Re: WARNING to potential LINUX users

From: Darrell Stec (darrell_stec_at_webpagesorcery.com)
Date: 10/23/04 

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2004 00:18:11 -0400

Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> begin Darrell Stec wrote:
>
>
>>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
> < snip >
>
>
>>>I have not bought a single computer the last 4 years which was not
>>>supported by linux completely, except laptops.
>>>
>>
>>How many computers have you bought in the last four years?
>
>
> 5 desktop, 2 laptop
>
>
>>I usually do
>>not change computers every couple of months.
>
>
> I change my working desktop every year, as I am a developer
>
>
>>Before this one (bought a
>>few weeks ago) my last personal purchase was in March of 97. It is also
>>obvious that you don't pay attention to what a poster writes, but rather
>>spew forth bucolic invective when one holds an alternate opinion. It is
>>also obvious that you never purchased an HP Pavilion a720n computer.
>>
>
>
> Why do you buy such garbage? HP has much better ones

Not for the price. For some price is a limiting factor. There is a
huge difference between $850 and $1950. There are exactly three stores
in my area selling computers, not counting Walmart, and I purchased the
best I could with the money available.

Unfortunately the salesperson did not know his products well and
depending upon his answers I bought less than I anticipated.

But then remember you inferred that one could buy any new computer and
have it running 100% with any Linux distro right out of the box. If so
why would I need to buy "better?" Backtracking are you?

>
>
>>>The only advice anyone should heed is: Completely forget about
>>>Win-hardware. These are atrocious under windows itself, and very often
>>>are no longer supported in the next release. So, simply refuse to buy
>>>win-modems (I have no need for any modem since I use ADSL and ISDN), and
>>>don't buy GDI-Printers.
>>>
>>
>>And of course if you had read what I have written, you might have
>>discovered that Win-hardware is exactly that with which the Pavilion
>>comes bundled and so do quite a few other computers which many on a
>>budget may be "forced" to purchase.
>>
>
>
> You are not "forced" to buy such toys, budget or not
> You always get similar prices for better hardware when doing a little
> shopping
>

I had a choice of three stores to shop from and little time to get a
system up and running. It took exactly three hours to go from store to
store. The difference in what I wanted and what I could pay for was
$1000. That must qualify as "similar prices" to you.

>
>>>>I've been around computers for a very long time. I built my first
>>>>computer from scratch from discrete components (read that IC chips,
>>>>transistors, diodes, capacitors,etc.). Built my own Centronics printer
>>>>interface and wrote a driver for it. I also built my own modem (way
>>>>back when state of the art was 300 baud) and wrote comm software. So I
>>>>am not adverse to the learning curves that go with something new.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Bravo, bravo. Clapping hands.
>>>Just for the record, so did I. You don't impress me with such stories
>>>I have done maintenance on Mainframes more than 25 years ago
>>>
>>
>>Should I make the assumption that you are lying when you say you have
>>built a computer from scratch with discrete components, in light of the
>>fact you are so sure fired to call everyone else a liar?
>>
>
>
> I don't call everyone else a liar.

In the 1000 articles of your two whole years of posting history you have
  answered exact 5 questions. In 800 of those articles you have called
someone a liar, idiot, flatfish or other ad hominem. It is always
personal with you. Your posting history is exposed for all to see.
Does anyone else know of any real contributions made by Peter Köhlmann?

I simply have the distinct impression
> that you want to impose the image of you being knowledgeable by telling
> such stories, be thy true or not.
> And yes, I have built my own small computer, at the start a Z80 with 4KBytes
> of memory. And I did maintenance on Honeywell mainframes
>

In other words you put together a Sinclair ZX80 that came prepackaged.

>
>>And it wasn't meant to impress but rather to demonstrate that I was not
>>new to computers nor adverse to learning something new.
>>
>>
>>>>However I do understand the outrage that markzoom felt.
>
>
> "Trolling" is now "feeling outrage"? Interesting definition
>

Markzoom has a posting history of less then 10 articles on Linux or any
OS for that matter. He expressed a rather vehement negative impression
of his first experience with SuSE Linux. Taking his whole posting
history on the subject why do you caricature his demeanor as trolling
simply because he things did not go well with him? Why not look past
his emotion of the moment and consider his computer might have hardware
or configurations that were problematic and help?

Never mind. I remember in your vast posting history of a lengthy two
years only 5 posts were worthy of a real answer. You other 800 posts
would qualify you as TROLL. An appropriate response from someone who
doesn't really have any answers.

