Why do some distros have SH opened by Kwrite?
RodMcKay
(Fedora, maybe), an SH file is opening in Kwrite. I'm not too sure I
did everything correctly, but managed to force it to be executed but
nothing happened. Even in the distro that did launch it, no change
occurred.
The file in question was for a Windows XP theme which, for me, seems
like the ideal solution.
I realized something yesterday, when we Window$ converts are heading
over to Linux and ask for a "Windows-like" distro, it isn't that we
want Window$, it's that we want the most look-alike LOOK of Windows.
When I found reference to a WindowsXP theme, that struck me as
perfect. Also, though I don't know why it doesn't work properly, but
the LinuxXP was _perfect_! I just couldn't get it to open anything
but USB external devices. When I double-clicked on any
folders/partitions native on the hdd, nothing happened.
But the executable in the XP theme I dl does zippo so was wondering if
anyone knows what might be happening as I haven't a clue.
If I can get an XP theme to work, I'd be able to switch all the family
over with no fuss, no muss. The Explorer-like file manager was great
on that distro and the feel of it was very familiar and it brought
back memories of Calmira! No, Calmira was just a GUI and did not give
us Win9x on our Win3x machines, but it gives as an identical-looking
interface which was completely awesome. In fact, it helped a
non-computer friend make the switch to 32bit very smooth. _I'm_ a
power user and I've been finding the Linux environment very alien
because I'm a 20-year M$ user and it's become habit despite my not
liking their OSs, but LinuxXP seemed very, very comfortable to me and
the best of both worlds. I have to keep a foot in the Window$
environment due to work. If I have a Window$-like interface at home
with the Linux power, that would be ideal.
But like I said, though I got the Phrank theme saver to work, couldn't
actually get the XP theme one to do so, as well ('course, they're not
the same thing but I did manage to install this "app" so guessing that
the distro isn't completely closed).
Going to go find and dl other themes and see if maybe it isn't just
this particular theme that is the problem.
bb
> In one particular distro, though can't remember right which one
> (Fedora, maybe), an SH file is opening in Kwrite. I'm not too sure I
> did everything correctly, but managed to force it to be executed but
> nothing happened. Even in the distro that did launch it, no change
> occurred.
>
Well, do you mean the filename has the extension .sh ?
That can only be used as a hint for binding applications, but if the file
is executable or not depends on the permission bits.
chmod +x file.sh will set it, or in your desktop select properties and
mark "is executable" and make sure it's NOT writable for group or others.
(and move it to a place where your programs are expected to be, eg. ~/bin )
If you copy files from windows they have lost all this information since
windows is a single user system that don't have this information.
The rest was impossible for me to understand at all.
/bb
Dan C
Bugger off, Win-droid. Just stick with Windoze.
--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he garotted another passing Liberal.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Whiskers
> In one particular distro, though can't remember right which one
> (Fedora, maybe), an SH file is opening in Kwrite. I'm not too sure I
> did everything correctly, but managed to force it to be executed but
> nothing happened. Even in the distro that did launch it, no change
> occurred.
By convention, a file with a .sh suffix to its name is a 'shell script';
as such it's a plain text file and a text editor is the right tool to open
it with (although KWrite is overkill; KEdit would suffice, or any other
text editor). But Linux isn't so silly as to assume that a file-name
suffix indicates what should be done with the file ...
If you want to execute the script, the user concerned needs to have
execute permission for that file (and for any others that might be called
upon by the script). That requires, of course, that the file be stored on
a file system that supports Linux 'permissions' - which rules out FAT and
NTFS, although it is possible to 'fake' proper permisions for such file
systems.
> The file in question was for a Windows XP theme which, for me, seems
> like the ideal solution.
>
> I realized something yesterday, when we Window$ converts are heading
> over to Linux and ask for a "Windows-like" distro, it isn't that we
> want Window$, it's that we want the most look-alike LOOK of Windows.
> When I found reference to a WindowsXP theme, that struck me as
> perfect. Also, though I don't know why it doesn't work properly, but
> the LinuxXP was _perfect_!
Perfection and not working properly seem to be mutually exclusive states.
"LinuxXP" appears to be a version of Fedora with a modified Gnome desktop.
According to the current Wikipedia page
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_XP&oldid=326088911> it
needs to be 'registered' within 30 days or it will 'deactivate' - a most
un-GNU and un-Linux feature!
> I just couldn't get it to open anything
> but USB external devices. When I double-clicked on any
> folders/partitions native on the hdd, nothing happened.
>
> But the executable in the XP theme I dl does zippo so was wondering if
> anyone knows what might be happening as I haven't a clue.
[...]
The catch with making a Linux or Unix system 'look like' Windows, is that
users will expect it to behave like Windows - which is fundamentally wrong
and misleading, no matter how clever the emulation tries to be. Putting a
foot-operated gear change and handlebars on a car doesn't make it behave
like a motorbike.
If you can indentify which version of which distro you are using, and
which 'theme' you are talking about, and which window manager &/or desktop
environment it is meant to work with, perhaps someone can guess what
might be happening to your efforts.
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
Robert Newson
> On 2009-11-17, RodMcKay <NoJun...@No.com> wrote:
>> In one particular distro, though can't remember right which one
>> (Fedora, maybe), an SH file is opening in Kwrite. I'm not too sure I
>> did everything correctly, but managed to force it to be executed but
>> nothing happened. Even in the distro that did launch it, no change
>> occurred.
> By convention, a file with a .sh suffix to its name is a 'shell script';
> as such it's a plain text file and a text editor is the right tool to open
> it with (although KWrite is overkill; KEdit would suffice, or any other
> text editor). But Linux isn't so silly as to assume that a file-name
> suffix indicates what should be done with the file ...
what a file is [most likely to be], eg:
$ file /bin/ls
/bin/ls: ELF 32-bit LSB executable, Intel 80386, version 1 (SYSV),
dynamically linked (uses shared libs), for GNU/Linux 2.6.9, stripped
$ file /win/c/BOOT.INI
/win/c/BOOT.INI: ASCII text, with CRLF line terminators
$ file /win/c/WINDOWS/winhelp.exe
/win/c/WINDOWS/winhelp.exe: MS-DOS executable, NE for MS Windows 3.x
$ file /win/c/WINDOWS/twain.dll
/win/c/WINDOWS/twain.dll: MS-DOS executable, NE for MS Windows 3.x (driver)
$ file /win/c/WINDOWS/winnt.bmp
/win/c/WINDOWS/winnt.bmp: PC bitmap, Windows 3.x format, 275 x 174 x 8
$ file /etc/fstab
/etc/fstab: ASCII text
$ file /etc/init.d/portmap
/etc/init.d/portmap: POSIX shell script text executable
$
etc
...
>> The file in question was for a Windows XP theme which, for me, seems
>> like the ideal solution.
>>
>> I realized something yesterday, when we Window$ converts are heading
>> over to Linux and ask for a "Windows-like" distro, it isn't that we
>> want Window$, it's that we want the most look-alike LOOK of Windows.
>> When I found reference to a WindowsXP theme, that struck me as
>> perfect. Also, though I don't know why it doesn't work properly, but
>> the LinuxXP was _perfect_!
>
> Perfection and not working properly seem to be mutually exclusive states.
>
> "LinuxXP" appears to be a version of Fedora with a modified Gnome desktop.
> According to the current Wikipedia page
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_XP&oldid=326088911> it
> needs to be 'registered' within 30 days or it will 'deactivate' - a most
> un-GNU and un-Linux feature!
But it *IS* XP like...
Whiskers
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2009-11-17, RodMcKay <NoJun...@No.com> wrote:
[...]
>> "LinuxXP" appears to be a version of Fedora with a modified Gnome desktop.
>> According to the current Wikipedia page
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_XP&oldid=326088911> it
>> needs to be 'registered' within 30 days or it will 'deactivate' - a most
>> un-GNU and un-Linux feature!
>
> But it *IS* XP like...
Even the most sincere imitation can be taken too far ...
RodMcKay
wrote:
>In one particular distro, though can't remember right which one
>(Fedora, maybe), an SH file is opening in Kwrite. I'm not too sure I
>did everything correctly, but managed to force it to be executed but
>nothing happened. Even in the distro that did launch it, no change
>occurred.
[snip]
Thanks, everyone, getting a better handle on this. I've found that
the more "comprehensive" distro, the ones that have more GUI stuff
built in, have no problems with text files. Also, I'm getting a
better handle on these things. It's an alien concept that a text file
can be an executable without being another extension entirely (i.e.,
like a bat file in DOS, au3 file in AutoIt scripting language), but
that's okay. In the more automated distros, we get the option to
either display or run. Kewl. Pain in the butt when dealing with text
files on a regular and frequent basis but that's something I'll learn
as I go along and will eventually rely less and less on GUI stuff, I
imagine and more on controlling things myself. At that point, I
imagine I'll be able to have the default behaviour to open all these
"executable" text files in a text editor but with a context menu
option to run, if such a thing is possible in Linux which I don't see
why not as it seems pretty powerful. Thanks. <g>
TJ
Before you can get far with Linux, you need to understand at least a
little of its basic structure - the more the better. Based on your
questions, you don't - yet. You sound like you are floundering, looking
for similarities to what you're used to, rather than starting with the
basics. (No offense meant.)
One of the problems for Linux newbies is that information is scattered
all over the place, instead of being nicely laid out for you. While most
of the basics are the same across the distros, there are differences
when it comes to the more involved stuff. Each distro is an integration
of various components. The components are the same - it's the
integrations that differ.
