OK, I give up. - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on OK, I give up. - Ubuntu ; On 10/21/2008 12:18 PM Peter J Ross scribbled: > In alt.os.linux.ubuntu on 20 Oct 2008 05:38:01 GMT, andrew > wrote: > >> On 2008-10-19, Dan C wrote: >>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:25:43 -0400, Pete wrote: >>>> What is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: OK, I give up.

  1. Re: OK, I give up.

    On 10/21/2008 12:18 PM Peter J Ross scribbled:

    > In alt.os.linux.ubuntu on 20 Oct 2008 05:38:01 GMT, andrew
    > wrote:
    >
    >> On 2008-10-19, Dan C wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:25:43 -0400, Pete wrote:
    >>>> What is the best Linux for a beginner (besides Ubuntu)?

    >
    > Currently, 2.6.27.2. Beginners shouldn't mess with development
    > versions.
    >
    > (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.)
    >
    > Perhaps try Linspire and aim to progress beyond it ASAP.


    not very enlightening...

    >
    >>> Slackware.

    >> And of course Dan is totally correct. A full install of slackware,
    >> perhaps using KDE, would be an excellent starting point. The legend of
    >> slackware being difficult to install and use is for the most part only a
    >> legend. It is simple and clear, close to the intentions of the original
    >> software authors, and it encourages an enquiring mind.

    >
    > The problem is that many beginners neither have nor wish to acquire
    > an enquiring mind. They just want something that works much the same
    > way as Windows.
    >
    > In my opinion, the best distro for a beginner is anything that
    > recognises enough hardware to make Internet search engines useable.


    most all do, not so??

    >
    > In my experience, this was Mandrake 8.x. My WinModem worked, so I was
    > able to look stuff up.


    you saying that that is the 1st distro that recognized a winmodem??
    thats kinda hard to swallow.

    >
    > Being able to look stuff up is good, whether one is a beginner or not.
    >


    but separating the chaff from the wheat is another ballgame - 4 million
    google hits on grub can be daunting for a newb and finding the correct
    answer within those 4 mill is a pita


  2. Re: OK, I give up.

    jrg wrote:
    > On 10/21/2008 12:18 PM Peter J Ross scribbled:
    >
    >> In alt.os.linux.ubuntu on 20 Oct 2008 05:38:01 GMT, andrew
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-19, Dan C wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:25:43 -0400, Pete wrote:
    >>>>> What is the best Linux for a beginner (besides Ubuntu)?

    >> Currently, 2.6.27.2. Beginners shouldn't mess with development
    >> versions.
    >>
    >> (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.)
    >>
    >> Perhaps try Linspire and aim to progress beyond it ASAP.

    >
    > not very enlightening...
    >
    >>>> Slackware.
    >>> And of course Dan is totally correct. A full install of
    >>> slackware, perhaps using KDE, would be an excellent starting
    >>> point. The legend of slackware being difficult to install and
    >>> use is for the most part only a legend. It is simple and
    >>> clear, close to the intentions of the original software
    >>> authors, and it encourages an enquiring mind.

    >> The problem is that many beginners neither have nor wish to
    >> acquire an enquiring mind. They just want something that works
    >> much the same way as Windows.
    >>
    >> In my opinion, the best distro for a beginner is anything that
    >> recognises enough hardware to make Internet search engines
    >> useable.

    >
    > most all do, not so??
    >
    >> In my experience, this was Mandrake 8.x. My WinModem worked, so
    >> I was able to look stuff up.

    >
    > you saying that that is the 1st distro that recognized a
    > winmodem?? thats kinda hard to swallow.
    >
    >> Being able to look stuff up is good, whether one is a beginner
    >> or not.
    >>

    >
    > but separating the chaff from the wheat is another ballgame - 4
    > million google hits on grub can be daunting for a newb and finding
    > the correct answer within those 4 mill is a pita
    >



    When using Google, including +solved with your grub example makes a
    huge and illuminating difference.

    (My pet OS for Linux newbs using a box with minimal ram is "Puppy
    Linux" live CD. IMO Puppy's snappy performance easily compensates for
    the minimal hastle needed for net access,)

    --
    Bob
    "I don't believe in evil, I believe in right and wrong, and very
    often they are the same thing"-Paul Theroux, in Milroy the Magician.

  3. Re: OK, I give up.

    Bob wrote:
    >
    >
    > (My pet OS for Linux newbs using a box with minimal ram is "Puppy
    > Linux" live CD. IMO Puppy's snappy performance easily compensates
    > for the minimal hastle needed for net access,)
    >


    I should have typed live RWCD/RWDVD

    Puppy's option to save settings and preferences to the live CD/DVD
    has multiple advantages.


    --
    Bob
    Triple boot Ubuntu 8.04, XUbuntu 8.04, and XP on AMD64

  4. Re: OK, I give up.

    On 10/21/2008 06:39 PM Bob scribbled:



    >
    > When using Google, including +solved with your grub example makes a
    > huge and illuminating difference.
    >


    You mean "+solved"?
    While that is a good point, most "solved" I've seen (and I always go to
    them first) do not really apply to whatever situation I may be
    addressing. Seems one sees "solved" the most in forum posts.

  5. Re: OK, I give up.

    jrg wrote:
    > On 10/21/2008 06:39 PM Bob scribbled:
    >
    >
    >
    >> When using Google, including +solved with your grub example makes a
    >> huge and illuminating difference.
    >>

    >
    > You mean "+solved"?
    > While that is a good point, most "solved" I've seen (and I always go to
    > them first) do not really apply to whatever situation I may be
    > addressing. Seems one sees "solved" the most in forum posts.


    Hope this helps:-

    http://www.google.com/support/bin/st...x=basics&hl=en

    --
    Bob
    "I don't believe in evil, I believe in right and wrong, and very
    often they are the same thing"-Paul Theroux, in Milroy the Magician.

  6. Re: OK, I give up.

    In alt.os.linux.ubuntu on Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:44:50 -0700, jrg
    wrote:

    > On 10/21/2008 12:18 PM Peter J Ross scribbled:
    >
    >> In alt.os.linux.ubuntu on 20 Oct 2008 05:38:01 GMT, andrew
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On 2008-10-19, Dan C wrote:
    >>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:25:43 -0400, Pete wrote:
    >>>>> What is the best Linux for a beginner (besides Ubuntu)?

    >>
    >> Currently, 2.6.27.2. Beginners shouldn't mess with development
    >> versions.
    >>
    >> (Sorry, I just couldn't resist that.)
    >>
    >> Perhaps try Linspire and aim to progress beyond it ASAP.

    >
    > not very enlightening...


    I don't know enough about Linspire to be very enlightening. But it has
    a reputation for being very easy to install and use at the beginner
    level, without being nice to use after learning some more.

    >>>> Slackware.
    >>> And of course Dan is totally correct. A full install of slackware,
    >>> perhaps using KDE, would be an excellent starting point. The legend of
    >>> slackware being difficult to install and use is for the most part only a
    >>> legend. It is simple and clear, close to the intentions of the original
    >>> software authors, and it encourages an enquiring mind.

    >>
    >> The problem is that many beginners neither have nor wish to acquire
    >> an enquiring mind. They just want something that works much the same
    >> way as Windows.
    >>
    >> In my opinion, the best distro for a beginner is anything that
    >> recognises enough hardware to make Internet search engines useable.

    >
    > most all do, not so??


    Yes, but it's still not unusual for X to have to be configured
    manually, which isn't easy for a beginner to do.

    >> In my experience, this was Mandrake 8.x. My WinModem worked, so I was
    >> able to look stuff up.

    >
    > you saying that that is the 1st distro that recognized a winmodem??
    > thats kinda hard to swallow.


    It was the first I used that gave me Internet access. I'd tried some
    others, such as Debian, without success.

    >> Being able to look stuff up is good, whether one is a beginner or not.

    >
    > but separating the chaff from the wheat is another ballgame - 4 million
    > google hits on grub can be daunting for a newb and finding the correct
    > answer within those 4 mill is a pita


    leads me straight to
    , which provides a list of useful
    links.

    Of course, Google doesn't always provide such good results, but it's
    still more likely to help a beginner than "man grub".

    --
    PJR :-)
    slrn newsreader v0.9.9p1: http://slrn.sourceforge.net/
    extra slrn documentation: http://slrn-doc.sourceforge.net/
    newsgroup name validator: http://pjr.lasnobberia.net/usenet/validator

  7. Re: OK, I give up.

    Bob wrote:
    > jrg wrote:
    >> On 10/21/2008 12:18 PM Peter J Ross scribbled:
    >>
    >>
    >>> In my experience, this was Mandrake 8.x. My WinModem worked, so I was
    >>> able to look stuff up.

    >>
    >> you saying that that is the 1st distro that recognized a winmodem??
    >> thats kinda hard to swallow.
    >>

    I can't pass this up. Anybody who even uses a winmodem deserves smoke.
    They are piece of **** el-cheapo cards that use the system CPU to do all
    the signal processing. Spend a few $$ and buy a good V.92 card with it's
    own CPU and it will work on just about **any** OS.
    As for a distro recognizing a winmodem that kind of makes me lose
    respect for that distro since it is losing it's lean/mean Linux machine
    image to the wasted CPU cycles.
    Recognizing a winmodem should not be a Linux priority.
    If people want to use a garbage modem and are too cheap to buy a real
    modem....too F'ing bad.
    Bill Baka

  8. Re: OK, I give up.

    On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:43:56 +1000, Bob wrote:

    > Neither this nor any other Bob wrote that. If you can neither manage
    > attributions, nor pass it up, try sticking your fingers down your
    > throat to better spew your imagined Linux superiority.


