On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 02:54:09 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>>> 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).

This kind of issues were around still when I started using Linux. Good thing
it didn't stop me. With modern day distros there may be some issues, but they
are rare and comparable issues exist in other systems too. Even back then
after spending some time setting things up I found I had now better system
that I had with windows. Most things nowdays, when it comes to setting up the
system are easyer than in most OS's (specially in Windows), believe me...

Do you really have as big problems as this lets me understand or is it just
the networking? Even from command line only it's not hellish and if no other
issues then you should just go for it, set it up once and have it working
after that. No need to browse notwork shares whan you have set them up for
simply monuting (automatically at boot or by command line with one line after
the boot). I believe that should be enogh unless you keep changing your shares
and computer names & IP's...

If yau have other issues too please list them and let' see if the solution is
simpler than you have thought... It might be only because the system is
different, not harder, that yau have these problems.

Nowdays when installing software, most stuff is available in reposities,
telling linux to install, for example, firefox will nowdays also check if your
system is missing libraries that it needs and install them autamtically too.
No missing parts scattered around - actually that is a problem that no OS has
fully solved but today it's actually more common on windows than in linux.
Trust me on this.

>> 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.

Good. Most common users dont know anything about firewalls or antivirus
softwares (only that there is such and that maybe they got one pre-installed).
With windows you have had to learn about these, where to get one, mhich one to
use and how to configure it. Just like with windows, not having everything set
up automatically is not an issue that you cant overcome. Clearly yau can. In
linux most distros set up the basic iptables rules for simple firewall
automatically but there may be some other thing that does not work out of the
box.

That was not an issue for you in Windows, it wont be in Linux either if you
dont want it to be :)

>
>> 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 it "up and running" does not take a day - it takes less than win XP (I
have tried). Getting the software you need installed and set up may take up
from 10 minutes to weeks on ANY OS - it depends on what you need. I had my new
computer set up with most plain debian basic install + hand installing (via
apt-get) and configuring X-windows, apache+php+perl+mysql, browsers for text
and graphics modes, Ion and fluxbox windows managers and two monitors + some
additional software took me a day. Note that to install minimal setup for
saving space I intentionally took a longer route by starting with most minimas
installation and could have saved time by selecting automatically both server
and desktop installation options when installing the OS.

I know from experience that this cant be done as fast nor without more work
(searching and dowloading softare from www for example) in windows 2000 or XP.

Spending a day to get OS set up, running and having the tools that you need -
ti depends on what you need, but a day is not much. If I had chosen the
easyest install I would have had desktop environment and the servers installed
in the time (or less) than it takes to set up plain Windows with only the
software that comes on the installation CD (which is not much).

>> 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.

Actually in many different ways windows is not efficient. It's easy te learn,
easy to use for basic stuff but for anything more it certainly is not
efficient. Often the most efficient systems take some time to learn at first
but after that are more efficiet to use.

OS X of apple is a prime example of providing both - the underlying unix
system provides the "hard" to learn, efficient to use power of unix and alike
systems and the easy to use environment provides even esyer to learn
environmont than windows but not as efficient to use than the harder to learn
ways.
Linux has had the powerful unix-like usability from the start and today it's
also getting closer and closer to OS X in having more and more thing "just
working" and getting easyer and easyer for end users to set up anything.

All systems have some weaknesses. Lets say that windows does not have the
efficiency of fully powered unix systems but it has quite easy to learn
environment. Linux may still lack on the later part on some places but the
amount of such is getting smaller and smaller specially on systems like Ubuntu
that are specially made for regular people who want things "just to work"

>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.

There are many opinions on this. I would have painful time with some things I
do if I had to do them mith windows - of course installing cygwin would lessen
this but still it would be painful.

I started to use Linux in 2002 - bought a new computer, intalled Red Hat 7.1
and planneh to install Win2k later (dual boot) - after a week of fiddling with
it I have never wanted to have windows installed on anything else than running
under VWWare or similiar system and I use it only for cross-development and
even in that mostly for testing.

There are things that are a real pain to do in Windows when compared to *nix
systems. So Windows, just like none of operating systems today, cant be said
to let people (all of them) to just get work done.

Btw, are you sure that you have allowed linux to have TCP&UDP ports needed for
windows/samba filesharing to work opened for incoming connections from trusted
home network? Just like with Windows, you need that in linux too naturally...
Ubuntu for example comes with really easy pragram to set up linux kernels
internas netfilter system (for firewalling and other things) called
FireStarter...

