, to sales brochure). But the computer industry parallels the
chemical industry of the beginning of the 20th century, surprisingly
closely (except personal chemical refineries never caught on).
Once "Chemistry" settled down into "Fields of chemistry", each of
which could be designed for and optimized, it became mature. If you
wanted to make stretchy polymers, you know roughly what the factory is
going to look like before you've even settled on the chemical formula to use.
I reckon that about 2/3 of the possible uses for computers have been
discovered. Once the majory of the other 1/3 have been found,
programming will change from an art to an engineering discipline. Each
application will have its set of standard algorithms, user interfaces,
storage formats, and links to other systems.
Many areas already have this. Word processors are all the same.
Spreadsheets are essentially identical. They differ cosmetically.
And operating systems have been mature for twenty years, more or
less. There have been conceptual improvements (two extremes are the
Amoeba operating system by Tannenbaum, which took OS principles to their
most elegant limits - and left them there, and Plan 9, by Thompson,
Pike, Ritchie, and the other Unix creators, which takes it to its most
practical). Some of those ideas are very, very slowly percolating
through the current software mess, but the profit is still in discovery
of the rest of the 1/3 computer uses, there is practically no profit in
refining the current 2/3, except in the high-performance cases (where
Windows does extraordinarily badly, incidentally).
A strong factor in this is the fact that software is persistent.
Once you write a program, it will function forever. You only need to
improve it once, and those improvements can be distributed immediately -
you do not need to recall it for a refit as if it were a Ford Pinto.
This is why a software project like Linux can be incrementally improved
by independent developers, in very, very small pieces - the pieces add
up eventually. The Internet helps, but this was done for years before it
existed, because of software's persistent nature.
These two factors - the maturity of certain software fields that
Microsoft depends on for growth, and the incremental improvements
possible to software without "ownership" of property - are seriously
eating into Microsoft's future. It's really a dead-end future, depending
on growth, so Microsoft must encourage upgrades to generate revenue. The
word "subscription" has come up (they do that now for large businesses,
they want to extend that service to smaller companies, possibly
eventually individuals).
Ultimately, Microsoft will need to change to a service company. I
think they know that. They can use their software to leverage their
services, but not forever - once competing software (both open and
proprietary - BeOS and Amiga aren't dead yet, they have both built up a
software commodity base that enables them to be used for complete
product - one from Sony, the other from an unnamed PDA company) provides
the equivalent functionality of Microsoft's "Intellectual Property" (a
misnomer :), their leverage will disappear, and may even become a
hindrance. A good comparison is banking machines - any bank trying to
set up and support their own network of banking machines that work only
for its own customers will be unable to compete with the network of
machines that all interact using the industry standard, and many banks
did try just that when the technology was introduced. Even with a bigger
individual network than the others, which performed exactly the same
function, they simply couldn't compete because of non-technology factors.
Fundamentally, I usually describe it as "it's a new industry, people
don't know any better, it will get sorted out in time". That's a simpler
way of putting it, but isn't as informative.
Terry Porter
and it was *way* more fun than the new XP Office formats!
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
Free Micro burner: http://jsno.downunder.net.au/terry/
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
cjt & trefoil
>
> Bernd Paysan wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > The main "install nightmare" issue comes from wanabe techies who try to
> > install Linux themselves and fail. A lot of them would fail if they had
> > to try to install Windows, too.
>
> That is so arrogant. If you tried to install the Yoyodyne 2020 system
> first time you would probably fail too. You are saying inexperienced
> people shouldn't even try. First time I ever tried DOS, OS/2, Linux,
> and FreeBSD I failed at installations. I redid them till I got them
> right. You are no smarter than the average man on the street, the only
> advantage you have is experience. Determined people always succeed
> eventually, those who don't usually just aren't interested in installing
> an OS in any case.
>
> IanP
Doesn't that just confirm his main point, which is that installation of Linux
is no worse than Windows?
Ben Franchuk
>
> That is so arrogant. If you tried to install the Yoyodyne 2020 system
> first time you would probably fail too. You are saying inexperienced
> people shouldn't even try. First time I ever tried DOS, OS/2, Linux,
> and FreeBSD I failed at installations. I redid them till I got them
> right. You are no smarter than the average man on the street, the only
> advantage you have is experience. Determined people always succeed
> eventually, those who don't usually just aren't interested in installing
> an OS in any case.
