On 2008-06-05, Mark Madsen <mark.s.madsen+news******.com> wrote:
>
> For the sake of this discussion: you made a statement subject to
> correction. You seem to be taking it very hard.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Frankly, I see nothing in my responses that would allow any reasonable person
to arrive at this conclusion. If you want to provide suitable examples, be my
guest. I'd be more than happy to show you why you're wrong.


>>>> ...which evaluates to: for the sake of illustration, for the sake of
>>>> discussion....for God's sake.
>>>
>>> Your position is understood perfectly. Whatever you say is to be taken
>>> as correct, regardless of its actual correctness or otherwise.
>>
>> I'll bet if I tell you I had a ton of paperwork on my office desk today
>> to clear up, you would argue that I'm must be a liar...because...no one
>> makes an office desk that can support or contain a ton of paperwork.
>
> The analogy is useless.

The analogy is on point. The problem you have is that in your myopic view of
informal discussion the analogy cannot be on point.

>> You are a figuratively challenged human being and I mean that in a
>> literal sense.
>
> This abuse, technically inaccurate as it is, is only an attempt to change
> the subject.

Let me see if I understand: I say your figuratively challenged and that
constitutes abuse. However you comment on my nature and personality . . .

>>> Whatever you say is to be taken
>>> as correct, regardless of its actual correctness or otherwise.

and that is not abuse. Exactly what was my sin: I was less subtle.


ken

On Sat, 31 May 2008 22:40:23 -0400, jim wrote:

> For example....
>
> I downloaded BackTrack 3 and ran the Live CD just fine. It detects my
> USB wireless card and everything.
>
> So, I wanted to make a more permanent installation of BackTrack 3 to run
> when I wanted and to use it to learn more about Linux in general.
>
> I followed directions on creating the vmware virtual machine manually
> (to override the SCSI disk in favor of IDE) and I launched the new VM
> using the ISO as my CD drive and allowing the VM to boot into the live
> BackTrack 3 CD.
>
> Once in, I created 2 partitions (hda1 and hda2) to use for my BackTrack
> 3 install and swap files, and I ran mkfs.ext3, mkswap, mkdir and mount
> to create my environment and prepare for install.
>
> I then ran the BackTrack 3 install (which does state that it has not
> been tested - although the current version came out in December of
> 2007).
>
> But, when I rebooted, instead of simply launching the way the Live CD
> did, I now get a red box asking me what OS to load (only BackTrack is
> shown) and I have to log in with root/toor and launch the kde graphical
> desktop manually.
>
> None of that bothers me.
>
> But, what does bother me is that the vmware installed version will not
> see my USB wireless device when the live cd version sees it just fine.
> WTF?
>
> I've spent 7 hours with this distro - trying to get it into a VM so that
> I could actually save things to the drive and use it as a desktop and
> I'm no closer now than I was 7 hours ago.
>
> THIS is why Windows has such a great following. Is Windows insecure?
> Yes. Is Windows bloated and slow (esp. Vista)? Yes. But, can you get
> things to work in Windows faster and easier than in Linux? HELL YES!!
>
> I want to like Linux. I really do. But, I find it a lot like driving a
> car. If I had to work on my car as much as I have had to work on Linux
> distros that I have tried and I got as much out of it as I have gotten
> out of them I'd walk and get there faster.
>
> jim

Actually, most things are quite easy in Linux. It took me a total of about
five minutes to download and install VirtualBox and set up three different
virtual machines. Then only a matter of minutes to actually install each
of them.

Some time you should, for example, try installing a remote printer - it's
MUCH easier on Linux.

ray wrote:
> On Sat, 31 May 2008 22:40:23 -0400, jim wrote:
>
> Actually, most things are quite easy in Linux. It took me a total of about
> five minutes to download and install VirtualBox and set up three different
> virtual machines. Then only a matter of minutes to actually install each
> of them.
>
> Some time you should, for example, try installing a remote printer - it's
> MUCH easier on Linux.

I just installed an HP Officejet 6110 printer on my dual boot machine
with both Mandriva Linux and Windows 98SE. Each OS had the hp software
already installed from a previous printer. I didn't time it (I really
should have), but it seemed like Windows took a good five minutes to
detect and install the new drivers needed, what with all the "New
hardware detected messages and such, and I had to reboot before it was
fully installed. Linux took about 30 seconds, if that, and no reboot.
Neither OS needed any action from me, other than the Windows reboot. But
still, all the folderol that Windows needed for a simple driver install
- sheesh.

TJ

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:43:00 -0400, TJ wrote:

> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 22:40:23 -0400, jim wrote:
>>
>> Actually, most things are quite easy in Linux. It took me a total of
>> about five minutes to download and install VirtualBox and set up three
>> different virtual machines. Then only a matter of minutes to actually
>> install each of them.
>>
>> Some time you should, for example, try installing a remote printer -
>> it's MUCH easier on Linux.
>
> I just installed an HP Officejet 6110 printer on my dual boot machine
> with both Mandriva Linux and Windows 98SE. Each OS had the hp software
> already installed from a previous printer. I didn't time it (I really
> should have), but it seemed like Windows took a good five minutes to
> detect and install the new drivers needed, what with all the "New
> hardware detected messages and such, and I had to reboot before it was
> fully installed. Linux took about 30 seconds, if that, and no reboot.
> Neither OS needed any action from me, other than the Windows reboot. But
> still, all the folderol that Windows needed for a simple driver install
> - sheesh.
>
> TJ

Linux systems will also usually auto-detect other printers on the network.
As I recall, MS still needs for you to tell it where they are.

ray wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:43:00 -0400, TJ wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 22:40:23 -0400, jim wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, most things are quite easy in Linux. It took me a total of
>>> about five minutes to download and install VirtualBox and set up three
>>> different virtual machines. Then only a matter of minutes to actually
>>> install each of them.
>>>
>>> Some time you should, for example, try installing a remote printer -
>>> it's MUCH easier on Linux.
>> I just installed an HP Officejet 6110 printer on my dual boot machine
>> with both Mandriva Linux and Windows 98SE. Each OS had the hp software
>> already installed from a previous printer. I didn't time it (I really
>> should have), but it seemed like Windows took a good five minutes to
>> detect and install the new drivers needed, what with all the "New
>> hardware detected messages and such, and I had to reboot before it was
>> fully installed. Linux took about 30 seconds, if that, and no reboot.
>> Neither OS needed any action from me, other than the Windows reboot. But
>> still, all the folderol that Windows needed for a simple driver install
>> - sheesh.
>>
>> TJ
>
> Linux systems will also usually auto-detect other printers on the network.
> As I recall, MS still needs for you to tell it where they are.

Come to think of it, each system DID need something from me other than
the Windows reboot. Both asked if I wanted the new printer made the
default. I didn't.

TJ

jim wrote:
> "goarilla <"kevin<punt>paulus|"@|skynet" <"punt> wrote in message
> news:48481030$0$2800$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>> jim wrote:
>>> "Steve Ackman" <steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote in message
>>> news:slrng4b5og.l21.steve@sorceror.wizard.dyndns.o rg...
>>>> In <yze1k.3525$tT4.3213@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, on Tue, 3 Jun 2008
>>>> 12:47:03 -0400, jim, jim@home.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Although it kinda worries me that Linux distros are so different that
>>>>> they
>>>>> may not all be able to run the same software.
>>>> IME, they can all run the same software... just that
>>>> some may have your software of interest packaged up all
>>>> pretty, so you just have to issue something simple like
>>>> 'apt-get install pkgname' while with others you may
>>>> have to go find a source tarball and do something more
>>>> along the lines of
>>>> 'tar -xzvf pkgname; cd pkgdir'
>>>> 'configure; make; make install'
>>>>
>>>> (or use a pointy-clicky that does either of those for
>>>> you)
>>> OK. Maybe I misunderstood No_One's comment when he responded to me....
>>>
>>> -- BEGIN No_One's reply to me.......
>>>>>> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported
>>>>>> (financially
>>>>>> and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like Novell,
>>>>>> Ubuntu,
>>>>>> RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface like the one in
>>>>>> Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to support all of
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> participating distros and could have awesome bandwidth to allow for
>>>>>> faster
>>>>>> downloads by all distros.
>>>>> The above paragraph displays a lack of basic understanding about Linux
>>>>> and
>>>>> the differences within each distro.
>>> -- END No_One's reply to me.......
>>>
>>> If they all run the same core, why can't they all have a simple
>>> Click-N-Run installer that is centrally administered for the good of the
>>> Linux community?
>>>
>>>>> What if your distro ceases to
>>>>> exist (as happens in the Linux community)? Are you stuck updating the
>>>>> OS
>>>>> yourself?
>>>> What do you do when Windows 95 ceases to exist (as
>>>> happens in the closed source community)? Are you stuck
>>>> updating the OS yourself?
>>>> At least with Linux, you CAN keep your system up to
>>>> date long after support from the distributor vanishes.
>>> True enough.
>>>
>>>>> (I don't know many end users that really want the responsibility
>>>>> of coding their entire OS and the related software packages.)
>>>> I can't even parse that. What the hell does that
>>>> even mean?
>>> * With my misunderstanding No_One's comment (I thought that he meant that
>>> the Linux distros were all so different that you can't run software from
>>> one distro on another.) I assummed that the demis eof a distro meant that
>>> the user would have to jump in and take over the coding of the OS and the
>>> apps.
>>>
>>>>> Do you have to change distros to stay safe?
>>> (see *)
>>>
>>>>> What if the new distro doesn't support the packages that you used on
>>>>> your
>>>>> old distro?
>>> (see *)
>>>
>>>>> Can your data be transferred to new packages?
>>> (see *)
>>>
>>>>> It would seem that all a Linux distro should be is a different set of
>>>>> applications built on the same core Linux system.
>>>> That's exactly what it is. Linux = kernel.
>>>> Usually people also mentally include all the GNU
>>>> utilities that come with it to make a functioning
>>>> system. (Practically speaking, there's not much you
>>>> can do with just the kernel)
>>> I get that now. Thanks for explaining it to me.
>>>
>>>>> It would seem that having
>>>>> all Linux distros settle on a single core (perhaps Ubuntu)
>>>> But Ubuntu isn't a "core" distribution, but a
>>>> spin-off of Debian.
>>> Whatever the "core" - I meant that a single core would seem to make it
>>> easy to move apps and data from one distro to another.
>>>
>>>>> would only server to strengthen Linux.
>>>> All Linux distributions use the Linux kernel. That
>>>> is the single core. Further, they pretty much all use
>>>> a common set of GNU tools. That's what makes one Linux
>>>> distro pretty much like any other.
>>> (see *)
>>>
>>>>> Could you enlighten me as to why this may not be desirable?
>>>> It *is* desirable that all Linux distros use Linux.
>>>> So they do. If you think about for half a second, a
>>>> Linux distribution would have to use a Linux kernel,
>>>> otherwise it would be a Hurd/GNU/Unix distribution.
>>>>
>>>> Really the only "major" differences between
>>>> distributions are init sequences and package managers.
>>>> Then the minor differences are which packages are
>>>> included on the DVD/CDs/available in repositories, and
>>>> what kind of default configs are included.
>>> OK. Now that I understand Linux cores VS distros better, ny question
>>> remains the same...why not have a central Click-N-Run repository,
>>> maintained by the big Linux backers that keeps updating and adding
>>> programs as simple as possible?
>>>
>>> jim
>> security, why would we want one point of failure ?
>
> You mean....like the kernel?
>
> jim
>
>
well played :)

In alt.linux TJ <TJ@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> ray wrote:
>> On Sat, 31 May 2008 22:40:23 -0400, jim wrote:
>>
>> Actually, most things are quite easy in Linux. It took me a total of about
>> five minutes to download and install VirtualBox and set up three different
>> virtual machines. Then only a matter of minutes to actually install each
>> of them.
>>
>> Some time you should, for example, try installing a remote printer - it's
>> MUCH easier on Linux.
>
> I just installed an HP Officejet 6110 printer on my dual boot machine
> with both Mandriva Linux and Windows 98SE. Each OS had the hp software
> already installed from a previous printer. I didn't time it (I really
> should have), but it seemed like Windows took a good five minutes to
> detect and install the new drivers needed, what with all the "New
> hardware detected messages and such, and I had to reboot before it was
> fully installed. Linux took about 30 seconds, if that, and no reboot.
> Neither OS needed any action from me, other than the Windows reboot. But
> still, all the folderol that Windows needed for a simple driver install
> - sheesh.
>
> TJ
What always amazes me about Windows is how long it takes to install anything.

I just built a new set of partitions for Slackare 12.1 on one of my
systems. Downloaded the packages I use/need, then installed them via
"installpkg *.tgz" in each package directory. I think the whole
install process took less time than installing just one program in
Windows.

First, of course, you have to install the installer, _then_ you can
actually install the programs. Then it sits there playing with itself
for minutes before asking you to reboot the computer.

Jerry

"goarilla <"kevin<punt>paulus|"@|skynet" <"punt> wrote in message
news:48496d7f$0$2846$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
> jim wrote:
>> "goarilla <"kevin<punt>paulus|"@|skynet" <"punt> wrote in message
>> news:48481030$0$2800$ba620e4c@news.skynet.be...
>>> jim wrote:
>>>> "Steve Ackman" <steve@SNIP-THIS.twoloonscoffee.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:slrng4b5og.l21.steve@sorceror.wizard.dyndns.o rg...
>>>>> In <yze1k.3525$tT4.3213@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, on Tue, 3 Jun 2008
>>>>> 12:47:03 -0400, jim, jim@home.net wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Although it kinda worries me that Linux distros are so different that
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> may not all be able to run the same software.
>>>>> IME, they can all run the same software... just that
>>>>> some may have your software of interest packaged up all
>>>>> pretty, so you just have to issue something simple like
>>>>> 'apt-get install pkgname' while with others you may
>>>>> have to go find a source tarball and do something more
>>>>> along the lines of
>>>>> 'tar -xzvf pkgname; cd pkgdir'
>>>>> 'configure; make; make install'
>>>>>
>>>>> (or use a pointy-clicky that does either of those for
>>>>> you)
>>>> OK. Maybe I misunderstood No_One's comment when he responded to me....
>>>>
>>>> -- BEGIN No_One's reply to me.......
>>>>>>> I was also thinking that a central package repository supported
>>>>>>> (financially
>>>>>>> and otherwise) by a consortium of Linux-base companies like Novell,
>>>>>>> Ubuntu,
>>>>>>> RedHat, Linspire, etc. could have a simple interface like the one in
>>>>>>> Linspire's Click-N-Run application, would be able to support all of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> participating distros and could have awesome bandwidth to allow for
>>>>>>> faster
>>>>>>> downloads by all distros.
>>>>>> The above paragraph displays a lack of basic understanding about
>>>>>> Linux and
>>>>>> the differences within each distro.
>>>> -- END No_One's reply to me.......
>>>>
>>>> If they all run the same core, why can't they all have a simple
>>>> Click-N-Run installer that is centrally administered for the good of
>>>> the Linux community?
>>>>
>>>>>> What if your distro ceases to
>>>>>> exist (as happens in the Linux community)? Are you stuck updating
>>>>>> the OS
>>>>>> yourself?
>>>>> What do you do when Windows 95 ceases to exist (as
>>>>> happens in the closed source community)? Are you stuck
>>>>> updating the OS yourself?
>>>>> At least with Linux, you CAN keep your system up to
>>>>> date long after support from the distributor vanishes.
>>>> True enough.
>>>>
>>>>>> (I don't know many end users that really want the responsibility
>>>>>> of coding their entire OS and the related software packages.)
>>>>> I can't even parse that. What the hell does that
>>>>> even mean?
>>>> * With my misunderstanding No_One's comment (I thought that he meant
>>>> that the Linux distros were all so different that you can't run
>>>> software from one distro on another.) I assummed that the demis eof a
>>>> distro meant that the user would have to jump in and take over the
>>>> coding of the OS and the apps.
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you have to change distros to stay safe?
>>>> (see *)
>>>>
>>>>>> What if the new distro doesn't support the packages that you used on
>>>>>> your
>>>>>> old distro?
>>>> (see *)
>>>>
>>>>>> Can your data be transferred to new packages?
>>>> (see *)
>>>>
>>>>>> It would seem that all a Linux distro should be is a different set of
>>>>>> applications built on the same core Linux system.
>>>>> That's exactly what it is. Linux = kernel.
>>>>> Usually people also mentally include all the GNU
>>>>> utilities that come with it to make a functioning
>>>>> system. (Practically speaking, there's not much you
>>>>> can do with just the kernel)
>>>> I get that now. Thanks for explaining it to me.
>>>>
>>>>>> It would seem that having
>>>>>> all Linux distros settle on a single core (perhaps Ubuntu)
>>>>> But Ubuntu isn't a "core" distribution, but a
>>>>> spin-off of Debian.
>>>> Whatever the "core" - I meant that a single core would seem to make it
>>>> easy to move apps and data from one distro to another.
>>>>
>>>>>> would only server to strengthen Linux.
>>>>> All Linux distributions use the Linux kernel. That
>>>>> is the single core. Further, they pretty much all use
>>>>> a common set of GNU tools. That's what makes one Linux
>>>>> distro pretty much like any other.
>>>> (see *)
>>>>
>>>>>> Could you enlighten me as to why this may not be desirable?
>>>>> It *is* desirable that all Linux distros use Linux.
>>>>> So they do. If you think about for half a second, a
>>>>> Linux distribution would have to use a Linux kernel,
>>>>> otherwise it would be a Hurd/GNU/Unix distribution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Really the only "major" differences between
>>>>> distributions are init sequences and package managers.
>>>>> Then the minor differences are which packages are
>>>>> included on the DVD/CDs/available in repositories, and
>>>>> what kind of default configs are included.
>>>> OK. Now that I understand Linux cores VS distros better, ny question
>>>> remains the same...why not have a central Click-N-Run repository,
>>>> maintained by the big Linux backers that keeps updating and adding
>>>> programs as simple as possible?
>>>>
>>>> jim
>>> security, why would we want one point of failure ?
>>
>> You mean....like the kernel?
>>
>> jim
> well played :)

Just kidding of course..... ;)

jim