Moog wrote:
> William Poaster illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>> Moog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Please don't think I'm having a go at just you. Everything I'm
>>> saying here applies equally to Hadron, William, Yourself and
>>> the numerous other posters who keep perpetuating this ludicrous
>>> thread noise.
>> Fine kf me, I *don't* care.
>
> I know you don't. But that wasn't the point of my comments.
>
>> What *you* don't understand is that Quack *is* a troll, & he admits it.
>
> So what? In which case, why do you and others feed him?
>
>> He claims that PK & I said linux filesystems don't fragment. We *never* said
>> that, but what we *did* say is that they do not need *defragmenting*, which an
>> *entirely* different thing. He can't get that into his thick skull.
>
> Let others decide. For me, I've seen nonsense posted from both sides
> to the point of complete dis-interest.
>
> I'll leave you all to it now. I'm obviously making things worse.
>

Pardon my asking: Though I have my Ubu 7.10 machine doing everything I
want it to do, I'm still a relative noob. Why wouldn't I need to defrag
my Linux drives?

Cheers;

Ed

NoStop wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Everyone I know sticks with Windows aside from those I know who are IT
> > people and have the confidence to try other stuff..
>
> And my experience is exactly the opposite. Everyone that I've shown Linux to
> and helped them get up and running have dumped Windoze and now run Linux
> exclusively. These aren't IT people btw, but ordinary computer users.

Maybe I can use my next door neighbour as a guineas pig ? He's highly computer
illiterate (he's a musician - violinist) but manages after a fashion with XP. He
must be fed up with me swearing at microsoft whenever I use his PC (which is
usually when I'm helping him out).

Graham

NoStop wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Harold Stevens wrote:
> >> In <5q272kFt7ue0U8@mid.individual.net> Moog:
> >>
> >> > "More modern". Not as old as your system. For a start, increase the
> >> > memory. What is *so* difficult about that?
> >>
> >> Wow, here's a surprise: after the trolling subsided, and the *supplicant*
> >> took the medicine proffered (add RAM, you twit), *ubuntu WORKED PRECISELY
> >> AS ADVERTISED?
> >
> > TWIT ? I had that in mind in my very first post. See .....
> >
> > " I could add another 128 or 256 M if that's needed ( I have the RAM
> > kicking around)."
> >
> > Go and take a look.
> >
> > I'd hoped (in vain it seems) that somome might have said right off "oh
> > there's your problem" but NO, they preferrred to abuse me mostly and
> > indulge in some retarded geeky flame-fest.
> >
> > I'd fully intended to up the RAM from the very start but almost no-one
> > bothered to read that bit and comment on it ! I guess they prefer being
> > ****wits.
>
>
> Maybe because many of us have installed 7.04 on boxes with only 256MB or RAM
> without a problem?

Which has to beg the question why would the RAM requirement be so dependent on
the hardware ? I 'm finding it difficult to think of any convincing reasons.

Graham

NoStop wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
>
> > Not a problem. Thanks for your advice. Unlike many of the lusers here, you
> > have been most helpful.
>
> What a ****wit! After wasting all this bandwidth we learn that:
>
> 1) you were too lazy to drop in more memory that you already had readily on
> hand,

No, not lazy at all. Preoccupied with work so a whole DAY passed before I fitted
the extra memory ! Had there not been so many abusive responses here, I dare say
I'd have got on with it faster.


> although you had time to keep one of the longest threads I've seen in
> this ng going in your efforts to run Ubuntu, and
>
> 2) after all this bull****, we learn that you weren't even trying to install
> the ****ing os, but simply wanted to look at how the LiveCD ran. Geez!

That was the whole POINT. Why would I *INSTALL* an OS I hadn't seen running ?

That's the entire raison d'etre of the Live CD ! Try before you install.


> Now that many of us, who would have and indeed tried to assist you are
> branded "lusers",

I'd say the ratio of abuse to help was about 50:50.


> I'm sure that future help won't be so forthcoming. Good
> luck in the Linux world. You'll need it.

We'll see.

Graham

Night0wl wrote:

> andrew wrote:
> > Eeyore wrote:
> >> andrew wrote:
> >
> >>> Just as a side note can I say that I have run computers with on-board
> >>> video with absolutely no trouble at all, I have not found any
> >>> 'issues'.
> >> So have I (well just the one actually) bit it pays to be aware of those issues.
> >> For example I had a cheapy PC Chips based PC (yes, groan but actually it ran
> >> rather well) some time back that had onboard graphics but the BIOS setup allowed
> >> you to strictly control how much memory it had access to, yet my neighbour's Dell
> >> Dimension also with onboard graphics doesn't allow you to strictly allocate memory
> >> in the same way.
> >
> > Exactly. I have a Dell GX270 which allows one to specify 8 megs in the
> > BIOS for the graphics controller. I believe that an Ubuntu setup fails
> > unless you do this but I cannot vouch for this: it was the first thing
> > I changed on the computer after it arrived hot from ebay.
>
>
> I found that upgrading the Dell GX270 (actually GX150-GX400) with a
> simple Rage 128 (32MB onboard RAM) video card makes all the difference
> in the world...

Interesting you should say that.

I've been considering suggesting something similar for my neighbour's Dell Dimension. It
CRAWLS. I mean ... it has a Celeron 2.4GHz but runs slower than my P3 600. OK my P3 has a
256M advantage in the RAM department but even so ....

Graham

On 2007-11-15, Night0wl hit the keyboard and wrote:
> Moog wrote:
>> William Poaster illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>>> Moog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please don't think I'm having a go at just you. Everything I'm
>>>> saying here applies equally to Hadron, William, Yourself and
>>>> the numerous other posters who keep perpetuating this ludicrous
>>>> thread noise.
>>> Fine kf me, I *don't* care.
>>
>> I know you don't. But that wasn't the point of my comments.
>>
>>> What *you* don't understand is that Quack *is* a troll, & he admits it.
>>
>> So what? In which case, why do you and others feed him?
>>
>>> He claims that PK & I said linux filesystems don't fragment. We *never* said
>>> that, but what we *did* say is that they do not need *defragmenting*, which an
>>> *entirely* different thing. He can't get that into his thick skull.
>>
>> Let others decide. For me, I've seen nonsense posted from both sides
>> to the point of complete dis-interest.
>>
>> I'll leave you all to it now. I'm obviously making things worse.
>>
>
> Pardon my asking: Though I have my Ubu 7.10 machine doing everything I
> want it to do, I'm still a relative noob. Why wouldn't I need to defrag
> my Linux drives?

Someone offered this link:



http://linux.wordpress.com/2007/04/1...defragmenting/

But hey wait there is more:

Synaptic gives me this: Defrag:

ext2, minix and xiafs filesystem defragmenter As a file
system is used, data tends to become more and more scattered
across the disk, degrading performance. A disk defragmenter
simply re-organises the data on the disk, so that individual
files occupy a single sequential set of disk blocks, and all
the free space on the disk is collected together in a single
region. This generally means that reading a whole file is
faster, and disk accesses in general are more efficient.

Notice though that the newer file-systems like ext3 and
ReiserFS are not included in the list this tool can
handle. So it seems outdated, and some have pointed out rather
unnecessary...

Now you may install it on your PC, try it, and then report
the *performance* gain (if any) you could experience...

HTH


>
> Cheers;
>
> Ed
>
>


Dragomir Kollaric
--
This signature is licensed under the GPL and may be
freely distributed as long as a copy of the GPL is included... :-)

Night0wl wrote:

> Moog wrote:
>> William Poaster illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>>> Moog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please don't think I'm having a go at just you. Everything I'm
>>>> saying here applies equally to Hadron, William, Yourself and
>>>> the numerous other posters who keep perpetuating this ludicrous
>>>> thread noise.
>>> Fine kf me, I *don't* care.
>>
>> I know you don't. But that wasn't the point of my comments.
>>
>>> What *you* don't understand is that Quack *is* a troll, & he admits it.
>>
>> So what? In which case, why do you and others feed him?
>>
>>> He claims that PK & I said linux filesystems don't fragment. We *never*
>>> said that, but what we *did* say is that they do not need
>>> *defragmenting*, which an *entirely* different thing. He can't get that
>>> into his thick skull.
>>
>> Let others decide. For me, I've seen nonsense posted from both sides
>> to the point of complete dis-interest.
>>
>> I'll leave you all to it now. I'm obviously making things worse.
>>
>
> Pardon my asking: Though I have my Ubu 7.10 machine doing everything I
> want it to do, I'm still a relative noob. Why wouldn't I need to defrag
> my Linux drives?
>
You don't need to defrag your Linux drives. The ext3 filesystem doesn't
require it. Just accept that reality and don't worry about it.

Cheers.


--
Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
-- My Wife

Eeyore wrote:

>
>
> NoStop wrote:
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>> > Harold Stevens wrote:
>> >> In <5q272kFt7ue0U8@mid.individual.net> Moog:
>> >>
>> >> > "More modern". Not as old as your system. For a start, increase the
>> >> > memory. What is *so* difficult about that?
>> >>
>> >> Wow, here's a surprise: after the trolling subsided, and the
>> >> *supplicant* took the medicine proffered (add RAM, you twit), *ubuntu
>> >> WORKED PRECISELY AS ADVERTISED?
>> >
>> > TWIT ? I had that in mind in my very first post. See .....
>> >
>> > " I could add another 128 or 256 M if that's needed ( I have the RAM
>> > kicking around)."
>> >
>> > Go and take a look.
>> >
>> > I'd hoped (in vain it seems) that somome might have said right off "oh
>> > there's your problem" but NO, they preferrred to abuse me mostly and
>> > indulge in some retarded geeky flame-fest.
>> >
>> > I'd fully intended to up the RAM from the very start but almost no-one
>> > bothered to read that bit and comment on it ! I guess they prefer being
>> > ****wits.
>>
>>
>> Maybe because many of us have installed 7.04 on boxes with only 256MB or
>> RAM without a problem?
>
> Which has to beg the question why would the RAM requirement be so
> dependent on
> the hardware ? I 'm finding it difficult to think of any convincing
> reasons.
>
> Graham

You'll have to ask the folks that generated your mobo. I have no idea what
they could have done that makes this so?

Cheers.

--
Sometimes, I Wake Up Grumpy.
Sometimes, I Just Let Him Sleep In.
-- My Wife

On 2007-11-15, Eeyore hit the keyboard and wrote:
>


>> You have succeeded in generating one of the longer
>> threads I have seen recently.
>> Sorry when you answered about your vid card I
>> misunderstood and for some reason I thought it was
>> someone else's comeback.
>

> Not a problem. Thanks for your advice. Unlike many of the
> lusers here, you have been most helpful.

I have read almost every reply to you in this thread (except for Dan.C
as he is one of the rare individuals in my kill-file), and I can say
that about 4 or 5 people engaged in name-calling and the war. So you
call that *many*.

I told you about "Slackware" well a very similar thing can happen when
you install Debian, it's community expect new users to *research* and
learn *prior* to asking questions.


You used the word "lark" in the Subject,
now tell me which definition of it did you have in mind?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lark

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)


1. a merry, carefree adventure; frolic; escapade.
2. innocent or good-natured mischief; a prank.

3. something extremely easy to accomplish, succeed in, or to
obtain: That exam was a lark. –verb (used without object)

4. to have fun; frolic; romp.
5. to behave mischievously; play pranks.

6. Fox Hunting. (of a rider) to take jumps unnecessarily: He
tired his horse by larking on the way home.



>
> Graham
>


Dragomir Kollaric
--
This signature is licensed under the GPL and may be
freely distributed as long as a copy of the GPL is included... :-)

NoStop said:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>
>
> > Everyone I know sticks with Windows aside from those I know who are
> > IT people and have the confidence to try other stuff..
> >
> > Graham
>
> And my experience is exactly the opposite. Everyone that I've shown
> Linux to and helped them get up and running have dumped Windoze and
> now run Linux exclusively. These aren't IT people btw, but ordinary
> computer users.
>
> Cheers.
>
The same is true for me with the exceptions of (2 or three) die-hard
gamers who cannot do without their game fix available /only/ through
Windows. Once used, they (the non-gamers) aren't going back, especially
when they discover they have no need of constant maintenance of the OS.

Cybe R. Wizard
--
Nice computers don't go down.
Larry Niven, Steven Barnes
"The Barsoom Project"

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:28:24 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

>> I found that upgrading the Dell GX270 (actually GX150-GX400) with a
>> simple Rage 128 (32MB onboard RAM) video card makes all the difference
>> in the world...
>
> Interesting you should say that.
>
> I've been considering suggesting something similar for my neighbour's Dell Dimension. It
> CRAWLS. I mean ... it has a Celeron 2.4GHz but runs slower than my P3 600. OK my P3 has a
> 256M advantage in the RAM department but even so ....

Clock speed relating to performance is a myth, as any decent book on
hardware architecture (or Tanenbaum's book on OSs) will explain.

Processors are still faster than memory, so they spend most of their time
waiting for access. The more memory, the less time they have to wait to
find some free. So the best way to speed up a system is to add memory.

BTW, please set your line wrap down a bit.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:19:34 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

>> Maybe because many of us have installed 7.04 on boxes with only 256MB or RAM
>> without a problem?
>
> Which has to beg the question why would the RAM requirement be so dependent on
> the hardware ? I 'm finding it difficult to think of any convincing reasons.

Because it depends crucially on stuff like the performance of the MMU and
its interactions on the bus. Each computer really is different. The
differences don't show up so much until the envelope is reached, and
different systems have slightly different envelopes. You got unlucky is
all.

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:13:02 -0700, Night0wl wrote:

> Pardon my asking: Though I have my Ubu 7.10 machine doing everything I
> want it to do, I'm still a relative noob. Why wouldn't I need to defrag
> my Linux drives?

Because Linus and the kernel devs are *not* noobs :-)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:16:58 +0000, Eeyore wrote:

>> And my experience is exactly the opposite. Everyone that I've shown Linux to
>> and helped them get up and running have dumped Windoze and now run Linux
>> exclusively. These aren't IT people btw, but ordinary computer users.
>
> Maybe I can use my next door neighbour as a guineas pig ? He's highly computer
> illiterate (he's a musician - violinist) but manages after a fashion with XP. He
> must be fed up with me swearing at microsoft whenever I use his PC (which is
> usually when I'm helping him out).

Show him Rosegarden and Lilypond and tell him how much they cost?

andrew illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
> On 2007-11-15, Moog wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> Let others decide. For me, I've seen nonsense posted from both sides
>> to the point of complete dis-interest.
>>
>> I'll leave you all to it now. I'm obviously making things worse.
>
> To quote my own work:
>
> Score: =-9999 % An increasingly confused discussion about larks?
> Expires: 1-12-2007
> Subject: Re: New to this Linux lark - advice please
> ~From: Dan C
>
> This _should_ kill-file all of future replies in this thread with this
> rule expiring on December 1st 2007. But if Dan C should post in this
> thread _his_ post will appear to you. But I am sure there is a more
> sophisticated way of doing this. Any helpers?

Heh. Good tip Andrew. Dan will be made up. ;-)

--
Moog

"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
leather straps."

Night0wl illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
> Moog wrote:
>> William Poaster illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>>> Moog wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Please don't think I'm having a go at just you. Everything I'm
>>>> saying here applies equally to Hadron, William, Yourself and
>>>> the numerous other posters who keep perpetuating this ludicrous
>>>> thread noise.
>>> Fine kf me, I *don't* care.
>>
>> I know you don't. But that wasn't the point of my comments.
>>
>>> What *you* don't understand is that Quack *is* a troll, & he admits it.
>>
>> So what? In which case, why do you and others feed him?
>>
>>> He claims that PK & I said linux filesystems don't fragment. We *never* said
>>> that, but what we *did* say is that they do not need *defragmenting*, which an
>>> *entirely* different thing. He can't get that into his thick skull.
>>
>> Let others decide. For me, I've seen nonsense posted from both sides
>> to the point of complete dis-interest.
>>
>> I'll leave you all to it now. I'm obviously making things worse.
>>
>
> Pardon my asking: Though I have my Ubu 7.10 machine doing everything I
> want it to do, I'm still a relative noob. Why wouldn't I need to defrag
> my Linux drives?

No need to defrag ext2/ext3/reiser whatsoever.

NTFS or FAT consistently try to write towards the start of the disk
causing numerous fragments when files are deleted or grow in size.

linux file systems don't use a disk in this way at all. Quite the
opposite in fact, Linux file systems actually attempt to actively prevent
fragmentantion. Although, it can certainly occur, it is likely to be
extremely minimal.

There are a few links knocking around the group that may explain it better.

--
Moog

"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
leather straps."

NoStop illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:

> <..>
> And I've seen the exact same thing happen in the past when you've gone off
> on tangents that had nothing to do with Ubuntu or Linux. Remember those?

Yes. Yes I do.

Did I listen to you? Do I still do it?

If the answer to both of those questions was *yes*, then maybe just
take a passing heed at what is happening here. Thanks.

>> I'll leave you all to it now. I'm obviously making things worse.
>>
> Correct.

Perhaps not. I know you are intelligent enough to understand the point
I'm trying to make. If it just makes you think, it has been worth it.

--
Moog

"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
leather straps."

Eeyore illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>
>
> Moog wrote:
>
>> Eeyore illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>> > Moog wrote:
>> >> Eeyore illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>> >> >
>> >> > What I have I listed right at the beginning. Of the non-generic parts ....
>> >> >
>> >> > Abit KT7A mobo
>> >> > Nvidia MX440 graphics card with 64M
>> >> > 256 MB of PC133 SDRAM which I can increase to 384 or 512 MB
>> >> > I'd add a Zonet ZEN3200N ? network card if it runs OK
>> >>
>> >> If you want a live CD to run on thnat system, you'll have a long wait.
>> >
>> > Why specifically do you say that ? Actually ithangs after about 5 mins.
>>
>> The RAM, for a start.
>
> Well ..... as I understood it - and it was confirmed to me here - that 256M of RAM
> was meant to be adequate to run a Live CD of Ubuntu 7.04.
>
> Subsequently it appears otherwise.

Actually, 192mb for 7.04. However, when a LiveCD doesn't boot, the
bulprit is mostly lack of ram. Call it an educated guess. Call it
experience. Or just keep dismissing both of those if you wish.

>> Also the age of the machine.
>
> I'm sorry but the AGE of the machine is irrelevant unless the Linux distro in
> question intends to DROP support for some of the most popular, well performing and
> reliable chipsets in existence.

No. The age of the machine is quite relevant. Ol,der machines may well
have dust particles, failing drives, low spec memory in comparsion to
newer machines.

Experience should tell you that too.

>> You also need to
>> know a little about linux to realise tha there are specific
>> distributions designed fromt he ground up to run on older hardware.
>> The sytstem you describe sounds around 6-7 years old.
>
> The KT7A was still being sold around 5 years ago.

And?

Ubuntu was first released in October 2004. It has since been released
in 6 monthly cycles. That's birth, schooling, teenage years and maturity of an
Operating system in half of the "five years ago when they
where selling the KT7A"

>> Ubuntu is not designed as a lightweight ditribution.
>
> Neither is XP but it runs fine.

XP was releasd in 2001. That was so long ago, that the KT7A was still
on sale. ;-)

>> There are tools to do jobs. On that machine, if you can't get a
>> running Ubuntu you may wish to try a distro designed to run minimally.
>> Start with Xubuntu,
>
> Well .... I did and that wouldn't run either.

Memory was the issue. You now know that.

>> and then move down until you find one that works
>> until you reach the likes of PuppyLinux and DSL.
>
> Puppy ran fine even on my 600MHz P3. It also runs on the KT7A.

Quite. Puppy is designed to be lightweight.

>> >> Even if it does boot, it could take 30 minutes and longer.
>> >>
>> >> If you want to see what the operating system looks like, either borrow
>> >> a friends more modern machine
>> >
>> > Which part of 'more modern' is going to make the difference ? That sounds like
>> > nonsense to me.
>>
>> "More modern". Not as old as your system. For a start, increase the
>> memory. What is *so* difficult about that?
>
> Absolutely not difficult at all. It's what I just did. Sorry if I didn't do it
> *instantaneously*, I do have work and stuff to do as well.

No problem. Glad you got there in the end.

--
Moog

"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
leather straps."

Mark South illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 06:06:22 +0000, Moog wrote:
>
>> Mark South illuminated alt.os.linux.ubuntu by typing:
>>
>>> <...>
>>> Now I'm wondering how hard it would be to run a bot that simply replies
>>> with "Feck off, yer feckin' win-droid!" whenever it finds outlook express
>>> mentioned in the headers. It would sound like an Irish Dan C....
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>> Like a sort of more modern Father Jack?
>
> Actually, Father Jack is exactly how I visualise Dan C.

Yup. I concur.

> And Hadron would be played by Mrs Doyle.

I was thinking more of a "Dougal". ;-)

--
Moog

"Some mornings it just doesn't seem worth it to gnaw through the
leather straps."