Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows! - Linux

This is a discussion on Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows! - Linux ; [snips] On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:40:47 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote: > Couple of issues here. > > [1] The original framing was empty box upon which to > install Linux, versus either empty box upon which ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 58

Thread: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

  1. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    [snips]

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:40:47 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > Couple of issues here.
    >
    > [1] The original framing was empty box upon which to
    > install Linux, versus either empty box upon which to install
    > Windows, or preinstalled Windows box sitting on shelf. The $400
    > therefore is not quite applicable though I'm not sure what the cost
    > delta is between the three.


    The context was an empty box upon which to install Linux, the response
    to which was "Buy a new computer, plug it in, voila" - which necessitates
    an expenditure of cash for said computer.

    Nor does this cover turning the machine into something usable. A typical
    purchased PC has assorted "trial" versions of things - Office, say, and
    some AV app - which need to be enabled, registered, what have you -
    licenses accepted at the least - and which further necessitate additional
    purchases to get the "real" versions, or the time to download alternative
    apps.

    That $400 PC can easily turn into a $1,000 purchase, or many hours
    hunting for, downloading, installing and configuring apps, all to be _at
    best_ comparable to a default install of a typical desktop distro.

    >> down several hundred bucks. But buying the Windows box is only the
    >> beginning of a Windows user's work ...

    >
    > Depends on the apps needed...though with Windows one of those apps is
    > probably going to be an AV solution.


    And very likely a word processor, possibly a spreadsheet, maybe some
    personal finance tools...

    > Two of the nice things about Linux:
    > - one doesn't generally need AV,
    > - distros offer thousands of applications, utilities, and
    > games for download, in addition to what might be termed the "base
    > system".


    Not just "for download". That makes it sound like how Windows does it.
    No, it should be more like "for point-and-click install". As in select
    several from a list, tell it to install them, go for coffee, done. Try
    that in Windows - installing, oh, half a dozen games, an office suite and
    a better browser all in one fell swoop.


  2. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >> ... In Windows, you still have to search for, download and install
    >> each application separately. And you will have to do this with most
    >> applications you may want to use.
    >> In Linux, you simply open the package manager, select all the apps you
    >> want
    >> from the list and click Install. Confirm the installation, wait for it to
    >> finish, and you're all set. AND you don't have to install as many apps as
    >> in Windows, because the popular apps are already installed.
    >>
    >> So no, there is no way in the world that one can claim that getting
    >> productive with a Windows machine is somehow easier and quicker than
    >> getting productive with a Linux machine. Windows is considerably more
    >> cumbersome and expensive -- even when ignoring all those details such as
    >> uninstalling preinstalled craplets, the pain of migrating/restoring user
    >> data and settings, and the fact that the average Windows user buys a new
    >> computer more frequently because the old one is "broken".


    > Wouldn't it be a simple matter to collect the OSS applications that are in
    > the typical Linux bundle and create a DVD that installed the Windows
    > versions in much the same way?


    Well, there's an interesting idea.

    > Given the plethora of Linux distributions that differ only in how the
    > platform itself is presented, that would seem like a logical thing to do.
    > One can only speculate on the reasons why it does not seem to be done.


    There's nothing holding the Windows advocates back to do just that, AFAICS.
    But then again, I may be wrong. Is Windows capable of handling the
    installation of a sort of 'Super Installer' (a.k.a. package manager), Linux
    style, which can then install a whole slew of applications without endless
    Next ... Next ... Next clicking?

    Linux proponents are of course somewhat less inclined to create 'easy DVD's'
    with Windows versions of OSS.

    > Perhaps the usage of the OSS programs is so slight overall that only the
    > Linux fans actually bother with most of them.


    That may be the case. OTOH, Windows users are familiar only with
    the "Windows way"; in my experience, the concept of a package manager Linux
    style only starts to appeal to people once they actually experience how
    much easier and more secure software installation becomes. It's the old
    inertia still at work. And before you point to popular OSS applications
    such as Firefox to counter this inertia argument: that's one well-defined
    application, which not only can replace its Microsoft equivalent 1:1, but
    offers quite an improved "user experience" at that.
    It's far more difficult to replace a compete suite (MS Office) or a
    procedural feature (software installation) in one go.

    > The few that are popular with Windows users, for example MySQL, Apache,
    > PHP, OO, and Firefox, have their own installation promotions and are
    > easily obtained and automatically installed. Even then the first three
    > are commonly useful for people running their own webserver and that is a
    > miniscule percentageof users overall.
    >
    > I seem to have answered my own question here, i.e. there are only the two
    > OSS apps of any impact at all, OO and Firefox, and OO is not particularly
    > populare and Firefox is only marginally so.


    Would you call a 20% user share of Firefox "marginal"?

    > The net result is that your assertion that "getting productive" is so much
    > easier is facetious. The user is not so productive ever if left in the
    > throes of Linux.


    This only goes for users who for one reason or other won't familiarize
    themselves with Linux. And even then, I've seen quite a number of very
    newly ex-Windows users getting to work within minutes, with just a few
    hints from me as to which Linux apps are more or less equivalent to which
    Windows apps.

    But OK, if you define "getting productive" as "getting to use Windows
    applications", in much the same way that mr. lopez99 defines "serious work"
    as "Using MS Office", then you are right, of course.

    > The only productivity available for such a user is web
    > surfing and email.


    Strange. I reckon myself as being quite productive with Linux, using it for
    most of my daily tasks -- translating and editing books, processing images,
    designing electronic circuits (inclusing PCB's), programming controllers,
    keeping the books, etcetera. All this in comfortable, highly configurable
    GUI environment. And I'm pretty certain that most of my hundred or so users
    have the same experience.

    > An iPhone would suffice for most of these, I think.


    I don't think so.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  3. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!


    "Richard Rasker" wrote in message
    news:4913524a$0$720$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.inter nl.net...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>> ... In Windows, you still have to search for, download and install
    >>> each application separately. And you will have to do this with most
    >>> applications you may want to use.
    >>> In Linux, you simply open the package manager, select all the apps you
    >>> want
    >>> from the list and click Install. Confirm the installation, wait for it
    >>> to
    >>> finish, and you're all set. AND you don't have to install as many apps
    >>> as
    >>> in Windows, because the popular apps are already installed.
    >>>
    >>> So no, there is no way in the world that one can claim that getting
    >>> productive with a Windows machine is somehow easier and quicker than
    >>> getting productive with a Linux machine. Windows is considerably more
    >>> cumbersome and expensive -- even when ignoring all those details such as
    >>> uninstalling preinstalled craplets, the pain of migrating/restoring user
    >>> data and settings, and the fact that the average Windows user buys a new
    >>> computer more frequently because the old one is "broken".

    >
    >> Wouldn't it be a simple matter to collect the OSS applications that are
    >> in
    >> the typical Linux bundle and create a DVD that installed the Windows
    >> versions in much the same way?

    >
    > Well, there's an interesting idea.
    >
    >> Given the plethora of Linux distributions that differ only in how the
    >> platform itself is presented, that would seem like a logical thing to do.
    >> One can only speculate on the reasons why it does not seem to be done.

    >
    > There's nothing holding the Windows advocates back to do just that,
    > AFAICS.


    Well that is the question. There is nothing physically restricting this to
    happen, but, AFAIK, it has not. The question is why not.

    > But then again, I may be wrong. Is Windows capable of handling the
    > installation of a sort of 'Super Installer' (a.k.a. package manager),
    > Linux
    > style, which can then install a whole slew of applications without endless
    > Next ... Next ... Next clicking?
    >

    Windows installs are essentially automatic and both freeware and commercial
    install packages exist. Automated install of multiple items is commonly
    done automatically, for example the famous "Patch Tuesday" does this kind of
    install while the user is sleeping or otherwise well away from the computer.


    > Linux proponents are of course somewhat less inclined to create 'easy
    > DVD's'
    > with Windows versions of OSS.
    >

    But OSS proponents are strongly inclined to offer Windows versions of OSS
    programs. I believe that it was determined a while back here that there
    were actually more OSS programs for Windows than there were for Linux.

    >> Perhaps the usage of the OSS programs is so slight overall that only the
    >> Linux fans actually bother with most of them.

    >
    > That may be the case. OTOH, Windows users are familiar only with
    > the "Windows way"; in my experience, the concept of a package manager
    > Linux
    > style only starts to appeal to people once they actually experience how
    > much easier and more secure software installation becomes. It's the old
    > inertia still at work. And before you point to popular OSS applications
    > such as Firefox to counter this inertia argument: that's one well-defined
    > application, which not only can replace its Microsoft equivalent 1:1, but
    > offers quite an improved "user experience" at that.
    > It's far more difficult to replace a compete suite (MS Office) or a
    > procedural feature (software installation) in one go.
    >
    >> The few that are popular with Windows users, for example MySQL, Apache,
    >> PHP, OO, and Firefox, have their own installation promotions and are
    >> easily obtained and automatically installed. Even then the first three
    >> are commonly useful for people running their own webserver and that is a
    >> miniscule percentageof users overall.
    >>
    >> I seem to have answered my own question here, i.e. there are only the two
    >> OSS apps of any impact at all, OO and Firefox, and OO is not particularly
    >> populare and Firefox is only marginally so.

    >
    > Would you call a 20% user share of Firefox "marginal"?
    >

    Actually, I would. Google around for a synopsis of the "Boston Consulting
    Group Product Positioning Grid" for a popular theory of how products behave
    in general markets. If Firefox were 20% and IE, say, 70%, Firefox would be
    a "Dog" and IE a "Cash Cow" for low overall market growth or it would be a
    "Star" and Firefox would be a "Problem Child" in a rapidly growing market.
    Either way, it is not considered an ideal position for Firefox.

    In real life, IE exists to foster use of Windows. If Firefox somehow
    contributes to that end, you should not find Microsoft complaining. There
    is a popular notion that the browser somehow pulls attention through to the
    browser provided, but that seems to be more of a myth than a fact. It was
    perhaps true in the 90's when it was thought that web server software, i.e.
    Netscape, and browser software, i.e. Navigator, were the "next Microsoft
    Windows", but that idea seems to have died with Apache, IS, and IE.
    Windows, however, still turns a pretty penny in commerce.


    >> The net result is that your assertion that "getting productive" is so
    >> much
    >> easier is facetious. The user is not so productive ever if left in the
    >> throes of Linux.

    >
    > This only goes for users who for one reason or other won't familiarize
    > themselves with Linux. And even then, I've seen quite a number of very
    > newly ex-Windows users getting to work within minutes, with just a few
    > hints from me as to which Linux apps are more or less equivalent to which
    > Windows apps.
    >
    > But OK, if you define "getting productive" as "getting to use Windows
    > applications", in much the same way that mr. lopez99 defines "serious
    > work"
    > as "Using MS Office", then you are right, of course.
    >
    >> The only productivity available for such a user is web
    >> surfing and email.

    >
    > Strange. I reckon myself as being quite productive with Linux, using it
    > for
    > most of my daily tasks -- translating and editing books, processing
    > images,
    > designing electronic circuits (inclusing PCB's), programming controllers,
    > keeping the books, etcetera. All this in comfortable, highly configurable
    > GUI environment. And I'm pretty certain that most of my hundred or so
    > users
    > have the same experience.
    >

    Do you use a netbook for all of this? I doubt it.

    It has been a long time since I designed any hardware and back then it was
    done on a drawing board with a pencil. However, a casual review of circuit
    simulation and PCB layout software seems to point to widespread availability
    for Windows. I couldn't find anything that claimed compatibility with
    Linux. As to keeping the books, Intuit seems to be the choice for
    individuals and small businesses and again it is a Windows thing. Are you
    sure you are doing things the easy way?


  4. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "Richard Rasker" wrote in message
    > news:4913524a$0$720$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.inter nl.net...

    ....
    >> Strange. I reckon myself as being quite productive with Linux, using it
    >> for
    >> most of my daily tasks -- translating and editing books, processing
    >> images,
    >> designing electronic circuits (inclusing PCB's), programming controllers,
    >> keeping the books, etcetera. All this in comfortable, highly configurable
    >> GUI environment. And I'm pretty certain that most of my hundred or so
    >> users
    >> have the same experience.
    >>

    > Do you use a netbook for all of this? I doubt it.


    No. Although I could use a netbook for most of these tasks. At worst, some
    CPU-intensive tasks, mostly in the realm of CAD take a little longer to
    complete. And a netbook with its small screen and tiny keyboard isn't very
    well suited for tasks such as designing PCB's -- regardless of the
    underlying OS.

    > It has been a long time since I designed any hardware and back then it was
    > done on a drawing board with a pencil. However, a casual review of
    > circuit simulation and PCB layout software seems to point to widespread
    > availability for Windows. I couldn't find anything that claimed
    > compatibility with Linux.


    I have been using the gEDA suite for years now, and I never had any
    compatibility problems so far. Then again, I never have to open any of
    those project files in Windows, other than in Gerber format.

    > As to keeping the books, Intuit seems to be the
    > choice for individuals and small businesses and again it is a Windows
    > thing.


    I don't think Intuit is suitable for use in the Netherlands, because of a
    rather different way of financial record-keeping in comparison to the US.
    I've been using my own, adapted StarOffice/OpenOffice spreadsheet for this
    purpose for many years; but nowadays, there are lots of accounting suites
    available for Linux, both free (e.g. EekBoek) and non-free.

    > Are you sure you are doing things the easy way?


    Absolutely. Things simply work, so I can do my work with a minimum of
    effort. And I'm a very lazy person, so I should know.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  5. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:29:39 +0100, Richard Rasker wrote:

    > I have been using the gEDA suite for years now, and I never had any
    > compatibility problems so far. Then again, I never have to open any of
    > those project files in Windows, other than in Gerber format.


    Me too!

    In fact I see one of my example schematics, a 'lightning detector
    project' (not my design) is still included in the Docs section

    I just checked your website, very nice and great to see!

    Cheers
    Terry


    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  6. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    >Rat wrote:
    >>
    >> It has been a long time since I designed any hardware and back then it was
    >> done on a drawing board with a pencil.


    It figures that you're an old rat, so incapable you are of
    understanding the new forces that will defeat your beloved Micro$oft
    Corp...

    --
    "Forcing Linux on the unsuspecting kids? : check" - "True Linux
    advocate" Hadron Quark

  7. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    > amicus_curious wrote:


    >> You must really live out in the sticks. To install Windows, you
    >> simply:
    >>
    >> 1. Buy a computer.
    >>
    >> 2. Bring it home.
    >>
    >> 3. Open the box.
    >>
    >> 4. Plug it in.
    >>
    >> That's how the settled world does it.


    Is that "settled" as in "people have settled for lower standards" or
    "OEM deals are settled under the table"?

    Trust amicus_unscrupulous to condone racketeering substandard software.

    > And you claim that this process, costing the average user at least
    > twenty hours of work, is /easier/ than installing Linux? And what
    > about the annual (or even more frequent) reinstalls? People go out
    > and buy a new computer every time the OS has crapped out on them? Oh
    > yes, I forgot, lots of people do ...


    Windows: The Disposable OS.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    20:30:17 up 2 days, 4:13, 4 users, load average: 0.10, 0.18, 0.16

  8. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Homer on Friday 07 November 2008 20:30 : \____

    >
    >
    > Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >> amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    >>> You must really live out in the sticks. To install Windows, you
    >>> simply:
    >>>
    >>> 1. Buy a computer.
    >>>
    >>> 2. Bring it home.
    >>>
    >>> 3. Open the box.
    >>>
    >>> 4. Plug it in.
    >>>
    >>> That's how the settled world does it.

    >
    > Is that "settled" as in "people have settled for lower standards" or
    > "OEM deals are settled under the table"?
    >
    > Trust amicus_unscrupulous to condone racketeering substandard software.


    Crime becomes an operation mode, a norm if you like, when it's repeated for so
    long and when you pollute the DoJ with your cronies, which means no punishment
    is to be expected. People will have the chase you from Asia and Europe to make
    a complaint... (and even then the DOJ will attack them on your behalf)

    >> And you claim that this process, costing the average user at least
    >> twenty hours of work, is /easier/ than installing Linux? And what
    >> about the annual (or even more frequent) reinstalls? People go out
    >> and buy a new computer every time the OS has crapped out on them? Oh
    >> yes, I forgot, lots of people do ...

    >
    > Windows: The Disposable OS.


    It works well for Microsoft. Difficult installation reduces the possibility of
    unbundling.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Proprietary cripples communication
    http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkkVUJgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6l3wCeLmHN4w++XK kdNKmUfVRifwGR
    5KEAnitaCBx55ERGgXBVFxlGaheuShRZ
    =t6DZ
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  9. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Homer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >> amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    >>> You must really live out in the sticks. To install Windows, you
    >>> simply:
    >>>
    >>> 1. Buy a computer.
    >>>
    >>> 2. Bring it home.
    >>>
    >>> 3. Open the box.
    >>>
    >>> 4. Plug it in.
    >>>
    >>> That's how the settled world does it.

    >
    > Is that "settled" as in "people have settled for lower standards" or
    > "OEM deals are settled under the table"?
    >
    > Trust amicus_unscrupulous to condone racketeering substandard software.
    >
    >> And you claim that this process, costing the average user at least
    >> twenty hours of work, is /easier/ than installing Linux? And what
    >> about the annual (or even more frequent) reinstalls? People go out
    >> and buy a new computer every time the OS has crapped out on them? Oh
    >> yes, I forgot, lots of people do ...

    >
    > Windows: The Disposable OS.


    Well, that's the scourge of the modern world in general. Every single
    company tries to hitch a ride on the Green Train, paying lip service
    towards "saving materials and energy, and reducing carbon emission"
    etcetera -- but in reality, the unstoppable trend is caught in four
    words: "Toss Away, Buy New".
    Manufacturers and "service desks" take every effort to a) design their stuff
    so it won't last more than a few years, and b) make it as unattractive as
    possible to repair even the simplest of malfunctions, and c) simply lie to
    you in order to sell you new stuff, even if you explicitly ask them for
    repair service.

    Some recent examples I encountered:
    - A Canon 3-in-1 printer/scanner/copier, just over 14 months old, with a
    somewhat clogged printing head, resulting in poor printing quality. The
    printing head could be taken out and replaced within seconds, by simply
    lifting a lever. First, Canon flat-out refused to supply a new printing
    head. The only "solution" was to send the device to them for repair, which
    would cost $50 in shipping, a whopping $150 or so flat fee for "labour",
    and another $200(!!) for the printing head. And this for a device which had
    cost some $190 new. The lady I spoke to on the phone admitted that no-one
    actually had their printers repaired. Duh. And only after quite a heated
    discussion, Canon offered to just send me a new printing head, still
    costing $200 though. Some digging revealed that these heads were
    manufactured in Malaysia, for some $8 each -- but Canon simply wouldn't
    sell these for a reasonable price, undoubtedly because they'd rather sell
    new printers than make the old ones last. So in the end, 20 pounds of
    plastic and electronics was trashed, and a new device bought. But not a
    Canon, obviously. Toss Away, Buy New.
    - A $1000 Sony TV, barely three years old, with no colours all of a sudden.
    When the owner brought it to the store where he'd originally bought it, he
    was almost conned by a "technician" who told him that the picture tube was
    broken, that this was a common problem with Sony TV's, and that buying a
    new one was the only "solution". The next day, it took me all of five
    minutes to replace the small colour carrier trim capacitor to fix the
    problem. Toss Away, Buy New -- narrowly prevented.
    - My parents' fridge which refused to cool. The actual brand's service
    technician ($80 call out charges) concluded after an hour that "The cooling
    circuit had come away from the back wall, and this means it's a total
    loss". When I came over two weeks later, it took me five minutes to find
    that a small, 30-cents defrosting switch didn't latch any more. Replaced it
    (another ten minutes), and everything's perfectly fine since. Toss Away,
    Buy New -- narrowly prevented.
    - Completely worn-out bearings after only two years in a $500 washing
    machine of a friend of mine. Cost of new bearings set: $250, without
    labour. Toss Away, Buy New.
    - A 14-months old Siemens dishwasher with a totally worn-out pump motor. New
    motor: $180 ...
    - Small electronic kitchen scales that I bought, for weighing small items
    such as postage packages, and other small stuff. Turned out that this piece
    of modern crap didn't recognize weight increases of less than 5 grams. So
    when I wanted to determine the total weight of a batch of electronic
    components, and dropped them in the bowl one or two at a time, the display
    told me it was some 87 grams, while in reality, it was 340 grams. Total
    rubbish. Only after a lot of talking and pleading would the shop take it
    back in exchange for another brand of scales (/all/ scales of that
    particular brand had this design fult) -- tested on the spot, of course.
    And I could go on and on and on ...

    And one example from the good 'ole days: A year ago, we had to buy a new
    washing machine to finally replace our old one -- which had functioned for
    27 years with just two small repairs. The reason we had to trash it? A
    completely worn rubber hose between the tub and the drain pump, which
    unfortunately wasn't available anywhere any more. For all the rest, the
    machine worked just fine still.
    Nowadays, you're lucky if an appliance works for a three years before you
    can toss it :-(

    So it's not just Microsoft and OEM's frantically trying to sell people new,
    crappy rubbish instead of simply fixing the problems with their old crappy
    rubbish -- or delivering a proper product in the first place.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  10. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    On Sat, 08 Nov 2008 15:32:24 +0100, Richard Rasker wrote:


    > So it's not just Microsoft and OEM's frantically trying to sell people
    > new, crappy rubbish instead of simply fixing the problems with their old
    > crappy rubbish -- or delivering a proper product in the first place.
    >
    > Richard Rasker


    So true, my HP 4ch 100Mhz DSO lasted 5 years before triggering died. No
    parts, no schematics. Cost $6500 11 years ago.

    Shame as it was a great tool.

    What do I use now ?
    A Tektronix 7623 mainframe with a 7A13 Diff comparator, both probably
    over 20 years old and still working perfectly. Cost $650 two years ago.



