Subj : Re: Is (Redhat) Linux just a cheap version of Windows?
To   : comp.os.linux
From : Larry I Smith
Date : Fri Sep 03 2004 02:48 am

RoyalHeart wrote:
> Patrick McDonnell wrote:
> 
>> Hey genius,
>>
>> Did you try searching google?  Or do you feels its below you because it
>> wasn't around during Version 7?
>>
> 
> 
> I've been lurking in the shadows quietly monitoring this news group. 
> I've tried RH 5.2 on a Zenith Z-NoteFlex laptop (486DX2-50, 24MB RAM, 
> 200MB HD -- yes, 200MB hard drive), and actually got it to work, though 
> with such little space on the HD, there were very few apps I could install.
> 
> Then I tried MDK 6.something (or was it 7.something?) on a P2 machine I 
> built (256MB RAM, 30GB HD), and like it very much. However, after 
> spending a day or two getting the modem working, and several more days 
> trying to get the MIDI synth on my sound card (SB PCI512, which has been 
> moved into a new home, my current system, an AMD XP2200+, 256MB RAM, 
> 120GB HD), I gave up, and went back to Win95 (I now use Win98 Lite).
> 
> It's now a few years later, and I'm willing to give Linux another try. 
> I'm looking at either Redhat or Mandrake because I've tried both, as 
> mentioned above. RH I can buy locally; MDK I'll have to mail-order. I'm 
> leaning a bit towards Mandrake, but shipping charges make Redhat look a 
> bit more appealing. Hmmm... Which to buy... (drums fingers on desk)
> 
> Then I read Patrick McDonnell's post above, for a second, I thought, 
> "with an attitude like that, why in heck do I want to try Linux again? 
> Just because he knows a lot about Linux doesn't mean others do."
> 
> This was followed by a second thought: "Google doesn't answer every 
> question I wanted an answer to, nor provide a useful result within a few 
> minutes of perusing the search results. I've spent HOURS going through 
> close to a THOUSAND search results and didn't find anything close to 
> giving me the information I was looking for."
> 
> Google is a useful tool, nevertheless. Some people just don't think to 
> use it, and would prefer a quick, simple answer, without being 
> condescended to or treated as "not-one-of-the-elite-Linux-geeks" class 
> just because I'd rather use a GUI than the command line (myself 
> included; give me answer now and let me get on with what I'm doing, and 
> later on I'll learn the details). (BTW, when I was exploring Linux those 
> years ago, I DID use the command line, bash in particular, and thought I 
> did quite well after using it for only a few weeks. I preferred MC for 
> browsing around my hard drive, though.)
> 
> So, here I am, having read the above post, and wondering how many people 
> decided NOT to try Linux because of the attitude of SOME of the Linux 
> geeks on this NG. I, however, overlook the rudeness of these particular 
> folk and will continue toward a decision of which distribution to get. 
> Until then, I shall continue to gather information, not only on which to 
> choose, but Linux in general, and shall file it away in /usr/local/info 
> (or is than /home/linux/info????? Give me time, I'll remember).
> 
> Oh, and I am NOT a troll, just an amused lurker.
> 
> Hmmm... In the Author's Note to the Novel I am writing, I state that the 
> novel "was written using Star Office 5.2 running under Windows 98." If I 
> can find the Linux version of SO 5.2, I shall move the novel over to the 
> Linux platform and thence change that line to "was written using Star 
> Office 5.2 running under [Redhat|Mandrake] Linux (version number here)." 
> 'Twould be a boost, 'twould it not, to the Linux movement? (When it's 
> published, that is.)
> 
> Cheers, and LLL (Long Live Linux).
> 

OpenOffice (OO) is the Open Source version of StarOffice.
OO comes with most linux distro's.

I would recommend "SuSE Professional Linux" v9.1 to
replace your Win-98; its GUI looks and operates much
like Win-98.  It's available at many computer stores
(Best Buy, CompUsa, Fry's, etc) or can be ordered
on-line from SuSE.

Regards,
Larry

-- 
Anti-spam address, change each 'X' to '.' to reply directly.

.