VectorLinux
July 31, 2014, 05:26:45 pm *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Visit our home page for VL info. To search the old message board go to http://vectorlinux.com/forum1. The first VL forum is temporarily offline until we can find a host for it. Thanks for your patience.
 
Now powered by KnowledgeDex.
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Please support VectorLinux!
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 24
  Print  
Author Topic: VL reviews, mentions, etc...  (Read 144984 times)
caitlyn
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2869


WWW
« Reply #270 on: January 29, 2009, 05:57:04 pm »

Tom, I think some of the Windows crowd feels threatened by Linux and MacOS, both of which have gained market share recently.  The fact that Linux still holds 20-30% of the netbook market (depending whose numbers you believe) shows that Linux can do on the desktop what it's done in the server room -- take a significant chunk of the market.  Yes, Windows will still be dominant for the time being.  That said, the less people who run Windows the less people who only know Windows will matter.

I did some work for a company a few years back that decided to replace Windows with Red Hat Linux wherever possible in the server room, for both cost and security reasons.  I heard a Windows admin say he'd rather quit than learn Linux.  He is a bright guy and could have learned Linux easily.  When his words got back to his manager he was told in no uncertain terms that if he didn't learn Linux by a set date he'd be shown the door.  He still had no intention of learning.  Why?  Insecurity, I guess.  He felt threatened.
Logged

eMachines EL-1300G desktop, 1.6GHz AMD Athlon 2650e CPU, 4GB RAM, nVidia GeForce 6150 SE video
CentOS 6.5 (will try VL64-7.1 soon)

Toshiba Satellite A135-S4727,  Intel Pentium T2080 / 1.73 GHz, 2GB RAM, Intel GMA 950

HP Mini 110 netbook, 1.6GHz Intel Atom CPU, 2GB RAM, Intel 950 video, VL 7.1
tomh38
Vectorian
****
Posts: 913



« Reply #271 on: January 29, 2009, 07:49:53 pm »

Caitlyn,

As far as the Windows crowd feeling threatened by Linux and the Mac OS, I can see that.  It's definitely more true now than it was just a few years ago.  For non-netbook machines, Apple has been gaining significant ground recently.  In the server market Linux is clearly superior, and in my opinion is one of those areas where distributions matter less than on the desktop.

On a side note, I've come to the conclusion that "The Year of Linux on the Desktop" isn't going to happen.  I do think that Linux on the desktop is going to happen, but more subtly and over a longer period of time than one single year.  Still, 2008 was significant as a breakthrough, especially because of the netbook market share you mentioned.

There's a guy who works at a local Office Depot where I go occasionally.  He works there on the weekends and is some kind of sysadmin somewhere else during the week.  When I go out I often where a cap with Tux on it.  When this guy sees me in that cap, he can't fail to mention that Linux is "a piece of crap [edited for language]" and that the only OS worth using is Windows.  This past weekend he was going on about how great Windows 7 already is.

The last version of Windows I used without having serious problems was 3.11.  Sure, XP has been pretty good since Service Pack 2, and if you have the right hardware Vista seems to be acceptable.  If you're a gamer and don't have a console, Windows is the best choice (for now).  As for the people who tell me they've never had a problems with Windows I think they fall into three categories:  1) The very lucky 2) The ones with selective memory, and 3) The liars.  I realize that last statement will make somebody who reads this think I'm calling him or her a liar; I'm not.  There's no way to tell the difference between the three groups.

So, having given this some thought, I agree with you that the Windows crowd feels threatened.  I know I would.

Tom
Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #272 on: January 29, 2009, 10:51:29 pm »

I don't know who "the Windows crowd" might be. Most Windows users don't care that much about the operating system they use. They just take it for granted. Sure, there are the Windows fanboys who enjoy the hand-to-hand combat that makes those Feedback things so annoying to read. And alas, there are Mac and Linux fanboys who are glad to engage. I usually think "what a bunch of nasty lunatics--the whole lot!" But these characters are a very small percentage of the total users.

Linux will never take over the desktop. We can hope for a more substantial share of users, though. If people get fed up enough with Windows, most will switch to a Mac rather than Linux. Now if we could get some guardian angel that would fund a billion-dollar advertising campaign for desktop Linux that would extend over several years, maybe that could change.

I'm one of those who has never had a serious problem with any version of Windows in 18 years of use, and I'm neither very lucky nor a liar nor have selective memory. I've never had to reinstall because my system got sluggish or messed up beyond the point of fixing. I've never been infested by a virus or malware. I'm not denying that many Windows users do have those problems, but it's because of the way they use their computers. I keep my systems patched, my antivirus is always up to date, I don't run unnecessary background programs and I don't do P2P, illegal file sharing or downloads, click on everything in sight, visit the seamier parts of the Internet, or install software of questionable origin.

I've tried to persuade various friends and relatives to give Linux a try but have not actually succeeded in this attempt. I'll keep at it. I don't think it's necessary to complain about another OS (usually it's Mac or Linux partisans attacking Windows). Linux can stand on its own. The problem is there is so much misinformation out there, like Linux is hard to use, it's all command line, most hardware doesn't work, programs are hard to install, you have to be a geek, you can't get support, and similar nonsense. It seems these ideas got set in 2001 and nobody has bothered to see how things are today and they keep spewing the same misinformation again and again.

Though I have no dislike at all for Windows, I prefer to use Linux. I use Windows when I need to do something that I can't do in Linux (like use one of my many greeting card programs) or can do better or more easily in Windows. But I never wake up and say "gee, I really want to use Windows today." I always use Linux when I can, which is most of the time.

The problem I have with the Mac is the religious zealotry that affects a lot of Mac users. I think Macs are overpriced, I don't like the way the Mac idea seems to be that it's okay to be a dummy about your computer and what you do with it, and I find Steve Jobs extremely annoying. I also hate their commercials.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
tomh38
Vectorian
****
Posts: 913



« Reply #273 on: January 30, 2009, 01:39:21 am »

... but it's because of the way they use their computers. I keep my systems patched, my antivirus is always up to date, I don't run unnecessary background programs and I don't do P2P, illegal file sharing or downloads, click on everything in sight, visit the seamier parts of the Internet, or install software of questionable origin.
--GrannyGeek

Me too, me neither.  And yet, one day in 1999, I was using Windows 98 and my computer froze up.  I remember exactly what I was doing.  I was using Microsoft Picture It! to paste my friend's head onto a weightlifter's body, to send to him as a joke.  No P2P, my antivirus software was up to date, I had no bootleg software on my machine, nor had I visited "the seamier side of the Internet."  The machine was less than a week old.  I had to shut the thing down from the power switch.  The FAT32 filesystem had become corrupted, and the machine was unbootable.  I had to reinstall.  Fortunately for me I had an actual Windows 98 disk, and not some crappy system restore partition or something like that.

So, are you saying this was my fault?  Or are you calling me a liar?  It has to be one or the other, because according to you "it's because of the way they use their computers" (your words) that these things happen.

Another time I had a system hang on me right after I downloaded and installed a Windows update from Microsoft.  This was a new XP machine that I was helping my brother set up.  It worked fine before the Windows update, but afterward went into a cycle of continually rebooting.  So, was this my fault or my brother's?

I'm not saying you're a liar.  I just think your mistaken about Windows because you're luckier than you know.  But your post is insulting.  You try to make it sound as though it's because you're a responsible Windows user that you haven't had problems, when there's really no way you could possibly know that.

Tom

P.S.  You disparage Mac users for their "religious zealotry."  And yet in these forums you yourself are the most zealous defender of Microsoft and Windows.  Whenever somebody makes even the most mild criticism of Microsoft or Windows, you're right there to stand up for the company and the OS.  There's a word for this:  hypocrisy.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 01:47:27 am by tomh38 » Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #274 on: January 30, 2009, 01:53:05 pm »

I was using Microsoft Picture It! to paste my friend's head onto a weightlifter's body, to send to him as a joke.  No P2P, my antivirus software was up to date, I had no bootleg software on my machine, nor had I visited "the seamier side of the Internet."  The machine was less than a week old.  I had to shut the thing down from the power switch.  The FAT32 filesystem had become corrupted, and the machine was unbootable.  I had to reinstall.  Fortunately for me I had an actual Windows 98 disk, and not some crappy system restore partition or something like that.

1999 and Windows 98 are ancient history. I certainly wouldn't say it was your fault. Non-NT versions of Windows were not the most stable OSes known to humankind and FAT32 was not a robust file system. In that sense, you could say I was lucky because I never had something happen that required a reinstallation. A lot depended on things over which the user had no control, such as treacherous drivers for video, mouse, etc. So I should have been more nuanced, especially with regard to Windows 9x/Me. When people have problems, it's often because of the way they use their computers, but not always. And even when they use their computers in a way that's likely to eventually give them grief, it's because they don't know any better. Which is also not their fault, because they don't care about computers, they just want to do what they want to do.

And let's not forget that Windows Updates can do damage, too. Even when the vast majority of users have no problems with an update, there can be--and are--some who have no end of trouble, including being unable to boot. It's certainly not their fault.

As for the problem you mentioned, a System Restore disk would have fixed it. Such a disk restores the system to from-the-factory condition. However, you can't generally do a Repair installation, where everything doesn't get overwritten. I prefer a real installation disk, but those are rare birds these days if you buy an off-the-shelf Windows computer. The wise user makes an image file once the system is set up and uses that if a restoration becomes necessary.

Quote
Another time I had a system hang on me right after I downloaded and installed a Windows update from Microsoft.  This was a new XP machine that I was helping my brother set up.  It worked fine before the Windows update, but afterward went into a cycle of continually rebooting.  So, was this my fault or my brother's?

See above. Another thing that I do to avoid Windows problems is wait at least a few days before installing Windows Updates. That gives me time to get feedback on the Web as to problems with a new update. And I do keep up with what's happening with OSes and software. An average user would never do this, never even know you *could* do this, and would probably not bother if he/she knew. It's hard to overestimate how uninterested "regular people" are in computers. I don't blame them. I like computers. It's fun for me to keep up on what's happening. But I'm unusual that way.

Quote
P.S.  You disparage Mac users for their "religious zealotry."  And yet in these forums you yourself are the most zealous defender of Microsoft and Windows.  Whenever somebody makes even the most mild criticism of Microsoft or Windows, you're right there to stand up for the company and the OS.  There's a word for this:  hypocrisy.

I suppose "mild" is in the eye of the beholder. I hate one-sided viewpoints. I never keep quiet on any subject when my radar detects lack of balance. "Religious zealotry" is different. It LOVES lack of balance and is happy to overlook or deny anything that doesn't promote the object of its devotion.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
tomh38
Vectorian
****
Posts: 913



« Reply #275 on: January 30, 2009, 02:23:34 pm »

1999 and Windows 98 are ancient history.
Okay, we've gone from "I'm one of those who has never had a serious problem with any version of Windows in 18 years of use" to "That was a long time ago."

I myself haven't had a problem with Windows XP Service Pack 2, mainly because that's when I pretty much stopped using Windows completely.  I don't mind you changing your position, but at least admit you've changed your position.

"Religious zealotry" is in the eye of the beholder, but so is "serious problem."  I consider getting blue-screened a serious problem.  Maybe you don't.  But if I ever play cards with you, I'll make sure you don't shuffle, because you stack the deck in your favor, every single time, i.e. you think you can make words and phrases mean what you want them to mean, and then change them later on when the old meaning doesn't suit you.

Also, you're engaging in a deplorable practice:  blaming the victim.  If my Windows installation can be rendered unbootable by the very company that wrote the OS, then at the very least it's not my fault for having spyware, P2P, etc. on my computer.

Also, I would like to know your views on this event (ancient history, to be sure, but less than 19 years ago).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rXWr6Ezax4

Tom
Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #276 on: January 30, 2009, 03:21:21 pm »

1999 and Windows 98 are ancient history.
Okay, we've gone from "I'm one of those who has never had a serious problem with any version of Windows in 18 years of use" to "That was a long time ago."

I myself haven't had a problem with Windows XP Service Pack 2, mainly because that's when I pretty much stopped using Windows completely.  I don't mind you changing your position, but at least admit you've changed your position.

"Religious zealotry" is in the eye of the beholder, but so is "serious problem."  I consider getting blue-screened a serious problem. 

You've never had Linux lock up on you? I have. And I'm not just talking about one application. I've lost all input--keyboard and mouse-- and have had to press the power button in order to turn the machine off. In fact, that happened two days ago when I was trying to set up wireless on my newly installed VL6 RC4. I wound up reinstalling because it was easier than trying to find out what was wrong when the system wouldn't load. I'm not blaming Linux or saying it's a lousy OS because my computer got locked up. I probably did something wrong but I have no idea what. Regardless, it shows that any OS can have crashes and lockups.

"Serious problem" is certainly a matter of opinion. To me, a serious problem means something I can't fix without reinstalling or whose cause I can't pinpoint. If I got daily blue screens or lockups I'd consider that a serious problem. If I got an occasional crash or lockup, I wouldn't consider that a serious problem. Those can happen with any OS and they do.

Quote
Also, I would like to know your views on this event (ancient history, to be sure, but less than 19 years ago).

Considering all the publicity that Blue Screen demo got, I've wondered if it was planned. But even if not, what of it? I believe the OS was still in beta or RC and experience shows that many people have never had a problem plugging in a scanner. I've been using SCSI and USB scanners since 1997 (and that under Windows 95B) and they have never caused a blue screen. On the other hand, I once had a SoundBlaster sound card that nearly klled the computer, but that was a hardware problem. It nearly killed Linux, too. I removed it and things have been troublefree ever since.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
tomh38
Vectorian
****
Posts: 913



« Reply #277 on: January 30, 2009, 03:31:18 pm »

You've never had Linux lock up on you? I have.
Sure I have.  Plenty of times.  Not so much recently, but four or five years ago it would happen once a month or so.  But I never claimed that in all the years I've been using Linux, I've never had a serious problem with it.  You made that claim about Windows.  I never said it wasn't true.  I didn't call you a liar either.  I'm just saying that if it is true, you've been lucky.

Tom

P.S.  Okay, let's suppose that Widows 98 crash was planned.  I have to ask, why would they do that?  To show how unstable Windows 98 was?  Besides, when I had Windows 98, it would blue screen me practically once a day.  And this was on a Dell, back when any Dell machine was high quality, so I couldn't blame the hardware.  Sometimes if I left the machine on overnight I would wake up only to see that blue screen.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2009, 03:42:46 pm by tomh38 » Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #278 on: January 30, 2009, 07:38:15 pm »

P.S.  Okay, let's suppose that Widows 98 crash was planned.  I have to ask, why would they do that?  To show how unstable Windows 98 was?  Besides, when I had Windows 98, it would blue screen me practically once a day.  And this was on a Dell, back when any Dell machine was high quality, so I couldn't blame the hardware.  Sometimes if I left the machine on overnight I would wake up only to see that blue screen.

If it was planned, it would be to get publicity for Windows 98, which wasn't yet finalized or released. There is a school of thought that considers publicity better than silence. As I said earlier, even if it weren't planned, what of it? People who use computers know that "stuff happens" no matter what operating system we're talking about. And why are we talking about something that happened over 10 years ago? Should Windows boosters keep bringing up the state of Linux in 1998 and implying it had some relevance for judging Linux today?

I rarely got BSODs with Win 98, though I did have program crashes. Not once a day, though. Win 98 had design problems, such as 64K resource heaps that would fill and cause slowdowns or require reboots to recover. Some people did have lots of problems, others didn't.

As I explained in my earlier message, people's definition of "serious problems" differs. I would consider a blue screen every day a serious problem; I wouldn't consider a program crash every day a serious problem, though it would be very annoying. Several program crashes a day would be a serious problem. If you have a different idea of what is a serious problem, okay--that's your opinion.

I should also mention that just as I challenge some characterizations of Windows that are commonly expressed on Linux forums, I challenge characterizations of Linux that appear on Windows forums. In fact, I object MORE because things said about Linux are often so far from being true. I don't object by disparaging Windows, I just tell the truth about Linux.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
Pita
Vectorian
****
Posts: 1308


« Reply #279 on: January 30, 2009, 08:32:03 pm »

My good-woman who bought a HP Mini-Note PC, (I must say a nice machine)
with Linux Suse Gnome installed. She takes lessons at a computer school. They are
looking now for an instructor who knows Linux. That is a good sign and the reason
is the notebooks and may be laptops come with Linux installed. I can't apply, I make
more money with my hobby bread baking.

It is more than 12 years that I used Windows for a few months (there was no email in DOS)
and I remember that time with horror. It was not a good day if the system would
not hang or crash at least once. It looks that has not changed too much.

When I look at the computer stores around here they are all loaded with those flat
machine from small to large. One can hardly see a desktop PC anymore. May be that
trend will be the making of Linux on a wider range.
Logged
tomh38
Vectorian
****
Posts: 913



« Reply #280 on: January 30, 2009, 09:26:00 pm »

And why are we talking about something that happened over 10 years ago? Should Windows boosters keep bringing up the state of Linux in 1998 and implying it had some relevance for judging Linux today?

I'm not the one who keeps saying, "I haven't had a serious problem within Windows in 19 years." You are.  That's why we're talking about something that happened 10 years ago.  You brought it up.  If you had said, "I haven't had a problem with Windows since XP came out," this discussion would have been very different.

By the way, why should I or anybody else care at all about what your personal experiences with Windows have been?  You make these claims that you can't prove, and I respond that my experience was different, and yet somehow you seem to believe that your experience has some objective validity that mine doesn't.

Quote
I rarely got BSODs with Win 98, though I did have program crashes. Not once a day, though.
I don't care.  See above.

Quote
I should also mention that just as I challenge some characterizations of Windows that are commonly expressed on Linux forums, I challenge characterizations of Linux that appear on Windows forums. In fact, I object MORE because things said about Linux are often so far from being true. I don't object by disparaging Windows, I just tell the truth about Linux.

I also don't care about what you write or what other people write in Windows forums.  The less I have to deal with Windows on any given day, the better that day is for me.

Just a little while ago I got a personal message from somebody else who is a member in these forums suggesting that in the future I ignore the things that you write, because you're irrational and think that for some reason your experiences have more basis in reality than those of other people.  I think this person is correct.  I think you'll defend Windows and keep repeating the same tired things no matter what anybody else says.  I'm also inclined to follow this advice because your copypasta is that when something goes wrong with Windows, it's the user's fault.  This opinion of yours reflects the mindset that for some reason Microsoft is exempt from the expectation that they produce quality software.

Quote from: Pita
It is more than 12 years that I used Windows for a few months (there was no email in DOS) and I remember that time with horror. It was not a good day if the system would not hang or crash at least once. It looks that has not changed too much.

Say, somebody had experiences similar to mine.  Does this quotation prove anything?  No, not really.  But I will say that I know a lot more people who have had experiences with Windows similar to Pita's, and I've seen with my own eyes many Windows crashes.  I know a handful of people who claim to never have had a problem with Windows ... but because of my own experiences I have to question either their luck, their memories, or their honesty.

Tom

EDIT:  GrannyGeek:  I really don't know what your goal was in engaging in this little discussion.  If it was to keep repeating yourself until the other person gave up, then you win.  Here's your prize.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 03:39:16 am by tomh38 » Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991
Windozer
Vectorite
***
Posts: 386


Have Vector Linux, Will Travel.


« Reply #281 on: January 31, 2009, 08:05:15 am »

Just my 2.5 cents here.

I've used Microsoft products since the company incorporated.  (I have a love-hate relationship with them: I owe them several careers - and they owe me several cases of Excedrin Extra Strength.)

Every MS application I've used over the decades has hung or crashed. Same with all of their operating systems, from a mild hang to the BSOD.

Any developer with some modest knowledge of the OS can make any Windows operating system run dog slow, hang, or crash - even blue screen  - in a few seconds to a few minutes depending on what access rights they have.  For testing, QA, and security reasons, we did this intentionally in several shops I worked for.  So that's intentional, sure.  But this also shows how unstable the stuff can be.

I don't have enough of an understanding of the Linux internals yet to do that to Linux - but it wouldn't surprise me if it was fairly easy too.

Remember: there is no such thing as "bug-free" code.

Each OS is stable or unstable depending on what you're doing. Device drivers anyone? And, the bigger the code base, the more the bugs lurk.  (I'm actually astounded often that these BOXES we use work at all! Think of the many thousands of (wo)man hours in any OS.)

XP is usually Rock Solid. (And Win98 SE is pretty good too.)  VL - even the RC's I've tried - is usually rock solid. All things being equal, my conclusion is:

  • Windows costs money, Linux costs time.
  • Time is more valuable than money.
  • Therefore, when Linux installs and maintenance become easier than Windows installs and maintenance (including virus removal), Linux will eventually take over the desktop.
 
Microsoft knows this ... watch how they position themselves in the market over the next several years. I predict they will actually get out of the OS business, much the same way IBM got out of PC manufacturing.

VL on slackware is VERY stable ... if you're using it right now, then "welcome to the future," my friend.

cheers
- Howard in Florida
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Logged

483,617th Registered Linux Snoozer
tomh38
Vectorian
****
Posts: 913



« Reply #282 on: January 31, 2009, 09:24:44 am »

Howard:

So you're saying that it costs 2.5 cents just to put your thoughts in now?  I guess that's inflation for you.

I know several ways to crash or completely destroy a Linux install just by typing in a few commands.  And I'm not even a developer like you are.

In my view, all operating systems that have been in development have improved significantly in recent years (I'm mostly thinking Windows, Mac, Linux, but there are others).  I mean this both in terms of stability and ease of use.  I know that Vista has had some real problems along with some unfair bad press (you just can't satisfy some people), but overall I think Microsoft made some real improvements with Vista.  It's definitely more secure than it used to be, and according to what I've read it's at least as stable as XP, probably more.

Microsoft may get out of the OS market; it's a certainty if it becomes unprofitable for them.  They may spin Windows off into a separate company, or they could remove it from the center of their business model.  I really don't know.

They main problem I have with Microsoft these days isn't about the quality of their software.  It's that I believe that Free and Open Source software is superior in a number of ways.  I'm sure you've heard and read all about that, so I won't go into detail about it.  I will say that I do think that users have a right to use their computers as they see fit, as long as they don't infringe the rights of others.  You can't really do that with proprietary software.  You have to do it their way, no matter how much you know.  If you can't see the source code, you can't really change anything important.

I'm also a realist.  I know that most people aren't even aware of these issues, and among those who are many either disagree or don't care.  That's their right.  It's also the right of corporations like Microsoft to sell closed source software.  I simply don't like it, and I avoid using it whenever possible and practical. 

I think I have a slight disagreement with you on one point.  It's not so much that Linux is harder to install than Windows (I just used the graphical installer for VL 6, and I would say that it was about as easy as a Windows install).  I think it's more that most people don't have the first idea about installing and operating system of any kind.  Windows partly became as successful as it is today because OEMs started selling machines with Windows pre-installed.  That's happening some with Linux now (netbooks, some other machines).  That's about 3/4 of the battle right there.  If you can buy a computer, take it home, hook everything up, boot it, and be surfing the Web in a short time, most people will be satisfied.  There are other issues (configuration, applications, etc.) but I think those are coming along nicely.

Tom
Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991
GrannyGeek
Packager
Vectorian
****
Posts: 2567


« Reply #283 on: January 31, 2009, 11:15:33 am »

Tom,
I'm very happy to end this discussion. I really don't see what got you so upset, as I never said my experience was the only valid one--it was just MY experience. I've already admitted that I didn't express well my comment that many Windows users do have those problems, but it's because of the way they use their computers. The "problems" I had in mind were malware infestations, not the whole host of problems that can and do occur with Windows. That didn't come across as the sentence was worded. I agree, it did sound like I was blaming the victim, but I tried to clarify my meaning in a subsequent message.

NEVER did I say you were lying or people didn't actually have problems. I simply said *I* hadn't had those problems, which is true. And I said 18 years, not 19. So whether Bill Gates crashed Windows on purpose or by accident, it doesn't matter because I was talking only about myself, not other users. I could point you to plenty of people whose experiences have matched mine. That doesn't mean I deny the bad experiences of other people.

We are all reporting our own experiences--anecdotes, if you will. Why does this bring out such an emotional response just because I said I haven't had serious problems with Windows? Is it really necessary to be a Windows basher if we express an opinion or our own experiences on this board? I did not lie or forget. I did not say you were wrong about your experiences or responsible for them. Yet I'm told I'm irrational and a liar if I'm not actually extremely lucky. This comes perilously close to a personal attack, which I thought was against the rules of this board.

Maybe we need a new rule: Thou shalt not say anything good about Windows.
--GrannyGeek
Logged

Registered Linux User #397786

Happily running VL 7 Gold on  a Sempron LE-1300 desktop (2.3 GHz), 4 G RAM,  GeForce 6150 SE onboard graphics and on an HP Pavilion dv7 i7, 6 gigs, Intel 2nd Generation Integrated Graphics Controller
tomh38
Vectorian
****
Posts: 913



« Reply #284 on: January 31, 2009, 01:33:56 pm »

GrannyGeek:

All right, since we've changed direction here I have a few things to say.

1)  My original post in which I said what I did about people who say they've never had problems (or "serious problems") was not directed at you at all.  I never mentioned your nickname.  I'm asking you to take my word that it was not intended as a personal attack against you.  In fact, I did have one specific person in mind who I know for a fact lies about these things - someone from my personal life.  I'm pretty sure (though not, of course, absolutely certain) that that this man did not engage in the risky behaviors which you correctly pointed out cause so many problems with Windows.  This particular man was always having problems with Windows.  And yet, he claimed that he never had problems with it.  He was, and still is, a liar.

Quote
Maybe we need a new rule: Thou shalt not say anything good about Windows.

That's not fair.  In the post right before yours, I wrote:
Quote
I know that Vista has had some real problems along with some unfair bad press (you just can't satisfy some people), but overall I think Microsoft made some real improvements with Vista.  It's definitely more secure than it used to be, and according to what I've read it's at least as stable as XP, probably more.

I wrote something good about Windows.  I've written in the past that since Windows XP SP2 it's been very stable.  I'll add now that ever since I first used Windows (3.11) I've thought that Windows has had a user friendly GUI.

2) I want to be clear about something.  I never thought you were liar, and I never wrote that you were a liar.  Nor do I think you have memory problems.  Earlier in this thread I wrote:
Quote
As for the people who tell me they've never had a problems with Windows I think they fall into three categories:  1) The very lucky 2) The ones with selective memory, and 3) The liars.  I realize that last statement will make somebody who reads this think I'm calling him or her a liar; I'm not.
 
Yes, I had you in mind when I wrote that.  I knew I was on thin ice by writing what I did, and that there was a good chance that you would take it personally.  I intended to be clear that what I was writing had nothing to do with anybody in these forums, including you.

To be completely clear and to be as fair as I know how, I've altered my original opinion.  Now, based on what you've said about your experiences, I would say this:  As for the people who can honestly say that they've never had a problems with Windows I think they fall into four categories:  1) The careful, 2) The lucky, 3) The ones with selective memory, and the rest fall into category 4) The liars.  From what you've said, I would guess that you're in category 1, and based on my own experience I think it's at least possible that you've been somewhat lucky as well.  I know that I was careful once I learned about the dangers, and yet I still had serious problems with Windows.  So, either I was unlucky or possibly I had hardware problems that affected what was happening in Windows for me as opposed to what didn't happen to you.

4)  Regarding this statement:
Quote
I really don't see what got you so upset ...
I strongly disagreed with what you wrote.  When I strongly disagree with someone, I usually get angry.  When something bad happens to somebody I care about, I feel sad.  When something good happens, I feel glad.  I'm a human being, which means that I have feelings.  I don't think that needs any explanation, and I don't apologize for it.

5)  This may come as a surprise to you, but I think you make excellent contributions to the VL forums.  Your advice to both new and more experienced users is always helpful, and sometimes corrects incomplete or bad advice from other users.  I myself have benefited from your posts on a number of occasions.  I'm not keeping track of how many times, but I imagine that at least for or five times things that you've written have helped me solve problems that would otherwise have left me scratching my head.  So I do respect you and your contribution; I think that you and I simply have very different opinions about Microsoft Windows.  I can live with that.  Can you?

6)  Lastly:
Quote
Yet I'm told I'm irrational and a liar if I'm not actually extremely lucky. This comes perilously close to a personal attack, which I thought was against the rules of this board.

That sounds perilously close to a threat, though I could be wrong.  If you are threatening me, do what you like.  Ask the moderators to ban me from these forums if that's what you want.  If you do ask for that, and I do get banned, you'll have one fewer person to disagree with you.

Tom

P.S.  I forgot something.  Some time ago you made some references to Linux "fanatics" and "zealots," as well as some disparaging remarks about people who espouse the Free Software philosophy.  If memory serves, this was right after something I wrote.  It certainly seemed like a personal attack against me at the time.  So maybe you've made a personal attack or two of your own.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2009, 01:41:19 pm by tomh38 » Logged

"I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones." - Linus Torvalds, April 1991
Pages: 1 ... 17 18 [19] 20 21 ... 24
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!