On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 22:55:49 -0400, jim wrote:

> 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.

You are a very obvious troll, and not even a good one.

Just **** off and leave, asswipe.

Will the rest of you dip****s quit ****ing replying to this dimwit, fer
chrissakes???!!!

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

You don't know what the truth is, troll-boy. Just **** off and leave.


--
"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 Tuesday 10 Jun 2008 03:55 jim licked a pencil and jotted:

>
> "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.

My PC has no unprotected shares. But yup, the very first time I installed
Ubuntu about a year ago I went to:
System>Remote places>MyWindowsNetworkName>MyWin2k3FileServer, put in my
Domain user credentials when prompted and accessed the shared folders.
Simple as that. Granted sharing directories *from* the my linux PC for the
first time took a little more head scratching, but that was down to a bug
in KDE then.

My headless, GUI-less server has about 20 shares on it, they were a piece of
cake to set up and can be accessed fine by both Linux and Windows clients.

I connect to a Win2k3 Terminal Server at work from my Linux PC more easily
than my colleagues using Vista.

>
>> 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.

Really? You use an XP image from a PC with a mobo for an AMD Athlon CPU and
then put that image onto a PC with a completely different chipset, CPU
Manufacturer, NIC and RAM type and you are back up and running within
minutes. WOW. You must have a very spheshul version of XP. We can't even do
that with a proper sys-prepped image from one minor revision of P4 Dell
hardware to another. And can you do it as quickly as turning the PC on?

>
>> 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.

Windows 2k3 is free now? And to think of all the £1000s of pounds we have
spent this last year on licenses at work!!!! Wish somebody had told me. I
should have been more clear - I meant Microsoft not Windows BTW. MS-SQL,
ASP, 2k3/8 pretty pricey. Oh, and I don't think the *L* AMP stack runs in
Windows, unless you have it in a VM ;)

And a LOOONG time to install and configure. Did Microsoft write the code for
all the components of the LAMP stack?

Tell me, the first time you did it - how long did it take you to install a
Windows server OS, then install and configure Apache, mySQL and PHP then
update it all and make secure? I suspect significantly longer than 1 hour.

>
>> 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.

It's not, all things being equal. It's, um, just different. Of course it's
going to be harder than what you are well practised in.

> 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.

Riding a bike 5 miles to work is a lot more complicated than walking it - if
you can't ride a bike. If your options were to carry on walking the way you
always have or spend some effort learning to ride a bike to make your life
easier would you carry on walking, just because it's too complicated at
first, and anyway everyone else walks?

>
> 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.
>

Me too, which is why, after a suitable period of acclimatisation I am now
using, for me, a faster, more convenient, more efficient, more secure, more
stable and more useful operating system - with a helluva lot more striking
effects than Vista users could even imagine - when I am bored and can be
bothered to turn them on.

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

Nor me, I try different things to see if they are better - well, some
things! :O If they show potential I continue.

>> 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.

I am *extrememly* careful not to accuse people of being a troll. I hate the
way it is bandied about totally inappropriately. Which is why I said "if" -
and I would be pissed off after writing such a long post *if* you are.

Most sensible, non-trolls, when finding something they cannot understand in
their first few minutes of stumbling about in a new operating system take
the time to find out what they are doing wrong, then if they still can't
figure it, out ask for help.

Only morons or trolls or bad workmen bitch about their tools. Remember these
forums are not staffed by people paid by the large corporation who took
your money, to offer support to the drooling masses. Most of the people
here are only too happy to help those who are willing to engage their
brains and ask the right questions, or even the wrong ones if asked in the
right way.


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

I'm not backing any horse, I'm happily using my PC the way I want to, for
the first time in years. Ya know, I don't think you are a troll - I pity
you for not having the courage to expand your limited horizons.

I've asked what appear in retrospect to be pretty dense questions in
a.o.l.ubuntu and never had anyone take the piss or accuse me of being a
troll, I've always had informative answers, or sometimes better still -
gentle prods in the right direction.

