On 2/4/11 1:56 PM, Manuel Escudero wrote: > > 2011/2/4 Michael Miles <mmamiga6@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:mmamiga6@xxxxxxxxx>> > > > > > James McKenzie > > Very well said.... > > Michael > > -- > users mailing list > users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To unsubscribe or change subscription options: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > > > > Hummm, All that paragraph that James Mackenzie wrote is really > mistaken, I will only give my > opinion on that ok? I don't believe I have the reason or something > like that, but I think this way: > > Reading between Lines: > > "If I could get Fedora or CentOS running on my old Thinkpad, I would move > back to Linux. I would have to go find an external DVD player..." > > ÂHow many RAM does your computer has? You can Run Fedora + LXDE > with at least 128MB in RAM and it will run better than XP or others... > Also, > why you need an external unit? We have USB's and you can install the O.S. > from there... > Again, this is said from the viewpoint of Joe User, who does not have the time to tweak. S/he wants a system that works OUT OF THE BOX, with the hardware they have. It may be 1, 2, 5 or even 10 years old. I know about all of the fun stuff you can to with Linux. BTW, most of the older hardware CANNOT boot off of USB and some even have 4x CD drives. This is what I'm talking about. Not the guy with the shiny new computer that wants to replace what came from Redmond on the box. > > " I use a Mac because it 'works'... Not so for Linux" > > Humm... We have an equivalent for almost everything and they run just > fine, I believe > any Linux alternative for any program has very much power as the > Windows/Mac original > program has. For example, to raplace AutoCAD we have Archimedes and > gCAD3D. Also, for > some other programs you have PlayOnLinux/Wine as an alternative and > you have also the possibility > of Running a Virtual Machine via VMWare Player/Virtualbox (if you have > a strong enough machine) > to run Windows and some programs of it's own. I can run VirtualBox on my Mac, and I work in a shop where we do that everyday. However, I will dispute POL/Wine. It is really NOT ready for primetime and does NOT support some of the programs I work with (they have software that does wonderful things like check the system to insure that it is not running on hacked Windows, will NEVER work on Wine, ever.) > > What I wanted to say with that, is that you pick one or other > enviroment not based exactly on their programs > but in many other things... For example, I use Linux because I was > tired of viruses and HDD errors that made me > wipe the computer once every 2/3 months, it's more secure that > windows, it's more reliable, it's the best out there. > So is Solaris. I don't run that either. And Solaris is REAL UNIX, with REAL SUPPORT. If you were getting hit by viruses you were not practicing best security practices. The ONLY time I was hit was because I thought the other party had virus protection turned on. Turns out they did not and I did not scan the disk before using it. I don't do that anymore. > Mac it's just expensive, a Mac Computer costs 3 times more it's real > value, and they're only PC's!!! Hardware, Software... > if I want an OS that can run any hardware only by plugging it, without > viruses and with an alternative for every program > out there, I'll use Linux buying a powerful PC and putting a Linux > Distro inside of it, also I like the "lastest things" > so, for example, fedora is the best O.S. for me, Don't like to have > something for many many long time... I won't disagree with the 3x price. But if you go out and BUY a decent DVD authoring software package and the remaining software, you end up spending more for your PC. This was proven by the folks at PC Magazine a year and a half ago. > > "Fedora is an experimental OS for RH to try and get it right" > > And that's a myth buddy :) No, it is experimental. Even RH says so. CentOS is the 'free' Linux. I'll run that in production any day. FC, no. It is a beta, nothing more nothing less. It is where RH 'tries things out' And that came from RH themselves. And I work for a company that holds a very large RH contract. > Fedora was born as an opportunity of keep giving a free O.S. always > very updated to the final user > because Red Hat decided to move it's developing path to focus into > more stable software that could be mantained for large periods > of time without the need for radical changes, They wasn't able to > provide the lastest technology and that kind of service > in only one distro, so they splitted up in two paths: For servers > (that are those that need to be mantained without very much > changes over the years) and for Desktops: (these are the ones for > normal users, the market of everyday's person > who likes to get the lastest technologies and innovations quite soon). No. You missed the part where I said that RH is NOT interested in the Desktop. They were up until RH8 or so. Then they learned the hard way that they were not going to win the desktop and moved on. FC is where they test what does and does not work. > Okey, maybe the company analizes the different features developed in > fedora in order to decide if get them into RHEL or not, > They're also awared about all the new features and technologies that > appear in the Linux world, just like any other company that offers > systems with large maintenance periods (in this case for servers) > does. If that myth was actually the truth, we will be saying that all the > Desktop Operating Systems are just BETAS for Server's ones and we will > be fooling ourselves. RH is very interested in the server market and are doing very well there. They are actually doing well. > > "Linux remains a niche product in many ways" > > I don't think so... I've been installing linux in many PC's for some > time ago and > I have to say, my users can't be more happy with it, they even say > things like: > "Wow! How it's possible I'm meeting this right now!" and that's > because, with > every installation I do, I also prepare the computer for almost > everything without > "bloating" it... Linux isn't the problem... The people around Linux is > the problem... > Maybe so. However, I bet you have a 'standard' installation. > For example, every new user has to follow a "Post-Installation" guide > in order to get all of the things > right in it's Linux, and that stands also for Mac and Windows user. > Every O.S. Need you to follow > some steps to "tweak it" as you like or need just after installing it. > I never seen a O.S. that has > almost everything without bloating itself.. THE ONLY O.S. that can > almost successfully accomplish > this goal (And this is just my opinion) is PARDUS LINUX. > Yep, I thought so. And what do I have to do 'post Install' on my Mac? Create accounts. Not so with Linux. > > "Sad to say, but I may have to become a Windows Fanboy to get what I need > done, without having to beat on a system all day long." > > So tell me, What do you have to "get done" in Linux that makes you > "fight with the system" > in order to get it? If you need a windows instance, use VMware or > VirtualBox, as I see it, I don't. Why would I load up software that makes my system slow as molasses in Boston in January. Just load up Windows, dual boot and get it over with. And I have full access to the hardware so any program that needs to do specific things can. Also, why would I want to or need to use a second product to use a simple program? I don't. I can install Windows7 on my Mac, after blowing away MacOSX. I know several people who have. They don't miss MacOSX, they never used it. Ask them about the only Linux known to run with Macs, Ubuntu and they laugh and go back to work. > "I just don't want to > have to go through the hoops to get it to work anymore." > > Then, DON'T USE FEDORA!! fedora isn't for a person Like you, > if you want a "FULLY FUNCTIONAL" linux without doing anything, > then try with Linux Mint, Mandriva or Pardus, but keep away from > Fedora, OpenSUSE > and even ubuntu maybe... > Nice suggestion. I like it. Too bad there are not more like you that know the difference between FC and a stable Linux distribution. I've seen the skid marks left when a user received 300 MB of updates that almost trashed their system. They spent about 1/2 hour formatting their hard drive and installing Windows. They said "I'll NEVER, EVER use anything but Windows." Even with the bloat from AntiVirus programs and GB of backups, they will never come back. I have tried CentOS 5.5. This is the non-commercial RHEL. I have a 'thing' for RH and I like them. However, someone has to say the money is not made in the shiny new computers but in supporting those who have supported you.... > > "BTW, Windows XP SP3 runs on the hardware I have, slowly. Linux cannot > even bring up X. That is a sad case." > > > And, just Remarking my point, if you want to run Linux in very old > hardware, forget about gnome > or KDE, use LXDE instead, it's "very windows like" desktop and very > much Lighter than WinXP Why? Most software is designed to work with Gnome/KDE. But the problem here is why do I have to 'lighten up' Linux? Because it has become what its competitors have: Bloatware. And I don't feel like building kernels. I've been there, done that.... As I said, Linux on the desktop is niche. It is for folks who for some reason don't like the folks in Redmond. Even the major distributors know this. Oh, I'm not knocking the concept behind FC, it is great. Folks have to know what they are getting into. James McKenzie -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