Other systems may come with just iptables (which is set up with script
usually) or some other more rare tools with easy graphical or text based
environment to set it up. If you want it easy then FireStarter is really easy
one (although it has some things that I dont accept, like the fact that you
cant open a port just for TCP or UDP but always for both - but I dubt it's a
big issue inside trusted network).

>> 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.

You have wasted already way mare time than you would have needed by installing
and trying different distros. From what I understand I would recommend you to
go with ubuntu, spend a little time to learn how it works or needs to be set
up and I will guarantee that in the end you will save the time used for that
when afterwards using your then-working linux system instead of windows. I
know many people wo I have had hard time to convince them to believe this but
who have later told me that they have been most satisfyed. Only one switched
back and even in that case the reason was not that Linux did not do everything
he wanted as easy as he wanted - it's a silly case and silly person, but I
wont go deeper into that.

Sure, still today there are issues mhy linux is not the solution for everyones
needs but so far I have not heard any issue fram you that I would see as too
large obstacle. The solutions for your network problem are certainly not too
time taking to learn and set-up once (and if needed to set up later on second
system, well then yau already know how to do it and doing is not a large job).

>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.

If eventually you come to conclusion that it's not yet good enough for you
that does not implicate that it wont be. Having seen the development in past 7
years any such issues remaining wont take long to dissapear totally.

>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 ---/**
"I like the trees, you know? I like the way that the trees are on mountains,
all the different... the way the trees are."

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 06:22:19 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> 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..

Simply not true. You have brought up ONE issu that you have. I can list more
issues than that one on linux - but I can list more issues than that from
Windows.

Don-t exagarate, Linux is not today what it was it was in 90's (unless of
course you pick up a distro meant for those who WANT to assemble all things or
really start building your own system piece by piece. You CAN do that with
linux, you DON'T have to and most DO NOT.

Some people have been assholes and other peoples may have opinions that seem
radical to you - but dont lower yourself on the asshole-ones level.

Here's one radical opinion - you dont have to agree and I will still help you
where and if I can no matter what you think: I say that today with modern
distros targetted for rogular people your claim holds more true if you swap
the names Windows and Linux from your claim - and I could IMO even justify the
claim but I have no enerdy to spend time on that. Think of my claim what you
want, but let's not make it an obstacle between us no matter if you disagree.

>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.

This means little without knowing their reasons for the change. The
differences in implementation however are propably way smaller than you think
- and it's not like either implementation (or implementations, as for linux
there are various ways for various things) have only benefits over another.
Surely both have their good and bad sides. Personally I cant thin of why they
have come up with such decision, but I'd love to know.

>> 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.

So far yau have mentioned one issue - and I dont know if yau have many more,
but even if it seems such for you now I know that this issue is hardly a
gapping hole but at best a small nuance that is easy to overcome.

>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.

Most people could learn... the issues linux still has that are really too hard
or impossible to overcome for some peoples needs are most issues that really
cover only a small part of regular users. For most users the biggest issue is
that some people need things that need a bit more learning to set up than they
do in windows. And I've seen computer newbies handle many such issues - most
using ubuntu and following guides from ubuntu support pages and/or forums.
They may have had to enter commands that they dont understand in terminal
window but the lack of understanding is no different than lack of
understanding what exactly happens inside of windows whan you select the final
"Ok" button for mapping a network drive ;)

Yes, I know that this still needs to got even easyer for those who want it
easy but I know you could cope with it.

Now, again, if yau have more issues that seem big for you I'd like to hear
them and see if thef are big or mall and if I could help with them :)

>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.

Still, consider the option of accepting it to not work "out of the box"... it
is NOT a big thing to set up if it does not work and there are people (like
me) whe are willing to help out with it. I might even spend little time to
check other ways for it but I could easily explain how to maunt a share from
terminal and even to set it mount it automatically mount at boot - and about
terminal, when set up corrrectly there is a command to list available shares
that show themselves on local network...

I'm pretty sure that ubutu also has graphical filemanager that can browse
shares and mount them - I dont know if it works out of the box... And remember
to have correct ports on your firewall open - in ubuntu use FireStarter for
really easy firewall setup (FireStarter should be available for most other
distros too but I personally use automatically generated and then hand editet
script that sets up it with iptables on boot).

>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 ---/**
"I like the trees, you know? I like the way that the trees are on mountains,
all the different... the way the trees are."

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:45:37 +0300, Sir Robin wrote:

> I started to use Linux in 2002 - bought a new computer, intalled Red Hat 7.1
> and planneh to install Win2k later (dual boot) - after a week of fiddling with
> it I have never wanted to have windows installed on anything else than running
> under VWWare or similiar system and I use it only for cross-development and
> even in that mostly for testing.

Ummmm...... right............

> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652

So, are you doing some "cross-development" right now, or some "testing"?

Bugger off, Win-droid troll.



--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he hacked up a hairball.

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 02:33:04 +0300, Sir Robin wrote:

>>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.

You are a week late to the party, Win-droid. Stop feeding the ****ing
troll, and go play with your Windoze like he does.

Bugger off and go update your viruses, or whatever it is you drooling
Win-droids do with your computers.


--
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he saw yet another BSOD occur.

On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 21:44:49 +0100, Christopher Hunter
<chrisehunter@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

>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.

Nope, "all" is quite an overstatement and overstatements, as all lies do no
benefit for linux - unless if by "all" your mean computers used by intitutions
of government.

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

Hopefully and IMHO eventually this then again will happen in time.

>> 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.

Excellent point. Vista comes on DVD wile some distros can still be installed
from sigle CD and come with huge amount of all kinds of software from little
used obscure servers to most common office program package after MS Office
(hopefully in future The most common). With Windows you have to intall them
afterwards - and no, there is no program where you can select "WinSCP" and
press install but you have to search them from meb pages, dowload them and run
the installer. This is to be done for every application you can download for
free - there is NO any kid of repository system.

>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.

And with lot of hardware you dont get only what yau need but usually a bloated
pack of software that you prapably never end up using.

Still to be truthfull, there is certain hardware types with very support for
very limited amount of products and couple video cards that you need to
install a preprietary drivers for (however I hear that nowdays even ATI and
nvidia drivers are available straight from repositorys on many distros so you
no longer have to hand-install them - which was a pain for many with ATI
drivers).

--
***/--- 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 21:34:22 +0000 (UTC), Davorin Vlahovic
<nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote:

>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

Ah, so they are not at all going away from Linux. Quote:
"Combined with the ability to run Mac OS X, Linux, and Windows, and their
award-winning industrial design, Apple computers are starting to win over IT
departments.n"


--
***/--- 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 ---/**
"Sir Robin valehtelee järjestelmällisesti" - Nikolas Mäki

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:50:45 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

NOTE: After almost finishing writing this message I decided to google and with
ONE search and TWO links found guide on EXACTLY what you want - it's in the
end of mesage - no configuration file editing needed.

>>> 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.

Although I said that I dont know how to do them (I've never checked) I DO know
that I had a ****ing graphical tool for configuring Samba already years ago on
my Red Hat 9, maybe even on Red Hat 7! You have not even TRIED to rheck the
basic manus, those setup tools were already back then installed automatically,
not afterwards by me (as I never needed nor used them).

MAYBE you should even try to look through the administration menu!?

Besides the point I dont know what is the big fuss on writing Samba
configuration file... but nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that Ubuntu for
example has such tool installed by default - if not then one can be installed
(dont know names for any as, again, neven have needed them myself).

>> 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.

What if I have, for example, a second video card, old PCI card I bought on 95
and that I use for my third monitor to get, hmmm... right, windows cant show
two different desktops at same time, but maybe it can use more than one vid
card... Anyway, there propably never was any XP driver made for it... But it
works on my linux which comes supporting it without installing extra drivers.
It's perfectly good enough for many things and for example in gaming I can use
the display on my modern card - hmm, if set up to use two cards with three
monitors, can I run 3d accelerated games on just the modern card even if
desktop is stretched on all three monitors (the old card does not even support
3d acceleration, but why would I buy new one, I dont need that for what I do
on third monitor and the old works fine?)

>>> 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!

Yes, it's true, they use mac - to run OS X, Windows and... *drum roll*
....linux!

They did not dump Linux for macs, they dumped PC's for macs... Linux, unlike
windows, runs on hyge scale of different platforms but as macs are what they
are today they did not even switch processor architechture. If they need to
run these three OS's then the switch was reasoned as you cant legally run OS X
on non-apple computers.
*Nothing* to do with dumping linux, which was a false claim.

>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

No mention of Linux here, only Windows and OS X, however...

>http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/0...ating-to-macs/.

....I have no idea if you read those articles, but you need to read better...
Let me quote:
**** Start quote ****
A summary of the pilot program, detailed in a IBM document obtained by
RoughlyDrafted, revealed that IBM is actively working to move away from its
dependence upon Microsoft Windows and toward a heterogeneous cross-platform
future.
"In line with IBM's external strategy of offering a true 'Open Client' that
may be Windows, Linux or a Mac," the document noted, "Research IS is focusing
on providing an IBM application stack on multiple Operating Systems, rather
than be confined to one or the other."
**** End quote ****

So the thing that they are not dumping is not linux - not windows either, but
they are "dumping" dependence on windows... So how do you make it a loss for
linux out of these artiles? It's actually mostly negative for MS, which has
shown growing concern about Linux. Propably not so negative for apple, they
have their own loyal customer base based on very different things than windows
users (and macs can be used to legally run any/all of these three OS).

>> 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?

The reasons were explained an above, quote from article you linked and which
proved your own claim wrong. If they want cross-development for platforms
including OS X then macs are not a choice but a must. You cant buy a license
for OS X separately and the license does not allow installing on PC (although
it's possible since macs use x86 processors now too).

>> 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?

Sometimes - hove no statistics on how often versus how often not ;)

>>> 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.

So far you have told about trying couple distros, not "living it". I need to
use both but at home I use over 99% of time linux (100% concidering that I run
only win on virtual machine on top of running linux). I have lived it since
2002 and used windows since Win 3.0 on old 286. The only thing I ever have to
check is that hardware I buy is supported - and so far I had not found myself
havinc to choose more inferior product because something is not supported nor
to choose equivalent but more expensive product. Next addition to system will
be Hauppages digital TV card. I believe that the video player I have installed
already supports it too so there should be nothing to set up for viewing but
posibbly something for saving (although I thin mplayer/mencoder could well
have support for that too, at least it has an option to use saving to file as
"output device".

I live it. I love it. The reasons to stick with linux have been only growing,
zero reaons to other direction since 2002.

>>> 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.

That is not what he said - he might be unpolite, but you are twisting his
words on this.

Different distros may have different purposes - there are some made specially
for one purpose (example one is for music producing with goal of everything
working out of the box - although not necessary for all other uses) and while
some distros are specifically made for those who like to build their systems
by hand almost totally (as hobby), most distros most certainly are made to
work as far as sensible "out of the box".

More deeply then again: What is the goal of linux? Nothing and everything - as
a kernel it can be used in almost anything controlled my microprocessor. I'll
let Locutus explain it if yau are interested (a bit out of topic):
What is the ultimate goal of linux:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/loc...of-linux-25291


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

I say that judging on your messages I have so far read you should try Ubuntu
again. While it's not my choice I would say that the distro to most propably
fullfill your needs is Ubuntu. And remember, there are tools to setup Samba
and it's not hard with them (easyer than setting up network adapter for static
IP on local network on Windows I bet, and would you call that hard?) - ubuntu
propably (I would bet) installs with such program by default (if not, ask a
name for good one, run synaptic packet manager and select it for install).

I preferred and on my 1st computer still have fedora but fell in love with
debian after installing it on this second (my main reason to try it was that I
had little experience of it, knew it was good and allowed to select a very
plain and small base install). Ubuntu is based on debian and although that
would not be MY choice (personal preferences) it's a very good distro and has
what you want as one of main goals (to "just work") with very strong emphasis.

HOW TO BROWSE FILES (Ubuntu):

I found uber simple guide for both sharing and browsing for other windows
shares. The link is in bottom, but essential parts for accessing shares I
paste here (if you want to share from linux, very easy on Ubuntu, all set up
done with graphical tools too.

1. Install smbfs package: Open terminal window and type
"sudo apt-get install smbfs". Your password will be asked. After install close
terminal window.

2. Network configuration: From the menus start "System -> Administration ->
Network".
In the "general" tab fill in options:
Host Settings
Hostname: <yourcomputer>
Domain name: <yourdomain>

Windows Networking
Tick Enable Windows networking
Description: <whateveryouwant>
Domain/Workgroup: <yourdomainorworkgroup>

3. Browsing SMB shares

Ubuntu and Gnome make it easy to access files on a Windows network share.

