Searching \ for '[OT] Linux good for many people but yet not good f' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=linux+good+many
Search entire site for: 'Linux good for many people but yet not good f'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Linux good for many people but yet not good f'
2008\01\05@044555 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
The following is an interesting blog about Linux distros versus Windows XP.
www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2008010400326RVDTSW
http://marcfearby.com/computing/distro-hopping-all-the-way-back-to-windows-xp

My impression:
http://mcuee.blogspot.com/2008/01/interesting-blog-post-distro-hopping.html

It seems to me Linux can be good for a lot of people (including novice users
who suffers a lot under Windows with virus and spywares). However, for
XP power users, it still has a lot to be desired.

What is your opinion?


Xiaofan

2008\01\05@125838 by peter green

flavicon
face

>
> It seems to me Linux can be good for a lot of people (including novice users
> who suffers a lot under Windows with virus and spywares). However, for
> XP power users, it still has a lot to be desired.
>
> What is your opinion?
>
>  
It seems to me XP can be good for a lot of people (including novice users
who suffers a lot under linux with trying to get awkward hardware or
software to work). However, for linux power users, it still has a lot to
be desired ;)

The fact is linux is different from windows, a user (particularlly a
power user)
moving from one to the other IN EITHER DIRECTION is going to have to put
a lot of effort into adapting thier way of working to fit with the new
operating
system.

Also for many if not mostusers software is king, a lot of propietry
software runs
better on windows than on linux (if it runs on linux at all) while a lot
of free
software runs better on linux than on windows (if it runs on windows at
all).


2008\01\05@134158 by Funny NYPD

picon face
With some test on two old laptops (366MHz and 600MHz CPU, 64M-192M RAM), I have to say "Windows XP pro" fits them the best, it even runs faster than the windows 2000 it comes with. To get something similar as the Windows XP, put different versions of Linux to those two machines are very hard; most of the new release of Linux cannot be installed due to the memory limit. Other than that, Linux is not user friendly as the XP.

For server and DOS like application, Linux might be a good bet. For normal user, if not for study purpose, just ignore it for right now. Linux is still un-mature and good enough for widely public use.

Funny N.
New Bedford, MA
http://www.AuElectronics.selfip.com



{Original Message removed}

2008\01\05@134441 by Neil Cherry

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> The following is an interesting blog about Linux distros versus Windows XP.
> www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2008010400326RVDTSW
> marcfearby.com/computing/distro-hopping-all-the-way-back-to-windows-xp
>
> My impression:
> mcuee.blogspot.com/2008/01/interesting-blog-post-distro-hopping.html
>
> It seems to me Linux can be good for a lot of people (including novice users
> who suffers a lot under Windows with virus and spywares). However, for
> XP power users, it still has a lot to be desired.
>
> What is your opinion?

I have Windows installed on this laptop (runs XP Home?). I've had
nothing but trouble getting it use a shared SMB network printer (a
Brother HL-2070N), use the builtin wireless or PCMCIA card and
get WPA to work. Oddly enough I had no trouble with any of that
under Ubuntu Fiesty (7.04). Maybe I should retitle the message
XP no good for Unix Power users?

BTW, what is an XP power user (really I don't know)?

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       spam_OUTncherryTakeThisOuTspamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\01\05@155126 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 13:44 -0500, Neil Cherry wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Alot of people think Linux is a direct replacement for Windows. It's
not. If you try to do what you do on Windows on Linux, you will fail.

Linux requires a different mindset. Alot of the apps on Windows don't
exist on Linux, but then alot of apps on Linux don't exist on Windows.

Making the switch isn't straightforward, you will have to accept that
the way you used to do certain things will have to change.

In the end I feel putting the effort into making the switch has been
VERY worthwhile for me. I find now that working with a Windows machine,
especially trying to do new things, is much MORE frustrating then with
Linux.

For example:
software - I wanted to design a PCB recently. In the past I would have
downloaded software, say eagle on Windows, or Geda on Linux. Instead, I
opened the Ubuntu package manager, typed "pcb" into the search engine,
got a hit for something called kicad. Checked the box beside kicad, it
downloaded, installed and was ready to use (no reboot obviously). I had
my PCB done in about 2 hours. Same story with a DVD Authoring program,
and with a DVD burning program, just checked the box, hit apply, and off
I was.

hardware - as odd as this might sound to some, hardware (especially
"common" hardware) is often EASIER to get working under Linux then
Windows. The reason is most of the drivers are built in. Prime examples
are things like USB-serial adapters, they usually "just work", on
windows I have to go to the relevant website, download the driver, you
know the drill. Same with a flatbed scanner (an HP, worked immediately
under Linux) and a Samsung laser printer (although to be fair under
windows a windows update search was amazingly able to find the driver, I
don't think I've ever seen that work before. That said, under Linux NO
driver download was even required, it was already there).

Perhaps the best progress for Linux has been made during install.

I recently bought a new dual core Dell. Immediately I wiped the drive
and installed windows on part of the drive. The windows install went OK,
but then the multiple reboots for updates and patches, and then
installing the software I needed (i.e. open office) took me probably
around 5 hours.

With that done I rebooted with the Ubuntu disk in the drive. Installed
Linux. Booted up, got na "updated software" notification, told it to go
ahead, it downloaded and installed everything, didn't even need to
reboot. Most of the base software I needed was already there, for the
things that weren't I just used the package manager (i.e. I prefer tcsh
and vile/vim over what's built in). Took me probably 1.5 hours to
finish.

That said, there was one issue, every once in a while Linux would fail
booting. I wrote down the error message being printed, googled it, made
a small addition to my boot line, and it works flawlessly (for those
interested there is a bug in the SATA kernel driver, this is the first
machine I've had with a SATA drive in it, adding irqpoll to the boot
line fixed it).

This single problem would have resulted in a windows person trying out
Linux to say Linux is crap, stay away. That's what I mean by having to
accept a different way of thinking, if you're not willing or capable to
investigate problems and get solutions Linux is NOT for you. For that
kind of person I recommend a Mac, you get almost all the benefits that a
Linux type platform would give you, but you have the "ease" of Mac
usability behind you.

TTYL

2008\01\05@155929 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 10:41 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> With some test on two old laptops (366MHz and 600MHz CPU, 64M-192M RAM),
> I have to say "Windows XP pro" fits them the best, it even runs faster
> than the windows 2000 it comes with. To get something similar as the
> Windows XP, put different versions of Linux to those two machines
> are very hard; most of the new release of Linux cannot be installed
> due to the memory limit. Other than that, Linux is not user friendly
> as the XP.

You are making a VERY common error here, an error most windows lovers
make to discredit Linux: you are comparing the usability on a very old
machine of WinXP, an OS OVER 6 years old, to a Linux distro less then 8
months old. Do you not see how unreasonable this comparison is?

To be fair, you should be comparing Vista on these machines with the
latest Linux distros. Trust me, if you think getting modern Linux
distros to install on those old machines is hard, you'll be blown away
by Vista.

The right tool for the right job, there are branches of modern distros
that DO work on machines like that, I recently installed Xubuntu on a
P200 laptop with 80MB of memory, works fine. Does a version of Vista
exist that will run on that machine?

>  
> For server and DOS like application, Linux might be a good bet.
> For normal user, if not for study purpose, just ignore it for
> right now.

I find that advice very reckless. What is wrong with learning something
new? Yes, Linux is different, that's WHY so many of us like it. We're
tired of the hassles associated with Windows.

> Linux is still un-mature and good enough for widely public use.

For the general public I agree, though I think they should still stay as
far away from Windows as possible, Macs are a much better platform. That
said, how do you define "un-mature"? No piece of software in my mind is
EVERY finished, it simply isn't worked on anymore. Would you consider
WinXP mature? Then why are patches released weekly for it? Software is
always "growing up" in my mind.

TTYL

2008\01\05@173812 by HEU

flavicon
face
I dont what your standards for a pleasant use of a computer are but if you  
can run XP on a 64Mb (if you can ever do that) or even on anything with  
less than 256Mb de ram (and we are talking about 600 MHz as the highest  
clock frequency processors!) and are happy with it they surely differ from  
mine, and they differ substantially. I have a 500 MHz PIII with 64 Mb of  
ram that I had to keep because it has an ISA slot and that computer, which  
can be compared to those that you cited as example, would even crawl  
painfully running Windows ME (yes the PC has dual boot), lets not talk  
about XP (which I think would not even install with 64 Mb). On the  
opposite it runs smoothly with DSL and Flushbox as the Windows Manager,  
and i can even have 9 or 10 Opera tabs open at the same time (among a few  
more applications) and be still well responsive, which is just unthinkable  
of doing with Windows ME. It even ran faster with Mandriva 2006 and Gnome  
than with Win ME. Recently a client wanted to recycle a 1 GHz AMD atlon pc  
with 512 Mb of ram and as expected it crawls when running XP compared to  
the perfomance it has when booting Kubuntu 7.04 (again it has dual boot).  
Maybe your evaluation of XP perfomance is done with not even a single  
application open?

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:41:33 -0200, Funny NYPD <.....funnynypdKILLspamspam@spam@yahoo.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

2008\01\05@174425 by peter green

flavicon
face

> You are making a VERY common error here, an error most windows lovers
> make to discredit Linux: you are comparing the usability on a very old
> machine of WinXP, an OS OVER 6 years old,
6 years old and STILL in mainstream support (all updates free, feature
updates may happen) with a number of years of extended support (security
updates free, bugfixes availible if you pay) promised after MS drops
mainstream support.
>  to a Linux distro less then 8
> months old. Do you not see how unreasonable this comparison is?
>
>  
Windows XP will be getting security updates after the ones for desktop
stuff in the *NEXT* version of ubuntu are discontinued!

Vista is undoubtablly a pig but using a 6 year old version of windows is
a lot more reasonable than using a 6 year old version of linux both
because of longer security updates periods and better support from
vendors of third party applications. Even windows 2000 is still getting
security updates and still runs most third party software (and somewhat
surprisingly MS even backported thier new kernel mode driver framework
to it!).


2008\01\05@174558 by peter green

flavicon
face

> On the  
> opposite it runs smoothly with DSL and Flushbox as the Windows Manager,

Does DSL get any security updates at all?

2008\01\05@180153 by HEU

flavicon
face
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:45:55 -0200, peter green <plugwashspamKILLspamp10link.net>  
wrote:

>
>> On the
>> opposite it runs smoothly with DSL and Flushbox as the Windows Manager,
>
> Does DSL get any security updates at all?

umm no? it has an iptables firewall and its behind a NAT router so theyre  
not a real issue. Neither does Win ME anyways. And ME is the latest MS  
operating system that can be installed on such hardware configuration.

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

2008\01\05@181624 by HEU

flavicon
face
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:45:55 -0200, peter green <.....plugwashKILLspamspam.....p10link.net>  
wrote:

>
>> On the
>> opposite it runs smoothly with DSL and Flushbox as the Windows Manager,
>
> Does DSL get any security updates at all?


When I said no I meant that it hasnt a feature like Windows Update  
("normal" linux distros have it) that will install "security" patches.  
Anyways I guess that since the 2.4 kernel is still being patched such  
updates are being applied to every new release of DSL. If you dont want to  
wait for a new release you can always apply those patches yourself. I  
admit that that is not a trivial task though, but its most than what I can  
expect for ME isnt it?

--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

2008\01\05@183230 by peter green

flavicon
face

>
> When I said no I meant that it hasnt a feature like Windows Update  
> ("normal" linux distros have it) that will install "security" patches.  
> Anyways I guess that since the 2.4 kernel is still being patched such  
> updates are being applied to every new release of DSL.
Last I checked DSL was based on debian woody which has been out of
security support for some time is that still the case?

Also even before sarge was released people were having trouble running
lots of recent software on woody, compare this to the way most windows
software still runs on 2K and only those who are either suicidal or
receiving payola from MS make software that won't run on XP.
>  If you dont want to  
> wait for a new release you can always apply those patches yourself. I  
> admit that that is not a trivial task though, but its most than what I can  
> expect for ME isnt it?
>
>  
I have found 2K to be quite usable on such hardware though firefox does
grind quite a bit.


2008\01\05@185153 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Curious what version of Xubuntu you recommend. Friends recommend the "Xubuntu -7.10 alternate" to me, and I tried, never get it installed successfully on either of the old laptops. Sad.

Personally think XP is not that bad if only you don't go to those web site with pest. The issue is you never know which web site has pest or not. There is really no one-kill-all kind of software which can make a computer safe.

BTW, I do think if we don't consider server function, for normal user, function wide, XP and most of the newest Linux are on the same level. It is fair enough to compare with XP with the newest distribution of Linux.

Linux does contribute a big value on server functions and embedded Linux world.

Vista might be just another mistake like the windows Me.

Funny N.
New Bedford, MA
http://www.AuElectronics.selfip.com



{Original Message removed}

2008\01\05@185456 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 22:44 +0000, peter green wrote:
> > You are making a VERY common error here, an error most windows lovers
> > make to discredit Linux: you are comparing the usability on a very old
> > machine of WinXP, an OS OVER 6 years old,
> 6 years old and STILL in mainstream support (all updates free, feature
> updates may happen) with a number of years of extended support (security
> updates free, bugfixes availible if you pay) promised after MS drops
> mainstream support.

But you are only looking at it from a security point of view. Feature
wise, XP is 6 years old, it's missing most of the features real modern
OSs have, and I'm not talking about the eye candy of Vista.

> >  to a Linux distro less then 8
> > months old. Do you not see how unreasonable this comparison is?
> >
> >  
> Windows XP will be getting security updates after the ones for desktop
> stuff in the *NEXT* version of ubuntu are discontinued!

So what? The fact that people want to run such an old OS doesn't change
the fact that it's old. Comparing a 6 year old OS to a modern OS is like
comparing apples with oranges, it simply serves no purpose.

As I've said before, if people want to consider Linux, they have to "let
go" of some of the things they've become accustomed to with Windows.
Running a 6 year old version of Windows is reasonable to most, it's not
in the Linux world (unless perhaps you're interested in one of the very
long term support server distros). To some this is a bad thing, to
others it's a good thing. Personally, I always ended up reinstalling
Windows at least once a year anyways (due to the windows install "aging"
effect), so reinstalling my OS once a year is something I do anyways.

>
> Vista is undoubtablly a pig but using a 6 year old version of windows is
> a lot more reasonable than using a 6 year old version of linux

Agreed. That said, as a fair comparison it still isn't reasonable to
compare a full featured modern Linux distro with WinXP. A FAIR
comparison would at least to compare XP to a distro TARGETED at 6 year
old machines. Compare XP to Xubuntu. That to me is a fair comparison.
While Xubuntu is newer (and therefore has features XP doesn't have), at
least they were both developed to support a similar level of hardware.

I've only ever run Xubuntu on a P200 laptop, and while slow, it was much
more usable then the WinMe it had on it, and certainly is more usable
then win2k would be on that machine.

TTYL

2008\01\05@190623 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 15:51 -0800, Funny NYPD wrote:
> Curious what version of Xubuntu you recommend. Friends recommend the
> "Xubuntu -7.10 alternate" to me, and I tried, never get it installed

I installed 7.10 alternate with no problems, but ended up installing
6.06 alternate instead. It has most of the features that 7.10 has, but
seemed to be a little more responsive.

> Personally think XP is not that bad if only you don't go to those web
> site with pest. The issue is you never know which web site has pest or
> not. There is really no one-kill-all kind of software which can make a
> computer safe.

The solution is run an OS where you don't have to worry about issues
like that. An OS where security is in the core of the design, not an
after thought patch upon patch job.

Even an older version of Linux will be much more secure then XP. One
reason is it's less common, but another reason being at worst malware
will wipe out your user account, it can't touch the rest of the system
since you don't run as root on Linux for day to day stuff.

> BTW, I do think if we don't consider server function, for normal user,
> function wide, XP and most of the newest Linux are on the same level.
> It is fair enough to compare with XP with the newest distribution of
> Linux.

Why is it fair to compare a 6 year old OS running on a 6 year old piece
of hardware with an up to date 8 month old OS designed to run on modern
hardware?

>  
> Linux does contribute a big value on server functions and embedded
> Linux world.
>  
> Vista might be just another mistake like the windows Me.

What's more disturbing to me about Vista is how manufacturers are
putting it on machines they shouldn't.

Case in point, I bought a Dell Inspiron Desktop with an E2140 dual core
CPU and 1GB of memory. On a lark, before I wiped the drive, I tried
booting the machine into Vista (it comes with Vista home basic). After a
very long boot, I opened IE, tried a few basic things. The performance
was HORRIBLE. About the only good things was hibernate performance,
aside from that it was a very slow experience and I really pity those
that expected a usable computer.

The same machine running XP and Ubuntu is VERY responsive. And that's
with the compiz stuff turned on in Ubuntu.

TTYL

2008\01\05@191422 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Actually it is 192M  (128M+64M from both Computer.)  or 128M. When I was doing the test, I do put all memory to the one working with both memory, or put 128M to another laptop which can only support one type (either PC133 or PC100, I guess, no sure about this.). The installation takes about 2.5 hrs, it is slow but no error. With Xubuntu 7.10 alternate, which claims support 64M RAM, but no luck at all.

The Win XP is much faster than the win2000 system it come with.
I never thought XP pro can fit in those old machines until friends from PIClist recommend it a while ago. Amazing.

For those old system, the memory and hard drive speed are the bottleneck for speed. It is true if I open many window like today's new PC, it will be slow. But for internet and word processing, I think the performance is similiar as some other linux I installed successfully. The old xandros server edition 1.0 works (its home edition cannot be loaded because no enough memory)and is reliable as the XP pro.

Funny N.
New Bedford, MA
http://www.AuElectronics.selfip.com



{Original Message removed}

2008\01\05@193415 by Neil Cherry

picon face
What I find difficult about Linux distributions: after about 2 years
they discontinue support for the OS and they seem to push towards a
newer fatter distribution. I should probably build my own distribution
but I have too many projects (technically I need to build my own
embedded distribution any way for one of my projects).

What I find difficult with Windows releases (is that what they're
called? 98, ME, 2K, XP ...). Is that they are very prone to all
sorts of nasty viruses and other badies. The apps still crash in
weird ways (since 2K I haven't seen OS crashes as much). And the
various forms of DRM are inhibiting me from using my machine
properly (I can't run a tftp server??? WTH?). I don't use my
Windows machine for anything non-work related except for some stuff
I need for my classes (all research is done on the Linux box).

What bothers me most about this conversation is that a lot of
folks seem to think that Linux == Distribution X. This is not the
case. I can put together a modern Linux system with minimal programs
in less than 24M RAM/16M Flash. I could have probably done a little
better if I had used Busybox instead of the native tools. I can't do
that with Windows. And yes I know I need more resources for an X
Windows system. Many of the popular distributions are fat because they
want the latest and greatest eye candy. Linux doesn't need that
much but the eye candy does.

Oh one other thing, IPTABLES does not a secure system make. The
apps can still have holes in them which can get a remote user
access to a machine. Unlike Windows this doesn't guarantee
administrative permissions (you shouldn't run an app as root
unless it's necessary). but that's not what most 'bad guys'
need today. They're just interested in a remote machine that
they can use to do their dirty work.

I use both OS's and prefer Linux because it's Unix like. In my
lab all my servers run Linux as I have better tools for day-to-
day testing (I work in a network test lab). The specialized
tools are run under Windows but I write all my custom test
apps on Linux (to drive the specialized Windows tools). My
Linux setup makes it easier to automate my testing while Windows
makes that more difficult.

Oh, most of my embedded programming tools are under Linux. Just
the EZ80 setup and the Rabbit are under Windows.

Which is better? For me it's Linux, that's the only answer I
need to worry about. Otherwise my it's my Timex-Sinclair can
beat up your Windows box any day (for my one given example of
something I made up). Oh and Emacs is better than Vi. I am
tempted to mention Hit... oh never mind. ;-)

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       EraseMEncherryspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\01\05@194404 by Funny NYPD

picon face
Thanks Herbert,
I will give 6.06 alternate a try when I get a chance.
I believe there are many old machines on this world which would give it a try and find the most possible and newest Linux, this way people will get most of the new linux features from the old hardware. Sometime you can call that a re-birth of old machines.

If I didn't give it a try, I will never find out a xp pro will work on those old machines. And it always worth a try.

Funny N.
New Bedford, MA
http://www.AuElectronics.selfip.com



{Original Message removed}

2008\01\05@212249 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Jan 6, 2008 7:54 AM, Herbert Graf <mailinglist4spamspam_OUTfarcite.net> wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 22:44 +0000, peter green wrote:
> > > You are making a VERY common error here, an error most windows lovers
> > > make to discredit Linux: you are comparing the usability on a very old
> > > machine of WinXP, an OS OVER 6 years old,
> > 6 years old and STILL in mainstream support (all updates free, feature
> > updates may happen) with a number of years of extended support (security
> > updates free, bugfixes availible if you pay) promised after MS drops
> > mainstream support.
>
> But you are only looking at it from a security point of view. Feature
> wise, XP is 6 years old, it's missing most of the features real modern
> OSs have, and I'm not talking about the eye candy of Vista.

Vista does have many good points compared to XP. Just for the
security and support of modern technology, it is actually a good OS.
Again it will be a bit different than Windows XP but people will get
used to it over the time. Microsoft will get it right with SP1 and SP2. ;-)
Anyway, most business only adopt Windows XP after SP1.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista
Since Microsoft controls the kernel, you can not easily added kernel
level feature to Windows XP.

And Modern Linux OS also have many better feature (OS system level)
than Windows XP. And Open Source does have an edge on adding
feature to the old Linux versions if you really want. People have
backported some good features of Linux 2.6 kernel back to 2.4.

On the application level, Windows XP is actually quite good as it is
still the main stream supported OS even after 6 years. This is quite
amazing in the history of Microsoft. It will be an exception. The next
version of Vista (Windows 7) is already in cooking. How soon it will
be developed will be depending on the performance of Windows Vista
(and XP).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7

The thing is that many users do not need modern features. Office
2007 must offer many modern features than Office 2k/XP. However
I bet Office 2k/XP will be good enough for most users. I think OpenOffice
is also good enough for most users. It is just inertial which holds the
user from switching.

On the OS front, I do not think OpenSource OS will be a serious
contender to Windows any time soon even though the low cost
laptop/desktop (OLPC and gPC) does pose great perceived challenge
to Microsoft.

On the Office suite, I do think Open Source packages will be more
and more feasible. The fact that the HP Vista notebook comes with
a 60 day trial version of Office 2007 may already something (but my
first step is to remove it along with Norton trial).

> > Windows XP will be getting security updates after the ones for desktop
> > stuff in the *NEXT* version of ubuntu are discontinued!

This is a valid point. You do not want to run an OS which is only supported
only 6 months. Fedora is one good example, packed with cutting edge
stuff but not enough QC. You do not want to run it as a serious OS. On the
other hand, the supported version of Linux (Redhat and Novell) are on par
with Microsoft in terms of support (and price...). Depending on the business
need, Redhat/Novell do offer more than Windows as there are many quality
business grade applications running on Linux which are much cheaper
than the counterpart on Windows platform. Linux as a strong server OS
does help in this front. So many companies or government agencies
can run Linux as a business desktop if they want.

Ubuntu 6.06 LTS is with three year support. So it is a first step and
I like it.
Ubuntu 8.04 (not Kubuntu) will again be an LTS version, hopefully it
will be better.

> So what? The fact that people want to run such an old OS doesn't change
> the fact that it's old. Comparing a 6 year old OS to a modern OS is like
> comparing apples with oranges, it simply serves no purpose.

It does serve some purpose. Windows 2k/Windows XP are still strong
as an user OS. Microsoft Vista's biggest competitor is not Linux, but
Windows XP.

> As I've said before, if people want to consider Linux, they have to "let
> go" of some of the things they've become accustomed to with Windows.
> Running a 6 year old version of Windows is reasonable to most, it's not
> in the Linux world (unless perhaps you're interested in one of the very
> long term support server distros). To some this is a bad thing, to
> others it's a good thing.

It is a bad thing for business users. Linux vendors could not earn much
money from the consumers by selling packaged desktop Linux. So it
has to earn money through support. Long term support has to be there
to woo the business users.

The fact that Linux can progress so fast has to do with both the community
support and the support of large corporations like IBM. In fact the leading
kernel developers are mostly paid by commercial companies like
Redhat/Novell/IBM. And this is actually a good thing for Linux.

> Personally, I always ended up reinstalling
> Windows at least once a year anyways (due to the windows install "aging"
> effect), so reinstalling my OS once a year is something I do anyways.
>

I used to do that with Windows 95OSR2 and 98SE. However, I find it
not necessary to do this with Windows XP. Actually the Windows XP
Home installation in my old Dell 600M is more than three years old.
If not the keyboard failure, my wife will still use it (quite low specification
with only 256M DDR RAM, did not even run Redhat 9 properly).

> > Vista is undoubtablly a pig but using a 6 year old version of windows is
> > a lot more reasonable than using a 6 year old version of linux
>

I actually do not agree that Vista is a pig. It is designed for modern
hardware and with 1G/2GB of RAM, it is quite reasonable. As for the
eyecandy, you do not need it. At least it is better than the Compiz
(beta quality at best) under Linux as far as I know.

> I've only ever run Xubuntu on a P200 laptop, and while slow, it was much
> more usable then the WinMe it had on it, and certainly is more usable
> then win2k would be on that machine.

Windows Me is a mistake that Microsoft did not want to remember. Windows
95 or Windows 98SE will be better for that machine. I bet the laptop was
originally installed with Windows 95.

Xiaofan

2008\01\05@213410 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Jan 6, 2008 2:44 AM, Neil Cherry <@spam@ncherryKILLspamspamcomcast.net> wrote:
> I have Windows installed on this laptop (runs XP Home?). I've had
> nothing but trouble getting it use a shared SMB network printer (a
> Brother HL-2070N), use the builtin wireless or PCMCIA card and
> get WPA to work. Oddly enough I had no trouble with any of that
> under Ubuntu Fiesty (7.04). Maybe I should retitle the message
> XP no good for Unix Power users?

That is true. XP leaves a lot to be desired for Linux power users.
Note I use Linux and not Unix. Unix (in traditional sense) is basiclaly
dead for PCs. I do not think Open Solaris will change much the situation.
xBSDs have a long way to go to catch Linux in desktop.

Linux power users carefully select the components for their system
so that the hardwares are supported. So a lot of the problems with
Linux (for general public) are removed.

> BTW, what is an XP power user (really I don't know)?
>

Loosely defined as a power user who knows how to properly
install/use Windows (so not easily affected by virus and spywares)
and maintain the Windows system (so no performance degradation
over the time) and is able to troubleshoot the problems.

Xiaofan

2008\01\05@214508 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Jan 6, 2008 8:06 AM, Herbert Graf <KILLspammailinglist4KILLspamspamfarcite.net> wrote:
> > Linux does contribute a big value on server functions and embedded
> > Linux world.
> >
> > Vista might be just another mistake like the windows Me.
>
> What's more disturbing to me about Vista is how manufacturers are
> putting it on machines they shouldn't.

That is the main point.

{Quote hidden}

Vista needs 2GB of RAM. I only have two major criteria when I was deciding
which notebook to buy: >=2GB of RAM and total cost with 3 year warrantee.
I ended up buying a notebook with 4GB of RAM on Christmas day. Vista
does have some kinks to be solved but that is normal as the first release
of Windows. Windows Me is an exception for Microsoft of being so bad that
they themselves do not want to remember it.

I agree with you in general that it is not fair to compare XP and moder Linux
on old hardware. Old hardware is designed to run old OS or stipped down
modern OS. Linux does have an edge here by being Open Source.

Low end low cost desktop/laptop gives Linux a good chance to beat Windows
XP/Vista by offering the best peformance/price ratio.

Xiaofan

2008\01\06@091327 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
I agree, Vista with 2G is very smooth, actually I am very pleased with this
part - ok, once or twice it said I have not got enough memory so I had to
reboot, but it happens once in a month - I have 3 users continuously logged
in and rarely rebooting the machine (it's in sleep mode all the time when
not used).

With Linux I am far from satisfied with the booting time. Kernel needs much
more time than XP or Vista, and once kernel is up Xwindow only needs as much
time as the XP all together. That's why I was using swsusp2 for the kernel
2.4 which made a pretty fast hibernation. But for that I had to patch,
configure and recompile the kernel which is far more than an ordinary user
willing to do. For some reason they do not include all cool projects in the
official kernel and more interestingly most of the distribution avoid that
too.

Tamas



On Jan 6, 2008 2:45 AM, Xiaofan Chen <RemoveMExiaofancTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\06@122132 by Morgan Olsson

flavicon
face
I was going to write myself,
but just say I agree fully with Herbert Graf
-so read his post again instead  ;)

--
Morgan Olsson

2008\01\06@201648 by William \Chops\ Westfield

face picon face

On Jan 5, 2008, at 3:54 PM, Herbert Graf wrote:

> Feature wise, XP is 6 years old, it's missing most of the features  
> real modern OSs have, and I'm not talking about the eye candy of  
> Vista.

I didn't really want to extend what is probably a religious debate,  
but what ARE you talking about?  What important features have been  
added to "modern OSes" in the last six years?  And are they in Vista,  
or is this just a linux vs windows rant?  I mean, you've got 64bit,  
multiple cpus, and more than 4G of physical memory, but what else is  
there (and which of those aren't in XP?)  There's a slew of features  
not in XP that one might complain about, but most of them aren't  
NEW.  I don't know that I've seen much in a new OS other than eye  
candy in quite a long time (and indeed one of my complaints against  
linux these days is that "they" have spent too much time trying to  
duplicate the level of candy-ness in windows (or MacOS) rather than  
maintaining any of the traditional unix "lean-ness."  (sigh.)

BillW


2008\01\06@213844 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/7/08, William Chops Westfield <TakeThisOuTwestfwEraseMEspamspam_OUTmac.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

Many of the features in Vista are not in XP. Some of them are
eye candies. Some of them are more fundamental. You may
be right that they are not that NEW in terms of technology
development but they are at least new for Microsoft.

Example: wikipedia article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Features_new_to_Windows_Vista

Under the hood, there are many kernel level new features.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/vista/kernel-en.mspx

For example, every new version of Windows bring more platform
support for hardware technology. For example, Vista comes with
better USB IAD support and better audio support. User Mode
Driver is a good development as well. Driver signing for Vista 64
is a good thing IMHO -- better control of kernel driver quality.
Unfortunately not many drivers are available for Vista 64.

You are right that many Linux review priminently advertise
the beta quality Compiz stuff and they are a bad thing. But you
have the choice to turn off the eye candy if you do not like it.
For one I turned them off in Ubuntu 7.10.

And here you are talking about distros. The Linux kernel people
are bring new technology in the kernel space. On the server
side there are also quite some relative new technology
which was last time only available for higher end Unix or
mainframe.

You can still run the lean Linux without X or with the
lean desktop like XFCE (not that lean any more) or
the others. But most of the people will use KDE/Gnome
and they are good with modern hardware.

Xiaofan

2008\01\07@044702 by Michael Rigby-Jones

picon face


> -----Original Message-----
> From: RemoveMEpiclist-bouncesspamTakeThisOuTmit.edu [piclist-bouncesEraseMEspam.....mit.edu] On
Behalf
> Of Herbert Graf
> Sent: 05 January 2008 23:55
> To: Microcontroller discussion list - Public.
> Subject: Re: [OT] Linux good for many people but yet not good for XP
> powerusers
>
>
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 22:44 +0000, peter green wrote:
> > > You are making a VERY common error here, an error most windows
lovers
> > > make to discredit Linux: you are comparing the usability on a very
old
> > > machine of WinXP, an OS OVER 6 years old,
> > 6 years old and STILL in mainstream support (all updates free,
feature
> > updates may happen) with a number of years of extended support
(security
> > updates free, bugfixes availible if you pay) promised after MS drops
> > mainstream support.
>
> But you are only looking at it from a security point of view. Feature
> wise, XP is 6 years old, it's missing most of the features real modern
> OSs have, and I'm not talking about the eye candy of Vista.

Could you give an example of these features?  I run XP at home and at
work, and I have not found it lacking for typical desktop (not server)
useage.

FWIW I agree with Wouter.  Linux is a great OS for enthusiasts, but it's
still not reached the "user friendliness" of mainstream OS's like XP and
Vista (which is a pig), unless it's in the guise of OSX.

The fact is that every Linux package I have tried that has an interface
with similar quality/features to XP has run notably slowly on hardware
that XP runs perfectly on.

Mike

=======================================================================
This e-mail is intended for the person it is addressed to only. The
information contained in it may be confidential and/or protected by
law. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, you must
not make any use of this information, or copy or show it to any
person. Please contact us immediately to tell us that you have
received this e-mail, and return the original to us. Any use,
forwarding, printing or copying of this message is strictly prohibited.
No part of this message can be considered a request for goods or
services.
=======================================================================

2008\01\07@125550 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Xiaofan Chen wrote:

> On Jan 6, 2008 2:44 AM, Neil Cherry <EraseMEncherryspamcomcast.net> wrote:
>> BTW, what is an XP power user (really I don't know)?
>
> Loosely defined as a power user who knows how to properly install/use
> Windows (so not easily affected by virus and spywares) and maintain the
> Windows system (so no performance degradation over the time) and is able
> to troubleshoot the problems.

There are (at least) two concepts of "XP power user": the one Xiaofan
described (the "normal" use) and the built-in user group of the OS. The
latter is a group that has more rights than the users group but less than
the administrators group. (Check out the local policies if you want to know
the details.)

Gerhard

2008\01\07@132219 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Neil Cherry wrote:

> What I find difficult with Windows releases [...] Is [...]  And the
> various forms of DRM are inhibiting me from using my machine
> properly (I can't run a tftp server??? WTH?).

What prevents you from running a tftp server on your Windows system? Which
Windows? I never actually ran a tftp server, and rarely run an ftp server,
but I never had a problem running it when I needed it (on Win2k and WinXP).
Definitely no problem with DRM here.

Gerhard

2008\01\07@152952 by HEU

flavicon
face
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:32:27 -0200, peter green <RemoveMEplugwashEraseMEspamEraseMEp10link.net>  
wrote:


>>
>> When I said no I meant that it hasnt a feature like Windows Update
>> ("normal" linux distros have it) that will install "security" patches.
>> Anyways I guess that since the 2.4 kernel is still being patched such
>> updates are being applied to every new release of DSL.

> Last I checked DSL was based on debian woody which has been out of
> security support for some time is that still the case?


from DSLs Official web site  
FAQ...(http://damnsmalllinux.org/wiki/index.php/FAQ#Will_DSL_ever_use_the_2.6_kernel.3F_Has_it_even_been_considered.3F)

Will DSL ever use the 2.6 kernel? Has it even been considered?

There are currently no plans to move to a 2.6.x kernel, for the following  
reasons.
The 2.6.x kernel is significantly bigger than the 2.4.x kernel, so it  
would cramp DSL's functionality.
The 2.6.x kernel drops a lot of support for legacy technologies, hardware,  
etc, and we want to keep DSL functional on as much hardware as possible
All major improvements that have occurred to the 2.6.x tree have been, and  
are being backported to the 2.4.x tree, by a very active backporting team.  
And even though Linus said he would not participate in the backporting  
process this time, the demand for 2.4.x kernel maintenance is about the  
same as the demand for updates and improvements to the 2.6.x kernel, so  
even he has helped in the process, though not as much as what he does  
toward 2.6 development. For evidence of this activity, take a look at  
kernel.org, where you can see, the 2.4.30 kernel was released, just a few  
days after 2.6.10.

If you want DSL with a 2.6 Kernel, try DSL-N, aka Damn Small Linux Not! It  
is very similar to Damn Small Linux, and made by the same people. It has  
2.6 Kernel, GTK2, mplayer, core gnu utils (not busybox), and a few other  
common applications that didn't make the cut for size in DSL.

2008\01\07@205121 by Neil Cherry

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
>> On Jan 6, 2008 2:44 AM, Neil Cherry <RemoveMEncherryspam_OUTspamKILLspamcomcast.net> wrote:
>>> BTW, what is an XP power user (really I don't know)?
>> Loosely defined as a power user who knows how to properly install/use
>> Windows (so not easily affected by virus and spywares) and maintain the
>> Windows system (so no performance degradation over the time) and is able
>> to troubleshoot the problems.
>
> There are (at least) two concepts of "XP power user": the one Xiaofan
> described (the "normal" use) and the built-in user group of the OS. The
> latter is a group that has more rights than the users group but less than
> the administrators group. (Check out the local policies if you want to know
> the details.)

I forgot about that one. :-) I don't consider that a power user though
that is the one they've (work) has setup for us in the lab.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       RemoveMEncherryTakeThisOuTspamspamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\01\07@205438 by Neil Cherry

picon face
Gerhard Fiedler wrote:
> Neil Cherry wrote:
>
>> What I find difficult with Windows releases [...] Is [...]  And the
>> various forms of DRM are inhibiting me from using my machine
>> properly (I can't run a tftp server??? WTH?).
>
> What prevents you from running a tftp server on your Windows system? Which
> Windows? I never actually ran a tftp server, and rarely run an ftp server,
> but I never had a problem running it when I needed it (on Win2k and WinXP).
> Definitely no problem with DRM here.

The versions that won't let me run any servers is the home edition.
This is without virus protection. A similar machine with XP Pro
had no trouble with network printers or using tftp (need for
upgrades to some older network equipment).

Sorry about putting DRM in the same mouthful as the server problems
they are not related.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       EraseMEncherryspamspamspamBeGonelinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\01\08@070457 by Gerhard Fiedler

picon face
Neil Cherry wrote:

> The versions that won't let me run any servers is the home edition.

Ah, ok. WinXP Home has (by spec) a limited networking implementation, which
may or may not interfere with what you want to do, networking-wise. I think
this may be as much an OS issue as it is a compatibility issue of the app
with the OS (as the app may make some assumptions about the connection that
are not true in the case of WinXP Home). My rule is "just don't do it..."
(with WinXP Home :)

> A similar machine with XP Pro had no trouble with network printers or
> using tftp (need for upgrades to some older network equipment).

That's also by spec :)

Gerhard

2008\01\08@070529 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
Xiaofan Chen escribió:
 > On the application level, Windows XP is actually quite
good as it is
> still the main stream supported OS even after 6 years. This is quite
> amazing in the history of Microsoft. It will be an exception. The next
> version of Vista (Windows 7) is already in cooking. How soon it will
> be developed will be depending on the performance of Windows Vista
> (and XP).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
>

I've read this paragraph in the link Xiaofan provided the
one I want to share with you

*A minimalistic variation of the Windows kernel, known as
MinWin, is being developed for use in Windows 7. The MinWin
development efforts are aimed towards componentizing the
Windows kernel and reducing the dependencies with a view to
carving out the minimal set of components that is required
to build a self-contained kernel as well as reducing the
disk footprint and memory usage.[7] MinWin takes up about 25
MB on disk and has a working set (memory usage) of 40 MB.[8]
It lacks a graphical user interface and is interfaced using
a full-screen command line interface.[9][8] It includes the
I/O and networking subsystems.[7][9] MinWin was first
demonstrated on October 13, 2007 by Eric Traut. The demo
system included an OS image, made up of about 100 files, on
which a basic HTTP server was running.[8][10]*


Am I crazy or it W7 sounds like a unix like OS?




--
------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgiovagnini

2008\01\08@075006 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On Jan 7, 2008 5:47 PM, Michael Rigby-Jones
<RemoveMEMichael.Rigby-JonesKILLspamspambookham.com> wrote:
> FWIW I agree with Wouter.  Linux is a great OS for enthusiasts, but it's
> still not reached the "user friendliness" of mainstream OS's like XP and
> Vista (which is a pig), unless it's in the guise of OSX.

Linux can be a good OS for grandma as well as long as the right
machine is used. XP can be a nightmare for those who do not
know computer well because of virus/spyware. If Linux got more
popular, more virus/spywares will appear on Linux platform but
for now this is not the case.

>From what I played with Eee PC (Linux based), it is fine for users
who need limited functionality.

> The fact is that every Linux package I have tried that has an interface
> with similar quality/features to XP has run notably slowly on hardware
> that XP runs perfectly on.

Firefox should run in similar speed. GCC (MinGW/Cygwin) under
Windows runs much slower than under Linux (even with the MinGW
cross compiler under Linux).

If you do not use KDE/Gnome, the same Linux application might
runs faster.

Xiaofan

2008\01\08@082905 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
> If Linux got more
> popular, more virus/spywares will appear on Linux platform but
> for now this is not the case.

While linux/unix virus is possible (elf infector, script and macro viruses
as well), the main difference between win vs linux is that linux has a
denial defence system while win virtually does not have any. This means that
using linux with an ordinary user it's quite difficult to get the system
infected. Ok, there are always some exploits that may or may not can be used
but practically saying your grandma would not able to infect her computer
using linux - until you tell the root password.

With win it's the opposite, especially that everybody uses the computer with
administrator rights. Even with vista that asks me whenever this or that
software is going to be installed on my computer so if I let it doing so.
It's because it asks the same question too many times there is no guarantee
that I'll answer NO when I should... That's not a security approach, that's
only for marketing purposes so they can say "we did everything to preventing
you from malwares, it was YOU who said 'yes' when you really should not...".
And they will never be able to get over the mess they created. The mess that
makes possible to virtually every software writing to the System32
directory. This mess makes it impossible to set up policies/rights
preventing anybody to create or delete files from Program Files, and you
cannot set this rights even if you are not intended to install new software
on your system. That's because everybody use that directory as a temp one,
they store settings, hidden things etc. Everybody writes everywhere,
replacing libraries, changing settings and that's the mess all those
malwares can use up for. Microsoft could stop it only with a completely new
OS and which let's you run your old app only in a sandbox.

Tamas




On Jan 8, 2008 12:50 PM, Xiaofan Chen <xiaofancSTOPspamspamspam_OUTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\01\08@214950 by Carey Fisher

face picon face
Herbert Graf wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 22:44 +0000, peter green wrote:
>  
>>> You are making a VERY common error here, an error most windows lovers
>>> make to discredit Linux: you are comparing the usability on a very old
>>> machine of WinXP, an OS OVER 6 years old,
>>>      
>> 6 years old and STILL in mainstream support (all updates free, feature
>> updates may happen) with a number of years of extended support (security
>> updates free, bugfixes availible if you pay) promised after MS drops
>> mainstream support.
>>    
> ......
> As I've said before, if people want to consider Linux, they have to "let
> go" of some of the things they've become accustomed to with Windows.
>  
Like printing.


2008\01\08@222638 by Moses McKnight

flavicon
face
Carey Fisher wrote:
> Herbert Graf wrote:
>> On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 22:44 +0000, peter green wrote:
>>  
>>>> You are making a VERY common error here, an error most windows lovers
>>>> make to discredit Linux: you are comparing the usability on a very old
>>>> machine of WinXP, an OS OVER 6 years old,
>>>>      
>>> 6 years old and STILL in mainstream support (all updates free, feature
>>> updates may happen) with a number of years of extended support (security
>>> updates free, bugfixes availible if you pay) promised after MS drops
>>> mainstream support.
>>>    
>> ......
>> As I've said before, if people want to consider Linux, they have to "let
>> go" of some of the things they've become accustomed to with Windows.
>>  
> Like printing.

???  I've been printing from Linux for 7 years or so to a number of
different printers, parallel, usb, and ethernet.  I just installed
Ubuntu 7.10 for my Dad and plugged in his Brother 5250DN with USB and
Ubuntu automatically found it, set up the correct driver, and had it
ready to print in about 30 seconds.

2008\01\08@222833 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 21:49 -0500, Carey Fisher wrote:
> > As I've said before, if people want to consider Linux, they have to "let
> > go" of some of the things they've become accustomed to with Windows.
> >  
> Like printing.

Why? Printing works fine for me under Linux, both local printers (USB,
one an ink jet, the other a laser) and network printers at work.

I recently designed a PCB and printed it out on a transparency using
just a linux machine.

Yes, you do have to be a little more careful in what printer you choose,
some will not work under linux, but most will, and certainly the more
"popular" ones all do.

TTYL

2008\01\08@233701 by HEU

flavicon
face
On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:49:47 -0200, Carey Fisher  
<KILLspamcareyfisherspamBeGonespamncsradio.com> wrote:

>>>
>> ......
>> As I've said before, if people want to consider Linux, they have to "let
>> go" of some of the things they've become accustomed to with Windows.
>>
> Like printing.
>


Ever heard of CUPS? the computer I am writing this email on has a HP  
Business Inkjet 1200 connected via USB, an Epson LX-300 printing in raw  
mode for listings attached to the parallel port and can print to a ricoh  
aficio fax-photocopier-scanner-printer that is connected to the router.  
Setting them up was easier than setting up XP to print on them all (I  
didnt even have to download the drivers or insert the cd like I had to do  
to install the HP printer on XP). Whats more, the printout quality on the  
ricoh printer is better when printing from linux than when priting from XP  
(with ricoh official drivers). The little writing in the data sheets block  
diagrams seems to be just too much for XPs drivers. Another interesting  
feature of CUPS (or kde) is that it lets you choose how many pages of the  
document you're about to print you want to fit in the default printer  
page. To do that on XP you need an extra application (and an extra step)  
like Fineprint.

Which printer are you having trouble with?


--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

2008\01\09@001455 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/9/08, Herbert Graf <EraseMEmailinglist4spamEraseMEfarcite.net> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 21:49 -0500, Carey Fisher wrote:
> > > As I've said before, if people want to consider Linux, they have to "let
> > > go" of some of the things they've become accustomed to with Windows.
> > >
> > Like printing.
>
> Why? Printing works fine for me under Linux, both local printers (USB,
> one an ink jet, the other a laser) and network printers at work.
>
> I recently designed a PCB and printed it out on a transparency using
> just a linux machine.
>
> Yes, you do have to be a little more careful in what printer you choose,
> some will not work under linux, but most will, and certainly the more
> "popular" ones all do.
>

It is quite important to choose the hardware to have a good Linux
experience. In terms of printer, quite some printers are not supported.

Example:
http://openprinting.org/printer_list.cgi?make=Dell

Xiaofan

2008\01\09@031931 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jan 8, 2008, at 7:49 PM, Carey Fisher wrote:
>>
>> As I've said before, if people want to consider Linux, they have to  
>> "let
>> go" of some of the things they've become accustomed to with Windows.
>>
> Like printing.


Since Mac OSX is (basically) using the same print driver setup as  
every other Unix and Unix-like OS, you can pretty much buy any printer  
that claims to work on a Mac (more commonly seen that "works with  
Linux" labeling) and it'll work as well or better on any Unix OS.  
Lots of printers have OSX support these days, so it's not hard to find  
printers that work well with any OS versus buying proprietary junk  
that only works with one OS.

--
Nate Duehr
@spam@nate@spam@spamspam_OUTnatetech.com



2008\01\09@091956 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 13:14 +0800, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
> It is quite important to choose the hardware to have a good Linux
> experience. In terms of printer, quite some printers are not supported.
>
> Example:
> http://openprinting.org/printer_list.cgi?make=Dell

I certainly wouldn't consider Dell printers in the "popular" catagory,
I've actually never physically SEEN a Dell printer! :)

By popular I mean the printers people are likely to buy at Bestbuy, or
printers likely bought by companies. The likes of Canon, HP, Epson, etc.
for home users, and adding the likes of Toshiba for business users.

That said, even with the popular manufacturers there will be some that
won't work, so as you and I have said, you have to check the list before
making a choice on printer, it's not really that big a deal IMHO.

TTYL


2008\01\09@093717 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
Hi Herbert,

On Jan 9, 2008 2:19 PM, Herbert Graf <spamBeGonemailinglist4spamKILLspamfarcite.net> wrote:
> I certainly wouldn't consider Dell printers in the "popular" catagory,
> I've actually never physically SEEN a Dell printer! :)

Even I have it on my desk :-) - so it's very popular <grin> BTW:
Actually it's quite nice and fairly cheap to run, but not sure how to
use it under Linux. Dell supposed to support Linux stuff, so they may
have some soultion for that (they install Ubuntu on selected desktops
if I remember well).

Tamas

2008\01\10@205247 by Xiaofan Chen

face picon face
On 1/9/08, Tamas Rudnai <.....tamas.rudnaispam_OUTspamgmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Herbert,
>
> On Jan 9, 2008 2:19 PM, Herbert Graf <TakeThisOuTmailinglist4.....spamTakeThisOuTfarcite.net> wrote:
> > I certainly wouldn't consider Dell printers in the "popular" catagory,
> > I've actually never physically SEEN a Dell printer! :)
>
> Even I have it on my desk :-) - so it's very popular <grin> BTW:
> Actually it's quite nice and fairly cheap to run, but not sure how to
> use it under Linux. Dell supposed to support Linux stuff, so they may
> have some soultion for that (they install Ubuntu on selected desktops
> if I remember well).
>

"selected" is the keyword here. Dell only supports a limit set of
desktops/notebooks and less peripherals.

And since Dell printer is mostly from Lexmark and Lexmark
support for Linux seems not good.
http://openprinting.org/printer_list.cgi?make=Lexmark

HP seems to be the best with Linux support. Canon is not as good
as HP.

Xiaofan

2008\01\10@223043 by Nate Duehr

face
flavicon
face

On Jan 10, 2008, at 6:52 PM, Xiaofan Chen wrote:
>
> HP seems to be the best with Linux support. Canon is not as good
> as HP.


IBM (now Lenovo) laptops have traditionally been excellent platforms  
for Linux, also.  Very little odd-ball proprietary hardware, etc.  
Depends a little bit more on model type now.

http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/ThinkWiki

Folks even have the accessories like the fingerprint readers working,  
supposedly.  I don't have a personal IBM laptop to play with anymore,  
buy my employer is an IBM/Lenovo shop for our laptops...

--
Nate Duehr
TakeThisOuTnateKILLspamspamspamnatetech.com



More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...