There are several books that will give you the basics of Linux, like how
to use a shell script, how permissions work, or how to avoid erasing
everything when doing administrative tasks as root. Unfortunately,
because Linux development proceeds so quickly (unlike Win$), many of
those books become outdated almost before they are published when it
comes to the more complicated things. Still, they have value when it
comes to learning the basics, and once you learn those basics it'll be
easier to pick up the rest. I suggest you ask for recommendations for a
good beginner's "manual." It'll help you in your quest.
TJ
RodMcKay
(Begging the group's indulgence to vent a bit in this thread. May be
boring to most, so feel free to skip this message ... <g> Also some
comments from a Window$ user ...)
Floundering is right, though improving daily, naturally <g>!
And if there is a criticism I can make about Linux, also no offense
meant on my end, the fact that Linux is all over the place and so
very, very manual is something that's going to keep on making it
something that the average user won't bother with. I'm no geek but I
am a power user, though have to qualify that as being a windows power
user (naturally). I've spent 2-3 hours per night of my personal time
plus hours and hours last weekend, since a week ago today on this
project. It's been very slow going, something that once Window$ is
installed, is not the case with that stupid OS (guess that's one of
the reasons why it's as successful as it is despite all its
stupidities!)
I've dl and tried numerous distros and am struggling with the
disappointment I've been feeling at the difficulties and challenges
involved since I've long wanted a very strong contender to go against
Windows. I've been against Window$ ever since the stupid upgrading of
the hardware _and_ the software was foisted upon us along with the
stupidities we have to go up against regarding security.
The first reinstall or two I did 10 years ago, I _lost_ ALL my data on
my Win98SE each time, because I crashed the computer, before I learned
about partitioning, etc. Window$ is just so foul, however, we have to
give credit where credit is due, it sure is easy for _anyone_ to use
for all basic computing needs.
For me, I could work with any of the distros and customize as I go
along, I just don't have that luxury for family-friends who are,
unfortunately counting on me so the vexations are due to the time
crunch.
My disappointment today stems from having to let Fedora go. On the
surface, it seemed the best distro to pass along but the LiveCD
freezes (others don't) and no gconf-editor or control center without
dl and none of the several instructions to dl and install worked with
Fedora.
So going back to Ubuntu and trying that one again. All the
recommendations had more then one thing seriously wrong with it for
this particular use that my choices are limited. The LiveCD has to be
easy enough for an absolute rank Window$ newbie with no technical
skills whatsoever, profile of the majority of computer users, I'm
afraid.
For myself, I'll get through this period, no worries. Window$ is
gasping its last for me still, I think.
---------------
Linux user, pls do not underestimate the importance of the look and
feel of the current Window$ OS. I had this experience with my Dad and
others, when I've installed apps that were not MS-based. The biggest
example was 4 years ago when I installed Firefox for my dad. Boy, he
was angry and really rounded on me! I spent some time after that
looking for an IE theme and once I did that and it fooled him, he was
(by then only grudgingly) happy. That taught me a valuable lesson
which I've since had confirmed over and over:
it doesn't matter one whit how powerful and wonderful the engine, if
the outside of the car isn't sexy, forget it! And sexy in this case
means a Window$ look because that's what the average user is used to.
I'll give them some time to adapt and then install Linux completely
and then see what they're open for. But have to get them over this
initial period.
For me, while I work in an office environment, I'll probably always
have to upgrade themes to the current Window$ OS I'm forced to use on
the job since I don't do well switching between looks, the major
reason why I installed Calmira (Win9x GUI) in my old Win3x box 10
years ago. I still had two OSs to deal with but the look was similar
enough that I could transition from home-work-home much more fluidly.
The time I used Calmira went much more smoothly than the months before
with the normal Win3x GUI.
Anyway, just comments from a Window$ user who's really anxious to
switch over permanently <g>. Thanks.
(Found solution to installing themes in Fedora. Will test in Ubuntu
next. Posting this separately from this venting here <g>.)
RodMcKay
wrote:
>In one particular distro, though can't remember right which one
>(Fedora, maybe), an SH file is opening in Kwrite. I'm not too sure I
>did everything correctly, but managed to force it to be executed but
>nothing happened. Even in the distro that did launch it, no change
>occurred.
[snip]
Okay all you Linux experts, the solution was so darned simple it's
funny!!!
Unpacking and running the SH file were the instructions that were
found on the dl page of the theme I first worked with. Googling led
to other equally baffling instructions that didn't work (I also now
google for instructions relating to any given distro since, boy, they
differ between distros! <g>). This SH way is _not_ the best way of
doing this in terms of ease and success <g>.
I've dl a ton of themes of all kinds, from desktop looks to controls,
window borders, icons, etc., and they all install from the desktop
instead with no fuss, no muss <raspberry>:
Right-click on the desktop, and under the theme tab towards the bottom
of the dialogue box there is an install button. Navigate to the
tar.gz file and select it and off it goes. Easy as pie. The theme
will either install, or won't, giving you an error message on why not.
But the valid ones do install in a moment.
I achieved the Windows XP look in Fedora in the window frames, etc.,
which was great. I won't have a riot on my hands when I hand a LiveCD
over to the family members and friends suffering with crippled
computers.
So that's great.
Thanks for everyone's responses. Much appreciated. <g>
(Will test that in Ubuntu and my other test distros tonight to see if
this is the case across the board.)
Dan C
<snip>
> So going back to Ubuntu and trying that one again. All the
> recommendations had more then one thing seriously wrong with it for this
> particular use that my choices are limited. The LiveCD has to be easy
> enough for an absolute rank Window$ newbie with no technical skills
> whatsoever, profile of the majority of computer users, I'm afraid.
The LiveCD / installation *IS* that easy. It's just that you are vastly
more stupid than the majority of computer users, I'm afraid.
TJ
> (Begging the group's indulgence to vent a bit in this thread. May be
> boring to most, so feel free to skip this message ... <g> Also some
> comments from a Window$ user ...)
>
> Floundering is right, though improving daily, naturally <g>!
>
> And if there is a criticism I can make about Linux, also no offense
> meant on my end, the fact that Linux is all over the place and so
> very, very manual is something that's going to keep on making it
> something that the average user won't bother with. I'm no geek but I
> am a power user, though have to qualify that as being a windows power
> user (naturally). I've spent 2-3 hours per night of my personal time
> plus hours and hours last weekend, since a week ago today on this
> project. It's been very slow going, something that once Window$ is
> installed, is not the case with that stupid OS (guess that's one of
> the reasons why it's as successful as it is despite all its
> stupidities!)
>
the administrator, while Windows makes most of them for you. Linux is
about choice - yours. Windows is also about choice - theirs. That gives
*you* as administrator far greater power than you'll ever have with
Windows. But like with Spider-man, great power comes with great
responsibility. You have to pay your dues, just like you did over the
years with Windows.
> I've dl and tried numerous distros and am struggling with the
> disappointment I've been feeling at the difficulties and challenges
> involved since I've long wanted a very strong contender to go against
> Windows. I've been against Window$ ever since the stupid upgrading of
> the hardware _and_ the software was foisted upon us along with the
> stupidities we have to go up against regarding security.
>
> The first reinstall or two I did 10 years ago, I _lost_ ALL my data on
> my Win98SE each time, because I crashed the computer, before I learned
> about partitioning, etc. Window$ is just so foul, however, we have to
> give credit where credit is due, it sure is easy for _anyone_ to use
> for all basic computing needs.
>
Sounds like you did the same sort of floundering with Windows, at first.
Once you learned some basics, that changed. Same thing with Linux. If
you keep at it and go at it with a logical plan instead of jumping
around trying to make it act like Windows, you'll be a power Linux user
far quicker than it took you with any Microsoft OS.
> For me, I could work with any of the distros and customize as I go
> along, I just don't have that luxury for family-friends who are,
> unfortunately counting on me so the vexations are due to the time
> crunch.
>
You are trying to move too fast. This is a major change in thinking,
particularly for a power user, and it won't happen overnight. For now, I
recommend continuing to support your friends at using Windows until
*you* are comfortable with Linux. *Then* help them through the
changeover, when you know how to make it easier for them.
Consider my brother. He's not a computer person. All he does is browse,
using Google, looking at the local weather forecasts, and cruising
through eBay now and then. He knows the steps he must take to bring up
whatever browser I select as default, because I laid them out for him.
When I first installed Mandrake Linux, I left Windows 98SE as the
default so he could continue to use what he knew, until *I* was
comfortable enough with things to switch him over. Then I made Linux the
default OS, gave him a new set of basic instruction, and he moved
seamlessly to the new OS.
Now, of course he's much more limited in his computer usage than your
charges, but the point is, it *can* be done, and easier than you now
think. You just have to be patient, and go through it yourself first.
"The blind leading the blind" doesn't work well in this case.
> My disappointment today stems from having to let Fedora go. On the
> surface, it seemed the best distro to pass along but the LiveCD
> freezes (others don't) and no gconf-editor or control center without
> dl and none of the several instructions to dl and install worked with
> Fedora.
>
Fedora probably isn't a good distro for a newbie. I tried Fedora several
years ago, and found it too... cutting edge for my taste. Fedora is, or
at least was, Red Hat's (trying to find the right word here, probably
won't be successful) development distro, its place to do final public
testing of things before integrating them into Red Hat itself. Most
things work fine, but I found it somewhat less... stable than the other
distro I've used, Mandriva. Fedora had an "unfinished" feel to me.
