Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 11:56:08 08/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2004 at 13:37:37, Christophe Theron wrote: >On August 11, 2004 at 09:53:50, José Carlos wrote: > >>On August 10, 2004 at 23:53:09, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On August 10, 2004 at 16:39:29, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>>On August 10, 2004 at 01:17:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>> >>>>>On August 09, 2004 at 23:45:28, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Is it really necessary to insult people who have opinion different from yours? >>>>>> >>>>>>Thanks, >>>>>>Eugene >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Where is your sense of humour, Eugene? >>>>> >>>>>From time to time the 1% of Linux users I represent have a good laugh at the 95% >>>>>Windows users you represent. >>>>> >>>>>Is this 1% hurting you as much as it hurts Gates and Ballmer? ;-) >>>>> >>>>>I understand why THEY are worried. But you? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Christophe >>>> >>>>I guess if we really knew what was going on in the basements of most Linux >>>>users, it would be the Windows users who would have the final laugh. >>>> >>>>It is not the windows-bashing that can become annoying, it is the propaganda and >>>>the misleading information. >>>> >>>>My Windows PCs don't crash - never, and I have lots of them (only Fritz will at >>>>times). They were also pretty easy to install and setup. I admit that I am >>>>probably more knowledgeable than average PC users when it is about security and >>>>the like, but where is the fair comparison to the average Joe Linux user who >>>>somehow managed to install he OS, will of course be logged on as root, with no >>>>password, all network services running unpatched? Maybe he doesn't exist - OK, >>>>but then this only means that there just *is* no average Joe linux user. >>> >>> >>> >>>The average user will not install and configure the OS himself anyway. >>> >>>Let the average user do it with a Windows system and he ends up eaten alive by >>>viruses before the OS is fully installed and patched (it's not a joke, it's the >>>real, sad experience of using Windows today). >>> >>>Let the average user install a Linux system and he will probably manage to do >>>it, but several things will not work as they should (maybe the video driver will >>>not be optimized of the sound driver will not be installed). >>> >>>In both cases you need someone with some technical knowledge of the system. Not >>>necessarily an expert, just someone familiar with some common issues. >>> >>>There are many people out there making a living from that: installing, >>>configuring and maintaining Windows systems. If Windows was so easy to install >>>and manage, these people would have to find another job. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Whenever I talk with a happy Linux user with a mission I ask him a few basic >>>>questions on how he does this and that with his PC (concentrating on a few >>>>issues I had to face when I tried it myself). Once you show that you are not a >>>>complete ignoramus you will hear different stories - about the two weeks spent >>>>to get the video card running - the great features of the word processor ( once >>>>you studied the whole manual for a few weeks) etc. >>> >>> >>> >>>I think you are mainly talking about things of the past here. >>> >>>The real problem today is the lack of drivers for recent hardware in Linux. Most >>>hardware is fully supported, but the most recent devices sometimes are not >>>immediately supported. >>> >>>So if you have a Linux box you must be very careful when you purchase hardware. >>>That's a pain, I admit it. >>> >>>Now whose fault is it? Does it mean that Linux is inferior as an Operating >>>System? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>My favourite still is the one user who wanted to convince me that setting up >>>>Linux was way easier than Windows, though he unfortunately never got the sound >>>>to work ( mentioned much later in discussion ;) ) . >>>> >>>>While I used to do most of my work on Unix machines including years of system >>>>administration, and could probably go on for some time on things that are >>>>superior about it, I never felt fully prepared to deal with all this hazzle at >>>>home in my spare time, other than for the occasional experiment. >>>> >>>>Linux has obviously improved in recent years when it is about setup, and I toy >>>>with the idea to give it another try, but as long as the Linux users sound like >>>>missionaries, it is tough to trust them too much when it is about improvements >>>>made. I am still under the impression that everyone who really managed to reach >>>>a really workable system with Linux, is soo proud of himself and his >>>>intelligence, that he has to tell and pray to all the world :) >>> >>> >>> >>>What happened for me is that I have tried Linux three times in the past. The two >>>first attempts were disasters and I concluded that the system was not ready for >>>serious use. Yes, Linux was shit AT THAT TIME. >>> >>>My third attempt turned out to be completely different: I downloaded a 200Mb >>>distro (over a regular phone line thru a 56K modem!) and it worked like a charm. >>>I could really see all the work that had been done and that it had reached an >>>almost mature level (that was in mid-2002). >>> >>>In January 2003 I switched to Linux on my main computer (RedHat 8 at the time), >>>but considered it as an experiment (I had Windows ME in the other partition). >> >> Christophe, I'm no fan of Windows or Linux. I try to be objective. By that >>time you mention, or some months before I think, I was sick of win98 we were >>using in my company back then. I installed 3 computers at my table, one with >>winME, one with win2k and one with Red Hat. I tried to get them three doing the >>things my users needed everyday. WinMe crashed like a piece of shit, Red Hat was >>stable, but din't support all I needed. Win2k was surprisingly stable and gave >>me all the tools I needed. >> Time has changed and linux is much more powerful by now, but NT derived >>kernels are totally stable. This is a fact even Linux fans must admit. >> Security is a different issue. Win2k (and XP) can be as safe as Linux, though >>it demands some more work. I've been faced to security problems in my job and I >>know win2k _can_ be configured to be rock solid. >> If you compare security effort in win2k vs configuration effort in linux, I >>think they're more or less even. Linux is free, that's great. Windows is user >>friendly, that's also important, specially in a company with a bunch of users >>with no computer science knowledge at all. >> >> Just my 2 cents. >> >> José C. > > > >In a company with a bunch of users with no computer science knowledge you just >need one guy able to install and configure Linux. > >Once installed, all the users see is a GUI very similar to Windows, that is very >stable and offers all the office tools that you need. > >Users do not have to install and configure the OS and the applications >themselves. It's the job of the administrator. > >With Linux there are some nice tools that help the administrator's work. For >example you can install a Linux box with the set of packages of your choice, and >then redo the same installation on 100 others boxes almost automatically (with >very little manual intervention). All the installed computers will have the same >set of installed packages. > >You can also administrate the computers remotely, of course. > >From the user's point of view, it's a very friendly system with a >point-and-click interface. You can even make it look and feel exactly like >Windows if you do not want to scare your users! :) Even better, you can install all the applications on one beefy server machine (lots of RAM and disk), and the users can login with a minimal X station install. Their X stations (old PCs with minimal linux/X11 install) will never need upgrading after that (except for HW failures). Only the packages and HW on the big server need be upgraded ever again. Saves truckloads of $$. No more expensive PC refresh cycles to support multiple copies of expensive bloatware. Every company in the universe should be doing this -- NOW. > > > > Christophe > > > > > >>>It turned out I could do everything -or almost- in Linux. When there was >>>something I could not do with Linux, I managed to find alternatives (booting an >>>outdated version of Windows in another partition, or running this outdated >>>version of Windows inside Linux with an emulator like Win4lin or VMware). >>> >>>So I never switched to XP. I switched to Linux instead, and I am glad I did. >>> >>>Of course it's not perfect every day. But I have spent 15 years dealing with >>>problems caused by Windows and the fact that Microsoft has always placed market >>>lock-in over respect for their customers. Compared to that, the few problems I >>>have experienced with Linux are NOTHING. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Sorry for the OT, could't resist for unknown reasons. >>>>Peter
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.