On 21/05/06, Per Jessen wrote:

Kevanf1 wrote:

...

I am surprised there haven't been cases taken to such bodies as Trading Standards (a UK official consumer body) with paid for distro's. It will happen

I'm not surprised and I doubt if it will happen. If a Trading Standards body could do something about software vendors and their bugs, surely they should have been on Microsofts case long ago. Secondly, I think the UK Trading Standards body has far more important things to do.

Regard the SUSE distro, it isn't perfect. Never was, most probably never will be. It's very, very good, perhaps even the best there is, but there are simply far too many hardware combinations out there for it to be perfect and work with everyone of them.

So when you buy the retail product and hit something that doesn't work, contact support or go straight to bugzilla. Bugzilla may not be for the newbie, but then again _most_ newbies (or Windows-converts) will probably not have a problem.

/Per Jessen, Zürich

Sorry but I do not share your enthusiasm for SuSE support (official that comes with the boxed version). I had to ask for help back in 9.1 days.... I was truly amazed at how rubbish it was. I eventually found the answer to my problem in the various forums (I forget the original problem). I do agree that people would have wanted something doing about Microsoft. In my very humble opinion I still do think that the millions of users of MS products (the properly purchased ones that is) should all get together and collectively sue Microsoft for selling rubbish. -- ============================================== I am only human, please forgive me if I make a mistake it is not deliberate. ============================================== PLEASE DON'T drink and drive it's not clever, it's just stupid. Kevan Farmer Linux user #373362 Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

On Sun, 2006-05-21 at 11:51 +0100, Kevanf1 wrote:

Those people we hope to tempt from Windows are very likely to be the ones bad mouthing Linux as a whole with this sort of problem.

In reality, there are a _lot_ of video issues under Windows too. But this is a Linux list, and not a place to discuss such, so I won't.

It is 'sort of' acceptable when you have this problem with a freely downloadable distro' but certainly not when people are paying for it. I am surprised there haven't been cases taken to such bodies as Trading Standards (a UK official consumer body) with paid for distro's.

And that's one of the major reasons Red Hat got out of the "consumer" distro market, and I don't blame them. I will continue to applaud Novell-SuSE for continuing to release a retail box set. But the second Novell-SuSE decides not to, I won't blame them one bit. BTW, these reasons are why I wrote this blog article for people new to "community developed software" (in general) entitled "6 Things To Know About Linux": http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/10/6-things-to-know-about-linux.html #1-3 discuss why it has _nothing_ to do with what you pay for. #4-6 discuss why _control_ of the distribution channel has to do with _everything_. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 00:46 +0200, Carlos E. R. wrote:

What the common user gets used to, he will want also in the business.

I believe 100% that Linux adoption is going the _other_ way. And it's not always Linux, but open source. First it was Internet services, Apache being the killer app. Then it was limited LAN services, expanding more every day. Then the CAM and EDA markets brought it to the workstation. Now, slowly but surely, it's taking the corporate desktop. Again, even if it's not Linux, it's open source in general. OpenOffice.org/StarOffice on Windows is getting more and more popular. The more they infiltrate the corporate desktop, the more users at home will adopt it. People use apps, not OSes. But once they have adopted ODT, it makes it much easier to move to Linux.

This is specially so for kids in school.

When it's their dime, kids in school use Fedora Core, OpenSuSE (or the freely available SuSE Linux), etc... Just like any open source BSD or UNIX before Linux. For schools themselves, Red Hat has excellent pricing on the Red Hat Desktop -- which is basically a RHEL WS volume license. Sun provides free StarOffice as well. But on per single unit? No, Red Hat left that. There's nothing in it. Red Hat _still_ has the Red Hat Desktop -- it's just a volume RHEL WS license. I guess RHEL WS is still an option for unit 1, but one that is not purchased very often from what I've seen. Most people just go Fedora Core instead. RHEL WS is "too slow to move" for most, non-corporate/LAN users.

Microsoft knows that and pushed for their systems to be used in schools and homes.

Microsoft _screws_ colleges, as well as K-16 -- private schools that are both primary/secondary and college. Those are the types that have been moving to Linux in my experience.

Both markets are interdependent, bussiness and home.

Red Hat _does_ address _both_. It has Fedora Core for the single users. It has Red Hat Desktop for volume licenses, with deep educational discounts. Red Hat doesn't see the need for a shrink-wrapped, single license on its 6 month distribution. And I don't blame them. If Novell-SuSE does the same, I wouldn't blame them either. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Monday 22 May 2006 10:53, Kevanf1 wrote: [snip]

I know that it is not the fault of 'Linux' that certain video cards or monitors don't work correctly under it. [snip]

I read the original thrust as being "My monitor and video card work fine with Linux, _but_ sax doesn't configure them correctly, so I have to configure them manually." I have also had that experience several times. Very often, sax does not generate a working configuration for me, and I end up writing my own xorg.conf to get things working, which is usually much simpler than sax's. This has been true for many years, through many SuSE versions. I think it's getting better gradually, but I _always_ end up editing xorg.conf to improve it, even when sax has managed to generate a configuration that actually works (which it did on my laptop in 10.0 :). It is certainly non-trivial to write a configurator which can handle even 99% of users' systems, particularly when the machines are linux users', and somewhat disparate as such, but the number of non-working configs generated by sax has certainly been unacceptable to me over the years. If it can't figure out a correct optimal config, it should at least fall back to a "likely to work everywhere" basic setup, e.g. 800x600@60Hz, 24-bit colour, rather than generating a config which doesn't work at all and leaving the user to sort it out by hand from the text console! Not that I mind doing that, but it's not exactly "slick". -- Bill Gallafent.

Kevanf1 wrote:

likely to falter at this first hurdle and turn straight back to warmth and comfort (however illusionary) of MS Windows.

this is not new. I use to say that when you buy your windows computer it works very nicely. Then as long as time passes, its works not so well, then stop at all working. there You may re-install Windows. This happens 3/4 times a year on a common machine, and spend 2/3 days work. With Linux, the problem is different. nowaday the basic install works and you get a running machine. But you need to fine tune it (install Nvidia proprietary drivers...). But as long as the time pass your machine is better and better. You must hold on your will of using the so beautifull next SUSE version when the actual one is perfect for your needs. On a server, you may update your linux any two years to keep security updates easy, but as well you can keep it for 5/6 years with little efforts Your desktop, you may find usefull to change the distro once a year, for fun (keeping the old one at hand just in case). And having a windows machine somewhere on the net for thouse programms that you can't affort to live without and don't runs unders any linux combination (can play WoW under Linux?). but the net result is that Linux quite never let you down with an urgent work to do, when with windows you can never say so. And new Linux pre-configured machines works out of the box (don't forget _all_ windows machines come pre-configured) jdd -- http://www.dodin.net http://dodin.org/galerie_photo_web/expo/index.html http://lucien.dodin.net http://fr.susewiki.org/index.php?title=Gérer_ses_photos

At 11:10 PM 5/22/2006 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 13:52 +0200, jdd sur free wrote:

...

I use to say that when you buy your windows computer it works very nicely ... cut ... With Linux, the problem is different. nowaday the basic install works and you get a running machine ... cut ...

Yes.  The problem is that most Windows users think Linux is a Windows application, and installs on a Windows system like such.  Then *WE* cater to that attitude.  That's where the problem is.

On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 13:52 +0200, jdd sur free wrote:

...

And new Linux pre-configured machines works out of the box (don't forget _all_ windows machines come pre-configured)

Which is why we have to make sure point #1 is to get these users to realize that they _never_ installed Windows.  They got it pre-installed.

/snip/ Well, I don't know about that. I ran DOS, way back when, and I installed Windows 3.x and so on. And reinstalled it, etc. But we weren't all born yesterday. And I have to tell you all, that because of a Mail screw-up on the Linux machine, I am running a very reliable XP system here. I might be running Linux on this machine too, but it doesn't like to do email. I'm not going to try and fix it. It's Linux's fault, not mine. I suppose I will reinstall 10.0 on the Linux machine, and hope that the mail problem there does not recur. From what I see on the list, 10.1 has more problems than fixes. I am tempted to go back to 8.1 on this machine, which I think could access email, IIRC. (Both machines off the same router, a Linksys.) If I weren't dedicated to making Linux work for me, I wouldn't be on this list. But, gee, it's hard. . . . --doug -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/345 - Release Date: 5/22/2006

On 23/05/06, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

Anyone who supported Windows NT 3.1, 3.5, 3.51 and 4.0 during the Windows 95/98/SE era will tell you that Windows NT often had _less_ drivers than even Linux at times!

:-))) I remember that well :-(

I wouldn't run Linux then, and you're running it for the _wrong_ reasons.

:-) is there really a wrong reason for using Linux?

I run Linux because it _easier_. Then again, I came from UNIX and not Windows. I do training and step #1 is to "de-program" people from how they think computers work, because it's only how Windows works.

Hmm.... I'll await the howls of protest but surely not. We are talking about the PC here not a workstation linked to a mainframe. The mainframe/workstation set up is different to the original PC that came from IBM. I know that there were earlier incarnations of the small form factor computer but for all intent and purpose the PC as we know it came about because of IBM's offerings. IBM first used a DOS for those PC's. Now, feel free to correct me but didn't Microsoft either write that software or come in very soon after and started to write the software? So, really, the Microsoft way is actually the initial way of having an operating system. Linux, as a Unix way of doing things came about a few years later. Please note that nowhere have I said the Microsoft way is the correct way :-) Just because they were first does not mean they were, or indeed, are correct in their method of running an operating system on the PC. I believe the *nix way is far better. I imagine IBM couldn't afford the then available Unix on their new range of PC's because of prohibitive costs? -- ============================================== I am only human, please forgive me if I make a mistake it is not deliberate. ============================================== PLEASE DON'T drink and drive it's not clever, it's just stupid. Kevan Farmer Linux user #373362 Cheslyn Hay Staffordshire WS6 7HR

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:07 +0100, Kevanf1 wrote:

:-) is there really a wrong reason for using Linux?

Yes! Unless you embrace the concept of open standards, Linux/Open Source is _not_ an ideal solution. Vendors will _never_ give companies a "way out" of proprietary lock-in. Yes, Linux/Open Source will often let you move away from _older_ proprietary software -- but attempting to "stay current" on proprietary software while attempting to adopt Linux/Open Source has resulted in some _utter_failures_ I've seen. Another thing that Linux is oversold on is eliminating Enterprise Configuration Management (ECM) costs. Yes, UNIX/Linux _reduces_ ECM costs over Windows, but it does not eliminate them. The problem is that Linux is oversold on entry costs, not realizing there are still significant ECM overheads just like Windows. This was the same problem at NASA with Quality Assurance (QA) slashing in the '90s. Mars Pathfinder cut hardware and software development costs by 90%. So the attitude was to cut the entire budget by 90%, which included QA. So it did not surprise me one damn bit when the Mars Polar Lander came in shallow because two different teams across two different contractors were using two different metrics in their code. I've really seen some consultants oversell Linux and Open Source on things that are unavoidable. And it really makes Linux and Open Source look bad -- when it was poor planning.

Hmm.... I'll await the howls of protest but surely not. We are talking about the PC here not a workstation linked to a mainframe.

No, there are _assumptions_ that come from the Windows world! Multi-user concepts are the big-ass #1. Package and dependencies are the big-ass #2. And so forth! Hell, there are even _key_ application differences. E.g., Windows executives _require_ a "start-up directory" and that's a major pain. Then there are the attitudes and automation that the Windows executive has that UNIX/Linux will _never_ adopt because they violate basic multi-user security (let alone in the age of the Internet). You really need my class man! ;->

The mainframe/workstation set up is different to the original PC that came from IBM. I know that there were earlier incarnations of the small form factor computer but for all intent and purpose the PC as we know it came about because of IBM's offerings. IBM first used a DOS for those PC's.

DOS was not only single user, but single task! DPMI and Windows added task-swapping, but was still single user. In fact, Citrix hacked multi-user into the NT kernel, but it's still not the same as UNIX. _Huge_ "shifts" in thinking!

Now, feel free to correct me but didn't Microsoft either write that software or come in very soon after and started to write the software?

Seattle Computer Products ported CP/M from the 8080 to 8086 without a license. Microsoft licensed that for $50,000. IBM settled the license issue out of court less than a year later for $800,000. MS-DOS 2.0 legally obtained SCO Xenix code to augment file, directory and streamed I/O operations. IBM and legally obtained Apple code created Windows, as well as the early DOS Protected Mode Interface (DPMI) services, ultimately resulting in Protected286/386 modes. OS/2 and Windows split the design -- with OS/2 adopting a full Protected386 mode, while Windows used (including in MS-DOS 7.x/Windows 4.x "Chicago" 95/98/Me) 386Enhanced which constantly shunts the processor between Real86 and Protected386. Microsoft continued to sap IBM OS/2 code even after the expiration of the 1981 agreement in 1993 -- and IBM's PC division signed away its IP rights in 1995 just before Windows 95 hit (long story). Windows NT, based on the OS/2 API and codebase, was not only written by former Digital VMS developers, but Digital continued to help _heavily_ in its development (long story). This included the current Win64 API. Anyone who ran Digital software on Windows NT could instantly tell the level of quality different in actual use of the NT/Win32 API versus those "designed for Chicago" from Microsoft.

So, really, the Microsoft way is actually the initial way of having an operating system.

You are surely joking, correct? The concept of _true_ multi-user -- originally the "time share" operating system -- was invented _before_ UNIX. UNIX just made it commodity.

Linux, as a Unix way of doing things came about a few years later.

GNU began in the early '80s as a fundamental licensing change due to AT&T's monopoly being busted and it now being allowed to assert IP rights over existing UNIX developments. The "GNU System" begins _before_ Linux and _heavily_ influences its design! MIT's "W" windowing environment begins _before_ Windows' earliest developments, even along Apple's! The concept of "remote display" begins with MIT-Digital with "X" in the early '80s. Let alone Xerox was almost a decade before that! KEY POINT: EVEN THE ORIGINAL MOUSE IN 1965 HAD *3* BUTTONS! Xerox's prototype has 3 buttons. MIT-Digital W and X have 3 buttons. Almost _everything_ we used today was invented by Xerox and Digital, with key points thanx to AT&T.

Please note that nowhere have I said the Microsoft way is the correct way :-) Just because they were first does not mean they were, or indeed, are correct in their method of running an operating system on the PC. I believe the *nix way is far better. I imagine IBM couldn't afford the then available Unix on their new range of PC's because of prohibitive costs?

SCO Xenix existing in 1979, and gave you an UNIX platform for 8086 -- *2* years before the IBM PC. Microsoft had a 10% investment in SCO Xenix from day 1, including rights to the code -- which they used _heavily_ when they augmented MS-DOS 2.0 from virtually its original "CP/M pirated" PC-DOS 1.0. Remember, the 8086 came out in 1976 -- 5 _years_ before the PC. There were other UNIX flavors for Intel 8080 and 8086 (including the latter/cheaper 8088) from the late '70s through early '80s. It was only the proliferation of the IBM PC, and their failure to enforce patents on companies like Compaq, that led to mass adoption. IBM originally approached Digital Research to do CP/M for 8086/8088. When Digital Research showed no interest, they approached Microsoft who was doing their ROM Basic to write one. Luckily they knew about Seattle Computer Products illegal rip of CP/M and rebuild for 8086. Understand Gates was a _major_pirate_ himself! He _knew_ other piraters! But back then, they were called "developers" and "hackers." Bill Gates wrote his infamous 1975 letter "most of you steal your software" from a 100% _hypocritical_ standpoint. He bitched about fellow students taking his code and using it, _failing_ to mention that his version was _ripped_ from others and just slightly modified. Even Microsoft Basic sold to Altair and others was based on Digital's (Digital Equipment Corporation, DEC) Basic. CASE-IN-POINT: *NONE* OF MICROSOFT'S PRODUCTS WERE "TIME SHARE" AND "TRUE MULTIUSER" -- LET ALONE WITH PRIVILEGE LEVEL (before NT -- although NT suffered from "Chicago" and the lack of privileged level). A big "buzzword" today in the Windows world is "least privilege model." We call that "standard" in UNIX. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

All these were invented on UNIX ...

- [WYSIWYG] Word Processor - Desktop Publishing (DTP) - Office Suite - [WYSIWYG] Internet/Web Browser - Rootless/Remote Windowing Environment - 3D API, including Remote Display - Countless others!

Get off the "Microsoft was first" non-sense! Not only were they _not_ first, they stole the idea. Or just bought the 3rd best product, and marketed the heck out of it.

Agreed! I do not think Mircosoft has really invented any thing, but they are the best at buying, coping, stealing the invention. Most of their technologies come from others. Or at least the ideas. But they are the best at marketing it. They are the only ones I know who have sold vaporware. The are able to convicence people that they will soon have such and such. Even when it is only at the idea state. I can not believe how they are able to get so many to wait till they are able to produce the vaporware to a real product. So many of what they now own/promote was someone elses... Database, Accounting SW,... The list is almost endless. They buy the product(Does not matter what OS) then make it MS. Stop selling it by orignal name and then sell off what was left of the once great companies. - -- Boyd Gerber ZENEZ 1042 East Fort Union #135, Midvale Utah 84047 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQFEc6QvVtBjDid73eYRAmt5AJ44fY1L3EcHh4e+cqYbgGtlFabZhQCeMlmN xOyH2CUclC3ZtezGmoURCkY= =p5Dw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 20:06 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

All these were invented on UNIX ...

- [WYSIWYG] Word Processor - Desktop Publishing (DTP)

For these I happily remember using FrameMaker on HP-UX long before Windows had anything close. I remember this because we looked for a Windows 3.1 (which it was at the time) app doing the same thing, with no success. The closest came a few years later: Venture Publishing from Digital Research. MS' offerings were later than that. So MS were not even first on their own OS platform. IIRC, DR had to make an environment called GEM in which to run VP because Windows was so bad for this type of application. -- Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems AB Ramböll Sverige AB Kapellgränd 7 P.O. Box 4205 SE-102 65 Stockholm, Sweden Tel: Int +46 8-615 60 20 Fax: Int +46 8-31 42 23

Kevanf1 wrote:

Hmm.... I'll await the howls of protest but surely not. We are talking about the PC here not a workstation linked to a mainframe. The mainframe/workstation set up is different to the original PC that came from IBM. I know that there were earlier incarnations of the small form factor computer but for all intent and purpose the PC as we know it came about because of IBM's offerings. IBM first used a DOS for those PC's. Now, feel free to correct me but didn't Microsoft either write that software or come in very soon after and started to write the software? So, really, the Microsoft way is actually the initial way of having an operating system. Linux, as a Unix way of doing things came about a few years later.

MS didn't write DOS, they bought it after they sold it to IBM. It came from a company called Seattle Computer Products, who wrote QDOS as a development system for their hardware, while waiting for CP/M-86 to come out. The DOS calls in v1, look suspiciously like CP/M calls for that reason.

Please note that nowhere have I said the Microsoft way is the correct way :-) Just because they were first does not mean they were, or indeed, are correct in their method of running an operating system on the PC. I believe the *nix way is far better. I imagine IBM couldn't afford the then available Unix on their new range of PC's because of prohibitive costs?

There were originally three operating systems for the IBM PC, DOS, CP/M-86 and "P-code". I haven't heard much about P-code, but CP/M, even on the 8080 & Z80, was in many respects better than DOS. For example, there was even a multiuser version of it.

John E. Perry wrote:

John Perry (user of TRS-80 mod III, TRS-80 Color Computer, Amiga, and Atari PC's before the IBM PC came out) (two of them, plus the hp and Tek models, in NASA laboratories)

My first computer was an IMSAI 8080, which I bought in Nov. 1976.

On Tuesday 23 May 2006 16:53, Greg Wallace wrote: [snip]

I have a Windows PC now that came from Dell with everything pre-installed. Once I accidentally wiped out the drive and had to re-install the software. After installing XP, I had to do separate installs of about half a dozen different drivers, including the network driver. This is not something that the 99% of PC consumers ever have to do. If this happened to them, they would take it to someone and pay them to re-install it for them.

Well, that's Dell for you, perhaps. Was there not a recovery disc with all the drivers etc. included? I have reinstalled, from scratch (replaced HDD with new one from other manufacturer), Fujitsu Siemens and Acer Athlon64 notebooks with Windows XP home (32 bit). In both cases, using a standard Windows XP install disc (not the manufacturer's disc) gets a running system, without graphics acceleration but generally working OK. Then, you just put the manufacturer's driver disc in, press one button in the GUI that appears automatically a few seconds later, and all the drivers get installed, plus the optional bundled software (e.g. DVD player, CD/DVD burning software etc.). There's an even easier way on the Acer, from the "recovery partition", but when the disc's died that's not much good ;). The FSs come with their own XP home install disc, but that won't work if you've destroyed the disc. To be honest, it has been far, far, far easier to get Windows up and running on these two types of machine, with all hardware supported/accelerated, than with SuSE. SuSE 10.0 was the best yet, but I still had to tweak several things by hand to get them working (wireless (ndiswrapper), IRDA (never got it working), nVIDIA graphics card with 1280x800 display, ...) which just worked out of the box, or after one driver installation from the manufacturer's disc. I still use SuSE (10.0 at the moment) on my machine as the only OS, because that's what I prefer to _use_. VMWare workstation provides Windows XP when necessary. Installation-wise, though, Windows XP has certainly been easier on these machines than SuSE 9.2 / 9.3 / 10.0. The machines I've built myself ... well, I've never installed Windows on them, but I imagine I'd have to install several drivers to get things working perfectly. Off the top of my head, though, things like USB memory sticks and memory card readers seem to work fine in XP without any drivers installed, and I've had all sorts of problems (subfs, anybody?) with them on various versions of SuSE. 10.0 seems OK for those, at least. Anyway, enough rambling. As you can tell, notebook HDDs have some way to go in terms of reliability, in my experience ;) -- Bill Gallafent.

At 09:11 AM 5/23/2006 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote: /snip/

...

Butwe weren't all born yesterday. And I have to tell you all, that because of a Mail screw-up on the Linux machine, I am running a very reliable XP system here. I might be running Linux on this machine too, but it doesn't like to do email. I'm not going to try and fix it. It's Linux's fault, not mine.

I'd be interested in hearing what happened. Was it a hardware glitch?

As I mentioned, I believe that an earlier version worked on this machine. I guess that 10.0 is not compatible with the Ethernet port on this ASUS P4PE mobo.

...

I suppose I will reinstall 10.0 on the Linux machine, and hope that the mail problem there does not recur. From what I see on the list, 10.1 has more problems than fixes. I am tempted to go back to 8.1 on this machine, which I think could access email, IIRC. (Both machines off the same router, a Linksys.) If I weren't dedicated to making Linux work for me, I wouldn't be on this list. But, gee, it's hard. . . .

I wouldn't run Linux then, and you're running it for the _wrong_ reasons.

I run it because I don't want to be enslaved to M/S. So far, I'm not, but I suspect that the next version of Windows will require some kind of subscription, and I would consider that enslavement. OTOH, if everything I want to use runs on XP, there will be no reason for the next version. But there is certain to be some "killer ap" that will require the next version. Also, some day this machine will die, and I will be forced to buy a new one, which will _only_ come with the next Windows, or perhaps, nothing.

I run Linux because it _easier_. Then again, I came from UNIX and not Windows. I do training and step #1 is to "de-program" people from how they think computers work, because it's only how Windows works.

/snip/ With the exception of the infamous Registry, Linux looks and works more like Windows with every new release. (I speak for KDE only--Gnome is ugly, AFAIC, and I don't want it. If SuSE forces Gnome on its customers, I will look elsewhere.)

Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- /snip/

I have no doubt that Linux is easier to someone who came from UNIX. Apparently CPM was easier to someone who came from UNIX--I had my problems with it, and had to find an old UNIX hand to write my printer driver. But other than that, it was do-able. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 5/23/2006

At 07:44 PM 5/23/2006 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:11 -0400, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

As I mentioned, I believe that an earlier version worked on this machine. I guess that 10.0 is not compatible with the Ethernet port on this ASUS P4PE mobo.

And you couldn't throw in another NIC until a kernel update fixed that? That's what I have to do on _Windows_ servers sometimes! ;->

/snip/ Sure, I could put in a new NIC--but why should I have to? Linux used to work, and somebody in SuSE broke it.

...

I run it because I don't want to be enslaved to M/S.

_Wrong_ reason! Dead _wrong_! There is nothing more distracting than users who are pulling themselves along with Linux, bitching all the way.

People use _applications_, _not_ OSes.

That's not absolutely true. You have to interface with your computer, and that requires that you live with the OS, and its GUI (if any). But you're right, without the aps, what good is the computer? So make AutoCad run on Linux. The clone, I'm told, is absolute junk. Someone offered to send me his copy so I could see for myself. I just sent a message to the list (which I have not seen) about Ansoft running on Linux. This is good news for the Linux crew, unless they are only willing to run software they don't have to pay for.

You can run Windows, and then run 100% open source on Windows. You can use your "superstore" hardware without most issues. You can have a familiar desktop, experience, etc... All while creating 100% of your data in _open_ formats.

What's an "open" format in Windows? Writing to the command prompt? But Word Perfect works fine for me. I paid for it 7 years ago, and it still works fine.

Activation? Get over it. It's not that bad. Sorry, but true. It's a $100 product (essentially $25 if you got it from a tier-1 PC OEM). If it does the job, then it's worth $100.

Not if I have to pay the $100 every October.

Again, read my blog -- it talks about what that $100 buys you.

...

With the exception of the infamous Registry, Linux looks and works more like Windows with every new release.

I disagree entirely! It's still good'ole UNIX/POSIX-SUSE, GNU/Linux and X11/GLX!

...

(I speak for KDE only--Gnome is ugly, AFAIC, and I don't want it. If SuSE forces Gnome on its customers, I will look elsewhere.)

Umm, last time I checked, KDE was far more like Windows than GNOME.

Yes, that's my point. There's nothing at all wrong with the Windows interface, and the KDE people obviously realize that.

GNOME is a _real_ network object system using CORBA. And Mono developments are building a _real_ .NET system, _unlike_ Vista/Longhorn itself (which is still the bastard we know as Win32, _not_ .NET).

Who cares whether GNOME is a _real_ network object system? I don't! I don't even know what that means. Why should I? I'm just running a home PC, I'm not running a shop with 100 or 1000 PC's on it. The only network I need is the one that comes by cable into the house. And only works on my _other_ computer when booted into Linux 10.0. Not _this_ one. Phooey!

...

I have no doubt that Linux is easier to someone who came from UNIX. Apparently CPM was easier to someone who came from UNIX--I had my problems with it, and had to find an old UNIX hand to write my printer driver. But other than that, it was do-able.

Sigh. Windows is more like CP/M than UNIX.

-- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com -----------------------------------------------------------

/snip/ -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.7.0/346 - Release Date: 5/23/2006

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 21:43 -0400, Bryan J. Smith wrote:

So much junk that Autodesk has licensed several of their technologies now, and a cross-license has been signed. Visio bought IntelliCAD, Microsoft bought Visio, Microsoft killed it off, and Autodesk adopted VBScript and dropped all non-Windows versions. Then Microsoft started the IntelliCAD consortium and a bunch of guys from Europe licensed it and started improving upon it. And they make it WINE compatible -- including full OpenGL acceleration.

Of course, those of us in the CAM world don't use AutoCAD or slap-ons to it. We use the _premier_ platform for Pro/E, UG, etc... Linux -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 01:58 -0400, Doug McGarrett wrote:

Yes, I know that those in the CAM world use Pro-E. Those of use who are not, use AutoCad-LT. The difference is about $15000. Or so. If you are suggesting that AC/LT is now available for Linux, or will run on WINE, I will certainly check it out.

No. BricsCad does and is _formally_ supported: http://www.bricscad.com/ BricsCad isn't just another IntelliCAD base that is DWG compatible. It's actually _leading_ many DWG innovations that AutoDesk itself has licensed many of their innovations. In return, BricsCad is getting full DWG specifications from AutoDesk. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 19:07 -0400, Doug McGarrett wrote:

I would be interested in reports from those who use it, especially those who started on AutoCad.

Like my other comments and answers here, I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't deployed it myself. ;-> Now in reality, I'm typically dealing with CAM environments. But for a completely .DWG compatible solution on Linux (or even Windows), I highly recommend it. The big issue is, as always, if you are running any 3rd party add-ons. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own

Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 15:11 -0400, Doug McGarrett wrote:

...

As I mentioned, I believe that an earlier version worked on this machine. I guess that 10.0 is not compatible with the Ethernet port on this ASUS P4PE mobo.

And you couldn't throw in another NIC until a kernel update fixed that? That's what I have to do on _Windows_ servers sometimes! ;->

/snip/

Sure, I could put in a new NIC--but why should I have to? Linux used to work, and somebody in SuSE broke it.

The guys at SUSE really just assemble the product, they don't create it from scratch, so chances are somebody else broke Linux for you. However, did you open a bugreport on this? Or maybe one was already open? If you are right that your Broadcom gigabit interface used to work, something quite obviously got regressed, intentionally or otherwise, and I'm sure SUSE would like to know about it. What's the hardware spec on that interface? At a minimum, post the output from "lspci" if you want help with it. <soapbox> If you don't tell the guys at SUSE about your problems, they won't get fixed. Not for you, nor for anybody else. Learn how to deal with bugzilla, and file bugreports. Of course, be prepared to provide diagnostics, help with debugging etc. </soapbox> /Per Jessen, Zürich

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 19:36 -0400, James Knott wrote:

Like Linux, OS/2 rarely crashed.

OS/2 was the best Protected386, DOS-compatible operating system ever. Linux followed the tradition, because Linux opened up the Intel 80386 Programmer's Guide and wrote it to spec -- including requiring a MMU. This, and the monolithic approach, got him criticized by Andrew S. Tannebaum -- the guy who literally wrote the book on OS and system design for CS and ECE majors! Luckily for Linus, not only did MMUs become commonplace, but with today's multi-CPUs, one entry per CPU gives monolithic kernels better response time while maintaining it's throughput superiority. Let alone monolithic kernels are much easier to develop for than microkernels, which kill throughput in many cases (short of VxWorks and a few, select others). I moved from OS/2 to NT. And Gates _killed_ NT in 1994, when he gave the thumbs up to "Chicago." Ever since then, NT has been "Chicago's" bitch. In the age of the Internet, that's been the crux. -- Bryan J. Smith Professional, technical annoyance mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org http://thebs413.blogspot.com ----------------------------------------------------------- Americans don't get upset because citizens in some foreign nations can burn the American flag -- Americans get upset because citizens in those same nations can't burn their own