Again, that was several years ago, and it may have changed.
Years ago, Mandriva, then Mandrake, was considered one of the easiest
distros for newbies, and was the darling of the community. Then, they
went through the French equivalent of bankruptcy, and lost favor. Now,
Ubuntu is the new darling. Take a look at a short opinion from a
newspaper columnist, one who uses all three major OS's. He's primarily a
Mac guy now, but used Linux for almost everything several years ago.
http://blog.syracuse.com/technofile/2009/11/ubuntu_is_a_pleasure.html
TJ
Whiskers
[...]
> I've dl a ton of themes of all kinds, from desktop looks to controls,
> window borders, icons, etc., and they all install from the desktop
> instead with no fuss, no muss <raspberry>:
>
> Right-click on the desktop, and under the theme tab towards the bottom
> of the dialogue box there is an install button. Navigate to the
> tar.gz file and select it and off it goes. Easy as pie. The theme
> will either install, or won't, giving you an error message on why not.
> But the valid ones do install in a moment.
[...]
Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you are following the
Windows tradition for acquiring software: find a web page with something
on it to download, download that to the 'desktop', find the icon, and
click every which way till something happens - and hope nothing bad
happens.
That isn't the best method. Virtually all Linux distros have 'software
management' tools the like of which Microsoft can only dream about, and
dedicated 'repositories' of binary packages prepared ready for that
version of that distro and intended to be installed (or uninstalled) using
that distro's usual software management tools. Usually the packages are
'digitally signed' as well as having a hash published by the repository,
so that if you trust the repository you don't need to worry about the
package being compromised by anyone with malicious intent. As the
repositories are usually managed by the same people who build the distro
in the first place, trust should be a foregone conclusion.
As you've discovered, you can take the Windows approach to getting new
software, but then you run up against the same problems as you are exposed
to in that other OS - plus the probability that some of the software you
get by that method will not be compiled for your particular distro, or
indeed not compiled at all, and may also 'depend' on other stuff being
present which you will have to check for yourself whereas the distro's
software management tools and repositories usually automate such things.
As has been said elsewhere in this thread, you would be wise to become
familiar with the workings of your chosen distro, and with the Unix/Linux
'philosophy' in general, before moving yourself away from your familiar
environment - and then get more experience with it yourself before even
thinking of 'helping' anyone less confident than yourself to change their
operating system. 'Sticking plaster' such as finding a 'theme' that
resembles the appearance of a Windows 'desktop', is not a short-cut or a
substitute for doing the job properly. You'll just waste your time trying
to get Linux to behave like Windows - which it never will, nor should it.
Don't compare moving from Windows to Linux to changing your Ford family
car for a Honda family car. A better analogy might be changing from a
family car to a kit of parts that can be built into anything from a moped
to a moon-base.
J.O. Aho
> On 2009-11-20, RodMcKay <NoJun...@No.com> wrote:
>> Right-click on the desktop, and under the theme tab towards the bottom
>> of the dialogue box there is an install button. Navigate to the
>> tar.gz file and select it and off it goes. Easy as pie. The theme
>> will either install, or won't, giving you an error message on why not.
>> But the valid ones do install in a moment.
> Reading between the lines, I get the impression that you are following the
> Windows tradition for acquiring software: find a web page with something
> on it to download, download that to the 'desktop', find the icon, and
> click every which way till something happens - and hope nothing bad
> happens.
>
> That isn't the best method. Virtually all Linux distros have 'software
> management' tools the like of which Microsoft can only dream about, and
That's nowadays not true, there is an experimental Gentoo for Windows, similar
to the one for OSX, which gives you a front end to install packages from
repositories.
There even been a inhouse application installer at microsoft, but sadly for
the microsoft users the micrsofot leadership didn't approve the project and
therefore it never got out of the Linux research facility.
--
//Aho
Whiskers
> Whiskers wrote:
>> On 2009-11-20, RodMcKay <NoJun...@No.com> wrote:
[...]
>> That isn't the best method. Virtually all Linux distros have 'software
>> management' tools the like of which Microsoft can only dream about, and
>
> That's nowadays not true, there is an experimental Gentoo for Windows,
> similar to the one for OSX, which gives you a front end to install
> packages from repositories.
Do you mean "Gentoo Prefix"?
<http://blog.jolexa.net/2009/08/31/gentoo-prefixwindows/>
<http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/gentoo-alt/prefix/>.
That isn't a Microsoft project - and seems to offer only packages from the
repositories maintained for Gentoo Linux, so more like a way to ease the
pain for Linux users forced into abother environment than anything of
interest to typical Windows users. Or one of those projects started 'just
because I can' rather than intended to be of any practical use.
> There even been a inhouse application installer at microsoft, but sadly for
> the microsoft users the micrsofot leadership didn't approve the project and
> therefore it never got out of the Linux research facility.
I wouldn't be surprised if the commercial software houses who depend on
Windows users for their existence, objected very strongly to the idea that
Microsoft (or anyone else) might exercise any control over what packages
'normal users' might have available to them - or how such packages would
have to be built. It's probably too late now to rescue Windows users from
the business models that have grown up to exploit them.
Aragorn
as RodMcKay wrote...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:50:27 -0500, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
>
>> Before you can get far with Linux, you need to understand at least a
>> little of its basic structure - the more the better. Based on your
>> questions, you don't - yet. You sound like you are floundering,
>> looking for similarities to what you're used to, rather than starting
>> with the basics. (No offense meant.)
>>
>> One of the problems for Linux newbies is that information is
>> scattered all over the place, instead of being nicely laid out for
>> you. While most of the basics are the same across the distros, there
>> are differences when it comes to the more involved stuff. Each distro
>> is an integration of various components. The components are the
>> same - it's the integrations that differ.
>>
>> There are several books that will give you the basics of Linux, like
>> how to use a shell script, how permissions work, or how to avoid
>> erasing everything when doing administrative tasks as root.
>> Unfortunately, because Linux development proceeds so quickly (unlike
>> Win$), many of those books become outdated almost before they are
>> published when it comes to the more complicated things. Still, they
>> have value when it comes to learning the basics, and once you learn
>> those basics it'll be easier to pick up the rest. I suggest you ask
>> for recommendations for a good beginner's "manual." It'll help you in
>> your quest.
>
> (Begging the group's indulgence to vent a bit in this thread. May be
> boring to most, so feel free to skip this message ... <g> Also some
> comments from a Window$ user ...)
... Whom we are of course trying to sway from evil. :-)
> Floundering is right, though improving daily, naturally <g>!
>
> And if there is a criticism I can make about Linux, also no offense
> meant on my end, the fact that Linux is all over the place and so
> very, very manual is something that's going to keep on making it
> something that the average user won't bother with.
I have two remarks to that criticism. The first one is that
distributions are trying very hard to mimic Windows in most of its
aspects - which is not a good thing, in my not so humble opinion.
The second one is that GNU/Linux is a UNIX system and stays more true to
the UNIX tradition and design than OS-X. If you keep that in mind and
you know that UNIX was never designed as a consumerist commodity but
simply as a System That Works (TM) and that offers you the ultimate
computing power that your hardware has to offer (and which is
conveniently hidden - not to mention disabled - from the enduser by
MICROS~1 for the sake of their monopolist power) then you will
understand why a GNU/Linux system seems "very technical" to Wintendo
users.
Windows turns your computer into a kitchen sink appliance. GNU/Linux
allows your computer to *be* a real computer - which is after all what
it was designed for. And in order to work with a real computer, one
has to have some understanding about computers.
Once again, the problem is not the operating system. The problem is the
user.
> I'm no geek but I am a power user, though have to qualify that as
> being a windows power user (naturally). I've spent 2-3 hours per
> night of my personal time plus hours and hours last weekend, since a
> week ago today on this project. It's been very slow going, something
> that once Window$ is installed, is not the case with that stupid OS
> (guess that's one of the reasons why it's as successful as it is
> despite all its stupidities!)
The success of Wintendo has nothing to do with any of its "qualities"
but everything with the whole way Wintendo is being marketed. About
90% (if not more) of all consumergrade computers come pre-installed
with an OEM-licensed Wintendo and the customer is not informed let
alone given the choice of any other operating systems. Worse even,
many brands explicitly specifiy in their warranty terms that the
warranty becomes void if any other operating system is installed than
the Wintendo it came with.
Add to that the fact that GNU/Linux does not have a single large
corporation behind it - as there are many distributions, some of which
are not commercial - and that MICROS~1 also conducts FUD campaigns
against GNU/Linux. As we live in a corporatist world, the
pointy-haired bosses - whose salary doesn't necessarily represent their
degree of intelligence - are also more inclined to go for a Big Name
(TMP) vendor, especially one so aggressively marketing their stuff as
MICROS~1.
In other words, the success of Wintendo is not the success of Wintendo.
It's an illusion, evoked by a fascist, no-choices-allowed environment.
If I were to visit some company as an IT specialist - not that I would
really qualify as one - and if I'd be taking all the necessary diplomas
with me, very few of those pointy-haired bosses would take me
seriously, just because I happen to have long hair, a couple of days
worth of beard growth and military fatigue pants in camo colors instead
of a cleanly shaven face, a suit and tie, and short hair with styling
gel in it, just like them. Perception often equals judgment. The book
and its cover, etc.
