 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> scott <sco### [at] laptop com> wrote:
>> And you guys are trying to convince me my mum could use Linux .... ha!
>
> I wouldn't not recommend Linux for your mother. I would recommend you
> buy her a Mac mini.
Yah. My mac-using co-worker got kind of twitchy when I told him he might
have to use the command line to check out the software from subversion
onto the server. :-) Yet OS X is a very unixy system.
I look forward to convincing my wife I need to buy a Mac. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> The hardware hasn't been on sale for a while now, AFAIK. But then,
>> would *you* buy a "personal computer" powered by a 20 MHz 68030 with 2
>> MB RAM?
>
> Maybe. Is the OLPC any more powerful?
>
433 MHz, 256 MB of RAM, 1GB of Flash memory as storage.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> You don't need to install anything to test it out, most install CD/DVDs
> these days are LiveCDs which run from memory, without touching the disk
> unless you click on some "Install to disk" button and pressing a few Nexts.
It was nice being able to go to the local electronics store and boot up
Linux on their machines, lookign for one t would run on. Very handy.
(Oh, and I didn't have any trouble installing it on *this* machine. Just
on my home machine was a nightmare.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> indeed. makes everyone blind and willing to defend and champion M$ from
> any criticism.
Not everyone. I only defend them from blind bashing and stupid
criticisms. ;-)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Orchid XP v7 wrote:
>>> Er... Mono is an free reimplementation of M$ proprietry technology
>>
>> It's not proprietary any more. It's an ECMA standard. Certainly the
>> part that Mono implements is.
>
> The way I heard it, the ECMA standard (ISO also? maybe?) doesn't cover
> everything in the M$ .NET framework implementation.
Right. Nor does the Java standard cover everything in Sun's Java
distributions. Nor does the POSIX standard cover everything that
UNIX-like systems do.
But the part that Mono implements? It's the ECMA standard.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> SUSE 10.1 would crash during install on my machine unless I managed to
>> interrupt it in the 0.75 seconds before it installed the buggy USB
>> driver that would take out the system. It took me literally two days
>> of trying before I could get to a login prompt after an install.
>
> hmm, you interrupt it before it installs a "buggy" USB driver?
I don't remember exactly what it was. It was one of the packages that
was optional that didn't work with my machine. Then the next one, then
the next one, etc etc etc. One of which was some strange problem in the
USB stuff.
> It would
> crash without the interrupting? what has you hooked to the USB port?
Well, I unplugged everything unnecessary.
> I understand that Linux just install everything automatically.
Well, everything available, yah.
> Under Windows, you install the basic OS and then go on manually inserting
> driver CDs or downloading them and installing for yourself, with any
> luck.
Unless the vendor gives the drivers to the central distribution site
known as "Windows Update". :-) I know lots of sysadmins of windows
systems that won't purchase hardware whose device drivers need you to be
at the machine to install.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Darren New wrote:
>>> SUSE 10.1 would crash during install on my machine unless I managed to
>>> interrupt it in the 0.75 seconds before it installed the buggy USB
>>> driver that would take out the system. It took me literally two days
>>> of trying before I could get to a login prompt after an install.
>
> What driver? What kernel does the system have?
I don't know. That was a while ago. It was apparently a known problem,
not that it made it any easier to work around. It sucks when youhave a
bug in the software update software. :-)
> I'm being curious. Yes, it can be a buggy driver. OTOH, USB is pretty
> standardized system and AFAIK there hasn't been a lot of changes is USB
> host systems, so I think I should have heard of such a problem, but I
> never have.
Actually, I may be confused. The USB problem was the USB kernel thingie
going compute-bound at high priority. Fixed after an update.
There was soemthing else about the install.
> distribution", but I still don't think it should be generalized to be a
> *Linux* -feature.
I'm amused how whenever there's something good, it's a Linux thing, and
whenever there's a problem, it's not Linux's fault but someone else's. ;-)
> Nope, you install NIC drivers and download the rest from the Internet ;).
And from one place!
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Orchid XP v7 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>>>> The best part is when you say "make configure", and it says
>>>> "Unrecognised arch 'i586/SuSE 10.3'". And you're like "WTF? Now what do
>>>> I do??"
>>> Yes, it's clearly a problem with *linux* when some software you are
>>> trying to install is broken.
>
>> Right. And the fact that the design of Unix is overly complex and
>> incorporates several decades of backwards compatibility is unrelated? ;-)
>
> It's not like Windows is any better in that regard.
Actually, much of the *design* of Windows was pretty clean. It's the
implementation and backwards compatibility of stuff that's ugly. (To a
large extent, a lot of the backwards-compatibility uncleanness is for
supporting people who didn't actually follow the APIs, and did stuff
like wrote .ini files instead of using the ini system calls, and
hard-coded paths instead of asking the OS where files should go, and so on.)
The original UNIX *design* was clean too, but the accumulation of
historical file names is nasty. The other ugliness, IMO, is the number
of places where an API is not provided but instead it's a file format,
or a library, or something like that. Stuff like opening a directory as
a file to read the directory (cured when BSD 4 forced a directory format
changed), reading /etc/passwd and parsing it to get information (cured
when shadow password files became common), etc.
> At least Apple dares to break backwards compatibility with ancient
> software and architectures. It hasn't slowed them down much.
Yep.
> Unix was never designed for people who don't know nor want to know
> anything about computers. It was designed for sysadmins and the like.
Well, yeah, I suppose that's true too. :-) Good point.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
On what day did God create the body thetans?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:12:54 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> It's still not [yet] as easy to use.
Wrong.
> Most hardware companies don't supply drivers for it, and refuse to hand
> over the information required for anybody else to write those drivers.
Wrong; this used to be the case, but not any more.
> If you're into gaming, forget it. Almost no big developers target that
> platform.
Hmmm, Unreal Tournament III runs on it natively, and Cedega does a very
nice job for non-Linux games. Again, maybe 5 years ago this was the
case, but these days there are plenty of game developers writing to
Linux. It's not on par with Windows, true. But it's improved greatly.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:53:37 +0000, Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> [Last I heard - and I don't have any hard data for this - the guys you
> named aren't exactly short of cash.]
They're not, but what does that have to do with hardware support? Dell,
HP, IBM/Lenovo all sell machines with Linux pre-installed on them. It
would see that this would be hard to do if hardware support "wasn't there
yet".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
