OEM vs Retail XP Pro

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
> threatened to stop making Office for the Mac.

Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm
continually amazed by its survival.

> Apple is dependent on Microsoft.

I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading
application for the Mac.

> People who promote Linux to unwise desktop users end
> up making very bad public relations for Linux. I guess they do that
> out of plain ignorance.

Plain ignorance, and unbridled emotion. Most Linux fans are in fact
Microsoft-haters who want something that looks, feels, and behaves like
Windows, but don't want Microsoft's name on it. They've latched on to
Linux and they are trying to make Linux into an ersatz Windows. This is
an exercise in futility, since nothing will ever do Windows as well as
Windows itself does Windows. Promoting Linux as a serious alternative
to Windows leads many unsuspecting people down a path to certain
disappointment and frustration, and it also guarantees that Linux will
never be anything more than an inferior and largely useless substitute
for Windows.

A few Linux users understand this and promote Linux as an environment in
itself, rather than as an alternative to Windows, but they are small
voices in a large and noisy crowd. Additionally, the massive emphasis
on the desktop that most distributions seem to put on Linux is really
trying to put a round peg into a square hole. UNIX and clones such as
Linux are not ideal desktop operating systems; they work better as
servers.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> John Doe writes:
>
>
>>And in fact, Apple almost went under at one time when Microsoft
>>threatened to stop making Office for the Mac.
>
>
> Apple has always been so poorly managed as a company that I'm
> continually amazed by its survival.
>
>
>>Apple is dependent on Microsoft.
>
>
> I don't know ... maybe. Certainly the Office suite is the leading
> application for the Mac.

What's kind of amusing is that MS developed Office *for* Apple and created
'Windows' to make it available on the PC.


<snip>

 

[Jd]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> There are virtually no viruses for the Mac, either, and it is a thousand
> times easier to set up than any distribution of Linux.

I don't know when you last looked at Linux but most distro's now have a
Full GUI setup environment that automatically partitions your hard
drives, detects and sets up your hardware (admitedly some hardware still
lacks support). Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup
because they come pre-installed.

> Additionally, Windows has a much more extensive and complex system of
> user identification than a simple user/root philosophy.

I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all
distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go
as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the
superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain
users can do depending on what "group" they are in.

Under Windows,
> each of any number of users can be assigned any of dozens of different
> privileges individually, ranging from no privilege at all (essentially a
> guest account) to a full local or domain administrator. In corporate
> environments, Windows can be very easily locked down in this way, with
> centralized control of access to all individual PCs.
>

This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX, Linux/UNIX was built with security
firmly in mind whereas windows security was an afterthought! EVERYTHING
in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive / cdrom, Every
file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can be set to any
combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more
permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on
CHROOT's and Jails.

Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the
new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up
with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings.

Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down,
Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know
that don't use the admin account? the simple fact that many users are
simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in
as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not
all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without
admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however)

>
>>... and as far as no use as a desktop system that's absolute rubbish
>>as long as you don't mind not being able to play games there is nothing
>>you can do on windows that you cannot do on Linux.
>
>
> The vast majority of microcomputer applications today run under Windows,
> and only under Windows.

Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound
editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very
little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST.

>
>>you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
>>Windows emulators ...
>
>
> You can run them much more easily under Windows.

That's obvious they were designed for that.

>
>>and for further note I actualy use UNIX as my main OS there are far less
>>ports for UNIX than there is for Linux but I still have the latest
>>Firefox, OpenOffice.org, Mozilla and many more programs.
>
>
> UNIX is even less suitable as a desktop, with the sole exception of Mac
> OS X, which has been so heavily modified with respect to the user
> interface that it isn't even recognizable as UNIX. Eventually OS X will
> no longer contain any UNIX, anyway.
>

I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my
main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd
players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for
there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers.

You are seriously underestimating Linux.

This post I fear has seriously went OT however I have enjoyed the
conversation however I will not be able to respond/read posts until
Sunday evening as I am going away for the weekend.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

JD writes:

> I don't know when you last looked at Linux ...

About two months ago.

> ... but most distro's now have a Full GUI setup environment that
> automatically partitions your hard drives, detects and sets up
> your hardware (admitedly some hardware still lacks support).

I tried Mandrake, and it hung after the pretty splash screen.

> Macs are obviously a thousand times easier to setup because
> they come pre-installed.

Yes. The same is true for Windows. But even an installation of Windows
from scratch is extremely easy and quick.

> I meant by "simple" that a Linux user will not use root as default all
> distro's by default DON NOT allow root to log in remotely some even go
> as far as not letting root log in localy, in that case you would use the
> superuser command to change to root privileges which only certain
> users can do depending on what "group" they are in.

Seems a bit odd to not even let root log in locally. It is the system
console, after all.

> This setup is standard in Linux/UNIX ...

No, it isn't even possible in Linux/UNIX, with the exception of a
handful of very heavily modified versions of these operating systems.
Standard UNIX doesn't hold a candle to the granularity of security
available in NT-based versions of Windows.

> ... Linux/UNIX was built with security firmly in mind ...

No, Linux and UNIX have absolutely no clue concerning security. They
are barely a step away from no security at all; they have just about the
minimum necessary for a timesharing system, and that's it.

> ... whereas windows security was an afterthought!

No, Windows security is designed directly into the kernel, and is
enforced in the kernel as well.

> EVERYTHING in Linux is a file be it a text document or hard-drive
> / cdrom, Every file has permissions "Owner Group Other" which can
> be set to any combination of "Read Write and Execute" (in actual fact there are more
> permissions than that, for folders) and I'm not even going to touch on
> CHROOT's and Jails.

Every object in Windows, file, device, resource, etc., has an access
control list that can specify any combination of _dozens_ of different
permissions for any combination of user accounts or account groups. It
blows UNIX security completely out of the water. There is really no
comparison.

Oddly enough, the ancestor of UNIX, Multics, did even better, but UNIX
dropped all the Multics security features for the sake of simplicity,
user-friendliness, and speed.

> Going back to my comment on Windows security as an afterthought.. the
> new longhorn version of windows is supposedly built from the ground up
> with security in mind, so we will wait and see what this brings.

All versions of Windows from NT forward have been built with security
from the ground up.

> Going back to your comment on windows privileges and locking down,
> Speaking from real world experience here how many people do you know
> that don't use the admin account?

It depends on the environment. I know of companies where nobody can log
onto his own desktop machine with an administrator account; everyone
uses simple user accounts, and only the IT department has administrator
access to machines.

> ... the simple fact that many users are
> simply lazy and "cant be bothered" to log out a user account and log in
> as administrator (or use the RUN AS command) is astonishing and its not
> all there fault ether, some programs refuse to work properly without
> admin privileges (Nero Burning rom as an example, it is fixed now however)

The same is true for UNIX. Many UNIX desktop users run as root.

> Rubbish again I have word processors, graphics applications, sound
> editing, dvd authoring, cd/dvd writing in actual fact there is very
> little Linux cannot do and at NO/LITTLE COST.

There are a quarter-million Windows applications out there. Nothing for
Linux or even the Mac comes anywhere close to that.

> That's obvious they were designed for that.

So why run them under Linux emulations of Windows, if you can just run
them under Windows for real?

> I agree to some extent with you there my point was that I use UNIX as my
> main OS and I am still able to use my word processors,Graphics,cd/dvd
> players and Linux is far more versatile. UNIX machines are renowned for
> there stability that's why they are commonplace in servers.

NT-based versions of Windows are rock solid also, they can run for years
without a boot. I almost never boot my Windows machines.

> You are seriously underestimating Linux.

No, I've just been using these operating systems for many years, and I
know what they can and cannot do.

Always use the right tool for the right job.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Clyde]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

If you love playing with the OS and using your mind to come up with
creative ways to run almost everything - in one form or another - Linux
is great.

If you never want to be bothered with the OS and just want to get your
work done reliably and simply without too many application choices, get
a Mac and run OS X.

If you want to run just about anything and have lots of choices in
applications and do it relatively easily without having to bother with
compatibility, run Windows XP.

I have run all of them at one time or another on desktop computers.
Right now, I only have XP on my computers.

Clyde

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Clyde wrote:
> If you love playing with the OS and using your mind to come up with
> creative ways to run almost everything - in one form or another - Linux
> is great.
>
> If you never want to be bothered with the OS and just want to get your
> work done reliably and simply without too many application choices, get
> a Mac and run OS X.
>
> If you want to run just about anything and have lots of choices in
> applications and do it relatively easily without having to bother with
> compatibility, run Windows XP.
>
> I have run all of them at one time or another on desktop computers.
> Right now, I only have XP on my computers.
>
> Clyde


In the interests of (1) security (2) leveraging open source (3) breaking
away from Windows, I've spent lots of 2005 trying various distros of
Linux on multiple machines. In short:

Three different distros could not connect with the Internet via a
Wireless USB adapter (this was on a 5-year old Pentium III which still
runs great, which I use a test platform for experiments such as this).
The same three distros could not run a PCI sound card (even though they
were able to handle audio tasks via mobo integrated sound).

However, the install/setup --and eventuall-- removal-- of these distros
gave me enough confidence that I could get a dual boot XP/Linux system
running on my main machine, which does have an wired connection to the
Internet.

Guess what: the display was unreadable on a dual display system.

Since I'm not up to a two floor run of CAT5 cable between my cable modem
and the Pentium III, I have a lingering install of Suse on my lab test
machine...but can't connect to the Internet unless I go back to XP.

USB wireless: negative. PCI DSP: negative. Dual display support:
negative. I never even got to the point of trying printers or scanners.
I'm as open-minded as anybody about what OS to use. But ultimately I
want it to give me the flexibility use any harware I want to do stuff,
not force me work- around solutions (or be left with no options at all).

Until I find a Linux distro that plays well with the hardware I'm
already using..I'll keep a probably patched and unpdated Windows machine
running, back up regularly, and reformat/reload as needed (about every
18 months is what I've needed for XP). Linux fought back hard against
this user, and for the most part I know what I'm doing. I can't imagine
what it would mean for the totally clueless.....

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:

> This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
> it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
> with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
> kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
> certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
> Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did🙂

Like I said, SuSE 9.3 should have the new kernel with wireless connectivity.
The new Mandrake, 2005LE, has the 2.6.10 kernel, but I'm willing to bet
that it backported the wireless stuff.

You might try and install the newest version of SuSE and maybe get the
wireless going.

Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. 😱)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> USB wireless: negative. PCI DSP: negative. Dual display support: negative. I never even got to the point of trying printers or scanners. I'm as open-minded as anybody about what OS to use. But ultimately I want it to give me the flexibility use any harware I want to do stuff, not force me work- around solutions (or be left with no options at all).
>
> Until I find a Linux distro that plays well with the hardware I'm already using..I'll keep a probably patched and unpdated Windows machine running, back up regularly, and reformat/reload as needed (about every 18 months is what I've needed for XP). Linux fought back hard against this user, and for the most part I know what I'm doing. I can't imagine what it would mean for the totally clueless.....

Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common
hardware, it isn't going anywhere on the desktop, no matter what
Linux apologists say. Try Ubuntu. It seems to be the most
friendly, from what I've heard lately. I tried it. It wouldn't
handle Winmodems on both my computers, and wouldn't recognize my
Epson scanner on my main computer. Still, you might want to try it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Al Smith wrote:

> Unless Linux can be made to recognize and work with common
> hardware, it isn't going anywhere on the desktop, no matter what
> Linux apologists say. Try Ubuntu. It seems to be the most
> friendly, from what I've heard lately. I tried it. It wouldn't
> handle Winmodems on both my computers, and wouldn't recognize my
> Epson scanner on my main computer. Still, you might want to try it.

Kubuntu would be a better choice for a first time Linux user, as it's Ubuntu
based on KDE rather than Gnome. However, once installed, you can install
either KDE or Gnome to the other and it's all the same.

I have a big problem with Ubuntu/Kubuntu: When logged in as user, and you
need to do something administrative, it asks for your _user_ password - not
your _root_ password. This seems to almost be as wide open as Windows...
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't like it at all. I'm sure there's a way to
change it, but I just didn't bother to dig that deep.

Ubuntu/Kubuntu is based on Debian Sid, which Knoppix/Gnoppix and Mepis are
too. Though Kubuntu was more visually pleasing, and it got my onboard Via
sound to work (minor problem), I thought Mepis was a better distro. They
all have their shortcomings...

The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates and projecting
that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be forced to come onboard and
support their hardware. At that point, the issue of working or not on your
computer should become moot.

 

[Clyde]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:
> ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>In the interests of (1) security (2) leveraging open source (3) breaking
>>away from Windows, I've spent lots of 2005 trying various distros of
>>Linux on multiple machines. In short:
>>
>>Three different distros could not connect with the Internet via a
>>Wireless USB adapter (this was on a 5-year old Pentium III which still
>>runs great, which I use a test platform for experiments such as this).
>>The same three distros could not run a PCI sound card (even though they
>>were able to handle audio tasks via mobo integrated sound).
>
>
> Wireless connectivity is in the 2.6.11 kernel. You have to be patient with
> Linux because Linksys, Netgear, and others are simply not developing any
> drivers for their hardware for Linux. Therefore, it's developed by the OSS
> community without any knowledge of how the things work from the
> manufacturers. Windows has an advantage of having so much marketshare that
> it gets the OEM drivers to make it all work.
>

Isn't that the point?

Linux is like a new car that is small, fast, handles super, and almost
free. However, they haven't padded the seats in it yet and no one makes
tires for it yet. If you never wear out the OEM tires and bring your own
seat cushion, it's fine. However, you wouldn't get very many people to
get on board.

Mac OS X is like a luxury sports car with almost everything you need.
(The salesman swears it IS everything you need!) There are no options.
You can get replacement parts for everything, but there is only one
choice for every part. There is no customizing, upgrading, or
personalization. You had better like buying that one brand of gas and
those unique set of tires. If you do, it's great. Besides other owners
will love you death as part of the club.

Windows is like all the other cars. There is a lot of variety,
variation, and not everything is perfect. However, you can get parts
anywhere. Lots of people can fix it for you too. You can hotrod your
car, make it super luxury, or strip it down for mileage. Most of the
time modifications will work very well. A few times it will screw things
up. You can make it very secure and hard to steal. You can also leave it
in a dark street with all the doors unlock and the windows down.

If you take care of your Windows car, it will run well for you for many
years. Then you can do just about anything you want to do. There is a
reason these kind of cars sell very well.

Clyde - no longer driving Linux and OS X cars

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:

> ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
>>it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
>>with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
>>kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
>>certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
>>Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did🙂
>
>
> Like I said, SuSE 9.3 should have the new kernel with wireless connectivity.
> The new Mandrake, 2005LE, has the 2.6.10 kernel, but I'm willing to bet
> that it backported the wireless stuff.
>
> You might try and install the newest version of SuSE and maybe get the
> wireless going.
>
> Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
> much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
> Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. 😱)

Yes we do. That's why I have a Linux toy boxes and a Windows work boxes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:

>> Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering
>> so much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of
>> the Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. 😱)
>
> Yes we do. That's why I have a Linux toy boxes and a Windows work boxes.

My Linux toy box just became my work box after awhile. I still do some
things on Windows, but I'm doing less and less of it there. It was a
gradual move. Hell, I might not even bother with Longhorn when it's
released, installing Debian on my Windows computer instead...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

ropeyarn@gmail.com writes:

> This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
> it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
> with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
> kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
> certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
> Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did🙂

Linux advocates, like so many geeks, don't understand that the vast
majority of people with computers today just use the computers as tools
to get things done ... they don't play with computers for the sake of
playing with a computer. And when one has actual work to do, the only
realistic choices for the desktop are Windows or a Mac (usually the
former, since more applications are available for it).

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
> much is incredibly fun.

No, it's not. About 99.999% of all computer users today do not consider
tinkering with computers to be "fun." Computers are a necessary evil; a
tool to get things done, and nothing more. They are not a source of fun
or entertainment.

> Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
> Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff.

The other 99.999% of modern computer users don't.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
>> Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually enjoy this stuff.
>
> The other 99.999% of modern computer users don't.

Funny... Recent estimates have Linux home use at approximately 13% of all
users either using Linux full time, dual booting it, or slipping in a
Knoppix type disk and running it...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith writes:

> The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates and projecting
> that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be forced to come onboard and
> support their hardware.

The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of the
computer world.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Ruel Smith writes:

>> The Linux community is predicting that based on growth rates
>> and projecting that at a certain marketshare, OEM's will be
>> forced to come onboard and support their hardware.
>
> The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of
> the computer world.

That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.

Someday, it might happen. But, barring unforeseen/bizarre
technological innovation, that is going to mark an event of
humongous global significance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:

>> The Linux community doesn't necessarily have a realistic view of
>> the computer world.
>
> That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
> users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
> mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
> of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
> operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.
>
> Someday, it might happen. But, barring unforeseen/bizarre
> technological innovation, that is going to mark an event of
> humongous global significance.

I think it _can_ happen, but then again, it seems as if Linux purists are
trying to NOT make it happen. They run people off in newsgroups that are
absolutely clueless, and they complain about distros like SuSE that
actually try and make Linux better for the mainstream user.

I also think SuSE (Novell) and Mandrake (now Mandriva) in particular, can do
a lot more than they are doing to make it more paletteable to the average
desktop user. Unfortunately, some tools still seem rather crude to many
users that come from a more polished desktop user experience like Windows.
It doesn't seem that they've made great strides in those particular areas
in quite awhile. While there has been strides to get WiFi working, and
other things, things like setting your monitor resolution and refresh rate
are still crude. Sax2 seems to be the best so far, but even that seems
rather crude. You'd think SuSE would have put some spit shine on it by now,
but its been virtually the same for a very long time.