Furthermore, Wintendo is only "not as slow once you've got it installed"
because that which you consider "power usage" in Windows is not power
usage at all - no offense intended. In my humble opinion, a MICROS~1
Access expert is still not a power user; instead he is an expert at a
particular application. GNU/Linux, being a UNIX platform, is a
power-user operating system. It's a huge toolbox from which you take
whatever tools you like in order to do whatever job you like and in
whatever manner you like. It's all there, and it's up to your own
discretion what you decide to use and what you decide to discard, not
up to the discretion of a malevolent dictator who only seeks to attain
(and retain) a monopoly.
Let me put it more bluntly, perhaps. MICROS~1 does not care what you do
with your computer. They only care about your computer having *their*
software on it, so that you are endebted to them over the use of
their "intellectual property". And your computer must not be allowed
to do *too* much, because that's where the technocrats come in with
their flashy suits and their even more flashy BMWs or Porsches.
It's all part of the food chain, just like the existence of anti-virus
companies, whose goal it most certainly *is* *not* to eradicate all
computer viruses. If they were to do that, they would be going
bankrupt in no time.
Everything would make so much more sense if people were simply willing
to open up their eyes and use their brain for a change. Alas, and to
my great frustration, that seems too much to ask for. And then people
wonder why the world is going down the drain... <shakes head>
> I've dl and tried numerous distros and am struggling with the
> disappointment I've been feeling at the difficulties and challenges
> involved since I've long wanted a very strong contender to go against
> Windows.
Just about anything is a strong contender against Wintendo. If you look
at all operating systems in existence beside Wintendo - even
proprietary ones - you will see that most of them - not all, but most
of them - are UNIX-based and adhere to internationally agreed-upon
standards. MICROS~1 is probably the only software vendor in the world
who persistently refuses to adhere to those standards, and who, when
there appears to be no alternative than to adhere to them and embrace
them, always seeks to pervert those standards with proprietary
extensions and then eradicates the original standard.
"Embrace, extend, extinguish." Or "One people, one internet, one
operating system." The last time similar words were spoken, albeit
that they were unrelated to computers, was in Germany in the 1930s, by
a short guy with black hair and a small mustache, wearing a brown
uniform.
> I've been against Window$ ever since the stupid upgrading of the
> hardware _and_ the software was foisted upon us along with the
> stupidities we have to go up against regarding security.
I've been against Windows since they existed on using MS-DOS as the
foundation for an operating system on processors more powerful than an
8086. That's why I started using OS/2 in 1991, and when I needed a new
computer in 1997, OS/2 was as good as dead in the water, but MICROS~1
was still selling DOS-based operating systems, and continued to do so
until after the year 2000.
> The first reinstall or two I did 10 years ago, I _lost_ ALL my data on
> my Win98SE each time, because I crashed the computer, before I learned
> about partitioning, etc. Window$ is just so foul, however, we have to
> give credit where credit is due, it sure is easy for _anyone_ to use
> for all basic computing needs.
That's a very narrowminded vision for a quantum physicist working on
stable wormholes to connect galaxies, Dr. McKay. ;-) Everything
requires a learning curve, and the Wintendo learning curve is just as
steep as that of GNU/Linux. The main difference however is that
Wintendo's learning curve ends at a given point because it can't do
more than what it offers, while GNU/Linux (or any other real UNIX
operating system) allows one to do *everything* and so how far you take
it up that road is up to you, not up to any software vendor.
Like I said, Wintendo turns a computer into a kitchen sink appliance.
Or a glorified typewriter, if you will. Or a game console. But
nothing that has to do with what computers were really designed for,
which is the truly technical stuff.
> For me, I could work with any of the distros and customize as I go
> along, I just don't have that luxury for family-friends who are,
> unfortunately counting on me so the vexations are due to the time
> crunch.
>
> My disappointment today stems from having to let Fedora go. On the
> surface, it seemed the best distro to pass along but the LiveCD
> freezes (others don't) and no gconf-editor or control center without
> dl and none of the several instructions to dl and install worked with
> Fedora.
I have personal grudges against RedHat, CentOS and Fedora. Those are
not distributions I would recommend to anyone, except maybe if they
just want an ad hoc stable server platform, in which case I would
recommend CentOS. Yet all three of them are too fascist in my opinion.
For instance, they don't even allow you to pick any of the industry
standard filesystems beside ext2, ext3 or ext4.
> So going back to Ubuntu and trying that one again. All the
> recommendations had more then one thing seriously wrong with it for
> this particular use that my choices are limited. The LiveCD has to be
> easy enough for an absolute rank Window$ newbie with no technical
> skills whatsoever, profile of the majority of computer users, I'm
> afraid.
A CD can only hold so much. Some distributions provide a Live DVD,
which is far more elaborate.
Another thing is also that the philosophy behind the various *buntus is
such that the system only comes with those GUI packages supported in
the default graphical user interface - Gnome for Ubuntu, KDE for
Kubuntu, XFCE for Xubuntu, et al - and that thus The Gimp would for
instance not be part of Kubuntu. That doesn't mean that you can't
install it - they are in essence all the same distro, but they come
with different GUIs and they are consistent in that - but it requires a
little more work.
> For myself, I'll get through this period, no worries. Window$ is
> gasping its last for me still, I think.
>
> ---------------
>
> Linux user, pls do not underestimate the importance of the look and
> feel of the current Window$ OS.
We are fully aware of your addictions. ;-)
> I had this experience with my Dad and others, when I've installed apps
> that were not MS-based. The biggest example was 4 years ago when I
> installed Firefox for my dad. Boy, he was angry and really rounded on
> me! I spent some time after that looking for an IE theme and once I
> did that and it fooled him, he was (by then only grudgingly) happy.
> That taught me a valuable lesson which I've since had confirmed over
> and over:
>
> it doesn't matter one whit how powerful and wonderful the engine, if
> the outside of the car isn't sexy, forget it! And sexy in this case
> means a Window$ look because that's what the average user is used to.
I actually find the Windows look quite appaling in comparison to KDE
(3.x), but that's a matter of taste, and perhaps with a little tweaking
here and there, you could get it to look better. However, most people
don't even do *that* and so they are much more raising the suspicion
that they are either too lazy or that they simply can't think for
themselves anymore, or both.
Computers were invented to aid humanity at the performing of difficult
tasks by adding speed and precision. They were never intended to
substitute human intelligence. If man continues to use computers as
kitchen sink appliances, then several generations from now, nobody will
still be intelligent enough to *make* computer, because the whole of
the human race will have intellectually devolved into something the
likes of monkeys with clothes on.
I will not comment on the degree in which this has already happened to
the majority of the Western civilization. <grin>
> I'll give them some time to adapt and then install Linux completely
> and then see what they're open for. But have to get them over this
> initial period.
Conservativism is generally diametrically opposed to progress. ;-)
> For me, while I work in an office environment, I'll probably always
> have to upgrade themes to the current Window$ OS I'm forced to use on
> the job since I don't do well switching between looks, the major
> reason why I installed Calmira (Win9x GUI) in my old Win3x box 10
> years ago. I still had two OSs to deal with [...
Technically that is not true. Both Win9x and Win3.x ran on top of DOS
and were not really operating systems. They were operating
*environments* for DOS, and DOS was itself not even a real operating
system either, but merely an executable loader.
> ...] but the look was similar enough that I could transition from
> home-work-home much more fluidly. The time I used Calmira went much
> more smoothly than the months before with the normal Win3x GUI.
>
> Anyway, just comments from a Window$ user who's really anxious to
> switch over permanently <g>. Thanks.
I've told you this before: you need to let go of your Wintendo addiction
and open up your mind. There is no other way. GNU/Linux is not a
Windows replacement, it's an entirely different operating system with
an entirely different paradigm.
> (Found solution to installing themes in Fedora. Will test in Ubuntu
> next. Posting this separately from this venting here <g>.)
I would advise you to install a distribution that comes with all of the
most used desktop environments and window managers. Mandriva for
instance comes with KDE (4.x), Gnome, XFCE and a couple of simpler GUIs
in the form of the FluxBox, IceWM and other window managers. You can
install all of them at the same time and pick one upon (GUI) login, and
then you can still take it from there, using all the customization
options and themes each environment has to offer.
I myself prefer KDE 3.5.10, but not in its default trim. I have applied
a custom color scheme, custom font sizes, custom icon positions on the
panel at the bottom, System++ window decorations (with the "window
close" button on the left of the window titlebar) and a Macintosh-style
application menu (for KDE applications only) at the top of the screen,
which also doubles as an extra panel with a few extra icons and an
applet which continually shows me the uptime and CPU usage. Everything
is logically organized and the way *I* want it, not as some developer
or software mogul wants it.
Your mileage may vary. ;-)
--
*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)
RodMcKay
Yes! <g>
Re the negative reaction elsewhere in this thread, I knew that that
would happen. I'm just experienced with average users and am trying
to find a LiveCD that they can use. It's been a difficult process
simply because a system that works, as you've described, is not
something the average user knows how to deal with.
That's okay. If Linux wants to stay in that mindset, which it has
every right to, free will and all that, the consequence will be that
it won't spread as far as it would if it provided the best of both
worlds, an OS for not just the geek but for the, as described
elsewhere in this thread, the "stupid" user like me (though being a
power user, I've never referred to people who know less than I do in
that manner as I was there once <g>).
It's that simple. Still, I'm not the average user. The average user
would have given up in the first hour. But I continue to try to find
solutions for my family and friends. And I'll keep at it.
