On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 01:44:45 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:

>>> Plus, installing Windows isn't a 4GB download.
>>
>> Installing Windows + applications is a lot more than 4 GB.  With the
>> caching done on my Win7 VM, it sure seems to have downloaded 4+ GB of
>> updates since installed, too.
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> The Windows XP CD holds less than 650 MB of data. (It's a CD.) Service
> Pack 3 is only a few hundred MB, last I checked. Most individual updates
> are a few KB to maybe a dozen MB. I would be /greatly/ surprised if you
> need to download more than 1 GB.

Oh, so you want to compare a modern Linux distribution against Windows 
from 10-ish years ago?  *Really*?  How about I say Linux is so much 
better than Windows 3.1?

> Applications? Well, yeah, that could be arbitrarily large, depending on
> what applications you want...

Precisely.  That 4 GB DVD has loads of applications on it.

>>> Wouldn't that require me to figure out how to display IPv6 so that
>>> Firefox works again?
>>
>> No.
>>
>> You have a Windows machine, do you not?
> 
> Not in the same building, no.

Huh, so the guy I was helping over in the openSUSE forums who has one 
computer and it isn't connected to the Internet at all is SOL for asking 
questions because he doesn't have a network connection.

Oh, wait, he went to the library and used a public computer to ask his 
questions.  Is there some reason that wouldn't work for you?

Those who want to will find a way.  Those who want to just complain will 
give up without even trying.

> I mean, I guess I could have set something up. It's just frustrating
> when all you're trying to do is a default install or whatever, and that
> isn't working.

Yeah, and it sucks when the power goes out and you have to wait for 
something to be fixed.  If you don't call it in to the power company, it 
may never get fixed.  One wouldn't be justified to just sit there and 
bitch that they haven't fixed it when you didn't report a problem.

>> Your problem is a lack of knowledge.  That can be corrected.  If you go
>> into using Linux thinking it's going to be exactly like Windows, you're
>> doomed to fail before you even boot the machine.
>>
>> Newsflash:  Linux is NOT Windows.  It doesn't work like Windows.  It
>> doesn't feel like Windows.  Why?  BECAUSE IT ISN'T FREAKING WINDOWS!!!
> 
> And, uh, what do you base this assertion on?

I base it on the fact that LINUX != WINDOWS.

> You make it sound like I used Linux for five minutes, couldn't work it,
> and gave up. That's not what happened at all!

Did you ask any questions?  Or did you never, ever get to a Windows 
machine where you could ask questions?

If you want to *learn*, you ask questions.  You know this, because you're 
moderately inquisitive about lots of different topics.  But somehow it's 
absolutely impossible for you to ask for a little help sorting out a 
Linux issue.  Far easier to just say "Linux suxxors the biggest donkey 
balls" than to go to a Linux forum and ask for a little assistance!

>> Software isn't perfect.  No matter which platform it is, it isn't going
>> to be perfect.
> 
> Funny, I could have sworn Mac OS was perfect...

Only those who haven't used it say that.  Oh, wait, you haven't used it 
(by your own admission).

>> You have to be willing to take some time to learn how the system works,
>> rather than just try it and lament "it's hard".
> 
> You make it sound like I've made no attempt to do so.

You say "I couldn't get it working" and didn't ask anyone with expertise 
for help.  That sure sounds to me like "little attempt to get some 
assistance".

> I can work Linux. I can usually make it do what I want it to do. I
> pointed out one specific issue: installing stuff tends to be a
> dependency nightmare. Which is true. I don't see how that makes me an
> idiot.

It doesn't.  Not asking for help when you need it?  Yeah, *that's* not 
too bright.  Then using that experience to say "this sucks" - really not 
that useful.

Jim

Post a reply to this message