Which Linux for a beginning desktop? - Linux

This is a discussion on Which Linux for a beginning desktop? - Linux ; Spake chris: > > Microsoft bashing will not earn you marks. > > Perhaps not, but it's fun. I'm really looking forward to the day when > computer operating systems work properly, and there isn't a spurious > monopoly any ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 129

Thread: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

  1. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Spake chris:
    > > Microsoft bashing will not earn you marks.

    >
    > Perhaps not, but it's fun. I'm really looking forward to the day when
    > computer operating systems work properly, and there isn't a spurious
    > monopoly any more.


    There isn't a monopoly any more. We've won. Microsoft's business model
    can't cope with Open Source; it's only a matter of time until they run
    out of capital. The database vendors are on our side. Commodity
    hardware manufacturers aren't, but Apple has enough weight to get a
    subset of hardware supported. Big business still sees Linux as a
    bargaining chip when negotiating deals with Microsoft et al, but
    progressive thinkers in e.g. Extramadura and Brazil have rolled out
    *massive* deployments -- kids are GROWING UP with Linux instead of
    Windows now. We've won.

    If this was comp.os.windows.sucks, then maybe your ad hominem would be
    on-topic. This is comp.os.linux, however, and I for one would prefer to
    be discussing the benefits (and detrements) of Linux than an operating
    system that has come and gone.

    --
    Trent Buck, Student Errant
    Physics is what results when you pollute mathematics with reality.

  2. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Spake chris:
    > >> 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.


    Thank you, I am aware of that. I phrased my remark as a question
    because it is less aggressive than a blanket statement like "MSIE
    refuses to accept application/xhtml+xml!" After all, Microsoft *might*
    have fixed it since I checked last week. It's unlikely, but I don't
    follow Microsoft releases very closely.

    I submit that such a non-confrontational style receives less vehement,
    witless ripostes than your good self have provoked. Perhaps you would
    benefit from adopting it.

    --
    Trent Buck, Student Errant
    When I hear the history of some of the more ugly European cities, with
    "... destroyed in 14xx, burnt in 16xx ..." I get the urge to ask why
    they keep rebuilding it and if they can't get the hint.
    -- Lieven Marchand

  3. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    chris writes:

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


    It was more like 30-40 minutes for me, "when NT was about."

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

  4. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    chris writes:

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


    No, the operating systems are stable. However, some applications put
    hooks into the OS that destabilize it, for the sake of
    "user-friendliness." This is very common in the desktop world, where
    user-friendliness is considered more important than security and
    reliability.

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

  5. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    SINNER writes:

    > Then you have to install the drivers for all the hardware which requires
    > a few reboots ...


    The drivers are usually installed as part of the installation, unless
    you have very unusual hardware.

    > ... then you have to install all the applications you use.


    That's not part of OS installation.

    > So you're saying you dont have to load the network card drivers, video
    > card drivers, sound card drivers and reboot after each install?


    Yes.

    > That is a blatent lie.


    It's a brutal fact.

    > Do you think people that use Linux have never or arent
    > currenly using Windows as well?


    I think most of them have used Windows, since the primary motivation for
    using Linux among most of its fans is a hatred of Microsoft and Windows.
    If there were no Windows, there'd be no Linux.

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

  6. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    SINNER writes:

    > Likely a simple parameter would solve the problem.


    Probably. How do I find out which parameter that is?

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

  7. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    chris writes:

    > Fine. Go back to your "flawless" NT.


    I've considered it. But I'd really prefer to get FreeBSD running
    instead.

    > Isn't NT now unsupported?


    It depends on how much you pay for it.

    > So much for your much-vaunted "support" from MS!


    NT 3.51 is ten years old; that's pretty old for a supported operating
    system.

    Of course, XP and 2003 are actually just newer versions of NT. Even
    Windows CE is NT.

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

  8. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    GreyBeard writes:

    > 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.


    What do you actually put on your own databases?

    > 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.


    So it's a pretty non-critical environment.

    > I can't afford not learning about these things - helps me avoid lawsuits
    > around incompetence.


    So you use your systems for other people, not for yourself. That's a
    crucial distinction.

    > 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.


    As opposed to whom?

    > 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.


    What happens if a computer problem prevents you from doing the
    typesetting?

    > 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.


    Spontaneously, or with encouragement from her son?

    > Perhaps. And perhaps it's because they are *your* SCSI disks.


    I didn't build them myself. One is a Seagate Barracuda and the other is
    a Quantum Atlas or Fireball, I think (it has been a long time since I
    looked).

    > 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.


    Are you running FreeBSD?

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

  9. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    SINNER writes:

    > Talk about OVERKILL.


    That's not the way prepress shops feel about it. If you want to do it
    right, you need the right tools. Printers hate getting stuff from Word
    or PowerPoint.

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

  10. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    chris writes:

    > ... there isn't a spurious monopoly any more.


    So you dispute the existence of this monopoly?

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

  11. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Trent Buck writes:

    > There isn't a monopoly any more. We've won. Microsoft's business model
    > can't cope with Open Source; it's only a matter of time until they run
    > out of capital. The database vendors are on our side. Commodity
    > hardware manufacturers aren't, but Apple has enough weight to get a
    > subset of hardware supported. Big business still sees Linux as a
    > bargaining chip when negotiating deals with Microsoft et al, but
    > progressive thinkers in e.g. Extramadura and Brazil have rolled out
    > *massive* deployments -- kids are GROWING UP with Linux instead of
    > Windows now. We've won.