This post was a venting one, not a ranting one, something that will be
misunderstood by hard-nosed, die-hard Linux users esp. if they've been
using Linux forever. The unfortunate consequence of that is that that
attitude doesn't help the Linux cause. It's a shame but not anything
I personally can do anything about. However, within next while, it's
_my_ goal to help my family and a friend switch over if they decide
to. That's my contribution to the Linux cause! <g>
I'm still despite everything very, very excited about Linux. It's a
product that's in a unique position: Linux is open source (free) and
people don't have to replace their computers (unlike re Macs)!! What
a position of power Linux is coming from! Not only that but it's
safer! So it's just to get past how much more seriously complicated
it is to do beyond the basics, esp. if what you need isn't installed.
That's also okay, though. My family and friends rely on me anyway,
simple because I have the most experience out of all of them so I'll
be able to handle those issues..
And, no, Window$ has never been difficult to use. About one of the
only positives that I can say about Window$ is that it's quite easy
even for beginners. I've helped many out in the work force over the
last 20 years. But then, that's the seduction of M$, isn't it, and
it's not a bad thing. What's evil is how M$ abuses that while at the
same time providing an inferior product despite that ease of use!
But I really, really hope, yes against probably the entire Linux
hard-nosed die-hards, that it continues to go more GUI. But I don't
want what happened to Win98SE to happen to Linux!!! Linux must _not_
go completely the other way, either. It must be the best of both
worlds, for the geek and for the average "stupid" user - there's a
very real need for this!
Just like Fedora allows me to install themes via a GUI approach vs.
other distros that don't, I've found the distros that are more
automated allow an increase of productivity much more quickly. My
people are not going to bother with scripts so the pressure has been
on to find the distro that will get them up and running with the least
fuss and muss.
And, imagine how wonderful it'll be down the road - M$' mandate to
have a computer with Window$ in every household will transform into a
computer with LINUX in every household! That to me is a very
wonderful goal to have.
----------------
Well, it's 5 a.m. and I've been at this for about 3 hours this
session. For other Window$ user->Linux noobs, I've learned that there
are two desktops, the KDE and GNOME. KDE is apparently more easily
configured than GNOME. And lucky for me, I think I've found a Fedora
that is KDE-based right out-of-the-box. The latest LiveCD I dl has
GNOME and there's no "switchdesk" to switch over and I'd have to
dl/install it and the KDE desktop on top of that, that latter which is
a whopping �180MB dl. So I'm off to dl and see if the Fedora 12 with
KDE works as I hope so that I can find the quickest way to work with
themes. With Fedora 11 GNOME, most of the themes won't install which
can't be right. So I'm hoping that it's just that they're geared to
KDE since I found reference to that as a possibility.
</vent><g>
Thanks everyone. :oD
RodMcKay
Yes, I understand. Thanks.
And thanks for pointing out that the security risks are the same when
dl a tar.gz, etc., to what we have in Windows. Good point to know.
Then how do you get around to these problems, though:
- people who don't have internet access
- source goes down and you can't dl?
- for ease of using and dl a tar.gz, etc., do you use same approach
of scanning for viruses?
Thanks. :oD
RodMcKay
There is something happening now that may also help turn the tide
further despite all this - "final straws".
For me, my final straw was Office 2007, which I first saw last spring.
That final indignity in a long line of M$ bungles coupled with serious
computer problems with family/friends has made me take this large
step.
Re Office 2007, overnight the customized toolbars I'd taken to every
contract for years became obsolete and things like the single
automated toolbars in all the Excel workbooks I had them in became
inoperable! The whole overhaul was disgusting and yet we had to
swallow it because our employers are the ones who decide which OS we
must use.
I suspect that as more people have computers at home which ground to a
halt like my sister's, their frustrations will eventually lead them to
also look for alternatives. I hope Linux is ready for them <g>.
J.O. Aho
Sorry for jumping in in the thread and maybe repeationg what others already
have said. I hope you can follow RFC1855 a bit more and stop bottom posting,
it's not any better than top posting, inline posting is what is the best to be
able to follow a thread.
> It's that simple. Still, I'm not the average user. The average user
> would have given up in the first hour. But I continue to try to find
> solutions for my family and friends. And I'll keep at it.
I have seen people without any computer skills handle Linux quite well on
their first try. And installations steps are quite few nowadays, less steps
than you have when you install microsoft and just one reboot.
> This post was a venting one, not a ranting one, something that will be
> misunderstood by hard-nosed, die-hard Linux users esp. if they've been
> using Linux forever. The unfortunate consequence of that is that that
> attitude doesn't help the Linux cause. It's a shame but not anything
> I personally can do anything about. However, within next while, it's
> _my_ goal to help my family and a friend switch over if they decide
> to. That's my contribution to the Linux cause! <g>
You have to understand that we have seen really many trolls and old timers
gets tired of the same lies brought up over and over again. Also keep in mind
that most of the people here are just end users, not the main developers of
Linux or Gnu or any of the desktop environments, and you have always the
chance to influence a project, just go and make your own patches and submit
those to the project, if the devels think they are good and fit their product,
they will include those, if not, you still have the option of forking the
project and release your modified product.
> And, no, Window$ has never been difficult to use. About one of the
> only positives that I can say about Window$ is that it's quite easy
> even for beginners.
I always thought it was difficult and when something goes wrong, the messages
are so cryptic that it's impossible to figure out what the hell it means. Old
classic mc68k MacOS was far more user friendly than microsoft is (I should
point out that I'm no fan of classic MacOS).
> But I really, really hope, yes against probably the entire Linux
> hard-nosed die-hards, that it continues to go more GUI.
GUI isn't the best option in all cases, for starting games yes, but when you
want to do some serious work, then you want to be able to pipe results between
programs, wheat you can do with a command line would in the GUI world require
a special written program or that you run a number of applications and in hope
that each program can export/import in the right format. Suddenly you have to
make a small change in the process, you need to rewrite that special GUI
application or find a new GUI program that stores the result in the right
format...
If you are for eye candy, take a look at KDE4, it will offer you far more of
those effects and requires less of your hardware than mv-Vista or ms-7 does.
> Just like Fedora allows me to install themes via a GUI approach vs.
> other distros that don't, I've found the distros that are more
> automated allow an increase of productivity much more quickly. My
> people are not going to bother with scripts so the pressure has been
> on to find the distro that will get them up and running with the least
> fuss and muss.
The difference is that application which allows you to install themes from
them will only apply to that user, while those "script installers" will
install the theme so all users can use it.
Keep in mind that Linux is a multi user OS, you really don't want 10-20 users
downloading the same theme, as it will take a lot more space than you as
administrator installing the theme.
> And, imagine how wonderful it'll be down the road - M$' mandate to
> have a computer with Window$ in every household will transform into a
> computer with LINUX in every household! That to me is a very
> wonderful goal to have.
There is a problem with those contracts MS has with the computer hardware
companies, which affect what they ship with the computer and as long as those
contracts aren't unlegalized, then the majority of the computers will ship
with MS and no matter if all the end users would install Linux on those
computer, MS would still earn loads of money.
--
//Aho
J.O. Aho
> And thanks for pointing out that the security risks are the same when
> dl a tar.gz, etc., to what we have in Windows. Good point to know.
> Then how do you get around to these problems, though:
>
> - people who don't have internet access
They get it from a friend who has downloaded it for them or from a magazine
CD/DVD.
> - source goes down and you can't dl?
Most of the time there are more than one valid source to get it from, to get a
source code, I don't care if it's in a RedHat source RPM or a Debian source
deb or if it's from Gentoo repository, all of the actors are trusted
distributions.
> - for ease of using and dl a tar.gz, etc., do you use same approach
> of scanning for viruses?
There aren't any real viruses to Linux (there are trojans, but that ain't the
same thing as viruses), if you download something from a source that you don't
trust, go through the source code before you compile it.
--
//Aho
Robert Newson
...
> I suspect that as more people have computers at home which ground to a
> halt like my sister's, their frustrations will eventually lead them to
> also look for alternatives.
the latest, best ever for security and speed and eye candy Windwos and
their old computer ends up getting chucked...it is only recently that
I've had to give up on an old Win 95 machine (Pentium, 75MHz!) that was
working perfectly as my internet gateway machine (NOT with Win 95, but
smoothwall) - hardware failure means it is now 6ft under, pushing up the
daisies.
RodMcKay
wrote:
>RodMcKay wrote:
[snip]
>> This post was a venting one, not a ranting one, something that will be
>> misunderstood by hard-nosed, die-hard Linux users esp. if they've been
>> using Linux forever. The unfortunate consequence of that is that that
>> attitude doesn't help the Linux cause. It's a shame but not anything
>> I personally can do anything about. However, within next while, it's
>> _my_ goal to help my family and a friend switch over if they decide
>> to. That's my contribution to the Linux cause! <g>
>
>You have to understand that we have seen really many trolls and old timers
>gets tired of the same lies brought up over and over again. Also keep in mind
>that most of the people here are just end users, not the main developers of
>Linux or Gnu or any of the desktop environments, and you have always the
>chance to influence a project, just go and make your own patches and submit
>those to the project, if the devels think they are good and fit their product,
>they will include those, if not, you still have the option of forking the
>project and release your modified product.
Understood. No worries. Like I said, I wasn't ranting, just venting
out a bit. I've spent many long hours all week and it's not that it
isn't worth it, it is, there's just natural frustrations along the
way. No worries. It'll pass.
