Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 08:56:36 08/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2004 at 14:56:08, Matthew Hull wrote: >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. IBM has started to promote this thin client approach. Christophe > > >> >> >> >> 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.