Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure. - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure. - Linux ; Bob Hauck writes: > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.] > > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:57:29 +0100, Hadron > wrote: > >> Actually, no it hasn't. Ubuntu was build on Debian which has been >> around for 11 years. ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 92

Thread: Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

  1. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Bob Hauck writes:

    > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.advocacy.]
    >
    > On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:57:29 +0100, Hadron
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Actually, no it hasn't. Ubuntu was build on Debian which has been
    >> around for 11 years.
    >>
    >> It was started because the Ubuntu team were understandably sick to
    >> death of geeks and fools failing to recognise that Linux needed huge
    >> usability improvements if it was going to get mainstream.

    >
    > Well, I guess it was a good thing nobody asked _your_ opinion then.
    > After all, as you have repeatedly said, the big problem with Linux is
    > too many distros. You would presumably have told Shuttleworth he was
    > wasting his time making yet another one.


    Sorry? I have repeatedly said that any large well supported distro is a
    good thing. I dont think its a good think to have 500 minor ones.

    >
    >
    >> The "it works for me" gang (go to COLA) would have kept Linux in the
    >> gutter otherwise.

    >
    > COLA isn't a serious newsgroup you buffoon. It isn't representative
    > of


    err, I know. Hence I mentioned it.

    > anything except people who like to argue. Like you for instance, who
    > pretty much lives here.


    I pop in every now and again for some light relief.

    >
    > See, I'm getting into the spirit of it right now.
    >


    Err yes. But the idea is to do it in COLA.

    >
    >> Fortunately people with more experience in the real world and real
    >> people headed up Ubuntu and drew out a road map of how to get Linux
    >> usable for non programmers.

    >
    > SuSE and Mandriva, Caldera and Red Hat and all the rest, the people at
    > OpenOffice.org and Mozilla, the ones who work on KDE and Gnome, they all
    > had it wrong. None of them, not a one, ever tried to make Linux easier
    > to use, they were all just a bunch of geeks and losers who didn't know
    > anything about The Real World.


    You see I never said that. You are being a fanatic. Again. because I
    mention somed geeks it doesn't mean that other people doing GODO jobs in
    their sphere are impeding anything. But not impeding doesn't necessarily
    imply encouraging *advances* in usability either.

    This is all very sweet and nice but the simple fact is that Ubuntu has
    done more for Linux adoption and headlines in a few short years than all
    of those put together.

    If you don't get the heads up then all the great OSS SW in the world
    will go to waste.

    A lot of those people didnt do much to aid usability and installation.

    In fact pretty much as it has been doing for past years : Linux was
    very much a hobbyist OS used by technical bods who didn't care that it
    was tricky to install. It was a challenge.

    All the wonderful KDE and OO apps in the world are no good if people
    can't install the damn things or are too scared of installing some
    mickey mouse distro because they wonder if they'll get any support at a
    later date.

    Ubuntu is there. It has financial backing. It is free. It has a guru. It
    has a stable development team. It has a great support set up. It works.

    I fail to see which part of this you think is somehow bad or how you can
    possibly suggest that it is not HUGELY beneficial to the of Linux now
    and in the future. Or are you, as I suspect, one of those barriers to
    progress I mentioned earlier?






  2. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Night0wl wrote:
    > HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:
    >> "Cybe R. Wizard" wrote
    >>> Non-existent? NT only came out in July 1993.
    >>> Surely Ubuntu is better than that.

    >> OK, NT service pack 1.

    > Sorry guy. Can't defend you here. Ubu 7.10 is a great improvement over
    > a very short life span, much shorter than it took Windoze to get where
    > they are now. I use and teach all the OSs I can, from DOS 2.1 to Vista,
    > and Linux from raw core through Red Hat/Fedora and Ubuntu. Vista is a
    > giant step backwards, whereas Ubuntu is still shooting for the sky.
    > They'll make it, to, and long before Vista is ready for grandma, I think...
    > Cheers;
    > Ed


    Hi Ed,

    I've read about Vista problems, and Cabrillo College in Aptos, Ca where
    I'm taking network admin. and OS classes has had a lot of problems
    w/their Vista machines.

    I was wondering why you said Vista is a big step backwards, you teach
    OS's and I'm interested in hearing your perspective.

    Mike

  3. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Night0wl writes:

    > Hadron wrote:
    > [...snipped...]
    >
    >>>> Sorry to burst your bubble and all, but lets not tell porky pies just to
    >>>> be a fan boy ....

