From: TJ on 14 Jul 2010 09:32
On 07/14/2010 06:12 AM, JBJ (4920) wrote:
> Hi Aragon, I'm a PC supporter and for 22 years I have been building and
> supporting "windows" pc's, I have asked many times why the pc companies
> don't put linux on their products and get the answer that windows - yet
> the company pays for a license - is easier to for the user and more
> widespread. There is some truth in this, windows is easier when it comes
> to troubleshoot a probleme(when you don't know linux that well) and it
> is more widespread. But the day will come when someone in the distro
> area realize that they have to make linux more friendly to install
> drivers and include something like Envy for the installation of lets say
> a videocard, and they have to make it so that all software, and I'm not
> only talking about windows software, will work in linux. There were many
> years ago talk about such a crossplatform OS where you could run any
> software ever made without it interfering with the OS, basically it
> would on paper look like a daisy the yellow part in the middle was the
> OS and the white leaves on the flower would be the programs.
> This OS would then have emulators build-in so that the software would run.
It's all in what you're used to, where you are comfortable, and where
I moved to Windows 98 from the Atari ST, and I found it most difficult
to pick up because it was so different. I had a number of ways of
looking at things that had to be "unlearned" to use Windows effectively,
and much of what Windows had me doing made little sense. (Click on
"Start" to stop?) It might have been easier if I had been a computer
novice, as most Windows users are when they start using it.
After but two years of frustration, including a complete re-install to
eliminate a virus/worm, I was steered toward Mandrake(now called
Mandriva) Linux. I found it *much* easier to pick up than Windows had
been, but then I wasn't a Windows "expert." Since I wasn't yet
comfortable with the bad habits Windows tried to make me learn, it was
easier to ignore them.
I believe the same is true of Linux. Take somebody who's never used a
computer, sit him down in front of one, and he will have as much or as
little trouble with Linux as he would with Windows. But have him use one
or the other for a while and develop a "feel" for the particular system,
and he will have trouble picking up the other one.
> In my current situation, I have a pc workshop where the only pc's I got
> is old. I can't afford to buy new HW. I'm trying to get linux to work
> with my old HW, and not make the HW work with linux. You buy HW that are
> meant for Linux, where I live out from the philosofi that Linux should
> be able to work with my HW, since it should be known by now. Otherwise
> we have the windows probleme again, where drivers are obsolete and you
> can throw the HW out - leads to more polution - my solution is more
> green: don't buy new, make use of your old.
> When I buy HW then its old, from offices that are changing to new, i
> make use of the old HW by testing it and putting on my shelf's then
> later building a pc up and test it with burn-in tests. I find manuals
> and info on the net, and by now have a pretty large database of drivers
> for windows - still I'm expanding my knowledge about linux and
> collecting drivers for that.
It's true that Linux is generally more efficient with older hardware
than Windows. You'll find that the vast majority of common drivers are
already included in the kernel. But, there's always the danger of
getting unsupported hardware. By the very nature of open-source,
somebody with the needed skills must be interested in developing a
driver for a certain device before one will be developed. Corporate
doesn't assign him to do it.
Another problem is that many device manufacturers are not forthcoming
when it comes to the necessary information for driver development.
Whether from disinterest or from pressure from Microsoft, Linux isn't
perceived as worth their trouble.
Canon is a good example. While many of their multifunction devices'
printer functions can be accessed through reverse-engineered printer
drivers, most of the scanners can't. Canon has little interest in Linux
Contrast that with HP, with possibly the best of Linux support.
> I would consider myself as close to an expert on pc's(with windows), and
> a novice in Linux.
Probably the main reason you think Linux is more difficult than Windows.
It's simple human nature.
Life isn't fair. It's not meant to be.
Overcoming the disadvantages we face is what makes us strong.
From: J G Miller on 14 Jul 2010 09:52
On Wednesday, July 14th, 2010 at 12:12:04h +0200, JBJ \(4920\) wrote:
> windows is easier when it comes to troubleshoot a probleme
> (when you don't know linux that well)
Actually iy is not. Consider the case of having to install
a driver on a windows system for a piece of hardware. Sometimes
the installation can fail for a variety of reasons, but because
the installation process "run a .exe" is all black box and the
user has no control over what it is doing or of seeing the
source code for the procedure, then the problem can only
be resolved by going back to the manufacturer.
Their response will be to remove the driver and try again.
Sometimes this involves installing more software to "completely
remove the driver", possibly from a third party source, because
the original driver software is useless at removing its-self.
In some cases, the problem can only be resolved when the the
manufacturer reveals that some obscure registry key has to be
And for each of these driver removals and installation, it is
not uncommon for the machine to have to be rebooted.
> I would consider myself as close to an expert on pc's(with windows),
> and a novice in Linux.
Since you admit that you are a novice in Linux any meaningful
significance in your statement that troubleshooting a problem
on a Windoze system compared to Linux just flew out of the window.
[ PS the plural of PC is PCs,
not PC's which denotes the possessive form.]
From: mjt on 14 Jul 2010 10:07
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:44:38 +0200
"JBJ \(4920\)" <thunder(a)spoergmig.invalid> wrote:
> Next is to get compiz working.
Let me see if I understand this. You've had difficulty
finding a Linux distro that will work on old hardware
and most recently, getting an nVidia driver to work
for a 16mb Vanta video card.
And now you want to get Compiz working?
A video card with at least 64mb of VRAM is recommended
by the Compiz team.
From the Greek "poly" ("many") and the French "tete" ("head" or
"face," as in "tete-a-tete": head to head or face to face).
Hence "polytetien", a person of two or more faces.
- Martin Pitt
<<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: mjt on 14 Jul 2010 10:17
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:52:24 +0000 (UTC)
J G Miller <miller(a)yoyo.ORG> wrote:
> > windows is easier when it comes to troubleshoot a probleme
> > (when you don't know linux that well)
> Actually iy is not. Consider the case of having to install
> a driver on a windows system for a piece of hardware.
Or worse. By an off-the-shelf box of M$ Windows
and try to get it installed to a desktop or laptop.
Kinkler's First Law:
Responsibility always exceeds authority.
Kinkler's Second Law:
All the easy problems have been solved.
<<< Remove YOURSHOES to email me >>>
From: Dan C on 14 Jul 2010 10:49
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 09:07:55 -0500, mjt wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 00:44:38 +0200
> "JBJ \(4920\)" <thunder(a)spoergmig.invalid> wrote:
>> Next is to get compiz working.
> Let me see if I understand this. You've had difficulty finding a Linux
> distro that will work on old hardware and most recently, getting an
> nVidia driver to work for a 16mb Vanta video card.
Hehe, yep that's right.
> And now you want to get Compiz working?
He isn't the sharpest crayon in the box, is he?
> A video card with at least 64mb of VRAM is recommended by the Compiz
And even with that, performance will suck.
"Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me".
"Bother!" said Pooh, as he found Piglet in bed with Eeyore.
Usenet Improvement Project: http://twovoyagers.com/improve-usenet.org/
Thanks, Obama: http://brandybuck.site40.net/pics/politica/thanks.jpg