[snip]
>> But I really, really hope, yes against probably the entire Linux
>> hard-nosed die-hards, that it continues to go more GUI.
>
>GUI isn't the best option in all cases, for starting games yes, but when you
>want to do some serious work, then you want to be able to pipe results between
>programs, wheat you can do with a command line would in the GUI world require
>a special written program or that you run a number of applications and in hope
>that each program can export/import in the right format. Suddenly you have to
>make a small change in the process, you need to rewrite that special GUI
>application or find a new GUI program that stores the result in the right
>format...
I won't touch that one. Not my intention to be difficult. We'll just
leave that alone and point taken. I suspect Linux will make me work
my fingers more than I've had to do since the old DOS days, but so be
it! <g>
>If you are for eye candy, take a look at KDE4, it will offer you far more of
>those effects and requires less of your hardware than mv-Vista or ms-7 does.
When I install, I will look at both together and compare. I found 2
versions of F11, one KDE-based, and the other GNOME-based. I actually
stuck with the GNOME one as it turned out to be a lot easier for me to
work with. In fact, F11 wins hands-down because things like Ubuntu
glitches don't even let me touch that one. Ubuntu, and Kbuntu, had
problems with one graphics cards. Mine. I, of course, have to have
an Nvidia one!!! Sheesh. So until I install on the hdd and then fix
the serious screen resolution issue in Ubuntu, won't know how good it
is!
(How come only Ubuntu has trouble with Nvidia?? Fedora and all the
others don't ... 'tis a puzzlement, as Yul said.)
>> Just like Fedora allows me to install themes via a GUI approach vs.
>> other distros that don't, I've found the distros that are more
>> automated allow an increase of productivity much more quickly. My
>> people are not going to bother with scripts so the pressure has been
>> on to find the distro that will get them up and running with the least
>> fuss and muss.
>
>The difference is that application which allows you to install themes from
>them will only apply to that user, while those "script installers" will
>install the theme so all users can use it.
>Keep in mind that Linux is a multi user OS, you really don't want 10-20 users
>downloading the same theme, as it will take a lot more space than you as
>administrator installing the theme.
Again, different needs for different people though I understand where
you're coming from. The reason the way I have it set now works is the
simplicity. Though it took some time, I've finetuned 2 Window$ themes
(XP and Vista) so that it includes the icons as well. Now with a
couple of mouse-clicks which are fairly easy, they'll have an
environment they're used to. And a sheet with screenshots to do those
few mouse clicks will facilitate that process with the LiveCDs. I
have my themes on my hdd so it'll just be a question of putting it on
their hdds the first time for them.
Next theme project is a Mac one.
All that is going to blow them away. I know my people. When they see
what they get, yes, strictly eye-candy-wise, that's going to open them
up to the Linux experience like nothing else. I'm esp. looking
forward to my friend who has my old clunker with Win98SE on it.
Currently, very little USB supported, no fancy stuff is possible,
etc., etc. Window$-wise, due to the old hardware. She's going to be
blown into orbit when she sees what Linux will bring to her and all on
one easy CD! I told her not to buy a new one. Now she won't have to
just be resigned to what she's got <vbg>!
The pi�ce de resistance is a subtle, subliminal message. I may be
giving them Window$-style themes but the wallpapers they're getting
(and I'll include 4 or 5 for each "OS") are not! I found many Tux vs.
Window$ walls that I absolutely adore. One has the Window$ XP field
and sky with clouds that has Tux sitting in the lower right-hand
corner, then there's another one for the Vista theme that has Tux with
a hammer and a big hole in the screen where the Ubuntu logo is showing
through the Vista one! I love it! I must have dl about 50 such
wallpapers yesterday. So if they decide to chg the wallpapers to
something not standard in Fedora, this'll work on them and start
changing their mindset. I foresee a time a few months down the road
where, if they've not yet chosen for me to install Linux completely on
their systems yet, that they'll eventually not even bother with the
themes and will work straight off the LiveCD as it is.
But I can't force everything on them all at once! That's the bloody
M$ way! First off, they'll see something familiar and once they find
they stop having computer malfunctions and stop having to fret over
firewall and antivirus issues, etc., etc., that'll be what wins them
over more than anything else. Heaven knows I was ready for Linux 10
years ago though must admit that I'd have been lost then. Today it's
only a challenge <g>.
Thanks. :oD
RodMcKay
wrote:
>RodMcKay wrote:
Thanks. I don't know what I'd be looking for, but I did end up doing
that for the themes already, so I did think of that. However, like I
said, I didn't know what the hell would be wrong in the code ...
(other than maybe learning what sets the code to root anywhere in it.
<g>.)
Fortunately, I did find reference to the linux version of ClamWin
which is a project I'm already familiar with. I'll dl and keep it on
my hdd to use whenever I dl something. I shouldn't get out of the
habit of scanning ever single document I dl because regrettably I
still have to work in Window$ at work and likely will come across
Window$ again outside the home in future.
Various sites all over said that the av apps mostly check for Window$
viruses.
I don't know how to be root in Fedora. Unlike PSLinuxOS which tells
you right up front to log on as Guest or Root (but doesn't warn
against how bad root it!! <shudder>), I don't know how to do anything
root other than in the terminal. So I'm hoping that means I might not
get myself into hot water so easily in some respects. In terminal, I
found that "exit" gets me out of root, too, so stumbling upon that was
probably a good thing.
And now there's Trojans. I knew that phishing was still a problem
with Linux, but Trojans, too. Well, more research. That's okay.
Gotta be easier than the full-time job having Window$ is! <g>
Thanks. :oD
RodMcKay
Yeah, but I think my family/friends are smart. It might take them
some time but if I can learn Linux in-depth enough to fairly soon
provide them with customized LiveCD distros that then can be easily
installed, and that their computer then begins to run in a way that is
legendary to us Window$ users, that'll hook them and Window$ will be a
thing of the past even for them. Do you know what it's like for us to
hear about machines that haven't needed rebooting in years and that
don't crash??!!! Un-be-liev-able! Not sure we're getting exactly
that power with Linux, but anything has got to better than Window$!!
As was pointed out on the net how Window$ users want the complete car
and Linux gives us the Lego set to build the car we want, despite that
being difficult for most users, my family has me, so those other
issues will be moot. And maybe in time, they will, as well, do most
everything on their own. They certainly won't be dealing with the
same problems, regardless, so that's a big plus. I'm looking forward
to being needed only for simple maintenance issues once we're all off
the stupid M$ stuff. Piece of cake compared to my role now!! <g>
J.O. Aho
>> If you are for eye candy, take a look at KDE4, it will offer you far more of
>> those effects and requires less of your hardware than mv-Vista or ms-7 does.
>
> When I install, I will look at both together and compare. I found 2
> versions of F11, one KDE-based, and the other GNOME-based. I actually
> stuck with the GNOME one as it turned out to be a lot easier for me to
> work with.
KDE introduces a new way to handle things with it's plasma desktop and differ
how things works in traditional copycat desktops like gnome2. When you got
past the first obstacles with KDE4 and it's still a bit beta stage (this is
mainly noticeable for us who have used KDE3.5 earlier). Myself I have been
forced to "upgrade" to KDE4 as the distro I use has dropped KDE3.5 and I
wanted to avoid future problems.
> In fact, F11 wins hands-down because things like Ubuntu
> glitches don't even let me touch that one. Ubuntu, and Kbuntu, had
> problems with one graphics cards. Mine. I, of course, have to have
> an Nvidia one!!! Sheesh. So until I install on the hdd and then fix
> the serious screen resolution issue in Ubuntu, won't know how good it
> is!
> (How come only Ubuntu has trouble with Nvidia?? Fedora and all the
> others don't ... 'tis a puzzlement, as Yul said.)
There is a fundamental difference between Fedora and Ubuntu, Fedora will only
include open source types of license applications, which means you will not
get mp3 and nvidia driver out of the box, while ubuntu does, when it comes to
the nvidia driver, there are three generations of those and depending on how
old version of ubuntu you are playing with and how new your graphics card is,
the driver may not work well until you made that first apt-get update/upgrade.
Fedora uses the vesa driver for nvidia cards, this means only 2D support and
all 3D is done with MESA.
For nvidia driver, you need to add a third party repository and most likely
that repository will also include mp3 support.
> All that is going to blow them away. I know my people. When they see
> what they get, yes, strictly eye-candy-wise, that's going to open them
> up to the Linux experience like nothing else. I'm esp. looking
> forward to my friend who has my old clunker with Win98SE on it.
On those older machines you may want to run something lighter than gnome2, so
replace Fedora with Vector Linux or Puppy Linux or something else slimmed, or
else they will get a negative reaction when things are slower than on their
beloved ms-win98.
> The pièce de resistance is a subtle, subliminal message. I may be
> giving them Window$-style themes but the wallpapers they're getting
> (and I'll include 4 or 5 for each "OS") are not! I found many Tux vs.
> Window$ walls that I absolutely adore. One has the Window$ XP field
> and sky with clouds that has Tux sitting in the lower right-hand
> corner, then there's another one for the Vista theme that has Tux with
> a hammer and a big hole in the screen where the Ubuntu logo is showing
> through the Vista one! I love it! I must have dl about 50 such
> wallpapers yesterday.
Myself I have a Linux OS-tan wallpaper, I usually don't download those, but
this one I did, just don't remember which site, but there are a few to browse
trough.
You can at least in KDE have a slide show as background, it will of course
take some CPU power, so you don't want to do that on the old ibm pc clone.
> I foresee a time a few months down the road
> where, if they've not yet chosen for me to install Linux completely on
> their systems yet, that they'll eventually not even bother with the
> themes and will work straight off the LiveCD as it is.
You can build your own LiveCD, there are some sites for that, just google, I
suggest you use VirtualBox and test it before you burn it out, that way you
save CDs and the nature.
> Heaven knows I was ready for Linux 10
> years ago though must admit that I'd have been lost then. Today it's
> only a challenge
I have to say it was quite simple back then, I got bored of the blue screens I
got all the time on the ms-win98, I decided to end my 3 month long pain, I
loaded the CD-rom with RedHat 6.1, 20 minutes later I had a fully working
system with all hardware working. I did already have experience of Unix and
Unix like systems, so I did have a slight advantage.
I have to say that it was for easier to configure back then, you had a plain
text file to edit (if you didn't use one of the graphical front ends), while
today it's an ill designed xml which don't make much sense.
--
//Aho
J.O. Aho
> Fortunately, I did find reference to the linux version of ClamWin
> which is a project I'm already familiar with.
> Various sites all over said that the av apps mostly check for Window$
> viruses.
Be warned, they may give false positives when you scan your Linux system.
> I don't know how to be root in Fedora. Unlike PSLinuxOS which tells
> you right up front to log on as Guest or Root (but doesn't warn
> against how bad root it!! <shudder>),
Most of the login managers nowadays by default deny root login, you need to
make changes in the login managers configuration to allow root login.
> In terminal, I
> found that "exit" gets me out of root, too, so stumbling upon that was
> probably a good thing.
You can also press ctrl-d to exit, and if you search something you have done
before in the terminal, you can press ctrl-r and type something that was on
that line, say "find", and pressing ctrl-r again will find the time before the
last time you used "find". There is nothing like that for GUI, that remebers
how you moved your mouse around and klicked on different buttons.
> And now there's Trojans. I knew that phishing was still a problem
> with Linux, but Trojans, too. Well, more research. That's okay.
> Gotta be easier than the full-time job having Window$ is! <g>
Trojans are the simples of them all, just makes something to look like a reall
app and then do something bad, those you could find on the C64 back in the
early 80's.
--
//Aho
TJ
> All that is going to blow them away. I know my people. When they see
> what they get, yes, strictly eye-candy-wise, that's going to open them
> up to the Linux experience like nothing else. I'm esp. looking
> forward to my friend who has my old clunker with Win98SE on it.
> Currently, very little USB supported, no fancy stuff is possible,
> etc., etc. Window$-wise, due to the old hardware. She's going to be
> blown into orbit when she sees what Linux will bring to her and all on
> one easy CD! I told her not to buy a new one. Now she won't have to
> just be resigned to what she's got <vbg>!
>
A word of advice about peripherals, especially all-in-one printers. Many
manufacturers still do not support Linux, either with drivers or with
information so third parties can write them. HP probably has the best
support of any, especially AIOs. With others, like Canon for example,
the printer portion of the AIO may work using a driver written for a
similar printer, but the scanner part probably won't. There are other
examples - that's just one. Old scanners are notorious for not working.
I have a Visioneer and a Mustek, both nice scanners, that worked great
with Windows 98SE but used oddball chipsets that never saw much Linux
development. Neither will work with Linux, ever. My Officejet 6110, on
the other hand, works beautifully, as did the HP PSC 2110 it replaced.
I suggest you investigate the hardware of your charges to make sure it
will work with Linux before springing it on them.
> The pi�ce de resistance is a subtle, subliminal message. I may be
> giving them Window$-style themes but the wallpapers they're getting
> (and I'll include 4 or 5 for each "OS") are not! I found many Tux vs.
> Window$ walls that I absolutely adore. One has the Window$ XP field
> and sky with clouds that has Tux sitting in the lower right-hand
> corner, then there's another one for the Vista theme that has Tux with
> a hammer and a big hole in the screen where the Ubuntu logo is showing
> through the Vista one! I love it! I must have dl about 50 such
> wallpapers yesterday. So if they decide to chg the wallpapers to
> something not standard in Fedora, this'll work on them and start
> changing their mindset. I foresee a time a few months down the road
> where, if they've not yet chosen for me to install Linux completely on
> their systems yet, that they'll eventually not even bother with the
> themes and will work straight off the LiveCD as it is.
>
Sounds like a lot of work. I don't bother with somebody else's idea of a
good wallpaper for my desktop. I use my own digital photo of a camp dock
with a couple of fishing boats tied to it, St Lawrence River stretching
out behind them. My second computer uses a sunset photo, from the same
area. Reminds me of where I'd much rather be a good share of the time,
plus they are unique to *my* desktops.
I tried working from a live CD once. Didn't care for it. Too many
restrictions. It would be OK in a pinch, but I much prefer a "regular"
hard drive-based installation.
TJ
RodMcKay
>RodMcKay wrote:
[snip]
>A word of advice about peripherals, especially all-in-one printers. Many
>manufacturers still do not support Linux, either with drivers or with
>information so third parties can write them. HP probably has the best
>support of any, especially AIOs. With others, like Canon for example,
>the printer portion of the AIO may work using a driver written for a
>similar printer, but the scanner part probably won't. There are other
>examples - that's just one. Old scanners are notorious for not working.
>I have a Visioneer and a Mustek, both nice scanners, that worked great
>with Windows 98SE but used oddball chipsets that never saw much Linux
>development. Neither will work with Linux, ever. My Officejet 6110, on
>the other hand, works beautifully, as did the HP PSC 2110 it replaced.
I'm sure. Nothing is ever straightforward or easy. But we'll cross
that bridge when we get to it. We're talking very little in terms of
peripherals anyway; an HP deskjet and a digicam is the usual extent of
it. Shouldn't be too much of a worry.
>I suggest you investigate the hardware of your charges to make sure it
>will work with Linux before springing it on them.
It's all going to be LiveCD for that very reason. I have no idea what
obstacles I'll really face for any of them, so they'll get a choice of
distros. I'll give them all Fedora 11 to start off with because I
found that the easiest of all the distros I've tried. If that doesn't
work, no worries. I've used a large bunch of distros in this past
week and a half, except Ubuntu/Kubunto/LinuxMint since they all gave
me grief over the resolution and I couldn't read half the screen on
any of them. I'll bring them all so that if any one doesn't work, we
can keep trying till we find one that does.
[snip]
>Sounds like a lot of work. I don't bother with somebody else's idea of a
Nope. I'm a PSP going GIMP user, so walls and stuff are a hobby.
[snip]
>I tried working from a live CD once. Didn't care for it. Too many
>restrictions. It would be OK in a pinch, but I much prefer a "regular"
>hard drive-based installation.
Yeah, well, to each their own. I think they're a perfect stepping
stone. Without having to do anything, my family/friends will be able
to surf the net and read/respond to their emails which is mostly all
they want. Once I work with my own system, installing Linux, etc.,
and am familiar and comfortable enough to deal with it on my own
system so that I can then consider going further with others', then
we'll talk at that point and I'll install Linux for them if that's
what they want.
LiveCDs for me and mine is the perfect solution right now.
Thanks. Much appreciated. :oD
>TJ
RodMcKay
wrote:
>RodMcKay wrote:
>
>> Fortunately, I did find reference to the linux version of ClamWin
>> which is a project I'm already familiar with.
>> Various sites all over said that the av apps mostly check for Window$
>> viruses.
>
>Be warned, they may give false positives when you scan your Linux system.
<vbg> Yeah, well, I'm used to that already. I get tons of false
positives as it is in Window$ on a regular basis! I only really worry
about that when I get the warning consistently for the same items when
the warning comes up consistently on different systems and different
av apps (i.e., McAfee at work vs my Avira at home, etc.).
When I'm really concerned, I'll use a couple of online scanners. I
don't use them with any regularity and use those as an absolutely last
resort, but they have come in handy when I'm suspicious of the av
results.
>> I don't know how to be root in Fedora. Unlike PSLinuxOS which tells
>> you right up front to log on as Guest or Root (but doesn't warn
>> against how bad root it!! <shudder>),
>
>Most of the login managers nowadays by default deny root login, you need to
>make changes in the login managers configuration to allow root login.
Yeah, that's the big reason why I put PCLinuxOS right off the bat.
That login screen just turned me right off.
Fedora 11 has a login screen but it doesn't let me type anything in
anyway and I have no idea what the password would be anyway (and I'm
not going to go looking for it, either! <g>. I would have found that
disturbing if it wasn't confirmed to me that I'm not logging in as
root since the terminal shows me as liveuser, or something. I've
assumed, hopefully rightly, that if I have to login is root in the
terminal that that means the state of the computer is at that point
being mirrored by the terminal so that everything is actually _not_
root.
>> In terminal, I
>> found that "exit" gets me out of root, too, so stumbling upon that was
>> probably a good thing.
>
>You can also press ctrl-d to exit, and if you search something you have done
>before in the terminal, you can press ctrl-r and type something that was on
>that line, say "find", and pressing ctrl-r again will find the time before the
>last time you used "find". There is nothing like that for GUI, that remebers
>how you moved your mouse around and klicked on different buttons.
Kewl. Great tips. Thanks.
>> And now there's Trojans. I knew that phishing was still a problem
>> with Linux, but Trojans, too. Well, more research. That's okay.
>> Gotta be easier than the full-time job having Window$ is! <g>
>
>Trojans are the simples of them all, just makes something to look like a reall
>app and then do something bad, those you could find on the C64 back in the
>early 80's.
Do you use some sort of av for trojans in Linux?
:oD
Whiskers
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:50:07 -0500, TJ <T...@noneofyour.business> wrote:
[...]
> I've used a large bunch of distros in this past
> week and a half, except Ubuntu/Kubunto/LinuxMint since they all gave
> me grief over the resolution and I couldn't read half the screen on
> any of them. I'll bring them all so that if any one doesn't work, we
> can keep trying till we find one that does.
[...]
That's like saying that you've tried a large bunch of vehicles in this
past week and a half (apart from a school bus, a car transporter, and a
railway train, none of which reversed into your garage without churning up
the garden) so now you're in good shape to teach other people how to
drive whatever vehicle they fancy.
Settle on one distro, and use it for at least a year. By then you'll have
some idea why those of us who've been using Linux for a year or two aren't
as confident of your success 'converting' others to use Linux, as you are.
J.O. Aho
Trojans are simple to make and difficult to detect, just avoid those shady
places to download things, if you find a application on the net, try to first
install it from your normal repositories.
--
//Aho
RodMcKay
wrote:
Ah, okay. Good advice. I don't yet have one of those ("normal
repositories") as I haven't dl anything yet besides a few themes, so
this will be good to start working on.
John Hasler
> ...I don't yet have one of those "normal repositories"...
Yes you do.
--
John Hasler
jha...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
TJ
>
> Ah, okay. Good advice. I don't yet have one of those ("normal
> repositories") as I haven't dl anything yet besides a few themes, so
> this will be good to start working on.
>
Each distro maintains its own set of repositories, usually in several
locations. Mandriva, for example, maintains many repository mirrors in
several countries around the world. That is where you should always go
first when looking to install new software. The software on the
repositories has already been compiled and "integrated" (for lack of a
better term) into that distro's overall system. Ever hear of "dll hell"
on Windows systems? Well, something similar exists on improperly managed
Linux systems, only with them it's called "dependency hell." (Wikipedia
explains it fairly well. Look it up.) Using the repositories avoids that
mess.
And if you think that downloading and installing themes is the same as
managing software, you indeed have a lot to learn.
BTW, that was one of the things I didn't like about the live CDs.
Admittedly it's been a few years and they may have changed, but I don't
remember being able to install and use any software that wasn't already
on the CD, unless you took the extra step to actually install the distro
to the hard drive from the CDs that offered that option. That was the
point, as I remember it. The live CDs were a way to try out a Linux
distro without disturbing your existing hard drive.
TJ
TJ
>
> Settle on one distro, and use it for at least a year. By then you'll have
> some idea why those of us who've been using Linux for a year or two aren't
> as confident of your success 'converting' others to use Linux, as you are.
>
Sound advice, but don't expect him to take it. He really hasn't tried to
do much of anything serious yet. Maybe he'll learn once he does, but I
wouldn't make book on that, either.
It seems strange to me that he's so impressed with Fedora. It must have
changed a LOT since I used it last. I tried Fedora Core 4, but that was
before broadband became available here, and it was before a couple of
RAM, HD, and video card upgrades. Maybe it's different now. It always
felt too... "experimental and unfinished" (not exactly the right words,
but close) for my taste.
Then again, perhaps my judgment has just been tainted from nearly 8
years of using Mandrake/Mandriva.
TJ
Whiskers
> Whiskers wrote:
[...]
> It seems strange to me that he's so impressed with Fedora. It must have
> changed a LOT since I used it last. I tried Fedora Core 4, but that was
> before broadband became available here, and it was before a couple of
> RAM, HD, and video card upgrades. Maybe it's different now. It always
> felt too... "experimental and unfinished" (not exactly the right words,
> but close) for my taste.
>
> Then again, perhaps my judgment has just been tainted from nearly 8
> years of using Mandrake/Mandriva.
>
> TJ
I too settled on Mandrake (version 9 in my case) for my first Linux
system, and I've stuck with Mandr[ake|iva] ever since. Recently I've been
flirting almost seriously with Arch - but it's almost as big a
culture-change as going from Windows 98SE to Mandrake 9 was.
My intial 'failed' distros were Red Hat, Slackware, and something else I've
forgotten entirely - all from CDs attached to computer magazines, which is
where I got Mandrake too. I've toyed with DSL, Puppy, Fedora, and a few
others along the way - including the OEM-special system on a low-powered
'netbook', based mostly on Debian with a mostly-Matchbox 'desktop'.
RodMcKay
Thanks. Some new concepts here. I will look it up for sure <g>.
For myself, it's all not a problem, I'll learn. I'm focusing on a
simple, immediate solution for my family. As with anything in life,
you usually get one shot at something, first impressions, and all that
type of thing. I'm going with LiveCDs because, firstly, there isn't
anything much to do with regards to them (no installing, no nothing,
really). This means that my techniclally-challenged friends/family
can handle going this route. I think they'll actually feel pretty
good about themselves using the LiveCDs. Secondly, it'll create
enough of an impact and interest that, coupled with an immediate
resolution to their individual computer woes, will give Linux a very
good chance with them. After all, going against something so embedded
in the mainstream as Window$ is will be daunting for them.
For me, I'm much more hopeful than when I began 2 weeks ago today. My
own personal journey into Linux, fully and not via LiveCD, is just
waiting on when I can afford an external hard drive to move everything
on this box over to. Once that's done, Window$ and I are parting
company at home! <g>
I'm a real babe in the woods re Linux, something most of you are
gracious enough to take into consideration, but I must say again,
thanks for everyone's patience and forbearance <g>. I may be a power
user but I'm not very technical one and have very little experience
outside Window$. I'm certainly looking forward to going the next
level.
TJ
>
> For myself, it's all not a problem, I'll learn. I'm focusing on a
> simple, immediate solution for my family. As with anything in life,
> you usually get one shot at something, first impressions, and all that
> type of thing. I'm going with LiveCDs because, firstly, there isn't
> anything much to do with regards to them (no installing, no nothing,
> really). This means that my techniclally-challenged friends/family
> can handle going this route. I think they'll actually feel pretty
> good about themselves using the LiveCDs. Secondly, it'll create
> enough of an impact and interest that, coupled with an immediate
> resolution to their individual computer woes, will give Linux a very
> good chance with them. After all, going against something so embedded
> in the mainstream as Window$ is will be daunting for them.
>
Well, what you do is certainly up to you, but I still see potential
problems. Consider web browsing, for example. Your charges are no doubt
using either (shudder) IE, or (hopefully) Firefox. If they do much
browsing, they've probably each amassed a list of bookmarks, or as IE
calls them, "Favorites." They'll want to keep those bookmarks with any
new system, I'm sure.
The most popular browser for Linux is Firefox, and it's probably the
easiest Linux browser for Windows users to use. With a "regular"
installation of Linux, transferring a list of bookmarks using the
import/export functions of the browsers is an easy task. With a live CD,
I'm not even sure it's possible except as something that has to be
reloaded from *somewhere* every time the browser is run. Same thing for
changes in the preferences, like setting a home page, or what you want
to do with cookies. They are necessarily held only in volatile memory,
so when you shut down, they're gone. And as for the plugins that'll play
Flash videos, or get a weather radar loop, well, good luck. They may be
part of the CD, but probably not. There's only so much room on a CD, you
know. The browser will be slower, too - because there's no cache on the
hard drive.
But hey, it's been years since I worked with a live CD. I could be
wrong, but I don't know how. Try it for yourself. If you make the things
I brought up above work, be sure to let me know.
TJ
RodMcKay
Actually, not had any problems. And family doesn't care about which
browser they use, they just want to be able to check their email which
is plain old webmail so LiveCD will be just fine for them. Also, none
of them store their mail in any way, I've found, it remains on the
webmail servers.
I've actually been finding working just fine off the LiveCD. With the
exception of burning, LiveCDs do everything basic that one needs. And
so that I and they can save things like bookmarks or documents to the
hdd, first thing I do in a session is to put the disk mounter,
available via GUI in Fedora 11, on the panel and then mount the
partition I freed up for Linux use. Firefox bookmarks are already
there plus other stuff I've worked on while in Linux. LiveCD is
limiting only in small ways, even the speed isn't bad on my system.
I'll show family how to do these basic things, too. And then after a
while, they can then let me know which way they want to go, install
Linux or back to Window$, their choice.
I can't yet feel secure in Linux in one way but I believe time will do
that once I install - we are so used to having an unstable, changing
environment in Window$ that it will take some time to get used to the
supposed stability of Linux. I say "supposed" only because I haven't
experienced what that means yet <g>. It's a foreign concept! <lol>
If I could tally up the lost productivity during reinstall and other
related Window$ issues and charged M$, I'd come away with a very
pretty penny for sure and that's not even adding up work downtimes due
to MS OS problems!!!
Anyway, I'm actually a step away from installing fully, myself. Until
I checked re specs this weekend, didn't realize that my C drive was
way more than adequate to have both. So as soon as I do some more
reading, will take the plunge <g>.
I only wish I could dump Window$ completely as of now but don't feel I
can do that just yet. I don't want to have to mess with WINE, my goal
is to leave Window$ completely. But I'll have a dual-boot system
until then - just until I find adequate replacements for some
treasured apps that still do exactly what I need.