Windows more secure - Hacker states

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:37:39 +0200, Alias

wrote:



>John B. Slocomb wrote:

>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:28:59 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions and

>>>>>>> I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>>>>> running at any point.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>

>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook and

>>>>> on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

>>>>> run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

>>>>> 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>

>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those INFERIOR

>>>> distros working. So one is better for certain "architectures"? What does

>>>> that mean? They are not compatible with the hardware? Sounds like it. If

>>>> you need to run a few different OS! With Windows, all you need to do is

>>>> install it, the updates will run and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>

>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on each

>>>> distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then go spend

>>>> some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Lies:

>>>

>>> No need to use a command line.

>>>

>>> The cube does not spin by itself.

>>>

>>> Drivers are not a problem in Ubuntu like they are in Windows 7

>>>

>>> The architecture is the structure where to access the root kernel, you

>>> need to key in your password or it ain't going there. In Windows, most

>>> programs are intertwined with the registry (MS' stupid name for a

>>> kernel) and are therefore more vulnerable.

>>

>>

>> You really don't have a clue, do you?

>>

>> "Root Kernel"? What in the world is the "root kernel"? Is it different

>> from the "kernel" or is it a "kernel" that only the root account can

>> use?

>

>Picky semantics are all you got?



Semantics? Possibly, but difficult to hold a discussion with a fool

who claims to be an expert and doesn't even know the name of the

parts.



>>

>> "Drivers are not a problem in Ubuntu like they are in Windows"? Come

>> now, have you even installed a Canon printer on Ubuntu?

>

>Of course not. Why should I?

>

>> Unless you

>> have one of a very limited, usually outdated, models you need to

>> search the Web to find a driver. In fact Linux has so much

>> difficulties with drivers that they have developed a special piece of

>> software to allow you to use Windows drivers with Linux.

>

>I connected my HP all-in-one and Ubuntu installed it automagically

>without one single click. Printers are cheap. Are you a cheapskate?



No and one day your Mother is going to stop supporting you and you

will wake up and discover that money doesn't grow on trees.

>>

>> The Registry is "MS' stupid name for a kernel? Whew, you really are

>> ignorant of how the various systems work, aren't you.

>>

>> (Perhaps, if you changed your name from "Alias" to "Ignorant", it

>> would make your posts more appropriate.)

>>

>> John B. Slocomb

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

>Perhaps if you were to look up the term "ad hominem" you would realize

>what a piss poor debater you are.





What does my skills in debating have to do with the fact that you

don't appear to know how either Linux or Windows functions?

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Alias]

John B. Slocomb wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:37:39 +0200, Alias

> wrote:

>

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:28:59 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions and

>>>>>>>> I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>>>>>> running at any point.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook and

>>>>>> on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

>>>>>> run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

>>>>>> 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>>

>>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those INFERIOR

>>>>> distros working. So one is better for certain "architectures"? What does

>>>>> that mean? They are not compatible with the hardware? Sounds like it. If

>>>>> you need to run a few different OS! With Windows, all you need to do is

>>>>> install it, the updates will run and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>>

>>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on each

>>>>> distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then go spend

>>>>> some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Lies:

>>>>

>>>> No need to use a command line.

>>>>

>>>> The cube does not spin by itself.

>>>>

>>>> Drivers are not a problem in Ubuntu like they are in Windows 7

>>>>

>>>> The architecture is the structure where to access the root kernel, you

>>>> need to key in your password or it ain't going there. In Windows, most

>>>> programs are intertwined with the registry (MS' stupid name for a

>>>> kernel) and are therefore more vulnerable.

>>>

>>>

>>> You really don't have a clue, do you?

>>>

>>> "Root Kernel"? What in the world is the "root kernel"? Is it different

>>> from the "kernel" or is it a "kernel" that only the root account can

>>> use?

>>

>> Picky semantics are all you got?

>

> Semantics? Possibly, but difficult to hold a discussion with a fool

> who claims to be an expert and doesn't even know the name of the

> parts.



I don't claim to be an expert.



>

>>>

>>> "Drivers are not a problem in Ubuntu like they are in Windows"? Come

>>> now, have you even installed a Canon printer on Ubuntu?

>>

>> Of course not. Why should I?



Well?



>>

>>> Unless you

>>> have one of a very limited, usually outdated, models you need to

>>> search the Web to find a driver. In fact Linux has so much

>>> difficulties with drivers that they have developed a special piece of

>>> software to allow you to use Windows drivers with Linux.

>>

>> I connected my HP all-in-one and Ubuntu installed it automagically

>> without one single click. Printers are cheap. Are you a cheapskate?

>

> No and one day your Mother is going to stop supporting you and you

> will wake up and discover that money doesn't grow on trees.



My mother died almost two decades ago. Got any more guesses you'd like

to share?



>>>

>>> The Registry is "MS' stupid name for a kernel? Whew, you really are

>>> ignorant of how the various systems work, aren't you.

>>>

>>> (Perhaps, if you changed your name from "Alias" to "Ignorant", it

>>> would make your posts more appropriate.)

>>>

>>> John B. Slocomb

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>> Perhaps if you were to look up the term "ad hominem" you would realize

>> what a piss poor debater you are.

>

>

> What does my skills in debating have to do with the fact that you

> don't appear to know how either Linux or Windows functions?



What skills? Which functions?



> John B. Slocomb

> johnbslocomb@gmail.com





--

Alias

 

[John B. Slocomb]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:41:53 +0200, Alias

wrote:



>John B. Slocomb wrote:

>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:34:39 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>> On 21 Apr 2010 00:39:45 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:24:59 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 20 Apr 2010 15:21:11 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:05:18 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions

>>>>>>>>>>> and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of

>>>>>>>>>>> them running at any point.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook

>>>>>>>>> and on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those

>>>>>>>>> architectures. I run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple

>>>>>>>>> of desktops and a 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

>>>>>>>> INFERIOR distros working.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> First, they are not inferior or I would not be using them. Second, no,

>>>>>>> they just simply install and work. Don't believe I've spent more than 45

>>>>>>> minutes on any install except Gentoo - and I was prepared for that.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> So one is better for certain

>>>>>>>> "architectures"? What does that mean? They are not compatible with

>>>>>>>> the hardware? Sounds like it. If you need to run a few different OS!

>>>>>>>> With Windows, all you need to do is install it, the updates will run

>>>>>>>> and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> For example, my mini-itx box with 1ghz VIA C3 is underpowered. You would

>>>>>>> not be able, for example, to run any modern MS on it. With a fully

>>>>>>> optimized Gentoo, it's performance is quite good. It's not a hardware

>>>>>>> compatibility issue at all - it's a performance level issue.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on

>>>>>>>> each distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then

>>>>>>>> go spend some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I've spent three minutes the last few months checking what needs to be

>>>>>>> fixed on each distro. Final analysis: nothing needs to be fixed -

>>>>>>> they're all working perfectly.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> That all sounds wonderful but I believe that there are a few flies in

>>>>>> the ointment. For example:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Can you, for example, say with any degree of certainty, that your Linux

>>>>>> will be able to use any printer, as Windows can? Canon, comes to mind

>>>>>> here. Will your Linux work with any Wi-Fi adapter? Will your Linux be

>>>>>> able to play MP3 files (out of the box) - the most widely used music

>>>>>> codex?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>

>>>>> Canon does not support Linux. I do not use Canon products for that

>>>>> reason. This is a Canon issue, not a Linux issue. Several vendors do work

>>>>> with Linux - e.g. Epson (avasys.jp), HP, Brother, Samsung.

>>>>

>>>> Correct and I was responding to the thought that installing Linux was

>>>> always a simple project when quite often it is not. I certainly do not

>>>> believe that it is logical to suggest that I junk my perfectly

>>>> serviceable Canon printer simply because I would like to run Linux,

>>>> nor would it be if I wanted to run Windows.

>>>

>>> Printers are cheap.

>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> It works with every wifi adapter I've tried - I don't really care about

>>>>> the others.

>>>>

>>>> Again, that is rationalization. I recently bought a "long range" wi-fi

>>>> unit.. didn't work with Ubuntu. Can't locate a Linux driver. Probably

>>>> because it is a cheap Chinese import but the point, which you seem to

>>>> reinforce by your comments, is that Linux may not be the "put in the

>>>> disk and have a cup of coffee" installation that some have claimed it

>>>> is.

>>>

>>> WiFi cards are cheap.

>>>>

>>>>> I don't have any problems playing mp3 files - though I don't generally

>>>>> use a computer for a music machine - there are much better ways to attain

>>>>> that.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Ubuntu plays MP3 out of the box? Or after installing those non-open

>>>> source drivers? What version was that? Debian plays MP3 out of the

>>>> box? I thought that Debian was one of the "holier then thou: advocates

>>>> of open source.

>>>>

>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>> Windows plays Flac out of the box? Fact is you can play all formats in

>>> Linux and, unless you live in the USA, it's perfectly LEGAL to install

>>> the restricted extras.

>>

>>

>> Ah! Such a liar. And himself telling us about his Linux experience.

>>

>> Your beloved Ubuntu will not play MP3 files without downloading a non

>> open-source driver and hasn't for at least the past three years, and

>> probably never did, so don't be telling us that it does.

>>

>>

>>

>> John B. Slocomb

>> johnbslocomb@gmail.com

>

>I didn't. I said one had to install the restricted extras. You have a

>serious reading comprehension problem, sonny.





Goodness and here I had been thinking that with all your extolling of

Linux that you subscribed to the whole Linux thesis. All the

open-system nonsense and don't allow closed-source applications on our

pure at heart, squeaky clean, systems and all the other Debian crap.



Now you seem to be saying "Ignore the whole GNU/Linux philosophy and

just load up the closed systems".



You should be ashamed of yourself. If you aren't careful Ubuntu won't

let you download the next free copy.

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Alias]

John B. Slocomb wrote:

> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:41:53 +0200, Alias

> wrote:

>

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:34:39 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>> On 21 Apr 2010 00:39:45 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:24:59 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 20 Apr 2010 15:21:11 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:05:18 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions

>>>>>>>>>>>> and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of

>>>>>>>>>>>> them running at any point.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook

>>>>>>>>>> and on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those

>>>>>>>>>> architectures. I run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple

>>>>>>>>>> of desktops and a 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

>>>>>>>>> INFERIOR distros working.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> First, they are not inferior or I would not be using them. Second, no,

>>>>>>>> they just simply install and work. Don't believe I've spent more than 45

>>>>>>>> minutes on any install except Gentoo - and I was prepared for that.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> So one is better for certain

>>>>>>>>> "architectures"? What does that mean? They are not compatible with

>>>>>>>>> the hardware? Sounds like it. If you need to run a few different OS!

>>>>>>>>> With Windows, all you need to do is install it, the updates will run

>>>>>>>>> and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> For example, my mini-itx box with 1ghz VIA C3 is underpowered. You would

>>>>>>>> not be able, for example, to run any modern MS on it. With a fully

>>>>>>>> optimized Gentoo, it's performance is quite good. It's not a hardware

>>>>>>>> compatibility issue at all - it's a performance level issue.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on

>>>>>>>>> each distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then

>>>>>>>>> go spend some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I've spent three minutes the last few months checking what needs to be

>>>>>>>> fixed on each distro. Final analysis: nothing needs to be fixed -

>>>>>>>> they're all working perfectly.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> That all sounds wonderful but I believe that there are a few flies in

>>>>>>> the ointment. For example:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Can you, for example, say with any degree of certainty, that your Linux

>>>>>>> will be able to use any printer, as Windows can? Canon, comes to mind

>>>>>>> here. Will your Linux work with any Wi-Fi adapter? Will your Linux be

>>>>>>> able to play MP3 files (out of the box) - the most widely used music

>>>>>>> codex?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Canon does not support Linux. I do not use Canon products for that

>>>>>> reason. This is a Canon issue, not a Linux issue. Several vendors do work

>>>>>> with Linux - e.g. Epson (avasys.jp), HP, Brother, Samsung.

>>>>>

>>>>> Correct and I was responding to the thought that installing Linux was

>>>>> always a simple project when quite often it is not. I certainly do not

>>>>> believe that it is logical to suggest that I junk my perfectly

>>>>> serviceable Canon printer simply because I would like to run Linux,

>>>>> nor would it be if I wanted to run Windows.

>>>>

>>>> Printers are cheap.

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It works with every wifi adapter I've tried - I don't really care about

>>>>>> the others.

>>>>>

>>>>> Again, that is rationalization. I recently bought a "long range" wi-fi

>>>>> unit.. didn't work with Ubuntu. Can't locate a Linux driver. Probably

>>>>> because it is a cheap Chinese import but the point, which you seem to

>>>>> reinforce by your comments, is that Linux may not be the "put in the

>>>>> disk and have a cup of coffee" installation that some have claimed it

>>>>> is.

>>>>

>>>> WiFi cards are cheap.

>>>>>

>>>>>> I don't have any problems playing mp3 files - though I don't generally

>>>>>> use a computer for a music machine - there are much better ways to attain

>>>>>> that.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Ubuntu plays MP3 out of the box? Or after installing those non-open

>>>>> source drivers? What version was that? Debian plays MP3 out of the

>>>>> box? I thought that Debian was one of the "holier then thou: advocates

>>>>> of open source.