And with new computers you DOZE bundled with Wxx already installed.
How if you want an computer with NO OS you don't get $XXX discount
for not having Wxx?
GreyCloud
>
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2001 13:40:06 -0700, GreyCloud <whol...@tscnet.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Still too damn expensive. The latest report from Redmonds own marketing
> >analysts have said that Office XP is becoming too expensive and that end
> >users are balking at spending that much money on it. Sales are slower
> >than expected during Thursdays launch of Office XP.
>
> in the same building as the XP launch in Florida?
>
> <http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/01/1540231&mode=thread>
>
> "...Microsoft wasn't too bothered by the Suncoast Linux User's Group,
> as long as they stayed in their little Linux Land yard at the back of
> the room. But apparently the MS bulldogs had unofficially marked the
> front portico outside as their exclusive territory (maybe it was the
> giant blow-up Office XP box out there that made them think so). When a
> few of the Linux dogs ... er, group decided to go outside and pass out
> Linux CDs and free copies of Linux Journal magazine, the closed-source
> powers-that-be growled and snarled menacingly..."
>
> Wish I'd been there. Heh heh!
HAHAHA!!! That reminds me when I was in Redmond during MS rollout of
Win95. They had these big bubble tents that needed airblowers to keep
them inflated... and people would enter to see Windows 95 in action...
sort of like a peep show! :-)) All that air and hype you'd think it was
getting ready to lift off of the ground. :-)
--
V
Toon Moene
> > Slowy, but surely, Sun is incorporating more linux software packages
> > into their lineup. Take a look at their recent bundles... Gnome WM...
> > gcc... GIMP... etc. And they take it the necessary step further to add
> > documentation to those that they do support.
> I've even seen Sun officials refer to Solaris as "Sun's version of
> the Linux kernel".
Doesn't that mean that it should be referred to as: GNU/Solaris ?
Hey - it's a joke ! Careful with that axe ...
-- NO CARRIER --
Chris Morgan
> Chris Morgan wrote:
> > This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> > Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> > never have to.
>
> Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
> once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
I thought most people only got "restore" cds which put it back how the
manufacturer set it up (no doubt with special care over their
particular hardware choices etc). I'm talking about a full install. I
don't know that many people who have done that out of the people I
know who use Windows. That could be unusual of course.
--
Chris Morgan <cm at mihalis.net> http://www.mihalis.net
Temp sig. - Enquire within
Bill Todd
"Chris Morgan" <c...@mihalis.net> wrote in message
news:87pucmv...@dumpster.mihalis.net...
...
> I thought most people only got "restore" cds which put it back how the
> manufacturer set it up (no doubt with special care over their
> particular hardware choices etc). I'm talking about a full install. I
> don't know that many people who have done that out of the people I
> know who use Windows. That could be unusual of course.
The only time this ever happened to me was with the purchase of an IBM
Thinkpad recently. Otherwise, every new (desktop) PC I've ever bought came
with a full (OEM) version of Windows (or DOS, with my first Leading Edge
PC-XT and a used AST 386 I got next) that allowed a full-fledged
installation. Of course, since the Leading Edge and AST they've all (4 more
at present count) been third-tier-manufacturer systems - Dell, Compaq, and
Gateway might do things differently.
- bill
Erik Funkenbusch
news:rbarris-B96ADC...@news.newsguy.com...
Ahh.. perhaps. And, as usual, Charlie exagerates to make his point.
Erik Funkenbusch
news:cKUR6.846$Dd.205...@news.randori.com...
This is a big problem with Linux. Many cards use a common chipset, which is
fine if Linux can detect it, but if it can't, you may not know what chipset
it's using, and the companies web site usually doesn't say.
Rick
My Compaq laptop came with a restore CD and no window$ CD.
--
Rick
Larry Elmore
>
> Ian Pulsford wrote:
> >
> > That is so arrogant. If you tried to install the Yoyodyne 2020 system
> > first time you would probably fail too. You are saying inexperienced
> > people shouldn't even try. First time I ever tried DOS, OS/2, Linux,
> > and FreeBSD I failed at installations. I redid them till I got them
> > right. You are no smarter than the average man on the street, the only
> > advantage you have is experience. Determined people always succeed
> > eventually, those who don't usually just aren't interested in installing
> > an OS in any case.
>
> And with new computers you DOZE bundled with Wxx already installed.
> How if you want an computer with NO OS you don't get $XXX discount
> for not having Wxx?
If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car? _If_ there was a
sufficiently large market for cars without certain major systems,
certainly the manufacturers and dealers would offer some that way.
Obviously, there simply isn't enough demand for computers without OS's.
Anybody wanting a computer without an OS can _build one from parts_!
(anyone who can install a non-Windows OS can certainly build their own
system) How much money will you save by _not_ paying for Windows that
way? Not very much, if you price it out. Most people I know that build
their own systems pay _more_ for the box because they want known
high-quality components, not the unknown generics that are liable to
show up in a cheap pre-built box. You certainly wouldn't save
triple-digit amounts!!!
> "We do not inherit our time on this planet from our parents...
> We borrow it from our children."
And those of us who do not have children, are we stealing the planet
from other people's children? Or are they stealing it from us? :)
Larry
Ben Franchuk
> If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car? _If_ there was a
> sufficiently large market for cars without certain major systems,
> certainly the manufacturers and dealers would offer some that way.
> Obviously, there simply isn't enough demand for computers without OS's.
What would you say instead if the car manufactures all got together
and said "we will only make Automatic Transmissions". Nobody drives
standard anymore. For a $500 upgrade we will fix "drive" shifting into
"park" and add 2 speed reverse.
Just food for thought.
Ayende Rahien
"Larry Elmore" <ljel...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3B196CF9...@home.com...
> Anybody wanting a computer without an OS can _build one from parts_!
They don't even have to do that.
They can go to a computer store, hand the clerk Dell's ad, and say, I want a
computer like that, without OS, make it so.
And they will *get* it.
Rick
Yeah?... walk into circuit city and say that.
--
Rick
Ayende Rahien
"Rick" <nom...@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:3B1991F5...@nomail.com...
Okay, are you going to pay for my plane ticket?
Terry Porter
> "Rob Barris" <rba...@quicksilver.com> wrote in message
> news:rbarris-B96ADC...@news.newsguy.com...
<snip>
>> I'm sure he's referring to Office XP. Pricing was shown on CNBC on
>> 5/31/01 - I thought it was $239 for upgrade, $479 for new.
>
> Ahh.. perhaps. And, as usual, Charlie exagerates to make his point.
>
>
>
Last week I saw an ad in a major newspaper, here in Australia, for
Office XP, and the upgrade was $1100, the non upgrade $1500.
Paul Repacholi
> > >> I wonder how many you'd need for 2K
> >
> > >Roughly 250, I believe.
> >
> > Fuck me. It'd be quicker to write the OS yourself.
>
> Really? You must be able to type *really* fast.
Not if reliability was the end point :)
--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
Spam-To: u...@ftc.gov,enfor...@sec.gov,sn...@fcc.gov,hfur...@fcc.gov,
mpo...@fcc.gov,gtri...@fcc.gov
Stuart Fox
"Terry Porter" <tjpo...@gronk.porter.net> wrote in message
news:slrn9hjb08....@gronk.porter.net...
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2001 14:37:47 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com>
wrote:
> > "Rob Barris" <rba...@quicksilver.com> wrote in message
> > news:rbarris-B96ADC...@news.newsguy.com...
>
> <snip>
> >> I'm sure he's referring to Office XP. Pricing was shown on CNBC on
> >> 5/31/01 - I thought it was $239 for upgrade, $479 for new.
> >
> > Ahh.. perhaps. And, as usual, Charlie exagerates to make his point.
> >
> >
> >
>
> Last week I saw an ad in a major newspaper, here in Australia, for
> Office XP, and the upgrade was $1100, the non upgrade $1500.
>
upgrade. You aussies are getting stiffed.
Larry Elmore
>
> Larry Elmore wrote:
> > If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> > mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> > install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> > a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car? _If_ there was a
> > sufficiently large market for cars without certain major systems,
> > certainly the manufacturers and dealers would offer some that way.
> > Obviously, there simply isn't enough demand for computers without OS's.
> You mean other M$ os's.
No, I meant _no_ OS, just like you wrote earlier.
> What would you say instead if the car manufactures all got together
> and said "we will only make Automatic Transmissions". Nobody drives
> standard anymore. For a $500 upgrade we will fix "drive" shifting into
> "park" and add 2 speed reverse.
If nobody drove standard anymore, what difference would it make? As long
as enough people drive standard to make it worth their while, they
_will_ make cars with manual transmissions, though if demands drops off
enough, they will likely cost more than an automatic simply due to
economies of scale.
> Just food for thought.
Good thing I'm already on a diabetic diet. :)
Larry
GreyCloud
Well, I don't think the staff at Circuit City would have any in stock
built that way anyway... its just a mass retail outlet. They ship in
boxes and push out the door boxes. That is all they are interested in.
A computer Renaisance store opened up here and I can get them to build a
computer from parts of my choice with or without an o/s installed.
--
V
GreyCloud
My IBMs restore CD, which I had to use a few times, formats the hard
drive and then installs from scratch.
--
V
GreyCloud
That's what I saw as well in Office Depot and Staples. Those prices
were upgrade prices for Office XP.
--
V
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <aku...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > Michael Vester wrote:
> > >
> > > David Fox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ben Franchuk <bfra...@jetnet.ab.ca> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Chris Morgan wrote:
> > > > > > This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> > > > > > Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> > > > > > never have to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
> > > > > once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I find myself in the same situation. Despite my pro Linux stance and lack
> > > of any respect for losedos, my friends and relatives call me for help.
> > > Many times, the solution is a reinstall or even a format and reinstall. I
> > > have done more losedos installs than I can remember. I should get an
> >
> > Maybe you should install RedHat instead
>
> I took this route with my wife, but the fact is that while installing
> any operating system can be difficult, actually USING windows is, on
> the balance, a lot easier than using Linux.
5 years ago, yes.
Today, No.
In fact, because Linux has much LESS idiosyncratic behavior than
does Windows, it is much EASIER to use.
This does not mean that there is no training-up period to go from
Windows to Linux...but it is MUCH shorter than you would believe.
> For example, there is a
> lot of handholding when it comes to typesetting chinese characters in
> LaTeX.
Once you learn how to do this, exactly how many times will you need
to re-learn it.
Shallow, low-maximum learning curves are NOT all that Mafia$oft makes
them out to be.
> I imaging the Microsoft equivalent would be considerably
^^^^^^^
You imagine...so, in other words, you really don't even fucking know, do you.
> easier. Viewing faxes has always been problematic under Linux, and so
> on.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. tos...@aol.com ab...@aol.com
ab...@yahoo.com ab...@hotmail.com ab...@msn.com ab...@sprint.com
ab...@earthlink.com
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Michael Vester wrote:
> > >
> > > David Fox wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Ben Franchuk <bfra...@jetnet.ab.ca> writes:
> > > >
> > > > > Chris Morgan wrote:
> > > > > > This seems more damning than it really is - actually installing
> > > > > > Windows from scratch can be a mess too, it's just that most users
> > > > > > never have to.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ha! I bet all users have had to re-install windows at least
> > > > > once or fight the system installing new hardware or software.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, they usually fail and call me for help.
> > >
> > > I find myself in the same situation. Despite my pro Linux stance and lack
> > > of any respect for losedos, my friends and relatives call me for help.
> > > Many times, the solution is a reinstall or even a format and reinstall. I
> > > have done more losedos installs than I can remember. I should get an
> >
> > Maybe you should install RedHat instead
> >
> > I'll give you something that you can play around with for a week.
> > And if you like it, you can upgrade off the net for FREE..FOREVER."
> >
> I am going to start offering my friends and family a choice, Linux or find
> help elsewhere. The owner of the consulting firm that I sometimes work
> from, is my next project. His losedos 98 systems are starting to show
> signs of losedos rot. I won't reinstall, I will solve his problem
> permanently with Linux.
