Linux-Advocacy Digest #979, Volume #30 Tue, 19 Dec 00 18:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("David Casey")
Re: Whistler review. (JoeX1029)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ? (.)
Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ? (.)
Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ? (.)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is awful (Pete Goodwin)
Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Calif. electricity shortage ("Society")
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:33:29 -0500
Bracy wrote:
>
> Is Windows really easier to use than Linux?
>
> I recently responded in the "I conceded" thread that, in a
> Windows-dominated world, it is only wise to keep one's skills current in
> the Windows environment, because you never know when you might find
> yourself in the job market again. I then received a reply from Aaron
> Kulkis, asking: "Exactly how hard is it to keep up your "point and click"
> skills?"
>
> I then immediately began to write a very angry response to Mr. Kulkis,
> but then I took a deep breath and calmed down a bit, thinking "Maybe he's
> just ignorant about what is required to support Windows?" After all,
I'm fully aware...TONS more than is required for Unix or Linux.
> we're both Linux advocates, and we're both fighting the same battle. No
> need to exchange "friendly fire."
>
> The WinTrolls would have us all believe that Windows is easier-to-use
> than Linux, and evidently Mr. Kulkis agrees with them.
I've NEVER said such a thing.
> But is it really
> so? Is Windows easier-to-use than Linux? And if so, does that mean it is
> easier to support?
>
> I've worked in the Tech Support/Network Administration arena for several
> years for such companies as Dell, IBM, and Unisys, and I can tell you
> first-hand that the phones never stop ringing for technical support. At
> one of these companies, never a day went by that we weren't asked to
> work through lunch, and work overtime because of the number of calls we
> were receiving. If Windows is so easy-to-use, why is this case?
>
> Perhaps Mr. Kulkis and the WinTrolls have never configured multiple RAID
> containers before installing Windows NT and then had Windows NT report a
> single 1 Gb partition available for installation?
Thank god, No! I've kept my hands clean of Neutered Technology, and
intend to keep it that way until the day I die.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Kulkis and the WinTrolls have never installed an Adaptec 7890
> SCSI controller in their server, and then had Windows NT report no
> available partitions during installation?
You really have a reading comprehension problem if you think I would
advocate anything from Microsoft.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Kulkis and the WinTrolls have never spoken with a customer
> who corrupted their video drivers by installing PCAnywhere on their
> server?
You really have a reading comprehension problem if you think I would
advocate anything from Microsoft.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Kulkis and the WinTrolls have never installed Windows NT
> with 2 or more NICs in the server?
You really have a reading comprehension problem if you think I would
advocate anything from Microsoft.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Kulkis and the WinTrolls have never spoken to a customer who
> decided to move Microsoft Office from the C: drive to their D: drive
> because their C: drive had run out of disk space? (I guarantee it's
> easier to move software from one partition to another in Linux than it is
> in Windows).
>
> Perhaps Mr. Kulkis and the WinTrolls have never had to support any
> software that was produced by a Microsoft competitor?
>
> During the last decade, I've never once met a Macintosh user who did
> not know how to copy a file to their floppy drive, but I've spoken to
> Windows users who did not know how on a daily basis.
>
> I've found that solving a problem in Linux is generally much easier and
> straightforward than it is in Windows. It's much easier to edit a text
> file than it is to edit the Windows Registry. Try calling tech support
> and telling them that you edited your Registry, and then see how much
> tech support you receive.
>
> I contend that Linux is NOT more difficult than Windows, it is just
> different. To move from Windows to Linux, one must re-learn
> *everything.* One must learn a new architecture, new installation
> procedure, new bootup sequence, new command-line interface, new
> GUI interface, new programming tools, new applications -- everything.
> But that doesn't mean that it's more difficult.
>
> Troubleshooting a problem on a Linux system is, IMHO, generally
> much easier and swifter than troubleshooting a problem in Windows.
>
> Bracy
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "David Casey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 16:35:37 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There's a difference between gleefully looking for a chance to kill
> people, and taking the solumn, ADULT reponsibility to defend one's
country.
>
> I myself contemplated whether I could live up to the contractual
> obligations of enlistment or not.
WARNING! Aaron Kulkis is a troll. He claims to have done super-secret
things during the Persian Gulf War but when probed for more information,
hides behind "It's classified until 2041." (Note: If it was truly
classified, merely hinting at the existence of such information would be a
major breach of security) Aaron Kulkis will go on to make himself out to be
the second coming of Rambo and God's gift to the defense of the United
States. Aaron Kulkis is well known in various military newsgroups for the
loser wannabe that he is. He has lost various e-mail accounts for
troll-like activity and is now hiding behind alt.net like the coward he is.
Listen to him at your own risk!
Dave
Real soldiers don't brag.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JoeX1029)
Date: 19 Dec 2000 21:43:32 GMT
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
>Linux (for hte most part) is not
>Unix.
So on what other part is it UNIX?? To be called UNIX the system must pass cert
by the Open Group. Its all or nothing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:55:58 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 21:20:16 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (A transfinite
number of monkeys) wrote:
>
>Obviously why on my PC, such "archaic" hardware as:
>
>SoundBlaster Live!
Tell me how you get surround sound, or digital audio via the digital
audio spid/f connector under Linux?
Tell me about LiveWare for Linux?
Supported?
It's supported when I can read the outside of the box and use all of
the features I paid for under Linux.
Until then, you have no idea what you are missing by running a halfway
decent sound card under an inferior operating system like Linsux.
>Creative Annihilator 2 (GeForce 2 GTS based card)
And you get full use of all the 3d stuff and acceleration under Linux?
>Micro$oft USB Intellimouse
>IBM (really Xirlink) USB Camera
>HP LaserJet 2100M
>Adaptec 2940UW
>Asus CUSL2 (i815e based) motherboard
>3com 3c905 NIC
>USB Zip 250
>Jaz 1G
>
>all work without a hitch, right? Yeah, all of that stuff is ancient, right?
Big deal. Windows supports them as well, and all of the software that
comes with them works the way it is supposed to, as well as the
special offer software (I got Wordperfect Office 2000 professional for
$8.00 when I bought my Lexmark printer) works as well. With Linux you
get to use software that looks like it was written 10 years ago.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 21:58:55 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." wrote:
>> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>> peter wrote:
>> >>>> How do you train to be a systems analysis?
>> >>> 4-year college degree in computer systems engineering, or
>> >>> computer and electrical engineering.
>> >> Which are both actually entirely unessesary for this position in
>> >> the real world, and usually lead to systems analysts who implement
>> >> terrible strategems they read about in some microsoft book.
>>
>> > Which is why a degree is not sufficient. The problem with many people
>> > without degrees is that they tend not to be aware of the sheer breadth
>> > of possible solutions for a problem, and that's one of the things that
>> > should have been drilled into the college graduate (assuming they've
>> > not been completely comatose in class!)
>>
>> Which is not actually the case in my experience. In my experience,
>> college graduates have had ancient technology and awful advice drilled
>> into their heads; and have a difficult time getting around it.
>>
>> A couple of years ago, I trained a guy who was a recent graduate of
> ^^^^^^
>> Carnegie Mellon (apparantly they have a pretty good comp sci department)
>> who didnt understand why anyone would want to switch packet-to-
>> frame.
> RECENT graduate says it all....
Stop missing the point.
In my experience, there is mostly very little difference between an
applicant with lots of schooling AND experience, and an applicant
with lots of experience and no schooling.
And to be honest, people with no schooling often cost less, work harder
and more efficiently then people WITH schooling, who often feel like
they have nothing at all to prove, because their 'degree' proves it for
them.
So yes, actually, in the real world of money and budgets, I prefer
no degrees and lots of experience. :)
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 22:04:14 GMT
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >> Not in my experience. I've had to spend *much* more time training
>> >> fresh college graduates (with applicable degrees including masters)
>> >> than people who have actual real life experience.
>>
>> > But given 3 years of experience WITH a degree vs. 3 years of
>> > experience without a degree....who would you pick?
>>
>> The more qualified applicant...:)
>>
>> The coolest person I've worked with in this regard aquired all of his
>> programming skills in 8 years in the USAF. He worked with realtime
>> systems governing communication arrays on large aircraft.
>>
>> THATS the kind of person everyone should always be looking for.
>> Someone who provably works well under stress, can meet deadlines,
>> and knows a fuckton about redundancy planning and innovative
>> architecture.
> Of course, you realize that the USAF trained him to the
> equivalent level of education as a 4-year university...
Bullshit, they trained him WAY past that. He speaks in theoretical
modals that confuse doctorates.
And he doesnt have a degree.
Coincidentally, equivalency is exactly what im talking about. Its
just that experience is much more equivalent than school alone, and
very often more equivalent than experience AND school. :)
Maybe I'm just bitter about having to find a way to fix a mail system
for 30,000 people that someone with a masters degree and 8 years of
experience built out of an E6500, 2 9 gig hard drives, softRAID1 and
Netscape Suitespot.
The load on that machine (which has 8 processors) never dips below
15.
An 18 year old linux-head suggested trying out an application he
wrote that converts netscape suitespot spools to Qmail, and dumping
everything out to a testbed he whipped up out of Freebsd and an
old PIII 450 in about an hour. It looks like his app actually works.
:)
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 22:06:27 GMT
. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> "." wrote:
>>>
>>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> >> Not in my experience. I've had to spend *much* more time training
>>> >> fresh college graduates (with applicable degrees including masters)
>>> >> than people who have actual real life experience.
>>>
>>> > But given 3 years of experience WITH a degree vs. 3 years of
>>> > experience without a degree....who would you pick?
>>>
>>> The more qualified applicant...:)
>>>
>>> The coolest person I've worked with in this regard aquired all of his
>>> programming skills in 8 years in the USAF. He worked with realtime
>>> systems governing communication arrays on large aircraft.
>>>
>>> THATS the kind of person everyone should always be looking for.
>>> Someone who provably works well under stress, can meet deadlines,
>>> and knows a fuckton about redundancy planning and innovative
>>> architecture.
>> Of course, you realize that the USAF trained him to the
>> equivalent level of education as a 4-year university...
> Bullshit, they trained him WAY past that. He speaks in theoretical
> modals that confuse doctorates.
> And he doesnt have a degree.
Scratch that, my mistake. He has a BS in geology with a concentration
in metallurgy.
Which actually doesnt have anything to do with computers at all.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:13:35 +0000
Bracy wrote:
> Is Windows really easier to use than Linux?
By Linux I take you mean
Linux-and-some-desktop-like-KDE-or-Gnome-or-whatever.
> The WinTrolls would have us all believe that Windows is easier-to-use
> than Linux, and evidently Mr. Kulkis agrees with them. But is it really
> so? Is Windows easier-to-use than Linux? And if so, does that mean it is
> easier to support?
Point and click interfaces were supposed to be easier than command line
interfaces. If you're comparing that, then the answer is yes. However,
you've got point-and-click through X Windows on Linux, so it depends on the
GUI.
Support is an interesting question 8).
> I've worked in the Tech Support/Network Administration arena for several
> years for such companies as Dell, IBM, and Unisys, and I can tell you
> first-hand that the phones never stop ringing for technical support. At
> one of these companies, never a day went by that we weren't asked to
> work through lunch, and work overtime because of the number of calls we
> were receiving. If Windows is so easy-to-use, why is this case?
Perhaps because the number of people using it include those that have never
used a computer before in their lives, as opposed to us engineers who work
with them every day.
The number of insane questions my father and brother ask me about Windows
never ceases to amaze me.
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:21:03 +0000
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > I'm not wrong for Windows 98/ME.
>
> Yes you are.
You've done this before, Erik. It doesn't work very well. How exactly am I
wrong?
> > The registry is a couple of files on Windows 98/ME.
>
> I just said that. "additionally, each user has their own registry hive".
I was talking about the whole registry.
> > True, you can generate a text file with REGEDIT. But how do you load it
> > back into Windows 98/ME?
>
> By using Regedit to import it back in.
How? If you have Windows up and running and NO registry, how do you import
it?
> 98 provides a registry backup utility as well.
Is this ScanReg? I tried to backup my registry with that. It kept crapping
out. It then insisted on reverting my configuration back by six months. YUK!
--
Pete, running KDE2 on Linux Mandrake 7.2
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: System's analysis? What does this person do ?
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 22:21:55 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Dec 2000 11:24:07 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
[snip discussion regarding "system manager" for brevity]
>> All this IMO, of course; I'm neither a manager nor a systems analyst.
>> But if you're job hunting, that's probably a good job to get into
>> if you meet the requirements.
>
>Of course, right now, he's in the "if you have to ask, you're not
>qualified" stage...
There is that, admittedly. I'm not sure *I'm* qualified, despite
being a top-notch computer guru (language lawyer and toolsmith,
actually).
[snip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
up 85 days, 6:10, running Linux.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,alt.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Calif. electricity shortage
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2000 03:58:35 -0800
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Society wrote:
> >
> > Mark Sobolewski wrote...
> > >
> > > I'm sure he'll [algore] do lots of speeches
> > > for liberal colleges talking about the wonders
> > > of $8 a gallon gasoline and living in trees.
> >
> > No doubt. Meanwhile, there's not a lot of joy in California
> > over the shortage of electricity and the jump in prices
> > for natural gas and electricity. The author of _Earth In The
> > Balance_ should be *ecstatic*. He didn't dare show it
> > during the campaign though. Why not? Heh, heh. Gee,
> > those industries with union workers need electricity.
> > Even government employees get sent home during
> > Stage 2 alerts where I live. Without pay. Makes 'em
> > real mad, too.
>
> Serves 'em right for supporting eco-fascists.
Kinda reminds me of the time during the recession of
the early 1990s when the San Jose Mercury News
reported on the wonderful success San Jose's growth
control measures had been. And how all the net new
job growth in the chip industries headquartered in
Santa Clara County (Silicon Valley) had now taken
place in San Antonio, Albuquerque, Phoenix, etc.
That left-leaning newspaper was a big champion of
no-growth. Then they discovered that people living
out of state don't buy the San Jose Mercury News.
Oops!
Now the establishment elites are repeating that
pattern with the Kyoto Treaty implementation
negotiations (which have temporarily broken down).
Third World countries have few to no restrictions
on so-called greenhouse gas emissions ('cause
they're poor) while the US gets clamped down on
('cause the US is 'rich').
Jane Fonda won't be sweating the price of gas.
Or worrying about those industries closing here
and re-opening overseas. "Soak the Rich" is just
a code-phrase for "drown the poor".
---
All excuses for socialism depend on censorship
of reality to appear plausible.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 22:31:45 GMT
On 19 Dec 2000 19:54:32 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> This kind of mentality is a major barrier to Linux going anywhere.
>
>Its actually come quite far with this kind of thinking, read: the correct
>kind of thinking.
Nonsense. It's come this far because there are distributors that do not
think like this. For example, Redhat post fixes and workarounds to known
problems on their website --
and they do this even if they didn't write the software.
They don't send users off to third parties to get their problems fixed. They
do their homework and work out the appropriate fix, and then make it
available to users.
>> The
>> typical user wants to be able to go to their vendor for support.
>
>Oh well, the typical user is a retard.
Or perhaps the typical user has other things to do besides nannying their
computer 24/7. The fact that someone does not know as much about computers
as you doesn't make them a retard. Some of these so-called "retards" are
scientists, doctors, CEOs, etc.
There's more to life than computers, get over it. And drop your completely
unjustified attitude of superiority towards those that know less about
computers than you do. The fact that you are more computer literate than
others does not make you more superior. Seriously.
>> want to have to go to this website, that website, etc, especially when the
>> websites in question don't offer any kind of formal support.
>
>They dont want to have to THINK, they want everything fed to them with sporks.
They don't want to spend their lives trouble-shooting computers, because
for them computers are actually a means to an end, a tool. Not an end in
themselves.
GOing from website to website, trying to cobble together the right stuff
is just fine if you like tinkering with computers, but if you just want
to use your computer, it's a waste of time.
>> It's the distributors job to provide
>> an integrated system that works to the users,
>
>Oh really? Exactly where is this written down then?
Well what is it that distributers offer users ? They offer support,
they make bugfixes available, they package software in such a way
that the user doesn't have to cobble it together themself.
Otherwise, why bother having a distributor, why not just roll your own ?
>You are completely incorrect. You cannot stop thinking in windows terms;
Microsoft did not invent the notion of vendor accountability (in fact one
could even argue that they aren't a terribly good example of that) Actually,
the hardware vendors probably do more here than Microsoft. Microsoft sort
of dump their shrinkwraps and run, while hardware vendors tend to do more
in the way of offering solutions and providing support.
THis has nothing to do with "thinking in windows terms", it has to do with
the fact that some users want a vendor who doesn't run for cover and cover
their ass whenever something goes wrong.
>It is not for lazy idiots who need their hand held through pissing in the
>morning.
Again, your attitude of superiority is completely unjustified.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: Windows - Is It Really Easier to Use?
Date: 19 Dec 2000 22:36:46 GMT
On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 20:29:31 GMT, Bracy wrote:
>it a hundred times and it's not going to solve your problem. What are
>they going to do if the problem is with the device driver? THEY'LL SEND
They do some homework in advance to make sure the drives work, so this
is quite rare.
>YOU TO THE HARDWARE MANUFACTURER WHO MADE THE
>HARDWARE AND WROTE THE DAMN DRIVER!!
Nonsense. Dell make drivers available from their site, and they tend to
place updated drivers there as these drivers become available. If it turned
out that a new driver caused problems, they would most probably put up an
advisory note recommending that users install the old driver.
>If you buy a computer from Dell, Compaq, IBM, HP or any other computer
>maker with Microsoft Office pre-loaded and you find a bug in the
>software, what will the computer maker do? THEY'LL SEND YOU TO
>MICROSOFT WHO WROTE THE DAMN SOFTWARE!!
Not in the case of very basic functionality such as the GUI. The support
obligations are offloaded to the OEMs.
>Is this REALLY so freaking hard to understand??? Mandrake didn't make
>the damn video card and they didn't write the damn driver!! Hell, you
>can't always blame XFree86 either since not every hardware manufacturer
>will provide the specs for their hardware!!
Well this is the problem, isn't it ? Noone is willing to take responsibility
for making sure the drivers work.
You can't blame XFree for not having drivers, but if something is wrongfully
labelled as "supported", then it is clear that someone screwed up.
>If you experience problems running a GUI then contact the people who
>wrote the damn GUI or use another one!! Sheeeeeez!!! This is the same
>situation in the Windows environment!!
No, it isn't. If you have a problem with Windows, the OEM provides support.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Intel Easy PC camera - cannot be supported in Linux!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 20 Dec 2000 09:26:53 +1100
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>On Tue, 19 Dec 2000 12:35:51 -0500, mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In this case the end result is taking pictures with a camera.
>Windows can utilize the hardware, and as usual Linux can't.
Hmm, that sounds strangely familiar. Only the roles were reversed.
The ultra-cheap package of CMOS video camera and BT848-based capture card
I bought earlier this year never worked under Windows. Just wouldn't.
No go.
Good thing I didn't want to use it under Windows, anyway. It runs perfectly
under linux, once a bit of trial and error had determined which card type
I had to give the driver. You'd think that the Windows driver on the
CD that came with it would get it right, but no, apparently not. And it,
of course, doesn't take any parameters.
Does this mean that Windows is an "inferior OS"? I don't think so --- it
just means that this particular piece of junk is not supported by Windows,
despite claims to the contrary on the package. No more, and no less.
>Linux doesn't work for quite a lot of people and that is why it is
>virtually non-existant on the desktop of home users and will continue
>to stay that way.
I recently decided that I needed to install a slightly more up-to-date
distribution on one of my machines (people had been sending me bug reports
about some software of mine, and they seemed libc related). So I got
Mandrake 7.2 at the local swapmeet.
If I ever have a Windows installation that goes that smoothly, I shall
mark the day in my calendar with a big red circle. But don't hold your
breath.
While I was at it, I decided to also give the machine a performance boost,
and replaced the aging Celeron400 on a BP6 with a Duron running at 950MHz,
on a Soyo board. Then I put the Windows drive back onto the EIDE controller.
Oh my! It discovered lots and lots of new hardware (most of which wasn't
really all that new), but I expected that. What I didn't expect was the
total fit it threw over networking. OK, I got two ethernet cards in the
machine, but that certainly isn't *that* unusual. And it certainly isn't
an excuse for filling the routing table with half a dozen routes that
connect to interfaces I don't have, and the addresses for which appear
pretty much random. And not letting me delete those routes is extra naughty.
I ended up reinstalling from scratch, after trying to convince the stupid
thing in many ways that 169.254.114.118 (or something along those lines)
was not one of my interfaces, or at least that 192.168.243.32 *is* one
of them.
Does that mean Windows is inferior to Mandrake 7.2? I don't think so.
It just isn't very good at dealing with changing hardware. It isn't
very good at a whole lot of things, just like Linux. And it's quite
good at some others, just like Linux. And all the anecdotal evidence
in the world won't change that.
Bernie
P.S.: Welcome back, heather69. I suspect you will regale us with stories
about your retail experience in "major chainstores", and how
Linux is the "numero uno" returned item, right? What will your
relation to the manager be this time? Will she be your aunt? Your
daughter? Your brother's wife?
--
How you, rebellious Germany, laid your wretched head beneath the
feet of the great general
Ovid
Roman poet, 43 BC -- AD 17
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
