141 new of 203 responses total.
Re: #61. Boy, are you out of touch. "Linux has a lot of bloat and OpenOffice sucks"- you DO know that Vista requires FIFTEEN gigabytes of hard-drive space and that the newest version of Microsoft Office has a *completely* different interface, right? And how exactly does OpenOffice suck?
It's a little like Grex in a way :) great ideals but who wants to figure out the syntax when gardenweb.com requires no additional brain work. I agree with what Mynx has to say. Remind me to use hand signals exclusively next time we meet and let's see how far we get communicating.
Re #61: Don't redit what i type when you quote me! I DID NOT say "Linux has a lot of bloat and OpenOffice sucks"! Re #64: Actually hand signals wouldn't make any sense either :) given that i still need to know what your gestures mean :). A perfect interface would be one which required no learning about the interface by the user but still managed to convey the information/meaning :) - at least that's how i see it. I like Linux well enough to use it, but i'm not completely blind to it's defects..as i see it - there's not much sense in trying to get the world to fit Linux. It's better for Linux to try to adapt to the world. Given that we live in a MS dominated world, from a user perspective it makes sense for any UI to simulate MS and gradually wean users away to something better.
OK, so you said KDE has a lot of bloat - nevertheless, since most people will be using KDE (or GNOME, and GNOME is comparable in size) - FUD like that is effective. Re #64: Actually hand signals wouldn't make any sense either :) given that i still need to know what your gestures mean :). A perfect interface would be one which required no learning about the interface by the user but still managed to convey the information/meaning :) - at least that's how i see it. The point I was trying to make is that I have no problem with GUI's, it's just that they are in no way suitable for doing a gazillion things you can and should be able to do with a computer. With the imminent arrival of Windows PowerShower, I am afraid those of us who say that have won this argument. I like Linux well enough to use it, but i'm not completely blind to it's defects..as i see it - there's not much sense in trying to get the world to fit Linux. It's better for Linux to try to adapt to the world. Given that we live in a MS dominated world, from a user perspective it makes sense for any UI to simulate MS and gradually wean users away to something better. I'm not totally blind to Linux's faults, either. That doesn't mean I'm willing to excuse MS's illegal business practices, or that I don't judge that, on balance, Linux is worth a lot more money and effort than Windows.
Free Software Magazine has an (as ever) erudite take on why, given the Windows way or the Highway, one should DEFINITELY take the highway: http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/blogs/why_johnny_can_code
re#61 why would anyone want Linux to become a Windows clone??? Windows is bad for many more reasons than merely being a M$ product. I think the real point of Microsoft's predominance is that they're the only ones that have aggressively marketed the OS. This started with 95 and the influence of marketing decisions taken since then is the cause of most of the technically poor decision made, such as the crippling of the NT design to fit IE and the 95 desktop. I think that if others had made a bigger effort in marketing their product, more people would have switched ages ago. Look at Mac: once the preserve of graphic studios to which it was marketed directly, has seen a huge uptake by home and non-business users since their "switch" campaign and a greater presence in the media, also thanks to the iPod/iTune success. Still their marketing scope is a lot smaller than that of MS, with their unrelenting push for dominance in all their product areas: mass marketing and focused proselytisation in the business and professional sectors with certification schemes, seminars and training paths forced down the throat of everyone in the business. Now when's the last time you've seen a TV advert for RedHat or SuSe or Mandr[iva|ake] just to name a few with large user base and solid business behind them. A Linux desktop has been more than useable for quite some time and recent distros are a piece of cake to install. Someone should tell Joe Blogg.
A Linux desktop has been more than useable for quite some time and recent distros are a piece of cake to install. Someone should tell Joe Blogg. Amein.
Twenesx - too many people have slipped - so I'm not going to answer anything - (and anyways I have to go deal with immigration issues now) but Jeff you're missing hte point - you pointed out that DEC or something or the other imploded - could happen again. How many users did DEC have and how ubiquitous was computers when that happened? What's the state now? Market penetration - Windows has it.
When DEC were healthy, almost everyone had a DEC. Didn't stop them moving to Unix and/or Windows when the time arrived. And I stand by my contention that if it weren't impossible to get Windows off a machine /before you buy it/, Windows would be as much of a laughing stock from a market penetration perspective as it is from a technical one. But it really doesn't bother me if everyone else wants to run Windows. What bothers me is that people think "being forced to use/buy Windows" - "wanting it."
Re #68: I totally agree that Windows is a piece of shit from a programmers or computer scientist/engineers point of view.. Re #71: Correction, everyone did not have a DEC. A very small percentage of the total worlds population did have a DEC. That's not quite the case with Windows. Most people today that can afford a computer have Windows on it. The DEC period wasn't known for home computing - imho (at least in India/ Asia). One is forced to use Windows through market inertia. Openoffice does not format Word documents reliably, i'll have problems opening .ppt's. If i go to an architect's office, he isn't going to have Linux or OpenOffice or StarOffice. Same thing applies in my computer lab wrt Matlab. If i had to make a presentation in college it's more likely that they'd have a Windows box ready and waiting. Then there are my P2P apps, one or two of them don't work on Win2K without wine and major headache. My Dad knows and is familiar with Excel - he doesn't want to sit around learning and familiarising himself with StarOffice. Then there are the various distro's. I don't want to spend time hunting around wondering where to click when i got to make a class or transfer files - some colleges may go with KDE other's with Gnome and some others with something-else. Unless there are compelling reasons to move away from Win2K i won't move and that's my point. There are no compelling reasons and it would be impossible given the current state of development Linux is in given the market penetrance that Windows has. Nothing better illustrates this philosophy better than gardenweb. The interface is lousy when you compare it with NNTP/Grex, but to a horticulturist it's a familiar easy to use interface that requires little or no extra effort. Lecturing him about the wonders of Grex/NNTP isn't going to bring him here. What he would want are concrete reasons why he should (freedom of speech is one that i can think off) but gardenweb may curtail your freedom occasionally or trample on a user occasionally and that to most ppl is acceptable. JFTR i love Linux and when i'm not P2Ping that's what i mostly use.
Re #68: I totally agree that Windows is a piece of shit from a programmers or computer scientist/engineers point of view.. I would argue that makes it a POS from everyone's point of view, because people who program a POS are going to make it inflexible and full of holes, etc. Re #71: Correction, everyone did not have a DEC. A very small percentage of the total worlds population did have a DEC. That's not quite the case with Windows. Most people today that can afford a computer have Windows on it. The DEC period wasn't known for home computing - imho (at least in India/ Asia). OK, yeah I should have said that most people /who worked on computers/, used DEC's. But note that history is repeating itself - Unix grew in use on DEC's /despite the fact/ that DEC hated it, wouldn't supply it, and wouldn't support it. One is forced to use Windows through market inertia. Openoffice does not format Word documents reliably, i'll have problems opening .ppt's. If i go to an architect's office, he isn't going to have Linux or OpenOffice or StarOffice. Same thing applies in my computer lab wrt Matlab. If i had to make a presentation in college it's more likely that they'd have a Windows box ready and waiting. Then there are my P2P apps, one or two of them don't work on Win2K without wine and major headache. My Dad knows and is familiar with Excel - he doesn't want to sit around learning and familiarising himself with StarOffice. Then there are the various distro's. I don't want to spend time hunting around wondering where to click when i got to make a class or transfer files - some colleges may go with KDE other's with Gnome and some others with something-else. Word doesn't format Word documents reliably either. I haven't had any problems reading presentations in OO.org, which was writtern to be familiar to Office users - unlike recent versions of Office! Unless there are compelling reasons to move away from Win2K i won't move and that's my point. There are no compelling reasons and it would be impossible given the current state of development Linux is in given the market penetrance that Windows has. That's exactly the problem. Let's assume that your W2K box dies tomorrow (I most CERTAINLY hope it doesn't). If you get a new computer you will have no alternative but to get Vista on it. Even if you have kept your W2K cd's, there is no guarantee that it will work on new hardware. Nothing better illustrates this philosophy better than gardenweb. The interface is lousy when you compare it with NNTP/Grex, but to a horticulturist it's a familiar easy to use interface that requires little or no extra effort. Lecturing him about the wonders of Grex/NNTP isn't going to bring him here. What he would want are concrete reasons why he should (freedom of speech is one that i can think off) but gardenweb may curtail your freedom occasionally or trample on a user occasionally and that to most ppl is acceptable. That STILL doesn't address my main point, since although neither Grex nor Gardenweb is forced on people, Windows most certainly is.
I think it's silly to get so upset over the Windows monopoly. If you're a consumer looking for a home computer, even if you're aware of all the different choices, you don't have much choice. Apple is proprietary, expensive, and has limited upgrade options. Linux flavors have no support at all (unless you count mailing lists/forums and that kind of stuff I guess), until you start paying for them. Then there's MS's offerings, which are almost guaranteed to work from day one until the day they're obsolete years later, on such a wide array of hardware from servers to handheld devices that it makes the choice a no-brainer. If you have to blame something, blame the market. If these were car brands, you wouldn't blame consumers for buying a crappy Ford before they picked up a BMW or ordered a kit car.
It's amusing to watch Linux/Unix snobs arguing the evils of Microsoft. I understand what you guys mean, but no one could who isn't familiar with Unix already. You're assuming everyone agrees that Windows stinks, whereas not everyone agrees with that at all. You're also overlooking the fact that most people with computers are using Windows and doing quite nicely with their computers. Without Windows they wouldn't *have* computers.
Then there's MS's offerings, which are almost guaranteed to work from day one until the day they're obsolete years later, Um, no they aren't. on such a wide array of hardware from servers to handheld devices that it makes the choice a no-brainer. Linux runs on a far greater range of devices. If you have to blame something, blame the market. If these were car brands, you wouldn't blame consumers for buying a crappy Ford before they picked up a BMW or ordered a kit car. If these were car brands, you wouldn't be forced into buying a Ford even if you wanted a Chevy. It's amusing to watch Linux/Unix snobs arguing the evils of Microsoft. I understand what you guys mean, but no one could who isn't familiar with Unix already. I disagree. Linux is no harder to use than Windows, these days, and despite that STILL doesn't get viruses or spyware. Some people put that down to the fact that "almost no-one uses it", but it has 25% of the server market, it's marketshare can't be counted because people don't have to buy it, it runs most of the internet and most of the top supercomputers, and if you express marketshare in terms of raw numbers, then the 5% or so of people who are *assumed* to be running Linux translates to 15 mil, which is hardly "no-one". You're assuming everyone agrees that Windows stinks, whereas not everyone agrees with that at all. I don't know anyone who's familiar with the recent state of Windows and Linux, and actually thinks Windows is a better choice (except for running Windows-only applications).
Windows-only applications are critically important to a lot of people.
I didn't say they weren't. That's different from saying the OSes they run on are good. If DOS runs more applications than Windows, does that mean Windows is crappier than DOS? (I've no doubt that DOS runs more apps than Windows, since in the days following DOS's heyday, Microsoft have killed off most of the competition in all the important application areas, too.)
I don't think there's any reasoning with twenex anymore. :(
I don't think there's any reasoning with twenex anymore. :( Why not? I mean, do mind explaining where you get the idea that Windows runs perfectly for years on end, and (by implication) everything else doesn't, an experience (and this is where I have difficulty with the idea) contrary to all the known accounts? Or is it just because I don't shrink from shooting down arguments that don't stand up?
I work in tech support for a product which can run either on Windows or Linux or any of various Unix versions. I tell people all the time that, for Windows, they should reboot their server at least once per week. "It just helps, we all know it helps" I tell them, and they always agree with that. If they ask about Unix versions, I tell them that Unix admins usually reboot once per year, though it's not really necessary. There's a different level of expectations for Unix versus Windows. So anyway, I get it. I understand that Linux is better than Windows in many ways. But people persist in running Windows. It's not because they are bullied into it by Bill Gates and his bespectacled geek thugs. It's because it works for them. They can take a Windows server machine, slam some extra RAM into it, and run our very demanding and bulky product. Or they can take the same server, slam some memory and Linux in it and be better off in some ways. But then they'll have to learn something about Linux. Some people even go from Linux versions to Windows versions. It happens, usually at the initiative of a system admin who knows Windows better than Linux, I expect. No one consults me on these issues, they just tell me what they're going to do, and then I help them to do it.
I don't know of anyone who has bought hardware that does not run a version of Windows. I know of a lot of people, myself included, who have installed a Linux and found it has limited functionality for their hardware. If the trend is opposite for you, I'd be interested in knowing what you guys do differently across the pond!
resp:80 Windows may not run *perfectly* for years, but as a user of Windows machines, who knows very little about computers really, Windows works just fine for what I need. I have no idea how to use Linux, and I don't see that is has much of a precense anywhere outside of computer groupies. The average consumer knows little about how computers really work. They want to bring it home, plug it in and have it work. They like the bells and whistles- even if they don't use them- because then they can brag that their computers CAN do those things. People are lazy, and they want things to be easy- for minimal usage requirements- Windows fits the bill. Sure, some things don't work right- at which point people either work around it, scrap the idea, or consider getting help. The user doesn't WANT to fiddle with settings, or recompile kernels- they want to plug and play. They also manage to forget about all the time spent actually making Windows work the way they (mostly) want it to. Similar to the memory deletion of the time it takes to search for that special key stroke command. Are these last two pargraphs indications of wisdom? Nope, not even close. But it's the kind of thinking that Windows has capitalized on- and the other groups missed the boat on.
I don't know of anyone who has bought hardware that does not run a version of Windows. I know of a lot of people, myself included, who have installed a Linux and found it has limited functionality for their hardware. If the trend is opposite for you, I'd be interested in knowing what you guys do differently across the pond! I buy hardware specifically known to work with Linux, and I'm probably better off in that it's almost by definition the low-margin vendors making bog-standard rubbish who only support Windows (Linksys routers, for instance). Anyway, I may have misinterpreted you. My reading of what you said above was that once Windows is installed, it runs trouble free for years, and other OS'es get "hiccupy". Most people's experience, otoh, and certainly mine, is that Windows is the hicccupy one - in fact that's what brought me to Linux. Jep seems to agree on the point. As I think I have already repeated, however, I just don't understand this attitude that if you go into a store, and buy pc hardware, most times you /don't get/ to choose the OS software.
Re: #82. There's also the point that when you release binary drivers, as most people who write drivers for Windows do, then your old hardware might not be supported when you upgrade to a new version. With source, the OS distributor can just recompile. resp:80 Windows may not run *perfectly* for years, but as a user of Windows machines, who knows very little about computers really, Windows works just fine for what I need. I have no idea how to use Linux, and I don't see that is has much of a precense anywhere outside of computer groupies. Linux can be used in almost exactly the same way as Windows - and to forestall the argument that "almost exactly"is not good enough, different versions of Windows are used in different ways. Mostly gratuitously, too. The average consumer knows little about how computers really work. They want to bring it home, plug it in and have it work. They like the bells and whistles- even if they don't use them- because then they can brag that their computers CAN do those things. "The average consumer"knows little about cars "really work" too. But knowing how to *drive* a car is a *legal requirement*.
People are lazy, and they want things to be easy- for minimal usage requirements- Windows fits the bill. Sure, some things don't work right- at which point people either work around it, scrap the idea, or consider getting help. The user doesn't WANT to fiddle with settings, or recompile kernels- they want to plug and play. OK, we're back in FUD territory here. There's no need to do that these days. They also manage to forget about all the time spent actually making Windows work the way they (mostly) want it to. Which if true only proves my argument that Windows is very far away from being judged on its merits. Similar to the memory deletion of the time it takes to search for that special key stroke command. I don't know what this is referring to.
I really have no opinion on Windows v. Linux. I'm sorry - that gene has just never been stimulated. That being said, I find this: "re #53 oh c'mon twenex, you don't support Gates' philanthropic work because he's a flaming liberal. He and his buddy, the world's second richest man warren buffett, are both supporting Barack Obama in fact" to be one of the FUNNIEST things EVER written.
resp:86 someone posted a link awhile back to a study on which was really faster- using only a keyboard and special combination keystrokes, or switching to using a mouse. People thought kayboard only would have to be faster, but the adherents 'forgot' about the time it took to remember the specific combination keystrokes they needed to achieve what they wanted. The time spent moving touse a mouse ended up being about the same or faster than keyboard only. That's what I mean. And I do agree, I don't think that Windows is really being judged solely on it's merits. People may need a license to drive a car- but that doesn't mean they know how the car really works. That's why they have mechanics. ;)
resp:86 someone posted a link awhile back to a study on which was really faster- using only a keyboard and special combination keystrokes, or switching to using a mouse. People thought kayboard only would have to be faster, but the adherents 'forgot' about the time it took to remember the specific combination keystrokes they needed to achieve what they wanted. The time spent moving touse a mouse ended up being about the same or faster than keyboard only. That's what I mean. ?It takes far less time to learn the limited amount of commands you had to use to learn Linux years ago (not now) than to deal with a repeatedly crashing Windows machine. If you solve a problem by rebooting or reinstalling, you can bet your bottom dollar it is going to happen again. People may need a license to drive a car- but that doesn't mean they know how the car really works. That's why they have mechanics. ;) Notwithstanding the fact that typing commands into a computer is most certainly not necessary with Linux, it's not "knowing how it works" either. Yes, I can get around the commandline in Linux, but ask me how all the bits fit together and I'd be stumped.
Re #73: " I would argue that makes it a POS from everyone's point of view,.." Not necessarily. See shit is useful as manure..Windows may contain shitty code and may have bugs but that does not necessarily imply that it is less useful than Linux. "But note that history is repeating itself - Unix grew in use on DEC's /despite the fact/ that DEC hated it, wouldn't supply it, and wouldn't support it." Oh yeah, i feel that Linux/Unix will get better with age unlike Windows which has saturated. Well unless they come up with new stuff and not just eye-candy. "Word doesn't format Word documents reliably either. " The question is to what degree - my personal experience with OpenOffice is that it horribly slow and mangles complicated word doc's. Whereas with MS-Word it's not too bad..in fact i've never noticed it till date. " since although neither Grex nor Gardenweb is forced on people, Windows most certainly is." Your idea of something being forced on you is the fact that it comes pre- packaged with hardware. However i would like to point out that you could just as easily toss it out and put Linux. Also note that you don't HAVE to buy from said dealer. No one is blackmailing, threatening you to buy the darn thing. It's like advertisement - it's in your face between shows. What you are actually saying is that "Linux does not come pre-packaged" or "i'm not getting a blank machine". Well you can only blame Linux for that - if they could market better or if there was greater user demand.. see what i mean Re #84: "attitude that if you go into a store, and buy pc hardware, most times you /don't get/ to choose the OS software."" Because it isn't a right. It might be bad business practise but that's something the market should decide and right now the winds of fortune blow in favour of MS.
When you install Vista, you agree to some licensing terms that are
pretty far reaching, and go even farther than Microsoft has gone before
in limiting what you can do with your computer and its software.
Michael Geist's blog about legal matters has a posting on this.
(http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?
option=com_content&task=view&id=1641&Itemid=135 or if you prefer,
http://tinyurl.com/29ohhb). Some tidbits that caught my eye:
Vista's legal fine print includes extensive provisions granting
Microsoft the right to regularly check the legitimacy of the
software and holds the prospect of deleting certain programs
without the user's knowledge.
...
Once operational, the agreement warns that Windows Defender will,
by default, automatically remove software rated "high" or
"severe,"even though that may result in other software ceasing to
work or mistakenly result in the removal of software that is not
unwanted.
...
For those users frustrated by the software's limitations, Microsoft
cautions that "you may not work around any technical limitations in
the software."
...
...numerous limitations in the new software [were] seemingly
installed at the direct request of Hollywood interests. . . .
[There are] restrictions associated with the ability to playback
high-definition content from the next-generation DVDs such as Blu-
Ray and HD-DVD (referred to as "premium content"). . . .
Vista intentionally degrades the picture quality of premium content
when played on most computer monitors. . . . the technological
controls would require considerable consumption of computing power
with the system conducting 30 checks each second to ensure that
there are no attacks on the security of the premium content.
No thanks. I'll pass.
Well it looks like Vivek and I will have to just agree to disagree on the subject of whether you have the right to do what you like with stuff you purchase.
Res #91 #92: Wow! Note however that i use Win2K and have no intentions of ever upgrading so long as there is support for 2K by the various software companies. As to: "right to do what you like with stuff you" i don't know depends on what the courts say. Logically you have no such right.. Look it's a agreement with the devil. Devil's told you what's in the contract. It's upto you to decide. However there are plenty of instances where the benefit of the common good dominates..so..might is right. BTW are there any stats comparing KDE/Gnome with Win2K - in terms of memory and CPU? Also, things like start up time between SUSE and 2K. Not to mention StarOffice and MS-Office.. I found this but it looks flaky: http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/Ou/?p=14 0
might is right. Responses like that are why half the planet is still stuck in the sociological stone age.
Linux applications typically start up slower than their Windows counterparts (it's a function of the split between "fork" and "exec") but they typically stay up longer. There was some discussion a while back about investigating how to make start up times quicker, but it doesn't seem to have come to anything. Regardless, without being able to compare with W2K, when Windows starts up it takes a LONG time before the computer is usable after the desktop comes up. In Linux the desktop takes longer to come up, but is actually usable when it does and is therefore probably faster than Windows. The only case when this might not be true is when you have a LOT of programs set to start up on login, but as far as I can tell, even in that pathological case it's still possible to interact with the desktop (starting up other applications, etc.)
Re #94: "might is right" that was wrt to society imposing it's will on individuals for the greater good.
Ah. Communism.
re #97 no, he said "the greater good" You do believe there is or could be a "greater good" than your own individual needs don't you? Or are you an Ayn Rand Objectivist?
Yes I do believe there can be "a great good than my own individual needs". However, I trust no man or group of men (or women) smaller than the human race to know what that is. Situations in which "a Food Good Men" have controlled society for its "benefit" have inevitably lead to the deaths of A Lot of Good Men (and Women).
So unless there is unanimous consent among the entire human race, you won't accept laws impacting you that are passed for the "greater good"?
greater good reminded me of this definition of democracy: "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner"
thats stupid
If I may be so bold as to post something relevant to the topic of this item (Microsoft Vista)... ComputerWorld has an interesting article by Scot Finnie on some of the things baked into Vista that he considers to be problems (DRM stuff and a number of other things). You can read it here: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do? command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9009961 (also at http://tinyurl.com/2xcbmy)
bill gates really threw down the gauntlet when he declared Vista the safest o/s system in history. Basically saying its hole-proof. I mean I know he's got the best software engineers working on it, and he's probably had them looking for holes in the beta version for some time and maybe they finally got to the point where they couldn't find any. But how can you possible write that much code and not leave some sort of maze that leads right through it?
You can't. For an interesting exploit, see: http://www.techtree.com/India/News/Vista_Speech_Recognition_has_Flaw/ 551-78904-580.html (or http://tinyurl.com/2kbbkg).
Re: #100. No, I simply put my faith more in evolution than revolution. Re: #103. How dare you?! Re: #104. My, you do enjoy making us laugh. Most secure OS ever? That's what he said that last time. Best engineers? They must spend most of their time playing pocket billiards. They certainly can't be putting much effort into creating decent code.
re #104 I've sat in lectures from both James Whittaker and and Mike Howard. Both of these gents have been on the development/security of Vista. Mike's pitch was that they employed a file fuzzing for malformed data, threat modes and blockbox testing, memory defenses and stricter services, block header integrity checks, heap terminations on corruption, and rooted over at least 1.2 million annotations. Even through all of that, Mike knows and admits that Vista will have bugs which will show up after shipping. He also admits though that they will patch and fix whatever pops-up much more efficiently than is done with any other flavor of OS you see on the market. James Whittaker on the other hand..he's the guy who breaks the stuff before it ships. He's a hell of a lot of fun and I'm envious of his job at Microsoft. He discussed the origin of bad things, noticing the environments of applications as well as their inputs and logic within. At the end of the lecture, we explored an IE 7 bug in the internet options security tab where you could set all sorts of restrictions against porn sites to protect your kids at home only to have them create their own msrating.dll file in the iexplorer.exe directory which is blank but bypasses your original settings. >;)
Re #106: Ahem! I think it was James Gosling that said that MS coders were pretty good in some article ages back.
Re #106, #108: It all depends on what the coders are putting their effort into. Q.v.: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.html "A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection"
Re resp:32: It's not just that alternatives weren't user-friendly. Remember OS/2? It was actually pretty user-friendly, and for a while had a loyal following at some businesses. The problem is the application support just wasn't there. More new software got written for Windows, so people bought Windows to run it. OS/2 made a last-ditch attempt at salvation with a version that could run some Windows 3.1 applications, but it never caught on and the operating system disappeared. Then there was BeOS. Very pretty, very user friendly. But the hardware and software support wasn't there. Software companies didn't write apps for it, hardware companies didn't write drivers for it, and it disappeared. The fact is, hardware and software companies *like* having an OS monopoly. It means fewer support issues for them. It also means cheaper development, because they don't have to port their code to other operating systems. They don't want to go back to the bad old days where a major app might have to support half a dozen platforms. For that reason the Windows monopoly is fairly self-sustaining even absent Microsoft's dirty tricks. Re resp:36: Linux has come a long way. I've done a few SuSE installs recently and they've worked out of the box, just like Windows XP (usually) does. Actually, I've had fewer driver issues with SuSE than I have with XP. This represents a major effort on the part of the kernel developers to support new hardware as it appears, often without any help from the hardware manufacturers. BUT, ease-of-installation is nearly irrelevent to Windows. Almost no one actually ever installs it themselves. They buy a computer with it pre-installed. Re resp:93: Software support for Windows 2000 is going to dry up pretty quickly now that it's been end-of-lifed. I'm already seeing new hardware that doesn't have drivers for it, and Microsoft isn't going to be providing security patches anymore. Re resp:95: That's not what I've found. My experience is that Windows 2000 takes far longer to boot than Linux, but apps come up quicker once the boot process is done. This is probably because a lot of Windows apps pre-load during boot to get faster launch times. IE and MS Office are in that category. Now, it's true the Windows *desktop* appears quicker. But at first the Windows desktop is unresponsive. You're wasting your time trying to click on anything until that little hourglass goes away. By the time all the apps pre-load, the virus checker loads and updates, etc., it's taken almost five minutes for my Win2K box to stop thrashing its disk and be responsive enough to be useable. As an IT worker, what bugs me most about Windows is its black-box nature. This gets worse with every release. It breaks in subtle ways that are often impossible to fix without reinstalling the whole OS, because the internals are walled off and largely unknown to everyone outside of Microsoft. (In fact, it's so big and complex there probably isn't any one person at Microsoft who understands it, either.) In many cases you couldn't fix it if you did understand them, because files that are open are untouchable, and most of the critical files are open whenever the OS is loaded. Worst of all, it's non-deterministic -- you can do the same procedure twice and get two different results. It's an intensely frustrating operating system to work with. I'm also often faced with a choice between security and functionality, with Windows XP. Many Windows apps simply refuse to run without administrative privilages. But if I give someone admin privilages and walk away, I'll be coming back two months later and spending hours removing the spyware from their computer.
I agree that hardware and software monopolies are attractive, but not in the way they are implemented. It would be perfectly possible, for example, for Linux to be a monopoly - and yet (unless MS manages to pwn it due to their patent threats and deal with Novell) the effect would not be the same since there are many companies involved in its production. Just like we have now with the Intel (actually AMD) architecture, but lots of PC companies.
My linux boots in 15 sec on a small drive.
you pay micro$chmidt lotss-0-bukxx to beta=test their nwe os. hmmmmmmmmmmm i think i;ll wait ... as usual but the, i donlt have clients who demand to be on teh bleeding edge either! in fact, one client of minme (fact!) wnast me to upgrade him to dos 6.22 (from 6.0) and to windoeze 3.11 (from 3.0). his 386sx b0x works perfectly fro *him* ! and that makes us both happy. pthbbbb!
What convinced him it was time to upgrade his space heater?
Keesan, 15 seconds is mighty fast. What distribution and version, and on what platform? What you say it boots, do you mean that it finishes the initrd or that at 15 seconds, you get your dtlogin/xdm ?
I use loadlin to boot from a DOS directory with the kernel in it. I don't get any dtlogin/xdm. I get vt1 (console, text). 15 sec is on a small hard drive. If it has to check a larger one it can take longer. Basiclinux 3.40, Slackware based. On a 486 or later. I could also boot with lilo directly from power-on which might take a few seconds longer, and depends on the computer . Some take that long to check their memory. Basiclinux does not start any daemons. No random number generators. No X, no GUIs - add those later after booting if you want them.
Wow, that's spartan. I guess I am spoiled; I like to have at least X and Motif or something like CDE or GNOME or something on my workstation, and on servers obviously daemons will need to be run. Now that I think about it, I don't think I even have any drives small enough to be checked in 15 seconds.
This linux can be run off two floppy disks, or you can put it into an ext2 partition. I got several browsers and a few other things into 40MB, including Opera and I think Abiword. I have been setting up friends for internet. No crashes, quick boot, Opera for email, or webmail. No WIndows viruses. I checked and no linux viruses either in 4 years, probably because I don't run any servers. The 2-floppy version has X with swm, and xli, and a text browser with xli for viewing images non-inline. Dialer, telnet, wget, ftpput, etc. I set up friends to go right into X with a menu (icewm). 120MB was fine for linux and also 60 DOS games with space to spare. We usually use 340 or 500MB drives because they are faster. 16MB is best but 3MB is minimal.
That certainly serves a different niche than what we need. We typically look for something that works in a networked environment, is supported (or at least supportable) and that works with modern hardware. While they are not the speediest in the world, I've been fairly thrilled by both SLED and RHEL; both are well behaved, well supported, reliable and featureful. Of course, on my workstation at the Dallas DC, I run OpenBSD 3.9 with mwm as my working GUI environment.
My linux works in a networked environment. You add pieces as you need them. I never heard of SLED or RHEL.
SLED is SuSE Linux Enterprise Desktop RHEL is Red Hat Enterprise Linux What is the time commitment to tweaking it to useability? Are you able to be notified of updates and automagically apply them? up2date/yum/zmd/zen-updater are really nice and save me loads of time and aggrivation.
There are no 'updates'. The author and the users compile things and offer them to others for use. I compiled lynx and ghostcript and netpbm, all with help, and packaged them. Anyone who feels like it adds whatever they like and if it does not work, asks for help. xpdf did not work with libc5 X so I figured out how to get pdftoppm to work instead, used with zgv. Someone put together for me a 1-floppy version to use with my USB camera. I put together an 8MB loop version to put ON my USB camera (on the memory card). Someone else used the 1-floppy version to learn on then I compiled a special kernel for them to run linux in 8MB ramdisk for use in Prague. They put together mutt and sound packages for us. Another list member and I are going to compile busybox against uclibc. He just compiled uclibc and made me an account on his computer. This is not a turnkey sort of linux.
That sounds like a lot of fun for a hobbyist who has more time than anything else. At some point, when I have the time, I may check it out, but I will say that it is ill suited for the use that I make of Linux (or any other OS+Software stack). When I have machines that I or others count on, I cannot rely on some guy in usenet; I have to have solutions that are backed by a company with a financial incentive to do things right, whether that is to keep software patched and automatically available, or to provide well-integrated and thoroughly tested useful software. If a security patch is not available because the user community does not think the software is hip, my users are put at risk. Patch management becomes extra important when you have a large number of internet-facing computers; the one system that you forget to manually patch can be the toe-hold for a malicious intruder or for rot and entropy to set in.
The only reason I've come across for running SLED or RHES is to get support from Oracle (and probably other software vendors). Otherwise, CentOS is great. :)
Support for the OS and bundled apps is important, too. That said, for home use, I do go for CentOS/OpenSuse/Windows Server Basic
Our little linux is for single users, not companies. The only support is our ibiblio mailing list. We have currently active members in New Zealand (author), Australia (two), all over the United States, Prague, Lithuania, and have had Poland, England, France, Spain, Hong Kong, Nigeria, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, Argentina, and who knows where else. Lots of lurkers. Several of us learned linux via the list.
There are more Linuxes available for single users or households and not for companies than just basiclinux. Ubuntu, for example, though I've never been Uber-impressed w/ it.
Ubuntu is certainly used in some companies!
Ubuntu does not work (out of the box) on much of our hardware. It insisted on 128MB RAM and 2GB (to install to) and could not find the ISA modem or sound card. Dumped you right into X (I had trouble figuring out how to get back out). Did not have kermit or opera or zgv. We got it to dial once by manually configuring and removed it.
What you do is pathological.
Cross, please stop picking on me. If what I write annoys you, put me in your twit filter instead.
Some of us wouldn't get anything done if we had to put as much time into it as Sindi does.
Regarding #131; I'm not picking on you. I'm just saying that what you do is pathologically different from what the vast majority of Ubuntu users do. I don't understand why you'd pitch in about what business users do anyway, since you're so far removed from that case that it's silly. Btw- in Computer Science, the word `pathological' does not have the same meaning it has in criminal justice. You should also learn to use paragraphs.
So what does pathological mean in computer science?
Essentially, pushed to an extreme. So, for instance, some times we say that algorithms exhibit `pathological behavior' if we hit some sort of edge case that greatly increases the algorithm's running time or something of that nature.
Counter to understanding maybe? Patho = abnormal and logos = knowledge I think.
It's a good thing cross didn't use another, related term to describe Sindi's behavior. But the insult potential of describing someone else as "the degenerate case" would be pretty unmistakable, even if it wasn't meant in a critical sense.
Hmm, I tend not to think of it like that. For instance, when someone says, ``the pathological case of quicksort'' one is typically referring to an input that gives an O(n^2) running time (ie, one that is quadratic in the size of the input). Rather, that's the worst case running time for a pathological input.
I will say that it seems to me that keesan exerts more effort than it would be worth to the majority of Linux/BSD users to get a working system, and that the hardware on which keesan does this costs significantly more in having to fiddle with it than it would to replace with something more recent and more supportable (one for which replacement parts can be obtained easily and which the OEM has not disavowed). This is not to say that everyone should dump their older machines, but there is a threshold age beyond which a machine demands more effort than it is worth. I lump 32bit Sparcstations, pre-pentium 2 PCs and System7 and earlier Macs into this category.
keesan spends almost no money on entertainment. And provides or sets up 10-20 free computer systems a year to friends, neighbors, etc., who otherwise would not have any computers, and learns a lot, and gets a system that is much more pleasant to work with than anything that could be purchased.
"More pleasant" being a subjective term that, as you define it, would not apply to the vast majority of computer users.
Well, the setting-it-up part is no doubt a big PITA, but the end result is likely pleasing, particularly if the ultimate user is concerned about the simple things (such as email and word-processing).
I enjoy learning to set it up and I hate GUIS. I just figured out how to set up 38MB of linux with three browsers, and kermit and a few other useful things which includes X and a window manager and email and text editor..... for someone who only wants to use it for browsing and email. Her ex husband liked what I set up for him. She also wants Office Suite which is no fun at all to set up and wants 121MB typical (Office 97) plus the 150MB of minimal Win98.
You're free to hate whatever you want. My concern is that, when you set someone up with some recycled computer, that you inject your own biases and potentially prevent them from doing useful stuff in a way that's compatible with the mainstream. Certainly, installing Windows 98 on someone's computer isn't a good idea; it's ridiuled with security problems. You'd be better off figuring out how to install Ubuntu or something lik ethat.
Why is Ubuntu better than Slackware? Win98 is only to run WORD on (not all of Office Suite, I was told. She just can't tell them apart). Linux for internet. With Opera. No Shockwave Flash or noises. Good for email. I am setting it up to go into X directly, with a menu. Ubuntu does not work well on old hardware. It could not even find our modem or sound card, and it wastes most of the memory on unneeded daemons and boots slowly and runs slowly.
Ubuntu is easy for non-experts to use, in addition to experts.
What I set up is extremely easy to use. Ctrl-ESC or mouse for a menu, or type m for a menu, then type the first letter of the program or use a mouse if you prefer or type the whole program out. Looks something like Windows but much faster and does not crash. Customized.
Let me rephrase what Cross was saying: Ubuntu is easy for non-experts *OUT OF THE BOX*. It does not require expertise to set up, it does not require expertise to maintain, it provides a clear upgrade path and a straightforward source of application software. I would say that all of the above is doubly true for SLED/OpenSuse (though Ubuntu seems to be a little bit faster). Ditto RHEL/CentOS. Even bog-standard Slackware is appropriate, as it is a common, well-known and supported environment. The skills learned on these mainstream systems are more portable and more useful outside the network of you and your friends. People learn to use tools that implement and expose standard interfaces, and learn to do things in ways that are valuable elsewhere. Yes there is value in learning how to do things with minimal tools, but it puts into place a barrier to use that reinforces the notion that Linux/UNIX is unnecessarily hard.
Jeff was just about to ask Sindi why she favours referring to herself in the third person when you switched to using first. Why does Sindi hate GUIs? Jeff agrees with Cross; for the kinds of things one can do with Win98 these days, a GUI linux distro would be better for most people than Win98. There are several distros Jeff or Sindi could use which are low-powered and have GUIs. Jeff agrees that Sindi has a right not to use GUI's if she chooses not to, but surely Sindi realises that she is not at all in the majority in this? Cross was right to use the word "pathological" in the sense he used it, but Jeff agrees with whomever pointed out that Cross should have explained his use of the word.
Dan wonders why people insist on calling him Cross and not just, you know, Dan. Or even dan.
Jeff calls Dan {C,c}ross because that's his login name.
And surname.
Dan understands that. But Dan would sort of prefer Dan.
keesan to cross and twenex: Someone specifically wanted Win98 to play Win9X educational games on with her daycare kids. Someone else specifically wants to learn MS WORD so she can get a job in an MS OFFICE. Other people (who I have never met) wanted something their friends in Ypsi could help them with. Linux is going onto computers for friends, and they seem able to manage without help once I set it up with Opera and give them a quick lesson. No Windows worms or viruses, and it runs much much faster. It also takes only a few minutes to copy over from a USB memory stick and uncompress (once I partition and format the drive), and put on their phone number, login and password. I don't need to download 8MB of video driver because I have some older video cards that work with a standard driver and configuration. Since ALL they want to do is browse the internet, and don't need anything fancy such as Shockwave Flash or even sound, this is a small tool that does the job much faster than a big one. keesan does not like GUIs because: they take longer to set up and load (though linux X and icewm are only a couple of seconds), they waste memory, they are designed around a mouse and it is quicker for me to use the keyboard, they waste hard drive space (a bigger hard drive boots slower because linux checks it out first). But sets them up for friends so they can use Opera. Opera is now usable as 'user' - su user first. I dial as root so that user won't have access to the file containing login and password. Three of our friends for whom I set up both Win98 and linux with opera have not used the Win98 version, they prefer linux. Faster, more stable. I had it booting into X (vt1 - the other vts were still console) until I added the password package and now I lost that. SOmeone suggested putting startx in profile but then I would not have three consoles in addition to X. Any other ideas? I had edited inittab to only make vt1 go to X. memory leak, forcing core dump, segmentation fault (I exited lynx on vt3)....
The problem with Windows 98 and web browsing is that Windows 98 is horribly insecure. A Windows 98 machine dialing into the net is likely to get compromised almost immediately, even one coming over a slow dialup line! Hence the danger. I would check and see if Windows programs run under WINE or something similar before going with Windows 98. It's not just about simplicity and space, it's also about security.
Dan, sorry about referring to you by your login name. I'll try to remember to refer to you by your given name instead. No insult intended.
P.S: Dan or dan ?
That's all right; I prefer Dan, but will respond to either. I'm just curious why people choose one over the other, and of course, I realize that no insult was intended.
If you read closely, you will see that I put Win98 on for wordprocessing and linux/opera (run as user from now on, not root) for internet. I ran a chkrootkit program which did not detect any linux viruses after 4 years of my running as root. I have no daemons running (no open ports) except Xvesa. I am offering Abiword for wordprocessing but people want Windows. Some people also insist on Windows for browsing and that is what I gave them. I told them to get a virus checking program and not do anything high security. They do email. They do not have the money to purchase a new computer with new Windows.
...and what we're saying is that those people would be better off with Linux, even if they want to run Windows software, it would be better to run it under emulation than on native Windows. Where do you get all these Windows licenses, anyway?
We get Win98 on lots of used hard drives and remove junk from it. I am not going to spend time learning to run Windows emulated under linux just for people who don't want to use linux. I tried dosemu and it works badly with the programs I wanted it for. Does okay with a CAD program in xdosemu. Would you like to put some minimal linux with Windows emulation on 500MB drives for me to give away?
How much space would linux with WINE require? wineHQ has a Slackware 10.2 binary that should run on a 386 that is 10MB tgz - maybe it would fit but I don't have Slackware 10.2 or want it. Upgrading the glibc to use this binary would require also changing the kernel and modules. Not impossible and this certainly takes less space than 150MB of Windows 98 itself. I have 150MB free space in the linux partition for the friend who wants WORD and linux/opera. And only 50MB free in the Windows partition. Thanks for the idea.
I can't find a binary for anything older than Slackware 10.2. Source is 11MB bz2. A list of supported applications includes WORD97 and 2000.
Regarding #161; Err, that's kind of illegal.
Can you give me a bit more information about the boxes besides the max drive size? Are the PCI-based? What brand of NIC do they use? I may be able to throw together a nice image that you can toast onto a bunch of CF cards or small drives, and be done. I will probably base it off of a standard version of Slack 11 or something else "normal" and well-known/well-supported.
Now Jeff understands that Sindi needs to install Windows for some users, but agrees at least provisionally with Dan that the way Sindi is "procuring" Win98 at least MAY be illegal. Jeff hopes Dan notices that Jeff has now started calling Dan "Dan," and is pleased. I am going to stop the irritating parodic third-person nonsense now.
Dan notices and Dan appreciates. And now I will also knock off all the 3rd Party nonsense.
Sindi might not think she is doing any harm pirating Windows for people but the fact is Microsoft regularly goes after people who do so. How they do it is offer free copies of properly licensed Windows in exchange for the names and addresses of the people who install the pirated software.
re 167 Brooke would like it better if Dan started referring to himself as "The Dan".
Sort of like, ``The Donald''? ``Rosie's a slob!''
Exactly!! Please Jesus let your hair be better.....
Oh yes; don't worry, my hair is better than The Donald's comb-over.
Re 165 (?) from maus Are you offering to put together some small linux that I can transfer via some external drive (I have a USB external drive and a 1GB USB flash drive) that will run Opera and also WORD under WINE? That fits in 500MB? This particular computer has 2 PCI slots and I put a video card into one of them (rather than dealing with an odd driver that I might have to compile). No network card. Eventually an external modem. I was told not to put any more work into it right now. It was supposed to be for the to-be-ex-wife of a friend and we will see if she even wants to use the linux part of it for the internet. He says she is rarely satisfied with anything he gives her. He is delighted with the linux/opera I put on his computer. By great good fortune he already has a Lucent modem in there which worked with ltmodem.o driver. My two lucent modems did not. If she does not like linux, I will let him put Win98 and WORD on the drive after removing linux and enlarging the Win98 partition. I installed Slackware 10.1 or 10.2 on one computer and it immediately filled up at least 1GB in a minimal installation, and wasted 64MB of RAM on running unneeded daemons. It had several pages of config file for X. I am using a generic Xvesa driver with no config file.
(Her not being satisfied with things he gives her might have more to do with the fact that she is a soon-to-be-ex-wife than that she is not satisfied with those things. And perhaps, vice versa.)
Vice versa. Today someone brought us 9 64MB and 4 128MB SIMMs so we could actually put together computers with 128MB RAM and Ubuntu (if we had lots of large hard disks - it demands 2GB) but Ubuntu is slower. He also brought four SIMMS (two labelled 64MB) that have two little slots very close to each other just off of center, with no chips on two (just greenboard) and some metal cased thing on the other two. ??? And a no-name motherboard with onboard i810 video sound and only three slots to replace them with. No ISA and we are out of extra external modems. Anyone have 28.8K or 33.6K they don't want?
I will look into creating an image for this. In my past experience, the basic load of Slackware was pretty small and light. If it has grown over the years, you would be better off using a decently sized drive to accomodate a reasonable distribution of Linux.
I am putting linux on the hardware that we have and do not want a distribution of linux, just enough files to dial and run Opera. The standard Slackware puts on all sorts of unwanted things. Wait on this project to see if the person getting the latest computer really wants linux. Why an image file rather than a .tgz? What kernel does the Slackware 11 glibc require? The glibc from Slackware 9.1 insisted on a kernel 2.4, which I have compiled. A lot of the reason why the later kernels are larger is they support newer hardware, and I am using Slackware 4 or earlier age hardware.
The Linux pundits will tell you until they are blue in the face that the kernel is actually very small and that all the support for newer hardware is done via kernel modules; so supporting older systems in a small amount of space is trivial: just delete the modules you don't need. The reason you may want to do this is because giving someone Windows 98 and Office 98 is illegal.
Dan: I refer to people by loginid because it is unique. There are other people here called "Dan" but no others called "cross".
That's fine, I guess.
The kernel that comes with my linux is about 400K. The standard Slackware 2.2.16 kernel is about 1GB. How big is 2.6? The person getting the latest computer has their own OEM copies of 98 and OFFICE. The later libraries are a lot bigger.
re #181: surely you mean 1MB, and not 1GB. on my Ubuntu laptop, my untrimmed kernel is about 1.2MB. mcnally@skookum:~$ ls -l /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.12-10-386 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 1207281 2007-02-06 20:04 /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.12-10-386
1MB, of course. Is 2.6 less buggy than 2.4? My custom kernel, with modular support for sound, framebuffer, usb, and scsi, is 700K (2.4.31). The generic kernel that came with my linux is 430K.
> Is 2.6 less buggy than 2.4? I have no idea how to answer that. Which version of 2.4? Which version of 2.6? Which bugs?
2.4.31, latest 2.6. 2.4.31 has a few problems. Can't load usb_serial as a module (has to be built-in). Have to load gameport.o for some sound cards to work even though it is not listed in modules.dep. Why are you using 2.6?
2.6 is what most distributions ship with. Besides working better with desktop-type hardware, it allows device-name persistence for hot-pluggable devices, hot-plug capabilities for PCI boards (PCI, PCI-X and Compact PCI) which allows live repairs and newer ones offer kdump/kexec functionality. Aside from that, it is actively developed and *supported* by Linux distributors. There are a few problems, to be sure; namely, the OOM-killer behaves badly and can cut off access to the box entirely (bigger problem on overloaded servers) and the memory oversubscription is a little flaky, leading to the OOM-Killer being called. Both of these are tunable parameters, though, and oversubscription can be turned off and OOM-killer can be made more sane or shut off entirely. Additionally, the t3 driver (Tigon gigabit ethernet driver) is fucking nuts and can cause stability problems in kernel-space (I have seen one box freak out multiple times in a day when under heavy network load using a NIC that is run by the t3 driver -- customer was very *NOT HAPPY* and we wound up disabling the t3 NIC and adding an Intel PRO/1000 NIC board and all was happy).
Wow, I probably should have broken that into a couple of paragraphs.
I don't even know what OOM is and have no need for hotplugging. Had to use kernel 2.4 for USB-storage (but DOS also supports that except for my SM card reader). I probably would not take advantage of any features of 2.6 on my 1998-2001 hardware. Am giving people 2.2.26 and also optionally 2.4.31 on computers with USB ports (two so far). 2.4 correctly identifies the amount of memory even in computers with i810 video, where I have to subtract 1MB from onboard memory with mem= to make 2.2 kernels boot. If I knew a whole lot more I could try to write my own kernel without things I don't use. Some of our computers have 12MB RAM so a smaller kernel is better. I still can't get ssh working as 'user'.
Hot-plugging is useful for external devices, such as USB, Serial and Firewire devices. OOM means out-of-memory. The Linux kernel oversubscribes memory, and if it runs out of total virtual memory (RAM + swap), it runs a daemon in kernel space that forcibly kills processes and forcibly free()s their memory so that the kernel will not panic. In some cases, it can behave pathologically, but in many cases can keep the system up through a transient memory shortages. On memory-constrained systems, a well-behaved way of coping with OOM conditions is critical, and if the kernel requests more memory and can't get it, it can panic or worse.
I don't run out of memory. We are giving everyone at least 64MB which is plenty for running one browser. But I have had the problem on computers with 8MB or less RAM and no swap space - it just crashes. USB storage works fine if you just load the drivers manually. Same for serial devices. Thanks for the explanations. I have never managed to use even 128MB RAM at one time, as a single user.
Keesan, I regularly see boxes with 2 GBytes of RAM and 4 GBytes of swap start shooting processes to free memory (and I usually get a ticket when the OOM-killer shoots sshd or httpd). Real systems with real loads and thousands of users accessing simultaneously a web application that talks to a database require more RAM. Manually loading drivers is an unacceptable inconvenience for many users, and imposes a barrier to use. For most people, the operating environment is simply a vehicle to use the commands that they need; most people do not get off on faffing around with their operating environment to achieve things that have been solved elegantly and reasonably. P.S: My partner, who is sick and on medications responds "wake up and come into the 1990s".
The computers we put together are for single users and don't run out of memory. The one person who requested USB was really interested in learning linux and had no objection to typing usb-on and mount /dev/sda1 /mnt. And he was delighted with the 15 second boot. So while 2.6 may be much better for your situation, 2.2 (2.4 if you need USB storage) works fine for mine. Most of our computers and libc5 are from the late 90s already. A 1999 linux runs faster on a 1998 computer than the latest and greatest. To use the internet on the latest computer I set up, boot the computer, type lin to boot from DOS to linux (or win for Windows instead), root and Enter to login as root, dial to dial as root, login user and Enter to login as user and automatically load X, then you can select programs from the START menu with a mouse (or type their names in an rxvt). Type reboot to reboot before shutting off the computer. I put little menus with instructions along the way (in autoexec.bat and issue). How is this not elegant?
this just gave me the idea of removing the gear stick from my car, after all in town I hardly get to use anything other than the second gear, which with a little getting used to you can also start moving with. that way the car will be lighter and I'll have more space to move! less consumption and more comfort! ;P
While you're at it, remove all of the seats and only install the ones you need, adding and removing them as needed. And a car from 1982 drives the same as one from 2004, so there is no point to buying anything newer than 15 years old. Oh, and fuel injection annoys me, so anything I get has to be carburated. If you ever need an oil change, Jim might be able to help. He'll jack up the car, remove the drain plug, refill it with oil, and let you drive off forgetting to reinstall the drain plug. When your car dies, you can just pick up another junker from us for $50.
Good idea. Better yet, use a bike in town. Takes up much less space, makes almost no noise or pollution, and is better for everyone's health.
And if you get hungry, eat some dried leaves and twigs and drink water from the curb.
Or some chocolate you find in a garbage can.
People cannot digest cellulose.
nope, we sure cant. It is part of what is in poop. I learned in my biology class what else is in poop and I think I will be grossed out for the rest of my life.
It tends to be yellow or brown in color, too.
The color is I think from broken down heme (from blood).
this conversation started on nonsense and is turning to shit
Re resp:141: Well, it's a bit like saying that driving a modern car is more pleasant than driving a Model T. It's obviously true, to most people, but there are still people who really enjoy restoring and driving an antique. Re resp:179: For what it's worth, I find 'gull' perfectly acceptable. 'David' is awfully generic. ;) Re resp:195: It also greatly increases your chances of getting killed by being run over by a car, thus reducing the overpopulation problem. ;)
You have several choices: