Subj : Re: Which Linux for a beginning desktop? To : comp.os.linux From : GreyBeard Date : Mon Feb 28 2005 05:24 am On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 16:25:20 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote: > GreyBeard writes: > >> I've run SuSE 8, 8.1, 8.2 and now 9.0 on an older Compaq GX-1 with >> P-II 200MHz, 256M, 4GB drive & CD drive. It is now the firewall and >> network resources server for my home. N'ary a problem with any install. >> >> It's twin helps me with RedHat 7, 8, 9, Fedora FC1 & FC3 projects. >> >> But when I want plain speed, I use my Dell Latitude C810 (P2.2, 1GM, >> DVD/CD-RW and swappable 40G hard drives - separate ones for SuSE, SLES, >> RHES, FC and W2K. > > Just out of curiosity, what do you actually do with these systems, apart > from configuring them, swapping them around, rebuilding them, and > reinstalling them? You asked .... I'm an Oracle consultant. I use the SLES and RHES to develop and provide support for my customer base. I'm also a registered trainer of Java, Oracle DBAs and Oracle developers. I use all the above as learning environments, as environments to develop demos and as presentation environments. As well, I have several production Linux-Oracle systems. I make it a point never to upgrade a production system without having tested on an independent system. Based on your comments below (cannot afford to spend hours ...), seems like you don't bother with this approach. And the Dell laptop provides: 1) portable production office environment (billing app, presentation tools, dev tools); 2) with the swappable disks, allows me to test and confirm questions in environments closely resembling the customers'; 3) a W2K environment for the few times I want to play StarCraft Brood War, or need to print on a printer that uses a Windows-based print engine. > >> Having watched your thread for a while, methinks you protest a bit too >> much - "it broke my CD", "time's up, it won't be...", "bloat", "but it >> still works with NT". > > You have to look at it from my point of view: I use computers as tools, > not as toys. I need to be able to install and configure systems quickly > and efficiently. I cannot afford to spend hours or days playing around > with them. They have to be up and stable enough that I can do real work > with them. I can't afford not learning about these things - helps me avoid lawsuits around incompetence. And I having tested variants helps with professional credibility, which seems to be appreciated by my customers. But then, as a graduate engineer, I may have a unique approach here. > > Geeks are different. They never actually _do_ anything with their > computers. They spend all their time installing, reinstalling, > tweaking, configuring, and so on. But they don't do any real > application-level work with any of them. Their income doesn't depend on > the machines being up and functional 24 hours a day. They don't pay > their rent with their computers. > > The time and effort required to bring up an OS may seem trivial to a > geek, who has no life outside of his computer(s), but to someone who > uses computers as tools, this same time and effort are often intolerably > great. LOL. To quote you - see above. As for 'no life' ... in addition to my consultancy, I'm also a classical singer. And I use Linux and Lilypond to typeset music scores for my choir and opera company and as a hobby. > > And the majority of the world's computer users are in the second > category, not the first. That's one reason why you don't see Linux on > every desktop. > >> I constantly see the the shock to those of Windows background: "Whoaaa, 6 >> CDs! What crap! What Bloat! My Windows OS only needs one CD, and my MS >> Office only needs 2 CDs and my AntiVirus only needs one and my printer >> only came with one, and each of my network cards only has one and my >> scanner has only one and ...", followed by "what do you mean, check the >> distro update site for patches, fixes and updates. In Windows, I only >> need to monitor 39 vendor site to check for vendor driver updates, after >> the WindowsUpdate site automatically screws up my settings." > > See my comments above. For a normal end user, installation means > inserting a CD and pressing Enter a few times. It works for Windows, > and even that much isn't necessary for the Mac ... but it's impossible > for Linux or UNIX. And getting the next app's CDs, inserting and pressing enter a few times, and getting the updates, and so on. Been there. Even my mother, who fits your definition of a 'normal end user', has given up on Windows. > >> The only challenge is getting past the 'install' screen. But I've had >> that with NT as well, especially when the CD drive has been unsupported, >> has been the wrong bus type, or has been on the verge of dying. > > Apparently nobody supports my two SCSI disks, then. Except Windows. Perhaps. And perhaps it's because they are *your* SCSI disks. My SCSI disks AND tape drives on Adaptec 29160s & 39160s work just fine - in all the listed environments. Truly plug and play. Had less problem with those than on NT3.5 or 4. C'est la vie. > > I really wanted to install something other than Windows on this machine, > for the sake of gaining experience, but it's beginning to look like > Windows is the only OS that can properly handle the hardware. quite possibly. or as my accompanist says - usually it's not the instrument, it's the musician. .... and since you have a response for everything anyway, you have final rebuttal as I go back to listen-only mode /FGB .