    --
    Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997

  11. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Richard Rasker writes:

    > Homer wrote:
    >
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:

    >>
    >>>> You must really live out in the sticks. To install Windows, you
    >>>> simply:
    >>>>
    >>>> 1. Buy a computer.
    >>>>
    >>>> 2. Bring it home.
    >>>>
    >>>> 3. Open the box.
    >>>>
    >>>> 4. Plug it in.
    >>>>
    >>>> That's how the settled world does it.

    >>
    >> Is that "settled" as in "people have settled for lower standards" or
    >> "OEM deals are settled under the table"?
    >>
    >> Trust amicus_unscrupulous to condone racketeering substandard software.
    >>
    >>> And you claim that this process, costing the average user at least
    >>> twenty hours of work, is /easier/ than installing Linux? And what
    >>> about the annual (or even more frequent) reinstalls? People go out
    >>> and buy a new computer every time the OS has crapped out on them? Oh
    >>> yes, I forgot, lots of people do ...

    >>
    >> Windows: The Disposable OS.

    >
    > Well, that's the scourge of the modern world in general. Every single
    > company tries to hitch a ride on the Green Train, paying lip service
    > towards "saving materials and energy, and reducing carbon emission"
    > etcetera -- but in reality, the unstoppable trend is caught in four
    > words: "Toss Away, Buy New".
    > Manufacturers and "service desks" take every effort to a) design their stuff
    > so it won't last more than a few years, and b) make it as unattractive as
    > possible to repair even the simplest of malfunctions, and c) simply lie to
    > you in order to sell you new stuff, even if you explicitly ask them for
    > repair service.
    >
    > Some recent examples I encountered:
    > - A Canon 3-in-1 printer/scanner/copier, just over 14 months old, with a
    > somewhat clogged printing head, resulting in poor printing quality. The
    > printing head could be taken out and replaced within seconds, by simply
    > lifting a lever. First, Canon flat-out refused to supply a new printing
    > head. The only "solution" was to send the device to them for repair, which
    > would cost $50 in shipping, a whopping $150 or so flat fee for "labour",
    > and another $200(!!) for the printing head. And this for a device which had
    > cost some $190 new. The lady I spoke to on the phone admitted that no-one
    > actually had their printers repaired. Duh. And only after quite a heated
    > discussion, Canon offered to just send me a new printing head, still
    > costing $200 though. Some digging revealed that these heads were
    > manufactured in Malaysia, for some $8 each -- but Canon simply wouldn't
    > sell these for a reasonable price, undoubtedly because they'd rather sell
    > new printers than make the old ones last. So in the end, 20 pounds of
    > plastic and electronics was trashed, and a new device bought. But not a
    > Canon, obviously. Toss Away, Buy New.
    > - A $1000 Sony TV, barely three years old, with no colours all of a sudden.
    > When the owner brought it to the store where he'd originally bought it, he
    > was almost conned by a "technician" who told him that the picture tube was
    > broken, that this was a common problem with Sony TV's, and that buying a
    > new one was the only "solution". The next day, it took me all of five
    > minutes to replace the small colour carrier trim capacitor to fix the
    > problem. Toss Away, Buy New -- narrowly prevented.
    > - My parents' fridge which refused to cool. The actual brand's service
    > technician ($80 call out charges) concluded after an hour that "The cooling
    > circuit had come away from the back wall, and this means it's a total
    > loss". When I came over two weeks later, it took me five minutes to find
    > that a small, 30-cents defrosting switch didn't latch any more. Replaced it
    > (another ten minutes), and everything's perfectly fine since. Toss Away,
    > Buy New -- narrowly prevented.
    > - Completely worn-out bearings after only two years in a $500 washing
    > machine of a friend of mine. Cost of new bearings set: $250, without
    > labour. Toss Away, Buy New.
    > - A 14-months old Siemens dishwasher with a totally worn-out pump motor. New
    > motor: $180 ...
    > - Small electronic kitchen scales that I bought, for weighing small items
    > such as postage packages, and other small stuff. Turned out that this piece
    > of modern crap didn't recognize weight increases of less than 5 grams. So
    > when I wanted to determine the total weight of a batch of electronic
    > components, and dropped them in the bowl one or two at a time, the display
    > told me it was some 87 grams, while in reality, it was 340 grams. Total
    > rubbish. Only after a lot of talking and pleading would the shop take it
    > back in exchange for another brand of scales (/all/ scales of that
    > particular brand had this design fult) -- tested on the spot, of course.
    > And I could go on and on and on ...
    >
    > And one example from the good 'ole days: A year ago, we had to buy a new
    > washing machine to finally replace our old one -- which had functioned for
    > 27 years with just two small repairs. The reason we had to trash it? A
    > completely worn rubber hose between the tub and the drain pump, which
    > unfortunately wasn't available anywhere any more. For all the rest, the
    > machine worked just fine still.
    > Nowadays, you're lucky if an appliance works for a three years before you
    > can toss it :-(
    >
    > So it's not just Microsoft and OEM's frantically trying to sell people new,
    > crappy rubbish instead of simply fixing the problems with their old crappy
    > rubbish -- or delivering a proper product in the first place.
    >
    > Richard Rasker


    What do YOU charge for maintaining the documents you provide for people?
    Or do you do it for free?

    Your rants are becoming more ridiculous and dishonest as Christmas
    beckons. Shame on you.

    27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the environment?!?!?!?




  12. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Hadron wrote:

    > Richard Rasker writes:
    >
    >> Homer wrote:
    >>
    >>> Verily I say unto thee, that Richard Rasker spake thusly:
    >>>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> You must really live out in the sticks. To install Windows, you
    >>>>> simply:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 1. Buy a computer.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 2. Bring it home.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 3. Open the box.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> 4. Plug it in.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That's how the settled world does it.
    >>>
    >>> Is that "settled" as in "people have settled for lower standards" or
    >>> "OEM deals are settled under the table"?
    >>>
    >>> Trust amicus_unscrupulous to condone racketeering substandard software.
    >>>
    >>>> And you claim that this process, costing the average user at least
    >>>> twenty hours of work, is /easier/ than installing Linux? And what
    >>>> about the annual (or even more frequent) reinstalls? People go out
    >>>> and buy a new computer every time the OS has crapped out on them? Oh
    >>>> yes, I forgot, lots of people do ...
    >>>
    >>> Windows: The Disposable OS.

    >>
    >> Well, that's the scourge of the modern world in general.


    [snip rant about low quality of modern stuff]

    > What do YOU charge for maintaining the documents you provide for people?
    > Or do you do it for free?


    Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to 'maintain'
    documents I create? Do they break? Is their content subject to degradation?
    Do they become unreadable all of a sudden? OK, the latter could be the
    case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've had this happen to me quite a few
    times in the distant past, but not any more for a long time.

    > Your rants are becoming more ridiculous and dishonest as Christmas
    > beckons. Shame on you.


    Excuse me? What is the dishonesty here?

    > 27 year old washing machine? Dont you CARE about the environment?!?!?!?


    Yes, I do. I repair stuff instead of throwing it in the bin. And I'm good at
    it.

    You're not making a lot of sense today.

    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  13. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Richard Rasker wrote:

    > Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    > 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    > subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    > OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    > had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,


    Liar.




  14. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Richard Rasker belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > You're not making a lot of sense today.


    He rarely does.

    --
    From a certain point onward there is no longer any turning back.
    That is the point that must be reached.
    -- F. Kafka

  15. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    "DFS" writes:

    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >
    >> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,

    >
    > Liar.


    He's getting worse.

  16. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Hadron wrote:

    > "DFS" writes:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >>> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >>> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >>> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >>> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,

    >>
    >> Liar.

    >
    > He's getting worse.


    You both are, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark and DumbFull****

    It actually happens all too often with MS Word files, when lots of images
    and graphics are used. It can get to a point where you simply can't even
    load the file any longer.
    Luckily OO comes to the rescue then
    --
    Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
    It could be worse, but it'll take time.


  17. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Peter Köhlmann wrote:
    > Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> "DFS" writes:
    >>
    >>> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >>>> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >>>> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >>>> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck,
    >>>> I've had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,
    >>>
    >>> Liar.

    >>
    >> He's getting worse.

    >
    > You both are, "true linux advocate" Hadron Quark and DumbFull****
    >
    > It actually happens all too often with MS Word files, when lots of
    > images and graphics are used. It can get to a point where you simply
    > can't even load the file any longer.


    Show us an example of your lying bull****, dumbkopf.



    > Luckily OO comes to the rescue then


    http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/do...449811033.aspx




  18. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    DFS wrote:

    > Richard Rasker wrote:
    >
    >> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,

    >
    > Liar.


    Oh yeah, I forgot. The Wintroll's definition of "liar" is someone who says
    something without providing irrefutable proof, plus a sworn and signed
    affidavit, approved by at least three other established Wintrolls or one
    senior Microsoft employee. Or anyone advocating Linux, no matter what.

    And, of course, MS Office is flawless, as are the files created with it.
    Hehe, just kidding. Just like the rest of Microsoft's products, MS Office
    is the most unstable, buggy crapware of its kind. I've helped quite a few
    people by using OpenOffice to recover .doc files they couldn't open in MS
    Office any more. And I still have to see OpenOffice crash on me for the
    first time.

    So here ya go:
    http://www.velocityreviews.com/forum...-document.html
    http://oreilly.com/pub/wlg/3154
    http://www.brainbell.com/tutorials/m...er_A_Crash.htm
    http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2...upt-word-docs/
    http://www.officeformac.com/.59b5ed99/0
    http://forums.thomsonscientific.com/...&thread.id=604
    http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/...n-opening.aspx


    Richard Rasker
    --
    http://www.linetec.nl

  19. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Richard Rasker wrote:

    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >>> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >>> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >>> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >>> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,

    >>
    >> Liar.

    >
    > Oh yeah, I forgot. The Wintroll's definition of "liar" is someone who says
    > something without providing irrefutable proof, plus a sworn and signed
    > affidavit, approved by at least three other established Wintrolls or one
    > senior Microsoft employee. Or anyone advocating Linux, no matter what.
    >
    > And, of course, MS Office is flawless, as are the files created with it.
    > Hehe, just kidding. Just like the rest of Microsoft's products, MS Office
    > is the most unstable, buggy crapware of its kind. I've helped quite a few
    > people by using OpenOffice to recover .doc files they couldn't open in MS
    > Office any more. And I still have to see OpenOffice crash on me for the
    > first time.
    >
    > So here ya go:
    >

    http://www.velocityreviews.com/forum...-document.html
    > http://oreilly.com/pub/wlg/3154
    >

    http://www.brainbell.com/tutorials/m...er_A_Crash.htm
    >

    http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2...upt-word-docs/
    > http://www.officeformac.com/.59b5ed99/0
    >

    http://forums.thomsonscientific.com/...&thread.id=604
    >

    http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/...n-opening.aspx
    >


    DumbFull**** still will claim that that crow is tasting just fine
    --
    Another name for a Windows tutorial is crash course


  20. Re: Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows!

    Richard Rasker wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >
    >> Richard Rasker wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sorry, you completely lost me there. Why on earth would I have to
    >>> 'maintain' documents I create? Do they break? Is their content
    >>> subject to degradation? Do they become unreadable all of a sudden?
    >>> OK, the latter could be the case, if I'd use MS Office -- heck, I've
    >>> had this happen to me quite a few times in the distant past,

    >>
    >> Liar.

    >
    > Oh yeah, I forgot. The Wintroll's definition of "liar" is someone who
    > says something without providing irrefutable proof, plus a sworn and
    > signed affidavit, approved by at least three other established
    > Wintrolls or one senior Microsoft employee. Or anyone advocating
    > Linux, no matter what.
    >
    > And, of course, MS Office is flawless, as are the files created with
    > it. Hehe, just kidding. Just like the rest of Microsoft's products,
    > MS Office is the most unstable, buggy crapware of its kind. I've
    > helped quite a few people by using OpenOffice to recover .doc files
    > they couldn't open in MS Office any more. And I still have to see
    > OpenOffice crash on me for the first time.
    >
    > So here ya go:
    > http://www.velocityreviews.com/forum...-document.html
    > http://oreilly.com/pub/wlg/3154
    > http://www.brainbell.com/tutorials/m...er_A_Crash.htm
    > http://www.mealldubh.org/index.php/2...upt-word-docs/
    > http://www.officeformac.com/.59b5ed99/0
    > http://forums.thomsonscientific.com/...&thread.id=604
    > http://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/...n-opening.aspx



    What do these bugs have to do with your lie that you've often had MS Office
    documents suddenly become unreadable?

    Face facts, Rasker: you're a liar. You always have been.


    Also: Results 1 - 10 of about 44,700 for OpenOffice document corrupt.
    Results 1 - 10 of about 1,170,000 for OpenOffice crashes
    Results 1 - 10 of about 393,000 for OpenOffice freezes


    Results 1 - 10 of about 188,000 for Microsoft Office document corrupt
    Results 1 - 10 of about 2,240,000 for Microsoft Office crashes
    Results 1 - 10 of about 757,000 for Microsoft Office freezes

    With a MS Office installed base some 50x to 90x higher than OO, it's crystal
    clear which is the crapware.






+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast