Ok, I thought Linux would be fun. But it's not. You know why? It doesn't
work. It doesn't do squat. Let's see how fast the nerds come out of the
woodwork to ream me out. But I am going to tell the truth.

I didn't have high hopes. I knew that Linux demanded some computer know-how,
but I'm a very experienced computer user. The last time I purchased a full
computer system was 1998. Since then I've built them myself. I've installed
Windows more times than I can count. Not just simple installs, by the way,
but rather complicated installs with multiple RAID arrays, etc. Not
bragging, just setting the scene.

Just setting up my video card correctly required two separate installs, a
variety of command-line scripts, and a rather clunky workaround. And that
was just to get my screen working at its native resolution. Thankfully I
have two computers at my desk, or I wouldn't have been able to use the
internet to figure out the problem.

Then came the internet. There is no easy way to get Flash working. In some
cases (mine, as it turns out) it is impossible. So, no YouTube. No flash
games. No even moderately complicated websites. In other words, 75% of the
websites I visit don't work. It's not like Flash is this cutting edge thing.
It's been around forever.

Every piece of software has its own idiosyncrasies, some of which conflict
with each other. I was crashing when I tried to run Open Office with Firefox
open. Why? I have no idea. It was the first thing I did. I hadn't even
customized the operating system at all. It crashed. It still crashes even
now. It is crap.

This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the ridiculous defense of Linux
put up by its fanboys. It's easy, they say, you've just got to think
differently. I can think fine. I can work on a Mac, even though I don't have
as much experience with them, because they actually are well designed. Linux
is a complete disaster. You know that saying, too many cooks spoil the pot?
There is a lot of spoiled pot here, people. Spoiled pot, all over the place.

Just watch what happens when you mention Windows. The nerds come out in
force then. Vista sucks, they say. It's slow. It's got spyware. Hell, with
Linux I don't need spyware--the thing trashes itself. But what's the point
of getting on the internet without spyware if none of the websites work?

I'm not even going to try to explain the convoluted, overly technical, and
completely buggy way software is installed. It's so easy, they say. Well,
it's not so difficult on Windows, either. Download. Double click. ****,
that's so difficult, isn't it?

That would all be fine if Linux boosters didn't constantly claim that
everyday computer users could use Linux with little or no loss of
functionality, and with little training. Bull. It is way too complicated for
even basic tasks. If I don't have the patience to deal with its ridiculous
learning curve, I'm sure most people don't.

One guy actually said that Linux was easier than doing a fresh install of
Windows XP. Only someone who has never done a clean install of Windows could
say it is difficult. You put the CD in. Click a few buttons. Tell it your
time zone. Voila. Done. Difficult? No.

So, why did I do this? Mostly, I needed to get to the internet while I wait
for Vista to arrive in the mail, likely tomorrow. And when it does, I will
install that resource-hogging, bloated, tool of corporate oppression right
the hell over Ubuntu Linux, the supposed software of global group-hugs. And
you know what I will do then? Rejoice. Laugh. Celebrate. Revel in enjoyment
that only a true nerd can appreciate. Because Windows (whatever its faults)
is actually a system people can use.

And so, in this moment of rejoicing, I will engage in a little bit of what I
said yesterday was BS. I will invest a hearty amount of metaphysical meaning
in Ubuntu Linux. It is every bit a hippie piece-of-crap product. It follows
no discernible rules. It revels in chaotic freedom, to the point that it
never knows what it is doing. With apologies to Tim Leary, it turns on,
tunes in...and then drops out. And like a hippie junky, you worry that one
day you're going to find your computer dead in a pool of its own vomit.

Do I sound irritated? I am. Just for the record, I'll do the same to Vista.
I'll report all the difficulties I run into and compare them to Ubuntu, just
for fun. And you poor non-nerds out there will just have to either wade
through it or ignore it.

Stop comparing Linux to Vista! the nerds kept saying. Well stop saying it's
so much better than Vista, then! All you're doing is inviting comparison.
Well, starting tomorrow (less the FedEx gods' wrath falls on me) that's
exactly what I'm going to do. Mwuwahahaha!

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:14:22 -0700, Homer Schwartz wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> Just setting up my video card correctly required two separate installs, a
> variety of command-line scripts, and a rather clunky workaround. And that
> was just to get my screen working at its native resolution. Thankfully I
> have two computers at my desk, or I wouldn't have been able to use the
> internet to figure out the problem.[/color]

Clicking "enable" in the restricted driver manager was too difficult?
Unless you have a 8000 series nVidia card, the manager works perfectly
fine.

For the 8000 series cards, or any card for that matter if not wishing to
use the restricted manager, uninstalling the built in nVidia drivers (can
be done with a mouse click) and running the installer from nVidia's
website will do fine.

This also applies to ATI btw, I just use nVidia as my example since that is
what I personally use.

*YES* there are more complicated ways involving a whole bunch of command
line mess.

*YES* they can be found on Google.