>
>>>
>>>No, you feign it. What he did was pure and simple trolling, nothing else
>>>While his initial post might have had some (very little) merit, from then
>>>on it degraded really fast and he showed to be either really clueless and
>>>criminally stupid *or* deliberately obstuse and trying anything to make
>>>things complicated and wrong
>>>
>>>< snip >
>>>
>>Is there anyone who posts in these several Linux newsgroups that you do
>>not denigrate?
>
>
> Yes. If you would read those several linux newsgroups, you would notice
>

You sir are prevaricating. In only 5 posts did you answer a question.
In 200 you gave an opinion. In EIGHT HUNDRED you called someone a liar,
idiot, flatfish or some other diminutive.

>
>>While markzoom may have been acerbic in his denunciation
>>of Linux, it seems it was borne out of frustration with his initial
>>experience.
>
>
> Really? If you believe that, you are dumb as a brick

Are you that miserable a human being that you have to make everything a
personal attack? Markzoom has posted very, very few articles on the
topic. Your response to him and 800 other posts is inappropriate and
evidences behavior more like fired clay.

>
>
>>Yes he could have been less demonstrative in his approach,
>>but you (and/or your sock puppet) seem to be the only one to
>>misunderstand his motive.
>>
>
>
> I certainly did not have the impression that I was the only one. And you may
> explain who should have been my "sock puppet", since I have no need of such
>
>
>>>>Installing SuSE was FULL of unpleasant surprises even though I read both
>>>>manuals cover to cover. On my first go-round I decided to custom select
>>>>my own partitions (as I did formerly with the Caldera eDesktop on the
>>>>old computer) but decided to change my mind at the last moment as the
>>>>manual said I could do and opted instead for the recommended partitions.
>>>> The very first thing I noticed was that there was NO SOUND even though
>>>>the sound events were turned on and the mixer showed volume was maximum
>>>>on everything. That was no biggie as it took a while to find the
>>>>correct sound modules through trial and error for the Sound Blaster on
>>>>the old comp.
>>>
>>>
>>>You are lying. Soundblaster is recognized and will be installed with
>>>right modules. I simply don't believe you when you say a standard old
>>>soundblaster is not recognized
>>>
>>
>>Your misbelief originates from your hasty perusal of newsgroups
>>articles. Had that been slower or your comprehension a tad better, you
>>would have noted that the Sound Blaster (Creative Labs 16 PNP) card was
>>installed in the OLD computer and not the HP Pavilion which lacked ISA
>>slots,
>
>
>
> Here your own words:
>
> /quote
> That was no biggie as it took a while to find the correct sound modules
> through trial and error for the Sound Blaster on the old comp.
> /unquote
>
>
> Do you deny that you claim to have to "do trial and error" for the
> soundblaster? For a card which is recognized by *every* linux distro out
> there?
> And *you* wonder why I call you a liar? Since this is exactly what you are
>

So you have used "every Linux distro out there?" As a matter of fact
when I first installed Caldera eDesktop 2.4 (kernel 2.2) it would not
install except in text mode, and it did not find the Sound Blaster card.
  You assume too much with your limited experiences and dismiss the
hundreds of thousands of posts others have with getting Linux to work.
And you are very quick to call some else a liar. Had you perused the
Caldera web site you would have found that their Knowledge Base contains
an article about adding modules that were not installed during the
initial installation. Why would they do that if everything installs
perfectly?

>
>>and further more that the sound in the Pavilion was generated by
>>the onboard a97c VIA chip set, and NOT a separate sound card. Please do
>>try to pay a little more attention, or quit reading others' posts which
>>you seem to find too contrary.
>>
>
>
> To that "problematic" via chip a have later added my comments.
> It still runs just fine, btw
>

For you, but not necessarily for others. With all the posts on the
subject how can you maintain that Linux will work every time right out
of the box with no problem with this chip set? Do you think all the
posters even on this newsgroup alone are lying when they say they have
problems?

>
>>>>My second surprise was that when I rebooted to WinXP it
>>>>had been trashed. So I wiped everything clean, reinstalled WinXP and
>>>>started over with SuSE. So much for installing right out of the box on
>>>>a new system.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure, the old flatfish troll. You *could* make XP not booting when using
>>>the wrong BIOS-settings, but you did *not* trash XP. And there was a
>>>simple workaround to make it boot again. So you, the ubergeek with
>>>monstrous abilities having build his own computers, proved to be so
>>>clueless?
>>>
>>
>>There was no reason for me to alter any BIOS settings prior to the first
>>attempted installation of SuSE.
>
>
> This may be, depending on *when* you tried the install
>

Right after plugging everything in when first bought and making the
system restoration CDs and reading the Linux manuals. And before
transferring files from my old computer. But then you have to make
incorrect assumptions to prove the other person is wrong or lying.

>
>>Everything worked fine as purchased with WinXP.
>
>
> Good for you
>
>
>>Next you will be telling me that you too wrote your own HD
>>disaster recovery software as I once had.
>
>
> Again this claiming of stuff you did.
> I could do also, but will refrain. You look dumb enough doing so
>

You prevaricate. You have no such history. You have almost never
answered a real question in your entire two year history of posting.
Why is that?
ANS: You have no knowledge.

>
>>Pray tell, what was this
>>"simple workaround to make it boot again?"
>>
>
>
> Oh, it was just prominently on the SuSE site.
>

In other words you do not know. By the way it had nothing to do with
GRUB nor the MBR. I am perfectly aware of fixing those types of
problems which are indeed simple fixes. So tell me, what was the simple
workaround?

>
>>Since you were not present you could not have known whether XP was
>>trashed or not,
>
>
> It was not trashed
>
>
>>as your knowledge of what happened during the original
>>install of SuSE 9.1 is pedantic.
>
>
> I don't need to know what happened there. SuSE will not trash XP, only
> XP /may/ be /unbootable/ after install. It can be resurrected, though,
> without any data loss
>

So those warnings about backing up WinXP in the SuSE manuals are
completely unnecessary and Linux installation has never been problematic
under any circumstances? Talk about a brick...

>
>>Are you troglodytic to the many
>>warnings in these newsgroups that HD partitioning software that comes
>>with the Professional distro is less than perfect?
>>
>
>
> I know that there was an error in parted. It is long corrected
>

So SuSE just likes to put warnings about backing up WinXP because they
make more money using more ink and paper, and simply wanted to write
something pertinent or not?

>
>>>>My old system had a Sound Blaster card but because it was
>>>>ISA could not be installed in my new computer. The new computer had
>>>>onboard sound -- A97C Via chipset. It took three installs before I got
>>>>the sound card working, and to-date I can give no reason why it didn't
>>>>take the first several times.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Oh, these oh so complicated VIA sound chips...
>>>I have such a thingy in on of my computers, and it was detected and setup
>>>correctly in *every* SuSE I have thrown at it, be it 8.2, 9.0 or 9.1
>>>
>>
>>Judging from the many, many posts in various newsgroups and forums,
>>yours is not the common experience.
>
>
> Well, yours much less.
>
>
>>Everything always works perfectly
>>for you no matter what the hardware, or what the Linux distribution.
>
>
> Oh no, not everything works perfectly. Just my computers and the peripherals
> do, since for the peripherals I tend to do some google search before
> buying.
> For computers this has proved to be not necessary, except certain Dell or HP
> models. I don't buy these anyway, so it does not apply to me
>
>

You judge everyone else's experience from your own, then call them
flatfish, trolls and liars if it differs from yours. And now you are
backtracking by admitting SOME Dells and HPs have problems in
contradiction to your earlier statement the Linux has no problems.

>>I don't believe you.
>
>
> I don't care.
>

Typical response for a fabulist.

>
>>Not a single reincarnation of Windows can make that
>>claim.
>>
>
>
> I know, since I have nearly every incarnation of windows around. Why do you
> think I need that many computers? I develop software, and part of it is for
> windows.
>
>
>>>>Second surprise was that the DVD CDR/+RW would not play DVD movies.
>>>>Searching Google lead to an explanation about licensing (which NONE of
>>>>the Windows applications seemed to have) and a shopping list full of
>>>>additional programs and libraries one must install to make it work (not
>>>>a high priority but frustrating nonetheless).
>>>
>>>
>>>May I suggest you tell us what DVD play in Win-XP out of the box?
>>>Is it about the same or even less than in SuSE? Why do you complain about
>>>a situation when bashing linux, but don't do when talking about windows?
>>>Truth is, you *can't* play DVDs in Win-XP out of the box, without
>>>additional codecs.
>>>
>>
>>You are simply WRONG.
>
>
> No, I am not. XP as supplied by MS has *no* codecs to play DVDs.
> Believe it or not
>
>
>>My HP Pavilion a720n with the Philips DVD8421
>>played Pirates of the Caribbean within ten minutes of turning on the
>>computer for the first time with no additional software or upgrades
>>necessary, i.e. right out of the box.
>
>
> Meaningless. The OEM (in this case HP) already supplied the DVD player
> software and codecs. Again, a XP bought in the shop is unable to play DVDs,
> in just the same sense as SuSE is.
>

Backtracking again.

>
>>The SuSE website itself has a
>>bulletin concerning the copyright infringement when discussing Xine and
>> Kaffeine. Apparently either Microsoft or HP sees no copyright
>>infringements.
>>
>
>
> Oh, they don't, since they supply the (licensed) codecs. It still does not
> change the fact that XP (or any other windows) out of the box will not play
> your precious DVDs
>

You are contradicting yourself. First you say the computer can play the
DVD then you backtrack by saying the licensed codexes are supplied. For
those buying a new computer utilizing that feature, switching to another
operating system and having that feature unavailable is ungratifying. If
HP or the various DVD devices can bundle the proper codexes, why can't
SuSE?

>
>>>>The CD player (DVD too)
>>>>has no audio. Apparently a sound cable is necessary.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it is not, modules for digital audio via IDE bus exist. Although it
>>>is better to use a cable. It is simply wasteful to spend system resources
>>>like processor time and bus bandwith for such frivolous things like
>>>*playing* audio that way. And ripping works with or without that cable
>>>
>>
>>Be that as it may, they were NOT loaded during the installation of SuSE,
>>and I still have no digital audio.
>
>
> Too bad for you
>

Typical response for a fabulist. Why not admit you do not know the answer?

>
>>This can be very disconcerting to
>>one first introduced to Linux, especially if fearful of opening the
>>computer case and installing a cable. You might notice that is one of
>>the more prominent fixes suggested on these newsgroups.
>
>
> For good reason. It is wasteful to do digital play. You may that do in a
> Toys-R-Us-OS like windows
>
>

And who are you to determine what another should do with their computer.
  If Linux distributors want to reach the same population as Microsoft
does, they they will have to supply the same operability. It is so
wonderfully elitist of you to determine what is wasteful. Playing audio
CD is wasteful but Moon Eyes and all those hundreds upon hundreds of
Linux games are not?

>>Do you have
>>anything helpful to suggest as to what particular modules one might load
>>to obtain sound for the CD, or do you forever wax brilliant with your
>>undivulged arcana?
>
>
> Your wording indicates that you do not really want an answer, right?
>

Typical response of a quacksalver. If you actually knew the answer you
would answer it instead of answering a question with a question.

>
>>>>The manuals
>>>>accompanying the HP a720n show no sound connection on the motherboard
>>>>although a visual inspection might evidence one. But I doubt there are
>>>>two such connectors, so how would one get sound on both the CD and DVD?
>>>> Incidentally I did try the fix in XMMS to enable digital sound which
>>>>had no effect.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It had no effect for *you*
>>>Which in itself simply says nothing.
>>
>>Does it say something for the 67,000 posts others have made on the very
>>problem which are found through a Google search?
>>
>
>
> Show me the google search string
>

Do you deny others (many of them) have problems with sound?

>
>>>< snip more bull*** from some clueless wintendo luser >
>>
>>Had you done less snipping and more reading, perhaps you might have
>>actually been able to volunteer concrete suggestions instead of your
>>usual diatribe.
>
>
> No

In other words you really didn't know the answers or solutions.
>
>
>>Have you ever contributed anything of value to these
>>Linux newsgroups?
>
>
> It is not difficult to do a search. Try it. You might be surprised
>
>
>>If so I haven't seen one yet.
>
>
> Well, you did not take too good a look
>

I did. You only have a posting history of two years. Out of 1000 posts
you only answered a question 5 times. Not significant compared to the
800 plus times you insulted someone without giving any answer. If
counting cross posting that number exceeds 10,000.

>
>>The "bull***" happened
>>to be specific real problems with a specific manufacturer's product,
>
>
> Really?
>

Is that "really" a question, or are you trying to dazzle us with
brilliant reprotoire?

>
>>mentioned to demonstrate that not every computer system is unproblematic
>>as you so illustriously seem to suggest.
>
>
> Well, you certainly /can/ get a problematic one if dilligent enough. Try
> some google, and you will be able to come up with a system which can prove
> problematic. You have to work at it, though
>
>
>>What is a wintendo luser?
>
>
> Oh, lack of imagination?
>
>
>>Is that a pet phrase you use for everyone you encounter who might disagree
>>with you?
>>
>
>
> No. It is the (very apt) description of someone with a windows mindset
> unwilling to do a little thinking ahead of rushing into the shop
> Those tend to buy win-thingies which will not even be supported in the next
> windows release and have to be thrown away to be replaced by the next
> toy-hardware
>
> < snip >
For one who has been in computers as long you claim, you have a posting
history of barely two years during which time you posted approximately
1000 articles (16,000 counting the cross posting).

Of those 1000 articles you actually gave useful suggestions 5 times. In
a total of ONE THOUSAND POSTS you only helped someone with a problem
FIVE times. There were somewhat over 800 articles wherein you led an
onslaught of ad hominem and name calling when someone disagreed with you.

You claim to know the solutions to the problems I encountered yet gave
no indication that you did. One can also see you backtracked frequently
in this discussion. You went from stating that practically any Linux
will work with any peripheral in any new computer right from the box
problem free to admitting that one can be and in fact is an idiot if
they choose a computer (namely some Dells and HPs) that won't.

You adamantly averred that no computer will run DVD movies right out of
the box without downloading the proper codexes and then retracted that
with admitting that one's computer might indeed work that way.