Author: José Carlos
Date: 12:52:00 08/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2004 at 13:31:15, Christophe Theron wrote: >On August 11, 2004 at 14:53:09, José Carlos wrote: > >>On August 11, 2004 at 11:05:14, Matthew Hull 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. >>> >>> >>> >>>MS products have single-handedly transformed a famous quotation and given >>>mankind's guilt complex a reprieve, for now we accept that which should never >>>have been true, that "to err is computer". >>> >>>The NT based systems are stable, no question. That acheivement is undone >>>however, by the MS network model. If the the "mother-hen" servers get wacky, >>>then my really stable XP workstation becomes a useless, aggravating piece of >>>trash. Apparently, opening a simple command window requires some kind of "by >>>your leave" from a mothership out in the twilight zone. This simple operation >>>can take up to a minute to accomplish. >>> >>>So I simply close the lid on the useless (yet stable) XP laptop, swivel my chair >>>around and continue working on my Linux workstation. It never fails me. Never. >> >> I only meant it's a tradeoff, no intention to defend windows. >> Given the performance of my workstations _and win2k servers_ and network, I >>can't think of a way to convince my boss that we should better intall linux >>workstations (note that I have some linux servers because the provide better >>functionality in some areas). My users are happy with their computers doing so >>many things for them. I just can't offer them the same in a linux workstation. >>So for some things, windows is simply a better choice. Only for _some things_. >>That's the whole point. I think Chrstophe made a mistake considering windows >>users stupid or something like that. I only wanted to show that things are not >>black or white, most of the time, they're grey. >> >> José C. > > > >Can you tell me where exactly I said that Windows users were stupid? > > > > Christophe Your jokes about consuming cocaine, for example? José C.
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.