*NO* they are not necessary.
[color=blue]
>
> Then came the internet. There is no easy way to get Flash working. In some
> cases (mine, as it turns out) it is impossible. So, no YouTube. No flash
> games. No even moderately complicated websites. In other words, 75% of the
> websites I visit don't work. It's not like Flash is this cutting edge thing.
> It's been around forever.[/color]

What about clicking "Yes" about installing the Flash plugin when Firefox
prompted you was difficult?

Why is it in your case impossible? What is the reason?

Flash's working perfectly fine for me and all I did was click the "Yes"
button when prompted. *shrug* I go on sharedtalk.com almost daily to
exchange mails with friends. That website is 100% flash.
[color=blue]
>
> Every piece of software has its own idiosyncrasies, some of which conflict
> with each other. I was crashing when I tried to run Open Office with Firefox
> open. Why? I have no idea. It was the first thing I did. I hadn't even
> customized the operating system at all. It crashed. It still crashes even
> now. It is crap.[/color]

No idea here either. I've yet to see it crash.

<snip ranting>
[color=blue]
>
> One guy actually said that Linux was easier than doing a fresh install of
> Windows XP. Only someone who has never done a clean install of Windows could
> say it is difficult. You put the CD in. Click a few buttons. Tell it your
> time zone. Voila. Done. Difficult? No.[/color]

Well I actually just did two Ubuntu installs in the past 4 days.

One was a clean re-install on my home system as it's been through 4
different versions, including beta versions. I wanted to clean things up
and that was the quickest way. Started at 1 am. 2am everything was fully
configured and ready to go down to every last application. Of course all
my application settings, data, etc. remained intact and undisturbed since
they reside on a different partition. =)

Did the same thing today in my office. Installed a second hard drive to
run ubuntu from. I began the install at 4:15pm, I was out the office at
5pm with a fully functional and ready to go system.

Out of curiosity, *which* version were you running?

You didn't do something incredibly intelligent, like installing the alpha
development version 7.10 did you?

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

Thanks, I enjoyed that.
But watch out for the flak.

I've been playing around with Ubuntu, Debian, KDE, etc. in VPC and VM
Player, but can't seem to get much done. Maybe I'll install one on my old
P3 or 486 computers one of these days.
I installed Kubuntu a couple of weeks ago, and actually LOL when it said
there were 49 updates ready.
Linux is interesting (because it's FREE), and we actually used a unix
variation on out CADD servers at work in the 80's.
But I prefer Windows, even with all it's warts, over the Fisher Price toy.



"Homer Schwartz" <Homer@visualvictory.com> wrote in message
news:ejZ5MYqsHHA.2268@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
> Ok, I thought Linux would be fun. But it's not. You know why? It doesn't
> work. It doesn't do squat. Let's see how fast the nerds come out of the
> woodwork to ream me out. But I am going to tell the truth.
>
> I didn't have high hopes. I knew that Linux demanded some computer
> know-how, but I'm a very experienced computer user. The last time I
> purchased a full computer system was 1998. Since then I've built them
> myself. I've installed Windows more times than I can count. Not just
> simple installs, by the way, but rather complicated installs with multiple
> RAID arrays, etc. Not bragging, just setting the scene.
>
> Just setting up my video card correctly required two separate installs, a
> variety of command-line scripts, and a rather clunky workaround. And that
> was just to get my screen working at its native resolution. Thankfully I
> have two computers at my desk, or I wouldn't have been able to use the
> internet to figure out the problem.
>
> Then came the internet. There is no easy way to get Flash working. In some
> cases (mine, as it turns out) it is impossible. So, no YouTube. No flash
> games. No even moderately complicated websites. In other words, 75% of the
> websites I visit don't work. It's not like Flash is this cutting edge
> thing. It's been around forever.
>
> Every piece of software has its own idiosyncrasies, some of which conflict
> with each other. I was crashing when I tried to run Open Office with
> Firefox open. Why? I have no idea. It was the first thing I did. I hadn't
> even customized the operating system at all. It crashed. It still crashes
> even now. It is crap.
>
> This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the ridiculous defense of Linux
> put up by its fanboys. It's easy, they say, you've just got to think
> differently. I can think fine. I can work on a Mac, even though I don't
> have as much experience with them, because they actually are well
> designed. Linux is a complete disaster. You know that saying, too many
> cooks spoil the pot? There is a lot of spoiled pot here, people. Spoiled
> pot, all over the place.
>
> Just watch what happens when you mention Windows. The nerds come out in
> force then. Vista sucks, they say. It's slow. It's got spyware. Hell, with
> Linux I don't need spyware--the thing trashes itself. But what's the point
> of getting on the internet without spyware if none of the websites work?
>
> I'm not even going to try to explain the convoluted, overly technical, and
> completely buggy way software is installed. It's so easy, they say. Well,
> it's not so difficult on Windows, either. Download. Double click. ****,
> that's so difficult, isn't it?
>
> That would all be fine if Linux boosters didn't constantly claim that
> everyday computer users could use Linux with little or no loss of
> functionality, and with little training. Bull. It is way too complicated
> for even basic tasks. If I don't have the patience to deal with its
> ridiculous learning curve, I'm sure most people don't.
>
> One guy actually said that Linux was easier than doing a fresh install of
> Windows XP. Only someone who has never done a clean install of Windows
> could say it is difficult. You put the CD in. Click a few buttons. Tell it
> your time zone. Voila. Done. Difficult? No.
>
> So, why did I do this? Mostly, I needed to get to the internet while I
> wait for Vista to arrive in the mail, likely tomorrow. And when it does, I
> will install that resource-hogging, bloated, tool of corporate oppression
> right the hell over Ubuntu Linux, the supposed software of global
> group-hugs. And you know what I will do then? Rejoice. Laugh. Celebrate.
> Revel in enjoyment that only a true nerd can appreciate. Because Windows
> (whatever its faults) is actually a system people can use.
>
> And so, in this moment of rejoicing, I will engage in a little bit of what
> I said yesterday was BS. I will invest a hearty amount of metaphysical
> meaning in Ubuntu Linux. It is every bit a hippie piece-of-crap product.
> It follows no discernible rules. It revels in chaotic freedom, to the
> point that it never knows what it is doing. With apologies to Tim Leary,
> it turns on, tunes in...and then drops out. And like a hippie junky, you
> worry that one day you're going to find your computer dead in a pool of
> its own vomit.
>
> Do I sound irritated? I am. Just for the record, I'll do the same to
> Vista. I'll report all the difficulties I run into and compare them to
> Ubuntu, just for fun. And you poor non-nerds out there will just have to
> either wade through it or ignore it.
>
> Stop comparing Linux to Vista! the nerds kept saying. Well stop saying
> it's so much better than Vista, then! All you're doing is inviting
> comparison. Well, starting tomorrow (less the FedEx gods' wrath falls on
> me) that's exactly what I'm going to do. Mwuwahahaha!
>[/color]

I just recently dabbled around with Ubuntu. I'd have to come to the same
conclusions as you pretty much - for all the fuss, I didn't see the benefit.
Had a tough time connecting to a workgroup (did it once, then it stopped
connecting), couldn't find drivers for hardware easily, and it gets annoying
having to enter a password everytime I want to do an administrative task.
Installing software isn't the greatest method, it took me a while to find
out how to install the right version of Java. Benefits of Linux? It's free
for starters, you can run it on older systems (Vista you could say is
resource hungry), and if you want to play around it's a great way to learn I
suppose. It also has the benefit of free software. However, coming from a
Windows background I wouldn't suggest it - everything you've learnt needs to
go out the door. For example, the way it's structured is completely
different (some describe it as a tree). Thus, when you want to find a
particular file to tweak (my example is transferring over my Opera
bookmarks), you have to go look it up on the internet. Given the shear
amount of time you spend researching how to do something in Linux (unless
you are experienced), I would say most people will continue with Microsoft
software. For ease of use, I prefer MS. Will Linux die? No, I don't think
so - but you have to be in a particular usergroup to benefit from it (server
admins, techies, the curious).

Thank God (or who ever) that Ubuntu is free, if I had to pay for it, I
would feel screwed even though the NICE PEOPLE on the Isle of Man sent me a
free copy. I have installed/uninstalled various versions of Red Hat, Suse
and Fedora....I wish I could like it but I will keep hoping.

"Duncan" <duncan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ORSLZrqsHHA.412@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I just recently dabbled around with Ubuntu. I'd have to come to the same
>conclusions as you pretty much - for all the fuss, I didn't see the
>benefit. Had a tough time connecting to a workgroup (did it once, then it
>stopped connecting), couldn't find drivers for hardware easily, and it gets
>annoying having to enter a password everytime I want to do an
>administrative task. Installing software isn't the greatest method, it took
>me a while to find out how to install the right version of Java. Benefits
>of Linux? It's free for starters, you can run it on older systems (Vista
>you could say is resource hungry), and if you want to play around it's a
>great way to learn I suppose. It also has the benefit of free software.
>However, coming from a Windows background I wouldn't suggest it -
>everything you've learnt needs to go out the door. For example, the way
>it's structured is completely different (some describe it as a tree). Thus,
>when you want to find a particular file to tweak (my example is
>transferring over my Opera bookmarks), you have to go look it up on the
>internet. Given the shear amount of time you spend researching how to do
>something in Linux (unless you are experienced), I would say most people
>will continue with Microsoft software. For ease of use, I prefer MS. Will
>Linux die? No, I don't think so - but you have to be in a particular
>usergroup to benefit from it (server admins, techies, the curious).[/color]

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:48:30 -0600, Duncan wrote:
[color=blue]
> I just recently dabbled around with Ubuntu. I'd have to come to the same
> conclusions as you pretty much - for all the fuss, I didn't see the benefit.
> Had a tough time connecting to a workgroup (did it once, then it stopped
> connecting), couldn't find drivers for hardware easily, and it gets annoying
> having to enter a password everytime I want to do an administrative task.
> Installing software isn't the greatest method, it took me a while to find
> out how to install the right version of Java. Benefits of Linux? It's free
> for starters, you can run it on older systems (Vista you could say is
> resource hungry), and if you want to play around it's a great way to learn I
> suppose. It also has the benefit of free software. However, coming from a
> Windows background I wouldn't suggest it - everything you've learnt needs to
> go out the door. For example, the way it's structured is completely
> different (some describe it as a tree). Thus, when you want to find a
> particular file to tweak (my example is transferring over my Opera
> bookmarks), you have to go look it up on the internet. Given the shear
> amount of time you spend researching how to do something in Linux (unless
> you are experienced), I would say most people will continue with Microsoft
> software. For ease of use, I prefer MS. Will Linux die? No, I don't think
> so - but you have to be in a particular usergroup to benefit from it (server
> admins, techies, the curious).[/color]

I will concede that installing a video card under Ubuntu is slightly more
difficult than opening a notepad document.

I'll even agree that it would be nice if nVidia had a nice graphical
installer than you can just double click from your desktop.

Though you know what? The developers *are* listening. The restricted
driver manager has been added as of 7.04 and it works flawlessly all the
way up to my 7800 GT. My 8800GTX I still need to install manually though.
I suspect that to be fixed by the new release.

It wouldn't even be necessary though if nVidia provided a better installer
that's useable from the desktop. That really is where the core problem is.

As far as things being different, well that's the point. If I wanted
windows, I'd use windows. What'd be the point of Ubuntu if it was
identical to windows?

Of course things work differently.
Of course things are in different places.

That's the point...

But all that aside, I think people forget something around here.

Most users don't install operating systems
Most users don't install video cards
Most users don't know the difference between Intel, AMD, Pentium, Core 2
Duo, and what all...
Most users don't even quite know what an "Operating System" even is.

They walk into a store to buy a computer like they buy any other
appliance, such as the toaster for their kitchen.

They get their computer hand fed to them and pre-configured.

They'd never be able to even install Windows, be it XP or Vista.
Not to mention *CONFIGURE* it and install drivers!

99% of all the problems and issues people mention here do not *exist* on
pre-configured and pre-installed systems! The exact kind of system the
*masses* buy!

The only people that buy their won hardware and install their own
operating systems are the admins, techies, etc.

Something to consider. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 12:14:22 -0700, Homer Schwartz wrote:
[color=blue]
> Ok, I thought Linux would be fun. But it's not. You know why? It doesn't
> work. It doesn't do squat. Let's see how fast the nerds come out of the
> woodwork to ream me out. But I am going to tell the truth.
>
> I didn't have high hopes. I knew that Linux demanded some computer know-how,
> but I'm a very experienced computer user. The last time I purchased a full
> computer system was 1998. Since then I've built them myself. I've installed
> Windows more times than I can count. Not just simple installs, by the way,
> but rather complicated installs with multiple RAID arrays, etc. Not
> bragging, just setting the scene.
>
> Just setting up my video card correctly required two separate installs, a
> variety of command-line scripts, and a rather clunky workaround. And that
> was just to get my screen working at its native resolution. Thankfully I
> have two computers at my desk, or I wouldn't have been able to use the
> internet to figure out the problem.
>
> Then came the internet. There is no easy way to get Flash working. In some
> cases (mine, as it turns out) it is impossible. So, no YouTube. No flash
> games. No even moderately complicated websites. In other words, 75% of the
> websites I visit don't work. It's not like Flash is this cutting edge thing.
> It's been around forever.[/color]

Actually I just had a thought.

Were you running the 64-bit version of ubuntu? That is the *one* thing
that I can think of that can cause problems with Flash, and where an
installation of Flash would be impossible.

*If* that is the case, you might want to wake up and smell the roses
because things are not going to be better under Vista in that regard.

Flash in it's current state is NOT supported on 64-bit system. Adobe has
not yet released a 64-bit compatible version.

It doesn't matter what operating system you use. Flash will NOT work on
64-bit systems.

Also, as far as 64-bit is concerned, you will find yourself in a boat
swimming in a sea of trouble across virtually all operating systems, Vista
included.

At this point in time, unless you have a specific need for a 64-bit OS,
you are better off running the 32-bit version of any OS. There is very few
software, none that I can think of for the Desktop Market, that is written
for a 64-bit architecture. While running 32-bit apps on a 64-bit system is
possible, it can lead to problems.

Don't know if it applies to you, but it's about the only thing I can think
of that can account for the problems you have had.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

Replies interspersed.

Homer Schwartz wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Ok, I thought Linux would be fun. But it's not. You know why? It doesn't
> work. It doesn't do squat. Let's see how fast the nerds come out of the
> woodwork to ream me out. But I am going to tell the truth.[/color]

I've run them all, Mac, Windows, Linux, and the lesser known BSD
systems. Everyone's raving about this new linux thing and in all
seriousness, I can't see linux to run near as good as any of the other
three combined. Linux is a hobbyist hack job that 20 people have to
develop their own things and hopefully get it to work on a collection of
these hacks all commonly referred to as a Distribution. Of the 300ish
linux distributions, I've tried the major ones, and none of them make
any sense. They are pieces of software all thrown together with no
rhyme or reason. I prefer my Macs, then my BSD systems, then Windows
over Linux, in that order. Linux is that poor in management compared to
the rest.
[color=blue]
> I didn't have high hopes. I knew that Linux demanded some computer
> know-how, but I'm a very experienced computer user. The last time I
> purchased a full computer system was 1998. Since then I've built them
> myself. I've installed Windows more times than I can count. Not just
> simple installs, by the way, but rather complicated installs with
> multiple RAID arrays, etc. Not bragging, just setting the scene.
>
> Just setting up my video card correctly required two separate installs,
> a variety of command-line scripts, and a rather clunky workaround. And
> that was just to get my screen working at its native resolution.
> Thankfully I have two computers at my desk, or I wouldn't have been able
> to use the internet to figure out the problem.[/color]

