Re: Viva Linux


OK. Let's pick this apart bit by bit:

The moronic FJG wrote:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ C.O.L.A. Newcomer FAQ and Primer +
+ Edition: 11 - 1/19/07 +
+ Group: comp.os.linux.advocacy +
+ +
+ Copyright (c) 2002-2007 Linux Reality Team +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Welcome to comp.os.linux.advocacy, otherwise known as cola.

Firstly, you're posting to the /wrong/ /newsgroup./

This
FAQ will try to address most of the issues regarding Linux and
this group. Unlike the other FAQs, this one will try to be as
realistic as possible.

A brief correction - it should read "as biased and inaccurate as possible".

If you want the straight information from
real people, continue reading.

*No* - it's biased rubbish claiming to be representative.

If you would like to be told what
you want to hear, or read a bunch of misinformation that you will
regret later as you find things don't work as they should, feel free
to read one of the other "FAQS" in here.

You'd do better reading /any/ other FAQ rather than this moronic drivel.

OK, on to the info! ADDED NEW SECTION BELOW!

Here's a list of some frequently asked and answered question here
and elsewhere that you may find useful in your quest to try linux.
Read these carefully before you decide to invest time in Linux, you
may find that you have better things you can do instead.

SECTION ONE - INSTALLATION
--------------------------

1.1 Q: I heard linux was easy to install, is it?
A: That depends on what distro you try.

*BZZT!* Wrong. /Any/ modern mainstream Linux distro is easier to install
than /any/ version of Windows. You conveniently forget that the vast
majority of drooling Windows "users" have never actually installed an
operating system - they think it "came free" with their computers.

Most of them will have trouble detecting all your hardware.

Get out of your cave and take a /real/ look - modern distros detect /and/
correctly configure /all/ the possible hardware you'll ever find with the
minor exception of Canon printers (which don't even work properly with
their own /Windows/ drivers) and one or two obscure "Winmodems". Wireless
hardware is now handled flawlessly (unlike under Windows).

Most new hardware devices are not supported.

/Entirely/ wrong. A modern Linux distro will handle /more/ possible
hardware than Windows does - straight out of the box - without searching
for those obscure "driver disks" that require endless reboots to install
and then don't work properly - "we'll fix it in the next version".

If your lucky you might be able to find something that someone threw
together on the net.

Are you illiterate as well as stupid? You mean "you're" - but you wouldn't
know or understand the difference.

But that's
after spending a couple hours searching and probably won't take
advantage of your hardware to it's fullest capability.

*BZZT!* Wrong again. Modern Linux hardware drivers invariably outperform
their Windows "equivalents".

1.2 Q: Once I get it installed, then what?
A: Then you get the joy of making sure everything is configured
right. Plan on a minimum of two hours per device to get it to
work. That's if the device is even supported.

*BZZT!* Wrong yet again. Install Ubuntu on my IBM R51 laptop: 20 minutes,
and /everything/ works including the wireless connectivity and Bluetooth.
It is /very/ fast and has a proper 3D desktop, and a comprehensive suite of
high quality software.

Try to install Windows XP on the same hardware - 65 minutes for the base
install, then several hours of repeated reboots as each driver is added
manually. Once all the IRQ conflicts are resolved and the hardware stops
spontaneously crashing, you have a really slow "operating system" with a
non-standard web browser, an unstable and insecure e-mail client, "notepad"
and some silly card games. It's a pretty poor deal. You then have the
expense of obtaining and the time consuming grief of installing "Office",
and you /still/ come nowhere near the functionality of a basic Ubuntu
install.

1.3 Q: What happens if I'm in the middle of an install and the
installation freezes or just stops?
A: You get to reboot and start all over again. :) This happens
every so often with Linux. It seems like it's buggy install
routines or something. Ain't Linux grand? :)

A basic Windows install will require /dozens/ of reboots, and their
installer doesn't handle modern large hard drives. Talk about buggy
installers. Windows also corrupts the MBR on the disk it's installed to,
and cannot be installed wherever you want - it has to be the first
partition of the first hard drive.

1.4 Q: What's the deal?! I installed Linux and it took up almost 2GB
hard drive space!

Windows XP clocks in at just over 1 Gb /without/ any applications! Vista is
over 4 Gb without applications.

A: The Linux distros usually install a LOT of never-used programs
on the default install.

Not in a modern distro.

You can pick and choose what you want,
but good luck figuring out what programs are needed and what is
useless, obscure tools.

Linux users aren't /point-n-click-n-drool/ morons like the Windows lot, and
tend to /read/ a little about what they're installing...


2.1 Q: What's with all these cryptic files?
A: All of Linux is configured with cryptic text files.

Windows is configured by the "registry" - a fundamentally flawed, unstable
database that's illegible to most readers. If the average Windows "user"
changes /anything/ within the Registry, the system's toast and will require
the whole install, reboot, install, reboot time wasting bull*** that they
had to do when the base install from PC World crashes after three months'
"use".

Some of
the more user-friendly distros have configuration utilities
that claim to do it for you, but success with these works
sometimes and other times don't, so sometimes you have to
edit them by hand. With Linux's spotty reliability in UI
programming, you might as well get used to it.

Unlike in Windows, where you get what you're given and have no choice
whatsoever in the way it looks or works.

Modern Linux distros have superb, easy-to-use GUI configuration tools that
far outperform /anything/ that can be done by the Windows "Control Panel".

2.2 Q: What is killall, HUP, ls, cat, rm, which, etc and why are
these programs telling me to do them? Arggg!!
A: These are command line programs that do things within the
system.

These commands are also copied (badly) in Windows, and if you're any kind of
Windows "power user", you'll need to learn /lots/ more non-standard,
command-line drivel.

It's what makes Linux a powerful OS for those that
are experienced with it.

More powerful than a Windows "user" could ever dream about.

But it's also what makes it a pain
in the arse to use and inefficient as a desktop system. Who
wants to type all the time when they can just click?!

Try configuring a network in Windows. The /point-n-click-n-drool/ "tools"
that Windows provides *don't* *work* - you have to resort to the command
line. Where's your GUI tool for "ping" or "ifconfig", and why don't you
have /real/ network tools like netstat and finger?

3.1 Q: Where can I get some programs to run on linux?
A: Good question. Because Linux doesn't have a large user base
on the desktop,(I think it's about 0.24%, less than 1%)

You're /wildly/ wrong. Your figures /might/ be close to true in the
slack-jawed USA, but in the rest of the world (the nicer bit, without Bush
and Cheney) Windows is often a /minority/ operating system. You also
conveniently forget that the entire Internet is based on Unix, and well
over 90% of the webservers on the planet /don't/ "run" Windows. Windows is
just a poor, insecure, unreliable, expensive proprietary client for a *nix
world.

companies that make software won't write their programs for
Linux.

That's changing daily. All the /better/ software companies are now writing
applications for operating systems /other/ than Windows. There's no money
in writing and support Windows business applications anymore - the support
a company has to provide because of the flaws in Windows makes it largely
uneconomical.

There's a lot of community created programs out there,
and some are fairly good, but those are few and far between.
Most of the Linux software that tries to mimic it's windows
counterpart is substandard. It's usually slow and buggy and
early in development.

You're /many/ years behind the times - but that suits your purpose.

3.2 Q: I tried to install an RPM but I got 'failed dependencies', what
is that?
A: That's Linux's version of DLL hell. Different versions and
distros use different libraries. So unlike windows where
programs will run on many different versions, Linux programs
will fail if they're not made for your specific version.

*BZZT!* Wrong again. Microsoft are continually embarrassed when their
"security" updates break programs that users have bought.

3.3 Q: What is compiling and configure, make and make install? And
what is a makefile?
A: This is a way to build the programs from the source code
under Linux.

Funny that you can't do any of that under Windows - even if you wanted to.

3.4 Q: Can I go to my local store to buy any Linux applications?

Yes. But not in the slack-jawed regions like the USA.


4.1 Q: Why is Linux so slow?
A: Linux is built on the technology of the old UNIX OS's. Even
the graphical user interface of Linux is a separate program
that
is the same type they used back in the older UNIX days.

*BZZT!* Wrong. Windows is, of course, "built" on top of a command-line
"operating system" (DOS), and suffers from the incredible inefficiency of
command interpretation at runtime. And don't claim that the NT kernel
hasn't got DOS at its core - *it* *has* - I've had access to the kernel
code (some of it is even written in BASIC for f*cks sake).

/Any/ Linux installation will be faster than Windows on the same hardware.
Fact.

I've had enough of refuting this drivel. Perhaps you should just run along
now and update your virus definitions or something...

C.
.