Linux is a Desktop Disaster.
Caleeb
interesting how each of the two opposing sides have Linux experiences
that seem to be miles apart. There are very few posters who can even
agree on some of the minor faults of both Windows and Linux as well so
as a longtime Windows user I decided to see what this Linux noise is
all about and went out and purchased a copy of SUSE PROFESSIONAL 8 for
$75.00 at Staples.
I should state that my interest in Linux is a direct result of the
company I work for tossing the Linux word around as a possible
alternative to Windows for our mobile sales force.
I however have nothing to do with that decision because I am not
involved in the information technology department.
I installed Linux on both my laptop and my home system and Linux had
problems with both systems.
The laptop modem did not work at all and when the system would suspend
it would occasionally freeze up and the only way I could reset it was
to hold the power switch down for 5 seconds to force a power off. This
did not happen all the time, but was frequent enough to become a major
problem.
The infared port also did not work correctly nor did the little
buttons for sound up and down and off on the keyboard.
None of the F keys would work like suspend, display brightness and
such.
The highest resolution I could get from the laptop was 1024x768 and 16
for the color depth. I get 1024x768 and 32 for color depth using
Windows and the difference between 16 and 32 is very obvious.
I could not get my USB attached floppy drive to work on the laptop
either.
Linux lasted 3 days on the laptop before I removed it and restored the
Windows 2000 system that I need to run my business.
My home system, a 2.4 GHZ machine with 1G of RAM and 2 120g hard disks
was a more positive experience however.
Linux installed ok and recognized everything but my scanner which is
an old Canoscan unit which I don't use much anyway.
I chose a kde desktop and to my eyes it looks pretty slick.
Looks can be deceiving however because it didn't take long for the
problems to start. I tried Open office and it installed ok, actually I
think it was already installed but just needed to be configured. The
install asks a confusing question about workstation or server install
that leads me to believe if I select workstation other users on my
machine won't be able to use the program but if I select server I need
a server system, which I don't have.
Server was the default, but I changed it.
It didn't matter anyhow because the first time I started Open Office
and selected the font pull down menu the entire system froze solid and
I could not get out even using the control alt backspace key like the
SUSE book suggests.
I re booted and tried it again and it did the exact same thing so I
moved on to something else.
I decided to see what the fuss was about all of these web pages that
don't seem to work with Linux so I surfed over to the sites that have
been discussed during the last week and sure enough none of them
worked properly with mozilla or even with konqueror.
I did notice that java was not listed in the plug in section of
mozilla but it was installed and listed with konqueror however none of
the shockwave stuff was listed with konqueror but was listed with
mozilla.
The result was java sites would work with konqueror but not with
mozilla. Shockwave sites would not work with any of them however.
This didn't matter to me though because I use the internet for
research not game playing. Some of those sites made me dizzy when I
tried them using Windows.
I tried burning a CD backup of my home directory like SUSE suggests
for back up and no matter what I did I could not get the writer to be
recognized by XCDroast. It kept telling me something about SCSI
devices even though my burner is an IDE model that works perfectly
under Windows and even under Linux works fine as a player.
I had problems with Mplayer freezing up on me but I was able to close
it using system guard.
Xmms had noise in the sound when I played some mp3's. It didn't always
do it but it was annoying when it did.
Sound also did not work for some applications, like mplayer. It would
say something like Sound device not available".
My main complaints with Linux center around the slowness of the
system. I have a pretty fast system and it was brought to it's knees
by Linux. Opening directories containing a lot of files was very slow
compared to Windows 2000.
Just starting up programs seemed to take much longer than it really
should. I looked in YOST and the DMA was turned on for all of my
drives, which I had to do manually under Windows 2000.
The Linux graphics system seems to be very slow to me compared to
Windows 2000.
I have a Matrox G550 card which is not a game card but is still very
fast for this kind of work and it just seems very slow using Linux.
I can't see how people can run Linux on anything less than a P4 in the
gig range using kde or even Window maker which I also tried but didn't
like.
It's just way too slow for my tastes compared to Windows.
Is there some kind of a graphics card that works better with Linux
that maybe I should consider?
Printing was another area that didn't work too well. My printer was
set up during the install but it cuts off the top of the pages using
some programs but prints fine using other programs.
I played with the A4 and Letter settings but if I fix it for one
program, the others don't work.
My opinion of the Linux applications overall is that they are still in
the infancy stages of development. They are clunker and crude compared
to the shareware that one can find for Windows.
Linux may be ready for some people's desktop but it's not ready for
mine and I would predict that most Windows users trying Linux for the
first time will reach the same conclusions.
The problem is not the user, it's not the hardware and it's not the
particular version of Linux.
The problem is Linux itself and until Linux can at least offer the
same level of professionalism that Windows and it's applications
offer, Linux will remain a minor player in the desktop operating
system category.
Caleeb
cybear
Richard Revis
<snip more of the same>
FFS what is this all about. We seem to be getting a flood of people all with
the same problem:
They went out and paid for Linux.
They couldn't get it working in >30 seconds without reading a single bit of
documentation or asking for help.
They come and bitch on usenet.
Just on the off chance that one of these shpxref is reading (doubtful) then:
Don't complain it was a waste of money if you paid $80 for something you
could have tried for free (or $5 for a set of CDs if you don't have
broadband). You can always buy it later.
If you have problems then ask for help, go and look at the docs, sit and
fiddle with the settings - any one will get you going.
Don't confuse one distro (especially an out of date distro) with Linux - all
the MS lovers get pissed when we compare features to 98, unsurprisingly you
won't get much joy looking for todays functionality in last years product.
--
People carriers are for the clueless about contraception.
5:04pm up 3:10, 1 user, load average: 2.63, 1.90, 1.17
RX bytes:35263869 (33.6 Mb) TX bytes:6236419 (5.9 Mb)
E-mail address munged to prevent spam.
full name
wrote:
>I've been lurking in this group
You just crossposted to five groups.
>for about two weeks now and I find it
>interesting how each of the two opposing sides have Linux experiences
>that seem to be miles apart. There are very few posters who can even
>agree on some of the minor faults of both Windows and Linux as well so
>as a longtime Windows user I decided to see what this Linux noise is
>all about and went out and purchased a copy of SUSE PROFESSIONAL 8 for
>$75.00 at Staples.
>
>I should state that my interest in Linux is a direct result of the
>company I work for tossing the Linux word around as a possible
>alternative to Windows for our mobile sales force.
>I however have nothing to do with that decision because I am not
>involved in the information technology department.
As a typical personal computer user, you should avoid it for now.
>I installed Linux on both my laptop and my home system and Linux had
>problems with both systems.
>The laptop modem did not work at all and when the system would suspend
>it would occasionally freeze up and the only way I could reset it was
>to hold the power switch down for 5 seconds to force a power off. This
>did not happen all the time, but was frequent enough to become a major
>problem.
>
>The infared port also did not work correctly nor did the little
>buttons for sound up and down and off on the keyboard.
>None of the F keys would work like suspend, display brightness and
>such.
>
>The highest resolution I could get from the laptop was 1024x768 and 16
>for the color depth. I get 1024x768 and 32 for color depth using
>Windows and the difference between 16 and 32 is very obvious.
I do not find 16 bit color that bad. I used to run my PC with 16
colors and complained about some games needing 256.
My system rocks now BTW, dual monitors and all sorts of stuff.
>I could not get my USB attached floppy drive to work on the laptop
>either.
>
>Linux lasted 3 days on the laptop before I removed it and restored the
>Windows 2000 system that I need to run my business.
Oh my. You jumped into Linux just like that? You need to lurk in some
technical groups and maybe ask a few questions, obviously.
>My home system, a 2.4 GHZ machine with 1G of RAM and 2 120g hard disks
>was a more positive experience however.
>Linux installed ok and recognized everything but my scanner which is
>an old Canoscan unit which I don't use much anyway.
>I chose a kde desktop and to my eyes it looks pretty slick.
>Looks can be deceiving however because it didn't take long for the
>problems to start.
Linux is a server operating system. If someone disagrees, you and them
can discuss the issue.
>I tried Open office and it installed ok, actually I
>think it was already installed but just needed to be configured. The
>install asks a confusing question about workstation or server install
>that leads me to believe if I select workstation other users on my
>machine won't be able to use the program but if I select server I need
>a server system, which I don't have.
>Server was the default, but I changed it.
>It didn't matter anyhow because the first time I started Open Office
>and selected the font pull down menu the entire system froze solid and
>I could not get out even using the control alt backspace key like the
>SUSE book suggests.
In my short experience with Linux, I had no freeze ups.
Could be a system configuration problem of whatever sort.
>Just starting up programs seemed to take much longer than it really
>should. I looked in YOST and the DMA was turned on for all of my
>drives, which I had to do manually under Windows 2000.
>
>The Linux graphics system seems to be very slow to me compared to
>Windows 2000.
>I have a Matrox G550 card which is not a game card but is still very
>fast for this kind of work and it just seems very slow using Linux.
>
>I can't see how people can run Linux on anything less than a P4 in the
>gig range using kde or even Window maker which I also tried but didn't
>like.
>It's just way too slow for my tastes compared to Windows.
>
>Is there some kind of a graphics card that works better with Linux
>that maybe I should consider?
>
>Printing was another area that didn't work too well. My printer was
>set up during the install but it cuts off the top of the pages using
>some programs but prints fine using other programs.
>I played with the A4 and Letter settings but if I fix it for one
>program, the others don't work.
>
>My opinion of the Linux applications overall is that they are still in
>the infancy stages of development. They are clunker and crude compared
>to the shareware that one can find for Windows.
Duh. Again, Linux is a server operating system. If someone disagrees,
you and he (or she) can discuss the issue.
>
>Linux may be ready for some people's desktop
Actually, very few. Businesses want to use Linux to help thwart
Microsoft's plan to take over everything.
>but it's not ready for
>mine and I would predict that most Windows users trying Linux for the
>first time will reach the same conclusions.
Of course they will, and they do.
>The problem is not the user, it's not the hardware and it's not the
>particular version of Linux.
Essentially true IMO, but Red Hat seems to be doing the best, so you
can expect fewer problems with that versions.
>
>The problem is Linux itself and until Linux can at least offer the
>same level of professionalism that Windows and it's applications
>offer, Linux will remain a minor player in the desktop operating
>system category.
For typical users, that is correct. Linux systems are getting
attention for limited use desktop applications though.
roodw...@core.com
I also have SuSe 8.0 Professional on my machine. The version of
OpenOffice.org that came with it was Build 641. It froze your machine, it
didn't freeze mine, but it did crash almost without provocation. I was
totally disgusted with it.
Then Linux Format Magazine had a CD with OpenOffice.org 1.0 on it. I
installed it and it works great. Doesn't display that well, but it works
well.
You might want to try the new version.
I've been using Linux for 19 months now and I don't forsee going back to
Windows. That being said, it does have some drawbacks, chiefly on hardware
support. And it appears you ran square into them.
All too often hardware manufacturers won't write Linux drivers for their
devices, although they will for Windows. This means that drivers often get
written by a Linux user who buys that piece of equipment. As you can
imagine, not everything gets a driver. It's a particular problem on
notebooks since they often have proprietary equipment. Desktops generally
have more generic equipment. I hedged my bets. I had mine built. Some of
that was for Linux compabibility but it was also because I was sick of
taking machines to the repair shop. Had the best parts put in.
Linux advocates are loathe to admit that in some ways Linux is behind. But
it's also the case that Linux is ahead in other ways. There are many
programs I use on Linux that I dearly miss when I'm elsewhere and have to
use a Windows machine. I'm far more efficient with Linux. Check out some of
your programs. SuSe has about 2,000. You may find a keeper.
As far as problems beginning after you install, I had that problem, though
I've never heard anyone else mention it. I just reinstalled and after that
everything worked fine. I had to do that on Windows programs back when I
used that. Apparently Linux isn't immune to bad installs either.
Like you, I've found Linux to be slower when loading. But I didn't find it
unacceptable, plus I leave the machine on for weeks, so it's not a big
factor. My machine is only 900 megahertz--less than half the speed of
yours. I hope you're not just timing OpenOffice.org. It is the very
s-l-o-o-o-w-e-s-t opening program I've ever seen. But that's just opening
the first file. Everyone after that comes up fine.
I haven't had too many problems with my old ink jet printer. I think it
prints black and white slightly better than it did on Windows. However, the
color is unadjustable and dumps too much for photos. But I only print in
black and white anyway.
It sounds like you're trying to do an honest evaluation. Although you'll
probably get some flames here, I think the thoughtful approach is
commendable.
I do have to disagree with one poster who said Linux is for servers. I'm a
writer, not a technical person. I'm a desktop user on a stand-alone
machine. I think Linux on the desktop is great.
If you do find it's not ready for your needs yet, try it again in a year. I
went from SuSe 7.1 to 8.0 and things changed immensely. 8.0, by the way,
will be a year old in the spring. That's a long time in Linux-years.
Hope this helps.
--Rod
--
To reply by e-mail, take the extra "o" out of my e-mail address. It's to
confuse spambots, of course.
Conor Turton
caleeb_...@yahoo.com says...
> I've been lurking in this group for about two weeks now and I find it
> interesting how each of the two opposing sides have Linux experiences
> that seem to be miles apart.
<snip a load of shit>
THe experience is miles apart because:
Camp A are people like me. People like me know that Linux is not
Windows and therefore works differently. We learn to use the OS, ask
questions, read a lot and think for ourselves. For us Linux works quite
well.
Camp B are full of people who think that Linux looks like Windows and
expect it to work the same. THey are incapable of working things out
for themselves and expect everything to work out of the box just like
it did with Windows except they forget the little things liek the fact
you have to install software to watch DVDs. For them Linux wuill never
work.
--
_________________________
Conor Turton
conor_...@hotmail.com
ICQ:31909763
_________________________
Conor Turton
crapp...@hotmail.com says...
> Linux idiot
>
Moere like Windos idiot.
Linønut
> I've been lurking in this group for about two weeks now and I find it
> interesting how each of the two opposing sides have Linux experiences
> that seem to be miles apart. There are very few posters who can even
> agree on some of the minor faults of both Windows and Linux as well so
> as a longtime Windows user I decided to see what this Linux noise is
> all about and went out and purchased a copy of SUSE PROFESSIONAL 8 for
> $75.00 at Staples.
Nice try, Google Troll.
First, you're in the wrong newsgroup. You're preaching to the
converted. I guess you might be scared that some of them might
actually try Linux and prove you to be a trolling idiot.
Second, I got around to loading RedHat 8.0 (obtained for free via
the internet, five CDs of apps and source code), and I am amazed
at how beautiful it looks.
I had some troubles loading it, to be sure. But it's working fine.
I'm running it at 1400 x 1050 on a Dell Inspiron laptop.
The only other thing is that RedHat is scared of licensing fees, so I
can only play free music formats right now. wma and mp3 are out until
I install the "codecs" for them.
Chris
--
begin Framework.NET
Microsoft -- One degree of separation between
running and rebooting.
end
Linønut
> I've been lurking in this group for about two weeks now and I find it
5 groups, you mean
> The highest resolution I could get from the laptop was 1024x768 and 16
> for the color depth. I get 1024x768 and 32 for color depth using
> Windows and the difference between 16 and 32 is very obvious.
I forget to mention that my laptop is running Linux with a 24-bit color
depth (the card doesn't have the memory to support higher), which, at
1400x1050, is pretty.
Oh, and essentially all of your post was a big lie. Linux ain't
perfect, but, well, it's pretty damn good.
Neville Cobb
mandrake. I have every thing running absolutely fine under SuSE and it
just doesn't perform the same under the other two distros. Rather then
learn the idiosyncrasies of the other two distros I just stay with SuSE.
I can't comment on all of your problems but I can offer the following:
Caleeb wrote:
>
> I tried burning a CD backup of my home directory like SUSE suggests
> for back up and no matter what I did I could not get the writer to be
> recognized by XCDroast. It kept telling me something about SCSI
> devices even though my burner is an IDE model that works perfectly
> under Windows and even under Linux works fine as a player.
Sounds as if the Writer wasn't configure as a SCSI device during the
install process (which it has to in order for it to work as a buner).
There are many help articles on this topic. It is easy to set up but may
test patients for windows users. Start with the SuSE help center.
>
> I had problems with Mplayer freezing up on me but I was able to close
> it using system guard.
Mplayer froze on me as well but I tried the various video drivers (using
the Mplayer preferences) until I found one that worked. The other
problem that made it hang was linked to the DMA not being switched on
for the CDROM Drive.
>
> Xmms had noise in the sound when I played some mp3's. It didn't always
> do it but it was annoying when it did.
May be due to system resources or CPU time allocated to XMMS as it is
CPU intensive. Were there many othe programs running when the noise was
heard?
>
> Sound also did not work for some applications, like mplayer. It would
> say something like Sound device not available".
Same problem here but I selected the OSS driver and all worked for me.
>
> Caleeb
mjt
.... you *ARE* a troll, k00k.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Michael J. Tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, # Black holes result
skydiver, and author: "Inside Linux", # when God divides the
"C++ HowTo", "C++ Unleashed" # universe by zero
d2002xx
> I've been lurking in this group for about two weeks now and I find it
> interesting how each of the two opposing sides have Linux experiences that
> seem to be miles apart. There are very few posters who can even agree on some
> of the minor faults of both Windows and Linux as well so as a longtime Windows
> user I decided to see what this Linux noise is all about and went out and
> purchased a copy of SUSE PROFESSIONAL 8 for $75.00 at Staples.
>
> I should state that my interest in Linux is a direct result of the company I
> work for tossing the Linux word around as a possible alternative to Windows
> for our mobile sales force. I however have nothing to do with that decision
> because I am not involved in the information technology department.
>
> I installed Linux on both my laptop and my home system and Linux had problems
> with both systems. The laptop modem did not work at all and when the system
> would suspend it would occasionally freeze up and the only way I could reset
> it was to hold the power switch down for 5 seconds to force a power off. This
> did not happen all the time, but was frequent enough to become a major
> problem.
you can't expect linux works well with a broken hardware.
>
> The infared port also did not work correctly nor did the little buttons for
> sound up and down and off on the keyboard. None of the F keys would work like
> suspend, display brightness and such.
Do you which kind the keyboard is? As I know, only USB keyboards have such
useless keys on.
>
> The highest resolution I could get from the laptop was 1024x768 and 16
> for the color depth. I get 1024x768 and 32 for color depth using
> Windows and the difference between 16 and 32 is very obvious.
Did you set the right size of video RAM?
>
> I could not get my USB attached floppy drive to work on the laptop
> either.
Did you ever take a look at the document in kernel source code?
>
> Linux lasted 3 days on the laptop before I removed it and restored the
> Windows 2000 system that I need to run my business.
hmmm... your business.... all you need is just a news reader... though script
inteperters are better (hmm.. stupid windows users can't know this :))
>
> My home system, a 2.4 GHZ machine with 1G of RAM and 2 120g hard disks was a
> more positive experience however. Linux installed ok and recognized
> everything but my scanner which is an old Canoscan unit which I don't use much
> anyway. I chose a kde desktop and to my eyes it looks pretty slick. Looks
> can be deceiving however because it didn't take long for the problems to
> start.
The UI of kde is idiotic enough, it's hard to find anything easier. Why can't
you retarded desktop users just become a bit smart??? you can't learn huh?
> I tried Open office and it installed ok, actually I think it was already
> installed but just needed to be configured. The install asks a confusing
> question about workstation or server install that leads me to believe if I
> select workstation other users on my machine won't be able to use the program
Your IQ is lower than 60 I guess.
> but if I select server I need a server system, which I don't have. Server was
> the default, but I changed it. It didn't matter anyhow because the first time
> I started Open Office and selected the font pull down menu the entire system
> froze solid and I could not get out even using the control alt backspace key
> like the SUSE book suggests.
>
> I re booted and tried it again and it did the exact same thing so I
> moved on to something else.
Bwahahahahahaha!!! That's what those xp users do -- keeping rebooting and
wishing the system will work finally, how clueless?? :))
Oh... I have got tired of your stupid problems, now I wanna program my server.
<snip fucking stupid problems>
--
d2002xx
COLA wintroll-feeder #1
"Non-free software is wrong and we do not want it in our lives" -- RHS
steve_H
> My main complaints with Linux center around the slowness of the
> system. I have a pretty fast system and it was brought to it's knees
> by Linux. Opening directories containing a lot of files was very slow
> compared to Windows 2000.
that is the exact same experience I had with Suse 8.1. When I mentioned
this here, I was told I am a troll (the only answer you'd get here when
you mentioned something wrong with linux).
I had a much faster system than you also, and still, linux was slower than
a dog. I could not believe how slow KDE is. linux lasted 3 days on my
PC, today I took it back to Fry's and got my money back.
I think linux has a good future, I really think so, I think the base OS is
good. I believe that the Unix design and philosphy is better than windoz. Open
API's, better development system, more powerfull scripting languages,
etc... So I am really still dissapointed that I continue to see bad
distros out there, and to this day, bad UI's and design. I think the
problem is in the packaging and the UI. May be the answer is to move X
to kernel mode, at least the rendering part, to get the better peformance
which windows gives, even if this is against the design principles of a good
OS.
it is sad to see windows so much faster than linux, I have expected
linux to be faster, much faster.
I'll give linux another try in a year from now, I hope by then it will
have improved in speed and the GUI is much faster, there is no reason
why it should not much better. If linux failes, then it will be the fault
of the linux programmers, not microsoft this time.
steve_H
>
> Camp B are full of people who think that Linux looks like Windows and
> expect it to work the same. THey are incapable of working things out
> for themselves and expect everything to work out of the box just like
> it did with Windows
What is wrong with expecting things to work out of the box just like
with windows? I thought linux prides it self with the zillions of apps
that are included in each distro. If anything, it should be the other way
around.
Someone goes to try a new car. The car top speed tuns out to be 10 Km/hr,
has confusing and misplaced control panel, ugly colors and flat tires.
he returns his car back to the dealer complaining that their other car
at home is much easier to use, much faster and looks better. The dealer
answer to these crowds is
"THey are incapable of working things out for themselves and expect
everything to work out of the box just like it did with" the other car.
Tim Ashman
> Conor Turton <conor_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<MPG.186d9f169...@news.claranews.com>...
>
>
>>Camp B are full of people who think that Linux looks like Windows and
>>expect it to work the same. THey are incapable of working things out
>>for themselves and expect everything to work out of the box just like
>>it did with Windows
They are not always incapable. They just don't want to spend a lifetime
getting there printers, etc to work.
>
>
> What is wrong with expecting things to work out of the box just like
> with windows? I thought linux prides it self with the zillions of apps
> that are included in each distro. If anything, it should be the other way
> around.
Nothing, but the media is getting ahead of itself by touting linux as a
mainstream desktop OS. I myself have just switched to Linux some 6
months ago. I moved my winxp box off to the side but accessible if I
need it, and I'm trying to use linux as much as possible. I still find
linux harder to use but I'm learning new things about it everyday, I am
however motivated by a driven sense to get rid of anything and
everything microsoft. I don't trust them anymore and I believe they are
now helping big business and government track, watch and report on us.
I refuse to have my every move recorded by my PC. I understand when I
use the internet all bets are off but I don't expect a services like
"records every media devices serial number" to be even remotely in my
best interest, and while I can turn this one off in winxp I wonder how
many I can't.
Rupert
> If linux failes, then it will be the fault
> of the linux programmers, not microsoft this time.
Holy shit! Try spelling correctly, in English. If you're shopping at Fry's
then I know that you must be somewhere in California or not too far
away...do you not know how to converse in English? You stupid fuckwit.
I'm still finishing my download of Linux, haven't tried it yet, and I'm
already tired of you fucking trolls in this newsgroup. At least half of the
people in here are in Germany and have an excuse for not being able to have
a conversation in bloody English, what's your story you sadsack?
Andrew
isn't!
Why does Linux have hardware problems? Because the makers only support
Windows so Linux drivers often have to be reverse engineered by others.
Why do websites not work? Because the owners assume everyone uses either IE
or Netscape.
Why is DVD and other media formats a problem in Linux? Because the codecs
are licensed only for windows so Linux has to make do with "grey" hacked
versions.
Why can't you use the apps you like on Linux (you can after a fashion using
WINE), because software vendors support only Windows.
Why is using it difficult? Because like anything new you have to learn and
read up on it first and then it is no longer difficult. Imagine someone who
had used OS/2 or Mac for years coming to Windows for the first time, I guess
they would say much the same things. The poster refers to his IDE CD-RW
being recognised as SCSI - the reason is that CD Writing software in Linux
is written for SCSI devices. Linux gets round this by fooling the software
into thinking that an IDE device is a SCSI device. If he had taken the time
to do a little reading he might have found this out before undoubtably
fouling the whole thing up by trying to change it to IDE. By the way you
are fooling yourself if you think Windows does not do similar tricks. He
refers to Server or Workstation install, and again shows that he does not
understand the principles of how Linux works which a little reading would
have given him.
When Windows dominance is broken, and software and hardware developers
support multiple OS's (wouldn't it be great if software would install on
Windows, Mac, Linux, etc from one CD? - Star Office does!) then we will
really see what Linux can do.
The other thing which hamstrings Linux is free software (free in open source
should mean freedom, not no cost). Yes you can install Linux for nought,
download it, or use a give away distro on a mag cover CD, it comes with all
you need, but others can be downloaded free. However, what puts food on the
developers table? Some will choke on the thought, but until Linux is
properly funded (and this means paying for it at market prices) it is
forever going to rely on part-time hobby developers who do other work to pay
the bills.
I am writing this on Windows XP, but have used Mandrake (7.2, 8.0, 8.1 and
8.2) and SUSE 8.0 and am thinking of giving Mandrake 9 a try.
"Caleeb" <caleeb_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd4cad80.0212...@posting.google.com...
T.G. Reaper
> caleeb_...@yahoo.com (Caleeb) wrote in message
> news:<dd4cad80.0212...@posting.google.com>...
>
>> My main complaints with Linux center around the slowness of the system.
>> I have a pretty fast system and it was brought to it's knees by Linux.
>> Opening directories containing a lot of files was very slow compared to
>> Windows 2000.
>
> that is the exact same experience I had with Suse 8.1. When I mentioned
> this here, I was told I am a troll (the only answer you'd get here when
> you mentioned something wrong with linux).
>
> I had a much faster system than you also, and still, linux was slower
> than a dog. I could not believe how slow KDE is. linux lasted 3 days on
> my PC, today I took it back to Fry's and got my money back.
> May be the answer is to move X
> to kernel mode, at least the rendering part, to get the better
> peformance which windows gives, even if this is against the design
> principles of a good OS.
No, No, No, It's *NOT.* If anything experience with NT/W2K has proven far
and away that having the render engine run in kernel mode produces one of
the most visualy appealing aspects of GUI transmited data, i.e. enabling
Hi Resolutions at deep bpp using a reasonably cheap modern graphics card.
The theroized "instability" did indeed show up shortly after the move.
That was a LOT of years ago, Stick your head in the sand and cover your
ears and repeat after me: Microsoft intentionaly left frequent and
consistant and repeatable BSOD's in NT/2K for a span of six years.
If you trully beleive Linux is Much, much Muuuuuuch more stable than
W2K...Stay tuned...I have two Windows 2000 Servers, and two Linux boxes
each with some degree of Server capability enabled. The four have not been
rebooted since the last power failure of a few days ago.
Before that the W2K SMP box had each of four dimms removed and cleanned
with an eraser and alchol. This enabled SP3 to successfully install (auto
update has been disabled). The uniprocessor Linux box is a DEC Alpha
533Mhz. Its only mission in the universe is to sniff each and every byte
that crosses my dsl modem. The uniproc Windows box is the 2K Domain
controller also a single function Server. The 2K SMP box is the public
web/mail/ftp server, and of course this system is the SMP Linux box.
Each OS has an SMP PIII box (1Ghz/933Mhz) to itself. As well as a
UniProcessor box ~500Mhz. I'll try and turn the status of all four into a
sorted signature with labels.
> it is sad to see windows so much faster than linux, I have expected
> linux to be faster, much faster.
>
> I'll give linux another try in a year from now, I hope by then it will
> have improved in speed and the GUI is much faster, there is no reason
> why it should not much better. If linux failes, then it will be the
> fault of the linux programmers, not microsoft this time.
Here's a very far fetched scneario that will never happen, though I
believe it has merit. IBM forks a Linux source tree, with all the things
NT users liked about Cutler's First principle OS, blended with some OS/2
features; A Registry, but a less daunting one used primarily for
encription keys, configuration info, recent devices, and user account
info. Render engine in Ring0, Supprt for NTFS (write) support, as well as
Major Linux file systems. I guess since We're asking IBM for all the money
and all the resources to do this we'll have to let IBM use HPFS. Some
basic GUI tools from Win2K. Support for Config.ini *and/or* registry based
file upkeep. At least that would do for a start.
I'd like that for Christmas....next year Santa.
--
Cheers
T.G. Reaper
deborah neave
Switching from Windows to Linux(kde) it different and it takes a bit of time
to get uses to it..... like three months and lots of google searching.
However once you have learnt the logic to how linux and kde works then its
is very good. This can be a painful and frustrating process. We use Linux on
all our server at work and doing a bit of home admin is much easier than
trying to fit it in during work. The problem now id that i use linux and
kde about 25% of the time and am getting frustrated with windows not doing
stuff.
I tried install 98 on an old machine and it refused to play ball it kept
crashing etc and i thought it might be something wrong with the mother
board. I insatall suse8.1 (the free copy off the ftp site) and it worked
really well. My windows machines are all going to have their os reinstalled
this christmas and i will upgrade my linux machine to the later versions.
Suse online update is great wwhen it works. the last machine i tried it on
in knackered the online update updater so i need to get some cds to upgrade
properly.
I see why people like windows its fairly easy and most have been using for
years however if you look closely at how it works and its security, ease of
remote maintenance and cost then i think linux and suse (redhat too) are on
to a winner. The immenet release of Lindows may open the flood gates. Once
people have a choice of os then microsoft will have real problem charging
169 quid for xp (that i have tried to get to work on three of my machines
and it just did not work - suse installed fine. I dont use or like xp.
Pete (who needs to practise typing better .. and spelling too).
"Caleeb" <caleeb_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dd4cad80.0212...@posting.google.com...
e3...@pnsxwd.com.aa
|with windows? I thought linux prides it self with the zillions of apps
|that are included in each distro. If anything, it should be the other way
|around.
In that case what you want is something like Lindows or Xandros or
Lycoris, not SuSE. And a retailer that gives it to you preinstalled.
Lee Wei Shun
>
> What is wrong with expecting things to work out of the box just like
> with windows? I thought linux prides it self with the zillions of apps
> that are included in each distro. If anything, it should be the other way
> around.
>
wrong.
> Someone goes to try a new car. The car top speed tuns out to be 10 Km/hr,
> has confusing and misplaced control panel, ugly colors and flat tires.
>
Someone (who has only driven a typical mass-market automatic) tries a new
car (very inexpensive, very fast, with many options for hot-rodding) with a
MANUAL transmission (automatic version available).
He drives it home in 1st gear, top speed 10km/h, and is unused to the
instrument cluster with customised guages and misses the button on the dash
to change the colors. He has no idea that the tires are puncture-proof and
stops occasionally to check the pressure, and is baffled when the reading
shows zero. He concludes the tyres are flat.
> he returns his car back to the dealer complaining that their other car
> at home is much easier to use, much faster and looks better. The dealer
> answer to these crowds is
>
> "THey are incapable of working things out for themselves and expect
> everything to work out of the box just like it did with" the other car.
A comment which is very justified. They are still expecting the new car to
work "just like" the old one. No one forced them to buy the new car.
This is the nature of market segmentation. If you are not in the market for
Linux, why are you complaining here on COLA that you are not in the market
for Linux?
Regards,
Wei Shun
--
Change to leews to mail
Hogger
news:dd4cad80.0212...@posting.google.com:
> I've been lurking in this group for about two weeks now and I find it
> interesting how each of the two opposing sides have Linux experiences
> that seem to be miles apart. There are very few posters who can even
> agree on some of the minor faults of both Windows and Linux as well so
> as a longtime Windows user I decided to see what this Linux noise is
> all about and went out and purchased a copy of SUSE PROFESSIONAL 8 for
> $75.00 at Staples.
Really not a bad post. But X-posting, five ngs makes you a knothead.
Linønut
> I had a much faster system than you also, and still, linux was slower than
> a dog. I could not believe how slow KDE is. linux lasted 3 days on my
> PC, today I took it back to Fry's and got my money back.
Mine runs at least as fast as Win 2K on the GUI, and Win 2K is about
15% faster than XP.
> it is sad to see windows so much faster than linux, I have expected
> linux to be faster, much faster.
You ought to try some download comparisons. Download StarOffice
from Sun with both systems on the same machine.
Oh, you already gave Linux your fair trial.
> I'll give linux another try in a year from now, I hope by then it will
> have improved in speed and the GUI is much faster, there is no reason
> why it should not much better. If linux failes, then it will be the fault
> of the linux programmers, not microsoft this time.
You've got to be kidding me. My experience is 180 degrees from yours.
Linønut
> No, No, No, It's *NOT.* If anything experience with NT/W2K has proven far
> and away that having the render engine run in kernel mode produces one of
> the most visualy appealing aspects of GUI transmited data, i.e. enabling
> Hi Resolutions at deep bpp using a reasonably cheap modern graphics card.
I think those kudoes go to the graphics card manufacturers, my friend.
> The theroized "instability" did indeed show up shortly after the move.
> That was a LOT of years ago, Stick your head in the sand and cover your
> ears and repeat after me: Microsoft intentionaly left frequent and
> consistant and repeatable BSOD's in NT/2K for a span of six years.
And they call Linux users paranoid!
> If you trully beleive Linux is Much, much Muuuuuuch more stable than
> W2K...Stay tuned...I have two Windows 2000 Servers, and two Linux boxes
> each with some degree of Server capability enabled. The four have not been
> rebooted since the last power failure of a few days ago.
I think everyone agrees that a Win 2K server can work very well when
tuned by an expert system adminstrator to run one major service.
Your test will be more a test of your abilities than a test of the
operating systems.
joe_...@sunshine.net
mjt
... folks, folks, folks, folks ... why must you insist on feeding
this TROLL THREAD .... sheesh!!!! my troll-o-meter is pegging!!!
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html
Limestone_Cowboy
DVD, SCSI CDRW) and everything worked straight away..even the TV card. 1
reboot to get everything loaded.
Win 2k Pro is now working well on a second try and about 8 reboots.
Both are more stable and usable than win98 SE and SuSE has the advantage of
having virtually every item of software available on the DVD.
I only "need" Windows for an easy to use CAD package and to use MS Access
for setting things up for work a proprietry database, also for work.
If I can swap stuff to Linux I will, in an effort to save some cash.
"steve_H" <nma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8db3d6c8.0212...@posting.google.com...
C Roth
> The problem is Linux itself and until Linux can at least offer the
> same level of professionalism that Windows and it's applications
> offer, Linux will remain a minor player in the desktop operating
> system category.
No, the problem is you expect to learn a completely new way of doing things
without any effort and automatically.
Thousands and thousands of people are using linux every day, but because YOU
are having problems, it can't be something you're doing, it must be the
operating system/kernel?
Moritz Franosch
caleeb_...@yahoo.com (Caleeb) writes:
> as a longtime Windows user I decided to see what this Linux noise is
> all about and went out and purchased a copy of SUSE PROFESSIONAL 8 for
> $75.00 at Staples.
> I installed Linux on both my laptop and my home system and Linux had
> problems with both systems.
> The laptop modem did not work at all
That's normal. There are no drivers for a lot of laptop modems.
> The infared port also did not work correctly
> nor did the little buttons for sound up and down and off on the
> keyboard. None of the F keys would work like suspend, display
> brightness and such.
That's normal. These keys often need software that is only available
for Windows (or they are controlled by the BIOS).
> I could not get my USB attached floppy drive to work on the laptop
> either.
I'm not surprised about that.
> Linux lasted 3 days on the laptop before I removed it and restored the
> Windows 2000 system that I need to run my business.
It's currently very difficult to get a notebook where all hardware
(sound, video, modem, VGA output, sleep, suspend to RAM/disk, battery
load indicator) works appropriately with Linux.
> My home system, a 2.4 GHZ machine with 1G of RAM and 2 120g hard disks
> was a more positive experience however.
> Linux installed ok and recognized everything but my scanner which is
> an old Canoscan unit which I don't use much anyway.
> I chose a kde desktop and to my eyes it looks pretty slick.
> Looks can be deceiving however because it didn't take long for the
> problems to start. I tried Open office and it installed ok, actually I
> think it was already installed but just needed to be configured.
That's right.
> The install asks a confusing question about workstation or server
> install that leads me to believe if I select workstation other users
> on my machine won't be able to use the program
Not true.
> but if I select server I need a server system,
Not true. One option copies the whole program into your home
directory. The other just copies personal configuration data to your
home directory like every other sane program under Linux.
> which I don't have. Server was the default, but I changed it.
The right choice is the one that installs less megabytes, I don't
remember which is which.
> It didn't matter anyhow because the first time I started Open Office
> and selected the font pull down menu the entire system froze solid
Try Staroffice 5.2 which also comes with Suse 8.0. I'd recommend using
that instead of Openoffice.
> and I could not get out even using the control alt backspace key
> like the SUSE book suggests.
Ctrl-Alt-Backspace should work in any case. What you describe is a bug
in X Windows (that occurs still too frequently unfortunately).
> I decided to see what the fuss was about all of these web pages that
> don't seem to work with Linux so I surfed over to the sites that have
> been discussed during the last week and sure enough none of them
> worked properly with mozilla or even with konqueror.
> I did notice that java was not listed in the plug in section of
> mozilla but it was installed and listed with konqueror however none of
> the shockwave stuff was listed with konqueror but was listed with
> mozilla.
> The result was java sites would work with konqueror but not with
> mozilla. Shockwave sites would not work with any of them however.
Normal. Java and Flash don't work out of the box. Go to
www.mozilla.org and install the newest version. Follow the
installation instructions to get Java and Flash to work.
I use konqueror and Java and Flash do work, but I wouldn't recommend
konqueror to a newbie because there are problems with some sites.
> I tried burning a CD backup of my home directory like SUSE suggests
> for back up and no matter what I did I could not get the writer to be
> recognized by XCDroast. It kept telling me something about SCSI
> devices even though my burner is an IDE model that works perfectly
> under Windows and even under Linux works fine as a player.
ATAPI CD-ROM burners work with so-called ide-scsi. Xcdroast "knows"
only about SCSI, ide-scsi makes ATAPI burnes look like SCSI burners
for Xcdroast and other software. Read the documentation of cdrecord
and Xcdroast in /usr/share/doc/packages.
The Suse 8.0 documentation recommends koncd I think, which does not
work. Maybe Suse 8.0 has messed up something with the configuration of
CD burners, I don't remember exactly. But if you follow the generic
documentation above, you'll probably get the burner to work. I think
Suse 7.2 was the first Suse version where CD burning worked out of the
box (with Xcdroast, like documented), then they've messed it up in
Suse 8.0.
> My main complaints with Linux center around the slowness of the
> system. I have a pretty fast system and it was brought to it's knees
> by Linux. Opening directories containing a lot of files was very slow
> compared to Windows 2000.
With konqueror? That's normal, unfortunately.
> Just starting up programs seemed to take much longer than it really
> should.
Normal.
> The Linux graphics system seems to be very slow to me compared to
> Windows 2000.
What are the symptoms here?
> I have a Matrox G550 card which is not a game card but is still very
> fast for this kind of work and it just seems very slow using Linux.
It should work great under Linux (2D).
> I can't see how people can run Linux on anything less than a P4 in the
> gig range using kde or even Window maker which I also tried but didn't
> like.
> It's just way too slow for my tastes compared to Windows.
You should be more specific here.
> Printing was another area that didn't work too well.
Normal, unfortunately.
> My printer was set up during the install but it cuts off the top of
> the pages using some programs but prints fine using other programs.
Strange.
> My opinion of the Linux applications overall is that they are still in
> the infancy stages of development. They are clunker and crude compared
> to the shareware that one can find for Windows.
If you choose some random application from the menu, that's certainly
true. But if you try some applications and choose the one that fits
your needs best it'll probably be a pretty good one. You've to collect
experience, whether it's Windows or Linux. Unfortunately, Suse gives
no hint (e.g. by an appropriate structure of the menus) which are the
generic applications a newbie should try first.
> The problem is Linux itself and until Linux can at least offer the
> same level of professionalism that Windows and it's applications
> offer, Linux will remain a minor player in the desktop operating
> system category.
Be aware that a Linux system is much much more than a Windows
system. It offers many professional applications that are written for
the professional user. That may be exactly the problem: Windows is
designed primarily for the home user whereas a Linux system is
designed primarily for the professionalist.
I'd suspect you would find a formular one car not to be very
convenient on normal streets (on the "desktop") compared to a
Volkswagen although a formular one car is much more powerful for (a
certain kind of) professional usage. However, a formular one car _can_
be changed to be a powerful street vehicle (put front an back lights
on and change the chassis) whereas with a Volkswagen you would have
difficulties to tune it to high speeds.
Moritz
--
Dipl.-Phys. Moritz Franosch
http://Franosch.org
Alex Polyak
mjt wrote:
> Caleeb wrote:
>
> ... folks, folks, folks, folks ... why must you insist on feeding
> this TROLL THREAD .... sheesh!!!! my troll-o-meter is pegging!!!
>
> http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/troll.html
>
>
Very good question. Thanks, finally I now what is troll.
Olav P
Welcome to the Hall of the Mountain King ;)
Olav
Ilari Liusvaara
<m3bs3e3...@gateway.askos>. Dumping datagram.
>
> caleeb_...@yahoo.com (Caleeb) writes:
>
>> The laptop modem did not work at all
>
> That's normal. There are no drivers for a lot of laptop modems.
There are drivers for some of models, and fortunately, these models
seem to be quite popular. None of these drivers ship with any distro
though.
>> nor did the little buttons for sound up and down and off on the
>> keyboard. None of the F keys would work like suspend, display
>> brightness and such.
>
> That's normal. These keys often need software that is only available
> for Windows (or they are controlled by the BIOS).
Actually the problem is that the keys do "work", but there are no software
to carry out the tasks. The same problems are faced by people with
>105 key keyboards. Fortunately, there is some software avilable for
Linux to map extra keyboard keys to some functionality, very often these
packages do work, because these keys are almost invariably signalled
using the standard keyboard protocol, but with nonstandard key numbers
(as there is a lot of keycodes not used in standard keyboards.)
-Ilari
--
Believe in what they do, not in what they say. -- Ilari Liusvaara
Linux LK_Perkele_IV9 2.4.18 #8 SMP Thu Mar 14 19:42:25 EET 2002 i686 unknown
10:11pm up 168 days, 3:41, 4 users, load average: 0.18, 0.10, 0.03
T. Max Devlin
>begin On Sun, 22 Dec 2002 11:56:08 +0000 (UTC), in
>comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Limestone_Cowboy" <Limeston...@BTInternet.com>)
>wrote:
>
>>I only "need" Windows for an easy to use CAD package and to use MS Access
>>for setting things up for work a proprietry database, also for work.
>
>computer for in the first place.
>
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Thiemo Kellner
> > expect it to work the same. THey are incapable of working things out
> > for themselves and expect everything to work out of the box just like
> > it did with Windows
>
> What is wrong with expecting things to work out of the box just like
> with windows? I thought linux prides it self with the zillions of apps
> that are included in each distro. If anything, it should be the other way
> around.
I feel there is nothing wrong with expecting that and I also have made
the experience with Linux (SuSE, Debian and Gentoo) that 'it' (Linux
is not a company like Microsoft or Apple) is still not installed as
easily out of the box as MacOS or Windows. However, I am convinced
that Windows XP (maybe Windows 2000 though I haven't any experience
with it) is the first acceptably good M$ OS. However, even XP didn't
work out of the box with everything I want and I just don't understand
the way its policy works that lets run programmes by unpreviledged
users or doesn't let run. Whereas I formerly suspected M$ to be
gathering infromation about the user, with their new licensing policy,
I now am sure they are spying the users. This is something I just
won't tolerate.
> Someone goes to try a new car. The car top speed tuns out to be 10 Km/hr,
> has confusing and misplaced control panel, ugly colors and flat tires.
>
> he returns his car back to the dealer complaining that their other car
> at home is much easier to use, much faster and looks better. The dealer
> answer to these crowds is
Quite good comparison, though it is my considered opinion that it does
hit the point. I just would say that this someone did mistake a truck
or maybe tank for a car. No wonder he returns it as it does not
fulfill his needs.
I feel only few distros like SuSE, RedHat or Mandrake or more or less
suitable for the average user, say someone who doesn't want (refuses?)
to delf into the matter Linux. On the other hand, it provides a great
deal of independency and you can do virtually everything you want if
you know how to. And Howtos there are many.
Cheers,
Thiemo
Thiemo Kellner
> for setting things up for work a proprietry database, also for work.
You might want to try out qcad which is included in your distro though
it is rather simple and afaik only able of 2D drawings.
If you are just looking for a database, it might be worth to have a
look at PostgreSQL (www.postgresql.org) or MySQL. However, I don't
think you need a substitute for M$ Access.
> If I can swap stuff to Linux I will, in an effort to save some cash.
Cheers,
Thiemo
Thiemo Kellner
> linux to be faster, much faster.
> I'll give linux another try in a year from now, I hope by then it will
> have improved in speed and the GUI is much faster, there is no reason
> why it should not much better. If linux failes, then it will be the fault
> of the linux programmers, not microsoft this time.
Most distros put enphasis on a stable and reliable system. They
provide, therefore, failsafe configurations that possibly are far from
being fast. For instance dma for ide devices is not turned on by
default as there are 'buggy' disks on the market that could destroy
your data. And after all, Windows doesn't leave you much freedom in
optimizing the speed of itself, Linux does.
I have installed a Debian 3.0 (Woody) on a Duron 850 MHz with 1.5 GB
RAM. First I tried KDE and felt it loaded too slow so I switched to
Gnome with Sawfish and this one loads really fast. As with rispect to
working speed I am not quite sure if there is much of a difference.
However, if there is, I am pretty sure Gnome beats KDE. On the other
hand I don't like Gnome as much as KDE. So for this server of mine,
I'll probably stick with Gnome, where as the workstation I'm going to
set up will provide me a sleek KDE 3 desktop.
Cheers,
Thiemo
Limestone_Cowboy
easier to set stuff up for work.
We have a FoxPro database for work for producing geotechnical borehole and
excavation records. If I can find a Linux replacement for that I would be
more than happy I would be bloody ectsatic.
"Thiemo Kellner" <thi...@gmx.ch> wrote in message
news:c1a00b4f.0212...@posting.google.com...
Kevin Nathan
"Limestone_Cowboy" <Limeston...@BTInternet.com> wrote:
> Trying out MySQL at the moment, however the GUI front end to Access makes it
> easier to set stuff up for work.
>
> We have a FoxPro database for work for producing geotechnical borehole and
> excavation records. If I can find a Linux replacement for that I would be
> more than happy I would be bloody ectsatic.
>
OpenOffice.org has a nice front-end to MySQL which provides some
MS Access functionality (more and less) from what I've heard.
Check out this PDF document, see if it's for you:
www.unixodbc.org/doc/OOoMySQL.pdf
I'm sure there are scripts around that can convert FoxPro (dBase)
files to other formats -- I know I used a dbf2csv perl script at
one time but cannot find it on my machine at the moment.
--
Kevin Nathan (Montana, USA)
Open standards. Open source. Open minds.
The command line is the front line.
Linux 2.4.10-4GB
10:36pm up 2 days, 8:20, 3 users, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Limestone_Cowboy
"Kevin Nathan" <kna...@project54.com> wrote in message
news:20021226224342....@project54.com...
Ilari Liusvaara
<c1a00b4f.0212...@posting.google.com>. Dumping datagram.
> I feel there is nothing wrong with expecting that and I also have made
> the experience with Linux (SuSE, Debian and Gentoo) that 'it' (Linux
> is not a company like Microsoft or Apple) is still not installed as
> easily out of the box as MacOS or Windows.
The keyword here is preinstalls. OEMs tweak MSWIN installs signaficantly
before shipping to ensure they fit the hardware.
> However, I am convinced that Windows XP (maybe Windows 2000 though I
> haven't any experience with it) is the first acceptably good M$ OS.
I'd say that MSWIN2000 was best MSWIN microsoft has ever done, and probably
the best they ever will.
MSWINXP licences are completely unacceptable, especally the SP1.
> However, even XP didn't work out of the box with everything I want
AFAIK, Out-of-the-box MSWIN installs are pretty feeble. By far more
so than installs of popular Linux distros.
> I now am sure they are spying the users. This is something I just
> won't tolerate.
Hey, it's known fact. Not a suspicion anymore.
> I feel only few distros like SuSE, RedHat or Mandrake or more or less
> suitable for the average user, say someone who doesn't want (refuses?)
> to delf into the matter Linux.
Yes, Each Linux distro has its own goals. Some champion ease of use, some
champion goals more important for veteran users, and sometimes downright
conflicting with ease of use.
-Ilari
--
You can't make hole-free sharp laws. If you want hole-free law, make
it loose. -- Ilari Liusvaara
Linux LK_Perkele_IV9 2.4.18 #8 SMP Thu Mar 14 19:42:25 EET 2002 i686 unknown
9:07pm up 174 days, 2:37, 3 users, load average: 0.05, 0.01, 0.16
T. Max Devlin
>> > Camp B are full of people who think that Linux looks like Windows and
>> > expect it to work the same. THey are incapable of working things out
>> > for themselves and expect everything to work out of the box just like
>> > it did with Windows
>>
>> What is wrong with expecting things to work out of the box just like
>> with windows? I thought linux prides it self with the zillions of apps
>> that are included in each distro. If anything, it should be the other way
>> around.
>
>I feel there is nothing wrong with expecting that and I also have made
>the experience with Linux (SuSE, Debian and Gentoo) that 'it' (Linux
>is not a company like Microsoft or Apple) is still not installed as
>easily out of the box as MacOS or Windows.
It is if you buy the Windows box separate from the computer box, like you do
the Linux box.
>However, I am convinced
>that Windows XP (maybe Windows 2000 though I haven't any experience
>with it) is the first acceptably good M$ OS.
I am constantly mystified by people who think that XP is at all acceptable as
an OS, particularly if they didn't think earlier versions were.
>However, even XP didn't
>work out of the box with everything I want and I just don't understand
>the way its policy works that lets run programmes by unpreviledged
>users or doesn't let run.
I'm afraid that sounds a lot like gibberish.
>Whereas I formerly suspected M$ to be
>gathering infromation about the user, with their new licensing policy,
>I now am sure they are spying the users. This is something I just
>won't tolerate.
That is a foolish and even silly but completely understandable and even
entirely reasonable response to the monopolization of the PC OS industry.
>> Someone goes to try a new car. The car top speed tuns out to be 10 Km/hr,
>> has confusing and misplaced control panel, ugly colors and flat tires.
>> he returns his car back to the dealer complaining that their other car
>> at home is much easier to use, much faster and looks better. The dealer
>> answer to these crowds is
>
>Quite good comparison, though it is my considered opinion that it does
>hit the point. I just would say that this someone did mistake a truck
>or maybe tank for a car. No wonder he returns it as it does not
>fulfill his needs.
Unix, any Unix and Linux no less, needs quite a bit of commercial development
(quite a really really huge bit more than has been done) to make it a consumer
OS.
>I feel only few distros like SuSE, RedHat or Mandrake or more or less
>suitable for the average user, say someone who doesn't want (refuses?)
>to delf into the matter Linux. On the other hand, it provides a great
>deal of independency and you can do virtually everything you want if
>you know how to. And Howtos there are many.
Time was when anyone who wanted to use a PC had to deal with stuff like what
common Linux distros requires in terms of 'learning how a computer works'.
There are those who think that's enough reason to believe everyone can and
should do that; even those who think it is important and good to do that. It
is even possible that if 'delfing' in to Linux were the same as 'delving in to
the bog-standard PC OS', it would be tolerable. But, no, consumers want a PC,
and if the producers of PC OSes have been castrated by Microsoft's illegal
behavior, the consumers have only been given a vasectomy; MS has simply
produced what the Apple made obvious: a consumer PC. Mis-designed and
ill-conceived, certainly, but essentially what is needed. Unix is a host
system from the 1960s. It happens to be not merely a phenomenal host system
but a new paradigm in software. But its ultimate strength is its portability
between systems, and that's something that benefits programmers, not
consumers. They just want one OS (each), and they want something that works
more or less like a Macintosh, from their perspective, most of them.
Howtos you can put where the Sun don't shine. They're nothing less than
evidence that either there isn't enough documentation with the stuff you
bought or it's just too complicated for the consumer market. We don't want
"everything you want if you know how". We just want "everything you paid
for". A Windows PC doesn't provide it, but there's no baseline to compare
with. As the journalists say, almost religiously, in every article, "Linux is
popular as a server".
Lukas Schratz
Rechenknecht
> I have not crashed XP once and this is under very heavy load.
Then you did never work with a computer. Not seriously, not even gaming.
It's not "heavy load" when you put some books on top of your big tower.
Hey, I can crash every OS I like. Even Linux. Though it's a tough job I
made it ;-)
And pu-leeeeeze, stop that maniac crossposting. No one in serious groups
is interested in wintrolls from cola. (to the guys from cola.... no
offense ment ;-) )
lu'just 3 hours to 2003'ke
--
Obviously I was either onto something, or on something.
-- Larry Wall on the creation of Perl
mjt
> Hey, I can crash every OS I like. Even Linux.
... please show me what to do to crash any of my Linux boxes. i bet
i can prove you wrong.
Tony Hwang
Simply Linux is DOer's OS. In another word, you have to sweat little bit
until you get comfortable with it. It is not like Windows, just install
and run. When it costs nothing, at least I can't complain.
Running SuSe 8.0 Pro, W2K Pro sp3, OS X on home lan. Everyone is satisfied.
Tony
Caleeb wrote:
> I've been lurking in this group for about two weeks now and I find it
> interesting how each of the two opposing sides have Linux experiences
> that seem to be miles apart. There are very few posters who can even
> agree on some of the minor faults of both Windows and Linux as well so
> as a longtime Windows user I decided to see what this Linux noise is
> all about and went out and purchased a copy of SUSE PROFESSIONAL 8 for
> $75.00 at Staples.
>
> I should state that my interest in Linux is a direct result of the
> company I work for tossing the Linux word around as a possible
> alternative to Windows for our mobile sales force.
> I however have nothing to do with that decision because I am not
> involved in the information technology department.
>
> I installed Linux on both my laptop and my home system and Linux had
> problems with both systems.
> The laptop modem did not work at all and when the system would suspend
> it would occasionally freeze up and the only way I could reset it was
> to hold the power switch down for 5 seconds to force a power off. This
> did not happen all the time, but was frequent enough to become a major
> problem.
>
> The infared port also did not work correctly nor did the little
> buttons for sound up and down and off on the keyboard.
> None of the F keys would work like suspend, display brightness and
> such.
>
> The highest resolution I could get from the laptop was 1024x768 and 16
> for the color depth. I get 1024x768 and 32 for color depth using
> Windows and the difference between 16 and 32 is very obvious.
>
> I could not get my USB attached floppy drive to work on the laptop
> either.
>
> Linux lasted 3 days on the laptop before I removed it and restored the
> Windows 2000 system that I need to run my business.
>
> My home system, a 2.4 GHZ machine with 1G of RAM and 2 120g hard disks
> was a more positive experience however.
> Linux installed ok and recognized everything but my scanner which is
> an old Canoscan unit which I don't use much anyway.
> I chose a kde desktop and to my eyes it looks pretty slick.
> Looks can be deceiving however because it didn't take long for the
> problems to start. I tried Open office and it installed ok, actually I
> think it was already installed but just needed to be configured. The
> install asks a confusing question about workstation or server install
> that leads me to believe if I select workstation other users on my
> machine won't be able to use the program but if I select server I need
> a server system, which I don't have.
> Server was the default, but I changed it.
> It didn't matter anyhow because the first time I started Open Office
> and selected the font pull down menu the entire system froze solid and
> I could not get out even using the control alt backspace key like the
> SUSE book suggests.
>
> I re booted and tried it again and it did the exact same thing so I
> moved on to something else.
>
> I decided to see what the fuss was about all of these web pages that
> don't seem to work with Linux so I surfed over to the sites that have
> been discussed during the last week and sure enough none of them
> worked properly with mozilla or even with konqueror.
> I did notice that java was not listed in the plug in section of
> mozilla but it was installed and listed with konqueror however none of
> the shockwave stuff was listed with konqueror but was listed with
> mozilla.
> The result was java sites would work with konqueror but not with
> mozilla. Shockwave sites would not work with any of them however.
>
> This didn't matter to me though because I use the internet for
> research not game playing. Some of those sites made me dizzy when I
> tried them using Windows.
>
> I tried burning a CD backup of my home directory like SUSE suggests
> for back up and no matter what I did I could not get the writer to be
> recognized by XCDroast. It kept telling me something about SCSI
> devices even though my burner is an IDE model that works perfectly
> under Windows and even under Linux works fine as a player.
>
> I had problems with Mplayer freezing up on me but I was able to close
> it using system guard.
>
> Xmms had noise in the sound when I played some mp3's. It didn't always
> do it but it was annoying when it did.
>
> Sound also did not work for some applications, like mplayer. It would
> say something like Sound device not available".
>
> My main complaints with Linux center around the slowness of the
> system. I have a pretty fast system and it was brought to it's knees
> by Linux. Opening directories containing a lot of files was very slow
> compared to Windows 2000.
> Just starting up programs seemed to take much longer than it really
> should. I looked in YOST and the DMA was turned on for all of my
> drives, which I had to do manually under Windows 2000.
>
> The Linux graphics system seems to be very slow to me compared to
> Windows 2000.
> I have a Matrox G550 card which is not a game card but is still very
> fast for this kind of work and it just seems very slow using Linux.
>
> I can't see how people can run Linux on anything less than a P4 in the
> gig range using kde or even Window maker which I also tried but didn't
> like.
> It's just way too slow for my tastes compared to Windows.
>
> Is there some kind of a graphics card that works better with Linux
> that maybe I should consider?
>
> Printing was another area that didn't work too well. My printer was
> set up during the install but it cuts off the top of the pages using
> some programs but prints fine using other programs.
> I played with the A4 and Letter settings but if I fix it for one
> program, the others don't work.
>
> My opinion of the Linux applications overall is that they are still in
> the infancy stages of development. They are clunker and crude compared
> to the shareware that one can find for Windows.
>
> Linux may be ready for some people's desktop but it's not ready for
> mine and I would predict that most Windows users trying Linux for the
> first time will reach the same conclusions.
> The problem is not the user, it's not the hardware and it's not the
> particular version of Linux.
>
> The problem is Linux itself and until Linux can at least offer the
> same level of professionalism that Windows and it's applications
> offer, Linux will remain a minor player in the desktop operating
> system category.
>
> Caleeb
Olav P
> Hi,
> Simply Linux is DOer's OS. In another word, you have to sweat little bit
> until you get comfortable with it. It is not like Windows, just install
> and run. When it costs nothing, at least I can't complain.
> Running SuSe 8.0 Pro, W2K Pro sp3, OS X on home lan. Everyone is
> satisfied. Tony
You have to sweat a little with Windows as well until you are comfortable if
you have not used it for a couple of years. I can vouch for this from
recent experiences when I was forced by market forces to actually install
and use (i.e. check end results) Windows 2000 for a project.
An "alien" environment always brings out some sweat but I think the amount
of perspiration is quite similar between the OS'es at this stage :).
Olav
mjt
> It is not like Windows, just install
> and run.
... and deal with never-ending viruses, constant system crashes,
and dole out lots of money from your bank account.
--
-------------------------------------------+-------------------------
michael j. tobler: motorcyclist, surfer, | Black holes result
skydiver, and author: 'Inside Linux', | when God divides the
'C++ HowTo', 'C++ Unleashed' | universe by zero
Tony Hwang
mjt wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 05:55:48 GMT Tony Hwang <drag...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>It is not like Windows, just install
>>and run.
>
>
> ... and deal with never-ending viruses, constant system crashes,
> and dole out lots of money from your bank account.
>
Hi,
That is considered NORMAL for MS Windows over the years.
Worst thing in the world to deal with is a human. Any hardware/software
is intended to run even if it has bugs. Human? Whew....... how about
your spouse as a starter?
Happy new year, all the best in 2K3.
Tony
Moritz Franosch
mjt <mjtobler@removethis_consultant.com> writes:
> Lukas Schratz wrote:
>
> > Hey, I can crash every OS I like. Even Linux.
>
> ... please show me what to do to crash
I define a crash as
- loss of availability
As a regular user (different from the one who tries the crash), you
are not able to run an editor, edit and save a short file in a
reasonable amount of time with keyboard/mouse input.
or
- loss of integrity
As a regular user (different from the one who tries the crash), you
are not able to save an open file in your already open editor with
keyboard/mouse input.
> any of my Linux boxes.
As a regular user of course and only with keyboard/mouse input.
> i bet i can prove you wrong.
I don't know what runs on your boxes, but perhaps the following.
- Allocate much memory (success depends on whether the out of memory
killer is working properly).
- Exploit a bug in kernel 2.4.19.
- Start 3D applications (success in either way is very much dependent
on the application).
- Execute the file ./crash with contents
#!/bin/bash
./crash &
./crash &
- Start two or more X servers and switch between them or start two or
more at the same time (takes some time, but I've had "success" on
three machines, i.e. every machine I've tried this, with totally
different hardware).
Jhair Tocancipa Triana
>> > Hey, I can crash every OS I like. Even Linux.
>>
>> ... please show me what to do to crash
[fake crash theory here]
> I don't know what runs on your boxes, but perhaps the following.
> - Execute the file ./crash with contents
> #!/bin/bash
> ./crash &
> ./crash &
man ulimit
--
--Jhair
Public Key fingerprint = 81FF 3ADF BF6B CECB C593 4018 27AE D7D2 BAA6 00D0
Ruel Smith
>> > Hey, I can crash every OS I like. Even Linux.
>>
>> ... please show me what to do to crash
>
> I define a crash as
>
> - loss of availability
> As a regular user (different from the one who tries the crash), you
> are not able to run an editor, edit and save a short file in a
> reasonable amount of time with keyboard/mouse input.
>
> or
>
> - loss of integrity
> As a regular user (different from the one who tries the crash), you
> are not able to save an open file in your already open editor with
> keyboard/mouse input.
I define crash as the whole operating system either shutting down, freezing
up completely, or your computer spontaneously rebooting. Windows XP doesn't
do the first two (so far) on my computer, but it does the last one with
regularity. I'm just too lazy to fix it since I have a perfectly good
running Linux box.
You can f**k up any OS if you go in and fool with the wront thing. However,
on a normal installation that is properly setup, Linux is _VERY_ stable.
Moritz Franosch
Ruel Smith <no...@nospam.com> writes:
> Moritz Franosch wrote:
>
> > I define a crash as
> >
> > - loss of availability
> > As a regular user (different from the one who tries the crash), you
> > are not able to run an editor, edit and save a short file in a
> > reasonable amount of time with keyboard/mouse input.
> >
> > or
> >
> > - loss of integrity
> > As a regular user (different from the one who tries the crash), you
> > are not able to save an open file in your already open editor with
> > keyboard/mouse input.
>
> I define
Your definition has some obvious weak points.
> crash as the whole operating system either shutting down, freezing
> up completely, or your computer spontaneously rebooting.
A spontaneous restart of X windows would be no crash according to your
definition. But a X windows "crash" on a destop comes close to a
"spontaneous reboot" from the user's point of view.
An error in the keyboard driver such that only the 'a' key is still
working wouldn't be a crash according to your definition, because you
can still type 'aaaa' and therefore the machine isn't "freezing up
completely".
Geezer
Limeston...@BTInternet.com says...
> Trying out MySQL at the moment, however the GUI front end to Access makes it
> easier to set stuff up for work.
>
> We have a FoxPro database for work for producing geotechnical borehole and
> excavation records. If I can find a Linux replacement for that I would be
> more than happy I would be bloody ectsatic.
>
mysqlfront is one I can think of for managing mysql from windows also
mysqlcc from the peeps who do mysql.
EMS postgresql manager, pgexplorer etc. have a look around.
HTH
Greg
Ruel Smith
> Your definition has some obvious weak points.
>
>> crash as the whole operating system either shutting down, freezing
>> up completely, or your computer spontaneously rebooting.
>
> A spontaneous restart of X windows would be no crash according to your
> definition. But a X windows "crash" on a destop comes close to a
> "spontaneous reboot" from the user's point of view.
>
> An error in the keyboard driver such that only the 'a' key is still
> working wouldn't be a crash according to your definition, because you
> can still type 'aaaa' and therefore the machine isn't "freezing up
> completely".
No, a spontaneous restart of X86 is not a system restart or crash. Windows,
on my other computer, totally reboots and I'm presented with a dialog that
Windows recovered from a fatal crash. I agree, there is a configuration
problem present in X86 in your analogy and it's troublesome, but the system
is usable without it. It's not a system crash, but merely a crash of an
unnecessary component of the system. There is a difference. It's more akin
to say MS Word restarting or crashing. Windows is still usable isn't it? It
had no affect on Windows at all. Well, when X crashes, you can still use
the command line can't you? As a matter of fact, if you know what you're
doing, you can fix X and restart it from the command line - all without
rebooting. The system didn't crash or restart at all. You see, when Windows
crashes, you have no options. When X crashes, your OS is still completely
usable in command mode. The OS never failed at all.
Correct on the second point. Aren't you still able to use the mouse? A
freezup doesn't allow any input at all. The clock stops working, mouse
doesn't move and doesn't respond to click events, and the keyboard is
unresponsive too. Sometimes the hard drive spins endlessly. Absolutely
nothing works. I've had keyboard problems such as that on a bad upgrade to
my keyboard driver software in Windows too, but I didn't consider it a
system crash either. It's just a problematic keyboard driver.
Moritz Franosch
Ruel Smith <no...@nospam.com> writes:
> Moritz Franosch wrote:
>
> > Your definition has some obvious weak points.
> >
> >> crash as the whole operating system either shutting down, freezing
> >> up completely, or your computer spontaneously rebooting.
> >
> > A spontaneous restart of X windows would be no crash according to your
> > definition. But a X windows "crash" on a destop comes close to a
> > "spontaneous reboot" from the user's point of view.
> >
> > An error in the keyboard driver such that only the 'a' key is still
> > working wouldn't be a crash according to your definition, because you
> > can still type 'aaaa' and therefore the machine isn't "freezing up
> > completely".
>
> No, a spontaneous restart of X86 is not a system restart or crash.
You may of course define it as you like it (and as many people
do). It's just not very sensible from a usability and availability
perspective.
If I say "This system never crashes." I want to suggest that on this
system, your data is safe and it has a high availability. With your
definition of crash, this conclusion is totally wrong, because if X
windows crashes every ten minutes, you'd better use MS Windows
crashing every day.
Moreover, it would be rather trivial to "fix" a system such that it
never crashes according to your definition: Just write some interrupt
handler that, if there is input to the serial port, starts a serial
port driver that echos every input to the serial port. Even in case of
a so-called "total freeze", you could still "use" the serial port.
> Windows, on my other computer, totally reboots and I'm presented
> with a dialog that Windows recovered from a fatal crash.
Then fix it by just removing the dialog and all boot messages. From a
user's perspective, MS Window's rebooting then could look exactly like
X windows restarting (altough the former would take a litte bit
longer).
> I agree, there is a configuration problem present in X86 in your
> analogy and it's troublesome, but the system is usable without
> it.
Your definition of "system" seems to be very tight. "System" and
"kernel" should be something different. If you speak of a kernel
crash, I agree. But a system is more:
system
A computer system consists of hardware components that have been
carefully chosen so that they work well together and software
components or programs that run in the computer.
crash
A crash is the sudden failure of a software application or operating
system or of a hardware device such as a hard disk.
> It's not a system crash, but merely a crash of an unnecessary
> component of the system.
Huh. If your cockpit or nuclear power plant control panel is running
on X windows and suddenly vanishes, this is not a crash of an
unnecessary component. It's a sudden failure of critical software or
hardware components, i.e. a system crash. And as we are talking of the
desktop here, X windows certainly isn't unnecessary. I'd agree on the
server.
> There is a difference. It's more akin to say MS Word restarting or
> crashing. Windows is still usable isn't it?
Agree.
> It had no affect on Windows at all. Well, when X crashes, you can
> still use the command line can't you?
My contol panel does not run on the command line, sorry. Moreover X
can crash such that you can't even switch to the command line.
> As a matter of fact, if you know what you're doing, you can fix X
> and restart it from the command line -
I can always restart my panel by pressing reset. With luck, it comes
up again in time. Nevertheless, there has been a system crash.
> all without rebooting.
Then run MS Windows in Vmware and your system, according to your
definition, will never crash. But you won't have any benefits from
doing that because MS Windows will crash as before. You see? With your
definition, there is just not necessarily a relevant difference
between "the system crashes all the time" and "the system never
crashes".
> The system didn't crash or restart at all. You see, when Windows
> crashes, you have no options.
Depends. With Win 3.1 and luck you may just fall back to the DOS
command line. Or to the BIOS command line, if you have one.
> When X crashes, your OS is still completely usable in command
> mode. The OS never failed at all.
If you mean the kernel by "OS", maybe.
> Correct on the second point. Aren't you still able to use the mouse?
> A freezup doesn't allow any input at all. The clock stops working,
> mouse doesn't move and doesn't respond to click events, and the
> keyboard is unresponsive too. Sometimes the hard drive spins
> endlessly. Absolutely nothing works. I've had keyboard problems such
> as that on a bad upgrade to my keyboard driver software in Windows
> too, but I didn't consider it a system crash either. It's just a
> problematic keyboard driver.
The panel was black? The plane didn't react to any input? But the
status light was still blinking green? Thank god, I've already thought
there was a system crash.
David Brown
"Moritz Franosch" <ma...@Franosch.org> wrote in message
news:m3of6ri...@gateway.askos...
>
> Ruel Smith <no...@nospam.com> writes:
>
> > Moritz Franosch wrote:
> >
> >
> > No, a spontaneous restart of X86 is not a system restart or crash.
>
> You may of course define it as you like it (and as many people
> do). It's just not very sensible from a usability and availability
> perspective.
>
> If I say "This system never crashes." I want to suggest that on this
> system, your data is safe and it has a high availability. With your
> definition of crash, this conclusion is totally wrong, because if X
> windows crashes every ten minutes, you'd better use MS Windows
> crashing every day.
>
What you define as "the system" depends on what you want to do with the
computer. In windows, the minimal system is the kernel, the services, the
gui, and the desktop shell. But if you are using the computer purely as a
word processor, running MS Word (for those unlucky enough to have to use
it), then you could well describe the system as including MS Word - even
though it is an application. To the user, a crash in MS Word leading to a
lose of data is just as bad as if it were the Windows gui or the kernel that
crashed. In Linux, the gui (X) and the desktop (KDE, Gnome, Ice, whatever)
are not part of the minimal system - to the kernel, they are simply
applications. To the user, however, they are part of the system. Someone
using a Linux box for word processing is going to react in the same way to a
crash in Open Office, KDE, X, or the kernel - the difference is just in how
long it takes them to get up and running again.
But if you are using the system for something different, that is not
dependant on the part that crashed, then it is a different matter. If you
also use the computer for email and browsing, and the word processor
crashes, then you could not reasonably say that the "system" has crashed.
In the windows world, almost everything is dependant on the gui, so other
services such as a web server or email server will also die as a result of a
gui crash - hence it can be called a "system" crash. On linux, this is not
necessarily the case. If everything you are doing was started from within
X, and X crashes - it's a system crash. But if you have a web/mail/database
server running, and X crashes, then it's not a system crash - the essential
parts of the system continue running regardless.
Moritz Franosch
"David Brown" <da...@no.westcontrol.spam.com> writes:
> "Moritz Franosch" <ma...@Franosch.org> wrote in message
> news:m3of6ri...@gateway.askos...
> >
> > Ruel Smith <no...@nospam.com> writes:
> >
> > > Moritz Franosch wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > No, a spontaneous restart of X86 is not a system restart or crash.
> >
> > You may of course define it as you like it (and as many people
> > do). It's just not very sensible from a usability and availability
> > perspective.
> >
> > If I say "This system never crashes." I want to suggest that on this
> > system, your data is safe and it has a high availability. With your
> > definition of crash, this conclusion is totally wrong, because if X
> > windows crashes every ten minutes, you'd better use MS Windows
> > crashing every day.
> >
>
> What you define as "the system" depends on what you want to do with the
> computer.
I'd like to define it on what one could want to do or could expect to
be able to do. But you are right. On a server system you'd expect to
(at least) be able to log in remotely. On a desktop system you'd
expect to (at least) be able to log in with xdm. If someone else has
managed to leave the system in an unusable state (the screen shows X
but Ctrl-Alt-Backspace does not work), it's a system failure
(crash). On a database system containing many computers, you'd expect
to at least be able to retrieve some data (perhaps even if one of the
computers has crashed, i.e. does not fulfill its normal operation
regarding the database).
Yes, of course. A system is always a more or less complicated
collection of interacting subsystems. If the subsystem X is required,
the system crashes, if X crashes.
> In windows, the minimal system is the kernel, the services, the
> gui, and the desktop shell. But if you are using the computer purely as a
> word processor, running MS Word (for those unlucky enough to have to use
> it), then you could well describe the system as including MS Word - even
> though it is an application.
Agree. A "word processing system".
> To the user, a crash in MS Word leading to a lose of data is just as
> bad as if it were the Windows gui or the kernel that crashed. In
> Linux, the gui (X) and the desktop (KDE, Gnome, Ice, whatever) are
> not part of the minimal system - to the kernel, they are simply
> applications. To the user, however, they are part of the system.
> Someone using a Linux box for word processing is going to react in
> the same way to a crash in Open Office, KDE, X, or the kernel - the
> difference is just in how long it takes them to get up and running
> again.
>
> But if you are using the system for something different, that is not
> dependant on the part that crashed, then it is a different matter. If you
> also use the computer for email and browsing, and the word processor
> crashes, then you could not reasonably say that the "system" has crashed.
Right. A desktop system is normally used to log in via the console,
maybe also remotely, and execute programs. If a user manages to make
the system suddenly unusable for other users, i.e. all other user's
programs crash or other users aren't able to log in any more, this
situation should be considered as a sudden system failure or crash.
Of course, if a user manages to crash his word processor, this is also
a system failure in the user's perspective, but it's not a failure of
the "destop system", because _others_ can still use it. You are
totally right if you say you always have to specify what you mean by
"the system".
> In the windows world, almost everything is dependant on the gui, so other
> services such as a web server or email server will also die as a result of a
> gui crash - hence it can be called a "system" crash. On linux, this is not
> necessarily the case. If everything you are doing was started from within
> X, and X crashes - it's a system crash. But if you have a web/mail/database
> server running, and X crashes, then it's not a system crash - the essential
> parts of the system continue running regardless.
Yes, totally agree. The separation of the GUI from other parts of the
system makes a Linux server system crash less often (all crashes due
to X can't happen), which is an advantage over a MS Windows server
system.
But considering a Linux _desktop_ system, it suddenly doesn't matter
any more whether X or the kernel crash. If on a desktop system X is
locked and none can log in via the console, this should be considered
a (desktop) system crash (the system isn't available anymore; you may
still be able to ensure system integrity by shutting down remotely,
which is _still_ an advantage over MS Windows, but nevertheless it's a
crash; there are simply more and less severe crashes).
To compare MS Windows and Linux systems in regard of crashes, it is
sensible either to compare MS server systems with Linux server systems
or destop systems with each other.
If you want to compare word processing systems or flight navigation
systems, you have to specify more clearly what you are talking
about. Also, in the case of word processing systems, system crashes
may also depend severely on the application, whereas when a desktop
system crashes, all or most applications become unusable.
Ruel Smith
>
> But considering a Linux _desktop_ system, it suddenly doesn't matter
> any more whether X or the kernel crash. If on a desktop system X is
> locked and none can log in via the console, this should be considered
> a (desktop) system crash (the system isn't available anymore; you may
> still be able to ensure system integrity by shutting down remotely,
> which is _still_ an advantage over MS Windows, but nevertheless it's a
> crash; there are simply more and less severe crashes).
>
> To compare MS Windows and Linux systems in regard of crashes, it is
> sensible either to compare MS server systems with Linux server systems
> or destop systems with each other.
>
> If you want to compare word processing systems or flight navigation
> systems, you have to specify more clearly what you are talking
> about. Also, in the case of word processing systems, system crashes
> may also depend severely on the application, whereas when a desktop
> system crashes, all or most applications become unusable.
I think we're getting to the point of splitting a lot of hairs to define
exactly what is what. I agree that if a system is designed to say run a
nuclear powerplant using the X window system and X goes down, yes, I'd have
to say that's a system crash - regardless of the fact that one would be
stupid to rely on such technology for something so critical. I agree with
you somewhat, but disagree other places.
I still think Linux kicks Windows' ass when it comes to stability, hands
down. My SuSE box is rock solid stable and everything works. I can't say
that for my Win XP box, though with some troubleshooting (when I get
un-busy) it could be much more trouble free.
David Brown
"Moritz Franosch" <ma...@Franosch.org> wrote in message
>
> "David Brown" <da...@no.westcontrol.spam.com> writes:
>
< snip the bits we pretty much agree on >
> > In the windows world, almost everything is dependant on the gui, so
other
> > services such as a web server or email server will also die as a result
of a
> > gui crash - hence it can be called a "system" crash. On linux, this is
not
> > necessarily the case. If everything you are doing was started from
within
> > X, and X crashes - it's a system crash. But if you have a
web/mail/database
> > server running, and X crashes, then it's not a system crash - the
essential
> > parts of the system continue running regardless.
>
> Yes, totally agree. The separation of the GUI from other parts of the
> system makes a Linux server system crash less often (all crashes due
> to X can't happen), which is an advantage over a MS Windows server
> system.
>
> But considering a Linux _desktop_ system, it suddenly doesn't matter
> any more whether X or the kernel crash. If on a desktop system X is
> locked and none can log in via the console, this should be considered
> a (desktop) system crash (the system isn't available anymore; you may
> still be able to ensure system integrity by shutting down remotely,
> which is _still_ an advantage over MS Windows, but nevertheless it's a
> crash; there are simply more and less severe crashes).
>
I agree mostly, but I have a couple of points to add. First, for the
*really* pedantic, there are many people who use Linux as a desktop system
but do not use X - with its virtual terminals, mulit-tasking, and powerful
shells, along with text mode editors, ides, debuggers, compilers, mail, news
and web programs, etc., there are many users who never feel the need to use
X. I have often used my linux box in this way.
Secondly, it is extremly rare for X to crash in such a way that it locks
local access to the terminals. It's possible - and therefore relevant to
the discussion. But it's rare. In general, if X dies, then you can simply
restart it from a console (or, for most people, let xdm/gdm/kdm restart it
automatically).
Thirdly, even if X crashes and you can't access the consoles, the keyboard
handler will probably still be working, allowing you to Ctrl-Alt-Del (on
most distributions, this is set up to cause a controlled shutdown and
reboot - to make Windows users feel at home). This is unlike Windows, where
the keyboard can be completly locked from problems further up the chain
(i.e., in the gui).
> To compare MS Windows and Linux systems in regard of crashes, it is
> sensible either to compare MS server systems with Linux server systems
> or destop systems with each other.
This is correct, and on desktop systems a crash in X is just like a crash in
windows gui - it is a system crash. But on a linux server, a crash in X is
an application crash (and you probably shouldn't have been using X on the
server anyway), while on windows a crash in the gui is still a system crash.
Given that gui crashes are far more common (on both systems) than
kernel-level crashes, it is clear why most people feel that mission-critical
servers should not have a gui at all.
Peter Köhlmann
< snip >
>
> This is correct, and on desktop systems a crash in X is just like a
> crash in
> windows gui - it is a system crash. But on a linux server, a crash in X
> is an application crash (and you probably shouldn't have been using X on
> the server anyway), while on windows a crash in the gui is still a
> system crash. Given that gui crashes are far more common (on both
> systems) than kernel-level crashes, it is clear why most people feel
> that mission-critical servers should not have a gui at all.
>
You have to add to that the printer drivers, since they also use GDI. A
faulty printer driver (which is even more likely than a faulty video
driver, since new printers arrive faster than the beta driver version for
the printer before) can bring the system down with equal ease.
Peter
--
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' -
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.