    >
    >>> Fanboy? Hardly. I'm just as mystified and as challenged as the next
    >>> user, but, I'm also impressed by the accomplishment, and what it bodes
    >>> for the future...

    >
    >> We have a lot to thank certain distros for thats for sure. Mainly
    >> PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu IMO. They have taken the geek out of Linux to a
    >> degree.

    >
    > And that was my point. When Ubu gets out of the "NT4 stage" (still a
    > little too much geek)," and into the W2K/XP range (does everything
    > right out of the box), it'll be a (Windoze) killer for anyone who
    > tries it! Cost, functionality, ease of operation, security and price
    > (free), all on the same disk? How can we lose?
    >
    > Cheers;
    >
    > Ed


    Ubuntu does a lot more "out of the box" than NT4 ever did if out of the
    boy means "free" and available to install from the repositories.
    However, it will fail to be a Windows killer while the purveyors of the
    great majority of applications and games that people use/play daily
    around the world have no port to Linux (e.g paint shop pro, dreamweaver
    etc).

    --
    I used to work in a fire hydrant factory. You couldn't park anywhere near
    the place.
    -- Steven Wright

  4. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Hadron wrote:
    [...snipped...]

    >>> Sorry to burst your bubble and all, but lets not tell porky pies just to
    >>> be a fan boy ....


    >> Fanboy? Hardly. I'm just as mystified and as challenged as the next
    >> user, but, I'm also impressed by the accomplishment, and what it bodes
    >> for the future...


    > We have a lot to thank certain distros for thats for sure. Mainly
    > PCLinuxOS and Ubuntu IMO. They have taken the geek out of Linux to a
    > degree.


    And that was my point. When Ubu gets out of the "NT4 stage" (still a
    little too much geek)," and into the W2K/XP range (does everything right
    out of the box), it'll be a (Windoze) killer for anyone who tries it!
    Cost, functionality, ease of operation, security and price (free), all
    on the same disk? How can we lose?

    Cheers;

    Ed

  5. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    DaveT wrote:
    [...snip...]

    >> The basics are there, but I still had to find, install and tweak CUPS,
    >> HPOJ, XSANE, NDISWRAPPER, and a few other nit-noi toys...
    >>
    >> Cheers;
    >>
    >> Ed

    >
    > I am not a grand ma but I am a grand da and Ubuntu worked straight away
    > for me with out any *tweaking* by me or any one else.


    Good job, that. I'm a grand dad too, btw.

    6.06 and 6.10 worked really well. 7.04 was a bugger with OSS sound (ALSA
    worked!), and Broadcom wireless networking, but 7.10 cleared-up those
    problems quietly, and without incident. I'm lovin' it.

    I started with
    > Feisty and the only problem that came up was I had to put in my pass word
    > to access my second hard drive, I was told on here how to fix it but did
    > not bother doing it because after reading the posts on here I thought I
    > would have to do a reload, guess what I have not had any faults no reload


    There's a neat little package in Automatix2 (perish the thought!)
    that'll both get you around the password issue, and also get you reading
    FAT32 and NTFS disks, with full access, on your Linux machine. I've
    used it since 6.10, and haven't had a problem with disk access. My
    laptop is dual-boot with XP, and I can read/write my drives on the XP
    side from Ubu.

    > upgraded to Gutsy when it was available with no hick-ups


    Same here -- in fact, it worked BETTER than both Feisty and Edgy!

    > and as I do not use the second hard drive every time I have learnt to
    > live with having to put my pass word in.


    See above again...

    >I find Ubuntu handles USB ports far better than XP
    > ever did (3 cameras 2 MP3 players Bluetooth).


    A printer, a scanner and a digital camera here. Way better USB support,
    and on the fly to boot. Windoze must still "find" and install new
    hardware. In Ubu, if the drivers are there, it just runs.

    I have Bluetooth disabled at the moment, because I don't have any
    Bluetooth devices. But, when I'm ready, it'll be there.

    > I have wondered if all the
    > faults that have been mentioned on the upgrade have not been because when
    > messing about with command lines they have put lines in that the updater
    > was not expecting so it did it's job wrong.


    Sounds like it to me; or, maybe they've added incompatible drivers along
    the way and couldn't figure how to restore from a command line. I used
    the Repair Console in my black screen to locate, download and reinstall
    fglrx to get my video going, again, in preparation to install
    Compiz/Beryl. I haven't done that yet, but its on my horizon...

    Cheers;

    Ed



  6. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Night0wl wrote:

    > Cool your jets, fella... I merely state that Ubuntu, while being a
    > fantastic Linux offering is technically about where WNT4 was in '97;
    > meaning that several apps and drivers still need to be DL'd and
    > installed in order for "all" the bells and whistles to work, and it
    > still requires a bit of tweaking to get it just right.


    Vista doesn't have viable drivers for about 90% of hardware out there, so
    usually won't work "out of the box".

    > For command line heads like us, it as simple as Googling the app, dl,
    > install and tweak. We can do it, and we have fun doing it, but
    > "grandma" would be lost. See my point? Grandma could use W98SE, W2K or
    > WXP out of the box, but not NT4. Same with Ubuntu. Until grandma can do
    > it, right out of the box (kids are another story), we're still in second
    > place.


    You seem to have forgotton. Grandma wouldn't /ever/ *install* Windows - it
    came "free" with the computer.

    If Grandma's Windows installation required the usual re-install due to the
    normal sorts of bizarre bit-rot problems, she's out of luck. /If/ she's
    got the install disk, she'll still have to find and install drivers, along
    with the innumerable reboots. If she's just got a "recovery disk", it
    usually won't work. She'll take the box to the "Tech Guys" and lose all
    her data...

    > The basics are there, but I still had to find, install and tweak CUPS,
    > HPOJ, XSANE, NDISWRAPPER, and a few other nit-noi toys...


    Rumour has it that Dell are going to issue "recovery" disks for their Ubuntu
    machines, which will include (and install) all the relevant drivers. This
    may be the way to deal with "commodity" computers.

    C.

  7. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:

    > Yup, 100 million people were fortunate enough to purhcase Vista over the
    > last 300 days.


    No. The installed Vista base is under 5m machines and falling as the offer
    to "upgrade" to XP is being taken by many. Shame. It was so pretty too...

    C.


  8. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Hadron wrote:
    [...snip...]
    >> Cheers;
    >>
    >> Ed

    >
    > Ubuntu does a lot more "out of the box" than NT4 ever did, if out of the
    > box means "free" and available to install from the repositories.


    Actually, I didn't mean 'free.' I meant that there are still apps and
    libraries (another name for .dll's) that need to be installed to make
    all the bells and whistles work properly. Cost wasn't, and isn't the
    issue so much as what still needed or needs to be done. The first
    network I ever built at home was centered on NT4, back in '96/97. I'm
    finding I need to do about as much twiddling and tinkering now with Ubu
    as I did then to get everything just as I like. Granted, I'm having as
    much (maybe more) fun now with Ubu as I did then with NT4; but, I can
    also see the horizon, and it looks pretty darned bright for Ubu.

    > However, it will fail to be a Windows killer while the purveyors of the
    > great majority of applications and games that people use/play daily
    > around the world have no port to Linux (e.g paint shop pro, dreamweaver
    > etc).


    They're on the way. HP's on the bandwagon. So is Adobe. So is Cannon.
    And, there are a few other big names porting over. We will get there. It
    just takes a little time, adjustment, and possibly a few retirements to
    bring the full turn. It will happen.

    Cheers;

    Ed


  9. Re: 2007 The greatest defeat in LinTard history.

    On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:12:33 -0800, HangEveryRepubliKKKan wrote:

    > "Hadron" wrote
    >> Actually, no it hasn't. Ubuntu was build on Debian which has been
    >> around for 11 years.

    >
    > I tried to install debian last summer.
    >
    > Didn't support my sound card
    > Didn't support my network card
    > Ran my HD in comatibility mode
    > No hardware accelerated video
    >
    > Didn't provide me with a mouse pointer.
    >
    > On about the 20'th reboot it had a kernel panic and failed to run at
    > that
    > point


    Sounds like some really weird (and possibly flaky) hardware you've got.
    I think I've seen one kernel panic since 1999. I'd long since quit
    counting Windows BSODs.

  10. Re: A question of Vista...

    On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:

    > I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    > both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    > replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently existing
    > applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and headaches).


    I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new
    version requires more resources, makes more use of the hardware, and
    typically drops support for at least some hardware (Yes, even Linux).
    That's just the way things work. Linux tends to drop support for hardware
    when nobody is willing to work on a given driver anymore. It's rare, but
    it happens. Sometimes older hardware is no longer supported in newer
    versions of a given driver. For instance, smc-ultra driver no longer
    supports older ISA cards.

    > Vista now has *6* different distros of its own


    You are confusing configurations with distros. Each of those 6 versions
    has the same, identical core. They hust have different "options". That's
    like saying a Toyota Corolla LE and LS are tow different cars. They're
    not, they just have different options. All software that runs on Vista
    Home Basic runs on Vista Home Premium, and the smae software runs on
    Business or Ultimate.

    Now, Linux is a different story. Different distro's are occasionally just
    different configurations (like Ubuntu and Kubuntu or Edubuntu, but then I
    don't really consider them seperate distros), but usually differences are
    much more pronounced, with different configuration or package management
    systems, different filesystem layouts, and different sets of installed
    default libraries, often with wildly different compiled options. Even two
    distros with the same version of the kernel may not work on the same
    hardware because distro vendors apply their own driver patches to support
    hardware that's not in the kernel by default.

    *THAT* is different distro's, not the choice of whether Media Center is
    included or not.

    > Case in point: I saw a $500 Acer/Vista-Home mid-tower machine
    > in Walmart, today, that has no file access for the user, no productivity
    > package, no START button, and no icons except for movies, mp3s and
    > photographs; and there was no way even to modify those, just download
    > via subscription and play or view. To me, that's a complete waste of a
    > perfectly good machine. That family needs a TIVO more than a PC, and
    > they're much cheaper...


    Ummm.. are you really that dense? It's an application called Media Center.
    If you want to use the PC, you quit the media center app and all that stuff
    is there.

    Wow. I can't believe you actually believe that crap you spewed.

    > Through my school, I'm teaching a course for the the government on how
    > to transition from XP to Vista, Office 2003 to 2007, and how to mash-up
    > those with M$'s software-as-a-service panacea, the Sharepoint
    > collaboration system.


    You're *TEACHING*??? and you don't even know that you can quit media
    center?

    > My laptop will need a minimum of 2GB/RAM to run that combo (4GB is the
    > "sweet spot"), and at least a 120GB HDD. Since when has a laptop ever
    > needed that much hardware? My current one (an Acer 3050) surely doesn't.
    > I currently run a dual-boot Ubuntu Linux/Windoze XP system with 1GB Ram
    > and a 30GB HDD, and I do a LOT with it.


    That's because you need to run server applications, and you need to run a
    full Active Directory environment, including exchange (which is designed
    for enterprise environments and makes optimizations for large scale that
    require large amounts of memory) and IIS.

    I guarantee you that if you setup a similar environment for Linux,
    including web servers, applications servers, databases, groupware and
    calendering servers, content management systems, full desktop environments,
    etc... you're going to be using at least a gigabyte of memory when all that
    stuff is running.

    Let's see how much memory your Linux box uses when you've got Apache, Lotus
    Notes Server, A big honking java based CMS, OpenOffice, KDE, Oracle,
    Tomcat, etc.. running.

  11. Re: A question of Vista...

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >
    >> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently existing
    >> applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and headaches).

    >
    > I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new
    > version requires more resources, makes more use of the hardware, and
    > typically drops support for at least some hardware (Yes, even Linux).


    This is blatantly false
    New versions of KDE for example run *faster* than the older versions, not
    slower
    New kernels don't run slower just because they have new features. On older
    hardware which has no need for those, they are not used or loaded.
    If you want to trim down a new kernel to old hardware, it is just a
    recompile away anyways

    Don't try to claim that just because Vista is a heap of dung and the worst
    pile of **** ever disguised as "software", linux has the same problems.
    It does not, Erik "FUDdingmuch" Funkenbusch


    < snip more pure Erik F junk >
    --
    Any idiot can run XP. And usually does.


  12. Re: A question of Vista...

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like
    >> that. Each new version requires more resources, makes more
    >> use of the hardware, and typically drops support for at
    >> least some hardware (Yes, even Linux).

    >
    > This is blatantly false New versions of KDE for example run
    > *faster* than the older versions, not slower New kernels don't
    > run slower just because they have new features. On older
    > hardware which has no need for those, they are not used or
    > loaded. If you want to trim down a new kernel to old hardware,
    > it is just a recompile away anyways
    >
    > Don't try to claim that just because Vista is a heap of dung
    > and the worst pile of **** ever disguised as "software", linux
    > has the same problems. It does not, Erik "FUDdingmuch"
    > Funkenbusch
    >
    > < snip more pure Erik F junk >


    I downloaded and installed Beryl for Ubuntu. It was a couple
    megabytes, very efficiently written, works very smooth,
    impressive. I don't need 2 gigs memory to have 3D desktop in Linux.

    Ubuntu and Gnome run very smoothly on my Dell laptop with 850 MHz
    processor. It boots up quicker than Windows 2000.

    --
    HPT

  13. Re: A question of Vista...

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >
    >> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently existing
    >> applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and headaches).

    >
    > I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new


    Nope. Many Linux distributions run faster in less resources as they
    increase in version number. Not unusual at all.

    >> Vista now has *6* different distros of its own

    >
    > You are confusing configurations with distros. Each of those 6 versions


    Nope. 6 different releases.

    > has the same, identical core.


    NOPE! There's several differences in the "core" just like there's
    differences in bigiron and low latency Linux kernels.

    For a wintard, you don't know much about Windoze.

    > They hust have different "options".


    If by "options" you mean more DRM restrictions and hardware
    incompatibilities, then you are correct.

    > That's like saying a Toyota Corolla LE and LS are tow different cars.


    Nope. Nothing like that at all.

    > They're not, they just have different options. All software that runs
    > on Vista Home Basic runs on Vista Home Premium, and the smae software
    > runs on Business or Ultimate.


    Nope. There's a LOT of software that won't run on one version of Vista,
    but will on another.

    > Now, Linux is a different story. Different distro's are occasionally
    > just different configurations (like Ubuntu and Kubuntu or Edubuntu, but
    > then I don't really consider them seperate distros), but usually


    They're completely different distributions. You're so use to the
    wintardrd world of Windoze you don't know the difference any more.

    > I guarantee you that if you setup a similar environment for Linux,
    > including web servers, applications servers, databases, groupware and
    > calendering servers, content management systems, full desktop
    > environments, etc... you're going to be using at least a gigabyte of
    > memory when all that stuff is running.


    NOPE!

    I run Apache, Postfix/Courier with SASL. Leafnode, MySQL, SSH, Tor/
    Privoxy, mp3d, Webmin/Usermin, on a PIII in 256M. I could EASILY load X
    and a window manager without adding more RAM.

    > Let's see how much memory your Linux box uses when you've got Apache,
    > Lotus Notes Server, A big honking java based CMS, OpenOffice, KDE,
    > Oracle, Tomcat, etc.. running.


    A whole lot less than any Winblows box running the same, if you can even
    get Winblows to do all that at the same time without catching fire.




  14. Re: A question of Vista...

    In article <1s2k60uh5ifmc$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new
    > version requires more resources, makes more use of the hardware, and


    A large part of the increased appetite that Vista has for hardware
    resources over and above XP is due to the schemes used to protect
    "premium" high-definition video content as demanded by Hollywood.
    I have no interest in using an operating system that is going to
    waste CPU, memory, etc. in this manner.

    --
    Roger Blake
    (Subtract 10s for email.)

  15. Re: A question of Vista...

    Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
    writes:

    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    >> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:56:46 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have serious issues with any new OS that demands greater resources
    >>> both for itself (OS cost), for the hardware it runs on (upgrade or
    >>> replacement costs), and doesn't come equipped to run currently existing
    >>> applications and expansion hardware (replacement costs and headaches).

    >>
    >> I hate to break it to you, buddy, but *EVERY* OS is like that. Each new

    >
    > Nope. Many Linux distributions run faster in less resources as they
    > increase in version number. Not unusual at all.


    Not the main desktop ones competing with XP/Vista.

    Firstly : I don't like Vista. I don't see the need for it. XP worked
    just fine on lower resources.

    >
    >>> Vista now has *6* different distros of its own

    >>
    >> You are confusing configurations with distros. Each of those 6 versions

    >
    > Nope. 6 different releases.


    Nope. Versions.

    >
    >> has the same, identical core.

    >
    > NOPE! There's several differences in the "core" just like there's
    > differences in bigiron and low latency Linux kernels.


    Wrong. For the most part.

    >
    > For a wintard, you don't know much about Windoze.


    Aha. Your true credentials on show.

    >
    >> They hust have different "options".

    >
    > If by "options" you mean more DRM restrictions and hardware
    > incompatibilities, then you are correct.


    No. Options.

    >
    >> That's like saying a Toyota Corolla LE and LS are tow different cars.

    >
    > Nope. Nothing like that at all.
    >


    Exactly the same. Different facilities available depending on how much
    you are willing to pay. Like anything really in life.


    >> They're not, they just have different options. All software that runs
    >> on Vista Home Basic runs on Vista Home Premium, and the smae software
    >> runs on Business or Ultimate.

    >
    > Nope. There's a LOT of software that won't run on one version of Vista,
    > but will on another.


    I can't comment on that.

    >
    >> Now, Linux is a different story. Different distro's are occasionally
    >> just different configurations (like Ubuntu and Kubuntu or Edubuntu, but
    >> then I don't really consider them seperate distros), but usually

    >
    > They're completely different distributions. You're so use to the
    > wintardrd world of Windoze you don't know the difference any more.


    Don't be a complete dick. They are different "distros" in that they are
    on different disks but the fact remains that Ubuntu can become Kubuntu
    with a call to apt and vice versa.

    >
    >> I guarantee you that if you setup a similar environment for Linux,
    >> including web servers, applications servers, databases, groupware and
    >> calendering servers, content management systems, full desktop
    >> environments, etc... you're going to be using at least a gigabyte of
    >> memory when all that stuff is running.

    >
    > NOPE!
    >
    > I run Apache, Postfix/Courier with SASL. Leafnode, MySQL, SSH, Tor/
    > Privoxy, mp3d, Webmin/Usermin, on a PIII in 256M. I could EASILY load X
    > and a window manager without adding more RAM.


    Hard to believe. Unless your Apache is doing nothing. MySQL is doing nothing.
    Yes it could "work" but if "work" means sitting there for an hour while

    insert into fanboy (`names`) (`Cyberiade`);

    crunches away then clearly our "needs" are not the same ...

    The LAMP set up is great - but it doesn't bring its own memory along.
    Sure it might work in very low usage scenarios but that is not typical
    for a LAMP system.

    >
    >> Let's see how much memory your Linux box uses when you've got Apache,
    >> Lotus Notes Server, A big honking java based CMS, OpenOffice, KDE,
    >> Oracle, Tomcat, etc.. running.

    >
    > A whole lot less than any Winblows box running the same, if you can even
    > get Winblows to do all that at the same time without catching fire.
    >
    >
    >


    You forget the "maniacal" before laugh.

    --
    Cuanto más original es un descubrimiento, más obvio parece después.
    -- Arthur Koestler.

  16. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    NoStop wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> Night0wl writes:
    >>
    >>> Mark South wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:08:08 -0700, Night0wl wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Actually, at best, Ubuntu is now about where WNT4 was in 1977
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah, NT4 came out in 1977 and dmr and ken just copied its design to
    >>>> finish Unix.
    >>>>
    >>>> It's sad that Ubuntu has taken so long (30 years!) to achieve the
    >>>> awesome capabilities in terms of memory management, serial
    >>>> multiprocessing, and cross-platform support that NT had achieved long
    >>>> before anyone had even heard of Microsoft.
    >>>
    >>> Actually, Ubu has done in 3-4 years what it took Windoze over 15 to
    >>> accomplish. I think that speaks rather well of them.

    >>
    >> Actually, no it hasn't. Ubuntu was build on Debian which has been around
    >> for 11 years.
    >>
    >> It was started because the Ubuntu team were understandably sick to death
    >> of geeks and fools failing to recognise that Linux needed huge usability
    >> improvements if it was going to get mainstream.

    >
    > Bull****. Please quote Mark Shuttleworth where he EVER said anything like
    > this!


    Don't hold your breath, waiting for a reply. He misquotes people & deliberately
    misinterprets what people say, quite often.

    >> The "it works for me"
    >> gang (go to COLA) would have kept Linux in the gutter otherwise.


    See above.

    > **** you and your goddamn COLA. This is starting to get very annoying. Still
    > trying to cause decent and acting like the troll you are! Can't you post
    > anything here without backslapping people that participate in COLA - which
    > YOU do all the time, btw.


    That's because he *isn't* acting like a troll, he has admitted he *is* one.
    In COLA he's been wrong & had his stupid arse kicked so many times, & he was
    also spotted as a fraud & charlatan almost from Day1. That's why he *tries*
    backslapping people that participate in COLA.


    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  17. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Night0wl wrote:

    >Until grandma can do
    >it, right out of the box (kids are another story), we're still in second
    >place.


    You make the claim that Grandma can deal with Windows and not Ubuntu.
    Do you think that's because Windows is inherently easier, or because
    she's got more experience with Windows?


  18. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    Night0wl wrote:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Night0wl writes:
    >>
    >>> Mark South wrote:
    >>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:08:08 -0700, Night0wl wrote:



    >> Fortunately people with more experience in the real world and real
    >> people headed up Ubuntu and drew out a road map of how to get Linux
    >> usable for non programmers.


    How odd. I'm a non-programmer/coder, & I've used GNU/Linux for 10 years. Never
    had much trouble figuring it out.. Of course I *did* RTFM often.

    >> Sorry to burst your bubble and all, but lets not tell porky pies just to
    >> be a fan boy ....

    >
    > Fanboy? Hardly. I'm just as mystified and as challenged as the next
    > user, but, I'm also impressed by the accomplishment, and what it bodes
    > for the future...





    --
    Operating systems: FreeBSD 6.2 (64bit), PC-BSD 1.4,
    Testing: FreeBSD 7.0-BETA 2
    Linux systems: Kubuntu 7.10 "Gutsy" amd64,
    Debian 4.0, PCLinuxOS 2007.

  19. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    William Poaster writes:

    > Night0wl wrote:
    >
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> Night0wl writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Mark South wrote:
    >>>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:08:08 -0700, Night0wl wrote:

    >
    >
    >>> Fortunately people with more experience in the real world and real
    >>> people headed up Ubuntu and drew out a road map of how to get Linux
    >>> usable for non programmers.

    >
    > How odd. I'm a non-programmer/coder,


    Clearly.

    > & I've used GNU/Linux for 10
    > years. Never
    > had much trouble figuring it out.. Of course I *did* RTFM often.


    I doubt that.

    It's people like you who I refer to. The "rtfm" brigade. Half the
    ducking time there wasn't even an uptodate manual for half the stuff.
    Getting HW working was a guru job. It STILL can be at times.

    See fairly recent tools such as envy and automatix for an example.

    You see the thing is Willy, from the problems we are having NOW, it
    doesn't take a great deal of intellect to deduce that you were either
    very lucky or are a plain bull****ter. Linux was NOT easy to get running
    10 years ago and certainly didn't have anywhere NEAR enough quality
    applications for the average desktop user. Neither were there anywhere
    near enough codecs available for the average user's multimedia needs.

    That is changing. Because of things like the Ubuntu team. And newsgroups
    like this (which used to be a decent place until you and lads started
    policing it with your "me toos" and "works for me" nonsense. Fortunately
    users like Moog and others are here to help the nOObs along.

    The bottom line is this : You, Willy Boaster (filter king) sit there
    huffing and puffing about Linux was ready for the desktop 10 years ago,
    and yet far more intelligent, knowledgeable and successful people like
    Shuttleworth decided it wasn't and did something about it. Hmm. Whom to
    believe? A COLA blowhard like Willy or the developers of things like
    Ubuntu and PCLOS? Tricky. Tricky ......

    >
    >>> Sorry to burst your bubble and all, but lets not tell porky pies just to
    >>> be a fan boy ....

    >>
    >> Fanboy? Hardly. I'm just as mystified and as challenged as the next
    >> user, but, I'm also impressed by the accomplishment, and what it bodes
    >> for the future...

    >
    >


    --
    Prima Legge di Gordon:
    Se non vale la pena fare una ricerca, non vale neanche la pena
    di farla bene.

  20. Re: Another year, and another year of Lintard failure.

    On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 07:45:33 -0600, chrisv wrote:

    > Night0wl wrote:
    >
    >>Until grandma can do
    >>it, right out of the box (kids are another story), we're still in second
    >>place.

    >
    > You make the claim that Grandma can deal with Windows and not Ubuntu.
    > Do you think that's because Windows is inherently easier, or because
    > she's got more experience with Windows?


    Well, ya gotta remember that we were recently informed here that windows
    NT came out in 1977 (when granny was still in her twenties), so grandma
    could have 30 years of experience invested in NT by now, right?

    LOL.

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