    Bob (Baka) doesn't understand big words like "attributions", nor even what
    the word might mean when used in a Usenet context.

    He's a clueless, ignorant, old fool, who mostly uses Windoze anyway.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  9. Re: OK, I give up.

    On Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:18:03 -0500, Dan C wrote:

    >> Neither this nor any other Bob wrote that. If you can neither manage
    >> attributions, nor pass it up, try sticking your fingers down your
    >> throat to better spew your imagined Linux superiority.


    > Bob (Baka) doesn't understand big words like "attributions", nor even what
    > the word might mean when used in a Usenet context.
    >
    > He's a clueless, ignorant, old fool, who mostly uses Windoze anyway.


    Err... make that "Bill" Baka.


    --
    "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
    The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org


  10. Re: OK, I give up.

    Peter J Ross wrote:
    > In alt.os.linux.ubuntu on Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:08:39 -0700, Bill Baka
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Bob wrote:
    >>> jrg wrote:
    >>>> On 10/21/2008 12:18 PM Peter J Ross scribbled:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> In my experience, this was Mandrake 8.x. My WinModem worked, so I was
    >>>>> able to look stuff up.
    >>>> you saying that that is the 1st distro that recognized a winmodem??
    >>>> thats kinda hard to swallow.
    >>>>

    >> I can't pass this up. Anybody who even uses a winmodem deserves smoke.
    >> They are piece of **** el-cheapo cards that use the system CPU to do all
    >> the signal processing. Spend a few $$ and buy a good V.92 card with it's
    >> own CPU and it will work on just about **any** OS.

    >
    > That's what I did eventually. A real modem provided me with better
    > performance on Windows too.


    It's personal policy with me to buy cards that do their own processing.
    My network card is a 3Com server grade with it's own CPU to handle a lot
    of security issues, my sound is a card and not the MB, and my video has
    it's own GPU. Real parts.
    >
    >> As for a distro recognizing a winmodem that kind of makes me lose
    >> respect for that distro since it is losing it's lean/mean Linux machine
    >> image to the wasted CPU cycles.
    >> Recognizing a winmodem should not be a Linux priority.
    >> If people want to use a garbage modem and are too cheap to buy a real
    >> modem....too F'ing bad.

    >
    > Nowadays this probably isn't an issue, since most new Linux users will
    > have broadband. But other problems with hardware recognition may still
    > be an issue.


    Right on both counts. I have DSL which peaks at over 30Mbps and works
    fine until Comcast cuts me down to 7.75Mbps. On hardware I tossed a new
    Canon printer since it was not recognized properly, and I have an H.P.
    scanner that won't work under Linux but is recognized by a terminal
    lsusb command.
    Ubuntu has a nice, small memory footprint and I would like to keep it
    that way, and having boards with their own CPU's keeps it running faster.
    Bill Baka

  11. Re: OK, I give up.

    On 2008-10-23, Bill Baka wrote:
    > Bob wrote:
    >> jrg wrote:
    >>> On 10/21/2008 12:18 PM Peter J Ross scribbled:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> In my experience, this was Mandrake 8.x. My WinModem worked, so I was
    >>>> able to look stuff up.
    >>>
    >>> you saying that that is the 1st distro that recognized a winmodem??
    >>> thats kinda hard to swallow.
    >>>

    > I can't pass this up. Anybody who even uses a winmodem deserves smoke.
    > They are piece of **** el-cheapo cards that use the system CPU to do all
    > the signal processing. Spend a few $$ and buy a good V.92 card with it's
    > own CPU and it will work on just about **any** OS.
    > As for a distro recognizing a winmodem that kind of makes me lose
    > respect for that distro since it is losing it's lean/mean Linux machine
    > image to the wasted CPU cycles.
    > Recognizing a winmodem should not be a Linux priority.
    > If people want to use a garbage modem and are too cheap to buy a real
    > modem....too F'ing bad.


    Besides, who uses modems anymore? ;-)


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  12. Re: OK, I give up.

    On 2008-10-23, Peter J Ross wrote:
    >
    > Nowadays this probably isn't an issue, since most new Linux users will
    > have broadband. But other problems with hardware recognition may still
    > be an issue.


    Generally not. There may be issues with some wireless cards, some
    webcams, and so on, but they are the minority, and the problems are
    usually fixed by waiting for the next distro.


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  13. Re: OK, I give up.

    Dan C wrote:
    > On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 05:43:56 +1000, Bob wrote:
    >
    >> Neither this nor any other Bob wrote that. If you can neither manage
    >> attributions, nor pass it up, try sticking your fingers down your
    >> throat to better spew your imagined Linux superiority.

    >
    > Bob (Baka) doesn't understand big words like "attributions", nor even what
    > the word might mean when used in a Usenet context.


    Dan,
    Go back to your ward and have someone secure your straight jacket.
    My first name is Bill and everyone here knows that. Clod.
    >
    > He's a clueless, ignorant, old fool, who mostly uses Windoze anyway.


    What am I posting from then? Gosh, I guess it's Linux.
    How about that?
    Bill Baka
    >
    >


  14. Re: OK, I give up.

    Joe wrote:
    > On 2008-10-23, Bill Baka wrote:
    >> I can't pass this up. Anybody who even uses a winmodem deserves smoke.
    >> They are piece of **** el-cheapo cards that use the system CPU to do all
    >> the signal processing. Spend a few $$ and buy a good V.92 card with it's
    >> own CPU and it will work on just about **any** OS.
    >> As for a distro recognizing a winmodem that kind of makes me lose
    >> respect for that distro since it is losing it's lean/mean Linux machine
    >> image to the wasted CPU cycles.
    >> Recognizing a winmodem should not be a Linux priority.
    >> If people want to use a garbage modem and are too cheap to buy a real
    >> modem....too F'ing bad.

    >
    > Besides, who uses modems anymore? ;-)


    Not here. I gave up on 46kbps dial up about 1996, years ago. I doubt
    that any techie type would have something that low tech.
    >
    >


  15. Re: OK, I give up.

    On 2008-10-24, bill wrote:
    > Joe wrote:
    >> On 2008-10-23, Bill Baka wrote:
    >>> I can't pass this up. Anybody who even uses a winmodem deserves smoke.
    >>> They are piece of **** el-cheapo cards that use the system CPU to do all
    >>> the signal processing. Spend a few $$ and buy a good V.92 card with it's
    >>> own CPU and it will work on just about **any** OS.
    >>> As for a distro recognizing a winmodem that kind of makes me lose
    >>> respect for that distro since it is losing it's lean/mean Linux machine
    >>> image to the wasted CPU cycles.
    >>> Recognizing a winmodem should not be a Linux priority.
    >>> If people want to use a garbage modem and are too cheap to buy a real
    >>> modem....too F'ing bad.

    >>
    >> Besides, who uses modems anymore? ;-)

    >
    > Not here. I gave up on 46kbps dial up about 1996, years ago. I doubt
    > that any techie type would have something that low tech.


    I switched to Cable modem within 3 days of it becoming available in my
    area. I can't even imagine using dial-up these days...


    --
    Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

  16. Re: OK, I give up.

    Joe wrote:
    > bill Baka wrote:
    >> Joe wrote:
    >>> Bill Baka wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I can't pass this up. Anybody who even uses a winmodem deserves
    >>>> smoke. They are piece of **** el-cheapo cards that use the system CPU
    >>>> to do all the signal processing. Spend a few $$ and buy a good V.92
    >>>> card with it's own CPU and it will work on just about **any** OS. As
    >>>> for a distro recognizing a winmodem that kind of makes me lose
    >>>> respect for that distro since it is losing it's lean/mean Linux
    >>>> machine image to the wasted CPU cycles.
    >>>>
    >>>> Recognizing a winmodem should not be a Linux priority. If people want
    >>>> to use a garbage modem and are too cheap to buy a real modem....too
    >>>> F'ing bad.
    >>>
    >>> Besides, who uses modems anymore? ;-)

    >>
    >> Not here. I gave up on 46kbps dial up about 1996, years ago. I doubt
    >> that any techie type would have something that low tech.

    >
    > I switched to Cable modem within 3 days of it becoming available in my
    > area. I can't even imagine using dial-up these days...


    Winmodems sometimes are of value of that is the only thing you have and
    CPU still has enough resources to continue without compromising mission
    requirements.

    I found that for the ones supported, they worked fine even back in the
    days of SuSE 6.4. Shark was the worst as there were no Linux drivers for
    it.

    Back then, a gutless Winmodem could be had for around $50 or less. The
    full blown externals were well over $100. I settled for an internal with
    its own CPU, but required a little set-up, although the Linux utilities
    to do it were there.

    At a connection speed of 26.4, it took 4 nights and a download manager to
    download a CD ISO. However, web pages didn't have the content they have
    now, so internet browsing performance was adequate.

    But that was an improvement over a 300 Baud modem on a bit banging
    RadioShack Colour Computer-II with MickeyTerm 2.0 dialing up bulletin
    Boards using a 32 column x 16 lines screen in the mid 1980's.

    I think we have made some progress. :-)

    --
    HPT

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2