life after Windows....

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 13:35:28 +0000, William Black wroteÂ*:

"White Spirit" wrote in message
...

He couldn't get it to play WAVs and MP3s? What's the matter with him?

They're both proprietary formats. You won't get players with the distro
if it's strictly Open Source

Probably couldn't work out how to run the download...

There is strictly no problem playing wav and mp3 with Ubuntu standard
utilities. Ubuntu is not restricted to open source software. You can
check the universe and multiverse repositories in the synaptic software
manager (25000 software packets) and easily get a packet with the
proprietary codecs, that will play nearly everything you want.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:53:17 +0100, Mxsmanic wroteÂ*:

Sam O'Var writes:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...h/features/is-
there-life-after-windows-1653198.html

Unless dramatic changes occur in the world of Linux, it will never be a
significant threat to Windows or a serious option for the vast majority
of computer users.
Yes probably not. They bought Microsoft XP with their computer and will
stay with it.


Linux is fine for geeks who do not actually do work with their
computers, as they can afford to fiddle with the OS endlessly--they have
nothing else to do. And people who use their computers for only one or
two things, such as surfing the Web and reading e-mail, may find Linux
acceptable. But for everyone else, it's just not a solution.
Was true 8 year ago. Some notebooks like Asus eee come with Linux
installed. Users keep it too, work with it, surf, watch videos and listen
music.


Linux is not really moving in the right direction to change this, and
some fundamental problems with Linux will prevent it from doing so. For
example, Windows includes components licensed from other companies that
are not free; Linux can never include these components unless it also
includes a licensing fee for them, and then it won't be free any more
(and it will become a lot more complicated if it goes that route).
That's one reason why the musician might not be able to find all the
codecs he needs.
I have very few problems with codecs.
When an XP user I had to reinstall it from time to time and lost many
data. Since I use Ubuntu/Linux I no longer had to reinstall.
Another problem with XP was that it was each day longer to startup,
taking 5 to 10 minutes to be fully operating after 2 years of use. There
is no such problem with Linux, 1 minute and everything is up and running.


Of course, if you start paying for Linux, most of its advantages over
Windows evaporate. It is not more stable or secure, despite claims
along those lines. The vast number of "distributions" are actually
different operating systems, that share only a small core of common code
that isn't enough to ensure stability or security itself.

The major advantage is that when you use XP or Vista you quickly switch
your profile to a privilege user not to be bothered, and you do all your
activities as a privilege user. In linux, you generally do everything you
want as a non privilege user, so the core of your system is really
protected against a lot of viruses and malware.


There are just many, many problems with Linux. I'd welcome a drop-in
replacement for Windows that could effectively provide some degree of
competition, but Linux isn't it, and the way things are going, it never
will be.

William Black wrote:
"Lou Ravi" wrote in message
...
William Black wrote:

So.

What do you run on your server?

I don't have a server nor do the vast majority of computer users.

So what do you back up to?

An external disk

"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:06:52 -0000, "William Black"
wrote:


"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
. ..
William Black writes:

Right now I'm running two computers, Ubuntu on the new one and W98 SP2
on
an elderly Dell, with a KVM switch and a teeny weenie Samba server
running
2x 500Gig disks in RAID 1 for backup storage.

Windows 98 is a completely different operating system from Windows XP.

Sorry, XP.

Who cares, it's all crap.

It isn't all crap. W98 is from a decade ago.
WinXP and NT are totally different products.
I've used WinXP since 2002 and never had a crash.

I wish.

I've had a vanilla Dell desk-top running XP since about 2006 and I've lost
count of the reinstalls I've had to do.

At least half a dozen so far.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 22:00:46 +0000, aracari wrote:

CP/M cannot be compared with Linux any more than DOS can be.
I speak as a 4DOS lover...but...
Once you create a GUI, you essentially create a new op/sys.

Since when has Linux been a GUI? Get those books out aracari/hummyhomo...

--
web site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - news comment service, logic,
economics, energy, education, politics, etc .... no tits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the working class [] don't feed the squirrels
can kiss my arse [] I mean the tories
i've got the foreman's job at last [] never trust a man with a wig
only when it's money -- i chav made good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

tim..... wrote:

But only if the geeks accept that the MUST be plug and play for absolutely
everything that a normal domestic user might reasonably want to do.

They don't seem to be so minded.

Microsoft benefits from there being relatively few different versions of
Windows. Microsoft also spends a tremendous amount of money and effort
on enforcing hardware compatibility standards and certifying drivers. It
can be a real PITA for hardware manufacturers, but it ends up benefiting
the end user (usually). At one time when Microsoft was setting minimum
standards for hardware they also tried to forbid certain legacy ports
from being included on future hardware because they didn't want to
support them any more, i.e. PS/2, IEEE 1284, RS-232, but the hardware
vendors stopped this nonsense.

Unless there is a convergence of all the different versions of Linux,
with applications and hardware being as easy to install as in Windows or
OS-X, it will remain an OS mainly for servers.

On Mar 26, 11:38*am, SMS wrote:
tim..... wrote:
But only if the geeks accept that the MUST be plug and play for absolutely
everything that a normal domestic user might reasonably want to do.

They don't seem to be so minded.

Microsoft benefits from there being relatively few different versions of
Windows. Microsoft also spends a tremendous amount of money and effort
on enforcing hardware compatibility standards and certifying drivers. It
can be a real PITA for hardware manufacturers, but it ends up benefiting
the end user (usually). At one time when Microsoft was setting minimum
standards for hardware they also tried to forbid certain legacy ports
from being included on future hardware because they didn't want to
support them any more, i.e. PS/2, IEEE 1284, RS-232, but the hardware
vendors stopped this nonsense.

Unless there is a convergence of all the different versions of Linux,
with applications and hardware being as easy to install as in Windows or
* *OS-X, it will remain an OS mainly for servers.

http://www.ebuyer.com/search?limit=5... arity&page=1

White Spirit wrote:
Doug Jewell wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, and have it as a 2nd boot option on
all my PC's, but it is not a "97% of users" type OS. For starters 97%
of users expect to be able to just plug and play - they expect to be
able to go to the shop and buy a new game, family history program,
photo editing program, printer, scanner, webcam, etc and have it JUST
WORK. Windows does this very well. 99% of software you put the disk in
and it works. A fair portion of hardware works out of the box, and the
remainder you put the disk in and away you go.

Linux however does this very poorly. The first limitation with
software is the range available. Lets take just one category - photo
editing. Windows you have the industry standard - photoshop. You also
have dozens of other choices from publishers such as Corel, Magix, and
more, and every conceivable price point from tens of dollars to
thousands of dollars. Linux you have GIMP. Sure it is free but it also
has a dreadful UI. Put a beginner in front of photoshop elements and
they'll have meaningful results fairly quickly. Put someone in front
of GIMP, and even if they have a reasonable amount of experience
they'll struggle with the UI.

If hardware and software is not compatible, it is not the fault of the
operating system. It is because developers/manufacturers do not support
it. Windows actually does not support software and hardware very well;
speaking as a software developer, I would say that it actually does it
quite poorly. The difference, which you have missed, is that developers
and manufacturers happen to support Windows very well. Think about it.

No it's not the fault of the operating system, but for an OS
to be useful, there must be a sufficient amount of hardware
and software that is compatible with the OS. You might come
up with a technically perfect OS, but if there is no
application software available for it, the OS is as useless
as tits on a bull.
So until enough developers (software and hardware) start
developing for Linux, it will not be suitable for mainstream
use.
And actually, part of the problem is the fault of the OS.
For example there is no single standardised installation
procedure for Linux. There is no single standardised CD
autorun feature. There is no single standardised directory
structure. There is no single standardised configuration
store like the registry. There is no single standardised
sound architecture. There is no single standardised GUI.
There is no single standardised API. These are all
complications which make targetting Linux more complex, and
presenting a good UI to the user more complex. Developing
for Windows, while at times quirky, is at least consistent.
Develop to the API's guidelines, and you know your program
will run on pretty much every Windows machine there is.

--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?

White Spirit wrote:
Doug Jewell wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I like Linux, and have it as a 2nd boot option on
all my PC's, but it is not a "97% of users" type OS. For starters 97%
of users expect to be able to just plug and play - they expect to be
able to go to the shop and buy a new game, family history program,
photo editing program, printer, scanner, webcam, etc and have it JUST
WORK. Windows does this very well. 99% of software you put the disk in
and it works. A fair portion of hardware works out of the box, and the
remainder you put the disk in and away you go.

Linux however does this very poorly. The first limitation with
software is the range available. Lets take just one category - photo
editing. Windows you have the industry standard - photoshop. You also
have dozens of other choices from publishers such as Corel, Magix, and
more, and every conceivable price point from tens of dollars to
thousands of dollars. Linux you have GIMP. Sure it is free but it also
has a dreadful UI. Put a beginner in front of photoshop elements and
they'll have meaningful results fairly quickly. Put someone in front
of GIMP, and even if they have a reasonable amount of experience
they'll struggle with the UI.

If hardware and software is not compatible, it is not the fault of the
operating system. It is because developers/manufacturers do not support
it. Windows actually does not support software and hardware very well;
speaking as a software developer, I would say that it actually does it
quite poorly. The difference, which you have missed, is that developers
and manufacturers happen to support Windows very well. Think about it.

And one more thing - while the level of hardware support may
be because external developers haven't targetted linux, that
has nothing to do with the fact that adding drivers to the
system is a mess. In some cases you have to do a complete
reinstall to get it to detect hardware changes. In some
cases you have to recompile the kernel to install some
hardware devices, and in many cases you have to manually
configure text files or run commands from the command line
to get drivers to install. The lack of a simple to use
interface for users to install and configure device drivers
is a big limitation to Linux.
Many similar issues arise when installing software too.

--
Have you ever noticed that all legal documents need to be
completed in black or blue pen, but we vote in pencil?

On Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:01:46 +0000, aracari wrote:

'Mxsmanic' wrote this:

aracari writes:

That depends on whether developers get their act together and
bring it to prime time.

That will never happen. If it were going to happen, it would have already
done so.

I don't agree. It has taken MS since the halcyon days in mid
1980s to arrive at XP. Too bad they lost the plot after that...

Idiot, in the real world, smart people are using Vista getting ready for
Windows 7, using 64 bit OS's, Linux has been prime time in the server and
embedded markets for years. The BSD's are very important because of their
stability and non restrictive licensing.

Horse's for courses, there is only one OS that competes with Windows on the
Desktop. MAC. It's subsystem is based on............... BSD

Wake up and stop waffling, get your head out of your arse, the future is
already here.


It has the potential to become a serious alternative to Windows.

See above.

see above

see above

--
web site at http://www.bbc.co.uk/ - news comment service, logic,
economics, energy, education, politics, etc .... no tits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the working class [] don't feed the squirrels
can kiss my arse [] I mean the tories
i've got the foreman's job at last [] never trust a man with a wig
only when it's money -- i chav made good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------