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)

jim wrote:
> <snip>
> If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
> used to do in Windows.
>
> This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
>
>> Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to
>> the
>> Linux NFS system easily.
>
> They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll rarely
> see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a market.
>
> jim
>
>

We don't *want* people to use Linux. It's your choice. Linux too hard
for you? Go back to Windows. We don't give a ****, and we're happy with
our operating systems.

Collin

Baldylocks-Ubuntu wrote:

> Tell me, the first time you did it - how long did it take you to install a
> Windows server OS, then install and configure Apache, mySQL and PHP then
> update it all and make secure? I suspect significantly longer than 1 hour.

It's a trick question! There is *no* *way* to make /any/ version of Windows
at all "secure".

The company I work for has offices near to the Cambridge MS offices. Our
heavy use of FOSS software is quite well known, so we received a visit from
an MS salesman recently. He spent half an hour extolling the virtues of
MS' new server products, and explained that our TCO would be "considerably
cheaper" than with SuSe products.

We decided to play with him a bit - it wasn't really fair: think of a cat
playing with a mouse. We asked to see their latest products in action, and
asked if we could run some "basic security tests". He thought he might
have a sale, so readily agreed...

Suffice to say, MS' "security" was shown to be sadly lacking, and their
server farm seems to have caught a /particularly/ nasty cold! We had the
salesman in tears when he saw how trivially easy it was to first get an
unauthorised user account on their servers, and then escalate privilege
to "administrator"...

You can be certain that MS won't be making any sales to /our/ company!

C.

"Collin" <collinyeung@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:DAF3k.21322$C12.2939@pd7urf3no...
> jim wrote:
>> <snip>
>> If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
>> used to do in Windows.
>>
>> This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
>>
>>> Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to
>>> the
>>> Linux NFS system easily.
>>
>> They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll
>> rarely see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a
>> market.
>>
>> jim
>
> We don't *want* people to use Linux.

Exactly.

jim

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:10:31 -0400, jim wrote:

>> We don't *want* people to use Linux.

> Exactly.

OK, now that that's settled, run the **** along, troll, and use your
Windoze all you want. Just go away.


--
"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

jim wrote:
> "Collin" <collinyeung@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:DAF3k.21322$C12.2939@pd7urf3no...
>> jim wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
>>> used to do in Windows.
>>>
>>> This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
>>>
>>>> Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to
>>>> the
>>>> Linux NFS system easily.
>>> They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll
>>> rarely see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a
>>> market.
>>>
>>> jim
>> We don't *want* people to use Linux.
>
> Exactly.
>
> jim
>
>

I'm sorry, taking my post out of context here? Very much so.

Am Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:54:05 -0400 schrieb jim:
>
> This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
> wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
> "Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking
> "Connect". If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for
> it. You supply the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
>
> You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that
> are not password protected.
>
> This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell
> is this samba configuration crap?
>
> I must be missing something here.
>
> PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a
> network and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as
> in Windows.

I'm not sure whether I should answer in this flame and trolling thread,
but have you tried smb4k (http://www.kde-apps.org/content/show.php?
content=9814)? It's for KDE, works fine here for Linux samba shares, but
since there aren't any shares on the Windows machine in our network, I
can't tell whether it will work for you.

Patrick

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:54:05 -0400, jim wrote:

> Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
> spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
>
> I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.
>
> I tried backtrack - not all that it's cracked up to be.

Linux is like Pepsi. You have Caffine-free, Diet, Cherry, etc. but it's
all still brown-colored soda pop. They are all basically the same in
many areas. Just pick one and make it work.

> I am now trying Ubuntu 8.04 and I'll just be ****ed if the simple stuff
> isn't still hard in Linux!!
>
> This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
> wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
> "Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
> If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
> the info and Windows simply connects to the network.

I just spent 4 hours trying to help someone get their Windows XP to
connect to a wireless router and then get their laptop and the router all
talking WPA. It was anything but easy: I kept getting "Wizards",
hand-holding this, training wheels that, when all I wanted was to set WPA
on the wireless network. In Linux, that's like one command on a command
line. But there I was, awash in a river of GUI and menus up the wha-zoo.
The laptop auto-connects alright - to someone else's network! Let's hope
they didn't mind too much.


> You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that
> are not password protected.

[ jayjwa@vdrl:~>] smbclient -A ~/.smbauth -L //atr2
Domain=[ATR2NET] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.0.30]

Sharename Type Comment
--------- ---- -------
cifs Disk CIFS/SMB global public root
share Disk Incoming/uploadable storage space
IPC$ IPC IPC Service ([ATr2 RG 2008/06/16 00:32:16] atr2 SMB/CIFS 3.0.30.)
jayjwa Disk Home Directories
Domain=[ATR2NET] OS=[Unix] Server=[Samba 3.0.30]

Server Comment
--------- -------
ATR2 [ATr2 RG 2008/06/16 00:30:04] atr2 SMB/CIFS 3.0.
VDRL [ATr2 RG 2008/06/10 19:39:31] vdrl SMB/CIFS 3.0.

Workgroup Master
--------- -------
ATR2NET VDRL


then connecting is just smbclient -A ~/.smbauth //machine-name/folder.
smbclient works like an ftp client.

Samba handles Windows sharing stuff in Linux.


> This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell
> is this samba configuration crap?
>
> I must be missing something here.

1. Install the collection of tools that give the function you want
2. Fill out their config files, if they have any.
3. Run the programs, which read the config files.

Many (most?) apps in Linux find out what you want them to do by reading a
configuration file. That is either system-wide, usually in /etc/, or
user-specific, in under ~/. If there is no config file, you usually use
command line switches. Many apps you can run with "--help" to see options.

> PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a
> network and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as
> in Windows.

You're missing about a month's worth of exclusive Linux use and
corresponding manual/howto/website/newsgroup-reading. That's about how
long it took me when I gave Windows the boot. It might have been a bit
faster because I killed Windows completely: if I wanted something done, it
*had* to be done in Linux.

Linux is like a box of tools that you can use to harness the power of
computer hardward and make it do anything you might need. Whether you use
the right piece for the right job, learn how to wield them, and make them
all work together, or get upset because they lay on the ground in front of
you in a pile, is up to you.



--
[** America, the police state **]
Whoooose! What's that noise? Why, it's US citizen's
rights, going down the toilet with Bush flushing.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01..._nsa_internal/
http://www.wired.com/politics/securi...007/08/wiretap
http://www.hermes-press.com/police_state.htm
http://www.privacyinternational.org/...D=x-347-559597

"jayjwa" <jayjwa@vdrl.ath.cx.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.06.16.05.30.48.588378@vdrl.ath.cx.in valid...


> I just spent 4 hours trying to help someone get their Windows XP to
> connect to a wireless router and then get their laptop and the router all
> talking WPA. It was anything but easy: I kept getting "Wizards",
> hand-holding this, training wheels that, when all I wanted was to set WPA
> on the wireless network.


You did it wrong then.. for future reference..

log into the router and set WPA like you would with linux.
Turn on XP
It will then say wireless networks have been found, do you want to connect?
choose the one you have just set
enter the key
done.

The only way to make it harder is if you hide the ssid which is pointless
and just makes life harder.

> In Linux, that's like one command on a command
> line. But there I was, awash in a river of GUI and menus up the wha-zoo.
> The laptop auto-connects alright - to someone else's network! Let's hope
> they didn't mind too much.

So change it so it doesn't.
One setting, no wizards needed.
You can even do it using the command line if you want.

Don't blame XP because you don't know what you are doing, just as you
wouldn't want someone blaming linux if they didn't know what they were
doing.

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 20:54:05 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
>spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
>
>I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.

You really ditched it because of hat? How about just change the graphics and
judge by real features of OS distro, not by the default look that is the
easyest thing to change on gaphical desktops? :)

No offence, that just seems like a really bad judgements... I have my own
reasons to not want any ubuntu based distro but this was never one of them
even though default coloring of basic ubuntu is (IMHO) ugly.

>This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
>wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
>"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
>If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
>the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
>
>You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
>not password protected.
>
>This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
>this samba configuration crap?

Nothing really hard, kust a different way of doing it. I would think that
Ubuntu would have a GUI tool for that though, but I like to hand edit
configuration files and really, it's not that hard, just requires one to
(*gasp*) a little bit of documentation.

If you just neeh to connect to windows share then you dont need to configure
samba - that you really need only for sharing directories for other windows
and/or samba/cifs clients.

>I must be missing something here.
>
>PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
>and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.

I don't know how you should do it from GUI on ubuntu, but it propably is. From
terminal window it can be done with one command line - I never browse them
thoug, I just mount them (I actually use samba although I share only between
linux servers and clients).

--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: robsku@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:34:37 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>
>"Unruh" <unruh-spam@physics.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>news:Pn03k.336$sg6.11@edtnps91...
>> "jim" <jim@home.net> writes:
>>
>>>Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
>>>spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
>>
>> And you are going about it all wrong. Just pick something and use it. (Of
>> course you are probably a troll anyway, in which case it does not matter)
>
>Why are you people fo ****ing paranoid?
>
>Is it because YOU are so abusive to people that come here with questions?

Not all of us. There are some assholes who spoil the good name of linux -
please just ignore their elitistic crap.

>>>This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
>>>wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
>>>"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
>>>If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
>>>the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
>>
>>>You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
>>>not password protected.
>>
>>>This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
>>>this samba configuration crap?
>>
>> It is an attempt to give you access to the proprietary Windows crap.
>
>Why doesn't it "just work"?

That depends. Also on how you define "just work" - if the distro is by default
configured to load modules (kinda drivers) or has them built in kernel for
supporting smbfs or cifs filesystem mounts them from terminal every related
tool already does work. If the distro is also by defaul using a file manager
that supports browsing and mounting windows network shares then it does just
work.

Some distros may be, I would think that Ubuntu prapably has quite good support
for this, how it works (I dont have Ubuntu and I mount shares from command
line, I prefer that) is prapably well documented on Ubuntu.

Other than this group, ubuntu web forums are also great source of information
(and seem to have loss those earlyer mentioned unfriendly elitistic assholes
around).

>>>PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a
>>>network
>>>and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.
>>
>> Lets see, you tell us that you want to use Linux and then complain that it
>> does not deal with Windows as well as windows deals with windows. Hmm.
>
>If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
>used to do in Windows.

Agreed. You should still understand that things may be just as ealy but Linux
is not windows - it has good support for accessing windows shares but it does
not mean that you do it same way. There are many ways how things can be done
and some are easyer, some harder. In windows it's quite easy to learn but not
most effective to use. On linux there are several ways.

>This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.

I hope yau wont give up too easy :) It's a great system.

--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: robsku@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."

He is a troll. I have tried to answer him similarly to you. He likes
complaining and wants everything to be exactly that same as on his windoes
machine, no matter how insecure it is.


Sir Robin <robsku@NO-SPAM-REMOVE-THIS.fiveam.org> writes:

>On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 20:54:05 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>>Dammit! I want so badly to get the hell away from Windows, that I am
>>spending ALL of my spare time trying out different Linux distros.
>>
>>I tried xubuntu for a day or so - bad graphics.

>You really ditched it because of hat? How about just change the graphics and
>judge by real features of OS distro, not by the default look that is the
>easyest thing to change on gaphical desktops? :)

>No offence, that just seems like a really bad judgements... I have my own
>reasons to not want any ubuntu based distro but this was never one of them
>even though default coloring of basic ubuntu is (IMHO) ugly.

>>This is what I would like.... With my XP Pro laptop, connecting to a
>>wireless network and browsing shared folders was as easy as clicking
>>"Connect to network" slecting the wireless network and clicking "Connect".
>>If there was a required key or password, Windows asked for it. You supply
>>the info and Windows simply connects to the network.
>>
>>You can then open Windows Explorer and browse any shared folders that are
>>not password protected.
>>
>>This is BASIC functionality that ALL Windows users NEED. What the hell is
>>this samba configuration crap?

>Nothing really hard, kust a different way of doing it. I would think that
>Ubuntu would have a GUI tool for that though, but I like to hand edit
>configuration files and really, it's not that hard, just requires one to
>(*gasp*) a little bit of documentation.

>If you just neeh to connect to windows share then you dont need to configure
>samba - that you really need only for sharing directories for other windows
>and/or samba/cifs clients.

>>I must be missing something here.
>>
>>PLEASE tell me I am missing something here and that connecting to a network
>>and browsing shared folders really IS just as easy in Linux as in Windows.

>I don't know how you should do it from GUI on ubuntu, but it propably is. From
>terminal window it can be done with one command line - I never browse them
>thoug, I just mount them (I actually use samba although I share only between
>linux servers and clients).

>--
>***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
>**/ email: robsku@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
>*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
>**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
>"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
>niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:15:15 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> 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.

I have no doubt that it will get simple enough in every place where it is not
yet just as simple or even simpler... There are many things (not only, but
also including compatibility with various Windows specific areas, like NTFS
support) that 5 yers ago were more difficult (if not impossible) to set up
than in windows that are now simpler or just as simple. The development has
been amazing in spee and quality (not tomention features of linux that windows
dont even know about).

What ever is still lacking or harder will soon be just as easy. The developers
do know that it's a must for linux to be adopted also by the great majority
who dont want harder to learn (even if it's often more efficient when you do
learn) on desktops.

>>>> 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.

In all this time you could have stayed with one distro and learned how to do
it the "hard" (not that hard) way long time ago and could be using the system
now. If you are willing to spend this much time installing different distros
to just check it they support it out of the box would you not have the time to
learn how to set it up if it does not work out-of-the-box? Would have taken
less time...

If it helps, I can advice you how to maunt a known windows share from terminal
- there are other ways but I have not needed them so I dont remember off-hand
how to search for shares, how to mount them fram GUI, but I know how to mount
them and after that they are available on any file manager.

Other people (and guides) have information on how to do this and more in other
ways, I have just not felt the need to use other ways so I have not opent time
te check them out. I do know that there is GUI tools supporting these things.

>>> 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.

Naturally - you should be able to search them in Linux too, it does support
that, but then again, you propably do know the IP's and share names on your
local network so you could set up the system to automotically mount them with
this information too? Naturally linux also requires you to use name/password
(ie. credentials) if the share is not available without them.

>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.

You have a big thing with this "out of the box" thing. Even if you dont get
the support out of the box, you will have more things working out of the box
than you will with windows. If you insist them go ahead and keep looking a
distro that has this - I'm quite sure that there is such. However if I were
you, I would spend (less) time and learn how to set it up if not working out
of the box and after that you would not have to warry about that (and you
would know how to set it up again if you were to install another system on
your network with linux).

If you want to use linux, believe me, setting it up is not a big issue if it
really is not yet supported by major distros "out of the box" or at least by
very simple graphical tool.

Again, if you want, I can give instructions how to set up mounting a share
from terminal window - you have to set it up only once and after restarting
computer you can have it mount the share autamtically on boot or with one
command on command line after the boot. Other that that, I never have needed
anything more, that allows accessing the share, which I believe is the only
really necessary thing.

>>> 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.

Scrape off the username/password options if they are not needed. You dont have
to set those if your share is available without them - they are just options
that can be set, not must.

>jim

--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: robsku@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Kun nuorille opetetaan, että kannabis on yhtä vaarallista kuin heroiini,
niin tokihan he oppivat, että heroiini on yhtä vaaratonta kuin kannabis."

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 01:08:51 GMT, Collin <collinyeung@shaw.ca> wrote:

>jim wrote:
>> <snip>
>> If you want people to use Linux, it HAS to be able to go and do what they
>> used to do in Windows.
>>
>> This is just another stumbling block to adoption by Windows users.
>>
>>> Why not complain about your windows machine that it does not connect to
>>> the
>>> Linux NFS system easily.
>>
>> They don't have to play nice - they already own the desktop. You'll rarely
>> see a monopoly spending time or money to undo it's chokehold on a market.
>>
>> jim
>
>We don't *want* people to use Linux. It's your choice. Linux too hard
>for you? Go back to Windows. We don't give a ****, and we're happy with
>our operating systems.

"We" are assholes. I'm not.

We then agin do want people to use linux. Specially those who are cleacly
interested, even if they need to be instructed that sometimes you need to
learm more to in the end get easyer te use system TrollBoy.

>Collin

--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: robsku@fiveam.NO-SPAM.org, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur."