Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:15:05 08/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2004 at 18:41:19, Sune Fischer wrote:
>On August 12, 2004 at 13:48:34, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On August 11, 2004 at 03:02:08, Sune Fischer wrote:
>>
>>>On August 10, 2004 at 23:53:09, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>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outdated version of Windows in another partition, or running this outdated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 in other words you can't live without windows entirely :)
>>>Actually, I'm not joking, I had much the same problem.
>>>
>>>I know it's possible to do practicly everything with linux, you just have to
>>>recompile the kernel, install patch number 307im3992slle, run ./configure, edit
>>>the makefile to suit your environment, login as root and copy the kernel image,
>>>reconfigure lilo and voila, it works without you "having to lift a finger".
>>
>>
>>No I'm sorry you are wrong.
>>
>>I *NEVER* recompile anything. I *NEVER* type "make install" or such things.
>>
>>I just look for rpm packages that are compiled for my distro, and I install
>>them. That's all.
>
>Al right, it's been a few years since I ran linux. I guess linux has almost
>reached the windows level of userfriendliness now. ;)
>
>Back then most of the programs I downloaded came only as source and you had to
>"make" it yourself.
>
>Very often it of course wouldn't compile without a lot of changes to the
>makefile.
>
>I remember a fractal program I tried to install as a regular user on a big
>server once
>I couldn't get it to work so I asked the admin. He came and used about half an
>hour, recompiling it several times, he had to install some additional libraries,
> make some changes to its source code and he wrote a ton of cryptic commands in
>the console.
>Finally it worked.
>
>I used it for about 5 minutes, it was a boring program.
>I did not dare to ask him remove it :)
>
>Just imagine, this super linux geek which was highly paid and in charge of 60
>linux machines needed half an hour to do something that simple.
>
>That was a bit of a turning point for me, since then I've resented linux a
>little bit.
>
>>I indeed had to reinstall a different version of the kernel in order to run
>>Win4lin. But it was really easy. I just downloaded a rpm package and installed
>>it.
>
>It's easy if you know how, but most don't without having to read through 25
>man-pages and ask a few questions on usenet.
>
>At least that's what consumed a lot of time for me, perhaps if I had known
>someone with a lot of experience that could have answered all my dumb questions.
>:)
Actually I would not have adopted Linux if the only way to install a program was
to download the source and run a compiler on it.
I have adopted it because I have been able to do almost everything without
compiling any package. I download and install binary packages all the time.
Actually so far there has been one exception: yesterday I have experimented with
an utility that allows to use a Windows hardware driver for Wifi cards. I have a
PCMCIA Wifi card for which no satisfying support in Linux exist at this time. It
turns out that it is possible to use the Windows XP driver for this card under
Linux with a special adapter (called ndiswrapper)!
So I have indeed been forced to type the infamous "make install" command,
followed by another command to point the adapter to the xxx.inf Windows file.
I have written a script to automate this, so if I had to install it on 100
computers it would be included in the Linux installation anyway.
>>I would not say that everything is always easy in Linux, but it would be unfair
>>to say that you spend all of your time downloading sources and recompiling bits
>>of your system all day long. It's not true anymore.
>>
>>You download packages (these can be new applications or updates) and you install
>>them. There are even applications that allow you to explore the content of
>>Internet "repositories" and to install these packages in just one click.
>
>If that's true then that's great, but as a windows user I would also expect no
>less.
>
>>
>>In Fedora that are wizards for network configuration.
>
>Just as long as it doesn't ask me for gateways and DNS entries, I prefer an
>autodetect option :)
>
>>
>>>I want to have an update button for automatic patching. I can't imagine having
>>>to spend time browsing through webpages to find new patches - this should be an
>>>integral part of the OS and happen as automaticly as possible.
>>
>>
>>
>>Most major distros offer it now.
>
>ok, sounds great.
>
>>>Finally, and this is really the biggie for me, lot of great software just
>>>doesn't exist on Linux, such as 3D studio max, Photoshop and (ugh) Chessbase.
>>
>>
>>You have great (free) equivalents for most (expensive) Windows applications.
>
>You also have many great free equivalents on windows for the more expensive
>software, just count the number of winboard engines :)
>
>Software has always been the weak point on linux IMO, there just isn't that much
>to choose from compared to windows.
>
>Most linux programs have actually been ported to windows in some form or
>another.
The point is that if you are going to use free programs, just use them on a free
operating system. Unless you really want to give your $$$ to Microsoft...
>>When you do not find the equivalent it is possible to use an emulation software
>>like Win4lin that will allow you to run that Windows application on your Linux
>>dsktop.
>
>I know, and you can run linux on windows by e.g. vmware.
>I just don't like these solutions.
I did not like the idea either, but it turns out to be surprisingly easy and it
works very well. Windows is just a... window on my Linux desktop, and I can
copy/paste from Linux to Windows for example. They share the same filesystem
(with Win4lin at least) so you can create a document under Windows and work on
it later with a Linux app. They will also share the internet and network
connections, very easily.
>>So you are telling me that Windows is finally catching up with Linux in
>>stability?
>
>Yes that's what I'm telling you :)
>I think it even superceeded it for a while.
>
>When I first ran win2k it seemed more stable than Redhat with the gnome I was
>also using.
>
>No doubt MS pulled themselves together to compete with linux on this issue :)
>
>>Fine. But the problem also comes from the fact that this (expensive) product
>>comes from a company whose only goal is to get more and more control every day,
>>and who has abused from its monopoly positions at every occasion.
>>
>>There is a very good alternative out there to this company's product, and I have
>>decided to use it and to tell others about it.
>>
>
>Yes I agree with you, but this monopoly discussion is somewhat different.
>
>I'm just trying to look at it purely from a technical POV.
Technically they are so close that to most users it would not matter much I
guess. It the rest that makes the difference: better security (it's not just a
technical issue), use of stable and durable open standards, better use of
resources (again, it's not only a technical issue, it depends how much you want
to spend on your hardware every year), avoiding a single vendor lock-in, and so
on...
Looking at the problem just from the technical point of view does not tell the
most important part of the story.
Christophe
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.