I feel your pain, I understand it completely. At the time of the
installation at work (which I use only as a tool to keep me sharp on
Linux, no other reason...), this Ubuntu Linux 6.10 wouldn't boot or
install because of the X server unable to start (Video driver something
or other). I downloaded 6.06 and that installed just fine, with no
problems identifying or using the card. So, I see that as the newer the
systems go, the more diverse and incompatable they become. <sarcasm>I
can't wait for the next release!</sarcasm>
[color=blue]
> Then came the internet. There is no easy way to get Flash working. In
> some cases (mine, as it turns out) it is impossible. So, no YouTube. No
> flash games. No even moderately complicated websites. In other words,
> 75% of the websites I visit don't work. It's not like Flash is this
> cutting edge thing. It's been around forever.[/color]

Each Distribution will roll their own flash implementation. I keep a
single purchased copy of Win2000 for these "flash only" or "IE only"
sites as needed. That copy of Windows doesn't run 24/7. I run it only
when I need something.. like to make sure a document I send in M$ Word
format is truly going to render the same way I saved it.
[color=blue]
> Every piece of software has its own idiosyncrasies, some of which
> conflict with each other. I was crashing when I tried to run Open Office
> with Firefox open. Why? I have no idea. It was the first thing I did. I
> hadn't even customized the operating system at all. It crashed. It still
> crashes even now. It is crap.[/color]

OK, so now we've moved from 20 people in a distribution to 50 people.
Hoping it all works as "designed." Think it'll work any better with 50
people typing at the keyboards versus 20? I think you and I think of
the same answer.
[color=blue]
> This wouldn't bother me if it weren't for the ridiculous defense of
> Linux put up by its fanboys. It's easy, they say, you've just got to
> think differently. I can think fine. I can work on a Mac, even though I
> don't have as much experience with them, because they actually are well
> designed. Linux is a complete disaster. You know that saying, too many
> cooks spoil the pot? There is a lot of spoiled pot here, people. Spoiled
> pot, all over the place.
>
> Just watch what happens when you mention Windows. The nerds come out in
> force then. Vista sucks, they say. It's slow. It's got spyware. Hell,
> with Linux I don't need spyware--the thing trashes itself. But what's
> the point of getting on the internet without spyware if none of the
> websites work?[/color]

Linux is now not defined as only a hobbyist system, but a hobbyist +
elitist system. If you don't know how to fix the problem when it
surfaces (knowing very well that 50 keyboards cannot product coherent
code, IMHO), the problem will stay. Maybe affecting other software in
the throw of the problem.
[color=blue]
> I'm not even going to try to explain the convoluted, overly technical,
> and completely buggy way software is installed. It's so easy, they say.
> Well, it's not so difficult on Windows, either. Download. Double click.
> ****, that's so difficult, isn't it?[/color]

Mac, Windows, and BSDs all share a common thread of installation -- for
each family is one defined method of installation. Mac is "drag this to
the Applications folder," Windows is "double-click this and walk through
the wizard," BSD is "run this program and it will make it available to
you without (major) fussing."

This is where I don't see BSD being a problem compared to Linux. This
is a Windows newsgroup, so I don't want to hog this thread and dominate
it about BSD -- but the major BSDs (Free, Net, Open) all share a common
method of installing and maintaining packages. Not a unique tool for
each different major BSD systems.
[color=blue]
> That would all be fine if Linux boosters didn't constantly claim that
> everyday computer users could use Linux with little or no loss of
> functionality, and with little training. Bull. It is way too complicated
> for even basic tasks. If I don't have the patience to deal with its
> ridiculous learning curve, I'm sure most people don't.[/color]

Of the near 5-years of messing with various Linux distributions, trying
to find a sane one, Fedora 7 has come very close. Fedora being a RedHat
spinoff, and CentOS (was/is) very reasonable too. Ubuntu just breaks
every rule that a unix/linux system has worked hard in establishing.
[color=blue]
> One guy actually said that Linux was easier than doing a fresh install
> of Windows XP. Only someone who has never done a clean install of
> Windows could say it is difficult. You put the CD in. Click a few
> buttons. Tell it your time zone. Voila. Done. Difficult? No.[/color]

Easy is defined as the person performing the task. A Windows
installation (any of them) is very simple. *Installing* Linux is easy,
maintaining Linux (which I will touch on later) is difficult.
[color=blue]
> So, why did I do this? Mostly, I needed to get to the internet while I
> wait for Vista to arrive in the mail, likely tomorrow. And when it does,
> I will install that resource-hogging, bloated, tool of corporate
> oppression right the hell over Ubuntu Linux, the supposed software of
> global group-hugs. And you know what I will do then? Rejoice. Laugh.
> Celebrate. Revel in enjoyment that only a true nerd can appreciate.
> Because Windows (whatever its faults) is actually a system people can use.[/color]

Now that you've got some beefy hardware to run the bloated OS, the same
beefy hardware on a lightweight, powerful BSD system will scream.
[color=blue]
> And so, in this moment of rejoicing, I will engage in a little bit of
> what I said yesterday was BS. I will invest a hearty amount of
> metaphysical meaning in Ubuntu Linux. It is every bit a hippie
> piece-of-crap product. It follows no discernible rules. It revels in
> chaotic freedom, to the point that it never knows what it is doing. With
> apologies to Tim Leary, it turns on, tunes in...and then drops out. And
> like a hippie junky, you worry that one day you're going to find your
> computer dead in a pool of its own vomit.
>
> Do I sound irritated? I am. Just for the record, I'll do the same to
> Vista. I'll report all the difficulties I run into and compare them to
> Ubuntu, just for fun. And you poor non-nerds out there will just have to
> either wade through it or ignore it.[/color]

Ranting on Vista is getting old. We all know various quirks and
problems it may impose, but the fact is that this is a forum for
".general" stuff, so go for it!
[color=blue]
> Stop comparing Linux to Vista! the nerds kept saying. Well stop saying
> it's so much better than Vista, then! All you're doing is inviting
> comparison. Well, starting tomorrow (less the FedEx gods' wrath falls on
> me) that's exactly what I'm going to do. Mwuwahahaha![/color]

Since I didn't see anything on the topic of maintenance, and I mentioned
it in my reply here, I want to describe basic maintenance in Mac,
Windows, BSD, and Linux. First is the number of patches that are released.

- Just the Operating System itself for Mac leads a couple dozen every
now and then (been a while since I've booted my Mac... It's an older
release so I would be painting an inconsistent number).
- Windows: a dozen or so monthly
- BSD: maybe one or two critical updates monthly, with 3rd party addons
varying for what you have installed. A 5-month old release of FreeBSD
has brought 4 serious updates. No updates for nearly a month (May 23rd
had an update). Last time I updated my 3rd-party addons on my
production server was about 2 weeks ago, and there were 14 updates to
about 430 3rd-party addons installed.
- Linux (depending on the distribution, but on average) has about a
dozen updates daily. It's that 50 keyboards thing again.

I don't really see a place for Linux on the servers, let alone the
desktops.. There's a wide variety of systems that are available, and
one should opt for any of the ones available before locking themselves
in. And with Apple's idea and implementation to put Intel chips in
their hardware, you can now seriously run Mac OS X, Linux, BSD, or even
Windows on one common hardware. That is very cool!

My own additions to Mr. Schwartz's rant. My 2 cents to the 'take a
penny' tray.

--Tim

>[color=blue]
> I feel your pain, I understand it completely. At the time of the
> installation at work (which I use only as a tool to keep me sharp on
> Linux, no other reason...), this Ubuntu Linux 6.10 wouldn't boot or
> install because of the X server unable to start (Video driver something
> or other). I downloaded 6.06 and that installed just fine, with no
> problems identifying or using the card. So, I see that as the newer the
> systems go, the more diverse and incompatable they become. <sarcasm>I
> can't wait for the next release!</sarcasm>[/color]

The next released fixed that problem.
[color=blue]
> Linux is now not defined as only a hobbyist system, but a hobbyist +
> elitist system. If you don't know how to fix the problem when it
> surfaces (knowing very well that 50 keyboards cannot product coherent
> code, IMHO), the problem will stay. Maybe affecting other software in
> the throw of the problem.[/color]

50 keyboards can't produce coherent code?

Well I suppose that explains the sad state Vista is in, as they have a few
thousand keyboards going at it. =)
[color=blue][color=green]
>> One guy actually said that Linux was easier than doing a fresh install
>> of Windows XP. Only someone who has never done a clean install of
>> Windows could say it is difficult. You put the CD in. Click a few
>> buttons. Tell it your time zone. Voila. Done. Difficult? No.[/color]
>
> Easy is defined as the person performing the task. A Windows
> installation (any of them) is very simple. *Installing* Linux is easy,
> maintaining Linux (which I will touch on later) is difficult.[/color]

What's difficult about never having to do anything beyond occasionally
clicking OK to the...oh I don't know...occasional update I get maybe once
a month?
[color=blue]
>[color=green]
>> Stop comparing Linux to Vista! the nerds kept saying. Well stop saying
>> it's so much better than Vista, then! All you're doing is inviting
>> comparison. Well, starting tomorrow (less the FedEx gods' wrath falls on
>> me) that's exactly what I'm going to do. Mwuwahahaha![/color]
>
> Since I didn't see anything on the topic of maintenance, and I mentioned
> it in my reply here, I want to describe basic maintenance in Mac,
> Windows, BSD, and Linux. First is the number of patches that are released.
>
> - Just the Operating System itself for Mac leads a couple dozen every
> now and then (been a while since I've booted my Mac... It's an older
> release so I would be painting an inconsistent number).
> - Windows: a dozen or so monthly
> - BSD: maybe one or two critical updates monthly, with 3rd party addons
> varying for what you have installed. A 5-month old release of FreeBSD
> has brought 4 serious updates. No updates for nearly a month (May 23rd
> had an update). Last time I updated my 3rd-party addons on my
> production server was about 2 weeks ago, and there were 14 updates to
> about 430 3rd-party addons installed.
> - Linux (depending on the distribution, but on average) has about a
> dozen updates daily. It's that 50 keyboards thing again.[/color]

A dozen? Daily? Really?
Weird.
I haven't had a single yet today...
or yesterday..
or the day before that...
or the day before that..
or the day before that one...
you get the idea...

I mean sure, occasionally there is an update. It's fairly rare though.

I see more updates a week in WinXP than I see in Ubuntu in a month.
*shrug* Just my personal experience....

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら

I toyed with the idea of installing Ubuntu even burned a copy, then I started
reading some of the install procedures, changed my mind. I installed VISTA in
a dual boot with XP on 2 separate hard drives. After 4 months I decided on
VISTA all the way. I’m even comfortable with UAC. Yesterday I removed XP.

Robert wrote:
Yesterday I removed XP.[color=blue]
>
>[/color]
Oh no!
That'll drive the Vista haters/linux trolls nuts! :-)
Frank

Em Terça, 19 de Junho de 2007 20:14, Homer Schwartz escreveu:
[color=blue]
>
> Ok, I thought Linux would be fun. But it's not. You know why? It doesn't
> work. It doesn't do squat. Let's see how fast the nerds come out of the
> woodwork to ream me out. But I am going to tell the truth.
>
> I didn't have high hopes. I knew that Linux demanded some computer
> know-how, but I'm a very experienced computer user.[/color]

No, you just wrongly think you are... at most, you're just experient with
windows... not with computers.


I have been a guitar player for over 20 years.
Recently I decided to try piano.
For someone who has so much experience with guitars, I have to say that
I find the piano breathtakingly confusing and hard to use. To me,
nothing works the way I expect it to work, and sometimes it doesn't
work, period.
With all my 'experience' I naturally and arrogantly assumed that I was a
guitar GOD. How dare this new instrument be so hard to use. What were
the designers thinking of by creating something so alien to *me*?
I have 6 full time jobs, three families and 200 guitars in my 15 homes
and I just plain don't have the time or energy to devote to learning
something as difficult as a piano.
It's the pianos fault really, not mine. Why should I be held accountable
if I don't have the time. Despite my enormous intellect (my IQ is 912) I
cannot master the piano in five minutes, so I am going to kick and stamp
my little feet and scream and scream and scream until I'm sick.


Resuming... as more years you pass using windows, the dummer you are.

Regards

Hey pal, I think you made an error. Your I.Q. isn't 912, it's 9.12. More
like it.

I doubt you are a guitar GOD, you can probably recognize a guitar from 5
feet away (in good lighting of course) and with your 6 full time jobs (3 at
Burger King, 2 at McDonald's, 1 at KFC working the deep fryer) and no clue
what birth control is. Your 15 homes equates to 15 freeway underpasses.
Don't get them confused.

As more years pass, you keep multiplying making the population dumber and
dumber in your neighborhood.

I'm surprised that you can even use a keyboard. Maybe you dictated to
someone who translated into English.


"ArameFarpado" <a-farpado.spam@netcabo.pt> wrote in message
news:f59ktt$g5q$1@registered.motzarella.org...[color=blue]
> Em Terça, 19 de Junho de 2007 20:14, Homer Schwartz escreveu:
>[color=green]
>>
>> Ok, I thought Linux would be fun. But it's not. You know why? It doesn't
>> work. It doesn't do squat. Let's see how fast the nerds come out of the
>> woodwork to ream me out. But I am going to tell the truth.
>>
>> I didn't have high hopes. I knew that Linux demanded some computer
>> know-how, but I'm a very experienced computer user.[/color]
>
> No, you just wrongly think you are... at most, you're just experient with
> windows... not with computers.
>
>
> I have been a guitar player for over 20 years.
> Recently I decided to try piano.
> For someone who has so much experience with guitars, I have to say that
> I find the piano breathtakingly confusing and hard to use. To me,
> nothing works the way I expect it to work, and sometimes it doesn't
> work, period.
> With all my 'experience' I naturally and arrogantly assumed that I was a
> guitar GOD. How dare this new instrument be so hard to use. What were
> the designers thinking of by creating something so alien to *me*?
> I have 6 full time jobs, three families and 200 guitars in my 15 homes
> and I just plain don't have the time or energy to devote to learning
> something as difficult as a piano.
> It's the pianos fault really, not mine. Why should I be held accountable
> if I don't have the time. Despite my enormous intellect (my IQ is 912) I
> cannot master the piano in five minutes, so I am going to kick and stamp
> my little feet and scream and scream and scream until I'm sick.
>
>
> Resuming... as more years you pass using windows, the dummer you are.
>
> Regards
>[/color]

> Ok, I thought Linux would be fun. But it's not. You know why? It doesn't[color=blue]
> work. It doesn't do squat. Let's see how fast the nerds come out of the
> woodwork to ream me out. But I am going to tell the truth.[/color]

Hear, hear! Over the past three years I've installed four different
Linuxes, the most recent being Ubuntu. Each one was supposed to be "At
last, the distro that's really ready for the average user's desktop!".

Pah! Compared with Windows it's a nightmare to install. For those
installations which require user input (i.e. virtually all of them), it's
frightening. It uses arcane, highly technical terminology with little
attempt at explaining what it's all about.

Ubuntu made a mess of my screen resolution; the sound wouldn't work; and
after two days (literally) of struggling trying to make the **** wireless
networking work, I reformatted the disk with a cheer.

Previous distros have crashed or frozen more regularly than Windows ME.

The user interfaces of the four distros I've used have been crap. I don't
mean the eye candy - that's just a matter of taste - I mean an easy and
logical construction that leads even an inexperienced user to achieve what
they want.

Here's the bottom line: you might not like Vista, but Microsoft has
genuinely world-renowned user labs, and they put a hell of a lot more effort
into making a user interface that works for the average joe. Same with
Apple. Nobody in the Linux world has that kind of resource, and by heck it
shows.

Linux is as user-friendly as a bear trap once you scratched the surface.

HOWEVER - if only the Linux world would stop trying to make it a Windows
competitor, and concentrate on its remarkable strength - that it is
infinitely configurable - we'd all be better off. Linux can be small, fast,
light and focused on very specific tasks. It is a superbly flexible core of
functionality which you can mix and match to produce a custom OS with just
the functionality you need.

Attempts to take it onto the desktop are a dreadful waste of the developer's
time. It can be done, as we know, but it's never done as well as Microsoft
do it. And that's no surprise, nor a reflection on the Linux gurus -
Microsoft has truly enormous resources focused on their flagship product.

In truth, we shouldn't even be thinking of them as competitors (at least,
not on the desktop).

Steve

Steve Thackery wrote:[color=blue][color=green]
>> Ok, I thought Linux would be fun. But it's not. You know why? It doesn't
>> work. It doesn't do squat. Let's see how fast the nerds come out of the
>> woodwork to ream me out. But I am going to tell the truth.[/color]
>
> Hear, hear! Over the past three years I've installed four different
> Linuxes, the most recent being Ubuntu. Each one was supposed to be "At
> last, the distro that's really ready for the average user's desktop!".
>
> Pah! Compared with Windows it's a nightmare to install. For those
> installations which require user input (i.e. virtually all of them), it's
> frightening. It uses arcane, highly technical terminology with little
> attempt at explaining what it's all about.
>
> Ubuntu made a mess of my screen resolution; the sound wouldn't work; and
> after two days (literally) of struggling trying to make the **** wireless
> networking work, I reformatted the disk with a cheer.
>
> Previous distros have crashed or frozen more regularly than Windows ME.
>
> The user interfaces of the four distros I've used have been crap. I don't
> mean the eye candy - that's just a matter of taste - I mean an easy and
> logical construction that leads even an inexperienced user to achieve what
> they want.
>
> Here's the bottom line: you might not like Vista, but Microsoft has
> genuinely world-renowned user labs, and they put a hell of a lot more effort
> into making a user interface that works for the average joe. Same with
> Apple. Nobody in the Linux world has that kind of resource, and by heck it
> shows.
>
> Linux is as user-friendly as a bear trap once you scratched the surface.
>
> HOWEVER - if only the Linux world would stop trying to make it a Windows
> competitor, and concentrate on its remarkable strength - that it is
> infinitely configurable - we'd all be better off. Linux can be small, fast,
> light and focused on very specific tasks. It is a superbly flexible core of
> functionality which you can mix and match to produce a custom OS with just
> the functionality you need.
>
> Attempts to take it onto the desktop are a dreadful waste of the developer's
> time. It can be done, as we know, but it's never done as well as Microsoft
> do it. And that's no surprise, nor a reflection on the Linux gurus -
> Microsoft has truly enormous resources focused on their flagship product.
>
> In truth, we shouldn't even be thinking of them as competitors (at least,
> not on the desktop).
>
> Steve
>
>[/color]
For all those who have tried linux and failed, I would state that there
is nothing wrong with failure. Some operating systems are not for
everyone. For those of us successful in using linux, it is just another
means to an end, and nothing more. I can freely move among my vista box,
xp boxes (4) and my ubuntu 7.04 box (all networked and sharing a
printer) and all of them meet my expectations. So it boils down to
different strokes for different folks. Right now I am concentrating on
my newer vista box. I can't seem to find the "wow", but it works to my
satisfaction as I figure it out. Enjoy the systems you are familiar with
and stay away from things you find too daunting. It took me several
iterations of ubuntu before I finally figured it out well enough to use
it as I wish. And as I went through the iterations, many things became
less daunting, and some issues disappeared totally due to improvements
in the succeeding releases. Enjoy what you use and stick with it.

--
norm