Total Motorcycle Community Forums

9x means the 95, 98, 98SE and ME editions of Windows. All based off the same kernel.

Skier wrote:9x means the 95, 98, 98SE and ME editions of Windows. All based off the same kernel.

ahhh. Thanks. I've had this system for two years now. This XPSP2 has been ok..but seems to get "hung up" a lot. I'm often getting error messages.
But that's it though.

I find it very strange that anyone is having a *worse* experience with XP than with Windows 9x. Of the hundreds or thousands of machines I've owned and administered, my experiences with XP SP1 and SP2 have been universally significantly better than with 9x.

I think that your system is somehow borked. A bad driver or something perhaps.

jonnythan wrote:

blues2cruise wrote:So does having linux mean you don't need windows XP or Vista or otherwise
If linux is so great, why are we all buying microsoft?

No...I'm not being a smarta$$.....I genuinely don't know.

Linux is *not* that great.

It's a bit of a nightmare for most people, really. There are many awesome things about it... but the trouble comes when something doesn't work quite right, which is often.

If you want to install some software that is NOT included in the package manager's list, you're in for a very rough time that often involves resorting to extremely cryptic command line operations. No downloading an exe and double clicking to popup the Install Wizard. Video and graphics drivers can often be absolute nightmares. Getting a DVD to play can be a huge issue because the DVD decryption libraries are actually illegal in the US. If your hardware doesn't work with your distribution "out of the box" installing the proper drivers just to get sound can be virtually impossible for anyone not highly experienced.

Case in point: I have a fairly typical computer I wanted to use as a Linux media center/server. I have a very typical motherboard with built-in digital sound. Ubuntu 7.10 doesn't work with the digital sound output. I had to find source code drivers from nvidia, compile them via the command line, alter some text config files, and do some other cryptic annoying "poo poo" just to get it to work.

I use Linux, BSD, and Solaris on server systems in my home and at work. I have a lot of experience with Linux.

Linux is great as a stable OS for your grandpa, assuming he won't try to administer the machine in any way whatsoever and that you will do everything necessary to the machine. Linux is also pretty good for serious power users who want complete control of their systems and don't mind spending a ton of time with it.

BUT! Linux is TERRIBLE for tyhpical computer users who take care of their own machines and don't want to spend hours on forums asking for help and hoping someone understands their problem. And if you need help, the body of people who can actually offer help for your specific problem on your specific version of your specific distribution is infinitesimally small compared to the number of people around that can help you with any problem in Windows.

Bottom line? Don't bother.

Ya know, I was being light hearted about this, but you've gone and pissed me off.

99% of what you have said is completely untrue. If you want to compare the typical desktop install with your issues using a PC as a home theater PC, then you are trying to compare apples to oranges.

Linux is FAR FROM TERRIBLE for the typical home user. There are SO MANY more issues here that you have completely overlooked. SO MANY that I'm not even going to list them. Now, granted, I'm no linux newbie. I've run it as my only home OS for many years, and run a business that uses linux solely for server purposes. I've administered, repaired, installed, upgraded, and secured MANY linux machines, so don't think I'm just some idiot fanboy.

Linux is NOT RIGHT for everyone. XP/Vista do a great job for people who are comfortable with them and know how to protect themselfs. Linux does a GREAT job for people who are comfortable with it. I've given windows users a linux machine installed and ready to go (the way the vast majority of people get their windows machines) and with a minute or two of "go here to open programs, go here to see your files" and these non-gurus are surfing the web, listening to their music, watching movies, checking email, playing games, and doing all the things they used to do on their windows machines.

I WILL NOT stand for blanket statements that are nothing but FUD designed to scare people away from trying something new. If you read what I posted, you will notice that I sugested a completely non-invasive way of seeing the OS in action. If you like it, great, if not, no harm-no foul. But I DO NOT appreciate blanket statements like "Linux is terrible" or the such. If you really use Linux/BSD/Solaris as you claim, then I really believe you wouldn't be spewing this crap.

Lets not even mention things which are blatant disinformation like "DVD decryption libraries are actually illegal in the US" or "It's a bit of a nightmare for most people, really". Neither of those statements are based in fact. DVD decryption is licensed software, not illegal software, and please stop using blazing generalities such as "most people" if you don't have actual facts to back it up.

I'm sorry if I offend anyone, but this is unreasonable.

Shhhh, no need to yell. We're (mostly) all friends here!

Skier wrote:Shhhh, no need to yell. We're (mostly) all friends here!

Everyone...well...except maybe the folks in Florida and SoCal and Africa where it's sunny and warm all year....gets a little testy about this time of year.
Happens every winter.


I was looking at the Linux site.....it asked to choose a location near you....
OK..question....Portland Oregon is closer than the only Canadian one....does it matter if it's a different country or just that it's closer?

Just that it's closer... It's basically asking you which site is closest so that it can direct you to the right download server. The closer, the faster the transfer, the less load on their servers!
Wrider

They are all the same files blues..... thanks for at least taking a look..... and sorry I blew up a bit there.

MrShake wrote:If you really use Linux/BSD/Solaris as you claim, then I really believe you wouldn't be spewing this "crumb".

I stand behind my statements 100%.

I wouldn't respond if not for this line. You're welcome to visit my house or my place of business any day of the week and inspect my setups if you like. I've been using Linux and OpenBSD for at least six years now.

MrShake wrote:Lets not even mention things which are blatant disinformation like "DVD decryption libraries are actually illegal in the US"

That's not misinformation.

You cannot, as of today, go out and buy or download a Linux DVD playing application that is legal in the US. There is no working commercial Linux software available, and the current Linux DVD implementations all use DeCSS-like software, which is illegal as per the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Look up libdvdcss. On many distributions, such as Ubuntu, you have to find and install this library separately as it doesn't come with the distribution. Wonder why?

Yes, that's right, Ubuntu, out of the box, won't play a DVD because of "legal and technical restrictions". To get it to do so, you must install an illegal software package using a text command in a CLI.


It's 100% true that I had to download source code drivers, compile them, then edit a few text configuration files just to get my nForce 410's sound output to work with Ubuntu 7.10. It's also 100% true that I had to download alternative proprietary nVidia drivers, install them, and edit my X configuration files manually just to get graphics to work properly.

Like I said, if everything you need "just works" then you're all set. You can download and install Ubuntu (or whatever) and if everything works, you're golden. But... if something doesn't "just work" or you want to install software that isn't in your package manager's list of "available" software, you're almost invariably in for running obscure-sounding commands from a command line interface just to install software.


I heartily recommend Linux and *BSD for server environments. I use them as my preferred server OS. I have Ubuntu and Caldera installed on a couple of different desktop machines just for occasional general use or to aid someone in troubleshooting something. But as a desktop OS, Linux has *no* real upside and many severe downsides as compared to Windows.

Linux doesn't do anything for you that Windows doesn't, and in my experience Explorer is significantly more stable than KDE or Gnome (or X86, it's hard to tell which one crashed!). Yay for the kernel staying up and everything, but it's basically irrelevant on a desktop whether your windowing environment or your kernel crashed.


Oh, and Ubuntu's graphical installer won't run at all on two of my modern desktops (one with a P4 HT, one with an Athlon X2).

jonnythan wrote:
You cannot, as of today, go out and buy or download a Linux DVD playing application that is legal in the US. There is no working commercial Linux software available, and the current Linux DVD implementations all use DeCSS-like software, which is illegal as per the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Look up libdvdcss. On many distributions, such as Ubuntu, you have to find and install this library separately as it doesn't come with the distribution. Wonder why?

Holy misinformation batman.

1 - The software is not illegal, use of the software violates DCMA rules... small difference, but important
2 - Go to dell.com, purchase an UBUNTU preinstalled machine that includes DVD playing software that has been legally licensed and is completely restriction free and abides by all laws and regulations

jonnythan wrote:
Yes, that's right, Ubuntu, out of the box, won't play a DVD because of "legal and technical restrictions". To get it to do so, you must install an illegal software package using a text command in a CLI.

Again, more misinformation

Option 1 - Install a EASILY installed software called Automatix and point and click you way to DVD goodness, as well as MANY MANY other enhancements, never a CLI will you see
Option 2 - In the System Menu is a neat little option to "enable restricted libraries" and POOF working DVD playback with no CLI, and even EASIER than Automatix.....

Lets not even get into a discussion on the reasons these dvd libraries are "restricted" (again, not illegal)

jonnythan wrote:
It's 100% true that I had to download source code drivers, compile them, then edit a few text configuration files just to get my nForce 410's sound output to work with Ubuntu 7.10. It's also 100% true that I had to download alternative proprietary nVidia drivers, install them, and edit my X configuration files manually just to get graphics to work properly.

I will repeat myself from before....... A Home Theater PC is not a typical install... Well over 90% of PC users have never installed an OS, and even fewer have ever built a specific-purpose pc. Its also just as easy to find compatible hardware as it is to complain about incompatible stuff

jonnythan wrote:
Like I said, if everything you need "just works" then you're all set. You can download and install Ubuntu (or whatever) and if everything works, you're golden. But... if something doesn't "just work" or you want to install software that isn't in your package manager's list of "available" software, you're almost invariably in for running obscure-sounding commands from a command line interface just to install software.

Convince me that everything "Just Works" in windows. Explain to me why my blackberry won't connect to my wife's XP laptop despite the download of multiple drivers, original install CDs, provider downloads and advice from techs..... Just works huh....
The current apt libraries for Ubuntu include WAY over 11,000 pieces of software. I can safely say that in 99% of cases, even non-standard-user cases, you will find software that will do what you want.
My guess is that your frame of mind comes from the server environment, where configuration and customization are the norm. Much has changed in the world of Desktop Linux in the last 2-3 years, and many of your complaints are no longer valid... Lets all remember that the average computer user is doing a very limited number of things with their computer....

jonnythan wrote:
I heartily recommend Linux and *BSD for server environments. I use them as my preferred server OS. I have Ubuntu and Caldera installed on a couple of different desktop machines just for occasional general use or to aid someone in troubleshooting something. But as a desktop OS, Linux has *no* real upside and many severe downsides as compared to Windows.

Linux doesn't do anything for you that Windows doesn't, and in my experience Explorer is significantly more stable than KDE or Gnome (or X86, it's hard to tell which one crashed!). Yay for the kernel staying up and everything, but it's basically irrelevant on a desktop whether your windowing environment or your kernel crashed.

1 - We are not talking about servers here....... lets focus
2 - Windows doesn't do anything for you that Linux doesn't..... Your excuse is not a reason to stay with windows. Again, your experiance seems to focus mainly on server environments. Both KDE and Gnome are rock solid on all my desktop systems...... not to mention the other environments such as iceWM, XFCE, Enlightment, and others. Lets not even mention that if my KDE or Gnome stops responding... I can CTRL+Backspace to restart the software and POOF working again.... oops, I mentioned it.

jonnythan wrote:
Oh, and Ubuntu's graphical installer won't run at all on two of my modern desktops (one with a P4 HT, one with an Athlon X2).

Again, we've talked about why this is not really a valid argument in light of the original point. The VAST majority of people have never installed an OS. And, if you want to journey down that road just a bit........ Linux does not equal Ubuntu. Ubuntu is just 1 version of linux. Ubuntu also has many varients, including an alternate install cd that resolves most of the graphical installer issues people have had, its just a little slower since it uses text to ask you to do things instead of pretty pictures.


My point, I will restate, is that blanket statements about Linux as an OS are unfounded. Your personal experience does not equal the entire knowledge base of linux, and the statements you have made about Linux are not based in reality.

ALL of my statements, and, my original point are valid and completely unassuming. I offered an option in OS that required only a download and no risk. I agreed that linux is not right in all situations. I only asked that a fair comparison be done by the person/people who might benifit. What I did not do was attack windows as a horrible OS and tell people blatantly that Windows is not the way. I would ask that you do the same. I would also offer to answer any Ubuntu questions you might have that I might have an answer for.

I hope thats all a little less harsh that my first post, but still fighting the fight againts misinformation.