General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2193152

    Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”


    by support ·

    One of the catchphrases for Linux justification is the “It just works” mantra. As a provider of dual boot systems, I would recommend trying to watch a commercial DVD movie on both Windows & an out-of-the-box Linux distro of your choice. I could sell tickets to the resultsing fiasco.
    I dislike Windows as much as the next aging geek, but the reality is that Linux distributions haven’t made the leap to full functionality yet. Close, but I’m still waiting for my nonexploding cigar.
    Linux keeps reinventing the wheel, complete with fancy hubcaps, but forgets lug nuts to hold it on.

All Comments

  • Author
    • #3110336

      actually, that is the movie industry

      by jaqui ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      that gotcha.
      they made the library to play dvds illegal for inclusion, saying that the backwards engineered open source library violated the copyright of the content. It doesn’t respect regional encoding, and will play a dvd no matter where it was encoded for.

      try installing libdvd manually [ by looking for it in the “contribs” section of the distro mirror ]

      • #3110291

        Yep. Illegal to include DVD movie software

        by stress junkie ·

        In reply to actually, that is the movie industry

        I don’t know if Microsoft is giving the MPAA a lot of money for a license to include DVD CSS decoding in Media Player or if they are giving the MPAA a lot of money to NOT allow other operating systems to include it in their default installation. Linux distro makers don’t have a lot of money. Most give their work away at no cost. They don’t have a pile of money to license something that is, in practical terms, a useless nuisance.

        • #3110262

          what’s that?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Yep. Illegal to include DVD movie software

          oh sorry I was watching the extended version of Blade Trinity [ 2 dvd set ] on my linux box. ]:)

        • #3110246

          Showing my ignorance yet again

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to what’s that?

          Could someone tell me why you’d want to watch a movie on a computer monitor instead of a television?

        • #3110243

          two reasons

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Showing my ignorance yet again

          one: I do not own a television
          two: I do not own a dvd player to connect to a television.

        • #3110240


          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to two reasons

          Freakin’ excellent reasons, every one. I should have preceded the question with the phrase “Given the choice, why…”

        • #3229400

          In addition…

          by cbalness ·

          In reply to Thanks

          Correct me if I’m mistaken, but the resolution of most monitors greatly exceeds that of a TV screen.

          Also bear in mind you are sitting 12 ” away from a monitor, and often 24 feet away from a monster 58 ” TV.

        • #3108470


          by worm22 ·

          In reply to two reasons

          three: My monitor is nearly as big as my TV (sad, I know) and being an LCD … much better picture.

        • #3106331

          Reason Three

          by michael.durkin ·

          In reply to two reasons

          You have a laptop, and don’t want to carry a portable DVD player with you as well when you travel.

          FOr the record, I have also struggled to get a DVD to work properly on Linux. Microsoft had nothing to do with that.

        • #3106322

          Reason Three

          by michael.durkin ·

          In reply to two reasons

          You have a laptop, and don’t want to carry a portable DVD player with you as well when you travel.

          FOr the record, I have also struggled to get a DVD to work properly on Linux. Microsoft had nothing to do with that.

        • #3110141

          four reasons here

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Showing my ignorance yet again

          Your monitor is a higher resolution than your TV screen is (don’t know about high-def).

          your kids/wife may be HOGGING the TV with the dvd player to watch survivor.

          On the road with your laptop.

          Your just a dork and do it because it is cool. 😀

        • #3109329

          don’t forget . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to four reasons here

          It’s easier to get screen captures while playing it on your computer, too.

        • #3109576

          Good reason!

          by billinn(nospam) ·

          In reply to Showing my ignorance yet again

          My wife is watching Cops on the TV.

        • #3109156

          Thanks everybody

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Showing my ignorance yet again

          I appreciate your taking the time to answer the question. I don’t do anything with digital media or DVDs, so I often over look the possible applications.

          appy, what’s a screen capture?

        • #3109142

          screen caps

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Thanks everybody

          Basically, grabbing a still image from the screen. It’s also known as a “screenshot”, but when phrased “screen capture” usually denotes getting an image from a single frame of video or something along those lines.

        • #3109093

          Think of it as

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to screen caps

          using the “pause” button while watching a porno! :O

        • #3134015

          What about DVRs?

          by issinho ·

          In reply to Showing my ignorance yet again

          Anyone else consider, or already has, a complete digital set-up? I mean your TV is connected to a small computer that is connected to a network media server, that is connected to your cable or satallite?

          Esentially this is the thought behind those DVRs that Cable and satallite companies are dishing out. Microsoft has their Media Center Edition that does that as well. Sony Vaio is also set up that way!

          Anyhow, there is a way to do this with LINUX and it’s a heck of a lot cheaper, too! That would be why I would want to watch DVDs on my Computer, because it is my receiver!

        • #3133922

          DRM screws all of this up

          by smorty71 ·

          In reply to What about DVRs?

          I have a setup similar to what you’re talking about: I have a Media Center PC connected to my HDTV via an XBOX 360. I also have TiVos and other HDTV receivers connected as well.

          In theory, you should be able to have stuff on a single server and then just stream it to whatever device you want.

          Unfortunately, in the case of MCE (and many other consumer electronics), DRM and/or HDCP prevent you from getting the most out of your setup.

          For example, you can’t stream a DVD or a ripped DVD that you own from your MCE box to your XBOX 360. You actually have to use software to strip the DRM (which, technically breaks the law) and then convert it to an MPEG file. Big hassle.

          Heck, MCE 2005 doesn’t even include an MPEG2 decoder. You have to provide that yourself.

          So even if Linux includes video codecs and other things to enable better media playback, there are so many other issues with DRM that will complicate things.

        • #3135162


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to What about DVRs?

          MythTV (multimedia version of Linux) makes a wonderful DVR setup.

        • #2544012


          by sblehm ·

          In reply to true

          I have had good luck with Myth, but getting my remotes to work with Linux is a different story.

        • #3093264

          One more reason

          by luker ·

          In reply to Showing my ignorance yet again

          I have a dual monitor setup. I often watch movies as background noise while working on the other monitor.

          My 3 year old son also like to sit in my lap while I work and watch his DVDs on HIS monitor :).

        • #3093141

          That’s Funny

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to One more reason

          My 5 year old son just asked me for a second monitor for his PC (yes, he has his own PC).

          I asked why and he said, “because Daddy, you have two”. Great!

          On a completely different subject, I highly recommend a product called Deep Freeze for kid’s PC’s.

          Once installed, they can’t change a damn thing because after reboot, all is restored to “normal”.

          I got tired of fixing his computer after he deleted system files, changed to crazy fonts, renamed everything to “adnaldghasdgnva” and such.

          Great product, nice time saver.

        • #2514418

          Best of the Best

          by rayldubb ·

          In reply to One more reason


        • #2514417

          Best of the Best

          by rayldubb ·

          In reply to One more reason


        • #2514415

          Best of the Best

          by rayldubb ·

          In reply to One more reason

          Your’s is without a doubt the best reason yet. Sounds to me like you have the right idea.

    • #3110282

      It just works?

      by stress junkie ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      I have heard that phrase used to describe a few Live CD distributions. I have to agree with you that Linux can be a challenge to get this or that specific thing to work. The Linux interest web pages seem to be flooded with cries for help to get WiFi working, even if they already know that their card may require that they use ndiswrapper. Another wide spread problem is getting high performance graphic card drivers to work. (ATI and Nvidia, mostly ATI). I didn’t have any problem but apparently a lot of people do.

      It wasn’t all that long ago that the same thing was true about Windows. It is only in the last three or four years that this kind of problem has been reduced in Windows because hardware manufacturers make their drivers for Windows and then allow Microsoft to include those drivers in the Windows installation kit.

      • #3110258

        re ati

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to It just works?

        I have almost always had an ati, or powered by ati video card and never had any problem with video.
        I actually get better video quality in linux than I ever did with windows.
        [ and this particular box was given to me because the client broke the front usb port { kicked the cable and shorted the board out for the front usb port } when I got it it had windows xp home on it. ]
        so I am able to say that linux performs better on this box than xp does.

        • #3110249

          Yes, peculiarities there are

          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to re ati

          I think that out of the box, linux is not as complete, only from a driver support POV. And that is no fault of the OS, its just Uncle Bill spends alot of money to make sure nearly every device that exists is in the driver base of windows. But yes, I have installed Suse 9.1, 9.2, and 9.3 and still had WiFi not work and I could not turn on 3D Hardware Acceleration on my 7800GTX without freezing things up solid.

          I refused to use NDISWrapper for terrible inefficiency reasons, but searched the net for days and finally found some opensource DLink drivers that I compiled, installed, and put in my Init, and suddenly everything was working with KInternet. The video however, I never got resolved, but did not really bother me since I don’t play any games on Linux.

          All people on their journet to Linux enlightenment will, by nature, have to learn alot about how a computer works, to be REALLY happy finding that their computer works better with Linux. It isn’t as integrated and seamless as a windows environment, but we want to see the seams and know what is going on under the hood.

          Why do we have to make Linux more stupid, why don’t we work on making the people smarter?

        • #3110241

          Not everyone’s a geek

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Yes, peculiarities there are

          “All people on their journet to Linux enlightenment will, by nature, have to learn alot about how a computer works … Why do we have to make Linux more stupid, why don’t we work on making the people smarter?”

          For most home users, the computer is an entertainment device. They don’t care how it works or what’s under the hood any more than most of them care about working on their car engine or building their own furniture. I’m not saying Linux should be configured to suit them, just that they have different interests from us geeks.

        • #3110233

          But you just made an argument for…

          by rknrlkid ·

          In reply to Not everyone’s a geek


          Seal everything up in the box, you get what you get, its an “appliance,” it works when you turn it on, let the machine/software do everything for you.

          If Linux of any distro could do that, plus have the user friendly apps like AOL, then it will be a home users choice. (I said more about that on a different thread.) But it is still a more “advanced” OS than most people can handle reasonably.

          I think we should admit, too, that most of us are not “normal” users. We are more advanced than that. What’s easy for us is baffling to many people. When I taught entry-level Windows 98/ME classes, I was often amazed at how many people thought Windows was too hard! This was over things that “should” be simple concepts, like launching programs, opening and saving files, etc.

          The problem to me has nothing to do with computers at all. It has to do with perception about what a computer can do. Like I have said on other posts, a computer is NOT an appliance, and is not a skill set that comes easily to all. Unfortunately, too many have believed the hype that computers are “easy” and anyone can learn how to use one. Until we get the voice activated computers that make soup like on “Star Trek” we will continue to have these types of conflicts/discussions.

        • #3110219

          I was with you there and then you said

          by tony hopkinson ·

          In reply to But you just made an argument for…

          Lost all credibility in three letters.

        • #3110202


          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to I was with you there and then you said

          HAHAHA, good point.

        • #3109591


          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to I was with you there and then you said

          we are talking BUSINESS here. That “arguement” belongs in the home discussion as it would be valid that there are lots of people out there with more money than brains that LOVE their AOL because it is designed to be id10t proof, even for the id10ts that we have today! 😀

          I know people on dialup BECAUSE they think they would have to give up being an AssholeOnLine if they go to broadband.

          They would rather continue to pay for a second phone line AND $22/month for dialup. oh my. how do you reason with that kind of logic? Even after I inform them that they CAN get AOL service ON their cablemodem/dsl line. (sigh) :O

        • #3108368

          I’ll take your word for it.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to But you just made an argument for…

          I’ve never used a Mac, so I’ll have to take you word for it. I’m sure they would be excellent home machines if you can afford them.

          “…a computer is NOT an appliance…”

          But computers are being marketed as appliances, specifically for entertainment. When was the last time you saw an advertisement for computer where the user was doing something not connected to entertainment?

        • #3109001


          by mmullinix1 ·

          In reply to I’ll take your word for it.

          Excellent POINT!!!! Even I, with my “little above average knowledge” shop for computers for the entertainment value. But then, I’m a gaming geek. I also shop for business purposes. I wound up building my own system so I can get the ultimate speed etc that I need for games while at the same time be able to seriously multitask on the same system.

        • #3110201


          by marketingtutor. ·

          In reply to Not everyone’s a geek

          I am right there with you Palmetto.

          I just think people have been willfully ignorant because they don’t understand. Like those types that prefer the age old typewriter instead of a computer. I was thinking about the barrier of entry from a knowledge POV. How many people do you figure had a hard time accepting/understanding TVs and Radios when they first came out. Resistance to change is inevitable.

          I just think it has to do with how much is built into daily lives. We can already see the next generation becoming computer literate, because the schools are now making it part of the learning curve.

          So I guess as the remnants of the non-technical baby boomers pass away, the next generation will find it hard to believe people didn’t know how to recompile the kernel!


          I can see it now, a young punk to his parents…

          “I mean, c’mon dad, that is sooo 90s!” get with the picture.

          I love FPS games, but can you imagine that sorta thing in the early 80’s when wireframe 3D games were “like rad” cutting edge.

          Linux and computing in general will become second nature and familiar with this next gen. that is coming up. That is if they don’t kill all of the parents before their 20th birthdays.


        • #3109523

          You’re being a bit overly optimistic about the younger generation.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to Agreed

          Most kids are learning to drive apps not learning about computers. “Why do I have to learn all that geeky stuff?” is the line you get from most of the younger generation. Notice I said most; not all. Sit down with a kid and ask him about configuring windows and don’t even think of asking about programming and/or programming languages. I not talking grade school kids either but kids in their last year of high school, who have had all the computer courses most schools are giving. Ask the kid when was the last time he defragged his hard disk. The eyes go glassy and you get the above statement. I’m probably not as cutting edge as I used to be or as most of you guys are now but I do know about routine maintenance, running antivirus software, having a fire wall and setting up a dual boot system but the number of kids [b]who don’t know, what I like to call the basics[/b], will astound you. You do a little war driving and a good percentage of open links are to be found on some kids boxes. They are not teaching that stuff in schools but hey as long as they know how to run Word, IM, net surfing and where to download tunes and games, what does it matter. It’s all a bit depressing. They don’t want to know about [b]”all that tech stuff”.[/b]


        • #3109056

          Why should they want to learn it?

          by smorty71 ·

          In reply to You’re being a bit overly optimistic about the younger generation.

          The whole idea about technology is that it is supposed to make our lives easier, right? Why should someone, who isn’t looking to be an IT pro, learn how their computer works?

          For most people, computers are a convenience / entertainment device, not a science project.

          I don’t think it has anything to do with lack of intelligence in the “younger generation.” If anything, they are smart enough to realize that the computer should just do the tasks they ask it to do. They shouldn’t have to tear it apart to understand how it does the tasks.

        • #3109028

          Smorty I agree with you but I was refuting ITGuys point.

          by sleepin’dawg ·

          In reply to You’re being a bit overly optimistic about the younger generation.

          No they don’t want to know anything about their computers and they just want them to do the stuff they are requesting them to do. In short they want a computer to behave like their cars except even a car needs air in its tires and gas to run on. A lot of kids do not understand the differences between Macs and PCs or Gasoline and Diesel vehicles. Ever watch a kid trying to use Mac software in a PC or pour gas into his daddy’s diesel Mercedes. The results would be hilarious if they weren’t so pathetically sad. IT isn’t for everyone, thankfully but if you drive a car everyone needs toknow where the gas goes on a car or how to check your oil from time to time. Likewise on a computer the user could start by learning where the on switch is and what is meant about hitting any key. Afterwards he can learn the pitfalls of what happens when you don’t have a firewall or any antivirus protection. I agree he shouldn’t have to know how computers work but like driving a car a certain modicum of knowledge is called for to operate one. That is all I was saying or meant. You would be surprised how many don’t have any idea of the most rudimentary of basics whether it’s cars or computers. Ask your self this; how hard is it to learn how to defrag a hard disk, forget why it should be done.

          [b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

        • #3093362

          Why Learn It?

          by dogknees ·

          In reply to You’re being a bit overly optimistic about the younger generation.

          You learn it because if you don’t you aren’t going to be able to use the tool. Just like when a new piece of wordworking gear is invented, cabinet makers have to invest time and effort learning to use it. Or, they can ignore reality, and use it as an efficient new finger remover.

          Technology is not (just) about making things easier. It also makes things that were impossible or impractical for most people possible and practical.

          It can’t make everything easy. How would you make designing rocket engines easy for example. Assuming of course that your method will enable the same advances of technology at the same pace as the hard way of learning the fundamentals and how to apply them.

          It’s also not a given that because someone else is able to do some particular thing with their PC, that you can or even should be able to. Not everyone is capable of doing everything in life.

        • #3084272

          Geeks are Trolls..

          by mgoss1 ·

          In reply to Not everyone’s a geek

          Geeks are trolls, we live in a world of our own, while the “humans” run around in the daylight dreaming of a Utopia where all wants, needs and desires are just a “mouse click away”.

          Geeks, techies or whatever you desire to be called, we are the builders. we do magic on these things called computers. But the “home user” pays the bills. If not for the “un-enlightened” we would still be using dumb terminals attached to mainframes. The “home user” is what drives us to create, to re-invent, if you don’t believe that is true, remember WHY Linux was created.

        • #2545152

          Linux more stupid

          by randomcoolzipxpd ·

          In reply to Yes, peculiarities there are

          “Why do we have to make Linux more stupid, why don’t we work on making the people smarter?”

          Because we *know* we can dumb Linux down. No guarantees you’ll ever make users smarter.

          I think Linux boxes will always be like the hot rods of the ’50s and ’60s: if you’re willing to be your own mechanic, you can index the plugs, change the carb and exhaust manifolds and get a much faster car. Unfortunately, your aftermarket intake manifold won’t have a space for the mounting bracket for your A/C compressor, so you’ll have to do without that and (since they share a belt) your power steering too. Sure, it’s worth it to have the fastest machine on the street, but most drivers won’t want to put up with the loss of convenience.

        • #3106712

          Ruff Clients?

          by dawgit ·

          In reply to re ati

          I’d say you have ruff clients there Jaqui, they must keep you busy 🙂

      • #3110190

        Dedicated box required.

        by kaceyr ·

        In reply to It just works?

        That’s the Linux world right now.

        I don’t want to buy an additional box to run a Linux distro, I want to run it in a virtual machine on my XP Pro PC, but Linux won’t run. Why? Because it locks up when it discovers a Hyper-Threaded CPU. Or certain USB hubs. Or certain SATA drives. Or ….. get the idea??

        This isn’t a niche-market issue, it’s an inherent inability for the Linux distribution coordinators to get support for new hardware built into the kernel. If they keep up on new hardware and firmware developments, they should be on the market with the hardware support no later than Microsoft.

        Oh, wait a minute. That’s right. Linux is an Open Source product with developers spread all over the world. No deadlines. No product requirements. No one to hold a developer to a schedule.

        If I’m the user who just wants to plug in my machine and go, I’m on a Windows/Intel box. Contrary to the plethora of claims that the Linux community throws out, this is still the strongest, safest, most capable, most flexible, most user tolerant, and most user friendly system available.

        • #3109386


          by fredvoit ·

          In reply to Dedicated box required.

          Windows used to be a shell over DOS. DOS came with no security, If you could touch the keyboard you could issue a command to trash the system. Windows XP (“Latest & greatest” windows verson)by default logs you in as administrator without a password in most situations. Once again, if you can touch keyboard you can trash system. Software companies write software for this flawed concept. Example:

          Intuit Corporation, makers of Quicken (home checkbook app.)
          Quickbooks (Office checkbook app). Has been writing this software since Win3.x days and STILL makes it so you must be administrator to run software. I called them and asked why I should make my secretary a domain adminstrator so she can write checks for petty cash…

          They will never fix this because M$ security concept is flawed.

          Linux / Un*x came to life as a security consience multi-user operating system. Walk up to a keyboard and try to format the drive and it does nothing but make an entry in the log to let the admin know somebody was messing with it. If your intruder should get a username/password he still can only mess up the settings for that account. The computer can only be messed up by an administrator and by default, YOU are not an admin.

          Sad to say, MACos/X while having the underpinings of BSD and therefore being capable of security, creates by default a user account with admin privs. So the Mac will have the same security concept flaws as Windows.

          Tax Software: Here’s a concept for you. Let’s say Intuit goes out of business or just plain decides to drop their tax software support. Because of Digital Rights Management after a HD crash you can’t use your backup copies of your tax records(locked down because Intuit is afraid you might steal a copy of their software) and the IRS comes to visit…

        • #3108510

          re mac security

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Safest?

          You are slightly off in your conclusion, you must actually su to root to cause the level of damage you infer.

          Yes the Basic macosx user has more priviledges than the basic linux, irix, bsd user does but they are still not completely unrestricted like root is.

        • #3134813

          I have no way to prove

          by fredvoit ·

          In reply to re mac security

          or disprove your statement as I am not allowed to destroy any macs around here. But I do know I can seriously damage a mac with a click and a drag. I still am disappointed in them because of my perceived weakness in their security model, whether it acually exist to the degree I think it does or just the degree I have seen it (by having a bad install trash one). Your statement is going to cause me emotional pain as I now have the urge to try it on girlfriends iMac and must slap my wrist to keep it from forcing hands to keyboard…

        • #3134801


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to I have no way to prove

          I would assume that the company macs are not running in low security mode, but in the recommended high security mode, that is what requires the root login to make a catastrophic change.

          the gf’s mac may be in low security mode so you could destroy it.

        • #3134523

          sudo only requires the users password

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to re mac security

          The only defence I have is that none of my mac users know any *nix commands (i consider it a small miracle if one of them finds the terminal).

          P.S. as a sudo’ed regular user I was able the root passwd.

        • #3109327

          Are you high?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Dedicated box required.

          Who was first to market with a full OS distribution that provided true 64 bit computing on x86 hardware?

          I’ll give you a hint: it sure as hell wasn’t Microsoft. Think Debian GNU/Linux, shortly followed by others like Fedora Core Linux.

          Windows support for 64 bit computing still isn’t up to Linux standards, even with Vista.

        • #3107810

          Since the widest x86 Windows use …

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to Are you high?

          … is still 32 bit, your argument has no value.

          Since you pointed it out, Windows Vista (like Windows XP) is targeted at the business and home end user market, not the server market. These markets don’t care a lick about 64 bit computing. In fact, they don’t even care what the network servers are, much less what OS they run.

          You just carry around that Microsoft baseball bat and can never wait to give it a swing.

          No, I’m not high. Never have been, never will be, and proud of it.

        • #3107793

          holy cow

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Since the widest x86 Windows use …

          Yeah, that doesn’t even really deserve a serious response. People don’t care about 64-bit computing? What? What planet are you on, and what does that have to do with the discussion at hand anyway?

        • #3107745

          Perhaps your high …

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to holy cow

          … since you’re failing to recognize that your own post (three posts up) is nothing more than (valid) boasting rights for 64-bit computing.

          Also, I didn’t say that no one cares about 64-bit computing, I said that the bulk of the Windows home and business end users don’t care about it.

          Gamers care about 64-bit systems (but only if they can have matched video).
          System administrators care about 64-bit (and higher) systems.
          Techno-geeks care about 64-bit systems.
          Other than that it’s a hit-and-miss with more misses than hits.

          Ask around outside of your normal circles. Most folks (end users) who buy a computer (for personal or business use) don’t care a whit about the word length of the CPU, and many don’t even know what a CPU is. They buy a machine to perform a set of tasks. All they care about is that it performs the tasks and is easy to use.

          Don’t believe me? Take a quick look at Dell’s sales figures. Check out how many $300 – $500 systems they sell in a month. These aren’t top-of-the-line 64-bit processors, they’re 32-bit Intel CPU’s (typically Celerons) that run, yup, Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition.

          Linux has yet to challenge this market.


          None of this has anything to do with the discussion at hand. But then again, you brought it up.

        • #3107704

          All Valid Points

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Perhaps your high …

          His point is and Linux users just don’t get it, that the vast majority (99%) of the world doesn’t care about their PC as long as it is inline with their expectations and fulfills their needs.

          And trying to discount the opinions of the 99% is nonsense.

          Yes, Linux probably is better. Yes, 64 bit computing is better.

          But there are reasons (real reasons) why the 99% aren’t listening.

          And, I might say, that 99% includes some Linux users. They use Linux for some reason and since it is working for them, they are happy and I can’t blame them. I’m happy for them.

          Maybe it’s time for the Linux PR machine to be fired. They are out of touch with the everyday Joe.

        • #3107620

          relevant material

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Perhaps your high …

          What I brought up was quite relevant to the preceding direction of discussion. You were saying that Linux is behind the times, wasn’t able to keep up with technology advances like Windows. I pointed out a concrete example of how you’re wrong.

          I don’t see how the percentage of people who are aware of the functional differences between 32-bit and 64-bit computing has any bearing on that.

        • #3134521

          30% of the web server market

          by mjwx ·

          In reply to Perhaps your high …

          at last count (in australia at least). I’d say Linux has thrown down a gauntlet.

        • #3107646

          Lots to Do with Everything

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to holy cow

          People aren’t buying them yet in large numbers. They will but aren’t yet.

          You seem to miss something. I don’t perhaps because I was a marketing (business) major from a top 20 business school in the US before I joined the IT world.

          What is relevent is the market. Your opinions are only just that if the market doesn’t agree with you.

          Business 101…perceived value vs costs = sale or no sale.

          Everyone knows (if given the facts) that 64 bit computing is better, is the future, whatever.

          Where the equation fails is that most people can’t yet justify the cost of a 64 bit system. Thus, they don’t care (purchasing wise, yet that is just semantics).

          They are hundreds of more dollars and don’t yet deliver the concrete benefits that people are looking for given that higher cost.

          It’s just like plasma TVs. I’m not buying one, even though they are better, until the price drops.

          How does the average Joe justify a $1,000 PC compared to a $400 PC when the $400 PC will do everything he is looking for.

          Grant it, for future proofing, the $1,000 PC might appear better. But in two years, he can buy another $400 PC that is even better, is 64 bit, and is at a total cost of $800 instead of today’s $1,000.

          The PC industry, through their own fault, is like a deflationary economy. It is better for the consumer to buy less today and shorten their product lifecycle than it is to buy more today and lengthen the product lifecycle.

          You are out of touch with the real world, where ideas (which you have a lot of good ones) just don’t meet the pavement.

        • #3107618


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Lots to Do with Everything

          “[i]What is relevent is the market.[/i]”
          That’s not relevant to that branch of the discussion. That particular bit of discussion was about how well Linux and Windows manage in supporting new technologies. Your argument is irrelevant to that. I refuted a point with a concrete example. Whether people in general are aware of that is irrelevant to its truth.

          Don’t buy a plasma TV unless you just have money to throw away. You get similar performance for better overall value with digital light projection, and very near the same performance for rather less money with LCD. Plasma televisions have extremely short lifespans before they begin to fail. They aren’t, in my little world of limited budgets, worth the money.

          In any case, I’m not out of touch with the real world — you’re just out of touch with the specific subject matter of the discussion at the point where you jumped in. We weren’t discussing market value, we were discussing support for advancing technology. There’s a huge difference, there.

        • #3107714

          Baseball Bat

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Since the widest x86 Windows use …

          Unfortunately, the baseball bat will probaly now not only be used to swing at Windows, but also now to take swings against you.

          KaceyR has probably officially joined the club that I’m in…bash me simply because you disagree with me.

          KaceyR, you and I are outnumbered here.

          We speak plain speak, common sense, etc. Get rid for a beating.

        • #3107630


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Baseball Bat

          You’re a real comedian. Yes, of course, you’re an innocent little fuzzy-wuzzy bunny rabit — as is anyone else that favors Windows over Linux, since they help shore up your defenses by sheer numbers, whether their arguments are valid or not.

        • #3134297

          Swinging the bat at the fuzzy-wuzzy bunny …

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to funny

          … tsk tsk tsk. 🙂

          The point that I originally tried to make (that apparently missed the mark) is that there is still a lot of hardware out there (some of it in my own machine) that is 16-18 months old, that *NONE* of the Linux flavors seem to support. Even when I contact the various support groups and manufacturers all I get is a collective “I’ve never seen that one before”.

          My system isn’t anything special. It’s not overclocked, it’s all stock hardware, it’s all industry standard at the time it was manufactured.

          I’m still at the same spot that I was when you and I exchanged some other (a bit friendlier) posts a year or so ago. Right now, I have to use my older hardware to run Linux. I want to run it in a virtual machine on my newer hardware, but it just won’t run. The fact that the newer hardware and the virtual machine can run *EVERY OTHER OS I’VE LOADED* points out that the deficiency is with Linux.

          On my newer hardware, Linux will not even dual-boot. Same problems, same error messages. Again pointing out that it’s not the virtual machine, it’s Linux.

          So much for the “It just works” mantra.

        • #3108007


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to funny

          Why won’t you tell us what VM you’re using?

        • #3135165

          RE: VM

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to funny

          ‘Cause I’m a bonehead and thought that I had already said it.

          I currently use the Microsoft Virtual Server 2005 Standard Edition.

        • #3135158

          MVS 2005

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to funny

          I’m afraid I don’t have any experience with that virtualization software, and don’t know why you’d be having trouble with it. I know that VMWare does just fine with Linux, as do Xen and QEMU (which are free).

          By your argument, since you’ve been able to get every OS you’ve tried to work with MSV 2005 except Linux, there’s something wrong with Linux. Every VM I’ve seen and heard about works fine with Linux except MSV 2005, so by your argument the problem must be with MSV 2005. I’m especially inclined to believe the fault is with MSV, considering it’s a Microsoft VM, and Microsoft is not exactly well-known for its attempts to interoperate well with open source systems.

          In the real world, though, you can’t very well blame any piece of technology involved in your broken setup for its brokenness unless and until you know exactly what the problem is. As has been pointed out by others here, Linux works fine with hyperthreaded CPUs, so your initial wild guess for what’s causing your problem is inaccurate. Perhaps you should investigate the matter, rather than simply assuming it’s actually a problem with your least-favorite OS based on your instinctive desire to prove Windows is better.

        • #3135207

          Not just HT processors

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to funny

          Some of the Linux flavors also have problems with my video card (nVidia 6600 AGP) and my onboard SATA (don’t remember the chipset and it’s not in front of me).

          Since I’ve also tried Linux in dual-boot mode and even Knoppix and one other (the name evades me at the moment) that boot from CD, and they all die on the same items.

          This tells me that the problem has nothing to do with the VM, and everything to do with the OS / Hardware combination.

          The Hardware is a DELL Dimension 8300 w/1GB RAM, 3GHz P4 HT running an nVidia 6600 AGP with a 120GB Maxtor Calypso on the built in SATA controller.

          My diagnosis of the problems are not guesses or assumptions of my own, they come from the Linux manufacturers and the Linux support community.

          Now that you’re armed with this information, which distro do you recommend? [I may be frustrated, but that doesn’t mean I’ll stop trying!]

          And when did I say Linux was my least favorite OS?

          As an aside: I’ll check out Xen and QEMU. If they abstract the hardware differently, that may be the ticket.

        • #3135120

          don’t know

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to funny

          The recommendation of a distribution really needs to be based on your preferences and needs — I can’t just tell you what to use. I’m surprised you’re having issues with an nVIDIA graphics adapter, though — there’s an nVIDIA driver included with the standard kernel that should cover you nicely, though it lacks full OpenGL support (for that you’d need the proprietary driver).

          I’ve had a grand total of two computers that wouldn’t handle a Linux install easily, and the entire problem for one can be blamed on the shoddy motherboard in the thing. It’s bottom-rung bargain-basement hardware. The other was a brand-spankin’-new Thinkpad wherein the drive controller for the DVD/CD-RW was different from the same model of laptop from a couple months before. Everything else pretty much Just Worked over the years for a standard Linux install with any of a number of different distributions. It sounds like, whatever the problem is, you just got lucky with a particular Dell hardware configuration.

          My personal favorite distribution for pretty much everything is Debian, but it’s not specifically targeted at rank beginners, so you might find it frustrating at first to get past the initial learning curve. Fedora and SuSE tend to work well for initial evaluation of Linux installations in productive environments, in large part because they are among the best-supported distros with regards to proprietary commercial software.

          Knoppix tends to have very good hardware support. If you’re having problems with Knoppix for x86 hardware support, you could try Xandros instead, which I understand also does okay in that area (though I don’t really have personal experience with it). MEPIS isn’t half-bad with hardware support, either. Generally, hardware support tends to be very good with the major LiveCD distributions, because they have to be able to work on any random computer you run across.

        • #3109262

          Linux is fine with hyperthreading

          by alangeek ·

          In reply to Dedicated box required.

          Most of the more advanced features find their way into Linux sooner than they will with Windows. We have over a dozen dual-CPU boxes with hyperthreading and have no problems with Linux on them, and that’s just in my group, which is a fraction of hundreds more in the company. If there’s an issue, it’s more likely the VM you’re using.

        • #3134602

          I disagree.

          by kaceyr ·

          In reply to Linux is fine with hyperthreading

          There is still a plethora of hardware that the various Linux flavors still do not detect or support, most notably in the video card arena but also in the DASD arena.

          I would like to know which Linux distribution you’re using. The VM that I use runs the following OS’s without problems:

          MS-DOS 6
          PC-DOS 7
          PC-DOS 2000 (7 w/Y2K fixups)
          OS/2 v3
          OS/2 v4
          BEos 5
          Windows NT4
          Windows 2000
          Windows 2000 Server
          Windows 2003 Server

          Further, I can run any three simultaneously (with a small but measurable performance hit on the host) complete with file system shares, device shares, and networking.

          Even before installing up-to-date drivers in each OS for my hardware, the OS is able to boot and I’m able to use it.

          If I could get a Linux distribution to load and run successfully, with or without a GUI, I’m certain that I could get it going the way I want it to, but to date, I haven’t located one that will boot (kernel failure every time).

          ** for those who haven’t heard the term before:
          DASD = Direct Access Storage Device
          More commonly known today as a Hard Disk in the PC realm.

        • #3133093

          I disagree – VM

          by angel of death ·

          In reply to I disagree.


          I can tell you exactly why you can’t run Linux properly in MS VS 2005. Microsoft DOES NOT support running Linux in Virtual Server 2005 (Original), but added support for certain distributions with Virtual Server 2005 R2. Also, all “Guest” OS must be 32-bit variants.

          “With the original Virtual Server 2005 release, it was recommended that hyper-threading be disabled on the host computer. With Virtual Server 2005 R2 that is no longer necessary. Virtual Server 2005 R2 can run with hyper-threading enabled or disabled.”

        • #3212030

          linux & virtual pc

          by alexcoop ·

          In reply to I disagree – VM

          i’m shopping around for a linux distro i like and am trying them on a virtual pc before loading it on my hardware. i can run “live” disks perfectly, but when i do a full installation of say, redhat or slackware, everything is fine until the reboot. then. the weird stuff starts. i’ve not been able to get a full install to work. i’ve an extensive background in dos and windows, but not linux (not yet!) so i have some current limitations as far as trouble shooting goes. any ideas would be nice


        • #3211849

          You must be putting the

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to linux & virtual pc

          You must be putting the boot in the wrong spot or else it would work . . It asks you where to put the boot sector at and it should be first place ! I have installed Linux on an old 233 meghertz computer with PC133 memory and it worked ! So your doing something wrong in telling it where to boot from
          Linux boots different from windows you get to see all the stuff Linux boots with and its a LONG list of stuff . .

    • #3110153

      lib_dvd_css cannot be packaged with most distibutions

      by jmgarvin ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      It is a legal thing and not a Linux thing. If you don’t like it talk to the MPAA.

      If you have a distro with a package manager you can install xine and libdvd quite easily…something like:
      apt-get xine
      apt-get libdvdcss


      emerge xine
      emerge libdvdcss


      yum xine
      yum libdvdcss

      • #3110114

        one distro

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to lib_dvd_css cannot be packaged with most distibutions

        that it does work to do that…


        Xine is an option, but they do not have libdvdcss at all in the newer versions.

        but you can get the sources, a .deb or an i386 rpm from

        the rpm does work with Mandriva [ shocked emoticon ] even though Mandriva is really bad about altering paths away from lsb.

        • #3110109


          by tracy_anne ·

          In reply to one distro

          I use Mandriva, have since it was Mandrake 8.0. I’ve never had any trouble with libdvdcss. I used to download and install the rpm, before that I simply built it, now with 10.1/2005 and 2006, I simply use urpmi.addmedia to add the path to the PLF repositories.

          I use Totem, not Xine, just prefer it.

        • #3109452


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Mandriva

          I added the mirror [ is the one I use ] site to the media and libdvdcss was not available for mandriva 2006
          fortunately I went to freshmeat and got the rpm from there to install it.

    • #3110142

      People are ALWAYS

      by jdclyde ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      trying to come up with a BETTER wheel all the time, even in the TIRE industry. Because of that, we have much better tires than were on the road 40 years ago.

      MS is ALWAYS coming out with new versions of THEIR “wheel”, yet people don’t say anything about that?

      Linux isn’t reinventing the wheel, it is making a BETTER wheel.

      Lugs are optional…..

      • #3109456

        Good Point

        by rkuhn040172 ·

        In reply to People are ALWAYS

        The very existence of Linux and Windows only goes to make them both better as well as Macs, etc.

        I know I’ll get flamed for this, but it’s just my opinion, if Linux was easier to use (like Windows) it would be better.

        If Windows was more stable, secure, etc (like Linux) it would be better.

        Isn’t this the very nature of competition? Competition is good! And this is just the beginning.

        • #3109453

          so what do you think about

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Good Point

          software patents?

          since patents are designed to stop competition, I say they should be made illegal. copyright is fine to protect the intellectual property.

        • #3109399


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to so what do you think about

          I think patents are necessary, however, the system currently is broken.

          The system is being abused but is plays a vital role if done correctly.

        • #3108504

          so denying competition

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Patents

          is needed for software development?
          That is all a software patent does, is deny who has access to the code base to improve it.

          Copyright itself will protect the owners of the code base, and not prohibit similar software, a patent prohibits even similar software. it means zero competition for a set period of time.

        • #3108398

          Yes But…

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to so denying competition

          Yes but in this country and most countries, we respect the time, research, effort, etc put into someone’s work.

          I have no problems with someone wanting to make money off of their work.

          The problems occur when 1) the patents last too long 2) they are too vague 3) corporations that are basically holding companies for patents.

          I’m sure there are more issues, but again, I think patents are necessary just not quite as restrictive…the system is broken but I don’t want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

          I don’t understand why people see software patents differently than say product patents?

        • #3108362

          software vs product patents

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Yes But…

          A patent for a physical object is easier to prove that a competing product doesn’t violate the terms of the patent. it is the specific design of the physical object that is patented.

          with Software, you are patenting an implementation of, as well as, an idea. the Code base between two similar applications will be extremely hard to differentiate, it could be as minute as a change in one algorithm, yet that algorithm makes the two disticntly different, it’s the foundation of the patent, yet the patent is seen as being the concept behind the software, not the implementation of it.

        • #3109307

          How does the patent deny competition?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to so denying competition

          I’m confused, as usual. How does my having a software patent prevent you from creating a competing product?

        • #3109208


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to How does the patent deny competition?

          Microsoft is, for its MSN messenger, trying to patent graphical emoticon representations in IMs. This would ensure that everyone’s stupid little emoticons wouldn’t be able to be replaced by stupid little smilie faces in their IMs when they send them to other people on non-MSN IM clients, on pain of severe financial hardship.

          Emoticons are a trivial example, but they’re a good introductory example. Another example: Microsoft has been trying to patent the double-click. I think that one got thrown out, but I’m not sure, and it could just as easily have been accepted. How would you like for all GUI software in the world to be prevented from using double-clicks unless the software authors pay licensing fees to Microsoft?

          Microsoft just got its FAT filesystem patent upheld. This means that many types of software tools that deal with VFAT filesystems require licensing. While that type of filesystem generally sucks rocks, this greatly reduces the interoperability of other OSes with Microsoft OSes, because NTFS is a moving target and generally difficult to work with, thus rendering VFAT filesystems the de facto standard for sharing data between Microsoft OSes and other OSes.

          There was a patent on a device used to control blade pitch on helicopter rotors. In order to fly worth a damn, basically every helicopter on the planet had to have this device. Because someone patented it, nobody else was able to create a competing product before the patent ran out.

        • #3109148

          Still not with you

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to How does the patent deny competition?

          “Because someone patented it, nobody else was able to create a competing product before the patent ran out.”

          I’ll use your last example to display my ignorance again. I thought a patent prevented someone else from doing the same job in the same way, to express it in the simplest terms my mind can comprehend. In your helicopter example, couldn’t someone else have built a competing product that did the same thing in a different way?

        • #3109133

          sort of

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to How does the patent deny competition?

          The patent was for the control of blade pitch to compensate for turbulence caused by the motion of the blades themselves. You could conceivably compensate by using “force fields” to compensate, except that the science doesn’t exist for that. You could conceivably compensate by using a different method for moving air around than the use of rotor blades, but then you’re not really competing with the device in question — you’re just competing with the rotor blade in general (leaving you with something like a jet engine, or antigravity, perhaps). The scope of the patent pretty much prevents you from competing directly with that product, however, in making helicopters work worth a damn.

        • #3108282


          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to so what do you think about

          “since patents are designed to stop competition, …”

          And here I thought they were designed to stop the competition from using my ideas for their profit without paying me for my work. Thanks for enlightening me.

        • #3109241

          it depends

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Thanks

          if for something like the process for “vulcanising rubber” then it’s designed to control who can access that particular method.

          if it’s for software, any competing product has to be able to prove it’s not based on your code.
          if both products are written in the same language, then there will be a huge amount of code that is identicle. [ the standard libraries ] how do you prove that the apps are fundamentally different when it’s only one or two functions that are different?
          or even a base algorithm that is different?

          That is applying patents in diametrically opposite ways, which is why software patents should be illegal.

        • #3109205

          not code

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to it depends

          Similar code is covered by copyright, not patent. Patent covers process and purpose. This means that if your proposed competing product is meant to do the same thing (the very definition of a “competing product”) and does it in a sufficiently similar way, you’re screwed. When something is patented, the patent very specifically targets anything that directly competes. The specification of what a patent actually is involves terms like “temporary monopoly”.

          If it was just identical code that was at issue, I’d just write my software in a different language and be done with it.

        • #3109203

          didn’t contradict him

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Thanks

          Your explanation didn’t contradict him at all. He said patents are designed to stop competition (true: patents grant “temporary monopoly” by definition), and you then said patents are designed to stop competition — then you offered an excuse for why that’s okay.

        • #3109141

          I’m not trying to contradict him.

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to didn’t contradict him

          I’m not trying to say that stopping competition is okay. I’m trying to understand the idea that the patent process prevents competition. I see how it stops a competitor from doing the same thing in the same way. I don’t see how it prevents the competitor from doing the same thing in a different way; the old “build a better mousetrap” idea.

        • #3109106


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m not trying to contradict him.

          1. Patents prevent building a better mousetrap because you can’t improve on prior art. The best you can do is create a mouse poison, or a mouse raygun, or whatever. The process — in this hypothetical example, “trapping” — has been patented.

          2. Technology progression is going to slow down one hell of a lot if you have to reinvent everything from the ground up every time you want to make some money. Oh, wait, it’s already happening, and has been for decades. It’s just getting worse as more and more stuff is deemed patentable.

          3. Completely aside from your question (yes, taking a tangent), I find the very concept of telling me that I can’t use ideas I’ve developed, just because they use someone else’s idea as a jumping-off point, to be entirely, incomprehensibly wrong.

        • #3108763

          Off on the tangent with you

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I’m not trying to contradict him.

          “I find the very concept of telling me that I can’t use ideas I’ve developed, just because they use someone else’s idea as a jumping-off point, to be entirely, incomprehensibly wrong.”

          I don’t like the idea of someone profiting from an improvement on a concept I developed without compensating me for the developing the original concept. It might have taken me years to get the idea to a marketable / useful stage. Then somebody slaps a better battery in it, starts outselling me in two weeks, and I get nothing. That may encourage competition, but it will sure squelch innovation.

        • #3134846

          Squelch innovation?

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m not trying to contradict him.

          The guy who came up with an improvement is innovating, too.

          People innovate whether they’ll be able to rest on their laurels and collect licensing fees for the rest of their lives or not. Necessity is the mother of invention, not monopolistic business practices. The patent system doesn’t actually encourage innovation — it discourages it in many ways by making innovations that aren’t twenty years obsolete financially unfeasible and legally impossible. All the patent system actually encourages is clever ways to describe things in patent applications to corner the market on something that market forces are showing to be newly in demand.

          Generally speaking, the only people who use the patent system are would-be monopolists, people who want to protect themselves against would-be monopolists, and people who want to sell things to would-be monopolists for millions of dollars.

        • #3134742

          Yeah, so?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I’m not trying to contradict him.

          “Generally speaking, the only people who use the patent system are would-be monopolists, people who want to protect themselves against would-be monopolists, and people who want to sell things to would-be monopolists for millions of dollars.”

          You say that like those are bad things 🙂 We clearly have different views of the American Dream, but we’ve both known that for a while now.

        • #3134627

          So, this:

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m not trying to contradict him.

          1. Monopolists (and would-be monopolists) are people who try to use strongarm tactics to generate revenue through extortionary business practices rather than actually producing anything of value.

          2. People wouldn’t need to use the patent system to protect themselves from would-be monopolists if the patent system didn’t exist. Patenting for self-protection from would-be monopolists is a preemptive act to protect against having something patented out from under you. Eliminate the threatening patents, and you don’t need the defensive patents.

          3. People who are just in it to sell a patent to a would-be monopolist for millions of dollars are contributing to extortionary business practices, engaging in such practices themselves, and generally not producing anything of actual value.

          I guess our views of the American dream are indeed different, if yours doesn’t take ethical business practice into account. I dream of an America where people don’t have to be trodden underfoot for someone to prosper. You seem to dream of an America where you prosper, regardless of the ethical cost.

        • #3134577

          Nope, not at all

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to I’m not trying to contradict him.

          I see one where I can profit from my work, not one where someone else will profit from it without compensating me, possibly putting me out of business before I have time to recoup my development costs. I’m sorry, I don’t see what’s wrong with wanting to be compensated for my work.

        • #3134570


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I’m not trying to contradict him.

          There’s nothing wrong with wanting to be compensated for work. The problem I have is with [b]expecting[/b] compensation just by virtue of the fact you worked hard, without considering things like whether your work is something someone can’t do for him or her self, or what kind of measures must be taken to extract payment. As trite as it may sound, the ends don’t justify the means when the means are your effect on other people’s lives. As Immanuel Kant would have it, people must never be treated merely as means, but also as ends in themselves.

          Legalities like the patent system treat people merely as means to the end of personal prosperity.

          Put another way, patents involve governmentally enforced artificial scarcity. Artificial scarcity invites abuse: there’s no way to institutionalize a system of artificial scarcity without leading to abuses on the scale seen under the patent system. It is, in short, inevitable that a patent system would foster rights violations.

        • #3107988

          Reply To: Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

          by stdog ·

          In reply to I’m not trying to contradict him.

          I would suggest you read some recent patents.

          Random sampling for the last 3 years would be a good start. Look at what is actually being patented.

          While you’re looking find teh Amazon “OneClick” patent and the Adobe or Apple tabbed dialog patent.

        • #3107983


          by stdog ·

          In reply to Thanks

          Patents were designed to encourage the disclosure of new was of doing thins, so that others might use that information to do newer/better things. Without the patent, people were encouraged to obfuscate the works of machines so that they could not be easily coppied. The patent was to allow a limited time monopoly so they full disclosure of the workings would occur.

          That also allowed for licensing, so I could improve what you did, and sell it, while giving you some return. However if insetead you refused to allow me to use your patent, that stifles the market and reduces innovation. Many patent today are not available for a liscense, or only available at unprofitable rate.

          Then there’s the problem of unrelated, independant inventions. You and I both make something with out know the other is doing it. Who get to sell them? Who ever files for the patent first. So if you’ve spent 10 years on something and I did it in 5, but file my application the day before you, you get nothing, and cannot even sell the product you’ve spent the last 10 years working on. That happens a lot now, because a working prototype is not required to file. So I can file as soon as I get the idea, while you have been trying to make it work, yet you get nothing. They current applictions are mostly ideas that will never be developed. They are just there as a way to prevent anyone else from making money on that idea.

        • #3107929


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to patents

          Wouldn’t the idea be to restore the system to the way it used to be, because I do agree with you 100%?

          The current system is “broken” but do we really need to scrap it altogether? And if so, who here has a better idea to meet the needs described?

        • #3133997

          scrap it

          by stdog ·

          In reply to So…

          In this case I favor scrapping the whole thing. In most government situations, it’s the only way. When the modify something they create more problems then they solve.

          So write an entierly new law, that accounts for all the desired benifits and current technology. Put in way to prevent problems of the past.

          There are too many bad patents in the current system to maintain it. Like the legal system that preferes that the guilty go free than the innocent be punished, void good patents so that no bad ones are upheld.

        • #3109324


          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Good Point

          Why would you get flamed for that? It’s the first reasonable thing I’ve seen you say in days.

          I disagree with your use of the word “easy”. I’d say “accessible”: once you get past some initial learning curve, Linux is a lot easier for most things than Windows, but it does lack in areas of accessibility to the casual beginner. For instance, there really needs to be a simpler way to get started with ndiswrapper than there currently is.

        • #3108579

          Easier Because…

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Why?

          I say easier because, for example take my favorite game (America’s Army), I get this 750MB+ text file. What the heck is that all about? I have no idea what to do with it.

          I’m sure after reading some more of this book about Linux that I got and doing some online searching, I’ll figure it out.

          But with Windows, I either put in an autorun CD or double click on the setup.exe. That’s easy.

          With Linux, there are source files, binaries, RPM’s, whatever all this stuff is.

          With Windows, I’m playing the game in 5 minutes or less with no learning, no reading, no online searching, etc.

          I know there are a lot of programs easily installable by Linux…I used the repository thing for OpenOffice. But really, for the “best” games that are ported to Linux, I am no where near able to install them.

        • #3108515

          read carefully

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Easier Because…

          Go back and read my previous commentary again. You seem to have missed the point. Must be at least this tall to get the point: —

          Otherwise, it goes over your head.

          When I can spend about 20% or less the time to manage the same number of servers, I call that “easier”. When patching a system involves a few seconds every day, a couple of short commands and nothing else, rather than waiting on the MS site, reading a webpage to try to sort out the useful patches from there merely marketing-driven and crufty bloatware, and have to reboot a couple times in the process, I call that “easier”. When I don’t have to regularly restart the system to refresh RAM due to rampant memory leaks, I call that “easier”. When I don’t have to manage AV and antispyware software, I call that “easier”. The list of ways Linux is easier once you grok it is long and distinguished.

          Windows is, in many ways, more accessible. It is also, in many ways, far less “easy”.

        • #3133322

          Linux is NOT easier

          by pweegar1 ·

          In reply to read carefully

          I installed Susie Linux V10 this past weekend. Here are some observations:

          1) The install was, count ’em, 5 CD’s. Windows XP Pro is ONE.

          2)The linux install was very slow. At least as long to install as it does WinXP, if not a bit longer.

          3) Update ran after the install, install a few hundered files. And this is easier than WinXP? IMNSHO, not so.

          4) Why do I have to build a program to get it to install/run in Linux. With XP, I run setup and it works.

          5) Patching a system every day is easier???? My MS servers let me know when they need to be patched. I let the update do it’s thing, and if a reboot is needed, I do it during off hours. Reboot of 5 servers takes less than 30 minutes (some poorly behaving services sometimes don’t automaticlly start, I know which ones they are, no big deal, effects a single server.)

          6) Linux (a clone of Unix) involves learning arachic commands and using a POS editor (vi). I would much rather point and click, then do whatever. In linux, you type most everything to make changes. UGH. I hate that much typing.

          7) WinXp seems to run a bit faster on my machine. Programs seem to start a bit faster.

          8) When does WIN Server need to be rebooted to refresh ram?????? Simply shutting down the service and restarting it fixes the problem. It is NOT a server problem, but a poorly written program that doesn’t properly do garbage cleanup. Can happen in any system. I have MS servers that go for weeks w/o needing to be rebooted unless a piece of hardware goes bad. I run 2 (old) jukeboxes with hardware that fails. They require a server reboot after repair.

          Sorry, but I find Windows MUCH easier to administer than linux. Linux is a nice toy to play with, but doesn’t meet my business needs. (BTW I work in a company of approx 15,000 employees in both the US and Can. Linux here is a bad word. We’ve tried, it doesn’t work like we need it to.)

        • #3107908

          Oh Boy!

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Linux is NOT easier

          Get ready to be flamed.

          I agree with most of what you said, unfortunately, the Linux crowd doesn’t allow any opinion in the world but their own.

          Read through these posts. Most of them are all about how Windows users can’t walk and chew gum, we are too stupid to even know we’re stupid, we’re inefficient, we’re clueless, blah blah blah.

          And I’m really tired of the “free as in beer”. Did they all read the same book? Is that the official motto of Linux? It must be in the official Linux playbook “what to say to a Windows users”.

          Bottom line, like most things in life, we are all free to choose what serves our purpose best. And I find it rather elistist for them to pretend they know what is better for me than me myself.

        • #3107867

          Where to begin?

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to Linux is NOT easier

          1) The SUSE install included applications. The XP install was one CD, but all you got was the operating system. You had to get another CD for Office, and another for each additional application you wanted to install. I’m betting that requires more than 5 CDs.

          2) See above. It may have been slower, but it installed more. Compare the time for an XP install with all applications, not just the OS.

          5) Your Windows servers do not let you know when they need to be patched. They let you know when Microsoft says there is a new patch available. There’s a big difference.

          6) There a GUI tools for most Linux utilities. You don’t have to use the command line if you don’t want to. It’s a matter of preference.

          8) The point is that Linux services / daemons don’t have to be stopped / restarted since they don’t get hung.

          You may find Windows easier; great. You should use the tool that enables you to get the job done. That just means -you- don’t find Linux easier; others do. I’m not one of them, but I don’t have the same level of experience with Linux that I do with Windows. I think ease of use comes more from experience than from OS design.

          rickk will probably consider this an anti-MS flame. FYI, all my boxes at work are Windows: desktops, laptops, servers, handhelds. I don’t have a single Linux machine in my shop. (Okay, they’ve got a few in our main facility on the WAN side.) That doesn’t keep me from being aware of the capabilities of the OS.


        • #3107798

          oh, right, that . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Linux is NOT easier

          I. Thank you rickk for making a post that contributes exactly zero of any positive worth to this discussion.

          II. Thank you Palmetto for adding that bit of Exorcism imagery at the end of your generally helpful and accurate post. I haven’t laughed that hard in days.

          III. I’ll address pweegar now.

          – – – – –

          I suspect you didn’t quite catch on to the distinction between “accessibility” and “ease of use” in my previous post(s). That having been said, I’ll now address your points.

          1. As Palmetto pointed out, you’re getting far, far more than a desktop OS on those 5 CDs. Imagine if one CD could provide Windows XP Professional, Windows Server 2003, MS Internet Information Server, MS SQL Server, all the goodies for Active Directory servers, an enterprise-class firewall, MS Exchange, MS Office Professional Enterprise Edition, Adobe Photoshop, Quark Xpress, Adobe Illustrator, enterprise class AV, Litestep, Quicken, Norton Ghost, Visual Studio, Roxio and Nero, Adobe Acrobat (not just the viewer), WinAmp, and a TiVo. How many CDs would that take up in the Windows world? While we’re at it, you can imagine adding basically the entire catalog of freeware and shareware on to those CDs. Now make them all unlimited use free software — even the stuff like Office, Photoshop, and Quicken. How well do you think those five CDs stack up to Windows’ one CD now?

          2. I haven’t used SuSE in a while, so I can’t much comment on the install process. It’s not the fastest Linux install around, though, so I wouldn’t be surprised it it was a little slower on some hardware than the Windows XP install. I also wouldn’t be surprised if it was a little faster on other hardware. Then again, as Palmetto pointed out, there’s a lot more stuff being installed. Did you include install time for Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop, and all your third-party security software on the Windows system in your estimate?

          3. What, you’ve never had to update Windows? Did you happen to notice how bloody fast software updates are with Linux? Did you happen to think about the fact that you’re getting patches not only for the OS, but for all the software that’s installed on it, too?

          4. You don’t. Where do you get the notion you have to build things to install them? I’ve built from source a grand total of about six applications on Linux, ever, and of those I didn’t really have to build two or three of them, and another couple were brand spankin’ new so they just weren’t available as binary packages yet. The only reason I’ve had to build stuff from source at all is simply that I’m a pretty advanced user. I guess you’re not very familiar with the concept of a package manager, and are probably getting the idea that you have to build from source to install things from some random skimming of an online forum where someone was asking for help with building something from source.

          5. As Palmetto pointed out, there’s a huge difference between needing a patch and being told there’s one available. Patches are released quickly in the Linux world, not monthly — and even when released monthly, they tend to be released more than a month after they are needed. The fastest-ever security patch release time in Windows Updates was ten days. Ten days is greater than the [b]average[/b] for major Linux distributions. In any case, the package managers on major Linux distributions are far easier to use than Windows Update, regardless of how often you use them, and you don’t have to check for updates every day if you don’t want to. You could check once a month if you like, to simulate the slow patch release cycle of Windows. I don’t know why you would, but if that’s to your taste, go for it.

          6. Linux doesn’t force you to learn “archaic commands”. Use the GUI if you don’t like the shell. The shell is there for more power and flexibility. The GUI is there for people who prefer the Windows approach to things. As for vim (the new vi), it’s an exceedingly powerful tool. It’s just not for casual newbie-type users. It’s a tool for experts. If you don’t like it, use Kate instead — it’s a GUI text editor in the KDE toolset, similar in concept to Notepad but far, far more functional.

          7. Good for you. I’ve compared Debian on a 450MHz Pentium II to XP on an Athlon 1600 and found they actually matched up pretty closely in responsiveness and performance. I’ve run both WinXP and Win2k on a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 and found that Win2k far outperformed XP after making performance-boosting tweaks to both, then I installed Debian GNU/Linux on it and it blew my socks off without even doing much tweaking. I’m sure there are times XP outperforms Linux, but I don’t run into those circumstances much. I guess you’re just lucky. Thank you for your anecdotal evidence.

          8. Windows is fraught with memory leaks. Hell, Wordpad has a memory leak older than Wordpad itself, left over from the original MS Write codebase. Some of the memory leaks that develop in a Windows environment are cleaned up when you shut down the application or service that’s leaking, and some are not, requiring the entire computer to be restarted to clear out the RAM — the Wordpad leak is a prime example of a memory leak whose detritus is never cleaned up by the OS. Unlike Windows, Linux cleans up RAM even after software that leaves crap in RAM due to poor garbage collection, so, while the initial problem is an application issue and not an OS issue, the fact that Windows hasn’t “learned” to clean up after its software is definitely an OS issue. As for your servers not needing reboots for weeks, I’m happy for you — my Linux server at home hasn’t been rebooted since August 2005, the month I moved to this town.

        • #3107774

          re: linux performance

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Linux is NOT easier

          laptop system, 233 MHz PII
          128 mb sdram
          linux os
          corel photo paint version 9

          desktop system 600 MHz PIII ( Cyrus chip )
          768 mb sdram
          winxp pro os
          corel photo paint version 9

          why the corel version 9 in the list?
          I used both systems and the exact same program to perform a 3 step operation on the exact same image

          I increased the dpi of the image from 72 to 600, in three steps for quality control.

          time on the laptop roughly 4 seconds [ including menu access and selection / keyboard work. ]

          time on the desktop roughly 4 seconds [ including menu access and selection / keyboard work ]

          hmm, same amount of time on a system that is substantially slower [ 1/3 the clock speed and ram ] to begin with.

          says that linux actually performs 3 times better than windows doesn’t it?

        • #2514420

          Lazy !

          by rayldubb ·

          In reply to Linux is NOT easier

          I have found that most things in life that are worth having require at least SOME effort on ones part to achieve. Then there are those that reject all things that do require an effort to acheive !.

        • #3108508

          re Americas Army

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Easier Because…

          the free game written by the us army?

          open a terminal,
          su [ enter root password when prompted ]
          type the name of that file and hit the enter key.
          it’s a “batch” file that is the installer.

        • #3108401


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to re Americas Army

          Thank you.

          It is quite simply the best game ever…100% pure opinion, nonetheless.

        • #3107703

          went and got it..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Thanks!

          and it doesn’t run in mandriva. it’s only coded for the least standard distro, fedora.

        • #2660303

          Americas Army in Mandriva works great here!

          by techrepublic987 ·

          In reply to Thanks!

          Americas Army in Mandriva works great here, now on version 2008.0 and for several versions and years before!
          What is the problem you have encountered?

        • #3108887


          by jmgarvin ·

          In reply to Easier Because…

          Click on the link to get AA, choose save as, wait.

          Double click on AA icon, watch it install, play…

      • #3109393

        Fix the broken wheel

        by fredvoit ·

        In reply to People are ALWAYS

        M$ comes out with a new wheel:

        If you put a tire on your car with 10,000 holes in it will your car drive well? M$ never fixes anything without breaking something else. When people get tired of it they release a new wheel(OS) still with 10,000 holes but they are different holes and the wheel looks prettier…

        This maybe why I got tired of being a tech and changed careers. I couldn’t stand the thought of having to add yet another series of poorly concepted/executed operating systems from M$ to my database of “why does my computer do this?” questions.

    • #3108606

      Number of wheels is realted to vendors

      by conundrum ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      I’ve noticed that Windows is made by just one company.
      Maybe one day Linux will have a ‘one size fits all’ distro.

      • #3108503

        Nope it won’t

        by jaqui ·

        In reply to Number of wheels is realted to vendors


        The basic concept behind the distros is the reason for the strength of linux code quality, freedom of choice.

        Why would I choose to limit my options by using a one linux fits all distro?
        I wouldn’t, I would just get the sources and build my own linux… oh, hold it a second, I already do that, because I don’t like what most distros have as offerings. They each do something differently than I want it done.

        I refuse to install gnome desktop, since it requires smb connectivity, and I have zero need for smb connectivity.

        red hat’s fedora always breaks during install

        mandrivia has non standards compliant menu configuration [ they store the data files in weird places ]

        The issue I have with debian is the way they start the xserver if it’s installed by default. [ red hat is also guilty of this ]

        I got a cover dvd with suse 10 yesterday, and it finally actually booted on my machine. But it seems Novell’s offering requires smb to function, yast and the documentation reader both require smb.

        A one size fits all distro is not ever a possibility.

        • #3108369

          My biggest issues

          by jdclyde ·

          In reply to Nope it won’t

          directory structure (no, NOT “folders”) consistancy.

          documentation rarely shows a working example of the command and sometimes you have to play around with it to get the syntax correct to use the command because of this.

          need cute babes to push the software and how sexy it can be to be a linux geek! ]:) (yes Jaqui, some can be wearing leather….)

        • #3109193

          about that

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to My biggest issues

          Directory structure consistency? Please elaborate. If you use an FHS-compliant distro, you’re set for consistent directory structure — unless you mean something I’m not getting. What, exactly, do you mean?

          I’d like to see more working examples in documentation as well. You have a point there. Still, Google helps in that regard somewhat.

          It seems that FreeBSD has all the cute babes pushing the software:

        • #3109199

          re: debian and X

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Nope it won’t

          Depending on how you installed X and what you’ve got running as your window manager or desktop environment, the solution to X starting by default is simple, and you have more than one option for that.

          1. Uninstall XDM/KDM/GDM (whatever display manager you’re using). For instance:
          [b]apt-get remove xdm[/b]

          2. Edit your inittab’s default runlevel line. Mine says:

          You can then either start X by using startx or you can use the init command to change runlevels if you want to start X.

          Here’s my point of confusion: I’m pretty sure you already know all this. I just don’t know why you insist on avoiding Debian over this one issue when it’s so easily configurable — far more easily than recreating something like a fully functioning Debian install with the same configuration options.

          EDIT: And while I’m at it — why don’t you like Slackware?

        • #3109189

          It’s not

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to re: debian and X

          the ease of editing text files that is the issue.
          it’s the ignorance of assuming that runlevel 3 means start the gui if it’s installed, when runlevel 3 is defined as console with full network support.

          that is why I don’t use debian, they assume that having the xserver installed with a default runlevel of 3 [ console with networking ] means run it. [ which is runlevel 5, not 3 ]

          I wouldn’t use gnome or [ since I found out this saturday ] Suse, for the reason of wasted resources to have the smb stack for them.

          Mandriva 2006 also added a “dependancy” for firefox to any gui tool in the distro.
          [ if I wanted an internet explorer look and feel to a browser I could use wine and install internet explorer. And yes, half the “features” of firefox that made it popular are ui design aspects to mimic internet explorer, like the yellow bar across the top of the page when a site wants to install something ]

        • #3109099

          so, basically . . .

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to It’s not

          You refuse to use Debian because, though you could very easily make it suit your needs, the Debian people don’t think exactly like you and make stuff suit your needs without tweaking. Instead of a trifling bit of tweaking, you decide to go the route of 100% “tweaking” from the ground up to get to something almost exactly like what Debian gives you, with the slight modifications necessary to make it suit your needs.

          I’m still curious, though: Why not Slackware?

        • #3109090

          I do

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to so, basically . . .

          have a slak install, I just like the lfs documentation better.

          and, if they aren’t using runlevels right, then they aren’t following standards. :p
          better way to put why I don’t use debian.

        • #3108942

          following standards

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to I do

          They’re following standards just fine. Runlevels 0, 1, 2, and 6 are the only runlevels with standards-defined purposes. Runlevel 5 is traditionally GUI. While a lot of people use 3 as console-only with networking, that’s not a defined standard, technically.

    • #3108455

      To each their own preference

      by stephy ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      Windows brought computers to the people.
      Speaking as a Linux systems admin in the webhosting industry, these people are my bread and butter.
      We’ve all seen the growth in internet activity post windows 95 and I would like to thank every single windows user for the food on my table and the roof over my head.
      Alright so they’re not geeks, and many are dare I say it *whispers (AOL users)
      But without them I wouldn’t be as comfortable as I am today.

      IMHO Linux is the easiest O/S around to use, The latest CentoS 4.2 distro loads up smoothly and there is even a GUI setup screen for windows users to try.
      I run both windows and Linux here, and both have their advantages, but there is something about a Linux root command prompt that fires my soul.

      This age old arguement will go on forever, one persons meat is anothers poison.
      But thanks to the point and click users that made the internet what it is today.
      May they forever keep buying those little webhosting accounts with Frontpage Express pages containing pictures of little Joey and the dog.
      Am I selling out here? I think not 🙂

    • #3108409


      by eric.talbot ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      Isn’t it a license issue, the same for MP3 , where the distributor can’t include the mp3 layer in its distro. Because if he would , he would have to pay a royalty fee for it.

    • #3108622

      Windows isn’t any better.

      by the dobc ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      Go and try playing a dvd on a Windows machine “WITHOUT” installing a DVD player software. It doesn’t work there either. Windows does not include the decoding drivers for DVD’s. That comes with the DVD drive, or in the spyware ridden DVD software that comes on some of the DVD’s themself.

    • #3133426

      Must be different versions out there

      by deadly ernest ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      I recently had to buy and install, for various clients and myself four OSs, none of which played DVDs out of the box. In each case additional software had to be obtained and installed, in two cases that was provided by software supplied with the DVD-ROM hardware with a Windows based player.

      The latest OEM version of MS Win XP Pro with SP2 had no inbuilt DVD player and no info on why or about how to get one. No compatible drivers for my 5 button intellimouse but allowed my 32 bit driver program to work.

      The latest OEM version of MS Win 64 bit XP Pro with SP2 has no DVD player inbuilt and no info on why ro where to get one. It also had no compatible drivers for my 5 button MS Intellimouse and refuses to allow the 32 bit drivers to work.

      Fedora Core 4 no DVD player built in but a help file explaining why and where I can go to get a free player from the Internet. Included a driver for my 5 button Intellimouse

      Mandrake 10 no DVD player built in but weith a help file explaining why and where I can get a free one. Included a driver for my 5 button intellimouse.

      Since the DMCA and the rabid way that RIAA have gone after people that software is not included by default for legal reasons. I found it interesting that Linux had fully functional drivers for a MS mouse that was auto detected and installed while the MS OS does not.

      Don’t worry when Vista comes out all your peripherals will become instantly redundant and need replacing as you need new gear for which hardware manufactures are prepared to pay for having new MS Vista drivers created for.

    • #3107814

      I use Ogle, and have no problem with DVDs

      by starderup ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      This gotcha is a red herring.

    • #3107718

      Palmetto – Where to Begin?

      by rkuhn040172 ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      On the contrary. I have found your comments to be very fair, very level, very non-side taking.

      I appreciate your openess, your comments and I actually am closer to your opinions than you think.

      I don’t think there is an answer except for allowing all to choose acording to their wants, needs, etc. Choice is good whether it be about Linux vs Windows or even which distro to use.

      My comments have only gotten more aggressive since this entire debate has been so one sided.

      I was hoping to start this discussion and keep it objective, professional, etc but it’s obvious that won’t happen…what was I thinking?

      The Linux crowd has taken over and I’m simply trying to counter the lopsided nature that this discussion is taking.

      And I will never allow someone to go on and on about how I can’t chew gum and walk at the same time or whatever.

      If sleepy dawg would never hire me, that’s great. I haven’t needed a job in 6+ years.

      This discussion has sunk to new levels. There are moments like Apotheon’s comments today about Bazooka’s product which I thought was great but those types of comments are just too far and few in between.

      There are times when you and I agree and there are times when you and I don’t agree but I don’t recall seeing any personal attacks against me by you.

      For that, I appreciate and that speaks mountains about the type of person you probably are.

    • #3107664


      by rkuhn040172 ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      Once again, attack me instead of debate me. You should be a politician.

      I gave a real world example and you discount it just like you discount the opinions of the majority of the world using Windows.

      I seriously doubt, OS immaterial, that any 450Mhz PC can compete using a fair test against a Athlon 1600. Sounds like FUD.

      Too many other factors…bus speed, hard drive speed, RAM capabilities, cache, etc. And don’t just bring the 1600 down to the level of the 450. The 1600 is capable of things that the 450 can’t.

      What kind of AGP capabilites does the 450 have? Does it have USB 2.0? Does it have SATA drive ability? PCI-Express?

      No, no, no, no. It’s a multimedia world and the 450 just won’t cut it.

      Your other points are all actually fairly good except for the part. Yes, it is just a catalog…one still must download the software from a repository.

      Not sure if you intended to mislead, but not all that software is included. Merely the ability to browse and then download is there.

      • #3107608

        holy frijoles

        by apotheon ·

        In reply to Apotheon

        Once again, you break the chain of context, and this time I don’t remember where in the discussion this train of thought originated, or what was said most recently. I really wish you could manage to [b]keep posts connected to context[/b]!

        To respond to points in this post, mostly devoid of context, however:

        The 450 has 1x AGP capability. It has an ATI Rage IIc with 4MB of dedicated VRAM onboard. The 1600 has integrated video on the motherboard with 32MB of shared RAM, using an AGP chipset (not sure of the generation of AGP).

        Neither has USB “2.0” capability, so that’s not really at issue. Neither has SATA or PCI-Express capability, either, though the 450 has a SCSI riser card in it.

        I don’t remember what the specific reference to was about, but I can tell you right now with absolute certainty that I never would have implied that all the stuff at is preinstalled on a computer, so whatever you’re trying to shovel, you should stop now.

        • #3134472

          rickk, Breaking the chain

          by charliespencer ·

          In reply to holy frijoles

          rickk, it’s easier for others to keep up with the flow of conversation if you’ll post replies to the same “chain”. If you get the ever-popular “Maximum message level has been reached” and you can’t post a reply to the lowest level comment, please go back up one level. Post a reply to the next-to-lowest-level message. If multiple people are babbling on at the lowest level, be sure to include the name of who you are specifically replying to in the title / subject. As an example, see where apotheon and I were carrying on about patents back on the 30th and 31st. Thanks.

    • #3107641

      Jaqui …America’s Army

      by rkuhn040172 ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      That’s too bad. It is a great game.

      I appreciate you checking it out.

      The only thing I waste entirely too much time on other than replying to this discussion is playing that damn game.

      Great reviews, lots of $ developing it, tons of servers worldwide, and FREE!

      It’s my addiction. I’ve built up a mean ass character, passed all training, top 1.5% in the world in honor, marksmanship, etc.

      Hey, it’s my stress reliever. I kill to relieve stress…I hope I never find myself employed at a post office.

      • #3091776

        punk buster

        by jdgeek ·

        In reply to Jaqui …America’s Army

        I used to like AA, but dropped out after they required the installation of punk buster. From what I could tell by reading the EULA (yes I actually read it), you had to give punk buster root to your box in order to play the game. I’m sure if the government wanted what is on my computer they could find a way to get it, but I wasn’t going to invite them in.

        Do you still have to run punk buster to play?

        • #3091716

          Think So

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to punk buster

          I think it is still a requirement.

          And I totally agree with you on principle. But most games require root or admin acccess. But then again, most programs do too.

          Don’t misinterpret what I’m saying. I think it is totally wrong to require root access. But the vast majority of software manufacturers do it.

          And I’m pretty sure I’ll get flamed by the Linux crowd for saying that. But in the Windows world, this is true.

          I don’t make a living dealing with the should ofs, could ofs, or might bes. I live in the here and now.

          My answer…don’t put anything “sensitive” on any PC that is internet connected. One day, maybe we’ll win that fight, but right now, the fight is being lost.

        • #3091649

          root access

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Think So

          It’s actually very rare for an application to require root access on Linux, and even in the rare cases where they do you can usually give it a fake root access environment so it’s happy but can’t actually screw up your system. Once in a while, you run across something commercial/proprietary for which that doesn’t really work, and you’re left with either compromising system security or not using it.

          EDIT: . . . and why would anyone flame you for that?

        • #3253318

          Gave You Opportunity

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to root access

          Just because I admitted a Windows flaw.

          Hey, I openly admit (and would be a fool not to) that Windows has serious issues.

          It just so happens it’s my OS of choice and I’ve learned to live with its flaws.

          Like the previous poster though, while I have a hard time living with the fact that so many Windows programs require root access, I’ve learned to deal with it rather than not use them.

          If his criteria for not using a piece of software (in the Windows world) was it needed root access, he’s seriously eliminating a lot of great software.

          I do hope more people raise the issue with manufacturers though. While they “need” root access, they probably don’t…lazy programming.

        • #3254528

          Not really lazy programming..

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Gave You Opportunity

          more like working on a flawed understanding of the security model [ with linux at least ]

          none of the applications I have use for in linux require root access, outside of system admin tools.
          Not one main business use tool requires root access to run. [ office suite, desktop publishing tools, development environments, accounting software all run as non priviledged user. ]

          I do not install the mod_suexec for apache, as no script should be run other than as the calling user.
          nor is there a need for a script to run other than as the calling user.

        • #3254505

          I Was Referring to Windows Programs

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Not really lazy programming..

          I know Linux does a better job in this department.

          I was referring to Windows programs and why some manufacturers need admin access when they really don’t.

          I call it lazy programming. Yes, there are cases, where because of Windows, admin access is necessary. But the vast majority of the cases are programmers choice.

        • #3254502

          which programmers are lazy?

          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Not really lazy programming..

          the ones that are stuck using admin access or the microsoft programmers that can’t get a proper multi user security model working?

          I’ll blame the ms programmers.

        • #3254371

          How About?

          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Not really lazy programming..

          How about the “lazy” Linux programmers who can’t seem to make an OS that is as easy to learn and use as Windows?

          I already know what you are going to say.

          But here are the facts. I’ve been in IT for 7+ years now and I’ve found over the last several months that Linux is extremely difficult to learn and use by comparison.

          The Linux community seems to take great pride in their OS and its abilities yet still can’t seem to crack the mainstream.

          I agree with most everything you say. However, no OS will ever challenge MS until they reach the ease of use, compatibiltiy, etc that MS has.

          Yes, they take a backseat when it comes to security, reliablity, etc but I learned more and was able to do more with Windows after one month than I have been able to accomplish with Linux in the same time period and with Windows, I had zero experience. With Linux, I have the benefit of 7+ years of experience and knowledge that helps somewhat.

          The learning curve is too steep.

        • #3254368


          by jaqui ·

          In reply to Not really lazy programming..

          windows ease of use is at the cost of stability and security.

          windows and compatability? when no 2 versions of windows are compatable that is a bit of a joke.
          [ MS does not even try for backwards compatability, most linux programmers do try.[ they might not always succeed, but they do try ] ]

          We already covered the hardware driver issue being the manufacturers issue, not the os.

        • #3254241


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Not really lazy programming..

          Two different versions of Windows not compatible?

          What planet do you live on? At home, I’m running Server 2003, XP Pro, XP Home, NT, and Win 98. I don’t seem to have any compatibility problems.

          All networked together, all can run Office 2000, all run most any program I have.

          Where is this compatibility problem you are speaking of?

          I see compatibility problems with Linux. Some programs run on some distros but not all distros…like my America’s Army game.

          At work, we run Server 2003, Server 2000, Win 2000 and XP Pro. No problems here either.

        • #3080833

          compatibility and end-user accessibility

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to Not really lazy programming..


          1. You talk about “ease of use”. I understand that what you actually mean is accessibility to the uninitiated, so I’ll talk about that. If you want it to be as initially accessible as Windows, you need to do the same thing you do with Windows as a brand spankin’ new user: get a computer with a full GUI install already in place. Unless and until you do that, you don’t really have any room to talk about how much “easier” Windows is.

          2. Windows is [b]not[/b] very compatible between versions. Often, the same software doesn’t work from one OS version to the next. Often, the same configuration process does not work from one OS version to the next. While we’re at it, every new Windows release has a network “master” priority higher than all previous versions, commonly enforcing network restructuring to incorporate new Windows OSes even when you don’t want to have to do that. The NTFS filesystem changes in incompatible ways from one OS version to the next, and you can’t just decide to format a partition with a previous NTFS version. CIFS changes in subtly incompatible ways from one OS version to the next. Need I continue?

        • #3080767


          by rkuhn040172 ·

          In reply to Not really lazy programming..

          1) I did have a fully installed GUI of Mandriva Linux. As a matter of fact, the install process was smooth as a whistle and I was indeed very impressed.

          But I couldn’t figure out how to install a Citrix client, America’s Army, or ever figure out how to use the Wine or Cedega apps.

          I don’t or ever did have a problem installing similar apps in Windows. I just double click on the setup.exe and follow the prompts.

          2) Yes, there are subtle difference between versions. However, stop talking about “theory” and start talking about reality. None of those examples you gave affect my ability to use Win 98 thru Win XP including server versions in the real world.

          Both at work and at home, I have Win 98 thru Win XP and Win Server NT/2000/2003 and don’t experience these issues you are talking about.

          They do exist but there are workarounds and solutions that are workable.

          As a matter of fact, I’m on a P400 laptop right now with Win 98 on it and it flat out performs great.

          It’s Win 98, not scaled down, with all the bells and whistles, the most recent Citrix client, RDC, joined to my domain, Office 2000, firewall, AV, anti-everything, newest version of IE, a few fairly recent games, and some great newer utilities.

          No problems here. No compatibility issues. Not sure what you’re talking about. It’s on-line thru my DSL which is quite fast, grant it it does have 192MB of RAM that helps alot, but I’m not concerned with compatibility of security and performs like a champ for everyday use.

        • #2660610

          punk buster does not need root access

          by techrepublic987 ·

          In reply to punk buster

          I have changed the directory permissions (a+rwX) for the punkbuster directory and files and Americas Army works in a normal user account. In fact all games I play in Linux, some with punkbuster, work with no problem in user accounts.

    • #3093363

      Windows won’t play DVD’s out of the Box

      by damian205 ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      Your claim that Windows will play DVD’s out of the box is incorrect. You must install a third party player such as Cyberlink Power DVD to do so. Now I agree that many computers have this as part of the bundle when sold so many users won’t know that windows can’t play them but it does not change that fact that windows can’t do it out of the box. If you wish to compare like for like I suggest that you examine Linspire which does have an easily installed and legally licensed DVD player. As for other distros I will agree that playing DVD’s can be problamatic but as Jaqui points out elsewhere the libdvdcss is easily installed and solves the problem for no cost at all.

      • #3212305

        You can

        by michael.durkin ·

        In reply to Windows won’t play DVD’s out of the Box

        YOu can play them out of the box with Windows Media Player. I personally don’t prefer that, but it is possible.

        • #3212057

          DVD’s How?

          by damian205 ·

          In reply to You can

          As i understand it you require a properly licensed codec to play DVD movies. This is usually supplied by a third party such WinDVD. While there are a very few free DVD players for Windows they are not included with the OS at this time. All the free one are usually loaded with ad and spyware in my experience. If you know of one that isn’t I would be very interested as it would make life alot easier.

        • #3212027

          where have you been ?

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to DVD’s How?

          Your VCR does not have a DVD player ? I have 2 of them both have a DVD player and a VCR tape I can record several programs at the same time
          also I dump the recorded programs off to my computer and remove commercials and make them into a DVD for me. .

        • #3212018


          by damian205 ·

          In reply to where have you been ?

          Not sure what you are replying to Jackie. I was talking about software DVD players for Windows XP. Enlighten me please.

        • #3211799

          Had to go back and read

          by jackie40d9 ·

          In reply to Confused

          I had to go back and read the original and then
          yours and mine to get where your at ! Ever heard of
          REAL its got a freebie thing and you DO NOT have to be on line to use it for watching DVD’s ! And you do not have a VCR with a DVD player in it ? They got cheap ones at circut city like 87.00 has both tape and DVD
          And did you not get software with your DVD burner for watching Movies ? I did . .

        • #3211815


          by michael.durkin ·

          In reply to DVD’s How?

          I have three laptops, two from Dell and one from IBM. In all three cases, the required codecs were supplied with the OEM software. You are right that they are third party, but they were free. I have both Cyberlink and WINDVD, but I can also watch the movies from Windows Media Player.

        • #3168988

          Those aren’t free.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to OEM

          There’s a difference between “package deal” and “free”.

        • #3277543

          They are free if you don’t pay for them

          by michael.durkin ·

          In reply to OEM

          Well, I guess one could argue that they aren’t free, but if it is included in the cost of something that you already bought for no extra fees, that is free as far as I am concerned. I guess the way I see it, if you want to have a DVD drive, and to get that drive you have to pay for it, but when you do, they included all the software that you need, there is no incremental cost in the software. YOu could look at it another way, even if you refused the included software, they wouldn’t give you a break on the price of the drive, therefore it is free. Yes, it’s part of the cost of the drive, but you don’t get a break if you don’t want it

          In my case, all three laptops bundles came with included DVD drives, and all the software required to use them to play movies. I didn’t have to pay anything extra beyond the cost of the original purchase price (which was an off the shelf bundle, not customized in any way.

          Therefore, it is free!!!

        • #3277473

          OEM/ white box drive

          by stdog ·

          In reply to They are free if you don’t pay for them

          Many OEM or white box drive don’t come with software. Or the software they include is total crap that noone in their right mind would use.

          I can remember CDRs, hard drives, floppy drives, even mice that included software/drivers but now only the “retail” boxes are likely to include that. Sometimes not even them.

          Most of use don’t need the fancy package, instructions, and extras that the retail package includes. So no software either.

        • #3277412

          Not free — just designed to make you think so.

          by apotheon ·

          In reply to They are free if you don’t pay for them

          The fact they won’t give you a refund for bundled bits and pieces you might not want in no way makes the stuff free. Keep in mind that the cost of creating and/or acquiring the stuff they’re bundling is calculated when they decide how much to charge you, and the reason they refuse to refund you if you don’t want all of it is a desire to keep your money, and not a sign that they’re generous, giving souls.

        • #3277385

          Win XP & DVD Playback

          by damian205 ·

          In reply to OEM

          The only point that I was making is that a clean installation of Windows (any flavour) does not have DVD movie playback facility. It requires add on software. Whether the end user has to pay for that facility or not is neither here nor there. This was in response to the complaint that Linux cannot play DVD’s (usually) out of the box either. Like Windows the addition of the libdvdcss will enable that functionality and like the software that is often bundled with WinXP does not cost the user anything.

    • #3133137

      Since when did a clean Windows install play DVDs?

      by roaming ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      I had to install the software that came with the DVD-ROM.

      • #3162074

        Thats for sure

        by jackie40d9 ·

        In reply to Since when did a clean Windows install play DVDs?

        Oh yeah that reminds me got to put the DVD stuff on the computer I spent the night getting up to speed and fixing stuff ( I moved a persons computer guts to a newer computer case and power supply and a NEWER motherboard with an upgrade to their O/S . .)
        I like to make work for my self hahahaha something like 02:45 in the morning when I quit working on it, but it worked right . . except for the DVD software which I got to add to it yet . . and then its ready ! I am glad this came up or I would have forgotten about it . . There is software to get DVD movies seen on Linux you just got to go looking for it . . Does not come in the “BOX” with Linux ! just like windows junk . .

    • #3080788

      For a Good Laugh

      by rkuhn040172 ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

    • #3080721

      Wrong diagnosis

      by achitnis ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      Wrong diagnosis for a very well known problem.

      This has nothing to do with Linux, and everything to do with the fact that there are no licensed, legally unencumbered DVD players available for Linux. You can thank Hollywood and shortsighted “the world will always be Windows-only” developers with DVD-decoder licenses for this.

      No Linux distribution vendor would therefore run the legal gauntlet of distributing DVD player software with their distros. Just like Microsoft would be out of its head to include a bittorrent or p2p client with Windows.

      But that does not mean that you cannot have a DVD viewer app for Linux, or a bittorrent or p2p client for Windows – you just have to download and install one.

      Every modern Linux distribution has an installer that will download a program and all dependencies for you. On Fedora, you run “yum install mplayer”, or “yum install xine” or “yum install videolan-client” or “yum install ogle”, and that’s it. On debian, replace “yum” with “apt-get”, on gentoo use “emerge”, on Mandriva use “urpmi”, etc.

      Run your freshly installed app, tell it to play your DVD, hit the “F” key to go full-screen, break out the popcorn, and enjoy.

      If you want a bittorrent or p2p client for Windows, make sure to track down the application and a download site, download the installer, click on it, allow it to install itself (and any accompanying spyware, virus, trojan, etc.), and enjoy.

      Oh, and just FYI – Windows XP doesnt come with a DVD player, either. You have to install a thirdparty application, or tell media player to install new codecs (which of course enforce huge amount of DRM on you), but all that is another story….

    • #3253585

      Crapples to Oranges

      by lefty.crupps ·

      In reply to Another Windows vs Linux “Gotcha”

      You paid for the DVD software when you purchased Windows and all of the AOL, Compuserve, Sonic, etc, icons. They help lower the cost of the OS and also pay for the DVD-playing rights.

      Linux doesn’t have (or want) those companies to put on junky apps. There are commercial DVD players for Linux, including Linspire and the new CyberDVD suite, but the average distro doesn’t come with that capability.

      So, you are looking to compare:
      a $300 software dvd player with a buggy Macro$haft OS attached
      a stable free OS without legal rights to play DVDs.

      Yeah, that comparison makes sense to me.

Viewing 17 reply threads