Topic: To not hijack a virus repair

[Inigo Montoya]

My point exactly. None of them have much usability. They are almost all targeted at very select number of things. Usable in their communities minds but that is about it. After all, I can install ubuntu on a flash drive.
 Most places I have visited and worked have used a fuller functioning version such as redhat or suse.

[mystic_1]

Just because something is target at a particular application, doesn't mean it has no "real world" usability.  Quite the opposite.

You seem to have a strong prejudice against anything that isn't Windows, and I have no desire to attempt to convert you.

Enjoy!

mystic_1

[mlinder]

You aren't really understanding linux, Inigo.
the mid to early 2.x kernels will run on 386's and 486's, with 16mb of ram.
With those kernels, you have full networking capability, can run X Windows (GUI), firefox, etc.
It's all just a package away.

[Laminar]

[Inigo Montoya]

I actually have ubuntu on 2 systems right now. Windows is just more usable when it comes to games. Yes I know you can make a vm but why should I when I still have to install windows. Why run 2 OS to play 1 game.

You aren't really understanding linux, Inigo.
the mid to early 2.x kernels will run on 386's and 486's, with 16mb of ram.
With those kernels, you have full networking capability, can run X Windows (GUI), firefox, etc.
It's all just a package away.

As for the kernel, you might be able to run on a 386 and 16 ram but firefox wont. Well maybe if you strip everything out of it.
My point is, you have to add extras to get decent usage and then you no longer have the simple system. By that time, you might as well go with a fuller featured distro which still requires more hardware capabilities.


Still trying to hump that doorknob lammy?

[mlinder]

I actually have ubuntu on 2 systems right now. Windows is just more usable when it comes to games. Yes I know you can make a vm but why should I when I still have to install windows. Why run 2 OS to play 1 game.

You aren't really understanding linux, Inigo.
the mid to early 2.x kernels will run on 386's and 486's, with 16mb of ram.
With those kernels, you have full networking capability, can run X Windows (GUI), firefox, etc.
It's all just a package away.

As for the kernel, you might be able to run on a 386 and 16 ram but firefox wont. Well maybe if you strip everything out of it.
My point is, you have to add extras to get decent usage and then you no longer have the simple system. By that time, you might as well go with a fuller featured distro which still requires more hardware capabilities.


Still trying to hump that doorknob lammy?

What do you consider a useful, usable computer? Tell me what you think would make a decent laptop. I have a very old pII laptop here with 32mb of ram. Tell me what you think is useful and I'll take you up on your 'challenge' to make a useful computer running linux that does everything someone would want ina  simple, easy to use, ancient computer.

[mystic_1]

I actually have ubuntu on 2 systems right now. Windows is just more usable when it comes to games. Yes I know you can make a vm but why should I when I still have to install windows. Why run 2 OS to play 1 game.

Your definition of "real world usability" is.... video games?!?!?!?

HA!


mystic_1

[Inigo Montoya]

That is ONE example. Virtually almost any game is made to play on windows, then some are ported to mac. Few port to linux.
Another example is your average adobe creative suite. yes there are some open source options but many of them do not have all the features, some are not under active development, some do not work with adobe files.
Autocad programs are harder to find.
So do these do it for you mystic? I mean I listed typical software used in a business environment.
Oh another thing is exchange. Lot of companies use exchange. I tried evolution mail and it did not function fully.

Mark, you can do whatever challenge you want. I really don't care. You are right, anyone who does not agree with you is wrong. Why are you here and not in the bahama's working for the highest bidder?
A decent usable computer would be able to render hd video, sorry but no p2 is going to do that.
A lot of newer laptops are unable to do that. My gateway solo 5300 cant do it and it had 256 ram. Oh wait, there is more to it than cpu.
Also, linux does not support all video cards. I know, I HAVE one that no linux distro I found ever supported. Same with my C-media based sound card that beta vista and 7 supported fully for 6 channel.
Yeah I guess I could spend hours trying to compile a driver but I have better things to do.

Guess I am done here. Linux just is not able to fully do and support everything that mac and windows can.
I would like it if it could and if it could, I would probably dump windows. But just so you know, About 75% of linux work is now done by paid people, not the open source groups.
http://apcmag.com/linux-now-75-corporate.htm

I really just do not care this much. But just for the sake of further trolling you mark, since you seem to take things so personal even though you try to claim you don't, Linus Torvalds wishes he was Bill Gates.

[mystic_1]

You claimed that the only reason there's little malware for Linux was that nobody uses it.  It was pointed out to you that Linux is widespread.

You then claim at Windows is hardened against viruses.  It was pointed out to you that such protection was only added on after-the-fact after Microsoft intentionally omitted it from generations of it's product.

You then claim that this omission was due to the fact that Windows supports 15 year old hardware.  It was pointed out to you that other operating systems support old hardware much better than Windows.  Ever try to get a driver for a 15 year old printer under XP or later, btw? 

You next claim that linix wouldn't run on older hardware.  A great big list of linix distros that run on minimal and older hardware was posted.

You then claim that none of them have real-world applications, in spite of the fact that each one has a specific real-world use.  Your response is that if something is special-purpose, it's useless.   

Someone offers to demonstrate the usability of Linux by building a system to YOUR specifications, that does the things YOU think it should.  Your response?  "I don't care" and then you throw a hissy fit.

Finally you state that the biggest problem with Linuix is that it doesn't run Windows-specific applications and games!



Almost all of my posts in this thread have been in response to statements you have made.  When your statements are shown to be inaccurate or in error, you change the subject!  All to "demonstrate" the superiority of Windows.  There's only one person evangelizing here

anyone who does not agree with you is wrong.

This seems to be YOUR position, not mlinder's.


mystic_1

[Laminar]

Almost all of my posts in this thread have been in response to statements you have made.  When your statements are shown to be inaccurate or in error, you change the subject!

I'm glad that someone else is noticing this pattern as well.

[mlinder]

Mark, you can do whatever challenge you want. I really don't care. You are right, anyone who does not agree with you is wrong. Why are you here and not in the bahama's working for the highest bidder?


...mark, since you seem to take things so personal even though you try to claim you don't, Linus Torvalds wishes he was Bill Gates.

You should stop projecting, duder. None of this has been 'personal' to me. I like a good discussion about tech stuff. It's what I do for a living (well, work on tech, not talk about it.)

I'm glad you defined what 'usable' means to you. It's true that I can't put together a linux box with a pII, 128mb of RAM and do Photoshop, HD video, and Crysis. So yeah, a linux box would not be 'usable' for you. And that holds true for a lot of people.
I just wanted to make a little 'ol laptop that could do office, browse, youtube, get email, play music, etc, out of a little old piece of crap. That's 'usable' for a lot of  people, and, they'd probably NEVER have a crash or a sliver of malware.

I love windows7. I run it at home (dual boot with linux) for netflix, etc. It's stable, fast, and pretty.

Moving on, though, you've been mistaken about *nix security, malware, etc., in comparison to Windows.

I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to go to linux. I'm just correcting misconceptions that you are putting out there, because people listen, and I'd rather they didn't listen to erroneous information, at least not without a counterpoint. I don't really care whether you like *nix or not. I'm not saying you are 'wrong' for liking windows a lot more.
I'm also no asking you to agree with me about linux security. You can't agree. You agree or disagree with opinions. You can't agree or disagree with facts. I laid out facts. You laid out opinions. I'm not denying you your opinions. That would be dumb.

[Bob Wessner]

Maybe not the best thread-choice for this question, but here goes. Having read the posts here about Ubuntu, thought I would try loading it to an old laptop (IBM running WinME  ) so I can do some work from out on the porch. It has a USB port, will I be able to install a USB wireless adapter on this and connect to our wireless router here at home?

After hitting 'post' happened to think, this laptop may only support USB 1.0.  

[333]

Not that I have much experience with it, but make sure you have enough memory for the latest version of Ubuntu.  My old ME machine wouldn't be able to run it.  It requires 256 mb ram to run at all, and 384 mb ram for some advanced functions.  My old ME machine has only 192(?) mb.  And you do have to jump through some hoops to download it.  Follow the instructions carefully.

That being said, I started using the Karmic Koala version of Ubuntu a couple weeks ago on an old machine.  Just to have the hard disk die on me.  But I am not disillusioned.  I will start over sometime this week.

[Bob Wessner]

Thanks, I will check that and also the USB port level.

[Bob Wessner]

Not that I have much experience with it, but make sure you have enough memory for the latest version of Ubuntu.  My old ME machine wouldn't be able to run it.  It requires 256 mb ram to run at all, and 384 mb ram for some advanced functions.  My old ME machine has only 192(?) mb.  And you do have to jump through some hoops to download it.  Follow the instructions carefully.

That being said, I started using the Karmic Koala version of Ubuntu a couple weeks ago on an old machine.  Just to have the hard disk die on me.  But I am not disillusioned.  I will start over sometime this week.

Well, I guess I can scratch that idea. The laptop only has 120MB of mem. and the USB device driver dates from 2000.

[mlinder]

Not that I have much experience with it, but make sure you have enough memory for the latest version of Ubuntu.  My old ME machine wouldn't be able to run it.  It requires 256 mb ram to run at all, and 384 mb ram for some advanced functions.  My old ME machine has only 192(?) mb.  And you do have to jump through some hoops to download it.  Follow the instructions carefully.

That being said, I started using the Karmic Koala version of Ubuntu a couple weeks ago on an old machine.  Just to have the hard disk die on me.  But I am not disillusioned.  I will start over sometime this week.

Well, I guess I can scratch that idea. The laptop only has 120MB of mem. and the USB device driver dates from 2000.

DSL (Damn Small Linux) can be installed on that no problem. It's designed to run from CD, but can be installed on a HD. There is USB support.

[333]

And memory is cheap these days.  Is port level an issue?

[Bob Wessner]

And memory is cheap these days.  Is port level an issue?

I'm thinking, yes, given its age.

[Bob Wessner]

Not that I have much experience with it, but make sure you have enough memory for the latest version of Ubuntu.  My old ME machine wouldn't be able to run it.  It requires 256 mb ram to run at all, and 384 mb ram for some advanced functions.  My old ME machine has only 192(?) mb.  And you do have to jump through some hoops to download it.  Follow the instructions carefully.

That being said, I started using the Karmic Koala version of Ubuntu a couple weeks ago on an old machine.  Just to have the hard disk die on me.  But I am not disillusioned.  I will start over sometime this week.

Well, I guess I can scratch that idea. The laptop only has 120MB of mem. and the USB device driver dates from 2000.

DSL (Damn Small Linux) can be installed on that no problem. It's designed to run from CD, but can be installed on a HD. There is USB support.

Googled around on DSL and it seems it is for folks a bit more technically savvy than myself. Other unix distributions seem to have self-installing packages from a burned ISO whereas DSL seems to require assembling a number of different files in remote directories.

[mlinder]

Not that I have much experience with it, but make sure you have enough memory for the latest version of Ubuntu.  My old ME machine wouldn't be able to run it.  It requires 256 mb ram to run at all, and 384 mb ram for some advanced functions.  My old ME machine has only 192(?) mb.  And you do have to jump through some hoops to download it.  Follow the instructions carefully.

That being said, I started using the Karmic Koala version of Ubuntu a couple weeks ago on an old machine.  Just to have the hard disk die on me.  But I am not disillusioned.  I will start over sometime this week.

Well, I guess I can scratch that idea. The laptop only has 120MB of mem. and the USB device driver dates from 2000.

DSL (Damn Small Linux) can be installed on that no problem. It's designed to run from CD, but can be installed on a HD. There is USB support.

Googled around on DSL and it seems it is for folks a bit more technically savvy than myself. Other unix distributions seem to have self-installing packages from a burned ISO whereas DSL seems to require assembling a number of different files in remote directories.

Try VentorLinux Standard.

http://vectorlinux.com/downloads

[Inigo Montoya]

You claimed that the only reason there's little malware for Linux was that nobody uses it.  It was pointed out to you that Linux is widespread.

You then claim at Windows is hardened against viruses.  It was pointed out to you that such protection was only added on after-the-fact after Microsoft intentionally omitted it from generations of it's product.

You then claim that this omission was due to the fact that Windows supports 15 year old hardware.  It was pointed out to you that other operating systems support old hardware much better than Windows.  Ever try to get a driver for a 15 year old printer under XP or later, btw?  Wink

You next claim that linix wouldn't run on older hardware.  A great big list of linix distros that run on minimal and older hardware was posted.

You then claim that none of them have real-world applications, in spite of the fact that each one has a specific real-world use.  Your response is that if something is special-purpose, it's useless.   Roll Eyes

Someone offers to demonstrate the usability of Linux by building a system to YOUR specifications, that does the things YOU think it should.  Your response?  "I don't care" and then you throw a hissy fit.

Finally you state that the biggest problem with Linuix is that it doesn't run Windows-specific applications and games!



Almost all of my posts in this thread have been in response to statements you have made.  When your statements are shown to be inaccurate or in error, you change the subject!  All to "demonstrate" the superiority of Windows.  There's only one person evangelizing here Smiley

Linux is widespread in server environments. Not home. I would not call MAYBE 2% of the consumer market, wide spread. Maybe you do.
Windows HAS been hardened against virus attacks, at least compared to OLDER windows. This has been documented and is easily available. So newer types have come out but recovery on vista and 7 still seems easier than xp. Less system damage seems to occur. Not sure what you point with the rest of that statement is. Someone pointed out it was intentionally left out? I never denied that. Merely that some resistance was put back in starting in vista.

Did you know a laser jet 4 still works on xp. It came out in 92. I never said that Ms had to remove virus protection to support old hardware. I said that people would get upset as Ms if they dropped support for old equipment. Vista DID drop some of that and people in many online forums DID gripe about that.

You seem to like twisting things. Well whatever I guess. I asked about linux that had real world usability for the average person. Most of those small ones do not offer that usability. One has to add simple things which mean it does not have it on its own. Again, this is the small distros which generally look to specialized for certain things. Guess my idea of usable is different than yours. Maybe you have very low requirements for what you need?

So how is my list of apps that are on windows AND mac but not linux bad? See once again you read what you want into it instead of what I wrote. Every program I listed is available on mac and windows so I was NOT just using windows to compare. Hardware is obviously different and I cant us mac in that comparison as hardware is very narrow for macs.
 As for not bothering to have a system built, what is the point. Would I ever see it? No, of course not. It would be like me trying to say I have a cr750 original and just posting a pic from somewhere. I know that to do everything I want to do, no linux system on its own would do the job without having to make a VM.  Like I said before, I DO use ubuntu. I set it up on a laptop for my daughters, I just need to see if there are decent parental programs and key loggers made as they get older.
I am setting my father up on ubuntu as his first pc. Yeah that really sounds like I dont like it.

I just do not see linux as perfect but I guess that allows you to jump on me and twist things around to fit what you want. I am also able to say that NO OS is perfect. Whatever, I never said I was always right but I am allowed my opinion. Just like everyone else, no matter how wrong I may be or how wrong someone else may be. Since no one is perfect. Or am I wrong on that too?

[Inigo Montoya]

Mark, facts can be subjective though depending on the requirement. In most case I do agree with almost everything you say about linux. I would love if it got more love from the software giants. That would be awesome. Though if that happened, more would probably charge for it, hell redhat already does and so does suse I think. We just see different requirements for usability and so the facts end up different based on our perceptions on what usable is. Neither is wrong, just different.

My post to mystic shows that I have ubuntu in my house and I am getting it ready for my father.
I do think though that if linux became more wide-spread, it would lose some of its security. After all, look at the attack on google by them dang chinese. Google runs linux.

Moving on, though, you've been mistaken about *nix security, malware, etc., in comparison to Windows.

I'm not trying to get you or anyone else to go to linux. I'm just correcting misconceptions that you are putting out there, because people listen, and I'd rather they didn't listen to erroneous information, at least not without a counterpoint. I don't really care whether you like *nix or not. I'm not saying you are 'wrong' for liking windows a lot more.
I'm also no asking you to agree with me about linux security. You can't agree. You agree or disagree with opinions. You can't agree or disagree with facts. I laid out facts. You laid out opinions. I'm not denying you your opinions. That would be dumb.

I am not mistaken on linux security. It is very secure...At this time. It can still be hacked as the chinese showed on google.
So really, stating facts about security on a computer is really somewhat impossible. It might be awesomely secure now but what about next week? That could change. I know linux is more secure than windows, by far. Windows has gotten better though. It was about time though. Unless you are talking about ie8, then all bets are off!

[Bob Wessner]

mlinder,

Thanks for the link. I just downloaded the VL 6 Light ISO and will give that a try.

[mystic_1]

Inigo,

You are the one claiming that linux has no real world usability, when posed with a long list of distros each of which has a specific real-world use.  Examples abound as to the practical applications of linux, regardless of your windows-centric view.  Read the following quote carefully:

Just because something is target at a particular application, doesn't mean it has no "real world" usability.

Regarding your question: 

Yeah now what is the real world usability. From JUST the OS itself.

What's the real-world usability of Windows, from JUST the OS itself?  Don't include all the bundled apps, because those aren't part of the Operating System, regardless of what Bill Gates tells you.

Speaking of which, in response to your claim that Linus Torvalds wants to be Bill Gates,

Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely unintentional side effect.
Linus Torvalds, New York Times, 2003-09-28

mystic_1

[mystic_1]

Oh, and I never claimed that Linux was perfect, in fact I've made very few claims at all in this thread, I'm just responding to and/or refuting yours

mystic_1