Chris Carlen wrote:

...

contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:

...

Hi all I just bought a notebook for my daughter (Dell Inspiron 510m). Tested with Knoppix 3.7 (wonderful) Tested with FreeSBIE 1.0 (see above). Then, yesterday in the afternoon, I tried to install SuSE 9.1: yast did not start in graphical mode or with incredible colours and characters if I changed the screen resolution on boot. Since I am quite curious I tried SuSE 9.2 (same result), Mandrake 10.0 (same result), SuSE 8.2 (WORKS FINE!!)

Is there anyone thet can explain to me such a behaviour

Ciao emilio

<snip>

...

I'm really getting fed up. It's not just Linux's or Suse's or KDE's fault. The software industry is broken, thanks to a large degree to the anticompetitive atmosphere. And the stupidity of the marketplace that demands new features and accepts mediocre quality.

I've considered Mac. I wonder if it's any better?

<snip> I run SUSE 9.1, 8.1 and various other flavors of linux. But I also run the Free BSD kernel disguised behind a popular GUI known as Mac OS X 10.3 ;-) And all I can say is that I think it is worth every penny. I love fussing with linux, free or otherwise, working or not. But the Mac is simply awesome. Nothing broken about that end of the software industry. My $.02 -- Tony Alfrey tonyalfrey@earthlink.net "I'd Rather Be Sailing"

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:17:48PM -0800, Christopher Carlen wrote:

Too bad they didn't build the Mac OS X on X Window System. Just think of the synergy if all Linux X apps could run directly on that, and Apple software on Linux PCs.

I would disagree on that. Aqua is much more polished than X11. But if you need to run an X11 app on Mac OSX, you can easily do it. Apple provides its own X11 based on XFree 4.3, you can also choose OroborosX, or Xorg through Fink. I quite often run X11 apps from SUSE 9.2 box with display on iBook.

I'm hooked on multiple desktops, CLI (when it is the better tool, not because I have to fix some quirky problem), and the fact that it's not MS.

I don't know how to do multiple desktops in Aqua, but Expose compensates for that lack. Apple's Terminal is nice.

Maybe I'll try a Mac next time I'm in the market for a new PC.

Believe me, you won't regret. Regards, -Kastus

On Friday 25 February 2005 10:10 pm, Chris Carlen wrote:

Kastus wrote:

...

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 02:17:48PM -0800, Christopher Carlen wrote:

...

Too bad they didn't build the Mac OS X on X Window System. Just think of the synergy if all Linux X apps could run directly on that, and Apple software on Linux PCs.

I would disagree on that. Aqua is much more polished than X11.

But isn't X11 just the low-level API? I mean, you could build *any* GUI out of X. That's why we have KDE and Gnome, because QT and Gtk are higher level APIs that abstract the lower level X into something more approachable and amenable toward developing a consistent UI.

Thus, I don't think there is a technical reason why X couldn't have been the underlying GUI platform.

X11 provides a network-transparent means of displaying windows, but the equivalent to X11 in OS X (quartz, right?) provides things like the alpha blending, etc in ways that are nicely integrated with hardware acceleration and quicktime. Does it use display postscript? I thought that was one of the big reasons Apple bought NeXT... Sure, Os X *could* have been built on X11, mostly, but it would've been slow, and Apple would've had to rewrite big pieces anyway, and X11 would've gotten in the way as much as it helped. Someone probably has a more technical reason, but that's the overview.

...

But if you need to run an X11 app on Mac OSX, you can easily do it. Apple provides its own X11 based on XFree 4.3, you can also choose OroborosX, or Xorg through Fink. I quite often run X11 apps from SUSE 9.2 box with display on iBook.

So you are saying that X can run under OS X effectively? Where does aqua go when that happens?

Apple's X11 runs in a "rootless" mode, where X11 apps sort of run next to the native apps - with no root window. There's a window manager called oberon, IIRC, that makes X11 apps look similar, but I haven't used X11 since 10.3 (X.III ?) came out.

...

...

I'm hooked on multiple desktops, CLI (when it is the better tool, not because I have to fix some quirky problem), and the fact that it's not MS.

I don't know how to do multiple desktops in Aqua, but Expose compensates for that lack. Apple's Terminal is nice.

What does "Expose" do?

It sure doesn't compensate for multiple desktops. It's just an extension that will shrink all of your windows in differnet ways so you can see them all and more easily find the one you want.

What kind of shell runs in the terminal? Can you run Bash? Are all the UNIX command tools basically there? If so, I might like that.

The default shell in 10.3 is bash (it was a c shell before, but bash was available). The tools are the BSD variants. I've been installing fink to get the gnu tools that I know and love, though installing them via portage might be something worth trying.

...

...

Maybe I'll try a Mac next time I'm in the market for a new PC.