>>>>>

>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>

>>>> Windows plays Flac out of the box? Fact is you can play all formats in

>>>> Linux and, unless you live in the USA, it's perfectly LEGAL to install

>>>> the restricted extras.

>>>

>>>

>>> Ah! Such a liar. And himself telling us about his Linux experience.

>>>

>>> Your beloved Ubuntu will not play MP3 files without downloading a non

>>> open-source driver and hasn't for at least the past three years, and

>>> probably never did, so don't be telling us that it does.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> John B. Slocomb

>>> johnbslocomb@gmail.com

>>

>> I didn't. I said one had to install the restricted extras. You have a

>> serious reading comprehension problem, sonny.

>

>

> Goodness and here I had been thinking that with all your extolling of

> Linux that you subscribed to the whole Linux thesis. All the

> open-system nonsense and don't allow closed-source applications on our

> pure at heart, squeaky clean, systems and all the other Debian crap.

>

> Now you seem to be saying "Ignore the whole GNU/Linux philosophy and

> just load up the closed systems".

>

> You should be ashamed of yourself. If you aren't careful Ubuntu won't

> let you download the next free copy.

> John B. Slocomb

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)



Canonical are the good folks who provide the two click install of Ubuntu

restricted extras, dumb fuck. I use both Windows and Linux and couldn't

care less what the politics are.



--

Alias

 

[ray]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:24:04 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:



> On 21 Apr 2010 00:39:45 GMT, ray wrote:

>

>>On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:24:59 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>

>>> On 20 Apr 2010 15:21:11 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>

>>>>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:05:18 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions

>>>>>>>>and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any

>>>>>>>>of them running at any point.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook

>>>>>> and on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those

>>>>>> architectures. I run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a

>>>>>> couple of desktops and a 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>>

>>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

>>>>> INFERIOR distros working.

>>>>

>>>>First, they are not inferior or I would not be using them. Second, no,

>>>>they just simply install and work. Don't believe I've spent more than

>>>>45 minutes on any install except Gentoo - and I was prepared for that.

>>>>

>>>>> So one is better for certain

>>>>> "architectures"? What does that mean? They are not compatible with

>>>>> the hardware? Sounds like it. If you need to run a few different

>>>>> OS! With Windows, all you need to do is install it, the updates will

>>>>> run and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>

>>>>For example, my mini-itx box with 1ghz VIA C3 is underpowered. You

>>>>would not be able, for example, to run any modern MS on it. With a

>>>>fully optimized Gentoo, it's performance is quite good. It's not a

>>>>hardware compatibility issue at all - it's a performance level issue.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on

>>>>> each distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then

>>>>> go spend some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>

>>>>I've spent three minutes the last few months checking what needs to be

>>>>fixed on each distro. Final analysis: nothing needs to be fixed -

>>>>they're all working perfectly.

>>>

>>>

>>> That all sounds wonderful but I believe that there are a few flies in

>>> the ointment. For example:

>>>

>>> Can you, for example, say with any degree of certainty, that your

>>> Linux will be able to use any printer, as Windows can? Canon, comes to

>>> mind here. Will your Linux work with any Wi-Fi adapter? Will your

>>> Linux be able to play MP3 files (out of the box) - the most widely

>>> used music codex?

>>>

>>> John B. Slocomb

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>>Canon does not support Linux. I do not use Canon products for that

>>reason. This is a Canon issue, not a Linux issue. Several vendors do

>>work with Linux - e.g. Epson (avasys.jp), HP, Brother, Samsung.

>

> Correct and I was responding to the thought that installing Linux was

> always a simple project when quite often it is not. I certainly do not

> believe that it is logical to suggest that I junk my perfectly

> serviceable Canon printer simply because I would like to run Linux, nor

> would it be if I wanted to run Windows.



Fine - you want to continue running an insecure and instable OS because

of a printer - that's your decision.



>

>

>>It works with every wifi adapter I've tried - I don't really care about

>>the others.

>

> Again, that is rationalization. I recently bought a "long range" wi-fi

> unit.. didn't work with Ubuntu. Can't locate a Linux driver. Probably

> because it is a cheap Chinese import but the point, which you seem to

> reinforce by your comments, is that Linux may not be the "put in the

> disk and have a cup of coffee" installation that some have claimed it

> is.



Five minutes, or less on the internet will find you a pretty

comprehensive list of adapters KNOWN to work with Linux. What prevented

you from checking FIRST?





>

>>I don't have any problems playing mp3 files - though I don't generally

>>use a computer for a music machine - there are much better ways to

>>attain that.

>

>

> Ubuntu plays MP3 out of the box? Or after installing those non-open

> source drivers? What version was that? Debian plays MP3 out of the box?

> I thought that Debian was one of the "holier then thou: advocates of

> open source.



What can you do with MS 'out of the box'? Use an office suite? No. Use a

photo editor? No. Do financial management? No. So what's the big damned

deal? I don't recall going out of my way on Debian to have it play mp3's

- as I've stated there are better systems for playing music than

computers. Some distributions, i.e. Mint, are known for having all that

sort of belly rot installed from the get go - if that's your desire,

install that instead.





>

> John B. Slocomb

> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

[Frank]

On 4/21/2010 3:37 AM, Alias wrote:

> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 17:28:59 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions

>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>> I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any of them

>>>>>>> running at any point.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>

>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook

>>>>> and

>>>>> on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those architectures. I

>>>>> run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a couple of desktops and a

>>>>> 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>

>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

>>>> INFERIOR

>>>> distros working. So one is better for certain "architectures"? What

>>>> does

>>>> that mean? They are not compatible with the hardware? Sounds like

>>>> it. If

>>>> you need to run a few different OS! With Windows, all you need to do is

>>>> install it, the updates will run and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>

>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on each

>>>> distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then go

>>>> spend

>>>> some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>

>>> Lies:

>>>

>>> No need to use a command line.

>>>

>>> The cube does not spin by itself.

>>>

>>> Drivers are not a problem in Ubuntu like they are in Windows 7

>>>

>>> The architecture is the structure where to access the root kernel, you

>>> need to key in your password or it ain't going there. In Windows, most

>>> programs are intertwined with the registry (MS' stupid name for a

>>> kernel) and are therefore more vulnerable.

>>

>>

>> You really don't have a clue, do you?

>>

>> "Root Kernel"? What in the world is the "root kernel"? Is it different

>> from the "kernel" or is it a "kernel" that only the root account can

>> use?

>

> Picky semantics are all you got?

>

>>

>> "Drivers are not a problem in Ubuntu like they are in Windows"? Come

>> now, have you even installed a Canon printer on Ubuntu?

>

> Of course not. Why should I?

>

>> Unless you

>> have one of a very limited, usually outdated, models you need to

>> search the Web to find a driver. In fact Linux has so much

>> difficulties with drivers that they have developed a special piece of

>> software to allow you to use Windows drivers with Linux.

>

> I connected my HP all-in-one and Ubuntu installed it automagically

> without one single click. Printers are cheap. Are you a cheapskate?

>

>>

>> The Registry is "MS' stupid name for a kernel? Whew, you really are

>> ignorant of how the various systems work, aren't you.

>>

>> (Perhaps, if you changed your name from "Alias" to "Ignorant", it

>> would make your posts more appropriate.)

>>

>> John B. Slocomb

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

> Perhaps if you were to look up the term "ad hominem" you would realize

> what a piss poor debater you are.

>

This is not a "debate". This is kicking your ass and calling you out for

your lies.

Got it sheep-fucker? You are a known and admitted liar, cheat and a thief.

Live with it, you POS asshole loser cause you did it all by yourself to

yourself.

 

[Heywood Jablowme]

"Alias" wrote in message

news:hqn0t1$olb$4@news.eternal-september.org...

> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:41:53 +0200, Alias

>> wrote:

>>

>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:34:39 +0200, Alias

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>> On 21 Apr 2010 00:39:45 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:24:59 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 20 Apr 2010 15:21:11 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:05:18 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux

>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributions

>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get

>>>>>>>>>>>>> any of

>>>>>>>>>>>>> them running at any point.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's

>>>>>>>>>>> netbook

>>>>>>>>>>> and on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those

>>>>>>>>>>> architectures. I run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a

>>>>>>>>>>> couple

>>>>>>>>>>> of desktops and a 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

>>>>>>>>>> INFERIOR distros working.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> First, they are not inferior or I would not be using them. Second,

>>>>>>>>> no,

>>>>>>>>> they just simply install and work. Don't believe I've spent more

>>>>>>>>> than 45

>>>>>>>>> minutes on any install except Gentoo - and I was prepared for

>>>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> So one is better for certain

>>>>>>>>>> "architectures"? What does that mean? They are not compatible

>>>>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>>>> the hardware? Sounds like it. If you need to run a few

>>>>>>>>>> different OS!

>>>>>>>>>> With Windows, all you need to do is install it, the updates will

>>>>>>>>>> run

>>>>>>>>>> and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> For example, my mini-itx box with 1ghz VIA C3 is underpowered. You

>>>>>>>>> would

>>>>>>>>> not be able, for example, to run any modern MS on it. With a fully

>>>>>>>>> optimized Gentoo, it's performance is quite good. It's not a

>>>>>>>>> hardware

>>>>>>>>> compatibility issue at all - it's a performance level issue.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed

>>>>>>>>>> on

>>>>>>>>>> each distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and

>>>>>>>>>> then

>>>>>>>>>> go spend some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I've spent three minutes the last few months checking what needs

>>>>>>>>> to be

>>>>>>>>> fixed on each distro. Final analysis: nothing needs to be fixed -

>>>>>>>>> they're all working perfectly.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> That all sounds wonderful but I believe that there are a few flies

>>>>>>>> in

>>>>>>>> the ointment. For example:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Can you, for example, say with any degree of certainty, that your

>>>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>>>> will be able to use any printer, as Windows can? Canon, comes to

>>>>>>>> mind

>>>>>>>> here. Will your Linux work with any Wi-Fi adapter? Will your Linux

>>>>>>>> be

>>>>>>>> able to play MP3 files (out of the box) - the most widely used

>>>>>>>> music

>>>>>>>> codex?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Canon does not support Linux. I do not use Canon products for that

>>>>>>> reason. This is a Canon issue, not a Linux issue. Several vendors do

>>>>>>> work

>>>>>>> with Linux - e.g. Epson (avasys.jp), HP, Brother, Samsung.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Correct and I was responding to the thought that installing Linux was

>>>>>> always a simple project when quite often it is not. I certainly do

>>>>>> not

>>>>>> believe that it is logical to suggest that I junk my perfectly

>>>>>> serviceable Canon printer simply because I would like to run Linux,

>>>>>> nor would it be if I wanted to run Windows.

>>>>>

>>>>> Printers are cheap.

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It works with every wifi adapter I've tried - I don't really care

>>>>>>> about

>>>>>>> the others.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Again, that is rationalization. I recently bought a "long range"

>>>>>> wi-fi

>>>>>> unit.. didn't work with Ubuntu. Can't locate a Linux driver. Probably

>>>>>> because it is a cheap Chinese import but the point, which you seem to

>>>>>> reinforce by your comments, is that Linux may not be the "put in the

>>>>>> disk and have a cup of coffee" installation that some have claimed it

>>>>>> is.

>>>>>

>>>>> WiFi cards are cheap.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> I don't have any problems playing mp3 files - though I don't

>>>>>>> generally

>>>>>>> use a computer for a music machine - there are much better ways to

>>>>>>> attain

>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ubuntu plays MP3 out of the box? Or after installing those non-open

>>>>>> source drivers? What version was that? Debian plays MP3 out of the

>>>>>> box? I thought that Debian was one of the "holier then thou:

>>>>>> advocates

>>>>>> of open source.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>

>>>>> Windows plays Flac out of the box? Fact is you can play all formats in

>>>>> Linux and, unless you live in the USA, it's perfectly LEGAL to install

>>>>> the restricted extras.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Ah! Such a liar. And himself telling us about his Linux experience.

>>>>

>>>> Your beloved Ubuntu will not play MP3 files without downloading a non

>>>> open-source driver and hasn't for at least the past three years, and

>>>> probably never did, so don't be telling us that it does.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>> johnbslocomb@gmail.com

>>>

>>> I didn't. I said one had to install the restricted extras. You have a

>>> serious reading comprehension problem, sonny.

>>

>>

>> Goodness and here I had been thinking that with all your extolling of

>> Linux that you subscribed to the whole Linux thesis. All the

>> open-system nonsense and don't allow closed-source applications on our

>> pure at heart, squeaky clean, systems and all the other Debian crap.

>>

>> Now you seem to be saying "Ignore the whole GNU/Linux philosophy and

>> just load up the closed systems".

>>

>> You should be ashamed of yourself. If you aren't careful Ubuntu won't

>> let you download the next free copy.

>> John B. Slocomb

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>

> Canonical are the good folks who provide the two click install of Ubuntu

> restricted extras, dumb fuck. I use both Windows and Linux and couldn't

> care less what the politics are.

>

> --

> Alias



The above posts are the reason that people don't want to use Ubuntu. It

isn't easy. Multimedia doesn't run out of the box, drivers for mainstream

components are missing and people don't want to spend hours looking for

them. Get over it. Ubuntu was written for geeks by geeks who can't get

laid and have no social skills like you and ray.



Oops.

 

[Heywood Jablowme]

"Alias" wrote in message

news:hqlcub$28r$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:hqkunm$lj4$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>> news:hqkqdg$la2$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> "Alias" wrote in message

>>>>>> news:hqkhpf$j3j$2@news.eternal-september.org...

>>>>>>> Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>>> news:834gsoFhp0U47@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 03:02:07 +0200, Death wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 01:36:55 +0200, Death wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 15:05:52 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:8340kdFhp0U41@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 13:13:38 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 4/19/2010 10:29 AM, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010 09:29:42 -0700, Frank wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoy! I know I did!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-27080_3-20002317-245.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yawn. I guess that's why so much time, effort and money is

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expended in keeping MS machines up and running - while

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> none of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the three on Linux.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Keep telling yourself that myth if it makes you feel

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> better!

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or we could simply compare how much time, money, effort

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we've

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> spent

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on our respective systems to keep them malware free over the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> last

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> eight years. I'll go first - zero.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't take into account how many hours it took to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> research

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cryptic line commands you need to enter go get that SHITTY

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ubuntu

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working right. The countless hours to figure out which

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SYNAPTIC

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs to install. The countless hours to get the right

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> drivers

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for sound, video, and MOBO that are missing. and on and on

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on.........

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're wrong, as usual. I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple

>>>>>>>>>>>>> of

>>>>>>>>>>>>> other

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux distributions and I've not had to resort to "cryptic

>>>>>>>>>>>>> line

>>>>>>>>>>>>> commands" to get any of them running at any point. Generally a

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux

>>>>>>>>>>>>> install is simpler and quicker with many, many more apps

>>>>>>>>>>>>> included

>>>>>>>>>>>>> than an MS install. Now, if you'd like to count all the time

>>>>>>>>>>>>> you

>>>>>>>>>>>>> spent hunting down or buying and installing apps equivalent to

>>>>>>>>>>>>> what

>>>>>>>>>>>>> are already included in Linux, you'll be ever further behind!

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> You should try Fedora.

>>>>>>>>>>>> Just getting the nvidia drivers installed, the nouveau drivers

>>>>>>>>>>>> blacklisted is a trial.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Why would I want to do that? Quite frankly, I'm not enamoured of

>>>>>>>>>>> RPM

>>>>>>>>>>> distributions - I much prefer Debian package management.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> RPM package dependency hell is over.

>>>>>>>>>> I like the presto rpmdelta system that cuts way down on update

>>>>>>>>>> sizes.

>>>>>>>>>> The first one I did the 425MB dl was only 180MB.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Hate to tell you, but the only "free app" worth a shit in

>>>>>>>>>>>> Linux is

>>>>>>>>>>>> Open Office ... and downloading that into Windows takes no

>>>>>>>>>>>> longer

>>>>>>>>>>>> than

>>>>>>>>>>>> in Linux, and the Windows version is more likely to be the

>>>>>>>>>>>> newer

>>>>>>>>>>>> version than the "pre-packaged version" most distros have in

>>>>>>>>>>>> their

>>>>>>>>>>>> package manager.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> That's your opinion, which you're welcome to. I disagree.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> So, it takes longer to download and install into Windows? Not

>>>>>>>>>> hardly.

>>>>>>>>>> Most of the "package manager versions" of all software are a

>>>>>>>>>> version or

>>>>>>>>>> two behind. It is so with firefox also.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I don't generally time downloads - with broadband connections -

>>>>>>>>> who

>>>>>>>>> cares! I disagree with your statement that OOo is the only Linux

>>>>>>>>> app

>>>>>>>>> worth anything.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Come on now, Alias says there are 25,000 of 'em! LOL! 24,999 are

>>>>>>>> crap

>>>>>>>> and Open Sores Orafice is probably just OK.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Liar. I corrected that figure two years ago. Please try to keep up

>>>>>>> with your lies. You should try telling the truth as it's easier to

>>>>>>> remember.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> --

>>>>>>> Alias

>>>>>>

>>>>>> It doesn't really matter.

>>>>>

>>>>> We know you don't care if everyone knows you're a liar. How could you

>>>>> when your lies are so obvious?

>>>>>

>>>>> Go to any store and you won't see any of the

>>>>>> Linux apps! You will see nothing but Windows and Mac apps.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Live with it.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Linux apps aren't for sale, dumb fuck. You won't find Internet

>>>>> Explorer on the shelves either.

>>>>>

>>>>> --

>>>>> Alias

>>>>

>>>> You're right. They are mostly worthless also.

>>>

>>> You do realize that the word "worthless" is subjective or do you?

>>>

>>> --

>>> Alias

>>

>> Not really. Go ask everyone. They will tell you the same thing. Ubuntu

>> and most Open Sores applications are worthless. Same meaning. Oops.

>>

>>

>>

>

> Flunk English in school, eh? Figures.

>

Flunk Logic? of course you did. You're an Ubuntu user - No brains.

 

[Alias]

Heywood Jablowme wrote:

>

>

> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:hqn0t1$olb$4@news.eternal-september.org...

>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:41:53 +0200, Alias

>>> wrote:

>>>

>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:34:39 +0200, Alias

>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>>> On 21 Apr 2010 00:39:45 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:24:59 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On 20 Apr 2010 15:21:11 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:05:18 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributions

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get any of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them running at any point.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's

>>>>>>>>>>>> netbook

>>>>>>>>>>>> and on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those

>>>>>>>>>>>> architectures. I run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on

>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple

>>>>>>>>>>>> of desktops and a 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

>>>>>>>>>>> INFERIOR distros working.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> First, they are not inferior or I would not be using them.

>>>>>>>>>> Second, no,

>>>>>>>>>> they just simply install and work. Don't believe I've spent

>>>>>>>>>> more than 45

>>>>>>>>>> minutes on any install except Gentoo - and I was prepared for

>>>>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> So one is better for certain

>>>>>>>>>>> "architectures"? What does that mean? They are not compatible

>>>>>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>>>>> the hardware? Sounds like it. If you need to run a few

>>>>>>>>>>> different OS!

>>>>>>>>>>> With Windows, all you need to do is install it, the updates

>>>>>>>>>>> will run

>>>>>>>>>>> and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> For example, my mini-itx box with 1ghz VIA C3 is underpowered.

>>>>>>>>>> You would

>>>>>>>>>> not be able, for example, to run any modern MS on it. With a

>>>>>>>>>> fully

>>>>>>>>>> optimized Gentoo, it's performance is quite good. It's not a

>>>>>>>>>> hardware

>>>>>>>>>> compatibility issue at all - it's a performance level issue.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be

>>>>>>>>>>> fixed on

>>>>>>>>>>> each distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them

>>>>>>>>>>> and then

>>>>>>>>>>> go spend some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> I've spent three minutes the last few months checking what

>>>>>>>>>> needs to be

>>>>>>>>>> fixed on each distro. Final analysis: nothing needs to be fixed -

>>>>>>>>>> they're all working perfectly.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> That all sounds wonderful but I believe that there are a few

>>>>>>>>> flies in

>>>>>>>>> the ointment. For example:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Can you, for example, say with any degree of certainty, that

>>>>>>>>> your Linux

>>>>>>>>> will be able to use any printer, as Windows can? Canon, comes

>>>>>>>>> to mind

>>>>>>>>> here. Will your Linux work with any Wi-Fi adapter? Will your

>>>>>>>>> Linux be

>>>>>>>>> able to play MP3 files (out of the box) - the most widely used

>>>>>>>>> music

>>>>>>>>> codex?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Canon does not support Linux. I do not use Canon products for that

>>>>>>>> reason. This is a Canon issue, not a Linux issue. Several

>>>>>>>> vendors do work

>>>>>>>> with Linux - e.g. Epson (avasys.jp), HP, Brother, Samsung.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Correct and I was responding to the thought that installing Linux

>>>>>>> was

>>>>>>> always a simple project when quite often it is not. I certainly

>>>>>>> do not

>>>>>>> believe that it is logical to suggest that I junk my perfectly

>>>>>>> serviceable Canon printer simply because I would like to run Linux,

>>>>>>> nor would it be if I wanted to run Windows.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Printers are cheap.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> It works with every wifi adapter I've tried - I don't really

>>>>>>>> care about

>>>>>>>> the others.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Again, that is rationalization. I recently bought a "long range"

>>>>>>> wi-fi

>>>>>>> unit.. didn't work with Ubuntu. Can't locate a Linux driver.

>>>>>>> Probably

>>>>>>> because it is a cheap Chinese import but the point, which you

>>>>>>> seem to

>>>>>>> reinforce by your comments, is that Linux may not be the "put in the

>>>>>>> disk and have a cup of coffee" installation that some have

>>>>>>> claimed it

>>>>>>> is.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> WiFi cards are cheap.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I don't have any problems playing mp3 files - though I don't

>>>>>>>> generally

>>>>>>>> use a computer for a music machine - there are much better ways

>>>>>>>> to attain

>>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Ubuntu plays MP3 out of the box? Or after installing those non-open

>>>>>>> source drivers? What version was that? Debian plays MP3 out of the

>>>>>>> box? I thought that Debian was one of the "holier then thou:

>>>>>>> advocates

>>>>>>> of open source.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Windows plays Flac out of the box? Fact is you can play all

>>>>>> formats in

>>>>>> Linux and, unless you live in the USA, it's perfectly LEGAL to

>>>>>> install

>>>>>> the restricted extras.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Ah! Such a liar. And himself telling us about his Linux experience.

>>>>>

>>>>> Your beloved Ubuntu will not play MP3 files without downloading a non

>>>>> open-source driver and hasn't for at least the past three years, and

>>>>> probably never did, so don't be telling us that it does.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>> johnbslocomb@gmail.com

>>>>

>>>> I didn't. I said one had to install the restricted extras. You have a

>>>> serious reading comprehension problem, sonny.

>>>

>>>

>>> Goodness and here I had been thinking that with all your extolling of

>>> Linux that you subscribed to the whole Linux thesis. All the

>>> open-system nonsense and don't allow closed-source applications on our

>>> pure at heart, squeaky clean, systems and all the other Debian crap.

>>>

>>> Now you seem to be saying "Ignore the whole GNU/Linux philosophy and

>>> just load up the closed systems".

>>>

>>> You should be ashamed of yourself. If you aren't careful Ubuntu won't

>>> let you download the next free copy.

>>> John B. Slocomb

>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>

>> Canonical are the good folks who provide the two click install of

>> Ubuntu restricted extras, dumb fuck. I use both Windows and Linux and

>> couldn't care less what the politics are.

>>

>> --

>> Alias

>

> The above posts are the reason that people don't want to use Ubuntu. It

> isn't easy. Multimedia doesn't run out of the box, drivers for

> mainstream components are missing and people don't want to spend hours

> looking for them. Get over it. Ubuntu was written for geeks by geeks who

> can't get laid and have no social skills like you and ray.

>

> Oops.

>

>

>



Two clicks to get all your multimedia stuff is too complicated for you?

The audio and video programs available for Ubuntu in the Software Center

are explained and even come under different categories like Internet,

Accessories, Office, Mulitmedia, Games, etc. LOL! More proof that you've

never used Ubuntu.



--

Alias

 

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:54:05 -0700, "Heywood Jablowme"

wrote:



> "Alias" wrote in message

> news:hqlcub$28r$1@news.eternal-september.org...





> > Flunk English in school, eh? Figures.

> >

> Flunk Logic? of course you did. You're an Ubuntu user - No brains.





Alias is a well-known troll here in the newsgroups and his posts have

been killfiled here for a couple of years. Please, please, please, do

the same thing instead of replying to him. When you reply to him (and

worse, when, instead of trimming the quote, you quote the entire long

thread as you do) I get to see his entire posts and my killfile entry

for him hardly helps me at all.



If you insist on continuing doing what you are doing, and keep

replying to him, you will force me to killfile you as well.

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

 

[Heywood Jablowme]

"Ken Blake" wrote in message

news:k7tus59mvil7ml6gc4dfvdbo0n9pfq5kjm@4ax.com...

>

> Alias is a well-known troll here in the newsgroups and his posts have

> been killfiled here for a couple of years. Please, please, please, do

> the same thing instead of replying to him. When you reply to him (and

> worse, when, instead of trimming the quote, you quote the entire long

> thread as you do) I get to see his entire posts and my killfile entry

> for him hardly helps me at all.

>

> If you insist on continuing doing what you are doing, and keep

> replying to him, you will force me to killfile you as well.

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003



You haven't seen all my posts. Some of the longer posts, I clip the crap

that isn't relevant. Please, please killfile me. I guess you don't have

the willpower to ignore them! Oops.

 

[Ken Blake]

On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 15:17:20 -0700, "Heywood Jablowme"

wrote:



>

>

> "Ken Blake" wrote in message

> news:k7tus59mvil7ml6gc4dfvdbo0n9pfq5kjm@4ax.com...

> >

> > Alias is a well-known troll here in the newsgroups and his posts have

> > been killfiled here for a couple of years. Please, please, please, do

> > the same thing instead of replying to him. When you reply to him (and

> > worse, when, instead of trimming the quote, you quote the entire long

> > thread as you do) I get to see his entire posts and my killfile entry

> > for him hardly helps me at all.

> >

> > If you insist on continuing doing what you are doing, and keep

> > replying to him, you will force me to killfile you as well.

> > Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

>

> You haven't seen all my posts. Some of the longer posts, I clip the crap

> that isn't relevant. Please, please killfile me. I guess you don't have

> the willpower to ignore them! Oops.







Done!



Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

 

[Frank]

alias takes it up his ass...again!...LOL!

On 4/21/2010 2:30 PM, Alias wrote:

> Heywood Jablowme wrote:

>>

>>

>> "Alias" wrote in message

>> news:hqn0t1$olb$4@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:41:53 +0200, Alias

>>>> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 12:34:39 +0200, Alias

>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>>>> On 21 Apr 2010 00:39:45 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:24:59 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> On 20 Apr 2010 15:21:11 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:05:18 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>>>>>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme

>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distributions

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> get any of

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them running at any point.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's

>>>>>>>>>>>>> netbook

>>>>>>>>>>>>> and on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those

>>>>>>>>>>>>> architectures. I run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on

>>>>>>>>>>>>> a couple

>>>>>>>>>>>>> of desktops and a 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

>>>>>>>>>>>> INFERIOR distros working.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> First, they are not inferior or I would not be using them.

>>>>>>>>>>> Second, no,

>>>>>>>>>>> they just simply install and work. Don't believe I've spent

>>>>>>>>>>> more than 45

>>>>>>>>>>> minutes on any install except Gentoo - and I was prepared for

>>>>>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> So one is better for certain

>>>>>>>>>>>> "architectures"? What does that mean? They are not compatible

>>>>>>>>>>>> with

>>>>>>>>>>>> the hardware? Sounds like it. If you need to run a few

>>>>>>>>>>>> different OS!

>>>>>>>>>>>> With Windows, all you need to do is install it, the updates

>>>>>>>>>>>> will run

>>>>>>>>>>>> and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> For example, my mini-itx box with 1ghz VIA C3 is underpowered.

>>>>>>>>>>> You would

>>>>>>>>>>> not be able, for example, to run any modern MS on it. With a

>>>>>>>>>>> fully

>>>>>>>>>>> optimized Gentoo, it's performance is quite good. It's not a

>>>>>>>>>>> hardware

>>>>>>>>>>> compatibility issue at all - it's a performance level issue.

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be

>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed on

>>>>>>>>>>>> each distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them

>>>>>>>>>>>> and then

>>>>>>>>>>>> go spend some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> I've spent three minutes the last few months checking what

>>>>>>>>>>> needs to be

>>>>>>>>>>> fixed on each distro. Final analysis: nothing needs to be

>>>>>>>>>>> fixed -

>>>>>>>>>>> they're all working perfectly.

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> That all sounds wonderful but I believe that there are a few

>>>>>>>>>> flies in

>>>>>>>>>> the ointment. For example:

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Can you, for example, say with any degree of certainty, that

>>>>>>>>>> your Linux

>>>>>>>>>> will be able to use any printer, as Windows can? Canon, comes

>>>>>>>>>> to mind

>>>>>>>>>> here. Will your Linux work with any Wi-Fi adapter? Will your

>>>>>>>>>> Linux be

>>>>>>>>>> able to play MP3 files (out of the box) - the most widely used

>>>>>>>>>> music

>>>>>>>>>> codex?

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Canon does not support Linux. I do not use Canon products for that

>>>>>>>>> reason. This is a Canon issue, not a Linux issue. Several

>>>>>>>>> vendors do work

>>>>>>>>> with Linux - e.g. Epson (avasys.jp), HP, Brother, Samsung.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Correct and I was responding to the thought that installing Linux

>>>>>>>> was

>>>>>>>> always a simple project when quite often it is not. I certainly

>>>>>>>> do not

>>>>>>>> believe that it is logical to suggest that I junk my perfectly

>>>>>>>> serviceable Canon printer simply because I would like to run Linux,

>>>>>>>> nor would it be if I wanted to run Windows.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Printers are cheap.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> It works with every wifi adapter I've tried - I don't really

>>>>>>>>> care about

>>>>>>>>> the others.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Again, that is rationalization. I recently bought a "long range"

>>>>>>>> wi-fi

>>>>>>>> unit.. didn't work with Ubuntu. Can't locate a Linux driver.

>>>>>>>> Probably

>>>>>>>> because it is a cheap Chinese import but the point, which you

>>>>>>>> seem to

>>>>>>>> reinforce by your comments, is that Linux may not be the "put in

>>>>>>>> the

>>>>>>>> disk and have a cup of coffee" installation that some have

>>>>>>>> claimed it

>>>>>>>> is.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> WiFi cards are cheap.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> I don't have any problems playing mp3 files - though I don't

>>>>>>>>> generally

>>>>>>>>> use a computer for a music machine - there are much better ways

>>>>>>>>> to attain

>>>>>>>>> that.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Ubuntu plays MP3 out of the box? Or after installing those non-open

>>>>>>>> source drivers? What version was that? Debian plays MP3 out of the

>>>>>>>> box? I thought that Debian was one of the "holier then thou:

>>>>>>>> advocates

>>>>>>>> of open source.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Windows plays Flac out of the box? Fact is you can play all

>>>>>>> formats in

>>>>>>> Linux and, unless you live in the USA, it's perfectly LEGAL to

>>>>>>> install

>>>>>>> the restricted extras.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Ah! Such a liar. And himself telling us about his Linux experience.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Your beloved Ubuntu will not play MP3 files without downloading a non

>>>>>> open-source driver and hasn't for at least the past three years, and

>>>>>> probably never did, so don't be telling us that it does.

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>>>> johnbslocomb@gmail.com

>>>>>

>>>>> I didn't. I said one had to install the restricted extras. You have a

>>>>> serious reading comprehension problem, sonny.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> Goodness and here I had been thinking that with all your extolling of

>>>> Linux that you subscribed to the whole Linux thesis. All the

>>>> open-system nonsense and don't allow closed-source applications on our

>>>> pure at heart, squeaky clean, systems and all the other Debian crap.

>>>>

>>>> Now you seem to be saying "Ignore the whole GNU/Linux philosophy and

>>>> just load up the closed systems".

>>>>

>>>> You should be ashamed of yourself. If you aren't careful Ubuntu won't

>>>> let you download the next free copy.

>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>> Canonical are the good folks who provide the two click install of

>>> Ubuntu restricted extras, dumb fuck. I use both Windows and Linux and

>>> couldn't care less what the politics are.

>>>

>>> --

>>> Alias

>>

>> The above posts are the reason that people don't want to use Ubuntu. It

>> isn't easy. Multimedia doesn't run out of the box, drivers for

>> mainstream components are missing and people don't want to spend hours

>> looking for them. Get over it. Ubuntu was written for geeks by geeks who

>> can't get laid and have no social skills like you and ray.

>>

>> Oops.

>>

>>

>>

>

> Two clicks to get all your multimedia stuff is too complicated for you?

> The audio and video programs available for Ubuntu in the Software Center

> are explained and even come under different categories like Internet,

> Accessories, Office, Mulitmedia, Games, etc. LOL! More proof that you've

> never used Ubuntu.

>

That's a real POS when compared to Windows 7 Media Center.

Oh and I just love watching you take it up your stupid, ignorant,

arrogant ass.

I bet you're no longer anal retentive!

Oops!...LOL!

 

[John B. Slocomb]

On 21 Apr 2010 15:17:22 GMT, ray wrote:



>On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 13:24:04 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

>

>> On 21 Apr 2010 00:39:45 GMT, ray wrote:

>>

>>>On Wed, 21 Apr 2010 07:24:59 +0700, John B. Slocomb wrote:

>>>

>>>> On 20 Apr 2010 15:21:11 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>

>>>>>On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 08:05:18 -0700, Bill Yanaire wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> "ray" wrote in message

>>>>>> news:8349pqFhp0U45@mid.individual.net...

>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Apr 2010 00:00:27 +0100, Stephen Wolstenholme wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> On 19 Apr 2010 22:42:31 GMT, ray wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>I run Ubuntu and Debian and a couple of other Linux distributions

>>>>>>>>>and I've not had to resort to "cryptic line commands" to get any

>>>>>>>>>of them running at any point.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Why do you need to run more than one distribution?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Steve

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Taylor the distro to the machine. I run Debian on my wife's netbook

>>>>>>> and on a 'lite' desktop because they are better for those

>>>>>>> architectures. I run Ubuntu (not the most recent version) on a

>>>>>>> couple of desktops and a 2ghz laptop. Run Gentoo on a mini-itx.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Wow. Sounds like you have a lot of work to do just to get those

>>>>>> INFERIOR distros working.

>>>>>

>>>>>First, they are not inferior or I would not be using them. Second, no,

>>>>>they just simply install and work. Don't believe I've spent more than

>>>>>45 minutes on any install except Gentoo - and I was prepared for that.

>>>>>

>>>>>> So one is better for certain

>>>>>> "architectures"? What does that mean? They are not compatible with

>>>>>> the hardware? Sounds like it. If you need to run a few different

>>>>>> OS! With Windows, all you need to do is install it, the updates will

>>>>>> run and load your apps. Simple.

>>>>>

>>>>>For example, my mini-itx box with 1ghz VIA C3 is underpowered. You

>>>>>would not be able, for example, to run any modern MS on it. With a

>>>>>fully optimized Gentoo, it's performance is quite good. It's not a

>>>>>hardware compatibility issue at all - it's a performance level issue.

>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>> Now go spend another 10 hours looking up what needs to be fixed on

>>>>>> each distro, look into drivers and see if you can find them and then

>>>>>> go spend some time watching the spinning cube. LOL!

>>>>>

>>>>>I've spent three minutes the last few months checking what needs to be

>>>>>fixed on each distro. Final analysis: nothing needs to be fixed -

>>>>>they're all working perfectly.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> That all sounds wonderful but I believe that there are a few flies in

>>>> the ointment. For example:

>>>>

>>>> Can you, for example, say with any degree of certainty, that your

>>>> Linux will be able to use any printer, as Windows can? Canon, comes to

>>>> mind here. Will your Linux work with any Wi-Fi adapter? Will your

>>>> Linux be able to play MP3 files (out of the box) - the most widely

>>>> used music codex?

>>>>

>>>> John B. Slocomb

>>>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

>>>

>>>Canon does not support Linux. I do not use Canon products for that

>>>reason. This is a Canon issue, not a Linux issue. Several vendors do

>>>work with Linux - e.g. Epson (avasys.jp), HP, Brother, Samsung.

>>

>> Correct and I was responding to the thought that installing Linux was

>> always a simple project when quite often it is not. I certainly do not

>> believe that it is logical to suggest that I junk my perfectly

>> serviceable Canon printer simply because I would like to run Linux, nor

>> would it be if I wanted to run Windows.

>

>Fine - you want to continue running an insecure and instable OS because

>of a printer - that's your decision.



How so instable(sic)?



Are you going to tell me about how Linux never fails? If so, don't

bother as I have been running Linux, admittedly not as a sole system,

since the first days of the Red Hat saga and my experience has been

quite the opposite. Lord! I can remember in the early days when the

installation program would hiccup and die if it didn't like your

hardware - no blue screen of death, no warning messages, just a black

screen and it would lay there like road kill.



But that was in the old days, wasn't it. Well, just the other day I

attempted to install a nVedia card and get some 3d screen effects. It

took three days and at least one reinstallation together with

innumerable booting from a "save your butt disk" and extensive

searches through the Net - I can assure you that some of the advise on

the Net is not up to standards



As for Windows, I installed windows 7 on this computer at the same

time as I installed the current Linux system and, forgetting the

nVedia episode, the two systems have been operating side by side, as

it were. Windows - no problems so far Linux - quite a few.





>>

>>

>>>It works with every wifi adapter I've tried - I don't really care about

>>>the others.

>>

>> Again, that is rationalization. I recently bought a "long range" wi-fi

>> unit.. didn't work with Ubuntu. Can't locate a Linux driver. Probably

>> because it is a cheap Chinese import but the point, which you seem to

>> reinforce by your comments, is that Linux may not be the "put in the

>> disk and have a cup of coffee" installation that some have claimed it

>> is.

>

>Five minutes, or less on the internet will find you a pretty

>comprehensive list of adapters KNOWN to work with Linux. What prevented

>you from checking FIRST?

>

>

>>

>>>I don't have any problems playing mp3 files - though I don't generally

>>>use a computer for a music machine - there are much better ways to

>>>attain that.

>>

>>

>> Ubuntu plays MP3 out of the box? Or after installing those non-open

>> source drivers? What version was that? Debian plays MP3 out of the box?

>> I thought that Debian was one of the "holier then thou: advocates of

>> open source.

>

>What can you do with MS 'out of the box'? Use an office suite? No. Use a

>photo editor? No. Do financial management? No. So what's the big damned

>deal? I don't recall going out of my way on Debian to have it play mp3's

>- as I've stated there are better systems for playing music than

>computers. Some distributions, i.e. Mint, are known for having all that

>sort of belly rot installed from the get go - if that's your desire,

>install that instead.

>

>

>>

>> John B. Slocomb

>> (johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

John B. Slocomb

(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)