"H a m m e r" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> -- of the four others, three would not compile at all, the forth
> did, but would not run (complaining of "at least 8 bit color"
> depth needed, though that machine *does* run with up to 24-32;
> now explain that to some 8-years old, not to speak of asking them
> for patience while searching for the reason.)
And there you have it. You made the mistake of trying to do something in
front of a child. OF COURSE it didn't work. And he/she will never respect
you again. That's what kids are all about! (2 of my own :)
> The whole exercise is quite reveiling in terms of my own (relative)
> newbie status and the typical hitches occuring over and over again:
Do keep in mind that games tend to be some of the more system-dependent
tasks we ask of computers. Audio, video, memory, disk and CPU performance
all come heavily into play. I would NOT suggest that anyone go straight
after (graphics intensive) games whilst still in the newbie stages of
learning Linux!
> So the "project" is straight developping towards a Linux rant v.N+1.
Excuse me guys, but I do get the feeling that some of you just want "a
bigger DOS" that can do everything Windows can. That's not what Linux is
meant to be, and if you try to make it do that, it'll fight you all the way!
However, for the self-professed CLI types who truly want to get into the
heart of the machine, there's nothing to beat it. It does take some time,
unless you stick to a fairly well defined configuration ON SUPPORTED
HARDWARE IN A SUPPORTED CONFIGURATION. Mix-and-match and quick start don't
go together!
> For DOSEMU nor WINE [...]
I'm truly sorry you've had such a hard time of it. Only wish you were local
so I might help out!
> [...]
> So far, I get more and more pessimistic (and at times sheer desperate)
> about it. One reason is the, in quite some aspects, intransparent file
> organisation of the "system" itself - ok., there are good utilities to
> search but it takes hours, if not (work-)days to get (perhaps no) result;
> though the "better" file system is one of the declared holy graals of
> Linux.
The file system standards (FSSTND I believe it's called) is well documented.
Most man pages include a listing of the relevant files. Most desktop
environments include one or more search utilities. I'm not sure what more
you're after.
> Another one is the dependency on a networked situation - the
> *more* typical situation of single-user, not permanent online units
> (and correspondent practical problems of importing/transfering) is
> still not really addressed.
How is it any different than DOS? If something's too big for a floppy, it
goes on a CD-ROM. There are plenty of archive collections on CD-ROM, many
for $2 per CD.
> A third, and enormous, hurdle is the
> handling of video hardware. (Laptops combine all these problems
> alltogether.)
Again though, if you're new, sticking to supported hardware combinations
work best.
Again, sorry Linux doesn't seem to be working out for you. I can't imagine
it's all that much harder than DOS to learn for someone who loves working
with the guts of a system, so KEEP WITH IT! And good luck!
- Bob
To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message.
Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies.
More info can be found at;
http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
