Re: I just want to browse my network!

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 17:50:45 -0400, "jim" <jim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

NOTE: After almost finishing writing this message I decided to google and with
ONE search and TWO links found guide on EXACTLY what you want - it's in the
end of mesage - no configuration file editing needed.

With Windows, you just get in a drive. With Linux, you have to assemble
the transmission, run all over town finding parts for the air
conditioning, radio, etc..

Wrong. With Windoze you get "Notepad", a crippled web browser and that's
about it. With any competent distribution of Linux, you get a /full/
complement of programmes.

I can't even browse shared folders on a network without writing out some
fucking config file for Samba! Who gives a *** what apps you have if you
can't i nteract with 95% of the civilized world.

Although I said that I dont know how to do them (I've never checked) I DO know
that I had a fucking graphical tool for configuring Samba already years ago on
my Red Hat 9, maybe even on Red Hat 7! You have not even TRIED to rheck the
basic manus, those setup tools were already back then installed automatically,
not afterwards by me (as I never needed nor used them).

MAYBE you should even try to look through the administration menu!?

Besides the point I dont know what is the big fuss on writing Samba
configuration file... but nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that Ubuntu for
example has such tool installed by default - if not then one can be installed
(dont know names for any as, again, neven have needed them myself).

With Windoze, you have to get all the obscure hardware drivers for your
equipment - you're /really/ screwed if you want to use "Vista" - there are
almost *no* drivers available for most hardware.

That was true when it first came out, but now most devices have Vista
drivers. Don;t get me wrong, there are other reasons not to use Vista - so
stick with XP.

What if I have, for example, a second video card, old PCI card I bought on 95
and that I use for my third monitor to get, hmmm... right, windows cant show
two different desktops at same time, but maybe it can use more than one vid
card... Anyway, there propably never was any XP driver made for it... But it
works on my linux which comes supporting it without installing extra drivers.
It's perfectly good enough for many things and for example in gaming I can use
the display on my modern card - hmm, if set up to use two cards with three
monitors, can I run 3d accelerated games on just the modern card even if
desktop is stretched on all three monitors (the old card does not even support
3d acceleration, but why would I buy new one, I dont need that for what I do
on third monitor and the old works fine?)

As far as big business is concerned, IBM is planning on dumping linux for
Macs.

Hahaha! Don't be so silly. IBM /sponsor/ Linux development, and
abhor /anything/ to do with Apple.

I don't believe it! I have actually found an elusive fucktard running loose
in the wild!

Yes, it's true, they use mac - to run OS X, Windows and... *drum roll*
....linux!

They did not dump Linux for macs, they dumped PC's for macs... Linux, unlike
windows, runs on hyge scale of different platforms but as macs are what they
are today they did not even switch processor architechture. If they need to
run these three OS's then the switch was reasoned as you cant legally run OS X
on non-apple computers.
*Nothing* to do with dumping linux, which was a false claim.

If you can be bothered to pull your head out of that penguin's ass for a
moment, you may want to read
http://www.tuaw.com/2008/04/16/ibm-considering-macs-for-employees/ and

No mention of Linux here, only Windows and OS X, however...

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2008/04/16/ibm-launches-pilot-program-for-migrating-to-macs/.

....I have no idea if you read those articles, but you need to read better...
Let me quote:
**** Start quote ****
A summary of the pilot program, detailed in a IBM document obtained by
RoughlyDrafted, revealed that IBM is actively working to move away from its
dependence upon Microsoft Windows and toward a heterogeneous cross-platform
future.
"In line with IBM's external strategy of offering a true 'Open Client' that
may be Windows, Linux or a Mac," the document noted, "Research IS is focusing
on providing an IBM application stack on multiple Operating Systems, rather
than be confined to one or the other."
**** End quote ****

So the thing that they are not dumping is not linux - not windows either, but
they are "dumping" dependence on windows... So how do you make it a loss for
linux out of these artiles? It's actually mostly negative for MS, which has
shown growing concern about Linux. Propably not so negative for apple, they
have their own loyal customer base based on very different things than windows
users (and macs can be used to legally run any/all of these three OS).

Get a clue. Mac OSX is based on BSD - /nothing/ to do with Linux - and is
a /very/ poor implementation. Apple made some really stupid decisions
which have rendered their operating system highly vulnerable and rather
unstable.

IBM doesn't think so. But, I'll bet you are years ahead of some little
company like IBM in researching Apple, aren't you?

The reasons were explained an above, quote from article you linked and which
proved your own claim wrong. If they want cross-development for platforms
including OS X then macs are not a choice but a must. You cant buy a license
for OS X separately and the license does not allow installing on PC (although
it's possible since macs use x86 processors now too).

Do you mean "gaping"? Can't see any. That's why 90% of web servers run
Linux. That's why major global corporations went with Linux. That's why
the governments of all the /growing/ economies in the world are using
Linux. That's why /sensible/ people all over the world use Linux.

When did "sensible" and big corporations and big government ever meet?

Sometimes - hove no statistics on how often versus how often not ;)

PCs are made to help people get more done. And. as insecure as Windows
definitely is, more people can get more done with that bloated, insecure
piece of *** than they can with Linux.

/Entirely/ wrong.

Dude, I live it.

So far you have told about trying couple distros, not "living it". I need to
use both but at home I use over 99% of time linux (100% concidering that I run
only win on virtual machine on top of running linux). I have lived it since
2002 and used windows since Win 3.0 on old 286. The only thing I ever have to
check is that hardware I buy is supported - and so far I had not found myself
havinc to choose more inferior product because something is not supported nor
to choose equivalent but more expensive product. Next addition to system will
be Hauppages digital TV card. I believe that the video player I have installed
already supports it too so there should be nothing to set up for viewing but
posibbly something for saving (although I thin mplayer/mencoder could well
have support for that too, at least it has an option to use saving to file as
"output device".

I live it. I love it. The reasons to stick with linux have been only growing,
zero reaons to other direction since 2002.

I will let you know how OpenSuse goes in a bit. I hope that their
dealings with Microsoft atleast lets them play well on the same network
together RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX.

It won't. It's not meant to!

Finally a little truth. Linux is not meant to work out of the box.

That is not what he said - he might be unpolite, but you are twisting his
words on this.

Different distros may have different purposes - there are some made specially
for one purpose (example one is for music producing with goal of everything
working out of the box - although not necessary for all other uses) and while
some distros are specifically made for those who like to build their systems
by hand almost totally (as hobby), most distros most certainly are made to
work as far as sensible "out of the box".

More deeply then again: What is the goal of linux? Nothing and everything - as
a kernel it can be used in almost anything controlled my microprocessor. I'll
let Locutus explain it if yau are interested (a bit out of topic):
What is the ultimate goal of linux:
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/linux/locutus/archives/what-is-the-ultimate-goal-of-linux-25291


Open Suse took 3.5 hours to install (because of all of the fking downloads
and patches) and then it crashed on restart.

I say that judging on your messages I have so far read you should try Ubuntu
again. While it's not my choice I would say that the distro to most propably
fullfill your needs is Ubuntu. And remember, there are tools to setup Samba
and it's not hard with them (easyer than setting up network adapter for static
IP on local network on Windows I bet, and would you call that hard?) - ubuntu
propably (I would bet) installs with such program by default (if not, ask a
name for good one, run synaptic packet manager and select it for install).

I preferred and on my 1st computer still have fedora but fell in love with
debian after installing it on this second (my main reason to try it was that I
had little experience of it, knew it was good and allowed to select a very
plain and small base install). Ubuntu is based on debian and although that
would not be MY choice (personal preferences) it's a very good distro and has
what you want as one of main goals (to "just work") with very strong emphasis.

HOW TO BROWSE FILES (Ubuntu):

I found uber simple guide for both sharing and browsing for other windows
shares. The link is in bottom, but essential parts for accessing shares I
paste here (if you want to share from linux, very easy on Ubuntu, all set up
done with graphical tools too.

1. Install smbfs package: Open terminal window and type
"sudo apt-get install smbfs". Your password will be asked. After install close
terminal window.

2. Network configuration: From the menus start "System -> Administration ->
Network".
In the "general" tab fill in options:
Host Settings
Hostname: <yourcomputer>
Domain name: <yourdomain>

Windows Networking
Tick Enable Windows networking
Description: <whateveryouwant>
Domain/Workgroup: <yourdomainorworkgroup>

3. Browsing SMB shares

Ubuntu and Gnome make it easy to access files on a Windows network share.

Open the Computer Menu, then click on "Network". You'll see a "Windows
network" icon, open it. The next window shows all the domains/workgroups found
in your network. Inside each domain/workgroup you get all the computers in it
(that is, those sharing something !). Double-click on a computer icon to
access its shares and files. Could it be easier ?

This information and info to set up samba server to also share from linux was
at:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/SettingUpSambaa

Now I did quite a job just to make it easy as possible for you, even cut&paste
all the essential info you have been asking for from guide. Can you still say
that it's too hard, needs assembly? Could it be easyer? Only if smbfs was
installed by default (I'm surprised it's not on Ubuntu) so you could drop step
1.

ONE SEARH ON GOOGLE - you were talking about gaping holes and everything?

Anyway, good luck and try a little harder next time ;) No offence meant by
that - remember, this guide is for ubuntu specifically. Other distros may have
minor differences, some may have large. Install Ubuntu, I recomment that
distro for your needs.

--
***/--- Sir Robin (aka Jani Saksa) Bi-Sex and proud of it! ---\***
**/ email: robsku@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, <*> Reg. Linux user #290577 \**
*| Me, Drugs, DooM, Photos, Writings... http://soul.fiveam.org/robsku |*
**\--- GSM/SMS: +358 44 927 3992 ---/**
"I like the trees, you know? I like the way that the trees are on mountains,
all the different... the way the trees are."
.

Quantcast