Which Linux for a beginning desktop? - Linux

This is a discussion on Which Linux for a beginning desktop? - Linux ; Trent Buck writes: > You appear to be confused. An 'enterprise' system is something that > goes on a server and serves hundreds or thousands of users -- i.e. it is > something for Big Business. An office suite is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 129

Thread: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

  1. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Trent Buck writes:

    > You appear to be confused. An 'enterprise' system is something that
    > goes on a server and serves hundreds or thousands of users -- i.e. it is
    > something for Big Business.


    An office suite is something that goes on a desktop used in an office.

    > Neither Microsoft Office nor OpenOffice are 'enterprise' systems; they
    > are application suites run by desktop and application users alike.


    The functions they provide are typically used mostly in offices. There
    aren't too many people preparing PowerPoint presentations for their
    parents and kids.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

  2. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    * Mxsmanic wrote in comp.os.linux:
    > Trent Buck writes:


    >> You appear to be confused. An 'enterprise' system is something that
    >> goes on a server and serves hundreds or thousands of users -- i.e. it is
    >> something for Big Business.


    > An office suite is something that goes on a desktop used in an office.


    Office Suite was a coin termed by MS, it has nothing to do with using it
    in an office.

    >> Neither Microsoft Office nor OpenOffice are 'enterprise' systems; they
    >> are application suites run by desktop and application users alike.


    > The functions they provide are typically used mostly in offices. There
    > aren't too many people preparing PowerPoint presentations for their
    > parents and kids.


    You must not have Kids.
    They are producing Garage Sale signs or Home Owners association
    stuff, or Science Project stuff or.....

    --
    David
    furbling, v.:
    Having to wander through a maze of ropes at an airport or bank
    even when you are the only person in line.
    -- Rich Hall, "Sniglets"

  3. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    SINNER writes:

    > Office Suite was a coin termed by MS, it has nothing to do with using it
    > in an office.


    Office suite is a generic term for a group of common office-automation
    tools, such as word processing, spreadsheets, etc.

    > You must not have Kids.
    > They are producing Garage Sale signs or Home Owners association
    > stuff, or Science Project stuff or.....


    PowerPoint isn't really suited to these tasks, except possibly for a
    school presentation.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

  4. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    * Mxsmanic wrote in comp.os.linux:
    > SINNER writes:


    >> Office Suite was a coin termed by MS, it has nothing to do with using it
    >> in an office.


    > Office suite is a generic term for a group of common office-automation
    > tools, such as word processing, spreadsheets, etc.


    Before MS termed the Suite OFFICE it was non existent. Plenty of people
    use the tools included in the exisitng suites for personal use so I
    still dont see your point.

    >> You must not have Kids.
    >> They are producing Garage Sale signs or Home Owners association
    >> stuff, or Science Project stuff or.....


    > PowerPoint isn't really suited to these tasks, except possibly for a
    > school presentation.


    IMNSHO PP is much better suited than Word for making Posters etc, Word's
    formatting leaves MUCH to be desired. Still not really the point, as
    above people use these applications at home for NON office use. Are
    there better applications for the job? Sure. People still use Outlook
    Express to post to usenet and it isnt suited to that task either.

    --
    David
    Here comes the orator, with his flood of words and his drop of reason.

  5. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Apparently nobody supports my two SCSI disks, then. Except Windows.


    Wrong. One of the boxes here has six SCSI disks, and is happily running
    Mandrake 10.0 - straight out of the box, installed in about 25 minutes,
    running the software I want to run for my office, driving my (ostensibly
    Windoze-only) printer straight out of the box. No configuration, no
    tweaking, just setting up a couple of users, and away it went - STRAIGHT
    OUT OF THE BOX.

    C.

    --
    Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

  6. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > chris writes:
    >
    >> Wrong.

    >
    > A Mac generally requires no installation at all, since it is
    > preinstalled.


    Unfortunately, if you want any useful applications, you have to install
    them.

    > The same is true for many PCs delivered with Windows
    > preinstalled.


    Unfortunately, if you want any useful applications, you have to install
    them.

    > A fresh installation of Windows requires 20 minutes or
    > so, depending on the speed of the system.


    Wrong. I installed Win NT4 on to a 1GHz PIII this afternoon - 41 minutes
    and five reboots.

