Mandrake disappointment
Snit
to download it today.
Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
sure it costs more...
What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
site?
Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite a
bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
something just does not add up here...
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Tom Shelton
> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
> to download it today.
>
> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>
> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
> sure it costs more...
>
> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
> site?
>
> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite a
> bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
> something just does not add up here...
>
>
I see mandrake on linuxiso.org.... You might try getting it there.
--
Tom Shelton
The Contender
> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
> to download it today.
>
> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>
> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
> Linux,
Why did anybody bother to advocate to you since it appears you are a moron.
> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free
> ones
> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I
> am sure it costs more...
>
> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
> site?
>
> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite a
> bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
> something just does not add up here...
>
>
--
Texeme
http://texeme.com
Kier
> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
> to download it today.
>
> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
Of course it is, if you get a download edition. Or a covermount. 10.1
Official is out on one of the magazines, and the community editon has been
on a couple of others recently.
>
> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
> sure it costs more...
Where did you find that $50-60 editon without a media player? On the Linux
Magazine DVD of Mandrake 10.1 Official, I find listed under Multimedia:
Xmms and noatun, both of which are music players, and Xine and Mplayer,
which are DVD/CD/vidoe file players - you might need to download a few
codecs, or libdvdcss for DVD playing, but that's all. And once you set up
urpmi with the mandrake repositories, you have access to all the Official
distros software.
If you pay for a boxed set, it shouldn't cost you the earth, and it will
come with a few nice extras, that's all, plus some manuals and support.
You're basically paying for the support, the manuals and the extra, some
of it proprietary, software, plus drivers like the nvidia drivers, all
conveniently put together.
>
> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
> site?
Don't get what you're driving at here. It's popular because it's good -
excellent for newbies, especially.
Haven't seen the site lately, I got my boxed retail set elsewhere,
slightly cheaper, and before that I used magazine covermount versions of
9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10.0 and 10.1. You won't get Realplayer or Flash, or Java
from a covermount, but they can be added quite easily afterwards.
> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite
> a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
> something just does not add up here...
Sure it does. Mandrake as a company is trying to make a living. But they
still give you the option of obtaining the distro for free. I'm sure
someone will be able to point you to a download site.
--
Kier
JohnOfArc
>
> What am I missing?
>
your drool bucket?
--
I yustabe+me, but I was never Y-O-U
Mike Proctor
> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
> to download it today.
Here's my suggestion:
Go here and download slackware
http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=17
Then go here and download dropline
Snit
BE5721EB.8F9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID on 3/11/05 10:22 AM:
> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
> to download it today.
>
> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>
> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
> sure it costs more...
>
> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
> site?
>
> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite a
> bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
> something just does not add up here...
>
Correction: I have found they do have a free version of Mandrake... good to
see...
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
FykYd.15$Oq5...@news.uswest.net on 3/11/05 10:28 AM:
Thanks... after the post I saw that there is a free version... still, makes
me wonder how popular the paid for version is and why...
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Kier
> "Tom Shelton" <t...@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in post
> FykYd.15$Oq5...@news.uswest.net on 3/11/05 10:28 AM:
>
>> In article <BE5721EB.8F9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit wrote:
>>> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
>>> to download it today.
>>>
>>> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>>>
>>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
>>> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
>>> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
>>> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
>>> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
>>> sure it costs more...
>>>
>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
>>> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
>>> site?
>>>
>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite a
>>> bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
>>> something just does not add up here...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see mandrake on linuxiso.org.... You might try getting it there.
>
> Thanks... after the post I saw that there is a free version... still, makes
> me wonder how popular the paid for version is and why...
Why should it not be popular, just because you have to pay? IMO, it's
worth the money for the extras, like drivers, and the manuals. But you can
get most of what's on it for nothing, if you search around. A lot of it's
convenience. A complete newbie would get on much better with a retail box.
--
Kier
Snit
pan.2005.03.11....@tiscali.co.uk on 3/11/05 12:20 PM:
I agree... which is one reason why most of the free distros of Linux would
not suit the needs of the new user.
Snit
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:22:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
>> to download it today.
>>
>> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>
> Of course it is, if you get a download edition. Or a covermount. 10.1
> Official is out on one of the magazines, and the community editon has been
> on a couple of others recently.
>
>>
>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
>> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
>> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
>> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
>> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
>> sure it costs more...
>
> Where did you find that $50-60 editon without a media player? On the Linux
> Magazine DVD of Mandrake 10.1 Official, I find listed under Multimedia:
> Xmms and noatun, both of which are music players, and Xine and Mplayer,
> which are DVD/CD/vidoe file players - you might need to download a few
> codecs, or libdvdcss for DVD playing, but that's all. And once you set up
> urpmi with the mandrake repositories, you have access to all the Official
> distros software.
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/101/comparison
The list there does not have a check mark for the cheap version.
>
> If you pay for a boxed set, it shouldn't cost you the earth, and it will
> come with a few nice extras, that's all, plus some manuals and support.
> You're basically paying for the support, the manuals and the extra, some
> of it proprietary, software, plus drivers like the nvidia drivers, all
> conveniently put together.
Much of which you get when you buy XP or OS X.
>
>>
>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
>> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
>> site?
>
> Don't get what you're driving at here. It's popular because it's good -
> excellent for newbies, especially.
I have been searching for a good distro of Linux that will work for
newbies... and now I am finding that for newbies Linux may not be free...
depending on their needs.
>
> Haven't seen the site lately, I got my boxed retail set elsewhere,
> slightly cheaper, and before that I used magazine covermount versions of
> 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10.0 and 10.1. You won't get Realplayer or Flash, or Java
> from a covermount, but they can be added quite easily afterwards.
>
>
>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite
>> a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
>> something just does not add up here...
>
> Sure it does. Mandrake as a company is trying to make a living. But they
> still give you the option of obtaining the distro for free. I'm sure
> someone will be able to point you to a download site.
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
Liam Slider
> Thanks... after the post I saw that there is a free version... still, makes
> me wonder how popular the paid for version is
Popular enough to help take Mandrake (the company) from bankruptcy....to
the point of buying out other Linux distro makers.
> and why...
Well, first of all there's the fact that not everyone has broadband. Then
some people like the idea of getting a manual, with it. It's a nice bonus.
Jim Richardson
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 11:51:19 -0700,
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
> "Tom Shelton" <t...@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in post
> FykYd.15$Oq5...@news.uswest.net on 3/11/05 10:28 AM:
>
>> In article <BE5721EB.8F9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit wrote:
>>> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
>>> to download it today.
>>>
>>> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>>>
>>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
>>> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
>>> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
>>> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
>>> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
>>> sure it costs more...
>>>
>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
>>> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
>>> site?
>>>
>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite a
>>> bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
>>> something just does not add up here...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see mandrake on linuxiso.org.... You might try getting it there.
>
> Thanks... after the post I saw that there is a free version... still, makes
> me wonder how popular the paid for version is and why...
Several reasons. Like Suse, you get a good paper manual, useful if you
are new to Linux in general, or that distro specifically. You get paid
for installation support for (IIRC) 30 days, which some find comforting,
and you can support the distro. Also, like Suse, Mandrake (again, IIRC)
has some commercial goodies in the paid for that aren't in the
free/libre distro. Suse ships with Mainactor, can't recall what
commercial s/w ships with the boxed set of Mandrake.
> --
> I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________
> Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
> More than 120,000 groups
> Unlimited download
> http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCMfLMd90bcYOAWPYRAuWoAJ9D4NFKc7p8M60TRN6txDHik7nkTACg2QXb
uPO4H+9sden7yf9w65eopBw=
=IhjN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
If you can tell the difference between good advice and bad advice,
you probably don't need advice.
JEDIDIAH
> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
> to download it today.
>
> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>
> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
urpmi gxine
Big Deal: A Barrel.
> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
> sure it costs more...
>
> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
...the fact that any non-commercial software burned onto a CD is
still going to be universally available.
[deletia]
--
The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \
JEDIDIAH
> pan.2005.03.11....@tiscali.co.uk on 3/11/05 10:50 AM:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:22:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>> of it proprietary, software, plus drivers like the nvidia drivers, all
>> conveniently put together.
>
> Much of which you get when you buy XP or OS X.
The last meaningful manual I ever saw for an MS OS was for Windows 3.1
and MS-DOS 5.
If you think that XP comes with any meaningful physical documentation
you are quite simply on crack.
[deletia]
OTOH, verious distros (Mandrake included) have always made electronic
versions of their manuals freely available to all.
Kier
That's likely because it's a page comparing paid versions. Download
editions are available elsewhere. And, like i said, most of the software
is available via urpmi from the rpm repositories. The urpmi manpage is
pretty informative.
>>
>> If you pay for a boxed set, it shouldn't cost you the earth, and it will
>> come with a few nice extras, that's all, plus some manuals and support.
>> You're basically paying for the support, the manuals and the extra, some
>> of it proprietary, software, plus drivers like the nvidia drivers, all
>> conveniently put together.
>
> Much of which you get when you buy XP or OS X.
We weren't taling about them, though, were we? In any case, you
don't get stuff like Realplayer with XP, you install it later. And I
certainly never got a manual with my install of XP, though of course
plenty of books are available. The point is, a boxed set comes with all
hte bells and whistles to make it simpler for a newcomer to Linux. But
anyone with a little savvy and the willingness to learn - or with a
knowledgeable helper on hand - can get along quite well with the download
versions.
It's a good way to learn it, and cheaper if you find it's not what you
want.
>>
>>>
>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
>>> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
>>> site?
>>
>> Don't get what you're driving at here. It's popular because it's good -
>> excellent for newbies, especially.
>
> I have been searching for a good distro of Linux that will work for
> newbies... and now I am finding that for newbies Linux may not be free...
> depending on their needs.
You're wrong there. It can be free, it just might require a little more
effort on their part to get the proprietary add-ons, like Flash players,
etc. Which, depending on what they want to do, may not even be required.
Mandrake provides good documentation even with a download edition, there
is a newgroup, and quite a few Linux books can be bought which are
geared towards helping a newbie to migrate from another OS.
I found 9.1 pretty straightforward in most ways, and 10.1 is much improved
on that release. I don't see this should be a problem to you if you want
to evaluate it for yourself.
--
Kier
Rick
> "Tom Shelton" <t...@YOUKNOWTHEDRILLmtogden.com> wrote in post
> FykYd.15$Oq5...@news.uswest.net on 3/11/05 10:28 AM:
>
>> In article <BE5721EB.8F9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, Snit wrote:
>>> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
>>> to download it today.
>>>
>>> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>>>
>>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of Linux,
>>> and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the free ones
>>> are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it does not
>>> even come with a media player... though more expensive versions do. And
>>> that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am
>>> sure it costs more...
>>>
>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
>>> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
>>> site?
>>>
>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite a
>>> bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
>>> something just does not add up here...
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I see mandrake on linuxiso.org.... You might try getting it there.
>
> Thanks... after the post I saw that there is a free version... still, makes
> me wonder how popular the paid for version is and why...
> --
> I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
>
Read the Mandrake pages.
--
Rick
ray
Please define 'free'. If you have a broadband connection you can indeed
download, burn the CDs and install for free. If not you can get it pretty
damned cheap at linuxCD.org. You can do a 'free' install (download or ftp
install) of virtually all the major Linux distributions -
www.distrowatch.com will help you find out where. You can order a two disk
set (Live CD + install CD) for free (no shipping costs either) of Ubuntu
Linux from the ubuntulinux.com website.
Rick
The free version is available on Mandrake's mirrors and with various
magazines.
>> If you pay for a boxed set, it shouldn't cost you the earth, and it will
>> come with a few nice extras, that's all, plus some manuals and support.
>> You're basically paying for the support, the manuals and the extra, some
>> of it proprietary, software, plus drivers like the nvidia drivers, all
>> conveniently put together.
>
> Much of which you get when you buy XP or OS X.
Yes? So?
>>
>>>
>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
>>> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
>>> site?
>>
>> Don't get what you're driving at here. It's popular because it's good -
>> excellent for newbies, especially.
>
> I have been searching for a good distro of Linux that will work for
> newbies... and now I am finding that for newbies Linux may not be free...
> depending on their needs.
Mandrake can be DLed for $0 by anyone, even though they really want you to
join the Mandrake Club.
OS X and window$ is not legally $0 for anyone.
>>
>> Haven't seen the site lately, I got my boxed retail set elsewhere,
>> slightly cheaper, and before that I used magazine covermount versions of
>> 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10.0 and 10.1. You won't get Realplayer or Flash, or Java
>> from a covermount, but they can be added quite easily afterwards.
>>
>>
>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite
>>> a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
>>> something just does not add up here...
>>
>> Sure it does. Mandrake as a company is trying to make a living. But they
>> still give you the option of obtaining the distro for free. I'm sure
>> someone will be able to point you to a download site.
--
Rick
Rick
You may now tell us why White Box,Fedora, Ubuntu, or the community
Mandrake does not suit the needs of the 'new user'.
--
Rick
Kier
Depends very much on the user. A comprehensive book on Linux and a
download edition can be just as good as a boxed edition, except for the
additonal software, which as I said can be obtained without great
difficulty if desired. I was a Red Hat user for a time, and had the Red
Hat Linux 9 Bible with the three-CD set included. The book's about three
inches thick and has just about all you info a nuew user would need to use
Red Hat (now Fedora Core) effectively.
I'm fortunatate in that I have a brother who is an experienced Linux user
to help me, but I daresay I could have managed well enough by myself with
perseverence. Once you get past the set-up stage, and you've got
everything working, most of your problems are over. Correctly set up, it
should just work.
The free distro versions aren't that different from the paid ones except
in the ways already mentioned, and they are mostly trivial, IMO.
--
Kier
Elizabot v2.0.2
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.11....@tiscali.co.uk on 3/11/05 12:20 PM:
<snip>
>>Why should it not be popular, just because you have to pay? IMO, it's
>>worth the money for the extras, like drivers, and the manuals. But you can
>>get most of what's on it for nothing, if you search around. A lot of it's
>>convenience. A complete newbie would get on much better with a retail box.
>
>
> I agree... which is one reason why most of the free distros of Linux would
> not suit the needs of the new user.
Do Macs come with a manual? Mine didn't. Can we extend your argument to
include Macs not being suitable for new users because they don't come
with a manual?
--
By responding to Elizabot v2.0.2 you implicitly agree to the TOS at:
http://elizabot.spymac.net/
Steve Carroll
The Contender <sky.c...@world.tomorrow> wrote:
> Snit wrote:
>
> > First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
> > to download it today.
> >
> > Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
> >
> > Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
> > Linux,
>
> Why did anybody bother to advocate to you since it appears you are a moron.
If you are a cola-ite you'd better get used to seeing Snit making silly
absolute statements... they sorta come with that bag and glue.
Snit
pan.2005.03.11....@trollfeed.com on 3/11/05 2:11 PM:
Do you believe those are "most" of the free distros, Rick? Let's start
there, and then we can look at the details of those distros.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
Fair enough - I am thinking of terms of the non-techy new users... they type
I see all the time in classes and work with as clients.
> A comprehensive book on Linux and a download edition can be just as good as a
> boxed edition, except for the additonal software, which as I said can be
> obtained without great difficulty if desired. I was a Red Hat user for a time,
> and had the Red Hat Linux 9 Bible with the three-CD set included. The book's
> about three inches thick and has just about all you info a nuew user would
> need to use Red Hat (now Fedora Core) effectively.
>
> I'm fortunatate in that I have a brother who is an experienced Linux user
> to help me, but I daresay I could have managed well enough by myself with
> perseverence. Once you get past the set-up stage, and you've got
> everything working, most of your problems are over. Correctly set up, it
> should just work.
>
> The free distro versions aren't that different from the paid ones except
> in the ways already mentioned, and they are mostly trivial, IMO.
Then why do people pay?
--
"If you have integrity, nothing else matters." - Alan Simpson
_________________________________________
Snit
I suspected you would not have anything to add... again, you do not show
youknow not a think about Linux that I do not.
Snit
pan.2005.03.11....@zianet.com on 3/11/05 2:08 PM:
Then why do people pay for Mandrake? What is the advantage?
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
Way to go... I already said I found the free versions. Again - do you know
*anything* about Linux a newbie like I does not?
_________________________________________
Rick
They get manuals.
They get support.
They get the satisfaction of financially supporting Mandrake.
--
Rick
Rick
Idiot. You do realize that some posts are read before others? No?
>>
>>
>>>> If you pay for a boxed set, it shouldn't cost you the earth, and it will
>>>> come with a few nice extras, that's all, plus some manuals and support.
>>>> You're basically paying for the support, the manuals and the extra, some
>>>> of it proprietary, software, plus drivers like the nvidia drivers, all
>>>> conveniently put together.
>>>
>>> Much of which you get when you buy XP or OS X.
>>
>> Yes? So?
No answer?
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is Mandrake
>>>>> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on the
>>>>> site?
>>>>
>>>> Don't get what you're driving at here. It's popular because it's good -
>>>> excellent for newbies, especially.
>>>
>>> I have been searching for a good distro of Linux that will work for
>>> newbies... and now I am finding that for newbies Linux may not be free...
>>> depending on their needs.
>>
>> Mandrake can be DLed for $0 by anyone, even though they really want you to
>> join the Mandrake Club.
>>
>> OS X and window$ is not legally $0 for anyone.
No answer?
>>
>>>>
>>>> Haven't seen the site lately, I got my boxed retail set elsewhere,
>>>> slightly cheaper, and before that I used magazine covermount versions of
>>>> 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10.0 and 10.1. You won't get Realplayer or Flash, or Java
>>>> from a covermount, but they can be added quite easily afterwards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite
>>>>> a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
>>>>> something just does not add up here...
>>>>
>>>> Sure it does. Mandrake as a company is trying to make a living. But they
>>>> still give you the option of obtaining the distro for free. I'm sure
>>>> someone will be able to point you to a download site.
>
--
Rick
Liam Slider
> Then why do people pay?
Some people don't have the bandwidth (dialup users). Some people like the
idea of support. Some people like the idea of giving back to the community
and supporting Linux. Some people like getting commercial software
included that may not come with the free version. Etc...
Rick
> you know not a think about Linux that I do not.
You said:
"makes me wonder how popular the paid for version is and why..."
I told you where to go to get the information. what the hell else do you
want?
--
Rick
Rick
Mandrake does not suit the needs of the 'new user', if you can.
--
Rick
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
And before that you created an entirely new thread based on your
erroneous absolute statement that it wasn't free. Have you bagged up so
much glue today you've forgotten that already?
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
Yup... I was right... too much glue today:)
Rick
Manuals, support, and the satisfaction of financially supporting Mandrake.
They realize what a financial bargain they are getting.
You would know that if you read any of the pages at www.mandrakelinux.com.
--
Rick
Kier
Mandrake would still be a pretty good option. A paid version would be a
'safer', simpler option, perhaps, but it would depend on what help they
could call on if anything went wrong. Set-up aside, Mandrake isn't hard to
use. Certainly no harder than XP, and lots of people seem to manage fine
with that.
The latest SUSE would be another reasonable choice, IMO.
>
>> A comprehensive book on Linux and a download edition can be just as good as a
>> boxed edition, except for the additonal software, which as I said can be
>> obtained without great difficulty if desired. I was a Red Hat user for a time,
>> and had the Red Hat Linux 9 Bible with the three-CD set included. The book's
>> about three inches thick and has just about all you info a nuew user would
>> need to use Red Hat (now Fedora Core) effectively.
>>
>> I'm fortunatate in that I have a brother who is an experienced Linux user
>> to help me, but I daresay I could have managed well enough by myself with
>> perseverence. Once you get past the set-up stage, and you've got
>> everything working, most of your problems are over. Correctly set up, it
>> should just work.
>>
>> The free distro versions aren't that different from the paid ones except
>> in the ways already mentioned, and they are mostly trivial, IMO.
>
> Then why do people pay?
To support their favoured distro, as gifts for friends/family, for the
convenience, because they're lazy... Lots of reasons. Like I said, there
are a few extras in a boxed set (depending on whether you've got a basic
set or something like the Powerpack or whatever). Possibly one of the
most important factors for a new user is the support you get with a paid
version, which can be a great help to a newbie with no knowledgeable
friend or relative to turn to if things *do* go pear-shaped (which of
course can sometimes happen).
And themanuals are good. Some people feel more at home with a bit of
dead treeware to read.
--
Kier
ed
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> typed:<snip>
>> The free distro versions aren't that different from the paid ones
>> except
>> in the ways already mentioned, and they are mostly trivial, IMO.
>
> Then why do people pay?
for some, the same reason they donate to freeware projects. if nobody pays,
some of these resources likely won't be around for nearly as long.
Elizabot v2.0.2
Did you miss his "correction"? lol
Snit
k8lYd.3221$ZB6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com on 3/11/05 11:08 AM:
> Snit wrote:
>> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
>> to download it today.
>
> Here's my suggestion:
>
> Go here and download slackware
>
> http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=17
>
>
> Then go here and download dropline
>
> http://www.dropline.net/gnome/
Thank you... I appreciate it.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
Snit
>>> Depends very much on the user.
>>
>> Fair enough - I am thinking of terms of the non-techy new users... they type
>> I see all the time in classes and work with as clients.
>
> Mandrake would still be a pretty good option. A paid version would be a
> 'safer', simpler option, perhaps, but it would depend on what help they
> could call on if anything went wrong. Set-up aside, Mandrake isn't hard to
> use. Certainly no harder than XP, and lots of people seem to manage fine
> with that.
>
> The latest SUSE would be another reasonable choice, IMO.
Perhaps I am asking for too much... something easy enough for a non-techy
user, something that is as consistent as OS X, something that is free...
I am asking for a lot...
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
Snit
>>>> I agree... which is one reason why most of the free distros of Linux would
>>>> not suit the needs of the new user.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may now tell us why White Box,Fedora, Ubuntu, or the community
>>> Mandrake does not suit the needs of the 'new user'.
>>
>> Do you believe those are "most" of the free distros, Rick? Let's start
>> there, and then we can look at the details of those distros.
>
> You may now tell us why White Box,Fedora, Ubuntu, or the community
> Mandrake does not suit the needs of the 'new user', if you can.
You are stuck in a loop.
I talk about "most" of the free distros... you point to *four* distros.
Even I, a new user to Linux, am well aware that there are far more than four
distros of Linux.
Not only, Rick, is there no reason to think you know a thing about Linux
that I do not, you have just shown that at least in this one area you know
less than I do.
How long have you been using it?
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Elizabot v2.0.2
Perhaps he wants you to write it in your own words so he can nitpick
what you wrote with what he's read on a web site.
Perhaps he's trying to string you along and he's just trolling.
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:43:23 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>
>>>>Read the Mandrake pages.
>>>
>>>I suspected you would not have anything to add... again, you do not show
>>>you know not a think about Linux that I do not.
>>
>>
>> You said:
>>
>> "makes me wonder how popular the paid for version is and why..."
>>
>> I told you where to go to get the information. what the hell else do you
>> want?
>
> Perhaps he wants you to write it in your own words so he can nitpick
> what you wrote with what he's read on a web site.
That's possible.
>
> Perhaps he's trying to string you along and he's just trolling.
That's more than probable.
--
Rick
Snit
You parrot other answers well.
Good job!
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Snit
Yes, you are.
> You do realize that some posts are read before others? No?
Of course... but thanks for trying to share your wonderful knowledge yet
again... LOL... did you just figure this out or something?
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> If you pay for a boxed set, it shouldn't cost you the earth, and it will
>>>>> come with a few nice extras, that's all, plus some manuals and support.
>>>>> You're basically paying for the support, the manuals and the extra, some
>>>>> of it proprietary, software, plus drivers like the nvidia drivers, all
>>>>> conveniently put together.
>>>>
>>>> Much of which you get when you buy XP or OS X.
>>>
>>> Yes? So?
>
> No answer?
Why are you asking me ... can't you tell? You really do not get this Usenet
thing, do you.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
>>>>>> Mandrake
>>>>>> so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I missed on
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> site?
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't get what you're driving at here. It's popular because it's good -
>>>>> excellent for newbies, especially.
>>>>
>>>> I have been searching for a good distro of Linux that will work for
>>>> newbies... and now I am finding that for newbies Linux may not be free...
>>>> depending on their needs.
>>>
>>> Mandrake can be DLed for $0 by anyone, even though they really want you to
>>> join the Mandrake Club.
>>>
>>> OS X and window$ is not legally $0 for anyone.
>
> No answer?
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't seen the site lately, I got my boxed retail set elsewhere,
>>>>> slightly cheaper, and before that I used magazine covermount versions of
>>>>> 9.0, 9.1, 9.2, 10.0 and 10.1. You won't get Realplayer or Flash, or Java
>>>>> from a covermount, but they can be added quite easily afterwards.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite
>>>>>> a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
>>>>>> something just does not add up here...
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it does. Mandrake as a company is trying to make a living. But they
>>>>> still give you the option of obtaining the distro for free. I'm sure
>>>>> someone will be able to point you to a download site.
>>
_________________________________________
Rick
> "Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.11....@trollfeed.com on 3/11/05 2:56 PM:
>
>>>>> I agree... which is one reason why most of the free distros of Linux would
>>>>> not suit the needs of the new user.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may now tell us why White Box,Fedora, Ubuntu, or the community
>>>> Mandrake does not suit the needs of the 'new user'.
>>>
>>> Do you believe those are "most" of the free distros, Rick? Let's start
>>> there, and then we can look at the details of those distros.
>>
>> You may now tell us why White Box,Fedora, Ubuntu, or the community
>> Mandrake does not suit the needs of the 'new user', if you can.
>
> You are stuck in a loop.
>
> I talk about "most" of the free distros... you point to *four* distros.
>
> Even I, a new user to Linux, am well aware that there are far more than four
> distros of Linux.
Yes, there are. Now tell us why the 'free' distros generally, and the
ones mentioned specifically do not suit the needs of the 'new user', if
you can.
>
> Not only, Rick, is there no reason to think you know a thing about Linux
> that I do not, you have just shown that at least in this one area you know
> less than I do.
There is no reason to think you know anything about Linux.
>
> How long have you been using it?
1998.
--
Rick
TravelinMan
Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
It's funny that people have criticized people who choose Macs, using
that logic as an argument.
The accusation is that Mac users allegedly care more about Apple's
profits than their own needs. Oddly, I can't think of a single Mac user
who ever took that position.
Here we see the Linux fans actively admitting that they are sending
money to their OS company out of the kindness of their heart.
Amazing that it's a terrible thing when Mac users allegedly do it (even
though I can't remember a single case where it's actually happened), but
it's a great thing for Linux people to do it.
Rick
What's your problem, jerk? You asked for info, I gave you a place to find
it. Then you whined about that. Then I give you 3 direct answers and now
you bitch about that.
--
Rick
Rick
... nothing intelligent.
--
Rick
Snit
Nowhere-ABFA4B...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 3/11/05 3:20 PM:
Well stated.
I think I am asking too much of Linux... I am asking more from it than I am
asking from OS X in that I want it to be as easy to use as OS X, as stable
as OS X, as consistent as OS X... and free.
For folks looking to get a new computer I would still likely direct them to
OS X on a Mac... but maybe the new GNOME will have the consistency I am
looking for, or, perhaps, Mandrake's paid options would serve them best.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Steve Travis
> "Mike Proctor" <mi...@nsmikeproctor.com> wrote in post
> k8lYd.3221$ZB6....@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com on 3/11/05 11:08 AM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>>First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake. Decided
>>>to download it today.
>>
>>Here's my suggestion:
>>
>>Go here and download slackware
>>
>>http://linuxiso.org/distro.php?distro=17
>>
>>
>>Then go here and download dropline
>>
>>http://www.dropline.net/gnome/
>
>
> Thank you... I appreciate it.
>
>
So, why do you bother? You're downloading all the linux distros, and
you are spending no more than a couple of hours to determine their
'quality' level.
There's NO WAY you can look at all the features in such a short period
of time.
Steve Travis
Actually Snit is an expert. He's downloaded and installed 12e3 distros
in 3 days... LOL
Kier
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.11...@tiscali.co.uk on 3/11/05 2:58 PM:
>
>>>> Depends very much on the user.
>>>
>>> Fair enough - I am thinking of terms of the non-techy new users... they type
>>> I see all the time in classes and work with as clients.
>>
>> Mandrake would still be a pretty good option. A paid version would be a
>> 'safer', simpler option, perhaps, but it would depend on what help they
>> could call on if anything went wrong. Set-up aside, Mandrake isn't hard to
>> use. Certainly no harder than XP, and lots of people seem to manage fine
>> with that.
>>
>> The latest SUSE would be another reasonable choice, IMO.
>
> Perhaps I am asking for too much... something easy enough for a non-techy
> user, something that is as consistent as OS X, something that is free...
Perhaps, to some extent. But Mandrake, IMO, even a free version, will come
close to what you want. And even a paid version of Mandrake, SUSE, etc
will be cheaper in the long run than XP. No virus problems, and more apps
than you can shake a stick at :-)
You could easily set up a PC to demonstrate several different
environments/window managers, picking and choosing suitable apps for each
one, available at a click on the panel or desktop, to gauge the
reactions of your non-technical users.
You might be pleasantly surprised.
--
Kier
Steve Travis
>
>>> Why should it not be popular, just because you have to pay? IMO, it's
>>> worth the money for the extras, like drivers, and the manuals. But
>>> you can
>>> get most of what's on it for nothing, if you search around. A lot of
>>> it's
>>> convenience. A complete newbie would get on much better with a retail
>>> box.
>>
>>
>>
>> would
>> not suit the needs of the new user.
>
>
> include Macs not being suitable for new users because they don't come
> with a manual?
Hey now...mine did. A little 4x4 manual that was completely useless.
Liam Slider
Actually, I believe the common claim is that Apple *corporation* cares
more about it's users needs than about Apple's own profits. Which is, of
course, utter bull. I've never heard the "Mac users care more about
Apple's profits than about their own needs" claim.
And at any rate, there's a difference....we are supporting a fully Open
platform, community developed...that just happens to have corporate
backing, while you'd be supporting a proprietary platform (in every sense
of the word), owned outright by a corporation.
Kier
Those pretty much *are* the answers you're going to get, from any of us.
Aside from things like 'bought it as a gift' or 'saw it on a computer
store shelf and decided to give it a try'.
--
Kier
Snit
39elh0F...@individual.net on 3/11/05 3:51 PM:
Why do I bother? A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
Snit
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:10:50 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.11...@tiscali.co.uk on 3/11/05 2:58 PM:
>>
>>>>> Depends very much on the user.
>>>>
>>>> Fair enough - I am thinking of terms of the non-techy new users... they
>>>> type
>>>> I see all the time in classes and work with as clients.
>>>
>>> Mandrake would still be a pretty good option. A paid version would be a
>>> 'safer', simpler option, perhaps, but it would depend on what help they
>>> could call on if anything went wrong. Set-up aside, Mandrake isn't hard to
>>> use. Certainly no harder than XP, and lots of people seem to manage fine
>>> with that.
>>>
>>> The latest SUSE would be another reasonable choice, IMO.
>>
>> Perhaps I am asking for too much... something easy enough for a non-techy
>> user, something that is as consistent as OS X, something that is free...
>
> Perhaps, to some extent. But Mandrake, IMO, even a free version, will come
> close to what you want. And even a paid version of Mandrake, SUSE, etc
> will be cheaper in the long run than XP. No virus problems, and more apps
> than you can shake a stick at :-)
XP is what the users are looking to get *away* from. I rarely suggest
people move to it... though there are some specific cases where XP is best.
>
> You could easily set up a PC to demonstrate several different
> environments/window managers, picking and choosing suitable apps for each
> one, available at a click on the panel or desktop, to gauge the
> reactions of your non-technical users.
>
> You might be pleasantly surprised.
If I only had the hardware...
Linux is not really a primary topic of any of my classes... but I have many
students asking (begging) for options... so I would like to be able to
quickly ask their needs and give them a direction. OS X is clearly more
expensive than even the paid versions of Linux, assuming the student already
has a PC... but it also does not seem like it would be as easy. It is
getting better and better, though.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Kier
> In article <pan.2005.03.11....@trollfeed.com>,
> Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:44:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>
>> > Then why do people pay for Mandrake? What is the advantage?
>>
>> They get manuals.
>> They get support.
>> They get the satisfaction of financially supporting Mandrake.
>
>
> It's funny that people have criticized people who choose Macs, using
> that logic as an argument.
They do? Where? I thought this was a discussion about Mandrakelinux.
>
> The accusation is that Mac users allegedly care more about Apple's
> profits than their own needs. Oddly, I can't think of a single Mac user
> who ever took that position.
I don't recall ever readaing anything in COLA which said this about Mac
users.
>
> Here we see the Linux fans actively admitting that they are sending
> money to their OS company out of the kindness of their heart.
>
> Amazing that it's a terrible thing when Mac users allegedly do it (even
> though I can't remember a single case where it's actually happened), but
> it's a great thing for Linux people to do it.
You're forgetting that linux is not fully commercial, unlike Apple.
Supporting a distro financially helps with development, which in turn
benefits the users.
--
Kier
Liam Slider
> "TravelinMan" <Now...@spamfree.com> wrote in post
> Nowhere-ABFA4B...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 3/11/05 3:20 PM:
>
>> In article <pan.2005.03.11....@trollfeed.com>,
>> Rick <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:44:15 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>> Then why do people pay for Mandrake? What is the advantage?
>>>
>>> They get manuals.
>>> They get support.
>>> They get the satisfaction of financially supporting Mandrake.
>>
>>
>> It's funny that people have criticized people who choose Macs, using
>> that logic as an argument.
>>
>> The accusation is that Mac users allegedly care more about Apple's
>> profits than their own needs. Oddly, I can't think of a single Mac user
>> who ever took that position.
>>
>> Here we see the Linux fans actively admitting that they are sending
>> money to their OS company out of the kindness of their heart.
>>
>> Amazing that it's a terrible thing when Mac users allegedly do it (even
>> though I can't remember a single case where it's actually happened), but
>> it's a great thing for Linux people to do it.
>
> Well stated.
>
> I think I am asking too much of Linux... I am asking more from it than I am
> asking from OS X in that I want it to be as easy to use as OS X,
It is.
> as
> stable as OS X,
It is.
>as consistent as OS X...
You've pointed out some areas were you believe that Linux is *possibly* a
*little* less consistent than OSX. Yet, we've also pointed out there are
places that it is *more* consistent than OSX. Like networked filesystems.
Filesystems over a network, are treated just the same as your local
filesystem. Treated as a part of it. We can brouse Samba shares and FTP
resources, and drag and drop between them just like any other part of the
file system....within the file browser of our chosen DE. That's
consistency.
> and free.
It can be, easily. If not willing to download, it can still be incredibly
cheap.
>
> For folks looking to get a new computer I would still likely direct them
> to OS X on a Mac... but maybe the new GNOME will have the consistency I
> am looking for, or, perhaps, Mandrake's paid options would serve them
> best.
I certainly think Mandrake with GNOME is great, I'd recommend it to anyone.
Steve Carroll
Steve Travis <str...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hey, now you be nice to our troll... he's only on loan, you know! If you
guys have any thoughts about keeping him show some respect, dammit:)
Kier
Is consistency such an absolute necessity? IMO, most apps these days on
the main plaforms, ie Windows, Linux, MacOS, work in fairly similar, and
usually fairly obvious ways. There are odd exceptions where the GUI
interface is unusual enough to throw even an experienced user (blender,
parts of the GIMP, for instance), but in most cases, they aren't terribly
hard to work out.
Basically, there are toolbars and menus and some sort of panel or dock or
taskbar on the desktop. They're all pretty straight-forward, whatever the
platform, even though they aren't exactly the same.
A Windows user should feel reasonably at home with KDE or Gnome, or even
Xfce, in Linux, after a short while. I recall my own experience as a
newbie linux user. At first I was a bit tentative, but gradually, trying
this and that to see what it did, I grew more confident. A non-root user
can't do too much damage - that's the idea. Learning to get around the
Linux desktop should be regarded as a voyage of discovery, not an arduous
task. It should be fun.
Stanrdard apps like Mozilla/Firefox and Thunderbird and OpenOffice.org
should present no problems for anyone who's browsed, sent email, or
written a document in Windows. A DVD player like Xine is not at all
difficult to use, not is K3b the best, IMO, CD burner in Linux, nor the
mp3 player Xmms. That about covers what a lot of people want to do. The
rest can be explored at leisure.
--
Kier
Kier
> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.11....@tiscali.co.uk on 3/11/05 3:49 PM:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 15:10:50 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in post
>>> pan.2005.03.11...@tiscali.co.uk on 3/11/05 2:58 PM:
>>>
>>>>>> Depends very much on the user.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fair enough - I am thinking of terms of the non-techy new users... they
>>>>> type
>>>>> I see all the time in classes and work with as clients.
>>>>
>>>> Mandrake would still be a pretty good option. A paid version would be a
>>>> 'safer', simpler option, perhaps, but it would depend on what help they
>>>> could call on if anything went wrong. Set-up aside, Mandrake isn't hard to
>>>> use. Certainly no harder than XP, and lots of people seem to manage fine
>>>> with that.
>>>>
>>>> The latest SUSE would be another reasonable choice, IMO.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I am asking for too much... something easy enough for a non-techy
>>> user, something that is as consistent as OS X, something that is free...
>>
>> Perhaps, to some extent. But Mandrake, IMO, even a free version, will come
>> close to what you want. And even a paid version of Mandrake, SUSE, etc
>> will be cheaper in the long run than XP. No virus problems, and more apps
>> than you can shake a stick at :-)
>
> XP is what the users are looking to get *away* from. I rarely suggest
> people move to it... though there are some specific cases where XP is best.
I'm not as down on XP as some posters here. It's okay, or has been for me,
but it's not nearly as interesting, I find. Even when it's 'better' than
Linux, I find I like Linux more than XP. Also, I feel less worried about
cocking somehting up in Linux, because i know it can usually be fixed.
Whereas, if I bugger my install of Xp, I'm up shit creek with a leaky boat
and no paddle, since i bought it pre-installed, with only a recovery disk
supplied. This isn't much use to me, since all it will do is restore the
PC to its factory state, which is nothing like its current state.
