Fed Up With Vista Yet? Come Join Us In The Friendly Linux Community.

[Leythos]

No no no!
You must be mistaken because I was lead to believe that Ubuntu was 'easy'
and everything needed was included and everything 'just works'.
And now you imply that Ubuntu is the 'water', and I am the 'horse'?
Oh no. I'm not that thirsty.

I tried Ubuntu on two computers, one a Toshiba laptop, less than a year
old, and the other was a home built P4 system that I design networks on
and also play Guild Wars.

In both machines there were missing drivers, and I could not get my
documents to properly convert in Open Office or others.

I normally run XP and have two Fedora Core 5 machines running for
development, they installed a lot easier and with all devices working, but
I expected that from a company like Red Hat.

Try Fedora Core 5 if you want to run Linux, it's got a larger package of
apps and supports everything I've thrown at it.

 

[Alias]

I tried Ubuntu on two computers, one a Toshiba laptop, less than a year
old, and the other was a home built P4 system that I design networks on
and also play Guild Wars.

Which Ubuntu did you try, 6.06 or 6.10?

If the latter, you didn't really try Ubuntu.

Alias

 

[Alias]

No no no!
You must be mistaken because I was lead to believe that Ubuntu was
'easy' and everything needed was included and everything 'just works'.
And now you imply that Ubuntu is the 'water', and I am the 'horse'?
Oh no. I'm not that thirsty.

Which version of Ubuntu did you try?

Alias

 

[Leythos]

Which Ubuntu did you try, 6.06 or 6.10?

If the latter, you didn't really try Ubuntu.

We discussed this once before, it was about two months ago, while everyone
was still claiming that it was a one CD install that worked perfectly. The
main issue was that it didn't include WPA support and I'm not about to go
back to WEP.

 

[Unicorn]

I normally run XP and have two Fedora Core 5 machines running for
development, they installed a lot easier and with all devices working, but
I expected that from a company like Red Hat.

Try Fedora Core 5 if you want to run Linux, it's got a larger package of
apps and supports everything I've thrown at it.

I tried Fedora some 12 months ago. Install failed when it could not
recognise my SCSI controller. Mandrake did and I have had a generally
good experience with it. However I still would not recommend linux as a
raplacement desktop. as Mandrake spat at the old video card on the
server and I had to do all sorts of manual editing of KDE files to get
KDE to work.

I regularly look into the Linux world, but much as I want a windows
replacement O/S Linux is not yet IT. I use it, but my kids just hate
it. Their games don't work. They can't install all the spyware
necessary to do the teenage thing on the net. They can't cope with the
conversion of their word documents from school into and out of OpenOffice.

Matt

 

[Stephan Rose]

Which Ubuntu did you try, 6.06 or 6.10?

If the latter, you didn't really try Ubuntu.

Huh??

What's wrong with Edgy (6.10)?? I run it just fine...

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™ã²ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸæ™‚ãŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Pipboy]

The only reason OSX is as stable as it is, is because it only has to run on
a handful of different machines. Same reason our nintendos are so stable.

If Apple put forth the effort to open it up to all hardware then everyone
would cry about the new price for it.

OK, if they are happy being a bit player then fine by me. I'll never buy a
Mac anyway.

 

[Max]

It's still there--6.10.
Why would I have wanted any less than the 'latest' version from here:
http://www.ubuntu.com/products/GetUbuntu/download?action=show&redirect=download

"There are now two versions of Ubuntu, choose which is best for you:
Ubuntu 6.10, the newest Ubuntu release: If you would like to benefit from
the latest Ubuntu features, this is the release for you "

 

[Leythos]

I tried Fedora some 12 months ago. Install failed when it could not
recognise my SCSI controller. Mandrake did and I have had a generally
good experience with it. However I still would not recommend linux as a
raplacement desktop. as Mandrake spat at the old video card on the
server and I had to do all sorts of manual editing of KDE files to get
KDE to work.

I regularly look into the Linux world, but much as I want a windows
replacement O/S Linux is not yet IT. I use it, but my kids just hate
it. Their games don't work. They can't install all the spyware
necessary to do the teenage thing on the net. They can't cope with the
conversion of their word documents from school into and out of OpenOffice.

I look for Linux to be a good business desktop OS in a few years, it's
come a long way from where it's been for a decade, but, it still has a few
user friendly issues.

I tried Mandrake 10 and most of the GUI parts were broken, didn't support
my video cards (had to had edit the files) and generally just was not as
nice as Fedora. I also tried SUSE and a couple others. Several in my team
use Fedora and XP (different systems), and we've been happy with it.

Ubuntu was not worth the time, and certainly not worthy of the hype you
hear about it.

Vista doesn't offer anything that a properly configured XP solution
doesn't already have working on less resources and stable, but that will
change as businesses make the plunge.

 

[Alias]

Because YOU were the one that was asked. YOU were the one that was
challenged.

YOU are the one that has failed your debate.

I notice you still haven't answered the question.

So, have you stopped buggering your mother yet?

The question had a false assumption, as the question above does. I am
sure this goes waaaaaaaaaaay over your head but at least I tried.

Alias

 

[Alias]

Huh??

What's wrong with Edgy (6.10)?? I run it just fine...

Long Term Support vs. In Development.

Alias

 

[Alias]

If anyone finds they don't have driver support for Ubuntu then the only
logical conclusion is they're lying?

I was more specific: YOU are lying.

Nice, no wonder everyone thinks you're a total ass. You can't be taken
seriously.

Have you stopped buggering your mother yet?

This is top reason people hate Linux a-holes and Linux in general.

Yawn.

Alias

 

[Stephan Rose]

Long Term Support vs. In Development.

Edgy is not in development.
Feisty is.

Edgy is simply an updated newer release of Dapper hence the reason why there
is no long term support..it simply hasn't been around long enough to be
long term.

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™ã²ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸæ™‚ãŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Justin]

it's
come a long way from where it's been for a decade, but, it still has a few
user friendly issues.

So let me get this straight. After 10 years of development, Linux is still
not ready for prime time business clients? This is one of the many images
Linux portrays and it's why business RUN AWAY from them. The Open Source
community can't be taken seriously because of actions like this. They
simply can't get the job done.

If you where to snap your fingers and have Linux BUSINESS installed on over
100,000,000+ machines world wide.....WHO would support them? What "company"
is going to support that for "free"? No one! You would be paying $200 a
pop for Linux installs so you would have proper support for when a
PRODUCTION environment goes down.

When Linux gets closer to prime time, expect to start paying more for it.

Vista doesn't offer anything that a properly configured XP solution
doesn't already have working on less resources and stable, but that will
change as businesses make the plunge.

So Vista has nothing new to offer until business start using it? Then what?
It's will magically sprout new features?

I can believe that you have taken a serious look at Vista and it's features.
However I also seriously believe that you either didn't know what you where
looking at or you lack the ability and vision to integrate them. But that's
ok. That's what system integrators are for. The sad part about all this,
as one example, is that people own licenses to use SharePoint. Then they
outsource companies to come in and give them XXXX features. Only to be
told, um...look buddy...you already have this functionality, all you have to
do is start using it. I strongly believe you are one of these people that
don't know what's under your nose and I base that on the fact that you make
such comments as:

"Vista doesn't offer anything that a properly configured XP solution
doesn't already have..."

I have 5 employees currently using Vista in production. Yes, they moaned.
Yes, they groaned. After they used Vista for two months I put them back on
XP. Something (very expected) happened, they demanded their Vista machines
back. Tasks where easier to perform. Things where easier to find. Their
total experience was enhanced by being more fluid, responsive, easier to
use, a generally more comfortable experience. To me, the most important
enhancement to Vista over XP is the productivity it squeezes out.

I don't know about you, but those are things I want for my "fellow"
employees. You speak of ROI in another post. There's a grey area called
productivity that is hard to factor in. However, by being able to prove
that work on an employees desktop clears off quicker with Vista, that's what
higher management want to see. Even if the cost is higher then one might
expect since you're also moving forward with technology. However, in our
case ROI is 100% justified.

This is of course above and beyond the NEW features of Vista that you can't
seem to find.

Want one?

Try searching for a document on your network of TENS OF THOUSANDS of files
in THOUSANDS of folders and actually find it in three keystrokes and find it
INSTANTLY....do that with XP! If, for some reason there's a third party
solution I missed, then add the terms natively, included and zero
configuration into the mix.

If you give desktop search the network resource I mentioned it instantly
becomes a serious problem so don't even go there.

On a side note, I showed this feature to a few of our Mac heads and they
about sh!t their pants. They have an archive of hundreds of thousands of
graphic files and they can only dream for such a feature.

 

[Justin]

Why would I have wanted any less than the 'latest' version from here:

Because that's his only excuse.

 

[Justin]

So, have you stopped buggering your mother yet?

???? Let me guess, people tell you to grow up often.

The question had a false assumption, as the question above does. I am sure
this goes waaaaaaaaaaay over your head but at least I tried.

Oh really? Then please explain how someone ELSE answered it later in the
thread?

They answered it right on the nose! Got the question 100% right. But then
there's alias who does nothing but talk out his rear.

Fact, the question was answerable and someone else answered it.
Fact, alias couldn't answer it even though HE was asked the question in
order to backup his own mouth and FAILED.

 

[Justin]

If that's all you got, then you have nothing. I installed it and those are
my findings. Other had the exact same findings.

Deal with it.

 

[Justin]

That's funny. It doesn't say "in development" on the download page it says
newest RELEASE.

It's ok though. We know that's your entire excuse for Ubuntu.

 

[Justin]

it's
come a long way from where it's been for a decade, but, it still has a few
user friendly issues.

So let me get this straight. After 10 years of development, Linux is still
not ready for prime time business clients? This is one of the many images
Linux portrays and it's why business RUN AWAY from them. The Open Source
community can't be taken seriously because of actions like this. They
simply can't get the job done.

If you where to snap your fingers and have Linux BUSINESS installed on over
100,000,000+ machines world wide.....WHO would support them? What "company"
is going to support that for "free"? No one! You would be paying $200 a
pop for Linux installs so you would have proper support for when a
PRODUCTION environment goes down.

When Linux gets closer to prime time, expect to start paying more for it.

Vista doesn't offer anything that a properly configured XP solution
doesn't already have working on less resources and stable, but that will
change as businesses make the plunge.

So Vista has nothing new to offer until business start using it? Then what?
It's will magically sprout new features?

I can believe that you have taken a serious look at Vista and it's features.
However I also seriously believe that you either didn't know what you where
looking at or you lack the ability and vision to integrate them. But that's
ok. That's what system integrators are for. The sad part about all this,
as one example, is that people own licenses to use SharePoint. Then they
outsource companies to come in and give them XXXX features. Only to be
told, um...look buddy...you already have this functionality, all you have to
do is start using it. I strongly believe you are one of these people that
don't know what's under your nose and I base that on the fact that you make
such comments as:

"Vista doesn't offer anything that a properly configured XP solution
doesn't already have..."

I have 5 employees currently using Vista in production. Yes, they moaned.
Yes, they groaned. After they used Vista for two months I put them back on
XP. Something (very expected) happened, they demanded their Vista machines
back. Tasks where easier to perform. Things where easier to find. Their
total experience was enhanced by being more fluid, responsive, easier to
use, a generally more comfortable experience. To me, the most important
enhancement to Vista over XP is the productivity it squeezes out.

I don't know about you, but those are things I want for my "fellow"
employees. You speak of ROI in another post. There's a grey area called
productivity that is hard to factor in. However, by being able to prove
that work on an employees desktop clears off quicker with Vista, that's what
higher management want to see. Even if the cost is higher then one might
expect since you're also moving forward with technology. However, in our
case ROI is 100% justified.

This is of course above and beyond the NEW features of Vista that you can't
seem to find.

Want one?

Try searching for a document on your network of TENS OF THOUSANDS of files
in THOUSANDS of folders and actually find it in three keystrokes and find it
INSTANTLY....do that with XP! If, for some reason there's a third party
solution I missed, then add the terms natively, included and zero
configuration into the mix.

If you give desktop search the network resource I mentioned it instantly
becomes a serious problem so don't even go there.

On a side note, I showed this feature to a few of our Mac heads and they
about sh!t their pants. They have an archive of hundreds of thousands of
graphic files and they can only dream for such a feature.

 

[Stephan Rose]

Try searching for a document on your network of TENS OF THOUSANDS of files
in THOUSANDS of folders and actually find it in three keystrokes and find
it
INSTANTLY....do that with XP! If, for some reason there's a third party
solution I missed, then add the terms natively, included and zero
configuration into the mix.

That's great...*IF* you need it. Personally, I search for a file once every
2 years or so.

Features like that though also consume significant amounts of memory and cpu
resources for a search like that to be available like that instantly at all
times. Resources that unless I specifically need that feature I can better
use for other things.

So for me, the only part of that feature I want would be "Where do I turn it
off?" and if I can't....that'd be a negative.

--
Stephan Rose
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™ã²ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸæ™‚ãŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