I would comment as follows: On Apr 2, 5:45 pm, Kevin Morgan <[email protected]> wrote:
> When people say that Windows works fine, you KNOW you are talking to a face > that is NOT connected to a brain! I'm one of those kinds of people that prefer to USE my computer. When I pop a Live CD in my desktop system and turn that new distro, MOST OFTEN, something is NOT working in Linux, usually either a webcam or a wireless NIC. I turn on XP64Pro, it all works. I have no brain? Seriously, I absolutely spend LESS time setting up hardware in Windows, and even in the most dreaded of XP versions, XP64Pro, I still work just fine. I feel that my situation kind of gets to the heart of this matter, Kevin..... Are these people working ON the computer OS configurations or are they performing work WITH a fully functioning operating system? With Windows, they can work; with Linux, they have problems. Nothing to do with missing brains. Maybe they are misinformed? I've had good friends tell me that people who do NOT use Windows are criminals. The rest of their story was based on misunderstandings: the TV show misused the term hacker, my friend felt Linux was made by hackers that were criminals who know how to write computer programs. Did my friends listen to me? Nope, the TV show was all they needed, and every time Microsoft tries to argue that Windows is better, these friends accuse Linux of trying to change the facts so they can lie about Linux. The do not understand that Linux FIXES the problems people had with Windows, they can't understand why Linux is good. Perceptions of things is really important here, Kevin. This is a social phenomenon, it is about what we FELL is supposed to be right. > You also KNOW that they do NOT care about the security of ANYTHING they > do.....and they definitely CANNOT be trusted to a position of computer-based > employment where caution is required. Now wait a minute..... security is NEVER taught to them, they simply have no ideas. The statement there is just blatantly unfair. For them, a NORMAL computer works EXACTLY as Windows works, that is all they have ever known. Even when they get burned from security related losses, they still fear Linux because Linux requires that the Linux administrator is ALREADY skilled - and these folks are NOT skilled as administrators of Linux. Do you see a problem, there, Kevin? I do. You feel that newbies to Linux are expected to go from Windows (with no administrator skills and no desires to lock it down, no desires to prevent a software program from being installed), and therefore they are to jump into Linux but they need to start using Linux with a rather high level of familiarity with the concepts of networking (setup iptables, configure firewalling), with user administration and also being fluent with command line stuff (which Windows patently hides from the Windows user). Kevin, the situation is SIMILAR to this: lets see how well you do in a surgical suite where you have to reconfigure a diesel generator which powers all the electricity in the surgical suite to use batteries so it will stay on long enough for you to perform your very first open heart surgery, all the while you are reading a tattered, 4 year old paperback book titled 'How-to perform open heart surgery from a battery operated surgical suite'. You must use electrocautery instruments, and uh-oh, the anesthesiologist just called in sick... you have to handle that too. Linux is like that for ALL of us, at one time or another. We really can't expect Windows people to get it right on the first gOS installation. > Windows is exactly what Bill Gates and his minders wanted....a window into > your life!! > It's Hack-able. Crash-able, Steal-able, and very, very reliable for those > willing to steal your identity, your credit, and your life. Yeah, the concept of computing security is almost totally foreign to Windows, until recently. That's the price those (Windows) folks are paying to convert from the fundamentals which made Windows so very popular: "Install it, it runs". The history of DOS through at least XP has been a history of allowing a computer work for anyone but doing that with no security restrictions because security is too difficult. Windows XP left left every TCP/IP port unlocked so that users would not need to fuss with learning how to unlock ports. Gotta remember this part too: Windows administrators need a few weeks of schooling in order to secure a Windows system, the secured system then causes the Windows USER to feel like they can't 'do things'. Again, the Windows user experiences do not help them work in Linux. On the other hand, I've been spending months (if not YEARS) just trying to get networking running ANYWHERE. Nobody is a rocket scientist in ALL areas. > I'm happy to say that gOS does NOT provide these attributes, and that PC > Linux OS 2009, is even better than gOS because of the many reliable and > flexible workings of the system. I get a bit concerned when all you can say here is that PCLnuxOS is better. I use PCLOS MM2008 + BU and I have a couple noteworthy problems, lets compare Windows and Linux (feel free to SOLVE my problems): Right now, my Linux system clock refuses to display the correct time for more than a few reboots. My system time is either correct within a few seconds, or the Linux system time is off by exactly zero years, zero months, zero days, 4 hours, zero minutes. A CMOS battery problem would not mess up that precisely. As I'm working on this problem with the PCLOS forums, I'm testing my system using 2 kernels, I've tried setting Linux system time as root, I've tried using then tried NOT using ntp servers, I've checked that my system BIOS time is set properly (BIOS is always is set to correct local time), I've tried setting system time by using KDEs clock in the toolbar. Maybe 5 reboots and it is fouled up by losing exactly 4 hours once more. I had to install a second kernel for a different problem, see below. Is my Windows time ever wrong? I don't use XP64 too often, but time was correct last I used it. Makes sense since the BIOS time is NOT changing. To get the time set in Windows? Double click on the clock in the toolbar, set the time, done. It just WORKS, Kevin. Why am I using a different Kernel? Because the default MiniMe 2008 kernel (which is 2.6.22.15tex2) is NOW (now is ever since the BIG UPDATE) having a lot of problems automounting CD/DVD/USB devices, it fails to be 100% useful for those devices (but only since the BIG UPDATE). Working with the PCLOS forums, I learned that the 2.6.26.8tex3 kernel seems to have no problems with ANY automounting, I use 2.6.26.8tex3 and I definitely cannot repeat the problems I had with 2.6.22.15tex2. So, I am using the newer kernel so that automount will work properly. It seems that somewhere in the big update, PCLOS has converted to be 100% hald for device mounting. Windows: Change the kernel? That is the job of service packs. We don't update no stinking kernel! Anyways, Kevin, I'm here, looking at gOS because I want a Linux distro on my Asus EeePC 900A/Linux netbook. To have to convince you Windows bashers to pipe down seems like a waste of time. So, now, here is a point I'm sending back at YOU, Kevin... a man by the name of Bill Reynolds is the lead developer at PCLinuxOS, he is known as texstar (and tex is the last 3 letters of the PCLOS kernels). He just returned from being AWAY from PCLOS for a year but he left a trusted person in charge while he was gone, this person requested that texstar take a look at the candidate release for PCLOS 2009. When texstar returned and looked at the state of things, he did not like what had happened while he was gone. http://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20090330#news tells of the bad attitudes that some SUBORDINATE developers had when texstar returned and texstar correcting their work on PCLOS. Now, Kevin, as you come here and blast about PCLinuxOS at a gOS group, you have to ask yourself this: Is PCLOS 2009 TRULY representing texstars goals for PCLOS, or, conversely, should those developers get all mad when the OWNER of PCLOS says "not good enough"? Before you answer, just remember: INSTEAD of listening and supporting texstar, they run away to start their own distro called Unity-Linux. Will it REALLY be good for gOS people to hear you say 'PCLOS! PCLOS! PCLOS!'? That is not helping gOS users get gOS running. How ironic: "Unity-Linux" is CLEARLY borne of the DISunity between PCLOS and SOME of the former developers of PCLOS. I certainly won't back developers who have temper tantrums, I say that simply because if I need their help at some time, I doubt they will be sincere about something that makes them change their minds. Kevin, take a moment (or a few thousand moments, take as long as you like), just THINK before you post. Bashing Windows is not appreciated ANYWHERE (and I'm grateful for you giving me this opportunity to address your points). --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "gOS Linux" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/goslinux?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