    Right now, only 0.1 % of visitors to my site are running Linux. I
    wouldn't exactly call it a stampede.

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

  12. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Trent Buck writes:

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


    MSIE has not been a target for active development in some time. But I
    don't use xml or xhtml, nor do 99.999% of sites on the Web, so I don't
    worry about conformance with that.

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

  13. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    chris writes:

    > MSIE is DESIGNED to be non-compliant (it's not just a case of
    > lack of competency).


    MSIE was the first browser to provide a high level of conformance with
    W3C standards. I know, because I was there and tested it, alongside the
    competition.

    Nowadays, of course, there are a number of browsers around that are
    equally compliant.

    > Their mail clients and newsreaders are also non-compliant.


    In what ways?

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

  14. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Spake Mxsmanic:
    > > Talk about OVERKILL.

    >
    > That's not the way prepress shops feel about it. If you want to do it
    > right, you need the right tools. Printers hate getting stuff from Word
    > or PowerPoint.


    We were discussing use of Microsoft Office by home users, not PSPs.
    Please stop being contrary for the sake of it.

    --
    Trent Buck, Student Errant
    Every fleeting thought you've ever had in your life, no matter how bizarre,
    is someone's lifelong obsession. And he has a website.
    -- Skif's Internet Theorem

  15. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Spake Mxsmanic:
    > > There isn't a monopoly any more. We've won. Microsoft's business model
    > > can't cope with Open Source; it's only a matter of time until they run
    > > out of capital. The database vendors are on our side. Commodity
    > > hardware manufacturers aren't, but Apple has enough weight to get a
    > > subset of hardware supported. Big business still sees Linux as a
    > > bargaining chip when negotiating deals with Microsoft et al, but
    > > progressive thinkers in e.g. Extramadura and Brazil have rolled out
    > > *massive* deployments -- kids are GROWING UP with Linux instead of
    > > Windows now. We've won.

    >
    > Right now, only 0.1 % of visitors to my site are running Linux. I
    > wouldn't exactly call it a stampede.


    What makes you think that YOUR website is representative of the global
    install count? For a start, it's ignoring all the servers that don't
    run web browsers.

    --
    Trent Buck, Student Errant
    Technically, I can go and break the fingers of a sysadmin of any
    operating system and get the root password. This doesn't make it a
    localhost of remote attack. -- Artur Grabowski

  16. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > MSIE has not been a target for active development in some time. But I
    > don't use xml or xhtml, nor do 99.999% of sites on the Web, so I don't
    > worry about conformance with that.


    A quick check of 200 randomly selected BIG websites showed all but one
    running Apache Server on some version of either Linux or BSD. The one site
    running any variant of Windoze was a British "Government" one, which was so
    badly broken as to be unusable.

    You have to remember - Windoze is a poor 3rd-party client for a Unix-based
    world.

    C.

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

  17. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > SINNER writes:
    >
    >> Likely a simple parameter would solve the problem.

    >
    > Probably. How do I find out which parameter that is?


    RTFM! Just like everyone else.

    C.

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

  18. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > NT 3.51 is ten years old; that's pretty old for a supported operating
    > system.


    According to M$'s own web****e, NT4 and earlier has been "sunset" which
    means it's no longer supported. Win 2000 is to be "sunset" in the next few
    months.

    > Of course, XP and 2003 are actually just newer versions of NT.


    Not according to Bill Gates.

    > Even
    > Windows CE is NT.


    WinCE seems such an appropriate name.

    C.


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

  19. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

    > SINNER writes:
    >
    >> Then you have to install the drivers for all the hardware which requires
    >> a few reboots ...

    >
    > The drivers are usually installed as part of the installation, unless
    > you have very unusual hardware.


    WRONG!

    >> ... then you have to install all the applications you use.

    >
    > That's not part of OS installation.


    No, but it's a useless installation without any applications!

    >> So you're saying you dont have to load the network card drivers, video
    >> card drivers, sound card drivers and reboot after each install?

    >
    > Yes.
    >
    >> That is a blatent lie.

    >
    > It's a brutal fact.


    You must have a unique version of Win NT then. Did Bill himself write it
    specially for you?

    >> Do you think people that use Linux have never or arent
    >> currenly using Windows as well?

    >
    > I think most of them have used Windows, since the primary motivation for
    > using Linux among most of its fans is a hatred of Microsoft and Windows.


    Wrong. Most people started using real operating systems because it was what
    they were used to - Windoze is a relative newcomer, doesn't fit in with any
    real operating systems. It was pleasant to discover that there was a
    viable "home" version of the OS I'd been using at work for over 20 years.

    > If there were no Windows, there'd be no Linux.


    Wrong. Linux began as a way to run Unix-type stuff on a home computer -
    Windoze had nothing to do with it. It's just a nice benefit that we can
    now run a proper operating system on home computers and delete the M$ trash
    that comes "pre-installed" with many machines.

    C.

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

  20. Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop?

    Mxsmanic wrote:

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

    >
    > No, the operating systems are stable. However, some applications put
    > hooks into the OS that destabilize it, for the sake of
    > "user-friendliness." This is very common in the desktop world, where
    > user-friendliness is considered more important than security and
    > reliability.


    No. Mean time to crash on the Dell server we bought last week as an
    experiment was less than 20 minutes. This is with a vanilla (Dell)
    installation of Windoze "server" 2003 with no additional software.

    C.

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

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 ... LastLast