Author: James Swafford
Date: 10:25:15 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. There is at least one problem with this. I am writing a Java client/server app for a company that has rooted itself deeply in Microsoft technology. The application server is a nice dual 3ghz Xeon running Gentoo, the JBoss application server, and a Postgres database (and qmail, OpenLDAP, etc...) The client will run on any machine with a JRE installed, of course. The company already has a couple of Windows 2000 servers that everybody logs into via Terminal services, so the easiest thing for me is to let everyone run the client on those machines (over TS). I'm considering migrating the desktops to Linux. It'd be super to do just what you suggest: use X stations. Here's the problem: we have 30 clinics. Each clinic has a VPN box that maintains two tunnels- each to an office with a T1 and a Terminal Services server. My experience is that while Terminal Services is definitely "doable" (even over dialup in extreme cases), streaming an X session over a VPN tunnel is not. It's HORRIBLE. Hell, even running Xboard via X over SSH is kind of "choppy", and that's outside of business hours when bandwidth at the office is wide open (and I have a 3mb cable connection). Maybe you have some ideas to address that problem... I'd love to hear them. -- James > > >> >> >> >> 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.