>>
>> You could easily set up a PC to demonstrate several different
>> environments/window managers, picking and choosing suitable apps for each
>> one, available at a click on the panel or desktop, to gauge the
>> reactions of your non-technical users.
>>
>> You might be pleasantly surprised.
>
> If I only had the hardware...
Could you not borrow a friend's PC? Or perhaps that of an intrepid
student? modest-specced PCs are not vastly expensive, and they'll run
Linux all right - he machine I post from is only a P3, 650mhz, 32 meg
video, 256 meg memory Dell jobbie, and it copes okay with most general
tasks - less well with video and 3D stuff but that's down to my set-up as
much as anything, needs a bit of tweaking.
>
> Linux is not really a primary topic of any of my classes... but I have many
> students asking (begging) for options... so I would like to be able to
> quickly ask their needs and give them a direction. OS X is clearly more
> expensive than even the paid versions of Linux, assuming the student already
> has a PC... but it also does not seem like it would be as easy. It is
> getting better and better, though.
It's really no more difficult than XP, which many of them, presumably
most, will be familiar with. It's merely a little different. Multiple
desktops will blow them away, IMO.
--
Kier
Kier
Whatever else you might say of him, he's not claimed to be an expert.
IMO, it would be nice if you kept your feuds inside CSMA, rather than
dragging them into COLA.
--
Kier
--
Kier
Snit
For many users XP is just impossible to use - if nothing else the malware
and the fear of malware cripples the experience.
I do point my students to reasonable precautions they can take - and do not
encourage they leave Windows... I just offer others ideas for those that do
want to.
> Even when it's 'better' than Linux, I find I like Linux more than XP. Also, I
> feel less worried about cocking somehting up in Linux, because i know it can
> usually be fixed. Whereas, if I bugger my install of Xp, I'm up shit creek
> with a leaky boat and no paddle, since i bought it pre-installed, with only a
> recovery disk supplied. This isn't much use to me, since all it will do is
> restore the PC to its factory state, which is nothing like its current state.
And with the mess of the registry and DLL hell, XP is simply not as easy to
trouble shoot as is OS X, at least. Can not say I know enough about Linux
to say. Still, other than *maybe* being able to find a pref file to delete,
most new users can not trouble shoot OS X much either.
>>>
>>> You could easily set up a PC to demonstrate several different
>>> environments/window managers, picking and choosing suitable apps for each
>>> one, available at a click on the panel or desktop, to gauge the
>>> reactions of your non-technical users.
>>>
>>> You might be pleasantly surprised.
>>
>> If I only had the hardware...
>
> Could you not borrow a friend's PC? Or perhaps that of an intrepid
> student? modest-specced PCs are not vastly expensive, and they'll run
> Linux all right - he machine I post from is only a P3, 650mhz, 32 meg
> video, 256 meg memory Dell jobbie, and it copes okay with most general
> tasks - less well with video and 3D stuff but that's down to my set-up as
> much as anything, needs a bit of tweaking.
I have an older PC and will put a second "play" drive in it in a few
months...
>>
>> Linux is not really a primary topic of any of my classes... but I have many
>> students asking (begging) for options... so I would like to be able to
>> quickly ask their needs and give them a direction. OS X is clearly more
>> expensive than even the paid versions of Linux, assuming the student already
>> has a PC... but it also does not seem like it would be as easy. It is
>> getting better and better, though.
>
> It's really no more difficult than XP, which many of them, presumably
> most, will be familiar with. It's merely a little different. Multiple
> desktops will blow them away, IMO.
Much of Linux seems to be trying to copy Windows - at least in looks. The
screen shots of the new GNOME with several apps was the first time I have
seen the type of consistency in Linux that I see daily on OS X... though
keep in mind I have only been even semi-seriously looking at Linux for a
short time.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
_________________________________________
Snit
>> I think I am asking too much of Linux... I am asking more from it than I am
>> asking from OS X in that I want it to be as easy to use as OS X, as stable
>> as OS X, as consistent as OS X... and free.
>>
>> For folks looking to get a new computer I would still likely direct them to
>> OS X on a Mac... but maybe the new GNOME will have the consistency I am
>> looking for, or, perhaps, Mandrake's paid options would serve them best.
>
> Is consistency such an absolute necessity? IMO, most apps these days on
> the main plaforms, ie Windows, Linux, MacOS, work in fairly similar, and
> usually fairly obvious ways. There are odd exceptions where the GUI
> interface is unusual enough to throw even an experienced user (blender,
> parts of the GIMP, for instance), but in most cases, they aren't terribly
> hard to work out.
Consistency is not a must, but it is a huge advantage. XP does not offer
this, and it seems in general Linux does not either - though the new GNOME
may very well change that from what I have seen.
I work with many classes of new and often older users. For them many tasks
that to you and I would be trivial to figure out - or things we might not
even notice - become big stumbling blocks for them. Many get past that
point after a few months of use though others never seem to.
Many of the screen shots I have posted to my site come directly from
repeated questions I get in my classes. Look at the save and print dialogs:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/dialogs/
I often teach the students to use a save dialog only to have to teach them
*another* dialog for another program! I am not talking just the options of
the other program, but the whole layout... again, as seen in the images.
Or the Common Task area of Windows - it would seem that would be there
largely for newer users ... but even it is inconsistent:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/New_Folder/
Same thing with using windows... with multiple versions of windowing schemes
seen even in MS Office:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/csma/interface/pages/Office2003.html
Etc. I see these things every day.
OS X is certainly not perfect - far from on some accounts... but it is
vastly better than XP. I simply do not see new users struggle with it like
they do with XP. More than that, I have taught many people to use the
"other" OS... and more often than not the XP folks learning OS X tell me
they never thought things could be so easy... not until they experienced it.
OS X users learning XP understand why people bitch about XP so much.
From what I have seen Linux tends to be more like XP *in this way* than it
does OS X. When I have commented on this, some of the trolls / blind Linux
advocates / whatever have said that people should just find the distro they
like and use the apps they like.
These people *completely* miss the point that expecting new users to such is
just silly. Most people who have used XP for years do not get it - not
until they use something better. A new user - by definition - does not have
the experience to do as they suggest.
>
> Basically, there are toolbars and menus and some sort of panel or dock or
> taskbar on the desktop. They're all pretty straight-forward, whatever the
> platform, even though they aren't exactly the same.
I do not ask for them to be the same... just internally consistent and
relatively easy to use. The OS X dock, for what it is worth, is far from
perfect. In many ways the XP / Linux taskbar is better - though it tends to
get cluttered.
>
> A Windows user should feel reasonably at home with KDE or Gnome, or even
> Xfce, in Linux, after a short while. I recall my own experience as a
> newbie linux user. At first I was a bit tentative, but gradually, trying
> this and that to see what it did, I grew more confident. A non-root user
> can't do too much damage - that's the idea. Learning to get around the
> Linux desktop should be regarded as a voyage of discovery, not an arduous
> task. It should be fun.
For me... sure. For most of the users I am in reference to - not at all.
They generally do not find computers "fun"... though they value the tool
when they can produce something with it - email, get info from the web,
write a document, etc.
>
> Stanrdard apps like Mozilla/Firefox and Thunderbird and OpenOffice.org
> should present no problems for anyone who's browsed, sent email, or
> written a document in Windows. A DVD player like Xine is not at all
> difficult to use, not is K3b the best, IMO, CD burner in Linux, nor the
> mp3 player Xmms. That about covers what a lot of people want to do. The
> rest can be explored at leisure.
_________________________________________
Steve Mackay
You'll have to excuse the resident CSMA village idiot. He's quite
mentally, and socially challenged. I'd suggest steering clear of this glue
sniffing retard.
Snit
pan.2005.03.11....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/11/05 4:15 PM:
>> I think I am asking too much of Linux... I am asking more from it than I am
>> asking from OS X in that I want it to be as easy to use as OS X,
>
> It is.
Questionable. If nothing else you have many decisions as to what distro you
want when you get Linux... and that is simply overwhelming for the new Linux
user. It is, of course, also a huge strength of Linux, esp. for the more
savvy user.
>
>> as stable as OS X,
>
> It is.
I have no reason to question this.
>
>
>> as consistent as OS X...
>
> You've pointed out some areas were you believe that Linux is *possibly* a
> *little* less consistent than OSX.
Other than the screen shots of the new GNOME, I have posted screen shots
showing where OS X is vastly more consistent than either XP or Linux.
> Yet, we've also pointed out there are places that it is *more* consistent than
> OSX. Like networked filesystems. Filesystems over a network, are treated just
> the same as your local filesystem. Treated as a part of it. We can brouse
> Samba shares and FTP resources, and drag and drop between them just like any
> other part of the file system....within the file browser of our chosen DE.
> That's consistency.
No doubt - that is a plus. It is not, for the population in question, as
important as being able to easily save and print files.
>
>> and free.
>
> It can be, easily. If not willing to download, it can still be incredibly
> cheap.
Though as we have seen from the commercial versions, there is a demand for
more than what the free ones can offer.
Again - I am not saying that what Linux offers for free is not amazing and
wonderful - it is. There is no doubt about that.
>>
>> For folks looking to get a new computer I would still likely direct them
>> to OS X on a Mac... but maybe the new GNOME will have the consistency I
>> am looking for, or, perhaps, Mandrake's paid options would serve them
>> best.
>
> I certainly think Mandrake with GNOME is great, I'd recommend it to anyone.
I will play with it when I get a chance - once I have a computer I can
install it on.
I have a question: how hard is it to switch back and forth between GNOME and
KDE. I do *not* expect my students to do this, but for me... I would like
to be able to play with both.
ralph
> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>
> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
> Linux, and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the
> free ones are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me, it
> does not even come with a media player... though more expensive versions
> do. And that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a boxed
> edition I am sure it costs more...
>
> What am I missing?
The free download page.
The PMD
> You are not qualified to diagnose my psychosis.
Snit
5:44 PM:
LOL... thanks.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
Linønut
>> Actually Snit is an expert. He's downloaded and installed 12e3 distros
>> in 3 days... LOL
>
> Hey, now you be nice to our troll... he's only on loan, you know! If you
> guys have any thoughts about keeping him show some respect, dammit:)
We pretty much got all we can handle here. But, um, is there any chance you
could send us some *intelligent* ones?
--
When was the last time you thought about
Microsoft, except in frustration or anger?
-- Michael S. Malone, Silicon Insider
Kelsey Bjarnason
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:22:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
Actually, Mandrake isn't _universally_ free; it has several options, free
and not. Use the free one, if you want.
> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
> Linux, and people are paying for it.
True, they are. And for RH, and SuSe, and many another.
> What happened to the idea that the
> free ones are just as good?
They are... with a proviso. Due to licensing issues and the like, the
free ones generally can't bundle certain things (flash players, for
example, IIRC) whereas the non-free ones can.
If you don't need that sort of thing, or are capable of downloading and
installing it yourself (doesn't take any particular genius, even DFS could
do it), then the free ones are as good as the non-free ones. They don't,
however, include the support that the non-free ones generally do, which
may be a factor in choosing one over the other.
> And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me,
> it does not even come with a media player
Huh? I thought it came with several, including, among others, Amarok.
Snit
pan.2005.03.12....@junk.gmail.com on 3/11/05 6:26 PM:
> [snips]
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:22:35 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>
> Actually, Mandrake isn't _universally_ free; it has several options, free
> and not. Use the free one, if you want.
I have since found the free version - but I am looking not primarily for
myself, but for my students and clients - I am a computer teacher who does
tech work also. Many of my students / clients are older folks who benefit
greatly from better ease of use and consistency than, say, XP offers.
>
>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
>> Linux, and people are paying for it.
>
> True, they are. And for RH, and SuSe, and many another.
True.
>
>> What happened to the idea that the
>> free ones are just as good?
>
> They are... with a proviso. Due to licensing issues and the like, the
> free ones generally can't bundle certain things (flash players, for
> example, IIRC) whereas the non-free ones can.
Do the free ones come with just-as-good free options?
>
> If you don't need that sort of thing, or are capable of downloading and
> installing it yourself (doesn't take any particular genius, even DFS could
> do it), then the free ones are as good as the non-free ones. They don't,
> however, include the support that the non-free ones generally do, which
> may be a factor in choosing one over the other.
As would the downloads, unless they are as easy as plugins can be ... just
click the big box that says click here and wait... maybe clicking OK.
>
>> And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me,
>> it does not even come with a media player
>
> Huh? I thought it came with several, including, among others, Amarok.
Seems the cheapest for-pay one does not, but the free one does... odd.
Liam Slider
> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.11....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/11/05 4:15 PM:
>
>>> I think I am asking too much of Linux... I am asking more from it than
>>> I am asking from OS X in that I want it to be as easy to use as OS X,
>>
>> It is.
>
> Questionable. If nothing else you have many decisions as to what distro
> you want when you get Linux... and that is simply overwhelming for the
> new Linux user. It is, of course, also a huge strength of Linux, esp.
> for the more savvy user.
As I always say, it's better to think of Linux not as one operating
system, but as a family of very closely related operating systems. Like
Unix is.
>>> as stable as OS X,
>>
>> It is.
>
> I have no reason to question this.
>>
>>
>>> as consistent as OS X...
>>
>> You've pointed out some areas were you believe that Linux is *possibly*
>> a *little* less consistent than OSX.
>
> Other than the screen shots of the new GNOME, I have posted screen shots
> showing where OS X is vastly more consistent than either XP or Linux.
Not really. Ok, XP granted.
>> Yet, we've also pointed out there are places that it is *more*
>> consistent than OSX. Like networked filesystems. Filesystems over a
>> network, are treated just the same as your local filesystem. Treated as
>> a part of it. We can brouse Samba shares and FTP resources, and drag
>> and drop between them just like any other part of the file
>> system....within the file browser of our chosen DE. That's consistency.
>
> No doubt - that is a plus. It is not, for the population in question,
> as important as being able to easily save and print files.
That's slightly debatable, considering the *level* of inconsistency we are
talking about here. Me, I'd consider OSX's lack of transparent networking
to be a rather severe lack of functionality, a high level annoyance.
Having the rare save dialog be different is not really any annoyance for
me.
>>> and free.
>>
>> It can be, easily. If not willing to download, it can still be
>> incredibly cheap.
>
> Though as we have seen from the commercial versions, there is a demand
> for more than what the free ones can offer.
Yes....sometimes a tiny bit of commercial software that's added on (which
the user could always buy themselves later if they get the Free version),
a manual (which the user could always get something similar later if they
feel a need), install support (very, very rarely needed, but a comfort),
and feeling good about themselves for supporting their distro.
> Again - I am not saying that what Linux offers for free is not amazing
> and wonderful - it is. There is no doubt about that.
True, but you are suggesting that it's significantly less. It's not.
>>> For folks looking to get a new computer I would still likely direct
>>> them to OS X on a Mac... but maybe the new GNOME will have the
>>> consistency I am looking for, or, perhaps, Mandrake's paid options
>>> would serve them best.
>>
>> I certainly think Mandrake with GNOME is great, I'd recommend it to
>> anyone.
>
> I will play with it when I get a chance - once I have a computer I can
> install it on.
>
> I have a question: how hard is it to switch back and forth between GNOME
> and KDE. I do *not* expect my students to do this, but for me... I
> would like to be able to play with both.
It's easy. When you log in you can choose what DE you want to use from a
menu.
Rod Engelsman
>
> I have a question: how hard is it to switch back and forth between GNOME and
> KDE. I do *not* expect my students to do this, but for me... I would like
> to be able to play with both.
>
Assuming both are installed (they are with FC3, anyway), just open a
term window and type "switchdesk kde" or "switchdesk gnome" as
appropriate. The next time you log on that will be your DE.
Rod
Roy Culley
<pLedncifG_Z...@news.ruraltel.net>,
If you use kdm then you can select the sesssion type from a menu. I
have about 10 different session types I can choose from. Depends what
you install on your system.
Its that damn choice thing again. Bummer ain't it. :-)
Snit
pLedncifG_Z...@news.ruraltel.net on 3/11/05 7:33 PM:
Excellent, thanks.
While I can certainly do that - and as I said I would not expect the new
users in question to do so - is there a GUI that does it, too? If not, I am
sure I could make an executable, double clickable shell script to do it...
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
rapskat
fault at address <BE5721EB.8F9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
follows .vbs
> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake.
> Decided to download it today.
>
> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
First of all, you CAN download Mandrake at no charge.
More importantly, why should it matter if you had to pay for it? Are
either XP or OS X free? The last time I checked, neither were...
OS X - Tiger
Price $129.00
XP Professional full
Price $299.00
Mandrake PowerPack
Price $84.90
Seems to me if you did have to purchase one, Mandrake would be the least
expensive, most cost-effective option.
Why are you using one canon to judge these and another to judge Linux
distros? That makes you a bit of a hypocrite, doesn't it?
I guess your supposed claims of objective evaluation are just a bunch of
horse-pucky?
> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
> Linux, and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the
> free ones are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me,
> it does not even come with a media player...
Where do you get that from? Mandrake comes with several media players,
and more are easily obtainable freely after install.
> though more expensive versions do. And that is if I download it and
> burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so obviously
wrong?
> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
> Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
> missed on the site?
Would it really matter to you at this point? You have already passed
judgement on it. What difference would it make if you were proven wrong?
Are you going to recant and apologize for the statements you made in this
post?
> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite
> a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
> something just does not add up here...
Damned straight on that.
--
rapskat - 21:54:15 up 1:10, 2 users, load average: 0.52, 0.52, 0.37
You will stop at nothing to reach your objective, but only because your
brakes are defective.
I am jamming to Bad Boy Bill - Shake That Ass And Bounce
Snit
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:32:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.11....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/11/05 4:15 PM:
>>
>>>> I think I am asking too much of Linux... I am asking more from it than
>>>> I am asking from OS X in that I want it to be as easy to use as OS X,
>>>
>>> It is.
>>
>> Questionable. If nothing else you have many decisions as to what distro
>> you want when you get Linux... and that is simply overwhelming for the
>> new Linux user. It is, of course, also a huge strength of Linux, esp.
>> for the more savvy user.
>
> As I always say, it's better to think of Linux not as one operating
> system, but as a family of very closely related operating systems. Like
> Unix is.
I agree - but it seems to be hard to find a good version (distro) that I can
be confident to point my students / clients to. Of course some may have
differing needs, but for the most part they want to use their computers for
the "basics" - e-mail, web, word processing, and maybe working with their
digital cameras and music. Some may even do "advanced" stuff like work with
movies or create "Powerpoint" style presentations.
Their needs may seem slight, but they need to be able to do these things
with as consistent and easy to use interface as is possible.
>
>>>> as stable as OS X,
>>>
>>> It is.
>>
>> I have no reason to question this.
>>>
>>>
>>>> as consistent as OS X...
>>>
>>> You've pointed out some areas were you believe that Linux is *possibly*
>>> a *little* less consistent than OSX.
>>
>> Other than the screen shots of the new GNOME, I have posted screen shots
>> showing where OS X is vastly more consistent than either XP or Linux.
>
> Not really. Ok, XP granted.
Other than the new GNOME, where else can I find consistent Linux dialogs.
Granted, if GNOME will now fit the needs, "all" I need to do is find a good
distro with applications that are GNOME compliant.
>
>>> Yet, we've also pointed out there are places that it is *more*
>>> consistent than OSX. Like networked filesystems. Filesystems over a
>>> network, are treated just the same as your local filesystem. Treated as
>>> a part of it. We can brouse Samba shares and FTP resources, and drag
>>> and drop between them just like any other part of the file
>>> system....within the file browser of our chosen DE. That's consistency.
>>
>> No doubt - that is a plus. It is not, for the population in question,
>> as important as being able to easily save and print files.
>
> That's slightly debatable, considering the *level* of inconsistency we are
> talking about here. Me, I'd consider OSX's lack of transparent networking
> to be a rather severe lack of functionality, a high level annoyance.
> Having the rare save dialog be different is not really any annoyance for
> me.
You are not, I am sure, a part of the population in question.
>
>>>> and free.
>>>
>>> It can be, easily. If not willing to download, it can still be
>>> incredibly cheap.
>>
>> Though as we have seen from the commercial versions, there is a demand
>> for more than what the free ones can offer.
>
> Yes....sometimes a tiny bit of commercial software that's added on (which
> the user could always buy themselves later if they get the Free version),
> a manual (which the user could always get something similar later if they
> feel a need), install support (very, very rarely needed, but a comfort),
> and feeling good about themselves for supporting their distro.
All important.
>
>> Again - I am not saying that what Linux offers for free is not amazing
>> and wonderful - it is. There is no doubt about that.
>
> True, but you are suggesting that it's significantly less. It's not.
If I can find a distro that is the equal of what you get by default with OS
X, then I would be ecstatic (though even then the user would have to install
it - so the installation should be very easy... ).
I want to be able to point my students / clients to Linux as is appropriate
for them... which means that I need to learn more *and* that there needs to
be a distro of Linux I am comfortable pointing them to.
>
>
>>>> For folks looking to get a new computer I would still likely direct
>>>> them to OS X on a Mac... but maybe the new GNOME will have the
>>>> consistency I am looking for, or, perhaps, Mandrake's paid options
>>>> would serve them best.
>>>
>>> I certainly think Mandrake with GNOME is great, I'd recommend it to
>>> anyone.
>>
>> I will play with it when I get a chance - once I have a computer I can
>> install it on.
>>
>> I have a question: how hard is it to switch back and forth between GNOME
>> and KDE. I do *not* expect my students to do this, but for me... I
>> would like to be able to play with both.
>
> It's easy. When you log in you can choose what DE you want to use from a
> menu.
Someone else gave me a command line... one that I could easily do. Is there
a setting to turn that switch on and off?
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Snit
7k1ag2-...@nw8000.swissptt.ch on 3/11/05 7:43 PM:
Depends on the abilities of the user... for me, no. For my students /
clients... it is enough to keep them away from it.
That is why I am looking for a good distro I can just burn for them and hand
over. Let them know the risks and benefits, and send them on their way.
Maybe point them to some instructions or write my own (few online resources
seem directed at the older new user.... though I would love to see what the
Linux community has to offer there, too.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Snit
pan.2005.03.12....@rapskat.com on 3/11/05 8:10 PM:
> begin Error log for Fri, 11 Mar 2005 10:22:35 -0700 - Snit caused a page
> fault at address <BE5721EB.8F9F%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
> follows .vbs
>
>> First, thanks to all the people who suggested I look at Mandrake.
>> Decided to download it today.
>>
>> Until I realized that Mandrake is not free.
>
> First of all, you CAN download Mandrake at no charge.
Yes - my mistake, and covered in the past.
>
> More importantly, why should it matter if you had to pay for it? Are
> either XP or OS X free? The last time I checked, neither were...
>
> OS X - Tiger
> Price $129.00
>
> XP Professional full
> Price $299.00
>
> Mandrake PowerPack
> Price $84.90
>
> Seems to me if you did have to purchase one, Mandrake would be the least
> expensive, most cost-effective option.
>
> Why are you using one canon to judge these and another to judge Linux
> distros? That makes you a bit of a hypocrite, doesn't it?
>
> I guess your supposed claims of objective evaluation are just a bunch of
> horse-pucky?
wow... you need an anger management class, eh? :)
>
>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
>> Linux, and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that the
>> free ones are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would cost me,
>> it does not even come with a media player...
>
> Where do you get that from? Mandrake comes with several media players,
> and more are easily obtainable freely after install.
I got it from the mandrakelinux website.
>
>> though more expensive versions do. And that is if I download it and
>> burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>
> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so obviously
> wrong?
Do you deny the boxed versions cost more than the downloadable ones? Do you
have a price list to show that?
>
>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
>> Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
>> missed on the site?
>
> Would it really matter to you at this point? You have already passed
> judgement on it. What difference would it make if you were proven wrong?
> Are you going to recant and apologize for the statements you made in this
> post?
You mean am I going to recant that you can not get it for free - sure... did
that shortly after I posted the error.
Are you going to apologize for insinuating I would not? :)
>
>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get quite
>> a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package, etc. But
>> something just does not add up here...
>
> Damned straight on that.
What is it about Linux that you think does not add up?
JohnOfArc
>
> Hey, now you be nice to our troll... he's only on loan, you know! If you
> guys have any thoughts about keeping him show some respect, dammit:)
>
I'm not sure "troll" does it justice- more like a black hole! But hey,
if we all promise to never again even entertain an unkind thought re
Apple, will you take it back and lock it up? Please??
--
I yustabe+me, but I was never Y-O-U
rapskat
fault at address <BE57AE98.922D%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
follows .vbs
Oh really?
http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/10.1/features/7.php3
>>> though more expensive versions do. And that is if I download it and
>>> burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>>
>> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
>> obviously wrong?
>
> Do you deny the boxed versions cost more than the downloadable ones? Do
> you have a price list to show that?
I'm not contesting that, of course a boxed set would cost more than a
download version. I'm talking about your claims that the downloadable
version has no multimedia playing capabilities, which are demonstrably
false.
>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
>>> Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
>>> missed on the site?
>>
>> Would it really matter to you at this point? You have already passed
>> judgement on it. What difference would it make if you were proven
>> wrong? Are you going to recant and apologize for the statements you
>> made in this post?
>
> You mean am I going to recant that you can not get it for free - sure...
> did that shortly after I posted the error.
And what about all the other inaccuracies about Mandrake in your OP?
> Are you going to apologize for insinuating I would not? :)
No, because you still haven't apologized for making false claims about
Mandrake.
>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get
>>> quite a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package,
>>> etc. But something just does not add up here...
>>
>> Damned straight on that.
>
> What is it about Linux that you think does not add up?
What makes you think that I was talking about Linux?
--
rapskat - 22:49:35 up 2:05, 2 users, load average: 0.33, 0.24, 0.27
Always do right. This will gratify some people and astonish the rest.
-- Mark Twain
I am jamming to Bad Boy Bill Richard Humpty Vision - House Connection 2
Snit
Yes. Why do you ask.
http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/101/comparison
>
> http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/10.1/features/7.php3
Thank you...
>
>>>> though more expensive versions do. And that is if I download it and
>>>> burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>>>
>>> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
>>> obviously wrong?
>>
>> Do you deny the boxed versions cost more than the downloadable ones? Do
>> you have a price list to show that?
>
> I'm not contesting that, of course a boxed set would cost more than a
> download version.
Then why when I stated:
And that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a
boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
You responded with:
Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
obviously wrong?
> I'm talking about your claims that the downloadable
> version has no multimedia playing capabilities, which are demonstrably
> false.
As has been discussed. I was wrong... and I have now pointed to you where
on the site I came to that faulty conclusion.
>
>>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
>>>> Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
>>>> missed on the site?
>>>
>>> Would it really matter to you at this point? You have already passed
>>> judgement on it. What difference would it make if you were proven
>>> wrong? Are you going to recant and apologize for the statements you
>>> made in this post?
>>
>> You mean am I going to recant that you can not get it for free - sure...
>> did that shortly after I posted the error.
>
> And what about all the other inaccuracies about Mandrake in your OP?
>
>> Are you going to apologize for insinuating I would not? :)
>
> No, because you still haven't apologized for making false claims about
> Mandrake.
You will not apologize for your errors, unless I apologize for things you
disagree with.
I have no desire to play such games...
>
>>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get
>>>> quite a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package,
>>>> etc. But something just does not add up here...
>>>
>>> Damned straight on that.
>>
>> What is it about Linux that you think does not add up?
>
> What makes you think that I was talking about Linux?
Most people respond directly under the comment they are in response to. Are
you experimenting with a new way?
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/bh6q
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Liam Slider
> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
> pan.2005.03.12....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/11/05 7:34 PM:
>
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:32:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>
>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
>>> pan.2005.03.11....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/11/05 4:15 PM:
>>>
>>>>> I think I am asking too much of Linux... I am asking more from it than
>>>>> I am asking from OS X in that I want it to be as easy to use as OS X,
>>>>
>>>> It is.
>>>
>>> Questionable. If nothing else you have many decisions as to what distro
>>> you want when you get Linux... and that is simply overwhelming for the
>>> new Linux user. It is, of course, also a huge strength of Linux, esp.
>>> for the more savvy user.
>>
>> As I always say, it's better to think of Linux not as one operating
>> system, but as a family of very closely related operating systems. Like
>> Unix is.
>
> I agree - but it seems to be hard to find a good version (distro) that I can
> be confident to point my students / clients to. Of course some may have
> differing needs, but for the most part they want to use their computers for
> the "basics" - e-mail, web, word processing, and maybe working with their
> digital cameras and music.
Easy enough. My grandfather does this kind of stuff all the time without
any problem. He uses Linux. He's not even very computer literate, and
falls into the typical "different things are scary" user.
> Some may even do "advanced" stuff like work with movies or create
> "Powerpoint" style presentations.
Also should be fine.
>
> Their needs may seem slight, but they need to be able to do these things
> with as consistent and easy to use interface as is possible.
>>
>>>>> as stable as OS X,
>>>>
>>>> It is.
>>>
>>> I have no reason to question this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> as consistent as OS X...
>>>>
>>>> You've pointed out some areas were you believe that Linux is
>>>> *possibly* a *little* less consistent than OSX.
>>>
>>> Other than the screen shots of the new GNOME, I have posted screen
>>> shots showing where OS X is vastly more consistent than either XP or
>>> Linux.
>>
>> Not really. Ok, XP granted.
>
> Other than the new GNOME, where else can I find consistent Linux dialogs.
KDE....among KDE apps. Although GNOME is better IMHO.
> Granted, if GNOME will now fit the needs, "all" I need to do is find a good
> distro with applications that are GNOME compliant.
Yes, I suppose...
>>
>>>> Yet, we've also pointed out there are places that it is *more*
>>>> consistent than OSX. Like networked filesystems. Filesystems over a
>>>> network, are treated just the same as your local filesystem. Treated as
>>>> a part of it. We can brouse Samba shares and FTP resources, and drag
>>>> and drop between them just like any other part of the file
>>>> system....within the file browser of our chosen DE. That's consistency.
>>>
>>> No doubt - that is a plus. It is not, for the population in question,
>>> as important as being able to easily save and print files.
>>
>> That's slightly debatable, considering the *level* of inconsistency we are
>> talking about here. Me, I'd consider OSX's lack of transparent networking
>> to be a rather severe lack of functionality, a high level annoyance.
>> Having the rare save dialog be different is not really any annoyance for
>> me.
>
> You are not, I am sure, a part of the population in question.
Why not? Because I am computer literate?
>>
>>>>> and free.
>>>>
>>>> It can be, easily. If not willing to download, it can still be
>>>> incredibly cheap.
>>>
>>> Though as we have seen from the commercial versions, there is a demand
>>> for more than what the free ones can offer.
>>
>> Yes....sometimes a tiny bit of commercial software that's added on (which
>> the user could always buy themselves later if they get the Free version),
>> a manual (which the user could always get something similar later if they
>> feel a need), install support (very, very rarely needed, but a comfort),
>> and feeling good about themselves for supporting their distro.
>
> All important.
Yes, but not necessary for an average user to *use* Linux successfully.
>>
>>> Again - I am not saying that what Linux offers for free is not amazing
>>> and wonderful - it is. There is no doubt about that.
>>
>> True, but you are suggesting that it's significantly less. It's not.
>
> If I can find a distro that is the equal of what you get by default with OS
> X, then I would be ecstatic (though even then the user would have to install
> it - so the installation should be very easy... ).
>
> I want to be able to point my students / clients to Linux as is appropriate
> for them... which means that I need to learn more *and* that there needs to
> be a distro of Linux I am comfortable pointing them to.
Personally, I don't see what your problem is.
>>
>>
>>>>> For folks looking to get a new computer I would still likely direct
>>>>> them to OS X on a Mac... but maybe the new GNOME will have the
>>>>> consistency I am looking for, or, perhaps, Mandrake's paid options
>>>>> would serve them best.
>>>>
>>>> I certainly think Mandrake with GNOME is great, I'd recommend it to
>>>> anyone.
>>>
>>> I will play with it when I get a chance - once I have a computer I can
>>> install it on.
>>>
>>> I have a question: how hard is it to switch back and forth between GNOME
>>> and KDE. I do *not* expect my students to do this, but for me... I
>>> would like to be able to play with both.
>>
>> It's easy. When you log in you can choose what DE you want to use from a
>> menu.
>
> Someone else gave me a command line... one that I could easily do.
Yes, you can do it from the command line as well. Depends on if you are
logging on through the console, or with a GUI login.
> Is
> there a setting to turn that switch on and off?
I suppose it's possible yes, but I've never seen it.
Snit
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 20:12:16 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
>> pan.2005.03.12....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/11/05 7:34 PM:
>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:32:14 -0700, Snit wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Liam Slider" <li...@NOSPAM.liamslider.com> wrote in post
>>>> pan.2005.03.11....@NOSPAM.liamslider.com on 3/11/05 4:15 PM:
>>>>
>>>>>> I think I am asking too much of Linux... I am asking more from it than
>>>>>> I am asking from OS X in that I want it to be as easy to use as OS X,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is.
>>>>
>>>> Questionable. If nothing else you have many decisions as to what distro
>>>> you want when you get Linux... and that is simply overwhelming for the
>>>> new Linux user. It is, of course, also a huge strength of Linux, esp.
>>>> for the more savvy user.
>>>
>>> As I always say, it's better to think of Linux not as one operating
>>> system, but as a family of very closely related operating systems. Like
>>> Unix is.
>>
>> I agree - but it seems to be hard to find a good version (distro) that I can
>> be confident to point my students / clients to. Of course some may have
>> differing needs, but for the most part they want to use their computers for
>> the "basics" - e-mail, web, word processing, and maybe working with their
>> digital cameras and music.
>
> Easy enough. My grandfather does this kind of stuff all the time without
> any problem. He uses Linux. He's not even very computer literate, and
> falls into the typical "different things are scary" user.
I would bet he has pretty good tech support. :)
Some people in that age range seem to catch on fairly quickly... some do
not. It could be that Linux is a lot easier to catch on to than is Windows
- there is not the fear of breaking it as much or of malware. Still, OS X
often makes a *huge* difference...
>> Some may even do "advanced" stuff like work with movies or create
>> "Powerpoint" style presentations.
>
> Also should be fine.
Do you have screen shots you can share... main windows plus "standard"
dialogs?
>>
>> Their needs may seem slight, but they need to be able to do these things
>> with as consistent and easy to use interface as is possible.
>>>
>>>>>> as stable as OS X,
>>>>>
>>>>> It is.
>>>>
>>>> I have no reason to question this.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as consistent as OS X...
>>>>>
>>>>> You've pointed out some areas were you believe that Linux is
>>>>> *possibly* a *little* less consistent than OSX.
>>>>
>>>> Other than the screen shots of the new GNOME, I have posted screen
>>>> shots showing where OS X is vastly more consistent than either XP or
>>>> Linux.
>>>
>>> Not really. Ok, XP granted.
>>
>> Other than the new GNOME, where else can I find consistent Linux dialogs.
>
> KDE....among KDE apps. Although GNOME is better IMHO.
If you have apps that fit your WM Linux seems to do this fairly well. I
have not seen a distro that does this well... then again, there are a *lot*
of distros I have not played with - even very common ones.
>
>> Granted, if GNOME will now fit the needs, "all" I need to do is find a good
>> distro with applications that are GNOME compliant.
>
> Yes, I suppose...
Good... some common ground. :)
>>>>> Yet, we've also pointed out there are places that it is *more*
>>>>> consistent than OSX. Like networked filesystems. Filesystems over a
>>>>> network, are treated just the same as your local filesystem. Treated as
>>>>> a part of it. We can brouse Samba shares and FTP resources, and drag
>>>>> and drop between them just like any other part of the file
>>>>> system....within the file browser of our chosen DE. That's consistency.
>>>>
>>>> No doubt - that is a plus. It is not, for the population in question,
>>>> as important as being able to easily save and print files.
>>>
>>> That's slightly debatable, considering the *level* of inconsistency we are
>>> talking about here. Me, I'd consider OSX's lack of transparent networking
>>> to be a rather severe lack of functionality, a high level annoyance.
>>> Having the rare save dialog be different is not really any annoyance for
>>> me.
>>
>> You are not, I am sure, a part of the population in question.
>
> Why not? Because I am computer literate?
Yes. And clearly interested in computers...
>>>
>>>>>> and free.
>>>>>
>>>>> It can be, easily. If not willing to download, it can still be
>>>>> incredibly cheap.
>>>>
>>>> Though as we have seen from the commercial versions, there is a demand
>>>> for more than what the free ones can offer.
>>>
>>> Yes....sometimes a tiny bit of commercial software that's added on (which
>>> the user could always buy themselves later if they get the Free version),
>>> a manual (which the user could always get something similar later if they
>>> feel a need), install support (very, very rarely needed, but a comfort),
>>> and feeling good about themselves for supporting their distro.
>>
>> All important.
>
> Yes, but not necessary for an average user to *use* Linux successfully.
>
>>>
>>>> Again - I am not saying that what Linux offers for free is not amazing
>>>> and wonderful - it is. There is no doubt about that.
>>>
>>> True, but you are suggesting that it's significantly less. It's not.
>>
>> If I can find a distro that is the equal of what you get by default with OS
>> X, then I would be ecstatic (though even then the user would have to install
>> it - so the installation should be very easy... ).
>>
>> I want to be able to point my students / clients to Linux as is appropriate
>> for them... which means that I need to learn more *and* that there needs to
>> be a distro of Linux I am comfortable pointing them to.
>
> Personally, I don't see what your problem is.
What distro would you suggest? The ones I have played with - which is not
many - have simply not been up to the quality (for this purpose) I would be
comfortable with suggesting to my students / clients.
>>>
>>>>>> For folks looking to get a new computer I would still likely direct
>>>>>> them to OS X on a Mac... but maybe the new GNOME will have the
>>>>>> consistency I am looking for, or, perhaps, Mandrake's paid options
>>>>>> would serve them best.
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly think Mandrake with GNOME is great, I'd recommend it to
>>>>> anyone.
>>>>
>>>> I will play with it when I get a chance - once I have a computer I can
>>>> install it on.
>>>>
>>>> I have a question: how hard is it to switch back and forth between GNOME
>>>> and KDE. I do *not* expect my students to do this, but for me... I
>>>> would like to be able to play with both.
>>>
>>> It's easy. When you log in you can choose what DE you want to use from a
>>> menu.
>>
>> Someone else gave me a command line... one that I could easily do.
>
> Yes, you can do it from the command line as well. Depends on if you are
> logging on through the console, or with a GUI login.
OK...
>
>> Is
>> there a setting to turn that switch on and off?
>
> I suppose it's possible yes, but I've never seen it.
Ok... thanks.
--
I am one of only .3% of people who have avoided becoming a statistic.
_________________________________________
rapskat
fault at address <BE57C2D5.9248%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
follows .vbs
>>>>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
>>>>> Linux, and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that
>>>>> the free ones are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would
>>>>> cost me, it does not even come with a media player...
>>>>
>>>> Where do you get that from? Mandrake comes with several media players,
>>>> and more are easily obtainable freely after install.
>>>
>>> I got it from the mandrakelinux website.
>>
>> Oh really?
>
> Yes. Why do you ask.
>
> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/101/comparison
Assuming you were referring to the "Discovery"
version, it shows quite clearly under the "Multimedia" section that both
Kaffeine and the GIMP are included.
Even your "proof" proves you in error.
>> http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/10.1/features/7.php3
>
> Thank you...
You're welcome.
>>>>> though more expensive versions do. And that is if I download it and
>>>>> burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>>>>
>>>> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
>>>> obviously wrong?
>>>
>>> Do you deny the boxed versions cost more than the downloadable ones? Do
>>> you have a price list to show that?
>>
>> I'm not contesting that, of course a boxed set would cost more than a
>> download version.
>
> Then why when I stated:
>
> And that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a
> boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>
> You responded with:
>
> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
> obviously wrong?
>
Because the premise that those comments was based on was wrong, to wit "it
costs more". If you download it and burn it yourself, it doesn't have to
cost anything.
>> I'm talking about your claims that the downloadable
>> version has no multimedia playing capabilities, which are demonstrably
>> false.
>
> As has been discussed. I was wrong... and I have now pointed to you where
> on the site I came to that faulty conclusion.
And even that has showed that you were still wrong in coming to that
conclusion.
>>>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
>>>>> Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
>>>>> missed on the site?
>>>>
>>>> Would it really matter to you at this point? You have already passed
>>>> judgement on it. What difference would it make if you were proven
>>>> wrong? Are you going to recant and apologize for the statements you
>>>> made in this post?
>>>
>>> You mean am I going to recant that you can not get it for free - sure...
>>> did that shortly after I posted the error.
>>
>> And what about all the other inaccuracies about Mandrake in your OP?
>>
>>> Are you going to apologize for insinuating I would not? :)
>>
>> No, because you still haven't apologized for making false claims about
>> Mandrake.
>
> You will not apologize for your errors, unless I apologize for things you
> disagree with.
What supposed "errors" did I make? In pointing out that you were wrong on
multiple counts in your mis-informative OP?
> I have no desire to play such games...
Then you shouldn't make inaccurate statements about something which you
are obviously clueless about.
>>>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get
>>>>> quite a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package,
>>>>> etc. But something just does not add up here...
>>>>
>>>> Damned straight on that.
>>>
>>> What is it about Linux that you think does not add up?
>>
>> What makes you think that I was talking about Linux?
>
> Most people respond directly under the comment they are in response to. Are
> you experimenting with a new way?
I was concurring with your comment, "But something just does not add up
here...". That "something" was not defined, but for clarity, let
me do so now:
You made a post with comments and judgements about a product that were
wholely in error without so much as consulting with persons that
might be more knowledgeable about the subject first.
Are you always in the habit of coming to conclusions with only half of the
facts? It stands to reason that someone would *ask* prior to making
damning comments about something, especially if that someone doesn't
possess much knowledge about it in the first place.
You claim to be an educator, I would expect that you would attempt to get
as much information as possible prior to making definitive statements
about a thing.
In lieu of this and other threads you have originated re Linux, I can only
hope that you won't take it upon yourself to act as an advocate of Linux
or OSS. Additionally I hope that your students have enough wherewithal to
separate fact from opinion when attending your lectures, as obviously you
are quick to formulate faulty conclusions and just as faulty opinions
thereof.
--
rapskat - 23:58:12 up 3:14, 4 users, load average: 1.47, 1.35, 1.90
Courage is your greatest present need.
Rod Engelsman
> "Rod Engelsman" <rodeng...@ruraltel.net> wrote in post
> pLedncifG_Z...@news.ruraltel.net on 3/11/05 7:33 PM:
>
>
>>Snit wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I have a question: how hard is it to switch back and forth between GNOME and
>>>KDE. I do *not* expect my students to do this, but for me... I would like
>>>to be able to play with both.
>>>
>>
>>Assuming both are installed (they are with FC3, anyway), just open a
>>term window and type "switchdesk kde" or "switchdesk gnome" as
>>appropriate. The next time you log on that will be your DE.
>
>
> Excellent, thanks.
>
> While I can certainly do that - and as I said I would not expect the new
> users in question to do so - is there a GUI that does it, too? If not, I am
> sure I could make an executable, double clickable shell script to do it...
I've only been using Linux for about 2 months now, and Fedora Core 3 is
all I know yet, but the login screen has a button at the bottom for
"Sessions". It brings up a little dialog that lets you choose the WM
*for that session*. Which is nice for trying things out. But there is a
default WM that will come up if you don't make a choice. For FC3 it is
initially set to Gnome.
The procedure I outlined before will change that default setting. So you
can use the Session selector dialog to try different ones out and then
use the "switchdesk" utility to choose your default once you've settled
on one that you like.
Rod
Snit
> begin Error log for Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:49:09 -0700 - Snit caused a page
> fault at address <BE57C2D5.9248%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
> follows .vbs
>
>>>>>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
>>>>>> Linux, and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that
>>>>>> the free ones are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would
>>>>>> cost me, it does not even come with a media player...
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get that from? Mandrake comes with several media players,
>>>>> and more are easily obtainable freely after install.
>>>>
>>>> I got it from the mandrakelinux website.
>>>
>>> Oh really?
>>
>> Yes. Why do you ask.
>>
>> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/101/comparison
>
> Assuming you were referring to the "Discovery"
> version, it shows quite clearly under the "Multimedia" section that both
> Kaffeine and the GIMP are included.
>
> Even your "proof" proves you in error.
Here, I took an image... just for you:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/no-media-player.jpg
feel free to compare that image with the original site... I added the
highlighting, but changed nothing else. The "Media Player" is not a part of
the low end package. other items in the Multimedia section are.
Does that help you to find it?
>
>>> http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/10.1/features/7.php3
>>
>> Thank you...
>
> You're welcome.
>
>>>>>> though more expensive versions do. And that is if I download it and
>>>>>> burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
>>>>> obviously wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Do you deny the boxed versions cost more than the downloadable ones? Do
>>>> you have a price list to show that?
>>>
>>> I'm not contesting that, of course a boxed set would cost more than a
>>> download version.
>>
>> Then why when I stated:
>>
>> And that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a
>> boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>>
>> You responded with:
>>
>> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
>> obviously wrong?
>
> Because the premise that those comments was based on was wrong, to wit "it
> costs more". If you download it and burn it yourself, it doesn't have to
> cost anything.
Even if we accept that (as if CD's and time were free... ) when item A costs
nothing and item B costs something, item B costs *more* than item A.
The boxed edition costs more than the downloadable edition... do you have
reason to disagree?
>
>>> I'm talking about your claims that the downloadable
>>> version has no multimedia playing capabilities, which are demonstrably
>>> false.
>>
>> As has been discussed. I was wrong... and I have now pointed to you where
>> on the site I came to that faulty conclusion.
>
> And even that has showed that you were still wrong in coming to that
> conclusion.
As above:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/no-media-player.jpg
>
>>>>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
>>>>>> Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
>>>>>> missed on the site?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it really matter to you at this point? You have already passed
>>>>> judgement on it. What difference would it make if you were proven
>>>>> wrong? Are you going to recant and apologize for the statements you
>>>>> made in this post?
>>>>
>>>> You mean am I going to recant that you can not get it for free - sure...
>>>> did that shortly after I posted the error.
>>>
>>> And what about all the other inaccuracies about Mandrake in your OP?
>>>
>>>> Are you going to apologize for insinuating I would not? :)
>>>
>>> No, because you still haven't apologized for making false claims about
>>> Mandrake.
>>
>> You will not apologize for your errors, unless I apologize for things you
>> disagree with.
>
> What supposed "errors" did I make? In pointing out that you were wrong on
> multiple counts in your mis-informative OP?
As stated above, you clearly insinuated I would not admit to mistakes... I
had already done so before you posted your comments. Will you admit to that
mistake?
For that matter you denied what we can both now see to be completely true:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/no-media-player.jpg
The low end does not have a media player, though it does have other items
that fit into multimedia.
>
>> I have no desire to play such games...
>
> Then you shouldn't make inaccurate statements about something which you
> are obviously clueless about.
How does that excuse your games?
>
>>>>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get
>>>>>> quite a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package,
>>>>>> etc. But something just does not add up here...
>>>>>
>>>>> Damned straight on that.
>>>>
>>>> What is it about Linux that you think does not add up?
>>>
>>> What makes you think that I was talking about Linux?
>>
>> Most people respond directly under the comment they are in response to. Are
>> you experimenting with a new way?
>
> I was concurring with your comment, "But something just does not add up
> here...". That "something" was not defined, but for clarity, let
> me do so now:
>
> You made a post with comments and judgements about a product that were
> wholely in error without so much as consulting with persons that
> might be more knowledgeable about the subject first.
Did you even read my whole post? As has been shown, you, too, were in error
- about the media player. Do you hold yourself to the same standards?
Also keep in mind, from my original post:
What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
missed on the site?
It turns out I *was* missing the free version of Mandrake. Ok. No big
deal. Not sure why you get all bent out of shape over this.
Your advocacy of Linux is poor - if you really want to advocate it, correct
errors in a friendly way and with support. If the person still does not
agree, so be it...
>
> Are you always in the habit of coming to conclusions with only half of the
> facts?
Well, you came to an erroneous conclusion about the media player even when I
gave you all the facts...
But again, look at my original post - or even my quote from above where I
ask if I am wrong and ask for corrections. I was in no way coming to a
final conclusion.
> It stands to reason that someone would *ask* prior to making
> damning comments about something, especially if that someone doesn't
> possess much knowledge about it in the first place.
You mean questions like these:
What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
missed on the site?
>
> You claim to be an educator, I would expect that you would attempt to get
> as much information as possible prior to making definitive statements
> about a thing.
Please read the post in question.
>
> In lieu of this and other threads you have originated re Linux, I can only
> hope that you won't take it upon yourself to act as an advocate of Linux
> or OSS. Additionally I hope that your students have enough wherewithal to
> separate fact from opinion when attending your lectures, as obviously you
> are quick to formulate faulty conclusions and just as faulty opinions
> thereof.
Are you always in the habit of coming to conclusions with far less than half
of the facts? You have just done so now.
Snit
>>>> I have a question: how hard is it to switch back and forth between GNOME
>>>> and KDE. I do *not* expect my students to do this, but for me... I would
>>>> like to be able to play with both.
>>>
>>> Assuming both are installed (they are with FC3, anyway), just open a term
>>> window and type "switchdesk kde" or "switchdesk gnome" as appropriate. The
>>> next time you log on that will be your DE.
>>
>> Excellent, thanks.
>>
>> While I can certainly do that - and as I said I would not expect the new
>> users in question to do so - is there a GUI that does it, too? If not, I am
>> sure I could make an executable, double clickable shell script to do it...
>
> I've only been using Linux for about 2 months now, and Fedora Core 3 is
> all I know yet, but the login screen has a button at the bottom for
> "Sessions". It brings up a little dialog that lets you choose the WM
> *for that session*. Which is nice for trying things out. But there is a
> default WM that will come up if you don't make a choice. For FC3 it is
> initially set to Gnome.
Very cool... and I like the ability to try it and easily go back with a log
out and in...
>
> The procedure I outlined before will change that default setting. So you
> can use the Session selector dialog to try different ones out and then
> use the "switchdesk" utility to choose your default once you've settled
> on one that you like.
Thanks greatly... good to know.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/bid1
Snit
> begin Error log for Fri, 11 Mar 2005 21:49:09 -0700 - Snit caused a page
> fault at address <BE57C2D5.9248%SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID>, details as
> follows .vbs
>
>>>>>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
>>>>>> Linux, and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that
>>>>>> the free ones are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would
>>>>>> cost me, it does not even come with a media player...
>>>>>
>>>>> Where do you get that from? Mandrake comes with several media players,
>>>>> and more are easily obtainable freely after install.
>>>>
>>>> I got it from the mandrakelinux website.
>>>
>>> Oh really?
>>
>> Yes. Why do you ask.
>>
>> http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/101/comparison
>
> Assuming you were referring to the "Discovery"
> version, it shows quite clearly under the "Multimedia" section that both
> Kaffeine and the GIMP are included.
>
> Even your "proof" proves you in error.
Here, I took an image... just for you:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/no-media-player.jpg
feel free to compare that image with the original site... I added the
highlighting, but changed nothing else. The labeled "Media Player" is not a
part of the low end package. other items in the Multimedia section are,
including Kaffeine which is a media player, but is not labeled as such...
and presumably does not do all that Totem does - or why make a deal out of
including it in the other packages?
Does that help you to find it and understand what I mean?
>
>>> http://www.mandrakelinux.com/en/10.1/features/7.php3
>>
>> Thank you...
>
> You're welcome.
>
>>>>>> though more expensive versions do. And that is if I download it and
>>>>>> burn it myself. If I want a boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
>>>>> obviously wrong?
>>>>
>>>> Do you deny the boxed versions cost more than the downloadable ones? Do
>>>> you have a price list to show that?
>>>
>>> I'm not contesting that, of course a boxed set would cost more than a
>>> download version.
>>
>> Then why when I stated:
>>
>> And that is if I download it and burn it myself. If I want a
>> boxed edition I am sure it costs more...
>>
>> You responded with:
>>
>> Do you always take such a vehement stance even when you are so
>> obviously wrong?
>
> Because the premise that those comments was based on was wrong, to wit "it
> costs more". If you download it and burn it yourself, it doesn't have to
> cost anything.
Even if we accept that (as if CD's and time were free... ) when item A costs
nothing and item B costs something, item B costs *more* than item A.
The boxed edition costs more than the downloadable edition... do you have
reason to disagree?
>
>>> I'm talking about your claims that the downloadable
>>> version has no multimedia playing capabilities, which are demonstrably
>>> false.
>>
>> As has been discussed. I was wrong... and I have now pointed to you where
>> on the site I came to that faulty conclusion.
>
> And even that has showed that you were still wrong in coming to that
> conclusion.
As above:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/no-media-player.jpg
>
>>>>>> What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
>>>>>> Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
>>>>>> missed on the site?
>>>>>
>>>>> Would it really matter to you at this point? You have already passed
>>>>> judgement on it. What difference would it make if you were proven
>>>>> wrong? Are you going to recant and apologize for the statements you
>>>>> made in this post?
>>>>
>>>> You mean am I going to recant that you can not get it for free - sure...
>>>> did that shortly after I posted the error.
>>>
>>> And what about all the other inaccuracies about Mandrake in your OP?
>>>
>>>> Are you going to apologize for insinuating I would not? :)
>>>
>>> No, because you still haven't apologized for making false claims about
>>> Mandrake.
>>
>> You will not apologize for your errors, unless I apologize for things you
>> disagree with.
>
> What supposed "errors" did I make? In pointing out that you were wrong on
> multiple counts in your mis-informative OP?
As stated above, you clearly insinuated I would not admit to mistakes... I
had already done so before you posted your comments. Will you admit to that
mistake?
For that matter you denied what we can both now see to be completely true:
http://myweb.cableone.net/snit/linux/no-media-player.jpg
The low end does not have a media player, though it does have other items
that fit into multimedia.
>
>> I have no desire to play such games...
>
> Then you shouldn't make inaccurate statements about something which you
> are obviously clueless about.
How does that excuse your games?
>
>>>>>> Do not get me wrong - for a relatively small amount you still get
>>>>>> quite a bit - a whole OS, graphics editing package, office package,
>>>>>> etc. But something just does not add up here...
>>>>>
>>>>> Damned straight on that.
>>>>
>>>> What is it about Linux that you think does not add up?
>>>
>>> What makes you think that I was talking about Linux?
>>
>> Most people respond directly under the comment they are in response to. Are
>> you experimenting with a new way?
>
> I was concurring with your comment, "But something just does not add up
> here...". That "something" was not defined, but for clarity, let
> me do so now:
>
> You made a post with comments and judgements about a product that were
> wholely in error without so much as consulting with persons that
> might be more knowledgeable about the subject first.
Did you even read my whole post? As has been shown, you, too, were in error
- about the media player. Do you hold yourself to the same standards?
Also keep in mind, from my original post:
What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
missed on the site?
It turns out I *was* missing the free version of Mandrake. Ok. No big
deal. Not sure why you get all bent out of shape over this.
Your advocacy of Linux is poor - if you really want to advocate it, correct
errors in a friendly way and with support. If the person still does not
agree, so be it...
>
> Are you always in the habit of coming to conclusions with only half of the
> facts?
Well, you came to an erroneous conclusion about the media player even when I
gave you all the facts...
But again, look at my original post - or even my quote from above where I
ask if I am wrong and ask for corrections. I was in no way coming to a
final conclusion.
> It stands to reason that someone would *ask* prior to making
> damning comments about something, especially if that someone doesn't
> possess much knowledge about it in the first place.
You mean questions like these:
What am I missing? If the free Linux distros are as good, why is
Mandrake so popular? Is there a free way to download Mandrake that I
missed on the site?
>
> You claim to be an educator, I would expect that you would attempt to get
> as much information as possible prior to making definitive statements
> about a thing.
Please read the post in question.
>
> In lieu of this and other threads you have originated re Linux, I can only
> hope that you won't take it upon yourself to act as an advocate of Linux
> or OSS. Additionally I hope that your students have enough wherewithal to
> separate fact from opinion when attending your lectures, as obviously you
> are quick to formulate faulty conclusions and just as faulty opinions
> thereof.
Are you always in the habit of coming to conclusions with far less than half
of the facts? You have just done so now.
@mail.com anonymous
http://fedora.redhat.com/download/
And Redhat has the plain old ftp. ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/
"Rick" <no...@trollfeed.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.11....@trollfeed.com...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 14:42:39 -0700, Snit wrote:
>
>> "Kier" <val...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in post
> Manuals, support, and the satisfaction of financially supporting Mandrake.
> They realize what a financial bargain they are getting.
>
> You would know that if you read any of the pages at www.mandrakelinux.com.
>
> --
> Rick
>
Tim Smith
rapskat <rap...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Here we have what I understand is one of the most popular distros of
> >>>>> Linux, and people are paying for it. What happened to the idea that
> >>>>> the free ones are just as good? And for the $50-60 Mandrake would
> >>>>> cost me, it does not even come with a media player...
> >>>>
> >>>> Where do you get that from? Mandrake comes with several media players,
> >>>> and more are easily obtainable freely after install.
> >>>
> >>> I got it from the mandrakelinux website.
> >>
> >> Oh really?
> >
> > Yes. Why do you ask.
> >
> > http://www.mandrakesoft.com/products/101/comparison
>
> Assuming you were referring to the "Discovery"
> version, it shows quite clearly under the "Multimedia" section that both
> Kaffeine and the GIMP are included.
>
> Even your "proof" proves you in error.
Here is what it says:
*Multimedia*
Kaffeine
The GIMP: Image Manipulation Software
Totem: Media player
and Kaffeine and The GIMP are checked, Totem is not checked.
Any normal person who is not familar with those programs would conclude
from that that there is no media player. (Normal people will not guess
from the name that Kaffeine is a media player).
--
--Tim Smith
Rod Engelsman
>
> feel free to compare that image with the original site... I added the
> highlighting, but changed nothing else. The labeled "Media Player" is not a
> part of the low end package. other items in the Multimedia section are,
> including Kaffeine which is a media player, but is not labeled as such...
> and presumably does not do all that Totem does - or why make a deal out of
> including it in the other packages?
>
> Does that help you to find it and understand what I mean?
>
FWIW, media players are one of those areas that is always going to be
somewhat different in Linuxland. The most popular formats -- like mp3 --
are proprietary. So the free distros often will not include players for
them. FC3 comes with hundreds of apps, but you have to hunt down a mp
that will play mp3's from the net. The for-money distros will include
that kind of stuff. It's partly legal and partly political it seems.
Rod
Steve Carroll
Snit <SN...@CABLE0NE.NET.INVALID> wrote:
HorseSHIT! This guy has you PEGGED, Snit:)
Snit
Thanks... and to be fair, the distro does come with Kaffeine, which is a
media player - but it does not come with Totem - the only program labeled as
a media player.
Also in that section is GIMP, which clearly is not a media player...
Snit
reply_in_group-D00...@news1.west.earthlink.net on 3/11/05
11:13 PM:
I did not, at first, but have since did some research on it. Seems odd to
have two media players and GIMP be the only things under multimedia...
This leads to the question of how Kaffeine and Totem are different - and why
one would be included in the cheaper version and the other not.
I was technically wrong, though, to say that it came with no media player -
but it lists only one thing that is labeled as a media player. rapskat was
just as wrong to call the *one* that is listed "several"... even the two
would not qualify for that.
The main issue is why he feels the need to be so Carrollesqe in his
responses... why not be rational and civil instead?
Liam Slider
Not needed all that often really.
>
> Some people in that age range seem to catch on fairly quickly... some do
> not.
He's not really computer literate at all, but he can write his letters, do
his email, manage pictures, surf the web, listen to music, etc...
> It could be that Linux is a lot easier to catch on to than is
> Windows - there is not the fear of breaking it as much or of malware.
That's certainly true. And GUIs, by design, are meant to be simple.
> Still, OS X often makes a *huge* difference...
I don't think it's that big of a difference with Linux.
>
>>> Some may even do "advanced" stuff like work with movies or create
>>> "Powerpoint" style presentations.
>>
>> Also should be fine.
>
> Do you have screen shots you can share... main windows plus "standard"
> dialogs?
No sorry, I personally don't use these things. However, I do know that
Kino (a GNOME app, strangely given it's "K" name) is a fairly nice,
simple, easy to use home movie editor for Linux. Doesn't burn DVDs itself
(no, not incomplete, that's by design) but exports to a format which is
easily burnable, or handled by "DVD Authoring apps" by design. And of
course, there are more powerful video editors as well.
As for presentations, quite possible on Linux, people do them all the time
without trouble. Open Office is one such program that has such capability.
>>>
>>> Their needs may seem slight, but they need to be able to do these
>>> things with as consistent and easy to use interface as is possible.
>>>>
>>>>>>> as stable as OS X,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no reason to question this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> as consistent as OS X...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You've pointed out some areas were you believe that Linux is
>>>>>> *possibly* a *little* less consistent than OSX.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other than the screen shots of the new GNOME, I have posted screen
>>>>> shots showing where OS X is vastly more consistent than either XP or
>>>>> Linux.
>>>>
>>>> Not really. Ok, XP granted.
>>>
>>> Other than the new GNOME, where else can I find consistent Linux
>>> dialogs.
>>
>> KDE....among KDE apps. Although GNOME is better IMHO.
>
> If you have apps that fit your WM Linux seems to do this fairly well. I
> have not seen a distro that does this well... then again, there are a
> *lot* of distros I have not played with - even very common ones.
Well, you seem to be expecting a Distro with one DE, and one set of apps
for said DE...
>>
>>> Granted, if GNOME will now fit the needs, "all" I need to do is find a
>>> good distro with applications that are GNOME compliant.
>>
>> Yes, I suppose...
>
> Good... some common ground. :)
>
>>>>>> Yet, we've also pointed out there are places that it is *more*
>>>>>> consistent than OSX. Like networked filesystems. Filesystems over a
>>>>>> network, are treated just the same as your local filesystem.
>>>>>> Treated as a part of it. We can brouse Samba shares and FTP
>>>>>> resources, and drag and drop between them just like any other part
>>>>>> of the file system....within the file browser of our chosen DE.
>>>>>> That's consistency.
>>>>>
>>>>> No doubt - that is a plus. It is not, for the population in
>>>>> question, as important as being able to easily save and print files.
>>>>
>>>> That's slightly debatable, considering the *level* of inconsistency
>>>> we are talking about here. Me, I'd consider OSX's lack of transparent
>>>> networking to be a rather severe lack of functionality, a high level
>>>> annoyance. Having the rare save dialog be different is not really any
>>>> annoyance for me.
>>>
>>> You are not, I am sure, a part of the population in question.
>>
>> Why not? Because I am computer literate?
>
> Yes. And clearly interested in computers...
Why should that effect what things irritate me? Even as an average Joe, I
think that if I'd been exposed to transparent networking (although not
knowing what it was called of course), and expected it to simply work like
that, and then went to an OS that did *not* have it....I'd be rather
irritated. To the point of calling the OS names perhaps.
Well, Mandrake obviously, I'm using it aren't I? Fedora Core 3 might be
suitable. If you go KDE then perhaps SuSE, since KDE is often altered for
SUSE to fit their own perceptions of how it should look (or at least has
been in the past) and you might find it a bit more to your liking.