Open the Computer Menu, then click on "Network". You'll see a "Windows
network" icon, open it. The next window shows all the domains/workgroups found
in your network. Inside each domain/workgroup you get all the computers in it
(that is, those sharing something !). Double-click on a computer icon to
access its shares and files. Could it be easier ?

This information and info to set up samba server to also share from linux was
at:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpSambaa

Now I did quite a job just to make it easy as possible for you, even cut&paste
all the essential info you have been asking for from guide. Can you still say
that it's too hard, needs assembly? Could it be easyer? Only if smbfs was
installed by default (I'm surprised it's not on Ubuntu) so you could drop step
1.

ONE SEARH ON GOOGLE - you were talking about gaping holes and everything?

Anyway, good luck and try a little harder next time ;) No offence meant by
that - remember, this guide is for ubuntu specifically. Other distros may have
minor differences, some may have large. Install Ubuntu, I recomment that
distro for your needs.

--
***/--- 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 ---/**
"I like the trees, you know? I like the way that the trees are on mountains,
all the different... the way the trees are."

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:29:48 +0100, "dennis@home"
<dennis@killspam.kicks-ass.net> wrote:

>>> 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.

Yes, you can get many (not nearly all) of them but:
* Does not ship with install media
* Cant be searched' selected and installed via packet manager...
* ...resultung alsa in no autamatic fetching & installing of missing
dependencies (ie. GTK library for pidgin/gaim or vbrun libraries required by
many visual basic programs), you have to install them separately and just like
programs...
* ...you will need to search web, find & download installer and run it. For
each program/library (with exception of unix programs converted to run under
cygwin & available from cygwins installer/setup program)

>> 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.

Vista not good for work propably holds true on more cases than linux not good
for same work though...

--
***/--- 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."

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:55:49 -0400, "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote:

>
>"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

You dont need Samba server for accessing shares, only smbfs installed and that
needs no configuring. Ubuntu for exaple provides graphical network setup tool
for setting workgroup and such that you need to have set up in Windows too and
it allows you to browse network shares from desktop.

>- 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.

3 steps on ubuntu to get what you want. 3rd one is to browse, 2 first are
extremely simple.

>> 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.

And it "just works" no matter what hardware changes and how many times? I have
heard about this license verification thing - I know that there are pirate
versions where it has been hacked though but I doubt that it "just runs" like
my fedora which has been on very different computers (basically only the hard
disk where it was installed has been same all the time).

>> 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.

"Info that I did not need" - holy hell, there will certainly be info that you
need with linux and that windows has no clue about - and the other way around.
That holds true with all OS's and even with Windows versions distant enough
(ie Win95 & WinXP). If that scares you, stick with one version of one OS.

I say that if you dont do power user stuff then the differences are smaller
than benefits. And about power using, Linux provides possibilities that some
may need more learning than first seem good but enable you to control and do
work on efficient ways not easily if at all even possible with windows. But if
you only need functionality that you have on windows - most propably with
right distro you get it, it may be different, it may need to be learned but it
does not take any amount of time that is actually worth consideration. You go
Ubuntu, that should suit you quite well and has VERY good support available.

>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.

You must still accept that there are differences that do not make it harder
nor easyer. You surely understand, no "start" menu, user management and such
slightly different and placed possibly on separate menu from regular
application, etc...

Differences like these are to be expected, hell there are such between every
release of windows too.

>> 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.

I dunno, considering how easy I found it to be to setup what you have asked
for under ubuntu...

--
***/--- 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 ---/**
"Sir Robin valehtelee järjestelmällisesti" - Nikolas Mäki

Sir Robin wrote:

> 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.

You may be confusing simple with easy, they are *not* the same thing.
A straight line is 'simple', a circle is 'simple' neither are 'easy' to
draw, unless one has the tools to do the job. Microsoft®/Windows®
is 'easy', but is it simple underneath the GUI? By simple I mean simple
enough to be able to do the same things as Microsoft®/Windows® does
with a GUI Wizard by editing Microsoft®/Windows® config files on an
equivalent to Midnight Commander?
--
Nemo
"Feather-footed through the plashy fen passes the questing vole"