Believe me, you won't regret.

Interesting.

You'll likely regret spending twice as much or more to get a machine that uses a less-supported architecture (x86 code doesn't always port straight to ppc, due to the endien-ness difference, among others). On top of that, the machine won't be as fast as an x86-based machine, properly configured. Yes, I have some new Macs (with shiny dual processors). They cost 2 arms, a leg, and an ear, and they're not as fast as the ~$1K dual athlon MP system - about 1/3 the cost of the Mac. Sure, the mac comes with an OS that's easier to set up. That's a real benefit for some people, but it's the only benefit, and IMHO, not much of a benefit. KDE has had drawers and the ability to put the menu for all apps on the top of the screen for years. I'm looking at dynamic drop shadows, really nice integration, transparent menus, and real virtual desktops in KDE 3.3.2 right now. Mac OS X? Well, it's got that awful file system layout ("awful" largely because I'm used to something else), and is based on NetInfo (which is very nearly the single worst *nix innovation ever, in my not so humble opinion). OS X hides the "complicated" stuff, which is fine, until you want to do something complicated. Then you're working around the system, instead of with it. I find myself working around OS X more than working with it, largely due to a lack of detailed documentation. If you want to know how to check your mail with Mail.app, though, you're all set. Unless you want to change folder locations, or use multiple profiles, etc. Just behave like the "typical" user and things will just work. Typically. :) </rant>

Ugh. It's so ironic that I actually have to say "I am stuck using Linux because of such&such application." I have a circuit board program that really works well under Linux, that I'd like to stick with. Don't think there's a Mac version.

Anything that runs on X11 can be displayed on an OS X box using X11's network transparency - presuming you keep that linux box around.

But still, it's worth checking out next time around.

Make sure you do more research than reading a Mac magazine article or listening to one mailing list post (including just me), though. For the money, though, you can get a lot more with a Linux solution. The trade-off is some time configuring the system and learning Linux. But you already know how to use Linux...

On Saturday 26 February 2005 09:25 am, Ken Schneider wrote: <snipped>

<opinion>

How many posts do we get on this list from new users asking for help for something that is obvious to the seasoned user but -not- obvious to the newbie. And many times all they are told is to google for the answer. Instead show them the google link as well to get them started. Keep in mind that we were -all- newbies at one point in time. Think back to what you had to go through when you first started out and try to make it easier for the newbie. This will help more to converting MS users to linux in the long run.

The question is why to convert MS users to Linux? Most of average MS users use their boxes just as another appliance next to a microwave, toaster music center and such. They do very limited set of tasks - browsing Internet, reading / sending e-mail, writing / printing simple documents, listening music, sometimes watching DVDs. That is it. They don't do any programming and freak out from seeing a command prompt. Some people buying very specialized appliances like WebTv and such. They don't give their ignorant damns about what OS their appliance is running. I totally agree that for Linux users there is a great need in common system configuration standards and well written documentation. Graphic system configuration tools is a secondary issue in this respect. Just my humble opinion. Alex

On Saturday 26 February 2005 12:40 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:

On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 13:21, Alex Daniloff wrote:

...

On Saturday 26 February 2005 09:25 am, Ken Schneider wrote: <snipped>

...

<opinion>

How many posts do we get on this list from new users asking for help for something that is obvious to the seasoned user but -not- obvious to the newbie. And many times all they are told is to google for the answer. Instead show them the google link as well to get them started. Keep in mind that we were -all- newbies at one point in time. Think back to what you had to go through when you first started out and try to make it easier for the newbie. This will help more to converting MS users to linux in the long run.

The question is why to convert MS users to Linux?

Short answer $ (cost). Not just for the OS but also for the apps.

If people were concerned about cost, MS wouldn't be able to charge several hundred dollars for a crummy OS that's no more user-friendly than a typical out-of-the-box KDE-on-Linux install. Somehow, though, people still buy it. Somehow, lots of computers are sold every day to people who don't even know what an operating system is. The success of Linux is not hinged upon converting all computers over to Linux. I'd make that sentence bold and include it in every FAQ on the internet, if I could. There are trade-offs involved in any computer OS. Windows gets you a factory install and an environment that many are familiar with, but costs a lot and isn't very secure/stable/etc. Macs get you a shiny OS that's not configurable, wastes CPU, and costs a lot (and you're stuck on a mac). Linux gets you a whole lot of choices, but requires that you make a whole lot of decisions and learn about those decisions. Somehow all 3 have managed to succeed in their target markets. And this is all irrelevant to the post that was replied to - which was a specific comment geared to a specific person who did, in fact, already know his was around Linux. :) --Danny

On Sunday 27 February 2005 12:10 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:

On Sun, 2005-02-27 at 12:44, Danny Sauer wrote:

...

On Saturday 26 February 2005 12:40 pm, Ken Schneider wrote:

...

