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

This is a discussion on Linux ... FAR, FAR easier to install than Windows! - Linux ; I thought I'd give the latest Ubuntu 8.10-mid a try on my EeeePC900 last night. The MID USB image allows you to try Ubuntu without changing your computer at all, and at your option to install it permanently later. This ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 58

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

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

    I thought I'd give the latest Ubuntu 8.10-mid a try on my EeeePC900 last
    night.

    The MID USB image allows you to try Ubuntu without changing your computer
    at all, and at your option to install it permanently later. This USB
    image is optimized for handheld devices with 4-7" touchscreens and
    limited processing power. You will need at least 128MB of RAM to install
    from this image.

    Here is the procedure using a 1GB SD card, note I could have used a USB
    flash drive etc:-

    1) dl the iso "ubuntu-8.10-mid-lpia.img"

    2) DD the image to the SD card, mine is at /dev/sdg

    3) Insert SD card into EeePC SD card slot

    4) Turn on Eeepc

    5) After turning on, hit and choose the SD card from the boot menu

    DONE, now booted into Ubuntu, everything worked (except wifi, I couldn't
    find a wifi icon), tons of apps, networking just worked the instant I
    plugged in a network cable, all automagically. Not a bad effort Ubuntu.

    It's not just Ubuntu that is this easy, Debian, Backtrack, all are done
    exactly the same way.

    Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?

    Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that Linux
    is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.




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

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

    On Nov 4, 9:53*pm, Terry Porter wrote:
    > I thought I'd give the latest Ubuntu 8.10-mid a try on my EeeePC900 last
    > night.
    >
    > The MID USB image allows you to try Ubuntu without changing your computer
    > at all, and at your option to install it permanently later. This USB
    > image is optimized for handheld devices with 4-7" touchscreens and
    > limited processing power. You will need at least 128MB of RAM to install
    > from this image.
    >
    > Here is the procedure using a 1GB SD card, note I could have used a USB
    > flash drive etc:-
    >
    > 1) dl the iso "ubuntu-8.10-mid-lpia.img"
    >
    > 2) DD the image to the SD card, mine is at /dev/sdg
    >
    > 3) Insert SD card into EeePC SD card slot
    >
    > 4) Turn on Eeepc
    >
    > 5) After turning on, hit and choose the SD card from the boot menu
    >
    > DONE, now booted into Ubuntu, everything worked (except wifi, I couldn't
    > find a wifi icon), tons of apps, networking just worked the instant I
    > plugged in a network cable, all automagically. Not a bad effort Ubuntu.
    >
    > It's not just Ubuntu that is this easy, Debian, Backtrack, all are done
    > exactly the same way.
    >
    > Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >
    > Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that Linux
    > is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >
    > --
    > Linux full time, on the desktop, since August 1997


    I thought Wifi was handled by the Network Manager applet in 8.10.

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


    "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...
    >
    > Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >
    > Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that Linux
    > is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >

    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.


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

    amicus_curious wrote:

    >
    > "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    > news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...
    >>
    >> Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >>
    >> Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that Linux
    >> is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >>

    > 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.


    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 ...

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

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

    "Richard Rasker" schreef in bericht
    news:491059b0$0$720$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.inter nl.net...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    >> news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...
    >>>
    >>> Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >>>
    >>> Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that
    >>> Linux
    >>> is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >>>

    >> 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.

    >
    > And you claim that this process, costing the average user at least twenty
    > hours of work, is /easier/ than installing Linux?


    Why should anyone install Windows when it's pre-installed and when one has a
    3 years certificate of guarantee on hardware & pre installed software &
    support, you twit!

    > 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 Vista never crapped out on me and I have 1.5 years of guarantee
    left!


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

    > rat:
    >>
    >> 1. Buy a computer.
    >>
    >> 2. Bring it home.
    >>
    >> 3. Open the box.
    >>
    >> 4. Plug it in.


    5. Run Windwoes and surf the net as admin.

    >> That's how the settled world does it.


    Which why things got so fscked-up.


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

    "chrisv" schreef in bericht
    news:iop0h41bkdgvbjl0e5vsmked1amo4hm3cl@4ax.com...
    >> rat:
    >>>
    >>> 1. Buy a computer.
    >>>
    >>> 2. Bring it home.
    >>>
    >>> 3. Open the box.
    >>>
    >>> 4. Plug it in.

    >
    > 5. Run Windwoes and surf the net as admin.


    For fscks sake, did you do that!
    >
    >>> That's how the settled world does it.

    >
    > Which why things got so fscked-up.


    Yes, that's too bad!
    Didn't you get any warnings from UAC, Windows Defender, the standard
    firewall, your AV?
    I bet you create diskimages, just in case?



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

    On 2008-11-04, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    > news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...
    >>
    >> Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >>
    >> Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that Linux
    >> is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >>

    > 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.


    Kind of but not really.

    There's still integration with whatever devices you might
    have lying around. This can include things like USB storage
    devices, personal media players and "old" printers.

    Vista has an alarming and unexpected degree of trouble with printers.

    Then there's stuff like "multimedia" and ensuring that your Windows
    box is robust enough to survive on the internet without becoming part of
    some bot net. The manner in which Windows security discussions among Win
    users degenerate in other forums is quite illuminating in this respect.

    --
    Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
    / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

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

    "JEDIDIAH" schreef in bericht
    news:slrngh0spf.1hb.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    > On 2008-11-04, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    >> news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...
    >>>
    >>> Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >>>
    >>> Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that
    >>> Linux
    >>> is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >>>

    >> 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.

    >
    > Kind of but not really.
    >
    > There's still integration with whatever devices you might
    > have lying around. This can include things like USB storage
    > devices, personal media players and "old" printers.
    >
    > Vista has an alarming and unexpected degree of trouble with printers.


    BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAH!!

    http://winqual.microsoft.com/HCL/Pro...=v&cid=900&g=d
    96 pages X 50 printers per page!

    >
    > Then there's stuff like "multimedia" and ensuring that your Windows
    > box is robust enough to survive on the internet without becoming part of
    > some bot net. The manner in which Windows security discussions among Win
    > users degenerate in other forums is quite illuminating in this respect.
    >
    > --
    > Apple: because TRANS.TBL is an mp3 file. It really is! |||
    > / | \
    >
    > Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    > ----------------------------------------------------------
    > http://www.usenet.com




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


    "Richard Rasker" wrote in message
    news:491059b0$0$720$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.inter nl.net...
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    >> news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...
    >>>
    >>> Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >>>
    >>> Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that
    >>> Linux
    >>> is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >>>

    >> 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.

    >
    > 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 ...
    >

    I do not understand how it could take 20 hours to go through my listed
    process. Costco is a mere 15 minute drive from my house and, even if it
    were across the state, the transit time is hardly in the category of 'work'.

    As to the re-installs that you claim, do you really think that they are
    necessary? I know that it is a tale often told by one Linux fan to another,
    but I have never had the need to do that. I had one computer lose its C:\
    drive last year, but I replaced it and re-installed the (XP pro) OS rather
    easily. That computer was several years old.

    I think that many people would replace the entire computer at that point,
    since the commercial cost of a hard drive, installation labor, and OS
    install is several hundred dollars if you choose The Geek Squad or similar.
    A new computer is not much more than that.


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


    "JEDIDIAH" wrote in message
    news:slrngh0spf.1hb.jedi@nomad.mishnet...
    > On 2008-11-04, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    >> news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...
    >>>
    >>> Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >>>
    >>> Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that
    >>> Linux
    >>> is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >>>

    >> 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.

    >
    > Kind of but not really.
    >
    > There's still integration with whatever devices you might
    > have lying around. This can include things like USB storage
    > devices, personal media players and "old" printers.
    >

    I don't think so. For most people, they just plug in and work. A few per
    cent of the people will have a problem, certainly, but not many. I think
    that a lot of people would replace an aging printer with a new one at the
    same time, if they bothered with a printer at all. Printers are exceedingly
    cheap these days. I got a Canon laser printer for under $100 two years ago
    and I noticed that a color laser is available at Costco for $129 now. Who's
    going to want to mess around with an old inkjet anyway?

    > Vista has an alarming and unexpected degree of trouble with printers.
    >

    One person's junk is another person's treasures to be sure, but the same
    holds true for Linux. The number of people who come to either condition can
    be ignored in the overall strategy of market planning.

    > Then there's stuff like "multimedia" and ensuring that your Windows
    > box is robust enough to survive on the internet without becoming part of
    > some bot net. The manner in which Windows security discussions among Win
    > users degenerate in other forums is quite illuminating in this respect.
    >

    Sure it is. Keep telling yourself that.


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

    On 2008-11-04, amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > "Richard Rasker" wrote in message
    > news:491059b0$0$720$7ade8c0d@textreader.nntp.inter nl.net...
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    >>> news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...
    >>>>
    >>>> Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >>>>
    >>>> Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that
    >>>> Linux
    >>>> is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.
    >>>>
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> 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 ...
    >>

    > I do not understand how it could take 20 hours to go through my listed
    > process. Costco is a mere 15 minute drive from my house and, even if it
    > were across the state, the transit time is hardly in the category of 'work'.
    >
    > As to the re-installs that you claim, do you really think that they are
    > necessary? I know that it is a tale often told by one Linux fan to another,


    No. It's the crap we hear from our Windows using friends, coworkers
    and relatives. We either get to see it firsthand or we get to hear about
    the aftermath afterwards.

    [deletia]

    We don't need to manufacture experience from Google like Lemmings.

    You make it sound as if someone could hide from Windows even if they
    wanted too.

    --
    The best OS in the world is ultimately useless |||
    if it is controlled by a Tramiel, Jobs or Gates. / | \

    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

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

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

    ____/ Terry Porter on Tuesday 04 November 2008 08:53 : \____

    > I thought I'd give the latest Ubuntu 8.10-mid a try on my EeeePC900 last
    > night.
    >
    > The MID USB image allows you to try Ubuntu without changing your computer
    > at all, and at your option to install it permanently later. This USB
    > image is optimized for handheld devices with 4-7" touchscreens and
    > limited processing power. You will need at least 128MB of RAM to install
    > from this image.
    >
    > Here is the procedure using a 1GB SD card, note I could have used a USB
    > flash drive etc:-
    >
    > 1) dl the iso "ubuntu-8.10-mid-lpia.img"
    >
    > 2) DD the image to the SD card, mine is at /dev/sdg
    >
    > 3) Insert SD card into EeePC SD card slot
    >
    > 4) Turn on Eeepc
    >
    > 5) After turning on, hit and choose the SD card from the boot menu
    >
    > DONE, now booted into Ubuntu, everything worked (except wifi, I couldn't
    > find a wifi icon), tons of apps, networking just worked the instant I
    > plugged in a network cable, all automagically. Not a bad effort Ubuntu.
    >
    > It's not just Ubuntu that is this easy, Debian, Backtrack, all are done
    > exactly the same way.
    >
    > Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?
    >
    > Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that Linux
    > is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.


    It was even easier installing Mandriva and Kubuntu (dual-boot) on this
    brand-new box. Everything--and I mean /everything/--worked like a charm out of
    the box. Just a "Next"/"OK" GUI routine.

    It's time for unbundling.

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Software sucks. Open Source sucks less."
    http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    Tasks: 140 total, 1 running, 139 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
    http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkkQpiIACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6UGgCggJeGl0Xmr6/BsGadeNZkI5e2
    pwgAnAzf8segJH32IUg6McxDe5DyDoLS
    =LZMY
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    >Rat wrote:
    >>
    >> As to the re-installs that you claim, do you really think that they are
    >> necessary? I know that it is a tale often told by one Linux fan to another,

    >
    >No. It's the crap we hear from our Windows using friends, coworkers
    >and relatives. We either get to see it firsthand or we get to hear about
    >the aftermath afterwards.


    *Rare* is the home user whose Windows installation has not degraded or
    been compromised so that reinstall (or replacement) was called-for. I
    dare say we've all had to do this for friends and family. Only a
    dishonest fsck like Rat would pretend otherwise.


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

    On Nov 4, 6:18 am, Richard Rasker wrote:
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > > "Terry Porter" wrote in message
    > >news:jcednYM5aK3qkI3UnZ2dnUVZ_rvinZ2d@netspace.net .au...

    >
    > >> Anyone want to claim it's this *EASY* with Windows ?

    >
    > >> Failure to prove its this easy with Windows, will prove to me, that Linux
    > >> is far easier to install than Windows, end of story.

    >
    > > 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.

    >
    > 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 ...
    >
    > Richard Rasker


    Erm....how do you figure this takes 20 hours of work?
    The box has everything installed on it; the OEM's
    already incurred the cost for you. (And it's not that
    much of a cost if he's shipping thousands of units;
    see below.)

    Unless you're referring to the installation of Windows
    Vista (or XP), which is a more valid comparison at one
    level, but less valid at another; the user shopping at an
    electronics store for a computer unit isn't likely to be
    thinking of it as anything more than an appliance such as
    a blender, toaster, or microwave unit that simply needs
    to be removed from its box, plugged in, and turned on.

    A bit easier than removing the unit from its box, plugging
    it in, turning it on, finding a free Linux install CD,
    shoving said CD into its face, and walking through the
    instructions.

    (Granted, not that much easier, but there are more steps involved.)

    Of course, Terry's original question, while completely
    different, is still valid, but installation is a one-time
    cost for an OEM, in most cases:

    [1] Bring lot/shipment of hardware into lab.
    [2] Unpack a representative, call it M0.
    [3] Set up M0.
    [4] Install the desired OS on M0.
    [5] Shutdown M0.
    [6] Boot M0 with a special disc (a Linux livedisc will do),
    or pull the hard drive out and put it on a duplicator.
    [7] If necessary, remove licensing markers added during
    step 4. (This apparently is an issue for Windows.
    I don't know the details. It is possible this step
    needs to be inserted before step 5.)
    [8] Create image, or just duplicate disk, for each other
    machine M1-Mn in the shipment, and in all subsequent
    shipments if the config thereof is identical to M0.
    [9] Ship to (hopefully) happy customers, who will
    rekey in the licensing info removed in step 7 if necessary.

    So which question is it, guys 'n gals?

    [1] Which is easier, installing Linux on a
    preinstalled Windows box, or just using the preinstalled Windows?
    [2] Which is easier, installing Linux on a blank box,
    or installing Windows on a blank box, assuming the box
    starts out blank?

    Terry is asking question 2. Amicus is clearly relating to question 1.

    One can also modify these questions as desired -- for example, Windows
    does not start out with Office, which also has to be installed
    in case [2], and might or might not be preinstalled in case 1.



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

    JEDIDIAH wrote:

    > On 2008-11-04, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>

    < snip >

    >> I don't think so. For most people, they just plug in and work. A few
    >> per

    >
    > Yeah... keep on telling yourself that pollster.
    >
    >> cent of the people will have a problem, certainly, but not many. I think
    >> that a lot of people would replace an aging printer with a new one at the
    >> same time, if they bothered with a printer at all. Printers are
    >> exceedingly

    >
    > Why bother? A printer can outlast 2 or 3 generations of PC.



    Bill Weisgerber again misses the point, too.
    He keeps harping that the "normal windows setup" is to buy a new machine,
    with windows already installed.
    That does not give him a printer setup, the internet/network connections are
    not done etc etc. Not to mention that *no* applications are installed.

    Just installing a printer under windows can take as much time as setting up
    a linux distro, complete with printer and network. And a whole lot of apps
    ready to run

    Time saved for windows: Probably none at all, and maybe even spent more than
    setting up a linux box. If several apps need to be installed you will spend
    several hours more on windows than on linux

    < snip >
    --
    It's not about, 'Where do you want to go today?' It's more like,
    'Where am I allowed to go today?'


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

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

    > On 2008-11-04, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> As to the re-installs that you claim, do you really think that they are
    >> necessary? I know that it is a tale often told by one Linux fan to another,

    >
    > No. It's the crap we hear from our Windows using friends, coworkers
    > and relatives. We either get to see it firsthand or we get to hear about
    > the aftermath afterwards.


    My daughter got hit by the latest Microsoft Malware, and her machine had to
    have XP reinstalled. Luckily, the university IT department can do it for
    her.

    > [deletia]
    >
    > We don't need to manufacture experience from Google like Lemmings.
    >
    > You make it sound as if someone could hide from Windows even if they
    > wanted too.


    It's getting ever easier, isn't it, though?

    --
    Be security conscious -- National defense is at stake.

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

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Peter Köhlmann belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    >> On 2008-11-04, amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>> I don't think so. For most people, they just plug in and work. A few
    >>> per

    >>
    >> Yeah... keep on telling yourself that pollster.
    >>

    > Just installing a printer under windows can take as much time as setting up
    > a linux distro, complete with printer and network. And a whole lot of apps
    > ready to run
    >
    > Time saved for windows: Probably none at all, and maybe even spent more than
    > setting up a linux box. If several apps need to be installed you will spend
    > several hours more on windows than on linux


    And don't forget the anti-virus and uninstalling (if you can) the crapware
    the vendor flogs your new computer with.

    Oh, and the hourglass.

    That awful, awful hourglass.

    --
    And as we stand on the edge of darkness Let our chant fill the void
    That others may know
    In the land of the night The ship of the sun Is drawn by
    The grateful dead. -- Tibetan "Book of the Dead," ca. 4000 BC.

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

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > Peter Köhlmann belched:
    >>
    >> Just installing a printer under windows can take as much time as setting up
    >> a linux distro, complete with printer and network. And a whole lot of apps
    >> ready to run
    >>
    >> Time saved for windows: Probably none at all, and maybe even spent more than
    >> setting up a linux box. If several apps need to be installed you will spend
    >> several hours more on windows than on linux

    >
    >And don't forget the anti-virus and uninstalling (if you can) the crapware
    >the vendor flogs your new computer with.


    Good point. It's been so long since I've dealt that a Windows
    pre-install, that I'd forgotten how painful it is to clean-up the mess
    they give you.


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

    Richard Rasker wrote:

    >The original scenario was a Linux preinstalled Asus EEE PC on which to
    >install Debian. Mr. Curious came up with the "easier" solution of buying a
    >preinstalled Windows machine. He also argued that in cases of a broken
    >Windows installation, it was generally "easier" and/or more efficient to go
    >out and buy a new machine than to reinstall Windows on the old one.


    Well, that's what his masters want you to do, of course - to buy a new
    copy of Windwoes instead of re-using the old one.


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