A trip down memory lane..

[Frank]

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:



Of course Ubuntu required updates and fixes after its initial release.

Not according to your urbuttoo buddy! You guys need to get your story
straight. Better yet...get lost!
Frank

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

Of course Ubuntu required updates and fixes after its initial release. But
it essentially WORKED when it was released from beta testing. The same can
not be said for Vista. That's why everyone is still waiting for SP1 and
then will be waiting even longer for SP2.

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

Vista WORKED, but was a little sluggish in some areas. SP1 will fix the
sluggishness.

You guys are going to have to fall back on DRM, WGA, WPA, and even these are
changing slowly..

--
Mike Hall - MVP
How to construct a good post..
http://dts-l.com/goodpost.htm
How to use the Microsoft Product Support Newsgroups..
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=newswhelp&style=toc
Mike's Window - My Blog..
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx

 

[Dave]

..... and the missing "UP" arrow........ OMG.

 

[Dave]

.... and the missing "UP" arrow........ OMG.

Give the up arrow a rest............If you spent as much time learning the
new interface as you did crying about it you would find out you don't need
the up arrow.

 

[The poster formerly known as 'The Poster Formerly]

.. for the Vista bashers..

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=382

Duh, Mike! This is why many here have been saying wait until SP2!

--
"Fair use is not merely a nice concept--it is a federal law based on
free speech rights under the First Amendment and is a cornerstone of the
creativity and innovation that is a hallmark of this country. Consumer
rights in the digital age are not frivolous."
- Maura Corbett

 

[Dave]

LOL, I left out the
<sarcasm>
</sarcasm>

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Yes, but I haven't noticed any changes. When it was released, it worked
perfectly. XP SP2 was when XP should have been released. Updating it since
then is not a bad thing, just as updating a final release of Ubuntu is not
a bad thing.

Alias

You haven't noticed any changes because all you do is use the browser and
probably e-mail. They could make major changes and you would have no clue.
But again, you use Ubuntu. Enuf said HA HA HA HA HA HA

 

[Bill Yanaire]

You are really in denial aren't you?
Take it like a man...if you can...LOL!
Frank

He isn't a man, he's an Ubuntu Lowlife. A man would be about 10 steps up
from Alias!

 

[Bill Yanaire]

You never installed Ubuntu and the "150 updates" is proof. ALL OSes have
updates, Frank, but XP and Vista were released before they were ready for
prime time.

Alias

But there is NO prime time for Ubuntu. Not now. Not ever.......

 

[DanS]

And to anyone out there : If you happen to have the very first XP
"gold" CD Build 2600, without any SP1 or 2.. well install and enjoy (
but don't go online ) - you will see bugs and incompatibility all
over.

False. I ran the 'Gold' from initial release up until 8/2006 behind a NAT
rtr with no issues.

 

[DanS]

(e-mail address removed) (the wharf rat) wrote in

You're mistaking "bells and whistles" for "important core
features".
MS and its users continually confound the UI with the operating
system. The MS UI has always been world class. The supporting
operating systems are...not.

Yes they are, and I've mentioned that a million times, and I'm not sure if
anyone (that doesn't use Linux) has any clue as to what the f I'm talking
about.

The UI is NOT Linux. Linux is the OS, a CLI OS.

The UI is (not really, but) comparable to Windows Explorer's shell
features. There are many choices...

Gnome, KDE, E, xFce, and more. Each has it's own features and share
features with each other as well.

But that concept is hard for some to grasp.

 

[dennis@home]

(e-mail address removed) (the wharf rat) wrote in


Yes they are, and I've mentioned that a million times, and I'm not sure if
anyone (that doesn't use Linux) has any clue as to what the f I'm talking
about.

The UI is NOT Linux. Linux is the OS, a CLI OS.

Linux is the kernel.
All it does is I/O, memory management, thread/process management and a few
low level things like that.
Linux has no CLI, in fact it doesn't have any programs.
You are confusing a distribution which is shipped with open source software
like shells, compilers, etc. none of which are linux.

The UI is (not really, but) comparable to Windows Explorer's shell
features. There are many choices...

Gnome, KDE, E, xFce, and more. Each has it's own features and share
features with each other as well.

But that concept is hard for some to grasp.

Concept grasping does appear to be a problem.

 

[NoStop]

Linux is the kernel.
All it does is I/O, memory management, thread/process management and a few
low level things like that.
Linux has no CLI, in fact it doesn't have any programs.
You are confusing a distribution which is shipped with open source
software like shells, compilers, etc. none of which are linux.
Precisely.


Concept grasping does appear to be a problem.

Especially when someone doesn't know how something works.

Cheers.


--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

 

[NoStop]

Bill Yanaire wrote:

But there is NO prime time for Ubuntu. Not now. Not ever.......

Unfortunately, you'll never know because you are incapable of installing and
using it to find out.

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

 

[Frank]

NoStop wrote:

....time to take your meds your wacko lying linux loser!
Frank

 

[Frank]

Especially when someone doesn't know how something works.

Cheers.

You mean like you?
We all know that.
Frank

 

[NoStop]

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:

A day after it was released, some patches came down the tubes, and they
have been doing this since 7.10 was first released. If I didn't know
better, I would think that Ubuntu users are being treated like guinea pigs
for an OS that clearly wasn't ready..

It's obvious that your experience with Open Source is very limited and being
viewed through the eyes of the Closed Source world with which you're more
familiar.

The difference between a Linux distro and something like Windows when it
comes to updates is this ...

With Open Source, a distro supplies not just the operating system and a few
little apps, but many Open Source applications (over 25,000 software
packages with Ubuntu). With Ubuntu, all the software packages available in
the "main" repository are supported by Ubuntu in terms of providing updates
through its Update Manager software.

Since the "main" repository contains many many Open Source software
applications, updates are provided FOR ALL THIS SOFTWARE as they become
available. So when someone installs Ubuntu 7.10 for example, a release that
was issued in October of 2007 and does this install months after this
release, one will see ALL the updates for ALL the software packages that
Ubuntu directly supports. Although some of these updates may include bug
fixes, usually they are there because of security updates. If some piece of
Open Source software is found to have the potential of having a security
issue, when it is patched, it is included in the updates. The frequency of
updates isn't as you suggest because what is already installed is so bug
ridden.

Not surprising then, that with Ubuntu, a new user and one unaware of how
this stuff works, will think, WTF, is this release so buggy that all these
updates have to be installed immediately after installing the OS. That is
the impression I'm getting from what you're saying. I hope that what I've
posted helps clarify this.

Now, let's compare it to a Closed Source system like Windows...

One installs Windows XP for example, then goes and installs all sorts of
Windows software available in all sorts of forms: from freeware, to
shareware to commercial retail purchases, etc. Unlike in the Open Source
world, the user then is responsible for trying to keep track of all that
software on an individual basis in terms of keeping it updated to fix both
security problems and bug fixes. Microsoft provides an automated way to
keep the core Microsoft software updated through it's monthly updates. All
the OTHER software you run however isn't automatically fed to you as
required. Because it is Closed Source, the seller might not even make its
users aware that there are problems with the software and updates/patches
are required. It becomes the responsibility of the end-user to try and stay
on top of all this, which is a daunting task! It's only when a crisis
happens that Windows users can even figure out something is wrong and then
hunt around to find out WTF is going wrong and whether a fix/patch is
available.

If you wanted to make an honest comparison of the effort to keep a Windows
system patched AND all its installed software compared to an Open Source
distro like Ubuntu, one has to conclude that the Open Source way is so much
easier for the end-user and a far more intelligent way of doing this.

To conclude ...

The Open Source and Closed Source paradigms are not the same. They operate
completely differently. IMHO, Open Source is BETTER. It's easier for the
end-user and tends to address issues much much quicker than they are
addressed in the Closed Source community. It's more the norm than not, to
have a security patch out for an Open Source application when discovered in
a day or two. With Closed Source, no one knows as it's CLOSED! Some may
never get addressed, some may take months or even years to get addressed
and even Microsoft's once a month fixes are nowhere near as quick as Open
Source fixes.

Get it?

Cheers.

--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

 

[NoStop]

There isn't an OS that hasn't needed continual work, nor any piece of
software, and if the 'guinea pig' law applies to Windows, it surely
applies to everything else.

Yes Mike, I agree, that every OS requires continual work. THE MAIN
DIFFERENCE however between Vista and Ubuntu, is that YOU paid for Vista. I
didn't have to pay for Ubuntu. With Ubuntu, I'm part of a community of
users. With Windows, you're a customer of Microsoft. Do you not understand
the difference? I can belong to a community that appreciates the efforts of
the volunteer developers within that community who give me access to
quality and FREE software. In return, I don't mind testing their software.
They are creating it for me and the rest of the Ubuntu users and I feel an
obligation to help them produce the best that they can produce. With Paid
Software, it's a whole different paradigm. The Closed Source developers
aren't producing software because they want to help the community of users.
They're producing the software to make a PROFIT on their software. Their
prime incentive to produce quality software is the competition they face
from their other corporate competitors, not because they feel an obligation
to the end-user. With that kind of relationship, the end-user shouldn't
have to be a beta tester.

I'm not saying there is no place for Closed Source - Paid For Software. But,
don't mix up the two and try and suggest that one is the same as the other.
They are not! Understand?

Cheers.


--
Vista will make you speechless!
http://tinyurl.com/38zv7x

Proprietary Software: a 20th Century software business model.

Q: What OS is built for lusers?
A: Which one requires running lusermgr.msc to create them?

Frank, hard at work on his Vista computer all day:
http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/compost.htm

 

[Frank]

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:



Yes Mike, I agree, that every OS requires continual work. THE MAIN
DIFFERENCE however between Vista and Ubuntu, is that YOU paid for Vista.

A wise investment well worth every penny.

I

didn't have to pay for Ubuntu.

Oh, you're paying...you may not realize it but it's a very expensive
os...if you're doing any kind real productive work that is. Maybe that
leaves you out?

With Ubuntu, I'm part of a community of

users.

Yeah, I've been to your "community"...more like a mental ward full of
wackos all bound together by their common hatred for all things MS.
Great group of...(human beings?)...LOL!

With Windows, you're a customer of Microsoft. Do you not understand

the difference?

Yeah, we use an OS that is developed for most of the productive world.

I can belong to a community that appreciates the efforts of

the volunteer developers within that community who give me access to
quality and FREE software.

Some of the most worthless useless crap code ever to be written.

In return, I don't mind testing their software.

hehehe...the entire linux system is always beta...at best.

They are creating it for me and the rest of the Ubuntu users and I feel an
obligation to help them produce the best that they can produce.

Guess what...it's not working!

With Paid

Software, it's a whole different paradigm. The Closed Source developers
aren't producing software because they want to help the community of users.
They're producing the software to make a PROFIT on their software.

Yeah...it's called competition!

Their

prime incentive to produce quality software is the competition they face
from their other corporate competitors, not because they feel an obligation
to the end-user.

Dumb stupid foolish statement that shows you know nothing at all about
software companies or marketing.

With that kind of relationship, the end-user shouldn't

have to be a beta tester.

Who said we were? You? You don't even use any MS or any other
software...according to you. So you have no idea what you're talking
about...which is very evident.

I'm not saying there is no place for Closed Source - Paid For Software.

Well duh! Brilliant statement seeing as how most of the entire world run
on it!

But,

don't mix up the two and try and suggest that one is the same as the other.
They are not! Understand?

Of course not. Professionally developed software is much better as
evidenced by their market share...almost 100%.
Frank

 

[Frank]

Mike Hall - MVP wrote:




It's obvious that your experience with Open Source is very limited and being
viewed through the eyes of the Closed Source world with which you're more
familiar.

The difference between a Linux distro and something like Windows when it
comes to updates is this ...

With Open Source, a distro supplies not just the operating system and a few
little apps, but many Open Source applications (over 25,000 software
packages with Ubuntu). With Ubuntu, all the software packages available in
the "main" repository are supported by Ubuntu in terms of providing updates
through its Update Manager software.

Since the "main" repository contains many many Open Source software
applications, updates are provided FOR ALL THIS SOFTWARE as they become
available. So when someone installs Ubuntu 7.10 for example, a release that
was issued in October of 2007 and does this install months after this
release, one will see ALL the updates for ALL the software packages that
Ubuntu directly supports. Although some of these updates may include bug
fixes, usually they are there because of security updates. If some piece of
Open Source software is found to have the potential of having a security
issue, when it is patched, it is included in the updates. The frequency of
updates isn't as you suggest because what is already installed is so bug
ridden.

Not surprising then, that with Ubuntu, a new user and one unaware of how
this stuff works, will think, WTF, is this release so buggy that all these
updates have to be installed immediately after installing the OS. That is
the impression I'm getting from what you're saying. I hope that what I've
posted helps clarify this.

Now, let's compare it to a Closed Source system like Windows...

One installs Windows XP for example, then goes and installs all sorts of
Windows software available in all sorts of forms: from freeware, to
shareware to commercial retail purchases, etc. Unlike in the Open Source
world, the user then is responsible for trying to keep track of all that
software on an individual basis in terms of keeping it updated to fix both
security problems and bug fixes. Microsoft provides an automated way to
keep the core Microsoft software updated through it's monthly updates. All
the OTHER software you run however isn't automatically fed to you as
required. Because it is Closed Source, the seller might not even make its
users aware that there are problems with the software and updates/patches
are required. It becomes the responsibility of the end-user to try and stay
on top of all this, which is a daunting task! It's only when a crisis
happens that Windows users can even figure out something is wrong and then
hunt around to find out WTF is going wrong and whether a fix/patch is
available.

If you wanted to make an honest comparison of the effort to keep a Windows
system patched AND all its installed software compared to an Open Source
distro like Ubuntu, one has to conclude that the Open Source way is so much
easier for the end-user and a far more intelligent way of doing this.

To conclude ...

The Open Source and Closed Source paradigms are not the same. They operate
completely differently. IMHO, Open Source is BETTER. It's easier for the
end-user and tends to address issues much much quicker than they are
addressed in the Closed Source community. It's more the norm than not, to
have a security patch out for an Open Source application when discovered in
a day or two. With Closed Source, no one knows as it's CLOSED! Some may
never get addressed, some may take months or even years to get addressed
and even Microsoft's once a month fixes are nowhere near as quick as Open
Source fixes.

Get it?

Cheers.

You may be an open sores advocate but you live in a closed world.
Frank