So you really think Linux is better than Vista, do you?

[Charlie Wilkes]

As hardware gets more capable, we have less need for very lean code that
requires the user to interact almost at the raw code level, and more
need for software that abstracts the mechanics behind a GUI, wizards,
canned templates, auto-formatting logic, logic to automatically deduce
the appropriate file formats, etc.

The problem with this approach is... what if this abstracting software
doesn't work??? My experience with the Windows hardware "wizard" is that
it doesn't know where to look for a file, and it doesn't tell the user
what kind of file it expects to find, and it generally gets things right
less than half the time. I will never forget the time I spent 3 freaking
hours figuring out how to install a winmodem... it turned out that
the .inf file referenced a mfr. part number that was one digit off from
my hardware ID string. I had no clue what was wrong or what to do...
FINALLY I guessed right... I used a DOS utility to read the hardware ID
string and then edited the .inf file, and then the hardware wizard was
happy. Why couldn't the hardware wizard be programmed to tell the user
"the hardware ID string on your device does not match the ID string in
the file ***.inf"???

There's a middle ground between complete idiots and techno-elites...
i.e., those of us who are not experts, but are willing to roll up our
sleeves and do what needs to be done, if we only have a reasonable clue
where to start. Windows panders to complete idiots, through the use of
"wizards" that often botch the job and never provide useful information,
and thereby makes it harder than necessary to fix simple problems.

Linux is "lean" in the sense that the GUI simply doesn't exist for many
tasks. Install Ubuntu and decide you want to stop it dialing up after
every boot, or that you want to edit the Grub boot manager's defaults
and timeouts... you're up to your elbows in command line syntax (that
looks like modem line noise) in no time at all.

Bah. I changed my Ubuntu boot manager's defaults a couple of days ago,
and I figured it out intuitively. It involves editing a text file, /boot/
grub/menu.lst. Certainly it's less daunting than the Windows registry.

And which is harder... troubleshooting a plain text .conf file, or
figuring out why a new copy of Windows Vista, which cost $300, has
suddenly decided it is "not genuine"?

Charlie

 

[Stephan Rose]

That's quite true -- Linux (or at least most of the distros) is free.
I also agree that Microsoft's validation is the most intrusive and
annoying I've ever encountered.

I actually wonder about its legality in places such as here in Europe.

It's no different than XP's surveillance. I had a perfectly
legitimate, properly licensed machine that was running XP for several
years suddenly turn up with a, "You're running illegal software"
message when I installed a new NIC. Somewhere along the line, the
validation software got broken on my machine and I was not offered
phone validation -- I had to go through Microsoft's stunningly
incompetent "technical support" lines to get it turned back on,
spending nearly 4 hours talking to people in India on a Friday night,
when I had real work to do.

Oh yea I saw XP trying to install some WGA thing on my computer at work a
few weeks ago. I made sure I cancelled that one.

Ugh


No, it's not surprising. Nonetheless, Linux remains a rather opaque
and specialized OS. I've decided it's probably worth the trouble to
learn it, but I can't find good resources for doing so -- they either
assume you're a complete idiot or a complete geek already conversant
with the jargon and methodology.

Hmm...either I'm just inherently more familiar with the jargon and
methodology being a programmer...or you are looking in the wrong places. =)

Oh, well. I'm going to try to learn Mandarin, too.

I prefer Japanese, which is getting better. =)

I've got Ubuntu running on my own Vista laptop under Virtual PC and,
for a short while, had it going on my wife's old machine. I'm simply
not that impressed. I installed Suse on my wife's machine last night
-- I think I may like that better.

That's why there are different distros. To each what they like best. =)

You may also want to give Kubuntu a try, it's basically ubuntu with a more
windows-like UI. That's how I started but I switched to Ubuntu in favor of
the gnome UI as I find it to be far more efficient.

Can you suggest a good, easy-to-use server package? All I really want
to do with that machine is to set it up as an FTP and file server
(file serving to my Windows machines) and, maybe, add a mail server,
website, etc.

To be honest, I don't think the words "easy to use" and "server" go into the
same sentence for you at the moment just simply because server packages
generally tend to be without an UI.

I'd personally reccommend that you run a Desktop version (as a server even
for a while being) until you get familiar with it and get used to the
things that are not necessarily difficult to do compared to windows, but
are just simply done *differently*.

Once you're comfortable with that and have a basic idea of where everything
you need resides and the basic command line commands you need, I'd suggest
trying out an UI-less server distro.

So far I've personally found none of any of it to be in any way difficult,
but it can be vastly different to windows at times.

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[simon4hang.gliding]

I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop.
I've had
some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of
hacking
my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and not-particularly-powerful
Linux
computer). I recently replaced my wife's old desktop with a new
laptop, so
I thought this might be a nice time to experiment a little.

I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as
a
Virtual PC on my laptop.
That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.

I downloaded Ubuntu, burned it on to a CD and popped it into my
wife's
computer. My wife's old machine is an 500 MHz AMD K6. This is an
old slow
machine, but it was running Win2000 and doing it just fine. Ubuntu
booted
from the CD, but failed to properly recognize the graphics card and
came up
in 640 x 480 VGA mode. The installation screens were, evidently,
hard-coded
for higher res -- I had to keep scrolling up and down to read them.
I
finally got through the installation and rebooted. Okay, there was
Ubuntu
with a pretty GUI -- but in VGA mode. Nothing I tried got it to
change the
resolution of the display.

I decided I'd pop in another graphics card. I installed it and
turned on
the machine. Ubuntu started to boot and then flashed a text message
indicating that it couldn't find the driver for my graphics card.

Okay, I'll just re-install from scratch.

This time, everything worked fine and, after 40 minutes or so, the
computer
booted into the Ubuntu GUI in 1024 x 768 mode (the limits of the
graphics
card that I had installed). The first thing it did was flash a
warning:
Updates are available. I clicked on the Update button and discovered
that
Ubuntu wanted to download 139 (!!!) updates that were necessary for,
among
other things, patching security problems. Hmmm. Sounds familiar,
doesn't
it?

I told it to go ahead and do the updates -- another 30 minutes spent
downloading them, and then a good hour while they were installed.
Reboot.
Back to the pretty GUI.

I decided to do some exploring. Here is Firefox - Linux edition. I
open it
up and start browing. First thing I notice is that it is slow --
very,
very, very slow. Yes, this is an old slow machine but, remember, it
was
running fine under Win2000. including running Firefox. That's what
my wife
used it for -- surfing the web. I went to Youtube to look at videos.
They
played like old fashioned, jerky silent movies -- a frame rate of
perhaps 6
frames a second. I decided to look at some videos on my network.
Hmmm.
The video player gave an error message when I tried to
play .wmv, .mpg and
.mp4 files -- it needed a codec installed. Where to get the codec?
I don't
know. I tried to play a DV-codec AVI file, i.e. one transferred
direct from
a miniDV player. Guess what? It couldn't play that either.

Okay. So maybe this machine is just too slow for Ubuntu (though it
ran fine
with Win2000). I really wanted to use it as a server anyway -- let
it do
FTP and file serving on my network. I decided to install Ubuntu
Server.

Another 40 minutes loading it from CD and installing it, and I was
finished -- it indicated that everything had installed fine and I
should
remove the CD and reboot. I did. And the machine promptly ground to
a
halt. Some problem with something called "GRUB." It said, "Error
18."
What's error 18? I don't know.

As for my laptop, I'm on my second attempt at installing Ubuntu under
a
Virtual PC window. The first attempt failed because Ubuntu defaults
to
24-bit graphics and Virtual PC only runs at 16 bits. It's actually a
virtual PC bug because the graphics card emulation reports 24-bit
capability. However, Win XP had no problem loading into Virtual PC.

I spend some time on the web and find instructions for installing
Ubuntu
under Virtual PC. It's 12:14 am. I started the installation at 7:30
pm.
It's still cranking away -- the CD drive light is flickering like
made, but
the progress bar has been on 6% for several hours. According to the
web
instructions, this step, "takes a LOOOOONNNNGGGG time." They're not
kidding!

Perhaps it will finish by tomorrow morning when I wake up.

So . . . tell me again how Linux is better than Vista. Linux isn't
plug-and-play. Linux is slower than Win2000, at least on my wife's
old
machine. Linux is buggy. And, most of all, Linux requires a heck of
a lot
of specialized knowledge. I've been mucking around with computers
since
high school (which was many decades ago). The first computer I
programmed
was in a refrigerated room and was fed a deck of punch cards. I've
written
in assembler, as well as higher level languages. I don't have
trouble
configuring Windows machines (though I'm not, by any means, an
average
user -- I know what I'm doing).

However, I don't know Linux. I don't know what GRUB is. I don't
know what
apt installers are. I can learn and probably will. The point,
though, is
computers are fun for me and playing with Linux will be a hobby.

However, I also need computers for my job. I have work to do, which
is why
my laptop runs Vista and not a Linux distro, except for fun and
running
under Virtual PC (maybe -- at this rate, who knows if it will install
by
Monday).

So . . . tell me again why Linux is better than Vista?

This is a very typical experience that new to Linux users as well as
seasoned users have with Linux.
Linux simply is not ready for public consumption and depending upon
your hardware, the experience can go from barely acceptable to
positiviely awfull

As you have discovered, installing and using or configuring Linux
requires a hell of a lot of Googling and time and this is where Linux
and the concept of Linux falls short.
Yes Linux is free, but is your time free?

And what are you going to do with Linux when you get it installed?
As you have discovered, Linux applications vary in quality with many
of them being beta quality applications.
Even programs like firefox which have Windows equivilants often do not
run as well, or have the feature set that they do under Windows.

For now, Linux is a curiosity to be watched for sure, but it's really
going no place on the desktop until it can prove that it offers
something better than Windows that will make the Windows user format
the disk and install Linux.

Evidently being free is not enough to get people to switch to Linux.

 

[Stephan Rose]

The problem with this approach is... what if this abstracting software
doesn't work??? My experience with the Windows hardware "wizard" is that
it doesn't know where to look for a file, and it doesn't tell the user
what kind of file it expects to find, and it generally gets things right
less than half the time. I will never forget the time I spent 3 freaking
hours figuring out how to install a winmodem... it turned out that
the .inf file referenced a mfr. part number that was one digit off from
my hardware ID string. I had no clue what was wrong or what to do...
FINALLY I guessed right... I used a DOS utility to read the hardware ID
string and then edited the .inf file, and then the hardware wizard was
happy. Why couldn't the hardware wizard be programmed to tell the user
"the hardware ID string on your device does not match the ID string in
the file ***.inf"???

There's a middle ground between complete idiots and techno-elites...
i.e., those of us who are not experts, but are willing to roll up our
sleeves and do what needs to be done, if we only have a reasonable clue
where to start. Windows panders to complete idiots, through the use of
"wizards" that often botch the job and never provide useful information,
and thereby makes it harder than necessary to fix simple problems.

Bah. I changed my Ubuntu boot manager's defaults a couple of days ago,
and I figured it out intuitively. It involves editing a text file, /boot/
grub/menu.lst. Certainly it's less daunting than the Windows registry.

I couldn't agree more.

What gets me worst is the double-standard around here.

I've seen plenty posts already related to Vista where certain things
apparently have to be done commandline in Vista. This appears to be
perfectly ok and nobody minds.

The mere mention of the word "commandline" generates outrage if it includes
the word "linux" however.

Personally, I find it much easier to fix a corrupted text file than a
corrupted registry...and it's far easier to corrupt the registry in windows
than to corrupt my config files in linux.

The only thing that can corrupt my config files is a hard drive related
failure. If for the next 10 years I don't give any application permission
to modify a file on the root partition then it will *not* change...ever.
It'll still be the same bit for bit then as it is now. Now THAT, unlike
UAC, is security!

Whereas windows you got every single application mucking around in the
registry just ASKING for it to get corrupted.

MS' answer? More system restore points and UAC! No thanks...

And which is harder... troubleshooting a plain text .conf file, or
figuring out why a new copy of Windows Vista, which cost $300, has
suddenly decided it is "not genuine"?

Well as long as you speak Hindi getting that genuine problem fixed shouldn't
be difficult. =)

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[simon4hang.gliding]

I gave Linux a try as well with bad results. Downloaded Ubuntu 6.06
cut the
CD and tried to run the on disk version. It would shut down my
monitor due
to timing issues. The monitor would go into sleep mode (LG 20" wide
LCD) I
posted in Linux group and was told to use a CRT until I got it
working. I
tossed out my last CRT 2 years ago.

Next I tried 6.10 and it did the same thing.

Next I tried Mandriva it did install but for some reason would not
run the
KDE gui so I reinstalled and selected GNOME same thing could not get
GUI to
run.

Downloaded openSUSE did the install it locked up. I unhooked all USB
devices
and did the install again. All went OK. The screen was very slow to
scroll
(1280 x 1024) so I got the ATI driver file. Printed off the 30 pages
of
install instructions from SUSE and ATI. Followed them to the letter.
I did
get the file compiled but it would not run. Came up with an error. No
sound
card driver at all for it. The desktop compares to Win95/98. Why do
you need
3 HD partitions for it. The file structure is a complete mess if you
ask me
the directories make no sense at all. Even in Root it would not let
me run
some of the files to make the Driver file I had to change some file
permissions. that was enough for me. I did like the Firefox web
browser.

I spent about 20 hours on this in total not counting DL time and
could not
even get a video card driver installed.

It took about 2.5 hours to Backup my files Clean my HD, install
Vista,
install all drivers, AV software, Office 2003, and World of Warcraft.
I have
had some minor bugs that updated drivers have fixed.

This system has been powered up and running since Jan 20 2007 without
Vista
crashing. I do not regret upgrading to Vista.

I have been around computers since 1979 and working with Linux put me
back
to the MS-Dos and Windows 3.0 Days, even with MS-Dos and Win 3.0 The
drivers
and programs had an Install program.

Windows is not perfect but Linux is farther from perfect in my
opinion.

My opinion of Linux is that it needs a lot, and I mean a LOT of work
before the public will accept it.
Too many people are having serious problems with hardware support and
getting Linux configured correctly.

And what does Linux offer them after they have installed it?

Windows has the best games.
Windows has the best Office software.
Windows has the best CADCAM, although Catia on
nix is probably #1 in that area.
Windows has the best educational software.
Windows is supported for CBT software like that from Cisco etc.
Their children's school is most likely using Windows or OSX.
They can get help from family or neighbors.
Hardware support is much better than Linux although Vista is having
some growing pains.
Chances are they received a pile of preloaded software with their PC.
Are they just going to throw all this out to use Linux?
Why?
For what good reason?

When those questions can be answered with valid answers, then and only
then Linux might be ready to compete with Windows for desktop systems.

For now, Linux is a much worse alternative for most people.

 

[Stephan Rose]

This is a very typical experience that new to Linux users as well as
seasoned users have with Linux.
Linux simply is not ready for public consumption and depending upon
your hardware, the experience can go from barely acceptable to
positiviely awfull

Hmm odd then how my experience is just absolutely wonderful?

As you have discovered, installing and using or configuring Linux
requires a hell of a lot of Googling and time and this is where Linux
and the concept of Linux falls short.
Yes Linux is free, but is your time free?

I just reinstalled Ubuntu the other day to cleanly set it up the way I want
it after trying out various things....

Time taken: About 2-3 hours including all additional software, video codecs,
etc.I mean really to the point where I can use it and do my work with it
and have no further setup to do.

XP Usually takes me about 2 days to get it installed and then go install all
the various bloated software I need to do my work. Not full-time of course
but overhead is just so significantly larger and the time spent just
waiting on installers and reboots can drive me nuts.

I never understood why Visual Studio 2005 takes 2 gigs of space!! It is a
programming IDE for crying out loud! I mean sure, it's a really good
one...but honestly, I've found that MS is kind of neglecting the C/C++
editor as of the latest versions and putting all their new features into
the C# and VB.Net editors.

My couple meg C/C++ IDE here under linux actually has more features than
VS2005 does (in the C/C++ editors that is). Sad really...

And what are you going to do with Linux when you get it installed?

Get work done? Faster and more efficiently?

As you have discovered, Linux applications vary in quality with many
of them being beta quality applications.

Honestly, I rather use a beta quality application than a beta quality OS.
That said...I'm not having any problems with any of the apps I am using.

Even programs like firefox which have Windows equivilants often do not
run as well, or have the feature set that they do under Windows.

Firefox has all the features it has under windows and actually loads sites
like msn.com (or any others) significantly faster under linux than IE does
under windows. I am talking seconds difference here.

For now, Linux is a curiosity to be watched for sure, but it's really
going no place on the desktop until it can prove that it offers
something better than Windows that will make the Windows user format
the disk and install Linux.

Well the distribution you choose *does* make a difference. Choose one of the
top ones like Ubuntu, Redhat, SuSe or such and you won't have as
significant (if any) problems as you would choosing some obscure never
heard of distribution.

The only problems I really encountered on my first install where due to me
being new to the OS and new to how things are done. None of it was really
any major. I think the only significant mistake I made on my first install
was not giving the nVidia driver installer root priviledges to install and
their driver install gives no error in that case. It merrily runs though
without a single message, kind of bad on nVidia's part for not notifying
the user. That was the only reason I had minor problems initially getting
my nVidia driver to work.

Everything else I actually had absolutely no problems with.

That said, from where I am sitting right now, which is in front of Ubuntu
running on my desktop..it is quite ready and I am really anticipating the
release of the next version coming up in April.

I think the biggest problem is not its readiness. The biggest problem is
people that try to switch to it expect windows and are wondering why they
aren't getting it. It's not windows, I mean that's the point of it after
all!

Is it different and are things done differently? Yes.

Are things done more difficult? Not that I can see. I've not yet encountered
anything I've found too difficult to do as a brand new user that 1 months
ago has never touched a single linux installation.

The more I use it, the more I don't even like going into XP anymore. XP on
this very same sytem is like a sloth in comparison. I actually avoid (and
by now rarely do) boot into it anymore.

And as far as software goes, I've yet to find a single app that I use under
windows that I can't replace with something equivalent and equally reliable
under linux.

That's just been my experience so far...

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Stephan Rose]

My opinion of Linux is that it needs a lot, and I mean a LOT of work
before the public will accept it.
Too many people are having serious problems with hardware support and
getting Linux configured correctly.

And what does Linux offer them after they have installed it?

Windows has the best games.

That is the one and only issue I really still see with linux.

Windows has the best Office software.

I find OpenOffice to be just as good.

Windows has the best CADCAM, although Catia on
nix is probably #1 in that area.

Windows does not have the bast CAD/CAM. Many of the best CAD/CAM packages in
windows originate in *nix and still exist there today. The companies just
simply maintain Windows ports as well. Matter of fact, for a quite a while
there was very little CAD/CAM support for windows as it just simply wasn't
a viable platform at that point in time.

Windows has the best educational software.

Don't use educational software so I can't comment.

Though there is a version of Ubuntu *specifically* for educational purposes
with supposedly whole lot of educational software in it. But...as I have no
need for that type of stuff...I have not tried it.

Windows is supported for CBT software like that from Cisco etc.

I don't even know what CBT software is so...I can't comment on that.

Their children's school is most likely using Windows or OSX.

And the user is more likely to be using Windows instead of OSX so if a
school it is using OSX might as well be running Linux..it's the same
scenario.

They can get help from family or neighbors.

Chicken / Egg scenario here. If everyone just stands there and says "I won't
switch until everyone else has so I can go to my neighbor for help" then
nothing will ever change.

Hardware support is much better than Linux although Vista is having
some growing pains.

I find all my hardware to be 100% perfectly supported. I seriously don't
have a single thing not supported. Sorry but that's just how it is...

Chances are they received a pile of preloaded software with their PC.

You mean pre-loaded with crapware and demoware? I pass on that gladly. But I
suppose some people like the crap Dell packages their systems with. I
don't. Then again..I'd never buy from a company like that. Build all my own
systems.

Are they just going to throw all this out to use Linux?
Why?
For what good reason?

There is PLENTY of software available available via just a single mouse
click over the package manager.

Everything from media playersy, dvd players, audio players, cd copying /
burning, image editing, video editing, e-mail, word processing,
spreadsheets, database, instant messengers (supporting all windows
messengers), newsreaders, web browsers, Development IDEs in virtually every
programming language for virtually every processor (not just thinking PC
here)....I could go on and on....

When those questions can be answered with valid answers, then and only
then Linux might be ready to compete with Windows for desktop systems.

Well how are those for answers?

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Dean G.]

I downloaded Ubuntu, burned it on to a CD and popped it into my
wife's
computer. My wife's old machine is an 500 MHz AMD K6. This is an
old slow

I installed Ubuntu on a 333 Mhz PII with 128MB of RAM. It had
integrated video and was still able to handle 1280x1024 without the
speed problems you mention. It is very odd that you have a discrete
card that is slower.

Ubuntu wanted to download 139 (!!!) updates that were necessary for,
among other things, patching security problems. Hmmm. Sounds familiar,
doesn't it?

Actually, it doesn't. This may seem odd to new users, but when you
realise that both the initial install and the updates include not only
the OS, but a wide variety of applications, it is a very refreshing
change. On Windows, you install the OS, then install the office
package, then install the browser, then install (yada yada yada). Then
you update Windows. Then you update the office package. Then you
update the browser. Then you update (are you sick of it yet ?) With
Ubuntu, I install everything at once, boot it, update everything at
once, and I'm done. Windows makes you a slave to the mouse button and
makes you work, and work, and work, just to get things up and running.

I told it to go ahead and do the updates -- another 30 minutes spent
downloading them, and then a good hour while they were installed.
Reboot.
Back to the pretty GUI.

Awesome, wasn't it ? One set of downloads, one nstallation, one
reboot, and bada-bing, you're done. None of the "Windows making you a
slave to the mouse button" you're probably all too familiar with.

I decided to do some exploring. Here is Firefox - Linux edition. I open it
up and start browing. First thing I notice is that it is slow -- very,
very, very slow. Yes, this is an old slow machine but, remember, it was
running fine under Win2000. including running Firefox. That's what my wife
used it for -- surfing the web. I went to Youtube to look at videos.
They played like old fashioned, jerky silent movies -- a frame rate of
perhaps 6 frames a second.

Sounds like a driver issue. What video card were you using ?

I decided to look at some videos on my network.
Hmmm.
The video player gave an error message when I tried to
play .wmv, .mpg and
.mp4 files -- it needed a codec installed. Where to get the codec?
I don't
know. I tried to play a DV-codec AVI file, i.e. one transferred
direct from a miniDV player. Guess what? It couldn't play that either.

Nor can you play a Microsoft "plays for sure" tune on your Zune.
That's how it works with proprietary software and standards. With XP,
I apparently need to download a .mov from Apple. Until more people
start using open software and standards, the problems of proprietary
software will affect us all. Most of the file you mention will run
fine on Ubuntu after running a single script. And they won't need to
be continually OK'd by Microsoft to keep working.

Okay. So maybe this machine is just too slow for Ubuntu (though it
ran fine
with Win2000). I really wanted to use it as a server anyway -- let
it do
FTP and file serving on my network. I decided to install Ubuntu
Server.

It will probably run fine if you find a better driver or even an old
card. Even the kind people are throwing away would probably be an
improvement. Possibly the MB has integrated graphics, and from the
sound of it, that would be better than what you are using.

Another 40 minutes loading it from CD and installing it, and I was
finished -- it indicated that everything had installed fine and I
should
remove the CD and reboot. I did. And the machine promptly ground to
a
halt. Some problem with something called "GRUB." It said, "Error
18."
What's error 18? I don't know.

It means that the BIOS (yes, the hardware, not the Linux) doesn't
support the option you selected. Not for Windows, not for Linux. What
it means is that the motherboard's BIOS can only access the first part
of the hard drive, and that any OS (Windows, Linux, BSD, anything)
needs to be located under that limit if it is to be bootable.

A BIOS update may or may not cure that. Otherwise, just install to the
first partition, or partition the drive so that every bootable OS has
a partition under the limit.

As for my laptop, I'm on my second attempt at installing Ubuntu under
a
Virtual PC window. The first attempt failed because Ubuntu defaults
to
24-bit graphics and Virtual PC only runs at 16 bits. It's actually a
virtual PC bug because the graphics card emulation reports 24-bit
capability. However, Win XP had no problem loading into Virtual PC.

My my, Microsoft software has no trouble working with Microsoft
software, but running a competitor under a Microsoft program doesn't
work so well. Shades of DR-DOS and Windows 3.1 ? You decide. Or
expirement : put Linux on top of Windows using VMWare. The switch.
Then compare to Virtual(ly pathetic) PC. No contest, VMWare rocks, and
Virtual PC obviously doesn't. Oh, and by the way, don't try to
virtualize Vista unless you paid the extra fee. Don't worry about
Linux though, you won't have to pay extra to do things you already
can. That only happens with proprietary software : Even after you pay
for it, it still isn't yours.

I spend some time on the web and find instructions for installing
Ubuntu
under Virtual PC. It's 12:14 am. I started the installation at 7:30
pm.
It's still cranking away -- the CD drive light is flickering like
made, but
the progress bar has been on 6% for several hours. According to the
web
instructions, this step, "takes a LOOOOONNNNGGGG time." They're not
kidding!

Perhaps it will finish by tomorrow morning when I wake up.

So . . . tell me again how Linux is better than Vista.

1. It has better driver support, at least for now
2. It is free
3. The Eula doesn't suck
4. DRM does suck
5. lower hardware requirements (try installing Vista on the K6, and
tell us how that goes.)
6. Better security
7. Faster and easier installation
8. easier updates
9. more flexibility
10. easier to customize

That's enough for now.

Linux isn't
plug-and-play. Linux is slower than Win2000,

You mean a 2007 version of Linux is slower (and only because of a
lacking driver for an outdated video card) than a 2000 version of
Windows. You really are afraid of apples-to-apples comparisions
aren''t you ? Let's compare Vista to Ubuntu 7. Let's start from
scratch, and install the OS, an office package, a programming
environment, a web server, a database server, and all of the updates.
Let's use an average modern configuration. Let's see who really is
better.

You can get a decent PC for $1000. But that's no all (for Microsoft
people, for Linux people $1000 is it)

Windows Vista Ultimate $399.95
Windows Office 2007 Professional $499.95
IIS (free ?)
Visual Studio 2005 (careful, there are many known problems on Vista)
$265 unless you want to $1000+ Professional version
SQL Server ($739 with a max of 5 users, on up to $24,999 per processor
if you need more)

Windows Vista PC total $1903.39 (excluding tax), and Microsoft still
owns the software on you PC
Linux PC total $1000, and you have fewer restrictions and "contractual
obligations" to deal with. Ask your lawyer what that is worth.



Dean G.

 

[Dean G.]

I've already posted about Vista running nicely on my new laptop.
I've had
some encounters with Linux previously, primarily in the context of
hacking
my Tivo (which is nothing but a small and not-particularly-powerful
Linux
computer). I recently replaced my wife's old desktop with a new
laptop, so
I thought this might be a nice time to experiment a little.

I decided to install Ubuntu on my wife's old machine, and also in as
a
Virtual PC on my laptop.
That was around noon today, 12 hours ago.

I downloaded Ubuntu, burned it on to a CD and popped it into my
wife's
computer. My wife's old machine is an 500 MHz AMD K6. This is an
old slow

I installed Ubuntu on a 333 Mhz PII with 128MB of RAM. It had
integrated video and was still able to handle 1280x1024 without the
speed problems you mention. It is very odd that you have a discrete
card that is slower.

Ubuntu wanted to download 139 (!!!) updates that were necessary for,
among other things, patching security problems. Hmmm. Sounds familiar,
doesn't it?

Actually, it doesn't. This may seem odd to new users, but when you
realise that both the initial install and the updates include not only
the OS, but a wide variety of applications, it is a very refreshing
change. On Windows, you install the OS, then install the office
package, then install the browser, then install (yada yada yada). Then
you update Windows. Then you update the office package. Then you
update the browser. Then you update (are you sick of it yet ?) With
Ubuntu, I install everything at once, boot it, update everything at
once, and I'm done. Windows makes you a slave to the mouse button and
makes you work, and work, and work, just to get things up and running.

I told it to go ahead and do the updates -- another 30 minutes spent
downloading them, and then a good hour while they were installed.
Reboot.
Back to the pretty GUI.

Awesome, wasn't it ? One set of downloads, one nstallation, one
reboot, and bada-bing, you're done. None of the "Windows making you a
slave to the mouse button" you're probably all too familiar with.

I decided to do some exploring. Here is Firefox - Linux edition. I open it
up and start browing. First thing I notice is that it is slow -- very,
very, very slow. Yes, this is an old slow machine but, remember, it was
running fine under Win2000. including running Firefox. That's what my wife
used it for -- surfing the web. I went to Youtube to look at videos.
They played like old fashioned, jerky silent movies -- a frame rate of
perhaps 6 frames a second.

Sounds like a driver issue. What video card were you using ?

I decided to look at some videos on my network.
Hmmm.
The video player gave an error message when I tried to
play .wmv, .mpg and
.mp4 files -- it needed a codec installed. Where to get the codec?
I don't
know. I tried to play a DV-codec AVI file, i.e. one transferred
direct from a miniDV player. Guess what? It couldn't play that either.

Nor can you play a Microsoft "plays for sure" tune on your Zune.
That's how it works with proprietary software and standards. With XP,
I apparently need to download a .mov from Apple. Until more people
start using open software and standards, the problems of proprietary
software will affect us all. Most of the file you mention will run
fine on Ubuntu after running a single script. And they won't need to
be continually OK'd by Microsoft to keep working.

Okay. So maybe this machine is just too slow for Ubuntu (though it
ran fine
with Win2000). I really wanted to use it as a server anyway -- let
it do
FTP and file serving on my network. I decided to install Ubuntu
Server.

It will probably run fine if you find a better driver or even an old
card. Even the kind people are throwing away would probably be an
improvement. Possibly the MB has integrated graphics, and from the
sound of it, that would be better than what you are using.

Another 40 minutes loading it from CD and installing it, and I was
finished -- it indicated that everything had installed fine and I
should
remove the CD and reboot. I did. And the machine promptly ground to
a
halt. Some problem with something called "GRUB." It said, "Error
18."
What's error 18? I don't know.

It means that the BIOS (yes, the hardware, not the Linux) doesn't
support the option you selected. Not for Windows, not for Linux. What
it means is that the motherboard's BIOS can only access the first part
of the hard drive, and that any OS (Windows, Linux, BSD, anything)
needs to be located under that limit if it is to be bootable.

A BIOS update may or may not cure that. Otherwise, just install to the
first partition, or partition the drive so that every bootable OS has
a partition under the limit.

As for my laptop, I'm on my second attempt at installing Ubuntu under
a
Virtual PC window. The first attempt failed because Ubuntu defaults
to
24-bit graphics and Virtual PC only runs at 16 bits. It's actually a
virtual PC bug because the graphics card emulation reports 24-bit
capability. However, Win XP had no problem loading into Virtual PC.

My my, Microsoft software has no trouble working with Microsoft
software, but running a competitor under a Microsoft program doesn't
work so well. Shades of DR-DOS and Windows 3.1 ? You decide. Or
expirement : put Linux on top of Windows using VMWare. The switch.
Then compare to Virtual(ly pathetic) PC. No contest, VMWare rocks, and
Virtual PC obviously doesn't. Oh, and by the way, don't try to
virtualize Vista unless you paid the extra fee. Don't worry about
Linux though, you won't have to pay extra to do things you already
can. That only happens with proprietary software : Even after you pay
for it, it still isn't yours.

I spend some time on the web and find instructions for installing
Ubuntu
under Virtual PC. It's 12:14 am. I started the installation at 7:30
pm.
It's still cranking away -- the CD drive light is flickering like
made, but
the progress bar has been on 6% for several hours. According to the
web
instructions, this step, "takes a LOOOOONNNNGGGG time." They're not
kidding!

Perhaps it will finish by tomorrow morning when I wake up.

So . . . tell me again how Linux is better than Vista.

1. It has better driver support, at least for now
2. It is free
3. The Eula doesn't suck
4. DRM does suck
5. lower hardware requirements (try installing Vista on the K6, and
tell us how that goes.)
6. Better security
7. Faster and easier installation
8. easier updates
9. more flexibility
10. easier to customize

That's enough for now.

Linux isn't
plug-and-play. Linux is slower than Win2000,

You mean a 2007 version of Linux is slower (and only because of a
lacking driver for an outdated video card) than a 2000 version of
Windows. You really are afraid of apples-to-apples comparisions
aren''t you ? Let's compare Vista to Ubuntu 7. Let's start from
scratch, and install the OS, an office package, a programming
environment, a web server, a database server, and all of the updates.
Let's use an average modern configuration. Let's see who really is
better.

You can get a decent PC for $1000. But that's no all (for Microsoft
people, for Linux people $1000 is it)

Windows Vista Ultimate $399.95
Windows Office 2007 Professional $499.95
IIS (free ?)
Visual Studio 2005 (careful, there are many known problems on Vista)
$265 unless you want to $1000+ Professional version
SQL Server ($739 with a max of 5 users, on up to $24,999 per processor
if you need more)

Windows Vista PC total $1903.39 (excluding tax), and Microsoft still
owns the software on you PC
Linux PC total $1000, and you have fewer restriction and "contractual
obligations" to deal with. Ask your lawyer what that is worth.



Dean G.

 

[[H]omer]

Verily I say unto thee, that Stephan Rose spake thusly:

(e-mail address removed) wrote:

"hang.gliding" a.k.a. "Hang Glider" (among other possible aliases) is a
known Troll, previously X-No-Archives, and posts straw man (and probably
false) accounts of his supposedly "very typical experience".

Just send the little Troll where he belongs, in the bit-bucket.

The more I use it, the more I don't even like going into XP anymore. XP on
this very same sytem is like a sloth in comparison. I actually avoid (and
by now rarely do) boot into it anymore.

And as far as software goes, I've yet to find a single app that I use under
windows that I can't replace with something equivalent and equally reliable
under linux.

That's just been my experience so far...

*That* is the more typical experience, and has been for a long time now.
The "my hardware doesn't work" argument is becoming extinct, so the
Trolls are resorting to fabrication, embellishment and lies, out of
desperation.

Oh and yes, like any system Linux does have its share of problems,
apparently.

--
K.
http://slated.org - Slated, Rated & Blogged

..----
| "Future archaeologists will be able to identify a 'Vista Upgrade
| Layer' when they go through our landfill sites" - Sian Berry, the
| Green Party.
`----

Fedora Core release 5 (Bordeaux) on sky, running kernel 2.6.19-1.2288.fc5
22:48:41 up 21 days, 10:13, 3 users, load average: 1.58, 1.03, 0.79

 

[PTravel]

Actually, it doesn't. This may seem odd to new users, but when you
realise that both the initial install and the updates include not only
the OS, but a wide variety of applications, it is a very refreshing
change. On Windows, you install the OS, then install the office
package, then install the browser, then install (yada yada yada). Then
you update Windows. Then you update the office package. Then you
update the browser. Then you update (are you sick of it yet ?) With
Ubuntu, I install everything at once, boot it, update everything at
once, and I'm done. Windows makes you a slave to the mouse button and
makes you work, and work, and work, just to get things up and running.

I didn't mind the update process (though I did mind how slow it was).

Awesome, wasn't it ? One set of downloads, one nstallation, one
reboot, and bada-bing, you're done. None of the "Windows making you a
slave to the mouse button" you're probably all too familiar with.

Hunh? I've never thought of myself as "slave to the mouse button."

Sounds like a driver issue. What video card were you using ?

I'm not sure. It was one of several old cards I had sitting in a box that I
keep just for occassions like this.

Nor can you play a Microsoft "plays for sure" tune on your Zune.
That's how it works with proprietary software and standards.

DV-codec-encoded AVI isn't proprietary, it's a standard.
mpg2 isn't proprietary, it's a standard.
mpg4 isn't proprietary, it's a standard.

There's a big difference between something that's proprietary and something
that's standardized. With respect to DV-codec-encoded AVI, that's the D-25
video and used in every single miniDV and D8 camcorder out there, which is
most of them. The rest use DVD (mpg2) or hard disks (mpg2 or mpg4). Once
again, standard -- not proprietary.

As for "plays for sure," that's DRM, not a proprietary standard.

With XP,
I apparently need to download a .mov from Apple.

And that's an example of something that's proprietary.

Until more people
start using open software and standards, the problems of proprietary
software will affect us all.

The video problems under Ubuntu (and now Suse) have nothing to do with
proprietary software. Codecs support video standards. Neither distro came
with them.

Most of the file you mention will run
fine on Ubuntu after running a single script. And they won't need to
be continually OK'd by Microsoft to keep working.

Microsoft doesn't okay codecs.

It will probably run fine if you find a better driver or even an old
card. Even the kind people are throwing away would probably be an
improvement. Possibly the MB has integrated graphics, and from the
sound of it, that would be better than what you are using.

Why? This was a perfectly good card in its day -- 64 meg of video ram,
either an Invidia or AST chipset that, evidently, was recognized by both
Ubuntu and Suse. As I recall, this MB doesn't have integrated graphics.
Why would I need to even worry about graphics drivers if I'm using it as a
command-line driven server?

It means that the BIOS (yes, the hardware, not the Linux) doesn't
support the option you selected. Not for Windows, not for Linux.

Yes -- I discovered that it means that the BIOS doesn't support a call to
the hard drive that Ubuntu was making. Apparently, it's a common problem
with older machines. Why didn't Ubuntu offer an option for that on
installation? Anyway, once I got that problem resolved, Ubuntu server still
wouldn't run -- it gets into an endless cycle of cold reboots right after it
starts booting. I've removed it from the system.

What
it means is that the motherboard's BIOS can only access the first part
of the hard drive, and that any OS (Windows, Linux, BSD, anything)
needs to be located under that limit if it is to be bootable.

Yep, that's what I found out.

A BIOS update may or may not cure that. Otherwise, just install to the
first partition, or partition the drive so that every bootable OS has
a partition under the limit.

BIOS update? For this machine? It's about 10 years old -- hardly likely.

My my, Microsoft software has no trouble working with Microsoft
software, but running a competitor under a Microsoft program doesn't
work so well. Shades of DR-DOS and Windows 3.1 ?

Nope. A function of Ubuntu defaulting to a video mode that is not supported
under Virtual PC. I found a hack to get around it and it's running now.
Slowly.

You decide. Or
expirement : put Linux on top of Windows using VMWare. The switch.
Then compare to Virtual(ly pathetic) PC. No contest, VMWare rocks, and
Virtual PC obviously doesn't.

Virtual PC is free. VMWare isn't.

Oh, and by the way, don't try to
virtualize Vista unless you paid the extra fee.

It's not an extra "fee." However, why would I want to virtualize Vista? My
laptop is already running Vista. I'm only interested in virtualizing other
OSes, e.g. XP Pro (for which I have the license).

Don't worry about
Linux though, you won't have to pay extra to do things you already
can.

Not in money, perhaps, but certainly in time. I have work to do, I'm not
interested in spending 10 times as much time getting the machine to do 1/2
of what my Vista machine can do. My time is too valuable.

That only happens with proprietary software : Even after you pay
for it, it still isn't yours.

That's Microsoft's theory. I'm not convinced it's legally valid.

1. It has better driver support, at least for now

Apparently not, if it can't support the relatively-vanilla graphics card.

2. It is free

Yes, but the time it takes to get it running is worth more than a couple of
hundred bucks for a Vista license -- at least to me.

3. The Eula doesn't suck

The Eula doesn't suck, but the reliance on Open Source code could cause
problems down the road.

4. DRM does suck

No argument from me about that.

5. lower hardware requirements (try installing Vista on the K6, and
tell us how that goes.)

Vista and Ubuntu aren't, in any way, comparable -- Vista requires far more
overhead, but also does far more.

6. Better security

Security under any OS is a concern only if the user is naive or stupid.
I've never had any security issues on any of my systems.

7. Faster and easier installation

Not for me.

8. easier updates

Not for me.

9. more flexibility

You win on that one, but "flexibility" is a relative term and, on Linux
systems, comes at the price of having to acquire considerable expertise.

10. easier to customize

See above.

That's enough for now.


You mean a 2007 version of Linux is slower (and only because of a
lacking driver for an outdated video card) than a 2000 version of
Windows.

Yes, that's what I mean.

You really are afraid of apples-to-apples comparisions
aren''t you ?

"Afraid"? Please don't let this discussion degenerate into the usual "if
you don't use Linux you're a cowardly dweeb" posts that I see from so many
Linux users.

Let's compare Vista to Ubuntu 7.
Okay.

Let's start from
scratch, and install the OS, an office package, a programming
environment, a web server, a database server, and all of the updates.
Let's use an average modern configuration. Let's see who really is
better.

You can get a decent PC for $1000. But that's no all (for Microsoft
people, for Linux people $1000 is it)>
Windows Vista Ultimate $399.95
Windows Office 2007 Professional $499.95
IIS (free ?)
Visual Studio 2005 (careful, there are many known problems on Vista)
$265 unless you want to $1000+ Professional version
SQL Server ($739 with a max of 5 users, on up to $24,999 per processor
if you need more)

Price comparisons are meaningless to me. I don't mind spending the money on
a machine that will do what I want with relatively little effort, as opposed
to a cheaper machine that will require dozens and dozens of hours to get
running at equivalent functionality. As I said, my time is too valuable.

Windows Vista PC total $1903.39 (excluding tax), and Microsoft still
owns the software on you PC
Linux PC total $1000, and you have fewer restrictions and "contractual
obligations" to deal with. Ask your lawyer what that is worth.

I am a lawyer. The license restrictions on Vista present no hinderance to
how I get my work done.

 

[Stephan Rose]

DV-codec-encoded AVI isn't proprietary, it's a standard.
mpg2 isn't proprietary, it's a standard.
mpg4 isn't proprietary, it's a standard.

Easy solution to install all codecs: Get Automatix (just google for it,
it'll come up instantly). You can install all codecs there is.

Some people complain about the fact that "libdvdcss" which it installs may
not be entirely legal due to DRM reasons, but I don't find that any
different from the Region Free / CSS software I used to run under Windows
so I can watch DVDs from all over the world.

Why? This was a perfectly good card in its day -- 64 meg of video ram,
either an Invidia or AST chipset that, evidently, was recognized by both
Ubuntu and Suse. As I recall, this MB doesn't have integrated graphics.
Why would I need to even worry about graphics drivers if I'm using it as a
command-line driven server?

On a command-line server you wouldn't worry about it. But since you are also
trying out the desktop versions...

BIOS update? For this machine? It's about 10 years old -- hardly likely.

Give it a try...you might be surprised.

Nope. A function of Ubuntu defaulting to a video mode that is not
supported
under Virtual PC. I found a hack to get around it and it's running now.
Slowly.

Well what do you expect from Virtual PC?

Try VirtualBox instead, I've found it more to my liking than VirtualPC.

http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

Not in money, perhaps, but certainly in time. I have work to do, I'm not
interested in spending 10 times as much time getting the machine to do 1/2
of what my Vista machine can do. My time is too valuable.

Well that's your call. I can get ubuntu setup in a fraction of the time I
can get XP setup with more capabilities than Vista will ever have. And no,
I am not an expert on Linux, far from it. This is my first install and I am
extremely happy with it.

That's Microsoft's theory. I'm not convinced it's legally valid.

It's actually the theory of any software developer these days. All you ever
get to buy is the "right to use" the software. And apparently with Vista
barely that as you constantly have to fight to keep that right.

I actually wonder about the legal issues of that here in Europe? Even if
many Americans will happily accept having to make calls to india to keep
using their copy of Vista...I know that definitely won't fly over here.


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[Rudolph Hooker]

PTravel wrote:

....

DV-codec-encoded AVI isn't proprietary, it's a standard.
mpg2 isn't proprietary, it's a standard.
mpg4 isn't proprietary, it's a standard.

None of which are supported by Windows 2000 or XP out of the box and require
extra codecs to be installed.

 

[Charlie Wilkes]

No, it's not surprising. Nonetheless, Linux remains a rather opaque and
specialized OS. I've decided it's probably worth the trouble to learn
it, but I can't find good resources for doing so -- they either assume
you're a complete idiot or a complete geek already conversant with the
jargon and methodology.

Your learning experience will be better if you first get Linux running
without problems on a system. Maybe you need to scrounge up a slightly
newer desktop than your wife's old machine... something with an Athlon
instead of a k6.

I'm a Linux beginner myself, but I'm not finding the learning curve to be
difficult, probably because I've got a solidly functional Linux system.
Ubuntu has an excellent, friendly web forum called "absolute beginner
talk."

Linux does not insulate the user from the command line and configuration
files the way Windows attempts to do. Eventually (for example) you will
need to open your sources.lst file in a text editor and remove some hash
marks, possibly even enter new source archives, and then type "sudo apt-
get update" in a terminal window.

Windows would have a "wizard" to handle that whole process -- and you'd
never have a clue what was being changed beneath the surface, so if it
didn't work, you'd be SOL. That is why I think Linux has a lot to offer
for the sort of person who is not an expert, but is willing to put some
effort into making a system work properly.

Good luck.

Charlie

 

[Adam Albright]

Easy solution to install all codecs: Get Automatix (just google for it,
it'll come up instantly). You can install all codecs there is.

Adding "all the codecs there are" causes all kinds of problems.

Some people complain about the fact that "libdvdcss" which it installs may
not be entirely legal due to DRM reasons, but I don't find that any
different from the Region Free / CSS software I used to run under Windows
so I can watch DVDs from all over the world.

So you pick and choose which laws to obey and which to break.

Well that's your call. I can get ubuntu setup in a fraction of the time I
can get XP setup with more capabilities than Vista will ever have. And no,
I am not an expert on Linux, far from it. This is my first install and I am
extremely happy with it.

Explain to us again what exactly ubuntu has to do with Vista and why
you keep posting off topic here. Most people would call that trolling.
You pretending to be an attorney now?

 

[Stephan Rose]

Adding "all the codecs there are" causes all kinds of problems.

Such as? Name one please.

So you pick and choose which laws to obey and which to break.

Honestly hollywood can kiss my ass with their DRM, DCMA and what other crap
all. If I legally buy their DVDs I am going to watch them. Period. I am not
going to let any law stop me from watching content at home which I legally
purchased!

That said...US law doesn't actually apply to me seeing how I am not living
in the US. =)

Explain to us again what exactly ubuntu has to do with Vista and why
you keep posting off topic here. Most people would call that trolling.

Seeing how this thread is related to a users attempt to install Linux it
actually is quite on topic to this thread. And unlike you, I've actually
tried to contribute to the original posters issues and concerns and have
tried to help him.

You pretending to be an attorney now?

Me? No. Oh and, I didn't say that sentence above. =)


--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

å›ã®ã“ã¨æ€ã„出ã™æ—¥ãªã‚“ã¦ãªã„ã®ã¯
å›ã®ã“ã¨å¿˜ã‚ŒãŸã¨ããŒãªã„ã‹ã‚‰

 

[PTravel]

Try VirtualBox instead, I've found it more to my liking than VirtualPC.

http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Downloads

I'll take a look at it. Thanks.

Well that's your call. I can get ubuntu setup in a fraction of the time I
can get XP setup with more capabilities than Vista will ever have. And no,
I am not an expert on Linux, far from it. This is my first install and I
am
extremely happy with it.


It's actually the theory of any software developer these days. All you
ever
get to buy is the "right to use" the software. And apparently with Vista
barely that as you constantly have to fight to keep that right.

The theory is that the software is licensed but not sold. However, there is
a split of authority in American courts as to whether that's true as a
matter of law, irrespective of what the license may say. I've litigated
this issue (actually against Microsoft), but the cases have always resolved
before the court has ruled on the question.

I actually wonder about the legal issues of that here in Europe? Even if
many Americans will happily accept having to make calls to india to keep
using their copy of Vista...I know that definitely won't fly over here.

That's a business question more than a legal one. Americans are not very
thrilled with the level of support provided by the typical Indian Help Desk
and a number of companies have moved support back to the U.S. They're
finding that a common language is not enough to cover the cultural
differences with respect to how Americans expect their vendors to interact
with them.

 

[PTravel]

PTravel wrote:

...


None of which are supported by Windows 2000 or XP out of the box and
require
extra codecs to be installed.

DV-codec-encoded AVI most certainly is supported out of the box. The new
Windows Media Player also supports mpeg2. I haven't tried it with mpeg4
(or, more accurately, I've installed additional codecs for mpeg4 so didn't
try it).

 

[PTravel]

Your learning experience will be better if you first get Linux running
without problems on a system. Maybe you need to scrounge up a slightly
newer desktop than your wife's old machine... something with an Athlon
instead of a k6.

Actually, I got Suse running on this machine last night. I'm playing with
it now. I have to say, I like it. It's much "peppier" than Ubuntu and the
K-whatever GUI seems well thought out and responsive. Right now, I'm
turning on network services to get it to run as a file server and FTP
server. I haven't gotten far along, but Samba installed and seems to be
running just fine.

I'm a Linux beginner myself, but I'm not finding the learning curve to be
difficult, probably because I've got a solidly functional Linux system.
Ubuntu has an excellent, friendly web forum called "absolute beginner
talk."

Linux does not insulate the user from the command line and configuration
files the way Windows attempts to do. Eventually (for example) you will
need to open your sources.lst file in a text editor and remove some hash
marks, possibly even enter new source archives, and then type "sudo apt-
get update" in a terminal window.

That's one of the things I like about Suse. It's much more "talkative" than
Ubuntu -- it tells me what it's doing and why.

 

[PTravel]

Adding "all the codecs there are" causes all kinds of problems.

So you pick and choose which laws to obey and which to break.



Explain to us again what exactly ubuntu has to do with Vista and why
you keep posting off topic here. Most people would call that trolling.

You pretending to be an attorney now?

I am an attorney. California State Bar License No. 160552. Look me up if
you like.