OEM vs Retail XP Pro

[David Maynard]

The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux

The fact of your simple fact is it isn't true. There are less than 100
viruses for Linux (even fewer that are 'popular') but they do exist and are
growing in number.

The 'no virus' argument has always been a 'damned if you do' kind of thing
with Linux because part of what's 'protected' it is the rather small market
share. I.E. if one wants to inflict damage on a multitude of systems then
you pick a platform that's popular enough to propagate it. And as Linux
becomes more popular it'll attract more attackers and lose that 'feature'
Linux aficionados are touting as a reason to make it more popular. The
curse of success.

and the
strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows!

One can run with root privileges in Linux just as easily as one can run as
Administrator in Windows.

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.

Not quite right either, depending on what it is you want to do. In a
business environment one of the big drawbacks to Linux has been the lack of
a full featured replacement for the MS Exchange server, which then
translates to what the client needs to be.

Bynari claims to have a replacement (using Outlook with it requires their
plug-in) but it isn't 'free' and neither is their client on the desktop.

you can even run windows programs
on Linux using one of the many Windows emulators

Partly true. The emulators are always 'behind' compared to Windows and not
all Windows apps will operate properly.

 

[Mxsmanic]

The simple fact that there are VIRTUALLY no viruses for Linux and the
strict user - root set-up makes it FAR MORE secure than windows!

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

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

... 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.

you can even run windows programs on Linux using one of the many
Windows emulators ...

You can run them much more easily under Windows.

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.

 

[Mxsmanic]

And what is Mac now? Basically another version of Linux, well ok, BSD.
Almost the same thing.

Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of UNIX--even
though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as opposed to Linux, which
is a clone), but the user interface is vastly more coherent,
user-friendly, stable, performant, and secure, thanks to the huge amount
of money invested in it by Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget
by comparison.

Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac
operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats Windows
(slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications available, however
(although there are far more than you can find for Linux, including many
major name-brand applications, such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft
products).

 

[Mxsmanic]

Soon, Microsoft will not allow OEM versions to be upgraded through Service
packs or patches downloaded from their websites. All oem version will have
to be updated through the vendor you bought the PC from. If you have a gray
market oem Windows product you bought with a cable or floppy drive
etc.,you'll be SOL.

Since I typically never upgrade an OS after installing it, this is not a
very big issue.

 

[John Doe]

Worlds apart. Not only is it based on BSD (a real flavor of
UNIX--even though it doesn't pay for the UNIX trademark--as
opposed to Linux, which is a clone), but the user interface is
vastly more coherent, user-friendly, stable, performant, and
secure, thanks to the huge amount of money invested in it by
Apple. Linux is a pimply teenager's gadget by comparison.

Unfortunately, you have to buy a (expensive) Mac to get the Mac
operating system, but if you want user-friendliness, it beats
Windows (slightly). There aren't nearly as many applications
available, however (although there are far more than you can
find for Linux, including many major name-brand applications,
such as commercial Adobe and Microsoft products).

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

 

[Mxsmanic]

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.

 

[David Maynard]

John Doe writes:




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




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]

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)

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 run them much more easily under Windows.

That's obvious they were designed for that.

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.

 

[Mxsmanic]

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.

 

[Clyde]

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

 

[Ruel Smith]

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.

I think the new SuSE 9.3 has the new 2.6.11 kernel. You might try a
net-install installation of it, or possibly install a new kernel in your
current system. I do know that newer kernels are available at most
repositories for most distros. However, your mileage varies, as support for
things need to be compiled into the kernel either directly or as a module.
Most major distros cover most bases, but not always. I just installed an
Athlon specific kernel in my Debian installation, only to find it doesn't
have DMA turned on in the kernel for my DVD watching pleasures. I'll have
to compile one myself to get it working - but that's Linux.

The best solution would be to install Gentoo, as everything is compiled
specifically for your machine. However, I've been using Linux for quite
sometime and could not get it installed correctly. It's technical to say
the least.

The second best option would be to install Debian and upgrade to the newest
kernel via Apt. Then you simply give the command 'update-grub' from a root
commandline and it'll appear the next time you boot as an option. You can
even get CPU specific kernels prepackaged for Athlon, Via C3, etc.. Debian
isn't as pretty to install as Mandrake (Mandriva) or SuSE, as you'll get a
very basic system with a command prompt only at first, until you install
the X window system, KDE and/or Gnome, and you'll want to install Synaptic.
Then you'll still find yourself lacking packages for about a week until you
run into a need for them and discover you don't have them installed yet.

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).

Dual display is available with nVidia, I know. Why you can't get it working,
I don't know. Maybe you need to look at the README from nVidia's site and
correctly turn on the needed options in xorg.config or XF86Config?

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.....

Well, it does have a ways to go for hardware compatibility. And, it would be
so nice if the distros could get the thing working on all machines.
However, at the moment, it can be a crap shoot. I've gone with SuSE for a
long time, used Mandrake here and there, and even used Red Hat at one time.
I've also tried Knoppix, Mepis, and Kubuntu/Ubuntu, and have recently
landed on the best one so far - Debian. However, Debian isn't for the first
time installer and you'll have to be a self-starter to work at getting it
all together and configured. But, in the end, it has been worth it.

 

[ropeyarn]

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.....

 

[Ruel Smith]

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.

 

[Ruel Smith]

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. )

 

[Ruel Smith]

Isn't that the point?

From a normal everyday users point of view, maybe. However, once Linux gets
correctly configured, you won't believe how awesome it is. The hard part is
getting it there, and if you have the right hardware, it's painless with
the biggest major distros.

See, here's what people don't get: You need to run supported hardware. It's
not the job of some open source software (OSS) programmer to support
someone else's hardware. It's the job of HP to support _their_ printers,
scanners, and whatever else. It's the job of Creative to support their
SoundBlaster sound cards. It's the job of nVidia and ATi to support their
video cards. It's the job of Via, Intel, SiS, nVidia, and ATi to support
their chipsets. It's the job of Highpoint, Promise, Via, Adaptec, etc. to
support their IDE/SCSE/RAID chipsets. You get the point...

Now, you wouldn't buy a SoundBlaster Audigy 2 soundcard and put in it a
Macintosh G5, would you? If you did, would you blame Apple because it
doesn't work? This is essentially what you're doing when you have hardware
that isn't supported, when running Linux. Lack of hardware support should
be cried about to the hardware manufacturer.

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)...

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.

Macintosh is like a Ferrari: It runs fast with the rather small engine it
has, has lots of sex appeal, but modifications are nearly non-existent, and
getting parts just isn't going to be cheap. Oh yeah, and it costs a king's
ransom...

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.

Windows is like a 2000 Honda Civic with an engine from a 1974 CVCC with a
hood latch that doesn't work. It looks modern enough on the outside, but
the inner workings have too many miles on them and have been patched up
time and time again and anyone can get under the hood and tamper with it.
Modifications are done by a backyard mechanic with a shady reputation and
sometimes work without a problem, but every now and then he leaves a wrench
in there, causing it to break down just when you were on your way to work.
Oh, and that tired engine loses performance with every modification made...

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.

Taking care of Windows can be frustrating and time consuming. Sometimes it's
just better to wipe it and start over.

Once you learn the Linux way, which is totally foreign because you're
accustomed to Windows, you'll find out that fixes are simple in Linux, but
you just have to know where to look to get you pointed in the right
direction. Everything is wide open for you to modify and learn how to, but
you just have to be resourceful.

If you're a self-starter, Linux is great. If you just want to turn it on and
go, then you can just forget Linux, for now.

Clyde - no longer driving Linux and OS X cars

He chose to stay with his Yugo...

 

[Ruel Smith]

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...

 

[Al Smith]

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.

 

[Clyde]

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

 

[ropeyarn]

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.

I think the new SuSE 9.3 has the new 2.6.11 kernel. You might try a
net-install installation of it, or possibly install a new kernel in your
current system. I do know that newer kernels are available at most
repositories for most distros. However, your mileage varies, as support for
things need to be compiled into the kernel either directly or as a module.
Most major distros cover most bases, but not always. I just installed an
Athlon specific kernel in my Debian installation, only to find it doesn't
have DMA turned on in the kernel for my DVD watching pleasures. I'll have
to compile one myself to get it working - but that's Linux.

The best solution would be to install Gentoo, as everything is compiled
specifically for your machine. However, I've been using Linux for quite
sometime and could not get it installed correctly. It's technical to say
the least.

The second best option would be to install Debian and upgrade to the newest
kernel via Apt. Then you simply give the command 'update-grub' from a root
commandline and it'll appear the next time you boot as an option. You can
even get CPU specific kernels prepackaged for Athlon, Via C3, etc.. Debian
isn't as pretty to install as Mandrake (Mandriva) or SuSE, as you'll get a
very basic system with a command prompt only at first, until you install
the X window system, KDE and/or Gnome, and you'll want to install Synaptic.
Then you'll still find yourself lacking packages for about a week until you
run into a need for them and discover you don't have them installed yet.




Dual display is available with nVidia, I know. Why you can't get it working,
I don't know. Maybe you need to look at the README from nVidia's site and
correctly turn on the needed options in xorg.config or XF86Config?




Well, it does have a ways to go for hardware compatibility. And, it would be
so nice if the distros could get the thing working on all machines.
However, at the moment, it can be a crap shoot. I've gone with SuSE for a
long time, used Mandrake here and there, and even used Red Hat at one time.
I've also tried Knoppix, Mepis, and Kubuntu/Ubuntu, and have recently
landed on the best one so far - Debian. However, Debian isn't for the first
time installer and you'll have to be a self-starter to work at getting it
all together and configured. But, in the end, it has been worth it.

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

 

[David Maynard]

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.