On Tuesday 02 May 2006 11:49, Lobo wrote: > On 5/2/06, Michael Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And at the risk of upsetting people with this OT thread, I would add try > > Knoppix before you go any further. Knoppix is a sort of try before you > > buy Linux system which doesn't even need installing on your computer. It > > loads completely from CD/DVD. This will let you try configuring your > > hardware and see what works and what doesn't. It does run slower because > > of the CD environment but it will give you a taste of Linux. Also google > > for your local LUG. > > I've been building PCs for ten years. I've tried Knoppix, Fedora, > Slackware, Debian and several other distros. As long as you pick your > hardware around Linux, you might be okay. However, if you want to > install Linux on a machine you already own and/or have specific > hardware needs, you're usually out of luck. If the Linux driver > doesn't exist, it doesn't exist, and no amount of wishful thinking can > change that. > > Installation of software that doesn't come with the distribution often > is less than successful. Even compiling source (only necessary because > of the incompatibility between distributions) according to > instructions often doesn't work, because even different adjacent > versions of the same distro often have some fundamental change that > breaks the process. > > The fact that different Linux distributions have different directory > structures is also a major obstacle. All it takes is one character of > a folder name to be different, much less an actual different location, > to break a software installation attempt. That doesn't even touch on > prerequisite packages that aren't included and may or may not be > installed or have come with the distro. The paths to various folders > is complex, convoluted and far from intuitive. Many identical folders > and even whole directory trees exist in different places with > different purposes. > > The problem with Linux is that it only takes one serious issue to make > it useless. What good does a computer do you if you can't print > anything because a (working) driver doesn't exist for your printer? > You can't access the Web or your email because there's no driver for > your modem? Your hardware is fully functional but you can't access > many years of data and documents created by another application? > (Hence my need/desire to import tables into Base...) > > In contrast, I have never had a Windows installation fail or cause any > kind of difficulty. Software installation is rarely an issue, drivers > are always available, and the directory structure is much less > bloated, mostly intuitive and easily understood. Yes, it's unstable > and prone to virus and other attack, but that's as much a matter of > hacker bias as anything else - they could just as easily write viruses > for Linux, but then they wouldn't be able to crow about how vulnerable > Windows is. And Linux is NOT perfect. I've seen it crash numerous > times, even though it's far more stable than Windows or even MacOS. > > I hate Micro$oft and Windows as much as anyone, but until all the > Linux developers wake up and help each other instead of working > against each other it will never have a chance of contesting Windows > as the OS of choice for the average PC user. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm not sure what hole you've been hiding in lately (maybe immersed in the M$ propaganda vacuum?) but my experience has been just the opposite, or maybe I'm just the only one. Plus your whole blurb above about the dramatic differences between distros is just plain wrong. There are some subtle diffs but they are all Linux with the same basic Linux file structures. True some distro's install things in other than standard locales but this can easily be changed with relocatable RPM's. I've installed Linux on a wide variety of both desktops and laptops including Dell, Sony Vaio, Compaq, HP, Powerspec, IBM/Lenovo and several others and I have had almost no issues and certianly no show stoppers such as inability to print or no X interface or so many damn viruses that I have to re-install every 6 months. I've found that when you setup a home network, windows boxes by comparison suck to the extreme with weekly if not daily issues with connectivity (which in turn shuts out your ability to print), internet access, drivers, crap for updates that break other components, issues with USB, sound and video drivers that need to be repeatedly re-installed and a variety of other issues... Likewise so far I've found thousands of software titles that rock, and times where I cannot find a software package with whatever feature or use that pops into my head are extremely rare. Usually I can just go to Yast on my SuSE boxes or Yum on my CentOS and Fedora boxes and search for and then install a package with no ned to ever mess with the source. Linux installs, configures and even adds itself to my KDE menu in most cases. In some cases where I'm stuck with getting the source I find that runing configure, make and make install are pretty damn simple in most cases. In fact I suspect that most non technical users could spell these commands without the need for a dictionary - however to be fair, once in awhile I get into the whole dependancy hell thing and it does get somewhat technical (more so than I think my mom would be able to deal with). However these are truly rare cases. I do agree with you on 2 points: (1) It's difficult to find good modem drivers but I use DSL so thats a non-issue for me plus I hear that it has improved but I dont care to check because dialup sucks and I just refuse to use it. (2) Windows is extremely unstable and prone to virus and other attack, however not for the reasons you gave, Linux runs in "protected mode" you should find out what this is, maybe you'll learn something. Windows runs in "protect our monopoly by inserting every one of our products directly into the kernel with admin access mode" which of course from a security perspective is just stupid. But then M$ doest't really care about security beyond lip service - we all know that don't we? This is why a 12 year old VB hacker can crank out a 6 line VB script that brings thousands upon thousands of Windows machines worldwide to their knees (remember the I love you virus?) - Linux is not (and never will be) a perfect OS with no vulnerabilities but you'll never see such blatent stupidity within Linux. At least Linux hackers need to know how to write real code and deal with real security issues. Just my .02 cents.... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
