From: Norman Peelman on
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> RayLopez99 wrote:
>> On Jun 11, 2:08 pm, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...(a)> wrote:
>>> You're still being pretty insulting.
>> I would say I'm being realistic.
>>> Your big problem is that you shot yourself in the foot using a
>>> deliberately stripped Linux to accomplish sophisticated work on a
>>> machine with way, way, way too little RAM for graphical applicatons,
>>> and you expect it to work seamlessly. When offered "fast, cheap, good:
>>> pick two", you seem upset that you're not getting all 3 automatically.
>> No, I got cheap and good. It surfs the net (slower than Win2k or NT4
>> though), and it was a throwaway PC (cheap).
>>> The result is that you are using far too old of versions of software
>>> for polished behavior: Polish takes disk space for the resources, and
>>> RAM for the scanning and testing that presents the polished interface:
>>> the result is that you only have 1/3 of your 1 Gig drive occupied, but
>>> you can't run powerful graphical tools like OpenOffice or recent
>>> versions of FireFox.
>> True enough--I don't even have Java in my Firefox, but I think I can
>> do online banking (I'll have to check but I'm pretty sure most
>> functionality does not require Java but just plain HTML).
>>> Damn Small Linux was designed for robust behavior
>>> on limited hardware, not fancy behavior, and you've gotten what you
>>> insisted on.
>> Yes, true.
>>> Now add up the time you've spent, and use a similar amount of time to
>>> either earn the money to buy a new box, or do a bit of dumpster diving
>>> or hardware swapping to get something better to work with and save
>>> yourself pain.
>> Not for me amigo, for this cheapskate. She does not believe in
>> throwing things out.
>> Anyway, I'm not that disappointed with Linux. You know why? Because
>> though Win 2k and NT 4.0 were faster than Linux is on this old
>> hardware, they needed antivirus and firewall protection, that needs
>> daily downloads. Keep in mind this girl uses a dialup modem...very
>> slow to get a 300kb file downloaded everyday on dialup. So for her, I
>> think this Linux OS might be a good thing. For her. Not for me.
>> RL
> Odd that windows can be faster on net access, when its only limited by
> the actual modem speeds, which have nothing to do with the operating
> system at all.

Especially at dial-up speeds

> So once again you seem to be bending reality to fit your prejudice.

Registered Linux user #461062