Re: M$ attack on Common Sense

From: Leythos (void_at_nowhere.com)
Date: 09/14/03 

Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2003 01:50:20 GMT

In article <79d0kb.q6p.ln@host.newsservicer.org>, sm@kcsmartNOSPAM.org
says...
> As Leythos so eloquently gibbered on Sat, 13 Sep 2003 at 23:33 GMT:
>
> > Linux is not a typical home user OS, it's about impossible for any
> > typical, non-technical type, to install on their computer - esp. if they
> > have to download and compile the source (which you would want to review
> > before you compiled it right?).
>
> Right there is another point where lack of understanding is rampant.
>
> I've used linux for several years, at home, as my main desktop, and I
> only started dealing with the server stuff later. Not once, never, not
> at all, have I *ever* had to compile everything to get a desktop
> machine. Period.
>
> Not once have I *ever* needed to check the source to see if it was
> safe. Instead I've been able to download the ISOs from trusted sources,
> check against the MD5SUMs to be sure they're safe, burn them, plug them

Just because it has a MD5 checksum does not mean that it's safe - you
have no idea if you don't review the source - and you've been blowing
about usenet posting about how great OS is since it's sooo open to
review. How can you trust them if you don't check them out first?

> in and install. Usually a few questions, a run to the corner grocery or
> a shower, and I come back to a machine ready to reboot into a fully
> operational and stable desktop.

I seem to recall having to compile a great many things when D/L the
linux distro's that we used a year ago. Even compiled the apps that came
with it. As I recall, it was not something that even our Linux guru's
were happy with. I can also recall that it was a pain to get it working
in a Windows environment and that it took the better part of a day to
get it all up and running in the mixed environment.

> More than that, I've installed things with much less of a problem than
> I've ever had with Winders. I've only had to download a separate driver
> once. Except for that one time, at the end of the installation I had my
> video settings working properly, printer working, sound working, NICs
> working, all external drives working (SCSI, USB, IDE, etc), all except
> a scanner: I always have to set that up separately. The one time I had
> to download a driver was for a lexmark printer.

I guess you've never installed Windows 2000 or Windows XP Professional
or Windows 2000 Server, cause I do it all the time, and other than
having to put the CD in with the drivers for special hardware there is
very little to it - oh, and it comes up without a problem too.

> Contrast that with every install I've done with a retail version of M$
> products. Not once has any of those booted into a properly working
> desktop that had even most things working correctly. Each and every one
> required me to install separate drivers (along with reboots for most),
> one at a time, and, in most instances, configure them for proper
> operation, all after installation was "complete".

Contrast that with my neighbor - a 37 Y/O housewife that doesn't
understand how to plug in a USB printer - has no clue as to anything
with a technical nature. I gave her a computer yesterday with nothing on
it (virgin hard drive), gave her the XP Prof CD, and an Office XP Prof
CD and in 1 hour I came back and it was all running, and she could use
it to get to the internet, access files from the other computer (after I
told her how to open network neighborhood), and all the things you found
sooo hard to do.

If I were to D/L the Lindows distro it might be as easy for her, but
there is no MS Office for it. If I were to hand her the CD's for Linux,
after we downloaded and burned them to CD, she "might" have been able to
install it, but then her software would not work on it (kids games,
Office XP, etc...)

> You really should check your facts just a bit before finding yourself
> lost in a sea of gibberish. Whether you pretend to know something you
> don't, or you're deliberately misleading things, the above, as put
> forth by you, is pure voodoo nonsense.

It really seem as though you are the one posting nonsense - I'm posting
from real world experience with thousands of workstation and hundreds of
servers (all OS's) under my belt, not to mention supporting my family
and friends on all their OS's. It sounds like you really should get some
experience with products newer than 98 or ME. 

-- 
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Relevant Pages

  • Re: [SLE] Mplayer, rpms for SuSE?
    ... to compile" then understand Linux will remain right where it is and we'll all ... are not "compile or not compile" issues. ... if you want to hand install ... That comes from the frustration of some of us ...
    (SuSE)
  • Re: Linux, The Great Time Waster!!
    ... > were not recognized by the install program. ... > that Linux with kernel 2.6 is supposed to support but I see no way to ... I do even more research and see on the kernel mailing ... > list that I must compile the kernel and turn on something called ...
    (alt.os.linux.suse)
  • Re: Linux, The Great Time Waster!!
    ... > were not recognized by the install program. ... > that Linux with kernel 2.6 is supposed to support but I see no way to ... I do even more research and see on the kernel mailing ... > list that I must compile the kernel and turn on something called ...
    (alt.os.linux)
  • Re: Video editing in Linux?
    ... >>than just decide who gets a login and who is allowed to install software. ... > Hah, you've obviously not used 2000 or XP then, linux offers nothing ... you do never have to compile any program at all, even less the kernel. ...
    (alt.linux)
  • Re: New Linux Distro Project - Anyone Interested????
    ... >> And they will be available, but not with the distro... ... Most linux distros do seem to come with about a million ways ... Hey Mom, before you run it though, you'll have to compile ... but don't install it by default. ...
    (alt.os.linux)