Re: Linux hates windows
From: Kevin Nathan (knathan_at_project54.com)
Date: 01/17/04
- Previous message: Tim Smith: "Re: Why is Linux so slow?"
- In reply to: Subroto: "Re: Linux hates windows"
- Next in thread: Robert Hull: "Re: Linux hates windows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 23:56:40 -0700
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 01:17:33 -0500
"Subroto" <msubroto@erols.com> wrote:
> Yes I agree that SUSE 7.0 is an old distribution. But someone gave
> it to me to try. I will upgrade as soon as possible.
>
Yes, it's old, but there's no reason *not* to try it. As long as you
realize it's old technology, there's still a lot to learn because it's
still Linux at heart. While the bells and whistles change rapidly in
Linux, the underlying philosphy stays pretty stable and lessons you
learn with 7.0 will, generally, be easily transferred to newer version
of the distro.
> .>
> > > The Linux install went smoothly but I cannot get Win 95 to run
> > > on the machine.
> >
> > And this is a bad thing?
>
> Yes this is a bad thing. Windows despite all of its faults is
> something one needs to be familiar with. There is also the coolness
> aspect of it. With just a few keystrokes you can switch to Linux
> and it really impresses the great unwashed.
>
Wanna *really* impress the great unwashed? Install VMWare (I haven't
yet bought Win4Lin but expect it's similar) and wow them with booting
a complete virtual computer, into Windows, in a window on your Linux
desktop! I know that that, alone, sold two of my friends into putting
Linux on their boxes . . . :-)
re: familiarity with Windows. Yes, it's *profitable* to be a little
proficient in Windows (I've used it since I received a copy of a
Windows286 beta version), but I rarely recommend anyone to *start*
with it unless the programs they need the most are *only* available on
it. I try not to slam Windows *too* hard, because supporting that
trashy system provides about 60% of my income! :-) My Linux clients
hardly ever call me after the first few weeks, but I still get money
from Windows users that I have supported for several *years*. Go M$!
:-)
>
> Yes the learning curve is rather steep. Windows install and
> installing programs are relatively painless. Install a new program
> in Linux is quite a task.
>
I tend to disagree with this. Put together your own computer from
components purchased separately. Then, buy a copy of Windows (any
version) and a copy of SUSE (8.x and up). Throw away any CDs you
might have gotten from the manufacturers of any of the components
(including the motherboard). You are now ready to *really* test which
OS is easier to install, starting from a level playing field. One
exception to this: if the CD contains drivers for both Linux *and*
Windows, you are allowed to use it. After installing both OSes, report
back which was easier.
On installing programs, I only semi-disagree. Some are easier on
Windows, some are easier on Linux. My favorite example happened about
a week ago. One of the people in our office (different company, just
renting space) got a new digital camera, with a CD of drivers for
every Windows version going back to WFW3.11 (surprised me on that!)
His attempt, and two other people who helped, ended up in disaster.
They couldn't get the drivers to load, following the directions.
They called me in, and after trying to follow the directions (one of
those big, fold-out, easy-as-1-2-3 things that are becoming popular
in the Win world) and failing, I installed the drivers the way I was
pretty sure they *should* be installed. This was a Win98 box, and I
finally got the drivers loaded. After several reboots, we were ready
to plug in the camera. Did so; instant reboot. Repeated install
procedure -- got their procedure to work with one minor change. Plug
in camera. Instant reboot. On a whim, plugged the usb camera into a
Mandrake 9.2 box and, lo and behold, a camera icon popped up on the
desktop and we could browse the pictures! No driver install, no time
wasted. Just "ready to go" plug and play, for real.
Yes, it's an isolated case, but it's becoming more common. Windows is
becoming *harder* to use, little by little, while Linux is becoming
*easier* to use, little by little.
> > The printed manuals which come with SuSE boxed product are an
> > excellent starting point.
>
> I totally disagree with you. SuSE 7.0 manuals were pretty much
> worthless. Whoever wrote them did it in their spare time. I had to
> pretty much rely on books, newsgroups and other people.
> >
I never used SUSE 7.0. I started with Red Hat 4.2 and used it through
7.3. At least five of those versions were purchased as a boxed set and
the rest came with books I bought. During that timeframe, I also
experimented with (early) Mandrake, Open Linux, Caldera, Yellowdog,
slackware and a few others. Then I discovered SUSE 7.1 (the only boxed
set in the store except for Red Hat 7.3 which I had just installed),
and bought it because it contained some of the programs I couldn't get
to run under RH. I learned almost as much about Linux from the SUSE
books as I did from all my other forays. And their books have only
gotten better.
I have four book shelves full of Linux books, but I still grab the
SUSE manuals (8.2, currently) first, before looking elsewhere. They
pack a wealth of info into a 500+ page Admin Guide . . . :-)
-- Kevin Nathan (Montana, USA) Open standards. Open source. Open minds. The command line is the front line. Linux 2.4.20-4GB-athlon 11:20pm up 21 days 15:29, 6 users, load average: 0.18, 0.09, 0.05
- Previous message: Tim Smith: "Re: Why is Linux so slow?"
- In reply to: Subroto: "Re: Linux hates windows"
- Next in thread: Robert Hull: "Re: Linux hates windows"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