I don't know if it's a money issue, or if the techno gurus that develop this
stuff are actually clueless to what the average user needs, but it doesn't
seem that anyone is actually making huge strides to make it more consumer
friendly. If they really put some effort into it, it could change for the
better in just one or two releases.

I hope Linux does get better, and companies like Novell really make an
effort to make it more consumer friendly. Let's face it, the way Novell is
going get more enterprise desktop marketshare is to get the same OS on the
home computers as well, making working at home and sharing files to/from
home and office a lot more natural.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
> users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
> mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
> of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
> operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.

All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially server
operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble together a desktop OS
out of one of them (with tremendous coding effort).

On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I recommend UNIX
(FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux for anything, since
it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically inferior to Windows, and the
emphasis on desktop use makes it less than ideal for servers as well.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Doe writes:

>> That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for
>> desktop users (something about people living in the Third World
>> comes to mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but
>> a small part of the overall problem for normal desktop users.
>> Linux is a server operating system, not for mainstream desktop
>> users.
>
> All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially
> server operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble
> together a desktop OS out of one of them (with tremendous coding
> effort). On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I
> recommend UNIX (FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux
> for anything, since it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically
> inferior to Windows, and the emphasis on desktop use makes it
> less than ideal for servers as well.

You recommend server software?

I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
Linux groupies.

Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
far. Here is its business summary. "Provides an enterprise
operating system and related systems management services based on
open source technology for the information technology
infrastructure requirements of large enterprises."

Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
many governments, including some of our (United States)
governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

> John Doe writes:
>
>> That is really true about the ones who promote Linux for desktop
>> users (something about people living in the Third World comes to
>> mind). Getting hardware to work is a huge problem but a small part
>> of the overall problem for normal desktop users. Linux is a server
>> operating system, not for mainstream desktop users.
>
> All versions of UNIX and clones (such as Linux) are essentially server
> operating systems, even if Apple managed to cobble together a desktop OS
> out of one of them (with tremendous coding effort).
>
> On the desktop, I recommend Windows. On servers, I recommend UNIX
> (FreeBSD, specifically). I don't recommend Linux for anything, since
> it's a wannabe desktop that is dramatically inferior to Windows, and the
> emphasis on desktop use makes it less than ideal for servers as well.

You're full of it. Linux is just a kernel. The Gnu and OSS applications that
actually turn it into an operating system make it dynamic. Linux is
everything from an embedded OS on Palm-like devices, the underlying OS in
the PlayStation 2, and many other embedded devices. Major companies are
making great strides to shift to Linux both on the desktop and for their
servers, in particular DaimlerChrysler. Average everyday Joes are using
Linux on the desktop too, like myself. I'm probably a little more informed
than the average computer user, but I'm not a techno geek. I just kept at
it and learned something. It's not hard, just different.

 

[Clyde]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:
>>Linux is like a new car that is small, fast, handles super, and almost
>>free. However, they haven't padded the seats in it yet and no one makes
>>tires for it yet. If you never wear out the OEM tires and bring your own
>>seat cushion, it's fine. However, you wouldn't get very many people to
>>get on board.
>
>
> Linux is like a kit car. You can get one that needs complete assembly
> (Gentoo), one that comes with a rolling chassis but still needs some work
> from the buyer to get roadworthy (Debian), or a turnkey one the will run
> great, provided you stick the right key in (SuSE, Mandrake). You can
> install your own engine (custom kernel) and really soup it up or provide it
> with a custom built engine (prepackaged custom kernel), provided you have
> the muster to do it. You can even get a rental (Knoppix)...
>
>

The market for kit cars has always been very small, but enthusiastic. It
is right for a handful of people, but not even close for most. Have fun!

Clyde

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ruel Smith wrote:
> ropeyarn@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>>This is the problem with Linux. I have actual work to do...and can't do
>>it without a printer and wireless Internet access. I can piddle around
>>with innards of an OS that is supported only via the best guesses of
>>kindly geeks, or I can stick with Windows, which simply works. My SO was
>>certainly delighted when I hauled out 100 feet of CAT 5 cable to see if
>>Suse would work with wired ethernet..which it did🙂
>
>
> Like I said, SuSE 9.3 should have the new kernel with wireless connectivity.
> The new Mandrake, 2005LE, has the 2.6.10 kernel, but I'm willing to bet
> that it backported the wireless stuff.
>
> You might try and install the newest version of SuSE and maybe get the
> wireless going.
>
> Honestly, I can see your point about having work to do, but discovering so
> much is incredibly fun. Those of us old enough to remember the joys of the
> Apple II and Applesoft BASIC actually _enjoy_ this stuff. 😱)


Never adopted any early Apple products (to pricey). But was a prowd
owner of a Commodore 64.

I'm still relatively amazed at the richness of a full color display..and
while I have my own beefs with MS (and particularly with some of their
marketing to technically uninformed customers), I have grown fond of
bringing a printer/camera/scanner/wireless USB ethernet adapter/you name
it home and having it working within minutes.

If Suse 9.2 had supported wireless Internet out of the box, there's a
very high probability that the Windows partition on that machine would
have disappeared within the week.

www.wlinux-wlan.com has information that suggests if I am willing to
back down to 802.11b, there is some potential for support of a wireless
USB adapter. All I have to do is follow the instructions as presented
in 13 --count 'em 13-- pages of instructions.


Of course, without Internet connectivity, the Suse box is undeniably the
most secure machine in my house🙂

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe writes:

> You recommend server software?

If a server is what someone wants, yes.

> I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
> Linux groupies.

Almost all users of Linux are Linux groupies. The entire Linux movement
is driven by them. People who aren't groupies and just want servers
knew about UNIX long before Linux came along, and versions of UNIX that
make superior servers have existed for years.

> Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
> far.

Gee, and I thought Linux was supposed to be _free_.

> Here is its business summary. "Provides an enterprise
> operating system and related systems management services based on
> open source technology for the information technology
> infrastructure requirements of large enterprises."

What would you expect it to say?

> Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
> the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
> many governments, including some of our (United States)
> governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
> the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
> dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
> corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
> been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.

Linux is technically inferior to most flavors of UNIX; it advances only
because of some of the same hype that originally caused Windows to
advance.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Mxsmanic wrote:

>> I don't think Linux has an emphasis on desktop use, except by
>> Linux groupies.

Mandrake, now Mandriva, has a desktop emphasis. It has some ways to go, but
it's pretty good. Hell, you can insert a Knoppix CD and boot it and be up
and running in minutes. And it's not hard to use, just different.

> Almost all users of Linux are Linux groupies. The entire Linux movement
> is driven by them. People who aren't groupies and just want servers
> knew about UNIX long before Linux came along, and versions of UNIX that
> make superior servers have existed for years.

Nope. I tried using Linux based on all the buzz about it back in 1998. I
struggled with it dearly. It was very crude back then. I've slowly found
out more and more about it.

Let's face it, the first time you sat down to a computer, did you have a
clue? Using a completely different OS is like sitting down to a computer
for the first time all over again. What you think you already know about
them doesn't apply at all.

>> Take Red Hat Linux for example, the only profitable Linux Corp. so
>> far.
>
> Gee, and I thought Linux was supposed to be _free_.

First of all, though Red Hat is probably the MOST profitable, I believe SuSE
was profitable as well.

Most distros are completely free. Debian, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mepis, Knoppix,
Gnoppix, Slackware, Gentoo, and others are completely donation funded.
Distros like SuSE and Mandrake have commercial versions and they are
somewhat of an illusion. What you're paying for is the the non-free
software included, the printed manuals, disks, installation support, etc..
They are not permitted to charge you a single dime for any of the GPL'd
software. They can only charge you their costs for distribution of it. Now,
the printed manuals, etc. are another story. However, both SuSE and
Mandrake have free downloadable versions on their FTP sites. Red Hat even
offers Fedora for free.

However, GPL does not restrict anyone from charging you anything. It's free
as in freedom, not as in beer... It is copyrighted software, afterall.

>> Linux is doing well as a server operating system. Linux does have
>> the backing of many large companies. Linux also has the backing of
>> many governments, including some of our (United States)
>> governments. The greatest threat to Windows, in my estimation, is
>> the banding together of other countries to thwart Microsoft's
>> dominance of computing (Microsoft is a giant, powerful
>> corporation). Linux appears to be the weapon of choice. Linux has
>> been and continues to be gaining ground on other forms of UNIX.
>
> Linux is technically inferior to most flavors of UNIX; it advances only
> because of some of the same hype that originally caused Windows to
> advance.

Linux has its strengths and weaknesses. Unix flavors such as FreeBSD would
not be as good as they are without the Linux movement. Much of the software
it uses came from the Linux community, ported to BSD Unix.