My Chronicle of switching to Ubuntu
Bear Bottoms
my spare computer. I have easily completed the creation of the Ubuntu CD,
my spare computer booted to the Ubuntu CD and I checked the CD's integrity
which it passed completely. That is as far as I'm going to go tonight.
Tomorrow night, I will erase/wipe the spare computers hard drive and
install Unbuntu:
Installing Ubuntu: http://www.ubuntu.com/desktop
This is the live CD: download the Ubuntu DesktopCD
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/GetUbuntu/download?action=show&redirect=download
and test Ubuntu without changing anything on your computer. If you want to
keep Ubuntu permanently, there is an easy installer right on the DesktopCD.
1.Download the Ubuntu 6.10 iso image file
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/GetUbuntu/download#currentrelease. (This
took 16 minutes at an average of 800 KB/s from the Georgia mirror site)
2.Downloaded Hash Tab http://www.beeblebrox.org/hashtab/ to verify the iso
is a clean download. To use it, after the iso download, right click the
iso image file, select properties, select File Hashes tab, and compare the
hash calculated for your file to the corresponding one on the UbuntuHashes
page https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuHashes. My hash was
b950a4d7cf3151e5f213843e2ad77fe3, so I copied the same from the
UbuntuHashes page and the download checked clean. (This took about 3
minutes.)
3.To burn the ISO image, download and install ImgBurn,
http://imgburn.com/ a free image burning program. Insert a blank CD in
the drive and select Do nothing or Cancel if an autorun dialog pops up.
[This didn't work: Right click on the ISO image you downloaded and select
Burn with Imgburn.] So I put a CD in and ran ImgBurn, chose the source ISO
file and the “write to CD destination was already chosen, selected a
slower 4x speed to write, then clicked the Write Disc button and waited
for the CD to finish burning. (This took about 20 minutes.)
4.Verify the integrity of the burn. Insert your Ubuntu CD into the drive
of the computer that you want to run/install Ubuntu onto. Turn the
computer on, or restart the computer. At the CD menu, choose 'Check CD
for Defects' (if you never get to the menu, try BootFromCD
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/BootFromCD). Wait for this process to
complete and it will let you know if all of the files are 100% intact.
This phase, I went into the bios and moved boot to CD as first choice in
the boot sequence, put the CD in the drive and restarted my PC. It booted
to Ubuntu and I selected 'Check for Defects.' (This took about four
minutes and had zero defects and said to press any key to restart, and the
machine booted back to the start menu.)
--
I Research Freeware http://bearbottoms1.com
Mary Sunshine
> This is a step by step chronicle of progress towards installing Ubuntu on
> my spare computer.
Hi, thanks for this!
I'm going to follow this closely and replicate the process. Talk about
hitching a ride.
bigjon
best choice - had Ubuntu on my little old laptop first, thinking of going
all in now as they have support for AMD 64...
Good luck!
Lew/+Silat
"Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in message news:op.tj5x4fn8jo4m88@c57jw11...
Did this same process. Still wondering why I would use this OS..
--
Lew/+Silat
Bear Bottoms
<Drafted1970...@Invalid.com> wrote:
>
> Did this same process. Still wondering why I would use this OS..
>
Lew/+Silat
"Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in message news:op.tj500gi6jo4m88@c57jw11...
Hehe! I cant finish the thought as I cant come up with a valid reason to ever use it........... If someone
can give some truly valid reasons other than "windows sucks" then I may put it on another HD and play with
it.
Im sure that there are some reasons for some people using it. But hating Bill Gates isnt good enough. :) I
dont hate him. In fact without windows I wouldnt have ever gotten online and made the friends I have.
Lew/+Silat
Sure, a woman can fake an orgasm,
but it takes a man to fake a whole relationship.
Steve H
<Drafted1970...@Invalid.com> wrote:
>
>"Bear Bottoms" <bearbo...@gmai.com> wrote in message news:op.tj500gi6jo4m88@c57jw11...
>> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 19:09:41 -0600, Lew/+Silat <Drafted1970...@Invalid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did this same process. Still wondering why I would use this OS..
>>>
>> Dang man....finish the thought. I gotta know.
>>
>
>Hehe! I cant finish the thought as I cant come up with a valid reason to ever use it........... If someone
>can give some truly valid reasons other than "windows sucks" then I may put it on another HD and play with
>it.
>
>Im sure that there are some reasons for some people using it. But hating Bill Gates isnt good enough. :) I
>dont hate him. In fact without windows I wouldnt have ever gotten online and made the friends I have.
>
I'd be interested to know whether they've sorted out the bizarre
'shortcut' problem.
When I last tried Ubuntu I copied the main html help file across to my
hard drive, them dragged a shortcut from the index.htm to the desktop
- on the obvious grounds that it would be a file I'd be accessing
heavily.
However, when the help file was opened via the shortcut only the index
page came up. Clicking any other link resulted in a page not found
error.
I spent some time faffing about with the shortcut properties, but
never got the damn thing to work.
Duplicating the procedure on a windows machine ( I couldn't quite
believe it ) resulted in the operation you'd expect - all internal
links worked fine. So, in order to browse the Linux Ubuntu help file I
had to reboot into Windows. Hey ho.
I reformatted and bunged W2K on - and got on with some work.
Regards,
--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: anyoldname(*AT*)gmx(*dot*)co(*dot*)uk
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> Hehe! I cant finish the thought as I cant come up with a valid reason to
> ever use it........... If someone can give some truly valid reasons other
> than "windows sucks" then I may put it on another HD and play with it.
I've been using Linux exclusively for about five years now. Before that I
had used various Unices for about twenty years in various professional
capacities. I had never thought of Windows as a serious, stable operating
system, something that is now becoming common knowledge.
Linux does everything I need, and to make the computer stop operating, I
have to turn it off. With Windows, all I had to do was try something the
Redmond cowboy coders hadn't thought of -- which is to say, practically
anything.
Linux offer so much for so little that, in a planetary balancing act, it
almost makes up for the fact the Microsoft exists.
> Im sure that there are some reasons for some people using it. But hating
> Bill Gates isnt good enough. :)
Any of you know the Christian saying, "hate the sin, love the sinner"? I'm
not a Christian, but I always liked this particular saying. Applied to
Microsoft, it would go "Love Bill Gates, hate his software".
This sounds silly, but it has a serious point. Bill Gates the philanthropist
might do for polio what an international team did for smallpox in the 1970s
-- e.g. eradicate it from the planet. If he succeeds, I would be inclined
to forgive him for a lot of terrible software.
And eradicating polio would be way more difficult than eradicating smallpox,
because only about 2% of polio victims show any symptoms at all (they are
carriers, they infect others, but they don't know they have the disease).
So ... more power to him in his philanthropic endeavors.
Bill Gates and his partner have recently set a Gates Foundation goal of
spending all their money on philanthropic projects within 50 years of their
death. No big empire, no descendants living off their ancestors' money.
Hate the sin, love the sinner.
> I dont hate him. In fact without windows I
> wouldnt have ever gotten online and made the friends I have.
This is a sampling error. No control group. You don't know what the world
might look like without Windows.
Think like a scientist. Imagine the control group, the alternate world.
I don't want to go off on yet another tangent, but in every life decision,
it's important to try to imagine the consequences, as well as trying to
imagine alternate realities for changes that are not practical.
What would have happened if the transistor had not been invented when it
was? What would have happened if there was no coal or oil on this planet?
Stuff like that.
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
Lew/+Silat
I can imagine my friend. But windows is the operating system that was here and used by a majority of the
planet. The few things I do that matter to me on the puter cant be done in Linux. That is enough for me not
to need it..
Now if it can somehow miraculously do those things then Im all ears.:)
--
Lew/+Silat
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> I'd be interested to know whether they've sorted out the bizarre
> 'shortcut' problem.
There is no bizarre "shortcut" problem. Yours was a beginner's error.
> When I last tried Ubuntu I copied the main html help file across to my
> hard drive,
You what? Copied it "across" from where? From the Internet to your local
HDD?
> them dragged a shortcut from the index.htm to the desktop
> - on the obvious grounds that it would be a file I'd be accessing
> heavily.
> However, when the help file was opened via the shortcut only the index
> page came up. Clicking any other link resulted in a page not found
> error.
Of course. HTML pages use relative addressing, and you removed the page from
its context. The exact same thing would have happened under Windows, if the
same procedure had been followed. By copying the HTML page to your desktop.
you deprived it of its context, its way of finding related files and
graphics.
This exact same thing would have happened under Windows, if the same actions
were taken.
> I spent some time faffing about with the shortcut properties, but
> never got the damn thing to work.
If you copy any Web page whatsoever, from any Web site whatsoever, onto a
local HDD, under Windows or Linux, it will not work at its destination --
unless you copy everything along with it, or unless the page only uses
absolute addresses in its resource links, which is (1) very rare, and (2)
bad HTML design.
This is a beginner's error, no matter which operating system is in use.
> Duplicating the procedure on a windows machine ( I couldn't quite
> believe it ) resulted in the operation you'd expect - all internal
> links worked fine.
You did not duplicate the procedure. If you had, the outcome would have been
exactly the same. Instead, you used the MSIE page copy feature, a feature
also supported by Firefox under Linux. This feature changes all the
internal addresses in the page to refer to their absolute origins, or
copies all required resources to the local storage site.
You used a different procedure on Windows, got a different result, and then
unfairly judged Linux based on your error.
While you were in Linux, you made one mistake and then judged the entire
thing based on that one experience. Imagine if women operated this way --
the entire human race would die out in a generation.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> I can imagine my friend. But windows is the operating system that was here
> and used by a majority of the planet. The few things I do that matter to
> me on the puter cant be done in Linux.
Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you can do on
Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
> That is enough for me not to need
> it.. Now if it can somehow miraculously do those things then Im all
> ears.:)
Define "those things".
Jörg Schneider
> While you were in Linux, you made one mistake and then judged the entire
> thing based on that one experience. Imagine if women operated this way --
> the entire human race would die out in a generation.
Sigged :-)
--
"While you were in Linux, you made one mistake and then judged the entire
thing based on that one experience. Imagine if women operated this way --
the entire human race would die out in a generation."
Paul Lutus in alt.comp.freeware
Bernard Peek
<Ava...@Sig.UK> writes
>I'd be interested to know whether they've sorted out the bizarre
>'shortcut' problem.
>When I last tried Ubuntu I copied the main html help file across to my
>hard drive, them dragged a shortcut from the index.htm to the desktop
>- on the obvious grounds that it would be a file I'd be accessing
>heavily.
>However, when the help file was opened via the shortcut only the index
>page came up. Clicking any other link resulted in a page not found
>error.
I'm trying to work out what went wrong here. Let me see whether I have
this right. You copied one help file (the index page) from one location
to another, then made a shortcut to the copy.
I wouldn't expect that to work under either Windows or Linux. You would
have to copy all of the linked HTML pages to the new location. You could
then create a shortcut to the index file, the shortcut would open the
.htm file in it's current location, and that's where the linked files
would also be.
>I spent some time faffing about with the shortcut properties, but
>never got the damn thing to work.
>Duplicating the procedure on a windows machine ( I couldn't quite
>believe it ) resulted in the operation you'd expect - all internal
>links worked fine. So, in order to browse the Linux Ubuntu help file I
>had to reboot into Windows. Hey ho.
It sounds as if under Windows you may have created a shortcut to the
original file, rather than a shortcut to an isolated copy of it. Or
possibly you created a shortcut to the original file, then a copy of the
shortcut. Both of those would work.
>
>I reformatted and bunged W2K on - and got on with some work.
Understandable. I like to think I would have figured out what went
wrong, but I might not have.
--
Bernard Peek
back in search of cognoscenti
KeithS
> Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you can do on
> Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
Operate a Canon i550 printer properly
Operate an HP scanjet 2400 scanner properly
Lew/+Silat
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in message news:12nfrik...@corp.supernews.com...
Absolutely:)
Go for it...
www.hitechcreations.com
--
Lew/+Silat
wab
"Paul Lutus" <nos...@nosite.zzz> wrote in message
news:12nfrik...@corp.supernews.com...
> on
> Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
>
a BT Voyager 2100/1040 straight away out of the disc for a newbie.
Windows does. No distro I've found does Ndiswrappers et. al. are not for
newbies. I want to go Linux, I really do, and have tried, many times to
learn and use, the conclusions I have come to is that with the equipment I
have here and my location (UK) Windows is the only way to go for me.
Unless someone convinces me otherwise.........
wab
Juzme
>The few things I do that matter to me on the puter cant be done in Linux....
>Now if it can somehow miraculously do those things then Im all ears.:)
I have found with brief experience that Linux can do most anything
Windows can do-- probably without limitation. You probably just don't
know how to do some things in Linux. There are folks who can quickly
tell you how to do what you want to do in Linux if you want to learn and
ask them how; e.g., the Ubuntu wiki and help pages and hundreds of other
sources. Even here, you might get the know how you lack if you ask but
I suspect you are content to stay with a rented and vulnerable OS from
MS. Juzme
Steve H
wrote:
>In message <d4lfn2t29hpbsvba8...@4ax.com>, Steve H
><Ava...@Sig.UK> writes
>
>
>>I'd be interested to know whether they've sorted out the bizarre
>>'shortcut' problem.
>>When I last tried Ubuntu I copied the main html help file across to my
>>hard drive, them dragged a shortcut from the index.htm to the desktop
>>- on the obvious grounds that it would be a file I'd be accessing
>>heavily.
>>However, when the help file was opened via the shortcut only the index
>>page came up. Clicking any other link resulted in a page not found
>>error.
>
>I'm trying to work out what went wrong here. Let me see whether I have
>this right. You copied one help file (the index page) from one location
>to another, then made a shortcut to the copy.
Nope, I copied over the entire file - which is to say all the htm
files in the help directory.
>
>I wouldn't expect that to work under either Windows or Linux.
I would - and it did, under Windows.
A html help file contains internal links - each page is linked
relative to the index.htm ( as opposed to, say, a website, where the
pages are usually linked to the root folder.
>You would
>have to copy all of the linked HTML pages to the new location. You could
>then create a shortcut to the index file, the shortcut would open the
>.htm file in it's current location, and that's where the linked files
>would also be.
Goes without saying - the pages have to be where index.htm expects
them to be.
>
>>I spent some time faffing about with the shortcut properties, but
>>never got the damn thing to work.
>>Duplicating the procedure on a windows machine ( I couldn't quite
>>believe it ) resulted in the operation you'd expect - all internal
>>links worked fine. So, in order to browse the Linux Ubuntu help file I
>>had to reboot into Windows. Hey ho.
>
>It sounds as if under Windows you may have created a shortcut to the
>original file, rather than a shortcut to an isolated copy of it. Or
>possibly you created a shortcut to the original file, then a copy of the
>shortcut. Both of those would work.
No possible - the original file was on the Ubuntu CD, which, once the
files were copied, was removed.
In any event, I check the internal links, which were all relative.
>
>>
>>I reformatted and bunged W2K on - and got on with some work.
>
>Understandable. I like to think I would have figured out what went
>wrong, but I might not have.
Well, I tried - and in spite of a few Linux geeks taking the time to
suggest I didn't know what I was doing ( hey ho ), no-one offered a
working solution.
Shame really, in hardware terms Ubuntu came up better than precious
versions of Slackware and Mandrake..
Steve H
wrote:
>Steve H wrote:
>
>/ ...
>
>> I'd be interested to know whether they've sorted out the bizarre
>> 'shortcut' problem.
>
>There is no bizarre "shortcut" problem. Yours was a beginner's error.
>
>> When I last tried Ubuntu I copied the main html help file across to my
>> hard drive,
>
>You what? Copied it "across" from where? From the Internet to your local
>HDD?
From the distribution disk. Bog-standard procedure for any new
software installation...copy the documentation not normally installed
to the hard drive.
>
>> them dragged a shortcut from the index.htm to the desktop
>> - on the obvious grounds that it would be a file I'd be accessing
>> heavily.
>> However, when the help file was opened via the shortcut only the index
>> page came up. Clicking any other link resulted in a page not found
>> error.
>
>Of course. HTML pages use relative addressing, and you removed the page from
>its context. The exact same thing would have happened under Windows, if the
>same procedure had been followed.
It didn't, and I did.
>By copying the HTML page to your desktop.
>you deprived it of its context, its way of finding related files and
>graphics.
You misread the OP....only the shortcut was on the desktop, the files
resided elsewhere.
Makes no odds though, the internal links all related back to the
index.htm - once that file is opened there should be no problems
provided the linked files are where they should be relative to the
index.htm ( which they were ).
>
>This exact same thing would have happened under Windows, if the same actions
>were taken.
It didn't, and they were.
>
>> I spent some time faffing about with the shortcut properties, but
>> never got the damn thing to work.
>
>If you copy any Web page whatsoever, from any Web site whatsoever, onto a
>local HDD, under Windows or Linux, it will not work at its destination --
>unless you copy everything along with it, or unless the page only uses
>absolute addresses in its resource links, which is (1) very rare, and (2)
>bad HTML design.
As stated, it was a file on the CD - and in effect everything was
copied over, subdirs and all.
>
>This is a beginner's error, no matter which operating system is in use.
>
>> Duplicating the procedure on a windows machine ( I couldn't quite
>> believe it ) resulted in the operation you'd expect - all internal
>> links worked fine.
>
>You did not duplicate the procedure. If you had, the outcome would have been
>exactly the same. Instead, you used the MSIE page copy feature, a feature
>also supported by Firefox under Linux. This feature changes all the
>internal addresses in the page to refer to their absolute origins, or
>copies all required resources to the local storage site.
I didn't go near a browser for the copy operation, and why would I?
>
>You used a different procedure on Windows, got a different result, and then
>unfairly judged Linux based on your error.
I simply copied the file from the CD, as I've done hundreds of times
with no problems.
>
>While you were in Linux, you made one mistake and then judged the entire
>thing based on that one experience. Imagine if women operated this way --
>the entire human race would die out in a generation.
So tell me why it didn't work. Tell me also why it is a good idea that
it didn't work. Tell me why it worked in Windows, and tell me how to
do it under Ubuntu.
Robert Larder
"KeithS" <imposte...@net.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:12nfurh...@corp.supernews.com...
May I add Oki c3200n to that list?
I too would like to go linux, have tried 4 distros, but hit the printer
problem every time.
Is there a workaround?
I quite understand that it`s not the fault of Linux that Oki haven`t
organised drivers, but that don`t make me feel any better ! ;-)
Bob Larder
Juzme
peripherals. Once, I did have to use the "eBay patch" to run my scanner
in Debian.... there's a patch in sane for it now, 'tho. Juzme
elaich
> This is a step by step chronicle of progress towards installing Ubuntu
> on my spare computer. I have easily completed the creation of the
> Ubuntu CD, my spare computer booted to the Ubuntu CD and I checked
> the CD's integrity which it passed completely. That is as far as I'm
> going to go tonight. Tomorrow night, I will erase/wipe the spare
> computers hard drive and install Unbuntu:
Looks like you'll get tons of attention getting mileage with this one.
Hasn't anybody else figured this out yet?
KeithS
> Looks like you'll get tons of attention getting mileage with this one.
> Hasn't anybody else figured this out yet?
True, but I guess many of us have tried (and failed) to 'get on' with
Linux, but are still hanging around hopefully at the garden gate.
--
KeithS.
To reply directly, replace the first at with the second one
Bernard Peek
>On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:58:21 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <d4lfn2t29hpbsvba8...@4ax.com>, Steve H
>><Ava...@Sig.UK> writes
>>
>>
>>>I'd be interested to know whether they've sorted out the bizarre
>>>'shortcut' problem.
>>>When I last tried Ubuntu I copied the main html help file across to my
>>>hard drive, them dragged a shortcut from the index.htm to the desktop
>>>- on the obvious grounds that it would be a file I'd be accessing
>>>heavily.
>>>However, when the help file was opened via the shortcut only the index
>>>page came up. Clicking any other link resulted in a page not found
>>>error.
>>
>>I'm trying to work out what went wrong here. Let me see whether I have
>>this right. You copied one help file (the index page) from one location
>>to another, then made a shortcut to the copy.
>
>Nope, I copied over the entire file - which is to say all the htm
>files in the help directory.
OK. You originally said you copied the file, which is not the same thing
as copying the directory tree -which is what you would need.
>>
>>I wouldn't expect that to work under either Windows or Linux.
>
>I would - and it did, under Windows.
>A html help file contains internal links - each page is linked
>relative to the index.htm ( as opposed to, say, a website, where the
>pages are usually linked to the root folder.
Huh! HTML files aren't linked at all. Files can contain links and like
any other file reference they can be absolute or relative. If all of the
links are relative then they will work if you copy all of the files and
directory structure that contains them. If they are absolute they will
only work if the original files are in place, they won't work if they
aren't. You can choose either option when you create the HTML and there
are arguments for and against each option.
>
>>You would
>>have to copy all of the linked HTML pages to the new location. You could
>>then create a shortcut to the index file, the shortcut would open the
>>.htm file in it's current location, and that's where the linked files
>>would also be.
>
>Goes without saying - the pages have to be where index.htm expects
>them to be.
Yes. But that could be different depending on whether the links are
absolute or relative.
>>
>>>I spent some time faffing about with the shortcut properties, but
>>>never got the damn thing to work.
>>>Duplicating the procedure on a windows machine ( I couldn't quite
>>>believe it ) resulted in the operation you'd expect - all internal
>>>links worked fine. So, in order to browse the Linux Ubuntu help file I
>>>had to reboot into Windows. Hey ho.
>>
>>It sounds as if under Windows you may have created a shortcut to the
>>original file, rather than a shortcut to an isolated copy of it. Or
>>possibly you created a shortcut to the original file, then a copy of the
>>shortcut. Both of those would work.
>
>No possible - the original file was on the Ubuntu CD, which, once the
>files were copied, was removed.
>In any event, I check the internal links, which were all relative.
OK.
>>
>>>
>>>I reformatted and bunged W2K on - and got on with some work.
>>
>>Understandable. I like to think I would have figured out what went
>>wrong, but I might not have.
>
>Well, I tried - and in spite of a few Linux geeks taking the time to
>suggest I didn't know what I was doing ( hey ho ), no-one offered a
>working solution.
>Shame really, in hardware terms Ubuntu came up better than precious
>versions of Slackware and Mandrake..
I like it and if I can find replacements for a few Windows programs I'll
probably switch full-time. Those Linux geeks are trying to find out what
went wrong. Given that the newsgroups aren't full of reports of the
problem you saw then it's clear that the result you got was unusual. If
you tell me that you have holes in your feet and still manage to walk on
water I'll accept that you are infallible and that the problem is a
simple miracle.
If, on the other hand, you are a mere mortal like the rest of us then
it's probable that what you did is not what you have described here,
even though you may believe that it is. I've done too much second and
third-line support to believe that even the most experienced tech gets
it right every time. On balance of probability I'd say that it's likely
that you are misremembering what you did, but I'm open to persuasion. If
you do walk on water I'll accept that the universe has singled you out
for special attention and that you really did what you said, and that
you didn't get the same result that almost everyone else did.
Craig
> "KeithS" skrev i en meddelelse
>>
>>> Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you can do
>>> on
>>> Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
>> Operate a Canon i550 printer properly
>> Operate an HP scanjet 2400 scanner properly
>
> May I add Oki c3200n to that list?
> I too would like to go linux, have tried 4 distros, but hit the printer
> problem every time.
> Is there a workaround?
> I quite understand that it`s not the fault of Linux that Oki haven`t
> organised drivers, but that don`t make me feel any better ! ;-)
> Bob Larder
>
>
I don't know if the answer to your questions are there /directly/ but,
http://www.linuxprinting.org/ is an excellent resource.
I've referred to the site successfully for configuring Brothers,
Minoltas & Cannons (printers, faxes & scanners) both in standalone and
networked situations.
hth,
-Craig
Craig
<grin>
Yea, it'd crossed my mind but until you brought it up, Elaich, I hadn't
/thought/ about it. My take is that "seeking attention" isn't the
problem, rather, it's the method one chooses to do so.
If BB gets the attention he desires from documenting a newbian
experience in Linux, more power to him. (Idle hands...and all that).
ymmv,
-Craig
Robert Larder
"Craig" <netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:mPXdh.19979$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Robert Larder wrote:
>> "KeithS" skrev i en meddelelse
> http://www.linuxprinting.org/ is an excellent resource.
>
> I've referred to the site successfully for configuring Brothers, Minoltas
> & Cannons (printers, faxes & scanners) both in standalone and networked
> situations.
>
> hth,
> -Craig
Craig,
Unfortunatly all they say about my Oki is "Paperweight", and that Oki have
no intention of supplying a driver----PITA, as it`s fairly new, and the
first decent printer I`ve had , I`m not inclined to dump it just for the
pleasure of running Linux.
I was rather hoping someone like Paul Lutus would come up with some magical
solution! :-)
Thanks anyway.
Bob
Steve H
wrote:
>In message <ul3gn212m2ep3k7e6...@4ax.com>, Steve H
><Ava...@Sig.UK> writes
>>On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 10:58:21 +0000, Bernard Peek <b...@shrdlu.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <d4lfn2t29hpbsvba8...@4ax.com>, Steve H
>>><Ava...@Sig.UK> writes
>>>
<snip>
>>
>>Nope, I copied over the entire file - which is to say all the htm
>>files in the help directory.
>
>OK. You originally said you copied the file, which is not the same thing
>as copying the directory tree -which is what you would need.
OK, point taken - I generally consider the tree to constitute the
file, given that it breaks if you dismantle it.
>
>>>
>>>I wouldn't expect that to work under either Windows or Linux.
>>
>>I would - and it did, under Windows.
>>A html help file contains internal links - each page is linked
>>relative to the index.htm ( as opposed to, say, a website, where the
>>pages are usually linked to the root folder.
>
>Huh! HTML files aren't linked at all. Files can contain links and like
>any other file reference they can be absolute or relative. If all of the
>links are relative then they will work if you copy all of the files and
>directory structure that contains them. If they are absolute they will
>only work if the original files are in place, they won't work if they
>aren't. You can choose either option when you create the HTML and there
>are arguments for and against each option.
If page1.htm contains a link to page2.htm, and vice versa, I'd
consider those two pages linked...but we can go with your definition
for the time being...
>
>>
>>>You would
>>>have to copy all of the linked HTML pages to the new location. You could
>>>then create a shortcut to the index file, the shortcut would open the
>>>.htm file in it's current location, and that's where the linked files
>>>would also be.
>>
>>Goes without saying - the pages have to be where index.htm expects
>>them to be.
>
>Yes. But that could be different depending on whether the links are
>absolute or relative.
Then the file as a whole would either work or break, no matter the OS
- not work on one and not on another. In this instance the internal
link were relative, as you'd expect, with index.htm forming the root
at its location.
>
<snip>
>>
>>Well, I tried - and in spite of a few Linux geeks taking the time to
>>suggest I didn't know what I was doing ( hey ho ), no-one offered a
>>working solution.
>>Shame really, in hardware terms Ubuntu came up better than precious
>>versions of Slackware and Mandrake..
>
>I like it and if I can find replacements for a few Windows programs I'll
>probably switch full-time. Those Linux geeks are trying to find out what
>went wrong. Given that the newsgroups aren't full of reports of the
>problem you saw then it's clear that the result you got was unusual. If
>you tell me that you have holes in your feet and still manage to walk on
>water I'll accept that you are infallible and that the problem is a
>simple miracle.
I'm frankly puzzled myself, and disappointed.
In spite of the usual Linux geek accusation of being a beginner I've
been pulling computers apart for years - and can handle a command
prompt or a reg hack with the best of 'em - which is why I see the
obvious advantages in switching to Linux ( at least in terms of no
longer being forced to kowtow to MS ). Haven't as yet got as far as
finding out whether my software will work ( probably under WINE, as
some of it's quite entrenched...I really don't fancy having to recode
my Filemaker database ).
So I keep trying.
Trouble is, I know I can set a W98 or a W2K box up in less than an
hour with a scripted setup and a hardware hack and be off to work - so
I get understandably tetchy when a common soundcard isn't recognised
or a file operation doesn't follow the standard practice.
I also slightly raised an eyebrow at Ubuntu using a 386 kernel on a
P4...but by that time I didn't really care whether it mattered or not!
If you're running Ubuntu(6) now, try it and see what happens. Pull the
general help html file(s) off the cd and bung 'em on your hard drive.
Pull a shortcut to the desktop and open the file.
>
>If, on the other hand, you are a mere mortal like the rest of us then
>it's probable that what you did is not what you have described here,
>even though you may believe that it is. I've done too much second and
>third-line support to believe that even the most experienced tech gets
>it right every time. On balance of probability I'd say that it's likely
>that you are misremembering what you did, but I'm open to persuasion. If
>you do walk on water I'll accept that the universe has singled you out
>for special attention and that you really did what you said, and that
>you didn't get the same result that almost everyone else did.
I said earlier than I couldn't believe it myself..so I checked, and
rechecked. I even reinstalled. That's also why I tried the operation
in Windows, even knowing that it worked - just to make sure I wasn't
going do-lally.
I repeated the operation so many times, using different
directories...I even checked at the hardware level to see if my mouse
clicks weren't being misinterpreted - but I just couldn't get the
thing to work the way it ought to.
I'd love for someone to say "Ah yeah, this is what's happened" - but
so far no-one has...
Craig
> "Craig" <netbu...@REMOVEgmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
> news:mPXdh.19979$9v5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>> Robert Larder wrote:
>>> "KeithS" skrev i en meddelelse
>> I don't know if the answer to your questions are there /directly/ but,
>> http://www.linuxprinting.org/ is an excellent resource.
>>
>> I've referred to the site successfully for configuring Brothers, Minoltas
>> & Cannons (printers, faxes & scanners) both in standalone and networked
>> situations.
>>
>> hth,
>> -Craig
>
> Craig,
> Unfortunatly all they say about my Oki is "Paperweight",
Awright Bob;
Gimme the Oki's model number, lemme see what I can conjure...
> I was rather hoping someone like Paul Lutus would come up with some magical
> solution! :-)
Careful there...he may lead you down the golden path of programming <grin>
>
> Thanks anyway.
> Bob
yw,
-Craig
Bill Day
wrote:
>Lew/+Silat wrote:
It should probably be phrased "There is very little 'necessary' that
can be done in Windows that can't be done in Linux.
There are specific programs with specific little tricks that are
simply written for Windows only. Often this means just having some
features that no individual Linux program has, and often it means just
doing some irrelevant, but enjoyable process (like distorting a JPG
for fun, or highlighting text in colors, or viewing installed fonts in
a particular format). Various games and 'gadgets' (a graph paper
printer, for example) seem to in Windows only.
Sure, it is obviously possible to do almost all the standard,
necessary stuff in Linux....but that is like saying that everything
'necessary' can be done with a Ford pickup truck, when some people
spend a lot of time needing something small for easy parking, or like
to go drag racing.
The obvious solution is a machine with a large capacity dual-boot
setup, or multiple computers with different OPs for different
purposes. I'm thinking of adopting one of those options for myself.
--
remove nonsense for reply
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
You guys are pieces of work. :)
Mark Warner
>
> You guys are pieces of work. :)
So is it installed yet? We're all on pins and needles here.
--
Mark Warner
Ubuntu Dapper 6.06
Registered Linux User #415318
...lose .inhibitions when replying
Craig
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>
>> You guys are pieces of work. :)
>
> So is it installed yet? We're all on pins and needles here.
>
'tis true. What's the word, BB?
-Craig
Mark Warner
No shit. Get a move on. Hell, I can to a Dapper install while I make my
morning coffee, fer cryin' out loud.
jon
Mark Warner wrote:
>Craig wrote:
>> Mark Warner wrote:
>>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You guys are pieces of work. :)
>>>
>>> So is it installed yet? We're all on pins and needles here.
>>
>> 'tis true. What's the word, BB?
>
>No shit. Get a move on. Hell, I can to a Dapper install while I make my
>morning coffee, fer cryin' out loud.
You never answered my AOL9 BB question, though:
Message-ID: <ae32a242b1abb79aec1a4aa810b4f08cnp@mcdaddums.3>
Should it be in the 'things Linux can't do thread'?
Bear Bottoms
<mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com> wrote:
> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>> You guys are pieces of work. :)
>
> So is it installed yet? We're all on pins and needles here.
>
Yep, it is installed. I've been playing with it. The whole thing took
about two and a half hours. One hour of that was wiping the hard drive.
Now I've got to go work with it to get online. See ya.
Bear Bottoms
wrote:
You asked a question? I saw your pip about AOL9 earlier, but it meant
nothing to me.
Mark Warner
> Mark Warner wrote:
>>
>> So is it installed yet? We're all on pins and needles here.
>
> Yep, it is installed. I've been playing with it. The whole thing took
> about two and a half hours. One hour of that was wiping the hard
> drive. Now I've got to go work with it to get online. See ya.
If you're behind a NAT router that serves up DHCP, that should have been
automagic.
Mark Warner
> Mark Warner wrote:
>> No shit. Get a move on. Hell, I can to a Dapper install while I make my
>> morning coffee, fer cryin' out loud.
>
> You never answered my AOL9 BB question, though:
>
> Message-ID: <ae32a242b1abb79aec1a4aa810b4f08cnp@mcdaddums.3>
>
> Should it be in the 'things Linux can't do thread'?
How 'bout the 'things Linux (or Windows) *shouldn't* do' thread.
Lew/+Silat
"Juzme" <juz...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:12ng02a...@corp.supernews.com...
:) I see your "veiled" sarcasm..
When Linux is as easy as windows then it will be as popular. And Ill bet that never happens in my lifetime.
Im not a fanboi of windows. Nor am I a hater of alternatives. I dont owe allegience to an OS.
Lew/+Silat
The reps went to bed with the religious kooks. Therefore they are ipsofacto co-nutbags..
jon
Mark Warner wrote:
>jon wrote:
>> Mark Warner wrote:
>
>>> No shit. Get a move on. Hell, I can to a Dapper install while I make my
>>> morning coffee, fer cryin' out loud.
>>
>> You never answered my AOL9 BB question, though:
>>
>> Message-ID: <ae32a242b1abb79aec1a4aa810b4f08cnp@mcdaddums.3>
>>
>> Should it be in the 'things Linux can't do thread'?
>
>How 'bout the 'things Linux (or Windows) *shouldn't* do' thread.
That's a value judgement; I'll stick with: 'can't'.
Thanks for the reply.
jon
Paul Lutus wrote:
>Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you can do on
>Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
Go online with AOL.
Mark Warner
Then tell AOL to port their software to Linux.
jon
Mark Warner wrote:
>jon wrote:
>> Paul Lutus wrote:
>>>
>>> Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you can do on
>>> Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
>>
>> Go online with AOL.
>
>Then tell AOL to port their software to Linux.
Is that not an answer to a different question?
Mark Warner
Whatever. If AOL is a requirement, then stick with Windows. Linux will
never be the best choice for all users. Neither is Windows.
Dave
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 17:47:35 -0600, Mark Warner
> <mhwarner.i...@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>> Bear Bottoms wrote:
>>> You guys are pieces of work. :)
>>
>> So is it installed yet? We're all on pins and needles here.
>>
> Yep, it is installed. I've been playing with it. The whole thing took
> about two and a half hours. One hour of that was wiping the hard
> drive. Now I've got to go work with it to get online. See ya.
>
>
I started with a new second hard drive in my desktop today,put a fresh
install of XP on first(cause I haven't done it for a long time)then put
Ubuntu 6.1 on. The whole installation for Ubuntu took less time than the
Xp's incessant "Welcome...please wait..reboot...Welcome...please
wait..reboot...ad nauseum".Still playing,got the laptop seeing the samba
shares on the ubuntu desktop, but Ubuntu can't access my XP laptop
yet.Work it out eventually..that's why it's called playing.
Dave
--
"...voters are not apathetic; rather, they are too deeply concerned
with the nation's serious problems to be interested in the
candidate's trivial proposals" Barry Commoner
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> I started with a new second hard drive in my desktop today,put a fresh
> install of XP on first(cause I haven't done it for a long time)then put
> Ubuntu 6.1 on. The whole installation for Ubuntu took less time than the
> Xp's incessant "Welcome...please wait..reboot...Welcome...please
> wait..reboot...ad nauseum".Still playing,got the laptop seeing the samba
> shares on the ubuntu desktop, but Ubuntu can't access my XP laptop
> yet.
Possibly because you are not sharing anything out of XP on the laptop?
As to the other drive on the desktop machine, if the XP drive is formatteed
using NTFS, Ubuntu will be able to read it, but not safely write to it.
This is because Microsoft has never published a specification for NTFS.
--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> I simply copied the file from the CD, as I've done hundreds of times
> with no problems.
This is false. It is false because it failed. If you had dome what you say
you did, it would have succeeded. So your description is false.
If you actually had copied the entire help file dataset to the HDD, and if
you had actually created a proper activating shortcut (not a symlink), then
the entire operation would have succeeded. You didn't, it failed, and you
are now reduced to inaccurately describing what you did.
This is not rocket science. You copy all the required files to any site on
the HDD that has user file read permissions, you create a way for the
browser to read the files that is internally consistent, and it works. It
didn't work, ergo you didn't do what you claim, and blaming Linux is
understandable but lame.
The key to success (on both Linux and Windows) is for the browser to have
its path changed to that of the help file directory. One way is to pass an
URL to the browser, not a bare file path. An URL that looks like this:
file://(path)/index.html
Another way is to change working directories to that of the help file, and
pass the index file name to the browser. In this case, the browser
understand the concept of a working directory.
Both these approaches work exactly the same on Linux and Windows. There are
more options in Linux (true for everything) but I am making a direct
comparison between the two.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> Yep, it is installed. I've been playing with it. The whole thing took
> about two and a half hours. One hour of that was wiping the hard drive.
IMHO that's going overboard. You don't really need to wipe the HDD contents
end to end in order to proceed with an installation. And bad blocks can be
scanned in the wee hours using a different method, one that doesn't
interfere quite so much with your daytime life.
> Now I've got to go work with it to get online.
That should not be very difficult. Be sure to use a firewall. BTW unlike
Windows, a terrific firewall is included with the distribution.
I've been setting up external USB drives lately, for backup, and the step of
building a Linux filesystem on a spare laptop drive takes about 15 seconds.
Then I start copying data, that obviously takes longer. But the entire
procedure is very fast.
There's no need to scan the entire drive during installation -- let that be
on the computer's idle time at 3 AM.
Paul Lutus
You don't need to go online with AOL -- note the word "need". People who
think AOL is a necessity of life are the people who think Windows is a
necessity of life.
The reason there is no Linux port of the AOL software is because there is no
demand. About the time people are intellectually prepared for the
transition from Windows to Linux, they are also prepared for the transition
from AOL to reality.
Paul Lutus
> On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 02:34:59 -0800, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz>
> wrote:
>
>>Lew/+Silat wrote:
>>
>>/ ...
>>
>>> I can imagine my friend. But windows is the operating system that was
>>> here and used by a majority of the planet. The few things I do that
>>> matter to me on the puter cant be done in Linux.
>>
>>Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you can do
>>on Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
>>
>>> That is enough for me not to need
>>> it.. Now if it can somehow miraculously do those things then Im all
>>> ears.:)
>>
>>Define "those things".
>
> It should probably be phrased "There is very little 'necessary' that
> can be done in Windows that can't be done in Linux.
>
> There are specific programs with specific little tricks that are
> simply written for Windows only. Often this means just having some
> features that no individual Linux program has, and often it means just
> doing some irrelevant, but enjoyable process (like distorting a JPG
> for fun, or highlighting text in colors, or viewing installed fonts in
> a particular format). Various games and 'gadgets' (a graph paper
> printer, for example) seem to in Windows only.
Nice examples, to the point, but I know how to do all of them in Linux with
readily available programs, programs bundled with a typical distribution,
programs that are all free.
For the examples that are really, genuinely Windows-only (and there are
some), there is the option of virtualization, that is to say, having
several operating systems up and running simultaneously, on one processor,
communicating with each other. This is something the Linux kernel is
pioneering (with the Xen virtualization environment), and it is something
that Microsoft is fighting tooth and nail.
The reason Microsoft is fighting virtualization is because, when it comes to
full flower, it will wipe out Microsoft. So Microsoft is taking the same
user-comes-first, cutting-edge, vanguard posture with which it confronted
the Internet -- it is ignoring, denying, bargaining (yes, just like someone
confronting death), everything but accepting the inevitability of
virtualization. For example, Microsoft has declared it a EULA violation to
virtualize the consumer version of Vista.
Virtualization will totally change how we use our computers, it will come to
seem as natural as the Internet, and Microsoft will go through exactly the
same catch-up phases with which it finally accepted the Internet -- hasty,
poorly prepared accommodation, followed by a claim that they invented it
(not Al Gore after all), as they are now trying to do with Linux itself.
> The obvious solution is a machine with a large capacity dual-boot
> setup, or multiple computers with different OPs for different
> purposes. I'm thinking of adopting one of those options for myself.
Fine for now, but virtualization has a terrific advantage -- when Windows
strangles on its crappy code, you can kill the virtual process it's running
in, and not lose any files. But to do this, the virtual host controller has
to be Linux.
The reason it has to be Linux is because Linux is eagerly developing
virtualization while Microsoft is fighting it, and because Microsoft sees
no point in virtualization -- after all, there is only Windows, there are
no other operating systems, what would a virtual engine do?
Paul Lutus
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>
>> Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you can do
>> on Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
> Operate a Canon i550 printer properly
> Operate an HP scanjet 2400 scanner properly
If the manufacturers will release specifications for their equipment to
anyone besides Microsoft, Linux will accommodate them, but not before.
Microsoft punishes manufacturers that go off the ranch.
I have an HP scanner, works perfectly, no setup required. It's not a 2400,
but it is nearly the same vintage.
The Canon printer example is a good one to make the Windows case, except
that it only argues that Microsoft can and will kidnap an entire product
line (like what are called "winmodems", modems that can't work without
Windows, period).
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> Unfortunatly all they say about my Oki is "Paperweight", and that Oki have
> no intention of supplying a driver----PITA, as it`s fairly new, and the
> first decent printer I`ve had , I`m not inclined to dump it just for the
> pleasure of running Linux.
> I was rather hoping someone like Paul Lutus would come up with some
> magical solution! :-)
Flattering, but I really can't. Many manufacturers rely completely on
Windows, and vice versa. Neither Microsoft nor the manufacturers have any
incentive to reveal their secrets and cause the unraveling of a sweetheart
deal.
Microsoft wants it this way -- they oversee a closed, proprietary system.
This serves the interests of their stockholders. It certainly doesn't serve
the needs of their loyal customers, any more than the man behind the
curtain in The Wizard of Oz serves Dorothy's needs.
Steve H
wrote:
>Steve H wrote:
>
>/ ...
<snip blather >
>
>The key to success (on both Linux and Windows) is for the browser to have
>its path changed to that of the help file directory. One way is to pass an
>URL to the browser, not a bare file path. An URL that looks like this:
>
>file://(path)/index.html
You mean like this one?
file:///C:/WINDOWS/Desktop/en/pr01.html#
..which was the actual shortcut reference for the working windows
test, using the same copying/shortcut procedure.
>
>Another way is to change working directories to that of the help file, and
>pass the index file name to the browser. In this case, the browser
>understand the concept of a working directory.
>
>Both these approaches work exactly the same on Linux and Windows.
They should, yes - but they didn't in this instance.
Regards,
--
Steve ( out in the sticks )
Email: anyoldname(*AT*)gmx(*dot*)co(*dot*)uk
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> A html help file contains internal links - each page is linked
> relative to the index.htm ( as opposed to, say, a website, where the
> pages are usually linked to the root folder.
No, this is not correct. Pages in a properly designed site use relative
addressing throughout. Pages that are relatively addressed can be freely
moved about (as a set) and they continue to function as intended.
When you hover over a link on a Web page, the full URL is displayed on the
browser status bar, but this is how the browser has interpreted the
relative link, it isn't the content of the link itself. Try comparing what
shows up in the status bar with the actual relative address as displayed in
"view source".
/...
> Well, I tried - and in spite of a few Linux geeks taking the time to
> suggest I didn't know what I was doing ( hey ho ), no-one offered a
> working solution.
Here's a working solution. Do it more carefully next time, pay attention to
the details. Absent one of several trivial errors, it cannot fail to launch
the help pages you were after.
> Shame really, in hardware terms Ubuntu came up better than precious
> versions of Slackware and Mandrake..
If you had copied the entire page set to a new location, and if you had
crafted a proper desktop shortcut, not a symlink, it would have worked.
Symlinks exist in Linux, they do not exist in Windows, they represent a
powerful capability that Microsoft is jealous of, such that they are
offering a weak substitute in Vista, one that doesn't work as it should.
It's yet another Microsoft me-too gadget addition to Windows, that has the
effect of moving Windows closer to what Linux already is.
But in this case, you may have created a symlink when that isn't the right
way to go.
Next time do it this way:
1. Copy all required files.
2. Test the copy by clicking on the index page in the destination directory,
not a desktop shortcut. This should work (it should launch the default
browser, usually Firefox, and display the help page), if it doesn't, start
over.
3. Create a desktop shortcut for the index page. Each distribution does this
in slightly different ways, so I will give you a way guaranteed to work:
Create a plain-text file, type this into it:
-----------------------------
#!/bin/sh
firefox file://(full path to index.html)
-----------------------------
Save this file, give it executable permissions (use the Linux file
explorer's feature to do this or use the command line), and put it in your
user desktop, normally located at /home/(user name)/.Desktop.
Click the shortcut. Voila!
There are easier ways to solve this problem. I am only offering this more
laborious approach because the simple way failed.
Mark Carter
> jon wrote:
>> Paul Lutus wrote:
>>>
>>> Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you
>>> can do on
>>> Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
>>
>> Go online with AOL.
>
> Then tell AOL to port their software to Linux.
>
Ah, AOL, I remember them. I had a poxy little dialup on a P133 running
Windows 95 - this would have been in about 2000/2001/2002. To connect,
you had to download their craptastic software. And nobody knows why.
Mark Carter
> Whatever. If AOL is a requirement, then stick with Windows.
And scissors made out of plastic.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>>OK. You originally said you copied the file, which is not the same thing
>>as copying the directory tree -which is what you would need.
>
> OK, point taken - I generally consider the tree to constitute the
> file, given that it breaks if you dismantle it.
Please try to use standard terminology. A file is a single item. A directory
tree is a set of items arranged hierarchically.
/ ...
> If page1.htm contains a link to page2.htm, and vice versa, I'd
> consider those two pages linked...but we can go with your definition
> for the time being...
It is more a matter of whether the files refer to each other in absolute or
relative terms. It is a virtual certainty that the files in question used
relative addressing, and therefore are completely portable.
/ ...
> If you're running Ubuntu(6) now, try it and see what happens. Pull the
> general help html file(s) off the cd and bung 'em on your hard drive.
> Pull a shortcut to the desktop and open the file.
I think this is the source of the problem. When you say "Pull a shortcut",
you are being as precise as you were when you said "the entire file"
earlier, referring to a directory tree of files.
I think you created a symlink to the index page, which would not have
worked. The litmus test is to click the index page in its installed
directory, see if that works, then click the shortcut you have created. If
the former works and the latter doesn't, it's because you creates a
symlink, not a shortcut.
> I'd love for someone to say "Ah yeah, this is what's happened" - but
> so far no-one has...
I think I know what happened.
Steve H
<somethingex...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip>
>The obvious solution is a machine with a large capacity dual-boot
>setup, or multiple computers with different OPs for different
>purposes. I'm thinking of adopting one of those options for myself.
I've been using multi-boot setups for years, but I've found they
seldom work for a productive setup.
More often than not you find yourself halfway through a job on one OS
which requires a tool on the other OS. It soon becomes obvious that
the most efficient way to run things is to have all you need on the
one OS - and that OS is determined by hardware/software capability.
For example, I use Sibelius ( various versions ) - so whilst in the
course of running up a set of scores I might well make use of a word
processor, a graphics app, a media player - all of which can be found
on Linux...but then I'd have to switch back to Windows to do the heavy
work.
Dual booting works well when you have multiple users ( i.e. so the
kids can trash their installation ) or for testing purposes.
Dedicated machines work quite well, but then you tend to default to
the easiest option. For example, I have two machines that handle
multimedia and security webcams respectively. Neither have internet
capability, and neither receive files that are likely to be
compromised - and a default ( unpatched ) W2K or XP setup just plain
works, with no worries about hardware compatibility.
I also had a box set up with Smoothwall, to act as a dedicated
firewall - but that seems to have been made largely redundant by
firewall-enabled routers.
If you fancy a crack at dual booting I can recommend XOSL as a boot
manager.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
>>file://(path)/index.html
>
> You mean like this one?
>
> file:///C:/WINDOWS/Desktop/en/pr01.html#
>
> ..which was the actual shortcut reference for the working windows
> test, using the same copying/shortcut procedure.
1. Whoa. Are you really using /WINDOWS/Desktop for your personal user
desktop? This means you always have root authority, you don't have
user-level authorizations enabled in Windows, and I just learned a lot
about your level of technical sophistication.
Now that I know this about your setup, I sincerely hope you have a great
firewall and that you are simply lucky about what Web sites you visit,
because your system is ripe for a takeover.
2. It was not what Firefox saw in the Linux version of your setup. Had it
been, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
/ ...
>>Both these approaches work exactly the same on Linux and Windows.
>
> They should, yes - but they didn't in this instance.
Since you portray yourself as technically knowledgeable, you know that you
are not providing enough information to reveal your error. And it is /your/
error. If there were really a systematic deficit in Linux that would
prevent this simple setup from working, it would long since have been
fixed.
KeithS
> If the manufacturers will release specifications for their equipment to
> anyone besides Microsoft, Linux will accommodate them, but not before.
> Microsoft punishes manufacturers that go off the ranch.
Totally agree with you Paul, when the scanner and printer need
replacing I shall certainly be looking for ones that *will* be able to
run in Linux. I suspect many others will as well, the way M$ are heading.
--
KeithS.
Mark Carter
> Virtualization will totally change how we use our computers,
I've thought about this, and if by virtualisation you mean running one
OS inside another, then my opinion so far is "why would you want to do
that?".
Some time ago, I tried coLinux on Windows, and to my suprise, it
actually worked. Sllllowly. It was an impressive effort to be sure, but
in the end it was just an exercise in curiousity by me.
Same goes for the Wine effort. These guys have done a good job as far as
it goes, but they seem so far far behind the curve. I do see some use,
though - I like the idea of ReactOS, and Wine has a part to play in that.
I'm inclined to say that if you want to run Office, then use Windows.
Talk about virtualisation just seems to be piling complexity on top of
complexity. As such, I regard this as a retrograde step. We need to
reduce complexity, not increase it.
What I would like to see is open and fixed standards for hardware. If,
for example, there was precisely one way to talk to any NIC card, then
there would only be a need to write one NIC driver. Then we could all
get on with our lives. It aint gonna happen, of course, but we can dream.
Paul Lutus
> Paul Lutus wrote:
>
>> Virtualization will totally change how we use our computers,
>
> I've thought about this, and if by virtualisation you mean running one
> OS inside another, then my opinion so far is "why would you want to do
> that?".
That is easy to ask when you haven't actually done it -- or needed it.
Imagine a computer resources center that needs to be everything to everyone
on its network -- it is obviously more robust to use one operating system
to moderate all the actions of the network, but it is inevitable that
someone will want a fast virtual Java processor (instead of a JVM as a
client under another OS), or Windows, or Next, etc, etc.. This is why
virtualization is catching on among network administrators, who would
otherwise have to run a separate server for each desired OS.
The next phase, just starting, is for end users to have the same flexibility
and convenience on end user machines.
> Some time ago, I tried coLinux on Windows, and to my suprise, it
> actually worked. Sllllowly. It was an impressive effort to be sure, but
> in the end it was just an exercise in curiousity by me.
>
> Same goes for the Wine effort. These guys have done a good job as far as
> it goes, but they seem so far far behind the curve. I do see some use,
> though - I like the idea of ReactOS, and Wine has a part to play in that.
None of these is remotely what I am speaking of. A true virtualization
environment has each OS running efficiently, not imitated, not crippled, as
separate processes, one process per OS.
I have used this scheme, and it runs all the client operating systems
efficiently, not like CoLinux or Wine.
> I'm inclined to say that if you want to run Office, then use Windows.
I say if you want word processing, spreadsheets and presentation software,
you have the option to use Open Office, which is free and runs on all major
operating systems (including Windows). The existence of Open Office and its
support for the Open Document Format is why Microsoft is now offering an
Open Document option for Microsoft Office -- if they hadn't done this,
their office software market would shrink even faster.
> Talk about virtualisation just seems to be piling complexity on top of
> complexity. As such, I regard this as a retrograde step. We need to
> reduce complexity, not increase it.
Yes, I agree that everyone should run Linux, but that's not realistic. And
Windows is simply too unreliable to be trusted with overall control of even
a single system. Windows is the sort of software dog that needs to be
chained to a doghouse (e.g. it needs to be a virtual client to protect the
system from it).
I cannot tell you how nice it is to see the inevitable Windows blue screens
of death in a virtual process window, rather than on the main display.
> What I would like to see is open and fixed standards for hardware. If,
> for example, there was precisely one way to talk to any NIC card, then
> there would only be a need to write one NIC driver. Then we could all
> get on with our lives. It aint gonna happen, of course, but we can dream.
But in point of fact, for each peripheral, there /is/ only one way to talk
to it. The problem is that Microsoft has engaged in long-term
anticompetitive practices to keep that way a secret. And they are losing in
court -- both courts of law, and courts of public opinion.
Steve H
wrote:
>Steve H wrote:
>
<snip>
>
>Next time do it this way:
>
>1. Copy all required files.
>
>2. Test the copy by clicking on the index page in the destination directory,
>not a desktop shortcut. This should work (it should launch the default
>browser, usually Firefox, and display the help page), if it doesn't, start
>over.
>
>3. Create a desktop shortcut for the index page. Each distribution does this
>in slightly different ways, so I will give you a way guaranteed to work:
>
>Create a plain-text file, type this into it:
>
>-----------------------------
>
>#!/bin/sh
>
>firefox file://(full path to index.html)
>
>-----------------------------
>
>Save this file, give it executable permissions (use the Linux file
>explorer's feature to do this or use the command line), and put it in your
>user desktop, normally located at /home/(user name)/.Desktop.
>
>Click the shortcut. Voila!
>
>There are easier ways to solve this problem. I am only offering this more
>laborious approach because the simple way failed.
OK, now we're motoring!
Let's assume my dragging the link created a symbolic link.
Now tell me how I should have created the shortcut without having to
open up a text editor and type anything in.
Steve H
wrote:
>Steve H wrote:
>
>/ ...
>
>>>file://(path)/index.html
>>
>> You mean like this one?
>>
>> file:///C:/WINDOWS/Desktop/en/pr01.html#
>>
>> ..which was the actual shortcut reference for the working windows
>> test, using the same copying/shortcut procedure.
>
>1. Whoa. Are you really using /WINDOWS/Desktop for your personal user
>desktop? This means you always have root authority, you don't have
>user-level authorizations enabled in Windows, and I just learned a lot
>about your level of technical sophistication.
>
>Now that I know this about your setup, I sincerely hope you have a great
>firewall and that you are simply lucky about what Web sites you visit,
>because your system is ripe for a takeover.
...and goodness me... I'm using W98 too....run awayyyyyyyyyyy...
Last time I had an 'incident' was when I deliberately ran a dodgy
file, just for the hell of it - because I knew I could. Very
entertaining it was too.
My W2K setup? Very different. No problems there either.
>
>2. It was not what Firefox saw in the Linux version of your setup. Had it
>been, we wouldn't be having this conversation.
>
There you go then - what d'you think Linux might have seen? And why.
>
>>>Both these approaches work exactly the same on Linux and Windows.
>>
>> They should, yes - but they didn't in this instance.
>
>Since you portray yourself as technically knowledgeable, you know that you
>are not providing enough information to reveal your error. And it is /your/
>error. If there were really a systematic deficit in Linux that would
>prevent this simple setup from working, it would long since have been
>fixed.
You have all the info you need - but I rather suspect you're coming at
it on the defensive, which is quaint but unhelpful.
So far no-one's been able to say "This is what's happened". Not even
you.
If someone were to say "Oh yeah, you can't copy a load of files, drag
a shortcut and expect it to work - here's what you do" that would be
fine. When I originally posted my problem I did so in the hope that
someone would be able to say what went wrong, and how to fix it -
strangely enough so that I could continue to asses whether Ubuntu
would work for me.
For sure, I'll give Linux yet another go when I have the time ( and
when perhaps some of my specialist software looks like it might work
under WINE ), but it won't be because geeks prefer to cast aspersions
rather than genuinely try to resolve technical issues.
Mark Marsh
> Im sure that there are some reasons for some people using it. But hating Bill Gates isnt good enough. :) I
> dont hate him. In fact without windows I wouldnt have ever gotten online and made the friends I have.
Why I use Ubuntu: The Linux version of the ZSnes emulator uses OpenGL
and so doesn't have that ugly bilinear filter and XGL (Beryl) IMHO the
future of the 3D accelerated Desktop >
Dave
> Dave wrote:
>
> / ...
>
>
> Possibly because you are not sharing anything out of XP on the laptop?
>
> As to the other drive on the desktop machine, if the XP drive is formatteed
> using NTFS, Ubuntu will be able to read it, but not safely write to it.
> This is because Microsoft has never published a specification for NTFS.
>
No I.ve got the sharing on the XP laptop on ok.Before I tried Ubuntu on
the desktop I tried PCLinux Big Daddy for a day.(just trying a couple
first to see which feels right..still want to try Mandriva and Mepis
before I decide on a keeper). When I had PCLinux on it was the
opposite;PCLinux could see the XP laptop but the laptop couldn't access
the samba shares. I know that has to do with a quirk I read about later
though, with PCLinux naming the shares "Homes" by default and no such
place exists. Like I said I'm just playing with a few distros for a few
days before I decide to get serious with one.Installing a Linux distro
is so fast compared to Windows it's easy to try and compare a few.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> OK, now we're motoring!
>
> Let's assume my dragging the link created a symbolic link.
> Now tell me how I should have created the shortcut without having to
> open up a text editor and type anything in.
I am not running Ubuntu, so the details will vary. Right-click your desktop,
choose something like "Create New ... Link to Location (URL)". Then use the
file browser button to browse to the location of the desired index page and
choose it.
This procedure automatically creates a file on your desktop that the system
knows how to read and act upon. Here are its contents on Fedora 5:
[Desktop Entry]
Encoding=UTF-8
Icon=unknown
Type=Link
URL=/(path)/index.html
Your details will vary on Ubuntu. Now click the shortcut.
Paul Lutus
/ ...
> There you go then - what d'you think Linux might have seen? And why.
You haven't provided any information except that what you did didn't work.
I think you created a symbolic link, a "symlink", which is the wrong tool
for the job. It makes the index page appear to be on your desktop, but it
can't tell the browser to change directories to make the linked pages work.
Alternate -- you managed to copy the index page onto your desktop, which
produces the same outcome.
These are just guesses, based on your non-technical "I dragged it" category
of technical feedback.
>>>>Both these approaches work exactly the same on Linux and Windows.
>>>
>>> They should, yes - but they didn't in this instance.
>>
>>Since you portray yourself as technically knowledgeable, you know that you
>>are not providing enough information to reveal your error. And it is
>>/your/ error. If there were really a systematic deficit in Linux that
>>would prevent this simple setup from working, it would long since have
>>been fixed.
>
> You have all the info you need -
Nonsense. You have provided no specific, technical information about what
you did. None at all.
> but I rather suspect you're coming at
> it on the defensive, which is quaint but unhelpful.
It is you who are being defensive.
> So far no-one's been able to say "This is what's happened". Not even
> you.
I just did, and it's the second or third time I have. And you are not
providing any specific information, only vague symptoms. "I don't remember
what I did, but I do know it didn't work."
Mark Warner
> elaich wrote:
>>
>> Looks like you'll get tons of attention getting mileage with this
>> one. Hasn't anybody else figured this out yet?
>
> Yea, it'd crossed my mind
Usenet is an attention-whore's dream.
--
Mark Warner
lose .inhibitions when replying
Susan Bugher
> I don't know if the answer to your questions are there /directly/ but,
> http://www.linuxprinting.org/ is an excellent resource.
Added to the Linux page in the wiki. Thanks Craig.
http://acfwiki.pbwiki.com/LinuxInfo
Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)
Craig
> Craig wrote:
>
>> I don't know if the answer to your questions are there /directly/ but,
>> http://www.linuxprinting.org/ is an excellent resource.
>
> Added to the Linux page in the wiki. Thanks Craig.
> http://acfwiki.pbwiki.com/LinuxInfo
>
> Susan
YW
-Craig
Lew/+Silat
"Mark Marsh" <mark....@remove.hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4579596f$0$31224$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
That is very nice to look at. Is it something that the ignorant like myself can easily do?
--
Lew/+Silat
Maybe it's not so hip to be right-wing fascist Christians anymore. I'm having second thoughts now.
Love you!
Mark Marsh
> That is very nice to look at. Is it something that the ignorant like myself can easily do?
It is pretty straight forward to get going here's a few howto's for
Ubuntu Edgy:
For an nVIDIA card (GeForce3 and up recommended) XGL\Compiz >
http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Xgl.2FCompiz_.28Nvidia.29
For an nVIDIA card (GeForce3 and up recommended) Beryl\AIGLX >
http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Beryl.2FAIGLX_.28Nvidia.29
For an ATi card (Radeon 9500 and up recommended) Beryl\XGL >
http://ubuntuguide.org/wiki/Ubuntu_Edgy#How_to_install_Xgl.2FBeryl_.28ATI.29
A few more useful links:
XGL wiki > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XGL
AIGLX wiki (another fork of XGL) > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIGLX
Difference between XGL \ AIGLX >
http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/node/1797
Beryl FAQ > http://wiki.beryl-project.org/index.php/FAQ/Beryl
I tried XGL\Compiz earlier this year with a GeForce 6800 Ultra and it
was superb if a little unstable. I haven't tested the newest version yet
though so it should hopefully be much more stable now.
Steve H
wrote:
>Steve H wrote:
OK, but that's still unnecessary faff...
Most people create shortcuts whilst working in the directory tree, via
a quick drag and drop operation. How d'you do that on your Fedora?
I'll see if i can find the Ubuntu cd...and load it on a spare lappy
later...
Steve H
wrote:
>Steve H wrote:
>
>/ ...
>
>> There you go then - what d'you think Linux might have seen? And why.
>
>You haven't provided any information except that what you did didn't work.
>
>I think you created a symbolic link, a "symlink", which is the wrong tool
>for the job. It makes the index page appear to be on your desktop, but it
>can't tell the browser to change directories to make the linked pages work.
>
>Alternate -- you managed to copy the index page onto your desktop, which
>produces the same outcome.
Naturally I examined the shortcut, to confirm that it was indeed a
shortcut - which it was
>
>These are just guesses, based on your non-technical "I dragged it" category
>of technical feedback.
>
>>>>>Both these approaches work exactly the same on Linux and Windows.
>>>>
>>>> They should, yes - but they didn't in this instance.
>>>
>>>Since you portray yourself as technically knowledgeable, you know that you
>>>are not providing enough information to reveal your error. And it is
>>>/your/ error. If there were really a systematic deficit in Linux that
>>>would prevent this simple setup from working, it would long since have
>>>been fixed.
>>
>> You have all the info you need -
>
>Nonsense. You have provided no specific, technical information about what
>you did. None at all.
If someone says to me "I copied a load of files to a directory then
dragged a shortcut to the desktop", I know exactly what they've done.
The fact that the procedure worked under Windows is something of a
clue.
Paul Lutus
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:08:50 -0800, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz>
> wrote:
>
>>Steve H wrote:
>>
>>/ ...
>>
>>> OK, now we're motoring!
>>>
>>> Let's assume my dragging the link created a symbolic link.
>>> Now tell me how I should have created the shortcut without having to
>>> open up a text editor and type anything in.
>>
>>I am not running Ubuntu, so the details will vary. Right-click your
>>desktop, choose something like "Create New ... Link to Location (URL)".
>>Then use the file browser button to browse to the location of the desired
>>index page and choose it.
>>
>>This procedure automatically creates a file on your desktop that the
>>system knows how to read and act upon. Here are its contents on Fedora 5:
>>
>>[Desktop Entry]
>>Encoding=UTF-8
>>Icon=unknown
>>Type=Link
>>URL=/(path)/index.html
>>
>>Your details will vary on Ubuntu. Now click the shortcut.
>
> OK, but that's still unnecessary faff...
If it were unnecessary, your drag & drop action would have worked. It didn't
work, so it is necessary. If Windows were sophisticated enough to have
symlinks, this approach would have failed there also.
> Most people create shortcuts whilst working in the directory tree, via
> a quick drag and drop operation. How d'you do that on your Fedora?
Wrong question. An executable desktop icon that is meant to later launch a
Web browser, using as reference an HTML page with internal
position-dependent links, is not a drag & drop operation. This specific
action, on this specific target, if not conducted in a particular way,
fails everywhere with perfect reliability.
The reason the naive drag & drop action fails is because it moves either the
target or a reference to the target to a new directory without any way for
it to refer to its original directory, a directory on which it depends for
correct operation.
Windows doesn't have symlinks, so the closest corollary is to copy an HTML
page from one directory to another directory. Once the page has been
copied, it will no longer honor its internal relative links.
The remedy, for both Windows and Linux, is not to expect to be able to drag
& drop HTML pages from one place to another, and expect them to work.
Behind the scenes, one must change working directories as well as launch the
required page. This is true everywhere, there are no exceptions. All that
differs between environments is how it is done, not whether it is done.
Paul Lutus
> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:15:34 -0800, Paul Lutus <nos...@nosite.zzz>
> wrote:
>
>>Steve H wrote:
>>
>>/ ...
>>
>>> There you go then - what d'you think Linux might have seen? And why.
>>
>>You haven't provided any information except that what you did didn't work.
>>
>>I think you created a symbolic link, a "symlink", which is the wrong tool
>>for the job. It makes the index page appear to be on your desktop, but it
>>can't tell the browser to change directories to make the linked pages
>>work.
>>
>>Alternate -- you managed to copy the index page onto your desktop, which
>>produces the same outcome.
>
> Naturally I examined the shortcut, to confirm that it was indeed a
> shortcut - which it was
Post its contents, and I will tell you why it did what it did (and how to do
exactly the same thing in Linux). In point of fact, you have no idea what
it is you created or how it works.
>>You have provided no specific, technical information about what
>>you did. None at all.
>
> If someone says to me "I copied a load of files to a directory then
> dragged a shortcut to the desktop", I know exactly what they've done.
In fact, you have no idea what they have done. That is because you have no
idea what you did. You do not know how a Windows shortcut functions. Prove
me wrong. If you could reply accurately, you would already know why the
same apparent action didn't work on Linux.
A symlink stands in for a file. If you click it in a modern environment, the
corresponding application is launched with the named file as an argument,
as though the file itself were present in the current directory. This is
guaranteed to fail if the file in question is an HTML page with internal
relative links.
Windows has no symlinks, it has "shortcuts". When you create and then click
a Windows shortcut, a routine is activated that changes working
directories, then launches the corresponding application -- in a different
directory, the directory where the original file resides. This has various
security implications, so it is frowned upon everywhere except at
Microsoft.
> The fact that the procedure worked under Windows is something of a
> clue.
You did not perform the same actions on Windows and on Linux. You only
thought you did, because of Windows' successful effort to shield you from
reality.
anno_t...@hotmail.com
extremely easy to use and really never failed me before. You might find
it useful too
http://www.ntfs.com/iso-burning.htm
Craig wrote:
> Robert Larder wrote:
> > "KeithS" skrev i en meddelelse
> >> Paul Lutus wrote:
> >>
> >>> Please offer an example of something that you need to do, that you can do
> >>> on
> >>> Windows, and cannot do on Linux.
> >> Operate a Canon i550 printer properly
> >> Operate an HP scanjet 2400 scanner properly
> >
> > May I add Oki c3200n to that list?
> > I too would like to go linux, have tried 4 distros, but hit the printer
> > problem every time.
> > Is there a workaround?
> > I quite understand that it`s not the fault of Linux that Oki haven`t
> > organised drivers, but that don`t make me feel any better ! ;-)
> > Bob Larder
> >
> >
> Robert, Keith;
>
> I don't know if the answer to your questions are there /directly/ but,
> http://www.linuxprinting.org/ is an excellent resource.
>
> I've referred to the site successfully for configuring Brothers,
> Minoltas & Cannons (printers, faxes & scanners) both in standalone and
> networked situations.
>
> hth,
> -Craig