On Friday September 17, 2004 12:19, Bob Hodges wrote: > ** That's great that your Windows isn't having pollution problems. It is > very rare, as Windows itself doesn't have any security options to disable - > it's wide open unless you actively do something about it by installing > aftermarket product$ that don't come with Windows.
It's true that I use aftermarket programs (all free, BTW) but I must disagree with you. There are security options, you just have to know where to look. Granted, it's not as secure as a Unix machine, but there is much you can do at the OS level to make it less "airy." > "I learn new things all the time. I'm not a clueless n00b. I don't need > > ** Sorry, didn't mean to insult you, that was not my intention. We just > see a lot of Windows users come down the pike whining about how Linux isn't > Windows, and at the first sign of trouble, they bash it and go running back > to Windows. Linux isn't perfect, granted, but it's the best alternative to > Windows there is (unless you want to be REAL fringe and go with a Mac). I've always known that a Mac was the best option. Gates set the computer world back by 20 years with the dirty tricks that made him a billionaire and Apple a cult phenomenon. But, as I said before, usability is key. The software wasn't written for Apple/Mac, it was written for IBM/Intel/Microsoft. People want to use their computers - aside from the hobbyists and geeks (into which categories I sorta fall) who use their computers just to find out what they do and how they do it. I flipflop between a gaming, emailing, browsing appliance operator and a security freak, tweaking hound and general all around techno junkie on a sometimes daily basis. > > "I'm not using nVidia, so that went nowhere. If the hardware detection > is as wonderful as you say it is, answer me three questions: > > Why would a device detected as a CD/DVD *burner* need to have burning > *enabled*?? I don't know about you, but if I paid more for my CDROM so > that it burns, I'm using it." > > ** The nVidia driver was just offered as an example, so it's ok that it > "went nowhere". Most distros see the CD/DVD burners these days, including > SuSE 9.1. A few versions back, it would be detected as a CD drive, and a > config file would need to be edited to get the burner functionality > working. SuSE 9.1, however, detected my DVD and CD-RW drives just fine on > first install (see screen capture I sent to your private email address). The burner is on the back burner. ;) The sound, graphics card, and monitor (it's Dell and pretty new, so I'll need to enter values manually as soon as I get the gumption) are the first things to get working and make me more comfortable about investing time and blood pressure. > "How can an OS that purports itself to be winning the war with Windows > ignore half or more of the hardware that is fully available and in wide > use? Winmodems aside." > > ** We don't be claiming to be winning any war with Windows, but Windows is > losing major ground to Linux and Microsoft is being very quiet about it. > It is not up to the Linux developers to write device drivers, though an > increasing number do. Just like Windows, hardware manufacturers develop > their own drivers and submit them to Microsoft before the release of an OS > version. More and more, they are doing this for Linux too, so it's getting > better all the time. Hardware manufacturers are providing drivers for > Linux at a steadily increasing rate. And for the record, SuSE Linux 9 > supports Winmodems. That's good news. I have cable, so the WinModem can go to *ell. <G> Maybe next year they'll have my drivers and maybe next year I'll know how to install them. BTW, ATI offers drivers, but they warn about severe consequences if you get the wrong one or use it on certain configurations. > ** I am unaware of any requires software compatibility checking in terms of > unlrelated hardware. That's new to me. But in terms of device driver > version checking, why did it take Microsoft until Windows XP do do that > very same thing? I don't know, but I'm very glad they did. 98 was okay. It was usable. XP has been very good to me. Not perfect, but good. It's the only stable Windows I've ever used. I have yet to have a system crash and have only had two program crashes - neither of which took out the OS - and I asked for those. I ran some older 95/98 software and knew it might puke. > "I am looking forward to getting Linux to work on this machine, but > people who trash an OS that has worked fine for me (for no good reason, > because it certainly didn't change *my* opinion) and people who > insinuate that because someone uses Windows they are inferior in their > computer skills, will go a long way towards ensuring that Linux never > overtakes Windows." > > ** Insults were not intended, and for that I apologize. But may I ask why > you're investigating Linux? Most do it out of a bonafide frustration with Apology accepted. I am, and have been, checking out Linux for two reasons. I'm a computer junkie and it's out there. Also, I'm becoming sort of bored with Windows, because, since 98, I've not had a reinstall, security issue, or any serious problem on any of the eight Windows boxes that I use/maintain. The challenge is wearing away. > a very well documented horrible track record of Windows security, > stability, freedom-of-choice and price issues. This is all true, but they haven't applied to me personally in over four years. I strongly believe that there are only three things that make me the exception, rather than the rule. I don't use or allow Windows scripting. I don't use Windows email. or. when I do, it's text only (since available) and solidly locked as far as attachments, it's put in the restricted zone (restricted as far as can be) and the excellent content blocking and firewall capabilities of Outpost. I use IE - and Mozilla - and Opera, but the IE is run through an extension (Avant) that allows you to lock it down pretty tight. I also faithfully update criticals and don't update anything else through Windows Update. > close to very quickly. And I have never heard of a product not doing well > because of the attitude of the customers. If that were the case, no one > would ever buy alcohol, which is far more notorious for producing "instant > a**holes" than Linux. If you have a well established product in wide use, that's a valid argument. When you are trying to enter a competitive market with a product considered by the mainstream to be fringe, complex, and untested in mass numbers, wouldn't you think PR and word of mouth would help gain acceptance? Just asking. > I'm glad you're not trashing Linux - like Microsoft has for nearly a > decade. Remember that 90% of Linux users are also Windows users and > extremely frustrated EX-Windows users who have found a welcome home in > Linux. Maybe some of that segment is unduly harsh because of their own personal bad experiences? For instance, My eight XP machines, with some admittedly extensive tweaking, all run on newer hardware and all run pretty much flawlessly. Yet there are several guys on my tech lists that trash it all the time and say it's junk. I *know* that they are trying to either run it on unsupported, older hardware or are ingrained in 9.x/DOS based Windows and aren't comfortable with NT architecture. Some of them are technically savvy, but they let their bad experiences cause them to give bad advice in a very bad tone. XP and 2000 whips the pants off any 9.x Windows out there, but there are those who say otherwise because *they* couldn't run it. > Granted, there's some attitude in the Linux world because of the > frustration with Windows and past Microsoft hostility and smear campaigns. > But many of us holding two decades of experience with Windows back to > version 1 when it was nothing more than DOSSHELL on steroids, and hold > bachelors and masters degrees in the fields of programming and operating > systems - such as myself. Some of us have EARNED the right to trash Windows > because we've been through it all and know what's under the hood of the > world's best selling but most unstable operating system ever produced. I don't have a degree in anything. I've taught myself everything I know about computers. I'm sorry, but starting out on a Commodore 64 and going through all the incarnations in computers except the 486 (I skipped that) and Windows ME (skipped that too), my XP boxes with their new fast hardware that works without a jumper setting one and without having to know intimate hardware details looks like progress to me. I bought two versions of Windows that I never did get to work without crashing, but the last two never had a serious crash. Granted, that's not a blaring endorsement of Microsoft, but it *is* the reason that I haven't slammed the door shut on Linux after my six previous failed attempts at getting it running anywhere close to an acceptable state. > ** No offense, but the "Linux is too difficult" complaint of the past no > longer holds much water anymore. Less so, but it still pertains enough. > True, the installations are still geared > toward people who are not total computer newbies, but Windows isn't exactly > a fire-and-forget install either and never has been. You still have to get > printers, graphics, antivirus, sound and networking set up, and most folks > are oblivious to that. Many devices come up "Unknown". True enough. But once you know where to look, it isn't that hard. Finding out where to look isn't hard at all, because things tend to be kept in the same general place no matter which version you use. Right or wrong, most of those unknown devices come with a handy little driver disk. I've also had lots of that unknown hardware actually work - albeit in limited fashion. > > In a nutshell: Microsoft is in the process of saying "uncle". > > "Not yet." > > ** Sure they are. They have been ever since 1999 when Windows 2000 was > released with Active Directory. Notice that Microsoft's harsh criticism of > Linux has virtually screeched to a halt. Windows 2003 Server completely > ** Regardless of software, however, just keep your eye on the structure of > the Windows operating systems themselves. You will see that as time > marches on, Windows becomes more Unix-like, and it will take place very > quietly. Apple dumped their previous OS and shifted over to a UNIX kernel > in one single release (Mac OSX). Microsoft is a little too proud for that > after all the Linux bashing of previous years. I have noticed some Unix like properties in NT. I would dearly love to see a Unix style OS that was more like Windows as far as being able to install, run, and use hardware and software as easily as Windows. Maybe the future will give us both and maybe Microsoft or Linux won't be responsible for it. Maybe they'll someday merge. Who knows? Computers are here to stay. It's a growing thing. I have five networked in my house. The internet is growing and getting shadier every day. We need Unix structure and security, and, because not everyone using their computer will have a degree - or necessarily even an education - they will have to be easy to use and maintain. Right now the biggest bashing is on the end user. > ** Linux is worth it, and is only getting better by leaps and bounds in > record-breaking time. Hang in there, you'll love it, and learning how to > get past little issues with device drivers is no more difficult than what > we all had to learn to be able to do the same thing in Windows. Yup. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/0XFolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this list, please email [EMAIL PROTECTED] & you will be removed. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LINUX_Newbies/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