In that case, I would set up VMWare, so that his "no equivalent business apps"
are still available until he can replace them.
Then...since he will be running LoseDOS far less...the bitrot will be
slower...AND...he will have fewer critical functions on it....thus, when
the LoseDOS installation dies again...he will STILL be able to do the
majority of his work under Linux.
For example, he MIGHT have an accounting package that can't be
converted overnight.
>
> > > honorary MSCE. My Linux advocacy is starting to pay off. My father is now
> > > a very happy Red Hat Linux user. I can easily support him with ssh.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Michael Vester
> > > A credible Linux advocate
> > >
> > > "The avalanche has started, it is
> > > too late for the pebbles to vote"
> > > Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
Aaron R. Kulkis
>
> Bernd Paysan wrote:
> >
> > > Linux is an OS that appeals to techie types, not normal home users in general.
> > > The install can be a pain depending on equipment and distro used. At times,
> > > you get to play "hacker" with the install, like on a stubborn laptop. Being a
> > > Linux fan, I have to admit that it's not an OS for everyone, certainly not
> > > yet.
> >
> > No normal user ever installs his OS, at least not when you don't have to
> > (as it is often necessary with Windows 9x). The distributor installs it.
> > And the distributor installs it by cloning the hard disk. Cloning the
> > hard disk is not a bit more difficult on Linux than on Windows (except
> > that Linux has the hard disk clone program as part of every
> > distribution: dd if=/dev/hda of=/dev/hdc).
> >
> > The main "install nightmare" issue comes from wanabe techies who try to
> > install Linux themselves and fail. A lot of them would fail if they had
> > to try to install Windows, too.
>
> first time you would probably fail too. You are saying inexperienced
> people shouldn't even try. First time I ever tried DOS, OS/2, Linux,
The question is *not* whether inexperienced people install their own OS...
the question is ___DO___ inexperienced people install their own OS??
> and FreeBSD I failed at installations. I redid them till I got them
> right. You are no smarter than the average man on the street, the only
> advantage you have is experience. Determined people always succeed
> eventually, those who don't usually just aren't interested in installing
> an OS in any case.
>
> IanP
Marc Schlensog
---[snippage]---
> This is a big problem with Linux. Many cards use a common chipset, which
> is fine if Linux can detect it, but if it can't, you may not know what
> chipset it's using, and the companies web site usually doesn't say.
>
>
>
You are able to take the card out of your case and look at the chip and
write down what's written on there? Yes? Are you?
SHIT, ERIK, YOU MAKE ME FUCKING PUKE!!! YOU'RE A TYPICAL WINDOG-DUMBASS WHO
DOESN'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT HIS SYSTEM, JFC!!!!
phiew, sorry....
Marc
Chris Morgan
> My IBMs restore CD, which I had to use a few times, formats the hard
> drive and then installs from scratch.
Yes but is it a fully automatic process putting it into only one
state, or is it the normal install process of retail, or OEM,
non-upgrade, Windows? I think not. Restore CDs are a way to sell
people windows without letting them have anywhere near as much choice
as the full product. As such they are much simpler to use. Of course
sometimes they don't even really give you a cd, they just steal some
of your hard disk space with the "cd" and then restore from there
e.g. a Compaq I have had to fix a couple of times.
Peter da Silva
Larry Elmore <ljel...@home.com> wrote:
> If you want a custom car, you go to a custom car dealer. If you want a
> mass market car, but _without_ a transmission because you want to
> install your own special one, do you honestly expect to be able to go to
> a mass market auto dealer and pay _less_ for that car?
AOOOGAH AOOOOGAH! BAD ANALOGY WARNING! BAD ANALOGY WARNING!
Excuse me, sir, would you come this way? There you go, mind the step,
sit down here and watch this little training film. It explains why a
car is not like a computer. You'd think it would be straightforward:
the absence of gas pedals and seatbelts would clue me in right off, but
I understand some people have problems with the concept. Sit down here,
there we go, comfy? Call if you need anything...
[slam]
--
`-_-' In hoc signo hack, Peter da Silva.
'U` "A well-rounded geek should be able to geek about anything."
-- nic...@esperi.org
Disclaimer: WWFD?