    > A fresh installation of Linux
    > or UNIX without a GUI takes about the same amount of time or a bit
    > longer. However, installation of X and a GUI under Linux or UNIX can
    > take a very long time indeed, since GUIs are extremely
    > hardware-depdendent and most open-source products aren't very good at
    > dealing with anything outside the most conventional configurations.


    Wrong. Installed Mandrake 10.1 on to the above hardware (after Windoze
    crashed twice in 20 minutes) in 31 minutes, including Open Office, Kontact,
    and a few development tools. Worked 100% STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!

    >> That IS Windoze, you dummy!

    >
    > No, it's not. None of the things you describe is typical of Windows.


    You really are clueless. Perhaps you've never actually installed Windoze at
    all.

    >> Wrong. Typically 2 hours on the hardware available then.

    >
    > I installed Windows hundreds of times. Twenty to forty minutes was
    > typical, depending on the speed of the hardware (particularly disk and
    > CD drives).
    >
    >> And then you had
    >> to load the software, with all the endless reboots, patches, fixes,
    >> incompatibilities, and other Windoze crap.

    >
    > I never had any problems like this with Windows.


    You've never actually installed Windoze then, have you?

    > I have a lot of
    > problems like this with UNIX/Linux.


    Simply because you're clueless.

    > I have the numbers in front of me. Overall market penetration is 95%,
    > worldwide.


    As claimed by Microsoft. Bill Gates will actually tell you that Windows is
    an "operating system"!

    >> They don't use Windoze because it doesn't work properly and because they
    >> don't pay the MS Tax with every computer sold.

    >
    > They _do_ use Windows, but they just pirate it rather than paying for
    > it.


    No. I can't actually recall seeing ANY MS-based boxes in my last visit -
    except for the blue screen crashed ones at the British Airways check-in in
    Singapore.

    > Windows is easier to use than other operating systems,


    Not any more.

    > and there
    > are more applications available for it.


    Maybe, but that's changing.

    > This doesn't match any of the market profiles I've seen for Asia.


    Because you're looking at the data supplied by vested interests.

    > It's
    > difficult to get truly objective data,


    MS will give you all the "data" you could ever want!

    > though, and since Asia pirates
    > the commercial software and doesn't have to buy the free software, it
    > can be nearly impossible to know with certainty exactly what is running
    > on most machines.


    Wrong. You can't "pirate" Free/Open Source software, so they don't bother.
    The GPL allows them to copy disks to their heart's content, and that's what
    they do. The don't bother with the MS rubbish, because it doesn't work
    well enough.

    >> There has NEVER been any kind of MS-based
    >> governmental project in ANY western country that has ever worked
    >> properly.

    >
    > Most Western countries use Microsoft software every day.


    Because they've been "bought" by Microsoft.

    > I'm not sure
    > what you mean by "MS-based project," though.


    A good example: the British Health Service system - supposed to be in every
    Doctor's office, and connected to a country-wide database. The client
    computers "run" XP, with a crappy "bespoke" client application on top. The
    servers "run" Server 2003. The operating system level crashes of the
    servers and the client machines make it utterly unusable. There have been
    Hundreds of Millions of Pounds spent on this system, and it will never
    work. It cannot ever work.

    > Microsoft writes operating
    > systems, and Office suite, and a few server utilities and
    > compilers--that's all. Not much to base a "project" on.


    What else would you want to base a project on? You obviously have no clue
    whatsoever about real computing. Enjoy Windows.

    C.

    --
    Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

  7. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Spake chris:
    > > Apparently nobody supports my two SCSI disks, then. Except Windows.

    >
    > Wrong. One of the boxes here has six SCSI disks, and is happily running
    > Mandrake 10.0 - straight out of the box, installed in about 25 minutes,


    Mxsmanic did say *his* SCSI disks. It's possible for one manufacturer's
    motherboard / drives to be supported by Linux and another not.

    --
    Trent Buck, Student Errant
    For Sale: 15GB iPod, lightly used, 167 songs loaded. The RIAA says it's
    worth about twenty-five million. I'll let it go for five, plus shipping.

  8. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    chris writes:

    > Unfortunately, if you want any useful applications, you have to install
    > them.


    I recall applications being preinstalled, but it has been a long time
    since I last used a Mac.

    > Unfortunately, if you want any useful applications, you have to install
    > them.


    Not so. Often a selection of useful applications is preinstalled as
    well.

    > Wrong. I installed Win NT4 on to a 1GHz PIII this afternoon - 41 minutes
    > and five reboots.


    So your 2-hour figure was a dramatic exaggeration.

    > Installed Mandrake 10.1 on to the above hardware (after Windoze
    > crashed twice in 20 minutes) in 31 minutes, including Open Office, Kontact,
    > and a few development tools. Worked 100% STRAIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!


    It didn't for me.

    > You really are clueless. Perhaps you've never actually installed
    > Windoze at all.


    I've installed Windows hundreds of times.

    > You've never actually installed Windoze then, have you?


    See above.

    > As claimed by Microsoft.


    And as reflected in the statistics on my own Web site. About 95% of
    incoming visitors are running Windows.

    > Bill Gates will actually tell you that Windows is an "operating system"!


    And he'll be right.

    > No. I can't actually recall seeing ANY MS-based boxes in my last visit -
    > except for the blue screen crashed ones at the British Airways check-in in
    > Singapore.


    I can't recall seeing any Linux boxes at all; therefore they must not
    exist.

    > Not any more.


    Windows is more user-friendly than just about any OS except the Mac. It
    certainly beats Linux and UNIX by a wide margin.

    > Maybe, but that's changing.


    It's not changing enough to make a difference. There aren't going to be
    a quarter-million applications available on Linux any time soon.

    > Because you're looking at the data supplied by vested interests.


    Whereas you have special access to data that is completely unbiased?

    > MS will give you all the "data" you could ever want!


    Data from MS is not objective.

    > Because they've been "bought" by Microsoft.


    No, because Microsoft software is already widely used, and Microsoft
    operating systems are the most widely supported by third-party
    developers.

    > A good example: the British Health Service system - supposed to be in every
    > Doctor's office, and connected to a country-wide database. The client
    > computers "run" XP, with a crappy "bespoke" client application on top. The
    > servers "run" Server 2003. The operating system level crashes of the
    > servers and the client machines make it utterly unusable.


    The applications are poorly written.

    > What else would you want to base a project on?


    Applications relevant to the goal of the project, which is rarely
    limited to typing letters or filling in spreadsheets.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

  9. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    chris writes:

    > Wrong. One of the boxes here has six SCSI disks, and is happily running
    > Mandrake 10.0 - straight out of the box, installed in about 25 minutes,
    > running the software I want to run for my office, driving my (ostensibly
    > Windoze-only) printer straight out of the box.


    Mandrake would not even install on my machine. The same machine runs
    Windows NT flawlessly.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

  10. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    SINNER writes:

    > Before MS termed the Suite OFFICE it was non existent.


    I don't know who introduced the term. At one time, it was called office
    automation. In those days, companies like Wang ruled the office.

    > IMNSHO PP is much better suited than Word for making Posters etc, Word's
    > formatting leaves MUCH to be desired.


    Neither is suitable for making posters. If you want posters, you use
    Quark XPress, InDesign, PageMaker, Illustrator, etc.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

  11. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    * Mxsmanic wrote in comp.os.linux:
    > SINNER writes:


    >> Before MS termed the Suite OFFICE it was non existent.


    > I don't know who introduced the term. At one time, it was called office
    > automation. In those days, companies like Wang ruled the office.


    >> IMNSHO PP is much better suited than Word for making Posters etc, Word's
    >> formatting leaves MUCH to be desired.


    > Neither is suitable for making posters. If you want posters, you use
    > Quark XPress, InDesign, PageMaker, Illustrator, etc.


    Talk about OVERKILL.

    --
    David
    "The Schizophrenic: An Unauthorized Autobiography"

  12. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    * Mxsmanic wrote in comp.os.linux:
    > chris writes:


    >> Wrong. One of the boxes here has six SCSI disks, and is happily running
    >> Mandrake 10.0 - straight out of the box, installed in about 25 minutes,
    >> running the software I want to run for my office, driving my (ostensibly
    >> Windoze-only) printer straight out of the box.


    > Mandrake would not even install on my machine. The same machine runs
    > Windows NT flawlessly.


    Likely a simple parameter would solve the problem. I had a similar
    problem on my Laptop, "linux acpi=off" at the lilo boot screen solved
    the problem.

    --
    David
    Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
    -- Oscar Wilde

  13. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    * Mxsmanic wrote in comp.os.linux:

    [...]

    > I installed Windows hundreds of times.


    So have I.

    > Twenty to forty minutes was
    > typical, depending on the speed of the hardware (particularly disk and
    > CD drives).


    Then you have to install the drivers for all the hardware which requires
    a few reboots, then you have to install all the applications you use. In
    the same time frame I have a working MDK 10.1 system, all apps and
    drivers installed and never had to reboot.

    >> And then you had
    >> to load the software, with all the endless reboots, patches, fixes,
    >> incompatibilities, and other Windoze crap.


    > I never had any problems like this with Windows. I have a lot of
    > problems like this with UNIX/Linux.


    So you're saying you dont have to load the network card drivers, video
    card drivers, sound card drivers and reboot after each install? That is a
    blatent lie. Do you think people that use Linux have never or arent
    currenly using Windows as well?

    --
    David
    Don't speak about Time, until you have spoken to him.

  14. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Spake Mxsmanic:
    > I've actually tested MSIE against the W3C test suites, and it passes.


    Oh, does the current version understand the application/xhtml+xml MIME
    type? Version 6.0 doesn't.

    --
    Trent Buck, Student Errant
    I'm not afraid of flying.
    I'm afraid of being 35,000 feet up and suddenly *not* flying.

  15. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:25:20 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

    > GreyBeard writes:
    >
    >> I've run SuSE 8, 8.1, 8.2 and now 9.0 on an older Compaq GX-1 with
    >> P-II 200MHz, 256M, 4GB drive & CD drive. It is now the firewall and
    >> network resources server for my home. N'ary a problem with any install.
    >>
    >> It's twin helps me with RedHat 7, 8, 9, Fedora FC1 & FC3 projects.
    >>
    >> But when I want plain speed, I use my Dell Latitude C810 (P2.2, 1GM,
    >> DVD/CD-RW and swappable 40G hard drives - separate ones for SuSE, SLES,
    >> RHES, FC and W2K.

    >
    > Just out of curiosity, what do you actually do with these systems, apart
    > from configuring them, swapping them around, rebuilding them, and
    > reinstalling them?


    You asked ....

    I'm an Oracle consultant. I use the SLES and RHES to develop and provide
    support for my customer base.

    I'm also a registered trainer of Java, Oracle DBAs and Oracle developers.
    I use all the above as learning environments, as environments to develop
    demos and as presentation environments.

    As well, I have several production Linux-Oracle systems. I make it a
    point never to upgrade a production system without having tested on an
    independent system. Based on your comments below (cannot afford to spend
    hours ...), seems like you don't bother with this approach.

    And the Dell laptop provides: 1) portable production office environment
    (billing app, presentation tools, dev tools); 2) with the swappable disks,
    allows me to test and confirm questions in environments closely resembling
    the customers'; 3) a W2K environment for the few times I want to play
    StarCraft Brood War, or need to print on a printer that uses a
    Windows-based print engine.

    >
    >> Having watched your thread for a while, methinks you protest a bit too
    >> much - "it broke my CD", "time's up, it won't be...", "bloat", "but it
    >> still works with NT".

    >
    > You have to look at it from my point of view: I use computers as tools,
    > not as toys. I need to be able to install and configure systems quickly
    > and efficiently. I cannot afford to spend hours or days playing around
    > with them. They have to be up and stable enough that I can do real work
    > with them.


    I can't afford not learning about these things - helps me avoid lawsuits
    around incompetence. And I having tested variants helps with professional
    credibility, which seems to be appreciated by my customers. But then, as a
    graduate engineer, I may have a unique approach here.

    >
    > Geeks are different. They never actually _do_ anything with their
    > computers. They spend all their time installing, reinstalling,
    > tweaking, configuring, and so on. But they don't do any real
    > application-level work with any of them. Their income doesn't depend on
    > the machines being up and functional 24 hours a day. They don't pay
    > their rent with their computers.
    >
    > The time and effort required to bring up an OS may seem trivial to a
    > geek, who has no life outside of his computer(s), but to someone who
    > uses computers as tools, this same time and effort are often intolerably
    > great.


    LOL.

    To quote you - see above. As for 'no life' ... in addition to my
    consultancy, I'm also a classical singer. And I use Linux and Lilypond to
    typeset music scores for my choir and opera company and as a hobby.

    >
    > And the majority of the world's computer users are in the second
    > category, not the first. That's one reason why you don't see Linux on
    > every desktop.
    >
    >> I constantly see the the shock to those of Windows background: "Whoaaa, 6
    >> CDs! What crap! What Bloat! My Windows OS only needs one CD, and my MS
    >> Office only needs 2 CDs and my AntiVirus only needs one and my printer
    >> only came with one, and each of my network cards only has one and my
    >> scanner has only one and ...", followed by "what do you mean, check the
    >> distro update site for patches, fixes and updates. In Windows, I only
    >> need to monitor 39 vendor site to check for vendor driver updates, after
    >> the WindowsUpdate site automatically screws up my settings."

    >
    > See my comments above. For a normal end user, installation means
    > inserting a CD and pressing Enter a few times. It works for Windows,
    > and even that much isn't necessary for the Mac ... but it's impossible
    > for Linux or UNIX.


    And getting the next app's CDs, inserting and pressing enter a few times,
    and getting the updates, and so on. Been there. Even my mother, who fits
    your definition of a 'normal end user', has given up on Windows.

    >
    >> The only challenge is getting past the 'install' screen. But I've had
    >> that with NT as well, especially when the CD drive has been unsupported,
    >> has been the wrong bus type, or has been on the verge of dying.

    >
    > Apparently nobody supports my two SCSI disks, then. Except Windows.


    Perhaps. And perhaps it's because they are *your* SCSI disks. My SCSI
    disks AND tape drives on Adaptec 29160s & 39160s work just fine - in all
    the listed environments. Truly plug and play. Had less problem with
    those than on NT3.5 or 4. C'est la vie.

    >
    > I really wanted to install something other than Windows on this machine,
    > for the sake of gaining experience, but it's beginning to look like
    > Windows is the only OS that can properly handle the hardware.


    quite possibly.

    or as my accompanist says - usually it's not the instrument, it's the
    musician.

    .... and since you have a response for everything anyway, you have final
    rebuttal as I go back to listen-only mode

    /FGB

  16. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Trent Buck wrote:

    > Spake Mxsmanic:
    >> I've actually tested MSIE against the W3C test suites, and it passes.

    >
    > Oh, does the current version understand the application/xhtml+xml MIME
    > type? Version 6.0 doesn't.
    >


    No it doesn't, and never will. MSIE is DESIGNED to be non-compliant (it's
    not just a case of lack of competency). Their mail clients and newsreaders
    are also non-compliant.

    C.

    --
    Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

  17. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > Mandrake would not even install on my machine. The same machine runs
    > Windows NT flawlessly.


    Fine. Go back to your "flawless" NT.

    Isn't NT now unsupported? So much for your much-vaunted "support" from MS!

    C.


    --
    Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

  18. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:


    >> Wrong. I installed Win NT4 on to a 1GHz PIII this afternoon - 41 minutes
    >> and five reboots.

    >
    > So your 2-hour figure was a dramatic exaggeration.


    No. On the hardware that was current when NT was about, 2 hours was a
    conservative estimate.

    C.

    --
    Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

  19. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    >> A good example: the British Health Service system - supposed to be in
    >> every
    >> Doctor's office, and connected to a country-wide database. The client
    >> computers "run" XP, with a crappy "bespoke" client application on top.
    >> The
    >> servers "run" Server 2003. The operating system level crashes of the
    >> servers and the client machines make it utterly unusable.

    >
    > The applications are poorly written.


    No - the "operating systems" are so unstable that they simply don't work.

    C.

    --
    Everything gets easier with practice, except getting up in the morning!

  20. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Spake chris:
    > On the hardware that was current when NT was about


    NT is still about -- Microsoft Windows 2000 and XP are internally badged
    as NT 5.0 and 5.1 respectively. In fact, some early versions of Windows
    XP would report their version to the user as "Microsoft NT 5.1" in the
    System Properties page.

    --
    Trent Buck, Student Errant
    "As an adolescent I aspired to lasting fame, I craved factual certainty,
    and I thirsted for a meaningful vision of human life -- so I became a
    scientist. This is like becoming an archbishop so you can meet girls."
    -- Matt Cartmill

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast