On 2008-06-09 08:54, jim wrote:

>
> If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
> computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for parts
> that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's condenser)
> there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.

Ohhyeees, the car is back :-)

Now you have a car designed to stop on some roads, but the manual tell you
that the fuel injection box has a jumper you can move to make it run on all roads.

You will find that the average Joe/Jane driver will figure out how to move it,
and they who are to stupid can get help.

The reason for your problem and the lack of network browsing in linux is due
to the fact that windows is designed for personal usage in a home or small office.

You will not browse network resources of a large enterprise network, so
it is not active by default, but can be setup for experts.
Q. Why only for experts?
A. If any n00b enable it, there will be broadcast/multicast storms.

I have one slp server at home, where all my network services will be registered.

At the moment I install a new linux machine, it instantly know about
all servers on the net, like ssh,IPP,NFS,VNC,NTP, and whatever.

Just install and printers, shares are there for usage.
And I can browse all services with just slp:/ in konqueror from any
machine.

/bb

"Christopher Hunter" <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x753k.19864$X6.590@newsfe30.ams2...
> jim wrote:
>
>> That's right! Let's get all self-righteous and pissy instead of enabling
>> new linux users to get the work done that they need to.
>
> No question of self-righteousness - Windows /deliberately/ makes
> networking
> obscure in an effort to prevent other OSs connecting to it. MS want you
> to
> be locked-in to their rubbish forever.

Unless Linux gets simple enough for the Windows masses to use, they'll get
their wish.


>>> Networking in Linux is /trivially/ simple compared to Windoze
>>> networking.
>>
>> You are soooooo right! Hell it'd take 2, maybe 3, clicks to see the
>> shares on any Windows system.
>
> It takes /1/ /click/ to see other machines on /this/ network, with
> /proper/
> networking enabled straight "out of the box".

I am installing OpenSuse right now. If that doesn;t work right out of the
box, I give.

>> Here, it evidentally dosen't work out of the box at all.
>
> You just have to /tell/ your machine what the others are called, and give
> passwords to them. It's trivially simple, and no more difficult than if
> you were setting up a Windoze network with some measure of "security"
> (there's actually no such thing as "Windows security" - it's very easily
> breached).

If I join a network using Windows I don;t have to know the names of the
other machines. And, I only have to know the usernames and passwords if the
shared folders are password protected.

The folders on my home network are shared and NOT password protected. I
should be able to see them with no problems - right out of the box.

>> Yep. Having to put together your OS is a hell of an improvement to just
>> getting to work!
>>
>>> Perhaps you need to read the manuals!
>>
>> A link to solve these issues would be nice
>
> Fair enough:
>
> https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpSamba
>
> http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=202605

I have Google so much that they banned my IP. All roads point to the same
linux tangled instructions of setting up Samba with machine names and
usernames and passwords. None of which is needed for shared folders without
passwords in Windows.

Thanks for the links. I'll check them out now.

jim

"Christopher Hunter" <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Wd53k.19866$X6.18220@newsfe30.ams2...
> jim wrote:
>
>> If Linux slows businesses down as much as it has slowed me down, there's
>> no way in hell linux will ever take the desktop.
>
> If you can't be bothered to /read/ /the/ /manuals/ then you can't blame
> Linux for /your/ inadequacies!
>
> Windows is entirely unusable for business - it /might/ be nice for gamers
> and other kiddies, but if you're truly serious about getting work done,
> Linux is your only viable option. Innumerable big businesses have seen
> this - even the biggest global Banks are using Linux!

ROFLMAO! Dude!!! I owe you one. I am so f'ing tired, I really needed
that!

Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
installations in the world.

With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble the
transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air conditioning,
radio, etc..

As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs. Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
distro is a hell of a lot different.

> Take a step back. Read the **** manuals. /Forget/ /everything/
> you "learnt" for Windows, and start again. Remember - there's a *right*
> *way* and the Windows way for everything.

Look, I REALLY REALLY want to be a Linux advocate. But I cannot ethically
(or simply as a user) ignore the huge gapping holes in Linux.

PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
piece of **** than they can with Linux.

I am speaking from a new user's experience here. This is not conjecture.

I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their dealings
with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network together
RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.

I'll let you know.

jim

"birre" <spamtrap@norsborg.net> wrote in message
news:g2isa5$9rq$1@news.al.sw.ericsson.se...
> On 2008-06-09 08:54, jim wrote:
>
>>
>> If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
>> computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for
>> parts that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's
>> condenser) there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.
>
> Ohhyeees, the car is back :-)
>
> Now you have a car designed to stop on some roads, but the manual tell you
> that the fuel injection box has a jumper you can move to make it run on
> all roads.
>
> You will find that the average Joe/Jane driver will figure out how to move
> it,
> and they who are to stupid can get help.
>
> The reason for your problem and the lack of network browsing in linux is
> due
> to the fact that windows is designed for personal usage in a home or small
> office.
>
> You will not browse network resources of a large enterprise network, so
> it is not active by default, but can be setup for experts.
> Q. Why only for experts?
> A. If any n00b enable it, there will be broadcast/multicast storms.
>
> I have one slp server at home, where all my network services will be
> registered.
>
> At the moment I install a new linux machine, it instantly know about
> all servers on the net, like ssh,IPP,NFS,VNC,NTP, and whatever.
>
> Just install and printers, shares are there for usage.
> And I can browse all services with just slp:/ in konqueror from any
> machine.

But can you browse an XP machines shares if it connected to your network
using native functionality?

jim

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 06:15:15 -0400, jim wrote:

<snip>

> I am installing OpenSuse right now. If that doesn;t work right out of
> the box, I give.

Good. Does "give" mean that you'll give up and just stick with your
precious Windoze, and therefore disappear from these Linux newsgroups?

Will the rest of you morons quit feeding this obvious ****ing troll?
Sheesh.



--
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
Now filtering out all posts originating from Google Groups.
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org

On 2008-06-09 12:24, jim wrote:

> But can you browse an XP machines shares if it connected to your network
> using native functionality?
>
> jim
>
>

You mean Native for Windows XP, not the same protocol that is native for vista,
and not native for anyone that Microsoft has on the enemy list.

No, I can't, since I have no windows boxes on my network, and their spamming
broadcasts are stopped by the routers.


But I read about others that have them in their net, browsing them just fine.

/bb

jim <jim@home.net> wrote:
>If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
>computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for parts
>that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's condenser)
>there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.

But they'd all be very happy. :)

Look, man, you know how business works. You know there has to be some
sort of gain for the people involved.

Sometimes that's money. Generally speaking, though, it's not money that
drives OSS development. It's the fun of it all. And working on making
things super-user friendly isn't the most fun of software projects.

Some companies work hard to produce "easy to use" distros like Suse or
Ubuntu. They think they can make money, and probably do for all I know.
My favorite distro is not at all user-friendly, and it makes money!

In short, the growth of Linux is a very organic thing. The people who
want to market the distros don't have much control over who develops the
systems, unlike at MS or Apple.

It's like cars, again. But think 1920.

"If you ever want this device to be as popular as a horse and
carriage, there are going to need to be some radical
simplifications!"

"Shut up and go back to your horse and buggy, n00b!"

People knew how to fix their cars; they knew how they worked. Now,
however, a car is an off-the-shelf commodity device. Ask the average
person on the street if their brand new car is fuel-injected, and they
won't even know. Or care. Just like the majority of the people who
buy ASUS Eee Linux laptops. Or Linux cellphones.

Linux will get developed, but you're just going to have to wait until it
happens enough for your liking. Always use the right tool for the job.

(However your problem is not my problem, because I'm happy with the
state of affairs, the way things are going, and the distro I use is in
the black.)

-Beej

On Monday 09 Jun 2008 07:54 jim licked a pencil and jotted:

>
> "elaich" <x@y.z> wrote in message
> news:6b3mrbF3a7snkU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in
>> news:I9%2k.1644$s77.213@bignews3.bellsouth.net:
>>
>>> I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be ****ed if the simple stuff
>>> isn't still hard in Linux!!
>>
>> It's not necessarily hard. It's just different. It's "hard" becuase we
>> have been used to doing things a
>> certain way for years, and learning a new way to do it seems daunting.
>
> What seems daunting is having to do 10 times the work and still not get
> the
> results you are after. What's daunting is having to figure out just how
> your OS works and put the **** thing together (with missing parts
> scattered about the internet and no "parts list" to tell you where they
> are).
>
> If people had to learn how their fuel injected cars and the associated
> computerized systems work, had to go on some sick scavenger hunt for parts
> that are missing from the car (let's say the air conditioner's condenser)
> there'd be about as many drivers as there are linux users.
>
>> The easy network accessibility you mention in Windows is one of it's huge
>> security holes.
>
> I hear this a lot. But, I have NEVER gotten a virus. NEVER been hacked.
> NEVER had to worry abotu security because the free solutions like Zone
> Alarm
> ARE easy to install and configure. They come with everything. They just
> work.
>
>> I finally sat down today, and spent it getting Ubuntu up and running,
>> with Xnews working. Xnews is
>> important enough to me that I won't run anything it won't run on. I had
>> it running in Wine before, but
>> buggy as hell. Well, it just took some searching and experimentation and
>> I have it running (almost)
>> perfectly. There's just one graphical glitch left which is just a minor
>> bother.
>
> Spent the day to get an OS up and running? Wow. XP takes just over an
> hour (with updates - but without antivirus, and other apps you'll need).
>
>> Getting around the Linux file system is a major pain for a long time
>> Windows user to learn, and being
>> denied the ability to do what I wish with my files is annoying. All that
>> took was getting used to opening up a
>> terminal and typing 'sudo nautilus'. I grew up on CP/M, so I can learn
>> this stuff. Windows makes you lazy.
>
> Lazy? Some would say that riding in a car instead of biking 10 miles to
> work is lazy. I'd call it efficient.
>
> Windows let's people (of all skill levels) just get work done. I've been
> fighting with this Linux **** for a week and still haven't seen a single
> XP PC through any of the distros I have tried.
>
>> I bet if you take the time, you'll find using Ubuntu just as easy, if not
>> more so.
>
> Time is one thing I do not have to waste.
>
> It works out of the box or it doesn't.
>
> And I'm only one of BILLIONS of people that feel that way.
>
> If Linux slows businesses down as much as it has slowed me down, there's
> no way in hell linux will ever take the desktop.
>
> jim

I installed ubuntu on yet another PC yesterday. p4 1.7 with 768MB ram and an
nVidia Geforce MX440 64MB graphics card

It took 25 minutes to install and 1 hour after putting the cd in I had it
fully updated, the proprietary nvidia drivers and a bunch of useful apps
installed and the compiz 3D desktop running with all the bells and
whistles. It was networked and I was running its command line from my pc.

On my main PC, when I did a fresh install to upgrade from version to
version, it took about half an hour to get back to my original customised
desktop with all my settings back as they were, right down to contents of
my clipboard, my subscribed newsgroups and what articles were read/unread.

When my mobo died previously I built a new PC, transferred my primary hdd
across and was up and running in about 2 minutes from pressing the button.
Old one was a an Athlon new one was a P4. Try that trick with windows.

When I used the text based install to install Ubuntu server it took me less
than an hour to get a fully featured, secure and powerful
web/file/print/database server installed and operating. Have you *any* idea
how much it costs and long it takes to install, configure and secure a
windows equivalent of a linux LAMP stack server?

I have been using Linux for about a year.

If you are serious about wanting to get away from Windows, stop whining and
open your mind to a *different* way of doing things and you will fine, you
will find lots of people willing to help, myself included.

If you are just a troll then I am pissed off at myself for wasting time
replying.

--
Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we
can find information upon it. (Samuel Johnson)
Only the mediocre are always at their best. (Jean Giraudoux)
(Reply address genuine - Checked occasionally)

jim wrote:

> Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
> installations in the world.

Err... No! There are /many/ more computers (for example) in China than
there are in the USA. All the Chinese machines run their variant of Linux.

It's getting towards *Game* *Over* time for Windows.

> With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
> the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
> conditioning, radio, etc..

Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
complement of programmes.

With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.

> As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
> Macs.

Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.

> Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
> distro is a hell of a lot different.

Get a clue. Mac OSX is based on BSD - /nothing/ to do with Linux - and is
a /very/ poor implementation. Apple made some really stupid decisions
which have rendered their operating system highly vulnerable and rather
unstable.

>> Take a step back. Read the **** manuals. /Forget/ /everything/
>> you "learnt" for Windows, and start again. Remember - there's a *right*
>> *way* and the Windows way for everything.
>
> Look, I REALLY REALLY want to be a Linux advocate. But I cannot ethically
> (or simply as a user) ignore the huge gapping holes in Linux.

Do you mean "gaping"? Can't see any. That's why 90% of web servers run
Linux. That's why major global corporations went with Linux. That's why
the governments of all the /growing/ economies in the world are using
Linux. That's why /sensible/ people all over the world use Linux.

> PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
> definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
> piece of **** than they can with Linux.

/Entirely/ wrong.

> I am speaking from a new user's experience here. This is not conjecture.

It might be *your* experience - but all that shows is either your
unwillingness or inability to learn or your fundamental stupidity.

> I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their
> dealings with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network
> together RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.

It won't. It's not meant to!

*PLONK*

On 2008-06-09, Christopher Hunter <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>> As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
>> Macs.
>
> Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
> abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.

No, no, he's actually right on this one.

http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...-good-feedback

But do note that developing on unix os (which MacOS X is) is better for Linux
than developing on/using windows platform. It's not very likely that IBM will
embrace Objective-C so Linux-compatible source code (ie. OpenGL+POSIX
apps written in C/C++) is still a go.

--
Due to a shortage of devoted followers, the production of great leaders
has been discontinued.

"Christopher Hunter" <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kEg3k.40406$TL1.30935@newsfe21.ams2...
> jim wrote:
>
>> Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
>> installations in the world.
>
> Err... No! There are /many/ more computers (for example) in China than
> there are in the USA. All the Chinese machines run their variant of
> Linux.
>
> It's getting towards *Game* *Over* time for Windows.

Are you high? Seriously....have you been bowing at the bong altar today or
what?

Microsoft loses approx $1 BILLION a year to piracy in China. Even the
Chinese want to run Windows. They won;t pay for it, but they'll run it.

As for "their (own) variant of Linux", that story was circulated circa 2000,
2002, 2004. Haven't heard anything about it in nearly 4 years now....but we
keep hearing about the Microsoft Windows piracy that is STILL so rampant.

>> With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
>> the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
>> conditioning, radio, etc..
>
> Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
> about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
> complement of programmes.

I can't even browse shared folders on a network without writing out some
****ing config file for Samba! Who gives a **** what apps you have if you
can't i nteract with 95% of the civilized world.

>
> With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
> equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
> almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.

That was true when it first came out, but now most devices have Vista
drivers. Don;t get me wrong, there are other reasons not to use Vista - so
stick with XP.

>> As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
>> Macs.
>
> Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
> abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.

I don't believe it! I have actually found an elusive ****tard running loose
in the wild!

If you can be bothered to pull your head out of that penguin's ass for a
moment, you may want to read
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/04/16/ibm-c...for-employees/ and
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/.

>> Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
>> distro is a hell of a lot different.
>
> Get a clue. Mac OSX is based on BSD - /nothing/ to do with Linux - and is
> a /very/ poor implementation. Apple made some really stupid decisions
> which have rendered their operating system highly vulnerable and rather
> unstable.

IBM doesn't think so. But, I'll bet you are years ahead of some little
company like IBM in researching Apple, aren't you?

>>> Take a step back. Read the **** manuals. /Forget/ /everything/
>>> you "learnt" for Windows, and start again. Remember - there's a *right*
>>> *way* and the Windows way for everything.
>>
>> Look, I REALLY REALLY want to be a Linux advocate. But I cannot
>> ethically
>> (or simply as a user) ignore the huge gapping holes in Linux.
>
> Do you mean "gaping"? Can't see any. That's why 90% of web servers run
> Linux. That's why major global corporations went with Linux. That's why
> the governments of all the /growing/ economies in the world are using
> Linux. That's why /sensible/ people all over the world use Linux.

When did "sensible" and big corporations and big government ever meet? They
are the FIRST sign that something should be avoided like the black plague.

>> PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
>> definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
>> piece of **** than they can with Linux.
>
> /Entirely/ wrong.

Dude, I live it.


>> I am speaking from a new user's experience here. This is not conjecture.
>
> It might be *your* experience - but all that shows is either your
> unwillingness or inability to learn or your fundamental stupidity.

Yes, that must be it.

>> I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their
>> dealings with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network
>> together RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.
>
> It won't. It's not meant to!

Finally a little truth. Linux is not meant to work out of the box.

Open Suse took 3.5 hours to install (because of all of the fking downloads
and patches) and then it crashed on restart.

> *PLONK*

Thank you.

jim

On Monday 09 Jun 2008 22:50 jim licked a pencil and jotted:

snip

>
> Open Suse took 3.5 hours to install (because of all of the fking downloads
> and patches) and then it crashed on restart.
>
>> *PLONK*
>
> Thank you.
>
> jim

That'll be the chair:keyboard interface driver. It would appear to be
incompatible with your hardware.

David
--
Knowledge is of two kinds: we know a subject ourselves, or we know where we
can find information upon it. (Samuel Johnson)
Only the mediocre are always at their best. (Jean Giraudoux)
(Reply address genuine - Checked occasionally)

"Christopher Hunter" <chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:kEg3k.40406$TL1.30935@newsfe21.ams2...
> jim wrote:
>
>> Windows is used in more businesses in a single country than all linux
>> installations in the world.
>
> Err... No! There are /many/ more computers (for example) in China than
> there are in the USA. All the Chinese machines run their variant of
> Linux.

really? even the windows ones?

>
> It's getting towards *Game* *Over* time for Windows.
>
>> With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
>> the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
>> conditioning, radio, etc..
>
> Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
> about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
> complement of programmes.

The same programs are also available on windows in case you hadn't noticed.
There are many reasons why someone might need to run linux but not being
able to run OSS on windows isn't one of them.

>
> With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
> equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
> almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.

Yet again you are here telling me that the vista machine I am using can't
work.
You keep doing that and it still does.

>
>> As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
>> Macs.
>
> Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
> abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.
>
>> Yes, I know the cores are the same, but the implementation of the
>> distro is a hell of a lot different.
>
> Get a clue. Mac OSX is based on BSD - /nothing/ to do with Linux - and is
> a /very/ poor implementation. Apple made some really stupid decisions
> which have rendered their operating system highly vulnerable and rather
> unstable.

Get a clue, 99% of BSD is the same software as a linux distro.
The kernel is different and in many ways better if you have the right
hardware.

Is everything you post so flawed?

jim wrote:

> What seems daunting is having to do 10 times the work and still not
> get the results you are after. What's daunting is having to figure
> out just how your OS works and put the **** thing together (with
> missing parts scattered about the internet and no "parts list" to
> tell you where they are).

> I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics...

> ...BackTrack....

> I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit...

The pattern emerges... you're dumping Windows and trying to replace it
with something you're getting for *free* and then bitching because it
doesn't work "RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX". Try buying a distribution, most of
them will give you after sales support. Suse if you buy it, comes, I
seem to recall, with an extensive set of printed manuals. Or you could
try this, http://rute.2038bug.com/index.html.gz for more generalized
help.

There's no such thing as a free lunch and the price for a 'Free' as
in 'Free Beer', GNU/Linux distribution is that you do your homework.

There is a distribution that is 'Free as in 'Free Beer/Lunch', it is
Debian. It has a wonderful community of those prepared to help those
who are prepared to help themselves. To the best of my recollection it
also has on-line support, see "Support" on this page
http://www.debian.org/sitemap there are also several newsgroups all
specialising in Debian, where knowledgeable, enthusiasts spend their
time helping those who seem to have made a little effort to help
themselves. Try typing debian into what ever passes for a newsreader in
windows and see how many you get, in several languages.

--
Nemo
"Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole"

"Baldylocks-Ubuntu" <me.signup******.com> wrote in message
news:2461940.rE16qhh1no@baldylocks...
>
> On Monday 09 Jun 2008 07:54 jim licked a pencil and jotted:
> I installed ubuntu on yet another PC yesterday. p4 1.7 with 768MB ram and
> an
> nVidia Geforce MX440 64MB graphics card
>
> It took 25 minutes to install and 1 hour after putting the cd in I had it
> fully updated, the proprietary nvidia drivers and a bunch of useful apps
> installed and the compiz 3D desktop running with all the bells and
> whistles. It was networked and I was running its command line from my pc.

But were you accessing your PCs shared, unprotected folders from your linux
box WITHOUT having to set up Samba - using a lot of info that Windows users
may not have (if they are connnecting to an open network) and have never
needed to simply share some silly files.

> On my main PC, when I did a fresh install to upgrade from version to
> version, it took about half an hour to get back to my original customised
> desktop with all my settings back as they were, right down to contents of
> my clipboard, my subscribed newsgroups and what articles were read/unread.
>
> When my mobo died previously I built a new PC, transferred my primary hdd
> across and was up and running in about 2 minutes from pressing the button.
> Old one was a an Athlon new one was a P4. Try that trick with windows.

I do that all of the time with Windows and Acronis.

> When I used the text based install to install Ubuntu server it took me
> less
> than an hour to get a fully featured, secure and powerful
> web/file/print/database server installed and operating. Have you *any*
> idea
> how much it costs and long it takes to install, configure and secure a
> windows equivalent of a linux LAMP stack server?

Actually I do. The same stack runs on Windows and is free.

> I have been using Linux for about a year.
>
> If you are serious about wanting to get away from Windows, stop whining
> and
> open your mind to a *different* way of doing things and you will fine, you
> will find lots of people willing to help, myself included.

I don't mind different...as long as it is no more difficult than the way I
was doing it. If it wastes my time or requires steps and info that I did
not need with the old method, then the different way is a step backwards.

I use PCs to be more productive. To pass the test with me, the new,
different method must be faster and MORE convenient than the old method. If
not, it fails.

I don't adopt things just for the sake of being different.

> If you are just a troll then I am pissed off at myself for wasting time
> replying.

Linux ng's are one of the worst on the net for calling someone a "troll" for
expressing real life, unflattering examples of Linux failing to pass the "if
is faster and easier than X" test.

If you can't take hearing the truth from regular end users like myself,
maybe you're backing the wrong horse.

jim