On 09/10/2011 01:57 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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*?

I'm comparing Linux against the Windows release that most people are 
currently using.

>> 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.

Linux comes with a hell of a lot more applications than Windows does. 
This is a good thing.

It's still frustrating that I have to download multiple GB of data for 
libraries that I'm not actually going to use, just because the package 
dependency system isn't a little more fine-grained.

>>> You have a Windows machine, do you not?
>>
>> Not in the same building, no.
>
> Those who want to will find a way.  Those who want to just complain will
> give up without even trying.

Yes. Because spending a week trying to fix something it *totally* the 
same as just giving up and complaining about it. Oh, wait...

>>> 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.

As you're probably aware, that isn't the statement I was querying.

>> 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!

Again, I didn't say Linux sucks. I said one specific aspect of it sucks.

>>> 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).

Sarcasm doesn't work via text, apparently...

>> 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.

Now, to me, if the only way to make a system work is to find a 
super-expert to explain it, then it's not a very good system. If only 
the distribution developers themselves have enough insider knowledge to 
figure out how to work the package manager, then it's not a terribly 
good system. Just, you know, my opinion. Feel free to disagree...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message