Why does it always have to be a massive ordeal?
Hi: /vent mode on Hi folks: I just can't believe how much trouble it is to play anything multimedia on Linux. I am trying to use mplayer, and it is just a big pain in the ass. Hundreds of pages of documentation. So far absolutely nothing I've tried to play works, which isn't much, because I don't know what to play anyway. I am trying to play some Thai TV shows that my wife wants to watch. She uses Windows media player. The level of difficulty involved amounts to this: 1. Click on link. 2. Watch show. In Linux of course it goes something like this: 1. Read hundreds of pages of documentation for several hours several days in a row until you think you know enough of the general overview to get started. 2. Find out that because of stupid licensing issues Suse couldn't include much of anything that works in the distribution, so begin hacking to try to make it work, first by downloading the codecs package from www.mplayerhq.hu and unpacking the files to /usr/lib/win32. 3. Run the program and start deciphering error messages for hours, and searching old mailing list archives. 4. Compose new messages to mailing lists and wait for hopefully a useful response. Elapsed time: many hours; Results: none; Likelyhood of success: unknown. Now repeat this experience with many many many other aspects of setting up a system that actually does useful things like plays multimedia stuff, burns CDs, prints, scans, etc. I've got about 4 weeks into setting up 3 8.1 boxes, and I'm about 90% of the way there. But it has been one hell of an ordeal as usual, and I'm just wondering why it has to be this way. You probably don't have to answer that, as I know full well that it is a miracle that Linux exists in the first place, thanks to the morons in Redmond that want us all to have lots of freedom of choice, as long as we choose Microsoft. Arg! But all the hype about Linux is desktop ready just makes me want to sulk. It isn't by any means the installation that is the problem. No kidding, the installation is easy. What is difficult is getting all the stuff to work after installing. You know I have a Soundblaster 16, the very reference standard of soundcard compatibility in Linux, and for about 3 different Suse versions prior to 8.1, I had to manually delete out Yast's configuration lines from modules.conf and run the alsaconf program to make it work, because Yast *never* configured that stupid card correctly. That's just another example of how ridiculously complicated things are in this OS. It takes me typically a month of 2-4 hours a day of hacking to get a freshly installed desktop box to do almost everything right for my real work to be done. That is really nuts, don't ya think? Well, I just needed to vent some steam while I'm waiting for some answers from the various mailing lists that I'm participating in. Thanks for your ear. Good day! /vent mode off -- _____________________ Christopher R. Carlen crobc@earthlink.net Suse 8.1 Linux 2.4.19
I've got about 4 weeks into setting up 3 8.1 boxes, and I'm about 90% of the way there. But it has been one hell of an ordeal as usual, and I'm
just wondering why it has to be this way.
Hey Chris, I completely understand your frustration, and your need to vent ;o) This is one of the things I've thought a LOT about. I would LOVE to drop my Windows, but as it is now, there's either that, or Mac OS X, if I want an O/S with which I can be productive. And before you die-hard Linux fans flame me: I can be productive in Linux too... sometimes it just takes me 4 hours before I can ;o) One of the main reasons it "has" to be this way, is because Linux is made by geeks, for geeks. And that hasn't changed much, basically. Oh sure, user-friendliness is on its way, but userfriendliness in just a window manager is far from all that's required to beat a system like Windows.
You probably don't have to answer that, as I know full well that it is a miracle that Linux exists in the first place, thanks to the morons in Redmond that want us all to have lots of freedom of choice, as long as we choose Microsoft.
Well, the funny thing is: There's a reason MS has a successful O/S :o) They keep it fairly simple, and Joe User can do what he needs to do, with no hassle. If there ever is hassle, he'll call the IT guy, cause a Windows expert is always reachable. Personally, I would like a combination of the Linux and Windows concept. That is, based on Linux (as I don't like MS policy, which is my main reason for even trying to install Linux), but the friendliness of Windows.
But all the hype about Linux is desktop ready just makes me want to sulk. It isn't by any means the installation that is the problem. No kidding, the installation is easy.
Heh, right on the money man :o) Installation, no problemo. Getting things to work, that's a whole other matter. For the most part, I've been able to use Linux immediately after installing it though. So, it has come a long way since I tried it last time. But if you want anything that's not included in the installation, oh boy...
That's just another example of how ridiculously complicated things are in this OS. It takes me typically a month of 2-4 hours a day of hacking to get a freshly installed desktop box to do almost everything right for my real work to be done.
That is really nuts, don't ya think?
I'm right there with you buddy ! :D Basically what the Linux world needs to do, is: - Still centralize development of core Linux, on which you base any distro. Then create a Desktop LSB to base Linux on if it's for desktop, and do the normal LSB for servers (possibly just one, but the geeks would probably have a fit if that was the case... "Ooh, where are my configuration files and hard-to-use command-line tools"). - Forget the geek pride. If Linux must succeed on desktops, certain compro- mises need to reached. - Instead of having a 1000 ways of doing one thing, create ONE way of doing one thing ! One of the things I always get annoyed by, is during the instal- lation when you get to choose which programs to install. Hmm, I don't know what I need, so I install the whole shabang, more or less. Why do I need 20 programs for modem- or serial-communication, another 20 for this, 14 for that etc. You get the point. MS is great that way. No choosing programs, you just choose functionality, and the according programs are installed. If you want another way of doing it, fine, install the program yourself. That's ok ! And when you do, Linux should provide a way of doing so, that is safe and protects the original system. - Install-formats... ONE format across all distros, one you double-click on, an installer starts, and everything gets done. Yeah yeah, dependencies and other great fancy-schmanzy is great, but Joe User don't want to be bothered by it. - The filesystem is... confusing, I think. Windows is great that way. An entry- point for programs, one for the system, one for documents. Sure, Linux has that too. /usr, /etc, /home and so forth. But, more obvious names would be great, even if they're a bit longer. That makes everything a bit easier to remember and relate to. Plus, everything's too messy when you get a couple of levels into the hierarchy. Logic and tidyness, thanks :o) Also, the absence of file- extensions makes everything more confusing. I'm not saying file-extensions is the answer, but some obvious way of telling what's what, is needed. - Get the game-companies to support Linux ! In many ways it's like VHS and Betamax in the 70's, and emerging technologies today: The best doesn't always get chosen, the popular technology does. Yeah, so something's not the most technologically advanced, but it's very usable. Anyway, my point was: back in the 70's (or was it 80's ?), Betamax was actually better than VHS. However, most porn got published on VHS, and that was actually a BIG factor in the public decision on what to buy. And with that, what would be manufactured. Make Linux a popular gaming-platform, and the money will follow, I'll almost guarantee you that. - For the desktop part, forget all about command-line. It should be there, but in 99% of the time, things should be able to get done via GUI. Anyway, there are LOTS more stuff to this than just the above. I have TONS of ideas on how to combine the best of Windows with the best of Linux, and creating a kick-ass O/S. But I don't have the expertise to do it. That said though, I've spent a LOT of thought on this subject. Basically, what would be great is: O/S based on Linux, with the ease of Windows. Simple filesystem, uniform in- staller, games, standardization on tools so people don't have 100 ways of doing everything (relieving people of choices is not always a bad thing. Things get done very quickly if there's a standard way of doing things). Throw in modularity, protection of the basic system, and the user-security Linux has now, and everything will have come a LONG way in competing with Windows. But until then... uh-uh, Linux doesn't stand a chance in hell on the desktop, against Windows. I use Windows because it gets things done. It's not always the best, and it has its annoyances, faults and it lacks a lot of great functionality that Linux has. But it lets me get things done. And that's what an O/S is all about. Providing a platform that's easy to use, easy to configure and a joy to run.
Well, I just needed to vent some steam while I'm waiting for some answers from the various mailing lists that I'm participating in.
Mine wasn't so much steam, as it was my urge to comment on the subject. I really feel strongly for an alternative O/S, but as long as geekiness and open-mindedness- at-all-costs are in control it won't happen. Some things need to change, if Linux is to succeed on the desktop. There's a reason Windows is a success, and it's not just because of the way MS does business... Jacob
Oh that's nonsence. I've had several businesses running exclussively on SuSe for several years without a glitch. And compared to any other environment, it's been by far the most productive environment to use over that period. In fact, NYLXS (http://www.nylxs.com) just did our second Business Demo with a substantial tract on TOC and productivity. If your getting the results that you claim, you should just wander over to the Free Software Chamber of Commerce at http://www.nylxs.com/fscommerce/ and get some folks in their to help you, so that you can reap the rewards of your IT investments. Ruben On 2002.11.18 01:38 Jacob Saaby Nielsen wrote:
I can be productive in Linux too... sometimes it just takes me 4 hours before I can ;o)
-- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-0585
I've had several businesses running exclussively on SuSe for several years without a glitch.
I don't remember saying that's not possible ;o)
And compared to any other environment, it's been by far the most productive environment to use over that period. In fact, NYLXS (http://www.nylxs.com) just did our second Business Demo with a substantial tract on TOC and productivity.
Great, I'm happy for you :o)
If your getting the results that you claim, you should just wander over to the Free Software Chamber of Commerce at http://www.nylxs.com/fscommerce/ and get some folks in their to help you, so that you can reap the rewards of your IT investments.
Uhm.. what results did I claim I got ? And about the nonsense: It's great that you know how to make everything work, at the snap of your fingers. But I don't, in the Linux world. And sometimes I have to spend a considerable amount of time fixing something in Linux. Ruben, I'm not saying Linux is bad, or that nothing gets accomplished with Linux. Just that it's not at all ready for the desktop (I'm still talking Joe User types here). Jacob
And I'm just saying your OBVIOUSLY just wrong. The question is Windows ready for the desktop. Clearly NOT. And the Tech support numbers support this. Ruben
Just that it's not at all ready for the desktop (I'm still talking Joe User types here).
Jacob
-- 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
-- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-0585
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world. Just yesterday a partner at a firm I work with was having a stunningly unfixable with Windows which brought her whole workflow to a halt because of an AOL upfgrade and a virtual memormy error. She feels REAL productive. Ruben
You probably don't have to answer that, as I know full well that it is a miracle that Linux exists in the first place, thanks to the morons in Redmond that want us all to have lots of freedom of choice, as long as we choose Microsoft.
Well, the funny thing is: There's a reason MS has a successful O/S :o)
-- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-0585
On Sunday 17 November 2002 23:31, Ruben I Safir wrote:
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world. Just yesterday a partner at a firm I work with was having a stunningly unfixable with Windows which brought her whole workflow to a halt because of an AOL upfgrade and a virtual memormy error.
She feels REAL productive.
well, perhaps to brighten your day, I just saw the following error message/sequence on a windows computer at the local internet gaming parlor: "because windows was not shutdown properly... " [the wrist-slap error message that scandisk puts up during boot] "scandisk detected an error in a long filename that scandisk cannot fix. To fix this error run scandisk for windows" "press OK to continue"
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world.
The sole reason, no. That's simply not true. People have a choice, and can order a computer with no Windows. But btw, MS business practices are why I'm looking into Linux in the first place. So I'm not starting a discussion about that, I think we basically agree.
Just yesterday a partner at a firm I work with was having a stunningly unfixable with Windows which brought her whole workflow to a halt because of an AOL upfgrade and a virtual memormy error.
Windows has its faults as does Linux. I didn't argue that Windows is error-free. But then again, neither is Linux. Also, I wasn't starting a war of religion. I simply stated my views on the subject. Jacob
On 2002.11.18 04:24 Jacob Saaby Nielsen wrote:
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world.
The sole reason, no.
The soul reason YES - unless you want to include their anti-trust tactics against Borland and their intimidation of developers. There is not a SINGLE superior product in the MS stable. Ruben -- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-0585
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 03:24, Jacob Saaby Nielsen wrote:
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world.
The sole reason, no. That's simply not true. People have a choice, and can order a computer with no Windows. But btw, MS business practices are why I'm looking into Linux in the first place. So I'm not starting a discussion about that, I think we basically agree.
Well, I don't know which country you live in, but at least in the US it was (I'm not sure if it still is) illegal to sell a computer without an operating system, and since MS blackmails any company that offers their consumers a choice, there really is no choice. This is the same reason AOL bent over backwards to appease MS, just so they could have real estate on the desktop of new PC's. Most people are pretty ignorant to their choices and only know what they have in front of them. If a PC comes with windows and aol on the desktop for internet, then they think that is what they have to use for that computer. Heh, many people think that IE is the internet, and without it they won't be able to connect. (many people don't even know what Netscape is, why? because it doesn't come preinstalled) So, the whole preinstalled deal has a HUGE effect on a company's success. -- JericAtSbcglobalDotNetwork 8:48am up 7 days, 7:33, 7 users, load average: 0.24, 0.08, 0.02
Well, I don't know which country you live in, but at least in the US it was (I'm not sure if it still is) illegal to sell a computer without an operating system, and since MS blackmails any company that offers their consumers a choice, there really is no choice. This is the same reason AOL bent over backwards to appease MS, just so they could have real estate on the desktop of new PC's. Most people are pretty ignorant to their choices and only know what they have in front of them. If a PC comes with windows and aol on the desktop for internet, then they think that is what they have to use for that computer. Heh, many people think that IE is the internet, and without it they won't be able to connect. (many people don't even know what Netscape is, why? because it doesn't come preinstalled) So, the whole preinstalled deal has a HUGE effect on a company's success.
-- JericAtSbcglobalDotNetwork 8:48am up 7 days, 7:33, 7 users, load average: 0.24, 0.08, 0.02 -- 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
Well, I don't know which country you live in, but at least in the US it was (I'm not sure if it still is) illegal to sell a computer without an operating system, and since MS blackmails any company that offers their consumers a choice, there really is no choice. This is the same reason AOL bent over backwards to appease MS, just so they could have real estate on the desktop of new PC's. Most people are pretty ignorant to their choices and only know what they have in front of them. If a PC comes with windows and aol on the desktop for internet, then they think that is what they have to use for that computer. Heh, many people think that IE is the internet, and without it they won't be able to connect. (many people don't even know what Netscape is, why? because it doesn't come preinstalled) So, the whole preinstalled deal has a HUGE effect on a company's success.
1. I don't disagree with your views. I just don't believe at all, it's as simple as Windows being preloaded. It's a comfortable explanation, sure. 2. I live in Denmark. And I'm sorry if I offend anyone on the list, but it's only in the US you get stupid laws like that. Of course you should be able to buy a PC with no O/S ! At least, here it's not a problem. At Dell's website they don't list the option of no O/S, but if you call them, and order it directly, it's not a problem. 3. Damn... I'd forgotten what it's like to discuss these matters with Linux people. I don't even disagree with a lot of you guys' views. I just don't believe your points are the only sides of the story. You em- phasize my point that it's made for geeks, by geeks, and why it still isn't in the same league as Windows in that matter. Sure, keep telling yourself there's nothing wrong with Linux, the O/S will get really far...;o) You forget that Joe User and wife are not geeks. They can't do what you can, and they don't know what you know. There's lots more to this subject than pre-installation. 4. I don't know what planet you guys live on. But if I need to re-install my machine (which hasn't happened since Windows 2000 came out, and XP still runs the way I installed it too) it takes me one evening max. And that's O/S, apps and games, plus post-setup. I very rarely have problems with drivers, even on older machines I setup for my Joe User friends. And if I do, they're usually instantly downloadable. 5. I can install Linux too, in an hour max. But that's not the point, and is - like I wrote before - just a very small part of the issue of desktop-readiness. Regards Jacob
Jeric wrote:
Well, I don't know which country you live in, but at least in the US it was (I'm not sure if it still is) illegal to sell a computer without an operating system, and since MS blackmails any company that offers their consumers a choice, there really is no choice.
When was this? I have bought computers with no OS many times in the past three years. Good day! -- ____________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser/Optical Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarle@sandia.gov
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 14:04, Chris Carlen wrote:
Jeric wrote:
Well, I don't know which country you live in, but at least in the US it was (I'm not sure if it still is) illegal to sell a computer without an operating system, and since MS blackmails any company that offers their consumers a choice, there really is no choice.
When was this? I have bought computers with no OS many times in the past three years.
The last desktop I purchased was 1997/96(I think) at which time, dell, gateway, and Micron all claimed to not be able to ship a computer w/o an O/S due to law which disallowed it. At the time, I followed up and found this out to be true (apparently it was a law created because companies where shipping PC's w/o an O/S and w/o stating so in their ads, so as a consumer protection deal against false advertising and fraud, this law went into effect, IIRC), hence the reason that was the last time I purchased a desktop, instead of building one. Recently, Sony claimed it in 2000 when I purchased a laptop, however their description was more vague as to why they could not do such, which left me wondering if that was more a M$/Sony thing, rather then legislature (hence the reason, I stated that I was not sure if it was still in effect). -Jeric -- JericAtSbcglobalDotNetwork 2:14pm up 7 days, 12:59, 6 users, load average: 0.10, 0.07, 0.07
Jeric wrote:
Well, I don't know which country you live in, but at least in the US it was (I'm not sure if it still is) illegal to sell a computer without an operating system, and since MS blackmails any company that offers their consumers a choice, there really is no choice.
When was this? I have bought computers with no OS many times in the past three years.
Good day! ======================= Ladies & Gents, I don't want to sound rude or anything, but would it possible to move
On Monday 18 November 2002 03:04 pm, Chris Carlen wrote: this discussion/debate to one of the other lists designed for such things? It has gone on for two or three days now and I have yet to see a solution to any problems SuSE related. :o) There are many other lists for off topic discussions and this one wasn't even labeled as such as it should have been. I don't think SuSE maintains a general list nor should they have too, because of so many others available for such things. I can think of a couple right now you can subscribe to and neither will flood your mailbox. ofbtalk@ofb.biz Eweb-talk@edificationweb.com Thanks, Patrick -- --- KMail v1.4.3 --- SuSE Linux Pro v8.1 --- Registered Linux User #225206
I second that!
======================= Ladies & Gents, I don't want to sound rude or anything, but would it possible to move this discussion/debate to one of the other lists designed for such things? It has gone on for two or three days now and I have yet to see a solution to any problems SuSE related. :o)
There are many other lists for off topic discussions and this one wasn't even labeled as such as it should have been. I don't think SuSE maintains a general list nor should they have too, because of so many others available for such things. I can think of a couple right now you can subscribe to and neither will flood your mailbox.
ofbtalk@ofb.biz Eweb-talk@edificationweb.com
Thanks, Patrick
On 18 Nov 2002 at 2:31, Ruben I Safir wrote:
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world. Just yesterday a partner at a firm I work with was having a stunningly unfixable with Windows which brought her whole workflow to a halt because of an AOL upfgrade and a virtual memormy error.
She feels REAL productive.
Ruben
Spot on! The idea that Windows is easier to install than Linux is a myth, and has been for some time. I have to install both Windows and Linux. If I'm installing Linux I allow about an hour, after which I expect to be doing work on the machine. If I plan to install Windows then I will allow at least a day, two days if there is anything unusual about the hardware. On top of that I would expect it to be several weeks before I've located all the annoying things where Windows assumes I don't know what I'm doing and does something different, and turned them off. The problem is, as Ruben pointed out obliquely, that most people do not install Windows, but if they want to use Linux then they do have to install it. This gives rise to the myth that Linux is more difficult to install. IMHO it's not an accident that, as came out during the Microsoft anti- trust trial, one of the things Microsoft was most desperate to prevent was allowing the pre-installation of Linux on PCs. alan -- http://www.ibgames.net/alan Registered Linux user #6822 http://counter.li.org Winding Down - Weekly Tech Newsletter - subscribe at http://www.ibgames.net/alan/winding/mailing.html
Bingo! You've answered the question! I've installed Windows (all versions) and several versions of Linux many times and the "pre-installs" have it! It's all in the context of how Linux enters your domain and that usually means it's you doing the work. Win boxes are already set up when you go to Best Buy, order one from Dell, etc. Keep that in mind the next time you need to install a package on Linux. I've had big problems getting programs to work on Windows after the install because some driver was missing or some .dll was not in the right path, etc. Some of these problems required downloading a patch in order to fix them. I've had to re-install Windows many more times on peoples' machines because something in the original install went haywire. I can honestly say that I have never had to re-install the entire Linux kernel to fix a problem like that. Also, there are more computer vendors offering the option of having a Linux distro installed on their machine. Those machines, from what I understand, are fast, dependable and as easy to use as any Win box. And yes, they have all of those different packages to chose from that pretty much do the same thing. To many people, including myself, this is a benefit not a problem. But again, these boxes are "pre-built". - RJ alan@ibgames.com wrote:
On 18 Nov 2002 at 2:31, Ruben I Safir wrote:
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world. Just yesterday a partner at a firm I work with was having a stunningly unfixable with Windows which brought her whole workflow to a halt because of an AOL upfgrade and a virtual memormy error.
She feels REAL productive.
Ruben
Spot on! The idea that Windows is easier to install than Linux is a myth, and has been for some time. I have to install both Windows and Linux. If I'm installing Linux I allow about an hour, after which I expect to be doing work on the machine. If I plan to install Windows then I will allow at least a day, two days if there is anything unusual about the hardware. On top of that I would expect it to be several weeks before I've located all the annoying things where Windows assumes I don't know what I'm doing and does something different, and turned them off.
The problem is, as Ruben pointed out obliquely, that most people do not install Windows, but if they want to use Linux then they do have to install it. This gives rise to the myth that Linux is more difficult to install.
IMHO it's not an accident that, as came out during the Microsoft anti- trust trial, one of the things Microsoft was most desperate to prevent was allowing the pre-installation of Linux on PCs.
alan -- http://www.ibgames.net/alan Registered Linux user #6822 http://counter.li.org Winding Down - Weekly Tech Newsletter - subscribe at http://www.ibgames.net/alan/winding/mailing.html
-- 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
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 08:29, Robert Jacobsen wrote:
I've had to re-install Windows many more times on peoples' machines because something in the original install went haywire. I can honestly say that I have never had to re-install the entire Linux kernel to fix a problem like that.
Ah, yes, the tri-annual reformatting of my windows box was always an issue I loved to spend an entire weekend doing...not! Format+install of windows and all necessary apps = ~36 hours. The same for linux = 3 hours (with SuSE distro, other distros take a few more hours). Now, in linux if there is a problem, I have *never* had to reformat it to fix it. So, I might spend an hour or two to get somethings working or fixing them, but so far, my time doing this in linux has *never* come close to the time I have spent fixing things in windows. Also, windows has a way of having problems that sometimes cannot be fixed in a timely manner (i.e. you'll have to spend a day manually going through the registry and file system to find/correct an issue, since there is almost NO documentation for windows), in which case a format may become necessary. At work I administer 2 Linux, 6 Solaris 8/9's, and 50 NT's...I'm always fixing the NT's, and I honestly forget the last time an end-user contacted me with an issue on a Solaris or Linux box. Being a scientific research lab, the users use the boxes fairly equally, time wise, too. -- JericAtSbcglobalDotNetwork 9:04am up 7 days, 7:49, 7 users, load average: 0.50, 0.22, 0.09
In a similar discussion, one poster pointed out the Windows has just as many if not more problems with hardware and in general it's overall configurations on a given machine. The whole thing about OEM's and pre-installed Windows is the OEMs tweak and customize a Windows installtion before they release the computer to the shelf. Therefore they can all but guarantee that it will work and it's in their best interest to do so in order to limit support cost as much as possible. Another group of posters was discussing how in one opinion Dell had pre-installed Linux but only on servers. The other poster said he bought a desktop Dell with RH pre-installed directly from Dell. The poster that insisted that Dell would not sell him a set of Desktops with Linux pre-installed was somewhat disbelieving that this guy got a Desktop with RH on it. He mentioned that he had tried and failed to get Dell to sell these Desktops with RH on it about a month or so ago. Now, it occurs to me that a month ago the M$ judgement hadn't been rendered as of yet. Now we have a judgement (for better or worse). One of the very clear things in the judgement had to do with retaliation against OEM's for using Non-M$ products (e.g. withholding a new release, jacking the OEM's license cost for a new release, or withholding api/code base/etc.. info from the offending OEM). Now I wonder if, since Dell has a page that shows a whole range of computers with Linux pre-installed, from desktop to workstations to servers, if they don't feel they have a fairly clear path to exercise this option without a fear of "punitive action" by M$. I have discussed this with some friends that are successful practicing lawyers about the settlement, and while much of it is vague and has some definite loop holes, it is very clear about M$' attempts at restricting and dictating to an OEM what the may or may not include as an offering to their clientele (e.g. alternative OSes, dual-boot systems, etc...). Therefore if this is in fact the case then one can find Linux pre-installed. And as time goes by I can see what the OEMs did to enable windows to work as well as it did (by preconfiguring/tweaking the OS to fit the OEMs system) happening with Linux. Maybe It's just wishful thinking, I'm farily cynical and somewhat pesimistic. But I do believe that M$ bears the risk for any retiatory practice , at least in this area. And given that the one thing the judgement did was to set up M$ for other complaints and litigation I think they maybe easing of on the hardline for no other reason than wanting to avoid the courts. Just MHO, Curtis. On Monday 18 November 2002 08:29, Robert Jacobsen wrote:
Bingo! You've answered the question!
I've installed Windows (all versions) and several versions of Linux many times and the "pre-installs" have it!
It's all in the context of how Linux enters your domain and that usually means it's you doing the work. Win boxes are already set up when you go to Best Buy, order one from Dell, etc.
Keep that in mind the next time you need to install a package on Linux. I've had big problems getting programs to work on Windows after the install because some driver was missing or some .dll was not in the right path, etc. Some of these problems required downloading a patch in order to fix them.
I've had to re-install Windows many more times on peoples' machines because something in the original install went haywire. I can honestly say that I have never had to re-install the entire Linux kernel to fix a problem like that.
Also, there are more computer vendors offering the option of having a Linux distro installed on their machine. Those machines, from what I understand, are fast, dependable and as easy to use as any Win box. And yes, they have all of those different packages to chose from that pretty much do the same thing. To many people, including myself, this is a benefit not a problem. But again, these boxes are "pre-built".
- RJ
alan@ibgames.com wrote:
On 18 Nov 2002 at 2:31, Ruben I Safir wrote:
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world. Just yesterday a partner at a firm I work with was having a stunningly unfixable with Windows which brought her whole workflow to a halt because of an AOL upfgrade and a virtual memormy error.
She feels REAL productive.
Ruben
Spot on! The idea that Windows is easier to install than Linux is a myth, and has been for some time. I have to install both Windows and Linux. If I'm installing Linux I allow about an hour, after which I expect to be doing work on the machine. If I plan to install Windows then I will allow at least a day, two days if there is anything unusual about the hardware. On top of that I would expect it to be several weeks before I've located all the annoying things where Windows assumes I don't know what I'm doing and does something different, and turned them off.
The problem is, as Ruben pointed out obliquely, that most people do not install Windows, but if they want to use Linux then they do have to install it. This gives rise to the myth that Linux is more difficult to install.
IMHO it's not an accident that, as came out during the Microsoft anti- trust trial, one of the things Microsoft was most desperate to prevent was allowing the pre-installation of Linux on PCs.
alan -- http://www.ibgames.net/alan Registered Linux user #6822 http://counter.li.org Winding Down - Weekly Tech Newsletter - subscribe at http://www.ibgames.net/alan/winding/mailing.html
-- 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
-- Billboard Writer vs. Literature = Micorsoft vs. Computing,
Hi All, Just a bit of clarification. M$ has had OEM contracts that did NOT prohibit or penalize the OEM for selling units with LINUX of other non-M$ op sys. Their OEM contracts REQUIRED the OEM to pay M$ a fee for EVERY unit shipped, whether it had a M$ product on it or not. So it is very likely that anyone who has bought a 'Brand Name' PC with LINUX on it generated a royalty payment to M$. M$ usually set up royalty structures that had the very lowest fee for those OEMs who agreed to pay M$ for every box shipped. If the OEM wanted a contract that allowed any boxes shipped to NOT ship with M$ code, then the contracts unit price for M$ products on selected boxes was at a very much higher per unit price. PeterB On Monday 18 November 2002 12:35 pm, Curtis Rey wrote:
In a similar discussion, one poster pointed out the Windows has just as many if not more problems with hardware and in general it's overall configurations on a given machine. The whole thing about OEM's and pre-installed Windows is the OEMs tweak and customize a Windows installtion before they release the computer to the shelf. Therefore they can all but guarantee that it will work and it's in their best interest to do so in order to limit support cost as much as possible.
Another group of posters was discussing how in one opinion Dell had pre-installed Linux but only on servers. The other poster said he bought a desktop Dell with RH pre-installed directly from Dell. The poster that insisted that Dell would not sell him a set of Desktops with Linux pre-installed was somewhat disbelieving that this guy got a Desktop with RH on it. He mentioned that he had tried and failed to get Dell to sell these Desktops with RH on it about a month or so ago.
Now, it occurs to me that a month ago the M$ judgement hadn't been rendered as of yet. Now we have a judgement (for better or worse). One of the very clear things in the judgement had to do with retaliation against OEM's for using Non-M$ products (e.g. withholding a new release, jacking the OEM's license cost for a new release, or withholding api/code base/etc.. info from the offending OEM). Now I wonder if, since Dell has a page that shows a whole range of computers with Linux pre-installed, from desktop to workstations to servers, if they don't feel they have a fairly clear path to exercise this option without a fear of "punitive action" by M$. I have discussed this with some friends that are successful practicing lawyers about the settlement, and while much of it is vague and has some definite loop holes, it is very clear about M$' attempts at restricting and dictating to an OEM what the may or may not include as an offering to their clientele (e.g. alternative OSes, dual-boot systems, etc...). Therefore if this is in fact the case then one can find Linux pre-installed. And as time goes by I can see what the OEMs did to enable windows to work as well as it did (by preconfiguring/tweaking the OS to fit the OEMs system) happening with Linux. Maybe It's just wishful thinking, I'm farily cynical and somewhat pesimistic. But I do believe that M$ bears the risk for any retiatory practice , at least in this area. And given that the one thing the judgement did was to set up M$ for other complaints and litigation I think they maybe easing of on the hardline for no other reason than wanting to avoid the courts.
Just MHO, Curtis.
On Monday 18 November 2002 08:29, Robert Jacobsen wrote:
Bingo! You've answered the question!
I've installed Windows (all versions) and several versions of Linux many times and the "pre-installs" have it!
It's all in the context of how Linux enters your domain and that usually means it's you doing the work. Win boxes are already set up when you go to Best Buy, order one from Dell, etc.
Keep that in mind the next time you need to install a package on Linux. I've had big problems getting programs to work on Windows after the install because some driver was missing or some .dll was not in the right path, etc. Some of these problems required downloading a patch in order to fix them.
I've had to re-install Windows many more times on peoples' machines because something in the original install went haywire. I can honestly say that I have never had to re-install the entire Linux kernel to fix a problem like that.
Also, there are more computer vendors offering the option of having a Linux distro installed on their machine. Those machines, from what I understand, are fast, dependable and as easy to use as any Win box. And yes, they have all of those different packages to chose from that pretty much do the same thing. To many people, including myself, this is a benefit not a problem. But again, these boxes are "pre-built".
- RJ
alan@ibgames.com wrote:
On 18 Nov 2002 at 2:31, Ruben I Safir wrote:
This is more gibberish. The sole reason for their success is that it comes PREINSTALLED on nearly ever computer in the world. Just yesterday a partner at a firm I work with was having a stunningly unfixable with Windows which brought her whole workflow to a halt because of an AOL upfgrade and a virtual memormy error.
She feels REAL productive.
Ruben
Spot on! The idea that Windows is easier to install than Linux is a myth, and has been for some time. I have to install both Windows and Linux. If I'm installing Linux I allow about an hour, after which I expect to be doing work on the machine. If I plan to install Windows then I will allow at least a day, two days if there is anything unusual about the hardware. On top of that I would expect it to be several weeks before I've located all the annoying things where Windows assumes I don't know what I'm doing and does something different, and turned them off.
The problem is, as Ruben pointed out obliquely, that most people do not install Windows, but if they want to use Linux then they do have to install it. This gives rise to the myth that Linux is more difficult to install.
IMHO it's not an accident that, as came out during the Microsoft anti- trust trial, one of the things Microsoft was most desperate to prevent was allowing the pre-installation of Linux on PCs.
alan -- http://www.ibgames.net/alan Registered Linux user #6822 http://counter.li.org Winding Down - Weekly Tech Newsletter - subscribe at http://www.ibgames.net/alan/winding/mailing.html
-- 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
-- -- Proud to be a SuSE Linux User since 5.2 --
** Reply to message from Peter B Van Campen
M$ has had OEM contracts that did NOT prohibit or penalize the OEM for selling units with LINUX of other non-M$ op sys. Their OEM contracts REQUIRED the OEM to pay M$ a fee for EVERY unit shipped, whether it had a M$ product on it or not.
yes , IIRC these same contracts also forbade the locate of an icon on the desktop that would make an easy dual boot ( for newbies etc.) They also forbade the use of any bootloader that would give any indication that there was another OS on the box! That was the worst part for all other OSes , MS "owned" ( via these contracts ) the bootloader! If you can't boot to another OS what's the point of having it on the box . IF you are a computer beginner, or reletive newcomer to the idea that there actually is something other than Windows or Macs ( which don't count in this discussion as it's different architecture ) You are unlikely to even try another OS, at least not until you re install windows a bunch of times an it gradually dawns upon you that all OSes work pretty much the same ways. Sometimes doing the same sort of things , but doing them in a way that is at all different, takes a bit of getting used to or digging into to see the WAY the newer OS does these things . the folks who talk about computer priesthoods and incantations to make various boxen work as desired rather than the way the Softwre company , or consortium wishes . ( Linux/KDE case in point the way ,kmail for instance , insists you put a full naem in addition to your email address. But in fact most folks never change or even attempt to change the OS , I have a reletive who still is using 95 and another who is still on 3.11. When they buy a new box is when they will get a new OS. They wont' change it , because It's "free" for the price of the computer.. <heavy sigh> -- j afterthought: Democracy: 3 wolves & a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
On Monday 18 November 2002 06:38, Jacob Saaby Nielsen wrote: [mighty snip]
Basically what the Linux world needs to do, is:
[further mighty snip] There isn't a 'Linux world', there's just us. Nobody owes you a well organised system or free productivity software. I'm not having a go at you or at Chris, but neither of you has grasped the nature of the massive commercial forces at work providing you with 'free' Windows multimedia. Cast about in the licensing arrangements and then tell us how 'free' such systems really are. Please send no further generalised 'why oh why' lists of complaints to this mutual aid list. If you want to see improvements in Linux software, find a way to support development, most of which is being done free by volunteer developers. -- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk
Fergus Wilde wrote:
On Monday 18 November 2002 06:38, Jacob Saaby Nielsen wrote:
[mighty snip]
Basically what the Linux world needs to do, is:
[further mighty snip]
There isn't a 'Linux world', there's just us. Nobody owes you a well organised system or free productivity software. I'm not having a go at you or at Chris, but neither of you has grasped the nature of the massive commercial forces at work providing you with 'free' Windows multimedia.
I am very much aware of all that, which is why I said it is a miracle that Linux even exists in it's presently very impressive state. But the fact is that it is still an ordeal to get it working. Complaining about that is not necessarily failing to recognize why it is so.
Cast about in the licensing arrangements and then tell us how 'free' such systems really are.
Please send no further generalised 'why oh why' lists of complaints to this mutual aid list. If you want to see improvements in Linux software, find a way to support development, most of which is being done free by volunteer developers.
This attitude is interesting. Linux is currently being marketed as a way to lower TCO for IT installations, and for home users to avoid paying the massive costs of MS Office, etc. I paid $79 to SuSE for this software. I expect it to work. I understand there will always be glitches in setting up an OS. This happens with Windows. Maybe my experience is skewed, because I have spent at least 95% of my computing time over the last 8 years on Linux, rather than Windows. But *usually* in my limited Windows install experiences (only W98 is where I have installed a bunch of times) it is really quite easy to get things working. However, I have often encountered glitches that if I didn't know how to be investigative and use a command line and edit batch files, etc., I'd have gotten completely stuck. In contrast, this is *always* the case with Linux (as a desktop OS that can play multimedia stuff, surf the net with Java, print, have decent fonts, etc.). I have had to hack a very long list of things in SuSE 8.1 to get it near to what I had working in 7.3, which also took weeks. But these anecdotes are really not very useful. Back to the point, which is that you say I should support development of free software. Is my payment of $79 to SuSE adequate or should I also donate to the individual projects? How close to the purchase price of Windows plus Office should I donate before I have supported free software developers enough to have the right to complain about its complexity and difficulty of use? The closer I get to the cost of Windows plus office, the less reason I have (if I were a corporate bean counter, which I'm not, but I don't run the world, they do and so they will ultimately determine the fate of Linux) to switch to Linux in the first place. So you cannot have it both ways. You cannot hype the superior quality of free software over "proprietary Windows crap software" (a general quote of the stuff I read every day on Linux and IT news channels from those advocating Linux) and at the same time say that I should support the developers if the quality is lowsy. I think Linux desktops will be really great in shops where there are a couple of techs who know what they are doing with Linux, and who know *exactly* what set of operations need to be performed by the users. They can take a stock Suse or anything for that matter, then configure it up to where it does everything right. Then the time will only be spent once. Then they can mirror the hard drive onto all the target machines. But this will of course break down unless they also have standard hardware target platforms. Ok, enough. Good day! -- ____________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser/Optical Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarle@sandia.gov
** Reply to message from Chris Carlen
Maybe my experience is skewed, because I have spent at least 95% of my computing time over the last 8 years on Linux, rather than Windows. But *usually* in my limited Windows install experiences (only W98 is where I have installed a bunch of times) it is really quite easy to get things working.
pmfji but , rally It would be easy(ish) to get w98 working these days It's been around long enough for all those oems and hardware folks to get drivers written for all the added home user "gee whizery" stuff. If you want irrelivancey, I can get most of that same stuff working in OS/2 as well .. Long time release , not many major changes to the updates etc... -- j afterthought: Uncle Ed's Rule of Thumb: Never use your thumb for a rule.You'll either hit it with a hammer or get a splinter in it.
On Monday 18 November 2002 19:58, Chris Carlen wrote:
Fergus Wilde wrote:
On Monday 18 November 2002 06:38, Jacob Saaby Nielsen wrote:
[mighty snip]
Basically what the Linux world needs to do, is:
[further mighty snip]
There isn't a 'Linux world', there's just us. Nobody owes you a well organised system or free productivity software. I'm not having a go at you or at Chris, but neither of you has grasped the nature of the massive commercial forces at work providing you with 'free' Windows multimedia.
I am very much aware of all that, which is why I said it is a miracle that Linux even exists in it's presently very impressive state. But the fact is that it is still an ordeal to get it working. Complaining about that is not necessarily failing to recognize why it is so.
Cast about in the licensing arrangements and then tell us how 'free' such systems really are.
Please send no further generalised 'why oh why' lists of complaints to this mutual aid list. If you want to see improvements in Linux software, find a way to support development, most of which is being done free by volunteer developers.
This attitude is interesting. Linux is currently being marketed as a way to lower TCO for IT installations, and for home users to avoid paying the massive costs of MS Office, etc.
I paid $79 to SuSE for this software. I expect it to work. I understand there will always be glitches in setting up an OS. This happens with Windows. Maybe my experience is skewed, because I have spent at least 95% of my computing time over the last 8 years on Linux, rather than Windows. But *usually* in my limited Windows install experiences (only W98 is where I have installed a bunch of times) it is really quite easy to get things working. However, I have often encountered glitches that if I didn't know how to be investigative and use a command line and edit batch files, etc., I'd have gotten completely stuck.
In contrast, this is *always* the case with Linux (as a desktop OS that can play multimedia stuff, surf the net with Java, print, have decent fonts, etc.). I have had to hack a very long list of things in SuSE 8.1 to get it near to what I had working in 7.3, which also took weeks.
But these anecdotes are really not very useful. Back to the point, which is that you say I should support development of free software. Is my payment of $79 to SuSE adequate or should I also donate to the individual projects? How close to the purchase price of Windows plus Office should I donate before I have supported free software developers enough to have the right to complain about its complexity and difficulty of use?
Hi Chris, You have the right to complain. Generalised complaining of this kind just does no good. It's particularly useless when you're just blowing off tension to other users. I don't like the ageing process, and I don't care much for the way our coronary arteries and circulatory systems fail to provide adequate levels of redundant backup. I can complain to $DIVINITY. It does no good. Linux is a very disparately organised and diffuse project, the result of thousands of volunteer efforts. You paid $79 for your SuSE distro, great, I'm sure you've supported Linux in lots of ways - but it's not like the money you're spending on the Windows + Office system you seem to wish you were running. You're not buying a license to use the proprietary code of a single corporation, you're largely paying for SuSE's efforts in supplying a working blend of thousands of free software projects, plus the convenience of having that delivered on CD. There's a fundamental difference. It doesn't matter what marketing says, this difference will always be there. That's why it makes scant sense to have these huge andChris Carlen aimless threads on 'why can't everything be nice?' Exercise your right to complain. Just understand that it won't fix one single thing. I don't mean to harrass you in doing so - but if generalised grouching will do no good, please consider not bothering to send such grouches to this list. For those SuSE people reading the thread, they're not getting useful feedback, they're just getting demoralising moaning. Please revisit your view or model of what it is they do. Surely it's clear their aim is to provide the best Linux distro they can, and writing in with remarks like 'why did SuSE break $MY_FAVOURITE_PROG, huh?' is entirely unhelpful. They either had a reason, in which case asking what that reason is would be polite, or it's a mistake, in which case the only useful course of action is to identify the mistake and participate as fully as possible in fixing it soonest.
The closer I get to the cost of Windows plus office, the less reason I have (if I were a corporate bean counter, which I'm not, but I don't run the world, they do and so they will ultimately determine the fate of Linux) to switch to Linux in the first place.
Now you've hit the nail on the head. Devote your 'tension-busting' activities to changing their attitude, or better still to repositioning as much as possible to wrest power from the hands of said bean counters. Don't bother beating up SuSE's team, they're not the people you should be worried about. Remember why you wanted free software - so you get control, you get your freedom, and so you can have a lot of fun. Maintaining your freedom is always going to be harder than letting BigCorp run your life.
So you cannot have it both ways. You cannot hype the superior quality of free software over "proprietary Windows crap software" (a general quote of the stuff I read every day on Linux and IT news channels from those advocating Linux) and at the same time say that I should support the developers if the quality is lowsy.
I think Linux desktops will be really great in shops where there are a couple of techs who know what they are doing with Linux, and who know *exactly* what set of operations need to be performed by the users. They can take a stock Suse or anything for that matter, then configure it up to where it does everything right. Then the time will only be spent once. Then they can mirror the hard drive onto all the target machines. But this will of course break down unless they also have standard hardware target platforms.
Ok, enough.
Good day!
-- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk
Fergus Wilde wrote:
Hi Chris,
You have the right to complain. Generalised complaining of this kind just does no good. It's particularly useless when you're just blowing off tension to other users.
You are probably right. Sometimes I just loose it.
I don't like the ageing process, and I don't care much for the way our coronary arteries and circulatory systems fail to provide adequate levels of redundant backup. I can complain to $DIVINITY. It does no good.
I agree.
Linux is a very disparately organised and diffuse project, the result of thousands of volunteer efforts. You paid $79 for your SuSE distro, great, I'm sure you've supported Linux in lots of ways - but it's not like the money you're spending on the Windows + Office system you seem to wish you were running. You're not buying a license to use the proprietary code of a single corporation, you're largely paying for SuSE's efforts in supplying a working blend of thousands of free software projects, plus the convenience of having that delivered on CD. There's a fundamental difference. It doesn't matter what marketing says, this difference will always be there. That's why it makes scant sense to have these huge andChris Carlen aimless threads on 'why can't everything be nice?'
Exercise your right to complain. Just understand that it won't fix one single thing. I don't mean to harrass you in doing so - but if generalised grouching will do no good, please consider not bothering to send such grouches to this list.
Point taken.
Now you've hit the nail on the head. Devote your 'tension-busting' activities to changing their attitude, or better still to repositioning as much as possible to wrest power from the hands of said bean counters. Don't bother beating up SuSE's team, they're not the people you should be worried about. Remember why you wanted free software - so you get control, you get your freedom, and so you can have a lot of fun. Maintaining your freedom is always going to be harder than letting BigCorp run your life.
Yes. Despite my outbursts, you should realize that I have stuck with Linux for 8 years, to do 95% of my computing, and advocate it as much as possible. I will be sending considerable feedback to SuSE about my recent installation and configuration experiences, once I get things fully ironed out and the description of all the problems is complete. Good day! -- ____________________________________ Christopher R. Carlen Principal Laser/Optical Technologist Sandia National Laboratories CA USA crcarle@sandia.gov
No it isn't, especially SuSe Linux is a breezze to work with. Now windows is a huge ordeal. I'll bet money on it. We'll take to blank boxes and install side by side and see who gets up and running on the net and printing first. And then we can start installing software. I'll have Open Office on there before you find the license key Ruben
I am very much aware of all that, which is why I said it is a miracle that Linux even exists in it's presently very impressive state. But the fact is that it is still an ordeal to get it working. Complaining about that is not necessarily failing to recognize why it is so.
-- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-0585
On Monday 18 November 2002 10:02, Fergus Wilde wrote:
On Monday 18 November 2002 06:38, Jacob Saaby Nielsen wrote:
<short snip>
There isn't a 'Linux world', there's just us. Nobody owes you a well organised system or free productivity software. I'm not having a go at you or at Chris, but neither of you has grasped the nature of the massive commercial forces at work providing you with 'free' Windows multimedia. Cast about in the licensing arrangements and then tell us how 'free' such systems really are.
Please send no further generalised 'why oh why' lists of complaints to this mutual aid list. If you want to see improvements in Linux software, find a way to support development, most of which is being done free by volunteer developers.
Hey, the Linux Tutorial project can always use help, even if you aren't a programmer! I understand the problems people have with thousands of pages of doc, but that's because you can do thousands of things with it that Windows won't let you. Compare a cookbook to the text on the back of a frozen dinner. Yes a cookbook has more text, but simply because you can do more. You don't have to be a programmer to help. Choose some project to write doc for, or whatever. How about contributing to free software by helping others learn about it, like we do? We could certainly use on article or two on setting up multi-media on Linux or any number of things. We don't have the multi billion dollar marketing and PR budgets, so we use all the help we can get. Regards, jimmo -- --------------------------------------- "Be more concerned with your character than with your reputation. Your character is what you really are while your reputation is merely what others think you are." -- John Wooden --------------------------------------- Be sure to visit the Linux Tutorial: http://www.linux-tutorial.info --------------------------------------- NOTE: All messages sent to me in response to my posts to newsgroups, mailing lists or forums are subject to reposting.
Hi, i'm using suse 8.1 and i would like to set 100baseTx-HD permanently to my eth0. mii-diag -F 100baseTx-HD is just temporary and i don't know where and how (syntax) to put this (rc.local??) to make it permanent. any suggestions? thanks for your help! andreas
Op donderdag 21 november 2002 22:19, schreef Abo:
Hi,
i'm using suse 8.1 and i would like to set 100baseTx-HD permanently to my eth0.
mii-diag -F 100baseTx-HD is just temporary
and i don't know where and how (syntax) to put this (rc.local??) to make it permanent.
any suggestions? thanks for your help!
andreas
/etc/init.d/boot.local Marcel
i'm using suse 8.1 and i would like to set 100baseTx-HD permanently to my eth0.
mii-diag -F 100baseTx-HD is just temporary
and i don't know where and how (syntax) to put this (rc.local??) to make it permanent. IMHO the best place is to set it as an option in /etc/modules.conf. Add a line of the following form to the /etc/modules.conf:
options {driver name} parameter=value See the driver docuemntation (or look in the driver module's source code) for the actual options to specify. You didn't say which driver you are using, but here are some common parameter=value settings for 100-HD: Intel Pro/100 (e100): "e100_speed_duplex=3" Intel Pro/100 (eepro100): "options=32" 3Com 3c59x (3c59x): "options=0x4" so for the e100 driver: options e100 e100_speed_duplex=3 -- Simon Oliver
The 02.11.21 at 22:19, Abo wrote:
any suggestions?
Yes: Post a _new_ mail, don't hit reply to an old one changing the subject line. Many people will simply not see your email, because it is hidden inside another thread. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
I'll try to comment on the comments. A bunch of stuff has been omitted.
This is one of the things I've thought a LOT about. I would LOVE to drop my Windows, but as it is now, there's either that, or Mac OS X, if I want an O/S with which I can be productive. And before you die-hard Linux fans flame me: I can be productive in Linux too... sometimes it just takes me 4 hours before I can ;o)
MS is going to make it difficult (or impossible) to avoid: buying multiple OS's for use on your own computers, that you can only use one at a time anyway installing an OS that they can delete via the Internet any time they decide you're undesirable or whatever (by forcing you to register on the 'Net) upgrading the OS when they make a new one, by making the new one in some way incompatible with software you're presently using, OR by deactivating your present version (see above) ************************************************************************** >Well, the funny thing is: There's a reason MS has a successful O/S :o)
They keep it fairly simple, and Joe User can do what he needs to do, with no hassle. If there ever is hassle, he'll call the IT guy, cause a Windows expert is always reachable.
Joe User is sometimes me, and I like to use the DOS interface to do things like format floppies, find files, and run old DOS programs that do not have present Windows versions, or that I wrote (or somebody wrote) and are still valuable. ***************************************************************************
Basically what the Linux world needs to do, is:
- Instead of having a 1000 ways of doing one thing, create ONE way of doing
one thing ! One of the things I always get annoyed by, is during the instal- lation when you get to choose which programs to install. Hmm, I don't know what I need, so I install the whole shabang, more or less. Why do I need 20 programs for modem- or serial-communication, another 20 for this, 14 for that etc. You get the point. MS is great that way. No choosing programs, you just choose functionality, and the according programs are installed. If you want another way of doing it, fine, install the program yourself. That's ok ! And when you do, Linux should provide a way of doing so, that is safe and protects the original system.
********************************************************************** No complaint from me about dozens of ways to do things. But dozens of control DIRECTORIES as well as dozens of control files that can all do the same thing does not make sense. I know that UNIX grew like Topsy, but must we continue in that vein? **********************************************************************
- The filesystem is... confusing, I think. Windows is great that way. An entry- point for programs, one for the system, one for documents. Sure, Linux has that too. /usr, /etc, /home and so forth. But, more obvious names would be great, even if they're a bit longer. That makes everything a bit easier to remember and relate to. Plus, everything's too messy when you get a couple of levels into the hierarchy. Logic and tidyness, thanks :o) Also, the absence of file- extensions makes everything more confusing. I'm not saying file-extensions is the answer, but some obvious way of telling what's what, is needed.
************************************************************************** Well, I won't mess with the file-extension issue. I guess it has its merits, wrt automatic windows programs, like .pdf, or like .mpg. The file system IS confusing. But perhaps with a common LINUX, it will cease to be. One must remember that this is a UNIX clone, and is intended to be accessible to a UNIX geek. Even tho I'm not one, I respect that. Thank God that we don't have kindergarten names for our stuff, like MY Files, MY Computer, MY Documents, etc. And MY Computer. (Which one?) **************************************************************************
- For the desktop part, forget all about command-line. It should be there, but in 99% of the time, things should be able to get done via GUI.
I don't know why people are unwilling to type in commands. I use DOS commands --and UNIX commands--all the time. It's much quicker and easier, and I'm not a UNIX geek. No, I don't always do it, but I bet I do it at least 15% of the time, maybe more. *************************************************************************
doing everything (relieving people of choices is not always a bad thing.
************************************************************************** The thing that bugs me most about MS Windows is that I have been relieved of choices about how I do things. It pisses me off. The Registry is my prime culprit, which drives all the rest of the problems. **************************************************************************
Things get done very quickly if there's a standard way of doing things).
Just because there's Windows, what makes you think that there's a standard way of doing things? Have you used Lotus Notes? **************************************************************************
I use Windows because it gets things done. It's not always the best, and it has its annoyances, faults and it lacks a lot of great functionality that Linux has. But it lets me get things done. And that's what an O/S is all about. Providing a platform that's easy to use, easy to configure and a joy to run.
*************************************************************************\ Yes, I'm using Windows to write this, but mainly because I like Eudora as a mail program, and I'm not convinced that Windows is a "joy." I could use Linux, which is on this machine, but I dislike the available mail programs. Sure, it's easy to use, and will continue to be. Linux will get there, I hope, if Bill G. doesn't find a way to make it illegal. Obviously, there are programs that are not cloned in Linux, or not cloned well, and we will be stuck with MS for a while, but I will not be stuck with MS when their Big Brother systems are on line. I hope! --doug
Doug McGarrett
Yes, I'm using Windows to write this, but mainly because I like Eudora as a mail program, and I'm not convinced that Windows is a "joy." I could use Linux, which is on this machine, but I dislike the available mail programs.
Have you looked at Mutt? It's a kick-ass MUA. Best available, IMNSHO. Mutt+procmail+fetchmail = high-volume mail junkie's wet dream. http://www.mutt.org -rex -- "If a man is talking in the forest and no woman is there to hear him, is he still wrong?"
The 02.11.18 at 20:18, Doug McGarrett wrote:
installing an OS that they can delete via the Internet any time they decide you're undesirable or whatever (by forcing you to register on the 'Net)
I have seen people using pirated XP proff. No need to register (nor pay), and the updates do work. So much for their claims that it was impossible! X-) -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Monday 18 November 2002 03:34, Chris Carlen wrote:
Hi:
/vent mode on
Hi folks:
I just can't believe how much trouble it is to play anything multimedia on Linux.
[Why can't we all just get along / why won't everything work the way I want / why do only fools fall in love section snipped]
Well, I just needed to vent some steam while I'm waiting for some answers from the various mailing lists that I'm participating in.
Thanks for your ear.
Good day!
/vent mode off
I know life can be frustrating - but if people could avoid this kind of pointless rant it would be very helpful to me, and probably to others on the list. If you need advice on something specific, great, ask away. If you don't like the way SuSE packaged the distro, go to http://www.linuxfromscratch.org and build your own. It's fascinating, and the other thing it will do for you is make you appreciate what SuSE are able to achieve. If you don't like the way Linux works, or the way it handles multimedia, then either stop whining and fix it or stop whining and use something else. Either way, please stop whining here. -- Fergus Wilde Chetham's Library Long Millgate Manchester M3 1SB Tel: +44 161 834 7961 Fax: +44 161 839 5797 http://www.chethams.org.uk
Ok, both Jacob and Rubin have very valid points. And you "by geeks, for geeks" argument is understandable, especially consider where Linux started from. Remember M$ had a goal about the same time they were changing over from the 3.x to the 98 version. That was to put a computer (or moreover a windows box) in every home. To make it so that every Joe and Jane could use it and feel like they "needed" one. They have more or less accomplished this. Now, take in to consideration what I did tonight. Went over for dinner to a friends house. Both are very intelligent successful college educated people. One is a Nurse Practitioner and the other is in Global human resources and relations. Now, they have but a bare clue on how to use a windows box. I mean they had no idea about updating the computer, to defrag. They used what came with the box. Windows ME, IE, Outlook. etc.... So explaining to them the need to update the windows box (only does a little bit of good -:) ), updating their anti-vir at least weekly (if not automatically at boot up), why using the preview pain in Outluck got them infected with klez anyway, etc, etc,... So, I see similar things all the time, people want the computer to be along the same lines as a TV, Radio, VCR (and someone mentioned a=is you vcr clock blinking at midnight? b=is your vcr clock showing the correct time: if answer "a" a computer is probably not something they should use - get a email appliance). They just want to point, click, and go. So, what's wrong with that? Nothing really. But, Does "any" windows box you've ever seen come with over 1800 different programs? Does Windows allow you to set up permissions for any program, file, or device? Ya, NT/2K/XP-pro let's you to a certain extent - but I would suggest at least getting MSCE trained first (not that that really counts for anything in the real world) before trying to do it without A) hosing you system or B) making you system so vunerable and unstable that it gets hack/infected in a New York minute and end up as yet as a hosed system. So, now you have Linux. No giant mutli-national corporation with billions in the back to through at research. No gaint mulit-national corporation that has bullied its way to a 95% market share in consumer PC's and uses that fact to have every device maker, programmer, OEM, etc.. dance to it's tune and "make" everything fit into it's scheme and market plans. No, what you have is a group of world wide free-lance developers that through their minds, hearts, and souls into a project called "Linux" and often without money and in their free time (hmmm, wonder how many marriages the penquin has actually caused?). And from this we now have a few surviving companies trying to keep a good thing going. So, Mplayer has you frustrated. Perfectly understandable. And like I said to you earlier - it was essentially crippled because of license/legalities revolving around "certain" media formats and those that made and "copyrighted" those formats have a very nasty reputations for chewing people and companies up that it feels is encrouching on its turf. And frankly I perfectly understand why SuSE would take this stance for now considering the the OS SuSE offers has really got this nasty company pissed off. So, If Linux doesn't suit your needs you can go back to Bill's world, go over to Steve's side. stay and figure out the Linux and watch it grow, or any and all of the above. I'm not digging at you or trying to flame you. I'm just stating things as I see them (which often doesn't mean anything anyway). You solved your problem. You got a vanilla version of Mplayer, installed it and now it works as you thought it should. Unfortunately, SuSE couldn't provide it. Write to feedback@suse.com and let them know. As I and Jacob say. We understand you need to vent. But that's all that posting on this list is really going to amount to - your essentially "preaching to the choir" (and I've done my share of that also). I would strongy suggest posting to the feedback address and letting them know what is and isn't cool with SuSE. You might have a positive impact on future products. <end diatribe> Cheers, Curtis. On Sunday 17 November 2002 21:34, Chris Carlen wrote:
Hi:
/vent mode on
Hi folks:
I just can't believe how much trouble it is to play anything multimedia on Linux. I am trying to use mplayer, and it is just a big pain in the ass. Hundreds of pages of documentation. So far absolutely nothing I've tried to play works, which isn't much, because I don't know what to play anyway. I am trying to play some Thai TV shows that my wife wants to watch.
She uses Windows media player. The level of difficulty involved amounts to this:
1. Click on link. 2. Watch show.
In Linux of course it goes something like this:
1. Read hundreds of pages of documentation for several hours several days in a row until you think you know enough of the general overview to get started.
2. Find out that because of stupid licensing issues Suse couldn't include much of anything that works in the distribution, so begin hacking to try to make it work, first by downloading the codecs package from www.mplayerhq.hu and unpacking the files to /usr/lib/win32.
3. Run the program and start deciphering error messages for hours, and searching old mailing list archives.
4. Compose new messages to mailing lists and wait for hopefully a useful response.
Elapsed time: many hours; Results: none; Likelyhood of success: unknown.
Now repeat this experience with many many many other aspects of setting up a system that actually does useful things like plays multimedia stuff, burns CDs, prints, scans, etc.
I've got about 4 weeks into setting up 3 8.1 boxes, and I'm about 90% of the way there. But it has been one hell of an ordeal as usual, and I'm just wondering why it has to be this way.
You probably don't have to answer that, as I know full well that it is a miracle that Linux exists in the first place, thanks to the morons in Redmond that want us all to have lots of freedom of choice, as long as we choose Microsoft.
Arg!
But all the hype about Linux is desktop ready just makes me want to sulk. It isn't by any means the installation that is the problem. No kidding, the installation is easy.
What is difficult is getting all the stuff to work after installing. You know I have a Soundblaster 16, the very reference standard of soundcard compatibility in Linux, and for about 3 different Suse versions prior to 8.1, I had to manually delete out Yast's configuration lines from modules.conf and run the alsaconf program to make it work, because Yast *never* configured that stupid card correctly.
That's just another example of how ridiculously complicated things are in this OS. It takes me typically a month of 2-4 hours a day of hacking to get a freshly installed desktop box to do almost everything right for my real work to be done.
That is really nuts, don't ya think?
Well, I just needed to vent some steam while I'm waiting for some answers from the various mailing lists that I'm participating in.
Thanks for your ear.
Good day!
/vent mode off
-- Billboard Writer vs. Literature = Micorsoft vs. Computing,
So explaining to them the need to update the windows box (only does a little bit of good -:) ), updating their anti-vir at least weekly (if not automatically at boot up), why using the preview pain in Outluck got them infected with klez anyway, etc, etc,... So, I see similar things all the time, people want the computer to be along the same lines as a TV, Radio, VCR (and someone mentioned a=is you vcr clock blinking at midnight? b=is your vcr clock showing the correct time: if answer "a" a computer is probably not something they should use - get a email appliance). They just want to point, click, and go.
Hmm I heard a quote the other day that a certain Geek said he would never use a computer until it's as easy to use as his phone. Well he said he is gonna start using a computer now because it's finally happened!! Phones are now harder to use than a computer. Ruben -- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-0585
Dont blame the OS for the evils of DRM. DRM is theft. GNU/Linux makes this clear. See NY Fair Use and do something about it http://fairsue.nylxs.com Ruben
So, Mplayer has you frustrated. Perfectly understandable. And like I said to you earlier - it was essentially crippled because of license/legalities revolving around "certain" media formats and those that made and "copyrighted" those formats have a very nasty reputations for chewing people and companies up that it feels is encrouching on its turf. And frankly I perfectly understand why SuSE would take this stance for now considering the the OS SuSE offers has really got this nasty company pissed off.
-- __________________________ Brooklyn Linux Solutions __________________________ DRM is THEFT - We are the STAKEHOLDERS http://fairuse.nylxs.com http://www.mrbrklyn.com - Consulting http://www.inns.net <-- Happy Clients http://www.nylxs.com - Leadership Development in Free Software http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/resources - Unpublished Archive or stories and articles from around the net http://www2.mrbrklyn.com/downtown.html - See the New Downtown Brooklyn.... 1-718-382-0585
Who said anything about DRM? I was talking about avoiding any ammuntion M$ mitght find to ues = avoit the whole issue and let the end-user take the responsibility of using WMV/WMF formats on a system M$ woudl prefer didn't exist. As far as DRM is concerned it doesn't me squat in any place outside of the U.S. It's was passed by U.S. legislators and is only enforcable in a U.S. Court. Cheers, Curtis On Monday 18 November 2002 03:32, Ruben I Safir wrote:
Dont blame the OS for the evils of DRM. DRM is theft. GNU/Linux makes this clear.
See NY Fair Use and do something about it
Ruben
So, Mplayer has you frustrated. Perfectly understandable. And like I said to you earlier - it was essentially crippled because of license/legalities revolving around "certain" media formats and those that made and "copyrighted" those formats have a very nasty reputations for chewing people and companies up that it feels is encrouching on its turf. And frankly I perfectly understand why SuSE would take this stance for now considering the the OS SuSE offers has really got this nasty company pissed off.
-- Billboard Writer vs. Literature = Micorsoft vs. Computing,
waaaay back at the start of this thread, Chris Carlen wrote:
I just can't believe how much trouble it is to play anything multimedia on Linux. [...snipped manual config woes] Elapsed time: many hours; Results: none; Likelyhood of success: unknown.
Now repeat this experience with many many many other aspects of setting up a system that actually does useful things like plays multimedia stuff, burns CDs, prints, scans, etc.
"burn CD's" caught my attention -- I've been working on a presentation for a local linux user group on exactly that subject, and now (at the risk of slashdotting myself) I'd like to "preview" it to you folks: http://207.105.40.84/k3b/k3b_vHowTo.html This is meant as a "visual how-to", meaning I've captured screen shots of each step and a couple of animations (though they don't "animate" in the exported-to-web version). I can't guarantee that this will "help" if you have the same sort of problems w/CD-burners as you've had w/mplayer BUT it should help you understand "how to get it done" w/k3b if indeed your system properly recognizes the cd writer I'd appreciate comments and corrections (or other insights) I do know, for instance, that the quality of the screenshots has deteriorated mostly due to the sequence: capture in pixie as .png (immediate loss-of-quality right there) --> import into OO.o draw --> crop to "interesting" area & add circles and arrows --> re-export as another .png (more quality loss) --> import into impress --> export as web pages, converting to .jpg at 75% quality but it should still convey the intent fairly well. The OO.o presentation file is available as well in the file /k3b/KIII-b.sxi (1 meg) if you want to see the presentation at a "better" quality level. Note that this is a DSL line limited to 128k outbound (hence the likelyhood I'll be "slashdotted" :) these pages are not linked from the root level, so if you forget the /k3b/... part you won't find it (instead, you'll be downloading videos of a local choir I sang in last summer...)
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Tom Emerson wrote: [snip]
I'd appreciate comments and corrections (or other insights) I do know, for instance, that the quality of the screenshots has deteriorated mostly due to the sequence:
capture in pixie as .png (immediate loss-of-quality right there) --> import into OO.o draw --> crop to "interesting" area & add circles and arrows --> re-export as another .png (more quality loss) --> import into impress --> export as web pages, converting to .jpg at 75% quality
I don't know where you heard that PNG conversion introduces a loss of quality, unless the capture with pixie causes it. To quote from RFC 2083, the spec for PNG: This document describes PNG (Portable Network Graphics), an extensible file format for the lossless, portable, well-compressed storage of raster images. Perhaps it's the .jpg conversion that did it, as JPG is NOT a lossless format. Jim
On Monday 18 November 2002 16:39, Jim Cunning wrote:
On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Tom Emerson wrote: [snip]
I'd appreciate comments and corrections (or other insights) I do know, [...]
I don't know where you heard that PNG conversion introduces a loss of quality, unless the capture with pixie causes it.
that was where I got the notion -- after capturing a screen image, pixie came up with a dialog & slider for "image quality" as I saved it
The 02.11.18 at 17:15, Tom Emerson wrote:
I don't know where you heard that PNG conversion introduces a loss of quality, unless the capture with pixie causes it.
that was where I got the notion -- after capturing a screen image, pixie came up with a dialog & slider for "image quality" as I saved it
I had also that doubt (using gimp), but I think it refers only to the compression rate, as in zip. -- Cheers, Carlos Robinson
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 16:32, Tom Emerson wrote:
http://207.105.40.84/k3b/k3b_vHowTo.html
This is meant as a "visual how-to", meaning I've captured screen shots of each
I'd appreciate comments and corrections (or other insights) I do know, for
Do you know where to locate the help files for the "advanced" screen? I have searched the web, and man, but have not found a condensed version (i.e. I would have to look up the options independently...the not so obvious ones anyway, but would prefer a k3b manual if one exists). I am especially curious what happens if I select both rockridge and joliet formats (can it be formatted with both?), and how much overhead multi-sessions create (in cdroast it is something astronomical like 13MB per session...blah!) Thanks for the work you did. I tried k3b before but it keeps erroring out, and I can't figure why, but cdroast works fine. Thanks, -Jeric -- JericAtSbcglobalDotNetwork 9:22pm up 35 min, 5 users, load average: 0.73, 0.43, 0.31
On Monday 18 November 2002 19:31, Jeric wrote:
On Mon, 2002-11-18 at 16:32, Tom Emerson wrote:
http://207.105.40.84/k3b/k3b_vHowTo.html
This is meant as a "visual how-to", meaning I've captured screen shots of each
I'd appreciate comments and corrections (or other insights) I do know, for
Do you know where to locate the help files for the "advanced" screen? I have searched the web, and man, but have not found a condensed version (i.e. I would have to look up the options independently...the not so obvious ones anyway, but would prefer a k3b manual if one exists).
You and me both -- either I didn't install something correctly (wouldn't be the first time...) or SuSE didn't build it correctly (appears it wouldn't be the first time neither... :) ) or the k3b authors haven't written it (what, a developer hasn't written the documentation yet? nyahhhh -- wouldn't happen... [whups, almost forgot <sarcasm></sarcasm> tags...]) Seriously, though, from what I can tell the "advanced" tab feeds options to mkisofs, so read the mkisofs man page for the majority of those options [dunno if that's what you already mean by "looking them up independantly"]
I am especially curious what happens if I select both rockridge and joliet formats (can it be formatted with both?),
From what I understand, yes. from the command line, this would be the -r (or -R, depending on whether or not you want to "retain" user identities) and the -J options. From the mkisofs man page, here is what it says about "joliet": -J Generate Joliet directory records in addition to regular iso9660 file names. This is primarily useful when the discs are to be used on Windows-NT or Windows-95 machines. The Joliet filenames are specified in Unicode and each path component can be up to 64 Unicode characters long. Note that Joliet is no standard - CD's that use only Joliet extensions but no standard Rock Ridge extensions may usually only be used on Microsoft Win32 systems. Furthermore, the fact that the filenames are limited to 64 characters and the fact that Joliet uses the UTF-16 coding for Unicode characters causes interoperability problems. The line that reads "CD's that use only Joliet but no standard Rock Ridge..." leads me to believe that the "usual" case is to supply both -r/R and -J
and how much overhead multi-sessions create (in cdroast it is something astronomical like 13MB per session...blah!)
I just glanced through a recent copy of "linux format" [a british newsprint magazine] and noticed an article on burning CD's that might give some insight to this: there is a sidebar that discusses "disc-at-once", "track-at-once", and "packet writing". the "-at-once" options control when the "write" laser is turned off -- for disc-at-once, it remains on the entire time. The advantage this supplies is that you don't have an inter-track gap of two seconds (by default); the disadvantage is that it doesn't do "multisession" [kind of at cross purposes here: how could you be writing the entire "disk at once" if you plan to write later sessions?] "track-at-once" is the normal mode of creating CD's, and in this case "multi-session" means "multi-tracks" [or so it would appear]; In this mode, the CD automatically creates a "two second gap" between tracks [intended for audio, remember]. Two seconds of "nothing" might very well be 13 meg! OTOH, there is a comment that implies the minimum "inter-track-gap" could be as low as 2/75th's of a second...
Thanks for the work you did. I tried k3b before but it keeps erroring out, and I can't figure why, but cdroast works fine.
On one system I had it bombed out until I un-checked "disk-at-once" -- although not specific, the "error message" returned by cdrecord (click the "see debug output" when you get errors) kind of implied the CD wasn't capable of "some function", so I tried turning off options until it worked...
On Monday 18 November 2002 17:32, Tom Emerson wrote:
waaaay back at the start of this thread, Chris Carlen wrote:
I'd appreciate comments and corrections (or other insights) I do know, for instance, that the quality of the screenshots has deteriorated mostly due to the sequence:
Hi Tom, Nice job! Just a couple of quick comments specific to the web version. In the section labeled 'The Old Way' it might be a better idea to put all the information on the first slide instead of splitting it over the 4 or 5 you currently show. For me it just reads better that way and cuts down on the bandwidth. Get rid of the designations of step .01 and step .02. The way that you have it layed out makes it very intuitive as is. Considering the problems people have with cd writing, I'm guessing that your presentation is going to grow and become a great resource for newbies and veterans alike. Thanks, Ken
On Tuesday 19 November 2002 03:28, Ken Phelan wrote:
On Monday 18 November 2002 17:32, Tom Emerson wrote:
I'd appreciate comments and corrections (or other insights) I do know,
Nice job!
Thanks!
Just a couple of quick comments specific to the web version.
In the section labeled 'The Old Way' it might be a better idea to put all the information on the first slide instead of splitting it over the 4 or 5 you currently show. For me it just reads better that way and cuts down on the bandwidth.
Hmmm... yes, that is somewhat specific to the "web" version -- I don't want to digress too much into OpenOffice.org, but that's the root of the problem here: Originally, I had that slide as a single slide (as you suggest), but this is meant for a stand-up-and-talk presentation -- I don't want the people in the audience to jump ahead of what I'm talking about. So, for this section, I wanted each "old way step" and the two or three lines of "terminal stuff" that went with it to appear with each click. However, if you do a "text animation" on a block of text, the "animation" is applied to each paragraph within the text block, meaning I'd have to click for /each/ line, including the shell samples. There are two ways to get around this problem: make multiple "text boxes" and apply an animation to the text box itself rather than the text inside the boxes, or break up the slide into multiple slides. Turns out it is far easier to create the slide in full, hit "duplicate slide" to get enough copies for each paragraph, then go through the first "n-1" slides and delete trailing paragraphs. Creating (and lining up) multiple text boxes is a pain, and then assigning an animation AND making sure they animate "in order" is *really* hard to do with the current version of OOo. It turns out that in the next slide (old problems) each "paragraph" is complete (no "shell" samples to go with the paragraphs), so applying a "text animation" works, but when exported to the web, the "animation" is dropped.
Get rid of the designations of step .01 and step .02. The way that you have it layed out makes it very intuitive as is.
I numbered them this way because these are two steps that have to be done only once for the life of the program (or until you re-install the system) though the second step should be already done if you've installed v8.1 of SuSE [as I indicated on the slide, v8.0 set the "fallbackprogram" to koncd, a similar gui-frontend. In my case I did have to change this one line, and it appears that the only way you *can* change this value is to edit this file directly -- I couldn't find a kde/control center dialog to set this value]
Considering the problems people have with cd writing, I'm guessing that your presentation is going to grow and become a great resource for newbies and veterans alike.
Believe it or not, when it comes to writing CD's, I'm actually closer to the "newbie" end of the newbie/veteran scale -- to date I've created 5 or 6 CD's. The first two or three I used mkisofs & cdrecord manually (I didn't know about any gui front-ends at the time), then I created three with k3b: one to copy some data I forgot -- trial by fire time when it came to k3b itself -- an "audio" cd (mainly to see if/how to do it), and one I created while building this presentation. If I can appear to be a "veteran" in less than half a dozen CD's, well, you can too!
participants (23)
-
Abo -
alan＠ibgames.com -
Carlos E. R. -
Chris Carlen -
Chris Carlen -
Curtis Rey -
Doug McGarrett -
Fergus Wilde -
Jacob Saaby Nielsen -
James Mohr -
Jeric -
jfweber＠bellsouth.net -
Jim Cunning -
Ken Phelan -
Marcel Broekman -
Michael Grau -
Patrick -
Peter B Van Campen -
rex -
Robert Jacobsen -
Ruben I Safir -
Simon Oliver -
Tom Emerson