On Sat, 2005-02-26 at 13:21, Alex Daniloff wrote:

Short answer $ (cost). Not just for the OS but also for the apps.

If people were concerned about cost, MS wouldn't be able to charge several hundred dollars for a crummy OS that's no more user-friendly than a typical out-of-the-box KDE-on-Linux install. Somehow, though, people still buy it. Somehow, lots of computers are sold every day to people who don't even know what an operating system is.

Cost isn't a factor? Which planet do you live on? Tell me one business where cost isn't a factor in their purchase decisions. People buy it (MS) because they are forced to when they purchase their PC. They charge several hundred dollars because they currently can get away with it. Call up Dell and ask for their latest PC with linux preinstalled and see what response you get, that doesn't sound like a choice to me.

Ok, so cost is the driving force behind business purchases. Care to explain why the least expensive OS isn't dominating the business desktop market? Sure, cost is a factor in the business world, but it obviously isn't the only one, or even the most important one. Same way with home users (which is where ease-of-use actually comes in to play). A corporate desktop should be set up by a competent admin, and there should be some training for users of that desktop. When I get a PC, I get a box with a hard drive, memory, processor, motherboard, and case. Sometimes it's 2 boxes. Then I put it together. There's no OS until I put on on it. Regarding Dell, well, I think that this page might help you out: http://www.dell.com/linux/ "Dell has been offering Linux on PowerEdge servers since 1999 and has a dedicated Linux Development team that validates, qualifies and validates Red Hat Enterprise Linux and SUSE Enterprise Linux operating systems on Dell PowerEdge servers." Dell will usually sell a bare system if you ask the right questions, too - or at least they used to.

This whole thread is getting way OT, time to end it.

And let you get the last word? Never! :) --Danny, granting that the discussion can end now. :)

On Saturday 26 February 2005 13:47, Randall R Schulz wrote:

Alex,

On Saturday 26 February 2005 10:21, Alex Daniloff wrote:

...

On Saturday 26 February 2005 09:25 am, Ken Schneider wrote: <snipped> ... The question is why to convert MS users to Linux?

... They don't give their ignorant damns about what OS their appliance is running. ...

Yeah, and when the Swiss-cheese-like security of their XP box causes them to lose their family photo album, their kids' homework, or worse, their credit card numbers and / or allows their PC to become part of some black-hat's unholy digital army of the night, they and / or we pay the price.

When I had Windows on my laptop I discovered reinstalling the same Windows or upgrading Windows caused data gotchas -- all the ripped CD tracks in WMA format could not be transferred. I had to rip it all over again. After having experienced it twice I was highly motivated not to change Windows again. Since moving to Linux I've ripped my CDs only once in Ogg format, and I can listen to them on any computer I have. Then there was the time Windows crashed the laptop and I lost a week of serious coding that I never had the time to recreate. Then there's the piles of old Microsoft Works documents that are unreadable by everything -- including the current versions of Windows. Not being able to view the files is the same as if Microsoft had corrupted or deleted the files. Then there's the mountain of third party accessory software I was always buying or updating just to keep Windows functioning reasonably sanely -- Anti-Virus, Firewall, pop-up blockers, Windows registry fixers, etc. I've bought every boxed version of SuSE since 8.0 and in the end I've spent far less than when I was using Windows.

Quality matters, whether you're a guru programmer or a casual Web surfer. If anything, it matters more for the latter.

The appliance analogy itself bears this out. My cousin's family had to rebuild their whole kitchen because their Mr. Coffee started their house on fire. Fortunately, in that case, the manufacturer of that coffee maker had to pay because their product was faulty. The same should be true for Microsoft and all software publishers. They should be prohibited from disclaiming responsibility for the consequences when people use their products for the purposes for which that software is explicitly advertised.

But, but, but, doesn't the EULA absolve them of liabailty, indemnity, litigation, reponsibility, arson, hailstones, and halitosis, etc? I wonder if the Mr Coffee people know about the powers of the immutable EULA?

Corporations want all the rights of personhood but none of the responsibilities that should go with it. And people blame the lawyers! Bah!!

Does anyone else see this windows vs linux issue from the support point of view? Where I work, we supply a whole host of different pc's/networks, both windows and linux based, as well as hardware/software contracts to companies with existing setups. The windows machines that we send out have no end of problems, and always end up coming back to be cleaned of spyware/virii The linux machines may as well disappear off the face of the earth (in that we never hear from then again because they run and run and run) So from that pov, linux easily wins over windows. But the other side to the coin is that when were not contracted, and are just on call out, or have a machine in our workshop that isn't one of ours, windows machines make us MORE money than linux machines. I don't think ive ever had a linux machine in that I haven't built or overseen the building of (im the resident linux guru as the other guys hate linux and love windows lol). The point im getting at is that although it's a generally "trash" os, it is a means to an end. It suits some users and others not, but to cut a long story short it earns me a monthly salary. As for the frustrations of linux, its going to be frustrating. Because of the open-source licence it means theres practiacally no money to be made in producing/selling linux, so give the guys who do write it a break! It's a fantastic product and usually works out-of-the-box, and on the few occasions its not quite right there are plenty of places to look for help, here being only but one :) My two cents :) ----------------------------------------------- Sent by freemail.servebeer.com Signup for your free 100mb Mail account today! Full pop3/smtp accounts available!! -----------------------------------------------

I just recently, out of morbid curiosity, clicked a link to a report that upgrading to Windows XP was something like 66% cheaper that going to Linux

Any chance of a link?

As far as upgrading is concerned, I've found that the typical upgrade of Windows involves safeguarding my data, formating the drive, installing the new version, reinstalling all the S/W I use (and after about 20-30 restarts) and lots of tweaking and configuration.

The same process is followed after windows being on a machine for four months or so (lol, joke), which is where our company makes most of its money (the average user isn't able to backup,install,tweak as they don't know how)

As I said above, I've found Linux to be much LESS frustrating than Windows on the whole. The only place Windows might be a little better is in the area of support for bleeding edge hardware.

Don't 100% disagree with you there. Im having problems with susefirewall2 atm, and finding documentation for it that's clear and consise and not wrote for a software writer with a iq of 180+ has so far proven to be fruitless.

As has been stated before, that is only because most of the H/W manufacturers don't see Linux as any more than a tinkerer's or computer geek's OS ("Let them write it themselves" seems to be their attitude).

I don't think that's just the hardware manufacturers pov. The linux distro writers seem to have the same pov. The majority of the linux howto's are wrote by users, not the people writing suse/debian/mandrake/whatever. Yeah they may have chipped in, but most of the time its left to the end user to be clever enough to figure something out and document it. That's the idea of open-source software in my opinion, but unfortunately it makes for a sketchy approach to support. Also in my opinion Linux is designed for tinkerer's/computer geek's as it is nowhere near ready for mainstream distribution, nor will it be for a long time in my opinion. People just aren't keyed up enough in whole on computers to be able to understand linux. Its one thing to have windows pop up a message saying "the system has recovered from a serious eror - sending report", and a completely different level of "brown stuff" for linux to say "kernel panic". To a average-joe-bloggs user the linux message means jack diddly squat. Maybe in another twenty years time, when the youth of today has grown up and are the mainstream users will they turn to linux, having an understanding of computers that most adults today are scared of. Lets just hope its ready for them to use :)

Now we have four cents... :-)

Make it six :-) Stephen ---- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO -- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Dylan, Stephen, On Saturday 26 February 2005 17:55, Dylan wrote:

On Sunday 27 Feb 2005 01:12 am, Stephen Furlong wrote: <SNIP>

...

Also in my opinion Linux is designed for tinkerer's/computer geek's as it is nowhere near ready for mainstream distribution, nor will it be for a long time in my opinion.

I can't agree with that at all.

I concur with you (in your contradiction to Stephen's claim). I install Linux and pretty much live with the configuration it provides. I install the provided security patches. What customization I do, and I do a lot, is all on top of the stock system, not a modification to it.

I converted a friend about 2 years ago, and we went from 3 or four long phonecalls a week to diagnose and solve problems to occasional online chats to point him to the relevant tools or files.

Interesting. My business partner still runs Windows (a desktop running Windows 2000 and a laptop running XP) and I spend considerable time helping him diagnose and correct problems. Even though I happily left Windows behind about a year ago, I still find myself talking him through diagnostic and corrective action sequences. What a waste!

He's now converting his mother because he's fed up with all the "my computer isn't working" phonecalls. With general consumer hardware, and a user who wants general domestic functionality, there is no problem - so long as they get the initial help and support. Surely that is exactly what these forums are for.

...

People just aren't keyed up enough in whole on computers to be able to understand linux.

This is really not to the point. If it's true, and it probably is, it's equally true of Windows (and, possibly, MacOS, though probably less so). People sometimes compare contemporary computer technology to the automotive technology of much of the first half of the 20th century. Then, you could not just buy a car and use it to get around as you do now. You had to be prepared to deal with unpredictable and ongoing problems. I'd like to expect that we (I speak as a computer scientist and a software engineer) will be able to put information technology on a much more reliable basis, but so far, it's just not that way. The truth is that we don't have the theoretical underpinnings to make it possible. I do believe (in the "I have faith" sense) that we will do so, but so far, there's no clear indication of how that will come to pass. But as a software professional, I accept the challenge implicit in this faith.

I'd say that a generation (or two) aren't "keyed up" because for them computers are 'new technology' - my grandmother can't program her VCR even though she's had one for almost 20 years. We are in a social transition wrt computers - none of us grew up with them in the way children do now so how can we know what the situation will be in 20 years?

My parents, now in their 70s, don't "do" computers. Nor do they own a cell phone. Their car has OnStar, but that's a perfect example of a one-button technology. When you need it, you press the button. Otherwise, it's as if it wasn't there.

...

Its one thing to have windows pop up a message saying "the system has recovered from a serious eror - sending report", and a completely different level of "brown stuff" for linux to say "kernel panic".

Those are barely distinguishable. To take the automotive analog, there's a big difference between taking your car in for it's next scheduled maintenance and having the mechanic tell you that's you've been experiencing a 10% decrease in fuel economy--now rectified--and some cryptic message flashing in front you you saying "Something went wrong! Your computer may or may not be on the verge of total malfunction. We can't say for sure, but your data may be compromised and even if it's not, it well may be any second now. Have a nice day! Please call the 800 number in the manual you've never unsealed and hope that the person who answers has suitable English skills to comfort you as you face the prospect of starting over as if you just bought this computer." This crap just won't fly. If people weren't so intimidated by computers, they'd be picketing outside Microsoft, Dell. I'd hope they'd be throwing rocks...

Yeh, but Windows does that as a matter of course. Linux issues a kernel panic once in a blue moon.

This is just a quantitative difference. Yeah, Linux is better--a direct consequence of its being an open-source project. It benefits immensely from the scrutiny of a sizeable cohort of competent programmers, all of whom have only its improvement as their motivation. But as we can readily see from the mix of unhappy messages posted here, it ain't perfect! It's not even adequate.

...

To an average-joe-bloggs user the linux message means jack diddly squat.

Ah, but it does provide info to allow the cause to be identified and rectified in most cases, Windows actually tells you diddly squat so you have no hope of working out what is wrong or how to fix it (unless you have complex knowledge and can trace through symptoms over long periods of time!)

Realistically, people simply must not be prevailed upon to understand the malfunctions of their information technology appliances. Such devices must either work or fail cleanly. All the gibberish spewed during failures is stupid and pointless to an end user. It should never be seen.

Dylan

...

Maybe in another twenty years time, when the youth of today has grown up and are the mainstream users will they turn to linux, having an understanding of computers that most adults today are scared of.

This is completely wrong thinking. Success must reside in the intrinsic quality of the artifact, not peoples adeptness at accommodating its shortcomings and idiosyncracies.

...

Lets just hope its ready for them to use :)

Hope schmope! People like me who believe in improving software science and technology are the only hope! (Yeah, I know. We're doomed.) Randall Schulz

On Saturday 26 February 2005 18:12, Stephen Furlong wrote:

...

I just recently, out of morbid curiosity, clicked a link to a report that upgrading to Windows XP was something like 66% cheaper that going to Linux

Any chance of a link?

Well, I can't find the link now. I did this at work, so Ill have to check it there when I get back in on Monday. However, If you go to http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/facts/default.mspx You can see a whole boat load of propaganda pointed at Linux. FWIW, I've noticed that all of these seem to be pointed at conversion of an existing infrastructure from Windows to Linux. Of course initial costs and training will be higher. I don't believe that the bean counter are looking far enough into the future, however to see the cost savings of using Linux. Ironically, the project I'm working on right now is a port of a MS Access application to Linux, MySQL and Qt for the GUI. Our initial study found the costs to be about 3 to 1 in favor of Windows in the short-term. However, if you consider the fact that this upgrade is being driven by the unsupportability of the Win95 platform upon which the system was originally built and the fact that we'll be in the same boat in a few years when Win2K is no longer supported, the Linux approach is a good one. We are also finding that using this approach is opening up new functionality that we only dreamt of with Access. It's also worth noting that we had a Linux network up and running in about a week. There have been a few hiccups along the way, but we have only needed to reboot the Linux server in the past year to get our version control software working and a few other times for S/W installation issues. Our Win NT server gets restarted about once a week for one problem or another. [Snip] ---- Bill Lugg Milstar Software Support Peterson AFB, CO

Alex, On Saturday 26 February 2005 13:20, Alex Daniloff wrote:

On Saturday 26 February 2005 10:47 am, Randall R Schulz wrote: <snipped>

...

Yeah, and when the Swiss-cheese-like security of their XP box causes them to lose their family photo album, their kids' homework, or worse, their credit card numbers and / or allows their PC to become part of some black-hat's unholy digital army of the night, they and / or we pay the price.

It's entirely up to you how secure you want to be.

This is false. When millions of unsecured systems are connected to the Internet through high-speed, always-on network connections, we are all put at risk. When mail servers across the globe are choked with a worm or when a Web site you need to use is the target of a DDOS attack made possible by the lax security of these systems, it is clear we've gone beyond the realm of personal choices.

...

Alex

Randall Schulz

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 12:08:02PM -0800, Tony Alfrey wrote:

...

Chris Carlen wrote:

...

contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:

...

Hi all I just bought a notebook for my daughter (Dell Inspiron 510m). Tested with Knoppix 3.7 (wonderful) Tested with FreeSBIE 1.0 (see above). Then, yesterday in the afternoon, I tried to install SuSE 9.1: yast did not start in graphical mode or with incredible colours and characters if I changed the screen resolution on boot. Since I am quite curious I tried SuSE 9.2 (same result), Mandrake 10.0 (same result), SuSE 8.2 (WORKS FINE!!)

Is there anyone thet can explain to me such a behaviour

Ciao emilio

<snip>

...

...

I'm really getting fed up. It's not just Linux's or Suse's or KDE's fault. The software industry is broken, thanks to a large degree to the anticompetitive atmosphere. And the stupidity of the marketplace that demands new features and accepts mediocre quality.

For the original message, the fact 8.2 worked and 9.X didn't well, think about it, one has the 2.4 Kernel, the other has 2.6 That's a HUGE difference my friend. My laptop, would run GREAT with 8.2 and 9.1 had lots of problems, and then after 9.2 was put on, NO TROUBLES. It really depends on a lot, mainly drivers.

...

...

I've considered Mac. I wonder if it's any better?

*Cringe*

<snip>

I run SUSE 9.1, 8.1 and various other flavors of linux. But I also run the Free BSD kernel disguised behind a popular GUI known as Mac OS X 10.3 ;-)

Free BSD is only at the core of it and VERY moded.

And all I can say is that I think it is worth every penny. I love fussing with linux, free or otherwise, working or not. But the Mac is simply awesome. Nothing broken about that end of the software industry.

Hmm maybe I just pushed the one I used at school way to much. I mean gee it only had TWO 1 GHz processors a GIG of RAM and a 30 INCH FLAT SCREEN MAC Monitor, and I had it lagging so bad it was barely useable.... All I had open was image editing software I had to use and it was lagging terribly and started crashing. It kind of made me laugh thinking this box I'm typing from only has one processor and it's MUCH slower than even ONE of the processors that Mac had and less than a quarter of the RAM and I can use GIMP with SUSE, and do the SAME shit, without it lagging. I don't think I've had many good Mac OS experiences. Bothers me to hear you say it was worth every penny considering how many you need just for the hardware of a Mac.

-- Tony Alfrey tonyalfrey@earthlink.net "I'd Rather Be Sailing"

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Chris Carlen wrote:

contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:

...

Hi all I just bought a notebook for my daughter (Dell Inspiron 510m). Tested with Knoppix 3.7 (wonderful) Tested with FreeSBIE 1.0 (see above). Then, yesterday in the afternoon, I tried to install SuSE 9.1: yast did not start in graphical mode or with incredible colours and characters if I changed the screen resolution on boot. Since I am quite curious I tried SuSE 9.2 (same result), Mandrake 10.0 (same result), SuSE 8.2 (WORKS FINE!!)

Is there anyone thet can explain to me such a behaviour

Ciao emilio

I have been using Linux for about 9 years, and Suse for about 5. IMHO is may actually be getting worse with each passing version. Too many features added with not enough rigorous testing. Mainly on the user side, KDE and the like.

I'd get simply fired for writing software like this, in embedded control. That is if nobody got killed by a rampaging 100HP motor. Otherwise it could be worse.

I'm considering another OS. But which one? Actually Win2k works rather well, for a user. But I find the UI very constraining. And it's a dead-end. I won't touch XP, don't trust it for a second. Then again, with wasting 50% of my time now regularly at root prompt fixing things because almost EVERY STEP that the user attempt runs into some quirky obstacle, maybe a more limited OS that at least works might be an acceptible compromise.

I'm really getting fed up. It's not just Linux's or Suse's or KDE's fault. The software industry is broken, thanks to a large degree to the anticompetitive atmosphere. And the stupidity of the marketplace that demands new features and accepts mediocre quality.

I've considered Mac. I wonder if it's any better?

The sad thing is, that after all these years, and 5 years at my company, at this point I would recommend against deploying Linux/Suse as a GP OS there. I used to evangelize about Linux. Now I'm a laughingstock, as everyone simply gets their work done on their Windows PCs while I figure out which of the 4 possible drivers (one I hand hacked from Windows NT, is the one that works best) for the HP Laserjet 5000 printer will allow me to duplex pages. Oh, but with that driver when I print labels with OpenOffice, I get big black blobs. Oh, have to use the other driver for that, the one found after wandering the internet. And so on, and so on, and so on, all day long. It's just one example of many.

There are some folks at work who have to use Linux for running strange scientific programs. Why is it that if this were so great, that they wouldn't then expand their use of those machines to do other aspects of their work? The answer is obvious, because they have to tinker and fuss and pee away hours of time just to get the thing set up enough to run their one program right. Then (another example of many) they stick in a flash drive to transfer the data to their other PC, and whammo! another several hours down the drain to figure out why there are a bunch of quirks that make it not work quite right until you tinker and fuss... Get the picture? The message is clear to all who have tried it but don't want a new hobby: this is not what they want to spend their time on. They want to get their work done, and it isn't helping them to achieve that end.

So sad. Maybe for very limited tasks this OS would be Ok. One where the programs to run and operations to be performed by the user were all checked out. But for a general purpose OS, this is a big waste of time. Of course, as a server it's wonderful. But I am growing convinced that 10 years from now the same people will be spouting about how Linux desktop is so great, and it works fine for me, and it will still have 1% market share. And they will never get it. Why 1% market share? Because people didn't choose it. Ironically, paying money for Windows seemed like a more beneficial transaction to them then using the free alternative.

Interestingly, I am finding that using OSS programs like Firefox, Mozilla, OO.org, etc. on Win2k is much more pleasant. They work rather well there. I just wish I could have multiple desktops, and a meaningful CLI, etc. There is no perfect system. And in an anticompetitive marketplace, I don't expect things to get better.

Good day!

Hi Chris, I agree with you 100%. I started with SuSE 6.2 and used most up to 9.2 and 7.1 was the best. Nothing but trouble with 9.1 and 9.2. I would suggest you try libranet 2.8, a debian distribution, and a free download at libranet.com. Debian has apt-get to update, better than rpm. Also try knoppix 3.6 or 7, also debian. Knoppix runs linux without installing linux to your hard drive, it runs off the cd-rom. also try mepis, another debian linux. A good site to get linux cd's is : http://www.linuxpickup.com Don't give up on linux, maybe these suggestions will help. jozien

On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 04:06:27PM -0500, Joe Zien wrote:

Chris Carlen wrote:

...

contiemilio@virgilio.it wrote:

...

Hi all I just bought a notebook for my daughter (Dell Inspiron 510m). Tested with Knoppix 3.7 (wonderful) Tested with FreeSBIE 1.0 (see above). Then, yesterday in the afternoon, I tried to install SuSE 9.1: yast did not start in graphical mode or with incredible colours and characters if I changed the screen resolution on boot. Since I am quite curious I tried SuSE 9.2 (same result), Mandrake 10.0 (same result), SuSE 8.2 (WORKS FINE!!)

Is there anyone thet can explain to me such a behaviour

Ciao emilio

I have been using Linux for about 9 years, and Suse for about 5. IMHO is may actually be getting worse with each passing version. Too many features added with not enough rigorous testing. Mainly on the user side, KDE and the like.

What is it you use that is so horrible? I use Xine, XMMS, Vi, Mutt, and firefox and have no problems, most of the other things I use come with Bash.

...

I'd get simply fired for writing software like this, in embedded control. That is if nobody got killed by a rampaging 100HP motor. Otherwise it could be worse.

Well when they start getting paid for writing Open Source and Free software, you can say that and it will matter.

...

I'm considering another OS. But which one? Actually Win2k works rather well, for a user. But I find the UI very constraining. And it's a dead-end. I won't touch XP, don't trust it for a second.

Yea, have to love 2000 and the no longer fixed IE it has shoved up it's ass that no proctologist in the world can remove.

...

again, with wasting 50% of my time now regularly at root prompt fixing things because almost EVERY STEP that the user attempt runs into some quirky obstacle, maybe a more limited OS that at least works might be an acceptible compromise.

http://www.freedos.org

...

I'm really getting fed up. It's not just Linux's or Suse's or KDE's fault. The software industry is broken, thanks to a large degree to the anticompetitive atmosphere. And the stupidity of the marketplace that demands new features and accepts mediocre quality.

So get off your chair and write something better. That's how Linux was started in the first place.

...

I've considered Mac. I wonder if it's any better?

The sad thing is, that after all these years, and 5 years at my company, at this point I would recommend against deploying Linux/Suse as a GP OS there. I used to evangelize about Linux. Now I'm a laughingstock, as everyone simply gets their work done on their Windows PCs while I figure out which of the 4 possible drivers (one I hand hacked from Windows NT, is the one that works best) for the HP Laserjet 5000 printer will allow me to duplex pages.

Keep letting them laugh when the next Worm is released and chokes them like they need.

...

that driver when I print labels with OpenOffice, I get big black blobs. Oh, have to use the other driver for that, the one found after wandering the internet. And so on, and so on, and so on, all day long. It's just one example of many.

Yea and all of that is no one's fault but Linux..... Hell why blame HP for not releasing decent drivers when you can blame the OS!

...

There are some folks at work who have to use Linux for running strange scientific programs. Why is it that if this were so great, that they wouldn't then expand their use of those machines to do other aspects of their work? The answer is obvious, because they have to tinker and fuss and pee away hours of time just to get the thing set up enough to run their one program right.

If you honestly have THAT much trouble getting something as easy as SUSE to work properly you really should think about trading in your machines for an abacus.

...

stick in a flash drive to transfer the data to their other PC, and whammo! another several hours down the drain to figure out why there are a bunch of quirks that make it not work quite right until you tinker and fuss... Get the picture?

Yes, you're incompetent.

...

have tried it but don't want a new hobby: this is not what they want to spend their time on. They want to get their work done, and it isn't helping them to achieve that end.

So don't use it.

...

So sad. Maybe for very limited tasks this OS would be Ok.

Seems like that's all you could handle anyway.

...

One where the programs to run and operations to be performed by the user were all checked out. But for a general purpose OS, this is a big waste of time.

Yea, it blows doesn't it? I've yet to have a problem running Linux and have yet to have some problem like any you talked about. Maybe user errors are frequent?

...

Of course, as a server it's wonderful.

Wait, you said up there that this OS is only OK for very limited tasks. Server use would be at the bottom as that's FAR from limited. Contradiction, not something you want in ONE post / RANT.

...

But I am growing convinced that 10 years from now the same people will be spouting about how Linux desktop is so great, and it works fine for me, and it will still have 1% market share. And they will never get it. Why 1% market share? Because people didn't choose it. Ironically, paying money for Windows seemed like a more beneficial transaction to them then using the free alternative.

Well make Linus a Billion dollar prick that won't let anyone put his software on the computers unless they install ONLY his software and it would be different.

...

Interestingly, I am finding that using OSS programs like Firefox, Mozilla, OO.org, etc. on Win2k is much more pleasant. They work rather well there. I just wish I could have multiple desktops, and a meaningful CLI, etc. There is no perfect system. And in an anticompetitive marketplace, I don't expect things to get better.

Just a big ray of sunshine and puppies aren't you?

...

Good day!

Hi Chris,

I agree with you 100%. I started with SuSE 6.2 and used most up to 9.2 and 7.1 was the best.

And when SUSE 90.99 comes out you'll be talking about the days when 36.0 was the best....

Nothing but trouble with 9.1 and 9.2.

Funny after installing it on 5 machines I've yet to have one problem. They are nothing alike in hardware, one is a Compaq, an old HP, a Dell Laptop, and a Medion.

I would suggest you try libranet 2.8, a debian distribution, and a free download at libranet.com.

Yea, then you can use software older than some of it's users. What does that come with again? KDE 3.0?

Debian has apt-get to update, better than rpm.

Shit it better be with as many security fixes as Debian has EACH DAY.

Also try knoppix 3.6 or 7, also debian. Knoppix runs linux without installing linux to your hard drive, it runs off the cd-rom. also try mepis, another debian linux. A good site to get linux cd's is :

http://www.linuxpickup.com

Don't give up on linux, maybe these suggestions will help.

jozien

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

Andre Truter wrote:

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 03:05:51 -0500, Allen wrote:

...

...

Nothing but trouble with 9.1 and 9.2.

Funny after installing it on 5 machines I've yet to have one problem. They are nothing alike in hardware, one is a Compaq, an old HP, a Dell Laptop, and a Medion.

Funny enough, I also don't have any problems with SuSE 9.2. I have it running on a wide variety of machines, PI MMX, PII, PIII, PIV, Pentium M, Athlon and Sempron. It runs without problems on all of them.

I do all kinds of things on the machines, from watching DVD and all kinds of video formats, right through to development work and servers.

I have had problems with certain canon printers, but there is no driver for it, because canon does not support Linux very well. I can hardly blame Linux for this, especially if I take into account that 90% of the software is written by people that do not get paid for it and a lot of the drivers are written without much much help from the vendor.

You go and try to write a driver for a piece of equipment with limited API information and no support from the vendor.

If you go to SuSE's site and look at the supported hardware list, then you can complain only about hardware that is listed there. If it is not listed there, then you have no ground of complaining.

Anyway, I think that Linux is wonderful, especially if you think that this is software written and maintained mostly by people doint it in thier free time and it competes with software written by people that get paid to do it. I am quite happy with Linux, and if something does not work, then I can help out by trying to fix it.

I have libranet 2.8 and 2.8.1 , the same system and hardware that I'm using for SuSE 9.1 and 9.2, had no problems with libranet. Libranet is a debian system, using apt-get, a much better package system than rpm..I know there is a version of apt-get for SuSE but there are problems listed in this news group about apt-get version for rpm. jozien